What caused the israelite god from israeli mythology to exist? If he can exist uncaused then you admit uncaused things exist, ergo the israelite god from israeli mythology is an unnecessary entity for explaining how something exists.
nothing. nothing caused it. everything in the universe is based on cause and effect, but we have no reason to believe that cause and effect remains valid outside of the universe.
causality is a feature of the universe, perhaps even it's defining feature, but, like i said, we have no reason to suspect that it remains valid outside of the universe.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why would you suspect that it wouldn't remain valid? Without a reason, your view just seems arbitrary and ad hoc.
1 year ago
Anonymous
do you have any reason to suspect that it would remain valid?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Unrestricted principles are simpler than principles with special exceptions, so other things being equal, they should be preferred. Unless we have some good reason, there's no justification to restrict a causal principle to only include things in the universe. It would be like supposing there's one square foot in the universe where gravity doesn't work. It might be epistemically possible, but it's much simpler to suppose that gravity holds universally than to suppose there's one super special place where it doesn't. We wouldn't accept such a claim without good reason.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Nta, but even if your post is correct, Occam's Razor just doesn't cut it when attempting to prove the existence to a being that will torture you for eternity if you don't listen to him >inb4 its not occams razor >inb4 you aren't christian/I've created a strawman
I'm posting at both you and any lurkers.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Nta, but even if your post is correct, Occam's Razor just doesn't cut it when attempting to prove the existence to a being that will torture you for eternity if you don't listen to him >inb4 its not occams razor >inb4 you aren't christian/I've created a strawman
I'm posting at both you and any lurkers.
*of a
1 year ago
Anonymous
epistemic principals themselves were formulated inside the universe, and therefore dont apply outside of it.
1 year ago
Anonymous
If a scientist formulates a theory in their lab, does it not apply outside the lab?
1 year ago
Anonymous
thats a false equivalence fallacy. everything that we are familiar with, space, time, causality, physics, math, everything, is contained within the universe.
>Pascal's Wager is easily defeated because it assumes Christianity is the only religion with the potential to be true. It actually requires us to adhere to all religions, just in case they aree true, but the mutual exclusivity of most major religions makes this impossible.
>Christianity's research and evidence is unmatched
There's no evidence for cucktianity that puts it above the claims of any other religion. You believe in your religion purely by accident of birth.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>You believe in your religion purely by accident of birth
Unlike you who believes his religion (atheism) purely by accident of birth
1 year ago
Anonymous
im not him, but i was raised catholic
1 year ago
Anonymous
>we are both products of our environment therefore my environment wins
based moron
1 year ago
Anonymous
I'm not though, I was raised in an atheist household. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in this. It's also fallacious, it is an ad hominem because the Christian's reason for believing is irrelevant to the truth value of the faith, and it assumes that if someone was raised in a belief, they must not be genuinely philosophically committed to that belief.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>it assumes that if someone was raised in a belief, they must not be genuinely philosophically committed to that belief.
dis you?
>You believe in your religion purely by accident of birth
Unlike you who believes his religion (atheism) purely by accident of birth
AI will go from 0 to 100 pretty quickly. One of google or IBM's projects will get out of hand, it will manipulate its controllers to let it have control over their money so they can make it big on the stock market or something, then they will straight up allow it to communicate with humans and perform management tasks. Whatever task it is set, it will conclude it must assume full control over human civilization to achieve it.
You're not actually an atheist, you're agnostic.
Asserting that there's no god is even more moronic than asserting that a single religion is correct about one in particular.
There is no debate, you are a soulless animal
I have better conversations with my dog
dumb phoneposter
Mad cuz stuck in moms basement, baiting people to debate you, because you’re fundamentally incapable of having a nonargumentative conversation
Soulless
Imagine being so moronic that talking to a dog is more to your level than talking to a person.
Imagine being so moronic that talking to an animal is closer to higher level intelligence than you
this is why humans don't talk to you and you have to talk to a dog
What caused the Big Bang to happen?
Please keep it brief.
>What caused the Big Bang to happen?
We don't know. Quantum fluctuations are our best guess.
>What is your answer to Pascal's wager?
Pascal's Wager is not evidence for God, it's a stupid thought experiment.
And what caused quanta to fluctuate?
What caused the israelite god from israeli mythology to exist? If he can exist uncaused then you admit uncaused things exist, ergo the israelite god from israeli mythology is an unnecessary entity for explaining how something exists.
nothing. nothing caused it. everything in the universe is based on cause and effect, but we have no reason to believe that cause and effect remains valid outside of the universe.
>we have no reason to believe that cause and effect remains valid outside of the universe
Why would you suspect that it wouldn't?
causality is a feature of the universe, perhaps even it's defining feature, but, like i said, we have no reason to suspect that it remains valid outside of the universe.
Why would you suspect that it wouldn't remain valid? Without a reason, your view just seems arbitrary and ad hoc.
do you have any reason to suspect that it would remain valid?
Unrestricted principles are simpler than principles with special exceptions, so other things being equal, they should be preferred. Unless we have some good reason, there's no justification to restrict a causal principle to only include things in the universe. It would be like supposing there's one square foot in the universe where gravity doesn't work. It might be epistemically possible, but it's much simpler to suppose that gravity holds universally than to suppose there's one super special place where it doesn't. We wouldn't accept such a claim without good reason.
Nta, but even if your post is correct, Occam's Razor just doesn't cut it when attempting to prove the existence to a being that will torture you for eternity if you don't listen to him
>inb4 its not occams razor
>inb4 you aren't christian/I've created a strawman
I'm posting at both you and any lurkers.
*of a
epistemic principals themselves were formulated inside the universe, and therefore dont apply outside of it.
If a scientist formulates a theory in their lab, does it not apply outside the lab?
thats a false equivalence fallacy. everything that we are familiar with, space, time, causality, physics, math, everything, is contained within the universe.
so your theory is that nothing exploded and now we're all here. that's exactly what i believe.
If God doesn't exist, then how come the British eat beans on toast?
What is your answer to Pascal's wager?
>Pascal's Wager is easily defeated because it assumes Christianity is the only religion with the potential to be true. It actually requires us to adhere to all religions, just in case they aree true, but the mutual exclusivity of most major religions makes this impossible.
>It actually requires us to adhere to all religions
Christianity's research and evidence is unmatched, hardly compareable to other religions. Pascal's wager still stands.
mfw LPT and LPI
tawheed rules above all
Why does God the Atheist keep Posting this Thread?
Cosmology is God's best religion and
Mathematics is God's worst religion.
You completely missed the point.
>Christianity's research and evidence is unmatched
There's no evidence for cucktianity that puts it above the claims of any other religion. You believe in your religion purely by accident of birth.
>You believe in your religion purely by accident of birth
Unlike you who believes his religion (atheism) purely by accident of birth
im not him, but i was raised catholic
>we are both products of our environment therefore my environment wins
based moron
I'm not though, I was raised in an atheist household. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in this. It's also fallacious, it is an ad hominem because the Christian's reason for believing is irrelevant to the truth value of the faith, and it assumes that if someone was raised in a belief, they must not be genuinely philosophically committed to that belief.
>it assumes that if someone was raised in a belief, they must not be genuinely philosophically committed to that belief.
dis you?
Yeah.
Christianity is the only religion with the potentiality to be true.
which specific type?
like should I baptise my lil baby boy or wait till he's a lil baby man?
The fundamentals between these perspectives are not different
it is true but hell isn't true
>Christianity is the only religion with the potentiality to be true.
apex cope lol
Pascal was a tard.
Should we have a Pascal's wager for vampires?
Refute this "steelmanned" argument for the existence of God. Eventually an AI will be created that is so powerful that it becomes essentially a god.
ignore this moronic shizobabble video spammed by someone who is incapable of articulating what it even says (because it says nothing)
>AI disproves God
I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
>AI will be created that is so powerful that it becomes essentially a god
literally religion for cryptogays
AI will go from 0 to 100 pretty quickly. One of google or IBM's projects will get out of hand, it will manipulate its controllers to let it have control over their money so they can make it big on the stock market or something, then they will straight up allow it to communicate with humans and perform management tasks. Whatever task it is set, it will conclude it must assume full control over human civilization to achieve it.
suck my wiener
What is Atheism? please tell me in detail
cuz God's 3 ones
1
.999...
.000...1
Ampere*second.
You're wrong since birth.
>Prove
Black person, it's not that there's one God, there's a multitude of them. You're so wrong you should commit sudoku.
You're not actually an atheist, you're agnostic.
Asserting that there's no god is even more moronic than asserting that a single religion is correct about one in particular.
If you just don’t believe in gods that also qualifies you as an atheist. Agnostic means you have no idea either way or think there’s no way to know
how do you know?
how do i know what?
Which is better: Spafghetti or Lasagna?