Who has written the best logical argument for God?

Who has written the best logical argument for God?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There are many, and I can point some out to you. But the way to Allah is not through logical proofs, but the faith in your heart. Inshallah, Allah's light will shine upon you.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Frick off, sand person.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Joseph Smith

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >atheists exist
    >atheists are gay and cringe
    >God created atheists to show how gay and cringe not believing in him is
    >therefore God exists

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The irony of this post. This is the gayest and especially cringiest thing I have read in maybe the past month. Why would you solve a captcha for this?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        autistic atheist showing how not gay and cringy zher is, indeed

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          You've turned yourself into a meme. Congratulations.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Using this logic, we can conclude the Christian God does not exist

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    When there isn’t enough evidence to actually test the existence of something, philosophers resort to their pathetic “logic.”

    Yeah, I think I’ll make a tweet about that

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Where is your evidence God DOESN"T exist gaytheist? Enjoy hell.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        the fact that I can’t disprove it is proof that I can’t prove it, either. That’s the point, moron.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the fact that I can’t disprove it
          Checkmate gaytheist. You have no reason to deny God now than just being a gay. And for that you deserve to burn in the hell you have proven exists.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            now disprove all the other gods. I’ll wait

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You claim that a israeli storm god and his dead rabbi son are the creators of the entire universe. The burden of proof is on you to prove it. Not only that he exists but that all the other gods are false too

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. It's just word games and speculation to cope.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. It's just word games and speculation to cope.

      Lightweights. You live by belief whether you acknowledge it or not.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Based. Evidence is for deluded fools. I have faith God doesn't exist and that is all that matters. Nothing in the world could make me believe otherwise and I am totally justified in acting this way.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          The evidence supports God.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Evidence supports *Allah

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The evidence supports God.
            Then why would you talk about living by belief? Give the evidence and leave faith out of it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sweet summer child. Evidence makes something more or less likely. "Proof" is an impossible standard for anything, other than knowing that you exist. Everything else is belief based on evidence.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So it comes down to faith. Like I said above I have absolute faith God doesn't exist.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The evidence supports God. But yes, you can believe whatever you want; that's free will (which cannot exist without God, btw).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you want to prove free will, then be perfect

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            we do try and be like him, that's the point of being Christian dumbass

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            yeah that’s easily predictable in a world without free will. But I would expect a world with free will to have a lot more Christians that are tempted and yet do not sin. So the evidence points to the fact that you don’t actually have the magic “free will” that Jesus did.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            the fact you can chose to sin and move away from it is proof of free will, your example of someone living without ever sinning is more determinist if anything

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            the fact that people choose good actions is simply proof that they had the desire to choose good in that situation. But at other times they sin because they had more desire to sin. This is perfectly possible and reasonable in a deterministic universe. We would NOT expect a human to evolve to have all these desires and magically always decide to do that which is rationally best for him. That would be more probable in a universe with free will.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            the fact you can commit suicide is proof of free will but if you want to postulate on ideas you never fleshed out fine, if it was your own choice it was not predetermined by definition

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Suicide comes from the desire to commit suicide, which is biological in origin. Humans aren’t the only animals that commit suicide. The theory of evolution doesn’t state that no organism will ever do anything that will lead to its death. If that were the case, then we would never do anything stupid. You are the one who does not understand. You couldn’t even respond to my argument so you had a knee-jerk deflection to suicide. You should use your “free will” to think more clearly

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            its not my fault your theory contradicts itself, if i understand correctly, evolution main point is survival, killing yourself is not surviving. if reproducing was our only point the rape would be absolutely justified and it would just be normal to do it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Evolution doesn’t produce perfect organisms. It merely says that organisms that exist today exist because their ancestors had certain traits that allowed them to survive and reproduce. You don’t have to be perfectly intelligent to reproduce and survive, so it’s possible for a human to die from stupidity. But that is a rare exception so there’s not enough selection pressure to remove stupidity entirely from the gene pool. You have no idea how evolution works. Read a book.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            looks like your not making it then

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This unironically goes to show all Christian are hypocrites, and thus, the only real Christian died on the cross. If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and follow his example. Otherwise, cease falsely professing your allegiance where you clearly betray it when convenient.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >is completely ignorant of the monks of Mt. Athos and the entire history of Christian monasticism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            all christians are sinners, you mean. the point of mosaic law was to show us it's impossible to be perfect. jesus has fulfilled the law for us, paid the penalty of breaking the commandments on the cross and allows us mercy and grace. not the cheap grace variety either; where you knowingly commit wrongs thinking, "i'll just ask god for forgiveness later". god can measure the weight of your heart in this matters.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >be ultimate creator of all reality
      >make people with finite understanding
      >"why can't I comprehend god?"
      people like you would shit on him if you did know he existed, you would make up any manner of "logic" for your hate as you do now

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That’s a really convenient excuse, isn’t it? “You just can’t understand it bro, believe it anyway”

        No, I refuse. If he wanted me to believe, then he would have made me more intelligent or he would have made his religion less moronic. You feel compelled to believe, I don’t. I don’t have the same imaginary fears that you do

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >its just some excuse because... it just is OK!
          he never wanted to make you believe, you can reject him and live in hell.
          >You just can’t understand it bro, believe it anyway”
          my point was even if you could understand god the father, you would still find some excuse to hate him out of self worship no different to satan who had far more understanding then even most angels, the fact is you can know hes real and you will never even try to know, you will wollow in self pitty and pride and die

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pray tell, what it is that causes you to believe, while I do not? If it were personality, or intelligence, or childhood, then it not be my fault. So you say it’s “free will.” But why would my “free will” be different than yours? Why do you use free will to believe, while I use free will to not believe? Must it not have something to do with something that is not my fault? So how can God blame me?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are so prideful and scared. It is sad. Just a scared little teenager raging at the world. I've been there. Very sad. If you open your heart to God, He will show Himself to you. If you don't, no amount of "proof" will ever convince you.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            this is what they say when they run out of arguments and realize their religion is nonsense

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            your own free will to chose to not want to know, people can be stupid by choice and you clearly are, if some 80 iq mouth breather can understand and make the same talking points as some of the most intelligent on this topic that formed organically, you have no excuse

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            great job answering the question dingus. Let me reiterate to highlight your stupidity. I asked:
            > But why would my “free will” be different than yours? Why do you use free will to believe, while I use free will to not believe?
            To which you responded:
            >UHHH… your free will!

            That doesn’t explain anything. Just admit that you don’t even know what you’re talking about when you say “free will”

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            i said it was because your a self imposed moron, if you want to be a gay about it, so be it, if you want to not read my post, so be it, but if you want to actualy have a proper discussion on this, stop and read

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why would anyone use their free will to destroy themselves? Did God imbue my soul with the wrong type of free will? Surely it couldn’t be that my GENETICS and LIFE EXPERIENCES have a deterministic effect on my beliefs? No, that’s nonsense. Everything I do is the result of my free will, and so is yours. But for some reason we do everything differently. Can I have your free will? No wait, I want to have Jesus’ free will, because his seemed a lot better than any human’s. Can you pray to God to give me Jesus’ free will so I can be perfect? Thanks

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            because pride is the idea of becoming your own god, all things good are gods intention, you cant worship yourself and him, so most people create rules for themselves and push them as proof of godhood.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can call it “pride” if you want, but I’ll call you prideful for not being a Muslim. Anyway, why is it that you used YOUR free will to not be prideful, while I did? After all, if God created me with the intelligence to see that he exists, then the ONLY thing preventing me is my free will. So why does YOUR free will allow you to go to heaven while mine sends me to hell?
            >because, uh, that’s just how you used your free will!!
            yes but WHY

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you need to look up the definition of freewill you mental midget, im not even reading your post anymore, you are actually a brainlet, you dont even know the words your using, your like a monkey with a computer

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >stop asking questions!
            If you want to prove free will, then be perfect.

            If you want to prove free will, then be perfect.

            If you want to prove free will, then be perfect.

            If you want to prove free will, then be perfect.

            If you want to prove free will, then be perfect.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christ already did and saints have done that, you need to be beaten for your lack of understanding

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Since when did the question of free will depend on a person's ability to be perfect?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are literally arguing with a person in a cult.
            You really think they can answer your questions? Of course not. The entire thread was doomed because "logic" is truth's tail.

            What is logical is not always true.
            But what is true is always logical.

            Without the crystal-clear, utterly profound-and-convincing miracle proof that God exists today before us, in a way we cannot deny, then this entire thing is just a bunch of primitive cultists who cannot comprehend that their mindset and worldview is fundamentally corrupted, compromised, and wrong.

            Falsity leads to evil just as truth leads to benevolence. That's why religious people have worse than average odds of being decent people you can get along with.

            Religious people are known to groom and mutilate their own children and call it circumcision and teaching them the faith. They're known to turn traitor on their children just for being gay or atheist or transgender. They're known to start wars or divisive arguments with people just for believing differently. They're known to go door-to-door just to try to convert as many people as possible.

            I was circumcised, they've been to my door, I've seen the hatred of demographics, and the wars continue to this day. These are real issues that a "logical argument for God" doesn't cover. There is something terribly amiss here, and mere logic will not shed light on this issue.

            The fundamental fact is that all religions are false and there is no god.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you are pitting my belief with yours, if you dont understand that you need to stay quiet

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > But what is true is always logical.

            Transparently false, since reality has no obligation to be logical. Science has thoroughly demonstrated that reality is not logical.

            As to God, the funny thing is that not all spiritual traditions are about God. Spirituality is bigger than God, when you think about it.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Aquinas' Five Proofs are pretty good, and I think the Unmoved Mover tops them all. I've never seen an atheist successfully refute the Unmoved Mover, especially now that we know the universe has an actual beginning rather than just being unchanging and eternal (as some of the pagan philosophers have held). The natural sciences, by discovering the Big Bang, have made it MORE likely that Aquinas is right in his proofs, not less.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, I agree. I was an atheist before, but thanks to the power of the internet I came across Aquinas’ proof and knew there must be some higher power and converted to Islam.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Its doubtful you actually internalized the religion if you came to those conclusions through deduction and not faith.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          There were many steps between, yes. But once Aquinas had prove the existence of Allah, it was only a matter of time.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think anyone has ever refuted Aquinas on anything. They basically just say nah uh and ignore him because
      >le Christian

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >129 KB
      >Aquinas' Five Proofs are pretty good, and I think the Unmoved Mover tops them all. I've never seen an atheist successfully refute the Unmoved Mover.
      What caused God? And if God doesn't need a cause why does the universe? This refutation is literally thousands of years old

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        God, by definition, does not require a cause.

        The universe requires a cause because every single piece of evidence from our existence supports the principle of sufficient reason for our world. To deny that is to deny the overwhelming evidence of our world. And if you deny that, you must also deny all causation and all logical thought. A self-refuting argument and an argument that you certainly do not live by.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          > God, by definition, does not require a cause.
          Then I define the universe *as a whole* to not have a cause. Wow, that was easy

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The whole is made of the parts. The contents of the universe are not separate from the universe. They are the same. Your appeal to a brute fact fails.

            >The universe requires a cause because every single piece of evidence from our existence supports the principle of sufficient reason for our world.
            And if you believe God exists that same principle of sufficient reason must apply to him since he is part of existence. If not just say the principle of sufficient reason doesn't apply to the universe and use Occam's Razor on God. If you want to say God exists universal laws would apply to him as well as anything else that exists. Otherwise they wouldn't be universal

            God does not exist like we exist. We are contingent. God is not contingent. God is not within existence. God sustains existence.

            If you want to prove free will, then be perfect

            What a moronic argument lmao. Not even worth a response.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God is not within existence
            Is all you needed to say. God doesn't exist is what I've been arguing from the beginning. I'm glad I've been able to convert you to atheism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You betray your lack of understanding and inability to think abstractly.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And you betray your lack of understanding of basic language. If something exists its part of existence. If it is outside existence it doesn't exist. Unicorns and fairies are outside of existence. And according to you so is God

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Damn you are a midwit. You don't even understand reality or what it means to exist. Not worth my time.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            ex·ist·ence
            /iɡˈzist(ə)ns/
            noun
            noun: existence

            the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
            "the plane was the oldest Boeing remaining in existence"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Read Plotinus. What causes Being is not, but stands above Being.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >thread about God
            >mostly full of nolife fedoralards and their spergouts/tantrums/venting about le heckin christians and le heckin bible
            It's the same thing every time. Why even make a thread like this? The baby tantrum fedoralards won't listen to any arguments or they'll just discard them. It's just entirely fruitless.

            Their problem with God isn't a logical one anyway, it's a moral one, they don't want to obey God and most of them know they're sinning against Him every day.

            I could make all the logical arguments, and bring forth all the science that supports the Bible and unequivocally disproves atheism/materialism/naturalism and even evolutionism/abiogenesism/big-bangism, but they won't accept it because they want a world view that explains existence in a way without a moral Creator who gave a moral law (because they love sinning against God and they hate God).

            If you look at a painting, do you see the painter contained within it? On which page of Hamlet do you find Shakespeare? This is another reason why logically arguing with illogical impenitent sinners is a total waste of time.

            You clearly selectively quoted part of his post so you could posture and grandstand and pretend like that makes you right about anything, you ignored his full, then all you really have is childish and pedantic semantics. Grow up, kid. I'm tired of baby sitting you dullard dimwits children on a site meant for 18+ adults. You're further proof atheists are impossible to reason with.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is there anything problem with what I've written here?

            This is all there is, and this is coming from a former /misc/ midwit who went through a very prolonged tradLARP period, listening to people like Jay Dyer debate atheists etc. etc:

            >how do I prove the bible is true? because it says so in the bible!
            >how do you prove mathematics is true? by using mathematics!
            >circularity/tautology exists at the base level of our existence, and so long as this exists we can use that to speculate that God made everything

            That's the best "proof" you're ever going to get for God summed up very quickly. It doesn't get any better than that, and it doesn't really "prove" any particular God, or even if there is a God at all. It could be any metaphysical bullshit you plug the holes with.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I could make all the logical arguments, and bring forth all the science that supports the Bible and unequivocally disproves atheism/materialism/naturalism and even evolutionism/abiogenesism/big-bangism
            how about taking your meds, ever tried that? lmao

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > The whole is made of the parts. The contents of the universe are not separate from the universe. They are the same. Your appeal to a brute fact fails.
            No, let’s call the “whole” the laws that actually allow the universe to exist. So the laws appeared without cause and created the universe with all its parts. See, easy.

            > What a moronic argument lmao. Not even worth a response
            It’s not moronic at all. You Christians are always saying “God doesn’t make us sin, we sin because we have free will” which is moronic because why would you choose what’s bad for you if you are FREE to choose perfection? What are the odds that Jesus used HIS free will to be perfect, while every Christian that has ever existed was a sinner? So did he have “more” free will than us? What’s going on here?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the laws that actually allow the universe to exist. So the laws appeared without cause and created the universe with all its parts. See, easy.

            What laws?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The universe requires a cause because every single piece of evidence from our existence supports the principle of sufficient reason for our world.
          And if you believe God exists that same principle of sufficient reason must apply to him since he is part of existence. If not just say the principle of sufficient reason doesn't apply to the universe and use Occam's Razor on God. If you want to say God exists universal laws would apply to him as well as anything else that exists. Otherwise they wouldn't be universal

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          This is so fricking moronic, it's tiring, religious persons are tiring, I'm tired of reading this nonsense

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Causality is a local phenomenon and it takes a leap of faith to assume that it’s absolute and that nothing could exist without it. Even if we admit that the “law” of causality “exists,” it’s possible that it exists without a logical reason. For if it didn’t exist, then causality and logic would be non-existent, and absolute everything could exist, including the law of causality. So as an atheist, I have no concerns about how or why this universe exists. I’m more concerned with actual problems that affect our lives. But go on pretending that you understand all of existence and that you’re not just slightly more evolved than a monkey whose brain evolved to solve problems on this earth and not the fricking multiverse

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        *crickets*

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Existence IS causality

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. There's no way to refute it other than going:
      >Well the universe can be uncaused because... it just CAN, okay!?!

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why does the uncaused cause have to be an intelligent, intentional conscious being? Why couldn't it just be an uncaused cause of some other nature supervising on only being uncaused?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        just read aristotle or aquinas, bro

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I know this is probably bait but in case it isn't the Five Ways have been thoroughly criticized (refuted by my standards, I'm catholic btw). Look up Anthony Kenny for a sympathetic but critical examination of the Five Ways and their historical context. Majesty of Reason on YouTube has done some good work meeting Thomists where they're at.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is the Summa Theologica worth a read? 6000 pages is a bit mental.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wouldn't Aquinas proofs be valid for religions other than Christianity?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        read them, then find out

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I have. I don't see how it doesn't apply for other beliefs.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Five Proofs? Yes, and Aquinas himself never denies that. Aquinas within the Summa itself says that his arguments can't replace faith, especially for Christianity. If you truly wish to believe in Jesus Christ and His Church, reason alone won't be sufficient to get you there; you NEED faith for that. The proofs for God are merely an argument that God as omnipotent and omniscient must exist. But the Muslims believe that too.

        Supposedly Aquinas was going to deal with Islam directly, in a book like a lot of the other stuff he'd written, but he died before he could get to it.

        Regardless, even Aquinas would not deny that reason alone won't get you all the way there. You can't think your way into faith in the Christian God, not fully; you need the faith that only comes from the Spirit.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Who has written the best logical argument for God?
    Mario Alejandro Montano

    https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/the-case-for-the-physical-existence-of-god/

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is no argument or evidence of any god's existence, and it's relatively easy to refute the main religions which dominate the world today.

    There're always those borderline-insane Platoists and physicists who're so intelligent and so head-in-the-clouds that they genuinely believe in unhinged stuff like a god or in the demiurge or in the monad or whatever, but there's still no evidence for any of it, and it still doesn't provide cover for Jesus being God or Mohammad meeting an angel.

    The fact that one's brilliant in their field is no indication that they're always worth listening to when they voice opinions on other subjects. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant biologist, but is he worth listening to on any subject outside of biology? No, he's a fricking moron.

    There can always be some hidden, great god, but since the Abrahamic religions can be demolished with their own faulty tenants, it's probably none of the ones you could be killed for not believing in 300-400+ years ago.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      i think it ultimately comes down to this very personal question. would you rather believe that life is meaningless; a cosmic accident with no intelligent design? or would you rather believe in some purpose to our existence and an eternal being existing behind it all? the former is pretty dark, and sure, you can arbitrarily assign meaning to your life in various ways but it's ultimately meaningless and can be very different from person to person. it's incredibly easy to fall to materialism/hedonism because it feels good and whether you like it or not, you will ultimately worship something in this life over god and that finite thing, whether it be money, power, beauty or pleasure will eat you alive. david foster wallace made a case against atheism once with that quote.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Gödel

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >scribbles on a piece of paper is proof that God exists
      how embarrassing

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Godel's proof also leads to modal collapse where everything is necessary. Which directly refutes Aquinas's third way if you accept Godel's proof.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Marx. You clearly need your opiates.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      opium is the opium of the masses
      marx was a hack

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Plato
    Parmenides, page 135a-d
    Laws X

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Spinoza

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody because God exists outside of the limits of logic. Also for the biblical God specifically? Not even possible because the Bible is ultimately incoherent.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    still not refuted

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      god gives you the choice. if you follow him in this life, you will spend eternity with him. if you reject him, you will spend eternity separate from him. it's not coercion or him holding a gun to your head. the bible is sufficiently vague about what hell is. jesus says there is fire but an outer darkness. he spoke in metaphors though, but that's about all we have to run on.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you want to go full metaphor then god is also metaphorical, and could simply mean the order of universe. There are certain adaptive patterns you can follow in life that result in success more often than not, such as delayed gratification, cooperation, win-win relationships, mindful action, etc. This could all emerge out of game theory where humans interact with each other over iterated rounds and reputation matters, which is what karma seeks to describe metaphorically. We can see that virtually every successful religion forbids murder and theft against the in-group, because such patterns would not only destroy the group through loss of social capital, but also lead to the early destruction of the individual through blood feuds. Religions and ideologies are basically social technologies constructed by philosophers.

        Though if you need these stories to assuage anxiety about death, sure have at it. The plebs need their beautiful illusions. It is a noble lie to tell the masses that paradise awaits for them if they work hard and be good boys.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          what is the moral standard of "good" and where does it come from for theists if it's relative or constructive for society? you seem to be talking about moral utilitarianism but that is also subjective and leads to a sort of might is right kind of situation. stalin did not need to cooperate with very many people to assume power and murder 20 million people. yet if there is no god, his purpose or assigned meaning was justified the same as mother teresa and her outreach and they ultimately go to the same place; the dirt. atheists want to read the book of morals but at the same time deny the author, god, existed to write it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >from for theists
            *atheists

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Same as it ever was.

            Your argument has the appeal to consequences / wishful thinking fallacy baked into it btw.

            Consider how many versions of Christianity there are, and how many ways there are to justify different actions under Christian theology. There are versions of Christianity which advocate slavery, and now there are versions which preach tolerance and gay marriage. Furthermore, consider how many other religions there are, advocating many different things, from percentage of charitable giving to human sacrifice to genocide. Religion does not provide the certainty you hope it does.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            institutions of christianity and the book can be very different as you've pointed out. you're talking about sinful people overseeing a denomination, which can go incredibly sideways, vs what is actually written. but just as there are versions that may advocate slavery, there are christians like wilberforce and frederick douglas who abolished it. we have free will to do as we please with our time on earth and unfortunately that is always not used for good. and please elaborate more on my appeal to consequences/wishful thinking. also, have you ever read the bible?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, I've read the Bible. Christians use scripture to defend all sorts of things, including the institution of slavery. See Ephesians 6:5-9. What is deemed sinful changes as social norms and mores change. Few Christians truly believe it is a great moral transgression to have sex with their girlfriend before marriage.

            You are making the argument that god must exist because he is necessary for moral certitude. Otherwise, we would have atheist totalitarians committing atrocities. This is the appeal to consequences fallacy. Not only would it not follow that god would then have to exist, many atrocities have been committed by deeply religious people. The Old Testament tells how the israelites were permitted to engage in ethnic cleansing. See Deuteronomy 20:16-18.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes, slavery is recorded in the bible; along with rape, polygamy, murder, etc. never in the bible does it say these things are good. a verse like ephesians 6 is not advocating it, but rather how to deal with it in this corrupt, chaotic world. read exodus 21:16.
            >“Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
            new testament is the roman empire where nearly 50% of people were slaves. when paul says, "slaves, obey your masters", he's not advocating for it or saying it is good, but he is sending a warning about causing a slave rebellion and the catastrophe that could follow. read paul's letter to philemon for the conclusion to this where he turns the slave back to the master pleading that he be freed and be seen as fellow follower in christ. all of these problems you have seem to be with select institutions of it that have done wrong by the scripture. women or lgbtq reps leading congregation begs the question to what else in the scripture are they sidestepping.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >See Deuteronomy 20:16-18
            this is more dealing with the chaotic nature of the world. this is god anticipating the necessity of war. this chapter details guide lines for it to be brought under the spiritual control of god. great people of faith can be warriors when it's justifiable; see christian just war principles. blessed are the peace makers, however.

            At best you can say these are lesser-evil compromises, and do not impress as a source of absolute truth on morality. Note how you have to use two very different interpretations, one of acquiescence and submission when it comes to slavery in the Roman Empire, and one of resistance and domination when it comes to the Israelites' warfare. This re-introduces the problem of subjective interpretation and relativism when it comes to morality.

            It's pretty clear to me that these are works written by men, living in an ancient time, but trying to reason about how to better arrange society. They were imperfect, as are their writings. I don't see anything that is absolutely divine in the works that could not also be said of other world religions, or great works of philosophy.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            to your first point, we live in a world where we have free will. god is not behind the atrocities that mankind commits. slavery is not good, war is not good. the scripture recorded meaningful ways to handle them. second point, you can not escape that morality is relative if there is no god. which society do you trust to define it? if it is true that society says what is right or wrong, how can i critique my society? you can not say one is more correct than the other because it doesn't really matter and that is why i can't ever get on board. a moral absolute demands a god to have a standard the exists outside of you and me. the divinity comes from jesus' resurrection. i do not believe his disciples would die willingly for something they know to be a lie. i respect your beliefs and wish you well.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >See Deuteronomy 20:16-18
            this is more dealing with the chaotic nature of the world. this is god anticipating the necessity of war. this chapter details guide lines for it to be brought under the spiritual control of god. great people of faith can be warriors when it's justifiable; see christian just war principles. blessed are the peace makers, however.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Furthermore, consider how many other religions there are, advocating many different things, from percentage of charitable giving to human sacrifice to genocide. Religion does not provide the certainty you hope it does.
            this is why we look at the founders for it. jesus lived a life that was morally perfect. you cannot say the same for muhammad, nor the avatars of hinduism or buddhism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This presumes a moral standard external to religion by which religions can be judged, but morality comes from God. God is good, we know this because He does good things, we know the things He does are good because of His moral teachings, and we know His teachings to be correct because God is good. Non-argument.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus was probably in the top 0.001% of people for charisma and compassion. Though there are stories of Jesus which do not suggest moral perfection. See the cursing of the fig tree, the assault on the moneychangers (a contradiction of turn the other cheek), and how he came not to bring peace to the world, but a sword. Apparently it was the plan to be martyred, yet when on the cross he cries out father why have you forsaken me.

            He was probably just a remarkably good cult leader.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >cursing of the fig tree
            >assault on the moneychangers
            this is jesus cleansing his temple and denouncing their worship. the cursing of the tree is symbolically denouncing israel as a nation and its unfruitful christians. you can assign judgement for this, but i will not. i believe there are times in this world to turn the other cheek and times of appropriate righteous anger to fight injustice. jesus demonstrates it is not a sin to be angry, but ephesians warns us not to sin in our anger.
            >why have you forsaken me.
            i believe this is a reference to psalm 22. he says the beginning of the passage, and his last words are the ending of it. the entire passage is about a painful execution with an incredibly hopeful tone near the end.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know if he was that charismatic, he literally got called a demon posessed lunatic. I think he was just so certain of everything that he said that it made a deep impression. There's even a passage in the Gospels, Matthew 22:16, where they remark about how he clearly doesn't care about what anyone thinks:

            > And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

            "Regardest not the person of men". Seems like an awfully polite way of saying that you don't even see us as people!

            I wonder how many present Christians would have dismissed Jesus in the flesh as insane or an arrogant blowhard.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          We don't know what life is, how could we know what death is? The scientists will never figure out consciousness.

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You absolute buffoon. You do not need logical argument or empirical evidence for God, you need faith. Seeking to prove the existence of God is faithless. Your brain has been poisoned by incessant rationalism.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Indirectly pic related. It proves an afterlife. And NDErs talk about God running the afterlife. Therefore God exists. See Jeffrey Long's book God and the afterlife. These two books combined literally proves it and are the best argument for God by far. Indeed, NDEs are actually solid proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so extremely real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

    As this NDEr described their NDE:

    >"Now, what heaven looks like? 'OMG' doesn't even describe how beautiful this place is. Heaven is, there are no words. I mean, I could sit here and just not say anything and just cry, and that would be what heaven looks like. There are mountains of beauty, there are things in this realm, you can't even describe how beautiful this place is. There are colors you can't even imagine, there are sounds you can't even create. There are beauties upon this world that you think are beautiful here. Amplify it over there times a billion. There are, it's incredibly beautiful, there's no words to describe how beautiful this place is, it's incredibly gorgeous."

    And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

    So anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique. And the book in pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife.

    >muh brain chemistry

    Neuroscientists are convinced by NDEs too. What do skeptics think they understand that neuroscientists do not?

    >muh DMT causes it

    Scientifically refuted already, and NDErs who have done DMT too say that the DMT experience, while alien and really cool and fun, was still underwhelming to the point of being a joke when compared to the NDE.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You can induce NDE by reducing oxygen to the brain, as in the case of extreme accelerations experienced by fighter pilots.

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Aristotle, and all other theistic arguments are but permutations of his work. Nothing wrong with that though, Aristotle was right and people should learn from him.

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    the Corpus Hermiticum argues for the most logical god and most of its arguments were reused later in watered down forms by religious philosophers in the 18th century

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    No one. The existence of god, gods, or any supreme cosmic force can't be proved or disproved.

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think in Genesis is says God is hiding. Christians seethe that it hasn't even started.

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ctrl f
    >no ibn sina/avicenna
    disappointed once again

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is all there is, and this is coming from a former /misc/ midwit who went through a very prolonged tradLARP period, listening to people like Jay Dyer debate atheists etc. etc:

    >how do I prove the bible is true? because it says so in the bible!
    >how do you prove mathematics is true? by using mathematics!
    >circularity/tautology exists at the base level of our existence, and so long as this exists we can use that to speculate that God made everything

    That's the best "proof" you're ever going to get for God summed up very quickly. It doesn't get any better than that, and it doesn't really "prove" any particular God, or even if there is a God at all. It could be any metaphysical bullshit you plug the holes with.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oh, and here's another stereotypical dimwit atheist "epic quip", that is: a weak strawmen of their opponents. That's the best "argument" you ever get from these immature brats who never mature. Even the "atheist intellectuals" like Nye or Dawkins act exactly like this in debates and they think it makes them super "smert".

      Also lol@"I followed a heckin apostate eceleb of an idolatry cult so I'm an expert on this" and of course finishing with the "okay, well even if there is a God there's no proof it's that one" because again: It's a moral issue not a logical one.

      Is there anything problem with what I've written here?

      [...]

      Yes, you're an ignorant moron. All you really did was prove that these threads attract atheist trash like you. And you atheists are trash because you dedicate your lives to telling mankind they're just animals and lowering man who is made in the image of God down to the level of beasts of the field typically to justify and defend your perverted desires, lusts, and temptations and giving in to them. The sodomites will say "animals sodomize each other sometimes", but we are not animals. You atheist trash do the same thing with unborn babies, you dehumanize babies to justify mass murdering them because you don't want to be inconvenienced by the consequences of your actions.

      Christianity raises man up. Atheism lowers man to the dung of the earth and is responsible for society going to shit. Ever since your fairy tale creation myth of evolutionism was taught as "settled Science™ fact" in government schools: crime and drug abuse and rape and murder and child/teen pregnancy and baby sacrifice/mass murder abortion and all the rest of the problems of society have only ever skyrocketed since.

      Their only argument for man being an animal is "some atheist scientists classified man as an ape, therefore our ancestors are apes which came from fish and all life share a common ancestor, just have blind faith and believe in humanistic naturalism and its evolution creation myth goyim". Or the moronic "there's similarities in DNA therefore all life shares a common ancestor" and they don't see the huge leap of faith there in spite of all the scientific evidence and all history that shows creature kinds only ever bring forth after their kind as the Scripture says.

      >how do I prove the bible is true? because it says so in the bible!
      No Christians say this, but you don't care how dishonest you're being because you're an amoral atheist subhuman piece of trash. You think you're an ape, keep that to yourself. You're an ape man, a subhuman monkey who can talk. I'm made in the image of God, don't try lowing me to your level, you subhuman piece of filth, scum of the earth. --- lol, watch the atheists cry about Christians being mean to them too now, they always do that after they bold-faced lie and slander Christians, as if they're not the aggressors in persecuting Christianity and trying to mandate their gay religion of atheism/evolutionism on the nation.

      Go frick yourself, monkey man.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>how do you prove mathematics is true? by using mathematics!
      >things that no one ever said
      >what are the incompleteness theorems?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *