Is it possible to disprove the existence of God?

>>731579802
in a way. we are very close to disproving that a soul exists, in that we may one day fully understand the human brain and find that everything is accounted for, thus a soul is pointless, therefore the premise of the bible is pointless. If there is a god, it doesn't matter.

>>731579892
>If there is a god, it doesn't matter.

Why would it suddenly stop mattering?

"You're hinging your free will and your judgment on a poorly-written two thousand year old book. You need your hand held because life is too scary for you. Grow the fuck up."

>>731579802
Is it necessary to disprove the existence of anything?

Its not possible to disprove 'god' because its such a nebulous concept that belies even a proper definition that can be tested against.

>>731579973
if you have no soul, dying is inconsequential

>>731579802
Technically no and technically yes.

It all depends on the definitions used.

>>731580194

What kind of logic is this? That's like saying since we can't travel to another solar system now, astronomy and being interested in space is pointless...

>>731579802
First you'd have to define what God is.

The fact that people are still asking atheists/agnostics and whatever else to disprove a man-made fantasy character is ridiculous.

File: jaypeg.jpg (274KB, 1006x1280px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1006x1280px

>>731580194
This is the opposite of what is true. Death means nothing if you persist beyond it.

The finitude of life is what gives it meaning.

>>731580194
It still means the end of your nervous system, the removal of a universe within the universe.

>>731580265
>>731580322
No, i mean, caring about god or following his rules is pointless if death is inconsequential.

>>731579802
The burden of proof lies with person claiming something. And as Sagan said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

>>731580322
>Death means nothing if you persist beyond it.
Not the anon you're replying to but, there is no persistence beyond death. There is no paradise after it, because it is not real.

File: 1453159927114.jpg (40KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 320x320px

>>731579892
>>731580194
What fucking nonsense are you spouting off about?

You can't prove a negative. We can't prove that a "soul" doesn't exist, but that doesn't matter because it's up to the person making the claim to provide evidence supporting it.

>>731579802
spaghetti monster

>>731579802
Yes, if god exists, I will get trips.

>>731580453
Seems like he doesn't exist.

>>731580453
unlucky cuck

>>731580453
Well, that's proof enough for me.

You can't prove that God didn't command me to rape children.

>>731580021
The whole reason for that book is to prove god is real. The issue is has God said? Read that book find a promise he gave, pray and call him out on the promise. If he answers good if he doesn't then he is a fake.

>>731579802
The only way to "disprove" the existence of God is to show that there's an inherent flaw in his conceptual existence, ex: a square circle. Aside from that you can't posit the nonexistence of a metaphysical object/being as long as it is conceptually possible. And if this being is defined as necessary, as some philosophers think God is, then if you can't rationally come up with inerrancy in God's conceptual existence, then God necessarily exists by his very nature. The real question is finding what is "possible" to exist in the first place. There are no guidelines for such a dispute, so philosophers typically posit that unless there is an inherent flaw in the existence of something, that thing is possible to exist. But such is the nature of abstract objects after all.

>>731580695
Is this supposed to be English?

>>731580818
If you understand the words in it, yes.

>>731579802
Hahaha , Christians make me laugh , Odin will smite you deluded cunts.

BTW , fuck you for cutting down Thors Tree in Germany , Christians are intolerant pieces of shit.


Muslims are also fucked.

>>731580881
>your god was nailed to a cross
>my god has a hammer
>any questions

With all of it's contradictions, it's definitely possible to disprove the existence of a Christian/Muslim/etc. god. Disproving the existence of a higher being in general is a bit harder. But it doesn't really matter since atheists aren't the ones making the extraordinary claim. The burden of proof falls on theists, not atheists.

>>731579802
Ok here is a better question. How many people have been in an argument about religion and said "you know you make a good point I'm switching sides"? Does that ever really happen? These arguments are the most pointless of all arguments.

>>731581001
>Does that ever really happen?
Yes, all the fucking time.

http://clergyproject.org/

>>731581047
No one would ever lie on the internet right?

>>731581001
Don't argue with Christians about the existence of "THEIR" God , tell them that Odin is the correct & best All Father and that Christianity is a hack religion based on Egyptian & Hebrew religions.

>>731581001
It's not typically one piece of evidence that establishes truth--it's a compilation of it. In the same way, one argument isn't going to win anyone over. But many such arguments? A much better chance. In any case, debate at least forces us to be more precise in our arguments (which makes it easier for the undecided to choose).

>>731581225

That one eyed bitch is nothing compared to the badass that takes a beating so bad it makes them look like the idiot then he just heals himself and leaves

>>731579802
disprove you're a faggot

>protip: you cant

>>731581428
Odin got nailed to a tree and stabbed with a spear long before Jesus did , so yeah , Jesus isn't even original.

Odin traded an eye for knowledge & died just to see what it was like and then came back to life , Jesus died so you can feel good about yourself.

File: pasta.jpg (16KB, 236x265px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 236x265px

>>731579802
pic explains everything

>>731581614
That's sort of a false analogy, since the Christian God was made up a long time ago and we have a written record of Bobby Henderson making up the FSM.

>>731581526

Odin is just waiting for a giant dog to eat him

>>731581674
Waiting for a giant wolf to eat him & the sky.

Facing his fate like a man.

>>731580980
The God of Abrahamic religions is conceptually the same as any theistic God: An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, benevolent, spaceless, timeless, immaterial being of extraordinary power. I've never been made aware of these arguments that so easily disprove the existence of God, I'd love to know more!

>>731581663
we have a record of some cuck making up the bible
bobby henderson was just the disciple told by the fsm what to right

>>731579802

It's the same argument over and over. You don't need to prove a negative.

You make the claim that something exists, prove it.

No one can disprove my belief in a mythical unicorn that owns our universe and rents it below market prices for outer gods to play.

Nonsense doesn't need to be disproved. God is nonsense.
If you could prove it you'll have certainty not faith.

Live your life, probably it's the only you're going to get.

>>731579802
hes right. it can also apply for unicorns. No one can prove they exist, but no one can disprove they exist either. there is simply not enough evidence. i can tell you right now that i just blinked twice, but did i?..you can't prove or disprove that i blinked twice, based on that statement alone. this quote is not as profound as op thinks

>>731581728
>omnipotent
>omniscient
>benevolent
If God exists in this universe with child cancer, that means he can do whatever he wants and chooses to give children cancer. He is not benevolent.

>omnipresent
>spaceless
God exists everywhere and nowhere? Ooookay.

>personal
This means absolutely nothing.

>timeless
>immaterial
More words describing what God isn't, instead of defining what he is.

>>731582086
Yes , the Christian God is either evil or just doesn't give a shit about people.

>>731582235
I take comfort in the fact that he doesn't exist.

>>731581926
Oh, if it's just evidence that is holding you back, thats no problem at all!
First is Cosmology. Most physicists believe that the universe began a finite time ago 14.5 billion years ago out of a singularity by way of the big bang. If this is true, then that means the universe had a beginning a finite time ago. If this is the case, the argument could be posited
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
Now because the universe had not yet come into being it obviously couldn't have caused itself. This leaves a cause outside of the physical universe. The cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, inherently uncaused, and be powerful enough to create the universe out of nothing.

>>731582488
sorry , yes I forgot the third and most likely option.

God is cool if you're not some existential bitch

>>731581728
Your whole god is a paradox. If he's omnipotent, can he create a stone too heavy for him to lift? Basic logic fuckin destroys this guy, so how smart is he, really? It's so interesting that he happens to be immaterial, too. Now instead of proving his existence you can just fall back onto the same convenient "arguments" (Works in mysterious ways, has a reason for everything, etc.) instead of growing up and admitting his whole concept is flawed from the get-go.

>>731582581
that is wrong though, you fucking nigger

>>731582086
No you're wrong, spaceless just means that this being isn't a physical construct. Numbers and shapes are also immaterial, but they exist everywhere as well.
"Personal" means that this force has a higher conscience or mind, it doesn't mean nothing..
Timeless and immaterial are actual descriptors, again numbers and shape definitions, or any other abstract objects, share these traits
If you think that there is a contradiction between benevolence and omnipotence, you must prove that the evil allowed does not permit the greatest possible amount of good. For example, it may be necessary to take one life to save ten. The very existence of evil itself does not invalidate the good intentions of one being, evil is only the absence of good, like darkness is the absence of light

Obviously god isn't dumb enough to make something too big to lift

>>731582648
That paradox isn't really a paradox. The answer is no, because God cannot do the logically impossible. It would be impossible for God to create a stone heavier than he can lift just like it would be impossible for God to create a married bachelor or a square circle. God can only do the logically possible, that's what it means to be omnipotent, to be able to do anything that's logically possible.

>>731582797
Show how

>>731582581

A singularity of mass that defies time?

>>731579802
"God" is such a wide concept that it isn't possible to fully disprove it. It's only possible to disprove specific claims, such as whatever your brand of Christianity claims.

>>731582910
like making snakes talk?

a reptile with no vocal cords...

>>731580443
Yes. You can. If a person says that the Earth spins counterclockwise, and you prove the contrary, you have proven that it DOESN'T spin counterclockwise.

>>731580526
I can prove that you are insane and have not spoken to a god.

File: latest[1].jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>731582009
and where does the idea of unicorns come from? for example the idea of australopithecus afarensis comes from the fossil record which is a pretty good reason to think they existed.

i put it to you that the unicorn is just made up. why entertain such hogwash? poppycock.

>>731582910
If he can only do things that are logically possible, what differentiates that power from the power of man? What are some examples of what he can do that we cannot? If we were referring to the Christian god, who once magically conjured up enough water to flood the entire planet, I would say he is not limited by what is only logically possible, as it is not logically possible to create water by such means as "poof it's there".

>>731582806
>isn't a physical construct
Then it can't exist in physical space, so it can't be everywhere.

>Numbers and shapes are also immaterial, but they exist everywhere as well.
No they only exist in the mind as a idealized representation of physical quantity and form.

> it may be necessary to take one life to save ten.
The only thing necessary to an omnipotent being is that which it wills, so if a life needs to be taken its only because the omnipotent being wants to take a life and if there is anywhere that goodness doesn't exist for an omnibenevolent being that means it is not omnipotent or omnipresent.

>>731579802
You can't prove nonexistence. It's impossible.

You CAN prove existence though, the christfags just can't because god isn't real.

>>731582648
>Your whole god is a paradox. If he's omnipotent, can he create a stone too heavy for him to lift? Basic logic fuckin destroys this guy, so how smart is he, really?

If he's omnipotent, paradoxes become irrelevant. Yes, he can create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it. Yes, can lift it anyway. There's no paradox because he's omnipotent.

>>731582581
Second is Ontology, this is the argument that the very properties that make up God's existence prove that he exists. The argument goes like this:
1. A Maximally Great Being(MGB) is possible to exist
2. If a MGB is possible to exist, then it exists in some possible worlds
3. If a MGB exists in some possible worlds, then it must exist in all possible worlds
4. If a MGB exists in all possible worlds, then it must exist in the actual world
5. If a MGB exists in the actual world, then a MGB exists
Conclusion: A MGB(God) exists

In this argument, a "Maximally Great Being" is a being with all of the greatest possible properties(omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.). Of these properties is the property of "necessity". The reason why a MGB must exist in all possible worlds if it is possible to exist is due to the property of necessity. Necessity is a property held by all abstract objects. For example: numbers, regardless of the possible world, will ALWAYS exist as a byproduct of logic. Any world in which numbers do not exist is a logical impossibility. If a MGB has all of the greatest possible properties, then a MGB has the property of necessity, because it is greater to exist everywhere than in just some worlds. Therefore, a MGB exists.

>>731583315
No you're wrong, God can't do the logically impossible

>>731582910
>The answer is no, because God cannot do the logically impossible.

"Omnipotent" means he can do anything, including the logically impossible. It also means he can rewrite the rules of logic so it becomes possible.

>>731582910
>It would be impossible for God to create a stone heavier than he can lift
No, it would just require that everything including God becomes the stone such that there is no context at all for movement let alone lifting.

If someone was only married on the internet and never met his wife he would still be a bachelor and a squared circles already exists in the form of wrestling rings.

To be omnipotent is to control the very foundation of logic such that your will defines logic, not the other way around.

>>731583388
Then he isn't omnipotent.

>>731583137
We could do almost anything, but we couldn't exist necessarily, for example. We also couldn't exist immaterially, or outside of the physical universe

>>731579802

the burden of proof is always on the positive claim.
that's just simple logics.

you will never be able to disprove that gay talking unicorns exist either.

>>731582960
No, God is immaterial so he has no mass. If you're talking about the singularity that the big bang came out of it was a singularity that existed in the first moment of time, it did not defy time.

>>731583388

Saying god doesn't exist and explaining how he works

>>731579802
No, god is whatever science hasn't figured out yet, since no civilization could probably ever conceivably understand everything in the universe, it's impossible to disprove him.

In fact, the time required to find all of this knowledge and science out may in fact simply lead to discovering something you could term a god instead. It probably wouldn't recognize you in any way that we want a god to recognize us as, but we could still call it that.

File: logic.jpg (114KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 600x600px

>Atheists say that no one can prove the existence of God and they're right, but I say no one can disprove that God exists

>>731583186
No, numbers and shape definitions exist everywhere. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean abstract objects don't exist. They are not just figments of our imagination, if you were to argue that then logic itself would be inside of our minds and you might as well be arguing solopsism. I'm assuming that everything does not exist inside our mind, it would be impossible to convince you if that's what you thought. No, literally logically impossible to convince you.

>>731583409
>God would become the stone

sides are crippled. Get some logical thinking you retard

>>731580929
>swear to kill all ice giants
>cant find any fucking ice giants now

>jesus says to get rid of evil
>more fucking evil than ever before

I really think that Christians really got the short end of Gungnir on this one.

>>731583186
You're assuming that the life taken was necessarily a moral injustice, I'm actually arguing it was a moral good. If you had the choice to sacrifice one life to save ten, it would be not only of moral necessity, but morally righteous to do so.

>>731579802
>Is it possible to disprove the existence of God?
In terms of logic and formal proofs, maybe.

In terms of empirical evidence. No, not really. But you can gather enough evidence that strengthen your case.

>>731582581
>Everything that begins to exist has a cause

What makes you think that?

We're talking about existing not building, converting, manufacturing.

Show me any example of creation of new energy, disprove conservation of energy for me. Hawking radiation is not an example obviously.

The most simple explanation is that all energy in the universe (as a whole it's a closed system) is constant, always existed and will always exist.

And you could say, if there's infinite time before us how is it possible for us to be here? Well, maybe we waited an infinite amount of time to be here. Maybe time is a loop and after the big bang comes a big crunch and we start over and over. We just don't know.

I don't see the use of a god here.

>>731583679
Killing someone can never be morally righteous.

>>731583536
He does exist, he just doesn't exist materially. Lots of things don't. Numbers and shape definitions are just two examples of things that actually exist just not inside our physical universe. Thoughts and concepts would be other examples, there is no physical place for the concept of an apple, but it's still objectively an apple.

>>731581663
We also know that the bible was written about 300~500 C.E.

So the fucker probably didn't even actually have a good account of the events he detailed.

>>731579802
You have to define God first...and everyone has their own personal definition. If you find flaws in someone's definition, they'll just make some shit up to resolve the fallacy.

It's a pointless question.

>>731583392
No, that's wrong. God cannot do the logically impossible. It's not "rewriting the rules" because it's not a rule, it's the guidelines for how all things exist. "Omnipotent" means that God can do anything that's logically possible. God could not create a married bachelor, that very concept is contradictory.

>>731582874
But you're dumb enough not to properly reply to a post, and yet still post the reply.

>>731583774
>We also know that the bible was written about 300~500 C.E.
No, it was collected into a single book around that time. The first texts in the new testament were written around 80 CE(and the old testament is obviously older than that).

>>731583763
>He does exist,
How can you be sure?

>he just doesn't exist materially.
Nice weasel words.

>Numbers and shape definitions are just two examples of things that actually exist just not inside our physical universe
Actually numbers and shape definitions are human made constructs, which mean that they don't occur naturally, they are inventions of our minds. Which is a perfect analogy for God, thank you for outright comparing God with human made abstractions.

>there is no physical place for the concept of an apple, but it's still objectively an apple.
Without a human there to imagine an apple, there would be no concept of an apple either. Ergo, the concept of an apple depends on someone being able to conceive the concept.

>>731583735
Why not, that sounds a lot like statement and not an argument

I'm not a mathematician or a philosopher but I don't understand how time has a beginning

>>731583841

Good observation. I'm paradoxical and I exist

>>731583894
:| You're arguing that everything exists inside our minds as a concept and nothing really exists.Look up "solopsism". If that's what you think then we're arguing on different basic assumptions and there's nothing I can say to convince you.

>>731583603
Abstract literally means something that only exists as a though or idea.

Logic does only exist in the mind, but it is there to mark the order and consistency of physical objects that exist outside the mind in the physical world of existence.

>>731583908
Time and space are not separate. Without space, there is no time. This is general relativity in a nutshell. The proof of how time and space are not separate lies in how the passing of time correlates with speed and gravity.

Before there was any space to travel in at a speed, before there was any gravity, there was no time either.

>>731583836
>No, that's wrong. God cannot do the logically impossible.
Then he isn't omnipotent. Omnipotence is, by definition, not limited to what's possible.

>>731583894
And I don't see the outrage at things existing immaterially, take Philosophy 101, it's a thing.

File: ab47f643c7918fda58089c7f5129a183.png (11KB, 530x286px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 530x286px

Here is Godel's proof that God exists. As a mathematician, I hate to break it to you 'Athiests' but this proof shows that higher being is beyond us, take a look (if you "higher intellectuals" can understand it):

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified

I don't believe in god or any of it. But my wife is fairly devout and I love her so I just basically my beliefs are mostly to appease her to make her happy.

The beliefs are pretty much trivial so I just use the social confines of religion to whatever is the best advantage.

File: 1491540175247.jpg (72KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x480px

>>731579802
think about this shit for a second, so you can realize how stupid a question this is. if something doesn't exist, then it has no observable evidence that it exists. saying you can't disprove it does nothing to support your claims at all.

it only takes a single counterexample to disprove a fact, and the facts point to no gods existing. it'll take someone to show definitive proof a god exists to change that fact.

>>731583660
If all that existed was a massive sentient stone, how would it not fulfill the requirements of omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent?

>>731583908
We don't know if it does or doesn't. That's the fun part, there's theories for both, and we can't go back to find out. We can't even tell if time will continue after the heat death of the universe, if it's intrinsically linked to anything we can observe or simply an outside factor changing all around us but not once ever directly touching us.

Perhaps it is the only god there truly is.

>>731584030
If you really think that then there's no point in debating, you're asserting total abstractism, another view I can't logically ague with, we're just on two different assumptions

>>731579802
You can't disprove the existence of wjiefawioejfflwefawefawef.

Why are you not a devout follower of wjiefawioejfflwefawefawef?

>>731583987
>You're arguing that everything exists inside our minds as a concept and nothing really exists
No, I'm not arguing that. I'm actually just pointing out how ridiculous that line of thought is.

I'm saying that things you can empirically observe exist, and things that require some metaphysical conception are irrelevant because they require someone to be able conceive it.

Mathematics would not exist if humans didn't invent it in order to describe the laws of physics. It is a human concept. If all the humans were eliminated, mathematics would no longer exist. But the physical laws it was invented in order to model and describe still exist, with or without humans.

>>731583679
No I am assuming that removing that life removed a perspective that could form its own measure of goodness.

>>731584053
This is Godel's model for the Ontological argument, I gave the Plantinga model for those who don't like axioms

>>731583050
Yes but you cant disprove the existence of something that we can neither define properly nor pinpoint the location of. So yeah, youre full of shit.

You cant disprove God either; That all being said, claims made need to be proved, so really its all just a big circlejerk and OP´s a Faggot.

>>731584037
I have taken philosophy. Which is why I assert that empirical evidence is the only relevant evidence. See >>731584167

Sarcasm is one of the many tools of the Devil

>>731584119
>We don't know if it does or doesn't.
We do, time has a beginning, and it starts with our universe. See >>731584023

>>731583899
Its according to biblical commandments.

>>731584053
Holy shit, you didn't pass middle school algebra, did you? Nothing about this works unless you change what x is every time, not necessarily by just adding stuff too.

Also this shit was falsely attributed to Godel. Yes, he believed there was a god, no, he didn't 'prove' it.

>>731579802

>Is it possible to disprove the existence of God?

No, just like you can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster.

And both of them are equally likely to exist, as in, not at all.

Throughout the ages people have imagined numerous gods and other deities, mainly to try to explain things they don't understand and of course to control other people by saying this is the word of a god/gods, and you shall follow it or suffer.

How people today can believe this shit is incredible to me, I can certainly accept that there are creatures in this vast (infinite ?) universe who are literal gods to us, but that they would have anything to do with the nonsense we humans have manufactured during the ages is laughable.

>>731583460
But existing immaterially or outside of our universe doesn't really sound logically possible either. Does he use magic to do this? That doesnt sound logical. Future technology? Where did he get it? And if that's pretty much the only thing separating us, could someone kill God? If so, then he isn't really the mighty fearful all-powerful being everyone claims he is, is he? He's just a fuckin' condescending asshole, as far as I'm concerned.

>>731584167
If you think "things that require some metaphysical conception are irrelevant" then one you just admitted that these are in fact "things"(meaning they exist) but two you're saying that they DON'T EXIST WITHOUT A HUMAN MIND. That's solopsism, if you think that then you and I don't have the same logical assumptions. I assume that things exist without humankind, you're saying that somehow logical concepts are weirdly tied in to the existence of a consciousness, which isn't necessary, you're just assuming that to be true

>>731584075
>based roman philosophy

This is always one thing that I fucking love to bring up, but never before have I been able to put it so eloquently into words.

>>731584232
Alright then mate, give me empirical evidence that you exist.

>>731584293

Does the universe have a beginning then?

>>731584144
>total abstractism
Isn't that what it means to be spaceless timeless and immaterial?

>>731584198
But if you're omniscient you're going to know what the best possible decision is to make, so you'd know that one life wouldn't produce as much goodness as another, making your point irrelevant

>>731584321
You took the b8 m8.

>>731579802
Singapore disproves that there is a kind and loving god that protects the innocent and helps those in need.

When you can buy a child hooker for 15$ and rape and kill her with zero effort and even less repercussions, god is dead.

>>731584293
No, we don't. We literally can't fucking know because our models of physics and literally everything break down when we get to the big bang.

We can only start by measuring time from that point, we don't know if somehow time did exist before that, or that the universe existed in a different model than what applies currently in that singularity. What the fuck are you smoking?

>>731584451
You mean our universe or the universe where our universe had its beginning?

Obviously our little bubble had a beginning, but it's nonsensical to talk about what was before the big bang.

>>731584426
He probably weighs 400 pounds, even seismometers can empirically measure his existence.

>>731584462
No, those are properties, total abstractism is the assumption that logic doesn't really matter, that there is no OBJECTIVE logic

The OP's statement is like saying "it isn't rape because she didn't say no, she was drunk"

>>731584426
you're absurd, did he not write to you?

>>731584503
You wouldn't be bound by decision making or necessary loss, you would control the outcome of everything.

>>731584515
Think you need to research a bit more about Singapore.

>>731584564
They are the properties of total abstraction.

>>731584359
But it is, philosophers assume things to be logically possible if they don't have an inherent flaw or logical impossibility. There's no real way to "prove" whether or not something is possible. Existing immaterially isn't a really outlandish concept, you just don't exist with physical restrictions placed on you.

>>731584527

Aight, I was trying to wrap my head around before the big bang.

>>731584581
Being there was more than enough research.

There are hellholes in every country on earth that are just as bad.

>>731584536
Yeah, but you just said that concepts exist as a product of human existence. You've stated the unprovable. Even the concept itself of a scale or weight would be a product of human consciousness, there would be no way to prove that. You just assumed yourself into existence and assumed that everything else is a figment of your imagination. I choose different logical assumptions.

>>731584393
Okay, first of all the term "things" is just a colloquialism I used, and doesn't inherently imply existence.

Secondly, I may adhere to solipsism, or whatever label you might throw at me, but my logical premise is still sound even if you disagree with it.

Thirdly, logic and mathematics are not weirdly tied in to the existence of a consciousness, they are the descendants of consciousness. You assert that logic can exist without a human mind there to conceive it, I assert that it doesn't.

Your point is that it is pointless to discuss because we have no common grounds (I assert that it cannot exist without a human mind, you assert it does indeed exist without consciousness). I argue the opposite, in fact and here me out:

My point is, even though we have different premises, the one thing we can both agree on is empirical evidence. Right? Ergo, that should be the baseline. That should be the common ground. If God is not empirical observable, then he is indeed irrelevant because we have different logical premises. Agree?

>>731583050
that's wrong
you proved that the earth spins clockwise, nothing else. everything you conclude from this comes after you proved in which direction the earth is spinning.
you can't disprove that something is not there. you can prove that something exist and make some logical conclusions from that.

>>731584751
they didn't do any of that. stop misrepresenting the poor faggot you'll wear out his keyboard

>>731584573
Not if people have free choice, which may also be necessary for another higher good

>>731584603
No they're not...abstractism doesn't have anything to do with properties, it's a logical concept

>>731584751
No idealized numerical measures of scale and mass only exist in the human mind to order the actual consistent physical phenomenon that is directly experience through physical sensory organs.

>>731584426
>Alright then mate, give me empirical evidence that you exist.
You just communicated with me.

>>731584451
Yes

>>731584527
Well, sort of this.

>>731584751
You're wrong. The argument wasn't that it is a product of human existence, it is a product of human conception. The scale or weight still exists even if there suddenly stops being any humans there to conceive it. Any non-human agent is still able to empirically observe it and even interact with it. See >>731584763

>>731582648
>Basic logic fuckin destroys this guy

>be god
>creating literally everything and all of reality
>creates logic
>can't alter any of it

Yeah, I don't think so m8. Omnipotent literally means you can do anything, even if that means restructuring the universe into a form where it's possible to lift and not lift a friggin rock at the same time without breaking anything.

>>731584867
I am talking about properties associated with something totally abstract not whatever particular philosophy you associate with the term total abstractism.

>>731584763
Well sure, I didn't argue it wasn't sound, it makes complete logical sense given that set of logical values, I just choose to assume different basic beliefs. But you've got to see that we have no common ground. You assume that there are no logical concepts apart from human existence, and I do not. If God as a logical concept were forced to be the byproduct of my thought then that very premise would disprove his existence. That's why that premise is so crucial to our disagreement.

>>731584887
But you've got to realize that even the thoughts you're having about those physical stimuli are a direct consequence of your consciousness. The very basis on which we MAKE empirical observations you're assuming is based on your own consciousness. It's too solopsistic for me sorry we've just got different ways of looking at it.

>>731584923
:| The omnipotence paradox was invented and refuted in the Iron age, I've heard the argument many times and I've given you the proper reasoning, I promise you're not blowing anyone's mind here

>>731585047
Okay, I think I get you now, and sorry for taking me three posts to do it (to my excuse, I'm used to a quite hostile tone when discussing God on 4chan).

The premise is crucial to the disagreement (about the existence of God), yes. But we can both choose to set this discussion apart from the discussion about the material universe, if we agree that empirical evidence is sufficient to discuss and explain the observable universe.

Since I think I have misunderstood you for a couple of posts, I don't want to make any assumptions about your beliefs, but my main argument is that whether or not the universe springing into existence require immaterial "things" to exist is irrelevant to the discussion of how material "things" behave and interact as long as the immaterial thing or things does not interact with material things in any empirical observable manner.

Sorry, English isn't my first language and that was perhaps a tricky sentence.

>>731579802
you can't disprove that god doesn't exist though there is much more evidence supporting other means of creation

>>731585280
>But you've got to realize that even the thoughts you're having about those physical stimuli are a direct consequence of your consciousness
The thoughts he, or you or I may make about the stimuli, are irrelevant to the actual physical stimuli itself, which can be measured and observed.

Actually, the thought process itself can be measured and observed, by placing you in a MRI or CT scanner, or by sticking electrodes into your actual neurons.

>>731584518
Time did not exist before the big bang because it is a property of the universe. Without a universe, there is no time. You may be operating with some alternative definition of time, but time as physicists define it has a beginning.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

>>731579802
challenge accepted.
not only do kardashians exist, they're reproducing at an alarming rate. what god would allow such an atrocity?
not joking. fuck them. all of them.

>>731584023
All of those theories are still made by us, using the nearest resources we thought we could think something off of.
I'm not den

>>731579802
Adam and Eve had belly buttons?? And they only had 3 sons so... we're all inbred

>>731579802
We don't have to disprove the existence of god, it's up to the ones that claim it exists to prove it.

>>731584023
All of those theories are still made by us, using the nearest resources we thought we could think something off of.

File: 7 of 9.jpg (60KB, 695x841px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 695x841px

>>731579892
What if life is a very sophisticated virtual reality program and the event of death triggers the creation of an ethereal manifestation of your human form to spawn in a new area where it is given unlimited health?

Wouldn't any test performed on the virtual manifestation of your "physical" brain before death be conducted by a virtual manifestation of a "psychical" piece of testing equipment incapable of detecting the program that would create the ethereal manifestation?

>>731579802
God is just a creation humans created because they can't bear the thought of not being able to know something - what created the first living organism, it just gives people something to stop them from losing their little minds

>>731580194
Not believing in a soul means that all that's left of a person is a mind and a body, and the mind goes down with the ship. Nothing of the person survives. I think that makes dying all the more terrifying.

>>731585961
General relativity is a theory, yes. But speed and gravity having an effect on the passing of time is not a theory, it is a piece of empirical evidence.

GPS satellites actually have to account for general relativity in order to give correct positions. If speed and gravity had no effect on time, then these adjustments would not have been necessary.

In short, general relativity is the theory. The effect on time is evidence (for general relativity, or whatever alternative theory that accounts for this observation).

File: IMG_04292017-13876.jpg (38KB, 682x384px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 682x384px

>>731586067
deeper. I want it deeper.

>>731586034
See >>731586153

File: wtf.jpg (48KB, 711x713px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 711x713px

>>731586067
da fuq did I just read?

>>731585446
Hey no problem bro we're cool. I would even say that empirical evidence should be the only way we observe and judge the observable universe, our only disagreement is on the existence of the metaphysical. I think it's logically sound that things like numbers and concepts exist in our actual universe regardless of our existence. For example: whether or not I live or die, a square still has 4 sides. I would accept that to be true even if there were no life or consciousness in the universe, but not everyone agrees. And I don't think that an immaterial being in and of itself COULD interact with the physical universe because I believe God is timeless. I'm actually not arguing that God interacts within the universe at all, so we might have more in common than you think, only that God created the universe as one steady space-time. Every event that has happened or will happen has been for lack of a better word "pre-planned" so that all events will fall into place with planned out forces and outcomes. God, of course, is timeless, so he doesn't see the timeline as anything but one event, like a still frame of everything that will ever happen. However, I would look at the nature of empirical observation and whether or not certain things are possible. For example: gravity is a law. That means of course that gravity is something that we've come to assume due to repeated observation. However, if one day, for example, you dropped a pencil and it fell straight up, would that be impossible? It would break the law of gravity surely, but that law is only as strong as the observations it previously acquired. Just because something breaks an empirical law or theory doesn't mean something's impossible to happen, only that it hasn't happened yet.

I would definitely recommend looking into it if you're at all interested, you never know you know

Cheers

File: tyson.png (733KB, 1024x635px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1024x635px

religion

lol

>>731586067
the fuck

>>731579802
God is a schrodinger's cat as far as existence goes, either way you're better off just trying to live a life being a decent person. Learning, growing and all that shit but this is /b/, we don't really care.

>>731584656
We know a lot about how our universe began, something about all energy in our universe adding up to zero with equals negative and positive energy somehow so what we're seeing is a fluctuation of a flat line, like a song played from a guitar.

Before the big bang we don't know squat, you might argue that there's always been movement and time, some people think that time began with our universe, but there could be other types of dimensions that create progress without time... this is where the debate becomes nonsensical.

>>731579802
I have all the proof right here.
https://youtu.be/LvlQNQIPMlY?t=577

>>731580453
If there is no god, I will get dubs.

File: Gay Jesus.jpg (86KB, 710x710px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 710x710px

>>731586655
Dubby dubs

>>731586655
The universe has spoken.

File: best captain.jpg (253KB, 802x813px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 802x813px

>>731586067

This fucked with me. This is really fucking with my head.

>>731582910
God doesn't exist.

>>731586655
Btfo Believers

>>731585390

okay, edgelord. thanks for agreeing with me.

>>731586067
lol, wut?

>>731579802
No, one cannot disprove that a God exists.

However, by pointing out the inconsistencies in the Bible, one can disprove the Abrahamic God.

>>731586067

Well then you've just changed the definition of life and it's not correct anymore. The real 'life' is not us in the virtual reality program, but the actual people that actually made it. So this actually answers nothing, and just adds more redundant questions.

>>731586303
>a square still has 4 sides. I would accept that to be true even if there were no life or consciousness in the universe
Well, I agree. Of course the number and word we use to describe 4 is of course humanly invented, but a square (or rather cube since we live in a three dimensional plane) with four sides (or six, since we live in a three dimensional plane) definitively exists even if there aren't any one around to count to four (or six).

>Every event that has happened or will happen has been for lack of a better word "pre-planned" so that all events will fall into place with planned out forces and outcomes.
Well, I actually believe in a "pre-planned" universe too, only I don't believe in a planner. I simply believe in cause and effect, that if you somehow could know the current position of every atom and electron, and had a complete understanding of how the laws of physic works, then you could predict the future.

Although, in later years, I am slowly beginning to realise that I might have to change my belief in a deterministic universe, simply because there seems to be inherent randomness on the quantum plane that we cannot account for. Future findings will either strengthen the proofs of quantum uncertainty, or it will dismiss it. He who lives will see.

>Just because something breaks an empirical law or theory doesn't mean something's impossibl
Well, you are 100% right in that the laws of physics are man-made based on repeated observations. But I would argue that something completely contradicting the "laws of physics" is extremely unlikely. Ever since Newton invented calculus in order to explain gravitational pull, our understanding of gravity has only changed with minor adjustments, and we haven't dismissed theories in entirety, just elements of them have been changed. I would argue that our understanding of gravity will definitively improve over time, but it is unlikely that anything will completely defy it and we'd have to reject it all together.

File: mindblown.jpg (87KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1280x720px

>>731586067

>>731586067
I must admit, I had not considered this.

>>731586979
>>731586303
However, a drawing of a square is shady. Because the human that observes the drawing will conceive a square in his mind. But lets not get into that discussion.

>>731586067
She used to go to bdsm sex clubs with her husband.
She claimed in the divorce proceedings that he made her do it and that she didn't really like. She hated it so much that she kept going to them with him. Over and over again.

File: Bill Maher.jpg (89KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 512x512px

>>731586067
How can someone this smart be so fucking stupid.

>>731586179
y..you have hardcore nudes of j..jeri ryan?

>>731587240
lol, I read that in his voice.

File: Prometheus.jpg (74KB, 873x882px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 873x882px

>>731587188
mfw this is actually true

File: 7 of 9 back.jpg (37KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 900x675px

>>731587188
come on man. nobody is going to believe that.
if you're gong to bait, at least TRY to make it believable.

File: morpheus_matrix_what_is_real.jpg (20KB, 756x313px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 756x313px

>>731586929
Not if God is in the only real life and everything in our universe, including heaven, is virtual.

>>731587529
>taking the bait this hard.

>>731579802
This is the reason im Agnostic, i cant prove or disprove the existence of 1 or more gods or if it's reinkarnation or just nothing, who the hell knows? no one not until we die and we may not even get the answer then

God, defined as consciousness without matter, is a logical contradiction because consciousness is an emergent property of matter. Same as saying a square circle.

Q. E. D

>>731588188
Agnostic what?

>>731588188
I completely agree, fellow agnostic

>>731588188
Gnostic = knowledge
Theist = belief
Putting an A in front of it denotes "without"

Defining yourself as agnostic doesn't describe your beliefs. It describes your knowledge.

You have four options.
1. Gnostic theist
2. Agnostic theist (Deism)
3. Gnostic atheist (positive atheism)
4. Agnostic atheist

Pic one and quit being a moron.

File: Screenshot_2017-05-05-14-25-57-071.jpg (305KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1080x1920px

>>731579802
No because if God isnt real then explain this

The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. Otherwise... Well, sure, you're right, I can't disprove god's existence. Much like you can't disprove that at some point in your life you have sleepwalked into your parents' room, fucked your own mom in the ass and gone back to bed before waking up.

prove Santa Clause isn't real.

>>731579802
This is faggotry.

You cannot disprove the null hypothesis. This is effectively proving it. The burden of proof lies with those that say something does exist that's unverifiable.

>>731589367
An unknown exists. The unknown that exists is the existence of God.

>>731589468
Still no proof the unknown is what you say it is.

I am God. I exist. You are reading my words. Fuck you

File: 1492230128103.jpg (10KB, 230x164px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 230x164px

>>731579802
Are you fucking kidding me?
It has been done several times already. The retards who promote this shit as the ultimate truth are the ones who refuse to see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gsamzXOLjQ

File: 1492791411433.png (394KB, 720x544px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 720x544px

>>731589509
Fuck off, God. Kek outclasses you in every way.

>>731580864
Kill yourself plz

>>731579802
It's easy. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's why you don't care if I say given me a hundred dollars or you will suffer eternal damnation.

>>731590237
Who is talking about a Christian god mother fucker? I am THE God.. fucking christ was a cool kid. A little too jewish for me, but a nice guy all the same. You know, he fed the poor and stuff, but he was a bit too hippie for me too...

But fuck y'all and your Christ this and jesus that. Its getting old bitches... I am motherfucking God. Stawp it cunts... y'all need me in ya lives

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1492526936862.jpg (29KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 720x480px

>>731579802
Amy Schumer is a "comedian"... Obvious proof there is no god.

>>731590303
Suck all of my 337 dicks w/ that shit faggot. Imma come down there and dig up granny and skull fuck her in front of ya dad to send him back off the wagon again. Ok?

File: 56056375.jpg (126KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 400x400px

>>731590546
This is now a cringe thread.

>>731579802
How would one go about proving a negative? No, it is not possible to disprove the existence of God, Santa Claus, unicorns, house elves, free energy, alien abductions, psychic powers etc. You either have enough evidence to show that something exists, or else not enough information to say for certain one way or another. It is not unreasonable to assume that God (of some sort) probably doesn't exist in light of a lack of compelling evidence, but it is unreasonable to claim that 'he' absolutely does not exist with any degree of certainty. This position is agnostic, and contrary to what all the little agnostic snowflakes claim, this is the position of most atheists. It's called weak atheism.

However, it is very much possible to rule out the existence of a specific, well defined (at least in the minds of true believers) gods, such as the god of Abraham (i.e the god of Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc.) because this God's existence would violate the laws of physics. If such a God does exist, then either he exists outside of the universe/reality and has no way of interacting with it, or he exists within the Universe and is bound to the laws of physics, and therefore cannot possibly have most, if not all of the attributes believers claim that he has.