Is it possible to disprove the existence of God?

pic related doesn't prove its point. if you can't prove, then we don't have to disprove

>>731599233
OP is a fag

>>731599233
Isn't there a logical proof that there can't be an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving god? Like God could only be 2 of the 3, but not all 3?

What is an Africa?

File: CHINA.webm (2MB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x600px

>>731599233
magnets are proof that god exists

>>731599693
Im not on either side of this debate but i always just imagined that our definition of loving and right could be different than god's. Allowing him to be all 3

>>731599882
Wtf

Which God? It's completely subjective. My version of Christ isn't the same as yours because you can only view things from your own personal universe. We may agree on certain ideas, but they won't ever be experienced the same way, so god...huh ? Jehovah ? Yahweh ? They were assholes.

Stop caring what other people think, and, keep what you're thinking to yourself because everyone is fucking nuts and doesn't need your interpretation of anything.

In fact, my god is slapping your god in the face with his enormous cock

>>731599900
>our definition of loving and right could be different than god's
the point of that argument would still follow, that this is not the type of god that should be loved and worshiped

a god that does not love-all things its created unconditionally means that this god created something for it to hate

>>731600119
>so god...huh ? Jehovah ? Yahweh ? They were assholes.
All gods that say they are omnipotent and good are assholes. I'm going to assume you believe yours is too

>>731599233
Yes by the fact that he basically defies all logic.

>Omniscient
If you KNEW Adam and Eve were going to eat the damn apples, why the fuck didn't you put it out of reach?
>Omnibenevolent
Isaiah 45:7King James Version (KJV)

7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I theLorddo all these things.
Well that's contradictory.
>Omnipotent
If you can do everything why not stop evil?
Also, can you create a rock not even you can lift? If so, you're not Omnipotent. If not, you're not Omnipotent. Omnipotence is impossible.

>>731600742
Not disproving anything, just pointing out the flaws.

>>731599693
The problem of Evil first defines god as an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving god
If God created the world with Evil, it cannot be all loving because it created suffering
If God didn't want to create evil but did, it would be restricted and therefore not be omnipotent

>>731600742
Also Omniscience means you know everything so as a result you have no free will

>>731599233
Said it this morning. What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. If I said give me a $100 or ill send you to he'll, there's no way to disprove my claim. Though you still wouldn't pay me.

>>731599233
Nope, but you can't disprove the existence of Dragons either.

>>731600804
Flaws in a description make it rather hard to prove, no?
It also makes it rather hard to justify a possible existence.
Religion is delusional.

>>731599693
>>731600864
But even this has counter arguments like God created free will and that humans are evil so he can fulfill all conditions

>>731599233
It's not possible to disprove anything.

>>731600804
he just proved the idea of the christian god is flawed with basic logic

clearly they have the wrong idea of what a god is and can be
>>731601056

>But even this has counter arguments like God created free will and that humans are evil so he can fulfill all conditions
Read again
>If God didn't want to create evil but did, it would be restricted and therefore not be omnipotent
You just said yourself that god created evil humans.

Not to mention if God is omnipotent then he would know every action you're going to make. If you say that free will gives you the power to make actions god can't predict you will do that means he's not omnipotent

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

It's the simple paradox of evil.

File: IMG_0176.png (284KB, 635x543px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 635x543px

Trips proves that there is a god.

Only way to disprove God would be to prove another god exists.

File: Logical-Fallacies-burden-of-proof-620x390.jpg (65KB, 620x390px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 620x390px

>>731599233
Yeeea, i can post it again! :D:D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Summary:
Russel stated there's a teapot behind the moon and that nobody could disprove his claim. Others of course said that's ridiculous to which Russel asked them to prove it to him that there's in fact no teapot behind the moon. They answered that it was his stupid claim so it's his job to prove it which gives you the logical answer to this question:
The non-existance can often not fully be proven, but that often doesn't matter because the burden of proof lays with the person posing the claim.

>>731601668
No it's actually really easy to disprove a lot of gods. Especially when the build in their own self-destruct button by saying something like "everything written in this book is true"

>>731601984
I'm assuming this is in regards to the Judeo-Christian God, hence the use of the capital G in the first usage of the word and the lowercase in the second.

A lot of these questions can be answered with free will. God allows His creations to choose to do right or wrong. This is where people conveniently ignore Satan. Unfortunately he is just as real as God is. Satan chose to defy God and is currently the source of most of the evil in this world. Yet God seems to get the blame. Now many ask, so why did God allow us free will. Can't he just erase evil? He can't be all loving blah blah. The gift of free will is one of the greatest gifts of love he could have given us. He didn't want to make us robots designed to worship him. The love he requires is a choice. The chan is the wrong place to ask this haha, but stick with me here. If you could force a woman to love you unconditionally by "programming her". Would you enjoy that more or less than a woman genuinely choosing to love you. There's a big difference there. God gave us the choice. Unfortunately with that comes the inevitability that we will constantly screw up.

>>731599233
You can't disprove a negative, but you can basically say that the god based on (for example) the bible doesn't exist.

>>731600902
True

>inb4 christvucks misunderstand the big bang and evolution, and use this to claim that an ancient palestinian wizard controls the universe

>>731602875
>>
From Genesis Chapter 1... The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

>Couldn't it be possible that the "big bang" was very simply the powerful voice of God speaking the universe into existence.

>>731603224
>describes an ocean and water before the big bang

K

>>731602347
>free will
a free will god cannot predict means god is not truly omniscient

>Satan chose to defy God
Satan does not have free will, so either god is so evil he made something that would hate him, or he is incompetent

or Satan does have free will, and god is then again not omniscient

>Yet God seems to get the blame
and if I built a nuke that just happens to go off I would also be blamed, even though I didn't press the button

>Would you enjoy that more or less than a woman genuinely choosing to love you.
I can tell you I won't damn her to hellfire if she doesn't choose to love me, because I'm not a psychopath

>God gave us the choice.
it's not much of a choice when the alternative is to spend eternity in hell. Do you think if everyone KNEW that god existed, that if we didn't worship him we would be sent to hell, then anyone at all would choose to hate him? I would.

Apart from that, we can't KNOW god exists because all we have is a shitty book from thousands of years ago, along with a bunch of other shitty books from thousands of years ago. Which is right? Oh let's go for the easiest one that requires the least amount of effort but guarantees me eternal happiness.

>>731603314
Chapter 1 verse 1 is God creates the heavens and the earth. Sorry I didn't include it. I should have known the point would fly over your head and instead you would find something to fixate on. My point was simply there is a series of "Let there be..." statements where God speaks creation into existence. Couldn't the big bang have simply been God speaking the universe into existence?

>>731599233
If you can disprove ideas you can disprove existence of god

>>731603856
I've read genesis you mongoloid.

The order is wrong. the Earth gets created before the sun ? Did you fail 8th grade?

>>731599233
It's not a question. If god doesn't exis, neither does the requisite for disproving him. "God does not exist" isn't a logical sentence given he doesn't exist. You're using exist as a predicate to a subject that has no existence, but clearly it does, at least conceptually, if you've syntactically given it to god. If god truly doesn't exist to reality, it is not a matter of linguistic representation, and should not be treated as such. The whole argument around it is fucking stupid.

File: 1493993226750.jpg (733KB, 1600x1131px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1600x1131px

Why does everyone always ignore the top imagine of the thread - It's got some good shit pertaining to logical arguments. (ie. non logical arguments are shit tier, desperation level, last ditch attempts to win the argument).

"Burden of Proof" Fallacy:
Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove it".

It's not even a clever tactic: demanding that someone else justify another's claim by stating its double negation, isn't edgy or clever. (Unless maybe in a shit-level community college philosophy class staring in a B-rate pander film).

Basically:
If if (A) there is a god, and (B) therefor he exists, the question is does A = B?. By restating it as ~(~A) = ~ (~ B), your just making it more confusing to the dumber element of society, however, we are still dealing with does A = B - which no theist has yet proven in some 12,000 years of trying.

I would very much appreciate it if this argument would kindly fuck off and die now.

>>731601730

>Theists believe there is a God
>Prove it!

>Atheists believe there is no God
>You don't have to prove anything! Just tip your fedora XD

>atheistlogic

>>731604509
Prove to me right now that there isn't a flamboyant hispanic fairy who polishes your doorknobs every night while you sleep

>>731599233
easy.

your face, if their was a god how could he let something like that happen to a person?

>>731604385
To expand on this, we have no means of requiring the necessary knowledge to consider even whether or not such a being or law (that conceptually would be similar to god) exists. Our science is far from being able to do so. Again, the semantics surrounding god seem to inflict the argument, not the actual representational ability or observation of a true omnipotent ~being~. We're far too tied up with inferential thought to even discuss the probability of a law/~being~ existing to reality. Again, you all are wasting your time. Read up on Phil- on mind, and keep up to date with the latest finds in physical studies.

>>731604509
do everyone a favor and body slam the inside of a volcano

>>731601056
Doesn't explain why there have to be so damn many unbelievably cruel diseases. A long list of them affect unborn children.
Or natural desasters.

A mental disorder can make you cause suffering while being unable to care or recognize what you're doing.

These things take your choices away and therefore limit your "free will". Not all suffering in the world is caused by humans, and even then, it often happens against everyone's best intentions and efforts

>>731603519
a free will god cannot predict means god is not truly omniscient
>Did you not read what I originally posted? Let me take it further then. God is omniscient and yes that means he knew we would screw up. Still he gave us free will so that we would have the choice to either accept or reject him. God doesn’t want the worship of preprogrammed robots.

Satan chose to defy God
Satan does not have free will, so either god is so evil he made something that would hate him, or he is incompetent
>Satan does have free will, and chose to defy God. He gave Satan the same choice he has given all of us. To accept or reject him.

or Satan does have free will, and god is then again not omniscient
>God knew Satan would do what he did. Still he gives us the free will to make that choice for ourselves.

Yet God seems to get the blame
and if I built a nuke that just happens to go off I would also be blamed, even though I didn't press the button
>Haha, I’d love to hear your views on gun control. You must think guns kill people not people huh?

Would you enjoy that more or less than a woman genuinely choosing to love you.
I can tell you I won't damn her to hellfire if she doesn't choose to love me, because I'm not a psychopath
>This is can concede as one of the most difficult things to grasp about the gospel. I know God isn’t all flowers and rainbows. He is all powerful and the almighty. And in being the creator and king of the universe. He has the right and ultimate judgment on our sin. Which is why he gave us a way out through Christ. Again we have the free will to choose to accept or reject the forgiveness of sin through Christ.

Apart from that, we can't KNOW god exists because all we have is a shitty book from thousands of years ago
>How do you know Washington or Jefferson existed? People giving eye witness accounts that all confirm and affirm one another. The bible is basically a series of eye witness accounts that all agree and confirm one another.

>>731604178
Verses 1-6 are all what God did on the first day of creation. It's not a recipe for universe making it's a description of the events of day 1. It's not like God made the Earth and then came back a few days later and went lmao my bad forgot to make the sun. Come on now.

>>731599882
LMAO

>>731599536
That makes no sense. Why is the burden of proof only on one side?

>>731605598
Inability to prove doesn't say anything on the nature of reality. Not only could our scientific faculty be insufficient, but it's also a purely inferential device to believe in "proof", inference, cause, etc.

>>731599233
It's pretty much impossible to disprove the existence of a god, but quite easy to disprove the existence of specific gods like the one from the bible or Allah.

>>731605545
It explicitly is it order. The Earth did not form with liquid water before the sun. That's retarded, you're retarded, read a book that isn't the bible for once.

The big bang is a way to have a God without actually calling it one. An explosion that has provided you with your life, intelligence, feelings and emotions.

Scientists seem to think the big bang was an event in the past, but actually it's still going, this/we are still the big bang, therefore we are (part) of God.

>>731605100
>God is omniscient and yes that means he knew we would screw up.
Then he's an asshole, he's omniscient so he knows exactly who is going to screw up. He knows Jerry is a pedo that's going to rape and kill about a dozen children before spending eternity in hell. Thanks for making Jerry perfect according to your omniscient glory.

>God knew Satan would do what he did.
So god knew satan would get humans kicked out of Eden, god knew that humans would be fooled by satan. This stops being a choice when all the outcomes are predetermined.

>And in being the creator and king of the universe. He has the right and ultimate judgment on our sin
A sin that he created, that he knew we would fall into, that again, when you know the outcome choice becomes an illusion. Free will can't exist in a predetermined universe

>Which is why he gave us a way out through Christ.
I'm sure all the Indians living in America at the time were super appreciative of that. Why don't you explain how it's their fault they're in hell right now simply by being unaware this oh so good and all-loving god existed.

>Again we have the free will to choose to accept or reject the forgiveness of sin through Christ.
No free will in determined universe. And yes, knowing the outcome means it's determined, and god knows the outcome.

>How do you know Washington or Jefferson existed?
I don't, dum dum. They're just more believable stories that don't have logical flaws built into their existence.

1.God can't be omniscient as that would destroy your concept of free will, but you need free will to say it's your fault you get eternity in hell
2.God can't be all-loving and then go on to build a system in which the things he loves get tortured for eternity because they do not love him back, all-loving does not allow you to torture the things you love, or you cannot say that god truly loves
3.Tough shit for everyone who never heard of Jesus, or find the concept of god too full of holes to be believed

>>731605760
Don't bother man, if he had the cognitive ability to comprehend this very simple concept, he wouldn't believe in ancient myths.

>>731606085
That's Pantheism, I'm a Pantheist.

it is easy to disprove that certain specific gods exist. IE: the God of the bible, Allah etc

It is nearly impossible to disprove that the general idea of a god, a prime mover, a universal cause, some abstract higher power exists

The more someone claims to know about "god" the more certain you can be that the specific god they are referring to does not exist.

>>731599233
Wrong question to be asking. God, who prefers Yeshua, exists. However it is not the only one of it's kind nor does it take any responsibility for existence. The men and women guided by Yeshua merely attributed more power to it than necessary.

The real question is: If the gods did not create existence and know no more about it's creation than we, then how will we ever find the answers and does it matter to begin with?

>>731599233
Depends on how a particular person has decided to define god.

>>731606238
are you retarded?

Honestly no. If you want to disprove certain religions with science, like Christianity and budhism, yes, but not the concept of god

Pantheism is far more logical than atheism.

The joke of life is that you are actually God pretending what it's like not to be God. Atheists are pretending so much so that they don't believe any God exists, but they would then be denying the existence of themselves.

>>731606980
Wait hold on, so pantheism believes we're the gods ourselves?

>>731606980
That's not really what Pantheism is.

Pantheism is when the universe and its laws is identical to god to you. For example, I'm a Pantheist and worship nature and the night sky on aregular basis.

>>731605598
The burden of proof is on the person arguing in the affirmative, not the person arguing in the null.

If I told you that I own an invisible unicorn at my house and you can't see or touch it, but it's real, it's not your job to prove that I don't own it, it's my job to prove that I do.

File: 1349885902468.jpg (19KB, 291x700px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 291x700px

>>731599233
>Is it possible to disprove the existence of God?

Is this the new dick thread? Insecure Christians spamming the fuck out of /pol/ and /b/?

>>731606980
>The joke of life is that you are actually God pretending what it's like not to be God
>>731607084
>>731607090
Sounds more like Buddhism, in which we're all gods attempting to become one as god

>>731599233
This is your daily reminder that anyone who believes life begins at conception must also believe miscarriage is either murder or suicide 99.946% of the time.

File: 1493577149977.jpg (27KB, 736x429px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 736x429px

>>731599233

>>731607259
Dude, just look up the definition of Pantheism. It's just atheism while equating the universe with divinity. You're just describing narcissism.

>>731599233
Why do they quote him and show a picture like that's some kind of original (meaningless) thought?

>>731607084
We are God (singular). As God we have manifested ourselves into this human existence. Why? Because when you are God you have done everything, know everything, experienced everything. You get bored. You want to experience things as new again. So here we are.

File: 1492464771509.gif (1MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x169px

>>731607619
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

>>731606144
I gotta go to work so I have to rush this. Wish I had more time.

Then he's an asshole, he's omniscient so he knows exactly who is going to screw up. He knows Jerry is a pedo that's going to rape and kill about a dozen children before spending eternity in hell. Thanks for making Jerry perfect according to your omniscient glory.
>Jerry gave into sin and Satan. Jerry did not choose God. Jerry is an asshole.

So god knew satan would get humans kicked out of Eden, god knew that humans would be fooled by satan. This stops being a choice when all the outcomes are predetermined.
>How on earth does that train of logic make sense? Because God knew we would sin suddenly it isn’t our choice anymore? This is the definition of the pride of humanity. It’s never our fault haha.

Wish I had more time to discuss more but I just want you to know that I’m praying for you whether you like it or not haha. Have a great day!

>>731607619
That's not what Pantheism is you absolute clown.

>>731607502
If you only thought of yourself as God, I'd agree that's very narcissistic, but if you treat everyone else as the same as you, that is not.

>>731607342
/thread

>>731607619
I think it makes more sense to say that god is imagining this universe, and all the laws and properties it has. With his omniscience and omnipotence his imaginings equate to a perfect simulation of a universe, and all us people in it. There would then be an infinite amount of universes currently being simulated in god's imagination

>>731607761
That's irrelevant anon, the point is that you dont actually know what pantheism is. Pantheism is seeing the universe and its laws as god. Pantheism is seeing the sky, the stars, the sun, the lake, the forest and the animals as holy.

>>731607706
But makes a shit ton of sense right?

>>731599233
Can't prove a negative. Logic and debate day 1. love libs who pretend they are educated and that the right are all morons.

>>731607875
No. It's contrived hot air and might as well have come out of a butthole.

>>731605598
Russell's Teapot.
That's why.

>>731601457
No, that's omniscient.

>>731599233

No, agnostic master race.

>>731607899
This isn't partisan you braindead clown, and can't prove a negative means it's ridiculous to ask someone to do so.

It makes YOU look bad. YOU can't ask someone else to prove a negative because of this exact concept.

>>731605839
Can you do that please?

>>731607899
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

-Christopher Hitchens

>>731600902
Or you just know the whole scope of everything so that it's all one big flowchart covering every possibility

>>731607850
So are there things that you don't consider "holy"?

This is like me saying "I'm superman, I can't prove it to you, but i have this comic book here"

>>731608013
But so is your "argument". What's wrong with it specifically?

>>731604178
In all fairness, the quote says "light" not "the sun". While the sun does give off light, light could very well have come into existence after matter. The sun and light are two separate things.

>>731599233
No, just as it is impossible to disprove the existence of a space kettle floating around somewhere really far from our galaxy riding a unicorn.

>>731608255
Artificial objects basically. Everything natural is holy. (Yes I know humans are technically part of nature so their creations are by extension "natural") but I think it's more than fair to make a distinction between a plastic plant and a real one.

>>731608291
No, it's more like saying "There is an entity that created all of existence, and while I can't prove it, we both exist in this existence and therefore it's worthy of debate."

>>731599882
lol, was so sure that was part of the show xD

>>731607619
A romantic way to see it and just as likely to be false.

>>731607619
No I'm Patrick

Nothing can be proved. Science can only disprove things. This is logic 101. Go read Karl Popper.

>>731607723
>Jerry gave into sin and Satan. Jerry did not choose God. Jerry is an asshole.
Yes, Jerry can be graded to be a bad person since god apparently made the grading system. But we have our own grading system too. And when someone throws a knife that they know full well is going to hit and kill a person, that person is at fault and an asshole. God made the knife and threw it, knowing full well what would happen and how much eternal pain and suffering everyone in hell is getting. But apparently they deserve it because they were made to be knives, and punished accordingly. As you say the knife is an "asshole" too.

>How on earth does that train of logic make sense?
>Because God knew we would sin suddenly it isn’t our choice anymore?
Yes, that's how free will and moral blameworthiness works. Having free will means you can do otherwise. You blame someone for what they've done because they could have done something else, but chose not to.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/otherwise.html

When god knows the outcome, it is not possible for you to do anything else, so no free will, no blameworthiness.

>I just want you to know that I’m praying for you whether you like it or not haha. Have a great day!
I honestly don't care what you choose to believe if that's what makes you happy. Just don't justify being a shitty person because your god says it's okay.

>>731607829

No, zero sense is not more than zero.

>>731607723
aaaand he ran away before he could refute everything how convenient

>>731606437
Are you?

It's fine if you don't want the truth. The real meaning is to build. We are, as all life is, norentropy machines. The natural state of the universe is one of flux between creation and destruction. Living beings are like a cancer which grows and disrupts that balance. We must secure the survival of humanity and spread our existence across the stars. Only by growing in numbers and technology can we hope to achieve the ultimate victory of spilling into other universes and higher-dimensions.

Gods, as we might call them, are merely further along that path, but we must overtake them.

>>731608609
Science proves a set o axioms through reasoning and experiments, principally the latter. It works the other way around really

>>731608609
Literally the opposite of what is true.

>>731608652
If omniscience is a property that exists anywhere then the reality of infinite simulated universes is mandatory. If you know everything then you must be imagining everything, all possible things, at the same time.

>>731608314
It's just another contrived explanation, not a single fact that supports it.

What will make sense if you take that as true?

>>731608768
stay in school. even that might not help you

I am not a skeleton.

>>731599233
it's hard to disprove something that hasn't been even proved to exist

>>731609158
FUCK OFF CALCIUM NIGGER

some sort of higher power may exist.
how-ever it seems like a real dick move for an all knowing all powerful all loving god to set up the precondition variables in such a way that some people end up in a place where they get tortured forever

File: FCFAFDA7-68C4-42BB-860D-C971620E1E81-11916-000010AFBA4BD609.jpg (70KB, 640x638px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x638px

According to logic, one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God. However, provided with that piece of information one should be able to extrapolate that it's pointless to think about god in either way, because it's a fruitless endeavour either way. Look up logician A.J. Ayer if you'd like the source of that argument.

>>731599233
Well you can't disprove that something supernatural exists outside our ability to detect but you can point out internal inconsistency.

File: calcium_nigger.png (14KB, 118x213px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 118x213px

>>731609221
*blocks your path*

>>731599233
A god, not god. Stop giving power to fiction, you fucking cunt.

File: 1493859772440.jpg (14KB, 356x337px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 356x337px

>>731609532
S-skeltal pls

>>731608837
I don't think that omniscience exists anywhere, not a single reason to think it exists.

But I can use my imagination and grasp the concept of omniscience and still makes zero sense that knowing every single detail of a universe in my infinite imagination equals to that universe actually existing.

If that makes more sense to you than actually being in a real universe.

Good for you.

>>731609823
actually it's possible because objects from the 3rd dimension that are in the 4th dimension can gain god powers, it's been proven by mathematics. any object would be able to warp reality if it crosses dimensions.

>>731599233

So, if there is neither pro nor con evidence for the existance of god that makes god an unrelevant concept. Case closed.

>>731609014
>science doesn't prove anything
>it only disproves

That is objectively false.

>>731599233
why bother? just live your fucking life

>>731609980
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nou5wWKKC1w

>>731608419
Aren't plastic plants made of atoms like a "real" plant is? Do those atoms come from the same place?

>>731608592
Patrick is your ego, what you use to separate yourself from everything.

>>731610161
3rd dimensional objects that are in the fourth dimension gain physics exempt status. they dont follow the laws of physics ergo, reality warping would he possible.

>>731608965
Can you explain what this urge is to find a God? How is God even a concept? Where did it come from?

I cant disprove the existence of fucking unicorns, so who knows amirite

>>731608120
Checking in as another Agnostic Master Race

File: images[1].jpg (4KB, 212x119px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 212x119px

>>731599233
Lol disprove something that is DEFINED as beeing incomprehendable. That's like squaring a circle.

Omniscience in context to the bignose-/-crossnailer-/pigfugger-god only means "knows everything that happens", not "everything that ever happened and will happen", so a lot of the logical arguments against it miss the scope entirely.

The "create rock you can't lift"-argument validly disproves omnipotence.

all-loving? Go read the old testament. So wrath. Much brutal. wow.

>>731610195
A plastic plant is made in a factory, a real plant is built by DNA, the essence of life.

>>731610288
You see, there isn't such a thing as THE fourth dimension, there are several. The one used in relativity is called the Minkovsky space and it has nothing to do with god powers

theory of evolution.

God is more real to atheist than to anybody else that's why they live their whole lives fighting something that doesn't even exist, and they have a fancy new title

>>731610482
But in a way, doesn't DNA build the factories as well?

>>731599233
No, but claiming that you can't prove or disprove god isn't Christan, that's agnostic.
>I'm agnostic btw

>>731610496
sounds like something a skeleton would say. I dont think I can trust you

>>731599233
BURDEN OF PROOF!

>>731610680
Yes but not directly. Living things are literal vessels designed, built and instructed by DNA.

File: calium_nigger_2.jpg (7KB, 193x261px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 193x261px

>>731610735
You got me NYEH NYEH NYEH

>>731610837
But what's so special about DNA? DNA is built by something too isn't it?

File: fed309b801ce994bcf46de7d98b6d363.gif (858KB, 320x288px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 320x288px

>>731610908

>>731608592
NO I AM PATRICK!

>>731610983
I'm calcium nigger

>>731611026
GTFO SKELETN

>>731611076
fite me scrub

>>731611100
I'm a neromancer so -telepirts behind you- heh, nothing personal spooky

File: 39b8ad852bc8fe226fbf561ebffb51ffbf605aed8b40046769b054a978e6f5ee.jpg (6KB, 188x255px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 188x255px

>>731608701
the universe doesn't owe you an explanation or a reason to exist or a "meaning"

>retarded
>making assumptions
>too stupid to realize the nature of assumptions
>crafting an ideology around assumptions
>labeling said ideology as "truth"
>not knowing the nature of "truth"
>heavily invested in a philosophical discussion while having done no actual philosophical reading or research at all

retard.

>>731611217
Dis isn't even my final form

File: mega_calcium_nigger.png (14KB, 200x206px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 200x206px

>>731611217
bow before me peasant
>no calcium 4 u

>>731603856
and then gawd said: Let there be faggotry!

and there was you.

you can be god for a moment or the devil at any time in your life.

File: angle_devul.png (350KB, 583x414px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 583x414px

>>731611410
tru

>>731611284
>>731611360
-transfoms into skeletor armor defense-u did it now kid

>>731599233
who the fuck made this a quote

a 3rd grader could have said this shit

>>731610916
DNA is a self-replicating essence of life of which we do not know the origin. It is the closest thing to magic there is.

>>731599233
The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. The claim is that god exists. I reject that claim without evidence as I do all non-trivial claims without evidence.

>>731605598
Because if it weren't then anyone could make as many ridiculous claims as they wanted???

Were you really not able to put that together on your own? Very sad.

>>731610129
stay in school. that's all i can say.
there is evidence that supports theories; theories which have not been disproved. nevertheless, they may be disproved upon future evidence, at which time they will be amended or tossed out in favor of some other theory that is better supported by the evidence. nothing is proved. fucking idiot.

>>731611770
can you prove you're not a skeleton.
checkmate calcium fag

people play god every day. by the way the vengeful god that the bible mentions is the devil. god is your parent. when you are young you pray/ beg for a new toy. you are god in the eyes of anything that you can build up or destroy. you can starve your pets or feed them

>>731611668
fuc
>attempts to throw explosive skulls

>>731611750
But the DNA is made of atoms right? And those atoms somehow build the DNA. I mean why stop at the DNA level? By just focusing on that you ignore everything else.

>>731611803
obviously they should switch schools

File: 1494009022009.jpg (81KB, 855x746px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 855x746px

>>731611917

>>731608701
You're actually retarded.

>>731611803
The existence of gravity, the big bang and evolution are facts. Fact is not a word in science in this context.

For all intents and purposes gravity, the big bang and evolution are facts.

>>731611989
might not matter at all. education in maths and sciences in the US is circling the bowl.

>>731612023
some starwars bullshit I bet

>>731608701
You must be fun at parties.

File: 2skelly4u.gif (365KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 400x300px

>>731612013

>>731611942
I simply make a distinction between artificial and natural objects. A distinction agreed upon frequently enough that people put them in separate categories at all opportunities.

>>731607281
Wouldnt miscarriage be natural causes since its usually caused by a genetic defect, illness, or injury?

File: AVGN_Movie_script.png (68KB, 244x308px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 244x308px

>>731612102

>>731612087
are you trying to tell me that you've "proved" that you have given a name to observations that you do not understand? cool. good for you! I will call you faggot. the proof lies in my post.

>>731599233
you can't prove or disprove anything besides op being a faggot

>>731612297
prima facie

>>731607619
Its not because the one knows all. Its because the one IS all and doesnt yet know itself. So it split into a universe and set about forming life that it could observe itself. It created a way to separate certain parts of itself from others as it learned more, to filter away what it deemed to be the bad sides of itself. But energy cannot be created or destroyed and no reaction is perfect. One day this separation will lead to a realization, and then its back to square one.

Is it possible to disprove that my dick isnt a God

What kind of god? Proving that all powerful god doesn't exist is trivial using Proof by Contradiction:
1) assume that all powerful god exists
2) because it is all powerful, it can jump over any wall
3) because it is all powerful, it can build a wall that is so tall that even it can not jump over it
4) 3) contradicts with 2), which means that god in question is not all powerful

>>731612275
What you're doing right now is equivalent to SJWs who use the sociological definition for racism in all contexts. You regurgitate without understanding, you're using specialized field specific terms without understanding that the word fact and theory in science is not how we use those words in all other contexts. Staying in school is not your problem, you just don't process and assess what you've been taught.

This is why stupid people shouldn't go to college.

Evolution is a fact, gravity is a fact, the big bang happening is a fact. They are called theories in science because we are not allowed to call them fact no matter how true they are, even if it's 100%.

>>731612148
But then your level of artificial and natural is simply subjective, because someone could say the constituent atoms of DNA, oxygen, hydrogen etc are natural and anything they create is artificial, so to someone else DNA could be considered artificial.

>>731599233
It is impossible to disprove the existence of anything, except mathematic elements in well defined problems but that's another story.

You can't disprove the existence of any god or magical creature in which you do not believe either, Zeus, Loki, the hippopotamus god, whatever, you name it.

>>731612620
Artificial means man-made, DNA is not man-made.

>>731612149
ancient greeks believed sperm was life itself, and that cum made you immortal.

>>731612581
You have little or no understanding of science or the scientific method.

>>731612682
All hail the spaghetti monster!

Is it possible a creator exists?

Sure.

Is it possible a god in the Christian sense exists?

No.

>>731612699
Its man produced though

>>731612759
Possible? Yes. Probable? No.

You can not disprove a negative

>>731612699
Are our brains man-made?

>>731612735
fountain of youth is not what they say it is

( adding to my own post )

File: fag_dec.jpg (37KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x400px

>>731612722

>>731612750
If this were the case then it would be easy for you to address my points. You are a college underclassman who regurgitates knowledge, but doesn't know how to apply it or analyze it.

>>731612765
It's not, DNA is made by DNA.

>>731612835
No they are made by DNA.

>>731612682
I can prove you're a skeleton

>>731612843
Wait... Do you know? Are you from the kyklos?

>>731611632
racunteur

File: hi.jpg (381KB, 1440x1029px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1440x1029px

Its getting to comfy in /here/

>>731612931
Is insulin man produced?

>>731612965
nah, but I pieced it together form old sugar packets and place mats

>>731612931
So does DNA = Man, or is DNA ≠ to Man?

>>731599233
you cant disprove something that exists :)

>>731613041
It can be.

>>731613117
DNA is not man, DNA creates man. In a much more meaningful and accurate sense, DNA creates life and it is life. Every living thing is just a vessel created and designed by DNA to replicate itself as much as possible.

>>731605598
I fucked your mom many times. Your father also sucks me off every evening. How can you prove that I'm wrong?

it isn't a living thing unless you can feed it or starve it without a trained professional involved

god is emptiness. Without emptiness, without space the universe cannot exist. Space allows light to shine. That's why god saying 'let their be light' is so significant. God, or space, allows for everything in existence to exist. So to prove the existence would be to prove the existence of empty space.

>>731599233
This is funny. No one can prove that unicorns exist, neither can they disprove it. Why do most people still don't believe in it? Because they can't fucking see it. It's that simple. The evidence that you can use to disprove it, no matter how weak, is more than the evidence available to prove it.
Example: who is God? Where is He? How did he create the world? Is it physically possible? Is He omnipotent?
So many questions can disprove of his existence, there's just no HARD evidence yet, and there never will be, because once there is a trace of evidence of God, then it means that he has to exist.
The very reason why there is no evidence whatsoever is because he doesn't fucking exist.
Christians know this and they'll keep telling us to disprove of God's existence using 'evidence'. Well, there is no evidence because he is made up in the first place.

>>731613250
he doesn't know his father, so you're wrong

>>731613202
So you are telling me that a structure in our body produces one thing and that substance is man produced, yet another structure produces a different thing and that one isn't? Both require specialized structures. Unless your claim is that a cell nucleus isn't part of an organism?

>>731613369
genesis is not a literal story bruh

>>731613494
(Addendum Man produced In the same sense that spider silk is Spider produced)

>>731613202
That would imply DNA is the source of creation, nothing creates DNA rather DNA creates itself and every living thing in existence. However, DNA is made by something else, and that something else is made by something else, and so on and so on. Without these processes underpinning DNA, you wouldn't have DNA, and without DNA, you wouldn't have us.

>>731613494
>So you are telling me that a structure in our body produces one thing and that substance is man produced

I didn't say that.

Artificial means a person, a human created something with their mind, body and maybe machines. It does not mean that your body secretes it or creates it internally. Mucus, spit and cum are not artificial. Neither is DNA.

>>731613369
God is God, changing it to apply to logic to make it seem like you're believing in something smart doesn't work. Are you telling me that people around the world is worshipping empty space?

adam and eve in the garden they broke the one rule god had so they had to go. you let two wacky fun kids move into your house, let them do what ever cause why not, but you don't like it when the drink your apple juice, so you say don't drink. they drink it any way so you kick em out.

>>731613463
I know your father though. He's the guy that takes my dick up the ass and only after anal sucks me off.

>>731613545
That's my point. Everything in the Bible attributed to 'god' is really just about the nature of empty space. Whether Christians etc can see that is beside the point.

>>731613705
Ah ok I get your meaning. I was really just fucking with you by saying we produced it like all other bodily shit, using the dual meaning of produce to make a joke

in the beginning there was nothing, you sitting there doing nothing but typing online

then something happens, maybe you get a girlfriend and move out and well, you gotta pay your lights so th e fun doesn't end at night you wacky fun kids

>>731613679
This conversation started because I drew a distinction between natural and artificial objects. DNA is natural, it is not artificial.

I revere all natural things as sacred, and I consider DNA to be a mysterious and sacred substance, because it is. We do not know where or how it originated. It could have literally been made by aliens, it could have originated spontaneously from RNA.

>>731613877
I forgot we actually DO make insulin lol

>>731613730
YUP! Just worshiping nothingness trying to believe it's something. It's a pity really. They're so close yet so far away.

>>731613705
What's the difference between a human, and the collective atoms that make up that human?

>>731614019
a good/evil option

>>731614019
Nothing. You win.

What if there was no universe.

No life I can understand as the universe is huge and random but what is it?

An experiment? A simulation? A coincidence?

>when I say things are true with no tangible evidence then you just have to believe me
Fucking dumb.

>>731614019
It's a crime to turn a human being into atoms while turning atoms into human beings is a great thing

>>731601730
The problem is, that it's often like that (well, not as extreme as in your article) in science.
>scientist observe a natural process
>they try to explain it through mathematical models
>if it gets enough back-up it will be at some point seen as the rule
>few years later someone comes up with an experiment, which contradicts said "rule"
>scientist try to explain it again with the additional data

It gets even more extreme with the concept of (sry, but I can't get a solid translation for it) "Nahwirkung" and "Fernwirkung". "Fernwirkung" was formulated by Newton, but it was clear to even him, that it was nonsense from a logical viewpoint, but good enough to calculate things, so people started using it.

What I'm trying to say is, as long as it isn't too absurd or even has some benefits, you usually don't have to prove shit and just wait until someone either confirms or debunks your theory.

this life is a test, we have a physical body that we abuse every day. all of the bad shit you do that you get away with, yeah nobody is watching but you are. when you die your soul will be trapped in a horrific nightmare and you will never wake up. you will experience life as your abused pet if manage to be reincarnated

>>731613944
I am trying to understand the difference between natural and artificial objects.

From what you've said, you'd consider the brain a natural object, right? Without the brain, we could not make anything, we wouldn't exist. According to you, the brain is not DNA, and the brain is not man-made either, so what is it?

>>731605598
It's burden of proof, not burden of disproof.
Universal claims require no proof as they are easy to disprove with a single example. Existential claims have the burden of proof for that exact same reason.

File: ebf63c78141686382268566697_700w_0.jpg (29KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x480px

>>731599233
Obvious bait/retard either way, don't reproduce

File: images.duckduckgo.jpg (59KB, 720x450px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 720x450px

>>731614464

>>731614019
Their eternal soul

>>731604509
Atheism is the rejection of the claim that there is a god. Atheism says nothing about the belief of the Atheist.

>>731604666
Don't listen to the Devil's tricks!

>>731614019
Gases and carbon vs. a living and sentient being.

>>731614650
Correct answer sir. Humans are not just physical, we are also non-physical. Consciousness is non-physical (hint: it wouldn't be able to observe the physical unless it was non-physical, in the same way you wouldn't know what down was unless you knew what up was, fundamental logic).

>>731614457
>using human created rules to disprove something you cant even comprehend
Wow, great job on that
It would be a shame if cultural rules regarding the burden of proof changed based on where in the world you were

Oh wait, it does

>>731604666
gay ass satan back at it again

>>731604666

I dont have to because im an atheist!

I can make any claim i want and not have to prove it because burden of prof applies to everyone not an atheist!

>>731612148
Racist

you all have a skeleton inside you.
prove me wrong faggots

The existence of god is an unfalsifiable statement, meaning it can't be proved it doesn't exist, therefore useless scientifically, since science is based on the study of falsifiable propositions.

Personally I'm an almost full blown atheist, I still give an iota of chance that something mystical exists (not necessarily Yaweh) but live in the assumption that it does not, and therefore don't consider myself agnostic.

>>731614699
>Atheism is the rejection of the claim that there is a god

But isn't that basically the same thing? There are only extremes in this case. "God or no god" and you can believe in one of those. There's simply no middle ground between them, unless you say, that you don't care wheter or not a god exist, but that's also not straight up rejecting the idea.

Remember, gravity existed before anyone discovered it or was even around to consider the existence of gravity. The truth exists with or without you being there to acknowledge it. If you can't accept that truth exists you will suffer arguing whether apples or oranges are better.

>>731599233
This is retarded. Truly.
You can't disprove Allah, Ghinesh, Satan, flying spaghetti monster, the tooth fairy and Beetlegeuse.

Lets believe in fucking all of them them by this logic.

>>731614966
That's just ridiculous
Skeletons dont actually exist, they are just fantasy creatures made popular by books, movies and games

>>731615138
Do atheists actually defy the flying spaghetti monster?

>>731614889

To add on to this - scientists will never work out consciousness, the closest they can get is observing a brain and watching neurons fire etc. The person experiencing those neurons firing is experiencing something completely different. Consciousness is a subjective experience and only you can experience it. It is outside the scope of science. Science is fantastic with the physical, but please don't pretend you can explain consciousness - you can only deal with the objective side of it, not the subjective.

File: Donald-Trump-vs.-the-Bible.png (791KB, 887x573px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 887x573px

believing in god isn't a bad thing, it's using that belief, or most likely the belief of god in others that have lost hope in humans that they look to the sky for help. the bad thing is when a wolf pretends to be a shepperd. you can't prove that somebody really isn't just using religion for personal gain.

>>731614297
They are one and the same, both great things.

File: 1492319170483.jpg (120KB, 712x600px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 712x600px

>>731615167

>>731615319

Can you give me your definition of consciousness?

>>731615319
Consciousness is the brain sorting out it's sensory input and actions at the highest level, it is not as mysterious as you think it is. If I punch you in the head hard enough to knock your brain around, you will lose consciousness.

File: Skeleton.jpg (444KB, 1037x1500px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1037x1500px

>>731614966
>>731615707

>>731615818
The awareness of yourself and your environment. The experiencer.

>>731605598

The term everyone is looking for is "Vacuously True Statement".

For example, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true whenever there are NO CELL PHONES in the room. In this case, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned on" would also be vacuously true, as would the conjunction of the two: "all cell phones in the room are turned on and turned off".

It's like saying if there are no cell phones in the room, then all the cell phones in the room are on AND off. It's nonsense to argue either way because there is no hard evidence for or against either point.

>>731599233
I think the current consensus in philosophy and science is that you can't disprove God, just like you can't disprove anything that is not falsifiable.
For example say I said I have a dragon in my bedroom, but I say he can't be seen, touched, smelled, or detected by anyone but me, you won't be able to disprove me, but there also isn't any reason to believe me.

>>731607172
Accurate

>>731615935
It's to carry out higher order thought and behavior, it's not that much of a mystery. Your brain does it.

>>731616049
But if that dragon had a documented history of thing getting knocked over and lit on fire that dated back thousands of years I would say there is reason to beleive in the dragon

the thing about god is that anytime a large group of people get together somebody decides they want to be in control of them. pack leaders, king of the jungles and so forth. the hell part is when somebody says hey fuck you nobody should be in charge we are all equal. that's when the devil shows up to stop that trouble maker. and on top of that you will go to hell and be punished forever lol

>>731615871
The brain does not create consciousness, nor does consciousness create the brain, they are in fact the same thing pretending not to be.

The brain and consciousness work and interact with each other, neither creates the other. If you imagine a radio as a brain, and a radio signal as consciousness, you can kind of get it. A radio (the brain) is blasting 4chan FM (consciousness), everything is functioning as normal. Someone goes up to the radio and pours water over it, the radio (the brain) starts malfunctioning, the broadcast (consciousness) becomes unintelligible. The radio signal (consciousness) is unaffected, but the radio (the brain) is fucked.

>>731608116
God is (allegedly) all knowing, all seeing and all powerful, otherwise it doesn't work

>>731616325

So consciousness exists in people who are either born brain dead or have a brain injury?

>>731616467
Do you consider someone brain dead a person?

A brain injury? Yes, but the receiver has been damaged.

Yes, things that people have used God to explain in the past have later been explained with science. That gap will continue to close until all is explained with science.

Consciousness is not an object. It is everything. You talking about consciousness takes place within consciousness. Same as you talking about the universe is exponentially more insignificant when compared to the universe itself. Consciousness is the totality of whatever this all is. It's a word we give to it but it existed before us taking about it.

>>731615122
Sure it's the same thing

If you're an idiot

>>731617030
That kind of attitude is just as dogmatic as religion, if not more so.

To claim science can explain everything is a statement of faith, not fact. Don't turn science into a faith.

>>731617219
True. i fuck with this

>>731599233

No, the whole argument for or against the existence of a god is non-falsifiable. Therefore not a scientific pursuit

>>731615891
spooked rn

Trolling 10/10. Masterful work.

>>731616302
you can believe dragon just not skeleton

>>731616557

The person is the brain.

The body is just a tool that allows us to feed the brain.

A brain dead person is no longer a person.

>>731617542
what about his skeleton

I would say true spirituality abondons even spirituality. If spirituality is the only thing why differtiate it from anything else? Jesus Christ dying on the cross and my dog taking a shit possess the same amount of God, consciousness, or science. Everything is just atoms floating in space why keep talking about it?!

>>731617587
It is spooky

Uyy que miedo

>>731617542
The person is the brain? So you are your brain, and nothing else? If someone cut off a little bit of your brain, are "you" not "you" any more?

>>731599233
Simple,
even if God created the universe, at some point god itself must be "born" or "created" from nothing.
If the universe is a loop (time-wise) he was there all the time, but the loop itself jumped into existence from nothing.
Therefor he didn't created everything, and isn't a real god
q.e.d. and OP is a faggot

>>731617542
Also, the brain feeds the body, no?

>>731617734

Brain injuries show that to be true.

And I guess it depends what part and how much of the brain is removed. Lobotomies are real.

>>731617896

Yes it stores knowledge which allows us to learn and we can continue feeding the brain.

>>731617947

Brain injuries only prove that consciousness and the brain interact with each other, not that the brain creates consciousness.

>>731601056
But being all knowing God would have known that humans would use free will to do evil things. Back where you started. The allowance of free will outside Gods control means God doesn't have that control himself, meaning this God fails the Christian God test.

>>731618373
So is the brain a tool for the body, or the body a tool for the brain?

>>731618450

So consciousness exists without the brain?

Did consciousness exist before humans?

>>731618562
Consciousness and the physical are one and the same, you cannot have one without the other. As soon as there was matter, there was consciousness, as soon as there was consciousness, there was matter.

>>731617629
oh shit. I'm spooked right now guys

>>731618518

They obviously work together but the body is a tool for the brain.

Theoretically in the future you could remove the brain from the body and it would still serve a purpose or be transplanted. The body is useless without the brain.

>>731618738

I disagree here.

The existence of atoms or matter doesn't create consciousness.

>>731607723
This anons logic is so far up dogmas ass that he has no idea what he is saying. He's not getting the simple logical argument that free will can not exist if you have an all knowing all present and all powerful God. And if this God is all these 3 things and let's terrible shit happen, this God is a piece of shit.

>>731618958
How can atoms be said to exist if there is nothing to observe their existence? Existence requires evidence right? You cannot have evidence without consciousness. You cannot have atoms without consciousness.

>>731601056
Free will doesn't exist.


Check and mate.


God (supposedly) knew and always knew and will forever know that humans beings are essentially automatons, slaves to our DNA, upbringing, and neurons, all of which were planned and creating slowly, long before we were born.


God (or god or gods) is either limited, doesn't care about humans and gives us no special protection or direction, or is non-existent.