Thread replies: 81
Thread images: 17
Thread images: 17
File: lead_960.jpg (244KB, 960x803px) Image search:
[Google]
244KB, 960x803px
PROTIP: The argument "there is no god" is also a positive claim. Let me explain.
First let's start with the question - what does "there is no god" actually mean? Well, from a very superficial level it means where some higher being exists or not, all other attributes to this god notwithstanding. The phrase "there is no god or gods" could just as easily refer to a conception of gods such as those in Buddhism, who are more sublime and long-lived beings than humans, but still ultimately mortal and don't control any sort of force in the universe. HOWEVER, in our current, monotheistic, created-universe understanding of "gods", when the term is used it is almost always referring to an omnipotent creator god; the *source of all existence.*
So what does this mean then? Well, it means that the question of whether god exists or not is better represented as why is there even existence in the first place. Most reasoned arguments theists use for the existence of a god don't argue about the superficial attributes of this god - they argue that god can be concluded by looking at the mechanisms of nature (i.e. existence) and extrapolating a source of being from that. Hence, the very premise of both theists and atheists arguments about the existence god isn't about god at all - it's about the fact that stuff already exists.
Where am I going with this? Well, since we know now that both sides now have the same starting premise ("stuff exists"), then we can see that BOTH of their conclusions about this existence inherently has to be positive, since by cold, intellectual cognition alone, there's no reason for there to be existence in the first place. The conclusions from theists thus becomes "there is existence, because God made it" (positive claim) and the conclusion from atheists thus becomes "there is existence, but it came about by random chance" (positive claim.)
>>
>>1254210
God exists
>>
Leprechauns don't exist.
>>
>>1254210
Further, in order for the statement "there is no God" to be comprehensible, the person must have infinite knowledge of everything; he must have scoured the entire multiverse on every possible level that God might be, in order to declare "there is no God".
And then I would have a person with infinite knowledge telling me that there does not exist a person with infinite knowledge.
There are no atheists. There are only shitty little demigods running around ruining everything for everybody.
>>
>>1254288
You're right, because the existence of leprechauns or not has no bearing on the existence of the universe.
>>
>>1254303
how do you know leprechauns don't sustain the universe
>>
>>1254303
>the existence of leprechauns or not has no bearing on the existence of the universe
That's a pretty strong assertion.
>>
>>1254306
If that was your argument that they did, then I could just say that leprechauns are essentially our understanding of "god", and hence all the same logic applies.
>>
File: 1453852808614.jpg (83KB, 500x500px) Image search:
[Google]
83KB, 500x500px
>>1254210
The fundamental question is "can something come from nothing?" We don't really know what "nothing" is. Theoretically, a philosophical nothing absolutely become something, because as a pure no-thing there would be no laws keeping the ting, or the lack of "things", to spontaneously spew out things proper. It's a fascinating idea really. Think about taking all material laws away. No morals, no time, no age, no entropy, no thermodynamics. Only an infinite (or maybe un-finite) void of absolute, perfect, non-being. Who the fuck would stop it from doing anything it wanted, or not wanted? The perfect, inviolable, blind, howling "nothing" is a much more petrifying concept than a bearded Jew in the sky telling you not to whack off imho.
We have never observed this philosophical nothing however, so put your theological questions on hold for a while.
>>
>>1254363
>reddit frog
Go shitpost somewhere else
>>
File: 1452227819053.png (38KB, 1506x2486px) Image search:
[Google]
38KB, 1506x2486px
>>1254373
Not an argument
>>
>>1254373
Since when has Pepe been a reddit thing? We MADE him who he is today.
>>
>>1254363
>Only an infinite (or maybe un-finite) void of absolute, perfect, non-being. Who the fuck would stop it from doing anything it wanted, or not wanted? The perfect, inviolable, blind, howling "nothing" is a much more petrifying concept than a bearded Jew in the sky telling you not to whack off imho.
That's pretty fucking gnarly tbqh famalam
>>
Atheists just argue that they have seen no god.
You can turn it into a positive claim, as you have, but it's not a positive claim by default.
Someone can passively lack belief in god. Someone cannot passively possess belief in god.
>>
>>1254299
>Further, in order for the statement "there is no God" to be comprehensible, the person must have infinite knowledge of everything; he must have scoured the entire multiverse on every possible level that God might be, in order to declare "there is no God".
but what do you mean by this? Which levels might God be on? What is a "level" of the "multiverse"?
>>
>>1254303
Neither do any other powerful utterly hypothetical things.
>>
>>1254440
Why couldn't they?
>>
File: einsof-1.gif (7KB, 382x305px) Image search:
[Google]
7KB, 382x305px
>>1254411
In fairness, that's also the gist of hxc Judaism in reverse. They worship the endless thing-ness (ein sof) of YHWH that restricted itself with layers of nothing to emanate the universe we understand via the sephirot, descending in a beam from Keter to Malkuth and shattering in the exertion. It's the job of the Chosen people, through piety and adherence to their scriptures, to put the shards of god's body back together in a kind of spiritual necromancy.
The rebuilt God-cadaver is the World To Come.
>>
Im waiting for a single actual response to OP that isn't semantics.
You can't prove god exists
You can't prove "the nothing" exists
>>
>>1254445
Their are an infinite number of things that COULD have something to do with the reason the universe exists. Those infinite things don't necessarily deserve respectful consideration without reason.
>>
>>1254481
*there
>>
File: 1461755076843.jpg (277KB, 1024x807px) Image search:
[Google]
277KB, 1024x807px
>>1254282
He's arguing in your favor, quickdraw Christkin.
he means positive in the sense that a claim is being made, not that the claim is true.
This is an old nuance from when Atheists and Theists come to fisticuffs over what is called "burden of proof," that is, when Theists are said to have the burden of proof because "god exists is an initial positive claim," and that the counterclaim is only a consequence of the claim, and that the Atheists has no burden of proof and can't be proven anyway until the Theists is disproven, which according to the attributes they typically assign God, can't be done.
>>
>>1254393
If you love him let him go.
>>
>>1254473
>You can't prove "the nothing" exists
What is the nothing?
So since we can't prove either god or 'nothingness' exists, we should believe in the existence of neither. Without a belief in god, we would be atheists.
>>
>>1254473
I think maybe you don't know what "semantics" means?
>>
>>1254434
Exactly. One would have to have infinite knowledge to know all of those things.
>>
File: Zenith Bend.jpg (55KB, 375x523px) Image search:
[Google]
55KB, 375x523px
Why there is a need to explain existence by shit like God, but if you ask why God exist then your answer would be on par with I dunno lol. Wouldn't it be more logical just say that existence exist so no more bullshit explanation necessary? Religion literally does the same shit for GOD. Same could be done for initial question and it would be logical solution.
>>
File: kekspin.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 500x500px
>>1254500
We already have, and he came back as the White Supremacist Frog(tm). Pepe has been well re-appropriated.
>>
Theological arguments that reduce "god" to "whatever is the reason stuff exists" are self-defeating.
>>
>>1254363
No, that isn't the question because a deity needs as much explaining as the universe itself.
>>
>>1254525
If something can come from nothing, you don't need a deity to explain the existence of things. If nothing can come from nothing, we wouldn't be here having this conversation, so either something can indeed come from nothing or there has never been "nothing" and the universe in some form or another has always existed.
>>
>>1254509
You become a true neutral agnostic atheist, which is the only logical position.
Atheism unfortunately spans the spectrum of a logical belief to an illogical belief.
>>
>>1254299
I actually agree but the same would be right for an reverse situation. You can't claim that there is God because you literally need an infinite knowledge to understand that claim. So there is no theists also. You doesn't believe in a God. You believe in shitty emanation of him at best.
>>
>>1254539
Yes, true neutral agnostic atheist is the default atheist. The term atheist implies true neutral agnostic.
>>
File: Erina and Ribbon.png (1013KB, 1287x718px) Image search:
[Google]
1013KB, 1287x718px
>>1254299
>Further, in order for the statement "my Waifu doesn't exist" to be comprehensible, the person must have infinite knowledge of everything; he must have scoured the entire multiverse on every possible level that hi Waifu might be, in order to declare "my Waifu doesn't exist"".
>And then I would have a person with infinite knowledge telling me that there does not exist a person with infinite knowledge.
>>
>>1254515
I'm asking what you mean by the words you're using. In what way does the "multiverse" have "levels"? What is a "level" in this sense?
>>
>>1254548
"There is no God" cannot reveal itself to us.
"God" can, and did.
So while our understanding and comprehension of Him is limited, at best, He did make Himself known.
>>
>>1254587
>muh waifu is God
>>
File: pocky lips.jpg (629KB, 2290x1200px) Image search:
[Google]
629KB, 2290x1200px
>>1254210
I've always thought something similar to you OP, but in order for me to explain it, first consider the "God of the gaps" principle Atheists often bring up.
The idea is that the domain of God is simply what is outside our current understanding. God starts off at the top of a mountain we can't scale. Then he lives in the sky, then he lives in space, then he lives in another dimension, then he lives outside of existence itself.
That's stretching things, but the idea is that God's domain of existence becomes more abstract and immaterial the better our science and technology get. We understand the mechanisms of nature, and so no longer attribute them to divine intervention.
With this comes my idea: God's domain, approaches nothingness as our understanding approaches infinity, much like the range and domain of some algebraic functions...
Even today I hear commonly espoused the argument that God exists outside of space and time, and is immaterial. All that is left for God is consciousness. If that element is disproved or removed, God will literally be nothing.,. the Atheists will have won...
AND YET!!!!
Nothingness is infinite potential, and the basis for all existence in the same way that a canvas is the basis of all paintings or the block of stone is the basis of all sculptures.
Abstract nothingness always serves as a container and means of existence for somethingness, in all realms of existence, and in this way the container is just as important as the contained.
In this way, we can say that God, even conceived atheistically as nonexistence, is still the creator of everything.
Both Atheists and Theists are correct, in their own way.
>>
>>1254587
Are you implying that my waifu doesn't exist? Laughing_Possible_Girls.pdf.webm
>>
>>1254588
The statement was designed to appeal both to people who didn't care, to people who know there is another heaven where God and the angels live, and to scientific types who postulate that there is indeed a multiverse.
In order to say definitively that there is no God, that search must be exhaustive, and conclusive.
Most people have never left the planet.
Few have wandered into the third heaven.
>>
>>1254596
>"God" can, and did.
Just not to most people. I would tend to believe everyone who says god speaks to them.
It's just that god couldn't keep their story straight when talking to different people.
Our understanding of the being, if it exists, is not just limited at best, it consists of contradictory information, and no way to determine which of the contradictions is accurate.
>>
>>1254612
the question isn't that difficult. Just answer me--what do you mean by the word "level"?
>>
>>1254596
> "God" can, and did.
You need an infinite knowledge to be sure about that. Anyone can """reveal""""" himself to be some kind of """"""God"""""". Entire Jesus story and all biblical text could be fabrication of Satan and no human would ever disprove that, for example.
>>
>>1254623
Stick to the bible.
If you think there is a contradiction in the bible, study it until you understand there are no contradictions in the bible.
In fact, start with that mindset.
>>
>>1254639
The answer was not difficult either, and yet you managed to not understand it.
>>
>>1254642
No, you just need eyewitness accounts inspired by the Holy Spirit of God maintained in the only holy book on the planet.
Luckily we have one of those.
>>
File: Haruhism.png (804KB, 720x720px) Image search:
[Google]
804KB, 720x720px
>>1254600
> his waifu isn't God
What are you a cuck?
>>
>>1254282
Can you read?
>>
File: 1461763287208.jpg (656KB, 1024x1351px) Image search:
[Google]
656KB, 1024x1351px
>>1254612
Why assume?
Why start with an assumption?
None of us would have assumed this were it not for the claims and power plays of the various flavors of theism.
The Atheists is not obliged to search for what the Theist has put forward.
If I say unto you it is of utmost importance that thou seeketh our thine Flizziwig who made all universes and all Gods, and that if thou seeketh not the Flizziwig, thou will burn for all eternity, thou art not obliged to seek out the Flizziwig. Tis reasonable to stay put placed under such demands.
I have merely cast bait into an infinitely deep ocean in the hopes of getting some bites.
>>
>>1254647
I can't stick to just the bible.
There are people who believe god spoke to them and told them the truth was not to be found in the bible you speak of.
You'll have to tell me how to determine which of the people who claimed to speak to god were telling the truth, their accounts all contradict each other, before you even get to the ones that don't.
>>
File: WhenTheEarthWasWithoutFormAndVoid.jpg (508KB, 900x1156px) Image search:
[Google]
508KB, 900x1156px
>>1254363
>>1254606
Damn I wasn't aware someone made a similar post.
That's rad.
I'm glad people on this board are approaching the Zero.
>>
File: 250px-Azathoth.jpg (40KB, 250x338px) Image search:
[Google]
40KB, 250x338px
>>1254652
Holy Spirit of God is fabrication of Satan. The only holy book on the planet also fabricated by Satan's demonic power. Or maybe by some other powerful entity like Demiurge or Nyarlathotep and such.
Don't be a retard. Do you think that if God actually revealed himself there would be a some kind of the debate about him not being real?! Everything done by God is perfect. There wouldn't last even one bit of suspicion after real divine reveal.
This is pathetic how you could be tricked so easy by bunch of eyewitnesses and faulty words in the book without even a known author.
>>
File: Rangarahedron.png (353KB, 460x340px) Image search:
[Google]
353KB, 460x340px
>>1254606
Consider the following.
1. The principle of explosion is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.
2. Reductio ad absurdum is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.
To say that God doesn't exist is the same as to say that his existence is self-contradictory, but such statement means that everything possible from logical system that contains God. What it means is that atheistic and theistic claim is one and the same in nature.
>>
>>1254727
>To say that God doesn't exist is the same as to say that his existence is self-contradictory, but such statement means that everything possible from logical system that contains God. What it means is that atheistic and theistic claim is one and the same in nature.
But... they aren't.
The theist says 'I see god here', while the atheist says 'I don't see it'.
The theist even says 'I see the Christian god here', while the other theist says 'I don't see it'.
>>
>>1254657
Not sure why you think your made up shit on 4chan is on the same level as, well, anything else written on 4chan.
>>
>>1254658
A sincere grounding in the bible, and a conversion to being a born again Christian, will give you the discernment to know whether those people are full of shit or not.
Protip: They're mostly full of shit.
>>
>>1254744
There is no difference between being able to see or not to see a god.
>>
>>1254684
>How to end up in hell, the post.
>>
>>
File: IcthusDominus.png (4MB, 1920x1080px) Image search:
[Google]
4MB, 1920x1080px
>>1254744
But as the argument goes on the definition of God approaches nothingness, which is the basis and container for existence.
See >>1254606
As the argument reaches this climax, the certainty of both parties increases, along with the feeling that the other side is absolutely insane and missing something obvious. They argue until they are both right. They eliminate each other the same way higgs bosons do when they collide.
>>
>>1254763
> wanting to be cucked by Demiurge that much
>>
>>1254652
>We have a hulk logic
>>
>>1254772
By doing what I told you to do.
Obtain a firm grounding in the bible, reading and hearing and studying it; by being a born again Christian; by asking God for discernment.
>>
>>1254772
> Really?
What is difference? Do you really believe that atheist doesn't seen anyone but believer was like seen Jesus in the flesh if he says so?
>>
File: 1461755020224.jpg (765KB, 1247x796px) Image search:
[Google]
765KB, 1247x796px
>>1254755
K
I think I just realized why people respond with 'K'
The letter itself resembles a flat surface off of which something cast is being reflected back.
Do this with your post, please.
>>
>>1254784
People cannot see what their minds will not allow them to see.
>>
>>1254787
I didn't start with any assumption; your entire post was absolutely meaningless to me.
If you think a man alone on an island cannot figure out that God created the universe, and what that God must be like, you're a fool.
>>
>>1254790
They actually can. Read an experiment about phantom vision. Some blind people was able to see real object even if mind blocked their vision and even knowledge about not being actually blind. Really crazy stuff.
>>
>>1254783
>By doing what I told you to do.
>Obtain a firm grounding in the bible, reading and hearing and studying it; by being a born again Christian; by asking God for discernment.
You're telling me to believe in Christianity first?
>>1254784
So Jesus sometimes appears only to people who already believe in him, in front of people who don't?
>>1254790
So god keeps some people from believing in him?
>>
>>1254793
>I didn't start with any assumption; your entire post was absolutely meaningless to me.
That means you didn't get it. Read it again.
By start with an assumption, I mean start with the assumption that God exists, and that in order to disprove his existence, one must search the whole God damn universe.
As you said:
>In order to say definitively that there is no God, that search must be exhaustive, and conclusive.
If I say to you seek out the Fizziwig or bad things will happen, and if I say to you that you can't say the Fizziwig doesn't exist until you scour the whole universe, you would obviously think I'm crazy and can be disregarded.
So why do theists, who come forward with the initial claim God exists feel obliged to be taken seriously.
Because they place their claim outside of spacetime, the realm of comprehension, apprehension, and disagreement, and then use it continuously as as source of authority and dogma. It is a trick to subvert and control a population taken to its logical extreme, and was probably inevitable as a political consequence of early history.
But it shouldn't be taken any more seriously than the Fizziwig I made up just now.
>>
>>1254819
> in order to disprove his existence, one must search the whole God damn universe.
You can do that by pointing out contradiction like you can prove that there is no non-faggot op even without going to bed with everyone of them.
>>
>>1254800
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about natives in the West Indies not seeing the ships of the Spaniards, only their wakes.
>>
>>1254809
Yes.
Step 1: Become a born again Christian.
>>
>>1254809
>So god keeps some people from believing in him?
Not at all. Jesus talked to hundreds of thousands of people, and He is God. Not all of them believed. Some of them plotted to murder Him.
>>
File: EarlyMan.jpg (22KB, 360x242px) Image search:
[Google]
22KB, 360x242px
>>1254830
ayy u funny brus
>>
>>1254819
Step 1: Notice the universe.
>>
>>1254841
So the answer to my question of how to determine which is the true revelation from god, which is the true religion, I must start by becoming a Christian?
Even though most people who tell me they know the true religion say this is wrong?
How long should I remain a born again Christian without sensing god before I give up? Ten years?
>>1254845
>not all of them believed
And people who have never met him are expected to believe?
>>
>implying God isn't the fact of existence itself/whatever is responsible for that fact
>implying God is a phenomenon that can be empirically verified instead of the reason there even exist phenomena in the first place
>implying God is not the unmanifest that conditions and sustains Being without participating in it
"The Self is everywhere, yet nowhere"
>>
>>1254210
No amount of funny business stops me from rejecting your fallacious claims
>>
>>1255536
>fallacious
literally the most fedora word behind "idiotic"
Thread posts: 81
Thread images: 17
Thread images: 17