ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS BTFO HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER?

>what is testability

Oh so now suddenly religious people value logic, lel.

File: aquinas.jpg (15KB, 359x250px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 359x250px

>>1514627
>suddenly religious people value logic
>mfw

>>1514631
>inb4 someone posts that fucking ice/liquid/gas image again

>>1514617
what am i looking at here?

>>1514659
It's the formula that proves Jesus literally rose from the dead, and that he's truly present in the Eucharist

>>1514659
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

>>1514659
An obsolete version of the ontological argument.

>>1514617

you will never be able to prove wheter god exists or not.

prove me wrong

>>1514662
oh come on. the ontological argument is by far the worst "proof" for God

>>1514712
If God exists then there must be evidence for it.
There is no evidence that god exists.
Therefore god does not exist.

:^)

>>1514717
meant for>>1514665

>>1514724

how come you are that sure that we are capable to perceieve those proofs? we are talking about a galactic deity capable of everything, if he wants to hide himself he can. also it's impossible for us to understand how he "thinks".

>>1514740
In that case the entire question is ultimately irrelevant, there could be any number of unknowable deities hiding out somewhere that have no real contact with us. Better to waste your time with physical masturbation then the intellectual variety.

>>1514740
too late, already disproved, u mad, no use complaining now

>>1514753

>there could be any number of unknowable deities hiding out somewhere that have no real contact with us
that's right.

>Better to waste your time with physical masturbation then the intellectual variety.
why not both?

I can almost understand this, but what do the squares and the diamonds mean?

>>1514740
so why not assume that he doesn't? It seems the most logical thing to do given that if He is as you say then there can be no sound evidence either for or against him

>>1514724
One of science's biggest weaknesses is that is must wait for the proof to be found, and in this case, a supposed living thing out of our reach, until it reveals itself.

>>1515789
You're right, they should let all sorts of quacks in on faith cuz u cant know nuffin.

Axiom: God exists.

QED

>>1514755
this is the level of maturity that can be expected from atheists

File: move.jpg (14KB, 205x205px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 205x205px

>>1514620

spook

>>1515836

Axiom: Axioms do not exist.

>>1514764
>why not both?

I too like to get philosophical while cranking my shaft.

>>1514627
embarrassing post

File: shutterstock_313063250[1].jpg (565KB, 1000x656px)

565KB, 1000x656px

>>1516525
aaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-

File: ToddHoward2010sm[2].jpg (720KB, 2696x4044px)

720KB, 2696x4044px

>>1516191
shitposting in a shitpost thread

>>1514617
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

>Most criticism of Gödel's proof is aimed at its axioms: As with any proof in any logical system, if the axioms the proof depends on are doubted, then the conclusions can be doubted. This is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof, because it rests on five axioms that are all questionable. The proof does not say that the conclusion has to be correct, but rather that if you accept the axioms, then the conclusion is correct.

>>1514617
Welp you got me, zeus is real, time to pack our bags everybody.

>>1514617
this only works if you accept Godels his axioms. i don't.