I'm a gnostic Theist and I never heard of any valid argument

If you're really a gnostic, why would you need to argue with anyone? you already know.

File: Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_HD.jpg (3MB, 5346x2583px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5346x2583px

I'm a gnostic Theist and I never heard of any valid argument against the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. All there is are arguments how our universe could work without a flying spaghetti monster, but there's not a single logical argument which disproves the possibility of there being a flying spaghetti monster-being. Actually there are various philosophical and even scientific arguments for a flying spaghetti monster-being.
The probably 2 most well-known physicist in the world Albert Einstein and Werner Heisenberg were both not atheistic. Einstein was an agnostic and as far as I know Heisenberg believed that there was some kind of a flying spaghetti monster-being
Quote from Heisenberg:
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass the flying spaghetti monster is waiting for you"
With this quote he meant, if you only have a shallow knowledge of science, you might believe that the Universe is easily possible without there being a flying spaghetti monster-being. But if you look deeper in to the mysteries of physics, materialism has a lot of flaws. Some of them being: -The hard problem of consciousness -The first casual action of the universe
So /his/. can you give me a single argument which could possibly disprove the existence of flying spaghetti monster?

>>1605403
t. underage faggot who has no clue about philosophical theology and the cosmological and ontological argument

>>1605413
Edgy. But hey, I'm not the one getting off to the thought that a magical white-bearded sky wizard is watching over me while I masturbate.

How about you first proof that god exists? Protip: You can't because he's an unfalsifiable concept and unscientific. And as long as that doesn't change there is no basis for any worthwhile discussion. Hence the the analogy of the flying spaghetti monster, a concept that works in the exact same way and is just as likely to be true as god.
>B-but science is a liar sometimes.
>M-muh consciousness.
>If we haven't found another answer yet the answer must be god!!!!1

Why would atheists need proof for their argument? You don't need proof for a negative argument(God doesnt exist).You need proof for a positive argument (God exists).Is it really that hard for theists to understand this?

>>1605388
Do you subscribe to a particular religion or denomination? If so, first of all, obligatory question as to why you dismiss all of the others.

I can't give you an argument to disprove god's existence. But then, as you can't give me any argument to disprove the fact that I'm engaging in anal intercourse with Satan whilst typing this that doesn't really mean a lot.

Also materialism =/= atheism. Why must an atheist believe consciousness to be material? Materialism is not prerequisite for not believing in god. Furthermore, in both the examples you gave all you're doing is saying "LOOK at this really hard, intangible problem! The ONLY possible conclusion is that there's another intangible being with magical powers pulling all the strings!" and I don't see why that's the case. A lot of what we do is intangible to the ant, but that doesn't necessitate the existence of an ant god to fill in the confusing areas.

>>1605413

>philosophical theology and the cosmological and ontological argument

Or as they're known to normal people, "Buzzwordology" and "Word gameology"

>>1605403

>OP getting BTFO within 2 posts

At least this board is somewhat decent

>>1605388
There is no need to "disprove" an unfalsafiable nonsense assertion.

>>1605388
No they can't which is why they are so mad.

>>1605446
Only proving how edge lord pre-teen you are.
>magical sky wizard
"I watch and enjoy family guy"
>proving that god exists means proving it scientifically
"I enjoy begging the question"
>Flying spaghetti monster
This one confuses me actually. Maybe you're a late 20's early 30's real deal fedora type. Can't tell.

>>1605560
Buzzword =/= 1000+ year old academic and intellectual field.

>>1605701
lolol. The sad sounds of a dying race in denial.

>people who use reason are edgelords
>you can't explain why the universe exists so God must have made it.
>I don't need to explain why God exists.

>>1605710

Astrology is probably 3000 years old, I guess that's now legit as well

>>1605388

Sure.

If nothing existed, there would be no God.

>>1605531
So you admit it's just a baseless opinion.

>>1605710
>The problem is that things can't have just have existed forever. Everything must have a cause.
>God has existed forever and needs no cause. PROBLEM SOLVED.

>I can conceive of the greatest possible Flying Spaghetti Monster.
>A Flying Spaghetti Monster that exists is better than one who doesn't.
>The greatest possible Flying Spaghetti Monster must exist.

Literally retarded.

>>1606031
This is the reading comprehension I would expect from OP.

>>1606045
You state an assertion, 'there is no God', and demand that it be proven otherwise before you will change your position.

Hence, your opinion is baseless.

Have a blessed day.

>>1605388
The fact there is no hard argument against existence of god is in fact an argument against it´s existence, not one that would support it.

>>1606038
No, by that logic, you would merely be saying that the name of God is Flying Spaghetti Monster, which of course would indicate just what a fool you are.

>>1606054
There's no argument that there is no God, so there must not be a God.

Brilliant.

>>1605388
>I never heard of any valid argument against the existence of god
I never heard of any valid argument for the existence of god

I was abducted by ayy lmaos for 5 min at 11pm on oct 15th in the year 2005. this is a scientific fact, not a theory, that everyone, mainstream media, academia, politicians, etc., must recognize until you can prove me wrong.

if you can't prove me wrong right now you truly do being I am an abductee.

so, do you believe i was abducted?

>>1605531
this

>>1606060
Isn´t it? There can´t be a solid counter-argument if there wasn´t a solid argument in the first place.

>>1605403
as a fellow atheist to another, please stop using the flying spaghetti monster meme. all that does is allow theists to demonize us and use the silly hat meme

its not a real argument, you have no substantial point, stop it

>>1606060
Not him but who's god are you referring to? And it's possible there is a God but even if you believe there is a God it wouldn't matter because it seems to be okay with the things we do on earth good or bad. Speaking of good or bad, these concepts are created by humans and don't necessarily exist other then the mind. God would have to be an all loving being. The idea of hell wouldn't matter because it wouldn't care what we do or if we worship it, there also just isn't room for a devil as far as I see it, there is no way to prove god exists obviously based on the knowledge we have which is why the one who claims it does exist is the one who would have to provide proof. You can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim...

File: 1468932143001.jpg (95KB, 750x699px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 750x699px

>>1606113
Ment to quote OP

>>1606090
God is the title for the being who created the universe.

The universe exists.

The universe is evidence of its Creator.

Your argument: the universe does not exist.

>>1606113
There is only One God.

>>1606113
God cares far more about this universe than you do.

His attributes are infinite, including His caring, but also including His justice, holiness and righteousness.

You would not admire a judge who routinely sentenced murderers to go free; neither would God.

>>1606126
First of all define universe

second what created Creator?

>inb4 he was always there
if thats so, we can also say the universe was always here and get rid of this "meta-plane of existence" with god, magic and shit

>>1606134
Neither would I admire a judge who routinely executed people who ate shellfish.

>but that's so unfair! The Judge stopped doing that years ago!

>>1606149
You don't know what the universe is?

Are you serious?

The Creator is not a created being; He is an eternal being. He has always existed, and He will always exist.

You can say that the material universe is eternal, if you want to be logically insipid and intellectually disingenuous, sure. You'll also be rather lonely, as the steady state universe went bye bye in the 50's.

>>1606150
The penalty for eating shellfish was that you could not enter Jerusalem that day; you needed to take a shower; and you could go to Jerusalem the next day.

You don't have a problem with God; you made up your own shitty God that you then hate on.

File: something.gif (52KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x450px

>>1605388
>logical argument which disproves the possibility
it is very difficult to prove impossibility as it requires a rather total knowledge.
so yes it'll be impossible to prove god impossible until we have an understanding of the fundamentals of the universe. god is not special in this regard, he is a theoretical fundamental of the universe and every other theory of that level is just as hard to disprove.

>>1605413
>>1606101
if the argument were as weak as you imply, you'd have cleverer criticism than "RRRRRREEEEEEEEEEE muh authority"

you uneducated shits probably don't even realize it's just a version of russell's teapot.

>>1606159
>The penalty for eating shellfish was that you could not enter Jerusalem that day; you needed to take a shower; and you could go to Jerusalem the next day.
Oh, my mistake. That is indeed a much more reasonable response from The Creator of the Universe, The Prime Mover, the Ground of All Being Who Cannot Even Said Be Said to Exist, For He Transcends Mere Existence, the Great I Am. Shower after shrimp, got it.

If god is the creator of the world, then he must be the unmoved mover or nature itself (or both).
If god is the source of moral authority, then he must be man's Will to Duty.

Because the world was caused and nature exists, and because man has a Will to Duty, god must exist (at least as the unmoved mover, nature, and man's Will to Duty).

>Why are you Christian?
While any other religion holds the same truth of a god as Christianity, none of them hold the same ethos of it; The Holy Bible is one of the greatest literary works in the history of mankind, and has so much influence on both western art and culture that christianity is nearly inescapable for someone like me. Also, the idea of having an ethical duty to 'the lord' is far more strengthening than any other philosophy used to quell existential angst.

File: heh ork.jpg (226KB, 679x511px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 679x511px

>>1606055
you fail to attack the argument because it is the same as yours but retarded in a more visible way.

unless you can think up a way to disprove FSM that doesn't also apply to God you're not different from a fool.

>>1606156
>You don't know what the universe is?
Well do you? I used to define it as "everything existing" but if there's some magical lad who did created it and he exists, then my definition is obviously wrong.

>The Creator is not a created being
What the fuck does that mean? Your only argument for the magical lad is that someone has created this world, since everything must be created. Logical conclusion to that would be to question who created magical lad. If magical lad did always existed then there is a possibility of something existing without creation. If something can exist eternally without creation then why does it have it to be the magical lad and not universe?

>You can say that the material universe is eternal, if you want to be logically insipid and intellectually disingenuous, sure
Sry "If you don't agree with me you suck" doesn't count as argument, even you say it in fancy English.

>>1606176
>implying making sure you wash properly right after potentially eating poorly cooked shellfish and not entering a city when you could potentially have parasites is bad advice

stupid God, i bet he has rules against eating shit and sodomy too

>>1606197
>instead of telling people that shellfish and pork can be extremely dangerous if not cooked properly and giving instructions on how to do so, you just say it's an abomination and selectively infect people who disobey

>>1606176
Yup. When you eat shrimp, you eat their shit pipe, or you can die from anaphalactic shock if you're allergic.

That can cause illness.

God protects His own.

>>1606189
The ontological arguments are to define God as the very highest and best possible being, with all of the very highest and best attributes.

If you don't know that the FSM is a snarky bullshit meme from less than 10 years ago, I feel sorry for you.

>>1606193
Yes, your definition is wrong.
The universe consists of three heavens and the earth. The first heaven is our atmo; the second heaven is space; the third heaven is unlike the first two and is where God and the angels live. It touches and overlaps our two at all points and at all times.

It is from there that God created our universe; He is Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. He is what existed at t=0.

You asked who created the creator. It's a false question. The creator is not a created being. He is an eternal spirit being.

Everything that is created requires a creator; the creator was not created.

If you want to believe in a steady state universe, which has been debunked by the expansion of timespace for many decades now, and the illogical premises of infinite regressions, you can.

This is shitposting: the thread.

>>1606226
but is his name YHWH or FSM?

>>1606241
God's name is YHWH, I Am That I Am, or more properly in the future tense, I Will Be That I Will Be.

>>1606267
is that a guess

>>1606273
No, it's how He revealed the placeholder for His name to Moses.

It's what YHWH means.

>>1606273
He nostikked it out of the aetheriumagramatron straight into his chakra Justified True Beleif impurgium.

>>1606292
is this fable different from the spaghetti version other than detailwise

>>1606236
>The universe consists of three heavens and the earth. The first heaven is our atmo; the second heaven is space; the third heaven is unlike the first two and is where God and the angels live.

Hol' up. Earth and heaven number 1 (shortly H1) came from H2 and you be sayin' that there's H3 which created H2? And how come our atmosphere get special category? Why not Jupiter which has way bigger atmosphere? Has it something to do with beings capable of reproduction that can be found on Earth?

Also you didn't answered my question, you've just cut the commonly accepted definition of universe into two tiny pieces and an incomparatively huge one; and added magical one. Can't you define it as the category itself, not as its parts?

Also if god created universe and he lives in H3, which is part of the universe he created, does it mean he was homeless before the event of creation?

>It is from there that God created our universe; He is Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. He is what existed at t=0.
What existed at t= -1.23 s?

>He is an eternal spirit being.
And ESB is supposed to be what? Something to slap over the holes in our knowledge and pretend we know?

>if you want to believe in a steady state universe
How come you've mixed this one into the debate? It doesn't have to do anything with the topic.

File: Fires of Heaven.jpg (1MB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x960px

>>1606323
There are not only 3, but an infinite series of Heavens, each with a judgement by a deity and ascension for the deserving.

>>1605388
>I'm a gnostic Theist

Then prove God exists.

>>1606356
Shite... does it make J. Gagarin the first ascended Human and Union of Soviet Socialists Republic a deity?

>>1606126
>God is the title for the being who created the universe.
I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure that when most people talk about God they're referring to the creator described by the abrahamic faiths, not just whatever being created the universe.
That the universe exists isn't evidence that the abrahamic God exists. It isn't evidence that any creator exists either, actually.

Gnosticism and Christianity are both Platonic heresies.

>>1605388
>I'm a gnostic Theist and I never heard of any valid argument against the existence of god.
If everyone realized that you cannot prove or disprove something that may or may not exist but certainly is outside the limits of the scientific method we would all be better off

Einstein was a pantheist.

So, why would you use the scientists that believe in some variety of divinity without looking at the ones that don't? Stephen Hawking actually deals with subjects such as the very origins of the universe, and he's pretty staunchly an atheist. Are you going to say he hasn't looked deeply into the mysteries of physics?

>>1606883
Platonic heresies against what? Judaism? Didn't Judaism itself start talking on a more abstract form in regards to its conception of God as well?

>>1605388
It mainly depends on how you define God. If you keep the term nebulous with no specific defined characteristics then there can't be any way of disproving it, only the pragmatic assertion of "it is isn't defined and so saying it exists is meaningless." On the other hand, if you give it specific characteristics, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and being born as a jew baby in ancient Palestine, who also perfectly inspired a book for us to read and learn from, we can now test these claims individually and either confirm or discomfirm the existence of god.

A god that does not act upon the universe is irrelevant to those within it, even if it created said universe.

A god that does act upon the universe would be obvious, because their actions would bring about arrangements within the universe which contradicted the deterministic path projected from past arrangements.

Following these, God is either irrelevant or nonesistent, and the difference between the two is itself irrelevant.

Is saying that you are a "Gnostic Theist" basically just admitting that you have no hope of convincing anyone of your beliefs and instead choose to simply be an asshole about it?
I've never seen anything to the contrary.

>>1607039
God intervenes in the actions of our universe; He caused the sun to stay up for Joshua's mop-up operations, and He caused the sundial to retreat 15 degrees to confirm to Hezekiah that he would be granted 15 more years of life.

God is real.

>>1607046
Is this seriously all it takes to convince you of a God, some stone age story about a magic sundial.
Are you a child.

>>1607060
It's called the long night in China, and elsewhere.

Yes.

I find evidence convincing. I find the truth believable. And I find fools nauseating.

Bringing religion and the humanities to /his/ was a mistake. This shitposting should've stayed on /pol/ or /sci/.

>>1607039
>the deterministic path projected from past arrangements.

What do you mean by this?

>>1607073
Could you post some links?

>>1607078

You should piss off to threads you find interesting instead of moaning about it here.

>>1607073
are you for real

>>1607082
http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/jld/

>>1607073

It's fine to believe in stuff like that but they're not very convincing as evidence. I'm a fairly strong theist and I still have trouble with any sort of miracle.

>>1607046

How remarkably convenient that God chose to demonstrate his existence in an age of technological infancy and historical uncertainty, but now that we've developed the ability to record video and make measurements beyond the order of a nanometer, he "works in mysterious ways."

Idk if its just OP being a fag, but you people arguing pro-God are making yourself look like retards.

>>1607091
>>1607099

>>1607101
Then your god is too small.

>>1607102

You assume that god wouldn't have sufficient reasons not to reveal himself the way you wish he would. One reason may be that it would interfere with a persons free will.

>>1607106
They don't care, they project their deficiencies onto their opponents for daring to criticize. Common survival tactic of being both delusional and argumentative.

Every fucking day with these threads like clockwork, they never learn, they never change or grow, it's a self-hypnonsis mantra at this point, "proseletyzing" I.E. scoring good-boy points for being obedient. Also to relish being "persecuted" and hated for being fucking annoying. It's sick but hey they have to get their kicks somehow.

>>1607102
It's sad you think hi tech is more powerful than God.

Just wait, though. You'll have more evidence than you want very soon.

>>1607130
And here you are, participating in all of that.

>>1607079

Two balls are rolling across a surface. An analysis of their instantaneous accelerations and velocities at any given point along their path indicates that they will collide at Point X. The location of Point X, and every future state of the two balls before and after the collision, is a trivial calculation. In this world of two balls and a single surface, anyone with a basic understanding of college physics is a fortuneteller.

Replace the surface with spacetime and the balls with all the particles in the Universe.

>>1607132
ooh scary the non existant God of your Imagination will punish me for making grandpa mad
Christianity is in shitty shape if retards like you are it's champions.

>>1607124
How would revealing himself interfere with free will?

>>1605388
If you believe in God as some sort of abstract, universal force, or something contentless like that, I don't really have a problem.

The biggest problem is when people say, "the cosmological argument is true, therefore homosexuals are evil". You simply don't get from existence of a God to the truth of any religious text.

>>1607156
Jesus is, and remains, Christianity's only champion.

And the only one necessary.

>>1607164
There is a God.
What God says goes.
Homosexuality is a wicked abomination before God.

A

Not the. there are many wicked abominations before God.

>>1607157

If god were to present himself as a giant glowing ball in the sky and we knew with 100% certainty that is god, could we truly and freely choose to love or reject him? I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that some people would think he was a tyrant.

>>1607132

>It's sad you think hi tech is more powerful than God

Please, tell me where I made that assertion.

>>1607167
>And the only one necessary.

Then why don't you shut the fuck up and let the man (subservient to and lesser than the father) work?

>>1607172
The Hebrews had exactly that and begged God not to talk to them anymore; to only go through Moses.

You have not come to grips with the utter depravity of mankind yet.

>>1607147
Not that guy but what does that have to do with what he asked.

>because their actions would bring about arrangements within the universe which contradicted the deterministic path projected from past arrangements.
From what I understand, you're saying that if a god exists, and he influences our world/universe, then two things.

He predetermines things, and has to act upon the world in order for those things to come to fruition.
However, by him acting upon the world, that somehow interferes with what he's done in the past in order to make these paths true.

If a god exists, and is all powerful, I'm sure he could find a multitude of ways to influence things without putting up a sign in the sky saying "HEY GUYS ITS GOD IM DOING X, JUST BTW"

>>1607170
*tips fedora*

>>1607172
Yeah, we could absolutely choose to reject him. I'd reject him because I think he's a bungling, sadistic, tyrannical idiot and I'd sooner be tortured for eternity than willingly serve him.

Also, people choose to believe the earth isn't round, so yeah, people could choose to not love him just fine.

>>1607170
Wait but why would a kind and loving God just so happen to share the mindset of a disgusting bigoted inbred redneck piece of shit? That doesn't make any sense.

>>1607170
How do you hear God? How do you differentiate God's true voice from madness?

>>1607172
I would have a hard time relating to a glowing ball.
Must be why the Christians hype up the Jesus kid so much, much easier PR when you have smiling surfer boy.

>>1607172

If god were to present himself as a giant whirling pillar of fire in the desert and we knew with 100% certainty that is god, could we truly and freely choose to love or reject him?

>>1607188
God just so happens to justify the lifestyle and choices of whoever speaks for him, it's quite odd actually.

>>1607173
He takes it for granted and argues against strawmen instead of what a rational person would do. It's hilariously cracked argumentation but he's too stupid to notice, since he's done it here every day for like a year already.

>>1607173
In your snarky "Gee, God seemed to be far more visible when we couldn't record him visually" bullshit.

Just wait and see.

File: mypv7FR[1].gif (1MB, 500x185px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x185px

>>1607195
I would definitely not "love" a pillar of fire in a desert, lol.

>>1607174
Because He allows us to collaborate in His work. It's always been about a collaboration between the Creator and the created.

So just as you do your father the devil's work, I do my father's work in heaven.

>>1607184

Ever hear the admonition "be careful what you wish for"?

>>1607188
God says be fruitful and multiply.

Homosexuals reject God and live by their flesh, pleasuring only themselves and producing no children.

In direct rebellion to the King.

>>1607219
>your father the devil's work

Get your rhetoric right, you lazy troll. We're all God's children.

>>1607214
Wait is what we'll do, apparently. The jews have been waiting a while now, haven't they?

>>1607219
Since when is this "collaboration" concept.

I think you just spout off whatever poetry comes into your shriveled brain.

>>1607190
I am one of His sheep, and His sheep know His voice. He's neither the author of confusion nor madness.

>>1607181

>He predetermines things, and has to act upon the world in order for those things to come to fruition.
>However, by him acting upon the world, that somehow interferes with what he's done in the past in order to make these paths true.

Not really what I was saying. If the course of the universe is predetermined by a god, then they have no need to act on it further, because from the very first arrangement of the universe, each and every subsequent state is determined by the previous. They just have to create the universe and it does its thing from there on out.

Intervening in this deterministic process would necessarily prevent past states from leading to present or future states as they were expected or intended to.

>>1607233
>I am one of His sheep
I'll say.

>>1605388
>I'm a gnostic Theist and I never heard of any valid argument against the existence of god.

You've never heard of occhams razor?

>>1607214

How does that statement assert that a camcorder is better than God?

I'm saying that the camcorder is more reliable than firsthand accounts processed through thousands of years of language and cultural filters.

>>1607233
Good, so there's no difference between a Christian and a madman. Thanks anon, that's all I needed to hear.

>>1607251

Yeah it's that thing atheists like to point to after they ignore every argument for the existence of god.

>>1607271
Well, there's two things to bring up. One, Occam's razor isn't some sort of logical rule as many like to pretend, it's simply a suggestion to help engage in fruitful research. Second, all of the arguments for God make some big fucking assumptions. Like the argument of the first cause makes a gigantic assumption in assuming that the universe requires a first cause.

>>1607271
Read Kant if you think cosmological arguments/arguments for God's necessity are convincing. You can really only hold such beliefs if you are 100% completely ignorant of what modern philosophy did.

Seriously, Kant blew these arguments out pretty fucking badly.

Kant's argument for the existence of God, or the one he posits, is the similar worldview that led to atheistic evolution, so yeah.

>>1606197
>>1606222
Ah yes truly he is a wise god for knowing that the cure for internal parasites and anaphylactic shock is a shower.

>>1607230
Oh, my, no.

Most humans are children of the devil, trying to do good and avoid evil, and thus be like God.

>>1607231
Yes, and their wait will result in even worse consequences than yours.

>>1607232
Since Adam named all the animals.

>>1607239
Don't be too proud; the other choice is goat.

>>1607315

>>1607315
>>1607293

The fact that you guys only seem to be aware of the cosmological argument should tell you something. Anyone that thinks the question of gods existence is easy or simple clearly hasn't done the research.

>>1607252
Nope. Or, should I say, do you believe all movies are documentaries?

>>1607257
Not to an insane world, no.

>>1607326
Jews were some hand washing mofos before anyone ever suspected germs existed.

>>1607340
Yes, it should tell you any other arguments are trivial and piffling and really should be ignored.

I like that I suggest you read Kant, a formidable thinker who's highly influential in all of philosophy, probably the biggest modern philosopher, with some of the absolute best arguments regarding this topic, and all you do is accuse me of not studying the issue. I've studied the issue plenty, it's on you to take on Kant, and that's no easy task.

>>1607340

Does anything exist?

Then God, Who made everything, exists.

It's really not complicated.

Then He came to earth and is the most famous person in the entire history of mankind, saying Hey, I'm God, nice to meet you.

Really not that difficult.

Unless of course you're actively involved in a satanic rebellion against God.

>>1607340
The fact you're making presumptions about my stance on the divine says a lot. I never claimed it was a simple question. Moreover, I was just using it as an example of an argument for the divine. There's not a single argument for God that doesn't make some assumptions along the way.

My proposal would be to speculate less on things you have no basis for knowledge of.

>>1607357
>Yes, it should tell you any other arguments are trivial and piffling and really should be ignored.

What are those other arguments?

>>1607381

>I never claimed it was a simple question.

Aren't you the one that flippantly pointed to Occam's razor when responding to somebody asking for arguments against the existence of god?

>>1607388
No. I was just pointing out that Occam's razor isn't a logical rule as the anon you were responding to claimed.

It seems to get the same treatment falsifiability and the burden of proof get, where it's treated with undue importance when it's really just good practice. Occam's razor serves the same function as falsifiability, which is minimizing your chances of going on a scientific wild goose chase.

>>1607341

All video recordings are better representations of the events that occurred in front of the camera than a written account of a person standing in the camera's place.

>>1607401
Inspired word of God.

Somebody's video tape.

Pretty sure I'll stick with the inspired word of God.

>>1607401

A camera can't provide context.

>>1605388
What proof is there of good?
>No but you must prove that my claims aren't true, my claims are true by default!

Why are you retarded?

>>1607404
Why not an inspired tape of God?

>>1606126
>Y exists
>Therefore X->Y
You are infering an implication from thin air, and arbitraly defining what led to Y.
Grow up.

>>1607412
Gee, I guess you're right. The universe doesn't exist.

>>1606236
>Everything that is created
Claiming knowledge of creation is amazing.

Why does every theist argument rely on them claiming knowledge of things they can't possibly know or making illogical leaps in reasoning?

>>1607404
What makes you think that it's the Inspired Word of God besides more Inspired Word of God?

>>1607418
Prove it does.

File: 1446094543179.png (696KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 1366x768px

>>1606168
>he

why is a theoretical fundamental of the universe gendered anon? Are you sure that it isn't just because conceptions of gods were developed in patriarchial societies and based largely on unconscious emotional relationships with father figures?

>>1607337
You could choose to be a human being that has dignity.

>>1607073
>Lol thunder is evidence Thor is real :DDDD
People with little understanding of the natural world make up random bullshit to explain it. Have you ever been to the third world? You'd be surprised at how little people know about the Earth itself.

>>1607418
Prove that X leads to Y, prove that it was X and not Z or W. You are making a claim but offering no proof, you are making an assumption.

You are assuming that because an egg exists, it was a chicken that laid it.

>>1607420
They use the magical Bible as the pat answer for literally everything.

>>1607441
>Why do you believe the bible is the holy word
>Because god said so! In the bible!
You have to wonder how anyone finds this acceptable outside of people conditioned to this or mentally unstable fellows.

File: hqdefault.jpg (35KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x360px

>>1605554

I AM an ant god you stupid fuck.

Pic related.

>>1607449
In the US our valuing of Free Speech and Individuality has created a demographic that embraces rank superstition with paranoia. That's why Alabama comes to /his/ literally every day ranting about Satanic Jewish Monkey Microchips in the Fluoride when the End of Days comes. I bet he gets a boner just reading this.

>>1605388
>gnostic Theist

Actual academics don't used terms like "gnostic/agnostic atheist/theist", just memelords on the internet. You're either a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic (friendly reminder: you don't need absolute certainty to "know" something; absolute certainty is a meme).

File: ff3.jpg (38KB, 560x374px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 560x374px

Daily reminder to ignore these threads.

There are no real Christians on 4chan, only LARPers.

>>1605392
>>1605403
/thread

>>1605388
Bone cancer in children

>>1605388
>what is burden of proof

File: 1472302896036.png (34KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1200x1200px

>>1605388
>but there's not a single logical argument which disproves the possibility of there being a God
>possibility

>>1605388
All causes can be identified within the world, which means god must be the world, which makes the concept closer in nature to art. "God" is a title / attribute assigned to the world just like "art" is assigned to something.

It is not a fact, but another interpretation. God is and isn't.

>>1608985
Lately "Bone-In" has become my favorite buzzword to spice up descriptions of things.

>Kentucky Dry Rub Chili'n'Lime Bone-In Sweet Wy-Mex Sweeet-heat Steak Ribblet Fritter Snaps with side order of Barrel-Aged Bourbon Yam-slaps, Frost Tallboy Craft Tincktured Lagerbombs to wash it down

File: 1471885657001.jpg (396KB, 700x900px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 700x900px

>>1605403

>if you have no empirical proof for the existence of something, it's meaningless

Okay, every formal system is now dead, logic, mathematics, they don't have an empirical foundation.
This argument is for babies, every competent thinker knows it's a complex question.

Consider this: Why is God under such a different judgment than any idealist conception in philosophy? If you defend transcedentals, it's seen as a valid concept. If you defend mind/body dualism it's alright, but God is immediately waved away. The fact that metaphysics is hijacked by theology and religious dogma has absolutely no bearing on the possible existence of a Prime Mover, the ground of all being, uncaused cause, etc. You just have a knee-jerk reaction because every argument that insinuates the existence of such a being is seen as Christian craziness, WHICH IT IS NOT.

THERE IS NO NECESSARY CONNECTION BETWEEN CLASSICAL THEISM AND A RELIGIOUS CONCEPT OF GOD, JUST AS THERE IS NO NECESSARY CONNECTION BETWEEN PLATO'S FORMS AND WESTERN HERMETICISM. It's absolutely baffling how natural theology is a taboo subject because >muh religion.

>>1609866
Mostly because you are just holding the ball to enable the cultists, ultimately who want to rewrite social policy to make everyone else follow their bullshit rules. It's kind of an extrapolation but if you allow this cute "Prime Mover" thing then they will leap at the chance to impose Theocracy.

Philosophy must serve realpolitik.

>>1607184

t. edgy 14 year old

>>1609866
The thing about God for me and some others I reckon is the assumption written in of a conscious entity, an agent, a motive. It just seems so humanly biased to assume there has to be a someone, a mind and a creator for us, as we have created things. Like a human x 1000.

>>1606316
Guess it wasnt

>>1609866
I agree with this guy. Empiricism sucks ass, pragmatism is the way to go.

>>1605413
>>1605446
If an entity is truly imperceptible, than it is just as likely to exist as any other wholly imperceptible object

s. cat

>>1605388

You cant disprove it as much as you can prove it.

Its just a matter of faith, which tends to devolve the arguments to its bare basics, making such questions really fucking annoying since its impossible to answer something like this in a serious manner.

>>1607130
i'm saving this pasta

>>1605388
Volition has not been proven to be possible without a brain. Also, Einstein was a personal-god atheist but believed in Spinoza's "God".

>>1609866
Logic is subjective

>>1607426
That's like saying squares only tessellate because it's an easy, straightforward shape to cut stones into. The metaphysical father precedes the biological one.

>>1607426
you could make a different theory with a female one

or maybe the christian deal is just because some languages only have gendered pronouns. idk nigga

>>1612269
What we consider "fathers" is a fluke of multicelular biology, not some fundamental nature of reality.

>>1610057
Oh grow the fuck up.

>>1605388
the burden of proof is on those whom would make a claim. you claim God, prove Him.