Childhood is thinking God doesn't exist Adulthood

Patricianhood is realizing Ahura Mazda is God

Agreed.

Adulthood is realizing that Apollonius is the most god-like of Greek mathematicians because he utilizes the properties of triangles more than anyone else, and triangles are the most basic of shapes that realize themselves in any shape or figure.

>3-4 religion related threads on /his/ around the clock for a month now
you people are trying really hard to turn this place into pseudo-science humanities only platform, aren't you?

>>2464057
EBIN SIMPLY EBIN :DDDDD

Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God.

>>2464069
>>>/sci/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz77atYHTOA

Undeniable proof

>>2464078
>>>/christian/

(on full-chan, you'll fit in there so you can stop shitposting here)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

Proof unlikely to be denied

>>2464057
You got it switched, dildo. Far more people stop doing religion in adulthood rather than joining it.

File: disdain for plebs.jpg (24KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x462px

>>2464078
you people have been out-debated a million times and all you can do is redirect people back to /sci/ even though logically you should be the ones to change your opinions or to go back to your little echo-chamber in /pol/

The other day a person was literally using the words "science" and "logic" as an insult against people who debated against him. That alone should tell you enough about the state of religious posters on /his/.
And no, I'm not saying you can't have your fate as it obviously helps you in your life but please be less vocal about it especially if you can't defend your opinions.

>>2464145
We can assume God exists a priori and there is no way you can disprove it. There are hundreds of logical arguments for God but literally ZERO logical arguments for no God. It says a lot when atheists spend 100% of their time trying to refute the logic that supports Gods existence rather than making their own arguments that support their position

File: The Word of God Himself.png (29KB, 621x173px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 621x173px

No, adulthood is realizing you have Æutism, and that the fact that you can't interact with others doesn't make them sinners

>>2464145
>>>/hm/

>>2464166
what you said makes no sense. Do give us the "hundreds of logical arguments" then since the burden of proof lies upon you in this case

>>2464194
t-thanks, I guess

>>2464276
A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists.

This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.

The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.

What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

Contingent beings alone cannot provide a completely adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.

Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists.

The universe is contingent.

Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe.

Easy. Now here's the thing, you can try to argue against this but you can never support your argument that a necessary being does not exist because then you end up with contingent things causing each other in an infinite regression. Your stance relies on the ability to refute this argument, because you cannot give any alternative. But if you think you can make an alternative argument and support it do it.

>>2464295
Nothing other than the universe exists via definition.

>>2464276
>since the burden of proof lies upon you in this case
Also this is incorrect. It's a standard atheist fallacy they use to avoid having to make arguments to support their position (which they know they cannot do). We can a priori assume that God exists because the universes existence is contingent on it, which places the burden of proof on the atheist to provide a reasonable alternative.

Consider that we can logically assume realism is correct. It's the default position despite us having no empirical evidence that it is true. In that case the burden of truth lies on the person trying to dispute realism. In the same way existence of God is the default position since it is a logical necessity and therefore it falls to the atheist to put forward a satisfying alternative, which of course they never do and always fall back on "But you can't PROVE it" despite that objection also being true for realism, which they accept without question.

>>2464306
Incorrect. The universe is all that can be known. The fact that we will never know what lies outside it (at least while we're alive) doesn't say anything about whether there is actually anything outside of it. There are multiverse theories which propose many universes, in which case what is outside our universe are other universes.

>Adulthood is realizing God exists
You misspelled schizophrenia.

File: bad_religion_icon_by_serenarobinson666-d6kd1pb.png (11KB, 526x546px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 526x546px

>>2464309
>because the universes existence is contingent on it

Why though? We don't know enough about the nature of the universe to know what IS or ISN'T contingent on it's existence. You're just filling in what you don't know with "God did it". A classic pastime for Christcucks like yourself.

>>2464309
> In the same way existence of God is the default position since it is a logical necessity
Except that's wrong and you're retarded. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the existence of God is a logical necessity.

>>2464327
>We don't know
>We
You mean you.

I know the origin, purpose and end of history. The Bible tells us everything we need to know.

>>2464327
So? Present an alternative. You're just proving my point. You can't do anything but try and argue against the logic that supports the existence of God because you have no logic of your own to stand on. "B-but we don't know!", ok, you don't know, then why not default to the position which is supported by logic? That God exists?

>>2464333
>There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the existence of God is a logical necessity.
See >>2464295
The necessity of a causal agent for the Big Bang to have occurred is no secret. It's a necessity that is conveniently ignored. God neatly fits the problem and gives an answer. You don't like that idea? Present an alternative.

>>2464317
If it cannot be known it cannot be interacted with. If it cannot be interacted with, it effectively doesn't exist. Multiverses either can be interacted with, or they don't exist. If they can be interacted with, they're part of the universe, it just means that the universe just is much bigger than we expected, just like when we discovered other planets and solar systems. If they can't be interacted with, they can't be proven in any way, and thus any theory is pulled directly out of the ass.

>>2464125
No lol. Older people are far more religious than younger. Mostly because of wisdom with maturity.

>>2464295
I don't know why people even waste their time with this medieval argument

You may as well say physical reality exists necessarily and call it a day

>>2464295
>A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists.
Yes it can

>Contingent beings alone cannot provide a completely adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
..So we have to come up with easy explanations from the top of our heads and fashion them into different religious movements?

>Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
why? Why should there be a being like that and how was it formed? Humanity didn't come out of nowhere, it was fashioned during millions and millions of years of evolution which is much much more probable than a perfect, highly intelligent being just coming into existence out of nothing all of a sudden. More over, the evolutionary theory has tons of proof when compared to the theory of a higher being

>Easy. Now here's the thing, you can try to argue against this but you can never support your argument that a necessary being does not exist because then you end up with contingent things causing each other in an infinite regression. Your stance relies on the ability to refute this argument, because you cannot give any alternative. But if you think you can make an alternative argument and support it do it.
You're using the cosmological argument that has been debunked a number of times.

Do mind that some of these websites have quite cringe worthy names and tones but they've got good points.

http://www.skeptical-science.com/atheism/debunking-argument/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dac4LkG2i8A
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-swift-and-simple-refutation-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

More over, why do you think out of all these religions on planet earth, the christian one is the right one even if there's just as much proof (no proof) to support any of the other religions?

>>2464354
Your so called "logic" that supports the existence of God are just word games.

Furthermore, "we can't know nuffin" IS sometimes a valid argument. Human beings are physically and biologically limited, so it goes to reason that we are also limited in our perception of the universe around us because we experience everything biologically. So what you define as logic is simply what our feeble monkey brains are able to process in a way that makes sense.

But what if the nature/origin of the universe doesn't make sense in the context of your logical framework? What if that said nature exists outside of what we can comprehend. Human beings ARE perceptive enough to understand what we can't know or understand. But we also like to fill in those gaps, because pattern seeking is a behavior that was favorable to our survival and evolution.

But that doesn't make the conclusions that we make from said pattern seeking objectively correct.

>>2464309
>Also this is incorrect. It's a standard atheist fallacy they use to avoid having to make arguments to support their position
nope, atheists have provided a number of proper arguments that still stand where as religious people can only fight back with "my feels" and "my traditions"

>>2464376
>The necessity of a causal agent for the Big Bang to have occurred is no secret.
BZZT! Wrong. Causality only makes sense if time exists. Time is a property of universe, therefore causality does not apply to events outside the universe. Furthermore, there's no need to assume that the universe has a beginning. We know that space and time as we know them began with the Big Bang. We do not know what they were like before Big Bang - it's entirely possible that the Big Bang was caused by an event in another universe, or that the universe is cyclical, or any number of other possible explanations that do not require God.

ITT: Atheists doing mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious fact that God exists

Behold, the irrational and illogical atheist.

File: PF_15.04.02_ProjectionsOverview_religiousSwitching_640px-640x353.png (101KB, 640x353px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 640x353px

>>2464384
Wrong. Older people are more religious because they come from previous, more religious generations.

People are far more likely to leave Christianity than join it

File: 1467535399496.jpg (134KB, 433x480px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 433x480px

>>2464382
>If it cannot be known it cannot be interacted with. If it cannot be interacted with, it effectively doesn't exist.
So you're like a 1 year old with no sense of permanence who thinks that when you can't see things they cease to exist? Things outside our observable universe DO exist anon, the idea that "Well they'll never interact with us so we'll just ignore them for all intents and purposes" is an academic one. They're still there in reality, and the idea that everything outside our bubble of experience just isn't there is a rather egocentric view.

>>2464386
Physical reality is contingent. We know the universe had a beginning, 13.8 billion years ago, so before that the universe as we know it did not exist, which means it was created. There had to be a causal agent, because of all the things that we know about our reality causality is the ONE thing that cannot be violated in any way (The speed of light is the speed of causality, light cannot travel faster than that limit because that is the maximum speed that an effect can be transmitted from a cause).

>>2464415
>christanity
Why are atheist so retarded that they think everything is American Protestant Christianity? Anyway Christianity is growing around the world and will be for at leastthe next several decades.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

>>2464420
>Anyway, poor uneducated brown people and muslims are breeding like rabbits and will be for at least the next several decades.

BUILD THE WALL

File: design.png (1MB, 1350x1680px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1350x1680px

Really makes you think.

>>2464395
>So we have to come up with easy explanations from the top of our heads and fashion them into different religious movements
No, we just have to come up with AN explanation. Which I did. Can't help but notice you have not yet put forward your alternative. Remember this: >>2464166

Your argument is extremely weak if you can not put forward an acceptable alternative. All you do is try to poke holes in an argument that DOES solve the problem. This is the big secret atheists don't want you to notice. You will never argue in support of anything because you have no answer, and because you have no answer your only option is to try and find holes in answers that do fit the logic. There is NO supporting argument for atheism. None. The only thing an atheist can do is try to refute the theist because they don't like the answer to a question they cannot answer themself.

>>2464417

>Physical reality is contingent. We know the universe had a beginning, 13.8 billion years ago, so before that the universe as we know it did not exist, which means it was created.

This rationale, namely that the physical world must be contingent because it's past-finite, only works if you reject an eternalist ontology of time.

Under eternalism, the universe is past-finite, but it never "came into being", so no need for contingency

>>2464166
That's not how the burden of proof works

>>2464415
>statistic PROJECTIONS
Something seems wrong about this.

>>2464417
How can you say that they exist if you can't interact with them in any way?

>>2464420
Why are you so retarded you make unwarranted assumptions to try to make a point?

I cited the same study you did, and it refers to Christianity as a whole, not a specific branch of it, you fucking moron.

Christianity is ONLY growing thanks to people being born into it in third world countries, not because adult people are joining it. Learn the difference my low IQ friend

>>2464435
Indeed. Protections are quite an accepted tool.

>>2464422
The wall only prevents alien invasion from the Central and South America, anon...

>grow an atheist
>one night God reveals his pressence and gives me a experience
>start reading into religions
>9 years pass, no religion I have looked into gives me an explanation
>Decide to just wait for the God that seeked me
>One day find a less popular religion
>has several branches
>keep reading
>IS THIS REALLY IT?
>Understand that my experience was the end goal of this religion
>understand that I was gifted heaven
>smug as fuck
>enter the internets
>people tearing themselves apart over other religions
smuganimu.jpg.bat

>>2464427
Possibly, but I can see an immediate flaw in that. If the universe is eternally recurring than in theory you should be able to go back an infinite amount of time for an infinite number of universes. Say you do regress an infinite amount of time, how long does it take for you to exist? An infinite amount of time. Which means you never exist.

>But time doesn't exist outside the universe!
Yes, (well, maybe) but it does exist within the universe, and if you have an infinitely recurring universe you also have an infinite amount of time passed within those infinite universes.

>>2464442
I don't know about protections, using projections affords little protection from the claim that you're extrapolating current situational tendencies for future occurrences.

>>2464417
>There had to be a causal agent, because of all the things that we know about our reality causality is the ONE thing that cannot be violated in any way
Causality is basically made up as a way to extrapolate patterns from the world, it doesn't really exist.

>>2464458
Unless you take a faith based approach to life.

Then it certainly exists.

>>2464450
You don't even know what eternalism is. Hint: is not cyclical time or eternal recurrence

Read about B-theory of time, four-dimenionalism and perdurantism

>>2464437
>How can you say that they exist if you can't interact with them in any way
Effectively you can't, which is why we say anything we can't interact with doesn't exist. It doesn't mean anything we can't detect doesn't exist in actuality, it just means for all intents and purposes we can say it doesn't exist because we'll never interact with it in any way and therefore it is completely and entirely irrelevant to us. That doesn't mean nothing outside of our observable universe exists at all, it probably does, it's just that it's irrelevant to us for eternity so we treat it as if it doesn't exist.

>>2464450
>Possibly, but I can see an immediate flaw in that. If the universe is eternally recurring than in theory you should be able to go back an infinite amount of time for an infinite number of universes. Say you do regress an infinite amount of time, how long does it take for you to exist? An infinite amount of time. Which means you never exist.

"Time" is just another dimension. You exist in a defined place within 4-dimensional hyperspace, and it doesn't matter whether any or none of the dimensions of the said space are infinite or not.

>>2464469
It's idiotic to treat existence as something other than what can interact with whatever else exists, you've reduced the concept to nothing.

>>2464458
It does, because in relativity causality is the only thing two observers can ever objectively agree on. Time can pass at different rates, observers can witness events occur at different places, at different times, even in a different sequence, but the cause of those events is ALWAYS the same. It's the only thing in our universe that all observers in all frames of reference can agree on.

>>2464453
What "affords protection" is the whole study's methodology behind said projections.

>>2464489
Protection from God and good faith, indeed.

It seems Atheists are nothing but proselytizing idiots just as they claim the religious fanatics to be.

>>2464477
Reality doesn't care about your egocentric view of it. What exists within it, exists, whether you will ever interact with it or not.

File: bait.gif (3MB, 300x252px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x252px

>>2464498

>>2464479
The cause isn't the same because you have to make sense of the cause, which is the same as inventing it.
>The pot broke because you dropped it on the floor
>the pot broke because you were playing around
>the pot broke because it was made of porcelain and not steel
>the pot broke because gravity caused it to accelerate into the floor
>the pot broke because you've angered god
>the pot broke because the molecules accelerated enough that the sum of the van der waals forces when it encountered the molecules on the floor caused it to break apart
>the pot broke because electrons
>the pot broke because quarks
>the pot broke because sub-quarks
etc

there are a million reasons for everything happening

>>2464500
>implying objective reality

>>2464511
Isn't that Feynman's explanation as to why he never answers the question: "how do magnets work?"? Because he'd never stop explaining something and he would kept going into physics regardless of the nature of the question.

File: feelsgood.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x360px

Atheists getting annihiliated in this thread, love it.

>>2464528
2/10 I'm not even mad because it's obvious that you either didn't read the thread or didn't understand it.

>>2464511
The difficulty of pinpointing an exact cause for an effect doesn't mean anything. Every effect has a cause, things don't just change spontaneously with no interaction, whether the cause be a ball hitting another ball or a particle being in an unstable state, there is always a prior reason for something that occurs.

>>2464539

You don't need to when you have Æutism. You can just declare anyone you can't socially interact with a sinner

the mental gymnastics that atheists go through is just hilarious

such irrationality from a group of people that claim to be rational.

>>2464539
It's gone exactly as >>2464166 said. Lots of atheists trying to refute the logic of God existing, not many offering up alternatives that are backed by logic. God existing is the default position, logic dictates it. There is no atheist alternative that can be supported as well as the the existence of God can.

>>2464550

The Æutism you go through is also hilarious.

No, wait, it's just sad. Sad like someone who desperately keeps responding to his own thread, because no one else does

>>2464556

I have a refutation. If a just God existed, you wouldn't have been such an autistic faggot.

I call it the Ælianic refutation from Æutism

>>2464057
real adulthood is realising god's existence nor his lack of existence isn't sure and most likely we will never find out the truth

>>2464556
God created the universe according to logic, but logic was invented, not discovered, by a greek. Did the greeks then create the universe? I wouldn't be surprised, those greeks were very clever.

>>2464571

No, clearly Æutism created the universe. That's why Ælian is the Chosen Son of Man

>>2464384
No one spoke about elders. Not to mention shit has nothing to do with "wisdom with maturity", but rather with the fact they were raised in different times.

>>2464556
>God existing is the default position, logic dictates it.
You've already been conclusively refuted on that point multiple times, you're just too autistic to admit it.

>>2464571
Nope, but we can all be grateful they did since logic is a powerful tool for inferring things that cannot be empirically proven, allowing us to know of the existence of God without having to provide objective evidence.

>>2464593

No, he's just too Æutistic to admit it

Also, don't yell at poor Ælian like that, he might have an Æutistic fit and throw his rosary at you

>>2464545
Oh, I never objected there being some sort of interaction, but interaction happens constantly. And two explanations might be completely different but equally valid for different purposes. If we're trying to engineer a better pot, we would look into the physical explanations of atoms and forces, and from there we would glean more knowledge to make a better pot, or understand how to treat the pot better (only drop form this height and so on). A mother who is scolding her child is completely unconcerned with atoms, and even if she knew it would be an irrelevant cause, because to her the real cause is her child not being careful enough. Causes are invented as a tool to deal with patterns, therefore even physics isn't nearing any sort of objectivity, just greater and greater power in their specific area of concern.

File: kek.png (61KB, 427x536px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 427x536px

Atheists on suicide watch.

>>2464598

I will be grateful when God cures your Æutism and you finally fuck off from /his/

>>2464606

Ælian on Æutistic watch.

Oh wait, no, that would mean you'd actually work on your problems

>all these butthurt Christians flinging feces like monkeys

>>2464608
>Æ

Thanks for avatarfagging, makes filtering you so much easier.

>>2464598
You can infer lots of things with logic, it doesn't mean that it matches with anything in observable reality. I think we've all seen examples on how logic and axioms can be abused to get any form of result you want, so I'm not going to make one.

>>2464615

I don't even have an avatar you autistic turbofaggot

Now fuck off back to /christian/, where your retarded ass came from

>>2464417
/thread

Until the atheists can refute this, they lose.

>>2464593
>You've already been conclusively refuted on that point multiple times
Point out where. I only saw arguments that used faulty logic, or misrepresented the argument.

For example
>>2464396
>Furthermore, "we can't know nuffin" IS sometimes a valid argument
Is not actually true. It's portraying shrugging and saying "I don't know" as an equivalent of a position that does assert a solution and can be argued logically. In this case it's not, the only reason you would ever choose a position of deliberate ignorance over a position that fits the problem and makes logical sense is because of an arbitrary ideological opposition to what is proposed, such as an atheist not being comfortable with the idea that God exists. This does not mean that "I don't know" is anything other than an admission of defeat. If scientists propose a hypothesis that fits the data "I don't know" is not an acceptable alternative argument. You can't argue against a hypothesis from a position of ignorance, you need to make an alternative case and argue for why it's a more compelling solution with logic.

>>2464057
Adulthood is not giving a fuck

>>2464417
>>2464621

Well no the big bang is not a creation, its simply a point in time be cant see past, because the laws that governed the universe were vastly different from what we are used to.

>>2464621
We already DID refute it, you're just too retarded to understand the refutation :P

>>2464623
>not being comfortable with the idea that God exists

That's actually what it boils down to.

Atheists don't >>want<< there to be a God. It's not about reason or logic, it's all about feelings and desires.

The proof? Just look how atheists get angry and riled up when arguments and evidence are posted for God. They reject it no matter how great, this shows their true intention.

>>2464631
So atheism?

>>2464638
Just like you want there to be a god, either to punish the "wicked" or to uphold your reactionary morality and fight "degeneracy". Usually these days and in these circles it's the latter.

Keep in mind that the problem of what the causal agent was that set off the Big Bang is certainly a big unsolved problem for cosmologists it completely pales in comparison to the even bigger problem that our universe is completely unnatural and exists on a knifes edge of improbability to get things the way they are. No matter how you cut it there are several universal constants which are finely tuned. The causal agent problem is a relatively simple problem compared to the one of exactly why our universe appears to be so unnatural.

>>2464660
I believe in facts. God is a given, it's obvious. To deny it is to deny rationality and logic.

If you want to argue which religion is right, that's a different subject all together.

>>2464679
yes, of course

>>2464679
>I believe in facts.
Clearly not. Everything you're saying seems to be entirely based on faith alone, facts be damned.

>>2464340
Your face when someone really believes this too.

>>2464439
>Christianity is decreasing
>but that's wrong nigger
>b-but it's only increasing in shitholes! Educated people like me are atheists :^)
Wew

File: 1483864769374.png (86KB, 192x187px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 192x187px

>>2464699
>Give an entire thread worth of arguments for why God must logically exist
>Huuuur you're just basing that on faith
Every time.

>>2464716
logic is pure fedora

>>2464716
>Give an entire thread worth of arguments for why God must logically exist
>Get explained why the arguments are faulty
>Wonder why people think you're retarded
Every time.

>>2464733
There is nothing faulty about the cosmological argument. If you'd like to point out a 'fault' feel free and I'll explain why you're wrong.

>>2464753
if someone had to create the universe, someone had to create god

>>2464753
I've already done that in this thread. Other people have done it too. And yet you just keep repeating the same fucking argument despite being proven wrong over and over again. Logical arguments clearly don't interest you in the slightest, so why don't you do everyone a favor and fuck off or kill yourself.

>>2464766
Not true. All things that have a beginning must be caused. As God has no beginning he has no need for a cause.

>>2464773
Then link me the post so I can refute it. What have you got to lose?

>>2464766
God is by definition uncreated. If God had a beginning he would not be God.

Time, space and matter had a beginning. God is not bound by the laws he created.

>>2464753
Are you fucking theists trolling at this point?

>>2464057
But is that the Christian God or some other entity or being?

>>2464057
Seniority is shutting up about it.

>>2464785
God is timeless. The pre-big bang universal singularity was timeless. So what makes god different from the singularity?

>>2464788
Not an argument.

>>2464785
>Then link me the post so I can refute it.
No point, you've already demonstrated that you're not interested in logical argument. Kill yourself retard.

>>2464785
>all things that have a beginning must be caused
By making this claim you are presupposing a creator already. Simply rejecting this one claim already makes your trite argument crumble.

*teleports fedora behind you*

>>2464788
>atheist is dumbfounded that he lost an internet argument
>"Shit, he got me.."
>"I know, let me take out the bait card! That'll show him!"

not an argument famalam

>>2464500
And how do you know that? Your reasoning is entirely circular

>>2464804
>Kill yourself retard

So this is the power of atheist logic..

>>2464801
The singularity was contingent on something else that created it. God.

File: laughing.jpg (296KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1920x1080px

>ITT: atheists getting obliterated

>>2464818
Why? If it's timeless it wouldn't have a beginning, just like god.

>>2464809
>By making this claim you are presupposing a creator already
Not really. Do you believe things can appear out of thin air without cause? Everything within the universe is contingent on something else that created that thing. Everything. The issue is if you trace back the chain of causality you cannot have an infinite regress, SOMETHING must not be contingent on anything else. Why? Because an infinite regress means an infinite chain of cause and effect and if you follow that chain back infinitely guess what? It means the universe can't exist because there had to be an infinite number of things that interacted before the universe was caused. Therefore there is something that was not contingent on any other interaction to have been created, that is God.

>>2464817
I've already tried logic, your head is clearly too thick for it to work. Kill yourself retard.

File: cognitive dissonance.jpg (80KB, 574x574px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 574x574px

Just stop arguing with the fedoras.

They have repeatedly shown not to be interested in truth, facts, logic or reason. They're only here to shitpost and proselytize.

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

>>2464827
And what was the causal agent that caused the singularity to go boom? You're just dressing up the problem. You cannot deny causality.

>>2464785
>All things that have a beginning must be caused.

Why do you assume universe has a beggining?

>>2464845
Big Bang.
Or Big Bang doesn't count?

>>2464811
>>2464802
I was simply asking a honest question

>>2464528
>>2464606
>>2464824
>>2464841
these are non-arguments and quite pathetic really no?

>>2464844
See >>2464408

>>2464818
You have no way of knowing that. You're just assuming that.
Also, reaching the end of a causation and then saying: "God", is not proving anything (other than the limitations of homeschooling)

>>2464848
Why do you assume there was no universe before the BoomBoom?

>>2464844
And what was the causal agent that caused god to perform his actions?

File: Homeschoolers.jpg (32KB, 450x383px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 450x383px

>>2464855
homeschooling creates smarter kids than public state schools.

>>2464838
Wrong. Simple counterexample: vacuum fluctuations. Many physical observations have already been made that disprove your antiquated view of the universe.

And even if we accept the (proven to be WRONG) idea that everything in the universe has a causal antecedent this does not tell us anything about the nature of "the first thing". You cannot deduce sentience/omnipotence/benovelence etc. etc. from that argument.

>>2464066
>and triangles are the most basic of shapes that realize themselves in any shape or figure.
hmmm

>>2464057
I'm okay with the existence of a god.
Just not a personal god who cares about what you had for lunch.

>mountains of christian arguments for the existence of god
>literally nothing to suggest it's the god described in their bible, or desiring/worthy of our worship, or really anything other than some kind of powerful entity responsible for creating our universe

why is this?

>>2464408
Causality is not contingent on time. Time is contingent on causality. Causality can exist without time.

>or any number of other possible explanations that do not require God.
Are there any that don't run into the infinite regress problem? For example:

> it's entirely possible that the Big Bang was caused by an event in another universe
So what created that universe?

>or that the universe is cyclical
So an infinite amount of time has passed which means we can't exist because if you regress an infinite amount of time it means that our universe will be created in an infinite amount of time. i.e never.

The God hypothesis solves these problems, you've just ignored them

>>2464838
>that is God
no. That is the place where you insert God. But God does not logically need to follow. A.k.a non sequitur.

Also you are putting God at a very distant and very deist spot. This is not the God of Abraham and Jesus.

>>2464867
If your vacuum has fluctuations, it isn't really a vacuum, is it.

I think that's the fundamental problem of godless thinking. No concept of what "nothing" would be, to include the "chance" that a "singularity" that necessarily contained all of the mass/energy in the universe just suddenly "popped into existence" from "nothing".

They told you it was a very small singularity to reduce your disbelief.

Yet it had to, by necessity, contain everything that is in this universe by virtue of the conservation of mass/energy.

So the real question is, how big did the singularity have to be? Very, very small, as they told you, or a mass with the diameter of 17 trillion suns?

>>2464860
Because it's literally the explanation of the Big Bang and what has been spouted by atheists all over this thread? You can't backtrack.

>>2464875
Because this thread is about the existence of God. (philosophical)

We haven't delved into what God or what religion (theological). That's another topic. Feel free to create a thread.

>>2464875
Arguments for a biblical god became too absurd for even them.

The bible is all metaphorical now.

>>2464875
That's something different you know, right? Stop moving the goalposts

>>2464894
Said nobody ever.
2/10 for your poor troll post.

>>2464864
If that pic is your proof I will gladly donate funds to further your education

>>2464867
>vacuum fluctuations
Seems like a bit of a stretch to assume just because we cannot detect the cause there isn't one, don't you think? After all causality is the one thing we know is absolute. All things in the universe are relative, time, space, perception of the order of events. Causality is not, it's objective for all observers in all frames of reference. Based on that I'm willing to assume that there actually is a cause for them and that vacuum fluctuations are indeed contingent on whatever causes them.

>>2464327
t. redditor that fills in chaotic universe with order

>>2464882
>this is not the God of Abraham and Jesus
non-sequitur, that has got nothing to do with this argument

>>2464878
>Causality is not contingent on time. Time is contingent on causality. Causality can exist without time.
No it can't.

>So an infinite amount of time has passed which means we can't exist because if you regress an infinite amount of time it means that our universe will be created in an infinite amount of time. i.e never.
See >>2464470

>The God hypothesis solves these problems, you've just ignored them
They're only problems because your idea of time is fundamentally flawed.

>>2464875
You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Get the atheists to concede God exists first, then move on to proving it is the Christian God

>>2464882
It's funny because atheists do the same thing when it comes to evolutionism.

>dude this bird has a different beak than this other bird
>that means we evolved from apes!!
>"But isn't that a leap of faith? Pure speculation"
>nah brah its just the logical conclusion, trust me u stupid creationist lol dawkins4life famm

hypocrites

>>2464884
I assume you don't have a background in physics from that comment.
That is actually the amazing thing about vacuum fluctuations they happen in a 100% vacuum. No matter or energy to be found. They have no cause. They just happen.

And your last question seems to be equating size to mass, which doesn't make sense. Try rephrasing it.

>>2464417
>We know the universe had a beginning, 13.8 billion years ago,
According to your ideology. Nobody cares about that though.

Childhood is thinking you need a logical proof of god.
Adulthood is realizing Kierkegaard was right all along.

>>2464896
dude, that was literally my first post in this thread, I haven't moved any goalposts. you guys just dump all these arguments all the time on /his/ that do legitimately point out the existence of a creator, and then declare victory for the bible and jesus and all that other stuff that hasn't been proven relevant or true.

>>2464891
am I wrong to assume the people arguing for the philosophical god in this thread are very, very interested in the theological god as well?

How to be atheist in easy steps.
1. People who have a belief because eyewitness are all mentally ill.
2. NDEs are a mental illness
3. Intellectual arguments are a mental illness
4. Only proper demonstration is an ever elussive neckbeard smelly nintendo laboratory test.

>>2464929
>and then declare victory for God and Jesus
Nobody has done this on this thread

>>2464889
Was it? Big bang is just the furthest point in history of universe we have data on. Not some "le beggining of time" event.

There is no reason to assume time has not existed before it. Hell, there is no reason to assume anything, since it is pure speculation where nobody is incorrect.

>>2464902
Epistemic cop-out, classic. At this point the claim that "all things have a cause" turns to a tautology because you turn it into "all things have a cause and things which do not appear to have a cause have hidden causes".

What "causes" an electron to be detected at a specific spot within its probability distribution? Did god put it there with his grubby fingers?

I understand that the idea of causality is one that is very much anchored within the human brain as it is very important for our survival, but our biases do not make it true.

>>2464064
first post best post, the light of truth banishes ignorance and wickedness

>>2464939
So you're going to reject our scientific discoverings just to discredit God too? Holy shit, man, how arrogant you must be.

File: 1439444077315.png (120KB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 3000x3000px

I guess this still holds true, even here

>>2464921
/thread

>>2464948
See
>>2464933

File: comfy.jpg (19KB, 409x409px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 409x409px

>yfw God exists

Feels good being on the right side of history

>>2464948
>duuuude, everyone must be trolling hahahaha, le ebin 4Chan, there's no way people believe in God am I rite? XDD

>>2464935
>in this thread
correct, but I can't picture the one guy who keeps posting reaction images and remarking on fedoras being btfo being an agnostic, jew, or buddhist.

>>2464918
And I assume you're ignorant about physics as well, as there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, even in space.

Just think about what you're trying to do.

You're trying to use something in a known extant universe to say that there could be nothing existing whatsoever.

>>2464958
>I can't picture the guy being an agnostic
Wew
Maybe the fact that the guy is a troll should take precedence over his assumed religion?

File: 1468618900867.jpg (214KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 640x480px

>>2464954
to what end, feeling smug over internet arguments
I pity any deity with such a goal

>>2464424
>kindergarten thinking

>>2464964
I pity people who do not understand the downside of their worldview.

>a high level of discourse is expected

Gotta love that quality dialectic that occurs around here.

>>2464908
>No it can't.
Yes, it can. There would be no time without causality.

>They're only problems because your idea of time is fundamentally flawed.
Nope, they're still major problems. You can't sweep them under the rug by trying to define time as a mystical substance that doesn't obey causality like everything else. Causality is the fundamental truth of the universe that everything else hinges on. Cause and effect does not occur 'through' time. Time is your perception of cause and effect, that's it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko

Skip to 4:40 to get an understanding. Time doesn't exist as we know it. Only events.

File: 1487641571213.jpg (401KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1000x1500px

>>2464964
>reads philosophy once

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oETivbBtlAE

This is where atheism leads to.

>>2464979
To be fair though, the "Downside" is that Christians think you are going to Hell, that's some silly ass shit right there.

If that were true then everyone is going to some other religion's hell, whatevs. Maybe we can crack the code and develop the Uber Religion which ticks off all other religions anti-hell policies?

>>2464979
>>2464989

explain to me what you do accomplish as you waste your time on pointless arguments

>>2464995
NDEs prove an afterlife.

Atheists and Muslims become Christians after a near-death experience. That should tell you something.

>>2464993

And you posting in your own thread is what Æutism leads to

>>2464996
>pointless arguments
I'm insulting you, because it pleases me. Stoicism is for children and I enjoy insulting children. If I had the opportunity, I would storm into an Elementary School and insult every last little ideologue.

>>2464995

No, the downside is that Christians are telling you the truth, and you dismiss that truth with your disbelief.

As though your disbelief had an impact on objective truth.

A rational being would seek any mitigation over an infinitely negative and terminal condition.

>>2465000
that reads like it's straight out of some sensationalist newspaper
I'm sure you can provide a proof to your claims?

>>2465005

And I don't insult you, I'm merely spreading the fact that you have Æutism and need to fuck off

>>2464996

If you become persuaded that the Christian worldview is not only proper, but robust and foundational for all worldviews and become a christian yourself, ask me this question in heaven.

>>2465010
youtube
google

>>2465000
The fact they can be replicated in g-force centrifuges and that we know their chemical makeup surely doesn't suggest they're a strictly physical phenomenon.

>Atheists and Muslims become Christians after a near-death experience. That should tell you something.
>source
>your ass and possibly an anecdote

>>2464985
>Nope, they're still major problems. You can't sweep them under the rug by trying to define time as a mystical substance that doesn't obey causality like everything else. Causality is the fundamental truth of the universe that everything else hinges on. Cause and effect does not occur 'through' time. Time is your perception of cause and effect, that's it.
No they aren't. Time doesn't OBEY causality, time DEFINES causality.

>>2465012
Outside of your online and hostile relationship with Aelian, do you have a personality of your own?

Or did you just "graduate" from Pet3r to Aelian in hopes of developing one?

>>2465009

And the downside to Æutsim is that you spend all day on /his/ sperging out against random strangers, thinking your autistic fits will convince them

>>2465016
The evidence would by definition be anecdotal.

>>2464944
>At this point the claim that "all things have a cause" turns to a tautology because you turn it into "all things have a cause and things which do not appear to have a cause have hidden causes".
Is that unreasonable? I don't think it's very scientific to say "Well we can't see any obvious cause so therefore there is no cause" especially since we know that things don't just 'happen'. If you argue that things can just 'happen' it's self defeating because the whole argument about miracles is that one off events that occur randomly for no given reason do not occur, ever.

>What "causes" an electron to be detected at a specific spot within its probability distribution
Electrons do not literally exist as a cloud of probability, that is just how we model them. What the reality is of their behavior is a complete unknown to us, all we know is that the math works out.

>>2465012
>fact
Facts don't exist.

>>2465016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLimoqZUWgw

atheist college professor becomes a christian after a near death experience

>>2465024
Let's accept that as true. My downside is being ridiculed online, and your downside is an eternity in the dark, alone, and on fire, forever.

Which of us is taking the greater risk?

>>2465022

What are you talking about, Ælian? Are you having an autistic fit again?

Oh wait, you always do. But please, keep telling yourself that it's the evil sinners why you're a faggot with no friends

>>2464959
Nice try. I am actually a physicist.
There are simply ways to account for any imperfections within a vacuum. Fact is that there are measurable effects for which we only have very few plausible explenations and the most widely accepted is that in a vacuum pairs of particles and antiparticles constantly pop in an out of existence.

>>2465032

But your Æutism sure does. In fact, it's immutable, just like your faggotry

>>2465015
just some accounts of mentaly unstable fucks
wew

>>2465009
>A rational being would seek any mitigation over an infinitely negative and terminal condition.
A rational being would dismiss Christianity as being full of contradictions, and assume that even if there IS a god, he doesn't have anything to do with Christianity unless the said god is fundamentally malicious towards humans.

>>2465046
I'm not this redditor you speak of

>>2465049
What contradictions?

>>2465017
>Time doesn't OBEY causality, time DEFINES causality.
Nope. Causal connections between events exist regardless of time. Time only defines the distance between events, which again, is completely subjective thanks to relativity. Time as you know it is not a thing, what you perceive as the passage of 'time' is actually the passage of 'moving' from event to event along the chain of causality.

>>2465035

No, your downside is that you're a queer with no friends, who sperges out against anyone who disagrees with him, and declares them 'sinners' for not being an autistic faggot such as yourself

>>2465045

No, you're actually an Æutistic NEET faggot, who projects his own inability to socially interact with people onto others

>>2465050

No, but you're the Æutistic faggot I speak of

>>2465057
>Causal connections between events exist regardless of time.
The existence of events as well as the existence of connections between them already assume that time exists.

>>2465057
>Time as you know it is not a thing, what you perceive as the passage of 'time' is actually the passage of 'moving' from event to event along the chain of causality.
if time is not a thing explain why time is affected by speed and gravity

>>2464918
>No matter or energy to be found
I'd return your degree if you think that. The fluctuations themselves are energy, from a field.

>>2465029
>Is that unreasonable?
Yes it is unreasonable to make a claim that is not falsifiable.

>Electrons do not literally exist as a cloud of probability, that is just how we model them. What the reality is of their behavior is a complete unknown to us, all we know is that the math works out.

I am well aware of this. But that kind of scepticism holds true for everything. There is an epistemic gap to everything we percieve. We never know the "reality of their behaviour". We only ever know of things wether the behaviour/properties they exhibit are in accordance with our ideas of them or not.
You make unfalsifiable claims and draw unfalsifiable conclusions from them.

>>2465034
That would be an anecdote.

>>2465097

Yes, an Æutistic anecdote

>>2465026
Unless it was a formal study on the topic.

>>2465097
So?

Are all these thousands of people - who don't know eachother, conspiring to fake NDEs just to spite atheists? Is this your argument? If so, they are the greatest actors in the world.

>>2465085
Yeah, true. My bad. Got a bit heated right there.

>>2465113
>thousands of people
<citation needed>

provide me with a positive rather than asserting the existence of one based on a negative and I will believe in a creator. Until then, bugger off.

>>2465113
Because anecdotes aren't scientific evidence. I personally know a man who lost his faith during a lung removal surgery, he was dead on the table for a short while, and will speak with absolute certainty that there is nothing on the other side.

Again, NDEs can be replicated in g-force centrifuges and we can observe their chemical makeup.

>>2465121
google
youtube

retard

>>2465040
It's strange that you think everyone who disagrees with you on religious grounds is one poster.

Again, I'm not Aelian.

iirc, Aelian uses a trip. Do you see a trip attached to my posts?

>>2465093
>Yes it is unreasonable to make a claim that is not falsifiable.
Even if that claim is completely consistent with how we know the universe works, and in fact if it was not true would be literally the ONLY case we know of where shit just occurs for absolutely no given reason? Seems like a very silly stance. Like saying if you throw a ball up you'll never really know if it comes back down until it actually occurs. We can make logical inferences and mine here is that vacuum fluctuations are like everything else in the universe and have a cause, you're going straight out into wingnut territory and claiming "Can't see it, isn't there, even if it contradicts one of the fundamental laws of the universe"

Well ok, if we're going the route that you literally cannot make an inference about vacuum energy having a cause because while it would be completely consistent with how we know the universe works we have no objective proof then I guess it's ok for me to say that we can accept Jesus miracles as fact? Since you know, even if miracles contradict the way we know the universe to work we have no objective proof they did not occur. Your stance works for me.

>>2465134

you're
Æutistic

faggot

>>2465045

Yes, by admitting that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.

Nothing does not exist, and never existed. Average temp in the universe is 4 K, not 0.

>>2465142

Right, because you can't remove trips

Fucking autistic gaylord

>>2465134
>be asked for a sitation
>"hurrdurr do my research for me retard"
From this I can only conclude that you're a liar as well as a retard. Kill yourself faggot.

>>2465049

A rational being would investigate any so-called contradictions, making sure he knew what contradictions actually were.

I am that rational being.

There are no contradictions in either Christianity or in the bible. Just manufactured lies, general ignorance and mistakes.

>>2465143
I can not observe Jesus' miracles. I can repeatedly measure vacuum fluctuations. Big difference.

>>2465059
Then I'm already living well above my downside, while you have not yet come to terms with yours.

>>2465132
>again NDEs can be replicated
They can't, and also are unexplained by chemical mechanisms because every mechanism that allows the brain to experience any kind of hallucination requires oxygen. NDE survivors experienced oxygen deprivation.

>>2465155

No, you're that Æutistic being. You also have no friends

>>2465105
Comprised of studying anecdotes.

>>2465085
Explain what a field is.

Protip: Do not regurgitate Maxwellian field equations. That's not an explanation.

>>2465153
I haven't studied the topic, but people who use trips use trips.

>>2465158

No, because just like hell, and your Æutism, loneliness is forever.

You're probably used to that by now though. Maybe that's why you can't interact with anyone

>>2465162
I find it odd people attack with what are good attacks against themselves, not knowing what they are revealing to strangers who pay attention.

>>2465149
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Enjoy.

>>2465155
But a religious person is ideologically required to believe and state that his religion is perfect no matter what. So unfortunately your position in the matter is locked in regardless of the Truth Value of the statement, If the bible were perfect or if the bible were flawed, you are obligated to state that it is perfect in either case. So ultimately you are not a trustworthy source of opinion or information.
I'm sorry but that's the breaks.

>>2465172
One of the infinitely many benefits of being a born again Christian is the impossibility of ever being alone.

You might want to look into it for just that purpose.

>>2465179
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

>with the lowest possible energy.

Not zero.

>>2465171

Yes, and they can remove them, for instance, when they engage in repetitive Æutistic behavior, and get called out for it.

Like you've been doing on /his/. Because you have no friends, and no life, and the only social activity you engage in is autistic christfaggotry and linkdumping

File: 1481162964370.png (2MB, 3327x4418px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3327x4418px

>>2465161
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEJL_L9RHJY

Yes, they can.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/

Scientific explanation.

>>2465155
The Bible is chock-full of contradictions. You've just smoothed them over with doublethink.

Who /satanist/ here?

>>2465178

What the fuck are you even talking about? Is that Æutistic english?

>>2465182
It's a good thing I'm not talking about any manmade religions then, huh.

The autographs are perfect. We do not have the autographs. We have copies that were made by faithful people in writing over thousands of years.

And when we check those copies against copies that are thousands of years old, they're 99.8% identical, the differences being spelling variants and idioms.

>>2465188
You would be well served to find out how to samefag people, because you're sperging out at three different people.

>>2465191
That chart has already been debunked.
Deliberately takes things out of context.

>>2464057
It's pretty much the other way around. Unless you're some anime manchild who watches cartoons and believes in fairy tales

>>2465191
>The Bible is chock-full of contradictions. You've just smoothed them over with doublethink.

Feel free to name one. fyi, each of those red arcs has already been addressed, and none of them contain any contradictions.

>>2465155
>There are no contradictions in either Christianity or in the bible. Just manufactured lies, general ignorance and mistakes.
The very nature of God contradicts itself within the bible.

>>2465183

And yet you managed to do it. I bet even God thinks you're an Æutistic queer

By the way, for someone who totally isn't Ælian, you sure insist on endlessly respondong to accusations aimed towards him. Probably because you don't know how social interaction works

Because you're an autistic faggot

>>2465201

This.

That's why I am a Muslim.

>>2465197

Oh, now I get it. You figured out the code to make a cute little AE mashup and you take every single possible opportunity to make it. Like a triforce test for newfags, you fell for it hook line and sinker.

kek

>>2465212
Proof?

>>2465212
It is not; just your comprehension or apprehension of the trinity is lacking.

>>2465203

Oh yeah, three different people who all respond in the same Æutistic manner.

>>2465157
True but I'm saying if you refuse to accept that vacuum fluctuations probably have a cause because that is congruent with how we know pretty much everything else works, then you can't use the opposite argument against miracles since the argument against miracles is that they are NOT congruent with our knowledge of how reality works.

Point is if you're making a special exception for something to defy the laws of the universe because we have no proof they do not, then you must necessarily accept that miracles are a possibility since you accept that things can defy universal laws. I mean if vacuum fluctuations have no cause how can you argue that Jesus needs a 'cause' for healing a blind man? Just throw the whole idea out, we don't need a cause for anything that ever happens, things can just pop into existence at any time for no reason at all.

>>2465217
I have some very bad news for you.....

>>2465223
You might be paranoid schizophrenic, anon.

>>2464946
What scientific "disoverings"?

>>2465221
Try reading Genesis, then ask yourself whether it's in any way or form compatible with the new testament.

>>2465219

Honestly, what are you talking about? What 'code', you fucking retard?

Are you having another Æutistic fit again?

>>2465226

What?

>>2465232
It is, completely. Linked and cited hundreds of times. In fact, in the NT Adam is called the first Adam, and Jesus is called the Second Adam.

>>2465227

And you're an Æutistic faggot

>>2465235

Jesus really is God, and Mohammad knew that the angel whispering in his hear was shaitan the entire time.

>>2465226
>I have some very bad news for you...
>...the thing you just said... it's DIFFERENT from what I believe! How horrible!

>>2465232
It is.

Jesus is God of the Old Testament, very simple.

>>2465240
*ear

>>2465236

And you're the third Adam, the Æutistic Adam

>>2464057

*hood is a spook in that language game structure.

A more "proper" way of stipulating God is this...

We have a set that contains all the possible conditional, random, and inherent psychologies (and their analogues in internal mechanics) which properly describe up to an infinity of different entities who have measurable control in our universe.

Choose Judeo-Christian god out of that set.

Remember, "being a good person" does not guarantee you a "good result".

File: kek2.jpg (53KB, 628x314px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 628x314px

>>2465240

You're in for a nasty shock.

>>2465224
As long as miracles aren't repeatable observations your whole point is moot. If they were repeatable and we were unable to find a possible cause I would "make an exception" for them as well.

>>2465236
A perfect god wouldn't have created a flawed Lucifer or flawed Snake or flawed Adam.

>>2465242
In the most fundamental way possible, and mutually exclusive, yes.

In the quran, Jesus is not God, was not crucified, did not die, and did not raise from the dead.

How an Arab knew that 600 years later when everyone at the time wrote the truth would make a reasonable man wonder who was giving Mohammad that information. Gabriel, who announced Jesus' birth?

Or Shaitan, who wants to be worshiped as God?

>>2465253
Indeed. Heaven is more wonderful than I can possibly imagine here on earth.

>>2465257

And he did not. They were all created "good" by God's standards.

>>2465187
>it contains no physical particles

>>2465258

Æutistically exclusive, too

File: a2.gif (35KB, 468x240px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 468x240px

>>2465261

It certainly is

>>2465205
*tips fedora*
Hahaha I'm so better than every manchild on this site XDD

>>2465265
There are no particles, only fields and fields are not particles.

>>2465268
Anyone following Mohammad will end up in hell with Mohammad.

Anyone following Jesus will end up in heaven with Jesus.

That's the nature of the phrase "to follow".

>>2465264

And you were created by Æutistic standards

>>2465272
We can model tight enough fields as particles.

File: a1.gif (34KB, 468x240px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 468x240px

>>2465277

>>2465277

And anyone following you will end up with incurable Æutism

>>2465270
why are christfags always so insecure
if your god is so great, why does he need protection?

>>2465264
Each of them was fundamentally flawed right from creation. Lucifer would not have become overly proud if he was not flawed. The snake would not have chosen to deceive Adam if he were not flawed. And Adam, were he perfect, would have been incapable of being deceived. And being able to become flawed is, itself, a flaw, and thus means they could not have been perfect at their creation either. Thus god is either not perfect, or He deliberately made them flawed, in which case he is not Good.

>>2465290
We are all footsoldiers in the earthly culture war.

>>2464415
The +3 million Muslims must be a projection from the new German Caliphate.

>>2464057
But OP you're wrong. Children don't believe in God, and will grow up with this half truth until they die.
Real intellectuals/leaders know that god isn't real either, but they understand the importance of having one implemented to keep the poor in line. It's one of the cheapest and easiest cultural forms of preventative of crimes, because it gives people who are fucked a "light at the end" so long as they are a good boy for this life.

>>2465294

Yes, the mighty war against the neurotypical scum who won't mumble back to you

>>2465290
Why are you so insecure you must believe that you're so mature just because you don't watch cartoons, are atheist and don't read fantasy?

>>2465314

Honestly Ælian, do you even know how to string a sentence together? Is English your second language or something?

>>2465314
but I do watch cartoons and read fantasy, that's a lot of childish projection here

>>2465295
>/pol/fag
>doesn't believe in God
>le religion is only a tool of control

Yeah, I bet you think you're smarter than Aquinas

>>2465251

CONT.

How much would you gamble on your understanding of God?

I'd gamble nothing.

I've seen far more humans cause themselves, and others, suffering over non-consistent ideas.
And because of that I will gamble something.

I'm gambling on the stupidity of humans far more than their wisdom.

I'm gambling that descriptions of God are awkward attempts to capture local stimuli as being representative of universal stimuli.

What is the price of such a gamble? Up to infinite pain and up to infinite pleasure and every possibility in between.

Do you dare make such a gamble with your understanding of thy lord?

Adulthood is pressing the car button on your keyboard

>>2465335

And I bet you think you're not really Æutistic

>>2465292
It's called free will.

God doesn't make automatons, he makes creatures that can think for themselves.

>>2465327
>posts that only manchild that watch cartoons and read fantasy could possibly believe in God
>then backtracks

>>2465345
⭕

>>2465253

>Detailed Documentary Exposing Islam (3 hours)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk_VwZxN9bA

>Allah in Quran = Satan in Bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTi1FZkoEsM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86PL9wueH-s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLoUq8vybzY

>>2465349

And he made you Æutistic

Atheists don't exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

Everyone is innately aware of God.

>>2465365

>HURR LETS LINKDUMP
>NOW NO ONE WILL THINK IM ÆUTISTIC

>>2465371

Æutistic people, however, do exist. This thread has at least one of them

>>2465357
>autistically assumes I was that person
is this your first day on an anonymous board?
how insecure

>>2465349
So is free will incompatible with perfection, then? In that case God can only be good OR perfect as well, since if he does not have free will, he can be no more good than he can be evil.

>>2465282
Modelitis.

Many such cases. Sad!

>>2465009

So finally it is here, just as others have predicted. First, you try to create a dialectic that appears to make non-believers to either concede a logical dead-end or get annoyed with circular arguments.
Then you bring in Christianity which has been proven to be the biggest plagiarization of theology that ever was. Many faiths before Christianity claimed for the exact truth so what makes Christianity so special?
When pointed out, you will defend it with the same fervour as you did for deism in before and then it will be a reversal of roles where this kind of argument will be poured and the critics of Christianity will be accused to - twisting fact, satanic facts, false facts etc, etc.
>It is written so it is true
>It is the word of God so it is true
_It was the grand plan
So forth and so on. Very Fascinating.

>>2465387
Angels were made perfect, with free will.
Lucifer decided to rebel and become Satan.

Adam and Eve were created perfect, with free will. They decided to to rebel and thus introduced death and sin into the world.

We are responsible for our own actions.

God wants genuine love, not the love of a robot that is programmed to love.

>>2465292

No, no they were not. Lucifer became proud because he was created so awesome. He took his own awesomeness not as a sign that God creates awesome things, but that he had something to do with how awesome he was.

Likewise Eve was deceived by satan into thinking she could be like God, as satan wanted to be like God, and Adam willingly sinned against God to stay with Eve.

The devil, man, and woman all rebelled against God.

And you want to blame God for that, because God gave them all free will.

>>2465367
Oh, you're the Malasian guy. Makes sense.

>>2465396
You don't know what Christianity is if you think it pre-existed Jesus' resurrection.

>>2465399
Lucifer would not have rebelled without pride. Pride is a flaw, thus he was not perfect. Adam and Eve would not have rebelled had they not been deceived by the snake. Able to be deceived is also a flaw. They rebelled because of their flaws, not because of their free will. Had they been perfect, they would have been content to live in harmony with God of their own free will.

>>2465426
If you can't have emotions, you're not a sovereign creature with free will.

You're basically arguing that God should have made robots/zombies incapable of doing bad, which is antithetical to free will.

>>2465426
what's better, a father that forces you to love him or a father that lets you decide for yourself?

>>2464166
jesus christ

>>2465438
No, I'm arguing that if God's creation had been perfect, no-one would have had a cause to rebel against him.

>>2465462
There was never a cause to rebel.

The corruption of creation started with Satan. He became delusional and thought he could topple God.

>>2465448
Trick question: Surely a perfect son would love a perfect father, with no forcing involved.

>>2465478
>The corruption of creation started with Satan. He became delusional and thought he could topple God.

And how the hell can you even try to argue that THIS IS NOT A FLAW IN THE CREATION?

>>2464057
What about ghosts and vampires and boogeymen, are they also real?

>>2465480
Everything God made was originally perfect. Read the first chapters of Genesis. God made everything good and the angels rejoiced.

Things go bad when we try to go our own way and not listen to God.

>>2465462
You're actually arguing that if God had created automatons, this conversation wouldn't be happening.

God did not create automatons for a reason.

How many times can a Real Doll tell you that she loves you before you tire of hearing it?

>>2465491
Demons, demons and demons. And yes, they're very real.

>>2465514
Read what I've been posting. Everything could not have been created perfect, otherwise there would not have been rebellion.

>>2465438
>>2465438
No he isn't, you ignored his points because you know you can't refute hem with logic.

>>2465518
No they aren't.

>>2465534
Yes they are.

>>2465488

Try listening for a change. Imagine the possible universes that God could have created. This is not an exhaustive list, but should start you thinking.

1. No universe. God creates nothing, evil never exists.

2. Automaton universe. God creates automatons, evil never exists. But neither does love.

3. Pollyanna universe. God creates universe but only programs beings to always make the right choice and never rebel against him. Again, does love exist in this universe as the highest ideal?

4. This universe. God starts it off good, knowing it would fall into evil, and knowing the cost he would pay to redeem it. Then offers free will moral agents the choice to love him, or reject him.

Only in the last possible universe is love the highest ideal. Uncoerced, unlimited, boundless love. And in order for free will moral agents to exercise their free will, apparently equal alternatives must exist. And they do.

God, and love, and life, and heaven on one hand, devil and hate and death and hell on the other.

It's not a trick question. You get to choose which one you want.

>>2465516
>You're actually arguing that if God had created automatons, this conversation wouldn't be happening.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE. I'm arguing that either perfection and free will are incompatible, or the creation was fundamentally flawed from beginning. If Lucifer had been perfect, he could have had free will and wouldn't have rebelled against the god. It's not a question of free will vs. automatons, it's a question of how can two perfect beings even have such a fundamental disagreement in the first place that it would lead to out-right rebellion.

>>2465518
This sounds a lot like that Keanu Reeves movie Constantine! Would you say it's a realistic representation of our world?

>>2465534
I'm glad you have never experienced these beings on the one hand, but on the other, many people are saved when they encounter true evil and realize there must be true Good that also exists.

>>2465549

It's your definition of perfection that is in question here. Your assumption is that if God is perfect, then God's creation is perfect and would not fall into rebellion.

Why do you make that assumption?

>>2465559
I didn't see the movie, but there are only certain things that exist and demons impersonate many things that do not otherwise exist on their own, like ghosts, vampires, lycanthropes, UFOs, ETs, etc.

>>2465537
Hell-uh.

Ep-ic.

No, they aren't.

>>2465560
Shut up delusional idiot.

>>2465574

Malaysian poster is actually possessed by demons; if there's one person in this thread besides me who knows they're real, it's him.

>>2465566
>Why do you make that assumption?
Because the other option is that God is, on some level, malicious. That he deliberately created the universe such that it would cause untold suffering on a scale unimaginable to humans. Does that sound like a Good god to you?

>>2465581
Good grief, tell me about that.

>>2465581
I would strangle you to death if I could.

>>2465587

I agree with you that before God created the universe, he figured out the costs involved and the benefits involved.

I disagree with you that the costs outweigh the benefits. But then, I'm a benefit, and you're a cost.

I suggest becoming a benefit.

And God himself in the person of Christ Jesus suffered more personally than the collective suffering of all mankind, there on the cross, as he took all sin into himself. He who knew no sin became sin so that in his death we might live.

I do not have a Lord who is unacquainted with suffering.

File: Grace.jpg (57KB, 600x442px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x442px

>>2465594
You can't threaten me with heaven.

>>2465591
>>2465594

When you open yourself up to the occult, you become a warm house for wandering spirits lost in the cold to enter into and eventually take over.

This has happened to the above referenced poster. There's not much of him left.