The evidence for God is existence itself.

>>2465580

The evidence, that humans are fags who bother with a garbled concept of universal regulations, is existence itself.

>>2465580
>believing things based on evidence instead of having faith
terrible desu

>>2465580
Ok great.

Now what's the evidence for Jesus being the son of god or Muhammed being his prophet?

>>2465589
God as that which manifests being is already implied by being itself.

The fact that we are here implies a possibility of forces currently beyond our understanding, but it's quite a long leap to go from that to saying it's proof of the god of Abraham. The existence of the universe gives just as much evidence to the existence of (for example) the Hindu Trinity.

>>2465633

What is being?

A particle in De Sitter space? A field in De Sitter space?

Being is blip on perceptual systems, not universal occurence.

Rats in crawling through the cloak of Maya might find themselves Emperors and Paupers within time.

>>2465633
Have you ever considered that there is no such thing as a lack of existence. The universe has always been, just in different forms. It never began and it will never end.

>>2465622
Christ is simply that consciousness in perfect conformity with the Truth. He is the Son of God because he takes after his Father, as it were. Mary was "chosen" insofar as there were a set of obscure genetic and environmental factors that were just right to produce Jesus' degree of attainment. Mohammed, in his own way, glimpsed the truth and could not interpret it but through the lens of folklore, and so his revelation became Gabriel.

>>2465659
Being is not manifested in a single temporal event, but is sustained eternally. The fact that there can never not be "something" is precisely God.

>>2465658
Being is what is.

>>2465580
>The evidence for God is existence itself

Only if you define "god" in such a way that the statement is tautological. But of course that's not what you meant - you're implying some Christian bullshit, probably.

>>2465580

WHY DO POST A DEPICTION OF YHWH THOUGH?

YHWH IS NOT GOD, BUT A DJINNI/DEMON.

>>2465733
WHY DO YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS YOU ATTENTION WHORING FAGGOT

SHUT THE FUCK UP

>>2465727
God is the fact of being is not far removed from saying God is the fact of subjectivity, of the subject that is saying so. Christ became what he is precisely because he is speaking of the Self. People find comfort in his teachings because he's saying, what is important is not success in the world but that there is a world, what's important is not that you are Caesar but that you are a self, that you are greater than your suffering precisely because you have Self enough in you to suffer.

No arguments, no dialectic, no thesis but a general statement. Why is this in /his/?

>>2465848
>doesn't have enough background in the supposedly rigorous intellectual traditions he's appealing to to be able to argue from his own knowledge without having his hand held

>>2465611
>not reading the bible
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. 1 Peter 3:15

>>2465580
& Humanities strikes again

>>2465964
Like I'm just curious, it's cool if you're here just to shitpost, but why do people roll their eyes when they hear stuff like the OP? Why isn't stuff like this the most important thing to talk about?

File: 26.png (366KB, 382x600px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 382x600px

>>2465580
Which god?

>>2465987
the one true christian god not any others

>>2465987
The one that is all of them.

>>2465976
Because shit like the OP has no interest in having a conversation.

They post from a position of supposed superiority to any and all arguments. There is nothing to be gained from this thread. Nothing said itt will convince OP that his post is fallacious and nothing OP says will convince anybody that disagrees with it that its not bullshit.

This thread and threads like it do nothing to spark any kind of interesting conversation or to learn anything.

>>2465945
If faith is a virtue, you should intentionally believe in the most impossible things so that you have the most faith. Believing in reasonable things is too easy.

>>2466098
Sounds like delusion desu

>>2466209
Faith is that the idea of God is sufficient. You either get it or you don't.

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

Atheists don't exist.

>>2466209
It's baked into the concepts, IF faith is a virtue, then lack of faith would be a vice.

>>2466257
I assure you I do exist. Who should I rely on to verify that, me or you?

>>2466283
Science has discovered that atheists do not exist.

"Atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think" says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself writing in the New Scientist. "They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs".

In your case, you probably believe in evolutionism, naturalism and humanism.

>>2466307
>evolutionism
why do you deceitfully invent buzzwords to justify hatred?
I thought Christians were supposed to uphold the virtues of honesty and Love?
Could it be that Southern Baptists are not Christians?

>>2466307
but I don't believe in a god, or those things you listed as being gods or even to be vague substitutes for god, like some otherly mythologized things with an aura about them. They are concepts and god is also a concept, an incredibly complicated concept, a kind of singularity-as-concept, but by no means divine in itself as such.

>>2466307
This thread isn't for baby christards, can post in this bitch unless you're at least reading Kierkegaard.

Daily reminder that Christians, specifically-but-not-limited-to protestants are the cancer that is killing /his/.

We really need a theology board to get this pointless, awful, antagonistic, confirmation bias bullshit out of our threads. /his/ has been completely overrun by retards that actually believe in a religion, like holy shit this is the 21st century nobody actually believes that shit anymore even your church leaders are just banking on the lie holy shit how can you be so dumb? It's because you've already put so much into it so you can't fathom that you were actually wrong the whole time.

Like holy shit, utterly ruined this board. Literally every. single. thread. with your bullshit

which God?

>>2466347
You know God exists.

You suppress that knowledge because you are in rebellion against Him. You hate God.

>>2466361
0/10 poor troll.

>>2466375
To suppress is Freudian. I am Jungian.

>>2465580
Manlet existence disproves God's existence though

>>2466375
>You know God exists. You suppress that knowledge because you are in rebellion against Him. You hate God.

You are a liar, you can't know what anyone thinks.
Good Christians aren't supposed to lie, you know, yet you lie every day on this board.
I guess you must be a shitty Protestant who only uses his religion to justify hating other human beings? Muslim tier.

>>2466390

"In 1993 Lee Strobel admitted that as an atheist, he was morally adrift but secretly wanted an anchor. In a personal interview with him, he told me he always knew God was real. He just suppressed that truth, knowing that admitting God's reality would require a change in lifestyle."

(Jonathan McKee, Connect: Real Relationships in a World of Isolation, [Zondervan, 2009], p. 67).

>>2466375
oh I'm not the troll here buddy, you are. Sure there might be some actual Christians, I mean I've seen stupidity and I know it exists so I know you idiots are out there, but really this is just another classic case of some trolls ruining a board by pretending to be retarded and making the actual retards think they're in good company.

As a man of reason, there is literally nothing more offensive to logic than the acceptance of a religion, and to go even further and argue that every other religion is wrong except for yours is the epitome of pride and stupidity.

I'm sure you know this, you're probably from /pol/, were told that /his/ is /leftypol/ and proceeded to start spamming your /pol/ bullshit into our board. Just look at the fucking catalogue: race/genetics bullshit, fucking religious arguments, politically-fueled hate threads based in some modern prejudice, philosophy threads that all just boil down to capitalism vs everything else, it's fucking awful. Where are the actual threads about history? Fucking abandoned or empty, only thing that gets responses are /pol/ bait threads like this.

HOW FUCKING DARE you call ME the troll when you people perpetuate this cycle of absolutely atrocious posting? This is as bad as it gets, congrats the level of discourse has officially dropped to the point where /pol/ retards are in good company. Another board ruined by this retardation.

and what pisses me off most is that you're probably reading this with your hardened heart and just assume I'm so liberal or democrat or something you don't like and that's why I'm calling you out for having a pathetically low level of discourse, but I want you to know that honestly, I'm centrist as fuck and am turned off by the mere presence of the anti-intellectualism that has infested this board.

fuck man you ruined it. You fucking ruined the last decent board on 4chan. God fucking damn you people, God fucking damn you.

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

61KB, 427x536px

>>2466425
>'As a man of reason'
>proceeds to show irrationality throughout his post

You're an edgy rebellious 12 year old going through his atheist phase. I understand, we were all there.

>>2466422
>one person's story is applicable to everybody

Are people really this hungry for (you)s that they resort to acting like a clown on a Mongolian hand-tapestry imageboard?

I seriously don't get the mentality.

>>2466436
you attracted actual Christians to this board what the fuck were you thinking? You've doomed us all. You think it's so fucking funny right now but you'll regret it when you get sick of these putrid, toxic religious debates and that's all there fucking is anymore because trolls like you pretending to be Christians just had to have your fucking giggles.

>>2466448
Science has shown that atheism is not real.

You can watch the video or remain ignorant.

>>2466455
why do Christians suddenly trust science?

>>2466425
Actually I tried to respond to people's points here:
>>2465633
>>2465673
>>2465690
>>2465798

without the typical christfag bullshit but no replies, /his/ isn't some intellectual utopia defiled by religionchat, it's r/history: pepe boogaloo, fuck off already you chirping faggot

>>2466461
Why would I not? Science is on our side.

>>2466481
how is it more on your side than on Islam's side?

>>2466461
They learned the convincing power in debates so they evolved to imitate the buzzwords it like a cargo cult.

>>2466455
look you're probably laughing your ass off right now, but Christians are reading this thread, getting the impression that your baseless, shallow dependance on fallacious logic is a sign of confidence, and believing that they are therefore right even though they themselves can't actually support that claim. The belief that somebody smarter than them agrees with them and actually does have all the answers and is merely withholding his amazing arguments because we're "beneath him" or "not worth the time" or some other painfully smug response (that classic protestant smugness holy shit you sure know how to do the opposite of converting people and make everyone hate your fucking guts) is at the core of protestant denial. Every protestant believes that somebody smarter than them has all the answers. It's all in how they talk and reference things. "oh check out this website or article or this one guy that wrote this book look there's discourse look we're not actually retarded smart people are writing books I've never read these books but they've got books just like scientists do!"

Protestants delude themselves, and trolls like you just feed into that natural confirmation bias.

Please look up the word "Confirmation bias" I'm surprised there isn't a picture of Martin Luther in the dictionary next to it.

>>2466422
>"Christian apologetic author"
Gee I wonder why he is ideologically motivated to lie in order to undermine his opposing viewpoint?
No wonder you trot this out, you are dumb enough to think this validates your incorrect view.

>>2466479
you've already scared away the actual history buffs because these terrible troll threads are the only things that get responses anymore.

You know I'm right. It was all fun and games until it infected fucking everything and ruined fucking everything

>>2466004
praise tengri desu

"Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations)."

>>2466525
Another thread ruined by plebs on both sides who can't hack it. You should be ashamed of yourself.

>>2466600
I'm just gonna let you have the last word so you can feel like you "won" and ebin trolled me. Go on, respond. I'm giving you a free (You) for all your effort in ruining my favorite board for a giggle.

>>2466630
I linked you 3 posts where I actually try to have a discussion. Are you soft

>>2466525

Love ya dude, but there are no more history buffs here than there are political scientists on /pol/.

>>2466668
there were, or at least they don't show themselves unless there's actually a good thread to post in.

But right now there's nothing. Just religion, capitalism, and whatever meme topic happens to be popular that day.

File: Faces of Atheism.png (296KB, 500x327px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 500x327px

>>2466425
>As a man of reason, there is literally nothing more offensive to logic than the acceptance of a religion,
Fucking hell. Why do atheists keep complaining that they're portrayed as neckbearded, fedora wearing, pseudo intellectuals when you have people like this continuing to make posts like this. Yes, I'm sure you're a 'man of reason' and not exactly like pic related

>>2467255
Quantum instability adequately explains the origin of the universe without a "god".

The hyperspace in which the universe exists is eternal (how could it not be when time is an affect of being inside this universe?) but unstable. The result of that instability is new universes bubbling in and out of existence throughout hyperspace, one of which happens to be ours.

Logically, as time only exists within the universe, it can only appear finite from within but to an outside observer existing sans time may very well appear eternal. It all depends on your frame of reference.

>>2467288
>Quantum instability
No it doesn't because quantum instability is a physical property of the universe. You can't use a property that only exists within the universe to explain something outside it that caused it to expand.

>>2467288
Quantum. Quanta. Particles. Atoms. Atomists.

You're an Atomist and don't even know it.

>>2465580
>things exist, therefore it was an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent unembodied mind which intentionally made things exist
Weak, desu

>>2466375
God makes zero sense.

>>2467406
The creation having a Creator makes zero sense.

Does a painting having a painter make sense?
Does a building having a builder make sense?
Does a computer program having a programmer make sense?

Do you know we're not up to God's coding DNA yet? That we don't even understand it yet?

Do you have any concept how finely tuned for life this universe is? That if you changed the cosmological constant by 1 part in 10^123, that life could not exist?

Do you have any concept of how small 1 part in 10^123 actually is?

File: Really.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>2467406
>God makes zero sense
>Hey guys have you heard of this theory that says we're all being simulated in a computer!
Atheists are perfectly fine with the idea of a creator as long as it is dressed up to not look like God. All reality being a simulation being run on an aliens computer? Interesting theory worth discussion. All reality being a creation of God? Obviously false!

>>2467413
>Does a painting having a painter make sense?
Where did the painters paintbrush come from?
>Duuuh magic creation!
Does that make sense?

>>2467413
Does an ocean having a painter make sense? It's the ocean, it's made of water, not paint. Does a mountain have a builder? Surely it springs forth from the earth under the influence of the earth itself. If the the painter puts little men inside his painting to look at the nice view from within, why would it offend the painter if they disliked the view? He chose to put them in there in the first place.

>>2467413
>Do you have any concept how finely tuned for life this universe is?
Is that why they have leap years?

Oh thats right, the earth is the centre of the universe and everything else revolves around it...

>>2467474
>Is that why they have leap years?
Years are a human construct to understand the flow of time. Not surprising they're imperfect.

>>2467413
It's so finely tuned that we suffocate and freeze within seconds when we exit the planet. Arguably God is a tardigrade since they don't seem to mind environments that kill us

>>2467563
>life that evolves on planet surface manages to survive on planet surface.
It's a miracle!

>>2467570
So the Universe doesn't sound that finely tuned for us all of a sudden

God doesn't believe in atheists.


...tee hee

>>2467563
It's finely tuned enough for such a thing as life to emerge in the first place.

>>2465580
Correct

>>2465580
Some form of destiny is real, but most religion only gets part of the truth, if any, correct - I've come to believe religion attempts to turn miracles into politics.

>>2467986
Why isn't it better tuned so life emerges in more places?

>>2468007
>what are extremophiles

as in, where the conditions are right, life is everywhere. but more to your philosophical point, subjectivity needs to only happen once to be eternally justified in itself. If you dispute this, I can just say the rarity of life makes it more precious

>>2465580
Very well.
Please define existence.

>>2468270
But the point that the universe is tuned to life is still soundly refuted. Life is tuned to the Universe, and only when very specific rare conditions are met.

>>2468277
That which is. God is that which is because he is the very fact of that is-ness, the rest of organized religion is just arguing about the details. God is the space in which there is anything to speak of.

>>2468283
No, that life adapts to the universe does not mean life as such does not exist. The universe is one thing, life is as determined to exist one way or another as the fact that a triangle is that which has three sides.

>>2465733
Every thread, you dweeb.

>>2468287
Can't argue with circular logic. It's too well-rounded.

>>2468297
Consciousness is tautological, congrats, you just redpilled yourself. No determinate concept can capture the immediacy of experience. In order for the determinate to be determinate there must necessarily be an indeterminate.

>>2468293
We have no data at all to support this claim.

>>2465580
Wrong.

>>2468303
Are you saying the laws of nature don't apply to life?

>>2465580
At best it proves the existence of a divine craftsman. But you are using this thread to peddle your Christianity bullshit aren't you?

>>2467582
You don't even understand what 'finely tuned' means. Hint: It actually doesn't mean the entire universe is an environment fit for human life. It means that the physical laws which govern the universe can create a place where human life can exist. Earth.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/physics/cosmic.php

Read that. Those are the finely tuned aspects of our reality that allow life to exist. The fact that you can't exist outside Earth is irrelevant, it's the fact that a planet like Earth can exist at all which is the issue

>>2468312
I'm saying we have absolutely no basis to believe life is inevitable or "determined to exist"

It's quite convenient for the pro-religious to talk about "religion versus science" and then throw out a few examples that supposedly show that, oh no, the Church was never really anti-science. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that historically the Church was anti- most schools of thought that undermined or challenged its own assumptions and assertions, constituting them as "heresies" of one sort or another and persecuting and prosecuting people accordingly. The is what the infamous Inquisitions were all about.

>>2468321
Your logic is horribly twisted. You're like someone who finds mold on an orange and proceeds to marvel at the miraculous conditions that made the orange suitable for mold.
Life adapted to nature's laws and life adapted to the Earth. You have absolutely no possible knowledge that different conditions would not have facilitated some form of life

>>2468326
It is determined to exist by the very physical laws that allow it to exist. You have no ground to say what is or is not inevitable. Life's already here.

>>2468338
The physical laws don't allow anything. It's life itself that has allowed itself to exist through adaptation

>>2468337
Life does not adapt to fundamental constants you twit. Life emerges out of a vast network of simple particles obeying simple laws of behavior.

Yeah, Spinoza's God is a very cohesive concept.

>>2468342
The very fact that life exists proves that it does in fact adapt to fundamental constants.

>>2468351
>life is acausal

you're off in la la land my friend. life is as much a phenomenon of the universe as a sunspot = as in, it emerges out of the same physical laws that determine such a thing as sunspots - but it's what makes life what it is that we're having this conversation

>>2468357
What makes life what it is is adaptation to its environment. Not adaptation of the environment to life.

>>2468335
This isn't actually true. The Church has always been pro science. Do you believe Galileo got persecuted for his scientific findings? If so you've fallen for a meme that has pervaded pop culture for ages, but it's not actually true. Galileo was 'persecuted' because he wasn't following the scientific method. Galileo did not have adequate proof for his claims, and was asked to stop teaching them as fact until such time as his hypothesis could be conclusively proven to be true. The Church had no issue with the hypothesis itself they wanted him to tone it down a bit with the rhetoric about being correct before he had the proof to support the claim because it would mean rewriting a LOT of shit and changing church doctrine and completely understandably the Church didn't want to do that bullshit and have to revert everything back in the case Galileo was wrong.

So what did Galileo do? He agreed then autistically put out a paper claiming he was right and passively aggressively giving the finger to the Church. At which point the Church said "Right, if you're not going to play by the rules and wait until you have the proof we're going to hold you in the Vatican" and they did.He was kept in a relatively cushy apartment under house arrest so he couldn't keep spreading scientifically unsupported bullshit.

Unfortunately this story got twisted into "Galileo told the truth so the Church punished him for heresy!" which has fueled an unjustified "Science vs Religion" narrative for decades. Again, the issue was NOT the science itself, the issue was the Church did not want to commit to changing doctrine before there was sufficient evidence to justify doing so, and Galileo agreed to that then wrote a paper mocking the Pope. Galileo got locked up for being a stubborn retard, not because his science was contradicting the Bible

>>2468360
Life is reality's knowledge of itself

>>2468337
Life cannot 'adapt' to a universe that does not allow for life to exist. Please tell me how life would adapt to a universe where atoms can't form and everything in the universe is a fluctuating energy field.

>>2468321

And you realize this breaks down fast, right? And without even going into quantum physics or thought experiments. Simply look at the universe and how hostile it is. Other planets, stars, empty void, etc. But forget that, right? That disproves your argument, so let's look at our one planet and base our universal proclamations about it.

Take the past. There are bacteria that hated air and oxygen wiped them out. That bacteria found oxygen toxic. Had oxygen not been made there may be beings around today who could say "oxygen is terrible for life and kills it. look at how finely tuned our world is for having no air!"

But let's even disregard that since we know the universe is only a few thousand years old. Can we not apply that same logic to other extremophiles? Or even apply it to creatures who are very dependent on a particular environment to survive? A panda could claim life is finely tuned for them because bamboo exists. Because even if we leave out space, quantum physics, parallel universes, thought experiments, history, etc., you still fail to make the case that the universe is finely tuned for humans, and not say, koalas or any other living thing. It could be finely tuned for roaches who lived longer than us. That, and we have zero evidence for anything being tuned. Of course we think so since we are here and if X didn't happen, we wouldn't exist. But this means nothing because we have one universe to compare it to so we cannot make any statistical analysis on how probable or improbable it is. And even if it was improbable, we have no basis to say a god made it that way over us being that one in however large the number is chance; because improbable things do happen. And we could be the result of that.

>>2468367
Our knowledge of life is extremely limited given the size of the universe. There is absolutely the possibility of life under the conditions you describe, until such time as we've explored the entire universe and found it to be impossible

>>2468366
A platitude.

>>2465733
PLEASE STOP ALREADY

>>2468368
It's not what life is, or what particular form of life we're talking about, it's THAT life is. Fine-tuned has nothing to say about the hostility of the environment, only that there is a life that exists in the environment to begin with.

How is this such a difficult concept to grasp, it is un-fucking-believable how many fedoras twist themselves into pretzels with this shit. Goddamn

>>2468364
According to science, people do not get up and start walking & talking etc. three days after they have been nailed to a cross and left to die (and had spears thrust into their sides). According to my mother, this is what Jesus did.

I think Jesus is dust. She thinks Jesus is alive. This isn't a conflict?

>>2468374
>we adapt to reality without acquiring knowledge of it

This is literally what's objectively happening. A phenomenon of the universe knows itself as a phenomenon of this thing we call the universe.

>>2468380
Don't twist yourself in philosophizing, we were discussing the existence of life and then you spin off into the nature of knowledge or some shit

>>2468378
Why is life's existence some special thing?

>>2468378

And I addressed that too when I talked about probability. Even if I conceded that truly these were the only circumstances under which life may exist and that the universe is perfect for it, we still have zero evidence for it being finely tuned by a god since these same conditions could have been arrived at by chance or other factors. And since we only have a sample size of one universe, it is impossible to say that this universe and the physical laws that govern it must have been created.

>>2468383
I've just been arguing life exists according to the same physical laws that produce stars and planets. You don't have an argument, I don't even think you understand it.

>>2468379
>According to science, people do not get up and start walking & talking etc. three days after they have been nailed to a cross and left to die
Do you think this is a physical impossibility given the natural laws of the universe? Put another way do you think it is impossible to reach a level of technology where we could conceivably raise people who had been dead for a couple of days? If we both agree that there is no fundamental law of the universe violated then it goes from impossible to merely improbable. You're free to exercise your discretion and argue that you deny improbable events but theoretically there is no violation that would make such an event completely impossible. Hell in the next 100 years we could be raising the dead on the reg.

>>2468389
This is a truism that brings us nowhere. There's nothing to say that because those laws spawned life, other laws can't spawn it either. You have no leg to stand on

>>2468388
Once again, calling it "God" or "chance" doesn't matter, it's not what it is but that it is fine-tuned in the first place. Why shouldn't I ascribe goodness to that which makes goodness possible?

>>2468387
Because its living, self-aware matter. Come on man.

>>2468390
Theoretically and hypothetically pretty much anything is possible and therefore no system of belief is more valid than he next, including the Jedi religion or Dudeism or Pastafarianism

>>2468395
Who cares, life is already here, life as a phenomenon, as a thinkable concept, exists. It's over dude, subjectivity can't be reduced, it is self-justifying

>>2468397
>Living, self aware matter
Only humans and some advanced animals are self-aware. And again, why is this special?

>>2468388
I just want to point out that scientists right now are being pushed towards the idea of a multiverse because they're having serious trouble reconciling recent results with the idea our universe is 'natural'.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/

>“Ten or 20 years ago, I was a firm believer in naturalness,” said Nathan Seiberg, a theoretical physicist at the Institute, where Einstein taught from 1933 until his death in 1955. “Now I’m not so sure. My hope is there’s still something we haven’t thought about, some other mechanism that would explain all these things. But I don’t see what it could be.”

>Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky?

Naturalism is an idea that is quickly losing ground IF this is the only universe. The idea behind naturalism is that the universe formed in the way that was most natural, like a ball rolling to the lowest point of a ditch, it followed the path of least resistance. But what we're finding now is that there is actually a LOT of resistance and it's like the ball is precariously perched on an improbable point and perfectly balanced and if you nudge it any which way it would roll off. The multiverse hypothesis solves this by saying that there are a lot of universes therefore we just exist in the one with the right conditions. Of course you can already deduce the unspoken implication if this universe is the only one.

>>2468403
Sure, life exists. As do brown dwarves and comets and galaxies. What makes one more special than the other?

>>2468405
>hurr durr why is literally what I am special bro

because a world without a perceiver is void, it's what makes anything, anything

>>2468400
Not true. Can't go faster than the speed of light. If there was a passage in the Bible saying Jesus flew faster than light you'd be able to say "Right well that is impossible therefore the Bible is wrong" and you'd be completely right. A resurrection doesn't violate the laws of the universe though, it just violates our day to day experience of life. And as we know our day to day experience of life isn't necessarily the best indicator of what is and is not possible in reality.

>>2468412
There's nothing wrong with a void world. It's incredibly arrogant that we, as apes that are still so primitive in so many ways, ascribe ourselves some universal, prescient quality of perception that justifies existence itself.

>>2468397

To be fine tuned means that someone made the factors be as they are. That is an incorrect and wholly unsubstantiated claim. If it was chance, then it was not "finely tuned" but rather a coin toss. If I flip a coin 100 times and get heads every time, was that made to happen or did I just reach an improbable outcome? And given enough time, improbable outcomes becomen less and less improbable.

So, there is a big difference between the two ideas. And at least chance seems more plausible and has more backing than your god does.

Because suppose we find out tomorrow that the universe had to have been created. There was simply no other way it could be this way. Show me that your proposed god did it.

>>2468410
Life is what makes it possible to say anything exists at all.

>>2468416
You can absolutely go faster, if you bend spacetime. So maybe Jesus has an Alcubierre drive.

>>2468422
Saying it doesn't bear some special significance. It would exist anyway

>>2468425
>It would exist anyway
Would it? Seems like a big assumption

>>2465580
>itself

You mean Her

>>2468429
No, it's as basic an assumption as one could make

>>2468419
>There is nothing wrong with a void world.

*tips fedora*

lol fuck off back to the void then dude, gimme a break with this shit

>>2468421
Wrong, the possibility of life as such, even an infinitesimal possibility, still requires explaining. "Chance" doesn't explain anything, life is still determined to emerge out of a given set of laws and so it is always dormant as a potentiality

>>2468434
wow, theists sure are antsy bitches

File: 1487822660536.jpg (24KB, 620x670px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 620x670px

>>2468409

>quotemines an article we can all read
>pop science
>article simply points out various theories and says things are uncertain since we don't know everything


>HUUEEERRRR GOD DID IT YOU FIFKING FEDORA ATHIESTS EVERY HEAD SHALL BOW AND SAY JESUS IS LORD YOURE GOING TO HELL SCIENCE AGREES

Lol, ya gotta be fucking kidding me.

>>2468433
It's still an assumption, and not necessarily one that is scientifically supported.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2017/01/the-conscious-universe-a-radical-theory-the-universe-exists-because-we-are-here-view-video.html

>>2468446
Are you saying that the idea that things exist without us being there is not scientifically supported? Do you realize how absurd you sound?

>>2468434
If your position is "prove the void isn't an improvement on life", kill yourself my man

>>2468434
>the possibility of life as such , even an infinitesimal possibility , still requires explaining
Some old dude made it in six days

>>2468443
>Scientists flocking en masse to multiverse theories because naturalism is a dead hypothesis in our single universe
>U-uh we don't know! It might be something else!
Nice try. Good time to be a theist, the evidence is piling up in our corner while the naturalists have broken a hole in the wall of the theory of the naturalistic universe and slowly moving the goalposts to the position of a naturalistic multiverse. Keep shifting them back and back even further we'll see who is ultimately right.

>>2468446
Everything is an assumption. I get up every day assuming a meteor won't kill me on the way to work. Only theists have the astounding arrogance to claim they don't assume, but they know

>>2468449
>Do you realize how absurd you sound?
No? You do realize that we consider everything outside of the observable universe to not exist right? Because it will never interact with us. Existence is a meaningless concept unless we can see it and measure it. If you define existence as things that we think might be able to exist, like a universe with no observers, then you might as well say ghosts exist, or bigfoot. Existence requires observation and proof. There is no observation or proof in a universe with no observers, it's a dead concept.

>>2468454
The multiverse theory is at least 70 years old you idiot, it's nothing new

>>2468434

>Wrong, the possibility of life as such, even an infinitesimal possibility, still requires explaining.

Wrong. I agree it would be interesting, but it does not need explaining. Even if it did, that does not mean we have all the answers now or will in the short term. Maybe it will take 1,000 years to figure it out. Or it may remain unknown. That does not make your god any more believable just because we do not have all the answers.
>"Chance" doesn't explain anything, life is still determined to emerge out of a given set of laws and so it is always dormant as a potentiality

1. Chance does explain it. This universe could be a fluke and not tuned at all. The point is there is no sufficient (or any) evidence to claim it was created.

2. And can you show me that this universe and its laws are the only way life can exist? Because until then I don't see why this universe needs to be treated like it has any special properties when we only know of this one. And, again, even if it was the only way, read point 1.

>>2468463
It was exclusively the realm of sci-fi and comic books until the 90s. It wasn't taken seriously until results started to come back that struck blow after blow to the idea that our universe is mediocre and nothing special. It is in fact VERY special, and multiverse theory is seen as the way to escape the inevitable conclusion of a creator.

>>2468462
>we consider everything outside of the observable universe to not exist right
no we fucking don't dude, read an entry level astronomy article. Light hasn't reached that far, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist

>>2468454

Your argument is retarded. It's like saying classical physics no longer applies because we have quantum physics and are expanding upon new knowledge.

So, because one way of seeing the universe is dying out due to new knowledge this means an ancient book written by a bunch of ancient sand people is the literal truth?

>>2468470
>It was exclusively the realm of sci - fi and comic books until the 90s
Nope, Schrodinger talked about it as part of his quantum studies

>>2468465
Look dude, it doesn't matter if the universe is one in a googol that hit on life, subjectivity is here, life is only itself and irreducible to anything else. The fine-tuned argument is essentially "if everything is a meaningless void, why life?" or, "despite existence being void, life as such exists". You can talk laws and biology but at the end of the day, if we can have a concept of a mechanistic meaningless void, then it obviously isn't just void.

>>2468479
So you say, because you still keep life on some pedestal. I winder if we find self-replicating organic compounds almost everywhere around us, would life still be seen as this miracle
Or maybe the argument would be twisted to "see, God made ALL the universe hospitable!"

>>2468459
So much this.

To claim you KNOW anything is beyond absurd. Thats like a flea in a petri dish in Moscow claiming he knows why everything exists. hes so tiny, his point of reference is limited entirely to his position in the dish but he is sooooo certain he knows, even though he's never been outside the dish, doesnt know its sitting on a table in a laboratory on the grounds of a university located in a city called moscow in a country called russia on a continent called Europe on a planet called earth in a group of planets orbiting a giant nuclear furnace in an impossibly huge grouping of celestial bodies called the milky way floating through what could very likely be an infinite expanse of empty space.

>>2468472
>no we fucking don't dude
Uh, yes, we do. Things outside the observable universe are outside the scope of what we can ever know. We will never observe, or interact in any way with anything outside our observable universe. It is the horizon of all things that exist to us. Again you're making the mistake of badly defining existence. Things that exist can bee detected, interacted with and measured. Can't do any of those things? It doesn't exist.

Put another way do you believe in the existence of the soul? No? Why not? Because you can't detect, measure or interact with it? Then why do you consider some abstract idea of things forever outside our sphere of influence to 'exist'?

Again, this is the actual, proper definition of existence according to science. Not the casual definition of 'things that are'. Existence means you MUST be able to interact or detect what exists. If you can't, it doesn't exist.

>>2468489
So God doesn't exist?

>>2468479

Actually, it does matter because it blows your argument away. At this point you aren't even trying to be scientific and it shows. You want "meaning" as to why life exists. Well, that has nothing to do with science. And if it somehow did we are likely a long way off from knowing it. But this is where adults pull on their big boy pants and simply admit they do not know.

But nice try making the fine tuning argument seem more scientific. It isn't. The fine tuning argument is "life and the way the universe is is so impossible that god must have done it".

>>2468484
No, literally, a void numb to itself cannot know itself as void, life is a principle unto itself. I don't think you understand, if you don't privilege consciousness over nothingness you're floating in intellectual dead water

>>2468501
If you prioritize certain organic compounds over others, you're being arbitrary to an extreme

>>2468500
Nope, fine-tuning argument is that "if physical constants were off by a fraction of a percent life as we know it would not exist". Nice strawman.

Life justifies itself, there's no "meaning" waiting to be found, there's no final assent from nature waiting in the wings, think about what you're saying. Meaning validates itself precisely because it is meaninh

>>2468489

We know that the universe is larger than the observable universe. Scientists don't need to see and touch it before they know it exists. How do you think it was discovered that the universe is larger than what we can see?

Jesus fucking Christ, you theists have such a strawman view of what science is.

>hurr if i cant see it and touch it then it doesnt exist!

>>2468506
Of course I'm going to privilege that through which I even have an idea of organic compounds, or compounds at all. Don't be so dense

>>2468509
*as we know it
Correct. Nothing said about "life as we don't know it". You're saying "if things were different, things would be different". Everything you talk about is circular logic

>>2468509

Life as we know it being the keyword. Since we have no other universes to compare ours to, there is no reason to assume that this was finely tuned or created in any way. Nice apologetics attempt.

As for your second paragraph: word salad.

>>2468516
Ideas aren't special. The universe doesn't need to know itself. We don't really know jack shit about the universe anyway, so it's a pretty shitty argument to begin with

>>2468517
>if some determinate set of laws were different, they would determine things

So? This still does not reduce life to not-life. How are you struggling with this so badly?

>>2468513
So your argument is that you do not need to have ANY objective, physical evidence that something exists, and it's perfectly reasonable that we can infer things exist a priori and accept that as an objective truth?

I agree, hence we can safely say that God exists.

>>2468525
No but it might change this life to that life. Do you still not understand?

>>2468524
>all ideas except mine are fundamentally baseless

Fuck outta here

>>2468529
We already know close objects exist and we can infer from that. We have no knowledge of any gods. You're struggling badly.

>>2468531
So this life isn't life because it could have been a universe of polka-dotted zebras? So what?

>>2468534
Nothing you wrote relates to my post. Sounds like you're running out of arguments

>>2468529

We have evidence for the universe being larger than we can see. Use the search engine of your choice and look it up.

And, no, ya can't assume god exists. And let's assume ya do think god exists. I sure hope it isn't the vast majority of faiths on Earth that have been proven wrong time and time again. So I hope you have a very vague idea of god otherwise even by religious standards you'll get proven wrong.

>>2468539
Of course it's life. But it's not special.

>>2468523
>word salad

lol, pleb status confirmed

>>2468540
I gotta walk you niggers through everything. If all conceptions life has about itself and reality mean nothing, then that includes your position too, so there is nothing that inherently negates meaning.

>>2468548
I never ascribed my opinions any universal value to begin with.

>>2468538
So what exists outside of the observable universe? Your argument seems to be that there are things that objectively exist outside the observable universe. We do not know the nature of these things, and we will never detect them or interact with them in any way shape or form for the entire lifespan of the universe. To us it's as if they do not exist, but you insist they still are there. However you can't ever speak of the nature of those things, you just implicitly accept 'something' is there even though you'll never have any objective proof of that ever and the only way you can believe it is by indirect inferences based on logic.

Sounds like the exact kind of faith a religious person has.

>>2468544

Pleb? He used a whole paragraph of word salad to say "w-w-well if the universe was different life would be different!".

He was trying hard to make his argument seem smarter and more convincing, but it means nothing. Yes, if shit was different it would be different. So what? Nobody but him and the religious crowd are placing a special emphasis on the universe having to be this way or any other way.

>>2468543
Life is. But it is special insofar as that is-ness represents a triumph over the void.

>>2468542
>We have evidence for the universe being larger than we can see
We don't have any proof of anything existing beyond that horizon and never will.

>>2468551
No, you fail to recognize even the fundamentals of the scientific method. We know some things hold true for a large part of the universe through observation. We assume from that that further off, things are more or less the same. Faith doesn't come into it. Faith is knowledge without proof. We only assume.

>>2468555

Then you may want to actually google that because we do. We know something is very clearly there. And given we see a portion of the universe" I don't think we are gonna see things that completely break the laws of physics or god staring back at us and waving. It is just more universe that we can't see yet because light didn't have time to get here yet.

>>2468553
The void vs the life is an artificial dichotomy you've created. I might as well say that hydrogen has triumphed over argon since there's more of it. There is no meaning to this

>>2468555
If you're going to get reductionist to the point if retardation, we don't even "know" atoms exist, it's just what we're being told

Reductionism is the last port of the refugee

>>2468565

He's grasping at straws. He doesn't wanna admit that the fine tuning argument has already been refuted, so he has to fluff up his words and spew meaningless postmodern level drivel out in the hopes an argument will stick.

But I wish it would stick. I want to see what mental leaps he will do to take this crazy shit and actually try to say his particular god is the only choice.

>>2468560
Actually like I said earlier most cosmologists simply define anything outside of the universe to not exist for all intents and purposes to avoid the messy philosophical quagmire you've gotten yourself into.

Anyway, so you say that we can argue a priori for things that will be forever outside the scope of experience. That we can logically infer the existence of things that we cannot interact with. This is good, it's the thin end of the wedge because once you say that we can logically infer the existence of things that we cannot interact with it opens the door to the existence of things outside of human experience, like the soul.

>B-but that's different
Nope, no it isn't. By your own logic we can say things exist even without proof if we can logically infer them. Which means we can now move on to proving the existence of God, Heaven and the metaphysical aspects of creation which are outside the scope of human experience.

>>2468578
Except you trip over yourself on the requirement for prior observation which I mentioned multiple times

>>2468562
The universe is expanding. There is a point where if light gets transmitted from the edge of the universe it will never reach us, because it's traveling across expanding space and space can expand faster than light.

>>2468565
>being and nonbeing is an artificial dichotomy

>>2468574
It's obvious you don't understand the argument or what I'm saying. it's okay.

>>2468586
The triumph you speak of is an artificial concept. We have no basis to assume there would be no universe without life.

>>2468584

That is true. And this means what? That only our pocket of the universe follows these laws and outside of that nothing exists or god is sitting there?

>>2468583
There is no prior observation outside the observable universe. Again, you're making the assumption that whatever is there is congruent with the observable universe, which is not necessarily true. The problem is if you insist on saying "Well it's just the same as the observable universe" that is a logical inference which has no objective basis, we can go back and forth on the topic til the end of time and neither of us will ever be conclusively proven right. But this is good because it means you're willing to take a firm stance on the fundamentally unknowable.

>>2468591
So you're attributing meaningful being to a universe without observers? lol

>>2468592
It means your definition of existence is flawed because existence is something that can be interacted with. No interaction. No existence. Period. From our frame of reference nothing outside the observable universe exists or ever will.

Asserting that things exist purely from logical inference opens the door to metaphysical existence. If you want to assert that things we will never detect or interact with or influence our universe in any way exist then the arguments against the metaphysical fall apart.

File: 1487819450513.png (50KB, 180x191px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 180x191px

>>2468595

>meaningful being

Why does "being" have to be meaningful? This whole thread is christcucks throwing in wiggle words hoping to get past fundamental flaws in their logic. Neck yourself and go see Jesus sooner.

>>2468593
The scientific method is based on observation of particular examples and an assumption the same results will continue to hold true. There may very well be a single square shaped atom out there and the inobservable universe maybe conaists of a giant field where Satan and Thomas Aquinas play soccer. But some assumptions are much more probable than others based on our experience with this method

In short, the theist "you can't know FOR SURE" is a cowardly escape from argumentation

>>2468604
Christ you're fucking autistic. There is no reality without an observer of that reality, I can just easily say there's a billion infinity dimensions made of cheesecake you just can't see it, but it's totally there, trust me. Like goddamn.

>>2468595
Where did I attribute that?

>>2468610
So when you go to sleep the universe stops existing?

>>2468611
If you're claiming void vs. life is an artificial dichotomy, then you're pretty much equating the two, which is retarded.

>>2468613
Relative to my perspective, yes. I am not the objective reality of my environment, I am the experience of that environment, and once my experience goes, I disappear.

>>2468613
Yes

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.2277.pdf

>>2468622
No I'm not. I also said hydrogen vs argon is an artificial dichotomy and I'm not equating those

>>2468627
Then if you literally can't wrap your head around why someone would consider something an improvement over nothingness, then I have nothing more to say.

File: 1483562464125.gif (955KB, 245x145px) Image search: [Google]

955KB, 245x145px

>>2468613

>christcucks are so hard pressed to prove their god exists that they have to become sophists, solipsists, and pyrronists just to grasp on for a little longer

This is true comedy. I'm fucking crying at these piss poor apologetics attempts. They are so fucking absurd they make Ken Ham look like a genius. And he got blown out by Bill Nye.

>>2468634
Oh I know why you're doing it. I'm just telling you it's flawed

File: 1464628151993.png (111KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 300x300px

>>2468635
>Being bemused at using philosophy to deduce the existence of a metaphysical being
Not too bright, are ya

>>2468642
No, no you're not. Your argument is "nuh-uh". The fact that life is, is all that matters, no reductive handwaving can detract from that.

>>2468625
So when I go to sleep, God stops existing too. Shocking revelation tb h

>>2468645
>The existence of xenon is meaningless
>But the existence of carbon compounds is the single most important fact in the universe

>>2468653
>he still doesn't get the difference between consciousness and simple compounds is a difference of kind and not degree

you are literally impaired, holy shit

>>2468659
What is consciousness to you?

>>2468644

The only god that could be conjured up is a very vague and impersonal god. Because that god becomes an unfalsifiable thing. Which in itself is a logical fallacy.

All the other gods currently can be shown to be false. So, either way you go with this, you either have to accept that you are making a logical fallacy with your idea of god, or pick a god that can be falsified. And that is why apologetics exists. To make ad hoc excuses for your falsified gods so you can believe in them and still sleep at night.

>>2468662
Experience.

>>2468665
That's memory, not consciousness.

>>2468665
Inanimate objects experience too.

>>2468670
awareness then you fucking tismo, do I have to qualify fucking everything dude

File: Wd_YNxeg.jpg (24KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x400px

>>2468673

>>2468675
Primitive organisms are aware of their environment. Are fish conscious? I only ask because you place everything into the basket of conscious life

>>2468679
To a certain degree, sure

>>2468675

Then atoms must be aware given in quantum physics you can have particles responding to each other instantly and faster than light. They are aware of each other's state.

And, yes, you do have to qualify what you say. That is part of being an adult. You can't make shit up like your priests do and everyone just accepts it.

>>2468683
So I'm to understand that incredibly basic, unintelligent creatures like fish are an expression of the meaning of the universe itself? That a universe without life can't even be said to exist, but one with several fish in a pond is a sign of divine intervention?

>>2468685
It's pretty clear if someone asks what consciousness is, and someone replies "experience", that person is not talking about memory, as in PAST experiences. You're being needlessly pedantic.

>Then atoms must be aware given in quantum physics you can have particles responding to each other instantly and faster than light. They are aware of each other's state.

Sure, why not, consciousness exists along a gradient, from virtually non-existent to human consciousness

>>2468687
An unfeeling void with a puddle of fish in it? Of course I'd wonder where those fish came from, and would chalk it up to this void obviously being more than just a void

>>2468663
Hypothesises don't have to be falsifiable, better tell all those String Theorists they're wasting their time because String Theory is non-falsifiable.

>>2468692
Let's assume it's not a desert with a glass aquarium in the middle but a swampy planet.

So - no fish = doesn't exist
Fish = the universe knows itself and has a purpose
That it?

>>2468692

So basically there is no real way your view can be tested or falsified. Either something is there and god did it, or nothing is there since nobody has seen it so god may or may not have done it.

Ever heard what an unfalsifiable hypothesis is and what it means when you make one?

>>2468695
The universe knows itself in the mode of being that a fish is, yes.

>>2468698
Right. I don't agree with any of that but it's certainly a VERY entertaining concept

>>2468696
>m-muh unfalsifiability

Congratulations, what is being hypothesized about (reality) is necessarily prior to the hypothesis (falsifiable model of reality), now you're getting it

>>2468693

1. They do.

2. String theory can be falsified. The first thing you do in science is come up with a way to test or falsify the hypothesis. We may not have the tech to falsify it right now, but it can be. And there is a lot of math and other hypotheses going into it besides "strings and parallel universes dude lmao".

>>2468705
>string theory can be falsified
as it's currently conceived with our methods? nope, it can't be falsified. Shut the fuck up.

>>2468701

>entertaining concept
>the guy is playing a glorified game of pretend and verbose nuh uhs that even kids do

He's either severely retarded or trolling.

>>2468719
Why do you make it so obvious you're in over your head?

>>2468705
So you're squirming away because your excuse is "Uhhh we might be able to falsify it sometime in the future...maybe". And how does that excuse not also carry over to the God hypothesis? Face it, it's not a requirement that any hypothesis be able to immediately falsified if you can support it with logic (including mathematical logic). If you accept that String Theory can be a valid hypothesis because at some undetermined future time it is possible to be falsified then you must extend that to the hypothesis a creator exists too.

Your entire argument rests on the idea that we cannot discuss or logically infer the existence of things we do not have the technology to empirically prove exist. Which is just flat out wrong because we've done it many times.

>>2468716

As I said, we lack the tech to do so. But, yes, there are ways to falsify it. Go read papers about it. And that is why it remains a hypothesis until we can falsify it or show that there is merit to it. Nobody said string theory is undisputable fact.

>>2468728

String theory has ways to be tested but we lack the tech to do so. But if you read the papers there are ways to do it. If particles do or do not do X, whatever.


Show me one test for god. Something which can be tested repeatedly to show results that can be examined. If you want to be a hypothesis, ya have to have a way to falsify your idea.

>>2468740
>dude you can prove god in a lab lmao

Positivism was a mistake. I just can't even fathom this kind of disconnect with the idea of divinity.

>>2468740
Problem is you haven't proven that things which cannot be falsified cannot exist. Only that such things are outside the scope of the scientific method. For that matter, the very words "Only falsifiable hypothesis have any merit" is itself non-falsifiable. So your logic has hit a wall. Your entire argument is based on non-falsifiable logic which in itself proves that things that cannot be falsified can be true. Thus the existence of God, cannot be assumed to be false just because it cannot be tested.

>>2468743

Then there is no god hypothesis. You cannot be a hypothesis if you do not have a way to falsify the claim. And if god or gods acted in the way they do and influenced the world, there would be a way to test for that. The fact that you cannot do so shows that, at the very least, your god is either irrelevant or bullshit.

>>2468782
>And if god or gods acted in the way they do and influenced the world, there would be a way to test for that
We have and do. They're called the natural laws of the universe. Why would you think God would interact with his creation in a way other than what he designed? It's a fallacy to think of anything in our universe as 'natural', it's all supernatural design by a creator who uses those aspects to interact with us every day.

Why do people with 0 understand of QM even bother to talk about such things? I understand the Christian posters who are not baiting are too stupid to understand, but why does anyone even bother replying?

What a trash thread

>>2468761

Invisible Leprechauns around Saturn rule the world. Prove me wrong.


Retarded shit like that is why unfalsifiable hypotheses have no merit. Anyone can make up any number of claims they want that cannot be proven false. So, rational people and logical people need a way to falsify an idea.

Because okay, we have your claim and way to test it. But what would show us that your idea has no merit? That way we can test an idea and if it can withstand scrutiny and countless attempts to falsify it, while passing tests which confirm the claim, we can have a pretty good idea that it is correct or on the right track.

Otherwise I can make up any claim I want that can't be proven false. But so can kids playing pretend. Either act like an adult or take your shitty idea elsewhere until it can be tested

>>2468805
This post is non-falsifiable therefore I can disregard it :^). In fact I don't have to listen to any arguments that relate to anything other than the physical universe ever again. Stealing is morally wrong? Non-falsifiable! You should be tolerant and respectful of other people? Non-falsifiable! Literally talking about anything like film, art or literature and the merits of those works? Completely pointless because it's non-falsifiable!

It's almost like your idea is fucking retarded and allows anyone to disregard any logical argument that doesn't relate to the physical universe, you're a fucking idiot.

File: 1474844433272.jpg (101KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 600x600px

>>2468843

>scientific and logical concepts like falsifiability apply to ethics and other areas of life

Okay, so you are either trolling or way in over your head.

>>2468851
God is a metaphysical concept, not a physical one. God is not subject to fallibility either because much like ethics it is not under sciences purview.

It's ok, at least you know where you went wrong, assuming that God was some physical part of our universe that could be subject to any test, silly, but understandable. I accept your defeat.

>>2468864

If god has, or does, impact the physical world such a thing can be tested.

If god has no impact or influence on the physical world, on what grounds do you even believe it exists?

>>2468884
So how do you know everything we know as part of the physical universe is not how God interacts with the world? It is his creation after all doesn't it make sense that he would interact with it via the properties he built into it?

>>2468892

He could. And he did then that means he does interface with the physical world and we can test it. Because then something like prayer or belief or whatever can or would have observable effects. And this could be tested easily within the confines of our physical world.

If these things have no effect, or the effects are impossible to differentiate from the placrbo effect or other natural processes, I ask again; on what grounds do you even have the belief in said deity?

>>2465580
Human are still just talking apes with slightly better caves and torches than we had millennia ago.

We still do not have enough science and math to accurately understand this physical universe and we might not even be close for a great while. We still dont have enough of a concept of morality to keep little children from starvation or death by terror and war. We sure as hell do not have enough wisdom and experience to know our true place in the universe as sentient beings and what other kinds of beings there may or may not be which you can call God or whatever.

We are pathetic myopic unimaginative apes barely taken our first few steps out of the trees. Dont pretend that we are anywhere close to the answers for ANYTHING. To do so is the hight of human arrogance and absurdity.

Most atheists are christians in disguise, the moment they hear you believe, they will take out the bibe and argue it.

>>2465611
You don't understand faith.

You are a Protestant, right?

>>2468899
>prayer is asking god to bend the laws of physics and so we can test it in a lab

What a childish understanding of religion. Why are you arguing about something you obviously haven't studied?

>>2466375
Yeah god created me just to doom me to hell unless I ask for his forgiveness from something he created. Sounds like a guy I shouldn't hate.

>>2470576
>God created me just to doom me to hell
God is not the one sending you to hell, it's yourself.

>>2465580
>The evidence for God is existence itself.
More like the Order of this world.

As an example, orgasm is unironically a proof that the nature used the strategy of "carrot and stick" to push the humans to mate.

>>2470589

Don't be a dunce. He clearly created a world where some more fortunate people would have a higher chance of "salvation" than others. Even if you buy into the crude notion that all persons are born with innate knowledge it's still undeniable that someone born in the US has a higher chance of being spared from God's punishment than in Japan or Egypt. His reign is clearly that of an arbitrary despot. We were not created in this god's image, no human could witness the cruelty he does every day without going mad.

>>2465589
That is human. It is not God.

You must become a new individual through the power of God.

>>2466009
Can we talk about mysticism then?

the most humble of all spiritual activities involves a personal connection with the universe...empirical use of such practice will only leave you standing in the doorway of the great mystery, wishing you had the courage to walk through on your own.

>>2470692
You are correct on one point. You were not created in God's image, but in your parents' image. You lack what Adam had, which made Adam made in God's image. You lack the Spirit of God in you.

Quit bitching and whining and moaning about the "fairness" of the universe, and do something for yourself. Accept the pardon that was purchased for you.

Then tell others they too have a pardon with their name written on it.

"Fair" is every single human being goes to hell. That's "fair".

>>2466098
Correct. Faith is not a virtue. Faith is the human ability to believe the unseen. Everyone has faith. Everyone uses faith.

>>2472327
It actually involves bending the knee to your Creator.

>>2470658

You will not believe in God, but you believe in "Mother Nature" and believe she has an agenda.

Ponderous.

>>2465987
The God of Abraham.

>>2466361
Kinda bad b8. Go to Jesus.

>>2466425
You forgot to tip fedora.

>>2466425
>God fucking damn you people

If God doesn't exist...Why are you using it's name.

>>2472355
Seems to know that God damns people too.

>>2467406
Animals and humans somehow coming from earth soup after billions of years make zero sense.

>>2472362
The entire universe being the size of a pin head singularity makes zero sense.

This is not an intellectual exercise; these are people spiritually blinded to the truth.

>>2472339
I see it as surrendering to and learning how to trust nature. If you want to follow someone else's interpretation of that, go right ahead. Just know that you can do it yourself, it doesn't have to be vicariously through others.

>>2472368
>The entire universe being the size of a pin head singularity makes zero sense.
It only requires an adjustment to how rigid "space" supposedly is in your estimation.

>>2467434
I love how theists have toimagine my position. Nope, the simulated reality nonsense is just as retarded.

>>2472355
Legit one of the most autistic responses ive ever seen in this place.

If you are not being ironic reevaluate yourself

>>2472362
It doesn't make sense because you don't understand how it works and it's too much information to pack into your brain.