Why are atheists so fucking stupid? >cosmological argument

Dont forget the presuppositional argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

The belief in God is rational and logical when taking everything into account.

The disbelief in God is absurd.

It's not edgy to be atheist.
It's edgy on either end of the religious spectrum to be a cunt though, passively or actively.

>cosmological argument
Fucking kek

File: 1483898432762.jpg (482KB, 999x1399px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 999x1399px

>>2475038
presuppositional and ontological were mentioned and that's the one you give a kek?

>>2475048
>>2475038
Not an argument.

>>2474995
>cosmological argument
Matter is the prime cause by itself.
>ontological argument
Literally meme-ing god into existence.
>hard problem of consciousness
It's hard, but "because magic" isn't an appropriate answer though.

>>2474995
the hard problem is misconceived, it only arises given some bad assumptions about consciousness
not saying consciousness is "reducible", materialism is probably false anyway
just saying the hard problem isn't a good argument for God

I don't know any convincing arguments against the existence of God, but I'm not sure what theistic arguments I'd prefer either
I'm pretty sure empiricism, physicalism, and naturalism are false--you could remove all of spacetime and still be left with a lot of inventory to existence, like possibilities, essences and natures, properties, truths, etc.
I'm just not sure how to argue that must include an ontologically pre-spatiotemporal agent, which is what I think God would have to be (though I'm pretty open on that question, as well as on the personhood question)

>>2475055
>Matter is the prime cause by itself
This is so fucking retarded it's nonsense
>literally meme-ing God into existence
The argument is still logical and sound

>>2475057
> I don't know any convincing arguments against the existence of God
Not against the existence of an abstract God without any properties, no. But you can produce a number of arguments against specific gods worshiped out there with known attributes.

>>2475066
>The argument is still logical and sound
what version(s) of the ontological argument are you thinking of?

>>2475066
> This is so fucking retarded it's nonsense
Not an argument.
> The argument is still logical and sound
So the most perfect unicorn I've just come up with should necessary exists too, just because existence is better than non-existence?

>>2475087
Holy shit, is this the tier of argumentation you can make? Why are you comparing an unicorn to the Prime cause? An unicorn (as it is understood and not changing semantics) it's not comparable to the nature of God by any means.

>>2475078
well I gave my own definition of God later in the post and it says God is neither abstract nor unpropertied

>>2475099
> Why are you comparing an unicorn to the Prime cause?
You're confusing the arguments.

>>2475112
The reason the arguments for God are sound and logical is because they're applied to an ultimate cause, not any kind of fictional being.

>>2475120
So why the attributes of the ultimate being should include "existence" and the attributes of the ultimate unicorn shouldn't?

>>2474995
The ontological argument is simply a bad argument.

File: 1464144263825.jpg (2MB, 1852x6928px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1852x6928px

These threads ALWAYS end up like this.

>Theists make good arguments for God
>Atheists just shitpost and claim `its wrong´ without saying why or how
>Theists point out these non-argumentative flaws
>Atheists act like the burden of proof is on the theists even though the theists already provided proof
>Thread devolves into further shitposting and ad hominems
>Theists win but when the next thread comes up atheists act all oblivious and pretends there is no evidence for God
>Cycle continues

Atheists dont care about proof OP.
They simply hate God, see this video
>>2474998
and it analyzes the thinking of the average atheist.

File: 1488949433939.jpg (19KB, 409x393px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 409x393px

>>2475135

Your post is a textbook case of projection. Holy shit.

File: 1481179075920.jpg (43KB, 474x445px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 474x445px

>>2474995
>hard problem of consciousness
What the fuck does this even have to do with God?

File: spook.jpg (62KB, 720x616px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 720x616px

>religion
>god

>>2475066
>This is so fucking retarded it's nonsense
Allah is not?

>>2474998
>because you are absolutely sure that reality exists you must believe that God is ensuring reality absolutely exists
the thing is I'm not absolutely sure

File: C.S. Lewis.jpg (33KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 650x488px

>>2475174
>Stirner

>>2475135
mentioning the existence of an argument someone else drew up isn't making a good argument.

Not to mention there are good reasons to disagree with all those philosophical proofs

>>2475192
>Stirner

is a far better philosopher than C.S. Lewis

File: CS Lewis.jpg (65KB, 368x473px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 368x473px

>>2475201
Thanks for the laugh. You should be a comedian.

>>2475126
At this point you're just arguing semantics. I'm not going to engage with you; first define what is the "ultimate unicorn" according to you.

There are conclusive and solid arguments for believing in God.

There are no arguments for being an atheist.
Atheists have to defend their illogical position, but they never do.
Its always related to some personal experience ``hurr why did God let this happen to me´´ or a dumb 12 year old´s argument ``but who created god!? checkmate!´´

Atheists simply cannot back up their claim, they are sitting on a tree, trying to saw off the branch that supports them (Christian civilization, or God who created them).

>>2475216
The unicorn with all possible positive attributes.

>>2475221
>god created the universe
no he didn't here's the science
>well god created mankind
no he didn't here's the science
>errr well hmmm god created ummm his face on a piece of toast

>so I had a spiritual experience that convinced me fully theres a God
>no, personal experience isn't evidence, pls listen to my mental wankery where I try intellectually to convince you to stop believing what you saw

They are like this level of retarded

>>2475238
>dumb 12 year old´s argument

Thanks for proving my point.

>>2475221
There are many strawmen in this thread (as usual for a hurr atheists durr thread), but this one probably takes the prize as strawiest.

ITT: atheists getting intellectually destroyed

>>2475249
>cosmology and evolution
>dumb 12 year old's argument

thanks for proving my point

File: myth.jpg (23KB, 300x237px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x237px

>>2475255
>evolution

You just lost the little credibility you had left.

>>2474995
>implying any of what you posted proves the greatness of god

you're just proving that there's a god. you haven't done anything to prove its the god described in the bible, or one even partially concerned with our well-being.

I make this post in plenty of threads, but the only answers I get are that I'm an atheist (kek) moving the goalposts.

>>2475265
>artifact riddled jpeg.jpg
checkmate, atheists

>>2475266
But this thread isnt about religion. Once you accept that God exists, THEN we can move on to what religion is correct.

You are moving the goalposts, atleast you are noble to admit that.

>>2475050
Not making an argument, just enjoying some hearty keks.

>>2475276
you're doing it again. you're saying that all these fancy philosophical arguments prove God (Yahweh, Christian god, or possibly a god described in any religion) exists, when all they do is confirm that there's a creator at best (who, based on our world, cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, all-knowing and fully committed to our happiness at the same time).

the evidence points more towards some higher entity that created our universe as a pet project and stepped back to watch what happens.

>>2475315
There is no evidence, there are arguments which can be countered with other arguments.

>>2475315
Deism is still theism. Basically you accept that God exists. This thread is about the philosophical arguments for God.

If you want to ask WHO or WHAT God is, that is another subject. Feel free to make a thread.

Theism means a belief in God. Thats it. It doesnt say whether polytheism, pantheism, monotheism or deism is correct, nor does it make any claim on religion, denomination or book is right. That is getting into the realm of theology and history.

File: jesus-christ-bobble-head-back-forth-bobbing-face.gif (173KB, 300x632px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 300x632px

>>2474995
BOW DOWN BEFORE ME AND SUCK MY FEET

>>2475224
So God in other words?

Why are theists so aggressive in their shitposting, throwing insults around and generally chimping out? You can throw out as many twisted logical exercises by philosophers scared of their mortality as you want. Every time science shines light on a subject, you can hide in the shadows and claim God is there. You can smugly claim you're assured a good afterlife as the present life passes you by. Nobody is stopping you from doing any of this. Just leave other people alone.

The cosmological argument proves only that there was a cause to the universe, even secular science agrees here, it doesn't prove that it was a god.
Ontological arguments are at worst just word games, and in the case of Gödel's argument only works if you first accept the axioms (they don't model something necessarily real) and causes a modal collapse if you do.
There's no sound basis to assuming that the hard problem of consciousness is "hard." It's literally just idealists and spiritualists reeing at science.

>>2475339
and evidence validates some arguments, and renders others fruitless.

God is all-knowing, all-capable, and loves us.
>why does life still suck?
Because we blew it and got kicked out of the garden of Eden.
>but God knew we'd eat from the tree of knowledge, why'd he set us up for a test he knew we'd fail?
alternatively (or above line of reasoning leads to), God put us in this crappy world so that we'd learn the merits of love, compassion and charity and all that good stuff, because you don't learn anything without adversity.
>but God is omnipotent, and he created this universe and set the rules for it. why'd he make it so that we have to go through this crappy existence to learn what we need to know to get to heaven? why not just create us from the start with all those virtues built in?
Because we need free will to appreciate these things, and [further logical arguments that get countered by]
>but, again, God is omnipotent. He could make us perfect, and make us happy and intelligent while perfect, because while there might be contradictions or paradoxes in there God is God so he could make it work anyway, because he's omnipotent and he decided what's a paradox and what's a contradiction in our universe. He clearly doesn't, though. Why?
Because God has a plan, and it is beyond our comprehension.
>why did God make us unable to comprehend his plan? what do any of us gain in us not being able to plainly and completely understand it? if we were made in his image, wouldn't we think it to be a dope plan if he just told us?

ergo, God either can't help us (in which case he is not the all-powerful father described in the bible), or he won't help us (in which case he either doesn't care, or is actively a jerk).

>>2475390
I think it's really strange that most of our most obnoxious shitposters and tripfags have been Christians. Aside from melanin warrior and that ottoman dude, I think they've all been.

>>2474995
This thread is cancer and is in clear violation of global rule #3
Any thread talking about the following belongs on /b/:
>bait
>non-secular religous studies
>the discussion of holy texts outside of the historical context of/ secular study of the philosophical logos behind it

Religous advice belongs on /adv/
Contemporary religous politics belong on /pol/
Discussion of religous literature belongs on /lit/
Religous hate threads and atheist hate threads belong on /b/ and r/atheism
Kill yourself away from my board please.

>>2475424
Further reminder that non-secular religous studies are by definition DIVINITY studies and are in direct contrast with HUMANITies

Whenever i see these threads I just have to skip the top to get to the actual arguments at the bottom, considering from OP down to about the middle of the page is just strangers on the internet screaming back and forth and using "not an argument" or "projecting" memes like it matters. Whether or not a god or creator couldn't matter less to me, but no one will ever agree on a definitive answer if conversation always leads to fallacious shit slinging like this
>tl;dr /his/ is meant for discussion, yet no discussion happens until the memes have passed

File: 121267512635322.jpg (92KB, 690x690px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 690x690px

There's something far greater than gods at work here, anon.

File: max.jpg (59KB, 500x550px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x550px

>>2475192
>>2475210
>dude spooks are real cos the nazis are evil lmao

>>2475224
I knew that you would get to this. You just changed God's name to unicorn.

File: tolkien.jpg (28KB, 617x355px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 617x355px

>>2475192
>>2475210
>C. S. Lewis

>>2475396
The problem of consciousness is only easy when people try to apply naturalistic materialism to it. And even then you're just saying "One day it will be discovered lol". Completely ignoring that the processes can't be explained by science alone. It's reductionist and retarded.

>>2475400
>why did God make us unable to comprehend his plan?
>ergo, God either can't help us (in which case he is not the all-powerful father described in the bible), or he won't help us (in which case he either doesn't care, or is actively a jerk).

Logical non sequitur.
The fact that God did not grant you omniscience to match his own is not indicative of lack of omnipotence on his part, nor does it make him a "jerk".

>>2475087

>People are stupid. I think God is a unicorn.

>>2474995
>hard problem of consciousness
You can accept this as a case against pure materialism and still be an atheist.
See: Thomas Nagel.

>>2475400
>why did He make us unable to understand His plan?
Because that would influence our free will and we wouldn't love him out of pure love, it would be only out of self-interest.

>>2475593
>easy

Things no one ever said. I only said not hard (as in not absolute or unanswerable).

>Completely ignoring that the processes can't be explained by science alone.

There's no sound basis for believing this.

>hey thogg, if no lightning spirits, explain hard problem of lightning, checkmate thogg

>& Humanities

>>2475597
Then why doesn't he grant us omniscience to match his own? If he has a good reason, why doesn't he tell us?

>>2475621
You didn't read the whole post. Why doesn't he just make it so that we can have free will and love him out of pure love and simultaneously able to understand his plan? That's a contradiction, but couldn't God just wave a contradiction away?

>>2475673
>then why doesn't He grant us omniscience
It seems you didn't even read the entire post or understand it
How are you going to learn something if you already know everything? God created us fallible and non-perfect to make us different to each other.

>>2475673
>Then why doesn't he grant us omniscience to match his own?
Why should he?
>If he has a good reason, why doesn't he tell us?
Once again, why should he?
Stop acting like a spoiled brat always demanding more. The fact daddy would not buy you a pony does not make your daddy an uncaring asshole.

Deism is the only acceptable form of belief in god.

File: Faith.jpg (32KB, 321x317px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 321x317px

>>2475700
No, Biblical Christianity is.

Why? Because it is the truth. In Jesus Christ you have eternal life. There is no other way to get to heaven.

>>2475711
Nah you picked the wrong God.

>>2475770
Nah, I picked the right God.

>>2475697
Because he allegedly loves us and already told us a ton of things (through proxies writing a book) about himself and our world and our place in it? Why is understanding one's place in the universe a luxury akin to a pony, and why are you suddenly resorting to ad hominem? Why is asking to understand his plan too much, but praying to him on a regular basis for all manner of comparatively trivial things in your personal life not?

>>2475688
Yet again, he's omnipotent. Why doesn't he make it so that we don't need to learn, and that humans can be perfect while simultaneously different? Us being unable to learn something by already knowing it is a rule of this universe he created, right?

>>2475772
No, I did.

>>2474995

Most humans are so fucking stupid.

The faggotries they adopt can either increase their reverence for their lack of knowledge or increase their reverence for "knowledge".

I prefer the former.