Atheists BTFO

how did godel prove it?

>>136188032
How will fedoras ever recover?

>>136188032
Fuck stupid fucking christcucks are worst than Muslims. Fucking bitch fuck.

File: 1498515760858.png (18KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 420x420px

>>136188032
Fedoras BTFO

File: goldel proof.jpg (34KB, 600x234px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x234px

>>136188720

Explain this to a brainlet please

What about faith in logic?

>>136189031
English?

>>136189035
U can't have truf w/o god. That just common sens :)

Btw the only god is my god. Other gods r retarted n not logical

File: 1500889161577.jpg (55KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 403x403px

Who says science is incompatible with faith.

>>136189229
Sounds unlogical.
But thanks nip

>>136188997
>christians appeal to logic and mathematics
>everyone else appeals to fee-fees
the christian dark ages was a time when the world's first universities were built in europe and scientific method was enforced by law. our dark ages were better than 20th century communism and 21st century islam combined, kiddo.

>>136189517
Copying from somewhere else.

In order to have a proof, you must have a first principle. Something that is self-evidently true. Whatever you make self-evidently true you hold as God.
If your first principle, or axiom, is not self-evidently true, but relies on another truth, then that is your first principle. And if that relies on another, the chain goes back. And if it links to itself, it become circular logic, and is cut off from any other thought system, and can only be self-reinforced.
"The Bible is 100% true." "How do you know?" "Because I read it in the Bible, and the Bible is 100% true."
There must be something true, you recognize as true, underlying all your logic, that is not reliant on anything else.
"I think, therefore, I am."
Or
"I Am, therefore, I think."
At the bottom of these statements, the proposition of "I am" and "I think." are the self-evident axioms. The first principles.
That is why God's self definition is,
"I Am that I Am."
God Is. The Alpha and the Omega. Whole and complete in Himself.

Is he seriously saying that unless you believe in god, you can't prove things?

File: GodProof-ND.jpg (238KB, 1507x940px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1507x940px

>>136189152
I have a pdf explaining it

>>136188032
Godel proved there exist statements that are both true and unprovable in any formal system more complicated than peano arithmetic, not that the concept of proof itself is impossible without an axiom. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is probably the second most abused popsci victim after quantum physics.

>>136189962
Did you seriously not read the tweet you no ass potato nigger?

>>136189786
>"I think, therefore, I am."
>Or
>"I Am, therefore, I think."
>At the bottom of these statements, the proposition of "I am" and "I think." are the self-evident axioms. The first principles.
>That is why God's self definition is,
>"I Am that I Am."
>God Is. The Alpha and the Omega. Whole and complete in Himself.

Pretty bad reasoning. People have poked holes in Descartes' axiom for many years -- well, and axioms as a whole.

>>136190186
Yes, and he literally says that faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof.

>>136189995
>Corrolary 1: possibly a godlike being exists
Already wrong. Theres no level of logical knot theistfags won't tie themselves up in to justify 'proof' of what they know to be unsubstantiable fantasy.

>>136189786
And I propose that God isn't. Where is your proof that it is?

>>136189786
>Whatever you make self-evidently true you hold as God.

That's quite the assumption.

>>136189962

No he's saying all truths are based on an unprovable axiom. For example, why value logic and reason? What evidence is there that you should value evidence?

Why should you value consistency and reason?

You just kinda should. There's nothing else you can say.

So given that even facts, reason and logic are based on an initial leap of faith, so too is belief in a God.

File: cant actually make it up..jpg (567KB, 2872x3172px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 2872x3172px

proof right here

>>136190502
Then why did you make the post? The tweet was a clear cut statement. You're literally a subhuman.

File: sffdf2.png (803KB, 1176x568px) Image search: [Google]

803KB, 1176x568px

>>136190685
>>136190685

>>136188032
The logical absolutes are the all the axioms we need. faith in god is an excuse people give when they dont have a better reason for their beliefs but are afraid to admit it.

>>136189786
This is jibberish. You are the one making a claim that god exists, you need to define specifically what god is and then provide proof.

>>136190503
devil's proof

File: 69009a.jpg (25KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x240px

>>136188032
The proof of no God is all around us.
These people had plenty of faith shoved down there throats. Yet they starve to death.

>>136189442
12 year old Redditors.

File: jack shampoo.jpg (26KB, 320x205px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 320x205px

>>136188032
Deconstructionism from a soft Leftist Catholic Leaf.

Proof is determined by effect. You want to live in a fantasy world where your proof for everything that happens ever is a Jewish deity then you're just a sick fucked up brat.

File: happenstance6.png (506KB, 798x446px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 798x446px

>>136190827
>blame god when 90% of /pol/ supports let them starve mentality

>>136190503
>possibly

There's possibly a pickle on the roof of my house. Saying something is possible (unless demonstrably incorrect, such as saying that I am not myself) is leaving it open. Unless you can prove that God doesn't exist, it is unreasonable to say that there is absolutely no possibility that He does not.

>>136190503
>Already wrong
can you proof that godlike being doesn't exit ?
if you can't this means that p o s i b l y a godlike being exist

>>136190827
I-I-I-It's a test of their faith! All souls must be tested before their time in heaven!

File: 1490913468279.jpg (71KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x580px

>>136190827
>GOD SOLVE MY PROBLEMS OR I'LL BECOME A FEDORA
Every time.

File: 1499540080609.jpg (59KB, 503x456px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 503x456px

>it's another religion/god/atheism thread on /pol/
we need a new board

File: 3k33pe3o15V15T05Q0b6qfd50bd58597a16a1.jpg (98KB, 366x465px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 366x465px

>>136190919

>Jap porn poster who loved Jebus

>in every Catholic shill thread


Reminder that Catholic threads are shitskin posters who hate the white race.

>>136190827
>there throats

Fucking genius right here.

>>136190827
That just proves God is white

>>136188032
He's half-right, but goes too far with the conclusion to sound right. I say this as a Christian who converted after listening to a lot of debates over philosophy...

File: isis-gay-execution-640x480.jpg (48KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 640x480px

>>136188032
>If I make a fuzzy statement my opponents can't respond

>>136191007
>>136190827
the very fact that you know there is something wrong with the world proves God exists

>>136190827
Allah said he created evil.

>>136190930
Proof of a
Godlike
Pickle

>>136189035
The essential argument is that to come to any conclusion scientifically or objectively or even subjectively you must assume 2 things

1. The universe exists
2. You can learn something about the universe

>>136191112
>he made a typo so he must be stupid and because he is stupid what he says must be wrong.
flawless logic right there.

File: happenstance4.png (500KB, 799x450px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 799x450px

>>136191095
i go in there to btfo catholics i aint no cathshit

the cure to atheism is anywhere from 2-5 grams of magic mushrooms, it forces rational thought processes

>>136188032
You don't need Goedel to see the inescapable neccesity of accepting gnosis (intuition, "faith", "god", some for of direct knowing). All inference (i.e., reasoning, logic, argumentation) requires certain axioms to be true in order to function. For example identity (x = x) and non-contradiction ( ~ (x ^ ~x) (in english: it's not the case that x and not x)) must be true in order for any inference to work at all. These axioms underlie logic so justifying them via logical argumentation is circular and invalid. The only other option is just to assert that you know them directly to be true. In order to make this assertion you must accept that the power to directly know things to be true (i.e., gnosis, "faith", intuition, etc.) exists.

>>136190827
1. Niggers do not have souls, they are animals.
2. There is no purpose to life without suffering. If everything was without trial, humanity would still be living in mud huts. If we had no need for food, drink, sleep, and were invincible and immortal, we'd probably just sit around and fuck all day. God wants us to prosper. The desire to avoid suffering is one of the basest human instincts. The more we invent, the less we suffer, such as with agriculture, the most important discovery.

File: 1372884871501.jpg (11KB, 273x281px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 273x281px

>2017
>believes in a magicial sky daddy

>>136191229
Morality doesn't require god. Morality comes from a desire for mutual benefit and an inherent sense of empathy.

It's been well accepted among the scientific community for a very long time that 3 assumptions are necessary to be made.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

you dont need math to prove shit.

randomness here is created with a set and not by absolute nothing.
monkeys with typwriters is a set.

same with this flat earth, you have a set of things to create the reality.

>>136190764
>This is jibberish
Well, yeah, its philosophy, its all nonsense ramblings.

>>136191512
there is a reason your country is being overrun by immigrants

>>136190503
Sorry but there are no arguments against the reasoning and logic of a prime mover, an uncaused cause. There is only problems applying empiricism and evidence to the logic.

There is no argument for specific deities existing, but there can be no denying that the logic in an uncaused cause. It is a thing that can only exist and can't not exist.

>>136190669
I see your reasoning, but the leap of faith needed to value logic, evidence etc. is a lot smaller than the leap of faith to believe in and worship an all powerful deity with a very specific set of rules and moral guidelines which you must follow or else you will go to hell.

>>136191585
where do the inherent sense of empathy and desire for mutual benefit come from?

>>136191481
If he wanted us to prosper, why not just create a world with an abundance of everything? Why have us suffer? There's no point to it.

>>136189995
>/pol/ will pretend like if they undestand this

>>136191029
This.

>>136191438
Alternatively you take a general position of "I think, but do not know". It's okay to never have absolute certainty.

>>136191742
Did you read my post at all?

>>136191742
Bro...the world does have an abundance of everything we need.

>>136189031
>>136189995
That's his ontological argument. Jordan's talking about his second incompleteness theorem.

>>136191390
I ate 7 and it didn't convert me

But I had a very interesting meeting with an Aztec supernatural presence much older and much more omnipotent than any God invented by jews in the desert

>>136191682
Everything we know about the universe suggests it can and did arise out of perfectly natural causes, no God needed.

>>136191742
the first world he created was without flaw and thus he realized a world without hardship was rejected by humans

>>136191675
56%

>>136191887
yea but who put those elements there to begin with hillary?

>>136191797
That's fine but understand, if you don't justify your axioms via gnosis (a claim to direct knowledge) it's not just "I think but don't know" it's, "I think, but I have literally no argument or reason for thinking so and literally any other thesis is just as justified as anything that I think". Axioms are required for inference and without it you don't get ANY inference. No inferences to "likelihood", or "probable truths", no inference at all.

>>136191737
Living with other humans?

How did you think civilizations worked before Christianity? lmao

>>136191951
not an argument slav

>>136191675
you're conflating denmark with sweden
get your facts straight burger

>>136190703
>simpleton misunderstands tweet
>gets mad at me for criticizing tweet
>I explain tweet to simpleton
>simpleton has a sperg-out calling me subhuman

seems about right

>>136191920
In the first version of Jahweh, his father El created him and gave him Asheera as a wife who would birth humanity, while his brother Marduk went ahead to kill Tiamat in order to create light. Why do you not worship the original Jahweh, but rev. 4.0 circa 7th Century?

>>136192001
Damn, i didnt think a question that is this loaded could even be made.

>>136188032
I'm not an atheist but JP sounds like a sputtering retard here

>>136191887
Yes and a cause that only causes and needs not be caused is a natural cause in our universe. Thus there is a force that has caused all but did not need to be created or caused because there is no possibility in all of possibility for this cause to be caused. It is only uncaused. No probability is all actuality.

There is no argument for Jehova or Allah or Zeus. There is an argument for some sort of force or essence that causes without needed a cause itself.

>>136191823
I mean, why not give everything to us without all the effort.

>>136191802
I did. You said if we were immortal and had everything, we'd just sit around all day. So? At that point we'd have everything we'd ever want. What's the point in creating suffering to make us "prosper" if he could just hand prosperity to us.

File: cum rag.jpg (51KB, 572x535px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 572x535px

>>136188032

>>136190827
Niggers do this to themselves.

>>136192050
Theres a reason your country is overrun by niggers

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

>>136190685

There's even a big nose on his face, it's meant to to be proof it's all a jewish trick

File: 1486006146700.gif (66KB, 223x199px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 223x199px

>>136190827
>pic
How is this not an act of God's love? We need less niggers and more whites. I thank God every day for this. 1488

>>136192206
>why not give everything to us without all the effort.

because what we need more than "stuff" is something to strive for

>>136192229

Can I fuck hookers in the napkin religion?

>>136190731
>you didn't post the one with the gun pointed up his nose

>>136192484
Looks to be a dark dick pointing at the mouth.

>>136192008
see
>>136191627

I recognize that basic assumptions must be made in order to create models that appear to best fit the reality that we probably both experience. I can only ever "prove" things to the extent that they appear to be consistent, and models different from the scientific method don't appear to be as apt to this as it is.

File: 1496779845274.png (136KB, 1864x1408px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1864x1408px

>>136189031

>>136191512

File: 1501381032639.jpg (82KB, 783x590px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 783x590px

>>136188720
>>136191858
since you're interested
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#Second_incompleteness_theorem

>>136189786
>Whatever you make self-evidently true you hold as God.
Why don't we pray to Self-Evident Truth then?

File: 1499718824030.png (128KB, 611x672px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 611x672px

>>136191512
>2017
>Believes we evolved from apes.

>>136192047
Why do all civilizations have such similar morality then? All cultures have basic rules like don't steal, don't murder, follow all these rules, etc.

>>136192008
This is a reason vs empirical argument and axiomatic direct knowledge is NOT needed to justify anything. I do not adhere to the idea of direct knowledge. All axioms are born from the constituent physics of the universe and their interplay allowing our brains to exist and measure. The direct knowledge you have is not direct at all, it is empirical knowledge you have because at some point that knowledge was embedded in genetic identity and thus comes through in the beings with said identity as something they know intrinsically. The problem is this knowledge was gained empirically not reasonably.

To further extrapolate this, all reason and logical arguments stem from epicirical forces existing in the first place that give rise to biology that can reason, thus reasoning must be tired intrinsically to empricism.

>>136188032
I have been saying this exact thing for the past 2 years. Everyone laughed at me. They aren't laughing now.

File: IMG_1923.jpg (38KB, 236x302px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 236x302px

Which "god" is this?
Is it a singular demiurge that has not conducted itself into any belief system?
Is it a god followed by organized religion(s)?
Is it not a singular demiurge, but a bunch of lesser gods with each individual function?

How do you define a "god?"
If there is a singular, all-powerful god, why hasn't it shown itself to us, why can we even understand its existence?

>>136192357
And yet we spend all of our time working to meet are basic needs and maybe something more instead striving for some higher ideal.

If he just handed us prosperity I'm sure everyone could strive for whatever the fuck we wanted without having to worry about anything. The suffering he created, or lets happen, really has no point.

>>136192648
>current year
>doesnt understand evolution

you burgers would crack me up if i didnt think this was so sad.

>>136192633
We do. We just don't call it self evident truth, all gods have many names, smartypants.

>>136190827
God spent 7 biblical days explaining that existance was good;
and that non-existance was what God believed to be evil. The nonexistant devil?
Think about it with this mentality and everything lines up

>>136191512
>2017
>calls God skydaddy
remarkably (You)

File: 1492345429660.jpg (59KB, 496x501px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 496x501px

>>136192708

>>136192206
I'm sorry, but if you don't get it, I don't think I can make you see that life without hardship is life without meaning. Hardship is a task to overcome. If the task is removed, then you have nothing to do, and life becomes pointless. Not only is that depressing from a philosophical perspective, but it creates a bad kind of people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNKFvHtA3g

Watch that, or the original video, whichever you prefer. That is a situation in which you take mortal beings, and place them in an environment in which they have everything they need, and face no external hardship whatsoever. They all died.

>>136192750
Our*

>>136192762
Finns being the most backward retards is proof evolution is false.

>>136192771
>not calling something what it is
Why would you do that? Do you call yourself a different name too?

>>136192848
I have a nickname, people call me dude or guy, sometimes friend, honey.
You are a lonely faggot aren't you?

>>136192648
>2017
>Believes atheist think we evolved from apes

>>136191887
>perfectly natural causes
What is natural about reality and existence of continuity* even being a thing? Theoretical physicists, computer scientists and mathematicians all struggle with the question being asked, yet you dismiss it all together based on what?

The only thing known here, is your emotional attachment to brainwash installed
>"LOL STUPID EVANGELICALS"
popculture when your were young, preventing you from upgrading to the logically consistent agnostic view point, from the stubborn group identifying that is atheism© .

>>136192674
>Why do all civilizations have such similar morality then? All cultures have basic rules like don't steal, don't murder, follow all these rules, etc.
Because as >>136192047 said, it comes from living with other humans. Humans innately have a sense of right and wrong.

>>136192559
I'm raising that there are more basic assumptions you're not realizing are necessary. For instance, if you choose between models based on "consistency" (either internal consistency or consistency with observed phenomena, or something else) you need to make some basic logical assumptions (like identity, and non-contradiction, for example) in order to even have a notion of "consistency" or the basic logical framework to apply that concept or any concept. But yeah. I think we understand one another basically.

>>136192847
please explain "most backward retards" never heard these words together before, you just make shit up as you go dont you.

File: 1500149537805.jpg (67KB, 960x629px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 960x629px

>atheism is true but somehow barron trump is 100 years before his time

H
AHAHAHAHA

>ATHEISTS

>>136188032
There's nothing true about logic anyway. It's just a systematization of how we think.

>>136192904
So like you don't call God Self-Evident Truth, people don't call you by your given name?

>Atheists """"believe"""" god doesn't exist
>thiests have mathematical proof that God possibly exists

Fedoras btfo

>>136192968
Where does the innate sense of right and wrong come from? You're using circular logic.

>>136192562
you would only argue that it's turtles all the way down or a necessity for a turtle if you thought fundamentally that the universe pre what we know as the universe operated according to the constants it does now, which we know is impossible

>>136192203
This should have been hard to read but it wasn't. I like it, anon.

>>136192825
Maybe you'd have nothing to do, but I certainly would. The idea that hardship is need to give value to things or give you motivation is retarded.

I've seen that experiment. It's about mice. Mice don't care about artistic expression, or music, or intellectual pursuits, or whatever the fuck anyone would rather do in their spare time.

>>136192676
You don't understand the problem being raised. Read the initial post (>>136191438)
again. Inference requires axioms to be true in the formal logical sense of truth. Axioms underlie logic and therefore can't be justified via argumentation, i.e. logic (what you're trying to do). The only way to justify a claim (the axioms in this case) besides inference, is to make a claim of direct knowing. If you don't accept that direct knowing is possible, you can't justify the basic axioms of logic and therefore you can't use inference at all.

File: 1494895856444.jpg (262KB, 900x1327px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 900x1327px

>>136193181
>intellectual gibberish

>>136192708

Why should it show itself to us and why should we be able to understand it?

>>136188720
"proof, of any sort is impossible"
Everything we needed to know right there.

>>136193163
>here does the innate sense of right and wrong come from? You're using circular logic.
He's arguing it only appears innate because the idea of morality is based on a logical risk assessment of the situations people find themselves in.

File: whennoumentionsflat-earth-and-ally-ouget-back-is-fb-com-fematters-that-fluoride-2758643.png (229KB, 500x710px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 500x710px

>rocket hits the flat earth dome that god set up in genesis 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAcp3BFBYw4

but muh atheism

>>136192825
There's also the fact that the scientist that did that experiment attributed the collapse to overcrowding, not abundance of everything.

File: Yusuke.gif (1MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x225px

>>136191237
>athiefag resorts to shitty jokes like these when his brain runs out of edgy things to say

>>136188032
Just assume proof is possible as an axiom.

Damn it peterson, I won't give you patreon bucks. I don't want your self author program either.

>>136193092
What happened to the threads?

>>136192257
Slavery? Kek, what a tard-tier post

Christfags are some of the most retarded people to exist. Godel's theorem has been addressed and debunked many times in regards to the existence of a god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_ontological_proof#Criticism

>>136193751
eat shrooms faggot

>>136192189
Yeah, by specifying faith IN GOD he goes too far and makes the point shakey. He is also mixing his refusal to use invented pronouns with religion on his sleave and that is putting that debate in jeopardy of becoming nothing but christian bible bashing.

>>136190619
yeah this

>God created the world in 7 days
>we are in the image of god (we wuz axiom?)
>Jesus is the son of the fatherly figure we just inserted into logical foundation

>>136193217
What you fail to realize is that your entire premise is flawed. You imagine yourself in this alternate world as otherwise the same, but self-contained (not needing external stimulus to physically survive). However, your life is not without hardship. You are not perfect. You still face struggle in that your intellect is not perfect. The will is undeniably perfect, it is the one and only aspect in which humans are perfect. But the intellect is not perfect, there is much we do not know. While your body is now perfect, your mind is not. You face a different kind of struggle now, one that you will simply have to face in different ways since you won't come to the same conclusions that a lesser being which requires external stimuli to survive might.

>>136193529
It was not attributed to that, the population actually leveled off, and even saw a decline before they ever reached the number at which overcrowding would become an issue. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but they were about 1000 mice away from reaching that point, so nowhere near.

>>136190669
Nicely put. CS Lewis argument for reason btfos atheists easy

>>136193650
Please refer to:
>>136192971

>>136189995
>I have a pdf explaining it
>I can't explain myself because my IQ is way too low.
Self-Evident is obvious.

>>136191229
correct.

>>136191585
incorrect.

>>136193650
That's fine if you want to make an arbitrary self consistent system, but if you want people to believe your system, i.e. if you propose that your system reflects reality, you have to justify your axioms which means you have to accept gnosis, i.e. direct knowing (which is what Peterson is hamstringing as "God" because he's emotionally attached to religious concepts... the argument is sound nonetheless). See >>136191438

>>136193650
A better axiom is probability>utility

As a utility God provides 100%(represents all knowledge and UNLIMITED POWER), but the probability of God is 0%.

So as a concept this basically has 0 actual value.

>>136192562
A prime mover is not necessarily omnipotent nor a god

>>136194043
[citation needed]

>>136193751
>goes to wikipedia after getting btfo by fucking goedel
Kek

>>136194077
Also, a prime mover needs a prime mover, it's turtles all the way down once you go the route of special pleading.

File: IMG_1922.jpg (88KB, 500x713px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x713px

>>136193355
Why shouldn't it?

>>136194156
>a prime mover needs a prime mover
under the current model of the universe which it is highly improbable was always the rule

>>136189442
It's not at all.

However the cucks that think literally think science is the ultimate morality, really piss me off. It's fuckig stupid to think science can provide morals/

>>136194107
>sourced with citations
>"g-get btfo faggot"

Christfags rehash the same tired and debunked arguments for god that have been addressed by many authors, scientists and other intellectuals multiple times. Kill yourself.

>>136192562
>cosmological argument

top kek

>>136192674
>don't steal
Do wolves steal meals from the alpha wolf?
>don't murder
Surely it must be God dictating that we shouldn't kill our tribe members, it's not that it would make us less effective as a tribe or that being in a tribe in the first place requires one to cooperate with others, nope it's GOD

I'm curious as to how exactly you think civilizations existed before Christ, were they just rampant murder/thieving sprees and suddenly this jew religion came along and suddenly it stopped?

>>136194156
Why should a prime mover need a cause?

>>136192674
>don't wantonly kill all members of your society
>follow basic hierarchy
>take care of children
Forget about chimps, you find that behaviour with fucking wolves. Are you suggesting it'sreverence of a wolf god that keeps them in line?

>>136194261
>However the cucks that think literally think science is the ultimate morality, really piss me off. It's fuckig stupid to think science can provide morals/
Can you explain your concept of God and exactly how he imparted morals unto you?

>>136192562
This fucking strawman lmao. Replace that entire wall of text (which 99% of christcucks will not even write out) with a fedora pic and you have typical Christcuck argument.

>>136194070
>>136193650
* "hamstringing" was the wrong word. meant "stretching to mean", etc.

>>136194348
>citations
That's amusing. Good thing you've got wikipedia to think for you! And too bad no one they cite is as intelligent as Goedel

>>136188997
>Commie
Opinion discarded

>>136190562
I propose that You do not exist. Where is your proof that you do.

>>136193926
Calhoun himself attributed to overpopulation. There was limited space and the popularion maxed out at around 2200. After that the mice started getting aggressive.

Your first point is just babbling. Your first statement was "If we were immortal and invincible, we'd still live in mud huts. We suffer to prosper." My point was, why wouldn't God just hand us prosperity in the first place? We all suffer to get somewhere, why not just take us there?

Your point is now intellectual hardship. I was always talking about having enough prosperity to follow your own pursuits. The kind of lack of prosperity that actually makes people suffer in our world.

>>136194636
You're using the theorem fallaciously. I implore you to read the objections but you won't.

>>136191675
Christian charities bring in immigrants more than anybody. Christcucks are delusional.

>everything i like is Christian

>>136194478
The argument postulates that:
Complexity cannot arise without a prime force.
Prime force needs to be complex enough to create a universe.
Complexity cannot arise without a prime force.

This is where the logical fallacy called special pleading goes into effect, where the believer will outright reject natural causeless arising of the current universe, yet would vehemently insist that a force immesurably more complex than the universe can exist without a cause.

>>136193272
Axioms can be justified with logic. Your argument doesn't follow through. Being underline for logic doesn't mean it's thus impossible to justify with logic. There are two ways to justify a claim. Reasonably or empirically. Reason uses logic that requires axioms to be true. The problem is these axioms are already required to be true by empiricism. Direct knowledge comes from being empirically obtained. There is no way to have direct knowledge through reason, that's not intrinsic or direct, it is empirical by following processes to reach a conclusion. This is also how empiricism works.

I am explaining to you direct knowledge does not exist. All forms of knowledge are empirically gained at some point or another. The knowledge that justifies axioms is empirical, not direct or intrinsic. Direct and intrinsic knowledge is impossible without it being gained empirically first.

>>136190827
It is through human greed stupidity and evilness that we have hunger. Don't be so quick to blame God for it.

File: IMG_1914.jpg (45KB, 500x285px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x285px

What created this singular god?
Is this god finite?
If it is infinite, and it is capable of delivering messages to humanity, then why does it not attempt to make contact?

>>136190764
Prove that you exist.

or even better, prove to me "What time it is?"

>>136188032
How the hell does Peterson not understand the incompleteness theorem?

>>136194412
>>136194515
so does morality come from instincts?

File: 12394871239847.jpg (138KB, 900x879px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 900x879px

>>136194156
it's not turtles I thought you guys loved
>occams razor
it's practical and heuristic

>>136189786
Sounds no different than post modern gobbledygook

demiurge, the only winning move is not to play. I am done with this game

>>136195004
I know what you're going for here.
>morality is instinctual therefore everybody should instinctually believe in god

"Morality" is a word that ascribes commonly held social contracts that have been in existence since humans evolved, into a system of personal beliefs and religion.

>>136194755
Why do you "implore" me? Use "invite" to sound less foolish.
>>136194831
In this case special pleading is not fallacious. It is likely that everything in our universe has a cause, therefore we must assume that the line of causation is either infinite or originating in something uncaused. We have no reason to believe that God should have a cause.

>>136195040
I described infinite regress. It's an expression.

>>136194831
Prove to me where we are?
Prove to me what time it is?

You cannot prove either where you are or what time it is, and yet you ask me to prove the existence/non-existence of anything!!!!

>>136192793
>2017
>denying evolution, yet accepting western treatment for illnesses
>unbeknownst to the fact that all of modern biology is based on evolution

>>136194478
>>136194831
I don't think you know what special pleading is.

Unless you can tell me the constants which made up the universe before we can actually measure your argument is inane (protip you cant rtard).

>>136194851
The concept of direct knowing is completely different from and typically presented as diametrically opposed to empirical knowing. You don't understand the language / concepts you're using or at least you're using them in a way that's not the way they're used in philosophy so I don't know what you mean.

In any case.
>Axioms can be justified with logic
No. Axioms can't be justified by logic. As stated, and as I'm pretty sure you understand, they must be true in order for logic to work. Therefore, using logic to justify them is circular.

>>136189229
My god wud beat ur god in a fight 2 da death

>>136195267
Straight outta reddit, my dude

>>136195256
>In this case special pleading is not fallacious. It is likely that everything in our universe has a cause, therefore we must assume that the line of causation is either infinite or originating in something uncaused. We have no reason to believe that God should have a cause?
Why not a cause without a causer instead of a causer without a cause.

>>136194851
So you obtained knowledge of the non-existence of squared circles, married bachelors, etc.. through empiricism? Must be nice to be omnipresent mate.

>>136194412
>I'm curious as to how exactly you think civilizations existed before Christ, were they just rampant murder/thieving sprees and suddenly this jew religion came along and suddenly it stopped?

I bet you think you're some enlightened member of a "white race". How ignorant can you be of European(and history in general) to think that "white" isn't just a mishmash term used to describe numerous people who've been killing their tribal neighbours for millennial.

As a Scot I find you English to be weak lanky cucks, you Germans to be autistic sociopath fuck ups, and you Swedes(ex-vikings*) to be the biggest historical joke in all of time.

>>136194851
You have knowledge of yourself before you have knowledge of an external world. Knowledge of yourself as a being in the world contains a few valid knowledges, things like you have a right arm and a left arm, you can move your right arm and your left arm, or you can move both, or neither. So right away we understand that knowledge of logic is built into our very being and requires no empirical observation of anything external to us. We know we can move our right arm or left arm before we actually move them.

>>136188032
though im on that guy's side his logic is way beyond hilarious, to say nothing of his absurdly asinine misunderstanding of godel

>>136195248
>that have been in existence since humans evolved
you still haven't told me where morals come from, quit dodging the question
I want a specific thing you can point to and say "this is where morals come from"

>>136190930
You can't assign a logical probability to an object that you can't define the possibility of arising. Pickles exist. They are definable objects. They exist in space and on earth. Even if we have no capacity to view the roof of your house, we can deduce that there is a fringe chance that, by some events, a pickle has come to rest on your roof.
But a god? From where. You can't assign even a low probability because you can't put forth a series of possible events in which it is true.
You can't argue that something is "possible" without being able to assign it a probability. full stop.

>>136188032
Literally the most ignorant tweet I've ever had the displeasure of being made aware of.

>>136194261
>It's fuckig stupid to think science can provide morals/

Morality is an evolved trait

>>136195261
Friendly reminder nihilists can justify anything because nothing matters.

(even blowing dogs)

File: 1496004006965.png (482KB, 824x490px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 824x490px

>>136195259
It's an excuse to bullshit.

>>136195256
You repeat the same tired arguments addressed by peolle more intelligent than you an I. This is why nobody is convinced of your god.

Yeah, that's not how axioms work.
And by that lack of logic, you can claim anything is true.
>Your faggotness is the prerequisite of any proof.

>>136194851
empiricism doesnt prove things. it can only disprove things.

>>136195521
"the entire God needs a causer too" argument hinges on God being restricted by the laws of physics

>>136195256
>in this case
>special pleading is not fallacious
Can't help but smile.
An infinite origin is perfectly possible to be a multiverse that loops onto itself. Quantum well-ups are causeless, if we are to be pedantic about causelessness.
A god should have a cause, as otherwise you postulate that a complex thing can have no prime mover, yet insist that our natural universe arose via such without any proof to back it up. This is assertion without evidence, and pleading for a special exception at that.

>>136195387
>I don't think you know what special pleading is.
Pleading for an exception from the rule just so that it supports your position.
In this case, pleading that a complex thing must be caused, but a more complex thing that caused must not be caused because reasons.

>>136195857
I am not the one claiming it, just explaining its fallacy.

>>136195698
Would you agree morals are what we should do?

>>136195592
I'm actually black

>>136195698
>I want a specific thing you can point to and say "this is where morals come from"

Phenotype

>>136194970

>Prove that you exist.

this guy gets it
nothing is of true absolute certainty after "i think, therefore i am" (or some rephrasing of that)

>>136195004
it "comes" from wherever each individual wishes to assign as such a source

>it doesn't count as proof because I say so
>meaningless non-sequitur
I really can't take these theist threads seriously.

>>136188720
he didnt

>>136190989
I don't have to. You can't make corollary statements on the basis that nobody has proven those statements impossible. You may as well just say "corollary 1: god exists" and scrap the rest of this farce.
If you could make corollary statements that simply aren't proven as wrong the Riemann Hypothesis would have been proven years ago. Only somebody who knows nothing at all about math or logical reasoning would even need to have this conversation.

>>136195970
That's not what I'm asking, you're positing God is a causer without a cause, why not believe in a cause without a causer instead?

>>136188720
Incompleteness theorem

>>136196018
You guys should start using the two proper words.
We live by ETHICS, we are imposed MORALS.
Nobody lives by morals, as if you did, you would have sold your daughter for a camel as your book commands, and stoned your son for not writing his homework. You live by societal ethics, and this is why every society has different norms. Morals and ethics are two different things.

>>136196034
It changes nothing. Africa and India are still pagan countries, and paganism is exactly what you get from atheism.

They might not call it a god, but everybody worships something.

File: God.jpg (600KB, 700x6826px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 700x6826px

>>136188720

>>136195698
I just explained it to you, morals are interpretations of pre-existing unwritten social contracts.

File: pilpul.png (67KB, 1220x619px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1220x619px

>>136188032
>ITT: Christcuck pilpul

>>136195988
>because reasons.
Except I implicitly stated the reason to you at least twice now.

We don't know how the laws of the universe functioned before it came into existence.

You are arguing we do because under the current laws a prime mover cannot exist without a prime mover.

There is no evidence to support your assertion this was the case before the universal constants we can now measure existed.

Your logic isn't circular it's just plain dishonest or you haven't actually thought your argument out. Either way, retarded.

S O P H I S T R Y

O

P

H

I

S

T

R

Y

>>136188032
This tweet proves that Peterson is retarded.

>>136196258
Atheism is defined by the disbelief in a god, nothing more nothing less. No intrinsic religion stemming from it, it's an adjective. Buddhism for example is atheistic.

Irreligion is what defines the disbelief or dissociation from a whole religion

>>136188032
brainlets won't be able to appreciate this. The real question is- which axioms should we accept, and why?

>>136196216
that doesnt have anything to do with God except incidentally

>>136195698
>assume that such a request is impossible
What if there does not exist a specific thing? Why does there need to be a specific thing in the first place? The social nature of our species is where the morals come from.

>>136196040
>this guy gets it
>nothing is of true absolute certainty after "i think, therefore i am" (or some rephrasing of that)
Let us know once you get past undergrad philosophy.

The fundamental assumptions are covered and the inane point made by this edgy nihilist is covered pretty quickly.

>>136188997
>not throwing gays off buildings
>not throwing acid on people
>not cutting off clits
>not beheading children
>not fucking goats
>worse than Muslims

t. i love famines

>>136196289
well, that is ONE thing they can be

>>136188032
>God is the only axiom possible
Sometimes I hate jordan

>>136196258
And by the way, India is not a pagan or an atheist country. It's a polytheistic society with a religion far older than Christianity.

>>136189031
What does the square and diamond notation mean

File: 1501383174833.jpg (60KB, 593x650px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 593x650px

>>136188032
Two things convinced me of the existence of God. The first being Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, it is a fantastic book and went a long way. The second and perhaps more firm argument for the existence of God was all the studying I have been doing of the occult word and the mystery schools. It is clear that throughout history individuals with esoteric knowledge have been at war with one another. There are those, like Christ, who want to bring this knowledge to the world to enlighten every man and those who wish to keep this knowledge hidden so (((they))) may rule over man as a slave race.

The absolute hate that those in the dark occult world have for Christ is what convinced me. There is no reason to so hate a man, especially a crazy man, since anyone who said what Jesus said without being the son of God would be crazy, to the extent that they hate him. It was that level of hate that convinced me that there is on earth a spiritual war taking place at this very moment. Funny enough CS Lewis used a similar metaphor. Earth is behind enemy lines and is under control of the enemies of God. God is going to retake this area at some point but he is giving those who are under control of Satan to make a choice and pick a side. I may not know much but I have picked a side.

The Synagogue of Satan means exactly that. The faith has been hijacked by the dark occult just like Islam and the Catholic church. Now is the time to pick a side this world will not remain enemy territory forever.

File: Baptists are the original church.png (140KB, 945x745px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 945x745px

>>136188032
reminder

>>136188032
>I did word games now that proves reality wrong :^)

>>136195988

>A god should have a cause,

once you are speaking in the context of "beyond" or "outside" of spacetime, the very word and concept (causality) it refers to becomes meaningless

>>136196539
>implying there is a meaningful difference between paganism and polytheism

>>136196240
I assumed ethics was synonymous with morals, but what you've said makes sense. I'm an Atheist, I was just trying to see how he defined morals.

>>136196424
Irreligion and atheism are not exclusive.

>>136196018
Pretty much. Morals tell someone what they ought to do in a situation.
>>136196289
and where would these preexisting unwritten social contracts come from?
>>136196469
>The social nature of our species
and where does that come from?
Why do we value human relationships?
>>136196215
Because the cause is restricted by the laws of physics, which say every cause needs a causer?

>>136196683
It's like saying gender isn't sex mate, technically correct but an inane linguistic distinction.

>>136188032
>nothing can be proven true unless you pretend to believe something definitely false

>>136195547
Learning is empirical. The people who did obtain that knowledge did so through empirical means. The person who invented wheels did so via empiricism. You can't say we intrinsically know what wheels are just because their existence is tied to our everyday lives.

>>136195615
You dont "know" you can move your leg and right arms as an infant, you simply do it because it is what is allowed. Infants learn through mimicry. The only thing they "know" Is that they can do whatever they see others doing. And this understanding is empirical, it is observable, and it was empirically taught through empirical processes passed down in DNA.

>>136195405
I know this I am telling you the idea is flawed and inccorect. Being able to swim from birth is not direct knowledge. We can swim from birth because of evolution, empirical processes that give this ability without cognitive reason or thought, but it doesn't appear from nowhere.

As I've stated, axioms are already true empirically. That's how we came to know of axioms.

>>136196528
i could have sworn he was much more wise and intelligent than this

even though I do believe in God, this guy is taking some laughable and impossible irrational "shortcuts" to assert existence of God with a logic chain

>>136196324
>We don't know how the laws of the universe functioned before it came into existence.
They did't exist, they are not laws, but interactions between the fundamentals.

>You are arguing we do because under the current laws a prime mover cannot exist without a prime mover.
I am arguing you cannot reject a less simple form for a vastly more complex one while pleading it's immune to your reasons to reject the first one. In this case, "nothing can be natural except my special thing because I say so".

>There is no evidence to support your assertion this was the case before the universal constants we can now measure existed.
There are no constants, even protons would eventually decay. Degenerate era would kick in at about 10^40 years, and fundamental forces will weaken and eventually disappear.

>Your logic isn't circular it's just plain dishonest or you haven't actually thought your argument out. Either way, retarded.
My logic is quite honest - I see you reject a natural cause for a more complex supernatural, while pleading it's immune to the reason of your prior rejection, yet still vastly complex. Of course, with no evidence of it existing other than assertions.
What was the saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
Special pleading is one of the basic fallacies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

>>136196687
No they are not but they are not intrinsically tied together either. They're just descriptors, they're negative adjectives. A-theism and Ir-religion.

>>136196781
>and where would these preexisting unwritten social contracts come from?

I literally explained it to you like ten posts ago, from humans living in cohesion with other humans. Why is that hard to understand?

>>136188032
His first sentence just says that you need faith in something, but it doesn't necessarily say that a faith in God is required. However, that does mean that faith in God COULD be one of the things that fulfills the prerequisite for proof.

>>136188032
Prove that you do not own yourself without demonstrating self-ownership.

>>136195945
I have an object. No one knows what it is. All we can do is define what it is NOT. If you keep doing this you will end up with the only thing left defining what it IS.

You know an apple is an apple because you know it is not an orange, or a monkey, or a tuba, or a fish. We only know what things are by figuring out what they are not.

>>136196781
>and where does that come from?
>Why do we value human relationships?

Why do wolves travel in packs?
Why do rhesus macaques form clans?
Why do ants prosper as colonies?

An individual's success rate is highly improved and dependent on the cohesion and propagation of the group.

>>136194251
>the current model of the universe which it is highly improbable
>t. math challeneged theist
The probability of past events is always 1.

>>136196781
>and where does that come from?
The fact that our species and its ancestors have been living in groups for millions of years. Do you think the mating rituals of happen because the animals are told to? Of course not, they're instinctive. Feeling empathy, envy, jealously, and other social human emotions are instinctive.
>Why do we value human relationships?
We value human relationships involuntarily because it has been demonstrated that humans work better together, and it's a little difficult to pass on genes if you're alone. The man that chooses to stay with the pack has a more likely chance of surviving than the man that goes off alone.

>>136196781
>Because the cause is restricted by the laws of physics, which say every cause needs a causer?
But if you're willing to forego the laws of physics for a first causer, why not forego the laws of physics for a first cause instead?

>>136196896
>They did't exist, they are not laws, but interactions between the fundamentals.
Explain the functional difference. How's this

We don't know how the universe interacted based on fundamentals before a certain point?

You are being a fucking retard. Your assertion is still that you know something beyond objective measurability.

>I see you reject a natural cause for a more complex supernatural
Except I am not, I haven't made a single argument to a deity, I am stating you are making a claim and asserting it is 100% logically sound when it doesn't even pass basic scrutiny.

The rest of your post seems to be based on the notion you can measure things which you can not.

>>136191235
Allah said when the devil hears the call to prayer he farts and that Alexander the great found the muddy pit where the sun sets...

>>136196799
That's not quite true, a gender is a code-sign within language (help me, Sapir-Whorf theory, I don't remember most of you...), for example my language has three genders, like German. Sex is morphism within biological species.

>>136189750
brilliant response

>>136196680
Well, "paganism" itself is a retarded word invented by Christians that was shorthand for all non-Abrahamic beliefs.

>>136188032
His cult followers will eat that up then jump on kikebook and shill for him.

>>136189750
>scientific method was enforced by law
I've never heard of this, where did you hear this from?

>>136189750
>scientific method
This is in the enlightenment age, where we threw away the shackles of dogma.

>>136195256
>We have no reason to believe that God should have a cause.

occams razor: There is no god, the universe was always there.

>>136196582
This anon gets it. I found nothing so unsettling as the hatred people in the occult have for Christianity, and especially Cathodox Christians.

File: atheist fighter.jpg (20KB, 236x354px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 236x354px

>>136194970
>Prove that you exist.
>You can't prove anything therefore whatever I make up is real.
Not so fast, cowboy.....

File: Is it my own or his.jpg (68KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x800px

>Atheists
Can you answer this?

>Put soap in dishwasher
>Turn it on and leave
>Come back a few hours later
>Dishes are clean
>Soap has vanished

Atheists CANNOT explain this miracle.

>>136191161
> Splatter crowd with AIDS blood.

>>136197582
Gender is a linguistic construct and therefor social, people don't have a gender, they have a sex, these linguistic constructs are based on biological sex and social constructs (moreso in relation to the "third gender" some cultures have adopted).

Given the intrinsic link it is inane to separate the two so it's kinda a dick move to correct someone on people not having a gender unless they are saying sex and gender aren't intrinsically linked.

The same is true with the distinction between morals and ethics, ethics are derivative of morals, to make the distinction is basically pointless in the context of the conversation here, and a dick move.

>>136191029
/R/
RELIGION BOARD MODS WHEN?

File: 1485659438623.png (315KB, 423x384px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 423x384px

>>136197701
The fact that people eat up everything Peterson talks about in such a ravenous way only signifies that people are starving for quality spiritual guidance. The majority of churches have abdicated their responsibility by placing women in leadership positions and allowing the political left to dictate morals. I really can't find fault with people who when finally finding someone to help fill that spiritual void they get a bit overexcited.

For a goodnight from Eastern Europe, here are the two parts on history of the Bible, a nice summary of a broader field of study, by a guy who speaks very well. I posted it above, but it was buried in shitposting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPfFx9JTQl8

An interesting watch for both theists and atheists.

>>136197354
what would the first cause be then
>>136197309
>>136197347
Suppose you are a student attending a class that is suddenly interrupted by a man holding a gun. He shoots and kills a fellow student to show he is serious, then holds the rest of the class hostage at gunpoint, as he takes time to choose his next victim. As he is deciding, you notice you may have an opportunity to take the gun, but you also understand it is very possible you will be killed in the process. The police have already been called and will likely make it to the room before the shooter gets around to shooting you. What do you do, and why did you do it?

File: IMG_3316.jpg (111KB, 1050x590px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1050x590px

>>136190827
I don't think they've had anything down their throats for a while

>>136191876
Lmao Aztec civilization started in the 1200s try again faggot

>>136197918
Can't you say:
>I found nothing so unsettling as the hatred Christians have for people in the occult. They've even burned them before!
and prove the validity of the occult with that logic?

These threads are so fucking good, the best debates happen here

>>136198119
/r/ is for requests newfag
it would probably be /rel/

>>136198118
>ethics are derivative of morals
This is 1000% wrong. Morals are IMPOSED, by a religion, movement, or any other form of a higher autohority. Ethics are accepted norms people live by, they are not even remotely the same. Although, I gotta agree, most people assume they are similar, and substitute the word for another. It is not a dick move to correct over this, as it was claimed that we live by morals, and they come from a god, instead we go by ethics, and they come from the society we live in.

>>136197701
Hopefully he starts a real cult and does the Heaven's Gate/Jonestown shit so I don't have to hide half the catalog every day.

>>136196559
In physics, the square is the d'Alembert operator.

But I doubt it means the same here.

t. astrophysicist

>>136198265
Maybe Christcucks will "feed" them

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/04/guam-priest-child-sex-abuse-scandal/503680001/

>>136198232
Why does it matter?

>>136191438
>All inference (i.e., reasoning, logic, argumentation) requires certain axioms to be true in order to function. For example identity (x = x) and non-contradiction ( ~ (x ^ ~x) (in english: it's not the case that x and not x)) must be true in order for any inference to work at all. These axioms underlie logic so justifying them via logical argumentation is circular and invalid.

>the principle of non-contradiction is an axiom

What the fuck did I just read?

The christian reasoning comes from the fact that these aristotelian principles are governed by a single entity. Plotinus reasoned this way.

>>136198232
>what would the first cause be then
How everything popped into existence I suppose.

There is no proof of God. Stop fucking trying. You either believe or you don't. Why apologetics insist on using circular logic and engaging in logical fallacies is beyond me.

>>136197309
>>136197347
>>136197049

So it was born from an Instinct to survive?

>>136191438
We know these things to be true or apparently true because we observe them to be true.

As a brainlet I don't understand why you need to bring in silly stuff like faith or god.

File: 1501695386176.jpg (60KB, 475x395px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 475x395px

>>136198391
Request?
I filtered that worthless board years ago
/rel/ sound about right

>>136198293
You need to make a distinction. Occult just means hidden, that is why in the post of mine he responded to I said dark occult. Anyone who would hate and work against the man who spoke the sermon on the mount is not a person I would want to align myself with.

>>136198589
It should be /phil/ or something like that

>>136198468
It's a question about morality of course.
>>136198541
that's not really a cause so much as an effect though

>>136190827
That just means that if there is a God, he's just another wanker.

File: 2012-07-30-FULL_Edmar_Cisneros.jpg (83KB, 641x362px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 641x362px

>>136198419
>>ethics are derivative of morals
>This is 1000% wrong

Thanks for at least illuminating me on your basic level of understanding.

>>136194831
>yet would vehemently insist that a force immesurably more complex than the universe can exist without a cause.

God is the perfect simple. Back to philosophy 101.

>>136190685
I chuckled

>>136198578
Merely the organisms that instinctively chose to work with others.

>>136196211
The statement is that there is a possibility godlike beings exists. No one has proven it but no one has ever disproven it either. There is no way to know, so it can be said it's a factual statement. What it means is basically : There may or may not be godlike beings.

>>136188032
So, proof as the axiom is impossible? This is why I hate it when people do shit like this. Something can be true with or without a god existing. I respect Professor Peterson greatly, but I refuse to respect this simply because he provides no reason for me to believe his assertion.

>>136192708
It has. In more than one instance. You just don't believe.

>>136198738
>It's a question about morality of course.
An irrelevant one at that.

>>136189962
shut up white nigger

>>136198962
And it is very clear why they would want to work with other organisms, they have a higher chance of surviving if they work together, right?

>>136199045
okay buddy, I suppose you just don't want to answer because you're scared of what would come of it

>>136199042
placebo

File: 3.gif (3MB, 359x202px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 359x202px

My favorite thing about religious people is that they claim that there is evidence for god's existence, and yet, they "believe" in him.

>>136188032
Well... over the course of 600 years of Mischna and Gemara, the Pharisees determined that they were God and not G-d. They argued with him for centuries and they actually quoted God as saying "Look at how my children have outsmarted me!" THIS IS REAL.

>>136194868
This argument is fucking weak as fuck.

Not all evil and suffering in the world is caused by human beings.

God is not guilty for that suffering either, but letting innocents suffer and die when you have the power to stop that without even doing anything is evil. Period.

God is not love. God is just another wanker.

>>136191737
Evolution...
Its the best recipe for winning so far.
Read a book. Jesus...

>>136199035
I believe his statement is in regards to the philosophical question of how we determine what has value.

>>136188032
>assertion with out proof

How ironic.

>>136199035
>Something can be true with or without a god existing.

That's actually a pretty hard thing to prove there. Why do you think the postmodernists gained so much popularity if the basic statement of true or untrue could be so easily made without ultimately relying on God?

>>136194156
>Also, a prime mover needs a prime mover
Aristotle went through this argument and refuted it in (what is today known as) Metaphysics. Not only does Cakravartin need no cause, it can have no cause other than himself.

I could, by same reasoning as yours, argue that our universe always existed (and as it follows that it had no point of beginning). It is false, and Big Bang has nothing to do with it. It can't be any different.

>>136188032
You people are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable.

File: ironic.jpg (52KB, 1160x499px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1160x499px

>>136199454

>>136199454
An axiom is an assertion without proof

>>136199400
could you explain what you mean by winning?

>>136194946
WTF is wrong with you? Baphomet? I thought you autists were atheists, not straight up Satanists. Not that you even understand what that is.

>>136199764
that's not an argument

File: molymemezealot.jpg (68KB, 678x638px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 678x638px

>>136199999
checked

>>136199999
if god dont real how those digits