William Lane Craig disproves atheism in 3 minutes

>>136456859
Best christian thinker alive.

Atheists have no good arguments in debates with him.

"Reasonable Faith" is an amazing book for both struggling believers and atheists.

>>136457072
>Best christian thinker alive.

Preach.

I've yet to read that book I'll have to check it out.

>>136456859
>William Lane Craig
>Got his ass handed to him by Christopher Hitchens
No one with any critical thinking skills can endure more than 2 minutes of WLG's firehose of fallacies and fabrications.

>>136459571
Are you serious? Even Hitchens admitted that he lost - he admitted that he was ill-prepared and argued poorly. WLC dominated.

Thankfully physics has advanced to the point where invoking God--which has heretofore only been used to fill in fewer and fewer question marks--is no longer necessary.

>>136459571
>>Got his ass handed to him by Christopher Hitchens

You MUST be trolling.

>>136460345

Physics has disproved the existence of a god? Can you elaborate?

File: Hitchens.jpg (27KB, 800x390px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 800x390px

>>136459571
Christopher Hitchens fanboys are literally the most annoying faggots in the world. He was a pseudo-intellectual hack.

Peter was ALWAYS the superior Hitchens, and anyone who hasn't realized this by the time they've hit their 20's is beyond saving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGs9rZqnbBc

>>136459694
>Even Hitchens admitted that he lost
I'd like to see that - Hitchens admitting that he lost. Poorly prepared maybe, but WLC's lack of logical arguments alone means he can't win

Why are Christ cucks such babbies. You have no proof why must you make such extradordinary claims? Because grandpa made them? And his grandpappy did? If you look at religion from the meme perspective it makes sense why it's still around -- it preys on the stupid and the fear of death and it gives you everything you want and you'll only get it until after you die. Have fun living your life knowing that no one ever has come back to tell you all about heaven. You'll rot in the earth just like me except I will love a life free of things I know don't exist (Christ cuck god). Maybe a creator, probably not. Definitely not yours idiot.

>>136460688
>He was a pseudo-intellectual hack.
Still light-years ahead of WLC.

>Peter was ALWAYS the superior Hitchens,
Speaking of fanboy, Peter says he already nutted, you can stop now.

>>136456859
>>136457072
>>136457841
>>136459694
Daily reminder that literally every attempt by Christian apologists to use logical arguments to prove the existence of their particular God is useless

The ontological argument, the Kalam cosmological argument, etc. all attempt to prove the existence of a supreme being. But what's to suggest that this being is the God of the Christian faith. It is just as possible that it is a being which we know nothing about.

Therefore, the only form of theism which apologists like WLG can claim to be defending with any honesty is deism.

>>136461361
>with any honesty

>Abrahamic religionists
>intellectual honesty

pick one

>>136460586
Anytime people try to bring up God in science, it's just to fill in gaps until we find a better explanation from "what is lightning" to "how did the universe begin". We now have theories of the origin of the universe that do not have those gaps, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state

God just isn't necessary in science anymore, which is great because the idea can just remain a religious thing and people can stop pretending it's a useful idea in science.

>>136460953

Peter doesnt have fanboys or even 'fans' for that matter, and hes fine with that, he even described Chris as the rock star of the family. Peter is simply a vessel for traditionalist's frustration and the remaining sane.

>>136461361
The thing is, those arguments within themselves only go for some sort of generic theism and even WLC admit that himself. While he obviously advocates for Christian Theism, he isn't saying those arguments within themselves prove Christianity to be true, rather it is the groundwork to build from later.

>>136456859
How do you disprove atheism, which is simply the non-belief that there exists deities, as there is no concrete evidence of them existing?

>>136460586
>Physics has disproved the existence of a god? Can you elaborate?
He didn't say that, dumb flag poster.

>>136456859
He got wrecked by Harris and Hitches. Face it Christcucks.. it's over.

Also the cosmological argument is a joke.

>>136462224
Don't bother, everybody and their dog still thinks atheism means "believes god does not exist". Our language has been bastardized beyond repair.

File: bible infallible.jpg (225KB, 630x465px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 630x465px

>>136460586
>You MUST be trolling.
The kid says, "You cannot prove the non-existence of a thing." Right there he's stating the position incorrectly. I would argue that if it's truly a "thing", it already exists in our minds. However in this case, the argument is only whether theists can prove their gods exist outside their minds. Until they do, there's nothing for the atheists (or naturalists) to disprove.

His question is, "Does the invocation of gods to explain natrual phenomena contribute to the advancement of knowledge." The answer will always be, "Of course not." Belief in gods, fairies, sprites, spirits, demons, angels, leprechauns, boogiemen and other supernatural beings is irrational. Starting out with one as a premise to a syllogism, or adding one to a logical argument instantly renders the argument illogical. Calling his deductions "logical" does not make them so.

But that doesn't stop William Lane Craig from being a complete idiot. Tyrannosaurus Rex alive? Who really knows if there isn't a Jurassic Park lab somewhere doing just that with a CRISPR. There may actually be Muslims in the US Senate, but they are smart enough to keep it a secret. His example of self contradictory terms is anti-semantic.

Finally, WLC pretends he does not use his gods to explain his positions, but this is patently false.

>>136462862
With respect, you are confusing an arguments validity with the soundness and cogency of the argument. Eventually, physics has to start borrowing from metaphysics at some level, and that hardly makes sense, especially from a metaphysical naturalism standing. If "inside the mind", serves as the barometer for "existence", then all the lovely SJWs are spot on. The difference between Christians and SJWs being, once is committed to reality and that it can be objectively known through a variety of epistemological methods, including science and revelation.

File: ENLIGHTENED EUPHORIC.jpg (52KB, 800x482px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 800x482px

>>136462862
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg8vJ9oMdlA

>>136462862
Can you prove your mind exists outside your mind?

>>136463989
>what was the Soviet war in Afghanistan

>>136461361
> Daily reminder that literally every attempt by Christian apologists to use logical arguments to prove the existence of their particular God is useless

That's a Petition to Principle fallacy.

You are so fedorable!

>>136463825
>With respect, you are confusing an arguments validity with the soundness and cogency of the argument.
A logical conclusion can be wrong and yet still be logical, or arrived at by logical processes.

>Eventually, physics has to start borrowing from metaphysics at some level, and that hardly makes sense, especially from a metaphysical naturalism standing.
Every science uses irrational thinking to hypothesize, and speculate. However, what you don't find is a physicist experimenting with muons suddenly adding Bigfoot to his analysis to make all the pieces fit. Using gods to bridge gaps is exactly how Gods of the Gaps get their reputations.

> reality and that it can be objectively known through a variety of epistemological methods, including science and revelation.
First, what can be "objectively known" by revelation? Your ancient Middle East shepherds invent a story, you believe it and pretend it is "objective"?
Second, revelation is not knowledge, and just like a trillion opinions can never rise to the level of a single fact, whatever was told to a Bronze Age guy who heard it from another Bronze Age guy 3000 years ago is nothing more than folklore.

>>136456859
Here is the way he answered that question.

1. Point out something literally true that the question figuratively disagreed with.
>You can prove that there are no muslims in the Senate
God is far more complicated than that to prove or disprove because God is not just found in a tiny controlled space if he exists. As God he can be literally anywhere in the universe. Have fun disproving that there are no muslims in a senate in the universe.

2. Talk about word definitions, i.e. Agnostics and Naturalists.
Gloss over the fact that Agnosticism can be held by Theists and Atheists alike.

Here is a question for the Christfags. What arguments against the existence of Odin do you have that is not as equally valid when applied to Jahwe.

>>136464633
>Can you prove your mind exists outside your mind?
I can't prove I exist, therefore your gods do exist? That's hilarious. 2/10 I should have pretended you don't exist.

>>136456859
He's not disproved Atheists at all because he's not proven God exists.

We have no factors to measure that God exists, you merely have a theory which we cannot perform an experiment to prove.

>>136465600
> the argument is only whether atheists can prove they exist outside their minds. Until they do, there's nothing for the theist (or spiritualist) to disprove.

>>136465487
>As God he can be literally anywhere in the universe.
"He can be anything and everything and nothing all at the same time! He can be whatever we want him to be! He can be any flavor, any color, any size or whatever. He's always good never bad unless he sends bears to kill children but the children broke the law so it was OK to murder them for please god."

This is what we have to put up with.

>>136465894
>Prove they exist outside of their minds.

You can set up an easy experiment with that by asking an Atheists to explain their perception of objects and then ask them to change the objects and then re-task their perception.

There, the Atheist has proven his perception and his-self are infact existing.

Can we do the same experiment for God?

>>136466193
The results of that experiment would not prove your existence as a conscious agent.

>>136466324
How does it not?

>>136466416
Can't prove a negative, amirite

How does it?

File: 1467125788347.jpg (21KB, 500x648px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x648px

>>136456859
>disproves a negative

File: 1436169426368.png (102KB, 197x200px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 197x200px

Is this fucking 2007? Who gives a fuck about athiests or christians?

>>136466472
>I ask for your reasoning
>CAN'T PROVE E NEGATIVE LOL

That's not how that works.

Secondly, the experiment is there to determine if the Self of the person exists, not that they are a purely conscious agent.

The experiment is set up to get feedback from Perception.

If you wanted to get conscious agent, you can easily use more Opinionated subjects to get feedback, like moral choices.

Your argument proposed because we cannot confirm people exist, that god MUST also be able to exist in the same nebulous terms.

But we can quite easily confirm people exist, because if you ignore a person and refuse to belief they don't exist, they can still interact with you.

Seemed clear that the student meant that it's impossible to prove the existence of God. This is why he brings up the burden of proof in the first place. WLC doesn't engage with that argument (that proving something exists rather than doesn't) which is what all atheists believe, but instead attacks the phony position that you "can't prove the non-existence" of something.

>these are deductive arguments
Okay pal.

File: 1 Redpill The Shills.png (231KB, 851x721px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 851x721px

>>136456859
WOW FIRST SLIDE THREAD THIS MORNING !

DNC MURDERED SETH RICH

lol, man is an idiot
asks student to repeat one of the most fundamental arguments against theism like it's new
provides red herring counter by limiting scope with irrelevant constraint
true 'xtian logic'

Let's assume for example God exists. What are the parameters of God?

What does the knowledge of a god do to help advance scientific thinking at all?

There are thousands of cultures across the world with Gods referenced. Do we use all of them as the basis of god?

What experiments can we set up that can use the Knowledge of God to better technological progress?

Do we need to form mathematical equations to avoid the "God Problem" that may face certain future Engineering projects?

That's the proof god doesn't exist. He literally doesn't factor into any scientific method or mathematical formula we know. He has literally no impact on anything besides psychological ideas.

>>136466806
>Your argument proposed because we cannot confirm people exist, that god MUST also be able to exist in the same nebulous terms.
Strawman

I am asking you to demonstrate your existence as a conscious agent, or else there is no point in demonstrating any of my arguments for the existence of any other conscious/causal agents.

If you can't prove to me that you exist, why should I even attempt to prove to you that any one ELSE exists?

That you can interact with me is irrelevant. Gravity and rocks interact with me - but I am not going to rationalize with them. Would you?

>>136465454


>A logical conclusion can be wrong and yet still be logical, or arrived at by logical processes.

I think we are settled on this point.

>Every science uses irrational thinking to hypothesize, and speculate. However, what you don't find is a physicist experimenting with muons suddenly adding Bigfoot to his analysis to make all the pieces fit. Using gods to bridge gaps is exactly how Gods of the Gaps get their reputations.

In my case, I am not invoking God as the material causation,but rather stating that eventually, invoking natural causation for everything in metaphysical existence breaks down. Also, is science "irrational" or is it individual scientist? Would that imply science is lacking as an epistemological methodology? Bigfoot to God is an apples to oranges comparison because while you view them as having the same properties (non-existent and non-effectual), the properties of the two beings are vastly different in terms of physical composition, logical composition etc (temporality,consisting of atoms,etc)

>First, what can be "objectively known" by revelation? Your ancient Middle East shepherds invent a story, you believe it and pretend it is "objective"?
Second, revelation is not knowledge, and just like a trillion opinions can never rise to the level of a single fact, whatever was told to a Bronze Age guy who heard it from another Bronze Age guy 3000 years ago is nothing more than folklore.

Your fallacy is appealing to the age. With respect, you are unaware of what the Bible consists of as anthology of writings. Also, oral tradition is not the same thing as the modern equivalent of telephone games. Memory devices are used to preserve the record of events, given the scarcity of writing devices in the ANE. Do you know of any of the background of biblical writers? I'm a historian by education, though not a specialist in antiquity,but consider those

What is true is different from ones understanding of what is known.

>>136467279
>Strawman

Fallacy Fallacy, if I misunderstand your position, don't try and use that as a defense against my own position.

Also, I I told you how to perform several experiments to prove someone exists. You set up observable experiments.

You're confusing the Philosophical argument of "What is consciousness." with "What is existing"

I guarantee he didn't arrive at his Christian faith through deductive philosophical arguments, so it always strikes me as a bit disingenuous that he always brings these out first in defending theistic belief, and also the reason I have no real interest in his literature. If I'm going to take the effort to read someone's work I expect them to be honest with me about the structure of their beliefs.

>>136467278
>That's the proof god doesn't exist.
Ask theists if they believe in all the past gods (Ra, Odin, Jupiter, Zeus, etc.) and they will say something like "No, those weren't real gods".

But this is what happens to all gods. They eventually are replaced by new ones. The strong inductive evidence is that all gods are made up, all gods come and go, and all gods eventually die out. The inevitable truth is that the Semitic gods will follow this same path.

>>136467279
That sounds more like mental illness and neurosis than an argument of any kind
Descartes settled it a few centuries ago too, get on with the times

>>136456859
National Socialist-Libertarian-Right-Agnostic-Atheism is literally the sanest best tier belief system. This is not bait, I truly believe NS's end goal is a form of Libertarianism, reverting back to former stages of National-Socialism along a spectrum should things degenerate.
And Agnostic-Atheism because along with the NS-libertarian spectrum it keeps every aspect of morality, order and yet continuous progress without succumbing to illogicality, yet keeping in line with modest reasonable abstract arguments such as god creation and the universe, not denying but intelligent enough to understand what is plausible and what is not, what is subjective and if anything at all is ever objective.

I am not unhinged this is the future screenshot this.

>>136467726
The Pagans in India and China had some beautiful art and architecture too. Just look at the Forbidden City or a Hindu Temple. What's your point?

>see this is why you HAVE to believe in Christianity
Why do you fags wanna try and force the whole world to convert?
>inb4 muh morals argument

>>136467702
That's the thing - he wasn't trying to sincerely engage with the student. WLC, like a petulant child, instead obfuscates the true question being asked with semantics and language. If anyone was a 'punk' it was WLC.

File: clay1.png (256KB, 436x418px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 436x418px

>"god's real"
>"got any proof?"
>hour long digression without proof

Christ-fags who take 'god' as some literal entity are the fucking worst. God is a metaphor composite.

>>136467702
Actually, WLC did have periods of doubt. While he was brought up in a Christian background, it didn't stop him from questioning his beliefs. Craig's position as far as argumentation is that it is logically defensible and plausible that a generic theistic God exists and the second point that it is best explained by the Christian faith. While WLC ultimately holds those two positions, he takes them one step at a time.

>>136467617
>>136467641
>>136467700
>>136467726
>>136467880
>>136467948
>don't have an argument
>post memes instead
Your average counterculture neo-Christian.

>>136468102
Arguably, you can historically trace most of Christianity's morals back to Pagan native influence.

Unless people think the ideas behind the ten commandments were somehow founded by the jews a good 2000 years at least after the founding of many other Semitic religions.

>>136468239
Why is it best explained by the Christian Faith, when if we did do a huge logical analysis of Gods, it would probably be closer to Zoroastrianism.

>>136468239
>Craig's position as far as argumentation is that it is logically defensible and plausible that a generic theistic God exists and the second point that it is best explained by the Christian faith.
I'd love to hear some of his arguments.

>>136456859

why do you fags keep debating this shit

it doesnt fucking matter

whether you spend all day fucking bitches or flagellating yourself in some church basement, it makes absolutely no fucking difference

life goes on

we will never know

if you think there's an afterlife and what you do now affects your position in it, then just don't be a dick while you're alive

problem solved

>>136468259
>don't have an argument
>what is self evident truth

>>136467629
Fallacy fallacy does not oblige me to address your strawman. I redressed my position. Pointing out the fallacy is merely to illustrate it is not my position, and therefore I will not be addressing the position as you stated.

>Also, I I told you how to perform several experiments to prove someone exists. You set up observable experiments.
And these do not describe you as a conscious agent. What results in your experiment would falsify your agency?

>You're confusing the Philosophical argument of "What is consciousness." with "What is existing"
I am addressing both, as the former without the latter is nonsense, and the latter without the former is analogous to very complex rocks; not something to reason with in conversation.

>>136467918
Settled to himself, yes, and from it he reasoned to God. Hard problem of consciousness is still present, however.

File: ancap.jpg (55KB, 400x260px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 400x260px

>>136468004
>I am not unhinged this is the future screenshot this.

>>136468354
Not sure if you are going the route of the Pagan copycat route,but it seems consistent if one is not well-versed in ANE culture.
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.php

Enjoy

>>136462862
>redditspacing
Leave now

>>136468239
That isn't enough for genuine Christian faith though. Christ faith doesn't involve looking at a crucifix and thinking "yeh, this is the most reasonable account of how a theistic God has organised the world", it involves looking at a Crucifix and believing with absolute certainty "this is Jesus the Son, come down to earth to sacrifice his life for the absolution of my sins".

>>136456859
>Christians believe in something that isn't true, yet again.
Predictable.

>>136468538
Something the argument for god simply doesn't have.

We have no way to measure god, we have no way to observe god, we have no way to judge what god is doing or how he impacts ANYTHING.

So we can safely assume God doesn't exist, or if he does he is such a non-issue we never need to calculate for him in any scientific process ever invented.

>>136468581
>These do not describe you as a concious agent

No, but they prove you exist. YOU are the one argument something must be a conscious agent to be proven it exists. I disagree; because inanimate objects very much exist.

If you're going to argue "But perception through self is flaws, how do you prove your perception is wrong" then I simply ask you if through all our collective perception God still doesn't show up in hard science then how can we prove he exists?

>>136468725
I'd say it more because Zoroastrianism is simply older than Christianity and indeed modern Judaism.

>>136460896
Your entire language is meme buzzwords like cuck. Look into what evidence even is before making such retarded assertions. Thousands of brilliant minds looked at the testimony of the earliest encounters with Jesus and thought them true; some died and were ridiculed for doing so. Meanwhile, you jump on the bandwagon of pretending it's a meme forced by parents and ignore those of us who came to faith after asking hard questions and investigating who wrote the Gospel, when, and why

>>136461534
And now scientists are doing that with multiverse and simulation meme theories. It's a straw man argument most Christian thinkers don't touch anymore.

>>136468759

This meme needs to end.

>>136467391
>the properties of the two beings are vastly different in terms of physical composition,
Neither have any physical composition. As only being crafted in the mind, they can only share imaginary traits.

>With respect, you are unaware of what the Bible consists of as anthology of writings.
That anthology of tales contains stories of miracles, talking donkeys and serpents, flying horses, dragons, angels, demons, gods, etc. The assumption that it must be taken figuratively and metonymically instead of literally, ie there are no *actual* flying horses, dragons or gods.

Age is an important aspect because we cannot judge literature from our current age, we must judge it from the age it was written. These ancient texts were not written for us and our misinterpretations are being used to justify beheadings in the Middle East today.

>Do you know of any of the background of biblical writers?
Saul mostly, but he wrote one of the synoptic texts and half the new Testament.

>>136468490
you can say the same about anything

why discuss anything anon

>>136462339
And agnosticism is...?

>>136469043
>Some people had an opinion
>So it MUST be true.

A bunch of Desert Dwellers and Romans wrote the gospel.

None of them especially profound scientists of the time.

They gave us no knowledge on how to measure god or how to calculate for god.

We cannot perform experiments to confirm god exists, so everything the bible spouts is pure theory and fiction.

>>136462862
As soon as you say belief in a thing is irrational, even fairies and other such new age bullshit, you become more dogmatic than the religious zealots most atheists hate.

>le insightful """christian""" philosopher

This is the same guy who said dead children are a salvation from God

>>136465021
Anonymous posters like you of either religious or atheist persuasions give me hope for humanity.

>>136469370
...How?

Explain your reasoning?

>>136456859
Shifting the burden of proof... seriously? You wasted my time.

>>136468843
While the cross is the center of what makes Christianity what it is, relational, it would be a disservice to ignore the other aspects touches on in Christianity. Check out WLCs defenders meetings online. He breaks down Christian Theology on a wide variety of topics which you may find, if nothing else, informative.

>>136465487
Evidence and consistency. How many independent accounts of encounters with Odin were written historically close to said meetings and verifiable by others? How many such writers had nothing to gain from their testimony? Does Odin remain consistent with science?

>>136469213
Agnosticism addresses knowledge, atheism addresses belief.

>>136466018
Can and is are different things. God is consistent. He can be anything, yes, but we know he remains the same. And nice cherry picking to historical Jewish texts.

>>136469208

great point champ

youre really astute

college professors should watch out 4 u

>>136469370
>As soon as you say belief in a thing is irrational,
Belief is irrational. You really should look this up before your embarrass yourself any further.

>even fairies and other such new age bullshit,
Too late. Btw, old age bullshit, new age bullshit, it's all the same to me.

>you become more dogmatic than the religious zealots most atheists hate.
The Dunning-Kruger truth of the matter is, the more stupid people hate me, the more valid I am.

>>136468930
>No, but they prove you exist.
Ok.

>YOU are the one argument something must be a conscious agent to be proven it exists. I disagree; because inanimate objects very much exist.
And rocks exist. I don't try to prove anything to them. unless you are ALSO a causal agent, your insistence that I prove God exists might as well be like waves eroding the shore; it happens, but it doesn't mean anything.

I am arguing something must be conscious, but not for purpose of illustrating it exists. I am arguing it must be conscious because it is silly to attempt reasoning with a rock.

>>136466893
>misses the argument
>resorts to ad hominem and calling things stupid

>>136469823
>i dont think this certain topic matters so why are you guys talking about it still
You really told me bud.

>>136469908
So you're just refusing to try and argue god exists and trying to use a strange "Prove YOU exist" clause that hinges on Philosophical shpeal?

It doesn't matter if I am conscious or not, you cannot create an experiment that proves god exists or measures god as a factor.

We can create AI, that are most certainly NOT conscious, that need to calculate things the human brain cannot even conceive of, we have the same AI setting up the experiments to measure these things.

Yet we cannot do anything to prove God exists. Where is god? What is he doing? How is he impacting the scientific methods we use?

He shows up nowhere, we don't need to calculate for his Being. so he is literally a non-factor.

>>136469704
>>136469594

How does Odin not remain consistent with Science, but the Christian God does?

>>136456859
Lying cunts like Craig make assertion after assertion with nothing to back it up. This is why Christians still, to this very day, have failed every single time to back their claims of this 'god' thing up.

Sorry, but reality doesn't accept fiction as an answer.

>>136469968

you sound smart. pls continue
demonstrate equivalence between 'proving the negative' of no marble in my hand versus no deity exists in infinite universe/s

The debate around religion is so pointless.

Unless either athiests can prove there is no God (which they can't) or the religious can prove there is a God (which, no, they can't) then this conversation is forever a stalemate.

Go and do something else with your lives.

>The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Wow, what a compelling argument.

>>136470290
>It doesn't matter if I am conscious or not, you cannot create an experiment that proves god exists or measures god as a factor.
And given you can't do the same for your own agency, I am left wondering why I am apparently under any obligation to provide evidence in excess of what you apparently feel is sufficient to justify your own agency to other conscious agents.

If it isn't clear, I am applying your own skepticism to yourself. You are taking a number of things for granted - and this isn't to say it is unreasonable - I am a theist, I do not personally need you to prove to me you are and have agency. I DO however, need you to be consistent with your skepticism before I even attempt make a rational case for anything.

Oh, no, but I have to prove things to a standard you won't even hold yourself to. Yup. Honest skepticism.

>>136470452

Because there's an inherent validity to Christianity that all other religions lack.

>>136469704
>God is consistent. He can be anything, yes, but we know he remains the same.
They're not, I'm afraid. According to the legends, they commanded the Israelites not to kill, then send them on a genocide campaign to wipe out every man, woman and child in Canaan Valley, ostensibly because they're "evil". Well what of the pregnant women? Did your gods take the position that all those foeti were evil too? Or to be consistent, they didn't consider them people?

>And nice cherry picking to historical Jewish texts.
How do you know your gods are consistent?
>cherry picking historical Jewish texts.
That was easy.

>>136470784
Which is?

>>136470707
>Unless either athiests can prove there is no God

>the comfort of seeing symmetry where none exists

>>136470707
The burden is on those who make the positive claim... that's the religious. Any atheist who asserts there is no 'god' is stupid because they've put themselves in the same camp as the believers.

The reason this argument is still going on is because those who make the claim have failed every single time to meet their burden, and they resort to fallacious arguments to try and avoid said burden.

File: 1487799476476.gif (2MB, 383x204px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 383x204px

>>136460953
>Speaking of fanboy, Peter says he already nutted, you can stop now.

>>136470775
So you're saying you don't need to prove anything to me, because you think I'm not real.

Well, that's an easy way to avoid an argument. Doesn't really prove god exists via a sturdy and repeatable experiment though does it?

If God was all powerful and all seeing, why can he not effect any outside influences like my body can?

>>136470775
So if you were shown MRI of a person's brain interacting with humans or objects, then the MRI of the same person after an AVC showing damage and subsequent loss of motor and cognitive functions, thus establishing a clear, empirical link between neural cells and consciousness, you would be ok with debating god again ?

>>136456859
His argument is essentially. If god is real then it is logical to believe in him...

>>136470889
Making a claim that one option of a binary is false = making the claim that the other option is true.

>>136470876
>>136470889
But you don't have any way to prove their isn't.

The burden of proof argument does not work in this context and never has, you cannot prove or disprove something that already survives under the basis that there is no physical or otherwise proof of its existence.

It is a stalemate unto death.

>>136470707
It's a useless debate especially when you portray atheists as fedora wearing hardliners who know for sure there is no trans-dimensional entity manipulating things from zero space.

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

>>136471514
there*

>>136471244
>So you're saying you don't need to prove anything to me, because you think I'm not real.
No. Either you're misunderstanding or creating a stawman. Please re-read understanding that is NOT my position. If need be, I will attempt to clarify. Else we have another strawman.

>>136471325
Broken computers are not fully functional? Who knew?

>>136471514
That's not my problem... I'm not the one who made up the fuckstick argument about this 'god' thing, just like it's not my problem that I can't disprove space aliens made the universe.

Of course the burden of proof is needed here... you can't get from an assertion to fact without it. The believers have no justification to even hypothesise a 'god' if they can't admit that there's any way to even present it as a possibility.

They may tick the sufficiency box, but they sure as shit can't tick the necessity box.

>>136470784

ahahahahahahaha

*tips fedora*

*rapes a little boy*

>>136471558
Please Clarify. Because it sounds like you think you need a conscious person to prove something exists.

This is factually untrue.

>>136471504
Indeed it is... hence why atheists who assert 'god' doesn't exist are silly like I said.

>>136471536
>It's a useless debate especially when you portray atheists as fedora wearing hardliners who know for sure there is no trans-dimensional entity manipulating things from zero space.

I said nothing of the kind. I didn't include agnostics. Only those who are assured that God is non-existent.

>They may tick the sufficiency box, but they sure as shit can't tick the necessity box.

Which is why their arguments are just as futile.

>>136471988
Define, "Necessary." I can't wait for you to give me a shitty definition that doesn't apply to logic.

>>136471558
I'm going to rephrase this, since you seem a little dim
Since it's been proven through experiments, research and observation that our brain cells are host to our cognitive functions, and that those functions can be qualitatively measured through various tests and instruments, establishing a fairly clear and concise way to test how 'conscious' a person or even myself is
Would you be ok with debating the existence of god since we cleared one of your arbitrary conditions you giant whining diva ?

>>136471514
>But you don't have any way to prove their isn't.

your position on 'the unknowable' can be internally consistent.
but you can't restrict it to deity arguments.
it's a universal positioning statement that applies to every aspect of your life.
no matter how ridiculous the premise, how infinitesimally low the probability.
to be consistent you must go through life accepting an infinite number of equally improbable concepts, ancient or invented on the fly.
enjoy your insanity

>>136471803
We cannot measure God, we cannot prove he exists or he interacts with anything we do or what our understanding of science does.

God is a literal non-factor in every scientific procedure we use today.

So either God doesn't exist, or God exists as such an immaterial being we have no need of accounting for him.

>>136471803

^not a silly easter bunny unbeliever

>>136472125
I don't follow.

>>136472313
>but you can't restrict it to deity arguments.
But in this context, I'm afraid it is.
>equally improbable
There's your answer and why this debate is pointless.

>>136471780
>Please Clarify. Because it sounds like you think you need a conscious person to prove something exists.

Quotes for clarification

> I am a theist, I do not personally need you to prove to me you are and have agency.

Rather than have you prove to me that you are conscious, I need you to be consistent with your skepticism. See:

> I DO however, need you to be consistent with your skepticism before I even attempt make a rational case for anything.

For example
>I simply ask you if through all our collective perception God still doesn't show up in hard science then how can we prove he exists?
But unless you retract from a position such as this - and otherwise provide a standard for evidence that you would apply to yourself, then I am under no obligation to meet a standard that you wouldn't hold under any other condition.

tl;dr I do not need to prove you exist, I need you to be consistent with your level of skepticism.

>>136472262
You also seem confused. Please retrace the conversation. I am not here to feed you cake. I am here to feed you fish.

>>136470889
>those who make the claim (the positive claim... that gods exist) have failed every single time to meet their burden,
It is invariably the case that the religious desperately and vainly strive to make their irrational beliefs appear rational, as if that's the only way they can ever achieve validity.

What you never see is a scientists diligently working to make their observations and analyses of natural phenomena the result of leprechauns.

>>136467278
What would a God have to be? Not what would he be. Timeless, spaceless, deathless, capable (minimum) of universe creation and authoring laws of physics, temporarily suspending them for whatever purpose. Exists outside causality, meaning in part that a conscious decision was necessary to create it. Our entire universe is a system with each part being causal--taxicab fallacy rules. There are few gods known to human history that exhibits all of these rules and does not stoop or defy his own existence, which would be the only a causal one we know of

>>136472578
>I don't follow.
Exactly the fucking problem. Not a single person abusing the words, "Sufficiency and necessity," can provide the definition to them for logic.

>>136472612
Holy shit you're dumb
Like, really fucking stupid
Good on you I guess, life must be easier that way, in a way I envy you

>>136472686
So clearly Brahman is the correct choice.

File: 1501392768212.gif (222KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 250x250px

>>136456859
Are you serious? he is literally comparing a fucking dinosaur existence to god. When there is fucking evidence they lived on earth millions of years ago but not today. with god here is nothing just poor human imagination.
>laughable video

>>136472612
>if you are ignorant about anything that means you have to KNOW god is real rather than simply acknowledging your ignorance
This is a really strange way to take the theological debate, but you don't actually have any ground to stand on so I guess it's fine.

>>136472578
>But in this context, I'm afraid it is.

how so?

>>136469331
You're making experiments and science of our current age into the type of God you seek to disprove. If God was encountered by people of that era, what did you expect to see? "Hi, I'm Peter. I saw a man rise from the dead. Let me write an equation for antiquity to see." You are skewing toward unascertainable evidence to favor your foregone conclusion. There is evidence; if you choose to throw it away firsthand and assume it false without analysis of motive or timeliness or origin or chain of custody, that's you being the establishment liberal academia who believes in only the so-called science of today which seeks to be a Bible (as opposed to the scientific method which sought to be a method to ascertain closeness to truth, not law).

>>136472734
No again, I literally have no idea what you're talking about please back up dude I'm trying to understand exactly what you're attempting to explain.

File: download.jpg (8KB, 288x175px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 288x175px

>>136472851
>there is fucking evidence they lived on earth millions of years ago

that's what they want you to think

>>136472893
I haven't even gotten to debating theology yet, but nice strawman I guess.

>>136472686
If you read a bible that had every reference to god replaced with the word "elves", would you find it as convincing?

>>136472612


>tl;dr I do not need to prove you exist, I need you to be consistent with your level of skepticism

I am not God though, proof of my existance is not the issue here, it is gods.

You are trying to ask me to prove my Philosophical existence, using it as an analogy towards my Physical skepticism of God.

>>136469477
>>136470870
Eyewitness testimony from disinterested sources that did not benefit from their claims.

>>136465021
>yet god will never be proven to exist as anything greater than a meme, objectively
You sure showed him by saying he wears a fedora though

>>136473026
>I'm too dumb to back up what I said.

>>136471988
>They may tick the sufficiency box, but they sure as shit can't tick the necessity box.
>Which is why their arguments are just as futile.
Did you forget what you just typed or what?

>>136473154
That is incorrect completely though.

>>136472933
How is it a deity argument?

Well it has to be, otherwise religion wouldn't be (to a lot of people living in the civilized world) a choice, would it? There is no absolute truth to the arguments of either side of this debate apart from the fact that you cannot prove god, however, you also cannot disprove god.

>>136456859
I would pay GOOD money to hear him shoot the shit with Jordan Peterson.

>>136456859
Love this guy. He's literally doing God's work.

>>136472327
You could say the same for string theory, quantum physics, multiverse theory, and simulation theory.

>>136472815

You have to narrow it further than that before jumping to conclusions. I'm more cool with Brahman than Odin, but it's much easier to believe the evidence that exists on Jesus--much more easily verifiable and consistent.

>>136473204
How can either side tick the necessity box?

>>136473117
>You are trying to ask me to prove my Philosophical existence, using it as an analogy towards my Physical skepticism of God.
As a rhetorical device, yes. Now you're on it.

Since neither can be proven empirically, falsified or otherwise, my contest is on the fact you hold your argument to a different level of skepticism.

It seems your position in this respect is that you are not as able as God, and therefore you feel it reasonable to hold Him to a different standard, is that correct?
>I am not God though, proof of my existance is not the issue here, it is gods.

>>136473246
>You also cannot disprove god.

We do not calculate on the theory that God "May" be real. So he's either not existant or a non-factor in every creative endevour mankind currently pursues.

The truth of the matter is, God is an utterly meaningless sentiment. Either he's real and does nothing for us, or he's just a made-up idea of Humanity.

I can take his name in vain, decry his testaments and desecrate his hallowed grounds, yet I will face no real Punishment, merely a theoretical afterlife.

>>136473501
You have YET to provide what definition of "necessary" you're using.

>>136468004
>I am not unhinged
Sounds like "I am not a crook!"

Most people don't find themselves having to make this declaration.

>>136473623
One that would involve an element of absolute truth.

Which neither can provide. What is your argument now?

>>136461361

This proves you've never see a WLC debate or seen him speak. He specifically workes on a cumulative argument from deism to Christianity if given enough time. He usually says so before he starts

>>136470842
You missed where I said you cherry-picked and then did more. Most Christians rely on the Gospel as written accounts of what happened and look to the Old Testament as oral tradition or history that may not be true but probably inspired by something. Consider the origin of the texts you're hung up on and whether it bears on the consistency of the God Jesus spoke of (who appears to fit the basic criteria of what God would have to be at a minimum).

>>136473792
>One that would involve an element of absolute truth.
Except that's not the definition for logical necessity. Try again.
>Hint: Use Google and look it up.

>>136473520
Don't waste your time. Blind faith and arguments from ignorance is all christcucks have. Its all real to them because they want it to be real, and anyine who disagrees is clearly wrong by their self entitled standards(not that they have standards of proof in which yield anything empirical). They are trite minded plebs who believe in ancient kike memes. They're idiots.

>>136473485
>>136473517

So the great Deist arguments rotate around to "It's just a theory"

Let me explain this again, We can do experiments on String theory, we can do experiments on Quantum Physics. These things are very much real, in the most loosest sense possible"

Multiverse and Simulation are not. If you think God is merely a Theory, which cannot be prove, then I agree with you.

But; if the All powerful Judaic God was the real god, then we'd be able to quantify something from him.

>>136473796
You mean he spouts his opinion and claims it's true.

Literally nothing about Christanity makes it more correct than any other religion.

Specifically, Hinduism rapes the shit out of it Logic wise.

>>136473964
Are you this stupid, I literally just said that an argument on either side negates logic and therefore isn't part of this debate, hence why I think this debate is resolved through a matter of personal choice.

>>136473117
There is no real material difference between a model of the world where you have agency and one where you don't. Even though it's purely subjective our societies are still based on the unproven premise that we do have agency. The exact same is true of the concept of God, even if there were no other conscious agent but humans the concept of God is still the most productive way we have found for the human mind to frame the world and our relationship to it.

>>136473246
>How is it a deity argument?

It's not. That's that's the point. Agnostics and deists however threat it that way, only applying this form of logic about the 'unknowable' in deity arguments. You never hear them genuinely entertain the unlikely possibility Jupiter is populated by elves or that tomorrow the sun might rise in the west. The behaviour is inconsistent and hypocritical.
An observer can't rationally live life genuinely entertaining the possibility of an infinite set of undemonstrated propositions the same way as demonstrated ones. Deities are just a subset of the former.

>>136474203
Except your making an argument even YOU can't admit is logical. Since your claiming perfect knowledge on it to even make a statement that neither side can be logical.

So do what I told you. Go look up the definition and then stop fucking abusing the word.

>>136473520
>>136473991
I'm not a "christcuck" or whatever that implies. You cannot use logic to disprove something where the allowance of its disproval is not facilitated by logic

>>136474344
>Except your making an argument even YOU can't admit is logical
THANK YOU

FINALLY

File: AtheistDefinition.jpg (45KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x300px

>>136456859
>No wonder Richard Dawkins is too fearful to debate him.
Hitchens got his ass handed to him every time he went up against WLC. I remember one debate where the format included a times Q&A where each got to ask the other questions and the rules stated that the other HAD TO ANSWER. Hitchens refused to answer WLC's question and dragged our his refusal as long as he could, trying to use up WLC's time. Hitchens knew he was cornered.
The irony is that I don't agree with all of WLC's arguments, but he is a powerful debater and most atheists are indeed afraid of him.

>>136474503
Yes you can.

Logic trumps non-logic.

>>136473827
>the consistency of the God Jesus spoke of
Please explain the Parable of the Talents. Who is the "master"?

>>136474517
WLC is a lying cunt who's basic argument goes like this:

"The universe had a beginning, therefore it was God."

You've made a claim that Hitch got his ass handed to him... provide your evidence for this claim.

>>136472665
>What you never see is a scientists diligently working to make their observations and analyses of natural phenomena the result of leprechauns.
Plenty of bunk science like that exists anon. See: the entire field of psychology.

>>136456859
This guy is a well educated idiot. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of god, therefore is can never be come a component of any valid scientific hypothesis.

>>136474517
Why would I be afraid of a person who makes no logical arguments and instead simply tries to shift the issue around even to a fucking teen in the audience.

Let me disprove everything WLC will ever and has ever said.

Where is the evidence of God?

>>136474344
WHAT I'M SAYING you peanut-brained little autist is that I hang in a position whereby I do not give my attention, my efforts to a God when it cannot be proven that it exists, however IN TURN I do not rule the possibility of the existence of a God because the parameters which facilitate the existence of a God do not reside within the boundaries of logical thought.

>>136474592
But logic cannot be applied here don't you get it.

>>136474517
>AtheistDefinition.jpg
Our brains have evolved in way that strongly promotes the ability to reason, however we can "suspend disbelief" to engage in brief flights of fantasy. We needed our imaginations to be able to hypothize and plan ahead. We needed to be able to speculate on the movements of herds, etc. Irrational thinking has some utility for very short periods and our brains are well suited for it. However, we are not meant to suspend our disbelief for long periods of time. Living in delusions and daydreams would have been the fastest path to paleolithic death.

The irrational beliefs of theists, for extended periods are having a profound and deleterious effect on their brain's chemistry. Holding mutually exclusive concepts without question or scrutiny creates a harmful cognitive dissonance. The long term strain of this deliberate dissonance damages their ability to think rationally.
It even causes insane beliebers to spout patently ridiculous nonsense like, "The universe was created by a magic sky daddy" and "Atheism is a religion", etc. Atheism is only the non-belief in made-up gods. Any other definition is falsified and a clear symptom of this lack of rationality.

>>136474017

As a Christian, I actually agree with you outside the need to quantify anything (that's it's own argument that gets into math and proof and evidence and philosophy). I also think, like a lot of people, you ignore what makes Christianity a much better fit than any other religion: first, a God that fits scientifically with a creator's role in our universe, and second, actual written evidence from people who interacted with Jesus or those who did interact with him that is more historically verifiable than other commonly accepted things about our world given dating and amount of writers. Hinduism begs a lot when it comes to the sheer amount of deities, the logic behind them, and evidence.

>>136474782
If Logic cannot be applied, then there is nothing to apply it to.

>>136474017
>Multiverse and Simulation are not. If you think God is merely a Theory, which cannot be prove, then I agree with you.
Wouldn't go that far, but suffice to say we are about on the same page, that would be OK.

>But; if the All powerful Judaic God was the real god, then we'd be able to quantify something from him.
Yes, we can. Timeless, spaceless, immaterial. These qualities, although only loosely theist, can be drawn from purely philosophic pursuit, namely other features, for example all loving (it is want for nothing, can in this sense, can not receive - only give).

but that's not what you're on about right now. You want Jesus Himself to demonstrate His authority. That's good.

Seriously take up a historical study of the life/death of Christ. This is a forensic case - it necessarily can not be reproduced. Rather, you have to collect all the pieces - of which there are more than any other event in antiquity, so excuse me for instead insisting you pursue the case on your own than presenting one - and from these pieces, develop an explanation of all the data, that accounts for all of the data. I see most historians often neglect the religious historical context of ancient Judaism with respect to messianic prophecy. So rather than send you off with nothing, there were messiah claimants contemporary to Christ. Some of who better fit the narrative of a conquering king that was expected. Please do not jump to conclusions where I point out that there are not cults for these figures while one still stands for Jesus. The point is to illustrate there was something unique about Jesus' case.

File: AtheismIsVeryStupid.jpg (102KB, 625x518px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 625x518px

>>136461361
>Daily reminder that literally every attempt by Christian apologists to use logical arguments to prove the existence of their particular God is useless
Daily reminded the literally every attempt by Atheists to use logical arguments to prove there is no God are also useless. (And if you don't think the burden falls on them to back their claims, watch the OP's video.)
It's hardly surprising that this would fail for both theists and atheists as God can't even be properly defined by humans, let along proved or disproved. It's like trying to prove that love is real. First off what is love and second how would you go about measuring it or the lack of it?
The existence or nonexistence of God is not knowable. Every honest person must maintain a certain level of agnosticism. Atheists pretend they know when they do not. So do Christians. the difference is that Christians can admit they are holding a religious belief while atheists cannot.

>>136474782
Yet you have failed to look up the word and you keep acting like you're using it correctly. Stop. You're garbage.

>>136474880
THANK YOU

WINNER

THAT'S WHY IT'S A SPIRITUAL DEITY

>>136474999
>that damage control

>>136475003
Nothing you said has anything to do with necessity or sufficiency. And, frankly, yes you can apply logic to it if that entity is defined.

>>136474605
Have you ever interviewed two people with different stories? Memory is limited and the gospels are not tape recordings. One says an angel, the other says two. But the accounts agree on angels. If you want to go down that rabbit hole, the parable of the talents and the person telling that parable could probably be said to have existed, even if we don't have an answer to the actual text. You're admitting to two people affirming something that was said by somebody - more consistent than a single source, which is often the case with Hinduism or weird ass religions like Mormonism.

Religion / Spirituality are systems of BELIEF, not SCIENCE. They are fundamentally incompatible and should never intersect.

>>136475125
It's literally what I've been accusing people like you of this entire thread.

>>136466193
>You can set up an easy experiment with that by asking an Atheists to explain their perception of objects and then ask them to change the objects and then re-task their perception.
I fail to see how this would prove anything. What objective measure will you use?

File: 1495897760688.png (1020KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 1080x1920px

nobody gives a fuck what u believe or not ,pseudo intelectual faggots .

>>136474899
You're trying to imply Jesus was unique when it came to Messianic figures in Roman occupied Isreal.

this is false.

>>136474899
Fellow anon, I wish we could get a beer. We've been thinking the same thoughts.

>>136475209
Why do Lithuanians laugh three times when they hear a joke?

Once when it is told, once when it is explained to them, and once when they understand it.

>>136474687
>Let me give a strawman fallacy since I can't defeat WLC in a debate.
How about you fuck yourself instead.

>>136475180
Science is a system of finding truth, not a book of absolute truth. That's what meme thinkers like Neil Tysson tend to tell people.

>>136475143
>if that entity is defined.
There's plenty of fucking entities to choose from take your pick. That's why my argument is against no "specific religion" and in turn against "the specific disproval of God" be it any entity. The entity is not defined. That is the point.

It has been this entire thread.

>>136475382
You can never apply science to the soul.

>>136474860
>>136474899
>>136475275

For clarification, this was two people.

>>136474860
>>136475150
>>136475382


So because the Bible was refined down to one book by several Scholars over Hundreds of years, it's more fitting?

It sounds like you know very very little about Hinduism.

>>136475454
Except you CAN still make logical arguments about undefined things. You can't be this dense. There's an entire branch of math about null sets.

>>136475494
>citation needed

Depends on your definition of the soul and whether or not such a thing could exist in the framework of scientific understanding. Some think it's consciousness; some think it's more; some a mix:

File: 1418337753034.jpg (10KB, 328x343px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 328x343px

>>136475349
Firstly, you have no idea what a strawman is... I stated his position as he has asserted many times before.

Secondly, you've failed to present this evidence that Hitch got his ass handed to him, most likely because you're a lying little cunt who can't accept the fact he is on the losing side of the argument.

Try again, fucktard.

File: AtheistZealotry.jpg (31KB, 491x391px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 491x391px

>>136474752
>Where is the evidence of God?
Again you fail to grasp even the most rudimentary aspects of logic. A person who says there is no God must provide evidence and reasoning to back his assertion. A person who says God exists must do the same. Until either does, the question remains UNKNOWN.
And this is where the fundamental dishonest of atheists rears its ugly head. YOU PRETEND YOU KNOW. You pretend your view is right by default with zero effort required on your part. It doesn't fucking work that way.

>>136475510
And it seems like you know very little of how the Bible was transcribed or the traceable chain of custody back to the Gospel writers.

>>136475606
How do you measure? How do you perform experiments?

>>136456859
Thanks for posting.

>>136475567
You can make logical arguments but you cannot come to an absolute, definitive, logical conclusion in this particular context.

If you could, you'd have ended the (again absolutely pointless) debate, and you would be the man to have disproved all spiritual entities, which again - you can't do, because they are not defined by logic.

>>136475673
You seem to be defining atheism as a positive claim... generally, it's used as a lack of belief so there is no burden of lacking belief, especially seeing as the one making the claim this 'god' exists has failed to back said claim up.

File: EvilDoesntCount.jpg (26KB, 400x398px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x398px

>>136474785
>I don't have any actual evidence or reasoning to offer, so I will give a smug diatribe about how special I think I am for my own belief system.

>>136475454
But most can agree on a minimum definition for what a God would have to be given our understanding of the universe. Many religions do not comport to that. Christianity can at least agree with an immaterial God outside of causality; other religions have "lower" deities than can often be tricked or subject to mortal qualities.

>>136475673
In all concerns regarding religion / spirituality, everyone is stating their beliefs. Nobody knows. The scientific method can not be applied to God. If there is a God, perhaps he IS the scientific method. But this is all just mental masturbation and tomfoolery.

>>136474017
Fucking evolution theory is JUST A THEORY TOO.
Please show me in an experiment how a monkey evolves into a human being. You can't, no one can.
In every fucking science theories are used on a daily basis to expand knowledge, yet you complain about theists using theories in their work.
Why is that? Could it be that you are just a little crybaby who has a personal problem with religion because of his fucked up family life, in particular with your father, and thus energetically fights everything that brings community to people?

>>136475831
>You can make logical arguments but you cannot come to an absolute, definitive, logical conclusion in this particular context.
Except you can. Again, there's an entire branch of math about it.

And if you think this "debate" is pointless shove off.

File: AtheistDarkAges.jpg (58KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x375px

>>136475623
>I stated his position as he has asserted many times before.
No, faggot, you misrepresented it in the most insulting and simplistic possible way.

>>136475907
Agreed.

However I'm focusing less on individual, or known (to humans) deities, and rather the ideal of a God, not specific to Christianity.

>>136475922
A theory is the highest 'standard' something in science can achieve... it's kind of like a promotion from 'fact' to 'absolute fact' in a way.

You also don't understand evolution, which is typical with believers. We, humans, are apes, not monkeys.

File: Dorkins.jpg (59KB, 526x531px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 526x531px

>>136475837
>You seem to be defining atheism as a positive claim.
Again you are trying to weasel your way out of exerting intellectual effort. The DEFAULT position about an unknown is this: WE DON'T KNOW. An atheist, BY DEFINITION, is saying he knows. I'm asking to see his proof and he is saying, "No, I'm right until someone proves me wrong." Doesn't work that way.

>>136475964
Another assertion... here we go again. How did I misrepresent his Kalam argument. Let's hear it.

Here's a tip... I didn't. Good job dodging yet again.

>>136475494
I'm not the one making a claim that the concept of a soul is outside of the application of science. I'm assuming the measurement and experiments you speak of stem from the scientific method and western thought. My methods don't factor into your claim, which seems to discount that souls could not be detected scientifically (when some will tell you that human consciousness and decision making ability is what a soul may be; others say it is a transcendental self). Again, it depends on your definition of what, at minimum, is a soul? I doubt anyone agrees.

File: AtheismReligiousCharacteristics.jpg (57KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 750x600px

>>136476192
>How did I misrepresent his Kalam argument.
Count how many words he used for it and how many you used. That's a big hint, faggot.

File: 1501816526104.gif (1MB, 235x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 235x240px

>yfw you realize God exists

stop falling for the atheism meme

File: 1432152264110.jpg (19KB, 386x384px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 386x384px

>>136476189
Wrong. Atheism is the default position, you fucking retard... it's the lack of belief in the claim that this 'god' exists.

Is that simple enough for you or should I draw it in crayon for you?

>>136475494
Science is literally just a method of investigation. You are so fucking ignorant holy shit, and you're statement is dumb as fuck.

>>136476284
>atheism
>lack of belief

you're looking for agnosticism. Atheism makes a claim, agnosticism doesn't assert one way or the other.

both are wrong but it's an important distinction because fedoras like you blur the lines to avoid defending your position

File: tumblr_n6x6n46rPD1s1uj0qo1_250.gif (2MB, 250x190px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x190px

>>136476270
So I misrepresented his argument because I summarised it? Are you a complete fucking retard?

How is my summary a misrepresentation? Fuck me, you sure do struggle with the basics...

>>136476076
If you're an atheist, and I won't make an assumption, I think you're the kind that at least knows what the fuck they're talking about. Thanks for clarifying. There are some people in this thread that just go crazy with statements, Christian and atheist and agnostic alike.

>>136476413
>if you don't believe in what I believe in, you're wrong
>proceeds to talk about fedoras
Classy. How long have you been a follower of meme?

>>136476413
Wrong. Agnosticism addresses the knowledge side, atheism addresses the belief side.

Atheism is just "I'm not convinced that your 'god' statement is valid." You can be gnostic or agnostic, atheist or theist... they address two arguments.

Educate yourself next time.

>>136476284
Try looking up agnosticism.

>>136476271
Great feeling, isn't it? I find that the way you view everything and everyone and the way you behave completely changes from that moment.

>>136474969
That difference doesn't exist at all, you're a fucking idiot

File: WhiteIQReligion.jpg (89KB, 600x514px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 600x514px

>>136476284
>Atheism is the default position, you fucking retard... it's the lack of belief in the claim that this 'god' exists.
I can see that you're really stupid, but I will try to state this simply for you.

There are three possibilities about the God question:
God exists;
God does not exist;
We don't know if God exists.

Now which one is OBVIOUSLY the default position? Take as much time as you need. The rest of us will be laughing at you while you try to reason this one out.

>>136460784
Do you even kalam cosmological argument bro?

>>136476566
And yet the atheist asserts that there isn't a God. How is that not a belief?

>>136473023
Cool story bro. I think we'll stick to our observable data rather than your Jew on a stick fairy tales.

>>136476309
This is why I like /pol and have no idea why we have people on here who go to the science of the gaps. It's amazing to see that most people on this board don't buy into the media bullshit of Neil deGrasse Tysson and Bill Nye when they say things and lead to headlines like "There are fifteen genders because SCIENCE says so." It's like there's this big book of science everyone is quoting that is even less agreed on than Judaic trxts

File: AtheismTextAngels.gif (15KB, 364x306px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 364x306px

>>136476434
>I refuse to admit WLC has a strong argument.
There, I "summarized" your argument just as fairly as you "summarized" his. If you object to my summary, you are admitting that your own summary was unfair. (In other words you lose.)

>>136475922
Thousands of Bacteria tests.

>>136473023
Do you ever wonder why were all the Gospels written by people who knew people who knew Jesus, not by actual witnesses and why it took them 40 yrs to write it down. They witnessed his death, he came back alive as God and not a single soul ever mentions this until 40 yrs after. Not even one lousy sentence. How come?

File: MemeIPostedItAgainMom.jpg (84KB, 533x700px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 533x700px

>>136476822
>Jew on a stick

>>136476819
It's not a belief, it's an objective observation. God is literally just a meme.

>>136476849
Bill Nye sold out but Neil didn't at all. The fuck you on about?

File: MQcptZo.png (82KB, 640x926px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 640x926px

>>136456859
These threads belong on /his/.

Anyways, pic related. Atheists are degenerate leftists and ought to be purged regardless of God's existence.

>>136457072
>Christian
>Thinker
Choose one

>>136476309
Yes dumb fuck. Show me how to apply the scientific method to questions of the soul. Fucktard.

>>136476822

What is a written account, though? Observable data, observed and written down by people who existed before videotapes, sometimes regarding matters and events that cannot be quantified. You can't prove a person or an event with a set of equations; at some point, testimony comes in. Your demand for evidence is where I spent most of my life before opening my mind enough to consider the world is not what the media tells us.

>>136477237
>hurry up and apply scoence to something about which I have given no definition for
>hurry!
You need to take science 101and fuck off

File: BlackScienceManSun.jpg (32KB, 600x342px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x342px

>>136477120
>Bill Nye sold out but Neil didn't at all.
Neil is an affirmative action beneficiary nigger who acts as a token figurehead for the pseudoscience of the left. His first master's thesis committee disbanded itself, which means he cheated and they caught him. That would normally end a science career, but quota-boy was given a get out of jail free card for having skin the color of shit. He married a white woman and is the hip spokesperson of choice of the left for "science" to try to convince everyone that there are lost of nonwhites in the hard disciplines. THERE AREN'T!

>>136476495
All I'm attempting to say is, and even without >>136475955 and their attempt to apply an arbitrary branch of hypothetical axiomatic maths to a question which does not allow the logical disproval of God (because that line of logical deduction and scientific assertion doesn't exist), is that there is not an answer to this question.

A deity is a (albeit - you may argue, meaningless) hypothesis, and when logic does not have the ability to access or test this hypothesis, you cannot prove, or disprove it.

I hold no grudge towards people who disbelieve or people who are religious to some extent, and due to the contradictory nature of religion it is impossible to place one, singular, agreed upon, defined entity within the realms whereby it could be calculable whether it exists or not.

>>136477486
Oh, you're just fucking retarded and have no original opinions in your own head. I see.
I'm not reading the entirety of your buzzword salad strawman post either, fuckboy.

>>136477056
>Gospels written by people who knew people who knew Jesus, not by actual witnesses

wrong.

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/gospel_authorship.html

File: AffirmativeActionScholarships.jpg (18KB, 315x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 315x360px

>>136477717
>REEEEEEEEEEE

>>136477056
Yes. Read Bart Ehrman (sic). You beg a lot of the literacy of the time. He's an atheist who gives a good overview even if I disagree with his conclusion. Historicity isn't settled.

>>136456859
If he disproved atheism, he definitely disproved theism as well.

>>136477056
>not by actual witnesses
Um, Matthew, Luke, and John almost certainly wrote their own gospels and definitely knew Jesus. You should crack open a bible sometime.

>>136476189
>An atheist, BY DEFINITION, is saying he knows
Atheism ""BY DEFINITION"" is a lack of belief.

How can we still be debating this in the current year is beyond me.

>>136478350
and yet atheists are constantly specifically saying that there is not a God. hence, it is a belief.

>>136478089
>If he disproved atheism, he definitely disproved theism as well.
Well that's the dilemma, isn't it. We can neither disprove nor prove the existence of God, largely because we can't even define God. So the atheist claim that they win be default is unfounded. It remains and unanswered question. Honest people must be at least somewhat agnostic on the matter.

File: AtheistObsession.jpg (85KB, 540x503px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 540x503px

>>136478350
>Atheism ""BY DEFINITION"" is a lack of belief.
Know, it is a BELIEVE in a lack of God.
AGNOSTICISM is a lack of belief. It literally means "no knowing." Atheism literally means "no God."
See the difference? For some reason, pointing out atheist's beliefs to them really gets their titties in a twist.

>>136478666
>Know, it is a BELIEVE in a lack of God.
Holy shit I just did a lot of typos!

>>136477486
>He married a white woman and is the hip spokesperson of choice of the left for "science" to try to convince everyone that there are lost of nonwhites in the hard disciplines. THERE AREN'T!

The shitty thing is though our world is so cucked no matter what the reality is the narrative is too strong to fail

>There are lots of Blacks in Science
See, blacks aren't dumb you stupid whites :P
>There aren't a lot of Blacks in Science
See, you dumb whites are opressing us Blacks, we need more affirmative action!

>>136477120
Check Neil's Twitter and search for science with a capital "S." It's embarrassing. For further laughs, look into him criticizing the Star Wars droid BB-8 as impossible (existed in real life) and bashing Christianity while praising Newton, a (mostly) Christian scientist.

>>136478666
it makes them mad because if they concede that they are taking a position, that means they have to defend that position, which they can't do.

>>136478466
>Honest people must be at least somewhat agnostic on the matter.
I agree. However, it'd be hard for me to retain this position if someone tried to convince me that invisible flying pigs exist. If full blown atheists really think the notion of God existing is as absurd as the flying pigs, then I really can't blame them for not taking a more agnostic stance.

File: kek uh oh.jpg (48KB, 484x530px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 484x530px

>>136456859
SOLID

>>136479015
>If full blown atheists really think the notion of God existing is as absurd as the flying pigs

that's a dumb argument though. who cares what they think about the concept? that's like saying that since trannies think the notion of them being mentally ill is absurd, therefore their position is more rational.

that's stupid.

>>136479249
So you're still on the fence about the idea of invisible flying pigs existing?
Maybe I should make a religion out of this.

>>136477732
Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle. Also, Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life.He was a disciple of Peter. Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. John was written in ca. A.D. 135.

>>136478229
>>136477732

Fellow Christian here. I'm not sold on firsthand accounts, not completely, but
I don't even think it matters given history's standards on timeliness. Even 40 years and one person out (in a small community full of witnesses that relied on oral tradition and memorization), you have a better case for Jesus than many Roman rulers and early civilization conflicts.

If Christianity is true then Judaism is true.
If Judaism is true how come that entire deal shows us a God okay with rape, murder, genocide, rituals, fornication, and a misplaced sense of justice whereby events such as David wanting to tax Israel lead to God sending a plague to kill thousands of unrelated women and children? And that's just the surface level.
The 10 Commandments only applied to other Jews, repeatedly in the books of the Old Testament non Jews are killed and murdered even if they're not being particularly inflammatory or even aggressive. Not to mention all the timeline inconsistencies such as the Jewish Slavery thing that outright contradicts Rameses history and how Baal is only evil and about child sacrifice in Jewish texts, and no other outside sources so much as allude to that kind of debauchery.

I don't give a shit about Christianity so long as the book it was founded on was clearly written by racist, genocidal desert Jews that contradict themselves on the regular.

>>136479470
See >>136479470.

You're arguing points that are unsettled, but even slightly attenuated the sources are strong and generally in agreement (even when talking about Q).

>>136479480
well yeah, even if none of the Gospels were written by firsthand witnesses, that wouldn't weaken my faith at all. fedoras cannot explain it away either way. What can one even say to this below?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_India#St._Thomas

>According to Indian Christian traditions, the Apostle Thomas arrived in Tamilakam presently in the Indian state of Kerala Kodungallur (also Muziris), Kerala, established the Seven Churches and evangelised in present-day Kerala and Tamil Nadu

>>136479511
>If Christianity is true than Judaism is true.

Stopped here. I mean no disrespect, but most Christians and even Jews agree that the Old Testament and tenets of Jewish faith are written by human hands and only divinely inspired (at best, in some cases).

>>136477445
Fuckstick, there is no method for experimentation on the soul, spirituality, or religion. Show me were to hook up the electrodes to the soul, shit for brains.

>>136460896
>edgy existential nonsense

Have fun in Hell.

>>136478666
Agnosticism:
>Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3]
Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, or a lack thereof. Agnosticism only deals with the knowledge of deities, and whether or not humans are capable of holding that knowledge. Atheism deals with belief in that it is (for the last time) a lack of belief in these deities, for whatever reason.

You are literally confusing definitions.

>>136479511
>>136479750
more on St. Thomas and India

>According to tradition, St. Thomas, one of the twelve Apostles, came to Muziris on the Kerala coast in 52 AD,[4] which is in present-day Pattanam, Kerala.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians#History

>>136479750
I'm with you, man. Peter Kreeft talks about slices of God. Dating is a smaller one given how close it is. The amount of eyewitnesses and people who believed back then in what they saw (and often wrote down) is staggering--not like Mohammed was pointing a sword at them or pretending to be in a trance.

I really hate pseudo intellectuals.

People who try to apply logical reasoning to faith is beyond cringe.

>>136479791
If you can't tell us what a soul is, how can you tell people they can't experiment on it?

>>136479766
What the fuck are you talking about you triple fucking nigger. I have never heard this before, just because you follow some stupid denomination at least smart enough to realize how fucked up the Old Testament is but too stupid to realize that invalidates Christianity as a result doesn't mean for that almost all of ancient history up until the last 100 years the OT was held up as objective fact and proof Christianity was true.

Fuck right the hell off you inebriate. I am fucking insulted you think I'm this dumb.

>>136476413
Both? You mean christianity and atheism right? There cant be anything nothing wrong with agnosticism because it doesnt assert any claims like you suggested.

>>136480014
Jesus was logical. He actually had people go to John the Baptist after performing miracles to be seen because Jesus knew he had to make some logical showing of his legitimacy.

File: 1dxet4.jpg (51KB, 670x377px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 670x377px

>>136456859
>No wonder Richard Dawkins is too fearful to debate him.

Implying that someone that starts an answer with a false equivalence is hard to debate.

>>136456859
This guys arguments only sound good to the brainwashed. He's an idiot

>>136480367
this

>>136480007
fedoras would have you believe that the apostles either didn't exist (which is an insult to scholarship, knowledge, history, and more) or that they all collectively hallucinated and proceeded to travel all across the world, facing extreme persecution and death for something that wasn't true.

Is that not the most preposterous claim you've ever heard? And these are the people who pride themselves on "science" and "rationalism"?

Disgusting.

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/whatever-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles-11629558.html

>>136480167
>There cant be anything nothing wrong with agnosticism
I say both because both atheism and agnosticism are wrong ultimately. But I'm saying that agnosticism is at least intellectually honest. They don't pretend to know. Most people that fall under that branch don't even think about the concept, while atheism is inherently dishonest.

>>136480108
>>136480108
I didn't think you were this dumb unti now. The OT wasn't held up as objective fact except by idiots; there are plenty of apologists and atheists who acknowledge that the Old Testament comes from oral tradition and is often seen as inspired rather than objective truth. You're thinking Islam. Go read some books and come back. Or look into the existence of the weird denominations you seem to think I'm part of; they tend to claim the Bible is only part right. I'm catholic.

>>136456859
Name one """"""""argument"""""""" for God's existence that can't be applied to Allah. In other words the argument is true if you use the word God, but it's untrue if you replace the word God with the word Allah.

Go on, I'll wait christcucks.

>>136480726
Mohammed made it up and doesn't even have the historical texts he bastardized right. Jesus was witnessed by people who went to their death saying they saw miracles. Mohammed went into semi-seizures and told people that angels told him the truth and believe him or die.

>>136469331
>dinky humans who cannot even leave this plant, and every thing beyond our solar system is just guess work, till proven by a telescope
>Even with our advance calculations we are still off by a bit

THEY GAVE US NO KNOWLEDGE HOW TO CALC GOD

see how stupid you sound. No one claimed god was a physical being, god is a psychological being, that is not native in the world. If we can't even prove our thoughts are actually thoughts, hell we cannot even predict our thoughts. How are we spoused to accurate guess god?

>>136480872
further, Mohamed persecuted people to convert them, while early Christians faced persecution themselves, all sorts of horrible deaths, and yet they persisted.

>>136480872
The Bible is also not a single book, but a bibliography of lots of historical books accumulated over millennia. The Qur'an is just some possessed Arab's incoherent ramblings.

File: nonseq.jpg (78KB, 1155x326px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1155x326px

>>136457072

But even if you can prove that god exists doesn't mean that Christianity is correct at all.

>>136467278
>I can't tell whether or not God affects life. Must not exist.

Sound reasoning, bong lad.

>>136481052
shifting the goalposts I see.

>>136479603
I'm not arguing shit. It's a simple question. God visits us and the only written account of this happening comes along 40 yrs after the fact, written by the guy who never even met him. Why? Literacy has nothing to do with this.

File: EverydayAtheist.webm (3MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x281px

>>136467278

>>136480872
That's not an argument for God's existence, try again.

File: 1462184998425.jpg (128KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 900x675px

>>136456859

I agree that most Atheists should rather call themselves Agnostics, because they cannot disprove the notion of God.

That being said I think it's a flawed argument to base the existence of God upon deductive reasoning. You can substitute God for any number of things (let's for argument's sake call it "Santa Claus") and still not have that theory any more sound than people who are skeptics.

I am not a religious person myself, and I frankly don't care much about what people call me. I just don't want us as a society to argue with each other over something that is basically a philosophical question.

Entertain the idea that both sides of the argument might be wrong OR right. Since we have no way of determining either way - why argue? Let's Christians have their faith and leave the fedora tippers to swing their Katana's at imaginary 2D villains.

The rest of us are more invested in making the most of the life we have here.


As for the question of moral and ethics, I don't think being a Christian (or a member of any other religious sect for that matter) is a pre-requisite for knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Can't we all just get along?

>>136456859
Religion is the only area of society that has made ZERO progress in the last 2,000 years.

>>136480566
>agnosticism is intelectually honest
As such agnosticism is the only rational standpoint. All other views have biases that CANNOT be proven or disproven (at least not yet).

File: never existed.jpg (2MB, 1600x2498px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x2498px

>>136481151

I didn't shift anything. Even if god exists, that god could be one of a 100 different gods and Christianity might be 100% wrong.

Especially, even if god(s) exists, it doesn't prove that Jesus existed.

>>136479015
>However, it'd be hard for me to retain this position if someone tried to convince me that invisible flying pigs exist.
But those are much easier to define and disprove than God is. If someone claimed there were invisible flying pigs, I would ask to touch them or hear them or trap them in a box. Because we know what traits a pig ought to have or a flying thing ought to have, it's easy to provide counter evidence. Not so easy with God.

>>136481396
> All other views have biases that CANNOT be proven or disproven

and that's where I digress. fitting that the thread's about to die

>, it doesn't prove that Jesus existed.
when will this fedora meme die? If you're going to argue that Jesus didn't exist, then you're also going to have to argue that nearly every major ancient historical figure didn't exist either. Because you're rejecting a huge swathe of historical documents, traditions, and scholarship.

File: christianity-the-belief-that-some-cosmic-jewish-zombie-can-make-you.jpg (82KB, 692x430px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 692x430px

How can Christards refute this?

File: pol in a nutshell.jpg (50KB, 599x478px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 599x478px

>>136456859
>"Of course we can prove the non-existence of something. For example we can prove there are no Muslims in the United States senate."

This fucking guy.

>William Lane Craig: "Hey, do you believe in the Islamic faith?"
>Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: "No, of course not."
>William Lane Craig: "You see? I have proven that he's not a Muslim."

This guy is an autistic retard, and anyone here who thinks his argument was good should never breed for the sake of humanity.

>>136481781
Evolution can be described like that as well. Gravity could be made out to be ridiculous if you tried hard enough with similar language.

File: AtheistPotHead.jpg (58KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x500px

>>136479470
>John was written in ca. A.D. 135.
So you're saying John, the disciple who wrote four books of the New Testament, didn't write the books he wrote? I just want to be clear on this since you're so logical and I'm just a dumb theist.

>>136481781
Not an argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>>136481954

Is Harry Potter real because J. K. Rowling wrote the books?