>We don't know what happened before the big bang, therefore

>>136463716
Atheists in the 1960's believed the universe to be infinite age and held that notion of "creation" was a religious idea. Then of course the cosmic background radiation was discovered which strongly suggested a creation event and a non-infinite aged universe - essentially proving Genesis 1 - and BTFO every fedora. They quickly scrambled to embrace it and pretend they held that idea all along. Today, you can barely find an atheist that knows this fact about their own religion.

>>136464314
Fedoras BTFO!!!

>>136464314
Wow, it's almost as if science is capable of admitting when it's wrong about something!

File: 1501634922317.png (33KB, 245x199px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 245x199px

>>136464314
Atheists are pathetic wastes of soul and flesh.

i am that i am

>>136464314
It's completely retarded to suggest that the Big Bang proves the creation story in Genesis. That's the thing with every argument Christian apologists trot out - they can only be applied to deism, not Christianity. You can't prove that the "supreme being" in your deductive arguments is the specific one that you worship. Just be honest with everyone and admit that you believe what you do without evidence.

File: 1488891815631.png (624KB, 824x571px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 824x571px

>>136464523
>atheism = science
Hahahahahahahahahaha go blow yourself you retard
Science has never made a philosophical or religious claim, because by it's very nature it cannot. It only deals with humans and our limited ability at measuring our universe. It cannot and will never be able to address claims outside of our universe, such as one of a God or other realms of existence, because it is designed to use what we can perceive or deduce in order to come to conclusions about the nature of our universe.
Science discovered the big bang. Atheists adjusted their belief system to incorporate it, because their previous assertions were proven incorrect. Science did not say that Atheists were correct or that Theists were correct. It simply announced the discovery. Stop conflating your weak belief system with science, because the two are impossible to reconcile

>>136463716
>>We don't know what happened before the big bang, therefore God.
That's not how riligi-cucks think.

>>136464957
Atheism is not a belief system, you mouthbreathing yank. It's the absence of one. You were the one who was conflating atheism with the scientific community. Your original post was pure, unadulterated bullshit from start to finish.

>>136464946
>formless void
>Let there be LIGHT
BTFO
>>136464957
Science, even when "perfected", could never explain the reality we live in.
https://youtu.be/_20yiBQAIlk

>>136464314
That's how science works you dumb shit.
Ideas aren't held because of muh god said so or because it said so in some shitty book. If we have better ideas that contradict old ideas, we change them. That's how you get closer the truth.

>>136465687
You don't think that similar parallels could be found in other religious faiths?

>>136463716
>being this mad about other people
Unironically kill yourself.

>>136465687
>Science, even when "perfected", could never explain the reality we live in.
Maybe it can or cannot, we don't know that. Even if it can't, the explanations it does provide are closer to the truth and more useful.

It's no coincidence that we got rockets and aeroplanes only after religion lost its grip on society.

>>136465669
>Atheism is not a belief system, you mouthbreathing yank. It's the absence of one.

Atheism is the lack of BELIEF in a god
Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge.

It says it right in the definition you mongoloid. You have a lack of BELIEF that is not in any way tied to knowledge.

>>136465669
It requires faith. But it's oh so much more. Modern Atheism, hedonistic nihilism, cultural marxism - it's all the same soul crushing worldview and ideology.

>>136465753
Of course they can, but he's an American Christ cuck and has been raised in this nonsense since his birth, he's incapable of viewing anything rationally. If he'd been born in Pakistan, he'd be fucking goats and praising Allah just as fervently.

>>136465858
Wrong again. Agnosticism is "I don't know if I believe in God or not". Atheism is "I don't believe in God based on lack of evidence".

"Hard" atheism ("I strongly believe that God doesn't exist based on faith") is very uncommon compared to soft atheism.

File: 1487410589692.png (99KB, 933x581px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 933x581px

>>136463716
Are you that retard spamming Varg-Paganshit in every thread?
Why don't you go back to Jewtube?

>>136465948
No it isn't.
There is nothing that binds atheists beyond the lack of belief in a God(s).
You're almost an atheist yourself, just one more fairytale to go.

>>136465948
What the fuck are you talking about? You can be atheist and right-wing. If you don't believe in God, then that doesn't mean you have to support feminism, gay rights, etc.

You also seem to be suggesting that there are no secular philosophies other than nihilism, which is almost depressingly naive. Ever heard of stoicism?

>>136464946
>british
>atheist
imagine my shock

>>136466122
>I drew an unflattering drawing of the people I disagree with so they must be wrong

>>136466122
I said God cucks in my op. That includes the Christ cucks and the autists larping as Thor in the woods.

>>136466209
>American
>dumbass

Imagine my shock

>>136464946
>specific one that you worship

Most monotheistic Gods are very similar in nature. At the core they're all pretty much the same.

Essentially, God is an omnipotent being. The differences between the religions are differences in human culture and perspective as a means of helping the people live a better way of life for the culture it dominates.

Like Arabs and pork, there was a time when swine was dangerous to eat. Not anymore, but hence why they were told not to eat it. They knew it'd kill you.

The masses of normies don't know this, and are idiots and have to have a book and tenants and structure to guide their life. This applies across all religions. The non-normie religious folk generally understand the reasons behind it all, and still believe what they want, but aren't going to get upset when you say you're an atheist.

>>136465753
Outside the Abrahamic religions, no. The accounts of the OT are thought to be up to 6,000 years old and wouldve been unrecorded until writen language. The examples you may be thinking of (Zoroastrianism) were of the same oral history origin.

>>136466178
Stoicism isn't the best example my man, since it is hard to separate from deism.
Existentialism is the best example, though there is also Christian existentialism.

File: GulagDabbingQueen.jpg (51KB, 300x483px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 300x483px

>>136463716
>>We don't know what happened before the big bang, therefore God.
>This is God cuck argumentation in a nutshell. Note I said argumentation, since that's all God cucks have.

that's all we need :^)

>>136465669
Check the ID you fucking retard. I wasn't even the one you were talking to. Just goes to show how fucking retarded you are
Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. Regardless of your justification, be it lack of evidence or otherwise, it is still the BELIEF that no God exists. Therefore Atheism is a belief system. Shroud it in definitions or linguistic sleight of hand all you like, but ultimately the core concept shines through and your crappy belief system is shown for what it is: Another religion just like all the others

>>136466403
So you're saying you're just playing pick and mix. Wow, very scientific and surely a great way to establish truth regarding objective reality!

>>136463716
The only way to truly know is to die. So you should just kys and then report back to us. GO! GO! GO!

>there's no god
A plethora of individual, including some scientist like Rick Strassman have had spiritual experiences, in his scientific publications, Strassman shamelessly mentions his experiences.

>>136463716
>Provides no counter argument as to why this notion is flawed

>>136466532
You don't prove anything with argumentation. Especially when that argumentation is entirely comprised of pure reasoning. You can replace god with 4th dimension reptillians in the average god cuck argument and it would still be completely logically consistent.

>>136466477
I'm highly sceptical of the claim that the Abrahamic religions are the only ones which made claims so ambiguous

And do you also think that one similarity is enough to handwave away the legends in the Bible which contradict scientific evidence (like the global flood)?

>>136464523

>wow, its almost as if

This is not only goybook fedora talk, but insufferable even to most on goybook.

I was going to say fuck off back there but youve probably been exiled.

>>136466819
Okay, that's nice, but that does absolutely nothing to prove the existence of God.

>>136466691
There is no pick and mix, there just is.

I acknowledge that we exist, and I acknowledge that there is a greater power out there.

Me personally I grew up Christian so I will follow that faith. But I don't think that if you don't believe Jesus is the messiah that you'll go to hell.

My point being, there is a single omnipotent thing beyond human comprehension that started life as we know it and is what we would call God. Not some dude with a beard playing the sims with our lives. God reaches out to the entire universe(s).

The parts with certain rules to live by are ultimately for the betterment of mankind, so people have order and structure. Whether or not you want to believe them is up to the individual.

>>136466931
Why do you assume we owe it to you to get a career and then work for free proving god to you?

>>136466821
You're filling our current gaps in knowledge with God. God cucks have been doing this (to a lesser and lesser extent every year) over the last few centuries as science fills the gaps. I'm sorry that you're a retard and couldn't make this inference yourself from my original post.

>>136466608
So? Even if you're not the same person, you were still defending his argument. Mentioning this is completely irrelevant.

And claiming that atheism is a belief system is like claiming that off is a TV channel. Atheism does not state the non-existence of God as an assertion (that's antitheism, or "hard atheism") - the non-existence of God is a conclusion reached based on lack of evidence. I will agree that asserting that God doesn't exist is as groundless as claiming that he does, but that's not the actual definition of atheism.

>>136467007
Okay, so you admit you have absolutely no scientific basis for your beliefs and do everything due to your want to believe, your upbringing, and your larger social envoronemmt. I think you're an idiot for doing that, but I have no qualms with you.

>>136467098
>gaps
We don't have gaps, we have an unfillable abyss, best we have is four shitty theories that don't fit together, retard.

Anybody saying that gods are there to fill the gaps of science should be skinned alive and forced to study actual science.

>>136466173
Hardly. The deist idea of a monotheistic God and creator is self-evident. My faith is certainly to Christ though for good reason given that the Bible exists and it's testimoney and truth is palpable. That and given my own unexplainable salvation and the witnessing of literally 2 Billion humans is a testament to the veracity of the Christian gospel.

>>136467051
You can't prove God (it's impossible, it's akin to proving fairies), but if you could, you'd be the most famous person in human history and essentially immortalised.

>>136466869
Never been on Facebook.

Are you going to make an actual point or what?

>>136467344
inb4 some christcuck copies and pastes the drivel of St. Anselm or Thomas Aquinas

>>136467225
Yes. I don't have to have a scientific basis for it. It's faith.

>>136467249
Depends on the field you're talking about. And that is precisely what God cucks do when they say "no explanation for the big bang, therefore, my specific God from my specific religion did it!".

>>136467490
Thank you for the honesty.

>>136467098
>He thinks that all matter was spontaneously created in the form of an immensely dense particle that then exploded into an entire universe
>Thinks God has nothing to do with this
>Doesn't realize that even without all matter in the universe, the universe is still a 3 dimensional space that had to be created at some point and we'll never know how
And you think Godcucks are dumb.

>>136467574
Why god though? Why can't it be lizard people with God like powers from the 78th dimension? There is literally no qualitative difference in the explanation I just pulled out of my arse and you saying God did it. Both are basically infallible and outside the realm of science... meaning they're useless explanations.

>>136466178
You as an atheist are the ally of the feminist, the faggots, the cuck, and the muslim in your united fight to destroy Christianity. You say you dislike them but they are your brothers in arms against Western Christendom. You may disagree, but if Christianity "falls" so to does the west. Church and state, body and soul, inseparable. Yet you unapologeticly aide the enemy in their primay objective.

>>136467766
As an atheist, let's assume you're wrong, what now?

>>136467766
I agree with you, I'm not a religious person and don't think a specific God is real. All I'm saying is that there had to be a creator figure at some point, as you can't create or destroy matter, only change it.

File: 1501168934434.jpg (201KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 600x600px

>>136467344
>>136467428
God is everything. The texts are just human interpretations of old minds.

God is the atoms that build us. Everyone and everything has one thing in common. Atoms. These atoms are shared and have never had a beginning nor an end.

Take human perspective out of the equation, and you don't need to have answers or anything because you don't comprehend the need for answers. You just are and always will be.

Life is life.

>>136463716
Scientists also hold that gender is a spectrum. And I say scientists very loosely.
To me, there is no real science anymore, it's just who can get the most funding.

>>136466295
great response
give this man an award.
if being an atheist is so good why did you get mad at me for pointing out they british stereotype?

>>136467574
>He doesn't think that this immensely dense particle is God
>Thinks God is a being
>Doesn't realize that even without all matter in the universe, we can only perceive 3 dimensions that may have no beginning nor end

>>136467766
This is a fair argument, really. Except for one thing. People seem to perceive God as some person or being. God is not that, God is something beyond human comprehension. The texts are just human explanation.

>>136463716
>This is God cuck argumentation in a nutshell.

Of course that's not the argument. It's not even a good strawman. You phrase it like it's an argument from ignorance (which would be a fallacy). But that's not how the cosmological argument runs in nay of its variations over the centuries.

Rather, it's a deductive argument--pure logic. If you simultaneously hold the premises that the universe is not infinitely old and that all effects have a prior cause, then you *must* believe that the universe began by some priori cause. Aquinas (following Aristotle) called this the First Cause. This prior cause can't be part of the universe itself, otherwise you just get an infinite regress (there needs to be a cause prior to *that* cause). If you think the universe is without beginning or end, fine, you don't need a first cause. If you think that effects can just occur spontaneously without prior causes, fine, but then you have a view that is contrary to physics--and anti-scientific view of a random universe that could not be reliably studied and would be a capricious and random place at the level of matter. It also is no solution to claim that the idea of God as a first cause of the universe is as prone to infinite regress as a physical cause: God is not a part of the physical system of the universe, and God can be infinite even though the universe is not. So, indeed, some first cause that is non-physical and (at least) older than the universe, if not infinite, is the only possible conclusion if you think the universe is finite. Again, that's just deductive logic--no empirical observations are required, no "evidence", it's not a probabilistic argument, it's not a scientific argument.

>>136468101
Make an inane post, get an inane reply. Not exactly rocket science, is it?

>>136468243
He's probably some teenager that takes shit personally.

He can't even type properly. Gives us religious folks a bad name. Good job 9v2Ue1X0. Good job.

>>136467989
>God exists if I invent my own definition of the word that's completely different from the commonly accepted definition

Pantheism is literally semantics

File: IMG_0185.jpg (29KB, 409x270px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 409x270px

>>136468243
>>136468101
Both of you are acting like giant faggots.
Stop bickering like a divorced couple.

>>136466403
>people dont care that i'm atheist
You should be careful who you come out of the closet to. I have a good jew-dar at detecting unbelievers like you. If I ever had a choice between and atheist and a believer of any religion i'd not hesitate. You will find it will hold you back in life when you wear your figurative fedora in public.

>>136467989
That's a nice metaphor, but it's useless and does nothing.

My biggest reason to not believe in anything is the fact that so many religions exist, that it would be absurd to just pick one for no particular reason.

>>136468379
Only in America. Here you're more likely to get funny looks if you say you're a Christian than an atheist. I know literally no one who goes to Church who's under about 60.

But keep on believing that the whole world is your backwards flyover state if you want to

>>136463716
Give me proof there is no God and that you know for a fact what happened before, during and right after "big bang".

Else, take your fedora and fuck off

>>136468408
>Lazyness

>>136468344
Everything is semantics. Everything we know and understand is only through human communication and language. I'm not saying my beliefs are 100% right either. No one's is and no one can 100% prove that what they believe is correct.

The only reason why I say that, even for science with actual physical facts in front of you, is that the only thing you can truly know exists are the thoughts in your head. For all you know, you could be a brain in a jar being fed information.

>>136466863
>flood
modern geology to the rescue
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

>>136468655
If someone is making a claim that something exists, then the burden of proof is on them to prove that it does.

If I told you that I own a gold mansion and you immediately called bullshit, would it be up to you to prove that I didn't have one? Of course not. I would be the one who would have to prove I owned one.

>>136468379
I'm not an unbeliever. I just have a different perspective than you do. That's all.

>>136468387
It's not a metaphor, it's just something that can have a scientific basis, or an attempt at one, but I'm too lazy to do so. There may be one somewhere out there. All I can do is explain it.

>>136468721
Laziness does not explain away my concern. I've read the bible, and grew up going to church. But I've also read the Quran, and I love reading about history.

There is absolutely no reason to pick one religion over the other, because none of them have any concrete proof.

>>136468640
Typical pond scum response.

>>136467098
The "God of the Gaps" is an invention by atheists that shows how historically-uninformed they are. No Christian has ever worshipped a "God of the Gaps"--the God of the Bible is not a God of the Gaps. It's laughable that you think "over the last few centuries...science fills the gaps" of our knowledge. Science--the method--is good for acquiring scientific knowledge, just like a coffee-maker is good for acquiring coffee. But you are the sort of one-dimensional idiot who thinks that science can "fill the gaps" in our non-scientific knowledge, because you mistake all knowledge for scientific knowledge. You're trying to use your coffee maker not just for coffee, but to cook your breakfast and wash the dishes afterwards, too. The "gaps" you see everywhere, where other, more intellectually sophisticated people put God, are not gaps in scientific knowledge because they are not the domain of science.

>>136468758
The Bible describes the flood as encompassing the whole world. If the Black Sea flood really was the flood in the Old Testament, then the Bible is suspiciously keen on using hyperbole. You know, what with it supposedly being infallible and all.

You're reaching. And if you go purely on Biblical chronology (as James Ussher did) then the Earth can't be older than 4004 BC, before the Black Sea flood happened.

Young Earth Creationists may get laughed at, but they're the ones who are actually following their holy book as they're supposed to. Are you?

>>136468997
*chokes on McDonald's*

>>136467098
>filling gaps
That's precisely what science does with the fragmented fossil record that cant prove speciation, abiogenesis and how working proteins could never randomly occur, cosmology and how nothing suggests a Genesis event has ever occurred outside our own yet fedoras have an absolute obsession with alien life despite zero evidence ever.

Science of the Gaps

>>136468836
>If someone is making a claim
If someone has a belief, you don't get to convince him out of this belief by claiming evidence to him and then having the nerve to discard his personal experiences.

File: The Language Of God.jpg (54KB, 391x600px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 391x600px

>>136469003
on this note...

>>136468640
Our backwards flyover states have a substantially higher GDP than your inbred UK.

You are no longer relevant anymore, you're a nation of immigrants now.

>>136468328
how did i not type that properly you fucking retard?

i guess adults can only tell when someone writes properly.

>>136469349
>no capitalization
>disregarding punctuation
>Pointing out they british stereotype

>>136469279
Ah, so I guess I'd be in the wrong if I tried to tell a schizophrenic person that it's all in their head when they're having a psychotic episode. Can't be discounting his personal experiences, can we?

Personal faith and experiences account for nothing in the real world.

>>136469003
Are you seriously going to argue that religious explanations have not been replaced or pushed back by science? Since the big bang became the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe, God cucks have latched onto it and now claim God caused it. The God of the gaps isn't an invention of atheists, it's an observation of the behaviour of God cucks over the last century.

>>136469448
>putting that much fucking effort into posting on 4chan

holy shit i knew people on here had autism but this is something else.

you should probably kill yourself.

>>136468640
You sound almost proud of your homelands impending destruction. Weird, like youre a kike or something.

>>136469491
Of course anon, nevermind that you saw your wife sexually interacting with Tyrone, it was all in your head and your son is mulatto because race is a social construct.

>>136469348
Says the nation that's only 63% white

A country that's home to fucking Baltimore and Detroit has zero right to lecture others about being taken over by brown people

Outside of London and Birmingham it's actually not that bad here

>>136469269
You're repeating garbage spewed by that faggot that owns the Christian museum with dinosaurs, you do realise that, yes?
Every misunderstanding you've just mentioned you could clear up with an article or a lecture, but you're too invested into your delusion to do it.

>>136469524
That'd be a fair point if the big bang was 100% fact.

But again, you weren't there to see it. The data comes only from a telescope and speculation. By believing in the big bang theory you're simply believing that something happened because someone else told you. Have you ever personally, physically seen the evidence?

If not, you're no worse than faith.

>>136467098
God asks that we observe the truths behind our creation dumb dumb.

>>136469677
How do you know that all of your memories happened exactly as you remember them? How do you even know that your dreams didn't really happen?

Personal experiences are coloured by cognitive biases. Of course a religious person will interpret an unusual occurrence as being a religious experience; they've already been conditioned to do so.

>>136469164
The time of Noah is pre-written language, these stories as recorded have shown true in many ways that no other religion has. Though you fail to recognize the flood as a global event does change much Biblically.

>>136469566
>Being this mad
If you can't apply yourself for five seconds of proper grammar, how can I expect you to apply yourself to real life?

>>136469707
Outside of Baltimore and Detroit it's actually not that bad here.

Except, Baltimore and Detroit have no affect on myself or the majority of states. Just the state they reside in.

>>136463716
>Note I said argumentation, since that's all God cucks have. >Word games and not actual evidence or experiments for any of their claims.
I've never seen the word "argumentation" used in this way, and I think it's inaccurate.

>>136469928
That's right anon, it's not that your wife slept with Tyrone, she slept with you and your son is black because race is a social construct.

>>136469885
>That'd be a fair point if the big bang was 100% fact.
Nothing in science is a 100% fact. Any belief or system of belief that claims to be 100% true is dogma and not science.

>>136463716
heh

>>136470217
Your nation has no culture to speak of outside of consumerism. When advertising techniques begin to feel stale, they'll just invent new ones - and (get this) you'll think that the old products of your consumerist culture make up part of your heritage. This is why you get yanks pointing to fucking car advertisements Sears catalogues from the 1950s and claiming that represents their heritage.

There's a medieval castle that's less than ten minutes away from my house. There isn't a single building in your entire country that's as old as it.

>>136469524
The ven diagrams of "science" and "is God real" do not intersect. You have a warped view of science today and an even bigger distorted view of what science hopes to become even when perfected.

>>136463716
>ot actual evidence or experiments for any of their claims
Thesis:all of creation was was designed exclusively for man's pleasure.
Proof: just look at the way a banana fits the human hand.

checkmate atheistfags

>>136463716

The objective existence of God is irrelavant, neither of which god if any at all.
Faith is what moves mountains, not God. That's what you atheists never understand. We, the devotees, have the power of God because we have faith, and you have none.

>>136470586
You know that modern bananas are the result of genetic modification, right?

Purely natural bananas look nothing like what most people think of as bananas. They're green, have skin that's hard to pull off and have pips in them. We were the ones who modified them to look like how they are today.

>>136470644
So why does it matter what you have faith in?

>>136469747
I'm not sure what you're on about, but it's very likely my graduate science education far exceeds yours and it greatly strengthens my faith in Christ.

>>136470837
And what are your credentials in, exactly?

>>136470740
Just look at the way the banana is perfectly shaped for the human mouth.

checkmate atheists

>>136465694
This is the reason why science is really pseudo-knowledge. It isn't real truth even if it appears to work.

>>136471026
>the basis of modern learning is psuedo-knowledge

That's something so stupid only a paddy could've said it

>>136463716
We don't know. We must, therefore suspend judgement. Anything other stance is an article of faith.

>>136470644
I take no issue with you believing in something because you want to believe it, without any evidence, for the warm fuzzy feelings it gives you or for whatever reason.
And your representation of the typical God cuck is disingenuous. Most deny science.
Lastly, religion, by definition, encroaches on the realm of science (making truth claims about reality) and for that reason alone, it needs to be discarded from all spheres of importance in society.

>>136470586
>>136471012
Assumptions: XYZt space exists for no reason, atomic particles exist somehow with valence energies allowing to bond, proteins mitochandrial dna exist

Want me to keep listing assumptions that you've taken for granted?

ancient aliens

>>136471225
Or scientific knowledge is an artificial construct and therefore not real.

Reveal your ignorance by failing to grasp this point.

>>136471760
>it's not codified and is subject to change with the appearance of new data
>so therefore it's not real

>>136470837
That is your own personal delusion and has no relevance to the question of whether your specific religion is true or not. I'm sorry that you've received such shitty training that you'd resort to using elementary logical fallacies. You're in burger land, sue them for a refund on the basis of making you borderline mentally retarded.

>>136471026
Knowing how to build planes, trains, rockets, skyscrapers, computers, antibiotics, etc.etc. sure is pseudo knowledge!

>>136470333
Then how can you, or anyone have a case against faith and religion?

Athiests always say science disproves God and fills in gaps. With what you just said - nothing in science is 100% fact - then how can you believe there is no God, considering you cannot prove nor disprove God's existence.

op pic looks like (((weev)))

>>136472171
Sure it does. Why did you ask and not expect a response? Try and stay rational here.
>>136472272
Will you thank the legions of scientists who were Christian men throughout history that gifted us with their discoveries? We stand on the shoulders of giants!

>>136472679
Because the claims of science are more likely to be true than the claims of religion. The latter has evidence to back its claims, the former has none (the bible is not evidence).

>>136463716
explain what started this all, all being life

>>136473039
It's faulty logic to argue that Christianity is as valid scientific method because many scientists happened to be Christian, even though this was irrelevant to their work

File: stumped.png (101KB, 454x418px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 454x418px

prove to me with 100% certainty that god either: does exist or does not exist.
>can't
>tfw

>>136473039
>Sure it does
It has absolutely none.
The fact you don't understand this is a logical fallacy tells me you're a larping autist.
>>136473039
Did Newton define the laws of classical physics using the bible? Or did he use mathematics and scientific knowledge which were completely independent of his religious doctrine?
This is the same logical fallacy that you've made in your previous posts, but I thought I'd bite and make you look silly.

>>136473498
At no point has anyone asserted that they believe with certainty that God doesn't exist. I just haven't seen enough evidence yet to believe that he does.

>>136472073
Scientific reasoning doesn't tell us how the world is, it allows us to develop models that can be used to predict how our environment will behave. Ultimately the "realness" of a theory is determined by it's utility.

>>136474099
But there's an enormous difference between going on the information that's available to us (for example, the theory of evolution) and just pulling stuff out of our arses (religion).

>>136473751
yeah that's my point. the only thing we can do is wait for some kind of evidence because we still have no definitive answer. otherwise this whole thread is a waste of time because we're not solving one of humanity's greatest mysteries on a forum.

>>136473498
god says you should give me all your money and wealth. also, don't question it, because you can't prove he doesn't exist!!

>>136474271
I actually agree. Since it's impossible to prove either way, there's not really that much you can gain from arguing over God's existence

It's at least a bit of fun, though

>>136473498
This a trap that atheist scientists fall into, demanding proof. Can you prove scientifically that you exist, first? Instead of taking it for granted.

God sets his own rules and the first one is take it or leave it.

Your choice.

>>136474209
Rationalism is useful, but it's not effective for addressing every question.

Science has very low moral utility. It provides no answers to how a person ought to behave.

Rational attempts have been made to understand and define morality, but they always fall short because at the end of the day human beings are not rational animals and aren't very smart.

Religion is able to answer moral questions because it allows us to appeal to an ideal higher than ourselves and our own limited scope.

>>136474596
Completely this. Science and logic can only point to consistencies within our perceived world but is inadequate in addressing deeper truth in regards to the reality we live in, primarily because it rests it's entire foundation on a bed of uncertainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

>>136474596
No atheist asks for absolute proof in the sense of absolute certainty. We ask for evidence. Do I need to explain that distinction?
And no, I can't with absolute certainty use science to prove that I exist. But I can make a philosophical arguments, comprised of scientific evidence and reasoning, that I probably do exist. It's cute that you're resorting to philosophy and word games because you have no ground to stand on. Typical God cuck behaviour.

>>136475220
>inadequate in addressing deeper truth in regards to the reality we live in
Yet it is still much better than religion or any thing else we have.

>>136475138
>Science has very low moral utility. It provides no answers to how a person ought to behave.
That's the realm of philosophy, not science. Not sure why you're making this point or why you believe it somehow makes science less in some way.

>>136473206
Science in the sense of biology and chemistry for the world around us? Sure, I'll bite.

But things like the big bang, the age of the earth, the age of the universe, the size of it, and so forth - that is all speculation. I have never seen physical evidence to prove these theories. Just a bunch of people looking through telescopes and guessing on a lot of it. Yes, there is some observation, but if you can't physically see it, there really isn't any evidence.

I can see cells through a microscope. I can create chemical reactions with household products. You can dive deep into a lot of things - but when it comes to long term I don't trust any of it.

What's confusing to me, and I may just be ignorant on the matter, is carbon dating. If I'm not mistaken it can only somewhat accurately go back so far. Well after prehistoric earth.

With that in mind, how can we have any evidence on the history of the earth, let alone the universe?

Is there actually anyone on /pol/ who regularly attends church?? Took me about 20 years but I eventually realized that religion is complete bullshit. People desire a greater purpose than simply being. That's why religion was invented. Sorry fgts but there is a higher probability of there nothing being out there than your religion being the correct one.

>inb4 shut it edgelord

Believing that you know all the answers because you read some 2000 year old book that was re-written 400 times is absolutely insane. Those people used to shit in holes and think that urine was an antiseptic. Somehow they had the answers? lel

>>136475518
I'd say that God has demonstrated his existence to own satisfaction. If you can't see it; well tough shit.

>>136473284
Then why would Christian men do this if not to glorify God?
>>136473536
You asked, i told you. Stay rational here k?
>newton use bible to define physics
Thats possibly the worst analogy ive ever heard
Science and Theological persuits are entirely unrelated. Are you 18+?

>>136476437
To be fair, urine does have ammonia in it.

Also, I regularly attend church. I try to go every sunday, but I tend to work too much.

People desire a greater purpose, yes, but that is not why religion was invented. Religion was invented to help the people live better lives. That is an undeniable fact that these religious texts did indeed increase the quality of life in older times. Even today, even if you don't believe in the bible, living by the bible can help your quality of life dramatically.

Once again, though, I feel like your perspective of God is mislead. God is not a single being, nor anything the human mind can comprehend. Jesus being the Messiah can be many things. Perhaps he was just a more "enlightened" individual and spread a good word to live by.

There's no reason to be pissy about things, no need to get uppity and feely about it. That's the kind of shit women do.

Can we at least all agree that Christianity isn't nearly as red pilled or as strong as it used to be, having either fallen entirely into modernity or becoming a parody of itself in trying to prevent any modernity?

>>136475803
It doesn't make science less, it's just worth understanding that it doesn't provide a universal understanding of existence, which some people think it does.

My point is that religious thinking is more useful than rational thinking in the realm of philosophical understanding, which is just as important as the realm of physical understanding.

>>136475220
Looking at things from the other point of view; how does a divine being demonstrate His existence to His creation?

1) by speaking directly to one(or more)man.

2) by personally incarnating in the material world.

3) by telling His people in advance what is going to happen.

>>136476827
That's not how people establish collective knowledge that has some truthfulness. You have nothing except your cultural boss and wishful thinking.
Replace god by leprechauns in your sentence and it's just as logically consistent.

>>136473284
These people became scientists because of their Christain faith. It was the drive for their researches.

>>136478039
Your god isn't the only one that has supposedly done those things. Why are you eschewing hundreds of other gods and religions in favour of your own culturally relevant god and religion?

>>136478926
Bias**

>>136464523
>HAHA GUESS I WAS WRONG, BUT THIS THING I JUST CAME UP WITH IS THE TRUTH AND IF YOU BELIEVE OTHERWISE YOU ARE AN IDIOT
>HAHA GUESS I WAS WRONG THIS TIME, BUT THIS THING I JUST CAME UP WITH IS THE TRUTH AND IF YOU BELIEVE OTHERWISE YOU ARE AN IDIOT
science is the religion of faggots

>>136464523
Okay, so when will you admit you were wrong about evolution (which has never been observed and is solely based on Darwin's idea that it "sounds kinda good").

>>136479117
That's irrelevant. Their motivation could have been to prove the cookie monster, that doesn't make the existence of the cookie monster any more likely. Science and people's personal motivation to do science are entirely separate things.

>>136479438
We are not wrong about evolution.
It's now established as a theory and a scientific fact becsuse of just how likely it is to be true (extremely likely).
That's the last time I'll reply to you since I don't communicate with people that deny reality. You're in the same category as people who believe the world is a flat disc and people who believe Paul McCartney was replaced by a double.

>>136479782
>Theory and a scientific fact
I'm not sure that you understand the scientific method

>>136479940
Once something is a theory in science, it's established as a scientific fact. That means, in light of the mountains of evidence and research, we all basically assume it's true and use it as foundational knowledge to do further science in relevant areas.

>>136480291
That's completely wrong. There's a reason it's called the theory of evolution and not the scientific law of evolution you mongoloid.

>>136479782
>It's now established as a theory and a scientific fact
It's a theory which has not yet 100% conclusively been proven. In fact, creation is just as plausible at this point in time, simply because there are scientific experiments that have shown that macro evolution over species never happen.

Dog only ever produce dogs, and fish only produce fish, and bacteria only ever produce bacteria. There is 0 evidence to support the idea that species ever step outside a certain genetic boundary and starts producing another species.

There are experiments of bacteria that reproduce into a new generation every 20 minutes, where the environment has been artificially changed over 500 generations in an attempt to observe evolution in action, but it never ever happens. There are slight genomic variations over many generations, but they never surpass a certain point into producing a separate type of bacteria.

You're being willfully ignorant.

>>136480291
Although, scientists can never be really sure of this. Scientific facts are only temporary.

>>136480639
Don't call people mongoloids if you're the mongoloid. Makes you look like a mongoloid. Theory does not have the same connotation in science as it does in the everyday sense you're implying. When something becomes a theory in science, it has been accepted by scientists world wide as the best explanation for something and consequently become foundational knowledge in that field.

A law is just a description of some phenomena, it does not explain why something happens. So a scientific theory can be comprised of several laws.

>>136482104
yeah exactly. people used to believe in spontaneous generation, based on observation (sounds like science eh?) but now we know that not to be true.

>>136482104
They're potentially temporary
The scientific fact that water boils at 100 Celsius on earth is unlikely to change.
This reason alone is why science is superior to religion as a means of explaining the universe. If religious lunatics had their way, we'd still be meandering in the pre-industrial civilizations.

>>136482122
A theory can be substantiated by laws but it does not make the theory itself a law. Theory is not a fact, it is a theory, and yes that is within the scientific community. This is why I asked if you knew what the scientific method was because you have no clue what you are talking about. You can believe it as a fact, but that does not make a scientific theory a scientific fact or a scientific law.

>>136482367
>. If religious lunatics had their way, we'd still be meandering in the pre-industrial civilizations

yeah totally, that's why all these groundbreaking scientific advancements were made by men who believed in God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Religious_views

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

Fedoras disgust me.

>Kepler also incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work, motivated by the religious conviction and belief that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason.

>>136482411
A theory is a scientific fact. I never claimed that a theory is a law. I even explained the distinction between the two. A law is just an observation of phenomena. A theory tries to explain the phenomena. If something in science becomes a theory, it is accepted by scientists to be a scientific fact, meaning it's so established with evidence that we assume it to be true.

Evolution will never become a scientific law because it's not just an observation of phenomena, like the law of conservation of energy or whatever, you fucking retard. It tries to explain phenomena, not just simply describe it.

You're talking out of your arse mate.

>>136483222
>A theory is a scientific fact

No it isn't.

>>136482743
>yeah totally, that's why all these groundbreaking scientific advancements were made by men who believed in God.
Yeah during a time when they weren't killed or imprisoned for doing science. Newton did science when religion was weakened and it has continued to be weakened to this very day by science.

>>136483307
A scientific fact is simply a large consensus by scientists, you spastic.
You're confusing the everyday term 'fact' for scientific fact.

>>136483307
Don't bother, guy eats crayons

File: 1500329387755.jpg (23KB, 478x373px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 478x373px

>>136483331
I sense that youre just trying to piss off anons by arguing over nothing

Go back to bed in your basement corner clothes-pile while youre still ahead fuckboy

>>136483331
>Yeah during a time when they weren't killed or imprisoned for doing science.
doesn't change that the fact that they themselves believed in God.
>Newton did science when religion was weakened
he obviously didn't see it that way.
> has continued to be weakened to this very day by science.
only in the minds of historically illiterate fedoras

You know, fedora, just like one (1) religion looks bad in the light of science doesn't mean there isn't a god. You're coming off to me as a disappointed christian, which is hilarious, because I'm pagan and I'm laughing my ass of at how you cannot conceive other god that isn't the christian one.

There is no "before" the big bang, because the big bang is where time itself also began.

The big bang doesn't prove God exists, but it can be a premise in a philosophical argument that has theological conclusions, like in the Kalam cosmological argument, watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

The Big Bang proves that the universe had a beginning, and by common sense we know that anything that BEGINS to exist, requires a cause, and that cause has to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, etc...

What kind of things fit this category? The only 2 things that come to mind (or atleast Dr. Craig's mind) are: Abstract objects (f.ex. numbers), or an unembodied mind (God). We know that abstract objects like numbers and sets have no causal power, so that leaves an unembodied mind.

I would also add that the cause has to be personal, because that's the only way to get a temporal effect from an infinite cause. (God is qualitatively infinite, not quantitatively since God isn't a set of numbers, and in any case an actual infinite set of numbers is logically impossible, hence why also the universe and time cannot be eternal).

From this we have pretty strong evidence (not proof, evidence) that the universe was created by an unembodied mind. If we want to further show that it was the Christian God, then we would have to look at other historical and philosophical arguments, but we atleast show that Theism is true here.

Have a nice day!

Agnostics are the ones that Jesus despises the most.

Agnostics are the ones who Jesus despises the most.

>>136486563

I thought Jesus didn't despise anybody

File: 1463193101517.jpg (75KB, 649x708px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 649x708px

>>136467183
>do you believe there is no God?
>yes
>then you have a belief system
>n-no atheism is the lack of belief
>yes, the belief that there is no God and the lack of belief in God are the same thing
>no you stupid christcuck, atheism is the lack of belief!
>Do you believe there is no God?
>yes
>then you have a belief you can't possibly prove and therefore a religion or ideology
>lol no it's a lack of belief
Atheists

>>136486948
That's what fuzzy Christian God is love merchants want you to believe.

>>136488338
we need a spongebob edit of this. I might actually make it.+

>>136479275
kekmate

>>136479275
>>136479275
>Being this dense on the matter of how the scientific method works.
Wew, lad.

>>136464957
This. Atheists jump into conclusions too quickly and deduce the wrong point.

>>136464957
atheism isnt science

and the word games begin

>>136466024
atheists dont have self-awareness. your statement sounds like a religion. denying god is one thing, never having ever heard of god is another thing.

>>136466532
Atheists ask for arguments, we give em, they dont like it.

>>136491768
> never having ever heard of god is another thing.

to expand on that, I'd say that someone not having heard of God is an impossibility. The existence of God is self-evident.

of course, this supposes that people actually put forward the brainpower to ponder these things, which can't be said of many kids and young teens. But there's no way that any adult has not "heard of God"

>>136466931
God is not to be proved. he is to be earned.

>>136463716
lol you seem assblasted
"God cucks" are not necessarily religious nuts.
What you only want to desribe as a scientific phenomenom like a fucking aspie can be considered "God" to some people
>not actual evidence or experiments for any of their claims
Well, do you have? Until science gets everything down perfectly, you have to accept spirituality as a way to fill in the blanks
Grow up and open your mind, fag