[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Click for more| Home]

Theism Is Irrational

This is a red board which means that it's strictly for adults (Not Safe For Work content only). If you see any illegal content, please report it.

Thread replies: 472
Thread images: 50

File: 1377037955198.jpg (73KB, 514x514px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1377037955198.jpg
73KB, 514x514px
Going to make some arguments against theism, inb4 endless ebin fedora maymays
What objective evidence do we have for the existence of a deity?
Objective/empirical evidence? None. The "knowledge" theists claim to have about God is not demonstrable; no prophet was ever granted serious evidence by the God/gods he spoke on behalf of, despite the reality that providing such evidence is a perfectly logical course of action for a deity/deities that desire huamn worship. The lack of objective evidence given from God to prophet is almost certainly evidence that God does not exist (I'm just going to say God now, Buddhists BTFO). The religious sometimes argue that their God will not prove its existence beyond a doubt because that would rob humans of their free will, but any God that influences human affairs is already guilty of this offense.
I will reiterate: Is there any compelling evidence for the existence of a God? Christians, when not shitposting about fedoras, might assert that the Bible, miracles, and the universe are evidence to their claim of a deity, however in reality the objectivity (truth value) of this "evidence" must be assumed on faith- faith in the religious sense which is divorced from skepticism. The Bible, for instance, we have to take on "faith" that it is the word of God- if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt faith would not be necessary. "Faith" is an unreliable process. In no other aspect of life is faith, in the sense that is used in religion, considered a reliable method for reaching the truth.
If faith is irrational and there is no positive evidence for a God where does that leave us. A God that wants me to implement an irrational process (faith) to come to worship it is no God worth worshipping. (1/2)
>>
>>34099257
The religious point to the lack of negative evidence, evidence which disproves their God. The lack of positive and negative evidence is enough that an atheist can not say "I can demonstrate that God does not exist." and Christians basically want the discussion to stop here, what people don't realize is the subtle principle that is being put forward.
If you are willing to devote your life to a system of belief with no positive evidence, but very little evidence that proves beyond a doubt that it is completely illogical you are putting forward a principle that says "Ideas with no positive evidence and little evidence to the contrary are plausible, and should be seriously considered," either they are putting this principle forward or they are acting upon an irrational preference which is founded in their desire for community/social conformity (most likely the latter).
This principle they are putting forward is completely insane. There are an endless list of ideas/world views that have no positive evidence, but almost no evidence that disprove it. Take Carl Sagan's invisible teapot, leprechauns, Odin, or unicorns for example. All of these ideas share the common factor that they have no positive evidence that is objective and little to no negative evidence to disprove them. If Christians act upon the principle that allows them to justify their religion, they must also seriously consider all the 10,000+God/gods they have previously disregarded.


Also, if you start up with consequentialist (i.e. BUT RELIGION MAKE HAPPY) bullshit you will be cordially invited to fuck off.
>>
>>34099257
I'm a Neoplatonist, debate me
>>
>>34099424
I certainly do not suffer from an over abundance of knowledge on Platonism, mind putting forward a position or argument for me refute?
>>
>>34099257
recreate the lady of guadalupe and I will tip my fedora

its not just a painting, looking at infrared scans of artist like van gogh and da vinci, versus guadalupe, its a bit 2spooky4me
>>
Is that how you're going to convince Jesus to let you in inside heaven when you die?
>>
What kind of evidence do you expect there to be?
>>
>>34099554
If a God will send me to suffer for an eternity for healthy intellectual skepticism that God is not worthy of my worship. Marcus Aurelius talked about this, basically any God/gods that do harm to atheists for lacking faith is evil (A God condemns those who do not rely on an unreliable process for reaching the truth? Retarded.)

>>34099596
I'm not sure, I imagine an all-knowing and all-powerful being could present a compelling case, however.
>>
File: 1402567938175.jpg (47KB, 466x528px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1402567938175.jpg
47KB, 466x528px
>>34099533
>2014
>not realizing the Form of the Good
>>
>>34099537

>This is objective proof
Ehm, could you elaborate on how my lack of belief in a God is irrational because of a painting?
>>
>>34099794
That's not an argument, we both know.

The whole "world of higher forms" stuff is not a valid concept to my knowledge, but I am open to evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>34099679
If you don't know what would constitute knowledge, how do you know that you don't know.
>>
>>34099679
>I imagine an all-knowing and all-powerful being could present a compelling case
What is he doesn't want to?
>>
>>34099902
I assume you're responding about
>>34099596
An all-knowing being would have the knowledge of what would be convincing evidence of itself to me, I mean that's kind of axiomatic isn't it?

Also a reminder that a being that is all-knowing does not have the power to change its own actions (be all-powerful) because if you can change your actions you don't already know what you're going to do.
>>
>>34099853

>to your knowledge

who are you and why should we care about what you know?
>>
>>34099799
Ehm, could you explain how it is a painting? Because its not
>>
>>34100028
I am asking for evidence to set me right, anon. Instead of telling me the obvious, why don't you provide some evidence that Platonism is valid?

Holy shit, I wasn't saying "I have a lack of knowledge about Platonism, therefore it is illogical," you can't be this stupid, I am assuming you're emotionally attached to the issue or you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>
>>34100009
>because if you can change your actions you don't already know what you're going to do.

But, God is like really smart, and like, he can like, do and not do; so, like, he can know everything, but sometimes, he doesn't know everything because, like, he's God and junk; and, like, I'm making objective statements without any empirical backing.
>>
>>34099679
>If a God will send me to suffer for an eternity...
>that God is not worthy of my worship

Yes he is, because in fact that is a great demonstration of power. You are the worthless, defenseless one.
>>
>>34100122
What is the point of this response?
>>
File: ladyofguanoloop.jpg (151KB, 600x900px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ladyofguanoloop.jpg
151KB, 600x900px
>>34100101
see pic related. I don't know what you're talking about, but if you have objective proof for God please elaborate. I'm willing to be corrected.
>>34100122
:)
>>34100171
If a God demands that I be irrational or suffer he can go fuck himself. You're putting that ellipses in a very opportune place you fucking sophist.
>>
>>34099257
>Theism Is Irrational
>i get asscrucified because of the beliefs of others
Heh.
>>
Universe is too organized for a random explosion nigga.
>>
If God doesnt exist what dimension/where do dreams and thoughts exist??
Stupid niggers.
>>
>>34100220
Who painted that and why is there no undersketch on the infrared scans?
>>
>>34099257
[edge intensifies]
>>
>>34100102

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Swl0Pl4rURo

...& move those goalposts one inch and you lose, negrito...
>>
File: 1386273851277.png (10KB, 215x215px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1386273851277.png
10KB, 215x215px
>>34099257
Good goy, there is no god, only the material
>>
>>34100241
Is this an argument as to why theism is rational?
Are you implying that the beliefs of a massive number of irrational theists do not effect me every day?
See ISIS
>>34100262
I am not making claims to objective knowledge about the origins of the universe, I am merely pointing out that the theistic perspective is irraitonal.
>>34100280
Is that a serious argument?
>>34100292
Not sure. Tell me how this objectively points to the existence of a God?
>>34100306
That's right bro, when ice hits steel, maximum edge.
>>
File: dead4.jpg (66KB, 576x385px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
dead4.jpg
66KB, 576x385px
>>34099257
If there's no God then how did this happen?
>>
>>34100350
You seem to know the answer to >>34100280 so, tell me.
>NO NO NOT SERIOUS ARGUMENT U-UH GOD DOESNT EXIST
>>
>>34100350
>I am merely pointing out that the theistic perspective is irraitonal.
Any more rational than a random explosion from nothing making everything in the structure it is now?
>>
File: 1398914220016.jpg (26KB, 367x500px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1398914220016.jpg
26KB, 367x500px
>>34099257
le epic atheism XD
>>
>>34100009
That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. It's about you. You say 'I know!' or 'I don't know!' and you base it on some criteria of knowing. If you say you don't know what the criteria are, I'm asking how you can know or not. If YOU have some criteria, let's hear it, otherwise you are basing your argument on nothing
>>
>>34100414
Well, my inability to explain the human perception of dreams and thoughts is not objective proof for a God. However, I would posit that it is most likely a subjective experience due to the complex interaction of neurons/brain whatever.
>>34100435
If the Big Bang Theory has objective evidence to the contrary I would suggest that you go win yourself a Nobel prize with that evidence. Also, my inability to explain something doesn't make your explanation valid.
>>
this is great, OP. I needed to be reminded that specimens such as yourself remained.
>>
Your post is the scientism fallacy
>The only knowledge that can be gained is from evidence
or something similar. Its self refuting as that statement isnt scientific. Its a variant on hume's fork which is also a failure. I didnt read the rest of your post because your premise is irrational.
>>
>>34100350
If there was no undersketch it was not painted but placed there by god
>>
>>34100102
I'm questioning your base of morality (and the phenomenology of such) through the assumption that you consider man to solely be a process and the result of natural and amoral developments i.e. natural selection.
>>
>>34100538
I'm not denying the Big bang happened, I'm saying what came from it doesn't seem to be the work of random collisions. The cosmos is too ordered.
>Also, my inability to explain something doesn't make your explanation valid.
It can make us equally invalid, no?
>>
>>34100543
>The only knowledge that can be gained is from evidence
That IS the only form of knowledge.
Anything else you can never know if it in fact correlates with reality or not - you have to actually look at reality.
>>
>>34100835
There can be no proven evidence I had a dream last night.
Doesn't mean I didn't;t have one.
>>
>>34100340
I'm not extremely familiar with Godel's theorem, but instead of googling a counter-argument here is my response:
Philosophy is founded on certain assumptions, such as that truth is preferable to untruth. Essentially, knowledge boils down to certain assumptions within our own giant logical system. Your option is either to accept that there are some assumptions or be crippled (We still have to assume certain things about aviation, we don't have all the laws/theorems worked out yet). Sorry if I'm off-point.

Also I see a potential for a false dichotomy with the independent justification/platonic forms decision.
>>34100564
K, please go get a Nobel prize with your objective proof for God, mention me in your acceptance speech.
But seriously, if this is proof for God why don't you present it to the national academy of sciences?
>>34100663
I don't claim objective knowledge about the origins of the universe, at least I haven't in this thread.

>>34100835
Agreed
>>
>>34100835
If it's the only form, why make the category of empirical?
>>
>>34100835

Define evidence. Also, how can we know if we are not hallucinating?

Also, you lost by not addressing my proof of Platonic forms. :^)
>>
>>34100901
>There can be no proven evidence I had a dream last night.
Yes there can.
>Doesn't mean I didn't;t have one.
How do you know you had one if you don't have any evidence for it?
>>
File: 1405966136677.png (109KB, 812x1344px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1405966136677.png
109KB, 812x1344px
>>34099257
>>
>>34100906
>I don't claim objective knowledge about the origins of the universe
Neither have I. I'm assuming you believe in the Big Bang, do you not?.
>>
File: 1399616504350.jpg (89KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1399616504350.jpg
89KB, 1024x768px
>>34099257
RADICAL Theism is very irrational
RADICAL Atheism is also very irrational
We can discover every single piece of scientific evidence and combine all of our knowledge of the entire universe and STILL would not be able to prove, or disprove, God, the entire concept is a logical fallacy
If Atheists are right; then God is a product of man
If Theism is right, then God does not exist inside this universe and thus cannot adhere to this universes laws
We will ALWAYS have religion, even if we took every single religious man on Earth and went back in time to the Big Bang to show them all it happened, we'd still have religion, it is simply not possible to disprove God, this is why Atheists and Theists will always mindlessly bicker and debate about it, it goes knowhere

Agnostic Apatheist is the only rational belief system
>>
>>34100999
I think it's plausible with quantum physics being as bizarre as they are, I'm not a physicist so I can't really speak with authority on the manner.
>>
>>34100948
>Yes there can.
Like?
>How do you know you had one if you don't have any evidence for it?
I remember it.
>>
>>34100937
>Also, how can we know if we are not hallucinating?
Doesn't matter - if reality is an hallucination then that would be the basis for empirical evidence.
The point is that logical deduction or philosophical arguments are completely useless at generating knowledge unless they start from empirical premises.
You can make any perfect logical argument of "If A therefore B", but unless you can show that A actually models reality you haven't said anything about reality.
>>
>>34101059
On the Dawkins scale I'm a 6. I don't claim to know that God does not exist, just that it is very unlikely. I'm a de facto atheist.
>>
>>34101084
>Like?
Dreaming has distinct blood flow and brain wave patterns.
>I remember it.
Memories are physical configurations in the brain, so that is empirical evidence.
>>
>>34100937
OP here.
You didn't reply to me. I responded to your proof of Platonic forms
>>34100906
first part.
>>
>>34101154
Wouldn't that technically make you an Agnostic Atheist?
Agnostic Atheism I think is far more rational than Radical Atheism, radical atheists are just stupid
>>
>>34101199
>Dreaming has distinct blood flow and brain wave patterns.
Assuming you weren't testing me while I was asleep, how could you tell?
>Memories are physical configurations in the brain
Can you tap into these?
>>
>>34100488
>An all-knowing being would have the knowledge of what would be convincing evidence of itself to me, I mean that's kind of axiomatic isn't it? (me)

>That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. It's about you. You say 'I know!' or 'I don't know!' and you base it on some criteria of knowing. If you say you don't know what the criteria are, I'm asking how you can know or not. If YOU have some criteria, let's hear it, otherwise you are basing your argument on nothing

Please be more specific. Too many pronouns/10 this is just confusing
>>
>>34101118
If even hallucinations are valid why in the fuck are you an atheist?
>>
>>34101263
I suppose you could say that, I consider myself a de facto atheist but a de jure agnostic.
>>
File: 1404696279434.jpg (24KB, 300x500px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1404696279434.jpg
24KB, 300x500px
Well of course theism is irrational.

If it was rational then it would SIMPLY be a case of REASONING theists into a point where they accept the obvious tautological sets like life before death, and all the other self-refuting stuff without anything to ground it in reason.

Theism does not exist in a vacuum, but as a result of pressures of life, and the theists, though wrongly, crave a salve to balm the misery of existence.

It is improvements in living standards, not newfound rationality that has resulted in the decreasing spirituality of the world, and assuming atheism was the goal, then improving the living standards of the world would be the method best suited to implement it.
>>
File: 1387395878476.jpg (66KB, 500x500px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1387395878476.jpg
66KB, 500x500px
>>34101059
>>Agnostic Apatheist is the only rational belief system
Fuck yeah, muh nigger! Apatheism, look it up, the question "does God exist" is moot, why the fuck do we care until we are dead?
>>
>>34101297
>Assuming you weren't testing me while I was asleep, how could you tell?
I don't understand your point, missing an opportunity to test an event is a completely different issue.
>Can you tap into these?
Not to extract finer details yet.
>>
>>34101384
I can't be apathetic about Christians legislating religion, or ISIS.
>>
>>34099257
>in no other area of life is faith used

I have faith my wife won't cheat on me
I have faith drinking pure water won't poison me
I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow
>>
>>34101320
If reality is in fact an hallucination then I would definitely be an atheist.
>>
>>34101368
But this doesn't disprove theism. It's a theory you can't prove really.
>>
>>34101479
You don't have to be, Apatheism refers to simply a belief or disbeleif in God, it has nothing to do with how you feel about people
>>
>>34101519
Nice bait mate.
There's two definitions of faith, the religious and secular versions. You are conflating the two.

Religious faith is specifically in the absence or in spite of evidence.

100/10 made me reply.
>>
>>34099257

>Makes argument against the existence of God based on refuting books that were written by man.
>>
>>34101427
>I don't understand your point, missing an opportunity to test an event is a completely different issue.
If I said I had a dream last night and no one was testing my brain how could you tell if I actually had a dream or am lying?
>>
File: Carl Schmitt.jpg (79KB, 453x551px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Carl Schmitt.jpg
79KB, 453x551px
>>34101519
This, retarded fucker hasn't realized all political ideology are directly related to theology
>>
>>34101592
I was refuting theism, specifically Christianity.

Deism is more plausible since it does not require as many leaps of faith as theism, but there's still no objective evidence for it.
>>
>>34099679
>God will send me to hell because I'm skeptical

Incorrect. You, and every other human is going to hell based on their sins. Jesus is an escape from that, but you have to accept the free gift of salvation or you're screwed.
>>
>>34101650
What does that have to do with empiricism being the only way of generating knowledge?
>>
>>34101753
If I live in accordance with the societal/moral bounds of the world I live in at the time and don't adopt, let's say an irrational theistic position, why would a God who provided no objective evidence for its existence be upset that I did not accept its existence?
>>
>God-Tier
Apatheism
>High-Tier
Agnostic Apatheism
Agnostic Atheism
>Mid-Tier
Agnostic Theism
>Fedora-Tier
Radical Atheism
>Al-Qaeda-Tier
Radical Theism
>I literally have no idea what I'm fucking talking about-Tier
Pure Agnosticism
>>
>>34101773
Can you empirically prove if I had or had not had that dream last night?
>>
>>34101910
Memories are empirical.
>>
>>34101938

So why can false memories be created?
>>
File: 1359855055142 (1).png (124KB, 968x647px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1359855055142 (1).png
124KB, 968x647px
>>34101650
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course it does. Someone not being around to observe a well-documented effect explained and repeatedly demonstrated by the laws of physics doesn't make it not happen.

I don't really get your point. If you had a dream last night, then you had a dream. If you didn't, and you claim that you did, you're lying. Are you saying that our inability to prove what you said somehow disproves empirical evidence? Because that is a conceited notion.
>>
File: 1404697494932.jpg (108KB, 485x700px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1404697494932.jpg
108KB, 485x700px
>>34100220
many have pointed out that this picture is symbolic of a yoni. Note the position of her hands... But is she standing on a baby? Lol.

>>34100414
Are you seriously trying to label natural neural processes as metaphysical somehow? Fuckoffff

>>34100539
OHHH! You totally burned that person criticising your position as being full of shit there! YEEEAH! FEEL THAT SCATHE, ATHEISTS!
>>
>>34102073
Same reason corrupt images on your computer can be created - signal errors.
>>
What a horrible thread.
>But you can't prove God DOESN'T exist.
>M-muh edgy fedoras!

Is that really supposed to be a satisfactory argument?
Your belief has no basis in our perceived reality. Before you say 'what if it exists outside our perception?', then understand that there's no way of demonstrating that one way or the other, so there is no reason to believe it.

I honestly don't understand how anyone can accept this kind of stuff any more.
I understand religion's influence on law and morals and society and family, but the first world should be at a point where we can base such things on reason and empathy, without having to rely on the mental crutch of an almighty rule-giver.
>>
>>34100906
K, please reproduce it if you think it so simple
>>
>>34102173
I am not the one presenting claims of objective knowledge, you are. If this painting somehow is a proof of God, I don't see why you or whoever figured it out isn't sitting on a pile of scientific awards.
>>
>>34102078
No, I'm saying it disproves that empiricism is the only way of knowing something.
>>
Hey Christians, how does it feel to worship a sandnigger god?
>>
>>34102170
>But you can't prove God DOESN'T exist.
>M-muh edgy fedoras!
But those aren't the arguments being presented, at least not by me. It's more an argument to disprove radical atheism.
>>
>>34102164

So basically, you cannot use empiricism alone to determine reality.
>>
>>34102268
How does it do that?
I think you may be confusing epistemology with methodology.
>>
>>34102453
OP here.
My position is that of an agnostic atheist, I was not trying to present radical atheism as valid. I do not have objective proof that God does not exist.
>>
>>34102268
But it doesn't. Because assuming that you were telling the truth about having a dream, it can be proved that you did based on evidence given by the repeatedly demonstrated (and observed) effects explained by the laws of physics.

Obviously we can't prove it NOW, because the dream is over, but our prior knowledge BASED on empirical evidence tells us what we need to know.

Are you saying that this isn't the same as empirical evidence? That observation and using knowledge gained by previous observations to support a hypothesis are different?
>>
>>34102468
No, only empiricism can be used to determine reality.
>>
>>34102530

False statement.

Captcha: maendom cumstance
>>
>>34102591
>False statement.
Elaborate.
>>
>>34102453
see:
>>34101059

I still think Apatheism makes the most sense
>>
File: 1363001775406.jpg (6KB, 256x192px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1363001775406.jpg
6KB, 256x192px
>>34101546
who said disprove theism? Theism exists in the realm of UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS.
The gods that obviously dont exist are evidence towards reasonable doubt in the next possible god.

However, if the misery of life were lessened, then the societal needs that require a 'well this world is hard but the next one will be better' (generally the underlying principles of most successful religions, providing you adhere their dictates) then overall that would be a shitty car to try and sell to the happy peon.
>>
>>34102508
>it can be proved that you did based on evidence given by the repeatedly demonstrated (and observed) effects explained by the laws of physics.
But it can't, because I may or may not have had the dream and you cannot prove I did or didn't.
>>
Where was God during the caveman era?

Checkmate theists
>>
File: popcorn_seinfeld.gif (495KB, 500x375px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
popcorn_seinfeld.gif
495KB, 500x375px
This fucking thread.
>>
>>34102640
Intellectual integrity > Happy peons
>>
>>34101753
Why would god need a spaceship?

(see what I did there? You used a source to base your claims, and so did I. Captain kirk is way cooler than some long haired jew)
>>
File: 1404335335863.jpg (232KB, 509x480px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1404335335863.jpg
232KB, 509x480px
> le objective evidence
>>
File: 1379366276101.gif (529KB, 625x626px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1379366276101.gif
529KB, 625x626px
Objective evidence?

It is simply deduction that is used to determine that an intelligent creator created Earth.

How do you explain the universe being as stable as it is to be able to support life as we know it? In fact, the chance of the universe being the way it is is 10^15, which is really REALLY fucking unlikely.

Using occam's Razor we can establish that it is infinitely more likely that this universe was made this way on purpose than it just being that way by accident. Whether by God(s) or some nerd Cthulian programmer who's working on our universe as some science experiment.
>>
>>34102640
SO you're saying a happy and luxurious society would be more inclined to atheism because of the lack of suffering theism soothes?
Although this may be true, it still does not disprove theism.
>>
>>34102656
That is irrelevant. We're talking about epistemology here, as in what is the possible ways you can theoretically generate knowledge.
Whether or not you can manage to prove a particular event has no bearing on the epistemology itself, that would just be a practical or technological failure.
>>
File: Diadochen.jpg (727KB, 2000x961px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Diadochen.jpg
727KB, 2000x961px
>>34099257

The book of Daniel contain prophecies(the prophecies of Alexander the Great in chapter 8 and prophecies of Antiochus' campaigns in Egypt in chapter 11) that are so accurate that naturalists have no choice but to assume the dating of the book of Daniel to after 160 B.C., after Antiochus' campaign despite it being included in the Septuagint 100 years earlier.

Daniel 8 highlights
>The goat stands for the king of Greece.
so it must be a Greek king

>The large horn between his eyes is the first king.
Alexander

>20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
Alexander conquered Media and Persia

>22 Four horns took its place when it was broken off. They stand for four kingdoms that will come from his nation. But those kingdoms will not be as powerful as his.

When Alexander died, his nation split into 4 kingdoms: The Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Seleucid Empire, Kingdom of Pergamon, and Macedonia.

also the part that says
>24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power.
is referring to Alexander's father, Philip II. Alexander had everything needed for world conquest handed to him by his daddy.

>25 ...Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.
Alexander died not in combat, but from disease.

Additionally the language in the Book of Daniel has Persian influence, but very little greek influence, which would be expected in a 2nd century text. The Hebrew matches that of 6th century Hebrew(yes, languages change over time), and the Aramaic is similar to the 5th century Aramaic used in Ezra.
>>
File: 1361759828562.jpg (7KB, 249x203px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1361759828562.jpg
7KB, 249x203px
>>34101862
Because being rational is the ONLY THING that the organized religion...er I MEAN GOD
can't forgive you for!!
>>
>>34102830
>the chance of the universe being the way it is is 10^15
>Using occam's Razor we can establish that it is infinitely more likely that this universe was made this way on purpose than it just being that way by accident.
Cool assumptions.
>>
>>34102872
Then I may have gotten my shit mixed up methodology, apologies.
>>
>>34102830
>How do you explain the universe being as stable as it is to be able to support life as we know it? In fact, the chance of the universe being the way it is is 10^15, which is really REALLY fucking unlikely.

Unlike theists, I don't make claims to objective knowledge about why the universe is stable. But the theory that
>The universe can't always have been there
>But a creator CAN always have been there
>The most evolved being that never evolved
Doesn't really make sense...
>>34102902
underrated post :)
>>
>>34102830
But the universe as we see it now is most likely infinitely large so the chances of our solar system existing is very possible.
>>
>>34102994
I'm talking about the structure of the universe itself, like how gravity works.
>>
>>34102830
>OH NO, GOD OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T EXIST, BECAUSE THIS UNIVERSE DOESN'T HAVE LIFE IN IT!
Said nobody ever, for fucking obvious reasons.
See how retarded it is? Think about what you say before you say it.
>>
>>34102994
>infinitely large
If you discard the big bang.
>>
>>34102868
still not concerned with disproving an unsubstantiated claim.
I said that in the post u replied to.
>>
>>34102993
>>The most evolved being that never evolved
I never claimed a creator never evolved, also, a creator would not be bound by the law's of our universe or logic since they exist outside of it.
>>
>>34103124
What? The universe is increasing in size and the rate of its increase is accelerating... How would the big bang contrast with this idea?
>>
>>34103177
>they exist outside of it.
Completely incoherent concept.
>>
>>34103187
Because that would mean the universe is finite.
>>
>>34101938
>Qualia is empirical
wow, such science
many measurements
>>
>>34103177
>Claiming knowledge about a creator in a dimension you have no proof exists

What the fuck? Are you just shifting the goalpost? If God exists outside this universe then he can't have any measurable effect on it, or have created it.
>>
>>34103177
If they exist outside the universe, then surely that rules out the idea of a personal god(s), like the one described by pretty much every religion ever.
Also 'outside the universe' doesn't really make sense.
>>
>>34103122
Well the way the universe being the way it is at all it very, very unlikely.

One in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.

Even if life didn't exist by chance, that's more likely than all the systems of the universe being the way they are.

>BUT IF IT WASN'T THAT WAY WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OBSERVE THIS MIRACULOUS OCCURRENCE

I don't understand how that could possibly necessitate the absence of God(s). We're supposed to be open minded rational people right?
>>
>>34103268
>Matter is compressed at one point in time
>Starts expanding and expansion accelerates
>Therefore the universe is limited
What? I don't see where you're getting this from.
>>
>>34103098

Anthropic principle, moron. If the universe didn't evolve in the manner that it did you wouldn't be around to misunderstand basic logic and spout retarded opinions on the internet.

Furthermore, you have no idea what a universe is. There could be 10, 1000, 100000000000000000, or infinite universes, all with their own properties.
>>
>>34103187
The universe can be measured, it's finite, the mass within it is finite. The universe may as well be infinitely large to our minds but it's still actually finite.
>>
>>34103337
>unlikely
What are you basing that on? Where's your sample of other universes?

Also, source/calculation on those numbers please.
>>
>>34103343
If it's still expanding then it's not infinite, as infinity cannot expand.
>>
>>34103281
God =\= deity

Define the terms, win the argument.
>>
>>34103438
But something can expand infinitely.
>>
Theists are pretty much all dumb. Christians the most.
>>
>>34103438
>>34103404
If I have a function called the universe that's expanding at an exponential rate for all eternity how is that not infinite?
>>34103454
>Claiming knowledge about a creator in a dimension you have no proof exists

>What the fuck?
>Are you just shifting the goalpost? If a creator exists outside this universe then he can't have any measurable effect on it, or have created it.

Happy?
>>
File: 1408175602245.jpg (37KB, 500x611px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1408175602245.jpg
37KB, 500x611px
>>34099257
>i don't believe in god
>i must make a thread so everyone can validate me or my belief
ahaha.
>>
>>34103263
If you're a retarded /pol/ troll maybe
.>>34103281
He/it must've since something cannot come from nothing
>>34103300
Yes it does, scientists believe in the multiverse, the multiverse doesn't logically make any sense, that doesn't mean it's still not there.
>>
OP is intelligent but is not direct enough with his argument and too acceptant of stupidity. Stick with God, and don't move onto Theists provided 'proof' (bible quoting, truths about God, how God acts, etc).
>>
>>34103411
Wouldn't surprise me if it was Lee Strobel or someone like that.
>>
>>34103543
>I shouldn't want to correct anyone's invalid beliefs
But I don't live on an island in the middle of the pacific ocean, or else I wouldn't have to read your shitty post
>>
>>34103475
>>34103529
because the universe will always be of finite size.
>>
>>34103548
>If you're a retarded /pol/ troll maybe
Define what existing "outside of the universe" precisely means.
>>
>>34103379
The Anthropic principle is easily refuted.

The universe being the way it is is as likely as you being thrown unprotected into the core of the sun, and there you are thinking "well, I'm still alive, that's a little weird *shrug*" instead of being "HOLY FUCKING SHIT, WHY DID THIS HAPPEN!"
>>
There is no evidence for God.
There is no evidence to suggest God, so even as a guess, it's irrational.
Creation is not God-exclusive, it's actually okay to think about something being the cause to the big bang, such as energy, or something, but where in, during our reverse-engineering of the universe, do we reach God? We don't. It's fiction, nothing implies God, God implies itself. The worlds best forced meme.
>>
>>34103551
Appreciate the compliment I suppose. How could I be more direct with my argument? (I am being serious, I am open to criticism.)

>>34103548
I'm responding to you after you responded to my post
>>34103281
Why didn't the creator have to come from something? Are you suggesting an infinite number of creators?

>>34103655
Except only one of those is possible.
>>
>>34103379
>There could be 10, 1000, 100000000000000000, or infinite universes, all with their own properties.

But I thought that was supposed to be illogical hogwash

>le materialist smileyman faec

The universe isn't some cold mechanical machine m8, at the smallest level you will not see particles, but mathematical probabilities.
>>
>>34103337
If we're to assume time is infinite, then statistics like >one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion are kind of meaningless. In whatever space the universe exists and was created in, it would be like an infinitely running random number generator--a generator which, despite inconceivable odds, would eventually result in the way our universe was developed. Time is subjective, the "odds" of something happening don't prevent it from occurring if those odds have forever to be generated.
>>
>>34103529
That's like a car speeding up slowly from 20 miles per hour and at 100 miles per hour the passenger is all "whelp, I guess we're moving at infinite miles per hour" infinity is not a number, it's a concept.
>>
>>34102530
k so we're throwing history out the window?
>>
>>34103698
>le hookman
>>
>>34103655
>The universe being the way it is is as likely
No, you have *no idea* what the possibility space for "universe properties" are, you have no idea how many "trials" there has been, you have no idea if physical laws even have the possibility to vary.
It's a complete unknown, any number put on the chances of a universe supporting life is complete bullshit.
And the only thing you really need is a non-zero possibility, then it could have happened, no matter how small a chance.
>>
>>34103590
So you had to make a thread because you want attention or you feel insecure of your "atheism". Top lel, nigger.
>>
>>34099257

Guess I'll post this again since no one ever replies

The whole concept of a prime mover(which is the Aristolic term for god) is meant to answer the infinite regress of cause and effect.

The prime mover is the first cause, but is exempt from requiring a cause. Something that is not bound by time is immune to the laws of cause and effect.

Until entropy can be proven to be reversible, the universe will be suggested to have a beginning and an ending- an initial point of 0 entropy and a terminal point of maximum entropy.

But because this prime mover is not bound by time, it's impossible to find, just like dark matter is. It's a hypothesis, like ether and corpuscles once were, and like dark matter is today. We don't know, but it works with our model of science, but it's unprovable. Eventually we'll come up with something better, or maybe we'll even find a way to verify the existence of a prime mover.
>>
To the fine-tuned universe guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg

It's a bretty good video. Shame he stopped making them.
He gets to the fundamental constants bit towards the end.
>>
>>34103680
Too edgy even for atheists, you might cut someone be careful man.
>>
>>34103795
History is based on empirical evidence.
>>
File: amaterasu_mary.jpg (22KB, 269x184px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
amaterasu_mary.jpg
22KB, 269x184px
>>34099537

Our mother, whatever guise she appears in, exists. This is proveable.

I doubt her relation to a Jew war god is debateable however, since she appears in all cultures and far before Yeshua.
>>
>>34103792
Is something that expands faster and faster for all time not boundless? Any boundary is removed instantly, essentially?
>>34103852
Not sure which part you're responding to.
>>34103881
If a theist presents an argument against an atheist does that mean he is insecure in his beliefs?

Well I guess your "Argument" proves that you're insecure in your beliefs.

Checkmate, nigger.
>>
File: 1377581567440.jpg (27KB, 396x396px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1377581567440.jpg
27KB, 396x396px
>>34103746
But does that really necessitate the absence of a creator?

Who created this generator you speak of?

>i dunno xD it can't be god though xD
>>
>>34103886
>The prime mover is the first cause, but is exempt from requiring a cause. Something that is not bound by time is immune to the laws of cause and effect.
So basically a false dichotomy? The prime mover is just a special snowflake?

Also, most importantly, prime mover =! personal God. So your argument has no bearing on the validity of theism.
>>
>>34103886
It's not an explanation though, it's a stopgap.

>works with out model of science
>unprovable
No, it doesn't work with science, it's a untestable idea that is incompatible with science. It can't be proven or disproven, so it is useless to science.
>>
>>34103860
>What is quantum physics
>BUH! GOD CAN'T EXIST BECAUSE I SAY SO!
>How?
>BECAUSE OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE THINGS DON'T NEED TO MAKE SENSE
>>
>atheists believe God is a man in the clouds with a beard
>>
>>34103698
In the famous words of every Theist...

You'll know...
>>
>>34103917
Yer mum is based on my DICK
>>
>>34104058
>Claiming knowledge of how things outside the universe can or have interacted with us
>Shifting the goalpost of God outside of this universe because you live in the 21st century
Seems reasonable...
>>
>We don't know, so it's gotta be God rite guise!?
Will you never learn? Every aspect of nature used to be assigned to a god, but science unveiled the bullshit, and it's only a matter of time before it happens to your god too, until it won't even have the room to be a "prime mover".
>>
>>34103886
>The prime mover is the first cause, but is exempt from requiring a cause
Which is no different from "something from nothing".
And nothing seems like the simplest "thing" which can violate causality.
>>
>>34104209
#rekt
>>
>>34104025
>The prime mover is just a special snowflake?

If the universe were eternal, it would become a special snowflake whose origins don't have to obey cause and effect. But it's not eternal.

>prime mover =! personal God. So your argument has no bearing on the validity of theism.

Correct, but it's much easier to go from deism to theism than it is to go from atheism to theism.
>>
I'm open to the idea of god, I think. But am I uncertain my whole life and just "hope" I'm right, or will I ever actually KNOW God is real?
>>
>>34103917
History is a set of lies agreed upon. - Napoleon Bonaparte
>>
>>34104294
>If the universe were eternal, it would become a special snowflake whose origins don't have to obey cause and effect. But it's not eternal.
>It's not eternal
If something has to be eternal there's no logical/empirical reason that it has to be a conscious creator.
>>
>>34103886
You could just as easily say that the universe has always existed in some form or another, "before" the big bang, meaning there is no need for something outside the universe to exist.
>>
>>34104314
God is not demonstrable. You can not know God exists, or that God does not exist, but it is safe to say that there is not a compelling case for a God and that God is merely a bad guess made from today- the beginning of time.
>>
>>34104294
>Correct, but it's much easier to go from deism to theism than it is to go from atheism to theism.

Not him but if it's so easy, some theologian would've done it already, and no one has even come close.
>>
You gotta define god first, before you start talking about its existence.
That's basic shit man, come on.
>>
Theists always end their arguments for God with some loose implication---"You'll know, when you bump into what I bumped into"---logic. It's just weasel words...
>>
>>34103746
I'd rather not explain quantum physics with you, so instead I'll take this route of logic:

If you're to imply that this "generator" which created the universe (which, for one, wasn't actually a tangible subject but an attribute of the existing phase-space before "the universe," and two was completely hypothetical and invented on-the-spot by myself) needs to be created, then I argue that THAT creator needs a creator. And that creator and that creator and that creator, and it would span backwards in an infinite chain of creators creating creators creating creators. A God would not be exempt from this.

Just because it does not DISPROVE a creator doesn't mean it needs a creator in order to explain its existence. But that goes into quantum physics, which I'm not really an authority on to adequately explain.
>>
>>34104550
Fucked up, meant to quote:
>>34103973
>>
>>34104538
everybody ends up saying stupid shit in these arguments

they're completely pointless and there's no winning. atheists believe they have "won" because no evidence to God was given, and theists believe they have "won" because no evidence was given that God doesn't exist.
>>
>>34104538
I like theists who admit straight off the bat that it comes down to faith.
At least they don't waste your time with false science and mental masturbation.

>>34104628
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. So yeah, atheism looks like the more reasonable position at the end of these arguments.
>>
>>34104424
>If something has to be eternal there's no logical/empirical reason that it has to be a conscious creator.
Of course not, and that's why you have to use Christianity to explain why we can assume that the prime mover is conscious.

>>34104424
>"before" the big bang, meaning there is no need for something outside the universe to exist.

The issue is that there's no such thing as 'before', as time didn't exist until the big bang triggered t = 0.

We don't live in a spherical universe, we live in a flat one with great certainty. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html Therefore the universe cannot be cyclical.
>>
>>34104243
>>34104424
You see what happens when you deny a creator at all cost? You start saying silly shit.

1.) The universe needs to be created by something, that's just how the universe is, it's it's very nature, it is begun, it will end

2.) There was a big bang, and there is no evidence to show this is not the case. No empirical data. Assuming otherwise is just grasping at nonsense to back up your opinion.
>>
You'll know God exists when Jesus comes to you.

/thread
>>
>>34099257
Someone just turned 16 and realised what everyone has known for years.

Take your edge elsewhere, this is a tired debate and nobody takes religion seriously anymore.
>>
File: 1373488902391.jpg (217KB, 1448x1184px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1373488902391.jpg
217KB, 1448x1184px
>>34103952
>Well I guess your "Argument" proves that you're insecure in your beliefs.
You present nothing, you are just another generic angry fedora weakling stuck with an obsolete positivist paradigm (which died in the 1970's). I laugh at your attention whoring and your damage control. No amount of proof of evidence will ever convince you, you already defeated yourself. Ahaha.
>>
>>34104739
>created by something
>>
>>34104432
>but it is safe to say that there is not a compelling case for a God and that God is merely a bad guess made from today- the beginning of time.

But there is a compelling case. The universe being the way it is is 1 in 10^15. Saying the universe was shat out by some dumb multiverse machine that doesn't make any sense is sillier than just saying "god did it"
>>
>>34104810
>Fedora status: *tipped*
>>
>>34104852
the universe doesn't make sense, of course it's natural
>>
>>34104737
Hence the quotation marks around before mate.
>have to use Christianity
Or you could use a different brand of bullshit. Just saying. "We don't know" is the only honest answer. An explanation that relies on a faith is not an explanation.

>>34104739
>The universe needs to be created by something
According to what exactly? Creation implies intent. You have no reason to believe that.
>>
>>34104763
Jesus is fapping to me? Eugh gross!
>>34104803
You are just using ad hominems.
Did not read more than 10 words/10
>>
>>34104927
>if I portray atheists as "uncool", it will mean my blind faith is correct!
>>
>>34104739
And this implies God why? A creator is not God-exclusive. We took the concept of creation AND THEN applied it to God. We can rationally reach the conclusion, "the big bang needs a cause", but by no means does this imply God. A negro seems like a white man, but the two are different. God seems like what happened before the universe, but that's truly, "what happened before the universe".
>>
>>34104716
>Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. So yeah, atheism looks like the more reasonable position at the end of these arguments.

It must be a belief since atheists are so fucking terrified of being labeled as believing in something.
>>
>>34099679
>If a God will send me to suffer for an eternity for healthy intellectual skepticism that God is not worthy of my worship.

I don't think you understand the doctrine of heaven and hell. Heaven is spending eternity with God, while hell is spending eternity without God. If you don't love God, why would you want to go to heaven? It'd be an eternal torture for you, like being forced into a marriage with someone you don't love. Likewise, if you love God, you wouldn't want to go to hell, because it'd be eternal torture to spending eternity without the one you love.

sheol = hades = hell by translation. All of the bible verses involving Jesus talking about burning in hell in the KJV is really talking about Gehenna, which they decided to also translate to the word 'hell.' Gehenna was a place where the worshippers of baal and moloch performed child sacrifice by fire, and they use it to describe how miserable hell is to believers.

>Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. - Ecclesiastes 9:10

Hell is eternal nothingness without God. It's oblivion.
>>
>>34105040
What?
>>
When will retards finally realize that there will never be evidence for God?
And I'm not even an atheist.
>>
>>34105004
>if I portray theists as ignorant, it will mean my blind faith is correct!
>>
>>34104991
>You are just using ad hominems.
You have zero arguments, I knew it. You are attention whoring, you are just another generic fedora trying to push your atheist religion.
>>
>>34105040
I believe in lots of things, but a god isn't one of them.
It's pretty simple m8.
>>
>>34104960
>Or you could use a different brand of bullshit.
Okay now we can go somewhere from here

What makes you think Christianity is bullshit? "We don't know" is only an honest answer out of ignorance.
>>
>>34105106
But you are ignorant. You're demonstrating it.
You state the universe "has" to have a creator, then use ad hominens on anyone calling you out on this.
>>
>>34105040
>It must be a belief since atheists are so fucking terrified of being labeled as believing in something.

Not him but, I'm an atheist. And I have alot of beliefs. I'm a classical liberal for example, which implies certain beliefs about humanity.

But atheism is not a belief. It is the rejection of belief in deities.
>>
>>34105083
nobody on this board, not even theists, believe there is concrete evidence for God
>>
>>34105116
My entire first two posts were arguments you fucking troll.

6 million/ never forget made me reply you faggot
>>
>>34104232

>it's only a matter of time before it happens to your god too, until it won't even have the room to be a "prime mover".

Attempting to provide evidence of what happened before the fact, after the fact.

Example:

I spilled a soda on the table before you walked into the room. I clearly saw myself spill this soda, yet you're attempting to state that this soda spilled itself.

To restate.

God caused all reality. God sees and saw Himself cause and sustain reality. You're attempting to disprove what He has experience and evidence of while in what He has caused.
>>
>>34105160
Because we are ignorant about these things. Obviously. That's why people turn to faith to try and explain it.
>>
>>34104960
>>The universe needs to be created by something
>According to what exactly? Creation implies intent. You have no reason to believe that.

Because our universe is bound by it's own laws of physics. Again, more silly shit. The universe being constructed the way it is, is less likely than you winning the jackpot every single time for a quadrillion millenniums.

Saying an unintelligent process without intent did it is infinitely more retarded than believing a creator with intent did it.
>>
>>34105195
>>34105083

see >>34102887
>>
>>34105219
>>God caused all reality. God sees and saw Himself cause and sustain reality.
what are you basing this on?
>>
>>34105219
>God caused all reality. God sees and saw Himself cause and sustain reality. You're attempting to disprove what He has experience and evidence of while in what He has caused.
Please provide evidence of this, assertions=/= fact
>>
File: 1406903735124.png (306KB, 673x604px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1406903735124.png
306KB, 673x604px
>What objective evidence do we have for the existence of a deity?
The universe you self righteous fuck. You have no knowledge of the unseen (what happened before the big bang and what happens after death), yet you still claim intellectual superiority. This is how deluded people like you are.
>Objective/empirical evidence?
The universe as a primary example. You can certainly believe that all of it, with its laws and functions, just randomly happened to come existence from absolutely nothing just for the sake of it, but I won't because that's fucking retarded.
>no prophet was ever granted serious evidence by the God/gods he spoke on behalf of
You mean like Musa who split the sea and Mohammed who ascended to the heavens?
>The religious sometimes argue that their God will not prove its existence beyond a doubt because that would rob humans of their free will
But he has - countless times in the past through the miracle of the Prophets. But you don't need miracles (even though the Quran is one in of itself) to come to believe in God - science will do that for you. The more scientific evidence of the universe we've uncovered, the more faithful I've grown. Because to believe such a beautifully complex universe just popped up out of nothing just because is illogical. And you won't convince me with your pseudo
intellect otherwise.
>>
>>34105289
>less likely than you winning the jackpot every single time for a quadrillion millenniums.
I asked last time, but you ignored me. Source/calculations on those numbers please.

What set of universes are you basing these statistics on?
>>
File: 1379719767368.gif (391KB, 500x372px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1379719767368.gif
391KB, 500x372px
>>34105183
>But atheism is not a belief. It is the rejection of belief in deities.

Holy shit, these niggas are serious!
>>
File: 1370802394282.jpg (76KB, 371x622px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1370802394282.jpg
76KB, 371x622px
>>34105203
>My entire first two posts were arguments you fucking troll.
You have nothing, fedoro. Absolutely nothing. A positivist, narrow and closed minded view of things. Just like the "religious" people you despise. You are every fedora ever, nothing new, just parroting what you heard in school.
>>
>>34105347
>from absolutely nothing
but theists are the ones that believe that, not athiests
>>
>>34105347
>The universe as a primary example. You can certainly believe that all of it, with its laws and functions, just randomly happened to come existence from absolutely nothing just for the sake of it, but I won't because that's fucking retarded.
I refuse to believe people still seriously use that piss-poor argument.
>>
>>34105309
The sweet science of deductiooooooooooon!
>>
>>34105219
you can't know any of that
>>
>>34105281
and I would argue that we aren't as ignorant as you think.
>>
File: transparent-bait+.jpg (63KB, 625x626px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
transparent-bait+.jpg
63KB, 625x626px
>>34099257
>>
Reminder that Christianity is a sandnigger religion.
Reminder that you follow the turd that is the religion of the Jews, with a cherry on top.
>>
If you are so sure of your atheism. Why do you need our approval of your ideas?
>>
>>34104550
>A God would not be exempt from this.

That's false. It is entirely coherent that in that example, God can cause the entire chain to form wherein He proceeds from it.

Example. A -> B ->Z, Z is God and A only exists because God caused it to happen when He emerged as Z.

Non-linear Causality.
>>
>>34105371
Atheists are only religious with one of the less common definitions: devotion to a particular cause. Beliefs are real, we have belief and we use it, usually, if we're intelligent, for rational reasons.

Do you believe God doesn't exist?

I'm the only Atheist in this thread who can prove God is stupidity. No disproof needed, just rationality.
>>
File: tips_externally.webm (3MB, 500x281px)
tips_externally.webm
3MB, 500x281px
>>34099257
>>34099325
All that euphoria
>>
>>34105354
The chances of the universe being the way it is is 1 in 10^15 power.
>>
>>34105467
Please go on.
>>
>>34102382

>tfw god used to be a plural word

Christians confirmed for Idiocracy-tier.
>>
>>34105347
>The universe you self righteous fuck. You have no knowledge of the unseen (what happened before the big bang and what happens after death), yet you still claim intellectual superiority. This is how deluded people like you are.
You're deluded, I don't claim to know what or how it happened, you do.
>The universe as a primary example. You can certainly believe that all of it, with its laws and functions, just randomly happened to come existence from absolutely nothing just for the sake of it, but I won't because that's fucking retarded.
There was a peer reviewed study that proves if the constants were a roll of the dice it isn't all that unlikely the universe could support life. Lurk more.
>You mean like Musa who split the sea and Mohammed who ascended to the heavens?
You have to take on faith that that shit actually happened you retard, saying miracles happened isn't proof they happened.
>But he has - countless times in the past through the miracle of the Prophets
Which I have to trust aren't lies/delusions/fantasies
> evidence of the universe we've uncovered, the more faithful I've grown.
Take your anecdotal evidence and shove it up your ass
> Because to believe such a beautifully complex universe just popped up out of nothing just because is illogical. And you won't convince me with your pseudo intellect
Psuedo-intellect is better than a complete absence of it. I am not claiming (believing) knowledge on the origins of the universe, I AM NOT making claims, I am merely saying yours (as a theist) are not proven or logical
>>
>>34105394
explain further
>>
>>34105521
Source/calculations on those numbers please.
What set of universes are you basing these statistics on?
>>
The universe began to exist.
Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Since we are "internal" to the universe and did not proceed it, that cause could not have been any one of us or any life that has ever existed within the universe.

The cause of the universe was not anything of matter, energy, space or time as these came into existence at the point of the Big Bang.
Therefore, the cause of the universe transcends the universe.
>>
>>34099257
Why are you so mad, brah?

It's Ok for some people to believe differently than you.

Someone accusing you of living in sin is offensive, but it does you no actual harm. Unless you believe the SJW shtick that words are as harmful as physical violence. I've had fools tell me I'm going to burn in hell, I laughed at them. It was funny. I don't even remember their name anymore, it had no bearing on my life after that brief moment.

All the religious impact on modern science amounts to nothing. All the objections to using aborted fetuses for genetic research was circumvented almost immediately, as will the next round of objections.
>>
>>34105388
More ad hominems. I'm assuming you're a troll and not retarded.
"Close-minded" is not an argument, it's an adjective you idiot.
>>
>>34105083
>When will retards finally realize that there will never be evidence for God?
>And I'm not even an atheist.

The prophets and their prophecies which came true.

Christ and His miracles.

Christ's resurrection.
>>
>>34105583
I actually don't have the source, but I'll look it up fer you m8
>>
>>34099257
*tips fedora
>>
>>34105627
>The prophets and their prophecies which came true.

>Christ and His miracles.

>Christ's resurrection.
But the proof that these actually happened has to be accepted on faith in the religious sense of the term which is in spite or in absence of proof/evidence.

>>34105652
Google sophistry
Instead of providing a counter argument you're basically rolling your eyes which is supposed to compel the masses into thinking you're so beyond my facile/childish capacity. Protip: you're not
>>
>>34105309
>what are you basing this on?

I can very well say that you never had a 5th birthday. As in you didn't go past the age of 5.

And that would be as false in your case as it would be to assert that God didn't create and sustain existence.

The simple fact is that there's something here, a reality.

The simple fact that there is a reality is evidence of God.
>>
>>34105467
only because you want to be right
>>
>Atheists still falling for the same old tricks.
The fedora thing must really get to them.
Nobody is actually properly religious here. Most claim they are because 'muh heritage' without acknowledging that Christianity has a heritage of sand-niggers and Jews.
Pretty much everyone is retarded in these threads.
>>
>>34105720
No it's not; faith in a cause is a rational belief, by no means does this have to be God.
>>
>>34105548
athiests believe in a natural universe, theists in a created one
literally "something made from thin air"
>>
>>34105782
>I'm going to make a bullshit claim
>I speak for everyone btw
>>
>>34105317
see>>34105720

>>34105718
>But the proof that these actually happened has to be accepted on faith in the religious sense of the term which is in spite or in absence of proof/evidence.

And the same can be said for all history. People weren't there to personally witness the events of the past. If you say there are historical records, I'll bring up the Bible.

The same can also be said for *every* single scientific theory that you yourself did not test.

You accept them on the basis of faith that the person who conducted those experiments are telling the truth.
>>
How could God take the time to speak to create the universe if time didn't exist before the universe?
Checkmate, theists.
>>
>>34105627
none of those happened
>>
>>34105484
Reminder how Christianity dragged the white race out of the bog and took us to the moon.

Reminder how societies with strong Christian beliefs are too hard for 'joos' mudslimes, commies, nazis" to control.

Reminder that Jesus hated the Jews and the Jews hated Jesus.

Reminder the more whites become less Christian the more they are controlled by shitskins, jews, fags and commies etc etc etc.

> White atheist why do you hate the one and only thing that has been beneficial to the white race and always kept it free.
>>
>>34105856
Because God doesn't experience spacetime of our universe?
>>
>>34105720
So there's no evidence. Got it.

That bullshit copout answer won't cut it. "God is real, I can proof it. Stuff exists! Therefore God"
>>
>>34105827
Of course the tripshit would be legit retarded.
>>
You think God is real and stuff, but why is your only support for God, religion, if God was real, or useful, surely we could support it with science?

If you know God, why can you not write the bible yourself (obviously without copying it word for word). The writers of the bible, to create such a, celebrated as, 'work of perfection', must have known God to some extent to write his word, perfectly. If the bible is the word of God, where did it come from, and why can we not record this word ourselves (without the bible).

Checkmate... Again.
>>
>>34105900
So there is another universe with spacetime that God lives in?
Who created that one?
>>
>>34105834
>You accept them on the basis of faith that the person who conducted those experiments are telling the truth.
The difference is the scientific method puts "repeated demonstrations" at the height of crediblty. If OTHERS can't recreate your experiment results, it won't become a theory.

Unless you thought everyone just took your word for it before approving these things?
>>
>>34105947
When did I say that the other universe has spacetime?
>>
>>34105788
>No it's not

Clarify.

>faith in a cause is a rational belief,

Faith before it's answered is what you would consider to be an irrational belief. Clarify what you say here.

>by no means does this have to be God.

"The simple fact that there is a reality is evidence of God."

And what would you say is the alternative? And by what evidence? I can point to scripture.
>>
>>34105583
Alright, I'm a lazy ass motherfucker.

http://www.youtube.com/user/InspiringPhilosophy/videos

It's in one of these videos.

You can peruse through them if you care. And don't be repulsed and annoying because he's a christfaggot, you're a rational human being, there should be no objections to unorthodox statements when you back them up with sound arguments.

Good luck my nigga!
>>
>>34105627
>Christ's resurrection
Well we all know either Jesus feigned death after being flogged, beaten, and having his heart rupture, or the apostles stole the body despite none of them expecting the resurrection to even happen. :^)

>>34105718
>But the proof that these actually happened has to be accepted on faith in the religious sense of the term which is in spite or in absence of proof/evidence.
Why must it be accepted on faith? A prophecy is either true, false, too vague to mean anything, a "lucky guess" or written after the fact.

see >>34102887
>>
>>34105984
If it didn't, the how did God take the time to speak?
>>
Fucking fedoros, suck me off. I'm tired of your fucking forced meme.
>>
>>34099257
Didn't they find a bible that was made 3000 years ago in ancient Egypt? Supposedly it refutes most of the current bible's claims about jesus and god. Current Christians are following a lie.
>>
>>34106012
>the how did God take the time to speak?
What?
>>
>>34105931
You make a good point.
>>
how would one go about becoming a theist? from agnostic
>>
>>34106007
They are accepted on faith because you don't have a reliable source that says these miracles occurred. Even if 1,000 jews 1000 years ago said something happened that isn't really admissible in court today.
>>
>>34105993
I'll do it after I've taken a shit.
I just want to ask. Let's say that these dodgy sounding numbers are right, and lets say the universe was created by some intelligent being.

Why and how did you decide that the Christan one was the correct one? Not counting your place of birth/family upbringing of course.
>>
>>34106054
>God spoke
- Genesis 1
>>
>>34106118
>you don't have a reliable source that says these miracles occurred.

So Alexander the Great did NOT conquer the known world, die, and have his empire split into four kingdoms inherited by his generals?
>>
>>34105956
>The difference is the scientific method puts "repeated demonstrations" at the height of crediblty. If OTHERS can't recreate your experiment results, it won't become a theory.

Well now this can go two ways. I can point out that you yourself have not personally repeatedly demonstrated a majority of the scientific knowledge you pass off as truth, rather have faith in the words of scientists that they're telling the truth.

But, I'll take this in the direction of repeated demonstrations. It's quite simple that many people fail at the methodology that's in the Bible.

>Unless you thought everyone just took your word for it before approving these things?

There are many that have had their faith rewarded. Then you have the fact that the prophecies came true.
>>
>>34106218
where is the magic there?
>>
>>34106174
>God spoke
>>
>>34106174
Your point?
>>
>>34105881
>>34105881
>>34105881
This is what I meant by >>34105782.
I don't think anyone, barring the tripfaggot, actually believes that the universe was spoken into existence and created in the was described by Genesis, and all that shit.
Unless /pol/ is more moronic than I thought.
>>
>>34106007
>Well we all know either Jesus feigned death after being flogged, beaten, and having his heart rupture, or the apostles stole the body despite none of them expecting the resurrection to even happen. :^)

Liar.

Furthermore, many people witnessed the miracles He performed.

If He was truly a liar in every case, Christianity would not have had the foothold it did in its early days.
>>
>>34106218
So if I make up a prophesy and it comes true you'll adopt my theology?
>>
File: images (1).jpg (6KB, 259x194px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
images (1).jpg
6KB, 259x194px
>>34106307
>Capitalizes he
>Why?
>>
>>34106258
You really find it hard to follow simple concepts huh?
>Adam itslye

>>34106307
Every prophet has miracles nigga. Jesus' weren't all that. It's how they sell the bullshit to uneducated niggers.
>>
File: 1391581232861.jpg (80KB, 889x737px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1391581232861.jpg
80KB, 889x737px
>>34105604
>"Close-minded" is not an argument, it's an adjective you idiot.
So a bunch of nothing, eh fedoro? Nothing new to add? who takes you seriously? no one. You are insecure of your narrow view of things because you actually doubt your programming, so you had to create a thread seeking attention so other close minded monkeys validate your ideas. Wow. A thread of nothing.
>>
>>34106355
What if I told you that God created the Heaven and the Earth at the same time?
>>
Strong evidence for a Designer comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system, e.g.

The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.
Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form.
Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.
Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.
Our sun is the right colour. If it was redder or bluer, photosynthetic response would be weaker.
Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.
The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right.
>>
>>34105931
>If the bible is the word of God, where did it come from
men divinely inspired by God

>why can we not record this word ourselves (without the bible).

Because the books of the Bible only needed to be written once.

>>34106307
I'm sorry I guess you couldn't notice my sarcasm.

It's silly to insist someone who had their heart rupture "feigned death" and it's silly to think the disciples elaborately planned to steal the body and start a cult that would get them tortured and killed.
>>
>>34106235
>There are many that have had their faith rewarded.
how? no one has ever had any proof or even evidence of god, it's all "faith"
>>
>>34106355
>Every prophet has miracles nigga.

And all of those prophets pointed towards only One God.

>Jesus' weren't all that.

Liar.

>It's how they sell the bullshit to uneducated niggers.

Again, a liar.
>>
>>34106249
Daniel was written centuries before Alexander the Great was born
>>
>>34106439
>men divinely inspired by God
says who?
>>
>>34106428
You do understand how many suns exist in this bitch, right?
>>
>>34106307
>Implying people can't lie and delude themselves
>Doubting human stupidity
Okay, sure, I'm sure people 2,000 years ago were rational enough to face claims of miracles with serious skepticism.
>>34106361
I hope these are copy pastas.
>A bunch of assertions and insults
The adults are talking, honey, go to bed.
>>
File: 1406902714566.png (220KB, 499x499px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1406902714566.png
220KB, 499x499px
>>34105546
>You're deluded, I don't claim to know what or how it happened, you do.
So if you dont, how can you still proclaim the absence of God? Please start making sense.
>There was a peer reviewed study that proves if the constants were a roll of the dice it isn't all that unlikely the universe could support life. Lurk more.
What constants? What roll of the dice. Nothing existed before the Big Bang you fucking retard. Time didn't exist, matter didn't exist - nothing existed. In one single moment, the universe just stretched into existence, but before that, nothing was there. Take your pandering nonsense elsewhere, you aren't going to fool me.
>You have to take on faith that that shit actually happened you retard, saying miracles happened isn't proof they happened.
And I do have faith retard, so I also have the evidence.
>Which I have to trust aren't lies/delusions/fantasies
If you saw a miracle, you'd tell your child right? And he'll tell his child and so on and so forth. This would go from generation to generation (as it has). But out of all those people, who saw the miracle? Only you. And the rest heard a story. So you can see how in thousands of years time, how someone might believe less in the story than the other who heard it much earlier. Doesn't make it any less true though.
>Take your anecdotal evidence and shove it up your ass
:^)
>I am merely saying yours (as a theist) are not proven or logical
It is though, and I just demonstrated how and why.
>>
>>34106439
>Because the books of the Bible only needed to be written once.
STOP
Talk a deep breath, think.
What. The. Fuck. is the point you're making? You have no point. You fucking deluded piece of shit.
>>
>>34106082
dont

go atheist

be free
>>
>>34106428
>Strong evidence

You mean strong inference. No doubt all of these points requires an explanation, but just saying it's God doesn't answer the question.

Furthermore, you say Earth is such a special place, and this proves anything? Well, what about the millions, in fact, billions of other planets with zero possibility of any life? It's called confirmation bias when you only see the positives and none of the negatives.
>>
>>34106483
>And all of those prophets pointed towards only One God.
That's wrong though. Get educated. Pretty much every religion has its own prophets, and they all do fancy shit.
It's how they impress the plebs. It's like getting kids' attention with a dog that can do better tricks than the other dog.
>>
>>34106439
>I'm sorry I guess you couldn't notice my sarcasm.

Sarcasm is only for people that are too afraid to speak the truth plainly.

>It's silly to insist someone who had their heart rupture "feigned death" and it's silly to think the disciples elaborately planned to steal the body and start a cult that would get them tortured and killed.

It's further foolish to "sarcastically" say as such in a serious conversation.
>>
>>34106542
>proclaim the absence of God
>thinking atheists actually do this
lel
Stopped reading.
>>
>>34106497
>>A bunch of assertions and insults
You have nothing, fedora. You are nothing new. As I wrote before, you are every atheist ever. Close minded, positivist zombie. You can't prove or disprove God because you already chose not to accept any sort of evidence. You already defeated yourself, that is why no one takes you seriously.
>>
>>34106120
>I just want to ask. Let's say that these dodgy sounding numbers are right, and lets say the universe was created by some intelligent being.

Actually a better explanation would be, that our universe is one out of a literal infinity of multiverses.

>Why and how did you decide that the Christan one was the correct one? Not counting your place of birth/family upbringing of course.

Because out of all the religions ever Christianity not only discourages barbarism and leads to happy fulfilled people (unlike Islam, the Aztec mythology with strict moral codes and ritual sacrifice) It's also been able to maintain powerful traditional and coherent/stable institutions of over two thousand years.

That's pretty goddamn impressive, I'm not saying that's definitive proof, but it's worth checking out. I'm reading all I can about the subject.
>>
>>34106443
>how? no one has ever had any proof or even evidence of god, it's all "faith"

Have you even done research on the matter?

Have you spoken to people that had their faith answered?
>>
File: 1 (36).jpg (23KB, 250x250px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1 (36).jpg
23KB, 250x250px
I think I won the thread for us Atheists...

I sense the end of the thread.
>>
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
>>
>>34106686
kek
Nobody refuted what I said
>>
>>34106636
show some evidence
>>
>>34106543
>What. The. Fuck. is the point you're making?

Your argument: Because people who claim to know god can't recreate the Bible without looking at it, God doesn't exist.

Why would the books of the Bible need to be written more than once?
>>
>>34106577
>That's wrong though. Get educated. Pretty much every religion has its own prophets, and they all do fancy shit.

You're ignoring the context of what was said.

The prophets referred to are the prophets whose prophecies came to pass. The likes of Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, Elijah. Christ.

Their prophecies came to pass.

>It's how they impress the plebs. It's like getting kids' attention with a dog that can do better tricks than the other dog.

Comic books, movies, fiction all utilizing "scientific" terms.
>>
>>34106542
>So if you dont, how can you still proclaim the absence of God? Please start making sense.
I did not claim that I could demonstrate the knowledge that God does not exist, merely that it is logically contradictory and unreasonable.
>What constants? What roll of the dice. Nothing existed before the Big Bang you fucking retard. Time didn't exist, matter didn't exist - nothing existed. In one single moment, the universe just stretched into existence, but before that, nothing was there. Take your pandering nonsense elsewhere, you aren't going to fool me.
Actually, the definition of "nothing" is very complex in regards to quantum physics, so much so that I don't nearly understand it. Suffice to say that "nothing" is very unstable for the universe.
>And I do have faith retard, so I also have the evidence.
Faith and objective evidence are mutually exclusive
>If you saw a miracle, you'd tell your child right? And he'll tell his child and so on and so forth. This would go from generation to generation (as it has). But out of all those people, who saw the miracle? Only you. And the rest heard a story. So you can see how in thousands of years time, how someone might believe less in the story than the other who heard it much earlier. Doesn't make it any less true though.
Yeah, and I'm sure there's no incentive for people to lie about this or fudge the truth?
>It is though, and I just demonstrated how and why.
>proven
>objectively
Okay, take that to the National Academy of Sciences, tell them anon-kun sent you.
>>34106636
>I am choosing not to accept evidence
>Implying that claims such as the Bible are actually proof and not just evidence
>God is real. The Bible is the word of God, how do I know? Because the Bible said so!
>Le circular reasoning faec
>>
>>34106648
Not him, but I want to know more. Not even in this argument or whatever, just more about faith and how you gain it in general.
Been lost in the agnostic quagmire for a long while.
>>
>>34106647
>I'm not saying that's definitive proof
Damn right it's not. The Roman Empire was a powerful institution for around 500 years. Does that add validity to their pantheon of gods? No.
>>
>>34106705
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
>>
>>34106786
>How do I gain reliance on this unreliable reasoning process?
>I feel like I'm not being unreasonable enough. I wish I could just believe in things totally absent of evidence!
Are you retarded?
>>
>>34106751
Consistency.

/thread.

Bye now Children, I have to go to sleep now so I can wake up and actually do something good for the world.
>>
>>34106735
Why are you still repeating your annoying maxim?
>MUH EVIDENCE
>ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
>NO EVIDENCE? DISMISSED :P

see >>34105587
>>
>>34106635
Your Prophet Richard Dawkins certainly does.
>>
>>34106815
awful
>>
>>34106815
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
>>
>>34106815
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
Skip to the last half, then stop spamming us with your bullshit.
>>34106838
>Implying anyone here is a radical atheist
>>
>>34106838
>my prophet
Awful quick with the old assumptions eh?
I know it might be hard to understand, but some people don't need prophets to think for them.
>>
>>34106836
who says it "began" to exist? the big bang is not necessarily the beginning of everything, ever
>>
>>34106869
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
>>
>>34105587
This does no prove whatever "transcends" the Universe is anything like the deity describes by any religion, so it doesn't prove neither deism or theism.

For all we know, Mr.Joe Montana farted in another dimension, and we are the result.
>>
File: z.jpg (14KB, 251x251px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
z.jpg
14KB, 251x251px
>>34106912
So you're saying the Universe didn't begin to exist huh
>>
>>34106926
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
>>
>>34106978
No, you stupid person, try reading.
>>
>>34106985
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
>>
>>34106812
And yet they fell.

Also, the Roman Empire wasn't a religious institution, and even if it was like Islam is was just conversion through force, "Be Roman, or die a savage".

While Christianity was more of a sociological movement that swept across the Rome and the ancient world.

As I said, it's not definitive proof by any means but it's worth checking out at least.

The Catholic church for instance survived the plague, the Renaissance, The Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, Two World Wars, and the 1960s flower child generation.

And the old gal is still kicking, the Christians I know are rational people, they aren't insecure cultists or anything. That's why Christianity if the first place I'm going to. If I want to be intellectually honest I need to investigate what seems to be pretty absurd shit right?

I'm just excited to see where this trail leads more than anything.
>>
>>34106972
>so it doesn't prove neither deism or theism.
What?
>>34107018
You said that the Big Bang didn't start the Universe? Am I correct?
>>
>>34107039
Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe.2 However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.3

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here:

One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115)
>>
Wait, before I go, a nice thing to say, about humans in general. We are very loyal creatures, like dogs in some respects, when we have a belief it's in our hearts to stick it out to the end... Some theists may be intelligent but they've got themselves caught up in a particular side of a argument and, being loyal, they will likely stick it out to the end. Plus, all that work defending your points goes to waste if you just give up, right?

If I were you, take an agnostic position, until you can provide evidence for God, then as you grow wiser (which you will), you can phase out into Atheism.
>>
>>34107099
The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).
>>
>>34107111
>provide evidence for God
Why do people not get it
>>
>>34106786
accept the truth
>>34106833
tip your fedora elswhere
>>
>>34106786
>Not even in this argument or whatever, just more about faith and how you gain it in general.
>Been lost in the agnostic quagmire for a long while.

I'll address this as scientifically as possible.

Acknowledge and respect God. Follow His commandments. Research what He values and what He wants done and do them.

As He has said, He will not forsake anyone who loves and cherishes Him.

The faith portion comes in when every worldly man would tell you to do something contrary to God's Will, that the ways of the world and of man are the only "intelligent" and "right" way.

As in, they say to harden your heart, to ignore those in need of help, to turn the other cheek during in times of great duress when doing these things seem like the very things that end in your death.

It is in times like that when faith turns into fact, and you see that everything that has been written has been for a reason, and things turn out to be the best that they can be.
>>
>>34107168
atheists are like manlets

they'll never learn
>>
>>34107083
You used Kalam's cosmological argument in favor of religion, to which service it cannot be used, because even if the argument is logically sound and valid, it doesn't prove the validity of theism or deism.
>>
>>34107174
Where do I start?
>>
>>34107111
>If I were you, take an agnostic position, until you can provide evidence for God, then as you grow wiser (which you will), you can phase out into Atheism.

I tried that, and I ended up back as a Christian
>>
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)
>>
>>34107168
See>>34105219
>>34105720
>>
File: 1407417312252.jpg (24KB, 291x300px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1407417312252.jpg
24KB, 291x300px
>>34106769
>Actually, the definition of "nothing" is very complex in regards to quantum physics
Your hopeful definitions are amusing. There's a difference between something being unstable because of nothing, and nothing existing all together. If nothing exist, how can anything be unstable? This is what has tripped atheists for so long, because it's an impossible to answer not only in of itself, but also with evidence.
>Faith and objective evidence are mutually exclusive
:^)
>Yeah, and I'm sure there's no incentive for people to lie about this or fudge the truth?
...how has the truth been lied about or fudged? There's a reason the story of Musa splitting the sea water is still around and not Musa splitting the mountain, or splitting whatever else. Just because you didn't see it doesnt mean it didnt happen buddy boy.
>Okay, take that to the National Academy of Sciences, tell them anon-kun sent you.
Yeah yeah, I'm sure science is infallible and can prove everything :^)
>>
>>34107251
no one who goes atheist goes back to illogic
>>
>>34107168
Then what do you mean when you say God? To say the word implies you know something, words are ways be express our knowledge, what knowledge is expressed with God, and what led to this conclusion?
>>
>>34107253
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
>>
>>34107286
Not if they realize that atheism itself is illogical
>>
>>34107174
how does one acknowledge god?
>>
>>34107314
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)
>>
It takes two seconds to do a bit of research to find that the fine tuning argument is a load of horseshit.
Of course, seeking out knowledge is antithetical to the religious way of thinking. I can't expect too much.

>>34107314
>>34107253
Gotta love the good old fashioned quote mining.
>>
>>34107202
>to which service it cannot be used
>even if the argument is logically sound and valid,
>it doesn't prove the validity of theism or deism.
It would be nice if you explained why
>>34107288
You cannot have physical evidence of God. It defies the "faith" part of every religion.
>>
>>34107384
>>34107314
seriously, you can stop

teleological argument really isn't very good except when assuring other Christians
>>
>>34107338
>decide NOT to blindly believe in magic god
sounds like logic
>>
>>34107288
Nothing.
Nothing.
End of story.
Theists, fuck off quickly to your kingdom in the sky, so we can live and prosper on our planet in the universe.
>>
>>34107384
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
>>
>>34107267
>.how has the truth been lied about or fudged? There's a reason the story of Musa splitting the sea water is still around and not Musa splitting the mountain, or splitting whatever else. Just because you didn't see it doesnt mean it didnt happen buddy boy.
Can you prove that it happened beyond a reasonable doubt? No? Then you're taking it on faith, buddy boy
>Yeah yeah, I'm sure science is infallible and can prove everything :^)
You're conflating accepted science of today and the scientific method, one is a lot more fallible then the other (that's your homework, figuring out which)
>Your hopeful definitions are amusing. There's a difference between something being unstable because of nothing, and nothing existing all together. If nothing exist, how can anything be unstable? This is what has tripped atheists for so long, because it's an impossible to answer not only in of itself, but also with evidence.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=204807
>>
>>34107432
Did I enrage you?
>>
>>34107432
I don't think any theists in this thread believe in a sky kingdom
>>
Thanks for the Dark Ages by the way, Christians. That was great.
>>
>>34107404
Faith in what?
>>
>>34107481
Are you like 14?
>>
>>34107451
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)
>>
>>34107507
No.
>>
File: Dark Age.png (2MB, 1386x4653px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Dark Age.png
2MB, 1386x4653px
>>34107481
no

don't go there again
>>
>>34107497
Faith in God since, oh I don't know, there is no physical evidence of him? If there was physical evidence of him, almost everyone would believe in him which would directly violate the reason God created us, i.e for us to worship him and be rewarded for having faith.
>>
>>34107404
>It would be nice if you explained why

I tried to, but you didn't understand apparently. The only thing the cosmological argument proves, is that the Universe had a cause that was beyond the Universe.

How do you get from that point, to the Bible and Jesus dying on the Cross etc? How do you square a simple logical illustration of causation, with fairy tales in the Middle-East 2000 years ago?
>>
>>34107225
I'll sum it up in 3 things.

1) Read the Bible.

2) Believe it.

3) Do the things it says to do.

You'll see as I see that the majority of the things people complain about today, especially /pol/ come as a result of people not following the commandments written. Just as examples:

>whoredom
>Oppressing fair wages of labor (that is, deliberately paying less than what the labor is worth, think of monopolies)
>Injustice in any form
>Politicians who lie
>>
>>34107569
what a dick
>>
>>34107576
>I tried to
Not really, you just flatly said it without any argument.
>The only thing the cosmological argument proves, is that the Universe had a cause that was beyond the Universe.
How does it not correlate with the belief of a deist?
>>
>>34107609
>1) Read the Bible.
>2) Believe it.
What a great way to live. Don't bother with that thinking malarkey. That's for stupid people.
>>
Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This cause is what we call God.

Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist and are all finite. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
This being is whom we call God.
>>
>>34107569
>i.e for us to worship him and be rewarded for having faith.

I disagree

We aren't rewarded for having faith. By loving God, God's love comes to us.

If you don't love God you wouldn't want to go to heaven, and would prefer hell.
>>
>>34107609
I don't have one. I'll have to buy one.
I'm guessing just like saying out loud "I believe in God" or something doesn't count for much?

I do actually WANT to believe, here. I just want it to be right, and not just be wanting it that way.
>>
>>34107697
Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle.
This pinnacle is whom we call God.

All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.
>>
>>34107367
See
>>34107609

Follow those three things. They provide record of God's works.
>>
>>34107697
>an infinite regress of causation is impossible
Because you say so, right?
>Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
So, once again, God is a special snowflake.
>>
>>34107731
You cannot legitimately worship someone you do not love.
>>
>>34107752
>These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
This is probably the biggest load of shit in this thread.

>All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
>These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
>Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
No, that tops it.
>>
>>34107752
All natural bodies follow laws of conduct.
These objects are themselves unintelligent.
Laws of conduct are characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that created the laws for all natural bodies.
This being is whom we call God.
>>
>>34107569
Faith in God? What is God? I thought you didn't know God. How can you have faith in something you don't know?
>>
>>34103948
"Our mother"
by which you mean a significance-laden-but-open-to-personal-interpretation-representation-of-spiritual-feminine?
sure, whatever. If you're going to grant that however then you may have to grant that animals with a concept of 'other' probably have something as uncomplicated as that too.
>>
>>34107695
>What a great way to live. Don't bother with that thinking malarkey. That's for stupid people.

Hypocrisy.

>Be in grade school
>Presented with science textbook.
>read it.
>told to believe it.
>then do as it says.

If people are able to hold the beliefs of Christianity after investigation, what does that say about you, you who did nothing to investigate it if you're that intent on thinking?
>>
>>34107681
>How does it not correlate with the belief of a deist?

Because, for all we know, like I said, that cause could be the fart of an alien in another dimension. How the hell could you know? Why do you assume, and believe shit that is impossible to prove? Because it makes you feel good?

Fine. But you haven't proven anything.
>>
>>34107850
>thinking laws of physics actually means actual laws
Holy shit you people are dumb. The laws of physics are man-made constructs that describe what we observe to the best of our ability.
Fucking hell.
>>
>>34107771
do I take the bible literally or metaphorically?
>>
It's equal to me saying, I have faith in DIGHJIWSRHJGEHJW.
Guess what?
>You're fucking retarded.
>>
>>34107926
Science books use data from repeatable experiments though. You can actually determine the truth of the claims through observation.

Maybe you take everything on face value, but not everyone is so simple.
>>
>>34107955
>do I take the bible literally or metaphorically?

Does that have anything to do with its truth?
>>
>>34105881
Jesus hated the way some Rabbis have turned into. Not he ordinary Jew.
>>
>>34107798
>>34107844
You are not a logician, your attempt at proving the quinque viae is a laughable at best. No quantity of evidence will ever convince you (causality, logic, math, the laws of thermodynamics), you already defeated yourself and you prove my point, you are every fedora ever. Ignorant, narrow minded, angry, pathetic.
>>
>>34107955
You have to pick and choose the bits that fit with reality. Those are literal. The other bits conveniently aren't.
Isn't that lucky?
>>
>>34107827
Oh, I didn't disagree about the worshiping part, just the faith part.

I think God can be believed in without faith, but with proof. I don't know if you're Christian, but that was one of the points of the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
>>
>>34108051
Why is it impossible? You're claiming to know this as objective fact but clearly you don't. You may think it is more reasonable but that is not proof in it of itself.
>>
>>34108036
I don't know, that's why I'm asking
>>
>>34108020
>Science books use data from repeatable experiments though. You can actually determine the truth of the claims through observation.

Already addressed. See>>34105834
>>34106235

"Well now this can go two ways. I can point out that you yourself have not personally repeatedly demonstrated a majority of the scientific knowledge you pass off as truth, rather have faith in the words of scientists that they're telling the truth.

But, I'll take this in the direction of repeated demonstrations. It's quite simple that many people fail at the methodology that's in the Bible."
>>
>>34108051
>the laws of thermodynamics
Oh boy, you're one of those.
>>
>>34108099
>Why is it impossible?
You are not a logician, it is painfully obvious.

>>34108146
Hello, ignoramus.
>>
>>34108051
Question.

What is the law of thermodymics?
>>
>>34107898
>Faith in God? What is God? I thought you didn't know God. How can you have faith in something you don't know?
>What is God?
The creator of the Universe.
>I thought you didn't know God
Nobody does, no
>How can you have faith in something you don't know?
Having faith is having complete confidence on something. The "something" doesn't have to be something you know.
>>34107928
>like I said
I'm not even going into that.

The Universe has to be created by an intelligent being, that being is God.
>>
>>34108146
the earth may not be a closed system, but the universe is.
>>
Isn't it a more beautiful thought that death is the end? Doesn't it grant value to life? An animal doesn't contemplate heaven, be more like the animal. If heaven's out there, adjusting to the common attitude is probably a good idea, and no matter what, your death will be the end of you on Earth, believing in heaven as a ultimate goal is not the ideal objective. You would make your mark on Earth, so that after you die, the people who are still alive on Earth live in good memory of you.

Check my, more complex, concept of morality. Does it beat yours? Am I more of a lovable person? Am I good-er? You decide.
>>
(a) in one sense, that as the result of whose presence something comes into being—e.g., the bronze of a statue and the silver of a cup, and the classes which contain these [i.e., the material cause];
(b) in another sense, the form or pattern; that is, the essential formula and the classes which contain it—e.g. the ratio 2:1 and number in general is the cause of the octave—and the parts of the formula [i.e., the formal cause].
(c) The source of the first beginning of change or rest; e.g. the man who plans is a cause, and the father is the cause of the child, and in general that which produces is the cause of that which is produced, and that which changes of that which is changed [i.e., the efficient cause].
(d) The same as "end"; i.e. the final cause; e.g., as the "end" of walking is health. For why does a man walk? "To be healthy", we say, and by saying this we consider that we have supplied the cause [the final cause].
(e) All those means towards the end which arise at the instigation of something else, as, e.g., fat-reducing, purging, drugs and instruments are causes of health; for they all have the end as their object, although they differ from each other as being some instruments, others actions [i.e., necessary conditions].
>>
>>34108189
What do you mean by 'something' as if it's a direct answer or 'centre to it all'? You couldn't be more indirect if you tried.

I'll know one day wont I?
>>
>>34107609
I have read parts of the Bible. I found it inspiring.
>>
>>34108181
>Infinite regress is illogical
>But a god existing for all eternity makes sense
:/
Well, you're a logician, so I'll take your word for it
*tips menorah*
>>
>>34108195
And?

>>34108145
There is no methodology in the bible, only interpretation. Science gets results, and is constantly adjusting itself to be more inline with reality.
If you think science is based on faith alone, then you're in denial. It's not like you're reaping the fruits of experiment and observation by typing at me presumably from some other corner of the planet.
>>
>>34099257
>Theism Is Irrational
the sky is blue
>>
>this thread is still alive
God can't exist. This is awful.
>>
>>34108102
You have listened to far too many people speaking on the subject instead of reading it.

If you can scientifically ascertain bias within an experiment, then you should certainly see that approaching the Bible with ideas of "literally or metaphorically" instead of accepting it without wordly ideas taints your final understanding of it.

Asking questions such as that before reading it is pointless.
>>
>>34107456
>Can you prove that it happened beyond a reasonable doubt? No? Then you're taking it on faith, buddy boy
Can you prove that it didn't happen beyond a reasonable doubt? No? Then you're taking it on faith, buddy boy
>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=204807
Was this suppose to prove anything? It's just a whole bunch of people going on about a lot of ifs.
>You're conflating accepted science of today and the scientific method, one is a lot more fallible then the other (that's your homework, figuring out which)
And accepted science has nothing to say in concrete about what happens before the big bang. Because it's an impossibility.
>>
>>34108423
Ok, I've found an online copy. Guess I've got reading to do.
>>
>>34108223
Do you really think the religious would commit suicide en masse if they didn't consider suicide a sin that would keep them out of heaven?

If you believed in God and did not seek the most out of your life, it would be like spitting in the face of God. You were given an opportunity to experience and affect this world. Why wouldn't you live it to the fullest?
>>
File: 1404172491087.jpg (53KB, 456x640px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1404172491087.jpg
53KB, 456x640px
>>34104852
Saying with any degree of confidence the likelyhood of ANY past event becomes more 'improbable' the further you go back.
The likelyhood of a centurion eating a meal made from a ground slab of beef pressed between two pieces of a substance made from ground wheat and protien baked until brown, with a little greenery for the flavor is (mathematically unlikely).
Claiming the universe being the way it is as evidence for another proposition is comparable to a puddle being pleased at how well suited it is to this hole... see, it fits it perfectly!
Pointing out that we haven't been destroyed by meteors in no rational way justifies an absurd assertion like divine protection.
>>
File: 1405951476767.jpg (16KB, 400x396px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1405951476767.jpg
16KB, 400x396px
Faith for faith only... okey dokey.

ITT: Trolls trolling trolls.
>>
File: 1369853919588.jpg (48KB, 591x316px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1369853919588.jpg
48KB, 591x316px
>>34108348
>>But a god existing for all eternity makes sense
>Well, you're a logician, so I'll take your word for it
He is the singularity. The first mover. The first cause. The creator. There is no clock without a clock maker.

>This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" ??????????? [pantokrat?r], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect - Isaac Newton
>>
>>34108481
>Can you prove that it didn't happen beyond a reasonable doubt? No? Then you're taking it on faith, buddy boy
You're making the claim that god exists. If your position is that the default position is Christian then obviously children don't need to hear about it.
>And accepted science has nothing to say in concrete about what happens before the big bang. Because it's an impossibility.
Okay, well present your theory of God is eternal to any recognized scientific community and I'm sure they'll recognize your rational, proven, and objective theory for the origins of the universe and you will be awarded suitably!
>>
>>34108619
>He is the singularity. The first mover. The first cause. The creator. There is no clock without a clock maker.
>God existing forever makes sense
>But the universe existing forever makes no sense
Le false dichotomy ex dee :D
>>
>>34108351
>There is no methodology in the bible, only interpretation.

Liar.

Deuteronomy 7:9

" Know therefore that the Lord thy God, He is God, the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations,"

There are many more verses reflecting that those who follow God's commandments shall reap rewards.

>constantly adjusting itself to be more inline with reality.

And the implication of that is not everything found by science is inline with reality if adjustment needs to be made.

>If you think science is based on faith alone, then you're in denial.

That's false. There's an inherent element of faith that everything researched prior is 100% accurate and correct.

There's also the most inherent element of faith that the laws of physics themselves will forever remain constant the way they are.
>>
>>34108532
You also have responsibilities, living your life to the fullest doesn't make your son or daughter make it to reproductive age themselves, and generally being destructive to the world doesn't grant them the same freedom as you had on Earth. A healthy planet. You could do what thou wilt for years of your life, and end up doing more damage to the Earth than sensible. In 1000 years, children will suffer because of you. Is it really 'good' to live to the fullest?
>>
>>34108102
Just remember that the Bible is a library of books, including saga, history, law, poetry, prophecy, biographies, and letters. You won't treat each book the same, and you have to understand the historical context of when each book was written.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htxOjJHB5-8 is a good video about this
>>
>>34105160
Well we can't disprove the existence of (Non-Specified god), but we can, without any difficulty prove the non-existence of the God According To The Bible.
Such an entity is self refuting, and the events described are, to certain extents, demonstrably impossible.
Global floods and talking asses. Riiiiiiight.
>>
>>34108299
My bad. I meant that "something" doesn't have to be known.
Other than that, I don't get your point.
>>
>>34108485
Happy trails!

If you ever wish to analyze the bible within its original languages, see http://www.scripture4all.org/

It has every book with word for word translations from the original languages into english along with the commonly accepted meaning.
>>
>>34108723
>There's also the most inherent element of faith that the laws of physics themselves will forever remain constant the way they are.
There's an assumption that billions of years of consistency will not suddenly change for no reason. That's faith in the secular sense, not in the religious sense. As I have said earlier, retard theists don't know that there's a secular + religious definition of faith.
>>
>>34108696
>Le false dichotomy ex dee :D
It is not, that is why the quinque viae stood the test of time.

>the universe existing forever
Not the universe. God is eternal, the universe was created.
>>
>>34108696
>But the universe existing forever makes no sense

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
>Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.

the universe is flat. It has a finite age. It is not eternal. This is coming from NASA, not the bible.
>>
>>34108905
>"They are not necessarily meant to be self-sufficient “proofs” of God’s existence; as worded, they propose only to explain what it is “all men mean” when they speak of “God”. Many scholars point out that St. Thomas’s actual arguments regarding the existence and nature of God are to be found liberally scattered throughout his major treatises, and that the five ways are little more than an introductory sketch of how the word “God” can be defined without reference to special revelation"
>His understanding of what mean by God has stood the test of time
>Therefore God exists
>>34108959
Therefore personal god? Try again.
>>
To be honest Atheists, look how much I fucking tare up. Most Atheists are stupid anyway, they accept too much bullshit and get themselves deeper in stupid shit. They need to be more direct (as said prior), and they are stupid in some other cases, such as when a Theist calls them religious. The correct answer is, yes, I'm religious if the definition is "devotion to a particular cause". Or thinking things like creation and morality is God-exclusive, that there can't be a rational good or rational creation. Society is very very confused because of God.
>>
>>34102249
Appeal to authority is actually a logical fallacy. Whats so hard about reproducing guadalupe, its just a painting right?
>>
>>34109047
I'm glad you broke up and couldn't argue with me
>>
>>34109078
I am not appealing to authority. I am stating that you can not prove what you claim to know objectively.

It is not provable in a scientific or legal sense.

I am not saying you are wrong because scientists do not agree with you.
>>
>>34108790
You keep using that word I don't think you know what it means.

When you say "something" you imply knowledge of the particular word you used. It's meant to make sense in our minds, but you have no knowledge of "something", so it's a fallacy using the word. Again, it's the same as me saying "I believe in geadoihi", it's a statement that refers to nothing, a meaningless stupidity.

Checkmate.
>>
>>34108838
>>34108838
>There's an assumption that billions of years of consistency will not suddenly change for no reason.

Entropy certainly changes things.

In any case, any scientific findings for man has only occurred on planet Earth. Gravity, atomic interactions can certainly be different under much different conditions, conditions that completely nullify any of the current findings.

>That's faith in the secular sense, not in the religious sense. As I have said earlier, retard theists don't know that there's a secular + religious definition of faith.

No, both operate under faith. You're simply applying the idea of whether the faith belongs to religious or secular ideals.

The faith is the same, the subject of the faith is what you're semantically arguing.

It's still faith.
>>
>>34105347
YOU STUUUUPID motherfucker.

EVIDENCE means that it CANNOT be used to support a competing theory.

"Popped up out of nothing" is bullshit too, and not what the scientific consensus concludes either. Merely that 'time' as we know it cannot be measured in any meaningful way before the universe's singularity.
No one ever claimed something from nothing was possible, unless they claim a self-made creator of universes.

Calling the Quran a miracle reduces the word miracle to shit-tier. If a book can be a miracle so can muh-dick. Make way for nigga-jesus!
>>
>>34108788
>Well we can't disprove the existence of (Non-Specified god)

here let me summarize it for you:
>No credible evidence for Buddah's divinity, disregard claim.
Buddha never claimed to be god. And Buddha is a title, not a person. Technically speaking, you can reach Buddhist enlightenment without even being a Buddhist.
>No credible evidence for Thor's divinity, disregard claim.
>No credible evidence for Zeus' divinity, disregard claim.
>No credible evidence for Ra's divinity, disregard claim.
>No credible evidence for Odin's divinity, disregard claim.
Any religion that suggests nature is arbitrary is false, and can be dismissed by the very existence of science.
>No credible evidence for Shiva's divinity, disregard claim.
Hinduism states in a very literal meaning that the universe is 155 trillion years old.

>global floods
If you knew anything about Hebrew idioms you would know that it's not a global flood. Otherwise the verse would also imply that Noah left the ark after the oceans dried up. The flood was the expansion of the black sea.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/

>talking asses
If you believe someone resurrected from the dead and fed +5,000 with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, it's not much of a stretch of belief.
>>
>>34109131
It is provable, reproduce it and if it does not crumble to shit in 20 years it is proof of miraculous apparition
>>
>>34109239
>"Popped up out of nothing" is bullshit too, and not what the scientific consensus concludes either.

Big bang.

Argument discarded.
>>
>>34109207
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
>>
>>34109020
>Therefore personal god? Try again.

I'm not the guy you were responding to. But to say that the universe existing forever makes sense is absolutely retarded
>>
File: isaac-newton.jpg (204KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
isaac-newton.jpg
204KB, 1024x768px
>>34109020
>>"They are not necessarily meant
>>Therefore God exists
He does exist and Aquinas meant to prove the existence of God with logic alone as he stated in the summa, being a superb logician. As I wrote before, no amount of proof will ever convince you, since you already chose to be a close minded mental midget and you are in denial. You are a waste of time.
>>
>>34109194
>When you say "something" you imply knowledge of the particular word you used.
Do you actually interpret my saying of "Nobody knows God" as literal? Nobody knows God as in nobody knows what he is like and how he looks like (though I'm not sure if he has a physical form).
Everyone knows that God is the creator of the Universe. He could very well exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you believe in something that you sincerely believe it exists, even if there is no material evidence of it existing, then you have faith it exists.
>>
>>34109194
"Quick, I've just wrote the bible and it doesn't make sense".

"Give it a definition... It's nothing, so I'll say it's everything, it's stupid and irrational, so I'll say it knows all... Any more ideas?"

Way to apply the universe to fiction.
>>
>>34109337
>Implying the definition for 1. doesn't adequately describe the definition for 2.

>Implying that the only difference between 1 and 2 ISN'T the subject of that "trust or confidence")
>>
>>34109047
Well you have to remember that most people believe/don't believe in God based on logical fallacies and emotional feelings.

Some people want that cozy feeling of having a Godfather (lel) exist. Others don't like the idea of an allpowerful being watching their every action and judging them for it.
>>
>>34109451
I'll break it down for you
>Nobody knows God
>Nobody knows
>God
>Nobody knows God.
>But God.
>Nobody
>knows
>God
>>
>>34109451
On a related note, the religious texts do say how God is like, but we do not have empirical evidence of that. That's what I'm getting into.
>>
>>34109574
My ass farts sometimes, that doesn't mean I should follow it as my religion.
>>
>>34109567
Are you vapid? Have you come to a point where you will keep repeating your self-evident maxim as if I somehow didn't catch it?
Nobody personally knows God you dunce. Every deist and theist agrees that God(s) created the Universe and there may be additional stories/informations.
>>
I've got to go now, we might argue some time.
Not pussying out, I have stuff to do
>>
>>34109702
You're retarded.
>>
Are you guys done fucking the world up yet? Can I go now?
>>
>>34107929
the term "laws of physics" didn't even exist when the quinque viae were written
>>
>>34106586
A tunnel to the tomb is an easy and natural explanation for a missing body.
Without emperical, its impossible to rule out a staged execution either.

We DO know that, historically OTHER executions/vanishing bodies HAVE occurred through this tunnel trick.

Bloody good for impressing peasants, bloody stupid that we still have idiots thinking it was some kind of genuine. Just how stupid ARE you fuckers?
>>
>>34109776
>>34109781
>>34109845
and another exciting thread ends with both sides claiming victory, once again proving that religion threads never convince anyone to change sides
>>
>>34109965
>>34109965
You're a liar.

You're also failing to address

>The people that saw Christ after He had risen

>The supernatural events that occurred while Christ was on the Cross.

>The numerous other miracles that Christ completed.
>>
>>34109974
I was the victor multiple times in this thread, however, you're right, people don't change their beliefs very easy.
>>
File: 20110717.gif (54KB, 576x584px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
20110717.gif
54KB, 576x584px
>>34106705
and if the makeup of the earths crust was just a LITTLE bit different it would be stable and we wouldn't have earthquakes or tidal waves!!!

Who the fuck would the priests look to for evidence of 'gods anger' then, eh?
>>
>>34110103
>I was the victor
hahaha
>>
>>34110210
>Ebin meme
>>
If you cannot pass God off as a simple forced meme, then you are unworthy of life on this planet.
>>
>>34107193
>doubt and skepticism makes you a manlet

Wanna buy a bridge?
>>
>>34109965
If there was a tunnel in the tomb they would've found evidence of one inside of it and squashed Christianity at the start.

And it's a lot of effort to dig a tomb with 1st century technology in a span of 2 days, not to mention close it back up without any evidence of it ever being there. The resurrection story has far too many ducks in a row.
>>
>>34110329
...and then they say Christians are the intolerant ones
>>
>>34110258
you are another random tripfag. you didn't win shit.
>>
>>34110478
Again, another statement that doesn't hit the target, indirect, nonsensical, non-productive, etc. Stupidity.
>>
>>34110549
I could say the same about your comments
>>
>>
File: 1 (19).png (39KB, 250x140px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1 (19).png
39KB, 250x140px
>>34110634
No you can't.
Irony.
>>
>>34110703
because you say so?
>>