God is not dead.

>>34469985
I didn't read your shit, but God lives as long as people believe in it. It's like tinkerbell in that fashion.

>>34469997
>God lives despite if you believe in him.

>>34469997
Will a god die everytime i say he doesn't exist?

who is cain's wife

did he fuck mama

>>34470040
>God lives despite
That's absolutely an opinion held by alot of people.

>>34470050
see>>34470040
vfsvxzbvkzdbjcvkszdbvlkjxbdfnvlkjzsndcvjlzsndv

>>34470050
I mean, it would be dead to you. But it's death wouldn't be complete unless everyone stopped believing.

>>34470084
But what I write above shows proof for his existence

>>34470094
>proof
If there was proof of God then it wouldn't be about faith.

>>34470094
There's no proof of God. Sorry pal. He only exists if you believe he does.

>>34470122
>Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD,
Isaiah 1:18

You should have faith but using your brain is important.

>>34470153
>Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD,
If you're using that as proof then you're fine since you're grasping at straws.

>>34470146
What makes you think that?

dcvkbnsdkcvsdjv,bvbskaxbcfxb

>>34470164
NO that was a response to>>34470122
for saying what he did.
If you want to see proof see the title of >>34403212 where I lay out my arguments.

>>34470168
Because you didn't provide proof? You "debunked" rational/scientific reasons people use to support atheism, while adding your own hypothesis without proof or merit.

I conceed that God lives in the minds of the people that believe in God, but that's it.

You can't prove god exists and even if he does, it's of no consequence to us since he doesn't give a single shit about us.

The best course of action is to keep living as if he doesn't exist. Saves you some sadness.

File: MobiusStrip_1000.gif (16KB, 310x230px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 310x230px

>>34469985
>Let's say it wasn't God, and it was something else well then what created that other thing we could go on and on, but without a first cause nothing could have come into creation
You don't need a beginning and an end though. Look at a mobius strip. No beginning, no end. It goes on and on.
Nothing you said proves or disproves the existence of a god. You didn't even specify what a god is.

I proved to you in your last thread that God is either the totality of existence or he has a cause and is not really God.

>>34470207
>You "debunked" rational/scientific reasons people use to support atheism, while adding your own hypothesis without proof or merit.
How so. Please give me straught answers so I can refute please and look at what I wrote in the opening of this thread >>34403212

>>34470211
>You can't prove god exists and even if he does

Yes I believe god is infalsifiable but there are more proof for than against his existence

>it's of no consequence to us since he doesn't give a single shit about us.
That is not what we are talking about here just if he exists or not.

>>34470227
I see no proof of his existence in your OP, Opie. I believe you believe he exists, shouldn't that be enough for you?

>>34470221
>I proved to you in your last thread that God is either the totality of existence or he has a cause and is not really God.

NO, you didn't. You gave a skewered definition of the universe then used false logic to prove God did not exist.

God is not the totality of existence but rather the creator of this universe. Also, let's keep to the mainstem use of the word universe.

God does not have a cause because nothing else in creation could have existed.

>>34470182
Your watch analogy is fucking awful.

>>34470251
I'll give you one proof. The universe had a beginning, and something that had a beginning must have had a creator is it did that creator must be outside space and time, and if so God must exist. If you want you can ask me to go into more detail.

>>34470259
Why? What, specifically, is wrong with the logic?

>>34469985
This is a shit thread. If you want to have any kind of serious conversation (but I don't think you want to, you're just trolling atheists and agnostics) you have to define what God is. If your answer contains a word the definition of which is five or more words you have to define these words too.
E.g. If your answer to 'What is a god?' is "The sentient being that created everything we experience." You have to define sentient, being, creation and experience.

tl;dr: Everyone's getting trolled.

>>34470280
>The universe had a beginning
Prove it. Prove that the universe is not an endless series of the universe dying and a new Big Bang resulting from that.

>>34470253
>NO, you didn't.

Yes I did.

>then used false logic to prove God did not exist.

If the logic is false you must specify how.

Premise: All things have causes

Since a cause is a thing of itself it must also have a cause. It is therefore impossible to trace back a chain of causes to its beginning. The only thing that does not have a cause is the infinite chain of causes in its totality. This we call the universe.

God is therefore either the Universe or he is had a cause himself, which would make him not God, but rather some powerful alien intelligence.

>>34470211
I second this.
My life has been improving since i dropped out of
church.
less feelings of guilt, less hypocrisy.

>>34470217
Now you need to prove that the universe is like a Mobius. And besides who created the Mobius?

>>34470320
Most scientists believe it began 13-14 billion years ago

>>34470309
>you have to define what God is
I don't think we should be so quick to do that first let's use logic to see what we can tell about god. If god made the universe with all its laws and what not we can infer from that he is outside of space and time and is powerful since he was able to create everything.

>>34470339
Some people's lives have improved since joining the church. Let's not use personal anecdotes to prove god but rather proof and logic.

>>34470280
That's not truth. That's a theory backed up by no proof. Sorry m8.

>>34470280
>something so complex it couldn't be naturally made
>study it for +2000 years
>learn massive amounts about it & realize it couldve been naturally made
>somehow relates to finding something in a garden one day and instantly believing it wasn't natural in a World were we couldn't make a watch
Go back to fucking alterboys

>>34470357
>Most scientists believe it began 13-14 billion years ago

Not that anon but he's referring to the "big crunc"h hypothesis where gravity supposedly pulls the entire universe back into a singularity and then it big bangs again.

He's right in that our models break down by the time we reach the singularity of the big bang, but to play devil's advocate, scientists think the universe will end in heat death or possibly a "big rip" due to dark energy accelerating the speed of the expansion of the universe.

>>34470330
>Premise: All things have causes
God does not have a cause. It is even stated in the bible he was always there. What can you not understand about this? Sure maybe you cannot comprehend, but still, it is a defining feature.

>Since a cause is a thing of itself it must also have a cause.
The cause is just something that leads to another.

>It is, therefore, impossible to trace back a chain of causes to its beginning.
If there was no first uncaused cause, then nothing in creation could have existed.

>That's a theory backed up by no proof.
Do you know what theory means? Evolution is a theory, and you believe in that.

>>34469985
>It doesn't matter that the universe is complex or not the fact that it existed and had a beginning implies a creator.

Wew lad.

>>34470382
>realise it could've been naturally made
Something coming from nothing isn't natural. Ok, let's take out the word complex since that seems to be confusing everybody. The fact that it even exists and had a beginning implies a creator.

>learn massive amounts about it & realise it could've been naturally made
Also no scientist claims to know massive amounts about the universe.

>>34470357
>Now you need to prove that the universe is like a Mobius
I didn't say it is a mobius strip, I said it could be a mobius strip. You can't prove that it isn't.
>besides who created the Mobius?
Dude, are you high? It's a mathematical concept. Nobody created it. It just is.

>Most scientists believe it began 13-14 billion years ago
No, they believe a big bang happened 13-14 billion years ago. Before that another universe could have existed and died, and this other universe could very well have been created by yet another universe, in an endless loop of universes dying and a big bang happening.

>I don't think we should be so quick to do that
You're getting it all wrong. In order to communicate you first have to define the terms you're going to use. Define "god". Define "universe". Define "laws". Define "space and time". Define "powerful". Define "everything".

>>34470404
>It is even stated in the bible he was always there
>Bible being the word of god.

Isn't that self-referential? What if he lied?

>>34470404
>God does not have a cause

How do you know that God does not have a cause?

>If there was no first uncaused cause, then nothing in creation could have existed.

Why not? Why could things not have existed forever?

>>34470449
God doesn't lie, it said so in The Bib...Oh shit.

>>34470426
>Wew lad
Not an argument.

>Dude, are you high? It's a mathematical concept. Nobody created it. It just is.
Most atheist believe before the universe there was nothing. To even add colour would be to break that rule. And so laws of physics are not exempt from this. All things were created even the laws of physics.

>No, they believe a big bang happened 13-14 billion years ago.
Who caused the big bang and if you believe something other than god did so then what caused that? it could go on and on and without a first uncaused cause nothing could have been created.

>You're getting it all wrong. In order to communicate you first have to define the terms you're going to use. Define "god". Define "universe". Define "laws". Define "space and time". Define "powerful". Define "everything"

No, I believ that is unfaire lets look at things and then we build a hypothesis and see if the hypothesis agrees with the conclusions. Also as for defining stuff there's no reason to reinvent the wheel we know what laws, space and time are.

>>34469985
>This is a continuation of the god troll thread
>I will claim to believe in God but actually argue against his existence
I swear to Cat I'm going to filter you religionfags.

>>34470404
>God does not have a cause
>bible

I thought you were trying to prove a deistic god?

And if we are defining god as the first thing to exist without a cause, then I like many other anons, will call the universe "god" it's simpler that way.

You say the universe had a beginning and therefore needs a cause? Bullshit I say! The universe is the beginning of space time. There is no "before the universe". The universe has always existed, even if it has not existed for infinite years.

Also, there are other religions in which god is basically the universe and everything in it, like hinduism. So I have just as much religious evidence as you and your humanified singular creator.

>>34470486
>Not an argument.
>Everything is constructive

It was just supposed to be a way of dismissing your assertion. It's likely that time is an emergent property (cf. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03264v1.pdf). It seems reasonable then to assume that time was, in someways, different beyond the Planck epoch.

>>34470436
>Dude, are you high? It's a mathematical concept. Nobody created it. It just is.

Most atheist believe that before the big bang there was nothing, not even colour. And so after all things were created that include laws of logic and science. So who started this Mobius strip.

>No, they believe a big bang happened 13-14 billion years ago.
What caused the big bang without a first uncaused cause nothing could have been created.

>You're getting it all wrong. To communicate you first have to define the terms, you're going to use. Define "god". Define "universe". Define "laws". Define "space and time". Define "powerful". Define "everything".
I think it is unfair I think we should first look at nature make a hypothesis and see if the evidence follows and that is fair, and I believe by looking at nature we can infer God exists. Also about defining laws and what not, there is no need to reinvent the wheel was know what space-time and powerful is.

>>34470449
The Bible says God can't lie.

>>34470457
see >>34403543

>>34470502
see>>34403543

>>34470560
>Most atheist believe that before the big bang there was nothing

Talking about what happened before the Planck epoch is retarded, there is no physical theory that can reach that far back. Talking about what happened before the big bang then is super retarded.

>>34470560
>there had to be one uncaused thing that can act independently that does not have a beginning


Why could it not continue forever without a beginning?

>>34470560
>The Bible says God can't lie.
That's exactly what this kind anon >>34470481 made his joke about.
It's called paradox of self-reference. And according to it, we can't really be sure about anything God says about himself.
So please don't take the bible as proof of anything

File: 1480084413132.jpg (64KB, 250x438px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 250x438px

OP is a flaming satanist faggot

>>34470560
I already said, that "uncaused thing" is the universe itself. Thats what I believe.

how about instead of "the door was opened by a person", "the door rusts and breaks open".

Here's why you're wrong, OP. God doesn't exist. Information does. Information is everything that you're trying to say that God is: outside of the universe, timeless and unchanging.
Prove me wrong.

>>34470597
see>>34403543
>>34470614
Well, why would he lie it is just an over sceptic argument and doesn't get us anywhere and besides I'm not trying the prove the Christian god exist but rather that a god exists at all. Kinda like me asking if your mum is your real mum and you say she told you but then me saying what is she's lying.

>>34470681
I quoted the post you just told me to see. You have to answer it.

Why could it not continue forever without a beginning?

>>34470627
>"uncaused thing" is the universe itself
Proof

>"the door rusts and breaks open"
That's retarded, doesn't make sense and just an attempt at not answering the question.

>>34470699
You're fucking retarded bro. That or trolling.

File: 1473578300019.jpg (34KB, 265x207px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 265x207px

>>34470681
That's because normally, people expect something from nothing, like a man being pulled in entirety out of a vagina.

>>34470681
We've already debunked or countered the first cause argument you hold so dearly. Pick something else or go away cause no one in this thread is convincing anyone of anything.

And if you are going to argue in favor of a deistic god, invoking a book about your specific god just destroys your credibility.

>>34470694
Think of it this way lets say you wanted to go into a room but before you could go in you had to ask someone can I open this door but before that person could tell you he had to ask someone else can I let him and it went on for an eternity could you ever actually open the door there had to be one uncaused thing that can act independently that does not have a beginning to cause creation. That's the short way of saying it.

>>34470699
Not an argument. Actually respond instead of using ad hominems.

>>34470725
>there had to be one uncaused thing that can act independently that does not have a beginning to cause creation.

Why?

Just repeating yourself won't make it any clearer.

>>34470699
You proove the universe needed a creator and that creator didn't need a creator. You are the one assuming things. My door rusts open analogy was a way of saying the door is everything and everything started naturally without the need for intervention. It males about as much sense as something existing in the void of nothingness "before anything existed" whatever that means since nothingness is nothingness.

Is anybody else masturbating to this thread? I'm like diamonds right now

>>34470713
>We've already debunked or countered the first cause argument you hold so dearly.
How so? If you did, it wasn't very convincing.

>And if you are going to argue in favour of a deistic God, invoking a book about your specific god just destroys your credibility.
I said that I am proving the existence of a deistic God, not a theistic god.

>>34470681
>just an over sceptic argument and doesn't get us anywhere
It does get us somewhere, it's cancelling your attempt to quote the bible whereever you please
>I'm not trying the prove the Christian god exist but rather that a god exists at all
then stop quoting the bible or any text that refer to god as their (indirect) author
>if your mum is your real mum
I can prove it by genetics

>>34470736
WTF? I gave you an analogy and you still don't understand! Are you handicapped?

You proove the universe needed a creator and that creator didn't need a creator. You are the one assuming things.

see>>34403543

File: 1484247160634.jpg (56KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 645x773px

>>34470739
Not an argument.

Think of it this way lets say you wanted to go into a room but before you could go in you had to ask someone can I open this door but before that person could tell you he had to ask someone else can I let him and it went on for an eternity could you ever actually open the door there had to be one uncaused thing that can act independently that does not have a beginning to cause creation. That's the short way of saying it.

Why are you so stupid you do not accept what I am saying?

>>34470772
> gave you an analogy and you still don't understand! Are you handicapped?

Not an argument mate.

>You proove the universe needed a creator and that creator didn't need a creator. You are the one assuming things.

It wouldn't need a creator if it has no beginning. There is no reason as far as I can tell that the universe should require a beginning.

>>34470770
>then stop quoting the bible or any text that refer to god as their (indirect) author
I only quoted it once and that was Isaiah 1:18

>I can prove it by genetics
What if the doctors are lying?

>>34470776
not me but ok

>>34470776
Not an argument.

Think of it this way lets say you wanted to go into a room but before you could go in you had to ask someone can I open this door but before that person could tell you he had to ask someone else can I let him and it went on for an eternity could you ever actually open the door there had to be one uncaused thing that can act independently that does not have a beginning to cause creation. That's the short way of saying it.

It is also not an argument see>>34403543 (Cross-thread)

>>34470740
>I'm like diamonds right now
me too.

>>34470745
What caused the first cause argument, and occams razor on top of that

Causal loops or infinite causal chains without a beginning

Cosmology argument explaining the beginning of space time and how literally nothing existed before existence.

We are convinced of these, you are convinced of the first cause argument. Nobody is gaining anything from this discussion.

Also, that's what I'm saying. You said you were proving deism, so don't fucking mention the bible as proof of anything.

>>34470808
>What if the doctors are lying?

Not an argument.

>I only quoted it once and that was Isaiah 1:18

Not an argument.

see>>34403543

>>34470823
Not an argument.

see >>34470827

File: IMG_0815.jpg (146KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1280x720px

>>34470776
Why are you so stupid you keep repeating the same argument that was debunked long before this discussion. Use an argument other than first cause dipshit.

>>34470808
>>I can prove it by genetics
>What if the doctors are lying?
I can study medicine to prove it and so can you.
we get to the same result by using scientific methods.

stop trolling.

>>34470846
See this other post where I said what you just responded to. Also I may have to inform you that I do not consider what you just said to be an argument and so I will not respond further.

File: IMG_0859.png (530KB, 758x342px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 758x342px

>>34470868
I don't consider what you said to be a compelling argument either so I will sage and stop responding as well. Good day to you idiot.

>>34469985

Either you believe in the bible literally, in which case, you believe the earth is 6000 years old, was created in 6 days, that people were alive at the same time as dinosaurs, that noah could fit two of every species on a boat 510 feet long et cetera.
OR
you do not believe in the bible literally. I.e, you interpret the bible. In this case, given that the human race is by some estimates over 100,000 years old in which time presumably people died from bacteria they didn't know existed, from childbirth, from their teeth, only to go to limbo or worse, to hell. Only about 2,000 years ago did god decide to intervene, even then not in an educated part of the world, like China, perhaps somewhere where people could read, no, instead in Bronze Age Palestine, one of the most illiterate and superstitious parts of the world.
how stupid are you?
Making a virtue of faith is making a virtue of not thinking. It's belief without evidence.

>>34470851
Your whole argument is a laundry-list of all the most common scientific and logical fallacies people use to justify their belief in God. Trying to 'prove' God exists is utterly futile, much less your specific version of God who for some reason sent his son down ~2000 years ago to die or something.

I don't even know why people bother trying to prove the existence of God. If your faith depends on logical arguments then you clearly aren't hanging onto your religion by much of a thread. I totally respect people who believe in God, as long as they don't try and re-write science to justify their belief.

I do love arguing about these things though and I've got 30 mins to kill, so if you want I can start laying out why a whole bunch of your arguments are really silly.

>>34470502
>>34470486
You're not a physicist. You're a basement dwelling robot. Our understanding of the universe works perfectly well without assuming the existence of a creator, occam's razor says we should disregard it.

>>34470965
>I do love arguing about these things though and I've got 30 mins to kill

You won't enjoy talking to OP, because he isn't going to argue with you. He is just going to repeat himself over and over without responding to anything you say.

>>34469985
Go shill somewhere else retard. No one believes this shit.

>>34470486
There's not a shred of evidence for an interventionalist god.
As for a god that does not intervene in human affairs, to say that this god must exist, just because, what else could have created the universe, is a cop out, and limited thinking.

>>34470991
That's true. These sorts of threads on 4chan (or anywhere on the internet desu) are kind of annoying since you never know if they're just trolling.