How to defeat an atheist in a debate: Why does anything exist?

>>36552373
The differece is that we can actually prove the laws of physics exist, dumbass

How to beat a religious person in a debate:
>Which god?

>>36552373
>they made themselves

Why do you think an atheist would say something stupid like this?

>>36552436
But what made the laws of physics?

File: 1492991066709.jpg (7KB, 192x187px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 192x187px

>>36552373
Because that would defy the laws of physics shill

>>36552436
what made the law of physics though :^)
the big bang necessitates the existence of a god

>>36552373
>What made the laws of physics?
Humans

File: images(5).jpg (17KB, 313x161px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 313x161px

>>36552518
Wat?


Original shit

If there were a god, this board wouldn't exist

>>36552471

Nothing. The laws of physics simply exist because of the limitations of physics within this universe. If these limitations didn't exist then some other set of limitations would.

>>36552546
Are you dumb mate?

>>36552373

We really have no idea where the universe came from, why the laws of physics are the way they are. Our models break down at plank's time in the big bang. As such they're unkowns.

God just always happens to lurk in the unknowns.

Now how should we treat unknowns? We should investigate them as much as we can and try to figure them out, rather than throwing up our hands and say "God did it". To past peoples, the origin of lightning, or species would have seemed just as impossible to understand as the origin of the universe.

>>36552516
if god doesn't need something else to exist
then the universe also doesn't need and it's eternal
the big bang is only the point of maximum contraction of the eternal universe

There is no God but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God.

File: cutie.png.jpg (58KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x450px

>>36552373
>Not being an agnostic
There's not enough evidence on either side of the debate. As plausible as it is for some divine creator to have granted us this universe to do so as we please it's equally plausible that everything is simply a universe scale chemical reaction happening over the course of trillions upon trillions of years. Once either side is proven I will willingly convert but until that point I find it rather pointless

>>36552471
Why do you think something 'made' the laws of physics? What is your evidence that something created the laws of physics

>>36552610
To be quite honest mate, the fact that the old and new testament exist is the proof that the word of god is not perfect, if it's not perfect it means he's not omniscient, which means he's not omnipotent which in turn removes 2 of the 3 elements that makes a god.

>>36552687
>is the proof
why is it proof?

>>36552373
I'm just posting this to tell you I saged while posting this I saged posting this.

What is infinite regress?

>>36552373
what if physics created god
>>36552610
pussy

>>36552571
Yes

Original nut

>>36552719
Because they contradict each other often.

>>36552788
why can't a perfect being contradict itself?

File: crasa.jpg (84KB, 380x495px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 380x495px

>>36552687
A God does not have to be the God. It's entirely possible that the being that created us has an entirely different way of going about things, simply wanting us to try our hardest instead of this purity crap. It's also entirely possible that he would want us to kill all those who disavow his name. I believe that a God would not want to interfere with the real world in any way other than possibly private exchanges with near death mortals and granting devil tier deals. God could be a multitude of things, there could be a multitude of Gods, we simply aren't sure and there's nothing I can find that outright proves any opinion here

>>36552830

You're really not building a case for religious people here, anon.

>>36552830
Because it means it's not perfect.

>>36552471
Natural selection.
I just see God as the universe and the universe as God. We are the universe experiencing itself. Afterall, "God created man in his image"

>>36552561
But why would those limitations exist in the first place? Why would limitations in general exist in the first place?

Things don't exist because of the laws of physics things exist because they exist, things follow the laws of physics. even if god is real why dwell on it, don't you know that BO Burnam song. its not like your going to heaven so why does it matter to worship a god that hasn't done anything for you. also the laws of physics didn't create themselves they are the patterns that happen in the world that we have observed that we believe must happen in our reality.

>>36552856
if it's a perfect being, why can't it defy the laws of physics and logic?

>>36552850
>A God does not have to be the God.

rly makes me think, then if a god doesn't need to be a god it doesn't have to be a sentient entity either, the universe is our god and we were "created" out of a lucky chain of event billions of years into the birth of the universe.

Atheists are the dumbest people by far, they refuse to change their stance on literally anything which is quite ironic desu. I once showed my atheist "friend" undeniable proof that the earth was in face flat and he just acted like I was some kind of idiot. I'm honestly bewildered that these people can even exist with themselves. Also, there's literally no reason to be atheist at all because if you're right(you're not) then you get nothing out of it, if you're wrong(you are) you will burn in hell for all eternity as the worthless subhuman you are. I was once with this chick who said she didn't believe in God so I asked her why that was. She then sperged out going all "LOL DO YOU BELIEVE UNICORNS TOO" and ignored every argument I had literally refusing to listen to me. I can assure you I dropped her right there and then, ain't got time for that shit. Another time one of my friends came out as "gay" so I beat his as so hard he'd never deny the word of God ever again. #Noregrets.

If you're an atheist then you should either a) convert to a superior christian lifestyle or b) stop breathing the air(or "oxygen" as atheist say) God made for him and his believers. You say you don't believe in anything but regularly practice devil worship with your gay talk and bible defilement. One day on your deathbed you'll see the light flashing before you and realize how wrong you were,but by that point it will be too late.

Anyway for everyone out there still following God's word, bless you and have a good day. You're the real heroes out there. For everyone else, good luck in the afterlife!

>>36552830
Principle of explosion m8. If something is true, the contradiction can also be true. And considering that humans are made in God's image, that principality actually works fairly well.

>>36552912
>earth is flat
lmao'ing at you are life

>>36552907
There's a difference between THE GOD and some pagan god made by devil worshipers.

>>36552373
Nice Strawman you retarded Brainlet.

>>36552920
>humans are made in God's image
do you have any evidence of that?

>>36552373
>Why does anything exist?
Stupid unnecessary question that exists just so you could attribute your god to it
>What made the laws of physics?
Another stupid unnecessary question that exists just so you could attribute your god to it
>Then why can't god make himself?
That's assuming a god didn't exist before and exists now. What does it mean for a god to exist? What does it mean for a god to interact with reality? Why is a god even necessary?

>>36552373
>How to defeat an atheist in a debate:

Just call him a powerless nerd and walk away.

>b-but that's not very nice and religious of you!

I'm not religious, I just think that Atheists are faggots who build their identity and sense of self around what they're not, rather than what they are.

>>36552902

Other anon wasn't talking about physics and logic. Anon was talking about new and Old Testament contradicting themselves. A perfect being would have no need to contradict itself.

>>36552436
>Not understanding OPs point.

>>36552912
this this and this. I get so fucking tired of sphereists. You cant stay standing on a fucking sphere unless you're on the very top.

>>36552991
>A perfect being would have no need to contradict itself.
but if that being created the universe
that being has volition
then the option of the being defying logic at will is valid

File: 1422569553472.jpg (32KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x360px

>>36552912
terrible bait son. You lost me way too early at flat earth

>>36552964
Says it in the Bible.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

>>36552964
Gen 1:27
"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
Did you not finish elementary school maybe?

>>36552912
nice bait my man. Should have stopped beforeth gay friend anectode to keep the realism.

>>36552976
So for example, 63% of France's population defines themselves atheists, are they all faggots?

>>36553042
>>36553048
You do know that these are things written in that were revealed through revelation, these things are null and void because no one gives revelation a second thought as an actual source in this day and age.

>>36553042
>>36553048
that is just a dude's statement.
it holds no more worth than the first comment

>>36553042
>>36553048
that's not evidence of anything
we are talking about the logical and philosophical implications of a creator
not about faith
but if you want to bring that to the table
how is that evidence?

>>36553062
>are they all faggots?
Yes, but that has nothing to do with their Atheism

>>36553115
If you think about scenarios in which God is possible, it becomes a lot easier to explain how human's could be made in said God's image.

>>36552687
>bible is wrong because of this retarded fact so no god can exist
Just shut up

>>36553181
as well as an original image altogether
again, how is that evidence?

>>36553115
>>36553112
>>36553088
Prove to me right here and now that E=MC2 or any other physics formula.
Can you? I'll wait. Also, you can't use the words of other people you need to prove it yourself.

>>36553213
>Prove to me right here and now that E=MC2 or any other physics formula.
what?

>>36552687
I still don't get it, does the new testament nullify the old testament? Because the old testament said that if the bible was edited in any way or form, that that person would be removed from the book of creation. It's an interesting sort of paradox in which one side is lying.

>>36552373
God is just a metaphor for things we don't understand. Notice theists usually defend their beliefs by saying there are too many things we can't explain for God not to exist. Never That something we understand points to God.

>>36553184
No one says no god CAN exist, just that it is unlikely for a god to exist given the evidence. Believing a god does exist given the unlikelyhood is just unnecessary.
>>36553213
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>36552890

BECAUSE THIS UNIVERSE WOULD BE ANTS WALKING AROUND IN TOP HATS SPINNING AROUND IN A BIG BLOB OF GAS WITH GEOMETRIC SHAPES SHOOTING BY OK JUST SHUT THEF UCK UP

>>36553210
If I can't directly prove the existence of God outside of the hub of connections and interactions we share in our everyday lives, how can I prove that humans are a symbolic manifestation of the being that is God?

>>36553232
You know what I meant. Prove to me that physics or whatever is real and not just God's work.

Why is a God needed in the first place if the universe can emerge out of nothing perfectly fine, occam's razor famalamalam
Also this thread is poor bait

>>36553213
the actual experiments behind formulas can be repeated over and over again. it holds true in
also energy does not equal mass times the speed of light times two.

>>36552560
Not necessarily. God made the laws of physics consistent meaning people will suffer and die. If it all leads to something better though it would be worth it in the grand scheme. You literally can't believe God cares about everyone though since the laws of physics are consistent and cause people to die and suffer all the time.

>>36552373
d-damn... phoneposter shows again that he's actually... so.. smart!!!

>>36553269
that's up to you.
you're the one that said that the biblical text counts as evidence.
i'm asking you why that counts as evidence.

>>36553285
>God made the laws of physics consistent meaning people will suffer and die
How do you know this? How can you say this with such certainty

>>36553279
I haven't seen any of it, why should I, or anyone else who hasn't seen this "proof" believe it? You say I can't use bible as proof because you haven't witnessed the things there or felt God, but then yourself start pulling all these "science" books up everyones faces as if that makes you any correct.

>>36552373

You just defeated yourself too though.

>>36553270
just go and replicate the experiments that proved the theory behind the equation right.
can you experiment the existence of god?
how is your answer stronger than the experimentation of the already coded laws of physics?

>>36553341
you can recreate these things. no scientist has been able to recreate god's writing.
itwas done once, and cannot be repeated, yet evidence of physics can be

>>36552912
Why would God make you burn in hell if you don't believe in him and then put millions of people on Earth who have never even heard of him or grew up worshipping animal spirits or the moon or some shit? Why would he make a thousand different religions and have people born into positions where they have no choice but to believe it because it's always presented as fact with no alternative? I can see the whole being a good person thing as being neccesary to not burn in hell, but belief in a certain set of criteria about God is just silly.

>>36553341
>We don't know a god exists so humans don't know shit
Kill yourself, honestly

>>36553279
But what about the times where the result veers off from a consistent pattern. Doesn't that mean a mistake was made somewhere in the equation that was validated rendering the possibility of flaw due to human error? Considering many branches of science are constantly being revised to support new information and evidence, isn't the reliability of science almost as flimsy as the bible. One relies on physical senses, and the other relies on instruction, recounts, and symbolism.

>>36553327
They count as evidence solely because they are said to be the word of God, thought since we can't prove that they are the word of God, it's a bit of a stalemate in terms of authenticity.

>>36553367
>>36553379
You're impossible to argue with, I can't even. Last time I even try to have a civil discussion with an atheist. Is there any christian threads on other boards because this one is just bad?

>>36553335
People suffer and die every day and have done so since the start of recorded history and all the data we have gathered about the laws of physics show they are consistent, that's why we call them laws. What about this is confusing to you?

>>36553270
This is such an obvious attempt at snare baiting, making a useless demand of the other person with little to no effort to rebuke the other to find some holes to swing at in the other's response, don't fall for this crap

>>36553388
>Doesn't that mean a mistake was made somewhere in the equation that was validated rendering the possibility of flaw due to human error?
or there was a mistake in that single run of the experiment, which is more likely.
>isn't the reliability of science almost as flimsy as the bible
no, because it can be tested and improved
>One relies on physical senses, and the other relies on instruction, recounts, and symbolism.
science not only relies on physical senses but also on abstraction and information

>>36553436
you can't even convince me with your poor arguments?
are you here to argue and expose your point or to convince someone of someting you believe?

>>36553454
How do they correlate to a god, pham, it's a literal non-sequitur

>>36553388
>isn't the reliability of science almost as flimsy as the bible.
Literally what "science" are you talking about.
Studies into what diets are best for you or whether or not gravity pulls us down on Earth at the rate of 9.8 m/s, because you're an idiot if you think that our understanding of gravity is flimsy.

>>36553388
other humans can repeat the same results with in a small variable range.
i am talking about known theorems and not the general science.
>>36553436
those are post by two separate people.
if you want other threads find them then faggot.
if you cannot recreate your proof then, it is not proof.
why do you run when confronted with actual proof?

>>36553537
theist got rekt
>You're impossible to argue with, I can't even.
lel

>>36553468
>or there was a mistake in that single run of the experiment, which is more likely.
>more likely

>no, because it can be tested and improved
The lack of absolution and the reliance on certain axioms as a foundation of science makes it as questionable as the bible in terms of reliability. Your relying on a theory you consider static so you have a basis for the expansion of your knowledge. The bible on the other hand as a whole uses a collection of written passages as an axiom for morality and purpose.

>science not only relies on physical senses but also on abstraction and information
Abstraction can be applied to biblical law for starters. And physical senses are focal points for gathering all of the information we think we have.

>>36553625
You're gonna have to demonstrate your Biblical law is from a god by demonstrating that your god exists and not just any other god. Are you retarded? I think you are

>>36553625
>makes it as questionable as the bible in terms of reliability
it doesn't because it can be tested and the results of experiments repeated indefinetly while you can't replicate anything about the biblical affirmations about the existence of god

>>36553537
>i am talking about known theorems and not the general science.
Once again, relies on axioms as well as the bible. The only difference is that one is (supposedly) static while the other is fluid.

>>36553692
So because you see x happen and x happens x number of times, it's true while the bible is a lie because (supposedly) you cannot confirm anything from the bible?

>>36553772
>So because you see x happen and x happens x number of times, it's true while the bible is a lie because (supposedly) you cannot confirm anything from the bible?
it's not absolutely true as well the bible is not absolutely a lie
the thing is, science is more reliable because it can be tested and expanded upon on all its ranges indefinetly

>>36553772
theorems are proven as static, yet nothing from the bible can be recreated at will.
all old theorems can still be used accurately, but there are new discoveries that can make sure that we don't memorize needless shit when things can be done with one equation, or a simpler one.

>>36553772
If a god interfered with reality before why doesn't then he do it now and make it obvious? It makes no sense to interfere with reality in Ancient times and not now

>>36553809
>the bible is not absolutely a lie
Only the entirely made up fanfiction parts of it right my dude? Oh wait that's potentially ALL of it.

But fuck you science nerds, if I believe in something that means it's possible.

There are people claim to be christian on 4 chan.

Why do Christians think atheists / non religious people hate the idea of a god? Personally, i'm 100% okay with the concept it's just that I haven't seen any evidence that shows one might exist. You can't claim you have a strong point if all your evidence is "well x doesn't make sense therefore god".

>>36553847
No one says it's impossible, stop misrepresenting the argument. The point is it's improbable

>>36553847
maybe the bible is all true and the final frontier of science will prove it all right
but we have no reason to believe in that right now
while religion demands you a leap of faith
science looks for the truth step by step and it's appliable in the physical world

>>36553886
That's what I'm saying, you know how cool all that shit would be? Angels and shit, that shit would be awesome, man, but that doesn't make it real

>>36553809
>science is more reliable because it can be tested and expanded upon on all its ranges indefinitely.

I can respect that statement, although are we still arguing over atheism and religion?

>>36553844
From what I understand, God interacts with us through our connections and communications in our daily lives. It's more or less based on interpretation. X happens outside bounds of decided logic so act of God or, x happened because of y.

>>36553911
If anything, i'd support the unification of religion and science. They're like 2 incomplete puzzle pieces that together would work really well together in unlocking the contents of reality.

>>36553847
>if I believe in something that means it's possible
jus be urself :)

File: IMG_3714.jpg (81KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 960x960px

>>36552436
>using the law of physics to prove the law of physics

>>36553913
An Interesting theory I had on all of this is that God is simply a human from the future or outside of this plane of existence that set up the universe using the knowledge humans gained during that time or in that reality and put it to practice.

>>36553943
>If anything, i'd support the unification of religion and science. They're like 2 incomplete puzzle pieces that together would work really well together in unlocking the contents of reality.

You're joking right?

>>36553911
>Maybe the bible is all true
There are random fictional stories that were written and added to the bible, they are certainly not true. Just because most passages are too old to be entirely confirmed to be fake doesn't mean that there is a shred of potential for any of it to be true.

>>36553943
>although are we still arguing over atheism and religion?
i thought it was a thread about the existence of god but people came in with biblical arguments

>>36553943
I'm not talking about interpretations of fucking events, I'm talking about creating events that CAN'T BE mistaken.

>>36553979
One is about morality and purpose, the other is about the inner workings of the world around us? What's wrong with that? I get that corruption and bias could be a problem but you'll have that whether they're unified or separated.

>>36553971
I don't think you understand how proof works

>>36554000
But things can always be mistaken. Unless everything was viewed from one lens, most people will have a different interpretation of the events that transpired. You can claim we all saw it the same way if you want, but if you factor in background, knowledge, and environment, your going to get a plethora of answers.

>>36554046
He's trying to 'make fun' of people who say:
>Using the Bible to prove the Bible
Not knowing that the Bible is the claim.
>>36554066
>Things can always be mistaken
Apparently god can do anything, that means he can create an event that can't be mistaken as anything other than a god interfering with reality, your own fucking definition of a god should 'prove' that

>>36554128
If anything is possible, that also means the opposite is possible as well. Look up the principle of explosion if you don't get it. It basically says that a statement and it's contradiction can be true.

>>36554187
I'm not the one saying anything is possible. You're the one saying this with your definition of a god

>>36554226
Doesn't the previous statement prove what i'm saying then?

>>36554018
There's no such thing as scientific bias just misinformation.

>>36554281
So are you saying that there are no biases in the science community concerning the flow, publication, and validation of information? Or are you saying that an experiment in itself cannot produce results with any sort of bias?

>>36554265
All your statement proves is that a god can't do anything

>>36554320
How so? How does that prove that god can't do anything?

>>36554341
>But things can always be mistaken
Means that a god can't create an event that can't be mistaken as anything other than a god interfering in reality

fuck if i know what MADE them exist but it doesn't boil down to why it exists it boils down to whether we KNOW they exist.

>>36554341
I hope you know your explosion theory non-sense also argues that other gods other than yours exists

>>36554318
Facts have no bias people can interpret them differently with their own bias however

>>36554393
It's the variance in human background that can cause mistakes concerning the interpretation of an event. How could God not create that?

>>36554427
Do other versions of the same God count as other Gods? Because the multiverse theory would support that possibility.

>>36554488
A fact is a statement that is considered credible. There could very well be subtle bias hidden within a factual statement even if it is interpreted differently whether it's actually there or not.

File: 1491456432975.png (66KB, 554x400px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 554x400px

>>36553886
its the extremist that shoves their religion up your ass and fedora """atheist""" debating wherever the word "god" is with their muh science, which right now is still not perfect.

Before Newton the concept of gravity wasn't found yet, and you all jump to conclusion that something simply does'nt exist because muh science.

We're still progressing so stop with this nonsense debate

>>36554494
>It's the variance in human background that can cause mistakes concerning the interpretation of an event. How could God not create that?
So you're basically saying he can't create an event that isn't mistaken as anything other than a god interfering with reality? You're basically saying your god can't do anything.

>Do other versions of the same God count as other Gods? Because the multiverse theory would support that possibility
Oh, really? How does it correlate?

File: 1465902921419.jpg (129KB, 698x679px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 698x679px

No one knows how the laws of physics came to be, but they do follow strict logic, and logic must precede everything, including a god.

Asking "why" anything exists is begging the question... "Why" in that context assumes a conscious intent where they may not be one.

For all we know, we're a part of an infinite regress of causal origins, or perhaps existence at some fundamental, yet undiscovered level, is eternal. In either case, reality has no beginning or "purpose", it simply "is".

I've yet to hear a cogent argument in favor of the existence of god.

>>36552373
We
Are
God
You
Fucking
Moron

File: ywWQ3Uv.jpg (84KB, 720x526px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 720x526px

>>36554557
>debating wherever the word "god" is with their muh science, which right now is still not perfect

No one argues science is perfect, anon. They argue that it's far superior to religion in discerning concrete objectivity, and they're right.

>>36554580
>So you're basically saying he can't create an event that isn't mistaken as anything other than a god interfering with reality? You're basically saying your god can't do anything.

I'm not saying that he can't at all, i'm saying that the event God would have to create under those circumstances would have to be interpreted the same under all current environmental or circumstantial possibilities.

>>36554580
>Oh, really? How does it correlate?
It correlates because as >>36554427
said, the explosion theory would argue that other god's outside of "God" would exist and i'm saying that there is indeed a possibility of that although that depends on what you interpret as "other" gods.

>>36554615
Religion and Science take 2 different approaches to explaining the world as we know it. To describe one as better because it describes things more directly and distinctly than the other approach that describes things in a more moral and humanistic perspective is like calling a red pepper better than a green pepper. They're similar, but are sill different.

File: x3Vkj6g.jpg (423KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 900x1200px

>>36554712
>Religion and Science take 2 different approaches to explaining the world as we know it

They sure fuckin do. One uses critical thought, empiricism and peer review in its assertions. The other relies on anecdotal evidence, unfalsifiable personal experience, and blind faith...

Trying to defend religion because of its moral statements is absurd. It disregards the fact that you can make moral statements just as well (if not better) WITHOUT attaching unfalsifiable supernatural claims to them.

Religion co-opts and hides behind morality when its claims about concrete objectivity are questioned. Everything about it is dishonest garbage.

>>36554661
If there was a god, how would there be any circumstantial possibilities unless he allows for it to happen?

>It correlates because as >>36554427 (You)
said, the explosion theory would argue that other god's outside of "God" would exist and i'm saying that there is indeed a possibility of that although that depends on what you interpret as "other" gods
Other Gods that people believe in along with whatever their afterlife claims are

>>36554557
English pleaserino

>>36554872
He's saying that the radicals of the religious side force religion on you while the nerdy aspies of the atheist side debate anywhere there is a mention of god with science which is not perfect.

He also goes on to say that before the concept of gravity was found by newton, we all still jumped to conclusions on the basis of science and deny that which we cannot prove.

And he ends it with, as life goes on, we are still making discoveries and growing as a species so he is asking us to stop this debate which we wage in a vain attempt to cast superiority over the other on the basis of ideology.

>>36555012
So you're saying revelation is perfect? You're saying religious experiences are perfect?

>>36554805
>One uses critical thought, empiricism and peer review in its assertions. The other relies on anecdotal evidence, unfalsifiable personal experience, and blind faith...
Empiricism is based on faith. All the talk of evidence and peer review is just an attempt to muddy the numerous gaps that need to be bridged with faith. Not that there's anything wrong with faith.

>you can make moral statements just as well (if not better) WITHOUT attaching unfalsifiable supernatural claims to them
Then do so you fucking idiot. inb4 sam harris argument that favors torturing one person for 100 years over a million people getting sand in their eyes

>>36555349
>All the talk of evidence and peer review is just an attempt to muddy the numerous gaps that need to be bridged with faith.

Found the religitard. This statement was asinine. No credible scientist makes any claims about anything they don't know about. For example, any serious physicist, when asked what came before the big bang, or how it started, will say "we don't know".

You probably heard everything you think you know about the scientific method from some preacher.

>Then do so you fucking idiot.

We have, you fucking idiot. Go ahead and look up the Code of Hammurabi for a great example. If you honestly think moral theory is exclusive or original to ANY religion, you're an ignorant ass burger. All of our best moral theory is secular.

Also, your Sam Harris straw man is adorable.
Go educate yourself.

>>36552890
there is no such thing as a "first place." they are universal constants.

>>36555561
>he hasn't read Bacon
>he hasn't worked in a lab
Kys my man