If you believe morality, consciousness, or meaning can exist without God, you are reaching

1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ 'p = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral. (Observation)
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious. (Premise)
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (From 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent. (From 4)
6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (From 2)
7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (From 1, 5, and 6)
8. Consequence is objective. (Premise)
9. Consequence can be significant. (Observation)
10. Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning. (Premise)
11. Objective meaning implies objective purpose. (Premise)
12. Evil is defined as absence of goodness. (Definition)
13. Purpose is good or evil. (Premise)
14. Good and evil are objective. (From 11 and 13)
15. Good and evil are only moral concepts. (Premise)
16. Good and evil are contingent on morality. (From 15)
17. Morality is objective. (From 14 and 16)
18. Consciousness is objective. (From 15, 16, and 17)
19. Knowledge is objective. (From 18 and 23)
20. Objective morality is contingent on objective consequence and objective consciousness. (Premise)
21. Objective consequence and objective consciousness imply objective agency. (Premise)
22. Agency is objective. (From 21)
23. Absent things don't exist. (Premise)
24. God exists. (From 12, 14, 19, 22, and 23)


This may seem a bit convoluted, but this is what happens when one has to explain axiomatic concepts to insistent idiots.
If you reject this, it's because you didn't try to accept it, you think with your emotions, or you assume your conclusions.
>hurr sky daddy
This """contention""" is analogous to going up to a car enthusiast and snorting "hurr hotwheels."
Don't confuse your mockery for intelligence, or your nonunderstanding as unsoundness of the argument.
That only works on reddit.

Get out, cancerous newfags. Sup Forums has always been a Christian board.13

Come home white man

Saying 'Jesus is the one true God' is like saying 'one plus one equals two'

Obviously, 'one plus one equals two' are just letters. nobody would believe in just letters.

But it represents certain concepts that are truths.

Same goes for 'Jesus is the one true God'. He lived a life of complete truth and transcended this fallen world. Everything in this world is Satan's Domain. It is all flawed. The meaning of goodness and truth is whatever transcends this world. People will never be good. All we can do is seek forgiveness from the one true god

>I understand the logic,
No you didn't; I accidentally deleted two of the premises.
>but can you provide physical evidence for your claims?*
A "claim" is implicitly defined as untrue. It isn't a claim; it's a conclusion.
>For example, a miracle which God unquestionably wrought, which can not be attained by any other means. Proof of bodily** resurrection would suffice.***
The problem with the "Show me a miracle." contention is that a "miracle" is defined as impossible and therefore non-existent. Life is a "miracle." All of existence is evidence of God's existence and your presumed denial of that is of no consequence. The validity of evidence isn't contingent on its tangibility. Evidence is also epistemic, therefore evidence doesn't exist without logical inference. I've provided logical inference so that you may recognize evidence in the world for God's existence. Your having not observed proof of a resurrection is not sufficient to assess the likelihood of God's existence.

*Subtle mockery through insinuation of incredibility
**Suble mockery through redundancy
***Subtle mockery through insinuation that Jesus never rose from the dead
Atheists act like this because they are entirely intellectually unequipped, but still want their way like whiny children. This isn't a sincere inquiry; it is a whine.

>I need a skydaddy watchig me i order to behave morally
Sounds like you are pretty immoral then. Look , if believing you are a cosmic inmate in some metaphysical penitentiary makes you not be an animal, go for it.

>I need a skydaddy watchig me i order to behave morally
I didn't say that, so I stopped reading there. You set up a strawman presumably because you want to argue from your emotions, but you don't have any arguments.

this level of argumentation is way the fuck over the typical Sup Forums atheist's head

would p3 and p4 still be true if p24 is true?
if God exists, wouldn't he exist necessarily, in all possible worlds?

I don't think if God exists, He necessarily necessarily exists. I am personally unconvinced anything is necessary, but I'm a noob at modal logic.

ah well, it's obviously a good argument since the only counter you got in this thread was this guy's ((( ))) strawman
i'm going to steal it

lol If you do, I put the complement on the wrong side of the "p" in "(p ^ 'p = everything)." It should be "(p ^ p' = everything)," not that that part is really necessary.

>p xor not-p
idiot

No, it is showing that p ^ p' is the set of all things. It is not a disjunction.

T

T

>I need God to exist to not be a dick to my fellow man

So what, if God wasn't real there wouldn't be any reason for you to not be an awful shitbag?
Christfags are scary.

If you believe morality, consciousness, or meaning can exist, you are reaching
Fixed,

>morality, consciousness, or meaning
Argument contention on psychological phenomena caused by material factors.
How do thoughtforms or prove God again?

>if you believe consciousness can exist, you are reaching
what do you mean by this?

T

>God for consciousness to exist
What did (You) mean by this extra obfuscation?
Why not skip middleman?

I was being generous. I am retreating to my keep.
Consciousness does not exist. Show me it.

Anything that you necessitate God to exist, does not exist.

BTW I really like Islam.

>using hat meme
>pol is a christian board

pol is satire fag use as many of those ugly ass christchan reaction pics as you want but it will never make pol a christian board

BTFO? I understand.

>Consciousness does not exist. Show me it.
did someone type this post?
if not there's really no need to address it

try to refute his argument instead of crying about Sup Forums being a Christian board

why would i try to refute his argument? christcucks never change their minds no matter what you say, its like talking to a wall

did someone type this post?
Someone did. Someone used a brain not a consciousness.

>are you kidding me!?
this anti-intellectualism is one of the many reasons people loathe you nu-atheists so much, you're not attempting to refute it because you can't

Praise Buddha bruddah!

GG OP

OP, this brings up a question I've been thinking about for a while. When trying to solve the question of how and why the universe began, at a certain point the problem becomes more philosophical than scientific.

>If all space and time existed within a singularly, what event prompted the universe to no longer exist within that singularity.
>If outside of this singularity there was the absence of space, then there was also the absence of time.
>An event acting on the singularity from outside would be dependent on time, meaning time existed outside the singularity, thus space must have also existed.
>Space time existed outside of the singularity where this event occurred.

What caused the event? At this point the case for intelligent design is just a legitimate as the case for random occurrences.

Am I going insane?