Evidence for God

Does Sup Forums have any evidence for God?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration
youtube.com/watch?v=VeKavDdRVIg
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No

Kek however...

wew

>tfw no afterlife

I have evidence against him.

Nothing to do with politics, usual procedure.

jej

faggot fuck off religion has to do with current events

especially since islam is so rampant currently

Faith

Kek has more evidence of existence than god

Yeah, you are the essence, and part of God: the potential of humanity is God's eternal-constant-expression

Faggot, go back to sonic


Yeah but faith doesnt mean shit, I could have faith in a flying spaghetti monster and it would have the same merit as a christian saying they have the same faith in an all knowing post physical deity

If i had i would not give it , 99,9 % of Sup Forums belongs in hell

...

wait, so you're saying im proof of God?

How does that even work?

fire safety, it's god's will

wew

pls no meme images

I dont even understand your point can u explain?

bump

>tfw personal relationship with god through christ

But that's the idea of faith, user. You have faith in something that can't be proven. If you could prove God's existence then it wouldn't be called ''faith''. And yes, FSM follower technically has the same credibility as a Christian but actually it doesn't work like that in the real world

explain

>saves the thumbnail

Its the golden ratio , its a bad argument

>actually it doesn't work like that in the real world
what did u mean by this

wew

This.
I SERVE NON OTHER THAN THE FROG

Just take a look at atheists. Thats proof enough for me

...

>I could have faith in a flying spaghetti monster

sufficient

...

Human beings are of unlimited potential, living in a universe of infinite possibilities; God expresses our potential always, it is his nature. Our consciousness is proof of who he is, and what we are

I didn't pay for the Sun today.

What I meant is that there are religions that are socially accepted and considered ''real'' religions. Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. They might give you some social leverage just like Muslims get in Europe. You technically can start your own religion, or just follow FSM and fundamentally, nothing really on your end would change. Your arguments would stay the same and you wouldn't have any more proof about the deity's existence. However, it wouldn't have the same effect if you followed a ''mainstream'' religion and wouldn't get you shit

>mfw meaningless word salad and pictures of geometric shapes are literally the best theists can do

Consider the following:

You are a young athlete. You work very hard, pushing your body, ruining it and ruining your personal life, struggling and working more and more, to be the best.
If you are the best, its all worth it.

However, you know you are unlikely to be the best. You know many other young men struggle as hard, or harder, and you obviously won't all be the best. You know it is statistically an impossibility, and that thus its not worth it.

So if you were homo economics, the reasonable man, you wouldn't struggle and work as hard.
However, you have FAITH, which is acting as if something is true, even if you don't know it to be true, or even if you know it to be false.

A man who loves his wife, despite knowing she doesn't love him back, is doing so on faith. In the moment, he thinks maybe she will love him some day (not really, but maybe).
A woman who goes back to her abusive husband, despite knowing he'll beat her again, is acting so on faith. Maybe he won't beat her now. Not likely, but maybe.

Faith is thus wishful thinking put to the practice.
Faith in God is acting as if there was a God, even if we don't know that it is, and even if some day we know there isn't.
We do the same with free will. We act as if there was free will, even though there probably isn't, and some day we may know for a fact there isn't.

>mfw no faec

I actually have proof that God does not exist
>As time passes # people dying grows to infinity
>Assume God exists. Dead people go to heaven or hell
>as time passes # conscious minds grows to infinity in heaven and hell. If each mind remembers a bit of data this maps the minds to a countable amount of data in heaven and hell growing to infinity
> eventually the amount of data violates the Berkenstein Bound. This will proves our assumption false
> therefore God is not real

2deep4u

wow
a recurring pattern in nature
must be god right?
because in every other case of a pattern occurring in nature we've proven that it's god behind it right? and this is just a continuation of that precedent? or are you just saying 'oh wow that's so preddy it must have a creator because i think that's logical'

that wasnt even a paragraph lmao
heres another

edgy pic incoming

>>As time passes # people dying grows to infinity

Which G-d are we talking about there, son?

>As time passes # people dying grows to infinity

This doesn't prove God is not real, it suggests one of the following:

>people have their memories wiped when they enter haven
>people join a singularity in haven
>people resurrect and cycle
>Bekenstein was wrong
>God and haven don't exist in the physical realm
etc etc possibilities
You don't prove something, when there are many other possible outcomes that satisfy your "proof" other than the one mentioned.

Consider numbers.
1. They exist.
2. They aren't material. Numbers don't posses mass and aren't made of protons, etc.
3. They are infinite.
This is a good way to explain how souls would be infinite, if they existed in the same way and reality as numbers.
That is just one explanation that contradicts your proof.

As a general rule, you don't prove metaphysics using physics, by the way, and only retarded creationists think God is physical.

Meme magic can only be explained by the supernatural

You know God could exist and there still could be no afterlife and vice versa right?
The former is probably much more likely though, I mean if you could invent a Universe why would they necessarily need to go anywhere when they die?

There can't be direct evidence as it was devised this way. However, we are constantly proving to ourselves that we are limited in terms of comprehension. In short, we cannot find true laws of nature (read opinions of many top physicists), we can only approximate them by finding some relations between one property and the other. Tell me, what difference there is between believing in afterlife and many worlds theorem?

Which one?

Bekenstein is mathematically correct, it snot an opinion
Even if memories wiped as long as they can hold one bit of data the amount of data grows to infinity and violates the Bekenstein bound

>>As time passes # people dying grows to infinity

Did you just blow in from stupid town? Even most religions accept the fact that the material world will end some day, whether by itself or because God threw a temper tantrum.

Mathematics is correct withing the real that its conceived in.
Like I said, don't use physics to explain metaphysics.
You don't measure the color yellow in kilograms, or the number five in its chemical properties.
You are using the wrong tools for the job.

This. It breaks every law of physics thus it's truly magic.
t. Physicist

Scientists don't say that the material world will end. They just say that as mass and energy drifts appear from each other, complexity will end, as you need a certain amount of matter and energy to form complex structures.

The world will still exist, it will just be like taking a strong black coffee (today's universe) and adding to it a bathtub of water (water being "empty space"). Its still the same amount of coffee in there, it still exists.

And most religions who argue the world will end insist in cycles, so it will rather be rebooted according to them.

So no, most people don't think the world will end.

God being mathematically proven false is enough for me to call bullshit, do as you like but just know that the knowledge lifting your plane and carrying your messages across Europe to me is in contradiction with the idea of God

>God being mathematically proven false

But it isn't, and I mentioned several possible ways that the information limit isn't reached.

What is there is no afterlife? This doesn't prove the absence of God, even if souls disappear when dead.
What if there is reincarnation? Souls don't overflow, since they and their allocated limits are reused.
What if dead souls return to the singularity, where they are used to create new souls, thus cycling?

Your solution is only one of many possible, thus its not proven.

>Putting God under his own laws that he created

Are you people dense?

Yes

Posting from PC now

We assume the amount of dead people after some time t can be modeled from the already dead + the existing souls that are going to die.
Because you can't un-die after Jesus, this gives us a function increasing.

Then because God created our universe we assume a probability strictly greater than 0 that God creates a Universe even in case of total extinction of ours (maybe other universes existed before ours from his hand ?)
Therefore the function of dead souls after time t, is strictly increasing even considering Apocalypses and universe destruction

We know that a mind is a discrete element.
Therefore our function of number of dead souls is maped to integers only.
I assume everybody here knows that a strictly increasing function mapped to integers cannot be bounded by a finite limit.

Therefore it grows to infinity
kys

All those cool buildings and music?

You kind of posted one. That's pretty awesome.

consider this:
>God is benevolent and omniscient
>God has a bunch of people to write a bunch of books (why can't he just magic them into existence?)
>these books say some nice things and some absolutely retarded things
now, creationists and fundamentalists are laughed at even by moderate christians, but here's the thing:
>if God is benevolent and omniscient, why would he allow dumb shit to be written in the bible, which people will (or at least should) follow?
>is it because he doesn't know? -> not omniscient, not God
>is it because he doesn't care? -> not benevolent, not God

>What is there is no afterlife? This doesn't prove the absence of God, even if souls disappear when dead.
yes it does, if spelled with a capital g, as in, "God as defined in the mainstream christian dogma", because the existence of God is inevitably linked with the truthfulness of everything else in the bible.

increasing, but not towards infinity.
seeing the current trends, an optimistic estimate is that in a thousand years we'll all have killed each other.

>american education

precision : the function is not strictly greater on a continuous domain of time.
However it is on a discrete domain of time (say, seconds) which excludes discrete elements of the domain where the function has not strictly increased. Because of p > 0 for each passage from one discrete element to another that God creates more life, the domain is not finite.
We have a strictly increasing function from the domain we defined as infinite to the codomain of amount of dead souls that we can use for what I said above

see p > 0 that God creates universe and more life from nothing. Proof is us.

You are the mirror image of this guy here God doesn't have to mean the ameircan pop culture evangelical lutheran protestant mickey mouse christian version of God.

Would any AI have evidence of it's creator?

fuck, posted too early
>and if he doesn't know and/or doesn't care, the whole """credibility""" of the bible crumbles, right?
>and if there is no bible, there is no basis for christianity, right?

>muh interpretation
why wouldn't he just write things as they should be interpreted?
>muh people were stupid 2k years ago
why can't he have other people write new versions of it and it be accepted by people? (note that there have been people claiming to be the new messiah, but have always been dismissed as lunatics)
or, in a much simpler way: why the fuck can't you simply be born with innate knowledge of God's existence and how he wants you to live, but have to be indoctrinated instead?
>muh free will
ah yes, the "i don't have an argument" card retards have been playing for so long

The theory that we are living in a simulation is very popular, look it up.
It will answer many of your questions regarding that AI comparison.

refer to , specifically ">muh interpretation"

Someone has this thread?

Volition

>inb4 newshits posting "8657 is not over 9000 though"

you are chatting absolute shit you fucking nerd

We can't really ultimately and wholly prove if God exist or does not exist. But to think about the line in the bible that goes:
"In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. "

So that's the religious side of God's proof of existence. Together with the String Theory by scientists.

What about the non-theists' proof that God does not exists? All that they can say is because "atheism is a belief of non-existence of a God"

Then if atheists "believe" then why we theists are criticized for also "believing"?

>why wouldn't he just write things as they should be interpreted?

Who is this "he"?
God didn't write any of the holy books.
Those authors were proto scientists, observing their reality, and trying to make sense of it, with the tools they had.

Consider this:
Some music sounds good. It just clicks with you straight away. You hear it and it resonates and you think "thats the song, thats exactly the right song".
The implication some philosophers make of this is that you already knew the song, you just didn't know how to express it, so when you saw it you immediately recognized it.
Same thing for all ideas. You already have all the knowledge, and you just observe your surrounding to see what matches with your internal database, to "discover" things.
The idea is that God installed in you these things - dominance hierarchy, curiosity, knowledge of good music, foods, love, courage, etc, and you discover them over time, getting closer and closer to the singularity of realizing your full potential and discovering every bit of truth in you. Science, in this view of the world, is just the latest step in the search for singularity, while religion was a previous step.

The search for God is the search for all this inherent knowledge in us. We will know when we get there. It will just all snap together, like recognizing your new favorite song.

ok buddy sure

Since I'm drunk when I typed that, what I meant by quoting the bible is that we theists have an answer of what or who created all things and who created the creator of those things.

a finite amount of humans have ever existed, a finite amount of humans will ever exist, you're clueless

Things exist.
What more proof do you need?

Anecdotal:
My stepdad who raised me passed away in 2010. He loved the Broncos, Colorado, and Donald Trump. He used to ask how to get invested in Donald Trump (because I knew computers and stuff). I was just a NEET living at home with mom and him.

Fast forward 6 years. I moved out of moms, bought a house in full, no mortgage, in Colorado (Broncos home state). That was December. Two months later, the Broncos win the Superbowl. And of course, this November the God-Emperor was elected.

I was christian before all this, and this was my gift for holding out my faith. Prayer works. You WILL get the things you desire if they are reasonable and humble requests. TRUST the LORD.

I'm talking about amount of souls.
From nothing God created souls.
A finite amount of souls have existed in our universe it is true.
But even if our universe is destroyed, God can create another universe from Nothing can't he ?
Because we are here, this probability is greater than 0.
This proves that whenever a number of souls died, it is bound to happen that another soul eventually dies. Therefore this number is infinite.
Try to read what I wrote before posting, it's all there

To exist, is to have a cause. You cannot name one thing in the universe that does not have a reason to exist. With that in mind, why do we dismiss the universe as a whole to not have a reason to exist?

our existence

do you have any evidence that you can exist with no creator? it's a much more reasonable question to ask, than your ridiculous question.

"here's a painting. do you have evidence it was created?"

The easy secular counter argument is to say that these clauses and reasons are only attributed to events by people.
Thus nothing has a reason, or purpose, or clause, you just rationalize so, because thats your reason, or purpose, or clause for it.

A tree trunk shaped like a chair is certainly not made or purposed for a chair. But to the tired man who finds it while walking in the forest it is.

i tell you "i have a potato in my hand"
do you believe me? the only logical choice is "i don't know, i don't have enough valid information to make up my mind"

i tell you "there's a magic man who is also his son and also a ghost, and he magic'd the universe into existence, and the whole theory of his existence is based on a series of books full of contradictions (both contradicting themselves, and contradicting things known thanks to modern (and not so modern) science), and he really really loves everyone, but an overwhelming majority of the world's population is living in shit conditions (and right now it's pretty much the best it's ever been from that point of view), but also if you disappoint him you'll burn forever, and he knows everything you ever did and ever will do and could prevent you from doing bad things but doesn't"
do you believe me?


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration

>anecdotal
>relevant
>american education

>tldr: if a soul dies, another soul can die, therefore there is an infinite number of souls
no, not necessarily. the only thing you "proved" is that, according to these postulates, there could be an infinitely large number of souls. we don't know what God's behaviour in respect to the growing number of total souls is, maybe at some point he'll stop creating souls.
tldr: "Because we are here, this probability is greater than 0." is false (if you're saying that that probability stays constant)

>To exist, is to have a cause.
wrong
>You cannot name one thing in the universe that does not have a reason to exist.
also wrong

of course we were created, you moron, nobody is denying that
the question is essentially "we were created by magic (see above)" or "we were created by... i don't know"

Say a meteor kills us right now. Boom we're all gone. The universe keeps ticking. The universe keeps moving, and everything in it has a reason to exist. Look beyond us maybe?

I SERVE NONE OTHER THAN THE FROG

>The universe keeps moving, and everything in it has a reason to exist.
prove it

Nice argument. You cannot name a single thing inside our universe that does not server a purpose.

Prove you're not a faggot. Wow that was easy. You're an actual faggot now.

or at least, you know, show strong evidence poiting towrds it

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration
see That doesn't prove purpose, or the need for purpose.

the "magic" that created us, has to be more intelligent than we are.

a windows computer can't create a Bill Gates. an iPod can't create a Steve Jobs.

fpbp

Throw anything at me, and I will name its purpose/reasons to exist.

You guys can't come up with a single thing that doesn't serve purpose. I don't need to prove purpose, it's common sense if you stop limiting yourself to a bubble. You guys need to prove to me there is no purpose, because I can prove there is with anything in the universe, but you guys can't seem to bring up anything with no purpose..

show strong evidence stars still explode when humanity is gone? i dont get where you're trying to go here honestly. are you saying the universe around us doesn't exist simply because there is no human consciousness around to perceive it's existence?
If you guys have an open mind to the argument that isn't paraphrased or watered down by me, watch this with an open mind faggot -

youtube.com/watch?v=VeKavDdRVIg

Just because you can attribute purpose to any given thing, that doesn't mean the purpose is inherent to it.
Come on lad, philosophy 101.

Churches.

that's the funny thing, i can't prove it. however, you have no reason to believe it, because there is no evidence poiting towards it (other than the obvious "but you're acting like a faggot").

>intelligent
no
just no
it gravity intelligent because if makes things fall down?
is water intelligent because it aggregates into drops?
is a river intelligent because it carves its path?
some things just are. maybe they were created by someone or something, but maybe not. saying that they were created by God, or even just any divine being, without a shred of evidence, basically equates to saying "muh feels"

>m-m-muh edgy
ok pal, still not seeing arguments

>you attribute purpose to things
>therefore they have that specific purpose
>therefore god exists
lmao

>show strong evidence stars still explode when humanity is gone?
it's happening right now, it has happened before humans existed, and humans don't have an effect on it. therefore, it would be silly to assert that stars will stop exploding when humanity is gone.
now please, your turn. show strong evidence that the universe and everything in it has a reason to exist (not just merely that it will keep existing)

>>m-m-muh edgy
>ok pal, still not seeing arguments

What edgy?
You say you are arguing against God, when in reality you are arguing against a caricature of God that a smart schoolboy will tell you is wrong.
If you want to make a case against the ameircan pop culture evangelical lutheran protestant christian god, say so, I'll help you out.
Just don't pretend that arguing against the translated bible is the same as proving no God exists.