Believes in god

>believes in god
Umm, sorry honey, there is no evidence for god.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2bosouX_d8Y
youtube.com/watch?v=76Osna4exoU&t=664s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

how do I know you exist finald?

Read a book.

you don't

...

>tfw to smart to be an atheist

>tfw people unironically believe something came from nothing

Where did that something come from then in the first place?

>sun and moon same size in sky
just an accident

>humans and all creatures for that matter have internal biological mechanisms that like clockwork heal and manage themselves throughout the lifetime of an individual
definitely no designer there!

>lives in the only known existence with breathable air and livable temperatures and pressure and eats fruits and meats and plants practically tailor made for eating
thats just evolution bro! did you know that you can make mona lisa by throwing paint randomly at a canvas for billions of years even though any non retard who has ever designed anything understands the importance of the intent behind creation?


People like you make me sick

...

>tfw to inlitenened by jesus to be a atheist

I BELIEVE IN GOD BUT WHO CREATED GOD

I MUST KNOW THE ANSWER

INB4 SUICIDE

youtube.com/watch?v=2bosouX_d8Y

If there is any evidence for God, then it is not a religion but a theory.

Here's some evidence:

youtube.com/watch?v=76Osna4exoU&t=664s

>evidence

that's a really neat opinion you have there.

Dude no see if things were different then you would be around to think about this stuff. So yeah we wuz accidents n sheeit

Belittling the effort that all those people put into each learning their individual parts, let alone the composer. This was produced by humanity, not God, and it's beautiful.

>tfw two smart to be an atheist and too smart to follow an organized religion
get personal with god, yo. take him deep, deep into your mind's ass.

Christcucks BTFO.

Just. Fucking. Stop it.

Why stop at one? There must be thousands of them. Pick your top ten.

>the miracle of humanity and it's beautiful creations is not proof of God

>Being so fucking dumb and edgy you don't realize we have religon for morals

If something created god, that thing would be god.
I see god as the infinite mind that created the universe, or 'the all' as the hermetics say.
Read the Kybalion for more information

Why does all other atheists need to be autistic fucks? I might not believe in God or anything like that but at least I don't consider myself intellectually superior to those who do. These fucks jack off to the thought of their percieved intellectual superiority and think so fucking highly of themselves. Always feel the need to mock and to shove their thoughts up people's faces. The edgyness is just to compensate for the dissatisfaction of one's life, believe me because I've been there. That phase fades after a while and you eventually come back to understand that religion plays an invaluable part in a country's culture, tradition and history. Even if you, like me, never start to believe in it, you will come to aopreciate the integral role it plays in your country.

>citing daily mail as credible source
user, it's like you want your claim to be completely disregarded.
I wouldn't be surprised though - many hardcore atheists do seem somewhat spergy. Even if I am a christian though, I wouldn't say that makes them wrong as convenient for my worldview as that could be. Especially since autism doesn't have to mean retardation and many savants - geniuses when it comes to certain fields even if severely lacking in the others - were autistic.

Come to Christ you Swede

Sorry, princess, there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
In fact, the Scientific Method would lead one to believe there is more evidence for, than against.
Atheists honestly think that their emotions triumph logic. It's almost like a Crusade.

Everything has always existed, the average human mind can't comprehend things not having a beginning and end
>tfw too smart to not comprehend things not having a beginning or end

except that it didn't and there's no reason to believe such a thing

>Scientific Method would lead one to believe there is more evidence for, than against.
That's retarded and you know it and was just expecting nobody to challenge that.

at the first sip of science, you become an atheist
at the bottom of the glass you find God.

>there's no evidence that God doesn't exist
See Russell's Teapot

>The Scientific Method would lead one to believe there is more evidence for, than against.

No it wouldn't.

>Atheist's think that their emotions trump logic
No, they think their logic trumphs your emotion.

I'm opposed to militant atheism and I think religion has a place in society, but let's not delude ourselves here.

>religion cucks

laughing stock

pretty based, agreed

when i was a glancing-at-the-redpill normie i thought i had it all figured out and god was impossible

now after swallowing the whole bottle and shedding 30 old selves, i'm quite convinced no gods is impossible just the same

i got the quote wrong but you get the point
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
― Werner Heisenberg

>just expecting nobody to challenge that.
No one with any intellectual curiosity, at least.
I expect trolls here for every post.

Even Lawrence Krauss hit a wall with this one.

Matter, energy, space, and time seemed to come from a point where there was no matter, energy, space, nor time. This can be conceptualized as 'nothing' as us, as we are beings used to, and operating under, the conditions of matter, energy, space, and time. He does propose that there was a Quantum Fluctuations Field in this 'nothing', which itself caused a debate in the astrophysics community over whether these quantum fluctuations were really 'nothing'.

I'm not saying a deity did it, but once we are dealing with that which concerns the outer bounds of what we consider the natural world, we are definitionally referring to the supernatural.

>See Russell's Teapot
Why not a synopsis?
>No it wouldn't.
I see...because thinking is hard!1!
>No, they think their logic trumphs your emotion.
How would they know when they never try? All they do is explain about their Beliefs.

This thread is heresy.
You believe whatever you want to believe.
I believe the Warp (immaterium, sea of souls) actually exists, that's why its described in almost the same form in literally every single religion/cult on the planet.

That and Warhammer lore are the single most redpilled novels ive ever read.

Well, maybe besides Frank Herbert's Dune.
That shit makes your head spin.

You want me to explain Russell's Teapot to you?
Very well.

There is no evidence that god does not exist. In the same way, there is no evidence that there is not a tea set in perfect orbiting around the sun.

However we should not live our lives with the supposition this teapot exists, despite lack of evidence to the contrary, and so we shouldn't live our lives with the supposition god exists- because in the same way there is no evidence.

You can claim the existence of anything you like. Bigfoot, witches, C'thulhu, Spiderman, whatever. But that doesn't mean they're real until proven otherwise.

...

To address the other, well, calling them points would be a bit generous...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'thinking is hard' in this context. Sounds like a personal reflection.
There is no scientific evidence for god. If you believe there is, feel free to post it.

>How would they know when they never try
Never try what? Religion?
Plenty of atheists, especially in America where Christianity is especially prevalent, are raised in Christian families but become atheist on their own.

I'm not atheistic myself.
But you are exceptionally stupid.

I really hope, for your sake, that you're baiting

>There is no evidence that god does not exist. In the same way, there is no evidence that there is not a tea set in perfect orbiting around the sun.
Logical fallacy. Giving a Name to something doesn't elevate it.

Using your retarded theory, you discount all of human history that had a belief in something beyond itself, you elevate the obviously impossible to be equivalent to something that's unknowable, you throw out all principles of scientific integrity that states you must consider all possibilities and not discount one because it doesn't fit your preconceived prejudices...it actually is demonstrably anti-logic.
This is a danger of Philosophy 101.
There's a similarity to first year med students who can be certain they have dengue fever.

>so we shouldn't live our lives with the supposition god exists- because in the same way there is no evidence.
But that's the point of my first post. You never tried, you just assumed based on your prejudice, and covered it with philosobabble.

No need to be so passive aggressive, user.

What the nippon said is right.

>I'm not sure what you mean by 'thinking is hard' in this context.
You demonstrated it in your next sentence:
>There is no scientific evidence for god
I didn't misspell or use big words, but you missed it anyway.

And you continue to misunderstand even the most simple sentence I type:
>How would they know when they never try
>Never try what? Religion?
Never tried what I mentioned.

I reply only to question your intelligence instead of answering your post, because you don't demonstrate the ability to comprehend it.
And it is much more fun to poke pseudo-intellectuals with sticks than contort into their positions to debate them.
Shall we continue the show?

>passive aggressive, user.
You need to look that up.
There was nothing passive about that, dumbass.
>What the nippon said is right.
He didn't say anything besides
>look at how smat i am!1!

There was no intellectual curiosity or a desire for debate.

>Logical fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy.

>Your retarded theory
It's not a theory.

>You discount all of human history that had a belief in something other than itself
Humans used to believe the Earth was flat. They were mistaken.

>Obviously impossible versus unknowable
Right then. C'thulhu exists. Prove otherwise.

>Principles of scientific integrity
Do you even know what you're saying at this point? Science is based on evidence. You have an idea, you find evidence for that idea. There is no evidence for a god.

There is no prejudice here. It's evidence versus lack of evidence.

If you have evidence please produce it. If not, tell me why God is more likely than a teapot or witches or telepathy or skinwalkers or anything else? Simply because a lot of people believe the same thing?
That's not science user, is it?

Life is direct evidence of God...

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

1. If the multiverse doesn't exist, there is sufficient scientific reason to believe life is naturally impossible.
2. Stephen Hawking and many other science cucks are advocates for the existence of the multiverse for this reason, and such lends the theory credence.
3. If the multiverse exists, all possibilities exist.
4. If all possibilities exist, God exists.
5. If God exists in any universe, being God, He necessarily exists in all universes.
6. It is by definition impossible to negate God.
7. If scientists like Steven Hawking are right about the existence of the multiverse, then, ironically, God exists.

...Your refusal to recognize that is irrelevant. There could be no evidence for God only if there were no such thing as logic.

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. (From 12)
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. (7 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. Objectively absent things don't exist. (Premise)
24. God exists. (From 12, 14, 19, 22, and 23)

You're inarticulate but think you're articulate.
You're not poking fun at pseudo-intellectuals, you're spewing nonsense but lack the self-awareness to realise it.

>Cause of the universe
See steady state theory or, more likely, big bang and big crunch.
If everything is caused, what is God's cause? Something has to come from nothing or is eternal, God is an unnecessary step on the chain.

>God exists or there is no morality
Objective morals don't exist. Morals are a product of society and evolution, even animals have a sense of 'fair' and 'unfair'.

>Fine tuning, probability, etc.
The universe is a big place user. A really, really big place.

>Morality is objective
It's not though.

Aggressive douchebag, then.

All your posts are either calling him a retard and some emotional bullshit about prejudice.

I dont really give a shit about the entire subject, i just find it funny how some people discuss shit on the internet.
I'm out to look for an actually interesting thread.

>Fallacy fallacy.
>It's not a theory.
So it's proven fact, huh?
Is it too late to get a refund on your tuition?
>Humans used to believe the Earth was flat. They were mistaken.
Even the ancient Greeks knew that was false.
You are badly mis-educated on the most basic of history, user.
>Science is based on evidence.
Finally, something not retarded. Thank you.
Science depends on facts. If there are no facts, there is not a conclusion.
You are saying there's no God...without fact to back it up.
It's good to question. It's bad to have a conclusion based solely on your prejudices.
>C'thulhu exists. Prove otherwise.
That's your theorem in action again. The flying spaghetti monster fallacy. You try to show your opponent is wrong by using ridiculous statements, tying them to the opponent, then challenging them to defend it.

>If you have evidence please produce it. If not, tell me why God is more likely than
The common mistake of atheism is thinking that everyone that believes in God is saying "GOD EXISTS AND YOU MUST BELIEVE". Another logical abortion.
The debate is more properly frames as, 'Do you believe or disbelieve, and why?'. And of course, neither side can make someone else believe; they have to do that for themselves.

>tell me why God is more likely than a teapot or witches or telepathy or skinwalkers or anything else?
For one, I've learned not to discount something just because old people say it, especially if it's commonly held over millennia. The teapot argument is made for the sole purpose of trying to make the opponent look silly. But that gun is also pointing the other way, user.
As for witches and etc...while they seem silly to me, I am intellectually honest enough to not come to a Conclusion without evidence.

You have no way to know that god is real
You have no external reference point to validate it from
So why, despite this, do you chose to believe? Genuinely curious

>You're inarticulate but think you're articulate.
Or you aren't smart enough to understand.
Ockham, user.
>you're spewing nonsense but lack the self-awareness to realise it.
That's easier than thinking about the argument, isn't it?
When you debate with your feelings, you shouldn't expect brilliance in return.

>Aggressive douchebag, then.
One man's douchebag is another man's etc, user.
>All your posts are either calling him a retard
Because there was no substance. He finally said something response-worthy; see below.

You, yourself, have said nothing beyond your feelings. What do you expect in return?

>So why, despite this, do you chose to believe?
You have the Belief that he does not exist, despite all evidence or lack of.
Have you ever tried to apply logic to it?
For example, the Big Bang theory. Do you believe it? Even though it's in Genesis?

In fact, the book of Genesis reads just like an SF book about benevolent aliens who find a promising but still savage species, and try to help.
What if?

A lot of people get stuck on the idea of defining God.
Is God an old white man in the sky? Or even a teapot, as our intellectually challenged US serviceman in Japan loves?
God is never defined as a definite object or person.

The first book of Genesis reads just like a science fiction novel. The 'Cambrian explosion' would fit that viewpoint, i.e. ancient earth was used as an outhouse. So the 'Alien as God' used the set-it-and-forget-it method. But He is still God.
Maybe our alien is a biologist. He seeded life, then stuck around to guide that life (there's no reason that death couldn't be conquered, so He could still be alive and guiding even now). He would fit the criteria of God, wouldn't He?
'Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic.'

>You have the Belief that he does not exist, despite all evidence or lack of.
My belief is that I can't know either way. I want to hear the argument from the side of people who actually commit to a belief despite the lack of evidence. Don't try to throw it back on me.

>something had to come from something therefore that something was magic sky man

lol

>Filter sweetie
>Fags start using honey

>by using ridiculous statements
How is the existence of Cthulhu any more or less ridiculous than the existence of God? They have an identical amount of evidence supporting their existence.

Look at your computer, tablet, phone, whatever you're using now.
Marvel at how far computing power has come. My 1996 computer cost over $2000 US and has less capability than your phone. What will happen in the next decade or 5?
How long will it be until computers can model whole civilization? Model individual members of that civilization?
If quantum computing becomes a reality, we'll be able to model human lives down to the sub-cellular level, along with animals, plants, even microbes.
At some point, the cost will come down to make that power accessible to neckbeard basement dwellers, and even to (for the sake of this argument), high school science labs. Or games.
(IBM said that we’ve entered a golden era of quantum-computing research, and predicted that the company would be the first to develop a practical quantum computer. asmarterplanet.com/blog/2015/04/golden-era-quantum-computing.html)
If this happens, there could be millions of these simulations running all the time. IF THIS HAPPENS...has happened?...probability indicates that right now, here, we are a tabletop civ run. Our God is a high school student.
If He can do this, whether He chooses to do in-game mods or not, is He not indistiguishable from God?

Is it scientifically plausible to discount all of this?

books are NOT proof moron, anyone can write nonsense and metaphors to make a cult


Religions, never ever able to prove anything

>Don't try to throw it back on me.
So the burden is all on the Other Side?
That's always the atheist argument, even when no one is forcing them to believe, and even when an atheist starts the damn thread, but...
Challenge accepted.

It's not a matter of burden in this case. I entered the thread asking a question, and instead of answering it you threw it back on me in a way that didn't even apply, as I then explained in my reply.

Why, personally, do you believe in God, when you have no way to externally validate your belief?

seek the gospel of philip and seek the fire of gnosis and the song of synchronicity, the emotions ((they)) have stripped of you

Take the Nazirite Oath as Samson, Christ and Hitler before you.

We shall rise to glory in the west again

>How is the existence of Cthulhu any more or less ridiculous than the existence of God?
It's not, I was referring to the idiotic Teapot argument from our axion-deficient friend in Nippon.
>They have an identical amount of evidence supporting their existence.
Do they? Is there a long history of Cthulhu literature with entire, successful cultures that live by It's words? Is our current legal system based on the original [attributed to] words of Cthulhu?

Near death experience, lucid dreaming and psychedelic drug trips all make experiencing the godhead much more common, for what purpose?

Is proof truly something real? How can you prove scientifically that your friends are your friends?

>Proven fact
A theory is something which offers an explanation for something. Russell's Teapot is an analogy, it's a thought process like Occam's razor. It's not a theory.

>Ancient Greeks knew it was false
People at large can believe things that aren't true, you took issue with the example but not the point. A nice diversion attempt.

>You're saying there is no God... without fact to back it up
Argument from ignorance fallacy
You either renounce science or you concede that it is foolish to believe things without evidence.
The burden of proof doesn't lie on science to disprove things, this is the most basic of principles.

>C'thulhu
Realise that you are doing the exact same thing. I tried to represent my argument in as simple a way as possible so you would understand.

>Common mistake of atheism...
So, you don't have evidence then.
What was all that appeal to the scientific method about earlier then? If you had said in the first place that you believe in God for subjective reasons that would be fine, you were the one pretending earlier that objectivity was on your side.

>I am intellectually honest enough to not dismiss the existence of witches
Well that says it all really.
I have to say, if this has all been bait then I tip my fedora to you, 10/10.
If not then... oh dear.

>you threw it back on me
Science doesn't work that way. You have to get input from all viewpoints or data points. It's not 'throwing it back' on you, it's asking you to be specific.
For example, you say
>when you have no way to externally validate your belief?
And I have to ask why you hold the exact equal and opposite opinion? Why is your viewpoint the high moral ground when your evidence is exactly as lacking as mine?

Couldn't that just be used to make a case that any experience of god is a hallucination, and hallucinations in general are just more common during those activities?

You're the one making the claim, which places the burden of proof on you.
The claim is that a God, in some form or another, exists.
All an atheist has to do is ask for solid evidence for God.
Until you can provide actual evidence for God, there is no logical reason to believe one exists.
The default position is to not believe. Believing in something without evidence just because you can't prove that it doesn't exist is too much for some people to swallow.

You can believe in whatever you want, but people don't need evidence against something when no evidence exists for it.

Yes there is.

>implying we don't live inside a simulation
>implying the universe is not a hologram
>implying (((god))) isn't actually an ayylmao programmer
>implying atoms aren't actually the pixels that make our reality
>implying anything is actually real

The steady state theory has had four different models attempting to prove a continuous universe, all of which were mathematically unsustainable and 'broke'. They did not operate on the same rules ours did.

Funnily enough, the theorists behind the BB theory caused a major commotion in the Scientific community, the theists actually got a ball in their court for genesis, whilst the atheists were left with a rather heavy burden of creating energy from nothing.

t. agnostic

>Long history of literature
Not scientific evidence

>Successful cultures live by it's words
Not scientific evidence

>Current legal system
Not scientific evidence

C'thulhu and god have identical amounts of evidence supporting their existence.

dayum, is that the collapsed crane aftermath?

this. there is no evidence for science desu. you could just be living an illusory hollogram

My stance is that there's no proof either way
Are you genuinely trying to ask me to prove a negative?

At what point will you be willing to answer my original question?

the book is an idol. We must burn the book and keep the fire. this is what ((they)) fear

Yeah, Solid State isn't the best.
Big Crunch is much more likely, especially given the apparent expansion of the universe.

I mentioned Solid State as it was a historical opposition to the uncaused universe debate.

where are your gods temples?
destroyed by God

nothing is real; everything is permited; love is the law, love under will; but know that you will be judged; as above, so below

No That is the Otherside where the Crane didn't hit where powerlines decided they'd whip into peoples backs as they lay praying and electrocute them as they sliced them to pieces.

>You can see the bottom of the pillar they exploded OUT of the ground.

you are the temple beebee

>Do they? Is there a long history of Cthulhu literature with entire, successful cultures that live by It's words? Is our current legal system based on the original [attributed to] words of Cthulhu?
None of that points to the existence of god. All those things are just structures implemented by humans. The fact that they claim to derive those structures from the revelations of a higher power is meaningless unless they can prove that claim, because nothing inherent in them is beyond human capability.

destroyed by the demiurge

Yeah but you cant prove hes not real!

>Russell's Teapot is an analogy, it's a thought process like Occam's razor. It's not a theory.
Ok, point taken.
Neither of us should expect precision on this image board that will time out at any moment.
But my point remains. It's an idiotic ANALOGY because it's sole purpose is to show the opponent to be Ridiculous, while the user is shown to be Thoughtful.
Teapot, forsooth!!1!
>you took issue with the example but not the point. A nice diversion attempt.
So...I'm supposed to read what you MEAN, not what you actually type?
>You either renounce science or you concede that it is foolish to believe things without evidence.
And yet you came to a conclusion without evidence, didn't you?
>C'thulhu
>Realise that you are doing the exact same thing.
You have to communicate clearly.
If you type C'thulhu, do you expect me to deduce you meant something else? Then deride me for not getting it? You're better than that, user.
>So, you don't have evidence then.
I have the exact same evidence as you. But you came to a conclusion. I came to a 'likelihood' which I very incompletely spelled out above:
>>I am intellectually honest enough to not dismiss the existence of witches
>Well that says it all really.
It does. What's a witch? Samantha on Bewitched? Or the modern ones that don't claim it's magic, just that it's being in touch with the world around them?
Again, you show a lack of understanding about the scientific method and logical thinking in general.

Go ahead and try to Scientifically Prove God is not Real, The Results may surprise you.

...

>mfw sophists still believe in "ex nihilo nihil fit"

>The claim is that a God, in some form or another, exists.
Nope. I said the POSSIBILITY of God. Not an absolute as you misquoted.
>Until you can provide actual evidence for God, there is no logical reason to believe one exists.
Will you hold yourself to the same standard?
"Until you can provide actual evidence for THE NON-EXISTENCE OF God, there is no logical reason to believe one DOES NOT exist"
>The default position is to not believe.
Only to an ignorant savage.
A modern educated man will say, 'without evidence, I have no absolute position'.
>when no evidence exists for it.
That's your logical foundation, but you aren't pointing it both ways.
You're staking out a Belief based on Faith.

>Russell's Teapot
We can call it thus, we can call it the argument from ignorance fallacy, I was just trying to save myself an explanation of philosophy 101.

>So I'm supposed to...
And again you don't address the point. People can, en masse, believe things that are not true. Your earlier attempt at trying to evidence god by saying lots of people believe in it as if that in itself offers any objectivity is foolish.

>You came to that conclusion without evidence
It's not a conclusion, I'm stating the principles of the scientific method. The burden of proof doesn't lie on the scientific body to prove new ideas aren't true. We suppose the existence of only that which is evidenced. I have lived my life by this principle, you evidently have not.

>C'thulhu
Since you don't seem to be able to understand an intended meaning beyond the surface text, I'll explain to you as I would to a child from now on.
C'thulhu is a deity mentioned in the works of HP Lovecraft.
If I were to state that C'thulhu exists in the real world, there is no more evidence for or against that statement than there is for a Chistian saying YHVH exists.

>You came to a conclusion
I came to the conclusion you're a moron a fair few posts ago, yes.

>What is a witch
It's impressive you have the sheer gall to accuse me of being absurd.

>Long history of literatureNot scientific evidence
Scientific literature changes with the times.
Alchemy used to be a science.
>C'thulhu and god have identical amounts of evidence supporting their existence.
You're starting down the path to Enlightenment by accepting that fundamental truth: don't accept something as Fact without evidence. Lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence itself, it could just mean the search isn't over yet.
Which is why religious people talk about Faith.