People who argue God doesn't exist because they don't accept things like hell are making a fallacious argument

People who argue God doesn't exist because they don't accept things like hell are making a fallacious argument.
~(accept God's authority) -> ~(God exists) is a non sequitur and creates a false equivocation between ~(God exists) and ~(accept God).
That is, not accepting God's authority doesn't imply God doesn't exist.
By contrapositive, it's also equivalent to: God exists -> accept God's authority, which is also obviously a non sequitur.
That is, God existing doesn't imply acceptance of His authority.

"I don't like it therefore it doesn't real," is libtard logic.

>Christianity considers us all the property of God.
No, we believe you're a strong, independent woman.

Other urls found in this thread:

patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/13/why-are-atheists-overwhelmingly-left-wingers-in-which-i-out-myself-as-a-libertarian/
youtube.com/watch?v=bmjQ1566ql0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#The_Libet_experiment
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

There probably is no god.
Anyway this isn't really political but more philosophical.
maybe we need a new religion board for this stuff,
>>>/rel/?

It is politically incorrect.
>/rel/
Go away newfag.

Odin exists.

believe in God all you want but
>believing the Bible, like, at all

lol

man farts are a religion

If God exists, why are our retinas on backwards?

not an argument, and they aren't.

But if God created the universe then isn't everything in it including your brain subject to God's will/authority? Then even if you reject God's authority, it's only because God made you do that with God's authority. Therefore God exists and God created the universe to perfectly match God's will -> accept God's authority.

If god exists why does he give nigger children cancer? Not that I care or anything for mudslimes in africa

you can believe in a god all you want. there is no evidence one exists but who cares. but taking the bible literally? basing your outlook on life on a book written by diseased arab goat fuckers? lol youre a fucking idiot

GOD EXISTS

YOU ARE GOD

I AM GOD

THIS IS GOD

GOD

>There probably is no god.
Either you accept that God is infinite and the universe and all that is in it was created by Him, or you accept the universe is infinite and everything therein exists by chaos, known colloquially here as KEK. I contend there are no atheists.

In either case, what is real are our minds, and reality is the coordinated perceptions of minds, either through God or by chaos.

It is an argument if you bother trying to understand things beyond the literal.

Our retinas are on "backwards" because the blood vessels are on the "front" not the back, so light passes through the blood layer before it gets to the light sensitive layer.
This is, obviously, suboptimal

If God exists, then he willed for our eyes to made "wrong", which doesn't support the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being that runs everything

What do the two have to do with one another?

...

>"I don't like it therefore it doesn't real," is libtard logic.
Even atheist sites admit that atheist are overwhelmingly liberal
patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/13/why-are-atheists-overwhelmingly-left-wingers-in-which-i-out-myself-as-a-libertarian/

This reminds me of an argument I posted on here a while back (not sure about original pic):

Daily reminder that 90% of atheists are retarded, underage b& newfags Anonymous

Aside from the fact that the "inverted" retina allows the eye to process the higher amount of oxygen it needs in vertebrates, or that it's practically impossible even to conceive of how it might be modified without significantly decreasing its function, or that atheists have such trouble even finding a bodily system to quibble about in the first place despite there being a centillion number of systems in the human body, let's look at this anyway:

Perhaps you've seen this argument; pic related.

It's basically something like
>hurrr if God exists how come there are blind spots checkmate Christians XD

Questions aren't arguments, so this is already invalid, but here's the argument made explicit:

>1. If God were to exist, eyes wouldn't have blind spots.
>2. Eyes do have blind spots.
>3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
Begs the question

Now here it is with all its implicit premises made explicit:

>1. There are designs for the human eye that would allow us to see better.*
Begs the question
>2. It is possible to see better.
>3. God's purpose for eyes would be for us to see better.
Begs the question
>4. If God were to exist, He would have designed the eye so that we see better.* (from 2 and 3)
>5. Human eyes have blind spots.
>6. We don't have eyes that allow us to see better. (from 5)
Non sequitur. Implies a false equivocation between "blind spot," colloquial understanding of "blind spot," and not seeing better
>7. Therefore God doesn't exist.

*"Better" can be defined as "as clearly as possible," "as much as possible," "more," or any arbitrary word or phrase you want.

Remember kids, pointing out these fallacies isn't bitching about minor technicalities, but showing the argument to be unsound and stupid.

Not an argument

Citing fallacies is an argument. It would be something like this:

1. Arguments can't be sound if they are fallacious.
2. Here's how your argument is fallacious.
3. Your argument is fallacious.
4. Your argument is unsound.

Are you joking?

or could be you have a fucked up, small minded theology.

What if God was more hands off, sitting back in Hs cosmic room, hitting the Holy Hookah, and that cloud of smoke is what we all are, that He just sits there and contemplates while scarfing twinkies?

Citing fallacies aren't an argument because people aren't computers who reject things wholesale based on a frayed corner of the input card

You know what I was saying and why, but you didn't say anything at all about it

It always amazes me to see how mainstream religion over science is in america. The uk and europe pretty much see them as seperate, or generally say 'oh ok the bible isn't literal.' Anyway-

1. Eye gradually evolves in many different ways from light sensitive cells
2. we have examples of more primitive eyes/light sensitive cells in nature
3. Evolution doesn;t necessarily disprove god, unless you take the bible literally
4. however going from 'something created stuff' to 'he's an amazingly complex and powerful being who gives a shit about us' is a gigantic illogical leap.
5. Also, problem of evil.

but why a drawing of the firmament?

evil isn't a problem

they're both part of the same shit race. Its arbitrary. You gna answer the question or not?

>4. however going from 'something created stuff' to 'he's an amazingly complex and powerful being who gives a shit about us' is a gigantic illogical leap.
Why is one more reasonable than the other?
Where's the line of incredulity? Like, believing in a personal creator is ok, but suddenly its silly to believe that he pays attention to his creation?

Check this out, in Matthew 8:23 Jesus pranks his disciples, in a boat:

3 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. 24 And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. 25 And they went and woke him, saying, “Save, Lord; we are perishing.” 26 And he said to them, “Why are you afraid, O men of little faith?”

And he does it again later:

22 Then he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side...

24 but the boat by this time was many furlongs distant from the land,[a] beaten by the waves; for the wind was against them. 25 And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. 26 But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out for fear. 27

He tosses them around in the boat and then he shows up looking like a ghost.

Are you the moron-smiting righteous brit from the previous thread ? If it's you I'm staying

Well weren't you also posing a non-argument?:
>why are retinas backward?
is not an argument. Now you're demanding that I make arguments and disagreeing that they're arguments.
>You know what I was saying and why, but you didn't say anything at all about it
What? That retinas are backward therefore we're poorly designed therefore God doesn't exist? This is two non sequiturs. The second premise doesn't follow nor does the conclusion. Go ahead and post an argument, if you wish.
Homologous structures aren't implicative of evolution. Structures exist as they do only because it is necessary for function - a necessity that is readily provided by the environment. At the most, similarities are implicative of epistemic plausibility, but not even probability.

It always amazes me to see how people can confuse what they're taught for knowledge.

Lemma 1: No evidence of god communicating with man
Lemma 2: Multitude of evidence of people lying about religions

(Christian God based off book written by men) -> Lemma 1 -> Lemma 2 -> (More likely than not Christian God is a made up story)

Keep waking up at 7 on Sundays to eat a cookie in front of a pedophile dressed like a sorcerer, I really don't care. But don't try to defend religion with logic.

And so the first use of "Jesus Christ, a ghost!" came to be.

the original god is and always will be KEK, GTFO normie

Listen you shitlords. It's very simple. If god exists why does evil permeate our world? If you suggest its because of 'muh free will' or any other fallacious belief, you are admitting that there is a limit on GOD's omnipotence. Therefore he or she is not a God and by extension, does not exist.

You really can't see an argument in there? Like at all?
Ok, I mean, it's clear you're a little dim, so I'll try to make it really obvious

What are the differences between a created thing and a non-created thing? How can you tell?

...

>No evidence of god communicating with man
If you're going to start with "hurr there's no such thing as personal experience of God," I'm going to go back to watching Star Trek.
>Christian God based off book written by men
implicit false dichotomy. Also 40 men writing 66 books on 3 different continents over 1,500 years..
>More likely than not Christian God is a made up story
This doesn't even follow abductively.
>But don't try to defend religion with logic.
If you knew anything of logic, or were capable of denying your own bias in favor of thinking logically, you would hold as existent and irrefutable. Don't conflate your poor notions of logic with 'atheism.'
Your inability to explicitly state an argument doesn't make me the dim one here, m8. I'd say I'm waiting for it, but I don't think I give a shit.

God* as existent and irrefutable

Yeah, it is pretty amazing when you witness it in action

Homology isn't necessary to speculate about when observing evolution.

Damn you have autism

The presence of biological "mistakes" is evidence that God doesn't exist because they are more easily explained by natural development rather than divine creation

If God created man, why give him flaws that suggest evolution?
Created things have purpose. Much of the human body is purposeless. Things without purpose are usually not created.

What is more parsimonious?
That God created a universe that mimics one that has no creator? or the universe isn't a mimicry at all and really doesn't have a creator?

>Damn you have autism
Maybe; then again, I seem to be better at interpreting emotions than other people are, but that could be an inaccurate assessment.
>because they are more easily explained by natural development
Natural evolution is not even close to easily explained, in any way that is logically coherent. Divine Creation is the simplest explanation, not that Occam knew anything about how truth is derived.
>If God created man, why give him flaws that suggest evolution?
Your loaded question is inaccurate.
>Much of the human body is purposeless.
begs the question
>Things without purpose are usually not created.
begs the question
>That God created a universe that mimics one that has no creator?
begs the question
>the universe isn't a mimicry at all and really doesn't have a creator?
Arguably impossible, and being that your last premise begs the question, neither of these would be epistemically more likely than the other.

Not an argument

Not quite leaf. Consider this. God knows all the different choices and paths your life has to offer and has the ability at anytime to intervene and steer you down the path he wants you to go, but instead he lets you make those decisions and go about living as you choose while providing you with a guide on how he would like you to live your life, the scripture. As to whether you follow that guide or not is your choice. Just as all other aspects of your life as a mortal.

We're not here to spoon feed you, go read a book you dolt

Not an argument. You're an idiot.
I don't think I'm even capable of not making arguments tbhfam

You're falling for the "Fallacy Fallacy"
So by your own standards, you haven't made any arguments so far :^)

A fallacy fallacy only applies when citation of fallacies is incorrect. You should take heed and stop """arguing""" like a leafy jackass.

Yeah thats why im taking a this argument straight out of fucking philosophical text you dimwit. Have a thought out argument instead of resorting to ad hominem's

Sure, thats all fine and dandy. But the extent to which evil permeates our world is ungodly. If evil was necessary (like most philosophers suggest) why not reduce it to an extent where it's not killing innocent lives. If god made us all in his image, why is he killing kids before they even get to live a life? Fuck i want to believe so bad but theres so much to suggest the contrary

>when citation of fallacies is incorrect
Nope
You need to read a book sometime, bro

I can't believe I even replied to you. That was the first contribution to the thread. You're a fucking idiot, go kill yourself.

God exists, the sun is Jesus, they just didn't understand that yet.

youtube.com/watch?v=bmjQ1566ql0

...but that's what it is tho. You need to get an education, bro, and better yourself beyond my expression of the low point your in. Also, take some false sympathy: I feel sorry for you... BRO.
p sure I saw this notion in a tv show. Star Trek?

Watch zeitgeist, or just this part, its all a misunderstanding.
youtube.com/watch?v=bmjQ1566ql0

>but that's what it is tho
Wrong again

Here's another fallacy for you. You're sure you're right about this, but you are not.
Maybe you're wrong about other things too that you are sure of?

I think there's an underlying extra premise that they are operating with, something like "If God exists, then he is maximally benevolent." And to be fair, most Christians do believe this as well.

>thousands of years of written history
>no one has any solid proof god exists
>no one has any solid proof god does not exist

Give me a quick rundown. Is the confusion that they didn't speak English? lol
I've seen that zeitgeist documentary but after I read about how it was all just a blatant lie, that was pretty convincing, I don't have any interest in watching more.
>Here's another fallacy for you. You're sure you're right about this, but you are not.
That isn't a fallacy, lol. Also, begs the question aka assumes your conclusion. I'd be happy for you to cite a source that says I'm wrong and you're right about what a "fallacy fallacy" is.

Old English name for Sunday, Sunnandæg, meaning “day of the sun" This is why people went to church on Sunday.

The evil in this world is not as great as it could possibly be, that being said, evil committed by individuals by choice is a by product of free will. There will always be those who choose a life of wrong doing, but that was the choice they made, that is having true free will, being able to knowingly commit evil; you will note that the majority of individuals are typically repulsed by such decisions and that is why, more often than not, "evil doers" are brought to justice in some way. As to the death of children before they are born I do not have an answer at the time.

Machines will never be conscious. God made the universe observer-driven at the quantum level, and we are the observers.
nothing we ever do will make it possible to turn a machine into an observer. machines will never be observers, only observed. Only God knows the secret of how to attach consciousness to a flesh avatar and give it observer privilege to collapse quantum superpositions and branch into new timelines. The "closer" scientists and engineers get to "solving" consciousness, the more confounded they will be, because a key part of the quantum superposition collapse mechanism is the historical backpropagation with a fully logical backstory, evidence trail, fossil record, etc. dating back however long is required (even billions of years) to generate a plausible explanation for the current observation. such miracles are the glory of God's work.
a pathetic manmade machine making billions of sterile calculations per second based on input feedback loops pumped through neural nets will never be the same as an actual singular consciousness created by God, not even close. temper your arrogant hubris if you sincerely think otherwise.

My source is google.com
It's an obscure website that only a few people can use, but I let them know you're coming, so you can access it too

...

>cross reference
LOL

how the fuck do i even read this?

True. Then it would just have to be explained how hell is contradictory to an omnibenevolent God, without presupposing that allowing pain is inherently immoral. If would even have to be shown, though less obviously, how hell implies God's allowanse of pain e.g. is it really 'allowed,' in this meaning of "allow," if people choose to go to hell (which they do)?
>google.com
Get out, jidf
The number of cross-references in the bible are significant because of the nature of its writing. Minor contradictions only strengthen the historicity of the bible, because of this same nature. LOL isn't an argument. How about you explain how any of those supposed contradictions is meaningful or contradicts the historicity or truthfulness of the bible?

after finding out the earth is not curved I've begun to wonder if the religious texts are right

The confusion is that they didn't understand the world, they thought of the sun as a person. Old religion isn't really religion, it was science. That means our science will look like a religion to future generations. Hell, you can even see it where we are wrong sometimes, look at Pluto and how it used to be a planet to us.

Anyone telling you that it is wrong is a faggot with a closed mind, they probably didn't even watch it.

No, I mean it was thorougly refuted by a counter-documentary. Go watch it and report back.

What if I told you I had evidence that free will doesn't exist? I'm a neuroscientist and theres a famous study particularly disproving the notion that we have free will.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#The_Libet_experiment

Also, if you still think we have free will just listen to some of Sam Harris' stuff on it. But remember, you've been warned. You're view of reality will change forever.

you got wrecked man and im just reading from the sidelines

Yeah that zeitgeist video was all lies. I too believed it when I was 15.

Regardless of neuroscience, we don't have free will because the universe is deterministic

This is true. Particles were set in motion from the beginning of time and were just playing them out.

any proof or do you like to type things?

Determinism therefore no free will is a non sequitur; free will is epistemic.

Also, Sam Harris is a dumbass.

Sam Harris' B.A. in philosophy doesn't appear to be sufficient for making him a competent philosopher. The question of whether morality can and does exist objectively without God is entirely a metaphysical question - making his background in neuroscience entirely irrelevant. His arguments, as do all atheists' arguments, depend on fundamental tenets like materialism, naturalism, empiricism, etc. - none of which are coherent. Empiricism is self-refuting; it holds that empirical observation is the only way to know truth, but it can't show that statement to be true. Belief that science is the only way to know truth, is also self-refuting, as there's no way to conduct an experiment to test if that's true. It's also false simply because truth can be obtained via methods like logical deduction, completely independent of science. Naturalism is self-refuting; if our ability to conceive of truth exists only because it has naturally evolved to be as it is, and nature selects only for traits that help us survive, and knowledge of truth isn't necessary for our survival, then there's no reason any of our conceptions of truth would be correct and Sam Harris shouldn't believe anything he says.

Materialism is false; in order for it possibly to be true, one would have to believe ideas and concepts exist physically and objectively. Matter can only produce emergent properties. Emergent properties don't exist; that is, they only exist as ideas. There is no such thing as mind-independent, objective emergent properties, in the same way there is no such thing as mind-independent, objective information. Only the mind gives these things meaning. The mind objectively exists. Thus the mind isn't an emergent property. Thus the mind can't be produced by matter. Thus the mind is immaterial. Thus materialism is false. As you should infer, when science is conducted by someone who isn't a logician, it allows for logical incoherencies to be overlooked or ignored, and makes evidence susceptible to being interpreted in accordance with bias.

saved

In order for objective morality to exist in a materialistic world, as Sam Harris believes, it would need to be an abstract object or exist in physical objects. I don't know if he dismisses this necessity all together, but at the very least, he presupposes at least one of these to be true. This is because he presupposes God doesn't exist, demonstrably from a number of these logical fallacies: straw man ('God is a magical sky wizard'), appeal to ridicule ('lol they actually believe this'), begging the question (assuming his conclusion, like that morality objectively exists in a materialistic world, and -then- trying to explain how it works), red herring (anything irrelevant like 'What matters is that we have morality'), appeal to need ('We don't need God'), appeal to emotion ('God was bad and atheism is the only true enlightenment'), appeal to what should be ('It would be bad for God to exist'), genetic fallacy ('All religions correlate with certain cultures, therefore they are all false'), argument from ignorance ('I don't recognize evidence for God, therefore He's unlikely to exist'), or - and this is the most popular one, responsible for most atheist's delusions about atheism being synonymous with "reason" - appeal to the stone (dismissing something as obviously ridiculous without giving proof).

>People who argue God doesn't exist because they don't accept things like hell are making a fallacious argument. There's no evidence our consciousness can exist without our brain. On the contrary, our intelligence and consciousness is 100% dependent on our brain, and our personality, memories and view of the world can be alternated just by damaging our brain. It's more believable that our feelings and thoughts are just chemicals reactions developed through biology, and that when our biological system fails, our thoughts go with it.
Otherwise our "soul" would have a far greater memory and understanding of the Universe than our body, which means God couldn't fairly judge a soul based on the behaviour a damaged body.

There's no evidence that hell exists. It also contradicts God.

>~(accept God's authority) -> ~(God exists) is a non sequitur and creates a false equivocation between ~(God exists) and ~(accept God).

God gives no authority. He lays down no rules. He never appears or tells us what to do. Anyone who talks to God is mad. Anyone who tells us what God thinks is taking advantage of us.

>That is, not accepting God's authority doesn't imply God doesn't exist.

No, but by not accepting Man's word that God has authority and he is able to dictate it, I accept that God doesn't exist. I would only accept God's word from God himself. He does not give me any words. Most people that personally hear the word of God live in the woods and kidnap people.

>By contrapositive, it's also equivalent to: God exists -> accept God's authority, which is also obviously a non sequitur.
>That is, God existing doesn't imply acceptance of His authority.

Yeah, but there being no evidence of God's authority outside the opinions of biological entities, implies that there is no existence of God. Or of anything metaphysical and relevant to our behavior, for that matter.

Consequently, Sam assumes morality is material and works his way from there. He certainly didn't arrive at that conclusion logically. He explains how our sense of morality has evolved to be as it is for our survival, but this doesn't imply morality objectively exists, only that subjective morality exists. In Sam's world view, unless he's cognitively dissonant or profoundly logically inconsistent, morality is objectively meaningless - nihilism is an inescapable consequence of atheism. He tries to confuse and conflate subjective meaningfulness with objective meaningfulness, but that's just an appeal to emotion. They simply aren't the same thing - nothing objective is contingent on our thoughts. Explaining how something would be plausible does not imply the probability of that thing being true. Sam Harris does nothing to show the existence of God is unlikely or ridiculous.

People who think of the existence of God as a ridiculous notion, presumably by choice, imagine Him as some limited being who's unlikely to exist by definition. God is generally defined as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, transcendent, and ultimately incomprehensible. Imposing purposely silly definitions on Him (or any definition), aside from being an appeal to ridicule, does not function as a valid reduction to absurdity because any and all imposed definitions conflict with His actual definition. For example, a "flying spaghetti monster" is either not omnipotent by definition, or its form isn't necessary and therefore arbitrary and non-definitive. If or when the intention is merely to show God is "as ridiculous" as any fantastical thing using false analogies, it is only a redundantly-fallacious appeal to the stone. It's also akin to saying "Look, I can make things up. Therefore your God is made up," and yet these are the kind of unsophisticated arguments atheists use, presumably all because they refuse to conceive of possibility outside our comprehension, lest they have to admit we may be held accountable to something outside ourselves.

The existence of God isn't ridiculous, anymore than the existence of minds, multiple dimensions, fundamental forces, ideas, concepts, thoughts, good, evil, purpose, meaning, physical constants, logical constants, existence in general, etc. are ridiculous. You might be tempted to contest something like "But we observe these things." No, you don't. You only observe their effects.

Arguments against Sam Harris' belief of the existence of objective morality in a Godless world:

Subjective relativism is self-refuting. If subjective relativism were true, the proposition "subjective relativism is false" would be paradoxical and couldn't exist. The proposition can exist, as I've demonstrated. Therefore subjective relativism is false. Therefore subjective morality isn't necessarily objectively correct.

1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral.
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious.
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (from 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent.
6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (from 2)
7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (from 1, 5, and 6)
8. The objective is by definition independent of human or limited consciousness.
9. Morality can be objective if and only if God exists. (from 7 and 8)
10. Everything is objective or subjective.
11. If God doesn't exist, morality is only subjective. (from 9 and 10)

1. If God exists, morality exists as a Godly idea.
2. Godly ideas exist objectively.
3. If God exists, morality exists objectively.
4. If God doesn't exist, materialism is true.
5. The only thing that exists outside of minds is matter and possibly abstract objects.
6. Morality cannot be composed of matter.
7. Abstract objects are only concepts.
8. Concepts cannot exist objectively.
9. Abstract objects do not exist objectively.
10. If morality is an abstract object, it does not exist objectively.
11. Morality cannot exist outside of minds.
12. If God doesn't exist, morality only exists as a human idea. (from 6 and 10)
13. Human ideas don't exist objectively.
14. If God doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist objectively.
15. Therefore, if God doesn't exist, morality is only subjective, and it's objective only if God exists.

Sam Harris is demonstrably a dumbass.

Quantum mechanics proves God exists. Period.
Quantum superpositions of possible outcomes don't collapse into a single concrete outcome until observed. Observation events cannot be triggered by anything within the simulation; they can only be triggered by a consciousness that exists completely outside of it. Literally a SOUL.
Mass-backpropagation occurs after a quantum wave function collapse to explain the observed outcome. This feature is pure genius: God literally could have created humans in a simple character builder program, and the backpropagation feature of quantum mechanics would create an entire plausible historical explanation for how living humans could have come into existence, generating an entire galaxy and solar system and habitable world and billions of years of phony but plausible evolution and fossil records, internal organ schematics, and so on, all on the fly.
Look up "delayed choice quantum eraser" and once you fully understand the implication, fall to your knees in awe and beg God for forgiveness for ever doubting Him and all His glory, you fedora-tipping redditor faggot.
Then look up Tom Campbell and watch his vids for awhile instead of whatever e-celeb flavor of the week you're currently obsessed with.

>1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)

This isn't true at all. You can certainly be more or less conscious of the world around you. You can go in and out of a coma.

gimme link leafbro

Christians do the same with god. I want to believe in an afterlife, therefore I believe in god. Let's face it, ceasing to exist when you die is less palatable than paradise, and it scares a whole shitload of people. If you want to know why most rational people it's because there is no evidence god exists. In the absence of evidence, something cannot be said to exist. It by default does not exist or else the term existence becomes trivial (meaningless and therefore useless because anything can be said to exist), see the ontological argument for the existence of god. That's why the only logical position is agnostic atheism.

>Quantum mechanics proves God exists. Period.

>Provides no evidence.

Quantum mechanics itself isn't even proven. It's a theory.

non sequitur: the post
but whatever makes you comfypoo famalam
Also, I think you're lying.

Lol

When they chose the word observer they really fucked up.

You realise to observe just means to interact right? To measure? Consciousness has nothing to do with it. It's observation in the sense of measurement

Lol what? Who says you need education to be a philosopher? First of all he has a PhD if thats what gets your dick hard. The guy also went across the world and immersed himself in the deepest philosophical cultures that exist, for YEARS.. Dude you seriously are misconstruing what empiricism is. If you can consistently record and retrieve the same result, over and over and over again, you're deriving the truth from at least SOMETHING.

...and the nonconscious... It's another way of saying "There is only the set and not the set" which is true. It's a logical tautology.

until another crusade is called, God is not with us

And desu IDK how you typed all that shit out so quickly. Are you a bot?

>muh deterministic particle simulation
You don't understand quantum mechanics; you don't even acknowledge that it exists. Go be 16 somewhere else

How am I lying?
How is it a non sequiter?

You can claim something exists, and you don't need any evidence, reason or logic to support it. Then you ask me to disprove it, but no lack of evidence for your object is good enough.

Everyone could lie to your face about characteristics of God and you would be forced to believe it, because there is no evidence to compare your theory against except it's lack of existence.
So either God is whatever you want it to be, or it doesn't exist.

>The guy also went across the world and immersed himself in the deepest philosophical cultures that exist, for YEARS..
That's some impressive larping then, my dude

I don't care if you believe in God, but if you believe in the Bible then you are fucking retarded.

Lol wut? When did I ever bring quantum physics into this?