I'm an atheist and so far I haven't come across a non-fallacious argument for the existence of God.
And because there's always that fucking faggot saying "define God" , here:
An omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving creator of the universe.
Pretty much what the average christian believes.
So, are there any valid arguments for the existence of such a being?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
apologeticsguy.com
twitter.com
As an Agnostic, I don't doubt something intelligent created our universe.
The idea that Jesus has anything to do with it is retarded.
...
No, there are no valid arguments for it. That is kinda the point.
It is safer to err on the side of belief versus non-belief if you wish to hedge your bets on an optimal outcome. You lose nothing and possibly gain everything. Simple really.
because I said so
Once you reach the top of the hierarchy of needs, you become burdened with a free mind and questions about life. At some point in the past the decision was made to completely fabricate the origin of man, and then just make future generations delusional in an attempt to make them more productive
>And because there's always that fucking faggot saying "define God" , here:
>An omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving creator of the universe.
almost nobody believes in that version. not the 'all loving' part, certainly.
if christians thought that, they woudnt have a god who burns people in hell, or 'god hates fags' or multiple sections of the bible where god is a complete asshole to various people and large areas of the world. (jobe, moses, noahs flood, isaac, etc)
is this the continuation thread of last time
if so let my esteemed presence be noted
Ok. But first I'll need you to put God into proper context. What is your idea of "God?" Is it the Christian God? Maybe God is something more esoteric like a symbol for you?
Let he who doubteth the God define Him!
>if so let my esteemed presence be noted
get your 'esteemed presence' into my fucking oven, kike.
no
make me ahmed
u ((((((exist))))))
proof nuff
>source: the posters anus
Kalam
Moral Grounding
Fine Tuning
Meme argument.
I don't claim I can give you an argument to prove gods existence but your argument is meme tier retarded. Epiricus never even said this and it's constantly incorrectly attributed to him.
Define love
I'm a Taoist so it's a Chinese man sitting at his throne in a magnificent palace in the clouds, filled with Chinese guards with spears and armour, and served by beautiful maidens in exotic robes.
Very well:
First thing you must know OP, is that the only way for the universe to exist is if there was a paradox. The second thing you must know is that this has nothing to do with religion.
Think: from where comes the big Bang? From where comes the first particle? If things ever start to move, this means there was a paradox at some point that made them move, or that put them there in the first place (the paradox being: that thing moves itself).
Now think: from where comes God? Well, thats the ONLY possibility that actually accepts a paradox; big Bang cannot created a paradox, but God can. That's because God is omnipotent. He has the power to do anything (it's what omnipotence means) even to create himself. To sum It up: God can created an objective so heavy he cannot lift It and then lift It anyway. 2+2 is fish if god wants it. Still, this is the ONLY explanation for the universe, because any other will be denied by the origin rule (asking where it came from).
>Hurr durr you can't prove It
If it's the only possibility there is no need for proof. Think of any other model to create the universe that does not involve a paradox and you will see It doesnt work.
So you are an agnostic theist.
I'm an agnostic atheist, just to clear that up.
I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence for it. But I cannot claim absolute knowledge that there is no god.
I also can't claim absolute knowledge there are no invisible unicorns inside the sun, that's the point really.
So why would you not doubt that the universe was created from something intelligent?
The laws of physics can make the universe the way it is today, given the billions of years that have passed.
And the only requirement is the big bang.
Our universe is flat, the only type of universe that can come from nothing.
They still say their god is all loving though.
I've never heard a christian say he doesn't believe his god is all loving
>I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence for it.
That's objectively wrong and you know it. There is no PROOF, buy you choosing to denying evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence.
>Now think: from where comes God? Well, thats the ONLY possibility that actually accepts a paradox; big Bang cannot created a paradox, but God can. That's because God is omnipotent. He has the power to do anything (it's what omnipotence means) even to create himself. To sum It up: God can created an objective so heavy he cannot lift It and then lift It anyway. 2+2 is fish if god wants it. Still, this is the ONLY explanation for the universe, because any other will be denied by the origin rule (asking where it came from).
Actual theist here. This is wrong. Uncreated things need no creation this is the difference between a physical universe that would end up being an infinite series of dominoes (impossible) and a personal being that can exist without time (no infinite regress).
God can't do the logically impossible, all powerful doesn't mean all possible.
well that's stupid. god isn't real then.
...
>if christians thought that, they woudnt have a god who burns people in hell, or 'god hates fags' or multiple sections of the bible where god is a complete asshole to various people and large areas of the world. (jobe, moses, noahs flood, isaac, etc)
So if God judges people, he is evil. If God does nothing, he doesn't care and isn't saving people.
There is no evidence for God's existence.
god has to want to prevent evil or else he's not a really omnibenevolent
you might say that this suffering is justified because it serves a greater purpose, but there is no such thing in my opinion. the way i see it, morality is all about intent. you can have benevolent intent, malicious intent, and negligent lack of intent. the latter two i consider to be immoral. if god isn't malicious, and even if he had good intentions, by creating a hazardous world and placing the vulnerable people inside it, he's being cruelly negligent, and therefore immoral. this is sufficient grounds to call god immoral in my book, regardless of any potential end goals that human suffering promotes, because i'm not a utilitarian. if you want to use the sufficient moral reason defense against problem of evil, you have to adopt utilitarianism, which is quite a price to pay because it's a retarded moral system. utilitarianism requires that you detach yourself from your own emotional compass and even do things that feel wrong because you know logically that they promote some end goal, such as killing diseases babies to prevent them from suffering, that sort of ruthlessness towards oneself doesn't seem to be a good way to conduct yourself.
well first things first god cant "exist" in the traditional sense. being implies limitation. the only thing seperating me from the chair im sitting in is our limitation. if neither me nor the chair had no limitation we would encompass each other and not be seperate. god bydefinition is all encompassing. so he's abstract, which isnt to say he isnt real, as many abstractions are absolutely real, and in fact are fundamental to our society, like chaos and order, for example.
i prefer the defition where god is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, as well as that which brings order from chaos. and as weve already established that god is not a being then its more accurate to characterize him more as omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and orderliness. each of those cane be examined more closely and turn out to not only be real but also fundamental.
1. omniscience:
- absolute vision / absolute attention
if an event occurs, even if it is not observed, it absolutely happens, like if i drop a pencil right now the fact that i dropped a pencil is fundamentally true even if no one sees. this is the principle of universal observation, that the universe pays attention to everything that happens within it with no exception. nothing can happen without it being paid attention to.
therefore omniscience is a fundamental truth.
2. omnipresence
- absolute presence
similar to omniscience, God as the force of order has no limitation to presence, there is not a place you can go in the universe where chaos and order are not applicable and therefore the universal presence of fundamentalities like omniscience, physics, dominance hierarchies, etc provide a universal presence of the other aspects of god. fundamental truths are uniformly present at any point in the universe, and consequently omnipresence exists fundamentally.
1/2 will continue in next post
>God can't do the logically impossible
Then he is not omnipotent, and he is not god.
If we're talking about God, there are no rules for him. And that's the only way things can come to exist.
then they havent thought about it long. ask about their belief in hell?
if they deny it, they're disagreeing with the bible.
god being a collasal douche to jobe and isaac for no reason, god flooding the world, killing all humans, young and old, except for noah and his family and a few animals.
easily proven to definitely not be an 'all loving' god.
>you might say that this suffering is justified because it serves a greater purpose, but there is no such thing in my opinion.
Then good things your opinion isn't what matters.
2/2
3. omnipotence
-absolute power, preeminence
the best way to conceptualize omnipotence is as an
absolute power to enact infinite change in finite objects. Whether or not the change actually occurs at any point is irrelevant, as the mere capability, and not the motivation or the action is what constitutes omnipotence. a prime example of such a change is that of the big bang, which demonstrated that near infinite change can occur in a near infinitesimal amount of time, therefore fundamentally the idea that a near infinite change can occur in near infinitesimal time definitively demonstrates that at the very least near omnipotence not only exists but also is, practically speaking, observable. Given the finitude of being, by its very definition, and consequently the finitude of any perception, any observable "infinite change" in a way that would demonstrate some absolute omnipotence is, by nature, fundamentally unobservable. however, seeing as no limits on the way objects in our universe can change is observable such a claim can be disregarded, and as such the possibility for infinite change, in the context of our universe, is fundamental, and until we hit some hard cap on universal expansion or transformation of matter, that fundamentality stands.
finally the idea that order can be derived from chaos can simply be observed in the existence of complex structures: life, planets, molecules etc. and therefore the driving force of order fundamentally exists.
summation:
in the judeo-christian tradition God is omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, amalgamated into the driving force for order and the context in which existence resides. and given that all three of those concepts are not only logically fundamental, but to an extent, observable, the natural amalgam must also be fundamental as well.
Atheists btfo XD
Religious people don't know that there is a god. They believe that there is a god. Knowledge and faith are two separate things.
Well show me the evidence then
>The laws of physics can make the universe the way it is today, given the billions of years that have passed.
This is objectively wrong too. Something cannot come from nothing. We do not have a scientific answer to why there is the universe rather than nothing. The laws of physics as we understand them cannot yet explain why the universe exists. This doesn't mean religion is correct but it means your claim is wrong.
>I also can't claim absolute knowledge there are no invisible unicorns inside the sun
That's a lie though. Unicorns within the universe is a material claim, the claim of a god is non material. They cannot be compared. It's more accurate to say you can't claim there's no ghosts or something.
Your life view is already based on multiple flawed premises.
You're nonsensical definition of omnipotent doesn't matter. God can create out of nothing, there is no paradox there. And having that power means he is defined in some way.
>So if God judges people, he is evil. If God does nothing, he doesn't care and isn't saving people.
the judging doesnt make sense, though. being an asshole to specific people who havent done anything wrong doesnt make sense. nor would creating people who are gay, then burning them for it.
gods an asshole
a fictional asshole, but an asshole nontheless.
The you lose nothing arguement is false you lose friend familu and smart people from ever wanting to be near you
Cosmological argument stands up well on its own. Other than that incidents like the big bang and the Cambrian explosion are significant. All evidence, none proof.
>Kalam
>Moral Grounding
>Fine Tuning
Arguments are evidence if you aren't too lazy to google .
Kalam
Moral Grounding
Fine Tuning
so you adopt the price that is utilitarianism?
you know it's kind of tragic how otherwise perfectly intelligent theists are forced to adopt such retarded concepts into their belief system as a necessary price for logically defending their belief. must be such a bitter pill to swallow, i personally could never keep a straight face while saying i'm a utilitarian, or that free will exists, or that i legitimately believe in those cosmological arguments.
If God does not not exist why does the universe? Answer how you believe.
>God can create out of nothing
And who created God?
>Hurr durr he was always there
If his thoughts, his movement, comes from point A to point B, It involves time and he definitely came from some point in the past.
>smart people from ever wanting to be near you
Pic related, it's "smart people"
>>Kalam
which one lad
>moral grounding
even if god exists morality is still not objective because you still make the (irrational, emotion driven) choice to follow god's prescriptions
>Fine Tuning
life is fine tuned to the universe not the other way around
pick the one you're most confident about and respond to that first
God made time, there was no time "before God" because there was no time at all. It's a little tough for sublunary minds to understand.
God is faith only. You will never have evidence sufficient to satisfy your atheistic view. I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember, it's only after suffering adulthood, being a father, worrying about my people and my son's future in the world that I began understanding faith and the truths of Christianity. I've met the nicest most proper Christians on my wife's side of the family and how pleasant their lives are, and I've met the worst type of Christians that live up to none of the ideals.
Christianity, God, it's a way of life that creates Heaven on earth. The alternative is hell on earth and that is definitely the truth.
Easier then moral nihilism. Objective morality requires grounding.
" Leibniz mistakenly inferred from God’s omnipotence that this must be the best possible world. What he failed to realize is that there are worlds which may be logically possible but nevertheless not feasible for God to actualize. As Plantinga points out, while sinless worlds of free creatures are logically possible, they may not be feasible for God, given the decisions the creatures would freely make. There is thus only a proper subset of logically possible worlds which are feasible for God to actualize, and none of these may be worlds which include as much moral good as the actual world without also including this much moral evil."
"“What kind of maximally great being hides from his creation and expects blind allegiance in order to make it into the next world wherein we are told it will actually reflects his maximal greatness?” you ask. What a perverse understanding of Christianity you have! God doesn’t hide from creation or demand blind allegiance; He reveals Himself both in creation and in human history through the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not only has He given evidence of Himself in creation which is sufficient for all persons (Romans 1.20), but more than that, through His Spirit He seeks to draw all persons to Himself (John 16.8). If God hides, it is only from those who willingly shut their hearts and pridefully refuse to seek Him with due humility."
>even if god exists morality is still not objective because you still make the (irrational, emotion driven) choice to follow god's prescriptions
I'm not the one who you're replying to but this is wrong. Whether or not a set of laws is followed does not change the laws. Human laws are objective, someone breaking them doesn't make them subjective. They exist independent of who follows them, they are objective by enforcement.
>If his thoughts, his movement, comes from point A to point B, It involves time and he definitely came from some point in the past.
Correct. That is why God is immaterial (no movement) and omniscient (mind doesn't have a series of thoughts).
You are god
>Look! I called him a fat fedora neckbeard again, that sure killed his argument.
>life is fine tuned to the universe not the other way around
The tuning isn't about life. All constant laws of nature and quantities of atoms have to be a certain way to even get stars and planets forming.
>God made time
When?
>There was no time before God
Time is just our way to count. It's like saying i couldnt count to Ten on that point where God was still creating things if i was there. If God waves his arms to create time, you can count how long It took for his arms get to point A to point B... Which means time already exists. Time is not a THING, it's a concept. It's like saying God created mathmatic. I understand you. You're just wrong.
>Something cannot come from nothing
That's proven to be wrong. It's all explained in the video i linked.
Particles come into existence from nothing all around us, all the time and instantly disappear again. Quantum mechanics is weird, I know..
It's basically 0 (nothing) = 1 (matter) - 1(anti-matter)
or 0 = 567 - 567 or whatever number of particles.
Equal numbers of matter and anti-matter can be created from nothing.
A huge amount of particles came into existence, somehow they did not cancel out each other. The leading hypothesis is that anti matter was more unstable.
The universe is what's left of the matter.
Watch the video.
Maybe I could have found a shorter one, sorry about that. It's still fun though.
No movement, no series of thoughts. Time is related to matter and changes. God made time at T=0.
What argument? Anyone posting actual arguments I respond to and engage with. That user just came here to say that atheists are smarter than religious people and nothing else. Fedora as fuck.
good thing that you can have non-objective systems of morality. i'm only a moral nihilist in the sense that i don't believe that objective morality exists, but i still base my morality on my intuition and innate moral values, simply put by understanding what "feels wrong" i learn my own moral values, and abide by them in a consistent manner.
i should add that atheism not being able to justify objective moral values is only a problem if it can't but theism can. if both can't it isn't really a criticism. you can call me a nihilist all you want but the only reason nihilism even exists is because theists have done such a poor job of creating an alternative, even if a grant you all the arguments for god's existence for the sake of argument, you still can't demonstrate how objective moral values exists, it's that bad.
Material or not, you can still order thoughts in time. My answer to you, for example, is a thought i'm having after the reply you made to me. Even on that point things still follow the logic of time, because time itself is not a thing.
>meme argument
>Particles come into existence from nothing all around us
Quantum vacuums are something. Nothing means not anything.
oh, and about the best possible world defense, it suffers from two problems. one is that it's perfectly conceivable of a world where, for instance, people are immune to disease. if this isn't what god wants, then this world is only the best possible world FOR GOD, not for the people in it, so once again god is being a utilitarian. the other thing is that god didn't have to create a world in the first place, which would actually be the best possible moral decision. if god has to create because of his creator-nature, then he has no free will.
Cosmological argument:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
First of, it assumes that the universe begins. But we still don't know that for sure. Look up big bang-big crunch hypothesis. Maybe the universe is eternal.
Also, even if it's not and it does need a cause to begin, that doesn't mean God did it.
That's the same reasoning the ancient Greeks used: "I don't know there lightning comes from so it must be a god".
Truth hurts
I'm not as ignorant on quantum mechanics as you might assume. What you're describing is not demonstrated or hardly science. The 0 = 1 - 1 explanation for the universe is a philosophical argument, not science, and you need to recognize that. Even then for 0 to split into 1 and -1 is an effect, and all effects have a cause, which is still unexplained.
You are wrong to assume science understands and can explain why there is a universe and you cannot go any further without recognizing. I'm not telling you I'm right but you are thinking things are objective truths which are not.
God is God
but if stars never formed that would only be a problem because life wouldn't be possible. this is only ever about life, because if life isn't the goal, there's no problem if stars don't form, or if stars were different, or if there was only primordial chaos or whatever other possibilities, one isn't better than the other, not unless you assume you understand god's motives(creating us)
>Time is related to matter
If that was true you wouldnt be able to put your thoughts in order. I think the problem is that we're thinking of different times.. If that is even possible. I'm thinking of cronological time while you're thinking of physical. Think: could God count to 10 before he created time?
Oh that clears it up. Thanks
What's with the atheist shilling lately? Varg's retarded cult or /leftypol/?
in what way are laws objective? you mean in the sense that the piece of paper that you write the constitution on is made of objective matter?
it's still just the arbitration of someone. i can have all sorts of schemes and plans for mankind and call myself the ruler, you still don't have to listen to me unless you feel like it.
>i'm only a moral nihilist in the sense that i don't believe that objective morality exists, but i still base my morality on my intuition and innate moral values, simply put by understanding what "feels wrong" i learn my own moral values, and abide by them in a consistent manner.
Good, then I hope you are consistent and accept that all evil is on the level of fashion taboo. All language of morality is equal to emoting. "I don't like that, but is just my opinion" says the rape victim.
You either think we perceive objective morality the same way we perceive colors (existence of color blind or blind people don't invalidate color) or its a trick but other perceptions aren't.
>So, are there any valid arguments for the existence of such a being?
Yes. All you have to do is die. Soon.
Dont forget that the total net energy in the universe is 0. We're one giant configuration of nothingness.
>ITS CALLED FAITH U FAGGOT
>U CANT MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING
>WE WUZ RESSURECTIONZ N SHIET
Take a poll of the people enjoying paradise forever if creation should have happened or not.
Science outrage turn to right wing after lefties fell for the socialstudy meme
So "there's no explanation therefore God exists"?
Also, here's an unrelated meme that will probably trigger some people in here
Perhaps the existence of God is better taken as an axiom of existence itself. You never can prove an axiom, however it is natural that it is real - causality itself is Godly. Everything is governed by causality and an order of things. From X, Y.
Humans always had an inclination to religiosity, and not just as a means to explain nature, but to help coordinate societies through basis of morality and natural law. Even so, when faced with the complexity of our universe, what we learn everyday about it and continuously expand our knowledge of its inner workings, would a simple answer not be a Creator, a creator beyond time itself? We see that our physical universe is in accord with causality, which would imply that something caused it - what else than the will of a super-temporal presence, that propagates it's will through order of events. If you believe in free will, you can think of that as a grace from this presence, to be free from the normal order, to get a small glimpse of what lies beyond simple causality.
>evil is on the level of fashion taboo
no, because my values come from human nature, which is more or less consistent for everyone, and we don't get to decide like we decide what's trendy. if i could make myself immune to pain i would lad
>You either think we perceive objective morality the same way we perceive colors
honestly don't know what that means. objective morality is undefined to me, because morality by nature can't be objective, it's like saying a square circle
You call the arguments fallacious because you have bias. If you alanylzed your own positions critically you'd see your arguments as fallacious too.
>100% of scientists agree that-
>celebrities and youtubers agree that-
Appeal to authority
>religious people dumb
>sky daddy
>speghettimonster.unfunnymeme
Ad hom
>if religion is the cause of historical violence why should I read the Bible
Begging questions
There are strong and convincing arguments for the existence of god that aren't based on fallacious reasoning. You just need to approach them objectively.
The most basic of the basic arguments I can give are the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas and a similar work by Avicenna.
And if you can brush these two respected and important works off as fallacious then you prove how big of a dunning Kruger you are.
Aquinas makes the more objective and rational case. Start from there.
Which raises the question why are we in a life permitting universe.
Oh shit I didn't think of that. Thanks I guess..
if they're alright with suffering just because they get to life a stress free life they're cunts
linear time is a weird thing. what came before? many people like the explanation for time that there is something eternal, where time is only some kind of oscilation.
also, life as we know it is too complex and VERY unlikely to happen on its own. there are quite a few things that can make someone believe in a greater force behind events.
about the cristhian god. the best proof for something is experiencing it? seeing it with your own eyes? religion starts with trust. we inherit civilization from our ancestors, that came with religion. some people claim to have testimony of "god's" actions and other people can believe it or not.
I personally dont like our religious organizitions in general, but i do believe in god and that there is a lot humanity haven't yet learned or mistankenly ignored. (science only works for things that can be put to test or proven under known rules)
That's not an argument
Confirmed for /leftypol/. Sage.
why convince? Believe or not. Choose hell or heaven. You will come in one of these, if you believe or not.
>it assumes that the universe begins
A safe assumption. The steady state universe theory has been abandoned by almost everyone.
>Also, even if it's not and it does need a cause to begin, that doesn't mean God did it.
It literally does unless you perform some linguistic magic to move the concept of God. What ever caused the universe to come into existence in God and continually shifting rhe goal post can't change that.
>That's the same reasoning the ancient Greeks used: "I don't know there lightning comes from so it must be a god".
It is not. The "religion is a shrinking pocket of ignorance" is nothing but a feel good meme for atheists. Christians have advanced science more than any other demographic in human history, and it's an entirely modern thing to assume it's incompatible with science.
No one thinks "I don't know how it works, therefor god did it"
It's "god created the universe, let's find out how the laws inside it work"
>no, because my values come from human nature, which is more or less consistent for everyone
Traveled Africa much? "Its okay to hurt or steal from people that aren't me" is a pretty popular standard.
OP, look at the evidence for the resurrection.
Evidence for the resurrection, you say?
Yes! Really.
Start with some of these: apologeticsguy.com
>Telling people to believe you exist and stop killing and robbing each other is as difficult and reasonable as working to meet the 5 year plan
So "I'm going to straw man you because i can't counter your arguments" is your new argument? Fuck off m8 don't even pretend you're open to argument
1:it's not a life permitting universe, it's a universe-capable life. suppose the universe would've been different such that our kind of life would be impossible, but a different kind would. would you still say that that universe was specifically created to support THAT life instead? doesn't it make more sense to say that the bacteria in my fridge grew there because it was compatible with the fridge rather than the other way around?
>why
material, efficient, formal, or final?
No idea who Varg is. I just don't believe a god exists.
And don't talk to me about morality while you are ok with people getting infinite punishment for finite crimes.
Stop the religion larpg the things you say to justify your faith are ridiculous and you would not accept them in any other argument
At least learn some theology
This is for you