Dumping my collection of arguments for the plausibility of God's existence

Hopefully this will scare off any atheist newfags from reddit who mistakenly believe they're in good company.

As a note, the burden of proof lies on the "atheist" who claims God doesn't exist or is unlikely to exist, because once it is accepted that neither of these is true, choosing God is a personal choice. The burden of proof is not on me to prove God exists because my claim is only that God doesn't necessarily not exist nor is He unlikely to exist. If you do not hold a belief about God's existence nor the likelihood of His existence, you are without this knowledge and are an agnostic by definition. If you insist on calling yourself an "agnostic atheist," know that this phrase is a redundant rhetorical tautology, and thus that its usage can only be assumed to be meant to implicitly equivocate classical atheism and new "atheism."

---

1. Some things are moved
2. Everything that is moving is moved by a mover
3. An infinite regress of movers is impossible
4. Therefore there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds
5. This mover is what we call God

1. Logical absolutes exist.
2. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature--are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature.
3. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true.
4. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different--not absolute.
5. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them.
6. This mind is called God.
7. Furthermore, if there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God2 3, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated.
8. Therefore, part of the argument is that the atheist position cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes from its worldview.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

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. 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. There are kinds of possible circumstances and events the best explanations for which invoke supernatural agency.
2. Some circumstances and events of those kinds have actually occurred.
3. Therefore, there is a supernatural agent.

If the total amount of mass/energy is fixed and limited (1st law), and the amount of usable energy is decreasing (2nd law), then this universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have already exhausted all usable energy.

1. Some things in the world are in motion.
2. Everything in motion was moved by something else, and that was moved by something, and so on (2-7).
3. Motion must have a starting point.
4. There must be a first mover not moved by anything else.
5. God is the only being that is capable of being an unmoved mover.
6. Therefore, God exists.

1. Our senses reveal to us an order of efficient causes in the world.
2. Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself because then it would have to exist prior to itself, which is impossible.
3. In a series of efficient causes, each member of the series is the cause of the next.
4. Because of this, if there is no first cause in the series, there will be no series at all.
5. The series of efficient causes cannot extend infinitely into the past, for then there would be no first cause and therefore no series.
6. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

1. We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.
2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility.
3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.
4. Then right now nothing would exist. For
5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all. But
6. From nothing nothing comes. So
7. The universe could not have begun.
8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But
9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So
10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.
11. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.
12. This absolutely necessary being is God.

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4. Hence God exists.

1. irreducible consciousness exists
2. the best explanation for irreducible consciousness is either theism or naturalism
3. it's not naturalism
4. therefore, theism is the most probable explanation for the existence of irreducible consciousness.

1. Truth exists.
2. Truth is immutable (unchangeable).
3. Truth is eternal.
4. Truth is mental (pertaining to mind or minds).
5. Truth is superior to the human mind.
6. Truth is God.

1. We have ideas of many things.
2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God—an infinite, all-perfect being.
4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.
5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
6. But only God himself has those qualities.
7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
8. Therefore God exists.

1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
2. "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

1. A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
2. There are numerous well-attested miracles.
3. Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
4. Therefore God exists.

1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
3. Not blind chance.
4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
2. Truth properly resides in a mind.
3. But the human mind is not eternal.
4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.
3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.

Pascal's Wager

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something (someone) else.
3. Therefore the universe was caused by something (someone) else.

1. Every part of the universe is dependent.
2. If every part of universe is dependent, then the whole universe must also be dependent.
3. Therefore, the whole universe is dependent for existence right now on some Independent Being.

1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would never have come.
3. But today has come.
4. Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today (i.e., the universe had a beginning).
5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else.
6. Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe.

1. Good things exist.
2. The cause of this goodness is either one or many.
3. But it can’t be many, for then there would be no way to compare their goodness, for all things would be equally good. But some things are better than others.
4. Therefore, one Supreme Good (God) causes the goodness in all things.

1. All designs imply a designer.
2. There is a great design in the universe.
3. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe.

1. God is by definition an absolutely perfect being.
2. But existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, God must exist.

1. God exists in the mind but not in reality.
2. Real existence (as well as mental) is greater than mental existence alone.
3. God’s existence in reality is conceivable.
4. If God had real existence he would be greater than he is (from 1 & 2)
5. It is conceivable that there is a being greater than (from 3 & 4).
6. It is conceivable that there is a being greater than the being than which is none greater can be conceived (this is self-contradictory)
7. Therefore, step 1 is false (i.e., it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality.
8. God exists in reality.

1. If God exists, we must conceive of Him as a Necessary Being.
2. But by definition, a Necessary Being cannot exist.
3. Therefore, if a Necessary Being can, then it must, exist.

1. Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver.
2. There is an objective moral law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

1. Human beings really need God.
2. What humans really need, probably really exists.
3. Therefore, God really exists.

1. Every natural innate desire has a real object that can fulfill it.
2. Human beings have a natural, innate desire for immortality.
3. Therefore, there must be an immortal life after death.

1. All people have some knowledge of God. This knowledge is constitutive to the human framework.
2. The mind perceives certain things to be true without proof and without instruction. There is no instruction or use of senses needed to have some knowledge of God…it is intrinsic knowledge (e.g., the deaf / blind know possess within themselves some knowledge of God) within man.
3. Related to the Moral Law argument in that there is this sense of dependence and accountability to a being higher than themselves which exists in the minds of all people.

1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being.
3. The universe is a contingent thing.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being.

1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.

1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.
2. But intentional states of consciousness do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. Objective moral values and duties exist.
2. But if God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. There is a possible world (W) in which there is a being (X) with maximal greatness.
2. But X is maximally great only if X has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Therefore X is maximally great only if X has omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in every possible world.
4. In W, the proposition "There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being" would be impossible—that is, necessarily false.
5. But what is impossible does not vary from world to world.
6. Therefore, the proposition, "There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being" is necessarily false in this actual world, too.
7. Therefore, there actually exists in this world, and must exist in every possible world, an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being.

1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one.
3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
4. Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct.

1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore, there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

1. The expression "that being than which a greater cannot be thought" (GCB, for short) expresses a consistent concept.
2. GCB cannot be thought of as: a. necessarily nonexistent; or as b. contingently existing but only as c. necessarily existing.
3. So GCB can only be thought of as the kind of being that cannot not exist, that must exist.
4. But what must be so is so.
5. Therefore, GCB (i.e., God) exists.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) 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. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.

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," or a "sky daddy," 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.

1. Belief in God—that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due—is common to almost all people of every era.
2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.
3. It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
4. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
3. Not chance.
4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
6. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

I'll save every post you wrote so I can read later, if you allow me to


also, have you heard about William Lane Craig?
He's by far the best theist debater and i haven't seen he lose a debate yet, guy is a master

Yes, that guy's pretty bad a.

the kind of thread i put in my favorites then forget about it then get too lazy to read it and end up deleting it one week after

1. Some things are moved
2. Everything that is moving is moved by a mover
3. An infinite regress of movers is impossible
4. Therefore there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds
5. This mover is what we call God

>yfw you realize you just created an unmovable mover out of your ass, because if you followed your own logical 2 rule there MUST be a prior mover who moved God.

>1. Some things are moved
>2. Everything that is moving is moved by a mover
>3. An infinite regress of movers is impossible
>4. Therefore there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds
>5. This mover is what we call God

So God is the first mover. Not having to be moved is in his definition. But what stop the other things to be exempt from this rule too?
This argument is invalid or I don't get it

I don't think you understand.

Me being an atheist simply means I am not convinced by 'there is a god, argument' it's not based on science, evolution or other spiritual beliefs, I am just not convinced that a god exists with the current evidence.

And it's called the Null hypotheses, if you don't have good reason to believe in something, then don't believe it.

Disbelief is the default position in all things/claims.

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.


That's was your statement

It's wrong, the universe is horribly in opposition to us, 99.99999999999999% of all known space is completely inhospitable to human life, and even down here on earth there are literally billions, if not trillions of things that can kill you.

The universe is a mess of chaotic, lethal forces that would destroy even the sturdiest of lifeforms.

>It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health.

Ever heard of Cancer, appendicitis or dementia?

For some reason these were left out:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. The universe has a cause
5. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful
6. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

1. The universal constants are due to physical necessity, chance or design.
2. The universal constants are not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the universal constants are due to design.

1. Many people from different eras and cultures have claimed experience of the supernatural.
2. We should believe their experiences in the absence of any reason not to.
3. Therefore, the supernatural exists.

What the fuck drugs are you on?

>1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Simply not true, besides the fact that most of not all people will never be able to attain intangible things like true love, perfect job, reliving without nostalgia and others. Other real life desires such as not starving to death, leaving your war torn country and having lost limbs replaced can never happen.

>1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Prove it

Now this could be stickied

Even if god exist, what is "religion business" have to deal with it?

There are many Gods. Christianity is wrong.

>1. The universal constants are due to physical necessity, chance or design.
2. The universal constants are not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the universal constants are due to design.

Why would you limit those constraints to only 3 possible causes? Perhaps those constraints were the result of something else.

I am God.

>1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
>2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
>3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
>4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
>5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.
This to me is the most compelling one you've presented. Even if none of these are logically correct, I appreciate the effort

To prove it, we would have to accept the axiom that a thing maintains a constant state unless accepted upon by a force

There is 1 God. man rebelled against him

How does that hold up in the world of irrational mathematics? Why does the value of pi or E need a cause?

They are completely irrational.

Some quantum states are truly random, they cannot be predicted and move on there on accord no matter what condition they are in. Those such things do not change, regardless of the 'force' you apply to them.

Craig defends the first premise as follows:[20][21]
Rational intuition: He states that the first premise is self-evidently true, being based upon the Causal Principle that "something cannot come into being from nothing", or "Ex nihilo nihil fit", originating from Parmenidean philosophy. He attests that this is a critically important first principle of science.
Reductio ad absurdum: If false, it would be inexplicable why anything and everything does not randomly appear into existence without a cause.
Inductive reasoning from both common experience and scientific evidence, which constantly verifies and never falsifies the truth of the first premise.

Go tip your fedora on /r9k/, jesus christ, you neckbeards disgust me.

Nice argument there buddy, deus vult, amirite?

No, there are thousands of Gods. If you pray to the right one you might get your wishes fulfilled, it happened to me many times.

Consider a hypothetical hotel with a countably infinite number of rooms, all of which are occupied.

One might be tempted to think that the hotel would not be able to accommodate any newly arriving guests, as would be the case with a finite number of rooms, where the pigeonhole principle would apply.

>Finitely many new guests

Suppose a new guest arrives and wishes to be accommodated in the hotel. We can (simultaneously) move the guest currently in room 1 to room 2, the guest currently in room 2 to room 3, and so on, moving every guest from his current room n to room n+1.

After this, room 1 is empty and the new guest can be moved into that room. By repeating this procedure, it is possible to make room for any finite number of new guests.

>Infinitely many new guests

It is also possible to accommodate a countably infinite number of new guests: just move the person occupying room 1 to room 2, the guest occupying room 2 to room 4, and, in general, the guest occupying room n to room 2n, and all the odd-numbered rooms (which are countably infinite) will be free for the new guests.

>Infinitely many coaches with infinitely many guests each

For more details on this topic, see Pairing function.
It is possible to accommodate countably infinitely many coachloads of countably infinite passengers each, by several different methods. Most methods depend on the seats in the coaches being already numbered (or use the axiom of countable choice). In general any pairing function can be used to solve this problem.

For each of these methods, consider a passenger's seat number on a coach to be {\displaystyle n} n, and their coach number to be {\displaystyle c} c, and the numbers {\displaystyle n} n and {\displaystyle c} c are then fed into the two arguments of the pairing function.

> countably infinite number
Invalid. Retard detected.

See
The world of irrational mathematics can and DO create information (the barest form of substance) to appear spontaneously.

There are functions that will give you a different answer every time you run it even though it's in the same condition. It creates something (a new irrational number) from nothing (an original starting position).

Think of it like this:

1+1=2 is pretty straightforward but did you know that
1+1= literally anything

It's the The Banach–Tarski paradox.

Maths does not always give you the same answer every time. You can make 1+1=5 and it is just as sound as a statement in irrational maths.

>wishes fulfilled
>thinks God is a genie
at one point theological ignorance was acceptable to God due to lack of understanding, but there is no longer any excuse

>theological
Pseudo-science.

God is what you want Him to be.

>An uncaused Creator

Then how did he come about
Practically, did he just pop out of nowhere
In which case what made him pop out of there
Or was he always there
But nothing is there or has been there for infinity

You can't ask me to dismiss that logic to accommodate belief in God

>Thinking any of this psudeo philosophical hogwash justifies your God as the creator of the universe.
The simple truth is that your god, like all gods before him and all gods to follow, requires worship as a form of substenance. Why else do you think they need prayer, service, or temples? Because humanity needs it? To justify their own egos? Perhaps, perhaps not. In either case the main point is they need the worship of mortals to sustain and empower themselves. If humanity as a collective whole decided to quite worshiping them, to silence their praises and close their places of worship, the gods will all starve. Now tell me, how could a God that cannot exist without it's worshipers create the world said worshipers exist in? There are several theories, with the most likely and most frightening being the case of retroactive creation. By gathering enough power and worshipers, a god could become powerful enough to alter time itself to make themselves the creators of all. With this theory, it would make the Semitic God rather competitive in this regard.
Think about it. The texts have often said "be fruitful and multiply the Earth" as well as "If you see the infidel, kill the infidel." Both of which are marks of an expansionist ideology or kingdom. This would set up the semantic religions to be the fastest growing, soon conquering all and creating a one world religion of billions.
(cont.)

man is made in the image of God. God is not made in the image of man.

but since you are a former soviet colony i can understand your ignorance.

>But Islam and Christianity are at war.
One cannot put all their eggs in one basket. Islam was created for several purposes, chief among them being the desire for strong worshipers. After all, the stronger one's faith the more power it has.
>But doesn't that mean God made the world?
Not yet. With the weakening of faith seen recently God has had less power at his disposal. This coincides with the decrease in miracles and the weakening of faith healing. In addition, it could also explain why Islam has been growing; God gives to those who give him power.
It could also mean there just aren't enough people yet.
>But doesn't that mean God exists?
Yes and no. While he does exist at the moment, there was a time he did not. How a god comes into being as of now is unknown. Some theories have stated the worship comes first, bringing the god into existence with the first prayer while others say they have just enough power to influence things in a minor way. In any case, should the faith wane to such a point that no one believes in them, they shall revert back to the way they were before. Either as a spectral thing, or as nothing.
This also brings up the question of what the unused faith and hope and prayers go to and what they will do. A short and simple answer would be that they will empower humanity, however the specifics of how are yet a mystery. The reason we don't see this very often is due to a mixture of the meddling of divine beings and the lack of atheists or non believers in the world. The latter providing little power, while the former use their power to keep the latter down.
And that is my take on gods, their worship, and the role humanity plays in it. Are their any questions?

That is difficult to answer and I don't think I can. I should have clarified that by "thing" I mean a physical object

its a term for integers
while that may hold true for integers, it doesn't for irrational numbers.

for example, if you have pi amount of rooms you can insert an infinitely regressable amount of people in it (E) but pi itself, along with E is still finite, yet you have an infiniety regressed amount of people in it.

about 1.15572734979...

im trying to think of a way to explain it to you.

imagine trying to zoom in on a pizza and cut it at exactly squareroot 2 degrees. you can zoom in for ever and never find it.


don't even get me started on irrational imaginary numbers like pi X I

God does not require our worship to exist, we require worship of God for us to exist. else we will destroy ourselves

Countable numbers are called natural numbers, not integers.

Also, there is not such thing as infinite number, infinity is a concept.

You seem to be a brainlet.

What's your major?

I can agree with you on that.

physical and tangible things (*although id argue that constants are physical, its just that base10 number systems cant handle them to make them integers) all have a cause, if you go back far enough.

>Now tell me, how could a God that cannot exist without it's worshipers create the world said worshipers exist in?
So if no one worships cows they do not exist?

And what reasoning, empirical evidence, or other sources do you have to back this claim up?
>The Bible
Merely a tool to convince the world that he is almighty. A classic tactic of theirs; convince the followers the god exists without worship and their fear will enable them to stay. For what is fear but a negative form of faith, used to convince someone of the impossible rather than the possible.

Cows are a physical creature that lives in the material realm, therefore able to exist without worship. The gods are naturally immaterial and spiritual. Perhaps I should have mentioned that earlier, but I thought it was self explanatory.

>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.

Almost every single one of the reasons listed is circular logic, but this one is especially ridiculous.

1. If free will is an illusion, God, too, is false.
2. Free will is an illusion.
3. God does not exist.

Disprove this by proving free will is not an illusion.

I'll wait.

>although id argue that constants are physical
I was going to argue the same thing but I then remembered that their existence somehow present in nature isn't a requirement for their existence. For example, e can be calculated by taking the limit of a certain exponential function, and limits and functions exist entirely as abstract entities made possible by the accepted axioms upon which the mathematics that allows their "existence" is built

countable infinity is the name for all known integers

uncountable infinity is the name of all known irrational numbers

see
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

countable infinity is infinitely smaller than uncountable infinity

Why does god hate when I masturbate?

>The gods are naturally immaterial and spiritual. Perhaps I should have mentioned that earlier, but I thought it was self explanatory.
It is self explanatory, but that doesn't support what you said earlier. A thing can exist without the acknowledgement of human beings. God is a thing. Therefore he can exist without the acknowledgement of human beings

And what reasoning, empirical evidence, or other sources do you have to back this claim up?
simple observation. not only does the bible recount many episodes of jews experiencing intergenerational decay and eventual disaster by disowning God, but im witnessing it in my very own nation as we speak

You have a set that contains all the possible behaviors and actions attributable to a god-like being.

Why is the judeo-christian god more likely than a native american christian god or a god that doesn't honor deals and treats non-believers to heaven while believers burn forever?

If the burden of proof is on the individual making the claim, wouldn't it still be on humanity to prove that God does exist, seeing as we made the claim in the first place? As far as I know, we aren't born with an innate knowledge of such a being. Hypothetically, if you were in an isolated society with no concept of religion, and a God spoke to you, and you alone, wouldn't the burden of proof be on you to prove its existence to others? Or am I just completely ass-backwards here?

trips of truth

maths is ascended

>A thing can exist without the acknowledgement of human beings.
This is true, if only for the reason that it can happen. For instance, an idea does not exist without acknowledging it. Of course, that's if you believe ideas are things.
>God is a thing
Not exactly. Some would argue it's partly a thing, partly an idea. If this theory is correct it can "Exist" in some form, though neither as something that can be observed or interact through the world often or with great ease. Should the other theory be true, about gods coming into existence because of worship, then they are almost if not entirely what amounts to sentient ideas with power.

>Reasoning.
As mentioned before, why else would a god, any god, need prayer if it's already all powerful? However, let us go even further with this reasoning, shall we?
Why is it that the all powerful god, which claims dominion over all, have more expansionist tactics than the polytheistic gods of other areas? Because he is correct and wants the "demons" to suffer, or is it because he wants to garner more power then those who feel sharing the praise between them would be beneficial for all? I would post more, but my laptop battery is running low right now. Be back in a couple of minutes.

>Thinking your idea of a god has anything to do with the chr*stian interpretation of it.
Maybe it just hosts the universe and doesn't care about what people do.

So if God does exist and maintains existence because he is worshiped, does he cease to exist if everyone forgets about him? If God is defined as creator of everything, how could he have created his worshipers if his existence is dependent on their worship of him?

>As mentioned before, why else would a god, any god, need prayer if it's already all powerful?
God doesn't need prayer to maintain his all-powerful state; God would be all-powerful regardless of whether he is acknowledged in some way

and as i mentioned before, we need prayer, God does not. every instruction in the bible is for our benefit, not his.

and apparently you have a puppet-master idea of God where he created a really sucky playpen for himself. this is simply you reflecting your own egotism on your idea of what God should be like.

God set the universe in motion and it remains a symbol of perfect harmony with the only exception being human sin as a result of free will.

None of the arguments in this thread in opposition to your own necessarily have to do with specific gods acknowledged by humans. None of the arguments you provide attack the idea of a creator pure and simple

Boy.. circular logic must be one hell of a drug...

i would disagree with your last statement, if god is omnipresent and omniscient he would have known of human sin.

and if he was benevolent he would have made us without it.

>inb4 muh free will
hes omnipotent, he could have made a perfect world AND preserved our free will at the same time.

that doesn't take into account natural evil

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil

why would a god make a world with tornadoes, smallpox, droughts and tsunamis?

hes morally responsible for the deaths of billions innocents due to natural causes.

thousands of innocent babies die in natural occurrences all the time

>trying to prove god with logic
>does not make any sense

sage for retarded arguments

Free will necessitates freedom of choice. Evil is necessarily a choice. Therefore free will necessitates the possibility of evil. When people talk about God being omnipotent, they are not including the ability to perform the logically absurd in the definition of "omnipotence."
You are presupposing pain and physical death are evil and that innocence exists. You are effectively trying to whine God out of existence. You won't understand this, but stop bumping this thread anyway. I want to post a new one without mistakes.

WTF are you even talking about? Go outside dumbass

Uncle Leroy, get off Sup Forums. You're drunk again.

of course, for the greatest achievement of the greek-minded westerner is leisure, so it is only natural for such people to idealize the personality of God to be one which creates a perfect existence of leisure and pleasure.

but from the first pages of genesis it should be clear that this is not what God intended nor desired. the sin of sodom was described as having an fullness of bread and an abundance of idleness.

God desires a people who work, overcomes struggle, creates and innovates, not people who sit around pleasuring themselves all day. because we are being trained for activities after we leave this earth.

>Evil is necessarily a choice.

true, but why does he let it happen? why not stop it before it occurs?

>You are presupposing pain and physical death are evil and that innocence exists.

because they are, and innocents does exist, what crime has a newborn baby committed?

>true, but why does he let it happen? why not stop it before it occurs?
Not letting it happen would negate the choice.
>because they are
Not an argument. Maybe if you elaborate on your feelings you could make it into a better appeal to emotion fallacy.

so why should innocent children die in the horrible world that he created?

if god desires a special kind of people, who overcome struggle and suffering (which he himself inflicts) then why is he so over the top with everything?

what use is giving a child cancer that they will never be cured from? only to die in pain and confusion/indifference to the bitter world that birthed them

or what use does god have with people born with horrible defects, only to live the rest of their lives being cared for by others?

>So if God does exist and maintains existence because he is worshiped, does he cease to exist if everyone forgets about him?
That is the joist of it, yes.
>If God is defined as creator of everything
He is by the common man, but this does not completely imply that as true. At least not yet. He could retroactively make himself a creator should he aquire enough power, but as it stands his status as a creator is questionable at best.
I am not saying God created the universe. I'm saying he may should he gather enough power. Further more most of you are coming from a position implying God is currently the all powerful being he is, where this may not be the case. This actually adds further proof to my theory earlier about the desire to convince his followers that he is all-powerful when, at the time it was incorrect. Given how ingrained it is into each of your minds it seems it has worked.
>None of the arguments you provide attack the idea of a creator pure and simple
Now who says I am trying to attack the idea of a creator.

Because humans are born in sin. The sins of the parents get passed down for eternity, but not the redemption.
t. Atheist-Agnostic

>Not letting it happen would negate the choice.
no, a choice is made before the action

you decide to murder someone before you actually do it (premeditative murder)

he has all knowledge, he knows when one makes a choice and can stop the action, if you fire a bullet with the intent to kill, you have made the choice, but god could stop the bullet.

>because they are

'Evil, in a general context, is the absence or opposite of that which is described as being good. Often, evil denotes profound immorality.'

inflicting pain and death on innocents are immoral.

and yes, innocents exist, what crime has a baby committed?

>The sins of the parents get passed down for eternity

can you give me a theological reason as why guilt/moral responsibility of one moral agent should be passed to another?

in what world is the killers son blamed for the killers actions? that's injustice

You must be high out of your mind.

>1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
>2. The universe began to exist
>3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
>4. The universe has a cause
>5. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful
>6. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

This line of reasoning is inconsistent with itself.
We're assuming that what exists must be caused, so therefore the universe must have a cause (Creator), which for some reason is uncaused.
Given that the Creator has influence on the physical world, then the Creator must exist, and by the first line of the argument, the Creator must also be caused.

>1. The universal constants are due to physical necessity, chance or design.
>2. The universal constants are not due to physical necessity or chance.
>3. Therefore, the universal constants are due to design.
Translated:
Assumption: The universe is by design.
Conclusion: The universe is by design.
Second statement is not a proof, but an assumption or a claim.

>1. Many people from different eras and cultures have claimed experience of the supernatural.
>2. We should believe their experiences in the absence of any reason not to.
>3. Therefore, the supernatural exists.
Replace 'supernatural' with 'holocaust'.
Do you still agree?¨

That aside 'experience of the supernatural' is awfully vague.
Given that various religions have highly contradictory explanations for afterlife, I'd find reason to doubt their claims.

God is real
Ok praise jesus

theres many aspects of God i dont find pleasant. a read through the old testament will either make you an atheist or make you realize that he does not exist solely to please us and make sure were happy. that we are low and he is high, and he carries life as well as death in his hands.

but ironically amidst such bad things, so many people are still so complacent with the gift of life that they dont even acknowledge it as a gift. they take possession of their very existence as if they willed themselves their own life by their own power.

so than i should say, why do so many healthy babies get to grow up and live full lives, instead of focusing solely on the outliers when considering God

I meant to say the original sin, i.e. rebellion against God is what is passed down, not any sin committed by the parents.
As for why, I'd guess it's because we're born in a sinful world separated from God.

because for a god who claims to be benevolent (mentioned many times throughout the bible) he would not do that.

if you want to believe that god is either a trickster or a chaotic god, who has no justice then i would be able to reconcile with that.

it just seems strange to me for a god that wants something (a person to become stronger) he goes way overboard and sets the difficulty to maximum (being born blind, deaf, dumb like Helen Keller)

another problem i have with the christian god is that he claims to be perfectly just and perfectly merciful at the same time

which is a paradox since mercy is the suspension of justice and any mercy rules out perfect justice, likewise any justice rules out perfect mercy.

>1. Some things are moved
From its own reference point, any given observer is stationary.
>2. Everything that is moving is moved by a mover
How do you know?
>3. An infinite regress of movers is impossible
How do you know?
>4. Therefore there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds
It is not clear to me how this follows. Please elaborate.
>5. This mover is what we call God
Assuming everything up until this is correct, why would this be what is called God? Accepting this argument until this point says nothing of what such an unmoved mover might be. On what basis can you apply your idea of God to this unmoved mover?

>1. Logical absolutes exist.
>2. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature--are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature.
>3. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true.
>4. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different--not absolute.
>5. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them.
This does not follow. Perhaps logical absolutes are not dependent upon any mind. The argument failed to establish otherwise.
>6. This mind is called God.
Why not call it Frank? Or Jimmy?
>7. Furthermore, if there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God2 3, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated.
>8. Therefore, part of the argument is that the atheist position cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes from its worldview.
Why not? Accepting the argument is true, the argument still also fails to establish that "God" is anything more than definitions and given statements about logic. How do you know that your idea of God has anything to do with the "God" of your argument?

i dont see why being born in a particular circumstance (place, nationality, family ties) have anything to do with your verdict of guilty/innocence.

i dont believe its morally sound for god to punish children who were just born yesterday with death because Eve bit an apple.


like, why should i be held accountable if my father was a nation traitor who betrayed the government?

>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.

This one made me laugh, both axioms are absurd claims.

>christian atheist here

if you think atheists are your enemy in the wars to come you'll have a really bad time

Gods righteousness is spoken of much more than Gods love. and make no mistake God has spilled much human blood due to unrighteousness.

and as sad as it is, those born with defects are highly impactful propaganda to those ungrateful and complacent with their healthy lives.

you should be happy God shows mercy else the human race wouldnt exist. i dont see why its a paradox, havent you ever showed mercy to someone who did you wrong and deserved to be punished?

>i dont see why its a paradox, havent you ever showed mercy to someone who did you wrong and deserved to be punished?

then you have given them mercy, but suspended to do so justice

mercy is the suspension of justice, if you give a person any mercy, even a little bit, then you are suspending justice from taking place.

likewise if you are providing justice to the fullest it can be then no mercy can be given.

So god blames you for existing after he created you.

How benevolent and logical is that...?

>being an oxymoron

"those born with defects are highly impactful propaganda to those ungrateful and complacent with their healthy lives."

Right, so he's an evil motherfucker in order to convince you not to be one, because you shouldn't be evil, because you'd commit evil acts. However, god is much more powerful than any man, or group of people. So he creates a greater evil to fight a lesser evil.

Shouldn't he lead by example?

God is not a rigid systematic character. He forgave david but killed ananias on the spot. He has surprisingly human emotions and they depend much on our own individual actions.

im tired and goin to bed. but fyi God can answer these question for you much better than i can

Proving the existence of God doesn't prove religion. There is a huge difference between being "atheist" and being "non-religious"

Prove to me that god is not a dragon with a 10ft inch long penis that cums out asteroids

Why do theists constantly use the same arguments that are debunked constantly?

And how do these arguments prove the existence of the God of the Bible? At best they might provide evidence for a deistic God. You're just tacking your own religious faith onto them when these arguments could just as easily be applied to Odin or Zeus.