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

[Justin Parker]

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.

[Landon King]

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.

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.

[Jace Parker]

If the total amount of mass/energy is fixed and limited (1st law of thermodynamics), and the amount of usable energy is decreasing (2nd law of thermodynamics), 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.

[Jaxson Gutierrez]

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.

[Elijah Ross]

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. 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.

[Isaiah Adams]

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."

P(h/e and k) > P(h/k). —The probability (P) of the hypothesis of the existence of God (h) based upon/given the empirical evidence (e) for God and background knowledge (k) is a greater probability (>) than the probability (P) of the hypothesis of the existence of God (h) solely based upon/given background knowledge alone (k)—without the empirical evidence for God.

[Liam James]

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.

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.

[Austin Evans]

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.

[Ian Brooks]

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.

[Justin Smith]

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.

[Isaiah Davis]

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.

[Camden Long]

bump out of interest

[Owen Russell]

1: Christ is a historical figure. he died via Roman crucifixion. This is a historical fact. (see 1 in pic related)
no one walks away from roman crucifixion, it's a 3 step process.
if you survive the scourging and crucifixion, the third step is the deathblow.
they need to pry someone off a cross, so they would smash their head in or stab them through the heart with a sword or spear, or set them on fire, or let wild animals rip them apart.

2: We have firsthand and secondhand eyewitness testimony claiming he visited them in person after his death.
it's written in Paul's epistle to the corinthians.
hold on before the kneejerk reaction, it's written in this epistle, but it originated much earlier, secular scholarship corroborates this (see 2 in pic related)
>3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,
>4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,
>5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
>6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
>7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
>8 Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)
notice that He's appearing to groups, that rules out the 'hallucination hypothesis,' because hallucinations are subjective to the individual.
this creed is also dated to around the month year of Christ's crucifixion by secular scholarship as well, so that rules out the 'legend hypothesis.'

3: These people suffered severe persecution, torture, and death for holding this view.
which is not something someone who is unsure or knows that what they are professing is a lie is going to do.
[1/2]

[Alexander Cook]

so,
options ruled out as irrational given the evidence:
A) the eyewitnesses were all lying
B) the eyewitnesses were all hallucinating the same thing at each occurence
C) the myth of this event evolved over time (legend hypothesis)
D) Christ survived the crucifixion

options left:
E) the event actually occured
F) ? ? ?
the only reason to deny E is pic related

i wait with bated breath to hear your well through out, intelligent response to my argument

[Dominic Gutierrez]

[1/2]
The historical evidence for the resurrection:
youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM

Proof for the resurrection of Jesus:
youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tyVdnIU9A
The first 30 minutes is what's important from this one, the rest is questions and answers.

Ex-atheist scientist tells his story of becoming Christian after realizing that the story of creation in Genesis actually makes the most sense and gets a lot of things right compared to other religious books:
youtube.com/watch?v=dsbj7EN1Uzs

Cold case detective, former atheist analyzed the gospels using his skills and came to the conclusion that Christianity is the true religion and what is written in the New Testament is real.
youtube.com/watch?v=IQmodO2quW0
youtube.com/watch?v=DiYQzOypD9o
The videos are long, but they basically come down to this:
1. The chain of custody is sound, the story doesn't change over time.
2. There was stuff in the Bible that was later confirmed by archeology(places, people, chariots on the sea floor of the Red Sea (Moses parting the red sea), snakes used to have legs, etc.)
3. There are even non-believers' accounts of some stuff Jesus did, just from them you can know a lot about Jesus if you piece it all together.
4. The differences between gospels aren't a bad sign, because witnesses rarely agree on stuff. If every eyewitness would say the same thing, it would be very fishy and would mean they probably talked to each other at one point.
5. The apostles died without getting rich, getting a girlfriend or getting power, they all died horribly. There was no point in spreading Christianity if they didn't believe in it. Why would they risk their life if it wasn't true? Why would they risk their life if it was all forged? Why would Paul try to join this new small church?
Also the only accounts of Romans getting Christians to change their faith was after the 1st century. No account of eyewitnesses ever changing their story.

[Evan James]

[2/2]
Other videos:
New Testament Reliability:
youtube.com/watch?v=rml5Cif01g4
youtube.com/watch?v=WYEzxD2kcGQ
youtube.com/watch?v=vCp-ayAp7fE
youtube.com/watch?v=_l0Say2wMw0
youtube.com/watch?v=qIdCRanZZyw
youtube.com/watch?v=cv6JHGfB9Sk
youtube.com/watch?v=gldvim1yjYM

Credit to based Polish user for the copy paste

[Levi Gonzalez]

You're retarded if you listen to this redditor fedora faggot

[Julian Cruz]

Post more christ-chan and other crusadefus

[Tyler Scott]

16 minute video
youtube.com/watch?v=WRB16BARvz0

Links in pic
youtube.com/watch?v=EZKocFGQf24
youtube.com/watch?v=Hp8AF7i9A3U
newgeology.us/Shroud.pdf
sindone.info/DILAZZA3.pdf
shroud.it/ROGERS-3.pdf
shroud.com/pdfs/whanger.pdf
shroud.com/pdfs/accett2.pdf
shroudnm.com/docs/2013-01-10-Yannick-Clément-Reflections-on-Ray-Rogers-Shroud-Work.pdf
shroud.typepad.com/topics/2005/10/secular_peerrev.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_distribution_by_country
shroud.com/pdfs/ssi08part5.pdf
shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf
theshroudofturin.blogspot.ca/2016/08/medieval-photography-nicholas-allen.html
shroud.com/pdfs/soonsrepsonse.pdf

[Joshua Mitchell]

New experiments date the Shroud of Turin to the 1st century AD. They comprise three tests; two chemical and one mechanical. The chemical tests were done with Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy, examining the relationship between age and a spectral property of ancient flax textiles. The mechanical test measured several micro mechanical characteristics of flax fibers, such as tensile strength. The results were compared to similar tests on samples of cloth from between 3250 BC and 2000 AD whose dates are accurately known.

FTIR identifies chemical bonds in a molecule by producing an infrared absorption spectrum. The spectraproduce a profile of the sample, a distinctive molecular fingerprint that can be used to identify itscomponents. Raman Spectroscopy uses the light scattered off of a sample as opposed to the light absorbed by a sample. It is a very sensitive method of identifying specific chemicals. The tests on fibers from the Shroud of Turin produced the following dates: FTIR = 300 BC ±400 years; Raman spectroscopy = 200 BC ±500 years; and multi-parametric mechanical = 400 AD ±400 years. All the dates have a 95% certainty.

[Wyatt Smith]

The average of all three dates is 33 BC ±250 years (the collective uncertainty is less than the individual test uncertainties). The average date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus’ death on the cross in 30 AD and is far older than the medieval dates obtained with the flawed Carbon 14 sample in 1988. The range of uncertainty for each test is high because the number of sample cloths used for comparison was low; 8 for FTIR, 11 for Raman, and 12 for the mechanical test. The scientists note that future calibrations based on a greater number of samples and coupled with ad hoc cleaning procedures could significantly improve its accuracy, though it is not easy to find ancient samples adequate for the test.” They used tiny fibers extracted from the Shroud by microanalyst Giovanni Riggi di Numana, who gave them to Fanti. Riggi passed away in 2008, but he had been involved in the intensive scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin by the STURP group in 1978, and on April 21, 1988 was the man who cut from the Shroud the thin 7 x 1 cm sliver of linen that was used for carbon dating.

[Xavier Sanchez]

These tests were carried out in University of Padua laboratories by professors from various Italian universities, led by Giulio Fanti, Italian professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua’s engineering faculty. He co-authored reports of the findings in 1) a paper in the journal Vibrational Spectroscopy, July 2013, “Non-destructive dating of ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy” by Giulio Fanti, Pietro Baraldi, Roberto Basso, and Anna Tinti, Volume 67, pages 61-70; 2) a paper titled “A new cyclic-loads machine for the measurement of micro-mechanical properties of single flax fibers coming from the Turin Shroud” by Giulio Fantiand Pierandrea Malfi for the XXI AIMETA (Italian Association of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics) congress in 2013, and 3) the 2013 book “Il Mistero della Sindone” (The Mystery of the Shroud), written by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta in Italian

[Elijah Scott]

I think one of the most interesting things about the Shroud of Turin is that scientists cannot determine what made the original image on the shroud. The closest thing they can compare it to is like what happened in Hiroshima when the bomb went off and someone was vaporized into the ground. A very strange comparison but that's how it was described. There's also the less talked about Sudarium of Oviedo which dates back at least to the 6th century where it was found in Jerusalem, and all the markings on it match up with the thorn wounds and blood stains found on the Shroud of Turin's head rendering. Other proofs would include pollen found on both the shroud and the sudarium that would only be found in Ancient Jerusalem, the fact that the pose of the body actually represents a man sitting up rather than lying down (you can tell based off the knees), and so much more to indicate this truly is Christ's burial shroud.

[Leo Parker]

>atheist newfags from reddit who mistakenly believe they're in good company.
You christfags are the real newfags. Stop spamming these flawed syllogisms.

[Tyler Reyes]

Point 2 is contradicted by point 4.

[Eli Morgan]

Christ fulfills 353 prophesies in the Old Testament written way before him and it’s mathematically impossible for him to have done that by chance.

accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies

[Jacob Martinez]

Point 5 doesn't follow.

[Justin Diaz]

There is no God other than Kek

[Jack Martin]

josh.org/wp-content/uploads/Evidence-For-The-Resurrection.pdf

[Evan Lewis]

...

[Evan Robinson]

Who is saying that Jesus never existed?

[Evan Thomas]

never found alien life

[Grayson Rodriguez]

some dumbass fedoras iv'e seen on here

[Noah Cruz]

tl;dr

Hurrrrr muh sky daddy

[Luis Lopez]

see pic in

[Aaron Price]

>here
Are you talking about this thread, the board in general, or people you meet? Be more specific, please.

[Kevin Fisher]

a

[Asher Barnes]

Sup Forums in general

[Zachary Foster]

...

[Jacob Scott]

meant pic in

[James Cox]

...

[Chase Morales]

just gonna drop this here

[Matthew Stewart]

There's plenty of proof that Muhammad existed as well, but that doesn't mean what he said was true.

[Austin Foster]

>dumbass
>iv'e
This HAS to be a shitposter.

If your only reply to people doubting you is a tired meme that originated on reddit, then your position isn't that strong.

>another tired meme

[Angel Hernandez]

Holy shit the autism.
Also nice work user.

[Xavier Gonzalez]

I know, I just use it retard fedoras say he never existed

[Jack Young]

Most atheists I know, even the hardcore ones, acknowledge the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. They don't believe that he is the son of God.

[John Brooks]

...

[Grayson Cruz]

And what does that prove?

[Ethan Phillips]

Man, and I thought us atheists had a chip on our shoulders lol. If you have to prove Gods existence what's the point in faith? And you'll never actually PROVE his existence so you'll never convert anyone just get pats on the back from fellow believers. Seems pointless unless you like the pats on the back, but isn't pride one of the 7 deadly sins?

[Henry Adams]

pic was just a meme m8y

[Nolan Foster]

> Once it is accepted that neither of these things (God doesn't or is unlikely to exist)

I do not accept that

/thread

[Ethan Bell]

>no one has ever converted to Christianity
wat?

[Jack Rivera]

Are you surprised to see a religion person making a leap in logic to hold a belief?

[Lincoln Edwards]

Wtf, I love d*g now!

[Nathan Cruz]

This is retarded because god would have to have a mover, and his mover would have to be a mover. Kys

[Levi Moore]

You made no argument, just an insult. You can also proofread before posting.

I was asking for you to explain how the existence of a political and religious dissident directly correlates to the existence of God.

This guy gets it. Every single one of those sequences of "logic" is inherently flawed.

[Jacob Adams]

Christianity is the greatest Jewish trick ever pulled on mankind and the white race. Don't listen to these filthy rodents who try and use the old stereotype of atheist redditors to play on your insecurities. Christianity is one of the causes of the degradation of western civilization and any proud sane white nationalist or race realist would know that. Deism or agnosticism is the correct path.

[Bentley Howard]

aliens exist

[Anthony Russell]

A house divided cannot stand. God is Good and Holy, therefore your argument is bogus.

Christendom kept the Western World awesome . Atheistdom = post WW2 debauchery degeneracy and nihilism. Perish Faggot Atheist

[Ethan Young]

Proofs?

[Leo Nguyen]

religion was created by man.
the bible was written by man.

whether or not god exists one thing is clear.

God was used as the icon to construct a false temple of worship with the purpose of controlling other men.

[Lincoln Watson]

Israelis knew snakes used to have legs thousands of years before any one else

They found chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea and found Noah's ark (not as good as top one though)

[Jayden Carter]

The point is it seems pointless. I call out atheists when they do this faggy shit too.

Either trying to prove the unprovable, or disprove something that hasn't been proven to exist are both retarded endeavors.

I think Jordan Peterson is on to something though with explaining how religion is actually a useful and positive thing, and much more deep than I've given credit to because of my inability to see past contradictions and silly stories.

[Owen Powell]

>arguments for the plausibility of God's existence
Theyre all just "I FEEL like God is real so he MUST be real" but wordier.

[Nathaniel Brown]

Then why did Jesus and his follows get tortured? If what you are saying is true wouldn't the Jews just say God said something different to change stuff. Or the Romans doing it.

[Landon Lee]

>Bulgaria
>Googles famous philosophers, mathematicians, theologians that are Bulgarian.

oh, you poor thing.

[Anthony Lopez]

...

[Dylan Hughes]

>the plausibility

You should dump your evidence next time.

[Hunter Hernandez]

Then how did life form from rocks and the Big Bang form from literally nothing? And the single celled organisms we have found which would be like in what atheists to believe the first forms life have 8-12 chromosomes pairs and 8,000 genes. That doesn't come from lifeless rocks.

[Jayden Murphy]

Nice thread OP, keep spreading the word of the lord.

[Matthew Diaz]

Proud of u son... finally found Suma Theologica

[Adam Scott]

1. Human history is nothing but a long snuff film anyway so the torture is nothing special.

2. You don't just change doctrine on the fly and expect obedience with no questions.

3. The jews didn't want to save Jesus, they were the ones that begged the Romans to kill him even though he did nothing wrong under Roman law. They hated him and didn't believe he was really the son of God and stood for principles that were blasphemous against traditional jewish dogma.

[Joseph Bell]

>1. Human history is nothing but a long snuff film anyway so the torture is nothing special.
I mean more how the people claiming to have seen Jesus resurrected would be tortured for it and wouldn't deny him.

>2. You don't just change doctrine on the fly and expect obedience with no questions.
10 commandments

>3. The jews didn't want to save Jesus, they were the ones that begged the Romans to kill him even though he did nothing wrong under Roman law. They hated him and didn't believe he was really the son of God and stood for principles that were blasphemous against traditional jewish dogma.
yes i know

[Elijah Thomas]

You know absolutely nothing about the concept of evolutionary biology. Organisms today (no matter how primitive they may seem to us) have been evolving for as long as we have, and may have had more iterative generations than we have due to having shorter lifespans. Anything living today is not comparable at all to what would have been the first organisms. The building blocks of life (nitrogen bases, ribose sugars, and so on) would have formed in warm pools where complex chemical reactions could occur, not just "form from rocks." Evolution is an incredibly complex process that involves a huge amount of random chance building upon itself upon many, many years.

[Oliver Perry]

youtube.com/watch?v=gldvim1yjYM

youtube.com/watch?v=MtL8hCrvctc
youtube.com/watch?v=9wUcrwYocgM

youtube.com/watch?v=bKzSV8bWKk0

youtube.com/watch?v=s5kJuTkUo0w

youtube.com/watch?v=KJizWvoGCIg

youtube.com/watch?v=Ww7_NKv6_Sg

youtube.com/watch?v=gHofTmolbi0

youtube.com/watch?v=JAPG3eECaxw

[Jacob Sanchez]

I will never understand why people feel the need to argue over the existence of a creator. No one can be objectively right or wrong.

Just keep religion out of schools. Let people believe whatever dumb shit they want. And for the love of Krauss, don't push it on your children. Religion literally breeds sheeple. But, if a kid grows up and chooses religion, more power to him/her.

[Xavier Nguyen]

Great troll or great Poe. A++ I lol'd

[Joshua Perez]

Yes I know they would have been simpler but they still would have to have some chromosome pairs and genes.

>would have formed in warm pools where complex chemical reactions could occur

I'm pretty sure we haven't been able to create life from anything like that and it would have had to happen billions of years ago without outside interaction

[Thomas Wright]

then refute it

[Cooper White]

...

[William Rivera]

95% of the known mass of the universe we live in is dark matter. Science doesnt know what it is. Science knows and can detect 5% of our "world" of that they only know a fraction of what can be seen/detected...

but you know...there's no room for god or a higher existence...that cant possibly fit within that 95% of ???

All im saying is when science knows everything there is out there...and there's not a shred of proof...maybe id be more open to it.

Otherwise i have nothing to lose believing.

From a science perspective....theres a pretty big fucking chance god exists at this point in our timeline.

[Owen Jackson]

The first forms of "life" wouldn't be fully developed with chromosomes.
>I'm pretty sure we haven't been able to create life from anything like that and it would have had to happen billions of years ago without outside interaction
The timeframe of the Earth's development is in the billions of years, and humans can't replicate billions of years of development in a lab, especially that which relies on the massive scale of probability.

Jesus fuck stop replying multiple times to the same post you flaming newfag.

[Gavin Richardson]

We have never been able to reproduce this. We've been able to reproduce: the Higgs Boson particle, elements above 92 (naturally occurring), materials harder than diamond, and a mathematical model of the universe at the subatomic level accurate to 8 decimal places.

We can't recreate basic life given all the resources and knowledge we have.
What does that entail to you? There are some things that are completely unsolvable.
Fluid Dynamics, the N-body problem, the fundamentals of life, and we can't even know for sure there's a creator.
And the further into mathematics and physics you go, the more you realize the coincidences. Is it all a coincidence? Or was it set up?

[Alexander Foster]

Who is to say that there was such a thing as "nothing" before the big bang? After all, the Big bang is the beginning expansion of space and the beginning of time. Could it be that there was always "something" and the Big Bang allowed that "something" to be understood and perceived?

[Cameron Roberts]

>The first forms of "life" wouldn't be fully developed with chromosomes.
Then is it really even life? The stuff you described doesn't created trees and trees dont evolve into animals. And you completely skipped the argument a few posts ago on how the Big Bang somehow created something from nothing then that little bit of something exploded/expanded in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second to our observable universe. Also that when I bring this up on here people bring me an article where they used an outside resource on a vacuum which would be impossible before the universe began if there was no God. Or they link me one that even says the vacuum still had little particles in it.

[Brayden Anderson]

Something would have had to create it though. It doesnt just start out like that.

[Lucas Rivera]

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change.

[Leo Cruz]

From what I remember the first forms of life were thermalsynthesis (bottom of the ocean at thermal vents). The cell would have to solve all of these problems within it's short lifespan before it drifted too far from the heat, or got destroyed by something physically:

1: Process/digest energy.
2: Establish a barrier between self and the outside.
3: Establish- either actively or passively- some form of Homeostasis.
4: Grow and develop from it's infancy. Hence produce and develop more complex proteins.
5: Reproduce.

You can't explain all of those things in detail, that isn't even the full list. And the odds against it happening within the first 3 billion years of the planet's existence is astronomical.

If you want more evidence of a creator, take higher math courses and you will be inspired to believe it. Just as my math prof was, she was a catholic with a Ph.D in math.

[Ayden Rivera]

Then how did the matter get here to begin with? also read (i typed before reading just so you know)

[Tyler Reed]

Matter and energy are the same thing. The amount of Matter and energy in the universe had a finite amount at the start (1st law of thermodynamics) and it must inevitably spread out further (2nd law).

Also interesting: The ONLY law of physics that requires a positive direction for time is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, everything else works perfectly fine with time going in reverse.

[Leo Barnes]

>What does that entail to you?
That it's really, really fucking hard to replicate. Again, think about the sheer amount of time that life has had to develop from basic building blocks across the surface of the planet. We have been able to synthesize amino acids in conditions close to what the Earth would have been, so that's a start. There is still time for scientific development, and we may very well achieve abiogenesis. Remember, technology will get better and so of course will out understanding of natural forces and out ability to replicate them.

>The stuff you described doesn't created trees and trees dont evolve into animals
Self replicating molecules gradually get more complex as they build upon themselves. The first replicating molecules would then be able to get more complex and could eventually develop structures that we might see in cells.
>And you completely skipped the argument a few posts ago on how the Big Bang somehow created something from nothing then that little bit of something exploded/expanded in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second to our observable universe
>something from nothing
That's not necessarily true, it might have been all of the matter in the universe compressed into one point or may have been something else. In any case, God only brings more questions into the mix rather than answering them.

[Gavin Ross]

Nobody understands the big bang. I heard it described as the "everywhere stretch" as the amount of space that existed today did all exist, but was smaller. Or something.

What we do know is our laws of physics break down, and nothing makes any sense. Potentially when the creator was writing/programming them?

Anyone with any experience in higher math and physics will tell you how often triangles, trigonometry and a few irrational, infinitely long and infinitely complex numbers (pi, e, square root of 2, square root of 3, 1/2 square root of 2, the convergence of the fibbonaci sequence) all come up. This is not out of coincidence.

[Adrian Fisher]

Matter and energy are not the same thing. This is like saying that wood and fire are the same thing. Matter requires energy to move.

[Camden Walker]

I don't refute badly constructed strawmen, I just laugh at them because even if you're trolling, there's people that say insane things like that unironically. Like the Big Bang coming from literally nothing is pretty funny and untrue.

pic related: mfw gets me every time.

[Hunter Lopez]

Matter is what is physically interactive. Energy is what allows the interaction

[Nicholas Ramirez]

> That's not necessarily true, it might have been all of the matter in the universe compressed into one point or may have been something else.
Yeah i'm saying were did that come from though? You don't believe there could have been an outside rescue (God) to have helped

> Self replicating molecules gradually get more complex as they build upon themselves. The first replicating molecules would then be able to get more complex and could eventually develop structures that we might see in cells.
If you don't believe it had chromosomes or genes to begin with then how could it mutate or evolve though? It literally is impossible to create actual life from non-living things.

[Bentley Williams]

I'm aware of that time and I think it did evolve. That it was put into motion by a creator. And I certainly look forward to the time when someone can replicate life from nothing.

But just recall:
We can't solve Fluid Dynamics in a generalized solution for 3 dimensions. We can't solve the N-body problem. We can't ratify Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity. And at the level of quantum mechanics, we need to go about a completely different method of analysis, even some things like electron spin values being outside our grasp.

We don't even understand what the appendix does, why cats purr, how to delay aging, what created Devil's tower in Missouri, and that's not even the most complex thing in the universe, the human marketplace, which nobody can ever even attempt to understand.
the human brain is incredibly complex.

Science can't solve everything and never will be able to.

[Xavier Wilson]

>Like the Big Bang coming from literally nothing is pretty funny and untrue.

Then where did it come from?

[Wyatt Sullivan]

How is a strawman? user asked a legitimate question about the origins of life and the universe.