Mfw atheist think nothing is real

>mfw atheist think nothing is real
>thinking consciousness/will can arise from no where and not a source
Take the Theist pill.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
pastebin.com/GxHsN9ap,
pastebin.com/H49qPTdx
pastebin.com/XGfzNagT
pastebin.com/0VYSUyRF)
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Consciousness doesn't come from nowhere, its evolution and chemistry.

Brains, directional movement, and eyes evolved at about the same time, as you need a central nervous structure to process that information.
And if you go forward like a fish, you need a face and a head unlike a starfish which doesn't have a forward or backward.

Everything with a spine feels pain and is aware of its surroundings.
Great apes can learn to understand people and communicate back, and I bet it works vice versa if you gave a child to chimps to raise.
Whale songs can rival orcastral arrangements in complexity, and they remember songs and sing them later.

Its not a big stupid world with people the only spark of genius, that's why I'm not a Christian, you guys have no respect for the dignity of gods creation, just the dignity of yourself

>what is the building blocks of life that didn't have complex systems evolved but knew to breed replicate and even avoid danger

Really asshole?
Go out and get something to eat
all the odds of existing and you do shit like this
Why did god create you to obsess like this?

>implying gods need to eat
silly thoughtlet

Sorry I meant take your meds
You give actual mysticism a bad name

>implying God needs sleep or meds
Silly little thoughtlet.

That's not how brains work or evolution works.
and breeding took 2+ billion years to evolve, its not simple.

>implying bacteria have nervous systems
>implying DNA/RNA/Viruses ect ect have nervous systems
>misunderstanding what the word conciousness means
>not realizing what definitively sets life apart from other matter is life has consciousnesses to reproduce/replicate feed ect ect evolve in general

Bump for justice
God bless user

Give a blessing revive one in return.

>not realising that consciousness is just a symptomatic illusion created by a complex system reaponsing to stimulae

>he believes the big *BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAP*
>he things anything can organize with out an intelegent force driving it
>still thinks his life is all just chance with no meaning
>he still doesnt know what God means

reminds me of this but you're a huge faggot about it and still wrong

>thoughtlets

...

>thoughtlets

We now need a manlet, brainlet, thoughtlet version of this.

>animals have consciousness too meme
Their "consciousness" is no where near the sophistication of human beings. You make it sound like those things, like whale songs, are as complex as human capability, but they don't consciously construct and do those things. As for the apes, it's like teaching a dog a trick, but more impressive. They know some sign langauge, but they will never be able to teach it or learn past a point

...

Then why can I create images and voices in my head and struggle to make decisions?

And saying it's all an illusion isn't helpful. We all act like we are conscious beings and get offended if someone suggests we are otherwise. Just being able to think like we do is incredible as well.

ty user

>the conditions needed for a universe can't just exist they need a god to "write" them down
>this logic doesn't apply to god himself though

Seems like God is pleased.

>another thoughtlet who doesn't knwo what God means
>implying something Eternal has a beginning or end

>he's too stupid to get it
Why can't the conditions needed to start a universe be timeless too? Theoretical physics implies this.

Stop being an idiot

t. chirstfag

>mfw deist think that a God can pop up from basically nowhere with no explanation needed
>"oh yeah but no the universe needs to have a creator m8"

talk about being retarded

>Take the Theist pill.
Ok lets say I'm willing to do that. Let's say I'm not good at arguing for atheism. Lets you BTFO and show me why Religion is great.
How is that going to make me believe in a creator of everything including himself?
You make sense, you make good points, you demonstrate how Atheism leads to degeneracy.
But how does that connect to a Creator of everything including himself? Especially one particular outlook/religion?

God created the world, according the bible.

Who or what created God? Did he just arise from no where and not a source? If another source created God, who/what created that source & why are we not worshipping it instead of God?

So many questions that arise from nowhere.

Even if you believe in God, you still have the problem of consciousness and will arising from nowhere. After all, how did God come into being? It's the same thing.

>mfw another nihilist guy with tits posits the existence of nothing as a preface to every one of his "theories"
thoughtlets

>nowhere
>still believing "nowhere" exists
why don't you tell the class where "no" is.

>mfw atheists think a universe can pop up from basically nowhere with no explanation needed
Nothing precedes God by definition. So if you're going to argue against God, don't say "hurr durr but what made him??"

>Nothing precedes God by definition
By a made up definition*

I can define the universe as "self-creating" too, m8. Doesn't make it more or less true.

The only thing God does is push the question of "where did it start?" further, except now you also can get in full denial mode and claim that no, God is the last step, there's nothing before.

Denial and hypocrisy.

>tfw i'm a manlet and brainlet

You can't define the universe as self creating because then you must accept nothing is real.

>Christcucks change what constitutes "god" so they won't hurt their little babby feelwings

Universe poped out of nowhere?
That's not what the Big Bang Theory implies.
It came from a singularity, not nothingness.
Man, like, its OK to believe in God. That's great. I hope it gives purpose and meaning to your life.
But you don't need to dumb yourself down in the process.
Having faith is enough isn't it? Why do you feel the need to defend it? Do you feel threatened by new ideas?

>atheist change the definition of God to make their shitty arguments

le ebin prime mover argument

If your god can exist without needing a cause, then consciousness can exist without needing a cause.

Consciousness is just an illusion of free-will anyway.

>That's not what the Big Bang Theory implies.
It literally is.
Stephen hawking would like to have a word with you. Singularity, in this theory, is another word for nothing.

>God is ETERNAL
>implying anything but god is eternal
thoughtlets again at it with their shitty logic and lack of understanding of God.

>God is ETERNAL

Source?

>Singularity, in this theory, is another word for nothing.
It is not
That's a false equivalence.
A singularity is all matter condensed into a single point.

Define God;
God is an omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal infinite being. Very simple thoughtlet.

jesus loves me a bunch
thats why he always puts skippy
in my lunch

>Like, you just don't understand god, bro, hes, like, eternal maaan

>things that aren't god aren't eternal

Source?

>baby's first skepticism meme
Come back after finishing your PHIL 100 community college class, Paco

The Universe is defined as everything that exists, has existed and will exist.

If God created the Universe, then he cannot be part of it. However, he can't not be part of the Universe, because the Universe is all there is. So to exist, he must be part of some sort of Universe that we're also part of. Or some sort of "Universe" that includes both ours and His.

So hey, a God that created a Universe that he's part of, but it's totally not the Universe self-creating because a Universe self-creating means nothing is real, but God can self-create and still be real with no problem, how about that.

Source something eternal. :^)
The only thing is energy, aka god.

>space-time must always have existed
Then it didn't have a start did it? You've just fucked your own argument.

Also, buffered through an emotional response system, that exists to interpret potential hazards.

>atheists are intellectually superi-

So, he's imaginary? Because what youre describing doesn't exist

That is the most retarded thing I have read all day and will probably read all month.

>still not understanding what a fucking God is
user. He is not limited to mortal limitations. It is a fucking God who is omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal and infinite.
Such a thing is responsible for why life can even start because one needs intelligence to create life, a self moving organism with will.

There is more evidence something like God can exist than not. The fact life has a system thats drives itself that set it apart form matter to the point it can evolve, to energy which is eternal as it does not have a creation nor destruction, to math which infinity is a proven concept we are still witnessing the overwhelming evidence for to this day and shall never see the end of this evidence, to the fact knowledge and consciousness intelligence in general is in no a a coincidence that can be replicated without a creator.

Most abstract concepts that don't exist physically are eternal, numbers, physical laws... I guess that's something they have in common with god :^)

ITT: a bunch of hive mind "enlightened" christfags moving goalposts like their very existence depends on it.

>the universe created itself
>What came before the universe?
>HURRRR LET ME JUST *BRAAAAAAAAAAAAP*
Silly thoughtlet.

I think you're describing atheist who use a really shitty nerfed version of """God""" who is suddenly not all powerful to win arguments. :^)

I don't even understand how christfags can make so many assumptions about what god is and isn't without contradicting their own religion.

I can understand if you believe God exists, but if you're a christian (or a part of any other religion for that matter), you're believing for the wrong reasons.

If you make a claim that God exists, the weight of the claim rests on your shoulders. Regardless of what opinions you hold surrounding the claim. I find it interesting that perfectly logical theists would use this premise to poke holes in different arguments outside of theology but you bring it up in terms of theology and your a dumb atheist that doesn't know anything.

>we can invent abstract concepts of infinity that resemble god!
>so god exists!

OOOH I see what you're talking about now. God is just a human invented abstraction thanks for clearing that up

God is; infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent being
Literally half of this is known and applied in science all the time(energy, numbers as eternal and infinite) and consciousness arising from matter and living in a sea of matter/energy indicate there is evidence of something influence this world more than its all random.

I conclude it is more logical to be a theist than an atheist based on the known evidence present that infinite, eternal, and omnipresent/potency is possible.

>They know some sign langauge, but they will never be able to teach it or learn past a point
You can say the same thing about a theist.

see
more evidence for God than against. Stay mad cucks.

>user. He is not limited to mortal limitations. It is a fucking God who is omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal and infinite.
Yes, I get that. I'm saying that such a belief cannot exist, and just because some people imagined one to exist doesn't make him real.

Anyone can come up with a being that and go "oh yeah but you don't understand he's capable of everything and has no limits, therefore you can't use logic to prove he doesn't exist because your logic doens't apply to him". That doesn't mean the being they came up with is real. It just means they've done some cool mental gymnastic to convince themselve of the existence of said being

Every single argument you use to justify the existence of God could also be used to justify the existence of just about anything if I define it as powerful enough. Does that mean those would exist?

*atheist
It easy to make a mistake like that user, don't worry.

see

>could also be used to justify the existence of just about anything
except "nothing". the atheist religion.

"any thing"
"no thing"

you see the error of your thoughtlet ways

No actually atheists have evolved past memes regurgitated from Jews of the Bronze Age

>atheists have evolved

You shouldn't cherry pick a sentence. That's a fatal flaw that could lead to believing something as ridiculous as the bible.

>majority of the world religious from its most enlighten and advanced days to its most brilliant minds
>atheist have evolved

>atheists have evolved
To shop at traders joe

Extinction event soon

god is shit and fake and gay

>i cant explain it, you cant explain it
>so im right by default

get cancer theists

thoughtlets triggered again
>you will never win unless you nerf God of all the fucking thing for your arguments

Your burger education has failed you.

I don't think it was the atheist who built civilization and preserved it thoughtlet.

>consciousness is evolution and chemistry
>mfw

BTFO? :(

>mfw atheist think nothing is real

False


>thinking consciousness/will can arise from no where and not a source

Why is thinking it comes from nowhere anymore crazy than thinking the "source" is a magic superbeing that can't be seen, heard, or measured? Seems like "nothing" with extras to me.

Consciousness arises from electro-chemical activity in the brain. The biggest, indisputable evidence of this is that brain damage often leads to marked changes in personality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

The fact that you are too stupid to know that evolve means progress and you only associate the word with one absolute shows why religion attracts and appeals to the stupid, which is why you can't wrap your brain around the concepts of progress and go straight to fallacies to prove your point, which does the exact opposite, and makes you and your argument even more retarded. And like I originally said, I can try to explain further, but like an ape learning sign language, you retards can only learn to a certain point. Sorry, unfortunately piggybacking off great outdated theists from the past doesn't work.

>>mfw atheist think nothing is real
>False
then goes on to say
>comes from nowhere

see
no evidence for "nothing" or "coming from nowhere"

>that evolve means progress
Tell that to Koalas.

As shown here pastebin.com/GxHsN9ap, there are no minds without complex physical brains, therefore there can be no divine mind, since there is clearly no gigantic brain for it. On the other hand, if God can have a mind without a physical brain, it is inexplicable why we need them. It is far more probable that such a god would create beings with minds like His, minds that could not be damaged or destroyed, rather than minds needlessly dependent on something so fragile as a brain.

Didn't you make this thread an hour ago?

again, words have multiple meanings. See You're no different than a nig nog who has discovered Islam.

I was just using your own wording. Can you answer my question? Why is the answer that involves magic any more believable?

I answered you question in the post and the post i quoted.
There is evidence of God(infinity, eternity, omnipotent/presence), but not for nothing.

>God Doesn't Exist
>Uses word "God"

Checkmate atheists.

There is no plausible reason why an Almighty would need billions of years and trillions of galaxies to accomplish his ends through long, deterministic causal processes. But that is exactly what we should expect if there is no god, but only nature.

Most god-concepts are illogical. To be fair, most arguments from Incoherence, as they are called, are often frivolous. A typical example is the taunt “If God is all-powerful, can he make a rock so big even he can’t lift it?” This is supposed to prove that omnipotence is illogical and therefore God (who is supposed to be omnipotent) doesn’t exist. There are many arguments like that. But I don’t buy them. These are generally not valid, since any definition of god (or his properties) that is illogical can just be revised to be logical. So in effect, Arguments from Incoherence aren’t really arguments for atheism, but for the reform of theology. For instance, if we define omnipotence (like many do) as “having all the power that exists” or “being able to do everything that can ever be done” then we avoid silly objections like the impossible rock. Likewise, we can define omniscience as “knowing everything there is to know or that can be known” and omnibenevolence as “loving all things with the most profound compassion possible.”

But in a few cases, the theological reforms that would be required to avoid defeat at the hands of an Argument from Incoherence are reforms that fly in the face of all popular beliefs about God. For example, it is obvious that a perfect being, by any definition, could not and would not create an imperfect universe, yet the universe is imperfect, therefore God cannot be perfect. This does not prove there is no God, but it does prove that, given the way the universe plainly is, if any God exists, he is imperfect. We can know this with almost absolute certainty—the evidence is that overwhelming, far more overwhelming than any evidence to the contrary

>There is no plausible reason why an Almighty would need billions of years
It's plausible to believe god works outside space and time. A year to you is not a year to him. He doesn't revolve around the sun.

There is no reason to believe anything random could birth something so organized and percise in the way combinations are made, life it driven, ect ect. You're basically taking nihilism for no reason.

>fucking idiot starts it out with a blanket statement.

Our top peoples don't understand conciousness yet, get the fuck over yourself please.

The nature of the world is manifestly dispassionate and blind, exhibiting no value-laden behavior or message of any kind. It is like an autistic idiot savant, a marvelous machine wholly uncomprehending of itself or others. This is exactly what we should expect if it was not created and governed by a benevolent deity, while it is hardly explicable on the theory that there is such a being. Since there is no observable divine hand in nature as a causal process, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no divine hand. After all, that there are no blue monkeys flying out my butt is sufficient reason to believe there are no such creatures, and so it is with anything else.

But the point is even stronger. All the causes whose existence we have confirmed are unintelligent, immutable forces and objects. Never once have we confirmed the existence of any other kind of cause. And that is most strange if there is a god, but not strange at all if there isn’t. This is the basis for what I call a teleological argument for atheism. “Teleology” is the study of goals, of designs with intended ends. A teleological process is something goal-oriented, aiming at a final purpose, ever-correcting itself toward it. The Teleological Argument for God is that the universe exhibits teleology, teleology entails a mind (since only minds have desires or intentions), therefore a mind must lie behind the universe, and that would be God. This argument fails twice: teleology doesn’t entail a mind, and the universe doesn’t exhibit any sort of teleology distinctive of a mind (pastebin.com/H49qPTdx and pastebin.com/XGfzNagT and pastebin.com/0VYSUyRF)

But nothing you said there backs up the claim that god exists.. you literally just sperged some talk about energy and linked the concept of God to it..
Your faith is admirable but the outcome of your arguments are the same. You are unable to provide evidence of your claim that god exists.