God

>god

Other urls found in this thread:

discordapp.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=p4Gotl9vRGs
twitter.com/AnonBabble

There is none dumbass. Faithfags will never learn. So stop being a little faggot about it so we can get back to keeping them in the background of our lives as it should be.

75% of the Christcucks here are trolling. There is literally 0 proof of divine beings so there is no reason to entertain the idea or debate it.

prove that God is an impossibility

Until then, stfu

Christfag here.
Don't have proof
Honestly don't want proof
Faith alone is enough for me.

No proof otherwise sooo...

I fully agree. The god of the Torah is not real and does not exist.

Hey shithead, burden of proof lies on you not atheists. Come back when you can find something better than a cloth with some face sweat

>Jesus existed, the Bible is historically accurate
Which does nothing to prove that God is physically real and still active

Burden of proof retards

>the burden of proof is on the heretics.

were the ones that came first
you said that god doesnt exist afterwards so enjoy proving it

look into my eyes.

The Quran. Look at how based Allah speaks.

I exist, therefore I was created by something
either me or my ancestors
nothing creates itself out of nothing
stop being fedora cuck

...

here's the documentation to support the claims of christianity
it's up to you to accept it, or to deny it

about rapes or killing?
stop worshiping moon demon

I will give $100 PayPal to anyone who can provide me with a single tangible piece of evidence God exists.

One cannot give physical evidence for the metaphysical

what about this reality you faithless cucks?
it created itself out of nothing? Nothing does that

>god created itself out of nothing
See its just as fucking stupid

there's no rapes and killing in the quran.

Anything and everything.

>Oh boy look at this universe, every little part of it, including the power of the explosion of the big bang is calculated milimetrically so it can form planets and hold life, I wonder how more evidence can I get? Nah, I'll shitpost.

Three K's a day keeps the niggers away.

If you're 100% European descent aka white and you hate filthy niggers, dirty spics, kikes, arabs, furfags, gay fags, commiefags and all other scum on the earth (including weeaboo degeneracy!) as much as we do, you should join the Moon Central Discord Server. Introduce yourself in #introductions and answer our questions to get unkiked!

discordapp.com/ - invite/ - muZfhQz (Remove the - )

1, 2, 3, 4 I declare a race war!

Sieg Heil!

There's no proof for dark matter yet sciencecucks usually believe it without question because gravity "works just fine" even if it is just a magic invisible space particle. God was created to explain existence. Science still can't explain existence, so what now? Maybe come back when the big bang isn't some massive space wank and you have some real concrete evidence of how we got here before you start attacking other theories that are widely held that are just as baseless.

kys cancer fag get off Sup Forums

"God" is an abstraction of the social contract for the dumbest parts of civilized people.
It's silly, but it works.

We've had this discussion years back on Sup Forums. Pic related is the back and forth from anti-theist and Christian Sup Forums and where it is now. It's a crude version of the cosmological argument and layers of back and forth from anti-theist dissenters and Christian proponents. Note that the discussion - and the first part of the picture - warn that we're not talking about causation in a timely sense. This isn't about a "before the Big Bang" - in fact the vast majority of cosmological arguments aren't talking about causation in-time but sustaining causation. In the discussion of sustaining causation there are two major views:

>Divine Conservation: That things ultimately do rely on something outside of itself for its own existence constantly. Details of what that is and why that is are derived from the individual arguments themselves.

>Existential Inertia: That things ultimately move and exist on their own and don't need outside causation. How that works and why that is are derived from individual arguments themselves.

I would say, as would others, that the Divine Conservation position is actually fleshed out and sound, unlike the opposite view which usually has little to no argument for itself but amount to just a denial of Divine Conservation in everything I've read on the topic.

I'll have a formal proof for it in my next post that is the argument in full detail.

This is a retelling of Aquinas' old format. To show the age.

1. Causation exists.

2. Act and Potency are classic terms we can use to explain causation: When something is in Potency it has the capacity to become something else, but is not it yet. A fertilized egg has the potency to turn into a chick, an unfertilized egg does not. When a potency is realized, it is actual. To actualize a potency is to take a property that something had in potency and make it actually inhere in the thing. The same thing, in this case, for things within an instant. While they are simultaneous they are still essentially ordered.

3. When we find an instance of causation in the world we find some potency being actualized.

4. Something that is only in potency cannot actualize anything.

5. For some potency to be actualized something actual must actualize it.

6. If A is actualized by B, then B must first be actual.

7. Either something must have actualized B from being in potency to be in actuality. Or B is either necessarily actual, having never been in potency before. ( A v B)

8. If the left disjunct “A” is true then premise 7 applies to a new cause C.

9. If disjunct “B” is true there is a “first” uncaused cause that is pure actuality.

10. If disjunct “B” is never the case then there is an infinite series of actualizations. And we can apply 7 to C, then to a new cause D, and so forth. With every being having its actuality derived from another being.

11. If “10” is the case then there can be no actualization, as every being in the series has its actuality derived from another being, but there is no being with actuality on it's own to derive the actuality from.

12. If “10” is the case there is no causation

13. There is causation ( from premise 1)

14. Premise “10” is not the case.

15. If premise 10 is not the case, then at some point in the series “9” is the case.

16. There is a first cause, which is a being of pure actuality.

Part 3/3
Yu'll notice that the argument ended with "pure actuality" rather than "God", which is what the argument does in its full form. Aquinas' Five Ways are to get five different results from classical arguments for God, examine attributes necessary of such traits, and then, afterwords, defend rationally that all five results must be the same thing to establish a more complete image of the thing from rational deduction. Afterwords, the term "God" is applied as it's entirely synonymous with how God in understood theologically.

The picture crudely summarizes this whole argument but also goes into necessary attributes at the bottom.

From this we can see how common disagreements are tenable at all:

>God being uncreated is special pleading!

The result inherently leads to an uncreated creator. The result violates no premise in the argument.

>Why can't it be the universe that's eternal?

The universe cannot be as the initial premise mentions motion within the universe and the end result states a lack of change inherent to it.

>You just call it God out of nowhere!

In abbreviated versions, definitely, but the basis I lay clear in my post here.

Aquinas, along with pretty much all the classical Christians understood God in a sense called Classical Theism, which would view God as a constant ground of being rather than an individual or anthropomorphic type of thing. This is the standard Apostolic Christian (Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic) view to this day. This is opposed to the view Theistic Personalism, which is God as a kind of individual and anthropomorphic to some degree. This is constantly popular between all laypeople for easy understanding and became popular between Protestant scholars since modernity. How God's attributes (omni-stuff) are understood differs between these two branches.

This is not the only bit of argumentation in this field but its an easy go-to example to introduce it. People have discussed DC/EI elsewhere too, obviously.

The church has a long history of Natural Theology.

Reddit needs to go.

Burden of proof is on the positive claim, user.

>this shitposter

lol. i got kicked out for answering

multiculturalism : nope;
israel : don't care;
fascism : nope, i don't like the government taking charge of morality and personal discipline;
pinochet : pro-capitalism so hell yeah;
furries : i don't hate them but definitely not a fan; niggers : don't care

then what made god

i think trips is on to somethink is onto something, maybe we 're just the result of an infinite series of creators and ceated.

Poland, that's a very poor understanding of the cosmological argument.

Money doesn't exist?

>niggers exist
therefore god is a LIE

it doesnt matter if you believe in god or not. if you dont come to realize the importance of religion you're a low IQ faggot

sometimes they do bu they avoid to

I dunno about proof mate but the idea of a God shouldn't be so far fetched. We already know that the "blueprint" (for lack of a better word) for sentience is built into the laws of nature. There may be no rhyme or reason to that but even IF there is no God outside this universe, the unlikely emergence of a universe such as ours means there must be a multiverse. And that means the higher laws of the multiverse complex must be logically consistent with the laws of each universe inside it. Therefore, the "blueprints" for sentience must also be built into those laws of the mutliverse which in turn govern the laws of our universe.
So there you go. Logical proof that, whether God or multiverse with other life forms in other universes, there is very very very much likely intelligence beyond our known reality.

Trying to prove the supernatural within the limits of the natural.
God is revelation you fools. You can look for him all you want but you won't find him.

Leibnizian cosmological argent proves god.

By fact of contingent things existing proves god

God is uncreated and has always existed

>I exist, therefore I was created by something

Your parents had sex, Your father cock created you

I think the concept of god is warped in a way where the concept is made easier for humans to digest and understand. God itself, wouldn't necessarily be a being, but rather everything that exists.

Actually if you follow a religion just because it keeps low IQ faggots in line you are the low IQ faggot.

And what created his father?

>>god

this is the op why dont you sage this shit?

There is no need for a necessary being for the explanation of the universe. Or if there is, it isn't made clear in the Premises of the Argument. That Argument is shite.

How does one prove the validity of reality? How do I prove my eyes see the world as it is? I know I'm real. I think therefore I am. But you? How do I prove you are anything other then a figment of my imagination? Do I concluded reality isn't real because I can't prove it is? No I have faith it's real and so do you.

who created god if nothing creates itself out of nothing?

you can find HIM at the end of the Mandelbrot Set, also in the beginning of The Bible

An Aussie. Every time. Unoriginal.

Edward Feser books.

I want my 100

your existence is proof faggot

2017 and people still think something can come from nothing LOL

Aquinas proposed the proof that God exists as the fact that something had to spark 'creation' from the void. not necessarily the Christian God but /something/. after all, the void is less than negative, and thus unable to create something.

his thinking is flawed though, as it assumes that absurdities, events that don't obey logic, are impossible. which is absurd.

the real problem with this discussion is the nature of man, which is overly self centered to see things objectively.

case in point

A god creating the universe makes more sense to a man then, regardless of what really happened.

Knowing what we know it is more logical that a higher being created the universe than a random event of absurdity, because if we choose god we get to at least take natural law out of the equation.

(If that makes sense)

true, but I'm not interested in what makes more sense to men, but rather what actually happened.

math isn't my field but I believe that, mathematically speaking, it's (ultimately) a 50/50 split considering we can't prove (nor observe) whether the cosmos has to obey logic.

I hate you because you have faith.

>trying to find comprehensive proog of the Creator when we ourselves do not have a complete understanding of the observable Universe
Fucking brainlets

God and his will are evidencedar by our love for beauty, loathing of evil, pity for the unfortunate, and compassion for each other

I got misty eyed thinking about it just now, and I think I know why

Uh how else would the bible exist?

And quarks can't be that way?

Niggers are a test of god, he still gives them shit like aids and ebola to show that we are the chosen ones

>The moon is made of cheese
>No it isn't
>Prove that.
>Prove it's made of cheese
>lol fag I don't have to I said it first so you have to prove it's not

We're reaching levels of autism that shouldn't be possible.

Faith doesn't require proof retard, that's part of the whole concept. Rationalism and science does though, so the only burden of proof is on the one claiming god doesn't exist

>God was created to explain existence. Science still can't explain existence, so what now?
The perfect "gods of the gaps" argument.
>There's a gap in your knowledge!
>Can only be gods!
It's the print form of weaponized autism

youtube.com/watch?v=p4Gotl9vRGs

this video explains God, if you can understand it

...

>Leibnizian cosmological argent proves god.
Beliefs are irrational.
Supernatural beings are irrational
Premise 5 introduces belief in a supernatural being which instantly torpedoes any logical argument.

God is eternal and uncreated

You just don't understand the argument

No because quarks came into existence with the big bang

Why is belief irrational? It has worked pretty well for humans so far in the absence of proof. Why is a supernatural being irrational? It is more irrational to rule out things that you can't physically experience as impossible.

Get real christcuck. If you believe farts are magical fairy gas that you must taste then it's your burden to prove your belief. Don't be superstitious.

>Why is belief irrational?
It just is.

>Why is a supernatural being irrational?
Because we invent them. We've fabricated thousands of irrational beings to pretend to explain things.

>It is more irrational to rule out things that you can't physically experience as impossible.
No one is doing that. The closed-minded claim there is only one possibility and it hinges on their made-up gods. The open-minded realize there could be many possibilities, and they understand the probability of gods, based on the 10,000 year histroy of made-up gods, is that the current crop of gods are very likely made-up too.


You don't prove your gods exist, there's nothing for the non-believers to disprove.

Ah the old because I say so argument. Why are atheists incapable of logic and fall into delusion?

God is not invented. People just came to the logical conclusion through the proof of existence that everything originates from god. The fact that all different cultures believe in god actually supports the fact that he is not invented but every human has come to the same simple logical conclusion.

>2017
>people still believe in an invisible sky daddy

Lmaoing at your lives

>I exist because of sheer luck

>I exist because an invisible wizard zapped me into existence

Loving that diagram. I can't fathom how bitter and soulless you'd have to be to shit that thing out.

How else would you exist?

>durr
do you know what science is? proof is science. take this philosophy and go away.

>in the abscense of proof
holy shit batman don't you get the point of the thread? nobody is arguing weather or not you think christianity has value. we're talking about weather the things they describe can be shown to exist in the universe rationaly. except arguably jesus they all cannot be shown to exist.

Psalm 126:6 "Man says show me and I'll trust you. God says trust me and I'll show you."

>Ah the old because I say so argument.
>The perennial argument for gods, ironically
These terms are well defined.

Take a sheet of paper, draw a line down the middle. Title the left side "rational", on the right put "irrational".

In the left column, put "observations, reason, logic, evidence, scientific method"

On the right, put "legends, fables, fairy tales, religion, delusions, religion, fantasy, dreams, wishes, conjecture, magic, etc."

You can pretend all you like, but that's just sad denial.
Why are atheists incapable of logic and fall into delusion?
>God is not invented. People just came to the logical conclusion through the proof of existence that everything originates from god. The fact that all different cultures believe in god actually supports the fact that he is not invented but every human has come to the same simple logical conclusion.

Then stop being so fucking autistic

The Brothers Karamazov

>circle

>durrr every god but mine is fake
there have been thousands of gods, how do I know yours is real
>BUT BUh your incapable of logic thats all, my god is the one god!

I mean when and to whom does it matter if the moon is cheese or not cheese?

...

...

Eat a box of these
I'm not joking.

Ephesians 2:8 says for we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH not of works lest any man should boast.
therefore if you could prove God exists, you could no longer be saved by grace THROUGH FAITH.
so if God does exist, and he is the God over everything, that would mean he only speaks truth, Bible is God breathed, eph 2:8 is in the bible. therefore you can never prove God to a non believer whether God exists or not.

fff

this

>>FINAL REDPILL FOR CHRISTKEKS:

God is not real.

>> But without the bible you have no morals
> being a good goy for God.
> proof you're a shitty person to begin with (shit moral compass)

You can still choose and even promote the same lifestyle choices as your gay bible tells you without fearing an old faggot in the sky. Christcucks just keep pushing any atheist who is leaning right in politics, bundling them together with SJWs. Well, the right-wing has always been viewed as a looney bin because of the fucking Christcucks.