Its been 10 years and atheists still cant refute this

Its been 10 years and atheists still cant refute this

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FePQCPWV4HM
youtube.com/watch?v=bMjo5f9eiX8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

A magical pink tapeworm named Larry created the universe.

You can't disprove this, therefore it's true.

>what is unfalsifiable

big if true

Actually read Aquinas/Aristotle and understand the Five Ways and the Ontological Argument. This little "rebuttal" has already been discussed thousands of years ago. Your halfassed cribbing from the likes of Dawkins and company (who were even lazier and more halfassed in their engagement with the Five Ways) is hardly an original or intellgitent thought. The proof of any sort of deity or immaterial intelligence in the general sense is not meant to prove God as the personable God of Christianity or any given religion. Can anyone say strawman?

There's nothing to disprove, the statement is incoherent.

OP's original premise uses identical logic to my facetious rebuttal. There is no measurable difference between the two statements.

SUCK A DICK, FAGGOT.

You also can't prove that my penis didn't create Christcucks to worship it in the afterlife.

A magical tapeworm named larry did not create the universe.

You cant prove this, therefore its not true.

>if you cant prove me wrong that means i'm right
literally cuckstians. you are a fucking blight on the earth with your fucking nigger worship

>Falling for the Greeks meme
Gee mister, you sure are smart! Your IQ must be so high with so many big words!
Fucking christcuck shill faggot.

just got fucking BTFO hard by

it's a pointless thing to argue about. Just walk away from the entire discussion.

>This user is approaching the existence of God as unproven and attempting to prove it through an appeal to logic, since a 'scientific' proof of an immaterial being is impossible.

This user is a good user. Be like this user.
>OP is saying that because you can't disprove a statement, it must be true, totally shifting the burden of proof and getting justifiably mocked.

OP is a faggot. Do not be like OP.

you can prove to a reasonable degree that super natural phenomenon is impossible, and that invalidates any god hypothesis that actually impacts the world and how we see it.

If multiple universes exist there are spaceniggers who can travel through universes because of the endless posibilities
Etc if multiple universe theory == true
God is a space nigger

Well I agree that characterizing any confirmed coherent argument for the existance of god as any of the specific interpretations found in any religion. But I think that is more evidence to the fact that the god hypothesis, in it's most reasonable forms, is still derived from an incoherent source. There is no reason to think god exists, or any peripherals like creating life or judging us morally. We need a good reason to need this explanation and there isn't one.

You should say you are invoking Hitchens' razor
>What can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence
rathery than this faggy thing you're doing

Also Hitchens is on op and me's team now
Stay strong brother

The obvious truth is God must exist.
>causal universe
>universe exists
>QED
Atheists can’t into logic.

>Also Hitchens is on op and me's team now
>What can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence
Nice job BTFO'ing your own statement.

>american logic
Not even once

>one person made a bad argument
>their conclusion is incorrect no matter what
Atheists are fucking shamefully desperate.

pic related

Never read Hitchens; it's just common sense.

>Not understanding burden of proof

Blessed be Larry. For He is flat.

Can you disprove the existence of dragons or unicorns?
No.
Air-go: Dragons and unicorns exist.

>Atheists are fucking shamefully desperate.
Wrong fatass, we just don't believe in ancient sandnigger fairytales.

Ok so god must exist.
But does this continue to imply that god also loves us, stand in judgement over us, grants us eternal life after death?
So you've apparently proven god is a logical necessity to the whole universe but it doesn't then make a case for any of the other baggage often accompanying a belief in god.

God may not even be a thinking thing, but an instantaneous phenomenon that can't be repeated and for which no information or continued interference exists.

If you're willing to dismiss all of the important characteristics about god just so you can say "god exists" then I have to disagree you're talking about anything worth calling god.

God doesn’t not exist.
>burden of proof BTFO

>tacit admission that there is only one God
Super interesting, bro.

>quantum physics shows things you do in the present can affect the past
>humans don't understand how a bike works
>supposedly an omnipotent deity is harder to consider in the realm of possibility

Note that only Hitchens and cucks in his shadow talked to religious people and only while he was alive, and that after he died atheism became an MSNBC style circlejerk that deified feminist commonism.

Y'all mostly don't even know what you are arguing for or against

Burden of proof is on the faggot making the claim.

I'm guessing your reading comprehension skills need some work there lard ass. Not surprising for a christcuck.

> is gay

What an argument, faggot. Greeks are the reason formal scientific methods could be invented, retard.
>Your IQ must be so high with so many big words!
Typical neckbeard atheist.
>im genius. debunk silly xtians. no arguement necessary
>has never read a full book on the subject they're talking about.
>resorts to vague allusions.
Yeah right, shit stain. Your whole argument relies on applying a bunch of ridiculous and specific traits to make the opposing look obnoxious, to confuse the subject and avoid the meat of the argument. OP's pic sucks and the movie sucks, honestly.
>There is no measurable difference between the two statements.

Except the "God" in reference isn't the Christian God, or any sort of personable being. "Intelligence" was bad word, on my part. It refers to the most basic form of deity, rather/

And the claim is that you cant prove God isnt real. Read, you moron

Burden of proof has nothing to do with the ontological argument.
But sure, use buzzwords more so you can shill your beliefs.

There's enough evidence to reasonably conclude any explenation of god, other than deistic or "god is the smile in every child" kind of versions, breaks the standard model of particle physics.

And the thing is that the standard model is the single most rigorously tested scientific theory in history, and we've built things like buildings, airplanes, and computers all on the assumption it's right and all of those things work like they're described in the model.

I mean Aquinas made some pretty valid arguments. He was quite the theological philosopher for his time. But his arguments aren't really sound and there are definitely stronger ones from his opposition.

"God" is the only thing that actually exists. A temporarily entity such as a human doubting the existence of that which is and provides the platform for its existence is laughable.

Jesus Christ, I hope that you really just didn't go to university and had a bad school.

Now we are cooking.
I love my mother, my wife, my car, and myself, all of these loves are fundamentally different from each other, they share almost nothing besides a descriptive word.
How would i more accurately describe this huge semantic difference? Appreciation. Sure, the appreciation is likewise different, but shares many more commonalities and is more understandable and applicable than “love”.
Does God appreciate us? Well... we were created and still exist, right?
>a non- thinking thing created time and space
Even if you want to believe this, you simply push God back a step (as atheists are wont to do) and declare his mechanism of creation “God” rather than the entity desiring what we know as a physical universe.

I am totally willing for you to embrace deism, it is the first step on the path to seeking God earnestly. It takes a really low IQ to accept a creator without being curious of his properties.

Full disclosure, I think the Bible, in it’stotality, paints the most theologically consistent view of God. It is not spoon fed to you because you are meant to seek your creator. It contains no necessary information, because you can find it on your own.
>nb4 weird bible verses
The totality paints a description of God that is separate from the happenings on earth. We can discuss weird bible verses if you would like, but don’t expect me to defend them as literal.
The Bible is a tool to know God, not to know what living in a whale is like.

is there going to be an argument to follow this up?

No one told you? God is a world-wide concept. It knows no geography or culture.
>when atheists are fucking ignorant
Color me surprised.

In my heart you got the get.

>Burden of proof has nothing to do with the ontological argument.
Why not? It's impossible to prove or disprove the idea of God. The teapot illustration that Bertrand Russel uses is falsifiable. Other kinds, like the spaghetti monster, are full of category errors and don't at all discuss the meat of the argument. They simply blend certain traits a deity may have with material and obnoxious ones to confuse the argument.
>But sure, use buzzwords more so you can shill your beliefs.
In what fucking planet is the Ontological Argument a buzzword? It wasn't even used in the shilliest of Christian shill movies.
>words having meaning for the purpose of discussion and reason? no, that buzzwords!
>But sure, use buzzwords more so you can shill your beliefs.
As opposed to shilling your beliefs, fucktard?

Retarded argument

Christians just need to tell gaytheists and fagnostics that they're going to hell and stop debating them in their miserable nihilistic logical framework.

>Greeks were "good" at philosophy so everything they say about God(s) must be correct
Perhaps you should try:
a) Coming up with original thoughts
b) Not autistically overthinking everything to the point of sounding mentally ill
Use your inflated intelligence to come up with a quick a painless way to kill yourself, dumbfuck.

It's hard to pick where to start. You are saying that the robustness of the standard model implies...? Genuine question, I need a barometer reading.

lifeBut user, I DID get the get.
>668
>John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.

flying spaghetti monster exists and you cannot disprove it, therefore it exists

like wow man

Before we can pontificate on whether you could describe god's feelings as love you have to demonstrate that what you're calling god is something which can feel anything at all, or even still exists today. I can appreciate the tautology nature of the argument you're making. The universe had a beginning. That beginning is god. OK
But I'm not kicking god back a step, you've created a new step. The decision of god to create the universe, prior to the event itself. I don't think the first cause event was the intentioned act of a rational thinking being. At the very least there's no reason to think so.

Context: Jesus is teaching a hard lesson which leads many listeners to leave him.

>Genuine religious experience

OP's argument is simple:

"You can't disprove X, therefore legitimate."

The ONLY time anyone every trots out this backwards pseudo-logic is when they're trying to "prove" that Atheists don't have a legitimate position. The argument is fallacious and never gets used in any other philosophical or scientific context.

It's a disingenuous argument. OP is not trying to say "we don't know if God exists". He's trying to say "you can't prove that god's not real, therefore he's real, atheists BTFO lololol".

It's stupid and anyone who tries to make this shit argument should be ashamed of themselves.

If you want to claim something is real, it's up to you to provide proof. There is no proof of god. Especially not the dirty kike one that you worship.

...

Segmented be his frame.

Thy bowels be swum, thy will be done,
On Earth as it is in Heaven.

I grew up at the end of the "you're going to hell" era, kinda miss it. Has made people soft.

I already beat you to it. I removed the emotional attachment of the word “love” and gave it a more practical term, “appreciate”
We exist. We as easily could not or could cease to.
We are appreciated.
>I don't think the first cause event was the intentioned act of a rational thinking being.
Very close to the mark! Our creation was nigh inevitable, our continuation was not.
The question to ask is: what does an all-knowing entity seek?
I am willing to spoon fed you, but learning to think is an invaluable skill.

im saying the robustness of the standard model implies it can merely be dismissed by something like
>god is supernatural and exists outside the laws of physics
God must, in order to interact with a universe powered by the laws of physics, bridge this gap between a non-physics-bound supernatural context to a physics-bound one. The means, regardless of whether or not it's possible for something like god to exist outside of physics, any interactions with that god must still follow them, and this model does not allow for the more important divine phenomenon like the fulfillment of prayers or an immortal spirit.

OR the standard model is wrong, and these things do not violate the true laws of physics. The problem I am pointing out is that we are using devices which blindly depend on the consistent accuracy of the standard model, and even quantum physics, and they all work.

Whose bowels is he crawling in... God?

When you try and force your fairy tales on me, the burden of proof is on you to prove to me that they're real, christcuck.

Now, where is the proofs!?

Once again, you've got no actual argument. You say I have an inflated intelligence, but you think you're capable of simply creating every philosophical school of thought on your own, and that no one who's discussed something better should be read because it was in the past.
>Coming up with original thoughts
Holy shit, like anything you've said is original? What's next, you gonna tell kids learning math
>pff, have an original thought. don't let your teacher tell you how to add and subtract!
Typical atheist. You think you're so fucking smart, you don't need to read or understand anything that came before you.
>Not autistically overthinking everything to the point of sounding mentally ill
Excuse the fuck out of me for having thoughts that can't be fit into memes with two phrases, faggot. I don't think thousands of years of discussion which decides whether you'll just die like a bitch and be nothing or burn in hell forever can be so short.

It's still not clear to me what you think of the standard model as being.

>People saying there is no reason to think God exists other than this one thread on Sup Forums and attempting pretentious pseudophilosophical sophistry
I am willing to partially blame your parents

Yours if you would only seek him.

"god isnt real"
this triggers the burger.

>this model does not allow for the more important divine phenomenon like the fulfillment of prayers or an immortal spirit.
Can you give a valid reason for limiting a being which created time, space, and matter?
Can you create anything, save man, which you can not control?
Where is the precedence for your claim?

You are not drawing a line from one concept to another that I recognize as logical.

What reason is there to assume that what we're calling god is anything that "appreciate" or "love" or "be ambivilent about" anything. In the same way that a rock cannot do these things. Or may even not make sense to consider at all, like how the falling of rain does not "love" things because it is not a thing that has experience but is an event. An event progressing according to a set of rules we describe with the laws of physics.

But that's not my only challenge to this assertion because I also don't agree that what we're calling god exists now, or that there's any reason to think otherwise. We can rhetorically locate "a thing" by describing something that logically must exist and then indulging to call it whatever we like. But to then attribute qualities to this unknown thing based on our arbitrary label is dishonest. And it's that dishonesty that I can't find common ground on.

if there is a good he is imperfect. he created an entire universe so that people would worship him. and the people that dont believe in him he sends to hell. he created life just to send them to hell.

>burn in hell forever
Not biblical, kike bullshit.

I think you are trying to argue that God, being real, really effects (pardon pun) the universe.

Then you tie this to the standard model, which is wholly incidental to your arguement.

This guy is the future of Christianity in America

youtube.com/watch?v=FePQCPWV4HM

Given the diahrea I think he's already in me.

>thousands of years of discussion
That's the problem. Isn't it weird how thousands of years of discussion have produced absolutely no evidence for anything?
>say I have an inflated intelligence
I was being ironic, fucktard.
Good night, have fun being the clear victor of this argument.
A fedora-tip to you, good sir.
Have fun with your reddit-tier arguing skills.

We can read Pythagoras and appreciate his work because it makes sense and he actually proved his theorems.

We can read about Greek gods and appreciate them as good fairy tales that people of the time used to fill in the gaps in their understanding of natural phenomena.

>god is a rock
Do you think perhaps you have preconceptions clouding your judgements?

Do you not realize a being which created your laws of physics does not necessarily abide them?
Do you suppose the human brain works by binary because the human brain creates binary?

Would there be any functional computers remaining if the original was not appreciated?

It doesn't prove religion, but it doesn't prove no religion either. Both religion and atheism are faiths, though in my personal opinion atheism is more retarded religion ever could be, because religion is part of a philosophy where as atheism is not.

Agnosticism is the only confirmed 'correct' belief, because it accepts the fact that neither can be proven, or at least have not been proven yet.

youtube.com/watch?v=bMjo5f9eiX8
>2013
>10 years ago

>air-go
Proof that there is no god

>he created an entire universe so that people would worship him.
>citation needed
You sound awful religious for an atheist.

>That's the problem. Isn't it weird how thousands of years of discussion have produced absolutely no evidence for anything?
Isn't it weird that after thousands of years of advancement in science, dindus still squat in poverty while killing and raping each other, and Eurocucks import them by the millions? Isn't weird how we've circumnavigated the globe, yet some people still believe the earth if flat?
>ill call him a plebittor! argument won!
Good night, Aussie faggot.

>evidence for a being which created you with free will
You didn’t think this through, did you?

thermo dynamics for one. The methods of conducting energy through the universe are very well understood. They are via radiation, the transmission of energy over electromagnetic rays. Convection, where energy is imbued into a material medium which then carries it further. Also conduction, where energy transfer between two masses by touching.

When people speak they emit sound energy which uses convection by converting the mechanical motion of their voice box to the air, and then to someone's ears. Does god hear the sounds of our prayers? The amplitude of sound diminishes very rapidly and not well through all mediums. Do prayers made in caves not get heard? Where exactly is god hearing from? Is it from another dimension? Do sound waves travel through other dimensions?

Does god read our minds? How does information travel from our minds to god's mind reading organs? Is it via radiation? Our bodies emit very weak electromagnetic signals. Very few of which correlate even weakly to our thoughts. All of which diminish so rapidly they barely leave our skin. EKG machines which measure "brain waves" have to have special low resistance sensors pasted onto your head with a conductive solution and still barely capture any of the electrical signals generated by your brain.

This concept of prayer doesnt make sense in a mechanical universe. It has to be explained with the supernatural and you're still stuck with the same problem to describe anything that affects or interacts with anything a human can experience.

Dont be a dick. Mistakes like that are a diamond dozen

Too add, I think there is evidence, but it isn’t unignorable (though it is concrete).
You are supposed to seek God.
You are supposed to be capable of avoiding seeking God.
No evidence is required to avoid seeking God, yet
Expletive pretend it exists.
This should be curious.

Poor fella, he's retarded...
How many words is necessary to say "I believe x because y said too?"

Wait so you'd believe in a tapeworm god but not one that's similar to you?

>Air-go: Dragons and unicorns exist.
Air-go: Dragons and unicorns /could/ exist. You had that massively wrong on the logic.

>a god is a superhuman being who's actions ultimately created you and what you see
>If you don't believe in a god then you must reason the foundation of the universe is nothing. Or at least with something like M-theory that what created the universe is grounded in nothing.
>This would mean the universe has always been, it's existence is simply true and nothing else.
>You have an intelligence, I think therefore I am, a thinking being
>You exist as a part of the universe
>The universe includes your intelligence, therefore the universe as a whole must have at least your intelligence
>The universe existed before you, and created your intelligence
>Therefore the universe itself, or at least what other physical elements that created it are a god

Believing an indifferent universe created you, or a being that shares some of your qualities did is fundamentally the same.

Last I checked, the what-exactly-are-ice-skates-doing question wasn't unambiguously settled.

I take it that you don't believe in ice skates.

Because Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle are the same thing as Homer?
>We can read Pythagoras and appreciate his work because it makes sense and he actually proved his theorems.
You realize Pythagoras also believed in a bunch of astrology-level bullshit about numbers, right? That doesn't render everything else void.

More than the handwave most atheists give the Ontological argument, apparently.

What do you think is more likely to be proven? What seems more realistic to you?

Wow! It's like stupid people have always existed and have always been in the majority. Duuuude, really get ye olde 'rons fired up.

It's actually the bleeding heart christcucks that continue brainwashing people about "tolerance" alongside kikes. How many times do you need to see the popecuck kissing rapefugee feet?

That's why we only take from him what made sense. The other shit fiction remains in the past.

What can you honestly take home from the bible?

Well I think deists are just being obtuse in their beliefs. So if I cannot see affirmative evidence supporting the existence of god I think it is correct to conclude no such thing exists.

There are a lot of things people are willing to call "god" that I don't feel correctly respects the implication of god's existence. God cannot merely be the goodness of the human heart or some sort of existing but entirely non interfering entity and still be honestly be referred to as a god.

I really want you to look up Dr Jordan Peterson.

That is the single most retarded post on Sup Forums.

Make a guess why, and if you're close I'll explain it to you.

if the original computer could reproduce on it's own then yes it would. It cant so humans have to build them to get more. We choose to because we appreciate them, sure. But we reproduce on our own fine without the external appreciation of an outside force. You say it's there, but I don't see it. You deduce it MUST be there because otherwise we wouldnt have survived, but see absolutely no reason to think that. It is completely out of left field to me.

God itself embodies reason because it is God that dictates all law, reason, order and purpose. If a law were broken, such as the law of non-contradiction everything would fall flat on its face. Humans are capable of knowing and understanding these laws. God cannot not know these laws because God created them, in fact, God cannot not know anything that exists because nothing can exist without God.

>An intelligent force must be responsible for this
>AND IT MUST BE THE GOD OF MY PEOPLE! THE HERETICS HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG!
>say one thousand mend of one thousand nations in unison, shortly before loading their guns

atheist don't have to, they are free to believe whatever that want to believe

checkmate