And "herp what? that's ridiculous! derp," is not a valid contention: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy (The name of which is ironically an example of a reduction fallacy. Its unbiased name is Argument from Incredulity.)
Note: "Rejecting" a premise is a statement about how you feel, and is thus irrelevant. Assessment of soundness necessitates a -claim- of plausibility if it is to be relevant, else premises' antecedents be questioned ad infinitum, their soundness dictated only by how "obvious" they are to the reader, ultimately arriving at whichever conclusion they wish.
1 1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters. 2. Things actually, objectively matter. 3. Therefore, God exists. (modus tollens from 1)
2 1. If God were not to exist, the only thing that could create consciousness would be some interaction between any or all of the four fundamental forces of the universe. 2. To assume the brain is evidence that this happens is a fallacy of the single cause, i.e. it is to assume fallaciously that because the brain causes consciousness, it is sufficient for consciousness. 3. There is no evidence, empirical, mathematical, or otherwise, that any interaction between any of the four fundamental forces of the universe could possibly create consciousness. 4. Therefore, to believe consciousness is only a product of the universe is irrational.
3 1. Subjective morality has no bearing on objective morality, including and up to ideas like "Whatever is most advantegeous for the survival of the species is what is objectively moral," as such an idea is itself only subjective. 2. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 3. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 4. Therefore, God exists.
Only dummies claim a creator exists/ doesn't exist.
Agnosticism is the only logical belief to exist until proven either way.
Henry Myers
God and your thumbnail pic of Jesus are not synonymous
Isaiah Morales
You guys do realise that pseudo-""philosophical""" stuff not only doesn't actually proves God exists, but in any way , doesn't prove a kike in a stick is God
Carter Walker
Jeez you're so stupid
Logan Bennett
9 1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters or has meaning. 2. If nothing actually, objectively matters or has meaning, neither does the proposition "Nothing actually, objectively matters or has meaning." 3. Therefore, the proposition is self-refuting. 4. Therefore, things actually, objectively matter or have meaning. 5. Therefore, God exists. (modus tollens from 1)
10 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.
11 1. Human beings have a natural, innate desire for God, as implicated by history. 2. Natural selection only selects for advantageous traits. 3. To desire something that doesn't exist would be disadvantageous. 4. Therefore, to desire something that doesn't exist wouldn't have evolved. 5. Therefore, what humans naturally, innately desire, exists. 6. Therefore, God exists.
12 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.
Camden Gutierrez
Son of god isnt god faggot its his son...
Robert Lee
13 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.
14 1. If the multiverse doesn't exist, there is sufficient scientific reason to believe life is impossible. 2. Stephen Hawking and many other science cucks are advocates for the existence of the multiverse for this reason. 3. If there are an infinite number of universes with random properties, which the multiverse entails, all possibilities exist. 4. If all possibilities exist, God exists. 5. If God exists in any universe, being God, He necessarily exists in all universes. 6. If scientists like Steven Hawking are right about the existence of the multiverse, then, ironically, God exists.
15 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 God, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated. 8. Therefore, the atheist position cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes from its worldview.
Asher Hernandez
16 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, because causes necessarily assume the greatness of their effects, 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.
17 1. All physical things have a logical cause. 2. An infinite regress of logical causes is impossible, as any such infinite regress would itself beg a logical cause. 3. Therefore, there is an uncaused first cause. 4. The only possible cause that isn't itself caused is will. 5. Therefore, such a cause necessarily has agency. 6. To have caused the universe and life, it is necessarily omnipotent. 7. Omnipotence implies omniscience. 8. To have caused the universe and life and to be omniscient, it is necessarily omnibenevolent. 9. Evil is only an absence of good. 10. Therefore, omnipotence implies omnibenevolence. 11. Therefore, the uncaused first cause is God. 12. Therefore, God exists.
Mason Reed
18 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; non-being is a real possibility. 3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that non-being 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.
Lucas Reyes
19 1. Only the mind gives descriptions of the world meaning. 2. Emergent properties are descriptions of the world, i.e. in defining emergent properties, we are describing the world. 3. Therefore, only the mind gives emergent properties meaning. 4. Descriptions of the world that only the mind gives meaning don't objectively exist. 5. Therefore, emergent properties don't objectively exist. (from 2, 3, and 4) 6. Therefore, matter is never objectively more than its parts, and matter cannot produce consciousness, e.g. an electron, or any number of electrons, passing between any number of points, in any permutation, through any combination or permutation of mediums, cannot produce consciousness. 7. Therefore, our consciousness can only be a consequence of consciousness. 8. The age of the earth is limited. 9. Therefore, there is a consciousness that precedes consciousness on earth. 10. What precedes that consciousness?: 10a. It's possible an infinite consciousness could "precede" itself. 10b. An omnipotent, aspacial, atemporal being would not necessitate a logical cause, and therefore would not necessitate a precedent consciousness. 10c. Irrelevant. It can't be inferred from the necessity of a consciousness that there is no consciousness.
Dominic Reyes
...
Christian Perez
20 1. The fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design. 2. Proponents of the anthropic principle assume that because observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it, it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life -- which is a modal scope fallacy, i.e. it equivocates the necessity of the universe if conscious and sapient life that observes it exists, with modal necessity, i.e. it confuses "necessary if" and "necessary." 3. All physical things have a logical cause. 4. All logically-caused things are contingent, i.e. it is possible for them not to be caused. 5. Therefore, all physical things are contingent. 6. The fundamental physical constants are a physical thing. 7. Therefore, the fundamental physical constants are contingent. 8. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity, and the universe, as it is, is not the only possible world. 9. There are an infinite number of possible worlds in which the fine-tuning of the universe and all its antecedents do not exist or are in an infinite number of possible states. 10. There is a finite number of possible worlds in which the fine-tuning of the universe and all its antecedents exist or are in a state thought to be compatible with life. 11. Therefore, the probability of a possible world in which the fundamental constants exist and fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life is n/infinity, which is 0 or asymptotically tends to 0. 12. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance. 13. Therefore, it is due to design.
Blake Morales
21 1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything) 2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral. (Observation) 3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious. (Premise) 4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (From 2 and 3) 5. Morality is contingent. (From 4) 6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (From 2) 7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (From 1, 5, and 6) 8. Consequence is objective. (Premise) 9. Consequence can be significant. (Observation) 10. Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning. (Premise) 11. Objective meaning implies objective purpose. (Premise) 12. Evil is defined as absence of goodness. (Definition) 13. Purpose is good or evil. (From 12) 14. Good and evil are objective. (From 11 and 13) 15. Good and evil are only moral concepts. (Premise) 16. Good and evil are contingent on morality. (From 15) 17. Morality is objective. (From 14 and 16) 18. Consciousness is objective. (7 and 17) 19. Knowledge is objective. (From 18 and 23) 20. Objective morality is contingent on objective consequence and objective consciousness. (Premise) 21. Objective consequence and objective consciousness imply objective agency. (Premise) 22. Agency is objective. (From 21) 23. Objectively absent things don't exist. (Premise) 24. God exists. (From 12, 14, 19, 22, and 23)
Bentley Hernandez
...
Camden Russell
4 1. Belief in some conception of 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. If our only reason for doubting is that people have understood materialistic causes for materialistic things — which is necessarily irrelevant to the immaterial — then it is most plausible to believe that these people have not been wrong. 4. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.
5 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.
6 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, nor 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."
7 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.
8 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 each would define its own goodness. But some things are better than others. 4. Therefore, one Supreme Good (God) causes the goodness in all things.
Brayden Hughes
...
Mason Hill
...
Ayden Carter
...
Landon Clark
Existence independent of God would imply His limitation and thus that He doesn't exist. Our creation implies God cares, which implies He would want us not to be fooled, which implies a 'religion' is true, and Christianity is the largest, most successful movement of all time. Jesus showed up just before the exponential explosion in the world’s population, so 98 percent of us have walked the earth since his ressurrection, which was witnessed by more than 500 people.
The historicity of the bible is proven by contradictions of its otherwise irrelevant details, as it is 66 different narratives, letters, and writings written by 40 different people, five of whom witnessed Jesus after His resurrection, over about 1,500 years, that are all theologically synchronous.
Christianity is one of the first to teach of one rational, all-perfect God, and is the only theological understanding in which we're not expected to work our way to heaven for some superficial reward, nor are we saved by the merit of our actions, but only by the grace of Jesus Christ. "Faith without works is dead," in that he who has faith in Jesus will simply bear the works, i.e. repentance, not Catholic tradition. It is only through this that we are able to know Jesus, but faith in Him and humility that men are not their own god must come first.
Image is retard to anyone with two brain cells >what is wrong with chaos >or >it is merely your perception of chaos
Julian Reed
...
Jaxson Bailey
Are you really implying parental teachings are necessarily hazardous?
Carter Parker
...
John Walker
"Magic" is defined as non-existent. "It doesn't exist because it's magic" is a rhetorical tautology. >implying its name is necessarily indicative of its purpose
Lucas Bennett
You do realize that evolution has never been proven to work naturally, so your image argues for artificial evolution.
Isaac Martin
I'm implying that your knowledge of god is not naturally acquired by yourself, but spoonfed to you by some other human
Andrew Wood
Bbbb
Lucas Adams
I guess you’re right. Man, I wish someone had just written a book that I could read and form my own opinions.
Ethan James
You choose heaven with the way you live your life
Xavier Wright
>evolution has never been proven to work naturally
Dominic Russell
Go ahead, user. Macro evolution is the eternal theory. Prove me wrong.
Brody Turner
too bad your'e not alone in the universe
Austin Kelly
Only evil people kill innocents said God before drowning the entire planet
Levi James
That may be what you're trying to imply, but that's not what your image implies.
Noah Rodriguez
>thing actually, objectively matter proof?
Noah Nelson
How is that relevant?
Grayson Lopez
You didn't even substantiate 1.1 you dumb faggot
Henry Brown
your life is not only you, therefore you can't say It's heaven because YOU chose it to be. doesn't work like that
Samuel Brooks
Read the post, idiot.
Daniel Diaz
>only evil people Wrong >said god Wrong >innocents Wrong
>literalism on the fucking flood myth Oh no no no
Adam Taylor
>implying no argument is complete without infinite premises It is to be taken axiomatically, idiot.
Lucas Miller
You are communicating in an objective manner and ask for objective proof of objectivity?
Aaron Carter
Heaven is a transcendence. It’s not a place like that planet past Pluto the Mormons believe in. Therefore, ignoring the fact that your comment is a complete non sequitor, you’re still incorrect.
Colton Nelson
Prove claim 1.1 first, then we'll get to the rest.
Christian Martinez
>your life is not only you, therefore you can't say It's heaven because YOU chose it to be. you are not making any sense user. Everybody who is in heaven chose to be there based on their choices. In heaven people are pure soul, they are not afflicted by concupiscence, as it was introduced into the world by original sin. Heaven is where God is, you should not look at it like Mount Olympus or some stuff like that. Heaven means becoming one again with God, as it was meant to be since the creation of the world. One not in the sense you become God, but in the sense you partake in his perfection and in his infinite, unintelligible mistery.
Jose Wright
Prove anything.
Anthony James
So it would follow they weren't innocent, idiot.
Jordan Collins
The major premise is always an axiom, idiot.
Jack Murphy
You're literally having an argument held on linguistic basis. Try having this argument in Icelandic, Chinese, Sanskrit or other languages that have not been strongly influenced by Abrahamism but by other multitheist religions and you'll see the difference
Joseph Watson
very interesting theories but, It's impossible to get over the fact that you are basing your theories on a book written by people who didn't wipe their ass after shitting
im sorry , but I will stay agnostic until proven different
Oliver Rivera
Concepts are universal. If eskimos do not have a word for a giraffe, do giraffes not exist?
Juan Mitchell
>1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters.
prove it
>2. Things actually, objectively matter.
prove it
>3. There is no evidence, empirical, mathematical, or otherwise, that any interaction between any of the four fundamental forces of the universe could possibly create consciousness.
we haven't discovered everything so this doesn't really mean much, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
>4. Therefore, to believe consciousness is only a product of the universe is irrational.
it's irrational to believe that something that has no proof exists and even more irrational to assign this mysterious entity responsibility for creating conciousness. It's also incredibly lazy and dismisses any further discoveries about the nature of conciousness, and if you accept that you are saying that all knowledge we have now is all knowledge we will ever have which is demonstrably untrue
>3. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
lolwut, prove it
I'm not gonna go thru the rest because you're clearly irrational and have a childlike understanding of logic lol
Evan Phillips
This is a very stupid post, I am embarrassed for you.
Kayden Hernandez
That's where you are wrong, for even if you try to use these arguments in Albanian, the results were to be different, and yes, in Greek for example is a spotted camel and not a "Giraffe".
Lincoln Allen
You should first sort your life before you go on judging others.
Daniel Lewis
Prove your brainlet assumptions, first. >it’s alright to make things up if they comfort my narrative You can’t discount consciousness just because “well, we might discover something in the future.”
Jackson Baker
I am handsome, wealthy, and have plenty of free time to mock atheist kikes. You, my friend, are the one in trouble.
Nolan Myers
The words something is called by change the properties of the thing? Be very, very careful.
Brayden Butler
Not surprising you'd post this based on your flag.
Thomas Lee
>I am handsome, wealthy, and have plenty of free time to mock atheist kikes.
laughing at yourself? so smart!
Easton Price
Yes, for is it the giraffe and spotted camel, and longneck horse, and leafeater the same thing in concept and portraying it?
Jacob Hughes
Wrong, it has to be an axiom. That's modem ponens. Unsubstantiated claims are just that, fantasies.
Hunter Ortiz
You are using language with a fixed meaning to communicate with me. The words don't change meaning depending on who reads them. They are objective.
Jaxon Green
I think it has something to do with the foreskin. The knowledge that someone would so carelessly multilate another human breaks something in the mind of the Jew.
Julian White
So God exists. Now prove it's your particular version of God which exists.
Dominic Rodriguez
Then you are a racist, sexiest, beta male.
No, no. You dug your grave, now lie in it.
Julian Butler
The form in which revelation is revelead is dependent on the limitations of the people who received it, not on God. If anything, it speaks of the omnipotence of the real living God that he would not go around shouting "muh hammer" since he has no need to overcompensate. As St.Augustine said "The God that created without your permission won't save you without your consent". God does not save those who don't want to be saved, and in this we see the history of mankind cooperating in that salvation. God is the ultimate Father, he is the parent that does not cuddle you but rather helps you grow, sometimes with a harsh beating sometimes by doing the ultimate sacrifice for you. What is written in the Bible is true for all ages, it is the Divine Revelation in it that is important (and in Catholicism there is also Sacred Tradition that is used to interpret and undestand it, but mostly has to do with the sacraments and other things that are the everyday experience of the faithful and go beyond ink on a paper) not the fact that it is written in a book. It's just written in a book due to convenience.
Jaxon Anderson
>Agnosticism is the only logical belief to exist until proven either way.
Agnosticism isn't a middle-man/mutually-exclusive. Stop parroting this falsity. It's the stance of the intellectual-coward.
Landon Brown
I did. The proposition is self-refuting.
James Sullivan
I'm actually uncut. Hard to imagine the same applies to you.
Angel Roberts
God by his very nature would encompass all. All religions would be both simultaneously true and false.
Parker Thomas
isn't*
Adam Jones
So, is it exclusion from the tribe that prompts this anger?
Xavier Gutierrez
You see All these """arguments"" are held on linguistic grounds Just because your language calls giraffe a longneck horse, is the giraffe a horse?
Easton Allen
interesting
Gavin Edwards
>Wrong, it has to be an axiom. That's literally what I said. >That's modem ponens. Syllogisms have a major premise regardless of their form. >Unsubstantiated claims are just that, fantasies. Read the fucking post, idiot. >The proposition is self-refuting. Do illuminate us.
Adam Wilson
>Prove your brainlet assumptions, first.
How do I prove an assumption, an assumption is by definition accepted without proof. nothing I said needed proving tho, I was exclusively targeting your own arguments which were unsupported by any evidence. You literally made things up to comfort your narrative LOL
>You can’t discount consciousness just because “well, we might discover something in the future.”
you can't discount that it might have arisen from a natural origin based on incomplete knowledge. We do not have complete knowledge, this is quite self evident. New things are discovered every single day.
Brandon Thomas
>your house is on fire It's just the northern lights.
Jackson Torres
where do people get this meme non-logic from? There must be a source for it, besides satan I mean
Joshua Lee
>intellectual-coward.
yea so true, real intellectuals believe that a kike on a stick told you that dinosaurs were fake, and to stone gays
Jackson Rogers
And that's impossible so god is impossible. It is far more likely that what people perceive as god is just their unconsciousness. How else would god answer prayers only to very religious people?
I think that one in particular is a modification of Spinoza's argument.
Caleb Brooks
You don't know the difference between 'is' and 'has to be', you have no right to call anyone an idiot
Logan Peterson
they're right. the left can't meme.
Aaron Martin
You can’t discount god exists based on incomplete knowledge. This is how stupid you sound. All knowledge is incomplete and based on what cannot be proven. It doesn’t matter what the fuck you call something, is the point. It matters what it is. Your grasp of English is very weak, it is difficult to understand what you mean.
Bentley Ross
>israel >left
Alexander Bailey
This is nonsense. If God exists, then he exists. Period.
If you meet person A, you will have a different understanding and a different relationship with this person, then I will with the same person. The image of your parents is different for you and your siblings. The image of your parents is subjective, but their existence is objective. Same applies to God.
Luke Richardson
Not really, the very essence of the argument stands in the language used, thus there is no universal grasping of "the point"
Samuel Phillips
>"herp what? that's ridiculous! derp," is not a valid contention
If you're not going to follow your own rules then what is the point of all this?
Jaxon Butler
You don't have to matter/have meaning to deny you don't have matter/meaning. The proposition isn't self-refuting.
Kevin Brooks
>You can’t discount god exists based on incomplete knowledge
stop dodging my points, I'm not the one making any claims mutt, you are the one claiming objective facts. Thus YOU have to prove these things are objectively true for YOUR argument to have any ground. You haven't done this so your argument holds no weight.
>All knowledge is incomplete and based on what cannot be proven.
we're talking about a very specific thing tho, how can you say for sure how much we will ever understand about conciousness, about physics, about biology etc? we will discover far more and our understanding will be far greater in the future, so the possiblity of understanding the origins of conciousness increase.
Logan Fisher
If you're a Christian, for example, how do you know Jesus Christ is God? How do you know Satan, for example, isn't the God?
Matthew Ramirez
Your logic is faulty and your grasp of language is too weak to correct it. Just read the response chain again until it clicks. He’s merely calling you retarded for not being able to grasp how images work. In short, being a Redditor tourist.
Nathaniel Walker
1 Actually things don't objectively matter.
2. Your claim is "there's no evidence hence it's god". Sure.
3. No, they don't exist, and everything works fine with a subjective morality. Test me.
Liam Flores
I agree God exists, but I am highly skeptical of Christianity in the religious sense.
