Remember, Sup Forums, if you believe in god...

Remember, Sup Forums, if you believe in god, you are far more retarded than a grown adult who still believes in the Tooth Fairy. Consider:
1. Tooth Fairy does not have thousands of other competitors claiming to be the one True Fairy.
2. Tooth Fairy has not been the object of a two thousand years-long search by billions of people yielding a total of ZERO evidence.
3. Tooth Fairy does not come with a holy book full of absurdities, errors and fantasy.
4. Tooth Fairy actually has the runs on the board. Millions of kids have received cash for their teeth. Try praying to your favourite god to leave some cash on your bedside table tonight. See how that works out for you.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zL52lG6aNIY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I'm a deist cuz I'm not a fan of religion and I think religion is bullshit but I believe that there is a God. Prove to me that he does not exist and I'll become atheist.

Which god do you believe in?

Burden of proof is on you, champ

I don't really like to call it God but I believe that there is a creator that gave birth to this universe and knows that we exist but he will not interviene with us or reveal to us either, but I believe he can hear us and give some revelations to us that he might exist.

Trips of tripe. Why do you believe those things?

>getting this triggered by people's beliefs
the one true retard

Found the theist

I don't believe in anything you faggot, I also don't whine about the fact that others do
Grow up

Just look around you, have you ever asked yourself where love comes from??? Until this day science cannot truly explain love and I believe that's one way god reveals himself to us. Whether any human believes in god or not why the fuck we keep going to space looking for the beginning of this universe if we know the answer then why the fuck we keep going to space looking for our creator. I believe that in those ways that's as close as we get to god apart from other things

all right if you say there is no evidence please tell me what evidence would be needed

You don't believe in gravity then. Try jumping off a high bridge.

I did, now I'm stuck in the air
What do?

Are you serious? I sincerely hope you are not.

>Burden of proof is on you, champ
Prove this statement.

because you cant refute it you say are you kidding me

Yes I'm being serious

If you want to use love as evidence for your favourite god, you will need to define your god and provide evidence for its existence. And if you can't do both of those things, then I can invent a brand new god right now, claim he is the one and only true god, claim also that your god does not exist and also claim that love proves my god exists.
Also, the corollary of your argument would be that hate and evil disproves your god.

This guy gets it, but can't explain it in a way that skepti-fags will understand. It sort of has to be experienced to understand, anyways.

Inb4 "hurr durr chemicals in ur brain"

That's addiction, not love.

Fly, my pretty, fly!

It might be the case that he can't explain it because it's a steaming load.

you always say oh i need evidence but never actually say what evidence would count as far as i know the believe that all matter in the universe condense and exploded outward is not evidence because where the matter come from that condensed

I never said he's the only true god, every one is free to believe how god is and I think that god doesn't give a shit of how we love him or think of him and as I stated before he cannot reveal himself to us therefore we cannot prove his existence but we cannot prove either that he does not exist.

I don't love anybody. God destroyed.

>love
a chemical reaction (mostly hormones)

>why go into space
humans are explorers and always like to understand things. why do you think people sailed around the world 300-400 years ago and didn't just happily stick to where they were. why do you think there is science when we could have just gone with the explanation that thunder and lightning are signs of the gods, obviously?

Thanks user I feel like someone understands me

I'll do it.

God is the consciousness stream that exists in all beings. If you think a thing counts as a being, then in the moment you recognized it as such, you projected the god stream of consciousness into that thing. Likewise, every time you see a thing and think "That's not a real being. There's no life in that," what you're doing is closing off love for that thing. This hides you from the god stream of consciousness that flows through that thing.

The idea that there can exist a sentience without a meat and bones body to shuffle it along is going to be a hard pill for a lot of pseudo-skeptics to swallow in the coming century. But it'sa comin'. What is god? God's the sentience that connects every sentience in existence. The more things you can honestly recognize in the universe, the more connected you are to god.

What is god? Everything. It's all things that are "things," and can be described with consciousness. And the force that connects all sentience is love, in the same way that every particle attracts each other with a force called gravity. Remember this, because more and more this kind of thinking is becoming a practical, legitimate science, and less a poetic way of describing life.

I want to say I don't believe in god, but there is no definitive answer on how the universe was created. However, I do accept the idea that the universe wasn't created. Instead, to our understanding of energy, in order for the universe to exist, the flow of time has to exist. This meaning that, instead of the universe being created, as it is very easy to define where something starts because humans know "time," the universe has always existed. In order for the universe to exist, time does, and the concept of time's existence is something created by humans. So it wouldnt be too far fetched to say that this "reality" is loosely defined as it requires all of us to be here now in order for it to exist. So, it's real if you accept it, it's not if you don't; however, in order to not accept it, you have to not be here, as literally having a brain is acknowledging that you exist, and that is enough.

It's more scientifically sound than god because if "god" exists, you're essentially saying god is the universe, and, yes, the universe does exist. You can attribute everything to god without any basis of knowledge and keep it very close-minded, or you can accept scientific evidence and do the research in order to know how the universe is, whatever makes you happy. Just know that if you say you believe in god that you are running away from knowledge; admitting ignorance.

...

It is not my obligation to imagine what evidence might convince me of the existence of a fictional character. That is not how the scientific method works. If evidence exists, present it.
And it seems your faith is based (at least in part) on the "well how did the universe get here" idea. If your universe requires a creator, then by exactly the same logic, your creator requires a creator.

>god of the gaps
Ahh, I just love that one. It used to be thunder and ighning and with every step forward in science, god was pushed right to where science hadn't yet reached and each with step, religion knew less what they were talking about. Now God has moved to the big bang, a process you (and me and pretty much every one here) have no understanding of whatsoever.

Does that explains love towards your family??? Does that explains why would you be willing to give your life for someone else you don't know or never met???

>It is not my obligation to imagine what evidence might convince me of the existence of a fictional character.
Yeah it is. That's exactly how it works. If you don't do this, then you're just an ape. All you can do is mimic what others show you, and have no vision for yourself.

Who taught you to act like an ape? Where in your mind did the bad teachers touch you?

>Truth hurts, I'm just not gonna accept it.
So if it's not chemicals, what other logical, cause-effect process (because, let's face it, our universe is a logical one) produces feelings then?

that had nothing to do with god i was just asking a couple questions

TL;DR
> Universe can't be created because time must exist.
> Creators must have a creator.
> Reality exists if you do b/c having a brain acknowledges that you exist
> Admitting you believe there is a god is running away from factual knowledge; inherently ignorant

Yes? It's a chemical reaction, what oher logical, cause-effect process (because, let's face it, our universe is a logical one) could it be?

Recursive modeling of each other's personalities. Haven't you ever laid down with a girly and just started into her eyes, until it looks like you're staring back at yourself? That's love.

Chemicals are a non-consequential side effect, an expression of this particular species' consciousness when configured in love form. Love is a logical, mathematical pattern that exists in many life forms, organic or otherwise, including those that exist in this moment, and those that have never existed but will.

I'm not running away from knowledge and that's why I'm a deist because religion cannot prove shit that science has but if you think about it we cannot prove that God doesn't exists but neither we can prove he does.

all right if you want to say god doesn't exist give me evidence that logic exists

>Haven't you ever laid down with a girly and just started into her eyes, until it looks like you're staring back at yourself? That's love.

Have you ever smelled that awful smell, you know, that really awfull smell of rotten eggs? That's sulfur.

Chemicals are not the side effect of love, they are love, they propagate it by creating and maintaining a certain set of states within the brain and the body. Just like photons propagate the electromagnetic force between charged particles.

>the fact that you reasoned with what he said
>the fact that you posted a reply because you could reason with it
>the fact that you, although what you said had no logic, thought about what he said and replied with something to attempt to debunk his beliefs

>Chemicals are not the side effect of love, they are love, they propagate it by creating and maintaining a certain set of states within the brain and the body. Just like photons propagate the electromagnetic force between charged particles.
Oh wow. A skeptifag actually made a positive statement for once. I've been waiting like 10 years to see this happen.

Proof plz.

I would like an exhaustive analysis of every conscious thought in existence, with a 1:1 mapping to the chemicals that match those thoughts, if you wouldn't mind. Otherwise, you can't make that statement, because burden of proof, etc.

BTW, I used to make thought inducing chemicals for a living, so this should be amusing. Let's see what you've learned during your time here on this rock.

>I would like an exhaustive analysis of every conscious thought in existence, with a 1:1 mapping to the chemicals that match those thoughts, if you wouldn't mind. Otherwise, you can't make that statement, because burden of proof, etc.

And that's why psychology still exists. If we could understand the brain to the fullest, 100%, as a set of microstates and every hormones exact effect on all those singular microstates + their interaction among themselves via electric impulses, we would only need neurobiology.
But the brain is far too complex for that.

That, however, doesn't change the fact that chemicals and electric impulses are, at the very core, how our body works.

When one honestly assesses the Judeo-Christian doctrine of God you will find multiple thousands of years of human testimony and historical and geographical evidence and calling for a god the like a tooth fairy argument It’s strawman argumentation at its worst.

Yeah. I know. Maybe the "complexity" that psychology can't figure out is that there's a non-chemical state of consciousness that exists in and around people's bodies. It's almost like that's what we keep telling you guys, or something.

But nope. You're just so damned convinced that physical reality is all that there is. You're so very convinced, that you don't even need to fully study and understand human anatomy to know this, it's just something you believe in with faith.

:/

that is not proof that is examples

Humans believed in witches to. Doesn't make them real- Also, I'd like to see that evidence.

However, you don't research into the topic, instead you assume because science cannot prove it that god must be the right answer?

Let's go further as to say that you, actively denying what has been tested throughout all history, the scientific method, are ignorant to trust something that someone created, rather than something that humanity has known as the only method to proving something to exist.

Simply put, believing in god is basically telling everyone that you don't think the only method of proving something to be true to actually be true itself.

This is why deism pisses me off.
>proving something to exist has nothing to do with proving how god exists
>howfuckingstupiddoyoubavetobetobelievethatshit.jpg

Wow, that's esoterism if I've ever seen it. What other reality than the physical on would there be?

And this is why theism and atheism piss me off
>Theism: Adam and Eva are the beginning of humanity - how the fuck??? There's evidence that we are evolution of fuckin apes
>>atheism: God does not exist- fuckin prove it!!!

You realize there are only like 66 books, right? These are 66 people throughout time that have said they believe in god, not to mention they're split into different testaments which conflict with each other. Aside from 66 testimonies, the other thousands of people that claim to have seen god couldn't possibly have had sicknesses, halloucinations, or even lie about it?

Besides that, there is no evidence that even happened. Nor evidence that proves they weren't lieing, nor evidence that they didn't get paid, nor evidence that it was some kind of king forcing them? There are literally infinite possibilities, and yet science proves things true through math. Admittedly, this math may not be true throughout all of the universe, but it's 99.99% true within our's. That's more than the bible can say.

Burden of proof lies with the positive statement. If I claim bigfoot is real, then I have to go out and find him; you don't need to go out and check every square inch at the same time to see he's not here and not also anywhere else.

A reality based entirely in consciousness. I.e. this is a dream, of a dream, so many layers deep. There is no reason to suspect there is a top layer, a final "real" reality.

If it this true, then there exists a possibility that free will through consciousness is both an illusion, and not an illusion depending on from whos frame of reference the question is posed. From the frame of reference of one in a lower state of reality, they authentically have choice, in that seeing many possible outcomes of an event, they cannot prove to themselves that they would have always chosen that outcome, even though in hindsight it appears that all choices were inevitable, but only after they are chosen. (See: quantum erasure) From the reference from of a higher state of reality, all choices are inevitable, and happen simultaneously.

Regardless, if this is the configuration of the multiverse, then consciousness acts first, and physical consequences occur as a non-essential side effect, that only exist to stabilize the physical reality and correspond to the rules of physics that pertain to that specific dream state. Note that energy is frequently borrowed in quantum mechanics, and then later returned. This is a strange thing to happen in a universe that is suppose to be based on physical laws and causality, since the question remains: what decides when energy is suddenly and inexplicable summoned this way? What's causing that? Causality is a great theory, but there's kind of some leeway, for the first initial moments of any energy reaction.

This style of thinking is demonstrated in the sleeping beauty thought experiment.

youtube.com/watch?v=zL52lG6aNIY

It demonstrates that, at least in terms of probability, people living in the same objective reality may live in different subjective realities. This is relevant, because quantum mechanics is based on the concepts of probability, and non-perfect information.

>Burden of proof lies with the positive statement.
That's a positive statement. Prove that positive statement. Let's see your evidence, bucko.

I don't know how to respond to you but like I been saying throughout this entire thread we cannot prove god exists but neither we can prove he doesn't. I feel like you agree with me but you disagree at the same time

Positive statement = God is real.
Is your brain capable of understanding it now?

Evolution was also observed through the scientific method. So, in a way, admitting you believe in evolution as a theist, someone who believes in god, you also admit that you believe in the scientific method... kinda hypocritical to believe in something that defies the scientific method and something that fits the scientific method.

Also, I didn't say to prove to me that god exists. I said that he doesn't within anything that could prove he does, aside from spontaneousness, in which he just exists through blind faith. To this I would tell you to read

I understand what a positive statement is. Your using colloquial language to describe a concept in first order logic, which I'm familiar with and studied in college.

You made the following positive statement.
>Burden of proof lies with the positive statement.

Here is my evidence that you made that statement:
Now let's see your evidence that the positive statement you made is in fact true.

This is false. Believing in statement that was derived with a method does not equate to believing in the method that derived that statement. This is the logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Your statement
>kinda hypocritical to believe in something that defies the scientific method and something that fits the scientific method.
is invalid.

You're arguing with somebody that's actually educated in this, today.

Now let's see your evidence that it isn't. With that argumetation, anyone can claim anything and then force it upon others that his bullshit is true until disproven.

I read it already, all I been trying to state is that we cannot prove God's existence (at least not yet) but neither wecan prove he doesn't exist all we can do is just to trust our faith and that's it.

Right? It's almost like everyone's reality experience looks valid, *to them* or something. Could it be? That we're all experiencing reality simultaneously, but with different belief systems based on our different experiences?

No. No, that's crazy talk. There is only ONE way to rationalize reality, and it's my way. Duh.

It's evident by this post that you aren't taking this seriously. I've been watching you guys argue and it makes no sense. It has been proven that we feel through chemicals in our brain. The biggest issue I have with you is that proof is so narrow-minded, at least for you, that you refuse to accept anything that you personally would have to go through the scientific method in order to prove, but you ask that much of us? Very hypocritical, that's why I think you're not taking this seriously.

Furthermore, if you did believe in the scientific method then you would believe is how god is ignorance.

So is this creator one of the thousands of gods which have already been invented, or have you created a brand new creator for yourself?

Cool, I guess I'll just roll into my particle physics test next week and whenever they mark something as wrong, I'll just tell them it seems right to me because I experienced it differently and when they want to tell me I'm wrong, they better head over to CERN and disprove it down to the most marginal detail because until they haven't done that, there's now way of knowing my complete bullshit wasn't true.

If you were educated in this you would know that pointing out my statement as a logical fallacy is actually a logical fallacy. Proving I'm wrong using a claim that it is fallacious, is fallacious.

I didn't not created it, that's just how I view God.

The Australian Aborigines created a god, among hundreds of other Aboriginal gods, called Barraiya. They believed that this god created the first vagina.
Do you understand that the god you believe in comes with the exact same amount of evidence to support the claim that it exists as does Barraiya?
Do you understand that your god is just as ridiculous as Barraiya?

>It has been proven that we feel through chemicals in our brain.

I don't understand why you think this invalidates the idea of a non-physical consciousness. Why don't you type me a message that you'll transmit through the internet, and affect the consciousness of a person miles away who reads it, and understands more about your consciousness, without ever once exchanging chemicals?

If you can understand how the internet works, you can extend that concept just a *little* further to all forms of communication, including organic forms, and start to get a concept of what god looks like.

And which god is that? Presumably you are aware that many thousands of different gods have been created? Which one do you believe in? Try to answer this question honestly.

First of all did I gave any evidence??? No. Did I say that's my god??? No I just said that's my view of God, learn how to read first then come and judge my beliefs.

Incorrect. Pointing out that your statement is invalid is a tautology. All logic forms of the form

. p->q
. q
... p

are invalid. Your statement was of the form of Affirming the Consequent.

The logic form of recognizing your logic form as Affirming the Consequent is Modus Ponens.

. p -> q
. p
... q

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

I'm doing my best to keep it real simple, because I know that logic forms don't make a lot of sense to amateurs. I recommend taking some logic courses at a college to shore up your sense of truth.

It's the god that gave him sweet triples, that's who.

Not to mention that it's not associated with affirmation of the consequent because it's not a converse.

The way to prove something is real is through the scientific method.
Therefore by stating you believe in what has been proven, you must believe in the scientific method, as it is the ONLY way of proving what you stated you believed in--that was associated with the scientific method.

Evolution is ONLY proven with the scientific method and disproven with god. If you believe in evolution, you can't NOT believe in the scientific method, as then there would be no way to affirm your own belief in it. I.E. god created evolution as a way of disproving god -> you would have to not believe in god.

Pseudoskeptics only know how to argue like 2~3 different points. If you don't adhere to the argument they want, they start telling you what they want you to believe, so that they can stick to familiar ground.

I would say the God from Christianity but I just don't see him the same way christians do.

You seem to have missed the point. The point is this: Most theists would confidently dismiss gods such as Barraiya or other ancient, disused gods as mythical, and rightly so. Most theists would be secure in the knowledge that those gods do.not.exist. The fact is that your favourite god, whichever god that is, comes with exactly the same amount of supporting evidence as the gods you correctly believe do not exist.

>as it is the ONLY way of proving what you stated you believed in--that was associated with the scientific method.
This remains to be seen. That's one of your premises, not necessarily theirs.

One valid configuration, for instance, would be if they believed that evolution was true for reasons other than the scientific method, and therefor used evolution to back their conclusion, without needing the scientific method to be true in order to keep their conclusion true.

Statement a implying statement b doesn't imply that the falsehood of statement a implies the falsehood of statement b. (If false then true) returns true. Statement a in this case represents "the scientific method is a valid method of acquiring information" and statement b represents "species evolved from a common origin."

Stating that the falsehood of the scientific method implies the falsehood of evolutionary theory is either affirming the consequent, or denying the antecedent depending on how you wanna' phrase your converses. Not really much of a difference between those two logical fallacies.

Oh. That's your trouble brother. God isn't a deity. God is uncountable. The bibles states. The average slackjawed Christian, who never cracked open and read the bible in their lives, let alone a textbook on philosophy or pure mathematics does not state this. The average slackjawed Christian who airs a television program where they spew random tales they tell each other in Sunday school does not state this.

But, the actual fucking source material, that you yourself are too arsed to read before criticizing, states quite clearly that god is not a deity, and any deities that people worship are but a subset of god. God is the set that contains all sets. Not a difficult concept to understand.

I'm not saying those gods don't exist, everyone is free to believe whatever they want, I'm just stating what my view of God is regardless what you think I don't care with all respect, that's just what God is to me I leave it up to you to believe it or not.

>God is the set that contains all sets
If only the claim were accompanied by even a nanogram of evidence.

If you were being honest you would acknowledge that you believe that Barraiya does.not.exist. Are you honest enough to admit that?

Sure. What do you have in mind?

Imagine a universe in which god is not the set that contains all sets.

Now imagine a universe in which god is the set that contains all sets.

What's the difference? You tell me what you think that difference is, and I will go out into the physical world, get it, and deliver it to any place in the physical world that you care to name. Is that acceptable?

No I don't have to acknowledge it because like I said anyone is free to believe what they want and I don't care if that god the Australians talk about exists great!!! If it doesn't then great too!!! Because we don't know maybe is just the same god or maybe not and we all just view god differently and call it differently.

In order to answer that question, I will first need a precise definition of "god". I will also need you to present the evidence for the claim that it exists.

No I don't have to acknowledge it because like I said anyone is free to believe what they want and I don't care. If that god the Australians talk about exists great!!! If it doesn't then great too!!! Because we don't know maybe is just the same god or maybe not and we all just view god differently and call it differently.
>> Sorry I committed a few grammatical errors

Evasive and dishonest response. You should reflect on why you responded evasively and dishonestly. It will help steer you towards reality.

Is not an evasive response you just don't understand my point.

Incorrect. Your logic is inferior.

This person's logic is superior:
This person doesn't realize it, but their logic form adheres more closely to Bayesian Statistics. If there is no observational evidence of a thing, then there is a 50% chance that it does exist, and a 50% chance that it doesn't. As observational data is acquired, this probability distribution asymptotically approaches a truer value. This is a more accurate way of ascertaining truth than your pseudo-skepticism.

Go back to school, user. Your ignorance is showing.

I fail to see how it works that way.

(E)volution
(S)cientific method
(G)od

E is only proven by S -- Are we good here?
G is disproven by S

If you believe in S, you don't have to believe in E, but S disproves G.

Is that a fallacy?

E implies S
S means G is impossible
So why can't believing in E imply that G is impossible?

Difference is neither, so why assume one over the other?

I would assume one over the other because there is evidence to suggest god doesn't exist at all.

What you just said was
Imagine a universe where Tom Hanks controls all sets
Another where Tom Hanks doesn't

What's the difference? The fact that I made up Tom Hank's relation to the universe. So why assume he does over he doesn't?

>If there is no observational evidence of a thing, then there is a 50% chance that it does exist
This would mean that around 2,500 of the gods would have been created actually exist. Even the mutually exclusive ones. Quality contribution there, user. Your inability to reason is showing.

*which* have been created

good to know there's at least 1,250 various gods out there

>E is only proven by S -- Are we good here?
Nope. Dude's original argument didn't state E -> S. That's a statement you supplied. Personally, I don't agree with it.

Ever heard of Gregory Mendel? You might have, if you're a proponent of evolutionary theory. Mendel's the guy who studied gene expression. He was a catholic monk. He worked it out without adhering your version of the Scientific Method. He imagined "what if there was a recessive gene responsible for this mathematical distribution of life forms?"

If he had never taken that first leap of faith and imagined recessive genes--that by the way had NO EVIDENCE OF EXISTING--then he would not have discovered the difference between genotype and phenotype. Then this Catholic monk, who took a leap of faith and viewed the universe from the perspective of "what if x were true" without having physical evidence right before his eyes would not have developed the scientific theory which later was responsible for validating the theory of evolution as a descent from a common ancestor.

Suck my fucking dick, your concept of the scientific method is bad. Sorry bro. You're wrong. You should probably learn the correct version, which is to accept everyone's beliefs, until a contradiction emerges. At which point neither theory is wrong nor right, but simply incompatible with each other.

Closer to 5000.

Not necessarily. There's a non-zero chance that none of them exist.

You're saying that if you flip a coin 100 times, then it lands on heads 50 times and tails 50 times. Are you *sure* you're in a position to be making judgements on other people's intelligence? Do you need to maybe go flip a coin 100 times to double check?

...