Movies that really make you go hmm

God's not Dead really made my brain whirl

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gsn6PvEh7tE
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery
sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Would have been fine if they presented a balanced arguement

god is just an abstract thought of the human mind
some use it to endure life, some use it to explain what can't be explained
sorry cletus

> a+ flawless logic bravo

...

Lack of proof is not proof.

Are you lads just going to shitposting or actually have something to add ?

>t. Not-Karl Popper

>like ugh stop believing in god you are soooooo triggering me

Athiestcuck detected

What makes you think I'm an atheist? When a film centered around debate begins by saying who's the winner of said debate, it's not interesting.

It's literally impossible to determine which religion, if any, is true so picking one basically means you believe yourself to be superior enough to choose the right one which also means there's no point in picking one.
t. Agnostic ''edgelord''

Atheists say a lot of shit. There's nothing more annoying than someone who has to shove their religion or lack of religion in your face. Just shut the fuck up.

I never said that
I just gave my interpretation of why I don't think that god exists

I didn't think I was gonna get to read something as dumb as the OP again today

This film was pretty terrible. They had moments where they could have presented air-tight arguments for God, such as Aquinas' five-ways, but they were thrown by the wayside in favor of evangelical "you just gotta open up and let God in" bullshit.

It was also terribly acted and had a terrible script.

In short, protestant propaganda films are pretty much pure garbage

>protties

>I don't think that god exists
*tips fedora*

Well, protestants don't actually have any culture, so this isn't surprising.

edgy

I got a lot of To Save a Life vibes from this movie. Maybe because of its over the top obnoxious strawmen and how it tries to cram many different "real life religious problems" into one movie.

Fight Club. Really blew my mind and flipped my lid when they revealed that Jack is really Tyler Durden.

>Implying Protestants know who Aquinas is

this is an islamic imageboard, please go

I like how the internet was all atheism and against religion until the fedora meme then they all switched sides.

You're all morons who make decisions solely on what meme is popular at the time. It's not funny now, nor will it ever be. So can we get back to talking about film?

>aquinas
>airtight

Agreed. Ayn Rand argues that of all philosophers, Aquinas came to the closest to proving God.

people grew up

even a cursory understanding of physics leads someone to seriously question the existence of a higher power

organized religion and prophets are clearly bs though

the shift to contrarian christianity was happening before febora:DDD, fedora just ended all potential for rational/enjoyable debate.

Well they can't do that. Clearly one side is superior to the other, but it's not the side they're trying to support.

>air-tight arguments for God, such as Aquinas' five-ways

I replied

>tfw havin a giggle about this movie and qt gf unironically liked it
She could have worse faults.

Prove them wrong then.

>So can we get back to talking about film?
God's Not Dead, as a film, isn't very good. The story is split up into one main story and then a couple side plots that never really go anywhere or connect in any really meaningful way. It feels like it was written more like a TV show, or like they realized they didn't have enough with the main plot so they stuck in extra stories to fill in time.

>Can freely mock Islam and Judaism
>If you mock Christianity you're spammed with fedora pictures

Why the double standard?

youtube.com/watch?v=gsn6PvEh7tE

This dude is the worst part of Good Luck Charlie

Cause moralcuck Sup Forums autists get mad when you insult muh Jesus

...

Dawkins' babies come out like clockwork.

Have a meme, then kindly kill yourself for following a man who knows jack and shit about Philosophy.

>tfw Sup Forums is a Catholic imageboard because of Sup Forums

Weak b8, but...

it was a pretty good propaganda film

>why the double standard

Christians are much bigger assholes than Muslims or Jews.

why would i want your meme when dawkins already disproved it?

calm down.

Oh I see. You're one of those types who hates to explore ideas beyond your own confirmation bias. Nice b8 mate.

You asked to debunk Aquinas and that's exactly what you got. Careful what you asked for.

>Sup Forums
>liking Catholics

Not him but breh Aquinas has been explored to death already m8.

Not by this retard.

i'm not the one that posted 'a meme' and told you to go kill yourself after a short video explaining the self evident fatuousness of a centuries old theologian my friend. perhaps you're one of those types that posts weak bait and then gets angry when he doesn't get the replies he was hoping for.

>Morons misunderstanding the atheism memes as some kind of attack on atheism rather than making fun of anti-religion edgelords
truly the true fedoras are the one that get offended by this

the more people try to use logic to justify their belief in god the less i want to believe. i'm satisfied with just finding a belief in god personally comforting. why do they seem to need to convert the none believers? it's distasteful and ultimately futile. when someone refuses to convert to your religion you simply kill them. deus vult.

>the self evident fatuousness
Kek

>a centuries old theologian
Implying a philosophers ideas are any less valid based on how old the philosopher is. You should read this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

> perhaps you're one of those types that posts weak bait and then gets angry when he doesn't get the replies he was hoping for.
Nah, I just think it's sad when uninformed and uneducated edgelords think they have the intellectual upper-hand when they have no clue what they're talking about and, when confronted with actual information and arguments, shirk back to their intellectual cave in fear of having their little atheist world shattered.

>find Sup Forums in 2003
>it, like everything else on the internet, is so far removed from social norms that "edgy" can be an effective insult because it references someone who is only playing at being "near the edge" of the very narrow spectrum of acceptable behavior
>now Sup Forums is filled with warriors for the enforcement of social and moral norms

I can't wait to die.

>none believers
non* believers
check 'em
>arguing with heretics
why are protestants so ridiculous

what if i told you you can choose the time and place of your death?

you asked me to disprove the five proofs, i did, then you got really mad and started posting memes and blubbered about snobbery and how i should kill myself. that's all that happened.

better luck next time senpai.

>you asked me to disprove the five proofs, i did,

No you didn't.

He did. You didn't like it because it's Dawkins on the video, but that's an ad hominem.

You're welcome to try to debunk Dawkins' proofs, but I don't think you're capable.

>You're welcome to try to debunk Dawkins' proofs, but I don't think you're capable.

Dawkins first assertation, the "god of the gaps" contradiction, isn't a contradication at all, as detailed in this Aquinas' argument still stands for the simple reason that the premises are still based on empirical data. Dawkins asserts that Aquinas casually assumes the cause of the universe must be God, but that's not what the argument states. The argument begins with the empirical premise that all things "move" or are in a state of motion. He makes no mention of God. The argument is attempting to understand the cause of "motion". What Aquinas then does is follow the argument where it leads. If everything is dependent upon something else for motion or existence, there must be some eternal motion, itself uncaused and which lacks no other potentials. This all men call God.

Dawkins tries to wave this off by stupidly assuming that Aquinas is arguing for the Christian God, which Aquinas flat out states is not his intent (and more evidence that Dawkins never actually read Aquinas). The "turtles all the way down" rebuttal is simply a misunderstanding of the logical conclusions drawn from argument which began with an empirical premise. In short, if there were no God, no eternal actual, then nothing could logically exist. Dawkins fails by building a strawman of the term God, which is not at all how Aquinas understands or even defines God based upon the argument itself.

It's very simple, an infinite chain of effects can not exist without a primal eternal cause, as there would be no first cause to produce any of the effects which followed. To say, "What made God" is ridiculous, because God is not contained within the chain. If something else created God, then it wouldn't be called God, at least not how Aquinas defined and understood God as the eternal actual.

wtf I love God now

DUDE DEUS VULT LMAO
seriously you look more like you're trying to convince yourself god exists more than anything
BAKA DESU senpai

>To say, "What made God" is ridiculous, because God is not contained within the chain.

and why isn't he contained within the chain of causality? because hurr. you've assumed an infinite regress of time and causality and you've explained nothing, much less proved anything. That's Dawkin's point.

Translation: "I got BTFO and caught with my foot in my mouth. Now I'll make fun of him by saying DEUS VULT! That'll show him!"

Pure faggotry.

>and why isn't he contained within the chain of causality?

Because then He wouldn't be God, as that's not how Aquinas arrives at the divine properties of God. If he was part of the chain, he would be holding potentials, and God contains within him all actual's and no unrealized potentials. He is the eternal actual, and no potentials can be contained within Him. Again, a failure of Dawkins, not Aquinas.

> you've assumed an infinite regress of time and causality
Quite the contrary. The argument very clearly argues against infinite regress. That's the whole fucking point of the argument. Dawkins only goes so far as to say, "Well then if God created everything, WHAT CREATED GOD! HAHAHAH STUPID THIESTS!" If he (or you for that matter) had ever read anything by Aquinas you would understand that God isn't some strawman sky-daddy like Dawkins likes to assume everyone believes in. He explicitly states this his reply to Objection 2 in Part 1 of the Summa.

Instead of memeing, try actually reading the original argument, rather than rely on some hack to supply you with a total misrepresentation of Aquinas's ideas and arguments.

i imagine people like you are the reason god hates us. so insecure in your belief that the slightest breeze will make you lash out at as if it might bring down your whole house. maybe the user who you started this argument with doesn't believe but i bet he's infinitely better suited to coming to the light of god than you will ever be.

>Thomas Aquinas is not arguing for a Christian God.

Fair enough. Then is only claim of God is a prime mover that got everything started in the beginning, and never did anything else. That is literally a God of the Gaps. Also it's a non sequitor, because you can just as easily say "well what started god."

Of course this is something that's already in that video, I'm not sure if you watched it or understood it.

You haven't debunked it, certainly.

This film and it's maker are fucking retarded, people like it because it's 'confirmation bias: the movie'

I'd like to see Peter Hitchens make a film about why god is real, that would be interesting.

>this triggers the athiestcuck

but how do i know which god is the right one?

>shit-tier arguments trigger atheists
you are right on that one

Not really. An omniscient God would know if you're just faking your faith.

You might as well just be posting pics of the Childlike Empress from Neverending Story.

Russell made the point ages ago about this- I don't believe a God could be stupid enough to be fooled by such an insincere front.

Belief in the wrong god would put you in a worse punishment afterlife than a non-believer.

maybe, but it can be a pretty fun game. change god with any other force. choose to believe it's going to rain, stay dry by carrying umbrella. choose not to believe, get wet. i dunno it's entertaining.
does sincerity matter or does it just matter that we behave the way we are commanded. i think there's a story or two suggesting the ladder in the bible.

>and never did anything else

Again, you're failing to understand Aquinas' definition of God. He is the eternal actual. Everything that happens, has happened, or will happen, is contained within him. He is not a deistic "clockmaker" God. He is the sustainer and mover of all other potentials, and thus omnipresent. Again, you're further proving you don't know anything about Aquinas nor the argument at hand.

>Also it's a non sequitor, because you can just as easily say "well what started god."
This has already been discussed at length, but you autists can't seem to get into reading. In short, we can derive at certain characteristics of the prime mover based on the conclusions of the argument

>It must be Omnipotent, as it can not have any unrealized potentials.
>It must be meta, or non-physical, due to the fact that physical substances can change and thus contain unrealized potentials.
>It must be omniscient, as to not have knowledge would be an unrealized potential
>It must be perfect, as a flaw or imperfection implies an unrealized potential.
>It must be immutable, as change implies unrealized potentiality
>It must be eternal, as pure actuality can not go in or out of existence or being.
>It must be singular as a thing because to imply multiple Gods is to imply unrealized potential, and as seen above, this contradicts the nature of the eternal actual.

>suggesting the ladder
>the ladder

>If he was part of the chain, he would be holding potentials, and God contains within him all actual's and no unrealized potentials.

This is frankly unintelligible and I'd even venture as far as meaningless. Try rephrasing your argument in English.

>Quite the contrary. The argument very clearly argues against infinite regress. That's the whole fucking point of the argument

the point of the argument is to assume a priori that causality, and by implication matter, space, time and nature itself, is fundamentally linear, unidirectional, and predictable, and yet simultaneously concludes what would therefore be a logical impossibility was responsible for that beginning: something that logically cannot be - A God, created by nothing, since by his argument 'every mover is moved' - *happened* somehow, and that made everything else happen. It explains nothing. It proves nothing. It begs the question of how that thing came to be, something Aquinas can only throw his hands up at.

>If he (or you for that matter) had ever read anything by Aquinas you would understand that God isn't some strawman sky-daddy like Dawkins likes to assume everyone believes in.

>>It must be Omnipotent, meta omniscient, perfect, immutable, eternal, singular

top kek. I wonder if you even realize how you've shot yourself in the foot with this one.

>This is frankly unintelligible and I'd even venture as far as meaningless.

>"I can't understand it therefore it must be meaningless"

>the point of the argument is to assume a priori that causality, and by implication matter, space, time and nature itself, is fundamentally linear, unidirectional, and predictable,

Except that's not at all what the argument assumes. The argument begins with an empirical premise that all things exist in states of potentiality. In order for something to actualize it's potential, it must have another force acting upon it. The argument is incredibly secular, actually, as Aquinas does not set out to prove God, but only sets out to examine an empirical phenomenon. From this, he follows the argument to its logical conclusion

> and yet simultaneously concludes what would therefore be a logical impossibility was responsible for that beginning: something that logically cannot be - A God, created by nothing, since by his argument 'every mover is moved'
Again, you're building a strawman while failing to understand or even read how Aquinas arrives at the qualities of the Prime Mover, all of which are logically and philosophically consistent.
> It explains nothing. It proves nothing. It begs the question of how that thing came to be, something Aquinas can only throw his hands up at.

You Dawkins babies are insufferable. Aquinas very clearly goes into great detail about how he arrives at his conclusion, all of which is logically consistent based upon the empirical premises. It's apparent you don't have the mental capacity to understand the argument, as you are bringing up points and making assumptions which are entirely irrelevant or flat out wrong.

Name 3 worse faults she could have

>like ugh stop believing in no gods you are soooooo triggering me

>The argument begins with an empirical premise that all things exist in states of potentiality.

which is a pompous way of saying things appear to us, in our limited experience, to change. which proves nothing. it certainly has nothing to say about end-of-universe predictions - heat death and so on - but does in its limited scope leave open the possibility of feedback, which cuts the first mover completely out of the equation.

>Again, you're building a strawman while failing to understand or even read how Aquinas arrives at the qualities of the Prime Mover, all of which are logically and philosophically consistent.

very well. if it's not nothing what does aquinas contend caused the first mover?

>You Dawkins babies are insufferable. Aquinas very clearly goes into great detail about how he arrives at his conclusion, all of which is logically consistent based upon the empirical premises. It's apparent you don't have the mental capacity to understand the argument, as you are bringing up points and making assumptions which are entirely irrelevant or flat out wrong.

it's very apparent to me that you're very wrong and very mad about it.

Do Americans actually get triggered if you tell them religion is horseshit or is it just a Sup Forums meme?

>does sincerity matter or does it just matter that we behave the way we are commanded. i think there's a story or two suggesting the ladder in the bible.

If God is that petty I don't want an afterlife

How do you warp images like this lol

I remember the Better Call Saul livethreads also had a similarly deformed image of Jimmy

>the thousands of religions on the planet are all fake!
>but MINE is real because... BECAUSE you FEDORA!!!

i don't think it's petty for a rational person to say he knows less than god and is willing to abide the rules that omniscient being has set out. i think it would be petty for god to say being he created with the ability to think rationally and ask questions not do it, especially if those doubts are kept private and you observe the traditions.

>do americans really
do yorpeons really make these posts or is it just us at this point?

>which is a pompous way of saying things appear to us, in our limited experience, to change. which proves nothing.

Now you're entering Cartesian territory. You could wave this argument off as, "Well, that's just like, your opinion man!" But you're also denying your sense attributes and basic observable science.

>if it's not nothing what does aquinas contend caused the first mover?

I don't know how many times I have to go over this. If you can't read what I've already wrote and take the time to understand the argument I see no point to continue the discussion. In short, the First Mover is the eternal actual, and thus eternal. An eternal being has no unrealized potential, and thus does not need a cause to exist. If the first mover had been caused by something else, it wouldn't be the FIRST mover. Again, read the actual text of the Summa. Here's a link to help get you started:

sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm

Question 2-26 are what you're looking for.

>it's very apparent to me that you're very wrong and very mad about it.

Sure thing buddy.

>tfw the only thing stopping you from murdering, robbing, and raping is the possibility that you might get in trouble after you die

Kek.
You want a deconstruction of them?

what about the fact that your bumbling mumbling fat ass would get caught in the act and beaten all the way to rape-you-in-the-ass federal prison
>he thinks he's some master criminal

1. The Unmoved Mover
>We assume causality, so things dont just happen. They only happen if they are forced to.
This is wrong. We have proved spontaneus coming into existance of a particle and an antiparticle. Causality and the entire argument is thus untrue.

2. The First Cause
>Again he assumes that things have to be caused in order to happen.
This is not what we have observed. Though of course Aquinas could not have known this at the time. Still not a good argument today.

3. Contingency
>Things can perish, so if the is an infinite amount of time, a creator would be needed to keep things going, because else everything would die.
This is exactly what is called the heat death of the universe. This argument of his is actually correct, but it doesnt prove the existance of god but instead means that the universe will die.

4. Comparativity
>In order to judge things as good, better, etc. we need something that we can measure these things in relation to. This something is god.
Here he assumes that we actually can judge things as good or anything, in a way that is not subjective. This assumtion cant be proven and since its the base for the argument so cant it.

5. The Teleological Argument
>Unintelligent things follow predictable patterns that, since they cant come from themselves like with us humans, have to be originating in god.
Physically speaking there is no difference between intelligent and unintelligent. It would also be impossible to draw a line between intelligent and unintelligent so the entire point becomes moot.

>You could wave this argument off as, "Well, that's just like, your opinion man!"

or I could just point out the obvious non-sequitur and the still embryonic and emergent scientific understanding of astrophysics, of quantum physics, of the still embryonic and speculative nature of astrophysics, of the gaping gulf of understanding of the fundamental questions of the beginnings and ends of the universe from a scientific standpoint. it is not settled science what will happen to the universe a billion trillion years from now, or even 15 billion years ago, shockingly. it's hardly 'basic' or 'observable'. only the hubris of a religious person that expects to know literally everything as the best and brightest of us still fumble in the darkness, and happily admit to it.

>If the first mover had been caused by something else, it wouldn't be the FIRST mover.

right, so the first mover cannot be caused, ergo there cannot be a first mover.

thank you.

incidently what was that about Dawkins and his 'sky-daddy' 'straw-man' of Aquinas's argument that you later asserted was absolutely correct? what's the story with that now? are we right to interpret your radio silence on this obvious cognitive dissonance because his point about omnipotence and omniscence being mutually exclusive was absolutely apt? is all this fedora nerdrage of yours a mechanism to cope with all that doublethink bouncing around in your head as it slowly dawns on you how dawkins was right and you and tommy were wrong?

i don't expect a serious answer anyway. im outta here. stay mad.

I'd feel too terrible to do any of those things.

I can't even do evil playthroughs in fucking video games because I feel like too much of a dick.

most based movie ever made

It was a pretty funny movie. I watched it with five other friends and we spent half the movie laughing. I'm hopeful it gets a Rifftrax at some point.

Triggered stormniggers

I believe some force created "life" but I'm not sure he (it?) cares about us or had any direct influence on humanity or our religions.