I dont belive in god

i dont belive in god
if you convince me that there is a slight chance that god is real
then ill pay you 100$ in amazon gift card

Proof?

God is a label for something outside of one's normal thinking spectrum, and then as time passes their mind has expanded and the point they give up coincides with the labeling of God. These are the only ones who will convince you of God, the others as seagulls.

The fundamental principle of science is that nothing can ever be proven or disproven.
If you believe in science, there's your slight chance.

>religions in 2k17

only pathetic ppl need it for some idk reasons

In the beginning there was god. Nothing else matters because God is a part of the matter. We are all part of God. Like a ripple in a pond.

Infinite creative energy.

Saying he doesn't exist is just as deterministic as saying he does. The *only* acceptable answer is "we don't know".
However, you can't escape the "it's turtles all the way down" argument. If we, and our universe, were created by some creator, then who created their universe, their space? Or maybe "God" is.whkeber wrote the simulation we live in or.... There are so many possibilities...

Whoever*

Are you a full retard?

I can convince you 100% that God is real. Here's a proof for God given to me by a philosophy professor I know: "The Egyptians believed that the Sun was God. Look up in the sky. See that big, round, yellow thing? God exists, QED."

See, the thing is, God isn't a logical or even a theological problem: it's a linguistic problem. You can make God exist or not-exist simply by changing the shape of the outline you draw around the word. When the Gautama Buddha was asked whether the gods exist, his answer was that if the question occurs to you, you've already made a mistake. He meant that it's not an interesting question; believe or don't believe, then move on, since you have to live your life regardless of the gods' existence or non-existence.

Do I get my $100?

No, but I am right.

no op, but changing definitions to fit your story isnt a proof of god.
Pro tip: sun is sun. God is god. God isnt sun.

>scientifically proven
pwnd

It is 50/50 chance at first: yes or no.
Then there is all the perfect variables that make up life and the ecosystem on earth. According to math, there is most likely a God.
Gotta go to class cant take uour giftcard roght now, but I recommend that you look more into God and math stuff. Also Jesus was on earth and did stuff even magicians couldnt do, so.

"scientifically proven" is for idiots like you.
Reputable companies use phrases like
>supported by science
>scientifically shown

That's the whole point. If there is Sun, then God exists for all cases where Sun=God. QED. It's a demonstration that the concept of God and our difficulties with it aren't metaphysical but linguistic.

god is nonexistent becuase an excuse for the mystery the universe is does not all fall under the creation of an unknown higher force spirit. fake and gay.

I think there is a lot more history behind the story of God than just what the Bible tells us. The Bible only tell us about the beginning of man. God already existed long before he created man, so there's no knowing how he became god. I definitely believe in him, though. I definitely believe that he somehow obtained all of the power that he has and then created man. I don't really know why he created man though. I suppose it was out of amusement? Maybe he obtained his powers and then wanted to be worshipped? I don't know. But he created us, and we messed it all up. We were created with good intentions, and then we messed up.

I can't really persuade you to believe, I just feel like there is a higher power who somehow obtained all of his power loooooong before he created decided to create humans, or a habitable environment for us. Maybe we were just like, pets for him. But pets he could love that were on his level, since he created us in his image. There's a backstory behind how he god his power, and we will never know it. Maybe the secret will be revealed once we're in heaven. Maybe then he will tell us how he came to power, and the real history of the universe, and why he created humans.

there r no problems. We dont define sun to be a god. We know what sun is. We dont need to call it "somebody back then didnt know"

God exists because you acknowledge god's existence.

>i dont believe in god
Therefore, god exists whether he/she is real or not.

o\

>believes christians invented story of god

Please stop trying to discuss logic, theology, epistemology, and linguistics if you are too stupid and uneducated to understand what's being written. Thanks.

not sure if I can believe there is a man in the sky but I am willing to accept that their is some things in this life that I won't understand

fundamental principle of science is reproducible results, not that u cant prove anything. U cant prove god exists, so u think nothing can be proven

>wanted to be worshipped
>good intentions
pick one

If this debate involves any known religion you're doing it it wrong. Religion doesn't p I've or disprove God, religion just says "in the possible case that God is real, we assume he wants us to behave a certain way so we dedicate our lives to that made up cause without any justification whatsoever".

stop trying to worship a ball of plasma, u massive retard. Thanks.

Do you really need God to explain anything though?

He's right even if he has bad grammar. He's saying that if the Egyptians knew the true nature of the sun, they wouldn't have called it God. It was ignorance that led them to the creation of god belief.

Nothing can be scientifically PROVEN
Science can support, or refute a hypothesis.
That's the point.
You STILL can't say smoking causes cancer.
There is a link, but it can't be PROVEN.

Maybe there was a war. A celestial war, and god was like, a general or something. I the Bible, he encouraged war, and destruction of his enemies. Maybe he came out victorious in that battle and then obtained final, and complete control of celestial powers, and then he became the most powerful being in the universe. Like, he came out on top, and he turned his faithful captains, and those fought in his army, he turned them into immortal angels to serve him forever. And his son, maybe his son fought in the war, too, and that was Jesus, because Jesus was with god during the creation of mankind. Maybe that's how he became god. It was the ultimate battle. And god won the battle, and somehow, he obtained infinite power, and eternal life.

Keep in mind that you're not talking about the limitations of humans, you're talking about someone who created humans, and everything on Earth. There has to be a backstory.

All of that is beside the point. The proof of God given is perfectly logical in the actual symbolic logic sense rather than the "idiot Dunning-Kruger common sense" logic the uneducated mouth-breathers in here mean. It shows that a proof for God is easy to produce given certain conditions, and that those conditions are LINGUISTIC rather than metaphysical.

please jump out of a 10 story window to test the link between gravity and failing to your death

You literally cannot even conclude that a shotgun blast to the head was the cause of death scientifically.
>death as a result of injuries consistent with a shotgun blast to the face
There is a reason this type of language is used

You're missing the point.
My death would SUPPORT the theory of gravity, NOT PROVE it.

You can play your pedantic definition game with any abstract concept and it will always get you nowhere. There's no substance to anything you're saying.

no, u cuck. Tobacco companies discard the claim, cuz its not experimentally tested. U take 2 populations - smokers and non-smokers and look at the differences. Thats the best it can be done, cuz its immoral, to select 2 populations and have 1 start to smoke.
Those r proofs. Truth can be scientifically proven.

Please leave thinking to the grown-ups.

No. It can't.
You're either a moron who never paid attention in science class, or a middle schooler that hasn't learned the scientific method.

Absolute proofs exist only in mathematics.

all that "support" nonsense is to leave room for more information. It SUPPORTS the MODEL gravity, cuz thats what we can observe so far. Even if we discover invisible elves pulling ethereal magical strings, the model is still proven to work

I was going to tell him this but I didn't want to open THAT can of worms.
This guy never fully grasped long division, user.

oh, like the formula for gravitational pull?

check em

There's as much evidence for god being real as there is for any other explanation for human consciousness.

god was just an attention whore.
and originally god created men cos he was bored.What a fucking asshole(also heaven must be great shit if he himself got bored of it)

I completely agree with you aside from your use of the word "proven."
Seriously, the WHOLE point of science is to question EVERYTHING.
Even scientific conclusions.
How the FUCK can science prove anything when you are to question scientific "proof?"
THAT'S science dipshit!

That's physics you donkey

Nice, also check em

yeah - leaving room for more info

Physics is directly based on mathematics.
I'm not him, and I understand what you mean, but physics is basically the study of applying math to the observable world.
>Using the only constant frame of reference we have to describe what we can observe.
Physics is the closest thing to mathematically provable.
Statistics are bullshit, so fuck you if you mean to argue statistics.

Take a look at any object near you. It is comprised of atoms which have existed in some form for longer than science can determine; the law of conservation of mass or energy or something essentially states that mass and energy can change forms, but that the aggregate amount in existence is always the same.


Where did this matter come from? Where did any matter or energy come from? Why does anything exist instead of nothing?

AT SOME POINT, SOMETHING MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED OUT OF NOTHING.

what/whoever is responsible for that must be a god.

If I win donate the $100 to a charity which feeds poor people

It is impossible to disprove the possibility that god created false evidence of him not existing, so any evidence against the existence of god could easily be evidence for the existence of God. Of course God would have to be outside the laws of the universe for this to happen, so it's safe to assume that if any God or Gods do exist, they will be outside of the existing universe.

Also free will is an illusion, because the universe is always equivalent to itself, so there are no alternate futures, just one premeditated constant one.

Well, he's god, and he has the power to create life. So why not create life? It's not like he's on Earth hitting up the hot scenes. In fact, he never actually left heaven. Technically, when man sinned, he depressed man from heaven, which was the garden of Eden. Adam and Eve lived in the garden of everything, and then Eve messed up, made Adam mess up, and then god kicked humans out, and took the garden a.k.a. heaven, away.

The original plan was that he was going to co exist with us for all eternity.

>leave room for more info
means
>leave room to claim you never claimed A was PROVEN when it turns out to actually be B

Sperated man from heaven* I really need to proof read.

>God is infallible.
>He changed his mind.
He's fake.

No one can prove that there's an entity known as God, but no one can prove that there isn't. Why bother trying?

Sure, but this does not mean we get to create mathematical proof that falling off a building will kill you. Just saying because this was discussed above.

>Sperated man from heaven* I really need to proof read.
Verily.

search for the word "Aquinas" in thread
not found
Sup Forums is full of uneducated adolescents

look, OP, the idea of the First Mover (google it yourself) is perfectly rational and impossible to refute. keep your chump change.

That doesn't prove that there's a God. Just a force or something that unleashed an explosion.

He is still right though. Hiding behind buzzwords is not how a debate should be. And quoting your philosophy teacher and putting his affirmation on a pedestal without any explanation or rebuttal to something as simple as "they didnt know that the sun wasnt god so the called him god and attributed godly roles to him" other than calling him an asshat makes you the idiot in this story.

You should watch that pic you posted, because it sure is related

Everything in the world has balance. Life and death. Good and evil. Light and dark.

Now, let's take the first law of thermodynamics. All of you fags know this already, and it's basically the fact that matter can't be created, nor destroyed.

So, when we die... we certainly won't just cease to exist; that's some nihilist bullshit right there. Our consciousness will transfer to another plane of existence. If not that, it'll probably get reincarnated.

Of course, consciousness is a concept we don't understand. It's something that's incomprehensible to us humans, so understanding its mechanics through science and whatnot is fuckin' useless as shit. (That's why Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah really activate my almonds. If you're the pot, how the fuck do you understand the potter?)

And that's why–to retain the balance of the world– there's a physical, and a "non-physical." And that non-physical aspect of our existence include the things we fail to fathom through our human perception. God, consciousness, a state of a timeless existence that preceded the Big Bang, etc.)

>b-b-b-but you're just saying that the individual, soulless atoms and molecules of my brain make up my consciousness, and that if I'm dead, it's gonna leave the lifeless, dead carcass of my body.

Again, pot analogy. if a pot had a fucking brain, it can definitely comprehend its parts: the handle, the lid, the markings, etc.

but how it was molded? how tf will it kno that tho

Of course not, but as a former mathfag (i was a math major before I got kicked out for taking too many classes unrelated to my major) I had to point out that physics is the closest thing to "real" science.
"Provable" science doesn't exist, but there are branches of science I trust more than others.
>Psychology vs Psychiatry
>Geology vs Geography
>Chemistry vs Chronacity (or whatever the fuck they call analyzing history and directly predicting the future based on it)

St Thomas Aquinas' proof for the existence of God
>That doesn't prove there's a god
Derp. Yes, it does. It doesn't prove the God of the Bible is God, or that God is some anthropomorphic beardy. It simply proves that there is something outside the space-time continuum that kick starts the whole she-bang, and Aquinas says, we call that thing God.

Wait do you mean Christian God, or any deity? Because the Bible is written by man, and therefore could simply be complete bullshit even if the God they are referring to is real.

You cannot absolutely prove anything outside of mathematics because you rely on data to define what you are attempting to prove, like Newton did when measuring the gravitational attraction between two large masses. This process of collecting data will always have uncertainty, and therefore there will always be a small chance that all the data you took are outliers, and the model you extrapolated from this is false. But we can still use the modern laws of physics because they are models with the greatest predictive capabilities.

If any deity with power over the workings of the universe exists, there will also always be a chance that what we believe to be a law of the universe is in fact this deity messing with the universe as he sees fit. It is impossible to disprove this possibility.

I say we don't call that thing god.
What now?

Whats a god for you

Ooooh. Checkmate.

You, I like.

Definition of God is that he is all-powerful. He can make himself 100% undetectable by human science and logic.

Not sciencey enough for you? Okay, well how about the theory that our universe is a simulation? More and more people in the scientific community are beginning to acknowledge a strong probability that this is the case. A simulation created by a super-advanced alien race perhaps. If that were true, the specific alien or conscious collective of alien intelligence would be the closest thing to "God" we could have. They would be the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. The creator of our universe, and possibly countless others as well.


I'll get my burner email address ready so you can send me that giftcard.

yeah but he made us his little bitches only there for his amusement and whoever he doesn't like shall burn in hell! even humans aren't that evil

We recognize that you are wrong, since that is exactly what people have always said about God: that he transcends Nature and is the Creator. You can say, well, I choose to call that thing "unnameable force," but even there, you're simply echoing the Jews' old proscription against naming Yahweh.

Then again you're depending on the definition you give to God. I assumed that OP was refering to the cristian God. And as I said, the First Mover only says that it has to be something that originated the explosion and everything else. We don't know anything about that, it may've been a huge, universe-sized black hole collapsing on itself. You're not proving anything.

Well, if the universe is a simulation, we already know the size of one pixel

No. Because I call that thing "as of yet undefined."
We will define it, just like we did with the higgs field.
Unfortunately you and I will likely never know this secret, but it will be discovered if humans are afforded another 50,000 years to evolve

No that is a partial list of qualities, God is also said to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, something close to God is not the same as God.

No, we call that thing energy.

The early events in our universe are described as seeding and follow a process similar to what we'd expect if reality was being simulated by a predetermined set of rules. Laws of physics, mathematical constants etc. also suggest certain states are 'written' into reality. At that point you can only really assume that some conscious design went into the formation of the universe, even everything afterwards is the result of random events and chaos.

I reckon we're living in a simulation. It'd only need to be advanced enough to fool the 'people' in it that they're living I reality, it wouldn't even need to simulate the entire universe.

>
>something close to God is not the same as God.
My nigga

Science teaches us that things naturally trend toward entropy (disorder)

How then would a big bang be capable of becoming more organized as time goes on, as it has? Consider the tremendous amount of heat and energy generated by the big bang- we're not even talking about atoms or subatomic particles or even quarks. Yet they magically coalesced neatly into protons, electrons, neutrons, and then atoms. Then these elements naturally form together and create planets and stars. Friendly reminder that science dictates that entropy is the order of the universe, and we've already done a tremendous amount of organization (which goes directly against thermodynamics.)

Now let's skip past billions of billions of years, where we have our planet and our sun in an intricate exact balance which allows for life. Let's consider proteins. Proteins are hundreds of amino acids in length. And they have to be in the exact correct conformation, otherwise they don't work for any biological purpose. Say there is a protein which is 200 AA in length. Now there are "20" amino acids (there are actually more but we're keeping it simple.) In each of the different 200 AA slots, you could have any of the 20 AA. Let's say it take 1 second to swap out an amino acid- to generate that protein by random chance, it would take 200 to the 20th power seconds to generate this protein by chance (which is what the circumstances without intelligent design would dictate.) This would be 3.3250127e+39 YEARS. That's to generate 1 (ONE) protein. And it takes way longer than 1 second to swap out an amino acid. There are thousand upon thousands of proteins, each has to in the exact correct conformation or it's fucking useless. If we're missing 1 protein, life on earth as we know it doesn't exist.

So I mean you can chalk all that up to random chance, defying science's founding principles, or you can just admit you've been a fedora wearing teen and there may be something directing this mess.

You actually failed to understand the concept of the First Mover, though, since you're attributing the emergence of this universe (from the Big Bang) to a natural phenomena that precedes it, thus not getting back to a First Mover at all, since you've only kicked the can back to another universe that would have needed a First Mover. You may think you can do that indefinitely, but it doesn't work. Eventually you have to get to an uncaused cause or nothing whatsoever would be in motion.

You misunderstand the terms if you think somehow in the endless study of Nature you can get outside Nature.

Your reply is too dumb to respond to.

Larger particles have lower energies per unit of weight than smaller faster ones. The formation of atoms and molecules is entropy, not the universe becoming more ordered.

No you don't. It does work.

I only read up until
>how then would... as time goes on, as it has.
How fucking arrogant are you that you think the data we are privy to represents at ALL the entire story?
The observable universe may only be 1/1000000000000000 of the whole thing, and you're telling me that you know the behavior of the matter at the edges of the universe?

OP, spend your money. This is getting too dumb to bare.

And yet....

You're making Sup Forums great again user, an hero brah

It actually doesn't.
Interestingly, when Georges Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang theory, he was attacked by materialists like Einstein as a Creationist, because they believed the universe must have always existed. He was proved right, of course, and the fundamentalist atheists who claimed the universe had always been were shown to be close-minded.
Obviously, atheists are free to posit a universe they've never seen or observed or have any evidence for at all as the explanation for this one; but that hardly puts them on firmer ground that theists.

This is a complete waste of time because no one can PROVE* that God exists, only make theorical assumptions. This is going nowhere.


*You can't prove that God doesn't exist, tho.

I'm only speaking within the confines that atheists necessarily have to impose upon themselves.


>The observable universe may only be 1/1000000000000000 of the whole thing, and you're telling me that you know the behavior of the matter at the edges of the universe?
Nope, that's what atheist's do. All I'm saying is that it's extraordinarily unlikely that it happened by chance alone, and we'll never understand how God did it but to disregard science based on the 1/100000000000th portion of information which is observable is even dumber than suggesting that there is some guiding force behind our existence, which we can call God.

God is not nature.
Wtf are you saying?
Just because a concept is lightyears ahead of us
>go back to 1860 with a gameboy color
doesn't mean it is god.
Whatever existed before the big bang was not the beginning. There was a beginning before that. This shit had no original beginning. It is the graph of y=1
Forever forward and back

If only you had even a pinhead of evidence.

No cash for you. No cash for anyone.

Your god is fiction. Every other god is fiction.

That is exactly what potential energy is, though.

I'm not a atheist. I'm a nihilist. I'm saying that you will not succeed proving God's existence by any means, there's always a rebatable point.

I don't want your $100; I Just want to point out you are not asking for proof, just that there is a chance. There is a chance that the universe was created by weird omnipotent Jewish god; it may be an extraordinarily low chance but the potential does exist. Just like there is a chance that it was created by some dumb elephant god from India or whatever silly shit they believe. 1 in a trillion is still a chance.

I agree with this man.