Proof a god-like being exists. Have to be a philosopher ( basically you need the VERBAL-iQ/CREATiViTY of someone genuinely interested in philosophy ) to understand it.
It is 7 pages of confusing seemingly incoherent text, but you atheists kept asking for proof that a god-like being exists, well here it is... so either believe in god through faith, through family, through facts, through fear, or through fate, fucking faggot.
Other urls found in this thread:
You might be interested in
en.wikipedia.org
Lol nigger, i'm honduran and believe firmly that is gay
better than actually fucking little boys and actually being gay.
Wow, who knew you could be told the secrets of the universe and existence for such a low price.
Oh look it's babby's first sophistry.
Daily reminder that proof of a god-like being exists. Read OP.
There will probably never be evidence of a god-like being existing because it's just as likely that being doesn't know we exist or even care.
>What this proof proves exists is an awareness ... aware of an infinitely increasingly large 3D grid of points. Yet that's not what we are aware of, we are aware of something different, an earth in a universe seemingly populated by other conscious beings. How do we resolve these two seemingly contradicting realities?
I do not see these as incompatible with one another.
God is my toilet
My toilet exists
God exists
Q.E.D.
Elaborate.
>There is an awareness that is aware of the ever-expanding universe.
>Yet, we have a different awareness.
Incompatible?
Are all we aware of is literally points and NOTHING ELSE? Or are we aware of things in different configurations?
Read the goddamn pdf idiot, can't believe you made me think you were onto something
quit misparaphrasing what i said and trying to make it seem exactly the same or compatible when it's really not.
>Are all we aware of is literally points and NOTHING ELSE? Or are we aware of things in different configurations?
I hope you proofread this paper.
I read your shitty abstract non-argument and the part where you shill for cash.
I'M EATING A HOT POCKET RIGHT NOW.
Fucking retarded. You're literally begging the question on the first page and then the rest is like you've just learned about zeno's arrow or the cosmological argument or any other PHI 101 shit.
Please don't post this nonsense and then cloak it in "have to be a philosopher"
Fuck you
I laughed hard
OP is genuinely mentally ill. You can tell from the way his post is written.
Argument is also laughable. No matter how many pages of ranting sophistry you can pull up, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural.
how am i begging the question and how am i not proving that a god-like being exists?
For those who are tl;dr
It's basically "Cogito ergo sum" argument with an autistic fear of Zeno's paradox.
you're not showing how the argument is laughable just saying it is.
typical bullshitter, at least up your trolling game please i can't even make myself enjoy bait this bad
Good, then I can move on
Copy & Paste the parts you don't agree with then show me how they're wrong or shut the fuck up before i slit your throat dead fucking se--- ok i'm not serious but please.
If you want feedback on your first attempt at deist apologetics, you could have just asked for it nicely instead of acting like an obnoxious teenager with no self-awareness.
RARE
Not going to copy and paste because that is not my style.
The first problem with this "proof" is that it implicitly assumes that the external universe exists. Thus this "proof" fails to refute the skeptic.
The second problem is that it assumes discreteness of time and length scales, which is there is no empirical evidence of (there is the hypothetical Planck length and Planck time, but it is purely hypothetical). The only purpose of doing this is to avoid Zeno's paradox. This is not really a problem ever since mathematicians started using limits. The argument for existence (existence begins when a#1 is aware of nothingness) is not really different than proving your own existence (Cogito ergo sum: I think therefore I am, Rene Descartes). Which to the skeptic/solipsist only proves that they are the god.
It makes too many assumptions for no reason and doesn't really care about empiricism in the least.
You must have really rustled my jimmies that I'm taking the time to respond to this, so gg.
In your first two paragraphs, your argument is structured like this:
>P1: "What must be the case is that a#1 is making [some phenomenon]"
>P2: "There must also be some [other entity]"
---
>C1: "an awareness [a#1] aware of an infinitely increasingly large 3D grid of points [exists]"
Do you not see how this is begging the question?