Let’s discuss the existence of a God

Let’s discuss the existence of a God.
I personally believe we have an unknown entity that created the universe for a purpose, I also believe they’re has to be something after death, and that something is all of us most likely burning in hell because the majority of shit we post on here might just be justified for our misery for all of existence. What do you believe in?

...

>No one can prove the existence of god
>No one can disprove the existence of god

I agree

This image is nonsense, of course.
Atheists actually say that no-one HAS proved the existence of god. Not the same thing.
The whole "if you can't disprove it, it's real" is a classic logical fallacy.

Anyway, I don't believe in god.
I don't believe in an afterlife and I don't believe in hell.
This is it. Fill your boots, enjoy life.
Oh, and I believe that anyone else can believe whatever they want so long as it doesn't affect me or anyone else.

I believe in all sorts of things, but gods and afterlifes aren't among them.

>that pic
>not realising that disproving something requires that thing to first be proven

that movie sucked nigger dicks

what....no it doesnt you fucking moron

that guy is so hot. i would commit so many sins with him.

bait/10

but really, what happened to falsifiability? what happened to measurability? its 2018 and we still have this tea kettle shit.

this statement is 100 percent true. moving on.

God is a spider.
We're all just inside her.

i think this kind of shit just has a larger forum is all. i don't think its anymore prevalent than it was in say, 2007

I personally don't believe in god, and i'm 100% certain about my views, but i definitely wish i could believe.

burn god?

Prove that no unidentified species exist on Earth.

the argument that you can't prove that god isn't real is completely idiotic. You can't prove unicorns aren't real so therefore they are real? I rest my case

But remember the burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim

This

The issue with 99% of arguments against God is that they are based upon the characteristics and dogma associated with the Abrahamic concept of God.

Why can't God exist without afterlifes like Heaven or Hell? Why can't God exist without the human soul existing? Why can't God exist in a non omniscient form? Why can't God exist within existence itself?

It seems to me that the modern debate isn't against God as much as it is against organized religion.

It fails to take into account the thousands of years of philosophy that has nothing to do with Abraham's God. For example, the work of Spinoza. Or animism. It lacks the imagination to include theoretical science like parallel universes, alternate realities, or higher dimensions.

It is flawed and based upon hubris.

what did god ever do to you?

I believe we were created, but not by a religious God. Fuck religion.

How does God exist?
>he has always existed, that's the point
If something exists, and it does, then at which point did it begin to exist? Or has it always been existing since something can't emerge from nothing?

Your God argument is only possible at the moment because we don't have a more intelligent species to compare religions and beliefs. Maybe the way we evolved through dominance hierarchies has created a predisposition in Humans to obey and imagine universal rules from an almighty person. Aliens may have evolved differently as well, relying on other methods of reproduction causing a completely different mindset about religion, if any.

If you can't prove it exists, it doesn't exist. That what "exists" means.

The best proof that God does not exist is that we can all feel His absence.

If you can never detect it, it doesn't exist

But can you prove he doesn't exist? Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence; you can scoop a cup of water out of the ocean, and since you didn't catch any fish, then you could say that fish don't live in the ocean, evident by your little cup.

Holy shit, give this guy an award for dumbest fuck in the land.

Does God inhabit higher dimensions than our three? Do other dimensions even exist? If he does, than directly detecting him may be impossible, but indirectly detecting the effects of his existence may be possible.

But am I wrong? Can you disprove God instead of throwing a tantrum and insulting me?

Youre right, we are created when our respective mothers and fathers had sex

That's false. Just because it doesn't exist to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all

believing in things that aren't real is stupid

SIT DOWN BESIDE HER LIKE A SPIDER, HI THERE GIRL YOU MIGHT-A HEARD OF ME BEFORE. SEE, WHORE, YOU'RE THE KIND GIRL THAT I'D- A-SSAULT AND RAPE AND FIGURE WHY NOT MAKE YA' PUSSY WIDA'? FUCK YOU WITH AN UMBRELLA AND OPEN IT UP WHILE THE SHIT'S INSIDE YA'.

that we were created by some sort of quirk of existence, a particle that only exists for a short time that appears only long enough to manifest a second nature, that nature is from nothing, but the particle that derives all things is god, a thing of only a miniscule instance of what it is, like to us being a blip in the scale of things, that an alignment makes itself available to manufacture the powers of creation on only but a faint probable chance, that in its enumeration of all things there is the counter to which we were created out of a primal source that was absolute and complete, and infallible, so too then are the implements of its design, or so to then are those in its image, made into that procedural shift in reality or some shit...i guess its possible if only it would make hardly any sense.

>I personally believe
is a phrase that can be followed by absolutely anything.
Scientists never use the phrase "I believe..." or "I think..." but they do say "It seems to me that..." after which they have to answer why.
"How do you know?" is the question asked for facts. The social glue function of religious belief is not to be conflated with facts.

People be like, "Do you believe in aliens?"
Christians reply with, "No because I've never seen one"
Hold the fuck up. Anyone else see the issue with this statement?

to be fair, that goes both ways. the majority of atheists believe there is extraterrestrial life out there

>USA leads the world in adults who believe in angels
>the only people who have seen any are schizophrenic
stupid flat earther thread

No, you're wrong.

True true. But atheists don't go spewing shit about how you can feel the aliens in your soul...

Satan has spoken!

good Christ shut your ass up

You can prove Jesus didn't exist. A fictional Jesus means the God of Christianity/Islam doesn't exist.

>no-one can disprove what isn’t provable

Nice logic

"Disproving" is a logical fallacy. You can only prove alternative things that did happen instead, but you can never straight up prove non-existence.

For instance: Someone claims I went to bed at 11pm yesterday. I prove That I was here, shitposting well past 11pm yesterday. What happened there is that I proved something else happened, which then disproves the first claim. I did not directly disprove anything, just offered an alternate proof.

If someone claims God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, someone counters by proving it is much older than that. It doesn't disprove God, it just proves an alternate claim in which the original claim cannot co-exist.

This is something that really bugs me about people who try to force creationism in schools. It's fine to believe that God is the source of everything and to alter religious teachings based on new scientific discoveries. It's fine to just say "God also created the dinosaurs millions of years ago, but it is still humans who were created for the sole purpose of inheriting the Earth." God as an entity cannot be directly diproven. But to teach that in schools is fucking absurd because it also cannot be proven in any sense. Same with atheism, or any religion. That's why it isn't fucking taught in schools (aside from historical existence and impact on cultures). It's completely inappropriate to introduce it as an addendum to science. That shit should be taught at home, the state isn't a proxy parent for specific families' idiosyncratic religious beliefs.

>beliefs
For me, I guess I'd have to say agnostic. Raised Catholic but I can't stand any of the trappings of organized religions. Believing in God is fine, I get that people do and why, but not the whole "oh and also wear these clothes and don't eat those foods on certain days." That's all communities enforcing standards for given time periods. Plus, idk, God was never a question that begged an answer for me. Just, doesn't matter.

Christians are already familiar with the Moses/Jesus typology of the book of Matt, Google "Jesus the new Moses" for more on that. What Christians don't realize is that where the Moses/Jesus typology ends, at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, the Jesus/Titus typology begins. Every single event in Jesus' ministry is a darkly comic version of events described in "wars." A SEQUENCE of more than 2 dozen parallels between the two works.

A few examples in sequence:
Jesus, at the shores of the sea of Galilee, calls men to follow him and become "fishers/catchers of men."

Titus, at the shores of the sea of Galilee, defeats rebels led by a Jesus, calls his men to follow him and spear/catch defeated rebels still floating in the lake, thus turning his men into literal fishers/catchers of men.

Jesus travels to Gadara and encounters a legion of demons who possess a man. Jesus commands the demons into a heard of swine who rush down a steep hill and drown in the Jordan.

Titus' army travels to Gadara and encounters a legion of rebels (Josephus refers to their leader as a demon who infected his men.) With expert command of foot and horse the rebels are forced down a steep hill where they tumble into the Jordan and drown.

Jesus, son of a Mary, in Jerusalem, at passover, tells his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood. A human passover lamb.

A starving mother named Mary, in Jerusalem, at passover, slays her son, roasts and eats half of him. A human passover lamb

Outside Jerusalem Jesus and two others are crucified. Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate and is granted permission to let Jesus' body down from the cross. Jesus survives.

Outside Jerusalem Josephus bar Mathias (notice similarity in names) sees three of his former friends on crosses, with tears in his eyes goes to Titus who orders they be let down. One of them survives.

This typology on its own is more than enough evidence to say without any doubt Jesus was created by the Flavians, but there's a lot more. There are a number of literary puzzles that offer more proof (the puzzle of the empty tomb, the puzzle of Decius Mundus, etc...) There is also another sequence of parallels between Paul's letters and Tacitus' "annals."

Also the influence the Flavians had in the early church. The first non-fictional pope was a Flavian. The first Christian catacombs were financed by a Flavian (sister or niece of Domitian, Domitilla,) who incidentally is also a saint.

There is also the absolute lack of any evidence of Christians anywhere in the empire prior to 70AD, no inscriptions, no art, no grave markings, no carved symbols, no writings, no comments by any historians, no churches, absolutely nothing. At the end of the Flavian dynasty, 25 years later, we find all of those, in every single province of the empire. Only one group had the ability to do that. Only one group wouldn't have been killed for trying to do that. That group was the Flavians and their allies.

So is claiming to know the answer to an unanswerable question

>implying those religions could last for as long as they have on a lie.

That gives WAY too much credit to those religions other aspects.

There was definitely a man from nazareth named Jesus, and he definitely had a mission. His miracles are bs, and his life was political rather than spiritual.

But the man existed

there's a difference between believing in the likelihood that there's extraterrestrial intelligence and believing that a god factually exists.

argumentum ad ignorantiam

No, the evidence clearly shows he was an invention of the Flavian emperors. A cruel joke on whoever would be gullible enough to believe in him.

are you open to the possibility that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster? he watches over you, because he loves you

Stephen Hawking proposes that no conscious entity could have created the universe because time didn't exist before the universe was created and therefore no entity could have existed before the universe began. So, God is impossible unless you claim that God can exist outside of time, but then you'd have to start making up a whole bunch of other crazy shit so that that made sense. Anyway, God is definitely just a crutch. It's an idea used to explain the unexplainable. But we're starting to be able to explain most of it, so God isn't really necessary anymore.

no one can prove ANY god wrong
does that mean they ALL exist?

Read a book nigger. Plenty of secular historians are agreed on the existence of the man. Not the miracles

Its not my job to disprove your claim you dimwitted fucknut. Youre making the claim so YOU have to back it up...this is grade 1 shit here, why is this so tough for people

Our universe is the result of natural physical phenomena and we do not need to invoke the whims of a supernatural entity to explain our existence. The existence of a magical sky daddy is wishful thinking because we're alone, afraid, insecure and uncomfortable. We don't want to accept the fact we're mortal so we delude ourselves into believing there's a place we go when we die - but we don't like to think about it too much and get super-offended when anyone else brings it up because deep down we know it's bullshit.

Those historians simply havn't considered all the evidence. They're just wrong.

There are plenty of secular scientists who don't believe in global warming.
That doesn't make them right,

>evidence
source?

First of all, about afterlife or life after death. There is no way of knowing there is anything beyond death, and science and biology show us that our cognitive being is the result of our (brain)cells working together to act as a whole. If they stop working, our cognitive being physically stops existing, and there has been no real proof that there is anything other than our material world for us to exist in. This is why I believe death is the end for us as an individual, and we return to the same state as we were before we were conceived.
Secondly, about God. What is God? If it is the entirety of the universe and it's laws that dictates how all matter behaves and how physics work, the driving force behind everything that exists, then yes, God exists. However, seeing God as an individual entity that created the universe by its' own will, seems far less likely to be true, since there is no empirical evidence of something like that existing, except we, as simple primates, not being able to conceive a universe existing without such a being. Even less likely seems that such a powerful cosmic being would concern itself with what we do with our daily lives.
I think religion is very important in it's way to guide people how to ive their lives, but it isn't about knowing the truth of how the universe works. That's science's job.

Kek.

You actually believe that Christianity and Islam can exist for as long as they have on a falsehood.

You my friend have more faith in those religions that those that actually practice those religions.

see

>implying Jesu Christo’s existence js the same as hard science

Nein

Why would anyone live their life revolving around something you can't prove? That's stupid.

That wasn't the implication.
The implication was that some historians believing in him doesn't make it more likely.

OF course they exist on falsehoods, even if you think a non-magical Jesus existed.

The image isn't a fallacy at all. The whole point is that the burden of proof is upon the side trying to convince the other side. If I'm a theist and I go to an atheist and say God is real, then it's my job to prove to him God is real. If I'm a theist and an atheist comes to me and says your bible is a bunch of bullshit, then the burden of proof is on him to prove it's bullshit and that my God is not real.

Test.

>No one can disprove the existence of santa either.

I believe in santa clauss

I'm not claiming God exists at all, because I can't prove or disprove he exists. I'm asking if you can disprove that he exists, because you claim he doesn't exist.

Here’s my views on god/religion. I think they’re pretty reasonable. What do you guys think?

>Everything in the universe exists, and it must’ve gotten here sometime. The thing that created everything is god. This doesn’t mean that god is a being or a force, just that everything exists somehow and God is the name we give the creator.

>Everyone will find out what life after death is eventually, but in this world there’s no way to tell if the afterlife exists or what it’s like so we might as well just wait.

>Jesus Christ existed, but we don’t know if he’s divine or not.

I'm going where there's no depression
To the lovely land that's free from care
I'll leave this world of toil and trouble
My home's in Heaven, I'm going there

Time didn't exist before the universe began. Time and space are the framework required for mass to exist. As far as we know, a conscious entity needs time, space and mass for it to exist. None of these things could have existed before the universe began, so nothing could have created the universe. So there is no god.

>believing in him
>write 3 books detailing evidence

>belief

>it must’ve gotten here sometime
What if the Universe just is? No creation it'a lways been here

The second thing assumes that there is a life after death.

No-one said that retard. Check your reading comprehension and go back to the your nuAtheist church, not-church

I’m pretty sure that I’m already dead and everything is just a program running in a machine that I exist inside of

If time didn't exist before the universe began, how did the universe begin? The word "before" is a word that can only have ANY meaning if time exists. Thus if there's such a thing as before and after then time existed during both periods.

Explore all corners of the Earth and we will know.
Frankly it's just as possible that some sort of god exists as it is that it doesn't. We were created somehow, something had to start somehow, and every possibility is frankly just as likely.
If we were to create an organism that eventually become sentient, would we not be gods ourselves?

That quote does describe me on the subject: I do not believe in God as I never saw him in person but if he suddenly appears in front of me and prove that he is God, I would believe

In that bright land there'll be no hunger
No orphan children crying for bread
No weeping widows toil and struggle
No shrouds, no coffins, and no dead

>Let’s discuss the existence of a God.
Please do some acid and grow up.

He won't appear. You can stop worrying about it.

That’s a good idea. Maybe there are some things that just are and our brains can’t grasp that some things aren’t made. In that case, would the natural laws and the way this universe works be called god? Is god nature? Is god time? Is god space? Is god all of those things? And in the second one I meant that well all experience death sometime. I don’t believe in life after death but some part of me really wants to.

Its very easy to make a feasible deistic argument that no one will have a problem with. Theism is where the problem lies. A positive claim does require proof, but if your positive claim is that there is a power that created the universe and that power doesn’t claim to want anything from me, then all you’ll get from me and everyone else is a rul big shrug.

Kind of stupid calling laws "god". Well that's what the greeks and Romans did anyway.

Prove there isnt a pink unicorn under my couch.

> well i looked under there i didnt see it

He doesnt like to be mocked by those who seek only to disprove his existence, he only appears to true believers.

Religion is this plus time, minus money.

Why does theism or "god" require understanding or proof? Y'all would despise William James and pragmatism.

The success of a belief doesn’t prove anything about the truth of a belief. Bernstein Bears, bro.

lulz at this shit

If you’re going to propose that something exists you’d better damn well have evidence for it, or else by default it doesn’t exist. The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion, dumbass.

Because a theistic god makes claims that affect the way people live their lives in extraordinary ways. If you claim your god wants me to stone gays, you need to prove your claim that your god exists before I start throwing rocks at dudes.

Not at all. The bible is making an assertion. The atheist says that assertion is bullshit. The burden of proof isn't on whoever instigated the conversation, which is what you seem to believe.

Conversely if you just say a god exists that created everything, full stop, I don’t give a shit. Until that god you claim starts asking for shit.

Belief means nothing without evidence to warrant belief in the first place. Convenient coincidences, wrongly-labelled "miracles" are in no way evidence to warrant belief in a deity. I'm not atheist, I'm neutral on the matter, my life revolves around acquiring knowledge, deducing truths and casting aside fictions from it, new knowledge leads to finer descriptions of what truth is. Frankly, there is no defining evidence, so one can aptly assume there is no God until it elects to present itself or we advance far enough to actually see such things. Miracles are not conclusive or even repeatable forms of evidence. If there were a God, it was most likely destroyed upon the creation of the universe, it's entire being making up what we know as the cosmos.

but the only reason they claim bullshit is because you failed to provide sufficient evidence for the initial claim. If I make a claim, and you say there's no evidence and it's therefore bullshit, then the burden of proof doesn't suddenly change because someone calls you out on your unfounded claim. An atheist saying your evidence for god is insufficient is different from an atheist saying your god definitively does not exist. An atheist is just someone who does not see the proper evidence for the existence of a god.

We have no reason to believe God exists, least of all in the way any contemporary religion implies. Why is this even a discussion? I have a book that says spider-man is real. Someone start a thread debating the validity of my book.