ITT: We argue for why God probably doesn't exist and propose alternatives to the God hypothesis

ITT: We argue for why God probably doesn't exist and propose alternatives to the God hypothesis.

I'll start pastebin.com/XGfzNagT

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Nobel_laureates
youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM
youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tyVdnIU9A
youtube.com/watch?v=dsbj7EN1Uzs
youtube.com/watch?v=_ie9musGEqQ
i.imgur.com/MrZK6un.jpg
earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/spinoza1665.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Russell's Teapot is enough for anyone with a brain.

Muslims and Christians will argue about the color of the teapot while atheists get shit done.

You'd think. Then they pull some shit like "But God is magical and doesn't need to follow logic!!!"

Then you realize they've thrown logic out the window, and there is no point in trying to have a logical conversation with them. You may as well just claim 1=0

...

>while atheists get shit done.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Nobel_laureates
>According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes).[5] Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace,[6] 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics,[6] 62% in Medicine,[6] 54% in Economics[6] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.[6]

>The three primary divisions of Christianity are Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Between 1901 and 2000 it was revealed that among 654 Laureates 31.8% have identified Protestant in its various forms (208 prize),[7] 20.3% were Christians (no information about their denominations; 133 prize),[7] 11.6% have identified as Catholic[7] and 1.6% have identified as Eastern Orthodox.[7] Christians make up over 33.2% of the worlds population [8][9][10][11] and have earned 65.4% of Nobel prizes.[5]

SCIENTS>>reLIEgon confirmed. Get KEKED MOM

Cool. You fags still do the equivalent of arguing about the color of a hypothetical space teapot

What if I accept that such a teapot might exist but still accept that a god might also exist?

You're the one arguing about the hypothetical space teapot, le fedora man. Ironic, since you're not only doing what atheists said they don't do (debate the teapot), but you're also doing nothing valuable with your time; which is just raw hypocrisy.

>win majority if nobel prizes
>still have time to discuss theology

>tfw atheist majority in your lifetime

Feels good

Accepting something on faith isn't the same as evidence it is true. I could accept 1=0

Proof for the resurrection of Jesus:
youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM
youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tyVdnIU9A
Genesis account of creation the closest to real life out of all religious books, presented by an ex-atheist professor:
youtube.com/watch?v=dsbj7EN1Uzs
Save these videos and watch them in your spare time. Very interesting and a pleasure to listen to.

I said "color".

>Christian reading comprehension

Numerous passages in the Bible portray Jesus clearly stating that the Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of his disciples.

>"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

— Matthew 24:34

"This generation" refers to a span of 30-40 years, thus placing the date of the second coming before the deaths of the disciples. C.S. Lewis called this "the most embarrassing verse in the Bible" in The World’s Last Night and Other Essays.

Three more verses explicitly state that some of the people listening to Jesus as he preached would not die before he returned.

>"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

— Matthew 16:28

>"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

— Mark 9:1

>"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

— Luke 9:27

Jesus also told people that "the time is short and they should not get married, not mourn, not be happy, not buy things, and not live "in the world". This again indicates that Jesus himself believed his return to be extremely imminent. (1 Corinthians 7:29-31, 1 Peter 4:7)

Later on, followers began to make up ad-hoc excuses for why it hasn't happened yet. Trying to interpret what Jesus said, that his return was "imminent" and "at hand", as "thousands of years from now". (2 Peter 3)

this shit right here is high school atheist garbage

evil is relative term that is applied to events, persons and things by individuals

atheists are cucks, god is dead, fuck your mother

No, there is no free will in Heaven. There is only God's will.

So you're saying evil doesn't exist?

That contradicts pretty much a theistic religions

based

There is free will in heaven, but everyone in heaven has a good conscience and doesn't commit evil.
There is evil because there is free will. God let man have free will even though it may cause evil because he has the solution of Jesus, and because its what gives us character, soul, and personality.
Turns out the "teapot" is actually very important and the "color" of it is important too. Atheists just say the "teapot" doesn't exist to everyone and think they're smart. They don't get much done either.
"The kingdom of God" means the start and spread of the Catholic Church, not the second coming of Jesus Christ.

>Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil ?

Yes

>Then why did'nt he ?

For lulz , of course.

I already went through this.

By scientific method- and hence solipsism,
You are either God, or God exists.

>There is free will in heaven
>There is evil because there is free will

Nice contradiction, retard

God is all powerful, but not omnibenevolent

Checkmate atheists

...

Now prove he exists

God exists faggots. the why does ebil exist shit is retarded since man makes evil. youtube.com/watch?v=_ie9musGEqQ

If the world has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, then yeah I'd say that 2,000+ years is imminent.

kek

>He doesn't know I'm referencing the teapot argument as a whole

Are you just being stupid on purpose?

First cause can only be explained by an entity that is beyond physical laws

there is no free will in christian heaven. just ''gods'' will. sorry.

Why? Genuinely curious

The teapot argument ends religious debate. No evidence? GTFO

feelin a lil suicidal there?

Read the link in the OP

hah joke's on you. I use that lack of evidence to prove god exists.

...

Not really.

>he thinks you can only be good in the absence of free will
>tfw atheists accept their lack of willpower and tendency towards sin and degeneracy as axiomatic

Cool. All hail Zeus! And FSM

I'll give you a few minutes to figure out the errors in your argument

...

Evil does not exist. All that exists is by nature good as existing is better than not existing. Therefore we are living in the best of all possible worlds.

You're the one that said evil exists because of free will

>mfw people debate metaphysics pertaining to causation and ontology as if it has to do something with desert scrolls that tell you to cut off part of your dick and Judaic doomsday cult fanfiction

well at least one of them exists.

Or I am god.

money back guarantee

>Appeal to Ridicule

In the beginning there was nothing which exploded

How exactly does one prove the truth of scripture? The only substantial debate about God is in the abstract.

Is this bait? Do you actually take that to mean that evil must necessarily exist in the presence of free will? You do realize free will allows good and evil right? Not just create evil.

How does one prove the axioms by which you live and think?

What is "evil"? God can exist, outside of man's understanding of morality. There is no "good" or "bad". Just perceptions.

The difference between logical axioms and scripture is that logical axioms are necessarily true, whereas scripture makes contingent claims which need a substantial body of evidence for their validation.

...

God knows how we can be saved and what actions we must take to do it. But he gives us a choice to be saved or damned. We choose our outcome.

>logical axioms are necessarily true

Necessary for what?

>Implying that evil is a substance
>Implying that free will is not only source of evil
>Implying that All-loving God, who gave as Free Will could in all of his Love ever get free will away from us
>Implying that this cauce wasn't solved >1600 years ago
>1600 years nigga.
>1600 years

I mean, really?

How are they necessarily true?

I did and it did not refute anything I wrote

Sure is reddit in here.

Christianity happens to be the dominant religion in the Whiteosphere

Whiteness is an even better correlate for Nobel Prize winning

this chart proves the atheism autism correlation. there are basically infinite arrows that could be drawn from the bottom 3 boxes in the vertical column in the center, but autists can only conceive of 1 or 2.

The Whitosphere before Christianity was largely indistinguishable from the Niggersphere

LARP-ing snow niggers

existence as atheists conceive it isn't logical.

>out of nothing, something
it's not logical

Please tell me how you calculate probability toward the premise "God does not exist".
Enlighten us with your intelligence.

>Orthodox Russians
>""""""""""""Atheists""""""""""""
WE WUZ

A=A, etc.

Any logical concept of God results in a paradox. Paradox are real. We must accept paradox into our world view if we want to better grasp physics and reality.

this.

...

Indo-Europeans have always kicked ass. Ask the Dravidians, Egyptians, Romans, etc.

Why is this "necessarily true"?

i.imgur.com/MrZK6un.jpg

here is the answer to all of your fedora tipping arguments.
[spoiler]God
doesn't
like
you[/spoiler]
there that is why all of this shit is happening in you life and in others is because God just straight up doesn't like you. The universe makes so much sense with this why was Adam kicked out of the garden? he pissed god off and he didn't like him anymore. Why did God let a huge tsunami hit Indonesia? God doesn't like Indonesians.Why does the Syrian war continue?God doesn't like Syrians and Arabs. Just embrace the truth that God is not a hippie, is not superman, does not fix the world's problems that people could easily fix themselves.

They were largely responsible for destroying "their" own empire by invading it

So much for the Whiteosphere

>Hail Odin, jerk off to anime

Identity statements are necessarily true in first order logic.

In no world is "A=A", where A means the same as A, not true.

Because if the opposite were true, it would be a contradiction.

No, it does not, an all powerful, but not omnibenevolent God does not violate any logic

Why is god necessarily true? There is nothing to prove so. If god exists because we do then why is that necessarily true? What if god is a human creation in the same way the letter A is, that is, a simple defined concept stuck in the abstract

And why is a contradiction a "necessary" indication of something false?

How does a contradiction make something "necessarily" false?

Define "evil".

Now define a theoretical all-knowing, all-powerful god's definition of "evil". His perspective would be in a completely different universe than that of a lowly human. You can't possibly define evil in a meaningful way, so this image is a pretty shitty argument.

Beyond that, God does not need to be all powerful, all knowing, or good. Those are not requirements for a god to exist. To an ant, we would appear as gods, but we are none of the things I listed.

Obviously, you are arguing against a christian idea of god, but that's very narrow-minded. Christians could be totally wrong and god could still exist.

The use of 'probably' here is an artifact of language and cognitive heuristics - the concept of God as often presented is unfalsifiable. There are reasons we don't waste our time on phlogiston and Ahura-Mazda.

Very good read, thank you Burgerbro

Yo dude. Nice discussion we've had yesterday

Let's continue then

Please define "necessary" and then prove the following:

>In no world is "A=A", where A means the same as A, not true.

earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/spinoza1665.pdf

>omnipotent
>can't kill himself and still exist without being paradoxical.

And I agree with you, he doesn't violate it, he merely exists beyond it. He is the definition of a paradox.

All of humans are atheist towards thousands of gods. Why would the god of Abraham be any more true than Thor, Zeus or Anubis?

Likelyhood of god exsisting are just about the same as ghosts exsisting.

been looking for this thanks

This rules out Christianity and modern Judaism, of course, because the depicted nature of God changed because of the influence of Persian religion on Jews after the Exile.

Because it can't even exist conceivably.

You cannot even imagine a square that is also simultaneously a circle by the same measure. You cannot even conceive of an object that is 6 feet long that is simultaneously 4 feet long by the same measure. It's impossible.
It defies all reason and logic. You can reject reason and logic if you want, but if you do that nothing will remain comprehensible to you. This conversation itself would be incoherent.

If God exists it seems he's very cruel.

Existence is utterly miserable for the majority of creatures on this earth.

Because a contradiction is impossible.

Suffering is evil.

The only way you will learn that is if you are forced to suffer, terribly, for a very long time.

>(((Baruch Spinoza)))

The entire point of arguing of the universe having an intelligence behind it is futile considering the nature of a "creator". It's a paradox.
Neither does this give reason to not follow the discipline, tradition, morals, philosophy etc. of any given religion.
You base your entire argument on the assumption that religion serves no purpose beyond simple ritual and superstition.

I know, that's why I brought it up - it's a bad word in this conversation.
"My sensory experience corresponds to real objects" is also an unfalsifiable premise.

but those arguments against are also bullshit.

it says quite outright that arrangement does not exist - nothing created or destroyed, only changing in arrangement.
But that is wrong, because you can define arrangements that at one time exist and at another don't.

And even before this it argues about a continuous flow of time as opposed to discrete steps of change in state.
Yet what is continuous of quark decay?
It simply isn't.

I am fine with them being ruled out, I do not need them to believe in a God

>Why is god necessarily true?

Because without a being such as Him the very idea of truth would be as shaky and inevitably flawed as anything we could ever conceive of by ourselves

>There is nothing to prove so. If god exists because we do then why is that necessarily true? What if god is a human creation in the same way the letter A is, that is, a simple defined concept stuck in the abstract

Proving God is an absurd thing to do in my religion

But I've proved to you right above the epistemological necessity of God