God is the greatest being in existence

>God is the greatest being in existence.
>Therefore, God exists.
Everyone needs a sense of security greater than them. Itt we pick something to pray to and write prayers to it. Even Andy Sixx

Attached: tmp_9713-descarte2087199555.jpg (243x290, 20K)

Andy Sixx is already my Lord and savior, and I pray to him every night that I may be blessed with the gift of his creamy, steamy, dreamy goodness and the gift of everlasting log.

Attached: 1514019106883.jpg (960x639, 371K)

Most handsome Fab-God,
We ask humbly that you eat fiber.
Giveth us your logs, we humble frogs,
So that we may troll idiot threads with them.
Let us go forward, ironically, in your name.
Amen.

I just blew your Lord's prayer out of the whole lake.

Tell me how worshipping someone who doesn't even know you works out.

...Andy Sixx meme is a parody of Trump, isn't it Sup Forums? Lol, same number of syllables in the full name, a fetish of scat / islamophobia. I'm a genius, AMA

Can't be worse than worshiping something that doesn't exist.

Joe Pesci.

How can God not exist?

When God doesn't exist.

>Godfather
>Give me the strength and tenacity of an ant
>That may intimidate, throw, and carry the corpse of an antagonist 10x my size
>And summon a horde of similar fellas that act as my personal army
>Pal

God by Descartian definition is the greatest being IN EXISTENCE, Darwin.

Or Cartesian rather.

So if we agree that Andy Sixx is God, what's the point of asking how worshiping him will work out?

funny. praying to false idols ultimately makesone pray to god even if you prey to satan. this makes god really angry i believe. since now he has to deal with that bullshit

Pray to the true god by letting his log slide down your throat.

It's up to fate, unfortunately my faithless anons

If you have a higher power, they'll see through that nonsense.

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't have faith in his creamy, dreamy treat.

why should i swallow gods Protocoll if i can speak it out
what do you mean?

Yeah lol

>why should i swallow gods Protocoll if i can speak it out
It's a holy act of communion.

Idk, I didn't read your entire comment

you mean the catholic practice that is so far off the essence of baptizing like throwing a rock at glass thinking it would not be broken? fuck that shit. constitutional Religion or Chrurch was and always will be the downfall of believing in God

No, I mean the Sixxist practice of intimate familiarity with the one true God by taking part of Him into yourself.

You mean like everyday when i breathe, when i eat, when i drink.

just being Aware of it.

You need to be Aware of his thick log as it spreads open your throat.

the faggot variant. i knew it had something to do with catholicsism

There is great certainty and security that, eventually, all we do will be lost from any form of memory in any being and from any geological memory or energy pattern.

It will be as if we never existed, and hence we will never have existed, therefore we don't exist...we are a transient sore on the backside of the universe.

Now that we know we have nothing, and nothing to lose, there is no need for security.

Fuck your bs game and prayers.

/nuff said

Attached: stewie_by_maniac4526.png (549x654, 42K)

Daily reminder that nihilism is cancer and nihilists should be gassed for their damage to society.

The truth is not damaging, except to a massive structure of lies.

Why not live, knowing nothing is essentially more sacred than anything else...one might find life more precious, knowing that "when it is gone, it is completely gone." Nobody would kill others so they could get their fictional 72 virgin sheep, or sit at the right hand of a nonexistent god,

Try it long enough to feel the power and the peacefulness of the truth.

Using Descartes picture for Anselm's argument. Epic troll.

Fun life you're leading there. Shame you're not really British

dubs ma nubs

at least he didn't try to shove Pascal's Choad down our throats....

Nah Euclid would have been better

Decartes did masturbate on that idea for a while...

from the 'pedia:
The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition[1] was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality. Seventeenth century French philosopher René Descartes deployed a similar argument. Descartes published several variations of his argument, each of which centred on the idea that God's existence is immediately inferable from a "clear and distinct" idea of a supremely perfect being. In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz augmented Descartes' ideas in an attempt to prove that a "supremely perfect" being is a coherent concept. A more recent ontological argument came from Kurt Gödel, who proposed a formal argument for God's existence. Norman Malcolm revived the ontological argument in 1960 when he located a second, stronger ontological argument in Anselm's work; Alvin Plantinga challenged this argument and proposed an alternative, based on modal logic. Attempts have also been made to validate Anselm's proof using an automated theorem prover. Other arguments have been categorised as ontological, including those made by Islamic philosophers Mulla Sadra and Allama Tabatabai.

...so did a lot of other 'smart' people

Ma 'non

Ma 'non