GODFAGS BTFO

How does it feel? Thousands of years of delusion crumbling to a few words...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

thats fucking stupid.
you're stupid
>kys

>he doesn't understand faith

How does it feel being 12?

lol shut up nerd

Brexit when?

When the EU lets them :)

>Lives in a country where a known criminal who's been proven as corrupt is running for President
>Thinks he understands politics

This isn't a Pokemon Red or Blue debate, "sonny".

for a pretty smart guy, this is actually one of the most fucking retarded arguments I've come across

You're right, the teapot's existence is obvious!

>muh faith

Literally the only defense theists have. Any facts or reason can be trumped because faith goes against everything. Very convenient.

Explain the existence of the word. It has no weight or mass but exists. This is a type of spiritual existence. The word has always been here, long before man was able to use it. The Father exists in such a way.

This is getting boring. Why are you even making these threads? Are you hoping they'll go your way this time around?

Who?

I WAS LOOKING FOR THAT DAMN THING!
How the fuck did it get out there?

Why's this board so obsessed with repeating this theist vs atheist argument time and time again, only for no one to be convinced of each other's argument at the end?

THIS JUST IN RELIGION IS ABOUT FAITH NOT A PROVABLE FACT

Stop indoctrinating people.

The universe implies a Creator. It doesn't imply a teapot between earth and mars.

U mmad cause the Jesus Freaks have the power of discernment and a drive for Truth? That drive that makes them strong and formitable, meanwhile you likely turn to drugs, alcohol and empty anuses to find momentary meaning while in this hologram. You can believe what you want, just be careful of the enemy you make, your lack of understanding them and your own instability when touting that you are on firm ground.

>The universe implies a creator
No it doesn't.

Why does it necessarily imply a creator?

...

>this is what atheists think faith is
kys retard

>If something exists, it must have a creator.

Interesting logic. Mind if I take the modus ponens of it?

If something doesn't not have a creator, then it does not exist.

You would say god doesn't have a creator, right? So by YOUR OWN LOGIC, god doesn't exist.

Because of it's majesty and the Rare Earth theory. The fact that we seem to be the only ones in the universe and this earth and universe were made for us to explore. The Big Bang implies a moment of creation (coincidentally along the lines of "Let there be light").

ITT
>muh faith
>muh old Jewish storybook
>ur going to hell sinner

God is Existence. He is the Real. All reality has it's source in Him.

>rare Earth theory
*hypothesis

>the big bang implies a moment of creation
Okay, but how does it follow that a god did it?

Oh nice, pantheism. Way to shift the goal posts and completely abandon your original argument that a universe implies a creator

>makes assertion
>has no proof
This is why christfaggoty is dieing

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Believing in God makes sense, but believing in any man made religion is fucking retarded and schizophrenic.

>believing in some shit makes sense
>but believing in some other shit makes no sense

the two are equivocal user

*tip*

>Believing in God makes sense

Did you even read the OP image?

Are you calling the jews stupid and liars? You are a fuck anti-Semite sir and should be executed.

Way do atheistfags always attack our Lord Chirst and never the jews? Let's turn them on each other.

>God is just like a teapot.

Man has at least two things that the creator has, life and the word. This is the path to the creator.

for all intents and purposes yes. God can be anything you interject. The point of the picture is the proposition that the god exists and the assertion that "well you can't disprove it" is retarded

Yes, God is like a teapot and heaven is like a mustard seed.

You see, religion is really all about food (wine, bread, etc.)

The existence of his magical teapot is an unreasonable and absurd claim. Russel never provided sufficient reasons for such a teapot to exist, he just says it does. The burden of proof is on him to show that such a teapot exists.

He's just an assmad faggot that was never able to disprove the Contigency Argument that explains WITHIN REASON that a non-contingent being (a God AKA "necessary being") exists:

1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed or could cease to) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

Assuming we were completely alone in the universe (which we probably aren't, but we don't know for sure), how does that imply the existence of a creator?

Don't give me that "it was made for us to explore", it's nonsense.

I don't like Jews either, but I've never had a Jew knock on my door to prosthelytize his god to me.

Holy shit this is where the autistic edgy atheist meme comes from. the only thing missing is *tips fedora* at the end of it. You either believe or you don't but trust me you will little by little when you realize life and everything that happens to you isn't some accident.

Replace every teapot reference with "god" and your post says the SAME thing

>contingency argument
>defining god into existence

top kekery

I hope it is your semitic god that cares about where, when, and who touches your pee pee

All those abstract statements and capital letters won't make it true.

Who says the universe has to be contingent?

Sorry Fedora, but um you ever hear of Pascel's wager???

>I'm too stupid to understand analogies

Are you even trying?

Of course, pic related.

It's the argument that you may as well be atheist because the outcome is better whether or not you are right

Those calling themselves Christian WILL drastically go down before The End. God hides Himself. He only gives us hints. This is because He wants you to come to Him through your love, not your IQ score.

>Defining god into non-existence through omission.

>Defining zeus into non-existence through omission.

Can you prove the big bang theory?

Or do you just have faith in theoretical scientists?

False equivalency. Are you atheists supposed to be enlightened by your own intelligence? Why are all your arguments so retarded?

You realize that the BBT was proposed by a Catholic priest and has TONS of evidence for it, right?

Man, pascal's wager makes sense. Worst case scenario of accepting god and being wrong is nothing, so I should accept god.

Oh wait there's like a thousand of them and most claim to be the one true god.

>The analogy is accurate.

An analogy has to be accurate to a serious understanding of what people believe when they say 'God' to be meaningful. Serious believers in God, especially in his time, did not think he was a corporal being to be found and verified/falsified. therefore the analogy is inaccurate and insufficient.

If he wishes to dispute God, he needs to address arguments to contingency and such.

>False equivalency.

Are you even trying?

The universe is expanding in all directions. This is a fact can be observed

If something is expanding it must've been together at some point

It's really that simple

You are assuming that I have any knowledge or opinion on the big bang theory. I studied mechanical engineering, not astrophysics or whatever. Can you prove God created the universe? I don't claim to believe anything I just don't care about religion.

>Serious believers in God, especially in his time

The timeless creator has "a time"?

>did not think he was a corporal being to be found and verified/falsified

Ah, so you haven't even cracked open a bible. Good talk

If it is not contingent then physics breaks down. Our understanding of the universe relies upon the supposition that things relate to other things in a meaningful way.

If it is not contingent that nothing can be meaningfully said.

>be omnipotent creator of the universe
>hide all signs of self
>eternally torture those who dont have unwavering faith in you despite the total lack of evidence
What an asshole

I cannot definitively prove that the Big Bang happened. However, I do not base my life around the fact that it did, I merely accept it as our best understanding of the universe (for the moment). No faith required.

Go ahead then, post proof that isn't more than 'this happens, so the big bang happened' which is tantamount to 'this happened, so god must be real'

>If it is not contingent then physics breaks down
No it doesn't.
t. Newton

remember to sage and drop random redpill in shill threads
newfags type sage in options field so you don't bump a faggot thread like this.
also the answer is hermeticism, xtianity, kek, everything but kikery fits with it.
kabala is litteraly the opposite of hermeticism, they think they are gods lol

Do you believe in miracles?

How can we make a reasoned and informed choice about whom to love if we can't even figure out who exists?

The word, as in the concept of the word? Or the metaphysical Word that would have to be explained like the teapot?

Words are symbolic representations of other things.

Has anything ever proven to be created from nothing?

I'm not saying he big bang theroy is wrong, just that there is no proof of what caused the theoretical singularity. Just as there is no proof that the singularity before the big bang wasn't god.

The word is what we say it is, is that true with spirituality as well?

>show me proof

What are you gonna do? Check their math?

Actually light didn't exist at the instant of the big bang.

God is the ultimate author of all science

All beneficial science is a gift from our loving God who cares for us and wants us to prosper through the gifts we are given by Him and through the works of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

There is no point in defending your faith to the non believer. Live as an example through Christ, let your actions speak, and the non believer will come around in time

Two things, aussie friend

1. The big bang says NOTHING about creation. Except maybe in a different sense than you are thinking of, see 2. Nothing has ever been observed being created. Nothing. Everything that happens is just a re-arrangement of pre-existing things.

I can't actually find any statement that the big bang theory is definitive, and that all 'evidence' of the big bang isnt speculation.

Sounds like you were taught that he big bang isn't theory, and that you blindly belive those that theorise that the universe started that way.

How so? Specifically.

Yea I found a peace of toast that looked jesus the other day now im a true believer

There is no point in faith. Fixed it for you

I always run into these people. I feel like it's too dangerous to use analogies and metaphors because half the time people just don't understand the rhetorical device. Particularly if your metaphor uses hyperbole to demonstrate the logical failure of their belief, they tend to think it has anything to do with the "scale" or "severity" of the respective items being compared.

Virtual particles, friend.

Did you not take physics in high school?

That's funny. Indoctrination is usually your lane, huh?

No

They don't come from nothing, they come from vacuum energy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

That doesn't begin to challenge any serious theistic argument at all. Russell's arguments tend to be targeted to responding to the lowest common denominator or fucking up entirely.

Wtf... I hate teapots now

>serious theistic argument

For the jew god, the lightning god, the terrorist god, the kike-on-a-stick-god, or variants thereof?

The god that wants me to only touch my pee pee in a certain way and also lead jewish slaves out of egypt (even though that never happened)?

Yes, please present these "serious arguments"

Everything has a word. If it doesn't have a word then it doesn't exist for us. But we know there are things that we have yet to discover. There exists words for these things also, but these words have not yet been given to us. These words have always been there. Before man was here there where animals and plants and other things here. They had words for them then. The word has always been here. The word has a spiritual existence.

iv never met a more cringe worthy pseudo intellectual in my entire life. Words are literally just things that humans use to communicate ideas to eachother. Thats it

That looks like an eye. Someone inadvertently spoke about God using his shooping skills.
Makes you go hmmm..

A leaf

>For the jew god, the lightning god, the terrorist god, the kike-on-a-stick-god, or variants thereof?

For classical theism. What all classical arguments argue for and what denominated the west intellectually for more than a millennia and a half. God as pure actuality.

Connecting it to historical claims like those of Hellenism or Christianity is another step in theistic claims but lets start with the basics.

And we could also talk about final causality and natural law if you REALLY want to discuss touching pee pees. You give me the word.

>Yes, please present these "serious arguments"

How about one at a time? I'll post the most popular first.
Look at pic. It's a basic version of the cosmological argument and layers of back and forth from atheist dissenters and Christian proponents. Note that the discussion - and the first part of the picture - warn that we're not talking about causation in a timely sense. This isn't about a "before the Big Bang" - in fact the vast majority of cosmological arguments aren't talking about causation in-time but sustaining causation. In the discussion of sustaining causation there are two major views:

>Divine Conservation: That things ultimately do rely on something outside of itself for its own existence constantly. Details of what that is and why that is are derived from the individual arguments themselves.

>Existential Inertia: That things ultimately move and exist on their own and don't need outside causation. How that works and why that is are derived from individual arguments themselves.

I would say, as would others, that the Divine Conservation position is actually fleshed out and sound, unlike the opposite view which usually has little to no argument for itself but amount to just a denial of Divine Conservation in everything I've read on the topic.

I'll have a proof for it in my next post.

Words are abstractions of concepts. This isn't spiritual.

This is a retelling of Aquinas' old format.

1. Causation exists.( Empirical Premise)

2. Act and Potency are classic terms we can use to explain causation: When something is in Potency it has the capacity to become something else, but is not it yet. A fertilized egg has the potency to turn into a chick, an unfertilized egg does not. When a potency is realized, it is actual. To actualize a potency is to take a property that something had in potency and make it actually inhere in the thing. The same thing, in this case, for things within an instant. While they are simultaneous they are still essentially ordered.

3. When we find an instance of causation in the world we find some potency being actualized.

4. Something that is only in potency cannot actualize anything.

5. For some potency to be actualized something actual must actualize it.

6. If A is actualized by B, then B must first be actual.

7. Either something must have actualized B from being in potency to be in actuality. Or B is either necessarily actual, having never been in potency before. ( A v B)

8. If the left disjunct “A” is true then premise 7 applies to a new cause C.

9. If disjunct “B” is true there is a “first” uncaused cause that is pure actuality.

10. If disjunct “B” is never the case then there is an infinite series of actualizations. And we can apply 7 to C, then to a new cause D, and so forth. With every being having its actuality derived from another being.

11. If “10” is the case then there can be no actualization, as every being in the series has its actuality derived from another being, but there is no being with actuality on it's own to derive the actuality from.

12. If “10” is the case there is no causation

13. There is causation ( from premise 1)

14. Premise “10” is not the case.

15. If premise 10 is not the case, then at some point in the series “9” is the case.

16. There is a first cause, which is a being of pure actuality.

I can help with complaints.

Then why are there different languages? And why do words for certain things change over time? I'm somewhat on your side in terms of the entire debate, but your reasoning here is very bad.

It doesn't follow that a god did it.