>>18493873
I fully agree.

Hence why I worship Zeus and all the celestial gods.

>>18493873
Not many people were making it as an argument. They were making fun of it, because denying religion the reverence and authority it desperately desires is the first step to sweeping it aside. Dethrone it.

>>18493873
I feel like the "checkmate atheists" argument that the universe can't come from nothing is undercut by the fact that a theistic argument for creation requires the creator to have come from nothing.

>>18493892
lmao how

>>18493897
if you're saying its ridiculous to argue the universe "came from nothing" how can you then argue the universe came from something that came from nothing? It's just the same position but with an extra step.

>>18493903
What the fuck are you on about?
The theist doesn't argue that God was in a sate of non existence to a state of existence relative to any theory of time; it would be the case that they would hold to god being ontologically necessary and eternal, separate form the physical world, so god would have always existed. The authenticity of these claims is a different matter entirely though.

Also Theists don't have to hold to a position of the ex nihilo creation of the universe btw

>>18493873
so where did god come from

>>18493873
TL;DR fuck off with this wall of text

>>18493911
>i'm too retarded to read

>>18494374
>I'm too retarded to formalise my op drivel

>>18493905
>>18493873
Science doesn't argue the Universe came from nothing. We do not live in the middle of the Universe. Dinosaurs were just big birds. You can see the giant rock circling us and we landed on it already. You can see the floating fireball. Nothing happens magically it all can be explained logically. You just called a phone a magical glowing brick which is so confusing to me because what do you think a phone is? Are you saying you do not believe in phones because phones use science? Anyways, the alternative is "God did lots of magic before you were born but just trust me, now let me tell you how to live your lifee." Lol.

>So is it true that naturalists believe
Yes.
A magic jew ancient carpenter doing faith healing tricks and removing demons sounds more ridiculous.

>>18494389
>Science doesn't argue the Universe came from nothing.
Depending on who you ask there are like 30 different models of the universe, some of which make such a claim

Also like the other anon claimed, theists don't have to believe in the universe coming from nothing

>>18493873
>scientific discoveries are incompatible with my religious fairytale world
>therefore it's ridiculous
Not how it works retard.

>>18494390
I don't understand why you can't just be intellectually honest and admit where e-atheists drop the ball, rhetorically speaking. You don't even get good reception by the mainstream anymore. This is why people like Alex O'Connor, even Christians, because he honestly engages with the religion. Then again, I guess it's a bit like apples and oranges, since most e-atheists are probably just fat losers living in their parents basements while someone like the aforementioned Alex actually has an education.

>>18493881
A god who cannot even overcome lust is in no position to save you from it.

>>18494422
You seem very emotionally invested in your ecelebrities.

>>18493892
God don't come from nothing, he always was. There's never been a. Time in which God did not exist. You cannot understand it because you are just a man who can't even understand your own self yet, how then can you dream to understand the Most High?

>>18493892
I don't think any theist thinks God came from nothing sir... I thought this was basic knowledge about what theists believe?

>>18494437
Boggles my mind how can you dumb retards worship imaginary gods.
God NEVER EVER spoke with anyone unless they had psychosis.
Most high is not real, sorry to say..but youre just stupid and grifters tricked you.

>>18494441
Nyeh, you can't see God.
> Actually I have and I have even seen and spoken with angels, and have literally been tortured by demons.

Nyeh you're just crazy.

Ma dude, it is you the petulant retard.

Most Atheists are either White or Asian, and Whites and Asians also have the highest IQs. Debunk that, Theists. Most supernatural believers are Black, Hispanic, Native American, Jewish, and Arabic. The highest IQs are Asians and the highest rate of Atheism is Asian, the second highest IQ is White and the second highest rate of Atheism is White. Lol.

>>18494459
The smarter you are the less humble and more proud. Atheist hate the idea that something is beyond their understanding because they think so highly of themselves and worship their own intellect.

Less intelligent people are usually humbler and see more likely to accept the idea of something existing that completely mogs their intelligence.

>>18494459
Jesus was white and his IQ was the highest

>>18494467
Why does everyone think Jesus was their race? The Bible itself confirms multiple times that Jesus was a Jew living in Nazareth, born in Bethlehem, which is located in modern day Palestine. He spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, and Aramaic was the language of Aram, which is modern day Syria and the surrounding countries. Most of his disciples were also Jewish and he operated entirely in Jewish regions that were occupied by the Romans, which no longer exist but were most similar to modern Italians, how is that White at all? Lol.

>>18494474
Look at the shroud of Turin and tell me that wasn't a white man

File: 09_1Sa_17_26.jpg (344 KB, 1584x1584)

344 KB JPG

>>18494474
>in modern day Palestine.
The name "Palestine" is a geographical term that originated over 2,500 years ago, evolving from the ancient Philistines and officially formalized by the Romans as Syria Palaestina in the 2nd century CE. Palestinian national identity as a distinct political movement developed primarily in the 20th century following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

>>18494467
The name Jesus is an English version of Iesus which is a Latin version of Iesous which is a Hellenized (Greeks call their country Hellen) version of Yahshua which is Jewish for Yah Saves, Yah being a shortened version of the name of the Jewish God, Yahweh. In every "authentic" copy of the Bible manuscripts, Jesus is referred to only as Iesous with zero exceptions or variations except sometimes he is referred to with abbreviations of Iesous, like IS. Lol.

>>18494477
I'm just taking it from the Bible.
The Bible says he was Jewish though.
Lol.

>>18494482
>>18494486
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

>>18494433
Shalom Moshe

>>18494496
It's a great honor to be called by that name but please, I'm not worth the dust under his sandals.

>>18494437
If God existed forever back in time, then it seems strange for him to have started creating things only recently. It's like he spent forever doing nothing, and then at some point he arbitrarily decided to do something. What was he doing for before that? Just sitting around in the void? So instead of the problem of a universe coming from nothing for no obvious reason, you have the problem of God going from doing nothing to doing something for no obvious reason.

If you say God was doing things before he created this universe, like, say, creating infinitely many other universes going back in time foreve because that's just what God does, then atheists have that too. It's called the multiverse.

On the other hand, if you say God exists outside of time and he created time, so there's no need to explain what God was doing for all those eons of nothing before he began to create because there were no "eons of nothing," then atheists can play that game too by saying spacetime is fundamental, and there's no mystery of a universe coming from nothing at some point in time because time is just one of the dimensions of the universe.

/his/-retards yet again miss the point of a thread.

>>18494513
Before creation God was planning the rest of eternity, once he finished his plan, the creation phase began.

>>18494528
Why does an omniscient, omnipotent being need forever to make a plan? Why does he need to plan at all? Shouldn't he intrinsically know what he wants?

I was Christian but these arguments are making me doubt my faith.

>Nothing can't create something, but God can just exist because he just can
This is a terrible argument, because anybody could easily claim that the universe can just exist for the same reason god can just exist. Why can't the universe just be "essential" on its own. Why does the jew in the sky need to be essential?

God is not just a "thing" it is a specific person who has words, you can quote his speech, he has likes and dislikes, he likes the smell of sacrifices and blood, and he has rules and laws catered to humans. That is NOT the "essential" because it is a complex thing. God is similar to a person, he speaks, he smells, he feels jealousy (the bible says he feels jealousy) he hates, he rewards, he punishes, he is described with the word he, he even came to the earth as a person, god is very much similar to a person. A person is not the "essential essence of existence," it is too complicated and has too many moving parts to be "the essential existence."

The vague threats of hell are not an argument either since every religion does that. Why should I fear your "hell" when a person of another faith will also threaten me with their hell. Which hell should I be afraid of? Here's a new wager for you, if you pick the wrong god, your suffering in hell is doubled by the true god, because you chose to worship his enemy, hope you picked right. Therefore it's better to not pick any god to worship so the real god doesn't get jealous if you picked wrong.

What other shit arguments are in this thread? It's basically just making fun of science. If you actually take the time to learn about science and try the experiments you will see they are not smoke and mirrors but genuine understanding of reality. Science was practiced by all peoples but it's just getting more way advanced since the 1700s to the point where we can now do things the scriptures said we would never be able to do. Like go into heaven lol.

>>18494560
>What other shit arguments are in this thread? It's basically just making fun of science.
That literally is not the point of the OP. Everyone in here seems to misunderstand what OP is communicating about the common behavior of atheists on this board.

>>18494400
>some of which make such a claim
Unless you were to show me the models that literally do, I have a feeling that you're misunderstanding these models. A lot of what sounds like "it came from nothing" is actually just something in another form that may appear like nothing to us. A quantum vacuum is said to be just another arrangement of physical stuff, even though we could say it is nothing in a casual sense. The very presence of laws of physics is itself something, even if nothing else is present. Though to be honest, this is more philosophy than science. You can read on David Albert if you want to see some discussion on this.

>>18494546
Have you ever been omniscient and omnipotent? How would you know what he does or doesn't need? God is fully pleased with himself, he's perfect, he can spend a trillion years alone and be fully satisfied and have 0 needs or wants.

He never needed creation, he created because it pleased him to do so.

>>18494517
>>18494568
OP is implying that it's atheists who, instead of arguing against religion properly, prefer to ridicule it by describing it in a funny way, right? I just don't think that's the case. I'd say there's a healthy mixture of rational argument and ridicule relative to 4chan standards.

>ontologically necessary and eternal
Okay, so apparently this is the special sauce.
But the universe can't have it, because it needs God-magic.

>>18495088
Theists do have well-known attempted arguments for God being ontologically necessary, but I haven't come across many atheists even interested in trying to prove that the universe or some more fundamental non-God entity that gives rise to the universe is ontologically necessary. This page lists a few arguments, but the interesting-looking ones link to walled journal articles or books: https://exapologist.blogspot.com/2022/06/120-or-so-arguments-for-atheism.html

>>18494560
>I was Christian but these arguments are making me doubt my faith.
anon, I have the creeping suspicion this is a blatant lie.

>>18494560
>anybody could easily claim that the universe can just exist for the same reason god can just exist. Why can't the universe just be "essential" on its own.
Right, ok... I remember being 12, watching the Amazing Atheist and thinking this is a clever refutation, but I can't fathom regurgitating this as a grown ass adult. You're supposed to develop intellectually, at least a little bit...

>>18495267
See OP, it isn't only atheists making appeals to ridicule. Without a formal study, I'm not sure which side would be more guilty on average.

>>18495280
I'm not OP and I'm not making any appeals. I just see people like this occasionally and feel embarrassed about ever having been part of the mindless cattle such content targets.

>>18495267
>267▶>>18495280
>>>18494560
>>18495285
I am neither of this two anons, but can I ask , what exactly is wrong with this idea?

don't agree with it, but I can't exactly put into words why its bad.

>>18495267
>I remember being 12, watching the Amazing Atheist
What happened at 13, why you start believing in God?

>>18495183
>why don't atheists
Arguing made-up bullshit is a theism thing

>>18495290
>What happened at 13
I figured maybe I can apply some of that fabled rational skepticism myself instead of letting YT personas think for me so I applied it to the media I consoomed. It didn't make me believe in God but at least I'm not stuck regurgitating braindamaged takes as an adult, so I'd say it paid off.

File: englands finest.jpg (50 KB, 615x621)

50 KB JPG

>>18493873
If Earth is an unremarkable planet, one planet among billions in a galaxy, among billions of galaxies, where else is there life?
No other planet or moon in our solar system has alien life, and we have detected no presence of alien life on other planets

>>18495267
Why do you think only God, and not the universe, has the superpower to exist for no reason?

>>18493905
ok, then where did god come from?

>>18495310
>If Earth is an unremarkable planet
who ever said that? The fact that it gave rise to something capable of naming it means it is beyond remarkable. It is the most important place in the universe.

>>18495340
God didn't come from anywhere RETARD. God always was.
Atheists can't say the same thing about the universe.

>>18495335
The Prime Mover argument works in a context where it's taken for granted that causality is universal in nature, so having a cause is a big part of what it means for a phenomenon to be natural in the first place. If you reject infinite regress, you're logically forced into the conclusion that the root cause behind nature can't itself be natural. To exist at all, that root cause must be exempt from a fundamental law of nature - i.e. it must be supernatural in a simple and literal sense.

Of course, you don't have to assume causality is a fundamental principle in nature (despite the entire Western intellectual/scientific tradition being built on this notion). You're free to assume it's optional. Or maybe you have some principled way to decide what natural phenomena are exempt from causality. What you don't get to do is project your special pleading fallacy on theists.

>>18495288
Until theists come up with an ontological argument capable of persuading the vast majority of people who read it, there isn't much difference between claiming that the universe (or some underlying indifferent principle that manifests as the universe) is necessary and claiming that some interpretation of "God" is necessary. If they feel different, it might be because the idea of God seems "simpler" than the universe, so it appears to demand less suspension of disbelief to accept it as necessary.

But if you try to formalize what is meant by simpler, it isn't clear how to do it in God's case. If God is taken to be an infinite mind, the minds we know run on brains or more abstractly neural networks, and modeling God's mind like that would make it infinitely complicated. By comparison, the laws of physics needed to describe the known universe are pretty simple, and the universe has the advantage that we can all agree it does exist, however complicated it might be.

Even simpler, at least to state it, is the position that the universe's existence is a consequence of mathematical realism, that "all mathematical structures exist," and the universe is just one of them. However, the trouble with that imo is that it doesn't explain qualia without adding it in, and, once qualia are added in, it's terrifying because all kinds of hells might be valid mathematical structures.

>>18495345
Obviously a human would say that
Earth has no importance except so far as the people living on it think it's important

>>18495350
>until dimwits like me can see the difference there is no difference
Wrong. See >>18495349

>>18495349
No, I buy into those premises
Nature cannot be necessary.

Guess that leaves we with God-magic
God-magic is more probable than the premises being wrong

clown shit

>>18495361
>retarded seething
See >>18495349
>Or maybe you have some principled way to decide what natural phenomena are exempt from causality. What you don't get to do is project your special pleading fallacy on theists.

>>18495349
Everything wthin nature having a cause doesn't mean nature itself has to have a cause even if it has a finite past. Wholes can have different properties than their parts. If I shatter a sphere, it might be that none of the shattered pieces are themselves spheres, but if I put them back together, they do form a sphere.

>>18495365
Pretty sure rejecting premises because the conclusion is retarded, is very principled

>>18495368
>every real phenomenon having a cause doesn't mean the abstract category they all belong to needs to has to have a cause
Very astute observation but that doesn't tell me what caused the Big Bang (presumably a natural phenomenon) or any future scientific "first cause".

>>18495370
>that reading comprehension
Nevermind zero intellectual development past the age of 12, you never even reached the milestones for an intelligent 12 years old.

>>18495365
I can make something up, right? That's very easy
Causality being in time, time not being a thing before big bang - so it isn't applicable
Cause and effect being applicable to things *in* the universe, not to *the* universe

when the alternative is magic, the bar is just so incredibly low

>>18495368 (cont.)
Thinking everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause, might be like reasoning that everything on earth needs to be supported by something below it or it will fall, therefore the earth needs to be supported by something below it, like a big turtle. But that turns out to be a confused way of looking at things.

>>18495385
>Thinking everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause, might be like...
Same error again. See >>18495376

>>18495382
>Causality requires time
Proof?

>Cause and effect being applicable to things *in* the universe, not to *the* universe
Chatbot-tier mistake. See >>18495376

>>18495380
This is so dumb.
I don't have to know how fundamental reality works, in order to rule out your argument that nature cannot be necessary (cuz causality)
Rejecting the premises because the conclusion is problematic is perfectly fine

>>18495387
>Proof?
fuck off

>>18495391
>i don't need to know anything to spout retarded talking points and reject conclusions i don't like
Doesn't matter. The basic point is that the standard atheist "refutation" of the Prime Mover is based on low-grade midwits simply not grasping how the argument works and projecting their own special pleading fallacy.

>>18495395
You have not explained why a naturalistic stalking horse argument fails

>>18495346
>God always was.
how do you know that?

>>18495393
>impotent seething
Tying causality to time is a pretty modern philosophical notion. Something like Hume or Kant, both of whose frameworks completely undermine your Amazing Atheist worldview in any case.

>>18495386
If your model of causation only allows causes to exist prior in time to their effects, then I guess the best you can do is a sort of infinite regress, but that doesn't necessary require an infinite past in the sense of there being an indefinite length of time before the big bang. If spacetime is continuous, you can just remove the singularity at the far end and then every point up until the singularity has a previous point that can be said to have caused it. But my point with the turtle analogy is that this might turn out to be a confused way of thinking about causality, even if it works very well on our human scale.

>>18495400
>You have not explained why a naturalistic stalking horse argument fails
Make one and we'll see how it holds up.

>>18495349
>causality is a fundamental principle in nature (despite the entire Western intellectual/scientific tradition being built on this notion)
Aspect et al, 1982.

>>18495411
Now this is some desperate cope. Talk about making nonsensical shit up.

>>18495418
I would again like to point out to OP if he's here that theists like their appeals to ridicule at least as much as atheists.

>>18495406
Look, you can tell me if/why you disagree

but going
>proof?
is just fucking annoying
I could have done that to the 10 different premises baked into what you said
and then I can keep doing it to your explanation of those things, if you bothered to answer
you will never get anywhere

I don't want to play retarded games where that happens to me
it's just a fucking waste of time

especially not to something that doesn't need to be proven as true
as long as it doesn't seem highly unreasonable, it should be perfectly fine with me

Sure as hell all my experiences of causality has been IN time
time is just important for the concept to even make sense, cause coming BEFORE the effect, etc
else you get weird stuff like effect happening before their cause, then it doesn't seem like the cause is very important
which isn't exactly a contradiction, but I don't like it

>>18495423 (cont.)
For the record, I do see a proper infinite past as an option that hasn't been ruled out. But I can conceive of atheism being correct even without it.

>>18495376
>that doesn't tell me what caused the Big Bang
It's not supposed to

>>18495346
They can and they do. Have you even read the thread?
When has any atheist ever said the universe popped into existence from nothing (except that 1 physics guy, that uses the word 'nothing' idiosyncratically)

Theists are absolutely awful on the topic of representing views atheists can have about a universe that didn't start to exist.
Atheists have those views. And it seems by FAR the most common. I can't think of any counterexamples

This is bullshit. Dishonesty.
This is just fucking lies

>>18495418
It's hard to imagine a greater mind-stopper in discussing any difficult problem than bringing out the magic man (or entity, if you like) who knows all, can do anything, and conveniently wants to do the thing in need of explaining.

>>18495427
If your version of causality depends on time, what do you call necessary logical precedence/logical dependencies? So far, all you've done is to effectively declare that nature was irrational and unintelligible until (for lack of a better word - your framework doesn't even let us reason about this) the Big Bang happened for no reason, at which point it became neat like this.

File: dicapriokek.png (799 KB, 848x805)

799 KB PNG

>>18495448
>It's hard to imagine a greater mind-stopper in discussing any difficult problem than bringing out the magic man
I agree. Good job playing yourself into the dunce corner.

>>18495455
Welcome to the atheist club(?)

>>18495452
>happened for no reason
ultimately yes
that's just a feature of nature being necessary

I'm fine with there being unknown reasons in-between

>>18495460
>ultimately yes
That's an "ultimately yes" to the 95% of the post you got filtered by and couldn't respond to, not just the tiny bit of it you felt was compatible with your belief system. Thanks for conceding.

>>18495412
If we steelman the theist theory to be something like this:
"God necessarily exist and creates the universe by way of magic"

the naturalist stalking horse would be something like
"Nature necessarily exist creates the universe by some unspecified non-magic way"


Point is, that you don't need to go into any detail. Because the theistic theory doesn't.
So it's supposed to be preferable because it avoids magic and ghosts, etc. On grounds of being "parsimonious".

>>18495457
See >>18495307. I left your retard club a long, long time ago and this entire thread exemplifies why.

>>18495471
Oh, I see. So you basically didn't understand any part of the discussion starting from >>18495349.

>>18495452
>what do you call necessary logical precedence/logical dependencies?
Can keep calling them just that
I'm perfectly fine with that NOT being the same phenomena as two billiard balls striking each other. Even if we did used the same word for it in English language.

>>18495474
>Can keep calling them just that
Then go back to the argument I initially outlined, replace causality with "just that" and observe how your time excuse no longer applies.

>>18495473
Did you disagree with something in post
Do you think we should we prefer the magic explanation?

Look, I don't think parsimony is the end all, be all
but it sure wins out here

>>18495480
Your fallacy is refuted here >>18495349.

>>18495477
Help me out here, how do theists escape the time excuse?

>>18495483
Yes, a necessarily existing nature would not be caused
In that respect it would be different from the things we observe that are caused

>>18495472
I'm not sure why you're here except to call anyone who actually tries to defend a position retarded (since you're not persuaded by theism, and you don't seem to be interested in arguing for atheism, I guess you're a thoroughly middling agnostic, or...?), which doesn't look like leaving the retard club to me. It sounds like you thoroughly enjoy the retard club.

>>18495485
Are you a different poster or are you too dense to follow the conversation? Because if it's the latter, just go re-read it from start to finish, I'm not spoonfeeding you.

>>18495488
>yes, [completely incongruent response]
Did you disagree with something in post
Do you think we should we prefer the "nature is magic" explanation?

>>18495492
You're the only one calling a necessary existing nature - magical and supernatural
I'm not using words that way

You are just repeating observation, that a necessarily existing nature would not be caused
Obviously I don't view this as a condition for magic

Magic is when Moses turns his rod to a snake
Not when the universe exist for no reason

>>18495508
You sound like you're arguing with voices in your head. Since you can't point to anything specific you disagree with that's actually in my post, I'm just going to accept your concession and move on.

>atheists butt blasted that God is a necessary being
Let me dispel a few misconceptions for some of the anons in here who don't seem to grasp theism:

1. Theists do not believe God "came" from nothing. This is silly for the theist.

2. Apart from doctrinal commitments about the nature of God, theist philosophers have offered up formal arguments where you're supposed to reason upward to certain attributes that God has or does not have from observing some quality about things in the world. These typically take the form of cosmological arguments and there are many different types of cosmological arguments but they generally run like this:
P1: We observe such and such quality about entities in the world e.g. (change, motion, causation, contingency, ...)
P2: We observe that for such and such qualities to take place in world-entities there must be some such principle or source to explain that
P3: Such and such entities in the world cannot be the source of their change, motion, causation, or whatever because it leads to a logical contradiction of some sort and/or defies what we observe in the first place...
P4: Such and such entities who exhibit these certain qualities cannot go on in an infinite chain because this too leads to some logical absurdity or violation of our observations in whatever quality we're talking about... (e.g. no first-mover -> no motion, but there is motion! reductio ad absurdum blah blah blah)
C: Therefore there must be some such entity who is the source or principle of the qualities we observe about these entities and (and I emphasize strongly) which ITSELF POSSESSES NONE of x, y, or z qualities, lest redundancy and/or some absurdity
This is like the basic blueprint for many cosmological arguments. You see how you reason up from something lesser in existence (like world-entities) to something greater in existence (like God, first-mover, uncaused-cause, etc.).

(Continued below because "reeeee comment exceeds 2000 characters reee reeee!!!")

3. Some atheists like the claim that cosmological arguments which use the blueprint I outlined above commit the fallacy of special pleading, but this misunderstands what the cosmological arguments are actually doing, because they do not claim that "everything in existence must have such and such a quality such as being caused, or being acted on, or whatever." It would only be special pleading if this was part of the assumptions, that everything that exists needs a cause, or a mover, but then God (or whatever entity is being deduced) were made to be an exception to that. Theists do not claim or believe that everything in existence needs an explanation, or a cause, or a mover, or whatever. Obviously this isn't true because they believe God doesn't need an explanation for his existence, he simply IS. To the contrary, cosmological arguments reason from what we do know about the world (that things in it need an explanation for why they exist or exhibit a certain quality) to an ultimate explanation which itself might not need such an explanation or quality or whatever.

>>18495526
If we steelman the theist theory to be something like this:
"God necessarily exist and creates the universe by way of magic"

the naturalist stalking horse would be something like
"Nature necessarily exist creates the universe by some unspecified non-magic way"


Point is, that you don't need to go into any detail. Because the theistic theory doesn't.
So it's supposed to be preferable because it avoids magic and ghosts, etc. On grounds of being "parsimonious".

>>18495532
>it turns out to be a mindless spambot
No surprises today.

>>18495526
>>18495529
Assuming you're the same condescending anon above who is not actually a theist, you're not persuaded by this class of arguments. Why are you not persuaded by them?

>>18495542
Both theories explain why there is a universe
Naturalist theory wins on grounds of parsimony

why should anyone prefer the explanation with the magic ghost?

>>18495526
>Therefore there must be some such entity who is the source or principle of the qualities we observe about these entities
That sounds completely insane. Nothing that can be observed is independent of its relation to other things, therefore assuming that such a thing "must" exist is nonsense when one can't even demonstrate that it *can* exist to begin with.

>>18495550
>making blatantly incorrect assumptions
That's a different anon. I'm not persuaded to believe in any god but I am persuaded by some of these arguments that projecting rationality onto the world is irrational unless you believe in god. That's not to say I believe reality itself requires any such thing, just that the atheist pretense is laughable and self-refuting.

>God explains

I understand that God supposedly has a superpower that lets him explain anything (omnipotence)
I don't think that really count as providing and explanation
Nothing has been explain

How exactly does God do any of this???

>>18495564
>projecting rationality onto the world is irrational unless you believe in god
Define what you mean by rationality here

>>18495575
Abiding by reason.

>>18493873
Sounds almost as dumb as believing in equality.

>>18495559
Parsimony is a heuristic, not a logical law lol. There are cases where positing 3 entities is better than just 2 or just 1 or just 0, because maybe you have better explanatory value with 3. What theists believe, and attempt to demonstrate through logical argumentation, is that a purely naturalistic worldview has lesser explanatory value than a theistic one, and that a theistic theory of the world is such that God, or whomever, offers the most sufficient explanation via what we know about the world a posteriori. The Theist believes that naturalism contains explanatory gaps which logically could not be explained by a purely naturalistic worldview. Also, it's important to make distinction between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. These are not the same. You can be a scientific naturalist but not be a philosophical naturalist. Under a scientific naturalism, evolution is a sufficient explanation for the existence of life on earth. This is a perfectly fine view to take, it does not equate to philosophical naturalism which posits that nature is all that there exists. Theists typically have problems with philosophical naturalism, not methodological naturalism. It's why you can be a Christian, believe in evolution, while also believing that there are other types of questions which require other types of explanations (aitia in Greek) not covered by the scientific method or scientific theories.

>>18495578
This doesn't actually help me narrow down what you mean very much, but I'm going to guess that what you mean is that without, a God ordering the universe, we should expect it to be incomprehensible gibberish, like TV static, with no discernable patterns for us to talk about. So if there are patterns we can talk about, there must have been a mind that intentionally made those patterns. The trouble, imo, is that, in our world, although minds are a thing that can intentionally arrange patterns, minds themselves are terribly complicated sort of pattern that developed out of the simpler patterns of physics over eons of natural selection. So minds are not, in fact, obviously prior to patterns in every case. So it isn't obvious that the pattern of the universe itself should have come out of a mind rather than existing by itself or being a late consequence of some simpler mindless pattern.

>>18495581
>a purely naturalistic worldview has lesser explanatory value than a theistic one
I understand that God supposedly has a superpower that lets him explain anything (omnipotence)
But, I don't think that really count as providing and explanation
Nothing has been explained

It's a really low bar to match. "Nature just ??? does it."
(is not actually trying to provide a natural explanation, but highlight weakness of the theistic explanation)

You also run in to problems with theism explaining too much. That you can't have contrastive explanations. Why something is one way, instead of another way.
Because God can explain both, by virtue of his superpower to explain anything.

Natural explanations being limited is a massive perk

>>18495581
>There are cases where positing 3 entities is better than just 2 or just 1 or just 0, because maybe you have better explanatory value with 3
Only when evidence points that way, otherwise the simplest explanation is preferred when it comes to speculation.

>>18495595
>I'm going to guess that what you mean is that without, a God ordering the universe, we should expect it to be incomprehensible gibberish, like TV static, with no discernable patterns for us to talk about.
What I mean is that you shouldn't expect anything. Especially if you, like certain anons ITT, think causality is optional or that it begins with the Big Bang. Not that you can help it, of course. But at least you shouldn't pretend that your expectations are more rational than the theist's.

>>18495600
I can't think of anything in my life that was ever explained by a supernatural explanation
every explanation I know is natural

I don't understand how God explain anything, unless you just presupose he has a specific desire to cause whatever data we're trying to explain
but then the God theory gets super ad-hoc

>>18495597
>It's a really low bar to match. "Nature just ??? does it."
1. Except you yourself are positing an entity, "nature". You are assuming that nature is somehow over and above what it is we describe as being part of nature.

2. By saying nature just "is" you've effectively offered no explanation. You believe nature doesn't need an explanation, but this isn't analytically true. Actually we can ask many open and meaningful questions about entities we observe in the natural world, "why does x change?", "who put z into motion?", "what is the object (end) of y?", none of which can be sufficiently answered by naturalism.

>>18495602
>like certain anons ITT, think causality is optional or that it begins with the Big Bang
I think you might be referring to me when it comes to the big bang, and if so that I wasn't committing to that at all. I was only trying to elaborate on the point that everything within a system can have a property that the system as a whole lacks, and that can be true even if you have a very specific idea of what causality can mean.
>What I mean is that you shouldn't expect anything
You shouldn't expect anything on God. There's the idea that God is benevolent, so he would do benevolent things, but I doubt you can honestly get the specifics of what that should look like out of a fully a priori argument. And to the extent that we base it on our practical notion of benevolence, the universe is quite strange relative to what we would expect.

And it might not be self-evident that the universe should be simple, but if you're interested in explaining things, the only reasonable way to go through theories is to start with the simpler ones and move up in complexity as required. You can't start with the most complicated one and go down because there is no most complicated one. So, on that heuristic, a godless universe which just happens to exist the way it does should be favored over god+universe where the "god" part doesn't have a clear position on the complexity ladder and doesn't predict the universe with any precision, meaning the universe part of the theory can't actually be collapsed into the god part of the theory.

>>18495636
>a very specific idea of what causality can mean
*must mean

>>18495633
>none of which can be sufficiently answered by naturalism
Let me qualify that statement a little better: we can posit local explanations but the questions here are not concerned with secondary causation, to clear up any misunderstanding.

>>18495633
>You are assuming that nature is somehow over and above what it is we describe as being part of nature.

Clearly, if you want to say something like everything in nature being caused. That being a natural law.
That would not be part of the theory, that would would be false - Given this theory.

On the theory where nature necessarily exist, it would not be true that everything natural is caused.

>>18495633
>By saying nature just "is" you've effectively offered no explanation

That just what it means to be necessary.
There's not going to be an explanation of why nature is. If it exist by way of necessity.

It's either that, or an infinite regress. Isn't it? (Probably forgetting some legit positions)
That goes for any ultimate explanation.

>>18495652
Nta but, as I understand it, when theists say God is necessary, they aren't only saying he should be taken as an axiom. They're saying it would cause a logical contradiction somehow if he didn't exist. They use arguments like:
>Any entity would be greater than it is, if it were to exist necessarily (that is, if it were to exist in every possible world). Hence, necessary existence is a property that contributes to an entity’s greatness. God, as a being that is maximally great, must hence exist necessarily

Atheists have a few arguments in this vein, but they usually consider this sort of thing to be nonsense. One argument I know offhand for the idea that, if there were nothing, then there would be nothing to stop something from appearing, and anything in particular appearing would be equally likely, with the chance of there remaining nothing becoming infinitesimal. Therefore, granted nothing, we should expect something.

>>18495662
>One argument I know offhand for the idea that
*one argument I know offhand is that

>>18495662
The latter argument is actually better than the first argument imo, because it does seem to actually be saying something meaningful. The first argument looks to me like it's just *defining* God as a thing that exists necessarily, using a vague notion of greatness as an intermediary to create the illusion of an argument.

>>18495662
Yeah, I don't like stuff like this. I don't think that's how reality works.

That is just a wordsalad in English language, not the mechanism by which there is a God. Due to my views on language, and universals
I much prefer just asserting necessity for God, and ending the explanation there

Don't view it as a deficiency of Atheism to not tell such a story

File: _e2738fee-975c-4ab3-8198-(...).jpg (141 KB, 1024x1024)

141 KB JPG

>Atheism: the lack of belief in god(s)
A definition so simple and solid that its haters must constantly try to twist and redefine it to even hope to be able to argue against it

>>18496255
>https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Definition

Empirically, people who bother to self-identify as "atheists" tend to hold beliefs that form their own distinct constellation. One typical atheist belief is that they get to just "define" atheism in a way that includes a bunch of people who would never use that label to describe themselves or willingly associate with anything related to it.

If you argue this point to an atheist, sooner or later he will give up on the discussion and start slandering whatever he thinks your religion is, even if you never express any theistic beliefs. I.e. he will have determined that you are NOT an atheist (even if you technically are by his bogus definition). Why? Because you disagreed with his characteristic atheist philosophy and atheist pattern of thought.

This WILL happen REGARDLESS of your belief in deities or lack thereof. The atheist intuitively rejects his own definitions.

>>18496268
>Appeal to definition fallacy
>Nooo stop defining your terms!!! >:((((
You cannot make this up

>>18496285
Whom are you quoting?

>>18496306
Your thought process.

>>18496268
>Empirically, people who bother to self-identify as "atheists" tend to hold beliefs that form their own distinct constellation.
Are you arguing against vague "tendencies within atheism" or against the idea that no gods exist? If it's the latter, then the definition matters.

>>18496309
Your greentext has nothing to do with my post, so you're implying my thought process has nothing to do with that post. How do you know, then, what my thought process was? Do you believe you can read minds? Are you sure you're not just mentally ill?

>>18496311
I'm doing neither. Do you struggle with reading comprehension, little buddy?

>>18496319
>I'm doing neither.
Then your entire post is devoid of purpose, congrats.

>>18496316
>Your greentext has nothing to do with my post
Of course it does. You are opposed to using the standard definition of atheism because it's inconvenient to you.

>>18496326
The purpose is to rub your face in your appeal-to-definitions fallacy and to ridicule the way you will zealously double, triple and quadruple down on it.

>>18496331
>You are opposed to using the standard definition of atheism because it's inconvenient to you
Where did you get this idea? Why would it be "inconvenient" for me?

>>18496332
>The purpose is to rub your face in your appeal-to-definitions fallacy
It's not a fallacy if it's not used in a context in which it's fallacious, just like every other fallacy. The poster you quoted argued for using a definition of atheism. You can't complain about it unless you specifically start a discussion which calls for an alternate definition.

>>18496335
It's fallacious in the context of this thread, which is about atheism as it manifests in the wild as opposed to dictionary definitions.

>>18496334
It's inconvenient to you since it makes it impossible for you to strawman atheism. Do you want me to answer any other questions about your easily understood psychology?

>>18496340
No, because the thread starts with a strawman so yes it can in fact be easily dismissed by using the standard definition of atheism. You don't get to dodge the issue of defining the term by using a strawman. If you think there's a legitimate alternate definition, make a case for it.

>>18496344
>It's inconvenient to you since it makes it impossible for you to strawman atheism
Why would I need to strawman atheism?

>>18496348
>the thread starts with a strawman so yes it can in fact be easily dismissed by using the standard definition of atheism
Not without committing the fallacy you deny committing while hilariously doubling down on it. How did this entire website become so stunningly low-IQ?

File: _a6bf7818-d7ab-4b9d-b7f1-(...).jpg (205 KB, 1024x1024)

205 KB JPG

>>18496268
That's your opinion. However, I still don't see any reason to believe on god(s) so I shan't

>>18496359
>Not without committing the fallacy
Wrong, this is a legitimate use of a definition, not fallacious. If you intentionally misrepresent something, you get corrected with its accurate definition. You really should learn more about how fallacies actually work before you try invoking them. Just because it is possible to use a definition in a dishonest manner, that does not mean that definitions can't ever be used under any context.

>>18496356
Because the existence of atheism makes you seethe.
>inb4 "Why would atheism make me seethe?"
I would guess it's either due to your childhood upbringing or some mental deficiency developed during adulthood.

>>18496367
>Because the existence of atheism makes you seethe.
Why would dictionary atheism make me or anyone seethe? You sound legit disabled.

>>18496365
OP wasn't making any claims about the dictionary definition of atheism so your appeal to the dictionary is fallacious. He's making claims about what atheism amounts to de facto. He may or may not be correct about that, but your only defense so far has been to screech that you can't reason about atheism in terms of the actual beliefs atheists hold because muh dictionary says it's only a lack of belief.

You're legit an imbecile. There's no way around this.

>>18496372
>asking a question already preemptively answered in the post you quoted.
From your response, I think we can narrow it down to cause to a mental deficiency developed during adulthood.

>>18496376
Why would dictionary atheism make me or anyone seethe?

>inb4 you fail to answer this again
We both know what your impulse is and I'm gonna have a bit of fun watching you struggle to contain it. :^)

>>18496374
>OP wasn't making any claims about the dictionary definition of atheism
We've been over this, he's making strawmen claims instead. You're just circling back around to waste time because you don't have a point.
>He's making claims about what atheism amounts to de facto
Incorrect claims that nobody actually stands for, meaning the legitimate response to this is to point out that his definition is invalid. Again, in order to complain about someone using a strict definition of atheism, you need to postulate an alternate, non-fallacious definition and argue for it, which neither you nor the OP have done. Case dismissed.

>>18496379
>he's making strawmen claims
Then go ahead and prove him wrong. What is it that atheists actually believe?
>inb4 your imbecilic programming forces you to mumble something about "lack of belief" again and your index finger starts involuntarily twitching in the direction of the Oxford Dictionary For Infants

>>18496379
>We've been over this, he's making strawmen claims instead. You're just circling back around to waste time because you don't have a point.
Not the point of the OP. Did you miss the link?

>>18496378
We both know you're a retarded christcuck (a mental deficiency developed during adulthood) and you're just gonna lie about it

>>18495662
Saying god exists because he's logically necessary implies that he's metaphysically contingent wrt logic.

>>18496385
>What is it that atheists actually believe?
They lack a belief in the existence of gods. If you don't like that definition, offer a specific alternative that isn't a strawman.

>>18496392
My favorite game is "make a christian feny Jesus three times".

>>18496395
>They lack a belief in the existence of gods.
That's not what I asked. What DO they believe?

I like how your ideological programming is now hindering basic reading comprehension.

>>18496398
*deny

>>18496378
It's already answered twice in the posts you quoted. Reading disability is another mental deficiency of yours, apparently.

>>18496392
>he couldn't hold it in
See >>18496268
>This WILL happen REGARDLESS of your belief in deities or lack thereof. The atheist intuitively rejects his own definitions.
Every. Single. Time.

>>18496400
>That's not what I asked. What DO they believe?
"That's not what I asked, what is the color of the number 5?"
Atheism is not a belief in something, your question is invalid. Do you think atheism is a belief in something specific? Argue for it.

>>18496406
>Atheism is not a belief
That's not what I asked. Try again.

In philosophy, the definition of an atheist is generally someone who claims god does not exist. It is not someone who believes god does not exist because confirming what someone claims is easier than confirming what someone genuinely believes, so the definition revolving around a claim is more practical.
t. atheist

>>18496416
>In philosophy, the definition of an atheist is
No one asked.

>>18496412
>That's not what I asked.
That is in fact what you asked.
>What DO they believe?
The correct answer is to point out that this is an invalid question because it attempts to retrieve information that is not contained within the targeted term. Do you disagree? If so, why? If you don't have a reason for disagreeing, then you don't have a problem with the answer.

>>18496420
>That is in fact what you asked.
You're hallucinating. I didn't ask you what atheism is or isn't. I asked:
> What DO they believe?

>>18496419
I didn't ask whether you asked.

>>18496422
Yes, you asked an invalid question, and I explained why it's wrong. If you disagree with the answer, state a specific reason why. Otherwise, I accept your concession.

>>18496426
>you asked an invalid question
Why is it invalid?

>>18496416
> because confirming what someone claims is easier than confirming what someone genuinely believes
So why not define it as someone who claims that they do not believe in god?

>>18496423
Didn't ask. Whatever you're going to say next, I didn't ask that, either.

>>18496437
Because the information is not heckin' contained within the targeted term, ok? It just isn't!!!!!

>>18496447
Ditto. Have sex, incel.

>>18496450
Right, I just thought maybe he can elaborate on this unsubstantiated claim without just repeating his appeal to dictionary fallacy again. :^(

>>18496455
>i'm transitioning
Ok. But I did not ask.
>inb4 a lecture about why you're a woman by philosophical definition

>>18496438
Presumably because philosophers are generally interested in how a claim is defended and a defense of the claim that you do not believe in god will be quite boring.

>>18496437
this >>18496450
And if you disagree that the information isn't contained, argue why. Propose an alternate view of atheism which includes the possibility of providing an answer that includes a belief.
>>18496456
Not a fallacy unless you challenge the definition by providing an alternate one, which you haven't. Therefore, the use of the definition remains legitimate and your question remains inaccurate.

>>18496460
I can see that you're foaming at the mouth because you can't substantiate your claims ("you asked an invalid question", "it attempts to retrieve information that is not contained within the targeted term") without appealing to the dictionary.

>>18496458
Okay, but that's a different reason from the one you originally gave.

>>18496457
>crossdressers out of nowhere
lol

>>18496470
>without appealing to the dictionary
The use of the dictionary definition is the correct response because you don't have a reason why it shouldn't be used beyond your failure to understand how fallacies actually work. If you don't have the capacity to articulate why you reject the definition, then it stays, and your question fails. Are you going to argue that atheism isn't a lack of a belief in gods? If not, then you can't complain about the definition. Again, appeal to definition is only a fallacy if used to contradict an alternate attempt at defining a term. It's a semantic trick. You're not providing an alternate definition, therefore it's not a fallacy.

>>18496476
>you asked an invalid question
>it attempts to retrieve information that is not contained within the targeted term
Explain why.

>>18496472
Because it's a reason for a different thing. I was giving the reason for why philosophers use the "someone who claims god exists" rather than the "someone who believes god exists" definition.

>the retarded pseudo"philosopher" has no idea where the term "atheist" even originates
>hallucinates his own version of reality like a broken chatbot instead

>>18496484
I literally don't care if you use a folk definition. If you read philosophy, you'll see people use a different definition than the one you use, but that's not really my problem.

>>18496480
You ask what atheists believe in. I explain that atheism is a lack of a belief in gods, therefore asking what a group that is defined by "doesn't believe in X" must believe in is invalid, because we are working with a definition that does not include "believes in Y". You complain about the use of the definition. I ask you to then directly challenge the definition by either claiming it's inaccurate or providing an alternate one. You fail to do so and merely complain about using any definition at all, because you do not appear to understand how to correctly invoke a fallacy in a discussion. Again, if you don't like the use of the definition of atheism as "a lack of belief in gods", then you must explain why. Failure to do so means you rescind on the ability to complain about an appeal to definition, because it's only fallacious when used to deny alternate definitions that are being entertained. You do not appear to be willing to postulate any alternate definitions of atheism, so what's your problem exactly?

>>18496488
>biobot doubles down on hallucinations

>>18496489
>You ask what atheists believe in. I explain that atheism is a lack of a belief in gods
I didn't ask you about what dictionary atheists believe in. I asked you what the actual people who identify as atheists believe in. How many times are you going to repeat this error?

>>18496490
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

>>18496495
>dictionary atheists
>the actual people who identify as atheists
These are one and the same. Do you disagree? Then offer a definition of "the actual people who identify as atheists" that diverges from "people who don't believe in gods". Not that you're going to do that, of course. Or do you deny that atheists are people who don't believe in gods?

>>18496490
>>18496495
>posts exactly one minute apart
Your samefagging is too obvious. Buy a 4chan pass or something.

File: suiciding-happily.jpg (29 KB, 656x488)

29 KB JPG

>>18496501
Ok. I was going to make fun of you for linking to an article that directly contradicts you, but then I decided to doublecheck your actual post and realized I'm retarded. I apologize. I think it's time for me to take a break. Brainlet fatigue is making me a brainlet.

>>18496505
>These are one and the same.
Proof?

>offer a definition of "the actual people who identify as atheists"
"The actual people who identify as atheists" means the actual people who identify as atheists. There is nothing more to it. Are you mentally ill?

>>18496524
>Proof?
The proof is that you cannot list a single trait either group has that is different.
>"The actual people who identify as atheists" means the actual people who identify as atheists
Do you believe that the actual people who identify as atheists have any traits in common other than a lack of a belief in gods? If so, which ones?

>>18496534
>you cannot list a single trait either group has that is different
You're saying people who identify as atheists don't have any beliefs at all? Or are you saying one group having a belief while the other one doesn't isn't a difference? Either way, you are definitely mentally ill.

>>18496518
It's fine breh, enjoy your break.

>>18496541
>You're saying people who identify as atheists don't have any beliefs at all?
No, I'm saying that you can't point to a single belief *in common* that they have. If you disagree, post one.
>one group having a belief
So you believe that people who identify as atheists have at least one belief in common? Specify it if so. Post it directly. Articulate it with your words. Describe your alternate hypothesis, if you disagree that the only common trait that people who identify as atheists have is that they lack a belief in gods. If you don't, I'll assume for practical purposes that you agree that they don't have any specific common belief. After all, I've given you plenty of opportunity to directly disagree. Surely you'd voice your disagreement if you held one, right?

>>18496534
>You cannot list a single trait either group has that is different.

>>18496546
>No, I'm saying that you can't point to a single belief *in common* that they have

>*...*

This is obviously a broken spambot.

Given the wide range of often vague meanings "god" can include, the counterclaim "god does not exist" also has an annoyingly wide range of meanings. Imo this is why atheists are reluctant to be pinned down as making a positive claim to god's nonexistence. Some ideas of god can be argued to have been falsified, some can only be argued to be improbable, some can only be argued to be superfluous, and some can only be argued against by saying "you might call that a god, but that's not what I mean by a god."

Maybe a more precise description of the average atheist, rather than a person who believes gods don't exist, would be a person who simply feels no need to use the concept "god" to refer to anything in their worldview.

>>18496550
Thanks for confirming that you don't have any disagreement with me and that you also think that atheists are people who don't believe that gods exist. Glad we sorted that out.

>>18496553
>Maybe a more precise description of the average atheist, rather than a person who believes gods don't exist, would be a person who simply feels no need to use the concept "god" to refer to anything in their worldview.
A more precise description of the average atheist is an empirical question with a very unflattering answer, which is why the people in question get so mad when you try to pin them down.

>>18496584
yep. they do that dictionary thumping thing because you're not allowed to notice things about them collectively. you're supposed to be on the defensive, not identify and question their worldview

>>18496584
>>18496594
Multiple attempts at wringing out any description of "actual atheists" have been made ITT to no avail, from people who ostensibly disagree that atheists are people who don't think that gods exist yet who also refuse to provide any alternative views of it.

Atheists also tend to have a more open-ended worldview on the whole imo because they don't think an old book or tradition has everything definitively answered for them. So there's no universal atheist position on how/if the universe came into being at some point, or whether there's an afterlife, or whether there's objective morality, or any of the other things that religion promises to offer in a neatly wrapped box.

>>18496605
the harder you thump your book the less people see the pattern. good job, keep it up

>>18496610
What is the pattern, exactly? Describe its attributes.

>>18496610
>your book
A dictionary is an atheist book? Is that one of the patterns you see?

>>18496609
>Atheists also tend to have a more open-ended worldview
Is there any actual evidence for this textbook atheist talking point?

>>18496624
Yes, the fact that the only common trait of atheists is not believing that gods exist, with no other prerequisite as to how your worldview is shaped so long as it does not include any deities. You can be an atheist and a Buddhist or a Hindu. You can even be an atheist and believe in ghosts and paranormal shit, plenty of those in East Asia.

Tbh the only reason I identify as an atheist is that me not believing in YHWH makes people go apeshit, and that's funny.

>>18496624
>Is there any actual evidence for this textbook atheist talking point?
No.

>>18493873
Reminder, most "Christians" are custom si chatbots, when captcha started, Christians disappeared for a good 3 days off 4chan, and a priest admitted he was training a Christian AI, ignore this retarded bullshit, as it's praught by AI

>>18496628
>the only common trait of atheists is not believing that gods exist
>the only common trait of blacks is having dark skin
>the only common trait of women is having a vagina
No wonder atheists gravitate towards leftist ideologies. Didn't take them long to go from Lack-Of-A-Belief-In-Godism to Lack-Of-A-Belief-In-Godism+. :^)

>>18496778
>Lack-Of-A-Belief-In-Godism+
Specify the things which you personally believe are contained within the "+". We're all dying to read them.

>that one obsessive spambot

>>18496268
>Empirically, people who bother to self-identify as "atheists" tend to hold beliefs that form their own distinct constellation.
Nope there is your mistake every time you talk to an "atheist" you are talking to a new person without a dogma to follow. You can't easily understand if you are using your grug tribal brain.

>>18496788
>leftist talking points

>>18494437
>There's never been a. Time in which God did not exist.
There's also never been a time the physical universe didn't exist, since time is a property of it.

File: laughing-cat.gif (85 KB, 220x218)

85 KB GIF

ROFL it's that christcuck who tried to "formally prove God" with pretentious Latin and immediately lost his shit and accused me of posturing with jargon when I pushed back with arguments that appeal to freshman math! I dominated him so hard he came back with a full thread!

THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF CHRISTARDS

>>18496792
>There's also never been a time the physical universe didn't exist, since time is a property of it.
And?

>>18496804
If god is timeless that means he's also massless and thus must constantly move at c, therefore he can't have a valid frame of reference meaning he cannot be an entity with a point of view and subjective experience.

>>18496817
>he cannot be an entity with a point of view and subjective experience.
And?