>>18173136
Case closed. Can we talk about history now.

I can't just convince myself to believe on a whim. It would be just larping with no faith.

File: jtrlhkwydvmkegr.jpg (264 KB, 1457x2048)

264 KB JPG

>>18173136
>be omnipotent, omniscient, supposedly omnibenevolent god
>creates childhood bone cancer, parasites that eat kids' eyes, natural disasters that wipe out entire families
>creates a system where the only way to avoid eternal torture is to believe in him based on a 2000 year old book with zero evidence
>still expects worship
>mfws still say "you have no reason not to believe"
The burden of proof is on you, dumbass. The world looks exactly like one where there is no god.

I take the minuscule chance of eternity in hell over being a lifetime christcuck
Also if god was real he made this way

>>18173148
Real. But it's a start.

>>18173151
>The world looks exactly like one where there is no god.
Source?

>>18173157
> Source?
Leibniz. He said the world with god is the best possible world. And our... just isn't that, bro.

>>18173162
"The world looks exactly like one where there is no god." is an empirical statement. It's a shame that it's based on "it feels like God shouldn't do this", which takes away any hint of scientific-mindedness the statement had.

>>18173169
This goes both ways, if you want to say I cannot have a principled reason to think this world looks like one without God in it, because I can't know what God would, or wouldn't do
- that is also to say: "There is no evidence for God" , which was exactly the point

unless you can tell me what God *would* do, without appealing to "it feels like God would do this", which is literally all what any theistic belief has ever amounted to

File: file.png (240 KB, 626x817)

240 KB PNG

If you're not sure the Bible is the word of God watch: youtube.com/watch?v=9l5ZEsXjNVI

1 Cor. 15:3-4: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”

How to know you're saved: youtube.com/watch?v=EAtR40sue5M

1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Rom 3:23: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”
Jesus Christ is God who has come in the flesh from heaven. He died as a sinless sacrifice for the sins of the whole world to save you from eternal hell, the punishment for your sin. He was buried, then resurrected and then ascended to heaven. John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 10:28: "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." Rom. 10:9: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
God wants to forgive you, but you have a choice: Do you choose the righteousness of God by receiving Christ? Your own righteousness can NEVER justify you or keep you saved because of your sin. Rom 5:9: “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, in His finished blood atonement. The gift of salvation can't be earned. Receive Jesus Christ as He is; The Lord and Savior, King, as well as Prophet and Priest, Sovereign [ruler] as well as God.

Eph. 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc

>>18173136
The real wager is whether or not we are spending our finite time alive following a legitimate deity or being duped by leadership. To consider the afterlife at all is really insisting upon the former.

>if I don’t give away 10% of my wealth, mutilate my sons, and live my life in a way that objectively benefits the state then I may burn in magic lava
It’s cuckold slave shit if you ask me.

>>18173136
According to the bible everyone already knows God exists, what differentiates the believer from the unbeliever is whether they repent and believes that Jesus is God's son who died for their sins and rose from the dead.

File: file.png (236 KB, 691x836)

236 KB PNG

>>18173148
A number of years ago, Peter W. Stoner and Robert C. Newman wrote a book entitled Science Speaks. The book was based on the science of probability and vouched for by the American Scientific Affiliation. It set out the odds of any one man in all of history fulfilling even only eight of the 60 major prophecies (and 270 ramifications) fulfilled by the life of Christ.

There were many specific predictions made by the OT prophets regarding the betrayal, trial, death and burial of the Lord Jesus. These were uttered by different prophets during the period from 1000 BC to 500 BC, yet they were all literally fulfilled in 24 hours in one person.

The probability that Jesus of Nazareth could have fulfilled even eight such prophecies would be only 1 in 1017. That's 1 in 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.

He fulfilled at least 351.

The Bible is unlike all other ‘sacred books’ in that it bases its ‘authenticity’ and ‘authority’ on prophecy. All other ‘sacred books’ contain no predictions as to the future. If their authors had attempted to foretell future events, their non-fulfillment would discredit their writings and they would be classed as liars and fraudsters. Fulfilled prophecy is stronger evidence for the inspiration and ‘authenticity’ of the Scriptures than miracles. Prophecy is not a ‘haphazard guess,’ nor a ‘probability’ made up on uncertain data, prophecy is history written in advance. Two-thirds of the Scriptures are prophetic, either in type, symbol, or direct statement; and more than one-half of the OT prophecies, and nearly all of the NT, points to events that are future. It was because the
religious leaders of Christ’s day were not students of the prophetic Scriptures that they failed to recognize Him when He came. This is also true of Christians today who do not study prophecy – they too, will not be ready for the Lord’s return at the Rapture.

youtube.com/watch?v=9l5ZEsXjNVI
https://download.timefortruth.co.uk/docs/Christian_Soldiers_Battle_Notes.pdf

"God is real" and "hell is real" are different statements. Stop assuming your retarded sect of Judaism is the only interpretation of God. Indeed Mooslims believe Christians will go to hell as surely as atheists.

>>18173235
I'll add to this that the bible never claims there is good "evidence" Jesus performed miracles or rose from the dead either, in-fact "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" as it were.

>>18173136
ok but here's the thing, if i acted like i believed in god purely because i'm doing picrel and trying not to go to hell, why would god let me into heaven? because i truly don't believe in him, i can't bring myself to, so surely even if i followed all the rules he would still recognize that i'm a nonbeliever.

File: file.png (14 KB, 843x69)

14 KB PNG

>>18173241
>>18173148
Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork.” The beauty and glory of the heaven speak loudly saying, “God exists.” Romans 1:20 goes further and suggest that creation even teaches about the eternal power of the Godhead, “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” The man who accepts Scripture will readily acknowledge the existence of God. Let us study some other less convincing but nevertheless powerful arguments.

Man is born with a universal belief in a Supreme Being; no tribe has yet been discovered that lacks this. They know that some Being creates and controls. Romans 2:15, “Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts meanwhile excusing or else accusing one another.” The existence of God is written in the human conscience.

Some atheists may claim that their conscience does not tell them about God. It is doubtful if a genuine atheist can be found for at best they are men who have stilled conscience by blatant unbelief. Men deny the existence of God, not because they cannot find Him but because they are afraid to face the responsibility of being accountable to Him after death. Atheism is one of the devil’s tools to put men to sleep without accepting salvation.
If there is no God then I am not responsible to anyone and I can live and die as I please. But in the quieter moments of reflection the conscience of every man whispers, “There is a God” and only fools deny it. To look up and see a plane and not see the pilot and say that the plane is pilotless is as ridiculous as looking into the heavens and saying that there is no God simply because we cannot see Him. Because we see creation, we believe in God.

If God exists, God is responsible for the existence of atheism.
As well as for the existence of countless religions and denominations

>>18173265
Why is God responsible for humans using their free will foolishly?

>>18173136
I just prefer Hell

https://youtu.be/40LdAq7MjIs?si=aoylZAjesbKRY_TU

>>18173263
>everyone secretly knows the magic jew is real
>he talks to me every day
>the devil is trying to make me doubt the magic jew is real
Meds

>God is real and he hates suckups
>Hell
>God is real and he doesn't care
>Nothing
>God is real and he is Allah
>Hell unless muslim of the right denomination
Non-binary wager

>>18173220
You can have a principled reason. It just can't be an appeal to a universe-summarizing empiricism, which only one Anon has made itt.

>>18173278
You forgot my favourite.
God just likes Hellfire and Metal

File: file.png (261 KB, 671x798)

261 KB PNG

>>18173275
Man is born with a universal belief in a Supreme Being; no tribe has yet been discovered that lacks this. They know that some Being creates and controls. The world is here. It must have come from somewhere. Somebody or something must have caused it to come into being at one time or another.
The only sensible answer to the problem of the existence of the world is the existence of an intelligent Being whom we call God. Everything else has been proven to be foolishness, especially atheism.

File: mspaint_rJcxaLrMqV.png (28 KB, 817x645)

28 KB PNG

Game theory bros, what's our next move?

>>18173268
Free will and predestination existing in the same cosmology? Only abrahamanics can be this special minded

>>18173287
But why would God be a jewish bearded mythology Frankenstein instead of a Metalhead that rewards with Hell and punishes with Heaven?

>>18173298
lmao he doesn't know that freedom isn't function of future-ignorance

>>18173287
Almost like we are biologically coded to humanize the world, being humans. It certainly helps snuff the chaos of the world having an absolute explanation. But do tell me, why is Abraham’s God the real God?

>inauthentically convert to Catholicism because of Pascal's Wager
>die
>it turns out that the one true religion is Sunni Islam
>go to hell for being a polytheist
no refunds!

>>18173287
>Transitional fossils were not found
Now it's the moment to ignore the actual transitional fossils that were found

File: 0763744.jpg (15 KB, 310x420)

15 KB JPG

>>18173303
Because he bought that ticket

>>18173302
>Just don't think about the the past-knowledge
t. You

>>18173241
Oh, so why not believe in, say, the quran? It's simple. There is no other book that is anything like the Bible in any way.

Mohammed was not a prophet. He didn’t predict one single prophecy during his lifetime or after he was dead. Mohammed could not prophesy when he would die, where he would die or how he would die! Moses knew when and where. Elijah knew when he was going up to glory (2 Kings 2), Jesus Christ listed 10 details of His coming death, Mohammed didn’t. All of the ‘prophecies’ in the Koran that turn out to be ‘historical’ were stolen from a Book, ‘THE Book’ (i.e. THE BIBLE) that was complete (and in circulation) more than 900 years before Mohammed was born. Have you ever stopped to think that not one of the world’s major religions (Mormons, Buddhists, Jews etc.) were able to put on paper one historical prophecy dealing with anything that would happen in actual history after their founders were dead. All genuine prophecies in Judaism are taken from ‘THE LAW’ and ‘THE PROPHETS’ (i.e. THE BIBLE) – Luke 24v44. The Scripture of truth (Dan 10v21) does not fail to predict histories that deal with weather conditions, nations, military engagements, alliances, religions, apostasy, churches, and
individuals, anywhere from 10-2000 years ahead of time!

The Bible is unlike all other ‘sacred books’ in that it bases its ‘authenticity’ and ‘authority’ on prophecy. All other ‘sacred books’ contain no predictions as to the future. If their authors had attempted to foretell future events, their non-fulfillment would discredit their writings and they would be classed as liars and fraudsters. Fulfilled prophecy is stronger evidence for the inspiration and ‘authenticity’ of the Scriptures than miracles.

The Bible must have one Author; how could 40 men living in different centuries, over a period of 1,700 years, have compiled a consistent account of creation, the fall of man into sin, and his ultimate redemption through faith in the promised Redeemer of God?

>>18173157
>Source?
Christians, The Bible
the guys who says God is good

>>18173310
If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species.

Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record… ‘In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.’

If ‘evolution’ was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.

If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

>>18173298
The Bible doesn't teach that anyone is predestinated before they are born. The Bible teaches that the moment someone accepts Jesus Christ as their Saviour and becomes born again child of God, they are predestinated.

Romans 8:38-39 "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

>>18173320
>the guys who says God is good say the world is rosy
Imma need the verse, bro

>>18173136
Of course, I recently saw a drunkard, and of course he has a patron, the god of drinking alcohol Bacchus, in my country folks call him Buchus and there is a verb derived from this name.

>>18173136
This isn't a reason to believe, in the sense of it being a reason to think it's true that there's a God

this is just a perk you get, in the case you think it's true there is a God

>>18173321
There are plenty of partially formed attributes in animals, such as whales’ hip bones. Also it is very uncommon for a dead plant or animal to end up fossilized. It requires all the right conditions.

>>18173337
Quickfix

...Buhhus and there is a verb derived from this name.

File: 815f7542eedc310e539160e10(...).jpg (385 KB, 1080x1680)

385 KB JPG

>>18173318
Suppose you're wrong, such as you tend to be with other guesses like winning lotteries and such... The true religion is alien and your world doesnt have the sacred texts, what now?

>>18173335
I don't care what they say about the world, they are also wrong about that
they are coping

Point is that what they say about God is incompatible with with our world

>>18173348
It is entirely compatible. We are messing the world up and God is offering us a solution. It's exactly, exactly what people testify to again and again.

>>18173321
>we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species.
Bones dust away too given enough time, you need really, really good special conditions to ever have a part of a fossil of a long disappeared animal, not even mentioning the full fossil
>>18173331
>The Bible doesn't teach that anyone is predestinated before they are born
Then Yahweh doesn't have full control of his creation. Abrahamism debunked

>>18173341
Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that ‘the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.’

The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it… ‘It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise socalled scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.’

According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago. But it still exists today. So why hasn’t it evolved at all over the time frame?

The most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, ‘Piltdown Man’, turned out to be a giant hoax.

>>18173344
Well I still remember about 10 years ago when I accepted salvation and suddenly the next day when I opened up r6 siege it was like I was a baby witnessing violence in horror for the first time ever in my life. Now obviously I don't base my faith on this miraculous new nature appearing or any other feelings I have, but when you look at the simple statistical improbability of the prophecies in the Bible being correct every time, it's impossible to believe otherwise.

>>18173303
Still waiting on a reason as to why the God of Abraham is the real one.

>>18173355
>doesn't have full control of his creation.
He does though, He just limits His own power because He doesn't want to make dolls, He wants humans to have the free will to choose to put their trust in Him. He cares about charity, love, goodness, and hates pride.

>>18173358
> Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature.
Dog breeds?

>>18173370
The proliferation of dog breeds is entirely human created through directed evolution. We turned wolves into chihuahuas using directed evolution, it's not something that naturally occurred all by itself.

>>18173358
>Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature.
What do you mean by "another kind of creature?"

>>18173136
The entire premise of religion hinges on threats of violence and torture if you don't believe in their made up fairy tales. I have no reason to believe I have anything to fear other than words in a book and guys in funny hats that say they believe it because of the book, also written by guys in funny hats. I don't care about any of this because it isn't real.

>>18173145
Sure. Make a thread.

>>18173373
Well, for example a fish turning into a giraffe, or any other ridiculous fairy tale evolutionists make up.

>>18173358
You filled with metaphysical light, as a result you became filled with stupidity and cowardice and weakness.

I too, was forcebaptized.
The moment I accepted Darkness it was like ushering in a new era.
I am not looking back, and I am saved by my own gnosis. As per meditative practice, I earned it. You think this is a belief, it isn't, it's an event that unfolds.

>>18173148
You can actually brainwash yourself to believe in something.

That's not the issue, the issue is, even if God is real, we don't really know if it's really the Christian God. Maybe the Muslims are right and you are fucked anyways. Or maybe God doesn't care if you worship him or not.

Sure, you are safe in the case of one scenario but we don't know what is the likelyhood of that.

>>18173372
You literally said ‘in the laboratory’ here >>18173358

Assuming evolution is real and happens over periods of time human history cannot remotely contend with, how exactly would we be capable of witnessing it happen in real time in a controlled environment, let alone the wild?

>>18173376
I don't think any evolutionist claim that fish turned into giraffes. The idea as I understand it is that some fish mutated into something that mutated into something that mutated into something and so on for many millions of years. Where do you think different organisms come from?

That isn't really believing in God that is just trusting the religious person with the worst deal in the afterlife just in case.

>>18173366
>He does though, He just limits His own power
Then, he's a passive observer akin to a scientist watching how a rat colony develops in an environment with limited resources that hates them he made. At that point, worshipping him or not is irrelevant

>>18173388
>Assuming evolution is real and happens over periods of time human history cannot remotely contend with, how exactly would we be capable of witnessing it happen in real time in a controlled environment, let alone the wild?
Evolution happens in every single new generation of an organism, whether forced by humans or not. If you want example of macro evolution there's a famous experiment where Soviet researchers managed to domesticate a breed of fox and that took place will within the lifetime of a single human life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

>>18173377
I just said that what happened to me that day is not what I base my faith on, it's just something that the Bible says would happen, and I FELT it happening to me.
> I am saved by my own gnosis

And what is your authority to say that? I was saved by the Lord Jesus Christ and my authority is the perfect infallible WORD OF GOD in this matter.

>>18173388
>>18173389
>>18173394
Evolution is impossible! Evolution is biologically impossible. Evolution is mathematically impossible. Here are some reasons. The Earth’s Magnetic Field - The strength of the earth’s magnetic field has been measured for well over a century. This provides scientists with exceptionally good records. In an important recent study, Dr. Thomas G. Barnew has shown that the strength of the earth’s magnetic field is decaying exponentially at a rate corresponding to a half-life of 1,400 years. That is to say, 1,400 years ago the magnetic field of the earth was twice as strong as it is now. If we extrapolate back as far as 10,000 years, we find that the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as that of a magnetic star. This is, of course, impossible.

Watch this and try to say the Bible is not the word of God, you cannot.

It's your choice to accept salvation, but you have no excuse to say to God after He asks you why you didn't accept His mercy.

youtube.com/watch?v=9l5ZEsXjNVI
youtube.com/watch?v=yS78mFJcvhQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCsPy4CY6hI

>>18173406
The anon I was replying to was referring to fish turning into giraffes. He’s not interested in reasonable answers.

>>18173410
My bad, I misread your post.

>>18173408
>math and magnetics therefore magic kike
meds

>>18173408
>dude just spend hours watching this stack of youtube videos
I shan't, if you can't argue your beliefs using your own words then don't enter discussion threads

>>18173136
I see no evidence of a god or gods in this world.

>>18173136
>The wager inherently implies that God accepts a selfish salvation born of calculated self-interest rather than sincere faith.
>The wager posits that one should choose the most mathematically optimal choice in faith in order to save their soul. It then erroneously states that believing in the Christian god is the most optimal choice. In truth, the most optimal choice is devoting oneself to as many gods and faiths as possible in order to maximize the odds of getting one right. Since the Christian god explicitly forbids the worship of anyone other than him, he is actually the second worst choice, mathematically speaking, only beaten by atheism.
Pascal's Wager is not a compelling argument for conversion. Boom, pwned.

>>18173408
>This theory that has been proven again and again is not true
Please

>>18173429
>>18173421
>>18173414
> if you can't argue your beliefs
You haven't been able to argue your beliefs at all, evolution is complete nonsense.

Imagine believing in the following: Nothing produces everything, Non-Life produces life, Randomness produces fine-tuning, Chaos produces information, Unconsciousness produces consciousness, Non-reason produces reason.

Prove to me that isn't absolutely 100% impossible.

>>18173432
Where did God come from? Why do you believe he is the God of Abraham?

>>18173432
> Nothing produces everything
Before the Big Bang, there was already a vast vaccum filled with matter. Otherwise, the Big Bang couldn't have occurred by itself (and no, it wasn't Gigajew who did it)

>>18173432
the swollen wisdom tooth sockets in my skull are not indicative of fine tuning

>>18173437
Psalms 90:2
“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”

Nobody made God.

>>18173439
Ah yes, there was already a vast vaccum filled with matter, that was produced from absolutely nothing, by nobody. Make it make sense.

File: hisbait.jpg (102 KB, 500x379)

102 KB JPG

>>18173145
No, not until the cow is dry.

>>18173432
>Imagine believing in the following: Nothing produces everything, Non-Life produces life, Randomness produces fine-tuning, Chaos produces information, Unconsciousness produces consciousness, Non-reason produces reason.
The good thing about not being completely dogmatic about these questions is that you can just say "I don't know, here's what I think and why I think it." You are asking for proof of things that have not yet and might not ever be able to be proven to a certainty.

>>18173443
Regarding Evolution, which is the greatest hoax of all time, which evolved first and how long did it work without the others…? The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (e.g. stomach, intestines etc.)

The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? How about this one… The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? See how ridiculous evolution is! Which evolved first, the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

What about the nervous system, repair system, or hormone system, which evolved first? How can love, mercy, guilt, satisfaction, anger, sympathy, revenge etc. evolve?


The theory of evolution:
‘Hydrogen is a colourless, odourless gas which given enough time, turns into people’

The evolutionary formula for making the universe:
Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 94 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order

This is the evolutionary formula for making life: Dirt + water = living creatures

Now when you introduce God into the picture, everything suddenly makes sense.

>>18173445
What's this idea that matter preceded creation that scare abrahamics so much? And no moving the goalposts, please

>>18173445
>Nobody made God
So something can come from nothing.
>>18173455
>I don’t trust what hurts my narrative
Okay, but why do you worship the god of the Jews? Are you a Jew?

>>18173462
And why does this scare you so much?

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. "

>>18173467
It doesn’t scare me, it’s retarded. There is a difference.

>>18173466
>>Nobody made God
>So something can come from nothing.
No. He did not "come", he was already there. And before you ask, we know scientifically that the universe is not like this due to the law of entropy.

>>18173474
Why is he a magic jew?

>>18173476
Never heard of that, wouldn't know.

>>18173466
>>18173474
Exactly, God has always been, He didn't have a beginning.

>>18173471
Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. If you believe it, you have been sucked in and deluded by the devil, as the evidence for evolution is non-existent.

>>18173477
You believe very specifically in the god of Abraham, do you not?

>>18173467
This is contradicted by science, however. So Yahweh is a big liar

>>18173480
Of course!

>>18173478
>as the evidence for evolution is non-existent.
What do you think evolution is and what sort of proof would you require for it?

>>18173485
Why do you believe in Yahweh rather than take on a deistic perspective? What about jewish mythology do you find compelling?

>>18173487
I'm not saying that evolution itself doesnt exist, but "the THEORY of evolution is like placing a monkey at a keyboard and having him start typing. Assume the monkey never dies and give him 5 billion years to type. What are the chances the monkey will type out the entire works of the Encyclopaedia Britannica volumes A-Z in the exact order with no spelling or grammar errors? The chances of that happening are actually better than the theory of evolution ever happening! "


"‘Once we see, however, that the probability of life origination at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate. It is, therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligence . . . even to the limit of God.’ - Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astrophysicist, an atheist for much of his life, until he finally admitted the truth. "

>>18173487
"You have never seen one single animal (kind) changing into anything else one day in your life. The only time an evolutionist will actually experience ‘evolution’ is in his imagination or dreams. "

>>18173490
Also "Yahweh" is not the name of God, it's a pagan name for some god and people just borrowed that name for some reason.

>>18173490
I've never heard a compelling case for deism desu. God creates the world, infuses it with information, sets it up so humans can exist and even indirectly get to know Him, maintains this entire universe every single second ... but decides that an interaction is a bit too far? Why? At least Abrahamic religions stand on volumes of experiences. Deism stands on nothing but a "what if this is where God left it?".... it has no way to rationally compel anyone except people who already wanted to believe it.

>>18173502
You make a perfect watch that never breaks. Then you decide to open it and mess things up for no reason. Makes no sense.

>>18173492
>I'm not saying that evolution itself doesnt exist, but "the THEORY of evolution is like placing a monkey at a keyboard and having him start typing. Assume the monkey never dies and give him 5 billion years to type. What are the chances the monkey will type out the entire works of the Encyclopaedia Britannica volumes A-Z in the exact order with no spelling or grammar errors? The chances of that happening are actually better than the theory of evolution ever happening! "
I'm asking you to use your own words instead of living in quotes. What do you think evolution is, if it exists, and what would you accept as proof that evolution is true?
>>18173495
Animals randomly morphing into other animals is not what evolutionists are arguing for though.

>>18173511
That is literally the theory of evolution though... That humans evolved from monkeys.

>>18173510
Then I suppose it's not a watch. You hit one of the many limits of the machine-model of reality.

>>18173502
Deism doesn’t try and make a case or spread a dogma. It is merely a belief in a creator and an admission of our own limited understanding. You want answers even if they are fabricated.

>>18173514
No, the current mainstream idea is that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. There was not a creature that was an adult chimp on Monday that then turned into an adult Homo Sapiens on Tuesday.

>>18173517
>It is merely a belief in a creator and an admission of our own limited understanding.
So you can be a deist and encounter God face to face?

>>18173523
You tell me.

>>18173525
No, you can't. Which is why I'm not a deist. It draws a definite line that is even less justified than an average pagan one.

>>18173527
So you claim to understand the will of God?

>>18173519
Ok, so the theory keeps changing because it doesn't make any damn sense. You still believe the eye and ear evolved by themselves due to random chance though, right? Multiple mutations (copying mistakes that never produce ‘increased’ information) and a lot of time! You can see that they have been designed of course. Imagine someone having enough faith to believe that they evolved by themselves without a designer, let alone evolving together alongside the brain, heart, kidneys, liver, stomach, and every other organ you have in your body… plus all the other ‘bits and pieces’. If you’re not designed, then I’m the tooth-fairy.

Everyone should ‘baulk’ at Dawk and Hawk, because they have made their living (1 Tim 6v10) at guesswork backed up with no proof or scientific evidence whatsoever; and millions of suckers have bought into their religion

>>18173531
I claim to understand reasoning and "what if this is where it ends" is poorly reasoned.

>>18173532
>Ok, so the theory keeps changing because it doesn't make any damn sense.
The theory has been pretty consistent for a pretty long time, I'm starting to suspect you just have just completely misunderstood what it is. What do you think "evolution" is, do you think it is a real phenomenon and if not then what kind of proof would you require to believe in it?

>>18173533
So you’ve settled on an absolute answer without evidence because you fear the ramifications.

>>18173305
Well you were going to hell anyway so nothing lost

>>18173539
Not me. God personally came to me in a dream and told me I was going to heaven. I’m also a faggot btw.

>>18173537
>>"what if this is where it ends" is poorly reasoned
>So you’ve settled on an absolute answer without evidence
No I can provide evidence that "what if" is poor reasoning. Just say the word.

>>18173542
Prove to me the God of Abraham created all things then.

>>18173548
Oh the goalposts have shifted? Ok, pray with me for 40 years.

>>18173550
How have they?

>>18173136
Pascal's wager is stupid. What if Satan decided that those who would have gone to hell go to heaven and vice versa. Should we then do evil because there's now a chance of going to Satan's heaven if we do? You guys can come up with better reasons to believe in God than pascal's wager. COME ON.

>>18173553
Compare >>18173533 and >>18173548

>>18173554
>What if...
What if not. COME ON.

>>18173136
if god is real hes the demiurge

>>18173136
This isn't even in consideration of the multiplicity and pluralism which exists within the abrahamic theological tradition, let alone those pagan, indigenous and oriental... If in turn you are to imply there exists a god, independent and inconsequential from the religions of the world, the properties which he retains, the rationale which he operates on would be utterly unknowable and incoherent—Billions across the history and geography of the world have not even had the possibility to be offered the path of the lord, as he is conventionally considered.

>>18173564
Alright, but what if it's not the case God exists, then? Pascal's wager is a really dumb reason to believe in God. There are way better reasons. You don't need to be stupid.

>>18173880
>what if it's not
What if it is?

I'm telling you that a mere "what if" has as much power as its negation.

>>18173136
But since god isn't real, there's no reason to either.

>>18173136
If there is a god then I doubt he cares what I think about the existence of god, or what religion of follow,

It is obvious the dominate religion is state sanctioned and recommended

But less & less people are buying the story because it is unbelievable and the further science progresses the more unbelievable it gets = god of the gaps theory©

>>18173235
>According to the bible everyone already knows God exists
Then the bible is wrong and retarded.

>>18173136
>Pascal's Wager
Chrisrtians and muslims claim that the other group goes to hell and there are a bunch of christian and muslim denominations who claim that everyone who doesn't believe in their specific denomination goes to hell. Maybe God is neutral towards atheists but hates christians and muslims which would make it being a part of these religions is a net negative.

>>18173383
What's the zoroastrian view of hell? Do christians and muslims go to hell according to zoroastrianism?

>>18174090
>Maybe
Maybe not

File: xFYnsT0YAuQYmusht07D8_Z9D(...).png (260 KB, 1685x1930)

260 KB PNG

>>18173136

>>18174108
>Pascal's wager
>Never meant to determine the correct religion
>Doesn't determine the correct religion
>>> Ahhh why is this happening

File: 1000013215.gif (3.49 MB, 620x640)

3.49 MB GIF

>>18173921
Okay, let me lay it out for you, because you're not getting it. There is not power in negation or whatever the fuck you're talking about. I never negatex anything.

>Possibility 1. God's heaven exists.
You do good, then you go to heaven. You do evil and you go to hell.
>Possibility 2. Satan's heaven exists.
You do good, then you go to hell. You do evil and you go to heaven.
>Possibility 3. There is no afterlife, Satan, or God.
You do good, then nothing happens. You do evil and nothing happens.

As you can see, by introducing Satan's heaven as a possibility, it completely BTFOs Pascal's wager. There is no "just to be safe, I won't be evil" because what if being evil makes you go to heaven?

We don't know that being evil will do that, but just to be safe, lets just do whatever the fuck we want, right?

File: 1580980244065.jpg (43 KB, 659x506)

43 KB JPG

>>18173222

>>18174311
I genuinely did not think I'd have to be explaining it for a second time.

If you making up Satan's heaven is a BTFO, then I can (with equal logical strenght) BTFO you back by making up God's Satan's heaven, where the roles are reversed one step further and the wager works out perfectly. You suggesting a "what if" scenario is you talking out of your ass and my "what if not" is an equally strong counter. Meaning you either aren't making a difference with your quip at all, or you're making a difference that is undone within half a second.

You have no argument against Pascal's wager.

>>18173263
I honestly got no idea what "conscience" telling of God would even feel like. I was raised in a Christian family and went to church regularly until my adulthood and I can sincerely say that it always only felt like a mechanical habit. I have never in my life felt a single thing that I could describe as "spiritual". Maybe God gave me so autistic and literate-minded brain that it binds me to Hell.

>>18174342
>If you making up Satan's heaven is a BTFO, then I can (with equal logical strenght) BTFO you back by making up God's Satan's heaven, where the roles are reversed one step further and the wager works out perfectly. You suggesting a "what if" scenario is you talking out of your ass and my "what if not" is an equally strong counter. Meaning you either aren't making a difference with your quip at all, or you're making a difference that is undone within half a second.

>You have no argument against Pascal's wager.
Congratulations, you understood the argument. Except, hell/God existing was the original "what if," not the reverse of God. The reversal, hell existing but only for benevolent people, is equally as possible too.

Pascal's wager says that it's safer to believe in God than nothing, because if God exists there are consequences. Hence, the appropriate response being that it's also theoretically safer to believe in the reverse of God than nothing, since there are also consequences if the reverse of God exists. We can then conclude that neither option is inherently more or less risky, so Pascal's wager is a dud.

>>18173136
This only works if you assume the only options are belief or disbelief in one specific deity when in fact there are hundreds of mutually excommunicating religions.

>>18174933
Tip that fedora harder man.

>>18173151
No God=universe not existing retard

>>18174942
Okay but genuinely how do you know which religion to begin with.

>>18174952
Well pascal's wager clearly presupposes a religion with an eternal heaven and hell and a single god that decides where you go based solely on whether or not you choose to believe in him, which is of course no religion at all except maybe protestantism which is odd given that he was a catholic.

>>18175032
Even then there are numerous different denominations with mutually incompatible beliefs.

People pointing at Pascal as being a math genius as if that somehow lends credence to this line of reasoning to motivate theistic belief will never not be funny
Pascal was very mentally unwell, and stuff like this literally made him go insane

>>18173136
Important to note, Pascal's wager was made specifically for an audience of Enlightenment-era Frenchmen.
Back then the French had two main religious paths they would ever consider. Either being a secular atheist, or a Roman Catholic.

That's why Pascal's Wager doesn't apply to the modern day that well, that's why it doesn't address other religions. It was never a super deep theological argument

File: IMG_0655.jpg (60 KB, 800x532)

60 KB JPG

>>18173136
>20% of Lion cubs survive to adulthood
>The leading cause of lion cub mortality is infanticide, usually by incoming male lions that take over a pride.

What did god mean by this? Serious question.

>>18175046
Yet you're too busy to put in the work to find the right one, curious where your priorities lay.

https://youtube.com/@readytoharvest
https://youtu.be/4cug_xLQe8U

>>18174942
Christians on /his/ are the dumbest npcs.
You are the fedora reddit bots.

>>18174944
Maths cares not if God exists or not.

>>18175853
That presupposes that christianity is the right religion.

>>18175871
>>18175864
>complains about denominations
>atheists seethe when given guidance on such
Ok

>>18175867
Why maths exist tho. Voltaire wrote that mathematical laws imply that some intelligence put them into place.

>>18175876
>atheists seethe when given guidance on such
I said that that your videos only the christian view and a specific christian view as such. Of course he would say that the catholic, orthodox and other protestant denomination views are wrong.

>>18175884
>appeal to authority fallacy
>18th century authority who had no knowledge about modern mathematics or modern physics

>>18175887
ReadytoHarvest is an unbiased channel that researches various denominations and what they believe.

RedeemedZoomer is biased towards Reformed theology and Presbyterianism specifically but that particular video tries to be unbiased too.

>>18174344
Watch some of these: >>18173408


God is real, and He is a trinity: 1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

He does not want to condemn you with the world, but He wants you to change your mind: 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance".

Jesus (The Word, The Son) took our sin and died to satisfy the justice of a Holy God in heaven. Sin demanded a payment – the death penalty. Only Christ could pay it in full. All the attributes of God must be in harmony to make salvation possible. God’s loving nature could not forgive sin until His legal nature was satisfied. In Calvary all the attributes of God found a perfect solution.

It was not the amount of suffering that counted but the justice of God that had to be satisfied. The fact that a holy sinless One suffered, made the difference. The One who suffered was not a mere man. He was the God-man, 1 Tim. 2:5. Isa. 52:14, “His visage was so marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men.” This verse suggests a death so horrible that God pulled down the curtain of darkness at Calvary lest men see that marred face, Luke 23:44.

Isa. 53:4, “Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.”

1 Pet. 2:24, “Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being
dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”

Through Christ’s redeeming act upon the cross He legally destroyed the works of the devil (1 John 3:8; Colossians 2:14-15). The good news is that we have a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. He has dealt with Satan, sin and the flesh. Have you confessed Him as your Lord and accepted Him as your Saviour? (Romans 10:9-10).

>>18173222

>>18173136
which god?

>>18173252
That's retarded cult thinking what if the Jonestown guys were correct? Or heavens gate? What then?

File: IMG_3002.png (1 MB, 1600x933)

1 MB PNG

All this schizo babble when the mere-eixtsence of other sentient beings BTFOs all world religions instantly with no survivors (outside of like maybe the most atheistic view of Buddhism)

And 100 years ago, everyone “knew” that the world was flat. >:D

>>18176417
Whichever one promises you the greatest rewards, obviously. Better yet, make up your own gods that will give you the perfect afterlife without you having to do anything.

>>18175871
Of course it does. Pascal's wager is only used disingenuously by Christians hoping you won't notice the logical fallacy.

File: fat atheist typing.gif (1.85 MB, 640x360)

1.85 MB GIF

>>18173136
>You have no reason not to believe in God.
Oh no? Try this one on: When I was a young child, my parents used to make me get haircuts (No, I didn't want them.) and would limit my video game time even though my friends' parents let them play as much xbox as they wanted. Then the pastor told me I had to obey my parents because "the Bible says". That's when I realized it was all bullshit. A system of control to keep those in power at the top and the rest of us groveling on our knees.

>>18173455
>which evolved first and how long did it work without the others…?
Self replicating RNA molecules or immensely primitive proto bacteria
>The digestive system
Wandering cells that were absorbed and became organs
>the food to be digested, the appetite,
Dumb question. The food always existed and living things need food
>the ability to find and eat the food
The archeobacteria just wandered till they found it
>the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (e.g. stomach, intestines etc.)
Clearly the former, retard.
>The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The ability and the drive are the exact same thing
>The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
There wasn't a perfect mixture for millions of years because nothing lived on land due to the solar radiation cooking anything that didnt have a hard shell until the ozone layer began to form
>The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The plants, retard. Why would insects that pollinate plants exist before plants to pollinate?
>See how ridiculous evolution is!
Its not ridiculous if you have more than a double digit IQ
>Which evolved first, the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
Blood supply, then muscles, then ligaments, tendons, and finally bones. The most primitive forms of life had no backbone nor bones and as life became more complex they formed more durable structures for integrity.

All of these questions can be answered by a single day trip to a natural history museum. You're fucking retarded

>>18173467
So where did God come from?
If a mind is a complex structure then where did that mind come from? Is there a SuperGod making gods?

>>18177058
You bought into shapeshifting monkeys deep into your adulthood. How pathetic.

>>18177058
Dude I went to the Creation Museum and they just shouted "6 days" and had me trespassed.

>>18177065
God is Being itself. He is uncreated, outside of space and time.

>>18177071
You believe in a Jewish fairy tale as a fucking adult bro. You're the pathetic one. I figured this shit was all fake when I was fucking 12 because someone told me atheists existed and I had never even imagined that it was an option.

>>18177085
>>18177031

>>18177078
So something can come from nothing. And that something wants you to cut off your foreskin. Cool. I accept your concession

>>18177086
Boo hoo hoo bitch

>>18173136
all these reasonings feel so superfluous
if god is good, he won't harm me for not believing in him
if god is evil, why trust him to not harm me regardless of my behaviour?

>>18177058
Well other non-retarded people like you don't agree with you. It's indeed a very well thought out evolution but it just simply doesn't make sense at the end of it. Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.

If you want to be part of the ‘scientific community’ today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a prior adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. " Richard Lewontin of Harvard

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with modest powers must feel humble." - Albert Einstein, towards the end of his life.

DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have ‘evolved’ all by itself by accident… When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times. Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proof-reader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying.

>>18177344
Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind. If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How
in the world did that process possibly evolve?

Shells from living snails have been ‘carbon dated’ to be 27,000 years old.

Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were. They often speak of the ‘illusion of design’, but that is kind of like saying that it is an ‘illusion’ that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed. And of course the human body is far more complex than a 747 or an iPhone.

Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution… ‘Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.’

In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?

>>18177344
Suvivorship bias. We’re only here to debate this because the planet happens to be perfect. Was it extremely rare, almost impossibly so? Yes. But you wouldn't exist to talk about it right now if he wasn't.

>>18173375
You can only use this argument in bad faith. The moment you consider that 99% of religious people have nothing to do with maintaining systems of institutional control, and that religion does not preclude violence: you open yourself up to countless logical criticisms that overwhelmingly disprove your argument.

>>18177410
Indeed, if He wasn't perfect I wouldn't exist. Thanks for agreeing with me.

>>18177419
Don't tell me that the universe altered
When you find out how he gets paid

>>18177419
BRAAAAAAAAP