Not just that. God is immutable, as in everything at all ever and not ever. That means these retards are not just denying all their senses and reasoning: they are denying their own existence. It's just confused, effeminate, egoistic gestation from people who don't meditate or read on abstract concepts. God isn't even all that abstract. He was understood by proto hominids in fucking caves. "Life... damn bro." Anyone who thinks the idea of reducing an obviously higher concept to solely discussion of that which symbolizes it is in any way dignifying or granting of such a smug and incorrigible attitude.. There is little that is left to be said of that headspace.

>You wore mixed fabrics?! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You are fucked! FUCKED!!! You're going to fucking burn forever!!! HAHHAHAAHAHA no me though. I'll be in heaven with God laughing at you as you scream and scream and scream and beg.

>>18453774
A lot of these types of atheists are genuinely autistic. Not the self aware or shy type of autistic either, the loud and never shuts the fuck up kind of autistic.

>>18453786
Now try disproving something that actually has to do with the nature of God's existence, like Platonic mathematics or that aether (electricity) is incontrovertibly fundamental to nature, or that infinity necessarily implies Mind and immaterial beget physical nature.

>>18453791
First you'll have to try formulating a coherent argument instead of just spouting off random words like a chatbot from 20 years ago.

>>18453792
I accept your concession, my friend.

>>18453793
Is the concession in the room with you?

>>18453792
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

>>18453795
>ctrl + f: " god " 0 results.
What is your point?

>>18453797
The point is you have swiftly and effectively proven my initial presumption, which was the first reply to the thread.

>>18453798
You are apparently having some psychotic meltdown which has nothing to do with me, but I still see no coherent argument from you.

At what point did autistic philosophy spergs flip brains with the Earth's trailer trash? It used to be that those who believed in God were considered the braindead morons of society. Now, through philosophical insight: God has only become more apparent and obvious to increasing masses of intellectuals. Quite the conundrum for the eternal Dawkins sperg...

>>18453801
Mhm... When was the last time you imbibed a delirium-inducing substance?

>>18453803
I don't do drugs

>>18453805
Clever retort. Why is, then, that you cannot intuit the basic inferred meaning from the topics I choose to discuss? Magic? Illiteracy? Inconvenience towards your chosen worldview?

>>18453791
You are so fucked, worm :)

>>18453811
Wasted dubs

>>18453802
Insufferable Aquinas botherers and self-satisfied parsons are much older than outspoken atheism (by some accounts older than even the possibility of modern atheism) so I don't think there was much of a flip there.

>>18453808
I can intuit all sorts of things, but if you want a discussion, you'll have to state your argument clearly.

>>18453814
I meant in the modern sense, and it was in pure jest. I answered my own question within the same post.

>>18453815
I have, yet you refuse to engage! How convenient for you! It is quite easy to hide in a hole, but to look at the sky with brazen eyes is another subject entirely.

>>18453813
I'm going to laugh at you as your writhe in pain as you burn for all eternity, scum :)

>>18453822
What would I be burning for? Monotheism? Faith? Moral compass? Expression of truth?

>>18453821
I've been engaging with you all this time in the hope that you'll provide a coherent argument, but you keep failing.

>>18453827
No, my friend. You cover your ears and incessantly deny that I am speaking to you. That is not engaging in honest discussion.

>>18453825
You are so so fucked :)

>>18453832
I have grasped this idea of yours, though do you have the ability to explain under what basis this scenario would manifest?

>>18453829
Okay, I'll give you one more chance: quote the coherent argument for god that you made ITT

>>18453835
Those flames just got hotter, worm :)

>>18453837
All atheists are trans

>>18453837
Hey, either scroll up and reply to those two simple posts or I'm going to get bored and move onto another conversation. It's not fruitful to plant seeds with dry soil.

>>18453825
Wrong opinion on the Meso-thnetopsycholatry controversy of 679. Miscounting the number of angels that can dance on a pin.

>>18453844
kek

>>18453843
Which two simple posts? You have made many simple posts ITT.

>>18453848
No, man, I'm being honest. They're the first two posts I made in the thread. You're not that stupid. Just actually attempt an argument and try to have more fun than rearing like a donkey at any notion of defending your beliefs (or lack-thereof).

>>18453791
You do realize this is an anonymous board, right? Do you mean the posts @18453778 and @18453850?

>>18453850
This was for you >>18453853

>>18453853
You got it a little jumbled, and I'm sorry about the unintentionally venerating (You) I have received to that post... But yes, from a certain point of view.

Why is every single atheist trans?

>>18453859
Lying about hypocrites doesn't assist the propulsion of honest truth. It only makes you, also, a hypocrite. Your motive is not philosophical, it is ideological. That is lame. Extremely lame. Faggot lame. Cowardly.

>>18453858
Okay, let's take @18453778
>God is immutable
>That means these retards are denying their own existence
There's no connection between these two statements.
>He was understood by proto hominids in fucking caves.
Okay, so? You can understand it and reject it.

>>18453867
There are no atheists properly so called.

>>18453867
Those two statements you denied were directly conjoined in the writings of almost every mathematician born before 1940, going all the way back to Euclid. Your final claim is a ridiculous notion. To understand the very nature of your own existence, and simultaneously reject it, is a practice of pure arrogance and spite.

>>18453872
>directly conjoined in the writings of almost every mathematician born before 1940, going all the way back to Euclid
Euclid wrote about god? Can you post where he did that?

>>18453882
The eternal timewaster and shapeshifting thoughtless idiot.. Are you the demon Choronzon itself?
>4. And things coinciding with one another are equal to one another.
>5. And the whole [is] greater than the part.

>>18453791
Physicalism
Only the physical universe is real. Platonic philosophy and every other non-physicalist philosophy has been refuted

>>18453890
Infinity. Quantum physics. Electromagnetics.

>>18453890
Even things as basic as the existence of subatomic fields of material energy immediately disprove physicalism.

>>18453887
Those seem to be taken from book 1 of Elements according to http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/bookI/cn.html
As you can see, he is talking about the rules to be used when referring to quantities of things and it has nothing to do with "god". You could have also inferred the last part from the lack of mention of "god" in those statements. I hope that clarified your misconception.

>>18453895
It is you with the misconception, my friend! For no man speaks of the fundamental makeup of things and their definitions without also defining the nature of God, which is the whole itself. The quotation was to challenge you, and force you to consider an abstract perspective on the words. What would you like to discuss next? Babbitt's Atom?

>>18453894
Can you explain how the existence of physical things disproves physicalism?

>>18453902
Those subatomic fields are not technically matter, though they manifest in material form for some time. They are abstract clouds of electric charges passing in and out of physical 3D space from other spaces. FACT! kek

>>18453900
Ah, I see. When you said that Euclid wrote about god, what you meant was that you just imagined a connection to god in his writings. It's okay, religious people do that a lot!

Yes, you can choose the next topic to discuss

>Anaxagoras (whose doctrine savors of atomism) held God to be an infinite self-moving mind; that this divine infinite Mind, not inclosed in any body, is the efficient cause of all things; out of the infinite matter consisting of smaller parts, everything being made according to its species by the divine mind, who when all things were at first confusedly mingled together, came and reduced them to order.

>Pythagoras conceived mathematics to be the most sacred and exact of all the sciences, and demanded of all who came to him for study a familiarity with arithmetic, music, astronomy, and geometry. He laid special emphasis upon the philosophic life as a prerequisite to wisdom. Pythagoras was one of the first teachers to establish a community wherein all the members were of mutual assistance to one another in the common attainment of the higher sciences.

>>18453904
Be honest, did you learn this from superhero comic books?

>>18453912
I learned it from reading actual historical texts and scientific studies. You should read more, so that you can do more than fence sit on definitions of subjects you cannot truly defend or represent!

>>18453920
I am a PhD mathematician actually, and your post was just comically bad.

>>18453929
Either you jest, or you have wasted 12 years and lots of money for zero knowledge gain. What are they teaching these days? Even Einstein venerated God through science.

>>18453929
>>18453931
What do properties of matter have to do with mathematics?

>>18453931
>What are they teaching these days?
Proper mathematics, instead of superstitious mysticism from 2000+ years ago when people didn't know shit about how the world worked.

>>18453935
There is no thing, even non-physical, that is outside mathematics.

>>18453937
That’s not true or relevant to my question. Mathematics is non-physical and abstract. You literally can’t learn about it by observing the world around you, only by thinking about it.

>>18453936
Yeah they were stupid because they didn’t know men could choose to become women like us

File: Daring Today.jpg (175 KB, 1125x823)

175 KB JPG

>>18453936
So they teach you very little about what those people actually said and believed, essentially. Do you find pride and dignity in surmising on things you haven't truly studied, passing them as they come to you with a gaudy huff? What do you say to air? "PAH! Invisible mumbo jumbo." Do you believe air exists? Why do you truly believe in small energies taking up invisible spaces? Because you have faith in them, and their natures, through scrupulous meditation and research... or because a spiritually dead individual coldly explained the rudimentary details to you, and you put faith in him as though he were a clergyman?

>>18453938
That is immediately contrary to the truth, and all opinions you could share born from that assumption are destined to be invalidated by the nature of existence itself representing the opposite (see: Platonic mathematics).

>>18453929
I don’t care if your to stupid to solve the Collatz conjecture. Peak meth is coming for you, your to stupid to solve the Collatz conjecture JIDF. You’ll die of peak meth.

The Raped.

>>18453904
>not technically matter
That's why it's called physicalism, not materialism. "Matter" doesn't exist, only physical interactions between energy excitations in fields do.

>>18453941
>inb4 "that also says they are abstract"
You misunderstand. All that is can be observed whether from within or without. That is the entire point to science, which was born from philosophy.

>>18453774
Unironically a better argument that trying to "prove" that god exists through word games. I respect people who believe in god purely out of faith and feels more than the ones who pretend there's a logical reason to do so.

>>18453948
>>18453947
seconds too late. DAMN

>>18453947
Distinction without a difference

>>18453949
Logic presupposes the existence of God

>>18453953
>the view that matter doesn't fundamentally exist isn't different from the view that matter exists

>>18453958
In the metaphysical sense matter is an object extended in space. If it exists in space, it’s matter.

>>18453947
If this is the crux of physicalism, then it's just baseless reduction and over classification of terminology. Semantic wordplay doesn't get around the evident truths. I am, therefore I am. Infinity is, therefore I am infinity. Infinity is, therefore math can be observed infinitely. If infinity is, and I am, then I am infinite (as there is no separation between substances at fundamental scales, and even macro objects can be entangled metaphysically across lightyears). If infinity is, and energy is, then energy is infinite. If mind is, then due to the lack of separation: infinity is mind. If infinity is mind, then by extension the "I" is mind. If the I in manifest form has limitation and bounds, then it cannot be that true infinite "I," which must then be extra-physical.

>>18453962
Repeated the I Am part on accident kek

File: 'Jen' McCreight founder o(...).jpg (952 KB, 1853x1638)

952 KB JPG

>>18453949
>let me tell you about logic
>let me also tell you why I am a real woman

>>18453960
Objects do not exist and neither does space. Interactions between energy excitations in fields create relations out of which downstream properties such as "space" are derived, but they're not fundamental, it's just a relationship between parts of a system. Accelerate more than another so-called "object" and you will literally disagree on what space is. You think a photon is an "object in space", but a photon has no valid frame of reference, it literally cannot have a point of view "in space", because space emerges from certain interactions that produce mass AKA any energy excitation with speed below c.
>>18453962
>even macro objects can be entangled metaphysically across lightyears
It's not "metaphysical", it's a physical property, because again, "lightyears" are a term that only makes sense from the subjective point of view of a mass-bearing quantum system observing light, whereas light itself cannot meaningfully be used as a reference for either space or time, hence why the speed of light remains constant regardless of your sub-c speed. Whereas you will disagree on length and the passage of time with another observer if you move at different speeds.

>>18453970
Quantum physics are inherently metaphysical, as in extra- and/or sub-dimensional. You are drawing further semantic lines in sand to pussyfoot around true discussion with wordplay, because true discussion of metaphysical philosophy entails challenging terminology and arguing with actual reason over basic adherence to scriptures. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees!

>>18453968
>physically impossible "woman" with a penis
disgruntled basedjak
>physically impossible "woman" getting spontaneously pregnant without insemination because the sandnigger book said so
happy basedjak

>>18453974
>Quantum physics are inherently metaphysical
No, it's physical. It was born out of physics, and it's studied by physicists. "Metaphysicists" don't even exist and do not do experiments at CERN.

>>18453975
People in the modern day still give birth without insemination, brother. I don't know what to tell you on that one..

>>18453977
>You are drawing further semantic lines in sand to pussyfoot around true discussion with wordplay, because true discussion of metaphysical philosophy entails challenging terminology and arguing with actual reason over basic adherence to scriptures. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees!

>>18453984
Blacktionary

>make bait thread
>put the phone down and go to the gym
>come back
>thread is full of random schizolalia
lmao

>>18453987
You didn't make the thread, nor did you go to the gym. I know exactly who you are and what your posts were in this thread, and you are still just as poorly worded and stupid.

>>18453978
Human Parthenogenesis is not a thing and even if it was you would be bastardizing the story of the virgin birth by comparing it to it.

>>18453992
Nice semantics. But it still happened in the hundreds, in the modern world.

>>18453992
https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102

>>18453993
>>18453997
I misremembered the exact numbers, turns it was 45 not hundreds

>>18453991
>some random schizo got so invested in my driveby bait thread he's now claiming I'm his dancing partner
kek

>>18454000
You aren't convincing, either, man. Moot try. It's better to just let it go and act like you didn't attempt. Don't dig deeper and embarrass yourself with something so lame and stupid

>>18453992
An infinite, immaterial being would inevitably be above physical law, as that physical law would be made up of that ultimate being. That acting force would be able to do as it pleases: however obviously, subtly, or awkwardly.

>>18454003
Why do you think I care to convince you of anything? I'm here to laugh at the people who get baited into posting in my thread.
Did you actually think my OP was sincere? The shit about Dawkins didn't clue you in? lmao

>>18454008
Well you clearly care, as you have to justify your attempt at claiming to be the OP. The issue is, due to your prose and choice of phrase: I can only assume otherwise. I simply do not believe you, at all. You will have to live with that. Sorry, anon.

>>18454010
Look outta your window. See that car? You are being GANGSTALKED!

>>18454015
I don't have to believe in gangstalking (which I don't) to disbelieve in your claim to being OP on a thread, on an online website. Pretty wide canyon between the natures of the two things you just chose to conflate in that strange false dichotomy.

>>18454016
I am not equating anything. I am letting you know you're being gangstalked RIGHT NOW!

>>18454018
Do you sincerely think I'm an actual schizophrenic? I'd love to know why, with a fully elaborated explanation.

>>18454020
I can't tell you now, no time. Stay away from windows and turn off your wifi!

>>18454021
What kind of workouts do you do at the gym? How many sets? What's your diet?

>>18454026
Kek.. dead silent

>>18454026
The funniest part here is that when I tell you the truth, you will schiz out harder than you have before.
So hold onto something. Ready? Here it comes.
It's a climbing gym. I'm a shitter so I warm up on jug ladders, do some shit in the 6A-6B+ range that looks fun and then work on 6C-6C+ projects. Sprinkle in some campusing, no fingerboarding because I do that at home.

>>18454035
So what, like Lifetime Fitness? Not a real gym. That's like a Sodosopa

>>18454037
Nah more like a dingy basement built by climbing enthusiasts.
Btw they're almost at your door now.

>>18454045
Post a pic of your home setup with timestamp

>>18454047
My home setup is that I do weighted hangs on my doorframe which is almost exactly 20mm. Not posting pictures of my place for some random nigger lol.

>>18454049
Oh, so you can't prove it? Ah shit, missuh white man! Well Iz wuz bouts to beleeb! Really, truly beleeeb!

>>18454050
There's another car there now. This is bad.

>>18454052
Do you see through your third eye? I thought you didn't believe in God! Are you some kind of Stephen Kong magical negro? Don lie to meh naw!

Shih, folks. I guess OP WAS black, all along...

>>18453786
do you say that to jews?

>>18453993
>>18453997
>45 women (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy
>>reported
That's not identical to it happening, broski. I may report having sex with your mom, but that doesn't mean I did.

>>18453774
I find it epistemically weak position in a sense that the assumption that God exists demands more assumptions and any further inquiry on such assumptions lead to more assumptions. To me this doesnt feel like an air tight framework. For example:
Look at resurrection claims, it rests on the assumption on eye witness' parts, that further rest on the assumption that the person they saw was Jesus and the assumption that it even happend in first place.
Another is the first mover argument, it rests on the assumption that there is a first mover, which further assumes that mover must be thinking agent and more assumptions of his nature etc.
Why would I limit myself by assuming these things and for what exactly? This will only bind me to certain positions that I'm not really comfortable with. This is why I don't believe in any kind of God, it feels like a smudge on my personal epistemic framework.