Atheism relies on circular logic.
>Any evidence for God isn't evidence.This is true because any universally quantified proposition over an empty set is true.
>>18517188
>>18517187>Any evidence for God isn't evidence.This sounds like a strawman, but the honest atheist will eventually have to recognize that this plays a massive role in secular thought. We can set criteria for proving talking snakes, dwarves and leprechauns, but when it comes to God the basic MO is "show me something and I'll just tell you if I vibe with it". And they obviously never do because a naturalist (like most atheists) would have to exhaust every single naturalist explanation, no matter how exaggerated, before he were justified in explaining things supernaturally. It's not just that theists are tasked with guessing the atheist's fancy, it's that the fancy doesn't even have a theoretical datapoint that would satisfy it.
>>18517188The proposition leads to a contradiction if we assume that "x is evidence" is true. However I agree that this image is stupid because it doesn't define evidence.
>>18517195Seething wetback
>>18517209I would say something like "miracles don't happen because naturalism is true, naturalism is true therefore miracles don't happen" is indeed circular reasoning, which is what I think the image in the OP is trying to communicate, as stupidly worded as it is. If it is indeed the case that this is what atheists hold to, then I'd say atheism needs to justify naturalism. It is not the case that all atheists are naturalists though. It's even possible to be an atheist and hold to the supernatural, but I think most western atheists are atheists precisely because they believe in philosophical naturalism.
>>18517224>I think most western atheists are atheists precisely because they believe in philosophical naturalismSame. It's the dominant paradigm today and I don't see many ways in which a common man could arrive to atheism besides naturalism. Even Buddhist laypeople commonly believe in gods despite many denominations not necessarily mandating this...
>>18517249I don't think you could be a complete atheist and be a Buddhist. Buddhists do believe in the existence of higher beings, and while they reject the idea of a single, supreme, monotheistic God, you can't genuinely hold to a Buddhist worldview and be a naturalist. Almost all Buddhists, yes even Theravada, believe in and may even pray to or worship a variety of spiritual beings, which some may call gods, or spirits, or beings analogous to saints.
>>18517187I would say they more do use than relly. Because thier are some forms of atheism. That don't have to be circuluer , they just don't really exist irl.
>>18517187The reason I am an atheist is simple. The model of reality which includes a god accounts for our observations equally as well as the model of reality which doesn't include a god, but has one more ontological object (god), and so should be rejected.Changing my mind is also simple. In order to change my mind, I would need to either: 1) be presented with new observations such that the two models no longer account for our observations equally well, 2) be shown that the model of reality which includes a god actually has fewer/simpler ontological objects than the model of reality which doesn't include a god.Because no one has ever been able to do either of these two things, I remain an atheist.
>>18517187Ok, what evidence for God are you referring to? Are you referring to the dinosaur bones (Oh wait, those don't exist) or the big bang theory (oh wait, that doesn't exist) or the theory of evolution (Oh wait, that evidence isn't valid)? Lol.
>>18517187And religion relies on no logic at all
>>18517551What is logic based on?
>>18517439Even Christians believe in the dinosaurs, silly jew
>>18517209Why is it such a big as to see evidence that's akin to the miracles described in the texts of most religions? The reason naturalism is such a dominant paradigm in the first place is that magic seems to be in short supply.
>>18517984
>>18517988You're just flailing because I won't accept "Pedro's abuelita said she saw an angel" as good evidence of miracles.
>>18517187>any evidence for God isn't evidenceThat's not part of their logic, that's part of their secular conditioning. They don't understand that they're doing this and they can't reflect on it. The conversion from neutral observations into "evidence" is always relative to a preexisting framework. It doesn't matter how much structure and intelligence nature exhibits when your belief system holds that such things prove nothing a priori.
>>18517992>The conversion from neutral observations into "evidence" is always relative to a preexisting frameworkThis is not true and is just some presupp nonsense. Structure does not imply a creator, nature following regularities does not imply nor require a "regularity maker". This weird notion you guys have that "if there is no god then things should just be random and there shouldn't be patterns of regularity in nature" is an extremely weird and incorrect metaphysics, I have no idea why so many of you try to make this asinine argument.
>>18518009>This is not trueYes it is, as you've conceded by failing to make any kind of counter-argument.>Structure does not imply a creator, nature following regularities does not imply nor require a "regularity maker". Why not?
>>18518013What do you mean "why not"? The implication simply does not hold, it is a non sequitur. Asserting a non sequitur does not require any further argument other than to point out that it is a non sequitur and thus a fallacy.
>>18518015>What do you mean "why not"?I mean you should justify your claim.>The implication simply does not holdWhy not?> Asserting a non sequitur What's the nonsequitur? Are you hallucinating?
>>18518017>I mean you should justify your claim.No, your claim "If something exhibits patterns or regularity then it was created by a pattern maker" is a non sequitur. No, I am no hallucinating. I also do not need to "prove" my claim as you're the only making the claim.In a formal syllogism your argument would beP1) The universe exhibits regular patterns p2) Anything that exhibits regular patterns is created by a pattern makerC) The universe is created by a pattern makerThen you'd need to justify p2 which you can't do because it's completely false, trivially so.
>>18518022>your claim "If something exhibits patterns or regularity then it was created by a pattern maker" is a non sequitur.I never made this claim. Are you hallucinating?
>>18518023Then your statement> It doesn't matter how much structure and intelligence nature exhibits Does not have anything to do with the existence of a God that created structure and intelligence of the universe and thus your entire first post in meaningless for the conversation. Yes, it is the case that structure and intelligibility of the universe prove nothing a priori with respect to whether the a God exists. If you disagree you need to motivate the premise that structure/patterns/regularity/intelligibility of nature raises the prior of theism over naturalism, which you cant do.
>>18518026>Then your statement ... Does not have anything to do with the existence of a God that created structure and intelligence Why not?> it is the case that structure and intelligibility of the universe prove nothing a priori I accept your concession that you classify observations with respect to this a-priori belief.
>>18518030>Why not?I just explained it. Playing dumb isn't a good look>I accept your concession that you classify observations with respect to this a-priori belief.Never happened. I already clearly explained everything.This is the state of theism. Sad.
>>18518033>I just explained itQuote the specific part where you explained why "X is evidence of Y" is equivalent to "Y is logically deducible from X".>Never happened. It did:> it is the case that structure and intelligibility of the universe prove nothing a priori These are your words.
>>18518034>Quote the specific part where you explained why "X is evidence of Y" is equivalent to "Y is logically deducible from X".I never made that claim.Structure and patterns do not prove anything about the prior of a god. This is not a prior that I hold, this comes from the fact that you can't motivate the premise.
>>18518038>I never made that claim.Then why doesn't the structure and intelligence in the universe count as evidence?>inb4 you start mumbling something about nonsequiturs and make the claim you totally didn't make, again
>>18517187>>18517988Saved
>>18518041>Then why doesn't the structure and intelligence in the universe count as evidence?What do you mean "why"? I already explained this. There is no connection between "there is a pattern" and "there is a creator of the pattern". Some patterns are made by agents, some are not. You have to motivate the claim that patterns are made by agents and that without intention or telos or whatever, there would be no regularity to nature. You can't do it.
>>18518051>There is no connection between "there is a pattern" and "there is a creator of the pattern".How do you justify this claim?>inb4 you start mumbling something about nonsequiturs and make the claim you totally didn't make, again
>>any evidence for God isn't evidence.not my problem. theism is not a theoryit doesn't make predictions
>>18518054>How do you justify this claim?I've done this several times now. You're trying to make the claim that me saying your implication does not hold requires the burden, which is both an appeal to ignorance and shifting the burden.You are claiming a pattern entails a pattern maker. I am claiming it does not. You have to motivate the implication. And you can't do it.Now here's where you're going to incorrectly blather that I also have the burden to show the implication does not hold, which of course is not true and shows you don't understand basic logic or philosophy.
>there is no connection between the round peg and the round hole>structure and patterns do not prove anything about which peg goes where>it's a nonsequitur to say the square peg goes in the square hole
>>18518064>me saying your implication does not holdWhy doesn't it hold?>You are claiming a pattern entails a pattern makerWhere did I make this claim? Quote it.
>>18517224>they believe in philosophical naturalismYeah, I don't believe in ghosts.If you want to call that "naturalism", go ahead.
>>18517941The flying Jew, the guy with holes in his hands, the Logos.
>>18518022>calls something a nonsequitur>demonstrates it with a syllogism where the conclusion actually follows from the premises>makes a nonsensical claim about a premise being "trivially false", even though it doesn't contradict itself or any other premiseIt's easy to see that this tar-black gorilla nigger doesn't actually know anything about logic.
>>18518067You're an idiot>>18518069>Why doesn't it hold?Because patterns do not require an agent to create them. Therefore, the universe exhibiting regularities does not require a creator of it.
>>18518070Wouldn't ghosts classify as part of nature?
>>18518076The existence of things requires a creator
>>18518076>Because patterns do not require an agent to create them.First of all, I don't know why you keep mumbling about this when it's not a claim I made at any point. Secondly, you didn't even manage to refute your own strawman: it's clearly the case that some but not all patterns imply a creator.
>>18518079No, it doesn't. >>18518081Some things are created by agents, other things are not created by agents. Nature is such a thing that is not created by an agent. The structure and intelligibility of the universe does not require an agent to create it. So I don't know why you originally claimed this has to do with "belief systems" when it doesn't, it's just a pure fact of the matter which is what I originally said.
>>18518086Why do things exist rather than not in your worldview?
The real problem with trying to use logic to disprove atheism is that if you are having this argument in english you are almost certainly a christian who believes in a completely illogical pile of nonsense and the atheist becomes irritable when you instead pretend to believe in some vaguely existent prime mover instead of the angry dude who used to get carried around in a death box that you actually believe in.
>>18518086>Nature is such a thing that is not created by an agent.How do you justify this claim?>he structure and intelligibility of the universe does not require an agent to create it?How do you justify this claim?>I don't know why you originally claimed this has to do with "belief systems"Because your mind literally breaks apart whenever you're asked to justify your claims. You are blind to your own a priori beliefs and that cognitive blank gets filled with hallucinations about claims I never made. You demonstrate it with every post.
>>18518086>Nature is such a thing that is not created by an agent.Can you prove this to me with empirical evidence?
>>18518090euphoric
>>18518067>>there is no connection between the round peg and the round hole>>structure and patterns do not prove anything about which peg goes where>>it's a nonsequitur to say the square peg goes in the square holeKek. Extremely accurate.>>18518075>It's easy to see that this tar-black gorilla nigger doesn't actually know anything about logic.Also noted.
>>18518089Nature exists necessarily and eternally. Existence can not fail to exist.>>18518091I've already spent multiple posts already doing this.>>18518093It's not an empirical claim, it's a necessary truth.
>>18518095You're a moron as well
>>18518096>it's a necessary truthWhat makes it necessary?
>>18518096>I've already spent multiple posts already doing this.Then how come you can't quote any relevant justification? You're literally starting to lose your mind here...
>>18518098Keep in mind that this mentally ill retard spent half the thread denying his a prioris only to end up calling his belief a "necessary truth".
>>18518078You tell me. I don't know what a ghost is. I don't believe in ghosts.
>>18518099Buddy, you are very, very stupid.I guess I need to explain it step by step so you can get it:Your claim was " It doesn't matter how much structure and intelligence nature exhibits when your belief system holds that such things prove nothing a priori." I responded to this showing that this would only be relevant if it were the case that regularities and patterns required a "regularity maker" such that we can point to the regularities of nature and conclude that there is an agent that created them. However, if patterns don't require a pattern maker, you can't use the perceived regularity of nature to increase the prior that it is created. From there you posted a slew of posts that never actually responded to this.>>18518100Yes, it is a truth that patterns do not entail a pattern maker and that existence exists. Are you retarded?
>>18518101>I don’t know what a ghost is>I don’t believe in ghosts>>18518096Nature and existence aren’t the same thing and the concept of existence isn’t something that exists concretely.
>>18518103>no quoteI accept your concession.>it is a truth that patterns do not entail a pattern makerNotice how your psychotic illness causes you to conflate this statement (which is not a "necessary truth", anyway) with this one: "Nature is such a thing that is not created by an agent.", which you called a necessary truth (i.e. true a prior in your framework).
>>18518098Look up what the word necessary means in this context. This is a nonsense question. It's just what it means to be necessary. Nothing "makes it so".
>>18518108>necessary means I don’t need to elaborate or justify my assertions in any wayThat’s what retards think necessity means.
>>18518108Look up a psychiatrist because your incoherent blathering contradicts itself repeatedly. A necessary truth is the strongest type of a priori truth, which you denied basic your position on.
>>18518104Look, this problem is entirely with the people who believe in ghosts. That they got an ill-defined mess.There's no model of what a ghost is supposed to be. I can't tell you what there is about ghosts that makes them supernatural. You need to talk to the ghosts experts.
>>18518106>no quoteI just directly quoted you.This argument is about how the "structure and intelligence of nature" implies or increases the probability of the existence of a God. None of you retards have been able to do this because you can't, as I demonstrated. Existence can not fail to exist and also can not be a creation as that would be a contradiction. So yes, it is a necessary truth.
>>18518113>which you denied basic your position onWhere did I do that?
>>18518117He is confusing you for me, they think we're the same guy.
>>18518116>I just directly quoted you.Yes, because you're literally psychotic. What does it have to do with what you were asked?
>>18518114How do you know you don’t believe in ghosts if you don’t know what ghosts are?
>>18518108"A necessary truth is a proposition that could not possibly be false." How is it necessary that nature is a thing that is not created by an agent?
>>18518117>>18518121>mentally ill samefag desperately trying to backpedalI accept your concession of >>18517992>The conversion from neutral observations into "evidence" is always relative to a preexisting framework. It doesn't matter how much structure and intelligence nature exhibits when your belief system holds that such things prove nothing a priori.
>>18518122My claims are >Patterns do not require a pattern makerWhich is trivial, and >existence existsWhat are you confused on?
>>18518124Because under his belief system being created would make nature unnatural, which is a contradiction.
>>18518125>samefagNo, buddy, You're going to have to stop the boogeyman nonsense. You can't make two posts within 1 minute of each other.And no, I never conceded anything. you're having a psychotic episode.
>>18518127>>existence existsWhere is this “existence”? Can you show me? What does it look like, taste like, feel like, smell like, and sound like?
>>18518127>Patterns do not require a pattern maker>existence existsNotice how your severe psychotic episode is causing you to make irrelevant claims fully compatible with theism (unless you mean no pattern requires a creator, in which case it's a demonstrably false claim).
>>18518129Hilarious if true. Imagine thinking nature in this context means the opposite of artificial (meaning man-made), and thus concluding that nature not being artificial (man-made) that it must necessarily not be created by any agent.
>>18518131>Where is this “existence”?This is the level of theist discourse
>>18518124Lets try something else "How is it necessary that GOD is a thing that is not created by an agent?"How would you answer this? You wouldn't. Because it's a nonsense question.
Your desperation is palpable. Now go borrow your sister's phone, too, and updoot >>18518130 real quick to "prove" there are three identical psychotics ITT.
>>18518137I accept your concession.
>>18518123I don't believe in ghosts. I know this by directly accessing my own mind.
>>18518138>l-l-let's try something elseHe BTFO'd you just by asking you to justify your claim.
>>18518138That's a logical question. God's existence is not contingent on anything else.
>>18518134There is nothing irrelevant here. My claim is that you can not point to patterns of nature and use them to increase the probability that nature is created by an agent, so the very first claim doesn't work. >>18518139You are actually mentally ill, moldovan schizo.
>>18518138It is necessary because the essence of God is to exist, being unchanging and eternal, the necessary being.
>>18518145>There is nothing irrelevant hereYour claims are compatible with any kind of theism so they're irrelevant. Try again.
>>18518142Do you believe in shhdhdjs? Directly access your own mind and give me the answer.
>>18518144God doesn't exist, unlike Nature>>18518146God does not exist, so this does not work.
>>18518144No it's not. God exist by way of necessity. There's nothing that "makes it so".
>>18518151Is it your position that "Nature" always existed and couldn't not exist?
>>18518141I didn't concede. You're hallucinating.
The mentally ill atheist tranny straight up concedes OP at this point so why does it even bother posting?
>>18518151Behold, the rational argument for atheism
>>18518146You are just repeating the original claim. That God is necessary. Which is totally understandable. You are trying to answer a nonsense question.
>>18518155You’re stupid.
>>18518160>You are just repeating the original claim. That God is necessary.>Which is totally understandable. You are trying to answer a nonsense question.So you're trying to demonstrate that your stance wrt. nature is like his stance wrt. God, i.e. that OP diagnosed you correctly.
>>18518159The theists in this thread have failed to understand basic implications, burden of proofs, or just general definitions of words, which is par for the course.
>>18518157>Christians in charge of going 1 thread without thinking >>18518152about trannies
>>18518160I didn’t repeat the original claim, I added and explained that God’s essence is to exist, and He is eternal and unchanging, and this explains why He necessarily exists.
>>18518157There are no trannies here,and no, there is no concession
>>18518167Notice how your psychotic illness forces you to keep responding even though you've fully conceded OP's premise.
>>18518164No. I am explaining what the word "necessary" means, to drooling retards
>>18518173I’m talking to the tranny that conceded right now.
>>18518173Your psychotic denials don't matter. When asked to justify your claims, your only recourse is to say that the alternative is nonsensical under your belief system.
>>18518174Where did I do that? You are hallucinating.
>>18518175See >>18518111
Kek, theists got absolutely buttfucked by science so now they just post some bullshit philosophy. These threads are boring as fuck, they are always the same.
I talk about trannies more than I talk about Jesus
>>18518184Accurate description of atheists.
>>18518175You're a psychotic patient who needed to be spoonfed what "necessary" means and are now stuck doubling down on the claim that nature is uncreated because it just heckin' isn't, whereas you originally intended it to be a rational scientific claim.
>>18518177No, the claim was that patterns do not require a pattern maker which means pointing to structure in the universe can't be used as an argument in favor of a God. There is nothing in any of your posts that do anything to address this.>>18518181They lose on the philosophy as well, as you see in this thread as well as in philosophy in general.
>>18518180Literally not what the word means.
>>18518181Science is bullshit. I deny the Science
>>18518178Notice how your intense psychotic rage is forcing you to reply to me again, even though I am now closing this 70 IQ thread, demonstrating my power over you through my understanding of your automatonistic behavior. :^)
>>18518188Case in point. God's strongest soldier.
>>18518191The Christians itt won actually.
>>18518191>patterns do not require a pattern maker This is compatible with theism.>which means pointing to structure in the universe can't be used as an argument in favor of a GodThis is a nonsequitur. Try again?
>>18518195You should stop using phones and computers then, it's basically sorcery and using magic is forbidden.
>>18518181How does science disprove the existence of God?
>>18518181>Kek, theists got absolutely buttfucked by science so now they just post some bullshit philosophy
>>18518196I accept you concession.
>>18518202Phones and computers work because God exists.
>>18518199They got absolutely blown the fuck out. They couldn't even respond to the very first point.>>18518201Again, the claim was that because the universe has structure, this increases the probability that it is created. But you can't use the structure of a universe to make claims about an agent in the first place, so you can't use such a thing to increase the probability that the universe was created. No, this is not a non-sequitur. This was the start of this.There is not a single post in this thread that addresses this.
God probably doesn't exist because after countless thousands of years of trying to prove he does, religionists still have no evidence, and no arguement beyond "believe or else I'll get violent/ the God(s) will punish you!".The circular logic chart you made in the OP makes zero sense, but then I don't expect such things from religionists.
>>18518210The probability that God exists is 1
>>18518210>the claim was that because the universe has structure, this increases the probability that it is createdWhose claim was it? Provide a quote.>you can't use the structure of a universe to make claims about an agent in the first placeWhy not?
>>18518214Nope.
>>18518212Define evidence
>>18518212>believe or else I'll get violentProjection
>>18518215We already went through this several times. I accept your concession.
>>185182141% maybe.
If God exists show your evidence.Just reply to this post with real physical evidence that he exists that isn't so schizo bronze age guy rambling, but rather actual observable material reality.
How do we go about figuring out what's evidence for God and what is not?How do we rule out that the evidence in question wasn't caused by a ghost or a wizard?
>>18518220>We already went through this several timesYes, we did. Whenever you're asked to substantiate your claim, your mind breaks. I accept your concession that there is no connection between your premise and your conclusion.
>>18518218God will hurt you forever when you die
>>18518222You want physical evidence that something non-physical exists?
>>18518222Ok, this is my evidence
>>18518224What are my premises and conclusion that am I not substantiating? You are having a psychotic breakdown that I correctly point out that you are making a non sequitur and then trying to claim that I am doing so (which I am not).
>>18518222Go up to a hot stove and touch it. That pain is defined as God judging you. Its real, and you can't deny it.Now you know God and his judgment exists. Start to study it, so that you can avoid getting burned again.
>>18518222Do you have any evidence that only physical things exist?
>>18518217Evidence is factual data or physical material used to establish the truth or validity of a proposition or to prove/disprove an allegation.Humans have had written language for 5200+ years and yet no evidence for any God has been presented that meets the criteria.You cannot prove the absence of something so atheism is unprovable, but the repeatedly lack of evidence and necessity to resort to violence in order to retain believers does a massive amount to suggest no god exists.
>>18518227The universe is not evidence of a god. Try again.
>>18518229That's just nociceptors.
>>18518231>Evidence is factual data or physical material used to establish the truth or validity of a proposition or to prove/disprove an allegation.So can you show me evidence to establish the truth of the proposition that all beliefs require evidence? In accordance with your definition only physical evidence will be accepted.
>>18518231>resort to violence in order to retain believersProjection
>>18518223This is the problem with believing in magic. You can no longer use abductive reasoning. With magic, anything is possible, so you cannot rule out the impossible. For example, if you got a locked room murder case. And have ruled out a hidden entrance or a second key. That leaves you with suicide.But if you believe in the supernatural, you'll never be able to rule out that the killer was a ghost that flew through the walls
>>18518239Christians have killed more people than muslims, communists, and buddhists combined btw
>>18518231>Evidence is factual data or physical material used to establish the truth or validity of a proposition or to prove/disprove an allegation.What evidence do you have for that claim?
>>18518226If God isn't physical it isn't real, only material reality exists. Non-physical is identical to non-existing.>>18518227The existence of reality doesn't prove a God >>18518229Schizobabble>>18518230Do you have any evidence the supernatural exists? I asked you to present some and instead you chose to reply while evading my request.If you want to believe your mind is the only real thing then have fun with that, the rest of us moved on from solipsism long ago.
>>18518242When you factor in not only the millions killed by nazism and communism but the uncountable victims of abortion, atheism has been responsible for orders of magnitude more death in a hundred years than every other religion combined in all of history.
>>18518243That's not a claim, it's a definition.
>>18518245>If God isn't physical it isn't real, only material reality exists. Non-physical is identical to non-existing.Show me the evidence that proves this. Only physical evidence counts.
>>18518246>atheism is when abortion???
>>18518247So, if I define God as a necessary being, I don't have to prove it or provide evidence?
>>18518245>Do you have any evidence the supernatural exists?According to your definition of evidence evidence of the supernatural is impossible a priori, so this is a begging the question fallacy.
>>18518236You're welcome to believe things without any evidence if you want. We have a term for that. It's called being a gullible retard.>>18518239Historical fact, and present day fact too. Open a book, read the news. Your on /his/ and yet you're saying shit this dumb?>>18518243>Do you have evidence that evidence as a concept existsNot going to engage in retarded word games. You're just trying to avoid the fact you have no evidence. I accept your concession.
>>18518251If you want to call God a necessary being, that's just Nature.
>>18518255How is nature a necessary being? You still believe in God, you are just changing the name to "Nature".
>>18518254>You're welcome to believe things without any evidence if you want. We have a term for that. It's called being a gullible retard.So is that a no, that there is no evidence for your belief in empiricism? You believe it without evidence, meaning that you are a gullible retard according to yourself?
>>18518251Still stuck on thisYou certainly wouldn't have to answer "what makes it necessary that God is a necessary being?"That would just mean that the guy you are talking to don't understand what words meanIt would still be totally fine to ask you why you believe this necessary being exist, if it has ever talked to you, if you took a picture of it, etc
>>18518235The nociceptors are just messangers. I'm not talking about the messangers that convey the message. I'm talking about the actual experience of the pain that you feel. That is God's judgement. You experience it. If you can't experience it, then you are already dead. The dead do not feel it. The dead are slaves wich are pushed around by life.
>>18518249>Show me physical evidence that physical reality exists Not the brightest spark are you? You try to use big words and ideas without understanding what you're saying.The existence of physical reality would be its own evidence. You can only deny it's real if you choose to claim the only thing that exists is your own mind. Like I already told you, good luck being a solipsist then. Maybe imagine yourself a philosophy book so you can learn why your post was so dumb.>>18518252>evidence of the supernatural is impossible Thanks. So we can all agree there's no evidence for it, and therefore for God.
>>18518257Existence exists necessarily. It isn't the same as what you're calling God, because I do not attach the slew of attributes to Nature that theists attach to God which render the concept incoherent and contradictory, which really is the core problem with theism and why it is false while naturalism is true.
>>18518257Nature is not the kind of thing that couldn't fail to exist
>>18518260How would physical evidence (for example, a photograph) prove the existence of something non-physical?
>>18518261How do we go about figuring out if pain is just pain. Or if it's God's judgement?
>>18518264Nature could not fail to exist.
>>18518259So you're saying people should believe things without evidence? And that there's no evidence as to why people should believe in a system that requires evidence?Good luck with that. I guess you need to stop believing in science then and just take whatever your local schizophrenic says and unquestionable truth.
>>18518267I don't believe in God. I didn't know he was like a ghost, and you couldn't take pictures of him. Ask this guy >>18518267 , he think the universe is physical evidence of something non-physical.
>>18518263So really you are just saying "existence exists" (a tautology), then attributing the name "Nature" to it. Is existence a thing that exists in physical space and time, or is it an eternal and unchanging necessary being?
>>18518277Ops, I mean THIS guy >>18518227the guy that posted a picture of the universe as evidence for God
>>18518271>So you're saying people should believe things without evidence?Keeping in mind that you have defined evidence as “sense-experience of physical things” there are many, many rational beliefs we are to hold in the absence of this. However, your positive belief in empiricism, as well as your positive belief in naturalism, is unjustified under your own naturalistic empiricistic worldview, showing that it leads to contradictions and is therefore false. I reject empiricism for the lie from the pit that it is. Knowledge comes from God (Proverbs 9:10), and divine revelation is the basis of all knowledge, especially the revelation of God in the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. As result, unlike you, I have a rational worldview that makes sense and is intellectually defensible.>And that there's no evidence as to why people should believe in a system that requires evidence?That wasn’t my assertion, it was your admission.>I guess you need to stop believing in science thenWhat made you think I ever believed in the dogmatic authority of the academic magisterium?
>>18518271He's pointing out that the statement "Everything must be proven with empirical data" is a self-refuting statement, since it cannot itself be proven with empirical data. You have to either accept it on the grounds of reason, or else accept that you believe in at least one self-contradictory belief.
>>18518227How would physical evidence (for example, a photograph) prove the existence of something non-physical?
>>18518279You're getting at the point I'm getting at. There is no such thing as an "eternal unchanging being", as if something were unchanging then it would not act or move. From here, we would get into the slew of arguments that christians and muslims have been trying and failing to make for a thousands years, either by trying to construct essence-energy distinctions, or conversely doing the very opposite and trying to argue that God's attributes are equal to his essence and necessitate his existence, or whatever.
>>18518289The evidence is what’s in the photograph not the photograph itself, and it proves it because it only exists because it was created by God and could not exist apart from Him. Everything is indisputable proof of the existence of God
>>18518228>What are my premises and conclusion that am I not substantiating? That patterns don't necessarily require a creator therefore patterns can't be used as evidence for a creator. This is a nonsequitur and you don't know how to fill the logical gap.
>>18518283Buddy, the bible says the earth is flat with a solid dome multiple times. It is not the word of God and you do not have any rational foundation for your presupp nonsense.
>>18518296Show me a single bible verse that says earth is flat. Just one
>>18517187I think there was an interview with Richard Dawkins where he was asked, "What evidence would it take to convince you?" And he said something like, "God would have to appear to me Himself" and the onterviewer goes, "But you've dismissed people who have testified to God appearing to them as having hallucinations." And Dawkins just laughs it off and he goes, "Yeah, I'd probably write it off as a hallucination of it happened to me." There is no evidence or occurrence that can convince some people.
>>18518269You knows it's not "just" pain, because it leads to a choice being made to not touch it again. A judgement was made.
>>18518269All pain is God’s judgement on sin
>>18518301The very first chapter in genesis 1 is describing the construction of a dome firmament on a flat earth where the sun and moon are set inside the firmament. Isiah 40:22 directly says the earth is a flat circle
>>18518310There is no description of the earth’s shape at all in Genesis 1 and Isaiah 40:22 is talking about the human race, as a person is said to have a circle. Try again?
>>18518291>There is no such thing as an "eternal unchanging being",Then what you call "existence" is not a necessary being. If existence began to exist at some finite point in the past, or could have not existed, then it is a contingent being rather than necessary.
>>18518309How do you know this?
>>18518315>There is no description of the earth’s shape at all in Genesis 1No, it directly describes God constructing the firmament dome on top of a flat earth, putting water on the outside of it as though the earth is a snowglobe under water, then setting the sun and moon inside the firmament. And no, Isaiah is directly saying that God sits on top of the firmament (the tent) of the sky while the circular earth is underneath it with people like grasshoppers from his perspective. "a person is said to have a circle" is a nonsense statement. Job also says the heavens are made out of a beaten metal, psalm 104:5 also says the earth does not move (it does), etc.You denying this isn't going to change it.
>>18518317Existence didn't begin to exist, it is eternal. I never said it began to exist at some finite point in the past.
>>18518321If the Bible says the Earth is literally a flat circle, how does it also have four corners?Revelation 7:1After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.
>>18518322>Existence didn't begin to exist, it is eternal.But you said:>>18518291>There is no such thing as an "eternal unchanging being"
>>18518327Yes, the bible contradicts itself constantly, this is not the only example. This only further shows that it is not the word of God.
>>18518317>Then what you call "existence" is not a necessary beingWhat's the argument for this? being unchanging is NOT a prerequisite of necessity
>>18518333If something began to exist, or could have not existed, then it is not a necessary being.
>>18518330Do you notice how there's a word crammed in the middle of one quote but not the other?
>>18518330Being eternal does not mean unchanging.
>>18518336So, you believe in an eternal changing being, but not an eternal unchanging
>>18518302That was his 2010 interview with John Humphyrs on BBC radio 4
>>18518335Yes. That is what the word means. Nobody is disagreeing with this.
>>18518319The bible says so.>>18518321>No, it directly describes God constructing the firmament dome on top of a flat earthLet’s pretend the interpretation has any merit, that the text describes the sky as a physical object. That has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, so it’s completely irrelevant evidence>And no, Isaiah is directly saying that God sits on top of the firmament (the tent) of the sky while the circular earth is underneath it with people like grasshoppers from his perspectiveThe passage cited directly contradicts your portrayal of God as a material entity with a spatial location. It isn’t the bible’s fault your skull is empty>psalm 104:5 also says the earth does not moveFrom the human perspective the earth does not move.
>>18518332This is evidence of the fact that atheist allegations of errors and contradictions in the bible is completely dependent on ignoring context and treating figurative statements as literal
>>18518341How would an eternal changing being (one that exists temporally) be logically necessary?
>>18518342>The passage cited directly contradicts your portrayal of God as a material entity with a spatial locationNo, it doesn't. It directly says God sits on top of the circle of the earth. You're actually an idiot in denial of basic words.>From the human perspective the earth does not move.No, the earth moves from our perspective as well. That's what a "day" is.
>>18518342Where does the Bible say that?
>>18518344No, the evidence of the fact that the bible contradicts itself is the fact that it constantly contradicts itself.
>>18518345Same way an unchanging necessary thingy would
>>18518319The same way we know what nociceptors are. But knowledge is just a record of the experience. The experience itself is defined as "supernatural".
>>18518346If I say that an airplane has circled the globe, does that mean that the airplane traveled in a literal circle around a circular globe?
>>18518348Genesis 3:16-19>>18518346Yes, it does. Being aggressive and angry while saying false things doesn’t make them true, retard>No, the earth moves from our perspective as well. That's what a "day" is.No, from our perspective the sky moves and the earth stays still. You are actually braindead, go back to eating crayons
>>18518355That's not how I use the word
>>18518353If a being is changing, then it exists temporally, which means that time and space are not contingent on its existence, thereby making it unnecessary for those things to exist.
>>18518345A sempiternal entity experiences a sequence of moments, it just never began and will never cease to exist.
>>18518351You believe the bible contradicts itself only because you deny the existence of God.
>>18518319The dictionary says so. Just like a science book defines its own terms, and a dictionary records definitions, the context of 6000+ years of philosophy also defines terms and has nomenclature. These terms and nomenclature are understood through studying the source material.
>>18518363A temporal being could not have created time or space, regardless of being infinite in duration.
>>18518361Ahaprobably the universe was caused by unchanging necessary nature, rather than being directly necessary
>>18518359I'm not being 'aggressive and angry", I'm pointing out the basic fact that the bible says the earth is flat and has a solid dome, and that we perceive the earth as moving. You're an idiot and the bible is not the word of God. You being enraged at this isn't going to change the fact that it has been disproved.
>>18518370You’re angry, aggressive and stupid.
>>18518367Nothing created time or space, they are part of the dynamic eternal process we're talking about.
>>18518364No, I see that the bible contradicts itself because I can read it and see.>>18518373I'm none of those things. Stop coping.
>>18518355Experiences are natural things.
>>18518361What's your take on God changingWhen he creates the universe, God's knowledge changes. Now God knows that there is a universe, rather than no universe.When God drowns everyone except Noah and his family, God changes to being sad, rather than whatever mood he was before, etc.Doesn't count as change? I'm also very perplexed by how God does anything, and make stuff happen, without changing. How that is supposed to work.
>>18518379You're getting at the basic notion of the concept of an "unchanging being" being contradictory and logically and metaphysically impossible, which I was getting at before. There are more thorough and rigorous arguments but ultimately you are right, the notion that the classical theist has of God is impossible and can not exist.
>>18518379>I'm also very perplexed by how God does anything, and make stuff happen, without changing. How that is supposed to work.Expanding on thisI'm thinking in the sense of, if nothing about God changed. Why did something happen? Why does miracles happen now, rather than before or later If God is the same as always, there doesn't seem like there was a reason for why whatever God did happened
>>18518368So, you believe in an eternal unchanging necessary being which created everything. That's God.>>18518374>Time and space existed eternally, but are contingent on a necessary eternal but temporal beingCan you not see the contradiction here?
>>18518370The reason he probably thinks you're stupid, is because you're reading a book about spirituality, and you're treating it like a science textbook. You don't seem to understand the difference.
An important error that needs to be avoided is conflating atheism and anti-Christianity.I'm 100% anti-Christian, but I wouldn't call myself an atheist
>>18518389There is no spirituality in the bible either.
>>18518379>What's your take on God changingGod is unchanging.>When he creates the universe, God's knowledge changes.No, it doesn't.>Now God knows that there is a universe, rather than no universe.God exists outside of the framework of time.>When God drowns everyone except Noah and his family, God changes to being sad, rather than whatever mood he was before, etc.This is poetic language.>Doesn't count as change?No.>I'm also very perplexed by how God does anything, and make stuff happen, without changing. How that is supposed to work.God has free will.
>>18518384>the notion that the classical theist has of God is impossible and can not exist.In a 3D space. God exists outside of the universe (He couldn't logically create it from within it since it didn't exist) and thus is not bound by the laws which govern our universe. He likely exists several dimensions above us in at least the 5th dimension as He is stated as being above the 4-Dimensional heavenly realms.
>>18518386>Time and space existed eternally, but are contingent on a necessary eternal but temporal beingBut I never said that.
>>18518393Also, note that dimension here means "spatial dimension" time is unrelated to this, despite the common misconception that time is the 4th dimension.
>>18518392God can't go from "uncreating" to "creating" without time as a precondition. And yes, Gods knowledge changes when he goes from not-creating to creating.
>>18518395So, you either believe that time and space do not exist eternally (they are contingent beings), or you believe in an unnecessary eternal temporal being.
>>18518397God's essential nature, character, and being do not change over time. He cannot become wiser because He already possesses complete knowledge. You are arguing for a God which exists within time, which would mean that God is contingent upon the existence of time rather than time being contingent on the existence of God.
>>18518386>That's God.No. God is a man with holes in his hands.
>>18518397God changes* sorry
>>18518397>God can't go from "uncreating" to "creating" without time as a precondition.Why not? If time doesn't exist, do you believe nothing exists? Time has been shown to be relative to gravity and movement and therefore is not fixed. Who's to say it couldn't be done away with entirely in realms incomprehensible to man?
>>18518401Yes, God is contingent upon the existence of time. That is precisely what I am showing. I am giving a proof by contradiction that the notion you have of God is incoherent and impossible. there can not exist a being outside of time who can change state as that requires time as a necessary precondition, which means God must be in time and can not have created time. God can not go from an "unchanging state outside of time" to then a "state of creation of time", that is a contradiction.
>>18518378I understand that you are choosing to define it that way, but if you want to understand 6000+ years of philosophy, you shouldn't just redefine terms and ignore the context of all the previous discussions about the terms you are using.If you ask someone else to explain their point of view, and you are serious about understanding their point of view, then they get to define the nomenclature. Otherwise your not discussing theor point of view. Rather, you are just expressing your own point of view.
>>18518407You have ignored every criticism about your logic demanding God exist within 3D spacetime and I think that's pretty telling.
>>18518392A naturalist can do these exact same moves.Just deny that whatever you were concerned with count as change or temporal, etc. Then just appeal to special causal powers, if you ask how it's supposed to work.
>>18518378You're just asserting nomenclature.
>>18518410No, I'm not talking about 3D spacetime. I'm performing a reductio that in any possible dimension, God can not exist outside of time and then change to a state of creating time, as that is a contradiction.
>>18518407>Yes, God is contingent upon the existence of timeSuch a God would not be a necessary being.
>>18518416That's correct, there is no such thing as a necessary being outside of Time. It does not exist much like a married bachelor can not exist or a seven sided triangle can not exist, etc.
>>18518412How are you defining "change"? I assume you mean from one state of being to another state of being, such as from an imperfect state to a perfect state, or from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge.
>>18518419>That's correct, there is no such thing as a necessary being outside of TimeOk, so is "Time" an unchanging eternal being, or does Time exist inside of time?
I don't understand why (classical?) theists are so hung up on "changeless" part It's just not the impression I get from reading the Bible, or Christian traditionsGod is personal. God is a guy you got a relationship with. Not a rock sitting there frozen in time.God is man that changed from being alive, to being dead, then alive again
>>18518424What do you mean by time as a being?
>>18518432>Not a rock sitting there frozen in time.That's what "changeless" means. Not within time.
>>18518434Is time something unchanging which existed eternally, or did it begin to exist?
>>18518450>That's what "changeless" means. Not within time.No, that's what "frozen in time" means. Hence why the term was used.
>>18518457If something is "frozen in time", then it exists within time. God does not exist within time, therefore, to say that God is "frozen in time" is a contradiction, as something that exists outside of time cannot be said to also exist within time.
>>18518452Eternal doesn't mean unchanging.You are presenting a false dilemma. You are assuming that if something is eternal, it must be unchanging. That is incorrect.To answer your question directly: Time is eternal, and it is inherently changing.You are confusing two different concepts:1) Eternity means existing for an infinite duration (having no beginning and no end).2) Immutability means being unchanging.Time has no beginning or end; there was never a 'time before time.' Therefore, time is eternal. However, time is not a frozen, static block. It is a dynamic progression of successive moments. Something does not need to have a beginning just because it involves change. An infinite timeline changes from one moment to the next, but the timeline itself stretches back infinitely and forward infinitely.
>>18518461Exactly. Which is why it's not an accurate description. Outside of time does not mean frozen in time. It's quite literally transcendent of the limitations imposed by the concept.
>>18518462>Time is eternal, and it is inherently changing.So "Time" had a beginning? It didn't exist, and at some point, began to exist? If that's true, then "Time" is not a "necessary" being, because there exists a possible world in which "Time" does not exist.
>>18518462If Time is eternal (infinite in duration), but changing (moving from a state of potential to an actual state), then in what way is it changing? Is it changing from a state of not being into a state of being or in some other way?
>>18518470>So "Time" had a beginning? It didn't exist, and at some point, began to exist?No, time has no beginning as I just said. I literally just wrote it out. You are completely misreading my response. I said the exact opposite of what you are claiming.I said "Time has no beginning or end; there was never a time before time. Therefore, time is eternal."My original proof by contradiction stands: A being cannot transition from a state of 'not creating' to 'creating' without being in time. Therefore, God cannot exist outside of time and be a creator.
>>18518480If Time is an uncreated being that exists eternally, then in what way is it changing? When does "Time" become "Not Time"? Additionally, how does creating something change "God" to "Not God"?
>>18518485Time never becomes "Not Time." The identity of time remains constant, but its internal state progresses. Time never becomes 'Not Time.' Time is a dimension, not a physical substance like wood turning to ash. A river never becomes 'not a river' just because the water is constantly moving. Similarly, Time's identity remains eternally constant, while its internal state is a dynamic, successive flow of moments.Also, I never claimed that creating something changes God into "Not God." I am exposing a contradiction in claiming god created time and is outside of time. To go from a state of not having created the universe to a state of having created the universe is a sequence. A sequence is, by definition, what time is. Therefore, if God created anything, God must have experienced a "before" and an "after." If God experiences a before and an after, God is inside of time. Your definition claims God is entirely outside of time (unchanging), but also that God created reality. Creation is an action. To perform an action means there was a state before the action, and a state after the action. A 'before and after' is a temporal sequence. Therefore, a being cannot transition from 'not creating' to 'creating' while remaining outside of time. It has nothing to do with God becoming 'Not God'. It means a timeless creator is a logical impossibility, like a married bachelor.
>>18518528>Time never becomes "Not Time."Then it is unchanging.
>>18518528>Therefore, a being cannot transition from 'not creating' to 'creating' while remaining outside of time.God doesn't change. God remains God, but the universe goes from not existing to existing because it is not eternal.
>>18518538If you want to think of it like that, the identity of time remains eternally constant (it never becomes 'Not time'), but its internal state is inherently dynamic and changing because it is a continuous succession of moments. If it were completely unchanging, every clock would be frozen and no events could ever occur.>>18518544The universe/Nature is indeed eternal, like time.
>>18518555>no events could ever occur.Or all events would occur at once, the parsing of which would not be inpossible for a timeless being.
>>18518555The universe is not eternal. It had a finite beginning.
>>18518559Like a block theory?>>18518569This is a misconception. It also doesn't matter. You wrote that the universe 'goes from not existing to existing.' The word 'goes' denotes a transition, a sequence, and a relationship. If God is outside of time, then from God’s perspective, there is no 'before' the universe existed and no 'after' the universe existed. If that is true, God cannot will the universe into existence at a specific juncture, because there are no junctures outside of time. For God to hold the property of 'not yet having created the universe' and then hold the property of 'having created the universe,' God has undergone a relational change of state. A change of state requires a timeline as a necessary precondition. Therefore, a creator God cannot be atemporal.
>>18518575>Like a block theory?I had to look that up, but at a cursory glance, yeah, just like that.
>>18518575God can change things that exist within His creation without changing Himself. It's not a contradiction.
>>18518600Exactly. It's only a contradiction if He only exists within 3D spacetime.
>>18518575At what point does this triangle stop being a triangle?
>>18517187List a piece of evidence that gets dismissed on grounds that poorly, and not shown to not be evidence for good reason.
>>18517209you're the one assuming causality works only forwards in time therefore the big bang must be god or something. It is a common bias in humans that they think something is "for something", but actually, it's them observing something that happened in the past and use it to predict what will hapen in the future. But actually mechanisms are teleogically defined, as in, if x is there, then all the necessary prerequisite exist.We are there, therefore the anthropic principle. We do not need god in the equation, the firt principle is OUR existence.
The main deist arguments boiled down to their essentials:>A: we don't know how x works yet, so it must be god >B: existence must have a cause, so it must be god (god totally doesn't need a cause btw because he works outside the laws of reality, heh)That's it. They literally have nothing else left.Muh hard problem of consciousness and dualism? A.Muh contingency argument? B.Abiogenesis? A.Kalams retardation? B.And so on
>>18517187>any evidence for God isn't evidence>because>any such evidence can either be explained through naturalism, not be consistently replicated, or relies on already accepting the premise that God existsthere, broke the loop for you. you're welcome
>it's another "gaggle of people who don't understand systematic reasoning nor repeatable methods for achieving objectivity argue about philosophy of religion" episode
>>18518600>source: dude trust me
