It is an article of Catholic faith that the existence of God can be verified through philosophical reason. Philosophical reason just isn't good enough when your religion is science and you hold philosophical inquiry with the same confidence you have in voodoo. In 1870 Pope Pius IX published the dogmatic constitution of the First Vatican Council, "Dei Filius", which promulgated the sacred teaching that the existence of God can be demonstrated by philosophical reason:>If any one shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things: let him be anathema.>>https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/i-vatican-council/documents/vat-i_const_18700424_dei-filius_la.htmlSt Thomas Aquinas demonstrated such philosophical knowledge in the Summa Theologiae:>>https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
>>543574850Didn’t read,fuck off pedro
I'm an atheist because the god claim has not met its burden of proof.Simple as.
>>543575149>>543577025Where do you get the nerve to call yourself a man, you putrid faggot?
>>543577025Yes it has.
>>543577599I am an one who wishes to know tell me how I naturally can know
>>543577714Wouldn't it be easier to just post proof than to go back and forth saying "NIH uh". "Uh huh'. "nuh uh". "Uh huh"
>>543577822>It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.
>Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident.
>>543577887Yeah, I disagree. If we're judging by what this place looks like, it looks like it wasn't created by a god, and your religion looks like it was made up by an iron age sandnigger. Just like the koran.
>>543577887Tell me how naturally I can know god Padre pio ghost
I'm an atheist because I believe in many many gods, not just 1...not 2...not 3....many many in the universe. (unknown number currently).Prove me wrong, you cannot theologist freaks
>>543577599why is your first instinct to kvetch like a kike when someone states they don't believe in your jewish god
>>543577912>Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually."It was real in my mind."
>>543577950>A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (I:3:4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.
>>543574850It doesn't even matter whether God exists or not since as a human you should reject authoritarianism. Also nobody cares. Religion is the last ignorance we must slay.
>>543578070that's all any religion boils down to at its corenothing supernatural has ever been proven or replicated
>>543578103Can you please ETMLIA5 what you mean by self evidence. Like I read scripture and I come away that this profound word has to be not the work of man but of god.
>I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
>The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
>The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
>The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The hypothesis space for an intelligent originator/manipulator entity is way fucking larger than "it was these middle eastern goat herders, their sky daddy is the one that did it!"
>The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
>>543574850Christianity is on the decline because people just don't believe the kike BS anymore. YHWH is not a artificer of the universe, he's Jewish justification for genocides and enslaving goys
>posting from cathecism but cant ELI5 like i asked you before
>>543577714Please do provide that proof for the foreskin god
>>543574850Name 1 (one) atheist civilization before the industrial revolution.
>>543574850>your religion is scienceInvestigating things is not religion. You would never say a murder investigation is religion
>>543577025You believe I'm a ton of things without burden of proof.
Question to Christians. How do you deal with the fact that macro evolution is obviously true?
>>543578528>You believe I'm a ton of thingsNever met you in my life, bud
>>543577599Np one cares about your magic rabbi faggot
>>543577912First of all, credit the OG author. Second, chriggers claims that God is divisible into three personas
>>543577025>I'm an atheist because [cope]nahYou believe there is a very high probability that life exists somewhere outside our solar system despite literally zero evidence and you will invent a mountain of additional cope trying to deny this. A supposed "lack of evidence" only matters to an atheist when it is convenient.
>>543578641go back to the desert kike
>>543578550Yeah but you believe I am a transgender Indian Jew.
>>543578641>You believe there is a very high probability that life exists somewhere outside our solar systemSo basically YHWH but outside the time and space?
>>543574850Medieval christian europe had the same living conditions as india has currently
>>543574850Based reactionary Aquinas broThe idea was to recognize individual discernment and choice, not to forgo them both to alleviate responsibility, that is the exact inversion of the spirit of the original thing>Shout out to my main boi Rambam
>>543578540Uhh, have you ever seen fish transforming into a horse? No? Then checkmate, atheists, you're going to hell
>>543578540Few Christians believe in a literal six day creation, as the bible is full of metaphors. Good attempt
I believe that OP is a faggot, and that this facf can be argued as self-evident, since "faggot" is contained within the essence of OP.
>>543578678>In the desert, there is no grass to touch
>>543578641That doesn't rule out every other theoretically possible omniscient being. How do you know that jewish scripture isn't a trick to test your faith in the flying spaghetti monster?
>>543578436Name one successful civilization that wasn't successful before Christianity
>>543578698That was to build up their tolerance to disease so that the native american pagans would be wiped from the entire western hemisphere for Christianity to conquer. You see? It all works for good
>>543578540Question for beleivers in macro evolution, how do you deal with the Cambrian explosion and eyes?
>>543578641>You believe.... that life exists somewhere outside our solar systemI can prove life exists. So, it's possible at least. I cannot prove an omnipotent creator being exists. As far as I know that's impossible
>>543578678>seething bc it can't refute >>543578696>So basically YHWH but outside the time and space?God is outside time and space. I have no idea what you are trying to say. >>543578811>That doesn't rule out every other theoretically possible omniscient beingWhat doesn't? I wasn't making an onological argument. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists selectively applying their evidence criteria.
>>543578987You also believe in alien without any proof
>>543574850>God can be verified through philosophical reason.Not really
>>543578754Classic
>>543578741You are a very stupid person
>>543574850Funny thing is the vast majority of christians are still decadent and uncultured even in a fully christian society because they can’t use philosophical reasoning. If they could they’d be esoteric christians rather than exoteric ones.
>>543577714Personal feelings don't count
>>543578968>I can prove life existsYou're moving my goal post. You can't prove life exists outside our solar system or present a single piece of evidence it does. That was the criteria. Yet you still believe in high probability of itLike I said, a supposed "lack of evidence" only matters to an atheist when it is convenient.I can change my argument so you can't move the goal post which will concretely demonstrate the same thing:>You believe there is a very high probability that [something existed "before" the big bang] despite literally zero evidence Now you can't move the goal and point to anything that did exist "before" the BBYet you still believe itAgain, fully proving a lack of evidence does not matter. >As far as I know that's impossibleAccording to what?What makes God impossible?
>>543579303>You can't prove life exists outside our solar system or present a single piece of evidence it does.Has a better chance than your favorite flavor of god existing outside space and time. Lol
>>543574850>It is an article of Catholic faith that the existence of God can be verified through philosophical reason.That's called dogma, and it's dogshit "philosophy".Good philosophy builds on logical reasoning, it does not begin with mythological assumptions about the nature of "god". Virtue Ethics is good philosophy, for example. Pagan philosophy. >God can be demonstrated by philosophical reason>St Thomas Aquinas demonstrated such philosophical knowledge in the Summa TheologiaeRetard. Christianity, as a religion, has no native mysticism. It inherited an apocalyptic Jewish messianism, a Pauline crucifixion theology, and a set of ethical teachings about charity and repentance. What it did not inherit from its Palestinian origins was a contemplative metaphysics. It had no doctrine of the soul's ascent through hierarchies of being. It had no analysis of divine names. It had no triadic structure of procession, rest, and return. It had no theurgic theology. It had no apophatic negation as a pathway to union with the Absolute. These doctrines did not exist in the Gospels. They did not exist in Paul. They did not exist in the Synoptic tradition. They did not exist in the rabbinic Judaism that formed Christianity's immediate background.Thomas Aquinas cites "Dionysius" 1,702 times in the Summa Theologiae, ranking him immediately after Augustine as the most-cited authority after Scripture. The entire Thomistic doctrine of divine names, analogical predication, the angelic hierarchies, and the sacramental economy rests on Dionysian foundations. Aquinas believed he was engaging with a disciple of Paul. He was engaging with Proclus.Every Catholic seminarian since the thirteenth century has been trained in a metaphysical system whose structural backbone is the work of a pagan philosopher whose school the Catholic Church had worked three centuries to destroy. The irony is total.
>>543579303>Yet you still believe in high probability of itBecause life exist here, yes
>>543579303>What makes God impossible?Which "God" did you have in mind when typing this?
>>543578540Genesis is fully compatible with evolution.
Christianity acquired its mysticism in a single documented act of literary theft. At the beginning of the sixth century of the common era, an anonymous Syrian monk read the works of the pagan Neoplatonist Proclus, head of the Platonic Academy of Athens from 437 to 485 CE, along with the works of Proclus's predecessors Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus. This monk copied Proclus's system, with substantial portions reproduced verbatim or with minimal paraphrase, replaced the pagan divine names with Christian terminology, attached his forgery to the name of Dionysius the Areopagite (a figure mentioned briefly in Acts 17:34 as an Athenian convert of Paul), and released the resulting corpus into Byzantine circulation. The forgery was accepted as authentic apostolic writing for the next thousand years. It shaped every subsequent Christian mystical tradition, from Maximus the Confessor to Meister Eckhart to John of the Cross. Every Catholic sacramental theology, every Byzantine liturgical commentary, every Western scholastic doctrine of the angelic hierarchies, traces back to this document.The document is a forgery. The author is pagan Proclus in Christian costume. . The Catholic Church itself has admitted the pseudonymity since the late nineteenth century, though it has continued to treat the corpus as theologically authoritative because removing it would dismantle most of the Christian mystical tradition. Op is critically retarded!
>>543578987>God is outside time and spaceGee, I can make up anything and say it exists outside time and space.
>>543579203You're autistic
Here's some actual history which debunks ""Catholic philosophy"". Proclus's major works include the Elements of Theology (Stoicheiosis Theologike), 211 rigorously demonstrated metaphysical propositions in the Euclidean manner; the Platonic Theology (Peri tes kata Platona theologias), six books on the divine orders drawn from the Platonic dialogues; the Commentary on the Parmenides, the most sustained ancient analysis of the first hypothesis of that dialogue; the Commentary on the Timaeus, a three-thousand-page cosmological exposition; and shorter works including On Providence, On the Existence of Evils, and the hymns to the Gods. His teacher was Syrianus; his successors included Marinus (who wrote Proclus's biography, the Vita Procli) and eventually Damascius, the last Scholarch before the Academy's closure.The Academy was closed in 529 CE by the Christian Emperor Justinian I, whose legislation prohibited the teaching of pagan philosophy on pain of confiscation of property and loss of civil rights. The remaining philosophers, including Damascius and Simplicius, fled to the Sasanian court of Khosrow I before partially returning under treaty conditions. The thousand-year continuous tradition of Greek philosophical instruction at Athens, begun by Plato in 387 BCE, was extinguished by imperial Christian decree.Within a generation of the Academy's closure, the Dionysian corpus appeared. The timing is not coincidental. The corpus attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite consists of four major treatises and ten letters: On the Divine Names (De Divinis Nominibus), On the Mystical Theology (De Mystica Theologia), On the Celestial Hierarchy (De Caelesti Hierarchia), On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia), and the ten Epistles. These texts first surface in the historical record at a specific, dated moment: the Council of Constantinople held in 532 CE, just three years after Justinian closed the Academy.
>>543578987>I was pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists selectively applying their evidence criteria.There's no reason for me to believe in your personal feelings and opinions
>>543579303Universe from what, chrigger?
At that council, convened to resolve the Christological dispute between the Chalcedonian and Monophysite parties, the Monophysite bishop Severus of Antioch and his supporters cited the Dionysian corpus as authoritative apostolic writing to support their theological position. The Chalcedonian bishop Hypatius of Ephesus immediately challenged the citation, pointing out that no Church Father before the sixth century had ever quoted these texts. No mention of them exists in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Augustine, or Cyril of Alexandria. A corpus supposedly composed by a disciple of Paul, Hypatius noted, should have been known and cited by every subsequent Christian writer. The silence of five hundred years of patristic literature proved the corpus to be a recent fabrication.Hypatius's objection was overruled politically. The corpus was admitted as authentic and rapidly spread throughout Byzantine and then Latin Christendom. The first major Christian commentator to systematize the texts was John of Scythopolis around 540 CE, within a decade of their surfacing; his Scholia, expanded by Maximus the Confessor in the seventh century, became the standard Byzantine framework for reading the corpus. The texts were translated into Latin by John Scotus Eriugena in the ninth century at the court of Charles the Bald, introducing Dionysian theology to the Latin West, where it would become central to Aquinas, Bonaventure, and the late medieval mystical tradition.
>>543578373You should read Nietzsche. Tryhards like you enjoy that sort of stuff.
>>543579303>That was the criteria.My words were "so it's possible at least" not "so I believe in it's>high probabilityDefinitely didn't use those words>You believe there is a very high probability that [something existed "before" the big bang] despite literally zero evidenceWrong. There is no way to gauge probability of the thing since even information itself was bound in the big bang. You cannot go back "before" the big bang, and since space-time came out of it, "before the Big bang" may be a bullshit concept> Yet you still believe itNope.>What makes God impossible?Nothing necessarily, but it's an unfalsifiable concept, so it's useless to me.
The pseudonymous author chose this name deliberately. A supposed disciple of Paul, converted at Athens (the heart of pagan philosophy), gives the forgery an impeccable apostolic pedigree and a specific cultural authority: a Christian convert who retains the philosophical depth of Athens. The name was chosen to neutralize the otherwise obvious objection that the theology of the corpus is Athenian Neoplatonism. By making the author a converted Athenian disciple of Paul, the forger pre-empts the accusation. The depth is Athenian, the frame is apostolic, and the reader is expected not to ask questions. Abject brainrot.For nine hundred years the Dionysian corpus was read as genuine apostolic writing. In the Latin West it was ranked just below Scripture itself. Thomas Aquinas cites "Dionysius" 1,702 times in the Summa Theologiae, treating him as a primary authority on divine names, angelic hierarchies, and the nature of mystical union. The entire medieval doctrine of the nine choirs of angels (Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, Angels) comes directly from the Celestial Hierarchy. The Scholastic doctrine of analogical predication of divine names rests on the Divine Names. The mystical theology of darkness, unknowing, and apophatic ascent in Meister Eckhart, the Cloud of Unknowing, and John of the Cross descends from the Mystical Theology.
>>543579690Tryhard says what
>>543579449>>543579423>>543579403>>543579534>>543579614>she's having another multi-reply mega melty over all my posts againrofl>>543579702>That was the criteria.>My words were "so it's possible at least" not "so I believe in it's>high probability>Definitely didn't use those wordsYou're just pilpuling now. What is the probability of life existing outside our solar system?If you don't know, then do you believe it exists yes or no?>Wrong. There is no way to gauge probability of the thing since even information itself was bound in the big bang. You cannot go back "before" the big bang, and since space-time came out of it, "before the Big bang" may be a bullshit conceptDo you believe in the BB yes or no. >Nothing necessarily, Then why on earth did you say as far as you know it is impossible?FTL travel is not possible as far as we know. It's completely illogical to follow up that claim and say there is nothing necessarily making that statement true. Why did you make an illogical follow up?
>>543577025>because the god claim has not met its burden of proof.>Complicated systems both mechanical and biomechanical all around you>Natural laws of the universe>Earth just so happens to have all the stuff humans need to sustain life for themselves>etc.The proof is all around you but you just don't want to see it. What proof are you exactly look for or are you going to move the goal post of proof over and over again even if shown proof?
>>543579690Really is the most misunderstood man. Whole philosophy is about not being a try hard, gets called a try hard. Muh nihilism!
>>543579969>What is the probability of life existing outside our solar system?Because life exist here I'm glad I've destroyed you so much that you can't engage without acting like w child
>>543579991>The proof is all aroundNot really. Your "proof" is nothing more than God of the gaps
>>543579702You're arguing with a literal child who will intentionally strawman and obfuscate what you say. Then they will blame you for what they do.
>>543579969>Then why on earth did you say as far as you know it is impossible?Can't read?>>543579702>it's an unfalsifiable concept
>>543580059Just looking at the human body alone imagine looking at something like this, keep in mind this doesn't even get into all the systems or the functions they perform every single day, and saying to yourself "yep no intelligent design of a higher power involved with this".
>>543580181>"yep no intelligent design of a higher power involved with this"....>makes one tube to breath, eat and drink>puts a play ground next to a sewage system>gives children terminal illnessLol, lmao
>>543574850Fuck off retard. Fantasy Jews in the sky don't exist.
>>543580031>>What is the probability of ...>Because life exist hereROFL she thinks 4 words is a "probability">She's so confused>>543580157>mega melty multi reply intensifiesYou can always tell how mad someone is by how many times they reply to the same postShe's seething so hard she keeps reading my posts over and over again
>>543580031>I'm glad I've destroyed you so much that you can't engage without acting like w child>>543580274Like clock work.
>>543580181It gets even more complicated as the biological systems get smaller
>>543580231>The body isn't made for my personal specifications so there is no God hahaha>gives children terminal illnessWay to jump to an extreme and a majority of children are born healthy not all with terminal illness. Why don't we look into what the parents were consuming while pregnant/trying to get pregnant, injecting into their bodies, or injecting into the babies bodies right out of the womb before immedietly saying to yourself, "yep it's God's fault".
>>543579991>Earth just so happens to have all the stuff humans need to sustain life for themselvesYes, like how a puddle 'just so happens' to be the exact same shape as the hole it's in. See how retarded of a sentence that is? Life came from the conditions that existed, the conditions weren't made to make life possible.
>>543580382>and a majority of children are born healthyYeah but not all. Not very perfect is it?And this happens with healthy parents
>>543580303There's no reason for me to believe in your personal feelings and opinions
>>543574850atheism rises when religion gets the fuck out of the way of progressyou think there was no decadence throughout christianity? please.
>>543580450See? You almost get it :^)
>>543579969>What is the probability of life existing outside our solar system?Impossible to calculate an event that has only happened once (as far as we know). >Do you believe in the BB yes or no.Yes. It is the most accurate cosmological model we have, but not completely perfect. So until something that explains the universe even better, it's the best I got.>Then why on earth did you say as far as you know it is impossible?No evidence non-corporeal beings exist. No evidence omnipotent beings exist. No evidence anything outside of space and time exists.>FTL travel is not possible as far as we know.Not true. With a truly truly insane amount of energy you can compress space in front of you, and lengthen it behind you. The math says it's theoretically possible, but it would take more energy then we'll probably ever have access to.
>>543580385The probability of those "conditions" over millions of years lining up just right and then poof everything is how it is today is utterly ridiculous and mathmatically impossible. That is pure magical thinking, may I see a map of all of these conditions leading up to how everything is now or is it blind faith you are going off of?>>543580437>And this happens with healthy parentsWhat makes you say this? Do you know those parents and everything they've done up to the pregnany/giving birth. Your argument is just one big assumption and setting goal posts wherever you want them.
>>543577599>>543577714>>543578528>>543578641https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY2u7JZck_Ihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E15IC3YKv8g&list=RDE15IC3YKv8g&start_radio=1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kR9y6vKdNQ
>>543577599Ubi cáritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Atheism rose because of the scientific discoveries of the past centuriesmedieval Christians didn't think god creating the world in six days was a metaphor, that was a cope they came up with after scientists disproved all their shit
>>543580524>>And this happens with healthy parents>What makes you say this?Reality >>543580524>Your argument is just one big assumption and setting goal posts wherever you want them.No dummy, that's yours
>>543579991>Earth just so happens to have all the stuff humans need to sustain life for themselvesImagine a sentient puddle. To the puddle, the hole it's in seems to fit it perfectly.Now, imagine an organism that has evolved for billions of years to suit its environment. It is suited to the niche in which it finds itself
>>543574850>blah blah blah worship the magic rabbi jewish messiah or you're x, y, or z boogeymanFuck off you jew worshipping vermin.
>>543577599lmao suck start a musket, bride of christ.
>>543577599Intense kvetching
>>543580524>The probability of those "conditions" over millions of years lining up just right and then poof everything is how it is today is utterly ridiculous and mathmatically impossible.And how do you know this? Probability works by dividing the number of desired outcomes with the number of total outcomes. But we don't know of any other realities, only ours. Nothing suggests the universe could have turned out any other way. So I can just as easily say the odds are 1/1, or 100%.
>>543580524>The probability of those "conditions" over millions of years lining up just right and then poof everything is how it is today is utterly ridiculous and mathmatically impossibleNo, there is one and only one universe. You can't text probability using one and only one example of something.
>>543574850your "philosophical reason" boils down to>look everything has a cause, so there MUST be a First Cause>that First Cause is le God>how do you know?>i-it just is ok!!1 now read muh bible
>>543579991With this shit again
>>543580545Super edgy little bro!
>>543578904>ummm ackshully it was to le ebin own these people we didn't know existed for another 600+ yearswhy are chiggers like this?
>>543580181Introducing: Laryngeal nerve
>>543580719cool list. now let's see a list of all the pedo priests lined up with the pedo rabbis.
>>543580689Thats not quite it>Whatever begins to exist has a cause>The universe began to exist>Therefore the universe has a cause>That cause must be uncaused, beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful>This cause is what we call GodEverything that is moved is moved by another. An infinite chain of moved movers cannot explain motion here and now, so there must be an unmoved mover. Ofcourse this is not an argument for the christian/jewish god but a more broad one
>>543579609You're a pseudointellectual. "Catholic Philosophy" is a library of texts written over the last 2000 years. You can't "debunk" it anymore than you can debunk demonstrative pronouns.
>>543580719Those are titles of a specific Jewish sect called pharisees, which even the most retarded apologists already know
>>543580719>almost all of that list is sallatious nonsense jesus was screeching while having a melty after being told to fuck off from the temple when his attempted subversion and schism failed
Alright, goin to bed.And there is no god.
>>543580811>>That cause must be uncaused, beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerfulWhy?>>This cause is what we call anything g we want because it exists outside space and time>Everything that is moved is moved by anotherWhat "moved God"?
>>543580181>>543580337Millions of years of selective evolutionary pressure will produce insane results.
>>543580811The universe did not begin to exist and infact everything points to it itself being infinite
>>543580811>>That cause must be uncaused, beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerfulUncaused, sure, but the rest don't logically follow from the premises given. Just going off this argument, nothing suggests this first cause is sentient, singular, or even if it's still around today.
>>543579991>>543580181>swallow hole is near breathing hole so there's choking>flat footedness>birth canal too small so women die in childbirth>tailboneso if what the bible says is true and humans are in god's image why the fuck would god have a tailbone, genius?
>>543580490>Impossible to calculate an event that has only happened once (as far as we know).Fair enough but I specifically ask if you don't know the probability:>If you don't know, then do you believe it exists yes or no?Why did you dodge the question?>>Do you believe in the BB yes or no.>Yes. Do you believe anything existed outside the BB? Yes or no?>Then why on earth did you say as far as you know it is impossible?>No evidence non-corporeal beings exist. No evidence omnipotent beings exist. Lack of evidence does not imply impossibilityThere is a lack of evidence anything exists outside the BB but so far you have not said as far as you know it is impossible for anything to exist outside the BB. >No evidence anything outside of space and time exists.Exactly. So will you also say "as far as you know" it is impossible for anything to exist outside the BB which you admit you believe in?Or do you make a hypocritical flip-flopping special pleading fallacy when discussing the existence of God?>FTL travel is not possible as far as we know.>Not true... compress space in front of you, You're stonewalling on purpose. FLT travel is not possible IN NORMAL SPACE as far as we know, thus it is illogical to follow up with saying there is nothing necessarily making that statement true. My analogy stands once we get past your stonewalling attempts so my question remains:Why did you make an illogical follow up [about God]?
>>543580904And it certainly ain't the tripple kike
>>543580952>do you make a hypocritical flip-flopping special pleading fallacy when discussing the existence of God?You do.
>>543579969And on the subject of FTL travel, the real question is: "HOW much faster than light?"Simply going the speed of light, the next star is 4 years away, and that is way too slow. We can't design a space mission that takes 4 years. Atv2x the speed of light, it's a 2 year trip. At 8x the speed of light it's still a 6 month trip. At 32x the speed of light it will only take a month and a half..... And there's probably nothing special there. So it's on to the next star....To truly explore our galaxy, we'd need to go 1000x the speed of light.
>>543574850Oh yeah christcuck middle ages was so cultured that people didn't shower and ate with their hands after wipping their ass. So cultured that they couldn't solve a simple cold and 50% of children died during birth. The pope was so retarded that he ordered all cats that could have diminished the plague to be murdered because fuck knows why https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/our-legal-heritage-gregory-ix-the-cat-killing-pope-who-laid-down-the-law
>>543580952>Why did you make an illogical follow up [about God]?You mean it's "illogical" because it doesn't agree with your personal feelings and opinions
>>543580952I refer you to this post. >>543580855
>>543580868>Millions of years of selective evolutionary pressure will produce insane results.I do not accept your faith-based claim
>>543578641>You believe there is a very high probability that life exists somewhere outside our solar system despite literally zero evidenceLife existing here is enough evidence to make it probable >and you will invent a mountain of additional cope trying to deny thisHow is life existing here a cope?
>>543580890You just broke the first law of thermodynamics. God works above it. Envision the universe as all the light you see within the empty void of space, and God as the dark void itself. Everything came from him, but given a long enough amount of time, you could reach the beginning and end of our universe. The void is endless. The universe is something that exists within or against the infinite ground of reality. God is infinite, timeless, and not itself contained within the universe.
>>543581152>I do not accept your faith-based claim
>>543580864According to the first cause argument, the ultimate cause has to be uncaused because otherwise it wouldn’t be ultimate. If the “first cause” were itself caused by something else, then that something else would be the real first cause and you could keep asking the same question. But the argument usually isn’t just semantics. It makes a stronger claim which is that logically a chain of dependent causes cannot go on forever and still explain why anything exists or happens now. So the chain must stop somewhere, in something that is not itself caused. God is the uncaused cause, the one reality that does not have a cause because God never began to exist and does not depend on anything else>>543580904You are right. The bare first cause argument only gets you to something like. There is an uncaused/beginningless cause of the universe. The first mover is held as synonymous with god>>543580890The observable universe almost certainly had a beginning in a hot, dense state about 13 billion years ago. If other universes exist, did that larger whole begin or do you think it was always there whatever ''it'' was? If you mean spatially infinite, thats possible. A flat universe may be spatially infinite, but spatial infinity is not the same as temporal infinity
>>543581202>God works above it.Wow, you can make up anything with logic like this.
>>543581222>According to the first cause argument, the ultimate cause has to be uncaused because otherwise it wouldn’t be ultimate.You've already contradicted yourself >>543580811>Everything that is moved is moved by another.
>>543581007I'm aware of all thatStar Trek interstellar travel lore completely falls apart when you take all that into account, where some trips would take weeks but they get there the same day etc.
>>543581222>The first mover is held as synonymous with godSure, but it's insufficient. God fits the bill, but you need one of two things. Either supplementary evidence that says it HAS to be God (i.e. conceding the first mover argument is not proof for God, but proof the beginning had to have come first), or to show how all other possibilities are impossible, which is a Devil's Proof.
543578216>There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.the kind of linear causality which necessitates an uncaused cause to prevent an infinite recursive regression is only provably true within the metaphysic of our own universeAquinas fails to prove the mundane causal framework of the interaction of matter extending back before the creation of the universe and the creation of matter as metaphysically necessary, when it's not self-evidently sohe's saying it's impossible HERE whilst talking about NOT HERE, extending the causal principle beyond its evidential domain, failing to prove that the rule within the system is the rule withoutand even within his logic, he furnishes his arguments with zero evidence that the causal terminus is God as he conceives of God, rather than an initial mover which precedes and created his Godif we accept his arguments as valid (which I do not), then we must accept it equally as likely that a large, grey, immaterial form begins the causal chain of which Yahweh is but one intermediate efficient cause
>>543581365whoops, meant for>>543578216
>>543581207>>543581155>>543580476>ask for a probability>she replies "Because..."kekGo ask your husband Grok what "probability" means little lady
>>543578904Spiritual pajeet detected
>>543581233It is, literally, the meaning of God, to work above the laws of nature/humans. You envision God as a man in the sky, throwing light bolts, and stirring the pot for no reason. But many that believe, do not see him as you do, namefag.
>>543581397>ask for a probabilityHow many times do I jeed to say it and how many times are you intentionally going ti avoid it?Life exist here is the probability >>543580101>a literal child who will intentionally strawman and obfuscate what you say.You never fail to prove me right
>>543581436>work above the laws of nature/humansYou can make up anything and claim that.
>>543581436Everyone sees him that way
>>543581222>a chain of dependent causes cannot go on forever what reason is there to believe this?
Even if religion is bullshit you should still practice being a decent human being which is what men really need to be taught throughout history.
>>543581222>According to the first cause argument, the ultimate cause has to be uncaused because otherwise it wouldn’t be ultimateThen your own rule contradicts itself. Why can't two things be uncaused.
Cool feels, meanwhile in reality when secular nations arose, we began to shatter paradigms and uplift our species into an age of unprecedented prosperity. You're a pretentious sneering little kid who doesn't really think about anything for yourself yet at all, it's a phase. For most people. You should go back to wherever.
>>543581557Magic rabbi who allows slavery of goys for jews isn't moral! Sorry!
>>543581509If the causes stretch infinitely back, then it would take an eternity to reach the present moment. Since we are here, 'eternity' had to have ended at some point.
>>543581262The argument is that logically chain of causes must stop somewhere, and that stopping point is what is called God/unmoved mover etc>>543581350Yes, The bare first cause argument only gets you to an uncaused cause. It does not by itself, get you to the full God of classical theism which is a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, morally good or whatever
>>543581436God is a bosnian. He didn't exactly know what he was doing when he created the material reality.
>>543581638Still a contradiction because "God" had to move to create. So, what moved God?
>>543581447>Life exist [sic] here is the probabilityHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!Imagine being such an illiterate confused woman you think "life" existing is a "probability"She probably thinks "tampons" or "makeup" existing are probabilities too
>>543581475The anon I replied to said that the universe did not begin to exist. That literally breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Everything we measure has a beginning and end. Everything that can theoretically be touched had to have had an equal or greater amount of energy input, in order to exist in it's current form. The black void always remains. It is there, yet nobody pays mind to it. It just stands still, among the movements of the universe, untouchable. It is like a bowl that contains water, fish and decorations within it, yet the bowl itself moulds it's insides according to it's parameters. Yet nobody thinks of the bowl, but the fish inside it."Thus, everything that exists is contained within God, while God is not exhausted by everything that exists."
>>543581735Right back to>>543580101>You're arguing with a literal child who will intentionally strawman and obfuscate what you say.its probable that life exist outside our solar system because life exist here.Can you actually rebut this? Or are you going to concede again?
>>543581509Chain of causes can go on forever if you mean a temporal chain, like parents causing children. Aquinas himself thought the universe could have existed forever. So the classical argument is not usually saying there cannot be an infinite past. The claim is about a different kind of chain which is an essentially ordered chain, where each member is depending on another right now for its causal power or existence>hand moves a stick>the stick moves a ball>the balls motion depends on the stick>the sticks motion depends on the hand>the hand’s motion depends on muscles, nerves etcAll of this is happening simultaneously. The ball isn’t just moved by the stick in the past; it’s being moved by the stick here and now, and the stick by the hand, and so on.Now imagine an infinite series of sticks, each one moved by the next, with no hand at the start. Would the ball move? No. Because every stick is only passing along motion it doesn’t have in itself. Infinite borrowing of motion is still zero motion. There has to be something that has the power to move underived which is not borrowed from anything prior. Same with existence. If every being is contingent meaning it could have failed to exist then an infinite number of contingent beings is still contingent. Adding more links doesn’t explain why anything exists at all. You need something that exists necessarily, not borrowed from another.TLDR>temporal chain can be infinite.>an essentially ordered chain of dependent causes cannot, because an infinite series of borrowed power/existence has no source. There must be a first cause that has its power/existence in itself, not from another.
>>543581789>The anon I replied to said that the universe did not begin to existOK, I'm not that anon and is irrelevant to what I said
>>543581789If god exists, where can we find him?
>>543581654Bosnians know exactly what they are doing. It's drinking, fighting and stealing. But, since we live in more civilized times, Bosnians relegate to sitting in betting shops, drink, larp in mosques and churches, then go back home and eat wife's food.
>>543581826In your personal feelings and opinions
>>543581506>Everyone sees him that wayOnly idiots, and men that subscribe to organized religion without ever reading or researching it's history and influences see him that way. So you've got, atheist idiots and religious idiots. But, if you were smart, you'd realize that there are benefits to organized religion. The cattle need a dog to keep them in line, whilst the shepherd rests underneath a tree's shade and thinks.
>>543581789It's worth noting that scientific theories are, well, theories. Not to say they're random crapshoots, clearly they work in a general sense of the word since we can measure and calculate them. But they aren't universal, and are made with full expectation that future tech and understanding will reveal something they missed. Like how Newton's theory of gravity as a force is correct, but Einstein's theory of relativity applies in more extreme physical conditions.
>>543581560Correct, the bare first cause argument does not by itself prove there can only be one uncaused cause. The rule is not everything has a cause. It’s>Whatever begins to exist>is contingent >is moved >has a causeSo an uncaused cause isn’t an exception that breaks the rule, its just outside the rules scope. Nothing about that rule says there can only be one uncaused thing, you could have a pantheon of causes theoretically, pardon the pun. The argument only says the regress must stop somewhere. It doesn’t say it stops at exactly one thing. Aquainas would say that a truly ultimate/necessary being must be absolutely simple, no parts, no composition, no limitations. If there were two uncaused beings, theyd have to differ in some way. But any difference means one has something the other lacks, which implies limitation, dependence, or composition. So a purely ultimate being has to be one. It’s a further metaphysical claimThe first cause argument gets you to at least one uncaused cause. To get to exactly one, and to get to the God of worship, you need additional arguments
>>543581635we cross infinites all the time, see zeno's paradox
>>543581826>“In him we live and move and have our being.”He is the bowl, moulding our reality. We are the fish.
>>543581806>its probable that life exist [sic] outside our solar system because life exist [sic] here.>its probable that TAMPONS exist outside our solar system because TAMPONS exist here.This is why nobody takes women seriously
>>543581689God isn’t moved. The universe moved from nothing to something. If you say creating requires God to move, that’s a premise, not a proof. the claim God had to move to create assumes that causing something always requires the cause to change. Thats exactly what the unmoved mover denies>move means change>God doesn’t change>creating doesn’t change God>The universe changes from not existing to existing>God stays the sameSo what moved God? Nothing. God didn’t move. If you say >but creating means God had to move Thats an extra rule you added. The argument doesn’t say that
>>543582098Assuming the universe is infinitely divisible, you would be right. But if there's a minimum length, like the Planck length, then Zeno's paradox doesn't apply. It would be like saying your computer cursor can move a distance of 'half a pixel.' The sentence is non-sensical.
>>543581946>It's worth noting that scientific theories are, well, theories.Well, until they can become facts, most will remain tied to the Egregore's concepts.
>>543582219>>543580101>You're arguing with a literal child who will intentionally strawman and obfuscate what you say.I accept your concession
>>543582235>>move means changeGod had to move to change nothing into the universe.So, what moved God?
>>543581816>Now imagine an infinite series of sticksWho is actually suggesting an infinite dependency? Every chain just terminates at the fundamental forces of nature which don't appear to be sustained by anything.
>>543581934I already know that abrahamic religions are extremely beneficial for kikes, that's why I oppose them
>>543582271>>You're arguing with a literal child If you think I'm a child then why do you have a creepy obsession with me?
>>543582458You're a joke.
>>543582586>please stop dunking on meLol, no
>>543574850A society simping for kike fairy tales is as degenerate as it gets.
>>543577912>is self evident>allow me to explainDumbniggers of ages past.
>>543582595You're a kike lover
>>543580101>Then they will blame you for what they doVery true regarding P0S9663J>He never subjects his claim to the same evidential bar he demands from the other side.
>>543582458>that's why I oppose themThen good luck being subverted by the same kikes.
>>543582219'Life' is a very general thing. Some planet having bacteria (or equivalent) would count as alien life. Tampons are a very specific human-centric product. These aren't comparable.
>>543582995Exactly, that idiot does shit like this all the time
>>543574850> Catholics and Christians gleefully let jews take over their society and then get mad when people start having jewish behavior.Many such cases.
>>543574850How do you explain india and every other third world shit hole?
>>543582625>creepy obsession intensifies>>543582995>'Life' is a very general thingProve it>Some planet having bacteria (or equivalent) would count as alien life. So? That does not make it general>Tampons are a very specific human-centric productWho says aliens cannot have tampons?I love how stupid you shills can be despite trying so hard
>>543574850>godcuckFuck off retard. jews made that shit up to control.
Wanna know how the bullshit that is Christianity was fabricated by the jews? Watch this.https://rumble.com/v75mvsc-insomnia-stream-jewish-alamo-edition.html?e9s=src_v1_upp_a
>>543583374>>'Life' is a very general thing>Prove itEarth, bacteria on other planets >>543583374>That does not make it generalWhy?>>543583374>Who says aliens cannot have tampons?Ah so you belive life is possible beyond humans You are so dumb that you defeat yourself
>>543582917>she's so obsessed with me she's talking to herself about me wither her imaginary husband GrokThis is a new low
>>543583531>gets destroyed by AI and humans Your cope is delicious
>>543583200This
>>543583374>Prove itThere exist many different forms of life. Humans work differently from plants, and microorganisms work differently than both, but they're all just as alive. That's why 'life' is a general term, it covers so much of what we know. If the conditions exist, then it's not unreasonable for life to exist in some capacity elsewhere.>Who says aliens cannot have tampons?No one, I'm saying that it's incredibly unlikely compared to any life at all existing. Tampons necessitate a very specific species that has the knowledge, ability, and desire to make tampons.
>>543574850> philosophical reason>Ooga booga thunder scary must be big Booga making noise>case solved
>>543583523>Ah so you belive life is possible beyond humansROFL what does this cope even mean?There are species besides humansAre you actually that stupid?>yes
>>543583645Bro, like I told the other anon>>543580101>You're arguing with a literal child who will intentionally strawman and obfuscate what you say.Just watch
christians must be truly spiritually jewish since they argue like kikes whenever anyone questions them
>>543583716>There are species besides humans>>543583374>aliensLike that? Hahaha
>the existence of God can be demonstrated by philosophical reason:Well that's good, we don't need preists then.
>>543574850>It is an article of Catholic faith that the existence of God can be verified through philosophical reason.Faith is believing something you know ain't so. The existence of an invisible omnipotent god cannot be verified or falsified through reason alone.
>>543583645>There exist many different forms of lifeThere exist many different forms of tampons>That's why 'life' is a general termThen so is "tampon">If the conditions exist, then it's not unreasonable for life to exist in some capacity elsewhere.Completely unsubstantiated cope nonsense (even the other atheist above said the probability is unknown)One of the most famous evolutionary biologists, Dr Koonin, wrote a paper saying there might be a chicken before egg problem with abiogenesis and if so then it's unlikely life will ever exist anywhere else in the universe for remainder of the universe>No one, I'm saying that it's incredibly unlikely compared to any life at all existing. A baseless claim. See above>Tampons necessitate a very specific species that has the knowledge, ability, and desire to make tampons.Completely irrelevantGhost of Mesa kike's claim was proven to be structurally illogical by simple substitution. It does not matter if something completely different was substituted. The logical structure itself does not follow.
>>543584058>Ghost of Mesa kike's claim was proven to be structurally illogical by simple substitutionNot really lol
>>543584058>even the other atheist above said the probability is unknownBut that doesn't mean it's not probably.That's what you either don't understand because you are too stupid or you intentionally ignore because you are disingenuous
>>543584141>probablyProbable*
>...and that's how arguments largely based on classical pagan theism about the necessity of Being absolutely demonstrate my bronze age semitic gypsy mythology, its schizo prophets and capeshit savior figure...
>>543584058>There exist many different forms of tamponsNot really. Some are more absorbent than others, but they're all pretty much the same thing.>One of the most famous evolutionary biologists, Dr KooninAppeal to authority.>A baseless claimIt's just basic logic, anon. If Y necessitates X, then X and Y are less likely than just X. Tampons cannot exist without life, therefore tampons are less likely than life.
>>543583756>>543584107>>543584141>>543584168>she's having another multi-reply melty bc she can't refute what I saykek>But that doesn't mean it's not probably.Retarded strawman little lady
>>543584315This idiot doesn't know what a strawman is. Lol>>543584315>can't refute what I saySure did>>543584141>But that doesn't mean it's not probable Falsely labeling this a serious a strawman doesn't make it soYou do this a lot too as a form of deflecting
>>543584406>Falsely labeling this a strawman*
>>543584252>Not really>pretty much You're just pilpuling at this point>Appeal to authority.Concession acceptedThat was not an appeal to authorityI was appealing to his argument showing there is a counter opinion that completely contradicts your baseless assumptions you completely rely upon>A baseless claim>It's just basic logic, anon. ROFL Logic based on baseless claims is still invalidLearn the difference between a logically sound argument and logically valid argument>then X and Y are less likely than just X. Tampons cannot exist without life, therefore tampons are less likely than lifeYou have completely confused yourselfMe pointing out the baselessness of your claim regarding the (un)reasonableness of life existing far away if it exists on earth had nothing to do with your "logic" about tampons being less likely than life on other planetsThose are two separate issues and you confusedly mashed them togetherIf you're not going to pay attention then don't bother replying
>>543584779>That was not an appeal to authority>I was appealingHahaha this clown will also, always contradict himself >>543584779>Me pointing out the baselessness of your claim regarding the (un)reasonableness of life existing far away if it exists on earthYou've still yet to refute that. All you've done is double down on a strawman about tampons >If you're not going to pay attention then don't bother replyingKek, really, like clock work, see>>543580101>Then they will blame you for what they do.
>>543584406>can't refute what I say>makes up strawmenConcession accepted
>>543582941Fuck off with your kike dichotomy, Mehmetovič
>>543584893Can you explain the supposed strawman?No? Deflecting cope as always And as usual, it's you who concedes to me
>>543574850>I'll just assert the existence of god therefore I "proved" iteh? Talk about decadence...
>>543584779>I was appealing to his argument showing there is a counter opinion that completely contradicts your baseless assumptions you completely rely uponBad attempt to lie is bad. If that were all, you would have just stated the opinion, but you included his name and his authority on the matter as a 'famous evolutionary biologist.' This is an appeal to authority. Why are you lying, anon?>Those are two separate issues and you confusedly mashed them togetherYou're the one who made the argument that "If life on Earth implies life somewhere else, then tampons on Earth implies tampons somewhere else." I have explained why that is a false equivalence. Why are you pretending like I'm avoiding the issue? Again, why do you lie so?
>>543584876>>543584921>more mega melty replies refuting absolutely nothingShe's obsessed Concession accepted
>>543584876i keep seeing you in these threads for yearsthey are funny threads
>>543585015>Can you explain the supposed strawman?>No? Deflecting cope as alwaysAgain, it's you who concedes to me >>543585017Yes indeed.
>>543580811>>This cause is what we call GodAnd then this doesnt matter at all except that you can now call the cause 'God'.>noooo he also want us to worship him and snib our foreskins blablablabla
The dark ages were real. The jews say your are like cattle and you call yourselves sheep and follow the jewish shepard Mashiach ben Yosef. Christianity didnt build western civilization it destroyed it.
>>543577025>burden of proof.NDE21 grams
All advancement in science and culture and quality of life happens when people dont give a shit about fake jewish myths.
>>543585177Christianity was created by paul who never even met jesus. jesus never existed just like moses and abraham
>>543585177>21 gramsMacDougall's sample size was incredibly small (only six human patients). Out of those six, only one yielded the specific 21-gram drop. Two results were thrown out due to scale malfunctions, two patients lost weight but then continued to lose more later, and one lost weight but then regained it.
>>543580811The problem comes by conflating "the universe" with "existence". The "big bang" (if it happened that way) is a transformative point of the existence but there is no reason to assume existence doesn't go any further than it.So if instead of "the universe" you say "existence" you can see how it's a bit silly to argue that existence demands a "first cause" while "the first cause" doesn't demand another first cause. There's no reason why an atheist can't simply acknowledge the possibility that existence is eternal.Besides, you are just re-defining "God". If "the first cause" was a rock falling on another rock that means this is "God"? No, what "God" means is very specific, a creator being with a conscious mind.
>>543574850Or maybe we just bored of the lies from the sect of Yeshua bar Yosef, and decided to find meaning elsewhere than in desert tales from 2000 years ago. Miracles and saints don't exist
>>543585177If a person has an NDE, then they by definition haven't died. Whatever afterlife you're proposing they've seen is little better than a fever dream.
>>543585307Even if we agree the universe has a cause that does not translate to adam and eve and noahs ark and god named jesus dying and coming back and magic wizard saying spells over crackers and wine actually turning it into flesh and blood and saving your soul
>>543577599You are an eager willing kikeslave who calls a jew your god and master.You have less claim to being a man than him.
>>543585396Yes but if "the universe" includes all reality then I can include what preceded the big bang and say reality is eternal which is what most atheists are going for these days. This whole 'first cause' argument doesn't work at all once you do that move.
>>543584995>If that were all, you would have just stated the opinionIt wasn't an "opinion" it is a well-argued research paper. If I just randomly stated that there might be a chicken before egg problem you would have dismissed it out of hand. Hence I gave the author and listed the fact he was an evolutionist so you know it wasn't coming from some creationist blog or something>This is an appeal to authority No, it was not>Why are you lying, anon?Why are you?>You're the one who made the argument that . . .ROFL Why are you changing the subject after I pointed out you got confused?Are you just abandoning half of your last post?>I have explained why that is a false equivalenceI never said tampons and life are an exact equivalenceI merely proved the logical structure of that lolcow's claim was invalid>Why are you pretending like I'm avoiding the issue?You abandoned half your last post so yeah it's clear you're avoiding something>Again, why do you lie so?I've lied about nothingFalsely pointing out a lie a second time as an end of post quip that had nothing to do with the former sentence is nothing more than an ad hom. You're clearly bringing up ad homs because you lost this argument
>>543585235Non sequitur>>543585370By definition they did. Theu were resurected>dream feverDid everybody and I do mean absolutely everybody had the exact same "dream fever"? Oy vey, dem cohencidences!>>543585266Cope and seethe!
>>543585532>If I just randomly stated that there might be a chicken before egg problem you would have dismissed it out of hand. Hence I gave the author and listed the fact he was an evolutionist so you know it wasn't coming from some creationist blog or somethingUh-huh. So you had no faith in the argument by itself, you were hoping that the name would give it more credibility. Still sounds like an appeal to authority to me.>Are you just abandoning half of your last post?No. I've made my point, and I'm still seeing no response from you beyond terrible backpedaling. >I merely proved the logical structure of that lolcow's claim was invalidAnd I proved that it isn't. It is possible for life to exist on another planet in some form. Your example using tampons is not comparable, meaning you don't have an argument anymore.
>>543585772>Cope and seethe!At what?
>>543585532>>This is an appeal to authority>No, it was notYes it is, you even said so yourself You're a terrible liar. Lmao
>>543585772>By definition they did. Theu were resurectedThis isn't a zombie apocalypse. No one came back from death, they came back from NEAR death, hence the N in NDE. Resuscitated, not resurrected.>Did everybody and I do mean absolutely everybody had the exact same "dream fever"?It's not everybody. There are people who've had NDE's who haven't seen Heaven or Hell or the three spirits of Christmas.
>>543585532>never said tampons and life are an exact equivalence>>543581735>She probably thinks "tampons" or "makeup" existing are probabilities tooYou did there >>543582219And here too. Again, you're such a bad liar that you consistently dunk on yourself lmao
