(MEGA THREAD) Proof God doesn’t exist

[thebuffdon690]

Bump

 

[thebuffdon690]

Bump

 

[thebuffdon690]

Bump

 

[thebuffdon690]

Bump

 

[thebuffdon690]

Bump

 

[thebuffdon690]

Bump

 

[tombradylover]

I dont disagree with what u wrote. It was deep and very layered stuff. Im agnostic and in my opinion theres no way to say with certainty if God exists or not. One way or the other we can't prove anything. My question to you is do you think there was a starting point to all of existence? For example our starting point is Big Bang, but what comes before big bang or what started it? Was it another universe? Was it just spontaneous combustion of different objects of matter? No matter what, could there be something that jump started this process somehow? For existence and reality everywhere to occur, don't you think there must be a point A (starting point)? I wonder if there is a creator that must have somehow started all of this stuff since everything has a beginning or starting point, then what comes before or "starts" that starting point? Thats what makes me think there is a "god" (not the one that's in bible or talked about through religions, it would be something that we humans could never comprehend), because how can anything occur without something jump starting it or designing it initially? Even if everything was an accident (which it very easily can be), wouldn't something need to occur to get this accident going and in motion in the first place for everything to occur like this? I don't know to be honest. I'm open to all possibilities. This was an interesting read tho so i gotta say good stuff on at least making direct arguments and being layered with it. I wonder what u think about what i just said

 

[thebuffdon690]

I dont disagree with what u wrote. It was deep and very layered stuff. Im agnostic and in my opinion theres no way to say with certainty if God exists or not. One way or the other we can't prove anything. My question to you is do you think there was a starting point to all of existence? For example our starting point is Big Bang, but what comes before big bang or what started it? Was it another universe? Was it just spontaneous combustion of different objects of matter? No matter what, could there be something that jump started this process somehow? For existence and reality everywhere to occur, don't you think there must be a point A (starting point)? I wonder if there is a creator that must have somehow started all of this stuff since everything has a beginning or starting point, then what comes before or "starts" that starting point? Thats what makes me think there is a "god" (not the one that's in bible or talked about through religions, it would be something that we humans could never comprehend), because how can anything occur without something jump starting it or designing it initially? Even if everything was an accident (which it very easily can be), wouldn't something need to occur to get this accident going and in motion in the first place for everything to occur like this? I don't know to be honest. I'm open to all possibilities. This was an interesting read tho so i gotta say good stuff on at least making direct arguments and being layered with it. I wonder what u think about what i just said

Yeh I agree with you that there is no way to know whether god exists or not. For me personally I don’t believe he exists (so I showed evidence supporting that) but I do understand that we can never know for certain (until we die at least if there is anything after that). And yes if you read the end part I talk about the last bit of your point. I think there was a start but it was a mechanical entity which designed itself

 

[tombradylover]

Yeh I agree with you that there is no way to know whether god exists or not. For me personally I don’t believe he exists (so I showed evidence supporting that) but I do understand that we can never know for certain (until we die at least if there is anything after that). And yes if you read the end part I talk about the last bit of your point. I think there was a start but it was a mechanical entity which designed itself

Nice stuff man. Always good to read interesting perspectives and angles on life and shit. I prob didn't read that part but ill go back and see what u wrote specific. Mechanical entity sounds interesting but glad we somewhat on same page. Theres just no way to ever know for real and anyone that says its one way or the other with certainty is just ignorant and egotistical. I like that u have an opinion and support it with analysis and claims but recognize it can be either or. I respect that

 

[thebuffdon690]

Nice stuff man. Always good to read interesting perspectives and angles on life and shit. I prob didn't read that part but ill go back and see what u wrote specific. Mechanical entity sounds interesting but glad we somewhat on same page. Theres just no way to ever know for real and anyone that says its one way or the other with certainty is just ignorant and egotistical. I like that u have an opinion and support it with analysis and claims but recognize it can be either or. I respect that

Yeh it’s really hard to visualise what that would look like as how is it possible that a mechanism can cause something to exist forever it’s just mind boggling? Also I think if god is real he definitely doesn’t have the all good property, it’s just a morally indifferent entity which does things for some reason idk why. But in all honestly the way the universe was brought about was probably through natural quantum vacuums or something like that not through a god. But who knows anyway. And thx for commenting reasonably and not just being a douche appreciate it

 

[thebuffdon690]

Bump

 

[thebuffdon690]

@Makeyousit @mogstars fight it out here lol

 

[thebuffdon690]

bump

 

[Imretarded?]

Minimum sample size for any semblance of statistical significance is 100, idiot. And ideal sample size will always be in proportion to the population being studied with 10% being the ideal. 432 people being sampled from an Amazon crowdsourcing service with completely vague methodology for IQ testing = GARBAGE “study”

Still more reliable than a retard who thinks the first human was made from a pile of clay.

 

[Clavicular]

unreal rep farm

 

[Eternal_]

Still more reliable than a retard who thinks the first human was made from a pile of clay.

Dust of the ground **

Regardless, it’s figurative language, idiot. The point to be taken is that God created man.

 

[Imretarded?]

Dust of the ground **

Regardless, it’s figurative language, idiot. The point to be taken is that God created man.

Oh sorry, made from dust . God blew his stinky breath onto the ground and created man.

You have no right calling others stupid when you believe in a magic sky daddy.

 

[Eternal_]

Oh sorry, made from dust . God blew his stinky breath onto the ground and created man.

You have no right calling others stupid when you believe in a magic sky daddy.

I feel like I’m speaking to a child.

 

[Gus17]

l

 

[Gus17]

Lack of evidence?

You probably know that most religious people claim that gods existence is obvious (I don’t think they know what obvious means JFL) but they will usually cite fine tuning argument or Muh look at the trees bullshit for their so called evidence.

Well I’m here to tell you it’s not obvious at all, just because stuff exists doesn’t mean the concept of god (which humans came up with btw) is a real entity manifesting externally from its conceptual standpoint. This is a fallacy but either way, this begs the question of why does god make it so painfully hard to provide any knowledge of his existence (outside of religion)? I’m not referring to divine hiddenness here because this already presupposes god to begin with, this is more along the lines of lack of CONCRETE evidence, one which doesn’t take years of studying and scientific work to arrive at a conclusion, more from a critical thinking standpoint I guess.

It shouldn’t seem intuitive to people that just by looking around this somehow means that god is real. We have had stuff which has always mind boggled our intuition and still does to this day (take quantum entanglement as an example). This logically follows that it should be possible for god not to exist and we still have the universe we see today. This part obviously isn’t conclusive proof it’s just the starting point for further exploration of the subject.

Another point religious people like to bring up is that god has to exist because the universe couldn’t have been brought about accidentally. However this isn’t really true, and seems similar to like an appeal to intuition in them saying god has to exist because there is no evidence against the world not being an accident. But this is only judged by their own intuition, and any smart person will know our intuition is subject to many biases that are accounted for when coming to conclusions based on independent verifiable evidence. It is certainly plausible that it could have been accidental, especially given the time frame that evolution occurred on and the development of the universe as a whole. If we are talking about the Big Bang however things become a little more obscure, and it is certainly arrogant for someone to claim that this couldn’t have been accidental when we have no idea if that’s truly the case or not. Natural mechanistic forces are not dictated by any sort of agency like humans are dictated by agency, this means that it is possible (maybe not plausible though) that it could have been accidental.

The whole point of believing in god is the choice to have faith in him despite the difficulties that may bring if it is obvious that would defeat the whole purpose. Anyway, there's plenty of evidence to point people in the direction to god being real. First Jesus was the most documented person in all of ancient history. There were 1,000 times more manuscripts preserving the deeds and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament (about 25,000 total) than there are preserving other classical ancient works of historic figures who lived at approximately the same time. If you were to say Jesus and the eyewitness account of his resurrection was fake you would have to throw out every other historical figure during that period as well. He made multiple appearances to his disciples and once to a crowd of 500, and not one person came forward and said it was a hoax. Furthermore, his 11 apostles were tortured for claiming his resurrection yet despite how easy it would be to say it was fake they all chose to instead die as martyrs. Since no one would sacrifice themselves for a lie they wouldn't even benefit from we can safely assume that all 11 actually fervently believed in his resurrection. All of these accounts are direct evidence that he was real.

Problem of evil


The common apologetic response to this argument is that god does allow it happen, because of human free will etc etc. let’s just assume that free will does exist for the sake of the argument (obviously not something we can ever know but still). The main thing for me is that this doesn’t take away from the intrinsic suffering of said person who is still experiencing the state of evil, just because someone else’s free will allows them to act on that decision. Suffering is still a mental state at the end of the day, and just because someone has free will this doesn’t really prove anything to do with the argument.

You fundamentally misunderstand the free will argument. If god were to program every human to do good then that good would have no meaning as were just following a script. It is in that choice that weight is added to the decision to be good. Thus to have creations that are made in his image as willingly benevolent and good he must give them the choice to be evil. While evil may affect innocent or good people and cause them to suffer this suffering is rewarded. In heaven there is an eternity of paradise which would make any human suffering seem trivial, what is 10 years of pain compared to infinite years of bliss? Furthermore, you literally can't suffer in heaven so any "trauma" literally wouldn't exist.

Argument from eternal consciousness

This one is pretty much a pointless logical debate as god's existence requires faith, not some ironclad rule that very few people would actually understand and thus reach salvation. If I had to make an argument for this I would simply that time and the rules of the world doesn't necessarily work as we understand them to be straight forward. Existing in multiple area of time at once and the idea of multiple superpositions in quantum physics can complicate this argument a lot.

 

[thebuffdon690]

unreal rep farm

Lol fr

 

[thebuffdon690]

Oh sorry, made from dust . God blew his stinky breath onto the ground and created man.

You have no right calling others stupid when you believe in a magic sky daddy.

 

[thebuffdon690]

Oh sorry, made from dust . God blew his stinky breath onto the ground and created man.

You have no right calling others stupid when you believe in a magic sky daddy.

They believe god is anthropomorphic Lmao that’s how dumb they are fr

 

[thebuffdon690]

The whole point of believing in god is the choice to have faith in him despite the difficulties that may bring if it is obvious that would defeat the whole purpose. Anyway, there's plenty of evidence to point people in the direction to god being real. First Jesus was the most documented person in all of ancient history. There were 1,000 times more manuscripts preserving the deeds and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament (about 25,000 total) than there are preserving other classical ancient works of historic figures who lived at approximately the same time. If you were to say Jesus and the eyewitness account of his resurrection was fake you would have to throw out every other historical figure during that period as well. He made multiple appearances to his disciples and once to a crowd of 500, and not one person came forward and said it was a hoax. Furthermore, his 11 apostles were tortured for claiming his resurrection yet despite how easy it would be to say it was fake they all chose to instead die as martyrs. Since no one would sacrifice themselves for a lie they wouldn't even benefit from we can safely assume that all 11 actually fervently believed in his resurrection. All of these accounts are direct evidence that he was real.

You fundamentally misunderstand the free will argument. If god were to program every human to do good then that good would have no meaning as were just following a script. It is in that choice that weight is added to the decision to be good. Thus to have creations that are made in his image as willingly benevolent and good he must give them the choice to be evil. While evil may affect innocent or good people and cause them to suffer this suffering is rewarded. In heaven there is an eternity of paradise which would make any human suffering seem trivial, what is 10 years of pain compared to infinite years of bliss? Furthermore, you literally can't suffer in heaven so any "trauma" literally wouldn't exist.

This one is pretty much a pointless logical debate as god's existence requires faith, not some ironclad rule that very few people would actually understand and thus reach salvation. If I had to make an argument for this I would simply that time and the rules of the world doesn't necessarily work as we understand them to be straight forward. Existing in multiple area of time at once and the idea of multiple superpositions in quantum physics can complicate this argument a lot.

Decent response I appreciate it will respond to it later

 

[thebuffdon690]

The whole point of believing in god is the choice to have faith in him despite the difficulties that may bring if it is obvious that would defeat the whole purpose. Anyway, there's plenty of evidence to point people in the direction to god being real. First Jesus was the most documented person in all of ancient history. There were 1,000 times more manuscripts preserving the deeds and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament (about 25,000 total) than there are preserving other classical ancient works of historic figures who lived at approximately the same time. If you were to say Jesus and the eyewitness account of his resurrection was fake you would have to throw out every other historical figure during that period as well. He made multiple appearances to his disciples and once to a crowd of 500, and not one person came forward and said it was a hoax. Furthermore, his 11 apostles were tortured for claiming his resurrection yet despite how easy it would be to say it was fake they all chose to instead die as martyrs. Since no one would sacrifice themselves for a lie they wouldn't even benefit from we can safely assume that all 11 actually fervently believed in his resurrection. All of these accounts are direct evidence that he was real.

You fundamentally misunderstand the free will argument. If god were to program every human to do good then that good would have no meaning as were just following a script. It is in that choice that weight is added to the decision to be good. Thus to have creations that are made in his image as willingly benevolent and good he must give them the choice to be evil. While evil may affect innocent or good people and cause them to suffer this suffering is rewarded. In heaven there is an eternity of paradise which would make any human suffering seem trivial, what is 10 years of pain compared to infinite years of bliss? Furthermore, you literally can't suffer in heaven so any "trauma" literally wouldn't exist.

This one is pretty much a pointless logical debate as god's existence requires faith, not some ironclad rule that very few people would actually understand and thus reach salvation. If I had to make an argument for this I would simply that time and the rules of the world doesn't necessarily work as we understand them to be straight forward. Existing in multiple area of time at once and the idea of multiple superpositions in quantum physics can complicate this argument a lot.

Point 1: I didn’t lay out what I think about the resurrection. In my opinion you can’t really prove god exists with the resurrection, if you want me to elaborate my views on that then we can have a discussion on that for sure.

Point 2: I do not misunderstand the free will argument. I think I claim that the free will argument works in question, the problem is with the level of suffering we see happen in the world and across time, we may not expect there to be an all loving god controlling this (I.e programming humans to have free will to do whatever they want) that’s like humans programming AI to have free will and then the AI goes out and murders, rapes etc it’s the humans responsibility to stop that from happening, but he just lets it happen (analogous to god ofc). This doesn’t take away from said intrinsic suffering of certain humans just because their is free will being acted out, like I mentioned in my post. Every religious persons answer to this question is arrogant and disrespectful imo.

Also when you say that it doesn’t matter if they are tortured or killed etc because they will be rewarded in heaven, this is called front loading your theory with unverifiable information which doesn’t work, how tf am I supposed to assess your argument when you are mentioning stuff which is completely unverifiable and nothing to even do with the subject at hand.

Point 3: again this is just a cop out which theists use in this thread against the argument. Why don’t you actually tackle the argument instead of just saying you wouldn’t understand concept of god. If I have reason to believe concept of god can’t manifest in reality then I have all the right in the world to lay this out within good reason, and you should be able to tackle the actual argument In question rather than just divert it. Pretty sure this is a logical fallacy actually I can’t remember which one, maybe a version of straw man idk.

 

[Gus17]

Point 1: I didn’t lay out what I think about the resurrection. In my opinion you can’t really prove god exists with the resurrection, if you want me to elaborate my views on that then we can have a discussion on that for sure.

No one needs to prove 100% that god is verifiable real just provide strong evidence which can let people believe in them. The point of faith in the Bible is the choice to believe. The clear historical evidence is enough to make to believe it to be a real event as it’s more documented then any other event during that period.

Point 2: I do not misunderstand the free will argument. I think I claim that the free will argument works in question, the problem is with the level of suffering we see happen in the world and across time, we may not expect there to be an all loving god controlling this (I.e programming humans to have free will to do whatever they want) that’s like humans programming AI to have free will and then the AI goes out and murders, rapes etc it’s the humans responsibility to stop that from happening, but he just lets it happen (analogous to god ofc). This doesn’t take away from said intrinsic suffering of certain humans just because their is free will being acted out, like I mentioned in my post. Every religious persons answer to this question is arrogant and disrespectful imo.

Humans are made in god’s image and you can’t choose to be good like god unless you free will. It’s a necessary step to create good creatures. If god were to directly step in and force everyone to be good that would defeat the purpose of choice and strip people of free will once again.

Also when you say that it doesn’t matter if they are tortured or killed etc because they will be rewarded in heaven, this is called front loading your theory with unverifiable information which doesn’t work, how tf am I supposed to assess your argument when you are mentioning stuff which is completely unverifiable and nothing to even do with the subject at hand.

I’m arguing about the Christian god. It’s a cop out to throw out what’s clearly stated in the text to happen after you die. You ask how an omnipotent being could justify suffering on earth and the obvious answer is eternal bliss in heaven.

Point 3: again this is just a cop out which theists use in this thread against the argument. Why don’t you actually tackle the argument instead of just saying you wouldn’t understand concept of god. If I have reason to believe concept of god can’t manifest in reality then I have all the right in the world to lay this out within good reason, and you should be able to tackle the actual argument In question rather than just divert it. Pretty sure this is a logical fallacy actually I can’t remember which one, maybe a version of straw man idk.

The last part is just too autistic for me and have no interest in it. I’m sure there’s a million redditors who love arguing pointless meta physical logic circle jerks, but I’m not one of them.

 

[thebuffdon690]

No one needs to prove 100% that god is verifiable real just provide strong evidence which can let people believe in them. The point of faith in the Bible is the choice to believe. The clear historical evidence is enough to make to believe it to be a real event as it’s more documented then any other event during that period.

Humans are made in god’s image and you can’t choose to be good like god unless you free will. It’s a necessary step to create good creatures. If god were to directly step in and force everyone to be good that would defeat the purpose of choice and strip people of free will once again.

I’m arguing about the Christian god. It’s a cop out to throw out what’s clearly stated in the text to happen after you die. You ask how an omnipotent being could justify suffering on earth and the obvious answer is eternal bliss in heaven.

The last part is just too autistic for me and have no interest in it. I’m sure there’s a million redditors who love arguing pointless meta physical logic circle jerks, but I’m not one of them.

I mean there’s still a lot of problems with Christianity and the resurrection in general so if you’re entire objection is centred around that religion, then it doesn’t seem to rational to me at least.

You can’t really answer all of my points with just: god said so in a book therefore I should believe it. Should be a more rational basis than that

 

[Gus17]

I mean there’s still a lot of problems with Christianity and the resurrection in general so if you’re entire objection is centred around that religion, then it doesn’t seem to rational to me at least.

It’s a real cop out to just ignore the resurrection. It’s the most documented event in ancient history if we say that event is fake then we would have to say every other figure was fake. The fact that his apostles choose to die while being tortured rather then say they didn’t see his resurrection speaks volumes.

You can’t really answer all of my points with just: god said so in a book therefore I should believe it. Should be a more rational basis than that

You’re arguing in bad faith if you expect me to use your strawman version of god. It’s illogical to set up the premise he’s omnipotent and ignore the other premise that he can give people heaven after death when talking about whether he can be considered good as the text states. Both are unverifiable and to argue against heaven is to argue against his omnipotence which makes the argument of him being good pointless since your no longer talking about the Christian god but a strawman.

 

[thebuffdon690]

It’s a real cop out to just ignore the resurrection. It’s the most documented event in ancient history if we say that event is fake then we would have to say every other figure was fake. The fact that his apostles choose to die while being tortured rather then say they didn’t see his resurrection speaks volumes.

You’re arguing in bad faith if you expect me to use your strawman version of god. It’s illogical to set up the premise he’s omnipotent and ignore the other premise that he can give people heaven after death when talking about whether he can be considered good as the text states. Both are unverifiable and to argue against heaven is to argue against his omnipotence which makes the argument of him being good pointless since your no longer talking about the Christian god but a strawman.

What I’m saying is if ur just taking the resurrection as your base belief you have to also take other stuff at face value, such as blatant bible contractions, Old Testament atrocities, false information that’s included about science etc etc, evil things in general (child rape), Jesus saying certain things which are questionable.

A lot of Christian’s throw this out only for the resurrection which to me doesn’t make sense. Also yes the resurrection is the most documented event in history but there can be other explanations to it, social contagion effects etc, it’s not just that simple as to god raised him and that’s all there is to it.

Just from a rational standpoint I’m not gonna base my beliefs off no other way to explain the resurrection (which isn’t even true) but still, and that’s the entire basis for my worldview. That doesn’t explain all of the points I raised you would have to tackle that from a different perspective.

 

[Eternal_]

It’s a real cop out to just ignore the resurrection. It’s the most documented event in ancient history if we say that event is fake then we would have to say every other figure was fake. The fact that his apostles choose to die while being tortured rather then say they didn’t see his resurrection speaks volumes.

You’re arguing in bad faith if you expect me to use your strawman version of god. It’s illogical to set up the premise he’s omnipotent and ignore the other premise that he can give people heaven after death when talking about whether he can be considered good as the text states. Both are unverifiable and to argue against heaven is to argue against his omnipotence which makes the argument of him being good pointless since your no longer talking about the Christian god but a strawman.

 

[thebuffdon690]

Bump

 

[jisko32]

idiot. He doesn't exist this is clear and without evidence. And even if God exists, it is me.

 

[thebuffdon690]

idiot. He doesn't exist this is clear and without evidence. And even if God exists, it is me.

Sure

 

[Sny]

Low iq waffles

You seem very brazen and unknowing.

 

[thebuffdon690]

You seem very brazen and unknowing.

If you don’t explain ur point then Idc

 

[Sny]

If you don’t explain ur point then Idc

Considering you didn't explain yours and instead slandered me while trying to rationalize the existence of a hypothetical omnipresence(impossible feat) via conventional standards I can quickly assure that you know a grand total of zilch.

 

[thebuffdon690]

Considering you didn't explain yours and instead slandered me while trying to rationalize the existence of a hypothetical omnipresence(impossible feat) via conventional standards I can quickly assure that you know a grand total of zilch.

What ru even talking about lmao. Quote the post and explain what was wrong with it and I’ll counter ur point

 

[thebuffdon690]

@philosopher

 

[Sny]

What ru even talking about lmao. Quote the post and explain what was wrong with it and I’ll counter ur point

Your entire dissertation is what is known as a red herring. Since you the original poster established the premise of this thread to be a rationale as to why God doesn't exist you should try to prove why exactly but you can't prove or disprove it concretely.

Fine tuning of the universe, Ontological, Moral, Transcendental, and Mathematical explainations are all hypothesises of God's existence based on current religious systems. However in the presence of this one query it has no relevancy.

If God is truly God and is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient aka the triad inwhich a true God is defined.

Can we prove the existence of God? The answer is no as you can't really unveil something that likely doesn't want to be shown irregardless of our effort. Doesn't matter if Humanity becomes Type III on the Kardashev scale or Type 100. Everything is inferior in presence of unyielding power.

Now this doesn't definitively prove the existence of God as God could just not... Exist

Meaning that we would spend countless eternities pondering not knowing whether or not God exists as we would think.

"God doesn't exist because God doesn't show us his/her presence, but God is truly of infinite power therefore we would never know of his presence."

TDLR: There will likely never be definitive proof due to how the thought expirement is structured and its implications.

 

[thebuffdon690]

Your entire dissertation is what is known as a red herring. Since you the original poster established the premise of this thread to be a rationale as to why God doesn't exist you should try to prove why exactly but you will can't prove or disprove.

Fine tuning of the universe, Ontological, Moral, Transcendental, Math etc are all hypothesises of God's existence based on current religious systems. However in the presence of this one query it has no relevancy.

If God is truly God and is omnipotent, omnipresence and omniscient aka the triad inwhich a true God is defined.

Can we prove the existence of God? The answer is no as you can't really unveil something that likely doesn't want to be shown irregardless of our effort. Doesn't matter if Humanity becomes Type III on the Kardashev scale or Type 100. Everything is inferior in presence of unyielding power.

Now this doesn't definitively prove the existence of God as God could just not... Exist

Meaning that we would spend countless eternities pondering not knowing whether or not God exists as we would think.

"God doesn't exist because God doesn't show us his/her presence, but God is truly of infinite power therefore we would never know of his presence."

TDLR: There will likely never be definitive proof due to how the thought expirement is structured and its implications.

Dumb point which many people in this thread have pointed out. Obviously you can never prove god exists or doesn’t exist , the whole point of this post is trying to infer based on evidence and rationale whether it’s more or less likely that god exists or not, that is what I tried to do. Based on countless years of studying and rationale And experience I have come to the conclusion that it’s less likely that god isn’t real (not definitive). My post was just me outlining why I think that’s the case

 

[Sny]

Dumb point which many people in this thread have pointed out. Obviously you can never prove god exists or doesn’t exist , the whole point of this post is trying to infer based on evidence and rationale whether it’s more or less likely that god exists or not, that is what I tried to do. Based on countless years of studying and rationale And experience I have come to the conclusion that it’s less likely that god isn’t real (not definitive). My post was just me outlining why I think that’s the case

Only a dumb point as you can't really prove or disprove God's existence. Using current religious systems to disprove God's existence is so clearly jarring and shows someone like you can never really be debated with reasonably in good faith and I'm being anatongistic with you as you called me a waffler previously.

 

[thebuffdon690]

Only a dumb point as you can't really prove or disprove God's existence. Using current religious systems to disprove God's existence is so clearly jarring and shows someone like you can never really be debated with reasonably in good faith and I'm being anatongistic with you as you called me a waffler previously.

When did I even use religious systems to try and prove that lol, you clearly didn’t even read my thread did you, and you’re coming here waffling about how I’m a bad faith debated and all of this garbage. Joker .

 

[urukhaiascension]

satan wants you to be an atheist, you are being manipulated by him

 

[thebuffdon690]

satan wants you to be an atheist, you are being manipulated by him

“Trust me bro”

 

[Eternal_]

satan wants you to be an atheist, you are being manipulated by him

The delicious irony in a Muslimcel who believes he will deflower virgin pussy in heaven being the one talking about Satan manipulating people

Satan has you dumb bastards enslaved. Your religion is of Satans own making

 

[thebuffdon690]

The delicious irony in a Muslimcel who believes he will deflower virgin pussy in heaven being the one talking about Satan manipulating people

Satan has you dumb bastards enslaved. Your religion is of Satans own making

Lmao good point absolute clown behaviour from OP

 

[philosopher]

@philosopher

look i mean i don’t blame people for not believing in god at the end of the day you should go with your intuition and personal life experiences

but i have seen god’s light something impossible happened to me and i can’t pretend it wasn’t a divine intervention

 

[thebuffdon690]

look i mean i don’t blame people for not believing in god at the end of the day you should go with your intuition and personal life experiences

but i have seen god’s light something impossible happened to me and i can’t pretend it wasn’t a divine intervention

It’s confirmation bias tho. Presupposing that it was divine intervention before actually verifying whether that’s the case or not.

 

[philosopher]

It’s confirmation bias tho. Presupposing that it was divine intervention before actually verifying whether that’s the case or not.

i mean its impossible to verify but coming from my personal life experiences it was

 

[urukhaiascension]

The delicious irony in a Muslimcel who believes he will deflower virgin pussy in heaven being the one talking about Satan manipulating people

Satan has you dumb bastards enslaved. Your religion is of Satans own making

Christian brother you should relax, you are very tense, you should talk to a priest to calm down.