ATHEISTS GTFIH

[Turkic Albanian]

Could be, but it still needs an argument

Wdym by "still needs an argument" I font understand

 

[Mogger]

First you’ll have to prove these assumptions and then we can debate

View attachment 5682725

Those assumptions are the arguments.

 

[Mogger]

Yeah, the arguments are based on completely ass pulled premises jfls

Nigga they are the arguments

 

[Turkic Albanian]

Nigga they are the arguments

Yeah, and they are silly arguments because they make too many extraordinary unproven ass pull assumptions

 

[Scandi.]

Those assumptions are the arguments.

invalid arguments because it isn’t proof. Its pointless debating religion cause either you belive in him or you don’t.

There is no proof of him existing and its also no proof of him not existing.

 

[zombi3]

Atheism win nigga there is no sky daddy that somehow created the universe and somehow was able to hide away a garden for centuries and was able to turn water into wine

How do explain hexes and black magic. And Jewish mysticism and luciferians. If there is a satan there is a God, duhhh

Spoiler: bru

 

[Mogger]

invalid arguments because it isn’t proof. Its pointless debating religion cause either you belive in him or you don’t.

There is no proof of him existing and its also no proof of him not existing.

They’re arguments to establish Gods existence from premises about reality. If you reject them, you need to show which premise is false or why the reasoning fails. Saying theres no proof doesn’t actually address the argument.

 

[iblamechico]

Why does this shit even matter? The better argument would be about his traits and qualities, if he existed.

An impersonal god who set the world in motion and left it on its own, and the universe/natural world being eternal literally make no difference at all.

 

[Mogger]

Yeah, and they are silly arguments because they make too many extraordinary unproven ass pull assumptions

Calling them assumptions doesn’t refute them. The premises are precisely what needs to be defended or challenged.
So point out which premise you think is false and give a reason why.

 

[Turkic Albanian]

Calling them assumptions doesn’t refute them. The premises are precisely what needs to be defended or challenged.
So point out which premise you think is false and give a reason why.

All of em are false because there's no evidence any of them are true nor can any of them be logically asserted

 

[Mogger]

All of em are false because there's no evidence any of them are true nor can any of them be logically asserted

Yeah you need to explain why it’s false.

Saying there’s no evidence isn’t a refutation

 

[Crimx991]

atheists are high iq

 

[Mogger]

atheists are high iq

How so

 

[supersaiyancarp27]

if you prove any of these wrong then ur rude af

 

[Turkic Albanian]

Yeah you need to explain why it’s false.

Saying there’s no evidence isn’t a refutation

>there must be a First Unmoved Mover, which is some infinite testicle floating in the void

Explain why this is false. Saying there's no evidence isn't a refutation.

You see what you are doing here?

 

[Scandi.]

They’re arguments to establish Gods existence from premises about reality. If you reject them, you need to show which premise is false or why the reasoning fails. Saying theres no proof doesn’t actually address the argument.

I said there isn’t a valid reason to belive either of them because of the lack of proof in both beliefs.

You can’t expect a valid counter argument when you yourself are using a fallacy.

 

[Turkic Albanian]

I said there isn’t a valid reason to belive either of them because of the lack of proof in both beliefs.

You can’t expect a valid counter argument when you yourself are stating a fallacy.

Yeah, there's nothing to argue against a clearly flawed premise that makes unverified erroneous assumptions

 

[Ꭰarwin]

Nothing can move by itself. We do not deny the possibility of instantaneous movement causing infinite changes but first movement must happen somehow

why is it absolutely necessary for there to be a first moment? I can accept that every moment is caused by another but just reject the idea that there was a first moment to begin with. you need to show that there is a logical contradiction in an infinite past and also justify why everything that changes from potentially being a thing to actually being a thing, has to have something that actualizes it.

And you cannot pass infinite time. Infinite movement chains require that, which means that infinite regress implies that before existence an infinite time passed which means existence never happened

you do know even aquinas doesnt deny the possibility of an eternal universe right? there was never a "before existence" and then somehow a complete infinite regress. The universe never started at some moment and then had to "travel" through them all to reach the present.

imagine you have an infinite amount of negative numbers, you dont have to start at negative infinity and count all the way up 0. there just is no first number. I know this isnt a perfect analogy because numbers arent moments in time, but it shows the point. for every moment in time there is an earlier moment but that doesnt imply it was traveled

 

[Mogger]

I said there isn’t a valid reason to belive either of them because of the lack of proof in both beliefs.

You can’t expect a valid counter argument when you yourself are using a fallacy.

Saying there isn’t enough proof still doesn’t show that the premises are false or that the argument is invalid. You’re making an evidential objection, not refuting the premises themselves. If you think it’s a fallacy, identify the specific fallacy and explain where it occurs.

 

[Scandi.]

Saying there isn’t enough proof still doesn’t show that the premises are false or that the argument is invalid. You’re making an evidential objection, not refuting the premises themselves. If you think it’s a fallacy, identify the specific fallacy and explain where it occurs.

I am not gonna do that, i have had countless of these debates before and you never get anywhere.

Im just gonna say that the just because you can’t prove that the premises are false, doesn’t automatically make the premises right.

So again, its believe or don’t believe.

 

[Turkic Albanian]

Which ever way you look at it it's going to come down to picking either nature/reality as a brute fact or God as a brute fact

And the natural world we know exists, God we do not know if he exists

Occam's razor would dictate naturalism as the simplest explanation because it makes the fewest assumptions (as opposed to God which just adds another mystery onto the already verified natural reality)

lack of proof of a deity aside, this is the rationale as to why I'm an atheist

 

[Mogger]

I am not gonna do that, i have had countless of these debates before and you never get anywhere.

Im just gonna say that the just because you can’t prove that the premises are false, doesn’t automatically make the premises right.

So again, its believe or don’t believe.

I’m saying that if you’re claiming the premises are false or unjustified, you need to give a reason for that claim. Otherwise you’ve just said you don’t believe them, which isn’t a refutation of the argument.

 

[Scandi.]

I’m saying that if you’re claiming the premises are false or unjustified, you need to give a reason for that claim. Otherwise you’ve just said you don’t believe them, which isn’t a refutation of the argument.

Yeah and once again, i didn’t come here to debate religion cause its all about what “evidence” you believe

The content of the premises can be valid but the conclusion you come to (“Therefore there has to be a God”) isn’t. Its an assumption.

 

[Mogger]

Which ever way you look at it it's going to come down to picking either nature/reality as a brute fact or God as a brute fact

And the natural world we know exists, God we do not know if he exists

Occam's razor would dictate naturalism as the simplest explanation because it makes the fewest assumptions (as opposed to God which just adds another mystery onto the already verified natural reality)

lack of proof of a deity aside, this is the rationale as to why I'm an atheist

You haven’t established that God and nature are equally brute facts. The Thomistic argument is that God is a necessary being, while nature is contingent. So occams razor doesn’t settle the issue unless you first show naturalism actually explains reality with fewer assumptions.

 

[Scandi.]

Yeah and once again, i didn’t come here to debate religion cause its all about what “evidence” you believe

The content of the premises can be valid but the conclusion you come to (“Therefore there has to be a God”) isn’t. Its an assumption.

Im done now, i won’t respond anymore but i can read and rep it

 

[Mogger]

Yeah and once again, i didn’t come here to debate religion cause its all about what “evidence” you believe

The content of the premises can be valid but the conclusion you come to (“Therefore there has to be a God”) isn’t. Its an assumption.

Aight well, seems like we aren’t gonna get anywhere but it was fun anyways. Have a blessed rest of your day G

 

[Scandi.]

Aight well, seems like we aren’t gonna get anywhere but it was fun anyways. Have a blessed rest of your day G

You too G

 

[Turkic Albanian]

You haven’t established that God and nature are equally brute facts. The Thomistic argument is that God is a necessary being, while nature is contingent. So occams razor doesn’t settle the issue unless you first show naturalism actually explains reality with fewer assumptions.

"The Thomistic argument is that God is a necessary being, while nature is contingent. "

Anyone can make a claim about anything, there's no reason for this to be true. Are you retarded or do you not understand these premises are completely baseless? How do you know nature is contingent? Complete ass pull.

"naturalism actually explains reality with fewer assumptions."

Naturalism= 1 assumption

God plus natural world= 2 assumptions

 

[muhajudin21]

dirty fucking kaffirs I say kill em all

 

[iblamechico]

Nothing can cause itself is your own premise that you broke to force your assertion of god.

The natural world is much realer than this forced "necessary being" idea of god that exists in philosophical debates.

Also answer what I asked. If he was real, what difference does it make? Are you religious?

 

[Mogger]

"The Thomistic argument is that God is a necessary being, while nature is contingent. "

Anyone can make a claim about anything, there's no reason for this to be true. Are you retarded or do you not understand these premises are completely baseless? How do you know nature is contingent? Complete ass pull.

"naturalism actually explains reality with fewer assumptions."

Naturalism= 1 assumption

God plus natural world= 2 assumptions

You’re the retard here so let me help. First of all you’re not even refuting it.
The contingency of nature is itself a philosophical claim that can be argued for. And occams razor isn’t simply count the assumptions. It’s about preferring the explanation with fewer unnecessary assumptions.

 

[iblamechico]

dirty fucking kaffirs I say kill em all

I agree bro. Go do jihad and bomb yourself big dawg 72 virgins awaits you

 

[muhajudin21]

"The Thomistic argument is that God is a necessary being, while nature is contingent. "

Anyone can make a claim about anything, there's no reason for this to be true. Are you retarded or do you not understand these premises are completely baseless? How do you know nature is contingent? Complete ass pull.

"naturalism actually explains reality with fewer assumptions."

Naturalism= 1 assumption

God plus natural world= 2 assumptions

you do know most if not all of science is assumptions and premises? your fucking retarded holy fuck

 

[Turkic Albanian]

You’re the retard here so let me help. First of all you’re not even refuting it.
The contingency of nature is itself a philosophical claim that can be argued for. And occams razor isn’t simply count the assumptions. It’s about preferring the explanation with fewer unnecessary assumptions.

"It’s about preferring the explanation with fewer unnecessary assumptions."

Yeah, and that would be naturalism

God is just an added layer added on unnecessarily

 

[Turkic Albanian]

you do know most if not all of science is assumptions and premises? your fucking retarded holy fuck

No it's not, that's philosophy

Science is based on observations, experimentations, evidence etc

There's no premise as to whether or not an atom exists, it's simply observed under a microscope

 

[Mogger]

"It’s about preferring the explanation with fewer unnecessary assumptions."

Yeah, and that would be naturalism

God is just an added layer added on unnecessarily

That assumes naturalism can explain why contingent reality exists in the first place.

 

[zombi3]

If you are atheist, prove these arguments (three of the five ways) of Aquinas wrong:

• The First Way
  Things in the universe undergo change or motion. Anything that moves is set in motion by something else. Because an infinite chain of movers is impossible, there must be a First Unmoved Mover, which is God.
  
  
• The Second Way
  Everything in existence has an efficient cause that brought it about. Nothing can cause its own existence. Rejecting an infinite regress of causes, there must be a First Uncaused Cause.
  
  
• The Third Way
  Things in nature are contingent - they can either exist or not exist, meaning they depend on something else to exist. If everything were merely contingent, nothing would exist now. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being that brings other things into being

Converting athiests through arguments is so inferior and dumb. Raising your frequency and getting closer to the Supreme and then praying for their conversion is superior to anything thing else. If it's in the will of God, he'll open their hearts to the faith. Arguments barely touch the soul smh

 

[muhajudin21]

No it's not, that's philosophy

Science is based on observations, experimentations, evidence etc

There's no premise as to whether or not an atom exists, it's simply observed under a microscope

holy fuck your retarded an empirical variable doesn't prove a premise to be correct the framework which things are understood are entirely assumptions you fucking retard

 

[Turkic Albanian]

That assumes naturalism can explain why contingent reality exists in the first place.

There is no "why"

It's a brute fact that nature/reality exists

Lol

Humans evolved with a mind for pattern recognition and always feel the need to assign causality to everything because it helped us survive on the planes of Africa

The existence of reality itself doesn't work that way

 

[Mogger]

There is no "why"

It's a brute fact that nature/reality exists

Lol

Humans evolved with a mind for pattern recognition and always feel the need to assign causality to everything because it helped us survive on the planes of Africa

The existence of reality itself doesn't work that way

You’re simply rejecting the principle that contingent reality needs an explanation. You would still need to justify that claim.

 

[DrRodger]

God doesn't exist

 

[Mogger]

God doesn't exist

I just gave an argument for why He does.

 

[Turkic Albanian]

You’re simply rejecting the principle that contingent reality needs an explanation. You would still need to justify that claim.

How about you justify your claim that reality needs an ultimate explanation

 

[muhajudin21]

There is no "why"

It's a brute fact that nature/reality exists

Lol

Humans evolved with a mind for pattern recognition and always feel the need to assign causality to everything because it helped us survive on the planes of Africa

thats also a premise and assumptions for an empirical variable underdetermination brotha

your a full of shit

God doesn't exist

if your not gonna give any reason or evidence why type out a response

 

[DrRodger]

I just gave an argument for why He does.

The universe has always existed