roadtochang123
Platinum
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2024
- Posts
- 1,215
- Reputation
- 1,046
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I thought what if God was like a human junkygod is a being which nothing greater can be imagined
non-existence is not greatness
and therefore he exists
didn't you told first is that we can't if he exists or not? the burden of proof is on you, you must proof that we cant know if there's a god or notIβm not claiming the universe caused itself Iβm pointing out we donβt know yet. Thatβs not a metaphysical claim, itβs a suspension of judgment. Meanwhile, you're asserting a specific cause without evidence. If you want to claim that God caused the universe, then you bear the burden of proof not me.
get out of here, pervertI thought what if God was like a human junky
And he's just like using human bodies to have fun
God is the one who fucked the snake in the garden
And now he just down here, that's what them niggas meant by the spirit of God dwells within you
Freaky nigga split his consciousness into all humans and had sex with himself, incestnaxxed
Saying βwe donβt or canβt know if God existsβ isnβt a claim about reality itβs a lack of belief due to lack of evidence. The burden of proof still lies with whoever makes a positive claim. Iβm not required to prove ignorance youβre required to prove your assertiondidn't you told first is that we can't if he exists or not? the burden of proof is on you, you must proof that we cant know if there's a god or not
no you didn't just said "i don't know", you actually said "we can't know if there's a god or not", it is already a positive claim so you must prove that we can't know.Saying βwe donβt or canβt know if God existsβ isnβt a claim about reality itβs a lack of belief due to lack of evidence. The burden of proof still lies with whoever makes a positive claim. Iβm not required to prove ignorance youβre required to prove your assertion
You're misrepresenting my position. I didnβt make a positive claim I suspended judgment due to lack of evidence. That doesnβt shift the burden of proof to me. And your ontological argument only plays with definitions it doesnβt demonstrate existence in reality. Imagination is not evidenceno you didn't just said "i don't know", you actually said "we can't know if there's a god or not", it is already a positive claim so you must prove that we can't know.
And yeah as for myself, I already proved his existence, my naughty boy, I can get tired of repeating it again and again, it's the last time:
god is a being which nothing greater can be imagined
non-existence is not greatness
and therefore he exists
I literally already made a thread about atheism and I've debunked it and proved God's existence,has like 150+ comments;these dudes just make the same shitty arguments@Vazelrr don't you think arguing with them is boring asf, they are so weak at this
yeah im right heregod is a being which nothing greater can be imagined
non-existence is not greatness
and therefore he exists
what do you meanyeah im right here
im godwhat do you mean
nice to meet youim god
you literally said " "we can't know if there's a god or not" which is positive claim, that shifts the burden of proof to you.You're misrepresenting my position. I didnβt make a positive claim I suspended judgment due to lack of evidence. That doesnβt shift the burden of proof to me. And your ontological argument only plays with definitions it doesnβt demonstrate existence in reality. Imagination is not evidence
I think the feeling of love, reasoning, thinking and etc has more to do than science, There is also proof of Jesus resurrecting called the shroud of Toren no matter your opinion your coolgod is a being which nothing greater can be imagined
non-existence is not greatness
and therefore he exists
those cool things are called qualia and yeah i think there's something divine in itI think the feeling of love, reasoning, thinking and etc has more to do than science
No. Saying βwe canβt knowβ is not a claim about the world; itβs a statement about the current limits of human knowledge. Thatβs an epistemic position, not a metaphysical one. Iβm not claiming God doesnt exist or that knowledge of God is impossible only that I donβt currently know whether such knowledge is possible. That doesnβt shift the burden of proof to me it means I withhold judgment until someone presents a convincing reason to believe and Thinking of something doesnβt make it real. If it did, every fictional character and every fantasy would exist. Reality isnβt defined by imagination or definition it requires evidence. Until you provide it, defining God as βthe greatest beingβ doesnt prove anything beyond the concept itselfyou literally said " "we can't know if there's a god or not" which is positive claim, that shifts the burden of proof to you.
>And your ontological argument only plays with definitions it doesnβt demonstrate existence in reality. Imagination is not evidence
so what do you mean by reality? literally everything you can think about ALREADY EXISTS. Reality is not limited to the empirical, if you don't know
it's both epistemological and metaphysical argument because it's what he can and can't know (epistemology) and about god (which is metaphysical)No. Saying βwe canβt knowβ is not a claim about the world; itβs a statement about the current limits of human knowledge. Thatβs an epistemic position, not a metaphysical one.
it's just some positivism/empiricist claim lmfao. if we need to prove god empirically then can you, my naughty boy, prove empirically that god even needs to be proven empirically? i'm waiting.Iβm not claiming God doesnt exist or that knowledge of God is impossible only that I donβt currently know whether such knowledge is possible. That doesnβt shift the burden of proof to me it means I withhold judgment until someone presents a convincing reason to believe and Thinking of something doesnβt make it real. If it did, every fictional character and every fantasy would exist. Reality isnβt defined by imagination or definition it requires evidence. Until you provide it, defining God as βthe greatest beingβ doesnt prove anything beyond the concept itself
god is a being which nothing greater can be imagined
non-existence is not greatness
and therefore he exists
1.Confusing the object of the discussion (God, which is a metaphysical question) with the speaker's position (agnosticism, which is an epistemological position) is a category error. Talking about what we can or cannot know is a strictly epistemological matter. I am not asserting anything about the nature of God, but bout our capacity to know. The fact that the subject is metaphysical does not make my position a metaphysical claim. 2.Demanding empirical evidence for a claim about reality isn't dogmatic 'positivism,' it's simply applying the principle of proportionality of evidence: extraordinary claims require proportional evidence. If you claim that God exists and has effects on reality, the burden is on you. I don't have to empirically demonstrate that empirical evidence is needed; that's a logical trap fallacy. The demand for evidence is based on rational principles, not dogma, 3.Here you're redefining 'existence' to include everything imaginable, but that definition doesn't distinguish between the real and the fictional. Just because something exists as an idea doesn't mean it exists in external reality. If we don't make that distinction, then, goku, dragons, and Pikachu 'exist' just as much as gravity or atoms, which is absurd. Conceptual existence is not the same as ontological existence.it's both epistemological and metaphysical argument because it's what he can and can't know (epistemology) and about god (which is metaphysical)
it's just some positivism/empiricist claim lmfao. if we need to prove god empirically then can you, my naughty boy, prove empirically that god even needs to be proven empirically? i'm waiting.
yeah every fictional character and fantasies exist, just not materially. Everything you can think of exists because existance meaning being an idea or matter (or both together which is called SUBSTANCE)
what it has to do with my claim
dude, you haven't even gave the context to chatgpt so he wrote you nonsense1.Confusing the object of the discussion (God, which is a metaphysical question) with the speaker's position (agnosticism, which is an epistemological position) is a category error. Talking about what we can or cannot know is a strictly epistemological matter. I am not asserting anything about the nature of God, but bout our capacity to know. The fact that the subject is metaphysical does not make my position a metaphysical claim. 2.Demanding empirical evidence for a claim about reality isn't dogmatic 'positivism,' it's simply applying the principle of proportionality of evidence: extraordinary claims require proportional evidence. If you claim that God exists and has effects on reality, the burden is on you. I don't have to empirically demonstrate that empirical evidence is needed; that's a logical trap fallacy. The demand for evidence is based on rational principles, not dogma, 3.Here you're redefining 'existence' to include everything imaginable, but that definition doesn't distinguish between the real and the fictional. Just because something exists as an idea doesn't mean it exists in external reality. If we don't make that distinction, then, goku, dragons, and Pikachu 'exist' just as much as gravity or atoms, which is absurd. Conceptual existence is not the same as ontological existence.
@Vazelrr just look at that jfl1.Confusing the object of the discussion (God, which is a metaphysical question) with the speaker's position (agnosticism, which is an epistemological position) is a category error. Talking about what we can or cannot know is a strictly epistemological matter. I am not asserting anything about the nature of God, but bout our capacity to know. The fact that the subject is metaphysical does not make my position a metaphysical claim. 2.Demanding empirical evidence for a claim about reality isn't dogmatic 'positivism,' it's simply applying the principle of proportionality of evidence: extraordinary claims require proportional evidence. If you claim that God exists and has effects on reality, the burden is on you. I don't have to empirically demonstrate that empirical evidence is needed; that's a logical trap fallacy. The demand for evidence is based on rational principles, not dogma, 3.Here you're redefining 'existence' to include everything imaginable, but that definition doesn't distinguish between the real and the fictional. Just because something exists as an idea doesn't mean it exists in external reality. If we don't make that distinction, then, goku, dragons, and Pikachu 'exist' just as much as gravity or atoms, which is absurd. Conceptual existence is not the same as ontological existence.
Only lizard cucks, their extrateresstrialal beings such as Dracos, Archons or Serpent Gods and their distractions to the excluded people exist in answer to your question in the title.god is a being which nothing greater can be imagined
non-existence is not greatness
and therefore he exists
archons existOnly lizard cucks, their extrateresstrialal beings such as Dracos, Archons or Serpent Gods and their distractions to the excluded people.
I have said so.archons exist
what means lizard cucksI have said so.
You may read again.
Reptilian beings or somethingwhat means lizard cucks
DNR@Vazelrr just look at that jfl
I don't know. Back in 2007 my friends and I were goofing off on this spirit engine website called Peter Answers and ended up talking to a real ghost. A spirit. I became really religious after that.The true answer is we donβt know and it canβt be proved until after death.
Elites consisting of reptilian beings, feeding of negative emotions, especially fear of children, being cucks as they're obviously operating in the background.what means lizard cucks
what elitesElites consisting of reptilian beings, feeding of negative emotions, especially fear of children, being cucks as they're obviously operating in the background.
What do you mean what elites?what elites
there's no democracies in modern world, there's either tyrranies, electoral democracies or oligarchies. elites rarely cooperate with each other, the world is pretty decentralizedWhat do you mean what elites?
Nigga do you think the world is a construct f different democracies?
Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger-Effect?there's no democracies in modern world, there's either tyrranies, electoral democracies or oligarchies. elites rarely cooperate with each other, the world is pretty decentralized
I even abstained from porn all throughout high school. One time during Spanish class there were two of my classmates sitting at a table I was at. It was me and those two and we were talking about smoking weed. I was telling them that reading the Bible was better than smoking weed and one of the guys had a confused look on his face and motioned towards the other guy saying "What would you rather do? Get high or read a fucking book?" He then proceeded to call me a "fucking virgin" afterwards but I didn't trip, I am glad that happened. Because peep this scripture:I don't know. Back in 2007 my friends and I were goofing off on this spirit engine website called Peter Answers and ended up talking to a real ghost. A spirit. I became really religious after that.
Here is a piece on ghosts from the Urantia Book:
The Urantia Book
Paper 87
The Ghost Cults
87:0.1 (958.1)THE ghost cult evolved as an offset to the hazards of bad luck; its primitive religious observances were the outgrowth of anxiety about bad luck and of the inordinate fear of the dead. None of these early religions had much to do with the recognition of Deity or with reverence for the superhuman; their rites were mostly negative, designed to avoid, expel, or coerce ghosts. The ghost cult was nothing more nor less than insurance against disaster; it had nothing to do with investment for higher and future returns.
87:0.2 (958.2)Man has had a long and bitter struggle with the ghost cult. Nothing in human history is designed to excite more pity than this picture of manβs abject slavery to ghost-spirit fear. With the birth of this very fear mankind started on the upgrade of religious evolution. Human imagination cast off from the shores of self and will not again find anchor until it arrives at the concept of a true Deity, a real God.
why? didn't i just proved that he exists?Anyone who states god exists as though itβs fact is a moron
how does this disprove my argument? you don't even attack itlow iq post thats genueinly so dumb first of all ur trying to prove the exiestense of "god" wich is alreday dissproving it why a god like that js hide himself from everyone and js sent sum book with no proofs or evidence ? its a coping mechanism for the people and to control back in the day and it still works till this day thats like the adult version of kids bellieving in santa "just trust me bro" ah and i dont why that cruel god is letting millions of kids die suffering? like so many and many things i could go on and on if a god exiested he wouldve showed himself or made a book (holy book) that everyone could understood and sent it to every place/country/culuture without a diffrence like if u were born in iraq saudi arabi u wouldve become muslim or in texas u wouldve become chirstian the majority and evolution is littrealy provedidk what u on abt gang this feels like a ragebait
read the first what i wrote about greatnesswhat argument
so why is that not an actual proof?lmaooo this ones crazy u cant js define something into existence without and actual proof and evidence that it exiests ur littrealy just making claims saying non exiestence is not greatness doesnt prove anything its just a claim like god by that logic a" perfect unicorn" exieests too wich no greater unicorn exiests .you cant prove exiestense of god by defnitations but in athiesm like no god makes more sense through evolution and its been proved . thats like you can imagine perfection it must be real defneeitly doesnt make any sense ragebait lol