Fucking /r/athiesm m8 these cock sucking twats act like they know everything but when you give cohesive counter arguments they automatically ban you

[reptiles]

Ultimately there hasnt been any proof for or against the position of original sin, it comes down to what seems logical to the individual. It would be much better suited to discuss more objective reasonings.

Well in terms of proof of original sin i came up with an equation but it would be impossible to test but basically the idea is Adam and eve were our orignal ancestors 3 million years ago we were perfect and entropic decay is a remnant of original sin that has defecting us to evil.

but it assumes the assumption that our oldest ancestor was adam

 

[RecessedChinCel]

Explain?

Literally have seen this exact same argument regurgitated hundreds of times at this point.

“"God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God. ”

This is a fundamental fallacious line of reasoning. Just because there is some scientific gap in knowledge doesn’t mean you just get to fill in the gap with god lol

“Bro I don’t understand how the ocean works so it must be Poseidon”

 

[GriffithMaxx]

Not reading all this right now too lazy, @OGJBSLAYER sum this up and let me know what you think.

 

[reptiles]

@capybara fair enough I'll write a response tommrow

 

[Deleted member 33108]

explain y newtons thought god was essential for creation

I mean it is simply the cosmological argument found in the writings of St Thomas Aquinas, I just brought him up as an example of a foundational physicist who unraveled the secrets of reality and understood that it must rely on God. Ie. Something exist, etc etc. then the necessary uncreated being must be what we call God. I could probably just copy paste it here if you want since there's no greater simplification than that.

 

[EnglandBadman]

Literally have seen this exact same argument regurgitated hundreds of times at this point.

“"God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God. ”

This is a fundamental fallacious line of reasoning. Just because there is some scientific gap in knowledge doesn’t mean you just get to fill in the gap with god lol

“Bro I don’t understand how the ocean works so it must be Poseidon”

I understand, same for the idea that everything must have a cause, however there cant be infinite causes, the universe has to have had a start somewhere. This means there has to be 1 single thing that existed independently, without need for anything else. What this thing is we dont know, but many people assume that 1 starting point to be god. If not god/a creator what would be a more logical explanation to this independent being/starter of the universe? It’s truly confusing to think, what could be the 1 thing that existed before anything if we take out the possibility of God.

 

[depressionmaxxing]

I mean it is simply the cosmological argument found in the writings of St Thomas Aquinas, I just brought him up as an example of a foundational physicist who unraveled the secrets of reality and understood that it must rely on God. Ie. Something exist, etc etc. then the necessary uncreated being must be what we call God. I could probably just copy paste it here if you want since there's no greater simplification than that.

do it

 

[reptiles]

I mean it is simply the cosmological argument found in the writings of St Thomas Aquinas, I just brought him up as an example of a foundational physicist who unraveled the secrets of reality and understood that it must rely on God. Ie. Something exist, etc etc. then the necessary uncreated being must be what we call God. I could probably just copy paste it here if you want since there's no greater simplification than that.

Thomas was a intellectual heavy weight by himself I've never met a scholar other than mulla Sudra and Avicenna that made half decent arguments for god and not only are there arguments good there perciptate the counter arguments much more accurately than other deconstructions and reductionists on both sides

 

[EnglandBadman]

I genuinely want to know the truth, but i hate how the world is so confusing. No one truly can 100% say the absolute truth with evidence and its not their fault. We’re tryna figure out how the world started billions of years from today, its pretty much impossible to know, although its the most important question to be asked. It’s possibly the difference between heaven and hell.

 

[horizontallytall]

No I understand the argument I was just trying to make sure it was fool proof and it actually targeted counter arguments given

Welcome back

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

Not reading all this right now too lazy, @OGJBSLAYER sum this up and let me know what you think.

I can already spot the flaws in the arguments. @reptiles

Here's the biggest flaws in the cosmological argument

1. Infinite regress in causation is possible, depending on the way you define causation
2. The universe may be an effect which doesn't require a cause
3. The universe or natural reality can have always existed atemporally and aspatially
4. The cause of the universe can be something other than God, as long as it exists without a cause

Here's the biggest flaw in the contingency argument

1. The strong version of the principle of sufficient reason cannot be proved. Moreover, if every true proposition has an explanation, then this will to an epistemic regress or force us to accept self evident brute facts , which negates PSR

2. The universe can contain everything that is contingent without being contingent itself, ie the universe can be a neccesary existence

I will address the 3 other arguments once OP has responded to these objections since the rest are pretty weak

 

[Deleted member 33108]

Let's assume this is true, since I personally believe in Adam's existence. Does this prove the intrinsic nature (ie. the spirit) of man is depraved? could it not simply be that the temptation of the devil is stronger than our will for good? after all, scripture teaches that some men ascended into heaven alive before the advent of Christ. This is evidence against the harrowing of hell, wherein Christ supposedly descended to hell in order to redeem those righteous souls who were without the mark of baptism and who were without a pure essence, they resided in a sort of limbo. Early Church Fathers also said that the prophets were resurrected and baptized in order to enter into the kingdom of God. How would this be necessary if men overcame their fallen state through sheer will? I've asked priests and they say "they were exceptions" but that answer is very weak.

Well in terms of proof of original sin i came up with an equation but it would be impossible to test but basically the idea is Adam and eve were our orignal ancestors 3 million years ago we were perfect and entropic decay is a remnant of original sin that has defecting us to evil.

but it assumes the assumption that our oldest ancestor was adam

 

[Deleted member 33108]

@reptiles also what sect of the Christian faith are you in? or which do you fall closest to theologically?

 

[AspiringMogger]

the cosmogilogical argument.
Here is an expanded and highly complex version of the cosmological argument for monotheism at an advanced D.Sc level:
Ontological Substruction of Prime Origination
Definition 1: Existence precedes essence ontologically. That is, existence as being is irreducible, while the essence of particular things derives from their participated being.
Axiom 1: Absolutely no potential can actualize itself, for a potential lacks the actuality required to become actual.
Axiom 2: Only actualizers can actualize potentials to their actualized terminated states.
Theorem 1: If some collection of actualizers C exists, there must be at least one purely actual actualizer P not dependent on any other actualizers in C for its actuality. Proof: Regressing through the collection C, we must terminate in a purely actual actualizer P, else C would consist in an infinite essentially ordered regress of actualized potential actualizers, which is a logical impossibility by the principle of sufficient reason.
Definition 2: The complete absence of any potentiality in P entails that P exists outside space and time and lacks any material or temporal parts or passions.
Theorem 2: There can be no more than one purely actual actualizer P. Proof: If there were two purely actual actualizers P and Q, the identity of indiscernibles requires that they have identical attributes, in which case P and Q are one and the same purely actual actualizer.
Axiom 3: Existence is good, and the maximal existence of a purely actual actualizer would therefore be good to the maximal degree metaphysically possible.
Definition 3: A personal being is one with intellect and will. Only personal beings are capable of self-determination and exercising causal power voluntarily.
Theorem 3: The purely actual actualizer P must be a single all-good personal God with maximal existence metaphysically possible. Proof: Only conscious voluntary agency provides sufficient reason for the origin of spatiotemporal contingent existence from absolute metaphysical nothingness. Therefore, P must be personal. By Axiom 3 and the supreme perfection of P in Definition 2, P must also be all-good.
Conclusion: Therefore, monotheism as defined is logically proven to follow from ontological analysis of the necessary preconditions for the existence of contingent being. This provides a fully valid metaphysical demonstration of classical monotheism under the assumptions and axioms stipulate


the telelogical argument

Teleological Monogenesis of Biological Complexification

Observation 1: Biological life has evolved over billions of years from simple structures to highly complex organisms through minor variations and natural selection.

Axiom 1: Functionally complex systems capable of self-replication and information processing cannot emerge from purely stochastic processes. Some degree of teleological orientation is required.

Axiom 2: Intentionally guided evolution implies a goal-oriented intelligence behind the process.

Theorem 1: The fine-tuned fitness of organic chemistry, genetic coding machinery, and irreducible complexity of biochemical systems imply teleological guidance of abiogenesis and biological evolution toward greater complexity.

Axiom 3: Parasitism, predation, pain receptors, and mass extinctions reveal no single omnibenevolent teleological agent, since these processes are not optimally good.

Definition 1: Cooperative symbiosis and complex ecologies exhibit far more sustainable good than parasitism. Group competition selects for moral cooperation within groups.

Theorem 2: Biological evolution has been guided by a teleological demiurge pursuing an overarching goal of maximizing cooperative symbiosis, despite allowing partial evils due to initial constraints.

Axiom 4: A plurality of demiurges could not consistently cooperate toward a unified teleological goal due to diverging interests.

Theorem 3: Biological evolution has therefore been intricately directed by a single supremely rational demiurge toward the telos of self-aware cooperation. This entails metaphysical monotheism.

—Anticipated Objections—

Objection 1: Complexity can emerge from stochastic evolution without teleological guidance.

Reply: Irreducibly complex systems could not plausibly self-organize without goal-directed configuring of information.

Objection 2: Sociobiology explains cooperation from group selection without teleology.

Reply: Altruistic behaviors transcend reproductive fitness and cannot be explained reductively.

Objection 3: An evil demiurge or imperfect designer is not ruled out.

Reply: A wholly evil demiurge could not guide evolution toward cooperation, nor could squabbling demiurges collaborate on a unified teleological process.

Conclusion: Biological evolution exhibits ontological monogenesis by a supremely rational single Creator minimizing evil to achieve the good of symbiotic community. This demonstrates metaphysical monotheism as the only coherent explanation of biological teleology.


I'm sick and tired of these cock suckers on atheist sites acting like all religious people are retarded


@TRUE_CEL

as for why I'm a chrstain and an black piller it's simple the bible is more accurate on human nature why life is a hell and i think society would be a better place if it was christain

No pussy made this Nigga a scholar

 

[Spiritualcell]

@reptiles

Cosmological Argument​

1. Axiom 1 and Axiom 2: Actualizers and Potentials
   The claim that "Absolutely no potential can actualize itself" and that "Only actualizers can actualize potentials" are not universally accepted premises. These are Aristotelian metaphysical concepts that don't necessarily hold in the quantum realm, where particles can emerge seemingly uncaused from the quantum vacuum.
2. Theorem 1: Purely Actual Actualizer
   This theorem relies on the idea that an infinite regress is logically impossible, which is a point of contention in philosophy. Some models of the universe don't require a singular origin point and work well with the idea of an eternal universe.
3. Definition 2: Purely Actual Entity Outside Space-Time
   The move from a purely actual entity to one that exists outside space and time is a significant leap that isn't adequately justified. Additionally, claiming that this entity lacks material or temporal parts or passions sounds more like a definition of God than a reasoned conclusion.
4. Theorem 2: Only One Purely Actual Actualizer
   The argument uses the identity of indiscernibles to claim there can only be one such actualizer, but it doesn't prove why there must only be one such entity based on the axioms and definitions provided.
5. Theorem 3: All-Good Personal God
   The claim that the actualizer must be "all-good" and "personal" is an enormous leap that does not logically follow from the previous axioms or definitions. The idea that "Only conscious voluntary agency provides sufficient reason for the origin of spatiotemporal contingent existence" is a huge assumption with little to no empirical support.

Teleological Argument​

1. Axiom 1: Complexity Requires Guidance
   Complexity theory and computer simulations suggest that complexity can, in fact, arise from simple rules and stochastic processes. The universe's apparent complexity doesn't necessarily imply a designer.
2. Theorem 1: Fine-Tuned Fitness
   This point assumes "fine-tuning," but alternative models like the Multiverse could potentially explain the apparent fine-tuning without invoking a teleological agent.
3. Theorem 2: Goal of Maximizing Cooperative Symbiosis
   This is a significant and unwarranted leap. Evolution doesn't necessarily maximize "good"; it maximizes survival and reproduction, which aren't inherently moral qualities.
4. Theorem 3: Single Demiurge
   Like the cosmological argument, this point asserts without proof that a single entity must be responsible for the observed phenomena, ignoring possibilities like competing or cooperating agents.

Anticipated Objections​

1. Reply to Complexity Objection
   Your claim that "Irreducibly complex systems could not plausibly self-organize" has been refuted in the scientific literature, notably with respect to biological systems like the eye or bacterial flagellum.
2. Reply to Sociobiology Objection
   Altruistic behaviors can indeed be explained through the lens of evolutionary biology without invoking a teleological principle.
3. Reply to Evil Demiurge Objection
   Your argument here is tautological: you're saying a wholly evil demiurge couldn't guide evolution toward cooperation simply because that wouldn't align with your definition of an evil demiurge.

In sum, while the argument you present is complex and sophisticated, it falls short of providing irrefutable proof of a monotheistic God's existence due to several unjustified assumptions, leaps in logic, and contentious axioms. The axioms and theorems presented are not universally accepted and, in many cases, alternatives have been presented and supported by empirical evidence.

 

[AspiringMogger]

people who think this physical 3D universe is all there is are the biggest kinds of npcs

the satanic elite laugh at them

What do you believe In?

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

I can already spot the flaws in the arguments. @reptiles

Here's the biggest flaws in the cosmological argument

1. Infinite regress in causation is possible, depending on the way you define causation
2. The universe may be an effect which doesn't require a cause
3. The universe or natural reality can have always existed atemporally and spatially
4. The cause of the universe can be something other than God, as long as it exists without a cause

Here's the biggest flaw in the contingency argument

1. The strong version of the principle of sufficient reason cannot be proved. Moreover, if every true proposition has an explanation, then this will to an epistemic regress or force us to accept self evident brute facts , which negates PSR

2. The universe can contain everything that is contingent without being contingent itself, ie the universe can be a neccesary existence

I will address the 3 other arguments once OP has responded to these objections since the rest are pretty weak

As for Teleological argument, we can explain why the universe exists as it does ( the design ) by explaining everything in terms of natural laws to the best of our ability. As for the existence of the natural laws, why do they exist ? They just do

Invoking God to explain the existence of natural laws doesn't help because God is way more complicated than the natural laws themselves, as such, the God hypotheses is utterly useless and futile when it comes to describing why the universe exists as it does.

Moreover, we haven't calculated the odds and probabilities to know whether we just happen to be lucky that our universe allows life to exist. On top of that, we don't know what conditions are neccesary for life.

Finally, if the multiverse theory is true, then it's not a surprise we happen to live in a universe that is hospitable to life.

 

[Daqirius]

This is a weak argument, I think there are much stronger arguments against it such as it's lack of prophetic authenticity etc. Just because a religion doesn't teach original sin or total depravity, does not mean it isn't true. For instance some religions like Judaism speak of the depravity of man as a temporary fallen state we choose, and not something intrinsic to our soul like Catholic dogma teaches, and that we can ultimately overcome it with will, rather than the sheer grace of God.

im not worshipping some pedo who claimed to have sliced the moon in half

 

[Deleted member 33108]

im not worshipping some pedo who claimed to have sliced the moon in half

I dont believe in Islam but this just isn't a strong argument. It's not objective.

 

[Daqirius]

I dont believe in Islam but this just isn't a strong argument. It's not objective.

its retarded thats what it is

 

[AspiringMogger]

Literally have seen this exact same argument regurgitated hundreds of times at this point.

“"God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God. ”

This is a fundamental fallacious line of reasoning. Just because there is some scientific gap in knowledge doesn’t mean you just get to fill in the gap with god lol

“Bro I don’t understand how the ocean works so it must be Poseidon”

The gaps of god theory makes more sense than the current dogma and consensus science have put up as an explanation as of today. According to science the universe is endless but also ever expanding, which is a contradiction in and of itself.

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

@reptiles

Cosmological Argument​

1. Axiom 1 and Axiom 2: Actualizers and Potentials
   The claim that "Absolutely no potential can actualize itself" and that "Only actualizers can actualize potentials" are not universally accepted premises. These are Aristotelian metaphysical concepts that don't necessarily hold in the quantum realm, where particles can emerge seemingly uncaused from the quantum vacuum.
2. Theorem 1: Purely Actual Actualizer
   This theorem relies on the idea that an infinite regress is logically impossible, which is a point of contention in philosophy. Some models of the universe don't require a singular origin point and work well with the idea of an eternal universe.
3. Definition 2: Purely Actual Entity Outside Space-Time
   The move from a purely actual entity to one that exists outside space and time is a significant leap that isn't adequately justified. Additionally, claiming that this entity lacks material or temporal parts or passions sounds more like a definition of God than a reasoned conclusion.
4. Theorem 2: Only One Purely Actual Actualizer
   The argument uses the identity of indiscernibles to claim there can only be one such actualizer, but it doesn't prove why there must only be one such entity based on the axioms and definitions provided.
5. Theorem 3: All-Good Personal God
   The claim that the actualizer must be "all-good" and "personal" is an enormous leap that does not logically follow from the previous axioms or definitions. The idea that "Only conscious voluntary agency provides sufficient reason for the origin of spatiotemporal contingent existence" is a huge assumption with little to no empirical support.

Teleological Argument​

1. Axiom 1: Complexity Requires Guidance
   Complexity theory and computer simulations suggest that complexity can, in fact, arise from simple rules and stochastic processes. The universe's apparent complexity doesn't necessarily imply a designer.
2. Theorem 1: Fine-Tuned Fitness
   This point assumes "fine-tuning," but alternative models like the Multiverse could potentially explain the apparent fine-tuning without invoking a teleological agent.
3. Theorem 2: Goal of Maximizing Cooperative Symbiosis
   This is a significant and unwarranted leap. Evolution doesn't necessarily maximize "good"; it maximizes survival and reproduction, which aren't inherently moral qualities.
4. Theorem 3: Single Demiurge
   Like the cosmological argument, this point asserts without proof that a single entity must be responsible for the observed phenomena, ignoring possibilities like competing or cooperating agents.

Anticipated Objections​

1. Reply to Complexity Objection
   Your claim that "Irreducibly complex systems could not plausibly self-organize" has been refuted in the scientific literature, notably with respect to biological systems like the eye or bacterial flagellum.
2. Reply to Sociobiology Objection
   Altruistic behaviors can indeed be explained through the lens of evolutionary biology without invoking a teleological principle.
3. Reply to Evil Demiurge Objection
   Your argument here is tautological: you're saying a wholly evil demiurge couldn't guide evolution toward cooperation simply because that wouldn't align with your definition of an evil demiurge.

In sum, while the argument you present is complex and sophisticated, it falls short of providing irrefutable proof of a monotheistic God's existence due to several unjustified assumptions, leaps in logic, and contentious axioms. The axioms and theorems presented are not universally accepted and, in many cases, alternatives have been presented and supported by empirical evidence.

Is this Graham Oppy lol

You destroyed this nigga. Can't believe people still think they have some irrefutable proof of God's existence, jfl

 

[Aladin]

r/atheism is retarded and shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Deleted member 33108]

its retarded thats what it is

Well many religions have seemingly immoral acts that do not refute their authenticity. Christianity has the damnation of infants, Islam has pedophilia, Judaism has the killing of amalekite women and children etc. millions of people throughout history have abandoned their faith over one seemingly immoral act, without thinking objectively. None of these things mean anything in regard to their authenticity.

 

[AspiringMogger]

Caging if you are a kaffir tbh. Muh the lights just turn off when you die. You niggers are burning in hell @TRUE_CEL

 

[Sprinkles]

What do you believe In?

its a long rabbit hole, but essentially humans are powerful and immortal spiritual beings with conciousnesses that are fractals of the source conciousness (the original creator/god)

humans have had their conciousnesses dumbed down from a much higher and superior state of awareness and capability (the human brain was specifically engineered as a container for conciousness and to limit its power)

and are stuck in a simulated reality (a matrix) that seeks to farm emotional energy, specifically negative energy produced by trauma and suffering, )

the negative entities responsible for humanities spiritual amnesia have set up multiple traps and deceptions (religion for example) designed to get a human soul to reincarnate and live another life death after death.

this is also known as Samsara in Buddhism which is a similar concept

its prison planet theory.

 

[Gengar]

Caging if you are a kaffir tbh. Muh the lights just turn off when you die. You niggers are burning in hell @TRUE_CEL

He’s Ahl-e-Kitab, bhai.

 

[AspiringMogger]

its a long rabbit hole, but essentially humans are powerful and immortal spiritual beings with conciousnesses that are fractals of the source conciousness the original creator/god)

humans have had their conciousnesses dumbed down from a much higher and superior state of awareness and capability (the human brain was specifically engineered as a container for conciousness and to limit its power)

and are stuck in a simulated reality (a matrix) that seeks to farm emotional energy, specifically negative energy produced by trauma and suffering, )

the negative entities responsible for humanities spiritual amnesia have set up multiple traps and deceptions (religion for example) designed to get a human soul to reincarnate and live another life death after death.

this is also known as Samsara in Buddhism which is a similar concept

its prison planet theory.

Never heard of this, it sounds insane. You think we get reincarnated then? What do you think happens when we pass on, and do you believe in a god abrahamically speaking?

 

[Daqirius]

Well many religions have seemingly immoral acts that do not refute their authenticity. Christianity has the damnation of infants, Islam has pedophilia, Judaism has the killing of amalekite women and children etc. millions of people throughout history have abandoned their faith over one seemingly immoral act, without thinking objectively. None of these things mean anything in regard to their authenticity.

down syndrome teir take, plenty of people can notice the contradictions and supernatural hyestria that appears within the doctrine, meanwhile tards like you would never research that, and trys to be some pseudo boheminen contrantian who trys to present himself as some kind of enlightened agnostic.

 

[OGJBSLAYER]

down syndrome teir take, plenty of people can notice the contradictions and supernatural hyestria that appears within the doctrine, meanwhile tards like you would never research that, and trys to be some pseudo boheminen contrantian who trys to present himself as some kind of enlightened agnostic.

Bhai, l have come to the conclusion that it's futile to argue with religious-tards. Just as you would never waste your time on a redditor when it comes to blackpill.

All Religions are grade A copium, so expect people to defend them one way or another, even if their own defense doesn't make any sense to them

 

[IAMNOTANINCEL]

Something can't come from nothing.

how do you know? the chacne may be impossibly slim but this complex universe may just have been born from a big explosion.

Bad things

"bad" or "good" or "evil" don't exist

 

[Sprinkles]

Never heard of this, it sounds insane. You think we get reincarnated then? What do you think happens when we pass on, and do you believe in a god abrahamically speaking?

It’s a very long rabbit hole. I can dm you some links to some sources so you can investigate for yourself if you want,

but reincarnation happens because people are usually guilt tripped into coming back and threatened with Hell. Mainstream religions are all designed to present to people an external source of salvation such as God, Jesus, Buddha, etc, but this is inevitably used against them when they die.

People are usually shown a life review by negative entities cloaking themselves as Angels, Jesus, God, or beings from whatever the individuals belief system was. They love bomb you.

They will show you a film reel of all the mistakes you’ve made and the people you’ve hurt. If you’ve hurt someone you’ll experience the pain from that persons perspective. They tell you that these actions build karma and that karma needs to be repaid. If you are Christian they will threaten you with Hell.

They’ll tell you you need to reincarnate to repay karma, or they will promise you a good life (usually deception) or they will be a spirit guide saying to you that your soul needs to grow because earth is a school and you learn through suffering

This is all bullshit. They want you to suffer as much as possible because the trauma and pain and negative energy you experience on earth is literally sustenance for these beings.

All mainstream religions are a scam designed for one purpose control, manipulation, and reincarnation.

The entities behind this can be seen with DMT. They are usually reptilian, a grey alien, a praying mantis entity, but there are a shit ton of them you can’t perceive because they operate beyond at a level that can’t be perceived by the five senses.

 

[IAMNOTANINCEL]

bible

GE 1.11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created
GE 2.4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1.20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created
GE 2.7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2.7, 19 Man was created before animals were created
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time
GE 27, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later
GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son)
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
GE 2.4, 4.26, 12.8, 22:14-16, 26.25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses
EX 6.2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.
GE 2 17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5.5 Adam lived 930 years

sounds logical enough to me

 

[Enfant terrible]

Here is a simplified version of the key arguments:

The universe must have had a beginning. Something can't come from nothing. There must have been a powerful first cause that created the universe. This first cause must be God.

your personal opinion
you cant imagine it so it must be false

Life is too complex to have formed by chance. DNA is like a code that requires an intelligence. The amazing design of life shows it must have been designed by God.

your personal opinion
you cant imagine it so it must be false

Bad things like suffering might make people think there can't be a good God. But God has good reasons to allow some bad things, even if we don't understand.

Only thing I don't have problems with but still typical god works in mysterious brah.
jfl

Some people think there could be many gods. But the universe is orderly and carefully designed. This shows there is just one God in control.

your personal opinion
you cant imagine it so it must be false

Atheists act like religious people are dumb. But there are good philosophical arguments for God's existence. Atheists can't explain where the universe came from or how life became so complex without God.<<

It's really a simple argument rehashed a billion times but simple arguments need the strongest defenses

 

[mogger123]

holy word salad

also labelling something as an axiom or a proof doesnt actually make it an axiom or a proof

 

[RecessedChinCel]

The gaps of god theory makes more sense than the current dogma and consensus science have put up as an explanation as of today.

“It doesn’t make sense to me so it can’t be true”

According to science the universe is endless but also ever expanding, which is a contradiction in and of itself.

Lol you are just admitting that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

It isn’t that the universe is expanding into nothingness, but rather that the distance between any two given points in space become further apart.

A way to imagine it is that the universe is “stretching” like a piece of rubber.

Denying the expansion of the universe would be like denying gravity lol.

 

[Geoff2024]

I'm not a Muslim because functionally Islam doesn't teach were inherently fucked creatures and it promotes horrible behaviour like polygamy or lust although hijab is based

How the fuck does quran promote lust, you must be retarded to claim such thing when it literally orders men to lower their gaze. And polygamy is only allowed if the first wife says yes to it, meaning you need her consent, also you can only marry more than 1 woman if you can treat them all equally as good. @TRUE_CEL

 

[chickencalves]

I remember those dickheads sent a 20 liter water tank to an African school and painted their sub's name all over it then proceeded to brag about doing more for starving Africans than missionaries ever did.
Get this, I got permanently banned for posting a list of schools and hospitals built by missionaries and catholics from that same school's province.

 

[GriffithMaxx]

As for Teleological argument, we can explain why the universe exists as it does ( the design ) by explaining everything in terms of natural laws to the best of our ability. As for the existence of the natural laws, why do they exist ? They just do

Invoking God to explain the existence of natural laws doesn't help because God is way more complicated than the natural laws themselves, as such, the God hypotheses is utterly useless and futile when it comes to describing why the universe exists as it does.

Moreover, we haven't calculated the odds and probabilities to know whether we just happen to be lucky that our universe allows life to exist. On top of that, we don't know what conditions are neccesary for life.

Finally, if the multiverse theory is true, then it's not a surprise we happen to live in a universe that is hospitable to life.

Thoughts on this post, saw it a few years back and thought it was a decent post. As he mentions, this doesn't apply to the multiverse but assuming a single universe it seems good. Haven't dived deep into religious arguments/counterarguments yet so not an expert but found it an interesting read.

 

[incel194012940]

I took a philosophy class to try to understand these argument thingies but it was online so I just wrote schizo posts/chatgpt and got an A

 

[reptiles]

GE 1.11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created
GE 2.4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1.20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created
GE 2.7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2.7, 19 Man was created before animals were created
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time
GE 27, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later
GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son)
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
GE 2.4, 4.26, 12.8, 22:14-16, 26.25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses
EX 6.2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.
GE 2 17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5.5 Adam lived 930 years

sounds logical enough to me

The Genesis creation account is not meant to be a detailed scientific account, but rather uses poetic language to convey theological truths. The order of events should not be pressed too literally.
Genesis 1 provides an overview of creation, while Genesis 2 zooms in on details about the creation of man and woman. The accounts are meant to be complementary, not contradictory.
The Genesis genealogies likely contain gaps and employ different methods of counting years. So the ages listed should not be used as precise timelines to create contradictions between passages.
Passages referring to God as "Lord" use this name flexibly, not implying God was unknown by this name earlier. The name emphasizes God's covenant relationship.
The purification laws around childbirth were ceremonial, not moral, so not implying sinfulness. They promoted hygiene and solemnity around new life.
The "pleased" verses and "not pleased" verses refer to different dispensations. God was pleased with original creation, but grieved at the fall's effect on creation.

 

[reptiles]

How the fuck does quran promote lust, you must be retarded to claim such thing when it literally orders men to lower their gaze. And polygamy is only allowed if the first wife says yes to it, meaning you need her consent, also you can only marry more than 1 woman if you can treat them all equally as good. @TRUE_CEL

No it's in combination with multiple factors the lusts of the flesh map out on the modeling of heaven with the 72 virgins and basically harems of women in the after life, then Muslims believe that us Christains are Deen al batil or the faith of satan and that we are living now in the jahilya plus I don't agree with the tawhidic doctrine on god it implies god is beyond good and evil but then this implies if evil were to happen god would remain trancendent and not act to make the evil right

 

[Kamui]

dnr

 

[reptiles]

dnr

Every 1 here would benefit if society was Christain you'd have to be low iq to not what Christainty to be implented societally how come previous centuries never complained about inceldom ever think about that ?

 

[Kamui]

Every 1 here would benefit if society was Christain you'd have to be low iq to not what Christainty to be implented societally how come previous centuries never complained about inceldom ever think about that ?

Nigga I said dnr, tf are you talking about Christianity for to me

Also this is cope lol, the incel problem isn’t cuz of a lack of Christianity, it’s because now foids have rights and are free to do whatever they want, foids at their core are all whores and because of this they are hypergamous

 

[Geoff2024]

No it's in combination with multiple factors the lusts of the flesh map out on the modeling of heaven with the 72 virgins and basically harems of women in the after life, then Muslims believe that us Christains are Deen al batil or the faith of satan and that we are living now in the jahilya plus I don't agree with the tawhidic doctrine on god it implies god is beyond good and evil but then this implies if evil were to happen god would remain trancendent and not act to make the evil right

The narration of 72 virgins is weak meaning its not true, and the quran does not say that. We believe Christians strayed away from God, your strongest believers don't even pray correctly or follow the rules that jesus has set. For example abstaining from eating the meat from a pig and abstaining from alcohol. The tawhidic doctrine does not implie god is above evil or good in the sense that Allah sees and hears the evildoers and promises to punish them on the day of the judgment. After all this life is nothing but a test and if God intervened at everything, there will be no test and everyone will just know god exists with 0 faith. Regardless there are many examples in the quran which shares many stories with the bible where god intervened and saved nations from tyranny but they still went ahead and disobeyed him, for example the israelites when god saved them from the pharaoh.
But I have a better question for you, if jesus is a part of the trinity that states the son the father and the Holy spirit are all god but are not intertwined with eachother. With this knowledge can you explain to me how god aka jesus had to be taken care of as a baby, he defecated like humans did, he needed food and water like humans did, he was not all knowing, he was not all powerful, and he was not all knowing meaning he could not be god.

 

[kovacs]

the cosmogilogical argument.
Here is an expanded and highly complex version of the cosmological argument for monotheism at an advanced D.Sc level:
Ontological Substruction of Prime Origination
Definition 1: Existence precedes essence ontologically. That is, existence as being is irreducible, while the essence of particular things derives from their participated being.
Axiom 1: Absolutely no potential can actualize itself, for a potential lacks the actuality required to become actual.
Axiom 2: Only actualizers can actualize potentials to their actualized terminated states.
Theorem 1: If some collection of actualizers C exists, there must be at least one purely actual actualizer P not dependent on any other actualizers in C for its actuality. Proof: Regressing through the collection C, we must terminate in a purely actual actualizer P, else C would consist in an infinite essentially ordered regress of actualized potential actualizers, which is a logical impossibility by the principle of sufficient reason.
Definition 2: The complete absence of any potentiality in P entails that P exists outside space and time and lacks any material or temporal parts or passions.
Theorem 2: There can be no more than one purely actual actualizer P. Proof: If there were two purely actual actualizers P and Q, the identity of indiscernibles requires that they have identical attributes, in which case P and Q are one and the same purely actual actualizer.
Axiom 3: Existence is good, and the maximal existence of a purely actual actualizer would therefore be good to the maximal degree metaphysically possible.
Definition 3: A personal being is one with intellect and will. Only personal beings are capable of self-determination and exercising causal power voluntarily.
Theorem 3: The purely actual actualizer P must be a single all-good personal God with maximal existence metaphysically possible. Proof: Only conscious voluntary agency provides sufficient reason for the origin of spatiotemporal contingent existence from absolute metaphysical nothingness. Therefore, P must be personal. By Axiom 3 and the supreme perfection of P in Definition 2, P must also be all-good.
Conclusion: Therefore, monotheism as defined is logically proven to follow from ontological analysis of the necessary preconditions for the existence of contingent being. This provides a fully valid metaphysical demonstration of classical monotheism under the assumptions and axioms stipulate


the telelogical argument

Teleological Monogenesis of Biological Complexification

Observation 1: Biological life has evolved over billions of years from simple structures to highly complex organisms through minor variations and natural selection.

Axiom 1: Functionally complex systems capable of self-replication and information processing cannot emerge from purely stochastic processes. Some degree of teleological orientation is required.

Axiom 2: Intentionally guided evolution implies a goal-oriented intelligence behind the process.

Theorem 1: The fine-tuned fitness of organic chemistry, genetic coding machinery, and irreducible complexity of biochemical systems imply teleological guidance of abiogenesis and biological evolution toward greater complexity.

Axiom 3: Parasitism, predation, pain receptors, and mass extinctions reveal no single omnibenevolent teleological agent, since these processes are not optimally good.

Definition 1: Cooperative symbiosis and complex ecologies exhibit far more sustainable good than parasitism. Group competition selects for moral cooperation within groups.

Theorem 2: Biological evolution has been guided by a teleological demiurge pursuing an overarching goal of maximizing cooperative symbiosis, despite allowing partial evils due to initial constraints.

Axiom 4: A plurality of demiurges could not consistently cooperate toward a unified teleological goal due to diverging interests.

Theorem 3: Biological evolution has therefore been intricately directed by a single supremely rational demiurge toward the telos of self-aware cooperation. This entails metaphysical monotheism.

—Anticipated Objections—

Objection 1: Complexity can emerge from stochastic evolution without teleological guidance.

Reply: Irreducibly complex systems could not plausibly self-organize without goal-directed configuring of information.

Objection 2: Sociobiology explains cooperation from group selection without teleology.

Reply: Altruistic behaviors transcend reproductive fitness and cannot be explained reductively.

Objection 3: An evil demiurge or imperfect designer is not ruled out.

Reply: A wholly evil demiurge could not guide evolution toward cooperation, nor could squabbling demiurges collaborate on a unified teleological process.

Conclusion: Biological evolution exhibits ontological monogenesis by a supremely rational single Creator minimizing evil to achieve the good of symbiotic community. This demonstrates metaphysical monotheism as the only coherent explanation of biological teleology.


I'm sick and tired of these cock suckers on atheist sites acting like all religious people are retarded


@TRUE_CEL

as for why I'm a chrstain and an black piller it's simple the bible is more accurate on human nature why life is a hell and i think society would be a better place if it was christain

expanded upon Aquinas in a very contrived manner

second argument is just ridiculous.

 

[Danish_Retard]

View attachment 2455132
View attachment 2455135

 

[Ranjeet Dipshit]

will read later

 

[orangomango2003]

imagine being religious in 2023 (low IQ trait)