God doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.

[thenewhebbe]

Gay discussion but whatever first cause everything we observe have cause so it have to be a first cause because it can't be infinty

Other evidence is non life to life have never been proven only life to life so something hsve to created life .

 

[Deleted member 85787]

But I agree on the fact that religions are mostly a tool to control people thats why im nothing

I follow God and Jesus, not christianity

follow the teachings of two imaginary people who never fully existed good goy

 

[Deleted member 109023]

follow the teachings of two imaginary people who never fully existed good goy

Jesus is one of the most documented people? What?

 

[Deleted member 85787]

Jesus is one of the most documented people? What?

I don't trust jewish academic studies, they might even have falsified certain historical documents lol

 

[Deleted member 109023]

I don't trust jewish academic studies, they might even have falsified certain historical documents lol

Islam, christianism and even the jews documented his existence.

 

[Morningg]

But I agree on the fact that religions are mostly a tool to control people thats why im nothing

I follow God and Jesus, not christianity

this guy gets it.

 

[Deleted member 85787]

Islam, christianism and even the jews documented his existence.

He may exist, but it must have been some jewish npc who was randomly crucified and they built a whole narrative around him to control the mass of religious bluepilled people.

 

[True truecel]

Sorry for formatting this shit is fucked and hard to structure

---

If something dont disprove 100% another thing, then it can also have probability of that happening

agree

---

Something gotta exist from something, and it gotta have a first cause. Just like a motor that moves another motor, God doesnt need a motor because he is the first motor

there's a couple things wrong with this
1) You're assuming something has to have a first cause. Why? Why can't the universe just exist without a starting?
2)

I can instead say, no, there were multiple alien beings who created life as we know it, and those alien beings are outside the scope of our universe/aren't affected by time/are malevolent and using Earth for experimentation etc - just random claims that can't be proven or disproven, just like how saying God created the universe can't be proven or disproven

3) Even if I momentarily agree with you that everything has got to have a first cause, based on your logic, who created God? God needs a first cause right? and if he doesn't need a first cause, what properties does God possess that cannot just be applied to the Alien example or the Universe example?

---

2)
What is your evidence that this statement of multiple universes is true? From what I see on my life, I see only one universe that is the one that exist. If you are refering to the big crunch and that there was multiple universes before this, its just a theory and its super unlikely because of the acceleration of the universe and everything tending to split entropy.

so its basically my word against yours

Also order and design is usually used for live beings not the universe, but what is the probability of that dice generating life? You could have organic particles on other planets, but where is the inteligent mind or perfect stable body (on perfect conditions of course)

still how our bodies are so biologically perfect? How can everything fit so well and be like just a perfect engineering project? What is more probable, something created it or in the range of 4-3 billion years we randomly got everything fitted perfectly (if that theory that evolution is about adapting and not just random genetic changes was true, then you could arguee that, but its just random)?
When you go to a beach and see the words "love" or whatever, you just believe that the ocean randomly did that? No, you think someone did that, because its more probable.
Again its not about mathematical proof, its about probability, what is more probable of happening?

It's not super unlikely, because before the big bang (our maximum scope of knowledge of time), anything is possible. Like do you see what I mean? Literally anything is possible and cannot be proven or disproven before the Big Bang, we genuinely do not know, because we don't know what happened before the Big Bang or if there even was a "before" the Big Bang, because thats the extent of our knowledge.

There could have been 1 gazillion universes before the big bang and we don't possess the ability to prove or disprove that right now.
That's why the plausibility of God's creating our universe is equally as likely/unlikely as there being X number of universes created before ours - you can't assign probability to things that can't be proven/disproven (no evidence at all)

the probability argument is interesting, here is the debunk, i already put this in the original but idk u missed it maybe:

I swear this is just a probability fallacy. Everything in this universe is "rare", it just depends on what you consider valuable vs. common. We are living beings, so naturally we consider human life/life in general as rare and valuable, but from the Universe's perspective, it really doesnt matter.

For example, if I wave my hand, oxygen and nitrogen molecules in my room form an extremely unique, rare alignment of air that has never been seen before in the history of the universe in that particular region of space. but no one gives a shit because obviously we wouldn't consider that rare

---

Again probability, and also the science does explain it, random thunderstorms on random particles that generated the first organic particle and then the process started, but what are the odds of that happening? So not God of the Gaps.

Again, we cant prove 100% or disprove 100%, its about probability.

Do you think in a range of 4 billion years or even 13 billion years that would have happened? And evolution in idk a billion of years would put us on this perfect state where everything works with everything? Organs working together vision, information processing, intelect which we are using to have this wonderful argument

What is more probable of happening?

If we consider the odds and we noticed that life comming from nothing is really low, then what created life? What was the first motor?

Same thing, just this point disproves this, its all based on perspective of what you value:

I swear this is just a probability fallacy. Everything in this universe is "rare", it just depends on what you consider valuable vs. common. We are living beings, so naturally we consider human life/life in general as rare and valuable, but from the Universe's perspective, it really doesnt matter.

For example, if I wave my hand, oxygen and nitrogen molecules in my room form an extremely unique, rare alignment of air that has never been seen before in the history of the universe in that particular region of space. but no one gives a shit because obviously we wouldn't consider that rare

---

Yes. Why people on america have some of the same moral absolutes from someone from south asia? They didnt even share their culture to each other, what gave them the same moral absolutes? Again you could say randomness, but whats the probability of that happening?

Coincidence. There's a million counter examples of cultures disagreeing on what is morally right and wrong. For example, Aztecs who had no communication with Europe, Asia, and Africa for 10k+ years had came to their own conclusions about child sacrifices. They never perceived themselves as bad people or morally wrong.

---

Love isnt about random chemical reactions and eletricity comming on your neurons or just a will to preserve the gene pool or something like that. You usually dont help the homeless just because you want to help the tribe or something like that, you do that because you genuinely care and thats love. If it isnt about biology nor chemistry, then whats the most probable thing happening?

This is just evolution, people have an altruistic component to them that's evolved over time, because of evolutionary factors. I can also say something like "hate" and people enjoy hating for no particular reason, and say its not related to biology or chemistry, but that also has to do with science.

We can literally scientifically observe, through studies, people getting happiness from loving other people, which means most of us are hardwired to enjoy loving other people and caring about the people we love.

---

Now comming in with the maths:
Lets sum up everything with the probability of happening randomly using a limit:
it would be basically like this (just a random equation to explain that the odds are really low)
p(random) = lim x-> inf (really big number) 1/x
p(random) = number close to zero
but you could argue that the universe is infinite with the big crunch theory so the chances of that happening are
number close to zero * infinity = infinity
so 100% everything happened randomly or will happen sometime in the future
but heres the issue, the universe has 13.6 billion years and will end on entropy so particles wont interact with each other so time isnt infinite therefore the probability is still a number close to zero
Again, everything could have happened randomly, but the probability is a really low number so what do you rather believe?

same thing:

I swear this is just a probability fallacy. Everything in this universe is "rare", it just depends on what you consider valuable vs. common. We are living beings, so naturally we consider human life/life in general as rare and valuable, but from the Universe's perspective, it really doesnt matter.

For example, if I wave my hand, oxygen and nitrogen molecules in my room form an extremely unique, rare alignment of air that has never been seen before in the history of the universe in that particular region of space. but no one gives a shit because obviously we wouldn't consider that rare

this shit took soooo long

 

[True truecel]

But I agree on the fact that religions are mostly a tool to control people thats why im nothing

I follow God and Jesus, not christianity

hm

Do you base your beliefs off the bible?

 

[True truecel]

Gay discussion but whatever first cause everything we observe have cause so it have to be a first cause because it can't be infinty

Other evidence is non life to life have never been proven only life to life so something hsve to created life .

there's a couple things wrong with this
1) You're assuming something has to have a first cause. Why? Why can't the universe just exist without a starting?
2)

I can instead say, no, there were multiple alien beings who created life as we know it, and those alien beings are outside the scope of our universe/aren't affected by time/are malevolent and using Earth for experimentation etc - just random claims that can't be proven or disproven, just like how saying God created the universe can't be proven or disproven

3) Even if I momentarily agree with you that everything has got to have a first cause, based on your logic, who created God? God needs a first cause right? and if he doesn't need a first cause, what properties does God possess that cannot just be applied to the Alien example or the Universe example?

 

[True truecel]

follow the teachings of two imaginary people who never fully existed good goy

Jesus existed as a real person

 

[swt]

why does this debate even exist still, we all know this atp

 

[True truecel]

why does this debate even exist still, we all know this atp

I have to educate people, post by post

 

[True truecel]

Okay so that's one guy, where's the 48% of NDE people you said experienced it?

 

[True truecel]

48 people viewing this thread is lowkey crazy ngl

i just know ill wake up with 100 notifications for fucks sake

 

[Deleted member 109023]

He may exist, but it must have been some jewish npc who was randomly crucified and they built a whole narrative around him to control the mass of religious bluepilled people.

Then we agree that he existed lol

case closed

 

[Deleted member 109023]

Sorry for formatting this shit is fucked and hard to structure

No problem bro

You're assuming something has to have a first cause. Why? Why can't the universe just exist without a starting?

Basically cause and consequence

No consequence can exist without a cause considering time

But heres the fun part, God is above time so he can cause things without having to worry about time because he is eternal

the big bang needed time to explode and expand, so what created time and what created the particles

its basically ex nihilo nihil fit ("From nothing, nothing comes") but this considers time (Why am I assuming this? Because how can I punch someone without the clock ticking you know)

But God is above time because he is the first motor he created time and particles and then the big bang could have occurred

The universe need something to light the fire otherwise it wouldnt have any fire at all

It's not super unlikely, because before the big bang (our maximum scope of knowledge of time), anything is possible

I see what you are saying but heres the issue:
Time is still not infinite in your theory, why?

Its an axiom (or like a 99,99999999% chance of happening) that our universe will end in entropy, so particles wont interact with each other

time itself is still infinite but we wont have causes and consequences anymore because particles wont interact with each other

so the time before the big bang is still not infinite because our part will end so it will have an ending

so lets redo the probabilities:

p(random chance of life) = tending to 0

lets consider our now new scope of time

(a really big number but not tending to infinite) times (a number tending to 0) = tending to 0

now for "we dont know what happened before the big bang"

this is a neutral argument so we can just not use it
You cant put God into it because God is not from this universe nor is time or cause and consequence dependent

the probability argument is interesting, here is the debunk, i already put this in the original but idk u missed it maybe:

I'm not understanding what you are meaning by this, I get everything can happen at the same time and its about value or what I consider important

But even if, the probability of life happening randomly is low so it must have another cause, thats my thesis

There's a million counter examples of cultures disagreeing on what is morally right and wrong

These are moral relatives, they exist but moral absolutes also exist. The probability is low to be considered a coincidence but you can consider it a coincidence because the probability exists

They never perceived themselves as bad people or morally wrong

Moral relatives, these are not moral absolutes

I can kill someone because he was trying to rob me, some people will say im in the wrong some people will say im in the right. But for mentally healthy people there are some absolutes that we have pre-configured that always existed

What you an arguee here is there no consensus whether its 100% relative or absolute. So its what we believe

But in my life experience I have seen thousands of people saying that killing randomly is wrong, so it makes me more probable to believe that moral absolutes does exists and they are just corrupted by the region culture or belifs

This is just evolution, people have an altruistic component to them that's evolved over time, because of evolutionary factors. I can also say something like "hate" and people enjoy hating for no particular reason, and say its not related to biology or chemistry, but that also has to do with science.

So it also developed randomly? Again what are the odds

Lets sum up my main point

My main point is the probability of everything happening randomly is absurdly low so it makes more sense to me to believe in a being that created everything

I think I got your alien analogy but then it would have a being outside our dimension that would control us and things. But that would be basically God, now whether he is just a being or its a various beings or is he bad or good its theology so its not a part of this debate

You can believe it happened randomly but the probability of that happening is low, but it has the chances of happening therefore not impossible

we basically cant disprove eachother so we rely on evidence and with this probability I think its more plausibe to an inteligent being have created the universe

this shit took soooo long

same

at least its a great debate so it feeds our minds at least

 

[Deleted member 109023]

hm

Do you base your beliefs off the bible?

Yes

Cliffe Knechtle explained pretty well what I mean by that:


I follow the bible because thats the word of God

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

Okay, so then prove that consciousness exists outside of the brain

You can't

and also tbf neither can I prove that consciousness exists inside the brain

it just becomes one of those things where you can neither prove or disprove it, which is completely useless

yea until you see all the attempts to prove that consciousness is inside the brain, and how all of them have utterly failed, and all the theories which even had a string of hope(no pun intended), ultimately came crashing down as well.

also there is a causality argument in this, too, if string theory and QM are incapable of showing us the truth of consciousness(which I believe to be the case, and is currently the case) then it means our consciousness can only come from one other thing, a creator.

 

[True truecel]

yea until you see all the attempts to prove that consciousness is inside the brain, and how all of them have utterly failed, and all the theories which even had a string of hope(no pun intended), ultimately came crashing down as well.

also there is a causality argument in this, too, if string theory and QM are incapable of showing us the truth of consciousness(which I believe to be the case, and is currently the case) then it means our consciousness can only come from one other thing, a creator.

what is this either or scenario? you can't say there can only be two possibilities, that's naïve/wishful thinking to prove your point

when you make a claim that consciousness comes from a creator the burden of proof is on you, its not just the "default" viewpoint

 

[kurd]

if u are really a better person because of your encounter or the God you believe in then good for you genuinely

I didn’t believe in God prior to my experience

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

what is this either or scenario? you can't say there can only be two possibilities, that's naïve/wishful thinking to prove your point

when you make a claim that consciousness comes from a creator the burden of proof is on you, its not just the "default" viewpoint

? really because its called causality,

it seems thales tried to explain causality to u before as well and you had a hard time understanding. so ill try again

the truth is it can be only either or, because everything in this world relies on cause -> effect, you cant have something from nothing(unless its inherently a creator)

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

what is this either or scenario? you can't say there can only be two possibilities, that's naïve/wishful thinking to prove your point

when you make a claim that consciousness comes from a creator the burden of proof is on you, its not just the "default" viewpoint

oh yeah, also i forgot to mention. the burden of proof isnt on me, because if you understand logic, u understand this is proven via deduction. the strongest form of logical proof.

 

[Chasingthedream569]

Okay so that's one guy, where's the 48% of NDE people you said experienced it?

Here you go:


No matter how much I show you, you still won't believe, that's why earlier I told you it's impossible to convince someone that just won't believe

 

[JoeNutz]

moral absolutes, 2+2 will always be 4, rape will always be wrong, the evil person who justifies rape is just like the stupid person who justifies 2+2 equals 5, no god no moral law giver all is permissible and you must admit if you believe in subjective morality theoretically a good enough argument can convince you of anything. This being said 90% of situations are moral grey areas.

Human purpose is far beyond flesh, animals do not live beyond their means they live for survival alone and to reproduce as much as possible. there is no evolutionary advantage for monogamy or non transactional love.

Free will, God has not revealed himself because he gave us freed will, if god showed us irrefutable evidence we'd have no choice but to believe.

If the degree of evidence you require to believe in god is undeniable then there is no point in the debate against Christianity.

You will never be satisfied with an argument because there is not proof to the extent of 100% assurance, Christianity requires faith and if you believe Christianity takes advantage of everything unexplained in this universe then that is your decision to make, because at the end of the day as long as they go unexplained you and I will both believe in what we believe, your faith in an Aethieistic answer and my faith in a religious answer.

 

[JoeNutz]

moral absolutes, 2+2 will always be 4, rape will always be wrong, the evil person who justifies rape is just like the stupid person who justifies 2+2 equals 5, no god no moral law giver all is permissible and you must admit if you believe in subjective morality theoretically a good enough argument can convince you of anything. This being said 90% of situations are moral grey areas.

I forgot to mention, under the belief that no one gives moral law and it is all up to the individual the rapist lived just as good a life as anyone because he lived his life to his definition of morality as much as the guy who helps homeless people and donates to charity

 

[heightmax]

I will debate anyone, I'm bored. God doesn't exist, and religion is most often used as a tool to control people.

I don't care what religion you believe in, they are all wrong

i am god nigga

 

[True truecel]

i am god nigga

prove it

 

[True truecel]

Before addressing - My view on God is I can neither prove nor disprove his existence objectively. So I believe that based on the evidence we have right now, it is WAY MORE PLAUSIBLE that God doesn't exist rather than does.

moral absolutes, 2+2 will always be 4, rape will always be wrong, the evil person who justifies rape is just like the stupid person who justifies 2+2 equals 5, no god no moral law giver all is permissible and you must admit if you believe in subjective morality theoretically a good enough argument can convince you of anything. This being said 90% of situations are moral grey areas.

You're stating that there are moral absolutes. There's a few problems with this.
What are these morals based on? I'm presuming its the bible. However the bible does not objectively give you the answer for what to do in every scenario ever. So you are left to interpret what is right and wrong. The issue with this is that the bible's logic is inconsistent. For example, how can you justify the Old Testament genocides?

You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. Thus, you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here (Deut. 20:14-15)

You shall annihilate them – the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites – just as the LORD your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and thus sin against the LORD your God (Deut. 20:17-18).

Human purpose is far beyond flesh, animals do not live beyond their means they live for survival alone and to reproduce as much as possible. there is no evolutionary advantage for monogamy or non transactional love.

I'm assuming that you got your idea about the purpose of humans from the bible. That's fine, but your claims about monogamy and non-transactional love don't make sense. There are many cultures throughout history, and still to this day, where men are allowed and encouraged to marry multiple women. About non-transactional love, that's literally just an opinion, there is absolutely no way to prove that love is non-transactional as far as I know.

Free will, God has not revealed himself because he gave us freed will, if god showed us irrefutable evidence we'd have no choice but to believe.

This would work perfectly IF all people around the world were all introduced to Christianity equally. Why is it that only some people are introduced to the "one true religion" and others are introduced to false religions? Do others not deserve the same choice to choose between Christianity and something else?

If the degree of evidence you require to believe in god is undeniable then there is no point in the debate against Christianity.

True, same with atheism though. Nothing in this world can be absolutely proven at all, just to a certain agreeable extent. Science literally does not have the capability to produce an argument that would disprove God's existence for sure.

I forgot to mention, under the belief that no one gives moral law and it is all up to the individual the rapist lived just as good a life as anyone because he lived his life to his definition of morality as much as the guy who helps homeless people and donates to charity

Right but under the Bible's definition, the minute the rapist converts to Christianity all his sins are forgiven. Also, I get that you have a very understandable desire for people who do bad things to be punished by the universe, but why does that have to be the case at all? That's just a presumption you are assuming to be true based on nothing else but the bible, which is circular reasoning. In my belief, when people die, they just die. No clue what happens to them after, not going to make any presumptions about them being punished for the crimes they committed. That's just something you want to be true, not something that can actually be proven.

 

[True truecel]

Here you go:


No matter how much I show you, you still won't believe, that's why earlier I told you it's impossible to convince someone that just won't believe

right that's literally what a non-believer means, if someone doesn't believe in something they wont believe in it? genuinely what are you talking about

this isn't scientific, its just anecdotal from the guys experience. But fine for the purposes of this argument I will believe this to be true and that its correct that something, some sort of entity was viewed by those NDE people.

Then comes the question - what is the entity? I looked into this post more and found that only 13.9% described it SPECIFICALLY as God/Jesus in human form. So what did the rest of the blinding light people see? Why were they not able to see the exact same thing? Also why were the other 52% not able to see anything?
Also, NDE's in different culture seem to have different entities appearing altogether.

Examples:
Indians -

Near-death experiences in India. A preliminary report - PubMed

The authors report some features of 16 cases of near-death experiences that they investigated in India. After presenting brief accounts of four such experiences, the authors describe and discuss features in which the Indian cases differ from a larger sample of American cases. They note that some...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Japanese -

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/01/NDE76-Japanese-and-western-JNDS.pdf

Islamic -

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark%3A/67531/metadc461694/m2/1/high_res_d/28-2%206%20Art%2008%20Kreps.pdf

So it just seems like people see whatever they believe in and care about during NDE's as far as I can tell. Or can you somehow explain why specifically Jesus NDE's are the only correct ones?

 

[True truecel]

? really because its called causality,

it seems thales tried to explain causality to u before as well and you had a hard time understanding. so ill try again

the truth is it can be only either or, because everything in this world relies on cause -> effect, you cant have something from nothing(unless its inherently a creator)

that's an assumption that doesn't mean anything at the point of the big bang. Why would you try to apply the laws of logic and reasoning to a time period "before" our scope of available observation?

Even if I agree with you and say that everything in the world relies on cause and effect, what created God in that case? Your response would be God is eternal. Why can't the universe just be eternal?

oh yeah, also i forgot to mention. the burden of proof isnt on me, because if you understand logic, u understand this is proven via deduction. the strongest form of logical proof.

It really just is on you though. Like I said, this isn't an either or scenario, just because I can't prove something doesn't mean you are automatically right, nor vice versa. It simply stays up for debate until we can gather more knowledge about it. This is just classic God of the gaps fallacy

on the other hand, if you wanted to argue that the evidence largely points towards God's existence but can't be absolutely proven (absolutely proven by our standard can be debated if you want but its really not that complicated, for example the earth is a globe level of proof), that would make sense. Making a claim like "yeah for sure bro I know God exists 100%" is retarded

 

[True truecel]

Basically cause and consequence

No consequence can exist without a cause considering time

But heres the fun part, God is above time so he can cause things without having to worry about time because he is eternal

the big bang needed time to explode and expand, so what created time and what created the particles

its basically ex nihilo nihil fit ("From nothing, nothing comes") but this considers time (Why am I assuming this? Because how can I punch someone without the clock ticking you know)

But God is above time because he is the first motor he created time and particles and then the big bang could have occurred

The universe need something to light the fire otherwise it wouldnt have any fire at all

Okay. Why can't the universe be eternal, the exact same type of eternal that you claim God is?

I see what you are saying but heres the issue:
Time is still not infinite in your theory, why?

Its an axiom (or like a 99,99999999% chance of happening) that our universe will end in entropy, so particles wont interact with each other

time itself is still infinite but we wont have causes and consequences anymore because particles wont interact with each other

so the time before the big bang is still not infinite because our part will end so it will have an ending

so lets redo the probabilities:

p(random chance of life) = tending to 0

lets consider our now new scope of time

(a really big number but not tending to infinite) times (a number tending to 0) = tending to 0

now for "we dont know what happened before the big bang"

this is a neutral argument so we can just not use it
You cant put God into it because God is not from this universe nor is time or cause and consequence dependent

Ik ur banned idk why but ill still respond in any case
You're stating that time isn't infinite "technically" because of entropy and how every thing just stagnates. But in that case, you would be saying that God is finite. and if you are saying something along the lines of - God is beyond space & time, then why can't the same principle be applied to the universe?

agreed it is a neutral argument

I'm not understanding what you are meaning by this, I get everything can happen at the same time and its about value or what I consider important

But even if, the probability of life happening randomly is low so it must have another cause, thats my thesis

Two things to explain the feeling of life being improbable and that everything just worked out "perfectly"
1) I'll try to explain the value argument simpler. Let's suppose you are on vacation at some sort of really pretty natural location. This place looks so good it almost look like someone intentionally designed it to look beautiful. To an ant, the beauty of this structure is meaningless. The ant is just trying to survive. To someone else who got, let's just say, stranded at that natural location, deep in some valley somewhere without food and water, all they see is a brutal trap and the end of their life coming ahead. They could not give a single fuck about the beauty of this location.
Here's an another example with a different approach. If I wave my hand in the air, I will create an arrangement of atoms in that particular point in space time that have NEVER EVER been created before. Those set of particles are extremely unique and no one will ever be able to replicate what I just did. However, no one gives a shit. Why? Obviously no one values my unique arrangement of air within my room, its irrelevant.

These two examples relate to how the universe's seemingly perfect coincidence of life is just based on what you VALUE, that's all. There are tons of people who observe the universe, and the miracle of life and really could not care less, because they just don't value it in the same way others do.

2) Second reason: Bit harder to explain bit - the miracle of life is a retrospective assessment. We exist, therefore we are able to observe that we exist and be in awe of the fact that we exist. Does that make sense? As dumb as this sounds, if we didn't exist, we would not be able to be observe that we exist, nor be in awe of our existence, so nobody would be around to say "the probability of life happening randomly is low"...

These are moral relatives, they exist but moral absolutes also exist. The probability is low to be considered a coincidence but you can consider it a coincidence because the probability exists

Not sure what you mean, doesn't even matter if Im not sure, since your banned so I lowkey sound like an autist ngl. Anyways -

Moral absolutes exist presumably based on the bible right? And God never said specifically what to do in every single ethical scenario, right? (that would be impossible since there are probably infinite scenarios). So basically its just a framework to generally follow. Unfortunately, the bible tends to contradict itself a lot especially from the New Testament vs. the Old Testament. How do you expect people to base their entire moral system off a book that doesn't agree with itself?

Moral relatives, these are not moral absolutes

I can kill someone because he was trying to rob me, some people will say im in the wrong some people will say im in the right. But for mentally healthy people there are some absolutes that we have pre-configured that always existed

What you an arguee here is there no consensus whether its 100% relative or absolute. So its what we believe

But in my life experience I have seen thousands of people saying that killing randomly is wrong, so it makes me more probable to believe that moral absolutes does exists and they are just corrupted by the region culture or belifs

this is a good point actually I have nothing much to say to this. BUT. Arguing for moral absolutes is one thing and then arguing that those absolutes are aligned with the bible is different. The bible contradicts itself numerous times like I said earlier

So it also developed randomly? Again what are the odds

Just based on what you value

My main point is the probability of everything happening randomly is absurdly low so it makes more sense to me to believe in a being that created everything

I think I got your alien analogy but then it would have a being outside our dimension that would control us and things. But that would be basically God, now whether he is just a being or its a various beings or is he bad or good its theology so its not a part of this debate

You can believe it happened randomly but the probability of that happening is low, but it has the chances of happening therefore not impossible

we basically cant disprove eachother so we rely on evidence and with this probability I think its more plausibe to an inteligent being have created the universe

fair enough yeah, I agree, I'm just on the other side of that coin I guess

 

[subhuman1996]

Okay. Why can't the universe be eternal, the exact same type of eternal that you claim God is?


Ik ur banned idk why but ill still respond in any case
You're stating that time isn't infinite "technically" because of entropy and how every thing just stagnates. But in that case, you would be saying that God is finite. and if you are saying something along the lines of - God is beyond space & time, then why can't the same principle be applied to the universe?

agreed it is a neutral argument

Two things to explain the feeling of life being improbable and that everything just worked out "perfectly"
1) I'll try to explain the value argument simpler. Let's suppose you are on vacation at some sort of really pretty natural location. This place looks so good it almost look like someone intentionally designed it to look beautiful. To an ant, the beauty of this structure is meaningless. The ant is just trying to survive. To someone else who got, let's just say, stranded at that natural location, deep in some valley somewhere without food and water, all they see is a brutal trap and the end of their life coming ahead. They could not give a single fuck about the beauty of this location.
Here's an another example with a different approach. If I wave my hand in the air, I will create an arrangement of atoms in that particular point in space time that have NEVER EVER been created before. Those set of particles are extremely unique and no one will ever be able to replicate what I just did. However, no one gives a shit. Why? Obviously no one values my unique arrangement of air within my room, its irrelevant.

These two examples relate to how the universe's seemingly perfect coincidence of life is just based on what you VALUE, that's all. There are tons of people who observe the universe, and the miracle of life and really could not care less, because they just don't value it in the same way others do.

2) Second reason: Bit harder to explain bit - the miracle of life is a retrospective assessment. We exist, therefore we are able to observe that we exist and be in awe of the fact that we exist. Does that make sense? As dumb as this sounds, if we didn't exist, we would not be able to be observe that we exist, nor be in awe of our existence, so nobody would be around to say "the probability of life happening randomly is low"...



Not sure what you mean, doesn't even matter if Im not sure, since your banned so I lowkey sound like an autist ngl. Anyways -

Moral absolutes exist presumably based on the bible right? And God never said specifically what to do in every single ethical scenario, right? (that would be impossible since there are probably infinite scenarios). So basically its just a framework to generally follow. Unfortunately, the bible tends to contradict itself a lot especially from the New Testament vs. the Old Testament. How do you expect people to base their entire moral system off a book that doesn't agree with itself?


this is a good point actually I have nothing much to say to this. BUT. Arguing for moral absolutes is one thing and then arguing that those absolutes are aligned with the bible is different. The bible contradicts itself numerous times like I said earlier



Just based on what you value



fair enough yeah, I agree, I'm just on the other side of that coin I guess

U do realize ur replying to someone whos banned right ?

 

[True truecel]

U do realize ur replying to someone whos banned right ?

yeah its lowkey autistic af, just for the principle ngl

 

[subhuman1996]

yeah its lowkey autistic af, just for the principle ngl

Instead of coping, repent

 

[True truecel]

Instead of coping, repent

How am I coping? Coping with what?

 

[subhuman1996]

How am I coping? Coping with what?

With the fact that God doesnt exist. It’s funny bc all religions agree that gaytheists go to hell

 

[True truecel]

With the fact that God doesnt exist. It’s funny bc all religions agree that gaytheists go to hell

How is that a cope, that's just a truth. you still haven't disproven anything earlier on in this thread btw

 

[ImaASCENDsoon]

I will debate anyone, I'm bored. God doesn't exist, and religion is most often used as a tool to control people.

I don't care what religion you believe in, they are all wrong

I agree, if anything modern society is controlled by satan

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

that's an assumption that doesn't mean anything at the point of the big bang. Why would you try to apply the laws of logic and reasoning to a time period "before" our scope of available observation?

Even if I agree with you and say that everything in the world relies on cause and effect, what created God in that case? Your response would be God is eternal. Why can't the universe just be eternal?



It really just is on you though. Like I said, this isn't an either or scenario, just because I can't prove something doesn't mean you are automatically right, nor vice versa. It simply stays up for debate until we can gather more knowledge about it. This is just classic God of the gaps fallacy

on the other hand, if you wanted to argue that the evidence largely points towards God's existence but can't be absolutely proven (absolutely proven by our standard can be debated if you want but its really not that complicated, for example the earth is a globe level of proof), that would make sense. Making a claim like "yeah for sure bro I know God exists 100%" is retarded

God of the gaps? Who is saying that because science has not proven anything that IT MUST BE TRUE? That wasn't inline with the line of deduction that I gave you. You're literally just strawmanning me in order to provide a rebuttal under a different set of criteria. The only way to disprove this argument would be through a deterministic angle. Yet, everything deduces to God.

And btw, the whole point is that God is the only non-causal entity that exists in our conception and in/outside the universe, even the big bang lacks current scientific models and know-how as to what caused it, and is still heavily theorized to this day. The universe can't be eternal, because the only way it can be explained as eternal is through QM models of superdeterminism that will never be proven(because hard determinism isn't real).

 

[True truecel]

God of the gaps? Who is saying that because science has not proven anything that IT MUST BE TRUE? That wasn't inline with the line of deduction that I gave you. You're literally just strawmanning me in order to provide a rebuttal under a different set of criteria. The only way to disprove this argument would be through a deterministic angle. Yet, everything deduces to God.

You just said "Who is saying that because science has not proven anything that IT MUST BE TRUE?". Then you go onto say "Yet, everything deduces to God.". ??? Dude when you make a claim stating that God is real, the burden of proof is on YOU idk how many times I have to explain this. I am NOT claiming that atheists or any scientists know anything about what definitively happened before the big bang, that would be retarded.

And btw, the whole point is that God is the only non-causal entity that exists in our conception and in/outside the universe, even the big bang lacks current scientific models and know-how as to what caused it, and is still heavily theorized to this day. The universe can't be eternal, because the only way it can be explained as eternal is through QM models of superdeterminism that will never be proven(because hard determinism isn't real).

This is literally the textbook definition of God of the gaps fallacy. We've identified something that isn't explained by our current science. You then ASSUME, wrongfully, that any scientific explanations is insufficient. Then you insert God to fill the gap for this explanation. If tomorrow for example we discovered that the universe was created by an alien, you would go on to say, well who created the alien, which is just God of the Gaps again.

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

You just said "Who is saying that because science has not proven anything that IT MUST BE TRUE?". Then you go onto say "Yet, everything deduces to God.". ??? Dude when you make a claim stating that God is real, the burden of proof is on YOU idk how many times I have to explain this. I am NOT claiming that atheists or any scientists know anything about what definitively happened before the big bang, that would be retarded.


This is literally the textbook definition of God of the gaps fallacy. We've identified something that isn't explained by our current science. You then ASSUME, wrongfully, that any scientific explanations is insufficient. Then you insert God to fill the gap for this explanation. If tomorrow for example we discovered that the universe was created by an alien, you would go on to say, well who created the alien, which is just God of the Gaps again.

I’m at work right now, I’ll reply to this when I get home. You’re still not getting it, this isn’t even my thread and my argument is essentially the same as OPs, read through it and think about it carefully before I come back and debunk you nigga.

 

[True truecel]

I’m at work right now, I’ll reply to this when I get home. You’re still not getting it, this isn’t even my thread and my argument is essentially the same as OPs, read through it and think about it carefully before I come back and debunk you nigga.

yea for sure bro take your time

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

I'm sorry, I thought this was another thread you were replying to. I didn't realize this was your thread, because I was at work. Nonetheless, I'll continue to work based off of my original claims.

You just said "Who is saying that because science has not proven anything that IT MUST BE TRUE?". Then you go onto say "Yet, everything deduces to God.". ??? Dude when you make a claim stating that God is real, the burden of proof is on YOU

Alright, you don't seem to understand the argument. So I'm going to break down to you what deduction is, and how it's applied in this case, and why the burden of proof isn't on me to obtain anything(since deduction already proves what I'm saying in the first place.)

Deduction is just a line of reasoning in which the premises are necessarily true as long as the logic is valid, I'm not just simply making the claim God is real, the premises provided in the argument necessarily implies he exists. So what are these premises?

1) Causality exists
2) Consciousness defies causality

this is what was basically summarized in the previous posts.

Now, we also know that, consciousness has been immaterial and unobservable primordially. It should be obvious now why the burden of proof doesn't belong to me(in this case).

This is literally the textbook definition of God of the gaps fallacy. We've identified something that isn't explained by our current science. You then ASSUME, wrongfully, that any scientific explanations is insufficient. Then you insert God to fill the gap for this explanation. If tomorrow for example we discovered that the universe was created by an alien, you would go on to say, well who created the alien, which is just God of the Gaps again.

I know what the God of the gaps fallacy is, stop using buzzwords, I'm not saying scientific explanations are insufficent, you misunderstood me, I said that it is impossible because of the reasons stated in that reply. You didn't even attack as to "WHY" this would be the case given what I presented to you..

now if you want to dive deeper into the actual argumentation without wrongfully accusing me of being fallacious, then we can continue.

 

[pabloo]

I will debate anyone, I'm bored. God doesn't exist, and religion is most often used as a tool to control people.

I don't care what religion you believe in, they are all wrong

why do you think he doesnt exist do ylu have a reason to want him to not exist?