How can U believe in god when Ur an incel with No money?

[Knid]

And where's the proof? Only man made books

The proof is in the fact that you exist nigga.

 

[Deleted member 247026]

The proof is in the fact that you exist nigga.

Ok IQlet. I'll see the video

 

[Deleted member 255555]

@BigBiceps

I’m not an incel but I am chopped

 

[Knid]

Ok IQlet. I'll see the video

Don't forget to ChatGPT a "rebuttal"!

 

[Deleted member 247026]

Don't forget to ChatGPT a "rebuttal"!

Dw, I won't do that And besides, ChatGPT doesn't chat about controversial topics

 

[Luquier]

Lack of Money IS the Most brutal pill

NEETs don’t lack money

 

[Deleted member 247026]

The proof is in the fact that you exist nigga.

The chain cannot go forever so the video assumes it's god. The argument is "We don't know so it must be god."

 

[Knid]

The chain cannot go forever so the video assumes it's god. The argument is "We don't know so it must be god."

We know that something started the chain, and we know what characteristics the "thing" has. It's in the video. It must be immaterial, because material things have potentiality. It must be simple, as being composed of parts would imply its existence is dependent on its parts. Etc etc. We call this being, with all of these necessary attributes, God. He's not just sliding the Christian God as the conclusion; he concludes that there IS a God-like being, and he proves the Christian God in other arguments.

 

[Deleted member 247026]

We know that something started the chain, and we know what characteristics the "thing" has. It's in the video. It must be immaterial, because material things have potentiality. It must be simple, as being composed of parts would imply its existence is dependent on its parts. Etc etc. We call this being, with all of these necessary attributes, God. He's not just sliding the Christian God as the conclusion; he concludes that there IS a God-like being, and he proves the Christian God in other arguments.

I get that, but we can't know that. Why don't we assume that there was an eternal material mover instead?

 

[Knid]

I get that, but we can't know that. Why don't we assume that there was an eternal material mover instead?

Because it wouldnt solve the problem of infinite regress, that mover would just be another "link in the chain." If God was material, he would have parts. He would depend on them for his existence, meaning something has to explain HIS existence, because he could have not existed. So we can then move up the infinite chain again and we haven't found the prime mover that is responsible for everything.

 

[buddhistking]

وَمَنْ يَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ فَهُوَ حَسْبُهُ

 

[Deleted member 247026]

Because it wouldnt solve the problem of infinite regress, that mover would just be another "link in the chain." If God was material, he would have parts. He would depend on them for his existence, meaning something has to explain HIS existence, because he could have not existed. So we can then move up the infinite chain again and we haven't found the prime mover that is responsible for everything.

Alright but god is a made up answer. The truth is that we can't know and will never find out probably.

 

[Knid]

Alright but god is a made up answer. The truth is that we can't know and will never find out probably.

Bro, we take the being that is proved by the argument, and we call it God. There is only one answer to this problem, and it's a being with all the great-making properties

 

[Deleted member 247026]

Bro, we take the being that is proved by the argument, and we call it God. There is only one answer to this problem, and it's a being with all the great-making properties

You can't know that.

 

[Knid]

You can't know that.

If the premises follow, you get that conclusion. Do you have an issue with one of them?

 

[_MVP_]

There is No god. Period.

 

[Deleted member 247026]

If the premises follow, you get that conclusion. Do you have an issue with one of them?

That's a possible answer, not the only one. We don't know what the answer is.