Religion debate mega thread

[pandamonium]

You’re officially brain dead. Your not worth me arguing with you, ima just use AI for this last comment GOOD BYE

i accept the concession now ill continue refuting even the ai. You shouldve used it from the start tbh

because your seriously retarded you don’t even know what Physicalist means your own fucking belief system

you thought physicalism and materialism is the same thing

Anyways

1. Self-Evidence and Circular Reasoning:

Your opponent asserts that the laws of logic are self-evident and accuses the presuppositionalist argument of circular reasoning without demonstration.

self evident and circular reasoning isnt the same. the reasoning is grounded in itself. The impossibility of the contrary Ive shown over and over why analytical truths and logic must be accepted. Simply asserting its circular isnt a argument

• Response: Presuppositional apologetics posits that the intelligibility of logic presupposes the existence of the Christian God. This is not a mere assertion but an argument that without the grounding provided by God, the universality and immutability of logical laws lack a sufficient foundation. The claim is that alternative worldviews, including atheistic or physicalist perspectives, cannot coherently account for the preconditions of intelligibility, such as logic, uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes.





2. Misrepresentation of Physicalism:

Your opponent clarifies that physicalism does not assert that everything is material, citing spacetime as physical but immaterial.

your ai just agreed with me idiot

• Response: Physicalism, broadly construed, holds that everything is either physical or supervenes on the physical. The presuppositional critique challenges physicalism’s ability to account for abstract entities like laws of logic, which are non-empirical, universal, and invariant. The contention is that within a physicalist framework, explaining the existence and applicability of such abstract entities remains problematic.

no problem found lmao. like i said is necessary for reality

3. Non-Physical Governance of Physical Reality:

Your opponent argues that non-physical entities can govern physical reality, using gravity as an example.


• Response: In physics, gravity is understood as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy, thus operating within the physical realm.

again your ai agreed with me

unchanging foundation (i.e., God), the universality and necessity of logical laws cannot be adequately explained.

it can easily lmao

4. Grounding of Logic in God:

Your opponent challenges the assertion that logic must be grounded in God, labeling it as an unsupported assertion.

the argument that god is necessary for logic is the assertion. i just showed that it isnt if logic in itself is necessary for reality so your whole argument falls flat

• Response: The presuppositionalist argument is that the laws of logic reflect the consistent and rational nature of God. Without such a grounding, the universality, immutability, and necessity of logical laws become inexplicable. This is not a mere assertion but a transcendental argument aiming to demonstrate that the very possibility of logic presupposes the existence of God.


5. Presuppositions and Theistic Arguments:

Your opponent states that presuppositions aren’t inherently theistic.


• Response: While presuppositions themselves are not inherently theistic, the presuppositionalist contends that certain fundamental presuppositions (e.g., the reliability of logic, the uniformity of nature) find their most coherent and consistent grounding within a

theistic,

false

specifically Christian,

false

worldview. The argument is that non-theistic worldviews lack the necessary preconditions to account for these presuppositions fully.

i just did

6. Allegations of Fallacies and Strawman Arguments:

Your opponent accuses the presuppositionalist of committing fallacies and attacking strawman positions.


• Response: It’s crucial to engage with the actual positions presented without misrepresentation. The presuppositionalist argument seeks to perform an internal critique of opposing worldviews, demonstrating that without the Christian God, such worldviews lead to epistemological inconsistencies or arbitrariness. If specific fallacies or misrepresentations have occurred, they should be identified and addressed directly to ensure a constructive dialogue.

ive shown the multiple fallacies youve committed, begging the question, false dilemma, self refuting (asserting that non physical things cannot govern physical things meanwhile they believe god is non physical yet governs physical things),

Conclusion:

The presuppositionalist approach argues that the preconditions for intelligibility, including the laws of logic, are grounded in the character and nature of the Christian God. Without this foundation, it contends that alternative worldviews cannot provide a coherent basis for these preconditions. Engaging with this argument requires examining whether non-theistic perspectives can indeed account for the universality, immutability, and necessity of logical laws without appealing to a transcendent source.

conclusion: you lost and now your embarassing yourself

There. A nice detailed explanation of everything saying but perfectly written out and articulated in a neutral way that YOU can understand YAY

youve officially embarassed yourself and nobody will ever taken you seriously again gpt man

 

[JasGews69x]

all i know is the biggest cause of conflict death and issues in history has been religion

Religion causes war
Who caused 2 world wars?
90% of wars have been caused due to non religious reasons
How many abortions happen each year due to secular ideologies? (feminism)

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

View attachment 3431669

i accept the concession now ill continue refuting even the ai. You shouldve used it from the start tbh

you thought physicalism and materialism is the same thing

self evident and circular reasoning isnt the same. the reasoning is grounded in itself. The impossibility of the contrary Ive shown over and over why analytical truths and logic must be accepted. Simply asserting its circular isnt a argument

your ai just agreed with me idiot

no problem found lmao reality like i said is necessary for reality

again your ai agreed with me

it can easily lmao

the argument that god is necessary for logic is the assertion. i just showed that it isnt if logic in itself is necessary for reality so your whole argument falls flat


false

false

i just did

ive shown the multiple fallacies youve committed, begging the question, false dilemma, self refuting (asserting that non physical things cannot govern physical things meanwhile they believe god is non physical yet governs physical things),

conclusion: you lost and now your embarassing yourself

youve officially embarassed yourself and nobody will ever taken you seriously again gpt man

I used it because you’re an imbecile. You never once engaged my point you failed on everything and just skirted around fillebustering like a retard. It’s late and honestly I have no desire nor interest in arguing with an illiterate retard who is so stupid his go to argument is “MUH SELF EVIDENT TRUTH”

Yeah your not WORTHY of my time and thus I treated you as the worm you are.

NEXT opponent bring it on I already broke this GAYthiest into a broken record and humiliated him to the view of everybody here


I commend you though didn’t think you’d reply back to it (I wouldn’t I sent it to troll you but you did reply back… wow)!

 

[pandamonium]

thats evolution

a evolutionary pathway and the process of evolution as a mechanism is two different things

If it comforts you

keep embarassing yourself

What is the scientific method?

Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

maybe if you stopped being a retard and actually read some books you would know

I want to use the scientific method to prove a scientific theory(fairytale)

yes something with dna and fossil evidence as well as has been observed in a lab multiple times is the fairytale and the magical book that some dude in the middle east claimed is from god is the truth

Accepted by the scientific community without using science?.

Are scientists your god?
Scientists m

that has to be hands down one of the most stupid arguments ive ever heard. even worse then @PrinceLuenLeoncur

Your denying your human nature of the knowledge of God (Justin barret study)

i know what study your referring to. the methodology was terrible, he asked leading questions, he had a very low sample size, and last of all shows how in no way the correlation is causation. also some of the kids said they believed in multiple gods so im confused why god would make them believe that lmao

Nice straw man. I never said we have the same dna. I said 'similar genes'

water doesnt determine genes or dna lmao u fucking idiot

None, I have no problem with Macroevolution.

ok so you just admitted defeat

Isnt that what you believe? That we came from a single cell which eventually turned into a human from?

mhm? but can u provide evidence that it isnt possible. you made a assertion

Nice ad hominem, you triggered?

lmao im playing csgo while 2v1ing you idiots your arguments are so terrible

Proof?

no proof needed. you said its impossible so i simply said the contrary. Hitchens razar

Is the vacuum conscious?

no?

Does it have a will? Does it have knowledge?

why the hell would it need one what are you even yapping about u idiot lmaooo

 

[pandamonium]

Religion causes war

https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/The-Main-Reasons-For-War#:~:text=1.,public%20as%20something%20more%20noble.

ranked #3

Who caused 2 world wars?

not atheism

90% of wars have been caused due to non religious reasons

where is your study for that. Also if fairy tales cause wars they shouldnt exist altogether

How many abortions happen each year due to secular ideologies? (feminism)

who cares stop jumping off topic lmao

 

[pandamonium]

I used it because you’re an imbecile. You never once engaged my point you failed on everything and just skirted around fillebustering like a retard. It’s late and honestly I have no desire nor interest in arguing with an illiterate retard who is so stupid his go to argument is “MUH SELF EVIDENT TRUTH”

Yeah your not WORTHY of my time and thus I treated you as the worm you are.

NEXT opponent bring it on I already broke this GAYthiest into a broken record and humiliated him to the view of everybody here


I commend you though didn’t think you’d reply back to it (I wouldn’t I sent it to troll you but you did reply back… wow)!

you are mad cause your argument is easilty refuted by 3 words.

logic is necessary

you have 3 options
a) show why logic cant be necessary
b) deny logic exists and refute your own argument
c) keep crying

im guessing your going to do c

 

[JasGews69x]

maybe if you stopped being a retard and actually read some books you would know

I was asking you your comprehension is abysmal

yes something with dna and fossil evidence as well as has been observed in a lab multiple times is the fairytale

yeah a cell coming from nothing then turned into a human has been observed

magical book that some dude in the middle east claimed is from god is the truth

Triggered?

that has to be hands down one of the most stupid arguments ive ever heard.

Ok so they are your gods?

i know what study your referring to. the methodology was terrible, he asked leading questions, he had a very low sample size, and last of all shows how in no way the correlation is causation. also some of the kids said they believed in multiple gods so im confused why god would make them believe that lmao

There are multiple studies not just that one

water doesnt determine genes or dna

I never said that, your reading skills are poor

u fucking idiot

triggered?

mhm? but can u provide evidence that it isnt possible. you made a assertion

RAHHHHH
Have you observed it? so much for evidence...

lmao im playing csgo while 2v1ing you idiots your arguments are so terrible

no proof needed. you said its impossible so i simply said the contrary

No proof needed

no?

How did it create conscious beings then? How did it order the universe?

why the hell would it need one what are you even yapping about

To will the universe into existence? Your intelligence is showing
If it doesnt have a will how can it do anything? Atheism in, brain out

Hitchens razar

It this alcoholic your god?

 

[JasGews69x]

not atheism

Secular reasons (That come from rejecting God)

who cares stop jumping off topic lmao

How is this offtopic. The guy said bloodshed
70 million abortions are not bloodshed

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

a evolutionary pathway and the process of evolution as a mechanism is two different things

keep embarassing yourself

Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

maybe if you stopped being a retard and actually read some books you would know

yes something with dna and fossil evidence as well as has been observed in a lab multiple times is the fairytale and the magical book that some dude in the middle east claimed is from god is the truth



that has to be hands down one of the most stupid arguments ive ever heard. even worse then @PrinceLuenLeoncur

i know what study your referring to. the methodology was terrible, he asked leading questions, he had a very low sample size, and last of all shows how in no way the correlation is causation. also some of the kids said they believed in multiple gods so im confused why god would make them believe that lmao

water doesnt determine genes or dna lmao u fucking idiot

ok so you just admitted defeat

mhm? but can u provide evidence that it isnt possible. you made a assertion

lmao im playing csgo while 2v1ing you idiots your arguments are so terrible

no proof needed. you said its impossible so i simply said the contrary. Hitchens razar

no?

why the hell would it need one what are you even yapping about u idiot lmaooo

Ffs…. I know I shouldn’t but I have to Bite this is my final response I swear and yes I decided to use my own voice this time to rape you finally. And no I won’t be reply back unless you give an account. When I wake up tomorrow I expect to see a good coherent response otherwise accept your worldview is incomplete and therefore useless

Not gonna read all that just for the love of Physicalism

How do you make an account for existence and the nature of the laws of logic, the Self, identity over time etc etc

How are you able to reconcile that these abstract non PHYSICAL entities exist? How can you link them to “Physical” processes?

The issue we have with the comparison of gravity is that gravity is not a FORCE in nature though, the reason why gravity is “physical” is because we measure and can observe it it’s literally the connectivity between masses dude, logic isn’t a force in the physical universe, nor can it be measured it is instead an non empirical laws that govern rationality

Your conflating the fact that both are intangible to imply the effects of their intangibility are form the same source which one again is PRESSUPOSING a favorite of yours as I said gravity is a physical force we both agree on that I never even despised that you actually think I disagreed with such statements kinda funny but yeah… I noticed you made a few weird strawmans against me, anyways logic doesn’t have ANY PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION IN ANY WAY AND IS ENTIRELY ABSTRACT BUT WE USE LOGIC EVEYDAY AND KNOW ITS REAL BUT YOUR PARADIGM CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW NON PHYSCIAL ABSTRSCR INVERIANT UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES EXIST WHISLT BEING REDUCTED TO PHYSICALISM OR WHATEVER FAGGOT SHIT YOU CALL YOURSELF


My paradigm ultimately places it under God as God’s my Axiom and precondition for Logic. How do you explain all of reality using Physicalism even mathematics will be lost on you


Also here’s an google of what Physicalism is in case your idiotic ass wants to cope that I got it wrong
The term "materialism" is sometimes to mean the same position as physicalism, but it's sometimes used to mean the view that everything that exists is matter, which isn't really something that our best physics would agree with.


FYI I DO NOT DENY LOGIC I JUST GROUND IT IN GOD, ITS THAT SIMPLE. YOUR WORLDVIEW CANNOT MAKE AN ACCOUNT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS ABSTRACT SET OF PRINCIPLES FOR IT ISNT PHYSCIAL AND YOU HAVE 0 WAY OF REDUCING IT TO A PHYSICAL PROCESS

you have 2 choices
1) cry and use another circular argument like a robot and if you do this I’ll ignore you forever
2) state it’s an human convention so I cuckhold you and destroy you

I’m nice so I’ll add this one
3)provide an justification (impossible but I’m nice ) so I can be mentally stimulated and take you srs

 

[IHATETOUHOU]

you wouldnt question or know about his existence if he "didnt exist"

 

[JasGews69x]

 

[JasGews69x]

@pandamonium
Anyway
I hope you find sincerity before you die and reflect why we are here

 

[pandamonium]

I was asking you your comprehension is abysmal

yeah a cell coming from nothing then turned into a human has been observed

Straw Man Fallacy

What is a straw man fallacy? Are you arguing against your opponent's point or against a position you've made up?

owl.excelsior.edu

Triggered?

bro your a joke to me LOL

Ok so they are your gods?

what bro?

There are multiple studies not just that one

show them and we can analyze them

I never said that, your reading skills are poor

nigga then what the fuck did "made from water" "made from the same material" have to do with the statement you dumb fuck

triggered?

i wish we could vc rn so i could show you im legit laughing at u lmao. i only insult people i dont take seriously

RAHHHHH
Have you observed it? so much for evidence...

i dont have to physically observe it to see the fossil and dna evidence

No proof needed

irrelevant yapping

How did it create conscious beings then?

evolution

How did it order the universe?

the universe being orderly is necessary in all possible worlds otherwise the world wouldnt exist

To will the universe into existence?

why the fuck would "will" cause something to exist you fucking retard nigga thinks reality bends to what someone wants this isnt dbz bro

Your intelligence is showing
If it doesnt have a will how can it do anything? Atheism in, brain out

computers dont have a will how can it tell me the answer to math problems. Rocks dont have a will they cant give u a place to sit. your keyboard doesnt have a will it cant be used to communicate with your pc.

low iq arguments nigger please stop debating

It this alcoholic your god?

you have to be trolling jfl

 

[noodlelover]

How do you make an account for existence and the nature of the laws of logic, the Self, identity over time etc etc

Some things exist without a cause.

Every one agrees on this, otherwise there would be no universe.

The only difference is, religious people insert extra complexity into their model of reality.

But a religious mind doesn't see the entity of their deity as complex, they see it as simple and outside the realm of logic and causality.

Which makes reasoning with a religious mind impossible; Their model of reality is not grounded. They've created a non-falsifiable belief in an entity, and protected that belief by saying that entity is outside of logic itself. That it can't be analyzed with the tools of mathematics and logic, the way we would analyze a mechanistic brain.

They fail to understand what intelligence is (a complex physical deterministic process) and therefore fail to use math as or logic to understand reality.

It's truly fascinating; They've created a belief structure that's insolated and protected itself from math and logic.

Various religions have been evolving, merging together, and dying off for thousands of years. What we have now is highly virulent and pervasive religions, with incredible defense mechanisms protecting themselves in their hosts.

These are viruses with no known cure that have already evolved defenses against all easily understandable scientific concepts. This is why religion is increasing world wide.

If there's one concept humans need to understand it's memetics, but the concept of memetic itself isn't virulent.

 

[pandamonium]

Ffs…. I know I shouldn’t but I have to Bite this is my final response I swear and yes I decided to use my own voice this time to rape you finally. And no I won’t be reply back unless you give an account. When I wake up tomorrow I expect to see a good coherent response otherwise accept your worldview is incomplete and therefore useless

you couldnt debunk my argument you tried using chat gpt.. realized it was trash now your spamming insults lmao

Not gonna read all that just for the love of Physicalism

How do you make an account for existence and the nature of the laws of logic, the Self, identity over time etc etc

in the same way you make a account for god. They are necessary for everything.

How are you able to reconcile that these abstract non PHYSICAL entities exist?

because their self evident you can demonstrate logic and the truth of it

How can you link them to “Physical” processes?

because everything in physical reality is ruled by logic

The issue we have with the comparison of gravity is that gravity is not a FORCE in nature though, the reason why gravity is “physical” is because we measure and can

observe it

we can observe logic everywhere in reality. We cant measure or observe god so you again just self refuted yourself

it’s literally the connectivity between masses dude, logic isn’t a force in the physical universe

i never said its a force its a attribute of everything in reality.

, nor can it be measured it is instead an non empirical laws that govern rationality

something doesnt have to be measured in order for it to exist physically lmao. we cant even measure dark gravity we can just look at the effects. we can look at the effects of logic. it causes everything to be coherent

Your conflating the fact that both are intangible to imply the effects of their intangibility are form the same source

never said this quit strawmanning

which one again is PRESSUPOSING

funny how pressupositional arguments can easily be refuted by pressupositions. maybe this is why you provide a actual argument instead of committing a circular argument in your first premise

a favorite of yours as I said gravity is a physical force we both agree on that I never even despised that you actually think I disagreed with such statements kinda funny but yeah… I noticed you made a few weird strawmans against me, anyways logic doesn’t have ANY PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION IN ANY WAY

doesnt have to. its the nature of everything in reality. nature doesnt have to be physical to have effects

AND IS ENTIRELY ABSTRACT

not really lmao

BUT WE USE LOGIC EVEYDAY AND KNOW ITS REAL

hence why its self evident

BUT YOUR PARADIGM CANNOT EXPLAIN

i have multiple times. its necessary

HOW NON PHYSCIAL ABSTRSCR INVERIANT UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES EXIST WHISLT BEING REDUCTED TO PHYSICALISM OR WHATEVER FAGGOT SHIT YOU CALL YOURSELF

my nigga please use grammarly. anyways i already did multiple times. If you cant show why logic cant be necessary then ive won and accounted for logic

My paradigm ultimately places it under God

god cannot be the justification for logic for multiple reasons

as God’s my Axiom

yes god is an axiom for the argument in which your trying to prove god. totally not circular

and precondition for Logic. How do you explain all of reality using Physicalism even mathematics will be lost on you

mathematics is a language dumbass nigga lmao

Also here’s an google of what Physicalism is in case your idiotic ass wants to cope that I got it wrong
The term "materialism" is sometimes to mean the same position as physicalism, but it's sometimes used to mean the view that everything that exists is matter, which isn't really something that our best physics would agree with.

ok you just got refuted dumbass nigga

FYI I DO NOT DENY LOGIC I JUST GROUND IT IN GOD,

it cant be grounded in god its self refuting

ITS THAT SIMPLE. YOUR WORLDVIEW CANNOT MAKE AN ACCOUNT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS ABSTRACT SET OF PRINCIPLES FOR IT ISNT PHYSCIAL AND YOU HAVE 0 WAY OF REDUCING IT TO A PHYSICAL PROCESS

i have over and over. its orderly and coherent logic is what structures everything therefore it is NECESSARY it doesnt need something to create it. Even if god existed he would need to abide by logic anyways so its necessary in both of our worldviews lmao

you have 2 choices
1) cry and use another circular argument like a robot and if you do this I’ll ignore you forever

havent used any circular arguments

2) state it’s an human convention so I cuckhold you and destroy you

lmao your arguments are so bad even if i was materialist id probably still destroy you

I’m nice so I’ll add this one
3)provide an justification (impossible but I’m nice ) so I can be mentally stimulated and take you srs

i already have. the same justification is the one u use for god

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Some things exist without a cause.

Every one agrees on this, otherwise there would be no universe.

The only difference is, religious people insert extra complexity into their model of reality.

But a religious mind doesn't see the entity of their deity as complex, they see it as simple and outside the realm of logic and causality.

Which makes reasoning with a religious mind impossible; Their model of reality is not grounded. They've created a non-falsifiable belief in an entity, and protected that belief by saying that entity is outside of logic itself. That it can't be analyzed with the tools of mathematics and logic, the way we would analyze a mechanistic brain.

They fail to understand what intelligence is (a complex physical deterministic process) and therefore fail to use math as or logic to understand reality.

It's truly fascinating; They've created a belief structure that's insolated and protected itself from math and logic.

Various religions have been evolving, merging together, and dying off for thousands of years. What we have now is highly virulent and pervasive religions, with incredible defense mechanisms protecting themselves in their hosts.

These are viruses with no known cure that have already evolved defenses against all easily understandable scientific concepts. This is why religion is increasing world wide.

If there's one concept humans need to understand it's memetics, but the concept of memetic itself isn't virulent.

Ironic you believe in self evident truths then go on to say “religious people make it too complex and it becomes impossible”

What’s stopping me from saying “God is self evident “

God exists therefore X. God is my axiom


I believe in god because of the impossibility of the contrary for all transcendentals ultimately need groundstion and that is GOD. Logic exists thefire GOD, logic is a reflection of the divine mind, god isn’t beholden to “logic” but god works in his own logical way antinomies (forgot the term but it’s spelt like this) as we humans cannot comprehend but it is logical for him.

Essentially logic is incumbent on god

I simply ask the GAYthiests to posit an coherent account for abstract invariant universal entities that exist and you lot never give me an answer

It’s cringe, philosophy is the kyrotonte of atheists. It’s ok though GAYthiests have no children and thus you guys are a dying breed

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

you couldnt debunk my argument you tried using chat gpt.. realized it was trash now your spamming insults lmao

in the same way you make a account for god. They are necessary for everything.

because their self evident you can demonstrate logic and the truth of it

because everything in physical reality is ruled by logic



we can observe logic everywhere in reality. We cant measure or observe god so you again just self refuted yourself

i never said its a force its a attribute of everything in reality.

something doesnt have to be measured in order for it to exist physically lmao. we cant even measure dark gravity we can just look at the effects. we can look at the effects of logic. it causes everything to be coherent

never said this quit strawmanning

funny how pressupositional arguments can easily be refuted by pressupositions. maybe this is why you provide a actual argument instead of committing a circular argument in your first premise

doesnt have to. its the nature of everything in reality. nature doesnt have to be physical to have effects

not really lmao

hence why its self evident

i have multiple times. its necessary

my nigga please use grammarly. anyways i already did multiple times. If you cant show why logic cant be necessary then ive won and accounted for logic

god cannot be the justification for logic for multiple reasons

yes god is an axiom for the argument in which your trying to prove god. totally not circular

mathematics is a language dumbass nigga lmao

ok you just got refuted dumbass nigga

it cant be grounded in god its self refuting

i have over and over. its orderly and coherent logic is what structures everything therefore it is NECESSARY it doesnt need something to create it. Even if god existed he would need to abide by logic anyways so its necessary in both of our worldviews lmao

havent used any circular arguments

lmao your arguments are so bad even if i was materialist id probably still destroy you

i already have. the same justification is the one u use for god

I’ll reply back tomorrow when I wake up if I even remember. You wrote far too much….



Your understanding off gods ontology is flawed here’s a video to clear that up. Also gods my AXIOM he’s my SELF EVIDENT TRUTH (too piss you off lol)

Ultimately every argument is recursive so yeah at its core my argument is circular but your argument is circular not due to this but due to you constantly not expanding how to account for abstract things that have no footprint in physicality in any way

Your dumbass equated gravity to logic because both are intangible

I mean dude are you fucking retarded I want you to debate Jay dyer so I can watch him RAPE you brutally

 

[JasGews69x]

Straw Man Fallacy

What is a straw man fallacy? Are you arguing against your opponent's point or against a position you've made up?

owl.excelsior.edu

bro your a joke to me LOL

what bro?

show them and we can analyze them

nigga then what the fuck did "made from water" "made from the same material" have to do with the statement you dumb fuck

i wish we could vc rn so i could show you im legit laughing at u lmao. i only insult people i dont take seriously

i dont have to physically observe it to see the fossil and dna evidence

irrelevant yapping

evolution

the universe being orderly is necessary in all possible worlds otherwise the world wouldnt exist

why the fuck would "will" cause something to exist you fucking retard nigga thinks reality bends to what someone wants this isnt dbz bro

computers dont have a will how can it tell me the answer to math problems. Rocks dont have a will they cant give u a place to sit. your keyboard doesnt have a will it cant be used to communicate with your pc.

low iq arguments nigger please stop debating

you have to be trolling jfl

Jokes on you
U cant even understand half the things I am saying
'nigga then what the fuck did "made from water" "made from the same material" have to do with the statement you dumb fuck'
I said just because we have similar dna doesn't mean we came from each other, all it means is that we came from the elements of earth. Its pretty simple

'i dont have to physically observe it to see the fossil and dna evidence'
so its based on blind faith?

'evolution'
so blind unconscious processes created rational conscious beings which came from an unconsious quantum vacuum

'the universe being orderly is necessary in all possible worlds otherwise the world wouldnt exist'
its still ordered

'why the fuck would "will" cause something to exist you fucking retard nigga thinks reality bends to what someone wants this isnt dbz bro'
are you not willing to type this reply?

'computers dont have a will how can it tell me the answer to math problems. Rocks dont have a will they cant give u a place to sit. your keyboard doesnt have a will it cant be used to communicate with your pc.' Computers were programmed by humans who have a will You're willing the rock to give you a seat by sitting on it

'low iq arguments nigger please stop debating'
You're struggling to understand basic things

 

[pandamonium]

Ironic you believe in self evident

everyone does. everyone makes pressupositions. however your pressuposition is incredibly stupid.

imagine we used this reasoning consistently back then
"instead of using science im going to pressupose lightning is caused by zeus and zeus is a necessary precondition for lightning". this is why people like you need to be educated so we dont devolve into autism

then go on to say “religious people make it too complex and it becomes impossible”

if something is self evident it shouldnt be complex. God is complex

What’s stopping me from saying “God is self evident “

god isnt self evident we have no way of observing or testing it. we can observe logic and test logic. in fact to test logic you have to use logic so it doesnt even need to be grounded

God exists therefore X. God is my axiom

Lmao your trolling at this point

I believe in god because of the impossibility of the contrary

there is a possibility of the contrary lmao. i just showed you

for all transcendentals ultimately need groundstion

ik and i just showed it

and that is GOD.

no

Logic exists thefire GOD,

no

logic is a reflection of the divine mind

no

, god isn’t beholden to “logic”

so he can make a rock he cant lift

but god works in his own logical way arcidentally (forgot the term but it’s spelt like this)

nigga is committing heresies trying to show why logic is grounded in god. please rewatch your jay dyer arguments

as we humans cannot comprehend

so you just self refuted yourself again. if logic is gods nature and we cant comprehend it then you have no ground for how you use logic

but it is logical for him.

no

Essentially logic is incumbent on god

no

I simply ask the GAYthiests to posit an coherent account for abstract invariant universal entities

not a entity

that exist and you lot never give me an answer

gave you it over and over now can you show why logic cant be necessary

It’s cringe, philosophy is the kyrotonte of atheists.

thats why most philosophers are atheist right?

It’s ok though GAYthiests have no children and thus you guys are a dying breed

lmao atheism is growing faster than religion

 

[pandamonium]

I’ll reply back tomorrow when I wake up if I even remember. You wrote far too much….



Your understanding off gods ontology is flawed

no it isnt hes a spaceless timeless immaterial being who warps reality with his thoughts for no real reason. the ultimate copout

here’s a video to clear that up.

i already watched multiple jay dyer videos his arguments are trash

Also gods my AXIOM he’s my SELF EVIDENT TRUTH (too piss you off lol)

your just embarassing yourself nigga

Ultimately every argument is recursive so yeah at its core my argument is circular

if its circular you are committing a circular argument fallacy nigga

but your argument is circular

it isnt lmao

not due to this but due to you constantly not expanding how to account for abstract things

logic isnt abstract my nigga its pretty fucking clear it is the nature of everything. two things cannot contradict

that have no footprint in physicality in any way

there are many. the law of non contradiction can be proven. basically every formal law of logic can lmao

Your dumbass equated gravity to logic because both are intangible

never did a full analogy

I mean dude are you fucking retarded I want you to debate Jay dyer so I can watch him RAPE you brutally

jay dyer is fucking trash nigga lmao. debating someone who has no intention of actually proving their beliefs but rather wants to question reality itself is pointless. it leads nowhere

 

[pandamonium]

Jokes on you
U cant even understand half the things I am saying
'nigga then what the fuck did "made from water" "made from the same material" have to do with the statement you dumb fuck'
I said just because we have similar dna doesn't mean we came from each other,

it does. If we have tailbone leftover from a monkey then it means
A) its a evolutionary remnant
B) Your god is a fucking idiot at designing

im going to go with A.

actually maybe both

all it means is that we came from the elements of earth.

no it doesnt lmao nigga are u fucking dumb

Its pretty simple

youve just proven your a retard

'i dont have to physically observe it to see the fossil and dna evidence'
so its based on blind faith?

no its based on evidence

'evolution'
so blind unconscious processes created rational conscious beings which came from an unconsious quantum vacuum

the last part of your statement was redundant nice try at sounding smart. also no it created unintelligent beings which evolved into intelligent ones

'the universe being orderly is necessary in all possible worlds otherwise the world wouldnt exist'
its still ordered

ok nigga?

'why the fuck would "will" cause something to exist you fucking retard nigga thinks reality bends to what someone wants this isnt dbz bro'
are you not willing to type this reply?

'computers dont have a will how can it tell me the answer to math problems. Rocks dont have a will they cant give u a place to sit. your keyboard doesnt have a will it cant be used to communicate with your pc.' Computers were programmed by humans who have a will You're willing the rock to give you a seat by sitting on it

two idiotic arguments im not even going to bother

'low iq arguments nigger please stop debating'
You're struggling to understand basic things

you thought us being from earth means we will have the same dna u dont even know the basics of dna

 

[pandamonium]

a

you wouldnt question or know about his existence if he "didnt exist"

You wouldnt question or know about rudolf the red nose reindeer if he didnt exist

You wouldnt question bigfoot if he didnt exist

You wouldnt question unicorns if they didn’t exist

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

no it isnt hes a spaceless timeless immaterial being who warps reality with his thoughts for no real reason. the ultimate copout

i already watched multiple jay dyer videos his arguments are trash

your just embarassing yourself nigga

if its circular you are committing a circular argument fallacy nigga

it isnt lmao

logic isnt abstract my nigga its pretty fucking clear it is the nature of everything. two things cannot contradict

there are many. the law of non contradiction can be proven. basically every formal law of logic can lmao

never did a full analogy

jay dyer is fucking trash nigga lmao. debating someone who has no intention of actually proving their beliefs but rather wants to question reality itself is pointless. it leads nowhere

You believe in the principles of logic and yet your worldview cannot make an account for them. Your dumbass doesn’t realise I acknowledge they are real I’m the one who can justirfy it

I’m asking you HOW can you justirfy it, make an account for it I’m not asking for how you acquire knowledge I’m asking you how do you know the knolwdge is true

Seeing as you don’t like to take my word for it ima cuck hold you one more time

JFL turns out maths and logic principles are abstract

Fuck it’s over time to pack up and call it quits you lost you tried but you lost. Good try though

All you have done is tell me what it is, but not why it is and how you know it to be the case

This is the reason why you cannot win. You cannot win this your worldview stunts you. Anyways go debate jay dyer he’ll rape you, I love GAYthiests who hate Jay dyer but yet refuse to debate him out of fear knowing he will crush your belifs

 

[Thebuffdon]

deism
noun

belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
is this nigga retarded lmao if you create everything and your a supreme being your a deity?
if your deist you believe in either a god or multiple gods
just admit youve embarassed yourself
you absolute fucking retard leave the thread

I am so embarrassed that your apologetics capability is that of a 5 year old

A deity is a supreme being who doesn’t intervene in the universe

A god is a supreme being who does intervene

I debunked you in 2 seconds and showed you how much of a fucking pathetic lunatic you are

Now you will still cope pretending like their is a difference to save your ass from being embarrassed like the bitch you are lol

Admit their is obviously a difference fucking dog

 

[Thebuffdon]

You’re officially brain dead. Your not worth me arguing with you, ima just use AI for this last comment GOOD BYE because your seriously retarded you don’t even know what Physicalist means your own fucking belief system


Anyways

1. Self-Evidence and Circular Reasoning:

Your opponent asserts that the laws of logic are self-evident and accuses the presuppositionalist argument of circular reasoning without demonstration.


• Response: Presuppositional apologetics posits that the intelligibility of logic presupposes the existence of the Christian God. This is not a mere assertion but an argument that without the grounding provided by God, the universality and immutability of logical laws lack a sufficient foundation. The claim is that alternative worldviews, including atheistic or physicalist perspectives, cannot coherently account for the preconditions of intelligibility, such as logic, uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes.





2. Misrepresentation of Physicalism:

Your opponent clarifies that physicalism does not assert that everything is material, citing spacetime as physical but immaterial.


• Response: Physicalism, broadly construed, holds that everything is either physical or supervenes on the physical. The presuppositional critique challenges physicalism’s ability to account for abstract entities like laws of logic, which are non-empirical, universal, and invariant. The contention is that within a physicalist framework, explaining the existence and applicability of such abstract entities remains problematic.





3. Non-Physical Governance of Physical Reality:

Your opponent argues that non-physical entities can govern physical reality, using gravity as an example.


• Response: In physics, gravity is understood as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy, thus operating within the physical realm. The presuppositional argument focuses on the necessity of a metaphysical grounding for the laws of logic, asserting that without an absolute, unchanging foundation (i.e., God), the universality and necessity of logical laws cannot be adequately explained.

4. Grounding of Logic in God:

Your opponent challenges the assertion that logic must be grounded in God, labeling it as an unsupported assertion.


• Response: The presuppositionalist argument is that the laws of logic reflect the consistent and rational nature of God. Without such a grounding, the universality, immutability, and necessity of logical laws become inexplicable. This is not a mere assertion but a transcendental argument aiming to demonstrate that the very possibility of logic presupposes the existence of God.


5. Presuppositions and Theistic Arguments:

Your opponent states that presuppositions aren’t inherently theistic.


• Response: While presuppositions themselves are not inherently theistic, the presuppositionalist contends that certain fundamental presuppositions (e.g., the reliability of logic, the uniformity of nature) find their most coherent and consistent grounding within a theistic, specifically Christian, worldview. The argument is that non-theistic worldviews lack the necessary preconditions to account for these presuppositions fully.


6. Allegations of Fallacies and Strawman Arguments:

Your opponent accuses the presuppositionalist of committing fallacies and attacking strawman positions.


• Response: It’s crucial to engage with the actual positions presented without misrepresentation. The presuppositionalist argument seeks to perform an internal critique of opposing worldviews, demonstrating that without the Christian God, such worldviews lead to epistemological inconsistencies or arbitrariness. If specific fallacies or misrepresentations have occurred, they should be identified and addressed directly to ensure a constructive dialogue.


Conclusion:

The presuppositionalist approach argues that the preconditions for intelligibility, including the laws of logic, are grounded in the character and nature of the Christian God. Without this foundation, it contends that alternative worldviews cannot provide a coherent basis for these preconditions. Engaging with this argument requires examining whether non-theistic perspectives can indeed account for the universality, immutability, and necessity of logical laws without appealing to a transcendent source.





There. A nice detailed explanation of everything saying but perfectly written out and articulated in a neutral way that YOU can understand YAY

That guy is actually brain dead genuinely I think

I caught him in a loophole and he tried to squirm out of it and just strawman the argument I was making lol just to prove his gatheist beliefs

Fucking pathetic weasel

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

That guy is actually brain dead genuinely I think

I caught him in a loophole and he tried to squirm out of it and just strawman the argument I was making lol just to prove his gatheist beliefs

Fucking pathetic weasel

He is a fallacy machine and he strawmans everybody’s point

This retard said I’m using circular logic using god as the precondition when I made it clear gods the Axiom by which logic and all Transcendentals derive from

He says this isn’t fair and I cannot use god as an axiom when by definition the Christian god is an axiom . He however is fine using Logic as an Axiom for his belief but as I told him that makes no sense because logic is an abstract principle that has no reality in the physical it’s “Transcendental” for a reason that’s why the gist I was making was that his worldview is incomplete and he has the SAME EXACT issue as the Natrualist and Materialist.

How do they account for these things and how can they justify them coming from a physical process? He proceeds to do the worst thing ever and compares Logic and Mathmatics to “Gravity” an FORCE not a transcendental the idiot goes on to not answer. But say “RETARD MATHS IS A LANGUAGE “ completely blowing past the point, maths is a language but its ABSTRACT as it’s a self contained system and if he calls mathematics a language he now has the problem of WHO CREATED AND INVENTED THE LANGUAGE it wasn’t humans btw as it isn’t even tangible but we know it intersects into reality and is a core fundamental building block for the physical realm despite mathmatics being independent of the physical world.


He could had googled these things to not look dumb but instead he wanted to look cool and now he has made a fool of himself in front of the entire form GAYthiests are the quickest to demand proof from a Thiest but they happily grant their position based on no justification and predispose that everybody else must hold to their worldview


The most arrogant obnoxious people, he hates Jay dyer calls him retarded but won’t debate him because Jay dyer cuckholds every GAYthiests position and leave them like abused sour grapes dogs

 

[noodlelover]

Ironic you believe in self evident truths then go on to say “religious people make it too complex and it becomes impossible”

What’s stopping me from saying “God is self evident “

Because you don't understand what a brain is, or thought is. Thought is a process that requires physics and causality along the dimension of time.

What you think of as god can not exist outside of time or causality. It couldn't have created it, because it can't even exist outside it.

God exists therefore X. God is my axiom


I believe in god because of the impossibility of the contrary for all transcendentals ultimately need groundstion and that is GOD. Logic exists thefire GOD, logic is a reflection of the divine mind, god isn’t beholden to “logic” but god works in his own logical way antinomies (forgot the term but it’s spelt like this) as we humans cannot comprehend but it is logical for him.

This is what I'm talking about when I say religions have evolved defenses against logic itself.

Logic is applying patterns we see in the world. It can exist only inside of brains. It is an emergent phenomenon. Logic is a physical process that requires time and causality inside of a brain.

Essentially logic is incumbent on god

I simply ask the GAYthiests to posit an coherent account for abstract invariant universal entities that exist and you lot never give me an answer

Not knowing is an acceptable answer.

When you understand the complexity of the brain, you know how extraordinarily unlikely that it was the thing that just happen to exist with no cause.

Imagine I said, before the universe there was a tree. Out of the tree sprouted the universe. Does that not seem unlikely to you? Or could you rationalize that as well? A brain is even more complex than a tree.

It’s cringe, philosophy is the kyrotonte of atheists. It’s ok though GAYthiests have no children and thus you guys are a dying breed

Philosophy always lags behind science.

Philosophy is the process of trying to get more out of what we already know, including science. You can't ignore hundreds of years of science in your philosophy.

You're not seeing that you have a set of beliefs, that makes your belief immune to all of the tools of logic that we've developed. These could have eqally protected any belief. A family of giant space crabs created the universe and logic, and math, and physics, and time. You can't use logic to consider the probability that space crabs existed for no reason at all, the space crab family themselves created logic.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Because you don't understand what a brain is, or thought is. Thought is a process that requires physics and causality along the dimension of time.

What you think of as god can not exist outside of time or causality. It couldn't have created it, because it can't even exist outside it.


This is what I'm talking about when I say religions have evolved defenses against logic itself.

Logic is applying patterns we see in the world. It can exist only inside of brains. It is an emergent phenomenon. Logic is a physical process that requires time and causality inside of a brain.


Not knowing is an acceptable answer.

When you understand the complexity of the brain, you know how extraordinarily unlikely that it was the thing that just happen to exist with no cause.

Imagine I said, before the universe there was a tree. Out of the tree sprouted the universe. Does that not seem unlikely to you? Or could you rationalize that as well? A brain is even more complex than a tree.


Philosophy always lags behind science.

Philosophy is the process of trying to get more out of what we already know, including science. You can't ignore hundreds of years of science in your philosophy.

You're not seeing that you have a set of beliefs, that makes your belief immune to all of the tools of logic that we've developed. These could have eqally protected any belief. A family of giant space crabs created the universe and logic, and math, and physics, and time. You can't use logic to consider the probability that space crabs existed for no reason at all, the space crab family themselves created logic.

lol everything you said is a contradiction and riddled with assumptions about reality that you YOURSELF admitted you cannot justify making them ILLOGICAL. Your making metaphysical claims about causality, metaphysics, logic and time yet if your a materialist in all their stupid forms YOU CANNOT ACCOUNT for any of this as you have proposed no foundation for these beliefs in the first place more GAYthiests brain rot

Why are you guys so fucking Retarded

Your now saying logic is an accident of the brain (emergent property) like some Matt Dillafaggotry or Alex the Coward O Conner GAYthiests apologist. If logic is a product of the brain then it’s contingent and susceptible to change and there not universal and invariant because everybody has different Brian chemical structure due to Neurons in the brain. On what basis do you assert the universality of necessity of logic? You even sitting here debating me assumes that LOGIC has invariant properties which apply to everywhere at all places and at all times not just a minor evolutionary Contingent quirk of the human brain

Now to invoke mathmatics and patterns whilst ignoring that numbers, sets and Laws of logic aren’t physical shows your not educated on this topic I suggest using google to educate yourself on this topic instead of embarrassing yourself even further. To help you I’ll give an example because I’m NICE, so you see the number 2? Yeah that’s abstract you can’t actually locate it measure it or empirically evidence it existing but we can deduce it exists but just not in our reality physically. My paradigm has an answer for this as it’s an COMPLETE COHERENT AND LOGICAL paradigm whilst yours is ILLOGICAL, INCOHERENT AND INCOMPLETE.

And who is to say god cannot exist outside of space time? Space and time are created things they are contingent even scientists admit there was a beginning of both space and time, so yes god exists outside of them, simply making baseless assertions won’t gain you any points here

I ask you if space and time had a beginning what caused it to begin no don’t use a circular argument and go “It just is “ or “causality caused causality” that’s not a justification just begging the question as causality didn’t exist before time.

God in the Christian paradigm is uncaused and he is the font of all existence. I have a axiom and an justification, you have nothing but bullshit assertions


The human brain is great sure it’s complex but that in now way explains how the brain could produce invariant abstract universal and immaterial principles that ground the foundation of reality

Once again like the faggot OP saying “It’s an accident of the brain” that doednt answer the question and your just hand waving away the metaphysical question of WHY they exist, WHY they are necessary and universal. And to use evolution doesn’t solve this kiddo your just pushing the question back a step skirting around the question.

You crab analogy is a prime example of an “Category error” you ignore epistemology, the argument is that a metaphysical necessary being exists grounded ultimately in Reason and coherency. If you want to argue for space crabs you’ll first have to demonstrate that they possess omnipotence snd the immutability to ground transcendental categories such as logic etc until you do this your doing mr strawman episode 10




Philosophy doesn’t lag behind science, the two work in conjugation to explain the world. Science presupposes philosophy even the definition of science requires there to be identity over time to study phenomena which is philosophical. Infect science is built upon epistemic and metaphysical grounds relying upon philosophy you can’t do “science” without assuming uniformity of nature, induction and causality which are all philosophical in nature .

So I’m asking to JUSTIFY it and the answer is GOD but your framework as I said is incoherent and incomplete so you don’t have an answer which makes me ask again “why ought I to believe in physicalist/materialist/natralist framework when it cannot clearly make an account for reality whilst remaining consistent”

TLDR: your retort fails miserably and embarrassingly so because you posit the existence of things your framework cannot account for things that literally shouldn’t exist if your paradigm was true, such as universal invariant abstract principles that undergird mathmatics and logic. My paradigm in god is logical and coherent because I ground. Them in the divine mind of the Christian God (Islamic and Judaic god make no sense either).

So your stupid belief relies upon borrowing from theistic frameworks to justify things such as ethics when it suits you whilst materialism has no way of explaining these things instead leaving them as a “Mystery”


@Thebuffdon @Bl0odKn1ght @JasGews69x I told you I’d take both these retards down like the dumbasses they are

 

[noodlelover]

@PrinceLuenLeoncur

The posts will keep expanding unless I narrow it down to my core argument.

We know what intelligence is.

Intelligence is a physical process that requires causality and spatial dimensions that occurs along the dimension of time.

You can't have intelligence that exists outside of causality or physics because it is a physical process.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

@PrinceLuenLeoncur

The posts will keep expanding unless I narrow it down to my core argument.

We know what intelligence is.

Intelligence is a physical process that requires causality and spatial dimensions that occurs along the dimension of time.

You can't have intelligence that exists outside of causality or physics because it is a physical process.

Why are you presupposing your paradigm? There is no “WE” only YOU for its your paradigm in question here not mine as your statement is an unproven assertion so PROVE IT TO ME I won’t just grant you your paradigm you GAYtheists always do this shit it’s infuriating

Just because humans DO things doesn’t mean it is GROUNDED in physicality. Abstract reasoning exists, you realise that’s the whole subject of this right? So if it interacts with that then intellect cannot just be purely physical now can it duhhh

Intellect is infact tied to conciousness something your worldview cannot explain. Intentionality cucks you even further the Aboutness of thoughts doesn’t and cannot be reasoned in an material paradigm, we can think about things like me destroying you in this debate but the brain state itself isn’t INTRINSICALLY physically about ANYTHING. So there’s more to intelligence than meets the eye clearly

How does a physical process such as the brain generate immaterial qualities? For example self awareness and intentionality.

Anyways speaking about the “self” how do you reconcile that under your paradigm free will breaks down? I mean your claims are just the result of blind deterministic physical processes which undermines reason which means they are not rational but are focused on chemistry not logic In any way

So your conclusion cannot be considered an rational statement because it’s irrational, if all thoughts can be reduced to physical processes why are you even trusting the reasoning which led you to this conclusion in the first place when the human brain wasn’t designed for the truth but for survival.

I respect you for trying but your working with a losing deck here you literally cannot win due to the limitations of your paradigm

 

[IHATETOUHOU]

You wouldnt question or know about rudolf the red nose reindeer if he didnt exist

You wouldnt question bigfoot if he didnt exist

You wouldnt question unicorns if they didn’t exist

Stop answering with fallacy thats your problem when i read all your argument on this thread

now try again

 

[Bl0odKn1ght]

Why are you presupposing your paradigm? There is no “WE” only YOU for its your paradigm in question here not mine as your statement is an unproven assertion so PROVE IT TO ME I won’t just grant you your paradigm you GAYtheists always do this shit it’s infuriating

Just because humans DO things doesn’t mean it is GROUNDED in physicality. Abstract reasoning exists, you realise that’s the whole subject of this right? So if it interacts with that then intellect cannot just be purely physical now can it duhhh

Intellect is infact tied to conciousness something your worldview cannot explain. Intentionality cucks you even further the Aboutness of thoughts doesn’t and cannot be reasoned in an material paradigm, we can think about things like me destroying you in this debate but the brain state itself isn’t INTRINSICALLY physically about ANYTHING. So there’s more to intelligence than meets the eye clearly

How does a physical process such as the brain generate immaterial qualities? For example self awareness and intentionality.

Anyways speaking about the “self” how do you reconcile that under your paradigm free will breaks down? I mean your claims are just the result of blind deterministic physical processes which undermines reason which means they are not rational but are focused on chemistry not logic In any way

So your conclusion cannot be considered an rational statement because it’s irrational, if all thoughts can be reduced to physical processes why are you even trusting the reasoning which led you to this conclusion in the first place when the human brain wasn’t designed for the truth but for survival.

I respect you for trying but your working with a losing deck here you literally cannot win due to the limitations of your paradigm

Mirin high iq

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Stop answering with fallacy thats your problem when i read all your argument on this thread

now try again

I already destroyed them don’t need to reply to any of them I spanked their GAYthiests asses

 

[HighLtn]

Why should i believe in god/your religion?
Provide arguments or sources dont send me how islam helped you with drug addiction

Shut up
Christ is lord. Christ ist king

 

[noodlelover]

I understand religion better. All of your questions illuminate it.

What it is, is a gaps in understanding. It can be cured by studying the domain of learning algorithms (how thinking works).

Why are you presupposing your paradigm? There is no “WE” only YOU for its your paradigm in question here not mine as your statement is an unproven assertion so PROVE IT TO ME I won’t just grant you your paradigm you GAYtheists always do this shit it’s infuriating

Just because humans DO things doesn’t mean it is GROUNDED in physicality. Abstract reasoning exists, you realise that’s the whole subject of this right? So if it interacts with that then intellect cannot just be purely physical now can it duhhh

What you're calling "intellect" is the brain.

We are purely physical.

Intellect is infact tied to conciousness something your worldview cannot explain.

Consciousness is easily explainable.

Consciousness is the brain.

Intentionality cucks you even further the Aboutness of thoughts doesn’t and cannot be reasoned in an material paradigm, we can think about things like me destroying you in this debate but the brain state itself isn’t INTRINSICALLY physically about ANYTHING. So there’s more to intelligence than meets the eye clearly

What do you mean when you say "aboutness" of thoughts?

How does a physical process such as the brain generate immaterial qualities? For example self awareness

The brain has a model of reality. That model includes the brain itself (self awareness).

and intentionality.

The brain has goals.

The brain has areas that distribute rewards in the form of chemicals, to other areas of the brain. These rewards signals trigger a causal cascade through the brain in the form of neuro-transmitters. This cascade changes the structure of the brain.

I recommend you read a few books on cognitive architectures for general intelligence. At least read Theoretical Foundations of Artificial General Intelligence by Ben Gortzel.

As much as I want to compress down all of human understanding on intelligence, it can only be compressed so far. And compressing it down into one book is already starting to loose some granularity to it.

Anyways speaking about the “self” how do you reconcile that under your paradigm free will breaks down? I mean your claims are just the result of blind deterministic physical processes which undermines reason which means they are not rational but are focused on chemistry not logic In any way

Logic and rationality are emergent phenomenons in the brain.

Though, unfortunately they don't always emerge, or in your case an evolving viral belief of a religion incased itself in it's evolved defense mechanisms against these other emergent phenomenon's which would otherwise disable the religious belief.

So your conclusion cannot be considered an rational statement because it’s irrational, if all thoughts can be reduced to physical processes why are you even trusting the reasoning which led you to this conclusion in the first place when the human brain wasn’t designed for the truth but for survival.

Religious people have more children. Religion is what our brain evolved for.

Not believing in a god is only possible when you absorb a sufficient quantity of human's current scientific understanding of the world.

Science is a process by which we better understand the world, that has not evolved to maximize human reproduction. It is the process of seeking truth.

I respect you for trying but your working with a losing deck here you literally cannot win due to the limitations of your paradigm

I understand that I can not cure you of your religious beliefs.

Those beliefs have evolved far too many defenses against logic, reason, science, and all of human understanding. But as some one who is fascinated by virally infected minds, I am triggering you into expressing those mimetically evolved defense mechanisms as best as you can.

It's akin to studying a virus that has infected a human under a microscope that has evolved defenses to every known cure. It's interesting, and understanding the behavior of these viruses allows me to better behave as if I am infected, which furthers my goals.

 

[JasGews69x]

it does. If we have tailbone leftover from a monkey then it means
A) its a evolutionary remnant

Did you witness a human with a monkey tail? If not this is just a massive assumption.

Although they have no knowledge ˹in support˺ of this. They follow nothing but ˹inherited˺ assumptions. And surely assumptions can in no way replace the truth. 53:28

B) Your god is a fucking idiot at designing

no need to be emotional

I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me.- 51:56

We were created to worship Allah. We are fit for the purpose we were created for. I hope you get over the God trauma and find sincerity before death comes to you

no it doesnt lmao nigga are u fucking dumb

triggered?

no its based on evidence

'evidence'
meanwhile 1000+ phd scientists have problems with all parts of this theory

the last part of your statement was redundant nice try at sounding smart.
also no it created unintelligent beings which evolved into intelligent ones

nothing to say?
So it created intelligent beings? Non intelligence->Intelligence.
So we are smarter than our creator?

two idiotic arguments im not even going to bother

'And so the disbeliever was dumbstruck'- 2:258
"In fact, they reject the truth when it has come to them, so they are in a confused state." 50:5

you thought us being from earth means we will have the same dna u dont even know the basics of dna

I never claimed that though...
May Allah guide you

 

[pandamonium]

I am so embarrassed that your apologetics capability is that of a 5 year old

A deity is a supreme being who doesn’t intervene in the universe

1. God : the supreme or ultimate reality
you are a fucking retard please discontinue from the discussion before you further embarass yourself

A god is a supreme being who does intervene

false. thats only true in classical theism

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
   
   
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
   "a moon god"
   
   
   again please disengage from the argument you have no clue what your fucking talking about or where you get your philosophical definitions

I debunked you in 2 seconds

what did you debunk?

and showed you how much of a fucking pathetic lunatic you are

all you are doing is spamming ad hominem show any statement that you've "debunked"

Now you will still cope pretending like their is a difference to save your ass from being embarrassed like the bitch you are lol

Admit their is obviously a difference fucking dog

not responding to low iq ramblings. make a argument

 

[pandamonium]

That guy is actually brain dead genuinely I think

I caught him in a loophole and he tried to squirm out of it and just strawman the argument I was making lol just to prove his gatheist beliefs

Fucking pathetic weasel

you didnt catch anything you dont even know what the basic concept of god is. the term god doesnt have to refer to classical theism

 

[pandamonium]

He is a fallacy machine and he strawmans everybody’s point

no your points are just stupid im repeating every single one you say

This retard said I’m using circular logic using god as the precondition

yes because your premise 1 relies on your conclusion. Its begging the question fallacy

when I made it clear gods the Axiom

you cant use a axiom that you are trying to prove exists. that is circular reasoning lmao

by which logic and all Transcendentals derive from

logic cannot derive from god. nor have you shown why it would necessarily have to even in my world view

He says this isn’t fair

no i have no problem use whatever argument you want. its trash anyways

and I cannot use god as an axiom

yes because a argument for god cannot use god as a axiom it would defeat the purpose...

when by definition the Christian god is an axiom .

no god himself isnt a axiom its a proposition your using in your argument. You cant define what your trying to argue for into existence thats not how predication works and axioms are propositions accepted by both parties

He however is fine using Logic as an Axiom

yes because its self evident. Your argument relies on logic so therefore logic is either necessary or your argument is self refuting

for his belief but as I told him that makes no sense

not understanding it ≠ doesn't make sense

because logic is an abstract principle

no it isnt

that has no reality

it does

in the physical

yes logic is attributed to everything in existence

it’s “Transcendental”

no

for a reason

youve provided no actual reasoning

that’s why the gist I was making was that his worldview is incomplete

its not

and he has the SAME EXACT issue as the Natrualist and Materialist.

it doesnt. I dont even have to be physicalist to refute your trash arguments. It proves nothing to begin with

How do they account for these things

they are necessary

and how can they justify them coming from a physical process?

they dont come from any physical process

He proceeds to do the worst thing ever

tell you how i explain the existence of logic? i just said its necessary over and over

and compares Logic and Mathmatics to “Gravity”

yes it wasnt an exact analogy. it was a response to your claim that non material things cant govern material things

an FORCE not a transcendental

neither of them are

the idiot goes on to not answer.

more ad hominems cause youve ran out of arguments

But say “RETARD MATHS IS A LANGUAGE “

yeah it is

completely blowing past the point,

youve made no points

maths is a language but its ABSTRACT

no it isnt its pretty straightforward

as it’s a self contained system

what??

and if he calls mathematics a language he now has the problem of WHO CREATED AND INVENTED THE LANGUAGE

this isnt a problem. nobody created it

it wasn’t humans

never said it was

btw as it isn’t even tangible but we know it intersects into reality

math is part of reality

and is a core fundamental building block for the physical realm

math doesnt "build anything" what are you talking about. it is just values

despite mathmatics being independent of the physical world.

the language/our understanding of math is dependent of the physical world. math itself or the principles of values isnt

He could had googled these things

no need to

to not look dumb

you used chat gpt cause you got refuted

but instead he wanted to look cool and now he has made a fool of himself

how. literally none of your arguments are good

in front of the entire form GAYthiests are the quickest to demand proof from a Thiest

and youve shown none. all youve done is attempt some failed sophistry

but they happily grant their position based on no justification

i have justified everything

and predispose that everybody else must hold to their worldview

you dont have to. thats the point of the thread im asking for reasons i should accept yours

The most arrogant obnoxious people,

youve been repeating the same arguments that i keep giving answers to and you wont address the answers you are just running around the straightforward ones and insisting i didnt answer

he hates Jay dyer

no i just think his arguments are stupid

calls him retarded

no hes smart but he could use better arguments like the fine tuning

but won’t debate him

why do i have to debate him to refute his arguments?

because Jay dyer cuckholds every GAYthiests position

he couldnt even get passed apostate prophet who doesnt even study philosophy

and leave them like abused sour grapes dogs

random ad hom. make a argument

 

[pandamonium]

Stop answering with fallacy thats your problem when i read all your argument on this thread

now try again

point out the fallacy. making up random fallacies to avoid addressing the rebuttal is a fallacy

 

[pandamonium]

Shut up
Christ is lord. Christ ist king

and we know this how

 

[pandamonium]

Did you witness a human with a monkey tail?

no tailbones arent actually tails u retard but if thats your specific question. yes we have

Human Tail: A Benign Condition Hidden Out of Social Stigma and Shame in Young Adult – A Case Report and Review - PMC

A human tail is a rare congenital anomaly which mostly presents immediately after birth or in early childhood. Here, we are presenting a case of 17-year-old male who presented with 18-cm long tail, which was hidden till this age because of social ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

look up vestigial tails

If not this is just a massive assumption.

no we know humans have tailbones. Which are remnants of tails and we know they arent essential for everyday function

Although they have no knowledge ˹in support˺ of this. They follow nothing but ˹inherited˺ assumptions.

science isnt assumptions. religion is

And surely assumptions can in no way replace the truth. 53:28

religion is assumptions

no need to be emotional

I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me.- 51:56

We were created to worship Allah. We are fit for the purpose we were created for. I hope you get over the God trauma and find sincerity before death comes to you

triggered?

random yap

'evidence'
meanwhile 1000+ phd scientists have problems with all parts of this theory

name me one scientist

nothing to say?

no im only responding to actual arguments

So it created intelligent beings? Non intelligence->Intelligence.

yes

So we are smarter than our creator?

there is no creator if u mean personal but if your talking about the origin we dont actually know what the origin is but if its natural then to compare smartness is a categorical error

'And so the disbeliever was dumbstruck'- 2:258
"In fact, they reject the truth when it has come to them, so they are in a confused state." 50:5

I never claimed that though...
May Allah guide you

not responding to the rest no arguments found

 

[Thebuffdon]

1. God : the supreme or ultimate reality
you are a fucking retard please discontinue from the discussion before you further embarass yourself

false. thats only true in classical theism

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
   
   
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
   "a moon god"
   
   
   again please disengage from the argument you have no clue what your fucking talking about or where you get your philosophical definitions

what did you debunk?

all you are doing is spamming ad hominem show any statement that you've "debunked"

not responding to low iq ramblings. make a argument

Arguing with you is like banging my head against a brick wall

You stupid fucking prick stop trying to sound intelligent by bringing up irrelevant arguments to prove your intellect which have nothing to do with the conversation.

Anyone with half a brain could tell I am referring to classical theism when I mention god. Yes I know there are other types of god. The fact you couldn’t even decipher that shows that your iq is below 50 genuinely.

You are extremely stupid

 

[IHATETOUHOU]

point out the fallacy. making up random fallacies to avoid addressing the rebuttal is a fallacy

if you really want me to do so when you know its true ill gadly to it

Its the "Argument from Incredulity"

and if you want me to answer to your none sense question it very dumb

Your comparing something thats has littearl proof of existing with proof that has been studied and much more to some random tale made for children

 

[pandamonium]

Arguing with you is like banging my head against a brick wall

You stupid fucking prick stop trying to sound intelligent by bringing up irrelevant arguments to prove your intellect which have nothing to do with the conversation.

Anyone with half a brain could tell I am referring to classical theism when I mention god. Yes I know there are other types of god. The fact you couldn’t even decipher that shows that your iq is below 50 genuinely.

You are extremely stupid

U embarassed yourself now your backtracking

 

[pandamonium]

if you really want me to do so when you know its true ill gadly to it

Its the "Argument from Incredulity"

and if you want me to answer to your none sense question it very dumb

Your comparing something thats has littearl proof of existing with proof that has been studied and much more to some random tale made for children

Thats not a argument from incredulity. Giving u another example that is equivalent to your standard is showing you that if you apply that same logic it wouldnt work and lead u to having to accept basically everything that could possibly exist (santa, bigfoot, golems, witches, etc) thus nullifying your argument to absurdity unless you apply the same standard consistently