There is not a single % of nothingness after death

Wheres the proof that god showed himself
Thousand of people were witnesses. In a court u need 2 witnesses but Jesus had thousands. Even if you lived in his time I bet u would be the one who doesn't believe in him. It's because you don't have the holy spirit. You're damned to go to hell
 
  • Woah
Reactions: Deleted member 32486
you’ll be greeted by reptilians and other demonic entities disguising themselves as deceased loved ones, spirit guides, Jesus, angels, god, and other bullshit designed to decieve you into reincarnation.
What happens if u see through their lies?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Sprinkles
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God”
 
  • +1
  • Woah
Reactions: standardcel, Deleted member 32486, Deleted member 18582 and 1 other person
If an a-logical (i.e. "spiritual") position is only accessible through logic, then it is not a-logical at all but simply logic masquerading as such, so your claim is contradictory.
I don't see what you mean, too high IQ or soemthing. You either feel God or you don't. My Grandpa always says there's a spiritual war going on, science says you're a demon.
 
What happens if u see through their lies?
You erase them and exist as a powerful godlike eternal spirit that can never die and make its own reality

you literally do this every time you go to bed at night, but they control you and have you dumbed down so you can’t awake to your power

they need you to survive

the matrix was a documentary not a movie
 
  • JFL
  • Woah
Reactions: Deleted member 25534, Deleted member 20399 and Deleted member 32486
Jesus is the proof. He's god
Jesus was a man

The existence of a man does not prove that God exists

this argument falls flat

I don't see what you mean, too high IQ or soemthing. You either feel God or you don't. My Grandpa always says there's a spiritual war going on, science says you're a demon.
Your Grandpa is OK.

Christian faith does not hinge on carbon-dating and logic. It is faith.
The faith does not. But the objective existence of God does.
 
Jesus was a man

The existence of a man does not prove that God exists

this argument falls flat


Your Grandpa is OK.


The faith does not. But the objective existence of God does.
U didn't read what I wrote. Stop talking to me if ur an ignorant

God showed himself people still didn't believe it. The true shape of Jesus is invisible he's a spirit thats why he had to become human so people can see him

now fuck off and see you in hell if u don't repent
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 18582
U didn't read what I wrote. Stop talking to me if ur an ignorant

God showed himself people still didn't believe it. The true shape of Jesus is invisible he's a spirit thats why he had to become human so people can see him

now fuck off and see you in hell if u don't repent
I read what you wrote. You're the one who didn't read what I wrote. Do not quote and respond to posts if you are just going to say nothing. If you do it again, I'll be blocking you and reporting you for spam. This is your final warning.

Did you know he clubbed a litter of cats to death in Ukraine and drowned kittens with his friends in rural Nebraska.
Yes. I just learned that right now.
 
  • Woah
Reactions: Deleted member 32486
There's no way you can logically prove God's existance. He must be found spiritually. That being said I am not religious in the slightest.
what does "finding something spiritually" even mean? You mean throwing out the tools we use to assess truth and reality and going with your guts and feelings, which again begins with the assumption that there is in fact a god before any investigation? Why is "spiritually" a reliable path to truth?
 
  • +1
Reactions: PMF1
Thousand of people were witnesses. In a court u need 2 witnesses but Jesus had thousands. Even if you lived in his time I bet u would be the one who doesn't believe in him. It's because you don't have the holy spirit. You're damned to go to hell
Where is the proof that thousands of people were witnesses? You do realize that what you have is claims of claims? Not even claims, you cant talk to the people that made the claims directly neither did the writers of the bible, so those are claims of claims. Care to explain in what possible world this is a reliable path to determining the truth of the matter? I'll wait and watch you miserably fail.
 
Where is the proof that thousands of people were witnesses? You do realize that what you have is claims of claims? Not even claims, you cant talk to the people that made the claims directly neither did the writers of the bible, so those are claims of claims. Care to explain in what possible world this is a reliable path to determining the truth of the matter? I'll wait and watch you miserably fail.
Read about the first Christian communities. They were so many that the jews started killing them and they started to forbid christianity
 
It isn't, but it's the path to God. There's no point in arguing with those who're religious.
You havent shown there is a "path" in the first place and that it's reliable, empty assertions aren't arguments. But keep believing they are if it helps in some way.
 
You havent shown there is a "path" in the first place and that it's reliable, empty assertions aren't arguments. But keep believing they are if it helps in some way.
Idk what you mean but you're the billionth person to try to argue God isn't real and chances are you'll convince no one.
 
Read about the first Christian communities. They were so many that the jews started killing them and they started to forbid christianity
How THE FUCK does this answer anything related to what I said you absolute drooling baboon?? Your response to the problem of "the eye witnesses of the ressurection is just a claim" is stacking more claims on top of it, and about something completely separate and different? My god, I'm convinced that christians are dumber than flat earthers. At least the latter have a well elaborate rhetoric that can convince the lay people.
 
Last edited:
  • JFL
Reactions: Deleted member 32486
Idk what you mean but you're the billionth person to try to argue God isn't real and chances are you'll convince no one.
A disembodied omnipresent consciousness that reads the thoughts of all people in the world at the same time is prima facie absurd and should be disregarded on grounds of being prima facie absurd and inconsistent with reality as we know it. I'll reconsider my position when someone demonstrates the mechanisms that allows for the existence of such an absurd thing, as far as I know it's something that sounds like a concept straight out of science fiction.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 32486
A disembodied omnipresent consciousness that reads the thoughts of all people in the world at the same time is prima facie absurd and should be disregarded on grounds of being prima facie absurd and inconsistent with reality as we know it. I'll reconsider my position when someone demonstrates the mechanisms that allows for the existence of such an absurd thing, as far as I know it's something that sounds like a concept straight out of science fiction.
Idk why you're saying this, I don't expect you to believe in God, I'm an athiest aswell.
 
How THE FUCK does this answer anything related to what I said you absolute drooling baboon?? Your response to the problem of "the eye witnesses of the ressurection is just a claim" is stacking more claims on top of it, and about something completely separate and different? My god, I'm convinced that christians are dumber than flat earthers. At least the former have a well elaborate rhetoric that can convince the lay people.
Cope more retard

The first witnesses became Christians and builded communities
 
  • Woah
Reactions: Deleted member 32486
Cope more retard

The first witnesses became Christians and builded communities
You also have muslim communities that were convinced of the claims of islam. Care to explain how your methodology is worthy of consideration when it can lead to contradictory belief systems? I'll wait and watch you miserably fail again. You still haven't shown that there were in fact any witnesses of some magical unprecedented event, you're only appealing to claims of claims.
 
You also have muslim communities that were convinced of the claims of islam. Care to explain how your methodology is worthy of consideration when it can lead to contradictory belief systems? I'll wait and watch you miserably fail again. You still haven't shown that there were in fact any witnesses of some magical unprecedented event, you're only appealing to claims of claims.
It's because Satan created Islam. They got demonic miracles
 
u ar low iq and subhuman to believe or not to believe in God
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Deleted member 23239
nobody knows

i hate when people say there is no afterlife or there 100% is one. NOBODY KNOWS. not even the most clever people in the world will ever find out.. its just smth our small brains can not comprehend.
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Deleted member 23239
So there can indeed be nothing
No. Something not existing is different than nothing existing. It's like saying "What about that time you were on Mars?" There was no time I was on Mars. Does that mean that a state of nothing existed in place of that time I was on Mars?

It's like before the big bang. There was no before the big bang. That doesn't mean there was nothing before it, in the sense that it was some sort of state.
 
Last edited:
No. Something not existing is different than nothing existing. It's like saying "What about that time you were on Mars?" There was no time I was on Mars. Does that mean that a state of nothing existed in place of that time I was on Mars?

It's like before the big bang. There was no before the big bang. That doesn't mean there was nothing before it, in the sense that it was some sort of state.
I obviously meant subjectively, your body will still exist after death but your state of mind will revert back to nothing obviously
 
I obviously meant subjectively,
I don't know what you're referring to.

your body will still exist after death but your state of mind will revert back to nothing obviously

Yeah, but this doesn't actually refer to anything. From my perspective I will always exist, just like I always have existed. In other words, from my perspective, there will never be a time I don't exist. "Revert back to nothingness" is just a rhetorical convention. It doesn't actually mean anything. And the fact that I don't exist from some other perspective doesn't matter because I never existed from that perspective in the first place.

Do I think any of this makes sense? No, I don't.
 
What do you mean it "doesn't mean anything"
I mean it doesn't refer to anything. It doesn't point to anything, just like "that time I was on Mars" doesn't point to anything.

Being dead will be exactly like that time I was on Mars. Do you agree?
 
I mean it doesn't refer to anything. It doesn't point to anything, just like "that time I was on Mars" doesn't point to anything.

Being dead will be exactly like that time I was on Mars. Do you agree?
It refers to smth if you are to dumb to grasp what I mean your own fault.
 
Nice cope op
 
You are just overcomplicating things for no reason.
The problem applies even to those who claim not to believe in an afterlife. As philosopher and Center for Naturalism founder Thomas W. Clark wrote in a 1994 article for the Humanist (emphases mine):


Here ... is the view at issue: When we die, what’s next is nothing; death is an abyss, a black hole, the end of experience; it is eternal nothingness, the permanent extinction of being. And here, in a nutshell, is the error contained in that view: It is to reify nothingness—make it a positive condition or quality (for example, of “blackness”)—and then to place the individual in it after death, so that we somehow fall into nothingness, to remain there eternally.



Consider the rather startling fact that you will never know you have died. You may feel yourself slipping away, but it isn’t as though there will be a “you” around who is capable of ascertaining that, once all is said and done, it has actually happened. Just to remind you, you need a working cerebral cortex to harbor propositional knowledge of any sort, including the fact that you’ve died—and once you’ve died your brain is about as phenomenally generative as a head of lettuce. In a 2007 article published in the journal Synthese, University of Arizona philosopher Shaun Nichols puts it this way: “When I try to imagine my own non-existence I have to imagine that I perceive or know about my non-existence. No wonder there’s an obstacle!”


This observation may not sound like a major revelation to you, but I bet you’ve never considered what it actually means, which is that your own mortality is unfalsifiable from the first-person perspective. This obstacle is why writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe allegedly remarked that “everyone carries the proof of his own immortality within himself.”
 
Only cause you can't imagine it doesn'T mean it can't exist. And I actually can imagine it but I guess it depends how you define imagine, atleast i can grasp it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top