Why atheism is cope | full debunk of atheism.

fk732

fk732

Silver
Joined
Mar 26, 2025
Posts
519
Reputation
352
Im gonna show you why being an atheist is going against logic, and reason. And why every ' smart ' atheist that try to explain it with - logic and reason, will end up facing a wall.

definitions | contingent : A contingent being is one whose existence is not necessary; it exists but could have not existed. Its essence (what it is) is distinct from its existence (that it is).
necessary : A necessary being is one that must exist by its own nature; its essence and existence are identical. It cannot not exist.




Logics proves God :
God is what we call ' self sufficient ', or necessary. In him everything is hold unto existence in any instant. Wether its physical or spiritual its grounded in God. this allow us to be able to use reason and logic, for both of those things can only exist in a God.
Without God, the universe is just a set of contingent, purely material, and in the physical realm theres no logic nor reason, why? well its not something you can localise, its not in your brain, its not anywhere physically, logical absolute exist universaly indepandently from us.
is 1+1 equal to 3? no its 2. this is called the law of non contradiction ¬(A ∧ ¬A) : In plain terms: something cannot be true and false, in the same way and in the same moment. Do you agree with the law of non contradiction ( wich is a logical absolute ) ? yes -> continue reading
no -> if you say " its false " your assuming your statement is non con
contradictory in order for it to make any sense, self debunked.​
the Transcendental argument.
  1. Logic, reason, and moral absolutes exist.
  2. These are immaterial, universal, invariant, and necessary realities.
  3. Such realities cannot arise from matter, motion, or chance.
  4. Therefore, their existence requires a transcendent, rational source.
  5. This source must be personal, rational, and self-existent. God.
  6. The denial of God presupposes God, because using logic requires the very framework only He grounds.
  7. Therefore, without God, logic, reason, and truth are impossible.
Conclusion, atheism is illogical and irrational.​


Reason proves God :
One of the smartest man to ever live, saint Thomas aquinas gave us 5ways to know God using only reason, and we saw before that reason itself presupose God so literraly we dont even need those 5 ways but still great to have.

The Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas :

1. The Argument from Motion (The Unmoved Mover)

  • Observation: Everything in motion is moved by something else.
  • Problem: If every mover is moved by another, there would be an infinite regress.
  • Conclusion: There must be a first, unmoved mover that initiates all motion.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause (The First Cause)

  • Observation: Everything that exists has a cause.
  • Problem: A chain of causes cannot extend infinitely backward.
  • Conclusion: There must be a first, uncaused cause that brings everything else into existence.

3. The Argument from Contingency (The Necessary Being)

  • Observation: Many things in the universe are contingent (they could exist or not exist).
  • Problem: If everything were contingent, at some point nothing would have existed.
  • Conclusion: There must exist a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on anything else.

4. The Argument from Degree (Gradation of Perfection)

  • Observation: Things in the world exist in varying degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc.
  • Problem: Degrees imply the existence of a maximum by which all others are measured.
  • Conclusion: There must exist a being that possesses all perfections to the fullest degree.

5. The Teleological Argument (The Argument from Design / Final Cause)

  • Observation: Non-intelligent things act toward ends and achieve results that are orderly.
  • Problem: Non-intelligent things cannot direct themselves.
  • Conclusion: There must exist an intelligent being that directs all things toward their purpose.



Final conclusion,
Atheism ultimately undermines the very tools it relies on to argue for itself. To deny God is to deny the foundation of existence, the ground of reason, and the source of truth. Logic, morality, and meaning cannot exist as universal, binding realities without a necessary, intelligent being to sustain them. Yet every atheist argument presupposes these things: it uses reason to claim that reason itself has no ultimate basis. Without God, thought becomes arbitrary, truth becomes subjective, and the universe becomes a meaningless flux. To reject the divine is to step outside the framework that makes rational discourse, knowledge, and understanding possible. atheism is self-defeating: it cannot justify itself without appealing to what it denies.
 

Attachments

  • Capture tag.PNG
    Capture tag.PNG
    169.8 KB · Views: 0
  • +1
  • Love it
  • Ugh..
Reactions: Quncho, JasGews69x, PrinceLuenLeoncur and 9 others
1762637035755
 
  • +1
Reactions: liberated, JAYCELL, PSLbbc and 5 others
ignore the pic attached i tried to find the argument on an apologetic website but i didnt like the formulation
 
so now I can invoke gods name to rape some children
 
  • +1
Reactions: Mike456, PSLbbc, 3pider and 3 others
4th one was always very dubious to me despite believing in God. I really don't think it's a solid argument, the rest work tho.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: EmperorVon
maywa denki robot GIF
 
  • +1
Reactions: Corleone, Mike456, PSLbbc and 2 others
The 5 arguments by Aquinas were debunked shown in video below


 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: 3pider, DravidianBvll, EmperorVon and 2 others
he can suck my dick.
 
  • +1
Reactions: PSLbbc and EmperorVon
:feelsuhh:

Brother saw 3 tiktoks
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Mike456, PSLbbc, Minuskul and 4 others
the most obvious argument is: non-existence does not exist, so it's impossible for god to not exist. It's ontological
 
  • +1
Reactions: fk732, SilvioMoltisantiDan and InanimatePragmatist
btw we need to tag atheists and debate them
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Klasik616 and NinjaRG9
the most obvious argument is: non-existence does not exist, so it's impossible for god to not exist. It's ontological
the modal ontological argument is so good and never debunked too
 
  • +1
Reactions: theRetard
The 5 arguments by Aquinas were debunked shown in video below



shitty video made by iqlet and im aware of the critics against the 5 ways now debunk the modal ontological argument for God
 
It’s crazy how I actually Dnr tf outta this and religion is still fake to me
 
  • +1
Reactions: PSLbbc and DravidianBvll
Mines above average tho, I just don’t feel like wasting my time

You’d actually be low iq if you think a thread on an incel forum can change the way someone has believed their whole life
 
Mines above average tho, I just don’t feel like wasting my time

You’d actually be low iq if you think a thread on an incel forum can change the way someone has believed their whole life
im not having discussion about my superior iq. and i know how it works i was an atheist myself, God can reach you by any means
 
  • JFL
Reactions: brotato78
Im gonna show you why being an atheist is going against logic, and reason. And why every ' smart ' atheist that try to explain it with - logic and reason, will end up facing a wall.

definitions | contingent : A contingent being is one whose existence is not necessary; it exists but could have not existed. Its essence (what it is) is distinct from its existence (that it is).
necessary : A necessary being is one that must exist by its own nature; its essence and existence are identical. It cannot not exist.




Logics proves God :

God is what we call ' self sufficient ', or necessary. In him everything is hold unto existence in any instant. Wether its physical or spiritual its grounded in God. this allow us to be able to use reason and logic, for both of those things can only exist in a God.

Without God, the universe is just a set of contingent, purely material, and in the physical realm theres no logic nor reason, why? well its not something you can localise, its not in your brain, its not anywhere physically, logical absolute exist universaly indepandently from us.


is 1+1 equal to 3? no its 2. this is called the law of non contradiction ¬(A ∧ ¬A) : In plain terms: something cannot be true and false, in the same way and in the same moment. Do you agree with the law of non contradiction ( wich is a logical absolute ) ? yes -> continue reading

no -> if you say " its false " your assuming your statement is non con

contradictory in order for it to make any sense, self debunked.​


the Transcendental argument.

  1. Logic, reason, and moral absolutes exist.
  2. These are immaterial, universal, invariant, and necessary realities.
  3. Such realities cannot arise from matter, motion, or chance.
  4. Therefore, their existence requires a transcendent, rational source.
  5. This source must be personal, rational, and self-existent. God.
  6. The denial of God presupposes God, because using logic requires the very framework only He grounds.
  7. Therefore, without God, logic, reason, and truth are impossible.
Conclusion, atheism is illogical and irrational.​


Reason proves God :
One of the smartest man to ever live, saint Thomas aquinas gave us 5ways to know God using only reason, and we saw before that reason itself presupose God so literraly we dont even need those 5 ways but still great to have.

The Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas :

1. The Argument from Motion (The Unmoved Mover)

  • Observation: Everything in motion is moved by something else.
  • Problem: If every mover is moved by another, there would be an infinite regress.
  • Conclusion: There must be a first, unmoved mover that initiates all motion.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause (The First Cause)

  • Observation: Everything that exists has a cause.
  • Problem: A chain of causes cannot extend infinitely backward.
  • Conclusion: There must be a first, uncaused cause that brings everything else into existence.

3. The Argument from Contingency (The Necessary Being)

  • Observation: Many things in the universe are contingent (they could exist or not exist).
  • Problem: If everything were contingent, at some point nothing would have existed.
  • Conclusion: There must exist a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on anything else.

4. The Argument from Degree (Gradation of Perfection)

  • Observation: Things in the world exist in varying degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc.
  • Problem: Degrees imply the existence of a maximum by which all others are measured.
  • Conclusion: There must exist a being that possesses all perfections to the fullest degree.

5. The Teleological Argument (The Argument from Design / Final Cause)

  • Observation: Non-intelligent things act toward ends and achieve results that are orderly.
  • Problem: Non-intelligent things cannot direct themselves.
  • Conclusion: There must exist an intelligent being that directs all things toward their purpose.



Final conclusion,
Atheism ultimately undermines the very tools it relies on to argue for itself. To deny God is to deny the foundation of existence, the ground of reason, and the source of truth. Logic, morality, and meaning cannot exist as universal, binding realities without a necessary, intelligent being to sustain them. Yet every atheist argument presupposes these things: it uses reason to claim that reason itself has no ultimate basis. Without God, thought becomes arbitrary, truth becomes subjective, and the universe becomes a meaningless flux. To reject the divine is to step outside the framework that makes rational discourse, knowledge, and understanding possible. atheism is self-defeating: it cannot justify itself without appealing to what it denies.
this looks like AI
 
  • +1
Reactions: EmperorVon
not an atheist but how is god self sufficient yet demands constant praise and worship? does this not indicate he has a sense of want or need?

why were humans even created in the first place? people usually say it was to worship him but that’s missing the point. it does not tell us why creation was needed in the first place. it only tells us what humans are expected to do after they were created. it dodges the real question. what motivated the act of creation to begin with? why create anything at all, if the only goal was worship?

self sufficient means zero need. no desire. no deficiency. nothing missing. so how can such a being desire praise, worship, recognition, or obedience? The moment god is said to want worship, he is no longer self-sufficient. the moment he commands it, the illusion of perfection breaks. a truly perfect being does not crave affirmation. it does not seek validation from angels, humans, or even stars and atoms
 
  • +1
Reactions: EmperorVon
The Argument from Efficient Cause seems so retarded on every level
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: rotation, EmperorVon and theRetard
Logic doesn’t need a god: Logic is a system of rules about statements like grammar, that works because it’s coherent, not because a supernatural mind enforces it.
The transcendental move begs the question: Saying “you can’t use reason unless God exists” assumes the thing it’s trying to prove.
Abstract truths don’t automatically mean a personal deity: Math or moral facts can be brute truths, shared conventions, or products of rational minds without requiring a divine being.
Morality can be objective without God: Facts about suffering, flourishing, and reasons we give one another can ground moral claims just fine.
Aquinases arguments suggest possibilities, they don’t prove classical theism: First causes, motion, and design are hints, not airtight deductions that force a specific God.
“God explains everything” just shifts the mystery: If God is the ultimate answer, we still need to explain why God has the needed properties, so it’s not a tidy stopgap.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Klasik616
DNRD but here's what chatgpt says:

1. The key premise is question-begging.

The entire argument hinges on:
“It is possible that a maximally great being exists.”
But that’s not a neutral premise.
It already assumes the coherence and possibility of such a being — i.e., that nothing about the concept of God is contradictory.
If that being is even possibly impossible (i.e., logically incoherent), then the argument collapses.
  • Compare: “It’s possible that a maximally great island exists.”
    By the same logic, that island must exist.
    But the reasoning clearly fails because “maximally great island” is incoherent.
So the modal argument sneaks in what it needs to prove.


2. Symmetry: the “Anti-God” Argument.


The structure works both ways.
You can just as easily claim:
  1. It is possible that a maximally evil being exists.
  2. If it’s possible, then it exists in some world.
  3. If it exists in some world, it exists in all worlds.
  4. Therefore, a maximally evil being exists.
That’s logically parallel. The fact that both conclusions can’t be true shows the argument form is unsound unless you can justify the specific possibility premise.

3. The “possibility” claim is not epistemically justified.


Plantinga says it’s possible that a maximally great being exists, meaning it’s not contradictory.
But critics point out: modal logic can’t show that possibility just by stipulation — you have to demonstrate conceptual coherence.

For instance:
  • Omnipotence + omniscience + moral perfection may conflict.
  • Necessary existence may be incoherent (since existence may not be a property).
  • “Maximal greatness” may not even be a well-defined concept (compare with “maximally fast” or “maximally beautiful”).
So the supposed “possibility” is just asserted, not shown.

4. S5 logic doesn’t guarantee metaphysical truth.


The argument relies on a specific modal logic system (S5), where:

If something is possibly necessary, it is necessary.

But that’s a formal rule — not a metaphysical fact.
Even if the logic is valid within S5, that doesn’t mean reality conforms to S5 modal principles.

Some philosophers reject S5 as too strong for metaphysical modality.

5. Existence is not a perfection (Kant’s critique).


Although Plantinga uses modal logic, the structure still inherits a key weakness from Anselm’s original argument — treating existence as a great-making property.

Kant’s point:

Existence doesn’t add to a concept’s greatness; it just says the concept is instantiated.

So “maximally great existing being” doesn’t describe a greater being than “maximally great possible being.” It just changes whether the concept has a referent.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Klasik616 and EmperorVon
the most obvious argument is: non-existence does not exist, so it's impossible for god to not exist. It's ontological
That’s wordplay, not logic, “non-existence does not exist” just restates a tautology and doesn’t prove that any particular thing, like God, actually exists.
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: DravidianBvll and theRetard
ur retarded
 
  • +1
Reactions: rotation, DravidianBvll and EmperorVon
not an atheist but how is god self sufficient yet demands constant praise and worship? does this not indicate he has a sense of want or need?

why were humans even created in the first place? people usually say it was to worship him but that’s missing the point. it does not tell us why creation was needed in the first place. it only tells us what humans are expected to do after they were created. it dodges the real question. what motivated the act of creation to begin with? why create anything at all, if the only goal was worship?

self sufficient means zero need. no desire. no deficiency. nothing missing. so how can such a being desire praise, worship, recognition, or obedience? The moment god is said to want worship, he is no longer self-sufficient. the moment he commands it, the illusion of perfection breaks. a truly perfect being does not crave affirmation. it does not seek validation from angels, humans, or even stars and atoms
your actually very smart brother appreciate the question. You are right God has no need to create anything this is the definition of self sufficiency, so why did he create anything at all, well God is pure act also, wich mean there was no reflexion or hesitation behind it. out of love we exist because yes we could not have existed, its a gift. and god doesnt need our worship but its naturally that we should worship him the very one who hold us into existence every instant god doesnt crave anything too
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shrek2OnDvD
That’s wordplay, not logic, “non-existence does not exist” just restates a tautology and doesn’t prove that any particular thing, like God, actually exists.
>muh non-existence DOES exist

sure bro
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: fk732 and EmperorVon
not an atheist but how is god self sufficient yet demands constant praise and worship? does this not indicate he has a sense of want or need?

why were humans even created in the first place? people usually say it was to worship him but that’s missing the point. it does not tell us why creation was needed in the first place. it only tells us what humans are expected to do after they were created. it dodges the real question. what motivated the act of creation to begin with? why create anything at all, if the only goal was worship?

self sufficient means zero need. no desire. no deficiency. nothing missing. so how can such a being desire praise, worship, recognition, or obedience? The moment god is said to want worship, he is no longer self-sufficient. the moment he commands it, the illusion of perfection breaks. a truly perfect being does not crave affirmation. it does not seek validation from angels, humans, or even stars and atoms
Exactly but they don’t get this. Their god is a flawed limited being who made creation for entertainment not a benevolent being.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Shrek2OnDvD
Logic doesn’t need a god: Logic is a system of rules about statements — like grammar — that works because it’s coherent, not because a supernatural mind enforces it.
The transcendental move begs the question: Saying “you can’t use reason unless God exists” assumes the thing it’s trying to prove.
Abstract truths don’t automatically mean a personal deity: Math or moral facts can be brute truths, shared conventions, or products of rational minds without requiring a divine being.
Morality can be objective without God: Facts about suffering, flourishing, and reasons we give one another can ground moral claims just fine.
Aquinases arguments suggest possibilities, they don’t prove classical theism: First causes, motion, and design are hints, not airtight deductions that force a specific God.
“God explains everything” just shifts the mystery: If God is the ultimate answer, we still need to explain why God has the needed properties — so it’s not a tidy stopgap.
nice chat gpt prompt bro fckn retard
 
  • JFL
Reactions: EmperorVon
debunk me
your whole argument is retarded and has been silenced plenty of times idk why you bothered posting this
 
  • +1
Reactions: rotation and EmperorVon
>muh non-existence DOES exist

sure bro
we can think about or refer to non-existence without it actually existing, just like we can talk about unicorns without creating one. you’re confusing categories.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: theRetard
nice chat gpt prompt bro fckn retard
That’s coming from you JFL which literally reads straight out of GPT without even a double check, mine isn’t ChatGPT, I created quick short debunks for your retarded argument.
 
This description makes it sound as if everything must have a cause

But if we assume thats true we run into several problems


1. If everything were caused then your will would also be caused and that would completely undermine the central point of the Bible and of morality since your will wouldnt be free but predetermined

2. The idea that everything must have a cause isn’t provable

In quantum events things might happen randomly or perhaps they are predetermined in a way we simply dont understand yet

But even if we did know every cause why couldn’t the chain of events stretch infinitely into the past and future?

Just because we humans cant truly grasp or imagine infinity doesnt mean it couldnt be real

There might have been something before the Big Bang, and something before that, and so on.

3.And even if there were a beginning, the first uncaused cause doesnt necessarily point to God.

It could be something or someone beyond our understanding, something that created that first uncaused cause. But that doesn’t mean it has to give us meaning, morality, or purpose

Just because we cant accept that something could happen in other dimensions where something or someone could bring about an uncaused cause doesnt mean its abnormal there or that it automatically guarantees us truth, meaning, or anything else

@fk732 This is for your second argument
 
Last edited:
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: theRetard and EmperorVon
your whole argument is retarded and has been silenced plenty of times idk why you bothered posting this
It’s his brain on cuckstianity, they can’t think properly,
IMG 2613
 
  • +1
Reactions: swt

Users who are viewing this thread

  • nico_6967
Back
Top