Why atheism is cope | full debunk of atheism.

[fk732]

stop provocking me when im going to sleep you fag

 

[Klasik616]

The existence of God is a question not regarding reality but logic and the possibilities of logic being able to prove existence *which is impossible because they are different things*. A simple example of this is: "non existence doesn't exist" when you say this you are wrong because you are not talking about a being but a logical inconsistency, that means is true logically but that doesn't prove how all beings that can be named exist because their existence don't depend on logic but human senses. "Concepts without intuitions are blind" -Kant. This is the reason any debate on God will be meaningless cus he is not a being we can see and study like all the other beings in the world, is not something related to science in the current form. God can only be proved metaphysically, he is not among us but CAN exist. Scientists have nothing to say about God.

 

[fk732]

The existence of God is a question not regarding reality but logic and the possibilities of logic being able to prove existence *which is impossible because they are different things*. A simple example of this is: "non existence doesn't exist" when you say this you are wrong because you are not talking about a being but a logical inconsistency, that means is true logically but that doesn't prove how all beings that can be named exist because their existence don't depend on logic but human senses. "Concepts without intuitions are blind" -Kant. This is the reason any debate on God will be meaningless cus he is not a being we can see and study like all the other beings in the world, is not something related to science in the current form. God can only be proved metaphysically, he is not among us.

Smart fella right here take notes

 

[fk732]

The existence of God is a question not regarding reality but logic and the possibilities of logic being able to prove existence *which is impossible because they are different things*. A simple example of this is: "non existence doesn't exist" when you say this you are wrong because you are not talking about a being but a logical inconsistency, that means is true logically but that doesn't prove how all beings that can be named exist because their existence don't depend on logic but human senses. "Concepts without intuitions are blind" -Kant. This is the reason any debate on God will be meaningless cus he is not a being we can see and study like all the other beings in the world, is not something related to science in the current form. God can only be proved metaphysically, he is not among us.

What is your religion btw? Just theist or what

 

[Klasik616]

What is your religion btw? Just theist or what

I think theist is a belief not a religion. I don't have a religion because religion requires more than belief, it requires living through your beliefs with others, all civilizations of the old age had religions for a reason. I have ideologies but no religion. You don't need "reason" to be religious, you don't need logical proof of God to be christian. This discussion is a matter of philosophy, old civilizations never needed a proof to believe.

 

[fk732]

I think theist is a belief not a religion. I don't have a religion because religion requires more than belief, it requires living through your beliefs with others, all civilizations of the old age had religions for a reason. I have ideologies but no religion. You don't need "reason" to be religious, you don't need logical proof of God to be christian.

Yeah I understand your point of view i meant to separate religion and theism in my question didn’t made it clear sorry

 

[Knid]

The 5 arguments by Aquinas were debunked shown in video below

1. "These arguments do not establish a particular God"

Aquinas does not aim to prove the Christian God with these arguments. The argument is successful in proving what it intends to, Aquinas then uses other arguments to explain the necessary characteristics of this mover.

2. "His arguments do not rule out polytheism."

They actually do. This first mover cannot be movers, because God must be simple. This mover being composed of parts would imply that it is dependent on these parts for its existence, in which case he couldn't be the first cause.

3. "His arguments dont prove sentience"
He never claimed to reach that conclusion in his 5 ways. Other parts of the Summa aim to prove it.

4. "It might be an egg, or a turtle, or a big block of stone."
No, because those are material, contingent things. Read my response to 2, same principle applies.

5."He was wrong to insist that there cant be an inf regress"
No he wasn't. Its incoherent and every atheist will bend over backwards to prove otherwise, like proving that infinities can be manipulated in math without contradiction. (has no implications for the metaphysical possibility of an actual infinity)

6. "His arguments are self-defeating. Aquinas is special pleading; if everything needs a cause, so does God."
Aquinas never claimed that everything needs a cause. It's more like "if something began to exist, it needs a cause." God never began to exist.

 

[fk732]

1. "These arguments do not establish a particular God"

Aquinas does not aim to prove the Christian God with these arguments. The argument is successful in proving what it intends to, Aquinas then uses other arguments to explain the necessary characteristics of this mover.

2. "His arguments do not rule out polytheism."

They actually do. This first mover cannot be movers, because God must be simple. This mover being composed of parts would imply that it is dependent on these parts for its existence, in which case he couldn't be the first cause.

3. "His arguments dont prove sentience"
He never claimed to reach that conclusion in his 5 ways. Other parts of the Summa aim to prove it.

4. "It might be an egg, or a turtle, or a big block of stone."
No, because those are material, contingent things. Read my response to 2, same principle applies.

5."He was wrong to insist that there cant be an inf regress"
No he wasn't. Its incoherent and every atheist will bend over backwards to prove otherwise, like proving that infinities can be manipulated in math without contradiction. (has no implications for the metaphysical possibility of an actual infinity)

6. "His arguments are self-defeating. Aquinas is special pleading; if everything needs a cause, so does God."
Aquinas never claimed that everything needs a cause. It's more like "if something began to exist, it needs a cause." God never began to exist.

Great answer mate and yeah 6 is so dumb the law of causality is so simple yet atheist love to distort it to make retarded claims like the one in the vid

 

[fk732]

I think theist is a belief not a religion. I don't have a religion because religion requires more than belief, it requires living through your beliefs with others, all civilizations of the old age had religions for a reason. I have ideologies but no religion. You don't need "reason" to be religious, you don't need logical proof of God to be christian. This discussion is a matter of philosophy, old civilizations never needed a proof to believe.

The thing is with all this philosophical debate it create a huge barrier btw God and us but in catholicism this barrier is broken by the incarnation of the Word of God and idk the resurrection just make so much sense to me the whole narrative does

 

[Knid]

Great answer mate and yeah 6 is so dumb the law of causality is so simple yet atheist love to distort it to make retarded claims like the one in the vid

Lol yea, nobody actually responds to Aquinas. They respond to shitty strawmen brought up by hedonistic cucks who just wanna justify their degeneracy

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

ontological argument

TAG is the best one by far

 

[fk732]

TAG is the best one by far

Modal ontological better tbf

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Modal ontological better tbf

Has it been used in debates against the best atheists and Muslims? If not then it ain’t shit.

TAG has been tested tried and has come out unbeatable has all its bases secured cannot be refuted honestly TAG leads to a ingress of impossibilities for atheists when it comes to making an account for anything that’s why it’s literal Kryptonite.

Until I see it used in debates against the greatest Gaytheists and win I’ll hold the medal to TAG which nobody has been able to debunk yet