Why atheism is cope | full debunk of atheism.

[fk732]

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.

unicorn is a contingent, it could exist its a horse with a corn

 

[dahitta2xxxxxx]

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.

Truth here^

 

[fk732]

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.

you are so retarded we can see the fkn --- chat gpt use

 

[theRetard]

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.

you can't even refer to non-existence because it DOES NOT EXIST, you can't even think about non-existence because when you think about it then it becomes anything rather then nothing, so it doesn't exist even in your thoughts, while unicorns exist in your thoughts, also there's actually unicorns materially, they are just rare

 

[EmperorVon]

you are so retarded we can see the fkn --- chat gpt use

This you?


PRAISE GOD!

 

[DravidianBvll]

Can't believe

DNRD but here's what chatgpt says:

1. The key premise is question-begging.​

The entire argument hinges on:

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:



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:



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.

Brutal that an llm can debunk your god jfl

 

[EmperorVon]

you can't even refer to non-existence because it DOES NOT EXIST, you can't even think about non-existence because when you think about it then it becomes anything rather then nothing, so it doesn't exist even in your thoughts, while unicorns exist in your thoughts, also there's actually unicorns materially, they are just rare
View attachment 4303482

Your argument fails because it jumps from a word game to a claim about reality. Even if “non existence” is a meaningless concept, it doesn’t follow that any specific being, like God, must therefore exist. It’s a ridiculous claim.

 

[EmperorVon]

Can't believe

Brutal that an llm can debunk your god jfl

Their God is so amazing that he chooses to save drug addicts, criminals and the worst scum alive but let good people die and suffer every day, children starve and babies be killed. He’s so just and benevolent that if you don’t accept that a Jew has come for you and you don’t worship him you will suffer for eternity even if you’ve hurt no one because praising rabbi Jesus is more important than being a good person.

 

[fk732]

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

you have a beggining of argue here let me answer that.
1. the will is a propriety of the soul, the soul is caused but its created as "free" and it can auto determinate itself.

2. 'random' events in quantum physics happen in a causal field they seem random surely but theyre condition causes them.

and past and future arent real thing theyre concept, reality is a constent present that tend to infinity, but we catholic affirm that there was a first instant where the constent present started

3. by definition the first uncaused caused self sufficient infinite essence is what we call God but doesnt matter what you call it.

@Mainlander

 

[theRetard]

Your argument fails because it jumps from a word game to a claim about reality. Even if “non existence” is a meaningless concept, it doesn’t follow that any specific being, like God, must therefore exist. It’s a ridiculous claim.

you are claiming the same low iq chatgpt bullshit, can you say something new?

 

[EmperorVon]

you are claiming the same low iq chatgpt bullshit, can you say something new?

Debunk it retard, you can’t jump from your claim about non existence to how it proves God it doesn’t prove shit you fucking retard your brain is cooked.

 

[fk732]

Their God is so amazing that he chooses to save drug addicts, criminals and the worst scum alive but let good people die and suffer every day, children starve and babies be killed. He’s so just and benevolent that if you don’t accept that a Jew has come for you and you don’t worship him you will suffer for eternity even if you’ve hurt no one because praising rabbi Jesus is more important than being a good person.

yeah without chat gpt you fall into emotional retarded arguments

 

[Mainlander]

you have a beggining of argue here let me answer that.
1. the will is a propriety of the soul, the soul is caused but its created as "free" and it can auto determinate itself.

2. 'random' events in quantum physics happen in a causal field they seem random surely but theyre condition causes them.

and past and future arent real thing theyre concept, reality is a constent present that tend to infinity, but we catholic affirm that there was a first instant where the constent present started

3. by definition the first uncaused caused self sufficient infinite essence is what we call God but doesnt matter what you call it.

1 its just a belief wtf is this argument

2 I agree anf first instant is again just a belief

3 Well there are not arguments for both sides because its both a belief if the first uncaused cause is a god that gives us meaning or just a meaningless uncaused cause without reason

 

[EmperorVon]

yeah without chat gpt you fall into emotional retarded arguments

You use Chat GPT and try to debunk anything I said. You can’t prove he exists and if he does exist he’s an objectively evil God even by the standards of his followers if they were to take the blinders off.

 

[gurt]

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.

logically Occam’s Razor would prefer the explanation of a creator considering the universe's existence relying on extremely specific parameters; alike how if you see an engine it's logical to assume someone assembled it and not just natural forces. However you can obviously never confirm it.

 

[theRetard]

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

1. even if your will is caused then it doesn't mean that you do not have free will (cuz in many situations you have different choices)
2. everything except god has a cause, because if it didn't, it would not exist because if something has no cause, then it basically doesn't exist (because there's nothing that could bring it into existence). But if something is the cause of itself, then it is that very God.
the idea that something must be proved is also unprovable (empirically)
3. by definition god is an uncaused cause, so it's a god by my definition

 

[EmperorVon]

Christians giving us pure logic and reasoning since 100 ad

 

[Mainlander]

1. even if your will is caused then it doesn't mean that you do not have free will (cuz in many situations you have different choices)
2. everything except god has a cause, because if it didn't, it would not exist because if something has no cause, then it basically doesn't exist (because there's nothing that could bring it into existence). But if something is the cause of itself, then it is that very God.
the idea that something must be proved is also unprovable (empirically)
3. by definition god is an uncaused cause, so it's a god by my definition

I agree on 2 and 3

Does not disprove your definition of god but the christian god

 

[Klasik616]

There are ontical and ontological beings, don't put ontical beings who are contingent with subsistent beings, subsistent beings are for definition those who their existence equals essence, meaning they only are in the way they exist, instead ontical beings are those who their essence defines their existence not the other way around, you can only know the essence of an ontical being through a subsistent one, this saves truth. Now that we are aware subsistent beings exist, and their existence defines reality as such, we can ask about their "way of existing".

About worldly beings, we talk about them as if they were changing (as time changes), now what can't change are subsistent beings who are not living in the same realm, the ones who are outside of time, Spinoza said something similar: the substance ≠ worldly beings. So what's the nature of the subsistent being that essence is not changing but is being in the world as well? First of all, it has to be one whose defines other ontical beings, but also their essence has to equal existence (as he is subsistent), this being exists to understand itself and it's the human soul, the only connection between material and spiritual world. As Spinoza said about God, we don't know him but we work with him.

We are the only ones naming beings, what only God created is matter but we humans give them a name. If truth didn't change, beings would not change but we are in a world full of ontical beings, only time passes here. You think truth is eternal but the world is changing, that's a contradiction. You must agree with humans the ones giving them a name.

 

[fk732]

You use Chat GPT and try to debunk anything I said. You can’t prove he exists and if he does exist he’s an objectively evil God even by the standards of his followers if they were to take the blinders off.

nah this guy has below 100 iq fr

 

[StuntmanMike]

Our goal must be
What would i lose if i believe in ?
Exactly that works

 

[accelerationist]

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. ​

Im only gonna mention this because your only real argument is contingency, just in various different examples. (You don’t even have an argument you’re borrowing stuff from someone else)

The idea in of itself that something illogical must exist for the logical to exist is uhm. Illogical. Because it provides no objective understanding of what this illogical thing is. Only that you believe that since everything is incomprehensible it means that there is something beyond the incomprehensible.

The idea of God doesn’t provide anything because it simply means that there is a “creator” it does not give way for any actual new-found logic. And usually just creates a bunch system-made religious mess which also isnt grounded in logic just as God isnt because you’ve no idea if this is a being or whatever the fuck a “creator” would be. All you know regarding existence is contingency, nothing else. Even then- what do you know?

God doesn’t provide logical ground instead this idea just blatantly ignores how illogical and abstract reality is by setting up one house of logic and ignoring everything outside of it because muh “house must exist”

Yes bro, God is self sufficient, illogical being that exists within himself. Definition of something that doesn’t make any sense

 

[theRetard]

Debunk it retard, you can’t jump from your claim about non existence to how it proves God it doesn’t prove shit you fucking retard your brain is cooked.

you literally claimed "Your argument fails because it jumps from a word game to a claim about reality. Even if “non existence” is a meaningless concept, it doesn’t follow that any specific being, like God, must therefore exist. It’s a ridiculous claim"
what to debunk in this bullshit? what do you even mean by reality? if only material one, then your thoughts, and so your own claims aren't real either, and so they are not the truth

 

[accelerationist]

the most obvious argument is: non-existence does not exist, so it's impossible for god to not exist. It's ontological

See you in valhalla brother

 

[EmperorVon]

1. even if your will is caused then it doesn't mean that you do not have free will (cuz in many situations you have different choices)
2. everything except god has a cause, because if it didn't, it would not exist because if something has no cause, then it basically doesn't exist (because there's nothing that could bring it into existence). But if something is the cause of itself, then it is that very God.
the idea that something must be proved is also unprovable (empirically)
3. by definition god is an uncaused cause, so it's a god by my definition

Saying your will is caused but still free is kind of dodging the point. If everything that shapes your choices comes from outside you, calling it free doesn’t really fix that.
“Everything except God has a cause” just assumes what it’s trying to prove. Some things in physics look uncaused, and something can’t really cause itself, so that logic doesn’t hold up.
Defining God as uncaused doesn’t prove anything, that’s just winning by definition, not by evidence.

 

[accelerationist]

you literally claimed "Your argument fails because it jumps from a word game to a claim about reality. Even if “non existence” is a meaningless concept, it doesn’t follow that any specific being, like God, must therefore exist. It’s a ridiculous claim"
what to debunk in this bullshit? what do you even mean by reality? if only material one, then your thoughts, and so your own claims aren't real either, and so they are not the truth

Nice to see another islamic brother preaching our faith

 

[fk732]

You must know there are ontical and ontological beings, don't put ontical beings who are contingent with subsistent beings, subsistent beings are for definition those who their existence equals essence, meaning they only are in the way they exist, instead ontical beings are those who their essence defines their existence not the other way around, you can only know the essence of an ontical being through a subsistent one, this saves truth. Now that we are aware subsistent beings exist, and their existence defines reality as such, we can ask about their "way of existing". About worldly beings, we talk about them as if they were changing (as time changes), now what can't change are subsistent beings who are not living in the same realm, the ones who are outside of time, Spinoza said something similar: the substance ≠ worldly beings. So what's the nature of the subsistent being that essence is not changing but is being in the world as well? First of all, it has to be one whose defines other ontical beings, but also their essence has to equal existence (as he is subsistent), this being exists to understand itself and it's the human soul, the only connection between material and spiritual world. As Spinoza said about God, we don't know him but we work with him.

agreed but in catholicism, we have a bridge between the divine essence and the physical/ visible world trought the incarnation of the Word

 

[fk732]

Saying your will is caused but still free is kind of dodging the point. If everything that shapes your choices comes from outside you, calling it free doesn’t really fix that.
“Everything except God has a cause” just assumes what it’s trying to prove. Some things in physics look uncaused, and something can’t really cause itself, so that logic doesn’t hold up.
Defining God as uncaused doesn’t prove anything, that’s just winning by definition, not by evidence.

chat gpt nice nigga

 

[EmperorVon]

you literally claimed "Your argument fails because it jumps from a word game to a claim about reality. Even if “non existence” is a meaningless concept, it doesn’t follow that any specific being, like God, must therefore exist. It’s a ridiculous claim"
what to debunk in this bullshit? what do you even mean by reality? if only material one, then your thoughts, and so your own claims aren't real either, and so they are not the truth

Material reality is the only true reality, what exists that is not physical, energy is physical so are atoms and what make up atoms. A persons thoughts, mind and consciousness exist in the brain, there’s a reason brain damage affects consciousness, it’s not independent of the brain. That doesn’t mean they’re not real, it just means they’re not metaphysical.

 

[fk732]

Nice to see another islamic brother preaching our faith

stfu muslim

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

How you know when a retard is RetardRambling: says something “proves” or “disproves” God

 

[accelerationist]

stfu muslim

I gave you an argument check it out

 

[EmperorVon]

chat gpt nice nigga

Debunk it, op leaked.

 

[fk732]

Material reality is the only true reality, what exists that is not physical, energy is physical so are atoms and what make up atoms. A persons thoughts, mind and consciousness exist in the brain, there’s a reason brain damage affects consciousness, it’s not independent of the brain. That doesn’t mean they’re not real, it just means they’re not metaphysical.

does logical absolute exist? if they dont read my thread if they do read my thread also

 

[EmperorVon]

does logical absolute exist? if they dont read my thread if they do read my thread also

Debunk what I said, there’s no reality out of the physical, the metaphysical doesn’t exist.

 

[theRetard]

Saying your will is caused but still free is kind of dodging the point. If everything that shapes your choices comes from outside you, calling it free doesn’t really fix that.
“Everything except God has a cause” just assumes what it’s trying to prove. Some things in physics look uncaused, and something can’t really cause itself, so that logic doesn’t hold up.
Defining God as uncaused doesn’t prove anything, that’s just winning by definition, not by evidence.

give chatgpt the context of that debate next time, otherwise it will give you retarded arguments like that

 

[fk732]

How you know when a retard is RetardRambling: says something “proves” or “disproves” God

thats why i didnt say prove or disprove jfl

 

[EmperorVon]

give chatgpt the context of that debate next time, otherwise it will give you retarded arguments like that

Can’t give an argument so just seethes, it’s so over for religion fags. They know it’s over for them as it’s not the Middle Ages anymore and people have access to knowledge and can think for themselves without being burned alive.

 

[theRetard]

Material reality is the only true reality, what exists that is not physical, energy is physical so are atoms and what make up atoms. A persons thoughts, mind and consciousness exist in the brain, there’s a reason brain damage affects consciousness, it’s not independent of the brain. That doesn’t mean they’re not real, it just means they’re not metaphysical.

>says that they are not metaphyscial
(while saying that something is not metaphysical is already metaphysical).

>material reality is the only true one

then this claim is not true because it is not material

 

[fk732]

Debunk what I said, there’s no reality out of the physical, the metaphysical doesn’t exist.

my question is the beggining of the debunk, you are relying on immaterial logical absolute too argue here self debunked

 

[fk732]

Can’t give an argument so just seethes, it’s so over for religion fags. They know it’s over for them as it’s not the Middle Ages anymore and people have access to knowledge and can think for themselves without being burned alive.

weird bc its actually atheist and pagan who bured christian alive

 

[Mainlander]

give chatgpt the context of that debate next time, otherwise it will give you retarded arguments like that

Nah but explain the first point

I also dont get it tbh

 

[EmperorVon]

>says that they are not metaphyscial
(while saying that something is not metaphysical is already metaphysical).

>material reality is the only true one

then this claim is not true because it is not material

The claim is material, anything we come up with in our head is part of the material not metaphysical world as it exists within our thoughts and consciousness which is our brain, if you got shot in the brain this would cease which shows that it’s a real physical thing that exists in our brain.

 

[theRetard]

Can’t give an argument so just seethes, it’s so over for religion fags. They know it’s over for them as it’s not the Middle Ages anymore and people have access to knowledge and can think for themselves without being burned alive.

muh muh disprove chatgpt claims

 

[fk732]

I gave you an argument check it out

i dont find any objection in your argument its just yapping tbf do another one

 

[EmperorVon]

weird bc its actually atheist and pagan who bured christian alive

Interesting so I guess you’ve never picked up a history book, and things like the Christian persecutions and he codes of pagans and non believers never happened.

 

[EmperorVon]

Nah but explain the first point

I also dont get it tbh

Are you asking for his first point or mine?

 

[accelerationist]

i dont find any objection in your argument its just yapping tbf do another one

God can’t be illogical, if he is then he does not exist. End of story

 

[theRetard]

Nah but explain the first point

I also dont get it tbh

your will is determined by causality
but inside of causality, you are free to choose (if there's at least 2 choices)

 

[iblamexyz]

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.

mirin high iq

all I need is romans 1:18 to prove God exists