why atheists look so bad and dont mind if someone has sex with their wife?

[atlantean]

whats wrong with destiny? he has many based takes

 

[Giggling Elmo]

View attachment 3274503

ok egon cholakian

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

You didn't debunk anything.


Arguing with religious people is like trying to explain all of science.

All I hear is "Why is the sky blue?". If you don't know something, look it up, saying "god did it" only proves your ignorance.

Morality is a set of evolved instincts to help us better cooperate in groups.

Numbers, and Logic are cognitive heuristics that culturally evolved so that we could better model our reality and acquire more power and resources.

Qualia is just models of reality represented in matter and energy. There is no "soul" to your qualia. Your qualia is just a configuration of matter and energy.

If there was distinct "soul" substance there would have been some shred of evidence for it.


Holey fucking leaps of logic.

"I don't understand how qualia emerges" therefore "god is real".


Which is why we have invented mathematics, science, the study of phycology and cognitive biases, to error correct out the majority of that.

Belief that your model of reality is "right" because of "religious beliefs" and "divine knowledge", doesn't make you more correct, it makes you ignorant.

In 2024, it's bothersome that people are still living in the dark ages.


Logic isn't objective, it's just a better way to model reality than your religious superstition.


Your use of the word "truth" shows you don't understand cognitive science.

Tfw Gaytheiests can’t fathom philosophy

If logic isn’t objective then what is it? Are there not laws of logic?

What about maths? Is that also subjective so if no human existed and there were 2 rocks are there not 2 rocks so maths exists without humans

You don’t understand simple philosophy if you can’t even make an account for truth

This parts copy pasted
1. Objective Truth: Truth is defined as that which corresponds to reality. Theists argue that for truth to be objective, there must be an absolute grounding, which they attribute to God. This is because an unchanging, transcendent being provides the foundation for objective truths that are not contingent on human perception or societal changes.


2. Epistemological Foundations: The ability to know things (epistemology) requires a basis for believing that our cognitive faculties are reliable. Theists argue that if humans are merely the product of unguided evolutionary processes, then our cognitive faculties are aimed at survival, not necessarily truth. As C.S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga have posited, evolution may favor beliefs that aid in survival rather than those that are true, leading to a potential disconnect between survival-based beliefs and objective reality.


3. Laws of Logic: Abstract laws of logic are seen as necessary, immaterial, and invariant. Theists claim that atheistic materialism struggles to explain why such immaterial and universal concepts exist without a metaphysical grounding in a divine mind.

Maybe you can stop strawmaning me

 

[noodlelover]

If logic isn’t objective then what is it? Are there not laws of logic?

What about maths? Is that also subjective so if no human existed and there were 2 rocks are there not 2 rocks so maths exists without humans

You don’t understand simple philosophy if you can’t even make an account for truth

This parts copy pasted
1. Objective Truth: Truth is defined as that which corresponds to reality. Theists argue that for truth to be objective, there must be an absolute grounding, which they attribute to God. This is because an unchanging, transcendent being provides the foundation for objective truths that are not contingent on human perception or societal changes.


2. Epistemological Foundations: The ability to know things (epistemology) requires a basis for believing that our cognitive faculties are reliable.

Theists argue that if humans are merely the product of unguided evolutionary processes, then our cognitive faculties are aimed at survival, not necessarily truth.

The more accurate model of reality we have the more resources we can accrue for survival and reproduction.

It doesn't mean we have evolved brains that are perfect at modeling reality. This is why we use the scientific method to collectively build a more accurate model of reality.

At least some of us follow the scientific method.

As C.S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga have posited, evolution may favor beliefs that aid in survival rather than those that are true, leading to a potential disconnect between survival-based beliefs and objective reality.

Exactly, this is why many humans have religious beliefs. Believing the same dumb bullshit that the rest of the tribe believes helped them survive and replicate.

We have logic, heuristics, and science now to collectively build a better model of reality, than "the bible" or the "Quran" or the "Hermetica" or "The book of the Zodiac".

3. Laws of Logic: Abstract laws of logic are seen as necessary, immaterial, and invariant. Theists claim that atheistic materialism struggles to explain why such immaterial and universal concepts exist without a metaphysical grounding in a divine mind.

I'll answer the question of existence, if you're asking that.

Either everything exists or nothing exists.
Clearly something exists, so everything exists.
All rules in all combinations.
In our observable universe matter and energy transform across time and space based on a simple set of rules that has resulted in complexity.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

The more accurate model of reality we have the more resources we can accrue for survival and reproduction.

It doesn't mean we have evolved brains that are perfect at modeling reality. This is why we use the scientific method to collectively build a more accurate model of reality.

At least some of us follow the scientific method.



Exactly, this is why many humans have religious beliefs. Believing the same dumb bullshit that the rest of the tribe believes helped them survive and replicate.

We have logic, heuristics, and science now to collectively build a better model of reality, than "the bible" or the "Quran" or the "Hermetica" or "The book of the Zodiac".


I'll answer the question of existence, if you're asking that.

Either everything exists or nothing exists.
Clearly something exists, so everything exists.
All rules in all combinations.
In our observable universe matter and energy transform across time and space based on a simple set of rules that has resulted in complexity.

Still stuck in materialism and yet can’t make an account for the immaterial… why is this so fucking hard for you to grasp? You cannot justify and make an account for invariant universal abstract immaterial entities using natural law and materialism they cannot be grounded using your worldview that’s what I’m saying all you can tell me is WHAT IT IS but not WHY IT IS/OUGHT/ABOUTNESS. As I explained before.

Bro you’re hurting my head. No offence cos your trying and not being a cunt but maybe your low IQ to not get this or your knowledge of Philosophy is so low that this is flying over your head

I even told you the scientific method relies on metaphysical and epistemological preconditions IT ITSELF CANNOT JUSTIFY you have no way to ground it in this it’s just sad honestly

 

[noodlelover]

Still stuck in materialism and yet can’t make an account for the immaterial…

Because there's not a shred of evidence of anything being "immaterial".

That's code for "imaginary".

why is this so fucking hard for you to grasp? You cannot justify and make an account for invariant universal abstract immaterial entities

You mean your imaginary friends?

They exist in your mind. They are material in that they are a pattern of neurons, axons, and dendrites in your brain that simulation these imaginary beings.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Because there's not a shred of evidence of anything being "immaterial".

That's code for "imaginary".


You mean your imaginary friends?

They exist in your mind. They are material in that they are a pattern of neurons, axons, and dendrites in your brain that simulation these imaginary beings.

So where can I measure mathematics? Can I find it in a microscope? Is it found in the air? It’s not in our brains I already explained that and it’s a universal invariant thing that we know exists that’s why mathematicians say they DISCOVER a new material formula as opposed to creating.

So answer this where can we ground mathematics for it’s beyond natural law and materialism

If no humans existed and there are 2 rocks are there 2 rocks? Or are the rocks 2 because a human is there.

Atheists man once again proving why philosophy is the kryptonite for your kind

 

[silently_said]

 

[Enfant terrible]

PrinceLuenLeoncur​

Prove that the bible supposedly corresponds to the will of an immaterial being that is the foundation of all reality.
You cannot prove that.
From the existence of objective truths doesn't follow the validity of christian beliefs.
Your belief in christianity is arbitrary choosen on personal preference.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

PrinceLuenLeoncur​

Prove that the bible supposedly corresponds to the will of an immaterial being that is the foundation of all reality.
You cannot prove that.
From the existence of objective truths doesn't follow the validity of christian beliefs.
Your belief in christianity is arbitrary choosen on personal preference.

I won’t argue the bible to a non believer. I would if you were an thiest

But arguing the bible to atheist is retarded they don’t believe in the book they are rank empiricists who believe in a cosmic fart cresting all called the big FART

My argument is the transidental argument for God which I sure in this debate here and I have cucked all the atheists here including you now . Your all my bitch

I propose that an entity must contain these transidentals in his mind he must be a personalised being but transcendent but also immanent only the Christian god fits this description. Therefore the Christian god is real.

In a nut shell.

Now tackle the transidentals I’ll NOT engage you on the “bible” so you can go “Pha I discard this information not adequate for my atheist gay boy views hurt duerrrpp”

 

[bululu_87]

i would date a porn star, no problem. like sasha gray is my dream gf. but i wouldnt want to sit on chair and watch her getting railed by another guy


while most atheists have no problem with that. they also make soy faces and have the most degen , liberal beliefs on life

Because things always come in a package
Chad comes in a package, tall Chad face broad frame nt funny etc etc

Betas come in a package too
Betabuxxers manlets framecels non nt smelly pro Israel atheists

 

[noodlelover]

So where can I measure mathematics? Can I find it in a microscope? Is it found in the air? It’s not in our brains I already explained that and it’s a universal invariant thing that we know exists that’s why mathematicians say they DISCOVER a new material formula as opposed to creating.

I have five apples.
I give you four apples.

How many apples do I have?

one apple.

that's literally because I gave you four.

We're using language to simulate reality.

So answer this where can we ground mathematics for it’s beyond natural law and materialism

Mathematics is a way of describing and simulating the material world.

Because it's a pretty good simulation, we can run that simulation in ways that help us "discover" more truths about the material world.

 

[Enfant terrible]

I propose that an entity must contain these transidentals in his mind he must be a personalised being but transcendent but also immanent only the Christian god fits this description. Therefore the Christian god is real.

That doesnt logically follow from that.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I have five apples.
I give you four apples.

How many apples do I have?

one apple.

that's literally because I gave you four.

We're using language to simulate reality.


Mathematics is a way of describing and simulating the material world.

Because it's a pretty good simulation, we can run that simulation in ways that help us "discover" more truths about the material world.

I agree and yet once again….


If humans don’t exist are there 5 apples still 5 apples…. How can a purely materialistic worldview, which confines reality to physical objects and processes, account for the existence of non-physical mathematical truths?

that the nature of mathematics—being abstract, universal, and consistent—implies a source beyond the physical realm. the only worldview that includes an immaterial, rational divine being can fully account for why mathematics functions as it does, serving as a bridge between the abstract world and physical reality. mathematical truths exist in an abstract realm that requires an external grounding.

mathematical truths are universal and invariant; for example, the statement “2 + 2 = 4” is true regardless of time or location. materialism which sees reality as composed of constantly changing physical processes, struggles to account for these unchanging truths. The constancy and universality of mathematics suggest a transcendent source that ensures their stability.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

That doesnt logically follow from that.

It does logically follow. Try refuting my TAG arguments or stfu. Why would I argue for my book with an atheist? So you can just discredit the evidences ? I’m attacking you on your Plainfield and you don’t like it none of you do because I’m clapping all of you

 

[Enfant terrible]

It does logically follow. Try refuting my TAG arguments or stfu. Why would I argue for my book with an atheist? So you can just discredit the evidences ? I’m attacking you on your Plainfield and you don’t like it none of you do because I’m clapping all of you

Considering your argument.
Basically, it would just follow that a being with these attributes needs to exist but not that the god of the bible is that being. We don't know if their identity corresponds.
Meaning you are not proving your religion right.

 

[88PSLinAgartha]

atheists are the most stupid ppl

die hard atheists and people who blindly follow their religion without questioning it are on the same level of stupidity because they will never admit that they are wrong or may not know certain things

 

[Enfant terrible]

die hard atheists and people who blindly follow their religion without questioning it are on the same level of stupidity because they will never admit that they are wrong or may not know certain things

its important to have an open mind tbh

 

[TURK-KUN]

desinty is smart and a cool guy

i dont like supporting ukraine or kamala. but he has many many based takes

Destiny's biggest retardation is not understanding people's allegiances and motivations.

Look at what he said about Ben Shapiro, a zionist jew who does nothing but cry about israel all day:



Meanwhile in the real world:

 

[TURK-KUN]

desinty is smart and a cool guy

Here's a compilation of destiny being a dumbass who doesn't know shit:

 

[TURK-KUN]

destiny is a cool guy

Destiny is an open cuckold and faggot who looks like this:

I don't see the "cool" anywhere.

 

[noodlelover]

If humans don’t exist are there 5 apples still 5 apples….

Yes.

How can a purely materialistic worldview, which confines reality to physical objects and processes, account for the existence of non-physical mathematical truths?

It's still just a way of describing reality.

that the nature of mathematics—being abstract, universal, and consistent—implies a source beyond the physical realm.

It's a description of how the universe operates.

It doesn't imply anything else.

the only worldview that includes an immaterial, rational divine being can fully account for why mathematics functions as it does, serving as a bridge between the abstract world and physical reality. mathematical truths exist in an abstract realm that requires an external grounding.

mathematical truths are universal and invariant; for example, the statement “2 + 2 = 4” is true regardless of time or location.

Yes. It's a very good way of modeling the universe.

materialism which sees reality as composed of constantly changing physical processes, struggles to account for these unchanging truths.

You don't have to "account for things".

Things don't need a "reason" to exist. Things just exist.

From the scientific study of the world we know that the universe was once much simpler, without separate elements, or star systems, or living entities, but this is where our observation has led us.

We could have just as easily found out the universe started as extremely complex and gradually became simpler over time.

The constancy and universality of mathematics suggest a transcendent source that ensures their stability.

Or they are just stable.

Human beings evolved along the dimension of time. So we are used to looking for "causes" and "reasons" for things to exist. Our concept of "cause" derives from how matter and energy change over time.

But then we make the cognitive error and think that the patterns in which energy and matter change, itself needs a cause. And that everything needs a cause except for this thing we call "god" because that is special, and we have to have an end point to looking for causes, because our minds can't imagine infinite causes.

But the reality is, the only place we've observed cause and effect to operate, is along the dimension of time, and nothing else needs an explanation.

It's like religious people have figure out one thing, that there can be this thing called "god" that exists without an explanation, but haven't realized that the universe and the laws of physics don't need an explanation.

They don't understand what asking for an explanation means. It means, asking what happened "before" along the dimension of time.

 

[Giggling Elmo]

Destiny is an open cuckold and faggot who looks like this:

View attachment 3274656

I don't see the "cool" anywhere.

dude shut up. i know you are muslim , go cry about israel amogging you somewhere else

muh destiny fuck ups, he is adhd maxed genius. he destroyed every pro palestiner he debated

 

[chudlite]

whats wrong with destiny? he has many based takes

@Gaygymmaxx

 

[Giggling Elmo]

@Gaygymmaxx

you wouldnt be able to debate destiny .stfu

 

[chudlite]

you wouldnt be able to debate destiny .stfu

@Gaygymmaxx is a destiny fan

 

[TURK-KUN]

dude shut up. i know you are muslim , go cry about israel amogging you somewhere else

muh destiny fuck ups, he is adhd maxed genius. he destroyed every pro palestiner he debated

I’m not a muslim. I’m a white Christian from the west. I dated a hot blonde turkish girl and that’s why i have this name.

Also, anyone who is pro israel is a retard.

 

[Giggling Elmo]

I’m not a muslim. I’m a white Christian from the west. I dated a hot blonde turkish girl and that’s why i have this name.

Also, anyone who is pro israel is a retard.

anyone who is pro muslims is a retard

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Yes.

It's still just a way of describing reality.



It's a description of how the universe operates.

It doesn't imply anything else.



Yes. It's a very good way of modeling the universe.

You don't have to "account for things".

Things don't need a "reason" to exist. Things just exist.

From the scientific study of the world we know that the universe was once much simpler, without separate elements, or star systems, or living entities, but this is where our observation has led us.

We could have just as easily found out the universe started as extremely complex and gradually became simpler over time.



Or they are just stable.

Human beings evolved along the dimension of time. So we are used to looking for "causes" and "reasons" for things to exist. Our concept of "cause" derives from how matter and energy change over time.

But then we make the cognitive error and think that the patterns in which energy and matter change, itself needs a cause. And that everything needs a cause except for this thing we call "god" because that is special, and we have to have an end point to looking for causes, because our minds can't imagine infinite causes.

But the reality is, the only place we've observed cause and effect to operate, is along the dimension of time, and nothing else needs an explanation.

It's like religious people have figure out one thing, that there can be this thing called "god" that exists without an explanation, but haven't realized that the universe and the laws of physics don't need an explanation.

They don't understand what asking for an explanation means. It means, asking what happened "before" along the dimension of time.

This is so low tier. If you don’t have to account for things then you have no basis to explain why you believe in things aka justified true belief you just illogically believe in things because you do like some retard. Then argumentation fails completely and you now have no way to disprove religion as I can just say the same thing for god and say “I don’t have to justify why god Is he just Is and I believe because I believe”


FFS your argumentation is infuriating you already conceded the debate when you said this and no all you did is restate your position you can’t explain where mathematics is held and why it transcends materialism you can’t answer this and yes I’m saying the “reality” that mathematics is in is abstract and not in the material natural law reality we operate in that’s the point I’m making but something has to ground it you fool it’s one of the LAWS OF LOGIC. You tried but now your arguments lack any logical foundations and fall apart. Good try but learn philosophy before trying to disprove for other use you get cucked like this

I mean you still haven’t even justified how you know your experience and observations are reflections of true reality and not just a mental phantasm you cannot even tell me this it be true, we know it’s possible to misinterpret observations so how can you even be sure? You still won’t even answered identity over time which is what science is causally built upon other than circular arguments.

Your arguments fall into infinite regress as well it’s so cringe arguing with gaytheiets
The argument that cause and effect only make sense within time in, God is not bound by temporal constraints because He is the source of time itself. Time itself is time itself is a created entity. Thus, asking for a “before” in relation to God or the creation of time is a category error. God’s causality is atemporal and does not follow the same rules as causality within the universe.

God is defined as aseitic (self-existing) and necessary, which means that His existence is not contingent but is required for the existence of everything else. The argument is not about stopping inquiry arbitrarily but recognising that an infinite chain of causes needs a sufficient, necessary foundation.

able to account for abstract, immaterial realities like logic, mathematics, and metaphysical truths. The universe, defined purely in material terms, cannot provide an adequate account for immaterial truths, which suggests the need for a transcendent, rational source that materialism fails to explains. Thefore my worldview is more consistent than yours and therefore closer to truth than yours which can’t even make an account for itself. You failed this debate badly

Law of excluded middle
Law of reason and consequent, or of sufficient reason:

Look up what these are and see why you lost the debate once you deviated from these laws of logic and became illogical

 

[TURK-KUN]

anyone who is pro muslims is a retard

Muslims are based and conservative. I’d much rather stand next to them.

Jews are destroying the white race with degeneracy and mass migration. Why should I have any pity towards them when they are attacked?

The jews are the ones in the wrong, committing genocide while playing the victim. Disgusting

 

[TURK-KUN]

he destroyed every pro palestiner he debated

he gets floored by nick fuentes every time they debate

 

[noodlelover]

This is so low tier. If you don’t have to account for things then you have no basis to explain why you believe in things aka justified true belief

I believe in things because I can see, taste, touch, and hear things.

I'm gaining a stream of input, that has patterns to it.

My "beliefs" are a model that helps me better predict that stream of input.

you just illogically believe in things because you do like some retard. Then argumentation fails completely and you now have no way to disprove religion as I can just say the same thing for god and say “I don’t have to justify why god Is he just Is and I believe because I believe”

You have to provide evidence that your god exists.

FFS your argumentation is infuriating you already conceded the debate when you said this and no all you did is restate your position you can’t explain where mathematics is held and why it transcends materialism you can’t answer this and yes I’m saying the “reality” that mathematics is in is abstract and not in the material natural law reality

I don't have to.

You're the one making a claim about where it comes from. You're the one that needs to provide evidence of mathematics emerging or being "caused" by something.

we operate in that’s the point I’m making but something has to ground it you fool it’s one of the LAWS OF LOGIC.

Calling something a "LAW OF LOGIC" doesn't make it true, even if you want it to be true.

You tried but now your arguments lack any logical foundations and fall apart.

False. They are superior than whatever the fuck you are using to justify your false belief. Again, I know your beliefs are false because there's no evidence for them.

Good try but learn philosophy before trying to disprove for other use you get cucked like this

I mean you still haven’t even justified how you know your experience and observations are reflections of true reality and not just a mental phantasm

Your logic is "I know I'm right because god gave me the knowledge I'm right."

It's a stupid explanation for your delusion. Your delusion exists because of brainwashing and self deception.

you cannot even tell me this it be true, we know it’s possible to misinterpret observations so how can you even be sure? You still won’t even answered identity over time which is what science is causally built upon other than circular arguments.

Your arguments fall into infinite regress as well it’s so cringe arguing with gaytheiets
The argument that cause and effect only make sense within time in, God is not bound by temporal constraints because He is the source of time itself. Time itself is time itself is a created entity. Thus, asking for a “before” in relation to God or the creation of time is a category error. God’s causality is atemporal and does not follow the same rules as causality within the universe.

God is defined as aseitic (self-existing) and necessary, which means that His existence is not contingent but is required for the existence of everything else. The argument is not about stopping inquiry arbitrarily but recognizing that an infinite chain of causes needs a sufficient, necessary foundation.

Law of excluded middle
Law of reason and consequent, or of sufficient reason:

You talk about "Laws" and "Logic" as if they are these immutable things in which we derive "truth".

They are a set of heuristics that has helped us make predictions about the future, because they have helped us model observable reality.

I'm trying to get to the Root of your delusion.

These two Completely unprovable beliefs:

1. "Everything needs a reason that it exists"
2. "Except for god. He/It is special"

I'm trying to explain to you how ridiculous these two beliefs are, and you reinforce these beliefs in your head by calling them "LAWS OF LOGIC" or insinuating that they are "DIVINE Knowledge".

 

[depressionmaxxing]

atheists are the most stupid ppl
If you wanna see the average atheist look at destiny

Im atheist and the opposite

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I believe in things because I can see, taste, touch, and hear things.

I'm gaining a stream of input, that has patterns to it.

My "beliefs" are a model that helps me better predict that stream of input.


You have to provide evidence that your god exists.



I don't have to.

You're the one making a claim about where it comes from. You're the one that needs to provide evidence of mathematics emerging or being "caused" by something.


Calling something a "LAW OF LOGIC" doesn't make it true, even if you want it to be true.



False. They are superior than whatever the fuck you are using to justify your false belief. Again, I know your beliefs are false because there's no evidence for them.


Your logic is "I know I'm right because god gave me the knowledge I'm right."

It's a stupid explanation for your delusion. Your delusion exists because of brainwashing and self deception.

You talk about "Laws" and "Logic" as if they are these immutable things in which we derive "truth".

They are a set of heuristics that has helped us make predictions about the future, because they have helped us model observable reality.

I'm trying to get to the Root of your delusion.

These two Completely unprovable beliefs:

1. "Everything needs a reason that it exists"
2. "Except for god. He/It is special"

I'm trying to explain to you how ridiculous these two beliefs are, and you reinforce these beliefs in your head by calling them "LAWS OF LOGIC" or insinuating that they are "DIVINE Knowledge".

Your not very smart C.S. Lewis’s “Argument from Reason”, which states that if human reason is just the result of blind, mechanistic processes, then we have no reason to trust it. He would ask: If our thoughts are merely the byproduct of chemical reactions in the brain, why should we trust them to lead us to truth? The existence of reason and logic, which are non-material, suggests a non-material source that guarantees their validity. Without such a source, an atheist cannot account for the trustworthiness of their cognitive faculties in discerning reality.

atheism cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility—the necessary elements that make knowledge possible, such as logic, mathematics, and objective morality. these are not physical entities and cannot be explained by material processes, indicating a need for a metaphysical reality that undergirds them. That reality YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY OR ACCOUNT FOR In your EMPIRICIST WORLDVIEW.

You can’t even justify your “science” you hold onto so dearly how TF are you going to say I’m wrong because I have no evidence for it? How do you even prove or know that the empirical method is the most valid way of acquiring knowledge without circularity?

The scientific method itself relies on assumptions that cannot be proven by empirical observation alone. These include the uniformity of nature, laws of logic, and the reliability of human cognition. While science can describe how reality behaves under observable conditions, it cannot justify why these conditions hold or why logic is dependable. These principles are presupposed by the scientific method but cannot be explained or proven by it. This points to the need for a metaphysical grounding that transcends empirical methods—something provided by theism.

Critiquing the laws of logic ain’t helping you idiot labelling them as mere heuristics. laws of logic are more than practical tools; they are abstract, universal, and necessary truths that are not contingent on human minds. They are the conditions for rational thought and argumentation. In a materialistic worldview, abstract entities like logic, which do not have a physical existence, thus cannot be accounted for. Even to make an argument you are using logic let that sink in, your arguing against god using God your arguing against me and logic trying to use logic which in and ofc itself is self defeating you cannot disprove logic using logic

Now for your stupid tangent about god
I’m distinguishing between contingent beings (which require a cause) and a necessary being (which does not). God is defined as aseitic (existing by necessity of His own nature). This is a fundamental concept in metaphysics: a necessary being exists without external cause because it is not contingent. This is different from the universe, which exhibits signs of contingency and therefore needs an external cause or reason for its existence.

And now you accuse me of special pleading? Really nigga really ? this is not special pleading but a legitimate conclusion reached through philosophical reasoning. The concept of God as a necessary being is not an arbitrary exemption but the logical end of the search for an ultimate explanation. I don’t even like Roman Catholic Philosophers but they make good points like Thomas Aquinas and Leibniz have demonstrated that an infinite regress of causes is untenable, necessitating an uncaused cause.

belief in God is not an unreasoned assumption but can be supported by rigorous philosophical arguments and evidence. atheism itself also carries unprovable assumptions—such as the belief in the adequacy of human reason and the consistency of natural laws without a grounding metaphysical framework.

and finally the KO THAT LOGIC AND LAWS ARE HEURISTICS this undercuts the possibility of any objective knowledge. If logic is merely a tool with no necessary or absolute validity, then all arguments, including YOUR own, would be suspect. This self-defeating position is WHAT I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED as the problem with attempting to base all knowledge on materialistic and empirical foundations.

@Giggling Elmo this is how you shut down gaythiests and make their Anus bleed

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

@Enfant terrible see my final comment to your comrade as to why I don’t NEED to speak on the bible ti destroy you idiot gaythiedt loonies

 

[Bomber517]

Repped

 

[addem]

atheists are the most stupid ppl
If you wanna see the average atheist look at destiny

Destiny is very high iq even though I don't agree with him. You're just a close minded brute animefag

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Destiny is very high iq even though I don't agree with him. You're just a close minded brute animefag

Atheists are idiots though as I proved in this thread clapping every single one that came to challenge me I raped them because their worldview is contradictory and incoherent as well as illogical

 

[noodlelover]

Your not very smart C.S. Lewis’s “Argument from Reason”, which states that if human reason is just the result of blind, mechanistic processes, then we have no reason to trust it. He would ask: If our thoughts are merely the byproduct of chemical reactions in the brain, why should we trust them to lead us to truth? The existence of reason and logic, which are non-material, suggests a non-material source that guarantees their validity. Without such a source, an atheist cannot account for the trustworthiness of their cognitive faculties in discerning reality.

Neither can you.

I know what you'll say, your claim is "Divine Knowledge" but that's delusion.

atheism cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility—the necessary elements that make knowledge possible, such as logic, mathematics, and objective morality. these are not physical entities and cannot be explained by material processes, indicating a need for a metaphysical reality that undergirds them. That reality YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY OR ACCOUNT FOR In your EMPIRICIST WORLDVIEW.

This is bad logic.

You can’t even justify your “science” you hold onto so dearly how TF are you going to say I’m wrong because I have no evidence for it? How do you even prove or know that the empirical method is the most valid way of acquiring knowledge without circularity?

because I can simulate reality in my brain. I can simulate the effectiveness of different heuristics.

I also know from experience.

The scientific method itself relies on assumptions that cannot be proven by empirical observation alone. These include the uniformity of nature, laws of logic, and the reliability of human cognition.

Everything relies on assumptions. The point is to make as few as possible.

While science can describe how reality behaves under observable conditions, it cannot justify why these conditions hold or why logic is dependable.

And it doesn't have to.

Nor does there have to be a "reason".

These principles are presupposed by the scientific method but cannot be explained or proven by it. This points to the need for a metaphysical grounding that transcends empirical methods—something provided by theism.

Critiquing the laws of logic ain’t helping you idiot labelling them as mere heuristics. laws of logic are more than practical tools; they are abstract, universal, and necessary truths that are not contingent on human minds.

This is a false belief that you've been indoctrinated into.

They are the conditions for rational thought and argumentation. In a materialistic worldview, abstract entities like logic, which do not have a physical existence, thus cannot be accounted for. Even to make an argument you are using logic let that sink in,

My hope is that we share enough of the same logic to have a discussion.

But you seem to have a lot of extra bullshit from brainwashing that you call "logic".

your arguing against god using God your arguing against me and logic trying to use logic which in and ofc itself is self defeating you cannot disprove logic using logic

Not trying to disprove "logic", I'm only pointing out two beliefs that you have that are incorrect.

Now for your stupid tangent about god
I’m distinguishing between contingent beings (which require a cause) and a necessary being (which does not).

But that's where you fucked up.

Reality doesn't need a cause.

Reality is a "necessary being" then.

God is defined as aseitic (existing by necessity of His own nature).

Great. Reality exists by the necessity of it's own nature.

This is a fundamental concept in metaphysics: a necessary being exists without external cause because it is not contingent. This is different from the universe, which exhibits signs of contingency and therefore needs an external cause or reason for its existence.

Wrong again.

The universe doesn't need an external cause or reason for it's existence.

And now you accuse me of special pleading? Really nigga really ? this is not special pleading but a legitimate conclusion reached through philosophical reasoning.

The concept of God as a necessary being is not an arbitrary exemption but the logical end of the search for an ultimate explanation.

It's an arbitrary exception.

It's a "AAAh, I'm tired of looking for answers. Let's imagine this catch all bullshit, call it god and call it a day."

I don’t even like Roman Catholic Philosophers but they make good points like Thomas Aquinas and Leibniz have demonstrated that an infinite regress of causes is untenable, necessitating an uncaused cause.

How did he demonstrate that infinite regress is untenable?

Why isn't the universe the uncaused cause?

Religious philosophers are retarded.

belief in God is not an unreasoned assumption but can be supported by rigorous philosophical arguments and evidence.

Wrong.

atheism itself also carries unprovable assumptions—such as the belief in the adequacy of human reason and the consistency of natural laws without a grounding metaphysical framework.

"grounding metaphysical framework" is neurons in your brain misfiring. It doesn't actually mean anything.

There are universal laws for how the universe behaves.

and finally the KO THAT LOGIC AND LAWS ARE HEURISTICS this undercuts the possibility of any objective knowledge. If logic is merely a tool with no necessary or absolute validity, then all arguments, including YOUR own, would be suspect.

All models of reality are probabilistic.

We can argue what's probably true.

This self-defeating position is WHAT I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED as the problem with attempting to base all knowledge on materialistic and empirical foundations.

@Giggling Elmo this is how you shut down gaythiests and make their Anus bleed

You have no idea how dumb you are. But I find it entertaining trying to explain things to religious people.

Your brain has picked up clusters of heuristics and synaptic connections that simulate an incorrect model of reality.

You don't understand causality and what it is. Causality is a pattern of how matter and energy have been observed to change over time. The existence of matter and energy doesn't need a cause. That's not what "cause" is, that's an oversimplified heuristic you have because you're not used to thinking about what causality reality is. Causality is Change, not creation. Reason or "grounding" is change not creation. There is no creation, as far as we know, only change.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Neither can you.

I know what you'll say, your claim is "Divine Knowledge" but that's delusion.


This is bad logic.



because I can simulate reality in my brain. I can simulate the effectiveness of different heuristics.

I also know from experience.


Everything relies on assumptions. The point is to make as few as possible.

And it doesn't have to.

Nor does there have to be a "reason".


This is a false belief that you've been indoctrinated into.

My hope is that we share enough of the same logic to have a discussion.

But you seem to have a lot of extra bullshit from brainwashing that you call "logic".


Not trying to disprove "logic", I'm only pointing out two beliefs that you have that are incorrect.

But that's where you fucked up.

Reality doesn't need a cause.

Reality is a "necessary being" then.



Great. Reality exists by the necessity of it's own nature.


Wrong again.

The universe doesn't need an external cause or reason for it's existence.



It's an arbitrary exception.

It's a "AAAh, I'm tired of looking for answers. Let's imagine this catch all bullshit, call it god and call it a day."



How did he demonstrate that infinite regress is untenable?

Why isn't the universe the uncaused cause?

Religious philosophers are retarded.

Wrong.

"grounding metaphysical framework" is neurons in your brain misfiring. It doesn't actually mean anything.

There are universal laws for how the universe behaves.


All models of reality are probabilistic.

We can argue what's probably true.

You have no idea how dumb you are. But I find it entertaining trying to explain things to religious people.

Your brain has picked up clusters of heuristics and synaptic connections that simulate an incorrect model of reality.

You don't understand causality and what it is. Causality is a pattern of how matter and energy have been observed to change over time. The existence of matter and energy doesn't need a cause. That's not what "cause" is, that's an oversimplified heuristic you have because you're not used to thinking about what causality reality is. Causality is Change, not creation. Reason or "grounding" is change not creation. There is no creation, as far as we know, only change.

You’re a retard, I refuse to even speak anymore you can’t make an account for anything and your arguments are all self refuting as i shown in the last 2 comments, you can’t even argue against god because logic and all these things are heuristics so you can’t even argue for truth or falsehood and have no right to critique religion according to your own dumbass belief.

I read all of that only to say you refuted nothing and still don’t understand the basics of philosophy so all you do is ask simplistic questions because you have no fucking clue .

Once you understand what contingent and necessary means, once you show some intellectual honesty such as your own scientists admitting the universe had a beginning but now you wanna say the universe has always existed in constant entropic flux. Madness this is how I broken your poor brain then we’ll come back then and speak to me son. Until then take the L hold it close and remember the spanking I gave u get gud so you can provide a good challenge

 

[noonespecial]

i would date a porn star, no problem. like sasha gray is my dream gf. but i wouldnt want to sit on chair and watch her getting railed by another guy


while most atheists have no problem with that. they also make soy faces and have the most degen , liberal beliefs on life

No atheist wants to get cucked

 

[noodlelover]

You’re a retard. I read all of that only to say you refuted nothing and still don’t understand the basics of philosophy so all you do is ask simplistic questions because you have no fucking clue .

What you're calling "Philosophy" is indoctrination.

Once you understand what contingent and necessary means, once you show some intellectual honesty such as your own scientists admitting the universe had a beginning

"My" Scientists? As If I have a bunch of scientists locked up in my basement.

There is ZERO evidence that anything can be created. There is only change.

What you're doing right now is called "Appeal to authority". It's a logical fallacy.


As far as making a distinction between "Contingent" and "Necessary", that's a false way of looking at things. There is only what IS, there is not WHAT is not.

Most of your arguments rely on appeal to authority. Imagining there are these great philosophers or scientists, and you can rely on them for correct frameworks.

What I'm asking you to do, and I know it's a big ask, is to use your own intelligence, and try to think about this problem. Try to reason and have a discussion about it, without resorting to appeals to authority so you don't have to think.

then we’ll come back then and speak to me son. Until then take the L hold it close and remember the spanking I gave u get gud so you can provide a good challenge

Your a fucking idiot who has no idea what he's talking about, so he resorts to appeals to authority, citing bad logic, bad frameworks, and bad ideas.

When I point out how incomplete or broken these ideas are, you resort to more appeals to authority, as if you don't have the cognitive faculties to analyze frameworks yourself.

 

[mrdouchebag]

Cuckstiny instantly came to mind when I read this post.

 

[moodless]

bro that was a brutal mog


@moodless come here and rate the iq mog. princeluenleoncur just dismanlted that childish faggot

I see no intelligent people ITT