why god doesn't exist

[Skara]

Although no one has proven the existence or absence of God, but He still does not exist. We can say that unicorns live in the depths of our planet, but no one has proven or disproved it, but we all understand that they are not there. The same with God. The burden of proof is a logical concept and it disproves the existence of God. I just destroyed all the arguments of religioncels and agnostics.
and even more so, for 2000 years no one has proven that He exists. This means that He simply does not exist lol.

 

[Skara]

@PrinceLuenLeoncur

 

[pfl]

jewish femboy

 

[nuisance]

you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god

so you cannot say god doesn't exist

There some logical evidence for god but none for unicorns

 

[brownmutt42]

 

[Skara]

you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god

so you cannot say god doesn't exist

you can logically disprove its existence what I just did. There is no point in empirical research

jewish femboy

?

View attachment 3613805

?

 

[xnyozd]

you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god

so you cannot say god doesn't exist

There some logical evidence for god but none for unicorns

i like you

 

[Harold O'brien]

We can say that unicorns live in the depths of our planet, but no one has proven or disproved it, but we all understand that they are not there.

yet we can say consciousness exists in the depth of the human brain ,but no one has proven or disproved it, but we all understand that it is there

 

[nuisance]

you can logically disprove its existence what I just did. There is no point in empirical research

?

?

yet we can say consciousness exists in the depth of the human brain ,but no one has proven or disproved it, but we all understand that it is there

^^ Exactly

The God problem and unicorns cannot be compared

 

[Harold O'brien]

^^ Exactly

The God problem and unicorns cannot be compared

god doesnt exist, btw

 

[_MVP_]

there is no god, zero doubt

 

[nuisance]

god doesnt exist, btw

unprovable

 

[Skara]

yet we can say consciousness exists in the depth of the human brain ,but no one has proven or disproved it, but we all understand that it is there

No, the analogy between consciousness and God does not work. Consciousness is an empirical fact, and God is a hypothesis without confirmation. Brain damage changes consciousness, which means consciousness exists and proves it. Consciousness does not exist separately from the brain (unlike religious ideas about the soul)
and is a product of neural activity. Consciousness is an observable phenomenon, unlike God, and it manifests itself through subjective experience, behavioral reactions, neurophysiological correlates (MRI shows brain activity during thinking). It turns out that consciousness is a property of the brain, and not a mystical entity

 

[Harold O'brien]

unprovable

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Skara]

^^ Exactly

The God problem and unicorns cannot be compared

both weren't proved and therefore might exist by agnostic logic JFL

 

[neurosis]

we don't know if x real =! x isn't real

in order to prove god doesn't exist, the burden of proof is also on you.

 

[Iblamehyo]

Why this forum filled with such gayass retarded faggots

 

[Vermilioncore]

He does. If He destroys me, I smile and tell Him to do as he wishes. I’m a clay pot. He’s the Potter. I am I, what is this?

 

[Harold O'brien]

No, the analogy between consciousness and God does not work. Consciousness is an empirical fact, and God is a hypothesis without confirmation. Brain damage changes consciousness, which means consciousness exists and proves it. Consciousness does not exist separately from the brain (unlike religious ideas about the soul)
and is a product of neural activity. Consciousness is an observable phenomenon, unlike God, and it manifests itself through subjective experience, behavioral reactions, neurophysiological correlates (MRI shows brain activity during thinking). It turns out that consciousness is a property of the brain, and not a mystical entity

>Consciousness is an observable phenomenon
how do i observe it

>It turns out that consciousness is a property of the brain
this is still debated

 

[neurosis]

god doesnt exist, btw

and you've come to this conclusion how?

no proof for religion, sure. why does that discount the possibility of a creator of any sort/god

 

[Harold O'brien]

and you've come to this conclusion how?

no proof for religion, sure. why does that discount the possibility of a creator of any sort/god

argument by language

the word 'god' is asssociated with retarded beliefs. einstein god is not god in my view

 

[nuisance]

there is no god, zero doubt

You must be a genius, zero doubt on something unknown

both weren't proved and therefore might exist by agnostic logic JFL

Because there is no logical reasoning for unicorns to exist, there are some for god but that would have to take things such as the law of causality as truth.

 

[Michelangelo]

This isnt r/atheism

 

[Iblamehyo]

He does. If He destroys me, I smile and tell Him to do as he wishes. I’m a clay pot. He’s the Potter. I am I, what is this?

Gng i support you believing in god but this shit soo fucking corny jfl

 

[Skara]

we don't know if x real =! x isn't real

in order to prove god doesn't exist, the burden of proof is also on you.

no JFL. God was originally invented and therefore it is up to believers to prove his existence, not atheists to prove his absence. That is how the burden of proof works.

The burden of proof is on the one who asserts, not on the one who denies. If someone claims that God exists, he must prove it, just as he is not obliged to prove that God does not exist, just as he is not obliged to prove the absence of invisible unicorns, mermaids or Russell's teapot.

>Consciousness is an observable phenomenon
how do i observe it

Evidence for the existence of consciousness:
Subjective reports (people describe their thoughts, feelings, experiences - and their words are consistent with their behavior).
Neuroscience (MRI, EEG show that certain processes in the brain correlate with conscious experience).
Clinical cases (with brain damage, consciousness changes or disappears - which confirms its connection with the material substrate).
Philosophical argument (the very doubt about consciousness requires its presence - "Cogito, ergo sum" by Descartes).

>It turns out that consciousness is a property of the brain
this is still debated

The debate is about mechanisms (how exactly neurons create subjective experience), not about whether consciousness exists separately from the brain.

and you've come to this conclusion how?

no proof for religion, sure. why does that discount the possibility of a creator of any sort/god

i just logically disproved his existence in this thread

 

[Skara]

You must be a genius, zero doubt on something unknown

Because there is no logical reasoning for unicorns to exist, there are some for god but that would have to take things such as the law of causality as truth.

"Everything has a cause → therefore, there is a First Cause - God"
then God must have a First Cause

 

[neurosis]

no JFL. God was originally invented and therefore it is up to believers to prove his existence, not atheists to prove his absence. That is how the burden of proof works.

The burden of proof is on the one who asserts, not on the one who denies. If someone claims that God exists, he must prove it, just as he is not obliged to prove that God does not exist, just as he is not obliged to prove the absence of invisible unicorns, mermaids or Russell's teapot.

does the color green not exist to a blind person? how would you go about proving the existence of a concept (like the colour green to a blind person) if they're restricted from perceiving it in any sense. same goes for god and unicorns

burden of proof is entirely relative and doesn't hold any logical framework whatsoever, you can't really disprove anything by declaring i can't perceive it therefore it's not real

 

[nuisance]

"Everything has a cause → therefore, there is a First Cause - God"
then God must have a First Cause

Then comes in infinite regress

 

[neurosis]

argument by language

the word 'god' is asssociated with retarded beliefs. einstein god is not god in my view

so semantics...

i just think given all of humanities accumulative knowledge (not much in the grand scheme of things) it's a little premature to make such dogmatic statements

 

[lifeless]

can i fuck ur boypussy

 

[Reiraku]

.org is reddit now

 

[Skara]

does the color green not exist to a blind person? how would you go about proving the existence of a concept (like the colour green to a blind person) if they're restricted from perceiving it in any sense. same goes for god and unicorns

wrong wrong wrong
Color is a physical phenomenon (a certain wavelength of light) that can be measured even if someone can't see it.
You can explain green to a blind person through science: "It's electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of ~500–570 nm." You can show how it affects the world (for example, plants absorb other wavelengths, reflecting green).

God is not a physical phenomenon. He does not have, Measurable parameters (like light), Objective influence on the world (like color on photosynthesis).
It turns out that Color exists independently of perception, because it is part of physical reality. God does not.

burden of proof is entirely relative and doesn't hold any logical framework whatsoever, you can't really disprove anything by declaring i can't perceive it therefore it's not real

the burden of proof is not just an "agreement", but the foundation of rational thinking.
"There is an invisible gnome in my head that controls my thoughts. Prove that it does not exist!"

If we abandon the burden of proof, any fantasy will become "equally probable" with facts.

Science and logic work like this:
If there is no evidence "for" and no way to test it, the hypothesis is rejected.
Otherwise, we will drown in endless "what ifs?" (like Russell's teapot in space).
The burden of proof is not "relative", but a necessary rule to distinguish knowledge from fiction.

"What cannot be perceived cannot be disproved"
But this does not mean that everything that cannot be perceived is real!

 

[Skara]

can i fuck ur boypussy

enjoy

 

[lifeless]

enjoy

u feel soo tight mm

 

[JasGews69x]

Whats your explanation for the reality around us?

 

[neurosis]

Color is a physical phenomenon (a certain wavelength of light) that can be measured even if someone can't see it.
You can explain green to a blind person through science: "It's electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of ~500–570 nm." You can show how it affects the world (for example, plants absorb other wavelengths, reflecting green).

im gonna move the goal posts but idc

prior to the invention of measurement of physical phenomenon, how would you explain the color green to a blind person. if the burden of proof is on you in this instance, wouldn't the blind person have a very plausible and rational argument for the color green to not exist. can the same not be said for a concept like 'god' for you and i. we're just blind people who are unable to interact with the hidden variables blinding our sense and coming to false conclusion that the color green/god doesnt exist (the color green probably does exist, the blind guy would be wrong given modern science)

 

[Skara]

Whats your explanation for the reality around us?

We don't know yet - and that's okay

Then comes in infinite regress

Infinite regress is not the only option, and God is not needed here

 

[shia.jihadist]

nah

 

[JasGews69x]

We don't know yet - and that's okay

Not an answer.

Whats ur explanation for the Universe around us?

 

[nuisance]

We don't know yet - and that's okay

Infinite regress is not the only option, and God is not needed here

Exactly infinte regress being impossible is a debated topic. It could be truth or it could not be. We dont know. So we cant prove or disprove god with our knowledge.

Unlike unicorns there is a logical argument for god. For unicorns there is only logical arguments against it.

 

[nuisance]

Not an answer.

Whats ur explanation for the Universe around us?

There is no truthful explanation only theory.

 

[JasGews69x]

There is no truthful explanation only theory.

how do you know that?

 

[standardcel]

Low iq zoomer cope

 

[Skara]

im gonna move the goal posts but idc

prior to the invention of measurement of physical phenomenon, how would you explain the color green to a blind person. if the burden of proof is on you in this instance, wouldn't the blind person have a very plausible and rational argument for the color green to not exist. can the same not be said for a concept like 'god' for you and i. we're just blind people who are unable to interact with the hidden variables blinding our sense and coming to false conclusion that the color green/god doesnt exist (the color green probably does exist, the blind guy would be wrong given modern science)

A blind man can understand it indirectly (through physics, biology). A blind man could indirectly prove the existence of color.
Even before the invention of science, a blind man could notice:
Plants reach for the sun, so light affects something.
If he had invented a spectrometer, he would have found green.
This won't work with God.
The blind man was wrong because he didn't have access to data. We have data about the world - and no data about God.

The burden of proof works like this:
If something is unobservable and has no effect on the world, it is irrational to believe that it exists.
We are not obliged to prove that God does not exist - believers are obliged to prove that he exists.

 

[nuisance]

how do you know that?

well there is a explanation

we just dont know it yet, we only can theorize to the best of our ability

but theory is not proven truth

 

[Bl0odKn1ght]

@PrinceLuenLeoncur

 

[JasGews69x]

well there is a explanation

what?

we just dont know it yet, we only can theorize to the best of our ability

how would determine that you know?

 

[Skara]

Exactly infinte regress being impossible is a debated topic. It could be truth or it could not be. We dont know. So we cant prove or disprove god with our knowledge.

Unlike unicorns there is a logical argument for god. For unicorns there is only logical arguments against it.

If the chain of causes can be infinite, then God is not needed.

There is no reason to believe in God until there is evidence.

 

[neurosis]

A blind man can understand it indirectly (through physics, biology). A blind man could indirectly prove the existence of color.
Even before the invention of science, a blind man could notice:
Plants reach for the sun, so light affects something.
If he had invented a spectrometer, he would have found green.
This won't work with God.
The blind man was wrong because he didn't have access to data. We have data about the world - and no data about God.

The burden of proof works like this:
If something is unobservable and has no effect on the world, it is irrational to believe that it exists.
We are not obliged to prove that God does not exist - believers are obliged to prove that he exists.

>prior to the invention of measurement of physical phenomenon
>A blind man can understand it indirectly (through physics, biology)
>If he had invented a spectrometer
athiest btfo

The blind man was wrong because he didn't have access to data

but prior to 'science' and having access to data would he have not been correct in declaring the color green doesn't exist given the inefficient burden proof nor possessing the senses to perceive green

 

[nuisance]

what?

how would determine that you know?

There is explanation to the universe but us as humans don't know it and probably never will.

Theorizing would be like saying I think the world is a spinning sphere because of the day and night cycles. Knowing would be taking a satellite out and viewing the earth.