why god doesn't exist

[nuisance]

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.

There is no reason to deny there is a god until there is evidence.

 

[JasGews69x]

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

What do you accept?

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.

Your theories dont affect reality

 

[Skara]

>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

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

again, he was wrong, everyone used to believe that the earth was flat lol

There is no reason to deny there is a god until there is evidence.

I gave proof of his absence through logic. So there is no god. That's all.

 

[nuisance]

I gave proof of his absence through logic. So there is no god. That's all.

You didn't give proof you gave logical assumptions. I can give logical assumptions for god as-well. Both assumptions have holes you can poke at and cant be taken as definitive truth.

 

[neurosis]

again, he was wrong, everyone used to believe that the earth was flat lol

the point im trying to make is:

how do you know there aren't any hidden variables undetectable to you that proves gods existence as a physical phenomenon. in the same manner of the blind man who came to the rational (at the time) conclusion that green doesn't exist

 

[Skara]

You didn't give proof you gave logical assumptions. I can give logical assumptions for god as-well. Both assumptions have holes you can poke at and cant be taken as definitive truth.

again, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, which means it is religious people who must prove its existence, not the other way around. Until it is proven directly or indirectly=it does not exist

the point im trying to make is:

how do you know there aren't any hidden variables undetectable to you that proves gods existence as a physical phenomenon. in the same manner of the blind man who came to the rational (at the time) conclusion that green doesn't exist

You speak as if I were claiming that there is an invisible dragon in this room that leaves no trace. Yes, I can’t prove that it doesn’t exist – but that’s no reason to believe in it.

 

[nuisance]

again, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, which means it is religious people who must prove its existence, not the other way around. Until it is proven directly or indirectly=it does not exist

You speak as if I were claiming that there is an invisible dragon in this room that leaves no trace. Yes, I can’t prove that it doesn’t exist – but that’s no reason to believe in it.

You would have the burden of proof because you claim that god does not exist. I am in the middle I did not say god exists. I say we cannot know.

 

[Skara]

You would have the burden of proof because you claim that god does not exist. I am in the middle I did not say god exists. I say we cannot know.

shifting the burden of proof onto me under the guise of agnosticism is a logical fallacy.
The burden of proof is on believers, not atheists, because if someone says "God exists" they have to prove it. If someone says "There is no God" that is a denial of an unproven proposition, not a new proposition.

 

[borntokill]

 

[nuisance]

shifting the burden of proof onto me under the guise of agnosticism is a logical fallacy.
The burden of proof is on believers, not atheists, because if someone says "God exists" they have to prove it. If someone says "There is no God" that is a denial of an unproven proposition, not a new proposition.

A theist claims, "God exists." → They have the burden of proof.
An atheist (strong/explicit) claims, "God does not exist." → They also have the burden of proof.
An agnostic says, "I don’t know if God exists." → No claim is made, so no burden of proof.

I am not a theist shifting the burden of proof onto you, I have no claim i have no burden.

 

[Skara]

A theist claims, "God exists." → They have the burden of proof.
An atheist (strong/explicit) claims, "God does not exist." → They also have the burden of proof.
An agnostic says, "I don’t know if God exists." → No claim is made, so no burden of proof.

I am not a theist shifting the burden of proof onto you, I have no claim i have no burden.

the burden of proof is only on theists.
An atheist says: "There is no evidence of God, so there is no reason to believe in him." This is a denial of the unproven, not a new assertion.

 

[Skara]

A theist claims, "God exists." → They have the burden of proof.
An atheist (strong/explicit) claims, "God does not exist." → They also have the burden of proof.
An agnostic says, "I don’t know if God exists." → No claim is made, so no burden of proof.

I am not a theist shifting the burden of proof onto you, I have no claim i have no burden.

"I don't know" is not agnosticism. Agnostic is about the fact that they believe that it is impossible to prove the existence or absence of God. So the burden of proof lies with them as well.

Theist says: "God exists" → must prove.

Agnostic says: "We can't know whether God exists or not" → must also prove, because this is a statement about the fundamental unknowability of God.

Atheist says: "No evidence → no reason to believe" → must do nothing, because he simply rejects the unproven.

"I don't know" / "I don't care" → do not claim anything at all, so the burden of proof does not apply to them.

 

[nuisance]

Atheist says: "No evidence → no reason to believe" → must do nothing, because he simply rejects the unproven.

Thread name "why god doesnt exist" So if I had an agnostic claim you shifted the burden of proof onto me.

And then if you wanted to say no evidence, no reason to belive that is still a claim.

 

[neurosis]

Yes, I can’t prove that it doesn’t exist

check AND mate

change the title of this thread

 

[Skara]

Thread name "why god doesnt exist" So if I had an agnostic claim you shifted the burden of proof onto me.

And then if you wanted to say no evidence, no reason to belive that is still a claim.

no evidence = no reason to believe
this is a claim of the current state of knowledge, so the burden of proof does not apply here
"there is no god" is not a claim, but a refutation of an old claim due to lack of evidence, so the burden of proof is not required.

 

[Skara]

check AND mate

change the title of this thread

can't be empirically proven doesn't mean you can believe in its existence. For example, that unicorns live in the bowels of the earth, it's not proven that they do/do not but we all know that they are not there JFL.

 

[neurosis]

we all know that they are not there

no we do not

you need to be way more skeptical about reality my guy, reductionist materialism isn't the answer to everything

/end thread

 

[Skara]

no we do not

you need to be way more skeptical about reality my guy, reductionist materialism isn't the answer to everything

/end thread

Skepticism ≠ Rejection of Basic Logic
skepticism requires evidence for belief, not belief in the unverifiable. Hyperskepticism ("What if there are unicorns in the Earth's core?") is a logical collapse leading to absurdity:

Reductive materialism has nothing to do with it because the existence of unicorns/God is a matter of evidence.
The nature of reality is a matter of philosophy of science
you lost
/end thread

 

[neurosis]

Skepticism ≠ Rejection of Basic Logic

well it should

Hyperskepticism ("What if there are unicorns in the Earth's core?") is a logical collapse leading to absurdity:

good

riddle me this then: show me the burden of proof for the existence of basic logic
seems about as made up as this 'god' figure you speak of

 

[JasGews69x]

that unicorns live in the bowels of the earth, it's not proven that they do/do not but we all know that they are not there JFL.

False comparison -

People believe God to be the Creator of the reality around us whereas nobody believes that unicorns are at the bowels of the Earth.


idk why you're comparing the two

 

[Rabbi]

If God doesn't exist why did he promise us land 4000 years ago?

 

[Skara]

Yes

good

riddle me this then: show me the burden of proof for the existence of basic logic
seems about as made up as this 'god' figure you speak of

Logic is a tool, not a statement. You are trying to avoid answering. Where is the evidence that it is impossible to prove the existence/non-existence of God?

False comparison -

People believe God to be the Creator of the reality around us whereas nobody believes that unicorns are at the bowels of the Earth.


idk why you're comparing the two

The popularity of a belief does not make it more true. What matters is the presence of evidence.
Also it's not a falso comparison at all, these are the same things, unicorns in the core of the earth = God.
unicorns in the core of the planet:
Observational evidence: no
Scientific consistency: no (contradicts biology and violates geology)
Testability: no
God:
Observational evidence: no
Scientific consistency: no (contradicts physics and violates causality)
Testability: no

If God doesn't exist why did he promise us land 4000 years ago?

idk

 

[JasGews69x]

The popularity of a belief does not make it more true.

yeah ik

Observational evidence: no
Scientific consistency: no (contradicts physics and violates violates causality)
Testability: no

So you basically wanna see Him?

 

[neurosis]

Logic is a tool, not a statement

right so you've claimed that logic is real, the burden of proof is in your court. no circular arguments pls
bear in mind the hard problem of consciousness hasnt been solved yet and logic is the product (tool as you say) of the mind aka consciousness

Where is the evidence that it is impossible to prove the existence/non-existence of God?

the variables to disprove/prove the existence of god aren't available to us. (we don't have access to all the inputs so the output isn't going to be correct) - pure intuition, there's no way i could prove this to you in any form whatsover so just take my word

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

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

> Claims One Stance Is Definitively Wrong
> "I Dont Know" If My Stance is Right

 

[neurosis]

> Claims One Stance Is Definitively Wrong
> "I Dont Know" If My Stance is Right

op summed up perfectly

 

[Skara]

yeah ik

So you basically wanna see Him?

yes

right so you've claimed that logic is real, the burden of proof is in your court. no circular arguments pls
bear in mind the hard problem of consciousness hasnt been solved yet and logic is the product (tool as you say) of the mind aka consciousness

absurd idiocy: "Prove that your feelings are real"

"Prove that words have meaning"

"Prove that you exist"
JFL.

the variables to disprove/prove the existence of god aren't available to us. (we don't have access to all the inputs so the output isn't going to be correct) - pure intuition, there's no way i could prove this to you in any form whatsover so just take my word

What specific variables could prove God? Why are they unavailable?
Unobservable variables = fiction if they do not manifest themselves in any way
We don't know everything ≠ "So God is possible

 

[Skara]

> Claims One Stance Is Definitively Wrong
> "I Dont Know" If My Stance is Right

I can not know 100% and still reject unsubstantiated claims. What a stupid piece of shit you are if I seriously need to explain this LOL

op summed up perfectly

keep coping

 

[neurosis]

absurd idiocy: "Prove that your feelings are real"

"Prove that words have meaning"

"Prove that you exist"
JFL.

well.. i mean, prove it. (hint: you can't). nor can you prove that i exist.
again , no circular reasoning

What specific variables could prove God? Why are they unavailable?

unholy math that hasnt been discovered yet

We don't know everything ≠ "So God is possible

we dont know everything =! god is impossible

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

> Everything Has a Cause in Nature

> Evolution Caused Our Species
> Evolution Began from Micro-organisms
> The Unbelievably Perfect Environment of our Planet Caused Micro-Organisms & Life to Start
> The Again Unbelievably Perfect Formation of Our Solar System & our Planet Began from the Big Bang
> The Cause of the Big Bang Must be Un-caused
> Anything Un-caused Is Above Nature Since Everything has a Cause In Nature
> God Is Above Nature

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

I can not know 100% and still reject unsubstantiated claims. What a stupid piece of shit you are if I seriously need to explain this LOL

Dont Stress Chud

 

[Skara]

well.. i mean, prove it. (hint: you can't). nor can you prove that i exist.
again , no circular reasoning

you use words, logic and consciousness to demand their refutation.
If everything is doubtful, then your "prove it" is also meaningless.
Your idiotic level of skepticism makes any discussion impossible, including your own arguments.

unholy math that hasnt been discovered yet

Hahahahaha what kind of magical thinking is this. Well according to your idiotic argument undiscovered biology will confirm that I am the king of Mars.

we dont know everything =! god is impossible

until it is proven = it simply does not exist logically

 

[neurosis]

If everything is doubtful, then your "prove it" is also meaningless.

you're finally understanding

makes any discussion impossible, including your own arguments

correct

 

[Skara]

> Everything Has a Cause in Nature

> Evolution Caused Our Species
> Evolution Began from Micro-organisms
> The Unbelievably Perfect Environment of our Planet Caused Micro-Organisms & Life to Start
> The Again Unbelievably Perfect Formation of Our Solar System & our Planet Began from the Big Bang
> The Cause of the Big Bang Must be Un-caused
> Anything Un-caused Is Above Nature Since Everything has a Cause In Nature
> God Is Above Nature

Everything in nature has a cause - gigacope
Quantum physics shows that at the micro level, events can occur without a cause ( the decay of an atom).
Time itself arose with the Big Bang, talking about the cause before time is pointless.
"Uncaused = God" is a substitution of concepts
Even if the Big Bang had no cause, it does not mean that this cause is God.

"Perfection of the Universe" is subjective

Where did God come from?
Why did he suddenly decide to create the Universe?
How does he exist outside of time/space?

 

[Skara]

you're finally understanding

correct

yeah leave my thread, you lost

 

[neurosis]

yeah leave my thread, you lost

youll get it one day...

*walks away into the sunset*

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

Everything in nature has a cause - gigacope
Quantum physics shows that at the micro level, events can occur without a cause (for example, the decay of an atom).

Im Begging you to do atleast a TIny Bit of Research Before Spewing Absolute Misinformation.
Whichever Reddit You Got this From isnt a Credible Source Unfortunately

Time itself arose with the Big Bang, talking about the cause before time is pointless.

"Contradiction! How Did God Create Time Since there Wasent Time Before He Made It"
Al-Ghazali Disproved this Same Argument in the 11th Century. Same Reddit Arguments & All the Same Disproved 1000x Over

Even if the Big Bang had no cause, it does not mean that this cause is God.

So The Big Bang has Absolutely No Cause and Is not in Accordance with Nature. Giga-Retard

"Perfection of the Universe" is subjective

Never said the Universe. Our Solar System is so Unbelievably Perfect that it Sustains life

Where did God come from?

Uncaused & Eternal

Why did he suddenly decide to create the Universe?
How does he exist outside of time/space?

I Dont Know Him Personally

 

[neurosis]

God Is Above Nature

humans (op especially) trying to quantify god using 'logic' and 'reason' is analogous to a gta character (pixels on a screen) attempting to quantify the devs that coded him (organic matter)

thats basically what dualism is

 

[ryuken]

universe has a start
everything that has a start has a cause
=
universe has a a cause
everything that has a cause needs a causer
=
universe needs a causer

 

[Skara]

Im Begging you to do atleast a TIny Bit of Research Before Spewing Absolute Misinformation.
Whichever Reddit You Got this From isnt a Credible Source Unfortunately

The decay of an atom without a cause is an experimentally proven fact (Nobel Prize 2022). You deny science when it contradicts your faith. Where is your evidence that quantum events have a 'cause'?

"Contradiction! How Did God Create Time Since there Wasent Time Before He Made It"
Al-Ghazali Disproved this Same Argument in the 11th Century. Same Reddit Arguments & All the Same Disproved 1000x Over

Physics of the 21st century > philosophy of the 11th century. Al-Ghazali did not know about quantum mechanics, the Big Bang and multiverses. You appeal to the ancients because modern science destroys your dogmas."

So The Big Bang has Absolutely No Cause and Is not in Accordance with Nature. Giga-Retard

If God can be uncaused, then so can the Universe. Why introduce an extra entity? You're simply replacing one unknown (the origin of the Universe) with another unknown (the origin of God). That's not an explanation.

Never said the Universe. Our Solar System is so Unbelievably Perfect that it Sustains life

99.9% of the solar system is lethal to life. We exist not because the world is perfect, but because we have adapted to its tiny habitable zone. It's like calling a desert perfect if you only survived in an oasis.

Uncaused & Eternal

this is a double standard
you have no critical thinking at all lol, and all your pseudo-arguments are built on double standards. You demand absolute proof from science, but from yourself it is enough to say "God is eternal, that's all!!" There is no point in continuing the argument with you because you have already lost

 

[Skara]

universe has a start
everything that has a start has a cause
=
universe has a a cause
everything that has a cause needs a causer
=
universe needs a causer

causer needs a causer too by this logic.
but ofc you are wrong because not everything has a cause. already said that the decay of an atom has no cause

 

[superpsycho]

idk what to believe brocel

 

[ryuken]

causer needs a causer too by this logic.
but ofc you are wrong because not everything has a cause. already said that the decay of an atom has no cause

that's why the causer has no start lil nigga no start means he doesn't need a cause

 

[Skara]

humans (op especially) trying to quantify god using 'logic' and 'reason' is analogous to a gta character (pixels on a screen) attempting to quantify the devs that coded him (organic matter)

thats basically what dualism is

If logic does not apply to God, then all religious texts (written by people using logic) are meaningless.

 

[Skara]

that's why the causer has no start lil nigga no start means he doesn't need a cause

>Everything has a reason
a lie (quantum physics).

>god exists without a cause
Double standard (God can exist without a cause, the Universe can't).

>God is eternal
an empty statement without a mechanism or evidence

 

[neurosis]

If logic does not apply to God, then all religious texts (written by people using logic) are meaningless.

probably true (schizo theory warning)

but i think prophecies may have happened in some form or another, initially being transferred to the immaterial mind and then translated to the material mind via logic. ive always seen that as the reason religious texts are written in inarticulable parables/metaphors - the conceptualisation of the immaterial (the supernatural) at first comes across as magical/incoherent/illogical

 

[Skara]

idk what to believe brocel

believe in unicorns

 

[batman1997]

 

[ryuken]

>god exists without a cause
Double standard (God can exist without a cause, the Universe can't).

didn't say it can't

 

[Skara]

didn't say it can't

you said it, but now you're giving up your logic