You can't prove the existence of god

[RAITEIII]

You say evolution is a panel of instructions for the human body to reach its final stage. What do you mean by that? If you're talking about how a human delevops these instructions are in your DNA, evolution is something different.

Evolution is how species develop and change by random mutations and natural selection, and it's perfectly logical. Also, what do you mean by ' I don't see how this whole process can be a casuality', you mean how can evolution be the reason for different species or what?

I have to go. Will catch up later.

 

[Lookologist003]

Religion or atheism arguments is on the same level as race bait and race war threads. Nobody really cares about you, and Nobody cares what you do or don't believe in.
Even in the 19th century the essence of your post was present in many minds then. And many writers were sick of listening to it. Original thoughts on this topic don't exist.
You die and something does or doesn't happen, and unless your thoughts create something tangible, it's happening that way regardless of your beliefs.

 

[Akhi]

Wow ok. I thought you were the "science guy", but now it looks like I need to explain to you even the most basic stuff. Science is NOT theory. Usually as the basis of a scientific experiment you have a theory, yes, but there are plenty of theories that can be proven my hard science, for example the harnessing of hydropower through watermills.

Harnessing hydropower through watermills isn't science, its engineering. But BEFORE a device like that can be engineered, scientists prove the concept by experimentation, falsification and verification. Theres is no difference between 'hard' and soft science, its something you pulled out of your ass, all science is based on the same principles.

If you can't prove it, it's not science.

You can prove it. The methodology is just different than more practical experiments. You can go read about it yourself, it all makes perfect sense on how it is proven. Also, nobody is claiming that science is the ultimate truth. All limitations are admitted, and it is certainly a better framework to explain the universe than religious bullshit basen on nothing.

The fact that you think science is all theory goes to show that real science has been replaced by the religion of unsubstantiated theories.

Again, theres no difference, its all based on the same principles.

Since you brought up evolution, care to explain the physical proof that one species can evolve into a whole different fucking species?

One example would be dogs you fucking retard. Hilarious how you act smart when you constantly prove how little you understand. We humans purposely bred wolves to dogs. We constantly breed plants to yield better results, bigger fruits etc. Because we do it purposely, it happens much faster than regular evolution which relies on natural selection.

Because this is an extremely wild claim that requires extremely heavy evidence. I love it, you think you're smart because of your slavish trust in authorities, people who put on white coats and therefore become gods in your eyes. I mean, buddy, you're the one who thinks he evolved from an ape. Go figure.

There is no slavish trust in authorities, most of the science is out there to read and understand. I know you're too stupid to read up about it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Guba]

Lmfao at your IQ. You know that GRAVITY is a theory right? Muh gravity is just a theory brah so it isn’t science

Imagine thinking gravity explains an apple falling from a tree as opposed to a heavier object simply passing through lighter air. Why do retards need to make everything so complicated?

 

[RecessedChinCel]

Imagine thinking gravity explains an apple falling from a tree as opposed to a heavier object simply passing through lighter air.

Ok I fell for the bait.

Wrap it up OP

@Akhi

 

[Lebgfinal]

Religion IS just a cope.

 

[Deleted member 6583]

It doesn't look like random mutations. If you were to go from the smallest unicelular form of life in the past to actual human form I really cannot see the argument to support that the whole thing is random and unpredicted. Too much can go wrong. This is not to sustain the argument of religious God - I don't consider none to have a real holy nature. I just say think there are more advanced forms of life. Some might call it God, some others ET, but human life itself doesn't seem random.

First off, no one is saying evolution is purely random. It's a mix of random mutations and the very non-random process of natural selection. Mutations provide the variation, and natural selection filters it, allowing only the beneficial mutations to propagate. This is precisely how simple forms can evolve into more complex ones over time—no guiding hand required.

You say, "Too much can go wrong." Well, things do go wrong—constantly. Most mutations are neutral or harmful; they don't make it past natural selection's rigorous testing ground. The few that do benefit the organism help it survive and reproduce. If things were designed 'perfectly,' we wouldn't have a 1 in 4 chance of dying from heart disease or an appendix prone to infection.

Imagine thinking gravity explains an apple falling from a tree as opposed to a heavier object simply passing through lighter air. Why do retards need to make everything so complicated?

Did you ignore my reply and instead respond to the guy who basically said the same thing but in lower IQ?

 

[Guba]

Did you ignore my reply and instead respond to the guy who basically said the same thing but in lower IQ?

There is nothing more than needs to be added to my statements so there's no point in continuing debating a retard online. The issue is that you trust in authorities and their claimed discoveries and data while I don't. This massive difference in our perspectives makes it impossible by default to create a constructive exchange.

 

[RecessedChinCel]

Remember guys Gravity and Germs aren’t real because they are just theories which aren’t “hard” science.

But a jew came back from the dead and walked on water

Jfl at christcucks

@Akhi

 

[mogger123]

Well if he existed maybe you could

 

[Deleted member 6583]

There is nothing more than needs to be added to my statements so there's no point in continuing debating a retard online. The issue is that you trust in authorities and their claimed discoveries and data while I don't. This massive difference in our perspectives makes it impossible by default to create a constructive exchange.

Saying that we have a "massive difference in perspectives" is a diplomatic way to avoid saying that one of us accepts empirical evidence and the other doesn't. If you're content with your bubble of skepticism towards anything and everything that contradicts your existing beliefs, that's your choice. But don't pretend it places you on some higher intellectual plane.

By dismissing the debate as pointless because you don't trust 'authorities,' you're essentially admitting that you have no better counter-arguments to offer. Quite an efficient way to forfeit a debate while trying to maintain the illusion of having the upper hand, don't you think?

 

[HOLYFUARK]

Ever read Deuteronomy 21:18-21? It's a gem that prescribes stoning a rebellious son.

This is because the son violates one of the 10 commandments, the family unit is the building block of a healthy society, if we tolerate adultery or disrespecting parents where do you think you will be headed ? I also remind you these are the people who represented the Lord, so of course such actions cannot be tolerated.

' who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them'
So clearly it says the parents must first try to punish their son , and if he's still rebellious he must be brought before the elders so he can be judged .

‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’
In modern times this would be called a hedonistic lifestyle , and the bible says such lifestyle brings poverty.

So you are doing two things by killing him : first it removes the evil from the midst of the community , since the purity of it is important to the Lord, and second , tolerating such actions would send the message that God is not opposed to it .

Lastly i want to say there is no record of this sort of punishment being carried out, the threat of it being a possibility was enough .


As for slavery, the bible does not endorse it , in fact it s a sin to steal a person and sell him , slavery existed before and after the mosaic law , the law simply regulates it and gives unprecedented rights to slaves. Usually you became one because you agreed to it, it s similar to modern day wagecucks .
Those who abolished slavery are none other than christians, look into christian abolitionism.

Lastly asking a man for definitive proof of God is stupid, the only one who can give you proof of his existence is God himself.
However there is plenty of evidence that not only points towards his existance but also that Christianity might be the correct religion.

 

[Deleted member 20835]

Imagine thinking gravity explains an apple falling from a tree as opposed to a heavier object simply passing through lighter air

niggas be farming reps like cray cray

 

[Myth]

I ask you this, in science everything is a reaction, big bang all that jazz, energy and matter are interchangeable. But what made them exist to begin with? It’s a question that can’t be answered. Except one, God.

I don’t follow any particular faith but I do believe there must have been a high being to start things off.

I apologise for the poorly put physics, I didn’t pay much attention

 

[Deleted member 20835]

I ask you this, in science everything is a reaction, big bang all that jazz, energy and matter are interchangeable. But what made them exist to begin with? It’s a question that can’t be answered. Except one, God.

I don’t follow any particular faith but I do believe there must have been a high being to start things off.

I apologise for the poorly put physics, I didn’t pay much attention

Even if god exists he is probably very different from the made up shit in the abrahamic books.

 

[Aladin]

@Aladin based or cringe?
View attachment 2407782

I’m Christian I hate Islam May he burn in hell

@TRUE_CEL have fun screaming in agony and burning

 

[Myth]

Even if god exists he is probably very different from the made up shit in the abrahamic books.

Water

 

[RAITEIII]

Even if god exists he is probably very different from the made up shit in the abrahamic books.

Water

Any guess?

 

[Deleted member 18582]

@vanillaicecream

 

[Deleted member 6583]

This is because the son violates one of the 10 commandments, the family unit is the building block of a healthy society, if we tolerate adultery or disrespecting parents where do you think you will be headed ? I also remind you these are the people who represented the Lord, so of course such actions cannot be tolerated.

' who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them'
So clearly it says the parents must first try to punish their son , and if he's still rebellious he must be brought before the elders so he can be judged .

‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’
In modern times this would be called a hedonistic lifestyle , and the bible says such lifestyle brings poverty.

So you are doing two things by killing him : first it removes the evil from the midst of the community , since the purity of it is important to the Lord, and second , tolerating such actions would send the message that God is not opposed to it .

Lastly i want to say there is no record of this sort of punishment being carried out, the threat of it being a possibility was enough .


As for slavery, the bible does not endorse it , in fact it s a sin to steal a person and sell him , slavery existed before and after the mosaic law , the law simply regulates it and gives unprecedented rights to slaves. Usually you became one because you agreed to it, it s similar to modern day wagecucks .
Those who abolished slavery are none other than christians, look into christian abolitionism.

Lastly asking a man for definitive proof of God is stupid, the only one who can give you proof of his existence is God himself.
However there is plenty of evidence that not only points towards his existance but also that Christianity might be the correct religion.

1. Stoning Rebellious Sons: You argue that this archaic practice has an underlying logic, that of preserving the family unit and by extension, societal stability. While the family unit is indeed important, the prescription of capital punishment for a rebellious son is extreme. In modern society, we have numerous ways to address family and societal issues without resorting to such draconian measures. Moreover, the very existence of such a rule does beg the question of divine morality. A deity advocating for such severe punishments seems far removed from a figure of supreme compassion and wisdom.

2. Slavery: You claim the Bible does not endorse slavery; it simply regulates it. That's a bit like saying a guidebook on 'How to Treat Your Servants' doesn't endorse servitude, it merely regulates it. The very act of regulating implies a level of acceptance. And while it's true that Christians played a role in abolition, it's also true that they used the same Bible to justify slavery for centuries. Both facts can coexist; it's not a point in favor of divine moral consistency.

3. Christian Abolitionism: Credit where it's due; yes, many Christians have been at the forefront of social justice movements. However, one could argue that they were motivated by universal human ethics rather than specific religious tenets. If the Bible was so clear-cut against slavery, there wouldn't have been a need for abolitionists in the first place.

4. Proof of God: You say that asking for definitive proof of God is stupid. If so, why do religious texts and believers consistently attempt to provide 'evidence' of God's existence and moral infallibility? If proof can only come from God, what's the point of apologetics or proselytizing?

5. Evidence for Christianity: You claim that there's evidence not just for the existence of God, but specifically for the Christian God. I'd be fascinated to hear this evidence, particularly how it distinguishes the Christian God from, say, Allah, David Gandy, or any of the other countless gods humanity has worshipped over the millennia.

In summary, your argument hinges on the notion that extreme practices like stoning or slavery were either 'not that bad' or have a 'context' that justifies them. It's a slippery slope from 'context' to outright moral relativism. If we start justifying one form of extreme behavior based on historical context, where does it end?

I ask you this, in science everything is a reaction, big bang all that jazz, energy and matter are interchangeable. But what made them exist to begin with? It’s a question that can’t be answered. Except one, God.

I don’t follow any particular faith but I do believe there must have been a high being to start things off.

I apologise for the poorly put physics, I didn’t pay much attention

You're raising the "First Cause" argument to imply the necessity of a deity. While it's an interesting point, it's also flawed. If everything needs a cause, then what caused God? Science doesn't have all the answers, but filling gaps in our knowledge with "God did it" doesn't provide real solutions. It's better to admit we don't know yet and keep investigating. Personal belief in a higher being is fine, but it's not empirical evidence for the existence of such.

 

[JohnDoe]

View attachment 2407752

 

[Deleted member 32968]

Your imagination is God. Neville goddard talked about it a lot.

 

[JohnDoe]

Nobody likes atheists, every single one is a cringy cunt.

 

[Myth]

1. Stoning Rebellious Sons: You argue that this archaic practice has an underlying logic, that of preserving the family unit and by extension, societal stability. While the family unit is indeed important, the prescription of capital punishment for a rebellious son is extreme. In modern society, we have numerous ways to address family and societal issues without resorting to such draconian measures. Moreover, the very existence of such a rule does beg the question of divine morality. A deity advocating for such severe punishments seems far removed from a figure of supreme compassion and wisdom.

2. Slavery: You claim the Bible does not endorse slavery; it simply regulates it. That's a bit like saying a guidebook on 'How to Treat Your Servants' doesn't endorse servitude, it merely regulates it. The very act of regulating implies a level of acceptance. And while it's true that Christians played a role in abolition, it's also true that they used the same Bible to justify slavery for centuries. Both facts can coexist; it's not a point in favor of divine moral consistency.

3. Christian Abolitionism: Credit where it's due; yes, many Christians have been at the forefront of social justice movements. However, one could argue that they were motivated by universal human ethics rather than specific religious tenets. If the Bible was so clear-cut against slavery, there wouldn't have been a need for abolitionists in the first place.

4. Proof of God: You say that asking for definitive proof of God is stupid. If so, why do religious texts and believers consistently attempt to provide 'evidence' of God's existence and moral infallibility? If proof can only come from God, what's the point of apologetics or proselytizing?

5. Evidence for Christianity: You claim that there's evidence not just for the existence of God, but specifically for the Christian God. I'd be fascinated to hear this evidence, particularly how it distinguishes the Christian God from, say, Allah, David Gandy, or any of the other countless gods humanity has worshipped over the millennia.

In summary, your argument hinges on the notion that extreme practices like stoning or slavery were either 'not that bad' or have a 'context' that justifies them. It's a slippery slope from 'context' to outright moral relativism. If we start justifying one form of extreme behavior based on historical context, where does it end?


You're raising the "First Cause" argument to imply the necessity of a deity. While it's an interesting point, it's also flawed. If everything needs a cause, then what caused God? Science doesn't have all the answers, but filling gaps in our knowledge with "God did it" doesn't provide real solutions. It's better to admit we don't know yet and keep investigating. Personal belief in a higher being is fine, but it's not empirical evidence for the existence of such.

That’s the point of god…

He doesn’t need a cause he’s beyond the laws of physics…

I thought that was pretty obvious

 

[Deleted member 32760]

I'm an agnostic atheist, and I'm issuing a challenge to anyone who thinks they can defend the existence of God. Especially if you belong to the Abrahamic faiths, I've got some questions that will really make you think twice.

Ever read Deuteronomy 21:18-21? It's a gem that prescribes stoning a rebellious son. Or how about the permission of slavery in both the Bible and the Quran? These 'holy' books claim moral high ground yet champion archaic and cruel practices.

So, to all the devout Christians, Muslims, and other religious folks: if you're up for defending not just the existence of God, but the moral underpinnings of your faith, step right up. But beware, my arguments are razor-sharp and thoroughly researched.

If you're not ready to question the validity and morality of your beliefs, you might as well avoid this thread. Otherwise, bring your best arguments. This be should cagefuel.

Tagging low IQ religious people:
@skorp
@EXTREME SUBHUMAN

View attachment 2407749

Dude, you are such a psuedo-intellectual. You just impoach your ideas and ideals onto people for no reason and created and r/DebateReligion-esque conversation. Go there, not here. You'll probaby win in the eyes of idiots who know nothing about philosophical arguments for god/against god.

 

[Deleted member 3105]

⠀

 

[Deleted member 6583]

That’s the point of god…

He doesn’t need a cause he’s beyond the laws of physics…

I thought that was pretty obvious

The "God doesn't need a cause" argument. Convenient how the same rules of causality that you apply to the universe suddenly don't apply to God. If you claim God is exempt from needing a cause, why can't the universe or energy be its own uncaused existence? Saying "God doesn't need a cause because he's beyond physics" isn't a real answer; it's an evasion—a way to put your favored hypothesis beyond the reach of any scrutiny. It's the equivalent of saying "it's magic; don't question it," which is intellectually lazy at best.

I thought I had already addressed this. My memory might be failing me.

Nobody likes atheists, every single one is a cringy cunt.

No, I'm very based.

Dude, you are such a psuedo-intellectual. You just impoach your ideas and ideals onto people for no reason and created and r/DebateReligion-esque conversation. Go there, not here. You'll probaby win in the eyes of idiots who know nothing about philosophical arguments for god/against god.

If you're not prepared for a conversation that goes beyond surface-level, maybe you shouldn't engage. It's not my fault the average religious person on .org is this much of a retard. Now, if you think you have a substantial point to make, go ahead. Otherwise, maybe consider following your own advice and find a different thread more to your taste.

Debating the existence of God is the most useless thing you could waste your time on. Just the idea of it is so ridiculous no debating needs to be done. It isn't a matter of logic or evidence. Theists will just try to go into the fine details of their theory as if it's supposed to mean something.

What IS worth discussing is the real-life effects of religion. Tax evasion, pedophilia, child marriage, misogyny, etc

All that is based. What are you, a moral cuck?

 

[Deleted member 32760]

The "God doesn't need a cause" argument. Convenient how the same rules of causality that you apply to the universe suddenly don't apply to God. If you claim God is exempt from needing a cause, why can't the universe or energy be its own uncaused existence? Saying "God doesn't need a cause because he's beyond physics" isn't a real answer; it's an evasion—a way to put your favored hypothesis beyond the reach of any scrutiny. It's the equivalent of saying "it's magic; don't question it," which is intellectually lazy at best.

I thought I had already addressed this. My memory might be failing me.


No, I'm very based.


If you're not prepared for a conversation that goes beyond surface-level, maybe you shouldn't engage. It's not my fault the average religious person on .org is this much of a retard. Now, if you think you have a substantial point to make, go ahead. Otherwise, maybe consider following your own advice and find a different thread more to your taste.


All that is based. What are you, a moral cuck?

I would be prepared, considering I used to debate with individuals about God existing or not. All I am saying is take this somewhere else. Like, people are too stupid to understand what you are trying to convey. But, this is a Looksmaxxing forum not a Religion/Philosophy forum.

 

[Deleted member 3105]

All that is based. What are you, a moral cuck?

 

[Deleted member 6583]

I would be prepared, considering I used to debate with individuals about God existing or not. All I am saying is take this somewhere else. Like, people are too stupid to understand what you are trying to convey. But, this is a Looksmaxxing forum not a Religion/Philosophy forum.

If you used to debate the existence of God, this should be basic intuition for you. If you can't even handle that, then it's over for you. Also this is the off-topic section, and I'll create whatever thread I damn well please. If my thread triggers you, then fuck off.

View attachment 2408461

In reality, I have a big Nordic mandible.

 

[Deleted member 32760]

If you used to debate the existence of God, this should be basic intuition for you. If you can't even handle that, then it's over for you. Also this is the off-topic section, and I'll create whatever thread I damn well please. If my thread triggers you, then fuck off.


In reality, I have a big Nordic mandible.

:']

 

[HOLYFUARK]

In modern society, we have numerous ways to address family and societal issues without resorting to such draconian measures.

Spoiler: Before i start

i want to say that i consider myself agnostic, i dont know if there is a God nor do i know his nature , however i think the evidence points towards his existence, and Christianity is the best religion to bet on. Im merely trying to find the truth so here i will debate in favour of religion, but on religious spaces i will debate against it .

They are described as stubbornly rebellious , aka this implies that people have made a repeated effort to plead with this person "and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them".

Second, he is a glutton and drunkard . This wasn’t an innocent little child, who made a mistake. He was an adult, who was damaging people around him with his lifestyle.

Third, the parents don’t do justice themselves, they go to the authorities. The community exercises the punishment—not the individuals.

Lastly , this sentence was never carried out.
Summary: the "draconian" way is the final measure when everything else fails .
Your "modern ways" is probably to let your son walk all over you lol , some friendly banter.

Slavery: You claim the Bible does not endorse slavery; it simply regulates it

YOu probably imagine a slave as some guy in the hot sun who gets whipped all day and has nothing to eat . This is probably what happened to israelites when they were slaves in Egypt , and it's the reason the mosaic law came into place , the master is to treat the slave as he would want to be treated.
Again , the difference between biblical slavery and modern day wagecucks simply lies in the name lol .

If anything science causes slavery, because it's proven whites, asians, blacks are all different , so it makes sense we would want to subjugate each other . But Jesus said we are all of the same blood before him.

You say that asking for definitive proof of God is stupid. If so, why do religious texts and believers consistently attempt to provide 'evidence' of God's existence and moral infallibility

First we must not confuse evidence with proof :

A human proving God exists is impossible, only God can reveal himself or provide proof such as miracles.

Now to the evidence :

Logic points towards God:

Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Ontological argument - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Axiological arguments ( without God there is no objective good and bad, so when you said "draconian way" it held no real value):

Do Morals and Values Prove the Existence of God?

According to the argument from values the existence of universal human values and ideals means that there must be a God who created them.

www.learnreligions.com

Your existence:


To be taken with a grain of salt-tier evidence:

A Dutch Study of Remarkable Recoveries After Prayer: How to Deal with Uncertainties of Explanation - Journal of Religion and Health

This article addresses cases of remarkable recoveries related to healing after prayer. We sought to investigate how people who experienced remarkable recoveries re-construct and give meaning to these experiences, and examine the role that epistemic frameworks available to them, play in this...

link.springer.com

The effect of intercessory prayer on wound healing in nonhuman primates - PubMed

The results of this study are consistent with prior human trials of IP effectiveness, but suggest IP-induced health improvements may be independent of confounds associated with human participants. Findings may provide direction for study of the mechanisms of IP-induced health improvements in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Muslims converting(although it s punishable with death ):

 

[Deleted member 6583]

Spoiler: Before i start

i want to say that i consider myself agnostic, i dont know if there is a God nor do i know his nature , however i think the evidence points towards his existence, and Christianity is the best religion to bet on. Im merely trying to find the truth so here i will debate in favour of religion, but on religious spaces i will debate against it .

They are described as stubbornly rebellious , aka this implies that people have made a repeated effort to plead with this person "and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them".

Second, he is a glutton and drunkard . This wasn’t an innocent little child, who made a mistake. He was an adult, who was damaging people around him with his lifestyle.

Third, the parents don’t do justice themselves, they go to the authorities. The community exercises the punishment—not the individuals.

Lastly , this sentence was never carried out.
Summary: the "draconian" way is the final measure when everything else fails .
Your "modern ways" is probably to let your son walk all over you lol , some friendly banter.



YOu probably imagine a slave as some guy in the hot sun who gets whipped all day and has nothing to eat . This is probably what happened to israelites when they were slaves in Egypt , and it's the reason the mosaic law came into place , the master is to treat the slave as he would want to be treated.
Again , the difference between biblical slavery and modern day wagecucks simply lies in the name lol .

If anything science causes slavery, because it's proven whites, asians, blacks are all different , so it makes sense we would want to subjugate each other . But Jesus said we are all of the same blood before him.


First we must not confuse evidence with proof :

View attachment 2408436

A human proving God exists is impossible, only God can reveal himself or provide proof such as miracles.

Now to the evidence :
View attachment 2408459
Logic points towards God:

Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Ontological argument - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Axiological arguments ( without God there is no objective good and bad, so when you said "draconian way" it held no real value):

Do Morals and Values Prove the Existence of God?

According to the argument from values the existence of universal human values and ideals means that there must be a God who created them.

www.learnreligions.com

Your existence:


To be taken with a grain of salt-tier evidence:

A Dutch Study of Remarkable Recoveries After Prayer: How to Deal with Uncertainties of Explanation - Journal of Religion and Health

This article addresses cases of remarkable recoveries related to healing after prayer. We sought to investigate how people who experienced remarkable recoveries re-construct and give meaning to these experiences, and examine the role that epistemic frameworks available to them, play in this...

link.springer.com

The effect of intercessory prayer on wound healing in nonhuman primates - PubMed

The results of this study are consistent with prior human trials of IP effectiveness, but suggest IP-induced health improvements may be independent of confounds associated with human participants. Findings may provide direction for study of the mechanisms of IP-induced health improvements in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Muslims converting(although it s punishable with death ):

I've been awake for 30 hours; I will sleepmaxx now.
Tomorrow I will respond.

 

[Myth]

The "God doesn't need a cause" argument. Convenient how the same rules of causality that you apply to the universe suddenly don't apply to God. If you claim God is exempt from needing a cause, why can't the universe or energy be its own uncaused existence? Saying "God doesn't need a cause because he's beyond physics" isn't a real answer; it's an evasion—a way to put your favored hypothesis beyond the reach of any scrutiny. It's the equivalent of saying "it's magic; don't question it," which is intellectually lazy at best.

I thought I had already addressed this. My memory might be failing me.


No, I'm very based.


If you're not prepared for a conversation that goes beyond surface-level, maybe you shouldn't engage. It's not my fault the average religious person on .org is this much of a retard. Now, if you think you have a substantial point to make, go ahead. Otherwise, maybe consider following your own advice and find a different thread more to your taste.


All that is based. What are you, a moral cuck?

Jfl @ being this much of a tard

 

[ShowerMaxxing]

Is god or no, but Mohammad was based

Pedophilia isn’t “based,” it’s one of the worst sins. How evil do you have to be to rape and traumatize an innocent child for life?

 

[standardcel]

Wow, sounds like you've stumbled upon the great mysteries of the universe in your quest to maximize your looks. Good for you!

But you need to understand that evolution isn't some grand master plan with a final stage. It's random mutations and natural selection. It's all about what helps you survive and make babies. No celestial designer necessary!

And this idea that everything works 'perfectly'—really? Have you heard of genetic diseases, cancer, or, I don't know, balding? Nature is as flawed as it is remarkable.

Now, about Earth being an 'ideal condition for an observable experiment.' That's some grade-A science fiction right there! Why not throw in some intergalactic overlords while we're at it? Earth's time scale has more to do with physics and gravity than some grand cosmic experiment.

And finally, the good ol' 'too many unknowns.' Sure, there's a lot we don't know. But just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean we insert a god into every gap in our understanding. That's like saying, 'I don't know how this magic trick works, so it must be real magic!'

So, while the universe is undeniably mysterious, it's best not to jump to divine conclusions. Unless, of course, you're scripting the next bollywood movie. In that case, carry on!


The classic "God has no beginning" argument. If we're willing to accept that a deity can exist without a beginning, why can't we extend the same courtesy to the universe itself? What's stopping the universe or the fundamental laws of physics from being eternal or self-originating? Invoking a God that exists without a beginning solves nothing; it merely shifts the question from 'Why does the universe exist?' to 'Why does God exist?'

Universe has a beginning. God is outside of universe and outside of time.

 

[ShowerMaxxing]

Nobody 'blindly' believes in science. Being skeptic and testing theories with as little bias as possible is what scientists do.

You can read the studies yourself but you haven't because you're too stupid. Your lack of understanding makes it easy to generalize science and reduce it to another belief system but thats not true at all. Science is based off rationalism, not belief. Scientists observe nature and come to conclusions, then test their hypothesis with unbiased experiments you moron

99% of scientists say global warming is going to end the world. They’ve been saying many countries would be underwater for decades now. Ofc if u don’t follow it u don’t get funding so can’t do research ur actually interested in

“Science” will perpetuate the ideas it’s funders want. Money is the root of all evil, so science is evil. Do u really believe in the “gay gene” or that gender dysphoria is normal?

 

[Deleted member 32968]

99% of scientists say global warming is going to end the world. They’ve been saying many countries would be underwater for decades. Ofc if u don’t follow it u don’t get funding so can’t do research ur actually interested in

Oogway confirms.

 

[Ozsaraal]

I'm an agnostic atheist, and I'm issuing a challenge to anyone who thinks they can defend the existence of God. Especially if you belong to the Abrahamic faiths, I've got some questions that will really make you think twice.

Ever read Deuteronomy 21:18-21? It's a gem that prescribes stoning a rebellious son. Or how about the permission of slavery in both the Bible and the Quran? These 'holy' books claim moral high ground yet champion archaic and cruel practices.

So, to all the devout Christians, Muslims, and other religious folks: if you're up for defending not just the existence of God, but the moral underpinnings of your faith, step right up. But beware, my arguments are razor-sharp and thoroughly researched.

If you're not ready to question the validity and morality of your beliefs, you might as well avoid this thread. Otherwise, bring your best arguments. This be should cagefuel.

Tagging low IQ religious people:
@skorp
@EXTREME SUBHUMAN

View attachment 2407749

Who gives a shit if God allows slavery and stonning that in of itself does not disprove his existence just says you would not want him to exist

 

[Deleted member 6583]

They are described as stubbornly rebellious , aka this implies that people have made a repeated effort to plead with this person "and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them".

Second, he is a glutton and drunkard . This wasn’t an innocent little child, who made a mistake. He was an adult, who was damaging people around him with his lifestyle.

Third, the parents don’t do justice themselves, they go to the authorities. The community exercises the punishment—not the individuals.

Lastly , this sentence was never carried out.
Summary: the "draconian" way is the final measure when everything else fails .
Your "modern ways" is probably to let your son walk all over you lol , some friendly banter.

You've argued that the stoning is a last resort, occurring only after other corrective measures have failed. Yet this argument neglects the historical and cultural context in which these laws were established. Stoning doesn't serve as a rehabilitative measure; it's a fatal and irreversible act. The text could have proposed non-lethal methods for societal correction, but it didn't, thereby undermining the effectiveness and fairness of this religious moral code.

YOu probably imagine a slave as some guy in the hot sun who gets whipped all day and has nothing to eat . This is probably what happened to israelites when they were slaves in Egypt , and it's the reason the mosaic law came into place , the master is to treat the slave as he would want to be treated.
Again , the difference between biblical slavery and modern day wagecucks simply lies in the name lol .

If anything science causes slavery, because it's proven whites, asians, blacks are all different , so it makes sense we would want to subjugate each other . But Jesus said we are all of the same blood before him.

While you argue that biblical slavery is more humane than other forms, the core issue remains: it's still slavery, involving the ownership and subjugation of one human being by another. Any attempt to sanitize or rationalize this practice doesn't negate its inherent violation of human dignity and freedom. Making a distinction between "biblical slavery" and modern employment ("wagecucks") is a false equivalence. In employment, people retain their freedom and legal rights; in slavery, they do not.

First we must not confuse evidence with proof :

A human proving God exists is impossible, only God can reveal himself or provide proof such as miracles.

Now to the evidence :

Logic points towards God:

Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Ontological argument - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Axiological arguments ( without God there is no objective good and bad, so when you said "draconian way" it held no real value):

Do Morals and Values Prove the Existence of God?

According to the argument from values the existence of universal human values and ideals means that there must be a God who created them.

www.learnreligions.com

Your existence:


To be taken with a grain of salt-tier evidence:

A Dutch Study of Remarkable Recoveries After Prayer: How to Deal with Uncertainties of Explanation - Journal of Religion and Health

This article addresses cases of remarkable recoveries related to healing after prayer. We sought to investigate how people who experienced remarkable recoveries re-construct and give meaning to these experiences, and examine the role that epistemic frameworks available to them, play in this...

link.springer.com

The effect of intercessory prayer on wound healing in nonhuman primates - PubMed

The results of this study are consistent with prior human trials of IP effectiveness, but suggest IP-induced health improvements may be independent of confounds associated with human participants. Findings may provide direction for study of the mechanisms of IP-induced health improvements in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Muslims converting(although it s punishable with death ):

1. Evidence and Proof:
You rightly differentiate between evidence and proof but fail to account for the fact that the 'evidence' you propose, like Gödel's Ontological Proof and the Ontological Argument, has been challenged and criticized for centuries. These are not universally accepted concepts, and they rely on a series of premises that themselves are open to scrutiny.

2. Muslim Conversions:
Citing anecdotal claims of millions of Muslims converting to Christianity based on dreams or visions of Jesus Christ doesn't constitute empirical evidence. This point not only falls into the realm of unsubstantiated personal experiences but also veers into what some might call 'schizo-level reasoning.' Dreams and visions are heavily influenced by the individual's background, psychological state, and cultural exposure. They are hardly a reliable foundation for proving the truth of a specific religious doctrine. Moreover, dreams and visions are not exclusive to one religion; people from various religious backgrounds claim to have had transformative experiences that reaffirm their faith, not just Christians. Therefore, this line of reasoning lacks both credibility and exclusivity.

3. Low Probability of Human Existence:
The anthropic principle provides a compelling counterargument. It states that we can observe the universe's characteristics that allow for our existence simply because we exist. If conditions were not right for life, we wouldn't be here to ponder them. This does not necessarily point to a creator but is more a tautological condition of our existence.

4. Atheist 101 meme:
Your representation of atheism is a straw man. The question of Jesus' resurrection is more complex and involves discussions on historical evidence, the reliability of testimonies, and the sociopolitical contexts in which these accounts were written.

5. Gödel's and Ontological Arguments:
Gödel's proof is a formalization of St. Anselm's Ontological Argument, and while it is internally consistent, it rests on premises that can be rejected. For instance, it assumes 'positive properties,' but what is considered 'positive' can be subjective. I could elaborate if you want. epe:

6. Axiological Arguments
Even if one accepts that objective morals could not exist without God, this still doesn’t make for an unassailable proof for the existence of God. Other theories of moral realism could serve the same function without requiring a deity. Moreover, the claim conflates epistemology (how we know things) with ontology (the nature of being), assuming that because we have a concept of morality, it must have been implanted by a higher power.

Jfl @ being this much of a tard

In a discussion that's grounded in logical reasoning and evidence, resorting to name-calling like "tard" isn't a substantive response.
Also, for some reason, I'm unable to use .org emotes, so I have to use these shitty ones.

Pedophilia isn’t “based,” it’s one of the worst sins. How evil do you have to be to rape and traumatize an innocent child for life?

Did you know that neither Christianity nor Islam explicitly condemns pedophilia in their holy texts? While both religions have various teachings on morality and ethics, there are gaps when it comes to this particular issue.

Universe has a beginning. God is outside of universe and outside of time.

If God exists outside of time and the universe, then what framework governs God's existence? Saying that God exists "outside of time and space" is essentially saying that God exists in a context we can't understand, measure, or even conceptualize. This makes it a claim that's impossible to challenge but also impossible to verify.

Additionally, this explanation risks invoking what's known as "special pleading." Special pleading occurs when an argument proposes that an exception be made to a generally accepted rule or law without providing adequate justification for why that exception should be made. In this case, if everything that exists has a cause, then by that logic, God should also have a cause unless an adequate justification can be made for why God is the exception to this rule.

So while the idea that "God is outside of the universe and time" may offer a convenient way to think about the first cause problem, it also introduces new complexities that are often left unaddressed.

99% of scientists say global warming is going to end the world. They’ve been saying many countries would be underwater for decades now. Ofc if u don’t follow it u don’t get funding so can’t do research ur actually interested in

“Science” will perpetuate the ideas it’s funders want. Money is the root of all evil, so science is evil. Do u really believe in the “gay gene” or that gender dysphoria is normal?

I'm afraid I can't argue with you here.

Who gives a shit if God allows slavery and stonning that in of itself does not disprove his existence just says you would not want him to exist

Your point is valid that the issue of whether a deity permits actions like slavery or stoning doesn't necessarily speak to the question of that deity's existence. They are separate questions. One is ontological (does God exist?), and the other is ethical (what is the nature of God's morality?).

However, the ethical question does come into play when the deity in question is presented not merely as existing, but as being all-good or all-just, as is the case in most monotheistic religions. Here, the deity's moral nature is part of the claim about the deity itself. If the deity endorses practices that are widely considered immoral by contemporary standards, it presents a challenge to reconcile that with the claim of the deity being all-good or all-just.

Also, it's entertaining to challenge religious individuals whose moral views have been influenced by Western culture, and see them grapple with these complexities.

 

[Deleted member 32760]

bruh, thanks for the stuff about the dream

You've argued that the stoning is a last resort, occurring only after other corrective measures have failed. Yet this argument neglects the historical and cultural context in which these laws were established. Stoning doesn't serve as a rehabilitative measure; it's a fatal and irreversible act. The text could have proposed non-lethal methods for societal correction, but it didn't, thereby undermining the effectiveness and fairness of this religious moral code.


While you argue that biblical slavery is more humane than other forms, the core issue remains: it's still slavery, involving the ownership and subjugation of one human being by another. Any attempt to sanitize or rationalize this practice doesn't negate its inherent violation of human dignity and freedom. Making a distinction between "biblical slavery" and modern employment ("wagecucks") is a false equivalence. In employment, people retain their freedom and legal rights; in slavery, they do not.


1. Evidence and Proof:
You rightly differentiate between evidence and proof but fail to account for the fact that the 'evidence' you propose, like Gödel's Ontological Proof and the Ontological Argument, has been challenged and criticized for centuries. These are not universally accepted concepts, and they rely on a series of premises that themselves are open to scrutiny.

2. Muslim Conversions:
Citing anecdotal claims of millions of Muslims converting to Christianity based on dreams or visions of Jesus Christ doesn't constitute empirical evidence. This point not only falls into the realm of unsubstantiated personal experiences but also veers into what some might call 'schizo-level reasoning.' Dreams and visions are heavily influenced by the individual's background, psychological state, and cultural exposure. They are hardly a reliable foundation for proving the truth of a specific religious doctrine. Moreover, dreams and visions are not exclusive to one religion; people from various religious backgrounds claim to have had transformative experiences that reaffirm their faith, not just Christians. Therefore, this line of reasoning lacks both credibility and exclusivity.

3. Low Probability of Human Existence:
The anthropic principle provides a compelling counterargument. It states that we can observe the universe's characteristics that allow for our existence simply because we exist. If conditions were not right for life, we wouldn't be here to ponder them. This does not necessarily point to a creator but is more a tautological condition of our existence.

4. Atheist 101 meme:
Your representation of atheism is a straw man. The question of Jesus' resurrection is more complex and involves discussions on historical evidence, the reliability of testimonies, and the sociopolitical contexts in which these accounts were written.

5. Gödel's and Ontological Arguments:
Gödel's proof is a formalization of St. Anselm's Ontological Argument, and while it is internally consistent, it rests on premises that can be rejected. For instance, it assumes 'positive properties,' but what is considered 'positive' can be subjective. I could elaborate if you want. epe:

6. Axiological Arguments
Even if one accepts that objective morals could not exist without God, this still doesn’t make for an unassailable proof for the existence of God. Other theories of moral realism could serve the same function without requiring a deity. Moreover, the claim conflates epistemology (how we know things) with ontology (the nature of being), assuming that because we have a concept of morality, it must have been implanted by a higher power.


In a discussion that's grounded in logical reasoning and evidence, resorting to name-calling like "tard" isn't a substantive response.
Also, for some reason, I'm unable to use .org emotes, so I have to use these shitty ones.


Did you know that neither Christianity nor Islam explicitly condemns pedophilia in their holy texts? While both religions have various teachings on morality and ethics, there are gaps when it comes to this particular issue.


If God exists outside of time and the universe, then what framework governs God's existence? Saying that God exists "outside of time and space" is essentially saying that God exists in a context we can't understand, measure, or even conceptualize. This makes it a claim that's impossible to challenge but also impossible to verify.

Additionally, this explanation risks invoking what's known as "special pleading." Special pleading occurs when an argument proposes that an exception be made to a generally accepted rule or law without providing adequate justification for why that exception should be made. In this case, if everything that exists has a cause, then by that logic, God should also have a cause unless an adequate justification can be made for why God is the exception to this rule.

So while the idea that "God is outside of the universe and time" may offer a convenient way to think about the first cause problem, it also introduces new complexities that are often left unaddressed.


I'm afraid I can't argue with you here.


Your point is valid that the issue of whether a deity permits actions like slavery or stoning doesn't necessarily speak to the question of that deity's existence. They are separate questions. One is ontological (does God exist?), and the other is ethical (what is the nature of God's morality?).

However, the ethical question does come into play when the deity in question is presented not merely as existing, but as being all-good or all-just, as is the case in most monotheistic religions. Here, the deity's moral nature is part of the claim about the deity itself. If the deity endorses practices that are widely considered immoral by contemporary standards, it presents a challenge to reconcile that with the claim of the deity being all-good or all-just.

Also, it's entertaining to challenge religious individuals whose moral views have been influenced by Western culture, and see them grapple with these complexities.

 

[Deleted member 6583]

bruh, thanks for the stuff about the dream

So, did that comment about dreams shake the foundation of my argument? Not at all. Are you now going to disprove my whole argument based on that single point? I'm all ears.

 

[Deleted member 32760]

You've argued that the stoning is a last resort, occurring only after other corrective measures have failed. Yet this argument neglects the historical and cultural context in which these laws were established. Stoning doesn't serve as a rehabilitative measure; it's a fatal and irreversible act. The text could have proposed non-lethal methods for societal correction, but it didn't, thereby undermining the effectiveness and fairness of this religious moral code.


While you argue that biblical slavery is more humane than other forms, the core issue remains: it's still slavery, involving the ownership and subjugation of one human being by another. Any attempt to sanitize or rationalize this practice doesn't negate its inherent violation of human dignity and freedom. Making a distinction between "biblical slavery" and modern employment ("wagecucks") is a false equivalence. In employment, people retain their freedom and legal rights; in slavery, they do not.


1. Evidence and Proof:
You rightly differentiate between evidence and proof but fail to account for the fact that the 'evidence' you propose, like Gödel's Ontological Proof and the Ontological Argument, has been challenged and criticized for centuries. These are not universally accepted concepts, and they rely on a series of premises that themselves are open to scrutiny.

2. Muslim Conversions:
Citing anecdotal claims of millions of Muslims converting to Christianity based on dreams or visions of Jesus Christ doesn't constitute empirical evidence. This point not only falls into the realm of unsubstantiated personal experiences but also veers into what some might call 'schizo-level reasoning.' Dreams and visions are heavily influenced by the individual's background, psychological state, and cultural exposure. They are hardly a reliable foundation for proving the truth of a specific religious doctrine. Moreover, dreams and visions are not exclusive to one religion; people from various religious backgrounds claim to have had transformative experiences that reaffirm their faith, not just Christians. Therefore, this line of reasoning lacks both credibility and exclusivity.

3. Low Probability of Human Existence:
The anthropic principle provides a compelling counterargument. It states that we can observe the universe's characteristics that allow for our existence simply because we exist. If conditions were not right for life, we wouldn't be here to ponder them. This does not necessarily point to a creator but is more a tautological condition of our existence.

4. Atheist 101 meme:
Your representation of atheism is a straw man. The question of Jesus' resurrection is more complex and involves discussions on historical evidence, the reliability of testimonies, and the sociopolitical contexts in which these accounts were written.

5. Gödel's and Ontological Arguments:
Gödel's proof is a formalization of St. Anselm's Ontological Argument, and while it is internally consistent, it rests on premises that can be rejected. For instance, it assumes 'positive properties,' but what is considered 'positive' can be subjective. I could elaborate if you want. epe:

6. Axiological Arguments
Even if one accepts that objective morals could not exist without God, this still doesn’t make for an unassailable proof for the existence of God. Other theories of moral realism could serve the same function without requiring a deity. Moreover, the claim conflates epistemology (how we know things) with ontology (the nature of being), assuming that because we have a concept of morality, it must have been implanted by a higher power.


In a discussion that's grounded in logical reasoning and evidence, resorting to name-calling like "tard" isn't a substantive response.
Also, for some reason, I'm unable to use .org emotes, so I have to use these shitty ones.


Did you know that neither Christianity nor Islam explicitly condemns pedophilia in their holy texts? While both religions have various teachings on morality and ethics, there are gaps when it comes to this particular issue.


If God exists outside of time and the universe, then what framework governs God's existence? Saying that God exists "outside of time and space" is essentially saying that God exists in a context we can't understand, measure, or even conceptualize. This makes it a claim that's impossible to challenge but also impossible to verify.

Additionally, this explanation risks invoking what's known as "special pleading." Special pleading occurs when an argument proposes that an exception be made to a generally accepted rule or law without providing adequate justification for why that exception should be made. In this case, if everything that exists has a cause, then by that logic, God should also have a cause unless an adequate justification can be made for why God is the exception to this rule.

So while the idea that "God is outside of the universe and time" may offer a convenient way to think about the first cause problem, it also introduces new complexities that are often left unaddressed.


I'm afraid I can't argue with you here.


Your point is valid that the issue of whether a deity permits actions like slavery or stoning doesn't necessarily speak to the question of that deity's existence. They are separate questions. One is ontological (does God exist?), and the other is ethical (what is the nature of God's morality?).

However, the ethical question does come into play when the deity in question is presented not merely as existing, but as being all-good or all-just, as is the case in most monotheistic religions. Here, the deity's moral nature is part of the claim about the deity itself. If the deity endorses practices that are widely considered immoral by contemporary standards, it presents a challenge to reconcile that with the claim of the deity being all-good or all-just.

Also, it's entertaining to challenge religious individuals whose moral views have been influenced by Western culture, and see them grapple with these complexities.

Just curious, where did you learn to argue and reason like this?

 

[Deleted member 32760]

So, did that comment about dreams shake the foundation of my argument? Not at all. Are you now going to disprove my whole argument based on that single point? I'm all ears.

No, I am complimenting you dude. You don't need to take everything as if it's an argument?

 

[Deleted member 6583]

Just curious, where did you learn to argue and reason like this?

Chat GPT. Look mane, I ain't no genius or nothin', just a negro from the hood with a 95 IQ. Debating? Man, that ain't my strong suit.

 

[Deleted member 32760]

Chat GPT. Look mane, I ain't no genius or nothin', just a negro from the hood with a 95 IQ. Debating? Man, that ain't my strong suit.

Actually?

 

[Deleted member 32760]

Chat GPT. Look mane, I ain't no genius or nothin', just a negro from the hood with a 95 IQ. Debating? Man, that ain't my strong suit.

What you learnt of GPT? I learnt on reddit comment sections, jfl.

 

[Deleted member 6583]

Actually?

Yeah, for real. Just keepin' it 100, ain't no debate champ or scholar up in here. Just tryna navigate this convo, ya feel me?

What you learnt of GPT? I learnt on reddit comment sections, jfl.

Ayy, real talk? I just hit that copy-paste, ya dig? Ain't even gettin' all these big arguments, fr. My IQ got me locked outta understanding all that high-level stuff, ong.

 

[Deleted member 32760]

Yeah, for real. Just keepin' it 100, ain't no debate champ or scholar up in here. Just tryna navigate this convo, ya feel me?


Ayy, real talk? I just hit that copy-paste, ya dig? Ain't even gettin' all these big arguments, fr. My IQ got me locked outta understanding all that high-level stuff, ong.

Lol, that's cool bro. And for real, I learnt off reddit comment sections.

 

[HOLYFUARK]

Chat GPT. Look mane, I ain't no genius or nothin', just a negro from the hood with a 95 IQ. Debating? Man, that ain't my strong suit.

Really? Because in the first part of your response you ignored everything i said and concentrated on the final resort which is stoning , what kind of "rehabilitation" do you suggest when clearly the text states such person does not want to change at all ? and considering his behaviour is dangerous not only him but to everyone as well?