You can't prove the existence of god

[standardcel]

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

Its not impossible to imagine. Just imagine a video game with sentient video game characters. There may be many other universes which were created by god.

 

[Ozsaraal]

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.

But is God presented as all good

Or is that an assumption

I mean he is and the bible says he is however,


I think when atheists say that christians say God is all good there referencing all the funeral shit that preists say and assume that other Christians are like that and then they mention some biblical calamity and say that Christians have a double standard

The part atheists get wrong and the problem with that thinking is is that the bible actually is quite frank with the nature of God and he can be wrathful

God is all just when reading the bible without idealogical interjections, as soon as you bring ideologue into the way God is presented in the bible you will likely conclude that he is immoral especially if that ideologue is western leftism or liberalism
( those people you find entertaining trying to juggle those complexities only have this problem cause they are trying to gel liberal ideologue with the bible it won't work)
But if you isolate and just veiw the bible without croscontamination of other principles it becomes clear God is actually all just

Explain to me one unjust or cruel thing God did in the bible, ( yes I've read the bible) you will likely think of many things but those probably aren't bad and even might be good

Another thing I find interesting about atheists is that if they suspended reality and thought well there could be a God what are the chances that that God will conform to every single one of your opinions and views and be exactly like you want him to be


I do like and admire the critical smart thinking atheists who assess the bible, however this sometimes gets hijacked by dumber atheists who overcomplicate philosophical shit who whine and circle jerk about God

God is all just but the bibles all just is different to leftist liberal all just

 

[Deleted member 16960]

Good thread dannish man

 

[thenewhebbe]

But is God presented as all good

Or is that an assumption

I mean he is and the bible says he is however,


I think when atheists say that christians say God is all good there referencing all the funeral shit that preists say and assume that other Christians are like that and then they mention some biblical calamity and say that Christians have a double standard

The part atheists get wrong and the problem with that thinking is is that the bible actually is quite frank with the nature of God and he can be wrathful

God is all just when reading the bible without idealogical interjections, as soon as you bring ideologue into the way God is presented in the bible you will likely conclude that he is immoral especially if that ideologue is western leftism or liberalism
( those people you find entertaining trying to juggle those complexities only have this problem cause they are trying to gel liberal ideologue with the bible it won't work)
But if you isolate and just veiw the bible without croscontamination of other principles it becomes clear God is actually all just

Explain to me one unjust or cruel thing God did in the bible, ( yes I've read the bible) you will likely think of many things but those probably aren't bad and even might be good

Another thing I find interesting about atheists is that if they suspended reality and thought well there could be a God what are the chances that that God will conform to every single one of your opinions and views and be exactly like you want him to be


I do like and admire the critical smart thinking atheists who assess the bible, however this sometimes gets hijacked by dumber atheists who overcomplicate philosophical shit who whine and circle jerk about God

God is all just but the bibles all just is different to leftist liberal all just

Can a creator be evil or be everywhere on the spectrum atleast on good and evil

 

[Ozsaraal]

Can a creator be evil or be everywhere on the spectrum atleast on good and evil

There's no spectrum, spectrum and scales belong to ideologies, because ideologies are measurable on differing degrees, the bible is without idealogy

God's justness is not measured in degrees comparable to a specific standard

His justness is more like a law of physics

 

[thenewhebbe]

There's no spectrum, spectrum and scales belong to ideologies, because ideologies are measurable on differing degrees, the bible is without idealogy

God's justness is not measured in degrees comparable to a specific standard

His justness is more like a law of physics

So the answer its not possible for god to be evil no matter what he does. So your very long comment reply to op was useless because op dosent have ability to give exempel because you would reject everyone of them even if he had infinte amount of exempel . Because the premise god can't be evil

 

[Sprinkles]

"Atheists" truly are the most low IQ retards to ever tread this earth. Imagine thinking you're an "atheist" while blindly believing the garbage coming out of the mouths of Jew and Freemason "scientists". Imagine thinking you're an "atheist" while being religious just like the rest of the world.

lol Atheists are as much of a joke to the Satanic Elite as Christians.

atheism and mainstream science is as laughable and bullshit as most of the organized mainstream religions.

especially the whole notion of conciousness coming and being generated from the human brain, rather than being something entirely separate.

evolution is a meme.

 

[Ozsaraal]

So the answer its not possible for god to be evil no matter what he does. So your very long comment reply to op was useless because op dosent have ability to give exempel because you would reject everyone of them even if he had infinte exempel.

Not necessarily what I would of done is simply discussed the issue he brought up and fleshed out how its not bad and I'd be putting myself up for failure if for whatever reason I couldn't do that, I won't just say ( b b b but gods all just end of discussion)

What I meant by the spectrum and idealogy thing is that if you let ideaolgies interfere with a thought process it hinders free thinking, and that if God is real than his law would have to be as solid as something like physics


So when conducting thought experiments about for example the Abraham and issac thing the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah etc and just think about it without letting people tell you what to think about, its not that bad and makes sense, well I shouldn't say makes sense but it has the capacity to make sense obviously everyone will have differing opinions, but the main thing is that it has the capacity to make sense because that would pave the way for it to be just """ IF"""" God exists if he doesn't exist than than it wouldn't really mean anything

The more important question is does he exist to begin with

 

[Enfant terrible]

never seen so many retards in one thread