>David, I need you to dance for me. >D-dance?

>David, I need you to dance for me
>D-dance? But why?
>I need to write in here (2 Samuel 6:14) that you danced for me
>Why do you need to wr-
>DANCE NOW OR YOU ARE GOING TO SUPER HELL

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      what is this even trying to say?
      >athiests are illogical
      because they ask questions?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        No it's that atheists are only skeptical about God's existence, in which case they suddenly become hardcore empericists and fact no longer matter.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >you must believe in my god without any evidence!
          ...but why? Sorry, I just don't get it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is your evidence that there is gravity on Jupiter, or that the Big Bang happened?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're not answering my question, and I don't think you will at any point.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >we can't know anything!
            Pathetic

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >jupiter is made of matter
            >matter produces gravity
            >jupiter has gravity

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            So we can use inductive logic here, but for God we need first hand evidence?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jupiter is orbited by 95 moons.
            You can observe some of its moon with just an amateur telescope.

            Now of course it's possible that those moons are dragged by invisible space unicorns.
            But it's far more likely that they orbit Jupiter because of Jupiter's gravity, a well explored phenomena with plenty of evidence.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's possible that the universe created itself from nothing, for no reason, without explanation, but it's far more likely that God created the universe out of nothing for His glory. You can observe the universe with telescopes, so we know the universe exists.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why not just say that the universe just always existed"?
            It's a better explanation that there is a magic sky daddy "that just always existed" who created it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            What evidence do you have that the universe always existed?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I performed a haruspex.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            More evidence than you have that God created the universe.
            At least I can see that the universe exists now. You can't even say that about God.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >At least I can see that the universe exists now.
            That doesn't evidence that the universe always existed.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            None. We are making it up because we desperately need to get God out of this equation. Ironically, these steps require even more belief.
            Sincerely,
            many atheists

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ironically, these steps require even more belief.
            How so?
            Belief A
            >God exists
            >God wasn't created by anything, he just always existed.
            >God created the universe
            Belief B
            >Universe always existed

            B requires me to believe much less.

            >At least I can see that the universe exists now.
            That doesn't evidence that the universe always existed.

            It's a basic prerequisite. Already more than you have for the idea that God created the universe.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >B requires me to believe much less.
            Not today, it doesn't. It requires you to bridge or dismiss volumes of measurements and accurate models that spell out the contrary.
            'A' requires you to believe in a prime mover and that's it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not today, it doesn't. It requires you to bridge or dismiss volumes of measurements and accurate models that spell out the contrary.
            How so?
            I'm not saying the universe always existed in exactly the same form as it does now. Just the general existence of a general universe, a bunch of space, matter, and energy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Point me where it says the universe didn't exist at some point.

            >Just the general existence of a general universe, a bunch of space, matter, and energy.
            It's not what we observe. For example, if it has existed in any form, entropy would gradually increase as per the laws of thermodynamics. Infinite time (in whatever structure or state) would result in infinite entropy. We don't see that, we see pretty rigid laws.

            >entropy would gradually increase as per the laws of thermodynamics.
            Which it does.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            would gradually increase as per the laws of thermodynamics.
            >Which it does.
            Agreed. And?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

            >In the 18th century, the concept that the age of Earth was millions, if not billions, of years began to appear. Nonetheless, most scientists throughout the 19th century and into the first decades of the 20th century presumed that the universe itself was Steady State and eternal, possibly with stars coming and going but no changes occurring at the largest scale known at the time.

            >The first scientific theories indicating that the age of the universe might be finite were the studies of thermodynamics, formalized in the mid-19th century. The concept of entropy dictates that if the universe (or any other closed system) were infinitely old, then everything inside would be at the same temperature, and thus there would be no stars and no life. No scientific explanation for this contradiction was put forth at the time.

            >In 1915 Albert Einstein published the theory of general relativity and in 1917 constructed the first cosmological model based on his theory. In order to remain consistent with a steady-state universe, Einstein added what was later called a cosmological constant to his equations. Einstein's model of a static universe was proved unstable by Arthur Eddington.

            >The first reasonably accurate measurement of the rate of expansion of the universe, a numerical value now known as the Hubble constant, was made in 1958 by astronomer Allan Sandage. His measured value for the Hubble constant came very close to the value range generally accepted today.

            >Sandage, like Einstein, did not believe his own results at the time of discovery. Sandage proposed new theories of cosmogony to explain this discrepancy. This issue was more or less resolved by improvements in the theoretical models used for estimating the ages of stars. As of 2013, using the latest models for stellar evolution, the estimated age of the oldest known star is 14.46±0.8 billion years.

            Ah, now I see what you wanted to say.

            That's easily explained: before the big bang was a singularity, i.e. something where the conditions were so extreme that even time becomes meaningless.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >even time becomes meaningless
            Not only time, but space, matter and energy too. So either the universe was not eternal, or it has not existed as described below
            >>>>Just the general existence of a general universe, a bunch of space, matter, and energy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            But all still does exist. Just in such extremes that all the known laws of physics are out of the window.
            You're just arguing semantics now.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm arguing physics. Whether matter and timespace exist or not is not a "semantic" argument. It's one of the most fundamental statements you can about the universe.
            >laws of physics are out of the window
            This. This is what I meant by the "great faith". To have an eternal universe, even from a mere thermodynamic point of view, you have to re-invent the entire set of natural laws to accomodate this possibility. The eternity of the gaps.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Whether matter and timespace exist or not is not a "semantic" argument.
            You're arguing about the definition of "universe".
            I count a big hunking singularity as universe.

            >This. This is what I meant by the "great faith".
            What about this is faith?
            It's basically just saying these conditions are so crazily extreme that we can't really observe how stuff behaves in it, so we don't know.
            Saying "frick, I don't know" is the opposite of faith.

            Physical laws are a model based on observable reproducible phenomena. They're not God, and aren't trying to be. They don't need anyone's faith, they just need to be a useful model.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I count a big hunking singularity as universe.
            I do too. But you also described energy, matter etc. If you want to back away from that description now, I will not hold it against you but don't just pretend you never said it, it's confusing.
            >What about this is faith?
            >Saying "frick, I don't know"
            I'm not arguing against not knowing. I'm arguing against the idea that the universe is infinite. If you don't think it is, we're not at conflict. If you do think it is, you're performing faith greater than most theists, because you're forcing an idea onto a model that is not in the data and that requires the model to almost double in complexity for no reason.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I do too. But you also described energy, matter etc. If you want to back away from that description now, I will not hold it against you but don't just pretend you never said it, it's confusing.
            Does a singularity not have matter and energy? That's news to me

            >I'm not arguing against not knowing. I'm arguing against the idea that the universe is infinite. If you don't think it is, we're not at conflict.
            I doesn't matter at all what I think. My argument is simply that believing the universe is infinite requires less belief that there is a God who is infinite and he created the universe.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Does a singularity not have matter and energy? That's news to me
            Good news I hope.
            >My argument is simply that believing the universe is infinite
            Ah, so not a mere "Idk" but a positive belief.
            >believing the universe is infinite requires less belief that there is a God
            I disagree:
            Infinite universe requires you to suspend thermodynamical laws and re-invent a special set of laws for one or many abnormal states of the universe. All that withou an actual data fundament, just based on pure faith.
            God requires you to re-invent no laws at all, but to follow their contingency to a logical conclusion. No extra laws. No suspension of thermodynamics. No imagined data.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >All that without an actual data fundament, just based on pure faith.
            Just like faith in God. But it's a much simpler one. That's my whole point.

            >God requires you to re-invent no laws at all, but to follow their contingency to a logical conclusion. No extra laws. No suspension of thermodynamics. No imagined data.
            So should we just reject quantum theory which makes physics a million times more complicated and say God just made the double slit experiment do weird shit?

            That a model created by throwing some rocks together on the Earth's surface might need adjustments when we're trying to apply it to all of the universe condensed to a tiny spot seems fairly sensible to me.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the universe is not infinitely old
            >time is meaningless
            Only one of these can be true.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

            >In the 18th century, the concept that the age of Earth was millions, if not billions, of years began to appear. Nonetheless, most scientists throughout the 19th century and into the first decades of the 20th century presumed that the universe itself was Steady State and eternal, possibly with stars coming and going but no changes occurring at the largest scale known at the time.

            >The first scientific theories indicating that the age of the universe might be finite were the studies of thermodynamics, formalized in the mid-19th century. The concept of entropy dictates that if the universe (or any other closed system) were infinitely old, then everything inside would be at the same temperature, and thus there would be no stars and no life. No scientific explanation for this contradiction was put forth at the time.

            >In 1915 Albert Einstein published the theory of general relativity and in 1917 constructed the first cosmological model based on his theory. In order to remain consistent with a steady-state universe, Einstein added what was later called a cosmological constant to his equations. Einstein's model of a static universe was proved unstable by Arthur Eddington.

            >The first reasonably accurate measurement of the rate of expansion of the universe, a numerical value now known as the Hubble constant, was made in 1958 by astronomer Allan Sandage. His measured value for the Hubble constant came very close to the value range generally accepted today.

            >Sandage, like Einstein, did not believe his own results at the time of discovery. Sandage proposed new theories of cosmogony to explain this discrepancy. This issue was more or less resolved by improvements in the theoretical models used for estimating the ages of stars. As of 2013, using the latest models for stellar evolution, the estimated age of the oldest known star is 14.46±0.8 billion years.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Just the general existence of a general universe, a bunch of space, matter, and energy.
            It's not what we observe. For example, if it has existed in any form, entropy would gradually increase as per the laws of thermodynamics. Infinite time (in whatever structure or state) would result in infinite entropy. We don't see that, we see pretty rigid laws.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you realize that there is scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you talking about the Big Bang?
            That's just the expansion of the universe, not its creation.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Zero, our current technology doesn't allows us to find out yet, so the only correct answer is "I don't know". Since there is no way of telling how universe started I won't deny the possiblity of god existence nor the impossibility. I can, however prove with my current knowledge that god described in Bible doesn't exist.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I can, however prove with my current knowledge that god described in Bible doesn't exist.
            Go ahead and try.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you think deconstruction is? He didn't say he could prove it in a way a moronic ideologue like YOU would find satisfactory.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >then why didn't He
            Because He has a justification for temporarily allowing evil to exist before the final judgment, after which evil will no longer exist.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            What justification? He already knows everything. God could send every soul to either heaven or hell without existence of current world so final judgment is not needed.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>>then why is there evil?
            Not a conclusion. Paradox falls apart due to insufficient information in this moment.

            I'm amazed people still try, this pic got ass-blasted into oblivion so many times...

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't even need to bring out the big guns like that against abrahamists. Those can be reserved for platonists. For debunking the abrahamic brainrot you simply need to point out the absurdity of shit like global flood and lack of historical records for zombies in jerusalem.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            We're fine with no zombies in Jerusalem or lack of global flood.
            If abusing Epicurus is a big gun... bring out the cannons.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Even the abrahamist capitulates rather than defend zombies
            Well there you have it. It's not hard to show that abrahamism is absurd.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for teaching me anon.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >abrahamist capitulates against something he never held
            I will not disperse the illusion of this victory. Enjoy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Matthew 27. Somebody hasn't been reading his Bible. Though, I don't blame you, it's a boring book.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >zero mentions of zombies
            This, on the other hand, is getting more fun by the minute.
            Can't wait for the penny to drop.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, I know what you mean. I personally refer to it as the skeleton dance.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Calling liches skeletons
            Ease it with the slurs.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            For me? It's the 31 biblical contradictions

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            My son started his life with some health problems.

            I make him walk every day, instead of carrying him, because that's what's good for him, even though it makes him cry.

            Am I evil?

            How much more moronic can one get?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes because God is omnipotent and didn't had to make his son ill.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            This classic is still unrefuted.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know, I agree with

            >>>then why is there evil?
            Not a conclusion. Paradox falls apart due to insufficient information in this moment.

            I'm amazed people still try, this pic got ass-blasted into oblivion so many times...

            in that we don't have enough information to answer those questions.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            We know gravity exists so it’s not a stretch to assume Jupiter has gravity. We have no evidence for god so it’s not logical to assume he does

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >athiests are only skeptical about God’s existence
          >bikers only exercise by riding bikes
          go figure

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cyclists, moron. Bikers are motorcycle douchebags.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Cyclists, moron. Bikers are motorcycle douchebags.
            I hope you and your stupid bike get hit by a car

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, they are both homosexuals. I was just pointing out that anon is brown; nobody calls them bikers.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          What FACT are you referring to here, exactly?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >you must believe in my god without any evidence!
        ...but why? Sorry, I just don't get it.

        You're not answering my question, and I don't think you will at any point.

        Are theists actually this braindead? Talk about shit in the genepool!

        >he's never danced before the LORD with all his might

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        [...]

        , I need you to dance for me

        [...]

        NOW OR YOU ARE GOING TO SUPER HELL
        Not in the text. /thread

        are illogical
        >because they ask questions?
        No, because they demand evidence they themselves cannot evaluate. If tomorrow Christ returns and starts performing miracles again, you will have no scientific way to conclude God exists anyway.

        >you must believe in my god without any evidence!
        ...but why? Sorry, I just don't get it.

        You're free to collect evidence. Which one would you like?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You're free to collect evidence. Which one would you like?
          That doesn't answer my question. I'm still waiting and I won't engage with anything apart from a direct answer to my question.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your question is loaded, as I pointed out. If you still insist on it, I will not bother you with any more (you)s.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            If I should believe based on evidence, provide your best piece of evidence.
            "What is evidence anyway?" isn't evidence btw.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, the best piece of evidence is experimental. Follow the commandments and see God for yourself.
            Enjoy! I hope avoiding the discussion about epistemology was worth it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have done that, actually. Didn't work.
            God doesn't exist. Q.E.D.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Who was your Elder? And how many times did you sell your posessions?
            > inb4 nobody and 0

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Who was your Elder? And how many times did you sell your posessions?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody and zero. I didn't ask for evidence. You did. And then you lied so that you could keep your belief.

            Your brain is full of their excrement.
            [...]
            The vile abrahamist cult has so inductive evidence.

            Better luck next time

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Indeed I would be fortunate if I never had to see one of you rectal cysts again.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, you're telling me to give all my money to some old pedophiles in order to find the only evidence that would make giving all my money to some old pedophiles worthwhile. Are you moronic?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he doesn't even know what commandment I'm talking about
            >supposedly followed it
            >"Are you moronic?"
            Some memes write themselves.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nobody and zero
            Why you don't want to be graced by the presence of god? Fricking heathens.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Based
            >Noooooooo! You literally CAN'T follow them as a reprobate but I can still shitpost on IQfy... Because, I JUST CAN OKAY?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your mind is a latrine for geriatric pedophiles.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            We don't have pedophiles.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your brain is full of their excrement.

            So we can use inductive logic here, but for God we need first hand evidence?

            The vile abrahamist cult has so inductive evidence.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Jupiter's gravity has been measured

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Have you actually been to Jupiter and measured it yourself, or did someone just tell you that?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't need to

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh so you don't need first-hand evidence to accept the claim that there is gravity on Jupiter, but you suddenly need it when it comes to belief in God. You just proved my point that you are applying a double standard.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if you don't believe moronic israeli iron age goat herders, you can't believe anything or else you're a hypocrite
            Impressive argument.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but you suddenly need it when it comes to belief in God.
            No, just good evidence is needed (someone saying a magic carpether died for us isn't good evidence)

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I believe in God. I just don't believe in all or really any of the useless baggage contained in the Bible.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Tell me more about this God you know nothing about.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's the basic idea that mind is prime and matter is unnecessary, God is just a name for the ultimate and first mind. I don't ascribe attributes to it, because I'm not a presumptuous homosexual who thinks saying something makes it true.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't ascribe attributes to it, because I'm not a presumptuous homosexual who thinks saying something makes it true.
            You just did.
            >God is just a name for the ultimate and first mind
            >mind is prime and matter is unnecessary

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christian God
            >Not the ultimate and first mind
            El morono

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Subhuman trash only fit for slave labor.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Was there a talking donkey or did someone just tell you that?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are theists actually this braindead? Talk about shit in the genepool!

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bait

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The problem here is one's definition of God. Attaching biblical theology to what you mean by God is not logical. Whereas believing in some form of a higher intelligence that created 'is", is logical -- because of the impossibility of the contrary within logic. The thing is, that's never what anyone means by it. So this illustration is deceptive.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      All known matter has gravity. God doesn't follow from anything known.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Have you measured all known matter?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes.

          >zero mentions of zombies
          This, on the other hand, is getting more fun by the minute.
          Can't wait for the penny to drop.

          My bad, they were liches and not zombies.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >zero mentions of liches
            Take your time

            Yeah, I know what you mean. I personally refer to it as the skeleton dance.

            >zero mentions of skeletons
            Close though. They likely did have skeletons.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what were these dead guys?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Alive guys.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            What happened to them after they did their thing? They just went back for a dirtnap?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            No mention of "alive guys". Try again.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ain't no "dead guys" either lol

            What happened to them after they did their thing? They just went back for a dirtnap?

            I don't know.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Who do you think spends all their time in a tomb dummy lmao.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            27:52-53 "52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

            How lazy can you be?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"dead guy" mentions: 0
            We were being facetious, Anon.

            >All that without an actual data fundament, just based on pure faith.
            Just like faith in God. But it's a much simpler one. That's my whole point.

            >God requires you to re-invent no laws at all, but to follow their contingency to a logical conclusion. No extra laws. No suspension of thermodynamics. No imagined data.
            So should we just reject quantum theory which makes physics a million times more complicated and say God just made the double slit experiment do weird shit?

            That a model created by throwing some rocks together on the Earth's surface might need adjustments when we're trying to apply it to all of the universe condensed to a tiny spot seems fairly sensible to me.

            > But it's a much simpler one.
            Simpler even though it requires more laws, more states, doubled model sizes and double conjecture? That is simpler?
            >reject quantum theory
            You should if it's all conjecture. Which it isn't.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Simpler even though it requires more laws, more states, doubled model sizes and double conjecture? That is simpler?
            Just say it can't be explained with physics. That's what you're already doing with everything about God.

            You go on and on about how complicated it would be to explain an infinite universe with our current laws of physics. But you don't even consider how much more complicated it would be to explain the existence of an infinite God with our current laws of physics.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Just say it can't be explained with physics.
            It can. It just requires an outstanding amount of complex work. Making it more complex, not more simple.
            >you don't even consider how much more complicated it would be to explain the existence of an infinite God with our current laws of physics
            God could not be explained by them so there is no complexity at all in it. It's a non-requirement.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why can I say I believe in a magic sky daddy that's impossible to explain with physics but I can't I say believe in a magic infinite universe that's impossible to explain with physics?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Something invitly unexplainable (God) is more explainable than something hardly explainable.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >more explainable
            Not the goalpost.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon please don't be obtuse. Saint who had fallen asleep in graves clearly revers to dead people or are you claiming that people casually sleep in tombs?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Being obtuse was half of the joke in

            No mention of "alive guys". Try again.

            and

            Ain't no "dead guys" either lol

            [...]
            I don't know.

            , Anon.
            Obviously it refers to dead saints.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Who cares what it refers to? Nobody including Mark records it (because his gospel was first btw)

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I care.

            >You can say anything. You just have to be honest about the complexity of the belief involved.
            And how is the latter more complex?
            Don't come with physics again. It's a universe that's infinite because magic, not physics.

            >And how is the latter more complex?
            it requires more laws, more states, doubled model sizes and double conjecture
            >because magic
            Even like this. We have data that you'd have to make a case against. Theists don't.

            Because it has le less steps

            So?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it requires more laws, more states, doubled model sizes and double conjecture
            It doesn't. It's magic. There can't be physical laws for magic.

            >Even like this. We have data that you'd have to make a case against. Theists don't.
            That same data would apply to everything infinite, including God.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That same data would apply to everything infinite, including God.
            Huh? I as a theist don't have to disprove or explain away a single bit of data. You as an infinite-universe believer do. The latter is going to be more complex. If I'm being too cryptic, please let me know what passage I can simplify.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            But you do.
            The existence of an infinite God goes against the laws of thermodynamics and the ever increasing entropy.
            God would need energy to create the universe since creating energy out of nothing goes against the laws of thermodynamics. If God has energy, entropy applies.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The existence of an infinite God goes against the laws of thermodynamics and the ever increasing entropy.
            No it doesn't.
            Making the sun disappear and then reappear quickly might generate a small gravity wave or something but it isn't magically defying entropy.
            Either is creating a new sun etc.

            >creating energy out of nothing goes against the laws of thermodynamics
            Then the existence of the universe goes against the laws of thermodynamics lol.
            I don't believe in god, but that isn't a great argument there.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No it doesn't.
            Existing for all infinity is defying entropy. That was your whole argument against the magic infinite universe.

            >Then the existence of the universe goes against the laws of thermodynamics
            Not if it always existed :^

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think you're arguing with 2 separate people now.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Existing for all infinity is defying entropy
            A cyclical big bang and big crunch universe model could be of infinite age just as the one dimensional point of the big bang is of infinite energy/mass.

            >Not if it always existed
            You just argued against the universe always existing.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A cyclical big bang and big crunch universe model could be of infinite age just as the one dimensional point of the big bang is of infinite energy/mass.
            Goes against Hubble's law. But we're not really talking physics anyway.
            >You just argued against the universe always existing.
            I'm arguing that both of these things can't be properly explained with our current understanding of thermodynamics.

            It means you dismiss the meaning of the word you're using. The empirical term "universe" is stripped of its empirical context.
            >You already do that
            Nope. Never invoked magic or denied science. All you, buddy.

            >It means you dismiss the meaning of the word you're using. The empirical term "universe" is stripped of its empirical context.
            I still have no idea what you're talking about
            >Nope. Never invoked magic or denied science. All you, buddy.
            A being that just exists forever and created the universe out of nothing and defies natural physical laws is absolutely invoking magic and denying science.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I still have no idea what you're talking about
            Oh well.
            >defies natural physical laws
            Nope. Not one.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It does. You just ignore all physical laws and claim it doesn't apply to God.
            But you can't not both affect a thermodynamic system and also not be part of it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You just ignore all physical laws
            Nope, I embrace them lovingly. I just understand where they apply. In timespace lol.

            But I admire your determination. Giving up science and embracing magic for atheism is poetic.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nope, I embrace them lovingly. I just understand where they apply. In timespace lol.
            All Christians argue that god must be beyond all physical reality because god doesn't actually exist.
            Arguing for the existence or non-existence of god is akin to arguing for the existence of invisible pink elephants or what came before the big bang....
            meaningless, pointless and irrelevant.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh to be 16 again and discover Russel's Teapot for the first time. I envy you.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Oh to be 16 again and discover Russel's Teapot for the first time. I envy you.
            What are you even talking about....
            That isn't even an argument.

            >Nope, I embrace them lovingly. I just understand where they apply. In timespace lol.
            God affects timespace, making him a part of it.
            He created the universe, injected energy into a thermodynamic system - therefore he is a variable in thermodynamics that has to be considered in physics which tries to model everything about those systems.

            That's the whole problem with your line of arguments.
            It would make sense if God was an entirely spiritual being, completely removed from the material world like an Epicurean god. But he isn't. Even an extremely simplified God, completely removed from actual Christian beliefs, that is just the ultimate creator affects the physical.

            >But I admire your determination. Giving up science and embracing magic for atheism is poetic.
            This isn't about my personal beliefs (Hint: they don't include magic universes).
            This is about the idea that a belief in God is somehow less complex than a belief in an infinite universe.

            [...]
            >sigh... no it doesn't. Hubble's law simply observes that the universe is expanding.
            Expanding so much that it outdoes gravity, the mechanism of the big crunch.
            >So you're using thermodynamics to prove the non-existence of god
            Nope. Nope. Nope.
            You're missing the point entirely. This isn't about proving/disproving God at all. This about the argument that physics models would get more complex with a belief (as in an actual religious belief) in an infinite universe but not with a belief in God.

            >Expanding so much that it outdoes gravity, the mechanism of the big crunch.
            right now that's the case. That can definitely change, Also it isn't uniform. Some parts of the universe seem to be expanding at different rates.
            Lastly there is a very remote possibly that effects like redshift might not actually be due to speed but rather some other interstellar light affect.

            >Nope, I embrace them lovingly. I just understand where they apply. In timespace lol.
            God affects timespace, making him a part of it.
            He created the universe, injected energy into a thermodynamic system - therefore he is a variable in thermodynamics that has to be considered in physics which tries to model everything about those systems.

            That's the whole problem with your line of arguments.
            It would make sense if God was an entirely spiritual being, completely removed from the material world like an Epicurean god. But he isn't. Even an extremely simplified God, completely removed from actual Christian beliefs, that is just the ultimate creator affects the physical.

            >But I admire your determination. Giving up science and embracing magic for atheism is poetic.
            This isn't about my personal beliefs (Hint: they don't include magic universes).
            This is about the idea that a belief in God is somehow less complex than a belief in an infinite universe.

            [...]
            >sigh... no it doesn't. Hubble's law simply observes that the universe is expanding.
            Expanding so much that it outdoes gravity, the mechanism of the big crunch.
            >So you're using thermodynamics to prove the non-existence of god
            Nope. Nope. Nope.
            You're missing the point entirely. This isn't about proving/disproving God at all. This about the argument that physics models would get more complex with a belief (as in an actual religious belief) in an infinite universe but not with a belief in God.

            >This about the argument that physics models would get more complex with a belief (as in an actual religious belief) in an infinite universe but not with a belief in God.
            Ok, well that is a pointless argument because god can be any made up thing you want it to be.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Seeing a mid 2000s style Atheist argument is bringing me nostalgia. Takes me back to middle school.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nope, I embrace them lovingly. I just understand where they apply. In timespace lol.
            God affects timespace, making him a part of it.
            He created the universe, injected energy into a thermodynamic system - therefore he is a variable in thermodynamics that has to be considered in physics which tries to model everything about those systems.

            That's the whole problem with your line of arguments.
            It would make sense if God was an entirely spiritual being, completely removed from the material world like an Epicurean god. But he isn't. Even an extremely simplified God, completely removed from actual Christian beliefs, that is just the ultimate creator affects the physical.

            >But I admire your determination. Giving up science and embracing magic for atheism is poetic.
            This isn't about my personal beliefs (Hint: they don't include magic universes).
            This is about the idea that a belief in God is somehow less complex than a belief in an infinite universe.

            >Goes against Hubble's law
            sigh... no it doesn't. Hubble's law simply observes that the universe is expanding.

            >But we're not really talking physics anyway
            what?

            >I'm arguing that both of these things can't be properly explained with our current understanding of thermodynamics.
            So you're using thermodynamics to prove the non-existence of god whilst admitting that thermodynamics doesn't really explain large scale events like the life/death or rebirth of the universe or the possibility of god.
            Dude...

            >sigh... no it doesn't. Hubble's law simply observes that the universe is expanding.
            Expanding so much that it outdoes gravity, the mechanism of the big crunch.
            >So you're using thermodynamics to prove the non-existence of god
            Nope. Nope. Nope.
            You're missing the point entirely. This isn't about proving/disproving God at all. This about the argument that physics models would get more complex with a belief (as in an actual religious belief) in an infinite universe but not with a belief in God.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God affects timespace, making him a part of it.
            Non-sequitur.
            >affected therefore included
            Non-sequitur. I recommend you also embrace thermodynamics lovingly. You are barely acquainted.
            >This is about the idea that a belief in God is somehow less complex than a belief in an infinite universe.
            It absolutely is. God is a logically induced layer underneath current physics. Eternal universe requires a lot of fight with current physics. Unless, of course, you plead magic lol

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Non-sequitur.
            "I can just say something is and it is"

            >It absolutely is. God is a logically induced layer underneath current physics
            There is absolutely nothing that indicates the existence of a god let alone a specifically Christian one.

            >Eternal universe requires a lot of fight with current physics.
            The other poster is right, you love saying things that don't actually mean anything whilst thinking they mean something.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Devil trips, your God clearly is angry with you.

            >Non-sequitur.
            How so? God acts a physical force by creating the universe, that physical force is subject to physical study. Seems like a perfectly logical direct conclusion.
            If we just left it at "Oh, God did it. Let's not complicate physics by trying to find alternate explanations." we would be stuck at Biblical cosmology.

            >Unless, of course, you plead magic lol
            You need to plead only as much magic as you need to do with God.
            My entire point.
            >My God can magically create energy out of nothing but your universe can keep energy together until the Big Bang magically? Crazy!

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Goes against Hubble's law
            sigh... no it doesn't. Hubble's law simply observes that the universe is expanding.

            >But we're not really talking physics anyway
            what?

            >I'm arguing that both of these things can't be properly explained with our current understanding of thermodynamics.
            So you're using thermodynamics to prove the non-existence of god whilst admitting that thermodynamics doesn't really explain large scale events like the life/death or rebirth of the universe or the possibility of god.
            Dude...

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The existence of an infinite God goes against the laws of thermodynamics and the ever increasing entropy.
            Nope. God is not a closed or open thermodynamic system.
            >creating energy out of nothing goes against the laws of thermodynamics
            Thermodynamics apply to spacetime. Not to God.
            I don't have to explain away a single law.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nope. God is not a closed or open thermodynamic system.
            Neither is my magic infinite universe. That physicists think it is one isn't my problem.

            >Thermodynamics apply to spacetime. Not to God.
            It doesn't apply to my magic universe either.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ah, you should have said it from the start. Infinite universe belief is equally simple to God-belief when you ignore the meaning of the word universe, yes. If this is a victory for you, now is the time to celebrate.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            But it's not. It removes an extra step.

            Universe infinite through magic vs God infinite through magic + God created universe through magic (+ millions of other shit if we're talking about the Christian God)

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't remove any step, it just calls it magic. You can argue about sub-division of various magics, since it's your term that you decided to include and hide behind but one way or another, your point is completely valid. Believing in an infinite universe is not a lot more complex, given that you ignore the "universe" part.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Believing in an infinite universe is not a lot more complex, given that you ignore the "universe" part.
            I don't know what that means.

            Getting rid of God is easy! Just believe in magic instead of scientific data.

            >Just believe in magic instead of scientific data.
            You already do that anyway if you believe in a magic sky daddy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It means you dismiss the meaning of the word you're using. The empirical term "universe" is stripped of its empirical context.
            >You already do that
            Nope. Never invoked magic or denied science. All you, buddy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry, I didn't know what facetious means.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Don't worry about it

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh sorry, dead men and women. Don't want to be insensitive, now do we, sister?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Preach.

            Why can I say I believe in a magic sky daddy that's impossible to explain with physics but I can't I say believe in a magic infinite universe that's impossible to explain with physics?

            You can say anything. You just have to be honest about the complexity of the belief involved.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You can say anything. You just have to be honest about the complexity of the belief involved.
            And how is the latter more complex?
            Don't come with physics again. It's a universe that's infinite because magic, not physics.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            My model for the universe is that it only exists in my own mind. There, reality simplified completely. Must be right.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why would that make it right?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it has le less steps

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >"Gravity exists."
      >"Prove it."
      >*drops thing*
      >*it falls*
      Okay, fair enough!

      >"God exists."
      >"Prove it."
      >u-uhmm... uhh *makes up a bunch of moronic copes* ALSO YOU'RE GOING TO HELL IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME
      >"Sorry, none of that is proof, I'm not convinced."
      >*insert seething soijak face*

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        How does measuring gravity on earth prove that gravity exists on Jupiter?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          we have empiric evidence of measured gravity on Jupiter though

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Look at these moronic pagans worshipping cows instead of eating it
    >OY GEVALT DID YOU JUST EAT FRICKING PORK? TO HELL WITH YOU! NOW I HAVE TO TORTURE MY SON TO SAVE YOU FROM WHAT I'M GOING TO DO TO YOU

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Phew, I almost thought you're trying to mock the God of the Bible. Missed by a long shot.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Got you to reply innit?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Gnosticism is heresy, just fyi christoid

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Agreed.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >David's dance

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >We don't have video footage of the big bang
    >Therefore a israeli iron age cult is the most accurate description of the real world
    Actual brainrot.

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The idea that our experience of time being a linear concept is simply just egotism. There's nothing that states it's anything different than measuring a plane. And something can be outside of a plane. Applying dynamics within that plane to something outside of the plane makes no logical sense itself. But people tend to do that anyway when addressing this subject.

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Getting rid of God is easy! Just believe in magic instead of scientific data.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >gives Adam a functional wiener, balls, and prostate before he even considered creating another human being, let alone a woman
    What did God mean by this?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      wiener and ball torture

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *