Here's why you shouldn't believe in God:
1. Anything that hasn't been observed with the senses (even using tools like a microscope) is just a speculation.
2. God has never been observed with the senses (even using tools like a microscope).
Conclusion: God is just a speculation.
Shit argument.
t. actual fedora
>no counterargument
I accept your concession.
Concepts aren't objects. But we can observe representations of mathematical concepts. You can observe a drawn circle, for instance. You can observe pairs of things. You can literally see with your own eyes that 2 + 3 = 5, when you add 3 things to 2 things, then count how many things are in front of you subsequently.
The educated guess is that religions are made up nonsense. Any other guess is not educated.
>no counterargument
I don't argue with arguments that are so bad that they sound like bait.
>t. actual fedora
Why do christBlack folk lie like this? lmao
Mathematical objects are just a speculation? Cool.
No they're abstractions.
Yes, string theory e.g. even though it's mathematically consistent is only a speculation, until experiments back it up.
Not him but yeah that might be a good example - it's just a speculation until an experiment proves it. Same with something like the Higgs boson, which had to be proved with evidence, which was done in 2012 if I remember.
>You've placed a completely arbitrary value on having 'evidence'
Scenario: you're standing in the middle of a road and a car is driving towards you at 30 mph. You can see the car. There's the evidence. Do you think evidence, in this scenario, has a completely arbitrary value? If you do, then ignoring the evidence and letting yourself be hit by the car is just as much of a good decision as trusting the evidence (and moving out of the road) would be. So I ask you: do you think evidence has an "arbitrary value"?
>Yeah there was this guy that did miracles and everything. My source? Just trust me bro
You misspelt "I" as "OP". Why are you telling us you're a homosexual?
The brain can be observed with the senses. Electrochemical brain activity can be observed with the senses. Consciousness of animals can be observed with the senses. When we combine everything we know about the brain (knowledge we gained through our senses), the rational conclusion is that consciousness ("the mind") is just electrochemical activity in the brain.
So the mind does seem to exist. You can see electrical brain activity on an electroencephalogram. That activity, along with chemical activity in the brain, constitutes "the mind".
>Yeah there was this guy that did miracles and everything. My source? Just trust me bro
Personal incredulity fallacy. As far as sources are concerned, Jesus of Nazareth is about as good as it gets by historical standards. I assume you believe Alexander the Great was real? Because sources for him are not nearly on the level of someone like Jesus.
>Jesus of Nazareth is about as good as it gets by historical standards.
Not true; the fact no other contemporary historians mentions a magic dude in that region is telling
What do you mean "no other"? What do you think the New Testament is?
No other contemporary historian writes about him; the new testament are texts of uknown origin written decades after the fact by uknow authors
Paul wrote about him just a few years later.
I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, I'm saying he wasn't divine
It's amazing that Christcucks are willing to believe that Jesus was divine just because a book says so, lmao
Quantum mechanics may be wrong because it's not coherent with general relativity. Alternatively general relativity may be the one that's wrong, or perhaps both are wrong.
In any case, why do we think electrons exist? Because WE OBSERVED THEM in some way. If there were no observations confirming the existence of electrons then they would just be theoretical, like the Higgs boson was, just over a decade ago.
>It's amazing that Christcucks are willing to believe that Jesus was divine just because a book says so, lmao
What's wrong with books? Are you expecting video footage or something?
>Because WE OBSERVED THEM in some way
I bet you read that in a book. What a moron.
Imagine going through life only believing what you can confirm absolutely. Its safe, sure, but impossibly boring, and fact of that matter is educated guesses turn out to be correct far more often than you'd think.
>dude subjectivity of the senses, nothing is real nor can be proven lmao
The ABSOLUTE STATE of post modern BS
>pussy is just a speculation
t. OP
Christianity is the religion of Aryans.
https://odysee.com/@Anonymous:ab1/05---The-Not-so-Chosen-People-Part-5---The-Aryans:b
https://odysee.com/@Anonymous:ab1/03---The-Not-so-Chosen-People-Part-3---The-Greeks:5
>if god real y i cant see him
>haha checkmate theists!
The children of God are circumcised by God for their salvation by the Christ from the fall and they can not escape their fate because it is not up to any one who is beloved by God.
Hey psst kid, you wanna observe things.
(Read on her)
My post didn't mention satanism. Your post is irrelevant.
Just posted it because people turning lives arround happens with satanism too, I'm just removing options to the Christian larpers
>Here's why you shouldn't believe in the law of non-contradiction:
>1. Anything that hasn't been observed with the senses (even using tools like a microscope) is just a speculation.
>2. The law of non-contradiction has never been observed with the senses (even using tools like a microscope).
>Conclusion: This particular logical rule is just a speculation.
Logic is a language created by humans to try and explain the universe. And logic, like all things, is physical.
The concepts of logic are encoded in human brains in physical ways, with neurons. Logical concepts can also be written down, which is physical. Everything in the process of thinking about and communicating logical concepts is physical.
Therefore, logic can be observed. You could find the circuits of the brain that are responsible for logic if you investigated it enough.
I see, apologies for misinterpreting. Yeah there are a lot of ways in which Christians might try and justify their religion. But I was just thinking in particular about God being a speculation. If nobody has ever observed God then surely he is just a speculation.
>the problem with making an empirical argument is that classical theism isn't an empirical claim. it's not falsifiable or testable in anyway.
Yeah they like to claim that you can never observe God because he's non-physical, although I don't think non-physical things exist, or at least, I don't think we have any good reasons to think they exist. If we're going to have completely unfalsifiable claims then I might as well claim that an invisible, intangible, inaudible monkey is sitting on the shoulder of every Christian right now.
What I said isn't limited. You haven't countered my argument in any way.
>And logic, like all things, is physical.
How is it not?
Here's an example. The law of identity. Does that law exist? It exists as a concept in human brains (a physically encoded concept, in the brain's neurons).
But if all humans were wiped out, would the law of identity still exist? Well, objects would exist (like the Earth). And those objects would still be identical to themselves. So in that sense, perhaps you can say the law of identity would still exist... but really, all that's happening is that an object is existing and being itself. So everything that is happening is physical. A physical object, the Earth, is just existing in whatever space it takes up.
I guess the law of identity is really just a description of physics. As much as 'E = mc^2' is. I don't think such laws exist independently as nonphysical things, though. Instead, these laws (such as the law of identity) are just physical qualities of the physical universe.
If you think nonphysical things exist, prove it.
How do you know that the law of identity will always hold true?
I don't, because maybe our understanding of the universe isn't accurate. But if it is true, surely it is just a physical quality that physical objects have. Just like they have other physical qualities, such as gravity, and colour, etc.
Holy frick, take an intro to philosophy you dumb fricking animal. You might learn something.
Actually maybe I can simplify this. Say you have a green apple. Does "greenness" exist as a nonphysical concept? I don't think so. Instead greenness is a completely physical quality (the skin of the apple, due to its physical composition, reflects light that has the wavelength of green).
I would say the same is true for logical laws, like the law of identity. I don't see any good reasons to believe that the law of identity exists as a nonphysical entity. Instead I would say that 'a = a' is just a physical quality that physical objects have.
If nonphysical entities exist, how would I know this? Can I see them with my eyes? Or do they just make themselves known in my mind? By what process would this happen?
>logic can be observed
John 1:1
God was the logic
Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος
Therefore: God has been observed.
the problem with making an empirical argument is that classical theism isn't an empirical claim. it's not falsifiable or testable in anyway. the bible or whatever claims about it could be wrong and God could still exist: skeptical theism, morally sufficient reasons, etc.
a lot of this christcuckery is really just neo-platonism, because this is all true of the One.
Extremely limited perspectives will always eliminate God.
Thats why its called FAITH, you're failing the test anon...
Here's my suggestion: the universe was created by Bigfoot. Come on anon, you have to have faith. You know it's true, just have faith.
Okay, well I'm pretty convinced by my speculations.
You shouldn't be, because they lack evidence. You may as well believe that the Loch Ness Monster created the universe.
And so what if I did? Give me one good reason to trust your thoughts over my speculation.
You believe the Loch Ness Monster created the universe? Why? What evidence is there to support this belief?
Same with God. What evidence is there to support that belief?
Give me one good reason to trust your thoughts over my speculation.
>God has never been observed with the senses
Actually God showed up on Earth that one time, did miracles, clowned on the devil, taught people stuff, and literally defeated death.
Source:
>trust me bro
I'm not asking you to trust my thoughts over your speculation. I'm asking whether you have good reasons to believe that your speculations are true.
>I'm not asking you to trust my thoughts over your speculation. I'm asking whether you have good reasons to believe that your speculations are true.
You're asking me to justify my speculation via reason. You've yet to demonstrate why I should bother reasoning these things out. You've placed a completely arbitrary value on having 'evidence'.
>Source:
>trust me bro
Actually we have a pretty good source. Just open up a Bible and go to the New Testament. You'll find a bunch of 1st century accounts written by people who were alive when Christ walked the Earth. It's better historical evidence than we have for most historical figures actually.
>1. Anything that hasn't been observed with the senses (even using tools like a microscope) is just a speculation.
incorrect
>2. God has never been observed with the senses (even using tools like a microscope).
also incorrect
conclusion: OP is a homosexual
>Here's why you shouldn't believe in your mind:
>1. Anything that hasn't been observed with the senses (even using tools like a microscope) is just a speculation.
>2. Your mind has never been observed with the senses (even using tools like a microscope).
>Conclusion: your mind is just a speculation.
Therefore, you should not believe in yourself, or others. Minds don't exist.
>observed with the senses
We can see hallucinations
Hallucinations exist in the sense that it's real electrochemical activity in your brain. So you are experiencing/observing that electrochemical activity.
If I take some DMT and hallucinate about some striped flowers, it doesn't mean striped flowers exist in reality. It just means my brain is creating a hallucination.
I accept your concession where you state "I am too thick to even attempt to counter your argument, and you are my intellectual superior".
You are so stupid, you are incapable of learning anything new. You cannot rationalize how your ideas and thoughts are so rancid and moronic. Stop posting now and stick your fricking snotnose into a book or remain a moron forever.
I accept your concession where you state "I am too thick to even attempt to counter your argument, and you are my intellectual superior".
If you use a tool, like DMT, to observe striped flowers, it means that striped flowers are not just a speculation.
I didn't say everything that has been observed is not a speculation. I said that if something hasn't been observed then it's just a speculation.
So I guess there's three categories:
>Things which haven't been observed, and which are speculations
>Things which HAVE been observed, but are hallucinations (not real)
>Things which HAVE been observed, but are real
So if someone draws a picture of them having sex with Scarlett Johansson, that means they really did it? No it doesn't.
>book says it so it's true!
How are you so stupid?
>book defines it, so that's the definition I use.
The author of the story defines the words.
>draws a picture of them having sex with Scarlett Johansson
If it makes me cum, you can observe my cum with with a microscope, and it proves the reality of the event being defined.
>God has never been observed
God is observed through hallucination. The number 3.14 is a hallucination of pi. We believe in 3.14, even though it is not perfect.
>Anything that hasn't been observed with the senses (even using tools like a microscope) is just a speculation
Quantum mechanics disagrees - an electron does not have a position and velocity unless it is observed. If it is not observed, it is in a superposition; it exists in multiple possible positions with multiple possible velocities at the same time. The superposition of an electron isn't just a speculation, it's a proven fact, and yet is physically impossible to observe the superposition of an electron, as the "probability field" of where it can exist collapses into a random single outcome when observed.
This presents three axioms:
a) Things can exist which are unobservable
b) Things can exist in multiple possible states simultaneously, unless observed.
c) True randomness exists in the universe, which is non-deterministic, which leaves room for God to play dice.
>God has never been observed
Behold
>2. God has never been observed with the senses (even using tools like a microscope).
God was observed with senses and there are multiple testimonies for that. What now, moron.
bump
>here's why you should't believe in God
>because I said so
Yeah. Get lost.