>God exists because God exist

>God exists because God exist
Prove it
>Uh some form of abstract entity maybe known as the Christian God must have created the Universe because God said so
Prove it
>you frick animals

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So far when I ask atheists what did it in their religion, if they offer an answer it's generally "virtual particles, those particles that pop into being uncaused" which is a colossal, gargantuan misunderstanding of what the term is even used for: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ie7t82tQhp4

    So what would you say did it, OP?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >So far when I ask atheists what did it in their religion, if they offer an answer it's generally "virtual particles, those particles that pop into being uncaused"
      Show one (1) example of this lmao.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I find it odd you doubt that since it's a constant from atheists all the time. Examples are trivial to find, https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/3pch95/atheist_scientist_virtual_particles_inflation/ for instance took a few seconds to get

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        he says
        >when I ask atheists what did it in their religion
        and then you still answer this nitwit?
        we are overrun by trolls and the culprit is you and those like you who reply to posts that were obviously tailored to elicit a response.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you have such unyielding trust in Canaanite goat herders?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >if you don't know what caused the universe to exist it might as well be the israelite on a stick
        It's okay to say we have no way of knowing, YET, and to assert one specific possibility over another is folly. Why do people think desert shepherds who have been dead for thousands of years know so much that we don't? It's a 2 thousand year game of chinese whispers and you're taking it for gospel.

        >goat herders
        >desert shepherds
        Why do atheists hate agriculture so much? No wonder the people who actually feed the world dislike them and their ways

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I do not hate agriculture, my ancestors were farmers.
          Why do you think that not having complete unshakable trust in the stories of Canaanite goat herders means that you hate agriculture? My great grandparents believed some moronic shit, that doesn't mean I hate them or their agricultural work.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So why do you keep disparaging early ranchers as if their occupation makes them unreliable?

            I spent many early days on a farm. It's a good place to think.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Since you're talking about ranchers, I'll assume that you're an American.
            I think that might explain why you don't get it. You guys don't really have a culture, but in non-meme countries, the countryside always has a rich history of fanciful stories about the supernatural. If I believed the word of the agriculturalists on these matters, I'd believe in everything from the divination skills of old gypsy women to the existence of the vodyanoy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the countryside always has a rich history of fanciful stories about the supernatural.
            And today atheists have the same, with their talk of the mystical virtual particles that formed everything by coming into existence uncaused from nowhere
            (Really they're symbols for intermediate states in Feynman diagrams)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you think that this reddit comment proves that atheists have a rich history of fanciful stories about the supernatural, then perhaps you should believe neither the atheist when he talks about virtual particles, nor the Canaanite goat herder when he talks about Yahweh.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Quantum mysticism is the new mysticism.

            >then perhaps you should believe neither the atheist when he talks about virtual particles, nor the Canaanite goat herder when he talks about Yahweh
            Who should we believe, and when they talk about what?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm neither your mom nor your shrink, but it seems that unconditionally believing supernatural stories of Canaanite goat herders because someone wrote something stupid on reddit might not be the best course of action.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where does your deep hatred of agriculture come from? You keep harping on how untrustworthy you find ranchers to be.

            So ranchers are out for you. Got it. Who should we believe, and under what circumstances?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I specifically told you why I don't believe farmers' supernatural stories here

            Since you're talking about ranchers, I'll assume that you're an American.
            I think that might explain why you don't get it. You guys don't really have a culture, but in non-meme countries, the countryside always has a rich history of fanciful stories about the supernatural. If I believed the word of the agriculturalists on these matters, I'd believe in everything from the divination skills of old gypsy women to the existence of the vodyanoy.

            . I don't have a particular opinion about the origin of the universe (or if it even has one).
            Why do you unconditionally believe the supernatural stories of Canaanite goat herders?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I specifically told you why I don't believe farmers' supernatural stories
            And I specifically told you why you shouldn't believe atheists' supernatural stories in the reply

            >Why do you unconditionally believe the supernatural stories of Canaanite goat herders?
            You know the modern West has goat ranches as well, don't you? This view of this as some sort of abhorrent profession for a culture to have is really weird. You keep talking about it as if it was as horrific a profession as being an SS officer my man

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And I specifically told you why you shouldn't believe atheists' supernatural stories in the reply
            So? When did I say that I believe the universe was created by virtual particles? I clearly told you here

            I specifically told you why I don't believe farmers' supernatural stories here [...]. I don't have a particular opinion about the origin of the universe (or if it even has one).
            Why do you unconditionally believe the supernatural stories of Canaanite goat herders?

            that I don't have a particular opinion about the origin of the universe.
            >This view of this as some sort of abhorrent profession for a culture to have is really weird.
            Where did I say that it's abhorrent? Do you think that the fact that farmers tell stories about gypsies who can tell you what your future holds or vodyanoys who drag people underwater to turn them into slaves or steal their souls is abhorrent?
            I personally don't, in fact I think it's interesting and somewhat cute. Doesn't mean I think those stories are true, but you evidently do. Why?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So? When did I say that I believe the universe was created by virtual particles?
            If the beliefs of random people engaged in agriculture are relevant as you said in

            Since you're talking about ranchers, I'll assume that you're an American.
            I think that might explain why you don't get it. You guys don't really have a culture, but in non-meme countries, the countryside always has a rich history of fanciful stories about the supernatural. If I believed the word of the agriculturalists on these matters, I'd believe in everything from the divination skills of old gypsy women to the existence of the vodyanoy.

            then why aren't the similar beliefs of atheists? Quantum mysticism is deeply ingrained in modern atheism, forming its equivalent of a creation myth of old.

            >Where did I say that it's abhorrent?
            Over and over and over and over you bring the existence of this profession as a reason not to listen to a culture

            >Do you think that the fact that farmers tell stories about gypsies who can tell you what your future holds or vodyanoys who drag people underwater to turn them into slaves or steal their souls is abhorrent?
            For sure, all falsehood is abhorrent

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Quantum mysticism is deeply ingrained in modern atheism, forming its equivalent of a creation myth of old.
            Then just don't believe in supernatural claims made by atheists. I've already told you that this sounds like a very good option for you.
            >Over and over and over and over you bring the existence of this profession as a reason not to listen to a culture
            Why do you unconditionally trust Canaanite goat herders but not English potato farmers or Polish sheep herders?
            >For sure, all falsehood is abhorrent
            If all myths as well as all fictional stories are abhorrent in your opinion, how did you determine that the supernatural stories of Canaanite goat herders are not just stories and therefore abhorrent?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Then just don't believe in supernatural claims made by atheists. I've already told you that this sounds like a very good option for you.
            I agree! Including radical materialism, which amounts to the same. (Requiring things like the myth of uncaused virtual particles)

            >Why do you unconditionally trust Canaanite goat herders but not English potato farmers or Polish sheep herders?
            What is with this deep and abiding hatred of the agricultural sector? Goats and sheep are excellent for protein from cheese and for clothing, and potatoes for calories. You could sustain an entire population's needs with just the sheep, goats, and potatoes you seem to hate.

            >If all myths as well as all fictional stories are abhorrent in your opinion
            Well there's a difference in fiction (not intended to be taken as true hence not false) and myths (taken as true and hence false)

            >how did you determine that the supernatural stories of Canaanite goat herders are not just stories and therefore abhorrent?
            Well they are, the Canaanites had tons of false stories. Much like atheists I don't believe their very false claims. I don't think anyone believes Canaanite claims anymore (except maybe some small number of scattered neopagans)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Including radical materialism, which amounts to the same. (Requiring things like the myth of uncaused virtual particles)
            Sure.
            >What is with this deep and abiding hatred of the agricultural sector?
            What do you mean by that? I literally told you that unlike you, I don't consider fanciful supernatural stories to be abhorrent. Why are you projecting?
            >Well there's a difference in fiction (not intended to be taken as true hence not false) and myths (taken as true and hence false)
            Fair enough.
            >Much like atheists I don't believe their very false claims.
            So you do not believe the stories about Yahweh talking through burning bushes and such?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >What do you mean by that?
            Nearly every single reply has had disparaging comments about it.

            >Canaanite goat herders
            Is this the new cope? Btw israelites are descended from Shem, not Canaan.

            remarked on it as well

            >So you do not believe the stories about Yahweh talking through burning bushes and such?
            Canaanites don't seem to have generally believed this; if they did it certainly wasn't a significant part of their ideas since they clearly weren't pleased with what YHWH wanted Moses to do in regards to Canaan

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nearly every single reply has had disparaging comments about it.
            This is once again your projection. I have repeatedly told you that I have no issue with agriculturalists telling fanciful supernatural stories - in fact, I even told you that I think it's cute. Why do you keep lying about my motives? Isn't that abhorrent on your view?
            >Canaanites don't seem to have generally believed this; if they did it certainly wasn't a significant part of their ideas since they clearly weren't pleased with what YHWH wanted Moses to do in regards to Canaan
            I am talking about the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, which the Yahwists were.
            In any case, how did you come to unconditionally trust this specific group of goat herders? It seems especially weird given how skeptical you otherwise seem to be when it comes to fanciful supernatural claims.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >This is once again your projection.
            Mate you're not gonna convince anybody that repeatedly bringing up goat herding isn't meant as disparaging. Atheists do it all the time. You're fooling no one and you're better than to even try to turn around and say it was something else now.

            >I am talking about the inhabitants of the land of Canaan
            Well that's simply incorrect then; that's like calling the residents of Anatolia in 200 AD "Turks"

            >In any case, how did you come to unconditionally trust this specific group of goat herders?
            I don't think this is correct either. Is there evidence that the primary occupation of Israelites was caprine husbandry? If not then calling them a "group of goat herders" would also be incorrect

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, if you are going to keep lying about me and avoiding my question, there is not much point in continuing this conversation.
            Thank you for demonstrating that this is the only way to defend your view.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >going to keep lying about me
            Anyone reading who genuinely believes him that he doesn't intend references to "goat herders" to be disparaging, please reply

            >and avoiding my question
            But I did: I don't believe what Canaanites were saying. I do believe what the people who later lived in what had been Canaanite territory spoke of, since there's a colossal amount of historical verification for it: https://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2022/05/today-i-have-special-guest-piece-by.html

            But Canaanites? Nah their ideas had no such verification

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Anyone reading who genuinely believes him that he doesn't intend references to "goat herders" to be disparaging, please reply
            There is no negative connotations attached to this word. You're just biased to this word and hate it for some reason (Which is weird since you clearly pride yourself on being a farmer)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            Tell me anon why specifically do you think he keeps bringing that point up? (Even though, as pointed out to him, it isn't even correct)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because specifically trusting a group of people who existed in bronze age and clearly weren't aware of certain crucial facts about our world are not reliable source of information. Also there is a strong case to determine that accounts of the beliefs of the group in question, in this case yhwh worshiping shepherds from Palestine had they worldview traumatically shaken, manipulated and
            influenced by contemporary political situation, which makes me doubt your decision in unquestionable trust in them. Just as redditors who start believing in scientismic mysticisms after seeing some clickbait article misrepresented by journalist, they simply aren't trustworthy enough to base your entire worldview on their opinions. Even though some of their ideas may be interesting.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That profession, specifically. Tell me why you think he kept bringing it up. Clearly it served some purpose or otherwise it wouldn't have been emphasized half a dozen times - what purpose do you think that was?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We call them goat herders because that's what they were.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            That profession, specifically. Tell me why you think he kept bringing it up. Clearly it served some purpose or otherwise it wouldn't have been emphasized half a dozen times - what purpose do you think that was?

            forgot to put on my name

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They hardly had libraries or other sources to help them interpret the world around them. I don't expect any human in that timeframe and technology to have a better understanding of metaphysics than a modern day human

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They certainly seem to have understood causality, giving them a better picture of the world than a typical modern atheist does who thinks virtual particles don't have causes

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Causality is as simple as "i punch you, you now have punch mark on face" it does not mean they have any idea of the deeper meaning in the world. I wouldn't have a clue about religion being right or wrong if all I have are my crops and some goats. It says nothing about the herders but about the resources they had at the time.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            What do the resources you have tell you about the subject?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The resources available to me is a lifetime of experience without sensing anything supernatural, and a giant online presence of sources available to me from the entire planet. Also, there exist a lot of prizes and grants for people who can prove in a controlled environment to showcase supernatural/psychic feats that have never been granted to a single person. This leads me to believe that there is 1 physical reality that is provable/knowable even if we might not have the technology to analyse every single detail about reality at this moment. This is how I understand that no matter how hard you believe or wish it to be true, you will never be a woman.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >The resources available to me is a lifetime of experience without sensing anything supernatural
            It sounds like that experience hasn't been particularly useful in this regard since what you sense should make the supernatural immediately clear.

            Our observations tell us there must be something supernatural. Natural things, left to their own devices, inevitably as a hard result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics experience entropy until all there is no energy remaining to do any work. The natural state of natural things is heat death. Yet something still was able to cause our world to have energy. This cannot be a natural system since all natural systems exhaust their available energy to do work over time; that is one of the main things our senses confirm.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yet something still was able to cause our world to have energy.
            Yeah, it's called.. the sun.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            By "our world" I was speaking in the broad sense, not our particular planet

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What makes you think the laws of physics are the same outside of the scope of our universe?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            So you're saying there might be some realm above the natural where things are different and which interacts with our world, providing it its energy?

            Sounds like this realm would be super to the natural realm...

            Would you rule out that this realm has life, like our's does? I doubt it. But if it does, such life would be very different from what's normal here. Maybe it's own parallel normality for its realm; a paranormality you might call it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There might be some "realm" beyond ours, yes. That's a possibility. But, because we can't interact with it, there's no possibility that we can talk about it.

            It does not give your idea any more credence than any other person's beliefs about the "supernatural". As a matter of fact, there are so many possibilities that the likelihood of your idea vanishes to zero.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >But, because we can't interact with it, there's no possibility that we can talk about it.
            Since it's the source of our world's energy, it must be able to interact with us. And, to your second point, IQfytorically speaking I think there's spectacular evidence that it has, generally being what's often called heaven and the powers of heaven.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Since it's the source of our world's energy, it must be able to interact with us.
            Go ahead and then derive the physical laws of this world. Provide experiments so that we can test your hypotheses.

            >And, to your second point, IQfytorically speaking I think there's spectacular evidence that it has, generally being what's often called heaven and the powers of heaven.
            I don't get it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >Go ahead and then derive the physical laws of this world
            Can your model do this, all at once in a single stroke as you're asking of mine?

            >Provide experiments so that we can test your hypotheses.
            Sure! The Bible itself lays out a test. It provides explicit and exact instructions for the construction of the Third Temple in the latter chapters of the book of Ezekiel, and it says that once this is complete that we should see “the glory of the God of Israel coming from the east...the land was radiant with his glory...The glory of the Lord entered the temple through the gate facing east”.

            And this would be something observable, since 2 Chronicles 7:3 says that when the first Temple was completed that “all the Israelites saw...the glory of the Lord above the temple”.

            So if we build the Third Temple according to the instructions in the book of Ezekiel, we should see God’s manifest presence enter it through the gate constructed facing eastward. We know exactly what to build and then exactly where to observe to see if the predicted effect does take place.

            Not even a particularly hard thing to test, all things considered. The Large Hadron Collider cost about four billion dollars, and the estimates I’ve seen for the Third Temple are about half that, so it wouldn’t even be our most expensive experimental construction.

            >I don't get it.
            This supernatural realm is what's often called Heaven

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You said we can interact with it, then go ahead and do it. I didn't claim that, so I don't have to do this.

            >This supernatural realm is what's often called Heaven
            That's your idea, yes. But there's so many possibilities that the likelihood of your idea vanishes to zero.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >You said we can interact with it, then go ahead and do it.
            That doesn't mean you can do it all the time. That's like handing someone some uranium glass and saying "prove nuclear weapons work by making this explode".

            >But there's so many possibilities that the likelihood of your idea vanishes to zero.
            Nah with the power of IQfytory we can narrow it down to one: Christian theism

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Evidence your claim that we can interact with this "beyond". You said, you can. Then do it. Otherwise I won't give you any of my credence.

            >Nah with the power of IQfytory we can narrow it down to one: Christian theism
            lol

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >Evidence your claim that we can interact with this "beyond".
            Remember what I said earlier about it being the source of our world's energy? Isn't providing energy to something an interaction?

            >lol
            For real! There's a ton of IQfytorical evidence for Jesus' divinity. Two governments at the time of Christ looked into him and his activities, and the heads of state of both came away believing that he genuinely had divine power. The Roman Emperor Tiberius because of the reports he received from his officials, and same for the king of Osroene. Except in the king of Osroene's case he was then the object of one of those miracles when an Apostle came and healed him!

            All of this we have reported in official documents from state archives. The historians Eusebius (at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm) and Movses Khorenatsi (at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0859.htm) record how the king of Armenia, Abgar, requested a healing from Christ and one of the Apostles came and did so. The official archives in the capital city Edessa recorded this, and recorded King Abgar's letters discussing the events. They transcribed them straight from the archives and he talked about being healed.

            Armenia is the oldest Christian nation today because its king at the time of Christ was healed by an Apostle.

            One of them was to Emperor Tiberius, and as you can read there he isn't shocked at any of this, instead he says "we had already heard several persons relate these facts, Pilate has officially informed us of the miracles of Jesus".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Isn't providing energy to something an interaction?
            Well, we can know how much energy was provided, when we do guesses. You know what, I grant you that. But what does that tell us about the "beyond"? Other than how much energy was provided, obviously.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That's like handing someone some uranium glass and saying "prove nuclear weapons work by making this explode".
            This is not a good analogy. That someone would've been able to point to a construction plan, explain the physics behind it and then perform experiments to verify some of the steps along the way. You can do none of that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >That someone would've been able to point to a construction plan, explain the physics behind it and then perform experiments to verify some of the steps along the way

            I can do the same! Remember

            >Go ahead and then derive the physical laws of this world
            Can your model do this, all at once in a single stroke as you're asking of mine?

            >Provide experiments so that we can test your hypotheses.
            Sure! The Bible itself lays out a test. It provides explicit and exact instructions for the construction of the Third Temple in the latter chapters of the book of Ezekiel, and it says that once this is complete that we should see “the glory of the God of Israel coming from the east...the land was radiant with his glory...The glory of the Lord entered the temple through the gate facing east”.

            And this would be something observable, since 2 Chronicles 7:3 says that when the first Temple was completed that “all the Israelites saw...the glory of the Lord above the temple”.

            So if we build the Third Temple according to the instructions in the book of Ezekiel, we should see God’s manifest presence enter it through the gate constructed facing eastward. We know exactly what to build and then exactly where to observe to see if the predicted effect does take place.

            Not even a particularly hard thing to test, all things considered. The Large Hadron Collider cost about four billion dollars, and the estimates I’ve seen for the Third Temple are about half that, so it wouldn’t even be our most expensive experimental construction.

            >I don't get it.
            This supernatural realm is what's often called Heaven

            ?

            And we have verification that that test should work. Similar things were observed with the Temple prior to its last destruction: https://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2022/05/today-i-have-special-guest-piece-by.html

            And when it was attempted to be rebuilt improperly by israelites during the reign of Emperor Julian (who told them to rebuild it in fact) even non-Christian from the time records clearly divine acts that stopped them, like fire shooting up out of it: https://fisheaters.com/juliantemple.html

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I can do the same!
            I want physics, mathematics, not world-salad from the holy Babble. I know that's you Achilles heel, but this is what I demand. Otherwise, I'll deem your knowledge about this world nil and rightly so.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >I want physics
            Isn't the whole point that we're talking about something that isn't part of our physical world? This is like insisting someone measure temperature with a ruler and temperature with a clock. Worse, in fact, since at least they follow the same laws of physics.

            This is the domain of history. You're on IQfy so that must be a subject that interests you; what are your thoughts on the historical evidence?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No that's not how I understand the "beyond". If you can interact with it, you are interacting with it physically, per definitionem of the word "interaction". So physics even if very exotic necessarily applies.

            >You're on IQfy so that must be a subject that interests you; what are your thoughts on the historical evidence?
            Propose the evidence.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >If you can interact with it, you are interacting with it physically
            Sure sure but you're wanting the physical model of...what, exactly? Again it's like saying you want someone to measure temperature using a yardstick. It's not clear what specifically you're even trying to make happen here.

            You could get "to effect this physical object in manner X would take Y amount of energy" if it, say, moved an object, but that wouldn't tell you anything directly about the beyond that moved it.

            >Propose the evidence.
            Well I did in

            >That someone would've been able to point to a construction plan, explain the physics behind it and then perform experiments to verify some of the steps along the way

            I can do the same! Remember [...]?

            And we have verification that that test should work. Similar things were observed with the Temple prior to its last destruction: https://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2022/05/today-i-have-special-guest-piece-by.html

            And when it was attempted to be rebuilt improperly by israelites during the reign of Emperor Julian (who told them to rebuild it in fact) even non-Christian from the time records clearly divine acts that stopped them, like fire shooting up out of it: https://fisheaters.com/juliantemple.html

            - the Temple in Jerusalem is where you had the most recent contact between this thing and our world.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So then what makes something supernatural?
            >You can all experience it when you're dead and rise to heaven!
            Wow that awfully convenient, the proof only appears when we have no way to communicate it?

            It's the same logic with fricking suicide bombers.
            >If I suicide bomb I'm gonna get 72 virgins, muhammed said so!
            What are you gonna frick them with? Your dick exploded in a public bus in london.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What causes our world to have energy is we create it by using natural forces (wind and sunlight) and less nature friendly means like burning coals and shit. And guess what, the sun actually is slowly fricking dying, every star eventually collapses and explodes/becomes a black hole according to our current understanding of space.

            If you are talking about energy in the other sense. The amount of "life" on earth fluctuates all the time due to natural violence (meteor wiping out the dinosaurs for instance). Life will always try to find a way to sustain itself, which is why we grow hungry and bacteria multiply once they have a chance. This global balance of energy is not some tightrope, life adjusts and uses what it has to to grow.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >What causes our world to have energy is we create it by using natural forces (wind and sunlight) and less nature friendly means like burning coals and shit. And guess what, the sun actually is slowly fricking dying, every star eventually collapses and explodes

            Exactly! That's my point. In our natural realm we see that natural processes inevitably mean the abolition of all energy that is able to do anything over time. So the energy in the world can't come from its natural processes.

            So there must be something beyond our natural world which is the source of its energy. Hence something supernatural!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All energy is going to run out some day, thats what i explained by "the sun is gonna fricking explode". It is all fleeting, there is no unlimited energy supply, we are using what is currently available.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Energy conservation, however.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Go ahead bud. Finish your thought.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can't run out, if it's conserved, can it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            M-hm. So if natural processes inevitably lead to 0 usable energy, never adding additional in the system considered as a whole, then it must mean the energy present wasn't added by natural processes, yes?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Energy can be won from chemical processes, like burning a fuel. The energy is then generated in a natural way. That must have happened sometime in the history of the universe on a grand scale.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            The potential energy within such stores of energy is part of what we're looking at

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Our observations tell us there must be something supernatural. Natural things, left to their own devices, inevitably as a hard result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics experience entropy until all there is no energy remaining to do any work. The natural state of natural things is heat death. Yet something still was able to cause our world to have energy.
            It’s called the sun you waterbrain, how are you a grown man who doesn’t know about the food chain?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >Clearly this post discussing the nature of natural reality in general was speaking exclusively about Planet Earth

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’m not seeing the law of thermodynamics being violated.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            Isn't that my point?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Why do atheists hate agriculture so much?
          It's the Hebrews who wrote the old testament who hate agriculture. Adam after falling from grace/getting kicked out them is "cursed" to work the ground for his food. His eldest son Cain, a farmer, doesn't please God with his offering unlike his little brother Abel, a shepherd. Most (all?) of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph...) are shepherds, with their prosperity typically tied to the size of their flocks.
          This all ties to the Hebrews giving undue weight to pastoralism, probably because they descend from semi-nomadic desert shepherd living in tents (see also: the tabernacle) at odds with more agricultural city-dwellers.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        HE'S AMERICAN!!!

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Canaanite goat herders
        Is this the new cope? Btw israelites are descended from Shem, not Canaan.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          shem was not a real person and israelites are canaanites genetically

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Canaanites unironically have the strongest connection and deepest understanding of the metaphysical. They are our most advanced psychics and mysticists for a reason.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >if you don't know what caused the universe to exist it might as well be the israelite on a stick
      It's okay to say we have no way of knowing, YET, and to assert one specific possibility over another is folly. Why do people think desert shepherds who have been dead for thousands of years know so much that we don't? It's a 2 thousand year game of chinese whispers and you're taking it for gospel.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Radiochan

      Atheists don't have a religion; atheists don't believe in God. There is no organized atheist religion, it just means "lack of belief in God or gods."
      You also fail at explaining what the cause is and how it can be observed in the natural world.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >atheism is a religion
      >starving is a dish
      have a nice day moronic 90 IQ christbrownoid

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >christbrownoid
        Making semantic arguments AND racist too, a fine example of an atheist's approach

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Brownoid confirmed

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Atheist here

      WE DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING CREATED THE UNIVERSE

      We need to do more science

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why do you go to the middle of the universe, jump inside the giant black hole, then report back to us?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Virtual Panon

          Also I'm putting on a name to distinguish myself from low-quality posters like this guy

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the middle of the universe
          The current state of Christian education.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Also I'm putting on a name to distinguish myself from low-quality posters like this guy

          Why are you crying because I said the true fact that we don't know if anything created the universe?

          https://i.imgur.com/1b01wRv.png

          Your coreligionists seem pretty persuaded of what made it

          I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to say whether his post is correct or not.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            I'm not the one who made the crude black hole comment

            >I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to say whether his post is correct or not
            It's incorrect to an extent that becomes almost profound, look at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ie7t82tQhp4
            Virtual particles represent interactions between particles in Feynman diagrams so calling them uncaused like atheists do constantly (see the endless examples posted so far in this thread and there are a LOT more where those came from) is a bewilderingly massive error, yet it forms the main definite narrative I see given from atheists for where everything ultimately comes from

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You have committed the straw man fallacy

            You are claiming that every atheist believes in this particular interpretation of quantum physics, but that's not true.

            Atheism just means you don't believe in God. Anything beyond that is up for debate.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >You are claiming that every atheist believes in this particular interpretation of quantum physics
            Obviously "#notall______" is true about basically every group but this claim about virtual particles from atheists is extremely extremely common when the world's origin comes up

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm an atheist and my position is that we don't yet know if the universe was created by something. We need to do more science to find out.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Virtual Panon

        Your coreligionists seem pretty persuaded of what made it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/JZAlfCM.png

      >christbrownoid
      Making semantic arguments AND racist too, a fine example of an atheist's approach

      https://i.imgur.com/1b01wRv.png

      Your coreligionists seem pretty persuaded of what made it

      >religion
      So is it good or are you telling us religion is shit?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Virtual Panon

        Depends on the religion. Atheism is a bad religion for sure

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >forcing rape victims to squeeze out dead babies with no brain is good
          Is that the "superhuman perfect Judeo-Christian moral values" I've heard so much about?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            What percentage of abortions are those?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Percentage? One abortion, ever in history, is enough to shit on your "perfect" moral values.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >One abortion, ever in history, is enough to shit on your "perfect" moral values
            I'm genuinely not sure what specifically you mean by this; I'm of the persuasion that it's abhorrent, that's my point

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Divine command is absolute. If there's literally one exception you have to make to it, it's utter and total shit.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            The command it violates is that against murder; a person whose brain has been destroyed has already died and hence cannot be murdered

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >abortion should be legal
            Enjoy hell.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            Hell is for sins and moving a corpse for proper burial isn't a sin, it's the opposite: honoring someone's body who had a tragic death is a noble thing to do

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >honoring someone's body who had a tragic death is a noble thing to do
            But preventing a woman from dying from severe pregnancy complications isn't? ROFL what an ass-broken "perfect" morality.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >But preventing a woman from dying from severe pregnancy complications isn't?
            Depends, does preventing that death mean killing someone you could save?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. You could save the "baby" and kill the mother.

            Well? Do you kill a woman for Jesus?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            'course, these sorts of situations happen all the time. Sometimes you've gotta sacrifice one person for others. That's why we have, say, firefighters: some will die, but it has to be done regardless

            Best general rule of thumb is what will lead to the most preserved life-years. On average a newborn represents more remaining life-years than an adult, so preserving them instead is the right move if you have to choose. Generally speaking.

            Emotional posturing aside I highly doubt you really disagree with this; the principle is the same for any unsafe work, even driving cars - there's always a chance you hit a pedestrian or cause a wreck everytime you drive, as you know.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Sometimes you've gotta sacrifice one person for others.
            So you murder the baby?

            >Best general rule of thumb is what will lead to the most preserved life-years. On average a newborn represents more remaining life-years than an adult, so preserving them instead is the right move if you have to choose.
            1. Do you have a verse you get this from or is that just the first thing you came up with to rationalizes the effective Christian practice of killing women for Jesus?
            2. How do you predict how many years the child will live? Do you have a crystal ball? Do you ask the local preacher to pull a "divine revelation" out of his ass?
            3. That's a trade off. You're literally compromising on what's suppose to be an absolutely perfect morality.

            >Emotional posturing aside I highly doubt you really disagree with this
            I do actually. The fetus is not alive yet, and effective, immediate life is more valuable than the promise of a potential life. Not everyone hates people as much as you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God exsneeds. Achucks have been debunked with their fancy scientism car.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >So you murder the baby?
            Depends, where do you expect the most life-years?

            > Do you have a verse you get this from
            For sure, John 11:50 directly endorses the idea of sacrificing one for more: "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish".

            >How do you predict how many years the child will live?
            Statistics: there's gargantuan amounts of life expectancy data available

            >That's a trade off. You're literally compromising on what's suppose to be an absolutely perfect morality.
            What's John 11:50 say about the matter?

            >I do actually
            I was referring to the principle itself, not the morality of abortion directly, which of course we deeply disagree on

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Depends
            >Statistics
            So God's law is not an absolute ergo Christian morals are dog shit.

            >John 11:50
            Doesn't support your point since it's not about total life years.

            >I was referring to the principle itself, not the morality of abortion directly
            Yeah, so did I.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >So God's law is not an absolute
            It's like Gödel's incompleteness theorems show: no system of axioms will ever be complete. Laws can only ever be guidelines with fuzzy boundaries.

            >ergo Christian morals are dog shit.
            What's your moral system? You have ironclad moral maxims that never need exemptions?

            >Doesn't support your point since it's not about total life years.
            Well sure it is: if it comes down to it, you sacrifice the lesser quantity of life for the greater quantity of life. Same principle, just applied between two individuals.

            >Yeah, so did I.
            Let's recap the line of discussion:
            Me: "honoring someone's body who had a tragic death is a noble thing to do"
            You: "But preventing a woman from dying from severe pregnancy complications isn't?"
            Me: "Depends, does preventing that death mean killing someone you could save?"
            You: "You could save the "baby" and kill the mother"
            Me: "Sometimes you've gotta sacrifice one person for others...Emotional posturing aside I highly doubt you really disagree with this"
            You: "I do actually. The fetus is not alive yet"

            That's where you seem to lose the running train of thought since the response there doesn't seem to be responding to the point that was being made, which is about the necessity of choosing lives vs. lives

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's like Gödel's incompleteness theorems show: no system of axioms will ever be complete.
            1. That's not what Godel's incompleteness theorems say.
            2. Thanks for disagreeing with 2000 years of Christian theologians by admitting Christian morality is not perfect at all.

            >What's your moral system?
            Secular humanism.

            >You have ironclad moral maxims that never need exemptions?
            No, but unlike Christians I never pretended I did.

            >Well sure it is
            No. It's about number of people alive. Can Christians read?

            >That's where you seem to lose the running train of thought since the response there doesn't seem to be responding to the point that was being made, which is about the necessity of choosing lives vs. lives
            The one who's losing the plot here is you. The question is pretty simple. Do you kill the "baby" to save its mother's life? If you do, you shit on Christianity's absolute imperative not to kill. If you don't, more people die.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >That's not what Godel's incompleteness theorems say.
            I actually think they really do apply here. It works in any other axiomatic system; why not morality?

            >Thanks for disagreeing with 2000 years of Christian theologians by admitting Christian morality is not perfect at all.
            Can you actually quote any of them taking the view of what "perfection" means here that you seem to be taking?

            The way you're using it seems to be expecting a complete set of axioms that can be referred to in any situation to provide completely unambiguous guidance as to what to do

            >No
            Alrighty then, what's the issue? Clearly a moral system having ironclad moral maxims that never need exemptions isn't part of your requirements for embracing a moral system, so I'm not sure what you're actually even criticizing.

            >unlike Christians I never pretended I did
            Is there someone you can quote so I can get an idea of what sort of sentiment, specifically, you're disagreeing with?

            >No. It's about number of people alive
            Maximizing life-years maximizes that quantity, all else being equal

            >If you do, you shit on Christianity's absolute imperative not to kill
            Christianity never had that - haven't you heard of David killing Goliath or Romans 13:4 that says "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil"?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It works in any other axiomatic system
            It doesn't. Once again, when the Christian tries doing "pure logic," he just keeps tripping over himself.

            >Can you actually quote any of them taking the view of what "perfection" means here that you seem to be taking?
            No need to define the word. Simply asserting God's moral command is perfect is enough. 🙂

            >Clearly a moral system having ironclad moral maxims that never need exemptions isn't part of your requirements for embracing a moral system
            It's not part of MY requirements.

            >all else being equal
            Nothing is "all else equal" in reality.

            >David killing Goliath
            Old testament. If you want to argue you actually believe in it, explain why you don't circumcise and eat kosher.

            >Romans 13:4 that says "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil"?
            This verse literally says to kill all sinners. LOL what a broken moral system.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Virtual Panon

            >It doesn't
            What have you got in mind? You might be thinking of a very different context than what I'm talking about

            >No need
            This sounds like admitting that no one actually takes the position you're looking to argue against, making it a strawman.

            >It's not part of MY requirements
            OK then, so...what's the issue?

            >Nothing is "all else equal" in reality.
            If you dislike that term then replace it with "in most circumstances"

            >Old testament
            The relatively frequent divinely-endorsed killing in the Old Testament demonstrates that it's not something God is ironclad fundamentally forbidding

            >If you want to argue you actually believe in it, explain why you don't circumcise and eat kosher
            Killing was ordered before Moses' law ever came onto the scene. In Genesis 9:6 a law is given to Noah, progenitor of all of humanity following that point, and it mandates the death penalty for murderers: "Whosoever sheds man's blood, by man must his blood be shed".

            This is a general command to humanity, and not part of the laws given to the Israelites specifically much much much later which you're thinking of.

            >This verse literally says to kill all sinners
            Nah read the rest of the chapter, it's about the Roman government and its authorities. It doesn't object to the government using the sword for law enforcement.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Christians have no proof of their god.
      Prayer doesn’t work, Christians flat out do not have special powers from invoking their god
      The creation story is wrong
      That’s enough to dismiss Christianity

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I did it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >So far when I ask anarchists what did it in their government.
      Anarchists don't exist. It's describing a power vacuum that is instantly filled. There is no such thing as an atheist, or an anarchist. It's the concept of destruction. These words only have meaning, relative to the real objects that they oppose. Like the word cold, or bad.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >thread filled with christgay fedora folder spamming
    Over the target lol

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IQfy has a YahooAnswers understanding of religion and atheism.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's more like AskJeeves but instead of asking Jeeves, you are asking a mentally disabled person with autism.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        For real, it's always some bullshit like
        >if God real, why bad thing
        >if God not real, how thing exist
        >every religion is like the Abrahamic faiths
        >you're just afraid of being held accountable by God
        >you're just afraid of dying
        There are so many more examples. I genuinely wish there was a specific board which revolved around theology/atheism/counter-apologetics that was better at discussing these things.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >God exists because God exist
    true.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I AM SILLY

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a theist and I don't believe that God created the Universe because the Bible says so

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >strawman argument
    >strawman argument
    sage

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is there something rather than nothing?
    >this makes the materialist shid and piss his pants

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The question “why” only applies to thinking beings with reasoning. You might as well be asking why a rock is lazy. It’s a nonsense question.

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