I have never heard a single good argument for not believing in God, if the evidence is tied either way.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
I have never heard a single good argument for not believing in God, if the evidence is tied either way.
I have never heard a single good argument for not believing in incest with your post-menopausal grandmother, if the evidence is tied either way.
fpbp
Also, the evidence isn't tied. Fricking your grandma is clearly part of the ineffable plan
No evidence = no reason to believe.
The equation that confuses low-IQ morons and make them shit their pants.
Of course there’s evidence, you just question beg your empiricism and leave it at that.
>Of course there’s evidence
>that's why I'm not giving it to you!
You don't want it.
I'm sure your god took note of this failure on your duty to proselytize.
Start with pic related. Don’t bother with moral argument or kalam cosmological agrument, I think they’re bogus. Ontological argument is great but its a faith exercise and not for you.
God isn’t defined positively
forgot pic
>Aquinas' five proofs
LET'S FRICKING DO THIS!!!
>Motion
>Cause
No. This is not God. I call it the Big Bang and don't ascribe to it any magic-Jew-in-the-sky characteristics because I'm not a sucker.
>Contingency
No, it's not established that the world itself is contingent.
>Perfection
If I show you one nonempty totally ordered set that has no maximum, will you immediately concede that this argument is utter bullshit and that you've been duped? Answer honestly.
>Order
That's not even one of Aquinas' five ways. It's just a moronic creationist argument. The universe is not ordered at all. It's overwhelmingly vacuum and gas. The Earth managed to get a metastable life, but it itself is not ordered. It proceeds by natural selection and is FULL of flaws utterly inconsistent with perfect design.
1, 2 The big bang is within the system of causality, not standing outside of it. Its reasonable to ask what caused the big bang, its nonsensical to ask what caused the uncaused causer.
3. What’s your argument for a necessary universe? I don’t see any evidence for a necessary universe.
4. Granted this one appeals to a platonistic view of the world which you’ll never accept because of your prejudices, but I don’t see its invalidity.
5. Order as in ordered towards x which is just teleology. I do notice now they expressed it really stupidly but its just a pic I downloaded off the internet, not the real deal. The real teleological argument focuses on the ends of things, not the beginnings.
Now, let me make something very clear: this is not a debate on the soundness of the five ways, but the validity. You asked for evidence and I gave it.
The big bang can't be uncaused because....it just can't ok?
Well if you want to do away with the law of sufficient reason, be my guest, but don’t be surprised if you eventually devolve into a babbling Humean moron.
>law of sufficient reason
No such law exists
Its a priori, without such fundamental knowledge we have nothing. But like I said, go ahead and be a Humean moron for all I care.
Nothing of what you said exists
Shut the frick up 24 yo Humer. Nobody should listen to a world that moron says. What is more, no one will ever live their life in a Humean way. Have you seriously ever given a single thought as to why you trust the sun will rise? Damn, its almost is if we have the rational capacity to know it will.
>Huuurr.. uh…uhh…I…I can’t know anything…dooood..uh…uh…UH..UH…that feels so good…UH…I’M HUUUUMING UGHGHGHGGH
That it you.
The rational functions that get us the big bang are the one’s you’re doubting.
>The rational functions that get us the big bang are the one’s you’re doubting.
Nonsense
Ok, try to do any science whatsoever without laws of logic
>inb4 twofaced Hume spam
Tell me when you are done moving goalposts
>muh a priori made up law says the big bang can't be uncaused
This isn't an argument
>Its reasonable to ask what caused the big bang, its nonsensical to ask what caused the uncaused causer.
What if the Big Bang is the uncaused causer? Hard mode: no "it just can't okay."
>3. What’s your argument for a necessary universe?
Nobody knows whether the universe is necessary or contingent, and until the question is settled, assuming it is just because it's convenient for your case is wishful thinking.
>4. Granted this one appeals to a platonistic view of the world which you’ll never accept because of your prejudices, but I don’t see its invalidity.
I take that as a no. You never cared about evidence and reason.
>5. Order as in ordered towards x which is just teleology.
Nothing has an intrinsic end. It's pure cope. Uses and ends are subjective.
>Now, let me make something very clear: this is not a debate on the soundness of the five ways, but the validity. You asked for evidence and I gave it.
1. If your evidence is dogshit, it doesn't count. Why would I not point it out if it is?
2. As I showed, it's invalid. The uncaused causer isn't bound to be a magic israelite in the sky, and nonempty, totally ordered sets don't all have a maximum.
3. Validity without soundness makes it not evidence. Thanks for conceding the entire discussion.
1,2 Because its part of the causal chain
3. Ok so you have no argument. At least I can common sensibly look at the fundamental laws of physics plus the physical constants and see that they need not be what they are. You’re the one saying I’M presupposing conditions according to wishful thinking?
4. I think there is good reason to be a Platonist about abstracta, I would be a Platonist even if I were an atheist.
5. I accept the fifth because it makes much more probabilistic sense that the 26 constants are ordered towards a livable universe rather than the chance we arrived in this configuration by chaos.
>Because its part of the causal chain
>god creating the universe isn't part of the causal chain because.....
ç
>1,2 Because its part of the causal chain
And God isn't despite that he caused everything? Can you explain how that's not the stupidest thing I've read in months???
>3. Ok so you have no argument.
I have no proof that the universe is necessary, and I don't believe it. You believe the universe is contingent. Do you have proof? No. You just want to believe it because it's convenient to you. I prefer to say "I don't know" like a grownup.
>At least I can common sensibly look at the fundamental laws of physics plus the physical constants and see that they need not be what they are.
And you derive that from??? Constants with random-looking values appear all over the place in math, yet they necessarily derive from the rules of logic...
>You’re the one saying I’M presupposing conditions according to wishful thinking?
Yes. You're presupposing that the universe was necessarily caused with an intrinsic goal by a magic israelite in the sky with narcissistic personality disorder.
>4. I think there is good reason to be a Platonist about abstracta, I would be a Platonist even if I were an atheist.
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You gave me an argument based on the assumption that all nonempty, totally ordered sets have a maximum, I asked you whether you would immediately admit you're wrong if I showed you one counterexample, and you made it clear you wouldn't. You are not arguing in good faith at all, like every single Christian apologist I've ever interacted with.
>5. I accept the fifth because it makes much more probabilistic sense that the 26 constants are ordered towards a livable universe rather than the chance we arrived in this configuration by chaos.
First, this has nothing to do with teleology. Second, show me the p-value. What's that? You didn't calculate it? You preferred to just accept it because it fits your preexisting beliefs?
1,2 How many times do I have to say this, as creator of causality, time, and space, God would stand OUTSIDE of the spatiotemporal causal chain, not within it.
3. Ask any astrophysicist if they think reality as we know it could have been different. I assure you every single one will agree, citing the constants at the time of the big bang and so forth. The only people who insist on a necessary universe are those who have a particular bone to pick with a metaphysical theory from an obscure 11th century persian witch doctor. Since you claim to be agnostic on the issue, I ask you honestly: would you reconsider your view on God if it turned out that science somehow proved beyond all doubt that the universe is contingent?
4. I was just imploring you to keep an open mind
5. What difference does it make if I calculated the probability myself or not, lmao.
>stands outside of time
Impossible to have a mind outside of time, he can only be outside of one particular timeline, not every timeline.
>space
The same applies
>I assure you every single one will agree
Your assurance is worth jackshit, not that it would change much
-Not the guy you're replying to
>Impossible to have a mind outside of time, he can only be outside of one particular timeline, not every timeline.
Uh, do you have a recent peer-reviewed study to back that up?
>1,2 How many times do I have to say this, as creator of causality, time, and space, God would stand OUTSIDE of the spatiotemporal causal chain, not within it.
So would the Big Bang. What now?
>3. Ask any astrophysicist if they think reality as we know it could have been different. I assure you every single one will agree, citing the constants at the time of the big bang and so forth.
No. They would say "I don't know" like grownups but unlike all Christians on Earth.
>Since you claim to be agnostic on the issue, I ask you honestly: would you reconsider your view on God if it turned out that science somehow proved beyond all doubt that the universe is contingent?
No because whatever caused it to be the way it is isn't necessarily a god, let alone the magic-Jew-in-the-sky-that-drowned-babies god of Christianity.
>4. I was just imploring you to keep an open mind
Take a second to contemplate this: you wouldn't change your mind about the validity of an argument given a counterexample, but you ask me to "keep an open mind." Meditate this for the rest of your life.
>5. What difference does it make if I calculated the probability myself or not, lmao.
For starters, you'd have a leg to stand on when confidently claiming something "makes much more probabilistic sense" than something else. But maybe that's just me having weird ideas about epistemology.
>whatever causes motion is the Christian god. Motherfricker he didn’t know about gravity or nuclear fusion, or the quantum fields, or electromagnetism. Of course he thought it was a magic guy. What century do you live in where you don’t know this? You have internet access, there’s no excuse to be as ignorant about how things work as a guy from the middle ages.
Who are you quoting? Any way, you’re making a completely invalid argument: the logic of an argument in the domain of metaphysics is flawed because some empirical fact in the domain of empirical science was unknown at the time.
>presupposes a prior cause
Debunked by Hmes
>a mover that produces that movement
>This is God
Non sequitur
>every new production...
2 debunked
>there must exist a first cause
Debunked
>This is God
Non sequitur
>Everything in this world is contingent
Correct
>the world...
It's not a thing by definition but the totality of things, so debunked
>This is God
Non sequitur
>In this world there are higher and lesser degrees of perfection
Perfection of what? Phrased like this it's meaningless
>Which is also the cause of that that exists in that oder
So in the degrees of beauty the most beautiful girl would cause all the othe girls to exist? Non sequitur
>This is God
Non sequitur, ugly beings can create being more beautiful or more intelligent than them
>God isn’t defined positively
Ok then so God is not Good, All Knowing, Omniscient? Of course there is no reason not to believe in God then.
Those are relational to us as creatures but say little about God in His essence
Man is the image of God. Some part of part of our essence is a kernel of some part of his.
Also, Godel's ontological argument leads to monotheism (one God). Hence, an uncaused causer anyways. See the paper:
https://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/papers/C40.pdf
Section: Main Findings, part 9.
>Hence, an uncaused causer anyways.
If God is all powerful, he can create anything and destroy anything in creation (the physical world).
PBS SPACETIME did a video on the simulation hypothesis and showed a possible way someone could simulate a universe. This is hard to do for humans (it requires a blackhole the size of a country), but if God is all powerful, this is trivial for God. And since there is one being like this, there is one creator.
You already have the needed evidence. Look around.
I see vacuum and disordered gas, but no magic israelite.
Other people are able to handle reasoning.
Show me your reasoning then.
Created things did not create themselves, but they had their existence and properties imposed on them by a cause. The first cause behind all of this would, by virtue of this fact, be uncreated and uncaused, and would not be imposed on by anything. All actions taken by this first cause, such as causing everything to exist, would be due to the inherent properties of this first cause, which is no different than having a will, so the first cause is a person, that is to say a being with intelligence.
The difference between God and everything else in this is that God does not need or have a cause or a beginning, while everything else, including the universe itself does. One corollary to this is that nothing is imposed on God, such as natural laws of physics or anything else. The universe on the other hand is forced to follow laws of physics and cannot break those laws, and hence the energy-matter universe and everything in it has something imposed on it by a higher cause, ultimately going back to the Creator.
>which is no different than having a will, so the first cause is a person, that is to say a being with intelligence.
Nah
If I take an action, and it is entirely due to my own internal attributes and the way that I am, and nothing was imposed or forced on me, then it means I have a will.
You have a will only if you have consciece
>The first cause behind all of this would, by virtue of this fact, be uncreated and uncaused, and would not be imposed on by anything.
Let's call this thing "the Big Bang" and not ascribe to it any magic-Jew-in-the-sky characteristics, shall we?
>All actions taken by this first cause, such as causing everything to exist, would be due to the inherent properties of this first cause, which is no different than having a will
Radioactive isotopes have a will? ROFL
Do radioactive isotopes also write fairy tales of talking snakes and 600-year-old men building floating zoos?
>Radioactive isotopes have a will? ROFL
Last I checked they follow a Poisson process of decay which is so predictable that we use it to date things.
>Let's call this thing "the Big Bang"
Suppose this hypothesis for the sake of argument. If the Big Bang is finite, then the constraints that bounded the limits of the Big Bang were imposed on it by a higher cause and it is not uncaused in itself.
>Last I checked they follow a Poisson process of decay which is so predictable that we use it to date things.
Right. So doing things because of inherent properties is different from having a will.
>If the Big Bang is finite
As someone who pretends to know what a Poisson process is, you have ZERO excuse to believe an event being "finite" makes sense.
>So doing things because of inherent properties is different from having a will.
The decay process time distribution is the same for each one even though it is probability-based. Individual isotopes never spontaneously change that distribution (they are too simple), so they can't be said to be doing something spontaneous on their own.
>you have ZERO excuse to believe an event being "finite" makes sense.
Meaning it has limits of some kind.
>The decay process time distribution is the same for each one even though it is probability-based. Individual isotopes never spontaneously change that distribution (they are too simple), so they can't be said to be doing something spontaneous on their own.
Oh so now it's not about taking actions because of inherent properties, it's about changing one's inherent properties...
>Meaning it has limits of some kind.
Everything has limits "of some kind."
>Oh so now it's not about taking actions because of inherent properties, it's about changing one's inherent properties...
No, it's about what actually constitutes an action tbh.
>Everything has limits "of some kind."
Not everything actually. Right now I'm showing that the eternal highest cause of all things has no limits.
>No, it's about what actually constitutes an action tbh.
Yes. And disintegrating is an action.
>Not everything actually. Right now I'm showing that the eternal highest cause of all things has no limits.
It has a limit in how many people worship it. 🙂
>It has a limit in how many people worship it. 🙂
Oh really?
"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
- Proverbs 16:4
Yes. I don't worship him, and that's a limit.
But doesn't the Bible say this, anon?
"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
- Romans 9:17-18
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
- Philippians 2:9-11
Does it or doesn't it say those things?
Yes. How's that supposed to change the extremely well established fact that there exists at least one person who does not worship him?
The point here is that the Creator can be glorified even by the actions taken by some in rebellion, whether they like it or not. All things work together for God's glory, and logically speaking it would have to be that way.
"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the israelites only, but also of the Gentiles?"
(Romans 9:21-24)
"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
(Proverbs 16:4)
Then surely your god won't mind me not worshiping him since I'm glorifying him in the process. Now be kind, stop proselytizing and let your religion die for the glory of your god.
Well, the Bible says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and also to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4). That doesn't mean that some people might use their will to choose not to do this, but it does mean that the Creator won't be denied honor, whether it's in one form or another.
>stop proselytizing and let your religion die for the glory of your god.
I'm just telling you all the truth, hoping that you will be made free. Like it says in John 8, the truth shall make you free. I will pray, of course, and then hope that God will do something.
>Well, the Bible says that God is not willing that any should perish
But he can't just snap his finger and save everyone? L I M I T E D
>I'm just telling you all the truth
and I demand proof.
Look around.
if no god, why universe big and pretty looking?
I see vacuum and disordered gas, but no magic israelite.
I’m looking at a picture of the Milky Way which your religion did not even know about or understand at even a child’s level. You would have a point if the Bible talked about galaxies in detail and what a galaxy is, but it didn’t because it was written by superstitious ancient people making shit up
>which your religion did not even know about
If it is lower church protestantism, yes.
Otherwise, Catholics and Protestants created universities. Catholics often used astronomy to make their churches look nicer and allow sunlight to be in the perfect spots for aesthetic purposes. The Julian calender was reformed for liturgical reasons. Catholics invented scholasticism. So, the earliest sciences that were developed (astronomy) was by the church and her institutions for the purposes of liturgy. So this is wrong.
NTA
>not believing in God, if the evidence is tied either way
Graham Oppy gives an argument for this in his book The Best Argument Against God.
What do you mean by "God"?
>you can't stop me from shitting my pants, chekmate athiests
Please, at least try to be clever and legitimate in your analogies like
so what is your argument for believing in God?
which god?
what definition of God?
I know there is a God because beautiful ladies like OPs pic exist. End of story.
If you're an abrahamist, the terribile arguments used to defend your your god are a good argument against it.
Also the existence of evil in the world is proof that an all good, all knowing and all powerful god does not exist. If you think otherwise you lack critical thinking and even more empathy.
You have no reason to assume I’m Abrahamic or even Christian, and for the sake of argument I’m not. This is a purely philosophical discussion.
Most people are abrahamic so you must state otherwise.
I could be a scientologist for all you should care, you care committing a sin against well-behaved argument by attacking abrahamism in a discussion that isn’t about specific theological views.
Are you so moronic to not realize how the dominant theistic view is relevant to your post? By your replies it looks like you're an abrahamist so yes you are moronic.
This is the most moronic and dishonest post in the thread.
>you're the bad guy!
>*proceeds to groom kids on discord
why are science cultists always projecting?
>Also the existence of evil in the world is proof that an all good, all knowing and all powerful god does not exist. If you think otherwise you lack critical thinking and even more empathy.
This argument doesn't make any sense to me, that since people with free will commit evil deeds God can't exist? Humans have free will and God gave it to us. People who believe in God I find have the most empathy, since they understand we're all sinners and can change for the better.
Even if free will existed God would find a way to destroy evil, because he's all knowing and all powerful, he'd also not bother with it if he was good, because free will is never an excuse to let evil (such as the torture of innocents) exist
>People who believe in God I find have the most empathy,
Except they commit atrocities in the name of God
>they understand we're all sinners and can change for the better.
Sin is just a virtue signaling buzzword, you're a sinner for not worshipping God despite having done nothing wrong.
Your arguments are really moronic, and you'd know this if you thought critically about them.
If we're arguing from my side of things, that God does exist, then God DOES destroy evil. Our lives are fleeting and evil is punished after we die since death is not the end.
>Except they commit atrocities in the name of God
So do atheists, so by that logic empathy just doesn't exist. A few bad apples don't make the whole batch bad, if my brother is a serial killer or a rapist that doesn't automatically mean that everyone in my family has done the same thing or worse. We're all sinners, none are free of sin, some may stray off the path but it doesn't mean they're beyond saving or don't have empathy. The exact same argument you're using here could be used for any group of people on the planet.
>Sin is just a virtue signaling buzzword, you're a sinner for not worshipping God despite having done nothing wrong.
Here's the thing anon, NO PERSON is free of sin (except Jesus according to the new testament) so saying you dindu nuffin is wrong. Everyone sins, we make mistakes, it's just a part of being human, but by worshipping God we reflect on our actions and ask for forgiveness for sinning and strive to be better. You can't honestly say to me you've never ever hurt someone or done nothing wrong your entire life.
Are you that orthodog who also watches porn?
No, I just started lurking here a few weeks ago
As a fairy tale believer, what exactly would be a good argument for you?
>This is the most moronic and dishonest post in the thread.
>if the evidence is tied either way.
>evidence
well you're already missing the whole point of "faith" but you do you bud
if god real why does he manifest in some israelite raised by a cuck?
xD lmaoing
Which god should I pick from among the thousands?
Most of them don't have concepts of eternal hellfire. Most of them aren't monolatric (worship one God). Most of them are worldy, you worship to Gods to save your crops.
The only religions which require you to worship one God is atenism and Abrahamic faiths. The other religions give only moral stipulations. If you were a saint in the Abrahamic, you would be righteous in all these other religions which do have concepts of eternal damnation.
Evidence of no eternal hellfire:
(1)Read the other religions (2)Celcus, a Platonist pagan said the concept of eternal damnation was barbaric (3)most religions tend to universalism.
Within Abrahamism:
Judaism's Talmud says Gentiles will not be saved. Judaism didn't have a concept of heaven and hell in the Old Testament. Useless.
Choose Islam or Christianity. Same God the Father.