The existence of God is self-evident.

The existence of God is self-evident.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Amen

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    God is dead

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      God cannot die.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        God's death is self-evident.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        God literally died from being nailed to a cross

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Was that his divine nature or his human nature? How can a human kill a soul?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus is God. Jesus died on the cross. God died on the cross.
            How is this hard?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus didn't REALLY die on the cross
            Leave it to Christians to go 5 minutes without inventing new heresies

            Are you making the argument that Jesus' spirit died on the cross? Because no Christian has ever believed that at any point in time. After his body died on the Cross, his spirit went to Hades to preach to the dead before ascending into Heaven.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why are people's souls in Hades? Because they are dead.
            Why is Jesus' soul in Hades? Because he is dead.

            How would it even make sense to talk about a resurrection, if he wasn't dead in the first place?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Death is the separation of the body from the soul. The soul does not "die" when the body does. The resurrection is the reunion of the soul with the body.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you telling me this?
            Jesus died on the cross. How is this controversial?
            You just referred to people in Hades as 'dead' in your previous post. You're being inconsistent.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus died on the cross. How is this controversial?
            Yes, Jesus died on the cross. That doesn't mean his soul was destroyed or that his soul was killed, only that his body died and his soul was separated from it. This is the commonly understood definition of "death". Only God can destroy the soul. It has always been the tradition of the Church that after death (the death of the body which results in the separation of body and soul) that the soul goes to some other place awaiting judgment. It's not controversial at all.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you telling me all this stuff about souls?
            I've only been talking about Jesus dying on the cross, and Jesus being God.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Atleast if you said the avatar god choose to incarnate as died at a cross it would be more believable metaphysically speaking

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        read a book

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >God cannot
        so much for omnipotence, then.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      True. Plus he is also risen.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP being a massive homosexual is self evident.

  4. 1 month ago
    Radiochan

    which god and why

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >which god
      There is only one God. If you understood the definition of "God", you would not be asking this question.

      >and why
      Because the statement "God exists" is a self-evident statement to those who understand the essence of God. The opposite would be a self-refuting statement.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
        Why can't there be two of those?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's not a correct definition of God. God is that being which no greater can be conceived. God is self-existent, which is to say not dependent on anything else for his existence. Only one Being derives existence from itself, and this Being is God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >God contains all things
            >God contains the set of all things that do not contain themselves
            >does the set of all things that do not contain themselves contain itself?
            >If yes, then contradiction.
            >If no, then again contradiction.
            >So God does not contain all things
            >So there is a being I can conceived of that is greater than God
            So what it is it? Does God defy logic? Then your definition of God has no meaning. Is God subject to logic, then a being greater than God is conceivable and God is not well-defined.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It is your question that defies logic, not God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Point out the contradiction then.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your question is nonsensical, and I will treat it as such.

            Nice myth wienersmoker

            Nice argument, atheist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I’m agnostic, citing the text of a myth isn’t an argument. Grow up.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ad hominem is also not an argument. Grow up.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If people don’t believe in your myth citing the text of the myth where one of the characters says they’re god doesn’t make them god. Stop being a moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not the argument. By the way, you still haven't presented a counter argument, you can only say dirty words and call people names.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Your question is no sensical and I will treat it as such.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Did you just hear about Russell's paradox in an epic reddit post or something?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your question is nonsensical, and I will treat it as such.

            [...]
            Nice argument, atheist.

            You sound salty. Why not just point out where I'm wrong, instead of this cope posturing. Makes you look like sore losers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why don't you come up with a coherent question, then I'll answer it. Why do atheists always resort to name calling? It's like you only have emotional arguments instead of logical arguments. You're not an intellectual, you're just a poser.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Question was: Does God defy logic or not.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When you ask this question, I can only assume you don't understand the words you are using, because if you did, you wouldn't be asking this question. It's like asking if mathematics contradicts logic.

            All you've done is define something to exist, and then claiming it to exist. I define white bruce lee as an existing being, doesn't mean he does.

            Is it a self-evident statement to say "That which exists, exists."? If it's not, explain why.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just answer the question, you pompous moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Does logic defy mathematics? Just answer the question, you pompous moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Does logic defy mathematics?
            No answer exists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why? Why can't you give a simple true or false to a nonsensical question?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You have added more to the definition of God than "That which exists".

            Suppose I define a being to be an exact copy of bruce lee, white, and to also exist right now. Does he exist? By your logic, his existence would be a tautology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, because it would not be a thing which exists by nature, and which could not not exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            again, explain what it means to exist "by nature", and how God cannot not exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It means the essence of God is to exist. Being is what He is, and He is being (Exodus 3:14). This means that if something doesn't exist, or it exists contingently, it isn't God. And that means God must exist, or He wouldn't be the thing which is by nature, and which cannot not be.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The essence of God is to exist
            and the essence of the existent white bruce lee is to exist. It's in his definition. If it doesn't exist, it's not white bruce lee.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The white bruce lee is contingent, and therefore not self-existent

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean by contingent, and what makes white bruce lee contingent?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The fact that he didn't exist from eternity and was created by things outside of himself (plus the fact that he no longer exists as a living person).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >didn't exist from eternity
            he did
            >created by things outside himself
            he was not
            >no longer exists
            white bruce lee exist eternally

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No.

            [...]
            You sound salty. Why not just point out where I'm wrong, instead of this cope posturing. Makes you look like sore losers.

            >where I'm wrong
            The epic reddit post you saw is about mathematical set theory. It has literally nothing to do with God
            >God contains everything
            No, that would be pantheism which is paganism.
            >God contains everything therefore Russell's paradox
            Even if pantheism was true, God still wouldn't be a mathematical set. So this is false too
            This is idiotic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No.
            >The epic reddit post you saw is about mathematical set theory.
            Great, then I can conceive of a being greater than him.

            >The epic reddit post you saw is about mathematical set theory.
            Oh really, I wasn't aware of that. Cantor's definition is so general, you can easily apply it to your sophistry, as well. In a way it's very akin to the religious dogma that you're trying to peddle. So Russel's paradox is more than fitting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, you're so moronic that you are arguing against yourself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's what you are doing and it's called presup and strawmanning

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Great, then I can conceive of a being greater than him.
            ?
            >Oh really, I wasn't aware of that
            That's probably because you're a moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A being that is not bound by logic is greater than a being that is. A being that contains all things is greater than a being that does not.

            Why? Why can't you give a simple true or false to a nonsensical question?

            Because of Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. Nobody knows if contradictions do exist in mathematics.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A being that is not bound by logic is greater than a being that is. A being that contains all things is greater than a being that does not.
            This is arbitrary, indefensible, and irrelevant.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh really? Just as your word "great" and your entire definition that's going up in flames, as you speak.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A being that is not bound by morals is greater than a being that is. A being that contains all actions is greater than a being that does not.

            That depends on how you define "great".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >my possible future is "greater" than yours, because it includes going to hell. Your future is limited, because you only have one option, wich is to go to heaven.

            Quality vs quantity. Which is greater?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I can conceive of a being greater than him
            He answered this already.
            He said that humans defy logic, not God.
            Logic is God's will. If you you defy his logic, you are sinning. Just because you have the free will to lie, doesn't mean you should.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just change every instance of "contain" with "sustain"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All you've done is define something to exist, and then claiming it to exist. I define white bruce lee as an existing being, doesn't mean he does.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >God is that being which no greater can be conceived.
            Provide a definition of greatness. Then provide a proof why something conceived as being the greatest must necessarily exist. Oh, and btw: Saying existing is necessarily greater than not existing is slight of hand, then you just start from premises that already support your conclusion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Great is things I like
            Not great is icky stuff

      • 1 month ago
        Radiochan

        Everybody's definition seems to change however it suits them. Do you mean Allah, the Most Merciful? Do you mean Susanoo? Do you mean Zeus?
        >Because the statement "God exists" is a self-evident statement to those who understand the essence of God.
        No, it's tautological. It doesn't define anything.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >which god

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Anonymous
      >05/03/24(Fri)16:47:41 No.16582134 Anonymous 05/03/24(Fri)15:47:41 No.16582134smug onions.jpg (32 KB, 600x655)File: smug onions.jpg (32 KB, 600x655) google yandex iqdb wait32 KB JPG>which god

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I've never seen this answered albeit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's pretty easy to narrow down. Which God created everything? Which God forbids the worship of other "gods"?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Which God created everything?
          I don't know, which one? Also other mythologies claim multiple gods made everything so how would you tell if it was one or multiple?
          >Which God forbids the worship of other "gods"?
          How would this in any way qualify how probable it is for that god to be the true god?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Also other mythologies claim multiple gods made everything so how would you tell if it was one or multiple?
            If there were "multiple gods" who created everything, they would share the nature or essence of being self-existent, in which case they would not actually be "multiple gods", but merely parts of a greater whole. You can't have two gods that both existed from eternity and both created everything from nothing.

            >How would this in any way qualify how probable it is for that god to be the true god?

            It has nothing to do with probability, but definitions. The "true god" would be the one God which is not contingent on other beings outside of himself, and thus One in nature.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If there were "multiple gods" who created everything, they would share the nature or essence of being self-existent, in which case they would not actually be "multiple gods", but merely parts of a greater whole.
            Yeah that makes sense. I'm wrong about that one

            >The "true god" would be the one God which is not contingent on other beings outside of himself, and thus One in nature.
            But what is driving the true god to forbid the worship of false gods? Unless this god has human psychology (baseless assumption) it would be impossible to tell whether or not it would give a shit about people worshiping other gods doughbeit

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God would want truth to be known over falsehood, since knowledge of the truth is a greater good than ignorance of the truth. Since God is the ultimate source of goodness and truth, part of revealing this truth would be in revealing his nature to humanity, and by doing so would falsify the worship of other gods. Or another way to say it is that the worship of false gods leads to falsehood and error.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >God would want truth to be known over falsehood, since knowledge of the truth is a greater good than ignorance of the truth.
            >Since God is the ultimate source of goodness and truth
            I just don't see how these criteria can be derived without reading the religious material that espouses them. So to me it seems like circular logic (this god is the true god because it condemns false gods ---> the true god condemns false gods because of its inherent traits ---> these traits are defined by the theology surrounding this god)
            Also I'm pretty sure other religions condemn the worship of false gods in a similar way to how the Abrahamic faiths do (correct me if I'm wrong)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Now you're reasoning backwards. If you start with the knowledge that there is only one true God, you can proceed to see why that God would want to make himself known, thus eliminating beliefs in false gods. I'm not arguing that the true god can be known merely by his denouncing of false gods, but that you could eliminate the obvious falsehood of religions that allow for multiple separate gods. Part of that process of elimination would be a God who reveals himself as the exclusive god.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you can proceed to see why that God would want to make himself known
            I don't see what procedure you can take to come to that conclusion
            >I'm not arguing that the true god can be known merely by his denouncing of false gods
            OK. I suspected you thought that but thank you for elucidating
            >but that you could eliminate the obvious falsehood of religions that allow for multiple separate gods
            I don't get what's so obvious about it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't see what procedure you can take to come to that conclusion
            I already explained it before. Part of God's nature is truth, and truth is greater than falsehood. Either through revelation or simple process of elimination, God would make himself known.

            >I don't get what's so obvious about it
            If there was one God who created everything, polytheism would be false. Thus any religion that promotes polytheism would be false, and you would be left with the religions that denounce polytheism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If there was one God who created everything, polytheism would be false.
            Yes
            >Thus any religion that promotes polytheism would be false, and you would be left with the religions that denounce polytheism.
            What about a religion that does not mention false gods at all? The reason you gave for the true god wanting people to believe in him and him alone is in order to maximize truth but I don't see why the true god would want (maybe want isn't the right word) to do that, even if part of their nature is truth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What about a religion that does not mention false gods at all? The reason you gave for the true god wanting people to believe in him and him alone is in order to maximize truth but I don't see why the true god would want (maybe want isn't the right word) to do that, even if part of their nature is truth.
            In order to distinguish the true god from the false gods. In the same way that you learn the truth by distinguishing between what is true and what is false.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >In order to distinguish the true god from the false gods.
            Why would the true god try to do that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So that he could be known and worshiped as the true god. Why would God not reveal himself and not distinguish himself from false gods? You seem really intent on making a point and I wish you would get to it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My point is that I haven't been given evidence or a train of logic that points to the true god being inclined to act in one way or another. Without knowing if god would act in one way or advise people to act in one way, your point that the true god can be found by finding the one(s) that act in a certain way or advise a certain thing is unfounded.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Let me ask you this: Is the true God true? Or is the true God a false god?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Figure it out, moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Figure it out, moron

            Will you give me anything at all or should I just take your proposed qualities of god on faith

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It depends on whether you are capable of answering simple questions. Is the true God a god of truth or of untruth? If it is in the nature of truth to dispel falsehood, then it is also in the nature of God who is the embodiment of truth to dispel falsehood. How could it be otherwise? You seem to believe so but you haven't made any argument as to why.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Is the true God a god of truth or of untruth
            Not the guy you were talking to. But personally, I see no reason God couldn't lie, for morally sufficient reasons.
            Similar to how God can hurt, or even kill people, for morally sufficient reasons.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I see no reason God couldn't lie, for morally sufficient reasons.
            Then you don't understand God, or you are talking about some other God which you have not explained.

            Why are you telling me all this stuff about souls?
            I've only been talking about Jesus dying on the cross, and Jesus being God.

            >I've only been talking about Jesus dying on the cross, and Jesus being God.
            What does "dying" mean, other than the death of the body and the separation of the soul from the body?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How did you go about figuring out what God can, and cannot, do?
            I say it's you who are talking about some other God that you haven't explained

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Is the true God a god of truth or of untruth?
            Do the terms "true god" and "god of truth" mean the same thing to you? If not, how did you come to the realization that the only god must only be truthful and must pursue truth
            >If it is in the nature of truth to dispel falsehood
            It is not. Lies and truths often coincide and sometimes lies dispel truths

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >how did you come to the realization that the only god must only be truthful and must pursue truth
            It is the nature of God to be truthful. God is the greatest conceivable Being. Truth is greater than falsehood, just as existence is greater than nonexistence or light is greater than darkness. What is your argument for why God would be a promulgator of falsehood?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It is the nature of God to be truthful
            How did you come to this conclusion?
            >Truth is greater than falsehood
            What does this even mean
            >just as existence is greater than nonexistence or light is greater than darkness
            What do you mean by greater
            >What is your argument for why God would be a promulgator of falsehood?
            I don't have one, and you don't have an argument for why he wouldn't be

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you don't have an argument for why he wouldn't be
            I just gave you the argument. That you failed to understand it proves nothing.

            How did you go about figuring out what God can, and cannot, do?
            I say it's you who are talking about some other God that you haven't explained

            I'm waiting to hear your argument for a God of falsehood.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I just gave you the argument.
            Okay, here's my "argument" then:
            It is the nature of God to be deceitful. God is the worst conceivable Being. Falsehood is greater than truth, just as nonexistence is greater than existence or darkness is greater than light. What is your argument for why God would be a promulgator of truthhood?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It is the nature of God to be deceitful
            Ok. good luck trying to build a worldview on that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why do I need an argument, and you don't? What's with the double-standard
            You just asserted stuff

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I already gave my arguments. You don't have one.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Asserting your position is not an argument, moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Life is greater than non-life
            which is why God cannot kill people
            ???

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I've never seen this answered albeit

      >the one you hate

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >God real because... God real

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. The only reason this is not obvious to you is because you are ignorant of God.

      >And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3:14)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nice myth wienersmoker

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >deists

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >atheists

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Explain how a israelite in the sky raping a israeliteess so he can give birth to himself so he can sacrifice himself to himself because a girl talked to a snake and ate an apple is self evident.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Explain to a psychiatrist your obsession with israelites

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You believe in the Big Bang? Explain how rocks exploding and talking fish made monkeys!

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The world having come from chaos and not from order (a God) makes more sense to me and is also in alignment with what we have found out in physics.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You mean what you made up in service to that presupposition.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We're all having to take a guess, because we're in the dark about things. Contrary to your guess, mine is somewhat in alignment with what we know from physics.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There is no guesswork, since God has enlightened every one of us by making us in His image, His existence, and the majestic order of His design, is unambiguous. The notion that there was first chaos is a vain delusion of those who glorify creation in place of the creator, for while they fall down before dirt, they also declare dirt to be the eternal divinity, and the substance of all things. Nor is this absurdity justified by the false priests of scientism, who have no authority, merely because they sanctioned this mythology and declared it to be truth. The idolatrous self-enslavement to these priests is itself cause for condemnation and nothing more.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no guesswork, since God has enlightened every one of us by making us in His image, His existence, and the majestic order of His design, is unambiguous.
            What evidence do you bring to the table?

            >blablabla
            You go with your "ab ordo" idea, for all I care. At the end, we're both taking guesses. Since none of us has a proof or evidence that'd suffice to decide which narrative is the more probable one. All I'm saying is that the fact of e.g. the place and momentum of particle being random suggests to me that the universe is inherently probabilistic and chaotic. Of course, that's a bit of a stretch but y'know at least I'm not claiming this

            Explain how a israelite in the sky raping a israeliteess so he can give birth to himself so he can sacrifice himself to himself because a girl talked to a snake and ate an apple is self evident.

            .

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
            >the place and momentum of particle being random
            Do you not know that the whole life of every last atom was foreordained before creation by the hand of God? Nothing in this world is random.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You perfectly can prove stuff. You just arbitrarily set up some axioms and you're in business. There's no god needed whatsoever.

            >Do you not know that the whole life of every last atom was foreordained before creation by the hand of God? Nothing in this world is random.
            No particle behavior is actually random and there's no "hidden variable" that makes sense of it, look up Bell's theorem. So you're actually factually incorrect here.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You just arbitrarily set up some axioms and you're in business.
            "There is no truth." How's that for an axiom? I'd like to see you build a system with that starting point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Define "truth".

            >You just arbitrarily set up some axioms
            Lol, that's as much "proof" as your feelings.
            >No particle behavior is actually random and there's no "hidden variable" that makes sense of it
            This is a gross category error since God is not material nor an aspect or governed by laws of nature, so His sovereignty would not be detected scientifically. The happenings of time are identical to what God decreed would happen in creation. This is a consequence of His omnipotent power. Thus, though the behavior of the particle may appear random, and might even be described accurately as such within the context of the material creation (that is, not deterministically influenced by forces), it actually happens exactly as God willed it to. No scientific theory or formula does or could impugn this.
            >So you're actually factually incorrect here.
            You are a fool blind to your own biases.

            >Lol, that's as much "proof" as your feelings.
            That's how mathematicians go about things since Euklid. You get some axioms and definitions going and then set out to proof theorems. The proof is an emergent thing from those axioms and definitions.

            >so His sovereignty would not be detected scientifically
            Or he just doesn't exist. You're undermining God's existence, when you're making him more and more abstract.

            >omnipotent
            Completely contradictory property that you don't want to touch with a ten-foot pole.

            >You are a fool blind to your own biases.
            Go frick yourself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Define "truth".
            Are you confused by the notion?
            >That's how mathematicians go about things
            No, that's how mathematicians go about mathematics. And that's still not "arbitrary" either. Otherwise, 2+2=5 because I said so.
            >The proof is an emergent thing from those axioms and definitions.
            If proof means anything, it means that it is absolute, universal, and objective, and not the mere runoff of an arbitrary axiom. Otherwise, it shall be impossible to prove anything, as even the very notion of truth becomes little more than the product of my whim.
            >Or he just doesn't exist. You're undermining God's existence, when you're making him more and more abstract.
            You are completely ignorant of what religious people believe. You've never read anything they've written, never listened to anything they've said, you have no idea what they believe now of ever and made up a narrative that suits your feelings instead of doing any research at all, and now you're complaining that I do not defend this strawman invented entirely in your own head.

            Please, understand that our doctrine of God is not some ad hoc invention. Christians a thousand years ago did not believe God was a bearded guy on a cloud, and Christians did not change their doctrine of God in response to atheism or natural science. I can open books written multiple thousands of years ago and show you the exact same God I describe to you now. Recall what that other Anon said, if you could point to a material thing and say "this is God" it wouldn't be. Not only is God not some physical thing you can pull up on radar, but doing so would be mutually exclusive with the very essence of the God we present to you.
            >Completely contradictory property that you don't want to touch with a ten-foot pole.
            Cope.
            >Go frick yourself.
            Seethe.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Are you confused by the notion?
            I asking for your definition.
            >No, that's how mathematicians go about mathematics.
            It's arbitrary. You don't have to use the axioms that underpin math. Drawback is, your theory might not be interesting. But, in essence, you can define whatever you want, under the condition that contradictions are avoided.
            >2+2=5
            It's funny you bring this up, because there are algebraic structures where 2 and 2 does equal 5.
            >If proof means anything, it means that it is absolute, universal, and objective, and not the mere runoff of an arbitrary axiom.
            It's safe to say that object of study in mathematics is the "proof" and no discipline studies it in as much detail as mathematics does. And I can assure you, you can't prove any theorem, unless you set up definitions. I know of no proof that is absolute, universal, and objective.
            >Otherwise, it shall be impossible to prove anything
            In a way that's sadly how things are.
            >you can't know nothing about religion, unless you studied theology
            Your holy book should be able to stand on its own, don't you think? And yes, I have read the entirety of the OT to my misfortune.

            >Please, believe me.
            No, also tl:dr.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It's funny you bring this up, because there are algebraic structures where 2 and 2 does equal 5.

            You are beyond reasoning then.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Kek, you gave up. Fine by me. Btw, look up zero ring, if you don't believe me that such a structure exists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why would I try to reason with someone who has abandoned the use of reason? It would be an exercise in futility. If you think 2+2=5, there is nothing I could say to help you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You can define 2 + 2 = 5, such that you won't end up with contradictions. It depends on how you're defining the addition. Not my fault you're not familiar with it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > It depends on how you're defining the addition
            Translation: if you redefine 2+2=5 so that it doesn't actually mean that, it's true

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What it "means" is dependent on the definition of the thing, because "I said so". That's precisely what I'm arguing for.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not my fault you're not familiar with it.
            Imagine being smug about fricking up basic arithmetic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You can define anything any way you want if you first give up logic and reason.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nowhere was logic given up, the concept is free of contradictions. Just a bit counterintuitive.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I asking for your definition.
            Truth is that property whereby a thing can be said to be true.
            >It's arbitrary
            No it isn't
            >But, in essence, you can define whatever you want, under the condition that contradictions are avoided.
            Why do I have to follow that condition?
            >It's funny you bring this up, because there are algebraic structures where 2 and 2 does equal 5
            This highlights the bankruptcy of your worldview. You can delude yourself with your own autonomy and pretend to be as a god, knowing true and false, but at the end of the day you live in God's world and you can't fly rockets to the moon with 2+2=5. Assuming the meaning of the symbols 2, +, =, and 4 remains the same, 2+2=4 is always true.
            >It's safe to say that object of study in mathematics
            Nothing up to this point in this discussion has been about mathematics, but it's fine if you want to go there because the laws of mathematics are an example of something which cannot be justified in your worldview.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Truth is that property whereby a thing can be said to be true.
            You're reasoning in circles.
            >No it isn't
            Literally is. Open up any math textbook, you'll see. I'm not fooling you.
            >Why do I have to follow that condition?
            Because of the "Ex falso quodlibet" thing.
            >2+2=5
            It's funny to me that you're so opinionated on 2 and 2 equals 4. Again, as I told the other anon, it depends on how you define the addition. You can come up with a context - in this case a so-called ring structure - where this statements does make sense.
            >laws of mathematics
            They have trouble justifying it themselves, regardless of religious convictions. I only bring it up to make a point about what a "proof" is. I only see a "proof" in the mathematical sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You're reasoning in circles.
            No, I gave you a circular definition. Definitions are not "reasoning".
            >Literally is. Open up any math textbook, you'll see. I'm not fooling you.
            You're not as smart as you think you are.
            >Because of the "Ex falso quodlibet" thing
            Why do I have to care about that, and why can't I just arbitrarily dismiss it?
            >It's funny to me that you're so opinionated on 2 and 2 equals 4. Again, as I told the other anon, it depends on how you define the addition
            You probably shouldn't be so arrogant if you're an idiot.
            >You can come up with a context - in this case a so-called ring structure - where this statements does make sense.
            No, this isn't a context where the statement makes sense, this is a context where it is a different statement. You aren't making absurdities true, you're just changing the definitions of terms.
            >I only see a "proof" in the mathematical sense.
            So there is no such thing as empirical proof to your mind?

            I've never seen this answered albeit

            Yes you have. It wasn't asked in good faith in the first place

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It wasn't asked in good faith in the first place
            Duh. Nobody here ever argues religion in good faith

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I do

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Meds and sproke

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do I have to care about that, and why can't I just arbitrarily dismiss it?
            If you allow for contradictions, you can prove anything. That's the problem. You can dismiss if, of course, and the theory you'll end up with will be pretty boring.
            >No, this isn't a context where the statement makes sense, this is a context where it is a different statement.
            I never claimed I was making absurdities true. I've been consistent in saying, it's free from contradictions, remember? And yes it is a sort of addition, such that 4 and 4 equals 5. The meaning of 4 and 5 is the same that is known from school, the addition is not quite that.
            >So there is no such thing as empirical proof to your mind?
            No, there's no such thing for me. You can evidence something, such that it becomes impractical to doubt it but there's no proof in strict sense.

            >You're not as smart as you think you are.
            >You probably shouldn't be so arrogant if you're an idiot.
            >No, I gave you a circular definition. Definitions are not "reasoning".
            seethe

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And I can assure you, you can't prove any theorem, unless you set up definitions.
            But those definitions are not arbitrary nor is the meaning derived from the definer. Changing the definition of a symbol merely changes the idea under a review, the ideas themselves remain inviolate by such linguistic sophistry. Take the phrase "the apple is red". The proposition is not the statement. The words "the", "apple", "is" and "red" are mere linguistic constructs, communicative tools; there is no apple in the sentence, it is just a word. However, these symbols have a meaning, that is, an idea is affixed to them. We can play with the symbols all we like without touching the ideas, that is, we can redefine "apple" so that it is now identical to "tree", and we can redefine "red" so it is now identical to "ocean", but while the statement is now false, the proposition it once contained is still unchanged and true.
            >In a way that's sadly how things are.
            Conceding my original point is an interesting strategy
            >unless you studied theology
            You didn't just not study theology, you didn't put in as much effort as watching a 5 minute youtube video. You failed to understand even the most basic aspects of our faith. Can you explain to me why I should defend strawmen you made up?
            >And yes, I have read the entirety of the OT to my misfortune
            It works better if you keep your eyes open while you read it.
            >No, also tl:dr.
            Why are you having this conversation if you insist on being completely unreasonable?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Truth in the sense that things can either be true or not true (false).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You just arbitrarily set up some axioms
            Lol, that's as much "proof" as your feelings.
            >No particle behavior is actually random and there's no "hidden variable" that makes sense of it
            This is a gross category error since God is not material nor an aspect or governed by laws of nature, so His sovereignty would not be detected scientifically. The happenings of time are identical to what God decreed would happen in creation. This is a consequence of His omnipotent power. Thus, though the behavior of the particle may appear random, and might even be described accurately as such within the context of the material creation (that is, not deterministically influenced by forces), it actually happens exactly as God willed it to. No scientific theory or formula does or could impugn this.
            >So you're actually factually incorrect here.
            You are a fool blind to your own biases.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >false priests of scientism, who have no authority, merely because they sanctioned this mythology and declared it to be truth
            Their "falsehoods" allow you to spout your nonsense on here.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your gods are false.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Bible says that God brought forth order out of chaos. You have no idea what you are even criticizing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It says He brought something out of nothing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Correct. God (someone) brought the universe (something) out of nothing. It makes more sense than nothing creating something out of nothing.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I love how IQfy Christians always act juvenile and have no integrity even though claiming to be more moral and "wise" than atheists due their religion. It's as if they're not even believing in what they preach and religion is some sort of weird ego-trip for them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I love how IQfy Christians always act juvenile and have no integrity
      A case study in projection.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >>I love how IQfy Christians always act juvenile
        >No u
        pottery

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The existence of God is self-refuting

    Intelligence and consciousness are effects of cognition which is the processing of information into thoughts and such process necessitates a partially closed organized system to operate a flux which is motion thus occuring within space&time.
    Thus God, if able of cognition, couldn't be above space&time.
    And if otherwise wouldn't be conscious or intelligent.
    Both attributes given to the Deistic God are thus proven incompabitible.
    Forcing a cognitive God despite it losing its "necessity" claim of being "the first cause" would be nothing more than petty wishful thinking which Occam's Razor shaves away. And calling the first cause "God" despite it lacking intelligence would be silly and inappropriate.

    Neither necessary nor possible; God is disproven.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >he thinks God needs a brain to think
      >he thinks God needs to think at all
      Ominiscient means omniscient, God doesn't think he knows... everything!
      It is impossible for us limited beings to understand how grand omniscience is

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's nonsensical babbles, either you have cognition or you're not sentient.
        Your "omniscient God" couldn't be "scient" at all

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Everything in your "argument" was just materialist gibberish btw

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it is gibberish because I don't like the implication of it
            Unfortunately we don't live in a fantasy world

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Okay so God doesn't have libertarian free will?

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Theos – maybe. Yahweh? No frick off israelite-worshipper

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >God's only real if he hates Black folk and israelites
      Any thoughts you wouldn't have had if you didn't spend so much of your life bathing your brain the battery acid of this shitty website have no bearing on the truth

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If proof for God existed, it would deflate the foundational narratives of the Abrahamic religions. What's the point of having faith and to believe in God, if you can prove him? It would just be another contradiction piling up on the ever-growing contradiction-heap that those religions have to deal with.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A self-evident claim does not need to be proven. In fact, trying to "prove" God's existence with physical evidence (through materialism) only demonstrates that you are missing the point of religion, since you cannot approach God or please him without faith. The "proof" you are asking for would not prove God, it would disprove God, since God is not a material being. If you vould point to a specific location and say, "This is God," that would not be God.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Any conman can say his sort of scam is self-evidently not a scam and move on. What sets you apart? Even the Christians of old used to say "Well, there's the miracles of Jesus." or "The Bible gives us an explanation about how the world came into being.". You can't convince someone of something, if you're not doing anything for it and hand-wave away any doubts with supposed "self-evidence".

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Even the Christians of old used to say "Well, there's the miracles of Jesus." or "The Bible gives us an explanation about how the world came into being."
          Those things are proof and the guy you're talking to is also right.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            shameless samegay and no they're not "proof" but they're by far superior arguments to what I've been hearing in this thread

            Anon, is it self-evident that truth exists? Please explain why or why not.

            It's a good question for a philosopher. I'm cautious with such statements. But I'd say you can at the least evidence a claim to a point where doubting it would not be reasonable for all practical purposes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >shameless samegay
            Nope.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'd say you can at the least evidence a claim to a point where doubting it would not be reasonable for all practical purposes.

            A proposition is known to be self-evident if the negation of the proposition would be self-refuting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Flat-out wrong. There are things where are not self-refuting, but are also not self-evident. Such as the existence of galaxies outside of the observable universe or the continuum hypothesis.

            Also, what theists love to conceal: Logic has never been proven to be as universal as they'd want and the development of logic suggests that it is a man-made invention. So there's no guarantee that logic would carry over to cosmological concepts such as God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Flat-out wrong. There are things where are not self-refuting, but are also not self-evident. Such as the existence of galaxies outside of the observable universe or the continuum hypothesis.
            Anon, you misread or misunderstood the argument. I said a proposition is self-evident if the negation is self-refuting. I didn't say that things that were not self-refuting were self-evident.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is the non-existence of a galaxy outside of the observable universe self-refuting?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, there is nothing there that definitionally contradicts itself.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, is it self-evident that truth exists? Please explain why or why not.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Proof =/= evidence. You can prove the principle of non-contradiction or the Pythagorean theorem without relying on anything material can’t you? Can you prove God in the same way? Jesus what an effing moron you are.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The non-existence of a god is self-evident.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, in fact that is a self-refuting statement. You are essentially saying, "That which exists in and of itself does not (or could not) exist." Like how saying, "Truth does not exist," would be self-refuting because in order for it to be true, it would have to disprove the proposition that truth doesn't exist.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    *puts on bullshit glasses*
    >"I have absolutely no proof for god, so this is my cope post"
    yeah, just as I though

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I have no less than five (5) proofs for God, but they are unnecessary to the current argument. A proposition which is self-evident does not require evidence to be proven.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    God is dead is the most meaningless, nonsensical Redditgay phrase ever.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I hate presuppositionalism so much. It's like putting your bishops on the same color and claiming you've won.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What is "presuppositional" about having basic axioms such as the existence of truth?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You know what you are doing. I won't be sucked into your intellectual masturbation. You don't have to ground anything.to reason, in fact it is a completely backward epistemology and doesn't leave room for the mystery of the platonic good.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >You don't have to ground anything.to reason
          You do for it to be reason.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If you are defining "presuppositionalism" as including even the use of the most self-evident axioms such as the existence of truth, then you are by your own definition a presuppositionalist because you are assuming the truth of your axioms (the truth of truth and logic) in order to make your argument.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yea we all have presuppositions, but if we understand philosophical discourse, we don't force outsiders to accept our own presuppositions as the starting point of the argument. That is just called an internal critique anyway and can backfire easily.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >we don't force outsiders to accept our own presuppositions as the starting point of the argument
            What "presupposition" am I forcing you to accept?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I hate presuppositionalism so much
      Because it btfos you

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, it does not. it's just annoying and used mostly by Calvinists which automatically makes it more annoying by orders of magnitude. Especially when you consider it's not even supposed to be an outreach to the lost, but just another so-called "hypercalvinist" attempt to dab on them. I am a Fideist, at least I admit there is no good rationale to believe in Jesus and that it simply orders my steps. Calvinists hate me because they all climbed to over the fence.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Especially when you consider it's not even supposed to be an outreach to the lost, but just another so-called "hypercalvinist" attempt to dab on them.
          Strawman
          >I am a Fideist
          You seem very proud of that.
          >at least I admit there is no good rationale to believe in Jesus and that it simply orders my steps
          That completely contradicts, and undermines scripture. Repent and humble yourself.
          >Calvinists hate me
          Nobody hates you brother.

          >Why do I have to care about that, and why can't I just arbitrarily dismiss it?
          If you allow for contradictions, you can prove anything. That's the problem. You can dismiss if, of course, and the theory you'll end up with will be pretty boring.
          >No, this isn't a context where the statement makes sense, this is a context where it is a different statement.
          I never claimed I was making absurdities true. I've been consistent in saying, it's free from contradictions, remember? And yes it is a sort of addition, such that 4 and 4 equals 5. The meaning of 4 and 5 is the same that is known from school, the addition is not quite that.
          >So there is no such thing as empirical proof to your mind?
          No, there's no such thing for me. You can evidence something, such that it becomes impractical to doubt it but there's no proof in strict sense.

          >You're not as smart as you think you are.
          >You probably shouldn't be so arrogant if you're an idiot.
          >No, I gave you a circular definition. Definitions are not "reasoning".
          seethe

          >If you allow for contradictions, you can prove anything
          Why is that a problem?
          >the theory you'll end up with will be pretty boring
          I don't think the universe exists to entertain you
          >I never claimed I was making absurdities true
          Yes you did.
          >The meaning of 4 and 5 is the same that is known from school, the addition is not quite that.
          Why is the specific symbols being redefined relevant?
          >You can evidence something, such that it becomes impractical to doubt it but there's no proof in strict sense.
          How can it be impractical to doubt something that isn't true?
          >seethe
          Cope

          Yea we all have presuppositions, but if we understand philosophical discourse, we don't force outsiders to accept our own presuppositions as the starting point of the argument. That is just called an internal critique anyway and can backfire easily.

          That's not what internal critique means.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why is that a problem?
            >I don't think the universe exists to entertain you
            Well, you gain no new information, right. If that's no problem for you, I'm not gonna stop you.
            >Yes you did.
            Okay, link it.
            >Why is the specific symbols being redefined relevant?
            Because the OP made it a matter of discussion? You guys have been posting on and on about this. No problem for me, I love talking about algebra.
            >How can it be impractical to doubt something that isn't true?
            What do you mean? I think, you can't know for certainty that something's true. You'll always only have a approximation sadly. It's a matter of science is and by necessity has to be done. Not sure what your point is here.
            >Cope
            seethe

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Well, you gain no new information, right
            What makes you think I would?
            >Okay, link it.

            >Are you confused by the notion?
            I asking for your definition.
            >No, that's how mathematicians go about mathematics.
            It's arbitrary. You don't have to use the axioms that underpin math. Drawback is, your theory might not be interesting. But, in essence, you can define whatever you want, under the condition that contradictions are avoided.
            >2+2=5
            It's funny you bring this up, because there are algebraic structures where 2 and 2 does equal 5.
            >If proof means anything, it means that it is absolute, universal, and objective, and not the mere runoff of an arbitrary axiom.
            It's safe to say that object of study in mathematics is the "proof" and no discipline studies it in as much detail as mathematics does. And I can assure you, you can't prove any theorem, unless you set up definitions. I know of no proof that is absolute, universal, and objective.
            >Otherwise, it shall be impossible to prove anything
            In a way that's sadly how things are.
            >you can't know nothing about religion, unless you studied theology
            Your holy book should be able to stand on its own, don't you think? And yes, I have read the entirety of the OT to my misfortune.

            >Please, believe me.
            No, also tl:dr.

            >Because the OP made it a matter of discussion?
            No he didn't
            >What do you mean?
            For example, if I believe I'm about to be flattened by a semi, I could see how it would be impractical to doubt that since the result of doing do would be becoming street pizza. On the other hand, if it's not true, the hallucinatory semi wouldn't be able to do anything to me.
            >you can't know for certainty that something's true
            Do you know that for certain?
            >seethe
            Cope!

            I have humbled myself. I don't need to humble myself to a doctrine that typically makes men incredibly proud and angry which basically describes James White's entire demeanour. I'll let these men speak for themselves however.

            >makes men incredibly proud and angry
            You're the one who's proud and angry here.
            >which basically describes James White's entire demeanour
            See, why do you have a grudge against this man and what does it have to do with me?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not angry at all. I merely described how Calvinism has never made anyone more humble. Submitting to the mysteries of the faith is true humility. Sure I might come off as angry but that's more becaus I'm on IQfy, which I really shouldn't be. Has nothing to do with my theology. James White really needs to go through the Sheep-gate though. He's labouring under a delusion that he is saved while he bears fruit of dishonesty, hostility and pride, not to mention callousness with his notion of unelect infants. I don't know how anyone can look at him and say "yep, there is a changed man".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm having trouble saying you're a changed man actually. I'm looking at someone bearing false witness at a brother because of apparently nothing but his own irrational emotions and misplaced pride. You need to go sit down and think, and humble yourself. Repent.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He literally lied to Leighton Flowers about what their first debate would be about and switched it to am exegesis of Romans 9 at the last possible moment. And in their last debate on John 6, be had the gall to ask if his position were biblical what that would mean for the outcome of the the debate and dramatically closed his Bible declaring victory when Leighton said that would mean he had the correct view. There is no evidence suggesting he has been regenerated anymore than there is evidence for Stephen Anderson. You view him as a brother because he fights for your cause, I want to see some fruit and believe me, I actually do. He can "win" as many debates as he wants but if he doesn't do it with charity then he willl hear "depart from me". Calvinism typically produces men like James White whereas the simplicity of the gospel creates men like Zac Poonen. The big mistake is taking systematic theology as faith. There is no faith without doubt and consternation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >He literally lied to Leighton Flowers about what their first debate would be about and switched it to am exegesis of Romans 9 at the last possible moment.
            That's not true.
            >There is no evidence suggesting he has been regenerated anymore than there is evidence for Stephen Anderson
            I don't know why you harbor such a (sinful) grudge against this man, but it is manifest that it is not for any good reason.
            >The big mistake is taking systematic theology as faith. There is no faith without doubt and consternation.
            You are a very proud man deriving a false sense of superiority from absurdism, and mistaking vain idiocy for cleverness. Being a fool and not understanding scripture does not make you superior. I tell you again to humble yourself, because swimming in conceit as you are worries me you will be the one to hear "depart from me".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            James White is really not the subject being discussed. I could equally point to Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens and say that as representatives of atheism they do a bad job because they lack humility and are hostile to religion and are prideful and arrogant.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What makes you think I would?
            You're going in circles again. Just read what I wrote about this. No point in reiterating.
            >

            >Are you confused by the notion?


            I asking for your definition.
            >No, that's how mathematicians go about mathematics.
            It's arbitrary. You don't have to use the axioms that underpin math. Drawback is, your theory might not be interesting. But, in essence, you can define whatever you want, under the condition that contradictions are avoided.
            >2+2=5
            It's funny you bring this up, because there are algebraic structures where 2 and 2 does equal 5.
            >If proof means anything, it means that it is absolute, universal, and objective, and not the mere runoff of an arbitrary axiom.
            It's safe to say that object of study in mathematics is the "proof" and no discipline studies it in as much detail as mathematics does. And I can assure you, you can't prove any theorem, unless you set up definitions. I know of no proof that is absolute, universal, and objective.
            >Otherwise, it shall be impossible to prove anything
            In a way that's sadly how things are.
            >you can't know nothing about religion, unless you studied theology
            Your holy book should be able to stand on its own, don't you think? And yes, I have read the entirety of the OT to my misfortune.

            >Please, believe me.
            No, also tl:dr. (You)
            I stayed perfectly consistent here.
            >No he didn't
            Literally go up the reply chain.
            >For example, if I believe I'm about to be flattened by a semi, I could see how it would be impractical to doubt that since the result of doing do would be becoming street pizza. On the other hand, if it's not true, the hallucinatory semi wouldn't be able to do anything to me.
            No idea what point you're even trying to make here, sorry.
            >Do you know that for certain?
            To a degree where it would be unreasonable to doubt, yes.
            >Cope!
            seethe with a extra-salty exclamation mark

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You're going in circles again. Just read what I wrote about this. No point in reiterating.
            I was never answered.
            >No idea what point you're even trying to make here, sorry.
            I don't know how I could make it more clear.
            >To a degree where it would be unreasonable to doubt, yes
            Are contradictions allowed or not allowed in your worldview?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I have humbled myself. I don't need to humble myself to a doctrine that typically makes men incredibly proud and angry which basically describes James White's entire demeanour. I'll let these men speak for themselves however.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the stepfather, the stepson, the holy cuckerino. Amen

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this thread is such a shitshow

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >no argument

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Jesus didn't REALLY die on the cross
    Leave it to Christians to go 5 minutes without inventing new heresies

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Who is supporting the swoon theory here? Afaict it's a strawman and nobody says that or looks like that.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        moron

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Are you even Christian?

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've got no issues with believing in god or religion and spirituality in general I just don't understand why white people are so obsessed with some desert israelite god instead of the gods of their ancestors.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >instead of the gods of their ancestors.
      Can you explain to me how polytheism is true?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In the same way Christianity is true

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Repeat the same sentence to yourself in the mirror about your desert israelite religion.

          >In the same way Christianity is true
          Christianity is a monotheistic religion. I'm asking about how polytheism is true.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity is stories + religious practices

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How is monotheism true?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anon said I should believe in polytheism as opposed to monotheism. I'm asking why polytheism is true. If there is only one true God who created everything, then monotheism is true, not polytheism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why so certain it was only one god who created everything?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That God exists is self evident. That there is only one God is evidenced by the essence of God which is self-existence. Multiple Gods who both self-exist and who both created everything would be a contradiction, as they would no longer be separate, but of the same nature.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Multiple Gods who both self-exist and who both created everything would be a contradiction
            What does it contradict?

            *Multiple God exist*
            There's no contradiction

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What does it contradict?
            How can you have multiple Gods who are self-existent and both created everything?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just tell me the contradiction, please.
            A contradiction would be something like two things, that cannot both be true at the same time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because they would both have the same nature, and would therefore not be separate gods.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They don't have the same nature, they are different gods

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Self-existence is the nature of God.

            Stop being an autist and think about what you're arguing about for just a few seconds

            What's wrong with it? Can you not come up with an argument?

            The essence of unicorns is to exist despite being unprovable and without unicorns there wouldn't be rainbow magic which grants us free will through imagination.
            We have free will thus rainbow magic is a thing thus unicorns exist.

            If your definition of "unicorn" is self-existent necessary being who created everything, then you are referring to God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How is it possible for you to be this dense?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What is "dense" about it? Can you use big boy words? Is it too hard for you to understand?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When did I see unicorns created everything? They just are and always were, without imagination there wouldn't be creation so God relies on rainbow magic to operate thus unicorns are above God

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I made my own mary sue to counter your mary sue

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That God exists is self evident
            How so?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The fact that the negation of the proposition "God exists" is self-refuting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >god exists because god can't not exist

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > I win because semantic sophistry

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not trying to "win" an argument, I'm answering why it is definitionally self-evident.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm answering why
            No you didn't, you just said "nuh uh"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's definitionally self-evident that "That which exists, exists".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, if you can't see the problem with your "logic" you are a lost cause

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You think that it's not self-evident that "That which is, is"?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Stop being an autist and think about what you're arguing about for just a few seconds

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The essence of unicorns is to exist despite being unprovable and without unicorns there wouldn't be rainbow magic which grants us free will through imagination.
            We have free will thus rainbow magic is a thing thus unicorns exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So... Unicorns also exist? After all the negation of the proposition "Unicorns exist" is self-refuting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >After all the negation of the proposition "Unicorns exist" is self-refuting.
            No, because self-existing is not part of the nature of unicorns.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Neither is it with god.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God is "Being" per se. A unicorn is a contingent creature.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >God is "Being"
            How do you know?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's definitionally true. A contingent being is not God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How does that makes the existance of god self-evident? If it's possible for me as a rational thinking feeling being to doubt the existance god then logically it's not self-evident.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Just like something cannot be true and not true at the same time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's correct. What does that have to do with god? Are you saying that just because humans can rationalise the possiblitiy of god that means god must necessarily exist? Or something else?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, the "argument" is that God's existence is self-evident to anyone who knows the essence of God.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, so what?
            It's self-evident that the mass of the sun is either zero, or infinite.
            while in actuality, it's neither.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The essence of God... is it diesel or gasoil? Wouldn't won't to put in the wrong fuel

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God is a guy with holes in his hands.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Repeat the same sentence to yourself in the mirror about your desert israelite religion.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The existence of anything cannot be proven.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The existence of the self-evident does not require proof.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Self-evident is a non-concept when proof is an impossibility.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Who said proof is an impossibility?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The existence of anything cannot be proven.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I disagree with that statement. Can you prove that the existence of anything cannot be proven?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I can't prove that I'm God, so I can't prove anything at all. Unless I'm God, all "knowledge" is disputable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ok then we have a different definition of "prove".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I doubt we have a different definition of truth, which means our definition of proof is the same.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you think that you literally need to BE God in order to prove something, then I don't see what the purpose of this discussion is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Only God can know truth, as in objective truth. But being that I can't prove that I'm God and neither can you, neither of us can EVER be certain that anything we know is objectively true. Therefore, nothing can be proven.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So what's the point of telling me this?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proven.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know that? Are you God?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If I could prove I'm God, I could declare something is self-evident or proven, but I can't, and you can't either. Your declaration is mere presumption.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But how do you know that if you're not God?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Know what? I haven't declared knowing anything. You sidestep the necessity for proof that you are God. You are the one asserting a presumption.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You said it is impossible to know anything unless you are God. So how do you know that unless you are God?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So how do you know that unless you are God?
            Apophatic theology. I see that I can't prove I'm God, therefore I can't prove anything. "I know that I know nothing."

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I know that I know nothing
            How do you know that?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I see that I can't prove I'm God
            The statement "I know that I know nothing" also simply means acknowledging this greentext.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How do you "see" it? Is it self-evident? Was it revealed to you by God?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I have perception, it does not prove I have knowledge, only that I do not have it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know you have perception?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It is felt.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know that feelings are true? I can literally keep going until I deconstruct your entire worldview. Can you come back with a better argument than "I don't know anything"?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your posts are empty, you say nothing. You think you make a point, but you only avoid to address the point being made to you, and you disgrace God in the process.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If god is real the only ethical course of action is to join the demons in hell and spend one's eternal existence seeking to tear the narcissistic frick off of his throne.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's impossible, but have fun with that.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're right. Because god isn't real and neither are demons or hell.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, it's because God is all powerful and your being is contingent on his existence.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. If god is all powerful he should strike me down right now as I type this.
            Spoiler alert, he hasn't and he won't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God allows evil to exist as part of his plan.

            Your posts are empty, you say nothing. You think you make a point, but you only avoid to address the point being made to you, and you disgrace God in the process.

            >you only avoid to address the point being made to you
            What point?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What point?
            That God is unknowable. It is really pathetic that you consider yourself devout when you can't even grasp this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That God is unknowable. It is really pathetic that you consider yourself devout when you can't even grasp this.
            Lmao. You haven't proven this to me at all.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because you lack self-reflection like a hylic. Until you see within yourself, you won't achieve deeper understanding.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Until you see within yourself, you won't achieve deeper understanding.
            I think you have delved so far into your own butthole that you can't see a thing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You can lead a horse to water...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're not gonna find anything looking within yourself. There's nothing there but your own ignorance.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You can lead a hylic within...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There's nothing "within" but ignorance. Isn't that what you already said?

            >So how do you know that unless you are God?
            Apophatic theology. I see that I can't prove I'm God, therefore I can't prove anything. "I know that I know nothing."

            >I can't prove anything. "I know that I know nothing."

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wisdom is not ignorance. It is not knowledge either. You've truly understood nothing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Wisdom is not ignorance.
            You got that part right.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Read Matthew 7:3-5 again. Then reflect.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm getting bored.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God allows nothing because he's not real.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you people need to go outside

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