/lit/ - Literature

Where's your evidence that there's no evidence for it?

>>5216246
this is the literature board

keep this shit on /r/atheism

>>5216257
>OCD-buttmad

>>5216257
what are you talking about this is /phil/

We can't ever be sure one way or another whether there's a god, but it is a demonstrable fact that the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim gods are fabrications.

Ontological argument.
/thread

There's obviously some kind of Thing that exists to which the universe owes its thanks to for creating it. However, we will never know what this Thing is so its a waste of time trying to debate something no side has any evidence for.

>>5216271
Stupidest fucking thing ever. Basically amounts to:
>god
>god
>god
>ergo god
Same shit Langan is pulling these days -- providing for your retardation up in a confusion of words which then allow it to make the jump it wants.

>>5216271
You mean that one-thousand year old argument that's been refuted zillions of times by even some of the greatest thinkers that ever lived? Ok

>>5216277
>There's obviously some kind of Thing that exists to which the universe owes its thanks to for creating it
Why?

>>5216255
Jesus fucking Christ I hate agnostics.
>U CAN'T KNOW NUTHING LOL
>NO EVIDENCE AYY
>WHAT ARE ABSTRACT CONCEPTS LMAO
>WHAT IS INDUCTIVE REASONING
>TOO DUMB TO KNOW ABOUT STRONG VS WEAK ARGUMENT
>U CAN'T KNOW NUTHING LOL
I swear to God any atheistic standpoint aside from strong atheism is even more pathetic that religiousness
>Inb4 fedora

>>5216246
What if i told you god was a concept misunderstood through religion and is a analogy for the universe

the sun lets you live, so of course you'd worship it.

>>5216297
>getting buttmad over a post that was clearly a joke

>When you realize "God" is the universe and all its mechanisms

>When the universe is giving me obscure 4 digit captchas

>>5216297
That was a troll post, mate, but man didn't you get riled up. And true enough, I'm an agnostic, but agnosticism is masterrace existential madness tier. It's the religious and atheists that need themselves a rock to cling to.

>>5216306
Haha

>>5216307
It's just an argument I've heard over and over and over ad nauseam which lead to absolutely innate conclusions despite of the lack of any sort of basics of critical thinking.

>>5216316
Retarded.

>>5216315
sungod is not something to "haha" over.

>>5216319
Oh sorry reves :P

>>5216316
Yeah, no shit. That's the joke. You fell for it.

>>5216271
>>5216294
'Ontological argument' is a category, not a single argument.

>>5216314
>but agnosticism is a childish standpoint of a person who is too careless to grasp the basics of critical thinking and never bothered to seek other, more sophisticated metaphysical questions due to extreme immaturity of thought
Fixed.

>>5216294
That Thing, or God, is incomprehensible and will always be beyond the grasps of human thought.

Forgot which philosopher it was, but he basically said there's two kinds of knowledge. The knowledge that God has allowed us to achieve and the knowledge that God has made it impossible to achieve.

"What is the velocity of a baseball when it hits the ground if it was thrown horizontally at a 30 degree initial angle and if it takes 3 seconds to hit the ground?" is something God has allowed us to find out.

"What is God?" and "What does God look like?" are just some things God has made it impossible to find out so stop asking it.

And once again, when I say God and Thing, I of course am not talking about the Christian holy father, but rather something humanity is unable to truly comprehend.

Many human societies apply these images, such as the holy father, to this Thing but I'm personally against that since it can distort our vision and make us believe that we can ever know what this Thing is.

>>5216317
No u

>>5216322
hey why did you stop emailing me

>>5216325
Yeah, that's dumb. If a question is unanswerable, it's unanswerable. That there is simple logic.

>>5216331
Trying to take over the world I guess. I'm a very here and there kinda guy reves.

Did you guys know that Christians, Muslims, etc. are far less superstitious (besides the big one) than atheists (read: agnostic atheists)? Think Humbert Humbert in Lolita being chased round and round by demons. Where the fuck would be the fun in being a strong atheist? Shit's just shit then.

>>5216333
>If a question is unanswerable, it's unanswerable
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU DENSE FUCKING MOTHERFUCKER
READ ABOUT INDUCTIVE REASONING
READ IT WORD
BY
FUCKING
WORD
SPECIFICALLY A PART ABOUT STRONG ARGUMENTS
THAT'S FUCKING HIGH SCHOOL SHIT
AND THEN FUCKING MAKE PROFOUND PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENTS
HAVEN'T I ADRESSED THIS ISSUE IN MY FIRST RESPONCE
ARE YOU RETARDS ARE CAPABLE OF ANALYZING WRITINGS
I GUESS FUCKING NOT
THIS IS LIKE THE 15 FUCKING TYPE THIS TYPE OF INNANE ARGUMENT IS PRESENT TO ME THIS YEAR.
FUCK.

>>5216348
You're an idiot. There is no strong argument measured against infinity. There is only what is. Stay buttmad as an armor for your retardation, should keep the atheist fire going yup.

>>5216348
>READ ABOUT INDUCTIVE REASONING
Oh my god.

>>5216328
But there is no reason to think that there is anything there at all

>>5216347
Some Protestants are pretty superstitious (attributing most pop culture to Satan and so on)

>>5216370
Yeah well Henry VIII pretty much raped their religion with all those wives and beheadings, didn't he? Hardly gonna take those foundations for a religion as rock-solid.

Wrong OP. I know god's presence every time I put dicks in my ass.

>>5216351
>You're an idiot.
If you're incapable of fucking reading basics of fucking critical thinking before going into philosophy then you are the one whose intelligence has fallen below any sort of describable pronoun.
>There is no strong argument measured against infinity.
This just fucking proves that:
1) You don't know nothing about critical thinking.
2) You know nothing about strong vs weak argument
3) You never fucking heard about inductive reasoning
4) You don't understand the present argument entirely
5) You have a debating habits of a child due to the lack of experence
>Stay buttmad as an armor for your retardation, should keep the atheist fire going yup.
Typical example of "defense by offense" made by a person who lacks any sort of basis for his argument.

>>5216361
>THE UNIVERSE BEGAN FROM NOTHING

From a spectator's view, the argument is very simple. Every argument made for the existence of a god has been refuted successfully and the burden of proof lies on those making the claims. Therefore, no reason to believe in a god.

Explaining God as nature, science, or the mind is useless and typically extraneous to the methods that already exist to describe the nature of these mechanisms.

>>5216385
Mate my IQ is high genius and you're buttmad as fuck. Now stop responding to me and go be buttmad at someone else.

>>5216328
>>5216328
>>5216328
>>5216328
>>5216328

The only correct answer. The only reason no one will accept this is because it gives STEMfags more fuel for their fire.

>>5216387
>THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE MADE HIMSELF BEFORE HE EXISTED

>>5216383
It's evolution you have to thank for putting an orgasm button inside your butthole.

>>5216387
I never said that ....

>>5216392
>Mate my IQ is high genius

>>5216410
Too tryhard, still mad.

>>5216392
>Mate my IQ is high genius and you're buttmad as fuck.
Yep, just an example of a typical agnostic who is no resorting to "defense by offense" due to the lack of any fathomable argument, Hell, even brought up IQ as if it has relevance to the argument.
> Now stop responding to me and go be buttmad at someone else.
Arguing with close-minded retards like you is a huge waste of time, agreed.

>>5216413
You don't have an argument. And "oh we should just go with what seems most likely" falls flat on its face when confronted with infinity. There is no probability to infinity, it's just infinity.

>>5216387
>What is 'ex nihilo'

What is it, 72% chance that there is no god amidst infinite possibility? Hmm.

>>5216246
God is not a well-defined concept so the debate is meaningless.

ALT: God is whatever you worship.

ALT: GOD is an acronym for God Over Djinn, a shorthand for the chain of command of infinite Djinns that must approve your wish before it can be granted.

Anyone have the odds of me being a brain in a vat?

>>5216421
>You don't have an argument.
If you would have known anything about strong atheism you would have known than it is a rejection of anything regarding an existence of deity as a basis of weak and logically inconsistent point.
>And "oh we should just go with what seems most likely" falls flat on its face when confronted with infinity.
Yeah, because something that your tight brain cannot entirely fathom entirely must object any solid argument due to being a certain kind of exception. This just proves that you should stay the fuck away from philosophy akin to other agnostic atheists.
>There is no probability to infinity, it's just infinity.
Solid proof of God's possibility of existence m8.

Does it really matter if we know? Won't the universe continue to operate the same way?

>>5216433
>referencing Hofstadter apropos of nothing
Pseudointellectualism at its most boldface.

>>5216422
ex nihilo nihil fit

You're not some gay nihilist, are you?

>>5216438
You're dumb. Just an observation now, not an offensive move. Keep your dumb belief.

We can observe God, Pleroma, through the Gnosis, learning. We have been revealed rationality by the Aeons. Our universe is a fabrication created by Jehova, the Demiurge, and filled with his Archon servants.
>2014
>not being Gnostic

>>5216443
>ex nihilo nihil fit
>lorem ipsum dolor sit
>in hoc fundum habuit
I can type in wetback too

>>5216445
Again, back to my first post, kins like you who refute inductive reasoning have no sort of intellectual power, thus are inferior, uneducated species. You seem to be a specifically ignoramous case, thus, YOU are dumb.
>You're dumb. Just an observation now, not an offensive move.
Yeah, not it's a passive form of "defense by offense".
You must be thinking that 130 IQ is a high score, do you?

>Whatever begins to exists must have a cause
>The universe began to exist, thus it has a cause
>Causality cannot regress to infinity (since it's impossible to traverse an infinite series by it's definition)
>Therefore an uncaused first cause must have caused the universe to exist.
>Since this first cause is uncaused, it is uncreated.
>Since this first cause is uncreated, it is eternal.
>Since this first cause is eternal, it must exist.
>God is an uncreated, eternal being
>Therefore God exists.

Look at this thread and tell me it was a good idea to start it, OP.


I personally don't believe in a god because I think empiricism is the only credible source of knowledge.

>>5216483
>>The universe began to exist
[citation needed]

>>5216474
Jesus you're an embarrassment

Asking for scientific evidence for God is like asking for scientific evidence for Platonic entities. Science looks for specific kinds of evidence and causes. God is like the number 9 or patterns...it's something you see in all things you experience and in your thoughts.

>I'll start: there's no evidence for it.

There's no evidence philosophy is dead. No evidence all knowledge can be justified by experience either but a lot of people believe it. No evidence that everything can be reduced to physical causes. Ditto for positivism, materialism, etc.

Evidentialism has a huge amount of objections. People including atheists believe things that cohere with other beliefs they have and those of their peers and social groups. Evidence is neither necessary nor sufficient for justification of a belief.

>>5216483
>Whatever begins to exists must have a cause
>God is a magical exception of this
Major logical flaw.

>>5216493
>Refuting to attacks now without any argument due to ego hurt.
>Not even presenting an new argument after having his miserably crushed.
>Not accepting defeat.
Get a load of this retard.

>>5216474
Actually I consistently score above 150, I'm the sort of dude suited men line up to shake his hand sorta thing, ya know? Oh, obviously not. And there is no inductive reasoning to say god probably doesn't exist. Inductive reasoning is a tool of pragmatism, not world-defining. Now go be retarded somewhere else.

>>5216505
That wasn't me, anon, it was another anon thinking you're retarded.

>>5216483
>ontological proof
worse than pascal's wager

>>5216495
That's how we get to the conclusion of an omnipotent being, an unmoved mover. Why it can't be a natural force.
>>5216491
See: Lemaître's big bang.

>>5216506
on internet iq tests, buddy??

>>5216515
No reves, I was one of those child prodigies for a long time :P I have national awards in fancy things like math and art too.

>>5216514
>See: Lemaître's big bang.
Who says this is the beginning of the universe?

>>5216505
I'm not even the guy you've been talking to, it's just painfully obvious that you're reaching above your intellectual station.

>>5216506
>Actually I consistently score above 150, I'm the sort of dude suited men line up to shake his hand sorta thing, ya know?
Same here.
>Oh, obviously not
Honestly I started all debate as a joke to heat up the fuel for lolz but now we're pretty much embarrassing ourselves.
>And there is no inductive reasoning to say god probably doesn't exist.
Any sort of claim regards the fact that God is an omnipotent deity that can be existent is a nonexistent space. Such a claim is inductively weak as it implies an exception from an inductive reasoning that states nothing can exist in nonexistent space.
>Inductive reasoning is a tool of pragmatism, not world-defining
World defining is pragmatic.

>>5216514
>That's how we get to the conclusion of an omnipotent being, an unmoved mover.
An implication that there can be an omnipotent being is a weak argument.

And appeal to authority wins again. Get fucked retard.

>>5216550
1) You don't know what an authority is.
2) You were clearly lying.
3) Man, you surely are immature.

>>5216531
>World defining is pragmatic
This, however, is the truth, but it doesn't extend itself to the outer reaches of infinity -- it's more this horse has won his last 10 races, odds are he'll win again sorta stuff.

>>5216440
lol owned and point taken but in my defense: is there a not-psuedointellectual response to this question?

>>5216570
While I may be immature, I wasn't lying and I have a much profounder take than you on the arguments from the masses or whatever you might call them collectively (ad hom, populum, authority). Psychology is my forte, anon.

>>5216585
You sound egoist/narcissistic/illusory superior.

Also I have fucken grey hairs so get on my level

>>5216580
But the argument is similar to horse allusion - if no other being is omnipotent, and there is more empirical evidence to omnipotent being not existing, then it is a weak argument to assume that omnipotent force is a driving factor in universe creation, or that it exists at all, unless an empirical evidence of equivalent power is present.

>>5216617
No it isn't, because one deals in pragmatism where the other doesn't. Science is pragmatism, not truth, anon. Though I suppose pragmatism comes up if you start talking philosophy/morality, but it's always going to be hairy as fuck.

>>5216246
Just for the fun of it:

Why does every discussion about the existence of God always end up framed as "fedora vs. crucifix"? It's like we've drawn up this arbitrary dichotomy where the only two possibilities are the protestant Christian "sky fairy" (to borrow a fedoric term) or no God at all. I think this thread might literally be the only one I have ever seen where this didn't happen.

>>5216387
>THE UNIVERSE BEGAN

>>5216511

>cosmological argument

fix'd