What is the best proof of GOD?

[Anonymous No.20282413]

[Anonymous No.20282418]

>>20282413
you

[Anonymous No.20282421]

there isn't one retard

[Anonymous No.20282426]

>>20282413
Absolutely everything we know of had a cause.
Therefore Universe must've had a cause.
Whichever caused the Universe can be defined as God.

[Anonymous No.20282430]

>>20282413
Faith
I'll let that sink in as far as you like, retard

[Anonymous No.20282435]

>>20282413
Remy LaCroix in Big Anal Asses 4. There is a moment when she's getting drilled from behind and she looks straight at the camera and gives this lazy smile and then a little grunt and it's the most perfect thing imaginable. Only a perfect being with an incomprehensible plan could have brought that about.

[Anonymous No.20282437]

>>20282426
What caused God?

[Anonymous No.20282441]

>>20282426
>we don't know everything
>there's a possibility that in the things that we don't know there is things that don't have a cause
>Therefore the universe MIGHT had have a cause. Not must.

[Anonymous No.20282443]

>>20282426
proof of causality?

[Anonymous No.20282444]

>>20282426
>Absolutely everything we know of had a cause.
wrong
>Therefore Universe must've had a cause
wrong
>Whichever caused the Universe can be defined as God.
wrong

[Anonymous No.20282453]

There isn't any.

[Anonymous No.20282454]

>>20282444
calm down there, buckaroo. you seem triggered

[Anonymous No.20282459]

>>20282437
fuck around and find out

[Anonymous No.20282517]

Me.
If I can perceive that I exist that means I exist.
Even if my perception is an illusion there has to be some form of perception present, so no matter how I may exist I can be sure that I exist.

God has to be over and also encompassing of all things because if he is less than x then he can't be God. Keeping this in mind, then I can deduce that God exists since I exist. This we must concede for sure.

We can never be sure of God's true form or will however so it's impossible to say "X religion/belief is right about God"
My personal belief is that there is a benevolent God that does interact with us in just the right ways.

[Anonymous No.20282528]

>>20282413
I have a photograph

[Anonymous No.20282537]

>>20282413
There’s nothing. It’s exactly like asking for the best proof of Santa Claus. You believe it or you don’t.

>>20282426
The universe is where everything is. It just is. If there’s a god that goes around creating people, the universe came before this god.

>>20282459
Catch me outside

[Anonymous No.20282539]

>>20282517
>God has to be over and also encompassing of all things because if he is less than x then he can't be God
Ah, the good ol' "I DEFINE THE THING AS HAVING TO EXIST NECESSARILY SO IT EXISTS NECESSARILY YOU MORON".
Never change /lit/.

[Anonymous No.20282547]

>>20282537
>Catch me outside
you have to go outside first

[Anonymous No.20282550]

>>20282517
>God has to be over and also encompassing of all things because if he is less than x then he can't be God. Keeping this in mind, then I can deduce that God exists since I exist. This we must concede for sure.
This is just the ontological argument and you definitely don't have to concede this since it lets you pull whatever you want out of thin air. Take Barney the anthropomorphic purple dinosaur that is defined to be the most ridiculous example of the ontological argument creating bullshit. The existence of Barney is more ridiculous than his non-existence therefore Barney must exist since he is defined as the most ridiculous

[Anonymous No.20282565]

this thread is ALWAYS this same fucking nigger who is having an existential crisis. Jesus, get a room dude

[Anonymous No.20282654]

>>20282539
>>20282550
How else could you define God? We aren't talking about some character, the features I mentioned are mandatory to define God in a human sense.
Why are you so upset at this fact? Simply acknowledge that some sort of God exists, not like it means anything for you. I think you just don't want to accept the truth

[Anonymous No.20282667]

>>20282654
Definitions and logic games don't make reality,

[Anonymous No.20282694]

>>20282654
And you're upset that your argument allows the creation of obviously stupid shit
> the features I mentioned are mandatory to define God in a human sense.
Dictionary definition. A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. Note there is nothing there about encompassing all things. In polytheistic traditions gods definitely didn't encompass all things. If you can make your own specific definition for God I can do so for Barney

[Anonymous No.20282718]

>>20282667
That's why I specified "human sense" Instead of seething how about you define God since you seem to be so knowledgeable on the subject
>>20282694
>B-b-but in X culture God is a hecking superhero!
Ok idc? Anything less than an all encompassing existence is less than the sum of everything, such a thing can neither be omnipotent nor omniscient. I'm not making up a definition of God I'm pointing out features that must be a part of "God" for it to be God in the human sense

[Anonymous No.20282729]

>>20282718
>I'm not making up a definition of God I'm pointing out features that must be a part of "God" for it to be God in the human sense
I have no idea what you mean by in the human sense. Do you think words have objective definitions apart from people? Like there is a definition of God that no one made up? If I say God is defined as a banana what are you going to point to and say that is not the definition of God?

[Anonymous No.20282754]

>>20282413
The goblin finally and absolutely btfod all arguments that try to prove or disprove God in Critique of Pure Reason. All you can do is believe in him.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.20282768]

To know him personally, as revealed by study of his word and prayer from the heart.

[Anonymous No.20282769]

>>20282413
I am
QED

[Anonymous No.20282770]

>>20282729
If you act like a literal child we can't communicate at all you know
>Do you think words have objective definitions apart from people?
They do, actually. Yes
>Like there is a definition of God that no one made up?
We can argue about the definition of God all day but there are some aspects of him we have to agree on, like him being all-encompassing because if he isn't all-encompassing he can't be omnipotent etc

God by nature must be incomprehensible by humans, that's why I specify "human sense" We can't talk about him otherwise

[Anonymous No.20282775]

>>20282770
>We can argue about the definition of God all day but there are some aspects of him we have to agree on, like him being all-encompassing because if he isn't all-encompassing he can't be omnipotent etc
We don't agree on that and the fucking dictionary definition I gave doesn't agree on it. You have a definition of God specific to you and people who like the ontological argument. Fine I have a definition of Barney specific to people who like to make fun of believers in the ontological argument.

[Anonymous No.20282793]

>>20282775
Actual sincere question: Have you yet taken PHIL 101 Intro to Moral Philosophy?
Some of your faggotry could be solved by some coursework, though I do think that the rest might require shock treatment

[Anonymous No.20282801]

>>20282793
The objection to the ontological argument i gave is common to Phil 101 classes.

One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He invited his reader to conceive an island "more excellent" than any other island. He suggested that, according to Anselm's proof, this island must necessarily exist, as an island that exists would be more excellent

[Anonymous No.20282806]

>>20282413
beautiful women existing

[Anonymous No.20282817]

>>20282806
QTs existing is proof that God both loves and hates us. Truly the Divine Comedy.

[Anonymous No.20282827]

>>20282775
A God is not the same as The God, you are desperately trying to shift what I'm talking about so you can say that I'm talking about some cartoon character. There is an all encompassing being that is conscious and benevolent, the proof of that is the existence of any will at all. That is God, nothing else can be properly defined as God as any other definition will produce a lesser being.

[Anonymous No.20282828]

>>20282426
>Whichever caused the Universe can be defined as God.
>can be defined as
So it's cute wordplay and the end result has almost nothing to do with the practical vision people have of God.

[Anonymous No.20282833]

>>20282827
>That is God, nothing else can be properly defined as God as any other definition will produce a lesser being.
So you have a definition of God then? I gave my definition of Barney. The ontological argument proves the existence of both of them

[Anonymous No.20282884]

>>20282833
God has proof, which is me. If you define Barney as a being based on an undeniable truth then yes we can say that Barney is real but we can't make any rational assumptions of his being

So "Barney is the aspect of God which likes to make fun of believers in the ontological argument." would be correct as God DOES have such an aspect to himself, you just put a name on it. You would have to give enough proof of Barney's existence if you define him any other way

[Anonymous No.20282900]

>>20282884
Barney is defined as making believers in the ontological argument look maximally stupid. You've admitted to Barney's existence. You are a fucking retard