[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 87 KB, 562x745, 1324521638412.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2916847 No.2916847 [Reply] [Original]

You have 10 seconds to prove that God doesn't exist.

Protip: You can't.

>> No.2916850

We really need /phi/ - Religion & Philosophy. How many times has moot been emailed about this? Did he ever reply?

>> No.2916854

>>2916850
The only reason people come to /lit/ is for philosophy, nobody actually reads books.

>> No.2916862

>>2916850
oh, not this shit again

just hide the thread and move on. no matter how many times you yell about how "philosophy doesn't belong on /lit/", it never becomes true, and you can never provide a single scrap of evidence for it, besides repeating "philosophy doesn't belong on /lit/" and calling people who post about philosophy on /lit/ immature.

>> No.2916869

>>2916862
But Philosophy does not belong on /lit/. What part of /lit/ - Literature don't you understand?

Admit it, the only appropriate board to discuss Philosophy is /b/, and that's a shame.

>> No.2916883

>>2916869
>But Philosophy does not belong on /lit/. What part of /lit/ - Literature don't you understand?

No matter how many times you repeat this, it still doesn't become true. And you have no evidence besides "The board is called /lit/ - literature and therefore only things that are called literature can be discussed here." The name has always been interpreted broadly to include books of all kinds, including literary fiction, genre, non-fiction, and, yes, philosophy. The only evidence you have is the name, but the name does not determine the board content.

This is the appropriate board for talking about philosophy. Repeating "but philosophy doesn't belong on /lit/" or some rearrangement of those words doesn't fucking change that. I hate you so fucking much.

>> No.2916909

>>2916883
> The only evidence you have is the name
But that's not true.

>All literature discussion is welcome, however fan-fic is not allowed.
>All literature discussion is welcome
Philosophy isn't literature. OP's thread obviously is not related to literature in any way. It's akin to a thread starting with "Hey guys what kind of book is best suited to wipe your ass in the toilet?" Just because it has a vague tertiary relationship doesn't mean it is literature.

>> No.2916916

You literally can't.
God is a non-falsifiable proposition.
Fortunately this ALSO means that he's not real. Because if he were you'd be able to identify, measure, and test him like the rest of the natural universe.

>> No.2916930
File: 74 KB, 539x946, 1343775791052.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2916930

Using Carl Sagan in your filthy god shenanigans is just disgusting. I hate you.

>> No.2916938
File: 32 KB, 400x332, 1243309636920.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2916938

You have ten seconds to prove that Russel's Teapot doesn't exist.

Protip: You can't. Because Russel carefully imposed stipulations pertaining to the teapot's existence to ensure that rational and scientific inquiries always come up empty handed.

>> No.2916940

burden of proof dumbass!

>> No.2916942

I praid for lots of mony and a new cod for my xbox but nothing happened, checkmate godfag

>> No.2916943

>>2916847
define god
define proof
define existence

>> No.2916945

If God Exists may he strike me down ri

>> No.2916950

>>2916945

> God entered Captcha

>> No.2916956

>>2916943

define words without using synonyms

>> No.2916960

>what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
~Jerry Lewis

>> No.2916966

>>2916960
If it doesn't fit you must acquit.

>> No.2916972

>>2916956
what if i relate them to other things with simile?

>> No.2916975

If it cannot be proved then there is no point in pursuing an answer.
The question of god's exsistance is therefore irrelevant.
A waste of time and thought.

>> No.2916980

>>2916847
That is only true if you are epistemological realist,.

Sagan was an epistemological realist.

BOOM! I just did I guess.

>> No.2916989

>>2916975
>*proven

>> No.2916997

Hi Chris

>> No.2917000

God cannot "exist" or "not exist". These questions are completely irrelevant to an understanding of the Divine.

>> No.2917007

>>2917000
>>2917000
>>2917000
>>2917000

Let his trips show the way towards salivation.

>> No.2917011

>>2917007
I can salivate just fine, so long as you ring my bell.

>> No.2917012

I can disprove the existence of a omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being.

>> No.2917013

>>2917000
Cool.

>> No.2917022

Because Madoka a shit.

>> No.2917028

>>2916850
I emailed him twice and he never replied ;_;

>> No.2917039

>>2917028
most will get redirected to the trash or a spam folder

>> No.2917051

Absence of evidence of absense is not evidence of presence.

>> No.2917129

Why do atheists have the burden of proof?

>> No.2917187

>>2917039
Even in "ask me anything" threads he ignores everything related to /phi/.

>> No.2917227
File: 59 KB, 501x569, facebeat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2917227

Cause - Effect

For something to happen, something must happen before, creating an infinite cycle.

To what can you apply an infinite omnipotent characteristic? God.

All scientific method is based on God if you take it to an extent.

>> No.2917828

You have 10 seconds to prove that The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

Protip: You can't.

>> No.2917849

Absence of evidence actually IS evidence of absence.

Example: I am going to hypothesize that there is a tiger in my room right now.
>Look around the room.
>"See no tiger, but they do have camouflage"
>Hold breath and don't move, listen for any sounds
>"I don't hear anything."
>Turn all the lights on and thoroughly search everywhere
>"Nope, don't see anything."
>Use night-vision goggles and then Infrared goggles
>"Still see nothing.
>Set out red meat and see if anything attempts to eat it
>"Nope, just sits on the floor."
>continue these experiments for hours with no results.


HMMMMM, well there's a complete absence of any evidence that there's a tiger in my room...but as we all know, that's not evidence of absence! DURP DURP

>> No.2918052

Simple, newborn babies are molested.

>> No.2918059

>>2918052
Read the Brothers Karamazov.

>> No.2918060

>>2917849
btw I'm a girl

>> No.2918068

>>2918060

Everybody knows girls can't see Tigers, they disguise themselves as soft toys.

>> No.2918069

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Carl Sagan.

Also try reading up on Kant's third antinomy.

>> No.2918072

>ywn lick moot's little boy penis


Sorry just posting something disgusting, pedophilic and overtly homosexual because I thought this was /b/. You can see why I made the mistake.

>> No.2918076

>>2917849
The Universe is not a room. We can't test with all equipement all Space to find if there isn't a God to be found. This being said, we ought to be atheists as long as no evidence has been presented BUT we should be open to proof (if any is presented ever...) and not talk in absolutes. Religion talks in absolute terminology (and moral for that sake)

>> No.2918078

>>2918059
What does it say?

>> No.2918080

>>2918072
>ywn

Either I can't keep up with the kids these days or you just dropped your paws on your keyboard randomly and thought "that'll do".

>> No.2918085

>>2918076
>This being said, we ought to be atheists
No, distinctions like atheism and theism >imply a grand narrative
So we ought to be neither atheists nor theists, we're past this shit.

>> No.2918086

>>2918080
Actual furries confirmed for browsing /vg/.

>> No.2918088

>>2918076
the best arguments for god are arguments for BELIEF and that holds up because we accept that god is beyond the realm of proof, into the realm of unfalsifiable metaphysics.

OP is troll.

God can't be reasoned into existence. it can't be proved to exist. No matter how popular it was for all intellectuals at a time to invent their own proposition.

It's faith, not reason.

In short, Kierkegaard was right. Not Aquinas.

And that is actually a very good argument for belief. At the least it's without a doubt the one apologists should use. but they won't because they've been suckered into the reason/empirical paradigm like everyone else.

>> No.2918091
File: 85 KB, 400x388, 10155623.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2918091

>>2918080
>8080

>> No.2918093
File: 9 KB, 300x200, Frozen+rolls+08+Bill+Nye+the+Doubles+Guy+_f775fdddb31e04b435b5f63cf6395745.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2918093

God does not exist if I get doubles but is the absence of doubles proof of God?

>> No.2918097
File: 224 KB, 327x500, dub-liners.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2918097

Check these.

>> No.2918098

>>2918097
lol'd

>> No.2918101

>>2918085
atheism is the lack of belief in a god. As long as there are theists, I will be an atheist to compare. Of course we need distinctive nouns to differentiate terms. If no idea of God was ever presented in History EVER we wouldn't be talking about theists or atheists. But it exists so we made words to present these positions. I hope I make sense...

>> No.2918104

>>2918101
also, atheism does not imply a grand design; its on the contrary its opposition

>> No.2918108

Let's just speculate generally on what evidence of absence looks like like.

So basically it has to be nothing, but there has to be some indication that it's not there.

Nice contradiction, assface.

>> No.2918111

>>2918101
>atheism is the lack of belief in a god blah blah blah
I've seen this argument and its permutations I don't know how many times, and everytime it's bullshit. There is no reason you need to argue yourself or others into the binary and take part in it. It just boils down to an epistemological shit slinging fest over something that is at best a waste of time to argue over.

>> No.2918113

A christian telling an athiest that they're going to hell is a bit like a child telling an adult that he's not going to be getting presents from santa

your sincerely
Reddit

>> No.2918118

>>2918104
Grand narrative isn't a grand design.