/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4778864]

So, I've been arguing with theists on Facebook.

What good arguments are there for the claim 'God does not exist'?

[Anonymous No.4778889]

>>4778864
>So, I've been arguing with theists on Facebook.

Just stop.

[Anonymous No.4778892]

>>4778864
Go hume

"Hume gave the classic criticism of the design argument in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. He argued that for the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognize human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine—as in Paley's watchmaker argument—when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? Hume also reasoned that if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?"

[Anonymous No.4778893]

>>4778889
Mhm.

[Anonymous No.4778896]

":^) I don't believe in fairy tales or silly wizard stories, yay science!"

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4778898]

>>4778864
The one argument is good enough. But you can't make the unreasonable give it up.

[Anonymous No.4778899]

>>4778864

The christian god depicted in the bible most surely does not exist, however i believe there is a higher force than we can comprehend that exists somewhere, and that force had something to do with the creation of everything.

Also OP, its completely pointless arguing with people about religion, no one will change their mind unless its on their own volition, and you should have learned that if you´ve been using the internet for more than 5 years.

[Anonymous No.4778901]

>>4778899

can´t comprehend

[Anonymous No.4778907]

>>4778864
"Let’s say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I’ll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years. Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks “That’s enough of that. It’s time to intervene,” and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don’t let us appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let’s go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can’t be believed by a thinking person."

[Anonymous No.4778924]

>>4778864
There are none. You cannot prove God doesn't exist, unless you are a retard fedora.

You can only prove that arguments for God's existence are invalid.

[Anonymous No.4778927]

>>4778907
well, the 98 thousand years thing is pretty stupid, taking into account that salvation has been granted for the rest of eternity
compared with eternity, taking 98000 years to take action is pretty fast, you cant just see it from the right perspective because you happen to be at the beggining

[Anonymous No.4778932]

>>4778924
How is it that you cannot prove God does not exist? Not that I necessarily disagree

[Anonymous No.4778940]

>>4778927
Stupidest comment I've read in a while. Good job.

[Anonymous No.4778942]

>>4778864
here´s a nice instruction video for you OP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiW3qRlDhig

[Anonymous No.4778944]

>>4778932
Because it's impossible to say what caused the Big Bang (time relative to us started with it). If it was started by a Will, that would be God.

[Anonymous No.4778945]

>>4778932
you cant prove the existence of a trascendental
you cant prove in existence the existence of that which makes existence exist
it is like trying to explain language using language, it is circular, you cant PROVE god, you can SHOW it
God is not an object or a subject, it is not that you cant know if god exists or not, we dont even know if God is beyond existence and nonexistence or not.

[Anonymous No.4778952]

>>4778944
>Because it's impossible to say what caused the Big Bang
the collision of two super-energetic 11-dimensional membranes
do you even theoretical physics?

[Anonymous No.4778955]

>>4778924
You cannot prove that God doesn't exist but you can prove that a specific God doesn't exist.
For instance the popular example used to disprove the judeo-christian God is that evidence shows that God cannot be all-loving and all-powerful and therefore this specific God cannot exist. Either that or the God could exist but the characteristics that you ascribe to him are false, hence he would be a different God.

[Anonymous No.4778956]

>>4778952
>theoretical
That's the thing.

[Anonymous No.4778958]

>>4778864
>What good arguments are there for the claim 'God does not exist'?
There's no such thing. "God", whichever your definition of it may be, whether it exists or not, cannot be proved nor disproved as it's on a plane of existence that cannot be grasped by conventional logic or understanding.

[Anonymous No.4778959]

epicur got your ass op

>>4778944
implying it started with a will is anthropomorphising. the logical assumption would be: most everything in nature happened by accident so the big bang did as well.

I'm not completely ruling out the god option, i'm just saying it's not very likely.

[Anonymous No.4778960]

>>4778864
>The only winning move is not to play.

[Anonymous No.4778967]

No god would waste their time creating some prick who argues about his existence on facebook, therefore god does not exist.

[Anonymous No.4778971]

>>4778942

[Anonymous No.4778977]

>>4778959
>>4778955
Actually the apologetics countering the omnipower/omnibenevolent issue are pretty solid.

So yes, the arguments rule out a particular type of God, but they hardly deliver a killing blow to Judeo-Christianity.

The best argument against them is "you got no evidence", not "I got the fully sick evidence to lay the smack down on your god"

[Anonymous No.4778988]

>>4778977
You have no evidence and it's not remotely likely to be true given what we now know about our species and the history of our planet.

[▲̷̨̫̺̙͠͠- !ZEN/cgElFM No.4778989]

>So, I've been arguing with theists on Facebook.

[Anonymous No.4778990]

>>4778988
Can you even read?

[Anonymous No.4778997]

>>4778990
Sorry, I thought you were a Christian.

But you still seem to be suggesting that the burden of proof does not lie with those who are making the claim.

[Anonymous No.4779002]

>>4778997
Why is there no burden of proof for someone that claims 'there is no God'? That is a claim to knowledge just as 'there is a God' is a claim to knowledge.

[Anonymous No.4779006]

>>4778997
No I don't. I'm saying the opposite. All atheists have to say is "you got no proof" and that's sufficient.

Trying to disprove God on the other hand is likely to just make you foolish, because God can be defined as anything, and theology is a well developed field.

From memory the Kabbalic God wouldn't even contradict science.

[Anonymous No.4779007]

>>4778864
Has it occured to you, that you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.4779008]

>>4779002
only if you're high on twisted rhetorics.

[Anonymous No.4779010]

>>4779002
Go look up the Bertrand Russell teapot argument or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is basic stuff.

[Anonymous No.4779011]

>>4779008
What?

[Anonymous No.4779012]

>>4779011
you know exactly what.

[Anonymous No.4779020]

>>4778927
fucking retard

[Anonymous No.4779029]

>>4779007
Probably not. Hardcore atheists (just like religious fundamentalists, to be fair) are absolutely convinced that they hold the ultimate truth. I know because I used to be one.

[Anonymous No.4779030]

>>4778942
no this video is more cringey than any fedora and cape wearing atheist

[Anonymous No.4779032]

>>4779012
You clearly have no experience with formal debate or formal logic if you really believe that no burden of proof lies with the claim 'God does not exist'.

>>4779010
Yeah, I know them. They're basic in that they have no substance.

Watch this video and then educate yourself beyond Reddit atheism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmS5oVBfJY

[Anonymous No.4779035]

>>4779032
>You clearly have no experience with formal debate or formal logic if you really believe that no burden of proof lies with the claim 'God does not exist'.
well you do clearly have experience waxing philosophically. i'm more a common sense / using my brain kind of person.

[Anonymous No.4779040]

>>4779032
craig is so dumb "we have good evidence that no such piece of china has been launched into space by us or extra terrestrials" ...no we don't

[Anonymous No.4779042]

>>4779010
Russel's teapot is a bad argument because it compares physical objects to a Transcendant One.

It's another in a line of dumb arguments that try to "disapprove" God.

Seriously, telling religious people they have no evidence is sufficient. Going any further than that results in stupidity.

[Anonymous No.4779048]

>>4779042
oh you're one of those people who doesn't understand analogies

[Anonymous No.4779049]

>>4779048
I understand analogies, and I explained in my post why it is a bad one.

[Anonymous No.4779050]

>>4779032
>Yeah, I know them. They're basic in that they have no substance.
>Bertrand Russel
>No substance
nigga what.
>>4779042
The teapot isn't supposed to disprove god.
It's supposed to shut up the "You can't prove there isn't a god! Therefore there must be a god!" crowd.

"You have no evidence" is the right and only answer

[Anonymous No.4779058]

>>4779049
how do you know god is [sic] "transcendant"?

[Anonymous No.4779059]

>>4778940
you have a pretty fragile ego my friend

[Anonymous No.4779067]

>>4779058
by definition mostly
english is not my first language

[Anonymous No.4779069]

>>4779058
I don't you moron. But if you deny that the modern concept of God is that of a transcendent, you are a fool.

Russell's teapot tries to compare the possibility of a physical teapot in the universe with a non-physical deity. It's the definition of a faulty analogy.

[Anonymous No.4779079]

>>4779069
>Russell's teapot
well then let's just change the concept of the teapot to a transcendent one, fixed

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4779083]

>>4778899
>no one will change their mind unless its on their own volition, and you should have learned that if you´ve been using the internet for more than 5 years.
Some just like to argue. (If you don't learn that here...)
>however i believe there is a higher force than we can['t] comprehend that exists somewhere, and that force had something to do with the creation of everything.
If we can't comprehend why put any faith in it? And what came before a creation? Or after? Unanswerable questions, I know. But the other side of the end of the universe has got to have something, even if it's just empty space.

Going

[Anonymous No.4779087]

>>4779079
Except a teapot lacks the grandeur of the God concept. A transcendent teapot would be a non-all-encompassing mini transcendent, not an Absolute Undivided One Transcendent.

[Anonymous No.4779088]

>"Hand more arguments because I don't know what I'm doing."
Don't even bother. Spare others you pretending to know more than you do and spend time genuinely learning more instead of trying to push an agenda.

[Anonymous No.4779090]

>>4779069
so are you saying that because god is transcendent his existence requires no evidence?

[Anonymous No.4779094]

>>4779087
>capitalising random words

[Anonymous No.4779096]

>>4779079
there cant be a transcendent teapot, because a teapot is clearly defined as an object and objects cant be trascendent

[Anonymous No.4779097]

>>4779090
>so are you saying that because god is transcendent his existence requires no evidence?
Are you even following this thread? This isn't an argument for God's existence, but an argument against shitty atheist arguments like Russell's teapot.

[Anonymous No.4779103]

>>4779097
i'm trying to see why physical objects and transcendental objects, in your opinion, cannot be compared. do both not require proof of existence for belief?

[Anonymous No.4779105]

>>4779090
You cant "prove" the existence of a trascendent, you can only experience it
God "shows" itself, because it is a trascendent, the same way the rules of logic "show" themselves in language or Being "shows" itself in beings

[Anonymous No.4779108]

>>4779105
>You cant "prove" the existence of a transcendent"
literally just summed up all religious belief in one post. believing in things without proof.

[Anonymous No.4779109]

>>4779103
there are not such things as transcendental OBJECTS
neither there are transcendental SUBJECTS
because transcendental themselves are that which determines subjects and objects in their subject-being and object-being

[Anonymous No.4779110]

>>4778864
there's no proof that God exists.

that's pretty much all you need to say.

[Anonymous No.4779111]

>>4779050

[Anonymous No.4779112]

>>4778864
>What good arguments are there for the claim 'God does not exist'?
There are none, no one attempts to prove that god does not exist, it's generally just understood that he/she/it does not exist unless there is reason to believe so. Some people find a reason within themselves or out of some sort of experience which they believe to have been spiritual, but generally speaking, no one really puts effort to prove that "god does not exist." How can you prove something doesn't exist when you don't even know the parameters of the thing you're trying to disprove? Although I suppose you can offer some reasons for why why it may be very unlikely and maybe just bring up some of the problems. What denomination are you talking to?


I swear to god (you see what I did there?), don't bring up the problem of evil or evolution, at least try to not make atheists look retarded. The higher educated religions already accept evolution, and unless you're dealing with some Southern Baptists, you probably won't have any one to disagree with, and Aquinas has already done a fair bit for Catholicism and is way smarter than you, so stay away from that too.

[Anonymous No.4779124]

>Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Russel's Teapot is not proof there is no god.
It should not be used as proof that there is no god.
It should only be used in response to someone saying "Well, you have no proof God doesn't exist!"

[Anonymous No.4779116]

>>4779109
okay whatever, can you answer the question though

[Anonymous No.4779117]

>>4779103
They can't be compared because the existence or non-existence of a physical object in this universe can be proved in theory by observation.

An absolute transcendent theory cannot be proved or not proved. Therefore it is a faulty analogy because it implies that a transcendent God could also be proved by observation.

It's like those people who try to compare the Judeo-Christian God with Zeus and Thor. Those were always claimed to be physical gods for goodness sakes.

Once again, saying there's no evidence for the Judeo-Christian God is sufficient to win an argument. However, if you start making shitty arguments and analogies you will lose.

[Anonymous No.4779126]

>>4779117
thank you, this is actually a proper explanation without dropping muh buzzwords

[Anonymous No.4779130]

>>4779124
So it's a shit argument for agnosticism? Got it.

[Anonymous No.4779131]

>>4779111
He said no substance.
Even that poster admits the importance of Russel's philosophy of math.

[Anonymous No.4779136]

>>4779130
It's not an argument FOR anything.
It's an argument against the idea that the burden of proof is not on the person making the positive claim.

[Anonymous No.4779138]

>>4779108
Yes, we cant prove the existence of God, neither we can prove the existence of the universe itself, we cant PROVE anything about existence as a whole, but still, we live our lives with an unprovable intuition of what language, mind, matter, Being and God mean. We dont need a proof of the existence of the mind to experience the mind, we dont need a definition of language to speak, we dont need anything said about God to dwell in him
not everything in life is about proofs and certainty

[Anonymous No.4779139]

>>4779131
And was referencing Russel's tea pot argument. Which the next Anon just over looked and tried to make it about Russel himself.

[Anonymous No.4779140]

>>4779087
what does it really matter, it's the same basic concept. you're proving / not proving the idea. just as you might prove the idea that trees can bind water which you can then, once proven, apply to trees of any scale

grandour is besides the point

[Anonymous No.4779142]

>>4779138
so why do you believe in god then?

[Anonymous No.4779143]

>>4779139
Huh. Misread the conversation. Sorry.
Still, the guy was wrong, as >>4779124 points out.

[Anonymous No.4779145]

Scientism is taking over more and more of /lit/.

Guess those Harris threads will soon be legit instead of just shit posting in a few years.

[Anonymous No.4779148]

>>4779140
grandour is what makes god different in essence from trees, waters and teapots. Grandour makes something incomparable to others

[Anonymous No.4779150]

>>4779117
>It's like those people who try to compare the Judeo-Christian God with Zeus and Thor. Those were always claimed to be physical gods for goodness sakes.
true but there's definitely similarities. it's just not helpful to this here debate.

[Anonymous No.4779153]

>What good arguments are there for the claim 'God does not exist'?

Zero, zilch, none, nada; same goes vice-versa. Making objective claims like that about things that are pretty much impossible to verify is nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.4779154]

>>4779145
>Scientism is taking over more and more of /lit/.
I don't have evidence for god, but I just BELIEVE it makes more sense than the alternative. I don't give a fuck what other people think.

[Anonymous No.4779158]

>>4779154
how is that an answer to the post you're quoting

[Anonymous No.4779161]

The probability that a god exists is extremely low, because the idea has never been demonstrated to be consistent with what we know about reality. For the proposition of "God exists" to be considered likely true, you must make testable predictions that don't extend beyond necessity. Then, you must test these prediction, and if they are confirmed, you can say that a god is likely to exist. However, not only has this never been confirmed, people have never even made testable predictions in the first place. Furthermore, the idea of god is an idea that extends well beyond the explanations necessary to explain reality. For instance, you don't need any gods to explain where the diversity of life came from, as a phenomenon in reality already accounts for this

[Anonymous No.4779162]

>>4779153
santa claus does not exist
omg you can't verify this therefore everyone should believe in santa claus

[Anonymous No.4779166]

>>4779161
>The probability
Stopped reading.

How do you quantify a transcendent being?

[Anonymous No.4779169]

>>4779162
I hope you're joking.

[Anonymous No.4779170]

>>4779162
i agree with you but that douche is just gonna shittalk all over you with his HASS-fu

[Anonymous No.4779172]

>>4779158
Scientism is the belief that science is the best way to do everything, including philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4779174]

>>4779162
>santa claus does not exist
if santa claus existed he would be a physical being you idiot

[Anonymous No.4779178]

>>4779172
well it does have a pretty good record of being right. but yeah scientism is BS i'm just still confused about your answer

>>4779174
not MY version of santa claus. boom.

[Anonymous No.4779180]

>>4779161
>I've never read Kuhn and I couldn't care less!

[Anonymous No.4779182]

>>4778864
>2014
>Arguing with theists.
>laughinggirls.jpeg
It's rude to argue with the mentally handicapped OP.

[Anonymous No.4779184]

>>4779166
Do more thinking. You don't always have to fight against strawmen to win.

[Anonymous No.4779185]

>>4779166

You don't, then again, 'transcendental' is an excellent way of making an object completely unfalsifiable, so in this case, I don't take the idea serious in the first place

[Anonymous No.4779187]

>>4779178
>well it does have a pretty good record of being right
Pessimistic meta-induction my nigga.
Everything is wrong.

[Anonymous No.4779189]

>>4779178
>well it does have a pretty good record of being right. but yeah scientism is BS i'm just still confused about your answer
I just believe the probability of God existing is slightly higher than not. I have no idea what kind of God though.

[Anonymous No.4779191]

>>4779187
what

i dont even

[Anonymous No.4779195]

Nature has made all her truths independent of one another. Our art makes one dependent on the other. But this is not natural. Each keeps its own place.
-Pascal

[Anonymous No.4779196]

>>4779191
What's the problem?

[Anonymous No.4779197]

>>4779184
Yeah, that's not an answer champ.

>>4779185
Which is fine. As another Anon has been saying "no proof" is sufficient.

But when you start your argument with "probability" and talking about empiricism you are missing the point entirely.

[Anonymous No.4779198]

>>4779174
why would santa claus be physical? he clearly displays magical/supernatural qualities -- being able to deliver presents across the world in a single night

[Anonymous No.4779194]

>>4779189
how are probabilities something you believe in. either you have some data or it's just something you believe, as a choice. there's no probability involved

[Anonymous No.4779204]

>>4779194
>either you have some data or it's just something you believe, as a choice. there's no probability involved
There's no data either way. I'm making a philosophical prediction.

[Anonymous No.4779208]

[Anonymous No.4779209]

>>4779198
>why would santa claus be physical? he clearly displays magical/supernatural qualities -- being able to deliver presents across the world in a single night
he's a physical being that can do magic..like a flying unicorn..still a physical being

[Anonymous No.4779214]

>>4779197
Because it was advice.

[Anonymous No.4779216]

>>4779197
>Which is fine. As another Anon has been saying "no proof" is sufficient.

Not if you claim that it exists. This implies that it's an actual part of reality and, therefore, should have testable properties. If you have no proof for something, you can either say that it doesn't exist, or that it's an unknown.

Calling something 'transcendental' amounts to little more than hand waving. You basically state that there is no way to demonstrate that X exists, but it definitely does and I conveniently don't have to demonstrate it, because I say so

[▲̷̨̫̺̙͠͠- !ZEN/cgElFM No.4779217]

>>4779208
Eric hasn't written a book. Checkmate, atheists.

[Anonymous No.4779221]

>>4779196
>Pessimistic meta-induction
of what, in which context, what's your point. sorry if i'm missing something obvious

>>4779204
yeah okay but that still has nothing to do with probabilities

[Anonymous No.4779224]

Lol get a life OP

[Anonymous No.4779228]

>>4779216
>Calling something 'transcendental' amounts to little more than hand waving
Not necessarily, because transcendental is a valid philosophical concept (beyond reality), even possibly scientific concept (beyond the universe).

That doesn't prove that God exists of course, only that the concept itself is legitimate.

[Anonymous No.4779233]

>>4779221
You said science has a good record of being right.
Pessimistic meta-induction says that only a tiny percentage of claims science has ever made are considered to be "true" today. It goes on to say that we should assume that many claims that are considered "true" today will end up being proven false in the future.
Really, there's no point. It's just an interesting way of looking at science that I like bringing up. It has no practical application or anything.

[Anonymous No.4779239]

>>4779233
oh okay. got it

[Anonymous No.4779245]

>>4779228

It's a problematic notion, because it introduces two propositions instead of just one. Not only do you have to prove the existence of a god, by stating that he's beyond reality, you now also have to prove that there even is a 'beyond reality'. Calling God 'transcendental' doesn't solve the problem, it complicates it even further

[Anonymous No.4779246]

>>4778864
The problem of the contradictory god. Maybe a god exists, but if he does, you don't know his character and the pursuit is vapid. If you believe you can know this information based on "faith", I can claim a contradictory but comparable truth with equal strength.

Plus, you have a logical explosion problem: if God exists, why not Allah? Why not Russell's teapot? Why not any of the infinite amount of things that exist with the same validity as the idea of God?

The point is that any conception of God that matters ethically or morally demands physical evidence, of which there is none. Philosophy is better suited to handle our relation to the physical and with questions of meaning and communication, not with disproving a tautologically unprovable god.

[Anonymous No.4779253]

>>4779245
>you now also have to prove that there even is a 'beyond reality'
There almost certainly must be a place beyond reality, because this universe did not always exist. The only alternatives are an infinitely old universe (almost certainly disproved) or a cyclic model (currently out of favor).

[Anonymous No.4779264]

>>4779253
>>4779253
I hope you're not the same person.

[Anonymous No.4779266]

>>4779253
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3

HUR HUR HUR HUR HUR HUR

[Anonymous No.4779267]

>>4779253
>>4779166
I hope you're not the same person.
>>4779264
Damn it

[Anonymous No.4779273]

>>4779266
Aside from the big headline there's nothing even remotely close to proof here. Also I remember reading some book by a guy called Lawrence Krauss with a similar concept, and his "nothing" wasn't even an actual fucking nothing.

[Anonymous No.4779275]

>>4779253
>There almost certainly must be a place beyond reality

If it's a place that exists, then it's by definition not beyond reality

[Stan No.4779278]

>>4779246
Allah=God

[Anonymous No.4779287]

>>4779275
Not quite. Reality I suppose refers to our universe, with the rules of physics as contained here and our flow of time. Outside this universe these two would be very different.

[Anonymous No.4779304]

>>4779273
That's because you're retarded and don't comprehend what's being talked about. Quantum mechanics predate the universe

[Anonymous No.4779313]

>>4779304
Nobody even remotely understands quantum mechanics yet. At this stage it's like IRL magic.

[Anonymous No.4779335]

>>4779313
No shit

[Anonymous No.4779385]

>>4778952
It tickles my kekkles when people regurgitate theories they heard on NOVA and think its the end all truth.

[Anonymous No.4779392]

>>4779385
I actually have a PhD in string theory and I have worked for 20 years in Harvard studying strings in my lab with stephen hawkings
#Burned

[Anonymous No.4779394]

>>4779217
god hasn't written a book

[Anonymous No.4779399]

>>4779253
that OR WE ARE THE DREAM OF THE BUDDHA
dum dum dum

actually, since Buddha means "awakened", this sentence would be paradoxical if written in Sanskrit

[▲̷̨̫̺̙͠͠- !ZEN/cgElFM No.4779404]

>>4779394
neither have u faggot get off ur ass

[Anonymous No.4779406]

>>4778967
Theist here, you've converted me

[Anonymous No.4779415]

>>4779406
God here, fuck off

[Anonymous No.4779419]

>>4779392
Is the following true or false?

>A Seiberg-dual of type I strings deformed by 't Hooft lines (taking into account examples of geometric transitions in Toda superconformal QFTs ) is an orientifold plane assuming ghosts are dilation symmetric.

[Anonymous No.4779426]

[Anonymous No.4779427]

>>4779419
Ha, I dont actually have a PhD in physics, you are so stupid you believed me and now you want me to do your homework, what an idiot, hahaha

[Anonymous No.4779430]

>>4778864
>What good arguments are there for the claim 'God does not exist'?
the fact that losers like you exist

[Anonymous No.4779431]

[Anonymous No.4779448]

>>4779426
taking into account that he is being self-referential, the analogy is invalid
>my counterargument is valid if your argument is valid and your argument is valid if my counterargument is valid. Conclusion(wrong): your argument is not valid
>real statement: x if and only if no x. Conclusion: logical contradiction

fedora atheism cant even into logic

[Anonymous No.4779463]

>>4778955

Plantinga done rekt all that shit bruv. AfE is strictly confined to an appeal to plausibility (for now at least, though I don't see it coming back) - sure, it's POSSIBLE that all the suffering and evil are for a higher good. It's POSSIBLE that 4-yos get leukaemia for some ineffable purpose we would gladly co-sign to if only we could apprehend it. But how plausible does that seem? And so forth.

[Anonymous No.4779465]

>>4779431
false premise: God is not necessarily personal, God is not necessarily all loving and all forgiving.
Illogical statement: the conclusion is that the hypothesis is not valid, self-referential

[Anonymous No.4779470]

>>4779431
>Stacking the Deck: It really is that simple

[Anonymous No.4779743]

>>4779209
>he's a physical being that can do magic..like a flying unicorn
Jesus Christ is a physical being who can do magic. Next.

[Anonymous No.4779756]

>>4779465
>God is not necessarily personal, God is not necessarily all loving and all forgiving.
it isfor christfags. Anyway, this still means no oneneeds to believe or worship him.

[Anonymous No.4779762]

>>4779756
>Anyway, this still means no oneneeds to believe or worship him.
no it doesn't

[Anonymous No.4779765]

>>4779762

Reread the image. It's garbage, but you're not covering yourself in glory by failing to deal with garbage.

[Anonymous No.4779819]

Say everybody on earth is an atheist tomorrow, what changes OP?

[▲̷̨̫̺̙͠͠- !ZEN/cgElFM No.4779830]

>>4779819
Somehow you've managed to outretard the guy that argues with theists on Facebook.

[Anonymous No.4779834]

>>4779819
Imagine the scientific progress we'd have if religion never existed.

[Anonymous No.4779835]

>>4779830
That's not very nice, m8

[Anonymous No.4779837]

You can only argue against a theorised deity.

There is no argument against a 'creator'

[Anonymous No.4779838]

>>4779834
>implying
the lack of scientific progress during that time was more due to the fragmentation of Europe after the fall of rome than because of religion. mind your the arabs who were all super religious were the most advanced back then

i'm an atheist and everything, i just think the whole middle ages argument doesn't hold

[Anonymous No.4779840]

>>4779834
This image is fucking retarded and unworthy to be posted on /lit/. How do you fucking quantify 'scientific advancement' to the extent that you can plot it on a fucking graph? I suppose I agree with the general sentiment of the image, but it's frustrating to see it paraded as some kind of evidence.

[Anonymous No.4779842]

>>4779834
islamic nuclear winter dark ages incoming

[Anonymous No.4779843]

>>4779834
regardless, we are in a modern day scientific black hole. Do you know how badly underfunded the sciences are?

If its not going to bring a profit in the near future it wont be funded.

Military science is the only science that gets full funding, which is a tragedy

[Anonymous No.4779845]

>>4779834
Then I could shitpost with a more sophisticated computer! Those christian peaces of shet!

[Anonymous No.4779849]

>>4779843
But that's been the case since 5ever

[Anonymous No.4779854]

>>4779849
Did you know cancer research is funded nearly entirely through charity

[Anonymous No.4779855]

>>4779849
Not really. I mean, you look at the space race for example. Not really any practical benefit there, but billions were invested to put a man on the moon.

[Anonymous No.4779856]

>>4779854
Yeah. Who gives a shit about cancer people but cancer people and their immediate families?

[Anonymous No.4779857]

>>4779834
This would imply the Romans were less than a century away from the steam engine

Sounds a bit fanciful

[Anonymous No.4779861]

>>4779855
To scare the other guys with launch and other capabilities. You heard of the Cold War?

[Anonymous No.4779863]

>>4779855
That was military funding. And it was done purely so they could say they were better than Russia.

They spent BILLIONS to show off. Fuck this world

[Anonymous No.4779874]

>>4779863
It could only have been cooler if both countries had a monarchy
>King Richard's rocket is better than Tsar Leonid's!

[Anonymous No.4779884]

>>4779857
The steam engine was invented by Hero of Alexandria in 10 CE

[Anonymous No.4779900]

>>4779448
except he's not making an argument, he's parodying one. the claim is that this argument is patently ridiculous when used for anything that isn't god. so why is not ridiculous when used to describe knowledge of god?

[Anonymous No.4779903]

>>4779900
>this argument is patently ridiculous when used for anything that isn't god
Watch where you're stepping, kid

[Anonymous No.4779906]

>>4779834
"The Dark Ages" is an outdated idea.
Progress continued then as it did in any other period.
The only really "dark" part of that period is that less writing survives from then.
I understand this is probably bait, but that is a seriously stupid graph.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/our-voices/battle-of-ideas/the-dark-ages-were-a-lot-brighter-than-we-give-them-credit-for-8215395.html

[Anonymous No.4779920]

>>4779884

There were large practical differences between Hero's and the 18th century designs. The technical knowledge to create an economically valuable steam engine simply didn't exist in antiquity.

[Anonymous No.4779926]

>>4779920
And the whole point of technology is give you an advantage in war, anyway, and the Romans already had that.

[Anonymous No.4779931]

>>4779287

>Reality I suppose refers to our universe

Not really, reality could be well beyond our universe. In fact, there have been many indications that parallel universes have real effects on our universe, making them as real as the one we're in

[Anonymous No.4779936]

>>4779931
>parallel universes have real effects on our universe
But of course! Where do you think God and the Devil come from?

[Anonymous No.4779944]

>>4779936

Those effects are measurable though. So far I've never heard of measurable effects that the Devil had on spacetime

[Anonymous No.4779957]

>>4779944
It's called Sin, m8

[Anonymous No.4779970]

>>4779957

Sin isn't exactly the most objective term. There are religious movements that consider hurting their feelings a sin.

[Anonymous No.4779978]

>>4779931

That's just the multiverse theory's explanation of what is more generally described by quantum coherence effects.

[Anonymous No.4780604]

>>4778864
>So, I've been arguing with theists
>on Facebook
>What good arguments are there for the claim 'God does not exist'?
What the fuck are you doing?

[Anonymous No.4780606]

>>4779020
>>4778940
Oh look, new atheist faggot redditors who suck off Hitchens' rotting dick. You bunch of special little fucking snowflakes.