/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11218703
god just might actually be an inner voice, literally your own voice projected into your audio processing brain components.

who even cares anymore lmao

>>11218703
Whichever makes the assertion, this stuff isn't hard.

https://i.imgur.com/ZMmOQXM.png

I remember muhammad went to a wall sort of looked like that wall when he created some of the lies about islam

the first line of the hebrew bible was originally made by a male who was standing up facing a wall and it was oral at first though not written

he was like facing a wall standing right in front of it like right in his face and he thought of the line it came to him in his head while he was staring at the wall.

Christianity is all true but Islam is fabricated.

>>11218732
But the wall for Judaism looked entirely different than the wall in OP's picture lol.

>>11218732
>he thought of the line it came to him in his head while he was staring at the wall
holy based

>>11218755

It's true that's where that first line came from.

>>11218703
The one who says he does. You can't prove nothing.

>>11218771
What about >>11218721?

>>11218774
Well. I guess we shouldn't go around making assertions that we cannot prove. But still. Can't be obligated to do something that can't be done.

>>11218703
The burden of proof lies on God himself. Any other answer is unreasonable.

>>11218703
Wow OP and these comments are retarded. The burden of proof lies on anyone making any sort of claim, it doesn’t matter who made the claim first, it doesn’t matter which claim is harder to prove, there is no fundamental hierarchy of claims here. This is a common misunderstanding of the low iq, low T neckbeard Russel’s Teapot thought experiment.

If you say God exists, it would be correct for me to ask for proof. It wouldn’t be correct for me to say “God doesn’t exist WAAAA WAAAA you didn’t prove your claim therefore he doesn’t exist!!”

>>11218957
Nope. Ever heard of, "I think, therefore I am" Burden of proof of existence relies on the subject in question.

>>11218771
>you can’t prove nothing
t. brainlet
you can prove a negative, it’s been done. Just because a claim is negative does not mean it’s immune from the burden of proof.

>>11218703
Yes.

>>11218962
>Ever heard of, "I think, therefore I am"
Holy fuck this board has gotten even more retarded, I didn't think that was possible. You do realize that Descartes made that statement for the sole purpose of proving God exists, right? Discourse on the Method is an ontological proof for the existence of God. Also you have no idea what that statement means clearly. Moreover, you are dumb as fuck and should kill yourself as soon as possible. Pic related.

>>11218703
The only position free from burden of proof is an agnostic i.e stating that they don't know. Atheists and theists must prove that their is/isn't a God, if not then their positions are acts of faith.

>>11218995
But, it is rational to behave as if there is no God when no evidence of God has been presented. And to refuse to change one's behavior based on the taboos of God-fearing people. It is just not rational to proselytizer about there not being a God.

>>11218703
It's either "He exists" or "I have not seen proof he exists, therefore I do not believe he exists". That means proof must come from the person stating he exists as there's nothing to prove regarding not believing.

>>11219018
>I have not seen proof he exists, therefore I do not believe he exists
You've been conditioned to think this is syllogism but it isn't. Going from "have not seen proof he exists" to "I do not believe he exists" is an illogical leap of faith. If someone says "God exists" you are correct here to ask them to prove it, of course, but you are not correct in then taking the negative stance.

>>11219007
>no evidence of

Theist could give you plenty of "evidence" that God exists as well as dismiss "evidence" of a lack of God ( as an atheist would dismiss theist). evidence). What would be considered the most rational behavior depends on person and circumstance.

>>11218703
theists and atheists both have a burden of proof that cannot be met, this is why the only non-brainlets/pseuds are agnostic

>>11218703
It lays on you, that which reads and interprets it to be an argument or reality. It has no bearing to any other than the audience of time.

>>11219051
agnosticism and atheism are functionally identical
>the universe was created by a gay unicorn so you're morally obligated to let me buttrape you
>uuhhh prove it
>i can't
>Ok i don't believe you and you can't buttrape me
>WOW PROVE THE GAY UNICORN ISN'T REAL OH WAIT YOU CAN'T AHHAAHAHAHAHAHHA YOU'RE CLEARLY BEING ILLOGICAL BY NOT LETTING ME BUTTRAPE YOU!!!!

>>11218986
>ontological proof
That's full retard. Formalize the argument and you'll see how ridiculous that is.

>>11219072
basè

>>11218967
So fucking prove it.

>>11218967
>negative
Nothing.
Not the same.

>>11219039
What stance to take if not the negative?

However many megatons of nuclear weapons are needed to erase that pile of stones from history, that's about 70% of how many megatons there will be.

>>11219173
Are you retarded? Did you even read OP before answering his question? The other guy is stating a negative, he isn’t saying “nothing”.

>>11219537
That you don’t know, which is the truth.

>>11219170
>Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Arrow's impossibility theorem.
Do you want me to wipe your ass for you too?

>>11219076
Are you actually a braindead? Do you not understand basic philosophical terminology yet you’re quoting Descartes? Please educate yourself retard. Ontological arguments are those trying to prove the existence of God from reason. This is precisely what Descartes was trying to do. Discourse on the Method is short enough that you can read it in a couple hours. Please do so before embarrassing yourself yet again, dumbfuck.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

>>11219076
Why are you asking a guy to formalize an argument that you cited? Are you one of those elaborate /sci/ GPT-2 schizo robots?

>>11218703
If you take no issue with the claim that Thanos, Thor, Luke Skywalker, and Zeus don’t exist, but do take issue with the claim God doesn’t exist, you have inconsistent standards of epistemology, rendering you taking issue with the claim contradictory.

>>11218995
Agnostics claim that it’s unknown whether or not God exists.
They’re either agnostic theists or agnostic atheists. There is no just “agnostic”.

>>11219039
>but you are not correct in then taking the negative stance.

Invisible fairies that live inside of anuses of goats colonized Pluto fifteen thousand years ago, and they’ll send you to Hell if you ever touch your penis.

>>11219714
>That you don’t know, which is the truth

Don’t know, and don’t believe. That is agnostic atheism.

>>11218703
THIS DOESNT BELONG ON /SCI/ MORON