/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2858903]

I don't really get the atheistic world view.

Theists need to support their claim, ok.
Atheists only take supported claims for granted, ok.

There are axioms in mathematics (and logic as well). What now?

Atheists are asking theists for proof, but at the same time, the whole system of logic and mathematics (logic is a branch of mathematics) has no proof! That is, the bare foundations of it, certain axioms such as a+b=b+a.

So my question is, why do atheists take logic for granted but don't take god, when god and logic are both assumptions based on nothing but belief?

And don't come up with the ol' "logic is supported", because it's not.

[Anonymous No.2858914]

my question is, why are you posting this on a science board?

[Anonymous No.2858925]

Because I am posing the question why we are fine with taking logic and mathematics for granted (certain principles from where we build logic and mathematics) but when the same is to be done with god, everyone goes bamboozle.

[Anonymous No.2858945]

Logic is necessary, god is not.
/Thread

Not science, get out and kill yourself

[Anonymous No.2858959]

Belief in logic is far more useful than belief in God.

I use logic to solve my problems -> shit gets done, progress is made
I use God to solve my problems -> roll of the dice, nothing really ever changes

Hence that is why logic has more grounds than theism, it is simply better.

[Anonymous No.2858963]

Whoa, cease the hostility, nerd.

We don't know whether god is necessary or not. Would you like to support your claim on why god isn't necessary?

[Anonymous No.2858969]

>>2858959

Thank you for that.

How does, if I may ask, having more usability give a concept more grounds than an other?

[Anonymous No.2858973]

>using logic to try to disprove logic

Why do you theists do this? It makes you look retarded. Quite frankly it's sad to see someone so desperate to protect their beliefs that they have to attack logic itself.

[Anonymous No.2858974]

LOLOLOLOL
You dumb fucker.
Logic isn't something that is based on belief.

You, obviously do not have logic.

Logic is something that is the definite result of something. For example, it is logic that 1+1=2

You stupid motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.2858980]

Empiricism works. Who cares if it uses axioms when it still gets shit done.

[Anonymous No.2858984]

going from atheist to agnostic to gnostic

greatest feeling ever

[Anonymous No.2858994]

>>2858974

You don't have to be so hostile.
I'm not the close minded Christian, I'm a Pantheist studying math. This is genuine curiosity.

It is _precisely_ _not_ logic that 1+1=2. For you to prove that, you have to use five principles. Can you figure out what they are?
And to prove those five princples you would need another set of princples and to prove those princples you would need another set of princples etc etc to infinity.

And, logic isn't "the definite result of something". Sounds to me someone should do a little reading. Logic is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.

[Dr. White !!/zv2MTbpUH9 No.2858999]

You're misunderstanding what an axiom is. An axiom is a simple statement that is useful and self evident. Look up mathematical axioms such as Peano's.

One of the axioms is that the successor of any number is also a number. We can't prove this, but it is obvious, self evident and useful. To deny it would kinda throw our understanding of mathematics out the window.

Now you are comparing the belief in God to an axiom, but this is a false comparison. The belief in God requires many more statements to justify itself. You need to define what God is, and then need to justify that argument.

Another mistake is that the belief in god is self evident. It's not.

[Anonymous No.2859003]

>>2858963
It changes nothing in the world whether there is a god or not.
Reality is the same even if we believe.

Logic on the other hand is basic block on every human action and all communion.
We would not have for example, math or computer or science or anything without logic.
Without logic murder is legal and no laws exist.
There is no economy or trade.
You, or i would not exists.


On the other hand god exists or it doesn't.
Gods existance is not affecting our world in any direc way.
There is no added benefit in accepting god without evidence, as in:
Accepting god as an axiom.

The litle benefits it would bring ib are hugely overpowered by the huge disadvantages it brings.

Hence, there is no reason to make, "god exists" as an axiom, while making "1+1=2" an axiom is beneficial.

This is not science

[Anonymous No.2859005]

OP is trollin guys, theres no way someone could possibly be this stupid

[Anonymous No.2859023]

>>2858969
Is this a serious question?

Let's assume logic exists. Logic leads to science. Science means advances in medicine, technology, physics, biology, mathematics, all that shit. Those mean an ability to save lives, an ability to live longer, and ability to live easier, and ability to understand the world and ourselves better than anyone ever has in history. Logic is useful because it makes sense in our world.

Now, let's assume that god exists. What does that contribute? Um....the possibility that there's a slim chance that maybe there's an afterlife? Offering people happiness based on that fact? What else? Nothing.

[Anonymous No.2859031]

>PhD in trolling
>any board I want
>200 replies starting

[Anonymous No.2859035]

If God isn't real, who wrote the bible?

[Anonymous No.2859067]

>>2858984
How come?
I rarely heard of atheists switching sides.

Yes that is horrible wording, but I don't want to start another debate about the wording with gnostic/agnostic/theist/atheist etc.

[Anonymous No.2859076]

>>2859035
>>2859035
stupid. i wonder who can write...

[Anonymous No.2859083]

Atheists assume a+b = b+a
Theists assume a+b != b+a and are whining all over the place.

Pick your side.

[Anonymous No.2859095]

>>2858903
>the whole system of logic and mathematics (logic is a branch of mathematics) has no proof!

But thats wrong you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.2859107]

>>2858903
a + b = b + a isn't always true you fuckin moron.

NO ONE EVER SAID IT WAS!

It is called commutation under addition, and there are many known systems that don't obey it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutativity

[Anonymous No.2859109]

>>2859035

i feel sorry for you.

[Anonymous No.2859111]

>the whole system of logic and mathematics has no proof!

Maths is an abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Its a system. You are in denial of its existence in claiming it "has no proof", retard.

>So my question is, why do atheists take logic for granted but don't take god, when god and logic are both assumptions based on nothing but belief?

Logic is not an assumption. WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU GETTING THIS FAGGOTRY? Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. IT IS A WAY OF USING YOUR FUCKING BRAIN, AS OPPOSED TO SUBMITTING TO SOME JEALOUS SADISTIC SKY WIZARD THAT DEFIES ALL REALITY.

>And don't come up with the ol' "logic is supported", because it's not.

Logic is supported by its definition, so fuck off. Logic is a framework of thought that if you just learned a bit about... never mind you're an intellectual wreck. Just GTFO.>>2859031

tl;dr False Dichotomy and Full Retard fallacies in full effect from OP.

[Anonymous No.2859117]

>>2859107
Yes it is you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.2859118]

ITT: atheist philosophy is "the ends justify the means"

[sage No.2859122]

Troll or retard

0/10

[Anonymous No.2859123]

>>2859111

> logic is supported by its definition, so fuck off

Man, you're sure sounding like a Christian to me...

[Anonymous No.2859148]

>>2859123

Christian? Because I am arguing that the existence of a concept is supported by the fact that it is defined as a concept, AND IT EXISTS AS ONE. Let me guess; another false dichotomy, right? HURR DURR YOU BELIEVE IN LOGIC WHY CAN'T I BELIEVE IN GOD THEY'RE THE SAME EXACT THING HURR.

This is why I never post and just lurk on this board.

[sage No.2859150]

>>2859123
In general, Logic can be "tested" to actually see if it works. It has countless times and it always works.

\Thread

[Dr. White !!/zv2MTbpUH9 No.2859157]

>>2859111

Actually logic is based around a set of axioms. Look it up. Axioms are fundamentally unprovable, but they are useful and self evident, so OP isn't totally wrong, just kinda wrong.

But saying logic is unfounded is wrong because these axioms are self evident. It's hard to function without them being true.

[Anonymous No.2859160]

>>2858999
the only good reply in this thread
other anons should stop fuckin posting and be ashamed

[Anonymous No.2859161]

Mathematics puts forward a set of basic assumptions about the structure of an abstract universe then builds the rest of the structure from these assumptions.

Now, how are this different from assuming that there is a deity? Simple: a deity is an inessential assumption to make from all observation.

The universe appears natural and does not appear to require a deity. Thus, assuming a deity is an extra complication that neither adds nor detracts from the system. Therefore, we do not assume that a deity exists.

It is like talking about the basic assumptions of set theory then asking what would change about set theory if we added the assumption that a deity exists. Nothing about set theory changes, so the assumption is unnecessary and has no effects.

[SAGE No.2859164]

>>2859148
>no evidence that god exists, nor is there any test you can to do prove god exists

>anyone can easily prove that logic works

0/100000

[Anonymous No.2859169]

>>2859148

I'm sorry, did you just once again state that you're arguing for the existence of a concept X because that concept is defined and... it exists? Your peers who are pulling the pragmatic approach to justifying logic over religion are doing much better than you.

Also, when did "false dichotomy" become another buzzword that people threw in to arguments to spice them up? It kinda turns me on.

>>2859150

Because verifying a fact locally and a finite number of times guarantees it's globally true. The same reasoning applies to "It has never been below 0 Celsius where I live every time I have tested it. Therefore, it must not be possible to fall below that temperature."

[Anonymous No.2859178]

>>2859150

>>2859148 here. Well put, bro. Also, sauce on that video in the motivational. Looks funny.

[Anonymous No.2859211]

Remember that everything is dependent on definition and the values of the subject. Now you're done with philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2859215]

>>2859164
>0/100000
>implying 0/100000 somehow represent something smaller than 0/10

[Anonymous No.2859217]

As a mathematician and atheist I find some of the answers given here (even the ones by fellow atheists) to be a bit misleading. I don't find the comparison between the idea of a god and an axiom to be too bad, it's actually quite good. The only real answer here as to why scientifically oriented people choose the modern axioms of mathematics and related sciences is that they have proven to be useful i.e. we can actually build bridges and computers on which we can have discussions like this. Assuming axiomatically the existence of god is formally sound but no human being was able to demonstrate how this assumption brings anything useful apart from (perceived) self fulfillment (in some cases), which can be obtained by more relevant means by the way. As someone already mentioned above the existence of a god is an assumption which as of yet adds only unnecessary information to my life and doesn't improve it in any way, thus I decide not to make this assumption and concentrate only on those which actually seem useful.

[Anonymous No.2859232]

>>2859217

This guy gets it. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.2859235]

WHAT IS THE POINT IN BELIEVING IN A GOD THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR, A GOD THAT DOES NOT COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, A GOD THAT DOES NOT INTERVENE IN YOUR EVERYDAY LIFE


IF YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD THAT CREATED THE UNIVERSE BUT HAS DONE NOTHING SINCE, YOU HAVE MORE IN COMMON WITH ATHEISTS THAN YOU DO TRADITIONAL THEISTS

[Anonymous No.2859237]

>>2859005
so true
>>2859005
actually, evidence (repliers) suggest that there are stupid people
>>2859005

[Anonymous No.2859247]

>>2858959
"Get shit done" is very vague
order can be carried out, such as a monarchy, theology or whatever easier when people operate on faith alone such as them having faith that you, being a ruler hypothetically, are a god king and nobody need question it or understand why but only do what you are told.

That get's shit done. The only thing that really interferes with "shit getting done" is existentialisms. People who question life itself (no purpose, aim or answer is even needed to begin one's quest down this road) no matter their creed, religion or existential beliefs/answers/affirmations prevent "shit from getting done" because they're busy meditating instead of initiating action which gets le shit done when they are ~ordered~ to do so.

tl;dr the harder worker gets shit done, not logic or beliefs in god. Efficiency is for engineers and one need not be atheist to be an engineer.

[Anonymous No.2859248]

>>2859148

>I'm sorry, did you just once again state that you're arguing for the existence of a concept X because that concept is defined and... it exists?

>Also, when did "false dichotomy" become another buzzword that people threw in to arguments to spice them up? It kinda turns me on.

Yes. There is a difference between "Concept X has never been successfully applied" and "CONCEPT X IS NOT PROVEN HURR". If the former was a claim by the OP, he would have to be insane as logic has conceptually been proven UNIVERSALLY. The latter is being employed by the OP, and the false dichotomy comes in where he poses GOD as a contrast or parallel to the concept of logic. This is an extremely retarded thought because, AGAIN, he is trying to argue the existence of a jealous angry sky wizard who cares about him by saying "LOGIC ISN'T PROVEN!"

[Anonymous No.2859254]

>>2859217
Thank you great anon. You've given me a new outlook on life

[Anonymous No.2859255]

Operating within the assumption that what we observe to be demonstrably true is true is vastly different than positing an un-supported claim. This is because we are within the bounds of our perceived reality, and always have been. While there isn't any objective reason to believe that the world before us is real, it's a necessary axiom to get anything done, because there is no conceivable circumstance where it could be supported.

While this seems very similar to the claim of a specific God, the reason lies in the necessity of the assumption and the lack of arbitrary specificity. In the case of a God, it's an unnecessary concept with unjustified specificity and with conceivable circumstances where there would be evidence or proof of it. It's not necessarily an untestable claim, only framed that way, which is why one cannot be justified for believing it.

Logic follows from the world around us(1 canole plus 1 canole gets you two canoles), and the world around us is assumed to be real simply because there is no conceivable circumstance where we could have more evidence of its reality, and no conceivable circumstance where its reality or falseness could be tested. Even in the case that it is all a simulation or a dream or some such, logic still applies in a testable and consistent way within that unreality and so our conclusions are still valid.

[Anonymous No.2859261]

>>2859217
How can you be a mathematician and an atheist? Numbers themselves partake of the eternal and immutable. Living and thinking in the realm of number is like being close to God. How can you do that and simultaneously deny God?

[Anonymous No.2859263]

>>2858973
Godel disproved logic, motherfucker. Using logic.

[Dr. White !!/zv2MTbpUH9 No.2859268]

>>2859217

Actually, I think I figured out another way in which axioms differ from the claim of God's existence.

Axioms represent relationships, they are almost apriori. However, axioms don't claim the existence of an entity. You can not logically prove what does exist. You can only do that aposteriori, you need observations.

I can not logically come to the conclusion that you exist without first talking to you. I need some experience to justify my claim that you exist. We would need a similar experience to justify the claim of God's existence.

Imagine a closed box. You can not prove using only logic what the box contains. You need to open it to find out.

[Anonymous No.2859272]

>>2859217
>The only real answer here as to why scientifically oriented people choose the modern axioms of mathematics and related sciences is that they have proven to be useful
But that's a lie. They have been used continuously from a time long before they were useful.

[Dr. White !!/zv2MTbpUH9 No.2859279]

>>2859263

No, look up what he actually did. He said that any logical system is going to be incomplete. That's far different from saying that all logical systems don't work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

[Anonymous No.2859286]

>>2859217
You give a bit too much credence in the stance you take here. The specificity of the claim of God is such that it is a good deal more requiring of justification than an axiom, even putting aside necessity. The perceived incapability of logic to dismiss claims of God results simply from the bull-headed nature of those making them.

[Anonymous No.2859296]

>>2859217

God is unnecessary to you because you live in an age where physical utility has been exalted to the former status of God. You've replaced his divine edict with a cultural paradigm and treat it as no less than divine.

[Anonymous No.2859298]

>>2859232
You're welcome. That said, when someone tells me he's a theist he does "loose points" because it implicitly tells me that he has (most likely) never gone through the line of reasoning stated in my post above and from this I infer that he is in fact incapable of doing so and thus of rather low intelligence. I put the "(most likely)" up there because there are of course certain individuals that have very much gone though this thought process and additional ones and still settle for the theist view. These individuals are usually very interesting conversational partners or just out to annoy me which is fine too :)

tl;dr What annoys me about theists is the lack of skepticism and ability in logical thinking most of them display (of course referring to those that I have met so far in my life).

[Anonymous No.2859302]

>>2859279

Basic first order logics are complete and consistent.

[Anonymous No.2859308]

>>2859248

Logic has not been universally demonstrated. That's the whole point of the thread. It's a useful tool, yes. It's a useful way of thinking, yes. That doesn't mean it's true. By the same token, religion and God are useful tools in that they bring meaning and peace to many people's lives. That doesn't mean they're true, either. I'm not trying to convince you that God exists. I'm trying to get you to step outside your narrow channel of thinking and view these things in the abstract. Religion has uses, but they lie outside of science and mathematics.

[Anonymous No.2859320]

This thread is not supposed to be here. There is a rule saying specifically that no science vs religion threads are allowed.

[Anonymous No.2859321]

>>2859296
When you say "physical" you actually mean "". That's because physical can be used to describe everything and thus is a useless term that only finds purpose in the hands of those who want to elevate a flawed concept to a place where physicists (those who deal with what actually exists) cannot touch it.

[Anonymous No.2859322]

>>2859308

Logic outlines the rules for the consistent use of language. Logic cannot err just as the rules of a board game cannot be false.

[Anonymous No.2859340]

>>2859322

No, that would be grammar.

[Anonymous No.2859342]

>>2858903

Consistency and/or completeness of logics can be proved.

inb4 Gödel

He only showed that systems that are complex enough are _either_ incomplete _or_ inconsistent. This means we can create systems that show us a great part of truth, not all, but enough.

[Anonymous No.2859344]

>>2859261
As mentioned above, mathematics works so far without an axiom dictating the existence of a god.
>>2859268
That's a good point. But since there are many axioms that postulate the existence of something (axiom of choice is an example) I don't see how this disrupts the supposed comparison between axioms and the idea of a god. But for me it's irrelevant anyways because you can also assign usefulness to both and this is where the gist of the story lies for me.
>>2859272
What you're saying is actually a lie. Mathematics was first "invented" in oriental countries because of the need for a secure measuring and pricing system when dealing with goods. Obviously there are phases where mathematics has no application but that's a whole different story and an answer can easily be given to that as well by simply observing history: many times seemingly useless mathematical concepts turned out to have unexpected applications that positively influenced our lives (there were negative ones as well but if that's your argument the only conclusion is suicide (probably)).
>>2859286
Probably, though I'm not sure I completely understand your statement.
>>2859296
Uh yes, it's kinda what I said...I think.

[Anonymous No.2859352]

>>2859320
Which part of this thread even discusses science?
you didn't read

[Anonymous No.2859361]

>>2859342

Proved... using what?

[Anonymous No.2859362]

>>2859320
fucking idiot, mods and janitors start these threads a lot of times, typically the more successful ones because they know what kind of idiots all of you are.

[Anonymous No.2859374]

I don't really get the troll's world view.

Trolls need to get their lulz, ok.
Normal people fucking hate trolls, ok.

There are dingleberries in trolling (and being a faggot as well). What now?

Trolls are posting in wrong threads trying to flame about religion, but at the same time, the whole system of threads and boards (threads are branches of boards) is made to keep their faggotry out of /sci! That is, the bare foundations of it, OP is a huge faggot!

So my question is, why does OP ask questions that have roots in logic and are answered quite simply using logic, when logic makes perfect sense and God doesn't?

And don't come up with the ol' "OP's question is perfectly non-faggotish", because it's not.

[Anonymous No.2859379]

my question is, what percentage of this thread is actually serious and what percentage is trolls?

[Anonymous No.2859380]

[SAGE No.2859386]

>>2858903
NICE TROLLIN BRO

[Anonymous No.2859390]

>>2859380

Too bad I'm viewing this thread as a mission to get some thought about the philosophy of logic and science more than anything.

[Anonymous No.2859401]

>>2859321

The idea that only the physical exists is the result of a definition of reality in which only scientific facts exists. This is the only the modern worldview; it is no more correct than the definitions of the past.

>>2859340

Logic is a type of grammar.

[Dr. White !!/zv2MTbpUH9 No.2859403]

>>2859379

I'm being serious, but then again, my Troll meter needs calibration. I tend to take Poe's law a little more seriously. For all I know, this guy has a serious question. Not everyone knows the answer to everything.

[Anonymous No.2859406]

>>2859361

I can´t remember to be honest, read this some years ago. If you study Gödel´s incompleteness theorems you´ll see what he used. That guy was a genius.

[sage No.2859407]

>>2859390

[Anonymous No.2859409]

>>2859296
>his divine edict
*is* a cultural paradigm (or meme) enforced by the Greek editors of what some call their 'bible' (book), which is a forgery done for socio-political control.

[sage No.2859412]

>>2858903
WHY /SCI/ IS SHIT = THIS THREAD

[Anonymous No.2859417]

>>2858903
7/10

[Anonymous No.2859421]

>>2859401
The alternative world view is that whatever you want to exist does, just because you want it to. When you say "scientific" you actually mean "justified" and "demonstrably correct".

[SAGE No.2859432]

So /sci/ is the easiest board to troll then?

[Anonymous No.2859441]

>>2859409

True, however, the cultural paradigm allows for the existence of literal divine truths. It was written that God exists and his word is divine and so it is.

The modern world view cannot say so much.

[Anonymous No.2859471]

>>2859421

Any alternative worldview in which "exists" is meaningful necessarily places a criteria which excludes something from the domain of existence. Not everything can exist, just because you want it to. It must follow some sort of underlying logic.

By scientific I mean empirically verifiable.

[Anonymous No.2859473]

>>2859441
And why would the claim of absolute truth lend any more value? The value lies in the actual closeness of something to the truth, not how close it claims to be.

[Anonymous No.2859482]

>>2859401

In the sense of "provides rules for construction of true statements in a particular formal system", then yes, that's not a matter of true or false. But when someone says "logic hasn't been proven", they really mean "this particular formal system has not been verified to represent an accurate model of the universe", and since all we have is a finite collection of data and subjective experience to refute that (and it becomes a horrifying explosion of mathematical/scientific philosophy that my retard brain doesn't want to entertain right now), I'm going to go outside and read a book, because I had to step out for a moment and just realized how fucking nice it was outside. G'day, gentlemen!

[Anonymous No.2859486]

>>2858903
>I don't really get the atheistic world view.
There is no atheist world view. It is just the disbelief in deities.
/thread

[Anonymous No.2859488]

hey atheist's if god doesn't exist then how come this thread still exists?

[ ]not told
[X] told
[XX] double told
[X^2] the silk told
[XXXXX^^3] naoh saving evolution from the great told

[Anonymous No.2859505]

>>2859471
Thank you for agreeing with everything I just said completely and in contradiction to your previous post, I guess?

[Anonymous No.2859519]

This post contains a false statement.

[Anonymous No.2859528]

1 apple added to 1 apple = 2 apples.. . Your hypothesis that mathematics and algebra is unsupported by a consistent relationship to reality is flat out false..

Secondly.. Atheists only say -- again-- that your claim that god exists has no proof, things which have no proof can be dismissed with no proof.

Also not /sci/ so you will be hammer banned..

[Anonymous No.2859553]

>>2859473

That the truth is absolute is not important. The important bit is that the truth is divined by a being which cannot err. In this system you can have a true definition of reality.

In the modern view where a truth is empirically determined it makes no sense to have a correct definition.

>>2859482
>But when someone says "logic hasn't been proven", they really mean "this particular formal system has not been verified to represent an accurate model of the universe"

Irrelevant. Language models the universe. Logic models language. When a model is incorrect it is not because logic is incorrect, but instead that our language has made incorrect assumptions.

language is to physics as logic is to mathematics

[Anonymous No.2859603]

>>2859505

I don't agree with you. To define is to limit and words without definition are useless in discourse. For exist to be meaningful it must be exclusionary. Past usages of "exists" imposed limits on its usage.

The scientific usage is not better than the others if we are to judge within the scientific system. It can't be.

[Anonymous No.2859636]

bump

[Anonymous No.2859683]

>>2859528
>doesn't define what an apple is
>doesn't define what numbers are
>doesn't define what added means
>doesn't define equivalence
>doesn't define hypothesis

same shit different toilet
washes hands on jeans

[Anonymous No.2859695]

Who the fuck has to define what a fucking apple is every time they are debating.. Your argument is retarded philosophical ejaculation go masturbate on your mother and shoot yourself in the phace for being so retarded..

Christfags :0

Atheists : 1000000000001

[Anonymous No.2859747]

>>2859695
>retarded philosophical[...]
this is exactly why nobody takes you guys seriously

you shit all over the traditions and hard work it took for to enjoy the "logic" and "definitions" you take for granted and think you don't need to know anything about.

it's just like the hippie scumbags spitting on the people who fought for their freedoms in Vietnam.

You butthurt and brainwashed atheists that hang-out on /sci/ just can't handle the real world problems which modern day mathematicians, scientists, theologians and philosopher's alike have to solve for humans to improve their quality of life.

[Anonymous No.2859762]

you're right I shit on your traditions.. You follow someone blindly, for no reason with no proof.. I put my penis in your mother marry, fuck her till her brains pop out then she cums out Jesus all over the floor.. Who I then throw against the wall until he stops moving, Chop off his head and use it as my totem pole.. Yea I do much more than shit on your inane religious beliefs, I curb stomp them for the lolz

[Anonymous No.2859765]

>>2859747
All that holds so long as the philosophical argument is valid and useful, rather than the long winded equivalent of a "no u", on top of being incorrect.

[Anonymous No.2859789]

>>2859765

babby can't think

[VelikiDrMr No.2859825]

We made a+b=b+a the same way me made "Sun" mean "That big ball of fire that sits in the sky". From there, we derived more complex equations. As for God, someone just came and said, "There's this dude, and he decides everything. Don't fuck anything up.". And people don't like the fact that they aren't in any kind of control.

[Anonymous No.2860266]

OP here.

Successful troll is successful.

This is a worthy debate issue, though. But wow, this thread fired up beyond my wildest dreams.

[Anonymous No.2860388]

So when you can no longer argue about the evidence for god, you revert to saying that "evidence and logic are unprovable, therefore God exists". Oh how low you theists have stooped..

[Anonymous No.2860399]

>>2859762
no you shit own your own traditions of logic and you follow yourself, moreover your own logic, blindly

I walked away from this thread knowing you weren't going to provide a decent argument and I was right, here you are giving me some pee-wee herman routine.

What gives you the idea that those judeo-christian icons have any sentimental value to me? Wait you probably don't care because you're going to assume everything you say is right anyways because you don't need to define or prove anything.

I'll checkup on you tomorrow if this thread is still here.