Atheists claim to be logical, yet they don't provide proof for the claim that God doesn't exist

Nobody cares, this board is spammed all day with fedora garbage, do you have proofs of your claims?

Solipsism my dear, it says that everything is a belief (just saying) and for some reason one of those beliefs (atheism) says that other belief (christianity) isnt real because it doesnt have proofs, but a plausible hypothesis says that solipsistic problem can be fixed with the existance of God, in both philosophy and science (science, the irony).

I dont think that i am better than everybody, thats not christian, i am defending poor people attacked by a bunch of cons that believe that they are better than everybody, just check Holla Forums or /lefty/, they hate each other but they are ok even in obvious lies when they have t tip your hats. You are telling me to relax after all that hipocresy? you can prove anything, saying that you arent real is more plausible that saying that atheism is right, the problem is why lies so obvious like "the burden of proof is on christians" is showed on universities, its obvious that a bunch of elites is teaching our children a bunch of lies, i cant be relaxed watching how fine people ruin their lifes for the finite profit of a few evil men.

Here's how Atheism came about. Modern Religious Atheism (yes, it is a religion).

We start with the belief that there exists a God.
Good?
Now, we also believe there exists ONE supreme God who created the Heavens and the Earth.
We're still in axioms here, these are things that we will take as true unconditionally.

Now, we assume that the Universe exists governed by Orderly Rules created by the Divine Inspiration of an Omniscient Being.
We also assume that we as humans can come to some fragile, incomplete knowledge of those rules: we believe that those rules are Knowable, to some imperfect extent.

From the belief in God, we assume that the Universe is Orderly and Knowable. Those are theorems derived from the axiomatic existence of God.

Now, when we look at the world, we come to the conclusion that Human life would come into existence based on that Order and its initial conditions.
Human life is implied by the laws of Physics and the Big Bang.
There is no God in the Universe that we observe.

If we assume that the Universe is Orderly and Knowable as our axioms, human existence is implied by the Order and the initial conditions.
At this point, some people feel that it is okay to cut God out:
If we assume that God exists: we get the Universe as we know it.
If we assume that God doesn't exist: we get the Universe as we know it.
The simpler theory is that God doesn't exist.

Nope, its exactly the opposite.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html

Even if your sophistry is correct we still have the point of solipsism, can you observe? can you control? can you prove? can you explain? the simpler hypothesis, not theory, is that there is something supporting our existance.

Just a point:
Thats the difference between buddhism and atheism, atheism stopped the searching of truth, said that everything is settled and for some reason attacked christianity, its an obvious psy op forced after the Vietnam war on major american population, modern protestatism (zionist americans) is a expected outcome after watching what they did with sacrificed childs after second council.

check

youtube.com/watch?v=jQESa88NIjU

No. We have assumed the existence of the Universe. We have assumed that things beyond "me" exist. And when we assume these things we come to the conclusion that the existence of God, or lack thereof are both not provable by science.

Fair point on the terminology, it is a hypothesis, but I would have to disagree. The absence of the existence of something is a simpler hypothesis.

I think that it's more that Atheism is picked up by edgy, defiant children as a means of being defiant against their parents. Old people control all of the resources of society, and attacking them is an easy way to amass resources (wealth) for oneself. It really is a cross between edgy children trying to be different from their parents and economic warfare against those parents.

If we don't believe anything, we have no reason to exist.
You could make all the claims about God not existing about a good portion of science, but that is stupid cause you know a lot of people are invested in it, why would they be wrong?
Which is btw also true for religion.

You can't prove a negative.

Civilizations throughout history have asserted that God or the supernatural can never be full known.

One, we aren't talking about God, we're talking about the Universe, specifically, the rules upon which the Universe normally runs.
Two, we are granting that we cannot know the rules of the Universe. And, we don't and we know we don't.

I don't know man, but there's nothing wrong with doubting some grand fantasy basically conjured up to hide from existential fears and manipulate the masses. Something greater may exist, but I sure don't believe any bullshit about our vague "souls" or "spirits" being taken to some magical happy land for eternity if we be good little boys.

Cool thread it's like i'm on reddit and it's 2009. Epic for the win eks dee.

That like asking to prove that a zero exist.

meep meep but can you prove that god exists tbh no homo

Actually any scientific proof for the non-existence of God is, a priori, impossible. And even though there is now significant evidence for the existence of God, the implications while strong are still only circumstantial.

You can't dis/prove anything beyond this universe faggots. That's the realm of philosophy, not science.

Every single thing in the universe is evidence of God. Prove me wrong faggots

Argument from ignorance

GTFO

I will grant you this for the sake of argument.
Why? How can anyone come to these conclusions? Would it not benefit a human understanding of the universe to consult with the universe's creator, rather than jumping to conclusions that don't necessarily have any basis in reasoning? What if God created the universe so that it operates in a manner that is totally removed from your initial assumptions? If that were the case, then you'd be working with false premises, and therefore any conclusions that you may draw from them would be incorrect. However, assuming that these assumptions are true, then there is absolutely no way that we as human beings can use our current understanding of the nature of reality to confidently conclude that such a God exists, and therefore it is only reasonable to cast doubt on any assertions that wholeheartedly declare God's existence.
This assumption will then contradict your earlier assumption that the nature of reality is only knowable "in some fragile, incomplete, and imperfect way." Which is it? Can humanity know all that there is to know about the universe or not?
Are you averse to alternative explanations for the nature of our reality? For example, assuming that 1) there is a God and 2) he created the universe, this doesn't necessarily mean that he specifically created humanity for some deliberate purpose. The universe is an incredibly complex system that appears to express a number of unpredictable and chaotic variables that may be able to "throw a wrench into the system" as it were and produce unexpected outcomes. What if humanity is merely a byproduct of some failed implementation of God's universe of which he is unaware? What if we're the proverbial jizz in God's masturbation sock that he never intended to cradle into existence? In short, even under your conditions there are possibilities that don't necessarily align with your assumptions.
Absolutely untrue. We conclude that God doesn't exist because there is an overwhelming lack of evidence to support the assertion that he exists. Nobody's default position is, "I choose to believe that God doesn't exist" but rather, "I have concluded that God is either incapable of or unwilling to express his existence in a verifiable way, and therefore I have no recourse but to conclude that it is likely that he does not exist." If God does exist, and he can verify his existence such that can use it as the basis for our understanding of the universe, then the unified body of human intelligence will be thrown asunder and we'll have to rework just about everything we think we know about the universe. It would be mind boggling and life changing. It would be relieving and incredible, but it's not likely to happen.

Have some pony assholes

gross tbh

the claim is "u didnt convince me with your bullshit due to lack of any science behind what u say"

...

CHECKMATE GIB BANANA PLS

"We" are ssuming things that you cant prove, is sophistry, therefore i cant continue this until you rephrase it.
Everything else was already answered or started with that error.

See this:

A god is something plausible for solipsism, a God too, the terms are vague for the same reason we cant prove anything (i know we can prove something, just saiyan).

Actually for some hypothesis God is necessary and others dont say that He didnt exists.

That ignorance is the proof that we dont know a shit, solipsism again kids.

Oh boy, i am tempted to post Gödel/Einstein bromance.

The existence of Jews is the best ever proof for the non existence of god.
If god existed, he'd never let such pure evil creatures to walk this earth.

Also, think of that :
If god exists and he's almighty, that means he's also all knowing, which means he knows what everyone thinks of, before he knew he'd think it.
If so, why god didn't prevent horrors such as 911 ? Maybe because he doesn't exist ?

...

if godfaggotry is true, there's an obvious advantage to being signed up before the cemetery gets you. if it's false, you just lost your only shot at sexy sunday mornings and the fun of things like violence and drugs

so your imaginary friend is logical now?

...

The universe is proof that God exists.
Stay mad edgy atheists, Christians be getting your girls

If you really believe this, then you're incredibly retarded and you should probably kill yourself tbh

Killing yourself is bad

Everything on this earth serves a purpose. You don't see that as intelligent design?

either god exists or he doesn't
this question cannot be resolved by reason alone
you can hedge your bet on the outcome at a price
what's retarded about that?

Do farts serve a purpose?
If so, is the smell proportional to their efficacy?
I'm asking on behalf of your mom

"Nothing comes from nothing; there is something; therefore, there was never nothing. This something could not bring itself into existence, because to do that it would have to exist before it existed. Therefore, something else had to bring it into existence. That something could not be caused by anything else and is therefore what Aristotle called the uncaused cause and the unmoved mover. Aquinas ends his proofs for the existence of God by saying that this is the being all men call God."

Yeah, that's probably true in most cases, but if you really believe that you can draw meaningful conclusions from your own confirmation bias, then you're an exception.

"Purpose" is often times contextually specific and rooted in subjectivity to some extent (i.e. the purpose of shitposting is that it can be done for the sake of entertainment, and to imply that it has any purpose outside of this contextually specific acknowledgement of purpose is simply not practical). Besides, a thing's utility does not imply intelligent design. A rock can be useful as a paperweight or a weapon, but assuming that God doesn't exist and our universe was just the result of some cosmic process that resulted in our existence, then that rock that you're using was not intelligently designed, but that fact does not somehow make the rock less useful for said applications.

If God exists, then the nature of reality must be contextualized through his existence. If there is no way to verify God's existence, even if he does exist, then he may as well not exist because we cannot detect him. If God doesn't exist, then we are left to our own devices to understand the nature of our reality as best we can through the means that we are able to acquire and apply. In the first case, it doesn't make sense for a benevolent God to assault his subjects for merely using the faculties of reasoning that he provided them with. In the second case, God's absence merely implies that religion and adherence to a sect of belief is ultimately an antiquated method by which beings of the past attempted to contextualize their understanding of the nature of reality.
The "price" is a lifetime of servitude to a cause to which you may not have otherwise been compelled to devote yourself. It's retarded because the religious institution asks the individual to relinquish his chance at some degree of liberty in exchange for the privilege of attempting to acquire a prize that cannot even be verified from the start.

God created OP to shit post?

Its funny to me how atheists invariably are all faggot christians to their cores, its like they needed some way to differentiate themselves from the other frisbee throwing chino wearing church goer fuck boys, so they still go to church with their parents, but they're special because they don't really believe in god.

You" are the one making the claim contary to most people. You are the malcontent, you are the one denying something. You are the one denying metaphysics which most people accept because it's just a reality we've dealt with since we were capable of thinking. Even if it's nothing but some sort of ancient psychological mechanism we developed, even if it is in fact all in our heads, it still exists. Atheists are the ones denying reality and living in a contrived fantasy land where they simply ignore everything they cannot explain. The concept of atheism and "skepticism" doesn't really extend beyond criticizing religion and popular ideas of god and is generally the biggest load of hot air pseudo intellectual garbage out there. Even if'' concepts of god and religion exist only as a social mechanism, it's still valid.

Literally the only point of being an "atheist" or a "skeptic" is to fain a false sense of superiority over others. There is absolutely no value in denying metaphysics and shitting on the common man other than that.

Exactly. They just replace all their low IQ religious tendencies with this reddit soyboy rhetoric to rebel and seem cool

That a shit argument. Even if it was the case that the universe had a cause, that doesn't mean a God did it. You don't have to be All powerful, All loving, All seeing, All good, Everlasting or any other characteristic of God. Its all unnecessary.

wow i really fucked up my text formatting but i blame Jim
fuck you Jim

Yeah, but in that case organized religion is nothing more than another human created faction that has no greater basis in its assertions than any other movement. In other words, people outside of your shitty group don't have to take your word for it when you declare that God exists, and that there are consequences for denying his special rules for living. If you can say that feminists are full of shit for X or Y reason, then that same principle can be used to totally dismantle religion as a whole.

Also, this implies that something else, some other human created organization, can take the place of organized religion and establish itself as some mainstay of contemporary culture
You're really not lending yourself any credibility by coming to nonsensical conclusions like this. You're just as bad as the woman who says that all MGTOWs are virgin beta male cucks who can't get laid, or the feminist who says that all men are rapists. Anyway, can't you be more creative?

religion is an artifact. it's something humans created, like the wheel.

Yeah, but in that case organized government is nothing more than another human created faction that has no greater basis in its assertions than any other movement. In other words, people outside of your shitty group don't have to take your word for it when you declare that your government exists, and that there are consequences for denying his special rules for living. If you can say that feminists are full of shit for X or Y reason, then that same principle can be used to totally dismantle government as a whole.

oh you mean like communism yes that is usually how that works out yes

No i know exactly who i'm talking about, i've been around apart of these groups for a long time before i finally realized why i didn't get along with those people and left. It's not just teens either, this disease of smug extends to all age groups and demographics to some degree. One of the biggest fedora tippers i ever came in contact with was a 35yo mexican man with 4 kids.

and all MGTOWs are virgin beta male cucks

trips do not lie, it is time to get rid of the wheel

...

sure, religion has outlived its usefulness from an utilitarian point of view. the weird thing is, most humans still seem to need it. perhaps we should concentrate on getting those kikes in the oven. i don't come here to think.

Stupid atheists believe God doesn't exist with no evidence.

What does that have to do with anything? We know that government is a man-made institution. The whole point of that statement was to dispel the notion that religious organizations are somehow exempt from being treated like any other human faction just because they're centered around the assumed existence of a God.

so much vegetable itt

Atheism is a religion like off is a TV channel.

epic

The problem is that most Fedora-tipping Athiest types say "God does not exist." This is a claim. Thus, the Fedora tipper has the burden of proof. Their general strategy is then to make an Argument from Ignorance: because they are making a negative claim, it should be assumed that God doesn't exist, therefore they don't have the burden of proof.

It is this kind a fallacious thinking that makes them look stupid.

Atheism is a religion because they take, on faith, the assertion that "God does not exist" to be true. It's something that they can't prove and can't even hold an intelligent debate about.

Here the argument is that if we assume that God exists, we can logically conclude that God does not exist. However, bringing logic and reason into the argument angered the Atheists (like ) because someone wasn't parroting an approved response.

t. (((Heisenberg)))

Nobody says that, though. What typically happens is that theists will make the declarative, "God does exist" and in response the atheist will say, "based on the evidence, it is likely that your claim is not true." The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim, in this case it is the theist who is claiming to know the existence of his God master. You're just deliberately misrepresenting the argument.
wat

epic

denial of metaphysics is not a neutral position kill yourself

You're a faggot, you know that?
metaphysics is a buzzword until you can substantiate its importance in this discussion, which you likely will not do, so eat shit and have a great day tbh

Agnostic tbh

best way to go, why focus on something other than making your current life better

>assumes my sexuality correctly tbh
epic

My point exactly.

Either the Universe exists because it was created by an Omnipotent/Omniscient/Omnipresent being and it was endowed with Order from a Divine Intellect, or the Universe exists with an Order. One of these is a vastly simpler hypothesis.

If we assume God exists, then we can concede that the Universe is imbued with Order from a Divine Intellect.
Once we permit the Universe to have an Order, to have Laws of Nature, we come to the conclusion that human life is a result of those Laws, and not of supernatural origin.
Thus, the Universe in which God exists is identical to the Universe in which God does not exist.
As such, we are free to remove God as unnecessary in describing the Universe.

If God exists, then we can logically conclude that God does not exist.

Because God influences people decisions dipshit.

>

Trying to decipher your nonsensical ramblings is a pain in the ass. However, I'm going to try anyway. You're basically saying this:
P1. God exists
P2. The universe was created by God in some intelligible and organized fashion
P3. Human life is a component of the universe
Conclusion: Human life and the universe were created by God
This is all fine, but you're assuming that God exists in the first place. I don't hold that statement to be true. You have no evidence for God's existence, we're back to the first contention of the tenets of your belief. Then you go on to say this bullshit:
P1. The universe exists
P2. The universe was created by God
P3. God exists whether or not he is perceptible by human cognition
Conclusion: Even though God created the universe, humanity is in a unique position whereby they cannot perceive his existence, but this does not change that God is the author of the fabric of reality.
This has already been addressed. If God exists but we cannot perceive him, then he might as well not exist. In other words, the problem of God can be explained with the age old adage, "If a tree falls in the forest with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The answer depends on your perspective, doesn't it? You could say, "Yeah, the tree will most likely behave in accordance with our expectations, and will therefore produce a sound upon impact with the ground." and this would be accepted as rational. However, you can also say, "Even though the tree will produce a sound, that entire event will be meaningless because nobody will be around to witness it and contextualize it. Therefore, it could be argued that the tree doesn't even exist if it receives no witness to its existence" and that would also be a valid explanation of the scenario. It's the same with God. If we can't perceive him, then we should not even be concerned with his existence in the first place.'

So, answer me this: If God exists, but he is imperceptible to mankind, then why should we give a shit? How can humanity benefit from God's existence? We receive no relevant information if what you say is true.

...

...

...

jokes on you faggot, christ-tan is a dirty whore who gets railed by satan behind yahweh's back

don't act so familiar, fucko

does it make you mad that christ-tan is fedora tier waifu fap bait?

I mean, do you "take on faith" that there is definitely not an invisible, intangible, undetectable dragon that follows you? Or do you simply find the idea unlikely and thus dismiss it?

...

wendy > christ-tan
prove me wrong faggot

lol

you love her, don't try to deny it.

lol

I dismiss the idea. That is not to say that I take a stance on its existence or non-existence. I dismiss both propositions as meaningless. As soon as you start proselytizing or engage in debates, you are taking a stance and have to provide evidence. If your evidence is "Dawkins said so", then you take that stance on faith.

As has been stated in this thread before: when you assume that God exists, then it is logical to conclude is that God does not exist. This is a trivial retelling of how science became an atheist (to anthropomorphize), and your average Atheist can't recount the logic.

Stating it before doesn't make it any truer. If b is true, then b is not true, is absolutely paradoxical as a statement. Can't just drop that kind of nonsense and use it as proof of anything.
Honestly what the fuck am I even reading?

undisputed
god disproved again

Like this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

< Axiom: God
< Proposition: God implies Order.
< Proposition: Order implies Humanity.

Alternatively, we can say:

One of these things is shorter, and thus more likely, than the other. As soon as we give Order to the Universe, God is banished from it. Paradoxically, we gave Order to the Universe because we believed in God.

A negative cannot be proven. You can only prove that something is, not that something is not.

You cant prove that you are real, there is not such a think like a "burden of proof", just hipocresy, then you have solipsism, still you can create models, a God or a god is necessary in lots of them, but i dont know a model that negate the existance of God or gods whitout failing in complicated stuff that can fail.