Do you believe in God?
Who made you? I mean who actually made you.
Not your parents, because parents don't pick their kids. Not nature because nature is blind and unconscious, the trees and sun and elements didn't pick you.
Who picked you?
Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in God?
Other urls found in this thread:
Do you think you are so important that someone is looking after you every moment of your life?
Things don't self-create and come out of nothing for no reason, also things don't just happen by "chance", chance is an illusion, nothing is arbitrary
You would be hard pressed to prove that anything happens FOR a reason.
Explain who and how creates this funny pattern.
subatomic particles literally pop in and out of existance from nothing all the time
That's where you fucked up. Nature, by evidence of our existence, has conciousness as one of it's constituent parts.
Everything in the universe came from within the universe. Why would you think conciousness is not the same? Because you have a fat ego and are too dumb to realize you are the universe experiencing itself.
No they don't. They appear randomly on our measurement devices because our devices are not yet fine enough to pick them up in motion. We can say where a particle WAS but we can't say with any certainty where it will be, or even presently is.
yes, they do - we have an aparatus capable of showing that
Why do you feel unloved?
Why are you sidestepping the question?
They are not appearing from nothing. The article itself admits that we can never know where a particle is past a single point. So no matter how much we try to create a sterile testing environment, we still haven't been able to. I refuse to believe this bunk science about magic particles that break the laws of physics and instead hold firm to the real possibility that these experiments were imporperly conducted or at the very least improperly reported on by the writer of the article.
You are an illusion, the me is completely helpless.
they do, in fact, come from nothing. Your refusal to believe is irrelevant - u r just wrong
praise the LORD
no imaginary friends, I like science.
so to recap: no1 gave any evidence for god still
assuming nature has laws, heh? who was the law giver who designed them.
check mate fedora
i'm not familiar with this equation but I heard it uses fuckery to get the right result, a property (imaginary numbers) that can be applied to a lot of numbers to get that result.
is this true?
Natural selection picked me so that I could sit here, play video games and drink soda and you can ask me where I came from. I came from biological function, not a mystic hoodoo man that no one can see.
u mean the universe?
this doesnt prove god
Natural selection is the exact opposite of chance, and is proof that no "higher power" is needed.
If you were merely a "believer" it would.
Hell, anything could!
It can reach a local maximum of adaptation variable, but not the universal maximum unless after the run time approaching infinity.
u r right in this
if yu fer exampel at dis equasion den you u see da BEUTY of MATH AND GOD and lisen naw you c it all PERFEC so gawd iz realz athiestz.
Luckily, I already believe.
You will go to hell and burn forever.
why do u believe?
Becuz iz so obvious.
I ams ejucated. Pubic skool. Cherch. Dey dun tot mi.
No belief here, ask me anything.
Why are you such a faggot?
Are you really attracted to frogs?
I just like to soak in their water.
I like to watch them spin.
Some ITT would like to make a mockery of God.
God will not tolerate insubordinance.
Agreed. I'm responding to him right now.
Dis gun b gud!
I am an Orthodox Christian and I think that ultimately the belief in God is driven by faith alone. However, I'm not a deist. I believe that the relationship between God and the material world is like the relationship between a computer and the program it is running. Some secularists theorize that our entire world is merely a simulation on a machine of some sort. But how, using the rules and logic of that simulation, could you prove that you are in a simulation? It can't be done. That being said, it is impossible to prove God's existence using common logic. My faith in God comes from the historicity of The Bible and how strongly I agree with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Orthodox Church. Even if I were to lose all faith in the existence of God, I would continue to practice Christianity because I so strongly agree with its doctrine and values.
god is in your pants
the only question is, front or back?
1) You want to believe in something that has no evidence except a book that was written before science was in use. And was changed to hype and exploit/oppress the naive nature of trusting humans, that just want to have a good life. And all of the contrary evidence is freely available to research, and you choose not to amend your belief.
2) What is the difference between orthodox christian imaginary friend, and regular christian imaginary friend.
he made the only reasonable argument a religious person can make.
he believes because he wants to believe.
you believe in science because you choose to believe in science.
you believe that religion is a scam because you choose to believe it's a scam.
Wrong, ask romans or greeks.
You mean Descartes ways? science is older than that.
reminder that middle schoolers are currently on spring break
it sure feels like it
I don't believe in science because belief is not a prerequisite to understanding reality.
I don't believe in religion because it's a fairytale for stubborn children.
If you can reword your response to actually be read, I will give an answer.
1) There is no contrary evidence. It is so immensely difficult to prove a negative (with the exception of mathematics) there is nothing that could ever be said to disprove the idea of God. And if you're going to dismiss the Bible, you also need to dismiss historians from around the same time like Pliny The Lesser and Josephus.
2) The number of differences between Orthodoxy and any other given sect are so great that entire books can (and have been) written on the subject.
Maybe you should focus on graduating high school. And work on your reading comprehension while you're at it.
you sure showed them that they were right
Wrong. Science is nothing more than the application of human logic, so if you are to believe solely on the sciences you must have faith in human logic which is immaterial and cannot be proven.
ok kiddo lemme blow yer fuking mind
It is imaginary, because it is imaginary.
How very insightful
I can prove reality is real trough mathematics. Your religious cucks have yet to prove God, by using maths.
But you can't prove mathematics because it's immaterial.
Enjoy your mental illness, I know you do.
LMAOOOOOO you sure showed those religicucks!!! xDD
Mathematics is a visual representation of pure logic, which *does* exist.
I was talking about romans from Rome, not romas from the saddest part of India and i was talking about Descartes the guy, not the meme.
Atheism isnt a belief? fedoras arent religious atheists? If atheism isnt a religion then atheism is the cheapest rip off of buddhism.
Actually Godel did it with a mac, then liberals noticed that they just removed both legs with a single bullet and censored everything, God isnt ilogical like fedoras believe.
Actually all non blacks school mass shooters are atheists and the consensus is that they all have mental issues.
If you're referring too maths being immaterial, in the sens ethat numbers can only exist on the paper, that is somewhat true. But, numbers are mental representations of the real world. Numbers have effect in the real world, they shape it in every way imaginable. You have enginnering, art, physics, etc. God on th other hand, has no real effect over the world.
I don't have to show mental illness anything, they have to show me their god first.
Show me where logic is.
but how can you trust logic to be true?
how can you know if anything you sense is real?
1+1=2, therefore 1+1 can never = 4
So because you wrote something down that makes it true? You're using logic to prove logic. That's like using theology to prove theology.
This is what I'm saying.
Actually you can make that, math has a lot of problems.
Easy there Descartes
See? atheism is a belief.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a diety
Atheism is the belief in the lack of a diety.
These are legitimately the worst threads on Holla Forums, every time.
We don't know and we will ever know, because it's imposible to find that answer. You can chose the theory that most suits you, there's many, especially these days.
If your point is correct then you are a buddhist.
Blame autism, not me.
I studied philosophy with Pierre Grimes.
Atheism isn't a word if god and religion is imaginary, but I do agree that mental illness is still very prevalent in humans. I'm up on the school shootings as well and that is more of a question for anthropology and sociology, because the drastic changes in society has provoked their behavior.
What's wrong? Can't handle the philosophical bants?
So then, you don't believe there is no god?
Take two one pound coins, you now have two pounds. Two one pound coins can never be three. Pretty simple.
if there is some sort of all powerful being, then hiding from us would be trivial, he is unprovable
if there is some sort of ephemeral selfstuff that moves on when your body dies, it is not of something we can detect or know of, but it could be of something else that we just havnt found
if the soul does exist I posit that it either resides inside or somehow send signals to the brain, which would explain why brain damage can cause personality change, its not reading the soul correctly anymore
No, no you can't
I really can't
Autority phalacy or a joke?
Then we are talking about buddhism again.
Thats tricky, i dont want to sound like a Holla Forums tard, but media is changing and pushing changes, we passed the 'natural thing' long ago and now we are facing a tech based on that knowledge 'social warfare', 'antropology weapons'.
We have the word God and god, then gods for a reason, your question is loaded.
"Try Google" is like when SJWs say "Educate yourself". It means you have no idea what you're talking about.
But can you prove a purely logical statement like that all bachelors are unmarried with empirical evidence?
No it isn't. You are dodging it.!
you fail to understand the argument.
how can you know the coins weigh 2 pounds? how can you know 2 is 2? how can you know a pound is a pound?
Can you prove with observable evidence that is and always will be right forever and ever?
hey man he so hung up on tha wave particle duality he don evan kno bout dat matter energy duality gnomesayan
because we defined the weight of a pound you doublenigger
i didnt read any post in this argument except for this one that im replying to so this has no bearing on the argument itself but your example is retarded and you should feel bad, unless there is some point in the argument that i didnt see that elaborates on what youre trying to say and actually renders me the idiot here
Pierre Grimes and you questioned me about Greek and roman science, Pierre Grimes pseudo dionysius, plato, aristotle, and of course Alan Watts. I'm not talking about buddhism or Daoism. An idea is a concept, a concept is imaginary unless there is a substantial proof beyond a story.
Right, they feel the need to go to war for their manhood.
I think what the other poster is trying to say is that if you are going to rely strictly on empirical evidence (like so many reddit fedoras say they do) you have to empirically prove that all pounds are the same and that 1 is always 1 and that 2 is always 2 etc. because doing otherwise is relying on logic which is immaterial and unprovable.
Every user ITT should read this book
that's a rather nonsensical point t b h
furthermore thats another nonsensical point about logic being immaterial. there is literally no way to compare two objects without using logic
I meant pounds as in GBP, Great British Pounds
How can you knw a dog is a dog? A cat is a cat?
That's the whole point. You can't rely strictly on empirical evidence for anything. But at the same time, you cannot empirically prove logic.
We've defined them as such.
Then a pound is a pound, because we defined it a such? What is the problem?
Yes you can, retard. Empiryal evidences are absolute truths, based on measurements of reality and nature.
it seems like you consider the pound to be some universal truth that was discovered instead of some arbitrary measurement that was accepted by large organizations to standardize descriptions within and between them
youre either being retarded or presenting yourself in a retarded way
it's arbitrary, but self-consistent, which is the point.
But definitions have no basis in reality, they are abstract.
Can you empirically prove that empirical evidences are absolute truths?
Do you see where I'm going with this yet? Eventually you have to fall back on logic which cannot be empirically proven because it is on principal abstract.
You doubt makes no sense. Because a pound is just a definition. It could be called "a turdmeter", it doesn't matter. What matters is the number associated with that name, the wheight. You do know that a pound is not the same thing as a kilogram, right? Two different things. But their definition is not important, thats just a way to define that number that is associated witht he objet beiing measured.
youre not making a clear point anywhere here so i'll point you back to this post
where i said youre either retarded or being trying to make a point in a retarded way
No I believe in Allah and his messenger Mohammad (PBUH) You should all follow the teaching of the Quran
i tried to follow the teaching of the Quran but jim deleted my board orz
But empirical evidences prove themselves. Look, an example of empirical evidence is "If you put a bowl of water on a fire, that water will boil."
I really don't see where you are trying t get.
Being a non english soeaker, i'm doing the best i can. I'll try again.
Yes, the lbs is a definition used by organizations to standardize not descriptions, but to standerdize quantifications of objects in the real world
/islam/ still exists. Come home, white man!
He was making a pedo joke, retard
Yes Mohammad (PBUH) Was very white. It is spoken about in the Hadiths
descriptions was used to mean quantifications of objects my dude
That is empirical evidence in tandem with logic, if you were going to use empirical evidence alone, you would have to prove that the water would always boil when placed over a fire. Which could only be done if you observe every single instance of a bowl of water being boiled over a fire, which obviously cannot be done. You use logic to determine that because you placed a bowl of water over a fire and the water came to a boil that it will happen every time. But you cannot empirically prove that it will happen every time, therefore your logical assumption (that a bowl of water will always boil when placed over a fire) cannot be proven with evidence.
I don't know what to tell you then.
Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).
You doubt the whiteness of Mohammad (PBUH)?
fixed that image using corrent astrophysical derivations
maybe that youre sorry kek
and suck his dick
Yes I know that. How does that post imply that I don't?
No i'm actually not sorry. In order for that, i woukld have to be wrong
Thats the definition on "empirical evidence"
you were wrong though. both about your misunderstanding of english which contrived the discussion as well as arguing that logic must not be necessary to abstract the results of historical empirical testing to predict the results of newly performed activity
viz., how might you argue that the results of you boiling a pot of water tomorrow be informed by the results of you boiling a pot of water yesterday
I guess I don't understand the point you're trying to make. As far as I can tell, I did not misuse the term 'empirical evidence'.
Becasue you would be using the same methods in every experience. If you ut a bowl of water on a fire and the water boils, it is safe to assume that the same thng will happen everytime you put a bowl of water on a fire.
We're not saying that logic is not necessary to come to accurate conclusions, we're actually saying that it IS but logic itself cannot be proven with observable evidence.
Basically scientific materialism when taken to its own logical conclusion destroys everything we know to be true because all true statements must utilize both empirical evidence and logic.
But that raises the question "What is logic?"
But why is it safe to assume that?
The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
Because, and assuming the conditions are always the same, (those conditions being the existece of fire and a bowl of water), the outcome must forcibly be the same, every time.
So, logic is the observationo of the world?
Can you prove that with empirical evidence? How can you be sure that there wasn't an instance where someone put a bowl of water over a fire and it didn't boil?
No. That's empiricism.
yes i can prove it empirically.>>7862016
It assumes you diidn't take the water out of the fire, before the boiling point.
But you haven't provided any empirical evidence for this. You have to prove with physical observable evidence that the water will always boil when placed over a fire. The argument you are using right now is a purely logical one and not empirical.
That is, if you are trying to prove scientific materialism.
Look dude, stop acting dense. You're a fucking retard.
Great, useful observation. Fuck off and let the grown ups debate, okay?
What im tryint to say is, no matter how many times you perform the same experince, using the same methods, the result will always be the same. Nothing could be more simple than this.
And I'm saying you can't empirically prove that. Don't you see the implications here? You can't rely solely on empirical evidence, you MUST use logic in tandem with it. And because logic is immaterial scientific materialism is invalid.
A part of God is in every person, we are like miniature creators.
A desire to be self conscious
I still have vague memories of astral projection that's how I know. I used to have a lot of OBE's when I was a kid. Reality in other dimensions is at higher stage, it's like waking up from a dull dream, but the dream is this 3d dimension. If you wonder what happens after you "die", most of the people return to exactly the same place they came from. One reincarnation is way to short to earn your self a spot in different place unless you do something exponential. I believe in a evolution of soul and that we're in a right place at the right time to earn needed experience. Many reincarnations happened before, many will happen again. There's no time only constant present. The eternal OM.
Logic isn't immaterial. Let me copy and paste something:
But that is a purely logical statement and not empirical.
it is both
No it is not, because you haven't presented any empirical evidence to go with it.
You're empirically a fuckin' cunt
i think more than his point is lacking logic
The absolute STATE of new atheism
yes you are
Is this how religious folk win arguments? Victory through ignorance?
user wants empirical evidence for everyday experiences
You can't prove that he doesn't constantly chug horse semen
No, but logic ditates that he most likelt does
if your empirical evidence indicates that you always chug horse semen you must have used logic to apply those results to this case, otherwise that empirical evidence is inapplicable to everything and is essentially useless
even science doesn't say this
Are you a scientist.
Well, well, well, look at this. A religion thread. I've seen bait after bait thread posted for weeks with very few replies, but someone posts the oldest bait genre on the internet and look how it blows up. lol some things never change. I know much of this thread isn't super specific to Christianity, but I just want to put my 2 cents in. It's like the internet was made for fedoras and christfags to tear into each other.
Seriously though, the Bible and many other religious texts aren't meant to be read literally, but both religious dogmatism and fedoraism are types of autism that cloud the eyes. Recognizing that once taken literally, these stories are nonsense and full of contradictions is the first step to discerning their true meaning, but atheists are often the result of damaging a person with indoctrination and authoritarianism, so instead of adopting a clear mind, they swap one dogma for another as a defensive reaction. The Old Testament, for example, doesn't tell the story of a one true God and the chronicles of a race of chosenites (exceptions may be possible insertions or additions), but that never stopped autistic Jews from adopting it as a kind of ethnic religion and source of energy for a superiority complex.
The Biblical scriptures came from Eastern (and probably some Egyptian influence too) mystery schools that most aren't aware of in the West. If we go even further back, they probably derive from the teachings of the last major worldwide civilization that was concentrated around coastlines and is now under water that some people have called Atlantis. India was able to retain big portions of its civilization and stories after the cataclysm, so many teachings are seen as having Eastern origins. The texts of the Bible were originally used by mystery schools to spread their knowledge in secret. They have esoteric and exoteric interpretations. The esoteric is for those initiated in the secret club to understand, and the exoteric is for fedoras to tip their hats and fanboys to drool over.
It's all allegory, riddles, symbolism, and metaphors.
I am an atheist who is also pro-theist. I don't believe in God myself but I will defend Christianity until the day I day because I understand Christianities fundamental importance to western culture and social fabric
You didn't prove anything and you both talk to much about nothing. :D
my parents becuase my mom fucked my dad and i came out her croch … you never know what apples are in your apple pie , but you do know who put it in the oven and bought the apples
mom and dad op … why do you not have parents or god. you dont deserve parents or god
Soap opera much.
No, but I don't have a problem with people who do.
My mommy and daddy.
No one, you are falling into magical thinking. I am not special and my existence is not some important preordained event etched in the book of a all powerful beings thoughtful plan. Shit just happens yo. The universe doesn't care. It doen't even have the ablitiy to care. Things just are. I just am. No special meaning, no being picked, no plan, things just are until they are not.
Righteous…this guy knows. :D