God does not exist.

[Schnell]

Fuck all the athiests i need to learn how to keep my words short and sweet like always u fuckers quote text and respond with a said fallacy. I DONT GIVE A FUCK if its a fallacy answer my questions regardless.

And as always no one actually reads what I said. So ill make it short and simple.

Ad hominem...

I want a response to pascal's wager because honestly just saying his name isnt a counter argument -.- and if you insist it is pleasure me with a personal response.

Pascal's wager is like saying everyone should play the lottery because it is relatively cheap and you could hit the jackpot. I see it as a waste of money.

Look at your theories of the universe creation intellecutuals. YOu will notice that for the entire theory to be plausable the rules you insist the universe holds true would have to not apply at the exact time of the creation.

Atheism is not the same as believing the Big Bang happened, neither is God and the Big Bang mutually exclusive. This also goes for other creation theories.

nothing in science is a fact. yes i said it fuckers their all theories and this is basic knowledge as science is always changing as new things are discovered.

Yes, this is basic knowledge. And as far as I can see, it's not helping your argument.

I am not trying to prove God's existense as it is something that can not be provem or disproven.

Ok.

I dont beleive in zeus buddha or all that bullshit becuase the religions were devised by humans and didnt exist in the first years of humanity so logic will tell you that it is not possible for them to be true.

You make it sound like Christianity is the oldest religion and not one devised by humans. Try to be more wrong, please.

CHERISHING LIFE LAUGHING MY MOTHER FUCKING ASS OFF Do you retards seriously not understand that not existing means life is pointless? why the fuck would you cherish a life that means nothing. What im saying right now is inexplainiable by me but obvioulsly your beliefs would me their is no point in life. sooooo
1.cherishing life would be a waste
2. helping the future would be a waste as their life is just as pointless as yours
3.if you dont exist after death at all then nothing matters past future present would be invalid
4. the definition of life itself would be invalid as non existence completley voids all aspects of life

This has been covered so many times already. Life is more important in the absence of an afterlife, think about that.

State my research lol Their is no way to state my entire logic and thoughts about all other religions but i can show you my process.

1. See when religion was "created" (anything that has no ties to humanitys origins i see as invlid)

Christianity is a relatively new belief, this is not helping you at all.

2. see who created the religion(any religion made and created by a man is automatically invalid for obvious reasons especially ones created by man with no ties to human orgins)

Christianity is created by man. Even if you assume that Jesus was God, he was a Jew who did not create or organize the Christian religion.

3. Look to see where the religion came from

Christianity comes from the most turbulent and war-ravaged area in the world, how does this help you?

4. Look to see their logic behind the religon

There is no logic behind the Christian religion.

5. Look to see how accurate historically they are

I think I smell troll. You can't be serious.

6. Look to see how it was influenced(any influences obviously means the religion is invalid)

Look into Christian history. Please look into Christian history.

7. Look to see the contradictions in theair biblicial philoshophy or txt.

These are numerous in the Bible.

8. Examine who wrote the biblicial philoshophy or txt to see if it is possible to be from God.

There are no accurate records of who wrote the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

When you have done all these things christianity will be at the top of the list for a valid religion.

It scored very, very low when exposed to your supposed standards.


Are you really serious about this? You're making it very easy to show how idiotic your claims are.

 

[hiway_2_hell]

god doesnt exist? how do u think the first 2 people were created.... earth , us... r u dumb?? how could not god exist!

 

[Schnell]

god doesnt exist? how do u think the first 2 people were created.... earth , us... r u dumb?? how could not god exist!

Argument from ignorance isn't accepted round 'ere.

Also, there are perfectly good explanations for how Earth and humans came to be, with no God involved.

 

god doesnt exist? how do u think the first 2 people were created.... earth , us... r u dumb?? how could not god exist!

So who created god then?...

 

[blindkilla]

god doesnt exist? how do u think the first 2 people were created.... earth , us... r u dumb?? how could not god exist!

This made me giggle. You need to look into the big bang theory and evolution.

 

[Schnell]

This made me giggle. You need to look into the big bang theory and evolution.

You don't need the Big Bang theory to explain how the Earth was formed.

 

This seems more accurate to me.

I'd disagree slightly with the scientific method presented here -- while it is the methodology in use, the persistence of bad theories in modern science is testament to obscenity of the practice of modifying premises to match conclusions. (Especially when the new premises are unsubstantiated hypotheses themselves.) I would probably add an extra step where alternative theories are entertained at an increasing rate as the predictive power of the existing theory diminishes. That is: The less able to predict the future the prevailing theory is, the more previously obscure theories are entertained, so rather than a revolution, you have a gradual shift into the new thinking. (I think this is a proper scientific method, but we can debate the merits of both systems if you wish.)

But other than that this is a reasonably good representation of how these epistemologies differ. The key aspect is that reason / science maintains the primacy of existence, while theology maintains the primacy of consciousness. And, as such, there is no way for theologists to improve their ideas because there is no universal standard against which to test, because all ideas are on equal footing if one accepts the primacy of consciousness. Consequently the only means of resolving a fundamental dispute in the realm of theology is violence.

 

[blindkilla]

You don't need the Big Bang theory to explain how the Earth was formed.

Big bang led to the creation of planets. But I guess not if you just how a planet or earth formed.

 

Big bang led to the creation of planets. But I guess not if you just how a planet or earth formed.

Big bang is a creation story. A fiction.

This is perfectly simple to demonstrate. The big bang theory holds that there was no 'before' the big bang, because 'the big bang was the beginning of time.'

1. You can't posit a 'beginning of time.' It's a violation of causality, which you've already assumed is valid in order to begin reasoning.

2. The argument that the laws of physics 'weren't in effect' until after the big bang is in contradiction with the premise that the laws of physics are universal, something the very nature of it's being a 'scientific theory' rests upon.

These contradictions (and others) leave belief in the big bang in the realm of faith. There is no proper standard to determine the truth value of the theory, if causality is rejected and the laws of physics are abandoned. You must have causality in order to have reason. The theory is in fact unfalsifiable as well as being a contradiction.

 

[Backstab555]

Big bang is a creation story. A fiction.

This is perfectly simple to demonstrate. The big bang theory holds that there was no 'before' the big bang, because 'the big bang was the beginning of time.'

1. You can't posit a 'beginning of time.' It's a violation of causality, which you've already assumed is valid in order to begin reasoning.

2. The argument that the laws of physics 'weren't in effect' until after the big bang is in contradiction with the premise that the laws of physics are universal, something the very nature of it's being a 'scientific theory' rests upon.

These contradictions (and others) leave belief in the big bang in the realm of faith. There is no proper standard to determine the truth value of the theory, if causality is rejected. You must have causality in order to have reason.

What created the universe?

What proof do you have that god doesnt exist?

 

What created the universe?

Irrelevant. I don't need a new theory to demonstrate that an existing theory is false.

What proof do you have that god doesnt exist?

Omnipotence contradiction. Contradictions cannot exist in reality. Therefore god does not exist. QED.

 

[Backstab555]

Irrelevant. I don't need a new theory to demonstrate that an existing theory is false.


Omnipotence contradiction. Contradictions cannot exist in reality. Therefore god does not exist. QED.

Why do you belive he does not exist?

 

Why do you belive he does not exist?

I just told you. You even quoted the answer.

Omnipotence contradiction. Contradictions cannot exist in reality. Therefore god does not exist. QED.

If you don't know what the omnipotence contradiction is, then google it? It's also known as the omnipotence paradox.

 

[Backstab555]

I just told you. You even quoted the answer.



If you don't know what the omnipotence contradiction is, then google it? It's also known as the omnipotence paradox.

Oh so your reason is that proof. Ok.

Do you have anything really intelligent to add..?

I have a debate tomorrow on this subject and it would really help me out if you could tell me more.

 

[Denode]

If all theists agreed that all their 'gods' are supernatural beings, then by definition no deity can exist. 'Supernatural' being defined as anything along the lines of "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "

So I would argue these fictional entities are a contradiction by definition. No further evidence required.

Assuming you're right, you're the first person to disprove any sort of deity. Unfortunately, you're assuming that something being "supernatural" is a contradiction, which it in no way is. You're assuming it's literally impossible that metaphysics exist, and it's impossible to prove it does not exist.

You can not prove its nonexistence, therefore there is a possibility, no matter how small, that it does exist, and so it is not a contradiction.

I wish you were right, oh how I wish you were right.

 

Oh so your reason is that proof. Ok.

Do you have anything really intelligent to add..?

I have a debate tomorrow on this subject and it would really help me out if you could tell me more.

The disproof is simple? It doesn't need further disproof. Although if you look you'll find thousands of pages of arguments against the existence of god.

There's no burden of proof on anyone to disprove god, because no evidence has been presented to suggest he exists in the first place.

Assuming you're right, you're the first person to disprove any sort of deity. Unfortunately, you're assuming that something being "supernatural" is a contradiction, which it in no way is. You're assuming it's literally impossible that metaphysics exist, and it's impossible to prove it does not exist.

Yeah you're right.

My point was more along the lines that reasoning about anything supernatural is a contradiction. Because we are assuming a rational world in order to begin reasoning about it.

The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains of being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena.

You can not prove its nonexistence, therefore there is a possibility, no matter how small, that it does exist, and so it is not a contradiction.

I wish you were right, oh how I wish you were right.

It is an interesting topic, I'd have to think more about it. As you correctly point out, it comes down to metaphysics.

 

[shawnvd]

There is no way to prove that God does or doesn't exist, which is why i chose to remain agnostic. Sure, you can prove many religions wrong, but it still does not prove that there is no intelligent being that created the earth.

 

There is no way to prove that God does or doesn't exist, which is why i chose to remain agnostic. Sure, you can prove many religions wrong, but it still does not prove that there is no intelligent being that created the earth.

Atheism can also be either the rejection of theism though.

 

[Bring Me The Horizon]

God does not exist. By sythe's logic and the principal of burden of proof, I do not have to provide any justification to this statement, the onus is on you to provide proof and to prove me wrong.

This logic comes from Sythe himself, as he demonstrates in this thread.

No science can prove that God exists. It's taking a chance. What do you have to lose?

 

No science can prove that God exists. It's taking a chance. What do you have to lose?

Happiness? Fortune? Self-worth? Not being slave to a book of contradictory ideas?