Prove god exists. No memes

I never made a claim.
Why? Explain.

True. The idea is you can disprove religion, you can attack the books, the history, the blah blah stories whatever. But you can never ever truly know if god does or doesn't exist. You cannot prove that. I guess if you want to try, you can maybe kill yourself and come back to life but nobody is going to take you seriously over your word. You cannot have evidence. This is a pointless argument.

>But you can never ever truly know if god does or doesn't exist. You cannot prove that.
If you can’t prove something, then it’s not true. All of science asserts that.

admit god doesn't exist and be relaxed

>arguing with 15 year olds
either this is a troll thread or he is having his first existential crisis lol

Prove the evolution of theory is correct no science bullshit.

The same way you cannot prove he doesn't exist. dumb dumb. I'm not religious but what you're saying is like some 15 year old had a revelation.

Yeah I should stop but I'm bored so whatever

If you want to even begin, you will need a consensus on who God really is and what he represents.Obviously, there are the abrahamic religions, but even within them which one, why that one in particular, what would you accept as evidence, etc etc

What I'm trying to say is, the scope of discussion is infinite

Attached: anon...png (241x209, 3K)

I don’t have to prove he doesn’t exist, because the fact that you can’t prove it means he doesn’t exist. If you can’t prove that 2+2=5 then there’s no fucking point in me trying to prove that it doesn’t.

based

>I don't have to because you can't
What dumb fucking mental gymnastics is this

>What I'm trying to say is, the scope of discussion is infinite
You just stated that there’s a limited number of religions. Not that you even need to discuss every individual one. If you can’t prove the founding principle of each then there’s no point in glancing over all of them.

Does your brain cut itself off in between x->y? It’s literally the semantics of it. If you can’t prove something to be true, then there’s no point in proving it not to be true as by default it’s not true. There is no middle ground between truth and not truth. Either something is true or it isn’t.

appeal to ignorance; just because he can't prove that there is a god doesn't mean that there automatically isn't. aren't you a little too young to be browsing this website young lad?

Attached: 1466488689584.jpg (800x800, 137K)

>If you can’t prove something to be true, then there’s no point in proving it not to be true as by default it’s not true.
lmfao
>Either something is true or it isn’t.
Not really especially as something that is omnipotent as a all seeing being that you can never disprove god as well as prove him. You're trying to use le ebin science to argue against something that is more philosophical. Jesus christ man. Grow up

Actually what YOU are saying is like some 15 year old had a revelation. Everything we take seriously as a claim in the real world requires some proof. Nobody is going to be ambivalent if you claimed you could time travel, everyone would just dismiss it because you can't prove it, "we" don't need to disprove it.

Perhaps he does perhaps he dont

I dont give a fuck if he she it exists or not.

That is how proof works. If you graduated HS you’d know that. If you can’t prove something then it can be duly dismissed as false until you prove otherwise.

Maybe I was not concise enough.
Let me give you a situation.
Take a small neighbourhood of 250.Same religion, same denomination.
Ask each person who God is to them and why, and I can promise you, you will get 250 different answers.

>as something that is omnipotent
Prove that it’s omnipotent. You continue to make these unsubstantiated claims and act like a pussy when you get called out for them.

>you will get 250 different answers.
Then why on earth would I care about their supposed shared denomination if they can’t even agree on the core principle of it?

>clearly you never graduated HS
yikes, look at that projection. go and Wikipedia what I said; you're spouting one of the most common false dichotomies that people have been talking about for 1000's of years, you aren't bringing anything new to the table here brainlet

Attached: 1539063699129.jpg (400x260, 21K)

>go and Wikipedia what I said
>brainlet

>yikes, look at that projection.
>arguing with 15 year olds

See, that’s what proof looks like. I just proved you’re an absent-minded faggot.

>Actually what YOU are saying is like some 15 year old had a revelation.
>no, you!
yikes...
>"we" don't need to disprove it.
This is the absolute worst argument I have ever heard. Fine for the sake of argument I'll say this. We can't prove god exists. Now let me turn the conversation around. Can you prove he doesn't exist? No? Then why is your claim true and mine isn't? Because I happened to be asked first? That's not how it works. Refer to my post here >Prove that it’s omnipotent.
The concept of god came from books. You can disprove the books all you want, you can do that. Those books show he is an omnipotent all seeing being or someshit. Maybe there is a god there that isn't in any of the books. You don't know and will NEVER know. Stop acting like you can solve everything.

>You continue to make these unsubstantiated claims
My only claim is you cannot disprove or prove. Which is true. You're the one weaseling and being a pussy out of every fucking thing by saying "prove it" when I explicitly said that it's more of a philosophical question that one that you can show with "i fucking love science" or some dumb shit.

you are embarrassing yourself, you can stop replying any time now :)

Attached: brainlet.png (982x704, 155K)

>We can't prove god exists.
Thanks for finally answering the OP. You can leave now.

>you are embarrassing yourself
>makes an entire image macro just to spite me
Leafs really are the worst posters.

>snippiting a part of my post to confirm your own bias
>leaves out for the sake of argument
God you truly are a brainlet

notice how OP doesn't have any arguments and pivots to something unrelated lmao

A

yet you didn't deny any of the things in the image as being incorrect, is that right?
I now declare this to be a troll thread, everyone in it can safely stop replying since the OP is a low energy troll

Attached: 1307536941316.jpg (512x636, 111K)

Attached: 1547679762846.jpg (555x815, 139K)

I don’t debate the mentally challenged. That would be rude.

You don't know how to argue this, there is no "yikes", you are literally arguing like a 15 year old who discovered first order logic.

We dismiss claims that cannot be substantiated in any way, I don't need to disprove your claim because you have not provided any evidence for your claim. I already gave you an example, if you claimed you could time travel I don't need to disprove it, there is no evidence for it therefor it is automatically dismissed. Philosophical discussions about proof don't apply, we value things that can be proven in the real world and dismiss the rest. This is how everything in the world is judged.

We must believe there is a god for if there isn't none of our reality ever happened

There is no evidence of, nor are there any good arguments for
>god
>an afterlife
>morality

Get dabbed on christcucks and mudslimes

Monotheism is based on cult of personality and it originated in Akhenaten's Egypt. Abrahamic religions are basicly Atenism and the "Illuminati" guys are Akhenaten's ideological followers. And it all boils down to psychopathy and celebrating psychopathy. Simple as.

I only yikes your first part of the post. Because essentially. Saying a question like "prove to me god exists. heh, you can't? fucking gottem" is literally the most middle school tier argument I have heard that's been used to tilt religious retards.
>you are literally arguing like a 15 year old who discovered first order logic.
And this is why I cringe at your post because it's also essentially "no, you!".

> I already gave you an example, if you claimed you could time travel I don't need to disprove it, there is no evidence for it therefor it is automatically dismissed
This is also what I said about dying and coming back to life. You may say god doesn't exist but who will believe you? You have no proof either way. That was my example.
>Philosophical discussions about proof don't apply, we value things that can be proven in the real world and dismiss the rest.
Except this is inherently a philosophical debate. You cannot use science and mathematics to disprove a concept like god. This is why when people argue about the very existence of a higher being they use philosophy instead of science. We value things in the real world to be proven because it can be "proven" and needs to be proven. Society and the real world in order to function needs actual "truths" to be able to continue with life or else you and everyone around you will be contemplating everything which is basically what philosophers do. You can prove that a chair exists unless you argue what really "exists" or is "real".

actually i̗̫̥͖͙ am ǵ̯̟̰̤̝̻͉̹̫̱̘͚͞͞o̸̤̯̗̖͔̹̺̯͖̗͚̠̘͙̩̞͉̜͟͡d̨̘͖̘̤̺͇̗͖̻͝ͅ

>Except this is inherently a philosophical debate. You cannot use science and mathematics to disprove

Philosophy is interchangeable with science. It is the love of knowledge. Your religious beliefs are not philosophical, so stop labeling them that way.

>Philosophy is interchangeable with science.
t. Sam Harris
>Your religious beliefs are not philosophical
I said I wasn't religious you dumb dumb. You basically answered yourself. The keyword is "beliefs".

prove that romanians are humans, no memes

You are missing the entire point, the claim of dismissing a person who is claiming the existence of god does not hinge on some philosophical discussion about proof. I don't need to claim that god doesn't exist to dismiss your claim, I apply the same logic as I do to everything else in life, if you can't prove your claim I will dismiss it.

>You have no proof either way.
Again, I don't need proof of anything to dismiss your claim. The "you can't prove God doesn't exist either" line of thinking is not something you have to entertain to dismiss the claim that "God exists", it is automatically dismissed by the criteria we apply to literally everything else in the real world. You can substitute God for any number of scenarios I could not disprove but you could not prove, flying horses, talking to dead, it doesn't really matter, it is all dismissed by the basic logic we function by.

Except my claim was never claiming there was a god. My claim was you cannot ever know. Where is my proof? Well, kill yourself and come back to life. Then you'll know 100% in either way. Oh wait you cannot come back to life once you dead, it's almost like you cannot ever know....hmmmmm
>Again, I don't need proof of anything to dismiss your claim.
Also again, is the whole notion that "i don't need to prove myself, you do" is basically what that image the leaf posted about 20 posts back. Also you keep dismissing everything I've said and going back to the usual line that you've spouted like 4 times already. I understand your post, you don't understand mine because you view everything you can't prove as not truth. This is a very scientific way of looking at things which is good. Society needs that logic to function otherwise nothing ever progresses. However, your applying that to a field in which you cannot use it accurately. It's like using logic to understand belief. You just can't. I'm sorry that's the way it is.

Also one last thing
>it is automatically dismissed by the criteria we apply to literally everything else in the real world.
Isn't particularly true since some countries run on religious doctrine that isn't exactly dismissed.

You cannot know anything ever by the criteria you are setting, there are no ultimate truths in the universe you are describing. And that is why I am telling you I am not entertaining the idea of "you can't disprove it" because you can apply that to any number of things which I would readily dismiss. A student could claim that the universe is just the dream of another student to his professor, it could never be disproved either, but he would obviously dismiss the claim without pondering about the ultimate validity of the claim as true or false.

So you are not really talking about God or belief, but the idea that there is something separate from the logic that we apply in our thinking, that we should accept as legitimate because of some philosophical framework were nothing can ultimately be disproved and therefor are valid beliefs. It is a blindspot of the religious and a blindspot of those who believe this is a valid way of looking at philosophy, it is simply not how humans operate there is nothing really "looking at it scientifically".

Sure, I am talking about the general human experience. Even religious people typically only have a blindspot for their own belief and will rationally dismiss someone who claims he can fly or breathe underwater without ever pondering about whether or not it can be disproven at the highest order of proof.

Rude. >:(

redpilled

unironically believing in the abrahamic god is a bit much

>citing third world countries as representative of your own belief
That about says it all.

>You cannot know anything ever by the criteria you are setting, there are no ultimate truths in the universe you are describing
Yeah that is a part of my point. Some people do think there is no ultimate truths to things if you think about it enough. Like if you ever heard about the argument about the concept of a chair.
>A student could claim that the universe is just the dream of another student to his professor, it could never be disproved either, but he would obviously dismiss the claim without pondering about the ultimate validity of the claim as true or false.
Yeah you would dismiss it but that doesn't mean it's inherently false. Just like you can't just dismiss something and that automatically makes it false is exactly the point of this thread. My point was you cannot know either way but you guys came and responded saying you can know in that you can just dismiss it which in itself isn't really a sound argument at all.
>So you are not really talking about God or belief, but the idea that there is something separate from the logic that we apply in our thinking
My argument, initially, was only about God. It still is to some extent but you've dragged me away from that argument as in one of your posts you began to broaden the question to other topics or fields ex: society, logic, flying horses, or whatever.
> it is simply not how humans operate there is nothing really "looking at it scientifically".
But that is how religion is though. It operates on the entire notion of looking at blindspots. This is why the concept of a higher being is so debated for thousands of years because you cannot prove nor disprove it. It's literally the perfect argument for something like a religion. I was only debating the scientific part because the OP brought it up.
Yes, exactly.

took you long enough to respond. But you're post doesn't make any sense in our convo so I will dismiss it

Well, Romanians are the direct descendants of the Dacians, the founders of the Great Dacian Empire which spanned all across the globe. But after the battle of Atlantis, many Dacians left Earth in order to colonize other planets. So, not only are Romanians responsible for creating civilization on Earth, but also in outer space. I guess calling us "human" would be kind of an understatement.

>Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom
>as godel proved
>without an axiom OR with an axiom that implies impossibility of axiomless proof

Ok, basically, Goes god Exist/Does'nt exist is a debate of faith, and not of logic nor science. If you can't measure him directly, him, or his effect and prove with repeatable experiments that he does exist or not, and even more so, prove that he is the Abrahamic God with a big "G" and not some Greek inspired SkyBearded man, or a multiarmed deity, or an abomination out of time and space itself would be another matter entirely.

As it stands, he is often described as working in mysterious ways, and not affected by time nor our action, ruling as an absolute. So you can't make measurable, quantifiable and repeatable experiments with a theory that has ground to be falsified, then you are making an argument of faith, not reason. And I can't tell you what to believe.

>using a method of studying the physical world to try to prove the existence of the non-physical
is it time for that meme again?

Attached: kundalini.jpg (600x441, 62K)

I am, therefore God Is.

this comment looks like it came straight out of youtube. holy fuck you're retarded, please be at least 14-16 years old and not over 23.

>It's literally the perfect argument for something like a religion. I was only debating the scientific part because the OP brought it up.

There is no “scientific part”. Science is not separate from other fields. Even beliefs can be judged by science. If you have an uninformed opinion, like you do, then it’s absolutely acceptable to dismiss it. There isn’t some pocket dimension applying solely to religion where science doesn’t apply like it’s some fucking SCP just because you want it to.

God doesn't mean religion you brainlet pseud faggot

>God = Christianity or Islam
Retarded brainlet with 90 IQ

t. thinks he’s intelligent because he subscribes to some meme belief like gnosticism

how the fuck are you supposed to get evidence of the afterlife? or even God? you're fucking dead lmao

>Even beliefs can be judged by science.
How can beliefs be judged by science?
>If you have an uninformed opinion, like you do, then it’s absolutely acceptable to dismiss it.
Nice slight jab. Took you awhile to respond to my post and considering you haven't dismissed anything I've said this whole thread you're probably the most uninformed person here.

but how does a non-physical thing meaningfully exist if it's not observable or measurable bro

Easy.

The atheist fears Aquinas.

Attached: First way.jpg (700x6826, 600K)

You are stupid
I'm not religious at all but I believe in God

>Atheists be like "Its all a simulation on da computer its all like code dude woah the big bang code its a simulation and the creator is a-- wait a minute..."
But seriously, believe whatever you want. At the end of the day theists and atheists have argued endlessly about it for centuries and still haven't gotten anywhere. Their entire lifes work has been to debate these things and they still haven't really gained any ground other than releasing low hanging fruit propaganda back and forth in the form of popular culture TV shows and media, etc, which 'converts' a person to one side or the other, for both sides of the argument. All debates never get anywhere and it basically boils down to whether you believe or you don't
A lot of atheists (not good ones) 'arguments' are based on "Yeah dude dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the bible bro ha THERE! God doesnt exist! Lmao sand desert religion in the desert sandals and flipflops and camels dude hahaha god is stoopid" and stuff like that so it's necessary as a reminder that they're attacking organised religion, not the concept of God.

Attacking organised religion on the basis of them being cave dwellers has nothing to do with the concept of 'God' you brainlet faggot

Do thoughts not exist? They're non-physical.

>How can beliefs be judged by science?
If they’re incorrect? Like holy shit dude break open a dictionary or something. You just keep denying everything because you don’t want to put your name to anything. It’s pathetic.

>If they’re incorrect?
How can beliefs be incorrect?

It's so common that whenever you bring up 'God' people immediately conflate God with Christianity, or Islam, or whatever.. and they do this because they have swallowed a life time of anti-religion propaganda in every piece of media they've ever interacted with. (funnily enough, it's always Christianity, it's never Judaism, Islam that they attack)

Atheists are fucking fedora tier retards.

They've been taught to respond in that way because they can't think for themselves and so they attack Christianity instead of the concept of 'God'...... because they are retarded

By being wrong? If you believed that 2+2=5 you’d be wrong. There wouldn’t be any middle ground.

...

How can science prove that your belief in god is wrong?

>mexican cannot grasp the idea of thoughts

>'observable'
>produce measurable physical responses
>appear to be an emergent property of brain physics
eh

So I'm right? You cannot observe thoughts themselves, or measure them. But yet they exist don't they? In your head?
>>appear to be an emergent property of brain physics
Bruh

Now you’re just swerving. You’ve been caught in a lie and are backing up because you realize you don’t even standing to back up a simple point.

lmao you cannot answer my question. See this is exactly what you did the entire thread to me. Sucks don't it

He's not swerving. It's probable that science will never disprove God so how can science prove his belief in God wrong?

Observable means it can be measured and recorded. Even non-physical processes like evolution can be observed. You clearly haven’t graduated HS.

could have turned it into a good thread by posting soyjack quoting the above post

based

Attached: 1484090640540.jpg (1106x1012, 90K)

That doesn't answer me at all lmfao.

In you stated, and I quote, that “We can't prove god exists”. So yes, science would say that it is indeed wrong for you to believe in something that does not exist. You defeated your own argument.

You’re a massive fucking brainlet, bro.

When I say "green" even though we look at the same shade, our perceptions of it are different. The experience can't be measured but we (or at least I) can vouch for its existence. This means that either the scientific paradigm is not complete or that it's limited. Of the two, limitation is more likely as "scientific method" developed as a tool and only later became a reductionist modern ideology. Eventually it got superseeded by post-modernism which correctly pointed out that scientific method and worldview, as an ideology are not complete nor coherent. From here many modern people descended into savagery such as pronouns which are an expression of the post-modern paradigm of rejecting logic. And while the post-modern claim that science isn't coherent nor complete as a worldview is true, their conclusion that therefore reality and logic are fake isn't. The simple truth is that the scientific method was always a tool for a specific set of real ocurences and applying it to everything is woefully inadequate. Because after all to trust in science, you need to trust in the omniscient concept that roots the world in order. And this force is Logos.

Attached: fleeing at the sign of a cross.webm (640x360, 1.43M)

>and I quote, that “We can't prove god exists”.
>Fine for the sake of argument
Do you not understand English?

>From here many modern people descended into savagery such as pronouns

Okay Jow Forums, thanks for your input.

And I used it in an argument. You’re just buttmad you lost it.

You don't understand what for the sake of argument means

Attached: 1443597830384s.jpg (250x238, 11K)