There's no scientific proof that God exists so he doesn't exist

the problem with the God Hypothesis is that it is not even wrong.

it is unprovable. "god" is not well defined - and the clearest definitions are usually in terms that cannot be tested.

it isn't a scientific hypothesis. it is in fact,meaningless.

it just sounds profound and truthy and hard to understand (so it must be important) but in fact, it is just obscure and ultimately does not signify anything.

it is literally non -sense

no they hate smug theists who tell them what to do based on superstition and fear and power hungry egomania

Radioactive elements and their decay time. I'm not a geologist but are you? Did you study the subject so you are expert now? If you find a geologist he can explain it to you very clearly. I study robotics not really and expert on this topic.

I have a belief in science because when i want to know something about physical phenomena there is many logical explanations and experiments that can prove that it works the way it does. Certainly requires less faith than believing some desert jew 2 thousand years ago was a messiah. These kinds of people pop up every day.

Jesus Christ was without sin, wrongly crucified and rose again, proving that He was God.

Christ's enemies even wrote of Him in the Talmud. Of course they couldn't get away with denying His miracles(because there were so many witnesses), so they claimed He learned black magic in Egypt.

Matthew 10:25
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

The smug isn't from theists. It's from atheists who assume everyone in disagreement with them is 100 points wanting in IQ.

>Radioactive elements and their decay time. I'm not a geologist but are you? Did you study the subject so you are expert now? If you find a geologist he can explain it to you very clearly. I study robotics not really and expert on this topic.

Actually, yes. I do study this. Because it's important to me and I dont want to look like an idiot when discussinf subjects I have such strong convictions in. You should do the same.

Radio-carbon dating is not how we determine the Age of the Earth. But if it was, it would just prove that government grant sponges, I mean evolutionary biology, is a lie.

Attached: download.jpg (225x225, 10K)

so you are quoting ancient superstitious gobblydeegook at me and that proves....

>calls himself well read
>thinks radio carbon dating is used to date rocks.

oh dear.

For example, on the website of the Orthodox Jewish Hasidic Lubavitch group--one of the largest in the world--we find the following statement, complete with Talmudic citations:

"The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus the Nazarene':

1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).

3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh, which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).

End quote fromnoahide.com/yeshu.htm(Lubavitch website) June 20, 2000.

[Note: we have printed and preserved in our files a hard copy of this statement from the Lubavitch"Noah's Covenant Website," as it appeared on their website atnoahide.comon June 20, 2000, in the event that denials are later issued and the statement itself suppressed].

You know that there are pretty good con artists today right? There is many tricks which seem impossible to be faked yet they are fake. But why should you be afraid of some magic man in the sky just because some retarded theist claims some stupid shit. The most annoying thing is that theists want us to just accept their faith and won't let it go. This is why so many of us are frustrated.

Can you read? I just said that radiocarbon-dating is not how we determine the Age of the Earth. YOU said that.

And FYI, the half-life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years.

study like you read an article from some dumbshit that made it up? man this is getting really tiresome. I don't pretend i study something unless i'm attending that subject in college. Post some books from geologists you read about that subject will you?

Jesus Christ is not a conman. The idea of God simply would inconvenience your current lifestyle and that's why you cling to the hope that you are the god of your own universe.

Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

No. He was a good conman prove to me he wasn't a conman.

Ok kike, either stop talking about subjects with an air of authority when by your own admission you know nothing, or take the time to refute what I show you. This isn't a classroom and I'm not your mom.

Attached: Slide0222.jpg (300x201, 25K)

You are just trying to force your convictions on me without any proof. And I reject it. Why can't keep you stupid convictions to yourself? You have to annoy people with them. And then you say you are "educated" when you read some internet articles on the subject. How come Geologists believe that the earth is as old as it is? Do they know less than you about the subject? wow you some kind of Einstein?

>kike
wow very nice. Post books you genius. I don't pretend i know stuff i don't but you do.

1st of all, we were discussing whether God even exists. The 2nd step is determining which god (Jesus, Allah, Vishna, etc.)

Otherwise I will go into a hole about Jesus and you will say "pff well God doesnt even exist". Atheist brainlets do this, youre not the first.

Yeah i will because there is no proof to existence of any god. If there was there would be no atheists.

the previous poster said radio active decay. You specified radio carbon dating.

he was not referring to carbon dating. he was referring to dating rocks by radio active minerals.

now maybe you were a little ambiguous - but why did you mention carbon? no one else did, and it is not relevant in dating rocks.

>worshipping the statements of men withour excercising any independent thought or personal assessment of empirical evidence.

Boy, sounds like you're religious.

And "why can't we keep our convictions to ourselves?" Because we are commanded to preach the Gospel. I wish I could say it was because I loved you, but I am definitely imperfect and find myself hating a lot of you atheists. Not gonna brag about my smarts, I will try to keep everything 3rd grade level.

Very Wittgenstinian of you. Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann daruber mus man schweigen.

Stop making christcuck threads, mods ban this faggot. He's spamming the shit out of Jow Forums with this braindead garbage.

don't you mean whther it is possible for A god to exist? then pick one?

otherwise you need to do it the other way round - the various religions say only theirs exist, so you need to pick one first then argue for that one.

Radiometric dating is the general category all of those things fall under and they are virtually interchangable terms for the purpose of this topic. If I was wrong, I would concede and correct myself at this point.

We file fiction under

>>/x/

Well no, i think it's the exact opposite. I think we first need to establish whether:

A. The Universe was created by and outside force.

Or

B. The Universe created itself.

Then at that point you can discuss WHO or WHAT created it...if you reach option A as the conclusion.

I don't that subject i told you. I don't care about god he has no influence on me. But can you post those books? You can't because you got none. You see i don't just blindly accept online articles as true and than pretend i studied the subject. Kindly kys you pretentious faggot.

You need an entire book to discuss the flaws of Carbon-14? We could flesh it all out right here in 2 or 3 paragraphs, but it's almost as if coming to grips with a creator would put a huge damper on your current lifestyle. Guess what buddy? We're all sinner. Every single one of us.

goodreads.com/book/show/516610.Bones_of_Contention

God exists, but not the Christian one.

No one except retards are saying god 100% doesn't exist, they are saying he more than likely doesn't, but we may be proven wrong someday.
Also, why does it happen to be the god that you were raised with that you believe in?

Here guys...this video series actually saved my life a few years ago when I will still agnostic.

youtu.be/szBTl3S24MY

I can't take you seriously at all. You know what even carbon-14 is? You know the physics behind redioactive decay? how many years are you researching this subject? When will you publish a book debunking it all? What's the name of the scientists that got Nobel prize for debunking old earth? You know there are thousands of scientists who studied the subject for many years and researched it and you think you know better?

>guy spewing maymays proves god is real if you believe hard enough

Bro, by your own admission you know absolutely nothing about the subject. You asked for a book, I gave you a book. This rabbit hole is very deep and has (((a lot of factors involved))).

Basically, there is a "rubber ruler" known as the Geologic Column. Radiometric dating is measured according to this fictional standard, and only non-conflicting data is allowed through the meatgrinder.

Please watch the video
youtu.be/szBTl3S24MY

Attached: a8406fd0cd9a77c3d60cba3cbe7a75c6.jpg (736x736, 89K)

If there is a god, what makes you think any of the 100s religions out there have "found" him? For all we know we can be living in a simulation and your "god" is a programmer or a team of programmers.

>they are virtually interchangable terms for the purpose of this topic.

carbon dating is interchangeable for uranium isotope dating...

right

we date rocks by radiometric dating - ok. but that does not mean by carbon dating (although coal fields can be...)

So you are just a guy who is too dumb for college but still want to feel smart and smug about your internet god proof. Even the most leftie crazy scientists who claim transgenderism is natural have more credibility than you could ever have. You know nothing about the subject also. Stop pretending. Reading few articles doesn't mean you are knowledgeable on the subject. you need to grow up.

Wake up. GOD is figurative word. GOD is energy, source, consciousness that includes everything and beyond. You are also part of it. All the religions are teaching about this truth, hidden within words to those who are ready to see. Are you ready?

>youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE
>youtube.com/watch?v=97FhauH1J58
>youtube.com/watch?v=FSmdSw9eEIA
>youtube.com/watch?v=ZP5HmM0UxQs
>youtube.com/watch?v=FY74AFQl2qQ
>youtube.com/watch?v=Yimor2jRmCA

With these you can enter the rabbit hole. This is most important redpill. Redpill of life.

Attached: nikola tesla.jpg (1920x1080, 212K)

There is always desire to be something more within human. Usually it manifest itself trough materialistic ways, sexual ways, trough drugs or parenthood example. It is endless chasing, rat-race that leads nowhere but keeps you busy trough own creation that people calls as life.

We can't remember our time as toddlers because we didn't exist in that time. We had no identity. Only when years has gone while we gathered data from our environment we created identity. When we have our identity, we decide what matters to us. Then we experience impulsive feelings when things didn't go as we wanted.

We are piece of life that creates own image and plays it (Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image). We get so tangled to our own creation that it can kill us and bring us into hell. We think that something or someone causes our misery even when we alone create everything within.

We have all this mysterious desire to do something, be something more. It usually manifest itself trough sexual ways, materialistic ways, trough parenthood, dating, drugs, games, food, alcohol.. you name it. Trough that it leads nowhere, it keeps us happy for a moment and then we need more. So where we are now? We are piece of life that want to experience bigger part of it. Trough physical ways it finds not that part and when that need to expand finds no expression we create this pain within. So what to do? This is what meditation is all about. We wan't to think nothing, be nothing because that is just the data we gathered from the physical and created self from it. When we learn to be still, just be as piece of life, something start to happen that seems to expand you into everywhere. It seems to that consciousness, awareness is the basic that exist and everything else it is manifest of it.

I think that what ((they)) wan't is to bind us more and more into physical, sins, into that rat-race i wrote about above, so that we wouldn't learn or even think about this.

Attached: eatm.jpg (700x573, 52K)

but clearly A makes no sense as an extra universal being would not be the sort of God that any religion really worships.

B makes no sense either, self creation makes no sense. it didn't create itself - it just came into being.

it is not a simple either or - there are other options which do not posit a creator

What was your point?

>"youre just a guy thats too dumb for college"

Kek. Projecting much?

Attached: Sfdmm6x.jpg (257x196, 9K)

and again, we are back to the carbon 14 thing...

and you know the flaws you mention, they were found by scientists making the test better...

I'm studying robotics in college what are you studying?

How can there be a 3rd option?

Either the Universe made itself or it didnt, right?

The point is:
-the margin of error for carbon-14 is laughable.
-it's only "accurate" up to 70,000
-the first thing I said, if you scroll up, is that this is NOT how we determine the Age of the Earth.

I'm studying you, user.

I'm not bowing before energy dude.

>What was your point?
that you are using the terms interchangeably when it is entirely inappropriate to do so.

it is like discussing teaching methods and saying that flogging children and rote learning is interchangeable with self directed schooling because they are both methods.

which suggests you have a poor grasp of the subject.

>About 100 years ago someone come up with the theory of black holes
>"Show me the math"
>Ok that looks good
>More and more physicists add to the idea, evidence seems to suggest they are a good possibilty
>Eventually their affect is observed and recorded and can be studied farther
>All in the course of 100 years

>Muh sky wizards invented thousands of years ago
>Still literally fucking nothing

lmao

Radiometric dating is the general field.

Radiocarbon is "the most accurate".

So what exactly is your point?

Attached: world plans.jpg (629x629, 143K)

>2018
>worships anything.

Why would you? Aren't we past those times?

only if the notion of being "made" applies.

it doesn't.

what is my point?

that you are using the terms interchangeably when it is entirely inappropriate to do so.

>an atheist frog
How cliche

Nobody says an all powerful entity exists, I mean the universe functions to precise to be made out of an accident what most say is that the abrahamic God is not real.

Ah, the old "the Universe has always existed" argument...

(((Official))) age of the universe: 4.6 billion

1. Well the sun gets farther from the earth every year. Quantify 1 billion years and earth wouldve seeminly popped out of the son

2. The earth's magnetic fields are getting weaker. Quantify by 1 billion years and we have a mess.

3. Comets/meteors. Quantify by 1 billion years and they should have all burned up by now.

4. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

>I mean the universe functions to precise to be made out of an accident

Even this in itself is a fallacy in argument for a creator. The only reason we can sit here and say the universe functions perfectly is because we are the ones that happen to be in it. There could have been 5000 quadrillion naturally occurring "instances" of the universe before our one and just by chance we are the ones who are now created to look at it and go "isn't it just perfect for us?"

You're reaching. When we are talking about billions of years, as textbooks claim, straining at terminology that caps at 70,000 years is irrelevant.

And your point is? We cant have any point of reference besides the one in which we live.

This is probably bait but....
To be completely honest even as an atheist I recognize that some god could theoretically exist. By definition any truly "supernatural" entity from gods to ghosts may operate outside natural laws and potentially avoid natural empirical detection.
The thing is that it's only "possible" in the way that ANYTHING is hypothetically possible, from living in the matrix to leprechauns with pots of gold hiding at the end of rainbows, though rainbows don't actually have "ends" because of how they're a distortion of light from the perspective of a viewer and simply change if you move to a different location. Of course you don't believe absolutely every possibility, especially since many would be contradictory, which is why the default is disbelief until you acquire evidence.

It sort of overlaps with the issue with pascals wager. Even if you recognize that it's better to hedge your bets on religion, even assuming insincere faith counts, there's no way to tell which religion to go with among the countless mutually exclusive ones.
It's like you're skipping the last step of logic in the argument, assuming that once doubt is established your preferred answer is the obvious one. But it's only "obvious" to you because it fits your feels.

>We cant have any point of reference besides the one in which we live.
Exactly. My point is that the universe very well may exist as a purely natural coincidence, with all the "functions" in place to give it order rather than chaos. Given an infinite amount of universes spawning over eternity, one of them is bound to spawn some kind of life. It doesn't make sense for that life to then say "Look at how perfect this universe is! There must have been a god creator for this!"

>They deny him because the violently HATE him.
well, since you violently hate the kind of atheist which doesn't exist, it is small wonder that you find this kind of shit plausible.

Unfortunately we will never know since it means going outside of the universe to see if that is possible and since we are bound to it for all eternity that doesnt really matter.

no I didn't say it had always existed - just that it is not appropriate to talk about it being 2made"

making requires a maker. it came into existence, but that does not require a maker.

And I think the age is 13 billion, you are only talking about the age of the earth at 4 and a bit.

and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an argument because...? what

“All-embracing being is one. In its self-sufficiency it has nothing alongside it or over it. To associate a second being with it would be to make it something that it is not, namely, a part or constituent of a more comprehensive whole. Due to the fact that we extend our unified thought like a framework, nothing that should be comprised in this thought-unity can retain a duality within itself. Nor, again, can anything escape this thought-unity... The essence of all thought consists in bringing together the elements of consciousness into a unity {D. Ph. 16} ... It is the point of unity of the synthesis where the indivisible idea of the world came into being and the universe, as the name itself implies, is apprehended as something in which everything is united into unity” {17}.

Attached: 71FnaEpuezL.jpg (1191x1420, 160K)

Is this an argument? Why are you so intimidated by people studying the mysteries of the universe?

If you're putting a timeline for the discovery of God at 100-200 years, that's pretty "God Damn" good :)

If you want to argue for argument sake, that's one thing. But it sounds like you're afraid of what new knowledge will do to your faith. That's some pretty shaky faith, brother.

They discovered a micron that all point in the same direction, having a hell of a time finding the report on it

You're right, it doesn't matter (at least not in our life time. Maybe one day they'll invent some crazy technology to be able to check on this stuff.)

I was just trying to make the point that the "fine-tuned universe" argument is kind of fallacious

no it is quite clear that when you conflate the two you are also trying to say that the whole technique is unreliable because of the flaws (known) in carbon dating.

which is a bad argument.

your arguments againt it do not show the other dating methods using radioactive isotopes are also flawed, or that the flaws are very serious.

the earliest rocks are dated using a completely different isotope - so focusing on the one short life one and saying they are all the same is just incorrect.

the point is that you are the one that introduced the short life one - you are the one straining to get it in here.

For us it isnt since we live in it, but in the end both of our arguments are true since there is no way to check it.

Dude, for central Europe alone we have a gapless, crosschecked dendrochronological archive (the Hohenheim oak and pine tree-ring chronology) that extends back 12,460 years, so pretty much to the end of the Ice Age.

12,460 years. That alone blows the The-World-Is-Only-6000-Years-Old theory out of the water.

>insert flying spaghetti monster here

>GOD is energy, source, consciousness that includes everything and beyond.
and all this it is mightily preoccupied with me jerking off.

God is the creator. responsible for everything known. We cant deduce mans relation or purpose with certainty. That is why there're so many religions. It would be absurd to deduce that existence exists without a creator.
The order and functions of our existence and world repeatedly point to polarity, spectrum, dipolarism, binarism, dioeciousness, thesis/antithesis. The process of "evolution" is a selection process of growth present in micro biology, conservation, economics, sociology, mathematics, stoichiometry, physics, music and electromagnetism. There are laws which cant be escaped by anything or anyone. An interconnectivity between all things outside of the magnitude of our observations

All things all people animals, objects, spaces are a part of god. No matter how seemingly insignificant, easily destroyed or impermanent, good or bad, all things are of the creator

The knowledge which is beyond our domain is the knowledge sought by antithesis
The denial that god is in control, that is the temptation of satan. The giver of knowledge

It's an illusion, a trick, man is not capable of learning his own disposition within the domains

The force of evil is the one which gives you the illusion of control and knowledge. The one who makes you not see what is infront of your eyes. When this happens the mind limits its consideration to the physical world, the false world, tyranny of Now. In this physical domain, someday a being will claim dominion of everything, the throne of god. This is an unavoidable, deducable outcome of the laws.

truth is, we are incapable of knowing and controlling our world. If we were able to, it would be like a being discovering itself, like if my white blood cells learned my name and eye color.

If we came into control, we'd all wake up together at the same time. our minds would change, we'd realize we were the creator, like waking up from a dream. The same thing happens when the false god comes. forces an awakening, like waking from a nightmare

Did you not just reword "the universe made itself"? And you're right about the age of the universe. It's actually been increasing 50,000 years per year since 1700... The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics essentially says everything falls apart. In every exchange, energy is irretrievably lost. Adding energy is not constructive, but rathet destructive.

The Bible concurs with that Law:
HEBREWS 1
11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

Now consider this:
The current claim is that 4 elements came from the Big Bang: hydrogen, helium and 2 other trace elements. A "mother, may I?" Step many "scientists" take is glossing over how 4 trace elements condensed and formed stars: aka stellar evotion.

Then you have to consider how 4 elements and a star could create all of the elements of the periodic table(considering you cannot fuse past iron).Then you have to consider how any of this can make a single-celled organism. It's laughable.

Wrong. Literally lies. In fact, you CANNOT substantiate that claim with any source ending in .edu

You are not the first. Wont be the last.

Attached: Screenshot_20171213-144943.png (720x1280, 342K)

>It's actually been increasing 50,000 years per year since 1700...
probably the most dishonest use of math I’ve ever eeen
>The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics essentially says everything falls apart. In every exchange, energy is irretrievably lost. Adding energy is not constructive, but rathet destructive.
nope. kys retard

Scroll up to the beginning. You have effectively argued your own strawman for 2 hours. I said "radiometric dating is NOT how we determine the Age of the Earth.

It's a fair point. Some atheists are embarrassing with this stuff.
There is no proof of god but of course to be fair there's no way to disprove god either.
I don't believe in god but I can't disprove god.

The best I could do is talk about how there is no need for god in a civilised society.

The day you find proof of god is the day i believe, just like with black holes.

Why is Christianity more likely to exist than paganism which of course is far older?
By this logic surely the NEWEST religions and the newest creations are more likely to be real then because we have more technology now, so for example Mormonism or some gay shit?

Kek. Ok shill. What was the common consensus for the Age of the Earth in 1700?

And are you so jewish and subversive that you are denying the definition of the 2nd Law?

>Did you not just reword "the universe made itself"?

no i didn't reword it.

made is not the same as came into being. the concepts are distinct.

you keep using concepts that require a maker, creator, cause, actor of some sort.

that is not appropriate language for what happened. it did not need outside force, or to be self starting. it just started.

possibly as one of a chain of mass of similar happenings.

also adding energy is constructive in many cases - you are talking nonsense. (also the earth is not a closed system, the temporary additional complexity of life is not in contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics.)

and you have never heard of supernovae?

>Kek. Ok shill. What was the common consensus for the Age of the Earth in 1700
I wasn’t arguing with your numbers. I was arguing with the retard math you extrapolated from them.
>hurr second law
You don’t know what the definition of the second law is. You don’t know what entropy is.

I explained entropy in un-pretentious terms. Are you gonna masturbate your ego for us, or remain ambiguous and useless?

>I said "radiometric dating is NOT how we determine the Age of the Earth.

actually, if you scroll up the thread you will find that you didn't say that.

>Can you read? I just said that radiocarbon-dating is not how we determine the Age of the Earth
>Radio-carbon dating is not how we determine the Age of the Earth.

and you said they were interchangeable
>Radiometric dating is the general category all of those things fall under and they are virtually interchangable terms for the purpose of this topic.

you really should read your own posts.

you are the one trying to wriggle out of your stupid claims here.

>I explained entropy in incorrect* terms
I know you did.

See:
>"Radio-carbon dating is not how we determine the Age of the Earth. But if it was, it would just prove that government grant sponges, I mean evolutionary biology, is a lie."

Nobody has faith in black holes. Their existance is accepted until they can be disproven.

When the facts change, I change my beliefs. What do you do, sir?

What part of "in every exchange energy is irretrievably lost", "adding energy is destructive" and "all things decay" fails to satisfy you.