For the purpose of the argument, god will be defined as an all powerful being that interacts with our reality in some measurable way.
The claim "There is a god" can be demonstrated if it is true. The claim "There is no god" cannot be demonstrated if it is true. It is reasonable to assume the claim "There is no god" is more likely then "There is a god" until evidence for "There is a god" has been demonstrated. Every day the claim "There is a god" goes undemonstrated, it becomes more and more likely that the claim "There is no god" is true. The claim "There is no god" has not been demonstrated.
Therefore: It is very likely the claim "There is no god" is true.
Will-to-believe and belief itself aren't the same thing broski
Anthony Brooks
I don't believe that anyone is an atheist. People who claim to be atheists just hate God. Burden of proof is on atheists to prove they are actually atheist. They cannot do this. Hence, everyone believes in God. Since even atheists believe in God that means God must exist.
Everyone is an agnostic, no one will say 100% there is no g*d.
Jack Hughes
Correct, no one can know anything with 100% certainty because hard solipsism has not been solved. Thats why the label agnostic is useless, it tells you nothing about a person except that they are dumb enough to label themselves as agnostic.
Joseph Nguyen
Feel bad for you if you truly think this is compelling reasoning. > even atheists believe in God that means God must exist. That doesn't follow in the slightest
>no one will say 100% there is no g*d The lack of epistemic certainty doesn't invalidate arguments for strong atheism. Probabilistically, strong atheism as a hypothesis is more compelling given the actual evidence available to us
Jace Bailey
>Believes in God >Says God doesn't exist You just proved my point.
Isaiah Scott
>It is reasonable to assume the claim "There is no god" is more likely then "There is a god" until evidence for "There is a god" has been demonstrated. It is reasonable to assume the claim "There is a God" is more likely than "The universe emerged from a series of subsequently occurring random events that culminated in the perfection that is the known universe; and did all this while violating numerous known natural laws of the universe" Everyday the claim "The universe emerged from a series of subsequently occurring random events that culminated in the perfection that is the known universe; and did all this while violating numerous known natural laws of the universe" goes undemonstrated, it becomes more and more likely that the claim "There is a God" becomes true. The claim "The universe emerged from a series of subsequently occurring random events that culminated in the perfection that is the known universe; and did all this while violating numerous known natural laws of the universe" has not been demonstrated
Therefore: It is very likely the claim "There is a God" is true.
Parker Clark
God as a concept means the ultimate meaning at the root of all being. Religions are conceptual schemes that cultures develop to find this meaning in their lives. Christianity is our religion. Therefore, as a member of this culture you ought to open yourself up to exploring Christianity as a means to derive meaning in life. You could choose to only tear down and destroy but ultimately your only prize is nihilism (absence of meaning). Absence of meaning is absence of god- you’ll be living in hell, literally.
Nietzsche was right.
William Butler
Atheism has passed.
You had anus banana man in the 2005s. You had the cynical fedora men in the 2010s. It's over. You lost.
Landon Sullivan
I don't believe that anyone is a theist. People who claim to be theists just fear reality without a god. Burden of proof is on theists to prove they are actually theist. They cannot do this. Hence, no one believes in god. Since even theists don't believe in god that means god must not exist.
Liam Murphy
Get off Jow Forums Matt, you fat faggot.
Luis Ortiz
>It is reasonable to assume the claim "There is a God" is more likely than "The universe emerged from a series of subsequently occurring random events that culminated in the perfection that is the known universe"
False equivalence fallacy in the very first line.
I compared a claim that CAN be demonstrated with one that CANNOT. You have compared two claims that can both be independently verified, and are not even exclusive to each other.
That is embarrassing.
Ethan Reed
>your only prize is nihilism Nietzsche proposed a solution to the problem of nihilism which was devoid of God.
Connor Myers
>I don't believe that anyone is a theist. That's dumb. >People who claim to be theists just fear reality without a god. Why would fear of reality mean they believe in God? Undemonstrated premise. >Burden of proof is on theists to prove they are actually theist. Easy. We say we believe.
Atheists are spitefully ignorant of reality and use scientific observation as their basis for the idea of there being no god despite the fact nature and its evolutions are more proof for intelligent design than proof of no intelligent design.
William Turner
>It is reasonable to assume the claim "There is a God" is more likely than You can't just assert this without showing why this is the case. already addressed this >The claim You're not even accurately representing the claim
Carson Wilson
yeah and his creation was the ultimate modernist metaphysical philosophy- he was right in his prediction but he failed to overcome it, instead doubling down on everything he originally diagnosed as cancer. Read Heidegger.
Andrew Gray
2/10 Honestly I initially thought you were serious
Blake Scott
>Does not argue against classical theism >Picks the low-hanging fruit of protestant personal theism. Why are atheists such cowards?
Asher Phillips
I'm glad you understand the absurdity of the original argument presented.
Brandon Walker
>False equivalence fallacy in the very first line. That was the point. There is no "reasonable" reason to assume that stance, unless you can demonstrate that the evidence supports your claim. Otherwise they are two ludicrous ideas, without evidence to support it's assertion and therefore why is it reasonable to assume one over the other? >I compared a claim that CAN be demonstrated Demonstrate: The universe emerged from a series of subsequently occurring random events that culminated in the perfection that is the known universe; and did all this while violating numerous known natural laws of the universe
Or else I have no reason but to assume your "reasonable" position of "No God" is anything but your opinion.
Landon Smith
I know, it's an absurd argument and one OP made. I was merely exposing how one cant just state such a position, as you mentioned.
Jeremiah Parker
>There is no "reasonable" reason to assume that stance, unless you can demonstrate that the evidence supports your claim
The claim "There is a god" can be demonstrated if it is true. The claim "There is no god" cannot be demonstrated if it is true.
Read this a couple more times until it sets in. If you accept both of those then the rest of the argument is forced to be correct. Unless of course you can demonstrate god?
Aiden Miller
>Heidegger Yikes. Apart from grandiose obscurantism, most of his stuff is trite and meaningless
Nicholas Campbell
You sound like you really want to believe this OP.
David Russell
>It is reasonable to assume the claim "There is no god" is more likely then "There is a god" Wrong.
>Unless of course you can demonstrate god? Yes.
Jason Brooks
It is a clip from a debate, where he is responding to specific and common claims
Jackson Garcia
analytic brainlet detected. how does it feel to suffer from an inauthentic relationship to the question of the meaning of being?
Alexander Rivera
And of course he picks the easiest specific and common claims and neglects to argue with the trained theologians. It would be like a creationist deciding to refute the specific and common claims of third-graders who believe in evolution.
Leo Thompson
>The claim "There is no god" cannot be demonstrated if it is true. Not what I asked. I asked you to demonstrate: The universe emerged from a series of subsequently occurring random events that culminated in the perfection that is the known universe; and did all this while violating numerous known natural laws of the universe.
Easton Taylor
EVERYONE SHUT THE FUCK UP.
TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF THEISTS FLOUNDERING TO DEMONSTRATE GOD HAS LED UP TO THIS MOMENT
OH MY GOD ITS GOING TO HAPPEN HES GOING TO PROVE GOD IS REAL AND UPEND THE ENTIRE WORLD. EVERYONE WILL CONVERT. A WORLD UNDER ONE RELIGION
PLEASE SIR, GO ON, GIVE US YOUR WISDOM
Cameron Wood
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Lucas Martin
Aww shit everyone go home...
Just another special pleading fallacy...
Oliver Smith
>Does not refute the argument.
Henry Campbell
>does not know an argument containing logical fallacies cannot be sound.
THEISTS EVERYONE!
Jayden Nelson
>The claim "There is a god" can be demonstrated if it is true. Your argument LITERALLY fell apart with the first statement you made. This could be the worst pro-fedora post I've seen all week.
>For the purpose of the argument, god will be defined as an all powerful being that interacts with our reality in some measurable way.
Literal brainlet.
Thomas Edwards
>does not demonstrate the fallacy >thinks simply saying "there is a fallacy in your argument" constitutes a refutation of the argument >doesn't even know what special pleading is but only read a smarter atheist use it once on an internet forum typical atheist.
>Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another >except god
Hello special pleading!
Zachary Sullivan
>>Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another >>except god God is not in motion. God is immutable. You have not refuted the argument, you've just refuted a claim I never made. Motion in the aristotilian sense is more accurately represented defined as "change". But since the Prime Mover by definition cannot change (being Pure Act and having no potentiality) you have just said:
"What put the thing in motion that by definition is not in motion?"
>special pleading You obviously don't know what special pleading is. Special pleading is the omitting of certain information that contradicts the argument. What information did I omit?
Connor Butler
>God is immutable
There it is again! Special pleading! Do you really want to keep doing this? You are clearly a brainlet thats never done this before and just copy pasting of some christian website.
The real funny part is the best case scenario for this argument, if it wasn't flawed, is deism. But I bet you have irrationally made your way to some form of comfort christianity.
Ethan Thomas
>A college professor, an avowed atheist and active in the ACLU, was teaching his class. He shocked several of his students when he flatly stated that once and for all he was going to prove there was no God. >Addressing the ceiling he shouted: "GOD, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes!!!!!" >The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. >Ten minutes went by. " I'm waiting God, if you're real knock me off this platform!!!!" >Again after 4 minutes, the professor taunted God saying, "Here I am, God!!! I'm still waiting!!!" >His count down got down to the last couple of minutes when a SEAL, just released from the Navy after serving in Afghanistan and Iraq and newly registered in the class, walked up to the Professor. >The SEAL hit him full force in the face, and sent the Professor tumbling from his lofty platform. The Professor was out cold!! >The students were stunned and shocked. They began to babble in confusion. >The SEAL nonchalantly took his seat in the front row and sat silent. The class looked at him and fell silent.....waiting. Eventually, the professor came to and was noticeably shaken. >He looked at the SEAL in the front row. When the professor regained his senses and could speak he asked: "What is the matter with you? Why did you do that? >"God was really busy, protecting America's soldiers, who are protecting your right to say whatever stupid thing comes to your mind!!! So he sent me!!"
>Special pleading! You obviously don't know what special pleading is. Special pleading is the omitting of certain information that contradicts the argument. What information did I omit?
>The real funny part is the best case scenario for this argument, if it wasn't flawed, is deism You clearly don't understand the argument. This is not an argument IN TIME. As in, this has nothing to do with the age of the Universe. The argument is for all instances of change in the here and now, meaning that God is required to be ultimately actualizing the potentiality at every moment and thus is omnipresent.
>God is immutable Of course. Because to suggest otherwise would be to suggest an infinite regression of movers (agents of actuality). Said infinite regression is impossible:
Imagine a finite causal chain, where every effect is predicated by a cause and in turn causes another effect until we reach the ultimate effect. All subsequent effects were caused by the previous cause, reaching back unto the first cause. Without any one of these subsequent causes (or the first cause) the entire chain would break down because all effects require the previous causes. Infinite regression (by definition) denies the existence of the first cause which then would mean that no subsequent causes could occur which means no final cause and no final effect.
Henry Wood
>God is immutable Hey, listen. Check this hot shit out.
>The universe is immutable Now your going to say its not, because only god can be, because otherwise he wouldn't exist!
>Now your going to say its not Are you part of the universe? And do you change? If any one part of the universe changes then by definition it is not immutable.
>there has to be somthing that set things in motion because time cannot go into infinity >Again, what backs this claim? You misunderstand the argument. This is not an argument in time. At no point does Aquinas even deal with the issue of temporal infinity. The argument is the actualization of changes as they occur right now. The Universe could be infinitely old and the argument would still stand because the principle is not:
Time cannot be extended to infinity But rather No dependent causal chains can be extended to infinity.
The reason this is so is because:
magine a finite causal chain, where every effect is predicated by a cause and in turn causes another effect until we reach the ultimate effect. All subsequent effects were caused by the previous cause, reaching back unto the first cause. Without any one of these subsequent causes (or the first cause) the entire chain would break down because all effects require the previous causes. Infinite regression (by definition) denies the existence of the first cause which then would mean that no subsequent causes could occur which means no final cause and no final effect.
Robert Lopez
Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Unlike god, we know the attributes of matter and energy to be true.
Christopher Parker
>Every day the claim "There is a god" goes undemonstrated its been demonstrated every single day since the beginning of time. proof of god is that the universe exists and some things just are the way they are.
Logan Ward
>insisting the universe is immutable Nigger, use a dictionary. Admit you are a fucking retard.
Ill pick both. OH! Look at that the universe must of always existed. Glad we got that sorted.
Tyler Sanders
what is the big bang for 100 alex
Chase Thompson
Atheism: The belief of loser males who seldom father more than 2.0 children
A dead end for whites. Look at the Euro trash. Turned their backs on god. Now getting BTFO demographically by the Muzz.
Blake Harris
the only way matter could be created from nothing was if it was created by an all powerful being.
Gabriel Baker
No, you can trace the causes back pretty darn far. If you want to call that god i suppose that's fine, but my argument is that just because that's the limit of how far we can see, dosent mean its the limit. Just because we can't see the infinity of history dosent mean it is finite, just shows how limited our view is
Juan Green
>be soiboi >Its everyone elses fault, not mine >Im a decent hooman beein >muh burden of proof >edgeucate believers >enable whamen and degenerates >Its ok fren, I got you replacement moreliti >Secoolar Hoomaniz >look inside >Social Justice >nothanks.zip >burden of proof was on atheist all this time, because he made the initial logical claim
i think everyone is forgetting one key piece Luke 4:12 Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
Alexander Hill
Only options for the west
Return to Christianity.
Or get steamrolled by islam.
So which is it?
The Euro trash have already made their choice. Watch as they continue to die off and get replaced by the sons of Muhammad. Who's 5 children average rarely fall for the demographic dead end that is "Atheism"
Justin Cooper
You don't need to articulate God in the formally religious sense to properly orient yourself in the world.
Connor Johnson
>the soldier then went to jail as he committed the crime of battery infront of 30 witnesses.
Juan Ramirez
>There is no god
You want proof that Yahweh exist?
>Kikes >Kikes >WHY IS AMERICA INFESTED WITH KIKES? >Goyim are too weak vs kikes
Logan King
>Pascal's wager its for retards.
It assumes that there is only 1 possible god.
Luis Gomez
>Argument for Strong Atheism >Strong Atheism >Strong
If you believe in something despite no evidence for something, you are making an assumption based off of belief. No side of an open question becomes 'more likely to be true' because you haven't seen evidence to the contrary. P != NP does not become more likely because no one has demonstrated a solution yet.
Isaac Perez
>P != NP does not become more likely because no one has demonstrated a solution yet. Except that's the exact opposite of what the majority of computer scientists think.
Adrian Moore
Please, go on. What does the algorithmic complexity community have to say about this open problem, random asshat?
Ryan James
>Just because we can't see the infinity of history But this IS NOT AN ARGUMENT IN TIME. This is an argument of immediate causal chains. And the infinite regression of dependent causal chains is logically impossible.
>Matter and energy Are composites and thus must necessarily have been ultimately created. Since their essence is not their existence, but rather the actual form in which they are actualized. If matter and energy were immutable (cannot change) then we could not have stars, you could not eat food, and nothing in the universe could change. By logical deduction and by sensual experience we can be assured that matter and energy are not immutable and therefore their essense is not their existence and therefore they must have some cause which cannot be themselves because nothing can be the ultimate cause of itself. God is uncaused, precisely because He is not composite but simple, and precisely because He is immutable (possessing no potentiality). The common argument of
"What caused God?"
Is more accurately stated:
"What caused the thing which is defined as being without cause."
And is therefore, rightly, seen as an absurd question that answers itself.
>some measurable way empiricism by definition can not explain metaphysical realities. Your premise is bullshit.
James Morgan
For something to "composite" (composed of parts) merely means that the potentiality for differentiation has been actualized. The dog is composed of parts and we differentiate between the dog and the pig by virtue of the actualized differences of their composite parts. Even though the dog and the pig are made of the same basic matter, it is their form (the actualized potential) that differentiates them essentially.
But for any potential to be actualized, it must be acted upon by an actuality preceeding it. This is because no thing can be the cause of itself. (A thing must exist in order to actualize and thus it must have existed before it existed, a logical absurdity). And since any composite must necessarily have potential that has been actualized, it is necessary that we must ultimately find a First Cause (first not in time, but in order of actualization) that is not composite but ultimately Simple. Said being would by virtue of it's simplicity be Pure Act (no potentiality).
Immutable, Simple, Omnipresent, omniscient, Omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and posessing Intellect and Will.
Omnipresent by virtue of being the ultimate actualization of all potentialities.
Immutable by virtue of possessing no potentiality (and thus no ability to change, as change is merely the actualization of potentiality)
Omnipotent as being capable of and the cause of all actualizations
Omniscient as all actualizations ultimately occur insofar as it knows them to occur.
Intellect and will by virtue of having no cause to it's actualization. We define Free-Will as having no outside or prior cause to the decision, but since the Prime Mover is by definition not preceded by anything it's act of will is free of all cause other than itself. We determine intellect by the exercise of the will free from all cause other than itself and thus the Prime Mover must possess something analogous to free will and intellect.
Omnibenevolent as the actualizing cause of all existence, existence being the highest benevolemce and good.
Asher Cruz
Yeah, no. The entire post is poorly written with no proofs whatsoever. Also in the last sentence, the most ridiculous of all theories arises. Reminder that Sam is a jew.
Then from our perspective god cannot be known to exist. Congratulations, you now have zero reason to ever believe in god and if you do believe then you are acting objectively irrational.
>written with no proofs it is observational, what it discusses is self evident, for instance the published peer reviews of Sam Harris' ridiculous "thesis"
