For the purpose of this argument, god will be defined as an all powerful being that interacts with our reality in some measurable way.
1) The claim "There is a god" can be demonstrated if it is true.
2) The claim "There is no god" cannot be demonstrated if it is true.
3) The claim "There is a god" has not been demonstrated.
Therefore: It is reasonable to assume the claim "There is no god" is more likely than the claim "There is a god"
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Gay
fake gay and sage, you post this daily
It's not 'more likely' to be true, it just assumes less. The hypothesis that assumes less is then chosen based off of the principle of Occam's razor, which only exists because modern science is based on the falsifiability criterion, which stands opposed to the faith that the Bible clearly states one must have to believe in God.
30/100 Apply yourself
>still stuck on the heavenly figure meme
move on, you do not understand God
>never refuted cosmological argument in last thread
>ran away and waited to repost hoping no one would find out
Atheists are intellectual cowards.
>never answered why the first cause does not need a cause
>continued to use special pleading to justify it
There is a reason no theist even believes because of the cosmological argument. It is word salad only used when an atheist is involved. Even if the argument was without flaws, it would only get you to the deism position, which was pointed out to you again last time and you chose to ignore it.
>never answered why the first cause does not need a cause
Because the first cause by definition cannot have a cause. Such would imply infinite regression of causes, which is logically absurd. To say there is a first cause is precisely to say that it is uncaused.
>special pleading
What information did I omit?
>it would only get you to the deism position,
You obviously don't understand deism. Deism is the Grand Architecht and Divine Watchmaker who starts his creation and then steps away. The Cosmological argument is NOT AN ARGUMENT OF TIME. The Prime Mover of the Cosmological argument is necessarily involved in the here and now of the Universe and indeed His constant interaction with the universe is the only thing that keeps the universe going and changing. That is exactly the opposite of the Deistic conception of God.
You are way out of your league here, kid.
Dont come in here trying to reason with these polcucks. They have enough on their plate trying to be mad at womens. Leave their god alone. Dillahunty deserves better than to be spread in this shithole.
>why the first cause does not need a cause
For more information on this topic, I suggest you try to find a metaphysics 101 textbook and learn the definitions of potentiality and actuality, of immutability and change, and of deterministic causal chains.
Education is your friend, my uneducated little atheist.
You have just demonstrated three times in one post that you do not even understand your own copy/pasted argument. I am done with you. If you want to keep going on with me, just read my last post over and over and respond to that. Its fully refutes the argument, even if you cant understand that.
>still cannot refute the argument.
Run along now, little atheist. Maybe in a couple of years you'll have gained enough education to understand how to structure a basic argument.
(Btw, it's funny that your objections don't even rate as worthy for the Summa. He actually gives better objections to his own argument than you do.)
you can't prove God is God from within the 3 dimensional universe. You could only prove Him to be a 3 or lower dimensional being, but he's not. His creating of this universe requires Him to be at the very least 4 dimensional, probably higher. And since we can't perceive or measure higher dimensions, we can't prove God's existence
but it's not about proving God. God proves Himself to those willing to listen. but not everyone wants to listen. some would rather shield them from the terrifying thought of our insignificance, that there's a being out there so much more powerful than us, it frightens us, especially the thought of Him judging us and our actions. because we know, deep down, all of us, that we are sinners. we have the capacity of great evil, all of us
Nice "listen" mumbo jumbo you spiritual fucktard. That shit won't fly. Take your fear mongering elsewhere.
god is going to fuck your shit up in the next 10 minutes faggot bank on it
>for the purpose of this argument
Stopped reading. U don't understand logic.
First video:
>the first driver for the cosmological argument is to that you can't come up with something from nothing.
>the universe needs a cause
30 second in and he doesn't understand the Cosmological arguments. It is NOT AN ARGUMENT IN TIME. It does not say anything about "the cause of the universe". It says things that require causes (of which the universe may or MAY NOT be one) must be caused. The universe could be infinitely old and self-causing (it isn't) and the cosmological argument would still hold. I suggest strongly that you stop hearing others strawman the cosmological argument and actually study the men who make the argument.
The second video:
>a first cause for what? A first cause for everything? That there was a beginning for everything?
sigh.... THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT OF TIME!!! it is an argument of causal changes that are dependant. "First" does not mean first in time, as in "before everything else in time" but more analogous to "first in line" as in it is the primary function. This causal chain could all be happening instantaneously and it would still require a "first" cause.
i'm not very spiritual, actually. i used to be a huge fedora tipping atheist myself. george carlin, richard dawkins, sam harris, thunderfoot. these were my heroes in my teenage years.
then i realized, none of it leads anywhere. all the arguing, it serves no purpose. ok, you show that we can't prove either way God exists or not. it's impossible to prove. and?
you're wasting time jerking off over having an opinion.
so i gave up on it. put away my fedora, started to think in a different way. people have their perspectives on life and that's fine, and it's not up to me to try and change that. so long as they don't go around violently killing people of course, but christians haven't done that for a long time anyway.
and that's when I thought to myself one day, why not try to step in their shoes? why not try prayer. and so I did. didn't work at first of course. I just sat there going "uh yeah hello God give me a sign", but I knew beforehand it wouldn't happen. I wasn't sincere.
So then I let go of my ego. I let got of my idea that I knew anything about this world. I dropped all of it. I humbled myself. And once I did, I started to feel these emotions I had been hiding from myself. Guilt, regret, sadness at who I am and what I'd done or not done in my life. And instead of asking for a sign, I only asked for forgiveness.
And Jesus was there. Not in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense. He was there.
All I ask is that you try the same. Stop being so sure that you know everything there is to know. Remember the classics. "The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know."
I hope you find the truth
I know how to refute the big bang as the origin of the universe.
>why not try to step in their shoes? why not try prayer.
Yep, the science boys have given this quite the try and every time people who are sick and prayed for do no better then people who are sick and not prayed over, and even do worse if you tell them they are being prayed for.
Its incredible, this basic christian belief has been demonstrated not just to have zero effect, but a negative effect in some cases.
So I guess pray and worship to god if you want a worse life.
>every time people who are sick and prayed for do no better then people who are sick and not prayed over,
Irrelevant. The claim of prayer is not that prayer heals sickness. Also, this is neglecting the proven existence of miraculous healings.
>even do worse if you tell them they are being prayed for.
Self-selected result.
>this basic christian belief has been demonstrated not just to have zero effect
Strawman argument, as the vast majority of Christians do not see prayer as a magical healing spell.
>So I guess pray and worship to god if you want a worse life.
Religious people are happier and live longer lives. Also, they are smarter.
>be big brained atheist
>pull non sequitur from bottom
where did i talk about praying for worldly things?
you're just taking a small part of my post that you would like to focus on and ignore the rest, because you have no answer for it
what a shame
Because its the only part that made a falsifiable claim. If you want to make claims that cannot be tested then I will ignore you.
The one claim that you did make that can be tested has been tested and the science disagrees with you. So now you backpedal with "Oh well of course prayer doesn't cause god to interact with the world in any measurable way!". Great you just changed your falsifiable claim to an unfalsifiable, so now it can be ignored.
>you're just taking a small part of my post that you would like to focus on and ignore the rest,
That's all they can do. They have been told their whole lives that they are logical and smart by virtue of their beliefs, so they never trained themselves to argue with anyone who has a solid understanding of the actual debate. So when faced with intelligent opposition, they have to regress into nit-picking and strawman fallacies.
Neither can be proven, fuckwitz
i never made the claim that it was measurable
i shared a personal experience
you literally can't prove God existing or not existing, whether or not He actually does exist is irrelevant.
I don't understand why you're so hung up on this debate anyway. Why does it matter so much to you?
>The one claim that you did make
He never made that claim. You just pulled a strawman fallacy out of nowhere.
>you literally can't prove God existing
That would mean that god does not interact with reality in a measurable way. Therefore god cannot do anything for you. Why believe, why worship?
>Why does it matter so much to you?
Because you fuckwits infect your brain with this disease and bias all your other beliefs. You rail against the big bang, evolution, age of the earth and try ban them from being taught in school.
Really? Religious live longer and happier? Where? In Iran? Nigeria? The Congo? Iraq? Pakistan? Or are those not real religions? Is that also why all the top nations with the highest life expectancy are overwhelmingly non religious?
And maybe YOU dont believe in the "power of prayer" but 700 million + people do. If they didnt, the thousands of different healing churches wouldn't exist in the US. Faith healing wouldn't be a multi billion dollar industry if people didn't believe prayer was supernatural.
>If you want to make claims that cannot be tested then I will ignore you.
When did you use the scientific method to test the assertion that only the scientific method can produce knowledge? Since such is impossible, you must have made this determination without testing it and thus have presented a begging the question fallacy.
The concept of god or any creator figure is well beyond the understanding of humanity at this point in time. There's no reason to be stuck on whether it exists or not, worse yet be literally worshiping. If you could prove a god exists, how would it change your life if you didn't know what you could do to change the outcome in your life?
Christfedoras and neckbeard atheists are fucking worthless to waste their time on pleasing/disproving instead of focusing on eugenics and technology allowing the better of us to live longer.
>Religious live longer and happier?
All other things being equal, yes.
>the top nations with the highest life expectancy are overwhelmingly non religious?
Yet another fallacy. You are comparing unequal groups. I could pick only atheists that have stage 4 cancer and only theists who are perfectly healthy with a genetic history of centegenarians and say that obviously the religious live longer. You have to compare equals except for the control.
>And maybe YOU dont believe in the "power of prayer"
The power of prayer to do what? To be 100% effective against all disease all the time? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find more than ten thousand who believe in that.
>Matt Dillahunty
HAHAHHAHAHA did you know the Atheist Experience is literally ran by a Jew? Russell Glasser is the president of the ACA. He gets his good little goyim like this fat fuck Matt to shit on Christians.
About point number 2
Assuming ''god'' is a theoretical construct with power and consequence.
Assuming ''god'' refers to any deity of any religion for example christianism.
Then ''god'' should have definite properties and effects such as described by the religions who propose ''god'' exists.
In that case in which god exists and has definite powers or displays definite phenomena, then a litmus test can be devised to see if there is in fact a definite entity which exercises definite powers or displays definite phenomena.
In that way we can prove that a ''god'', as described definitely by a definite association (religion), does not exist.
The real question here is what is the definition of ''god'' and who has the right answer? Then we will be able to determine if there is a god...
>The concept of god or any creator figure is well beyond the understanding of humanity at this point in time.
Wrong. We have understood the philosophical proofs for God since Aristotle.
>If you could prove a god exists, how would it change your life if you didn't know what you could do to change the outcome in your life?
This is a non-sequitur. One, a God's existence gives high evidence to an afterlife and thus it would be immediately and eternally important to figure out how to maximize results in said afterlife. Also, you have yet to prove that God cannot or does not interact with the material world.
>instead of focusing on eugenics and technology allowing the better of us to live longer.
Dust and ashes. A true waste of time.
underrated post
>then a litmus test can be devised to see if there is in fact a definite entity which exercises definite powers or displays definite phenomena.
Well first you'd need to prove that the scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge.
God's exsistence and His general effect has been proven with logic already.
>That would mean that god does not interact with reality in a measurable way. Therefore god cannot do anything for you. Why believe, why worship?
Just because God doesn't always interact with reality, doesn't mean he never does.
I believe, because I've been shown Him to exist.
>Because you fuckwits infect your brain with this disease and bias all your other beliefs. You rail against the big bang, evolution, age of the earth and try ban them from being taught in school.
1. I'm not a creationist
2. jerking off on a forum won't help against these things
you haven't even bothered actually reading any of my previous posts, so i'm not going to respond to you anymore until you do
Scientific method is not a way to gain knowledge, it is the best known way to shed as much human defficiencies as possible and be as open to the truth as possible.
The scientific method is the ultimate form of open-mindedness because it fundamentally assumes that the human brain is imperfect and that observations must be external and unbiased.
This is good shit. That goddamn smugglepufff has been doing this shit a long time.
I like you.
Checkmate, christcucks!
God is not an entity separate from our collective will as an emergent social group comprised of its individual constituents. The idea that god an agent independent of man that we delegate our will to evolved feudalistic slaves and peasants or colonized people who were dominated by a noble/priest class with occult knowledge about human phychology
