Why do some of you believe in God?

Why do some of you believe in God?
>hard mode: no fallacies
>ultra hard mode: no threats of violence or excommunication

Attached: 1555366569452.jpg (1000x1000, 71K)

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11935492/scientists-reduce-belief-god-hostility-immigrants-magnets.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

because He called me to belief. i guess my question is why haven't you been called? what sins do you love to commit?

because they're big stupid dumbdumbheads

the Bible itself is proof of God

No

>be (((elites)))
>hate Christ, defy him at any chance
>worship Satan

Basically, because the elites hate Christ

Attached: 1545410236748m.jpg (1024x774, 114K)

The golden ratio or Phi pretty much does it for me.

GOD just means the concept of "GOOD"
To believe in God is to believe in the concept of objective morality (defined as "what's best for the human species").
Therefore you cannot believe in the progression of the species without believing in God

It is an entirely rational position. I found the gospels compelling and the inscrutable realism of the shroud of Turin was further cause for alarm. Moreover the religion holds an indelible mythological truth to it that simply rings correct.

I would call myself a cautiously optimistic believer.

So you heard voices? Love the schizo posts!

Brain damage. Seriously.

telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11935492/scientists-reduce-belief-god-hostility-immigrants-magnets.html

Must be tough being a godless heathen, enjoy eternal damnation OP

It's all repeatedly dismissed as nonsense.

Fear

faith
you either have it or you don't

Godel's Ontological Proof

Attached: Capture.png (618x802, 83K)

Alright I'll answer. I have not heard any calling of any sort from any God. I have heard many things but never a voice from God because I would not even know what it would sound like. If I did hear it, I couldn't possibly know what it was. It is irrational to believe in something that cannot be explained because it is indistinguishable from something that does not exist.

Attached: 1555140961870.png (500x666, 84K)

>It is an entirely rational position.
If your rational mind was functional, you'd know it's not. Beliefs in general are irrational. Supernatural being are irrational concepts. Belief in supernatural beings is the confluence of two irrationals, does not equal rational.

do you practice sin and love your sin?

Attached: 1527893607_mp,550x550,matte,ffffff,t-c,22,2,0,352.u1.jpg (528x352, 23K)

>Beliefs in general are irrational.
Human beings are irrational

Explain if logic somehow proves that God exists, why there are different definitions for what God is between the religions? How do we distinguish one from the other and prove it?

Okay, so we've seen 8 (eight) arguments to the effect that God does exist. If user wants us to believe atheism instead, then he must first tear down all 8 of the reasons that I gave in favor of God's existence and then in their place present a case of his own as to why atheism is true. Unless and until he does that, I hope that we can agree that theism is the more plausible worldview.

>Capture.png
Tm1 Is it possible something is like Blargfargle?
Tm2 Blargfargle is whatever is like Blargfargle
Tm3 Something is Blargfargle.

Well, Blargfargle exists now, too. Get down on your knees.

>Why do some of you believe in God?
I don't believe, I know

you have a lot of premises here that you don't provide evidence for

No.

No, the word sin is retarded because it goes off a specific moral guideline. I probably commit sins but not violent ones. And I don't really have an opinion about committing such an act and could care less.

Where's your evidence for such an extraordinary claim?

belief isn't real, but if people pretend like it is, also pretending there is a god is a good way to trick them into realizing belief isn't real. the various religious texts exist as proof of this, they are causal loops - god inspired the work which inspires you to believe in god - if you eliminate 'belief' from your vocabulary, you now can suppose that people worship and practice religions because it's a fun wholesome thing for all ages and gives you something to do. (singing, dancing, rules to follow, can meet new people, and it makes you feel fulfilled as a human being)

>do you believe in God? No fallacies!
yes I believe in God. that belief is actually rational
>how is Noah's ark rational!!!???
dude. you said no fallacies. he didn't say he believed in a literal interpretation of the old testament; he said he was compelled by the gospels in the new testament. you jumped right to something he never mentioned and tried to paint him in some image YOU have of fundamentalist Christians. that's a fallacy, friend. i thought YOU requested hard mode.

Attached: Overt_Atheism.png (1962x1320, 390K)

Come over to best if both worlds frens
Believe in science and faith at the same time
Place faith in mother nature and father time as your god

Because we are not flying around on a planet at 66,600 mph.

See

>*axioms cause modal collapse*
OH NO NO NO

>if you can't prove something to a random autist over the internet, it means that this something is false.

Cute.

I could say that I love a certain girl and have no way of proving it to you, and you would claim this love is inexistent.

I could say I have met such and such person and not have pictures available and you would still deny it, but it would be an irrational denial because I still met him.

This isn't a refutation or even an argument.

Underlying order of the universe suggests a higher power. Cause and effect

>Okay, so we've seen 8 (eight) arguments to the effect that God does exist
They are all weak rationalizations that don't stand up to any scrutiny. The only people who fall for them are cognitively-challenged, to put it politely.

>believe atheism
Isn't the one defining characteristic of atheism its lack of belief?

>he must first tear down all 8 of the reasons
They're not valid hypotheticals, lad.

>present a case of his own as to why atheism is true
No, just failing to believe in any gods makes atheism valid. This is why the mentally-stunted are so terrified of it.

>theism is the more plausible
Theism is the by far most ridiculous of al the trillions of wild ass guesses.

But it is God's word that this has happened in the Bible according to Christians. And it is claimed the seas went above mountains and the boat also landed on one.

You also completely ignored what I said about the God claim being irrational. You're just cherry picking.

Attached: 1554936052475.png (645x729, 179K)

>ultra hard mode: no threats of violence or excommunication
Fuck off into the gaschamber degenerate!

Attached: No. Warhammer 40k commisar.jpg (409x189, 32K)

It comes with rules that benefited old generation thru tough times, it's also reassuring to believe in a bigger entity

Attached: 0n5tiveoq7u21.jpg (640x634, 40K)

>They are all weak rationalizations that don't stand up to any scrutiny. The only people who fall for them are cognitively-challenged, to put it politely.
Okay... refute at least one of the premises then.
>Isn't the one defining characteristic of atheism its lack of belief?
The simple fact is that atheism does imply belief, specifically belief in the nonexistence of God. In other words, atheism means “actively disbelieving in God”. “Not believing in God”, on the other hand, is simply “non-theism”.

Here’s what amounts to a mathematical proof that atheists actively disbelieve in God. The word atheism can be etymologically deconstructed in two ways: atheo + ism and a + theism. The first literally means “belief in the nonexistence of God” (active disbelief in God), while the second means “nonbelief in the existence of God”. But the second definition is not yet complete, because it fails to specify whether or not one believes in the nonexistence of God. If one does not believe in the nonexistence of God, then this amounts to plain old agnosticism, i.e., believing in neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God. Only if one actively believes in the nonexistence of God does the second definition cease to equate to agnosticism. In this case, one actively opposes God on the ontological level, and is that to which scripture refers as a “blasphemer”.

It's not an argument that you're claiming that a subjective concept of God exists? You would have to state what exactly it is and I would have to assess based on your personal idea of it. This is true for every human who has this belief and it's ridiculous that they all cannot prove the existence of this concept.

These arguments are for classical theism.

If they’re weak rationalizations you’ll have no problem actually refuting all 8 of them friend. Just saying “they’re weak” doesn’t make it so.

>Overt_Atheism.png
Produce this study by Dr. Hans Zimmermann MD Ph.D.
>I can't He doesn't really exist. The whole thing is fabricated.
The religious nutjobs easily fall for lies because they are the liars too.

Seeking external fulfillment is patently fucking retard-tier. You theists and athiests are equally incorrect. Arguments in this thread alone prove agnosticism to be the only valid position.

Believing in a God or many gods is not the same as being Christian you monkey.

See
These "arguments" can also prove the existence of magic and bigfoot, funny huh?

Jesus was a crisis actor.

I am agnostic, there are no absolute certainties anyway, but the God believers have not met the burden of proof to their claims in millennia.

Not a refutation, and that statement is literally, logically false.

It's already been done, lad
>C1 It is possible that the greatest conceivable being exists.
So the greatest possible horse is a flying unicorn?
The greatest possible Irishman is a leprechaun?
It's babbling nonsense. Are you really that dim?

>there are no absolute certainties anyway
are you sure?

>The world owes me
>I have a right to demand evidence
>Why should I believe?
>I demand perfect scientific evidence of the nonphysical
>were it not provided, I will be a cunt towards people that are trying to be nice to me
>What do they think they are doing? Steer me towards eternal happiness?
>I say fuck them
>I'll be an annoying cunt towards them and ridicule them left and right
>For having the gall of worrying about me
>And I still demand they prove to me everything
>I have a right to have my eternity secured by other people

Holy shit user, I hope they use barbed wire condoms for anal in hell.

Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
J. B. S. Haldane

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." Niels Bohr

We do not even fully understand consciousness and yet we contend that our conception of reality is accurate.

" Every model of the universe has a hard swallow... a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it.

The hard swallow built into science is... the Big Bang.

...This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant.

Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity.

Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed!

I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?!

I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars!

It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”.

And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law...

--Terence Mckenna

The Big Bang theory starts with the singularity at t=0 and the consequent expansion. It says nothing about where that singularity came from.

>It says nothing about where that singularity came from.

For those who postulate the "god of the gap" canard, that is one fucking massive gap

I do not claim to know the origin of reality or if there is a personal God; I only claim that the "Big Bang" is a woefully inadequate explanation, akin to just glibly saying that "God made it"

Attached: 1433825276551.jpg (300x212, 9K)

Burden of proof is a meme friend

LoL hey retard, you sound super smort not knowing what agnosticism is. You're confusing it with apatheism, dumb fuck. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

>I only claim that the "Big Bang" is a woefully inadequate explanation, aki
but that’s wrong

>le 10,000th fedorafag post this week
YER ON FIRE M8

Attached: 2DA12BC9-BF57-4CEB-8B15-0CA5D57C103E.jpg (480x600, 22K)

Kek, "classical theism" is the belief in a God. If your form of theism is somehow different then explain. If you believe God is the manifestation of everything then that's known as the universe. If you believe God is the constant motion and flow of energy then you could classify him as the residue of the big bang explosion. I can't argue with you if I don't know what you're believing.

It's not a voice, faggot. It's like grasping 2+2=4. It's not like a movie where something whispers in your head, you simply understand what is true

It helped me when I found out that the most prominent atheists are actually propagandists using Nazi and Soviet propaganda tactics to push atheism. Historical revisionism, misrepresentation of theology and metaphysics, all tools that these vile deceivers used to push atheism onto the masses and build up their cult.

Christians on social media are far more likely to use critical thinking and things like that than the dozens of cult like atheists I have run into, that also helped quite a bit.

who created the world?

>>hard mode: no fallacies
>>ultra hard mode: no threats of violence or excommunication
>implying argumentum ad baculum isn't a fallacy

>The first literally means “belief in the nonexistence of God” (active disbelief in God),
No it doesn't. The correct Greek word for that is anti-theism. But someone like you wouldn't know that, would you?

>then this amounts to plain old agnosticism,
You have that wrong as well. Gods are only things that can be believed in. They are not things that can be known. We can know about electricity as a force. We can harness it and people in China can do the same iwht what they know of it. But no one can do that with any gods, because there are thousands of different gods and everyone's beliefs in them are radically different. Pretending they are knowable is just another desperate rationalization.

Attached: 1477082244317.png (700x700, 50K)

I simply don't understand what you mean. Please explain it in a sound and logical fashion. All you provided was a word salad.

Attached: Easter the frog.png (800x483, 193K)

>I only claim that the "Big Bang" is a woefully inadequate explanation
What does that have to do with not believing in any gods? What does any mathematics or science have to do with atheism?

when did he say it was?

You are asking the wrong question. Is it possible for finite beings such as humans to know and infinite being such as God?

That was the joke you hairy monkey.

An uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful, personal Creator of the universe

Attached: be patient i have autism.png (472x310, 54K)

Humanity itself and the beginning of the beginning.

Neither have athiests. This is where philosophical inquiry continually devolves. You have to choose "something," well, not categorically so, but apatheists are a fucking joke (hur dur my position is a non-position lul). One could select some manifestation of nihilism, which is not self-sustainable (though it may be more "Truthy"), as pure nihilism cannot exist by definition without an encompassing framework, though they are choosing a degenerate framework through which all reason and inquiry devolves anyway. Thus, agnosticism is a more rationally defensible axiom in that neither theism or atheism can ever be proven. Some might see it as defeatist, but it is somewhat positivist, in my estimation.

benito mussolini is the last man that should talk of strength

Fallacy: tu qouque

FAIL

So you're under extreme emotional distress because your country got butt fucked by jews. Then you decide to take time out of your life on some plan to go somewhere after you die even though it's not guaranteed? Just know you're going to hell if Allah does exist.

Truth is self evident.

It's easy to believe in evil and you see it all around you. Why do elites torture and fuck children? Who profits? Why does anyone end up corrupted? Why do those people hate innocence.

It's because they detest the other side of the coin.

Then your eyes open to the fact that the entire world is slowly being engineered to take you away from the truths professed by christian faiths.
After a while it starts making sense.

Fallacy: circular reasoning

FAIL

God is the best explanation available for what created the Big Bang and the universe as a whole, therefore, it is irrational not to believe in a creator.

>infinite being
Why do you believe your gods are "infinite" when the definition of infinite is an impossible timeless state. This proves your gods are *not possible*.

Where Big Bang come from? What is space and time and where did that come from? What did it rise from? Where did the thing it came from come from?

I’m not “religious” but I’m definitely agnostic. I think being a hardline atheist is painfully arrogant.

>why do people believe different things

>God is the best explanation available
Prove this

Who told you this?

>showing evidence for your claims is a meme
Yep, back into the short bus you go!

>prove that something meets the subjective standard of 'best'
>and you have to meet MY subjective standard
>which i have not defined

Attached: comeon.jpg (960x882, 59K)

>An uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful, personal Creator of the universe
>therefore God created the world in 6 days and then everyone lived forever until they ate an apple that a snake gave them and then later God sent his Son and he walked on water and died for our sins so now when we die our personalities and egos will go to heaven and later our literal decayed bodies will be resurrected from their graves and we will live for eternity in these human bodies of ours
Why do Christians think that Aristotelian physics is a good argument for Christianity?

Attached: iOzfCdb.jpg (600x705, 71K)