Proof of God

can't do it in under a year, start with quantum physics
>“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you”
>t.Werner Heisenberg

We'll make this conversation short. No matter what test you come up with to try and prove that dragons don't exist, I can introduce a scenario in which your test doesn't apply. Here are some examples:

>I can't see it.
He's invisible.
>I'll sprinkle some dust on the ground, and it'll leave footprints.
He flies.
>I'll use an IR sensor so we can see the fire.
The fire is heatless.
>I'll spray paint him, then we can see him.
He's incorporeal and the paint won't stick.

You see how delusional this is? Obviously dragons do not exist, but no matter HOW you try, I can argue against your testing. Now imagine instead of talking about a dragon, we're talking about a sky fairy.

The fool hath said in his heart: there was never a Xenu/Buddah/Vishnu/Odin

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (474x266, 36K)

A1a: we live in a causal universe
A1b: every effect has a cause
A2a: if we follow that chain back far enough we reach “the beginning of our universe”
A2b: If an in-universe cause preceded this, it is not “the beginning of our universe”
Therefore our universe began with an external cause;

B1: premise A1 is foundational to discerning truth through science
B2: premise A2 is a tautology.
Therefore arguing against A requires you to argue against the validity of the foundation of using science to discern knowledge.

Attached: 30D51DE4-DA5B-4D6F-B9CB-F8C84630502F.png (645x773, 11K)

Life, and...
The bible says the creation is proof of god's existance. I agree and don't really care if you do too or not.

Attached: entering.jpg (1024x687, 55K)

>hold cake with one hand and bleach with the other
>approach an anthill
>???
>profit

He does, but he's abandoned us. Just look around you at how much things suck, and it's going to just keep getting worse.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY&t=5s

Attached: hqdefault (3).jpg (480x360, 78K)

>what are Gödel's incompleteness theorems?

Might want to google those yourself, buddy

Attached: 772390F8-E6B0-42EC-BB03-71E88C165B53.png (211x239, 6K)

Laws of physics aren't what people usually think of when they think of God.

how so? are you not asking for someone to prove axioms that are not provable within the system of reference?

>thread dies
or
>thread is full of mental gymnastics & faggots using anecdotal evidence

Same here.

>how so?
... type it in your search bar and read a brief explanation of it.
Then realize how it doesn’t (and couldn’t) apply here.
I believe in you, champ.

or you could make an argument you silly christcuck

Go read Descartes' third meditation. Man shits all over you atheist kikes.

Does it matter if a god is real or not? If we can't see it, it doesn't matter. If we see it, we'll kill it.

Attached: 81e2e20b6d4b8a2bce7ee94aeb0a8b99.jpg (1280x720, 66K)

>Brief explanation tells us everything we need to know!
You got your degree in bullshit from the same place as pic related, didn't you?

Attached: black-guy-ferguson-elementary-3rd-grade-watermelon-outfit.jpg (735x1065, 225K)

Okay:
>my logical proof posted in this thread is not an attempt to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics

Attached: 8DF2BE92-9AE8-40C7-9F0A-ADE8E2CAC546.png (364x342, 14K)

I exist.
My existence must have a cause.
The only possible ultimate causes are
a) myself
b) my always having existed
c) my parents
d) something less perfect than God
e) God
4. Not a. If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect.
5. Not b. This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another.
6. Not c. This leads to an infinite regress.
7. Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being.
8. Therefore, e. God exists.

Happy?

Steve Huff

churchwithin.org/Urantia Book.pdf

Attached: 1534470892739.jpg (700x6826, 600K)

>Therefore arguing against A requires you to argue against the validity of the foundation of using science to discern knowledge.
>my logical proof posted in this thread is not an attempt to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics
you sure about that?

nobody claims that the bible is proof that God exists, idiot.

I'm right here yo

Jo.

This being exists outside of our dimensional universe and created it. Hurrrr prove its existence using our limited human sense and knowledge!
Kill yourself

this right here

bitchute.com/video/v0X2KPyuBEm1/

Ask him.

Yes. I am very certain my formal proof of a external creator of the universe is in no way an attempt to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics

Attached: 57CECC3A-CB6E-4A9E-A056-3CA2AFAE43B3.jpg (1129x1200, 118K)

Shall.

but it is an attempt to define the axioms which form the foundation of using science to discern knowledge, and you are asking others to disprove their validity while using the scientific system

There supposedly is infinite number of universes, each with different laws. If it is true that our consciousness is just emerging from physical activites such as flow of electrons in the brain it is logical that in infinite number of universes there is infite number of minds, having properties we would could consider godly. There is either 1 random universe fine tuned for life (which is absurd, hence all the multiverse talk by scientists) or there is everything that can be, God included. Having 1 Universe and supreme being seems really like simpler and more elegant answer. There is obviously more to it (begining of life, nature of mind, even taboo evolution).

Now that almost everyone has a camera phone, we know that the God does not exist. For if he did, we would have gotten a flood of photos and videos of him by now.

waiting for photos of the wind.

>Thinks outside of theoretical physicists the idea of a mutliverse is taken seriously.
Michio Kaku agrees with you. Michelle Thaller does not. One is doing real science, the other is just thinking about science.

He's not talking about laws of physics he's talking about causality.

This is a recycled creationist argument. The argument that complexity must come from something more complex. Yet the universe shows us the contrary, complex things arrive from simple things, a tree comes from a seed, the stars formed through the gathering of the simplest atoms, and through years of branching and reforming we arrive at complex things.

This is also an argument from ignorance, "I don't know therefore god did it"

Press S to spit on God

The best proof is personal experience. Ask and it shall be given

>Personal experience
So the next time someone claims
>God made me kill 15 children and 205 adults
we should believe them because their "personal experience" is that... god told them to do it?

Seriously, are you pretending to be retarded?
I have presented zero mathematical axioms, and even if I did that wouldn’t necessarily mean I was attempting a complete and consistent set.
Killing yourself is highly recommended.

Anyways, I’m gonna go meet my dad for dinner. Good luck in life.

Attached: 53E0BA9B-ACAE-499C-911E-C4B509BC5E7A.gif (310x200, 1.26M)

It's ok user, I accept your concession.

You're asking the wrong question.
Ask whether successful civilizations in the past were atheists or believed in some deity.
If you have an alien artifact that produced unlimited energy for example, but you have no idea how it works - would you not use it?

>a tree comes from a seed, the stars formed through the gathering of the simplest atoms
But the seed must come from a tree and the atoms must come from somewhere as well if you think the birth of the universe is less complex than what you see now you are a retard.
I don't think you even understand the argument aquinas is making

And so were clear, rejection of causality is definitively the most dismissive you could be of the scientific method, which is based on causality being a thing in order for results to be meaningful.

This.

The real God is not the God of the Old Testament who saw humans building the tower of Babylon and changed their languages so they couldn't finish it. The real God wants you to look for it through understanding of the universe, through learning, if this wasn't the case we would build a telescope and see nothing but blackness, we would build a particle accelerator and get no new insights.

God wants to be known.

fucking based answer

we're here and conscious

if you believe the kike butterfly watchers, that's up to you fucker

I'm here.

It's possible the universe arose out of nothing.
The fact that we exist doesn't prove the existence of an external creator.
If this universe is causal that doesn't preclude it's creation being not causal.
Sorry this destroys your worldview but you can't say you know when you don't. It's dishonest.

Heisenberg never said that. It's a fabricated quote from a religious German writer made a decade after Heisenberg's death.

Hildebrand 1988

Attached: Werner Heisenberg.jpg (1100x750, 97K)

Also, Allah and God are the same entity.

This is a common atheist misunderstanding, the argument is not a "god of the gaps" argument its an argument based on reason, not a scientific claim. It's also not a creationist argument and the evolutionist response doesn't work. What is the reason for seeds and trees? Or life at all? Evolutionists have no explanation for life and try and distract from this by claiming that science will fill in that hole when it logically never can.

>which is based on causality being a thing in order for results to be meaningful
is that not an axiom?
It's funny to me how christcucks always try this trick, when they themselves believe that God is enigmatic and unknowable to the human mind.

Jainists, for one example. They outright rejected a notion of a god.

doubt it, cocksucker
either way the quote still works

kill pedos

bitchute.com/video/v0X2KPyuBEm1/

The biggest problem is that science is trying to operate outside of its expertise.

The next time your car is broken, try asking a geologist what's wrong with it. Next time you want to know about the makeup of rocks, try to ask an auto mechanic.

It's not that either the geologist or the auto mechanic isn't good at what they do, but they are different fields.

Contrary to the rumor, science is not the final expert on everything. It is very good at explaining things within it's own sphere, but it's sphere is not all encompassing.

For example... what existed before the big bang? How did we get something out of nothingness? Science cannot (and will not) ever be able to answer this question because it exists outside of the realm of science.

Be careful with those idioms. You never know whose paying attention...

no

Islam doesn't believe in the trinity, so obviously is not the same entity as the Christian God

Non verus tuus deus est atque illum factum verum accipere mox debetis. Omnes vestrum sunt stultissimae adorare istum deum Iudeaeum. Censeo vos delendos esse si nos, fortissmi viri, volimus vincere istas bestias miserrimas.

because the Christian God is Christ

>Aritotle's Prime Mover
Rationalization after rationalization. Fallacy after fallacy.
Religious ((( thinking ))) will never evolve past this point.

yeah lol
and these christcucks will turn around in the same book and ruthlessly attack Arsitotle after using his arguments

Why there should be only one God?

Fair enough, they don't believe in a single deity, but they're still religious/spiritual people, not extremely rational/materialistic.

>the Christian God is Christ
Yes but not only, the Christian God is threefold, God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost. These three are one

Still-mind meditation for 3 hours straight after you have practiced still-mind meditation every day for 3 months

>Descartes
England and France were still beheading atheists during Descartes life. I'd swear I believed in gods too if it meant not getting murdered by religious people.

Attached: burn the heretic.jpg (925x694, 300K)

If you deny him, there is none. If you accept him, there will be plenty of proof.

Your choice.

But do Christians believe in Yahweh?

>"god doesn't exist"-me
huh. the quote still works.

Attached: 1557252329966.png (500x500, 126K)

By having faith. Faith is something you are born with

>nobody claims that the bible is proof that God exists, idiot.
This fucking idiot did:
>The bible says the creation is proof of god's existance. I agree

>what existed before the big bang?
Considering the big bang is not what you think it is.. this can be answered. The "big bang" is actually referring to hyper-inflation of the universe, not some explosion like a bomb. The idea that the universe is 14.8 billion years old is.. not all of it. From the start of inflation until today, that's true. How much time expired between the singularity and inflation? We have no clue - it could be billionths of a second (what most believe) .. or it could be billions of years. What we do know is that during this time period, the universe was in a casual equilibrium to a common temperature. Everything in the universe today was closely packed into this small area. Photons from this time period had the same temperature.

>How did we get something out of nothingness?
Again, you're not understanding the concepts involved in physics. There is NEVER "nothingness". There are always fields, for example. The electromagnetic field is always there. A vibration in this field can (and does) cause protons to pop in and out of existence.

So much for "science can't answer it!" eh?

>you have to already believe to keep believing.

Thats kinda dumb don't you think? Ever heard of biases?

Actually, "real science" aka the scientific method, can AND should be used for anything and everything that exists inside of this universe. There is no such thing as a "scientist" in your educational platforms. On the flipside of that coin... EVERYONE needs to use the scientific method. And in so doing, ALL humans will become, scientists.

Are you fucking stupid!? Everyone knows dragons are extinct.

Non verum esse deum tuum vobis accipiendi sunt.

i used to be an edgy atheist once, it's okay you'll figure it out eventually

>The argument that complexity must come from something more complex.
Your gods are complex and they came from nothing. Either that or they are mental fictions who exist only in the gaps.

>but they're still religious/spiritual people
No. Not at all. You're conflating the term "religious" and "spiritual" to mean the same thing. They absolutely are NOT. Religion requires a deity. Spirituality does NOT. They absolutely WERE spiritual. They absolutely were NOT religious.

There are Christians who do not believe in the trinity, this guy for example: youtube.com/watch?v=8ZvZ-PDmNNU

We are not God, the man himself who exists outside of this universe. We do have constant contact with that immaculate entity, and he graces us with his presence periodically.