On the subject of God

If you want to get technical there is no "chance" at all when flipping a coin. The facing is determined by the side you hold on your finger, the strength of the flip, the distance of the flip, and the material that the coin will impact. You could by all means measure all of this and predict every coin flip. Not easy by any means, but there is zero chance involved.

The old testament is Jewish lies and the new testament is a neutered version of gnosticism for normies. That's the problem. The actual word of God (the gospel of Thomas, containing a number of esoteric sayings by Jesus himself) was declared HERESY by the early catholic church.

The reason christianity is inconsistent is because it's been subverted. But beneath that still lies a powerful and liberating message.

>dont believe tradition
>believe jews!

>IF I DON'T BELIEVE THE COIN LANDS TAILS THEN I BELIEVE IT LANDED HEADS
Based retard.

>he thinks intraphysics prove metaphysics
BRAINLET WARNING

Attached: 090a4fd5.jpg (480x480, 20K)

(((tradition))) also tells you to cut off the tip of your penis, goy

>the cause of the big bang is metaphysical
not necessarily

You mean the ancient storybook that made the claim that the universe didn't always exist millenia before science confirmed it? Haha, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that we enlightened redditors have moved past all that!

Most conceptions of God, especially Yahweh, have a 0% chance of existing because they make zero logical sense.
I'm not arguing for atheism, but the average normalfags' little anthropomorphic Fairy Odd Parent idea of God doesn't exist and never could exist.

>because they make zero logical sense.
>an all powerful being has to fit my limited veiwpoint to exist

>the effect can be the cause itself
You are so fucking stupid. Big bang only concerns our particular universe. The conditions outside our universe made big bang possible in the first place. Your argument boils down to stating: big bang created the big bang. Which is what a tunnelbrained moronburger would say. Go lick some cum you deminigger

>Most conceptions of God, especially Yahweh, have a 0% chance of existing because they make zero logical sense.
Most conceptiosn of God are defined as infinite, eternal, self-existent omnipresent entity. Suddenly when these qualities are applied to the universe itself it becomes completely reasonable and full of sense. Go be a biased fedoranigger somewhere else, low tier subhuman cunt

>don't believe these jews
>believe these other jews!
fixed

Attached: 9F7B63C3-D917-4D7F-B225-6ADB66BAF4EA.jpg (667x673, 346K)

What if Buddha or someone retarded is up there though? Zeus and Thor will mad as fuck we were worshipping some Jewish Carpenter from Palestine.

What if it lands on its edge, like you?

>There is no way for any human to understand the universe, its origins and its laws fully, so I'll assume it's something defying the basic laws we do know.

That's a fucking boulder, pleb.

is the rock white though?

It's a fucking boulder.

>boulder with jagged edges
Jow Forums is dead.

50/50 chance is prolly how the big bang happened desu

is the coin a head? universe begins

roll until succeed

The absolute irony. Go drown your self in primordial sludge and hope you gain a few IQ points in the process. You understand neither science nor religion, i.e. you are a man of complete worthlessness. How does it feel to be a toughtless cocksucker, cocksucker?

>an all powerful being has to fit my limited veiwpoint to exist
Quite the opposite, in fact. Most conceptions of God are extremely limited to what human's experience. God(s) are human-like, they have human personalities, they care about humans above all else, etc. It's all a part of the same disease of Humanism. Atheism is no different than your average religion; it's Secular Humanism: Humanity is God.
>God are defined as infinite, eternal, self-existent omnipresent entity
They also define God as having some sort of inner nature, can be angered (human sensibilities), being benevolent, etc. I shouldn't have to explain to you why this is contradictory to your defined characteristics.

Attached: 1564200744789.jpg (300x407, 57K)

>imagine BELIEVING you can subject an omnipotent, nonspatio-temporal entity to scientific scrutiny

And you call theists retarded...

Attached: file.png (461x375, 190K)

Boulder

Why not your already assuming you know all its laws.

>They also define God as having some sort of inner nature
Most? No chance. You know very little. You know less than little. If little and you had children, your child would grow to detest your stupidity.

God is the Energy of the Universe.
>God created the Universe
>God is within everything
>God animates everything
>God was, is, and always will be
Science will corroborate Religion, especially cosmology. .

So some Jews been at it with a pick axe. False flag man.

>No chance.
The nature of God is literally *the* most debated thing in theology, ever.

Neither.
God doesn’t exist, the concept of God and other religions/ideals are belief systems that we hold onto to combat the nihilism evident in everyones life.
However, regardless of intent/want we each have a belief system we follow.
Therefore,
God does and doesn’t exist for us.
The coin lands on the side you want to believe in.

Attached: 86117d4ffeaa970b3cf26df86e00afa81bb98866d120ce24c0f3228094104cb0.gif (630x517, 1.21M)

fuck your pagan shit. Monadic Christian Gnosticism wuz here

Attached: 64767099_1900633463370477_3464262707614580736_n.jpg (768x960, 129K)

if you were in the womb you´d also think there is nothing outside, because hurr you cant prove it

And about ancient story book, it has nothing to do with ancient story books, the people always believed in god. Certain societies then thought in different directions and thats why the god´s differ from each other, but the idea of a god is a natural human instinct
And we dont have to combine god with certain traits, stories, past, or actions
Its about the question if god exists, and not if god did this or that, or if god would decide so and so in such a case or anything like that
The possibility of god existing is there, and is a logical option, and a book or story wont change that
We cannot prove or disprove god, and the burden of proof also does not lay one someone thinking god exists, because first off, its our nature, and second of all, i dont have to bring proof to make a argument seem possible, if its a logical step.
If i see a car standing somewhere, i dont have to proof that someone made it, because its logical that someone made it. Could it have been created by the elements, might be, but the burden of proof would rather lay on you, if youd argue that this was the case.

also, who can say that believing in god is not the natural position. Maybe not believing in god is not the natural position, ergo proof that god does not exist

Exactly. Which makes your assertion regarding "most people" thinking in any particular way FUCKING_LAUGHABLE_AND_IDIOTIC. You can't fathom how narrow your perception of reality is. It's painful. It's obvious. It's obviously painful. Get cremated and turn yourself into a frisbee, faggot burger.

So your saying God exists to combat nihilism.
Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

>pagan
lmfao

I will never believe in any god that's portrayed by any religion. If the said god exists, we are too stupid to be able to understand it. I'm not an atheist, but I will never truly believe in a religion. The western religions literally make you consider yourself a slave and that's the way the church figures control many people in my country: be humble, give ME your money, you'll be happy for an eternity because I told you so.

Finally, I think that if a god exists, he doesn't give a fuck about what he created. Who's with me?

Theistic religions are an embarrassment to the human species. Monotheistic religions are caved-in-head-persistent-vegetative-state-tier.
Study the ancient Hindu doctrines. Study the ancient Aryan religions.

if you literally believe in GOD like a old dude with white hair, a father figure that judges you and your actions the you are de retard, because actually retards and down sindrome dude believe it that way.

but if you see GOD as a intrinsically force that dictates how the world must advance forward and dictates our morality through our conscience because you are actually part of the GOD and not a separated being from It then you can find a more meaningfull life.

>The possibility of god existing is there, and is a logical option, and a book or story wont change that
>We cannot prove or disprove god
Then why do fucktards vehemently exclaim that their particular story is correct? Or pull some shit out of their ass about how "you can't know nothing for sure man"? Why don't they ask a question that is actually useful instead of this shit that always leads nowhere?

If you'd ACTUALLy studied both, you'd knw that there are very few fundamental differences between the two.

>be you
>tiny miniscule part of all existence
>experience consciousness
>experience meaning
>believe that somehow the totality of existence can't come together as a meaningful conscious entity even though the tiny you did
very VERY low IQ

>The conditions outside our universe made big bang possible in the first place.
My point is that they can be known.

Apparently you're using terminology incorrectly, and that's what's causing your confusion:
Metaphysics is a word used to describe a branch of philosophy.

Way to miss the point, dunce.
The point is that most people debate about the inner nature of God AT ALL. The specifics of what that nature is, is irrelevant. The essence of the debate is flawed.

Exactly. As medieval people were used to be dominated by a king/emperor, it wasn't that hard to believe the existence of a super king that sees you doing everything. There are people that aren't afraid of laws because they think they can overcome them, but a divine daddy watching your every move and punishing you for an eternity in a flaming prison might scare some of them.

You like logic don't you?

Attached: 45634564.png (713x430, 58K)

>My point is that they can be known.
You may be joking, but some delusional people really think this way.

>words cant have two meanings
Metaphysics describe the conditions that allow our physics (intraphysics) to exists.

>this nigger believes he has a point
Fucking lol. You are nothing.

Naw, it takes 10 minutes thought to work out, there's either one God or no gods. If more than one perfect God those perfect gods would work in harmony, so acting as one God. If more than one imperfect god. Then they would be in competition so never be able to keep their existence secret. Atheists couldn't exist and they would be on every corner drumming up trade.

Never again associate with the word 'logic'. You are fundamentally undeserving of standing by all connotations, implications and consequences of such enlightened semantics. You are a pussyfaggot idiot. Nothing more. Nothing less. Well, perhaps less. But that's another story. In short: liquidate yourself in a pool of acid, pseudo-intellectual bitch

To understand atheists you must first understand the ego.

Attached: leon.jpg (271x320, 20K)

>zero chance involved
This is legit the reason free will is an illusion. Everything's a clockwork including the human brain.

That's an argument from ignorance. Something can't come from nothing, therefore God. Yawn

Attached: 1aa9b5e1a63d56aeea7df61a0ef41d850f1a430f8254fa0e3de2d53da6f83709.jpg (750x630, 284K)

Then why do people think they have it, then. Why would the concept of free will exist robots don't need one.

> Although we set the rules and agreed upon them, your argument is illegitimate because I don't have response, bring me legitimate argument or I won
didn't expect anything else

Attached: 1550336214917.jpg (500x500, 47K)

>Science has disproven God.
Try again, retard.

Attached: Big fucking strawman.jpg (200x199, 11K)

Attached: E9E168BC-0615-4598-9D25-4AC8D9610C16.jpg (849x694, 148K)

It's not a joke, and your arrogance about what is possible is exactly the kind of thing the original poster was criticizing.

Just because you can't think of how it could be possible to measure them doesn't mean it can't be done. You are having a delusion of grandure if you think otherwise.

>Metaphysics describe the conditions that allow our physics (intraphysics) to exists.
No it doesn't. Idk what cook taught you that, but you should have ignored him.

I know that the coin lands on the front, but I have no idea what it looks like and have no way of knowing. Therefore I can't conclude that the coin will land on "heads" because it would require me knowing that the front of the coin depicts a heads of a prominent person. You can define "heads" as the front of the coin regardless of what it actually looks like, but then it becomes a completely useless category.
>what is God?
>it's something I can't even begin to describe and have no idea as to how it would interact with our universe

cook kook

The illusion of free must convey an evolutionary advantage otherwise it wouldn't have evolved.

>all the books of the bible written by jews
>but its not jewish because out of context scriptures can be twisted against jews

No, more like, just because we can't explain something about the universe, that doesn't mean we are allowed to take a leap into supernatural territory. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is fallacious. Also, it doesn't provide us with an explanation for the phenomenon you're trying to explain, it merely replaces on unknown with another unknown. If we had done this every time we hit upon an unknown in our collective knowledge, we would've never gone anywhere.

>predeterminism is proven science
Babby's First Existential Discussion - The Post

Get a load of the brainlets in here, guys.

Attached: file.png (300x300, 102K)

>binary choice means 50-50 chance of either answer being correct
Brainlet detected.

this thread

Attached: retards trying to sound smart.jpg (1352x980, 225K)

The way I've always seen God growing up is that of "the highest possible power that could ever exist."

And if there is such a thing that is the highest and most powerful, then its sheer power is something that the human brain cannot fully comprehend. We can approximate it, with abstraction and intense thought (like the study of metaphysics). However, the human brain but can only experience an infinitely small portion of this power's awesomeness.

To believe in God is to realize that you as a human is fundamentally limited, and that's ok. I think everyone would agree that the idea of God would be that which is the most substantial being that no other being could possibly match, in every and all dimensions.

I think this is a good starting point for people to look at, if they are skeptical as to whether God is real or not. If the God concept can only be rationalized in abstractions and thought, then I think we can also assume that God is, at the very least, beyond material understanding.
Not to say that God cannot be understood at all, but it is to say that material explainations (physics, for example) are inadequate.

I also think that once this is acceptable, then you can also conclude that the God concept, if the most powerful thing that could ever exist, means that in some way shape or form, it has the potential to affect everything below it. In other words, the biggest player gets to write the rules and everything below it follows said rules.

As to what those rules are, the explaination differs between religions. But what we can derive is this:
- The rules are static. Our universe, and our world runs in a very specific way. And it has been running this particular way for as long as humans can recall, at the very least. We can always expect the earth to have gravity, we can always expect food and water to keep us alive, we can always expect living things to reproduce, etc. These are the "rules" we play by, and they will stay this way for the foreseeable future.

hahahahaha fucking based

It essentially is though.

There's a tiny bit of wiggle room in quantum mechanics, but it's very very tiny.

8 minutes per hour is the speed of light, brainlet.

Why your a robot, evolution doesn't really work if your a robot. Your programmed to win or lose. It's not survival of the fittest.

>not realizing that literally all of reality is a macroscopic quantum system

That tiny bit of wiggle room allows for me to make this statement:

>If I throw a baseball at a brick wall enough times, there is a possibility, albeit remote, that all the particles that make up the ball and wall will be in a phase alignment and pass through each other.

So, it essentially ISN'T

>implying robots cannot modify themselves
Initial conditions + laws = everything that happens.

you're a mathematical illiterate.

> Cont ...

- We have these specific rules, and they are often observable. These rules we can discover through material understanding (science, physics, etc). However, we cannot fully know WHY those rules are implemented. Why is the acceleration of gravity 9.81 meters squared per second, and not some other arbitrary number? Why is Carbon the essential ingredient for living things, and not some other element? Why is the sun at the distance that it is, and why is the specific temperatures that the earth has hospitable to life on Earth? And furthermore, why is life on Earth hospitable to these specific conditions, and not some other arbitrary conditions?

- As you delve deeper into this material lens, you find out that you can't really find an answer to these questions. So let's say you find out that life on Earth is hospitable to these conditions because that's the only range of temperatures that DNA can be preserved. Then why is THAT the case? And maybe you find the explanation to that because of some chemical reaction. You know the exact molecules, and the rate at which they move, and vibrate, and you have all the formulas figured out to know the exact ratios needed. What you have done, essentially, is found out the programming behind the Game. But in all your searching, you will not know WHY the programmer put this rule here, or that statement there. And unlucky for you, the programmer probably didn't write any notes on the side.

You can therefore conclude that these material rules exist and they work so seamlessly because SOMETHING made it that way. What is this something, we don't really know. This SOMETHING is what many consider to be God.

This also btfo's the "If God is so powerful then can he move an un moveable mountain" argument.And that's also impossible, as the most powerful thing that we call God has to, by definition, be able to affect all things below it. God cannot therefore create something that he himself cannot hold agency over.

>So, it essentially ISN'T
The phase alignment evolves in time deterministically though.

I mean, look, QM allows someone to hold the position that the universe is not ENTIRELY 100% deterministic... but it certainly doesn't PROVE the statement to be true.

The universe may yet bet 100% deterministic.

Lmao get a load of this retard.

Attached: C5F2587D-11F6-4FD7-A2FF-89985ED637AA.jpg (1442x587, 58K)

How cam god exist when suffering exists?

How? I can understand one robot being faster than another, so out running danger. But deliberately modifying itself or its conditions. Implies imagination. Envisioning a future and attempting to create it. Not just trying to do the same thing till you get it right or wear out trying.

>What you have done, essentially, is found out the programming behind the Game.

What do you base this on? Here, you simply introduce the universe as a game without any justification.

Attached: 1549624965545.jpg (512x512, 188K)

This is basically the Anthropic Principle.

Where's the "maybe" choice

maybe the lens of God is not to seen by any human or moral justification. If anything if there is a God it's certainly not as portrait in the religious books.

science is just another way of finding God though, some people need more proof than others

>implying robots cannot have an imagination
Everything that happens is automatic. Sit back and enjoy the ride.