Previous atheism thread died

>A1b: every effect has a cause
We don't know that every effect has a cause. It may be that all but one of the effects has a cause.

God just hates you so much that he hides from you user.

>b2 is invalid
Reqlly? Let’s revist what b2 was:
>premise A2 is a tautology
That’s wierd, b2 was referential, and you say it is wrong?
That must mean you can disprove A2, even though you ignored it and instead attacked B,
Still, I’m certain if we wait long enough you will disprove A2, since B2 is “absolutely invalid”. And the only way to argue B2 is to invalidate A2.
I’ll wait.

Attached: DBC879FA-E69A-4C71-BE4F-543B46DC2EEE.png (640x773, 49K)

>A2a: if we follow that chain back far enough we reach “the beginning of our universe”
No. If the universe has always existed forever then every effect could have a cause and yet we could follow the cause and effect back and never find a beginning.

Define quantum and define apparently.
Then explain your argument,
>you can’t.

What makes your kike god more real than Odin or Ra?

How about this Christfag, prove Jesus wasn't attracted to men. Prove his teen years weren't a decade of him getting his ass railed by every fag in Israel.

Where did God come from?
youtu.be/w6AHcv19NIc

Attached: 1557073048903.jpg (800x800, 75K)

Attached: cringe.gif (380x285, 1.97M)

Therefore jewish god

Unique take but ultimately defying B without explanation.
>Not necessarily.
Yes. Definitively necessarily. As in the literal and only definition of necessarily.
>but muh miracles?
I have to assume you understand how retarded you sound. You are literally begging for miracles in a pragmatically defined causual framework.
That isn’t reasonable.

So you admit you can't prove that Jesus didn't keep his teen years secret because of all the thousands of nights of anal tearing and ass to mouth circumcised romps? You're going to hell for blasphemy user

Jesus never sinned, and being a fag is a sin.

You're going to hell blasphemer

Read my second post you illiterate nigger. Both of your premises are false

This should be a shocker, but I doubt it will sink in:
I literally do not care what you think; even though you have a rabid desperation about what I think.
Should I care what you think? Probably.
But I don’t.

You really really need to ask yourself why you care about what someone who believes in magic zombies thinks when they don’t care about you at all.

Something to think about.

God sounds pretty based.

Prove homosexuality is a sin. The bible says it is an abomination, but not a sin. I love how you are so nervous about being totally unable to prove that Jesus didn't have the loosest anus of antiquity.

See B.
Fuck, those trap shouldn’t be this good, it is suppossed to be obvious,

So your argument is that it is possible for something to always exist?

Attached: DCA2200C-A564-4936-89E6-B3E6C14A319F.gif (500x376, 1.03M)

He won.

Prove hitler or Stalin or... wait a sec.
Prove you aren’t attracted to men,
>nice try, faggot.

Oh fuck.
How do I delete a thread?

So you can't prove Jesus wasn't a fag? You must think there's a possibility that he was one, or you'd at least quickly prove it for the lurkers who you're trying to turn over to Rabbi Worship. But you can't prove it, and therefore must think there's a remote possibility. Enjoy hell for being a blasphemous Christfag while God lets me into heaven to dab all over your Christfag corpse for eternity

Prove it.

Read your posts, didn’t see any falsification,
You know what would make you seem super smart right Now?
Clearly refuting either my axions or my process of conclusion.
But you won’t. Or, more likely, you will succumb to B,
Sad!

low effort and gay
- religions like christianity only ontologiclly dualist since the 80's because of postmodernism / scientology hollywood
>if god created everything then who created god?
-question only been around since 80's because above reason
-directed not at religion but at dualism

dualism:
>nonphysical category created physical category
"so then what category created the nonphysical category?"
>............

The only possible answer is that another external category created god.
-this logical fallacy is called infinite regression

>"so? lo-logic isn't that important!"

okay so which of the three ontological theories with infinite regression is correct?
-dualism
-idealism
-physicalism

The only correct answer is monism.
The pre-80's definition of god = fabric of reality.

Atheists think dualism is dumb because it is

Sure, there are videos of me fucking Thai whores on xhamster. Can your poofter twink God say the same?

Not any easier than you can prove Stalin was a capitalist demihuman who melted Russia’s ice to enable a golden age.

How fucking new are you?

Why don't you break down my argument and demonstrate why it's either false or not an argument, without misrepresenting anything. You can't because apologetics classes only taught you how to cargo-cult and go through the motions of an actual debate of axioms. If you actually understood how to deductively reason with axioms you wouldn't be such a flaming Christfag

Not many churches for Odin or ra nowaday.
Prove to me the original cult of ra or Odin has anything but whispers of memories to operate on.

Really, this thread was for atheists, not pagans. No one takes pagans seriously.

>See B.
>Fuck, those trap shouldn’t be this good, it is suppossed to be obvious,
You fell for a false dichotomy. For science to be possible all you need is cause and effect most of the time. If there are things that don't accord with cause and effect but they are small in number, science still can figure things out.

>no links.
This is really sad.

>So your argument is that it is possible for something to always exist?
I cannot prove that it's impossible.

Just because something is worshipped doesn't mean it exists.

Prove the existence of God.

You literally didn’t make an argument.
If you did, feel free to reiterate it.
If you don’t, clearly I am correct.

Uh... I’m gong to have to refer you to literally the first ost I made
(That’s the OP, I’m clarifying because you appear to be tragically retarded)

I can't prove that Stalin wasn't a Martian with a 12 foot dick. I understand how burden of proof works, and therefore understand that while that probably wasn't the case, until all possible cases for it are proven false, the possibility exists. And you can't prove Jesus wasn't a fag, thereby meaning you by definition must entertain just the smallest percent possibility that he was, if we are playing by the same standard, and so you will go to hell for blasphemy for entertaining the idea (the historical fact) that Jesus disdained women's bodies for the same reason all other onions-drinking rainbow fairies do.

There are things beyond our universe. That doesn't make them God, or even Azathoth. It just makes them beyond our present understanding.

It almost seems like you understood my argument, but you still feel like you’ve won.

Did you actually recognize the argument presented and the impact your rebuttal would Have?
Or are you retarded?

I'm going to have to ask you to explain how your argument proves the existence of God, and how exactly you know the form and history of the universe from that.

I'm waiting.

Of course you need that.
If you reread it, you will realize our universe requires an external creator.

That’s why you got so rumprumptured over it.
Also:
>imagine being so retard3d you need a logical proof reiterated to you.

Dude, wake up. You have been artificially retarded by kikes.

You just showed us one of the many limitations of human logic. The answer to this doesn't have to be God. It can also be that the universe isn't logical at every scale, or that we're too dumb to understand it.

Since you're fucking retarded and deserve only one response, a rope around your worthless Christfag neck, I will summarize my argument in even simpler terms for anons that don't want to dig through two long posts mostly populated by your dense, obscured Christfag gibberish.

OP's essential argument is that all effects have causes, therefore there must have been a beginning of the universe, it must have been created by an external creator, that this creator must be a dead long-haired rabbi who loved taking rods in his rectal cavity, and that to deny any of this is to contradict the scientific method. This is of course obviously horseshit because:

1/2

We don't know that all effects have causes. It very well could be that entirely random events happen infinitely more frequently than events with observable causes. To contradict this is to claim infinite knowledge which is blasphemous.

Because this admission of the finite scope of our knowledge implies that many phenomena could very well be uncaused, the claim that the universe needed to have begun at some point rather than having always existed without cause is also a bunk argument.

Even still, the introduction of just one God rather than an infinite regression of gods creating other gods is completely arbitrary and totally in contradiction with the beginning of this argument.

He then appeals to the sanctity of the scientific method to invoke his arbitrary semitic deity for some reason.

2/2

>you will realize our universe requires an external creator

Okay, so that implies that your god requires a creator as well. Who or what created your god?

>causal universe
Reminder that God's name is "He who causes"

>humans can’t understand reality
>also, I’m totally sure god isn’t real
Fucking atheists are disgusting.
>you deserve only one response
...
>1/2
This is fun.

>so that implies that your god requires a creator as well
Oh? Do you have a logical reason that is the case?

Please tell me, I love learning. This is exciting!

Attached: Circular Reasoning.jpg (1104x927, 84K)

>A1b: every effect has a cause

It's literally in the OP you're dicksucking so much.

>durr i troll you!!!1

No, you're just a retarded Christfag and you've made it obvious that you are authentically subhuman. There's no need to start backing up into "I'm only pretending to be retarded to get a rise out of you" now.

>muh burden of proof
damn atheists expecting NEW data to contradict ALL DATA IN SCIENCE because there's only ONE WAY to analyze data apparently.
A theory must explain all data. If you can't explain one thing then your theory is wrong.

Also OP is a gay dualist. "external cause" leads to more external cause meaning infinite regression.
But god isn't ever defined as an external cause, because monism.
THIS causes THAT but THAT also causes THIS. No external cause, no infinite regress. Monism. One category - god.

seriously OP visit the wikipedia page on ontology as a jumping off point for the long road ahead of you

Why does it matter what name God is called, moron? The point is that God must exist and we've reached deism as the baseline logical position to work from instead of cucked atheism.

Religion is about faith, you can't know whether I'm atheist from what I say. Also
>Can you logically defend being atheist without denying the validity of logic?
If by "validity" you mean absolute validity, yes, but don't forget that believing in God also has its logical limitations (could God create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift?)

>We don't know that all effects have causes.
Then I would refer you to argument B I which you do not agree our universe is causal.

This isn’t a game you can win. Your predecessors made the rules and trapped themselves.

God aside, can I implore you to simply engage in some degree of curiously of why you exist?

The physical model has been on life support since inception, while its untenableness doesn’t mean the overarching idea is wrong, you should definitely wonder why matter exists in the first place.

.it legitimately doesn’t have to. Nothing old do just as well in a world without meaning.

I concede.
I have been defeated.

Attached: 904F705F-F8D6-4D7B-9FF4-E9C111B1FDF4.png (646x595, 280K)

>Why does it matter what name God is called

Because there are subhumans on this planet who not only think god exists, but it must only exist with a specific name, enough so that they're prepared to go to war over it.
Don't you just love wars that start over fairy tales, christfag?

>I defy the validity of logic
Now seriously, do you expect debate to continue from here’s?

>effects don’t have causes
What did he mean by this?

>Religion is about faith
Yes, if your religion is fake it's gonna be about faith because nothing fucking happens.

So what is the cause of your kike god? Who or what created it? I'm still waiting for an answer.

btw OP atheists will never listen to your arguments because of the reason I stated. Again, learn about ontology and especially physicalism. most atheists are physicalists

also the mind can't be simulated
or "uploaded" to a computer
because the color red exists

There is absolutely no problem with the infinite regression “fallacy” if you’re willing to wrap your head around the idea that YOU ARE INSIGNIFICANT AF. People who cannot handle infinite regress inquiries insist that there must be a logical starting point for all that ever was, is, and shall be that they can call “God” but it’s really not that difficult to question what “God” is made of, and what that substance is made of, etc. Infinity motherfuckers. All that really matters is that you are here, now, experiencing this, and only you can chose how you react, in each moment you exist.

>>We don't know that all effects have causes.
>Then I would refer you to argument B I which you do not agree our universe is causal.

Fuck your referral. I made an argument, now engage with it or fucking hang yourself. You don't get to write one brief sentence of non-rebuttal and then several paragraphs of victory lap and think anybody's stupid enough to fall for it.

Then do so.
>you won’t

...

It's like you think that the development of a theory will determine what reality is. When actually we're discussing the human understanding of reality.
Three theories have infinite regression, one does not. Which of the three theories with infinite regression is correct?

External argument.
My god may have his own god, but the fact remains that the predecessor of causality created our universe.
That is our god.
That is our creator.

Your argument is couched in theological nonsense because of your aversive n to a creator (even if that creator was created)
Let me give you the soi breakdown:
>Some nerd made a simulation
>that’s us
>holy shit, Sooners is our creator

Stop being a faggot on purpose.

This is your brain on materialism

Wrong.
Materialists accept logic,
That man is different,

>My god may have his own god

So, you finally concede to the infinite regression fallacy?

Are you honestly retarded enough to think that wars are about religious differences? That's just the cover story you dumb ape. Yet again, I'm talking to an atheist cuck lmao

>my god may have his own god
infinite regress

wow I am actually destroying OP continuously but he is pretending I don't exist

If they did they wouldn't be materialists

there's a bunch of retarded shit that's just crazy that it makes me wonder how can there be anyone certain of anything
imagine this: an infinite amount of time happened before you were born
when did were you born exactly considering the entire age of existence itself?
I'm not trying to schizo ramble or anything but I want you to understand that the mere fact that you exist is one of the most bizarre things ever

Attached: 1560817502134.jpg (540x303, 42K)

Wrong, you presumed an unprovable necessity of the creators existence. I agreed that this is a possibility without knowledge of that realm.
Nooone has lnowedlge of that realm, or any realms above it,

I merely said that it is possible and also irrelevant.

The fact that you can’t see how it is irrelevant is frankly embarassing and shameful.

Just the sole fact that religion is a tool that can be used to rile subhumans like you to go to war should be enough to make you think about its validity.

btw dude physicalism has infinite regress too

>what are particles made out of?
>sm-smaller p-particles...?

get lost, you are a mere edgy teenager

I probably had a good reason for pretending you don’t exist. See:

Two ways to defeat this argument.
A) We can reject the 'causality' as an incoherent concept. If it's temporal, then it does not correspond to actual states of affairs. And if that is so, then we can accept that 'causality' is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within the mind. In doing so, this need not have anything to do with deductive syllogisms as you suggest, but perhaps maybe with inductive syllogisms.
B) We can accept all of this as true, and merely suggest that a cause in the universe began everything (i.e. not something 'without' as you say). We can do so because of your imprecise premise A1B and A2A: if we follow the universe all the way back we merely get the first cause, which has no effect. You presume that whatever the first cause is, it does not have an effect. So we can just say the first cause is the first cause without invoking a deity.

No where in your argument does it suggest that ALL causes in the natural universe are also simultaneously effects, an assumption you pay for now.

superb humility post

>We can reject the 'causalit
Stopped reading right there.
You have already fallen into B.

You have rejecteded mundane means of discerning knowledge which means your arguments are not scientifically based.

Why should I take your arguments seriously?

>infinite regression isn't a legitimate argument because you haven't yet agreed to my specific category which requires an infinite regression of categories to create it so we're not even talking about said infinite list of categories just this one very specific category

lmao well apparently you can't read. I said we can defeat this argument two ways.

That was one way. The merit of it is whatever you want it to be.

The second way is more persuasive. Your argument is formally invalid, as we don't need to invoke a deity based on your premises (but you seem to suggest we do).

>infinite regression
Brainlet detected.
I mean seriously, how retarded is even possible?
*braces for impact*

you have never even heard of the word "ontology" before in your life, I guarantee it.
frankly embarrassing and shameful

You rejected causality.
Arguments mean nothing from that point forward.
You might want to kill yourself if this needed to be explained to you.

Even if you had a “ligitmate” argument we couldn’t actually discuss it because your position is that causality doesn’t exist.

That means arguments don’t exist. We can’t actually discuss the topic since you rejected discussion as valid..

Attached: A2AEE16D-53FE-48DF-B62A-C71D4E4A6AF6.png (528x498, 201K)

>you presumed an unprovable necessity of the creators existence

Don't put words in my mouth, christfag. You presumed that the universe absolutely needs to have a cause, and that cause is your kike god. Then you said that your kike god was created by a supergod, which by your "logic", also needed to have been created by a supersupergod ad infinitum. Do you see that your entire premise for the existence of all is a fallacy?

Given enough time, that mystery will be solved.
Just like germ theory, the discovery of molecules, atoms, etc.
Those things can actually be studied and proved or disproved.

This seems much more desperate than you hoped.

Perhaps supplying a legitimate argument vis a vis my premises or conclusions would reduce the embarrassment?

Let me guess, you don’t want to win the argument and desperately desire to be made to look retarded and that’s why you won’t address the argument directly?

Just a guess.
Prove me wrong.

Lmao you're a troll. You either have no reading comprehension or your LARPing -- or alternatively you could be the sloppiest philosopher alive.
I said we can accept causality in (B) and you still don't prove your point. Everything you said is compatible with a natural cause lmao

You wrote a formally invalid argument. Sorry bruh