God does not exist

In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing but because I am enlightened by my intelligence.

Think about this. Science has never been able to create life. I don't mean procreating. I mean taking all the natural elements and piecing together a new species of animal or incect or plant in a completely sterile environment

Somehow I miss these threads.

>God does not exist.
Yes I do cunt

And?
What kind of proof is that?
God of the Gaps is not exactly what you should be aiming for.

Attached: God-of-the-Gaps.jpg (353x359, 42K)

Found your picture

Attached: 98FF8FBE-10B6-4FFF-83CC-2243C3EECBAD.jpg (4032x3024, 900K)

Ignore this cretin OP
Vergesset nicht den 30jährigen Krieg
In dem ein drittel unserer Landsmänner ihr Leben ließen
Wegen des Reiches und des Papstes Tyrannei

Not proof. Its the failure of science to explain the "spark" of life. Theres more at work here than just simple science.

Lol, assuming paganism didn't killed tons of people too.

>stop worrying and enjoy your life

Definitely not as much as Abrahamic scum

Stfu

I used to be an athiest like you but then I realised how crazy everything is and there's no proof that God doesn't exist, a God may have caused the big bang. Just be an agnostic faggot.

In the end, it is really just belief, even things that are stated as “fact” are founded upon the base of belief, and faith, religious or otherwise. So when we state that (as example) math can show us the secrets of the universe, we have to first place our faith in what kinds of math, algebra and etc, and believe it works, and after trial and error, once we figure everything out, we have to place our faith in the end result, as it is as close to fact as we’re going to get.
So when we ask someone why we place our faith in God, we must also ask why we put faith in numbers.

Attached: 8B602E69-FBA8-4763-B7EA-F69729C990DD.jpg (1836x3264, 551K)

Well
Not in Germany
and since I and OP are both from Germany
examples like the mass murderous Atztecs obviously don't count
As for Paganism killing tons of people
as for Germanic paganism, there were none killed in the name of it except in uprising against the disastrous catholic church
As for Christianity history has shown very well how disastrous it was for Germany and the Roman Empire that ruled over us until Napoleon rid us of it is the main reason for every problem here.

At least Christianity is doing well now...
I think

That's not simple science.
It's compicated science.
But no reason to believe in a magic skyman.
Science can't explain the birth of the universe or the emergence of life.
YET.

>YET

Attached: 1449w620095741.jpg (254x395, 22K)

>YET
>YET
YET

Attached: 1867F6CB-19B3-484B-984E-E23185EA061C.jpg (297x300, 22K)

yeet xdd

I am a atheist but I think soon you need a license for that in the UK

I'm agnostic, convince me to become an atheist.

you're practically an atheist anyway

Atheism and agnosticism don't exclude each other.

Attached: F01Uj.jpg (400x400, 40K)

What's the problem in not knowing? I'd rather admit I don't know than agree with the first guy who claims he has the answers.

Knowledge should be seen as conditional.
Based on what I know at the moment, I don't think a god exists. It's more sensible than claiming a profound faith in lack of faith (not that anyone actually does).
This doesn't mean that agnosticism makes sense, it's just people misusing the concept of belief.

I don't believe in anything like god may or may not exist I though atheists didn't believe in god and agnostics knew that they can't prove or disprove God's existence

Take a huge amount of DMT and you'll see that there is shit beyond the shit you get taught by Neil Degrasse Tyson

You just have a wrong image of what the exactly the abrahamic god/ JHWH is

Thomas of Aquinas had some points
More or less easy to understand:

I. The Argument from Change (“Motion”)

Change is immediately apparent in the universe, in the sense that things move from a “potential” state to an “actual” state. But this potential is for something that does not yet exist and so requires something else to actualize it. Whatever actualizes that, in turn, would have to be actualized by something else. Logically, this chain of changes cannot be infinitely long, or else nothing would have ever changed in the first place. Therefore, there must exist some un-changed and un-changing thing that actualizes all other changes. This principle is not related to time or a sequence of events. Rather, it points out the need to have something capable of causing the changes we observe: God, the Un-Moved Mover.

Attached: 26a13ec2590f3d4452ece22f99b0b744.jpg (578x818, 471K)

In a strict sense, it's not possible to disprove God anyway.
Besides, the issue of proof or disproof doesn't mean you can't make a judgement on the merits of an argument. I'm an atheist because I don't have faith in God's existence but I don't claim that I can disprove that.

II. The Argument from Causality

Cause and effect are apparent in the universe. Everything that occurs is caused by something else. All events are dependent on some other occurrence or thing in order to make them happen. A thing cannot be the cause of itself, or else it would never come to exist. Logically, this chain of causation cannot be infinitely long, or nothing would ever have come to exist in the first place. Therefore, there must be an un-caused thing that causes all other things. This argument is not related to time or a sequence of events. Rather, it considers the fact that all things are dependent on something else for their existence.

In other words, the second of Aquinas’s ways to show God’s existence is based on the fact that all effects are caused by some other event, which in turn is the effect of some other cause. But this chain of causality cannot be infinitely long, so there must be some un-caused cause: God, the First Cause.

III. The Argument from Contingency

Nothing we observe in the universe is necessary; nothing needs to exist, in and of itself. We often observe things that cease to exist, falling victim to death, destruction, or decay. Eventually, all non-necessary things cease to be. But, if it were possible for everything to cease to exist, and if there has been an infinite amount of past time, then all things would have already ceased to exist. There would be nothing left at all. The fact that anything exists at all, even now, means there must be one thing that cannot cease to exist, one thing that must necessarily exist. There must be one thing that is non-contingent—i.e., its existence is not dependent on anything else. This thing must be.

In other words, Aquinas’s third argument or way to prove God’s existence is that, if everything were impermanent, eventually everything would cease to be. Therefore, there must be at least one thing that must, necessarily, exist (one non-contingent thing): God, the Necessary Being.

IV. The Argument from Perfection

Every trait we see, in every object, is compared to some standard: health, morality, strength, and so forth. The fact that we instinctively see degrees in these areas implies that there is some ultimate standard against which to judge that property. And all comparative properties share a common sense of “perfection.” This means there must be some ultimate standard of “perfection” from which to judge all other properties; those objects cannot be the source or definition of that property in and of themselves.

In other words, Aquinas’s fourth argument in favor of God’s existence points out that, in order to speak of “goodness” or “power,” we must have an absolute standard against which to judge those terms; there must be some other thing from which they ultimately derive that characteristic: God, the Ultimate Standard.

V. The Argument from Purpose

Many things in the universe “drive” toward a particular end, not random results. Magnets “drive” to seek metal or to align their poles. Seeds “drive” to become adult plants, not animals. This regularity, as opposed to randomness, is a sign of purpose—of intention or intelligence. However, magnets and seeds and such have no intelligence of their own. Therefore, their “drive” must be the result of some external intelligence setting or fixing or designing their behavior. In some means or mechanism, all purposes and functions must originate in some intelligent entity.

In other words, Aquinas’s fifth way to show the existence of God involves the fact that inanimate matter and energy do not exhibit intelligence or purpose. When we see something unintelligent that appears to have some specific purpose or that fulfills some purposeful role, we must assume that thing to have been given that purpose by some other intelligence. Ultimately, this leads to God, the Grand Designer.

Or acid, or ayahuasca…
it's a transcendent experience for sure, but you're just sitting down at the threshold if you think it's God or something spiritual.
Go far enough to experience ego death and you start seeing something else entirely.

Do you believe there are any phenomena that are not explained by natural forces? Seeing or thinking of loved ones around their time of death etc?

You have to have gagged on BSM's big flaccid black dick to believe there isn't more to our experience than we currently have knowledge of

The path of light shall guide you

Aquinas did a lot of motivated reasoning.
II. is built on causality, implying sequence, implying the existence of time. If time and space began in the Big Bang, causality doesn't give good answers anymore. If the state before the Big Band was a singularity, every possible event happened simultaneously everywhere. Without time and space, there is no causality.

III. arguing by analogy. What he describes may be the ultimate fate of the Universe, by the way. It's just very young still, so plenty of time for entropy to get us there.
IV. The idea of perfection is a human construct. We can imagine these standards, but not everything we imagine has to exist.
V. Things seem to drive toward some end because humans tend to assign agency to things that have none. Thomas is describing the emergent phenomena of simpler reactions. Just because these reactions happen in a certain way doesn't imply a purpose or a design.

Gnosticism has nothing to do with being agnostic. Gnosticism is the name of a Christo-Platonist sect/philosophical school (strongly associated with mysticism) which flourished throughout much of the Hellenistic world during the late antiquity.

>Thomas of Aquinas
Please, just don't.
1-3: Who says that god is immune to regress? Why would a natural terminator be god?
4: Yeah, so if god is the extreme of everything, he's also the smelliest and ugliest. And because extremes go in both directions, he would always be the most and least extreme. Apply that to every trait you want and those extremes would negate each other. Which would equal 0. Which would mean that god doesn't exist.
Are you arguing for or against god's existence?
5: Everything that looks designed is designed? Well, Darwin aleady took that one apart.
And who designed god?

Don't try to use "rationalism" to prove god.
If you want to convince someone, use empiricism.
If you can't find empirical evidence, then why would you think that it exists?

Gnosis comes from ancient greek and means "knowledge".
Gnosticism and Agnosticism describe whether you think you know if god exists or not.

Believe what you want man. Belief is a human's way of coping. Some believe to give their life meaning, some to give their death meaning, some to give the world meaning. But in the end we all believe in something. And our lives and deaths will still mean nothing in spite of it.

Belief is also not a voluntary thing. I can't force myself to believe that the sky is red. Of course, my senses could be lying to me.
I also can't choose to believe that there's a special edition Dragon Dildo orbiting Neptune. There might be and I can't disprove it. I just can't convince myself to that belief.