Arguments For/Against God

What are your arguments for or against God? I've been really weighing this question lately and here's what I have --

For God's existence:
>onions
>loving wives and mothers
>cats
>classical music
>sleeping in
>beer
>taco bell

Against God's existence
>millennials
>women, unless she's a loving wife and/or mother
>office jobs
>canada
>sweden
>the middle east

Seems like the against is far stronger than the for.

Attached: 46093458_170863367205136_3073113258509467648_n.jpg (646x960, 37K)

The Truth will stand on its own. You'll see. And you'll remember this post when you do.

John 14:6
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

>against
You actually have to prove stuff, not just imagine it, you absolute braindead fucking retarded cuckolds who go around inseminating their wives with black sperm because their pastor gets all his advice from the local rabbi

Honestly, a designer who was so smart wouldn't make us have to take shits

>>onions
my nigga

The difference between the old and the new testament (Jehovah)
Absence (general)

Fucking this. Especially when there's a seemingly infinite amount of shit on my asshole to wipe. Like I can't just use half the roll of toilet paper for one dump. Fucking bullshit.

Onions are fucking delicious, my nigger.

Take 2 grams of dried psilocybe cubensis, and read the first two chapters of Genesis, and then you will know.

Based and shroompilled

Attached: 1530062532877.jpg (807x1142, 522K)

For God's existence:
>we exist
>we exist in three dimensions
>breaking free from three dimensions is like a cube
>cube unfolds into a cross
>our brain sits in a dark three dimensional space
>which makes our life a very surreal, 3d simulation
>and when I close my eyes I see dust
>those dust particles look like stars
>making my brain a fractal of space

Against:
>Richard Pinker
>Steven Dawkins/Dawson/too lazy to look up his name and my memory is shit
>God doesn't love us
>This existence is a prison
>Absolutely no proof that something bigger exists
>we are microscopic like a cell

I don't know. Most of this is rehashed.

Attached: chuckie.png (869x637, 698K)

Why would there be only one god? Monotheism makes no sense.

My argument against is that there's no substantive argument for.

>>we exist
muh survivorship bias
>>we exist in three dimensions
same as above
>>breaking free from three dimensions is like a cube
>>cube unfolds into a cross
wew
>>our brain sits in a dark three dimensional space
>>which makes our life a very surreal, 3d simulation
indistiguishable from a simulation does not make it a simulation
>>and when I close my eyes I see dust
>>those dust particles look like stars
>>making my brain a fractal of space
bruh dude woah duuuddde
the idea that any of these prove god is nonsequitor

For God's existence:
>The universe began to exist therefore it has so ething that caused it to exist
>Morality hasno objective basis unless God exists and morals seem to self evidently be real
>The New testament is a pretty reliable source when compared to any other manuscripts from the first century

Against:
>Sweden

Ockham's razor

>The universe began to exist therefore it has so ething that caused it to exist
The problem is that we take the existing rules of the universe (like cause and effect) and extend it before those rules applied. We have no idea if, in the universe's case, cause neccesarily neccitates it. We are looking at in it a very 1 dimensional way.
>Morality hasno objective basis unless God exists and morals seem to self evidently be real
That's because morality is not objective. You are in a comfortable society where people can respect each other (reasonably well) and you don't have to hardly worry about life and death. Now take your ideas of "objective" morals and go back to tribal kill or be killed societies. Good luck.
>The New testament is a pretty reliable source when compared to any other manuscripts from the first century
In what way?

>1st point:
Rules of causality aren't tied to laws of physics so no reason they couldn't/shouldn't extend that far back
>2nd point:
Just because some cultures are barbaric doesn't mean that when they find true morality that it seems selfxplanitory. Like the contitution of the US says: these truths are self evident. Meaning when you understand the principal it diesnt need explanation.
>3rd point:
Being writen quite soon after the events and having multiple sources. (All in 1st century standards obviously)

None. Either there isn't a god or there is a god that allowed so much suffering and injustice in my life.

Either way he doesn't deserve a micro atom of my devotion or adoration

Is God real? I dunno dude, I don't really care, but I think the idea of God is important.
The concept of there being an absolute truth, power, and good is useful - not for any moralistic reason of "it'll damn you if you don't obey," but more so a nice reminder that as a human you hold no absolute truths, you are not absolutely good, and you aren't all powerful.
I.e. God (as an idea) exists to remind you that you can never be absolutely right, with the other side of this being Academia, which exists to show you how you can at least be the most "not wrong".

>something had to create the universe!
>god has always existed! he has no creator

LOL christards

anyway there is a ongoing theory right now that all the anti matter and matter in the universe added up will cancel each other out like a flat equation. Meaning the universe can just exist.

Everyone should smoke DMT before having an opinion on religion

Alan Guth and his team proved that a universe like ours had a beginning.

These kinds of secondary theories all exclude the fact that we do know that the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago.

come on just look around you, certainly there's a GOd, a creator whatever
how the law of phsics works,
the problem is, which religion is the right one? how can we be sure that we're doing the right thing? well never know, that's all the pain, untill we die therell no peace in our hearts

i hope you understood me my english is bad im from brazil

God exists or doesn't, the existence of God is dependent upon its definition. If you say god is a specific object, that does exist, then technically your god exists. Now whether that definition or concept of God is vacuous or not, is up for debate, but by defining a god such that it exists, god technically exists. Just not the kind god you probably think a god is.

For example, say the device your using to shitpost. It exists correct? Now ask yourself this, does a god need to be omnipotent, or omniscient, or even omnipresent? Does it even need to be a creator? No. A god does not need to be any of these things objectively. Now then, let's say I declare the device your using as a god, technically it exists, therefore my god exists. How is it not a god? Can you objectively say it isn't? Sure the god I just made up isn't sentient, has no meaning, and is generally vacuous, but technically under my definition for what a god is, it is a god.

religion is canonized spirituality. it takes something elemental to the human experience and twists it as a means to control.

>this
All churches should be stripped of any meaningful authority on scripture, acting as unorganized, taxed, but protected, places of worship open to whatever specified group they appeal to.

>Rules of causality aren't tied to laws of physics so no reason they couldn't/shouldn't extend that far back
They actually are. Light travels at the speed it does because that's the speed of causality. That's why time travel is impossible because if you could travel faster than light you would arrive at your destination before you had left

>Rules of causality aren't tied to laws of physics
Um....Sweetie....

Attached: 1543723761319.jpg (309x333, 63K)

Even if you can prove god exists you have no fucking way of proving that it's YHWH instead of literally anything else. And no, jesus being a guy that existed doesn't count, most religions have one of their major players having contemporary accounts of their existence

>Being writen quite soon after the events and having multiple sources. (All in 1st century standards obviously)
Plenty of things have been written by multiple sources that have been wrong. How about all the inconsistencies in between the so called "multiple sources"? Do you see them as proof of human error? How many "errors" can there be before questioning why these multiple sources could not agree on something that was so easily verifiable, assuming the events transpired?
The apostles can't even agree on where jesus was born. Which book do you regard as accurate, and how do you know?
Now I can understand you backing down from this claim and saying "well, the meaning behind it transcends these factual errors". Fine by me if you believe that, but don't tout "multiple sources" as a argument *for* god's existence.

>where jesus was born
Didn't mean to say "where", meant to say "how", in regards to the events around it. I'm aware both accounts place the birth in bethlehem.
One inconsistency between birth accounts: in matthew an angel appeared to joseph in a dream, but in Luke an angel appeared in person to mary.

If there was a God, incels wouldn't exist.