God is not real. There is no proof, and it is an absurd concept

God is not real. There is no proof, and it is an absurd concept.

Attached: EDB14182-C171-439D-8AA1-F6D467045C5C.gif (499x499, 44K)

Most gods as told by religions are absurd, but a god existing as a concept is plausible

In what sense? Originally asking.

Atheism does not exist because there is no porn of it

Attached: smug cirno.png (372x343, 146K)

Not that user, but a god that started the big bang and just left the universe alone after that seems reasonable to me.
I don't think you've tried searching for it

Is it as absurd as you existing?

How do you know god doesn't exist?
For that matter, how do you know anything exists?
Does Finland exist? Australia?
Do you honestly believe in your heart these places exist if you've never been there?
>but there are books written about them!
there are books written about god too but apparently he doesn't exist

The real redpill is that you are alone in your head and you have no way of knowing if anything else is real, Australia, Finland, god, Jow Forums, it might be real, it might be the matrix, it might be the lunatic ravings of your subconscious desperately trying to find meaning in the endless void that reality may well actually be
If you accept reality as it seems to be even with only subjective evidence for it's existence (and here you are posting on Jow Forums as if it means something so I assume you do) then surely you can't fault others for accepting the existence of god with only subjective evidence for his existence?
Else you're just a hypocrite and I'd argue that's worse than being a madman who can't believe in the world around him or a divine creator who made it

>search for porn
>find spiritual crisis and unsubscribe from r/atheism

God is absurd but religion is wisdom.

Are you honestly arguing that there is as much evidence that god exists as there is evidence that Finland exists?

Our senses are not real. There is no proof, and it is an absurd concept.

You literally could not be more correct

It's very unlikely that there's a sky daddy with a huge ass beard that watches us over from the clouds like how they say in the books, but I feel like we can't dismiss the possibility that "something" created this giant pile of bullshit we call existence. Needless to say, whatever the fuck it looks like (if it can be looked at) or its current whereabouts (if it's still around) will most likely always be a mystery. Maybe it wouldn't fit under the description of "God" though..?

The firmament is real and therefore God is real. Faggot!

True. God isn't real and all "proof" that exists that he does is usually easy to disprove.

okay then...moving on.

This is the ramblings of someone genuinely retarded

It's not really reasonable though. What seems more logical to you?

1. God came from nothing and started the big bang.

2. The big bang started from nothing.

Adding god is an unnecessary step, there is no need for him.

>all "proof" that exists that he does is usually easy to disprove
Yet atheists still haven't disproven God. Guess they're just too stupid.
>inb4 "can't prove a negative" and teapot/spaghetti meme arguments for brainlet pseuds

And this we call "Schizophrenia", students.

I don't need to disprove god. you need to prove god, not me. By asking atheists to disprove god, you're basically assuming that by default he exists. If I claimed unicorns exists, you would ask me to prove it, right?

Your best bet it's looking into concepts like the monad, or henology. Basically god is the first principle and emanated into reality as we know it today. Whether it's spiritual is debatable, but if you're stuck on materialism, then you could just look at it as the self contained point that turned into the reality in the big bang.

3. God is the big bang

Self caused cause

Nope. God is a being, and the big bang is an event.

Fuck off, glow in the dark

Attached: tmp_1987-1548789805133-627931499.png (2518x1024, 210K)

I'm not saying he's right, but you could easily show somebody a picture of a random landscape that nobody would recognize and tell them it's in Finland.

There is an entire Finnish language that you can read for yourself. You can speak to Finnish people in person. You can buy a plane ticket and physically travel to Finland. There are numerous objective ways to prove Finland's existence.

No one can physically travel to "God" or speak to him.

I fail to see why both can't be true simultaneously

Attached: tmp_1987-1541690331822-2069089702.jpg (640x522, 54K)

Because there is no need for god. There is no need for god and the big bang to exist simultaneously, only the big bang needs to exist in order for the universe to become what it is today.

Yeah, you're right.

If there's proof God does(n't) exist, would (a)theists act the same way flat earthers do whenever there's proof the Earth is not flat?

Attached: DE3CC88B-7CCE-4729-B8C2-79DCC16BD486.jpg (1200x675, 50K)

you're putting as much "faith" into your ideology of atheism as one would put into their religion, except yours depends on believing on a theory of which you can not fully prove or describe scientifically in anyway.. you put your faith into those "scientists" without knowing any of the data or numbers yourself..

I mean, if we one day find definite proof...

the same could be said for "the big bang" and Darwinian evolution.

- In a form of some higher but limited hierarchy - yes.
- In a form of same concept containing infinite power and infinite intelligence - no. Those concepts are mutually exclusive.

this user nailed it I'm afraid, difinitive proof

Attached: 1523565953232.gif (480x364, 1.72M)

You can just admit you don't like the prospect of god existing because it challenges your ego. You feel certain in the materialist understanding of things and the concept of god challenges that certainty. Besides, your reasoning is autistic and based upon semantics. I don't think you understand where I'm coming from on this god thing. We are the logos become flesh. We are the laws of reality become flesh. Grapes on the vine, a bubble on the ocean, the rainbow on the other side of the prism.

this but unironically
>oregano ergo sum

Seeing this world going to shit after the death of God is a good argument for religion, whether God is real or not.

Attached: apu.png (657x527, 13K)

Sure is deluded brainlets in here

Attached: 1549586892099.png (166x205, 56K)

>Negative iq

Attached: raf,750x1000,075,t,fafafa_ca443f4786.u1.jpg (750x1000, 84K)

Solipsism actually exists, there is one ubiquitous consciousness that observes from many facets.

Instead of answering my argument, you just went on to assume a bunch of things about me. You assume I have a materialist understanding of things, you assume I don't like the prospect of god existing, etc. Calling my reasoning "based upon semantics" doesn't really help your point and calling it "autistic" is just childish namecalling which I really hoped we wouldn't get into, but I guess it's Jow Forums after all.

In the same way, I could assume that you like the idea of god existing because it is reassuring and that you want to believe the world is not materialist because you think a materialist world is empty etc.

By the way, I never claimed materialism. I also would love to know a god exists, but he doesn't. I used to believe too.

It's called skepticism and it's a perfectly valid philosophical position you stupid fucks

Attached: Sextus empiricus.jpg (379x512, 98K)

The point is that if you don't have definite proof you default to belief, and without definite proof what you believe is arbitrary
Since there is no way to prove god exists or that he doesn't exist, it is viable and justifiable to believe one way or the other

Also, the entire Finnish language could have been invented by the matrix/my uncontrollable subconscious and I wouldn't know the difference
You wouldn't either unless you were literally psychic and could literally perceive someone thinking in finnish

What is your argument against the can't prove a negative "meme"?

It is, but the way you present it and the radical approach you give to it is mental.

h-how do I become schizo?

No science is needed in this case. God is not intuitively real. I have no reason to believe in him.

Accept that Benjamin Franklin lied, that there is only one certainty in this world, it isn't death and it isn't taxes
It's thought
I think therefore I am

How is Darwinian evolution "absurd" as a concept? It makes plenty of sense intuitively, and the science happens to back it up

Materialism is the only rational position to take.

Religions are retarded but god is real

God and existence are the same thing. You, me, a tree, a car, a river. ALL ARE GOD

Fuck off.
I also hate delusionist but don't make excuses for my inability to roll theological reasoning and making actual sense out od it.

Your entire argument is "we really don't know anything, bro". Nice sophomoric world view. Baby's first philosophy.

You can't claim that with certainty. I exist in the superposition of materialism and spiritualism. It matters little to me whether it exists, although even in pure materialism my god exists because it is simply the first principle. The set of reality. The everything we experience now which came from the self contained point. I just can't stand pseuds claim with certainty "god doesn't exist" because it's complete hubris.

If everything is material, when I die I will be reassimated into the system, if there its spirit realm/higher/other dimensions, then that is where I continue. The way I live in each setting is the same. I'm using autism in a literal sense by the way, because you are stuck on duality concepts when discussing an entity beyond duality. To me your "argument" is just getting caught up on semantics and what things may be or not be.

>takes lsd once

Maybe for now, we're teetering into the edge of that not being the case. Also I would recommend checking out "the critique of pure reason". But hey, if it feels nice to be a paragon of reason, continue. The human experience is far from the whole story, and that even your materialism has come to show you through our science.

Basically though, stop letting the world give you limits, if a limit exists, you can find it yourself.

You are right that I can't claim that with certainty. So I'll fix myself:

Currently - according to all that we know (through philosophy, science etc.) - There is no way to definitively prove that there is/was a god or that there is a need for a god to exist in order for the universe to exist as it currently is or was.

All your other statements sound like spiritual stuff/beating around the bush and assume a lot of things and/or aren't well explained enough. First principle? Concepts beyond duality?

The problem of one mind is something that seems pretty silly (depending on your philosophical view). But even then it's probably reasonable to not buy into it

The first principle is whatever emanated into reality as we know it. If you stay within the limits of what humans know/theorize, this would be the big bang. Duality is an inescapable part of existence, in fact, it is the medium on which experience can exist at all.

Fuck you. Fucking brainlet sympathizer.

>calls others brainlets
>has awful grammar indicating a low IQ

But do Australia and Finland actually exist tho?

I have in real life witnessed real australians, it be real

I can smell the sweat coming off your fedora

I can imagine God to exist. He is the one who gave the energy to start big bang at t=0

Setting all the physical laws of the universe is his doing and we are just figuring things out over time and transitioning from "god did x" to "x happens because y condition was met"

Kinda like retroactively applying our knowledge to decipher the messages in every "holy book" that has been "sent" (3 known) (2 unknown)

I'm all open to everything. I think it's vastly arrogant to believe we humans know everything about the universe. Im completely neutral.

>create something
Are you talking about God or your father?

You are a vagina