(MEGA THREAD) Proof God doesn’t exist

[Eternal_]

Cope ur religion isn’t true lol

When Christians take power once more and reestablish a Christian theocracy, just know that I will make it a goal to find you and have you exiled to a faraway island in the atlantic ocean so you can spend the remainder of your days tilling soil.

 

[gr34ter]

Don’t comment dumb shit then if you don’t wanna discuss anything

you didnt mention pascals gamble which is what i base my belief off

 

[thebuffdon690]

When Christians take power once more and reestablish a Christian theocracy, just know that I will make it a goal to find you and have you exiled to a faraway island in the atlantic ocean so you can spend the remainder of your days tilling soil.

Keep dreaming chap

 

[thebuffdon690]

you didnt mention pascals gamble which is what i base my belief off

That got debunked centuries ago no one even believes that shit anymore lol. If you wanna raise ur iq read my thread then come back

 

[Eternal_]

Keep dreaming chap

Not too far away in the future, chav.

 

[gr34ter]

That got debunked centuries ago no one even believes that shit anymore lol. If you wanna raise ur iq read my thread then come back

Christianity is the safest religion you can reasonably believe in

 

[MazoNitNit]

Introduction

This is the ultimate god doesn’t exist proof thread. I will be providing proof (mostly) here that it is not possible for a god to exist. This is also intended for users who don’t have a great understanding of the subject and want to learn more about it, as well as for the high iq atheist users who just want their biases confirmed JFL.

This was inspired by @mogstars recent low iq (JFL) thread on life is cucked if you’re an atheist. I’m tired of religious cucks on this forum waffling: Muh Atheist low iq, Muh Atheist have no morality or no sense of purpose JFL, still makes me laugh, and they give no proof for it either, just wafflers. People have been claiming this about atheism for as long as it’s been around, so these points are really nothing new and can be explained. I aim to try to stop these low iq threads. Or if they will continue at least have good arguments.

One thing to note is that I am writing this thread from an unbiased perspective (some may have a hard time believing this given my strong atheistic stances on this forum lol) but nevertheless I have obviously considered both sides of the argument before making this thread, and I came to the conclusion atheism > religion/deism. Don’t make the mistake of thinking this was a preconceived confirmation bias decision as I am well aware of these biases and try my best for them not to hinder my reasoning. If there was more proof god existed I would simply be making this thread but for the other side.

Another thing to note is that it shouldn’t matter if god doesn’t exist. People often fall into depression after losing their faith (just like I did). The thing is that atheism can give meaning, purpose everything that religion can. It just can’t give life after death. The thing is though imagine if everyone had the perfect life they wanted from birth to death, there wouldn’t really be a need for an afterlife. In my opinion the concept of an afterlife only exists because of evil, which is an intrinsic part of humans. People have a hard time accepting that and feel the desire for justice or an afterlife which can be devoid of any evil. Every human struggles with this no matter how much they will try to Larp. Just accept it the way it is.

The way I define god is in the traditional sense of omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. If you are unaware with those terms just Google them JFL I can’t be asked to explain it on here, but most should.

Brief discussion on religions

As some of you may know I used to be Muslim my whole life until I left It only last year. The aim of this thread isn’t to disprove religions but to disprove the concept of god as a whole. I happen to think Christianity is a decent religion and many users here are obviously well versed in it and believe it is real (obviously not including Old Testament atrocities, there aren’t really any good apologetics for those as well, as well as how confusing the trinity is). But aside from that it’s alright. My personal opinion on Christianity is that Jesus wasn’t resurrected, but there is a decent plausibility that he was resurrected, and is therefore god. I can’t be asked to go into that here though because it will just take up too much time.

It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that Islam is a false religion, but just in case it’s not here is a thread on Reddit (JFL) that does a really good job outlining hadiths and how they disprove Islam. Great apologetics from both sides with unbiased opinions. Most Muslims here will never have heard of these as they are usually hidden by our scholars (obviously). Hence why when you bring these up to Muslims they almost always have never heard them before: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/s/q47mxhmgdU.

The funny thing is tbh I sometimes think about how it would be hilarious if everyone argues over the main 3 Abrahamic religions and the one true religion is just one which no one follows or has heard about JFL, from like 2000+ years ago. Cracks me up thinking about it. But yeh I do think all religions are false.

Anyway I have considered most of the arguments for god (some more well versed than others) but I have a pretty good understanding of the apologetics for them and the counter arguments against them. Ones I have studied:
Fine tuning

Ontological

Cosmological

Contingency

Moral

Personal experience

Resurrection

Miracles

There’s way more but I can’t be asked to list them all here or go through with them, as this is a proof god DOESNT exist thread. If you wanna learn them more there are plenty of videos and sources online explaining them. Just be aware that there’s obviously still work being done on all of them and u shouldn’t use this as a baseline for your religious beliefs, which brings me into my first argument against god.

Lack of evidence?

You probably know that most religious people claim that gods existence is obvious (I don’t think they know what obvious means JFL) but they will usually cite fine tuning argument or Muh look at the trees bullshit for their so called evidence.

Well I’m here to tell you it’s not obvious at all, just because stuff exists doesn’t mean the concept of god (which humans came up with btw) is a real entity manifesting externally from its conceptual standpoint. This is a fallacy but either way, this begs the question of why does god make it so painfully hard to provide any knowledge of his existence (outside of religion)? I’m not referring to divine hiddenness here because this already presupposes god to begin with, this is more along the lines of lack of CONCRETE evidence, one which doesn’t take years of studying and scientific work to arrive at a conclusion, more from a critical thinking standpoint I guess.

It shouldn’t seem intuitive to people that just by looking around this somehow means that god is real. We have had stuff which has always mind boggled our intuition and still does to this day (take quantum entanglement as an example). This logically follows that it should be possible for god not to exist and we still have the universe we see today. This part obviously isn’t conclusive proof it’s just the starting point for further exploration of the subject.

Another point religious people like to bring up is that god has to exist because the universe couldn’t have been brought about accidentally. However this isn’t really true, and seems similar to like an appeal to intuition in them saying god has to exist because there is no evidence against the world not being an accident. But this is only judged by their own intuition, and any smart person will know our intuition is subject to many biases that are accounted for when coming to conclusions based on independent verifiable evidence. It is certainly plausible that it could have been accidental, especially given the time frame that evolution occurred on and the development of the universe as a whole. If we are talking about the Big Bang however things become a little more obscure, and it is certainly arrogant for someone to claim that this couldn’t have been accidental when we have no idea if that’s truly the case or not. Natural mechanistic forces are not dictated by any sort of agency like humans are dictated by agency, this means that it is possible (maybe not plausible though) that it could have been accidental.

Problem of evil

This is the most intuitively plausible argument against gods existence in general, and also in my own personal estimation, the main likelihood that god doesn’t exist. Certainly most religious people have doubts with this but usually tend to gloss over it, that is the religious mindset.

The general consensus in philosophy (as of right now) is that it is not logically impossible for god to exist given evil, but evidentially implausible that he would exist given the amount of evil we see in the world (according to atheist philosophers at least). Obviously it still plausible god would have reasons to allow evil to occur, such as overcoming the pain and being a better person on the other side or affecting someone else in that same manner. However it seems intuitively implausible that certain evils god would allow if he is all good as defined. This is where there is inherently more room for intuition, as evil is more of an intuitive understanding of a state of mental or physical being according to someone’s own perception than just an independent reviewed study (which we don’t really have much of anyway for this problem).

I won’t be tackling this problem from a scholarly perspective as it’s mostly just brain rot. The way I like to tackle this problem is sampling different case studies of evil across human history and assigning them a factor out of 10 based on their intuitive responses they trigger in humans. This is because there isn’t really any other good way of tackling this problem besides intuitive philosophical thinking. Obviously if you wanted to conclude whether god does exist for sure, you would have to sample case studies of every single human in history and also rank each of their individual experiences of evil out of a factor of 10. You would also have to have every single human ever complete this task, as to limit individual biases. A confidence test or an average of these would probably give you a likely estimate of whether god exists or not. Obviously this is impossible so we can try this on a much less scale. For example:
Not getting the cake you wanted for your birthday is intuitively evil, but on an extremely minimal scale of perhaps a 0.13/10. Obviously this is autistic as fuck and no one thinks like this but we are trying to logically deduce whether god exists so we have to think like this. Lmao imagine if god exists and he’s autistic, ultimate JFL

However impaling someone and then raping their dead body would have a much higher scale of around an 8.7/10 (intuitively). This would be different based on everyone’s different level of intuition but somewhere around there. This is why this experiment is SO SO hard. We have no way of knowing as humans who’s intuition is more plausible based on perceptions of evil. Certainly, a three year old child may think that the example I gave has an intuitive level of evil of about a 10, whereas Ramirez may think it is about a -1 (JFL RR). This is why I believe it is impossible for us to know for certainty why evil exists and what constitutes as evil based on mere perception, but we can always make a logical inference and be correct (hopefully). JFL just imagine In reality if evil was actually good and we were just progressing backwards morally instead of forward. This is definitely not impossible but highly implausible.

Now for most people, a 10 would probably be along the lines of the greatest evils of all time, say unit 731, holocaust, torture of Junko Furuta. These seem intuitively impossible to most humans as to be anything lower than a 10 on the scale, but let’s say a 9.5 just to be generous to the more desensitised scums on this forum JFL. It does seem intuitively impossible for an all loving god to allow something like torture of Junko Furuta to happen (btw if you’re gonna look this up be warned it’ll probably ruin your day), especially when it resulted in her death and there was no benefit to gain from it for her (or anyone for that matter). Most people who come across this would logically conclude that god is a scum who allowed an innocent girl to get brutally tortured for something like his own sadistic pleasure, which makes no sense. Another thing is this would also affect someone who is looking for answers to this problem. Imagine if they came across this story and got traumatised and then subsequently lost their faith in god. Seems like a pretty stupid and useless thing for god to do to allow that to happen. Obviously as time progresses and more evil occurs, this gives us a greater intuitive inference to make about whether god does exist or not, and for me it seems more implausible than plausible that he does exist based on this problem, albeit not impossible.

The common apologetic response to this argument is that god does allow it happen, because of human free will etc etc. let’s just assume that free will does exist for the sake of the argument (obviously not something we can ever know but still). The main thing for me is that this doesn’t take away from the intrinsic suffering of said person who is still experiencing the state of evil, just because someone else’s free will allows them to act on that decision. Suffering is still a mental state at the end of the day, and just because someone has free will this doesn’t really prove anything to do with the argument.

Argument from eternal consciousness

This is the argument from eternal consciousness against gods existence. This isn’t a scholarly work it’s just an argument that I made up myself JFL, but it does have a high intrinsic plausibility factor, according to me at least.

Argument is basically:

P1: Gods existence is either mechanically determined, or consciously determined
P2: if gods existence is mechanically determined, then god can’t exist (as defined)

P3: gods existence is mechanically determined

Conc: therefore god can’t exist
It’s important to note that this argument makes the case of gods existence being impossible due to a logical contradiction with his attributes, not an argument of simply trying to deduce whether god does exist or not based on understanding of reality (take fine tuning as an example), but that the concept of god itself is fundamentally impossible, be it deistic or theistic.
The argument is basically stemming from the contingency argument, which is usually the most plausible argument for gods existence according to majority of philosophers. If you want to research this before hand that would probably be a good idea. It comes to the conclusion that god must exist because there has to be a necessary foundation to reality, an eternal agent which has always existed and brought about the universe. Obviously there’s a lot more to it but it’s mostly brain rot. My personal opinion however is that it’s quite likely that this argument is true, at least a factor of 8 (which is very high).

The main thing I’m trying to tackle here is the nature of this necessary existence, because the contingency argument doesn’t tackle that. This is more of an argument for deism but who cares it still counts as god (not in the traditional sense but just in general) it can still be used for the theistic god as well, but I would use different arguments to disprove that. The main point is that this entities existence would only be governed by mechanism or by agency. My argument is that it cannot be governed by agency.

Obviously it’s crazy to think about how something has always existed and how that’s even possible, because it breaks our intuition, so this might be hard but bear with me: for something to be eternal, that must mean that it’s existence is governed by it’s own intrinsic nature, and nothing external to it. Now I don’t think that it’s possible for a conscious being to exist necessarily, as mechanism seems fundamental. For something to have existed eternally and be conscious seems like a major contradiction. Consciousness entails agency, basically meaning that the being in question is alive and able to make decisions. But how can this be the case with an eternal existence. Agency requires the precondition of a decision to necessitate its existence, but since this being has always existed, how is it possible for it to make the decision for itself to exist, as the choice for it to exist must be preceded by a decision to result in that choice and then subsequently it’s existence.

But if it’s eternal, it cannot make the decision to exist since it has always existed. This plausibly leads to the conclusion that it’s existence must be mechanical, as mechanism would entail it’s eternal state of existence, being governed by some mechanism which in and of itself means that this being has existed forever. Another thing is that if this being is conscious, it must have the ability to decide to cease existing, otherwise it’s not conscious or an agent. But obviously this is a contradiction if it’s eternal, it must have a mechanism which stops it from existing as it has to exist by necessity (it’s non existence is impossible in every possible state of affairs).

People may argue that gods existence is dictated mechanically, but it still has the conscious ability to do things. This seems more like special pleading though. If I just have given an argument as to why it can’t be conscious, then that means it’s not conscious JFL. And then ultimately the discussion becomes pointless because it’s impossible to know the true nature of this entity. This is an example of how our intuition can be broken with thought experiments like these, which is why a belief in god should never be rational in my opinion (at least for high iq thinkers I’m not talking about the average person here). People need god and will always need god, but we’re interested in whether this so called being actually exists in reality.
But my argument would be that this facilitates a lack of belief in a god, due to these reasons. But I’m interested to hear peoples opinions on this argument because I’ve never seen this discussed online before, so let me know your thoughts (from both sides). I’m open to anyone trying to disprove what I’ve said (obviously given good reason) as I’m intellectually honest and open to worldview changes.

 

[MazoNitNit]

Introduction

This is the ultimate god doesn’t exist proof thread. I will be providing proof (mostly) here that it is not possible for a god to exist. This is also intended for users who don’t have a great understanding of the subject and want to learn more about it, as well as for the high iq atheist users who just want their biases confirmed JFL.

This was inspired by @mogstars recent low iq (JFL) thread on life is cucked if you’re an atheist. I’m tired of religious cucks on this forum waffling: Muh Atheist low iq, Muh Atheist have no morality or no sense of purpose JFL, still makes me laugh, and they give no proof for it either, just wafflers. People have been claiming this about atheism for as long as it’s been around, so these points are really nothing new and can be explained. I aim to try to stop these low iq threads. Or if they will continue at least have good arguments.

One thing to note is that I am writing this thread from an unbiased perspective (some may have a hard time believing this given my strong atheistic stances on this forum lol) but nevertheless I have obviously considered both sides of the argument before making this thread, and I came to the conclusion atheism > religion/deism. Don’t make the mistake of thinking this was a preconceived confirmation bias decision as I am well aware of these biases and try my best for them not to hinder my reasoning. If there was more proof god existed I would simply be making this thread but for the other side.

Another thing to note is that it shouldn’t matter if god doesn’t exist. People often fall into depression after losing their faith (just like I did). The thing is that atheism can give meaning, purpose everything that religion can. It just can’t give life after death. The thing is though imagine if everyone had the perfect life they wanted from birth to death, there wouldn’t really be a need for an afterlife. In my opinion the concept of an afterlife only exists because of evil, which is an intrinsic part of humans. People have a hard time accepting that and feel the desire for justice or an afterlife which can be devoid of any evil. Every human struggles with this no matter how much they will try to Larp. Just accept it the way it is.

The way I define god is in the traditional sense of omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. If you are unaware with those terms just Google them JFL I can’t be asked to explain it on here, but most should.

Brief discussion on religions

As some of you may know I used to be Muslim my whole life until I left It only last year. The aim of this thread isn’t to disprove religions but to disprove the concept of god as a whole. I happen to think Christianity is a decent religion and many users here are obviously well versed in it and believe it is real (obviously not including Old Testament atrocities, there aren’t really any good apologetics for those as well, as well as how confusing the trinity is). But aside from that it’s alright. My personal opinion on Christianity is that Jesus wasn’t resurrected, but there is a decent plausibility that he was resurrected, and is therefore god. I can’t be asked to go into that here though because it will just take up too much time.

It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that Islam is a false religion, but just in case it’s not here is a thread on Reddit (JFL) that does a really good job outlining hadiths and how they disprove Islam. Great apologetics from both sides with unbiased opinions. Most Muslims here will never have heard of these as they are usually hidden by our scholars (obviously). Hence why when you bring these up to Muslims they almost always have never heard them before: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/s/q47mxhmgdU.

The funny thing is tbh I sometimes think about how it would be hilarious if everyone argues over the main 3 Abrahamic religions and the one true religion is just one which no one follows or has heard about JFL, from like 2000+ years ago. Cracks me up thinking about it. But yeh I do think all religions are false.

Anyway I have considered most of the arguments for god (some more well versed than others) but I have a pretty good understanding of the apologetics for them and the counter arguments against them. Ones I have studied:
Fine tuning

Ontological

Cosmological

Contingency

Moral

Personal experience

Resurrection

Miracles

There’s way more but I can’t be asked to list them all here or go through with them, as this is a proof god DOESNT exist thread. If you wanna learn them more there are plenty of videos and sources online explaining them. Just be aware that there’s obviously still work being done on all of them and u shouldn’t use this as a baseline for your religious beliefs, which brings me into my first argument against god.

Lack of evidence?

You probably know that most religious people claim that gods existence is obvious (I don’t think they know what obvious means JFL) but they will usually cite fine tuning argument or Muh look at the trees bullshit for their so called evidence.

Well I’m here to tell you it’s not obvious at all, just because stuff exists doesn’t mean the concept of god (which humans came up with btw) is a real entity manifesting externally from its conceptual standpoint. This is a fallacy but either way, this begs the question of why does god make it so painfully hard to provide any knowledge of his existence (outside of religion)? I’m not referring to divine hiddenness here because this already presupposes god to begin with, this is more along the lines of lack of CONCRETE evidence, one which doesn’t take years of studying and scientific work to arrive at a conclusion, more from a critical thinking standpoint I guess.

It shouldn’t seem intuitive to people that just by looking around this somehow means that god is real. We have had stuff which has always mind boggled our intuition and still does to this day (take quantum entanglement as an example). This logically follows that it should be possible for god not to exist and we still have the universe we see today. This part obviously isn’t conclusive proof it’s just the starting point for further exploration of the subject.

Another point religious people like to bring up is that god has to exist because the universe couldn’t have been brought about accidentally. However this isn’t really true, and seems similar to like an appeal to intuition in them saying god has to exist because there is no evidence against the world not being an accident. But this is only judged by their own intuition, and any smart person will know our intuition is subject to many biases that are accounted for when coming to conclusions based on independent verifiable evidence. It is certainly plausible that it could have been accidental, especially given the time frame that evolution occurred on and the development of the universe as a whole. If we are talking about the Big Bang however things become a little more obscure, and it is certainly arrogant for someone to claim that this couldn’t have been accidental when we have no idea if that’s truly the case or not. Natural mechanistic forces are not dictated by any sort of agency like humans are dictated by agency, this means that it is possible (maybe not plausible though) that it could have been accidental.

Problem of evil

This is the most intuitively plausible argument against gods existence in general, and also in my own personal estimation, the main likelihood that god doesn’t exist. Certainly most religious people have doubts with this but usually tend to gloss over it, that is the religious mindset.

The general consensus in philosophy (as of right now) is that it is not logically impossible for god to exist given evil, but evidentially implausible that he would exist given the amount of evil we see in the world (according to atheist philosophers at least). Obviously it still plausible god would have reasons to allow evil to occur, such as overcoming the pain and being a better person on the other side or affecting someone else in that same manner. However it seems intuitively implausible that certain evils god would allow if he is all good as defined. This is where there is inherently more room for intuition, as evil is more of an intuitive understanding of a state of mental or physical being according to someone’s own perception than just an independent reviewed study (which we don’t really have much of anyway for this problem).

I won’t be tackling this problem from a scholarly perspective as it’s mostly just brain rot. The way I like to tackle this problem is sampling different case studies of evil across human history and assigning them a factor out of 10 based on their intuitive responses they trigger in humans. This is because there isn’t really any other good way of tackling this problem besides intuitive philosophical thinking. Obviously if you wanted to conclude whether god does exist for sure, you would have to sample case studies of every single human in history and also rank each of their individual experiences of evil out of a factor of 10. You would also have to have every single human ever complete this task, as to limit individual biases. A confidence test or an average of these would probably give you a likely estimate of whether god exists or not. Obviously this is impossible so we can try this on a much less scale. For example:
Not getting the cake you wanted for your birthday is intuitively evil, but on an extremely minimal scale of perhaps a 0.13/10. Obviously this is autistic as fuck and no one thinks like this but we are trying to logically deduce whether god exists so we have to think like this. Lmao imagine if god exists and he’s autistic, ultimate JFL

However impaling someone and then raping their dead body would have a much higher scale of around an 8.7/10 (intuitively). This would be different based on everyone’s different level of intuition but somewhere around there. This is why this experiment is SO SO hard. We have no way of knowing as humans who’s intuition is more plausible based on perceptions of evil. Certainly, a three year old child may think that the example I gave has an intuitive level of evil of about a 10, whereas Ramirez may think it is about a -1 (JFL RR). This is why I believe it is impossible for us to know for certainty why evil exists and what constitutes as evil based on mere perception, but we can always make a logical inference and be correct (hopefully). JFL just imagine In reality if evil was actually good and we were just progressing backwards morally instead of forward. This is definitely not impossible but highly implausible.

Now for most people, a 10 would probably be along the lines of the greatest evils of all time, say unit 731, holocaust, torture of Junko Furuta. These seem intuitively impossible to most humans as to be anything lower than a 10 on the scale, but let’s say a 9.5 just to be generous to the more desensitised scums on this forum JFL. It does seem intuitively impossible for an all loving god to allow something like torture of Junko Furuta to happen (btw if you’re gonna look this up be warned it’ll probably ruin your day), especially when it resulted in her death and there was no benefit to gain from it for her (or anyone for that matter). Most people who come across this would logically conclude that god is a scum who allowed an innocent girl to get brutally tortured for something like his own sadistic pleasure, which makes no sense. Another thing is this would also affect someone who is looking for answers to this problem. Imagine if they came across this story and got traumatised and then subsequently lost their faith in god. Seems like a pretty stupid and useless thing for god to do to allow that to happen. Obviously as time progresses and more evil occurs, this gives us a greater intuitive inference to make about whether god does exist or not, and for me it seems more implausible than plausible that he does exist based on this problem, albeit not impossible.

The common apologetic response to this argument is that god does allow it happen, because of human free will etc etc. let’s just assume that free will does exist for the sake of the argument (obviously not something we can ever know but still). The main thing for me is that this doesn’t take away from the intrinsic suffering of said person who is still experiencing the state of evil, just because someone else’s free will allows them to act on that decision. Suffering is still a mental state at the end of the day, and just because someone has free will this doesn’t really prove anything to do with the argument.

Argument from eternal consciousness

This is the argument from eternal consciousness against gods existence. This isn’t a scholarly work it’s just an argument that I made up myself JFL, but it does have a high intrinsic plausibility factor, according to me at least.

Argument is basically:

P1: Gods existence is either mechanically determined, or consciously determined
P2: if gods existence is mechanically determined, then god can’t exist (as defined)

P3: gods existence is mechanically determined

Conc: therefore god can’t exist
It’s important to note that this argument makes the case of gods existence being impossible due to a logical contradiction with his attributes, not an argument of simply trying to deduce whether god does exist or not based on understanding of reality (take fine tuning as an example), but that the concept of god itself is fundamentally impossible, be it deistic or theistic.
The argument is basically stemming from the contingency argument, which is usually the most plausible argument for gods existence according to majority of philosophers. If you want to research this before hand that would probably be a good idea. It comes to the conclusion that god must exist because there has to be a necessary foundation to reality, an eternal agent which has always existed and brought about the universe. Obviously there’s a lot more to it but it’s mostly brain rot. My personal opinion however is that it’s quite likely that this argument is true, at least a factor of 8 (which is very high).

The main thing I’m trying to tackle here is the nature of this necessary existence, because the contingency argument doesn’t tackle that. This is more of an argument for deism but who cares it still counts as god (not in the traditional sense but just in general) it can still be used for the theistic god as well, but I would use different arguments to disprove that. The main point is that this entities existence would only be governed by mechanism or by agency. My argument is that it cannot be governed by agency.

Obviously it’s crazy to think about how something has always existed and how that’s even possible, because it breaks our intuition, so this might be hard but bear with me: for something to be eternal, that must mean that it’s existence is governed by it’s own intrinsic nature, and nothing external to it. Now I don’t think that it’s possible for a conscious being to exist necessarily, as mechanism seems fundamental. For something to have existed eternally and be conscious seems like a major contradiction. Consciousness entails agency, basically meaning that the being in question is alive and able to make decisions. But how can this be the case with an eternal existence. Agency requires the precondition of a decision to necessitate its existence, but since this being has always existed, how is it possible for it to make the decision for itself to exist, as the choice for it to exist must be preceded by a decision to result in that choice and then subsequently it’s existence.

But if it’s eternal, it cannot make the decision to exist since it has always existed. This plausibly leads to the conclusion that it’s existence must be mechanical, as mechanism would entail it’s eternal state of existence, being governed by some mechanism which in and of itself means that this being has existed forever. Another thing is that if this being is conscious, it must have the ability to decide to cease existing, otherwise it’s not conscious or an agent. But obviously this is a contradiction if it’s eternal, it must have a mechanism which stops it from existing as it has to exist by necessity (it’s non existence is impossible in every possible state of affairs).

People may argue that gods existence is dictated mechanically, but it still has the conscious ability to do things. This seems more like special pleading though. If I just have given an argument as to why it can’t be conscious, then that means it’s not conscious JFL. And then ultimately the discussion becomes pointless because it’s impossible to know the true nature of this entity. This is an example of how our intuition can be broken with thought experiments like these, which is why a belief in god should never be rational in my opinion (at least for high iq thinkers I’m not talking about the average person here). People need god and will always need god, but we’re interested in whether this so called being actually exists in reality.
But my argument would be that this facilitates a lack of belief in a god, due to these reasons. But I’m interested to hear peoples opinions on this argument because I’ve never seen this discussed online before, so let me know your thoughts (from both sides). I’m open to anyone trying to disprove what I’ve said (obviously given good reason) as I’m intellectually honest and open to worldview changes.

low IQ thread made by an enraged 16 yr old by scanning thru a lil bit of what you wrote, over half of what you said has been debunked jfl if you think you've somehow disproved god for real, only thing you've proven is that you lack knowledge

 

[Eternal_]

Christianity is the safest religion you can reasonably believe in

I will reassure you that you will not make it to heaven by viewing your Christian belief as a mere wager. You must actually believe in your heart that God incarnated and revealed Himself to humanity in the form of Jesus Christ. You must believe that He was crucified and was resurrected 3 days later and is firstborn of the dead. You must work to fulfill the Father's will. You must repent in genuine contrition.

 

[noodlelover]

There is no god, True.

But there's also no such thing as "good" or "evil". Those are changing value assessments based on biological drives that help us cooperate in groups, and cultural ideas that have survived. There is no moral "progression" only moral change.

But what you may want to realize is that if you appear to have a core moral or belief system different from the person you are talking to you, they will attribute negative characteristics to you. Meaning, they will think worse of you for having a different belief or moral system than them.

This is because all belief systems have evolved immune defenses against competing belief systems. These immune defenses include demonizing any one one who has a different belief or moral system, especially if they are trying to convince you of it. (Watch people demonize me for this post, as a clear example)

Therefore it is practical to become very good at convincing others that you share the same belief and moral system as they do, and sustaining this illusion. This goes for religious beliefs, political beliefs, moral beliefs, scientific beliefs, societal beliefs, beliefs about racism and oppression, and so on.

This might make you feel inferior, because you are the one having to pretend to share their belief and moral system. But it helps to realize that belief and moral systems control actions. By working with their belief system, they not only like you more, but you can start to control their actions.

It is impractical to ever let them know, in any way, that you have belief or moral systems contradictory to their own.

Take a simple example, a girl thinks most men are rapists, rather than argue against her which would make her hate you, you use that belief and amplify it by making up a story about a friend you had who was raped by a guy she met on tinder, and how you have two friends that were raped by guys on tinder. You've taken her belief and made it so she's less likely to using dating apps, and more afraid of other men, therefore less likely to want to leave you, and more likely to chase you.

Or Christianity/Islam, You can bring up bible/Koran verses to influence people who have those belief systems. Praying with a girl, gives you an excuse to touch her hand, breaking the touch barrier. You can tell guys about your guy friend that only found his wife, after he stopped trying and gave all his trust in god to take care of him, thereby getting your male competition to put less effort into chasing the same girls as you.

If you really want to get fancy, you can use group prayer as a form of covert hypnosis, and even covertly hypnotize people into believing they had religious experiences, so that their subconciouse connects those experiences with you. Or lie and tell stories about miracles god did for you in your life, to gain status in religious circles, thereby making bitches more likely to put out.

Since you come form Islam, you know the Koran better, and would be more adapt to working within that belief system, but it's possible to work within other belief systems if you take some time to learn.

 

[thebuffdon690]

Not too far away in the future, chav.

Yeh ur gonna be waiting a long time for that lmao

 

[thebuffdon690]

Christianity is the safest religion you can reasonably believe in

True but it’s still false so why believe in it

 

[thebuffdon690]

low IQ thread made by an enraged 16 yr old by scanning thru a lil bit of what you wrote, over half of what you said has been debunked jfl if you think you've somehow disproved god for real, only thing you've proven is that you lack knowledge

Ofc gives no evidence or arguments to back his claim. Don’t even need to waste my time with ur nonsense

 

[thebuffdon690]

I will reassure you that you will not make it to heaven by viewing your Christian belief as a mere wager. You must actually believe in your heart that God incarnated and revealed Himself to humanity in the form of Jesus Christ. You must believe that He was crucified and was resurrected 3 days later and is firstborn of the dead. You must work to fulfill the Father's will. You must repent in genuine contrition.

 

[Harold O'brien]

It’s called words my dude I’m not sure if you have heard of them but it’s something you use to describe stuff you see? Lmao

>everything that exists is either blargh or schmlargh (P1)

>God is neither blargh nor schmlargh because he defies attribution (P2)

>hence by contrapositive of P1 God does not exist

jfl, do you get my point now?

 

[MazoNitNit]

Ofc gives no evidence or arguments to back his claim. Don’t even need to waste my time with ur nonsense

 

[thebuffdon690]

There is no god, True.

But there's also no such thing as "good" or "evil". Those are changing value assessments based on biological drives that help us cooperate in groups, and cultural ideas that have survived. There is no moral "progression" only moral change.

But what you may want to realize is that if you appear to have a core moral or belief system different from the person you are talking to you, they will attribute negative characteristics to you. Meaning, they will think worse of you for having a different belief or moral system than them.

This is because all belief systems have evolved immune defenses against competing belief systems. These immune defenses include demonizing any one one who has a different belief or moral system, especially if they are trying to convince you of it. (Watch people demonize me for this post, as a clear example)

Therefore it is practical to become very good at convincing others that you share the same belief and moral system as they do, and sustaining this illusion. This goes for religious beliefs, political beliefs, moral beliefs, scientific beliefs, societal beliefs, beliefs about racism and oppression, and so on.

This might make you feel inferior, because you are the one having to pretend to share their belief and moral system. But it helps to realize that belief and moral systems control actions. By working with their belief system, they not only like you more, but you can start to control their actions.

Take a simple example, a girl thinks most men are rapists, rather than argue against her which would make her hate you, you use that belief and amplify it by making up a story about a friend you had who was raped by a guy she met on tinder, and how you have two friends that were raped by guys on tinder. You've taken her belief and made it so she's less likely to using dating apps, and more afraid of other men, therefore less likely to want to leave you, and more likely to chase you.

Or Christianity/Islam, You can bring up bible/Koran verses to influence people who have those belief systems. Praying with a girl, gives you an excuse to touch her hand, breaking the touch barrier. You can tell guys about your guy friend that only found his wife, after he stopped trying and gave all his trust in god to take care of him, thereby getting your male competition to put less effort into chasing the same girls as you.

If you really want to get fancy, you can use group prayer as a form of covert hypnosis, and even covertly hypnotize people into believing they had religious experiences, so that their subconciouse connects those experiences with you. Or lie and tell stories about miracles god did for you in your life, to gain status in religious circles, thereby making bitches more likely to put out.

Since you come form Islam, you know the Koran better, and would be more adapt to working within that belief system, but it's possible to work within other belief systems if you take some time to learn.

I agree with what you said but I don’t really get the point of it

 

[thebuffdon690]

>everything that exists is either blargh or schmlargh (P1)

>God is neither blargh nor schmlargh because he defies attribution (P2)

>hence by contrapositive of P1 God does not exist

jfl, do you get my point now?

Yh expect that doesn’t work because those words don’t have any meaning

 

[Harold O'brien]

Yh expect that doesn’t work because those words don’t have any meaning

meaning is use

 

[Eternal_]

You will become useful free labor for the upcoming global Christian theocracy. When not tilling soil, you will be tasked with other manual labor needs for Christendom

 

[thebuffdon690]

meaning is use

?

meaning is use

?

 

[thebuffdon690]

You will become useful free labor for the upcoming global Christian theocracy. When not tilling soil, you will be tasked with other manual labor needs for Christendom

Keep waffling its entertaining

 

[Harold O'brien]

?

?

Meaning as use[edit]​

The Investigations deal largely with the difficulties of language and meaning. Wittgenstein viewed the tools of language as being fundamentally simple [a][non-primary source needed], and he believed that philosophers had obscured this simplicity by misusing language and by asking meaningless questions. He attempted in the Investigations to make things clear: "Der Fliege den Ausweg aus dem Fliegenglas zeigen"—to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle.[4]

Wittgenstein claims that the meaning of a word is based on how the word is understood within the language-game. A common summary of his argument is that meaning is use. According to the use theory of meaning, the words are not defined by reference to the objects they designate or by the mental representations one might associate with them, but by how they are used. For example, this means there is no need to postulate that there is something called good that exists independently of any good deed.[5] Wittgenstein's theory of meaning contrasts with Platonic realism[6] and with Gottlob Frege's notions of sense and reference.[7] This argument has been labeled by some authors as "anthropological holism".[8]

Section 43 in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations reads: "For a large class of cases—though not for all—in which we employ the word "meaning," it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language."

Wittgenstein begins Philosophical Investigations with a quote from Augustine's Confessions, which represents the view that language serves to point out objects in the world and the view that he will be criticizing.[9]

The individual words in a language name objects—sentences are combinations of such names. In this picture of language, we find the roots of the following idea: Every word has a meaning. This meaning is correlated with the word. It is the object for which the word stands.

Wittgenstein rejects a variety of ways of thinking about what the meaning of a word is or how meanings can be identified. He shows how, in each case, the meaning of the word presupposes our ability to use it. He first asks the reader to perform a thought experiment: come up with a definition of the word "game".[10] While this may at first seem like a simple task, he then goes on to lead us through the problems with each of the possible definitions of the word "game". Any definition that focuses on amusement leaves us unsatisfied since the feelings experienced by a world-class chess player are very different from those of a circle of children playing Duck Duck Goose. Any definition that focuses on competition will fail to explain the game of catch, or the game of solitaire. And a definition of the word "game" that focuses on rules will fall into similar difficulties.

The essential point of this exercise is often missed. Wittgenstein's point is not that it is impossible to define "game", but that even if we don't have a definition, we can still use the word successfully.[11] Everybody understands what we mean when we talk about playing a game, and we can even clearly identify and correct inaccurate uses of the word, all without reference to any definition that consists of necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of the concept of a game. The German word for "game", "Spiele/Spiel", has a different sense than in English; the meaning of "Spiele" also extends to the concept of "play" and "playing." This German sense of the word may help readers better understand Wittgenstein's context in his remarks regarding games.

Wittgenstein argues that definitions emerge from what he termed "forms of life", roughly the culture and society in which they are used. Wittgenstein stresses the social aspects of cognition; to see how language works in most cases, we have to see how it functions in a specific social situation.[citation needed] It is this emphasis on becoming attentive to the social backdrop against which language is rendered intelligible that explains Wittgenstein's elliptical comment that "If a lion could talk, we could not understand him." However, in proposing the thought experiment involving the fictional character Robinson Crusoe, a captain shipwrecked on a desolate island with no other inhabitant, Wittgenstein shows that language is not in all cases a social phenomenon (although it is in most cases); instead, the criterion for a language is grounded in a set of interrelated normative activities: teaching, explanations, techniques, and criteria of correctness. In short, it is essential that a language be shareable, but this does not imply that for a language to function, it must be already shared.[12]

Wittgenstein rejects the idea that ostensive definitions can provide us with the meaning of a word. For Wittgenstein, the thing that the word stands for does not give the meaning of the word. Wittgenstein argues for this by making a series of moves to show that understanding an ostensive definition presupposes an understanding of the way the word being defined is used.[13][14] So, for instance, there is no difference between pointing to a piece of paper, to its colour, or to its shape, but understanding the difference is crucial to using the paper in an ostensive definition of a shape or of a colour.

 

[📎♿️⚙️]

XD

 

[thebuffdon690]

View attachment 2892913
XD

?

 

[thebuffdon690]

Meaning as use[edit]​

The Investigations deal largely with the difficulties of language and meaning. Wittgenstein viewed the tools of language as being fundamentally simple [a][non-primary source needed], and he believed that philosophers had obscured this simplicity by misusing language and by asking meaningless questions. He attempted in the Investigations to make things clear: "Der Fliege den Ausweg aus dem Fliegenglas zeigen"—to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle.[4]

Wittgenstein claims that the meaning of a word is based on how the word is understood within the language-game. A common summary of his argument is that meaning is use. According to the use theory of meaning, the words are not defined by reference to the objects they designate or by the mental representations one might associate with them, but by how they are used. For example, this means there is no need to postulate that there is something called good that exists independently of any good deed.[5] Wittgenstein's theory of meaning contrasts with Platonic realism[6] and with Gottlob Frege's notions of sense and reference.[7] This argument has been labeled by some authors as "anthropological holism".[8]

Section 43 in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations reads: "For a large class of cases—though not for all—in which we employ the word "meaning," it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language."

Wittgenstein begins Philosophical Investigations with a quote from Augustine's Confessions, which represents the view that language serves to point out objects in the world and the view that he will be criticizing.[9]


Wittgenstein rejects a variety of ways of thinking about what the meaning of a word is or how meanings can be identified. He shows how, in each case, the meaning of the word presupposes our ability to use it. He first asks the reader to perform a thought experiment: come up with a definition of the word "game".[10] While this may at first seem like a simple task, he then goes on to lead us through the problems with each of the possible definitions of the word "game". Any definition that focuses on amusement leaves us unsatisfied since the feelings experienced by a world-class chess player are very different from those of a circle of children playing Duck Duck Goose. Any definition that focuses on competition will fail to explain the game of catch, or the game of solitaire. And a definition of the word "game" that focuses on rules will fall into similar difficulties.

The essential point of this exercise is often missed. Wittgenstein's point is not that it is impossible to define "game", but that even if we don't have a definition, we can still use the word successfully.[11] Everybody understands what we mean when we talk about playing a game, and we can even clearly identify and correct inaccurate uses of the word, all without reference to any definition that consists of necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of the concept of a game. The German word for "game", "Spiele/Spiel", has a different sense than in English; the meaning of "Spiele" also extends to the concept of "play" and "playing." This German sense of the word may help readers better understand Wittgenstein's context in his remarks regarding games.

Wittgenstein argues that definitions emerge from what he termed "forms of life", roughly the culture and society in which they are used. Wittgenstein stresses the social aspects of cognition; to see how language works in most cases, we have to see how it functions in a specific social situation.[citation needed] It is this emphasis on becoming attentive to the social backdrop against which language is rendered intelligible that explains Wittgenstein's elliptical comment that "If a lion could talk, we could not understand him." However, in proposing the thought experiment involving the fictional character Robinson Crusoe, a captain shipwrecked on a desolate island with no other inhabitant, Wittgenstein shows that language is not in all cases a social phenomenon (although it is in most cases); instead, the criterion for a language is grounded in a set of interrelated normative activities: teaching, explanations, techniques, and criteria of correctness. In short, it is essential that a language be shareable, but this does not imply that for a language to function, it must be already shared.[12]

Wittgenstein rejects the idea that ostensive definitions can provide us with the meaning of a word. For Wittgenstein, the thing that the word stands for does not give the meaning of the word. Wittgenstein argues for this by making a series of moves to show that understanding an ostensive definition presupposes an understanding of the way the word being defined is used.[13][14] So, for instance, there is no difference between pointing to a piece of paper, to its colour, or to its shape, but understanding the difference is crucial to using the paper in an ostensive definition of a shape or of a colour.

Make ur point don’t just copy paste. But thx for pushing the thread

 

[📎♿️⚙️]

?

Buffdon

 

[Samsepioler]

Basic normal iq Rambling, why do people call this high iq

 

[thebuffdon690]

Buffdon

Yes I am the buffdon

 

[thebuffdon690]

Basic normal iq Rambling, why do people call this high iq

Bcuz it is. Dare u to debate me then on any of the points lmao let’s see u crumble

 

[noodlelover]

I agree with what you said but I don’t really get the point of it

My point is, It's important to consider other people's belief systems in pursuing any goals.

If your goal is convincing religious people online that there's no god, that's largely a waste of time, because religious and political belief systems have evolved defenses that are too strong to be penetrated by logic. It is illogical to try to convince a religious person that there is no god.

But if your goal is getting support from other people who also figured out religion isn't true, then you've done that.

 

[Samsepioler]

Bcuz it is. Dare u to debate me then on any of the points lmao let’s see u crumble

no i do not care, i cared enough to comment not anymore

 

[Harold O'brien]

Make ur point don’t just copy paste. But thx for pushing the thread

you asked me to elaborate, so i did

my point is clear: no word has meaning beyond its use. your paragraphs were no more successful at revealing anything about the nature of reality than 'blargh'

 

[Harold O'brien]

you asked me to elaborate, so i did

my point is clear: no word has meaning beyond its use. your paragraphs were no more successful at revealing anything about the nature of reality than 'blargh'

:niro:

 

[thebuffdon690]

My point is, It's important to consider other people's belief systems in pursuing any goals.

If your goal is convincing religious people online that there's no god, that's largely a waste of time, because religious and political belief systems have evolved defenses that are too strong to be penetrated by logic. It is illogical to try to convince a religious person that there is no god.

But if your goal is getting support from other people who also figured out religion isn't true, then you've done that.

Yeh I know it is illogical my point was definitely with the second one as I mentioned that at the start, can’t rlly convince a religious person god doesn’t exist anyway. But I agree with all ur points it was a good post

 

[thebuffdon690]

you asked me to elaborate, so i did

my point is clear: no word has meaning beyond its use. your paragraphs were no more successful at revealing anything about the nature of reality than 'blargh'

That’s because the nature of reality is an unverifiable question. Anyone who tries to discuss that will do the same thing as I did and you will criticise them for doing the same thing. The problem isn’t with them it’s with you because you’re approach is wrong, but obviously you won’t ever admit that so it’s a waste of time

 

[noodlelover]

Yeh I know it is illogical my point was definitely with the second one as I mentioned that at the start, can’t rlly convince a religious person god doesn’t exist anyway. But I agree with all ur points it was a good post

The thing I find most funny about religious people is how they kill themselves and each other over it.

Like the Muslim always doing terrorists attacks against the Jews, and The Jews bombing the Shit out of the Muslims to protect "God's holey land" or whatever.

Christians did the same thing during the Christian crusades.

 

[thebuffdon690]

The thing I find most funny about religious people is how they kill themselves and each other over it.

Like the Muslim always doing terrorists attacks against the Jews, and The Jews bombing the Shit out of the Muslims to protect "God's holey land" or whatever.

Christians did the same thing during the Christian crusades.

They are mostly low iq people. Take a look at all the anti Israel protests and that will become clear. No one cares about the truth anymore it’s about pushing whatever agenda gets you the most benefit. Result of capitalism and post modernist agendas.

 

[gr34ter]

I will reassure you that you will not make it to heaven by viewing your Christian belief as a mere wager. You must actually believe in your heart that God incarnated and revealed Himself to humanity in the form of Jesus Christ. You must believe that He was crucified and was resurrected 3 days later and is firstborn of the dead. You must work to fulfill the Father's will. You must repent in genuine contrition.

I believe the story of Jesus of Nazareth is real but Noah's ark and the creation account should be interpreted as what you want it to mean

 

[Harold O'brien]

That’s because the nature of reality is an unverifiable question. Anyone who tries to discuss that will do the same thing as I did and you will criticise them for doing the same thing. The problem isn’t with them it’s with you because you’re approach is wrong, but obviously you won’t ever admit that so it’s a waste of time

I'd argue that certain aspects of nature are verifiable. For example, it's fairly trivial to show that acceleration due to gravity on Earth is approximately 9.81 m/s^2.

My approach is essentially this: some questions fall outside the scope of good science. 1. You shouldn't attempt to be objective in these realms and 2. you need to have a solid grasp of language and style for engaging debate

 

[gr34ter]

True but it’s still false so why believe in it

I feel like I owe it to the Christian faith, without Christianity the world would be so much different for better or for worse, I'm not sure

The rules Christianity has is based in the belief that it came from a 100% morally correct entity and anything that defies him is wrong, however the athiest world view is based in nothing, there is no right or wrong and can change depending on the person whether that is somebody who obides by their moral code, that could happen to be something like the bible teaches or someone who is a sinner in the eyes of the bible. They both cannot agree on what is evil because they have no standard to go by

 

[thebuffdon690]

I'd argue that certain aspects of nature are verifiable. For example, it's fairly trivial to show that acceleration due to gravity on Earth is approximately 9.81 m/s^2.

My approach is essentially this: some questions fall outside the scope of good science. 1. You shouldn't attempt to be objective in these realms and 2. you need to have a solid grasp of language and style for engaging debate

I’m attempting to construct a philosophical inference to what I believe to be true, and you’re just waffling. If you’re not gonna engage with the points then don’t engage at all

 

[thebuffdon690]

I feel like I owe it to the Christian faith, without Christianity the world would be so much different for better or for worse, I'm not sure

The rules Christianity has is based in the belief that it came from a 100% morally correct entity and anything that defies him is wrong, however the athiest world view is based in nothing, there is no right or wrong and can change depending on the person whether that is somebody who obides by their moral code, that could happen to be something like the bible teaches or someone who is a sinner in the eyes of the bible. They both cannot agree on what is evil because they have no standard to go by

Not true, morality can be grounded in various things in atheism, and you’re stance depends on whether morality is even objective in the first place, which I don’t think it is

 

[DR. NICKGA]

Damn, somebody called the citizens of the Loserville to this thread. Retarded nerds

 

[thebuffdon690]

Damn, somebody called the citizens of the Loserville to this thread. Retarded nerds

?

 

[Harold O'brien]

I’m attempting to construct a philosophical inference to what I believe to be true, and you’re just waffling. If you’re not gonna engage with the points then don’t engage at all

you haven't made a single point jfl. you literally wrote thousands of words of waffling word salads in the OP

meanwhile I write conscise one-liners that btfo you so hard you are forced to ignore them and accuse me of your own habits

 

[thebuffdon690]

you haven't made a single point jfl. you literally wrote thousands of words of waffling word salads in the OP

meanwhile I write conscise one-liners that btfo you so hard you are forced to ignore them and accuse me of your own habits

you haven't made a single point jfl. you literally wrote thousands of words of waffling word salads in the OP

meanwhile I write conscise one-liners that btfo you so hard you are forced to ignore them and accuse me of your own habits

You ain’t writing anything and you havnt engaged with shit other than muh word salaf muh ur words have no meaning and then copy pasting some shit from Wikipedia and you think you did something.

You havnt once attempted to engage with the actual source material just spiting nonsense.

 

[gr34ter]

Not true, morality can be grounded in various things in atheism, and you’re stance depends on whether morality is even objective in the first place, which I don’t think it is

How would you ground morality when it can change all the time depending on the society and people in power?

 

[Harold O'brien]

You ain’t writing anything and you havnt engaged with shit other than muh word salaf muh ur words have no meaning and then copy pasting some shit from Wikipedia and you think you did something.

You havnt once attempted to engage with the actual source material just spiting nonsense.

if you bothered to read that section on Wittgenstein, you would have realized philosophy of language is exceedingly important to the discussion here

 

[thebuffdon690]

How would you ground morality when it can change all the time depending on the society and people in power?

You ground it in something reasonable. For example if you’re against child rape you could ground morality in non harming people, or pain. So if an entity feels pain that’s immoral. It would be different from society to society but then they would have to adopt their own objective grounding principles too