Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

God does not exist cos there is no god

Self refuting.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

some motivation behind believing is that if u do ur rewarded and get to be in heaven and if U do bad U go 2 hell.

Like that's just called being a decent person.

Also religion causes so much fukn dramas. Countries blowing each other up and having a sook cos they r arguing over gods from centuries ago

Religion is a man made construct to control stupid ppl

So does secular discourse? Is that really your main objection to religion? That actions carried out from self-determined individuals are what the religion entails? Lol please get your head checked.

 

[HazzRat]

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

Where is ur evidence lol

and don't say some made up book from ages ago. Wouldn't the normal be like it's doesn't exist until U prove it does? I remb seeing on tiktok and interesting argument were U just grew up with it and that's why U believe in it. Like u don't grow up in middle east and be a Christian (usually) and likewise in the states U would usually be Catholic or Christian as opposed to Muslim.

It's concerning that you want to engage in debate without utilising appropriate rhetoric, like I don't know spelling words correctly? Firstly, the first claim is flawed by virtue of the fact that people may be raised a certain religion yet have the option to internally change their beliefs as they grow older. Your point is that you just may be born into a religion yet this is digressive after the fact that people grow older, are exposed to different beliefs and positions.

yes I believe in evolution and other things science can prove. I don't think anything happens after death. U live on earth U die and we move on. I was raised Hindu and got told there was an afterlife and stuff and if U do good in this life U get a better next one. This just sounded like copium for poor people that were struggling.

i guess we can prove everything after the big bang but not stuff proceeding it.

if we could prove with math physics or science before the big bang, would U still believe in a god?

Just a multiplicity of such flawed claims and it's so concerning that people like you, most atheists, try to argue against the theistic worldview with 0 understanding of theology, philosophy, metalogic, epistemology.

Firstly, you just asserted you're a modern empiricist meaning you value what you observe with your five senses opposed to metaphysics and propositional logic. The claim you can prove everything after the big bang is just again a falsehood because you cannot prove and account for any essential universals such as logic, axioms, mathematics. Do you know what axioms are? They're self-evidential dictations of how the universe operates, without any ability to prove them. They're presupposed to be true by all people who accept classical logic, and by virtue of you making that comment one can only assume a rejection of classical logic from this person.

Furthermore, your second claim with you conveniently supplemented with an antecedent correlate "if" would be so nonsensical because physics and sciences are empirically prove, not logical necessities meaning if other possible worlds they could exist otherwise in different ways. This is just a fundamental metalogical proof that follows from a logical system. Math will never be able to explain something in which we can only analogically predicate to yet we can grasp a greater understanding of the creator of this universe through revelatory experiences.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

View attachment 42949

Mh hm.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

No person will ever slander theism and preach falsehoods, ignorance and stupidity as long as I live

 

[idkkdi]

Yes lol this is horrible. Epicurus had many many flawed beliefs, like for instance holding to the position contrary to Aristotle's nicomachean ethics that pleasure, despite consequences of the preceding actions to reach pleasure, is the ultimate good and desire for all humankind. He even opposed all formulations of teleology and instead was a mechanist, essentially meaning that everything that is in motion or filled with potential i.e everything natural and existing within the universe can always be explained by essential universals and empiricism like sciences such as physics. This is because he adopted a deistic, pagan multi-deity worldview. Obviously this is just wrong and it's formulated so horribly it makes me think epicurus was very ignorant or not classic by any means.

The question "Why is there evil"can be broken down and actually answered via reductio ad absurdum, meaning supposing the other side that evil would not exist.

Suppose there was an absence of evil everything must possess the quality of perfection, ergo, for all agents X that possess perfection do not possess the quality to be a human as agent predicates agency which implicates free will. Free will entails self determined action indifferent to any extrinsic action to conform your agency to the object of the extrinsic action. Once again, having the capacity to act and then not acting does not align with the predicate of choosing inaction.

The question "Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil is a nonsensical question and is self refuting, can a circle be a square? If evil is a consequence and mode of signification for free will it's an essential universal and necessity for free will, in so far as it assumes the position of the negation of Option A, that being Option B.

Epicurean stupidity and ignorance. Try again please with new arguments that haven't been refuted for more than 2000 years.

how is free will without evil nonsensical? the analogy is closer to can there be shapes without edges (circle) rather than can a circle be a square.

can you prove that if there is free will then there cannot exist evil?

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

how is free will without evil nonsensical? the analogy is closer to can there be shapes without edges (circle) rather than can a circle be a square.

can you prove that if there is free will then there cannot exist evil?

Notice how you didn't even provide a single valid retort to any of my propositions, I'm referring to agency expounding external multiplicity of choices as opposed to internal of the same choice, there is no virtual distinction otherwise. Please go ahead.

 

[idkkdi]

Notice how you didn't even provide a single valid retort to any of my propositions, I'm referring to agency expounding external multiplicity of choices as opposed to internal of the same choice, there is no virtual distinction otherwise. Please go ahead.

how is free will without evil nonsensical? in understandable language.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

how is free will without evil nonsensical? in understandable language.

So repeating myself for a second time, what part of my point did you think you were responding to? I already proposed the absence of any flaw that being perfection would be a state of which you can possess free will to an extent of it being actual in the sense that the all decisions are not free outside of the same state and mode of existence i.e internally multiple decision options. Whereas, free will, to be self determined must entail external multiple options in so far as whatever the subjects state of existence is. So it's self refuting to even posit a claim because preceding factors from making internal options with the state of perfection would entail having the possibility or ability to change your state of existence

 

[SylviaB]

So repeating myself for a second time, what part of my point did you think you were responding to? I already proposed the absence of any flaw that being perfection would be a state of which you can possess free will to an extent of it being actual in the sense that the all decisions are not free outside of the same state and mode of existence i.e internally multiple decision options. Whereas, free will, to be self determined must entail external multiple options in so far as whatever the subjects state of existence is. So it's self refuting to even posit a claim because preceding factors from making internal options with the state of perfection would entail having the possibility or ability to change your state of existence

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

View attachment 42950

Can you not flood this serious chat with your immaturity? Go elsewhere and do this.

 

[idkkdi]

So repeating myself for a second time, what part of my point did you think you were responding to? I already proposed the absence of any flaw that being perfection would be a state of which you can possess free will to an extent of it being actual in the sense that the all decisions are not free outside of the same state and mode of existence i.e internally multiple decision options. Whereas, free will, to be self determined must entail external multiple options in so far as whatever the subjects state of existence is. So it's self refuting to even posit a claim because preceding factors from making internal options with the state of perfection would entail having the possibility or ability to change your state of existence

in equally obnoxious language: one might volley a sophisticated retort positing that the inherent nature of volitional agency is not inexorably tethered to the dichotomy of moral judgements—good versus evil. Rather, it is the plethora of potentialities and the exercise of choosing from these manifold alternatives that encapsulates true free will. Perfection, in its unblemished splendor, need not be the antithesis of choice, but could indeed be the zenith of it, if such a state still encompasses a spectrum of preferable outcomes, each resonating with the individual's inner symphony of values and dispositions. The crux of free will, hence, is not diminished by the absence of evil; instead, it is affirmed by the autonomy to navigate through a labyrinth of equally luminous pathways, unfettered by the shadowy presence of malevolence.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

in equally obnoxious language: one might volley a sophisticated retort positing that the inherent nature of volitional agency is not inexorably tethered to the dichotomy of moral judgements—good versus evil. Rather, it is the plethora of potentialities and the exercise of choosing from these manifold alternatives that encapsulates true free will. Perfection, in its unblemished splendor, need not be the antithesis of choice, but could indeed be the zenith of it, if such a state still encompasses a spectrum of preferable outcomes, each resonating with the individual's inner symphony of values and dispositions. The crux of free will, hence, is not diminished by the absence of evil; instead, it is affirmed by the autonomy to navigate through a labyrinth of equally luminous pathways, unfettered by the shadowy presence of malevolence.

This doesn't answer anything I said. Do better please, you just told me a story.

 

[HazzRat]

@Atheist/agnostic slayer The burden of proof is on you. Prove to me there is a God.

 

[idkkdi]

This doesn't answer anything I said. Do better please, you just told me a story.

what part do you not understand?

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

@Atheist/agnostic slayer The burden of proof is on you. Prove to me there is a God.

It's so amusing when atheists always say this same burden script, hilarious.

Anyways ... Let's do this

P1-A: Some things are in motion.
P2-A: If some things are in motion, then they are put in motion by another.
C-A: Therefore, they are put in motion by another.

P1-B: If they are put in motion by another, then either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.
P2-B: They are put in motion by another. C-B: Therefore, either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other

P1-C: Either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other
P2-C: But this cannot go on to infinity.
C-C: Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.


Superlatively proven:

Premise 1: Amongst existences, there are certain beings that are greater/lesser in respects of being (hot, cold, funny).

Premise 2: Greater and lesser are terms that necessitate superlatives.

Premise 3: Superlatives of the respects are the cause of the gradations of being in said respect (heat energy would be ultimately responsible for the gradation of heat in all things that are hot/cold).

Premise 4: If superlatives do not exist, then there is no objective referent for these degrees. Premise 5: Statements without an objective referent are non-cognitive.

Conclusion 1: Therefore the superlatives of these respects of being objectively exist.

Premise 6: Degrees of certain respects resemble the superlative of that respect. (PPC).
Premise 7: Transcendentals have gradation. (Truth, Goodness, existence, reality, unity)
Conclusion 2: The superlatives of these gradations exist (From P5 and C1)

Premise 8: Existence, Truth, Goodness and unity itself have gradation. (Transcendentals)
Conclusion 3: There is a superlative existence and reality which is the necessary foundation for all other grades of existence, goodness, truth and unity. (P3 and P6)

Conclusion 4: The necessary superlative existence is what is known as God.

If you want the predicate notation tell me, otherwise list the premise which you disagree with and explain why

 

[idkkdi]

It's so amusing when atheists always say this same burden script, hilarious.

Anyways ... Let's do this

P1-A: Some things are in motion.
P2-A: If some things are in motion, then they are put in motion by another.
C-A: Therefore, they are put in motion by another.

P1-B: If they are put in motion by another, then either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.
P2-B: They are put in motion by another. C-B: Therefore, either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other

P1-C: Either this goes on to infinity or it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other
P2-C: But this cannot go on to infinity.
C-C: Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.


Superlatively proven:

Premise 1: Amongst existences, there are certain beings that are greater/lesser in respects of being (hot, cold, funny).

Premise 2: Greater and lesser are terms that necessitate superlatives.

Premise 3: Superlatives of the respects are the cause of the gradations of being in said respect (heat energy would be ultimately responsible for the gradation of heat in all things that are hot/cold).

Premise 4: If superlatives do not exist, then there is no objective referent for these degrees. Premise 5: Statements without an objective referent are non-cognitive.

Conclusion 1: Therefore the superlatives of these respects of being objectively exist.

Premise 6: Degrees of certain respects resemble the superlative of that respect. (PPC).
Premise 7: Transcendentals have gradation. (Truth, Goodness, existence, reality, unity)
Conclusion 2: The superlatives of these gradations exist (From P5 and C1)

Premise 8: Existence, Truth, Goodness and unity itself have gradation. (Transcendentals)
Conclusion 3: There is a superlative existence and reality which is the necessary foundation for all other grades of existence, goodness, truth and unity. (P3 and P6)

Conclusion 4: The necessary superlative existence is what is known as God.

If you want the predicate notation tell me, otherwise list the premise which you disagree with and explain why

proving some higher form of existence that is god is one thing. proving a biblical human god is another.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

proving some higher form of existence that is god is one thing. proving a biblical human god is another.

So you accept the premises and the conclusion to which it follows a God exists that precedes all creation?

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

proving some higher form of existence that is god is one thing. proving a biblical human god is another.

Your stupidity is outstanding, did he say prove God exists or Prove that christianity is true per its formulation of God?