Any good further reading to refute atheist's arguments?

Any good further reading to refute atheist's arguments?

Doesn't evolution refute the idea that humans 'happen' to exist? And life in general?

And even if you acknowledge there to be some first cause, why does it have to be some all powerful guy? And why does it have to be the Christian guy? There are tons of other religions that have comparable evidence by revelation and miracle, so to pick one doesn't make sense.

reminder to new users to avoid thinking too hard about any image that contains quentin's face

Life isn't that fucking complicated. You can break down exactly what we are: compounds of chemicals and reactions. Life likely began eventually by chance during the formation of the Earth, which is very easily observable and is geoscientific fact.

Look, it's all fine to make some philosophical, spiritual argument about creation and existence, but going HURR DURR HOW COME HOOMINZ ARE THE ONLY SMART ONEZ?? CHECKMATE ATHEIST, ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER LITERATURE TO SUPPORT ME is stupid.

The most profound experience of my life was a biochem intro course. I walked out of there and never returned to school. I used to be the biggest rational atheist sciencey type dude, long before these ideas were mainstream, but this day I did a complete 180. It's absurdly illogical to hold 'atheist' views when confronted with the actual science these people claim to work from.

The jump from
>universe couldn't have created itself
To
>Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin and died for our sins
Is quite the leap

You don't refute atheist's arguments, but you should prove the existence of God

Underage pseuds self-indulgently pondering on metaphysics and epistemology.

Hey guys, how about you pick up some books? There's literally thousands of years of philosophy, theological apologetics and science discussing this matter. Once you've done that, come back and start a thread that's rooted into some literature.

There are plenty of subreddits that accommodate sophomoric masturbatory intellectualism, so I'd like to kindly usher you to those forums.

this but unironically

since the name of God is I AM then God can say I AM an atheist to himself if he wants to, so whos arguments are you really refuting?

Kek. You took an intro course and deemed that enough to "understand the science these people work from?" That's like taking an intro to philosophy class where they discuss the basics of Aristotle and stating that you've deemed philosophy to be shit. Good think you dropped out because you wouldn't have made it much farther.

There is no "man in the sky", that tale is only so that the concept of God is more palateable to the savage masses we once had to convert. No. God is synonymous with the infinite. No one can contain his being, or aspects of him, within any sort of vessel. A person's mind, capable of viewing the infinite with sanity, could not look upon God with the self-same certainty. It would drive him mad. It is the infinite infinite. The plurality of infinities that exist between numbers, in ones being, wrapped up in cells and atoms and electronis, whos behaviour is governed by forces that have existed since the beginning of time itself. That is God. He is everywhere. To say that a being grows with a plan is to say that he is going according to God's plan, just as a flower "grows" in accordance to its own will, so too must the universe "grow" in accordance to its own will.

The concept, if you accept it, is that free will is a notion in disobedience of God, a revolt against the truth that you have been planned from the start, just as a flower contains the DNA to sprout, sexually mature, and spread its pollen by the bees.

Do not fall for atheists who claim that this is science. God is science, and has always been the structure of science. Science is the observation of God in his natural, most magnified state.

>sophomoric masturbatory intellectualism
calling my next album that

Your text communicates nothing. I have no fucking clue what you mean by "infinite".

>Science is the observation of God in his natural, most magnified state.
no, that would be LSD, science doesn't even come close

look around you at all the light and colors in the room. Now close your eyes and look for them, when you find them with your eyes closed, your "I" is open. then you will know what the infinite is

>when you find them with your eyes closed, your "I" is open
woo yeah man that's so deep it blows my mind
and like what if insects can write but they just write in ultraviolet ink so we can't see it

Seems like your trying to say "God is a sensation of fullness" which is fine.

not him and not to be a dick, but what you think is a revelatory aphorism is in fact an obsfuscatory word salad. Deepities like that should be captioned on a sunset picture on instagram.

You should really consider being more strict and precise in the way you articulate thoughts. There's nothing wrong with creating conceptual imagery, or aestheticising concepts, but you need to be clearer otherwise you end up sounding like an Eastern phil hack.

yes goy, don't think too hard

how would you know if you're not an insect dreaming you're a human? you could wake up any moment now

fucks sake
Veeky Forums - literature

you make it sound like god is a really big dildo

>obsfuscatory word salad.
I had that for lunch

good post

>really big dildo
I mean sure, the dildos have nowhere else to exist except inside of God too, though they don't have to be super large unless you're into that

Fucking wrekced all those stupid atheist evolutionists

whoa yeah man it could be all a dream
in fact i could be anything, just dreaming i'm a human
maybe i could be a howler monkey or something
that would explain why i've always wanted a prehensile tail

how the fuck is it 2017 and we're still posting quentin
fuck him fuck you leave
logic and religion are different types of thought everyone here is a troll

Edgy. I love how everyone on lit is a faggy beatnik that smokes weed and works a crap job or leeches while they pretend to write a novel. When confronted with the worthlessness of their degenerate occupation compared to things like science and tech, they type up long rants shitting on STEM to validate themselves. When confronted with their loose morals and unstructured, ungodly life they turn 180° into self educated experts of the natural sciences, typing up long "scientific" essays to prove that god doesn't exist, thereby justifying their depravity.

kek
It's dangerous to go alone! Take this.


Also lmao @ Veeky Forums christians getting butthurt over science when a lot of scientists are religious and the big bang theory was invented by a catholic priest. >I'm too dumb to confront scientific knowledge, therefore science is wrong mkay

>the big bang theory was invented by a catholic priest
he was the same guy that got the catholic church to abandon the idea of creationism and accept evolution as true

big deal tho. newton was a devout christian. he was also apparently an arrogant shit. accepting one part of a person's work doesn't mean we have to accept the whole thing.

I pray for god to kill all murricans every day, but he just doesn't do it. Either he is a lazy fuck, or he doesn't exist. Checkmate, believers.

it takes time dude

>a lot of scientists are religious
A lot of priests are atheists, what was your point again?

You didn't specify WHEN you want them all killed

>Everything exploded then we conveniently turned into complex life forms
The fuck am I reading.
>and we conveniently stood out from the rest of the animals as thinking beings.
The fuck would you talk when you haven't read anything.

My point is that Veeky Forums christians are retards who don't understand science so they construct this elaborate strawman of science being something devilish and fundamentally opposed to religion when this is not the case. They're like STEMlords who say that philosophy is useless (because they don't understand it) or the logical positivists who used to say that continental philosophy is meaningless gibberish (because they didn't understand it). Also what's wrong with abandoning creationism? Fatti non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza.

How many numbers are between 1 and 2? Infinite. Between 1 and 1.1? Infinite. The recursion never breaks and there are infinite infinities, as such that there is an infinite number of particles in the universe, so much that there is, for practical purposes, an infinite number of electrons within the visible universe. It is almost too much to comprehend, but not quite. God wouldn't be the countable universe, but the incountable. For every universe that we know, he could have made millions, if he so wished. He is, infinitely infinite. If you want to be like a school child, he is infinity to the infinite power, factoriated.

The beautiful the holy, the eternal, religion, love−these are the bait required to awaken the desire to bite: not the notion, but ecstasy, not the march of cold necessity in the subject−matter, but ferment and enthusiasm−these are to be the ways by which the wealth of the concrete substance is to be stored and increasingly extended.
This easy contentment in receiving, or stinginess in giving, does not suit the character of science. The man who only seeks edification, who wants to envelop in mist the manifold diversity of his earthly existence and thought, and craves after the vague enjoyment of this vague and indeterminate Divinity−he may look where he likes to find this: he will easily find for himself the means to procure something he can rave over and puff himself up withal. But philosophy must beware of wishing to be edifying.

There aren't any numbers between one and two.

jesus fuck go to bed yoda

Was it autism?

I think you have a very poor grasp on how infinitites work. You also seem to like to throw around the word infinite and not bother relating it to God?

Doesn't most Judeo and Christian theology have God as simple as fucking possible? He isn't made of infinite divisable parts. Hell I think him being made of 'parts' is actually a heresy in some circles Maimonedes goes in the exact opposite direction with his negative theology.

You've gone in some direction that has no relationship to the God of the old and new testament. Who shaped the world of pre-existent 'water', possess human emotions, and even has a wife whom he copulates with.

>he hasn't read parmenides
>he doesn't understood that god is the being of infinitely divisible differentiated identity

>God wouldn't be the countable universe, but the incountable

>He is, infinitely infinite

Okay, now I know you can't read.

Also, even in the bible, for what its worth, God becomes beings, puts himself equally infinite and finite when he impregnates Mary, devours Jonah, and shows his wrath at Gamorrah. I don't know what idiots seem to think God is some man shaped after him, magic sorcerer bullshit, but its irritating and besides the point.

>Parmenides
>infinitely divisible differentiated
I think you're the one who hasn't read Parmenides

rationalists are a fucking plague

Sounds like you are describing Abraxas more than the Christian God.

Is God Mary?

Mary herself is made of incountable infinite stuff.

we all are dude
luminous beings are we
not this crude matter

>rationalists
Retards are a fucking plague mate.

I'm also not a rationalist, nor does my request for clarity say anything about where I position myself epistemologically. Fucking pseud.

>Carl Jung transcribed a short Gnostic treatise in 1916, attributed to Basilides in Alexandria called The Seven Sermons to the Dead, which called Abraxas the supreme power of being transcending both God and the Devil and unites all opposites into one Being

I was just posting whatever came to mind without worrying too much about getting the Parmenides reconstruction right, but your reply makes a lot of sense. The absolute in Parmenides is not value-charged at all, the being he describes has no teleology. Being in the Christian mythos is teleological, coming from, aiming at, being enveloped by God as the absolute that is truth, goodness, love, etc., so you're right to disagree with me.

The smallest particle is the electron. The average human female weighs 115 lbs. Converted, this is 52163.1 grammes. We are 24% oxygen, 62% hydrogen, 12% carbon. This is 98%, so close enough.

We can distribute this evenly to find that marry is approximately:

12519.144 g Oxygen
32341.122 g Hydrogen
6259.572 g Carbon

Solving for Mols, we find that we have

521 mols Carbon
782 mols Oxygen
32086 mols Hydrogen.

a mol is equal to 6.022*10^23 molecules. I'm not going to do the rest of the math, but you can find out the number of molecules in the human body, and then from there find the number of electrons. We are ultimately finite.

wew lad, you're lost

STEM major who reads lots of literature and shit. Its useful. Some days I feel like a mildy retarded Decartes.

That would make 2.01*10^28 atoms in Mary

To go more fundamental you'd find the quarks and electrons as well but I ain't doing that shit

Yep. The Christian God ultimately has to exclude certain things from it's composition. For instance evil, sin, many 'vices'. But also femininity. Teleogy in any form must exclude something, since to be working towards something there are numerous other things it is NOT working towards.

You have a finite number of electrons and molecules. You're trying to keep the conversation limited to that to make your point. But electrons are them-self infinitely divisible. And ultimately people do not even have a stable count of electrons since matter is never static.

mate, I wasn't referring to your unfolding of 8th grade chemistry knowledge; I went to high school as well. I was referring to your arbitrary, yet convenient choice of molecules to illustrate the finite nature of man.

I don't expect an answer, I'm not the guy you engaged with originally, but felt like interjecting because I found your whole exchange embarrassingly useless and unhinged.

You'd have to go beyond the material too. Mary is more than matter. Unless you are a hard material reductionist AND a Christian, which would be a weird combo.

What are you talking about?

>But electrons are them-self infinitely divisible
This isn't true, you can't cut an electron in two. It's a distinct particle in the standard model, and a distinct wave-function in quantum physics.

yeah but you have to also consider that an atom of carbon has 4 electrons, while an atom of hydrogen has only one, and i don't want to bother with all that noise. Your number of atoms is correct but that precludes your ability to find the number of electrons. you have to go back and calculate for each set and then multiply by the number of electrons and then add that.

You're talking about models which is seperate from reality. That's like saying you can't cut 1 into 2 because there's no whole number for it to turn into.

Atheists are fucking cancer.

Autism

You literally have a sub-highschool understanding of physics, I think we're done here.

But is Mary's existence only her material componenent? Does she have no soul? Is the soul infinite?

you are the biggest psued on this board. congratulations.

No. Education. Autism would be

Brainlet here. What the fuck is a quark then?

As we reach for the stars, we must put away childish things; gods, spirits and other phantasms of the brain. Reality is cruel and unforgiving, yet we must steel ourselves and secure the survival of our race through the unflinching pursuit of science and technology.

A quark is what is contained within a Neutron/Proton. Electrons are completely different.

Quarks are elementary particles that make up protons and neutrons, not electrons

So what's the end to all this
God=that which is infinitly divisible
Humanity=material things made of atoms
Souls=fuck you

This is the grand theology?

Merely pointing out the absurdity that is the finite being attempting to comprehend the infinite.

>thinks my diagnosis is related to his molar arithmetic.
>unknowingly confirms diagnosis as a consequence

user, you're definitely autistic as you proceeded to correct someone's calculations, when in fact their argument was merely for the finite nature of man and your annotation changed nothing in this regard. Now, the argument in itself is autistic as well, as it merely picks convenient units to exemplify a finite set, so that user is autistic as well. Also speaking of metaphysics and the nanture of god in this manner is fundamentally autistic. I'll grant you that the user you pointed to is autistic as well though.

This thread is absolutely retarded. Read more, larp less.

>Here are are properties of an infinite being
>Here's what it did
>Here's what it wants. A huge list in fact!


But we can't comprehend it. Especially if you ask questions that are inconvenient.

Oh ok.

>Doesn't evolution refute the idea that humans 'happen' to exist? And life in general?
No evolutionary theory posits that life is a blind chance occurrence.

>why does it have to be some all powerful guy
Anything that would have the power to create the universe would have to be by definition all-powerful. Something all-powerful would have to be a person. If the creator was a mindless zombie or impersonal force it would have to be slaved to some higher force or principle, meaning that the creator is not all-powerful, contradicting the first point.

>And even if you acknowledge there to be some first cause, why does it have to be some all powerful guy? And why does it have to be the Christian guy?
Because Christianity is the only religion that is logically consistent with what we can deduce from the fact of the existence of a creator God as well as observations of the universe and thr historical record.

>There are tons of other religions that have comparable evidence by revelation and miracle, so to pick one doesn't make sense
I've investigated all major world religions, studying them both academically and through personal interest. I tell you that the pagan gods are all obviously manmade idols but contain the expression of the desire to know the One True God. So my answer is read more. Your arguments might sound good to someone who hasn't actually read up on the subject, but an argument that relies on the ignorance of the listener is not a good argument.

I'm saying we can't comprehend God, as in the being himself. It has nothing to do with what he wants and everything to do with the simplicity of man. God is often called the father and we are called the child because the expression fits well; the Father asks the child to do things even though the child doesn't understand the reasoning behind it. Likewise, if God were an architect, his subjects would be the wood and the nail and the concrete which one his designs but doesn't comprehend his nature, his desires, or his immensity.

Wow it's almost like that connection is what the entire Bible and church tradution is about. READ A BOOK.

Veeky Forums is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to Veeky Forums. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on Veeky Forums should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

It's stickied right on the front page, you fucking autist.

Reported and saged.

>Because Christianity is the only religion that is logically consistent with what we can deduce from the fact of the existence of a creator God as well as observations of the universe and thr historical record.
Did you get that from Lewis? Religions describe the nature of being in mythological terms, and Christianity gets it right in a lot of respects, but that's no reason to tie yourself the dead traditions and magical thinking.

>>tired of clicking on you idiots

critique of pure reason

The religious-person comment is contradictory. It supposes existence before existence occurs. That's stupid and facile.

The universe starts, and then things exist. Not things exist, and then the universe starts. You can't do that. It fails all logical tests.

Time starts with the universe. Matter starts with the universe. You can't talk about what happens "before" the universe, or the matter that begats it. This is the stupid, ugly part of ignorance.

Atheism can't be refuted. It relies on brute-fact. It can only be denied, illogically.

So Adam and Eve exist 6000 years ago, and they were tricked by a serpent that talk?
you know this for a fact or you have faith on it?

I raise you by the phenomenology of spirit.

It's a good myth. too bad atheists dismiss it out of hand as superstitious bullshit and Christians refuse to look at it with any kind of self-reflective distance.

what if religion was more than just belief tho? i don't believe in god but i do believe in its ideology

>>>/reddit/

What an image, this is what you read to refute atheists' arguments online? Everything about this thread is so depressing.

you think you can culture-shame anons into not questioning your religious views by calling them filthy redditors?

And then they hace kids, and those have kids with each other, and the blacks, the yellow, the brown and white people come fron them?
I mean if you don't want to discuss the actual content of the most important book of christian belief then why come here?

What does that have to do with anything? Ok: religion is more than just beliefs. And therefore, when we talk about "the universe" meaning "all of existence ever," we also mean "god," if "god" exists. That's not a logical problem. God is there for all of existence, because god is part of existence, because god exists. So what's the big deal? It changes nothing about our understanding of the universe. Universe begins at point zero. Then stuff. Stop talking about "before stuff." It is meaningless gibberish. There isn't any "before" stuff. Learn how tense works, for fuck's sake.

logic is hard user, i get my arguments from other people. im good at 3 things: buying products, watching media, copying other people’s thoughts. i have at least 5-10 friends and sex 4-10 times a year. im an intern at a FIRM and i’ll tell you my friend, im going places, i know things. people tell me stuff and i believe it. its true because i want it to be. i don’t care about if what i believe endangers the whole biosphere. i believe it, you should too. did you see the movie that came out? i was talking to a person im not having sex with, a friend is what they’re called, and we were talking about how their internship at a FIRM was going and then they brought up the thing. i disagreed, the thing has to be real! they said its not because another person who has friends and sex and believes things thy copied because they want to, said that its actually not! i thought that was outrageous. but either way we both agreed the new movie was cool and products are good, im watching one right now.

>And then they hace kids, and those have kids with each other, and the blacks, the yellow, the brown and white people come fron them?
What are you even trying to say?

Atheism is just another dogmatism. At least agnostics are rigorous...

I'm an atheist and yes, shaming does these anons good. There is a wealth of literature across fields varying from metaphysics, epistemology, science, theology, apologetics and psychology, all weighing in on the negotiation of the young earth reading and many other things, traditions spanning across thousands of years, yet faggots still think the young earth reading will pose a problem for anyone other than an infinitesimal minority of fundamentalist protestants who take that view.

Yes, fedora wearers, whether Christian or atheists, should always be shamed and ushered to reddit.

All races came from Adam and Eve in a span of 6000 years?

No, it isn't. Religions make positive claims about the world around us. Atheists say "hey, those claims are factually disproved." The "atheists are just generally right about facts" people, like yourself, want to claim that "god" is a word without meaning. And that's cool. But you either use the word to mean a thing, and then we can disprove it, or you don't use the thing, and then we aren't having a conversation. You don't get to claim "god magic spells and stuff" and also "well it's not like my word was supposed to convey meaning."