Atheism vs Theism

Lel this faggot can't stand getting called autistic by more than one person, m-must be the same guy!

You can't falsify statement "there is being" because there is being even in the act of falsification you fucking stooge

>You can't falsify statement "there is being" because there is being even in the act of falsification you fucking stooge

No, it's because 'there is being' is a meaningless statement you dolt. It describes absolutely fuck all

His point is that atheists who say God does not and cannot exist aren't objecting to the assertion that God exists, but are rather making the assertion that he cannot exist.

>so complex could not have been created by chance
But it wasn't chance, it was millions of years of adapting to a changing environment, it's causal and deterministic.

>A=A is a meaningless statement because it describes nothing

prime atheist "logic"

you are truly a credit to your board

Define 'being'. Don't use a tautology.

Yeah cuz its half the argument you fucking sped

1. There is Being 2. There is a Power of Being

>b-buts it's not by chance, it's by these very finely determined patterns of behavior that spontaneously self-organize and self-repeat
>the divine and causality are mutually exclusive

who dropped you on your head when you were born ayy marrone

>being can't be a tautology because X

Being is what is. What is, is being. What's your x?

>spontaneously self-organize and self-repeat
Don't know what you mean about this. Genetic adaption arises from environmental pressures and then gets passed down through reproduction. Also it has nothing to do with "patterns of behavior" because those aren't genetic.

>1. There is Being 2. There is a Power of Being

Honestly, you should just stick to calling anyone who's critical of your retarded views 'brainlets', you'll come across as much less of a retard than you do now

>being

present participle of be

existence

>lol define existence

don't be a faggoty tryhard idiot you aren't a researcher and it shows.

>Being is what is.

That's a tautology, you fucking moron. You haven't defined or explained anything, you've just replaced one term with another

I don't believe in atheism nor the abrahamic god.

>what do?

What God exactly does that prove the existence of, and which doctrine of worship of that God does it justify?

Being is. Whatever is responsible for being, call it ground, principle, source, mechanism, is the Power of being and is what you can refer to as a God/higher powrr if you assume a minimum of doctrinal attributes. I'm not talking out of my ass this is a view shared by far more respected academics and theologians, and is an argument the science's cannot by virtue of what they are.

I genuinely think you're autistic.

>present participle of be
>existence

Again, that's a tautology, you goddamn mongoloid. You're just replacing one term with another, without explaining anything.

>you aren't a researcher

You're not even a layperson, you're too arrogant and stupid to even be that

The post you quoted was asking why it can't be a tautology. Being resists discursive intellectualization, it is arational, it's own self-justification. Learn to read fucking posts you fucking nimrod goddamn

Again, you're just spouting tautology after tautology, without ever explaining anything.

>this is a view shared by far more respected academics and theologians

Name them, I'm dying to know

Which are exactly the behaviors encapsulated by the term "self-organization". Are you autistic?

You don't even know what a tautology is, or you wouldn't be faulting us for using them given that they are necessarily true.

You literal sophomore.

Tillich, David Bentley Hart, Schelling

How many layers of baiting does this thread have?

Is it a religious fag trying to bait atheists?
Is it an dumb atheist pretending to be religious fag trying to bait atheists?
Is it a religious fag pretending to be a dumb atheist pretending to be religious fag trying to bait atheists?

Except that it is. You're not explaining anything about 'being', what specific parameters you use to distinguish between 'being' and 'non-being', you're just replacing words in a meaningless word juggle that explains exactly nothing. On top of being a fucking moron, you're also an arrogant prick who constantly uses ad-hominems

he is autistic

he thinks that just cause he knows how to type "falsification" and "tautology" he can BTFO christfags on the internet for days, but he doesn't even know what those words mean.

>Tribal consequentialist fearmongering
Unimpressive.

or you know what, it might just be a troll baiting with no particular stakes in this

>specific parameters you use to distinguish between 'existence' and 'non-existence'

suicide is a good one

maybe you should look into the subject a little before posting again

I'm not trying to explain being, I'm making an argument that it's irreducibility as a tautology can be reasonably conceived as a higher, determinative power.

Goddamn you are the biggest sped on these boards. And you still don't know what ad hominem actually is.

> And you still don't know what ad hominem actually is
indeed, the phrase he is looking for is "name-calling"

>muh ad-hominem

If Chad walks up to you in public, then calls you a loser and spanks your girlfriends ass that is not ad-hominem.

If he were to say "you are a loser, therefore your girlfriend wants me to spank her ass", that would in fact be a good example of argumentum ad hominem

I'm not sure your second example would be correct. Chad's justification for the ass-slapping is user being a loser, with the implication that user's loserliness (if Germans can make up words, I can too) is a lack of virility that the hypothetical girlfriend would be seeking in Chad.", demonstrated by the unsolicited ass-slap. That is, however, entirely Chad's opinion, and may or may not be true.

A better example would be if Chad said that the central premise of your argument in favour of de-centralized education was invalid because you are a loser. Ad hominem exists moreso as a non-sequitur than as a "don't be mean to me."

>asking for proof that God doesn't exist
And then they either refuse to define God or define him in an unfalsifiable way.
So of course if you try to backfill them in on the fundamentals of argumentation they flip out back to mystical la la land.
They want to pretend to play the "proof" game but complain when you ask them to follow the rules.
Inevitably despite all this they claim a "victory" and go back to church or beheading infidels or whatever it is they do.
Then the next day it's right back with the exact same opening arguments like nothing ever happened.

>A better example would be if Chad said that the central premise of your argument in favour of de-centralized education was invalid because you are a loser.

Agreed.

Define God in a valid and falsifiable way.

a concept created by the ancient Hebrews that encompasses their all powerful deity :^)

Heroic King who lives on top of Mount Olympus and who hurls lightning bolts.

It's what makes even speaking about the concept of falsifiability possible in the first place. God is not a creature you have to go find

10/10, you got me. I almost got mad.

why would you he's just begging the question which is a logical fallacy.

>ancient Hebrews created the concept of God

you btfo yourself on that one

>Heroic King who lives on top of Mount Olympus and who hurls lightning bolts

Let's call him Zeus. Now go falsify him, and do that for every last possible divine figurine you can create.

>God is not a creature you have to go find

Who are you to tell God what he can't be?

...

I can't even tell what side you are supporting.

>you btfo yourself in that one
what? Should I be more precise so you will comprehend? I thought it was well established that by God we mean the Abrahamic god
then it becomes "The Abrahamic God is a concept created by the ancient Hebrews that encompasses their all powerful deity :^)"

Because there's no way he doesn't know that he is doing it.

The existence of a complex universe proves only the existence of a complex universe. Plenty of complex things happen through chance, the formation of crystaline structures for instance. The problem here is that you look to all of this as evidence of your position, so there can be no actual argument against it; you've already claimed it as your own, unreasonably I might add.

>existence is a logical fallacy

it's like 4th dimensional autism

more like your window of thought is so small that you can't even understand what you did wrong

No, it also proves the possibility of Being, which then points towards a mystery you can call God.

You're a clown who doesn't even get the whole premise of the OP is that God cannot be a being as we know it.

Yeah ok sure the existence of a complex universe fine but then also there is God too :^)

Looks like I win again athiests btfo

>ou're a clown who doesn't even get the whole premise of the OP is that God cannot be a being as we know it.

That cannot be OP's premise since he literally claims to provide a proof of God.

there can be multiple premises to something asshat, you begged the question because for what you said to be true God must first be real to allow you to claim that God was the thing that allowed this discussion to be able to happen anyway.
It's you who is the actual moron

If God is the mystery of how the universe came to be, then why worship "Him"?

Good.

>by God we mean the Abrahamic god

Oh, so you were referring to a specific religious figure. Like Krishna or Quetzalcoatl.

>The existence of a complex universe proves only the existence of a complex universe.

Would you accept the existence of designed objects within that universe, like a clock or computer? If so, you establish the quality of design within the universe, as a universal quality.

That's quite the logical leap there, bucko. How do you get from the position that some objects are obviously manipulated by humans with a design in mind to the conclusion that obviously all objects are designed by some being?

Why not?

Yeah being must exist for this conversation to even be possible. Being as such, which it is not unreasonable to call God or divine. I have not mentioned Jesus at all. Are you autistic?

Being obtuse is not good argumentation.

Human familial social control instinct. Same reason for any anthropomorphic traits (God is a "father", God "loves" you, God "has a plan", etc). If you were a bunch of Jewish and Italian patriarchs it makes sense you would write up your God to exhibit the virtues that you wanted everyone to see in yourself.

>some objects are obviously manipulated by humans with a design in mind

Ergo, design exists within the universe.

>the conclusion that obviously all objects are designed by some being?

I didn't, I only asserted that design applies to certain "objects" or particle "bundles" within the frame of temporal reality.

As design applies to at least some universal objects, it is not a stretch to say it is worked into the fabric of reality, as a "tangible quality" like weight or temperature.

not an argument

So you're arguing for the position of following a tradition that you know is based on falsehoods and ignorance, just 'cause?

...

>No, it also proves the possibility of Being, which then points towards a mystery you can call God.

Oh god, you're that "the universe has meaning and anyone that disagrees with me is a moron" guy. Get fucked, you fucking autist.

kek

Design doesn't exist, though. Design by humans is just conscious manipulation of physical characteristics. How is that manipulation intrinsic to the universe as a property separate from the characteristics themselves?

>Would you accept the existence of designed objects within that universe, like a clock or computer? If so, you establish the quality of design within the universe, as a universal quality.

The thing is, the design of the universe doesn't have the hallmarks of a maker. Consider our own bodies, they're horribly inefficient and sometimes catastrophically fail due to their most fundamental process going apeshit and replicating in an uncontrolled fashion. What designer would allow this flaw to perpetuate? You can't say it's unavoidable either, naked mole rats don't get cancer.

>I have not mentioned jesus at all
nor have I, nor have I mentioned being, are you going into a loop back to a discussion you were having with someone else? Are you psychotic?
This was about God not necessarily about 'being' remember?

This is kind of hilarious because it means you are begging the question on TWO levels because you also expect people to agree that 'being' guarantees or is a possible guarantee for the existence of God

The more I read these threads the more retarded you people come over to me, I'm going to force myself to abstain from these threads now(again)

Stay mad brainlet

You're the one who continually makes these threads and spergs out aggressively in them. You talk a big line about the Tao, yet never seem willing to be like it.

I didn't make this thread.

>Design by humans is just conscious manipulation of physical characteristics.

And that doesn't exist? Cause we're communicating at just under light speed here dude, I think it's clear enough that design is a real thing.

>How is that manipulation intrinsic to the universe as a property separate from the characteristics themselves?

The fact that it's intrinsic to humans/human behavior at the least suggests that as far as humans are part of the universe and design is a part of humans, design is a part of the universe.

It's like saying gravity isn't a property cause you can't properly separate it from it's measurable manifestation.

>Consider our own bodies, they're horribly inefficient

At what? Living forever?

Human bodies are actually incredibly efficient at certain tasks, like perspiration and locomotion.

Bipedal movement is actually more energy efficient over time compared to quadrupedal.

>What designer would allow this flaw to perpetuate?

One that chooses to. Nobody said the designer had to be a nice guy.

again with this forget to link shit goddamn

Gravity isn't a property, it is a phenomenon, just like design. And phenomena are just observed patterns. The missing link here is that you seem to be implying some sort of Platonic capital Design that exists independent of humanity. That doesn't make any sort of sense, in that there is no obvious manipulation of the world independent of human agency.

>isn't a property, it is a phenomenon

I don't get what you mean.

>there is no obvious manipulation of the world independent of human agency

I disagree, other animals interact with their environment too. Besides this, there may be higher order beings who's actions are informed by design but who's machinations are beyond our perceptual abilities at present.

>you seem to be implying some sort of Platonic capital Design that exists independent of humanity

not necessarily independent of, but likely enough not originating from. Mere association with humanity is enough to show it's simple presence.

To suggest that humans are the single source of design in the entire universe seems premature to me.

>Something so complex could not have been created by chance
proofs?

>At what? Living forever?

Processing chemical energy from food.

No.
My argument is that religion is a contrivance of human social order. Superimposing human traits onto the universe is pure imagination.

you find a watch lying on the beach.

did the particles that make up the watch arrange themselves in form and position by chance, or was it assembled deliberately?

did the particles that make up the beach arrange themselves in the same manner?

Assuming the watch is designed and the beach isn't, wherein lies the qualified difference between the arrangement of these particles?

A property is a measurable physical characteristic of an object, just as size, mass, color.
A phenomenon is a "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen."
Example: A volcano's size is a property. An eruption is a phenomenon. A clock's assembly of gears that turn to rotate the hands is a property. The construction of these clocks by Swiss manufacturers is a phenomenon.

I don't disagree with you, in that I don't claim to have an absolute knowledge of all beings in the universe that manipulate matter. You're also right that animals manipulate matter as well.

The point is, I don't think that there is evidence of these higher forms of life exerting control to manipulate matter.

What kind of food are humans "supposed" to eat?

Or to put it plainly, what kind of food are humans biologically predisposed to eat?

So then you'd agree that there is no point in following these religions for the purposes of intellectual honesty?

all religious experiences and moral conventions such as piety, obedience, service, charity, prayer, etc. are immanent analogues of transcendental states. because there is a modality to the representation of an ultimate reality does not in and of itself disprove an ultimate reality as such

Slight correction. A better example of phenomenon would be the ability for humans to tell time from these clocks.

>A volcano's mass is a property. Gravity is the phenomenon that accounts for it.

Then what unit of measurement could we use to quantify phenomenal design?

>I don't think that there is evidence of these higher forms of life exerting control to manipulate matter.

If it is true that we can't perceive that manipulation, there shouldn't be.

We can't measure design. That's the entire point.
And if we can't perceive that manipulation, then why believe that it exists?

The erosion of stone and soil into a grainy beach by tidal forces is a natural geologic process.

The process by which metal is mined from the earth, smelted and shaped into components, glass and crystals fabricated from natural raw materials, engineered and assembled into the form of a functioning watch, can be inferred to be a product of some (human) civilization's technological and artistic development.

If the argument were to be made that a pocketwatch were formed by geologic processes, that's where the comparison would be silly.

I suspect that's where the Intelligent Designer metaphor/analogy/fallacy slides under the radar, people don't define what they mean by "natural process" and the categories are conflated.

Typical lazy argumentation to impress uncritical audiences but unfortunately it takes some untangling the knot and people don't have patience to follow along.

>We can't measure design.

Are you positive. Cause any layperson could look at a deck of cards arranged in a numerically ascending stack versus one scattered across a room by the wind and attribute design to the stack.

Perhaps incorrectly, in that it assumes the wind cannot be creating a pattern of complexity several orders of magnitude greater than humans are capable of comprehending, but they will point to the differences in appearance none the same and do so with a degree of empirical validity.

>And if we can't perceive that manipulation, then why believe that it exists?

Because it seems to me like given the inexpressible magnitude of what is real, there is a lot of things that exist outside our powers of perception, like literally anything outside the lightspeed/time radial from the Voyager/Earth perceptual binary.

>The erosion of stone and soil into a grainy beach by tidal forces is a natural geologic process.

Prove it.

>lol distinction between artificial and natural

everything that exists within the bounds of physical reality is by definition natural.

If it was strictly for intellectual honesty, then no, since religions are universally based on impossible cosmology. But religions are also a social phenomenon and provide some benefits.

No use piling on ever more spooks to try to support unsubstantiated claims.
If your axioms are rejected then all your sandcastle get washed away with the same wave.

>If your axioms are rejected then all your sandcastle get washed away with the same wave.

the axiom at the end of the day is the "givenness" of reality itself. also you seem to think all ideas are reality are necessarily going to be scientific formulations instead of what they are: symbolisms for experiential states

>>The erosion of stone and soil into a grainy beach by tidal forces is a natural geologic process.
>Prove it.

It can be readily observed and studied?

>everything that exists within the bounds of physical reality is by definition natural.
Well even with my generous signal about conflating of categories you plow right ahead, so I will consider this a concession on your part.

In the example of the deck of cards, one could identify probable design at foot with the order of the cards, but one could not give an independently verifiable quantity to the cards (ex: that deck has 1.2 kiloAnons of design present). That is because humans search for patterns, and one could assume that all the laypeople present have prior knowledge of decks of cards, or at least suites of Arabic numerals. They are identifying the pattern they see, but that is only a hypothesis, not a sure proof of design in the order of those cards, no matter how compelling that hypothesis is.

As for your second point, you're free to believe whatever you want about the greater nature of the universe than what is observable, but that isn't an argument, nor is it proof. It is just your subjective feeling about the greater meaning of the universe. It has no place in a discussion like this.

>It can be readily observed and studied.
>therefore it is not subject to design

Lab rats are subject both to observation/study and design, at least as so far as their breeding is concerned.

>one could not give an independently verifiable quantity to the cards (ex: that deck has 1.2 kiloAnons of design present).

This is currently true, just as the same was once true of gravity.

>patterns

Is there a unit of measurement for degree or power of pattern complexity within a given physical or logical system?

>It is just your subjective feeling about the greater meaning of the universe.

My feelings don't matter on this, as my feelings lead me to believe the entire universe was created 5 minutes ago.

I'm just making a probability statement. It's more likely than not that life exists somewhere other than Earth, for example.