Childhood is thinking God doesn't exist

You got it switched, dildo. Far more people stop doing religion in adulthood rather than joining it.

you people have been out-debated a million times and all you can do is redirect people back to Veeky Forums even though logically you should be the ones to change your opinions or to go back to your little echo-chamber in /pol/

The other day a person was literally using the words "science" and "logic" as an insult against people who debated against him. That alone should tell you enough about the state of religious posters on Veeky Forums.
And no, I'm not saying you can't have your fate as it obviously helps you in your life but please be less vocal about it especially if you can't defend your opinions.

We can assume God exists a priori and there is no way you can disprove it. There are hundreds of logical arguments for God but literally ZERO logical arguments for no God. It says a lot when atheists spend 100% of their time trying to refute the logic that supports Gods existence rather than making their own arguments that support their position

No, adulthood is realizing you have Æutism, and that the fact that you can't interact with others doesn't make them sinners

...

what you said makes no sense. Do give us the "hundreds of logical arguments" then since the burden of proof lies upon you in this case

t-thanks, I guess

A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists.

This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.

The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.

What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

Contingent beings alone cannot provide a completely adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.

Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists.

The universe is contingent.

Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe.

Easy. Now here's the thing, you can try to argue against this but you can never support your argument that a necessary being does not exist because then you end up with contingent things causing each other in an infinite regression. Your stance relies on the ability to refute this argument, because you cannot give any alternative. But if you think you can make an alternative argument and support it do it.

Nothing other than the universe exists via definition.

>since the burden of proof lies upon you in this case
Also this is incorrect. It's a standard atheist fallacy they use to avoid having to make arguments to support their position (which they know they cannot do). We can a priori assume that God exists because the universes existence is contingent on it, which places the burden of proof on the atheist to provide a reasonable alternative.

Consider that we can logically assume realism is correct. It's the default position despite us having no empirical evidence that it is true. In that case the burden of truth lies on the person trying to dispute realism. In the same way existence of God is the default position since it is a logical necessity and therefore it falls to the atheist to put forward a satisfying alternative, which of course they never do and always fall back on "But you can't PROVE it" despite that objection also being true for realism, which they accept without question.

Incorrect. The universe is all that can be known. The fact that we will never know what lies outside it (at least while we're alive) doesn't say anything about whether there is actually anything outside of it. There are multiverse theories which propose many universes, in which case what is outside our universe are other universes.

>Adulthood is realizing God exists
You misspelled schizophrenia.

>because the universes existence is contingent on it

Why though? We don't know enough about the nature of the universe to know what IS or ISN'T contingent on it's existence. You're just filling in what you don't know with "God did it". A classic pastime for Christcucks like yourself.

> In the same way existence of God is the default position since it is a logical necessity
Except that's wrong and you're retarded. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the existence of God is a logical necessity.

>We don't know
>We
You mean you.

I know the origin, purpose and end of history. The Bible tells us everything we need to know.

So? Present an alternative. You're just proving my point. You can't do anything but try and argue against the logic that supports the existence of God because you have no logic of your own to stand on. "B-but we don't know!", ok, you don't know, then why not default to the position which is supported by logic? That God exists?

>There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the existence of God is a logical necessity.
See The necessity of a causal agent for the Big Bang to have occurred is no secret. It's a necessity that is conveniently ignored. God neatly fits the problem and gives an answer. You don't like that idea? Present an alternative.

If it cannot be known it cannot be interacted with. If it cannot be interacted with, it effectively doesn't exist. Multiverses either can be interacted with, or they don't exist. If they can be interacted with, they're part of the universe, it just means that the universe just is much bigger than we expected, just like when we discovered other planets and solar systems. If they can't be interacted with, they can't be proven in any way, and thus any theory is pulled directly out of the ass.

No lol. Older people are far more religious than younger. Mostly because of wisdom with maturity.

I don't know why people even waste their time with this medieval argument

You may as well say physical reality exists necessarily and call it a day

>A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists.
Yes it can

>Contingent beings alone cannot provide a completely adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
..So we have to come up with easy explanations from the top of our heads and fashion them into different religious movements?

>Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
why? Why should there be a being like that and how was it formed? Humanity didn't come out of nowhere, it was fashioned during millions and millions of years of evolution which is much much more probable than a perfect, highly intelligent being just coming into existence out of nothing all of a sudden. More over, the evolutionary theory has tons of proof when compared to the theory of a higher being

>Easy. Now here's the thing, you can try to argue against this but you can never support your argument that a necessary being does not exist because then you end up with contingent things causing each other in an infinite regression. Your stance relies on the ability to refute this argument, because you cannot give any alternative. But if you think you can make an alternative argument and support it do it.
You're using the cosmological argument that has been debunked a number of times.

Do mind that some of these websites have quite cringe worthy names and tones but they've got good points.

skeptical-science.com/atheism/debunking-argument/
youtube.com/watch?v=dac4LkG2i8A
reasonablefaith.org/a-swift-and-simple-refutation-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

More over, why do you think out of all these religions on planet earth, the christian one is the right one even if there's just as much proof (no proof) to support any of the other religions?

Your so called "logic" that supports the existence of God are just word games.

Furthermore, "we can't know nuffin" IS sometimes a valid argument. Human beings are physically and biologically limited, so it goes to reason that we are also limited in our perception of the universe around us because we experience everything biologically. So what you define as logic is simply what our feeble monkey brains are able to process in a way that makes sense.

But what if the nature/origin of the universe doesn't make sense in the context of your logical framework? What if that said nature exists outside of what we can comprehend. Human beings ARE perceptive enough to understand what we can't know or understand. But we also like to fill in those gaps, because pattern seeking is a behavior that was favorable to our survival and evolution.

But that doesn't make the conclusions that we make from said pattern seeking objectively correct.

>Also this is incorrect. It's a standard atheist fallacy they use to avoid having to make arguments to support their position
nope, atheists have provided a number of proper arguments that still stand where as religious people can only fight back with "my feels" and "my traditions"

>The necessity of a causal agent for the Big Bang to have occurred is no secret.
BZZT! Wrong. Causality only makes sense if time exists. Time is a property of universe, therefore causality does not apply to events outside the universe. Furthermore, there's no need to assume that the universe has a beginning. We know that space and time as we know them began with the Big Bang. We do not know what they were like before Big Bang - it's entirely possible that the Big Bang was caused by an event in another universe, or that the universe is cyclical, or any number of other possible explanations that do not require God.

ITT: Atheists doing mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious fact that God exists

Behold, the irrational and illogical atheist.

Wrong. Older people are more religious because they come from previous, more religious generations.

People are far more likely to leave Christianity than join it

>If it cannot be known it cannot be interacted with. If it cannot be interacted with, it effectively doesn't exist.
So you're like a 1 year old with no sense of permanence who thinks that when you can't see things they cease to exist? Things outside our observable universe DO exist user, the idea that "Well they'll never interact with us so we'll just ignore them for all intents and purposes" is an academic one. They're still there in reality, and the idea that everything outside our bubble of experience just isn't there is a rather egocentric view.

Physical reality is contingent. We know the universe had a beginning, 13.8 billion years ago, so before that the universe as we know it did not exist, which means it was created. There had to be a causal agent, because of all the things that we know about our reality causality is the ONE thing that cannot be violated in any way (The speed of light is the speed of causality, light cannot travel faster than that limit because that is the maximum speed that an effect can be transmitted from a cause).

>christanity
Why are atheist so retarded that they think everything is American Protestant Christianity? Anyway Christianity is growing around the world and will be for at leastthe next several decades.

pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

>Anyway, poor uneducated brown people and muslims are breeding like rabbits and will be for at least the next several decades.

BUILD THE WALL

Really makes you think.

>So we have to come up with easy explanations from the top of our heads and fashion them into different religious movements
No, we just have to come up with AN explanation. Which I did. Can't help but notice you have not yet put forward your alternative. Remember this: Your argument is extremely weak if you can not put forward an acceptable alternative. All you do is try to poke holes in an argument that DOES solve the problem. This is the big secret atheists don't want you to notice. You will never argue in support of anything because you have no answer, and because you have no answer your only option is to try and find holes in answers that do fit the logic. There is NO supporting argument for atheism. None. The only thing an atheist can do is try to refute the theist because they don't like the answer to a question they cannot answer themself.

>Physical reality is contingent. We know the universe had a beginning, 13.8 billion years ago, so before that the universe as we know it did not exist, which means it was created.

This rationale, namely that the physical world must be contingent because it's past-finite, only works if you reject an eternalist ontology of time.

Under eternalism, the universe is past-finite, but it never "came into being", so no need for contingency

That's not how the burden of proof works

>statistic PROJECTIONS
Something seems wrong about this.

How can you say that they exist if you can't interact with them in any way?

Why are you so retarded you make unwarranted assumptions to try to make a point?

I cited the same study you did, and it refers to Christianity as a whole, not a specific branch of it, you fucking moron.

Christianity is ONLY growing thanks to people being born into it in third world countries, not because adult people are joining it. Learn the difference my low IQ friend

Indeed. Protections are quite an accepted tool.

The wall only prevents alien invasion from the Central and South America, user...

>grow an atheist
>one night God reveals his pressence and gives me a experience
>start reading into religions
>9 years pass, no religion I have looked into gives me an explanation
>Decide to just wait for the God that seeked me
>One day find a less popular religion
>has several branches
>keep reading
>IS THIS REALLY IT?
>Understand that my experience was the end goal of this religion
>understand that I was gifted heaven
>smug as fuck
>enter the internets
>people tearing themselves apart over other religions
smuganimu.jpg.bat

Possibly, but I can see an immediate flaw in that. If the universe is eternally recurring than in theory you should be able to go back an infinite amount of time for an infinite number of universes. Say you do regress an infinite amount of time, how long does it take for you to exist? An infinite amount of time. Which means you never exist.

>But time doesn't exist outside the universe!
Yes, (well, maybe) but it does exist within the universe, and if you have an infinitely recurring universe you also have an infinite amount of time passed within those infinite universes.

I don't know about protections, using projections affords little protection from the claim that you're extrapolating current situational tendencies for future occurrences.

>There had to be a causal agent, because of all the things that we know about our reality causality is the ONE thing that cannot be violated in any way
Causality is basically made up as a way to extrapolate patterns from the world, it doesn't really exist.

Unless you take a faith based approach to life.

Then it certainly exists.

You don't even know what eternalism is. Hint: is not cyclical time or eternal recurrence

Read about B-theory of time, four-dimenionalism and perdurantism

>How can you say that they exist if you can't interact with them in any way
Effectively you can't, which is why we say anything we can't interact with doesn't exist. It doesn't mean anything we can't detect doesn't exist in actuality, it just means for all intents and purposes we can say it doesn't exist because we'll never interact with it in any way and therefore it is completely and entirely irrelevant to us. That doesn't mean nothing outside of our observable universe exists at all, it probably does, it's just that it's irrelevant to us for eternity so we treat it as if it doesn't exist.

>Possibly, but I can see an immediate flaw in that. If the universe is eternally recurring than in theory you should be able to go back an infinite amount of time for an infinite number of universes. Say you do regress an infinite amount of time, how long does it take for you to exist? An infinite amount of time. Which means you never exist.

"Time" is just another dimension. You exist in a defined place within 4-dimensional hyperspace, and it doesn't matter whether any or none of the dimensions of the said space are infinite or not.

It's idiotic to treat existence as something other than what can interact with whatever else exists, you've reduced the concept to nothing.

It does, because in relativity causality is the only thing two observers can ever objectively agree on. Time can pass at different rates, observers can witness events occur at different places, at different times, even in a different sequence, but the cause of those events is ALWAYS the same. It's the only thing in our universe that all observers in all frames of reference can agree on.

What "affords protection" is the whole study's methodology behind said projections.

Protection from God and good faith, indeed.

It seems Atheists are nothing but proselytizing idiots just as they claim the religious fanatics to be.

Reality doesn't care about your egocentric view of it. What exists within it, exists, whether you will ever interact with it or not.

...

The cause isn't the same because you have to make sense of the cause, which is the same as inventing it.
>The pot broke because you dropped it on the floor
>the pot broke because you were playing around
>the pot broke because it was made of porcelain and not steel
>the pot broke because gravity caused it to accelerate into the floor
>the pot broke because you've angered god
>the pot broke because the molecules accelerated enough that the sum of the van der waals forces when it encountered the molecules on the floor caused it to break apart
>the pot broke because electrons
>the pot broke because quarks
>the pot broke because sub-quarks
etc

there are a million reasons for everything happening

>implying objective reality

Isn't that Feynman's explanation as to why he never answers the question: "how do magnets work?"? Because he'd never stop explaining something and he would kept going into physics regardless of the nature of the question.

Atheists getting annihiliated in this thread, love it.

2/10 I'm not even mad because it's obvious that you either didn't read the thread or didn't understand it.

The difficulty of pinpointing an exact cause for an effect doesn't mean anything. Every effect has a cause, things don't just change spontaneously with no interaction, whether the cause be a ball hitting another ball or a particle being in an unstable state, there is always a prior reason for something that occurs.

You don't need to when you have Æutism. You can just declare anyone you can't socially interact with a sinner

the mental gymnastics that atheists go through is just hilarious

such irrationality from a group of people that claim to be rational.

It's gone exactly as said. Lots of atheists trying to refute the logic of God existing, not many offering up alternatives that are backed by logic. God existing is the default position, logic dictates it. There is no atheist alternative that can be supported as well as the the existence of God can.

The Æutism you go through is also hilarious.

No, wait, it's just sad. Sad like someone who desperately keeps responding to his own thread, because no one else does

I have a refutation. If a just God existed, you wouldn't have been such an autistic faggot.

I call it the Ælianic refutation from Æutism

real adulthood is realising god's existence nor his lack of existence isn't sure and most likely we will never find out the truth

God created the universe according to logic, but logic was invented, not discovered, by a greek. Did the greeks then create the universe? I wouldn't be surprised, those greeks were very clever.

No, clearly Æutism created the universe. That's why Ælian is the Chosen Son of Man

No one spoke about elders. Not to mention shit has nothing to do with "wisdom with maturity", but rather with the fact they were raised in different times.

>God existing is the default position, logic dictates it.
You've already been conclusively refuted on that point multiple times, you're just too autistic to admit it.

Nope, but we can all be grateful they did since logic is a powerful tool for inferring things that cannot be empirically proven, allowing us to know of the existence of God without having to provide objective evidence.

No, he's just too Æutistic to admit it

Also, don't yell at poor Ælian like that, he might have an Æutistic fit and throw his rosary at you

Oh, I never objected there being some sort of interaction, but interaction happens constantly. And two explanations might be completely different but equally valid for different purposes. If we're trying to engineer a better pot, we would look into the physical explanations of atoms and forces, and from there we would glean more knowledge to make a better pot, or understand how to treat the pot better (only drop form this height and so on). A mother who is scolding her child is completely unconcerned with atoms, and even if she knew it would be an irrelevant cause, because to her the real cause is her child not being careful enough. Causes are invented as a tool to deal with patterns, therefore even physics isn't nearing any sort of objectivity, just greater and greater power in their specific area of concern.

Atheists on suicide watch.

I will be grateful when God cures your Æutism and you finally fuck off from Veeky Forums

Ælian on Æutistic watch.

Oh wait, no, that would mean you'd actually work on your problems

>all these butthurt Christians flinging feces like monkeys

>Æ

Thanks for avatarfagging, makes filtering you so much easier.

You can infer lots of things with logic, it doesn't mean that it matches with anything in observable reality. I think we've all seen examples on how logic and axioms can be abused to get any form of result you want, so I'm not going to make one.

I don't even have an avatar you autistic turbofaggot

Now fuck off back to /christian/, where your retarded ass came from

/thread

Until the atheists can refute this, they lose.

>You've already been conclusively refuted on that point multiple times
Point out where. I only saw arguments that used faulty logic, or misrepresented the argument.

For example
>Furthermore, "we can't know nuffin" IS sometimes a valid argument
Is not actually true. It's portraying shrugging and saying "I don't know" as an equivalent of a position that does assert a solution and can be argued logically. In this case it's not, the only reason you would ever choose a position of deliberate ignorance over a position that fits the problem and makes logical sense is because of an arbitrary ideological opposition to what is proposed, such as an atheist not being comfortable with the idea that God exists. This does not mean that "I don't know" is anything other than an admission of defeat. If scientists propose a hypothesis that fits the data "I don't know" is not an acceptable alternative argument. You can't argue against a hypothesis from a position of ignorance, you need to make an alternative case and argue for why it's a more compelling solution with logic.

Adulthood is not giving a fuck

Well no the big bang is not a creation, its simply a point in time be cant see past, because the laws that governed the universe were vastly different from what we are used to.

We already DID refute it, you're just too retarded to understand the refutation :P

>not being comfortable with the idea that God exists

That's actually what it boils down to.

Atheists don't >>want

So atheism?

Just like you want there to be a god, either to punish the "wicked" or to uphold your reactionary morality and fight "degeneracy". Usually these days and in these circles it's the latter.

Keep in mind that the problem of what the causal agent was that set off the Big Bang is certainly a big unsolved problem for cosmologists it completely pales in comparison to the even bigger problem that our universe is completely unnatural and exists on a knifes edge of improbability to get things the way they are. No matter how you cut it there are several universal constants which are finely tuned. The causal agent problem is a relatively simple problem compared to the one of exactly why our universe appears to be so unnatural.

I believe in facts. God is a given, it's obvious. To deny it is to deny rationality and logic.

If you want to argue which religion is right, that's a different subject all together.

yes, of course

>I believe in facts.
Clearly not. Everything you're saying seems to be entirely based on faith alone, facts be damned.