I'm confused

>I do the right thing only because an omnipotent thing tells me that I have to and I'm afraid of the consequences of disobedience.
>this makes me a good person.

>elves exist
>but only in the canon
I guess God exists only in the Bible then

>What evidence is there for God?
Seriously though, what evidence is there against god.

My definition of god is simply "grand creator". Simply put to deny god means to simply deny designed creation. There is not one thing out there which can actively deny grand design, it's actually the contrary science strives to point out the mechanism needed for life to exist, it's pointing out how the design actually works.

No I do not believe in the any of the doctrines available to man talking about god, but I do believe in creation, it's simply logical.

>someone, something created us for some reason unknowable to us right now possible forever.
or
>literally no fucking reason what so ever, it just happened.
I know which one makes an infinite amount more sense.

>Simply put to deny god means to simply deny designed creation.
>the only way something can exist is if it was intentionally put into existence by a mind
Evidence for this assumption?

Literally what.
>explain your logic that is explicitly explained in your post.
We can go around here in a circle all fucking day. You've got no actual "evidence" neither do I. The burden of proof is on you just as much as it's on me.

But yeah, continue?

I didn't ask you to explain your logic, I asked for evidence. That was all, thanks.

Holy shit, so you are a fucking retard.

No?

>give me evidence your god exists
yes, yes you are.

I would like for you to give me evidence that grand design isn't a thing, thank you.

>He thinks humans are naturally "moral"
Humans are evil by birth.

That's not the evidence I asked for user. Are you okay?

Then literally what the fuck are you asking for.

user, it's literally a few posts up... You said you didn't have any, and I said "that was all, thanks." I thought it would end there, but...

Even if that were true, which it isn't, that is the dumbest etymological argument I ever heard.

I am asking you to repeat yourself and you are not doing it.

>>the only way something can exist is if it was intentionally put into existence by a mind
What does that mean if not asking for evidence of the existence of a grand creator.

Again, what are you asking.

>needing evidence
Disgusting ideology.
Goodness is enabled through empowerment by submission. The Godless cannot be good because they are slaves.
Humanists cannot be good, they are inherently evil. They have evil intents and can only do evil.
youtube.com/watch?v=nWTaSNQULHE

> infinite amount more sense
The difference here is between it just happened and creation just happened for a reason. In both cases why, how or how are unknown and actual "infinity more logical" thing is that it wasn't some unknown thing but especially creation That isn't have that much sense over no fucking reason in the end.

What is the point of repeating myself?

There's zero evidence.

>The difference here is between it just happened and creation just happened for a reason. In both cases why, how or how are unknown and actual "infinity more logical" thing is that it wasn't some unknown thing but especially creation That isn't have that much sense over no fucking reason in the end.

Can you reword please. Keep in mine our universe operates on the law of cause and effect. No reason is still a reason.

God created suffering, everyone who supports him is criminal of highest caliber.

So you are going to be a retard instead of engaging in conversation, got'cha.

>he thinks that you can assign moral worth to anything other than intentions
>he thinks that guilt is passed down from generation to generation regardless of action

I think that we are operating off of very different definitions of goodness friendo

Literally what is the point of repeating myself when you can read the conversation? We aren't literally talking, this is text. user, you've had a long day, I take it.

meant for

>suffering is bad
No, and humans created suffering. Stop deluding yourself, pagan. A Golden Man is no better than a bull.
>my definition
Actually valid and reasoned
>yours
muh fedora muhfugga things i like are good

There isn't any, just like there isn't any proof God doesn't exist.

But before you starting going agnostic, look up Pascal's wager.

Because I've got not one single clue what you are saying, it's becoming evident neither do you as you are not rewording yourself in a more digestable manner so we can discourse.

You're a fucking idiot. I mean, you could have cleared up this misunderstanding many posts ago but you aren't. Because you can't, because you are parroting some internet logic you didn't think of for yourself.

Good show.

>Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
If you can't make sense of that don't bother asking me to repeat myself, it's text.

>thinking for oneself is a good thing because some greeks said so

The only difference between creation and things just happened is the specific act of creation and we know so little about causes or mechanics of creation that "difference" there in the name only.

> humans created suffering.
God created everything and he plays us like the pawns in his game to inflict suffering over poor mortal souls.

Compadre I would call your definition of goodness blind faith. How is doing what you're told because you are told to do so in any way good? How can you really claim to be good if you are not making a conscious choice to be good, but are rather choosing to obey the directives of someone else. The other being may or may not be good, but you are nothing more than an obedient slave.

I have a Paypal account would you please donate all your money to it. The alternative is torture forever, please believe me, this is a totally legitimate threat and you should be really, really scared.

> Pascal's wager
This is a game where you can not win because every bet is expected to bring eternal suffering upon the player.

How to tell if you're an asshole:
> replace all the atheist aspects in this image with Islam vibes

Idiotic argument. The lord of the rings is written and largely taken to be intended as a work of fiction, a work meant to not be real.

It's like the same idiotic argument "well do you believe unicorn exists too?". No dumbass, unicorn are by definition something fictional.

You know Atheists don't have the balls to directly attack Islam.

> b-b-b-but it's fictional!
you can't handwave things like Ilyad, Quran, Book od The Dead, Book of Mormon, Mahabharata and many others that way

I'd post it, but this is a blue board.

Well, except for the parts that are solely a result of politics rather than piety.

> Atheists don't have the balls to directly attack Islam
Western people don't have the balls
Where was last time when Christians publically attacked it? There was none because Muslims and Christards play for the same team.

So as long as a book is intended to be non-fiction, that makes it fact?

God is real.
God isn't real.
You're going to die regardless.
You don't know with complete certainty what happens after you die.
Fuck off and stop fighting, let people believe whatever they want to.

>How can you really claim to be good if you are not making a conscious choice to be good, but are rather choosing to obey the directives of someone else.

Not the user you're replying too but you're a retard. "Choosing to obey the directives of someone else" and "conscious choice to be good" are not mutually exclusive. Actually, the former implies the latter, you idiot.

>you are nothing more than an obedient slave.
There is no such thing as complete freedom. At the end of the day, you're a slave to desires you didn't choose to make happen, external objects like today's media, other people, etc...

>inb4 you confuse free will with freedom

>thinks his own idiotic rambling is in anyway shape or form alike to great religions which have withstood the test of time and remained popular

You're delusional.

>>needing evidence
>Disgusting ideology.
Christfags, everyone.

And this is the religion that's supposed to represent love and goodwill?

>It's okay to believe something crazy if your ancestors and millions of other people believed it!

Can I hang out with you in a dinner or something? You're a breath of fresh air.

There's a difference between choosing to do the right thing because it is the right thing and choosing to do something which may or may not be the right thing because another being claims that it is the right thing. One is unequivocally good whereas the other may or may not be good based upon whether or not the being which you are obeying is good.

Any being which possesses rational thought can make choices based upon their own rationality. Having desires and having outside forces act upon you does not necessitate that you obey them. You may still bow to their pressures (and it may be entirely reasonable to do so) but that action is still a choice, even if the alternative is extremely unpleasant.

Most of these have something in common when it comes to eternal punishment. And most of those believe in the God of Abraham. While there are differences in what are the various acts that are sinful, there is a very common ground on the fact that denying God's existence is sinful.

You're not refuting anything. All the image indicates is that Pascal Wager works by at the very least making the necessary beliefs basic enough for the biggest religions (which are monotheistic and follow Abrahamic tradition) to avoid eternal punishment. That's it.

And even f you get triggered by Abrahamic religions too much, hellish punishment is still found in Eastern religions. So at the very least the required beliefs and behavior is one where humans have to accept loss in some form to accept a better afterlife. This is inline with both Eastern and Western religions. So taking care of the poor vs acting like a selfish rich asshole for example, you'll have to assume there is eternal punishment and not act like a rich asshole. Same with not acting adulterous, stealing, or simply denying all forms.

Further your refutation makes even less sense because you're assuming all the big religions have equally eternal suffering or demand the same from others. Under Pascal Wager, one should obey the most severe and the most strict of these big ones.

You're not making any sense. LOTR is intended as a fictional book, thus your counter argument was false.

I didn't say that, learn to read. I said you can't make a false equivalency with something that was clearly intended to be fiction and something that wasn't.

>thinking what was said was simply appeal to popularity when "test of time" was clearly also included

You're so predictable. Something standing the test of time is arguably the only merit that can be gauged objectively. It's done so in literature, it can be done so for at the very least taking beliefs seriously.

There isn't any. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool or dishonest.
Believe in your god if you want, but please don't say you can prove it.

>There's a difference between choosing to do the right thing because it is the right thing and choosing to do something which may or may not be the right thing because another being claims that it is the right thing.

First off, you're incoherent. The above can be written in a much better way.

Second, there are no differences. They are both choosing to do something because there is the belief that the choice is correct. Choosing to believe someone is in fact making a choice, it's in fact "choosing to the right thing because it's the right thing".

>One is unequivocally good

So merely believing something means there is no doubt. For a self appointed "free thinker" , that's not very skeptical of you.

>Having desires and having outside forces act upon you does not necessitate that you obey them.
Actually it does because the rationality itself, which is what you're appealing to, is in fact a slave to desires, which some are always underestimated.

>You may still bow to their pressures (and it may be entirely reasonable to do so) but that action is still a choice
And the action of believing another entity is also a choice.

Just drop it, you're way out of your league.

>thinking what was said was simply appeal to popularity when "test of time" was clearly also included
I knew exactly what you meant and it's a fallacy so retarded that I don't think it even has a name.
>have withstood the test of time and remained popular
is the same as
> your ancestors and millions of other people believed it

>Something standing the test of time is arguably the only merit that can be gauged objectively.
That's stupid and also self-refuting since the principle of judging ideas by their actual content has pretty well "stood the test of time."

Anyway, I don't think this user was trying to say that the idea of God is inherently absurd, but that Pascal's Wager is a seriously retarded argument.

> biggest religions
It doesn't matter if religion big or very small. Like when it doesn't matter if half of the casino made bet on number seven because they believe in to be the *lucky* one. This one part is guaranteed.
> Pascal Wager works by at the very least making the necessary beliefs basic enough
Maybe you right, nobody really tried to construct some sort of The Pascal Wagerism that allows you to follow as many religions as possible. To be honest, I don't know if this is possible when so many religions made supporting other gods to be some kind of sin. Maybe there is a way to follow most of them, of course, it can't be really decided just in like ten minutes and without all the necessary comparisons and careful cross-checkings.
> you're assuming all the big religions have equally eternal suffering
I am mostly assuming that there can easily exist various exotic theistic systems without religions, that corresponds to them. Can you deny the very real possibility that God burns good people in a hell and give sinner free ticket to heaven?! If not, such doctrines also must be included in Wager and completely deny Christianity itself. While the more specific case maybe can be solved, there is no way we can trick the more generalized one.

t. illiterate fedora
>blind faith is bad because some greeks sed so
Also, learn to read you fucking child. Didn't you listen to the sick track?
Why? muh fedora?

evidence is good because my ideology says it is
>if humans are evil then the religion is evil
Typical humanist ideology.

Good people don't go to hell, no burning happens in hell. 'muh charity' doesn't make somebody good. Freedom through submission makes somebody good.

>standing the test of time

People were literally told to convert or be slaughtered. It was literally violently forced on people.

> they got the real arguments
> must be fedoras
such deep conclusions, i am in awe

> Good people don't go to hell
Of course, they do as this is what The Owner of All Infernal Names wants.

He's not trying to replicate a complex faith, he's responding to a single argument by showing the absurd conclusions that Pascal's Wager-esque logic leads to. Mentioning a vast cultural legacy doesn't actually prove the existence of God. Warhammer 40k and The Matter of Britain have extensive canon, too... doesn't mean Khorne or Merlin are real. Using loaded terms like "idiotic ramblings" is just a milky bowl of feelios used to dismiss somebody.

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris did it multiple times on air, not that I like Sam Harris. This argument is just butthurt Christfags whining... of course western atheists criticize religions they're more familiar with.

You are the retard here, friend. You're asking the user to prove a negative while he is asking you to provide evidence for a positive.

> doesn't mean Khorne or Merlin are real
this is some high level fedora here, denying not one but two powerful entities

Look, God doesn't exist. But at some point in your life, you'll probably understand why atheists are pitiful creatures.

Atheists can't help it, they've logic-ed where they shouldn't have logic-ed, and it's hard for them to go back.

The only thing that actually matters TO YOU (i.e. the only thing that matters) is for you to avoid misery. If you believe in God, you're good at avoiding misery, because the afterlife acts as a way to have self-control and not fall into traps.

Here you go OP.

>Digital Physics Argument for God's Existence
youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM

>Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

>The Introspective Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw

>The Teleological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg

>What Atheists Confuse
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=XbLJtxn_OCo
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=bj0lekx-NiQ

>Is Atheism a Delusion?
Part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=xnBTJDje5xk

>Atheists Don't Exist
youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

God exists.

Your hatred and delusional rebellion won't change reality.

I don't hate the idea of God, I wish it was true. But it just isn't. I could probably start tricking myself into believing it again if my job didn't constantly remind me that God doesn't exist.

/thread

Error correcting codes found in the fundamental symmetries of the universe. God is a NEET.

arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0408004v1.pdf
arxiv.org/pdf/0806.0051.pdf

>arguments are good because my hat said so
>god doesn't exist
why

easy answer, there is none
deal with it

OP, your question makes no sense. It's akin to asking what sound yellow makes. Go back to /b/.