God and gods have always been used as a way to explain unknown things, bad things happen and He never intervenes...

God and gods have always been used as a way to explain unknown things, bad things happen and He never intervenes, and there is no evidence of His existence. Debunk these three common atheist arguments.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius).
livescience.com/6470-ocean-depth-volume-revealed.html).
abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533
ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science-religions/evidence-great-flood-real-or-myth-part-i-005340
science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/great-flood1.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations
phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
rorotoko.com/interview/20110309_bojowald_martin_on_once_before_time_whole_story_universe/?page=2
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The Gods are what made humanity because they love us. Evil is a necessary thing in this world, because in every life - a little tragedy must come. Evidence would only spawn more atheists, because The Gods learned to be brave, and trust in one another. Just as humanity must to achieve their ambitions.

Atheist here. The first two arguments are babby-tier theology and I don't give a shit about them. The third isn't an argument, it's just a rejection of pro-diety """arguments""".

1. Sin, sickness, death, sorrow and suffering entered a perfect creation when mankind threw their lot in with the devil;

2. God intervenes in massive ways, the last tine in 32 AD by being crucified and rising from the dead, having paid the sin debt of humanity; and

3. The universe God created is proof of God's existence.

Give us evidence why atheism is true, and how the world would be better if everyone shared your opinions on God.

Just kidding. You can't, and you're too stupid to realize just how cancerous you are.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, which in this case is you. You claim that a "god" exists, but have no way of proving it.

>how cancerous you are.
Why does my disagreement with you trigger you so much? Why do you care?

proving God is as difficult as proving that there is a soul or a conscience
They're not physical things, yet many believe that they have real tangible effects. Genuinely though, do atheists even believe that there's more to reality than just the physical? Because if not, there's simply no way to prove that any metaphysical concepts exist at all

>evil is necessary because tragedy is necessary

This isn't even an argument

Well, a lot of the events in the Bible did happen. Look it up, there's archeological evidence for the Tower of Babylon and there being a great flood and Jesus Christ and other such stuff.

>Because if not, there's simply no way to prove that any metaphysical concepts exist at all
You're on to something there.

Personally, I believe there must be things beyond our comprehension and beyond the explanation of science. Frankly, if you're a quantum physicist or believe in aliens, you have no reason to not believe in God, even if it is the Deist one.

There's archaeological evidence that floods happened? Holy shit, jesus here I come.

Quantum physics has physical evidence, and believing in aliens is just believing in probability.

>some things this book says are supported by evidence
>therefore all of it is true, even the parts that aren't supported by evidence
Is that the argument you're trying to make?

>muh quantum mechanics
So you don't understand it, therefore God. Got it.

That's called Nominalism and it's still a legitimate philosophical position on abstract objects though.

You're cancer dude. Just cancer.

I literally posted, and you linked to, the proof of God.

The universe God created.

Global flood, numbnuts.

QM is Greek Atomism, useless, and wrong. There are no particles.

That's not what that post was about at all

where do you people come from?

Same place they're going.

Samefagging probably. Those comments were posted seconds apart from each other.

Fragile rock formations. Also what the fuck does QM have to do with atomism.

>well uh, the universe is proof of god, so you need to have an explanation for literally everything, or else I'm right
>REEEEEE YOU'RE CANCER! STOP MAKING ME QUESTION MY BELIEFS! I'LL CALL YOU NAMES UNTIL YOU AGREE WITH ME!
Such concentrated butthurt

yes, it's a philosophical position, not a scientific one. There's very few ways to consider these issues empirically, yet for some reason theists always have a burden of proof. Is that how it should be?

>for some reason the person claiming a thing always has to support the thing with evidence. is that how it should be?

I said that as a way to claim that God has at least some evidence.

...

if there is a super duper god he's pretty hands off
dunno why people even bother with him

Consciousness is the only thing that we know exists. Consciousness is not physical and is no way part of a material universe. See Descartes' idea of "qualia" for more explanation.
I think we mostly ask the wrong questions when thinking about God, life and death, and the origin of the universe. I don't believe for a moment that consciousness is tied to the life and death of the body. I'm interested - a little terrified, a little excited - to see what lies beyond the prison of the flesh. I think all of us will be surprised.

so we know it exists
but can it be proved empirically?

Lot of atheists are very sciency and probably think that philosophers are crypo-theists because platonism is popular or something.

that's because it's already the truth

>WHERE IS THE PROOFS?
Outside of logic and mathematics, it's impossible to prove anything. In the real world you never get conclusive proof, just supporting evidence. We can't even trust our senses or our memories 100%.

There is no proof of evolution, or plate tectonics, or the germ theory of medicine. Lots of solid evidence, but nothing absolutely conclusive. We believe these things because they are useful, and because the evidence for outweighs the evidence against.

Many important theories in science are not only unproven, but actually disproven. Flaws in relativity and the standard model were found decades ago and remain unresolved. Entropy is only true in a statistical sense. We continue to use these discredited theories because they're still better than anything else we have.

Regarding religion, I think it's silly to debate god vs. atheism. We all understand there are very complex forces at work in the universe. Nobody knows what caused the big bang and it seems remarkable that self-aware creatures like ourselves exist at all.

Therefore I think it makes more sense to debate whether or not the powerful forces at work in the universe are sentient. Where Atheists see randomness, Christians see agency.

We know that groups of individuals can exhibit collective consciousness, like ants and bees. The collective consciousness of humanity is one source of sentience or agency that you could describe as God.

We also know that intelligence can be created from the organization of unintelligent components, like how our brains are just electricity and chemistry. Could it be possible that there is intelligence in the organization of stars? It's certainly not disproveable.

In the absense of proof, it makes sense to use a useful theory, even if it is incomplete. Christianity is such a useful theory for me and many others. Believing that everything is a roll of the dice wouldn't give me nearly as much to work with.

I can respect this.
However, as for as "useful theory", I'll craft my own, or keep seeking a better one, rather than using one which tries to make me feel guilty for masturbating.

OP here. I kinda wanted to say that but wasn't sure how to. Thanks for taking the words right out of my mouth. Also, check out Jordan Peterson, your argument kinda reminds me of his for some reason, even if his is much more on the Christian side.

I can understand that, I personally disagree but ok.

so you are big on the sundays and sermons or just enjoy the read

Link to proof for the flood?

The global flood described in the Bible is severely unlikely. Let's do a little math.

Genesis 7:20 specifies that the tallest mountains were covered by water, up to an oddly specific depth of ~25 feet. We can assume this water level to be consistent worldwide, as this is a world-cleansing flood.

Let's do a bit of math. The radius of the earth measures between 3498 and 3967 miles (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius). We'll take the lower of these two values for benefit of the doubt to the defending party.

Let's now examine Mt. Everest. At 29,029ft high, it's a sizable mount, putting our water level at ~29,054ft above sea level, consistent worldwide. That's ~5.5 miles.

Volume of earth with our given low-end radius is 4/3(pi)(3498^3), or about 179,286,679,846 cubic miles, and the given radius with the addition of our 5.5 miles of water is 4/3(pi)(3503.5^3), or about 180,133,702,134 cubic miles. That leaves a difference of about 850,000,000 cubic miles of water.

The current volume of Earth's oceans is estimated at 300,000,000 cubic miles (livescience.com/6470-ocean-depth-volume-revealed.html). What happened to a volume of water three times that of the world's oceans?

I don't doubt that there's geological evidence of a large flood around that time, even one notable enough for consistency across cultures. Hell, there could have been a large meteor impact in the ocean and an equally large tsunami to follow. Whether or not that would be enough to sterilize the Earth of all humans but those on the boat is a different debate.

That's not even getting into if there was sufficient genetic variance for Noah and company to successfully repopulate the Earth before they developed a horrible condition from inbreeding so thoroughly, let alone if a boat could be built large enough to hold so many animals, especially on such short notice by a complete amateur shipwright.

Based response, but the argument turns from the possibility of the existence of a god to the consistency and validity of the theory presented as explanation for our universe.

>explanation
This was never a thing.
>it is God's personal responsibility to baby you.
no it's not.
Your parents are not immoral for kicking you out of the nest.
>no evidence
Muh Bible.
What is evidence?
If it is that which can be directly tested than evidence is not objective.
If it is that which is objective than it can not be tested only alluded to with what we can say.
I can not give you anything, I can only point you in the direction of things which led me to conclude what I conclude and then hope you do the same.
>there's simply no way to prove that any metaphysical concepts exist at all
goodpost

Pretty weak.

sightings of extraordinary events can't be proven empirically, just like most of history. So really, if the experience of God through prayer and religious practice is correct, wouldn't the proof be in the pudding? if it really is God guiding these people as they say it is, wouldn't it have to be something you find for yourself instead of waiting for NASA to find heaven?

Matthew 7:16
You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

Basically, I think that since my journey with God has proven successful and I have fully experienced the benefits of living life like the Bible says to, then the most logical conclusion would be to say that there is a God, whether others believe me or not

If we can't believe something with an overwhelming amount of evidence because it's impossible to know something 100% for certain, than surely we can discard something that has only the shittiest excuses for evidence?

That’s not the only conclusion no. It’s also possible that you think that there’s a god and your faith in him benefited you, but he’s still not real.

abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science-religions/evidence-great-flood-real-or-myth-part-i-005340

science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/great-flood1.htm

No. Understand what faith is, then read the Bible. You are arguing because he might be wrong, despite saying he feels he has been blessed, he should stop believing? Why? If you cannot explain how the universe came to be without any amount of hard evidence, considering you also believe it too be 100's of billions/trillions of years old/never had beginning or end... How do you have any ground to stand on? You have faith in that he is wrong. Not in anything you actually know because you are a dumbass kid on the internet who isn't a scientist in any field or knows anything for certain. They explain your way of thinking and the kind of people like you throughout the Bible. Unless you can prove that the universe has always existed, then being an atheist doesn't make much sense. How can you prove something that you have no way of proving? Its impossible to prove the universe has always existed because you cannot time travel to the beginning of something that was always there... There is no way. So how is having faith in God even remotely as retarded as being a christ-basher who believes in something that without a shadow of a doubt can't be proven? You need wisdom and to humble yourself. Start with Genesis

Yea I go to church. I enjoy the singing, the philosophy, the food, and the company of people who care about being good.

Here's more info on the flood: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

Interestingly, the date is about right for the Indo-European diaspora: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations

>God and gods have always been used as a way to explain unknown things, bad things happen and He never intervenes, and there is no evidence of His existence. Debunk these three common atheist arguments.
So your mixing up pantheons of gods who often represent aspects of nature, and were accused either metaphorically or literally of being sauces of punishment, and God who Exodus claims transcends them. Of you read the theogony of Hesiod or Orpheus' versions, they're talking about nature, breaking it down, and assigning titles of gods, titans, and primordial entities collectively called gods based on age group. The Christian God is the thing that came before all that,he can intervene but that's not up for mortals to dictate. He passes judgement over all, "gods" included(Psalm 82). As for evidence, you're not going to get empirical evidence. It's something you have to rationalize beyond your senses. Most of you are basically speaking animals trained to type shitposts all day, so I'm not holding my breath for that to start happening.

This. It really irks me when people apply science or scientific inquiry to matters beyond the scope of physical reality. That being said, "metaphysical" questions are fake news.

I believe people are often trying to argue at a too general level.

First of all, as said, the concept of proof is something that exists in mathematics but it is nothing that exists in scientific matters as there is only supportive and contradictory evidence in the real world rather than absolute certainty.

Rather than find out whether there could be an esoteric, very vaguely defined being called "God", people should take a look at the evidence for the very specific gods described in the religious scripture that are the foundation of the religion and also evaluate the veracity of the scriptures.
And when it comes to the Christian god for example we can find that for the longest time in human history people didn't worship him but that he only came up at a certain point in time and that the religious scripture that describes him was written and compiled by different people, that it had a different canon at certain points in time and that it was syncretically composed from earlier cults and foreign cultures that came in contact with its adherents.
This and a lack of general evidence of miracles and divine intervention makes the veracity of the Christian god rather doubtful. Obviously the same can be done for any other god.

It is an arguing tactic to backpaddle to the very essence of a vaguely defined divine being rather than the very specific, active and demanding god of scripture.
Certainly, you cannot rule out the existence of this more general concept of god, but this general concept of god is not the god that demands worship in church, that comes with rules for you to obey, etc.

If I would be a God I would end suffering, because you gain nothing from it. Experience can be be made without pain, we have the ability to conceptualize and reflect on situations.

Just because you suffered it doesn't make you wiser, wisdom lies in confronting life.

>bad things happen and He never intervenes

Explain dinosaurs.

>beyond the explanation of science
If we talk philosophical concepts I agree but I don't think that there must be a limit to our understanding, even if there is, we will never understand it, so its redundant to halt progress. Also quantum physics is't magic, it's just very complex and research is ongoing so we collect hypothesis and knowledge we have gained in experiments.

I recall the Libet-Experiment among others,

1. Not even an argument

2. He already did enough by coming to earth to die for our sins. Also, there's a lot of arguments to be made for the existence of evil in this world

3. Why would you need evidence of his existence? If you lack faith, not even God presenting theirself in front of you would be enough

>We also know that intelligence can be created from the organization of unintelligent components, like how our brains are just electricity and chemistry. Could it be possible that there is intelligence in the organization of stars? It's certainly not disproveable.
Ah, somone read Starmaker.

Actually there is evidence that the universe does not have a beginning.
phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
rorotoko.com/interview/20110309_bojowald_martin_on_once_before_time_whole_story_universe/?page=2

Also why the CHristian God? Why not Ganesh? Why not Mazda? Why not Azathoth? YOu argumentaion only works in a panthesitic manner.

Christianity is not a theory, as it can't be falsified nor can it experimented on. Keep science away from relgion except if you want to goll full Chardin.

You seem to be a arrogant little twit.

Are you seriously comparing Genesis with all research we about the beginning of the cosmos?