Prove that god exists please

prove that god exists please

Attached: Brody-Jim-and-Andy.jpg (649x417, 57K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Januarius#Blood
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Prove that a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists

God exists
God exists
You wont find logic any more formal than that
>b-but
No buts, atheshits

wtf i'm a #Godmissile now

Prove that you can request that without God existing

I have a 2 foot long dick. Ergo, God.

You're a clever one, user.

Attached: 1436592271073.jpg (444x444, 35K)

you are a sapient being not a philosophical zombie, it stands to reason that sapience is a part of this universe although no known physical laws explain it and that the entire universe as a whole must exhibit this property, for why would it be limited to your brain, god is everywhere, god is all knowing

>what is proof

If god doesn't exist, who wrote the bible?

checkmate fedora tippers

your sapience is proof and I explained it, much the same way that a scientist might show you a chart and show you how it proves so and so using math

And who wrote the koran?
and who wrote the bagva-gita

Satan

Are you saying that your previous post PROVES that God exists?

Attached: 1518207424835.jpg (626x417, 49K)

In the case of the Koran, God, directly.

In the case of the Bhagavad Gita, God, indirectly.

>xtianity
>xlam
>xaism
>xhism
>xuism
>nothing other than imaginary cults
tippity top kek

Kant already showed it's not possible to prove the existence of God, the only kinds of faith left are practical moral and revelatory. Pick one if you're that dead set on God existing, there is no way to prove it.

Attached: rejected2.jpg (640x640, 86K)

Aquinas already did
Read

>Aquinas already did
See

Why does god write so many holy books? To confuse people?

To spread his message?

Obviously, the divine spirit is in anyone when they write something that is going to have a beneficial aspect on others. The opposite, Satan, is within him, who creates evil literature.

Prove that l exist

But all religions dont have the same message

Kant was a manlet.

Opinion discarded.

Wow compelling and well thought out argument godcuck

The vast majority of worthwhile philosophers were short. I'll give you Hume and Hobbes, but as far as I know Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Kant, Locke, Rosseau, Descartes, and Spinoza, for a start, were under 5'11

Going to get medieval on you user:

God is the greatest thing one can imagine. The greatest thing one can imagine must be real or it is not the greatest thing. Ergo, God must be real. (Citation needed).

I wish I could remember who it was that came up with this, we talked about it in an intro level euro class tho.

St. Anselm is credited with the outline, Descartes according to whom you ask is the first to concretely formulate the argument. But as Schopenhauer says, "the Ontological Argument is really just a charming joke": I wouldn't take this too seriously.

The majority of them do.

And some religions, like Taoism, even speak of a God as well.

When you accept that the Abrahamic God has to be the only God who exists, your life becomes much better.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Januarius#Blood

God is real, and he hates Vatican II

Anselm of Canterbury first argued this. Though it's flawed since if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then all this means is that we can imagine something that is greater than the idea of God in the mind , not greater than a God who actually exists.

Faith is some cool shit, my man.

Attached: 7DCFB1A0-0333-4127-94EB-CB4B0CDA1402.jpg (220x326, 27K)

>god of the gaps

Flying spaghetti monsters don't have the power to create existence and universes or else they would be called God and not flying spaghetti monsters.

As someone who believes in God, people like irritate me. Nobody with an actual faith in something shouldn't use "it can't be explained" as a justification.

I think more it is arrogant and blasphemous to pretend you could explain god beyond belief

god is both in-itself and for-itself
value is both in-itself and for-itself
ergo, value is god
read marx

>Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Kant, Locke, Rosseau, Descartes, and Spinoza
>good
On the other hand
>The sources of Diogenes account for this fact by claiming that his wrestling coach, Ariston of Argos, dubbed him Platon, meaning "broad," on account of his robust figure

Attached: Dionysus-or-Plato-Herculaneum-papyri-Villa-of-the-Papyri-Barker.jpg (548x746, 117K)

Neither does le cloudy beard man and yet here we are

Yeah, check out this load of blasphemy

Attached: Bible_Cover.jpg (400x300, 12K)

I didn't say the bible. I said you as a human.

If he is God then yes he does have that power.

Diogenes is a Stoic meme.

I agree that Hegel and Neetch are questionable, but bitch you'd better not be bad-mouthin Immanuel and Arthur

Attached: kant3.jpg (300x300, 19K)

That's the point of faith, user.

>he can be supernatural because I say he can!

Wow it's really like a kid with an imaginary friend

Theologians have been understanding the Bible for thousands of years. Are you saying that they are all aliens?

Let me do a scientific experiment. If God exists, let him stop me posting

If every bad thing is brought by Satan, why did God create Satan?

>God exists

And just like that, I'm converted!

Attached: v3sR1qN.gif (240x135, 529K)

Still posting

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but free will!

aquinas proved the existence of a creator of the universe
thats god

No, faith is believing in something despite a lack of explanation. Faith is not believing in something because of a lack of explanation.

Let me do a scientific experiment. If Putin exists and he has nuclear weapons, let him stop me from posting.

Yeah, and if God could be explained they wouldn't still be trying to figure it out.

Still posting. Either Putin is fake or he exists and Russia doesn't have nuclear weapons.

*tips fedora*

>not understanding logic

No, he didn't, read "The Antinomy of Pure Reason" in the first Critique

But who created the god? If god exists of its own, then there's no reason the universe doesn't exist of its own.

t. special pleading

I wonder how Christians will act if aliens visit the Earth one day and tells us that they have a galactic spanning religion worshipped by gorillions of beings.

Since their argument effectively boils down to "well my religion is the most popular one so it has to be true".

God=a
a=1
therefore, 1 or more god exists
corollary
a:(>=)1
Thefore, there is a God.

Christianity is true because Christ rose from the dead. If the aliens deny that, they are wrong.

You're really just showing your ignorance here, my man. The Thomists will eat you alive if you toss them softballs like that IRL.

you = a
a = moron
therefore, you are a moron

>5'0''

But Bible says ignorance is bliss.

>Christianity is true because Christ rose from the dead.
So did dozens of other people according to the bible without getting into accounts from other sources about people rising from the dead,.

Why would that make Christianity true?

This is essentially using the concept of unity to prove God exists. This is what a Neo-Pythagorean would do, and is justifiable, I just think you could have done it a lot better.

Then you are clearly in a blissful state of atheism. You're not going to get anywhere unless you specifically attack the main argument of Aquinas, which honestly amounts to nothing more than "muh causa sui." But if you ask a Thomist a question like "who created God?" you're just going to get haughty and contrived responses about potency and formal reality that will probably make you feel quite small

That was him, thank you friendarinos :^)

Kant relied on transcendental idealism to block the argument employing the principle of sufficient reason. If transcendental idealism is false, then his argument against the argument from contingency is ineffective.

Your continued, unfettered existence. Only an extremely merciful God can allow this to be true.

Sad strawman.

In what way is it false, if at all?

One reason to think that it is false is because Kant cannot assign any clear function to the noumenal world, since it is outside the bounds of possible knowledge, and so from an explanatory standpoint is logically irrelevant. In this sense, Kant's transcendental idealism collapses into a more ordinary idealism, in which the principle of sufficient reason has universal applicability, and the argument from contingency goes through.

What we've always done. Spread the good news. Evangelise.

Show the proof then

>Kant cannot assign any clear function to the noumenal world, since it is outside the bounds of possible knowledge, and so from an explanatory standpoint is logically irrelevant

That the "Ideals of Pure Reason" can be shown as regulative rather than constitutive concepts of metaphysics is one such function. But what do you mean by a "clear function"?

To take Descartes' formulation of the ontological argument:

1. To say that something, y, is contained in the concept or nature or essence of something, x, is the same as saying y is true of x.
2. Possible existence is contained in the concept of that which is limited or conditioned being, and necessary existence is contained in the concept of that which is unlimited or unconditioned being [which is called, or we name God].
3. Therefore, it is true that God necessarily exists.

I mean, a definite explanatory function.

Well, in addition to what I cited, noumena are shown to "exist" as known unknowns in his argument against dogmatic idealism.

Also, noumena aren't outside the bounds of knowledge completely, otherwise they couldn't be known unknowns. They are the very bounds of knowledge. This seems like quite a "definite" explanatory function to me.

In what sense are they shown to exist? They cannot be inferred from any aspect of possible experience, nor deduced from the categories, since all of that is confined to the phenomenal world or its production. Why shouldn't I, like Berkeley, simply write off these baseless and pointless abstractions as nonsense, or, like Hume, simply admit that I do not know what produces my experiences? What were Kant's grounds for assuming that they exist?

If it is granted that all experience conforms to the a priori laws of space and time, it follows that all experience is phenomena, which is appearance. For there to be an appearance, there must be something which appears.

prove that god doesn't exist

existence is

/Atheism

The appearance appears; or, in idealist terms, a mind has an idea, or an idea is in a mind. This does not presuppose that there is a mind-independent object of which the appearance is an appearance of. That is an unwarranted assumption, and since the principle of sufficient reason and the principles of causation do not apply to anything other than phenomena, there is no reason to apply them, reaching outside of experience, to things in themselves. If one is willing to go that far, then the argument from contingency seems to hold.

Not really unwarranted, because if you only concede a mind, then you concede that there is an internal determination of the internal sense, i.e. time. If you concede time, you must also concede space, because a consciousness can only determine itself in time when it relates to something permanent (relatively or absolutely) without itself.

Prove you exist. Or anything else for that matter.

I can't even prove you exist

Kant argues that what allows us to determine ourselves in time are spatial appearances (material objects)--that is, the appearances of outer sense. Yet, these appearance in the outer sense do not presuppose, or in any way require, mind-independent things in themselves. Things in themselves are certainly not material, since we can affirm of material substance that it is extended, but we cannot affirm anything of things in themselves. However, Kant's material objects still have no existence without a mind in whose outer sense they exist as mere appearances.

Sorry, I take that back that was a retarded thing to say, sorry OP.

is omnipotent omnipressent omniscient omni omni

indescribable and really mysterious what is even the point of talking about him if he cannot be categorized or described in anyway whatsoever

god is us, or in us, whatever, u still having your time postin on 4chinz, board for frustrated animu lovers, and every-wing political supporters, so...

>>Since their argument effectively boils down to "well my religion is the most popular one so it has to be true".
Please don't do that again. You know what I'm talking about

>retarded
You fucking wish, faggot

Attached: 1494908461213.jpg (320x304, 25K)

Which god?

>You wont find logic any more formal than that
pfft, watch this

>Let G be the proposition that God exists.
>G

CHALLENGE UNTOUCHED!
ATHEISM BTFO!