Do you believe in God?

Bait thread

I wish sage was still a thing

probably limbo of the patriarchs

kangaroos bitch

sage still works, you just can't see who's polite enough to not bump any more

"fiji mermaid's are really real too"

ITT: brainlets who don't know the elementary difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, niggers.

and the holocaust

>Cain's still salty about Abel
lol

There's no "proof" for god that isn't a language game, mongrel

No, plant your straw-man elsewhere.

>he thinks that's a language game
>when "you can't see air" would be proof air doesn't exist if user's wrong
mhmm

The proof is in the pudding you dumb bitch

No, that would be evidence, not proof. I'm referring to the fact that all proofs of god are variations on the teleological, cosmological, or ontological arguments. Even Godel's proof amounts to nothing more than extended ontological argument

>resorting to platitudes already
Maybe if you throw some more worthless symbolic artifacts at me I'll start to agree with you

>No, that would be evidence, not proof. I'm referring to the fact that all proofs of god are variations on the teleological, cosmological, or ontological arguments. Even Godel's proof amounts to nothing more than extended ontological argument
m8 we can't prove any other shit either if that's your standard. the replication crisis and heisenberg pretty much mean we can't even prove we exist or matter exists or anything else. so yeah, you could say that we have as much proof of god as proof of you, by that metric.

Exactly. Thank you (which cannot be "proved" or "evinced" to exist) for agreeing with me (which cannot be accounted for fully either).

Matthew 12:38 - Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee (39) But he answered and said unto them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: (40) For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matthew 16:1 - The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. (2) He answered and said unto them, "When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. (3) And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? (4) A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." And he left them, and departed.

The problem is god has more evidence, if not more proof, of existence than you have evidence of your existence. People just aren't evidencing you the way they are God, so by that metric, you're not evinced as much as God.

>just open your eyes bro
What about all the other cultures that did that and ended up with a completely different religion?

But I don't need to justify myself to be real to myself (e.g. to respond to your post), whereas we can quibble about language games (the one you've started to play with quantifying quantifications, for example) and god not once will post in this thread, unless he is an user, in which case there will certainly be a overwhelming number of contrived "Proofs of user," won't there?

schizos don't need anyone to believe them to have the aliens be real to them either.
>god could be user
Do you think we could get Him to post Feet?

True, that's what makes them schizos. If He truly is God, His Feet are Self Evident and can be deduced from the necessary properties of the Perfect Foot

God exists.
Religious God? Probably not.

It's still important to read religious literature, but it should be read like any other piece of literature.

The existence of God is an ethical question, not an ontological one.

>2017
>believing in a sky fairy

wtf lol

nah, what makes them schizos is the belief we know what a schizo presents as. the rosenhan experiment kind of blew that out of the water. their proof of aliens, like your proof of you, is just as solid.
similarly, people who derealize or depersonalize would not have that justification to be real to themselves, but we don't assume them to not exist just because they do not seem real to themselves.

we assume gravity to work, but it more likely works like tesla or QM envisages it doesn't. our evidence for gravity is we can see things fall towards earth, but some people can see angels if that's our standard of proof.

i love that kind of doubt but most people get freaked out when they realise they're not able to be certain about anything, including themselves.

to make this more Veeky Forums than feet, an anecdote:
PKD's house was once burglarized. he spent years trying to work out if it was the CIA, the hippies, the police, the communists, the lizard people, the aliens, the publishing industry or who was trying to persecute him, because obviously it couldn't just be a burglary.

eventually he worked out who had done it. it had been him. he'd been brainwashed by the CIA to burglarize his own house so he would go crazy trying to work out who did it.

Genesis 9:18 - And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. (19) These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

Romans 16:17 - Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (18) For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

1 Timothy 6:1 - Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blashphemed. (2) And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. (3) if any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; (4) He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings.

James 1:26 - If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. (27) Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Psalm 135:15 - The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. (16) They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not; (17) They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths. (18) They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them.

fancy words cant prove god exists lmfao

You seem to have missed the point. I am not trying to prove me or give evidence for me, I have no need to do that because I am not a budding schizophrenic. I know that I exist. This basic, unjustifiable assumption is the root of the only ontology that matters: my ontology.

There is no criterion of provable certainty that allows me to intellectually know myself fully, since I myself am not an entirely intellectual (spiritual) object, i.e. I have a corporeal body, neither is there a criterion of physical evidence that proves my body fully to myself (or others), since I still possess the foregoing intellectual dimension. Zizek says haughtily, "No one can fully assume belief in the first person singular," but I do: with my spirit I revolt against stagnation of my body, and likewise with my body I break the strangling dominion of my spirit.

And I have no way of telling you're not schizophrenic or lying to yourself about yourself. You really don't have a better ontology than a schizophrenic: they're both as real as personal realities.

The idea of the corporeal ignores that all your atoms are changing out electrons with your computer right now, even if we assume that atomic physics works, which it doesn't if you practice other forms of physics. It's like a different religion's assumptions: the atomic physics guys have one conception of reality which denies the QM guys could be right, and which can never explain light, while the QM guys have a different conception which explains all kinds of shit, but maintains we're not really here.

Knowing you existing in the way that you know you exist according to this post is as good as a schizophrenic knowing they're the secret agent that robbed their own house and pulled the wool over their own eyes. Neither is more real, nor more physically real. Which is why most people don't like to think about it, or if they do, are really sure they're one of the people who are more trustworthy than a schizo, when lol no no you're not.