The Big G

i believe in rainbows and butterflies and death xD

God exists in man's mind, therefore he exists.

Fairys also exists in man's minds.
OP probably is talking about the a sentiente being capable of knowing himself and his surroudings without the help of external means, in this case, the human mind.

Žižek: at the very core of Christianity,
there is another dimension.When Christ dies, what dies with him is the secret hope discernible in “Father, why hast thou forsaken me?”:
the hope that there is a father who has abandoned me. The “Holy Spirit” is the community deprived of its support in the big Other.The point of Christianity as the religion of atheism is not the vulgar humanist one that the becoming-man-of-God reveals that man is the
secret of God (Feuerbach et al.); rather, it attacks the religious hard core that survives even in humanism, even up to Stalinism, with its
belief in History as the “big Other” that decides on the “objective meaning” of our deeds.
Taken from: The Puppet and the Dwarf: the perverse core of Christianity.

CAUSE THERES NO GOD AND I DONT REALLY CARE TANANANANNANAAN TA TAAN TA TAAAN

>ontological argument proves anything's existence

No, it only proves the highest ontological being obviously exists. It's not talking about >a< being or >a< reality. It's about the category as such. Does reality exist? Of course it does, it is part of its concept and what it means to be real, same goes for God.

> the cosmological argument does not disprove an infinite regression

Only an idiot does not realize this is an ontological problem which cannot have an infinite regress without you admitting you actually have no idea what the issue is. If the question is what is being, you better answer what being is, not say some idiot red herring about how we know atoms are quantum fluctuations of 23 dimensional strings which are themselves made of pure energy, which is god knows what but it's made of something else too because why not?

> teleological argument completely ignores how simple processes can lead to complex systems e.g. evolution.

And you miss out that not all telos is external, hence the very possibility of evolution.

God is a poo poo made by Satan after he ate some delicious Taco Bell

Man, I wish I was Slovenian so I could get away with writing actual nonsense.

>ontological argument
Existence isn't a quality of a being that adds meaning to the idea of the being itself

>Cosmological argument
For this to make any sense you have to prove causality is a metaphysical truth, which you really can't

Regardless, loss of faith is a disaster WHATEVER 'G O D' is. Godless Europe is being overrun by God right now and what's its conservative response? Fucking Hitlerism, what a joke. Europeans whine about their cultures being lost while at the same time conveniently forgetting that those cultures were all bound up in the religion they abandoned. Good fucking riddance.

You cannot prove the existence of God just as much as you can't prove that he doesn't exist, the only thing you can do is prove that God is fiesable, and therfore just as likely as random chance.

Nice try /pol/
Get outa here ya ole scamp

Actually it is a small minority of people in Europe who have any problems to speak of. Our culture is not under threat, the very idea is laughable, and the only people who cry about it are losers scared of their welfare being given to Poles - other, rather conservative, Europeans.

And yes, these people are exploited by petty wannabe Hitlers crying about Islam and foreigners, but the actual problem facing us is stupidity and gullibility, not loss or lack of faith.

Yes, but his existence can only be known through grace and revelation that stems from eternal election, and is best understood as axiom as opposed to fact

>Actually it is a small minority of people in Europe who have any problems to speak of
You know, I could actually believe a Swede posted this because I heard a Italian screaming in the background as I read it.

It's not about the existence or inexistence of divine beings. It is not possible to falsify or confirm metaphysical statements.
A better question would be: what are the implications of believing in the existence or not existence of certain divine being?

not him, but
>No, it only proves the highest ontological being obviously exists.
i think he meant Anselm's argument.
1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.
i think he meant that some one can use it to prove other things that obviously don't exist, like:
1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that the greatest pizza is a pizza than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible pizza that can be imagined).
2. This pizza exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A pizza that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a pizza that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if the greatest pizza exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than the greatest pizza (that is, a greatest possible pizza that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than the greatest pizza (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a pizza greater than the greatest possible pizza that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, the greatest pizza exists.
>Only an idiot does not realize this is an ontological problem which cannot have an infinite regress without you admitting you actually have no idea what the issue is.
i'll admit i don't get what you're talking about, so i suppose i'm an idiot. i think he's talking about Kalam's argument.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin (very beginning) of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
it implies the universe couldn't have existed forever, but it could have, like in a big crunch scenario.
>And you miss out that not all telos is external, hence the very possibility of evolution.
i again don't understand what you're talking about. though i would like to see why you think this, it sounds interesting. that really goes for all you said, if you have the time.

I don't know. I'm sorry. I often ask for God's help and I think that he does help me, sometimes in oddly particular ways, but I'm so lazy that I don't really remember when it happens.

Well, I don't act as if I believe, and that's the main thing.

I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable; ergo, God exists.

lol

I don't have an imagination that vivid desu

God is a symbol in the psyche. It exists just as all symbols do.

Why? Your words are already less than worthless in English.

Yes.

surely this will be a well rounded, lucrative debate like every other time!