I’m gong to sleep, but this went well last thread:

Logic is a function of cognition.
So that you even have to ask that shows how little you understand you're own mind.

Atheists pretend to be the intellectual elite, holding facts and science dear and being skeptical of all else, just as you say.
But their core believe - that God doesn't exist - is a belief.
They are not disinterested observers with no real stake in the issue of God's existence - they are a full one-half of the argument.

The atheist makes a claim - that God doesn't exist - which he cannot prove.
He takes a leap of faith while boasting that he would never do such a thing.

No it doesn't.
I believe that God exists, I know it to be true.
I do not need to provide evidence, I need know further proof than my own understanding.
He has revealed himself to me. I know He is real. I believe in Him.

You, on the other hand, make a claim.

You claim that God does not exist - you cannot prove your claim. You are a believer, just as I am, except you are self-limiting and the absolute height of hypocrisy.
You will never be able to prove your claim, and I will always happily admit my belief.

>Though I can't understand how someone can choose to believe they do not have free will.
>Seems like a blatant contradiction.
Everything in the universe is subject to physical laws. This includes your brain, because your skull isnt a magical forcefield that keeps the laws of physics out.
Get it now?

I don’t see a contradiction with people thinking they don’t have free will.

Though there is an unspoken tragedy that they Believe themselves compelled to spend time arguing with people they allegedly see as children with an imaginary friend on an anonymous wet market financier board.

I mean, I choose to be here, and that’s bad enough. Imagine having no choice in the matter and spending your life here.

It’s no wonder they are upset.

I don't have to prove something I don't belive in RETARD

You belive in him. But your belief is only valid if you can prove it.

That's what THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS!!!!!

>the watchmaker lives inside the watch and is controlled by gears.

Weird you responded to him and not the OP.
Oh wait, never mind.

See, atheists are retarded. They are almost as helpless as Catholics,

What IS logic?
What IS cognition?
Define those terms first you brainlet
How can we know that what we cognate is TRUE?
How can we know to trust 'logic'?
Physical laws that exist independent of human observation?
Laws that allowed life to grow from nothing?
Chaos turned to order?
Sounds awfully intentional or designed.

External creator and God are terms too vague to describe the unknowable

>> You are a believer, just as I am, except you are self-limiting and the absolute height of hypocrisy.

I don't belive so there nothing for me to be concerned about.

>You will never be able to prove you claim.

I DON'T NEED TO PROVE SOMETHING I DONT BELIVE IN!!!!

Why does this break you feeble mind?

You belive in god. OK GREAT.

Don't expect me to belive in something just because you do.
When you have no evidence
You have no logic
You can't think well enough for me to respect what you belive.

>Physical laws that exist independent of human observation?
>Laws that allowed life to grow from nothing?
>Chaos turned to order?
>Sounds awfully intentional or designed.
None of this proves god, though.

What exactly is vague about “external creator”?
As far as I can see, it has two qualities:
>external
>creator
Seems pretty straight forward, and many people ascribe to exactly this as a “god” (deists, for example)

Is it really hard for you to understand or is addressing the post too difficult so you have to come up with a deflection?

T. Doesn't understand the watchmater argument.

You claim that God does not exist.
You have no evidence for this claim.

I've already told you that I believe in God.
>But your belief is only valid if you can prove it.
That's not true at all. Faith does not require "scientific" explanation - your claim does though.

You are a man of science, yes?
Then why do you not have any evidence for your claim?
You make a claim with certainty - You claim that God does not exist.
You are not saying that you do not know, you are not open to the idea He exists.
The atheist claims the existence of God is impossible.
The atheist cannot prove his claim.
The atheist fails at his own most basic requirements.

Weird how commonly people just jump into fights with random posters without ever addressing the OP

Attached: F3E6C99C-FB26-43FA-BEC0-0BC648F0E900.png (632x734, 16.4K)

Easy believism is also retarded. You are a fake one.

Logic is the cognative ablity to make conscious distinctions, not only in what we observe but what we think about.

What is the first law of thought?
What does A=A Mean?

Kek.

>Faith

Blind faith..........

>you just don’t understand this argument I think is invalid
Atheists, everyone

Attached: E690A838-B76D-49B7-B44E-B107A98DEAE4.png (1000x432, 129.24K)

>If we are nothing but chemical reactions, how is any conclusion I draw valid?

Biology is downstream from Chemistry
Chemistry is downstream from Physics
Physics is downstream from Maths
Maths is downstream from an unknowable "God"

Maths from an unknowable irrational "God" dictates the objective logic and reason in your brains electro-chemical reactions

Get a load of captain 7th grade over here

Attached: 38537B0A-E862-4998-8373-51A885D3A469.jpg (1538x1133, 1.02M)

Maybe you are not an atheist, maybe you are just very young.
The atheist is certain that God does not exist, it is his core belief.
Again, he requires evidence from men of God but excuses himself from the same.

Atheist:
>God does not exist. Of this I am 100% certain.
Men of God
>Care to provide evidence?
Atheist:
>NO U!!!!!!!

Explain the watchmaker argument.
Explain how it's logically flawed
Explain how it's logically sound
Explain why it can't be used as evidence for a creator as easily as you tryied to use it to support the idea.

This should be fun......

Prove I don't have a space alien hanging out with me in my Bedroom with me right now

How so?
It's a feature of the inteligent design of this board.
You find it weird. Are you going to call it god too?

All of thats horribly wrong.

Slave morality is the ultimate argument it simply can't be refuted or repudiated.

Attached: unnamed (2).jpg (512x263, 19.64K)

>explain this argument I claimed you don’t understand
Seems like a waste of time, you brought it up and I’m not a fan anyways.
why don’t you address the logical proof provided in the OP instead?

Or did you come to this thread to deliberately not discuss the topic?

Feel free to address the OP whenever you are done desperately coping.

Im 34
Ever argument you've made has been based only own assumptions and broken thinking.

I don't think god exists.
There is no logical evidence for his existence
There is no emperical evidence for his existence

There is only those who make leaps of faith based on the belief.

One which I don't have.

I don't have to disprove something there is no evidence for.

You don't even understand what the burden of proof is, that hiw fucked up your mind is.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

You have to prove in what you belive.
I don't have to prove something that i dont think exists.

They pretend god doesn't exist because they drink cum. Cum is their god.

The man of God may try to save the atheist from his own damnation, but not in debates such as these.
I am not asking you to believe in God, I am a sinner and part of my sin is not caring for you at all. I am sorry, but that is the truth.
I am not asking you to save yourself.
Your belief in God does not matter to me, I know He exists and I know He loves us, even you.

You, on the other hand, are making a claim with certainty.
You claim that God does not exist - that is the core tenet of the atheist.
The atheist is not open to the idea that God exists.
The atheist is certain he does not.
This is a claim, and the atheist fails to prove this claim.
His evidence is always only "NO U."

>A1a: we live in a causal universe
>A1b: every effect has a cause
And on your left, you'll see OP; both a giant faggot and a dictionary example of the Dunning-Kruger effect

Attached: kek.jpg (820x529, 123.32K)

Something unknowable is either real or not thus 50/50 thus a matter of faith.

Atheism is ultimately a bunch of narcissists who correctly acknowledge they don't know the truth but wrongly assert therefore that there is no truth

I have in the previous thread, OP couldn't deal with it.

I can assure you, I am hanging out with a space alien right now. Since you cannot provide evidence to the contrary, it must be true.

>Logical proof provided

There wasn't any.
The argument isn't logically sound the first cause argument is ad infiniteum and is based on a misuse and misunderstanding of what logic is and how it can be applied to reality.

LMFAO

This is the byproduct of inttlectual dishonesty.

Attached: 1584397763694.jpg (1024x958, 168.12K)

You sound more agnostic than atheist.
Agnosticism is always the retreat of the atheist when confronted with the fact that he makes a claim and fails to live up to his own expectations of others.

Again, I do not have to prove the existence of God to know he is real.
This requirement is a mental prison and the captives delight in their limitations.

I am not making the claim that you are 100% not hanging out with a space alien.
Does that help?

Why are you even here if you refuse to address the
OP?
I’ve asked you nicely a couple times, it is starting to seem like you literally can’t.
>we don’t live in a causal universe
I eagerly await your evidence.
This should be good.
Factually incorrect, I was the OP and exactly one person addressed the OP.
They went with the classic “science is wrong and causality doesn’t real”

Quite the treat, and we have another queued up right now.
>there was no argument
>now here is my critique of the argument
Hmmm.
Care to be more specific?

Everything you said has nothing to with atheism, just your aborted interpretation of it.

Can you name any of the atheists from the ancient world????

If the argument is that God is real and has always been then we don't really live in a truly causal universe since God wasn't "caused". If that is the case then you can say it is just as likely that the universe or multiverse has always been. The bottom line is that the origin of a first spark of "something from nothing" is unknowable. If there is a sentient origin the odds of any attributes or intentions we ascribe to such a being being correct are infinitesimally small.

We were born with something called common sense to dodge these spastic claims though. Of course I am not hanging out with an alien, we both know that - why pretend you entertain the idea for the sake of argument? Not even saying god/creator/etc isn't real, just the line of "you can't prove he doesn't" is always silly. You are welcome to tell us all you like that YOU know he is real, but that doesn't lend much to the discussion for the rest of us

>Makes a claim and fails to live up to expectations

BURDEN OF PROOF YOU BRAINLET NIGGER!

i don't have to prove something i don't belive in...

Again for you dense still born brain.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

This post is the funniest post I’ve seen with this topic.
10/10

> OP tries to look smart by using symbols.
> Labels premises, but does not attempt a formal proof.
FYI: The purpose of a label in logic is to use it in an expression, then construct a proof using only those abstract symbols.

What does C1 even mean? Made directly? Directly in what context? Giving yourself room to call any rebuttal indirect?
C2: A and B are just symbols. Expressions have the property of being well-formed. Dissenters? What?

Your argument has no thesis, no content, and no conclusion drawn from said thesis or content. Its just abrasive rambling. No (you) for you.

Science never shown causality. They use it to try and explain eternal uninterrupted trasformation to some people.
See this: >Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed
t. Antoine Lavoisier, Science man.

I’m still waiting

Attached: 8C32FCE0-EBED-4EE1-8727-AA5878CD2313.jpg (653x523, 124.29K)

First cause argument is flawed because it lead to infinete regression and causation type think only has practial application to the emperial

Example

Where did a tree come from?
A sapling
Where did a sapling come from
A seed.

Where did the universe come from
Big bang/god
Where did god big bang come from
INCERT MAGICAL GARBAGE THINKING HERE.
Where did that come from ad INFINITEUM

if you have any inttlectual integrity you would admit the train of logic has limitations and can't be used to come to and significant conclusion aboout anything of a metaphysical nature.

But you won't
You can't
And you will never progress to the point where you try and fix the flaws in your own thinking.

Not believing in something is not the same as claiming that something does not exist.
Does this make more sense to you?
It's a nuanced concept.
>Not even saying god/creator/etc isn't real
Then you are not an atheist.

Bruce, close your eyes for 60 seconds concentrate on nothing but breathing then check your peripheral vision. Are you alone?

>ah! A logical argument!
>where shall I make my intellectual strike?
>*processing*
>of course! Then section labeled “just for funnies”

Be honest, how many levels of irony are you on right now?

Attached: 749E6DA7-0E6B-4EFD-8244-E3BDFB3B5C4E.jpg (702x703, 132.2K)

>Therefore arguing against A requires you to argue against the validity of the foundation of using science to discern knowledge.

The foundation of science also is at complete odds with the idea of an external creation force in the sense of evidence and testing.

So is the foundation of science wrong, in which case the universe isn't causal, or is the foundation of science correct, in which case the external creator isn't real?

>Can you name any of the atheists from the ancient world????

COPE

>Then you are not an atheist.
Correct. Just don't like the "prove the negative" claims that get thrown around a lot in these threads.

Holy fuck OP really thinks he is Socrates because he can regurgitate the uncaused cause argument that has existed for centuries. Such an argument is at best a cause for deism, it falls completely flat when you try to use it to defend any specific religious doctrine.

Because to claim something exists, you have to provide proof of it's existence

No nuances required.

Again.......

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

>it lead to infinete regression and causation
I’m sorry, are you under the impression that the creator of our casual universe is a product of our causal universe?
I hope not, that would be intellectually embarrassing

Attached: C8D585AA-3ACC-48F8-82DE-FCD5A5CDF7BF.png (645x773, 14.78K)

>I can't comprehend the definition of belief, that means you're stupid
holy lol get off my Yas Forums

It's not it just shows the level or ignorance you have about the orgin of the concept atheist
And theist

Where they began how they were born into the world.

Attached: 1585259990577.jpg (645x729, 56.22K)

Fouck you you basteard

If there is a God, then why is it the Christian one or the Muslim one ?

It might as well be the Nordic, Hellenic or Aztec Gods.

prove to me that your god is real and that the other 1 billion potential other religions are not real.

the probability of your "god" being real are essentially zero. you are wasting your time even thinking about it. it's just a story made up by man.

there is one easy explanation for an external creator, which is that we are just a simulation. this can be shown to be more likely to be true than the christian god or any other god. and in a simulation, there is no "god", so even if we accept that the universe has some origin, it isn't likely to be caused by a "god" in any meaningful sense.

No, because I don't subscribe to magial thinking.

All assertions of the supernatural are based on such things.

Your explanation of existence is confined to the forces that govern it.

Something unknowable, cannot be known so any assertion about it can be dismmsed because it's assertions are unsupported.

The difference between reasonable faith
And blind faith.

Not that you have the capcity to understand.

>he didn’t even make it Throuh a couple of sentences before sperging out.

Lmao, atheists are a fucking treasure.

Attached: 95D2561C-1F90-4878-ACA7-61285F3BB519.jpg (1190x1183, 594.1K)

There is a 100 percent correlation between atheism and homosexuality

At the end of the day it just comes down to the fact that atjeists hate God because he told them not to ram the benis up the poop chute.

Nice strawman faggot.
Also you christcucks were here after fact and have dragged this board down i to the sewage long with the shills and niggers.

If anyone should leave it should be you.

Cry moar nigger

Attached: 1584768499621m.jpg (714x1024, 107.01K)

the mistake you are making is assuming that your brain is capable of grasping the entire framework in which the universe exists. why do you think this? it's time to accept you are a dumb fucking monkey. i don't know what's outside my brain's/consciousness limit either but at least i am not making up completely baseless theories about what is there.

You're stupid... Why do you assume you can retrace "the beginning of our universe"?
There is no beginning and no end. Everythings "in-universe".
Get your assumptions right first.

Hey Ricky. The powerball numbers yesterday were 8 31 39 40 43 4 3
They could have been any numbers, but those were the numbers.

Your sad attempt at an argument is shit and you should feel bad. How about addressing the Argument presented in the OP or going back to be being irrelevant?

Based

Okay but for real go learn what words mean. My dissenting worldview causes you to find the strength and validity in your own opinions or abandon them, oh no how terrible.

Do you want your readers to use information in that section, or not? Is it really called the "yes, but actually no" section? You make theists look like imbeciles.

If there is no unknowable external creator/ god then why is there something and not nothing?

1+1 will always equal 2

Immutable natural law from an unknowable ruler and the certain probability of the infinite will always yield the same outcome.

0 ∞

0 < ∞

0 = ∞

Checkmate atheists.

Attached: doughnut.jpg (400x285, 36.64K)

Attached: Elijah.png (1255x848, 162.86K)

ok, would you put your entire life savings on the powerball, with odds of 1 in a billion?

i did address his argument. nice reading comprehension.

>I don’t subscribe to magical thinking.
Ever made something? Learned to code?
I wrote a program once, but that doesn’t mean I’m made of zeros and ones or goto prompts.

You are a brainlet

Fukien wut

Euler used a similar tactic when called as an expert against an atheist during a trial.

Any claim made with certainty under the banner of science should require at least a little evidence.
The atheist does exactly this and he has no evidence.

Sure, why not.
Would you agree those were in fact the powerball numbers?

Fuck you are retarded, I shouldn’t have even engaged. I already adressed in the OP that I was merely talking about a creator AND that that’s would make people pissed off about exactly ONE creation myth.

I was literally two toes ahead of you and still decided to walk back to hold your hand, that’s my bad.

How about you address the actual argument presented?

>252054110

Is the section an aside, or part of your argument? It is either used or not, don't clutter your exposition with unused information.

>A1a: we live in a causal universe

Except we don't necessarily on quantum level.

Your argument also fails to cover what caused the cause.

>b-but that's not in-universe, it doesn't need to be causal!

Then prove the "non-causal" creation of the universe is through an external source instead of something internal, e.g. a recursive process.