>Any evidence for God isn't evidence.
This is true because any universally quantified proposition over an empty set is true.

File: 2622628_sh4db3ll3_nerd-emoji.png (1.7 MB)

>>18517188

>>18517187
>Any evidence for God isn't evidence.
This sounds like a strawman, but the honest atheist will eventually have to recognize that this plays a massive role in secular thought.

We can set criteria for proving talking snakes, dwarves and leprechauns, but when it comes to God the basic MO is "show me something and I'll just tell you if I vibe with it". And they obviously never do because a naturalist (like most atheists) would have to exhaust every single naturalist explanation, no matter how exaggerated, before he were justified in explaining things supernaturally. It's not just that theists are tasked with guessing the atheist's fancy, it's that the fancy doesn't even have a theoretical datapoint that would satisfy it.

>>18517188
The proposition leads to a contradiction if we assume that "x is evidence" is true. However I agree that this image is stupid because it doesn't define evidence.

>>18517195
Seething wetback

>>18517209
I would say something like "miracles don't happen because naturalism is true, naturalism is true therefore miracles don't happen" is indeed circular reasoning, which is what I think the image in the OP is trying to communicate, as stupidly worded as it is. If it is indeed the case that this is what atheists hold to, then I'd say atheism needs to justify naturalism. It is not the case that all atheists are naturalists though. It's even possible to be an atheist and hold to the supernatural, but I think most western atheists are atheists precisely because they believe in philosophical naturalism.

>>18517224
>I think most western atheists are atheists precisely because they believe in philosophical naturalism
Same. It's the dominant paradigm today and I don't see many ways in which a common man could arrive to atheism besides naturalism. Even Buddhist laypeople commonly believe in gods despite many denominations not necessarily mandating this...

>>18517249
I don't think you could be a complete atheist and be a Buddhist. Buddhists do believe in the existence of higher beings, and while they reject the idea of a single, supreme, monotheistic God, you can't genuinely hold to a Buddhist worldview and be a naturalist. Almost all Buddhists, yes even Theravada, believe in and may even pray to or worship a variety of spiritual beings, which some may call gods, or spirits, or beings analogous to saints.

>>18517187
I would say they more do use than relly. Because thier are some forms of atheism. That don't have to be circuluer , they just don't really exist irl.

>>18517187
The reason I am an atheist is simple. The model of reality which includes a god accounts for our observations equally as well as the model of reality which doesn't include a god, but has one more ontological object (god), and so should be rejected.

Changing my mind is also simple. In order to change my mind, I would need to either: 1) be presented with new observations such that the two models no longer account for our observations equally well, 2) be shown that the model of reality which includes a god actually has fewer/simpler ontological objects than the model of reality which doesn't include a god.

Because no one has ever been able to do either of these two things, I remain an atheist.

>>18517187
Ok, what evidence for God are you referring to? Are you referring to the dinosaur bones (Oh wait, those don't exist) or the big bang theory (oh wait, that doesn't exist) or the theory of evolution (Oh wait, that evidence isn't valid)? Lol.

>>18517187
And religion relies on no logic at all

>>18517551
What is logic based on?

>>18517439
Even Christians believe in the dinosaurs, silly jew

>>18517209
Why is it such a big as to see evidence that's akin to the miracles described in the texts of most religions? The reason naturalism is such a dominant paradigm in the first place is that magic seems to be in short supply.

File: ypiprf4qmzad1.jpg (154.2 KB)

>>18517984

>>18517988
You're just flailing because I won't accept "Pedro's abuelita said she saw an angel" as good evidence of miracles.

File: mfw4.png (373.8 KB)

>>18517187
>any evidence for God isn't evidence
That's not part of their logic, that's part of their secular conditioning. They don't understand that they're doing this and they can't reflect on it. The conversion from neutral observations into "evidence" is always relative to a preexisting framework. It doesn't matter how much structure and intelligence nature exhibits when your belief system holds that such things prove nothing a priori.

>>18517992
>The conversion from neutral observations into "evidence" is always relative to a preexisting framework
This is not true and is just some presupp nonsense.
Structure does not imply a creator, nature following regularities does not imply nor require a "regularity maker". This weird notion you guys have that "if there is no god then things should just be random and there shouldn't be patterns of regularity in nature" is an extremely weird and incorrect metaphysics, I have no idea why so many of you try to make this asinine argument.

>>18518009
>This is not true
Yes it is, as you've conceded by failing to make any kind of counter-argument.

>Structure does not imply a creator, nature following regularities does not imply nor require a "regularity maker".
Why not?

>>18518013
What do you mean "why not"? The implication simply does not hold, it is a non sequitur. Asserting a non sequitur does not require any further argument other than to point out that it is a non sequitur and thus a fallacy.

>>18518015
>What do you mean "why not"?
I mean you should justify your claim.

>The implication simply does not hold
Why not?

> Asserting a non sequitur
What's the nonsequitur? Are you hallucinating?

>>18518017
>I mean you should justify your claim.
No, your claim "If something exhibits patterns or regularity then it was created by a pattern maker" is a non sequitur. No, I am no hallucinating. I also do not need to "prove" my claim as you're the only making the claim.
In a formal syllogism your argument would be
P1) The universe exhibits regular patterns
p2) Anything that exhibits regular patterns is created by a pattern maker
C) The universe is created by a pattern maker
Then you'd need to justify p2 which you can't do because it's completely false, trivially so.

>>18518022
>your claim "If something exhibits patterns or regularity then it was created by a pattern maker" is a non sequitur.
I never made this claim. Are you hallucinating?

>>18518023
Then your statement
> It doesn't matter how much structure and intelligence nature exhibits
Does not have anything to do with the existence of a God that created structure and intelligence of the universe and thus your entire first post in meaningless for the conversation. Yes, it is the case that structure and intelligibility of the universe prove nothing a priori with respect to whether the a God exists. If you disagree you need to motivate the premise that structure/patterns/regularity/intelligibility of nature raises the prior of theism over naturalism, which you cant do.

>>18518026
>Then your statement ... Does not have anything to do with the existence of a God that created structure and intelligence
Why not?

> it is the case that structure and intelligibility of the universe prove nothing a priori
I accept your concession that you classify observations with respect to this a-priori belief.

>>18518030
>Why not?
I just explained it. Playing dumb isn't a good look
>I accept your concession that you classify observations with respect to this a-priori belief.
Never happened. I already clearly explained everything.
This is the state of theism. Sad.

>>18518033
>I just explained it
Quote the specific part where you explained why "X is evidence of Y" is equivalent to "Y is logically deducible from X".

>Never happened.
It did:
> it is the case that structure and intelligibility of the universe prove nothing a priori
These are your words.

>>18518034
>Quote the specific part where you explained why "X is evidence of Y" is equivalent to "Y is logically deducible from X".
I never made that claim.
Structure and patterns do not prove anything about the prior of a god. This is not a prior that I hold, this comes from the fact that you can't motivate the premise.

>>18518038
>I never made that claim.
Then why doesn't the structure and intelligence in the universe count as evidence?
>inb4 you start mumbling something about nonsequiturs and make the claim you totally didn't make, again

>>18517187
>>18517988
Saved

>>18518041
>Then why doesn't the structure and intelligence in the universe count as evidence?
What do you mean "why"? I already explained this. There is no connection between "there is a pattern" and "there is a creator of the pattern". Some patterns are made by agents, some are not. You have to motivate the claim that patterns are made by agents and that without intention or telos or whatever, there would be no regularity to nature. You can't do it.

>>18518051
>There is no connection between "there is a pattern" and "there is a creator of the pattern".
How do you justify this claim?
>inb4 you start mumbling something about nonsequiturs and make the claim you totally didn't make, again

>>any evidence for God isn't evidence.
not my problem. theism is not a theory
it doesn't make predictions

>>18518054
>How do you justify this claim?
I've done this several times now. You're trying to make the claim that me saying your implication does not hold requires the burden, which is both an appeal to ignorance and shifting the burden.
You are claiming a pattern entails a pattern maker. I am claiming it does not. You have to motivate the implication. And you can't do it.
Now here's where you're going to incorrectly blather that I also have the burden to show the implication does not hold, which of course is not true and shows you don't understand basic logic or philosophy.

File: brainlet-pattern-recognition.png (96.1 KB)

>there is no connection between the round peg and the round hole
>structure and patterns do not prove anything about which peg goes where
>it's a nonsequitur to say the square peg goes in the square hole

>>18518064
>me saying your implication does not hold
Why doesn't it hold?

>You are claiming a pattern entails a pattern maker
Where did I make this claim? Quote it.

>>18517224
>they believe in philosophical naturalism
Yeah, I don't believe in ghosts.
If you want to call that "naturalism", go ahead.

>>18517941
The flying Jew, the guy with holes in his hands, the Logos.

File: brainlet3.jpg (78.8 KB)

>>18518022
>calls something a nonsequitur
>demonstrates it with a syllogism where the conclusion actually follows from the premises
>makes a nonsensical claim about a premise being "trivially false", even though it doesn't contradict itself or any other premise
It's easy to see that this tar-black gorilla nigger doesn't actually know anything about logic.

>>18518067
You're an idiot
>>18518069
>Why doesn't it hold?
Because patterns do not require an agent to create them. Therefore, the universe exhibiting regularities does not require a creator of it.

>>18518070
Wouldn't ghosts classify as part of nature?

>>18518076
The existence of things requires a creator

>>18518076
>Because patterns do not require an agent to create them.
First of all, I don't know why you keep mumbling about this when it's not a claim I made at any point. Secondly, you didn't even manage to refute your own strawman: it's clearly the case that some but not all patterns imply a creator.

>>18518079
No, it doesn't.
>>18518081
Some things are created by agents, other things are not created by agents. Nature is such a thing that is not created by an agent. The structure and intelligibility of the universe does not require an agent to create it. So I don't know why you originally claimed this has to do with "belief systems" when it doesn't, it's just a pure fact of the matter which is what I originally said.

>>18518086
Why do things exist rather than not in your worldview?

The real problem with trying to use logic to disprove atheism is that if you are having this argument in english you are almost certainly a christian who believes in a completely illogical pile of nonsense and the atheist becomes irritable when you instead pretend to believe in some vaguely existent prime mover instead of the angry dude who used to get carried around in a death box that you actually believe in.

>>18518086
>Nature is such a thing that is not created by an agent.
How do you justify this claim?

>he structure and intelligibility of the universe does not require an agent to create it?
How do you justify this claim?


>I don't know why you originally claimed this has to do with "belief systems"
Because your mind literally breaks apart whenever you're asked to justify your claims. You are blind to your own a priori beliefs and that cognitive blank gets filled with hallucinations about claims I never made. You demonstrate it with every post.

File: b0ynfjlofbtf1.jpg (15.1 KB)

>>18518086
>Nature is such a thing that is not created by an agent.
Can you prove this to me with empirical evidence?

>>18518090
euphoric

>>18518067
>>there is no connection between the round peg and the round hole
>>structure and patterns do not prove anything about which peg goes where
>>it's a nonsequitur to say the square peg goes in the square hole
Kek. Extremely accurate.

>>18518075
>It's easy to see that this tar-black gorilla nigger doesn't actually know anything about logic.
Also noted.

>>18518089
Nature exists necessarily and eternally. Existence can not fail to exist.
>>18518091
I've already spent multiple posts already doing this.
>>18518093
It's not an empirical claim, it's a necessary truth.

>>18518095
You're a moron as well

>>18518096
>it's a necessary truth
What makes it necessary?

>>18518096
>I've already spent multiple posts already doing this.
Then how come you can't quote any relevant justification? You're literally starting to lose your mind here...

>>18518098
Keep in mind that this mentally ill retard spent half the thread denying his a prioris only to end up calling his belief a "necessary truth".

>>18518078
You tell me. I don't know what a ghost is.
I don't believe in ghosts.

>>18518099
Buddy, you are very, very stupid.
I guess I need to explain it step by step so you can get it:
Your claim was " It doesn't matter how much structure and intelligence nature exhibits when your belief system holds that such things prove nothing a priori."
I responded to this showing that this would only be relevant if it were the case that regularities and patterns required a "regularity maker" such that we can point to the regularities of nature and conclude that there is an agent that created them. However, if patterns don't require a pattern maker, you can't use the perceived regularity of nature to increase the prior that it is created. From there you posted a slew of posts that never actually responded to this.
>>18518100
Yes, it is a truth that patterns do not entail a pattern maker and that existence exists. Are you retarded?

>>18518101
>I don’t know what a ghost is
>I don’t believe in ghosts
>>18518096
Nature and existence aren’t the same thing and the concept of existence isn’t something that exists concretely.

>>18518103
>no quote
I accept your concession.

>it is a truth that patterns do not entail a pattern maker
Notice how your psychotic illness causes you to conflate this statement (which is not a "necessary truth", anyway) with this one: "Nature is such a thing that is not created by an agent.", which you called a necessary truth (i.e. true a prior in your framework).

>>18518098
Look up what the word necessary means in this context.
This is a nonsense question.

It's just what it means to be necessary. Nothing "makes it so".

>>18518108
>necessary means I don’t need to elaborate or justify my assertions in any way
That’s what retards think necessity means.

>>18518108
Look up a psychiatrist because your incoherent blathering contradicts itself repeatedly. A necessary truth is the strongest type of a priori truth, which you denied basic your position on.

>>18518104
Look, this problem is entirely with the people who believe in ghosts. That they got an ill-defined mess.
There's no model of what a ghost is supposed to be. I can't tell you what there is about ghosts that makes them supernatural. You need to talk to the ghosts experts.

>>18518106
>no quote
I just directly quoted you.
This argument is about how the "structure and intelligence of nature" implies or increases the probability of the existence of a God. None of you retards have been able to do this because you can't, as I demonstrated.
Existence can not fail to exist and also can not be a creation as that would be a contradiction. So yes, it is a necessary truth.

>>18518113
>which you denied basic your position on
Where did I do that?

>>18518117
He is confusing you for me, they think we're the same guy.

>>18518116
>I just directly quoted you.
Yes, because you're literally psychotic. What does it have to do with what you were asked?

>>18518114
How do you know you don’t believe in ghosts if you don’t know what ghosts are?

>>18518108
"A necessary truth is a proposition that could not possibly be false." How is it necessary that nature is a thing that is not created by an agent?

>>18518117
>>18518121
>mentally ill samefag desperately trying to backpedal
I accept your concession of >>18517992
>The conversion from neutral observations into "evidence" is always relative to a preexisting framework. It doesn't matter how much structure and intelligence nature exhibits when your belief system holds that such things prove nothing a priori.

>>18518122
My claims are
>Patterns do not require a pattern maker
Which is trivial, and
>existence exists
What are you confused on?

>>18518124
Because under his belief system being created would make nature unnatural, which is a contradiction.

>>18518124
Because under his belief system being created would make nature unnatural, which is a contradiction.

File: Screenshot 2026-06-08 at 08-00-22 _his_ - Atheism relies on circular logic. - History & Humanities - 4chan.png (17.9 KB)

>>18518125
>samefag
No, buddy, You're going to have to stop the boogeyman nonsense. You can't make two posts within 1 minute of each other.
And no, I never conceded anything. you're having a psychotic episode.

>>18518127
>>existence exists
Where is this “existence”? Can you show me? What does it look like, taste like, feel like, smell like, and sound like?

>>18518127
>Patterns do not require a pattern maker
>existence exists
Notice how your severe psychotic episode is causing you to make irrelevant claims fully compatible with theism (unless you mean no pattern requires a creator, in which case it's a demonstrably false claim).

>>18518129
Hilarious if true. Imagine thinking nature in this context means the opposite of artificial (meaning man-made), and thus concluding that nature not being artificial (man-made) that it must necessarily not be created by any agent.

>>18518131
>Where is this “existence”?
This is the level of theist discourse

>>18518124
Lets try something else

"How is it necessary that GOD is a thing that is not created by an agent?"
How would you answer this?
You wouldn't.
Because it's a nonsense question.

Your desperation is palpable. Now go borrow your sister's phone, too, and updoot >>18518130 real quick to "prove" there are three identical psychotics ITT.

>>18518137
I accept your concession.

>>18518123
I don't believe in ghosts. I know this by directly accessing my own mind.

>>18518138
>l-l-let's try something else
He BTFO'd you just by asking you to justify your claim.

>>18518138
That's a logical question. God's existence is not contingent on anything else.

>>18518134
There is nothing irrelevant here. My claim is that you can not point to patterns of nature and use them to increase the probability that nature is created by an agent, so the very first claim doesn't work.
>>18518139
You are actually mentally ill, moldovan schizo.

>>18518138
It is necessary because the essence of God is to exist, being unchanging and eternal, the necessary being.

>>18518145
>There is nothing irrelevant here
Your claims are compatible with any kind of theism so they're irrelevant. Try again.

>>18518142
Do you believe in shhdhdjs? Directly access your own mind and give me the answer.

>>18518144
God doesn't exist, unlike Nature
>>18518146
God does not exist, so this does not work.

>>18518144
No it's not. God exist by way of necessity.
There's nothing that "makes it so".

>>18518151
Is it your position that "Nature" always existed and couldn't not exist?

>>18518141
I didn't concede. You're hallucinating.

The mentally ill atheist tranny straight up concedes OP at this point so why does it even bother posting?

>>18518151
Behold, the rational argument for atheism

>>18518146
You are just repeating the original claim. That God is necessary.
Which is totally understandable. You are trying to answer a nonsense question.

>>18518155
You’re stupid.

>>18518160
>You are just repeating the original claim. That God is necessary.
>Which is totally understandable. You are trying to answer a nonsense question.
So you're trying to demonstrate that your stance wrt. nature is like his stance wrt. God, i.e. that OP diagnosed you correctly.

>>18518159
The theists in this thread have failed to understand basic implications, burden of proofs, or just general definitions of words, which is par for the course.

>>18518157
>Christians in charge of going 1 thread without thinking >>18518152
about trannies

>>18518160
I didn’t repeat the original claim, I added and explained that God’s essence is to exist, and He is eternal and unchanging, and this explains why He necessarily exists.

>>18518157
There are no trannies here,
and no, there is no concession

>>18518167
Notice how your psychotic illness forces you to keep responding even though you've fully conceded OP's premise.

>>18518164
No. I am explaining what the word "necessary" means, to drooling retards

>>18518173
I’m talking to the tranny that conceded right now.

>>18518173
Your psychotic denials don't matter. When asked to justify your claims, your only recourse is to say that the alternative is nonsensical under your belief system.

>>18518174
Where did I do that?
You are hallucinating.

>>18518175
See >>18518111

Kek, theists got absolutely buttfucked by science so now they just post some bullshit philosophy. These threads are boring as fuck, they are always the same.

File: clown.jpg (161.6 KB)

I talk about trannies more than I talk about Jesus

File: amazing atheism.jpg (115.3 KB)

>>18518184
Accurate description of atheists.

>>18518175
You're a psychotic patient who needed to be spoonfed what "necessary" means and are now stuck doubling down on the claim that nature is uncreated because it just heckin' isn't, whereas you originally intended it to be a rational scientific claim.

>>18518177
No, the claim was that patterns do not require a pattern maker which means pointing to structure in the universe can't be used as an argument in favor of a God. There is nothing in any of your posts that do anything to address this.
>>18518181
They lose on the philosophy as well, as you see in this thread as well as in philosophy in general.

>>18518180
Literally not what the word means.

File: science worship 2.jpg (20.1 KB)

>>18518181
Science is bullshit. I deny the Science

>>18518178
Notice how your intense psychotic rage is forcing you to reply to me again, even though I am now closing this 70 IQ thread, demonstrating my power over you through my understanding of your automatonistic behavior. :^)

>>18518188
Case in point.
God's strongest soldier.

>>18518191
The Christians itt won actually.

>>18518191
>patterns do not require a pattern maker
This is compatible with theism.

>which means pointing to structure in the universe can't be used as an argument in favor of a God
This is a nonsequitur. Try again?

>>18518195
You should stop using phones and computers then, it's basically sorcery and using magic is forbidden.

>>18518181
How does science disprove the existence of God?

File: science worshipper.jpg (56.7 KB)

>>18518181
>Kek, theists got absolutely buttfucked by science so now they just post some bullshit philosophy

>>18518196
I accept you concession.

>>18518202
Phones and computers work because God exists.

>>18518199
They got absolutely blown the fuck out. They couldn't even respond to the very first point.
>>18518201
Again, the claim was that because the universe has structure, this increases the probability that it is created. But you can't use the structure of a universe to make claims about an agent in the first place, so you can't use such a thing to increase the probability that the universe was created. No, this is not a non-sequitur. This was the start of this.
There is not a single post in this thread that addresses this.

God probably doesn't exist because after countless thousands of years of trying to prove he does, religionists still have no evidence, and no arguement beyond "believe or else I'll get violent/ the God(s) will punish you!".

The circular logic chart you made in the OP makes zero sense, but then I don't expect such things from religionists.

>>18518210
The probability that God exists is 1

>>18518210
>the claim was that because the universe has structure, this increases the probability that it is created
Whose claim was it? Provide a quote.

>you can't use the structure of a universe to make claims about an agent in the first place
Why not?

>>18518214
Nope.

>>18518212
Define evidence

>>18518212
>believe or else I'll get violent
Projection

>>18518215
We already went through this several times. I accept your concession.

>>18518214
1% maybe.

If God exists show your evidence.
Just reply to this post with real physical evidence that he exists that isn't so schizo bronze age guy rambling, but rather actual observable material reality.

How do we go about figuring out what's evidence for God and what is not?
How do we rule out that the evidence in question wasn't caused by a ghost or a wizard?

>>18518220
>We already went through this several times
Yes, we did. Whenever you're asked to substantiate your claim, your mind breaks. I accept your concession that there is no connection between your premise and your conclusion.

>>18518218
God will hurt you forever when you die

>>18518222
You want physical evidence that something non-physical exists?

File: the universe.jpg (239.8 KB)

>>18518222
Ok, this is my evidence

>>18518224
What are my premises and conclusion that am I not substantiating? You are having a psychotic breakdown that I correctly point out that you are making a non sequitur and then trying to claim that I am doing so (which I am not).

>>18518222
Go up to a hot stove and touch it. That pain is defined as God judging you. Its real, and you can't deny it.

Now you know God and his judgment exists. Start to study it, so that you can avoid getting burned again.

>>18518222
Do you have any evidence that only physical things exist?

>>18518217
Evidence is factual data or physical material used to establish the truth or validity of a proposition or to prove/disprove an allegation.
Humans have had written language for 5200+ years and yet no evidence for any God has been presented that meets the criteria.
You cannot prove the absence of something so atheism is unprovable, but the repeatedly lack of evidence and necessity to resort to violence in order to retain believers does a massive amount to suggest no god exists.

>>18518227
The universe is not evidence of a god. Try again.

>>18518229
That's just nociceptors.

>>18518231
>Evidence is factual data or physical material used to establish the truth or validity of a proposition or to prove/disprove an allegation.
So can you show me evidence to establish the truth of the proposition that all beliefs require evidence? In accordance with your definition only physical evidence will be accepted.

>>18518231
>resort to violence in order to retain believers
Projection

>>18518223
This is the problem with believing in magic.
You can no longer use abductive reasoning. With magic, anything is possible, so you cannot rule out the impossible.

For example, if you got a locked room murder case. And have ruled out a hidden entrance or a second key. That leaves you with suicide.
But if you believe in the supernatural, you'll never be able to rule out that the killer was a ghost that flew through the walls

>>18518239
Christians have killed more people than muslims, communists, and buddhists combined btw

>>18518231
>Evidence is factual data or physical material used to establish the truth or validity of a proposition or to prove/disprove an allegation.
What evidence do you have for that claim?

>>18518226
If God isn't physical it isn't real, only material reality exists. Non-physical is identical to non-existing.
>>18518227
The existence of reality doesn't prove a God
>>18518229
Schizobabble
>>18518230
Do you have any evidence the supernatural exists? I asked you to present some and instead you chose to reply while evading my request.
If you want to believe your mind is the only real thing then have fun with that, the rest of us moved on from solipsism long ago.

>>18518242
When you factor in not only the millions killed by nazism and communism but the uncountable victims of abortion, atheism has been responsible for orders of magnitude more death in a hundred years than every other religion combined in all of history.

>>18518243
That's not a claim, it's a definition.

>>18518245
>If God isn't physical it isn't real, only material reality exists. Non-physical is identical to non-existing.
Show me the evidence that proves this. Only physical evidence counts.

>>18518246
>atheism is when abortion
???

>>18518247
So, if I define God as a necessary being, I don't have to prove it or provide evidence?

>>18518245
>Do you have any evidence the supernatural exists?
According to your definition of evidence evidence of the supernatural is impossible a priori, so this is a begging the question fallacy.

>>18518236
You're welcome to believe things without any evidence if you want. We have a term for that. It's called being a gullible retard.
>>18518239
Historical fact, and present day fact too. Open a book, read the news. Your on /his/ and yet you're saying shit this dumb?
>>18518243
>Do you have evidence that evidence as a concept exists
Not going to engage in retarded word games. You're just trying to avoid the fact you have no evidence. I accept your concession.

>>18518251
If you want to call God a necessary being, that's just Nature.

>>18518255
How is nature a necessary being? You still believe in God, you are just changing the name to "Nature".

>>18518254
>You're welcome to believe things without any evidence if you want. We have a term for that. It's called being a gullible retard.
So is that a no, that there is no evidence for your belief in empiricism? You believe it without evidence, meaning that you are a gullible retard according to yourself?

>>18518251
Still stuck on this
You certainly wouldn't have to answer "what makes it necessary that God is a necessary being?"
That would just mean that the guy you are talking to don't understand what words mean

It would still be totally fine to ask you why you believe this necessary being exist, if it has ever talked to you, if you took a picture of it, etc

>>18518235
The nociceptors are just messangers. I'm not talking about the messangers that convey the message. I'm talking about the actual experience of the pain that you feel. That is God's judgement. You experience it. If you can't experience it, then you are already dead. The dead do not feel it. The dead are slaves wich are pushed around by life.

>>18518249
>Show me physical evidence that physical reality exists
Not the brightest spark are you? You try to use big words and ideas without understanding what you're saying.
The existence of physical reality would be its own evidence.
You can only deny it's real if you choose to claim the only thing that exists is your own mind. Like I already told you, good luck being a solipsist then.
Maybe imagine yourself a philosophy book so you can learn why your post was so dumb.
>>18518252
>evidence of the supernatural is impossible
Thanks. So we can all agree there's no evidence for it, and therefore for God.

>>18518257
Existence exists necessarily.
It isn't the same as what you're calling God, because I do not attach the slew of attributes to Nature that theists attach to God which render the concept incoherent and contradictory, which really is the core problem with theism and why it is false while naturalism is true.

>>18518257
Nature is not the kind of thing that couldn't fail to exist

>>18518260
How would physical evidence (for example, a photograph) prove the existence of something non-physical?

>>18518261
How do we go about figuring out if pain is just pain. Or if it's God's judgement?

>>18518264
Nature could not fail to exist.

>>18518259
So you're saying people should believe things without evidence? And that there's no evidence as to why people should believe in a system that requires evidence?
Good luck with that. I guess you need to stop believing in science then and just take whatever your local schizophrenic says and unquestionable truth.

>>18518267
I don't believe in God. I didn't know he was like a ghost, and you couldn't take pictures of him.

Ask this guy >>18518267 , he think the universe is physical evidence of something non-physical.

>>18518263
So really you are just saying "existence exists" (a tautology), then attributing the name "Nature" to it. Is existence a thing that exists in physical space and time, or is it an eternal and unchanging necessary being?

>>18518277
Ops, I mean THIS guy >>18518227
the guy that posted a picture of the universe as evidence for God

>>18518271
>So you're saying people should believe things without evidence?
Keeping in mind that you have defined evidence as “sense-experience of physical things” there are many, many rational beliefs we are to hold in the absence of this. However, your positive belief in empiricism, as well as your positive belief in naturalism, is unjustified under your own naturalistic empiricistic worldview, showing that it leads to contradictions and is therefore false. I reject empiricism for the lie from the pit that it is. Knowledge comes from God (Proverbs 9:10), and divine revelation is the basis of all knowledge, especially the revelation of God in the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. As result, unlike you, I have a rational worldview that makes sense and is intellectually defensible.
>And that there's no evidence as to why people should believe in a system that requires evidence?
That wasn’t my assertion, it was your admission.
>I guess you need to stop believing in science then
What made you think I ever believed in the dogmatic authority of the academic magisterium?

>>18518271
He's pointing out that the statement "Everything must be proven with empirical data" is a self-refuting statement, since it cannot itself be proven with empirical data. You have to either accept it on the grounds of reason, or else accept that you believe in at least one self-contradictory belief.

>>18518227
How would physical evidence (for example, a photograph) prove the existence of something non-physical?

>>18518279
You're getting at the point I'm getting at. There is no such thing as an "eternal unchanging being", as if something were unchanging then it would not act or move. From here, we would get into the slew of arguments that christians and muslims have been trying and failing to make for a thousands years, either by trying to construct essence-energy distinctions, or conversely doing the very opposite and trying to argue that God's attributes are equal to his essence and necessitate his existence, or whatever.

>>18518289
The evidence is what’s in the photograph not the photograph itself, and it proves it because it only exists because it was created by God and could not exist apart from Him. Everything is indisputable proof of the existence of God

>>18518228
>What are my premises and conclusion that am I not substantiating?
That patterns don't necessarily require a creator therefore patterns can't be used as evidence for a creator. This is a nonsequitur and you don't know how to fill the logical gap.

>>18518283
Buddy, the bible says the earth is flat with a solid dome multiple times. It is not the word of God and you do not have any rational foundation for your presupp nonsense.

>>18518296
Show me a single bible verse that says earth is flat. Just one

>>18517187
I think there was an interview with Richard Dawkins where he was asked, "What evidence would it take to convince you?" And he said something like, "God would have to appear to me Himself" and the onterviewer goes, "But you've dismissed people who have testified to God appearing to them as having hallucinations." And Dawkins just laughs it off and he goes, "Yeah, I'd probably write it off as a hallucination of it happened to me."
There is no evidence or occurrence that can convince some people.

>>18518269
You knows it's not "just" pain, because it leads to a choice being made to not touch it again. A judgement was made.

>>18518269
All pain is God’s judgement on sin

>>18518301
The very first chapter in genesis 1 is describing the construction of a dome firmament on a flat earth where the sun and moon are set inside the firmament.
Isiah 40:22 directly says the earth is a flat circle

>>18518310
There is no description of the earth’s shape at all in Genesis 1 and Isaiah 40:22 is talking about the human race, as a person is said to have a circle. Try again?