>"The only reason Christfags use the fedora maymay is because they don't have any arguments left"

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: 1418516432378.jpg (38.56 KB, 479x720, 479:720, tip.jpg)

Anonymous 12/14/14 (Sun) 00:20:32 No.454

>"The only reason Christfags use the fedora maymay is because they don't have any arguments left"

Anonymous 12/14/14 (Sun) 09:47:17 No.456

In that case, you may give some good arguments for Christianity/theism that don't involve namecalling or strawmanning.

Like something that involve some evidence and something testable

Anonymous 12/14/14 (Sun) 16:30:41 No.458

>>456
>faith is proved by physical and testable evidence

Anonymous 12/14/14 (Sun) 16:41:15 No.459

I only use the fedora maymay when someone is acting downright autistically atheist/anti-theist.

Anonymous 12/15/14 (Mon) 10:13:11 No.462

>>458

Faith is also not an argument

Anonymous 12/28/14 (Sun) 13:52:08 No.471

File: 1419774728672.jpg (25.73 KB, 403x257, 403:257, 1417767763241.jpg)

>>456
>P1. Definitions are definite.
>P2. Something can not come from nothing.
>P3. All beginnings need an external cause.
>P4. Our world exists.
>P5. Our world had a beginning.
This doesn't take into account the nature of what started it.
We can deduce the widest ranges of causes into these categories:
>Eternal world
>Chaos
>Organized mechanism / being

Eternal world is unlikely as we know of 'big bang'; a starting point for even the laws of this world. This implies change - which needs a cause. If this is the answer, we may never get the answers we seek.

Chaos is unlikely as we don't have 'bugs'; the world is accurate and everything adds up, like it was carefully and accurately built. By our standards, a code which had been tested and crafted specifically and with care.
>this assumes the world is functioning like information; chaos would be an endless chain of random code generation (and removal)
>Information is not eternal : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

Organized mechanism: a cause we have a possibility of understanding via mathematics and physics, or a force we can never understand; too abstract and complex. By the reasons I decided to drop chaos we can assume the cause is intelligent; can create/modify information into organized forms.

Now, that's for the world at large.

Anonymous 12/28/14 (Sun) 14:15:47 No.472

File: 1419776147059.jpg (63.69 KB, 640x395, 128:79, 4652§42545345.jpg)

>>471
>Cont.
Now for the 'human' part.

Humans can be classified as animals. Animals have needs.
List for human needs goes akin to: sex, food, sleep, satisfy curiosity, need of truth, justice, spirituality, need for things to make sense/reason, sociality, growth, security, freshness, beauty, health, identity… And answers to the big questions.

We can measure only a few of those needs by scientific standards.
However, one can assume that hunger implies the existence of food, the need for truth would imply that there is truth. Lacking in any need will cause harm to the individual.
Now, what would the need for spirituality/religion imply?

Pagan religions lack in addressing many needs. Islam is doctrine of a demon (by Mohammed's own words). Buddhism goes against all these needs…

I'd say Christianity is the greatest religion from the pool of religions. It addresses most needs and shuns those driven by any single need (especially the 'religious' and 'identity' needs! Pharisees are a prime example of this). The middle ground, infinitely loving God, evils being done in the name of the religion being against that religion instead of for it…

Whether it is true or not… I can't exactly prove that. However, the new testament documents are amongst the best preserved and most copied units of historical literature, so it'd be fairly safe to assume they are more reliable than modern news. Take into account the translation issues…

We need our logos.

Anonymous 01/07/15 (Wed) 09:33:27 No.508

>>471

>Kalam

Is an argument from ignorance, uses special pleading and uses begging the question. In conclusion: it's an shitty word game that makes no sense

>>472

>we need answers to big questions

Why yes, and we also need those answers to be based on evidence. If they aren't, we need to suspend judgement and say to ourselves that we don't know.

Also
>my religion is right
>and somehow all other religions are totally wrong

Wait, who was supposed to be the smug one again?

Anonymous 01/09/15 (Fri) 21:26:35 No.509

>>508

>Why yes, and we also need those answers to be based on evidence.

Metaphysical claims are unavoidable. The difference is that the metaphysical claims of theism have a basis in reason and intuition, while the metaphysical claims of scientific materialism willfully ignore both.

>Also
>>my religion is right
>>and somehow all other religions are totally wrong

Non-sequiter. The fact that, of all understandings of God only one can be correct is logical, not "smug." I don't call my mechanic "smug" just because he's developed a better understanding of engines than others.

Anonymous 05/01/15 (Fri) 11:28:16 No.556

i applaud this anon, he can help theist and anti theist

matt 07/18/15 (Sat) 04:21:00 No.567

>>454

I tried to post an intelligent video a forum for religious discussion. They all posted retarded responses and it showed they lacked any intelligence whatsoever. There's no point in trying to be rational to people who irrational. If they insult you, you can insult them back.

Anonymous 08/19/15 (Wed) 04:16:34 No.591

File: 1439957794616.jpg (27.4 KB, 260x320, 13:16, hum.jpg)

>>471

>P5. Our world had a beginning.

This is false. As Hawking would put it:

>Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

7 08/20/15 (Thu) 16:34:50 No.597

>>508

What special pleading?

>Everything that has a beginning has a clause

That's just something science and everyone else assumes in general. Note the key words

>The universe had a beginning

Almost every physicist will tell you that pretty much. Everything else aside, thermodynamics is pretty convinving in arguing for a beginning by showing the universe has an effective end.

>The universe has a cause

Obviously follows from the previous two premises.

>The cause is God

I can see people having a problem with this one, but what else do you call an enormonously powerful, spaceless, massless, timeless, and intelligent enity. Since whatever caused the universe has to be independent of the universe and design it, we can assume the cause has those qualities. There aren't a lot of alternatives.

>Multiverse theory

Science of the gaps if I have ever heard any. There's no proof of other universes, and no proof of any outside mechanism that can make them. Furthermore, if we assume the mechanism is naturalistic, it's likely prone to the second law anyways and simply pushes back the issue of an uncaused cause.

>Universe appeared out of quantum vaccuum and the laws of physics

The quantum vaccuum and the laws of physics wouldn't exist without the universe, I assume. Therefore, they couldn't have caused the universe.

Anonymous 08/20/15 (Thu) 20:16:56 No.598

>>597

>What special pleading?

The part where God is supposed to be exempt from causality, without even explaining why

Anonymous 08/21/15 (Fri) 06:26:46 No.599

>>597

>whatever caused the universe has to be independent of the universe and design it

Why would that be the case? There's no need for a design or intelligence for the universe to exist.

Anonymous 08/25/15 (Tue) 06:32:54 No.601

>>598

As God is eternal, he had no cause.

If the universe could be proven to be eternal, no cause would be necessary for it, but as all evidence points otherwise, a cause is necessary.

It would be like asking where the concept of 1 came from. The symbol has a definite origin, but the concept it represents does not. Therefore, there's no reason for 1 to exist; it just is.

Anonymous 08/31/15 (Mon) 13:02:50 No.603

>>591

>This is false.

>Proceeds to explain that the universe had a beginning, but we don't care to look for an externa cause because we have no way to do it

Try to understand that a technical limitation isn't a limit for philosophical thought in general. In a scientific theory this kind of reasoning is legitimate, because if you have no way to observe something then you can't test a claim. However, this doesn't mean the universe didn't have a beginnin or an external cause, it simply means you're not looking for it because you're pretty sure you can't.

>>598

Please stop considering God as a dude sitting on a throne.

10/08/15 (Thu) 03:24:27 No.610

File: 1444274668228.jpg (91.41 KB, 407x550, 37:50, Azathoth.jpg)

>>601

Why does the cause, "god", need to be immortal or intelligent?

Perhaps, there was a cause once but cause is now gone or dead.

Perhaps, a natural process like evolution created the universe. A living organism that could simulate the world around it might be able to reproduce better. The universe could simply be a simulation or "dream" inside an evolved creature's head. The creature need not be intelligent (in the human manner), moral or have any interest in us.

My personal view is that the universe is probably some sort of simulation of some sort but I cannot decide whether a natural simulation such as caused by evolution or a constructed simulation is more plausible.

>>472

Does the need to sacrifice oneself for a loved one in danger prove that self-harm is good for oneself? The need for spirituality implies that longing to belong in a group and conform is evolutionarily favourable and nothing more.