STOP BEING ATHEISTS STUPID ASSHOLES

In before "gb2 bible camp". I don't subscribe to any religion, it's just logical and you are all fucking idiots for not being able to understand something as simple as the ontological argument. I would go as far as to say you do not consider the BIG questions as you are not sapient!

This is the ontological argument...
Start with 2 of Descarte's famous premises and something obvious...


Thought exists.
I am inseparable from thought.
I exist.

Perceptions are a type of thought.

I cannot (completely) control the universe (I perceive).
The universe (I perceive) influences my perceptions.


Employ logic...


I do not (completely) control my perceptions.
The perceptions I cannot control are a type of thought.
Another existing thinking entity is controlling these perceptions.
The universe (I perceive) influences my perceptions.
An existing thinking entity is controlling the universe.

God = An existing thinking entity which controls the universe.

i liek peenuz in me bum

gb2 teens4christ.org/

>>1
Once again we have to be amazed at the lengths people will go through to prove something exists without the basis of even 1 shred of evidence.  Silly logic games are still silly logic games; produce proof of the existence of this all-powerful entity or STFU+GTFO!

>>4 and >>1 produce proof one way or the other. let's see how the logic compares? i'd be interested to see what RedCream can say when he's not just saying "no, you're wrong."

>>5
Once again, this giant alien space monster has produced miracles and the like over the ages.  Right?  Surely there's some evidence, then, once we have cameras and other recording devices available now to prove this evidence to a much wider audience ... proving it's more than some drug-addled imagining of some religifuck?

Physical Evidence Required.  Surely, with the subject of said evidence being so universe-spanning, world-creating, and Human-interested, THERE SHOULD BE A LOT OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE.  It only remains for religitards like >>1 to produce said evidence.

But -- oh! oh! -- they haven't produced such evidence.  They have NOTHING.  Instead, they play logic games to somehow make up for it.  That's why they're religifreaks -- instead of countering a lack of knowledge with evidence, they falsely counter a lack of evidence with knowledge.

It's easy to manufacture knowledge.  Hark thusly:  "Gilgamesh exists."  Why not?  If we don't have to produce evidence for our outrageous and common-experience-opposing assertions, then we can propose any wacky thing we imagine and use a logic game to pop it into popular acceptance.

THIS IS WHY AMERICANS ARE THE BEST EDUCATED MORONS ON THE PLANET.  Logic games cannot have stronger force than physical proof, but in the mind of the American degree-moron, they do.  DARRRRR!

hmm. swaying argument, any rebuttal >>1?

i tend just not to worry about it. the "god" question just doesn't matter that much. if there is an intelligence behind existence we'll never understand it, and it certainly doesn't care about us as much as christfags would have us believe.

but, with all the odds considered against even the possibilty of the universe existing exactly as it does, it's hard to believe it's all coincidence.

Face it. Guanilo's perfect island analogy pisses all over the ontological argument.
Descartes never meant for it to be a proof of God's existence anyway, just something to reaffirm belief.

And btw calling people stupid assholes will never convince them into thinking like you (you fucking stupid asshole).

Unfortunately for you, this argument is easy to win.
Unlike RedCream, I don't need to depart from the argument to relate everything back to how Amercans are stupid (Although he serves as a great example himself)

Thought exists.
I am inseparable from thought. <---- This is where you fucked up.

Drugs, magnetics, and death lack of oxygen separate you from thought. The recognition of your thought is nearly a processes in your brain saying "I am alive". Once that has left (Regardless of death being an active( or inactive LOL) state) there is no more thought or way to record it.

bravo, good sir.
yet more evidence that there is really no way to tell one way or the other.

'The perceptions I cannot control are a type of thought.'
Well, this bit seems reasonably logical to me.

'Another existing thinking entity is controlling these perceptions.'
However, this just makes me feel sorry for you. Why should another entity be controlling our perceptions? Surely they are (if uncontrolled) brought about by our subconscious mind?

You started off reasonably well but your disregard for psychiatry means your (regurgitated) argument is, in my opinion, ungrounded. I cannot blame Descartes for his lack of psychological knowledge, but i can blame you for not attempting to modify his argument.

MOTHERFUCKING LOL@MILITANT AGNOSTICISM AND YOU FUCKING WHINY THEISTS, TAKE A FUCKING INSULT YOU PUSSIES

YOU'RE NOT HUMAN

KILL YOURSELVES

Think of this religious dude, Life is like an equation, if you follow logic, then it is obvious you are WRONG...

You make things too complicated, sure, everything exists, what you believe is that it was created, but because you think that it had to be created, you make something else simply exist...

God is like adding 0 to every math problem you do, it's irrelevant and unnecessary...

If you want to spend half your life praying to a fairy tale, then GTFO of 4chan and go hang out with some priests you homo...

I really don't understand what is so difficult about what I'm asking for. I frequently accept thick negro cocks into my rectum and each time it sinks deeper into my asshole I increasingly understand why Ralph Nader should be president. I need a refresher from time to time, but it's proof nonetheless.

>>11
Perceptions are thoughts.
Thoughts are controlled.
If you aren't controlling those thoughts something else is.
If it is thinking then it exists.
The universe is controlled by this thinking being.

You are inferior.

>>16
logical fallacy

>>17
I think that pretty much sums up the whole thread.

>>18
I think your mom pretty much sums up the whole thread.

>>16

The universe will continue to exist regardless of if you think it does. It existed before you were alive and your grandpa can attest to that fact.

>>7
ORLY?  What are the chances of a non-life-producing universe contemplating the chances of its own non-life-producing-ness?

In other words, if your existence is staggeringly unlikely, then all other instances where you don't exist are not instances in which you sit there and consider you chances.  Only existence considers the chances.  Therefore existence is aligned towards contemplation of chances no matter how small the real chances actually for producing that existence.

If the existence of our universe was a one-in-a-trillion chance, then it worked ... obviously, since we're not existing in the other trillion-minus-one possibilities.

Besides which, how many universes are there?  We can't look outside our own, but there's no reason to think that we are the only one.  Our universe would well be a 4D bubble in a superuniverse of 4D froth in a 6D space.  Our universe could be a single example of so many natural opportunities to try spacetime constants that it became certain that a universe would arise with the capacity for life.

Too bad we can't see out of our own universe to test that, eh?

What do you call someone who really doesn't give a damn whether or not "God" does or does not exist? It's different from being an Agnostic and certainly not an Atheist.

Besides, even if a God was proven to exist that wouldn't solve anything. Because then everyone would just lose their shit arguing over whose it was.

>>22
Such a person would be called a Dontcarian.

Even if there is a God, you'll never be able to interact with them or fully comprehend them, so it doesn't really matter. Furthermore, they might not even exist, although there is no way to truly prove or disprove their existence. In conclusion, religion is stupid.

Where do I get my subscription? (0_o)?

sorry, but shouldn't this be posted in \x\?

I can play logic games too, try this one on for size:

1.  By definition of God, God is omnipotent.
2.  Therefore, God can create a rock so big he cannot lift it.

If God cannot lift a rock, he is not omnipotent, This being a contradiction, God's existence is impossible, from a logical standpoint.

You can therefore argue two things:

1.  Logic does not apply to God, in which case the statement swings both ways, so stop trying to use logic to prove his existence.
2.  God is not omnipotent, in which case he isn't God so much as an alien, and you still fail.

  a catholic child says-father jones touched me again daddy!
a athiestic child says- WHAT IS ABOVE US IS OF NO CONCERN TO Us

Quantum Physics tells us that the universe is shaped by how we observe it. By OP's logic, we are all equally God.

>>29

I smite thee!

>>27
There is no contradiction. God can do whatever it wants as it is omnipotent, including contradictory things.

The fact that logic does not apply to god does not necessarily mean it cannot be proven logically. It seems the jist of your argument is to get me to "stop trying to use logic to prove his existence", you don't control me. ^Furse_cute me at your peril!

[sup]F[sup]u[sup]r[sup]s[sup]e[/sub]_cut[sub]e[/sup][/sup][/sup][/sup][/sup]

?? ^lol

^Furse_cute

Regardless of logic games, any proposal for a giant alien space monster must be backed with physical evidence or rational thinking demands that the proposal be dismissed.  Black holes aren't even visible, for fuck's sake, yet there are ways to detect them, and they have been so detected.  Evidence is the bullshit cutter.  Unfortunately, the West is becoming more and more susceptible to bullshit.  Happily for free Humanity, the West is in decline, so perhaps we can look forward to self-immolation of such bullshit to occur.

>>35
There is no evidence that Tau Leptons exist.

>>36
WRONG:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_lepton

To wit:  "The tau lepton was detected in a series of experiments between 1974 and 1977 by Martin Lewis Perl with his colleagues at the SLAC-LBL group. Their equipment consisted of SLAC's then-new e+-e− colliding ring, called SPEAR, and the LBL magnetic detector. They could detect and distinguish between leptons, hadrons and photons."

The article then goes on to say that the TL was not detected directly, but:

"We have discovered 64 events of the form {some formula} for which we have no conventional explanation."

Note that indirect evidence is still much stronger than any assertion of divinity, for which there ZERO evidence exists.  We have a lot of evidence of activity with nuclear and subnuclear particles, even if those particles are not properly identified.  In high contrast, there is ZERO evidence of any divine activity.  Please note that some person have a "feeling" doesn't qualify as any evidence whatsoever.

Once again, it must be stated:

ZERO EVIDENCE IS GREAT INDICATION THAT THERE'S NOTHING ACTUALLY THERE.

You religitards need to repeat that over and over until you break through your dipshittery and finally understand that it's NUTS to continue to believe in something which not only produces no evidence, but by its very nature should be producing a lot of evidence.

QUIT BEING AN ASSHOLE CHRISTFAG

>>37
They have no conventional explanation yet they still have reason to believe Tau Leptons exist, much like the miracles of jesus have no "conventional explanation" yet there is much evidence to suggest he was indeed god incarnate. If you are an atheist why not whine and bitch at a theoretical physics professor for a change?

>>1
Okay how you jump from "there are perceptions which I can not control" to some supernatural being defies logic.

>>22
that would be Nontheist

gb2 bible camp

>>39

Because theoretical physicists don't shape public policy based on what Tau Leptons tell them what to do.

Physicists believe Tau Leptons exist and thus try to prove their existence. If some other theory comes along that explains those 64 events, then they'll go with that. They won't blindly go "NO THAT EXPERIMENT WAS WRONG TAU LEPTONS ARE REAL LALALALALA".

>>39
No, we have plenty of evidence that subatomic particles exist, it's just that these proposed Tau Leptons are proving to be elusive with the current equipment.  In high contrast, there has never been any evidence confirming the existence of a divinity.  ZERO EVIDENCE.  Wherever Humanity has looked with whatever instrument it had, there is no divinity.

You're like the rest of the mentally-gay religitards who take divinity as a given, which is in extreme contrast to the evidence, which over thousands of years has been ZERO.

The so-called miracles of Jesus are easily explained as propagandistic stories surrounding one particular Jewish rebel against the rule of Rome in Palestine.  We have no proof of them any other way, and nobody performs such "miracles" when placed near recording devices.  Remember, if it doesn't happen when the recorders are present and working, then it is generally bullshit.  These "Tau Leptons" may be bullshit ... but the existence of subatomic particles is POSITIVELY VERIFIED.

>>42
Yes they do. Physicists request billions of funds to fund university research projects and construct particle accelerators based on the faith they might discover something. This is exactly the same logic as allowing free speech, charity and other christian values based on the faith they make the world a better place. Do you want to get rid of that? I thought you liberals wanted to help the poor, yet you do not wish to follow in the way of Jesus.

>>44
Hey, don't look at me.  I cheered when the Superconducting Supercollider was canceled.  It was a superexpensive superboondoggle and I hardly support using government funds to fund universities in such a fashion.  Since such research is often just turned over to corporations anyway, I say let the corporations fund such research in the first place.

This is all in high contrast to Jeebus and other such divinities, which have never been detected, and the honest man would say never will be.  Expecting another subatomic particle is at least rational since we have a mountain of evidence for other subatomic particles.  There is ZERO evidence for divinity.

I cheered when the Superconducting Supercollider was canceled.
Which, as a result, means that the US has lost the race in that branch of physics. I've spoken to a couple particle physicists in other countries, and both consider the US completely out of the running. It doesn't help that this appears to be occurring across the board for all pure sciences in the US.

Why bother? Think brain drain.

A proper way to do it would be to provide a large enough chunk of funding that you get a say where it goes, then solicit the rest from the rest of the world. The LHC doesn't appear to have problems with international funding, despite the price tag.

>>44
The difference being that we'll get tangible benefits out of funding physicists. Blue-sky research spins off benefits constantly. This text you're reading is being displayed on a monitor which would not exist, powered by a computer which would not exist, which uses electricity which would not be usable, and and internet that would not exist, passing over cables that would not exist, etc, etc, etc ad infinutum were it not for blue-sky research.

There's nothing wrong with faith, but there are no tangible benefits exclusive to faith either. What does religion have to do with charity, for example? Those godless Atheists never donate a thing.

Who says God interferes with humanity? What if he lit the Big Bang, let physics take its course and went off to play Halo and jack off?

>>48

Then you'd be a deistfag which is gay as hell

>>48
Maybe he created humanity so we would create Halo for him?

>>49
Better than being an arogant jerk who thinks the ultimate diety is only looking over them.

AMIRITE?

I say we just all bow down to Darth Vadar and get the religious bullshit over with.

>>14

Seriously.  God violates Occam's Razor.

Perhaps we should just worship Mr. Cheney, who is the living embodiment and manifestation (as well as the spawn) of our friendly neighborhood Satan!

>>44

Wow, you make the term "Liberal" sound so... insulting. Too bad it isn't.

What I never understood is why people believe that the so-called Godless are any less inclined to help their fellow man than those coerced into doing it because if they don't, they're going to Hell? I think Atheists have figured out that you don't do something because it's forced upon you under threat of punishment (in this case, severe, eternal punishment) but because it's the moral thing to do. The idea that we don't want to help the poor, derived from the fact that we don't follow the main flavour of bullshit over here in the West, is a complete non-sequitur.

Then there's the idea of free speech. I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem that Christianity has been a big supporter of free speech, except when it comes to phrases like "God hates fags". If free speech and freedom of opinion is so much a Christian value, why attack those whose opinions differ from yours, even on the most fundamental tenets of your religion (its veracity, for example)? Why force (Yes, force) people to mention a God they may not believe in during things like the Pledge of Allegiance? The religious have always argued that freedom of religion is not freedom from religion, but guess what? "No religion" deserves as much recognition under the law as actual religion. Otherwise, at the end of the Pledge of Allegiance, we may as well add a rider to the end of it praising Allah, Buddha, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Morality ≠ Religion. They may occur simultaneously, but they also occur separately. All you christfags need to get that through your fucking skulls.

>>47
You forgot Tubes, in all their series.