What is the strongest argument for the existence of God?

Unarmed Gunman said:
Pretty much this, atheism requires as much faith as any religion does.
Click to expand...
This is based on a misunderstanding of what atheism is.

It's simply a lack of belief in any gods. You probably lack a belief in a whole bunch of gods yourself and I just go 1 more than you do.

I don't claim to know how the universe came to be. The Big Bang is one theory. Is it true? I have no idea. Even if it is true, how did it even happen? I have no idea there either.

Unarmed Gunman said:
You're describing agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism absolutely requires faith since there is no direct evidence to support there either being or not being a creator.
Click to expand...
Atheism is about belief. Gnosticism is about knowledge.

So, I'm an agnostic atheist because I have no belief in any gods, but can't claim to have knowledge about their existence/non-existence.

There is no direct evidence to support there not being dragons or fairies or leprechauns - they might be out there somewhere and you just haven't seen them - but there's no reason for you to believe in them. We just don't need to come up with a word for "a person who lacks belief in leprechauns", cos there's not a ton of people telling them that they do exist, despite there being no evidence whatsoever.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: FattyMcFatterson, lamppost and One Winged Pear Farmer
Brightstar777 said:
it can be proven if you open your heart, you think this stuff is unprovable but it's there if you can open your eyes
Click to expand...
Again, something completely unprovable. Your reasons are your own which is fine, but that is personal to every individual and not empirical. Point being it’s silly to be autistic about the distinction between atheist vs agnostic because it’s the same as agnostic vs Christian from a philosophical standpoint. It only serves as a softer term because so many who are religious can’t hear that someone is an atheist without getting spastic
 
One Winged Pear Farmer said:
Again, something completely unprovable. Your reasons are your own which is fine, but that is personal to every individual and not empirical. Point being it’s silly to be autistic about the distinction between atheist vs agnostic because it’s the same as agnostic vs Christian from a philosophical standpoint. It only serves as a softer term because so many who are religious can’t hear that someone is an atheist without getting spastic
Click to expand...
It is unprovable for retards only, they are clear like the sun and moon but if you wish to act like a retard you will never learn anything
 
Brightstar777 said:
It is unprovable for retards only, they are clear like the sun and moon but if you wish to act like a retard you will never learn anything
Click to expand...
The "proof" is some nebulous "You have to open your heart" word salad that is utterly and inherently subjective. There's no proof in "Just accept it".
 
Is the unmoved mover moving me and you? What is more difficult to fathom? Do we live in an infinite continuum that has no beginning or end or did a single consciousness born out of nothingness create our reality? I don't think I have the answer and neither do you.
We Humans are incredible but we probably lack the capacity to understand the full nature of reality. One must accept this.

Preemptive edit: Yes I am a pretentious fucker.
 
Last edited:
FATTESTCUNT 2.0 said:
This is based on a misunderstanding of what atheism is.

It's simply a lack of belief in any gods. You probably lack a belief in a whole bunch of gods yourself and I just go 1 more than you do.

I don't claim to know how the universe came to be. The Big Bang is one theory. Is it true? I have no idea. Even if it is true, how did it even happen? I have no idea there either.


Atheism is about belief. Gnosticism is about knowledge.

So, I'm an agnostic atheist because I have no belief in any gods, but can't claim to have knowledge about their existence/non-existence.

There is no direct evidence to support there not being dragons or fairies or leprechauns - they might be out there somewhere and you just haven't seen them - but there's no reason for you to believe in them. We just don't need to come up with a word for "a person who lacks belief in leprechauns", cos there's not a ton of people telling them that they do exist, despite there being no evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's the difference between believing that there is no god vs just not believing in god. My point was addressing those who believe there is no god.

It may sound like semantics but I think you need evidence to take the first position (ie here is why we most likely just poofed into existence from nothing) whereas the latter statement is like you say just taking the position that you don't believe in something you've seen no evidence for.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
I suppose it's the difference between believing that there is no god vs just not believing in god. My point was addressing those who believe there is no god.

It may sound like semantics but I think you need evidence to take the first position (ie here is why we most likely just poofed into existence from nothing) whereas the latter statement is like you say just taking the position that you don't believe in something you've seen no evidence for.
Click to expand...
I think we being alive is enough evidence for the wise eyes, the foolish won't understand this and will waste our time
 
The Contingency Argument for God

Contingent Beings Need a Cause:​

  • Everything we observe in the universe (people, objects, planets) seems to be contingent—it exists, but it could have been different or not existed at all. Every contingent thing has a cause or explanation for why it exists.
  • The existence of contingent beings (like the universe) cannot be self-explanatory. Something outside the chain of contingent beings must explain why contingent things exist at all.
  • This necessary being is uncaused, eternal, and independent—it exists in all possible worlds, unlike contingent things that only exist in some.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
I suppose it's the difference between believing that there is no god vs just not believing in god. My point was addressing those who believe there is no god.

It may sound like semantics but I think you need evidence to take the first position (ie here is why we most likely just poofed into existence from nothing) whereas the latter statement is like you say just taking the position that you don't believe in something you've seen no evidence for.
Click to expand...
Wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back