Can you really refute the existance of god?

>and how does that affect anything? does that stop wars? does it feed the hungry? eliminate disease? make me richer or happier? make my country prosperous? enact my political will? hell, does it do so much as stop me from stubbing my toe?

Yes, you materialist shithead. Belief in a god changes your fundamental schema of literally everything that does/doesn't exist. To that point, what alters your spiritual disposition in a way that affects your perception of the world, indeed affects the world itself.
>show me a BENEFIT to god existing that is demonstrable and real in the physical world

In wolrd without God, morality becomes subjective, and can no longer be evaluated by an objective standard, which means humans can be as cruel as they wish.

There are atheists who believe in at least moral realism, some moral objectivity. Moral subjectivism is actually quite a fringe belief nowerdays. I understand your point, and certainly when the metaphysical concept of individual value and liberty is eroded, like in secular states, you end up with human rights nightmares like china. But the way religion works needs to change. Before people were scared into following its rules. Many of the rules are beneficial to your mental and physical wellbeing, which I imagine is something intrinsic which religion speaks to, but you aren’t going to have people become “enlightened” to this by force or fear. They need to reach the truth themselves, and in a world where it’s the default to view the world and politics in utterly material terms, that is difficult if not a pipe dream.

YEAH BUT WHAT WITH ALLAH? TAKE THAT, ATHIESTS

God exists and is de trop

Only the poor and inbreed believe innit, proof enough for me.

>Can you refute the existence of God?
You can't prove that a thing does not exist unless you show it to be self-contradictory. In the case of the Christian god, we can prove he does not exist by citing the trinity: a thing cannot be one thing yet three things simultaneously. Atheists, as the name implies, do not hold the view that god does not exist; we instead maintain a lack of belief in his existence, a lack of theism.

Attached: 1534492440368.jpg (696x960, 59K)

This is just a reverse of the ontological argument, which is flawed anyway. Doesn’t work.

I don’t agree with your principle, but the holy trinity does make sense, in the fact that it doesn’t. In christian theology (like aquinas) god is literally incomprehensible to human beings, and the trinity is something that transcends our understanding of physical reality.

>bro, square circles and married bachelors are just beyond our comprehension dudee

>Yes, you materialist shithead. Belief in a god changes your fundamental schema of literally everything that does/doesn't exist. To that point, what alters your spiritual disposition in a way that affects your perception of the world, indeed affects the world itself.
So if I just look at the world differently then suddenly nothing bad happens any more? Come on lad you don't really believe that.

>In world without God, morality becomes subjective, and can no longer be evaluated by an objective standard, which means humans can be as cruel as they wish.
Well no shit, but even people who do believe in god CAN be as cruel as they wish. Anyone CAN be cruel. We've come up with some perfectly fine secular morals to live by. I will absolutely concede though that they're being horrendously perverted by progressive liberalism to the point where they're becoming immoral, but even then Christianity and Judaism are in many cases outright advocating for this liberalisation and stuff like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism etc. are moral systems for other peoples - just because they are founded on a religious ground doesn't make them good or applicable for peoples not of those that birthed them.

>There are atheists who believe in at least moral realism, some moral objectivity
This is inconsistent, user. It illustrates the impossibility of living consistently as an athiest.

>They need to reach the truth
Again there is by definition no truth without a God.

>in a world where it’s the default to view the world and politics in utterly material terms, that is difficult if not a pipe dream.

Godlessness is not humanity's default mode. It is an institutionalized belief system, in which people ARE actually scared into following its rules (either out of social shame or fear of legal consequences).

Not an argument. I’m not religious at all, but when you are talking about a metaphysical all powerful deity, it can do literally anything. Our limited human understanding would not limit the abilities of an all powerful being.

>In wolrd without God, morality becomes subjective, and can no longer be evaluated by an objective standard, which means humans can be as cruel as they wish.

So what would be the correct religion to turn to if there was proof of a god? How would you know Satanic worship isn't the right path? How would you know there wasn't more than one god?

The number three is both a unity and a multiplicity at the same time.

checkmate gaythiests

oh my god you people are all fucking retarded

Schopenhaur was an atheist and still believed in non physical entities effecting physical reality. It’s a very weird stance but it exists

>materialist shithead
rude and impious

What’s your view then, share it. Not me being salty, I genuinely want to learn and improve my view if it’s dumb.

You must look at the cosmological design of the universe and use your noodle to determine what type of God would do that. Do the paperwork, read the texts, man.

never noticed the wedding ring on goatse's hand what a lucky guy

is it good because god says so or does god say so because it's good?

>in non physical entities
spiritual entities? where could I look more into that in Schopenhauer's work.

Three is not a unity. We categorise the number three for the same reason we categorise everything else: convenience. Case in point: roman numerical system did not categorise three but did categorise five; it does not follow from this that romans viewed 5 as a unity and 3 as a multiplicity.

Chaste and agapepilled

I see no compelling reason as to why I should suspend my reasoning faculties when I am dealing with god. If he wanted to reveal himself to humanity he would do it in a way that is agreeable to us. Instead, he showed himself as a contradiction and a logical absurdity.

Yeah, because ancient texts of anything besides mathematics are the bastions of all truth and rationality.

>look at the universe and decide what god would make it this way
Well the two main features I'd comment on are that it's very big and there's a lot of suffering in our small little corner. So IF a god made it he probably has a lot of time on his hands to make it all and he probably really likes child porn because that gets churned out in surprising quantities for the relative fraction of a speck of a mote of nothingness that we occupy in the space provided for us.

>If he wanted to reveal himself to humanity he would do it in a way that is agreeable to us.
why?

The world as will and representation, that’s his seminal work.
I’m not saying god exists, I’m just saying limiting factors of human understanding aren’t a refutation to god. If god is described as being all powerful, it’s not inconsistent that he does things we view as impossible.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism could correlate with the design of the universe based on interpretation.

It's one in that it's a distinct mathematical object and many in that it's comprised of other mathematical objects.

Also you seem to be confusing numbers with numerals.

Hinduism got it pretty close if our current understanding is correct. The universe, in nothingness, was not literally nothing, because it had the potential to be something, which then caused the universe to exist. This is not far off from quantum foam.

if it was possible to refute, it wouldn't have gone on as long as it has. It's like asking
>how do you know ghosts don't exist if I've seen a ghost?
anyone should be able to see why this doesn't make any sense and trying to argue against it is impossible.

Attached: check mate christcucks.png (1592x832, 46K)

You yourself are, among other things, a refutation of God. And that's fine.

>They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you."
>He said to them, "You read the face of the sky and of the earth, but you have not recognized the one who is before you, and you do not know how to read this moment."

It's a matter of courteousness. When you are speaking with a friend who knows a language you don't, do you expect him to speak in your mutual tongue?

Attached: 1554479855944.gif (362x345, 3M)

Then we are talking about different things. The trinity is three things yet one thing, the number three is an abstraction, or description, of this.

Morality is a contrivance of God, and it affects us in a healthy way.

Both of those are me.
>Yeah, because ancient texts of anything besides mathematics are the bastions of all truth and rationality.
This is the defition of chronological snobbery user. Our ancestors beliefs in God were not merely etiological. If you're interested in this, read some of Al Ghazali's and Leibniz' arguments.

I would highly reccomend you check this book out from a library.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kalām_Cosmological_Argument

I wrestle with the same questions, user. It's difficult to reconcile the problem of evil.

But is child porn or unjustified murder bad because it's illegal or because it's morally bad?

not so much Hinduism, but otherwise I agree. As I point out above. there is a lot of cross over between Abrahamic religions cosmological apologetics.

Not him, but the way he did it just seems absurd given his goals. Why not reveal himself to everyone at once? Or at least an emissary to each nation or race or something. Is this really the best plan a perfect being could come up with? Almost anyone could have done better quite frankly.

God would know that the way he revealed himself to man would invariably condemn billions of pre-Jesus people to hell for lack of faith (I know some denominations say pre-Jesus people are fine or in purgatory or whatever, but let's go with broad strokes here) and that in the intervening years between Jesus' arrival and the eschatological conclusion of things, billions more would NOT be saved and hence condemned to eternal suffering through absolutely no fault of their own.

The question remains, why would he choose such an ineffective method to save the thing he loves the most if he is truly all powerful, all knowing and all loving?

Obviously some people can reconcile this seemingly absurd behaviour with their beliefs, but I simply cannot; not out of malice or hatred or edginess to refuse to be religious, I simply do not think this is the course of any rational, let alone perfect being. But equally god KNOWS that his actions would not be enough to convince me of his existence, yet he decides that I have committed some kind of grievous sin against him worthy of eternal torment and torture. This I cannot reconcile with the idea of omnibenevolence/potence/science etc.

Also what this guy saidSay I have a friend who I know is blind and I don't want him to walk down a certain road, so I put up a printed sign saying "DO NOT WALK DOWN THIS ROAD", then if he does walk down the road (through no fault of his own) I get so angry at him that I flay his skin off until the end of time. Who is in the wrong here?

How to find out if you believe in god
A) Do I believe in free will
B) If yes, you believe in god. If no, you don’t.
It’s impossible to prove free will.

Anyways, it's just an analogy and all analogies are just that. We understand the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity as perichoresis. Each person interdwells the others in such a way that wherever one Person is present the others are also fully present with each retaining their distinctness.

>indeed affects the world itself.

Absolutely true.

>But the mysteries of that marriage are perfected rather in the day and the light. Neither that day nor its light ever sets. If anyone becomes a son of the bridal chamber, he will receive the light. If anyone does not receive it while he is here, he will not be able to receive it in the other place. He who will receive that light will not be seen, nor can he be detained. And none shall be able to torment a person like this, even while he dwells in the world. And again when he leaves the world, he has already received the truth in the images. The world has become the Aeon (eternal realm), for the Aeon is fullness for him. This is the way it is: it is revealed to him alone, not hidden in the darkness and the night, but hidden in a perfect day and a holy light.

Attached: index.jpg (224x224, 6K)