Here is why you should believe in God.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hey there,

Screw proofs, look for good reasons to believe, that's what you do in your everyday life. All proofs need a starting point. Transcient, mortal people can play with the starting point all they like. And that's exactly why the existence of god question spilled much ink.

There is no proof for actual existence whatsoever. Nobody can prove that anything exists. Any person seriously asking the big "god question" should start by trying with the more humble one "How can I be sure I exist?" to know that it's the wrong question to ask.

Answering the latter question is of course impractical, something we can hear about in philosophy seminars. Nobody seriously interrupts his everyday life to delve into deep cartesian doubts, and if one does so, he never acts on these doubts. We simply move on with our lives despite the epistemological vacuum filling our heads. We accept that we exist because there are good reasons to believe we do., and really bad, stupid reasons to think we don't. Here is the kicker : "How can I be sure God exists?" is equally impractical, equally meaningless.

Anyone who read about the Münchhausen trilemma should be aware of this : for any given logical proposition, any possible proof is a set of propositions itself, which require further proofs. We end up with three possible arguments, all of them are dead ends:

* Regressive arguments, in which each possible proof warrants further proof ad infinitum;

* Circular arguments, in which one begs the question and assumes the proposition he's trying to prove;

* Axiomatic arguments, in which one picks arbitrary premises to reach what one wants. And the cherrypicking of axioms is usually done in a backpedalling way to fit the result.

So how should one know God? One simply addresses the question the same way he addresses the more practical, realistic existence questions, as in "how come my windows are broken and my money taken out?" in which the atheist suddenly stops his epistemological concerns and declares, without the slightest hesitation, that an ill-intentioned burglar broke into his house ... Münchhausen trilemma my ass.

One then only needs good reasons to believe, nothing more. Any attempt to rise the epistemological requirements will backfire on the one who asks the question -on his very existence.

I don't need to spell out the usual reasons for belief in God here. The usual rebuttal to the innumerable signs of purpose around us is that we figured out how it works, we don't need the god hypothesis. Which is as stupid as a rebuttal can possibly be. Let's say John ate delicious teriyaki ribs at dinner.

Now look at what happens in the real world here : [John ate delicious teriyaki ribs], and ask the atheist how does he get to the existence of John? Whatever the answer might be, it would be really stupid of him to say he figured out the cooking recipe, and that he doesn't need John anymore. And if he didn't see John, he still saw the teriyaki ribs on the table before dinner, suddenly disappearing moments later.

Now, the existence of physical laws clearly warrant a lawgiver, this is the prima facie explanation that an honest person should go with. Is it wise to suspend judgement? Not at all. The prima facie explanation for the broken window was, recall, the existence of a burglar. No sane person would suspend taking action until he reaches some utopian epistemological certainty about his existence. If you react differently with regards to the god question, then you are, simply put, being fundamentally dishonest.

Going with the prima facie explanation is something we do systematically in empirical science, we went with the luminiferous aether hypothesis for a very long time. And it's not bad that we turned out to be wrong. What's really bad is to sit there and require some utopian certainty, when there are good, justifiable positions to endorse.

Damn, that's stupid.

[Nay_Sayer]

I suggest you go fuck yourself with a chainsaw.

After you, *Lady*,

I don't need peer reviewed papers regarding your child molesting prophet.

Noted, just don't molest history.

Just underage girls like Moohamed?

[The Valkyrie]

I suggest you go fuck yourself with a chainsaw.

After you, *Lady*,

I don't need peer reviewed papers regarding your child molesting prophet.

Noted, just don't molest history.

Nah.

I leave rhe fucking themselves to poor little boys who feel the need to push their religions onto others.

Facts, history, and religion are often at odds.

For instance, there's no denying that Mo was a child molester and that Islam was spread by the sword.

There's NO denying that "scientism" has eradicated smallpox and would have done the same with polio if religionists, in this case muslim fundamentalists gadn't been actively targeting aid wirkers in places like Oakistan, Afghanistan and other areas.

Remember the saying, science flies men to the moon, religion flies murderous cowards into buildings.

[R00tKiT]

For instance, there's no denying that Mo was a child molester and that Islam was spread by the sword.

If you can back up this groundbreaking historical insight, why don't you write a peer reviewed paper, and literally prove two billion people -who imitate his sleep position- wrong?
Aisha wasn't a child when the marriage is consummated. There you go, you seem more and more like an ignorant fool discussing stuff you can barely spell correctly. And look up the word anachronism.

There's NO denying that "scientism" has eradicated smallpox and would have done the same with polio if religionists, in this case muslim fundamentalists gadn't been actively targeting aid wirkers in places like Oakistan, Afghanistan and other areas.

Why mentioning muslim fundamentalists? You think Islam=fundamentalism? If so, why?

Science isn't equivalent to scientism, see, you can't have a nuanced opinion about anything. Leave these discussions to people who can actually handle heavy thinking.

Remember the saying, science flies men to the moon, religion flies murderous cowards into buildings.

My guess would be, you personally didn't fly to the moon, nor got any religion straight. At least I'm working on the latter.

[The Valkyrie]

Oh, did I make some typos?

Boo-fucking-hoo!

Why don't you write some peer-reviewed papers to prove that Islam is true?

Because all you have is a book of fables. The Arabian Nights has more credibility.

And we're really going to play the numbers game?

Okay, the majority of the world's population is in Asia or of Asian descent. Therefore being any other ethnicity is wrong.

Depends on your definition of "child" doesn't it?

Probably uses the same definition nambla uses...

[R00tKiT]

Because all you have is a book of fables.  The Arabian Nights has more credibility.

That's because you read neither. I asked you why do you infer what few fundamentalists do to all muslims.. no answer. Why the accusation of child molesting when there is the historical problem of anachronism, no answer;
Let's try this one; how many books did you read about Islam/Muhammad? 

And we're really going to play the numbers game?

Okay, the majority of the world's population is in Asia or of Asian descent.  Therefore being any other ethnicity is wrong.

I suggest you take a couple of islamophobia pills first, mentioning flying into buildings whenever Islam is brought up... pretty messed up for a civilised discussion;

Depends on your definition of "child" doesn't it?

Probably uses the same definition nambla uses...

It's surprising you didn't come up with one, and yet throw the child molesting accusation;

I don't know about your definition. Aisha was biologically mature when the marriage is consummated. The present day legal age of marriage is hardly the fine line between what is morally wrong and morally right ,

[The Grand Nudger]

Hair on the field..play ball. Thems god's rules.

[SometimesFactsAreUnpopular]

It's true that proofs need a starting point but such starting points are axioms that are so reasonable that they're even more logical than proofs are.

You can prove to yourself that you exist so it's untrue to say that you can't prove that anything exists.

"How can I be sure that I exist?" is not a question worth thinking about.

"How can I be sure that God exists?" is a silly question.

It's untrue that all propositions require further proofs.

It's irrational to require a proof for absolutely everything.

Irrational arguments are also circular.

Axiomatic 'arguments' are just another case of regressive question-begging or circularity.

Axioms are the answer but axiomatic arguments aren't.

Rational axioms are more fundamentally rational than rational arguments are.

Coherent axioms is rationality step 1.

Arguments/proofs is rationality step 2.

It is not the case that one should address the question of God's existence at all once you understand that the concept of God itself presupposes that all belief in the reality of such a God is irrational from the very outset.

The existence of physical laws do not warrant a lawgiver in the sense of a person or agent or supernatural being or intelligence.

Laws do not exist in any way that is separate from the animated stuff that they apply to.

Animated stuff S behaving in a certain way C following laws L are all identical. S = C = L = C = S. All the same thing.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It's surprising you didn't come up with one, and yet throw the child molesting accusation;

I don't know about your definition. Aisha was biologically mature when the marriage is consummated. The present day legal age of marriage is hardly the fine line between what is morally wrong and morally right ,

Mo lusted after her before he married her 

And no this statement is bull 

https://www.islamic-awareness.org/polemics/aishah
(Pro islamic source ) even admits this though engages in whataboutism and historical  relativism

https://www.answeringislam.info/Silas/childbrides.htm

https://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/...ophile.htm

https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/...escent.htm

Mo was a pedophile end of story, And while it doesn't change whether or not islam is true .It says a great deal about it's followers that they are so willing to bullshit on this .

---

It's true that proofs need a starting point but such starting points are axioms that are so reasonable that they're even more logical than proofs are.

You can prove to yourself that you exist so it's untrue to say that you can't prove that anything exists.

"How can I be sure that I exist?" is not a question worth thinking about.

"How can I be sure that God exists?" is a silly question.

It's untrue that all propositions require further proofs.

It's irrational to require a proof for absolutely everything.

Irrational arguments are also circular.

Axiomatic 'arguments' are just another case of regressive question-begging or circularity.

Axioms are the answer but axiomatic arguments aren't.

Rational axioms are more fundamentally rational than rational arguments are.

Coherent axioms is rationality step 1.

Arguments/proofs is rationality step 2.

It is not the case that one should address the question of God's existence at all once you understand that the concept of God itself presupposes that all belief in the reality of such a God is irrational from the very outset.

The existence of physical laws do not warrant a lawgiver in the sense of a person or agent or supernatural being or intelligence.

Laws do not exist in any way that is separate from the animated stuff that they apply to.

Animated stuff S behaving in a certain way C following laws L are all identical. S = C = L = C = S. All the same thing.

Truth

[The Architect Of Fate]

Hey there,

Screw proofs, look for good reasons to believe, that's what you do in your everyday life. All proofs need a starting point. Transcient, mortal people can play with the starting point all they like. And that's exactly why the existence of god question spilled much ink.

Among which are proofs 

There is no proof for actual existence whatsoever. Nobody can prove that anything exists. Any person seriously asking the big "god question" should start by trying with the more humble one "How can I be sure I exist?" to know that it's the wrong question to ask.

Yes because asking that question is meaningless and self defeating 

Answering the latter question is of course impractical, something we can hear about in philosophy seminars. Nobody seriously interrupts his everyday life to delve into deep cartesian doubts, and if one does so, he never acts on these doubts. We simply move on with our lives despite the epistemological vacuum filling our heads. We accept that we exist because there are good reasons to believe we do., and really bad, stupid reasons to think we don't. Here is the kicker : "How can I be sure God exists?" is equally impractical, equally meaningless.

Nope asking about god is a meaningful question sorry you don't get to smuggle that belief in 

Anyone who read about the Münchhausen trilemma should be aware of this : for any given logical proposition, any possible proof is a set of propositions itself, which require further proofs. We end up with three possible arguments, all of them are dead ends:

* Regressive arguments, in which each possible proof warrants further proof ad infinitum;

* Circular arguments, in which one begs the question and assumes the proposition he's trying to prove;

* Axiomatic arguments, in which one picks arbitrary premises to reach what one wants. And the cherrypicking of axioms is usually done in a backpedalling way to fit the result.

Yes we know you hate reason 

So how should one know God? One simply addresses the question the same way he addresses the more practical, realistic existence questions, as in "how come my windows are broken and my money taken out?" in which the atheist suddenly stops his epistemological concerns and declares, without the slightest hesitation, that an ill-intentioned burglar broke into his house ... Münchhausen trilemma my ass.

Nope two completely separate questions sorry  and how we reached that conclusion is an epistemic concern .

One then only needs good reasons to believe, nothing more. Any attempt to rise the epistemological requirements will backfire on the one who asks the question -on his very existence.

Yes we know you hate questioning things 

I don't need to spell out the usual reasons for belief in God here. The usual rebuttal to the innumerable signs of purpose around us is that we figured out how it works, we don't need the god hypothesis. Which is as stupid as a rebuttal can possibly be. Let's say John ate delicious teriyaki ribs at dinner.

Because we don't need that hypothesis because i's redundant as for for you theistic jargon that's all it is 

Now look at what happens in the real world here : [John ate delicious teriyaki ribs], and ask the atheist how does he get to the existence of John? 

Considering atheism is the non acceptance of god. Why would an atheist have an opinion on John or his ribs .

Whatever the answer might be, it would be really stupid of him to say he figured out the cooking recipe, and that he doesn't need John anymore. 

This isn't a valid comparison so false analogy 

Now, the existence of physical laws clearly warrant a lawgiver, 

Physical consisties are nothing like ribs or a recipe.And assertion 

this is the prima facie explanation that an honest person should go with. 

No it's not .It's a freaking assertion you just claim then try and conflate to something else 

Is it wise to suspend judgement? 

Yes it is on your claim absolutely

Not at all. 

Yes it is 

The prima facie explanation for the broken window was, recall, the existence of a burglar. 

Too bad these two things are not the same kind of claim .Good you are terrible at analogies 

No sane person would suspend taking action until he reaches some utopian epistemological certainty about his existence.

Too bad these two things are not the same kind of claim. Therefore we won't respond to them the same .

 If you react differently with regards to the god question, then you are, simply put, being fundamentally dishonest.

Nope just treating two different claim differently .Rod his paragraph is moronic 

Going with the prima facie explanation is something we do systematically in empirical science, we went with the luminiferous aether hypothesis for a very long time.

Yes too bad these aren't the same thing and using something we have demonstrated to be redundant as a explanation may not be a comparison you wanna go with 

 And it's not bad that we turned out to be wrong

No it was bad people refused to exercise caution and leaped beyond the evidence to magic fairy land 

What's really bad is to sit there and require some utopian certainty, 

Suspending belief till one has justifications is never bad and not doing so has a long and bloody history . I know you just want your idea to win without having to put the work in but that do don't hunt .

when there are good, justifiable positions to endorse.

Which your god belief is not .So this whole exercise of jerking off was pointless .You have not backed he idea god exists or any of your other claims so suspending judgement till you do is justified regardless of your lame conflation and bad comparisons .

---

God this guy is awful at analogies


No because a thief breaks into your house and steals your shit  does NOT justify the idea physical constants are laws that require magic law pixies .It's a dumb comparison 

No the fact we have an understanding how stuff work renders a explanation redundant is not the same as looking to a cook book to render John redundant .This analogy is question begging central and not even remotely the same. 

No the fact we respond to the concept of a thief .Does  not make belief in invisible magic law pixies 

His whole paragraph is grand testament to fallacies and a awe inspiring lack of perspective as green mile high leaps of logic .