/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17846769]

I hear this two reatrded arguments all the time:
"If God is real, prove me he exists."
"If God isn't real, prove me he doesn't exist."
And it makes me wonder, why is it easier for things to not exist, than to exist?
Did any philosopher tackle this question?
And one more question"
If we live in a world, where is hard for things to exist, does it mean there is a world where almost everything exists and is hard for something to not exist?
Pic is, what I imagine God looks like.

[Anonymous No.17846808]

You're having a manic fit. Find a doctor. Also this is /lit/, Not /x/.

Also also of course they have. Go google it. And lastly no. God is dead, i killed him. I killed him with my cock.

And lastly lastly. Nothingness philosophy

[Anonymous No.17846824]

pic related is what I imagine God is

[Anonymous No.17846842]

>>17846769
god would reveal itself to us if it wanted to. it is equally stupid to infallibly say it exists as it is to say it doesn't. just learn to be comfortable with not knowing certain things, it'll make life much easier on you.

[Anonymous No.17846873]

>>17846808
fuck off, you are a gay stupid nigger who likes to suck horse dick and I dont like you
>>17846824
so you wouldn't consider my pic ineffable?

[Anonymous No.17846895]

>>17846873
>so you wouldn't consider my pic ineffable?
It's literally a picture of a black hole with a giga chad in it, which God is greater than in terms of hierarchical being.

[Anonymous No.17846936]

>>17846769
>"If God is real, prove me he exists."
>"If God isn't real, prove me he doesn't exist."
Brainlets think you can't prove a negative, or that the burden of proof is shifted on the person making a positive claim, or on the person who made a claim first, and that they now are immune from having to provide proof for their claims. These are all fallacies. The burden of proof is on anybody making any sort of claim.

[Anonymous No.17846958]

>>17846895
Actually what you see is just God's shadow, like a cube is the shadow of a tesseract.
You don't see the entirety of his body like I do.
You can achieve this power by playing 4d chess and slowly increasing the level untill you fully understand 11d chess. From there you have to awaken your brain trough multiple dreaming exercises in which you try to imagine the 11 dimensions.

[Anonymous No.17846975]

>>17846958
Do this op i followed his advice and it cured my syphilis.

Also my legs grew back.

[Anonymous No.17847011]

>>17846842
Many religions say god has revealed himself, anon

[Anonymous No.17847012]

>>17846936
>The burden of proof is on anybody making any sort of claim.
Ok prove that "God is dead" then.

[Anonymous No.17847016]

>>17846936
I believe there exists a person who's a 1000 years old. Prove me wrong.
You can't it. You can't prove a null hypothesis. And you'd know that hadn't you dropped out of hs.

[Anonymous No.17847024]

>>17846769
>why is it easier for things to not exist, than to exist?
This question is more important than the question of God's existence or lack thereof, as it encompasses it. 'God exists' is a specific thing. The Big Bang is a specific event. Why is there something rather than nothing? is the Big Question of metaphysics. It often leads to showing that everything has a cause, then what caused the first thing, Egg or Chick first? It follows that there's one uncaused cause, an unmovable mover, some may want to call It God or the Monad.
This isn't the only explanation but it's the most common. A brainlet take was proposed by Russel, 'I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all'.

About the last question, we probably lack the capacity to imagine a world where almost everything must necessarily be true. We would need to know why things must exist in the first place. I'm a brainlet so I'll side with ol'grumpy Russel on this one.

[Anonymous No.17847037]

>>17847012
Sure when was the last time you saw him around?

[Anonymous No.17847054]

>>17847037
>I can't see it, therefore it does not exist
wow bravo

[Anonymous No.17847079]

>>17846936
>The burden of proof is on anybody making any sort of claim.
And that is the theists. All atheists do is tell theists "I don't believe you," and point out the flaws in all the insane drivel they spew.

[Anonymous No.17847084]

>>17847054
>the greatest creative force that ever existed or will exist just happens to be completely undetectable by anyone

[Anonymous No.17847090]

>>17846769
no philosopher would waste their time with such a fucking stupid quesiton

[Anonymous No.17847092]

>>17847054
Well i know my cock exists. And death exists. And god? I don't know if he ever existed. And neither do you. And so, There is no way to prove i did not fuck god to death.

[Anonymous No.17847098]

>>17847090
No no. They did. Nothingness philosophy is a thing . It's stupid but a thing. 2000+ years of human drunkenness' means allot of waisted time. Like op's existence.

[Anonymous No.17847106]

>>17847084
But God's power is seen all the time in his creation just as the triangle, the circle or the square is.

[Anonymous No.17847113]

>>17847092
So you gave up on proving "God is dead" and resorted to a fallacious argument from ignorance? I thought rationality rules!

[Anonymous No.17847118]

>>17847106
>I personally feel as though nothing can exist without an intelligent creator, therefore things existing is proof of the specific god I worship
nice circular logic bro

[Anonymous No.17847125]

>>17846808
>>17846769
Don't listen to this dismissive faggot, OP. Quality of your post withstanding, you are sane.

[Anonymous No.17847135]

>>17846769
in plato's wacky world of forms, yes: everything exists.

[Anonymous No.17847136]

>>17846769
jesus christ what the fuck is this post. Please, please just read and stop talking the gayest shit in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17847139]

>>17847118
>The burden of proof is on anybody making any sort of claim.

[Anonymous No.17847152]

>>17847139
Yes. Your claim is that God exists and that the universe is proof that he exists.

[Anonymous No.17847162]

>>17847152
How about you read the whole thread again ret*rd.
>Ok prove that "God is dead" then.

[Anonymous No.17847169]

The cosmological arguments for the necessary existence of God are to this day still unrefuted. Until somebody refutes it, the burden is on the atheistlets.

[Anonymous No.17847179]

>>17847162
>>Ok prove that "God is dead" then.
I didn't see that and I was responding only to this >>17847054
You're passively aggressively implying that God exists in some invisible way, conveniently ignoring that unlike say radiation or the wind he can't be detected in any other way either. You're an intellectual coward and a disingenuous little cunt like all of your kind.

[Anonymous No.17847183]

>>17847179
*didn't say that

[Anonymous No.17847184]

>>17847079
This is the most intellectually cowardly position you could possibly take. Read some actual philosophy of religion if you’re going to interact with theists on the subject.

[Anonymous No.17847203]

>>17847184
>has no argument
>just mindlessly parrots the insult I used
faggot

[Anonymous No.17847204]

>>17847179
By definition God is immaterial, of course he cannot be empirically identified. This fact alone does not disprove him just as one cannot prove the non existence of the triangle by claiming that he cannot see it.

[Anonymous No.17847215]

>>17847204
>Just trust me bro, he's real but he, like, doesn't physically exist in any way! *hits bong*

[Anonymous No.17847222]

>>17846769
This is how you persuade atheists of the existence of God:
>experience God
>become based due to the Presence of God
>atheist is awed by the majesty of your divinely inspired character
>atheist now believes in God

[Anonymous No.17847233]

>>17847204
>God is immaterial
That's one thing atheists would agree with you on.

[Anonymous No.17847244]

>>17847215
kek look who's being passive aggressive now. You know what I was implying there. By your logic, the triangle or any geometric shape cannot exist since we cannot empirically observe it.

[Anonymous No.17847257]

>>17847244
>since we cannot empirically observe it
There's...no way you're actually this retarded.

[Anonymous No.17847264]

>>17847244
>>17847257
kek he can't argue with you so he's trying to gaslight you now

[Anonymous No.17847271]

>>17847257
Like i first said mang. He's having a manic fit. Delusions are a totally different thing then philosophy. It's why most people don't actually read about it.

I know i didn't. That's why i just sited google and told him i fucked his imaginary friend to death. That's what you tell crazy people. He'll come back some other time and maybe have a great argument but right now? Crazyer then a degenerate in a bush

[Anonymous No.17847292]

>>17847257
>>17847264
Oh have you seen a perfect triangle or perfect circle by chance? Obviously I was referring to Mathematical Platonism(which most mathematicians subscribe to not nominalism)
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=47&areas_max=1&grain=coarse

Anyways, I find it funny how I'm forced to defend my arguments when the discussion started with the atheist trying to prove his position.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17847305]

>>17846769
>And it makes me wonder, why is it easier for things to not exist, than to exist?
Well, when there’s nothing and every purported bit of evidence has proven false, it’s pretty well been debunked rumor, myth and fabrication.

Sick of this theological question popping up so much.

[Anonymous No.17847307]

>>17846842
That's plain stupid.
>God exists for gorzillion years, creates all destroys it and then creates again. Is basically a timeless entity.

>Random human who won't live past 60. Yeah nah mate god should come to me and offer demonstration of his powers.

[Anonymous No.17847330]

>>17847012
I never made the claim that God is dead

>>17847016
>I believe there exists a person who's a 1000 years old. Prove me wrong.
You're the one making the claim there, the burden is on you to prove it. That's the point.
>You can't prove a null hypothesis. And you'd know that hadn't you dropped out of hs.
Do mean a negative claim? Nothing either of us said have anything to do with null hypotheses. You CAN prove a negative claim. In fact, if you couldn't prove a negative then you wouldn't be able to prove the claim that "you can't prove a negative", which is itself a negative claim. You would know this if you hadn't dropped out of hs.

>>17847079
>And that is the theists. All atheists do is tell theists "I don't believe you," and point out the flaws in all the insane drivel they spew.
It is very well that you don't believe the theists. There is a difference between saying that you don't believe something, and that they are wrong, and I have come across many atheists claiming that theists are wrong. This is a claim that requires evidence.

[Anonymous No.17847353]

>>17847037
Kek. Absolute stupid take.

>Can't see planet Kepler 22b without telescope. Therefore planet Kepler 22b doesn't exist.

>Haven't still found intelligent life form in universe. So life on other planets don't exist.

>No machine/device created to measure consciousness. No physical evidence to claim consciousness exist. Therefore consciousness is non-existent.

Go back to whatever hellhole you crawl from.

[Anonymous No.17847383]

>>17847222
B..b..Based

[Anonymous No.17847393]

>>17847353
K, sure god exists.
Feel better? No? Oh how surprising.

People have had this argument since man stopped climbing trees. And you and i are gunna argue about it now because you need it?

I don't. There's plenty of other people who care enough to argue with you. I'm here to laugh at you.

[Anonymous No.17847403]

>>17847292
There also isn't a good objection to the indispensability argument

[Anonymous No.17847409]

>>17846842
> God would reveal himself to us if he wanted to
He did.

[Anonymous No.17847414]

>>17847393
the atheist mind folks

[Anonymous No.17847431]

>>17847393
Holy shit you sound so insecure

[Anonymous No.17847438]

>>17847414
>>17847431
Sure.

[Anonymous No.17847449]

>sure

[Anonymous No.17847462]

>>17847393
I'm the anon you replied to. Look man no need to get so worked up. My intention was not to insult you. I was merely stating my arguments.

That being said, I don't think you have any retort so let me ask you this. Why would you believe something that has no sound reasoning? Why would you defend an undefendable position?

[Anonymous No.17847480]

>>17847449
>1559012656234.jpg
>>sure

[Anonymous No.17847515]

>>17846769
For something to exist is for it to display properties which can be detected or described, basically if it exists we should be able to figure out a way in which it does, but for something to not exist doesn't require anything. It's harder to prove something exists because you have to answer "why should I believe so?" whereas if something doesn't exist, it just doesn't end of story. There are some exceptions, like if something is commonly believed to exist and people are providing explanations and you may need to refute them, but that's exactly what happens in religious arguments. The person stating the existence has the burden of proof because they're affirming the topic, so they need to have reasons for why. Not believing is incredibly easy, which is why being a nihilist is for lazy gaywads.,

[Anonymous No.17847517]

>1559012656234.jpg
>>sure

[Anonymous No.17847528]

>>17847462
> Why would someone argue for no reason?
Why indeed anon. Why indeed.

[Anonymous No.17847546]

>988.jpg
>>1559012656234.jpg
>>>sure

[Anonymous No.17847582]

>>17847515
Exactly this. Finding God is not easy, never has been. We make use of what is available to us and try to make sense of Universe.

Meanwhile Atheist claim God don't exist but offer no other alternative to understand the universe.

[Anonymous No.17847707]

>>17847582
>Meanwhile Atheist claim God don't exist but offer no other alternative to understand the universe.
Mainly because realistic atheist don't want to make a claim on how the universe came into being if they're wrong.

[Anonymous No.17847775]

>>17846769
>And it makes me wonder, why is it easier for things to not exist, than to exist?
>Did any philosopher tackle this question?
Yes, read Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics. He does ask why is there something instead nothing since it's fundamental questioning in metaphysics, and no, I don't know what his answer is because I haven't read it.

[Anonymous No.17847778]

>>17847707
But scientists use inference for the best explanation all the time, for example, dark matter.

[Anonymous No.17847798]

>>17847775
Troll thread mate. Been one the whole time. I just couldn't prove it till the wojak posting.

[Anonymous No.17848453]

>>17847179
How do you know radiation or wind are not manifestations of god? Those things only exist as “radiation” or “wind” because humans defined them as such, but there’s no “proof” that those things are “radiation” and “wind” instead of god.

[Anonymous No.17848494]

>>17847778
But in this case there is no solution/answer which is the "best" or most likely explanation for how the universe came about

[Anonymous No.17848511]

>>17848453
>if we relabel X as god, then god exists!
checkmate atheists

[Anonymous No.17849298]

>>17846769
You have to be 18+ to post here.

[Anonymous No.17849474]

>>17846769
>And it makes me wonder, why is it easier for things to not exist, than to exist?
This is a rephrasing of
>why is there something instead of nothing?

>Did any philosopher tackle this question?
You can start with Russell (or with Hume) and then go along analytical philosophy

>If we live in a world, where is hard for things to exist, does it mean there is a world where almost everything exists and is hard for something to not exist?
???