The United States is an atheist country, and it always has been

The United States is an atheist country, and it always has been

For a while there, if you quoted a logical fallacy it meant you were an atheist, therefore ugly, therefore stupid. Woman logic. It's time for that shit to end and for the world to return to reason.

Atheists don't exist because I've never seen one.

The United States is an atheist country, and it always has been

WRONG

Everyone's an atheist now

Atheism just became mainstream

Nah, they don't exist. That's why I've never seen one.

Secular with freedom of religion

Sure you have. Atheism is just a lack of belief in God or gods

I dont believe you.

You're an atheist to the God(s) you don't believe in

and it always has been

huh? Nigger are you retarded?

The atheist women who got school prayer banned suffered death threats and was eventually murderers.

Secularism is a religion. It's a world view that explains Earth, humans, life etc witj biased science. It's a crypto anti Bible creation psy op.
Go back to India.

Secularism is a religion

Secularism is a political and social principle that advocates for the separation of religion and government, ensuring freedom of belief and equal treatment under the law for all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs

Cute little definition. When it's carried out it's no different than atheism. Look at the actual results. It's trash. The Founding Fathers wanted Christian denominations to get a long. They didn't envision some secular globalist country.

the separation of religion and government

freedom of belief

equal treatment under the law for all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs

this does not exist, never has existed, and never will exist
there is no government not driven by a (necessary immaterial and semi-organized) belief structure
self-proclaimed "secularists" created a frame that declared all forms of belief (except their own) to be subjective and immaterial, and nobody is buying it anymore
even the concept that any of the above ideas are a good thing worth striving for has no objective basis in material reality, so why should we accept it?

Cute little definition

Thanks. Have a nice day! Enjoy your freedom of religion or freedom from religion!

this does not exist

It does and if you feel you've been wronged then file a complaint.

so why should we accept it?

No one is busting down your door based in your religion nor is anyone keeping anything from you because of it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

The axiom the country is based on invokes at the very least a Creator meaning this was never an atheist country. If you remove a Creator which the founding fathers took to mean the Christian God, then you remove the foundational axiom this country was officially built on.

Wow no way. They really like to sneak it in everywhere.

which the founding fathers took to mean the Christian God

Not really

Jewish logos thread? Jewish logos thread!

Yes really. This isn't even a debatable point. The majority of the founding fathers were either Anglican, Presbyterian, or Congregationalist.

Yes really

No, not all founding fathers were Christians

The majority of the founding fathers

Exactly

It’s deist.

P1: The majority of the founding fathers were Christian.
P2: Christians believe in the Christian God as the creator.
C: The majority of the founding fathers that agreed upon the text of the Declaration of Independence invoked the Christian God in the axiom by which the country was founded on.

Is that better? Since you're so opposed to normative language? It's still not an atheist country just because a handful of them may have been deists.

invoked the Christian God

They were also refuting the Bible. Romans 13 says that kings are given authority to rule by God; the divine right of kings.

Ok for the sake of argument, I'll concede that your interpretation of Romans 13 is accurate and Christians are never justified in rebelling against their leaders. How does that go on to show that the US is an atheist country?

Well, the founders may have been Christians, but "freedom of religion" can also mean "freedom from religion," so the country absolutely isn't Christian.

P1: The majority of the founding fathers were Christian

Done and done

If the founding fathers wanted to make it a Christian founded nation then they would have said so. They didn't because that's one of the many types of reasons they broke off from over the pond.

the US is an atheist country?

It isn't, see

Uh huh, that’s why every single state in the union at the founding had in their constitutions that one must believe in god in order to hold public office.m

This

Clever

No, the freedom of religion was reaction to the king of england being the head of the church.

Hence why they felt it was important to bring that here while not enforcing religion on others

If you two are going to ignore my points I'm going to ignore you as well. The syllogism I presented here demonstrates the axiom by which the country was founded on invokes the Christian God. If you don't understand axiomatic logic, that's one thing, but try and engage with my argument.

The state constitutions and first immigration act would beg to differ.

If you two are going to ignore my points I'm going to ignore you as well

OK, have a nice day
How?

Also, you guys are moving the goal post from OP who said this is and always has been an atheist country. If I were to concede the point that this country is not Christian, you would still have to demonstrate that it is/always has been an atheist country which obviously is not the case.

Thank you for at least admitting you're ignoring my argument with your responses.

Also, you guys are moving the goal post from OP who said this is and always has been an atheist country

See

No problem. You assume your axiom is objective. It isn't. That's why I ignore it

The state constitutions required belief in god in order to hold public office. Decidedly the country was never ever atheistic. The first immigration act only allowed white europeans OF GOOD CHARACTER. Given the founders were religious, the states were religious and the people were religious, declaration of atheism is not of good character considering the morals of the culture were derived religiously.

In the Declaration of Independence, when it says "endowed by their Creator", is this atheistic?

I'm not assuming the axiom is objective though. I'm stating that the founding fathers began with this axiom in the formation of the country. My personal opinion on it doesn't matter.

All axioms are objective you dolt.

Ironically MAGAtards are the biggest opponents of atheism, yet their entire ideology is the opposite of Jesus message of “be nice to people and treat them how you wish to be treated”. MAGAtards are the most hateful rude people on earth.

Jesus message of “be nice to people…”

Why don’t you go ahead and quote scripture on that. Jesus whipped the shit out of people who were doing wrong.

The state constitutions required belief in god in order to hold public office

The claim that all state constitutions
require belief in God as a prerequisite
for holding public office is inaccurate
While some state constitutions did have
such requirements in the past, they have
since been struck down by the Supreme
Court, who ruled that religious tests for
public office violate the First
Amendment's establishment clause

Decidedly the country was never ever atheistic.

Never said it was

The first immigration act only allowed white europeans OF GOOD CHARACTER

True but says nothing about religion

is a fun way of saying you are and have always been an utterly jewed plantation, regardless of the 'skin color' the jews attributed to you in lieu of your European races, because it is easier to set you up against rach other that way.

In the Declaration of Independence, when it says "endowed by their Creator", is this atheistic?

You're conflating athiesm and secularism. There's a difference

I'm not assuming the axiom is objective though

You are or do you not understand axiomatic logic?
You're missing the point. Declaring something an axiom doesn't make it so. You dult

So, first of all, are able of having a comversation or debate without not only relying on gpt, but just copy pasting it? It does not matter if the court struck down those provisions; it matters was foundationally not atheistic.

Never said it was

That’s the entire point of this fucking thread.

Ironically MAGAtards are the biggest opponents of atheism

I voted Trump and Im an atheist

it matters was foundationally not atheistic.

Never said it was

That’s the entire point of this fucking thread

See

You're missing the point. Declaring something an axiom doesn't make it so. You dult

Then refute the axiomatic propositions in his syllogism.

Then refute the axiomatic propositions in his syllogism

See

No, not all founding fathers were Christians

And

If the founding fathers wanted to make it a Christian founded nation then they would have said so. They didn't because that's one of the many types of reasons they broke off from over the pond.

Hope that helps!

have own website

have own logo

still claim to not be a religion

Kek. This is as stupid as having a "non-Beer drinkers" club.
Who the fuck cares, you bunch of attention whores?

Good job asking ChatGPT to answer that anon for you, too bad you missed the point. The Supreme Court decided in the 1960s that religious tests for office were unconstitutional. So for nearly 200 years since its founding, meaning for the majority of the nation's history, states required a religious test to hold public office which means, yet again, this country was never atheistic which was the point OP made.

You're conflating athiesm and secularism. There's a difference

OP said the country is and has always been atheistic, this is the claim that's being refuted.

You are or do you not understand axiomatic logic?

I don't need to assume an axiom to be true to point out someone else is assuming that axiom to be true. Whether I think the axiom is objective has no bearing on whether or not the founding fathers believed it to be so in the Declaration of Independence.

Declaring something an axiom doesn't make it so. You dult

In picrel I am giving you the definition of an axiom.
From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

It doesn't matter whether this is objective or whether or not I believe it to be so. What matters is that the founding fathers clearly used it as the axiom by which they built the country upon.

You haven't refuted anything I said. It's obvious you haven't given this any serious thought and that you're relying on ChatGPT. I've explained this multiple times and if you still don't get the point I'm making after this response, you're an idiot.

You did not refute his propositions.

P1: The majority of the founding fathers were Christian.

Refute that.

P2: Christians believe in the Christian God as the creator.

Refute that.

If you cannot, then they are objectively true and serve as factual axioms that necessarily lead to the conclusion.

C: The majority of the founding fathers that agreed upon the text of the Declaration of Independence invoked the Christian God in the axiom by which the country was founded on.

this country was never atheistic

Never said it was

OP said the country is and has always been atheistic, this is the claim that's being refuted.

Yeah and I refuted it

I don't need to assume an axiom to be true

That's what you're doing though.

In picrel I am giving you the definition of an axiom

Yes. Doesn't change my answer and it doesn't make your argument an axiom

What matters is that the founding fathers clearly used it as the axiom

No, they didn't

Again

If the founding fathers wanted to make it a Christian founded nation then they would have said so. They didn't because that's one of the many types of reasons they broke off from over the pond.

You did not refute his propositions

I did. And he never actually proved his propositions either

I did

So, the majority of the founders were not christian and christians don’t believe in the christian god as the creator?

So, the majority of the founders were not christian

You need to lurk more or get better reading comprehension

Yeah and I refuted it

Your "refutation" is incorrect and ahistorical and you've been given multiple reasons for this which you failed again and again to answer to.

Yes. Doesn't change my answer and it doesn't make your argument an axiom

doesn't make your argument an axiom

Are you actually retarded? How can an argument be an axiom?

No, they didn't

One of the definitions of an axiom:

an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

We hold these truths to be self-evident

In what way did they not? This isn't a matter of debate, I'm just going off a definition.

I did. And he never actually proved his propositions either

Premise 1: The majority of the founding fathers were Christian, this is historical fact.
Premise 2: Christian believe in the Christian God as the creator. What else would Christians believe to be the creator if not the Christian God?

Wrong. You still have 6% more to go there, lisp boy.

If you're saying that my first premise "The majority of the founding fathers were Christian." is false, you are necessarily saying its negation "The majority of the founding fathers were not Christian." is true.

i will simultaneously invoke a board culture term and include a reddit culture term to deflect from being unable to substantiate logical argumentation.

Try again, niggerfaggot.

Your "refutation" is incorrect and ahistorical

It isn't

How can an argument be an axiom?

When you prove it as such and not claiming it as such.

One of the definitions of an axiom:

an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

See above

>We hold these truths to be self-evident

Yup. Key phrase is SELF-EVIDENT. To the self. Meaning it's God based on YOUR self. If it wasn't so then they would have specifically mention Christianity but they didn't did they?

Premise 1: The majority of the founding fathers were Christian

Your first premise defeats your argument. It doesn't say all does it? Nope.

Done and done

If you're saying that my first premise "The majority of the founding fathers were Christian." is false

You people are fucking stupid I swear. If they were ALL Christians then your argument would be an an actual axiom.

Holy fuck with you clowns

Have a nice day :^)

Done and done

I’ll indulge you one last time: why do ALL of the founders need to be christian in order for the conclusion that…

The majority of the founding fathers that agreed upon the text of the Declaration of Independence invoked the Christian God in the axiom by which the country was founded on.

The United States is a Christian Quaker country, every principle of the constitution and bill of rights came from Quakers of Pennsylvania colony, Pennsylvania colony was the original country which then expanded to the rest of the US, all history is a lie now to cover up that Pennsylvania whites started the most free and progressive territory in the world, all concepts of equal rights and freedom of religion came from them and they were the first place in the entire world to outlaw the concept of slavery, this history is covered up but it is the true origin of the US, they also militantly stamped out the Quaker ideology and renamed it so that people no longer practice it because it isn’t polarized enough

What you guys are confused by is Deism that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe. It is not Atheism.

why do ALL of the founders need to be christian

Because then the argument would have more weight to be an axiom and them.includong Christianity specifically in any document would seal it as such.

This country was founded as as Christian nation but was influenced by it.

It's that fucking simple

was

Wasn't*

So, you cannot refute the conclusion, it’s just not good enough for you. Just say that then, and stop pretending like you are logical.

No, the United States is a Christian country, because the Christian God is the only real one and Christ is King.
Atheism is the gayest and most retarded of all world religions, and only the most absolutely smooth brain midwits follow it.

So, you cannot refute the conclusion

Which is?

It isn't

You have to substantiate that it isn't with more than the phrase "it isn't".

When you prove it as such and not claiming it as such.

An argument is a set of premises and a conclusion. That isn't the same as an axiom which I've provided you the definition of since you're apparently too lazy to look it up yourself. You're just arguing on definitions which you're objectively wrong on.

Yup. Key phrase is SELF-EVIDENT. To the self. Meaning it's God based on YOUR self. If it wasn't so then they would have specifically mention Christianity but they didn't did they?

That's not what "self-evident" means in this context you idiot. It means the subsequent truths that follow it, are so fundamental, that you don't need to provide proof for it. And the majority of the people that came up with taht wording believed that creator was the Christian God, I don't need it to be a majority to make my case.

Because then the argument would have more weight to be an axiom

You don't understand what these terms mean even though I've presented you their definition.

includong Christianity specifically in any document would seal it as such.

You've been presented documents where this has been shown and you just move the goalpost, you're a bad faith idiot that has no idea what they're talking about.

Meant to say I don't need it to be all to make my case.

I am just going to refer you back to my previous statements.

So you have been arguing against his syllogism without ever having actually read his syllogism or my replies or his replies?You are one bad faith motherfucker.

i am not going to engage in argument when i lose

that means i win

Yeah, you’re not worth the air anymore.

Ok? You haven't made any serious counterargument and you struggle with definitions in your previous statements. I get you won't admit that's a concession on your part but I'll take it as one.

The only reason all of the freedom of religion stuff is in the Constitution is because back then the "different religions" were like Anglican vs Presbyterian vs Quakers. Even Deism has much more in common with Christianity than it does with atheism or any other religion.
If the Founding Fathers had known that eventually there would be cringelord atheists and pagan LARPers and satanists and muslims and trannies running around claiming that they are supposed to have equal rights and status as Christians, they never would have included that stuff.

without ever having actually read his syllogism

I have

>i am not going to engage in circular arguments

Ftfy

You haven't made any serious counterargument

Last time. And I'll make it real simple.

If founding fathers wanted to attribute the word God to the Christian God then they would have.

It's literally as simple as that

I have

Then why the fuck did you ask what the conclusion is?

Then why the fuck did you ask what the conclusion is?

To see what strawman you'd make of it

Okay, let’s play. Make that into a syllogism.

They obviously did. The terms "Creator" and "Supreme Judge" in the Declaration of Independence, to stick to the same example we've been using, were obviously intended to point to the referent of the Christian God.

To see what strawman you'd make of it

I made the argument and I demonstrated you don't understand it and are unable to refute it. I don't think the other anon is strawmanning my position.

K

They obviously did

No. They "obviously" didn't and you're only saying that from a place of bias because you are Christian. It's that simple

I demonstrated you don't understand it

You didn't. You demonstrate you have a preferred bias. That's all

There are no atheists in america, but leftist faggots who believe in weird myths.

Apparently this is due to the fact that in school there is no normal physics that would give a holistic structure of the universe and there is no biology that would similarly give an understanding from the simplest to the structure of the cells that make up all living things.

Here's John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United

If only you were there to set him straight because he as one of the founding fathers disagrees with you.
Source: founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208

you're only saying that from a place of bias because you are Christian.

My personal beliefs don't matter here. That's an ad hominem. I'm specifically citing the beliefs of the founders. There's no bias there. A Buddhist would be able to make the same exact argument I'm making.

You are still refusing to concede to the conclusion of his syllogism. Either refute the conclusion by refuting the propositions, or you are just wrong and cannot demonstrate that the founders were not indicating the christian god in the declaration.

America is DEIST country.

That's kind of bullshit because Christards deny scientific discoveries in a way that Deists do not. But the inspiring principle of a God is certainly a massive connection. For some reason atheist faggots are very susceptible to dogmatic beliefs as long as they are technically secular.

Again

This country wasn't founded as as Christian nation but was influenced by it.

I don't care what letters these guys wrote each other. I care what's in the actual documents

My personal beliefs don't matter here

I don't believe you

That's an ad hominem

It isn't

You are still refusing to concede to the conclusion of his syllogism

Which is?

America was founded on Deism. Period.

Ok

Nah bro

The actual documents themselves prove my point, a letter like the one Adams wrote to Jefferson that I cited, further supports my point but my point can be made without it, which it has.

I don't believe you

Well you confused what the definition of an axiom and an argument were so frankly, what you believe or not doesn't matter unless you can actually demonstrate it.

Here's the definition of an Ad hominem from Merriam-Webster:
marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
You're saying the point I'm making is from a place of bias because I am a Christian. In other words, you're attacking my character rather than answering the contentions I'm making. I know you struggle with basics like definition, but it's not hard. Like I said, a Buddhist, a Hindu, an atheist, anyone can make this argument. Christian or not.

Which is?

You're retarded.
My bad, wrong conclusion, meant this:
The majority of the founding fathers that agreed upon the text of the Declaration of Independence invoked the Christian God in the axiom by which the country was founded on.

Thomas Jefferson thought the supernatural bullshit in Kikestianity was Jewish fairytales but that it contained useful lessons. Hence the Jefferson Bible. A disproportionate amount of the most prominent founding fathers were Deists NOT Christians in a time where Christianity was nearly ubiquitous. They went out of their way to be against the grain in a time where it could have resulted in persecution.

The actual documents themselves prove my point

They don't. No where doesn't it make special mention to Christianity

Well you confused what the definition of an axiom and an argument were

Sure didn't

Here's the definition of an Ad hominem

I never avoided your argument by making a personal attack on you

>Which is?

You're retarded.

You're not the other anon

The majority of the founding fathers that agreed upon the text of the Declaration of Independence invoked the Christian God

In their personal feelings and God to them is the Christian God but to all of them. So when God is mentioned it's self-evident to the reader that defines God..

Why is this hard to understand?

What a retarded point. Tell me which founding fathers were deists.

They don't. No where doesn't it make special mention to Christianity

It goes without saying that when a group of Christians speak about a Creator or Supreme Judge, they are referring to the God of the Bible. They don't have to explicitly state it.

Sure didn't

You're a liar. You absolutely confused the definition of axiom and argument here: >I never avoided your argument by making a personal attack on you
You're lying here again. You said

you're only saying that from a place of bias because you are Christian. It's that simple

That was here: >You're not the other anon
It's MY argument he's referencing dipshit.

when God is mentioned it's self-evident to the reader that defines God.

I already explained to you this isn't what the term "self-evident" means in that context.

Why is this hard to understand?

Maybe because you're retarded, a liar, and can't construct a counterargument?

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin were all Deists. It's argued that George Washington was as well. It's argued that George Washington as well because he was very religiously tolerant but other than him being baptized as a child there's not much about his actual religious beliefs. A lot of the so-called Christian founding fathers were just born into a Christian culture. The Deist ones had to come to their beliefs themselves. I think that says something more strongly about what they actually believe. One is a cognizant choice and the other is just a default.

Let me just concede to you the point that they were deists for the sake of argument and that there's nothing fallacious about your line of reasoning. How is that a refutation to any of the points I've made. Go back to earlier in the thread where I made a very simple to follow syllogism and try and argue with that. Even if I conceded your point, it has nothing to do with the topic.

It goes without saying that when a group of Christians

Again, the whole group isn't Christian

they are referring to the God of the Bible. They don't have to explicitly state it.

Again, see

In their personal feelings and God to them is the Christian God but to all of them. So when God is mentioned it's self-evident to the reader that defines God.

You're a liar

Nope.

You're lying here again

Nope

>you're only saying that from a place of bias because you are Christian. It's that simple

That's not a personal attack and even if it was it still addresses the argument. An ad hom would be me replying with calling you a nigger faggot and leaving it at that. That's an ad hom

I already explained to you this isn't what the term "self-evident" means in that context.

I don't believe you

Maybe because you're retarded, a liar, and can't construct a counterargument?

Sounds like a perosnal problem for you

Again, the whole group isn't Christian

That the whole group needs to be Christian to make my case is some arbitrary standard you set up so I can disregard this criticism.

That's not a personal attack

If dismissing my argument because of my character isn't an ad hominem, nothing is. If you called me a nigger faggot while you addressed my argument, that would not be an ad hominem.

I don't believe you

It doesn't matter what you believe, that's what it means.

Sounds like a perosnal problem for you

That you're a retarded liar that can't construct an argument and not only fails to understand basic logic and linguistics isn't a problem for me.

So you think it had nothing to do with the rise of science and reason? Furthermore, if they had strong Christian convictions themselves that literally said those with false beliefs are going to hell what incentive would there be for religious tolerance? Religious tolerance is not and has never been baked into Christianity. Christianity is brought by the sword according to Jesus himself.

So you think it had nothing to do with the rise of science and reason?

What had nothing to do with the rise of science and reason?

what incentive would there be for religious tolerance?

They didn't like the religious intolerance in the countries they came from and wanted to establish a country that was different.

Religious tolerance is not and has never been baked into Christianity

That's debatable

Christianity is brought by the sword according to Jesus himself.

That's Islam.

"Think not that I came to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34)

That the whole group needs to be Christian to make my case is some arbitrary standard you set

It isn't it demonstrates the subjective nature to which a self-evident God is

If dismissing my argument because of my character isn't an ad hominem

I didn't dismiss your argument, I added to mine which is still addressing yours

It doesn't matter what you believe

Not to you. But to make me believe yoir argument it does. And I don't believe you have a valid argument

That you're a retarded liar that can't construct an argument and not only fails to understand basic logic and linguistics isn't a problem for me.

Hey man I'm off work in 15 min and then going to dinner with my wife. If you have anything else to add beyond hurt feelings then let's hear it

How do you explain the literal Treaty of Tripoli. Were they just Jewing the Arabs?

Treaty of Tripoli(1796)

Hebrews 4:12 says "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Does that mean I can pick up a Bible and slice someone in half with it? Or maybe Jesus meant something different there?

It isn't it demonstrates the subjective nature to which a self-evident God is

For at least the third time, that's not what self-evident means in this context.

I didn't dismiss your argument, I added to mine which is still addressing yours

You said:

you're only saying that from a place of bias because you are Christian. It's that simple

That is a dismissal of my argument on the grounds that I am a Christian.

Not to you. But to make me believe yoir argument it does. And I don't believe you have a valid argument

You've demonstrated multiple times that you can't even comprehend definitions that are presented to you.

Hey man I'm off work in 15 min and then going to dinner with my wife. If you have anything else to add beyond hurt feelings then let's hear it

My feelings aren't hurt because you have poor reading comprehension and don't understand basic linguistics and logic.

I'll only get into the Treaty of Tripoli if you acknowledge this quote from a letter John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United

The United States doesn't care if you're atheist. You don't want it to start caring too much.

that's not what self-evident means in this context.

I don't believe you

That is a dismissal of my argument on the grounds that I am a Christian.

While also addressing the argument at the same time

You've demonstrated multiple times that you can't even comprehend definitions that are presented to you.

I don't believe you

My feelings aren't hurt

Cool, have a good night then :^)

You can't impeach binding law with a nonbinding opinion. If that was intention maybe he shouldn't have written a law directly contradictory to it.

You realize in terms of both law and contract parole evidence is inadmissible when the meaning itself is clear?

I don't believe you

That's not an argument

While also addressing the argument at the same time

You haven't done so in any meaningful way

Cool, have a good night then :^)

You too! Try reading a book some time! You might learn a thing or two!

You can't impeach binding law with a nonbinding opinion. If that was intention maybe he shouldn't have written a law directly contradictory to it.

So context does or doesn't matter? Because you're saying both here.

you're a faggot op, and always has been

t. your parents

Gonna have to agree to disagree.

Dinner time! Feel free to have the last word. I won't read it

My bad dude, forgot to tag you in this:

You can't impeach binding law with a nonbinding opinion. If that was intention maybe he shouldn't have written a law directly contradictory to it.

So context does or doesn't matter? Because you're saying both here.

its true

Context matters overall but you can't say the Treaty of Tripoli is invalid based on parole evidence. Treaty of Tripoli itself is context for the nation's founding and as binding law it's a stronger piece of evidence.

Revisionist history.
43 out of 46 of the signers of the declaration of independence were Christian.
9 out of the 13 colonies forced politicians to swear an oath to Jesus Christ to become politicians this was codified under each state's legislature.
Until 1989, the USA was 95% Christian.

So if context matters, what is the context behind Adams writing that letter to Jefferson? Was he just getting up there and senile? Or?

There are laws that were part of the nations founding such as state constitutions that would also serve as a piece of evidence for my side. So maybe the position is more nuanced than you're trying to make it out to be and simply piling on evidences on either side isn't the way to reach a conclusion on this.

atheists are the most insufferable people on the planet.

Just a minor point, there were 56 signers and I think at least 50 of them were Christian of some stripe, kinda hard to ascertain exactly where some of them were.

atheism is jewry, just destroying the idols of it's pagan enemies as per usual

Some context is more relevant than others.

If some founders were Christian and some were Deists then you can't say "oh the founding fathers were Christian."

Okay I'm curious. Can you explain this?

Can you provide a standard that isn't arbitrary? By the way, most founders were Christian, the way you phrase it makes it seem like it's about an even mix, it's not. Not by a long shot.

be founding fathers of a representative government

sign off on a founding document

said document mentions a Creator or a Supreme Judge

vast majority are Christian

a couple are maybe deists or at the least not as Christian

therefore Christianity has nothing to do with the founding of the nation

Not trying to strawman you here, so if you want to clean up the argument, go for it, but that's a lot weaker than the syllogism I provided earlier.

Codified law vs a letter. Objective standard. That's why Treaty of Tripoli is stronger evidence than his statements and Treaty of Tripoli is 100% consistent with the constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The first amendment itself contradicts the idea of America being a Christian nation.

It's so boring dude.

Maryland Constitution in 1776:

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty

From Delaware's Constitution in 1776:

Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit: do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.

From Massachusetts Constitution in 1780:

The Governor shall be chosen annually: And no person shall be eligible to this office... unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

So there's a few examples. Do we keep going down this path and see who can pile on the most evidences to their side? I can reconcile the Treaty of Tripoli to my position, can you do the same with these parts of different state constitutions? It's not just that Adams wrote one thing in a letter once (also you're ignoring the Declaration of Independence again like other people that have responded to me)

So that would be a good argument for those states but not the nation as a whole. They are probably repealed anyway or invalidated by the Constitution. Those literally predate the Constitution as well.

My nigger is still battling against the bad faith horseshit. Cheers. Not one step back. Never let up even if i can’t stand it enough to continue.

You're bad faith, nigger. If it's a Christian country why didn't they just say so? It's same as Christfaggots believing the Bible. If it's true why doesn't God just make it clear to everyone. You Christfaggots love reading in shit that doesn't exist. Why would Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin willingly sign off on Christian nation if they were Deists?

That was repealed in the 1960s, which wasn't until almost 200 years later. So it has nothing to do with the people that founded the nation, they were long dead. Thanks for showing that you haven't read the rest of the points I've made in this thread with that.

Meanwhile, the Treaty of Tripoli expired when the US and Tripoli signed a new treaty in 1805 that excluded the bit that said the US wasn't a Christian nation. I didn't even care to bring that up as a point until you brought up the repeal of the ones I mentioned. And the ones I mentioned came after the US Constitution.

So again, do we keep piling evidences on one side against the other or can you argue from any actual principled position. I'm gonna hit the gym so I'll respond on my phone.

Ah, lol, so we’re back to an hour or two ago of you and your ilk not contesting the syllogism anon presented.

based

Other statements have been made here, faggot. You have to back up every bullshit statement.

Okay, then contest the syllogism…

Do you even understand what standing is? Just because it wasn't invalidated until 1960 doesn't mean it wasn't contradictory from the start.

they invoked the Christian God Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and was a Deist. So I guess he invoked a Deist God?

Proposition 1, that the majority of the founders were christian
Proposition 2, Christians believe that that christian god is the creator.

Can you refute either of these two propositions?

I'm the same anon, you're pretending like these laws didn't matter? Or? Can I toss out the original Treaty of Tripoli for no reason too? Or nah?

Yes Jefferson wrote it alone with no input from anyone else and these guys risked their lives by signing on to something they didn't agree with.

Proposition 1, that the majority of the founders were christian

Proposition 2, Christians believe that that christian god is the creator.

Where is the syllogism? You need a major and minor premise. These are factors at best.

What do you mean "the original?" A draft?

Nigger, you are dumb as a block of wood.

Nice argument.

0 founding fathers were atheist.

20 pbtid

The syllogism comes in the conclusion… with these two propositions, it necessitates the conclusion that anon stated that

The majority of the founding fathers that agreed upon the text of the Declaration of Independence invoked the Christian God in the axiom by which the country was founded on.

Let’s go by your reduction.

You need a major and minor premise

P1 is major, p2 is minor, and leads to the conclusion.

What God did they mean then?

Not an Atheist, retard.

It's an observation. Not and argument.

Just told you Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and he literally wrote it.

Is soccer a Christian sport?

I disagree. I don't think your conclusion logically follows. What was the third factor that you literally dropped from your argument? Is that irrelevant now?

So, a christian believing in the christian god and christian salvation through jesus is not christian because post-hoc analysis says christians are not christians bc they question the idea of a non-interfering deity?

So, as long as we call them “deists”, then they are not christian, because we can use words and semantics to deconstruct logical arguments?

So, which God did he mean?

Then fucking contest the syllogism. Which proposition do you contest? That the majority of the founders were christians? That christian beleive that the christian god is the creator? What exaxtly do you contest?

Why are yoy discussing a document you don't know the history of? The first Barbary War occurs after the first Treaty of Tripoli which includes the bit about America not being a Christian nation. Then they got back together in 1805 and renegotiated and in the new treaty they left out the bit about America not being a Christian nation.

J-just! Okay?! Just not the Christian one alright?!

Why doesn't it follow? Because you said so? That's not a valid critique.

The premises can be true but the conclusion drawn from can still be invalid.

all things need a cause

the universe needs a cause

therefore the Christian God is the creator of the Universe

This is an example of an invalid syllogism.

Leaving something out doesn't invalidate previous language. That's not evidence one way or the other. Did it explicitly state that it is a Christian nation in the new one?

Arguably a Deist God. Could also be a God generally that's not any specific God. If it were a Christian God there's no evidence of it.

Why are you avoiding addressing it again?

So it's important that it was there the first time around because Americans really wanted to get the word out that it's not a Christian country in some random treaty to some random Muslim country decades after its independence is a valid justification but then excluding it later is totally meaningless just like state constitutions and other laws/references to either the Christian God or Christianity?

And yet, you have not and cannot prove an invalid sylogism from the anonProve that this conclusion does not follow. Prove it using logic. You cannot disprove the propositions, and the the propositions necessarily require the conclusion. Prove that it does not.

Technically all atheists should be agnostics since it is not for certain god doesnt exist.

Your premises don't establish that America a Christian nation. It's not a valid syllogism. Is soccer a Christian sport because Christians came up with it? I don't think there's anything inherently Christian about it in practice.

Don’t challenge their religion, anon. God does not exist. Notice how they cannot substantiate one over the other?

athiest

No, it's secular. The Government should not be imposing religious beliefs or lack of religious belief onto the people. It should be up to individuals to choose what belief system suits them best.
FREEDOM

So you just get to choose any conclusion you want. Define a Christian nation. If you define a Christian nation as "a nation created by a majority Christian cast" then maybe you'd be right but the entire argument would basically be circular. If you define it is "a nation where people must live by Christian morals and standards" then I think the first amendment blatantly contradicts that.

Atheist and agnostic are technically not contradictory because one is about belief and the other is about knowledge. Virtually everyone is an agnostic because most religions believe but don't know either.

can ssome based pro white christians please come put these antichrist shills in their place?

x.com/i/spaces/1BdGYqvqLbEGX

Either disprove the propositions, or disprove that the proposition necessarily lead the the conclusion posited. And if not, shove it up your ass and just admit that you merely argue from your cuck feelings of degeneracy.

A deist God.

You don't even understand the words you're using. Deism is the belief in the same creator God as Christianity, with the difference being our access to knowledge about said God, and his involvement in our lives. It's not a disbelief in God in any way. It's not secularist in any way. It's certainly not atheist. Your own argument defeats your argument. You are just so dumb. It's unbelievable.

My ancestors that arrived in North America during the early 1600's came here for religious freedom. They were Puritans and lived in a Puritanical community. My ancestor who I could trace way back to that time had something like 15 to 20 children.

I wonder how they lost their way and where I would be today if I were raised in a Puritan community. I mean, I think we already live in a Puritanical society, there's just no "having a lot of children after marriage" thing going on.

That's not at all my conclusion. Go ahead and read the conclusion I wrote again and include it in your response.

What is the conclusion? That America is a Christian nation? You have to define what a Christian nation is. If you define a Christian nation as a nation created by Christians then you could be right but it would be meaningless because that wouldn't mean anything other than that's the majority who created it. So what? I would define a Christian nation as a nation wherein the people are compelled to live by Christian morals and standards and/or where it's explicitly foundational to the law. America does not fit the latter definition.

It’s a semantic game, don’t you see? If they can call them deists, then they are not christians, and then they can use semantics to argue against christianity. These are not jews. They are reddit atheists that have embedded themselves in the last 10 years.

Just tell me and stop being a fucking cunt. You didn't even make a conclusion. You linked me to three "propositions," One of which was outright false.

This, motherfucker. This syllogism.

Which one?

It doesn't follow because you can't prove they weren't simply speaking about God generally. The man who actually wrote the words was a Deist.

Disprove or challenge the syllogism dorectly, faggot. You keep hiding behind the idea that deists are not christian. Approach the syllogism that anon presented,

The majority of the founding fathers that agreed upon the text of the Declaration of Independence invoked the Christian God in the axiom by which the country was founded on.

I'm the dick because I'm getting sick of repeating the same thing over and over because you can't bother to either read or ctrl+f and you ask me to give you history lessons?

True. But, I also think there something actually wrong with atheists brains. It's like they just absolutely cannot Intuit context, and are completely devoid of pattern recognition.

Okay I misread the third statement as a proposition, however, it still doesn't follow. If they meant a Christian God why wouldn't they just say it outright?

Probably because given the context of the time they live in, they probably thought most any reader would be able to pick up on that.

They didn't say it wasn't.

Probably isn't good enough especially when the writer himself was a Deist.

But they didn't say it was.

If you want to understand it, it is kind of terrifying. The adversary is the antithesis to logic and truth. It only exists as a corrupting and parasitic force. And i imagine you already know the translation of adversary. It is parasitic and antagonistic. Truth is like poison to the anti. No shit, pray for the lost and hope.

Council full of mostly Christian and a few Deists.

Write a founding document that recognizes and references God several times.

Atheist: "Is this a secular secular nation?"

Atheists worship homosexuals, they celebrate homosexual holidays, play homosexual games, listen to homosexual music, attend homosexual colleges, let homosexuals read to their children, donate millions to homosexual causes.

Well I'm pretty sure I said I was a Deist.

They didn't envision it would be possible for someone as stupid as you to read it one day. They didn't know they would have to write down a detailed synopsis about which God the room full of Christians were referencing.

So you'd say fuck it at the time and sign your name on what is essentially a declaration of war against the most powerful empire in the world where your army was mostly a ragtag bunch of farmers where you were putting your neck on the line for something you don't even believe in? And that's much easier for you to think happened than a Christian majority group at a time when people were a lot more religious were talking about God when they said Creator or Supreme Judge?

You're as dumb as an atheist.

Thomas Jefferson the guy who wrote it

literally believes in Deism just as I do

didn't think people would interpret shit the same way he does

Uuummmm. Deist sweaty!

You're retarded if you interpret the constitution the same way as the guy who wrote it

And on the other hand if the majority are of the drafters were Christian it wouldn't matter because ambiguities are interpreted AGAINST the drafter. So if you are trying to bind non-Christians you have to hold ambiguities in their favor since they are bound by a document they did not draft.

Learn the rules of levity in statutory law and ambiguity in contract law. Since the language is ambiguous anyone who challenges it gets to invoke an ambiguous interpretation.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Nature and of Nature's God

nope.

I can't believe this thread is still going

In their personal feelings and God to them is the Christian God but to all of them. So when God is mentioned it's self-evident to the reader that defines God

Lurk more

if i call it deism then it is not christianity

He was literally a Deist. Deism is not Christianity. Deism is a belief that God expresses himself in nature through reason. Christianity contradicts reason.

christianity says there is a god

christianinity says there is salvation

christianity says that truth is revealed

christianity says that there is universal truth that is revealed

deism says that the universe reveals truth

This is opposed to christianity?

Dude chill, get off Reddit, and crack open a book lol. Christianity does not contradict reason.

Christianity does not contradict reason

The idea that having an innocent man die for your mistakes is rather unreasonable to me.

According to an old book against which there have been dozens of competing books with equally (in)valid claims.

Have you read the Bible? Honest question, not trying to be a dick. It's totally cool if you haven't and I'd be able to explain Christ's sacrifice on the cross if you'd like. I just want to understand where you're at in terms of what you understand about Christianiry.

But wait, we were talking about deism. As to what you said, desim says that the universe reveals universal truth. Christianity says that there is universal truth. How do these stand opposed to each other?

It was founded by Freemasons on masonic/hermetic principles, so that free White men could find the divine spark within themselves and have the freedom to pursue it without the church breathing down their necks and prosecuting them for heresy and whatnot.

Because you're saying that that's already been revealed in a book in black and white and I don't think the evidence supports that.

Have you read the Bible?

Yup. Was a Christian for the first half of my life.

I'd be able to explain Christ's sacrifice on the cross if you'd like.

No need. I still see Christ as a good allegory of man over coming ego.

I just want to understand where you're at in terms of what you understand about Christianiry.

A lot more than you realize

I think God wants each man to discover in his own interpretation of reality rather than a dogmatic conclusory belief system.

So your interpretation is your own proprietary interpretation that you came up with? Got it

I'm a presuppositionalist so I'd have to say yes, you need a "divine axiom" for the universe as a whole. I'd say God, specifically the Triune Christian God, is the necessary precondition for the universe, reality, whatever you wanna call it.

I don't see them as logically necessary in a purely materialistic world but since I believe in divine I believe empathy should overcome a pure focus on evolutionary success. Ultimately, I still think evolutionary success is important, however. I believe in reincarnation and pursuit of Nirvana more closely than I believe in a Christian heaven. I don't think the beings in this world deserve heaven in one lifetime. I think we at best have to work towards it. Furthermore, I'm not even sure if heaven or perfection are possible but that may just be the limits of my perception. A just God could not send any of the beings in this world either to heaven or to hell.

neccessary divine axiom?

First you to define "divine" and prove it exist and isn't a nebulous and subjective term (it is) before slapping axiom at the end.

So your interpretation is your own proprietary interpretation that you came up with? Got it

More or less. Just like your interpretation of "God" is subjective and one your borrowed from someone else as did they and so forth and so on

But, you agreed that the divine is logically necessary.

For morality to be logical in this world I would agree that God or supernatural inspiration is necessary because there are times when logic directly contradicts morality in this world.

As if your demonic ass compels any answer.

Then what about alignment with universal order?

However, it's possible that that could simply be an evolutionary failing on my part but I believe otherwise due to other factors.

So, how do you define "divine" and how do you prove it ls mote than your personal metaphysical nonsense?

Proprietary and subjective mean two different things. If you weren't so in your fee fees, you wouldn't take honest questions as jabs.

I don't think my "interpretation of God" is subjective though. That doesn't make sense with my paradigm.

Almost as if we live in a fallen world that doesn't act in accordance to some divine will that we know in our hearts should be the way things are.

Positive/negative energy are both one in the divine. If you ever get the time, you should read the book of Sitra Achra. The true nature of reality is beyond human perception of good and evil.

I'm ultimately a determinist. I think God has weaved this story for us. I think God may simply make our faults as logical justifications for imperfect results but without imperfection there is no beauty. You can't understand good without bad.

Proprietary and subjective mean two different things

Cool. I acknowledge my views on Christianity are subjective.

If you weren't so in your fee fees, you wouldn't take honest questions as jabs.

I didn't....? Are you protecting? Lol

I don't think my "interpretation of God" is subjective though

I don't think

I

You're statement really demonstrates it is.

That doesn't make sense with my paradigm.

my paradigm.

my

And again

So, why not align with historical and cultural custums, and let the cards fall where they may?

Because I think God has given me my own perception which points to another path being superior.

If you thing you are greater than god, do you really think god is the one who is whispering in your ear?

Atheists use atomic symbol

Ironic since quantum theory is as full of supposition and presumption as theological dogma.

I think God inspires me. Of course I'm not above God.

Atheists think they are above God and I think the poor representation of God that Christianity presents gives them justification.

So, you think it is justified to think you are greater than god?

by Atheist, do you mean you don't believe in the jewish god, but in Odin?

But if my paradigm is objectively true, it's not subjective.
If I said I think or in my paradigm of math for all numbers x, x squared is either greater than or equal to 0, this wouldn't be ssubjective. Seriously dude take the time to take a class on this stuff or watch some YouTube videos or something.

the only real one

Wow lucky you, you were born in a time and place that worships the "only real God™"

But if my paradigm is objectively true

It isn't

No, but given their misinformed position, I could see how they could reach that erroneous conclusion.

Well you challenging my beliefs with an "isn't" after I saw you unable to understand what an axiom doesn't necessarily inspire doubt in me.

“Their”?

Atheists. I'm a Deist.

Well you challenging my beliefs with an "isn't"

Because it's true. Go-ahead and give your best argument for your personal feelings

you unable to understand what an axiom doesn't necessarily inspire doubt in me.

You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions

give your best argument for your personal feelings

Wow geez really? What an honor to present to you my argument for God after you've been such a disingenuous liar the entire time we've had an exchange and ask me in a disingenuous way. I'm such a lucky guy.

You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions

This is something you demonstrated.

Logically, you can either be a theist or an agnostic. And agnosticm fails when presented with such things as godel et al.

you've been such a disingenuous liar

I haven't

So are you going make an argument for your "God" or whatever?

reminder that there was always more monotheists and pagan polytheists than any amount of atheists involved in the formation of America.

atheism is one of the biggest jewish lies ever

atheism is the lack of belief

youtube.com/watch?v=YAgRBq2jnz4

You can be an agnostic theist. You can believe in God without knowing God exists.

atheism is the lack of belief

In God or gods.

One can also be an agnostic atheist as well

I would like to hear this logic. Because if all of logic and mathematics necessitates the divine, and that it all requires the divine, how can one accept god but not know god?

Sheeeeeeeeeit negro you bringin up the Incompleteness Theorems n sheeeit?

Yeah nigger, godel comes into this.

Because you might not accept that that statement is true.

Reading Godel helped me form my arguments for God. I honestly don't get why he didn't use the Incompleteness Theorems to formulate a proof for God. I think they would have been much stronger than his ontological proof.

Even assuming that mathematics necessitates God someone could wrongly believe that that is false.

Because if all of logic and mathematics necessitates the divine

How exactly? What logic and math exactly?

and that it all requires the divine

This is like saying a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. You're not actually defining the divine/woman

We’ve got 20 replies yet. If logic can’t cannot prove itself, and can be deconstructed into absurdity, and yet logic still exists….what sustains it?

Godel proved that the thought/desire to know "God" was a requirement to advance science/mathematics

and yet logic still exists….what sustains it?

The merits that determines the concepts as logical

I have actually never heard that before, although I think that's true, whether people that are working to advance science/mathematics consciously realize that or not.

Atheists don't actually believe their own bullshit, which is why they're constantly seething about religion. It's actually just a cope and denial, much like a child who doesn't want to obey a parent (God)

If you're an agnostic theist, you'd acknowledge there's a creator deity. If this deity created the entire universe, logic, math, ethics, aesthetics, etc. would originate from Him, therefore they would necessitate Him.

It is gödel.
Or the desire to one up god.

Wrong, it's christian.
That's why it worships jews and bleeds its civilians for israel.

It does not matter. Logic necceitates a divine axiom. Marh necessitates a divine axiom. At the very least, the universe reveals the necessity of a divine axiom. Define that as you will, but it is necessary.

Right? He didn't prove God, just that the curiosity was strong enough to find out how.

If you're an agnostic theist

Agnostic atheist, see pic

If this deity

If

Yeah big If. First you need to define God, demonstrate why it's one God vs God's, then demonstrate why it's your favorite one

Sure

Logic necceitates a divine axiom

You haven't demonstrated this supposed axiom nor defined divine. Weird how you can make such statements

True, but you cannot grift it for shit, and it makes getting pussy hard mode as fuck. No way am I ever admitting that im not christian and leaving my church. It's a literal cheat code to life. Retard atheists need to stfu and stop trying to cuck the rest of us.

I would say the most logical position here is bottom right.

Agreed

Okay you're missing the point. The point is that even if that's true and your reasoning is sound, someone could hypothetically wrongly think it's not true and believe in God for a different reason.

Just because I had never heard of this proof from Gödel he brought up doesn't it doesn't exist. Also, Gödel does have an ontological proof for God, see pic rel.

Agnostic atheist, see pic

I know what an agnostic atheist is but my response was in a chain of responses answering a question about agnostic theists. Bro are you alright?

you need to define God

I defined God in one potential way an agnostic theist would define God.

demonstrate why it's one God vs God's

The position presented to explore the logic of was an agnostic theist which would mean it's fair to assume they're an agnostic monotheist

then demonstrate why it's your favorite one

That's not necessary to explore what it could mean to be an agnostic theist.

You would say that. So what?

If you immediately went from Christcuckery to Atheism and never looked further you are probably a retard who just thinks "Bible God mean therefore no God."

Nigger, stop caring what anyone else might think. Truth is pervasive, saturated and fractal. At ever angle angle and attack, the universe reveals the truth of itself. Truth persists and reveals itself. What is difficult in current year is that revealed truth is contrary to the narrative.

Shut the fuck up retard. The point is I proved you can be an agnostic theist.

Gödel does have an ontological proof for God, see pic rel.

Not really, replace god with universe and nothing changes

my response was in a chain of responses answering a question about agnostic theists

I don't know why? Are you one?

it's fair to assume they're an agnostic monotheist

Assuming is all you really can do with the subjective nature of God(s)

That's not necessary to explore

It's the logical conclusion.

and never looked further

I have and still do

Attack logic, attack math, and the universe requires the divine. It is impossible to be an agnostic theist. Impossible.

Prove that it's impossible for someone to not believe your arguments and still believe in God.

Not really, replace god with universe and nothing changes

Yes really, that is an ontological proof for God. That is the type of proof it is and he gave a definition for God that is not the definition of the universe.

I don't know why? Are you one?

I wouldn't say I am? That doesn't mean I can't explore what one might think? Do I need to be an agnostic theist in order to be able to think of what that means and what one would believe?

Assuming is all you really can do with the subjective nature of God(s)

No, it's not. You just can't wrap your mind around complex thoughts

It's the logical conclusion.

What is the logical conclusion? That I have to demonstrate that the deity of this hypothetical agnostic atheist that doesn't exist is the true one in order to try and understand what an agnostic theist may think?

Like dude, you are genuinely not an intelligent person. You lack basic reading comprehension and I'm sure your head would explode if I asked you how you'd feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning.

We don’t have much time bc of bump limit, but any and all logical proposition can be deconstructed into absuridty or contradicton. Not only can logic not prove itself, it is not logical. And yet logic still persists. Logic therefore requires something outsode of logic to maintain itself….

Yes really, that is an ontological proof for God

It isn't. Plus it doesn't demonstrate why God and not Gods or which God and why.

Do I need to be an agnostic theist in order to be able to think of what that means and what one would believe?

Why is it relevant to our discussion?

No, it's not

It is

You just can't wrap your mind around complex thoughts

Sure I can. Doesn't make it real though

What is the logical conclusion?

Why is it your favorite flavor of god?

move to more personal insults

Lol.

I'm sure your head would explode if I asked you how you'd feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning.

I can engage with your metaphors but I haven't seen an actual argument as to why I should believe them

There must be something axiomatic that sustains logic in the universe if it itself is so fragile. Logic still is even when it shouldnt be. This axiom is “god”.

It is impossible to come to conclusion of the necessity of divine axioms as a reduction of logic and/or math and retain a concept of agnostic theism…

Very nice

:It isn't. Plus it doesn't demonstrate why God and not Gods or which God and why.

It does, you genuinely just can't read. Tell you what, why don't you restate the proof for me in your own words. I want to see if you actually understand it.

Why is it relevant to our discussion?

It's literally like talking to a retarded child. You responded to me exploring what an agnostic theist may believe. It's relevant to our discussion because you replied to this hypothetical. It's called a topic anon.

It is

Nah

Sure I can. Doesn't make it real though

You've had a while to think about what an axiom is, can you explain what it is to me?

Why is it your favorite flavor of god?

It's not my favorite flavor of God in this hypothetical. I don't get why that's hard for you to understand that this is not my position.

Yeah I moved to more personal insults because it blows my mind how you can't follow a conversation, you can't read, you can't understand definitions, etc. and you still think you have something valid to discuss here.

Either the universe reveals itself, or it doesn’t. There cannot be a theist determinstion that is also agnostic by definition.

>:It isn't. Plus it doesn't demonstrate why God and not Gods or which God and why.

It does,

Point to it exactly

You responded to me exploring what an agnostic theist may believe

No, I've been asking what you believe.

It's not my favorite flavor of God in this hypothetical

We aren't discussing hypotheticals though. You're really vague on your own beliefs.

Yeah I moved to more personal insults

You can seethe as much as you like. Doesn't bother me

Point to it exactly

It's Definition 1 in his proof

No, I've been asking what you believe.

I'll save myself the effort, it's more or less what this anon argues Can you restate his argument since you didn't with Gödel's like I challenged you to to see if you understood it?

We aren't discussing hypotheticals though. You're really vague on your own beliefs.

I was, go back and check this specific set of responses.

You can seethe as much as you like. Doesn't bother me

I don't know if I could make it clearer, I'm laughing at you. You're a joke.

It's Definition 1 in his proof

How does it prove "God" exactly?

I'll save myself the effort, it's more or less what this anon argues #

Ah so some nebular nonsense. I already know you're a Christian. Why hide it?

I was

Not really

I don't know if I could make it clearer

The seethe is clear. Yes

We have little time. If logic cannot prove itself, moresoe under scrutiny, logic deconsructs into absurdity…and yet logic persists, what is the thing that allows logic to exist?

How does it prove "God" exactly?

Definition 1 is a definition anon, not a proof. I asked you to restate the proof in your words to see if you understood it and apparently, you can't.

Ah so some nebular nonsense.

It's not, you just don't understand something like a transcendental argument or Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. You don't even know what an axiom is or apparently a definition so it's not a surprise you also couldn't restate that anon's argument.

I already know you're a Christian. Why hide it?

I've said multiple times this thread, including to you, that I am a Christian, so I have an odd way of hiding it.

The seethe is clear. Yes

Why would I seethe though? You're a brainlet.

what is the thing that allows logic to exist

I already answered this:

The merits that determines the concepts as logical

Btw anon, here's Gödel's proof in symbolic notation, I'm sure you'll have a much clearer understanding of what's going on in his proof after seeing this.

I already answered this

Then answer it again. If logic falls under its own weight, what allows it to even exist?

Forgot to include picrel

Anon, godel didnt’t sway them. The images from the new telescope didnt sway them. We are fighting dogma, not logic or truth.

Definition 1 is a definition anon, not a proof

Why can't the universe be "god-like"?

>Ah so some nebular nonsense.

It's not

It is

transcendental argument

Are just presuppositions that can't logically be demonstrated.

You don't even know what an axiom

I know you assume your arguments are axioms without proving them as such

I've said multiple times this thread, including to you, that I am a Christian

Which is odd that your so vague about it.

Why would I seethe though?

Because at the end of the day you and I both know that "God" is nothing more than man's subjective interpretation. And that makes you seethe

Then answer it again

Can you not read?

>The merits that determines the concepts as logical

Cool, too bad you can't explain it

We are fighting dogma

Yes, yours

logic or truth

Is separate from your subjective interpretation of what you think "divine" is and "god"

Like I said before, I disagree with Gödel's Ontological Proof. I personally would have liked to see him use his Incompleteness Theorems in a proof for God like you did since I think that's a lot stronger.

Why can't the universe be "god-like"?

Because "God-like" is a specific term Gödel's defining here. I presented you the argument and pointed out where he does this. I am asking you to restate his definition. I even presented the argument in symbolic notation which, if you knew what that stuff meant, would help you understand his argument.

Are just presuppositions that can't logically be demonstrated.

Of course they can. For example: We use language. In order to use language, we must assume words have meaning, we must assume rules of grammar, we must assume that the words we use will retain their meaning from the time we say or transmit them to the point they're received, etc. Language presupposes these things. There's a simple example anon, I can give you plenty. I'd say go read Kant but I don't think you could handle it.

Which is odd that your so vague about it.

I'm not

you and I both know that "God" is nothing more than man's subjective interpretation

Not only do I not think that I don't know how you could reach that conclusion universally especially after you admitted you're a subjectivist about God. You understand you're making a universal claim here right? In other words, saying "God" is nothing more than man's subjective interpretation in your eyes must be true. So you're making an objective claim about God. You're just too stupid to realize you're refuting yourself.

At the end, i’ll leave you with this…logic requires a divine axiom, or else logic cannot exist.

Because "God-like" is a specific term Gödel's defining here

So a presupposition. That still begs the question

and pointed out where he does this

Yet can't explain it

In order to use language, we must assume words have meaning

No, words have meaning and sometimes many. What a silly statement.

we must assume that the words we use will retain their meaning from the time we say or transmit them to the point they're received

We have ways to know what words mean without assuming.

There's a simple example anon

Wow, pretty bad example bud

>Which is odd that your so vague about it.

I'm not

OK define God.

Not only do I not think that I don't know how you could reach that conclusion

You and the other dipshit demonstrate it.

after you admitted you're a subjectivist about God

Yeah. Im honest about it. You should try it

You understand you're making a universal claim here right?

Yup and no one in the universe has demonstrated God exist, let alone their favorite version.

So you're making an objective claim about God.

I'm making an objective claim about how you lack objectivity in your claims for God

You're just too stupid to realize you're refuting yourself.

How exactly?

logic requires a divine axiom

I don’t believe you since you never defined nor demonstrated "divine"

Also at the end, cheers anon. It has been nice.

Same exact logic as saying a woman is anyone who says their a woman.

You are mentally no different than a tranny

So a presupposition. That still begs the question

Anon, a definition and a presupposition are two different things.

Yet can't explain it

I'm asking you to explain it because I don't think you understand it. I'll explain it if you concede that you don't understand it.

No, words have meaning and sometimes many. What a silly statement.

Wow anon that's what I said. You understand by disagreeing with that argument you're engaging in sophistry right? You're telling me my basic transcendental argument is wrong, even though in order for you to tell me this, you have to assume it's true. You are one of the dumbest people I've spoken to on this site, without a doubt.

We have ways to know what words mean without assuming.

That's not what I said, I said we have to assume words have meaning. As in in general, when you use words, you're doing so presupposing those words you're using have a meaning.

OK define God.

I'll give you my definition of God once you explain to me what Gödel's definition for God is.

I'm making an objective claim about how you lack objectivity in your claims for God

This is an objective claim about God. How is it that you have universal access to everyone's interpretation of God so you can make such a claim? That would also necessarily mean you have an objective view of God.

Yeah. Im honest about it. You should try it

I think I might actually agree with the fact that you think you're being honest about admitting you're a subjectivist about God, but that's because I think you're too stupid to realize you've demonstrated you're not.

It's been nice reading your responses dude! God bless!

And, obligatory…suck my dick, faggot.

Anyway, you can't demonstrate where or how Godel proved God.

Nor can you explain why the universe can't be "god-like"

Yoi regurgitate Godel because you see funny equations and big words and assume it's right. You don't know why though

I'll give you my definition of God

No you won't. You've done as much as you can to avoid it because you know how subjective it really is.

I'm going to bed, have the last word I won't read it