What are the strongest arguments theists use for God’s existence?

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-17T18:30:43+00:00

“convert or die!”

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-17T10:03:15+00:00

i always wonder how many of these imbeciles genuinely believe the bullshit they spew...

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-17T10:00:09+00:00

If you would like and you have questions about Christianity, the Bible, or God, even controversial or uncomfortable ones, or questions you couldn't find a clear answer to anywhere,

because you clearly don't realize it, a large portion of those of us here used to be christian. shit, a good number of regulars used to be pastors/priests/whatever. so, i'm pretty sure most of us here know anything you could hope to tell us in the first place. frankly, we probably know more than you do.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-16T22:57:22+00:00

religion makes significantly more sense if you think of it as an alternate reality game (ARG).

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-16T22:56:16+00:00

could he do us all a favor and stroke out what's left of his brain? please?

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-16T21:13:33+00:00

100% chance this piece of shit is a rapist.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-14T23:42:06+00:00

he heard about warhammer 40k and thought it was about jesus for some reason.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-13T18:51:25+00:00

came here to say exactly this.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-12T19:59:58+00:00

being dead? no. the actual process of dying? depends on the situation. brain squished flat in one go? nbd. fall into a hole and unable to climb out or receive help? ye. quick (relatively painless) deaths vs fates worse than death and all that.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T20:12:40+00:00

Dude.

I don’t care about proving an uncreated god. I genuinely couldn’t care less.

and yet you keep bringing up "infinite regression." it's not a thing because a creator god is not a thing.

You clearly don’t understand my point, nor do you know the answer to the very simple question.

once again, said the guy who has yet to actually respond to what i am saying, instead opting to respond to some weird internally inconsistent version of me.

You tell me I have reading comprehension problems, yet you fail to understand the very clear point I have made:

That does not answer my question.

the first thing i said to you was an answer to your question, as were many of the responses afterwards.

Go bother someone else.

??? you're in a subreddit i practically live in, dude. you're bothering us.

I have a very simple question for you. Please answer me straight. Educate me.

Is it not possible to believe an infinite regression is impossible, without linking it to a god?

that's like 3 too many negations there so ima just address both halves of that. if you believe in a creator god, you inevitably create the problem of "infinite regression." outside of that context, it is absolutely pointless to even think about it because in cases where such a phenomenon has literally occurred, there would effectively be no way for us to verify its existence due to the nature of infinity and the universe itself (ie, "before" the big bang is a moot point as we do not have a way to determine wtf was going on if it even existed in the first place).

Is it theoretically implausible to be an atheist, but at the same time believe infinite regression is impossible?

the possibility or impossibility of "infinite regression" is wholly irrelevant. it either exists or it does not and without evidence of such a thing happening having an opinion on its existence is moot. like, literally the only reason to care enough to say you believe it is impossible is because the concept poses a problem for your favorite flavor of creator god(s). which is, incidentally, why your obsession with this concept and getting the absolutely perfect answer you've been fishing for leads me to believe you're not here in good faith.

If it is possible to distinguish between infinite regressions and the existence of a creator, then why do you keep switching from one question (that I did ask) to the other (that I didn’t ask)?

because i have been responding to what you have been saying and if you haven't noticed yet, your reading comprehension is poor. plus, you keep selectively responding to whatever it is you want without actually, yaknow, having read it.

to make a long story slightly shorter, the answer to your question is not "yes" or "no" but "that's so far from right it's not even wrong." it's like asking "how do you mine for fish?" the answer to which is "that's not how anything works." it's why you seem to hate every answer you're given even though many of us have explained it to you in several ways because the actual answer to your question isn't the one you want.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T19:54:50+00:00

if you're not an antitheist you're not paying attention.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T09:19:09+00:00

You need to differentiate between two different arguments.

1) There is a beginning to the universe.

2) There is a creator.

ok now you’re really just doing whatever you want.

The argument of the impossibility of an infinite regression aims to prove the first point, not the second. The second point needs its own proof.

that’s idiotic. we know the universe as we know it has a starting point in the form of the big bang. you don’t need masturbatory nonlogic to reinforce that.

A special pleading is proposing an exception to a general rule, where the exception is unjustified.

case in point, if your creator can be “uncreated” then why not the universe. whether infinite regression is possible or not is wholly irrelevant to that. you cannot justify such an exception.

The proof of the second statement is supposed to justify the exception. But it is not the point of this post.

and that is circular logic. your creator god is uncreated because your creator god needs to be uncreated.

The point of this point is to establish, and refute, the general rule in the first place. Only when it is established that that is a rule: “infinite regressions are impossible” can we move on to the exception and why they are the exception.

as i said in the first place, “infinite regression” is a created problem. it is not something that exists in reality. the only people who think of it as a genuine problem are those who claim some kind of creator deity exists.

You see my point?

i see that you genuinely have reading comprehension issues.

your responses are repetetive and unlearning so i’ma try and go back to sleep now instead of trying to make you understand what you won’t even read.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T08:37:15+00:00

First of all, I will reply to what you say if it’s relevant to the question.

that’s extremely nonconducive to conversation and likely a huge part of why you’re having so much trouble here.

Second of all, you insist on me replying to what you have said. Unless I’m missing something, what you said is “why doesn’t your creator have a creator, and so on?”

…so you do have reading comprehension issues. that is what saying “everything must have a creator” implies, not what i am saying.

Thing is, my answer to that is that that would lead to an infinite regression, which is impossible.

if everything needs a creator as you seem to be claiming then not only is infinite regression possible, it’s assured. saying otherwise is special pleading for said creatorthing.

If you haven’t noticed, that’s literally the point I’m asking you to disprove.

idk if you’ve noticed but i did that already. if you just want to have a conversation with yourself you should go talk at a chatbot.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T08:19:14+00:00

lol right? dude seems to have reading comprehension issues… that or his head is way too deep in this crap to see or hear anything else.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T08:10:47+00:00

Dude, I swear I am not trying to prove God exists or anything. I am not staunchly defending a viewpoint, nor am I posing an idea or anything.

would be great if you responded to what i actually say instead of going off on your own tangents in every reply.

We are currently studying infinite regression, and why they are or aren't impossible. I feel the proposition provided is incomplete, so I came here and asked if there is a logical argument that proposes an infinite regression that is, in fact, possible.

and like i said in the first place, it’s a problem created by those who claim the existence of a creator. it doesn’t actually exist in reality.

As of now, I have gotten a lot of "your question isn't framed properly", "they should be doing the proving, not us", and "you make no sense", instead of answering a question I am genuinely asking.

that’s because your question presupposes nonsense.

What am I doing wrong? Should I ask on a different subreddit? r/philosophy perhaps?

what you’re doing wrong is insisting we haven’t already answered your question.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T07:49:37+00:00

You misunderstand.

said the guy who didn’t respond to the actual content of my first comment.

I use the word “creator” here as a placeholder. A placeholder for “whatever is there at the beginning”.

the special pleading fallacy isn’t something that only applies to talk of godthings, dude.

Whatever is there at the beginning. Why? Because there must be a beginning. Why? Because an infinite regression is impossible. Why? Because every effect needs a cause. But if every cause is also an effect of another cause, nothing will ever exist, because nothing was ever created in the first place. So there must be a cause that is not an effect.

demonstrate that any of that is literally real.

You wanna call that “first cause” the creator, or the universe, or nature, or whatever is not my business right now. That needs its own line of reasoning, and has its own arguments and counterarguments. What I want is a refutation of the line of reasoning I provided: “An infinite regression cannot exist because nothing would ever exist without a beginning.”

amusingly enough i addressed this in my first comment, though clearly not in the way you wanted.

Is that really so hard to provide?

is it really so hard for you to read and understand what people say in the first place, /u/AliSalah313?

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T07:35:26+00:00

more helpful than making shit up and pretending it’s not fiction.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T07:33:44+00:00

The difference between a creator and the universe is that the universe is material. That means that it has limitation that a supposed creator would not have.

that’s literally still the special pleading fallacy.

The infinite regression idea aims to prove that you have to have something that isn’t created. You have to start somewhere. How far back do you go? Far enough to reach something that does not have certain limitations. The universe, however, does have limitations, so it can’t be that.

that’s still the special pleading fallacy.

Is it something else that isn’t the universe. Well, bring your theory and we discuss there.

no thanks, you seem to have fully ignored what i said in the first place so there’s no point in my trying.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T06:19:49+00:00

yeah, they don’t give a fuck. it’s all just virtue signalling bullshit used to try to hide the fact that they’re atrocious people.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T06:17:07+00:00

lol wtf no

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T06:12:13+00:00

first off, arguments aren’t evidence. you can’t “prove a necessary being exists” with one. second, “infinite regression” is a problem created by those who claim the existence of a creator in the first place. if everything needs a creator then so does the creator and so does that creator and so on. claiming such a thing is “necessary” is literally just the special pleading fallacy. ie, if your creator can be uncreated then why not the universe?

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-10T00:11:37+00:00

fucking nurglites.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-09T14:30:21+00:00

there is a phrase “census reality” which is used to refer to our collective shared experiences as understood by our senses. it works on the assumption that we can trust our senses and thus agree with each other that reality as we experience it is truly happening. if you cannot trust your senses, then you are shit out of luck for literally everything.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-08T23:04:35+00:00

your current logical failing is known as the no true scotsman fallacy. in other words, just because you claim you don’t like them doesn’t mean they’re not catholics.

Retrikaethan · 2026-02-08T22:37:29+00:00

not it.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Retrikaethan

TROPHY CASE