/lit/ - Literature

>>13036349
t. 14 yo american in his rebelious period of adolescent crisis.

>>13036370
Not quiet.
Can you make actual arguments instead of ad hominem bullshit?

I HATE FUCKING NIGGERS AND GOD
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>13036371
>"Why can't we just be enough?"
>Imagine by John Lennon plays
It's almost like there are no innate moral principles, nature is profoundly indifferent to our existence, and without God things like "altruism, honesty, formality, beauty, grace" become qualities devoid of any inherent value and can be pruned when inconvenient to the law of nature.
Also, although many atheists have the arrogance to speculate that the world would be better if it were populated only with people just like them, they have failed to come to terms with atheists as they are and what they have done at the peak of their organization and power. Are Mao Zedong and Stalin good guys? Is Venezuela a utopia?
Maybe religious, spiritual thinking is in part a coming to terms with the reality of the world and life. Maybe atheists are the ones with completely delusional ideas.

>>13036371
>Argument from Motion
1.Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2.Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3.Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4.Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5.Therefore nothing can move itself.
6.Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7.The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8.Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

>Argument from Efficient Causes
1.We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2.Nothing exists prior to itself.
3.Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
4.If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
5.Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6.If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7.That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes)
8.Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past
9.Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God

>Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
1.We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2.Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3.For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4.Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5.Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6.Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7.Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8.We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9.Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10.Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

>Argument from Gradation of Being
1.There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2.Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3.The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4.Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

>>13036394
>Argument from Design
1.We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2.Most natural things lack knowledge.
3.But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4.Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

>>13036397
>Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Or we call it survival instinct.
We does religion have such a great need to see a purpose in everything? Why does there have to be a goal that everything is aimed towards? Can‘t it be that we just aimlessly exist? What‘s so horrible about this idea?

>inb4 i haven‘t written counter arguments for every argument in your copy past text because it‘s the same argument phrased differently 56x

>>13036405
We does atheism have such a great need to not see a purpose in everything? Why does there have to be a no goal that everything is aimed towards? Can‘t it be that we just purposely exist? What‘s so horrible about this idea?

>>13036424
>can it be that we just purposely exist?
If atheism is a byproduct of rational inquiry, then why wouldn't it point rational inquiry into this statement?
>can it just be that God exists?
I thought we were doing this because irrational faith is ebil n stupid.

>>13036349
It's a coping mechanism.
The sheer drudgery of life is such that without a reason to live it would be less painful to just kill yourself.
Most people aren't smart enough to come up with this reason, so religion gives them a premade one people can latch on to.
Also, sense of local community, pot lucks, unattractive teetotalers finding mates, etc.

>>13036462
non-degenerate trends in art, people who can be motivated to protect their land, nicer and more pleasant neighbors

>>13036397
>1.We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Yup, the rest died.

>2.Most natural things lack knowledge.

But not information

> 3.But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

Unnecessary leap of logic. Goals can be reached without "intelligence".

>4.Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Your previous conclusions are false, and so is this one too.

>>13036478
Doesn't it require intelligence to even conceive of a goal? Like, does the concept of goals really apply to something like an octopus or a computer or does human intelligence and perspective merely make it so?

>>13036488
lol fuck off retard

>>13036394
None of this supports a specific religion, just vague theism. Cringe and bluepilled.

>>13036394
The first three arguements could be reconciled as “matter is the first thing. No god needed.” The universe has always been in motion is simpler than an all mighty intelligence that has always been in motion set it in motion. Matter has always been in existence in some form is simpler than something that has always existed creating it. Matter could very easily be the thing that needs to exist in order for existence to be a thing.

The final argument can be reconciled by simply stating that existence can not be used as a predicate. Existence, and thus the creation of something that exists can not be said to be greater objectivity like 2 being greater than 1. It is something we as humans put value in.

>>13036397
Goals are a construct of intelligent being for survival. There is no reason why all things can’t be random.

>>13036462
It's a crude way of saying it, but it's not wrong a world without God would be just unsolvable.

>>13036488
define a goal

>>13036541
define unsolvable

>>13036546
Without even defining it, I can tell you that it is an abstract thing.

Does a goal have electrons? No, it's an abstract concept that exists only conscious, talking beings.

>>13036554

>talking
>implying you can think in abstract terms only through language

yikes

>>13036550
There are problems that need something concrete to be 'solved' so to speak, like beauty good and so on.

>>13036569
NOT IMPLIED

Does an octopus have a goal? Does it choose between eating other sea creatures or being a lawyer? No.

Only a human can have goals. Every other creature behaves in terms of instinctual response.

>>13036581
Please elaborate.

>>13036583
How can you differentiate between instinctual responses and goals? Very few humans can choose to be lawyers.

>>13036595
I can point to the inexplicable miracle of conscious thinking in humans, which material language is not sufficient at explaining, and say that I consciously choose between different goals.

>>13036610
What you call "conscious thinking" is just the end product of abstract thinking, which is the evolutionary byproduct of problem-solving. We see it today in animals like corvus birds and chimpanzees, etc.; they're just behind us in evolutionary terms.

>>13036610
>I consciously choose between different goals
How can we or even you know that?

>>13036394
>4.Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
>5.Therefore nothing can move itself.
>6.Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
False. Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, there doesn't need to be a specific cause for an event. All objects exist as a wave of probable positions and momenta. This is apparent on the quantum scale, through such phenomena as quantum entanglement, quantum tunneling, and event horizon radiation

>>13036737
>all objects exist as a wave of probable positions and momenta.

No they don’t. We conceptualize them as such because we can not observe them directly without interacting with them and thus altering their behavior.

>>13036349
By your use of the ((())) I can tell you are a white nationalist and therefore just as spooked as the religious man. You've taken the "higher essence" of the Holy Spirit and god and have simply replaced them with the white race. Just as the humanists took the higher essence of god and replaced it with the Human. In both cases all that's happened is a change of masters over the individual.
So to answer your question, "is life not enough?"
I would say, "evidently not for you."

>>13036585
I can't I don't have the dictionary or the eloquently

>>13036858
>So to answer your question, "is life not enough?"
>I would say, "evidently not for you."

>>13036833
>No they don’t
Explain the double split experiment then.

>>13036384
>without God things like "altruism, honesty, formality, beauty, grace" become qualities devoid of any inherent value
Or you can be a good person without imagining sky daddy who will punish for being bad. Try it

>>13036874
I didn’t say they don’t exist as waves with momentum. I said they don’t exist as waves of probable position and momentum. A thing can’t exist as a probability of its own position and momentum. That doesn’t make sense.

>>13036473
You forgot "smug non-sequiturs".

>>13036581
If beauty could be "solved" it would no longer fascinate us, thus no longer be beauty.

>>13036737
>>13036833
>>13036874
>>13036977
>tfw introducing science on a humanities board
Oh shit nigga, what did you do?

The human body alone can provide nothing that can justify its continued use of resources. Only through community and bureaucratic institution of the state can he be instilled with or supportive of the creative forces capable of justifying life.

The postwar life cult created by the by the victorious powers is perhaps the first creation which is itself worse than life, and both the narcissism that sustains it and the institutions made to market to that nihilism have managed to destroy the only salvageable traits mankind has.

>>13037016
>i NEED others to tell me how to live
pathetic

>>13037023
>My body, consciousness, and the filth they produce can justify my existence alone.
This is narcissism. You need help.

>>13037055
>i can't just live, i need to JUSTIFY my life. Please someone give me validation
wow. Parents really damaged you

>>13036394
Cringe and full of opt outs for your particular favourite explanation

Also shitty Platonism

Just admit that God is just a rephrasing of I don't know and get on with living your life

>>13036349
Because a lack of belief in any higher being that tells people how to lead a good life leads to rampant hedonism which is terrible for a society in the long run.

>>13037090
>Because a lack of belief in any higher being that tells people how to lead a good life leads to rampant hedonism
That's what christcucks unironically believes in.

>>13037016
>The human body alone can provide nothing that can justify its continued use of resources.

Justify in what sense? You can say our continued existence is justified for the organism by simple preprogrammed instinct for propagation.

If you want to go for an argument about whether you need a better reason to justify it other than biology, then I ask you for whom do we need to justify anything?

>>13037098
Some people can still lead a good life without God, but clearly most people cannot.

>>13037106
The older I get the more I find that I agree with this even as an atheist.

>>13036977
According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics they do. QFT, in fact, is predicated upon objects existing as probability waves. And QFT is the most successful theory on all of physics due to its sheer predictive power.

>>13037106
Most people that believes in God are hypocritical pieces of shit who ruin other people's lives though

>>13036394
>and this everyone understands to be God
Good one, Aquinas. Real funny.

>>13037106
That's just means that you not believe in god but just use idea of God for shaming yourself in to what you think is "better person". Basically you just can't take responsibility for yourself so you need dad who makes rules for you because you too lazy or scared to figure it out yourself

>>13037114
Its a shame most normalfags will never accept it or even realise it. Western society is doomed to end up like China, a cultural blackhole which hasn't truly developed in hundreds and arguably thousands of years.

>>13037120
>Christians go on a crusade and ravage indigenous populations
>evil savages
>christians begin to follow the new testament and "turn the other cheek" type Christianity
>lmao fucking christcucks turning a blind eye to the demise of their nations
At some point it isnt worth caring what Athiests think anymore because you always seem to have a convenient workaround whenever religious people try to change.

>>13037120
Some people are like that because they care less for the content of the religion but rather the sense of an absolute, which can be comforting. If someone in any way chips at that absolute (sometimes simply by not holding to it) then it causes a religious person to get very defensive about it.

This applies to most modern fedora tippers too though, you can tell because they're about "science and logic" but only when it doesn't inconvenience progressive views

>>13037139
>whenever religious people try to change
That's the point. That's hypocrisy of christianity
>LOL WE GONNA KILL YOU YOU FUCKERS
>BUT WE ACTUALLY GOOD NOW YOU KNOW, BEING MEAN IS BAD

>>13037149
Exactly like I said. We're either evil relics of the past or we're wishy washy "cucks" for turning the other cheek.

>>13037159
Yeah. Because you doesn't have any standarts. You hypocritical cunts who try force their cult on others and play victim card when you fail. Because even you don't believe in this shit, you just want power over others by any means

>>13037168
As if athiests aren't just as bad with their demands for everybody to tow the line of their "progressive" agenda, unless of course you're a muslim or a jew in which case you're right as rain.

>>13037182
>B-BUT ATHEISTS AS BAD AS US!
You just shitting on yourself now

>>13037185
Then dont be so quick to point out my apparent hypocrisy when you are just as bad.

>>13036349
[Laughter Stops]

>>13036972
Tell that to the hedonistic degenerates killing themselves and the youth with drugs and sex

>>13037191
>chistcucks are hypocrites
>NO WE DON'T, OUR BELIEFS IS ONLY RIGHT ONES AND WE BELIEVE IN IT STRONGLY
>Yes you are
>OK WE'RE HYPOCRITES BUT EVEYRONE ARE HYPOCRITES TOO, STOP BEING MEANIE TO ONLY US
Same fucking hypocritical circle. You absolute cretin

>>13037201
Oh no someone having sex. No fun allowed!

>>13036349
>Is life not big enough?

It is not big enough. It is not big. It is not enough. It is not.

>>13037207
Sexually transmitted diseases arent an incredibly pressing issue, nope!

>>13037221
It clearly won't affect you, so why be bothered by it?

>>13037221
Diseases are literally everywhere. I mean, you might as well think that breathing is a sin and hedonism because you can get Tuberculosis because of it

>>13037211
that was deeply profound bro *farts softly*

>>13037231
>individualist scum
aaaaaand we're done

>>13037117
No. They use probability waves to determine position and momentum. They don’t say that partials exist as those waves. Example, photons can be conceptualized by the probability wave if their position and momentum but they are understood to be electromagnetic radiation. I.e. changes in electric and magnetic fields in the form of a wave. (Pic related)