/lit/ - Literature

>>13394527
Yes yes, okay, but can you PLEASE not post R*ssell? He is literally the worst. Ok??

>>13394535
Who would you rather I post?

>>13394527
>nothing is real
Man necessarily has a mythical element. Every society knew homos and stealing was wrong and science can never figure that out.

Atheism necessarily leads towards the reduction of soul, there is no atheist society that flourishes. Losing faith necessarily entails a destroyed society. In even a utilitarian sense it is false.

>>13394527
prove yourself right first. what do you want me to argue against? my own arguments for atheism? I believe in god because of conformation bias. I say "God, I shall look for coins on my walk today, what will they look like?" And a coincidence later, the coin visualized was on the street. i beleive in god because i look up at the sky long enough to see shooting star, rare but lovely. I beleive because there does not seem to be any logical explanation for existance. Yes, god existing wouldn't make sense either. Honestly what am I arguing, make a proposition anon.

>>13394562
Based

>>13394540
Post Dawkins -_- and pictures of coconuts that look like vaginas.

>>13394553
>religion is true because it is useful
spotted the retard
>>13394562
> i beleive in god because i look up at the sky long enough to see shooting star, rare but lovely
retarded logic
>. I beleive because there does not seem to be any logical explanation for existance.
There doesn't need to be a logical explanation for existence, just like there doesn't need to be a logical explanation for most things in life for them to be true. The rest of your post is also retarded.

>>13394554
Just

>>13394576
Why the coconuts? Also bartin is that you?

>>13394584
Hmm, truth without logic huh?

>>13394591
Yes. Do you have a problem with that?

>>13394584
You could argue outside utilitarianism. Metaphysically God must exist as a primary foundation. You could argue logic is math's God as it is necessitated by logic. In that same sense God is necessarily true and as humans we seek gods nonetheless. Atheism is a rejection of physics and Metaphysics

>>13394597
I don't know if it's a problem, can you give an example?

>>13394598
This is your brain on JBP lmao. When I and all other normal people say God we don't mean some play on words, an obscure definition of an object whose existence logically follows, I mean gods that religions worship (mostly personal gods, think jesus, allah etc).
>>13394600
For a long period of time we didn't have a logical explanation for a lightining, yet it was true. We even made up false explanations, which further supports my point that we don't need an explanation for everything, even resorting to making shit up, it's possible to wait it out until we actually know.

>>13394584
>There doesn't need to be a logical explanation for existence, just like there doesn't need to be a logical explanation for most things in life for them to be true.
So religion is just as likely as atheism? Both don’t need logic right? So why complain when some people desire salvation?

>>13394610
>an obscure definition of an object whose existence logically follows, I mean gods that religions worship (mostly personal gods, think jesus, allah etc).
Talk us through what the Catholic Church understands as God champ

>>13394616
Becaus you’re all fucking retarded lmao

>>13394610
Well if we're disproving atheism I just need to show in some instance man necessarily is biologically incapable of pure unbelief.
Jesus in a personal sense exists by nature of reason. You can't seek truth without seeking good and you can't seek good without seeking something greater than it. Even if you placed the stop at good you are necessarily imbuing goodness with godliness.

>>13394610
Lightning existed and was known before it was understood how it occurs.
If by its logic you're meaning how and why and from whence, those things existed. Lightning was and is logical, I think what you're arguing is that if we don't know something it doesn't exist?
Do tell me if I'm wrong, or off.

>>13394616
I complain when people claim to have the ultimate truth without any evidence to show for it (most religions). Also, this thread is about disproving atheism, not me proving why atheism is correct. It's a play on the common trope of silly theist " you can't disprove god, hence i am just as reasonable as you are (or even worse, hence there is a god)".
I never said religion is just as likely as atheism (it's not).

>>13394629
I won't go into too much detail, but the way I understand it is that they see him as a personal being (not an abstract entity) that you can talk to (pray) and he can talk to you back. He has come down to earth in the form of Jesus to save us from our sins.

>>13394642
So if I read the church fathers, or Augustine etc, that's what I'll find?

>>13394631
>Well if we're disproving atheism I just need to show in some instance man necessarily is biologically incapable of pure unbelief.
That's not true, wtf. Are you on drugs?
>You can't seek truth without seeking good and you can't seek good without seeking something greater than it.
What the fuck are you on about? Why?
>>13394634
We were talking specifically about a logical explanations before, that usually entails why or where it comes from. It was known to exist and was observed, but people didn't know the reason why it occured and hence a lot of false explanations were made up.
>>13394655
Maybe not, I haven't read them. I admit I do not know that much about the Catholic church, I am mainly talking about evangelical christianity, which is the background that I grew up in and know a lot about. Why won't you start being sincere and get to the point?

>>13394635
You can’t prove or disprove God. You can’t prove or disprove atheism. Reason can’t help us. That’s why choosing to believe anyway is better. Atheists are the ones complaining about meaninglessness and committing suicide, not devout Christians

>>13394686
Choosing to believe something for which there is no evidence is not better, it's stupid. That's why agnosticism (which is what is commonly meant by atheism) is the most reasonable position to take.

>>13394679
Very well, but the truth of lightning is that it is logical. Whether that logic is known or not is irrelevant, the truth of it possesses logic.
Do you have an example of a truth without logic?

>>13394711
>the truth of it possesses logic
The fuck do you mean??

>>13394679
>I admit I do not know that much about the Catholic church
Thought not. I'm sure your specific strawman of God doesn't exist, I really am. I just not sure anyone has ever actually believed in it.
Yes you can point at some uneducated people and make fun of their beliefs, but I don't see what relevance that has to the topic at hand, other than making you feel smart

>>13394717
Not strawman of a god. I am referring to a god that hundreds of millions of people believe in, including many people I personally know. You can hardly call that a strawman, except in the sense that all gods are strawmans (because there is no god).

>>13394631
As you go up the hierarchy of things you necessarily get to closer levels of saintliness. For instance charity can be perverted to a smaller degree than depravity. Depravity is necessarily desperation and horrid. Nobody looks at junkies and finds saintliness in them. If they find something sweet in them it is through pity, yet pity has variations of depravity as well. You could go to higher values like justice, which has less wiggle room yet some altogether. Truth necessarily imbibes justice with form. Truth has far fewer wiggle room. If you are always judicious you will be always better rewarded (assuming you adhere to objective justice). You could apply this towards truth, or being a truly person, and then its parent goodness. Of course humans are sinful and weak by nature as we only understand relatively what is truth.
To spin this to the other side, anything that promotes anything as a valid (subjective) truth is inherently evil. I honestly don't care what religion you follow but atheists must necessarily figure out a path to goodness and you can't find it in material things. A nice car won't teach you what goodness is, it just intoxicates you with a perversion of goodness. Material things are necessarily lower levels of goodness with higher variability in perversion (for instance a false sense of pride).

>>13394679
Read >>13394747

eez

>>13394753
>>13394747
stupid

>>13394714
By the truth of something, I mean its nature. What it is.
The truth of cats is that cats are cats, they are not other than cats else they wouldn't be cats.

>>13394759
Care to explain friendo

>>13394527
You cant prove atheism either

>>13394699
You’d be happier if you were Christian

>>13394527
the based 9

>>13394826
forgot Bill Nye

>>13394826
>epicurus was atheist, Hume wasn't agnostic, Marx denied spiritualism
You're killing me dog

>>13394826
>Russell
>Based
The absolute state of Ath*Ists

Someone post that letter to brainlet russell

>>13394527
God is real, but evil.

>>13394857

>>13394527
Atheism doesn't exist because it isn't in the bible.

>>13395038
>because it isn't in the bible.
You have never read the bible, haven´t you?

>>13394899
Based and Gnosispilled

>>13395038
>the fool hath said in his heart, “there is no god”

Anyone who says they need a religion, just likes to hide in the fact that they don't have control over their own lives. Life is scary and people need something to hold onto but saying shit about needing god or how society is better with religion is just wrong. The world would be so much better without religion.

We can only observe reality as it exists to us, e.g. in three spatial dimensions and one temporal.

If God exists then he must necessarily exist outside of or above the temporal dimension and, unless Heaven exists as a place in the universe, he must necessarily exist outside of or above our three spatial dimensions.

It's then disingenuous to claim that any act of reason, science, or observation can "prove" the existence of an entity, as we cannot comprehend what is beyond our reality.

>>13395231
>...how society is better with religion is just wrong. The world would be so much better without religion.
In what ways, any examples? Are there any places in history which were better either before or after religion?
In what way do you see that religion is a negative impact on society?

>>13394826
Annnnd not one fuckable face among them

>>13395231
science is a religion
science is the worst religion
the pursuit of science is the destruction of the pursuers
applying terms like "better" in this conversaton is loaded for science by metrics that in reality do not affect how well someone lives.
the happiest men die knowing that they will see their loved ones again

>>13394527
Provide an argument.

>>13394527
Atheism is the only religion that is trivially disprovable for the simple fact that the existence of god as a person is isomorphic/topologically equivalent to the laws of universe. Atheism is commonly defined as ¬God which in intuitionistic type theory is the same as God ⊥. Due to our isomorphism (godImplesLaw : God Law and lawImpliesGod : Law God) and a proof that the physical law(s) of our universe exist (law : Law) we can disprove atheism by proving (God ⊥) ⊥ like so: λ hypothesis : God ⊥. hypothesis (lawImpliesGod law).

>>13395638
>law implies God

>>13395638
Moot ate my implications.
Atheism is commonly defined as ¬God which in intuitionistic type theory is the same as God -> ⊥. Due to our isomorphism (godImplesLaw : God -> Law and lawImpliesGod : Law -> God) and a proof that the physical law(s) of our universe exist (law : Law) we can disprove atheism by proving (God -> ⊥) -> ⊥ like so: λ hypothesis : God -> ⊥. hypothesis (lawImpliesGod law).

>>13395641
Yes, and God implies Law. Is this something that you disagree with?
There is literally no difference whether there is a magical daddy in the sky that gives you a boner every time that you pray to him vs a law of the universe that coincidentally expands the atoms in your peepee every time that you kneel and utter the name of some dude that you think that exists.

"God" or a self created entity necessarily exists at least if you believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If you don't you a very silly person. Either the individual mind is God itself, everything we perceive is simply an output of ourselves the self created entity, or everything that can, will, and never will be is contained with in the self created entity God.

The explanation "well bro causality just breaks down at some point because i like that idea" is silly because very clearly this has never been the case. The God described nessecarily has done everything and will do everything and has created everything in every permutation it can imagine.

As a consequence of this rationally conceived God, traditional religious gods are revealed for what they are, grotesque simplifications used to enable humans narrative living and imposing their own conceited significance on the creator which is necessarily all encompassing.

>>13395692
Do you have homolust or something

>>13395726
>>13395692
I think y'all neutered it a bit too much but I agree in essence just I don't find it super ambiguous between God and the laws of the universe as man is spiritual necessarily

>*proves the existence of god*
heh, nothing personnel, atheists

>>13395800
>Tfw the rebuke to Spinoza amounts to "hes too rational" and abandoning causality/rationality altogether in favor of shamanistic wim wam dressed up in different words.

based

>>13395692
You're half and half right and wrong. I mean, I think the skygod narrative is just much more meaningful to people. It makes a big difference during times of cope and desolation.
Your explanation >>13395726 "traditional religious gods are revealed for what they are, grotesque simplifications used to enable humans narrative living" -- is just another example of a grotesque simplification. In other words, you aren't wrong but there's no reason you'll ever have to explain it to someone else in such a demeaning way.

>>13395928
Well it's no more or less rude than any theologian explaining away the improper conception of a God. Applying human narratives to the entity that is responsible to everything comes off as a bit insulting to creation itself.

Instead of being content of being part of this large reality the ever greedy theist must also dream up a narrative with a three act story to give their life flavor and happiness even if ultimately the conclusion to their story is meaningless to begin with.

>>13394527
Atheism: standing against a God you don’t believe exists

>>13395692
And the big bang implies creation.
The hour is late and I, myself that is, am fatigued and weary.
Look at the leaf and its veins remind of the capillaries learnt about so long ago.
A tree has blood, call it sap.
A solar system could be electrons gravitating around an atom.
A galaxy, a cluster of galaxies whatever that's called.
The universe a ring on the desert floor, or a ribbon.

>>13395726
Would self evident be better than self created?

>>13395995
based

We can’t know everything, some ways in which the universe functions are beyond our understanding, therfore we can guess but never know

>>13395491
Nietzsche? Stirner? Russell looks pretty good in younger pics as well. Marx is good as a bear.

>>13394554
You can kill Christianity but you can't kill God

>>13394899
Or not all powerful
Or not real, anymore
Or not real ever. Whichever is most likely.

>>13396362
TOO LATE!

>>13394587
neech looks like a upright corpse

>>13394527
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents--the
accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts--i.e. of materialism and astronomy--are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.

>>13394527
The burden of proof doesn't lie with atheists tho...

>>13394527
Explain to me how evolution works in terms of animals jumping to more or fewer chromosomes effectively when it is obviously a disorder. No one has ever explained that to me. Another thing. Why is life getting more and more complex rather than deteriorating like any complex system does? The human brain has been found to have structures up to the 11th dimension which is how scientists think we hold more information than should be physically possible by volume based on neural density. They theorize that our brains are storing memories in upper dimensions. Until any of that is understood or explained to me I will continue using the placeholder name of God in the event of completely unexplainable phenomena. I just find the biggest flaw in atheism to be complete arrogance. I don't think there is some man with a beard running things but rather some abstaction as beyond us as picturing upper dimensions is. Athiests are almost always people who were brought up christian but had shitty parents and are fucking salty. They should read some Joseph Campbell and reflect on how important mythology and admission of arrogance is. Deism is what I would argue is most rational.

>>13396373
You seem rather obsessed with a God that seems to have never existed and is also dead lol I don’t get it either

>>13397033
I’m not. It’s just what a bunch of anons talk about ALL FUCKING DAY. There’s far more important things to talk about. Urgent things. Talking about theology is like talking about Arthurian legends or Star Wars.

>>13397059
Arthurian legends and star wars are both mythology and are basically interchangeable with theology

>>13395638
Just see the pic from OP and what he is famous for. You can literally change "god" in the logic to "teapot in mars" and everything preserved. What kind of refutation is this

>>13397028
>Explain to me how evolution works in terms of animals jumping to more or fewer chromosomes effectively when it is obviously a disorder.
I'd like to see this, but you need to take it over to >>>/sci/

>>13397096
That just makes me think that there is a driving force in evolution completely beyond survival of the fittest that we don't yet know about. I have an inference that there are forces shaping our continuing evolution that have not been discovered or defined and may well be operating above our perception in relation to simple space and time. Once I grasped how string theory and upper dimensions work in concept I completely threw any notion that humans have figured anything at all out out the window.

>>13397028
>They theorize that our brains are storing memories in upper dimensions. Until any of that is understood..
This is called Magic

>>13397028
>They theorize that our brains are storing memories in upper dimensions. Until any of that is understood..
This is called Magic and it's faced enough prejudices to gain a more significant progress

im 99% sure most of the religious people in this thread are actually atheists trying to make religious people look like morons

>>13397143
did you ignore most of the arguments theists have presented?

>>13397145
What arguments?

>>13394753
a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: nonbelief, nontheism, disbelief, unbelief, scepticism, doubt, agnosticism, irreligion, godlessness, ungodliness, profaneness, impiety, heresy, apostasy, paganism, heathenism, freethinking, nihilism

>>13397143
Are you saying they're making them look like morons by presenting perfectly justifiable arguments? Read the thread

>>13397154
All of the arguments they have presented could be easily debunked by a 10 year old who has read the basic arguments for atheism. It's like they don't even care what the other side has to say.

>>13397153
You must orient yourself to God. Whether as a believer, or non believer, but you must, you will recognize your superiors, even if you choose to disobey. They give you that freedom, as well as a detailed account of the consequences

>>13395952
This

>>13397164
>>13395952
You are both retarded.

>>13397059
You are obsessed and annoying. Can’t even debate it intelligently, it’s almost like your debating your mom with what to eat for lunch. This is a literature board, at least make an effort to seem well read, christ all mighty

>>13397167
You are a very smart person and people look up to you for your wisdom and intelligence

>>13397167
no you.

>>13397159
I usually don't care what skeptics have to say because they'll reject any form of tautology presented to them unless it was worded to sound appealing to the very least to them. Exactly like arguing with a 10 year old.

>>13397131
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170612094100.htm

>>13397177
>>13397173
The two retards have replied, angrily. Ok, let me put it this way. Atheists don't stand against god, that's a meme pushed by theists and people who don't know what atheism. You can't stand against something you don't believe exists.

>>13397190
What tautologies are you talking about? If you manage to prove a personal god that made us in his image and that you can talk to I will delete this thread.

>>13394527

A theistic God is an unnecessary tautology that is rendered impossible by dialectics.

>>13397193
The problem with athiesm is that it's basis statement is that they believe that there is no unknown. God as a concept is used as a placeholder for the unknown and always has been. God is the unknown. Therefore atheisms primary tennant is either arrogance that there are no unknowns, deliberate and utter denial that there are unknowns for personal comfort, or stupidly suggesting that science has already vanquished the unknown becuase it has figured out a small amount of factoids.

>>13397191
Nothing they've discovered suggests anything that magic is actively trying to cover. Believe it or not the study on "woos" are detrimental to the goal of achieving perpetual harmony

>>13397199
Hm yes. Very epic

>>13397218
I don't know anything about your magic I just read the initial article on the study years ago.

>>13397193
And yet here you are...

>>13397223
That stuff you linked was interesting either way.

>>13397210
>God is the unknown
Any bible quotations mentioning this?
I felt your approach directly contradict to aquinas theology.

>>13397210
Pretty sure in most cases God is used as a personal omnipotent being who you can talk to and who has interacted with this earth directly., not just the unknown (although people believe there are unknowable aspects to him). Atheism is disbelief in such a god. No atheist I know or have awareness of has stated that there are no unkwowns, and that's never been used as an argument for atheism, as far as I'm aware of. The argument is that in most cases we can't know whether a given phenomena will ever be understood, and making claims out of ignorance is not the way to prove god. And even if you do find an actual unknown, the god that you defined to be behind that concept or phenomena will in most cases be impossible to prove to be the same god as in a given major religion (personal god who has directly interacted with this earth and continues to interact with it every day, through prayer and otherwise). That's a massive leap of an argument that I haven't seen anyone make yet.
>>13397222
I am serious. If anyone here manages to disprove atheism (the disbelief in God, as meant by most major religions), or prove why it's an unreasonable position to take, I will delete this thread.
>>13397228
I don't stand against God, since I don't believe it exists. I stand against theists, since they clearly do exist and somehow fail to provide one argument that is not based in changing the definition of god or logical fallacies (or, in most cases, both).

>>13397231
I'm a deist. You atheists are all the same focusing on abrahamic mythology alone.

My perscription is to read some joseph campbell and take about 6 grams of mushrooms.

>>13397243
What do you mean by "You atheists"? Nietzsche famously criticized buddhism too.

>>13397243
The reason why we atheists focus on abrahamic mythology alone is because that's the background most of us came from, where people believe these myths, and that's what most religious people in the western world believe. If you believe Jesus was an actual person who was at the same time God, died and was resurrected, this thread is for you to prove atheists wrong.

NO DISPROOF WHATSOEVER so far. Very interesting. Seems like this thread is going to stay up for a looong time. Possibly forever.

>>13397241
>I will delete this thread.
Nah don't delet this, there is a chance refutation of that came out

>>13397243
This does not necessarily lead into deism. Deism itself really lacks any explanatory power, just an arbitrary stop on its way to an infinite regression, which you could wrap the thing up as infinite, but at this point you'd be entertaining various atheistic/adesitic monisms.

>>13397193
> who don't know what atheism.
t. failed highbrow larper.

>>13397263
I made a typo, alright?? My brain works so fast that the rate words come into my head is higher than my typing speed, so sometimes I will miss a word or two. Also, you're a stupid frogposter.

I never liked atheists. It's their smug attitude (basically a religion centered around a non-deity), the 'internet atheisms', none of it makes me feel sympathetic to their cause. But the idea of some omnipotent God doesn't appeal to me either.

>tfw not being part of any group

>>13397250
I mean you low brow ones who are ignorant of your own ignorance. God or gods have been used as a placeholder for the unknown for the entirety of mythology. Much of it is just the unconscious symbolism mixed with unanswered questions. From Zeus causing lightening to how the motion of the planets were the workings of God before Newtonian physics and later relativity solved the questions. The astronomers said that it must be the workings of God when they couldn't explain the observed motions of planets. You have clearly never read anything regarding mythology at all.

>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
1. Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4. This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5. This necessary being is God.
>The Kalam Cosmological Argument
1.0. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.0. The universe began to exist.
2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2.22. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.
3.0. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
>The Argument from Consciousness
1. Mental events are genuine nonphysical mental entities that exist.
2. Specific mental and physical event types are regularly correlated.
3. There is an explanation for these correlations.
4. Personal explanation is different from natural scientific explanation.
5. The explanation for these correlations is either a personal or natural scientific explanation.
6. The explanation is not a natural scientific one.
7. Therefore, the explanation is a personal one.
8. If the explanation is personal, then it is theistic.
9. Therefore, the explanation is theistic.

1/4

>>13397269
>My brain works so fast that the rate words come into my head is higher than my typing speed
The escape rope was right there. And You're digging deeper into the pit.

>>13397280
>The Argument from Reason
1. Either at least some of the fundamental causes of the universes are more like a mind than anything else, or they are not.
2. If they are not, then it is either impossible or extremely improbable that reason should emerge.
3. All things being equal, worldviews that render it impossible or extremely improbable that reason should emerge should be rejected in favor of worldviews according to which it is not impossible and not improbable that reason should emerge.
4. Therefore, we have a good reason to reject all worldviews that reject the claim that the fundamental causes of the universe are more like a mind than anything else.
>The Ontological Argument
1. It is possible that the greatest conceivable being exists.
2. The greatest conceivable being is unlimited.
3. Everything that is unlimited is so if and only if it does not depend on anything else for its existence or nonexistence and it neither just happens to exist nor just happens not to exist.
4. Everything that does not depend on anything else for its existence or nonexistence is such if and only if no other being causes it to begin to exist and no other being causes it to cease to exist.
5. Anything that begins to exist is caused to begin to exist by some other being, or it just happens to begin to exist.
6. Anything that ceases to exist is caused to cease to exist by some other being, or it just happens to cease to exist.
7. Anything that neither begins nor ceases to exist exists necessarily if it exists at all, and fails to exist necessarily if it exists at all.
8. The greatest conceivable being exists.
>The Moral Argument
1. If EN [Evolutionary Naturalism] is true, then human morality is a by-product of natural selection.
2. If human morality is a by-product of natural selection, then there are no objective moral facts.
3. There are objective moral facts.
4. Therefore, EN is false.
>The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

2/4

>>13397271
Do you believe in a personal god? No? Then you're an atheist. Get over it.

>>13397285
>Gödel's Ontological Argument

3/4

>>13397280
Finally, Some Good Fucking Food


... but don't just list it, what if each arguments refuting each other?

>>13397280
>>13397285
Whatever you post next it won't prove the existence of a personal god that a major religion believes in, and you know it. It's just a play on the definition of god at most. Stop larping and start giving actual arguments.

>>13397286
Is doubt a valid answer?

>>13397261
I entertain the cyclical universe idea as well as becoming the whole, splintering, and rebirth. Like rain precipitating to fall and returning back to the ocean, I visualize the life and death cycle. I don't entertain the idea that each soul is reincarnated or the step up or down ideas of some Eastern religions. I consider being a splintering of a mirror of a basal whole only to be cognitive of it while never really leaving it then returning it to be the most in touch with my personal experiences and atavistic intuition. When I was younger I didn't give any sway to my feelings but as I matured I found that there was an entire other half to my self actualization I had been neglecting which was the more primal and feeling side.

>>13397296
Doubt is disbelief.

>>13397290
>The Modal Perfection Argument

4/4

>>13397241
What is there to disprove? Youre a moron

>>13397300

>>13397300
>Modal Perfection Argument
I read Kripke and Lewis but I don't know what that is. Although I know Godel's proof, it seems to be very new to this.
Please elaborate on this.

>>13397309
it's this one. >13397303 But I dont personally agree with it

>>13397300
I'm surprised that even "almost omnipotent" argument cannot be through.
But I still don't think it supremes Godel's ontological proof; especially from "Perfection entails only perfection". That is some genuine Leibnizian vibe into it.
It still uses modal logic S5 too, more supportive of the fact that it didn't get past Godel.

>>13397280
>The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
Play on definition god.
>The Kalam Cosmological Argument
1.0 Needs justification. What even is a cause? How are you sure it's an objective thing not just a construct we made up to make interpreting reality easier?
>The Argument from Consciousness
1. Is a massive assumption. How are you so sure it's not just "all in the brain"? Same with 6. why isn't it a natural scientific one?
>The Argument from Reason
Point 2. needs justification. Also what do you mean by reason? Seems like a very vague concept to me that needs a lot of clarification. Also, it doesn't refute atheism, as it doesn't even claim the fundamental causes of the unverses aren't more like a mind than anything else, since that doesn't necessarily imply that here is a god. It could be something else than a god, and most atheists don't claim to know what it is, atheists just disbelieve in a persoinal god as described by most major religions.
>The Ontological Argument
Play on definition of god, doesn't disprove the atheist position in the slightest.
>The Moral Argument
>3. There are objective moral facts.
Yeah I'm going to need a justification for that. Asserting this is about as strong as asserting the existence of god.

>The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
>2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Evolution explains how it could be due to physical necessity or chance. Your argument is wrong.

>Godels Ontological Argument
Play on definition of god. Doesn't disprove the atheist position in the slightest.

>>13397329
COPE

>>13397302
Please enlighten me as to why you think I am a moron. I will be happy to refute your points. Until you do, I will regard you as a moron yourself who can't argue.

>>13397329
Define all in the brain when we don't even understand the brain.

>>13397336
By that I mean it's all just materialistic. That there's nothing supernatural going on, just a natural consequences of material processes that go on in the brain. Understanding this claim doesn't require a thorough understanding of how the brain works.

>>13397332
I want to alter my assertion. All the christian larpers are able to offer as to proof of God or the disproof of atheism is the alteration of definition of god to the point it doesn't reflect anything most religious people believe in, logical fallacies, unfounded claims and memes. Judging from the theist replies in this thread, seems like memes are the favorite coping mechanism of the theist, as evidenced in your reply.

>>13397161
The concept of god is first derived from the subjective experience of existence: the individual. That is the only true orientation.

https://web.archive.org/web/20030302045512/http://www.megafoundation.org/Ubiquity/Spring02/TalkAboutGod.htm

There are several ways that we can be logically certain that the being called "reality" or "the universe" is sentient. 1. *We're* sentient. Because we live in the medium known as "reality", and because any attribute supported by a medium exists throughout the medium in the form of potential (to be objectively actualized), sentience implicitly exists in reality. 2. Despite the principle of locality - the existence of separate locales and local systems within the universe - the universe is globally consistent. The aspect of a system which reflexively enforces global consistency is necessarily globally coherent, and that which is coherently reflexive (self-active, self-referential) is, in effect, "sentient". 3. Because, by definition, there is nothing outside of reality that is sufficiently real to recognize the existence of reality, reality must distributively recognize its own existence; every time one object interacts with another within it, the objects "recognize" each other as things with which to interact. But that means that reality is distributively self-aware. Now, given the absolute logical certainty that the universe is sentient (self-aware) – a certainty that nobody can possibly refute, as we see from the inevitability of 1-3 above - can we characterize its "will"? Yes. First, what is will? That function of a sentient entity which forms intent prior to actualization. So by definition, the "will" of the universe is that function which determines how the universe will configure itself “in advance” of actualization. In cosmological terms, this function is just that which determines, among other things, the laws of mathematics and physics embodied by reality. Such a function must, after all, exist. For without it, there would be no reason, from one moment to the next, why the laws of physics should not spontaneously change into one of the infinite number of other nomologies that might have arisen. Concisely, this function is defined as that reflexive mapping which effects the nomological character and stability of reality. The “will of the universe”, AKA the “will of God”, AKA teleology, is the name of this function, which we have just concretely defined. Does the universe “feel” its volition as do we? Well, let’s see. What the universe feels properly includes what *we* feel, plus much more (because we are merely parts of it). The universe therefore “feels” teleology far more powerfully than a mere human being “feels” an act of human will. The mechanism of its “feeling”? Well, there are a lot of those, including every human being, every animal, every plant, and every alien microbe on every planet in every star system in every galaxy in the cosmos.

1/2

>>13397346
As you can well imagine, the impressions that get channeled to the universe through all of these “sense receptors” add up to very powerful sensations indeed. In fact, these are the sensations that feed back to teleology to tell the universe how to self-actualize in the “optimal” way…i.e., so that it ends up with the “best feeling” possible. They have already told the universe how to configure the laws of math and physics; for more specific elements of configuration, the universe relies on US. Every decision we make, including our every act of will, we make on behalf of the universe. That’s why we should always make the very best decisions we can. Regarding another post asserting that "the use of the phrase logical theology carries with it the implication of a sentient supernatural being with the ability to suspend the laws of physics", this is in fact nowhere implied. As I’ve just explained, God is the supra-physical being with the power to SELECT the laws of physics for all time, and then to enforce them so that they are NEVER suspended (with due allowance for the priority of the supra-physical will of God himself over mere physical law). Can we rule out a suspension of the laws of physics? Yes, at least under ordinary circumstances. But in doing so, we must allow for the possibility that there could be hidden laws of teloelogical origin that make other laws *appear* to be suspended. As a matter of scientific history, those who discover new laws of physics are always in the position of “magicians” until others catch up with them. The “spirit” they conjure is the greatest of them all: God.

2/2

>>13397340
Fucking lmao, see >>13397191

Besides that the brain has been proven to be beyond just "material," which by the way means absolutely nothing when there are 14 dimensions total and is completely reductionist regarding the most complex system that we know of, it also doesn't take in to account the level of unknown regarding how this brain evolved to this point in the first place, let alone how quickly.

>>13394679
It's always Americans from rural areas who think that being an atheist is a sign of intelligence. Please realise that this is not the case and that adopting contrarian stances on topics you are clueless in does not put you above the trailer trash you are so desperate to distinguish yourself from. I bet you believe in a science/religion dichotomy.

>>13397353
I do not think of theists as trash, my parents are deeply religious and I love them dearly. I adopt a stance that I find most reasonable to take, not to signal intelligence or anything else. I am european, not american. If you claim I am clueless about topics I am talking about, please be so kind and explain why you think that way. Otherwise, I am just going to assume you are a moron who has nothing to add to the discussion.
>>13397350
You realize that you don't know anything you're talking about, right? There are not 14 dimensions total, you got that impression because your reading comprehension is really poor or just because you're stupid. It's talking about cliques of neurons, which can be thought of mathematically as a higher dimensional object, this has nothing to do with the actual space of the brain. I'm sure there are ways to interpret the structures in the brain that make it 999 dimensional or 8000 dimensional, it's all about the definition. Alone, your statement doesn't mean anything. The brain has not been proven to be beyond just material, and you conveniently haven't provided a source for your claim. As is usual for theists, you pull out claims straight out of your ass and sit there smugly expecting others to believe them.

>>13397269
What makes frogposting stupid, Mr. Intellectual.

>>13397376
The fact that frogposters consist uniformly of people like you is what made frogposting stupid.

>>13397374
What discussion? This entire bait thread is you ignoring replies. This is coming from an atheist.

150 replies and not one disproof of God. Theists on the verge of TEARS.

>>13397395
What reply did I ignore? I will reply to it and debunk it just for you :)
>This is coming from an atheist.
Good to know.

>>13397374
Based backpedaling retard. If you actually followed scientific research periodicals you would know that the current count of dimensions in theory is 14. Dimensions is also not about definition it is about math so you clearly never got past calculus 1.

>>13397403
My point is that saying that the count of dimensions in theory is 14 is a meaningless statement for a person who has not delved deeply in the exact articles you are referring to. The notion here is completely different from what a regular person would interpret it as.
>Dimensions is also not about definition it is about math
Here is where you outed yourself as a retard. Math is about definitions (and theorems that follow from them). Almost every term in math has a precise definition that a regular person needs to know in order to even begin to understand what a mathematician is talking about.
>so you clearly never got past calculus 1.
Bitch im a math major.

>>13397345
The individual is individual in orientation to the collective that is collective to the all which is all. Is this going over your head baby philosopher? Need some more time at B&N?

>>13397417
I seriously doubt it. I doubt you aren't failing as a freshman. And by the way, even if you were you woudn't be past 2 by now even if you were in AP or duel credit.

>>13397428
You know everyone is laughing at you, right? You are either pretending to be retarded or are an actual retard, and I don't know which is worse. Get a basic book on arguing if it's that difficult for you.

>>13397434
Based backpedaling retard

keep entertaining me

>>13397417
>Math is about (precise) definitions
kek no retard
If you are really a math major and thinking this, define "homomorphism", and define "mathematics".

>>13397443
I have carefully justified my every point and you seem to lack the ability to even comprehend what I said, even though I used relatively simple language. Who's the retard here? Your arguments boil down to insults and baseless claims, and you fail to respond when you are called out for them. But that is expected from the retard that you've proven to be, so I won't hold it against you. Go take a walk or something, this thread is for smart people, not you.

>>13397451
You've done nothing and never addressed any of by base arguments. All you've done is oversimplify and ignore any contradictory thoughts. Absolutely standard flyover athiest behavior.

>>13394527
I do that everyday, Read the Qur'an and point out the scientific facts that is said by God 1400 years ago, and check if its true by today's Science and Technology.

>>13397450
Homomorphism as a word is context dependent, it usually means a map that preserves some sort of structure (this is not a precise definition). If we specify a context, for example a group, then a group homomorphism between groups G and H is a map f:G->H such that for all a,b in G f(a*b)=f(a)*f(b), where * denotes the group multiplication in the respective groups. Mathematics doesn't have a precise definition, but it's also not a mathematical term, so it doesn't have to. People usually know mathematics when they see it, and that's enough for most purposes. The fact that you think this debunks anything is hilarious.

>>13397462
Alright, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Please state in clearest terms your base argument and I will tell you why it's wrong or doesn't prove anything.

Atheism BTFO

Atheists cannot handle the amount of truth bombs

Atheist COPE - the thread

>>13397469
No disproof of atheism has been presented in this thread that doesn't depend on logical fallacies or the change of definition of god. Theists SEETHING itt, just like you, sweetie :)

>>13397273
>>13397210
>>13397298
>>13397468
>>13397298
>>13397273
>>13397253
>>13397253
Just read the thread. I've stated more than enough.

>>13397463
I can give examples if you're too lazy just need to know you would take them seriously.

>>13397478
Alright, so I take it you don't actually have any arguments? Should have said so from the start. Stop wasting our time and go to another thread.

>>13397483
No one has been able to refute anything and neither have you. It's cool that you have nothing because people smarter than you have failed to provide answers to me as well. Someday you might grow up so don't blame yourself.

>>13397467
Math is about precise definition but somehow "Homomorphism as a word is context dependent". Congratulations, you played yourself.
And thanks to say Mathematics doesn't have a precise definition. Then, how about "Axiom"? Is Axiom mathematical term that having precise definition, or not a mathematical term?
What about "Set"? Is set a mathematical term or not?
What about "number" then? What is the definition of number? Is number a mathematical term or not?

>>13394527
Disprove thesim.
Protip: you can't

>>13397490
I have successfully refuted numerous "refutations" in this thread that rest on logical fallacies or altered definition of god. Are you blind?
>>13397491
you're an idiot
>>13397497
This thread is about disproving atheism, not theism.

>>13397497
Ok
God is a subject, he is *the* subject.
A subject has an umwelt. God's umwelt by his alleged absolute nature would necessarily be the world. It follows that God can not exist as an independent subject. God is subsumed into the world, is identified with it, the immanence of God negates god as a theistic being.

disprove=make you stop believing
belief=based on groupthink, intuition

If you want me to disprove atheism, it means you've been in contact with enough theists to acknowledge the idea at least being viable.
If you therefore have a genuine interest in the idea, simply read up on it more. That's what you're doing with this thread, so I congratulate you on being on the correct path.

No one wants to believe the truth in this thread, the truth is that God exists so fucck you for even making this thread.

Does the awfulness of this thread itself disprove the existence of god?

>>13394527
Near death experiences.
Out of body experiences, with proof of seeing hidden stuffs in others rooms/at distance.

>>13397059
>There’s far more important things to talk about. Urgent things.
Go on

>>13397085
And just as important to be talking about. But Star War and Arthur aren’t talked about here as much as the other.

>>13397168
I’m not the obsessed one. And I’ve debunked it dozens upon dozens of times, but twits like you close your ears to it all, because it is like debating with a child who vehemently wants Santa Clause to be real. I’m the mother here. Now eat your fucking broccoli.

>>13398136
The climate catastrophe and what you’re going to do about it

>>13398160
>The climate catastrophe and what you’re going to do about it
Even if I put moderate amounts of effort into delaying humanity's extinction by climate my contribution would hardly matter. I'm not going to come up with some key technology that'll let us squeeze past some climate hurdle nor will my advocating for a healthy environment make a difference either.

inb4 something along the lines of
>is that also your excuse for not going voting either?
A single vote objectively doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It's a good thing to publicly advocate for it because public promotion affects a lot of people at once, but what I do myself after crusading for voting/climate change online doesn't matter.
I go voting anyways because it makes me feel good about myself to do something respectable "out of principle." Isn't that also why you "care" about the environment? Or do you think you're making a difference?

In the end you wouldn't be on /lit/ if you had the motivation to take action. You want to talk about the climate catastrophe because talking about it satisfies a handful of subconscious motives of yours, the same way /lit/ likes talking about religion because it satisfies a handful of subconscious motives of theirs.

>>13397531
Fucking /thread, well put.

>>13394527
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

>>13395800
>god must exist because I thought of him

true genius

>>13398553
It's so embarrassing to see them gloss over terms like "thoughts" and "intelligence", fully aware that they do not know what these terms truly mean yet pretending like surely that doesn't have to stop them from using them in some analytic proof. Why were the philosophers of old such half-assers?

>>13397346
>>13397349

Do you have the fragments of Lagan on transhumanism and his ideas on mind machine merge? His ideas are very good connecting christians and xeno trans.

>>13394527

I am.

>>13398572
Vitrifyher has the right ideas, but is too autistic to see them from a much simpler angle, one he would be able to follow to its conclusion. That, and he's assumedly killed himself, so he'll forever be a failure as a philosopher.

>>13394587
That's not him.