/lit/ - Literature

there's no material evidence.
no, the beauty of a baby boy or a sunset is not material evidence.
seethe less about it.

I don't have a good answer because I avoid atheists anyways. I have just come to tell you that is the cringiest image I have ever seen.

>>15008879
Aside from your strawmaning how is that not a good argument. There being sunsets is far more evidence of an intelligent creator than say things just going "poof" out of no where and started to exist

>>15008888
Yeah I chose it specifically because its so cringey. This is what atheists bring to the table while Christians have tradition and culture.

>>15008870
I would like to believe in God, but I find myself groping in the dark for compelling evidence/arguments. Even the most brilliant Christian thinkers don't agree on why we should believe in God. The nominalist/realist debate of the Middle Ages casts a shadow over Aquinas' assumption that belief in God can definitely be worked out through via the rational application of first principles. The debate between fideists and rationalists too. Diversity of opinion is no cause for despair, obviously, but it does indicate that the questions are not settled. There is justifiable cause for a suspension of judgement. The best minds in Christianity are not all in agreement -- the right answer, if it exists, is not, it seems, self-evident.

Anyway, one argument in particular I think is good is the 'argument from divine hiddenness'.

>>15008892
The fish/atheist doesn’t deny that there’s water.
They discover that water freezes into a solid and evaporates into a gas. The fish/theist claims water was invented from nothing and never changes.
Chump

>>15008870
Fair point OP, I am now religious. I think I'll become a Muslim. Praise Allah.

It's easier to be an atheist/nihilist, because it requires very little intellectual effort: it only requires you to notice what is immediately and materially perceptible around you, which even the dullest of retards is able to do.
This is why so many midwits subscribe to existential nihilism. It's easy.

>>15008870
They have the problem of evil. That's probably the best atheist argument but it kind of deflates when you point out evil is a nonexistent category in an atheist worldview

>>15010308
>but it kind of deflates when you point out evil is a nonexistent category in an atheist worldview
Not really, since the point is about whether the 'good God' that theists describe exists.

>>15010308
And the fact that for Catholics, the problem of evil is already resolved. So it's only purpose is to reinforce whatever current belief atheist have, which is completely useless on arguments between a person's non-belief vs a person's belief.

>>15010308
>evil is a nonexistent category in an atheist worldview
I'm not an atheist, but you can acknowledge your system of morals is a subjective construct while still upholding it because it makes life easier.

>>15010308
It's pretty astounding how atheists and theists look at the same world and come to completely different conclusions. An atheist looks at the world and says "How can there be a God?" and a theist takes a glance and says "How can there not be a God?"

This in itself is proof of God. God said through His last messenger that He is what His servant thinks of Him. If His servant thinks He is present, then He will be present and the servant will see Him. If His atheist servant is in doubt of His existence, than the servant sees nothing. That is the Lord of the Worlds.

>>15008870
Atheists operate on a very strict empiricist philosophy.

>>15008870
god i hate this man so fucking bad

>>15010308
like >>15010364 said. it always boils down to no u tier arguments. they can't agree on what's circled. for christians, God is playing sims where a character is created with 50/50 chance of good or evil. He knows what they'll choose but has no hand no hand in making that decision itself, just the two paths that is available to the person. For atheists, this is the equivalent of God pre-programming the decision for them.

>>15010426
>God knows what we would do if we were tested, therefore no need to test us
It's not God who needs to test us, it's us who need to be tested.

I don't know man I dont take my life that seriously In that way. I went to catholic school. I never bought it as a kid. It was more of just a thing to do. As soon as I was old enough, roughly 11/12, I just told my parents I dont want to go to sunday school anymore. They said thats fine but I should still go to church. After a couple of times I said I didnt want to go to church. I have vivid memories of a noah's ark coloring book , where I colored into it and I had a brief moment of "Yeah none of this actually happened" I was maybe under 10 years old at that time. I wasn't a bad kid and I wasn't exactly bored, I just didn't believe. I saw kids crying at the power of jesus and I thought they looked kind of silly, but in a weird reversal I felt guilty that I never "felt" anything. These are all thoughts of a young me. As an adult I just dont believe, so I'm an atheist. I don't know what more to say in that.

>>15010436
This. The reason we're her in the first place is to show ourselves that we're fucking up.

>>15008870
Idk just about every scientific measure I’ve seen points to the Bible not having the accurate timeline of the world, not necessarily that there is no god. As soon as I see more evidence one way or the other I’ll change my view. Right now it’s pretty obvious the world isn’t flat and is older then 6000 years.

>>15010426
>>15010459
>>15010436
Dude I don't even need all of this rationalization to not believe. I just don't.

>>15010453
Jesus wasn't God. So It isn't strange for someone to not believe so. God is God. Look at the world with a clear lens and then research the last Abrahamic religion. Islam.

>>15010453
>mfw was the kind of catholic that
>just do good things bro
>dont go church
>never went sunday school
>believed in paganry
>mocked Jesus to the point He's copying Horus or some /x/ shit
Had an epiphany while writing an essay, and after months of questioning, finally became religious. Do you think how a person is brought up reflect if they're religious later on as adults?

>>15010479
Hey, no one's convincing you of something. We're just explaining why people disagree whenever the Problem of Evil comes up.

>>15010488
It's all the same mish mash man, I don't believe.

>>15008870
I am unsatisfied by faith as a replacement for objective evidence. Given the absence of objective terms by which to define objective evidence, I acknowledge the reality that I am existentially uncertain and it is scary.

replacing this uncertainty with a fairy tale, no matter how much influence this fairy tale comes from badly translated hebrew fairy tales, will not change that we are all still existentially uncertain and you are just lying about that.

>>15010506
>>15010479
>he thinks he's special enough for people to want to convince him to convert in a filipino bread kneading imageboard

>>15010506
What if you deserved to burn forever as a result of your lazy indecisiveness? Would you burn patiently or impatiently? Will you cry? Would you wish you weren't such an ignoramus while you were alive?

>>15008892
so instead of saying that things go "poof" out of nowhere you just say that god "poofed" out of nowhere

>>15010387
So God is like the placebo effect lmao okay

No evidence. Aquinas made up a bunch of language games. Next.

>>15008870
I have never heard a compelling argument for the existence of any specific God.

I can grant the idea of a prime or unmoved mover (though I still don’t find that argument 100% convincing) but even that doesn’t lead us to any specific organized religion. There just appears to me to be a complete lack of any convincing evidence or appeals to logic for the existence of a specific God. I can find no legitimate reasons to believe in any religion.

>>15010493
I don't think its thats deep. I certainty make jesus jokes and did so as a kid with my regular school friends. Then again who wasnt edgy in middle school. The feeling is sort of hard to explain to people who believe. I mean this in the least offensive way possible even though it destroys your worldview lol, I don't come out reading a book about lord of the rings or watching the avengers and go "yeah thats canon, I live in that universe". Nothing in the bible clicked for me at all. In retrospect, I read the bible as less of a spiritual thing and more as a sort of historical text. Like reading Livy or plato or something. A book with a bunch of stories that help express a a point of a story about morality. That much I got. But believing in a god? Thats like reading Sun and Steel by yukio Mishima and coming out as a pro war pro Japanese military nationalist instead of taking the books teachings and applying them to my life. I don't know if that answers your question, I think the answer would mostly be yes. Religious people will more than likely be religious if they grow up. People turning the leaf the other way are outliers

>>15010551
What was indecisive? He said he didn't believe.

>>15010551
I don’t believe that I will burn forever for my lack of belief. The threat of Hell holds no sway if you can’t convince me of Hell’s existence.

>>15010551
You see an atheist cant possibly have an answer for that without being rude. Because my real answer is, yeah wait in line dude their are many religions that just me not believing in it I will probably end up burning in some type of hell. It just shuts things down and is unpleasant. You just pull the yeah well burn in hell shtick, like what am I supposed to do with that? "Hey God, I literally don't believe in any of your stories but I really dont want to burn in hell so here I am." I don't think that accepts me to the pearly gates my dude.

>>15010577
Atheists are all closet agnostics

>>15010609
Christians are all closet jews, what’s your point?

The prime mover argument is so absolute I have never heard a refutation of it. All "refutations" come down to "b-but what about what came before the prime mover!" which is a non-question and isn't valid.
It's literally like asking "what is ordered under the bottom element of a bottom bounded lattice" or "which natural number comes before 0" or "which well ordered infinite cardinal is smaller than aleph null" or any other false questions.

>>15010609
I disagree, with faith, I make the choice to literally not believe in god. Much like I don't believe the three little pigs actually happened. Or other religious stories lost in time but significant for their day. Sure I don't have enough evidence to 100% refute god's existence, which is why I say it does take a certain level of faith to be an athiest vs an agnostic, but I play that same faith game when I also don't believe in leprechauns. I don't even mean to belittle it, thats really how I feel about it.

>>15010515
Fear is just another delusion though. And faith is a transition:

Four sorts of mortals know me: he who weeps,
Arjuna! and the man who yearns to know;
And he who toils to help; and he who sits
Certain of me, enlightened.

Emphasis on Certain.

You seem to be aware of the fundamental non-objectivity of reality, but objectivity is only necessary in some systems of knowing. Religions have been called the truths of the heart, and we're always using our heart to make sense of reality, because reason alone is structurally incapable of the feat. It's time
to unplug from the Matrix and leave reason behind.

>>15010208
The dullest of retards are also able to just listen to what their preacher man says buddy. That’s why so many mid- and halfwits subscribe to religion.

>>15010609
We're all agnostics in the strict sense

>>15010565
God is qualitative not quantitative. Luckily, we take as real all sorts of things that are unquantifiable.

>>15010639
No. Only the bugmen among us who deny absolute certainty in knowing God.

>>15010621
>prime mover
Contradiction in terms. Even Aristotle thought so. Christfags of course don’t, because they don’t care about reality, they care about confirming their pre conceived conclusion

>>15010621
Why does the prime mover need to be sentient though?

>>15010665
Because in order for this world to be so orderly, it needs intelligence far beyond ours to keep everything in motion.

>>15010633
>Systems of knowing.
That's not what they are.

>>15010637
I never mentioned religion in my post.

>>15010676
That’s a non-sequitur

>>15010647
>qualitatives are still real
>therefore, God is real
Okay?

>>15010651
Those are just people who are honest about their belief being belief not knowledge. Whether atheist or theist

>>15010676
Are you even aware of how many jumps you made in that sentence.

Many things, in fact all things, have models governed by physics that birth them into existence. DNA/RNA/Biology and chemistry itself are just applications of things moving. Those are true in any universe, just like how the number 1 is always 1 thing. In other words the universe is "orderly" as you say all by itself.

>>15010652
Nobody engages with reality as reason says it is. It's all just atoms, sub-atomic particles, photons, etc. yet we pretend that there are things like pain, children, food, cars. All cognitive shortcuts, estimations. And in this noise, there are those who claim to have perceived the signal known as God. You can call them schizophrenics, but maybe it is that you're colorblind. Do not think reason gives you a full picture of reality.

>>15010685
>pilpulling this hard after one response
lol

>>15010722
It feels like you watched just enough science channel to completely not know what the fuck your talking about.

>>15010426
This makes me think of a Roko-like situation where God, being omniscient, contains in his mind something akin to simulations of every possible reality. If that were the case, then of course evil would be beyond his power to eradicate, in a way analogous to the 'rock so big he couldn't lift it' question.

>>15008892

Everything is in a perpetual state of becoming. Animals didn't just 'poof' out of nowhere, they are an expression of an extremely long process of variation in nature which started with fundamental and simple cells which behave in certain ways according to their environment.There is no such thing as something in-itself, there are no essentials. Everything you see is an effect of difference in intrinsic properties in our view of extension; this is the reason we slip into thinking things are stationary and constant, because of our limited faculties of experience - we don't see mountains grow or the tectonic plates shift, but they do, at such a slow rate that it imperceptible to us.

>>15008879
>muh material
assuming you believe human consciousness is a byproduct of millions of years of evolution, what is the likelihood our brains are evolved “enough” to have a reliable view and measure of reality? how can we know to trust our senses as reliable? until you can find someway to prove otherwise, using material evidence and empiricism as a guideline to determine what is real or not is largely useless

>>15010700
By the physicalist and empiricist arguments used to reject God, qualitatives are not real though, same as good, evil, pain, justice, and all sorts of other things that everyone takes as real and important, but that are not quantitative or observable.

To elaborate further, the unreality of all those things is why the alignment problem in AI exists: these things humans value so are not real, and therefore a non-human intelligence will in no way be bound by them, like it will be bound by the laws of physics.

Yet few are committed nihilists, though that is what seeing the world only through the lens of reason unambiguously leads to.

>>15010784
>how can we know to trust our senses as reliable?
Jump in front of an oncoming car and find out yourself

>>15010768
>Everything is in a perpetual state of becoming.
OH NO NO NO NO NO

>>15010768
>Everything is in a perpetual state of becoming.
>Everything
So this becoming can flux into a state where it's no longer becoming anymore?

>>15010784
Holy based

>>15010795
non-argument, you don’t even get the point I’m making.

so what if I get hit by a car, experience pain, and die? there is nothing to suggest to me that the experience was anything more than a complete delusion of my mind, there is still nothing to suggest that any of it proves that the experience was a reliable and accurate depiction of reality. for all I know, I could have been gored by an animal in “reality” instead of being hit by a car. try again

>>15010795
>>15008879

>We're in a simulation bro! It's unreliable! We can't objectivley know!

>>15010742
Everyone knows physics is the only science, everything else is stamp collecting. Words like child, happiness, suffering, justice, are just that, words. Patterns. Map, and not territory.

>>15010767
>something akin to simulations of every possible reality
FRICKIN' THIS OMG! SO MUCH THIS!

>>15010811
No, you don’t get the point I’m making. Life is measured in results and consequences. If God’s existence is so insignificant that he can’t even present the slightest slither of evidence for his existence, other than some fable books that claim so, why should I worship him then?

>>15010831
>Life is measured in results and consequences
says? again, nothing in our fallible senses to suggest this is actually the case

> If God’s existence is so insignificant that he can’t even present the slightest slither of evidence for his existence, other than some fable books that claim so, why should I worship him then?
Where did I mention god? This is painfully bad, painful enough to get me to acknowledge the reality of my material suffering. You win.

>>15010784
Dude we evolved just enough to do the things we need to do to pass our genes down.
Same with single celled organisms with chemotaxis to find their food, except instead of primitive means to interact with our niche to out survive other animals is that we are smart. Our measures of reality are good enough for us to pass our genes and turns out that measure is pretty damn good for that job.

>>15010816
Except of course that the main difference between a simulation and real life is risk. Real actual risk. Risk that is the result of real life consequences

>>15010811
Take your meds schizo

>>15010853
>Real actual risk.
OMG! WHAT IF LIKE... THE SD CARD GETS DELETED WHE YOU DIE IN A SIMULATION?? THATS REAL RISK TOO!

>>15010844
>again, nothing in our fallible senses to suggest this is actually the case
Then why won’t you put your money where your mouth is, and actually test out your idea in real life? Go to the nearest bridge, jump off of it, and will yourself to a safe landing. You won’t, because you know that you’re full of shit. Your actions speak much louder than your words

>>15008879
>I deny the existence of the immaterial because no material evidence
The absolute state of /lit/.

>>15008870
Aquinas is a terrible philosopher like most Aristotle followers.

inb4
>muh potentiality and actuality

>>15010863
> DUDE GODS REAL BUT HES LIKE NOT REAL, IT MAKES SENSE I PROMISE

>>15010794
My atheism isn't 'gnostic' or based on any rationalist frame, it's just my belief. I chose to live my life as if God doesn't exist and it made no difference, so I kept going. If I act as if pain doesn't exist I'd run into a wall wouldn't I? Aren't we then just back to my greentext? You're better off talking to someone who knows about philosophy though I think. Good luck.

>>15010858
>epik soiboi maymays
Looks like someone ran out of interesting things to say. Now, back to /pol/ with you

>>15010869
Ive mentioned something similar earlier in this read and this is also basically how I feel.

>>15010869
>I chose to live my life as if God doesn't exist
> and it made no difference

>>15010883
I don't even know the emotion this is supposed to be showing

>>15010869
>it made no difference
How can you tell? Do you actually see the angelic realms?

>>15010621
>All "refutations" come down to "b-but what about what came before the prime mover!" which is a non-question and isn't valid.

Oh, so special-pleading.

>>15010426
>ignorance.png

>>15008879
There's no material evidence to suggest that material evidence is the only way to know truth.

>>15010849
the brain action we experience as a result of evolution =/= consciousness. evolving to meet ultimately meaningless and improvable needs such as passing down our genes does nothing to prove that we have an accurate perception of reality. this is like asking why the logic of an isolated framework (such as a video game, or a fantasy story) cannot necessarily be extrapolated to function as logic in "reality"

>>15010890
Memelords tend to do this. The memes are really just a giant cope for the fact that they have nothing interesting to say, so they just clog up the world with faggy memes

>>15010883
I don't begrudge anyone else believing otherwise dude, I just don't think it's something we can talk about with absolute knowledge, only belief. Like your gay assumptions about where I'm from because you didn't like my wording. Wasn't some edgy statement.

>>15010860
where did I say anything about being able to use my own consciousness to alter reality? in fact, what i've been reaching at here is that my consciousness cannot be relied upon in any conceivable way, meaning I in fact agree that I can't jump off a bridge and will myself to a safe landing.

>>15008879
there's also no material evidence your whole family isn't ashamed of you
>>15008870
>>15008989
>>15010453
>>15010465
>>15010479
>>15010515
>>15010565
>>15010568
>>15010572
>>15010621
>>15010631
Top 10 atheist arguments
1. If God is real why can't I see him in the sky?
2. God is mean
3. Christians are mean
4. There are other religions than Christianity
5. I'm a monkey
6. The bible says something vaguely like polyester bad
7. out of context bible verse from a wordpress blog compilation
8. why does god hate men who fuck other men
9. dinosaurs
10. why doesnt god let me do what i feel like
truly the most enlightened system of thought devised by man (monkey)

>>15010912
>I just don't think it's something we can talk about with absolute knowledge

>>15010621
>It's literally like asking "what is ordered under the bottom element of a bottom bounded lattice" or "which natural number comes before 0" or "which well ordered infinite cardinal is smaller than aleph null" or any other false questions.
It's not. These structures are all well defined. There is no well-defined ordering of movement. Also, inertia.

>>15010917
>>15010921
Again, you’re a memelord, and the actual reason why you clamp onto religion is because you’re a bitter virgin who can’t get laid

>>15010892
>angelic realms
When I believed in God I thought I saw his work in the world around me, but no, obviously not.
And until I do see another realm myself, I'll believe there's no God and see how far it takes me. I suspect it'll be the rest of my life, but whatever.

>>15010921
yes some picture of a dude drinking a latte has really offended me, your Negroid bitterness is palpable, later

>>15010849
also, natural selection doesn't select for "true" behaviors, only for advantageous ones. so using this as a way to "prove" that consciousness is indeed real is again, largely useless. if i migrate south, even though there may be evidence to suggest that traveling north will lead to my survival, and I just happen to survive and reproduce in the south, and adapt to living there, that does not mean that evolution dictated whether or not going north or south was a problem that could be definitively answered. my experience was an exception, not a rule

>>15010916
>in fact, what i've been reaching at here is that my consciousness cannot be relied upon in any conceivable way
And yet you do rely on it, every single day. You won’t jump in front of an oncoming car, while assuring yourself that the car is illusionary anyway. What not?

>>15010652
I'm not christian
>>15010665
it doesn't, I never claimed it did, nor even that it must be worshipped
>>15010900
It's not special pleading as I literally just gave 3 (and there are many more) other things of which that question also isn't valid. Are you stupid?
>>15010929
The prime mover is well defined.

>>15010953
*why not

>>15010941
>Again, you’re a memelord, and the actual reason why you clamp onto religion is because you’re a bitter virgin who can’t get laid
massive projection I'm currently dunking on you from bedroom which I share with my wife. Enjoy lonely masturbation for the next 4 months in quarantine monkey

>>15010961
>I'm not christian
cringe. what are you then?

>>15010910
Does a rock have consciousness? No. Do animals have consciousness? Some limited form. So far humans are known to have the highest level. Turns out if you evolve to have the higher functioning parts of a brain, you get this benefit. Do you mean to tell me you have a conscious absent of a brain?
Do you know what separates us from "iruses, who in the scientific community are not called life? The fact that viruses cant reproduce without a host and they dont use energy. We are literally nothing more than extremely complex large machines built for reproduction. that just so happen to have thought. We don't reproduce because their is some outside force giving meaning to it, its because physics. Or at least it began with physics (further devolved into other sciences like biochem and endorine)

What I mean to say is all of your reality things dont matter. For your DNA/RNA its real enough to do the things you do now.

Just say you believe in a soul and be done with it.

>>15010961
>The prime mover is well defined.
Wrong.

>>15010973
I'm a Platonic-Computationalist.

>>15010970
Yeah, your pillow wife. That’s also why you’re on 4chan, fucking homo

>>15010975
>Does a rock have consciousness? No.
I beg to differ until I see objective evidence.

>>15010953
what do I have to prove to you? what does jumping in front of a car and dying do to prove that my perception of reality is any more or less real? evolution does not select for what is true or not, only what is advantageous. having a survival instinct in my mind that prevents me from willingly running into a car proves nothing.

>>15010982
>That’s also why you’re on 4chan
look for real it is true what they say "don't forget you're here forever" lmao

also
monkey

>>15010985
Again, get laid, memelord virgin fag

>>15010981
>I'm a Platonic-Computationalist.
This has to be the most cringe thing I've ever heard. Just admit you're an atheist, dude.

>>15010977
The prime mover is an oracle that sits on the bottom of the reality lattice (or the top, it makes no difference).

>>15010975
>Does a rock have consciousness? No.
Why not? What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>15010975
> So far humans are known to have the highest level.
As far as we know. Who knows how hypothetical alien species perceive "reality".

>What I mean to say is all of your reality things dont matter. For your DNA/RNA its real enough to do the things you do now.
see >>15010949, using evolution as a framework to prove anything as real is useless. it's like saying "the bible says god is real, so god is real"

>>15010994
Except I'm not. I believe there is an infinite eternal GOD that is the prime mover, the upholder and the infinite constructor of all existence and reality. It makes no sense to say I'm an atheist.
I wasn't raised with any religion, my father was a sociologist and I was raised in a non religious household in new york city. I learned of the truth on my own in my studies and contemplations.

>>15010981
>I'm a Platonic-Computationalist.
oh nononononono get a load of this atheist
HAHAHAHAHA

>>15010989
Do you honestly expect me to believe you have a wife, when all you do is spout soiboi memes that stopped being relevant two years ago? You’re obviously a bitter 4chan virgin who can’t get laid. That’s why you probably picked traditional Catholicism, to channel your virgin rage. But sure, keep telling anonymous randos you totally have a wife.

>>15011011
>my father was a sociologist and I was raised in a non religious household in new york city.
you know its all making sense now. F dude it isn't really your fault at all

>>15011011
>>I'm a Platonic-Computationalist.
>my father was a sociologist
Yeah we know you didn't really have a strong father in the home. All atheists are like that.

>>15011016
I'm not a Catlick but thanks for assuming everyone is some extremely online tradcat deus vult weirdo. Again, your projections and assumptions say more about your own mindset and influences than anything I could hope to lob at you

>>15010949
so what are you trying to say, consciousness is a soul? Outside of your body? I don't understand. I mean yeah your evolution argument doesn't disagree with mine. Lets say its millions of years ago and you moved south, and you happen to have a gene that will potentially develop a protein that allows your brain to develop higher order thinking and a consciousness. Your flock just so happens to do well in the south, and all of a sudden millions of years later people are conscious. Because it would more than likely have to help survival in order for you to stay alive/ it isnt too much brain space (caloric requirement) to have a part of your brain to be conscious and its sort of vestigial.

You cant argue that consciousness isnt nature, other wise any object can have it. At that point its just schizo posting.

>>15011014
How am I an atheist if I believe there is exists one GOD that is the eternal infinite?
>>15011020
What is making sense? That you have no idea who I am or what I believe?
>>15011029
You have no idea what platonic-computationalism is

God is as real as good and evil.

>>15010999
You've yet to prove reality has a lattice-like structure.

>>15011035
What I am saying is the evolutionary consequences of certain behaviors does nothing prove what is true or not. Moving south may have lead to my success, but there’s nothing to say that if I went north, the same couldn’t have happened. Like I’ve repeatedly said, because evolution only selects for what just happens to be advantageous, it is not an effective criteria for determining what is true or not

>>15011031
You’re either lying or you’re instead a faggy mutt orthodox, because they’re LE TOTALLY BASED LE LE LE.

Fucking memelord faggot. Get laid

>>15011002
You speak in white girl yogi logic. So we cant perceive real reality because different beings perceive reality differently? Fine. Their doesnt need to be mysticism about it though. Any reality that any being perceives is for the sole purpose that it was naturally selected. its not a divine thing.

>>15010735
>spazzing out after I just stated a fact
Okay.

>>15011057
if I strip reality of it’s material = objective criteria, there’s nothing to say that there isn’t mysticism attached either. the root of this entire argument is that empiricism is pointless for determining whether something is real or not

>>15011049
Then I guess I dont really care to go down that rabbit hole. Then you have to get into "is true really truee man and is false really fallssee" stereotypical weed head philosophy. It just seems like a waste of time.

>>15010708
I'd also post the Mickey & Donald one but I can't have two pictures in one post.

>>15010453
I did all those things too as a kid but I wrestled for several between belief and Dawkins-tier atheism, mainly over the question of death. Eventually I started to have faith after thinking it was silly to think the entirety of all human experience has no purpose or meaning at all. I still had almost panic attack like moments, mainly while laying in bed over mortality, but after my grandfather died I read a bit of theology over the question of evil and got into Aquinas, which is what brought me into philosophy.
If living as an atheist is like what I experienced, then it is a truly pitiful existence.

>>15011055
im a Presbyterian and I take my wife to church every odd week or so and I am looking forward to a cozy easter with my family. Again you extremely online warped brain just makes everyone a ridiculous weirdo like you. I'm a dumb sperg for being addicted to 4chan for 9 years but idk could be worse

>>15011080
So basically, you’re religious because of cope

>>15010953
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY you bumbling fucking retard

>>15011074
so you’ve been reduced to not wanting to argue something because “it just feeeeeeeeels dumb maaaaaan”, gotcha

>>15011087
Because atheism never felt right.

>>15008870
The Non-Existence of a Perfect Being - Theodore Drange

1. If God exist, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4)
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

The Non-Existence of an Immutable Being

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

The Non-Existence of a Transcendent Being

1. If God exist, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside of space and time).
2. If God exist, then he is omnipresent.
3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

The Non-Existence of an Omniscient Being

1. If God exist, then he is omniscient.
2. If God exist, then he is free.
3. An omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future.
4. If one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it.
5. Thus, whatever an omniscient being does, he must do, and whatever he does not do, he cannot do (from 3 and 4).
6. To be free requires having options open, which means having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts.
7. So, if one is free, then he does not have to do what he actually does, and he is able to do things that he does not actually do (from 6).
8. Hence, it is impossible for an omniscient being to be free (from 5 and 7).
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).

>>15011089
>Donald Hoffman
Literally espouses the nirvana fallacy.

>we sometimes make errors therefore our perception of reality is worthless
That's the entirety of his argument. Typical stupidity for a numerically illiterate buffoon.

>>15011084
You don’t have a family, or a wife. You have a mom, her basement you live in, because you’re a fat piece of shit NEET mutt faggot who can’t get laid and who, instead of trying to better himself, is bitter about his virginity, at some point fell into the rabbit hole of faggy MAGA traditionalism to channel his virgin rage, and is now coping with the shitpile that is his life by lying on the internet. How pathetic. Get a life, get a job and get laid, you fat homo

>>15011080
but im an atheist and just fine. From an outsiders perspectie , you were just gripped by the fear of death and coerced into believing in a god just because of that. I hate to use this arguement, but if you Indian you wouldn't be grabbing Aquinas you would be grabbing some hindu text as something to clutch into. Therapy helps with dealing with death. For one I could never be a religious person so easily as you did, because dropping into a religion because "hey guys I'm here cause im afraid of dying , wheres the infinite heaven line?" just seems like disingenuous to everything else religion is supposed to be about. That sounds more pitiful to me and I'm not trying to shit on you.
Im also afraid of death, but the last thing I wanted was religion/theology.

>>15011103
>I don't like one of this man's opinions therefore everything he says is wrong forever
>I will strawman this 20 minute video in a single dumb sentence and pretend that's what he said
Talking to you is tedious.

>>15011080
>bad thing happen so god must exist :(
It’s funny how religious converts all have the same self-interested reasons for choosing their beliefs that they like to accuse atheists of having

>>15011117
1. I'm not the anon you were talking to previously.
2. You're an imbecile. That's the entirety of his argument, I am familiar with Hoffman's work. Most of Hoffman's talk is made up of examples of perception errors in humans or other species, i.e. repetition of the same argument -- perception is not perfect, therefore it is worthless.
3. I couldn't care less about the man himself, brainlet. Stop projecting.

>>15011109
>You have a mom, her basement you live in, because you’re a fat piece of shit NEET mutt faggot who can’t get laid
nope thats you
>fell into the rabbit hole of faggy MAGA traditionalism
im a socialist

i haven't met a seething poster this bad in a long time, get a grip dude

>>15011098
>The Non-Existence of a Perfect Being - Theodore Drange
This entire argument hinges on creation necessarily having to be a willful action by “god”. Creation by god can be entirely happenstance/accidental.

> The Non-Existence of an Immutable Being
a god being omnipotent, eternal, and immutable also necessarily implies the god being unbounded by time, there is no “before or after” for the god to have any basis for the “intention” segment of this argument

> The Non-Existence of a Transcendent Being
I see no mutual exclusivity of the two. Being “outside” of space and time does not mean that you cannot affect space and time, it only means the rules do not apply to you, you can do whatever

> The Non-Existence of an Omniscient Being
> If God exist, then he is omniscient.
not necessarily
>If God exist, then he is free
not necessarily

Having omniscience is only defined as knowing everything. An omniscient being knowing what he will do does not take away from his omniscience in any way

>>15011134
>You're an imbecile.
>I couldn't care less about the man himself
>Typical stupidity for a numerically illiterate buffoon.
Ah yes, is this the atheist's impartial, cold rationality at work?
>perception is not perfect, therefore it is worthless
Define worthless.
If perception is not perfect, then its degree of efficiency is not verifiable, therefore it can be assumed that perception can't be relied on as an accurate means of observing any kind of objective reality.
Now shut up midwit

God existing as an atemporal and omnipotent being contains within his potentiality (which are infinite in number) the act of self-annihilation. God cannot formulate or apperceive his own thoughts because the absence of time prevents thoughts from existing separately. From this lack of apperception God must necessarily do all that is in potential because God would not be able to distinguish between one thought and another, implying that all thoughts are one, and that God manifested the infinite set of all potentialities which includes self-annihilation.

>>15008870
There are none. Atheists have zero arguments that can beat a basedjack reply.

>>15008870
> be nigger
> papa never really was arround
> notice i have a smol pp
> throughout the years the insecurities keep piling on
> I'm never going to amount to anything
> eventually hear of ben shapiro
>realize that I'm not a retard with a shitty life and a weird fear of women, I just didn't have the right "morals"
> papa shapiro always destroys the atheists and there are literally no counter arguments against god because I never bothered to look them up
> my room temperature IQ ass finally hears about 4chan, a free haven of free speech
> get bullied to submission by /b/tards
> resort to posting shitty bait in the kindest board in the history of mankind
>I'm finally proud perhaps my good christian wife's boyfriend will finally let me watch tonight

>>15011153
>Ah yes, is this the atheist's
I'm a Christian.
>Now shut up midwit\
Follow your own advice, cretin.

>>15011152
>This entire argument hinges on creation necessarily having to be a willful action by “god”. Creation by god can be entirely happenstance/accidental.

If god did not will the universe then any creation could have occurred. Why this one?

>a god being omnipotent, eternal, and immutable also necessarily implies the god being unbounded by time, there is no “before or after” for the god to have any basis for the “intention” segment of this argument

Being unbounded by time implies the lack of formulating thoughts. Meaning that god is not omnipotent because he can have no intentions.

>I see no mutual exclusivity of the two. Being “outside” of space and time does not mean that you cannot affect space and time, it only means the rules do not apply to you, you can do whatever

This is a logical contradiction to say that a being can be both out of time and within time, which doesn't mean its not possible, only that the argument is purely logical.

>Having omniscience is only defined as knowing everything. An omniscient being knowing what he will do does not take away from his omniscience in any way

It takes away from his boundlessness. A boundless entity cannot be bounded by his omniscience.

>>15011182
>maybe if I post enough anime girls pics with meme filenames he'll concede
>literally "no u"
Doesn't scripture say something about being a spiteful, dull little faggot?
Out of curiosity though, if you are a Christian, what is your argument against materialist fundamentalism?

>>15008870
Okay just prove god is real and I'll convert

If God exists ''he'' is probably a cosmic horror. ''His'' actions are interpreted by pissant humans as being some kind of divine grace or benevolent love when in fact it is merely the unknowable machinations of a being that encompasses all of reality and may have somehow created it. When Saint Paul witnessed the face of God he went blind and mad and was completely inconsolable. He had witnessed something that should not exist and it had melted his mind and perception of reality, so much so that his vision was snuffed out entirely. So either the countless stories of people being thoroughly freaked out by the witnessing of God imply that it is an entity that subverts reality/perceptions of reality or it's just some fanfiction written by a sandnigger in a cave thousands of years ago and should be dismissed as the fiction it is. I am open to both.

>>15011199
Okay but first you need to prove that anything outside of my conscious experience is real
Also define real

>>15011196
>what is your argument against materialist fundamentalism?
Consciousness exists. At least in those of us with souls, I don't know about you materialist p--zombies.

Give me one good reason to consider that there is such a thing as a god hovering over our existance.

>>15011201
Incredibly based anon

>>15011207
I'm not a materialist you dumb fuck.
>Consciousness exists
How is that an argument? Nothing currently indicates consciousness to be immaterial.

The universe not requiring a creator means that there was no need of a prime mover, hence, god is unnecessary.

>>15011201
Unironically this

Abrahamics are fucking stupid to think an omnipotent being would love them

>>15008870
The LARPers don't believe in God either, their search for divinity is neither earnest nor sincere. Their anger and bitterness comes from their lack of revelation. They find no revelation because they seek to attain the cultural aspects of what draws them in.
tl;dr - LARPers are idolaters who don't actually believe in God either. They just want to because they think real religious people outside of a handful of lunatics agree with anything /pol/ says.

>>15011205
>Okay but first you need to prove that anything outside of my conscious experience is real
No, I don't
>Also define real
"actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed."

>>15008870
Disprove materialist fundamentalism and then we'll talk.

>>15011219
> Nothing currently indicates consciousness to be immaterial.
Except everything does.

>>15011227
>No, I don't
Yes you do, midwit.
How do you determine whether something is real or not?

atheists are niggers led by gaylord pseuds

>>15011233
You're not making an argument here by just saying "no", you know.

>>15011233
name one thing

>>15011233
It really doesn't. You think of your consciousness as contained and emanating from a discrete wellspring which you call yourself. The truth is it's a collection of largely independent processes that aren't necasarily cohesive from one moment to the next. You can call that illusion or illumination if you want but neither require a soul.

>>15011205
>Doesn't Kant
>On /lit/
The state of /lit/ these days.

>>15011242
>>15011244
>>15011245
Redness.

>>15011245
There is no way to know currently what causes consciousness, what generates it, where it is contained (if anywhere) or anything of the sort.
Both you and him are just making assumptions. You cannot know if consciousness is material or immaterial.

>>15011254
Your surrender is accepted.

>>15011253
>namedropping
Either make an argument or admit you're wrong. Naming a philosopher does not constitute an argument.

>>15011256
The point I'm making is that consciousness isn't what you think it is, ask any neuroscientist. The argument your making is not backed up by either philosophical or scientific knowledge or models. You're making baseless assumptions all over the place.

>>15011258
Your surrender is accepted.

>>15011267
What the fuck are you talking about, I'm not the guy you replied to.
>ask any neuroscientist
No neuroscientist will claim to know with absolute certainty that consciousness is generated within the brain, it's just an assumption. Nobody fucking knows.

>>15011262
>Prove anything outside of my conscious experience is real
You can't, the world you perceive is entirely phenomenal but the phenomenal is gained by perceived the nomenal world - trying to say the world only exists phenomenolically is one thing but tyring to make a broad, baseless solipsistic argument is another.

>>15011254
Yes, that's a thing. And?

>>15011273
Then don't reply to me?
Go and fucking ask a neuroscientist you midwit. Consciousness, in the manner that it's being presented is not a thing. It's a byproduct of physical functions within the brain.
Trying to play on the absurdity of certainty because you don't have the knowledge to back up your arguments is midwit behaviour.

>>15011237
By determining whether it exists, dumbass.
Boy, you're twisting yourself in knots to avoid answering a simple request.
Just prove God exists. If you're certain, you must have proof, right?

>>15011277
That's the point though, solipsism as stupid as it may be cannot be disproven. More generally, absolute skepticism is the only rational position. How do you prove anything is real?

>>15011273
Not that other guy, but I'm fairly certain that we have in fact pinpointed the exact parts of the brain responsible for generating a stream of consciousness. I may be wrong however.

>>15011286
>It's a byproduct of physical functions within the brain.
There is no evidence for this. Stop literally making shit up you absolute moron.
>[retarded sophistry]
Yeah I don't give a shit. Provide meaningful, concrete evidence that consciousness is physical or fuck off, monkey

>>15011290
Solipsism is rightly considered a pathological condition. You need to read some actual philosophy before you start taking part of these discussion on /lit.
>Solipsism can't be discproven
Read Kant.
>rational
Read Nietzsche.

>>15011300
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=neuroscience+consciousness+studies&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
Now stop fucking mouthbreathing.

>>15011302
>r-read those authors
Not an argument. Stop projecting.

>>15011300
>Without a brain one does not experience consciousness
>Therefore we can assert that the brain is the source of consciousness
Come on man.

>>15011287
of course not because the whole point of still believing in god is to deny that the principles we use to judge everything ever don't work on god because you've decided that one weird cult from the midle ages is worth your devotion and you'll do all maner of intelectually dishonest things to protect it

>>15011307
>maybe if I give him a bunch of links with titles along the lines of "consciousness" and "mind" and whatnot it'll hide the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about and am pulling shit out of my ass
Nope, try again. Provide evidence or fuck off.

>>15011308
Oh, you're a troll. Ok.

>>15011223
indeed my fren, it is disheartening to see so many low-IQ sandnigger lovers attempting to rationalise how a supreme being of unfathomable proportions would ever love or even acknowledge their existence. If God is a being that actually exists it is more logical to assert that it is some kind of spiritual hivemind or supercomputer, an entity of pure logic that simply churns out life and existence from pure information like a 3D printer churns out items and trinkets from resin. Any attempts to commune with God would end in abject failure as it is an alien being that fundamentally contradicts all human understanding and perceptions of understanding. I actually want a God such as this to exist as it would be incredibly amusing to witness religiousniggers get blown the fuck out when they realise that their God doesn't love them or even give the slightest shit about them at all.

>>15008870
Cringe photo

>>15011308
>>15011318
>Give me some proof
>Here is proof
>Haha no give me proof
>samefag 2 - haha no give him proof
Pathetic.

>>15011323
indeed, OP may be a closeted homosexual, which would be very, very ironic.

>>15011316
I'm saying the opposite, work on your reading comprehension.
>>15011291
Have we? Or did they pinpoint parts of the brain that were somehow involved in the stream of consciousness process?
While it's undeniable that the brain has an effect on consciousness, there is nothing to indicate that it generates it.

>>15011011
>I learned of the truth on my own in my studies and contemplations.
This is Pride talking

>>15011334
holy... this has to be bait
No way someone is this retarded

>>15011320
>>15011328
Still not an argument, moron.

please respond
>>1500896

>>15008870
Atheists will never understand that faith is its own reward. That said - neither do most Christians.

>>15011201
>>15011322
you're based, frog anon

>>15011338
I accept your concession, brainlet.

>>15011334
he wasn't quoting you kek you really aren't the sharpest pencil

>>15011339
Ok, we'll try this another way seeing as you don't like philosophy or science.
Prove that consciousness exists at all. No begging the question.

>>15011287
How do you determine whether something exists?

>>15008870
There is nothing brilliant about lunatics like Aquinas

>>15011354
n-n-no you're a brainlet
I can see why you couldn't handle the part of 4chan were this kind of shitposting is suposed to happen lil nignog

>>15011355
>he wasn't quoting you kek
What did the absolute braindead retard mean by this?

>>15011201
Or... He is the Lord of the Worlds and Creator of all things and deserves worship..... are you open to that?

>>15011369
He inspired Heidegger to be fair - there is interesting and brilliant stuff in there when it comes to ontology, it's just buried in a sea of paranoid crap.

>>15010867
>>muh potentiality and actuality
Once you apply that to phenomenology and emergence, I find it impossible to ignore God as a reality.

please respond
>>15008960

>>15011378
the quote is a valid argument using the most absolutely basic logic
pic related is you and the anon was trying to urge you to use your last two braincells in a productive manner

>>15011358
You can't prove that consciousness exists.

>>15008870
>Aquinas
>Brilliance
Nobody whose works have to be abridged that much displays brilliance - they're just rambling lunatics.

>>15010941
Dilate

>>15011322
Cope. God just doesn't love you in particular. Along with the rest of humanity who doesn't give a shit about Him when He literally keeps them breathing and lets them live peacefully with food and pleasure. Satan has deluded you.

>>15011394
>Without an antenna you cannot listen to a radio station
>therefore we can assert that the antenna is the source of your music

>>15011396
Exactly. Because it doesn't. It's the sum of parts of various information-input and decision making systems. YOU as a discrete entity do not exist. That you are able to assign yourself agency does not refute that.

>>15011371
Take your meds

>>15011334
>While it's undeniable that the brain has an effect on consciousness, there is nothing to indicate that it generates it.
The fact that we only find consciousness where we find nervous systems + the fact that we know that the brain can produce mental states (eg. taking drugs) + the fact that changes on brain states causes changes on mental states strongly supports the hypothesis that consciousness is a product of the brain. On the other hand alternative hypotheses like immaterial souls and the like have no facts to support them.

>>15011363
Evidence

>>15011411
>It's the sum of parts of various information-input and decision making systems.
Non sequitur. This does not necessarily follow from the idea that consciousness is unprovable.
>>15011417
>the brain can produce mental states
>changes on brain states causes changes on mental states
How is this an indication that consciousness is produced within the brain?
Just because something can be modified by another thing does not imply that it originates from it.

>>15011416
cope more faggot

>Explain the nature of the universe, it's origin and everything. What's wrong, you can't?
>Guess that means I'm going to church on Sundays and laying of the shrimp.

Errr, the point I tried to make. Is those kind of arguments that are largely wide and universal.
More axioms than proper arguments.

In the majority of cases, people have already settled for Christianity and the extreme specifics that comes with that.
Like; Stuff can't come from nowhere, therefore I shall not covet my neighbours wife
How does those two connect?

Which makes those arguments seem dishonet to me, ad hoc.

>>15011421
What constitutes evidence?

>>15011425
>Non sequitur. This does not necessarily follow from the idea that consciousness is unprovable.
It follows from the idea that consciousness does not exist. Which is the first part of the sentence you deliberately neglected to green text.

>>15011438
>It follows from the idea that consciousness does not exist.
Just because something is not observable doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

>>15011446
You're fully retarded. Define consciousness.

>>15011446
>Not observable
That's not the point I'm making and you know it.
>>15011245

>>15011452
>State or quality of awareness or of being aware of an external object or something within oneself
Just because I'm aware but can't prove it doesn't mean I'm not aware

>>15011425
>How is this an indication that consciousness is produced within the brain? Just because something can be modified by another thing does not imply that it originates from it
Damn, turns out that when you remove the first premise of my argument the conclusion is weakened

Still unrefuted

>>15011469
Are you aware or are you assigning yourself agency?

>>15011437
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

>>15011483
>In this moment, I am euphoric.
>tips fedora

>>15011481
No it was weak to begin with

>>15011492
This is not being clever

>>15011334
sorry, I wasn't greentexting properly, what I meant was that it is perfectly logical to assert that all of consciousness comes from the brain as without it one's consciousness is dissolved, so it's a pretty simple assertion that it is the brain which is responsible for our continued perception of reality. The brain has many moving parts that work together to generate a stream of consciousness, this is well understood in neuroscience; there is not one single part of the brain that is responsible for our perception of reality but rather every single part in tandem working together causes our consciousness to emerge dynamically.

>>15011496
Don't got a proper answer?

>>15011347
enlightened centrist over here.

>>15011483
"If you could reason with disbelievers, there would be no disbelievers."

>>15011505
>Not a Christian
>Not an atheist
>Must be agnostic
Anglos 2020

>>15011384
Heidegger is even worse than Aquinas soooo
>there is interesting and brilliant stuff in there
Interesting sure, but whether it has any relation to reality is another thing, Aquinas' ontology is just obscurantism through and through

>>15008870
Because assuming one cares about holding beliefs that are in accordance with reality, there's are as many reasons to believe in an invisible, undetectable deity as there are in believing invisible fairies or other such non-sense. Is this a troll?

>>15011518
I don't think I'd say Heidegger wasn't brilliant. The models and ideas he comes up with and the manner in which he arrives at them are astonishing.
It's just that you'll either find the conclusions he comes to world changing or irrelevant. I won't poison the well and say which I feel is correct.

Not reading the first post. Not reading the thread.
Atheism is the mark of a fucking retard.

>>15011497
You have yet to show how it is weak, preferably without pretending you didn't see my first premise

>>15011408
Satan? An interesting contrast to God, like matter and antimatter. Of course, attempting to claim that matter is ''good'' and antimatter is ''evil'' is like trying to claim that day is ‘’good’’ simply because the light makes travel convenient and that the night is ‘’bad’’ simply because it’s scary and makes travel inconvenient; there’s a fundamental gap in one’s logic to make these assertions as not only are they attributing a human social construct such as morality to an inhuman being of incredible power such as God/Satan, but they are also making the false assumption that one would ever be truly acknowledged or loved by a being that can supposedly give great attention to every living thing at once and loves them too, whatever that means, hence making God’s love meaningless as it is given out to every single thing cheaply and without regard. Finally, is God responsible for every single thing that exists as it occurs in the present moment, or simply set these things in motion countless eons ago? If the latter is the case then God doesn’t give you food or pleasure but rather you make use of that which God created in order to sustain yourself. This is not the same as God literally handing you these things with no input on your part.

>>15011498
You're really pulling out all the stops to avoid actually saying anything.
Just prove god exists already.

>>15011515
ouch, alright, I'll leave you alone.

>>15008870
>>15011523
Have fairy denialists ever come up with any good arguments for why they don't believe in fairies?

Hypothetically
if you could use a supercomputer to simulate a human brain, atom by atom, and even the smaller pieces.
Maybe the rest of the body get it working properly.
It turns out much like a normal person when asked about thoughts, feelings those kinds of things.

Would that strengthen or weaken your idea of a soul?
Would it be a problem for "Christian faith"?

>>15011536
>Prove God exists
If he did then there would be no need faith, if there were no need for faith then there would be no sense of revelation upon finding it.
Faith is its own reward. Whether or not God exists is not relevant to that.

>>15011513
Disbelievers go to hell
but it's totally their choice, ok?

>>15011529
>It's just that you'll either find the conclusions he comes to world changing or irrelevant.
"Obviously false" would be my choice of words comrade

Have the great Christian thinkers ever been able to solve the problem of evil without simply defining 'evil' as not 'entirely evil'?

>>15011556
and the mask falls off
So it is not a scientific claim that can be discussed reasonably. It is just baby logic and human cowardice in face of the enormity and insanity of existance

>>15011556
all those posts for that
how sad

>>15011556
Why did God stop doing miracles?
People witnessing Moses got their faith too easy

>>15011576
Imagine thinking christian thinkers ever solved a goddamn thing

>>15011583
desu

>>15011556
not an argument

>>15011556
Ok retard

>>15010325
Except the argument requires the atheist to say that "Evil exists", if you affirm any kind of moral judgement on God that is supposed to hold together in an objective logical argument then you have to justify how morality is objective without God, which it cannot be.

>>15011579
>>15011581
>>15011582
>If he did
>he
I'm not the guy you're having a conversation with and I'm not a Christian.

>>15011347
They do understand that though, even if they don't realise it. Faith in freedom, democracy, human rights, equality...

>>15011534
m8 no matter how you want to spin it, your reasoning is wrong
You cannot demonstrate that consciousness originates (I emphasize this last word) inside the brain
Leaving behind materialism vs. idealism arguments, there is simply no indicator that the brain acts as anything more than an interface.
>>15011499
Okay, but this ties in to what I said above

>>15011579
>human cowardic
>insanity of existance
Seek therapy.

>>15011579
>scientific
See >>15011076 and pic related

>Give us the evidence. Give us information that will 100% give us certainty of the vastness of God and His mercy.

Atheists have no spirit. They are literal human-bots who live for pleasure. No wonder God doesn't want them to believe in Him, they would have no sincerity and would look at Him as a statistic and just more information. They are fuel for hell eternal.

>>15008870
Am I the only person who finds debate about God's existence utterly boring? I care about all the other big philosophical questions, just not this one.
Maybe it's because I was such an edgy atheist when I was 15 I want to just never think about it again.

Yeah, ok. But why the Bible?

>>15011616
This is true and I hadn't considered it that way. I hold that understanding it is an important part though. Too often their faith in democracy or liberty or that the future will be good (through science, economic prowess, human compassion, whatever) is given lengthy, wordy proofs when nothing that can be said for or against will ever change anyone's mind. If they realised it's the same root cause I think the world would be a far better place.

>>15011627
I believe in reason because it works
not because I reasoned the functionality of reason since that would be a fallacy

>>15011635
another fake christian

>>15011617
You can't prove anything for certain, besides the fact that you exist. In real life, 'knowledge' is defined as something we have reasonable cause to believe, with pragmatism being the measure of reasonableness. Despite knowing this, you've spent post after post saying it can't be proven, but what if there are simply more and better arguments in favour of it than against?

>>15011635
Loving father, btw

>>15011635
see
>>15011224
LARPers should hope dearly that atheists are correct.

>>15011653
Obviously

>>15011661
I don't need to hope, I have faith

>>15011653
Im Muslim

>>15011619
Imagine being this much of a faggot

>>15011617
the brain is an interface, precisely. However to claim that reality is totally and completely subjective because of this is brash.

>>15011671
Sure you do.

So now, 2000 years later when the dust has settled. Is hell a thing or not?

>>15011616
People have faith in democracy because it offers them tangible real world benefits. Many so-called religious people are only so because of the same thing, but you get my point

>>15011619
why?

We live in a world in which the decisions we make are for the most part materially/phenomenonally motivated; therefore it makes sense that we assert a belief in those things which we can say we have materially/phenomenally experienced. We also live by a principle of rational scepticism which supposes that until we can assert that something most probably or definitely does exist, we should assume that it only might or definitely does not exist. This constitues the strongest (and only necessary) argument for atheism, or, theoretical agonsticism. It could THEORETICALLY be argued that the universe was created by a creator, but this does not necessitate any religious implications.

This is without making a criticism of religion in any of its forms, of which there are so so so so many

>>15011675
If you think faith is a form of cowardice against an insane world then your view of the world tells me you are clearly depressed or anxious. Put aside your fragile masculine and seek help.

>>15011681
Don't ask scary questions like that

>>15011681
no, neither is heaven.

>>15011651
Yeah within itself lmao
>dude why can't I observe the immaterial through material means? must imply the immaterial doesnt exist! *drools*

>>15011681
No. Divine truth is only ever revealed in the context of the understanding and perspective of those for whom it is taught.
Buddhism came about against the backdrop of brain dead vedic ritualism, Christianity against Jewish law-obedience over faith and Islam against superstition and idolatory. The specifics of the religions are not relevant outside of the culture in which they were born. The problem with Christianity was that the Romans just stole other cutures and rebranded them because they weren't creative.

>>15011692
I am not depressed nor anxious why are you projecting so hard?

>>15011692
>fragile masculine
kek

>>15011686
That's the entire point. Faith only exists because it offers real world benefits. I say this as someone with faith.

>>15011654
>something we have reasonable cause to believe
No, that's called a hypothesis, or a theory if it isn't too baseless.
If you were right, there would be no such thing as the "hard problem of consciousness". Or are you more of a pragmatist than Penrose?
>>15011677
Well we agree then.
Perhaps there exists an objective reality beyond our subjective perceptions, my point is that consciousness is not entirely reducible to the brain, that's all

>>15011711
So you're just an edgy fedora then?

>>15011048
Tegmark already proved that

>>15011718
Sure, we just disagree on what the nature of that benefit is. You'd say it was access to a divine, I'd say it was a false sense of security. But the point I was making was that the faith is therefore not its own reward, the benefits are...

>>15011707
>Romans just stole other cutures and rebranded them because they weren't creative.
I am triggered. You're right, but I'm triggered.

>>15011730
> fragile masculinity
> Edgy fedora?
Again it does feel like you're projecting quite a lot

Is Christian faith compatible with an 10 weekday calendar?

>>15011743
I may have explained that poorly. The benefits are largely psychological. Democracy certainly offers large benefits but the faith people have in democracy as individuals yeilds benefits that are entirely personal.

Prime mover assume you view time as an arrow, or at the very least knowledge change

>>15011747
>It is just baby logic and human cowardice in face of the enormity and insanity of existance
Explain how this is not edgy fedora behaviour.

>>15011730

>>15011617
>m8 no matter how you want to spin it, your reasoning is wrong. You cannot demonstrate that consciousness originates (I emphasize this last word) inside the brain.
I can, and I provided an argument for it. Your one attempt at refuting it so far left out one of my premises. And it doesn't matter how many times
you repeat that my reasoning is wrong, if you can't show why it's wrong you are just begging the question.
>there is simply no indicator that the brain acts as anything more than an interface.
That hypothesis is obviously false, if the brain was just a tool consciousness used to interact with the body alterations in the brain wouldn't have any effect on your consciousness state.

>>15011727
No you're still being too theoretical, I'm talking even more basic. As in, 'navigating through your front door and managing not to kill yourself everyday' style basic. That's why I said real life, I wasn't just trying to assert my rightness, I meant literally. I'm saying what we call knowledge is differentiated only by differing levels of reasonable belief, not a binaristic absolute knowledge or no knowledge.

>>15008870
>Have Atheist philosophers ever come up with any good arguments for why they don't believe in God?
As a former atheist (who prior was a weak theist) ultimately no. You can go on and on to say "there's no scientific evidence", but that misses the point entirely. Atheists at their worst express their hatred upon their own ignorance of religion (picking on out-of-context bible quotes, for example) and at their best criticize those who are mindless and ignorant about what they worship (Protestants, mainly). Peak theism is recognizing the metaphysical world and that God (or Gods, if you choose) do not need to show themselves to express their power. For example, the atheist typically argues that Doctors, Scientists, Cops, et cetera, are the ones who do the "real" work to protect us, but are they not the metaphysical gift and will of God? And so on.

>>15008989
This is the edgiest tripfag I've ever seen and he plagues this board with his ignorance. This is literally the type of atheist who tickles his ego by hitting the low hanging fruit (stupid protestants). How many internet arguments has he won, I wonder?

>>15011707
>Romans just stole other cutures and rebranded them because they weren't creative.
>weren't creative.
more like cuz they were a composite of older cultures

>>15011752
The benefits of democracy are partially psychological, but that is not its principal benefit, which is tangible in a way faith in a divine isn't. If that is still irrelevant to what you were saying though I apologise.

>>15011760
existance can sometimes be objectively scary
We are a mere consequence of evolution
Some people can't cope with that and can't find meaning in life itself and need to create fairytales or believe in a fairytale someone else created for them
This is a pretty vanilla worldview

>>15011771
>if the brain was just a tool consciousness used to interact with the body alterations in the brain wouldn't have any effect on your consciousness state.
Are you serious or are you seriously unable to see the flaw in your argument?
Why would modifying the interface through which consciousness passes not modify the way it is expressed?
It's the radio/signal analogy again, if you shatter your radio set the music stops, but do the radio waves stop being emitted? This is basic shit

>>15008870
>Have Atheist philosophers ever come up with any good arguments for why they don't believe in God?
There not being sufficient reason to believe in one, assuming one cares about believing true things.

>>15011788
Growing naturally from another culture and just finding a new one and thinking "that's cool - let's have it" are not the same. The Hellenisation of Rome was not organic.

>>15011775
>I'm talking even more basic. As in, 'navigating through your front door and managing not to kill yourself everyday' style basic
Oh okay, then you're right that empiricism is the most broadly applicable tool in such cases but it doesn't particularly interest me so I see no point in talking about this
Consciousness is a much more complex process with deeper implications than navigating through your front door so I consider it adequate to apply binaristic theoretical thinking to the hard problem instead of reasoning empirically

Argument? You want arguments? WHY THE FUCK would I want to convince you that God doesn't exist? I don't even have any moral obligations with truth, I JUST IMPOSE YOU FUCKING FAGGOT

>>15011820
Fair enough

>>15011073
What are arguing in favor of? There is no solution to hard solipsism, this is a hard point to object to. But the fact that we can't know FOR SURE if any empirical evidence is really true doesn't mean that it is more reasonable to believe in a God than not to believe in one.

Just had a thought while taking a shit; what if the afterlife exists, but not in the form that people think it does? As in an afterlife that is not religious but rather is the result of brain chemicals being broken down and dissolving into a brine of exotics that cause massive changes in one's stream of consciousness. The dying person would experience huge alterations in their mental state as the very chemical makeup of their brains began to collapse, making them experience something akin to a heroin overdose or heavy LSD trip; a completely incomprehensible blur of sensations and phenomena. In this wild state of being their very perception of time and space would be fundamentally altered, perhaps making them think that they had travelled somewhere else or had been transformed somehow. From an outsider’s perspective they may take only a moment to die but from the dying person’s perspective they may continue in this state of flux for what feels like eons or millennia.

>>15011819
2nding this

>>15011834
Absolutely based

>>15011848
This is the whole point of the pineal gland creating DMT theory

>>15011848
Well done, you've reached facebook-tier philosophy

Christians ITT prove to me why Protestants are right and Catholics go to hell

>>15011804
Are you serious or are you seriously unable to see the flaw in your argument?
Why would modifying the interface through which consciousness passes not modify the way it is expressed?
It's the radio/signal analogy again, if you shatter your radio set the music stops, but do the radio waves stop being emitted? This is basic shit.
Your analogy actually explains very well why your hypothesis is obviously false. As you point out, smashing a radio has no impact on the radio waves. Similarly, if consciousness simply used the brain as an interface something like a lobotomy or taking hallucinatory drugs would have no influence on your mental state.

>>15011876
no need to be such a cunt about it my man, just posting my thoughts.

>>15011894
I don't understand
We can't see these radio waves, but we can see the addled radio playing funny noises

>>15011894
You can easily distort the radio signal by fucking with the radio. Don't be pedantic, you perfectly know what I meant.

>>15011898
Sure but cmon dude everyone's either seen or knows that one guy who's seen The Spirit Molecule

>>15011641
Other big philosophical questions are consistently influenced by one's belief in God's existence. I don't find it the only philosophical question worthy of debate but one's belief in God will almost always influence their responses to other big philosophical questions. At some point, almost every religious person will come back to their religion as a foundation for their thoughts regarding big philosophical questions, so it's necessary to address God's existence at some point.

>>15011922
fair enough.

>>15011866
Disproven.

>>15011779
It's not even about scientific evidence specifically. There is simply no actual reason to believe in God. You say pointing out that "there's no scientific evidence" misses the point. What exactly is the point? What reasons do you have to actually believe that God exists?

>>15011779
>It's not even about scientific evidence specifically. There is simply no actual reason to believe in God. You say pointing out that "there's no scientific evidence" misses the point. What exactly is the point? What reasons do you have to actually believe that God exists?
Faith

>>15011961
I wasn't even advocating for it just pointing out to him that it already exists

>>15011977
>>15011986
This is why I'll never understand the point of these discussions

>>15011986
Do you believe that faith is a reliable path to truth?

>>15011996
Sure.
>>15011707 sums up why.

>>15011977
replace God, with incredibly specific Christian God* to filter shitty sophist answers

>>15011921
>You can easily distort the radio signal by fucking with the radio. Don't be pedantic, you perfectly know what I meant.
Then maybe we used a slightly different analogy, my point was that if you destroy a radio the sound waves it "translates" into music remain unaffected. Similarly, if consciousness was somehow using the brain as a tool to interact with the body, damaging the brain would have no impact on consciousness. But a lobotomy, I am sure you would agree, does in fact has an impact on your mental well being.

>>15011986
>>15012003
Can't any belief be justified with faith?

Can't I use faith to justify my belief that I am God?

>>15011905
If you smash the radio, you don't also smash the radio waves, because the radio doesn't produce them, it just acts as a medium for them. Similarly, if consciousness was using the brain as a means to interact with the body but was not produced by it, we would expect a lobotomy to only damage the brain, not consciousness itself.

>>15012070
> damaging the brain would have no impact on consciousness
It has an impact on the manifestation of consciousness as we observe it, but who's to say that and the object that we call consciousness itself are the same? Actually, if consciousness is exogenous to the brain and is merely interpreted by it, there would exist one immutable consciousness, and one "emanation" of consciousness whose manifestation as a perceivable phenomenon in external reality is dependent on the brain's physical state

>>15012087
yes

>>15012095
How do you not get this?

>>15012128
Are all beliefs justified by faith equally true?

>>15012100
>It has an impact on the manifestation of consciousness as we observe it, but who's to say that and the object that we call consciousness itself are the same?
Take a hammer and hit one of your fingers. Now you know whether the stimulation of your nervous system can generate the mental state of painfulness or not.

>>15012087
>Justified
Missing the point.

>>15012151
You should reread what I said, because your post doesn't even go against it.
>>15012190
>damaging the brain does damage your consciousness
It damages the way your consciousness is expressed.

>>15012204
Then I don't know what our disagreement is anon

>>15012166
Please explain.

>>15012144
If you only use faith to judge their trueness then you'd have to say yes

>>15012216
So do you concede that we have to use metrics other than faith to judge the truth of claims?

>>15012246
Of course, I think faith is a non argument that kills discussion

>>15012260
Oh well in that case I assume that you aren't the anon who originally replied to me that his reason for believing God exists is faith.

>>15012277
kek no sorry

>>15010573
>mfw still havent read the bible
>outliers
Guess so. What's so damn shame about growing up religious is that the people become superstitious and only seem to be a Christian because it's how they were raised as opposed to those who believed the opposite but chose to believe.

>>15012209
Justification assumes reason is the fundamental aspect of cognition. I disagree, it is a valuable tool but little more.