[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 57 KB, 620x310, web3-caravaggio-thomas-painting-art-feature-image-at015-public-domain-via-wikipedia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11588996 No.11588996 [Reply] [Original]

Y'all realise there is no God, right?

>> No.11589006

Even if there was, that would still not solve the problem of meaning

>> No.11589009

>>11589006
How so?

>> No.11589039

>>11589009
it would be arbitrary

>> No.11589044

>>11589039
t. 13

>> No.11589051

>>11589039
What would be?

>> No.11589053

>>11589044
t. 21

>> No.11589064

>>11589009

How would it? You can always take meaning further than it already is. If God exists and the meaning of life is to become one with him, it merely furthers the question what this is for.

You can always keep going with this, it's a regression that never ends

>> No.11589083

>>11589064
>god is likee ...beyond your understanding maaaaain

>> No.11589095
File: 159 KB, 700x609, fuherfedora.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11589095

>>11589064
Very deep. I tip my hat to you.

>> No.11589121

>>11589064
>t. Michio caca

>> No.11589133

>>11589064
Wrong

From a human beings perspective, much like a machine, the purpose (if to become One with God) is sufficient enough within the context. We dont ask ourselves what a wheels purpose is outside aiding a car, since that is what it was made for

>> No.11589137

>>11589064
Because God says so and God knows what the meaning of it is. You don’t need to know what his purposes are to find meaning in obeying him.

>> No.11589157

>>11589133
But what does God need us for? And what, more importantly, do we need God for?

>> No.11589162

>>11589137
dont you know what "meaning" means?

>> No.11589169

>>11589133

>From a human beings perspective

Which is useless when you're trying to establish an objective meaning that transcends all human experience. If you want a meaning which encompasses absolutely everything, stopping at human experience is completely arbitrary

>> No.11589173

>>11589157
You could philosophize that but the bottom line is that from a human perspective, Gods existence is sufficient meaning by any category

>> No.11589176

>>11589137
This is always the argument used but it is the one that just shows how shallow and mindless belief in God truly is, hand waving any kind of explanation on any level, moral or otherwise. You have to have faith in God that it is impossible prove exists and obey him even if you don't understand any of the reasons behind doing so and never can. Why would anyone subscribe to this? Do weak people just like being subservient?

>> No.11589177

>>11588996
Yes, but still it’s pretty to think otherwise

>> No.11589178

>>11589169
Nobody mentioned any objective meaning, it is a fruitless discussion to have regardless

>> No.11589179
File: 35 KB, 600x381, Dragos Kalajic (7).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11589179

>>11589006
>>11589009
>>11589064
The meaning of life is synonymous with the nature of life. At it's most basic level (i.e a unicellular organism), the objective meaning of life is reproduction, as reproduction is the defining trait that separates life from non-life. As life becomes more complicated so does the meaning. The meaning of a human's life who belongs to a specific nation in a specific time and a specific class is different from the meaning of other peoples' lives, and different still from the meaning of a bear's or a bee's life. The first problem existentialists have is that they want life to be more than it is, not that life is intrinsically meaningless. The second problem is that they've misunderstood their negative reaction to the modern world as something philosophically valid rather than temporal and sentimental. Coming to a better understanding of interrelationships between different facets of nature and of one's individual nature will help a man understand his place in nature and thus the meaning of his life.

>> No.11589183

>>11588996
Define "God".

>> No.11589184

>>11589179
snap

>> No.11589187

>>11588996
Left-wing people lack culture. It is unsurprising that they lack a connection with their spiritual roots as well.

>> No.11589203

>>11589183
This.

>>11589121
Underrated.

>> No.11589212

>>11589187
Wow well said you've really shown those pesky atheists - how can you be cultured if you don't go to mass every Sunday or can't quote 1 Kings 18:44 - no wonder, eh!

>> No.11589219

>>11589183
Something that created the universe with express purpose

>> No.11589229

>>11589183
How about "ultimate good being"

>> No.11589242

I think the universe having purpose is the main concern, God is good by definition. You could have an ultimate 'good' being that didn't create the universe, but in that scenario the universe has some inherent goodness even though it came into existence without design, if that makes sense

>> No.11589258

>>11588996

There is. And even if there wasn't, there would still be one.

>> No.11589273

>>11589183
An Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent Being.

>> No.11589286
File: 168 KB, 1944x2019, a89h5b90n1n01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11589286

>>11589229
the ultimate good boy

>> No.11589316

>>11589219
>>11589229
>>11589273
Probleem is, if we haven't agreed on what that word actually means, then why are we arguijg over whether or not he exists?

>> No.11589391

>>11589316
Isn't this proof that there is no God

>> No.11589443

>>11589064
>If God exists and the meaning of life is to become one with him, it merely furthers the question what this is for.
We only see it this way because we are not one with him. Thus the second question is an illusion caused by the first. A being in a state of incompleteness cannot comprehend completeness.

>> No.11589473

>>11589443
A load of old babble. What is completeness? How do you know we are unable to comprehend it? If completeness is being one with God then this argument is just circular and inane. You believe in something you can't comprehend because your inability to comprehend it somehow proves it to be true? That's mental

>> No.11589508
File: 139 KB, 500x709, hermes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11589508

>>11589064
"...still the legends have it that Hermes, the Great, when asked Why by his advanced students, answered them by pressing his lips tightly together."

>> No.11589515

>>11589508
Sounds profound, is actually shit

>> No.11589516

>>11588996
true, doesn't mean you can't enjoy religion and live a good meaningful life.

>> No.11589537
File: 287 KB, 602x577, main-qimg-89c2c85a29689a35a575416ac1d630a2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11589537

>>11589508
What, like pic related?
>STUDENT: Mr. Hermes, sir...
>HERMES: ...
>STUDENT: I'd really appreciate an answer, it's kinda puzzling me still
>HERMES: [shrugs]
>STUDENT: I mean, how can their be any certainty in anything, and therefore why eve-
>HERMES: [runs away]
>STUDENT: ...the fuck?

>> No.11589544

>>11589537
Audible nostril outhaling

>> No.11589556

>>11589473
>If completeness is being one with God then this argument is just circular and inane
Not all circularity is vicious. I know there is a cup in front of me because I see it. How do I know that I really see it, and not just hallucinate it? Because I see it.

>You believe in something you can't comprehend because your inability to comprehend it somehow proves it to be true?
No. Don't put words in people's mouths that they didn't speak.

>> No.11589563
File: 14 KB, 320x335, Aeneas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11589563

>>11589391
No. We can't define anything that we are not fully aware of. If God exists, then it must be complicated enough that we are as of yet unable to define. Does the Christian God exist? Not likely, though there are elements to how is defined that may be true. (Like him having partially a mathematical form.)

The short answer is, we do not know if God exists. We might never know. But at this point in time, we do not. It would be both negligent and naive to say anything other than "I don't know".

>> No.11589576

>>11589556
>A being in a state of incompleteness cannot comprehend completeness.
So if it is incomprehensible then why believe that a 'completeness' even exists?

>Not all circularity is vicious. I know there is a cup in front of me because I see it. How do I know that I really see it, and not just hallucinate it? Because I see it.
But this isn't a valid point, this brings up all sorts of problems of perception and subjectivity

>> No.11589612

>>11589563
>Mathematical form
How do things take 'partly mathematical forms'? Surely they are wholly mathematical, or else not at all?

The whole argument is, practically: imagine something incomprehensible that you will never be able to understand or directly observe, and imagine that thing gives us all a meaning that we are also unable to comprehend, and now believe in that thing and its meanings. Isn't believing in meaning you will never comprehend the same as believing in no meaning at all? There is no difference - no way of determining what effect any of your actions have in relation to said 'meaning' and no way ever knowing the value of that meaning

>> No.11589722

>>11588996
Yeah, but it's nice to pretend, isn't it?

>> No.11589743

>>11588996
No

>> No.11589748

>>11589576
>So if it is incomprehensible then why believe that a 'completeness' even exists?
You want me to justify the rationality of Christian belief? The short answer would be "we believe it because God has revealed it to us". I am already aware of all the objections that might be raised to that position, so please spare us both the labour.

>But this isn't a valid point, this brings up all sorts of problems of perception and subjectivity
I don't understand what you're getting at there. Some dialectical circularities are not vicious. I don't see how that could fail to be a valid point.

>> No.11589750

Y'all'd've realized by now there is no god whomst' to believe in right?

>> No.11589795

>>11589157
God doesn’t need humanity, but human beings need God, because we were created to love him; that’s our purpose.

>> No.11589801

>>11589748
Going down a different route, what do you say to others of different religion who would say their God(s) have revealed themselves to them? Are they lying? Have they misinterpreted the Christian God? What about the different sects of Christianity? Asking because I'm genuinely curious and not because I'm being antagonistic

>> No.11589813

>>11589795
Why does God need love if he is perfect? And why not just make us love him if so? God only wants the love of people who love him through choice? To what end? I suppose you'll answer that we cannot assume God's motives or needs but a perfect being should need nothing

>> No.11589844

>>11588996
Even if he doesn't exist, religion activates otherwise inaccessible brain regions. That's why Bach produced great music. There is a materialist cause and need for religion even if the metaphysics is false.
Why do you think all the great artists were heavily religious?

>> No.11589933

>>11589801
>what do you say to others of different religion who would say their God(s) have revealed themselves to them?
Depends on how you think the mechanism of revelation works, and how you thereby understand reference with respect to God. There may be a divine sense in which we are acquainted with God, in which case, though Muslims or Buddhists may have many false beliefs about God, they do in fact refer to Him and correctly believe that he exists. You might also have differing views on the nature of truth with respect to religious texts. If you look at texts and their relation to truth not propositionally but as a kind of unconcealing of reality, a function from darkness to light, then it may be possible to see all religions as true at the same time, despite on one interpretation of their role with respect to truth asserting propositions that are mutually exclusive (this was the view of John Hick and as far as I can tell also of Jordan Peterson, whatever you think about him as an intellectual).

>What about the different sects of Christianity?
Again there is no canonical answer to this; depends who you ask. In general if you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God, and believe there is something essential about the Bible and about the person of Jesus Christ to personal salvation through some divine mechanism of revelation, you are a Christian and anything else about which you may disagree is mere hermeneutics and of no significant importance. That is the view I would take; others are far more strict.

>> No.11590108

>>11589612
Not knowing does not imply not existing, unless you believe in a constructivist idea of the truth. We may be able to get 99.9% close to the truth, enough to believe in, but not enough to say that we "know". If mathematics ought to be considered proof of an all powerful god, then that may be considered proof for some people. Point here is that even if a comprehensive moral truth isn't know, approximations might be all we can have. Or maybe if God exists it is an amoral function of physical scientific and mathematical law. It all goes back, again, to how one defines God. I, personally, am comfortable saying that I niether know how to define God nor know if God exists. I hope that we will eventually know, but I'm not going to pretend that I do.

>> No.11590221

>>11589212
He's right though

>> No.11590253

>>11589813
You don't understand. I blame brainlet protties who still talk about God in their adulthood the same way they used to talk about him in Sunday school.

It means man needs to obey a principle higher than himself, a center that is not his center, the same way planets orbit stars. A planet can't orbit itself, any more than reason can self-ground.

>> No.11590344

>>11588996
>there is no God
I would have agreed with that 1 year ago. But since then I have started to read the bible and become more conscious of Gods existence, a lot of stuff has happened in my life. It's like God is right there besides me, whenever I need him the most. You can try to explain all of this by luck, but I don't care.

>> No.11590354

>>11589064
No you can't. God is infinite, hence, god is the alpha and omega.

>> No.11590367

>>11590344
It's not the God of the Bible though, it's Brahman. Trust me, you will meet him.

>> No.11590379

>>11590367
I don't by into the whole Eastern Mysticism. The Christian god is the most logical and historically validated god.

>> No.11590383

>>11590379
>logical and historically validated god.
[citation needed]

>> No.11590438

>>11590383
>logical and historically validated god.
Can anyone actually justify this? I'm curious

>> No.11590517

>>11590438
No, and also no for the opposite view

>> No.11590540

Doesn't matter. If God is a lie, then we fight on that lie.

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard didn't get me off cocaine. Marx and Adorno didn't get me through the trauma of childhood abuse. My own thinking didn't do much for me except send me into a spiral of self-destruction.

"And they asked the man who had been blind whether it was a sin to heal on the sabbath [p]. He replied: whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind, and now I see."

t. guy who knows nothing

>> No.11590546

>>11589006
>Literally "I make all the rules" machine
>Not solving whatever is necessary

>> No.11590650

>>11589273
and omnibenevolent

>> No.11590695

>>11590253
Sunday school thoughts of God are still meaningful though because they are questions that can't be sufficiently answered. Why do you believe man needs to obey a principle higher than himself? Because the Bible says so? A planet not being able to orbit itself has nothing to with its centrality you moron - in an infinite universe everything is the centre - literally, everything is the centre of the universe - which actually proves that you are completely incorrect

>> No.11590781

>>11590253
So God isn't really "real", He's just a principle that helps man to get perspective?