[ 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: 32 KB, 333x499, 51iz3B917QL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14894850 No.14894850 [Reply] [Original]

I believe in God.
Why should I be a Christian doe?

Help me out please.

>> No.14894861

>>14894850
>5 proofs of god
how can your prove something that doesnt exist?

>> No.14894865
File: 57 KB, 1000x1000, 17-1_5_1_214.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14894865

>>14894861
wow very cool

>> No.14894868

>>14894865
a fedora wont make god exist

>> No.14894881
File: 349 KB, 500x283, 1484030730-29ad7945fa389e07c6b6a39fb3cc26ac.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14894881

>>14894850
>I believe in God.
I'll translate that for you:

>im too stupid to know anything about evolutionary biology or neuroscience which all easily explain away the origin of the religious impulse and the idea of god so instead im just going to believe in an antique memeplex that has no rational basis and that also just so happens to guarantee my life has de facto value

>> No.14894890

>>14894881
ever heard of theistic evolution, retard?

>> No.14894894

>>14894865
Not a good argument. You have four more tries.

>>14894850
>Why should I be a Christian doe?
You shouldn’t. It’s a very bad perspective. Robs death of its actual gravity and makes life a kind of hell for a lot of people. A wicked lie.

>> No.14894897

>>14894881
>memeplex
Stop reading Dawkins and Blackmore; for they are mind viruses, along with memetics.

>> No.14894905

Why would they include a pre-Christian philosopher with Christian proofs? As though they believed the same diety.

>> No.14894911

>>14894861
>>14894881
Let me translate:
>I don't know what metaphysics is, nor do I have a clue about the philosophy of science. "The scientific method" is whatever I want it to be, and so let me tell you about what I read in Muh Stars Are So Cool Science N Shiet by Nye DeGrasse Dawking, which surely must be the absolute truth procured by infallible method

>> No.14894915

>>14894894
Too bad you don’t have 4 more tries at life

>> No.14894918

>>14894905
God as defined by Classical Thesim. Pure Act. Existence itself. The God of Aristotle, Aquinas, Maimonides and Averroes.

>> No.14894924

>>14894911
metaphysics isnt proof of god, but its ok, god doesnt exist, you were never meant to win anyway

>> No.14894925
File: 91 KB, 600x900, merlin_153382137_99e6cb7d-03fa-48b5-bcdf-2277e9ad9885-articleLarge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14894925

>>14894850
So that your daughter can be inseminated by an African BVLL

>> No.14894928

>>14894924
No one wins without God

>> No.14894931
File: 105 KB, 1125x874, gh6jf88uy4b41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14894931

>>14894850
>>14894925
Deus vult!

>> No.14894934

>>14894928
god doesnt exist, he cant make anyone win

>> No.14894935

>>14894924
The point is that the claim that science could disprove or explain away or obsolete God displays a monumental lack of understanding both of what science is and of what someone like Feser, the author of that book, means by "God".
Keep being a mouthbreather.

>> No.14894939

>>14894931
xD

>> No.14894941

>>14894935
>some fag called Freser definition of God means i should give a shit about fairy tales
you are the mouthbreather, god doesnt exist and some feser fag isnt gonna make it real

>> No.14894960

>I just came here to shit up the thread
good that you admit it at least

>> No.14894963

>>14894924
>>14894934
>>14894941
>god doesn’t exist
Why do you make claims that you can’t prove?

>> No.14894971

Belief in God is a personal journey. The mote of actual belief coursing through your experiences provides more subjective evidence for the basis of your belief with the caveat that it until certain points are passed make it increasingly more difficult to communicate or explain to other people. The relationship you individually have with God has to be enough for you to believe in him -- once you have gone beyond the threshold of needing other people to vindicate your beliefs through common perspective (needing Church/mosque/synagogue or just people to say 'ye i believe too') comes trial after trial of experiences through life designed specifically to weed out your hypocrisies, this is the point at which most 'believers' either find a series of platitudes and plateau, or fall out of love with the faith because they think they 'know better'.
Christian, Muslim, Shaivite, Jainist, God cares not what hat you put on his image, as long as you understand the limitations of the image -- anything else is idolatry. Proper worship, that is actual respect reflective of your understanding of the value of God in your life requires that you idolate not.

Go far enough down the straight path, and it gets lonely in terms of people who can relate to you, but it feels very, very comforting to know for oneself that God truly works through your life and you have an individual relationship with him.

So, why should you be a christian? I don't know. But why should you worship God? Respect.

>> No.14894973
File: 20 KB, 240x355, 1580744561105.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14894973

>>14894963
>5 PROOFS for GOD that DESTROY ATHEISTS
>uhm god doesn't exist
>Why are you making claims you can't prove?

>> No.14894976

>>14894963
if you cant prove it, then it doesnt exist, simple as

>> No.14894979

>>14894976
Imbecile. Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence

>> No.14894982

>>14894973
tu quoque fallacy. Also, when people say “proof,” that doesn’t mean it’s conclusive, or else the book would only contain one proof. A proof is reason or evidence to believe. But you merely said that God doesn’t exist without any proof or reason at all.

>> No.14894991

>>14894979
no proof, no god, simple as, when we find god we will tell you, until then god doesnt exist, now fuck off retard

>> No.14894998

>>14894991
>no proof
But there are literally five of them right there >>14894850 dummy

>> No.14895000

>>14894976
>>14894991
So before evolution was discovered and proved, evolution was false? How can a thing be false, then true?

>> No.14895007

>>14894998
opinions arent proofs
>>14895000
nobody told people to believe in evolution for 2000 years on punishment of death

>> No.14895017

>>14895007
>nobody told people to believe in evolution for 2000 years on punishment of death
you completely ignored my point and didn’t answer my question. You believe that it’s possible for a claim to be false, then true, or vice versa, depending on whether or not humans have discovered the proof. So if I say aliens aren’t real because there’s no proof, then we find aliens, you think that I was correct when I said there were no aliens, which is obviously wrong.

>> No.14895028

>>14895017
>you think that I was correct when I said there were no aliens
i think you shouldnt make a cult that subjugates and punishes people not believing your ramblings

>> No.14895038

>>14895028
Good thing it wasn’t that then

>> No.14895041

>>14895028
you obviously realize that you’re wrong. Will you admit that saying “god doesn’t exist” is too presumptive? Don’t you realize that you’re using faith to believe this claim? The agnostic would simply say “I don’t know if God exists.” You’ll continue to beat around the bush but in a few days or weeks you’ll probably change your mind, convincing yourself that this was your doing. I would be surprised to see someone like you admit that he’s wrong

>> No.14895046

>>14894982
>tu quoque fallacy
Is this the beginning of high school-tier fallacy referencing?
>Also, when people say “proof,” that doesn’t mean it’s conclusive, or else the book would only contain one proof. A proof is reason or evidence to believe. But you merely said that God doesn’t exist without any proof or reason at all.
I didn't say shit, brainlet. My first post is here to mock your obvious pearl clutching. Leibniz, Augustine, and Aquinas absolutely believed they provided proof in the exact way you claim they didn't.
The fact you got so triggered by one unsubstantiated claim vs the other outed you as the pseud you are. But keep hiding behind that tactical agnosticism ;)

>> No.14895053

>>14894890
>theistic evolution
Heretical Marcionite garbage.

>> No.14895058

>>14895038
good thing god doesnt exist
>>14895041
>too presumptive
not at all, god doesnt exist, its the only logical conclusion
>Don’t you realize that you’re using faith to believe this claim?
there is no faith, i know god doesnt exist, if he did, there wouldnt be 6 million cults
>The agnostic would simply say “I don’t know if God exists.”
they are retarded, but not as retarded as religious lunatics

>> No.14895061

>>14895046
>5 proofs vs. 0 proofs
As it stands, “God doesn’t exist” is the unsubstantiated claim here

>> No.14895070

>>14895061
>5 proofs all demolished by Kant
I'm sorry, do I need to assume I'm talking to a child who hasn't read Kant? Even Christcucks 200 years ago were aware of how stupid you are, embarrassing.

>> No.14895072

>>14894918
>Pure Act. Existence itself. The God of Aristotle, Aquinas, Maimonides and Averroes.
Pagan cringe.

>> No.14895078
File: 16 KB, 578x433, CDF18CB2-F641-4AA1-B594-743FA390C29A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14895078

>>14895058
>there is no faith, i know god doesnt exist
have you read a single philosophy book in your life? Are you underage? Is your IQ below average?

>> No.14895080
File: 176 KB, 602x516, 1576906774357.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14895080

>>14895070
>Kant
OH NO NO NO NO

>> No.14895081
File: 124 KB, 1093x1600, Georges-Lemaitre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14895081

>>14894881
>Evolutionary biology
>Neuroscience
I sincerely doubt you really know much about any of these.

Georges Lemaitre (pic related) was a physicist and a priest. His contributions to science very likely outnumber yours. He must have been too stupid to know anything about evolutionary biology or neuroscience, though.

>> No.14895085

>>14895070
0 proofs

>> No.14895087

>>14895085
Correct, you are left with 0 proofs ;)

>> No.14895091

>>14895087
you haven’t given any proof for the claim “god doesn’t exist.” How can you know this unless you’ve looked everywhere? Are you omniscient?

>> No.14895093

>>14895078
not an argument, dont worry there is no argument that will make god real, cuz he doesnt exist

>> No.14895097
File: 246 KB, 450x338, 1518170563827.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14895097

>>14895070
>kant

>> No.14895098

>>14895091
no proof, no god, what dont you understand? do you have an IQ higher than a toddler?

>> No.14895100

>>14895091
I have not claimed knowledge of the lack of gods existence, that's just your christcuck insecurity projecting.

>> No.14895107

>>14895098
You believe that a claim can be false one day and true the next day, which is retarded. Every time I point this out you ignore it because you’re pride is too great to admit that you’re wrong.

>> No.14895119

>>14895107
what pride? there is no proof, then god doesnt exist
>claim can be false one day and true the next day
yet you use metaphysics as proof for god, but real science for evolution and other things to "discover" how about you use metaphysics for evolution or gravity? oh it doesnt work like that? so why dont we use real science as proof of god... wait you cant prove with real science that god exist CUZ THERE IS NO PROOF, you have to use metaphysics bullshit for it, guess u just lost, better luck next time

>> No.14895132

>>14895119
You think that aliens can not exist even when they do exist. That’s retardation.

>> No.14895142

>>14895132
god isnt an alien, cuz god doesnt exist, he only exists in old mens imaginations or what you like to call "metaphysics", while in reality and science there is no proof of god and never will be, but hey if we do find him, after you are tired of moving the goalpost after every scientific breakthrough and discovery, we will be the first to inform you, until then stfu, anyway im going to sleep, goodnight

>> No.14895146

>>14894850

In brief,

Since God exists, knowing and loving him is your end as a human being. But your limitations as a human being also prevent you from attaining this end- indeed, this end is unattainable for finite nature in general. This is a paradox at the heart of being human- that the human being by nature exists for the sake of an end he cannot attain. It is both existential (has to do with what end your existence has) and theoretical (since it would appear that being-human is in fact an impossible mode of being). The only resolution to this paradox is the permanent union of the finite and infinite nature by a movement of God, hence, something like an Incarnation.

That finite and infinite being, even including materiality and individuality, are forever reconciled and one in the incarnate God, is the characteristic solution of Christianity to the problem of being human. The striving against finitude which characterises every human act could only find its completion in participating in his life.

In light of God's existence, human nature anticipates Christ. The Christian tradition, which proposes just such a solution to the human predicament, deserves your credence, and the one around whom that solution revolves and whose life (attested by generally good-quality testimony) is the basis of these doctrines, merits your faith.

>> No.14895165

>>14895142
Right, so you believe that if we were to find proof of the existence of God, then you would have been correct when you said “God doesn’t exist,” which is absurd. I’m thankful I wasn’t born with reasoning abilities as poor as yours.

>> No.14895183

>>14895146
is this what the priests say before or after they rape children? asking for a friend
>>14895165
no thats not what i said, no matter, you clearly have low enough IQ to believe fairy tale bullshit, but now for real im going to sleep, good night

>> No.14895207

>>14895183

It's what reason says when it considers its highest end with sufficient clarity. In the depths of unreason, when they commit atrocities furthest from Christ, I doubt that any priest has spoken thus.

>> No.14895209

>>14895183
>god doesn’t exist until we prove that he exists
This is your main point. This means that you think it’s possible for a thing to not exist and exist at the same time. For if a thing did not exist, then we would never find proof of it. So it must be the case that things can exist even if we don’t have proof for it. I won’t respond to you anymore. Either you’re too unintelligent to grasp this basic concept or you’re stubborn to admit you’re wrong.

>> No.14895226

>>14895146
Thanks a lot. This was of great help.
Any good books on the matter?

>> No.14895301

>>14895142
The alien hypothesis is based on the fact that there is life on this planet, so it's based on something that already exists. God hypothesis is weaker still due to lack of proof on this planet and no tangible starting point, it's hypotheses on top of hypotheses.

>> No.14895346

>>14895301
>the fact that there is life on this planet
Not him but you’re wrong there, we’re living in a simulation. There’s actually more evidence to prove we’re in a simulation than to prove we aren’t.

>> No.14895361

>>14895346
Could you recommend any lit on this? I'm honestly more open to this as there are things that don't make sense to me about religion, which makes me think I'm being psyoped.

>> No.14895390

>>14894861
read the fucking book retard

>>14894850
because what was revealed in Christ is proved by what came before him and the testimony of his contemporaries and physical evidence in the shroud. faith is our sense, imperfect as it is, of God. have faith and see for yourself.

>> No.14895438

>>14895361
No lit that I’ve personally read, but there is “Simulation Hypothesis”. You’ll probably find interesting stuff coming from academia such as:
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

“There’s a one in a billion chance we are not living in a simulation” -Elon Musk

“I find it hard to argue we are not in a simulation.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson

“We are living in computer generated reality.” -Philip K. Dick

>> No.14895463

>>14895226

You can find something similar (though he doesn't put it as forcefully as I would) in CS Lewis's book Miracles, specifically, the chapter called 'The Grand Miracle.'

Scotus says something about the necessity of the Incarnation in his Ordinatio, at 62 of the following document: http://www.aristotelophile.com/Books/Translations/Scotus%20Ordinatio%20III%20dd.1-17.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3ikelKu9lidlopQMnkLhxdhRP0EfXXQ3XZfQVnsD-VlIwVhXhFwf93uqA

Admittedly, the case for how human nature itself points toward Christ (you might call it 'natural soteriology') is a rather obscure subfield of philosophical theology!

>> No.14895473

>>14894976
is this your brain on naturalism