Arguments for the existence of God

File: 30 KB, 537x525, 1590700157503.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Arguments for the existence of God Anonymous Tue Oct 27 22:56:58 2020 No.16667258 [Reply] [Original]

In the writings of Aquinas, Anselm, and other theologians we find three arguments for God's existence. None of them is even slightly convincing. The ontological argument is circular. The cosmological argument is interesting, but an uncaused universe is just as likely as an uncaused being. The teleological argument only works for brainlets who can't understand how a random process might produce complexity.

The thing that all these arguments have in common is that they're made for people who already believe in God. No atheist has ever said 'oh wow, the cosmological argument is valid and sound! God must exist!' Which makes me wonder what the point of them is (self-satisfaction maybe).

But more to the point, how can philosophers build entire systems of theology and religion, devote their entire life to them, and assume such insane ideas as a fiery hell, all on flawed premise?

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 22:58:41 2020 No.16667272

>>16667258
See, they know that God doesn't exist. But they say He does anyway. It gives people an excuse to use the idea of God for power, control, and coercion over others. As for the theologians, their role is to justify the "existence of God" that they, too, know to be nothing more than a concept invented by humans. They get gratification for their endless theological ponderings in and of itself, and it serves a practical material function in society to boot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 23:00:00 2020 No.16667285 >>16667258 Jews don't believe in hell

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 23:01:05 2020 No.16667291

>>16667258
Argumentum Ornithologicum

I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable; ergo, God exists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 23:01:09 2020 No.16667292 >>16667272 The chemicals in your brain mean nothing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 23:03:04 2020 No.16667307 >>16667291 This is delusional.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 23:04:01 2020 No.16667313 >>16667307 Yeah Borges wrote it to make fun of the ontological argument

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Tue Oct 27 23:05:31 2020 No.16667327 >>16667258 Schizophrenia

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Tue Oct 27 23:10:20 2020 No.16667371 >>16667291 You imagined a flock of birds. They don’t exist. But how many were you imagining? Draw them. Only you will know what the right number is and when to stop. Even if you imagine god knew too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 23:39:13 2020 No.16667548 Trying to prove the existence of God is pointless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 23:41:18 2020 No.16667559 >>16667272 insanely hot take

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 23:59:51 2020 No.16667660

>>16667258
what is the point of arguing for the existence of something
you've decided to worship arguing for existence
that is your Satan
if you argue for non-existence then you are also arguing for existence of some kind of supernatural barrier
how does your certainty of non-existence measure up against your observation that the world works the way you think it works
for example we think there is no mathematical proof that 1 + 1 = 3
what makes you so certain no such proof exists
you could say we are reasoning about a mindless process
so all you will get from arguments for existence are such mindless mechanics
is this the same thing as contact with God
you could say God contacts each moment regardless of whether you are engaged in study or not
so it is really some object of mindless mechanics that you are studying
is God some object of mindless mechanics

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:00:48 2020 No.16667662 >>16667660 Based irrational retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:02:11 2020 No.16667672 >>16667258 >The ontological argument is circular only if youre retarded and hasnt understood nothing in this universal doesnt have a cause

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:05:40 2020 No.16667696

>>16667672
Not even the ontological argument. You're defending the cosmological argument and ignoring the obvious objection that if everything has a cause what caused God? And if God doesn't have a cause then everything doesn't have to have a cause thus invalidating the cosmological argument

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:14:15 2020 No.16667730

>>16667258
>The cosmological argument is interesting, but an uncaused universe is just as likely as an uncaused being
its not
its basic logic, the universe being the set of all causal things, cannot have the property of being uncaused, otherwise it would need to have a property not found in any of its elements, which in turn would make it something other than just the set of all things, a fundamental entity, that fundaments things, from there you can think a little and realize you will reach God

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:15:35 2020 No.16667739 >>16667258 >and religion, devote their entire life to them, and assume such insane ideas as a fiery hell, all on flawed premise? Because the religion isnt based on that, its based on miracles they have seen with their own eyes

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:17:12 2020 No.16667749 >>16667730 Basic logic is defining the universe as the set of all things. This includes God if he exists. Making a universal statement applies to God just like anything else

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:18:17 2020 No.16667752

>>16667696
>And if God doesn't have a cause then everything doesn't have to have a cause thus invalidating the cosmological argument
not him but thats a non sequitur
if something outside reality, that must be outside reality and not subjected to the laws of that reality, otherwise it wouldnt be able to act and create them, isnt caused by anything, it is illogcal to say the things in that reality, for that reason, dont need a cause as well

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:19:32 2020 No.16667753

>>16667749
>This includes God if he exists
Why would the reator of the universe be contained by it?
>>16667752
>if something outside reality, that must be outside reality and not subjected to the laws of that reality, otherwise it wouldnt be able to act and create them, isnt caused by anything, it is illogcal to say the things in that reality, for that reason, dont need a cause as well

Atheists lack intelligence in my point of view

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:19:43 2020 No.16667754 >>16667752 If you're arguing for something that doesn't have a cause you can't turn around and say everything has to have a cause. That's basic fucking logic

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:20:19 2020 No.16667760 >>16667258 >Anselm, Aquinas, Kant, Hume, Godel, and many others write millions of words for and against the ontological argument, perhaps the greatest of all arguments for God's existence >Anon: The ontological argument is circular QED

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:20:57 2020 No.16667767 >>16667753 Because that's what universe means in logic. The universe is defined as everything that exists. What other word do you use for everything that exists?

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:25:56 2020 No.16667793

>>16667754
>If you're arguing for something that doesn't have a cause
Im arguing that because everything in this physicial reality has a cause, there must be a reality of uncaused things that is independent from the physical reality of all things that could have created it, otherwise there would be things in this physical reality that were uncaused, which contradicts the premise

>>16667730
>from there you can think a little and realize you will reach God
on second notice, i hardly expect anyone on this thread to be able to do that, so if the thread is still up tomorrow i will expand on it a little

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:28:30 2020 No.16667808

>>16667754
>If you're arguing for something that doesn't have a cause you can't turn around and say everything has to have a cause. That's basic fucking logic
basic logic is premises leading to a conclusion
premise 1: all things in reality have a cause
premise 2: nothing can cause itself
conclusion: the first of all things had a cause which wasnt itself

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:28:46 2020 No.16667809

>>16667793
And everything in physical reality has to have a cause is a lot weaker statement than everything has to have a cause. If we already acknowledge the possibility that God is uncaused why don't we just cut out the middle man and say the universe is uncaused. Just like the OP said

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:30:16 2020 No.16667815 >>16667752 If God is outside of reality, then it's apt to say that He isn't real.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:30:43 2020 No.16667821 >>16667808 I mean this is valid but it's not the cosmological argument. And it's assuming their was a first thing

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:31:02 2020 No.16667824

>>16667662
this is all Satanic...you have to decide what is a valid argument for existence, so you've decided to arrogate supernatural authority, i.e. you've decided to bind the Devil
so none of this has anything to do with God, it's a matter of witchcraft, fairly basic or elementary control over your desires
usually desires are called irrational
some would say that it is rational to desire a proof of the existence of God
so you've made God subject to rationality
in other words rationality is your true God
you thank Satan for your contact with rationality
where does rationality come from
how do you convince someone that something is rational
a rational argument for the existence of something
what is the capacity for enjoying a rational argument for the existence of something
Satan provides us with such capacity
we can't use a rational argument for existence to destroy our capacity to enjoy rational arguments for the existence of things
that would spoil the fun
we are having a good time
this is a party
--t. emotivoid

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:38:28 2020 No.16667874

>>16667754
>If you're arguing for something that doesn't have a cause you can't turn around and say everything has to have a cause
the thing that doesnt have a cause must have that property
if you dont reach said thing, you get the issue of finding such uncaused element in the universe (maybe laws of physics? you could do that to escape)
if youre going with laws of phyiscs (gravity, eletromagnetism, etc.) being uncaused, then the issue becomes the most important question of all, why would then, be something, instead of absolute nothing? In my opinion, these laws would need to be intelligent, have a conscience, in order to choose to change the state of non existence to existence of the universe, there are other problems with naturalism besides this one such as the natural laws being observable and testable (therefore too much a part of physical reality to be something that could exist outside of it)
Mario Ferreira dos Santos assumed that apoditic premise (that there is something instead of absolute nothing), that is, an unbreakable premise, one you cant refute or say anything against it, and derived other truths using "geometry"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mário_Ferreira_dos_Santos
https://marioferreirainenglish.wordpress.com

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:39:37 2020 No.16667885 >>16667767 >The universe is defined as everything that exists. To exist means to have a beginning and an end God doesnt exist, it "is"

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:41:15 2020 No.16667898 >>16667815 >If God is outside of reality, then it's apt to say that He isn't real Yes, he is supra-real

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:41:15 2020 No.16667899 >>16667885 So there you go atheists are right God doesn't exist

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:42:16 2020 No.16667902

>>16667809
>And everything in physical reality has to have a cause is a lot weaker statement than everything has to have a cause.

everything in physical reality you mean, thats the premise, you dont understand the non sequitur youre commiting (everything in physical reality has a cause, therefore, things outside reality must also have a cause)

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:44:18 2020 No.16667912

>>16667809
>If we already acknowledge the possibility that God is uncaused why don't we just cut out the middle man and say the universe is uncaused. Just like the OP said
thats what bertrand russerl does in one of his book and i explained why that cannot happen
>>16667730
>the universe being the set of all causal things, cannot have the property of being uncaused, otherwise it would need to have a property not found in any of its elements, which in turn would make it something other than just the set of all things, a fundamental entity, that fundaments things, from there you can think a little and realize you will reach God

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:44:43 2020 No.16667913

>>16667291
>>16667660
OP forgetting the fourth argument, the axiomatic argument, where you try and linguistically trap someone into believing they have to either believe in God or complete solipsism and hope they are as rattled by questioning their basic tenets as you are. No one ever mentions that even if these flawed arguments are won it's still a huge leap to go from the existence of God to the validity of the Church

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:44:48 2020 No.16667915

>>16667902
I mean changing from "everything that exists has a cause" to "everything that physically exists has a cause" to sneak God is pretty stupid. If you can claim God doesn't have a cause I can claim the the physical universe doesn't have a cause either.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:45:47 2020 No.16667919 >>16667898 How isn't that synonymous with "imaginary"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:47:39 2020 No.16667929 >>16667912 And I already responded to this typical moron level redefinition of terms that christcucks like to indulge in. The universe is not normally understood as the set of all CASUAL things it is instead the set of ALL things.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:48:55 2020 No.16667937

>>16667915
>If you can claim God doesn't have a cause I can claim the the physical universe doesn't have a cause either
you cant
the unvierse being the set of all caused things cannot have the property of being caused, if you do that, ou can derive logically that the universe will need to have the same properties of God, which makes the substitution of God for universe a mere change of words bu hey stay the same

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:49:57 2020 No.16667941 >>16667919 >How isn't that synonymous with "imaginary"? learn what prefixes mean https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supra

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:51:02 2020 No.16667947 >>16667937 See >>16667929. Since we get to make up our own definitions I define the universe as the set of all things not created by God. It directly follow that you're wrong

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:51:51 2020 No.16667951 >>16667258 Fuck the "rational" arguments. The existence can't be proved but it can be experienced mystically.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:52:23 2020 No.16667952

>>16667929
>The universe is not normally understood as the set of all CASUAL things it is instead the set of ALL things
All things, even uncaused things? Then you will need to point me some element that was uncaused inside the uncaused universe
If allt hings in the universe have a cause, except the universe, then you will inevitably reach that the universe is God but you just changed the words, the universe would end up being a conscious agent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:53:29 2020 No.16667958 >>16667951 Most people use religion to try and control other people's behavior and you can't do that with a mystical experience.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:54:30 2020 No.16667962

>>16667947
>Since we get to make up our own definitions
now youre coping hard mate, all the defintions are based on what is self evident or at least supported by some evidence

> I define the universe as the set of all things not created by God
Even then it doesnt matter, you will end proving God by performatic contradiction, and you would need to define God to even have an argument

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:54:34 2020 No.16667963 >>16667941 What I'm asking is, how is the concept of "supra-real" coherent if it isn't synonymous with "imaginary"? What could "supra-real" possibly mean? (This is the part where you claim that He's ineffable.)

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:55:45 2020 No.16667974

>>16667952
And you end up just agreeing with me here

> If we already acknowledge the possibility that God is uncaused why don't we just cut out the middle man and say the universe is uncaused.

This crap about being uncaused implying being a conscious agent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. is just more theological gibberish

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:56:46 2020 No.16667980 >>16667941 >>16667963 And before you go saying "above reality", I understand what you mean by "supra-real". Please stop assuming that I don't and just answer the question. I want to know what "above reality" means.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:57:39 2020 No.16667986 >>16667962 The universe is not the set of all causal things it's the set of all things. This would necessarily include God if he existed. What is your response? Is this not the definition of universe? Do universal statements apply to God?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:58:28 2020 No.16667993 >>16667958 Human "salvation" on a collective scale is just a cute fantasy. I am talking about learning from your own personal experience.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 00:59:20 2020 No.16667997

>>16667963
>What I'm asking is, how is the concept of "supra-real" coherent if it isn't synonymous with "imaginary"? What could "supra-real" possibly mean?
You would know what it means if you knew what prefixes mean
I think the issue atheist have is the "existence" or being of a conscious God that they automatically relate to the bible one, then something in their brains inhibit their thinking due to cognitive dissonance

You could imagine there being two universes, one of all things caused, and one of all things uncaused, see? Not personal being anymore, you can let your brain work now. The uncaused universe necessarily has to have caused the universe of caused things, as that is the definition of the universe of caused things. The universal of caused things would be real, the universe of uncased things would be supra-real, like you dont exist in the sea with the fish, but outside of it (just an example)

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:00:40 2020 No.16668002

>>16667993
Yeah and I'm telling you the vast majority of religious people don't give a shit about any personal mystical experience. For them it's a systemic way to attempt to control the behavior of people around them. What is the point of proselytizing for the mystic?

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:01:55 2020 No.16668009

>>16667974
>This crap about being uncaused implying being a conscious agent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. is just more theological gibberish
Its not you fucking moron, its a logical necessity that the uncaused originator of everything needs to have the power to cause the next things, to be able to cause the next things, it needs to know how to do so, and i argue that to choose between non existence of the next things and the existence of them, it must have made a conscious choice which implies conscience

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:02:07 2020 No.16668011 >>16667951 How can you tell mystical experience and insanity apart?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:02:13 2020 No.16668012 >>16667997 >You could imagine there being two universes, one of all things caused, and one of all things uncaused How do these two universes interact?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:04:14 2020 No.16668027 >>16667730 This is hilarious

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:05:04 2020 No.16668031 >>16668009 I don't this word logic means what you think it means.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:05:53 2020 No.16668034

>>16668012
>How do these two universes interact?
Oh so if its a universe you can conceive its being even if for the argument sake, if you read the thread you can see that is not the case if you say god, turns out I was right about atheists psychology. The importsnt par here, anyways, is that you can conceive two separe entities.

How do they interact? Through whatever means the uncaused universe entities have determined the caused things to follow, as they would be able to invent concepts that they wouldnt be subjected to

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:06:59 2020 No.16668041 Any arguments for an unconditionally loving personal God? (not the God of Aquinas)

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:07:41 2020 No.16668045

>>16668031
how can the uncased first thing cannot generate all caused things? if the first thing ends up generating the rest through whatever chain of events, it is necessary for the first uncaused thing to have the set of the possibility of all things in it

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:10:04 2020 No.16668053

>>16667752
If it's outside of reality then that means it's not real, retard.

Also, If things inside reality can't exist without cause; but things outside reality can. Then does that mean that reality existed within itself before it was created?
There's like, 2 layers of existential dread and 1 one layer of paradox if that's what you're going with.
Or does that mean that, things outside reality can exist without cause, except for reality itself, which HAD to be created, because apparently it's the only thing that cant exist without cause.
Which sounds as illogical as something existing IN reality without cause.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:10:08 2020 No.16668054

>>16668002
Religion is just one way of looking at things. And humans are doomed to think about everything religiously. You can't just point towards religious fanatics and see them as something different from other beings. There are all shades of religion too who agree with certain ideologies such as communism, fascism, liberalism, fundamentalism, anarchism etc.

>>16668011
What is insanity?

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:11:32 2020 No.16668061

>>16668034
>Oh so if its a universe you can conceive its being even if for the argument sake, if you read the thread you can see that is not the case if you say god, turns out I was right about atheists psychology. The importsnt par here, anyways, is that you can conceive two separe entities.
Why are you so desperate to pyschologize my position?
>Through whatever means the uncaused universe entities have determined the caused things to follow, as they would be able to invent concepts that they wouldnt be subjected to
How does the uncaused universe make the caused universe follow certain determinations?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:12:38 2020 No.16668065 >>16668061 >pyschologize psychologize*

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:14:42 2020 No.16668073 >>16667258 Read Plato, Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysus, St. Juan de la Cruz, St. Teresa, and Meister Eckhart.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:27:42 2020 No.16668118

>>16667291
Ok but you realize that the only reason electrons work the way they do is because they are unobserved, and the wave function hasn't collapsed. That's why we have orbitals and not literal little-ball electrons. So if anything, the necessity for un-observation suggests that if your argument were sound, it would be necessary that God not exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:30:04 2020 No.16668129 >>16668118 That's from Borges and it's not meant to be a real argument instead to make fun of the style of "reasoning" used in the ontological argument

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:35:53 2020 No.16668150 >>16668129 Yeah I got baited

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 01:36:12 2020 No.16668152 >>16668118 Electrons always work the same way. When you interact with them (e.g. observe them), you cause their behavior to change.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:10:15 2020 No.16668235

>>16667272
>>16667307
>>16667327
>>16667696
>>16667749
>>16667754
>>16667767
>>16667809
>>16667815
>>16667821
>>16667899
>>16667915
>>16667929
>>16667947
This will be my last post about the cosmological argument

If the universe wasnt created, the universe is eternal, as it doesnt have a beginning nor an end

However as far as we know, there is nothing in the universe that is eternal, that is, does not have a beginning and an end

So what does the word universe mean? It cannot simply be the set of all things, because the set of all temporally extinguishable cannot be itself eternal unless it in itself has an additional property that things do not have

So between universe and set of all things, there is a qualitative jump, the universe has a property, that of eternity, that isnt shared by any of it's objects

Therefore, between the universe and it's entities, it's repeated the same problem atheists see between God and the universe

If all things have a temporal existence, they begin and they end, but the set if them all has the property of being eternal, never have begun, then it's evident that this universe holds to the things inside it a disproportional relation, exactly like the christian doctrine says there is betwen God and the universe, so now you atheist have to explain this transcendental property of the universe to transcend all of it's entities. To say it in another way, the universe cannot be comprehended as a mere set, a set of all or the sum of all things, but as a principle in which they are fundamented. So everything that is temporal is sustained in the eternity of the universe.

So universe is the word that designates the founding principle of everything that exists.

In other words, atheists, thinking they did anything to the cosmological argument, actually just change the word God for universe, and did not solve the problem in any way

In fewer words, the instant an idiot says the universal is eternal, he does not realize that he is proclaiming the existance of an entity that has an specific property that no other entity has, that is the eternity. Everything that exists in the universe is temporal/temporary, no element that composes the universal is eternal, so if the universe itself is eternal, than it infinitely transcends the beings that compose it, it has a property that distinguishes it from all of them. As althe many sections of time in comparison to eternity are basically "nothings", there isn't a possible comparison between the longest duration possible and eternity, so we would need to understand that this eternity isn't just the set but also the foundational principle of all sections of time that exist inside it. So it is the same as saying eternity is the creating force or the fundament or the principle of all temporal existences. There is no way it cannot. So the atheist is imposing another definition of universe that isn't simply the set of all existing things, but the principle of all existing things.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:12:49 2020 No.16668239

>>16668053
>Or does that mean that, things outside reality can exist without cause, except for reality itself, which HAD to be created, because apparently it's the only thing that cant exist without cause
Yes, that's exactly it, but there are no things outside reality, just God, it's one thing only in essence

>Which sounds as illogical
Why?

>why not the universe then? cut the middle man
>>16668235

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:22:25 2020 No.16668259 >>16668235 Why can't the universe-as-a-set contain the universe-as-an-object, thereby giving the universe-as-a-set an object which is eternal?

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:26:46 2020 No.16668283

>>16668235
The set of natural number is not a number it's a set. It does not have the property of being a number and numbers don't have the property of a being a set. If it even makes sense to assign properties to sets. You're getting into the set of all sets not members of themselves territory here and quantifying over the set of predicates.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:30:32 2020 No.16668296 >>16667291 >imagine you are retarded no wait you dont even hafe to

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:31:37 2020 No.16668299 >>16668296 See >>16668129

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:33:03 2020 No.16668301 >>16668235 Matter is neither created nor destroyed, therefore matter is eternal.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:42:33 2020 No.16668336 >>16668152 Yes retard, that was my point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:42:36 2020 No.16668337 How can God, an immaterial being, interact with material reality?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:43:45 2020 No.16668341 >>16668259 There would still be a qualitative jump between the universe-as-an-object and its parts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:43:46 2020 No.16668342 >>16668235 >If the universe wasnt created, the universe is eternal Doesn't follow

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:45:17 2020 No.16668343 >>16668341 And ... ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:45:48 2020 No.16668346 >>16668343 And: (>>16668235)

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:50:06 2020 No.16668356

>>16667258
There will never be scientific evidence for or against the existence of God in our lifetimes. Even the atheist position of "what we observe from science is that everything comes from something and there is no reason to believe in existence outside the material" is an argument of logic, not a scientific experiment with tangible results. There is no "God test."

Therefore, it is up to you to decide what you believe. There is no harm that can be done, in and of itself, by taking any position on this issue.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:59:56 2020 No.16668392

>>16668346
Yes but this argument is stupid because it boils down to emergent complexity. Each object in the universe is not eternal so how can the universe be eternal? Well, each plank in a ship isn't a ship, so how can a ship be a ship?

The fact that a ship has the quality of "shipness" stands in no relation to the un-shipness of its components.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:01:41 2020 No.16668397

>>16668259
>Why can't the universe-as-a-set contain the universe-as-an-object, thereby giving the universe-as-a-set an object which is eternal?
Identity law

>>16668283
I knew you faggots would bring numbers into this discussion of reality
>The set of natural number is not a number it's a set. It does not have the property of being a number and numbers don't have the property of a being a set

Yes, and the set of natural numbers is the set of natural numbers, the set of all elements defined as natural numbers, it is infinite as it is the principle that fundaments the elements called natural numbers.
This does not matter for the argument you quoted and it shows you didnt understand it as you're only supporting it.

>If it even makes sense to assign properties to sets
Say this in >>>/sci/

>You're getting into the set of all sets not members of themselves territory here

I am not and this should be obvious, the argument you quoted simple shows the consequences of considering the universe, the set of all things that exist, as being eternal

Change "set" for universe and you will understand your remarks do not make any sense if the intent was to answer the argument you quoted

>You're getting into the universe of all universes not members of themselves territory here and quantifying over the universe of predicates.

At the end there is still the biggest uncaused universe that the ATHEISTS are arguing with, my argument is still valid and I fail to see how yours has any relation with mine

>>16668301
>matter is not created
That is not what actual physicists say, my point still stands and there is even a point to be made in physics of the universe having a beginning point (which is logical)
https://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143
https://www.quora.com/In-the-strictest-sense-can-matter-be-created-or-destroyed-and-if-so-how

>>16668342
>If the universe wasnt created, the universe is eternal
>Doesn't follow
Look up the definition of the word create
Good God you people are morons

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:02:02 2020 No.16668399 >>16668356 This is true when you're a teenager or a woman. Otherwise, people generally value truth, and so seek it. Similarly, there are real consequences to belief qua such. "Let them be" is stupid.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:07:17 2020 No.16668419

>>16668397
>Identitity Law.
Kek. Read set theory. This is perfectly fine.
>Natural Numbers Thing
Wrong, again, read set theory. Sets are prior to all numbers.
>matter is not created
you knew what he meant, anon
>Eternality/Creation
You're the moron here. Boulders are not "created", they arise. "Created" is dishonest creationist drivel, and you know it. Say "came to be" or else refrain from calling anyone a moron.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:08:27 2020 No.16668421

>>16668392
>Yes but this argument is stupid because it boils down to emergent complexity. Each object in the universe is not eternal so how can the universe be eternal? Well, each plank in a ship isn't a ship, so how can a ship be a ship?
A ship is not eternal nor infinite, therefore it can be defined as the sum of it's finite parts in a certain manner specific to that ship
I dont know what it is, but atheists get really fucking stupid when it comes to arguing about God, I have no other explanation other than a psychological mechanism that dumbs them down

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:08:50 2020 No.16668425

>>16668397
>The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed
There you have it, the universe contains something eternal inside of it, namely energy. BTFO by your own sources.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:10:26 2020 No.16668431

>>16668399
Believing in God has nothing to do with murdering homos, the pope is pro-gay. 99% of American congress, both Democrat and Republican, is religious in some form. Belief in God or lack of belief in God is fundamentally separate from political belief. To use another example, imagine an atheist Bernie bro and an atheist libertarian. If atheism is a harmful belief, did some random dude being an atheist taint the entirety of socialism and libertarianism? That's nonsensical. It's only the political beliefs on their own that causes the perceived damage.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:12:49 2020 No.16668436

>>16668419
>You're the moron here. Boulders are not "created", they arise. "Created" is dishonest creationist drivel, and you know it.
If they "arise" it means they create themselves dumbass, go back to the argument if you can understand the elements in the universe don't create themselves
>>16668235

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:17:24 2020 No.16668448

>>16668419
>Sets are prior to all numbers.
Not only sets are defined by a mathematician, you can't seem to escape your own stupidty anon, of course are sets are prior to numbers you fucking moron, that is part of what it means to be the principle of it's elements
Are you functionally illiterate when its comes to anything related to God? The argument I gave with plenty of details already covers your mental fart
There is no point in answering posts from people that simply fail to understand the words of the argument they "answered" due to illiteracy

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:17:59 2020 No.16668452
File: 34 KB, 450x450, 1603489311505.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

> The cosmological argument is interesting, but an uncaused universe is just as likely as an uncaused being
honestly not sure if I buy this one - The universe has limitations, contingencies, finitude, particularity. I am relying merely on abductive reasoning here, but, it seems to make more sense to me that an uncaused being would arise from infinitude, unlimitation, and necessity. What is uncaused but exists is everything, but the universe is not everything, it is less than everything, it is a particular thing, it appears to have an outside, a beginning, an end, and is entirely causal within it. How can the uncaused by inscribed with in the causal realm?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:18:40 2020 No.16668455 >>16668421 Why is eternality important. A ship is not the sum of its parts, it can sail. If you want a cooler example, take a nation. Emergent complexity is a thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:19:58 2020 No.16668462 >>16668397 Answer this: >>16668337

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:20:21 2020 No.16668464 >>16668436 God fucking dammit can you employ one brain cell for once, "arise" does not mean they create themselves either.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:21:28 2020 No.16668470

>>16668425
>The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed
>There you have it, the universe contains something eternal inside of it, namely energy. BTFO by your own sources
I think you cannot read (which is evidenced by your usage of "BTFO")
The physicists there say you can create matter if you create antimatter along with it, so the sum of matter and antimatter is constant, which should mean zero, the sum, but the actual quantity of each part can change

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:22:32 2020 No.16668472 >>16668448 No, literally only sets are defined by mathematicians. Numbers are not a separate thing. That is set theory. You know who's fucking illiterate?

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:25:40 2020 No.16668484

>>16668464
>"arise" does not mean they create themselves either
I will be even more general then
It means they changed from non existence to existence
If there isnt a creator, that means non external agent was responsible for that change
The only agent responsible for that change is the object in itself
Which means creating itself.

>>16668419
>"Created" is dishonest creationist drivel, and you know it. Say "came to be" or else refrain from calling anyone a moron

I am not offending you with no reason, I am diagnosting or describing what you are at the moment

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:27:00 2020 No.16668492

>>16668419
>Boulders are not "created", they arise. "Created" is dishonest creationist drivel, and you know it.
Lets see who is more dishonest, someone like me that knows what words mean, or you that will most likely say "nothing" can be an agent of change

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:29:56 2020 No.16668500

>>16668455
>Why is eternality important.
>why is it important to distinguish infinite from finite

>>16668462
>>16668337
>How can God, an immaterial being, interact with material reality?
You define God as immaterial and implicitly claim immaterial things cant interact with material things in your question, you're not asking a question, you're doing a subtle petitio principii

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:30:02 2020 No.16668501

>proving that a certain idea is an accurate description of reality
>without actually testing your idea within reality, by solely relying on logical consistency, thereby completely ignoring consistency with the reality you try to describe
Gee I wonder why this doesn’t work

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:30:15 2020 No.16668503 >>16668470 >The physicists there say you can create matter if you create antimatter along with it, so the sum of matter and antimatter is constant That constant is eternal.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:33:43 2020 No.16668516

>>16668455
>Why is eternality important.
We have finite minds.
>>16668500
>You define God as immaterial
What would you define Him as?
>and implicitly claim immaterial things cant interact with material things
In fact, I am claiming that, because it's impossible to give an account of how they could.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:36:30 2020 No.16668520

>>16668356
>the atheist position of "what we observe from science is that everything comes from something
>>16668235
>However as far as we know, there is nothing in the universe that is eternal, that is, does not have a beginning and an end

>>16668356
>and there is no reason to believe in existence outside the material" is an argument of logic
>>16668235

There is nothing logical about atheism unless you have the logical capacity of a middle schooler with brain damage

>>16668503
>That constant is eternal
Constants are attributed by human beings and can change whenever we decide or find something new, 1 meter will always be 1 meter in any part of the universe, that doesn't imply that elements of the universe are eternal

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:40:56 2020 No.16668530 >>16668516 >What would you define Him as? the basic definition, omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent then these terms have to be defined, this thread isnt the one for it

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:41:02 2020 No.16668531

>>16667258
>No atheist has ever said 'oh wow, the cosmological argument is valid and sound! God must exist!'
Isn't there a popular story of how Bertrand Russell was on his way to buy some tobacco and exclaimed "Great God in boots, the ontological argument is sound!" while on the street?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:42:06 2020 No.16668537 >>16668520 >Constants are attributed by human beings Their numerical value is, their constancy isn't.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:45:28 2020 No.16668545

>>16668537
>their constancy isnt
Until it isnt constant anymore and scientific consensus changes for the 1000th time
https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem

My argument will still stand in defense of the cosmological argument

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:46:14 2020 No.16668550 >>16668530 Is he material or immaterial?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 03:56:34 2020 No.16668591 >>16668545 Your pessimistic meta-induction towards constancy presupposes the Uniformity Principle, which is itself a constant. Checkmate, theist.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 04:06:54 2020 No.16668644

>>16668591
Oh youre arguing for eternal laws (though there is no scientific way to prove it a law created by humans applies with 100% matching to reality nor that it is eternal, as science by definition works with models of reality, not with reality itself)
Then a theist simply uses the Natural Law argument (something "bigger" than the eternal laws, someting not subjected to them, has to have created them) and it is valid until you can find an eternal law that created itself, which is impossible
As a matter of fact, this argument does apply to "eternal laws" if youre creative enough
>>16668235

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 04:06:56 2020 No.16668645 >>16668520 >There is nothing logical about atheism I didn't mean logical in the sense of endorsement because logic=right and good, I meant in the sense that you can only argue for or against through words.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 04:08:41 2020 No.16668650 >>16668645 oh right, my mistake

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 04:19:26 2020 No.16668690

>>16668644
>though there is no scientific way to prove it a law created by humans applies with 100% matching to reality
What's wrong with fallibilism?
>nor that it is eternal, as science by definition works with models of reality, not with reality itself
There is no official definition of science, and I disagree with the one you've given.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 04:21:40 2020 No.16668704 >>16668690 >What's wrong with fallibilism? it works in both ways >There is no official definition of science, and I disagree with the one you've given. And i disagree with yours, no deal

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 04:37:18 2020 No.16668776 >>16668704 >it works in both ways What do you mean? >And i disagree with yours, no deal Why do you assume that models of reality are unlike reality itself?

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 04:45:36 2020 No.16668814

>>16668776
>Why do you assume that models of reality are unlike reality itself?
Is a photograph the same as the reality it pictures?

>What do you mean?
There isnt any way to have a scientific law that affirms or denies what you want with 100% certainty, it works for both ways a person may want

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 04:46:53 2020 No.16668821 >>16667258 the kalam cosmological argument is very convincing

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 04:50:52 2020 No.16668832

>>16668814
>Is a photograph the same as the reality it pictures?
Loaded analogy. You could've compared reality to a simulation running on a quantum supercomputer, instead you chose a photograph.
>There isnt any way to have a scientific law that affirms or denies what you want with 100% certainty
Yes, but why isn't 99.99% certainty (for example) good enough?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 04:55:23 2020 No.16668848 >>16668832 Man, I'm not even the guy you're arguing but read a book

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 04:58:31 2020 No.16668854 >>16668848 >read a book bro xDDD Fuck off, you're not helping anybody

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 05:05:32 2020 No.16668874

>>16668644
>Then a theist simply uses the Natural Law argument (something "bigger" than the eternal laws, someting not subjected to them, has to have created them) and it is valid until you can find an eternal law that created itself, which is impossible
Why can't the eternal laws have been determined at random?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 09:35:38 2020 No.16669834 define god and ill tell you how likely it is that he is real or not >>16668821 at some point an impossible thing has to be, for anything to be at all. that thing being god depends on your definition

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 11:32:46 2020 No.16670508 File: 415 KB, 288x360, 1585891797544.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16667291 HOLY SHIT

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 11:39:08 2020 No.16670541 >>16668821 If you can't spot equivocations maybe

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 14:53:25 2020 No.16671677
File: 447 KB, 538x731, William_Henry_Burr.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Cuckstianity has literally been nothing but cope for over century, since this motherfucking chad absolutely annihilated the Bible with this book:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Lf3WlPOWlk4C&dq=William%20Henry%20Burr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Although he misses out on the biggest contradiction in the Bible, my personal favourite one.
>God is supposed to be all loving
>but is actually an evil demented sociopath

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 15:14:28 2020 No.16671825 >>16671677 B-but you're not supposed to take God's word literally!!!!1!!

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 15:23:22 2020 No.16671887
File: 107 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16667258
Scientist set out to investigate things
What exactly are you setting out to investigate?
What are you assumptions going in?
Have they been vetted?
How?
What do you hope to discover?
Why?

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 15:25:58 2020 No.16671907

>>16668301
>he thinks saying matter as if he knew it will help him
oh boy now i want to see. what is matter my friend? you can reduce it to fields and time and space and you will still have problems as i can show you. but let's see what you tell us. what is matter?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 15:27:03 2020 No.16671915 >>16668337 see >>16671907

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 16:14:12 2020 No.16672252 >>16671915 Something is material if it is subject to physical laws.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 16:17:40 2020 No.16672274

>>16672252
>what is A?
>A is what B does upon.
genius. so the physical laws themselves are not ''material''. so immaterial things coordinate material things? you still did not answer what is a material thing you only proved the necessity (or conditioning) of immaterial ones.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 16:29:33 2020 No.16672400 >>16672274 The laws of physics are just abstractions.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 16:34:09 2020 No.16672443

Even if there is a "god", it's a "being" way beyond your conception of a "being" and it is most certainly not benign or worthy of worship any more than the sun or a volcano. You stupid faggots are like a little ducklings imprinting on a goddamn steamroller.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 16:56:41 2020 No.16672598 >>16672252 That would mean that black holes are immaterial.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 16:58:26 2020 No.16672608 God isn't something to prove but to realize.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 19:21:01 2020 No.16673483 >>16672608 While I love these thread and am a huge fan of metaphysical arguments on God, any christians should understand this. Read The Cloud of Unknowing

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 19:24:01 2020 No.16673501

>>16672443
If you were a purely neoplatonist thinker assuming some kind of abstract One/Monad/Logos without scripture, then of course.

As Kierkegaard mentions, it's part of the paradox of the Christian faith that the atemporal God is made temporal in Christ. You either accept the absurdity of the paradox or not (in Christian terms)

t. christard

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 20:43:37 2020 No.16673887 >>16672598 Black holes follow physical laws just fine.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 21:10:26 2020 No.16674031

>>16673501
There is nothing to really confirm that the god of the Old Testament is atemporal. To define god as a conscious omnipresence or a "god of the gaps" as many of the theists ITT have is to reject the being described in Abrahamic texts as interactive (rather than supra-active) and clearly delineated from many aspects of human will and behavior.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 21:23:27 2020 No.16674100 File: 8 KB, 261x193, aristotle-bitch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16667258 > mentions a bunch of arguments > doesn't rehearse any of them > dismisses them outright no serious explanation Check and mate, God-tards!

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 21:33:21 2020 No.16674178 >>16667258 The ontological argument is sound but if anything it implies pantheism >>16667272 fpbp for all intents and purposes

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 21:45:32 2020 No.16674263

>>16672443

Your view is missing all the details. God wouldn't just be some arbitrary physical-thing that is responsible for the universe. God would need to be responsible for mathematics, abstract properties, laws, the sustainment of all things, etc. Once you start collecting all the pieces it's strange to think God isn't a pure object of worship (and indeed the only possible pure object of worship).

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 21:50:45 2020 No.16674290 >>16672400 >how does the abstracted non-material force of gravity consistently cause the mutual attraction of material bodies? >uh I dunno... I guess immaterial things can interact with material things after all like pottery

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 21:59:50 2020 No.16674324
File: 59 KB, 382x316, BwcOmega911a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16667258
>None of them is even slightly convincing.

C'mon, man. Even Dawkins acknowledges that argument from design is a strong and persuasive argument.

Consider his remarks in the Preface to The Blind Watchmaker:

>"The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up."

Thus, Dawkins acknowledges that the inference to a Divine Designer or Creator from the appearance of design in nature is a perfectly plausible and persuasive argument, but his position is that the discovery of evolution by Darwin trumps and entirely defeats the design inference.

But Dawkins stretches Darwin too far -- Darwin doesn't address the origin of life, much less that not insubstantial interval of time between the Big Bang and those earthly life forms that, in Darwin's view, preceded the origin of species.

Thus, design in nature, and Paley's watchmaker argument,* and the various and multifarious evidences undergirding such arguments, remain viable evidence of the existence of God.

*https://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/323/texts/william_paley.htm

>In crossing a beach, suppose I hit my foot against a stone. Suppose I were asked how the stone came to be there. I might possibly answer that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever. It would be difficult to show that this answer is absurd.

>But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be asked how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given--that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there--would be an acceptable answer.

Open your eyes, anon. Look in the mirror. Note the symmetry of the eyes, the nostrils, the ears, the teeth and the tongue. It's all very elegant. What do you think is behind that obvious evidence of design?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:04:04 2020 No.16674342 >>16674290 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:07:38 2020 No.16674364

>>16674342
If non-material gravity can interact with matter, then why cannot God as well?

Calling gravity an abstraction doesn't make the problem go away. Surely you wouldn't deny that even though the concept "gravity" is an abstraction, that there is still nonetheless an immaterial force doing the things and causing the effects which we ascribe to gravity?

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:08:25 2020 No.16674369

>>16674324
The watchmaker argument is absurd. If I find a single watch on a beach it makes sense to assume a watchmaker. If I find a vast variety of watches on a beach which are busy creating yet more watches each of which is slightly different to the parent watch, then evolution of the watches seems obvious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:09:24 2020 No.16674375 >>16674364 >Surely you wouldn't deny Yes I would

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:10:49 2020 No.16674384 >>16667730 So, why is god uncaused?

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:12:06 2020 No.16674392

>>16674369
>The watchmaker argument is absurd.

If you think it's absurd, you've been filtered. It's a valid argument, and even a hardcore atheist like Dawkins acknowledges that it's persuasive. Read his remark that I quoted:

>"The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up."

His whole book, The Blind Watchmaker, is simply an attempt to refute the watchmaker argument, which demonstrates that he takes it very seriously indeed.

If you dismiss it out of hand, then, like Dawkins, I give up.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:16:28 2020 No.16674407

>>16674375
>Yes I would
Okay, so what causes the mutual attraction of bodies in space then? If you say "I don't" know then that totally discredits your argument because there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of gravity and so you are being forced to deny the existence of what pretty clearly exists just so you won't be forced to admit something which makes God more feasible.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:17:55 2020 No.16674419

>>16674392
Not the guy, but...
If god is omniscient, he know the entire structure of time, and if he's omnipotent he also can go to anywhere in the space-time continuum, so, altough, you can make an argument that god is not in every place simultaneously, he can go to anwhere he can.
So he's potentially omnitemporal.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:19:04 2020 No.16674429 Descartes: Thoughts exist so there is a thinker Atheists: omg so smart Nearly all premodern people: Creation exists so there must be a creator Atheists: omg sooo fucking dumb no proof, not an argument at all

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:20:29 2020 No.16674435

>>16674384
Because as the cause of everything else, God must necessarily be uncaused, just as a line of dominos cannot be neatly knocked down one after another without that chain reaction being initiated by a domino which was not itself knocked down by another domino.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:23:35 2020 No.16674445 >>16674407 >so what causes the mutual attraction of bodies in space then? Gravitons

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:25:17 2020 No.16674453 >>16674435 That's circular.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:40:59 2020 No.16674541 File: 268 KB, 511x343, ayyy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16674453 >That's circular.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:46:02 2020 No.16674569 >>16674453 No it's not, it's a logical inference

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:52:57 2020 No.16674602 >>16674445 Okay how do these proposed gravitons which are supposed to be massless interact with mass?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:56:04 2020 No.16674622 >>16667272 Even if you don’t know the exact number, the information is preserved in the atoms that make up your body through entanglement. Just the thought itself effects the fabric of the universe. The universe itself then, you can argue to be God.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 22:59:20 2020 No.16674633

>>16674453
Okay then explain how the knocking down of the line of dominos can somehow magically be set in motion by a domino which was itself knocked down by another domino in that line.... and then extend that reasoning to the universe and explain how it could account for the existence of the universe.

oh wait, you can't...

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 23:01:55 2020 No.16674646 >>16674602 https://astronomy-links.net/Gravitons.html

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 23:42:42 2020 No.16674840 >>16674384 >So, why is god uncaused? >>16668235

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 23:58:19 2020 No.16674908 >>16667258 Read the mozzies.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:21:20 2020 No.16675044 >>16667898 If something is outside of reality, then they are not real.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:22:46 2020 No.16675051 >>16667902 Reality is just the set of all real things. It doesnt make sense to posit something beyond reality, just as it doesnt make sense to posit something beyond existence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:44:29 2020 No.16675146 ok. still believe in God.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 01:19:30 2020 No.16675297 >>16667947 That's a leap. On what basis do you define the universe as the set of all things not created by God?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 01:22:23 2020 No.16675312 >>16668009 Why does the power to cause next things imply a conscious choice? Why couldn't it just be its nature to cause next things?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 03:59:18 2020 No.16675855 >>16668073 only good answer in thread also Hermes Trismegistus and Valentin Tomberg

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 04:05:59 2020 No.16675879 >>16667285 Then what do they expect to follow from their baby torture rituals?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 04:07:32 2020 No.16675883 So why can't random quantum fluctuations be the first cause?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 04:08:54 2020 No.16675886 all theology is cope, all you need is faith

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 04:10:25 2020 No.16675893 File: 48 KB, 554x605, 1603825228820.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16675855 This has all been BTFO's by this book called "The God Delusion". You probably haven't heard of it, theist.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:13:34 2020 No.16676697
File: 2.80 MB, 220x218, 1600713558325.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16674369
>If I find a vast variety of watches on a beach which are busy creating yet more watches each of which is slightly different to the parent watch, then evolution of the watches seems obvious.

But consider the larger design -- our own planet, spinning furiously while orbiting the sun at a tremendous rate, century after century and millennia after millennia.

The peculiar appropriateness of our weather, the regularity of the seasons, a never-changing dayfall and nightfall.

Now, you could say, well, we just got lucky in all of this. But the more one thinks about it and studies it, the more the amount of "luck" involved becomes overwhelming.

The watchmaker argument is thus not addressed only to the existence of a single human person. It is a metaphor that encompasses, as well, the cycle of reproduction that you note, and the complexity of design found in nature down to the subatomic level and out to the stars.

It all functions remarkably well -- like a well-made watch. Now, perhaps that watch just float up on the shore, as it were. Perhaps we just got lucky. But luck of that magnitude strains the credulity of the human mind (speaking of which, what of human consciousness; I guess that reflects just another bit of luck).

It is the luck of winning a thousand lotteries in a row. And when one has won a thousand lotteries in a row, it is perhaps appropriate to ask whether there is something a bit more than luck involved.

>Anonymous, anonymous,
>how many times I yearned to gather your children together
>as a hen gathers her brood under her wings,
>but you were unwilling!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:20:25 2020 No.16676732 >>16672400 what you mean by abstractions? that they are not physical? i think we agreed on that. in any case you still haven't answered what is matter and physical.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:33:49 2020 No.16676801

If the universe exists and is in motion then there must be a neccesary existing first principle to account for its existence, and if this principle is the first it must be unchanging, because if it is first (eternal+actual) and in motion ( changing/potential) then when is it actual? Nature/matter cannot be the first principle because you cannot have something that is a thing and eternally something else, or else it isn't the said first principle. The fact that nobody in this thread has gone beyond the pre socratics is saddening

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:36:14 2020 No.16676815

>>16675883

Herein lies the annoyingly persistent logical error of those physicists (like Alexander Vilenkin, Victor Stenger, or Lawrence Krauss) who claim that physics has now discovered how the universe can have spontaneously arisen from “nothingness,” without divine assistance. It does not really matter whether the theoretical models they propose may one day prove to be correct. Without exception, what they are actually talking about is merely the formation of our universe by way of a transition from one physical state to another, one manner of existence to another, but certainly not the spontaneous arising of existence from nonexistence (which is logically impossible). They often produce perfectly delightful books on the subject, I hasten to add, considered simply as tours of the latest developments in speculative cosmology; but as interventions in philosophical debates those books are quite simply irrelevant. As a matter of purely intellectual interest, it would be wonderful some day to know whether the universe was generated out of quantum fluctuation, belongs either to an infinite “ekpyrotic” succession of universes caused by colliding branes or to a “conformally cyclic” succession of bounded aeons, is the result of inflationary quantum tunneling out of a much smaller universe, arose locally out of a multiverse in either limited constant or eternal chaotic inflation, or what have you. As a matter strictly of ontology, however, none of these theories is of any consequence, because no purely physical cosmology has any bearing whatsoever upon the question of existence (though one or two such cosmologies might point in its direction). Again, the “distance” between being and nonbeing is qualitatively infinite, and so it is immaterial here how small, simple, vacuous, or impalpably indeterminate a physical state or event is: it is still infinitely removed from nonbeing and infinitely incapable of having created itself out of nothing. That the physical reality we know is the result of other physical realities has more or less been the assumption of most human cultures throughout history; but that, unfortunately, casts no light whatsoever on why it is that physical reality, being intrinsically contingent, should exist at all."

- David Bentley Hart

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:43:12 2020 No.16676857 >>16675044 >math isnt real

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:44:15 2020 No.16676864

>>16675051
>Reality is just the set of all real things. It doesnt make sense to posit something beyond reality, just as it doesnt make sense to posit something beyond existence.
possibility of existence precedes anything that exists so youre already wrong on that account

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:46:16 2020 No.16676882 >>16674435 The Universe can be eternal, without a cause at all.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:48:08 2020 No.16676890

>>16667258
>The teleological argument only works for brainlets who can't understand how a random process might produce complexity.
Holy cow you're a brainlet. A random process cannot 'cause' complexity. Complexity is one of the properties of a random process; it has a formal definition and can be measured.

None of the random processes we observe in nature are particularly complex.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:50:24 2020 No.16676902 >>16670508 Is this real?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:54:03 2020 No.16676918 >>16676882 Theoretically yes, but that is not our universe. Our universe has a beginning and an end, it is bounded in size and quite young, and the natural processes we observe are very simple and predictable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:55:41 2020 No.16676923 >>16676815 excellent, where is this from? i think the point >>16675883 makes resembles what socrates addressed in the phaedo when people generally give how a thing works when they want to explain the cause.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:56:49 2020 No.16676928

>>16676918
>Our universe has a beginning and an end
Based on what?
>the natural processes we observe are very simple and predictable.
The natural processes are phenomenal, they're part of reality and not reality in itself.

The universe doesn't need a creator. In fact, a creator would make the universe even more complicated.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:57:02 2020 No.16676931 >>16676882 is there any physical thing capable of moving itself?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 08:58:05 2020 No.16676938 >>16676928 >Based on what? it's temporal condition? >a creator would make the universe even more complicated. oh yes the universe isn't complicated enough for me, a human being.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 09:00:04 2020 No.16676946 >>16676931 Are physical things really physical? What is movement? >>16676938 >temporal condition Temporal condition is a perception of the mind.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 09:22:44 2020 No.16677035 >>16676923 It’s from his book ‘ The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss’

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 09:38:14 2020 No.16677106 >>16676882 it cannot >>16668235

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 09:47:52 2020 No.16677145 >>16677106 >However as far as we know, there is nothing in the universe that is eternal, that is, does not have a beginning and an end This anon simply is oblivious to the difference between phenomenal and noumenal.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 10:38:32 2020 No.16677388

>>16676946
>Temporal condition is a perception of the mind.
Then we don't really age? We don't die because of the circumstances of ageing? Succession is an aspect of time, and everything in the universe (cosmos), including itself, is subject to succession - that is, time.

>What is movement?
Yeah what is it. How can a body move itself without a soul (self-moving) or without other body being acted upon acting on this other body. This infinite chain will lead you to the conclusion that nothing moves nor changes. So you really have to explain some things.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 10:39:59 2020 No.16677407 >>16677388 >Succession is an aspect of time Succession is not only an aspect but a CONDITION of time, without which time would not be what it is. Just correcting to make things clearer.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 11:31:34 2020 No.16677724

>>16677388
>Then we don't really age? We don't die because of the circumstances of ageing? Succession is an aspect of time, and everything in the universe (cosmos), including itself, is subject to succession - that is, time.
Decay, simple as that. The correlation between decay and the aspect of time is a byproduct of human rationalization. Also: can you experience future and past?

>Yeah what is it. How can a body move itself without a soul (self-moving) or without other body being acted upon acting on this other body. This infinite chain will lead you to the conclusion that nothing moves nor changes. So you really have to explain some things.
The connection between soul and body as a condition for movement cannot be ascertained in any way, shape or form. In fact, where's the soul? What is the body? You're presupposing a system where something moves something, whereas the presupposition that nothing moves is also applicable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 11:38:04 2020 No.16677774 >>16667258 >No atheist has ever said 'oh wow, the cosmological argument is valid and sound! God must exist!' Russel thought the Ontological Argument made sense for like 5 minutes

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 12:44:59 2020 No.16678197

>>16667258
The cosmological argument is just a very sophisticated and well-educated way to verbally justify a not so well thought creation myth embedded in Judaism and Christianity. The whole effort of scholasticism is to transform bad theology into seductive metaphysical debate.

Modern philosophers really did the smartest thing when they completely and utterly ignored medieval philosophy and created something else from the ground up.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 12:58:25 2020 No.16678289

>>16667258
nope, you're just retarded. read the summa contra gentiles book one, check out scotus version of the ontological argument, read suarez demonstrations for good arguments.
>uncaused universe is just as likely as an uncaused being
this is only true if you don't investigate the attributes that something that is uncaused would have(see pure actuality). You just haven't understood how people argue to these conclusions.
>no atheist has converted because of them
just false. Antony flew converted after being a lifelong atheist who wrote multiple books against theism.

Yes, I know this is bait, I just enjoy responding to it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:03:03 2020 No.16678319 >>16678289 Imagine having to cuck yourself reading severely outdated cosmological babble just to support your feeble faith.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:04:01 2020 No.16678329

>>16677724
>Decay, simple...
Why did you ignore the fundamental element in time of succession and repeated yourself in the post I just replied? As I said succession is the very condition of time and it is a condition of everything within the universe of space and time. Address it now and do not dodge.

>can you experience future and past
yes.

>You're presupposing a system where something moves something, whereas the presupposition that nothing moves is also applicable.
If nothing moves there is no kind of movement and alteration. If there is no movement and alteration whence decay you yourself claimed?

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:19:27 2020 No.16678439

>>16677724
oh just noticed you are more retarded than I thought, you wrote
> decay and the aspect of time is a byproduct of human rationalization
when there is no rationaliaztion at all in succession and the perception of it, for it is perceived by animals, insects and particles, molecules are subject and defined by it as well.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:21:31 2020 No.16678459

>>16678329
>ignore the fundamental element in time of succession
As I said, it's a human intellect construction. Where did I ignore it, dumbass?

>succession is the very condition of time and it is a condition of everything within the universe of space and time
Only if you presuppose reality as having a beginning and an end. In this case, you're debating from a cosmological model, not from reality.

>Address it now and do not dodge.
It is addressed, anonchama.

>can you experience future and past
>yes.
What? You're sure about this? How? Please explain to us in detail.

>If nothing moves there is no kind of movement and alteration.
Based on what experience can you affirm this? Have you ever experienced non-movement? Better yet: are you talking about phenomenal movement? That's particles "agitating." But agitating in what and in relation to what? If you can respond that there's a Nobel Prize awaiting you.

>If there is no movement and alteration whence decay you yourself claimed?
Same question as above. You simply presuppose movement as necessity to decay. But then I ask you where and how can you experience what your assertions. You're simply not debating from reality but from preconceived cosmological notions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:25:19 2020 No.16678489 >>16678439 You can't even tell the difference between the phenomenon in itself and the correlation between two different phenomena cause by human intellect and yet post as if you're the smartest cookie around...

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:31:18 2020 No.16678517

>>16678459
>succession is a human construction
why did you not say social construction? there is no difference in the retardation of yours and of the people who say it.

>succession is not present in reality
then explain to me why things change and suffer alteration. how was the earth formed without succesion? was there some guy observing in the space the formation of the earth? because it is a human construction isnt it? you already lost here, friend. and it is useless to keep going on when this is fundamental to my point in this thread.

>That's particles "agitating''.
My point is that THERE IS movement, change and alterations. You are dumb and can't even read, imbecile.

>You simply presuppose movement as necessity to decay.
Not movement, movement is the link between the decay and... guess what? Succession, time.

>how can you experience what your assertions
if i cut your throat and exterminate the earth from your useless presence, will blood spill succeeding my act of cutting your throat?

and all this to tell you time is a dimensional element in our universe conditioning the cosmos.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:35:00 2020 No.16678537 >>16678489 >phenomenon in itself phenomena are phenomena because they are in relation between themselves. a phenomenon is literally something appearing. a thing in itself is not a phenomenon, holy shit you don't know what you are talking about.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:38:37 2020 No.16678558

God may or may not exist, but what more important here is faith. For without faith we don't believe in the basic foundations on which our western society is built on. The issue with atheists is that they need a strictly logical reason to believe in God, which is not the point of religion, and also which gives them a reason to be immoral. Yet again many non-religious people advocate for extreme political ideologies like totalism, which is arguably worse than being a person of faith.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:42:40 2020 No.16678574

>>16678517
>why did you not say social construction? there is no difference in the retardation of yours and of the people who say it.
Not related to the debate at all anon.

>then explain to me why things change and suffer alteration.
Decay and error in perception plus memory.

>how was the earth formed without succesion?
Earth must be timeless and goes under change.

>was there some guy observing in the space the formation of the earth?
Ask the guy who wrote the Genesis.

>because it is a human construction isnt it?
Cosmological models? Of course. It isn't?

> you already lost here, friend. and it is useless to keep going on when this is fundamental to my point in this thread.
So, if I disagree with you it means I'm stupid? That's not how the real world works, sorry.

>My point is that THERE IS movement, change and alterations. You are dumb and can't even read, imbecile.
Uhhh, that was not my opinion anon. Thus the quotes. I'm giving you your own cosmological notion so you could rationalize. Didn't you noticed that? Oof.

>Not movement, movement is the link between the decay and... guess what? Succession, time.
Well then, you presuppose succession of time. Same problem, different cause.

>if i cut your throat and exterminate the earth from your useless presence, will blood spill succeeding my act of cutting your throat?
I don't know. You're trying to prove succession of time with this... Honestly, that's a terrible metaphor.

>time is a dimensional element in our universe conditioning the cosmos.
And I'm telling you there's no time.

>>16678537
Anon, if there's no such as phenomenon in itself, then there's nothing to be related to anything but endless repetitions. You're really not smart, but you think you are. That's cute.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:44:31 2020 No.16678591

>>16667258
They do not try to prove the existence of god as much as they argue against athiesm, but by that same taken do they not argue against empirically proving gods existence?
What it comes down to then is personal experience or lack there of... and I have my anecdotal evidence, I believe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:49:38 2020 No.16678620 >>16678591 >What it comes down to then is personal experience or lack there of... and I have my anecdotal evidence, I believe. sound epistemology right there heil plantinga

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 13:58:44 2020 No.16678671 >>16678620 I could not give less of a fuck about which pencil neck best articulated something, losers really just sit around trading other peoples works like Pokémon.... hella bringe

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 14:00:09 2020 No.16678681 >>16668118 Can you elaborate? Why don't elections work when observed? How does that imply that existence cannot work if it is being observed? The birds don't fall out of the sky when I look at them

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 14:12:11 2020 No.16678752 >>16678574 >earth must be timeless and goes under change >but there is no succession yes you are retarded and no point in talking to you. thank you for wasting my time.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 14:17:25 2020 No.16678785

>>16667730
>its basic logic, the universe being the set of all causal things
That's not the definition of the universe. The definition of the universe is the set of all things that currently exist. What OP is saying is that it's equally likely that the set of all things that existed at time zero of the universe was uncaused as it is likely that an uncaused god caused it to exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 14:30:01 2020 No.16678874 >>16677145 >d-dude we just havent seen anything that goes against what you say, i-it doesnt mean it does not exist

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 14:36:05 2020 No.16678919 atheism was refuted in this thread. we won.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 14:37:07 2020 No.16678928 >>16677145 how are noumena within the universe (cosmos)?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 14:38:10 2020 No.16678935 >>16678919 this.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 14:42:38 2020 No.16678961

>>16667258
>But more to the point, how can philosophers build entire systems of theology and religion, devote their entire life to them, and assume such insane ideas as a fiery hell, all on flawed premise?
They obviously operate within a different intellectual framework as you? The human capacity for interpretations of actualities, imagining of potentialities, and the ability to reconcile the two are infinitely plastic. The "truth" is that existence is an indeterminate state that offers a space to map our ontological framework on to. It's a space that can accommodate almost any truth. There is an unknown length, width, and depth to existence. You and the religious man are simply using different rulers to take measurements. Also, as a side note (and someone who is practically religious) I think Wittgenstein said it best in 6.521 - 7 of the Tractacus though he wasn't explicitly referencing God.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 15:01:00 2020 No.16679091

>>16678752
>yes you are retarded and no point in talking to you. thank you for wasting my time.
Error in perception anon... you're too stupid to discuss cosmological issues if you can't get out of the system you don't even recognize as a system. Again, you're probably one of the less intelligent people I've discussed in this place.

>>16678928
Is it though? That's a good question.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 15:24:03 2020 No.16679215 ITT: monke brains try to extrapolate God from language.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 15:25:13 2020 No.16679225 >>16679215 As opposed to obsessed fools trying to impose the existence of a god through language?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 15:33:55 2020 No.16679283 anyone else just instinctively ignore what an author is saying when he invokes religion or god? not gonna waste brainpower on made up nonsense he fell for

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 15:56:00 2020 No.16679411 File: 31 KB, 490x736, gug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16679283 Nah, GR is pretty great

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 16:29:50 2020 No.16679649
File: 3.89 MB, 200x200, 1583573697485.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Atheist: I don't think God exist becuause his existence is unnecessary for reality to simply be what it is.
>Desperate Christian: And who created it?
>Atheist: Why does it need a creator?
>Desperate Christian: Because St. Thomas Aquinas said so.
>Atheist: I don't really care about his philosophy.
>Desperate Christian: Here, 5000 pages of Scholastic studies plus the Summa. Refute everything if you can!
>Atheist: Sorry chap, I'd rather start from recent discoveries made by physicians and develop from that. You can debate this with your friends though.
>Desperate Christian: I win!!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 17:08:29 2020 No.16679975 >>16679649 >be me 5 or 5 >mom tells be about the little drummer boy >that sounds stupid >maybe god is made up >cry in the bathroom >on the toilet >ask god for a one wipe shit >wipe >nothing on the paper What say you now buckaroo?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 17:11:31 2020 No.16679989 >>16679975 >And then, suddenly, the boy was elightened: "there was never a God--I was the God." Based.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 17:19:14 2020 No.16680032 >>16667272 May generalizations but overall I'm buying it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 17:50:40 2020 No.16680274

>>16667660
>what makes you so certain no such proof exists
Provably the existence is unprovable.

The entirety of mathematics is taken, quite literally, on faith. If you believe that 2=\=3, you already made your jump of faith.

>>16667258
Could anything be proven to you? What is an argument, for any claim at all, which would convince you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 17:52:30 2020 No.16680289 >>16679649 >Why does it need a creator? Because to not believe in cause and effect seems a bit insane? Nothing creating something is a far more absurd idea than anything any christian has ever said...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 17:54:32 2020 No.16680307 >>16678785 >The definition of the universe is the set of all things that currently exist. Clearly not. The current state of the universe does not imply any future state, so much should be obvious...

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 17:57:51 2020 No.16680325

>>16680289
It literally doesn't need a creator, anon. You can simply accept the world as being what it is eternally. Big Bang requires no creator, shit just exploded. Proposing a creator creates more problems and difficulties than accepting reality as it is.

But you can try reading this whole thread and see if you can find a solution if you think you're so smart.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 17:58:28 2020 No.16680327 >>16677774 Russell thought that he could build up a coherent mathematics from scratch and attempted to for decades, until he literally couldn't take his own bullshit anymore and gave up, being utterly BTFO by an Austrian Christian...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:00:37 2020 No.16680343 >God doesn't exist because you can't beat me at a logic game invented by Greek pedophiles

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:00:57 2020 No.16680349 >>16680325 BAZINGOO

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:01:09 2020 No.16680352 >>16680325 >You can simply accept the world as being what it is eternally. Unless you are suggesting that literally everything we seem to have observed about the universe is wrong, no, we can not.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:05:53 2020 No.16680383

>>16680352
Anon, just be honest with yourself: you don't have a solution, neither does Aquinas, neither does any priest, or Pope, or the Bible, or any philosopher or scientist while we're at it. So you do the rational: accept reality because you have no solution whatsoever. Either this or keep debating about how God can do this or that, which literally has no end and sounds like people discussing who's stronger, Goku or Superman. Your choice.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:06:50 2020 No.16680391 >>16680383 cONSIDER drugs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:08:33 2020 No.16680407 >>16680391 If you want to debate theology at this day and age you need some marijuana I tell you. There's no other way.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:11:21 2020 No.16680430

>>16680383
Anon. Everything we know contradicts you.
We know that the universe has a begining, we know that it has an "ending" (in the thermodynamically dictated uniform energy distribution).

If you don't believe that the universe has had an initial cause (=~ God) then you might as well believe the sky is red, or that 1+1=3.

>>16680407
Your I fucking love science, tier takes are what requires poisoning your brain.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:13:56 2020 No.16680453 >>16678919 we just cant stop winning bros

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:15:36 2020 No.16680462 >>16679649 >Why does it need a creator? >>16668235

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:18:17 2020 No.16680482

>>16680430
>Everything we know
Except we don't. If we did, no debate would be necessary. People would just point to God and say "there," and everyone would simply comply. Again and again, you're debating from a logical possibility which will never be able to be demonstrated, all you can do is talk, talk, talk and talk like priests did for centuries during the Middle Ages. It was such a good debate that nowadays it only serves to debate with atheists and has no scientific value whatsoever. I'm just being honest with you, if you want to go through this circular babble, go alone. There's simply no exit but cope in the end.

>>16680462
The basic premise of this whole argument is the necessity of a creator that cannot be demonstrated, only argued eternally without end. Have fun.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:18:42 2020 No.16680484 File: 21 KB, 520x590, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16680325 >You can simply accept the world as being what it is eternally >>16668235

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:20:19 2020 No.16680494 >>16680482 >The basic premise of this whole argument is the necessity of a creator do you know how to read or what a premise is, moron? the premise is the universe being eternal, and it then lists the consequences from this retarded assumption

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:21:02 2020 No.16680499 If God’s real then why doesn’t he fucking reveal himself? The world is increasingly becoming secularized.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:21:20 2020 No.16680503 >>16680482 >have fun have fun with what you smoothbrain? your retarded chimp posts answering an argument you couldnt read?

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:22:31 2020 No.16680513

>>16680383
>Anon, just be honest with yourself: you don't have a solution, neither does Aquinas, neither does any priest, or Pope, or the Bible, or any philosopher or scientist while we're at it
>im dumb and cant understand anything so it must mean everyone is wrong!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:23:32 2020 No.16680521 File: 29 KB, 466x658, images (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16680383 >accept reality because you have no solution whatsoever I do

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:23:32 2020 No.16680522

>>16680494
In order to "refute" the argument for the universe cannot be eternal, he parts from the created cosmology. If you can't notice it, you're demented. I'm not going to debate this with brainlets.

>>16680503
Ok.

>>16680513
Ok.

We're done here, right?

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:23:33 2020 No.16680523

>>16680482
>Except we don't.
Yes, we do. We KNOW, as much as we can know anything that the universe has had a beginning.
Pointing at the sky and saying "it's red" does not make it red, Anon.

>People would just point to God and say "there," and everyone would simply comply
In an age where there are flat earthers and anti-vaxxers it should not be surprising that people ignore facts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:24:16 2020 No.16680531 >>16680499 >he We're not talking about Santa, dingbat pattywack your moms a hoe

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:25:33 2020 No.16680545 >>16680523 Yes, yes anon. YOU know. Clearly you know. Now go refute all those pesky atheists in the academia or something. Go!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:26:50 2020 No.16680553 >>16676815 >but certainly not the spontaneous arising of existence from nonexistence (which is logically impossible). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:27:05 2020 No.16680555 >>16680545 >Now go refute all those pesky atheists in the academia or something. Why? I don't really care. I won't go convert flat earthers either, people who ignore reason obviously make for very bad conversations...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:27:43 2020 No.16680562 >>16680522 >In order to "refute" the argument for the universe cannot be eternal, he parts from the created cosmology In which premise? I think I know which one youre thinking, but that would mean youre retarded

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:29:59 2020 No.16680580 >>16680553 Where is the contradiction? Unless you are implying a violation of basic thermodynamics, clearly there has to be a cause...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:30:20 2020 No.16680583 >>16680562 Yes, yes. He parts from absolutely nothing at all. He's the Godhead itself and requires no presupposed notions or cosmological systems--Yes! He is the Logos itself! God, this board is getting worse each day.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:30:33 2020 No.16680584 >>16680553 >Possible causes

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:31:39 2020 No.16680590 >>16680583 >God, this board is getting worse each day. Possibly the first true thing you have said so far...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:33:44 2020 No.16680606 File: 18 KB, 720x303, images (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16680583 >you cant use proof by contradiction

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:35:13 2020 No.16680622 >>16680606 The True Logos--it is HERE!

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:36:34 2020 No.16680635

>>16678681
Electrons exhibit properties of both waves and particles. When they're "orbiting" an atom, they are represented as little balls in models, but they're actually in obitals. Orbitals are essentially a probability function that defines where the electron will be at any time, and this defines how atoms can combine to make molecules, and also basically any other physical process. Electron bonds, (the ones in molecules) for example, are regions where the wavefunction overlaps.

The thing is that, if you actually observe the electron at any given time, it is actually a ball. The wavefunction collapses into a single location. What this means is that, if someone where constantly observing these electons and collapsing the wavefunction, basically nothing in physics would work, since our atoms would be reduced to literal balls orbiting other balls.

So, if God were doing what he does with the birds with all atoms, the same process that defines that there should be exactly 7 birds would define the characteristics of a given electron with certainty. This would basically break all of physics, since atoms can't bond without a wavefunction, and so on. The birds don't fall out of the sky when you look at them, but if you observed every atom in them they would disintegrate and, like, implode out of existence or something.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:37:15 2020 No.16680640 >>16680622 Imitating your "adversaries" presumed manner of speaking is the HIGHEST form of argument. #Ifuckinglovescience

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:39:24 2020 No.16680652 >>16680640 Yes! Logos! Yes! Please, enlighten us! Tell us the Truth about the Universe! How those things came to be? Oh Lord, have mercy on us.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:41:53 2020 No.16680661

>>16680635
If the electrons appear differently than they are mathematically supposed to, then either the maths is wrong or the equipment is wrong. I don't see how observing an event changes the outcome. OP imagines a flock of birds, he doesn't know the exact number but that doesn't matter, the image that flashed in it his contained a finite number of birds whether he knows it or not

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:44:59 2020 No.16680676 File: 7 KB, 300x300, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16680652 >if you dont know how it was created it means it wasnt created

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:46:10 2020 No.16680687

>>16674263
No, you are missing the details. A god capable of creating the universe isn't just your dad but super smart and has magic powers. It's a being beyond your comprehension that brought into existence a vast, violent universe. You aren't its child any more than a rock is. It is infinitely far beyond humanity. The comparison to the steamroller is not to say it is inanimate. It is hyperanimate. You are nothing to this being, not in sentiment but in existence. You could never comprehend it and you are nothing more than a grain of sand in a sandbox. Things like "love" and "good" are small, human concepts.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:47:17 2020 No.16680693

>>16680661
>I don't see how observing an event changes the outcome.
But it does.
The issue with QM is not that it is inconsistent with its mathematical description.

>>16680635
But, in the end this is just irrelevant.
What is "observation" to us clearly need not be observation for God, QM can always be explained through super determinism.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:47:46 2020 No.16680696

>>16680661
The electrons do not "appear differently than they are supposed to", they just appear in an inherently probabilistic way, and there are laws that govern the irreducability of this probabilistic model. You can read wahtever quantum physics 101, if you're interested.
Neither the maths or the equipment is wrong, as far as we can tell. The equipment actually does not matter, since the math tells us that observing any electron will collapse the wavefunction anyways.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:47:52 2020 No.16680698 >>16680676 The Logos has spoken again! Oh, such kind words. Such endless sapience! Now we know the Truth! No more doubts!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:50:09 2020 No.16680720 >>16680693 Yes, but he asked for an explanation. You can do super determinism, but its more of a leap than regular determinism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:55:47 2020 No.16680765 >>16680720 >but its more of a leap than regular determinism. Really? To me, in light of Bell's theorem, it seems more plausible to have a "global" hidden variable theory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 18:59:24 2020 No.16680785 >>16680765 I'm not familiar enough with Bell's theorem to say anything meaningful about it. You may be right.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:02:57 2020 No.16680817 >>16680687 >You aren't its child any more than a rock is genesis already refutes that when it says God created us in His image thats because we are the only intelligent beings on the universe (intelligence in the original sense)

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:03:45 2020 No.16680821

If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the foundation of all there lay only a wildly seething power which writhing with obscure passions produced everything that is great and everything that is insignificant, if a bottomless void never satiated lay hidden beneath all -- what then would life be but despair? If such were the case, if there were no sacred bond which united mankind, if one generation arose after another like the leafage in the forest, if the one generation replaced the other like the song of birds in the forest, if the human race passed through the world as the ship goes through the sea, like the wind through the desert, a thoughtless and fruitless activity, if an eternal oblivion were always lurking hungrily for its prey and there was no power strong enough to wrest it from its maw -- how empty then and comfortless life would be! "

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:04:02 2020 No.16680822 >>16680687 >You are nothing to this being why people get miracles when they ask then?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:07:02 2020 No.16680846 >>16680817 >thats because we are the only intelligent beings on the universe Monkeys, dolphins, and various other animals have metacognition. In what way are we the only intelligent beings in the universe?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:07:49 2020 No.16680853 >>16680821 There is eternal consciousness, it is not inside men, and we still live in ignorance nevertheless.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:10:21 2020 No.16680875

>>16680846
No matter how smart a dolphin is,they dont face the moral choices that the average human goes through on the regular...

No animal on the planet does.
You can't sit there with a straight face and say that the human struggle is not unique and that we are some how just "advanced" or more "evolved' animals, the human experience holds a special place is the cosmos and to diminish it by saying the animals we eat have just as vivid and complex inner lives we do is a fucking lie and you know it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:12:16 2020 No.16680894 >>16680853 But it is, we are all gifted that very same eternal consciousness and to deny it is more of a tragedy than sin.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:12:30 2020 No.16680897 >>16680846 >Monkeys, dolphins, and various other animals have metacognition They don't have intelligence in the original sense of the word https://archived.moe/lit/thread/16639317/ Only humans and God do

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:12:57 2020 No.16680899 >>16680846 >Monkeys, dolphins, and various other animals have metacognition. Ask GPT-3 about itself. "Metacognition" means fuck all when a few matrix multiplications is all it takes...might as well call a calculator "intelligent"...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:13:24 2020 No.16680901 >>16680897 This guy gets it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:15:34 2020 No.16680921 >>16680894 The eternal consciousness, or Consciousness, is not you. You're speaking from a different ontological level. In this level you are, there's mind and duality.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:16:22 2020 No.16680928

>>16680899
>Ask GPT-3 about itself.
>"Metacognition" means fuck all when a few matrix multiplications is all it takes...might as well call a calculator "intelligent"...
You're a dumbass and an illiterate if you think AI is an answer to "only humans have intelligence in the original sense" (look up the etymology of intelligence)
This AI argument has already been addressed here
https://archived.moe/lit/thread/16639317/

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:16:48 2020 No.16680933

>if you don't know the exact origins of the universe and all it properties, it means it was created by the Christian God, Jehovah

Given time, mankind may have a greater understanding of early universe
Does that mean Christians will renounce their faith?
Of course not. They will just stop using 'Bing Bang, lmao' as an "argument"

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:18:40 2020 No.16680949 >>16680933 >if you don't know the exact origins of the universe and all it properties, it means it was created by the Christian God, Jehovah >>16668235

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:19:26 2020 No.16680955 >>16680949 You're still here, loser? This shit has been debunked already.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:19:48 2020 No.16680959 >>16680897 >and God prove it

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:20:11 2020 No.16680960 >>16680955 >This shit has been debunked already. ?

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:21:30 2020 No.16680971

>>16680875
>You can't sit there with a straight face and say that the human struggle is not unique
Yes, I can.
>>16680897
Your link explains what intelligence is, it doesn't explain why we should think that animals don't have it.
>>16680899
>"Metacognition" means fuck all when a few matrix multiplications is all it takes
Then I guess our intelligence means fuck all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:22:13 2020 No.16680977 File: 435 KB, 245x245, MelodicUnsightlyDoe-size_restricted.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16680955 >This shit has been debunked already.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:22:31 2020 No.16680978 >>16680949 I could pick parts of your linked post apart piece by piece but you would still just link me to the original post again, as if it's a refutation

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:23:04 2020 No.16680984 >>16680960 Several people already presented their arguments, you don't understand a single word they say, then you say "no u" and resort to name-calling. >>16680977 And then you try to be funny, like this. You're Catholic right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:23:13 2020 No.16680985 >>16680971 >Then I guess our intelligence means fuck all. Clearly not. Very many many have trivial counter examples. Obviously I have something GPT-3 does not...

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:24:23 2020 No.16680997

>>16680971
>Your link explains what intelligence is, it doesn't explain why we should think that animals don't have it.
I don think so
>If we define intelligence as the human capacity to capture what is true, we also understand that the essential of human beings, what differentiates them from animals, is not thought, it is not reason, nor an exceptionally developed imagination or memory, although all of this is effectively in the human being. For thinking, a monkey also thinks: it completes a syllogism and even links syllogisms in a relatively perfect reasoning. Imagination, even a cat has it: cats dream. By this way we will not find the specific human difference, what makes us men instead of animals. And, if it is important to root man in the animal kingdom, so as not to make him an angelic being without feet on the ground, it is also important to know how to distinguish him from a turtle or a mollusc by some difference that is not merely quantitative and accidental.
>What makes us human is the fact that everything we imagine, reason, remember, we are able to see as a set and, with respect to this set, we can say yes or no, we can say: "It is true", or: "It is false". We are able to judge the veracity or falsity of everything that our own mind is going to know or produce, and that there no animal that can do.
>[...]
>In this sense, the result of the 2 + 2 calculation that appears on the computer screen is a truth, but a truth that is in the object and not yet in the intelligence; this truth is on the screen as the true mineralogical structure of a stone is in the stone or as the true physiology of the animal is in the animal: they are latent truths, which lie in the obscurity of the objective world waiting for the moment when they will be updated in human intelligence. In the same way, we can think of a true idea without realizing that it is true; in this case, the truth is in thought as the truth of the stone is in the stone: the act of intelligence is only fulfilled the moment we perceive and admit this truth as truth

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:25:53 2020 No.16681004 >>16680984 >Several people already presented their arguments And all of them have either been answered or were nonsense posted by illiterates? Such as this one >>16668419

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:26:35 2020 No.16681012 >>16680997 >We are able to judge the veracity or falsity of everything that our own mind is going to know or produce, and that there no animal that can do. I just fucking told you that multiple animals have metacognition.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:26:35 2020 No.16681013

I always found the fancy sophistry to argue for a creator incredibly dishonest, desu
Clearly, a lot of these philosophers already have their conclusion: God exist, my God, the Christian one
And are working backwards from that. The definition of - Ad hoc

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:28:00 2020 No.16681021 >>16680978 >I could pick parts of your linked post apart piece by piece Yes and a pigeon could shit all over a chess board and kick the pieces just as well

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:28:20 2020 No.16681023

>>16681004
There are so many responses in this thread and could barely discuss anything with anyone. You fail comprehend basic philosophical issues and try to impress through ignorance. People have shown over and over again you simply lack intelligence. All you have to do is read the comments with care.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:29:32 2020 No.16681027

>>16681013
>And are working backwards from that. The definition of - Ad hoc
Would you accuse mathematicians of the same dishonesty?
They did the exact same thing, where they set down certain things they wanted to be true and then derived axioms such that those conclusions would follow.

Is mathematics inherently dishonest?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:31:05 2020 No.16681032 >>16681021 not an argument

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:31:17 2020 No.16681034 >>16680817 >muh sandy script okay well I'm actually God's newest prophet and he says he said that ahit cause he wanted to fuck with you

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:31:33 2020 No.16681036 >>16681012 Give evidence of meta cognition an then read the post you quoted

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:32:19 2020 No.16681039 >>16681027 Do you need to create a holy scripture in order to create math? Do you need bishops, and temples, and money to the bishops and temples in order to create math? Does math kills other mathematicians because they're not part your math school?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:32:19 2020 No.16681040 >>16680822 why do people not get miracles when they ask for them

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:32:30 2020 No.16681041

>>16680921
So you'll admit there is an eternal Consciousness..? But then you spout off and avoid the the actual points.
The quote is from Kierkegaard and it clearly says eternal Consciousness "in" man. It's obviously not claiming man to be THE Eternal Consciousness, and the rest of your post was pretty mindless.

>All is Mind.
>Nothing can exist for you out side the confines of YOUR mind,
>how could something exist outside your perception of it?
>and if it did how could you tell?
>All of our minds are just a reflection of that Eternal Consciousness
God

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:32:44 2020 No.16681043 >>16681036 http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=animal+metacognition

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:34:06 2020 No.16681049

>>16681032
>not an argument
if you read that thread you will notice someone said something similar to you, that's why i dont have high hopes for you doing anything except acting like a pigeon on a chessboard
https://archived.moe/lit/thread/16639317/#16641648

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:34:57 2020 No.16681057 >>16681041 There is no Conscious, Consciousness IS. You're it; you're God.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:36:38 2020 No.16681069 God will only exist when we create him

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:36:48 2020 No.16681072 >>16681034 >muh sandy script Why the hate with sand?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:39:29 2020 No.16681090 >>16681069 I made a house once in minceraft.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:40:11 2020 No.16681093 >>16681069 And you created Him because you're God.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:40:18 2020 No.16681095 >>16681049 Whoa, so all I need to get a proper reply to my independent and short post Is to defeat the entirety of the cosmological argument now this is a real gatekeeper

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:41:24 2020 No.16681100 >>16681095 >He can't dismiss the cosmological argument offhand

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:41:26 2020 No.16681101 >no element that composes the universal is eternal A BOLD claim

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:41:31 2020 No.16681102

>>16680971
>there's nothing unique about humans!

Hey nice argument. The animals go unchanged for millions of years(bees, ants, sharks, alligators) , but the human struggle is somehow just the same shit different day?

Where is the strategic warfare, the art , the culture or the love, of the animals?

Oh wait there isn't any, and you've deluded your opinions about mankind to seem edgy, and it's not appealing.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:42:12 2020 No.16681104

>>16681039
>Do you need to create a holy scripture in order to create math?
Yeah. That is basically what ZFC is...

>Do you need bishops, and temples, and money to the bishops and temples in order to create math?
It's called a University, but yes.

>Does math kills other mathematicians because they're not part your math school?
No, mathematicians are generally very wimpy and weak.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:43:11 2020 No.16681111

>>16681043
>A comparative psychologist who has conducted extensive studies in animal cognition says there is growing evidence that animals share functional parallels with human conscious metacognition -- that is, they may share humans' ability to reflect upon, monitor or regulate their states of mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
"evidence"
>Smith recounts the original animal-metacognition experiment with Natua the dolphin. "When uncertain, the dolphin clearly hesitated and wavered between his two possible responses," he says, "but when certain, he swam toward his chosen response so fast that his bow wave would soak the researchers' electronic switches.
Clearly this proves and shows this post is wrong
>>16680997
Clearly it isn't talking about reasoning (if this is even evidence for that), which would make you look like an idiot if you're using this to answer the post that talks the issue isn't reasoning

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:43:58 2020 No.16681118 >>16681104 lmao sounds better than any Christian church already I can tell you that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:44:13 2020 No.16681121 >>16681040 >why do people not get miracles when they ask for them they don't believe theyre going to get it

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:45:05 2020 No.16681125 >>16681118 Based ZFC Chad

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:46:17 2020 No.16681133 >>16681101 >A BOLD claim You probably have ADHD, take your meds >>16668235 >as far as we know, there is nothing in the universe that is eternal

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:47:10 2020 No.16681138 >>16681101 I could argue that information/energy is eternal that it only changes to less useful states

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:47:20 2020 No.16681140 >>16681118 >lmao sounds better than any Christian church already I can tell you that. Have you MET a mathematician? Don't be quick to judge, they are viciously autistic creatures...

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:47:50 2020 No.16681143

>>16668531
>Bertrand Russell, during his early Hegelian phase, accepted the argument; he once exclaimed: "Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!" However, he later criticized the argument, asserting that "the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." He drew a distinction between existence and essence, arguing that the essence of a person can be described and their existence still remain in question

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:47:54 2020 No.16681144

>>16681101
And even if there were, it would still not change the argument, the eternal element would just become the principle, or part of the principle, of all things
I think science may find it one day by inference (they will see some strange thing from which things pop out of "nothing"), something like logos

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:48:34 2020 No.16681146 >>16681121 Why hasn't there ever been a single documented miracle? Did cameras kill belief? C'mon, just an itty-bitty miracle

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:49:49 2020 No.16681154

>>16681138
>I could argue that information/energy is eternal that it only changes to less useful states
Information is part of logos which doesnt refute the argument
Energy isn't information and it is showing
https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:50:20 2020 No.16681157 >>16681133 You can't just keep linking to the longest post in the thread, as if that is an argument

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:52:13 2020 No.16681172

>>16681102
>strategic warfare
Ants
>art
Bowerbirds
>culture
Fish, insects, meerkats, birds, monkeys, apes, etc.
>love
Any monogamous animal
>>16681111
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Please show that the specific study you just quoted is subject to the replication crisis.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:52:50 2020 No.16681176

>>16681146
>Why hasn't there ever been a single documented miracle?
What the fuck are you talking about?
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2866

>Did cameras kill belief?
Thats one of the meme answers ignorant atheists give when they dont know what is the process of investigation of miracles (such as alleged eucharistic miracles)

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:53:32 2020 No.16681181 >>16681133 How exactly does that post prove that "nothing in the universe is eternal" ?

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:54:06 2020 No.16681182

>>16681111
>>Smith recounts the original animal-metacognition experiment with Natua the dolphin. "When uncertain, the dolphin clearly hesitated and wavered between his two possible responses," he says, "but when certain, he swam toward his chosen response so fast that his bow wave would soak the researchers' electronic switches.
>Clearly this proves and shows this post is wrong
bruh that literally supports his argument

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:54:33 2020 No.16681185 >>16681176 Wow! They really caught God on film? How the fuck are Atheists still a thing

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:55:50 2020 No.16681192 >>16681181 >>16681157 the point is that you're functionally illiterate if you don't understand what "as far as we know" means i suggest learning how to read again with phonics

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:56:55 2020 No.16681201 >>16681143 The problem is deciding what the first cause is. But then you realize you can just make one up and thus we got Big Bang.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:57:10 2020 No.16681203 >>16681182 >bruh that literally supports his argument >>16680997

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:57:29 2020 No.16681204 >>16681185 >How the fuck are Atheists still a thing How are flat earthers still a thing?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:59:15 2020 No.16681210 >>16681203 See: (>>16681012)

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:59:24 2020 No.16681214 >>16681133 >>16681157 >>16681181 Please don't be mean to him. It's instinctual for a Christian, when challenged about a certain part of a text, to refer you back to the very same text, to prove it's true.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 19:59:49 2020 No.16681220

>>16681172
>Ants
Just emergent behavior, no strategy involved.
>Bowerbirds
A simple NN can "generate art" but it will not contain any meaning but matrix multiplication.
>Any monogamous animal
Laughable. If two NPCs in a game kiss do you call that "love"? Fucking ridiculous.
>Fish, insects, meerkats, birds, monkeys, apes, etc.
???

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:00:42 2020 No.16681223 >>16681176 I know, Lord Krishna really is badass.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:03:33 2020 No.16681239 >>16681204 Next time some hot-shot atheists brings up arguments about God just link them to: catholicculture.org, that should settle the matter once and for all now there is actual real evidence for His existence

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:03:35 2020 No.16681240 >>16681192 You really can't debate anything at all, can you? What is your problem?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:03:50 2020 No.16681242 >>16681210 you changed the word reasoning for meta-cognition and you still believe you're talking about intelligence i can't make it more clear than this

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:04:43 2020 No.16681248 >>16681239 Next time you meet a flat earther just hand them a physics textbook. That should settle the debate once and for all.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:05:12 2020 No.16681250

>>16681239
>just link them to: catholicculture.org, that should settle the matter once and for all
It is a known fact that the lourdes miracles converted a noble prize doctor of medicine to catholicism, no natter the ad hominem you use because of your phobia to christian names

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:05:32 2020 No.16681255

>>16681220
>Just emergent behavior
You could argue the same thing for humans.
>but it will not contain any meaning
What's the meaning of the Mona Lisa?
>Laughable. If two NPCs in a game kiss do you call that "love"?
No, because they don't have intelligence.
>???
I'm saying that those animals have culture too.
>>16681242
>you changed the word reasoning for meta-cognition
No, I really didn't.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:06:14 2020 No.16681260

>>16681214
>It's instinctual for a Christian, when challenged about a certain part of a text, to refer you back to the very same text, to prove it's true
>>16681192
>the point is that you're functionally illiterate if you don't understand what "as far as we know" means
>i suggest learning how to read again with phonics

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:08:08 2020 No.16681268 >>16681250 And how the FUCK is this supposed to be evidence for anything? You're fucking retarded.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:08:46 2020 No.16681272

>>16681255
>You could argue the same thing for humans.
Clearly an individual human posses the ability to strategize?
What the fuck are you saying?
I can play star craft by myself you know...

>What's the meaning of the Mona Lisa?
At the very least it contains an objective meaning of a person in certain physical and historical circumstances.

>No, because they don't have intelligence.
Clearly they can "think". By what metric are they "not intelligent"?
If GPT-3 writes you a Loveletter will you answer like that too?
GPT-3 can do many things animals can not...

>I'm saying that those animals have culture too
I know.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:10:02 2020 No.16681281 >>16681223 paganism does seem to be a very hot religion for "scientists" for some reason

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:10:15 2020 No.16681282 >>16681260 You're arguing like a fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:11:24 2020 No.16681291 >>16681281 Whoa. Now THAT proves God exists and he HAS to be the Christian one! Damn.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:11:44 2020 No.16681295

>>16681268
>And how the FUCK is this supposed to be evidence for anything?
He documented the miracle as well, answering your objection
>>16681146
>Why hasn't there ever been a single documented miracle?
>Did cameras kill belief?
>C'mon, just an itty-bitty miracle

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:12:55 2020 No.16681302 >>16681295 >He documented the miracle as well, answering your objection Where is it? The link you posted has a bunch of text that can be all bullshit for all I care.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:13:39 2020 No.16681309

I, an Atheist
Also believe humans to be the only creature to be capable of sin, knowing right from wrong, metacognition, consciousness, whatever you want to call it
The property that separates us from animals, I believe such a property to exist
Currently, that is. There lies the difference.
If every single human up and killed themselves, give the planet a ton of million years, maybe some new ape rise to our level
or maybe some sea-creature, but probably not... I read some science stuff about the ocean environment being too simple, and prohibitive to tool use, to put an effective ceiling on ocean intelligence development, and it sounded sensible

I do not believe it to be some property to be uniquely human, in the strictest sense.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:14:18 2020 No.16681315

>>16681272
>Clearly an individual human posses the ability to strategize?
Not in the sense you're thinking of, humans only copy and rearrange the previous "strategies" of other humans. In that way, it is emergent.
>At the very least it contains an objective meaning of a person in certain physical and historical circumstances.
And so the bowerbirds' mating ritual contains the objective meaning of fertility. You have an extremely lenient definition of meaning.
>Clearly they can "think". By what metric are they "not intelligent"?
They can't learn, dildo.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:17:08 2020 No.16681337

>>16681291
you are functionally illiterate
you dont read the meaning of the words you see in the text, you imagine the words you think deep inside the poster wanted to say
its not just with "science", the supposedly secular society as a whole likes paganism very much while hating anything related to christianism

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:17:45 2020 No.16681339

>>16681315
>humans only copy and rearrange the previous "strategies" of other humans. In that way, it is emergent.
Clearly not. WW1 caused a massive shift in strategy, how was that possible through copying?
This is nonsense, how can you even believe that no new strategies can be discovered?
Take computer algorithms for example...

>And so the bowerbirds' mating ritual contains the objective meaning of fertility.
And?

>They can't learn, dildo.
Why not?
Throw a NN at it, what now?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:18:22 2020 No.16681347 >>16681337 You really argue like a fucking retard. Are all Catholics this stupid?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:18:25 2020 No.16681348 >>16681302 >Where is it? The link you posted has a bunch of text that can be all bullshit for all I care The link to anything will lead to just a bunch of text that could be bullshit for all you cared Maybe you want some drawings?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:19:05 2020 No.16681354 >>16681250 >lourdes miracles converted a noble prize doctor of medicine to catholicism, A lot of even greater doctors converted to Catholicism, and it didn't even take a miracle for them, just their deathbed

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:20:10 2020 No.16681363 >>16681348 If you were going to use this excuse in the end why even bring up the topic, you fucking imbecile?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:20:23 2020 No.16681366 >>16681315 >humans only copy and rearrange the previous "strategies" of other humans Read anything alexander the great did

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:21:36 2020 No.16681374 >>16681348 the point is that this 'documented miracle' is just "documented" it's a claim, not a proof

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:21:37 2020 No.16681375 >>16681347 >Are all Catholics this stupid? Im a protestant, so was euler >>16681363 but it was you that used that excuse

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:22:44 2020 No.16681382 >>16681374 >it's a claim, not a proof What is a thing you would consider "proven"?

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:23:55 2020 No.16681393
File: 618 KB, 952x717, NoImgBoard&NoPMO&NoYoutube.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16681374
>the point is
>that this 'documented miracle'
>is just "documented"
and what was it again that you asked about?
>>16681146
>Why hasn't there ever been a single documented miracle?

Jesus christ you people are stupid, not only illiterate but also have a nill short term memory

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:24:15 2020 No.16681398 >>16681375 Nah, you have this special idiocy that keeps going on and on, can't understand jack shit and love to pretend you know anything about philosophy. You're definitely Catholic.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:25:04 2020 No.16681405

>>16681339
>WW1 caused a massive shift in strategy, how was that possible through copying?
Now you're creating straw men, I said copying AND rearranging. The difference is crucial, because if there was only copying, strategy would indeed never evolve.
>And?
And so they create art.
>Throw a NN at it, what now?
Then it has love.
>>16681366
Read any neuroscience textbook.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:25:38 2020 No.16681407 >>16681398 >call them what you are, accuse them of what you do

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:25:52 2020 No.16681409 >>16681393 Stop, Catholicanon. You're making a fool of yourself and your Church. Just admit you're too stupid for this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:27:38 2020 No.16681424 >>16681382 Usually I would say that it needs to independently reproducible, but I guess so-called miracles necessarily would get a free pass on that one, lol

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:28:13 2020 No.16681430

>>16681405
>Now you're creating straw men, I said copying AND rearranging. The difference is crucial, because if there was only copying, strategy would indeed never evolve.
You are just calling "learning" emergent behavior.
Clearly this is idiotic. No individual ant has any clue what is going on, while generals have usually an idea of what is happening.

>Then it has love.
Then I have already committed a small genocide.

Anon, you are being ridiculous. Just because something can pass the Turing test and tell you "I love you" does not make it intelligent...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:28:43 2020 No.16681432 >>16681405 >Read any neuroscience textbook. why? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:28:44 2020 No.16681433 >>16681176 >>16681348 >>16681393 embarrassing

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:31:50 2020 No.16681448

>>16681430
>No individual ant has any clue what is going on, while generals have usually an idea of what is happening.
And now you're moving the goalposts.
>Then I have already committed a small genocide.
The Sims does not have any neural networks, let alone any with metacognition.
>Just because something can pass the Turing test and tell you "I love you" does not make it intelligent...
Remember what I said about straw men?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:32:53 2020 No.16681455 >>16681432 >The replication crisis affects the social sciences and medicine most severely.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:34:37 2020 No.16681467
File: 327 KB, 716x661, 1601874859648.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>tfw you didn't fell for the Tradcath meme and didn't end up like the retard that shat up at least 50% of this thread
Man, I really dodged a bullet. They clean up your brain almost like in the manner of Scientology, eh?

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:37:35 2020 No.16681489

>>16681448
>And now you're moving the goalposts.
Clearly not.
I don't think you understand the point.
Ants don't have strategy. Every individual moves according to simple rules and from that patterns emerge.
Likening that to modern battlefield strategy, which is totally top down and thus the opposite of emergent, is frankly retarded.

>The Sims does not have any neural networks, let alone any with metacognition.
If the next sims used GTP-3 to generate behavior, would that change?
It is just a question of implementation, technical possibility is a given, so I don't get why you are so anal about actuality.

We are talking in the abstract, can you not understand if the Sims "actually" uses NNs? And that the only thing that matters is your reaction if it would.

>Remember what I said about straw men?
No. I don't think you said anything to me about straw men at all? Do you suffer from dementia?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:37:54 2020 No.16681492 >>16681467 Bro, this Nobel Laureate (in 1912) witnessed a miracle, and it was the real thing, he swears he even wrote about it, that counts as [documentation], right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:40:16 2020 No.16681504 >>16681424 But then, inherently, nothing that could be shown to you could convince you...

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:40:28 2020 No.16681506

>STRANGER:
>Absolute and perpetual immutability is a property of only the most divine things of all, and body does not belong to this class. Now that which we call heaven and the universe has received from its creator many blessed qualities, but then, too, it partakes also of a bodily nature; [269e] therefore it is impossible for it to be entirely free from change; it moves, however, so far as it is able to do so, with a single motion in the same place and the same manner, and therefore it has acquired the reverse motion in a circle, because that involves the least deviation from its own motion. But to turn itself for ever is hardly possible except for the power that guides all moving things; and that this should turn now in one direction and now in the opposite direction is contrary to divine law. As the result of all this, we must not say either that the universe turns itself always, or that it is always turned by God in two opposite courses, or again that two divinities opposed to one another turn it. The only remaining alternative is what I suggested a little while ago, that the universe is guided at one time by an extrinsic divine cause, acquiring the power of living again and receiving renewed immortality from the Creator, and at another time it is left to itself and then moves by its own motion, being left to itself at such a moment that it moves backwards through countless ages, because it is immensely large and most evenly balanced, and turns upon the smallest pivot.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:40:45 2020 No.16681507

>>16681489
>Likening that to modern battlefield strategy, which is totally top down and thus the opposite of emergent
I've already explained how that's emergent.
>If the next sims used GTP-3 to generate behavior, would that change?
GPT-3 doesn't have metacognition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:40:48 2020 No.16681508 >>16681492 I guess, right? But only if said person is Catholic. If he's Protestant or Muslim, then it must be the work of the Devil or something.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:44:31 2020 No.16681524 >>16681504 CLEARLY anecdotes from 1912 falls short

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:44:41 2020 No.16681525

>>16681507
>I've already explained how that's emergent.
It's learning.
>GPT-3 doesn't have metacognition.
Very dubious claim. I would argue that an LSTM represents a form of metacognition. And although I have no actual clue how GPT-3 works specifically I am very much certain that it includes *something* like an LSTM...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:45:44 2020 No.16681530 >>16681524 Clearly anything would fall short.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:46:28 2020 No.16681533 >>16681504 Do you think you are being clever?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:47:40 2020 No.16681538 >>16681533 ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:49:00 2020 No.16681547 >>16681525 >It's learning. Emergently. >Very dubious claim. If it had metacognition, it would be able to improve itself already.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:49:57 2020 No.16681554 >>16681530 How can you possibly think this line of arguing is going anywhere?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:51:17 2020 No.16681561 >>16681533 This retard has been trying to be clever this whole thread...

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:52:36 2020 No.16681568

>>16681547
>Emergently.
learning from others is obviously emergent, so what? That's not what ants do...
>If it had metacognition, it would be able to improve itself already.
Oh anon. Do you have ANY idea what a NN is?
OF COURSE it is improving itself...
That is quite literally the whole point of a NN...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:53:39 2020 No.16681572 >>16681554 What am I arguing? If person A has proof standards which B can not meet clearly the discussion is pointless... >>16681561 ???

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:56:16 2020 No.16681590 >>16681568 >That's not what ants do... That wasn't your original argument. Next you'll say that their antness is the reason they aren't strategic. >OF COURSE it is improving itself... Please look up the definition of metacognition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:56:51 2020 No.16681595 >>16681572 When I say you're stupid, I'm not trying to be funny. I swear to God. You're really, really, really unintelligent. You argue like a complete fool. But I know you won't believe me, right? Keep on going.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:57:48 2020 No.16681596 >>16681590 >Please look up the definition of metacognition. You said it couldn't improve itself. >>16681547 I said that was false.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:58:11 2020 No.16681598 >>16681572 I don't think something being - independently reproducible, is a high proof standard at all, desu

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:59:21 2020 No.16681606 >>16681595 How is me asking what your proof standards are "being stupid"? Who do you think I am? >>16681598 Sure.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 20:59:29 2020 No.16681609 File: 143 KB, 656x483, the_aristocats.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16681572

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:00:32 2020 No.16681613 >>16681609 ? I think you are confusing me with someone.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:01:51 2020 No.16681625 >>16681598 Try: Independently verifiable it's the account of an event, not an experiment

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:02:53 2020 No.16681633 >>16681613 No. I know.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:02:56 2020 No.16681634 >>16681596 What I mean is that it can't improve itself without more data.

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:05:44 2020 No.16681650

>>16681596
>>16681590
It just dawns on me how stupid this conversation is.
You are literally just fucking retarded.
Clearly you have no idea why an LSTM would be metacognition, but instead of admitting you know fuck all about NNs you claim that a NN somehow can't improve itself.

What drugs are you, seriously?

>>16681634
Obviously false. You know nothing about NNs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:06:47 2020 No.16681663 >>16681633 >I know. What do you know?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:08:45 2020 No.16681678 >>16681650 Ok, I suppose you're right. So neural networks could feel love then.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:08:57 2020 No.16681679 >>16681663 I'm not going to dignify that with a reply.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:09:43 2020 No.16681685 >>16681679 You already did...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:10:45 2020 No.16681694 >>16681678 >So neural networks could feel love then. Which clearly is absurd. Matrix multiplication is not love.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:11:27 2020 No.16681700 >>16681678 If it was made up of humans, like a China-brain. But any other country

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 21:13:40 2020 No.16681718 >>16681694 >Which clearly is absurd. Prove it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 22:41:48 2020 No.16682272 >>16667258 LSD

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature