/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17119950]

Bros... I've created an irrefutable argument against atheism. What do I do now? Try to get it published? Email somebody like William Lane Craig about it? I feel like this is going to be groundbreaking in philosophy and I at least want some credit.

[Anonymous No.17119960]

>>17119950
Post it here so it can be refuted

[Anonymous No.17120111]

>>17119960
Forgive me if some parts are unclear. I've had a hard time formulating this but in my mind I know it makes sense.

1. Atheism claims that a random process is responsible for generating the fine-tuning we perceive in the world. Hume, for instance, objected to the teleological argument by saying that if matter were finite and time infinite, all possible combinations of matter would eventually have arisen, including this one, and therefore no creator is necessary. A more modern take on this is the multiverse -- if an infinite number of universes exist, all possible universes exist, including ours, and so there doesn't need to be a creator. We have all heard the famous atheist dictum that a monkey typewriting will eventually type the works of Shakespeare.

2. But a random process, if it creates a non-random (ie. ordered, intelligible, rational, etc.) result, is much more likely to produce a simpler result rather than a complex one. A monkey typewriting will produce the word "and" among gibberish more times than it will type the works of Shakespeare.

3. Therefore, if a random process were really responsible for creating the world, all possible worlds in which I have the same conscious experiences that I have now, but which are less complex than this world, would be much more likely to exist than this world. For example, a world in which I am a brain, replete with illusory experiences, floating in space among a heap of chaos (analogous to the word "and" among gibberish in the earlier example), is much more likely to exist than this world.

4. Accordingly, under an atheist epistemology, we are probably just brains floating in space, or if we aren't, the world is highly illusory anyway, because all the possible gradations which are less complex than this world but which still accommodate my conscious experience are more likely to exist than this world.

5. This leaves atheism on unsteady ground, because everything is up for doubt, even their own atheism, meaning atheism is self-defeating and absurd.

[Anonymous No.17120155]

>>17120111
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/#ArguFineTuniForMultUsinProb

[Anonymous No.17120179]

>>17120111
goddamn

[Anonymous No.17120221]

>>17120111
>random process
Not really, they would say it could be random and there was almost certainly an element of chance but that does mean it was random. You are arguing from the standpoint that you are right but you learned nothing about the other side and just went with standard high school logic, you do not know that your are right, you just believe it to be so.

At this point in time atheism comes down to blind faith just as much any other belief system, there is nothing to refute until you have actual proof one of the belief systems is actually correct.

[Anonymous No.17120231]

>is much more likely to produce a simpler result rather than a complex one
This is why naturalfags shouldn't dabble into STEMfaggtory.

[Anonymous No.17120235]

This is now brainlet wojak thread. Please post your favorite wojaks.

[Anonymous No.17120266]

>>17120111
And what is your conclusion?
>self-defeating and absurd
Abstract and not related.

[Anonymous No.17120284]

>>17120111
>Atheism claims that a random process is responsible for generating the fine-tuning we perceive in the world.
No they don't, they just don't believe in God.

[Anonymous No.17120295]

>>17120266
If atheism's epistemological basis is so flimsy, there's no use believing in it, because to believe in it would be to believe that belief itself is irrational. Thus it is self-defeating.

[Anonymous No.17120296]

>>17120111

[Anonymous No.17120300]

>>17120295
Atheism has no epistemology. Perhaps you're referring to materialism?

[Anonymous No.17120313]

>>17120300
My argument comes to the conclusion that as an atheist you can know nothing, which is an epistemological position.

[Anonymous No.17120323]

>>17120313
Sure, but atheists don't try to refute god - materialists do. You're just hardcore strawmanning with this age old conflation.

[Anonymous No.17120339]

>>17120323
It's hardly an important distinction. Switch it to "materialist" in your mind if that suits you better. Fact is the vast majority of atheists are what you call materialists.

[Anonymous No.17120341]

>>17120111
Actual pseudointellectual

[Anonymous No.17120344]

>>17120111
Are you fucking trolling

[Anonymous No.17120348]

>>17120339
Fair enough. The reason why I'm bringing it up is that you're showing attempts to use language of materialism (of entropy and chaos specifically), and then arrive at bizarre conclusion in that epistemological framework. You either go full p-zombie or you don't, you can't just mix the two willy nilly to suit your narrative.

[Anonymous No.17120355]

Here my thought. Atheism and theism are not fundamental elements of human mind. A man can think and rationalize in materialism, while wholeheartedly practice and belive in religion and superstitious. I'm not christian btw.

[Anonymous No.17120371]

>>17120355
I think that god can function pretty well in materialism, if you're willing to cast divinity on things we *genuinely* can't fathom in there - things that still inspire awe. The issue bible thumpers will have with that it invalidates their human-centrism of god. A materialist feels awe towards certain things happening in math, physics or cosmology, but is absolutely unimpressed by pompous claims that human is made in image of god.

[Anonymous No.17120375]

>>17120111
This is nothing groundbreaking, just an argument against dogmatic positive atheism. Most atheists are agnostics – ie they are sceptical about the ability of human reason to determine that there either is or isn’t a God.

[Anonymous No.17120437]

>>17120111
This is just a bit more of an obscured version of the TAG argument which imo is the best argument for theism. It proves it the same way you are doing it by showing that atheism is incoherent and self defeating.

[Anonymous No.17120456]

>>17120111
I've already argued against you about this and you didn't reply.

>I think this world is complex therefore it has not been created through a random process
This is not a good argument. First, it's based on your perception, but you cannot possibly know what you need to know in order to assert this. The complexity of the other situation is also not something you can assert. You also strawman the atheistic argument of randomness, because randomness is only a part of evolution and development -- the other part being natural laws. We did not become intelligent simply because of randomness, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

I would also argue, as I have before, that the idea of a brain in a vat having illusory experiences with ZERO sensory input is much more complex than you might imagine it to be, regardless of whether you believe our brains are just physical and chemical processes:

>All of your dreams are based on external sense data.

>A dream is not reality, but you can't invent an entirely new reality without taking input from something. Even if it's not real, it's a modification and twisting of your collective experiences. Do isolated brains dream of realities? My answer is no. Blind people don't have visual dreams. Remove the data you gain from exploring reality with your senses, and you have nothing to process or create with. Nobody has ever come up with anything from nothing.

[Anonymous No.17120693]

>>17120456
>>I think this world is complex therefore it has not been created through a random process
Strawman. The argument is: "A random process creates simple results far more often than complex ones; ergo, something like the multiverse would create many more illusory universes than real ones, because it is simpler to create a brain replete with conscious experiences than it is to create a planet fine-tuned for life with many such brains which actually perceive the world around them."
>randomness is only a part of evolution and development -- the other part being natural laws. We did not become intelligent simply because of randomness, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.
This is nothing to do with biological evolution, I'm talking about cosmology.
>brain in a vat having illusory experiences with ZERO sensory input is much more complex than you might imagine it to be, regardless of whether you believe our brains are just physical and chemical processes:
Conscious experience in this world: Things --> Sense data --> Sense organs --> Neurological signals --> Conscious experience
Conscious experience in the other world: Neurological signals --> Conscious experience
Clearly the latter is simpler.

[Anonymous No.17121039]

>>17120235

[Anonymous No.17121118]

>>17120111
How will atheistcucks ever recover?

[Anonymous No.17121143]

>>17120693
So in this thought experiment of yours, what is the brain made of? Where does it exist if the world is an illusion?

[Anonymous No.17121179]

>>17121143
Just take what Hume says in response to the teleological argument. He said that if time were infinite, all the matter in the universe would have arranged itself into every possible way, which is why we might observe some fine-tuning and order. "A monkey typewriting would type the works of Shakespeare given enough time."
But if this random cycle were allowed to continue, matter would arrange itself in simpler ways much more often than it would in complex ways. Creating a brain with illusory experiences would be much simpler than creating the world as we see it now, so it is more likely that you are a brain with illusory experiences than that the world exists as you think it does.

[Anonymous No.17121201]

>>17120111
Look anon, I will go out on a limb here and propose that you are actually most probably intelligent, but you need to treat your opponents with more logical rigour. Do atheists really believe all of those positions that you assign to them, especially in that order? Are you refuting all of their premises or are you refuting an arbitrary conclusion that YOU (not them) have written in regards to those premises? Atheism is the lack of belief in god. That many bugmen have stupid alternative explanations does not by itself discredit atheism as a position (though it certainly discredits it as a social movement and identity). In fact, it is even possible to find "atheistic" religions, which your argument could never account for. Maybe read the Traditionalist school? Perhaps my shilling is out of place here, but you could probably benefit from it. Also, look into the Trivium. A serious engagement with the Trivium will go a long way to perfecting your skills.

[Anonymous No.17121216]

>>17120341
first actual one I've seen

[Anonymous No.17121220]

>>17120111
>Atheism claims that a random process is responsible for generating the fine-tuning we perceive in the world.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Next.

[Anonymous No.17121246]

>>17119950
>>17120111
There really never was anything good made in the accompaniment of a frog. It's such a bizarre phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.17121250]

>>17121246
That and the word ‘irrefutable’ is a giant red flag

[Anonymous No.17121283]

>>17120111
>But a random process, if it creates a non-random (ie. ordered, intelligible, rational, etc.) result
I want you to read this again and realise why it's fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.17121335]

>>17120111
Just because an event has a low probability doesn't mean it cannot happen.

[Anonymous No.17121340]

>>17121335
if the universe is infinite then any event is going to happen

[Anonymous No.17121346]

>>17121340
Except for me fucking your mom, that happens every day

[Anonymous No.17121349]

>>17121335
That isn't the point. It's that a simpler result has a higher probability, which means it's more likely that you're a brain with illusory experiences than that the world exists as you see it.

[Anonymous No.17121350]

i feel like "refuting atheism" is a cope for religious guys

[Anonymous No.17121367]

>>17119950
>>17120111
based effortposting frog philosopher

[Anonymous No.17121372]

>>17121179
Our brains do not survive on their own. A self-sustaining "brain in a jar" would probably be pretty complicated and would require a lot of "fine-tuning" to work.

[Anonymous No.17121393]

>>17121349
This is almost solipsism except shittier which is impressive.

[Anonymous No.17121395]

>>17120111
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.17121404]

>>17120111
Atheism claims none of these things. The only thing that atheism does is not claim belief in a god. Troll harder.

[Anonymous No.17121406]

>>17121179
>if time were infinite, all the matter in the universe would have arranged itself into every possible way
prove this

[Anonymous No.17121413]

>>17121406
It's self-evident.

[Anonymous No.17121419]

>>17120111
How do you prove mathematically, that a floating brain is more likely than this universe? Aren't you adding an already complex structure (a stable universe) to another complex structure? Are you saying the brain exists but the universe doesn't? Then in what does the brain exist, what keeps it together?

[Anonymous No.17121433]

>>17120111
>in my mind I know it makes sense
Yikes

[Anonymous No.17121437]

>>17121413
no its not

[Anonymous No.17121448]

>>17120111
ITT: OP learns about Occam's razor and tries to apply his shiny new toy to everything.

[Anonymous No.17121457]

>>17121413
The only thing that’s self-evident is that you climbed the giant dick tree, fell down it, and hit every branch with both your oral cavity and your butthole

[Anonymous No.17121471]

>>17120111
I didn't even read it. Atheists are based and EVERY RELIGION (aside from pantheist spinozism) is a form of cope against death. I seriously believe that people who believe in God are retards and should face death without telling themselves retard stories. I just don't want state atheism because of the Streisand Effect.

[Anonymous No.17121481]

>>17121457
That tree sounds hot

[Anonymous No.17121484]

>>17120111
>But a random process, if it creates a non-random (ie. ordered, intelligible, rational, etc.) result, is much more likely to produce a simpler result rather than a complex one
>Therefore, if a random process were really responsible for creating the world, all possible worlds in which I have the same conscious experiences that I have now, but which are less complex than this world, would be much more likely to exist than this world

this presupposes that our world is "complex" while providing no standard by which to measure "complexity" or "simplicity" in an objective sense. What makes you think our universe is complex and not, in reality, incredibly "simple" as compared with other, heretofore undiscovered universes?

[Anonymous No.17121489]

>>17121367
At least he tried something, right?

[Anonymous No.17121490]

>>17121484
It's more complex than a universe with just your brain among a heap of unrelated chaos, that's all that is needed for my argument to work.

[Anonymous No.17121508]

>>17121246
What compels man to post frogs?

[Anonymous No.17121516]

>>17121471
Based.
>yfw you kept wearing a fedora and tipped everyone like a GigaChad, not caving under peer pressure like a virgin Christian HOMO would

[Anonymous No.17121521]

>>17121490
I'm not sure it's the case that the continuous development of a sophisticated human brain is *more likely* to develop among chaos than among some integrated world-system. I think this "complexity" definition doesn't really work particularly well when making that kind of comparative analysis

[Anonymous No.17121556]

>>17121471
Cringe and I'm an atheist.

[Anonymous No.17121593]

>>17121556
You're probably an atheist who thinks there's some reason for believing in God (i.e. you are a retard). Now go licking religious' butthole by telling them that atheist position is worth as much as the religious one, stupid monkey.

[Anonymous No.17121618]

>>17121593
>You're probably an atheist who thinks there's some reason for believing in God
If I thought there was a reason to believe in God, I wouldn't be an atheist.

[Anonymous No.17121631]

>>17120111
Based and checked

[Anonymous No.17121638]

>>17121556
Nigger

[Anonymous No.17121650]

>>17121618
Anyway, you sound like someone who sees some vaue in religious people, aside from being a reminder that you are most intelligent than them. That makes you retard.

[Anonymous No.17121685]

>>17120111
Oh nonononono atheistbros we got too cocky!!!

[Anonymous No.17121742]

>>17121471
i agree with your atheism BUT consider how the retarded bottom 80% of humanity would believe if they were not indoctrinated with some moral system during childhood. also imagine what they would do if they understood what death entailed.
I think of religion like vaccination. It's not necessarily good for me or my kids, but I would prefer to live amongst a vaccinated population for the safety benefits it creates.
With this in mind we should discourage the spread of atheism amongst the common man and keep it only to the select few

[Anonymous No.17121762]

>>17121179
>He said that if time were infinite, all the matter in the universe would have arranged itself into every possible way,
Dude that's not true. If time was infinite, then every possibility would occur. A brain existing in the middle of space by itself is not a possibility. This is also assuming that time is infinite or there are an infinite amount of universes, both things we don't know and both of which are not central to Atheism.

[Anonymous No.17121767]

>>17121742
I'm uniornically also at this point except the religious leaders don't give me much confidence. Maybe I should have become a priest to help you screwballs live decent lives - it would be more useful than what I do now.

[Anonymous No.17121826]

>>17121742

>BUT consider how the retarded bottom 80% of humanity would believe if they were not indoctrinated with some moral system during childhood. also imagine what they would do if they understood what death entailed.
The world would be a better place. Most people are inherently moral and empathetic to some extent so abandoning Religion would not result in everyone becoming a sociopath. Religion brings more evil into the world, being used as justification for the inhuman conditions that currently exist ("well poverty isn't so bad because there's an eternal afterlife") and a justification for atrocities committed agaisnt the 'other.' Religion disappearing would result in people following their own intrinsic morality instead of being a slave to external sources of Morality.

[Anonymous No.17121855]

>>17121340
That isn't actually true. Consider the real line R. Take the subset [0,1]. [0,1] contains an infinite amount of points, but it still is a proper subset of the reals. People like to throw around the word "infinity" like its some dumb mystical thing.

[Anonymous No.17121870]

>>17121349
There are a few problems with this. For one, it is nonsensical to talk about "universes" as if they are uniformly distributed. We don't and cannot possibly know that. Second, if your just talking about probabilities, it isn't "an irrefutable argument".

[Anonymous No.17121903]

>>17121767
>Maybe I should have become a priest to help you screwballs live decent lives
The best priests are probably atheists, lol.

>>17121826
>Most people are inherently moral and empathetic
I completely disagree. It depends on the ethnicity and culture of the person. I suspect you live somewhere wealthy, am I correct?
"morality" is an evolved set of social rules, beneficial to the genes that carry them. All outlined in The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. In cold climates, agreeableness and cooperation were essential for survival. Doesn't mean everyone on earth must empathize with the outgroup. universal morality = white ethno-solipsism

[Anonymous No.17121927]

>>17121521
Is a random letter generator more likely to spawn "and" or another simple word among a heap of gibberish or is it more likely to produce the works of Shakespeare or a work of similar complexity?
This is where I get the principle that random processes generate simple results more often than complex ones, when they do create something complex at all.

[Anonymous No.17121958]

>>17119950
Good work brother, don't let atheists dissuade you, keep working at it and learning.

[Anonymous No.17122058]

>>17121903
I agree that empathy is genetic but I don't religion makes people more agreeable than they otherwise would be. I feel like if someone is naturally agreeable and religious, they would use their religion to justify their agreeableness and people who are less agreable would use their religion to justify their action.

[Anonymous No.17122122]

>>17120111
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH kys

[Anonymous No.17122159]

>>17122058
I see your point, but I think there are disagreeable people who still refrain from cruelty and certain crimes due to childhood religious indoctrination. They also avoid drugs and other choices that they could not handle and would probably have tried. Consider the increase in drug use, infidelity, and things like that

[Anonymous No.17123040]

>>17121826
Technology brings evil into the world because:

>More population
>Better weapons of war
>Mountains of corpses after world wars and demolished countries

Also you're assuming people would not do evil things anyways regardless of religious justifications.

You're throwing out the potentiality that a religion is right by saying this as well because the sole fact that it can be used by a bad man and therefore it shouldn't exist.

Also it's absurd to assume humans without a clearly laid out moral code would behave well, see: modern times.

[Anonymous No.17123065]

>>17119950
>>17120111
atheistbros.... we got btfo by an apuposter???? it's fucking OVER for us!!!!

[Anonymous No.17123090]

>>17120111
you said nothing

[Anonymous No.17123130]

>>17120111
This is your brain on american education (didn't read btw)

[Anonymous No.17123602]

>>17120456
>randomness is only a part of evolution and development -- the other part being natural laws. We did not become intelligent simply because of randomness, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.
I thought at first that OP was only talking about evolution, but I think you could reasonably assert that physical laws must be as finely-tuned as they presently are before any complex molecular interactions can take place, let alone those that slide down a local optimum (through evolution) into intelligent life.
For example, if the physical constants behind the strong force were different, the universe might consist only of hydrogen atoms. If the electroweak force were differently configured, intermolecular interactions might be too weak (or electromagnetically unoptimal) for chemical interactions to occur.

Just a proposition.

[Anonymous No.17123661]

>>17119950
the first thing you do is check to see if it hasn't been made before. arguements for and against existance of god (that have been written down) have been going on for 2000+ years. to assume you have a novel one is a bit arrogant.

the best that could happen is you find your arguement made before, with the refutations, so you reasses your stance, and it allows you to refine it.

welcome to the circlejerk that is theology, where evidence isn't required.

[Anonymous No.17123752]

>>17121742
>we should discourage the spread of atheism amongst the common man and keep it only to the select few
But why? What is gained?
>>17121826
Did you know that the Catholic Church provides over 1/4 of the ENTIRE WORLD'S healthcare.

[Anonymous No.17123792]

>>17123752
>Did you know that the Catholic Church provides over 1/4 of the ENTIRE WORLD'S healthcare.
Did you know that more humans != good? Shocking, I know

[Anonymous No.17123841]

>>17120111
A lot of the stuff you wrote as "atheist" conceptions are just personal presupositions made by yourself. I have to say, nonetheless, than your argument isn't as inconsistent has others i've seen.

[Anonymous No.17123862]

>>17120313
That was also the platonic idea that «goodness» is prior to «being», therefore, to «existence». I will not debate your argument, because i'm too lazy for that, but there is a lot of literature criticizing that philosophical perspective (from scientists to philosophers).

[Anonymous No.17124015]

>>17123792
Healing the sick is a good thing. Basically all philosophical thought from India and to the east is commentary on the Buddha or Laozi, they wouldn't be on the map if not for religion. Christianity inspired a majority of art in the West, surely you think art is good. I think the scholarly European tradition was also founded by monks.
It flummoxes me to meet somebody who genuinely think religion has done more bad than good for the world. I thought it was a strawman meme position.
Do you at least agree that people need to be brought up with a somewhat rigid moral architecture, even if it's not religiously motivated?

[Anonymous No.17124092]

>>17123752
>Did you know that the Catholic Church provides over 1/4 of the ENTIRE WORLD'S healthcare.
toooooooooooooooooooootally no strings attached to that one. and surely all the medical care provided is provided ethically. nothing gruesome on par with maccabre b horror films would ever emerge out of such agencies- like chainsaws being applied to childbirth without consent

https://www.thejournal.ie/symphysiotomy-uncat-1356352-Nov2014/

or such thing as denying medication for pallative care because you believe that pain brings one closer to god.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/03/25/should-mother-teresa-be-canonized/mother-teresa-doesnt-deserve-sainthood

[Anonymous No.17124194]

>>17121855
Apparently there isn't any sense of something physically smaller than Plancks constant, so your purely mathematical example isn't useful

[Anonymous No.17124196]

>>17124092
What's your point, some surgical procedures are invasive even if they save the patient's life, and medical malpractice happens from time-to-time too. Are you suggesting they're torturing people for no reason, or that they should have been left alone? Who would be caring for these people if the religious didn't feel compelled to help them? Who would have freed the American slaves if New England Puritans weren't raising hell in Congress over something they thought was wrong thousands of miles away in unrelated states?

You probably have a handful of examples of bad things done by religious institutions or under the supervision of the religious, and choose to ignore the way it's organized civilization in an unmatched way, dragging what would otherwise have been 100,000,000 clans of chaotic retarded monkeys kicking and screaming into literacy, philosophy, scholarship, architecture, beauty and art.
Even in the Mother Teresa example, some people missing out on palliative care is worth the other thousands who died in dignity being cared for in a convent rather than in some hyperinferior slum.

IDK bro, just look at the scoreboard. It should be obvious. That's all I've got left to say.

[Anonymous No.17124214]

>>17121826
Nigga did you not read learn about the French Revolution and communist revolutions as the obvious counter examples to your 12 year old naive tirade?

[Anonymous No.17124223]

>>17120111
>Atheism claims that a random process is responsible for generating the fine-tuning we perceive in the world.
No it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.17124271]

>>17124196
oh you mean like presently denying abortions across the board which has a very direct effect on quality of life?

1 incident is bad enough, and systematically covering it up/denying it is a nice slice of shit bread on top of the shit sandwich.

the chainsaw had jack shit to do with preserving the patients life, it had everything to do with "preventing" a neccesary abortion that would force an adverse condition on the patient while sidestepping/ignoring this whole thing called "consent"

and in the meanwhile, doctor "neglects" to mention that the procedure was done to begin with.

you're coming to the wrong board to do pr nonsense for the catholic church.

[Anonymous No.17124288]

>>17120111
Isn't this just the Boltzmann brain argument?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

[Anonymous No.17124289]

>>17124271
>oh you mean like presently denying abortions across the board which has a very direct effect on quality of life?
This is good, right?...

[Anonymous No.17124306]

>>17123040
You're probably not going to see this but whatever. All the things you describe are not solely the result of Technology, technology is just used as a mean. Also I never said abandoning religion would abandon all evil, just net reduce evil. And I'm not discounting the possibility of religion from this argument, I'm assuming an atheist stance from the outset. And people can behave with morality, most people in the West aren't religious.

[Anonymous No.17124312]

>>17120111
You haven't disproven anything, your argument sputtered into an opology for greater ontic economy

[Anonymous No.17124329]

>>17124289
its great if you want to ensure a higher instance of poverty/increase the number of single mother households.

[Anonymous No.17124333]

But atheism is already refuted, some anons just burry their heads in the sand

[Anonymous No.17124342]

>>17124214
Both were caused by Ideologies, which I don't consider any different from Religion.

[Anonymous No.17124347]

>>17120111
>Atheism claims
Stopped reading there. 'Atheism' does not and cannot claim anything.

[Anonymous No.17124355]

>>17124329
Oh so you don't mind murder and let it be, instead of properly educating those people, ah yes superior atheist ethics

[Anonymous No.17124364]

>>17124347
it claims a negative, which is notoriously hard to prove

however, another group claims a positive, which is substantially easier to prove, and has yet to prove.

[Anonymous No.17124369]

>>17124342
Wow and atheists actually say Christian mental gymnastics can't be surpassed. Dude the revolutionaries persecuted religious people, clergy etc, and forced the abandon of faith

[Anonymous No.17124374]

>>17124355
catholocism can't exactly claim the high moral ground.

if anything, supposing that catholocism does account for 1/4th of all medical care, it exposes how easily a vulnerable people are exploited

[Anonymous No.17124480]

>>17124194
An event isn't physical matter. Also, if your objection to my example is that points can be arbitrarily close in [0,1], we can construct another example. Consider the natural numbers N, the nconsider the set of even natural numbers. It is a proper subset of N that is infinite.

In fact, when defining infinite sets, we can actually say "an infinite set is a set for which there exists a proper subset in bijection with the initial set", so every infinite set has an example such as this.

[Anonymous No.17124545]

>>17124480
Well isn't there a distinction between actual and potential infinities? And countable infinite sets?