/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19425042]

Atheistsisters…I can’t refute this. I submit and accept Necessity. We’ve been eternally btfo.

[Anonymous No.19425063]

>>19425042
bait thread

[Anonymous No.19425072]

even if if you were to accept it, it doesn't makes christianity or any other religion true. they have to co-opt Plato or whoever because their own dogma is so indefensibly stupid.

[Anonymous No.19425086]

>>19425042
->assuming consciousness is not a posthoc is epiphenomenon

Nice1 punchy

[Anonymous No.19425089]

>>19425072
Do you accept "objective truth"?

[Anonymous No.19425090]

Whoa...so this is the power of angloid mind...

[Anonymous No.19425092]

The first part is spot on. You cannot trust your own thinking. Both atheism and religion could be correct or not correct. Agnosticism is the only reasonable conclusion and even that might seem stupid to a being that can think better than humans.

[Anonymous No.19425102]

>>19425092
No it says if your thoughts are random then by definition, unless your evergoal is randomness, then you can't meaningfully trust your judgement. In this you need God. It could use some more justifications but the thrust is fine for a caveat defense

[Anonymous No.19425107]

>>19425089
idk what is it?

[Anonymous No.19425119]

>OI SO IF EVALUSHEN IS TRUE ROIGHT DEN HOU CAM MONKEYS STILL HEA MENTAL INNIT
Do christcucks really fail to understand that evolution is essentially just a giant trial&error process? You can 'trust' your mind to make judgements about reality because all the minds that couldn't failed to secure food and progeny. Sure, human brain is faulty and incapable of seeing large chunks of objective reality, not even capable of conceptualizing it, but what we do see we can trust as a decent approximation. Throwing up hands and believing in semitic demons doesn't seem like a better replacement.

[Anonymous No.19425128]

>>19425102
>No it says if your thoughts are random then by definition, unless your evergoal is randomness, then you can't meaningfully trust your judgement. In this you need God. It could use some more justifications but the thrust is fine for a caveat defense
You're already trusting your judgment to make this argument.
Atheists and theists BTFO.

[Anonymous No.19425130]

>>19425107
If you accept there exists truth outside your personal narrative and that your personal narrative can't change/influence that external truth (therefore is more fundamental) then perceiving religion, or any subject, as a separate personal narratives is probably contradictory to how you hold other fields up.

[Anonymous No.19425134]

Honestly I don't get this argument unless it leads to solipsism
Also I don't think our brains were just accidents, they developed over a long period of evolution, we can make predictions about the world and our theories can be validated by them
Personally I'm not an atheistsister though, I'm a theist sister :)

[Anonymous No.19425135]

Christcucks have truly made retardation into an artform, haven't they?

[Anonymous No.19425136]

Atheists will cope out of this by claiming that faith in "logic" is reasonable while faith in God is unreasonable, even though they both necessarily require a leap of faith

[Anonymous No.19425138]

>>19425128
Wouldn't this be a sort of opposite of ignosticism (where one must provide proof God doesn't exist to assume not)?

Lewis isn't justifying his statement by his judgement, that wpuld be circular. In secular terms he assumes objective truth and uses logic to assert judgement is not meaningfully random.

[Anonymous No.19425139]

>>19425136
No, it's just that medicine works while prayer doesn't

[Anonymous No.19425144]

>>19425090
5pbp

[Anonymous No.19425150]

>>19425102
>>19425119
Both of these arguments are strong and easily dismissive tards ITT are the worst.

[Anonymous No.19425151]

Your thinking isn't in your brain, it's in words the meanings of which are constructed by social interaction in community
>see Wittgenstein, no private language
take math. the reason 2 + 2 = 4 has to do with the meaning of 2, =, +, and 4. no reference to brains. a very simple computer could solve such equations all day. because making true or false statements doesn't depend on a brain

[Anonymous No.19425160]

>>19425151
Bad argument

[Anonymous No.19425161]

>>19425042
Elizabeth Anscombe (a Roman Catholic) already demolished CS Lewis' shitty "argument" and forced CS Lewis to concede that he had utterly failed to prove naturalism was inconsistent with reason.

It's very amusing to read him seething about this later:
>The lady is quite right to refute what she thinks bad theistic arguments, but does this not almost oblige her as a Christian to find good ones in their place: having obliterated me as an Apologist ought she not to succeed me?
-The Collected Letters of CS Lewis, p. 35

[Anonymous No.19425164]

Why do Angloids want to diminish the importance of faith so much?

[Anonymous No.19425165]

>>19425151
So no one thinks or develops independent research?

[Anonymous No.19425167]

>>19425161
>christcucks are resentful little seethelords

A surprise to almost no one

[Anonymous No.19425170]

>>19425160
>>19425160
>no response
>>19425165
new things get captured by sign-systems

[Anonymous No.19425173]

>>19425130
i think China exists regardless of my feelings on the subject. idk how this makes religious dogma any less nonsensical tho. i don't think you can lawgic trap ppl into belief.

[Anonymous No.19425179]

>>19425161
should I buy her husband's book on McTaggart?

it's probably pretty rare. I was surprised to see it at my local used store. I should buy it. I should not have bought dudeweed instead

[Anonymous No.19425185]

>>19425161
It's a fine argument. It's a mini ontological argument w a decent verification standard. He can be supposing a genetic fallacy where randomness in matter doesn't imply randomness in judgement or even show how it is impossible to feel justified judgement in randomness but it's not a bad argument. What did she say exactly?

[Anonymous No.19425195]

>>19425185
She called him an incel

[Anonymous No.19425198]

>>19425173
I think the last sentence is a separate subject. The analogy here is saying "if everyone's experience in China was different then how can there be China?". It'd be proper to treat religions in the same manner where dogma drops from God as a verification.

As for the last sentence I've never supposed so but you must be proper about what you think/believe. Most ppl are morons who don't know what they mean, I feel everyone believes that.

[Anonymous No.19425199]

>>19425042
We can trust our thinking for phenomenonal matters because this shit works, this is why we take stairs rather than jumping out of the fucking window. Metaphysical claims doesn't work and everyone could fill in the blank with their preferred bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19425200]

>>19425167

Yeah speak for yourself, Atheist.

[Anonymous No.19425203]

>>19425195
This was such a good conclusion to your shitpost. They say europeans have lost their game since they gave up their aristocracy and stuck their nose up America's ass

[Anonymous No.19425206]

>>19425199
>it works

You mean it works until it doesn't right?

[Anonymous No.19425210]

>As a young philosophy don, Anscombe acquired a reputation as a formidable debater. In 1948, she presented a paper at a meeting of Oxford's Socratic Club in which she disputed C. S. Lewis's argument that naturalism was self-refuting (found in the third chapter of the original publication of his book Miracles). Some associates of Lewis, primarily George Sayer and Derek Brewer, have remarked that Lewis lost the subsequent debate on her paper and that this loss was so humiliating that he abandoned theological argument and turned entirely to devotional writing and children's literature
Lol
>>19425161
Having googled her I feel like it's important to mention that she was a philosopher and a student of wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.19425213]

>>19425042
Pedosisters...please refute this...I don't want to go to hell...

[Anonymous No.19425215]

>>19425206
I have been using stairs all my life, that shit works. The other day I jumped from a little wall and I fell on my ass, that shit hurts.

[Anonymous No.19425217]

>>19425215
Literally circumstantial evidence, doesn't prove shit

[Anonymous No.19425220]

>>19425217
Feel free to jump from a window rather than taking stairs

[Anonymous No.19425228]

Cs lewis was a snarky dork and not a real christian

[Anonymous No.19425237]

>>19425210
How can we be sure there's not feminist revisionism at play in the wikpedia article

[Anonymous No.19425241]

>>19425220
Feel free to be on acid, in a dream/matrix and use such low-quality evidence as yours to do something like that

[Anonymous No.19425245]

>>19425241
Jump from a window faggot

[Anonymous No.19425248]

>>19425185
>Anscombe argued that Lewis has not shown that materialism is self-contradictory and that it impugns the validity of rational inference. She begins by rejecting his "rule" that "no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes." This rule implies that any cause that is not rational is irrational. But that does not follow. There is a distinction between irrational and nonrational causes. Irrational causes are psychological states that interfere with a person's ability to think rationally—for example, passions, self-interest, wanting to see only one side of an issue, prejudicial adherence to the tenets of a particular party or school of thought, and so forth. Nonrational causes, on the other hand, are not psychological states, but physical conditions—for example, arthritis, a tumor on the brain, jaundice, tuberculosis, and so forth. These conditions can interfere with a person's ability to think and act rationally, but they need not. Because of his mistaken equation of irrational with nonrational causes, Lewis was "led to imagine" that if all human behavior, including thought, could be fully explained in terms of causal laws, rational inference would no longer be valid. Anscombe thinks that this is true in the case of irrational causes, but not in the case of nonrational ones.
>To show this, she examines his contention that naturalism destroys the distinction between valid and invalid reasoning. She begins by observing that sometimes he talks about the validity of a piece of reasoning and sometimes about the validity of reasoning itself. She wonders what he means by the latter. What she is driving at is this: If you were asked to explain the concept of validity, the "most obvious" way would be to produce examples of valid and invalid reasoning and explain that (and why) the conclusion follows from the premises in the valid arguments and that (and why) it does not follow in the invalid ones. These examples would serve as paradigms of valid and invalid arguments. But while it is meaningful to ask whether a piece of reasoning is valid, it is meaningless to ask that about reasoning itself. The concepts of validity and invalidity are parasitic on paradigmatic examples of valid and invalid arguments. Since that is so, it is unintelligible for Lewis to argue that if naturalism is true, all arguments would be invalid, since the assertion "All arguments would be invalid" presupposes the existence of the very concept of validity that it denies. According to Anscombe, a naturalist who believes that all human behavior, including thought, can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes, can still distinguish valid arguments from invalid ones in the same way: by determining whether or not their conclusions follow from their premises. How, she wonders, does naturalism undermine that, much less destroy the distinction between validity and invalidity? ...

[Anonymous No.19425250]

>>19425185
>>19425248
>... Were Lewis to acknowledge that valid arguments would still be what we call valid, but go on to ask how we could know that they are really valid? Anscombe replies:
'What can you mean by "valid" beyond what would be indicated by the explanation you would give for distinguishing between valid and invalid, and what in the naturalistic hypothesis prevents that explanation from being given and from meaning what it does?'
>In response to his specific contention that, if naturalism were true, "there would be no difference between the finest piece of scientific reasoning and the thoughts a man has because a bit of bone is pressing on his brain," she grants that there is a sense in which that is true. A naturalist would explain each in the same way by providing a descriptive account of the physiological processes taking place in each brain. But the terms "valid," "true," and "false would not occur in either account. So his claim that the scientist's reasoning would be just as irrational as the thoughts of the man with "a bit of bone" pressing on his brain does not follow.
...
>At this point, Anscombe anticipates another possible rebuttal by Lewis: This kind of explanation, he might argue, would show that what the person said was not caused by reason at all, but by nonrational processes. Although the person offered arguments in support of what he said, since everything we say can be fully explained by nonrational causes, his arguments would also have been derived from a chain of nonrational causes. Hence it would be an illusion to think that they had been rationally derived from his premises. Anscombe thinks this objection is traceable to a failure to distinguish between causes and reasons. The claim that a particular conclusion follows from a set of premises is in no way contradicted by the further claim that the assertion of that conclusion is a physical event that, like every other physical event, has a physical cause. In short, Lewis's attempted rebuttal misconstrues the ground of a conclusion as "a kind of cause." That is why he thinks the two claims are incompatible. However, we are not searching for a cause, but for a ground, that is, a logical ground in the sense of a reason. And if we distinguish the ground of a conclusion from the cause of the assertion of that conclusion, the alleged incompatibility disappears.
From 'CS Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion'

[Anonymous No.19425262]

>>19425245
Well window expert, we'll call you if we find ourselves a window problem in any extreme crisis.

[Anonymous No.19425277]

>>19425198
the internet exists (or maybe like china it's just subjective brah), but you can't explain it to a dog. maybe there is or isn't a creator idk, do you? perhaps there is but we're the dog who'll never get it. either conclusion on the creator question doesn't further much the core beliefs of an particular religion (jesus walking on water, muhammad flying about on a little horse). you could say, there's a creator therefore this creator can create supernatural miracles... but you'd also have to say "only the miracles of my faith, the other ones are fake and gay", ultimately you can't btfo da atheists thru facts and logic beyond the first step (creator or not?), religion is faith based, but nowadays i see no reason for someone not raised religiously to develop faith in a particular religion, i think this is why many go for the perennialist or utilitarian route, and the one's who pick a team rarely stay loyal for long.

[Anonymous No.19425279]

>>19425248
Oh that first greentext. This is pure legalism here. You're not going to find epistemology to be indicative of ontological causes. I wonder if that last line
>Lewis was "led to imagine" that if all human behavior, including thought, could be fully explained in terms of causal laws, rational inference would no longer be valid. Anscombe thinks that this is true in the case of irrational causes, but not in the case of nonrational ones.

Meant he was going for a free will argument.

To me this is one of those things you gain more by coming together on what you do believe than on what you don't. Not sure why she tried to sow her oats w lewis here on this subject so can't judge her

[Anonymous No.19425282]

>>19425262
Do a flip

[Anonymous No.19425287]

>>19425282
This is your projection my friend or you trying to be sassy. The point is on value in justified judgements. It would lead you to walk across a highway because you don't see traffic. It's just knobbish

[Anonymous No.19425300]

>>19425042
This guy can't even understand evolution. Complexity can arise without intelligent design. Always fun to watch the gaps theists have shoved God into be eliminated, thus always relegating God to smaller and smaller areas, until ultimately he will be entirely unnecessary for anything other than to soother human death anxiety.

[Anonymous No.19425306]

>>19425102
Why do you assume there is either God or randomness? There are manifest systems which move simplicity towards complexity which could exist without a God or intelligence of any kind behind them.

[Anonymous No.19425308]

>>19425287
Do two flips

[Anonymous No.19425315]

>>19425136
Amazing how the only area left to theists is presupposition. Logical formulation produces reliable results in reality, faith in God produces nothing other than delusion.

[Anonymous No.19425324]

>>19425306
Oo I didn't suggest that randomness existed and it seems that Lewis didn't either.

I think you're reinterpreting God as some ultraepistemological being which is goofy. You need all valences to be true to have a tautology and considering truth comes from God in christian theology then you definitionally need God (but from a secular viewpoint you need the cause of truth).

[Anonymous No.19425327]

>>19425308
I'll do 2 if you do 3. Hmph

[Anonymous No.19425329]

>>19425042
>I am. Self. Aware
Prove it

[Anonymous No.19425332]

>>19425327
No bro I trust common sense

[Anonymous No.19425333]

>>19425324
Lewis is comparing the formation of the human brain with a splash of milk on the floor becoming the map of London. He is clearly equating the existence of human minds within a Godless hypothesis as random. This is flawed from the start since there can be functional systems which move towards complexity in the absence of a intelligent designer.

[Anonymous No.19425338]

>>19425329
Define the level at which you would accept proof.

[Anonymous No.19425346]

>>19425332
Common sense can get you killed.

>>19425333
He's using it because he assumes it's suggested but he's criticizing it as a means to explain anything even the map of london.

[Anonymous No.19425348]

>>19425346
So you just admit it's a strawman wherein he is arguing against randomness as a position which is not the one held by naturalists?

[Anonymous No.19425357]

>>19425346
>Common sense can get you killed.
Probably but I am sure jumping from window rather than taking stairs is fatal or wrist you survive with horrible injuries

[Anonymous No.19425358]

>>19425348
Are you trying to debate me or Lewis? He's dead and I have my own ontological argument.

No Lewis assumes a randomness maybe creatio ex nihilo object relation for naturalism, tries to show a proof by contradiction given an example. The contradiction is that randomness both accounts for reason and it doesn't. The accounting for reason is just an assertion so he tries to show it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.19425360]

>>19425357
Okay well we're talking about deeper things like math, logic, God not the possible life-ending events you brainstorm over before you go to sleep.

[Anonymous No.19425370]

>>19425358
The accounting for reason is that it is the product of a system which is molded and shaped by fidelity to reality, and if an individual's reason or apprehension were unreliable, that individual would fail to survive or propagate, while those whose faculties were more reliable would survive and propagate. This is why Lewis is flat wrong in the OP quotes.

[Anonymous No.19425379]

>>19425370
That's not an argument against that. That's a separate hypothesis. Yes it could be possible that evolution allows but that's a whole other ballpark which requires a few justifications itself not least of which is nonrational developments brought up by Anscombe.

No there's not too much wrong in his argument although it requires a few more justifications. If naturalism needs the ontological object randomness then lewis' argument hits. If it doesn't then it doesn't

[Anonymous No.19425384]

>>19425370
>>19425379
Actually I reread that and you were supposed to argue how reason could be accounted for by randomness or at least arational means (whatever that may be).

[Anonymous No.19425388]

>>19425379
His whole argument rests on the unreliability of the human mind in the absence of God. He is stating directly that without God, the arrangement of the atoms in his skull which produce his thoughts can't be relied on. He utterly fails to substantiate this position in light of the way in which these atoms came to be in the arrangement which produces those thoughts, a process he is content to label "random" and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.19425399]

>>19425388
No you're jumping the gun. You can simply use truth in place of God. He's saying to get a judgement you need truth not randomness. He also isn't calling evolution itself randomness in fact he hasn't commented. He's saying a randomly-generated judgement is definitionally not a "true" or "determined" judgement which is necessarily required of judgement.

[Anonymous No.19425407]

>>19425042
Isn't this just an argument for skepticism? At most we can make reasoned judgements but we can't objectively tell if our thinking is sound. Making it an argument for God seems to be wishful thinking, i.e. "If we can't trust our thinking, that's worrying, so let's assume it's trustworthy and made by God"

[Anonymous No.19425410]

>>19425300
>This guy can't even understand evolution.
He probably can but he won't because him being a theist is a coping mechanism as he doesn't have willpower to face the worldy challenges.

[Anonymous No.19425411]

>>19425407
The example is supposed to be a vehicle for the illustration of a needed objective truth instead of a "random truth" which Lewis seems to assume naturalism postulates.

[Anonymous No.19425417]

>>19425399
I think it is you who are reading too much into his quotation. It's pretty straightforward and does not require a delve into the presuppositions around truth and where it's existence is located. He allows the theoretical scenario wherein God doesn't exist and his brain and thoughts are atoms in arbitrary positions. That is literally his own words which you seem to be dodging or misrepresenting for some reason. I'm saying that he fails to even understand the opposing view which he believes leads people to Atheism.

[Anonymous No.19425419]

>>19425161
>The lady is quite right to refute what she thinks bad theistic arguments, but does this not almost oblige her as a Christian to find good ones in their place: having obliterated me as an Apologist ought she not to succeed me?
Lewis really shows his true colors here, for him religion and therefore apologetics comes before all else.

[Anonymous No.19425424]

>>19425417
He's not saying that. Very simple, you need reason to make a judgement about anything even whether to accept atheism.
Supposing randomness doesn't allow you to categorize your judgements as through reason but through randomness.
The implied point is judgements require reason.
The syllogism is therefore you can't use randomness but need reason. Keep in mind reason is defined as from truth which is from God.
It's a bit of a miniontological argument. It's okay given a naturalist does a bad job defining naturalism but it's a clever thought. Still not sure what her point was.

[Anonymous No.19425429]

>>19425419
Yeah it's actually a pretty proper position maybe it was anti anglicanism or something and she felt insulated from the cultural wars in the anglo countries at the time.

[Anonymous No.19425430]

>>19425424
Elizabeth Anscombe wasn't a naturalist. she was a Catholic

[Anonymous No.19425435]

>>19425430
Damn bro I've been here this entire thread too what's your point?

[Anonymous No.19425436]

>>19425424
You might as well cut the whole argument out of the way if your premise is that "truth comes from God", especially when you're considering what conclusion to come to in regard to the existence of God or Gods. It's utterly circular, you're already beginning with your conclusion in mind. My point is that the whole thing is wrong in the first place, it's entirely possible to have reliable reason and truth without a God being present.

[Anonymous No.19425442]

>>19425436
You're not criticizing his point though.
It's not a circular argument.
A needs B
C doesn't have B
A does not need C
A judgement
B reason
C randomness

[Anonymous No.19425450]

>>19425442
This is why I criticized his contention that the human brain arose through randomness without God and thus cannot be relied upon without God. This is simply a false scenario.
A needs B
B does not need G
A = Judgment
B = Reason
G = God
Yet Lewis acts as if B needs G. This is simply wrong.

[Anonymous No.19425462]

>>19425450
I think he may have been criticizing a randomness take on how his brain formed as well if I'm understanding you properly. He doesn't seem to be saying evolution happened and then supposing God should be there for reason to start working. That would be a bit goofy and would undermine the cleverness of his point.

The cleverness of his point is simply in showing how it cannot be randomness which is a trait of making reasoned judgements. How reason or randomness is defined he should have a couple other strokes of genius to try to prove but his main thrust isn't terrible. Anscombe reminds me of a redditor who focuses on trivial points. In something very formal sure but that's really not what she should be judging.

[Anonymous No.19425469]

>>19425462
>I think he may have been criticizing a randomness take on how his brain formed
In which case he would be criticising a strawman, and not naturalism.

[Anonymous No.19425473]

>>19425469
Naturalism isn't one view and I think you're starting to look greedy for a position against him. It looks overly ambitious along w every negative characteristic associated w that behavior here.

[Anonymous No.19425476]

>>19425473
???? You are missing the point of CS Lewis argument. He is saying that naturalism!!!!! is self-refuting. This is the thrust of his argument. He wants to demolish all attempts to hold a nontheistic belief

[Anonymous No.19425478]

>>19425042
it is because i dont trust my thinking that i dont believe in god, since theism sounds exactly like something my thinking would make up with its biases, projection, anthropomorphization, simplification and convenient cope, societal and personal utility...

[Anonymous No.19425479]

>>19425360
It's an application of le deeper things which you're trying to cocoon from life.

[Anonymous No.19425484]

>>19425462
There's nothing clever about identifying the brain's ability to generate random thoughts in the moment and latching onto that as significant while completely ignoring the external filtering process (pressure and time).

[Anonymous No.19425485]

>>19425476
You can define naturalism as anything. The point he was making was showing a contradiction in a particular form of naturalism from 70 years ago when social darwinism was recently faux pas.
In the sense of any framework which uses randomness then this works. The point of this argument is purely against randomness. If the argument goes farther against naturalism then you can pick those apart but however it's named this clearly deals w randomness and, given some justifications to definitions, it succeeds but those justifications aren't here so you can't criticize them. If they're in other arguments sure but this isn't a bad argument.

[Anonymous No.19425489]

>>19425479
You said common sense

[Anonymous No.19425491]

>>19425042
I think the more adept comparison would be "splashing the milk on your floor 10^12 times until you have the map of London" cause that's how evolution basically works, except there is no person "locking in" the result that says "yep that's what I like" it' more of a thing where the close you are to the map of London the more you survive and reproduce.

[Anonymous No.19425494]

>>19425485
>The point he was making was showing a contradiction in a particular form of naturalism from 70 years ago when social darwinism was recently faux pas.
WTF. You are making this up.

[Anonymous No.19425500]

>>19425491
No that's ridiculous you developed an epistemological construction for an ontological process.

[Anonymous No.19425502]

>>19425489
Yes trusting your senses is common through you take the stairs and not jump out of the window

[Anonymous No.19425506]

>>19425500
Translated in common english?

[Anonymous No.19425508]

>>19425494
There are forms of naturalism and social darwinism ended there. He clearly had a particular conception of naturalism in his head that he was refuting. You are trying too hard to attack points which are almost entirely immaterial to the point.
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_naturalism.html

[Anonymous No.19425513]

>>19425502
That's not deep

>>19425506
Take a philosophy class and learn the difference between epistemology and ontology.

[Anonymous No.19425514]

>>19425513
>That's not deep
But it works

[Anonymous No.19425519]

>>19425514
Then that contradicts your point here >>19425479

[Anonymous No.19425521]

>>19425519
How

[Anonymous No.19425524]

>>19425521
If common sense isn't deep then not jumping out of a window is hardly common sense.

[Anonymous No.19425527]

>>19425524

[Anonymous No.19425528]

>>19425151
While this doesn't address the question of God or Creation, it does nonetheless show that thinking is not just random, and that symbolic logic, relationships, and certain forms of arbitrary definitions are formal objects that we can absolutely trust to be true, regardless of any other considerations. 'A triangle has three sides' or 'there are 12 inches in a foot' are examples of such: they are true by necessity, either because the nature of their construction makes it impossible for it to be otherwise, as in the triangle, or because it is a matter of initially arbitrary but subsequently formalized definition, in the case of feet and inches.

[Anonymous No.19425533]

>>19425527
Then why did you reply that? Y'all aren't capable of handling these types of conversations and it's more proper for y'all to develop better ethics first. I've already explained it ontologically. I think an ethical approach is better.

[Anonymous No.19425537]

Y'all don't argue the ethical position enough on this board. Y'all don't really even argue the ontological positions more sub ontological and epistemological positions.

[Anonymous No.19425541]

>>19425092
Not really, you've just decided that another one of your thoughts (the one concerning agnosticism) is true and reasonable, when instead C.S. Lewis argument pertains ALL THOUGHTS, including agnostic thoughts.

[Anonymous No.19425543]

>>19425541
The point is that it's a particular naturalism that he seems to have simply asserted. It is inappropriate to criticize anything besides that main point.

[Anonymous No.19425547]

>I think therefore Sky Daddy

[Anonymous No.19425553]

>>19425537
If you assert the ought is derived from the is then the ethical position is advanced by the ontological description being more accurate.

[Anonymous No.19425601]

>>19425543
I'm not sure why you think that C.S. Lewis is referring to an outdated version of naturalism. It seems to me that one can make the same objection to physicalist naturalists like Dennett and Papineau (and, more in general, like 99% of currently living physicalist philosophers).

[Anonymous No.19425603]

That's a pretty sensible statement. I can never use thought to disbelieve in god, and I also can't use thought to believe in him... That's why it's called faith.

And while you can't fundamentally trust in your tought in the sense that you cannot know if it has some underlying transcendental basis (divine or otherwise), there are plenty of practical reasons to.

[Anonymous No.19425619]

>>19425601
I think the important distinction here isn't outdatedness it's using randomness as an object relational framework. I highly doubt many frameworks use randomness anymore as I'm sure consequentialism is the best way they relate or justify objects. Whatever Lewis imagines naturalism for all time can be, we can take him on his word of what he imagines it could be and check if that's coherent. It is coherent given some more justifications. I wouldn't use it because disproving randomness should be a simple exercise and I'm going to figure the most essential argument it can make.

[Anonymous No.19425625]

>>19425601
>>19425619
There are ppl which do argue randomness still or I've heard of them at least. We would have to qualify Lewis' argument as being against randomness, which can apply outside naturalism (even in theology), but in no sense does this mean his argument fails. It's using a miniontological argument to combat randomness. Very short, very nice.

[Anonymous No.19425628]

>>19425248
>She begins by rejecting his "rule" that "no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes.
Did he state this rule somewhere? It can not be inferred from the OP.

[Anonymous No.19425629]

>>19425619
>>19425625
Granted there are some other qualifications which would be necessary but it's not a bad argument.

[Anonymous No.19425640]

>>19425619
What do you mean by "randomness"? I'm not following you, sorry.

[Anonymous No.19425642]

>>19425640
The milk > map example and it seems implied from the "arrangements of atoms, chemicals of brain".

[Anonymous No.19425658]

>>19425640
>>19425642
Assume randomness, R, is an inference rule of some unknown logic language with unknown truth valence positions. Can we say brain R anything if the relationship must be reasonable judgement properly map something? Well we would have to properly define randomness but using the colloquial definition it's incapable.

[Anonymous No.19425673]

>>19425042
In a christian world, how can you trust your thoughts when they could've been influenced by satan?

[Anonymous No.19425680]

>>19425673
You'd have to assert Satan has more control than God to create beauty and truth in the stable way they are which would lead to God anyways.

[Anonymous No.19425690]

>>19425680
Can you write a coherent post?

[Anonymous No.19425702]

>>19425508
The modern form of naturalism is even worse than the one in C.S Lewis' day. Reminder that intellectuals in his time actually knew Greek and were familiar with Aristotle. There isn't a single atheist in the past 50 years who even approaches Nietzsche. The atheist intellectual tradition has been dead and buried for ever a century.

[Anonymous No.19425709]

incredibly retarded holy shit

[Anonymous No.19425714]

>>19425690
No I get irregular sleep.

>>19425702
It's just the randomness as a relationship variable which okay. Even if, and it is easily, shown that naturalism doesn't necessitate randomness as an inference rule then the argument still works where people use that.

[Anonymous No.19425731]

>>19425673

[Anonymous No.19425739]

>>19425642
Basically every physicalist philosopher and physicist I've read (apart from a few strong emergentists, like McLaughlin) accept the "arrangement of atoms" narrative. Just to mention five very prominent names: Dennett, Papineau, Frankish, the Churchlands, Ladyman. It's also the default position among science popularizers and enthusiasts.
What thinkers are you thinking about when you say that contemporary naturalist phylosophers do not subscribe to such a narrative?

[Anonymous No.19425742]

>>19425042

false dichotomy. If Atheism is wrong than adult Santa must be right

[Anonymous No.19425743]

What a poor fool who cannot understand simple logic. How could you trust that mere thought that tells you to not trust your thinking. You either choose to trust it or you don't. God's existence or absence is unprovable by nature.

[Anonymous No.19425746]

>>19425090
Kek

[Anonymous No.19425751]

>>19425673
I think this would have been a problem in Abraham's times (how did he know that it wasn't Satan the one who convinced him of sacrificing Isaac?). Since the times of Moses and Jesus, Jews and Christians have had very defined Commandments, and the certainity that following them will necessarily lead to salvation. If Satan tricks you into following the Commandments, too bad for him: he has just convinced you to do God's work

[Anonymous No.19425762]

Imagine thinking that intelligence arises out of an unintelligent universe
couldn't be me, lmfao

[Anonymous No.19425767]

>>19425751
>There's is no need to think for yourself when the bible exists. Just mindlessly follow the bible.
You're proving my point.

[Anonymous No.19425772]

>>19425739
I'm thinking less philosophers and more scientists where evolution is defined in some consequentualist way. Ig emergentism may cover it, I forgot the exact way it's worded.

Even if there are several who accept this sort of randomness the point would definitely apply to them.

Idk I've never debated someone who used randomness as an argument although "arrangement of atoms" doesn't necessarily imply randomness

[Anonymous No.19426068]

>>19425673
>Yes hello this is satan please keep studying the bible hehehe, GOTCHA

[Anonymous No.19426125]

>>19425533
>Y'all

[Anonymous No.19426156]

>>19425042
Atheism is just nihilism with extra steps, and since nihilism is maladaptive anyone who believes in it's opinion can be rejected due to their self-destructive nature

[Anonymous No.19426167]

>>19426156
atheism is just christcuckoldry with extra steps

[Anonymous No.19426169]

>>19426156
Why would a true belief necessarily confer benefits on its holder? besides, from the religious point of view, you should value truth over utility

[Anonymous No.19426179]

>>19426167
i don't recall asking for an 80 IQ (You)

[Anonymous No.19426190]

>>19426156
Religion is just nihilism with extra steps, and since nihilism is antihuman anyone who believes in it's opinion can be rejected due to their antiworld nature

[Anonymous No.19426194]

>>19425042
All of the arguments this guy makes for God are laughable.

[Anonymous No.19426197]

>>19426156
Christianity is the real nihilism. The universe is just a glorified airport terminal for heaven.

[Anonymous No.19426212]

I do accept this and God is very important to me, but the idea that the jews were ever God’s chosen people is so logically reprehensible that the doctrine of Christianity must be false.

[Anonymous No.19426281]

>>19425134
Following the physical evolutionary thesis the brain will only evolve to produce maximum genetic success. There is no reason to trust any of your thoughts except those that make you breed.

[Anonymous No.19426290]

>>19425042
Argument from ignorance. Opinion discarded.
>God must be real because I'm ignorant of how thought might arise without that assumption!

[Anonymous No.19426300]

Schopenhauer gives a quite detailed and satisfying explanation of how rational thought might arise in a godless universe.

[Anonymous No.19426630]

>>19426156
>since nihilism is maladaptive anyone who believes in it's opinion can be rejected due to their self-destructive nature
If the standard is adaptation then surely Christianity is more maladaptive? Priests, your intellectual class, are celibate and don't have children. The religion glorifies weakness and illness which leads to a more dysgenic population. These are both socially maladaptive and destructive ideas that makes a people weaker.

[Anonymous No.19426642]

>>19425119
>all the minds that couldn't failed to secure food and progeny
buddy...

[Anonymous No.19426671]

>>19426197
you thinking that the end goal is heaven shows your lack of understanding of the christian faith. why do you insist on having opinions on things you know nothing about?

[Anonymous No.19426717]

>>19426671
That's what the religion is about, regardless of what I think about it. Seethe.

[Anonymous No.19426874]

>>19426717
>Revelation 21: And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
We're not meant to live in Heaven, but to inherit the new Earth, and live as God intended.

[Anonymous No.19426881]

>>19425042
>its another reddit atheists refuse to be le epic cool nihilists 4chan atheists

[Anonymous No.19426896]

What's the point of believing in atheism? Every religion seems to offer some kind of point, but with atheism, is it just an obsession with "proving" things?

[Anonymous No.19426914]

>>19425315
>Logical formulation produces reliable results in reality
You are assuming this and begging the question

[Anonymous No.19426949]

>>19426896
the neat thing about atheism is that it allows you to believe whats actually true, not just what feels good. religion forces you to deny reality with the promise of nice feels after youre gone (ie, its painfully stupid if you think about it for more than 5 seconds)

[Anonymous No.19426960]

>>19426896
we have to cull the ideas of man until they cull us

[Anonymous No.19426962]

>>19426949
This is Sam Harris tier drivel. You can't even justify any claim to what truth is in your worldview. No one in this thread has refuted the CS Lewis quote. You are all just making snide and snarky remarks without posting anything of substance.

[Anonymous No.19426976]

>>19426874
>schizo espouses his own personal headcanon.

[Anonymous No.19427003]

>>19426976
Ok. So you haven't read the Bible.

[Anonymous No.19427011]

>>19426976
isnt the reincarnation of the world like the official catholic doctrine or some shit

[Anonymous No.19427015]

Jay Dyer annihilates all atheist and new age arguments and explains why both Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are completely wrong.
Sometimes anons don't give him a chance because they think he's just another meme youtuber but he is right.
https://youtu.be/PjQh8ij4R4o

[Anonymous No.19427028]

>>19425042
But religion is a framework constructed by thought as well. It is not necessarily true either. What this paragraph does is it puts atheism and theism on the same level and chooses theism as a personal preference as to which unprovable system he wishes to believe in.

You cannot refute a man who says he knows nothing for certain because he is most likely correct. If he was incorrect about such a thing, we would call him God and he would be superior to all.

[Anonymous No.19427035]

>>19427028
>You cannot refute a man who says he knows nothing for certain
How does he know that he knows nothing for certain? Is he certain about that?

[Anonymous No.19427037]

>>19427035
AAAAAA

[Anonymous No.19427038]

>>19425042
The intelligence behind the universe could just as well be just some kind of logos.

[Anonymous No.19427043]

>>19427038
Yes. The Logos is Christ.

[Anonymous No.19427047]

>>19427035
No, he would not be certain of that. But he's probably right in reference to mass perception.

[Anonymous No.19427053]

>>19427047
Then he was wrong to make the claim that he knows nothing. This whole worldview is self-defeating. It all falls apart under scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.19427074]

>>19427015
I like Dyer’s critique of the predominant atheist worldviews of the current time, and I appreciate that he has made me question the presuppositions that most people take for granted. However, I think his transcendental argument for God is a bit ‘too good to be true’. In his debate with Dr Malpass he just name dropped for most of his time and tried to obfuscate the fact that the argument basically boils down to ‘my worldview is right because I don’t think you can justify knowledge without it’. This can allow him to believe in things like young Earth creationism and back it up by saying that a geologist just has faulty presuppositions. I haven’t watched him for a while now desu so I could be remembering some things wrong though. What are /lit’s thoughts on him?

[Anonymous No.19427195]

>>19427074
>What are /lit’s thoughts on him?
he is based and very well read

[Anonymous No.19427269]

>>19427053
I believe falling apart is the entire point of this worldview. You're not supposed to be right or wrong. The contradiction is what makes it believable.
If logic is flawed, the only correct solution is to believe something illogical in hopes that a sort of god can demolish the concept of knowledge and save you from eternal confusion.
That isn't an interesting way of thinking, but it's the only way that doesn't make sense in a way that it does make sense.

[Anonymous No.19427272]

>>19426212
>but the idea that the jews were ever God’s chosen people is so logically reprehensible that the doctrine of Christianity must be false.
Are you having trouble with it because you think being God's chosen people is a good thing? The truth is, God chose the jews not because they were good, but because they were the absolute worst. The jews are there to be an example of God's ability to give strength to even the lowest of us. Even then, every time the jews disobey God, they are punished severely. As long as they are acting out God's will (which they currently are not), then what's wrong with them?

[Anonymous No.19427402]

>>19427074
The whole community argues like atheists and are more concerned w negating things. They try to justify it as leading back towards God or something but I never get a formal reply.

The transcendental argument never completes the circle all the way back to it. As you said "it will rain tomorrow implies I will adopt a cat, it rained and I adopted a cat and I adopted a cat therefore it rained" doesn't meaningfully fulfill anything. You would in any sense still require some same justifications but he's now forced into a coherentist loop (which must go by a proof of God at least once?).

It's almost never a good conversation there. It's cultlike and they ban you for nothing and act like a bunch of children and have some milquetoast meme philosophers they erroneously cite (like Hume to hell).

[Anonymous No.19427434]

>>19427402
>he's now forced into a coherentist loop (which must go by a proof of God at least once?).
That is a point that Jay Dyer himself often makes clear. He says that in ANY worldview, whether you are Orthodox Christian or atheist or whatever, when you dig down to the very bottom of your paradigm, ultimately you arrive at circular reasoning. This is unavoidable. The difference is that in Jay's worldview, he acknowledges this and it is part of his argument. Atheists don't seem to understand that they rely on circular reasoning too, and they are inconsistent and incohetent.
This is part of his presuppositionalist argument. He shows how you need to have a coherent worldview. He is right.

[Anonymous No.19427442]

>>19425119
>You can 'trust' your mind to make judgements about reality because all the minds that couldn't failed to secure food and progeny.
This is beyond retarded

[Anonymous No.19427445]

>>19427402
>Hume
He sees Hume as a ‘consistent atheist’ I guess, cause he denies things like causality (?) or he thinks that he can’t justify them

[Anonymous No.19427454]

What does lit think of plantingas evolutionary argument against naturalism?
https://youtu.be/cs6zFymVKJM

[Anonymous No.19427456]

>>19427434
No that's confusing epistemology w ontology. In no sense is there a loop w God (and the loop is certainly not in equal revolution w human reason). God is, everything comes from him ordered downwards from his creation. We should structure our epistemology in the way everything ontologically is and we not only grow in God but we manage to have a better understanding of reality around us without positing some odd new epistemology which has no clear applications besides propaganda.

[Anonymous No.19427459]

>>19427015
jay dyer is one of the dumbest apologists out there
do not mistake confidence for intelligence

[Anonymous No.19427462]

>>19427459
Why do people always just insult him without refuting his arguments

[Anonymous No.19427463]

>>19426962
>You can't even justify any claim to what truth is in your worldview
imagine actually writing this or saying it out loud. embarassing

[Anonymous No.19427464]

>>19427445
It's honestly cringe. The concept of causation and induction did not start or end w Hume. He's meant to be an illustrative device for a point. He's easily been supplanted or at least for any christian w a decent creation narrative he has.

[Anonymous No.19427469]

>>19427462
yikes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp6s5-Az7HI

[Anonymous No.19427474]

>>19427463
More snide remarks without even trying to make an argument

[Anonymous No.19427475]

>>19427462
It's honestly you either get it or you don't and a lot of ppl don't. I don't think that's any reason to dogpile him but you're not getting pristine philosophical takes w him you're getting confidence. His community won't produce any interesting ppl.

[Anonymous No.19427476]

>>19427434
>the difference with jay is, he doesnt just point out fallacies...he makes them part of his argument!
should someone tell this guy?

[Anonymous No.19427481]

But then I believe in God and I can use thought to disbelieve in God once again. Check mate.

[Anonymous No.19427482]

>>19427474
you want arguments? lol...let's hear yours for this:
>You can't even justify any claim to what truth is in your worldview

[Anonymous No.19427484]

>>19427469
>Ask Yourself
That guy was a joke. I've seen his arguments before. He could not justify his stances in what is ethical or not ethical. He simply decided beforehand what he will define as ethical or not and he refused to give an account for it because he cannot.

[Anonymous No.19427488]

>>19427484
Gee I bet if he said your cultic "revelation" then you'd accept it no matter what. If only he'd just say it

[Anonymous No.19427491]

>>19427484
cool now respond to the argument instead of just attacking AY's character. he btfo'd jay in that video to the point where if i was jay id go into hiding

[Anonymous No.19427492]

>>19427476
You rely on circular reasoning as much as anyone else. Why don't you understand this?

[Anonymous No.19427494]

>>19427492
>You rely on circular reasoning as much as anyone else
got an argument for that claim?

[Anonymous No.19427516]

>>19427494
Well he just reasoned it so lol - how do you not get this!

[Anonymous No.19427517]

>>19427494
If you are a materialist you say that all that exists is the material even though you cannot account for logic to be able to know such a thing. If you say we should just rely on our empirical sense data you assume that this data is accurate. If you say that "logic" is just chemical reactions in the brain you cannot justify why it is "true" or what truth is. You just assume that to be the case.

[Anonymous No.19427521]

>>19427517
An assumption doesn't imply coherent structure, it generally implies a foundation.

[Anonymous No.19427522]

>>19427469
I like how he turned off the comments so that we can't see how much he got BTFO

[Anonymous No.19427526]

Natural selection is a non-random difference in reproductive output among replicating entities, often due indirectly to differences in survival in a particular environment, leading to an increase in the proportion of beneficial, heritable characteristics within a population from one generation to the next. That this process can be encapsulated within a single (admittedly lengthy) sentence should not diminish the appreciation of its profundity and power. It is one of the core mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the main process responsible for the complexity and adaptive intricacy of the living world. According to philosopher Daniel Dennett (1995), this qualifies evolution by natural selection as “the single best idea anyone has ever had.”

[Anonymous No.19427528]

>>19427521
Where is your foundation? Show it to me.

[Anonymous No.19427532]

>>19427528
You can use a contingency of creation. It increases in value to God in universality of being.

[Anonymous No.19427535]

>>19427517
when did i say anything about materialism? the thread is about atheism. atheism doesnt entail materialism

[Anonymous No.19427538]

>>19427526
>Daniel Dennett
He tried to create a model to show how physical determinism can be compatible with free will (which it cannot). His model merely showed how the brain, through physical determinism, responds to stimuli, and could not account for free will at all. For some reason these atheist propagandists want to shill physical determinism yet also pretend that they can have free will in this paradigm, which is a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.19427565]

>>19427528
>>19427532
Another orthodox saved.

Holidays/eucharist are pagan. Grow in God's light - not in secular institutions, holidays, material things etc.

[Anonymous No.19427567]

really makes you think

[Anonymous No.19427571]

>>19427567
No it doesn't except that some poor soul made this meme and doesn't have a social life

[Anonymous No.19427580]

>>19427538
The free will problem happens when you separate yourself from the matter that composes you, as if the two are distinct. Then you imagine that the "laws of physics" should be constraining you to act in a certain manner, and your own subjective experience can't find this automation anywhere. Well, you are a part of the universe, which has no platonic laws beside it, but only matter and its emergent properties.

[Anonymous No.19427594]

>>19427580
Which means if you try to be consistent with this paradigm that there is no "you", there are no real distinctions that aren't arbitrary, and everything is just particles.

[Anonymous No.19427600]

>>19427567
People act nicer when they know less about a subject.

[Anonymous No.19427627]

>>19427567
so true

[Anonymous No.19427653]

>>19427567
which atheist in history has ever "confronted" a jew about the talmud lmao

do you confront children about santa?
inb4 >yes

[Anonymous No.19427668]

>>19427532
what are you talking about

[Anonymous No.19427683]

>>19427594
I've said that there is no distinction (between I and the matter that composes me), not that there is no "I". It can also mean that there is a subjective experience to matter itself, and inseparable of it. There is free will to the particles themselves, which choose to cooperate, and I guess physical determinism fails.
It seems unrelated, but distinctions are made in thought, in an utilitarian fashion, never perfectly capturing what is perceived, but approximating it. To each thought corresponds a movement of particles, too.

[Anonymous No.19427783]

>>19425513
>Take a philosophy class and learn the difference between epistemology and ontology.
If you can't explain your position to a layman, then you don't understand your position.

[Anonymous No.19427799]

>>19426068
How did you determine that God was the good one and Satan was the bad one in the Bible? After all, God's plan was for Humans not to have knowledge of good and evil at all, it was Satan in the form of the snake who gave humanity it's more treasured gift, free will. Then God got all butthurt that his creation wasn't going as he planned (or it was, in which case he's just a sadist for punishing Adam and Eve).

[Anonymous No.19427802]

>>19427783
I shouldn't have to.
You created a thought experiment of how it operated which may be valid but still doesn't represent what the object is and looks like itself

[Anonymous No.19427814]

>>19427799
>it was Satan in the form of the snake who gave humanity it's more treasured gift, free will
Repeat this out loud to yourself and hear how ridiculous you sound.

[Anonymous No.19427821]

>>19426914
The existence of my consciousness can be referenced in any given moment and is oriented outward, to receive information and store it. Thus validating the external world and the concept of time. Not begging or assuming anything.

[Anonymous No.19427836]

>>19427015
I clicked 6:35 seconds in and it's just him doing random sing-song talking and making weird noises like a zoomer video game streamer. This is the best you've got???

[Anonymous No.19427856]

>>19427567
You've clearly never heard an atheist talk about circumcision. Especially the kind where they put the baby's penis in their mouth. This is beyond abhorrent and should be banned immediately, but because so many Christcucks are circumcised themselves, genital mutilation can't be banned because they would all have to admit they were duped into mutilating their children this whole time.

[Anonymous No.19427860]

>>19427799
>After all, God's plan was for Humans not to have knowledge of good and evil at all
>Wisdom of Solomon 6:22-24 As for wisdom, what she is, and how she came up, I will tell you, and will not hide mysteries from you: but will seek her out from the beginning of her nativity, and bring the knowledge of her into light, and will not pass over the truth. Neither will I go with consuming envy; for such a man shall have no fellowship with wisdom. But the multitude of the wise is the welfare of the world: and a wise king is the upholding of the people.

[Anonymous No.19427861]

>>19427814
Which part do you disagree with? The whole argument for the existence of evil is because it's necessary for free will, thus implying that free will is important enough to justify so much evil in the world. Either this is true, in which case Satan is the champion of the bible, or it's not true and God is even more reprehensible for allowing his creation to exist and persist in this manner, with so much evil in it.

[Anonymous No.19427868]

>>19427860
Yeah, that's cool and all, but God literally commands them not to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Pretty straightforward.

[Anonymous No.19427870]

>>19427861
Then how did they sin to begin with? This is riduculous and you can deny free will and evil and still be a christian hell I imagine you'd be more one

[Anonymous No.19427916]

>>19427868
Yes, and the fall was not caused because they ate the fruit, but rather that they disobeyed God (by their own free will, tempted by Satan), and were filled with the knowledge of Good and Evil, having been disobedient. Had they obeyed God, they would've remained Good. The command was not to eat the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil, and so having disobeyed that command, they showed that they were not prepared for the knowledge. If they couldn't follow God's command then, of course they wouldn't be able to follow it after being filled with that knowledge.

[Anonymous No.19427925]

>>19425161
He doesn't seem to be seething. Also he proves that naturalism is inconsistent with any claim of truth, but it doesn't mean the allucinated person who think what causes chemicals to his brain doesn't find any subjective truth to it, because these allucinations exist. He doesn't deny the possibility of reflexion on your existence but the possibility to find absolute truth and judge what is above it, if what judges it is part of existence itself.
Where did he concealed he failed ? He just said she is right to argue against what she think is false.

>>19425248
If the brain in itself is caused by non-rational causes, it is fondamentaly non-rational. If it is not rational, the judgement are non-rational : they are the effects of what causes the brain. The brain thus doesn't judge, it is what causes the brain that decide (if we have to suppose the brain is a material thing determinated by some kind of matter). Thus judgments who are valid to the brain are simply valid as the expression of what affects the individual.
Lewis refuted any claim to absolute truth to this conception of relative brain. I didn't refutate relative truth. And God can't be judged by a simple part of reality, nor the whole reality can be judged by a part (that is the brain if we have to think it is determinated by precise things like atoms or whatnot.

>>19425250
Easy answer is non-rational = caused by blind cause or determinated object not free like consciousness. The mind thus follow rules, that are true in their order. But this order is precisely unprovable. So there is only truth of circumstances since matter is by definition what makes circumstances.

[Anonymous No.19427947]

>>19425042
>i don't like empiricism so there must be a God
what

[Anonymous No.19427949]

>>19427870
Have you not read Genesis? Satan tempted Eve and thus sin entered the world when they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and became self aware. They stopped being animals and became ashamed of their nakedness. Had God's plan continued, they would have remained ignorant, naked animals.

[Anonymous No.19427957]

>>19427916
How can free will have any significant meaning if you are unable to evaluate whether an action is good or evil? And, while we're on the subject, how were they supposed to know that defying God's command is evil, since they did not have the knowledge of good and evil yet? The whole story is a clusterfuck, to be honest, and any way you slice it, God was in the wrong and Satan is the hero.

[Anonymous No.19427961]

>>19427949
retarded gnostic take

[Anonymous No.19427968]

>>19427949
Yes but I get tempted all the time, I don't necessarily even register it much less sin so that doesn't explain how you can create sin by sinning

[Anonymous No.19427975]

>>19427957
Free will just implies action it doesn't mean all action is two choices or reducible down to two choices

[Anonymous No.19428022]

>>19425090
F(ifth)PBP

[Anonymous No.19428029]

>>19425541
Le Pyrrho face

[Anonymous No.19428071]

>>19427957
Do you think a child needs to know that disobedience is evil in order to avoid disobeying their parents? There's no explanation needed, a child simply obeys their parents, because that is what their parents wish of them. The same for Adam and Eve. You're like a child who thinks their parent is their enemy because they put the cookie jar on the counter where they could reach it, and was punished for taking a cookie, despite knowing their parents told them not to. The problem lies not with the parents, but with the child's lack of discipline. From love of a parent, obedience becomes a given, and you do not need the knowledge of Good and Evil to have love.

[Anonymous No.19428080]

>>19425161
wtf are you seeing you lying bitch

> The fact that Lewis rewrote that chapter, and rewrote it so that it now has those qualities [to address Anscombe's objections], shows his honesty and seriousness. The meeting of the Socratic Club at which I read my paper has been described by several of his friends as a horrible and shocking experience which upset him very much. Neither Dr Havard (who had Lewis and me to dinner a few weeks later) nor Professor Jack Bennet remembered any such feelings on Lewis's part ... My own recollection is that it was an occasion of sober discussion of certain quite definite criticisms, which Lewis' rethinking and rewriting showed he thought was accurate. I am inclined to construe the odd accounts of the matter by some of his friends – who seem not to have been interested in the actual arguments or the subject-matter – as an interesting example of the phenomenon called "projection".
—Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind: The Collected Philosophical Papers of G.E.M. Anscombe, Volume 2 (1981) p.x.

>As a result of the debate, Lewis substantially rewrote chapter 3 of Miracles for the 1960 paperback edition.[25]

[Anonymous No.19428085]

>>19428080
saying*

[Anonymous No.19428104]

>>19425042

>"So I can never use thought to disbelieve in God"

Plato's Parmenides argument VII

Phenomenological Argument (Arg VII) - If God does not exist, consequences for Creation in relation to other creations.
Creations without God are creations separate from other creations

> If God does not exist, what must affect creation?
> They must somehow be creation, for if they were not even creation, we would not be speaking about "creation."
> But if the discourse is about creation, creation is at any rate different. Or do you not refer by "creation" and "different" as the same thing?
> Yes.
> Surely, we say that the different is somehow different from the different and a creation is otherly-created than another creation?
> Yes.
> So also creation, if it is to be creation, has something than which they are creation.
> It is necessary.

>Theorem 2: Creations without God, appears to be a plurality and a number
>Theorem 9: Creations without God appear to be large and small and equal
>Theorem 3: Creations without God appear to have extremities and middle
>Theorem 2.2: Creations without God appear to be unlimited and limited
>Theorem 8: Creations without God appear to be like and unlike.
This is what trait variations within and between life populations appear to be.

Epistemically and ontologically, meaning is différance.
There are only perspectives.
This is already reflected physically and naturally in Einstein's special and general relativity.

Conclusion
> Creations apart from God appear and do not appear to exist.
> Therefore creation should appear both the same as and different from each other, both touching and apart from themselves, both being moved in every motion and standing in every respect, both coming to be and passing away and neither coming to be nor passing away, and somehow all things of that sort, which we could easily go through at once, if Creation exists while God does not.
> Most true indeed.

Personally, not I am an atheist, but I am no classical theist.

[Anonymous No.19428120]

>>19428071
ah yea the infamous "moral knowledge is not required for moral accountability" cope. literally the bottom of the barrel in terms of apologetic responses to the inane absurdity of genesis

try again lil guy

[Anonymous No.19428127]

>>19428071
>>19427957
In addition, Adam and Eve were told by God directly, that if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, then they would surely die. They were given the command not to eat of it by their creator, their Father, the one who breathed life into them, and yet gave into some snake who merely perverted God's words.
>Genesis 3:1-5 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

[Anonymous No.19428146]

>>19428120
It quite literally isn't. A child who molests their younger sibling is still held accountable for their actions, because the act they've committed is evil.

[Anonymous No.19428165]

>>19428146
not sure what universe youre posting from but theyre literally not, until theyre old enough to understand why what they did was wrong

you cant hold someone accountable for something they cant understand. best you can do is restrain them or something to prevent it from happening again. but thats not the same as holding them morally accountable.

[Anonymous No.19428168]

>>19428146
>is still held accountable for their actions, because the act they've committed is evil.

But are they necessarily, reductively? The stereotype of the incestuous Southerner appears to exist because Southerners can get away with incest. There appears to be no testable connection between inflicting pain and being punished for inflicting pain. America can invade another country and it does not necessarily follow that America will be hurt for it. Far from it, America even gains from it.

[Anonymous No.19428170]

>>19427836
He always goofs around a lot at the beginning of his streams but just get to the serious part and listen to his arguments and you will see that he is right

[Anonymous No.19428198]

>>19428170
presupposionalism is stupid and he's a presuppositionalist, so there's really not much more to say. and every time ive seen him in a debate he's ragequit after being btfo, so....dropped

[Anonymous No.19428213]

>>19427918
anybody?

[Anonymous No.19428217]

>>19428198
You still have not explained how presuppositionalism is stupid and Jay has won every debate of his that I have watched.

[Anonymous No.19428244]

>>19428168
I don't see America gaining from it. Sure, as the jews "gained" gold and status, I suppose America has done the same. Though, assuming you don't believe in spirit, you won't see the spiritual consequences of those actions, and instead just focus on the material gains. Anyway, it might just be my lack of experience, but I don't think there's any way to properly get across the ideas of absolute Good and Evil to someone who doesn't believe in them, and vice-versa. You're not going to get a good explanation out of me, because I'm horrible at this stuff, and I'm relying only on my knowledge of the Bible and my intuition, or what is called the Holy Spirit. I don't exactly have any data to back up anything I'm saying, and I'm not sure you would be satisfied with anything but that.
I hope you're not just being facetious here, but I'm feeling pretty confident that you are.

[Anonymous No.19428247]

>>19428217
>You still have not explained how presuppositionalism is stupid

At the core of all presuppositional apologetics is that the Holy Bible (in particular some variant) is the axiom. There is no apparent intelligence is relying on a canon conditioned by Erasmus, King James, Luther and countless councils throughout history alone as an epistemic base.

There apparently is no Platonic Form of the Bible which is evident.

[Anonymous No.19428251]

>>19425042
But if I can't trust my thinking, how can I trust my thinking when I think about God? Every time I read the Bible I am trusting that the letters on each page are lining up the way my brain is telling me that they're lining up, which is a bit like upsetting a milk just and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London.

[Anonymous No.19428261]

>>19428217
dudes got thousands of hours of videos on youtube containing all of his claims, as dumb as he is i cant practically break down his arguments en-masse in a single comment

however. post your favorite one and ill show you whats wrong with it

[Anonymous No.19428273]

>>19428244
>I hope you're not just being facetious here, but I'm feeling pretty confident that you are.
I'm being completely unironic. Romans 6:23 appears to be just Paul's slave morality. There is no physics that relates that killing or hurting other people will inherently hurt you. The wages of "sin" apart from the doctrine of original sin do not appear at all to be death at all. If you rape and take what isn't yours and you're organized about it, you don't die at all. If such a principle were naturally true, you would expect settler colonies to generally die, yet America and other anglo settler dominions freely prosper.

[Anonymous No.19428276]

>>19428247
thats part of why presuppositionalism is so dumb. it claims to ground intelligibility but intelligibility is itself an axiom for all modes of thought

its like asking "what's the origin of the english language" and i say "here it is" and i hand you a book written in english. unless it popped into the as jibberish, an understanding of english was required to write it, so it cant be the origin

but christian brainlets hear buzzword sermons and then puke it back at skeptics as if they have a fucking clue what theyre even saying

[Anonymous No.19428286]

>>19428261
https://youtu.be/4MZErPk3_MU

[Anonymous No.19428290]

>>19428286
>here's your 3 hour video bro
post it in here. i dont care if you post all 10, just post them so we have a reference point

[Anonymous No.19428335]

>>19428273
A re-read of the books of wisdom (assuming you've already read them) would explain this much better than anything I could say, if what you are arguing is that Good and Evil acts don't appear to have direct benefits and consequences by virtue of them being Good or Evil.
Even the saints themselves complain about this in
>Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
which is not the first time this has been said in the Bible, being preceded by many like verses, especially in the Psalms.
I can only give an anecdote, and say that I've personally felt my sins have had an adverse effect on my life, which taken to their conclusion would lead to a physical death. Even the most minor instances would lead to a spiritual death without Christ. I believe what Paul's speaking about there, and what is being referred to the majority of the time when "death" is spoken of in the Bible is the second death, rather than the first death; The death of your body, the vessel for your soul, which precedes the true death.

[Anonymous No.19428342]

>>19428290
Someone in the comments called JordanH posted an outline of the major points made throughout the video

[Anonymous No.19428352]

>>19426167
>>19426630
>>19426197
>>19426190
So the only argument against me saying atheism is maladaptive is to say that christianity is too? Pathetic lmao, I'm not even christian. Only >>19426169 had a decent rebuttal

[Anonymous No.19428353]

>>19428071
So you admit, even in your own response, that God wished Adam and Eve to be perpetual children, never knowing why they must obey, simply that they must, like slaves, obey their master. This is the fate God wanted for mankind, to be unthinking, childish, slaves. Do you get my point yet?

[Anonymous No.19428363]

>>19428127
Okay, so why did he heap extra punishment of hard labor and birthing pains? He stated the consequence, and then added to it afterwards. He can't even be consistent in the consequences he stated!

[Anonymous No.19428367]

>>19428276
>if i presuppose that i'm right then i win the debate
this is why jay dyer gets btofd in every debate lmfao

[Anonymous No.19428372]

>>19428367
>jay dyer gets btofd in every debate lmfao
but he really doesn't

[Anonymous No.19428377]

>>19428276
Also, on a presuppositional level, that argument is open to literally any religion or view point. Just presuppose the axioms of that religion and boom, religion verified! This is why presuppositions should be kept to as little as possible, since they are inherently a possibility for error. This is why the minimum of "the universe exists and we can learn things about it" is the best starting point of a basic presupposition. But theists won't be able to grasp this, which is sad.

[Anonymous No.19428393]

>it's like upsetting a... map of London.
This is just sheer reductive horseshit. The atomic 'splash of milk' in your brain arranges your thoughts in a completely deterministic method with uncountable plethorae of physical and chemical criteria. It is almost impossible to accurately map those physical and chemical forces in fine detail, but it is perfectly deterministic. There is no random or unexplainable factor. Your brain is 'designed' to think by the intersection of those atomic forces, along with the macro-level socio-psychological and biological forces that also contribute to higher reasoning.
"Local atheist grifter is a retard who can't understand anything he can't physically replicate on his fingers" isn't an argument for or against anything.

[Anonymous No.19428396]

>>19428377
No, this is a misunderstanding of the presuppositionalist argument. One of the main points that we believe specifically in the God of Christianity rather than any other religion or any vague, generic god, is the Trinity. The Trinity transcends the dialectic of unity vs multiplicity and allows for distinctions without necessitating conflict.

[Anonymous No.19428405]

>>19428396
Yeah, Hinduism is also polytheistic, what's your point?

[Anonymous No.19428410]

>>19428372
Yes he does. His entire gimmick is just repeating garbage from the early 2000s,. Now, as then, it gets torn apart. This is why Christianity was dead on the internet for over a decade. He ends up getting caught in one of three traps
>He gets bullycided for being a gay nerd and doing stupid shit like "If we presuppose that I'm right..."
>He ends up getting caught in a doctrinal net where he has to break his "all denominations of Christianity are valid" big-tent ideology for fear of not having a position and thus by his own admission damning himself to hell (and just making himself look dumb in a debate), or he has to break apart his coalition
>He has to argue for things that his audience absolutely does not want to hear, like the validity of mass immigration, multiculturalism, or Jewish power, or else declare himself a heretic, and thus break his coalition

[Anonymous No.19428413]

>>19428353
Yes. Though God doesn't want us to be unthinking or childish (in a negative way).
>Proverbs 7:4
This is common all throughout the books of wisdom.

He does call for us to be like innocent children, and he does call for us to be like slaves for his will. Being a slave, or a servant, or a soldier is not necessarily a bad thing. You can't be wholly Good if you're not a slave to Good. If you think you're good, yet you still sin occasionally, you're Evil. There is no middle-ground. It's a good thing to be a slave to a good God.
>>19428363
Honestly, I can't answer you, because I don't know. I'll have to think on it for a while, and even then I probably won't know.

[Anonymous No.19428416]

>>19428393
And to be clear, I'm not dogging on CS Lewis for not having the future knowledge of improvements in technology and medicine that enable us to much better understand the brain; I'm shitting on the endless waves of grifters hauling up outdated philosophical assertions that "such and such thing" cannot be understood even though the same device they use to broadcast their idiocy could quickly correct it.

[Anonymous No.19428419]

>>19428413
Thank you for being honest. You wish to be infantilized and a slave to your eternal master and father. Freud was right.

[Anonymous No.19428425]

>>19428410
>>He has to argue for things that his audience absolutely does not want to hear, like the validity of mass immigration, multiculturalism, or Jewish power, or else declare himself a heretic, and thus break his coalition
No he doesn't. None of that is Christian.

[Anonymous No.19428433]

>>19428419
Yes, I wish to be a slave to my eternal master and Father. God bless you, friend, but I am not being initialized.

[Anonymous No.19428436]

>>19428419
Yes, I wish to be a slave to my eternal master and Father. God bless you, friend, but I am not being infantilized.

[Anonymous No.19428438]

>>19428425
It is according to the position of mass tolerance adopted by western Prots, the denial of which would break Dyer's apparent 'all Christians are valid' umbrella and undermine his entire argument.

[Anonymous No.19428440]

>>19428438
I don't think you realize that that still doesn't make it Christian.

[Anonymous No.19428448]

>>19428440
Jay Dyer isn't arguing in favor of whatever you believe is true Christianity, he's arguing for mass-market feelgood self-help Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19428450]

>>19428436
You stated you wish to be an innocent child, not minding about the reasons why you must obey, simply that you will obey your all powerful father and master. You fail to see how much this degrades you into an abject husk, how you have capitulated to your childish desire for a father figure to take care of you and make moral decisions that you can follow without feeling any weight of moral accountability on yourself. I pity you.

[Anonymous No.19428457]

>>19428396
Astonishing how van Til and co forgot that the doctrine of Trinity developed and changed with the Church fathers. "Ontological Trinity", a metaphysical Trinity! Hume would be proud!

Gordon Clark at least had the human decency and openness to openly declare "the Bible is my axiom" or to that effect. Van Til didn't. Even amongst presuppositionalists, there are "blanks", "chaos".

Funny how Parmenides wrecked van Til's ground even before he concocted.

[Anonymous No.19428459]

>>19428425
>t. doesn't know what the "Catholic" in "Catholic church" means

[Anonymous No.19428472]

>>19428438
>>19428448
Firstly, Jay Dyer is Orthodox not Protestant, and secondly he is strongly AGAINST ecumenism and the soft, milquetoast, feel good mass market Christianity that you are accusing him of. Now I know that you don't even know his arguments.

[Anonymous No.19428476]

>>19428450
All of this doesn't degrade me. Innocence is beautiful. I would be an idiot to refuse to accept the truths that God has shown me after searching him out for years, offering up so many empty arguments and foolish excuses. I was saying nearly the exact same stuff you are just two years ago. I hope you're able to give up your pride sooner rather than later.
>without feeling any weight of moral accountability on yourself
What is sin?

[Anonymous No.19428477]

>>19428448
I can tell you have never watched a single Jay Dyer video. You seem to have an idea of him that is the opposite of what he really is.

[Anonymous No.19428482]

>>19428459
t. doesn't even know Jay's positions

[Anonymous No.19428487]

>>19428425
That WASN'T, Christianity, but don't worry, the Pope, every Orthodox Patriarch, and all of the leaders of every Protestant denomination have all agreed that it IS Christianity. Now. God said so. In fact, it's the HEIGHT of Christianity.

So now you can take one of two positions
>reject all of that as horse shit, and thus disagree with anyone who does agree with that garbage, and thereby say that "Christian" is a label that requires you to do things other than "call yourself Christian"or
>accept that "Christian" only means "describes themselves as Christian" and nothing more
If Jay Dyer does the first, his coalition breaks apart, because the question of "what makes an actual Christian (sans mere self-identification)" must be asked. This, logically, re-opens the Protestant-vs-Protestant-vs-Catholic-vs-Orthodox divide, AND it opens it historically, as one could argue that no one got it right until the Nestorians did in 1469AD and then they erred a year later. He can no longer argue from an amorphous "Christian" perspective and thus has to argue from a specific doctrinal perspective in which each position he holds can be analyzed and criticized. His ENTIRE framework is EXPLICITLY about avoiding that. That is why this framework was created, it's creators (Evangelical Protestants in the 1970s) said so.

If Jay Dyer does the second his opposition can just belittle him and spout crime-statistics while the audience boos Dyer off stage.

[Anonymous No.19428500]

>>19428487
You have already shown to me that you don't even know Jay's positions. He is the opposite of the soft, lukewarm ecumenist that you think he is. He spends half his time critiqueing Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines.

[Anonymous No.19428516]

>>19428500
I'm not sure what you mean, I'm not >>19428459. Kudos on doing a
>didn't read
and not actually reading the post that you're responding to, though.

[Anonymous No.19428521]

>>19428516
The point is that all of you seem to be arguing against a strawman of Jay instead of what he actually says. None of you seem to have any idea what he actually stands for.

[Anonymous No.19428522]

>>19428450
And anon, you say you pity me, but what do you have to pity? We're both wasting our lives arguing with each other on /lit/, about something we both know we're not going to change our views on. If I'm being degraded into an abject husk, you are as well, though the source of your degradation lies elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.19428533]

>>19428487
Do you not understand that Nestorianism was condemned as heresy

[Anonymous No.19428534]

>>19428521
>None of you seem to have any idea what he actually stands for.
neither does jay tbqh

[Anonymous No.19428537]

>>19428487
>He can no longer argue from an amorphous "Christian" perspective and thus has to argue from a specific doctrinal perspective in which each position he holds can be analyzed and criticized. His ENTIRE framework is EXPLICITLY about avoiding that.
When does he ever do that? He does the opposite of that. This is why I said you are strawmanning his arguments. You don't even know his positions.

[Anonymous No.19428546]

>>19428534
He argues specifically for Orthodoxy, not vague amorphous generic Christianity. You should know what someone's stances are before you try to refute them.

[Anonymous No.19428751]

>>19428476
What greater pride could there be than to claim you have found God? The arrogance is overwhelming.

[Anonymous No.19428789]

>>19428522
I don't think I am wasting my life by generating an opposition to theism, and particularly the pernicious eschatological elements of messianic monotheism which yearns for the day when I and those like me are condemned to eternal torment. This is an inseparable part of Christianity which Christ himself outlines quite plainly when he says unbelievers will be cast into a fiery furnace. Every moment opposing this divisive and horrifying doctrine can hardly be considered a moment wasted.

[Anonymous No.19428803]

>>19428789
So you accept it has some existence worth fearing? I don't go around attacking satanism.

[Anonymous No.19428827]

>>19428803
There are Christians right now in our countries who believe it is their job to ensure that the Jewish state is secured and all non-Jews are expelled so that prophesy can be fulfilled and Armageddon begin. This is a cult who can't wait for death and destruction to overtake the world. That is what I fear, that there are so many people infected with this desire for the end of this world, for the end of miserable business of advancing knowledge and medicine and engineering and building up of society, all of it. They wish it to all come to an end as quickly as possible so they can be gathered into the arms of Christ while everyone else burns in separation from Christ. I say this is evil, and while the metaphysical claims are of course empty, their actions can very well lead to real death and destruction and the obliteration of so much of what humankind has been able to build thus far. Yes, I consider this the great evil of our time, this cult of death which is veiled in false love and compassion but which gleefully looks forward to the time when so many people will be damned to hell.

[Anonymous No.19428865]

>>19428827
Zionism is a modern heresy mostly among evangelicals. Orthodox Christians are against it. Orthodox Christians in general have never been afraid to name the Jews.

[Anonymous No.19428874]

>>19428865
The main point still remains, I seek to leave my children better conditions than I had, yet a Christian's main desire is for Judgement Day when all achievements on earth are wiped away and all believers are gathered up to Heaven. It's a core element of Christianity and it's repugnant in the extreme.

[Anonymous No.19428890]

>>19428874
refutation of zionism from the Orthodox Christian perspective
https://youtu.be/fwck2jAzXKw