/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21038447]

There are retards on this boards, and even famous authors like CS Lewis, who think that Mickey’s argument is actually valid. If our brains are just chemicals, and they tell us that the brain is just chemicals, then it’s just a fact. It wouldn’t be a lie. The lie comes when such a brain reaches the conclusion that the brain is not just chemicals. Even after explaining this simple logic, people will still argue against this, especially the theists. Why are people so dumb? It’s very depressing and I find myself going insane because of this.

[Anonymous No.21038466]

It's just a needlessly reductive argument. Pain is also "just chemicals" but it'd still hurt like hell to get kneed in the crotch.

[Anonymous No.21038478]

>>21038447
>It’s very depressing and I find myself going insane because of this.
You should commit suicide, materialist bugman.

[Anonymous No.21038484]

>>21038447
Okay, so it's just chemicals. What difference does that make? They are still chemical processes beyond the current understanding of modern science, it might as well be fucking magic

[Anonymous No.21038500]

>>21038447
It's just a needlessly reductive argument. Pain is also "just chemicals" but it'd still hurt like hell to get kneed in the crotch.

[Anonymous No.21038524]

>>21038447

[Anonymous No.21038544]

>>21038447
The point is that the argument doesn’t stand on its own merits you dingbat
It’s the old paradox: if I say “everything I say is a lie,” is that statement a lie, or the truth? Is it true, or false?
In this case, you and Donald say “the actions of chemicals are meaningless,” and Mickey and CS Lewis say back “that statement in of itself is an action of chemicals.” So is that statement meaningless, or is it true? If it’s true, then there can be found truth/meaning within the actions of chemicals. If it’s meaningless, why take it seriously?

[Anonymous No.21038552]

>>21038544
>It’s the old paradox
Paradoxes are bullshit, and I can tell you why.
>if I say “everything I say is a lie,” is that statement a lie, or the truth?
it’s obviously a lie as you have told other truths. No matter what conditions you specify or how you change the grammar, it will always be false or there will be a simple contradiction somewhere. It is not that complicated.
>In this case, you and Donald say “the actions of chemicals are meaningless,”
I do not say that. This statement itself is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.21038556]

>>21038552
>as you have told other truths
Nope, the speaker in this scenario is Jewish

[Anonymous No.21038560]

>>21038552
>I do not say that. This statement itself is meaningless.
Okay so you’re just making a different argument from Donald, and are getting mad at Mickey and CS Lewis for refuting Donald
I got the paradox a bit wrong anyway. It’s not “everything I say is a lie,” that statement can be true. The paradox is “this statement is a lie.” If it’s a lie, it’s true, but if it’s true, it’s a lie

[Anonymous No.21038584]

>>21038556
In that case the phrasing “everything I say” is vague. “Everything I have said is a lie” would be true, though. He wouldn’t repeat this same sentence again because he just told the truth.

[Anonymous No.21038600]

>>21038552
>I do not say that. This statement itself is meaningless.
Okay, well that’s what Donald is saying. Mickey and CS Lewis are refuting that argument. If you’re not arguing that, why are you mad about their refutation of a different argument?

[Anonymous No.21038629]

>>21038600
>you trust your chemicals to tell you they are chemicals
that is what I’m arguing against

[Anonymous No.21038636]

>>21038544
>you and Donald say "the actions of chemicals are meaningless"
Be careful with your phrasing.
Donald says "Everything that we know and love is reducible to the absurd acts of chemicals."
This is not the same as saying something is meaningless. It is like saying that all meaning arises from meaningless constituents. Donald is being a little vague with the "no intrinsic value" because it is true to say that intrinsic value doesn't exist for atoms in isolation but it does exist for certain assemblages of them. What Donald says can't really be taken as fully true nor false, because it has too many conceptual ambiguities.
Mickey's reply is even stupider because it does not fully address Donald's statement. Neither of Mickey's sentences are relevant to Donald's statement. He should have, instead, said: "Intrinsic value, there may not be, but value nonetheless. How else would you be able to speak of such emotions?"
Ultimately, Donald's statement is obtuse and philosophically inexact, and Mickey's statement addresses a point which has not been made (but is related).

[Anonymous No.21038638]

>>21038466
>Pain is also "just chemicals"
Pain is a subjective experience. You cannot just create some chemicals in a flask and then claim this flask is experiencing pain. This destroys all vegan bullshittery btw.

[Anonymous No.21038642]

>>21038636
What would Goofy reply?

[Anonymous No.21038644]

>>21038447
You are retarded. There's nothing anyone can say to you to change that.
>everything is reducible to chemicals
Is a braindead statement. Any reply will have to stoop to the level of retards like you and Donald. Mickey navigates the retardation expertly and ends with an emotional appeals since that's clearly the only thing this subhuman duck creature can process.

[Anonymous No.21038648]

>>21038447
Research metaphysical idealism or transcendental metaphysics. You’ll see the whole debate. There’s this one dude i think his name is Bernardo kastrup or something, he is paving the modern argument for it.

[Anonymous No.21038663]

>>21038642
Goofy would say mind is intrinsic to every atom.

[Anonymous No.21038682]

>>21038638
No but you can theoretically grow an organism then cause it to feel pain, provided its brain is wired like a mammal's

[Anonymous No.21038683]

>>21038663
what about scrooge mcduck?

[Anonymous No.21038689]

>>21038648
This is the book synopsis. Looks interesting.
>Underpinned by science, materialism seems to have established itself in public opinion as the only viable option for any kind of rational worldview. The young Dutch philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, displaying a frank scepticism, dissents from this way of seeing things and, with the logical clarity of empirical evidence, reveals its absurd epistemological contradictions. Within a different and coherent frame of reference, from which any physical law or natural phenomenon can be interpreted without falling into the usual materialistic assumptions, the brain is the image of a self-localised process in the mind, just as a whirlpool is the image of a self-localised process in water, but just as the whirlpool does not generate the water, neither does the brain generate the mind, since it is the brain that is in the mind, not the mind in the brain.
>The present framing of the cultural debate in terms of materialism versus religion has allowed materialism to go unchallenged as the only rationally-viable metaphysics. This book seeks to change this. It uncovers the absurd implications of materialism and then, uniquely, presents a hard-nosed non-materialist metaphysics substantiated by skepticism, hard empirical evidence, and clear logical argumentation. It lays out a coherent framework upon which one can interpret and make sense of every natural phenomenon and physical law, as well as the modalities of human consciousness, without materialist assumptions. According to this framework, the brain is merely the image of a self-localization process of mind, analogously to how a whirlpool is the image of a self-localization process of water. The brain doesn’t generate mind in the same way that a whirlpool doesn’t generate water. It is the brain that is in mind, not mind in the brain. Physical death is merely a de-clenching of awareness. The book closes with a series of educated speculations regarding the afterlife, psychic phenomena, and other related subjects.

[Anonymous No.21038698]

>>21038682
Now replace every neuron of that organism's brain by a functionally equivalent electrical circuit, including sensors for said chemicals which are allegedly causing pain. Does this computer brain feel pain?

[Anonymous No.21038705]

>>21038689
what a shit analogy. Water is still water even when not in a whirlpool. But all evidence of conscious experience is dependent on the brain for its existence

[Anonymous No.21038708]

Once I found out he's just cleaning a plate and not actually grabbing the shirt I lost my love for this panel.

[Anonymous No.21038716]

Donlan is correct the source of all human conciousness is the human mind and it's nothing but but a flawed meaty computer going about it's programming.

There is no free-will, your brain even in the simplest or most complex functions reacts before you are consciously aware. I throw some shit in your face you will close your eyes before you're aware I threw anything. Same applies to any concious decision as well. Your conciousness is materially a step behind your brain, therefore conciousness must be an illusion, an afterthought, visual trails in an arsenic high.

There is no basis for philosophy since reality negates any concept of metaphysics with which they are based on. We're simply objects on their trajectory. There is objectively nothing beyond the material understanding.

[Anonymous No.21038722]

>>21038447
>and they tell us that the brain is just chemicals, then it’s just a fact
Sorry, sir? Where's the logic here? Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.21038724]

>>21038722
exhibit A

[Anonymous No.21038725]

>>21038447
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.21038728]

>>21038716
>Your
Speak for yourself, NPC. Just because you are lacking consciousness and free will, it doesn't mean that everyone does.

[Anonymous No.21038735]

>>21038728
NPC’s would be programmed to believe in free will. You’re the actual NPC here

[This post will not bump this shitty thread No.21038740]

>>21038447
>he hasn't read a single line of CS Lewis' philosophical books

[Anonymous No.21038753]

>>21038728
It's an illusion of free-will. You're deluded if think otherwise, it's been proven since the 80's, there is no conscious choice, your consciousness is always a step behind your brain, which is a deterministic, mechanical object. Only an NPC could intellectually convince themselves otherwise.

[Anonymous No.21038763]

>>21038642
Hyuk

[Anonymous No.21038766]

>>21038708
This meme image was the only thing in this world I loved and you ruined it. Everything I know and love is reducible to Mickey washing dishes and there is therefore no intrinsic value in this dishwashing universe.

[Anonymous No.21038776]

>>21038716
What are chemicals? What's material? Everything can also be reduced to flombulons if you want to but I have no clue what flombulons are.

[Anonymous No.21038779]

Assume that free will doesn't exist and all decisions are deterministic. According to the Church-Turing hypothesis for any deterministic process P you can construct a Turing machine which computes P. So there must be a deterministic Turing machine which is capable of predicting my decisions without any error. Can this Turing machine make the simple prediction what genre of porn I will fap to today?
For the sake of simplicity let's assume there are only two genres of porn: BBC cuckold porn and tranny porn. I'll let the Turing machine compute my non-free decision and it tells me I will fap to BBC cuckold porn. Now after hearing this prediction, what stops me from fapping to tranny porn instead?

[Anonymous No.21038783]

>>21038716
Determinism is deboonked by quantumn mechanics

[Anonymous No.21038785]

>>21038716
>flinching means there's no free will xD
kys

[Anonymous No.21038788]

>>21038447
t. (You)

[Anonymous No.21038791]

>>21038638
Which is exactly why OP's argument is needlessly reductive. If you only focus on the chemical aspect of life you'll remain ignorant of the qualitative side of life, which for us is the side that counts most. That's why OP and Donald are idiots.

[Anonymous No.21038798]

>>21038779
You could but it is so dynamic that this perfect AI could only mirror the function of the brain in real time.

It is deterministic like water falling off a cliff and but you could not predict the exact path each molecule of water takes a year in advance but could easily guess whereabouts it might land.

[Anonymous No.21038799]

>>21038779
If the prediction is correct then it’s correct. Simple as. But that’s assuming the prediction can be made and communicated in the first place

[Anonymous No.21038809]

>>21038779
>Now after hearing this prediction
You altered the scenario the computer was simulating. Feed the output of the simulation back into itself and you get an infinite loop that never finishes computing the prediction.
The fundamental mistake all these materialism/determinism retards make is assuming everything makes sense when in fact nothing does. There's no explanation that suddenly makes existence make sense. To make statements like "it's all material" some kind of brain damage is required where you just ignore everything that doesn't fit your model.

[Anonymous No.21038816]

>>21038785
All of your conciousness works the same way. It's nothing but reflex and reaction to stimuli. It cannot be refuted philosophically since this is a truth facts based neurology.

Everything can be reduced to the mechanical action of the brain and therefore, all philosophy, metaphysics and ontology can not just be reduced, but be eliminated entirely.

[Anonymous No.21038891]

>>21038447
Physicalism is circular in that you have to rely on the senses being accurate to come to a conclusion, but the accuracy of the senses themselves can only be determined by other senses. Whether circular reasoning is valid or not is up to you. Most of the time people like this don’t care about the truth as much as they care about having a system that “just works.”

[Anonymous No.21038895]

>>21038447
Causality exists in every part of the universe except when it comes to who caused the universe? Doesn't make sense. Something does not come from nothing.

[Anonymous No.21038907]

>>21038891
evolution is all about what works. Recognizing patterns that help us survive is useful. Generally it’s good to think logically because the world has logical patterns. But when it comes to this abstract philosophy the truth is kinda useless, and it hardly affects your life. Most people don’t even think about this shit.

[Anonymous No.21038922]

>>21038447
It isn’t just chemicals, it’s a very specific arrangement of chemicals, whose interplay produce consciousness. That the pieces are made of chemicals may or may not be important to the functioning of the brain.

It’s like a painting. You can have two paintings with the same amount of paint on the same sized canvas, but the one painted by Van Gogh will be infinitely more valuable. Alternatively, you can have two different paintings depicting the same thing. One made with watercolor and the other with acrylic. The arrangement is just as, if not more important than the parts.

[Anonymous No.21038923]

>>21038907
Darwinist evolution? That's nowhere near even an actual acceptable theory of evolution. Next you'll say we all came from Africa.

[Anonymous No.21038935]

>>21038923
>Next you'll say we all came from Africa.
What? I thought we all were niggers?

[Anonymous No.21038939]

>>21038923
We all came from Afric- WHATTT!

[Anonymous No.21038954]

>>21038939
Oldest human fossil found in asia

[Anonymous No.21038960]

>>21038954
So?

[Anonymous No.21038963]

>>21038447
>>21038552
are you asperger?

[Anonymous No.21038967]

>>21038960
>So?
If we all came from Africa, why are the earliest human remains in Asia? How do you still argue the out of Africa theory? Where's the evidence for it? Because if the earliest signs of humanity are not in Africa, how did we get to this hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.21038968]

>>21038963
no, im a genius. I’m the wisest person you have ever interacted with

[Anonymous No.21038969]

Replace "chemicals" with "gunas" and it is the same thing, just at a level that is more intuitive and meaningful for human beings (and, I will admit, also probably closer to the truth because we are not multiplying entities needlessly). Even if physicalism is wrong it is still very grandiose to assume human beings have a particularly special place in God's creation.

All actions are performed by the gunas of prakriti. Deluded by identification with the gunas, a person thinks "I am the doer." But the illumined man understands the domain of the gunas and is not attached. Such people know that the gunas interact with each other; they do not claim to be the doer.

Those who are deluded by the operation of the gunas become attached to the results of their actions. Those who understand this truth should not unsettle the ignorant.

Even the wise act within the limitations of their own nature. Every creature is subject to prakriti; what is the use of repression? The senses have been conditioned by attraction to the pleasant and revulsion to the unpleasant. Do not be ruled by them; they are obstacles in your path.

The scriptures describe the three gunas. But you should be free from the action of the gunas, established in eternal truth, self-controlled, without any sense of duality or the desire to acquire and hoard.

Attain to this and pass from death to immortality

[Anonymous No.21038973]

>>21038967
It’s possible that they just didn’t find the older fossils in Africa. Africa is huge and there aren’t a lot of archaeologists there

[Anonymous No.21038974]

>>21038963
He just wants to think he's still right and argue regardless. He knows he's misinterpreting the actual subject of the comic. He's acting in bad faith because he's coping.

[Anonymous No.21038977]

>>21038967
Listen, here, chuddy. We are all NIGGERS here, okay? You are the same as Jamal with the grotesque features.

[Anonymous No.21038982]

>>21038973
There are more working archaeologists in Afrika than any where else.

[Anonymous No.21038990]

>>21038973
It's not important once humans became a thing they fucked like crazy, outcompeted spread everywhere within a blink of an eye in a geological time frame. Where did ants originate? Does it matter?

[Anonymous No.21038996]

>>21038973
Okay but what is the reason to still think we originated from Africa if more evidence points to the contrary?
>It’s possible that they just didn’t find the older fossils in Africa. Africa is huge and there aren’t a lot of archaeologists there
All you're saying is
>We still come from Africa just because!
Afrocentrism is a race grift disguising itself as academics.

[Anonymous No.21038997]

>>21038990
If they all mixed, why are there still niggers? checkmate.

[Anonymous No.21039000]

>>21038996
We have evidence of Africans having ancestors different to other humans. Completely different species of different homos. If we all came from africa that could not be.

[Anonymous No.21039003]

>>21038996
Where do you think we originated from, then? What if we came from Asia? So what? The África theory makes sense to me. Explains niggers

[Anonymous No.21039004]

>>21039003
Different humans originated from different parts. There are Africans and there are Eurasians. This perfectly explains the differences in intelligence and the higher Neanderthal admixture in Eurasians.

[Anonymous No.21039007]

>>21038997
They occupied a bunch of places at once, saturated their ecosystem and diverged from there to suit their landscape.

If you wiped out everyone but Irish people say and they spread all around the world, you'd have genetic drift to adapt to the enviroment and have new races all over again given sufficient timeframe.

[Anonymous No.21039009]

>>21039004
they still all have a common ancestor that resembled humans more than modern day primates

[Anonymous No.21039014]

>>21038783
Explain how.

[Anonymous No.21039040]

>>21039003
Different places. Just not all from Africa. But
>Where do you think we originated from, then?
Isn't an argument. I don't need the definitive answer to debunk one theory.

[Anonymous No.21039053]

>>21038891
>they care about having a system that “just works.”
Which is fine until they pretend that's all there is.
>I only care about x therefore all that matters is x

[Anonymous No.21039057]

>>21038447
Better topic, where does this meme come from? I kinda refuse to believe some random person wrote it, it feels like it's older than the internet. or I'm easily convinced.

[Anonymous No.21039063]

>>21039009
So what? All living things have a common ancestor, so we have to draw the line somewhere. And the line is drawn when homo sapiens began to exist, and they didn't begin to exist in africa.

[Anonymous No.21039072]

>>21039063
>and they didn't begin to exist in africa.
well you know every damn thing so I might as well just believe you

[Anonymous No.21039086]

>>21039063
>the line is drawn
At some point a lizard laid an egg and a thing God declared to be a chicken came out. That was the first chicken and now we know which came first.

[Anonymous No.21039091]

>>21039009
We have had different ancestors otherwise we would all be much more genetically similar. There are some primitive humanoids that subsaharans share DNA with but no other race does and there are those of the same for other races. If there was this one common ancestor all of the current-era humans then at mist you'd have to argue it was Asia where they came from. You still believe in Afrocentrism despite the fact everything says it's wrong. I am not a nigger, sorry.

[Anonymous No.21039114]

>>21039091
By all likelihood you're basically a nigger. Modern humans closely related to non-homo-sapians are like a tiny group of isolated people in the Indian subcontinent, Pygmies and Australian natives.

Everyone else is just derived from the same generic bottleneck, inbred and adapted to their environs. If there were no niggers, nature would make them again out of anyone living in Africa eventually. Same as any other fauna.

[Anonymous No.21039127]

>>21039114
Wrong. Sorry, but I'm not a nigger. Either you are or this is a cope as to why your child is dark skinned.

[Anonymous No.21039252]

>>21038716
And yet reality has a kind of consistency and presence which allows us to model it. Scientific modeling or metaphysical modeling... both are possible, or rather logically functional. It is this very "unconcealedness" of reality which allows concepts, judgements, and truth to even be thought to exist (the important part is "be thought to). I've heard some wacky nominalist, materialist takes before, but never any as radical as this. There is no uncrossable categorical difference between metaphysical and material understanding because material understanding presupposes certain metaphysical claims from which it proceeds. How can you make judgements about objects in motion if you reduce the concept of an object to a delusion? What are you even making claims about?

[Anonymous No.21039262]

>>21038722
The logic is that there is no logical impossibility for chemicals to be the source of self-consciousness. The problem is that Donald is claiming that it is chemicals alone which are self-conscious when it is really their cohesive arrangement as a macroscopic entity. But that's neither here nor there. Chemicals can be "the root" of self-consciousness from which their structure holds this self-consciousness together in time.

[Anonymous No.21039275]

>>21039007
>If you wiped out everyone but Irish people
But they are already African...?

[Anonymous No.21039289]

>>21038967
>If we all came from africa, why are the earliest human remains in Asia?
God, this is retarded. Currently, the oldest fossil skeleton of a hominid (HUMAN ANCESTOR) is Ardipithecus Ramidus, found in... you guessed it, AFRICA. It is highly unlikely that a parallel or pre-dating set of older ape-human link can be traced to Asia, considering going any further back takes us pretty much out of hominid territory (Sahelanthropus Tchadensis and the like).

[Anonymous No.21039298]

>>21038716
Unfathomably based and /lit/ mid wits will seethe (the predictability of which proves your statement lol)

[Anonymous No.21039303]

>>21038895
>Something does not come from nothing.
And yet endless posts come from the empty skulls of /lit/ dwellers....

[Anonymous No.21039310]

posting it

[Anonymous No.21039342]

>>21039289
>Currently, the oldest fossil skeleton of a hominid
The fact that it is related to modern humans does not imply descent from it. Same applies to chimpanzees.
>It is highly unlikely that a parallel or pre-dating set of older ape-human link can be traced to Asia
Why? The only reason you can claim this is because we haven't yet found anything else in Asia, which is likely because Asia is both underexplored and also (and because) it is more developed (and therefore prone to loss of fossils themselves and the possibilities of them being excavated at all).
The out of Africa theory is retarded and is completely reliant on selection bias and limited sample size. All it takes is the discovery of one fossil and the entire theory is instantly debunked.

[Anonymous No.21039369]

Why is it that, if I play a succession of minor chords, some will feel sad or sensual? And if I play a succession of major and dominant chords, some will feel cheerful and convivial?
Is it the frequencies of the notes that simply trigger secretions of different hormones in the brain? Do the different receptors have different densities corresponding to musical frequencies? Then why doesn't loudness of music correlate strictly with feeling?
Very strange. What gives?????

[Anonymous No.21039384]

>>21038705
Holy shit, did you even read what you responded to? None of those observations you made were contradicted, it even outright says it itself.

[Anonymous No.21039393]

>>21039310

[Anonymous No.21039436]

>>21039342
>the fact that it is related to modern humans does not imply descent from it.
What do you think this relationship is composed of? Some bizarre resemblance? No, dummy... Ardipithecus is merely one example of a physiologically coherent sequence of cranial and spino-skeletal developments from traditional apes to upright hominids. There are many other near-human hominids found in Africa which predate the Java skeleton yet are more advanced than Ardipithecus: Australopithecus Afarensis, Africanus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus. Another example which demonstrates the implausibility of a parallel/preceding group of human ancestors in other areas is the most commonly found non-human species in Europe: Neanderthalensis. Their development shows a variety of evolutionary differences highly related to the natural climate of northern Europe. This kind of physiology is highly region-specific and mirrors the region-specific developments of Homo Floresiensis, another Asian hominid which came much later than Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, etc... The general theme is a consistent physiological lineage within Africa and then a sprout of evolutionary diversity as the species diverged. At the end of the day, it is just a theory, but easily our strongest one right now, and for good reason. Don't spout ignorant shit like this anymore or I'll be forced to bonk you.

[Anonymous No.21039444]

>>21038816
Neurology is even less of a science then psychology, Neurology is in dire need of replication in which it has none. The object of the body and brain is never denied, only that the mind can be reduced to it and you've yet to provide a reasoning to think that. The body being the seat of stimuli is not a new idea, a lag proves nothing besides the existence of a lag.

Also, materialism is a metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.21039522]

>>21038447
mickeys cold dead eyes, you could almost call them saucers.

[Anonymous No.21039530]

>>21038708
Kys for making me notice this

[Anonymous No.21039536]

>>21038447
You going insane, by your measure, is just "chemicals" and has no intrisinic meaning beyond that. States of mind are therefore inconsequential to anything beyond their physical manifestation and don't actually "mean anything"

[Anonymous No.21039542]

>>21039444
That book...that book caused demons to attack me in my sleep

[Anonymous No.21039580]

>>21038447
Agreed. It's the dumbest meme I've ever seen and only goes around because it has vaguely elevated diction.

[Anonymous No.21039599]

>>21039580
How would describe the kind of diction that would be needed to describe emotional states of mind? Like how does "sad" feel? How does "angry" feel? Now you might just say they feel "bad" but anger and sadness are not the same thing, neither are feelings like "joy" or "fear". Simple platitudes do not describe wholly transcendent states of mind, and one might say they are just chemicals. However if that's the case, then feelings are inconsequential and if you're depressed, its probably a "you" problem and nothing external, the world of experience being secondary to yourself

[Anonymous No.21039810]

>>21039303
Ad hominem
You have no argument and nobody on here has argued whenever this point is brought up. You actively choose to believe in atheism irrationally which upsets you because you view theists as irrational. Either can be an irrational belief but be honest about it.
>It must not follow the order of this universe in this specific case because I believe it doesn't
Why? If you were to actually follow rationality, you'd conclude there's a creator.

[Anonymous No.21039813]

>>21039810
The nature of this creator is the real debate and where theists become irrational.

[Anonymous No.21039836]

>>21038447
>dude we should all just kill ourselves

[Anonymous No.21039906]

>>21038447
>It wouldn’t be a lie
Did your brain tell you that?

[Anonymous No.21040146]

>>21039810
you can’t prove that something cannot come from nothing. What’s worse is that this is exactly how you believe God exists. He just exists for absolutely no reason

[Anonymous No.21040172]

>>21040146
God exists because logic dictates that something created this world and that something would be considered God. I witness this because everything else in the universe is an effect to a cause so i can infer the origin of it all would need to have been caused by sonething else greater than it. To you, God doesn't exist for absolutely no reason.

[Anonymous No.21040193]

>>21040172
Hold on a minute. I’m not asking why this world exists. I’m asking why God exists. We’re talking pre-creation. In the absence of creation, why did God exist? Even if it’s true that God is necessary for the universe to exist, why was it necessary for God to exist in the first place? By the way, you appeal to logic to explain God’s existence. Does that mean logic is ontologically more fundamental than God? And how do you explain why logic is necessary? If logic exists because of logic, then that is just circular reasoning. So we can ask the familiar question but with God or logic:
>Why does God exist rather than nothing?
>Why does logic exist rather than nothing?

[Anonymous No.21040201]

But our brains aren’t absurd chemicals, they’re a group sophisticated nuclei and tracts that interact and mingle with purpose. A GABA receptor will only react with GABA, alpha2 receptors will cause a feedback inhibition to further release of acetylcholine when Ach binds to it. Everything is done with intention and purpose. Chalking everything up to spontaneity to justify nihilism is grossly misrepresenting truth.

Donald is wrong, but not because of the reason that Mickey states.

[Anonymous No.21040221]

>>21040193
God exists because there is a creator to every creation. Who and what that God is up for debate but there is a God.
>Why does God exist rather than nothing?
Because something can't come from nothing. Show me one example in your supposed real world of this.
>Why does logic exist rather than nothing?
Doesn't matter to this argument but if were up to me I'd say because God created it or is somehow part of it in a larger picture. There could be a creator/God of God but that would still mean there's a God. I at least know in our case it doesn't end at the Big Bang.

[Anonymous No.21040238]

>>21038447
>>21038466
>>21038500
>>21038544
>>21038552
>>21038584
>>21038600
>>21038629
>>21038636
>>21038638
>>21038644
>be me
>want banana, get banana
>life good

[Anonymous No.21040255]

>>21040221
>Because something can't come from nothing.
I’m not asking why the universe exists, retard. I’m asking why God exists at all. Suppose there were no creation. Then why was God’s existence necessary over non-existence? Why did God need to exist in the first place? You can’t just keep saying that God was necessary for the universe to exist, because the universe didn’t exist yet. It’s as if you think logic had some sort of goal of creating a world from nothing but decided that first it needs a necessary being to create that world. So why is the universe is necessary? Why is God necessary? Why is there a God and universe rather than nothing at all?

[Anonymous No.21040258]

>>21038447
I mean, If I cut a man open, and he's full of meat, people will say he's not a meatbag? Because of the reflexive authority of chemicals which dictate my ability to detect that the man is made of chemicals?

So, I go to heaven, cut open God, and he's full of divinity. Is it not equally as much the reflexive authority of divinity which causes me to perceive that God is composed of divinity?

You can't really have an authority which isn't entirely reflexive. The power has power because it is power. When X is not X because X is what causes X to be X, that just means there is no truth, even when you go see God, and somebody just slaps this meme in his face and now his "authority" is equally as illegitimate as the legitimacy of chemicals.

>"intrinsic value"

Value is an entirely subjective and imaginary concept to begin with. Even if this world was entirely fictional, the fact that value does not empirically exist without a subjective witness to provide some opinion on the perceived "value" of the object, there is no "innate value" to anything. All quantities are equally as valuable, they are values, and there's no distinction between them until you apply conscious subjectivity like opinionation. Simply due to the fact that there are quantities within this existence proves that it has objective value, and the fact that you're conscious means that you can blindly apply "intrinsic value" to anything at any rate you want since "intrinsic value" is an entirely subjective, baseless, and imaginary concept.

Even if this world were innately meaningless due to the authority of chemicals, your own mind is still the absolute authority on "intrinsic value" since this is a baseless measure rooted entirely in ones subjective beliefs and opinions, thus cannot be an "invalid argument" due to being dictated entirely by non-constraining baseless subjective justifications which can always be contorted to any extreme necessary to justify this argument.

[Anonymous No.21040297]

>>21040255
>I’m not asking why the universe exists, retard. I’m asking why God exists at all.
Because the universe is God. I've explained this. If the universe exists then god must exist for the universe to exist.

[Anonymous No.21040302]

>>21040297
And as we live in the universe, it exists and therefore so does God.

[Anonymous No.21040319]

>>21040255
>Why did God need to exist in the first place?
Don't know and isn't relevant to 'if' he exists. This is a question of 'why' he exists.
>Suppose there were no creation. Then why was God’s existence necessary over non-existence?
But there was a creation so this point is irrelevant.
>>21040255
>It’s as if you think logic had some sort of goal of creating a world from nothing but decided that first it needs a necessary being to create that world.
Read about Logos, Jung is good source.
>So why is the universe is necessary? Why is God necessary? Why is there a God and universe rather than nothing at all?
Don't know, just that there is. You keep bringing up non-argunents. I make no claims of the true nature of God or his origin, just that he exists.

[Anonymous No.21040332]

>>21040319
I believe God's reasons are beyond my comprehension seeing as we can't possibly figure it out empirically other than pretending he isn't there to make it a non-issue. But it's not my place to be God and to understand ultimately.

[Anonymous No.21040912]

>>21038689
>Death isn’t real, bro. Trus me.
>I gots proof. Smoke dis