No smart person ever believed in a literal god as described by any religion ever conceived. What god actually exists is so beyond the man made descriptions of any religion. Dumb fucks cannot figure this out. They take mythology for truth and separate themselves from what god is. Smart fucks don't make these mistakes.
>>563356 My counter-argument is that the universe does not need a create as it is indeed possible for something to come from nothing. Furthermore Thomas Aquinas' argument hinges on Aristotleian metaphysics which with the advent of relativity we know is false.
Additionally there is no universal morality. To take C.S Lewis' example of the Nazis, whilst they're morally reprehensible as far as we are concerned now at the time in Germany what they doing wasn't just considered morally permissible but morally justified as a righteous cause.
it's pretty hard to convince your fellow citizens that the idea is bad when everytime you try to speak up, a God sends some ocean snakes to kill you which gets interpreted as you being a blasphemer. Or in Cassandra's case, no one gives a shit what you say.
In examining the existence of God, the first question that should be asked is: "Why does anything exist?" Subsequent questions are: Why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? In considering the question of God's existence, there are three popularly proposed answers as to why there is something rather than nothing: (1) The universe is all an illusion, nothing actually exists, (2) The universe has always existed, is self-existent (3) The universe was brought into existence by something/someone that is self-existent. Which is the most plausible solution?
The idea that reality is an illusion is primarily a tenet among Eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. The "reality is an illusion" option was disproved by the philosopher Rene Descartes who argued that if he is thinking, then he must "be," "I think, therefore I am." In other words, "I think, therefore I cannot be an illusion." Illusions require something that is experiencing the illusion. If nothing exists, neither does the illusion. Philosophically, doubting your existence actually proves your existence. "Reality is an illusion" is a self-defeating argument.
There are then only two choices—an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. Something exists. Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, something has always existed. If the existence of God is denied, an eternal universe is the only other option. To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points to the universe having had a beginning. Whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning and is not eternal is demonstrated by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang, the fact that the universe is expanding, and Einstein's theory of relativity.
>>563382 Further, how could an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe result in beings who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Only mind can create mind. Non-life cannot produce life. Unconsciousness cannot produce consciousness. The only logical and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for the creation of the universe. The concept of an eternal universe has been philosophically and scientifically disproven. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
With the clear evidence for the existence of God in mind, why are there so many atheists, and are there any grounds for atheism? No, there are not. The essential claim of atheism, "there is no god," is an invalid philosophical statement. Denying the existence of something cannot be proven. In order for it to be proven that God does not exist, someone would have to be in every location in the universe at the same time. In other words, to disprove the existence of God, one would have to be God. The need for an eternal and self-existent Creator can be proven. Atheism cannot be proven.
Another crucial issue to consider is the fact that the acceptance or rejection of the existence of God has more implications for life, action, and morality than any other issue. If atheism is wrong, it will result in unpleasant (to say the least) consequences. With this in view, atheists should produce conclusive and undeniable evidence for the non-existence of God. Atheism cannot accomplish this, and therefore, all atheists can do is hope that they are correct. Eternity is a very long time to be wrong.
>>563383 So, does belief in the existence of God have intellectual warrant? Absolutely. While atheists claim that belief in the existence of God is a psychological crutch, it is in fact atheism that abandons reality in order to fulfill a psychological need. If there is no God, there is no morality, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. If God does not exist, we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want, with no eternal consequences. That is the true motivation behind atheism.
another 16 year old who watched a video on youtube about quantum foam and super strings and suddenly he knows everything there is to know about the universe's origin, knows all the different theories and their inconsistencies and comes to /his/ to rebut god with it while ignoring all the problems with sed theories
Maybe this is why moot put off a philosophy board for so long?
>>563472 I'll rephrase it so you have to make less cognitive connections
How do you go from Creator -> Creator who gives a fuck about humans
All your logic has shown is that there was a 'first action', which produced a universe that humans are so far observably an insignificant fraction of. Everything else has an in-universe material cause.
>>563486 Oh my god you fucking retard whether or not the eye is well-designed (like you have some metaphysical standard for eye design anyways) or not is besides the point. the point is the universe has inherent tendency towards life and intelligence and that's extremely suggestive of an originary super intelligence. Evolution and the Absolute are in no way mutually exclusive. Fucking shit like im arguing with a fucking fedora chatbot
By what appears to be exceptional circumstances life has emerged on a sum total of 1 planet out of the entire known universe. If anything this shows that the opposite is true, the universe has a tendancy against life and intelligence.
>>563518 >giving primacy to the void and space rocks because 'theres more of it >trying to explain away the being that knows itself as Being as some fluke by pointing at space rocks >still can't explain how a dumb, deaf, and blind universe still managed to fart out consciousness, feeling, and life
I'm getting kind of bored BTFOing Christfags over and over again on this site. Could you guys reply with or link me to every 'good' argument for God/ morality / my special snowflake religion's truth and existence so I can just make a website destroying everything at once?
Damn, I actually never thought about that. In Europe, unless you're some edgy metal fan, most people don't really care about our pagan ancestors and despite the fact Christianity is as much of a sandnigger religion as Judaism and Islam, people see it as a normal European religion that is good for us. It's funny that in hundred years white European muslims will look back at the current process of the destruction of Europe and won't care about us and think that their life is better now. Perhaps we should just give up and start to embrace Islam.
>>563526 I did explain, and the answer is pure coincidence.
>giving primacy to the void and space rocks because 'theres more of it Obviously, the thing in question here is the universe. And when 99.9999999999999999999999'% is inhospitable chaos the fact that one small irrelevant planet has by astronomical luck given birth to life seems less compelling.
>>563324 burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. by your logic everyone, the media, academia, scientists, must except and acknowledge that i was abducted by aliens until some one proves i wasnt. the legal system is now "guilty until proven innocent"
seriously do you just troll by really have no interest in the argument but you see the athiesm/go/allah argument going on in some thread and you know posting "proof?" will get you responses?
>>563541 You can't explain the potentiality for life . Coincidence is not an argument you goober, especially since its something you're taking on faith. And ESPECIALLY the forces that actuated life are derived from the same laws that govern the universe on both macro and microcosmic scales. It's all one, but you're trying to tell me the most miraculous part of it is a fluke because it makes you look cool and dark on the internet
Fuckin a can the fedoras on this site celebrate their collective 18th birthday already so we can get some real arguments
>>563356 the failure of occams razor is it relies on the definition of "simple." people interpret simple in different ways. god made everything in the universe sounds simple but the bible can sound really contradictory so in the end science's explanation (which never included god) may sound more simple. the word "simple" is the problem
>>563577 It's not a fluke if it's derived from the same laws that make everything that isn't a fluke up you absolute fucking mongoloid. There is absolutely no correlation with then fact the universe is a big place and earth is small with "it's all arbitrary chaos Laffo". How many times do I have to repeat myself? If anything you're taking what I'm saying and going the whole other direction, so what makes you right? Because it's 2016?
>>563540 no, jesus encouraged us to act more civilized. muhammad encourages us to act like wild monkeys. google/wiki murder of farkhunda. killing her is essentially what islam teaches. she wasnt killed by extremists. she was killed by you average muslim
>>563549 so this proof you have: im assuming youve shown this to people and now all of academia, obama, the chinese government, everyone in the wold acknowledges it just like everyone today doesnt doubt newtonian mechanics.
>>563636 >physical laws give us life, universe has a tendency towards and potentiality for intelligent complexity >the universe is a big place... So the universe doesn't have a tendency towards life lmfao
Dude you just can't grasp my argument, stop flailing
>>563653 It's not just that the universe is a big place. It's that the universe is a big place virtually devoid of any kind of life whatsoever, it simply isn't there.
All the life there is as far as we know is on this one small planet. Saying the universe has a tendancy towards life because a minute fraction of it has life is like saying bleach has a tendancy towards not killing germs because it only kills 99.9% of germs.
>>563671 It's also saying the earth doesn't have a tendency to evolve sapient primates because for thousands of years we only existed in Africa and the rest was wilderness. Your argument is incoherent
Also the fact the possibility for life can't be actualized in inhospitable conditions proves absolutely nothing you mongoloid. Jesus Christ how many times I have to say it. You have a hydrogen cloud? OK cool That shits gonna just float around for eternity according to its atomic behavior. you got some organic molecules and a hospitable environment? Cool that shits gonna pump out humans in a few billion years according to ITS atomic interactions. Same laws, different results. The laws give us space as well as life. Universe has a tendency towards life. Chaos that is chaos at its pith absolutely cannot give us order and intelligence. You haven't refuted shit.
>>563671 As much as I dislike siding with an ahtiest, he's right. I'm as Christian as the next guy but I honestly can't sit here and keep reading this. >Saying the universe has a tendancy towards life because a minute fraction of it has life is like saying bleach has a tendancy towards not killing germs because it only kills 99.9% of germs. This is an extremely valid argument to what you're saying Stop before you make us look even worse than westbro already has. It's just that your argument has far too many intrinsic flaws to it that can be explained through natural selection. If you're going to use an argument make sure it has no loopholes/isn't falsifiability and follows a logical concision from it's equally reasonable/logical premisses
>>563716 Yes, it doesn't. Humans likewise only exist because of exceptional circumstances. Had things gone ever so slightly differently something else would be the apex predator. Additionally much of the planet can't sustain human life given that there's more barren wasteland and ocean than there is fertile land.
>Chaos that is chaos at its pith absolutely cannot give us order and intelligence. Yes, humans are not nearly as intelligent as we often think we are. Our intelligence comes solely from our senses that developed out of a need for survival amongst the chaos. And we're limited solely to perceiving the universe with those senses. There's a reason some animals can see things that we can't and it's because we never hadthe utilitarian need to see such things.
We don't have total universal order and intelligence in the way you're implying.
>>563786 I'm gonna try this one nor time cause you're babbling about completely irrelevant shit
Billiard balls smacking around for eternity will never, ever spontaneously arrange themselves into a complex structure unless there is an ruleset inherent to the billiard balls/particles themselves that actualizes when the conditions are right to produce this complexity. Otherwise they would just smack around for eternity and that's it.
You absolutely cannot deny or handwave this ruleset, this tendency, potentiality, whatever you want to call it, away because we exist so it exists. Your argument is incoherent because it's saying "this thing that obviously happens isn't really a thing because it hasn't happened enough/everywhere"
>>563828 There is a ruleset to the universe, and it's called physics.
However you're making this out to be anthropocentric when really it is totally indifferent to the development of intelligent life. It's not as if intelligent life is anything more than a side effect of the structure of the universe.
The fact that most of the universe, or even this planet would kill you stone dead if you tried to venture into it even with the best technology we have to offer should tell you how much the universe has a tendancy for life.
>>563859 Oh marone you really are a retard. I say physics gives us life and you say "no, that's physics!" I say meaningless chaos cannot give us complex electrochemical structures that know and feel themselves as alive, you start vomiting some bullshit about natural selection like the argument isn't the existence of natural selection in the first place. I'm telling you hostility to life doesn't refute this tendency, you just keep repeating yourself. I can just as easily say the void and space rocks are actually by-products of what's really important, but of course you won't buy that.
I've rephrased this argument 5 fucking times, given you examples and analogies and you still just don't get it. You really earned that fedora m8
>>563898 I'll let you in on a secret, if no one is getting your point but you perhaps it's not because no one is as smart as you but because it's a shitty point.
As I said, life is a side effect of physics. Saying that the universe has a tendency for life because it can potentially emerge given the most exceptional circumstances is like saying the best way to fix a car is to smack it with a hammer. Because maybe, just maybe, by a 1 in a trillion fluke it will correctly align all the parts. Except that's even more likely than life coming into existence in the universe.
The trojan horse could be a true physical concept or a very messed up sociological conception. From a physical aspect it was a way to easily conceal. From a sociological conception it can mean that the greeks in order to enter troy created a device. In order to get the people of troy to say, gee we were always greeks.
>>563253 A few were skeptical of Greeks bearing gifts, but Poseidon sent serpents to de our those nay-sayers. In the Odyssey many of the Trojans could here the rattling of spears and sheilds coming from inside the horse, but they just wanted the war to be over so bad that they pushed it out of mind.
>>564000 Did I say life itself was created? Can you explain to me how a fundamentally chaotic and non intelligent universe creates mind? It can't you dip, there must be intelligence inherent in the cosmos in the first place for intelligence to be actualized
>>564016 First of all stop talking like you actually know how much life there is or isn't in the universe. Second of all you keep repeating the same shit. Tendency towards life does not imply benevolence towards life. You got a fax number I can send this too? Jesus Mary and joseph
>>563999 I am getting it. You just don't understand why it's a stupid argument.
I fully own up to the potential of life, I'm just saying it's an exceptional side-effect that's even more incredibly unlikely that smoking a joint curing cancer. It's obviously not built into the universe like it's supposed to happen, otherwise it wouldn't be so rare.
>>564020 >there must be intelligence inherent in the cosmos in the first place for intelligence to be actualized That sentence makes no sense, think about it
I would also suggest that the very minuscule chance of order being created temporarily in a system of chaos makes more sense than what you're suggesting. I'm still not really sure what you're suggesting though, that there was an intelligence that didn't create anything but was a source for other intelligences? Please explain your thoughts
>>563716 Why do you think life is such a special phenomena in the grand scheme of things (beyond value we ascribe to it) if you agree it is just the sum of physical interactions just like anything else?
>>564024 >First of all stop talking like you actually know how much life there is or isn't in the universe. As far as we know there is one planet that life has emerged on. And given what a stroke of luck that was we're almost certainly not going to find another one.
As I've said, there is no tendency of life, as a matter of fact the opposite is true. What there is, is an infinitely tiny potential chance of it maybe emerging which is about as relevant as the 0.01% of bacteria that survives cleaning the toilet.
>>564042 It is impossible for true, honest-to-god chaos cannot create order because that's what fucking chaos means. X is not Y. Life evolved according to laws that actuate it when the conditions are right. CHAOS CANNOT DO THIS.
>>563984 The straw man is a fascinating theory. Lets put this theory in play. Instead of religion lets talk about money. Instead of God lets talk about who has the most money. Physical not spiritual. So you are well of, you have two children. For the most part no one sees you as having money because you preserve the custom. Its like ehh, thats nothing. So one child says I want my inheritance in the living. The other one doesnt pay attention nor seems to worry. So the one that wants money begins to trouble you psychologically so as to form a dependence. Sooner or later he has you believing you had nothing. And never have so as to keep forming a psychological dependence. Then to make himself feel good he pays for everything. This is the plate of jacob and in reality the one that was kept in the dark was Esau. Jacob was to busy looking over his shoulders into the finances of the patriarch, Esau was doing what he always did. Be with the wilderness. Jacob took Esaus soup and did a trade off. Because he already had taken over the finances.
>>564051 The bit you seem to be struggling with is this.
You seem to think the fact something happens at all, no matter how rarely, means there's a tendency for that thing to happen. I'm saying that's retarded because the universe makes it as hard as possible for that thing to happen, so it's no more of a tendency than any other rare side effect.
If life was relatively common, then there would be a clear tendency for life. But this is observably not the case.
>>564076 And you still don't get the fact were not talking some simple statistical anomaly, a literal fluke of nature, like frogs raining on some bumfuck village, in which case you'd be perfectly right. You still can't tell me why this incredibly hostile universe should have a ruleset for life in the first place. We're not talking just rare natural phenomena, we're talking something that is the complete antithesis to the system that produced it in the first place. Life isn't a frog storm. It's being that knows itself as being. Consciousness is a phenomenon of an absolutely higher order, that runs counter to entropy. And a universe producing a phenomenon like that when it's just supposed to be clouds and space rocks floating around for eternity is an absurd proposition.
You must explain this potentiality in a better way than "hurr I die if I don't eat anything hurr" or you must concede life has a bigger role than you're granting it
>>564110 1. Life is not as special as you think it is 2. Intelligence existing does not mean that there had to be an intelligence present when the universe began (if it ever began). Who created that intelligence?
>>564134 Oh yes it is. Philosophically speaking. Quantitative giving rise to the qualitative. Dead, inert matter giving rise to living, feeling matter. Nonmind giving rise to mind. Even from a scientific standpoint this is absolutely a phenomenon that begs for a root explanation, not simply descriptions of how it evolves and develops over time.
It does not prove it but it suggests it. far more intuitively and reasonably than this reality were living in suggesting bland arbitrary chaos at the heart of things
Hey, now were getting somewhere. I don't know what's outside the closed system that is the universe, but I think it is fundamentally of the same nature as consciousness. As above, so below
>>564110 That universe doesn't have rules that have been imposed on it. The universe has naturally occurring patterns that we has humans describe and explain with the laws of physics. You're looking at it backwards, because we're just trying to explain what we see with our very limited senses rather than discovering that the universe has rigid laws.
And on that note human consciousness isn't a higher order. That's similar to what I was talking about earlier when I said humans think they're a lot more intelligent than they really are. And this is because of those limited senses, we only perceive the universe in a way that would have been beneficial for survival rather than as any kind of supernatural gift.
>And a universe producing a phenomenon like that when it's just supposed to be clouds and space rocks floating around for eternity is an absurd proposition. I totally agree. The fact that life has emerged in such a hostile environment is nothing short of absurd. It's truly so mind-bogglingly astonishing absurd really is the word for it.
>>564152 I guess we just disagree on the nature of consciousness and how likely/unlikely it is that it just happened to be a random fluke
If this post>>563716 was you are you saying that you don't think "some organic molecules and a hospitable environment" would ever come about without an originating intelligence? The post itself admits that life is an unavoidable consequence of that system
>>564179 Conditioned material reality cannot account for its existence. "Naturally occurring patterns" is no argument. Of course to thebuniverse everything proceeds naturally, but we have no idea why what is natural should be this way instead of another way.
The appraisal of consciousness as a higher order is not based on subjective valuations of human intelligence but the very existence of qualitative states in a dead universe in the first place
>>564187 I never, ever once argued God literally came down and created life on this planet or any other one. Everything occurs naturally according to patterns of behavior we conceptualize as physical laws. What conditioned these patterns of behavior must be of the nature of the intelligence these behaviors are "tuned" to spit out, otherwise you're telling me a dumb universe spit out what shouldn't exist. nothing is a fluke when we are speaking of reality and its underlying rulesets, everything is conditioned and life is as conditioned as hydrogen clouds
>>564216 Well yeah then. If science can intuitively explain and demonstrate how consciousness is derived from dead processes, though I can't imagine you that's the case, I'll concede the point but from where im standing right now, It's your position that is the stretch
>>564196 Yes it can, we've known about this thing called natural selection for quite some time now.
>Naturally occurring patterns" is no argument. That wasn't my argument, my argument was that you seem to be looking at the laws of physics in reverse. As laws that are imposed on the universe, rather than manmade descriptions of the universe. Which is simply a fact. The reason the universe has patterns to begin with is because all particles more or less behave the same as others of their type. Giving the universe a very strong level of symmetry that can be accounted for in short formulas. The shocking homogenity of the universe means that's it's not that hard to imagine that a mass of matter gradually aligned itself like this. As opposed to if the whole universe was composed intelligently like a painting, there would be much more diversity to it, that could only be described with formulas as long as novels.
>The appraisal of consciousness as a higher order is not based on subjective valuations of human intelligence but the very existence of qualitative states in a dead universe in the first place As I say, it's astonishingly impressive that life has emerged. But it's not as special as you seem to think.
For 100+ posts I've been arguing that the issue is what conditioned these particles to behave they do in the first place. I never said physical laws exist outside of scientific models. What they describe, however obviously exists. I'm fucking baffled at how thick you are.
>>564238 I doubt you can explain what this "higher consciousness" consists of and how it begat human consciousness though.
IMO physicalism and intelligent design are on equal ground. It seems to me inclination towards one or the other is mostly arbitrary which is why people have argued about the mind-body problem for years
>>564285 So in terms of the purely objective is this whole thing just "Intelligent creation might exist because we don't know how some things happen but it's not any more likely than any other explanation"? Because I'd say everyone except the most fedora of atheists would agree with that.
>>564307 No, it just handwave everything else. An eternal universe explains the lack oforigin, but it doesn't explain it's own existence. Once again, conditioned materiality cannot will itself into existence, or you're telling me there's an infinite chains of contingent causes which is on absurd
We used to say. A Roman told Jesus to explain to him the existence of divinity. Jesus said fine, I'll write you a book. The Roman quipped, "a book?" Jesus said, God is so powerful he could write a book through man. So Jesus went back and wrote a book. And filled it with sin, transgressions, lies, moral deceit, history, corruption. See Jesus said to the Roman, "here is the book." The Roman returned and said Holy Crap, all this led to the conception of the Son of God? The Roman asked Jesus who helped you edit this book? Jesus said " a Greek. But remember there is a curse in this book about editing. " So years passed and passed and Christians still maintained oral traditions, and they laughed and laughed. The book had passed society from hand of king to king.-- All omitting themselves by way of washing away their sins and lies. Whosoever corrects Jesus's testament is to suffer the loss of their Kingdom. --
>>564319 Yes, but while it might not be more likely than some incomprehensible quantum shit that both mystics and fedoras are completely off the mark about it, it is definitely more likely than "what was supposed to be a dead universe through and through magically violated it's own incontrovertible laws to spit out what should not exist"
>>564323 >or you're telling me there's an infinite chains of contingent causes which is on absurd Maybe 1000 years ago when Aristotleian metaphysics was king but now that we have relativity we can recognize that, that very thing happening is entirely possible and as a matter of fact is probably more likely than one unmoved mover.
>>563279 >>563296 Paris was such a pussy and piece of shit seriously >decides to piss of a [SPARTAN] king by fucking and stealing his wife Have to fight for the death for her and to stop a war >run like a bitch when you're losing and go back on your word putting Troy in serious danger Like seriously fuck this guy.
>>563253 Most copies of the Iliad omit it, but in the original the horse came with a tablet saying that their previous giant horse was outdated and the new one needed to be installed right away or Poseidon wouldn't protect them from Greeks anymore.
Some scholars suggest that maybe the Iliad is occasionally embellished with things that made it sound better than it actually was, but given the documentary evidence supporting the rest of the story (for example, the core of the golden apple was discovered in 1855 by Malaclypse the Elder, who immediately concealed it behind a bird-cage to protect humanity from further warfare) it is clear that the Iliad is unvarnished (or at the most slightly stained) truth.
>>563380 Different atheist (I have faith in the conservation of energy) here.
Do we have any actual evidence that there was nothing?
A dimensionless, undifferentiated, superenergetic point is simpler than a conscious entitity, while still being a 'something' capable of creating at least one universe.
>Only mind can create mind.
Accepting this as an axiom implies that the Creator is not, indeed *cannot* be eternal, for the Creator has a mind and therefore must have been created by a mind.
> If atheism is wrong, it will result in unpleasant (to say the least) consequences.
We cannot conclusively disprove Huitzilopochtli's existence; therefore, if we stop his worshippers from conducting the rituals essential to assure the continued rising of the sun, we risk destroying all life on Earth. The stakes are too high for any other option than devoting the entire might of the Spanish empire to the protection of Montezuma the Second and his successors.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.