None of the manmade religions seem plausible to me.
An impersonal god like whatever deists and pantheists believe in seems possible, but since its ultimately unproven and the existence of an impersonal god wouldn't really affect my life I don't believe in it.
There is knowledge of properties as revealed by science, and there is knowledge of essence as revealed by consciousness, or rather, there is a form of knowledge peculiar to consciousness itself which is superior to discursive reasoning in the domain of value, meaning, and the nature of existence.
>>677877 >For atheists: why do you think that god doesn't exist? I don't. I just don't believe in any god. If someone can prove that their god is real and the right one, cool, but until that I just wish people would shut up about it.
>>678046 >knowledge of essence revealed by consciousness This better not be mysticism you're talking about. You could literally think up of anything in your mind, and then use subjective "truth" to justify it. We need something that we can empirically test, or at the very least logically demonstrate to exist. I've never had any so-called proof for God bring my belief beyond "it's possible," so I've found no reason to believe in him.
>>678061 The Buddha intuited no-self thousands of years before any "philosopher" of mind had anything to say about it.
Daoists have been describing psychological flow states since the Tao te Ching
The knowledge of spiritual figures is intuitive knowledge. How autistic do you have to be to want empirical proof for "do unto others as you would want done to yourself"? This is the field where religion/mysticism operates. Science has nothing to say here.
>>678072 I never said shit about science. I said we need something we can either empirically test or rationally demonstrate, not just a feeling. Believing in some sort of higher power or "unity" and only having the justification of "I feel that it's true, so I know by intuition" isn't acceptable. You must have proof.
>>677877 I believe that God exists because that's what I was taught as a child. It's something that I tried to shake when I was in high school and college. I've come back around and learned to embrace it, even if I am in constant doubt.
>>678089 How many times do I have to say you can't have physical proof for a transcendent state/being? How about the commonalities between religious experiences found in all cultures? Either way, that's as good as its gonna get. Which is pretty good considering nearly all spiritual aspirants agree in their descriptions of higher states of consciousness. Even if they are describing nothing that exists outside the universe, and it's all in their minds, it is still a fact that what they describe about the mind is real.
God you guys really are just robots sputtering "p-proof??" all the time
>>677877 >why grew up christian after a certain age stopped going to church learned about other religions doubted them in my teenage angsty years looked into philosophy looked into mysticism looked into occultism had a bad stint in occult reading began to obsess over magic later began to realize God is the source of all knowledge >mfw God is the supreme mind return to mysticism by way of christianity attain gnosis through experiences in contemplation experience entheogens (DMT, mushrooms) >mfw God is no longer an idea, but an urge
I've spent years refining my approach to "God." I believe because I know. God is not a figure. God is a dimension. A mode of being. God is home. And we must all find our way back by delving into life and being true to your most noble self. Being honest with yourself is the first step. Everything else is secondary.
I don't believe in God because I don't think the world is structured in a way that would call for a concept like that. e.g. there is no 'first mover' because movement doesn't descend in a tree structure like the Aristotelians wish it would.
>>678102 >transcendence What is this even supposed to mean? >Even if they are describing nothing that exists outside the universe, and it's all in their minds, it is still a fact that what they describe about the mind is real. Then it's all just psychology. Peyote used to be (and still often is) considered a method of obtaining a higher state of consciousness, and it's just a hallucinogen. It's not too much of a stretch to call spiritual experiences a fully psychological phenomenon, and not actually related to any truths about the world. >God you guys really are just robots sputtering "p-proof??" all the time Maybe because I don't want to believe in something I don't have proof for? Jesus, it's simple logic.
>>678102 Nothing you have said in any way proves, or even justifies a belief in any god. At best it justifies the moral values of some religions. The question wasn't "Do you believe in religion/think religion is right?" it was "Do you believe in god?".
>>678145 >you'll have to find it yourself You mean make it yourself? Because that's what I see most theists doing. Making new evidence and reinterpreting old conclusions to their heart's content. And when that fails, they use some form of mysticism or "transcendent knowledge" to put their god on an unfalsifiable pedestal. That's just pulling shit out of your mind, which is a pretty bad way of finding the truth. Besides, if God existed, he would make incontrovertible evidence of His existence. That way, no good but misguided people would turn away from his faith; only the truly wicked would do so.
>>677997 >investigation of consciousness by conscious >making conclusions about anything but your own conciousness
Buddhists do this all the time with meditation, and a LOT better and deeper and more systematic than any other religion. And none of those think it leads to theism. You think atheists can't meditate? No, of course they can't. Only you can. You are special. And your feels count as evidence.
Science and humanity started making propper progress once it discarded this kind of egocentric horseshit.
>>678198 >you find god through experience What experience? That word can mean anything. If I "experience" the good old Flying Spaghetti Monster in my life, does that mean that he's there? Or does it mean that I'm decieving myself. And don't tell me that's a strawman. It's not. Subjective experience could be used to justify anything.
>>678198 You're not even talking about god though. You're just rambling on about personal enlightenment. These are not the same thing at all. "God" as a concept is an external deity, and has nothing to do with your personal self.
>>678072 Brains are matter, mental states are therefore bound by natural law (none of your "magic soul stuff" christ-chan). If being empathetic is better for people, its discernable in the state of the human brain.
You clinging to "meaning and morals are magic you're not allowed to do science to it, its infringing on my feels!" or holding "medieval wisdom" as more than historical reference is just.. confused.
>>678206 >The Big Bang, and all the questions of how it started and what existed before, may as well be asking about God. "It just was!" "There WAS nothing!" The big bang theory explains how the universe was really small, then it became very big, very quickly. It doesn't ask any questions about what came before, it may raise them, but they aren't scientific because we can't gather any data to make a hypothesis.
>Abiogenesis is not possible, it has never been demonstrated to be able to create life from non-living matter, and the more people try, the more they prove that the idea is folly. Just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done. It's not like people have been trying for very long.
Out of curiosity, if man managed to synthesise life completely from scratch would you question your beliefs?
>>678211 Theism will never die out. It is not a dysfunction, it is actually an integral part of the human psyche. Just like we need food, water, and air, the human mind needs some (perceived) higher purpose. Even the nihilist makes entropy his god.
>>678227 >Out of curiosity, if man managed to synthesise life completely from scratch would you question your beliefs? Yes, I would. It's not like I'm some hardcore jesus freak, you know. But I've done a LOT of reading and thinking over the years and it just seems to make sense.
>>678232 Because it's been popping up in humans since the beginning of time. The Egyptians were smart enough to do all the things they did and they still had their gods. Even Socrates believed in a higher power (or powers). And I don't think you'd disagree with the notion that people function best when they have some sort of code or credo to conform to.
>>678247 >Even Socrates believed in a higher power (or powers).
It sounded to me like he was challenging anyone to prove THEIR gods, the gods of Athens in this case, as more correct than HIS gods. He believed in argument, and he was searching for the same one OP is searching for. But the Greeks couldn't come up with anything.
>>678244 Consider that humans and apes share nearly 100% of our DNA, but that miniscule, ~1% difference is the gap between us, who can conquer the earth (and space eventually), and apes, who are condemned to scratching their butts for our amusement. That's just 1%. Imagine the intricacy, the precision required for the other 99% of the DNA to be created just so. (I guess you could call this a fine--tuning argument). The argument that all of this happened by chance is banking on a probability so low that it makes lotteries look like a coin flip in comparison.
There is a science that has for its object only things incomprehensible. Contrary to all other sciences, it treats only of what cannot fall under our senses. Hobbes calls it the kingdom of darkness. It is a country, where every thing is governed by laws, contrary to those which mankind are permitted to know in the world they inhabit. In this marvellous region, light is only darkness; evidence is doubtful or false; impossibilities are credible: reason is a deceitful guide; and good sense becomes madness. This science is called theology, and this theology is a continual insult to the reason of man.
>>678277 Pretty sure we share less than 99% of our DNA with apes, wikipedia tells me it's 4% and that's where I'm going to be sourcing my numbers from. 0.1% would be the observed difference between the genome of 2 individual humans. Consider also that your finetuning argument falls apart when one considers that only a miniscule portion of that DNA (1.5%) can be directly observed to make a contribution in the form of Protein encoding genes (There are still regulatory segments and such but those are still dwarfed in size by the apparently completely useless segments).
Your "Just so" argument falls to further pieces when you remove your "Human goal" lense. Random mutations happen, are selected for by environmental pressure and potentially push a trend for further selections.
>>678277 This is not about chance. If you tried the lottery for a billion years you'd win too. And we share 70% of our DNA with sea urchins. So what? But you are right, life is amazing. As is astronomy, chemistry, math, and the universe in general. Not intrinsicly amazing, just to us humans.
Does that tell you anything substantial about anything but human psychology? No.
>>678298 I think that our own solar system has something to say. Mars has no life. Venus has no life. Jupiter has no life. Mercury has no life. Saturn has no life. Why is this?
Earth has many extremophiles that can exist in places without water, places with ridiculous heat, places that are frigid. Clearly life can adapt to the most absurd environments. Why then, are our other planets barren?
>>678309 >completely useless I will never fall for this
>I think that our own solar system has something to say. Mars has no life. Venus has no life. Jupiter has no life. Mercury has no life. Saturn has no life. Why is this?
If our solar system is typical, as you suggest, then one planet per solar system develops life, on average?
>Earth has many extremophiles that can exist in places without water, places with ridiculous heat, places that are frigid. Clearly life can adapt to the most absurd environments. Why then, are our other planets barren?
Let's wait and see what happens to those places when we actually go to them. Our extremophiles will colonize them, as they did on Earth, as they almost certainly have already done on Mars. They might be there waiting for us, and on Mars, we may have brought some of them.
>>678226 Do you not get that I'm saying the spiritual feeling that is universal to all cultures is a reflection of higher truths, or do you literally think I'm saying when I think of God or morality it's happening acausally? Lol come on dude, this is reddit-tier.
There is no doubt that the last few hundred years increased our capability to wreak violence exponentially.
Our actual wreaking of violence went up, but it still only matches the earlier periods of great violence, the An Shi Rebellion, Genghis Khan's Adventures, the Thirty Years War, and the World Wars (the period when our ability to commit violence was great).
Logically, our propensity to commit violence has gone down as well, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
>>678335 Occam's Razor has nothing to do with God. As I said earlier in the thread, anything pertaining to the Big Bang/birth of the universe may as well be about God. Also, note I'm not denying evolution, only abiogenesis.
>>678336 >If our solar system is typical, as you suggest, then one planet per solar system develops life, on average? I'm not sure. We've discovered exoplanets but they always seem to be Jupiter-sized or so. Is that ok for life to grow on? Who knows.
>>678322 It's not bait though. A significant quantity of your genome is apparently useless. Or are you going to insist that Introns, despite being cut out during mRNA processing, are observably useful? Not to mention any number of other things in your genome with no apparent function.
There is also a distinct reason why I said "Apparently completely useless" and not just "Completely useless" because it would be stupid to discount everything that has no as of yet observed function. But using it to dispute the "Imagine the other 99% of our DNA" statement is completely justified.
>>678322 Life has to be exposed to circumstances it can reasonably survive before it can adapt to them. Starting conditions also have to be just right.
>>677877 I believe that Gods exist because it is merely a word, a word that refers to something we are capable of identifying as being in control. It's subjective.
The more shortsighted you are, the more your God has a supernatural element to it; the deeper you can perceive things in the world, the more your God is really just a word for something identifiable that's in control.
And if you feel yourself entirely in control, then YOU are God.
I don't think a supernatural God or single God exists because the concept of supernatural and a thing-in-itself comes from shortsightedness.
>>678366 >Or are you going to insist that Introns, despite being cut out during mRNA processing, are observably useful? Until they can create life I don't think they have the authority to call something "useless". It could have a function that they never anticipated.
>>678362 >I'm not denying evolution, only abiogenesis. Thats a dogmatic stance thats not based in anything scientific. This is the EXACT SAME as proving the absence of god. You think people dogmaticly deny the existance of god without having disproven god, yet claim certainty about abiogenesis without humanity knowing very little about how life started, and what can and can't happen. You assert certainties based on a lack of knowledge.
If abiogenesis WOULD be possible, as a very rare event, how exaclty would the world be any different?
>>678362 >I'm not sure. We've discovered exoplanets but they always seem to be Jupiter-sized or so. Is that ok for life to grow on? Who knows.
Let us say solar systems like ours are at least somewhat common. We've already found a few, so let's assume we find the same proportion as we keep looking.
If we find many planets that are in similar positions to Earth, with similar elemental compositions, having had similar histories, and they are all barren of life, that will be evidence in favor of Earth being unique.
>>678384 Well, we've seen evolution. The variety of dog breeds is basically accelerated evolution provoked by humans. That's why I said that. And no, I can't prove God exists. But I haven't seen anything that DISproves Him, either. I know you won't like that, but it is what it is.
>>678391 Yeah. I wish we lived in the future, I'd love to explore extrasolar systems. feels bad man
>>678408 >Yeah. I wish we lived in the future, I'd love to explore extrasolar systems. feels bad man
Until then, we can't say if Earth is typical or not. The atheist argument doesn't rely on Earth being unique or common; some theist arguments do rely on Earth being unique, so they can't prove part of their argument yet.
>>678374 While I'm not completely discounting that there might be some function to it, especially since progress on stuff like this is getting better and better, the vast majority of DNA is "junk" that is cut out during processing or doesn't do anything observable and unlike RNA I don't think DNA even does any interesting structural bullshit. As far as we know only about 10% of your DNA does anything which is observable. There may be some unforeseen use to it, but just assuming that the majority of that 90% has a function that we just can't see is almost ridiculous.
>>678277 That 99% thing is only valid if you compare only the protein encoding parts. What was previously thought to be "junk DNA", and now considered to hold information as well, increases that difference quite a bit.
Not that it matters, your argument would still be nonsense either way. "i can't imagine how therefore god"
>>678408 ..Why would I not like that? You just told me your worldview is based on irrational thinking and horrid misconception of burden of proof. If you can't show anything that would convince a reasonable person that your assertion is correct, yet believe it yourself - that defines a delusion.
And don't be tempted to drag in some horseshit like "but you can't prove love, and you believe that too, so you're as irrational as i am and therefore irrationality is ok somehow". Certainty levels about emotional states of other human beings have nothing to do with assertions on how the universe was created by an invisible undetectable superbeing.
God is the first cause. God isn't a man, god is however we perceive and try to understand the world. I think non-proselytizing faiths nail the concept of God the best, but much of the same wisdom I think can be found in many.
>>678518 He's not treating it as a religion. He's treating science as a set of prepositions which have been tested and basically proven to be true, which is is. Science is the closest thing we have to objective facts. We can't mistrust it just because of some belief that we only hold because of muh feels.
>>678542 I'm sorry, but there is nothing more bullshit than the concept of religious faith. If I chose to have faith in an invisible, omnipotent flight of stairs which I saw as my God, what reason would there be not to? It's just as valid a theory as that of Jesus.
>>678549 >WRONG >INDUCTIVE SYSTEMS CANNOT DELIVER CERTAIN ABSOLUTELY PROVABLE A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE >EVER And you're saying that faith can? Or some sort of "rational belief in God" that in reality only demonstrates that God cannot be disproved. >>Science is the closest thing we have to objective facts. >>closest I never said scientific facts were completely objective. I just said that they're closer to the truth than anything we can get. >PLEASE LURK MORE Maybe you should calm the fuck down before getting buttmad on the internet.
>>678563 >I don't want to bother disproving this guy's assertion >therefore I'll call him an autistic fedora and claim my victory It's true. People always say to have faith in God, but they never realize that one could have faith in anything. Faith is not a means to truth.
>>678592 Why not have faith in everyone being in a sort of Matrix, and that when we "die" we'll find that we're all actually immortal beings and will never die? Why not have faith in the pagan gods of old? What's the difference between them and Christianity?
>>678607 You can, and are certainly welcome to. It doesn't seem particularly useful or predictive to me, but if that's where you want to put your faith, in your sovereignty, that is where your faith will be.
I already know I am an immortal being who will always exist. You will also know this, as you too are an immortal being who will always exist.
The pagan gods of old are inferior to the one true God in every way possible, and are slated for the lake of fire, with all of their followers in tow.
Pagan gods are deified humans and fallen angels.
Jesus is God. Christianity is the belief that Jesus is God, the Christ, Who died for the sins of mankind and rose on the third day, offering salvation to all who believe the truth of who He is, and what He did.
>>678629 Simple. The things of God are not for the people of this world. If the best understanding by the best Christian ever, Paul, is "as though seen through a glass, darkly", then what does that say about the children of satan being able to see it clearly?
>>678611 >You can, and are certainly welcome to. It doesn't seem particularly useful or predictive to me, but if that's where you want to put your faith, in your sovereignty, that is where your faith will be. So you admit that belief in God is purely of faith? Well I'm not going to bother with unproven assumprions of that magnitude, then. >I already know I am an immortal being who will always exist. You will also know this, as you too are an immortal being who will always exist. How do you know? >The pagan gods of old are inferior to the one true God in every way possible, That's a suhjective opinion. >Jesus is God. Christianity is the belief that Jesus is God, the Christ, Who died for the sins of mankind and rose on the third day, offering salvation to all who believe the truth of who He is, and what He did. HOW DO YOU FUCKING KNOW FOR THE MILLIONTH FUCKING TIME
>>678648 I have not seen Jesus, but I love Him. I did not see the resurrection, but I know it happened. And when I say know, I mean epignosis, as it is the Holy Spirit of God in me Who told me these things, through His Word.
To see the Father, Who dwells in unapproachable light, is to die. I am still alive. I have not seen the Father.
To see the Holy Spirit is to see the wind; impossible. You can only see the effects of the wind on the things around you, which I have seen of the Spirit.
To see the Son, you would have to be in the New Jerusalem now, as He is still building it, and perfecting it. I am not there.
Nevertheless, when I see the Son, I will see the Father, and the Spirit in me will rejoice.
>>678650 Their story changes a bit. They used to say that the quran is eternal; that it is like God, without a beginning. That in its written form in heaven, it has always existed. And then Jibrail (satan) merely told it to Mohammad, in its eternal state, and some of Mohammad's people memorized it, and transcribed it after Mohammad died.
I don't think they still push that narrative, as it makes no sense, and does not account for the satanic verses, the abrogated verses, or the "new" revelations Mohammad received.
I make a distinction between what is holy, and what men say is holy.
Bible: Jesus is God. Quran: Jesus is not God. Bible: Jesus was crucified. Quran: Jesus was not crucified. Bible: Jesus rose from the dead. Quran: Jesus did not die. Bible: Trinity is One God, Father Son and Spirit. Quran: God is One, and has no Son. Quran: Christian trinity is Father, Son and Mary. Bible: Belief in Jesus is salvation. Quran:
>>678675 The bible is the book that was written after Jesus's death; and it is the book that has the inconsistencies. They can't even tell the same story 4 times in the same way. This is excusable because Jesus was not as important a prophet as Mohammad.
>>678681 How do you know that the Bible is correct on these matters, and the Quran is incorrect? By the way, if your answer is just "the Holy Spirit has let me know through some nonspecific yet objective means" then I don't know what to tell you.
>>678663 The bible tells the story of the earth from beginning to end. It prophesied the holocaust, and the founding of Israel in one day. It prophesied the Caliphate and the upcoming war with Israel. It prophesied the NWO with a cashless society, where people where marked, and the mark allowed them to buy and sell. It prophesies about this time, this time of apostate believers falling away from the truth, and seeking teachers to tickle men's ears. It tells that people will forget the creation, and forget the flood, and thus not believe in the Word of God. That scoffers will mock believers for thinking Jesus is coming back.
The bible is about 30% prophecy.
I would say about 10% of it is coming at you like a freight train.
>>678719 Maybe in the case of a single event; but not over an entire life. Their misplacement of the "braiding the whip" story indicates that all authors of the Gospels heard the story of Jesus second-handedly.
>>678710 >years of soul-searching What does that prove? How does that prove anything besides you only believing in God because you want to? I'm also tired of the "all atheists are autists" meme. I don't care about that goddamn statistic, just because many atheists are atheists for the wrong reasons doesn't mean that atheism is false.
>>678755 I honestly have no idea what this "braiding of the whip" controversy is. If anyone would like to posit it, I will be happy to look into it. All I have is some complaint of eyewitness inconsistencies, and events in different orders.
And no, it is never more likely that satan tells the truth, and God lies.
>>678542 I find what mainstream religions preach very unappealing if not downright revolting I made my peace with the meaninglessness and insignificance of life. Death isn't something that scares me and I'll try to be happy while im alive
>>677877 Everything in the universe that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore, it's very probable that the universe, which seems to have a beginning, needs a cause. That cause is God, who is uncaused, because He doesn't have a beginning.
>>678808 >There's no projections if we're in infinity, m8. You're not even making sense.
>That we're not in heat death is proof the universe is not eternal. How so? Based on projections based on the limited human understanding of the universe.
>Maybe take a science class? It means that either there's something we don't know about that prevents heat death, or that what you say is correct. It's not a proven fact that heat death did or would happen. It's a prediction based on what we know.
Atheist. Reason? Socratic logic: "There is not a reason to believe unless there is a reason to believe. If there is a reason to believe, there is a reason to believe. Belief itself is not reason; it is circular presumption. Presumption itself is also not reason."
>>678913 The universe hasn't been around for infinite years. The universe did not exist before the big bang. Existence has only been a thing for 13.7 billion years. I'm not sure why you find this so hard to grasp.
>>679069 not that guy, but there is nothing that says that the universe can not be eternal or infinite. The big bang could merely be one example of spacetime expanding into itself that has happened throughout the universes history.
>>677877 I don't think any established, organized religion that gives specific details about a deity/deities or the nature of reality has any semblance of truth to it.
As mortal beings, we cannot hope to understand the nature of something eternal, immortal, or divine. It goes beyond our capabilities. There MIGHT be some sort of supernatural being/event that spurned the Universe into creation, but the true nature of this thing or even knowledge of its possible existence is impossible.
>>679069 >Existence has only been a thing for 13.7 billion years
Careful, anon. Our observable universe has only been around for 13.7 billion years. It's a bit presumptuous to say that nothing else could've existed at any time before that or in a different "place", no?
>>678801 Muhammed couldn't read. God apparantly chose an illiterate insignificant merchant as the best medium for messages. Because spoken testimony usually is the most reliable form to convey information without alteration.
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 protected] with the post's information.