So /his/, can you prove the existence of God using logic alone?

File: proof.png (24KB, 474x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 474x300px

>>2046126

Gödel's ontological proof

How could the world be millions of years old when it's 2016

>>2046137
>>2046139
explain

File: 1479020664514.jpg (74KB, 750x612px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 750x612px

>>2046139
>ontological proof

>>2046126
We all exist

God want to try your faith, your faith is in crisis so God exist because if he did not exist you wouldn't had asked that. Pascal wrote:"you would not seek me if you had not already found me". We search continually God even if we don't find him. Our faith is in crisis.

>>2046126

Sure.

>The universe exists.
>The universe has one of three scenarios under which it can exist; 1) it is uncaused, eternal; 2) it is self-caused, or created itself; or 3) it was caused by another.

Of those three, and they are exhaustive, only the third fails to violate any known scientific laws, such as any of the laws of thermodynamics including entropy, spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, etc.

Logically, the creation infers the creator in much the same way the painting infers the painter and the building infers the builder.

Statistically, the chance that this universe out of an infinite number of multiverses (the evidence for which is hypothetical) just happened to get the cosmological constant precisely correct to 1 part in 10^120 is a logical absurdity.

>>2046137
Is that Goedel's?

File: 1475229305593.jpg (20KB, 309x323px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 309x323px

>>2046393
The OP said using logic, anon, not your argument from ignorance.

>>2046678
>the "testing your faith" excuse


try again boneheads

>>2046689
even assuming this is true, that doesn't prove that a conscious being created the universe. you could literally just attribute it to "quantum fluctuations" and it would be equally valid

>>2046698
>exc
Sorry i didn't understand your comment. Could you be more clear?

>>2046701
Yes, and by doing so, you would make "quantum fluctuations" your god.

Likewise, you could carve a face on a coconut and call it your god, and it would be your god.

>>2046726
Your post was in no way an argument.

>>2046161
Ontological arguments basically boil down to "We can define god, therefore god must exist"

In the case of Godel it's somehow dumber

Okay so here's the basic idea:

We must define to be god.
So we say: A thing is godlike if, and only if, it only has positive properties

The opposite of a positive quality is a negative quality.

Any property that is a necessity of a positive quality must be positive.

Existing is positive

God therefore cannot possess non-existence.

The rest is just fancy logic terms to back this.
That's it.
That's the argument.

>>2046698
>Doesn't even try to tackle the logical proof provided in the thread.

>>2046689
The steady state theory is gaining a lot of ground with scientists, ya know.

>>2046731
That's literally not what a god is.

>>2046734
What logical proof? I don't see any. You're only allowed to meme if you're right.

>>2046126
The universe was created by primal cause which is uncreated and eternal (nirgun), and in a sense the world is eternal and uncreated in that is an extension of the monad (sargun).

In the beginning, there is God. Now and ever, there was God.

File: 14829759.png (451KB, 565x526px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 565x526px

>>2046731

>>2046733

While you may not think existence is a positive quality, we're talking about God.

And God's existence is orders of magnitude better than yours, on all counts.

So for God, existence is a far higher quality than it would be for you, who may be suicidal.

And most logical proofs include "God must be greater than anything we can imagine to be good, because God transcends our imagination, and a real God who transcends our imagination is greater than a God we can imagine".

>>2046736

It failed 60 years ago, and has not been revived.

>>2046734
When your logical "proof" has more unsubstantiated axioms than arguments I believe it doesn't need to be refuted.

>>2046732
Why? Am i not trying to show God's existance?

>>2046737
It literally is.

God is a title; that title belongs to the one who created the universe, a godlike act.

So if you think your carved coconut is responsible for your existence, that is your god.

If you think people do not have carved coconut gods, you have not seen what I have seen.

>>2046740
Goedel's above, the one you don't have the maths to tackle.

>>2046745
Logical proof was asked for and provided.

Said logical proof's only attacks in this thread are "nuh uh".

>>2046752
so then you admit your trinitarian Yahweh Sabaoth hypthesis of who "God" is is as equally valid as a coconut head

>>2046748
It's not an argument. If you're trying to argue for God you are failing at it miserably. Also quit namefagging you fuck

>>2046756
Can you even read? lol

>>2046740
The idea that god must only have positive qualitites is axiomatic, as is the notion that the opposite of a positive quality is a negative quality, as is the idea that the necessity of a positive quality is a positive.

It's no better than axiomatically stating god exists.

>>2046752
No, god has many definitions, and not all gods are said to have created the universe, nor is "created the universe" the extent of what it means to be god.

Godel, which is the proof offered in this thread, defines god as something with only positive qualities.

Christians define a god as the almighty creator, love, and a variety of other things.

Either way, "Quantum fluctuations" doesn't meet the requirement".

>>2046760
If I had to pick an example of blatant, retarded strawmanning this would be it. Thanks anon.

Also, he isn't equating the Abrahamic god with a coconut if you could actually possess any level of reading comprehension.

File: 1427746107284.gif (3KB, 421x237px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 421x237px

>>2046126

How do you want it? Clocks in the sand, from necessity and contingency, to literally self-evidence, or something more along the Eastern line.

Maybe you could prove God positively does not exist using logic alone. That would be impressive.

>>2046768
how is that strawmanning? I'm well aware that he is attacking the opposition with the coconut head. I'm saying that both are equally unsubstantiated and throwing it back at him.

>>2046753
You don't NEED to.
He gives six axioms and argues from those six axioms it must be true, but those six axioms are easily disputed.

Goedels proof is a logical proof, sure, but it's not actual proof.
It's not evidence.
It's a shitty argument from the turn of the first millennium AD restated as a math problem.

It's equally as valid to say that because I solved X to be 9 in my last math test given what was given axiomatically, that means X is now forever 9 outside of the problem.

>>2046761
I was only trying to show God'existance "using logic". I didn't want to argue about. But i don't see why my opinion is wrong

>>2046773
See
>>2046733

>>2046775
Come on, he/she said nothing about Trinity, Yaweh, or his/her own religious beliefs and you assumed totally what they were as a way to bring down his/her argument. That can only be strawmanning.

>>2046781
Because it's not an argument. There is no logic in your post. Also, learn to spell, idiot.

>>2046760
Of course not.

I'm just saying a golden calf is only monetarily better than a carved coconut, not spiritually better.

>>2046763

Yes.

lol

>>2046764
God = Creator

QM obviously does not meet the criteria for being the creator of the universe, but if you believe it does, then QM is your god. And you worship a false god.

Most people worship false gods.

>>2046783
you're right, I made an assumption. a very safe one at that. the chance that he is a christian is greater than 90%. this argument comes from a christian theological tradition and his line that "God is a title for the creator of the universe" is a line you'll here a million times from christian apologists on 4chan

>>2046791
Then you'd realize refutations to these pathetic arguments extend past "nuh uh". You are doing the exact same thing you're criticizing the rest of the thread for, oh the irony.

>>2046777
The only argument is "existence is not necessarily a positive quality", to which the response was "maybe not for you, but God's having a great life".

>>2046126
I assume that you want a proof of God which also makes the Christian faith valid as well.

If that's the case, you're asking for something impossible unless you accept some of Aquinas' arguments.

You're asking for a proof for a being that defies transotivity. I doubt you'll get one.

The best you'll get is a proof for the internal sense perception that people have, your "I just feel it". There is nothing wrong with that, if you are explaining why you believe in God. It just doesn't hold up in am argument trying to prove God's existence to anyone but yourself.

>>2046797
*hear

>>2046799

Not significantly, no. To say God's existence is not a positive quality is to say "nuh uh" to Goedel's ontological proof.

>>2046782

None of the lines of argument I outlined derive their value from the unclosed ontological argument.

Godels representation is a translation of the argument into first order logic, and may be more fully expressed.

>>2046804

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the earth shows his handiwork.

To God, all who say God does not exist are not seekers asking for more evidence, but rebels in opposition to God. The above is proof enough of God that God sees any atheist/agnostic as standing before him without excuse.

Jesus rose from the dead after being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, performing signs and wonders and miracles, and fulfilling hundreds of prophecies about the coming Messiah, proving his claim to be God, or I Am.

>>2046804
>a proof for a being that defies transotivity

All you need to do is prove the existence of an omnipotent being. Omnipotence carries the implication of potential, not necessarily realization. An omnipotent being can rewrite the rules of logic at a whim, and must by definition be in that regard truly non-limited beyond the limit of limitation.

>>2046801
No, the argument is that every single part of what he says is an axiom except the conclusion, which means that he may as well have stated axiomatically "God exists".

This is not me being emo.

And saying "Your life must suck" is not an argument for the existence of god.
Apply yourself.

>>2046807
No, pointing out that Godels proof is retarded, and stating how (Namely: It's entirely based on axioms that are by necessity unproven)

Hey, let me try this on you.

God only possesses positive qualities.

Being pansexual is a positive quality

The necessary quality of a positive quality is positive.

Therefore god has to be on tumblr.

No?

>>2046783
see>>2046789
I was exactly right. I wasn't intending to stawman, only to get to the heart of that matter: he was trying to make a dodge on the matter by proving "God" with as loose as a defintiion as possible to the point that it doesn't even have to be a conscious being for the purpose of sneaking in that specifically his idea of God is correct

>>2046781

1.God want[s] to try your faith
2. Your faith is in crisis
3. So, God exist[s] because if he did not exist you wouldn't had asked that

I don't mean to be rude, but your argument expressed simple predicate logic appears as:

1. A (Where A means, 'God wanting to test your faith')
2. B (Where B means, 'Your faith being in crisis')
3. If ~G, then ~T (Where G stands for 'God existing' and T stands for 'questioning the existence of God')
4. So, G.
The point is (though put nastily) that the argument has terms that seem superficially related, but logically express different statements at each turn.

>>2046831
Again, your argument that existence may not be a positive quality is a reflection of your life, not God's life. God's having an awesome life. Your life without him sucks.

And yes, since God exists, you may as well just say "God exists" and learn to deal with that fact.

Pansexuality is not a positive quality, and certainly would not apply to God.

So your analogy is as ridiculous as your sense of logic, reason, and spirituality.

>>2046832
Not my idea of God.

God.

Thanks for the strawman admission, though; your denials strained credulity.

>>2046858
>Pansexuality is not a positive quality, and certainly would not apply to God.

If you can define existing as positive axiomatically, why can't I define pansexuality as positive axiomatically?

> God's having an awesome life.

Prove it.

>>2046831
>God only possesses positive qualities.

idiot

>>2046862
Yes, your idea of God.

You defines god as narrowly as possible, argued for that, then changed what god was.

That's all you fuckers do, all day, every day.
It's sad, it's dumb, it doesn't make sense, and it's why religion has less and less influence every day.

>>2046870
Yes, Goddel was an idiot, I'm glad we agree.

>>2046880

positive in what sense then?

cause thought I heard someone say problem of evil as if it's even legitimate.

>>2046887
Goddel doesn't define that.

Goddel simply says "God has only positive qualities".

>>2046896

oh in terms of the predicate logic

honestly I can't even get behind that definition, as it is unnecessarily delimiting. Saying literally God can """only""" be a particular set of things seems wantonly obtuse.

>>2046126
The universe exists
God created the universe.
Ergo God exists

why are atheists so dumb??

>>2046877
No, not my idea of God.

My understanding of God from having a relationship with the living God for decades.

>>2046984
They're not.

They're in open rebellion against God, whom they hate, and deny exists. And upon whom they blame all their problems, because "he could have prevented them".

>>2047002
>>2046984
Fucking Poe's law

>>2046984
>>2047002

I can't tell if you're meming or actually autistic.

Aren't positive qualities subjective?

What if in my atheist mind god's positive quality is his inexistence?

>>2046126
God is the only substance, everything else is an attribute or a mode

>>2047013

Cited by people who admit they lack discernment.

>>2047023

It's amazing you can only think of two false explanations. Try harder.

>>2047048
You would be projecting your shitty life onto God, who's having an awesome life.

And who wants to share it with you, but will absolutely not force it upon you.

>>2046137
>>2046139
>God by definition possesses all positive qualities
>Existence is a positive quality
>Therefore God must exist

Yeah well, God 2 also possesses all positive qualities, and existence is one of them, so he exists too.

Also Gods 3 and 4 exist for the same reason.

What prevents this line of thinking? How can a Christian defend a definite belief in one God from this logical standpoint if it also supports an infinite number of them? It doesn't make sense to me.

>>2046126
Cells, atoms, and just general physics have laws. If nothing in this universe matters, why are laws even existent?

>>2047141
God said there are none like him; he looked.

God is never wrong.
God is never mistaken.
God never lies.

Your "idea" of God is too small and your God 2 is no better than a carved coconut.

>>2047165
You're pointing to the Bible as proof which isn't a valid example per the OP. You're not giving a logical proof.

>>2047165
>God said
Not an argument.

>>2047098
Meming and autistic are the most likely answers. Assuming you're the same poster, rationalizing disbelief as rebeliion is one of the most autistic things you can possibly do. Seriously, it's in the OP, you need to argue with logic and reason yet you theistards continue not to.

>>2047144
"laws" are just the terminology we use to define natural phenomena that we observe, it doesn't actually mean the universe is bound by created rules it means "things appear to consistently behave in this manor."

File: Make NAFTA Great Again.jpg (87KB, 620x348px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 620x348px

Logic by itself is useless.
You need the application of verifiable knowledge to gain any real understanding of the world you live in.

Any statement that degrades the necessity of the scientific method also degrades the necessity of logic.

>>2047203
manner*

yeesh

File: stuartchase162978.jpg (77KB, 620x400px)

77KB, 620x400px

bait thread.

>>2047208
What did he mean by this?

>>2047206
Logic by itself is not useless. Even if we couldn't represent shapes at all in a physical form or test how they work on paper, we know that logically a circle can't have right angles and that 1 plus 1 must equal 2.

That is knowledge we can know simply by way of logic, and doesn't need testing. Which is important because it's very basic stuff.

>>2047102
>God, who's having an awesome life.
well he's constantly fucking whining about how disappointed he is in everything, had to kill his son, wipe out humanity once or twice, and is in a seemingly eternal struggle for our souls with the forces of evil. seems like god's life isn't so awesome.

>>2047208
This is the only real answer. Faith is Faith because you believe regardless of there being no proof. There is no proof of God and there never will be, that's the point of faith.

Personally I don't have faith in God but other people do. It's just faith, that's all it is. It's like a feeling, you can't prove it right or wrong.

>>2047231
bait post.

>>2047233
bait reply.

>>2046829
Sure, I agree whole heartedly.

But OP will just say "that's dumb because x, y, z, and it doesn't follow"

>>2046126
t. never read Kierkegaard
Also
Don't need """logic""" to prove God. That's not what a Christian is supposed to do.

>>2046126

Faith is merely the human ability to believe what you have not seen.

You believe quarks exist, for instance, even though you have never seen one.

And you can believe God exists, even if all you have for evidence is the entirety of the universe, and everything in it.

>>2047219
I would argue that depending on only basic stuff is no way to have a civilization. Beasts certainly have a logic of their own, but their inability to record and explain their observations prevents them from achieving a higher quality of life.

>>2047318
no, people believe in quarks because there is a reasonable expectation based on evidence. huge difference.

(1) Person X died an atheist.
(2) He now realizes his mistake.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

>>2046689
is this muh antropocentric argument?

File: 1437106952892.jpg (2MB, 1852x6928px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1852x6928px

4chan tried to go fedora once.. It failed.

File: 1388532545014.jpg (14KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x250px

If it's impossible for life to come out from nothing then how god was made? It's just impossible for god to exist out of nothing, the same with fucking life.

>inb4 don't question god's existence
>he works in secret ways

Check mate, theists


Well any way,

since we are in /his/ I will give a short answer:

Your typical version of a theist's

god=eternal

And the plotholes in the bibles

Atheist's

life=eternal(infinity)

My original post, OP,- combine it; you got infinity!
Infinity can be a source of things aswell. You know, words are just nothing but sound/air and frequencies, so Infinity can also mean that it's a ''it''! Means you can have faith in infinity!

Infinity is the real god if already

>>2046126
>he answered your prayers once

This is sort of the only actual one can have. Their personal reflection with god. So you are preventing yourself from finding god intentionally.

>>2046743
>God must be greater than anything we can imagine to be good, because God transcends our imagination, and a real God who transcends our imagination is greater than a God we can imagine
Then you just going on loop than giving it a real answer with evident reason. You will never come to a conclusion with thinking.

It's impossible to think that this type of god is beyond our imagination since we already think about it and know which type of god is it. The thing you definitely can't think/imagine about is certain type of colors that exist beyond our imagination.

It's like you tried to bring the beyond knowledge of our brain argument, but in reality it is like this.

''Our brain is limited'': if you think you bring the ''god is beyond our limitation'' argument then why do you need answers or knowledge? Just so you could debate an atheist? You religious people are too modern and hypocrites anyway, so how hard is it to accept the facts? So you would support technology and science but asking ''god's existence'' is a doubted argument? IT'S EASY TO STOP BELIEVING IN HIM

>>2046126
>>2047637
>4chan tried to go fedora once
I don't understand why people forcing this down our throats

People just trying to find answers with actual evidence and researches then just living in an ignorant society. Your ethicality is really disgusts me, as it comes from a religious outrager

>>2046689
If you consider causality to be so important, then adding god to the mix does nothing to fix the dilemma of how the universe came to exist.

If the universe cannot be uncaused or self-caused, then neither can god, and you're just left looking for whatever created god.

If god could be uncaused or self-caused, then so can the universe, and god gets rekt by Occam's Razor.

>>2046126
No, because God doesn't exist. He transcends existence. Your reliance on pure rationality won't pay off in the end, anon. There is more to life than cold precision and uncaring realism.

>>2047141
>God is defined as the absolute existence
>but why aren't there 2?

Because then those 2 wouldn't be God...

>>2046126
It's illogical to believe all this happened...... because? No?

God is the mechanism as to why this happened, not how.

>>2048110
Why does there have to be a why to the universe existing?

>>2048067

>doesn't exist
>transcends existence

This is not the same thing.

>>2047141

It's a positive quality to be unique

>>2046126
Can you prove the existence of anything using logic alone?

File: 1477713671694.jpg (196KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1920x1080px

>>2046393
>>2046689
>>2046741
>>2046984
>existence
>God created the universe

But what if there's a logical explanation of these?

Yes, science doesn't know all the answers... yet.
A few thousands years ago we had no fridges, laptops, electric lamps, cars, etc... now we have.
Science advances.
It solves puzzles / problems - religion is just wishful thinking.

Also
>someone should create the Universe

Ok, let's play your game, then:
1, What if it was another "god(like entity)"?
2, What this entity doesn't even give a shit about the universe?
3, What if the universe was created by accident (even if it was caused by a godlike entity)?

And, of course:
4, What if the whole thing has rational explanation, but science needs more time to solve this puuzle (remember: mankind has no idea that one day there will be airplanes, nuclear energy or DVDs).

Yes, it'd be easy to believe in a spooky God-like figure.
But let's face it: it really is wishful thinking.

One more thing: ok, let's assume that there is a substance that created / caused everything.
Even if there is such a force, thinking that it has a human-like mind and personality is just nonsensical. It's possible, but highly unlikely.

And if there is such a force, it'd be like any force of nature... so why would we call it "God"?

>>2046126
If god wouldn't exist did he exist in the past?
How would you able to talk about something that has never existed?
Tell me something that you can't know.

>>2048163
The value of uniqueness is relative to the value of other qualities contained in the object. If it's a particularly nasty shit, it's better that there's only one of it than many. If it's a good thing that can do no ill, why wouldn't multiplicity be positive quality rather than uniqueness?

>>2048211
Without nutrients, we die. Therefore we can assume that a lack of nutrients is harmful.

>>2047231
This type of thinking doesn't get traction here because it doesn't help people feel superior to others.

>>2050144
You can't prove your premisses with logic alone. You only know that because you've been taught by others or by direct experience of starvation.

>>2050109
>How would you able to talk about something that has never existed?
We are discussing physical existence, not an abstract product of imagination.

>>2050163
We are talking about a concept my materialistic friend.

>>2050163
>he uses the term physical and propanly was only smart enough to study social science

kek

>>2050073
this

File: atheist.jpg (100KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 640x480px

ITT

>>2050073
true wishful thinking is believing that the scientific method, the study of the natural world, can say anything meaningful about the supernatural, other than the supernatural is not of the natural world - which we already know. You have a groundless faith that "science" will lead man to absolute knowledge of all things given enough time. Do you really put your faith in stupid little trinkets like DVD players?

>But what if there's a logical explanation of these?
>thinking that it has a human-like mind and personality is just nonsensical

You're accepting that it is impossible to understand the workings or motivation of God, and that the "logic of God" may not be the same as the "logic of man".

The word logic does not resonate with a lot of people here.
Thesis: Religion exists out of fear and an inability to understand.
Proof: Look at the early religion whenever they dont understand and cant test things , God did it. Then go on with your life.
The beliefe in God is perpetuted by a fear of the unkown, after death what happens to me?
If we become imortal religion may become extinct or only used for moral purpose.
As it stands you will all die, alone and without an answer. To provide confort when this takes true hold and life is shit, look to god because it helps.
You don't need proof of god but it sure would be nice not to die and thats it. If the people who where having a shit time did not believe in something they would make it. Religion is essential to humanity for the time being because the world is shit and full of desparate people, these people would be dangerous in their ignorance without a book of faith.

>>2047141
What properties distinguish God 1 and God 2?

>>2046689
first of all
>scientific laws
there are only theories with greater or lesser amounts of supporting evidence

and there isn't much reason for us to assume that those physical principles would exist before the big bang.

>this universe out of an infinite number of multiverses (the evidence for which is hypothetical) just happened to get the cosmological constant precisely correct to 1 part in 10^120 is a logical absurdity.

let's assume that there is a 10^-120 chance of our universe being created with the right physical constants for life to develop . We have no idea how many universes were created before this one.

Then once you have a universe which happened to support sentient life, those life forms could easily think " it is so unlikely that this universe could support life that there must be a god".

The exact same way taht if you threw basketballs over the back of your head from the half way line and filmed yourself, eventually you'd throw one into the net. and if ou showed another person a video of the one time you threw it into the net they might think" wow, that is so unlikely, he must be amazing at basketball!!"

your thinking is feeble

>>2046689
This

The only reason why god exists is because we need a protector to watch over us.
When we are children, we are under the protection of our parents and our community. Therefore, we are being protected by something "superior".
When we reach adulthood and either we don't trust our community (the only way a human is capable of functioning properly or making radical changes on it's enviroment) or it fails us, we have no choice but to hope that something superior will save or protect us in our time of need.
Hence why non-believers pray or reedem themselves to god when they are in danger.

Also:
>""""""positive"""""" qualities.
And what makes a quality positive? Who defines what is positive? Sounds like a human concept to me.

File: download.png (8KB, 218x231px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 218x231px

>logic

Lads, what if God isn't so much a being as a force, sort of like the God emperor of Mankind from 40k

>>2050835
God is only in the mind. Like all fictional characters.

>>2050550

None. However, they are not the same entity.

>>2050545
>Religion is essential to humanity for the time being because the world is shit and full of desparate people, these people would be dangerous in their ignorance without a book of faith.
The opposite is true. Religion makes people a danger to themselves and others.

>God had to write his will for people to understand and believe it.
>God had to make """"""""superior""""""" beigns to believe in him because the animals he made are too dumb to do so.

>>2050290
Butthutt kid

>>2050839
And even if that is the case, does it matter? The effect is the same, the benefits are the same. I'd God is simply an emotional construct, why has almost all of humanity up until this point has agreed that it's a good idea?

>>2050955

But what are the benefits, exactly? Community? You can get that without belief in god. Solace? How consoling is it, really, to spend your life worrying that you're going to hell whenever you "slip up"?

Religions such as Christianity that allow for absolution for sin are particularly pernicious, because they infantilize followers by preventing them from truly taking responsibility for wrongdoing.

>>2050955

Why does which religion you believe in matter then? If my belief in pixies that communicate with me through tarot cards helps me survive, what exactly is wrong with this belief?

thats the point! It does not matter what you believe to inteligent people as long as you are not assulting people with fervor. Religion=Bad, God=Helpful.

>>2051110
That's autistic.

The religion of your people was incorporated with the cultural values and morality of that people, as well as, usually, addressing all those aspects of the human condition that negatively affect our lives.

>>2051087
>prevents them from taking responsibility
Sort of like how you have to tell an authority figure what you did and then do a penance for it?

>>2051166
>That's autistic.

And that is completely irrelevant if it helps me survive

>>2051166
>Sort of like how you have to tell an authority figure what you did and then do a penance for it?

Exactly. They teach the vile doctrine that you can "pass off" your sins onto a cosmic scapegoat. It's no surprise that Christians are such sanctimonious hypocrites, they're never given the opportunity to grow up as moral agents.

>>2051171
Maybe, but you could also become a hermit who lives in a tree and prays all day if it suits you. If you want to live in a healthy society it needs a healthy religion to order it.

Note: the cult of progress/Hedonism in the West today is not what I would consider "healthy" values

>>2051176
>Note: the cult of progress/Hedonism in the West today is not what I would consider "healthy" values

Why not?

>>2051173
Spoken exactly like someone who was not raised in the church and has never gone to confession.

>>2047141
read Kant's dismissal of the ontological argument and realise that you are an autist

>>2051179

Thankfully not, I've had to live with my sins and to learn from them, I haven't been indoctrinated to give up my moral reasoning.

>>2051181
damn it was meant for >>2046139

>>2051178
Depression/suicide rates, average normies dissatisfaction with society, the modest reawakening of conservative values among millennials, the hateful attitudes the """progressive""" left has adopted, etc.

Not exactly proof, but certainly evidence to look into it more deeply.

>>2051187
>admitting all of the small things you did wrong doesn't make you learn from them

>>2051195

Apparently not, since you keep making the same mistakes. But then if you actually learnt from your experiences, you wouldn't still be religious.

>>2051192
>Not exactly proof, but certainly evidence to look into it more deeply.

What evidence? What is any of this based one? How did you established that all the things you've just mentioned were 'caused' by modern western values? Do you know that correlation doesn't mean causation? Do you have any idea what the induction fallacy is?

>>2051207
That's why I said it's not proof, laddie. It was the case for myself and others I know, which is why I believe it has some value for research into it, but that's just me.

>>2051206
Would you say you have attained euphoria?

>>2051219

Of course. I'm indeed very happy, thank you.

>>2050850
People being a danger to themselves and others is literally hard coded into our DNA ideology is just an excuse to indulge in it

God is a dissociative extistential delusion of grandeur.