Is beauty proof of God?

>>2196595
No.
I'm a christian, but you could easily write that off as a misguided biological response to encourage certain actions.

How is this about history?

Also, no
In any world populated by intelligent creatures, these creatures would find some things more intriguing or appealing than other things

>>2196595

chaos is beautifull

>>2196595
Nope, and this has nothing to do with history or humanities.

>>2196683
>>2196747

Philosophy is humanities

It's that picture supposed to be a representation of beauty?

>>2196595
>proof of God

>>2196803
I find it pretty.

>>2196601
everything is a biological response intended to elicit a certain reaction, you're not saying anything

Beauty is the object of desire, desire is the essence love, and love binds together the entire creation. Every worthwhile thing humanity has ever done has been done in the name of beauty and love.

>>2197204
thank you for an actual non-reddit answer

>>2196595
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" answers your question. Beauty is subjective, does that mean the existence of God is subjective? I don't think most theists would accept that.

>>2196595
Beauty if subjective so no.

>>2196595
Is ugliness proof of no god?

>>2197203
This is unprovable.
Try and prove it, syllogism pls.
>>2196601
Broofs?
>>2196735
t. 14yr old sonic fan art enthusiast
>>2196595
Yes.
>>2196763
My man.
>>2196886
>epistemic denial is the first step in becoming a charlatan
>>2197218
not really, that is to say "people find things beautiful."
>Subjective
Proofs?
Anything you say I'll agree to and make it objective, if you deny that then you deny the term rather than its meaning, don't be arbitrary.
>theists
crawl back to your grave Christopher
>>2198970
ugliness is not the anti-thesis of beauty but the absence of it.

>>2198987
Perhaps beauty is the lack of ugliness.

>>2196595
No. It's proof of beauty.

>>2198992
>Perhaps beauty is the lack of ugliness.
No. This can not be for beauty for is a tangible harmony which can be quantified and understand in basic mathematical terms, ugliness can not be.
Computers cant tune pianos, but they don't sound horrendous.

>>2198987
>ugliness is not the anti-thesis of beauty but the absence of it.
Actually, the antithesis of beauty is the absence of beauty, just like the anithesis of love is not hate, but indifference.

>>2196595
Why would it be? Because it gives you a fuzzy, warm feeling, like the concept of gods do?

>>2198998
But randomness is also beautiful. Beauty is completely subjective, the opposite of randomness is order.

File: Aphrodite_Venus_Greek_Goddess_Art_01_by_jjlovely.jpg (120KB, 512x800px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 512x800px

Yes, how beaury can exist, if Aphrodite doesn't?! She is one who created beauty and love. Let's all praise her divine existence for such gifts for us, a mere mortals.

>>2198998
>ugliness can not be
Doesn't sound hard to quantify ugliness in sound.

>>2199009
> opposite of randomness is order
123456789 is as random as 258973265

File: Christian.jpg (220KB, 1280x1777px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1280x1777px

>>2196595
It is evidence not proof.

>>2196595
There is no empirical evidence for God.

For that matter, there's no actual empirical evidence for anything else.

It's all based on assumptions about theories founded in assumptions and qualified with further assumptions. (inb4 someone tries to argue its not)

So stop giving so much of a shit about it. Believe what you want, and deal with the consequences.

>>2199002
Even better as nothingness cant be an appeal because its nebulous.
>>2199009
>random is beauty
Agreed, is it objective now?
>beauty is subjective
proofs?
>opposite of randomness is order
Nothing is truly random.
>>2199019
Its actually quite difficult.

>>2199108
> Nothing is truly random.
Nothing is most ordered state of nature.

>>2199075
>There is no empirical evidence for God.
The Bible.
>epistemic denial
stop it
>believe what you want
Now that's just flat out wrong...

How about you go on proving these claims and not contradiction yourself any further, hmm?

>>2199111
>Nothing is most ordered state of nature.
Explain.
But...thus everything is just varying degrees of order?

>>2199108
>Its actually quite difficult.
Why? I'm pretty sure the spectrum of discordant sounds that make you want to rip the speakers/headphones out is larger than the one that makes you feel nice.

>>2199112
> The Bible.
It's fictional evidence on par with books about Azathoth.

>>2199114
Nothing is most perfect state of existence. There is no contradiction in nothing, no mistakes, none can be taken from it to make it less that it is not.

>>2199116
> I'm pretty sure
What is your proof? Random sounds are basically white noice, not the best, but not exactly the *rip* the speakers headphones levels of bad. Basically majority of sounds are from okay to nice.

>>2199127
"White noise" and "okay" don't qualify for "beauty" either.

>but not exactly the *rip* the speakers headphones levels of bad. Basically majority of sounds are from okay to nice
Then I'll instead reverse what you're saying and claim that the majority of sounds range from okay to bad.

>>2199140
You can reverse, but it only means that bad sounds are quite difficult as most low effort i.e. the random ones would be just in okay range.

>>2199147
Depends on where on the spectrum of bad, less bad, neutral, less nice, nice the sounds are concentrated.

If the bulk of them is on "less bad", rather than on "neutral" or "less nice", then the claim that the majority of sounds range from okay to bad is still satisfied while beauty being less prevalent than ugliness.

>>2196595
is ugliness also proof of god ?

>>2196595
everything is proof of god, or nothing is

thinking you can find YHWH only in specific parts of creation is obvious nonsense

>>2196595
>Whatever I think is real freakin' neato is proof of God.
Yea, nah.

>>2200807
Beauty would more reflect god's nature than ugliness

>&Humanities
A fucking mistake.

Its pretentious LARPing Christians who watched the Nostradamus documentaries shilling and being melodramatic.

>is beauty proof of god?
are you fucking kidding me? Treating a subjective response to ones environment to definitive evidence of providence? Neck yourself

>>2200829
You are like a little child.

>>2200837
Prove me wrong. Beauty is subjective. Is the Bible not enough? Do you really have to nitpick every single detail in life until it affirms into "''''evidence'''''?

>>2200840
Everything is subjective. So what.

>>2200874
So your using subjectivity unique to the individual as broad, universal evidence for the most highly debated topic in history?

>>2196595

God exists, so any premise you used to conclude "therefore God exists" would be correct. Maybe not logically correct, but correct.

>>2200882
Distinguish between the "what" of beauty - its subjective definitions, its examples, how it registers in the brain - and the "that" of beauty - the fact of beauty as such. Any reasonable person would agree that beauty as a subjective quality exists.

You cant argue with LARPing ReligiousAnons.

Its an endless cycle of being contrarian under the premise "all things are evidence." The moment you present anything that goes against the religious narrative they result to namecalling if they haven't started spamming bias and self-referential bible quotes. Just dont even try.

No.

And secondly, what is 'beauty'? All individuals has different definitions of what they find to be 'beautiful'.

Lastly, this doesn't belong on /his/.

>b-but it's philosophy!

No it isn't. Take it to /r9k/ or /b/.

>>2200908
B-but THE BIBLE
but! [insert meme blog website with faith in the url]
Now I have you! [presents quotes from offending source material]

>>2200921
>what is aesthetics

fuckin mouthbreathers on this board man

>>2200944
found the childish namecaller

pottery

>>2200811
thats nonsense

>>2200811
And how do you know god's nature is "beauty"?

Maybe God is an ugly lovcratian motherfucker you ever thought about that?

>>2201003
>>2200978
>Lovecraft

Redditors, every time.

Since OUR human brain is able to identify the abstractions of beauty & ugliness (as eaesthetic and moral absolutes) it, at the very least, tells us that whoever/whatever guided OUR evolution enjoys both.

File: egalite.jpg (73KB, 676x372px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 676x372px

>>2201144
Forgot pic.

>>2200944
And you're telling me that every person on Earth appreciates the same aesthetic in the exact same way?

Get the fuck out of here, Christcuck.

File: 1473043689016.jpg (33KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x600px

>>2201146
Have you considered that your perception of beauty is significantly skewed by your biological impulses which could be non aligned with fundamental truth of the Universe?

Just take sodomites for example.

I do find Kiira Korpi very attractive.
T. Known Boss

>>2201144
in terms of biology beauty/attractiveness mainly has to do with how healthy things look

>>2201164
The fact that most people's aesthetic standards would agree a landscape or a sunset or whatever is beautiful is all that's important desu

>>2196595
No, the logic doesn't follow that because what you perceive as beautiful exists, god exists

>>2201273
Sure it does

>>2201340
No, it doesn't, it's a non-sequitur

>>2201350
Nope.

Beauty exists, what is responsible for beauty deserves to be called God

>it's your brain :^)

What's responsible for a brain that can perceive beauty deserves to be called God.

>it's evolution :^)

What is responsible for an evolutionary process in which beauty even figures deserves to be called God.

>It's physical laws :^)

What is responsible for physical laws that produce beauty deserves to be called God

>*melts down like a pleb faggot*

Beauty may be subjective, which doesn't mean it objectivly doesn't exist.

>>2201366
These things come by through natural means, bro, god is a conscious seemingly anthropomorphic supernatural being that operates outside of physical space supposedly. Nature is responsible for what you call beauty. You can't prove your god exists Scientifically so you have to presuppose it and make it responsible for things you think we don't understand

>>2201366
Nice strawman, by the way

File: milos_final_cover.jpg (2MB, 1920x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x800px

The beauty of Greece elevated the Greeks. That's the secret to their greatness.

>Beauty isn't everything. It's the only thing

File: purity.png (32KB, 740x308px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 740x308px

>>2201578
The secret to their greatness, was math, friend.

https://youtu.be/PvceKeHl0Sg

>>2201554
Yeah, no shit, it's the fact nature can self-organize into what can be perceived as beautiful that is God or is rooted in God. It's the fact of existence, not the technical details of the processes involved.

It is absolutely fucking insane how much trouble people have grasping this. Astounding.

>>2201057
Nice fedora tipping, denying ancient ones and everything.

File: 20120620_-_dapres_xkcd_435.png (106KB, 765x638px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 765x638px

>>2201595
I can't believe you fucked this up.

>>2201595
They wouldn't have been able to open their minds and do maths without beauty.

>>2201599
> that is God or is rooted in God.
Why would you deny that beauty is independent, fundamental force of the universe, that is beyond even God's domain?

>>2201608
It's other way around. Aesthetics is just subconsciously applied mathematics.

>>2201620
Because then he wouldn't be God, or then beauty by itself is God

>>2201639
> because then he wouldn't be God
Yes, he isn't. World is ruled by fundamental forces that are independent from each other not by single all encapsulating entity.

>>2201631
Maths gives beauty, beauty gives us the ability to understand maths.

>>2201599
Non-sequitur, bro

Also you're saying it 'self-organized' and was orginized at the same time? How does that make sense?

>>2201644
So every force exists in its own reality? You think unity has to be spatial, like everything has to be in smooshed together in one place or it isn't a whole? Fedoras are beyond autistic

>>2201661
They are functionally the same. Self-organization according to inherent laws which mysteriously emerged in such and such way, God being that which determined them to be this way

>>2201651
It's actually could be that beauty and mathematics both grounded on something even more greater, as the beauty of math contrary to classical one is the hidden value in most cases.

>>2201682
>God being that which determined them to be this way
How do you figure this?

>>2201692
God just being the name for what determined these laws in this way, since these laws or regularities of behavior or whatever you want to call them obviously exist

>>2201672
Reality is formed in the interaction of forces. There is no true spatial unity between them as it is really known that not anything can interact with anything in our world. We can't influence a past for example and our past can't influence everything in the world and so on. Why sould beauty be based on God as if it isn't self-sufficient force by itself.

>>2201695
And how do you figure that something "determined" these laws?

>>2201695
Yeah, and super-god is the name for a something that determined God himself in this way.

>>2201709
Time is an illusion, reality's laws are uniform and in this uniformity constitutes a whole. God is responsible for beauty because he is what makes possible a self-sufficient reality.

>>2196595
No, but the fact that there is any order at all seems highly suggestive to me. How can there be rules with no author? Isn't the fact that we can tell how things will react based on set specific regulations suggest that there is something greater and abstract tying them together? I don't know but in my opinion it is like looking at a pyramid and saying the stones could've just ended up laying next to each other for no reason and it's not proof of the existence of Egypt.

>>2201718
Poor and illogical analogy

>>2201712
Because they exist in one way as opposed to another.

>>2201714
>super-god

wow ebin

The source of what is explainable is not liable to being explained himself

>>2201723
Yes, they exist NATURALLY, without the NEED for a god

>>2201726
You're a fucking retard. What grounds something existing naturally we call God. Fuckin' A wake the fuck up and read -> comprehend, Jesus christ

The only proof of god is that life is meaningful.

No amount of logical argumentation or scientific evidence is going to prove the existence of any kind of deity, because that's not the point.

>>2201715
Uniformity is also an illusion, no two points space are same one. What makes reality possible is the interaction between agents, forces, etc. The world would be nothing without interactions between the various parts of it. The beauty is one of a contexts here, that self-sufficiently support existence.

Actually i heard from students of art that all human perception of beauty comes from human body, since that is the only thing that we have any biological need to perceive as beautiful. It is really hard to grasp your head around it, but its a fascinating concept once you do.

>>2201736
Why say there's a god if it doesn't NEED a god to exist the way it does? Occam's razor

>>2201754
Listen, you're getting hung up on my calling it God. God's just another name for the supreme principle, absolute reality, the eternal what-is, the unconditioned, whatever.

>>2201743
What would life has a meaning tho

Why can't we just accept the cruelty of nature

>>2201758
Cruelty is also meaning you know. You can't escape meaning even if that meaning is negative.

>>2201723
> The source of what is explainable
God isn't source of what is explainable. You sait it is just a being the name for what determined laws, so like laws that determine something determined by God, God himself determined by the super-god that is closer to be a source of what is explainable thatn God himself.

>>2201757
Not if youre christian it isnt. And youre just adding an unnecessary concept scientifically.

>>2201757
So the fact that it may not be conscious makes no difference to you? Then you're defining 'god' as natural and why call it god? There's no evidence that it is eternal either

>>2201757
Why would there be the supreme principle?! If you know even in math there is no single axiom that is basis of anything else. Look at any discipline, it is ruled by set of principles, not by just a single one.

>>2201764
No I'm not you mong, if something exists something by definition is responsible for that existence, whether it's a supreme being or an infinite void or self-causation or whatever

>>2201760
Cruelty may not be the right word to describe it. Coldness, maybe? That is what the Universe is, dark and cold. There is not great purpose, we're only stuff being in that place in the Universe, at that moment.

>>2201757
No
You're hung up on the idea that there has to be something that is somehow beyond the rules of the universe ordering it somehow but never actually telling us WHY

>>2201771
Ding ding ding. Because the supreme principle is, paradoxically, the lack of a supreme principle, groundlessness, the infinite possibility and freedom of nothingness.

>>2201774
Pay attention to your perspective. The fact that you see the world that way does not mean the world is that way.

>>2201773
But theres no reason for it to be god, mongette

>>2201773
> If something exists something by definition is responsible for that existence
By that logic, God also must be caused by some other cause to exist and *self-causation* isn't the logical answer here, if nothing else is self-caused except God to suppose, that such thing is even a possible one.

>>2201780
Wow, it's all these things that make it not look like there's a god and they're evidence for a god, it's almost like your god fits whatever ideals you want it to

>>2201790
No. The cause of existence is not an existent itself.

Your logic only operates within the bound of a logical framework. Even Aristotle knew logic was founded on what was beyond logic.

>>2201800
Just getting into arbitrary bullshit now.

>>2201783
I only see what I can see with my own eyes. I can't see God, I can't see a meaning or something after life. But I can see dead people being dead, and not being able to talk to them or to do human things with them. I can see the stars glowing, and some of them dying. Living stuff die everyday and life goes on, and what is dead doesn't go back to life. I can see the rain falling and crashing on the ground. And this is it.

>>2201814
These are concepts and ideas that have been circulating in western and eastern philosophy for thousands of years. Compare Plato's Beyond-Being, the Neoplatonic One, with the Tao and Upanishadic Self

God you're all such fucking plebs

>>2201824
Really, so culture, technology, mythology, love and children, and all the things that humans do, are just completely meaningless?

So why do people do them?

>>2201800
> logic was founded on what was beyond logic
Yes, like God is founded on what is beyond God, which is known as super-God.

>>2201827
They are logically regressively arbitrary. The way youre saying something stands outside of a logical framework. Youre talking trash.

>>2201834
Evolution

>>2196595
Not unless you're an overly sentimental faggot, and in that case you wouldn't care about "proof" to begin with.

>>2201827

Flat earth has been circulating for thousands of years doesnt mean its right.

>>2201834
Meaning of such things is created by humans and created by their own choice i.e. people who didn't see meaning in children do something else.

>>2201864
It is right on some level or else maps wouldn't work.

>>2201864
Catholic Church dominated society for hundreds of years too, doesn't mean the scientific world picture is right...

git gud

>>2201848
Laws are descriptions of behavior and do not explain anything. Being does not explain itself, it must be founded on that which can produce such a thing as being.

>>2201873
If you want to be really specific then maps dont actually work

>>2201834
I think that we are just trying to create something that transcends us, something greather than we poor and weak humans, something that lasts longer than we do. Maybe we just want to life forever by leaving on earth a piece of ourselves. So we create all those beautiful things and we know they'll still be here after us. We want a meaning and we are trying to create one becausethe idea of a meaningless life is just too hard to accept.

>>2196595
No.

File: 1483898432762.jpg (482KB, 999x1399px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 999x1399px

>>2201878
>Being does not explain itself, it must be founded on that which can produce such a thing as being
based on what logic? thing is you are simply stating this and not even giving an argument for it, in fact saying that it is beyond logic. you have nothing but an arbitrary claim

>>2201878
>>2201878
Science isnt a single world view... it changes. It describes evidence based discussion. Science 100 years ago isnt same as today. Science can be wrong but the point is the whys of the points you propose.

>>2201888
> maps don't actually work
As if you can navigate better without one that with one. This is a completely counter factual position.

>>2201867
>Meaning of such things is created by humans and created by their own choice

No, no it's not.

Try to wake up one day and decide to value something you hate, and we'll see how well that works out.

>>2201878
Science tolerates gaps. Your metaphysics requires innapropriate uncalled for and unrobust completeness. Im not claiming answers for all the questions you ask but its about being reasonable with respect to those questions rather than the ability to generate answers. What can we safely say we know and not know.

>>2201893
>anime

What preceded being cannot be explained in terms of being itself, just like we can't understand the pre-natal darkness through waking life.

Our equations break down at the pre-big bang singularity.

>>2201910
How much better does it have to be to work on some level. Drawing a line on a cardboard box might help me navigate better with than wothout. The point was its impossible to have maps that perfectly scale.

>>2201917
I approach the mystery with awe and call it God, fedoras call it the quantum vacuum.

>>2201972
People can have mystical awe feelings without being stupid.

File: 1470192049573.jpg (242KB, 1511x1383px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1511x1383px

>>2201938
and yet you are trying to explain it. leave it at "I dunno" if you want to be intellectually honest then

>>2201984
Calling it "God" is not an attempted explanation you nit, it's a heartfelt recognition of this "I dunno" being the reason for the existence of literally everything

>>2201944
Maps that perfectly scales exist, we call it the real world.

>>2201911
> decide to value something you hate
I value many things that I hate, as they are source of conflict that allows me to grow.

File: 1469568766484.jpg (80KB, 756x1209px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 756x1209px

>>2202011
you are assuming there is a reason at all, even if you do keep it vague

>>2202019
Then its not a map idiot

>>2202028
Really? Such as?

>>2201972
> fedoras call it the quantum vacuum
What do you mean by that? Somehow God is the literal quantum nothing, something like that? Now, I am interested how it works.

>>2202032
The purpose of life is to be.

>>2202039
Such as the criticism from other people. I hate to receive it, but in the end, I can listen and improve because of it.

>>2202062
Yeah, but now you're being facetious.

You know I'm talking about waking up one day and going from being a atheist materialist, to a full-fledged Jihadi Muslim.

Please try to do this simply by choice.

It's not going to happen.

>>2202041
To say nothingness is just nothingness is to say it can't be anything else, to subject it to a constraint. But now suddenly nothingness has rules.

So nothingness has to be pure, infinite, unconstrained potential. It is both void, because it is prior to all concepts, and absolute plenitude, because within it is contained everything potentially. This is God. The 0 and the 1 at the same time, which is why it is beyond logic.

>>2202044
To be is life. It's not a purpose, it's what it is.

>>2196735
no chaos without order, no order without chaos

File: 1478230675488.jpg (151KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 960x720px

>>2202592

File: dark pill.png (115KB, 526x663px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 526x663px

>>2202067
At last, someone understands.

>>2202067
Hogwash. You have no idea what you say, boy.

>>2196595
The fact this thread exists and has 150 post in it is proof that there is no God.

>>2196595
Nudity is not beauty!
inb4 replies

File: 1478174552313.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>2202613

It sure does feel nice to bask in the sun, if even for a few fleeting beautiful moments though; doesn't it?

>>2202067
If 'god' is beyond logic then why are you trying to use logic to prove his existence? And is that why the Bible contradicts itself?

>>2196595
Yes, because beauty IS God.

>>2203917
Pffft, I can't believe I used to believe in the same shit as you

>>2199117
shut your whore mouth about Azathoth, it's not his fault he got mad

>>2201366
I like how excited you are to beat your imaginary strawman.

>>2199019
I like ugliness in sound

>>2199116
I often find 'dissonance' soothing

>>2202613
The fact that this guy doesn't know the difference between "was" and "were" really bothers me even though I agree with him for the most part.

>>2201229
Fuck most people.

t. art student

>>2201366
What is responsible for God?
> human brain

>aloha snack-bar
>beautiful
>????
>profit

If you want to close a few mouths with evidence, let me tell you it is a lost cause.
Science does aknowledge mystical experiences and even studies them, dmt is a very powerful drug that causes similar experiences to those that mystics live, so scientists have been studying the phenomenon thanks to this paralellism, of course not every mystic experience can be lived with this drug, and of course mystics receive these experiences without the use of the drug, also some atheists have these experience as a calling to the spiritual, but even with these shortcomings the drug is being used to study this observed phenomenon.
So yeah, science aknowledges spiritual experiences, atheists just dodge this bullet and pretend praising Dawkins and spewing popsci is enough.

File: only space know peace from this feels.jpg (56KB, 500x369px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x369px

>>2199068
fuck.....

>>2204544
Atheists acknowledge it too just not as evidence for god.

>>2204544
Spiritual experiences is one thing, God is another. We know that later doesn't exist. This is why even Pope mobile uses armored glass instead of a faith as even church knows that God has zero objective power over world like any other fictional entity. The same is for prays instead of medical surgeries etc.

>>2204617
so why do you assume that if there is a god hes everybodys nanny?

>>2203011
everything you're ignorant about is hogwash, lmao ok dude go back to /v/

>>2204697
How can you say that when you talk shit. Semantic meaningless bollocks

>>2204704
You're too dumb to get it, it's okay

>>2204719
Void because prior to all concepts, all potential contained in it... what the fuck do you mean. Means shit. No practical implications.

>>2204727
>hurr its wrong because it's not a new iphone

dumb faggot shit

>>2204733
Lool what

File: 1473727334454.png (62KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x600px

>>2204544
Wow, you theists have an extremely low standard of evidence.
>taking drugs makes you see crazy shit and alters your state of mind
who could have thunk it

>>2204694
Most religions assume that God cares about what we do, and he could as well not exist if he doesn't.

>>2204544
Spiritual experiences aren't consistent, therefore not good evidence for a god or 'good enough evidence for any god'

I've had a 'spiritual experience' for my personal god before I became an Atheist. Even had some post on the internet validate it for me, but it's not good evidence for a god because if it could fit my conception of a god then it could fit any conception of a god

>>2206379
Your argument is flawed because it assumes God must abide to only a single conception of Himself. We're talking about the infinite here

>>2206776
You're just making shit up to suit your argument, bro

Fuck outta here

>>2206794
Spiritual experiences are inconsistent in content but universal in form. Just because you have a spiritual experience watching a film and I get one looking at a tree does not mean both somehow refer to different Gods, especially when both communicate something numinous and eternal.

>>2206901
Or god at all....

>>2206903
"God" is just a label for the quality and source of that experience. The experience came before the name.

>>2206908
Why use a name with such loaded connotations then...

>>2206917
Because we're not fedora-tier autists who get triggered

>>2206917
Because it is unavoidable those connotations would accrue around the name with use.

99.9% of all attacks on belief are attacks on conditioned and relative ideas of God. When your grandest, loftiest idea of God, the Absolute and source of the reality around you, as some bearded tinkerer in the sky ya dun goofed.

>>2206929
But it means you could have a conversation with someone and be talking about completely different things. Do you just not use god to maintain an illusion of grandeur when you know in reality you cannot justify it further beyond a selfcontained experience?

>>2206942
Shouldnt all this be on /x/?

>>2206901
You know what that is, right? That's Ad hoc

If the experiences were reliable, they would be consistent all across the board. There would be no confusion, the fact that there is confusion means it's unreliable. It doesn't matter that you think 'gawd can take any form'. You forget 'gawd' also 'tells' people conflicting things.

>inb4 They're demons
If demons and 'gawd' can give people the same experience then your explanation of god is unreliable because of the fact there's no difference in what god does and the devil does except 'what they tell people'

File: 1482984362362.jpg (71KB, 500x369px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x369px

>>2206929
>if you don't want to use a loaded term then you're a hat

>>2206942
What is god to you?

>>2206957
The true spiritual experience is a glimpse of the infinite and eternal. By that I mean, a falling away of the mind's illusory projections to reveal the absolute reality that is.

If your god is asking you to wage war or whatever nonsense, in other words if your god is involved in the temporal instead of being a transcendent reality one aspires to, ya dun goofed. Generally any god that encourages the accumulation of earthly power is a bunk and nothing but the actions of an inflated unconscious.

>>2206964
The fact of and source of the Real, and by extension, all that is good, true, and beautiful.

>>2206961
Exactly
Not same dude, but seriously, youre a asshat

I've often wondered how wildly divergent an alien's sense of aesthetics would be.

>>2207041
>The true spiritual experience is a glimpse of the infinite and eternal
How do you know this?
>By that I mean, a falling away of the mind's illusory projections to reveal the absolute reality that is
That's why it makes no testable predictions and is influenced by what people seem to already know, there's no knowledge in them.
>If your god is asking you to wage war or whatever nonsense, in other words if your god is involved in the temporal instead of being a transcendent reality one aspires to, ya dun goofed
Or it's just not a god at all or it could be one of many gods or it could be that god is a 'maniac'. All of these things are plausible if you think religious experiences are reliable, your strange way of supplying a no-true-scotsman isn't the only way to explain it.
>Generally any god that encourages the accumulation of earthly power is a bunk and nothing but the actions of an inflated unconscious
Why is it when a god asks you to wage war, it's your unconscious but when they ask you to be nice, it's transcendental? Fuck outta here with your ad hoc explanations.

>>2207062
It's not really loaded. Personal God is just an aspect of the Godhead, as in, it is God as he is conceptualized in and through subjectivity. It is God AS subjectivity, as a being.

When personal God says don't do X, it is reality's "built-in" rules being expressed as a command or warning. So "honor the mother and father" can be interpreted as "a being that refuses to answer to that which birthed it will invariably bring disaster upon itself because to exist is to be dependent on the order one helps comprise"

>>2207139
You have a very scientific conception of what God is supposed to be. The fact of the matter is, the deeper you are in the spiritual current, the better you can distinguish what is a genuine glimpse of a higher consciousness and what is the unconscious posing as a god-image.

There's no quantifiable metric for this. Science and "testable predictions" fail beyond this point, you must rely on yourself and the full capacities of your being, not models and theories. If you don't like this, honestly buddy sounds like a you problem

>>2207149
10 commandments? Horzeshit unnuanced rules.

>>2207041
Surely its not the infinite and eternal, just a transcendent emotion with no basis in reality.

>>2207041
Absolute reality my arse.

>>2207159
>You have a very scientific conception of what God is supposed to be. The fact of the matter is, the deeper you are in the spiritual current

It sounds ad hoc and bullshit to me, bro. If it's untestable or makes no accurate predictions, then is it even a 'fact'?

>There's no quantifiable metric for this. Science and "testable predictions" fail beyond this point, you must rely on yourself and the full capacities of your being, not models and theories. If you don't like this, honestly buddy sounds like a you problem

Yeah, bro, sounds like bullshit that you're pulling out of your ass

>>2207159
Fiction of the matter is*

Spelling mistake there my friend.

>>2207159
Ultimately you just make this up from how you feel? Influenced by hippy pseudo-eastern religion memes to add in too.

>>2207202
If you can't move on past "only what can be proven in a controlled experimental setting is true", this debate's dead in the water. I don't really care to convert you. I made my case.

>>2207186
And your doubt is just a feeling and has no basis in reality. This is a non-argument.

>>2207218
Where are you getting your facts from then?

>>2207218
>>2207218
>>2207218
Theres something pragmatically different about making assertions about reality without evidence and being skeptical about those things. My doubt is justified on a lack of reason for your reality.

>>2207227
Personal experience, meditation, neoplatonism, Buddhism, the theories of Jung, the perennialists, alchemy, Sufism, Hinduism, Taoism, qabbalah, mystery traditions, mysticism, lots and lots of philosophy

>>2207218
Can just be based on observation. What is your definition of true otherwise? Just something that resonates in your soul?

>>2207244
Yeah, kill yourself, that way you can know the truth

>>2207237
I can't convince you of experiential data. If you were open to these ideas, I'd walk you through them and you could take it or leave it, but it's obvious you're not

File: 1483683660929.jpg (148KB, 839x1047px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 839x1047px

>>2207244
>alchemy

>>2207252
Only in death do we not feel anything.

>>2207271
A feeling of reality being a vast whole and oneself being an indispensable part of this whole, as being a necessary existence in an eternal unity, is not something to be "proven"

>>2207281
One day you will die.

>>2207341
We all die, your point?

>>2207260
Alchemy is a set of practices designed to help one achieve spiritual enlightenment, cloaked in dense symbolism. It is a beautiful and profound system.

>>2196763
This isn't philosophy.

>>2207532
so you are saying that all those medieval alchemists weren't actually trying to turn lead into gold but were just using "dense symbolism"?

>>2207532
>this post was created
I don't think you understand alchemy, famalam. No matter how much you plug your ears, you can't deny that it was a bunch of Medieval fedoras that wanted to live forever and be richer than kings. There's no "dense symbolism" to it. It was human greed in action, plain and simple.

>>2207574
>Our gold is not ordinary gold.

>The alchemical operation consisted essentially in separating the prima materia, the so-called chaos, into the active principle, the soul, and the passive principle, the body, which were then reunited in personified form in the coniunctio or 'chymical marriage'... the ritual cohabitation of Sol and Luna

>Both Eastern and Western alchemy have a psycho-spiritual esoteric component based on the essential idea of inner transformation. The material dimension of alchemy may have been concerned with such matters as immortality of the body or the production of gold, but from the esoteric perspective these were ultimately not separate from the Great Work of inner transformation. Because alchemy was influenced by initiatic streams of thought (arising from Taoism and Tantra in the East, and Hermeticism and Gnosticism in the West) it was eventually understood, by at least some alchemists, that the practical laboratory work was not separate from the inner processes of transformation undergone by the alchemist. This was consistent with the idea of the essential interconnection between mind and matter perhaps best summarized by the Hermetic maxim ‘as above, so below’

Read more.

>>2199010

why do you think this is clever? you're trying to sarcastically mock someone asking "Does beauty mean god exists?" with "Hurr durr beauty means god exists haha!" but you think you're being clever and revealing something somehow by saying aphrodite instead of god. Please adjust your fedora you're choking important veins around your head

>>2207656
>I am 15 years old, and mad

>>2207656
Have you ever considered that people see you the same way you see Aphrodite worshippers?

File: 1477991193795.jpg (2MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1200px

>>2207656
do you seriously not know the difference between the concept of a single God and that of many gods with specifically Aphrodite among them?

>>2196595
>beauty

Entirely subjective.

>>2196595
>is my subjective emotional response to things proof of God
worst argument I've ever heard tbqh falam, smdh.

>>2196595

Do bees think we are beautiful? No, fuck off.

>>2201834
>>2201851
This
We only exict, because the laws of physics allow it, they allowed the formation of the basic self-reproducing chemicals, which with time improved their ability to reproduce themselves through the process of evolution. Nothing more, nothing else - whether the laws that made this have any meaning - that I do not know, but going on from what we know - yes, it's all pointless and only a manifestation of the natural laws of our reality.

>>2208311
*reproducing - replicating
*nothing more, nothing less

>>2197207
It was an extremely reddit answer. kys if you thought that was deep.

>>2196595
yes

people ITT and real life would have you believe that its only a biological reaction,
and it sort of is-
however it reflects something very real about our reality and that is the awesomeness of God of which we are learning to see better every passing day because of evolution and increased self-awareness

>>2196683
>these creatures would find some things more intriguing or appealing than other things

that does in no way diminish the quality of the object perceived or sensation felt.

>>2207756

have you considered that people usually believe in god? have you considered that you don't know how I see Aphrodite worshippers since I'm not the one who posted about them? Have you considered that you're to a large extent not supposed to care about the way people see you? I'm starting to consider that's not the way insecure fedora'd atheists think though

File: pride.png (186KB, 386x356px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 386x356px

>>2196595
Is subjectivity a valid replacement for objectivity?

>>2208483
Do dogs have a god?

File: Aphrodite.png (121KB, 250x333px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 250x333px

>>2207656
> you're trying to sarcastically mock
There is no sarcasm in my reply. If beauty is proof of God. than Gods that are most proven by beauty, are the Gods that are most deeply associated with it and who is more associated with beauty that the Goddess of one herself?! If for fedora like you, idea of Aphrodite existence is akin to moking, than you should be pitied as a human being.

>>2208290
>>2208300
>>2208311

>I fap to hentai and play video games all day and have never experienced something truly beautiful and awe-inspiring so have a reddit answer
>my lack of emotional response to my life is proof there is no god

Go outside

File: index.jpg (8KB, 276x183px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 276x183px

>>2208921
So... What truly beautiful and awe-inspiring you expierenced outside? Some kind of bulshit, like rising sun? Are you the sun worshipper or what?

>>2208937
I'll never understand why people are just so hellbent on dismissing and mocking the stuff that makes life worth living. You're all so estranged from something so vital.

File: sunrise.jpg (24KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 750x500px

>>2208947
> dismissing and mocking the stuff
I have seen each sunrise over the past 10 years, I am interested what kind of beautiful, awe-inspiring expierence you had. If there is any... I hate people who are interested in the awe-inspiring expierence only as much as it pushes their agenda and not a step beyond that. Beauty isn't a cheap instrument that only amount to proving whatever a cheap faith you choose to have...

>>2208964
Okay then. There's really no "agenda", my God is synonymous with what these experiences evoke in me, there's no adulteration to make them fit scripture or something.

Too many to count, but poetry, philosophy, music, film, the city at night, girls, nature, people watching, meditation, those sudden intuitive flashes of what it's all about, those times when you can stare pain and death in the face when something horrible has happened and while not beautiful in and of itself the resolve it creates in me to rise above everything dark in the world and redeem it in my own small way is.

>>2208964
Oh, and the sky. The sky's a huge one. And certain streets in the day and at night.

In art and in nature. Proof: perhaps; catharsis: absolutely.

>"Imagine some fellow, seeing your work, told you: "At all points in my life I have sensed, vividly or dimly, some great presence of absolute goodness which stands behind all that I can see, smell, feel, hear. I know it in the sound when a big wind sweeps through thousands of trees at a distance, or in the scent of smoke from a campfire, or the lively harmony of a lush and busying avenue on optimistic soft-lit mornings as a city wakes. I have felt it too when men were generous, or when they held to truth against the rewards of falsity, or when they were overcome with selfless hope, looking on their newborn child. This I have known as one spirit, wholly good, never quite all here; the faintest traces of heaven revealing themselves in our sad and fallen world. What you have done just now radiates that spirit, and I know that you were filled with its brilliance as you worked."

>"This is what it means to see the works of man and praise God. It is not at all to be taken as a slight to the man."

>>2208997
Quality answer.