>he's an atheist >his only idea of God is a sky daddy/judge/warrior/righteous

>>301857
Do you believe God has intelligence? Do you believe God has intentions?

>>301857
If everything has a cause, effect, and explanation, then divinity does not exist.

>>301872
Plz answer, OP. What's your concept of God, so I can argue against it.

>he believes in a god
>he has no evidence for it
>his idea isn't even testable in the first place
>all he has are semantics, buzzwords and feelings

>>301857

Likely because it's a small sea of eloquence in a sea of mediocrity. The most mystical thing I've seen a Baptist buy into was Karma, and somehow that didn't do much for Christianity's case.

>>301907

*an ocean

Fuck my I type retarded when I get shitty sleep

>>301907
>Baptist
>representative of all Christianity
Atheist logic

>>301914
I don't think he implied that.

>>301903
Aquinas

>>301857
I don't define mysticism or spiritualism as God with the capital G. Or even as god. Mysticism lends itself just as well to polytheism, or even on-theistic philosophies and religions like some sects of Buddhism and Tao.

If someone asks if you believe in god, in the singular sense, in English, it almost always is asking if you believe in a single creator god, deism at best, but most often referring to one of the incarnations of YHWH.

>>301938
BTFO by Dawkins

>>301939
non-theistic*

There's also pantheism and such.

>>301938
Aquinas' arguments kinda suck desu senpai

File: annunciation.jpg (58KB, 774x621px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 774x621px

>>301884
If we grant that reality is NOT a meaningless fart of physical laws (and a lot of people don't), then it stands to reason consciousness must be absolutely central to its design and purpose.

God is the source of that consciousness, the ground of Being, the actual that is the sum of all potentiality. It is the unity from which the many are derived. The physical universe is the individuated Spirit, and God individuates because the Absolute would be less perfect for it.

Again, if we grant consciousness a central position in the workings of reality, then it also stands to reason all categories are derived from some essence, Idea, or archetype.

So, the One splits itself, as white light is split into the colors of the rainbow, to experience, create, and live life. But this can only be done in an objective universe where the sufferings inherent in physicality spur us to better embody this transcendental reality we derive from. Virtue is not virtue because God says so, but because God IS virtue (or rather, virtuous action is a reflection of God in this low grade of reality). At higher and higher stages, even duality breaks down.

There is a sense that beauty and love, all the best things in life, speak to some pre-rational part of ourselves. The best things are the clearest signposts to God.

At the end of the day, there is only what Is. Pure logic is subordinate to experience. Experience of the Is points to a way of being that is so far beyond conventions of thought and behavior I choose to call it God.

>>301939
God is the supreme reality in Christianity

The Tao/Nirvana/void, whatever, is the supreme (or only) reality in more mystic traditions.

I am only trying to refer to this supreme reality when I mean God, though I understand what you're saying. I'm only posting this thread to get rid of a bit of the judeo-christian baggage the word has

>>301950
>If we grant that reality is NOT a meaningless fart of physical laws (and a lot of people don't), then it stands to reason consciousness must be absolutely central to its design and purpose.
No it doesnt. You want it to be, it does not "stand to reason" whatsoever.

>>301950
That's a big if, considering its people that give meaning to things. Rocks don't find meaning in the creation of the universe, neither do monkeys. There's only one known species pro-occupied with finding the meaning of life, the universe and everything. I find it hard to accept your premise.

>>301938
nobody gives a shit about aquinas anymore outside your religious studies m8
He makes absolutely no compelling arguments whatsoever. Just a work riddled with crap logic that tries to torture an argument into a pre-conceived notion.

>>301950
>If we grant that reality is NOT a meaningless fart of physical laws
Why would you, though? Sorry, I don't grant that.
>(and a lot of people don't)
You see, it's interesting. Because I posit that the reason people DON'T want to believe that reality is a meaningless fart of physical laws is because doing so goes against human nature. We want to extend our human experiences to the universal level. We as humans have the ability to reason and assign purpose to our actions. So it's only natural to assume there must be a greater purpose even if we're not correct in assuming this. And we as humans have and value intelligence. So it's only natural to assume that an intelligence is behind everything. Even if we're not correct in assuming this. And I don't think we're not correct.

>>301950
>Pure logic is subordinate to experience.

Thought experiment time.

Imagine you have never experienced anything (and never will).

Now do your logic.

>>301950
thats some shitty pseudo-platonism right there m8.

>>301981
>* And I don't think we're correct.

>>301950
>Experience of the Is points to a way of being that is so far beyond conventions of thought and behavior I choose to call it God.

No it doesn't, knowledge through experience is called empiricism. And there is certainly no empirical evidence of God

>>301981
>I posit that the reason people DON'T want to believe that reality is a meaningless fart of physical laws is because doing so goes against human nature. We want to extend our human experiences to the universal level. We as humans have the ability to reason and assign purpose to our actions. So it's only natural to assume there must be a greater purpose even if we're not correct in assuming this

This guy fucking gets it
Congrats in actually being able to picture reality outside of a strictly anthropocentric point of view

>>301950
>God is the source of that consciousness, the ground of Being
AKA the universe.

Congrats, you think the universe exists just like the rest of us, except you call it "God" because you're too hip to be an atheist

File: 1443228636923.jpg (26KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x375px

>>301995
Ayy, back at ya, anon.

>>301964
Then don't capitalize the G. God with the capital G even when not at the beginning of the sentence is a practice meant when referring to YHWH, because YHWH is God as a proper pronoun, assuming he is the only God.

The supreme reality in other traditions is not god. The etymology of the word god, not as a proper pronoun, most likely stems from the time of pagan gods, which were extremely personified, and god meant a superhuman existence which has the characteristics of a human, yet surpassing the limits of a human rather than absolute divinity.

So your goal is silly, because you're trying to redefine God. God is YHWH.

File: ss16.jpg (17KB, 338x487px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 338x487px

An atheist/cynic will never accept what a mystic posits. Mysticism is about experience and making yourself pure. Mysticism is a life of silence, not talking and arguing. Debating with atheists/cynics is pointless babbling.

File: 81QsrgRNOuL._SL1500_.jpg (207KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1500x1000px

>>301903
>>301938
Let's compare:

>he believes in a god
Yes, Aquinas believes in a god (since childhood, before he even "proved" it)
>he has no evidence for it
Yes, Aquinas has no evidence for the god, neither does anyone else for their gods.
>his idea isn't even testable in the first place
Yes, Aquinas puts forth metaphysical arguments that are impossible to prove true or false through testing or evidence.
>all he has are semantics, buzzwords and feelings
Yes, Aquinas relies heavily on semantics for his Aristotelian science argument (a type of science the church actually later banned). And moving from his "prime mover" to "the Jewish God" is actually nothing but feelings and no real arguments.

>>302015
If mysticism is a life of silence and not talking or arguing, why are you trying to argue it in here? Remember, this thread wasn't started by an atheist.

>>301967
Did you read the first sentence? If nihilism is false, then yeah, meaning exists and it stands to reason consciousness has a lot to do with it.

>>301976
I find it easier to believe this vast sublime universe we live in is a product of a mind than just arbitrary chaos. occam's razor and all that

>>301981
I find it funny you think consciousness = humans. The only one trying to make this all about humans and humanity and how humans process the universe is you. We're talking about life. The experience of subject and object in a material universe.

>>301986
>what are qualia

c'mon son

>>301987
nice argument

>>301992
>what is meditation

ayy lmao

>>301996
>the universe and its prime principle are the same thing

You're not getting it

because thats what most religious people believe in

>>302013
sorry for triggering your autism m8

>>302028
OP isn't that guy, I'm OP. because it's nice and kind of fun when people challenge your views

>>301938
>retard detected
what is it with people on 4chan and citing people who are centuries out of date? you do realise that religious philosophy didnt just stop at aquinas?

>>302015
thats because mystics argue with themselves their whole life.
Unfortunately, they arent capable of understanding that.

>>302036
>If nihilism is false, then yeah, meaning exists and it stands to reason consciousness has a lot to do with it.
Why?
There is no clear explanation from you as to why a divine creator imediatly equates to meaning and consciousness

File: Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg (106KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1024x683px

>>302036
>meditation is evidence of god

Christian scholars, everyone.

>>302036
>what is meditation
Something that holds no epistemological value.
It certainly offers no empirical evidence of god

>>302068
The big counter-argument in this thread is that I'm superimposing human meaning on a cosmos that is indifferent to it at best. It is because humans have mind that we need our meaning fix. Now how could the Mind we are all emanations of be purposeless or not intrinsically linked to consciousness?

It's true, at the level of the Absolute, categories of meaning, this or that, break down. There is only the Is, incomprehensible and unknowable to us down here. But as it is individuated we arrive at a universe brimming with meaning and essences and ideas. Sorry, but a Mind that is somehow blind or dead to meaning is a contradictory position.

>>302087
Your mistake is assuming the only truth value that exists is in empirical evidence. If sense data cannot be rendered into language, then it is false or meaningless. What a ridiculous proposition.

>>302070
>christians meditate

lol you're woefully out of your depth here bro. have you perhaps heard of a certain site called reddit?

(yeah I know about orthodox monks, but the vast majority of christians are indifferent to or suspicious of meditation)

>>302028
I said debating with atheists/cynics is pointless, which is something I haven't done in this thread. I'm not talking about God, metaphysics, philosophy, etc. either. If you find it fun, then have at it. If you're trying to change an atheist's mind, then that's not going to happen.

>>302050
True for many sadly.

>>301941
>dawkins
>relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tIwYNioDL8

>>302036
>occam's razor
No, you're not applying it properly. The fact that you find one cause is simpler and more probably is purely subjective and based on the fast you find one easier to believe.

I can apply Occam's razor as thus.
You are assuming the existence of god which leads up to today and the creation of humans
I am not assuming the existence of god which leads up to today and the creation of humans

Therefore, my version has fewer assumptions and is correct. You on the other hand are going to respond, but you're assuming all those random chances that led up to this point would happen. The response to that it you're assuming diving intervention or design for each event that leads up to us, based on your assumption of god.

>>302039
Before being an edgelord anti-fedora, maybe you should first figure out what you're actually trying to discuss.

>>301950
>If we grant that reality is NOT a meaningless fart of physical laws (and a lot of people don't), then it stands to reason consciousness must be absolutely central to its design and purpose.

I detect an emotional argument

>>302036
You can call it whatever you want. Prime principle, "God", Allah, etc. It's actually just the universe.

>>301950
>then it stands to reason consciousness must be absolutely central to its design and purpose.

It does? What makes you so sure of that? Even if reality were something more than purely physical, then consciousness could STILL be entirely incidental, nothing more than an emergent behaviour in a sea of chaos.

>>302112
>Your mistake is assuming the only truth value that exists is in empirical evidence.

Prove something exists without using evidence (besides god)

>>302036
>If nihilism is false, then yeah, meaning exists and it stands to reason consciousness has a lot to do with it
"It stands to reason" is not an argument. Prove it.

>>302101
>Now how could the Mind we are all emanations of be purposeless or not intrinsically linked to consciousness?
Because you're superimposing human meaning on the cosmos you somehow think that your perceived human concepts apply to the entirety of the cosmos. Its just a bottom-up analysis that holds no real value. Your imagined divinity could very well be an evil demon that its misleading you into thinking that there is meaning in a meaningless or even effectively non-existent universe. Its a fucking circular argument.

>>302143
>even if reality wasn't chaos, it could still be chaos

>>302128
Nope, you're still arguing about the Christian God who created humans, revealed himself in history, interferes in the affairs of men etc. The physical universe is what it is, there is only matter here, it will fucking kill you if you're not careful, but there are also sparks of the Spirit which manifest as consciousness.

Science is right about pretty much everything, I am only trying to put a face to the Unknowable which even empirical methods cannot breach.

>>302140
Look dude, there is either meaning or no meaning. From where I'm standing the fork in the road is pretty clear-cut. Meaning that has NOTHING to do with consciousness, rationality, and the emotional lives of living, breathing beings sounds patently ridiculous to me.

>>302156
the proof of the intermediate value theorem

>>302161
I've considered this. The Absolute can't be something illogical or ridiculous - like God is a zebra wearing a pantyhose on its head or whatever - because a logical, rationally ordered universe cannot emanate from something illogical.

God is not an evil demon because "getting tricked into thinking there's meaning when there isn't" is a loooooot more pleasant than just creating a universe of beings being tortured for eternity. If he is an evil demon, he's a pussy.

>>302186
Congratulations, you have just failed at proving something exists. Here's what you accomplished:

>Moving from arbitrarily chosen man-made axioms to new conclusions using the rules of logic.

Here, allow me to accomplish the same: "A knight moves in an L shape, therefore the knight can tour every square on the board in 63 moves."

See? I've just taken some arbitrary rules (chess) and used logic to draw a conclusion from it. I haven't proved anything exists.

>>302218
>because a logical, rationally ordered universe cannot emanate from something illogical
Our universe is not "rational" and it certainly as hell isnt ordered.
just stop trying to rationalize your feelings.
Accept that your notion of the "absolute" is based in absolutely nothing and assume the leap of faith.

>>302235
How isn't it rational you clown? How the hell are we having this conversation if there aren't physical laws to bind the atoms in our bodies together? Do you even know what you're arguing?

>implying chaos is not just implicit order
>implying macroscopic chaos is not just the aggregate of countless physical interactions determined by inalienable natural laws

>>302181
>Nope, you're still arguing about the Christian God who created humans
No, you're projecting and trying to deflect. What I said applies to anything down to deism, requiring some form of intelligent creator. If you're saying god has no intelligence or will, then all you're doing is labeling natural phenomenon as god, or you believe in arbitrary fate.

>>302218
>The Absolute can't be something illogical or ridiculous - like God is a zebra wearing a pantyhose on its head or whatever - because a logical, rationally ordered universe cannot emanate from something illogical.
Maybe god is a zebra wearing pantyhose on it's head, and he thought it would be funny to create a planet where monkeys wear pantyhose on their legs and thought it was perfectly natural. This universe doesn't seem like a perfectly logical and rationally ordered universe to me. Certainly not how I would create a universe if I were thinking I wanted to create a perfectly logical and rational one.

>God is not an evil demon because "getting tricked into thinking there's meaning when there isn't" is a loooooot more pleasant
Has absolutely nothing to do with logic and reason, you're just appealing to emotion. Not everyone has this empty gaping hole that needs to be filled with a benevolent god.

>If he is an evil demon, he's a pussy.
Evil is a human concept. Why should god care about the judgement of an insignificant blip like you?

>>302218
>God is not an evil demon because "getting tricked into thinking there's meaning when there isn't" is a loooooot more pleasant than just creating a universe of beings being tortured for eternity.

That's making a lot of assumptions, starting with the fact that people won't get tortured for all eternity - which, according to the Bible, is what'll happen to most people.

>>302224
>arbitrarily chosen man-made axioms
All axioms are arbitrary and man-made.

>Congratulations, you have just failed at proving something exists.
The IVT is an existence claim. If you think the IVT is false and you can prove it, you'll become famous overnight.

>>302257
>physical laws to bind the atoms in our bodies together? Do you even know what you're arguing?
Do you?
Your "physical laws" are not actual real effective things. You're conflating a human system to express and make sense of reality (ie:physical laws expressed in equations, theorems, etc...) with the way things actually work.
Newtonian physics explain pretty well how objects interact with forces and vice-versa, but the way newtons laws are expressed are not the way things ultimately work.

>implying chaos is not just implicit order
Well, you're implying chaos is implicit order. You have nothing to prove it other than muh feelings.

>>302277
>If you think the IVT is false and you can prove it

Easy, I just start with axioms that don't lead to it. Done.

>>302284
Mathematics is not semantics. If you change the axioms, you are no longer referring to the IVT.

>>302257
Because it's impossible for you to even comprehend a different universe with different natural laws. If you gave someone the basic natural laws of this universe, they would not so easily be able to conclude human intelligence from it.

It can also be considered imperfect. It is a large assumption to assume this is the most perfect possibility for the universe. That assumption is based on the idea that perfection must exist.

>>302290
The axioms that lead to the IVT are no better justified than my axioms that DON'T lead to the IVT.

... Unless you think they are better for some reason (like because we have evidence that reality can be better modelled by the axioms that lead to the IVT, but then this wouldn't really be a proof without evidence)

>>302156

Prove something exists using the evidence of your senses, known widely to be fallible.

>>302271
Anyone who thinks hell is a physical place and God sends you there because you didn't give the ugly girl in class a birthday card is, like I said, still wrestling with cartoony sunday school-tier caricatures of higher truths. Namely, that hell is spiritual corruption and a state of mind/being. What we deem as "evil" are only actions and states of mind that are absolutely anathema to what we deem as "good". I know this from personal experience on a much more tame scale.

There is no fulfillment or true catharsis in stuffing your face all day, jerking off 5x a day, losing your temper over everything, hating and wanting to kill. Remember, as the Buddha said, you are not being punished for your anger, but BY your anger.

>>302268
>No, you're projecting and trying to deflect. What I said applies to anything down to deism, requiring some form of intelligent creator. If you're saying god has no intelligence or will, then all you're doing is labeling natural phenomenon as god, or you believe in arbitrary fate.

Plotinus' conception of the One is that It is, in fact, a "natural" phenomena, but on a divine scale. The One Is. It exists. By the very fact of its perfection, it emanates progressively imperfect grades of reality as naturally as a sun gives of light. it is not diminished for this, it just is.

Even if you don't buy that, your argument still hinges on "believing God interferes in history and the lives of man is a lot harder to swallow than the current materialistic paradigm". God is just the one who knocked down the first domino.

>>302296
No one said this universe was perfect. It is very imperfect. It only is. It's an objective arena for spiritual evolution.

>>302283
>Do you?
>Your "physical laws" are not actual real effective things.

Come on son, I'm not saying the MODELS of these physical laws have a separate reality, but obviously SOMETHING is holding it together, regardless of what we call it. You're just splitting hairs.

>>302309
>design for each event that leads up to us, based on your assumption of god.
No, you're projecting. I said or.

>God is just the one who knocked down the first domino.
Unless you want to strip this down to the bare necessities. God had no will or intention to create human intelligence or anything, not a design or whatever. He simply started the universe. In this case, god is simply a synonym for the natural phenomenon of the beginning of the universe.

>>302308
I can see my hand, so I'm pretty sure it exists, unless I'm hallucinating.

If all of reality is a lie fed to me by a Cartesian demon, that is fine too. At least I have evidence of things that exist in the fake reality so I know what exists in the fake reality.

>>301857
mysticism is honestly even stupider than deism.

>>302331
So God set in motion the creation of a universe that by its very hard-coded "programming" (matter and the laws of its interaction) invariably lead to the evolution of complex life. Now how does that sound like some idiot God to you?

File: 1447536045312.png (319KB, 534x388px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 534x388px

>>302344
>posted from a starbucks

>>302325
>but obviously SOMETHING is holding it together, regardless of what we call it.
those are still baseless assumptions with no clear conceptualization

>>302334
>unless I'm hallucinating

Prove you aren't hallucinating, dreaming, deceived by a demon, etc using "evidence".

>I know what exists in the fake reality

But those things don't truly exist because of their arbitrary nature. They are falsehoods, and there are an infinite number of possible variations of those falsehoods.

File: 1440158451549.gif (1MB, 234x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 234x200px

>>302383
>the laws of nature exist
>THAT'S A BASELESS ASSUMPTION

ayy lmao

>>302325
Well we have found that physical laws break in parts of universe, or fight against our current knowledge of universe.
But if universe truly works on fully preset and hardcoded laws, does free will exist?
(Also different anon than you've been talking with earlier).

>>302353
>So God set in motion the creation of a universe that by its very hard-coded "programming" (matter and the laws of its interaction) invariably lead to the evolution of complex life.
So you're implying intelligent design

>Now how does that sound like some idiot God to you?
Put an infinite number of stupid gods in a (metaphysical) room and give them an infinite number of universes, and eventually (not like the concept of time even exists yet) one will create human intelligence and some guy by the name of Shakespeare who will write the complete works of Shakespeare.

Discussion of religion belong in /x/ thanks.

>>302387
>Prove you aren't hallucinating, dreaming, deceived by a demon, etc using "evidence".

I can't. Absolute certainty is impossible, even for a god. And I'm OK with that.

>But those things don't truly exist

So? Maybe this is all a simulation by the Cartesian demon, and it isn't even theoretically possible to get out of it. In what sense can something even be said to exist if it can't even be found in a hypothetical thought experiment? Perhaps in the same extent that things like magic, unicorns, and the Loch Ness monster exist in an underground base on Pluto.

>>302387

>Prove you aren't hallucinating, dreaming, deceived by a demon, etc using "evidence".
>what is the negative proof fallacy

>>302392
no, that was not at all what I was saying.
you're assuming that laws of nature are subject to some vague indefinable entity that "holds it together"
thats a baseless assumption.

blatant goalposting is not exactly very smart.

>>301857
>he can't into mysticism

Wut?
Atheism means you don't believe in religions (aka the creator of the universe cares about whether or not you eat pork, have sex before marriahe, pray him...etc an will judge you on that).
Being aitheist doesnt mean you can't think about mysterious "superior" entities.
It just mean you don't give them an edgy teen-like behavior like religions do.

>>302394
Then it is not the case that "natural laws" are spontaneously breaking down, but that our understanding of these laws is still limited and provisional.

>does free will exist?
I like to think only the soul is a "free agent" in a material universe, but this is where the waters get murky. I'd have to think on it.

>>302396
>So you're implying intelligent design

I see the universe around me. Shit, don't even call it that, call it a System. This System, in localized pockets where the conditions are right, produces subjects that are able to apprehend themselves and also the totality of this System.

Now that's some spooky shit nigger. It just doesn't follow to me that the prime principle of reality is just "iunno just blow some shit up lmfao"

>Put an infinite number of stupid gods in a (metaphysical) room and give them an infinite number of universes, and eventually (not like the concept of time even exists yet) one will create human intelligence and some guy by the name of Shakespeare who will write the complete works of Shakespeare.

except an idiot god cannot account for his existence so all we've succeeded in doing is moving the goalposts.

>>302413
>even for a god

incorrect

>it isn't even theoretically possible to get out of it

Well Descartes postulates God as a Deus ex Machina of a kind so it is possible via the intervention of the divine will. Counterpoint is that God could be deceiving us, but we accept that he wouldn't due to his perfect nature and the assertion that deception is indicative of imperfection.

What the fuck is with /pol/ and their anti-fedora crusade?

Don't you have some BLM protesters to call dindus, /k/ to frame for it, and some guns to shoot?

>>302418

Prove you're actually awake then and fully informed as to the truth of reality, as opposed to the possibility of deception and dream.

>>302427
No sir, I literally was referring to the laws of nature holding you together right now. You probably don't like calling it "rational" or whatever, but it's undeniable that matter follows ordered, absolute laws. Even when it manifests as disorder the laws of physics are being followed.

>>302438

DEUS

VULT

>>302434

>This System, in localized pockets where the conditions are right,

This is a reversal of cause and effect. We're not the cause of the properties of the universe, we're the result. We've spend about 4 billion years adapting to it, and we still get it horribly wrong most of the time

>>302435
>incorrect

How is this incorrect? As the Cartesian demon, I could certainly create a false universe with a God in it that thinks he is omnipotent. Obviously that God wouldn't even know if I was simulating his universe or not, because of how I have deceived him.

>>302434
>I see the universe around me. Shit, don't even call it that, call it a System. This System, in localized pockets where the conditions are right, produces subjects that are able to apprehend themselves and also the totality of this System.
You are not inviolable, so I question your judgement in the first place. I don't think you have the mental capacity to take in the scope of the universe or conclude god from it.

>Now that's some spooky shit nigger. It just doesn't follow to me that the prime principle of reality is just "iunno just blow some shit up lmfao"
Literally, that's just like, your spooks, man.

>except an idiot god cannot account for his existence so all we've succeeded in doing is moving the goalposts.
You've been constantly moving the goalposts. Every time a flaw in your argument is found, you start shifting the argument rather than defending and refuting. A monkey with a typewriter doesn't need to account for his existence. Neither does a rock. Existence is not proof of intention.

>>302434
Because if you assume free will (or free agents as you said), couldn't this free agent affect the said universe in a manner that would lead to chaotic and non-deterministic universe.
The basic law of universe which pretty much applies to life here on planet is laziness. The universe tries to be as lazy and energy conserving as possible.

>>302452

I have precisely zero reason to believe otherwise.

File: 1340979835397.png (4KB, 222x211px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 222x211px

The universe has always existed, and something that doesn't have a beginning can't have a creator.

>>302461
I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm referring to the conditions necessary for life. All humanity is doing in that argument is being born and perceiving its own existence and the existence of the System that created it.

>>302456
Those laws existing is prerequisite to comprehending they exist.

So it's quite natural that they exist if we can comprehend they exist, since the ability to comprehend exists if and only if those natural laws exist.

It's a premise that we can comprehend, because we can, and therefore, you can conclude natural laws exist.

>>301857
Im an atheist.
I don't give a fuck what do you believe or why.
As long as your trippy world view doesnt violate mine, that is.

>>302465
>Existence is not proof of intention.
>You are not inviolable, so I question your judgement in the first place. I don't think you have the mental capacity to take in the scope of the universe

Take your own advice.

A rock doesn't NEED to account for its own existence, but if it could talk and we asked it, it would say it's an aggregate of the elements yadda yadda yadda that were formed when ... and so on.

>>302467

Then you haven't thought about it.

You're eyes have never deceived you? You've never misheard someone? You've never stumbled?

Your senses lie to you all the time.

>>302469

Right, but there's no actual System behind it, unless by the System you mean some general form of trail and error.

Or have you forgotten that for you to live today, billions upon billions of lifeforms failed miserably and died out entirely?

>>302501
Which is why we invent methods, like the scientific and historical method, to further enhance our certainty that what we are experiencing isn't our senses lying to us.

>>302490
>but if it could talk and we asked it
But you can't talk to god. But god should be able to talk. Ergo, god is dumb.

>Take your own advice.
I am more than open to admit that as a human with a 126 IQ, I lack the mental capacity and resources to fully comprehend the universe, and determine if god exists from it. But from the scope I can comprehend, I see no reason to believe in it. I could not say with absolute authority god does not exist.

>>302463
>As the Cartesian demon, I could certainly create a false universe

The demon is not God, he is only sufficiently above our powers of perception as is necessary to completely pull the wool over his eyes.

>with a God in it

Ok, you know that God exists independently of any possible temporal realm right? What you are describing is a creature that is not God but has been lead to believe that he is.

>>302501

>Then you haven't thought about it.

I don't need to, because such scenarios are so unlikely that considering them is a complete waste of time

>>302510
Nah, just read a book man, like the bible.

>>302510
>enhance our certainty

The approach of certainty is not actual certainty.

99.9 % sure is not certain, and damn the leap of induction it's irrational.

>>302481
Of course we are products of these laws. We didn't spring up willy-nilly. We are VERY specific products of our environments. But that's the beauty of it. Being is abundant. It's like water in a container, it fits whatever shape it is put in.

Just like how for 99% of human beings there existed the soul of their mother to love them, no matter how broken or deformed they might have been, there is a correspondent Being for every living thing that can exist. As evolution enlarges our brain, consciousness fills us like water and is molded by our physicality and surrounding environment. After all, the Great Work is all about divorcing yourself from the influence of an indifferent and very deadly and intoxicating physical reality.

>>302456
>but it's undeniable that matter follows ordered, absolute laws. Even when it manifests as disorder the laws of physics are being followed.
I'm not going to get into ontological arguments about perceived laws out of observed phenomena, but I'll just simply remind you that we know jack shit about how quantum physics actually work and that the idea that the "laws of physics" are being followed even when disorder is manifested is blatantly false.
There are plenty of phenomena in quantum physics that we still cant explain away into a concise physical "law". (which, I repeat, is a human concept and not actually something that exists physically. We can only perceived repeating phenomena, and thats why we have so much trouble with quantum physics)

Anyway: the idea that matter follows absolute, ordered laws as undeniable, is just not true at all and has been btfo a long time ago.

>>302525
Are you seriously trying to prove my thought experiment wrong by changing it?

>>302535
>99.9 % sure is not certain

But it is better than 99%

>>302541
Then, again, our understanding of these laws must be modified. Chaotic quantum interactions translate into a stable reality on a macro-scale, so there still is an ordering principle, even if it's at the scale of strings and we just can't comprehend it.

>>302543

I'm not changing it, I'm showing that it's impossible and misleading.

All you've done is switch the names of God and the Demon and assume then that God is ok with deception.

>thinks he is omnipotent and omniscient but he actually isn't
>this is totally God you guys!!

>>302536
>Just like how for 99% of human beings there existed the soul of their mother to love them, no matter how broken or deformed they might have been, there is a correspondent Being for every living thing that can exist. As evolution enlarges our brain, consciousness fills us like water and is molded by our physicality and surrounding environment. After all, the Great Work is all about divorcing yourself from the influence of an indifferent and very deadly and intoxicating physical reality.
so many abstract meaningless drivel... god

>>302536
>this what theists actually believe

>>302556
So, just imagine that all of reality as you know it right now (including God, heaven, etc.) is just a simulation by the Cartesian demon. God doesn't know this. He has no way of knowing this. So obviously _that_ God isn't the real God, because he is just a simulation. But that God is certain of his omniscience and total control over all things known to him, so reality goes on existing exactly as you would imagine (except that it is fake).

You can not posit a thought experiment where it is possible for God to know if he is a simulation or not, so absolute certainty is impossible (even for a god)

>>301857

Even though this is bait, I'm gonna bite.

>he can't into mysticism

That's just a step down on the stupid ladder.

>why are atheists still tripping over themselves to disprove the existence of literally sunday school-tier caricatures of the Divine?

No one is tripping over anything. There's nothing to trip over.

Peoples mystical magical fanfiction changes like the wind to try and make itself resistant to any argument that may arise.

If someone were to claim a typical road sign in english turned to spanish when no one was looking at it, you'd disprove them by saying they're retarded and showing a recording of the sign when no one was looking at it.

The retard in question will then proceed to say that it only turns to spanish when not being observed by any medium that may at any time be viewable by humans.

And then you have another breed of retard who will claim you can't know whether or not the sign turns to spanish if it's not being viewed by any means.

>>302575
>magical fan fiction
>stupid ladder
>Russel's teapot-tier arguments

Lol go back to reddit

File: B0rhRYiCUAAKGFb.png (123KB, 540x260px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 540x260px

Daily reminder that valisystem is real

>>302559
Nope all I'm saying is for every brain there is a consciousness inhabiting it correspondent to its degree of evolutionary development.

And not only a consciousness, but a totally unique QUALITY of consciousness, since I'm sure how it feels to be me is totally alien to how it feels to be you.

There are as many qualities of consciousness as there are potential beings. Keep pumping out babies and every single one will be different from the others. there's no limit where we 'run out' of minds being born in human bodies.

I'm sorry you only think in memes, maybe it's time to head on back to reddit?

>>302575
Your shitty argument hinges on the image of the bumbling theist denying direct proof of the non existence of God even when it's right in his face. Do you have actual direct proof for your assertions or do we have to tread the old 'absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence' meme ground again?

>>302573

>that God isn't the real God

Then why are you calling him God?

>You can not posit a thought experiment where it is possible for God to know if he is a simulation or not

A being with actual Omnipotence will know literally everything, including the fact that he is not a simulation. By definition.

>>302354
this was a while ago
but there isnt even a starbuck in this city, stop projecting

>>302663
>>302573


>omnipotence

excuse me, I meant Omniscience.

>cause and effect

>>302694

>implying

>>302591
Philip K. Dick was just a drug addicted schizoid.
Prove me wrong.
Protip: you cant

>>302552
yes and?
What do you mean by "stable reality"?
What is an unstable reality? How can you even conceptualize an unstable reality?

>>302589

>Bait

>>302660

>shitty argument hinges on the image of the bumbling theist denying direct proof of the non existence of God even when it's right in his face.

What? Are you misquoting?

>Do you have actual direct proof for your assertions or do we have to tread the old 'absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence' meme ground again?

Seriously, I think you misquoted here.

>>301879
"Cause and effect: such a duality probably never exists; in truth we are confronted by a continuum out of which we isolate a couple of pieces, just as we perceive motion only as isolated points and then infer it without ever actually seeing it." - Nietzsche

So you're saying that there's room for a divinity?

>>302711
You know I'm getting really tired of having to write a thesis to explain such simple concepts as "the reality around me isn't breaking down into a chaotic froth of subatomic particles". "DEFINE DEFINE" isn't an argument, stop posting.

>>302714
Stupid faggot doesn't even know his own argument.

>If someone were to claim a typical road sign in english turned to spanish when no one was looking at it, you'd disprove them by saying they're retarded and showing a recording of the sign when no one was looking at it.

>recoding of the sign when no one was looking

that's the direct evidence. so, I'm asking, what's the corresponding proofs that proves there is no god as irrefutably as the recording of that sign proves it doesn't magically turn into spanish?

>>301950
1. it doesn't stand to reason
2. >if we grant that reality is NOT a meaningless fart of physical laws
i mean sure, if we are going to grant something like that why not just grant a god?

File: internet_graph.jpg (561KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 960x640px

>>302704
Matter on the surface of Earth expresses a tendency to organize into ever larger, more aware and more active systems. Prove me wrong.
Protip: you can't

>>302795

Then why does decomposition a thing?

Checkmate.

>>302805
please be bait

>>302794
>nuh-uh
>I mean, heh, why would, heh, why would I grant you such a ridiculous premise? heh

Fuck off back to reddit

>>302814

Do you like mushrooms?

I think mycelium is fucking badass.

>>302755

>Stupid faggot doesn't even know his own argument.

Calm your autism frand.

>recoding of the sign when no one was looking

>recoding

>what's the corresponding proofs that proves there is no god as irrefutably as the recording of that sign proves it doesn't magically turn into spanish?

I wasn't trying to present a hard argument for anything, I was giving an example of how people will move the goal posts to try and dismiss any attempt to show them how they would be wrong. Due to the nature of theism and belief in the otherworldly, defenders of such will do so infinitely, then claim and inability for others to prove them wrong.

The more practical part of what I said is that people will believe whatever they wish to, regardless of reality or proof in front of them.

They will disregard common sense, and will claim that despite there being absolutely no reason or way for the sign to change, it just does.

>>302755
>that's the direct evidence. so, I'm asking, what's the corresponding proofs that proves there is no god as irrefutably as the recording of that sign proves it doesn't magically turn into spanish?

Do you expect that, in a hundred years when all our clone grandkids have google glasses implanted in their foreheads, we'll suddenly be watching closely enough to notice god?

because God made some people who are designed to hate God.

if everyone believed in God, no one would face God's wrath.

>he's a Christian
>his only example of suffering was one dude who got crucified

Literally thousands upon thousands of people have been crucified throughout history, did they die for our sins? What about the millions of young men who volunteered and died in places like Stalingrad or Verdun?

>>302855
Mysticism is an experiential investigation of reality down to its fundament, so I'd argue mystics got a better idea of what's going on with that sign than either you or I.

>>302894
Not Christian, but the idea that God himself, the creator of this physical universe and all its requisite pain and suffering, would manifest in the flesh and suffer with us is a beautiful idea.

>>302894
>one dude who got crucified

You know that Christians believe that dude was actually God Almighty, right?

Now take a second and think about what that means.

>>301857
>Implying mysticism isn't any more retarded than the bearded skylord
Stop believing you know fuckall about existence, you don't and never will. No amount of muh postulation will ever change that fact.
one day you will die and when you do you will finally realize that all those hours you spent on pondering the greatest question will have been wasted because you still are just a babbling idiot and you will now never know the answer.
You're a waste of a vessel, there are millions of people who die every day that waste their life far less than you yet they die and you didn't. This is easily the most peculiar and stupid instance of random causation there could ever be.
You sir do not deserve to exist nor do you have the right to and yet you shit up this planet in place of those who would do far better than you.
Please go jump off a bridge and let someone else live who deserves it for once you selfish bastard

>>302663
>A being with actual Omnipotence will know literally everything, including the fact that he is not a simulation. By definition.

Such a being is logically impossible, because there is no way for that being to know it is a simulation (by rules of the simulator)

File: 1444445098918.jpg (17KB, 300x220px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x220px

>>302990

>>302112
>I only know that one definition of meditation
Orientalist gtfo

>>303005

This being exists outside the simulation.

You know, because God is independent of the temporal realm?

>by rules of the simulator

Who is this simulator? Who is to say that he is not himself within a simulation, and so on ad infinitum.

You have seriously misread Descartes.

>>303038

>I only know that one definition of prayer

seriously though it's fucking annoying all this calling different things the same thing.

Adding religion to this board was a mistake.

>>303085
Fuck off faggot, if you want a hugbox go to reddit

>>303085
> this board was a mistake
Easy there

>>303043
>Who is to say that he is not himself within a simulation, and so on ad infinitum.

Nothing. How is that relevant? A simulated God and real God would still have no way of knowing if they are in a simulation or not.

>>303789
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/Edge20151114

Well, I know that perfection doesn't happen by chance. So I believe that someone designed it. Not because of a 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of chance in the universe that the Human body is perfectly designed by pure chance.

>>304760
Says the neckbeard white boy with a tiny dick.

>>304768
Careful I can see your fedora through my spectacles.

>>304832
>he wears glasses
>perfect human
himmler detected

>>301857

The only God I can / could believe is the True God of Gnosticism, which is basically Chaos.

We're living in an imperfect (ok, this is relative and subjective), dual world, which is the Order (or Demiurge).

And there is a perfect "plane", without limits or boundaries, and that is the True God or Chaos.

No (other) dogmas.
Probably these "planes" are not even sentient and the Order is without any purpose.

Have a nice day!

File: heretic.jpg (207KB, 704x899px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 704x899px

>>305468
>worshiping chaos gods

File: thewarpgodswilleatyourdreamsanddrinkyoursoul.jpg (173KB, 671x960px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 671x960px

>>305476
>not worshiping Slaanesh

File: herecitis c.jpg (136KB, 728x768px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 728x768px

>>305492
>this is what gnostics actually believe in

File: BC06_5610_WelcomeAboard_DiegoGisbertLlorens.png (435KB, 400x571px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 400x571px

>>305505
But Anon, I'm not a Gnostic!

Atheism does not depend on the opinions of men (or Gods), it is a consequence of empirical thinking, empiricism is what put men on the moon, cured the worlds diseases and offers us the ability to bend nature to our will at the molecular level. This is achieved with the scientific method, the single best way of explaining the universe and our place in it through testable prediction and experimentation.

Can I please have all the shit you posters are smoking in this thread? It sounds pretty fucking good.

>>301941
He only weakly refuted proofs 4 and 5.
I have yet to see a solid argument against the first cause or unmoved mover.

File: 1438484379479.gif (1MB, 292x278px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 292x278px

>>305562

>>305562
It's people like you who make the lives of scientists like me harder. Science is very fallible, and does not answer the questions that theology does. It is not the end all be all, and people like you who say it is allow brilliant men like dawkins to go from working on things their good at, like biology in his case, to spouting retatded shit like he does now.

>>302181
>Meaning that has NOTHING to do with consciousness, rationality, and the emotional lives of living, breathing beings sounds patently ridiculous to me.
You have no argument, only your feelings

And you are ridiculing others?

There is no reason to believe in supernatural whatsoever

>>306775
>he hasn't read meditations III

>>306801
>rationalism
Revolutionary for its time, but now obsolete

>>306817
Prove how it's obsolete.

>>301857
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2rdv6o