If there's no evidence for God's existence, why does

>>7226103
Your premise is iffy, and your conclusion oh that's right I'm on /lit/ nvm

Because that assumption is all the religious have, give them a break man

>he thinks reality being a quantum fart is a given

>>7226103
oh god lmfao

File: 1431642318953.gif (805KB, 500x700px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 500x700px

>>7226103
Nothing is a given, that's why philosophy is sort of pointless. That being said it's impossible to escape, the mind constantly wanders towards it.

>>7226103
They were indoctrinated.

>>7226103
>evidence


No one in the history of the world ever needed empirical evidences to do or believe in anything, philosophy merely try to disclose those reasons.

>>7226103
Well, the existence of a God was accepted as true for the longest time in history (basically because other explanations weren't available).
The reasoning at that time probably went something like this: "Why would you have to prove something that is obviously there? I know that there is air around me because I can breath."

Aristotle proved God two millennia ago, everything that followed that tries to characterize him is debatable and most of it is prolly bullshit, but that doesn't mean it's not perhaps the most important question.

>>7226103
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

Learn to google OP.

Revealed religion
Natural religion

File: 1376940511321.jpg (79KB, 642x642px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 642x642px

>>7226151
>>7226151
>causality

File: rd3aDw5r4LJU53dw.png (56KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 223x226px

>>7226204
>presuppositional apologetics
1. If you don't believe in something for absolutely certain there can be no basis for anything else you might think.
2. Handwavey dismissal of all the things nonbelievers say anchors their thought that doesn't differ from what any other apologeticists do.
3. Ergo Christianity is the only way to think.

>>7226244
Aristotle's proof has absolutely nothing to do with causality, Aristotle holds that the universe has always existed. He's not arguing for a creator God, he's arguing for a sustainer God (the opposite of deists who subscribe to a creator God, but not a sustainer God). Aristotle's argument could work even if you were an eternalist.

>>7226103
My reply to you is the same is that of the Spartans to Philip of Macedon.

>>7226269
The real question is why should we take anything this dumb greek nigger said seriously when he was wrong about something as basic as the atom and he knew less about the world than a contemporary high school graduate?

File: pleb.jpg (237KB, 500x620px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 500x620px

>>7226128
>Nothing is a given
GTFO, pleb
>being on /lit/ and not knowing the meaning of 'axiom' or 'brute fact'

>>7226283
Because empiricism has told us basically nothing certain about the cause of the universe while logical metaphysics provides a series of insights, before even science considered arriving at them?

Or maybe that Aristotle effectively invented the scientific method anyway.

Daily reminder that Christfags are the cancer killing /lit/.

>>7226295
Wrong. You know nothing of cosmology and physics. All metaphysics has provided is a series of unverifiable nonsense and wankery.

>>7226299
Christfags will fall off, the pendulum of identity politics and contrarianism dictates that the board will return to secularism soon

File: 2001_monolith.jpg (58KB, 500x209px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x209px

Take the God question out of existence. It's not the point, not the question, to be an atheist, theist or any degree of doubt in between. I mean it, this is not just to end the discussion or look to pacify its parts or anything like that. I mean that this is not the point in the slightest, because you'd be putting this God in relation to what you think existing means, what you think differs reality from fantasy and so on.

That's not the point because the point is precisely to understand how God functions as a signifier of our world, that is, precisely what makes things real and not real. This signifier is individual as well as collective, multiple, but often mashed up in a few single names. This is the parameter through which we live. This has God, that hasn't, this is reasonable, that is not, this I'll consider, that I'll ignore, this exists and is real and important, while that is false, irrelevant, meaningless. Take this question to semiotics. If you say "God is good", isn't that a statement about the whole world? When you say "According to..." (science, god, your dad) doesn't that tell us a lot about how you see the world? If you talk about "nature", what is nature if not something completely imagined by you from what you see in the world that escapes your artifice? God is exactly like so, a projection, but nevertheless real in itself, completely contraditory in which it is an imagination of something we can't imagine, that escapes our power of conception, it is the accident that even if meaningless is nevertheless true. And how do we relate to this accident? What is the historical narrative that grounds our doing, that makes us think something is worthwhile, or that a particular approach is better than the other? When atheists talk about God, even to show its contradictions or villainy, they must understand they are talking about how they relate to their universe. And when Christians or other theists defend a given perspective on God to an atheist, they are missing what is the ultimate signifier of these atheists.

God is not a concept, not an idea, not an invention, our conception of it is an invention. But God is whatever comes before us, whatever taught us the signs we use to talk about things, regardless on how you name it or whether you like it or not, just like life is and it was not our idea to be alive, but we are nevertheless here and doing things and inventing reasons for us to be here that would justify what we do. To talk of God is to talk about this process itself, not of a thing that can be named or defined, but about how each one of us name it and relate to this process of understanding the world we live, how we act, how we relate to our thoughts, emotions, our visions of time, memory and death and also the geographic, political and historical thread that sustain our societies, the way we think of our family, our posessions, our relation to animals and plants and, afterall, all there is to see and to touch.

>>7226299
Yeah. I mean, it isn't like Christians ever wrote anything on the scale of, oh, the Divine Comedy, Don Quixote, the City of God, Quo Vadis, Ben Hur, or Lord of the Rings, right?

>>7226340
>we speak in languages that allow us to ask questions that beg the question of something other than the physical
>ergo there must be something other than the physical
Yikes. Work on that reasoning, write more concisely and come back with something a little less pretentious and more tenable.

>>7226350
>wrote

This being the most important word

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

17KB, 300x220px

>>7226315
>he thinks the Big Bang is a sufficient explanation for why reality exists
>2015
>sciencefags still getting How mixed up with Why

>>7226368

And how does one answer why-questions reliably?

>>7226350
Don Quixote is pretty heavily critical of the Church.

>>7226363
This being /lit/, yeah.
Oh. Are you trying to imply any contemporary atheists are producing actual *literature*?
Protip: that SF trash you wallow in isn't literature.

>>7226383
And?
The Church is full of people who make mistakes and deserve criticism.

>>7226380
sophism

>>7226407
Contemporary atheists are busy doing science. Meanwhile, you read silly fiction books like a child.

>>7226352
It's not about what is physical and what is not, that distinction is null. Once again, it's not a matter of existence, so it isn't something that "is" other than the physical. If you took what I wrote as a reasoning for defending a position of existence or non-existence of God, you're wrong. What is happening is people talking words and doing things and what they must have considered in order to say them and do them.

>>7226368
"God wants it to" is not a sufficient explanation either.

>>7226454
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by reading it that way.

Having grown up with serious Christianity, left the faith and studying religion continuously through all this, I just don't think what you said is very interesting or useful to someone who's not a 14 year old getting high for the first time because no Christian besides a few obscure academics would claim that God isn't real in the conventional sense.

>>7226103
>no evidence

you'll probably go on pretending the life of Christ or the existence of the scriptures is "no evidence", but the best anyone's been able to say against them is that they are probably very weak evidence, and would not be acceptable in any serious field of modern study.

This does not mean there is "no evidence".

Daily reminder that you have to be very near retarded to believe in God.

Christfags are the cancer of /lit/.

>>7226506
First sentence only gives them flame to be more cancerous. Just report the thread and move on.

>As pure thinking consciousness belief has this Being immediately before it. But pure consciousness is just as much a mediate relation of conscious certainty to truth, a relation constituting the ground of belief. For enlightenment this ground comes similarly to be regarded as a chance knowledge of chance occurrences. The ground of knowledge, however, is the conscious universal, and in its ultimate meaning is absolute spirit, which in abstract pure consciousness, or thought as such, is merely absolute Being, but qua self-consciousness is the knowledge of itself. Pure insight treats this conscious universal, self-knowing spirit pure and simple, likewise as an element negative of self-consciousness. Doubtless this insight is itself pure mediate thought,, i.e. thought mediating itself with itself, it is pure knowledge; but since it is pure insight, or pure knowledge, which does not yet know itself, i.e. for which as yet there is no awareness that it is this pure process of mediation, this process seems to insight, like everything else constituting it, to be something external, an other. When realizing its inherent principle, then, it develops this moment essential to it; but that moment seems to it to belong to belief, and to be, in its character of an external other, a fortuitous knowledge of stories of “real” events in this ordinary sense of “real”. It thus here charges religious belief with basing its certainty on some particular historical evidences, which, considered as historical evidences, would assuredly not even warrant that degree of certainty about the matter which we get regarding any event mentioned in the newspapers. It further makes the imputation that the certainty in the case of religious belief rests on the accidental fact of the preservation of all this evidence: on the preservation of this evidence partly by means of paper, and partly through the skill and honesty in transferring what is written from one paper to another, and lastly rests upon the accurate interpretation of the sense of dead words and letters. As a matter of fact, however, it never occurs to belief to make its certainty depend on such evidences and such fortuitous circumstances. Belief in its conscious assurance occupies a naïve unsophisticated attitude towards its absolute object, knows it with a purity, which never mixes up letters, paper, or copyists with its consciousness of the Absolute Being, and does not make use of things of that sort to affect its union with the Absolute. On the contrary, this consciousness is the self-mediating, self-relating ground of its knowledge; it is spirit itself which bears witness of itself both in the inner heart of the individual consciousness, as well as through the presence everywhere and in all men of belief in it.

>>7226475
>serious Christianity
Is this like watching the teletubbies as a full grown adult? Hilarious.

>>7226493
Which scriptures? the Bible or Quaran?

File: image.jpg (139KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1024x768px

>>7226513
Shaming is the only solution.

>>7226475
I'm not saying God isn't real. You're in this either-or question that I have no interest about. I'm also saying what I'm saying in spite of Christians, atheists or teenage stoners, but to anyone that sees fit, not claiming a definition of God, neither analyzing it theologically, nor trying to modify anyone's speech. Of course Christians will be Christians and atheists will be atheists, in a conventional way or not, it doesn't worry me the slightest what one thinks of God or what they think is reasonable or not. What interests me is how these thoughts affect their actions.

>>7226290
>axiom
>given

If people didn't questions axioms we never would have invented set theory, non euclidean geometry, anything from the hilbert program, etc

>>7226283
The objections to Aristotle are the fruit of the seeds he planted, just like the objections to Christianity today are ultimately the fruit of the Christian perspective.

>>7226518
I'm not a Christian anymore, fam. I meant that my church was very into theology, reading scripture and intense discussions of all the above. We were like the Christian equivalent of Jews, as opposed to Catholics with fifteen nursing infants per mother or megachurch tards.

Learn to read, guy.

non religious people seem like dense retards to me. I mean God is obvious. it's an abstraction. why is man the only creature on this planet having this discussion? because of a tiny difference of dna? that tiny difference is the entire world of difference. whenever a scientific riddle is resolved another two more show up. this is the paradox and why religious ideologies have endured over thousands of years.

>>7226613
How does any of that lead to God?

>there's a lot of unsolved problems
>hmm god must exist then

>>7226613
>this is what Christians actually believe
You think everyone else looks retarded because they don't rend their clothes and gnash their teeth because the massively complex universe doesn't reveal its every detail to their singular perspective? Do you not see how egotistical it is to only accept a world where someone will explain everything to you?

>>7226629
I never said it did, retard. I said it's why religious ideas are still around. Copernicus, newton etc thought science was a way to reveal God in nature.

I don't think God will ever be proven or disproven. there will never be the kind of tangible evidence to change anyone's mind.

they will have to come to whatever they believe in, in their own terms in their own understanding. I wouldn't have it any other way.

>>7226629
God is essentially the metaphysical strange attractor of strange attractors.

>>7226651
>non religious people seem like dense retards
What else did you mean then?

>>7226649
see
>>7226651

retard. that part of my post was a semi troll but not with you. I never needed a Bible or a book of any kind of to have a sense of God.

>>7226665
>I have a sense of a God who like it when I call people retarded on 4chan
He must be quite a guy :^)

>>7226665
So you admit that half of your post was irrelevant? Please, if your going to put forward an argument, make sure all you type is relevant - otherwise people misread; you silly dumbass

>>7226662
read through the thread.

some of the atheists out there are equally narrow and assuming as religious people. they're equally oblivious and equally hypocritical. can't fucking stand these types from either side of the aisle.

>>7226673
>He must be quite a guy :^)

>he
>guy

God is an abstraction. your brain is obviously too dense to grasp that.

>>7226681
not irrelevant. quite a few posts itt are "____ are retards." just stfu before you try to pin some bullshit on me that already runs throughout this thread.

File: 5316742733_df0f4ce443.jpg (141KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 500x375px

>empirical evidence is wrong because I don't like what it implies
Never would I think Aristotleans and continentals would hand so much in common.

>>7226697
How do you know the true nature of God?

/lit/ is truly the worst board. I'm done.

Did you guys ever think its a bit ironic that you're on the 'literature' board, discussing God, and you're not quoting the most popular piece of literature in the world, which is about God?

>>7226722
Christposters have realized that quoting scripture is largely pointless because, like >>7226697 they, "just know."

>>7226708
there is no "true nature of God" that man can grasp.

there is nothing outside of God. you can't even meet all the variety of people living on this planet in a lifetime let alone assume the true nature of God. if men understood God, men would be Gods. the notion of God wouldn't even exist.

>>7226685
>le rational middle ground meme
You're a dumb fuck if you seriously entertain religious folklore. Centuries from now humanity will look back at these conversations and laugh at people like you.

>>7226738
I think that regardless of God's existence or absence, this statement is not true

It's funny how Christianity is just a meme now

Bayesian probability points that it's more likely this world was created than that it wasn't

>>7226685
>muh tolerance
When someone has all the time and space they need to state their arguments, it's totally valid to tell them when they're not putting forth good arguments. Regardless of who's doing it, your feelings really aren't that important.

Like the other guy said, there's nothing special about trying to locate the centrist position. That's a totally arbitrary and cowardly way to approach these issues.

>>7226729
retarded asshole assuming stuff. I never said "I just know" however spirituality isn't dead like a book. it's a living "thing" otherwise I wouldn't feel the way I do about it. you're too retarded to understand like I said yet you'll go on and assume you do. you'll act all smug and have all your one-liners ready on how you describe people of various faiths. I'm sure it makes you feel good even though you're an oblivious hypocrite.

>>7226750
I don't understand this response, and I don't intend that as an insult, I just don't get it.

Isn't he saying that atheists have just as strong 'faith' in the non-existence of God, as the christians have in his existence?

that's simply a declaration of fact, that atheists have strong faith. no argument is being presented, and no one is trying to place themselves on a political spectrum

>>7226750
I'm not coward enough to change my position just because you try to paint me in whatever way you think invalidates me emotionally. I am a person of faith but I totally understand idiotic people with or without religious faith.

>>7226665
*tips fedora*

>>7226752
You don't know me, you pretentious cunt. I was an earnest believer of a living faith as well as a careful scholar of the faith through my early twenties and I came to a different conclusion from years of study. The sophistry, dishonesty and anger you're showing here is what I can't stand, not the end product of your beliefs.

>>7226701
>David Hume
>continental

*tips fedora*

>>7226746
>implying you know anything about the a priori conditions to a world's existence

Fuck off, and nice use of "Bayesian" to qualify an idea you don't understand

>>7226493
>you'll probably go on pretending the life of Christ or the existence of the scriptures is "no evidence"
Don't have to pretend; it isn't.

Some things are in motion. (Science supports this)

A thing cannot, in the same respect and in the same way, move itself: it requires a mover. (Science also supports this)

An infinite regress of movers is impossible. (Science supports this)

Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds. (Science supports this)

This mover, everyone calls God. (Science is too blind to support this)

>>7226752
*tips fedora*

>>7226758
If atheists have faith in non-existence of God then all facts about all things are matters of faith, thus trivializing the concept

File: 1442375617410.jpg (64KB, 446x556px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 446x556px

>>7226763
>you try to paint me in a way you think invalidates me emotionally
I said that centrism and fence-riding in the context of the arguments in this thread doesn't make any sense. Sorry if something else triggered you.

>>7226758
He's saying that while claiming a "fair and balanced," approach, which doesn't address anything the atheists are saying and is just a high-horse personal attack.

anyone who has a genuine interest in the OP's topic, about why so many writers assume the Bible is true, should read it?

its always painful to sift through the emotional exchanges between 'believers' and 'non believers' who somehow never quite get around to quoting a single Bible verse.

I recommend Ecclesiastes, Job, Isaiah, and of course, the basis of much of Christianity, Romans.

I've always enjoyed Jonah, just because the ending is far more weird than the typical sunday school lesson about him

>>7226783
I don't believe in tensed time.

>>7226783
Time is infinite and all things were not created in the Big Bang.

Quantum fields have existence since before the universe.

Also read David Hume. Causality may or may not exist, but you can never know what caused something.

File: hume.png (94KB, 200x280px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 200x280px

>>7226783
>Some things are in motion. (Science supports this)

>>7226771
you don't know me either you pretentious cunt. the sophistry, dishonesty and anger YOU'RE showing here is as plain as day. I've got my share of anger. it's annoyance and why shouldn't I be reading the responses here? fuck off. sophistry? dishonesty? I'm speaking my mind with no ill-intention and no intention to convert anyone if you actually read my posts. I basically said to atheists what several posts said to "christfags" with the word retard. notice how no one gives a fuck but when I do oh no we've got an atheist circle jerk. don't deny this. pretentious cunt? yeah it's exactly what you are.

>>7226793
The only part of the bible I reject is original sin and the compulsion to its ethics. The rest is all fine and Jesus was pretty cool.

Idk what god orders me to do he isn't my daddy.

>>7226407
Not really a fair comparison at all, especially considering how atheism being as widespread as it is is very, very recent, and even then, they're still a very small minority.

Kinda drawing at straws.

>>7226440
Jesus Christ what a fucking cringe worthy response.

>>7226810
"Atheist" in your sense is meaningless because we all have holy spirits.

Stop acting like anyone should respect or give a shit about your mystic beliefs

>>7226810
So you called people retards in every single post and now you're getting defensive about it and claiming to be persecuted. I shouldn't be so disappointed, but I am.

>>7226789
if God were proven or disproven with tangible evidence the discussion would've died a long time ago.

I'm saging every time btw. would love to see this thread die. I usually avoid them but am getting sick of the "I'm too smart to believe in fairy tales" masturbatory bullshit.

>>7226813
>Jesus Christ what a fucking cringe worthy response.
*postures fedora menacingly*

You can assert all you want that Christians are useful to society. We don't have to believe you.

The only conception about God that makes sense to me is that he's nothing comparable to a human. If God was like a super-intelligent human there is no reason why he couldn't have immediate contact with us, understand why we need conclusive evidence to follow some complicated system of ethics based on ancient texts etc.
If God is some impersonal first cause we can only speculate about that's a different thing though. But I can't really imagine a personal God who doesn't give a fuck this much.

>>7226823
Never asserted that, it's just that your worship of science is so retarded that it's disconcerting. Also, to say that Christians aren't "useful" to society makes no fucking sense since they comprise, at least in the country I live in, the vast majority of society.

I may not believe in god but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw a diverse group of people under the bus because I want to be an edgemaster.

>>7226820
If God is not material, then he's ideal, if he's ideal then the idea of existence is a triviality, because all thoughts exist where they exist.

Unless if you're going the Descartes route to insist there's more than two types of substance things can be made of.

>>7226834
I'm barely entering this thread. Don't be so hostile.

Being a "Christian" isn't a static character trait, it's an emergent one. You're a Christian or not by how you act, not by what you tell people you believe

>edgemaster

You're being far edgier than most human beings right now

>>7226840
I don't think you fully understand the edge meme, but whatever. The idea that a Christian is based on action implies there's a static set of actions that determine what a Christian is, which doesn't make sense when you consider the massive number of denominations that have entirely different ideas about what being a Christian is. The only real thread that keeps all this together is the belief in Jesus Christ being somehow related to the divine.

>>7226850
No, the idea that keeps it all together is original sin and the sense of indebtedness that invokes. I can regard Jesus as divine without that.

>>7226860
Good point, Christian Theology isn't my strong point.

>Evidence
0/10 b8
>>7226290
They're both assumptions.

Not even Absolutes are given because they are impossible to fully comprehend.
>>7226295
>Empiricism
The biggest quackfest in history.
>>7226701
You do realize that it's painfully simple to invalidate all of empiricism, right?

>>7226834
Theologians and priests are among the most useless members of society. Churches are basically legalized tax evasion institutions. Christianity actively tries to hold back scientific and social progress. Sure, some Christians can contribute to society, but with massive cognitive dissonance

>>7226869
See: >>7226868
b8master

>>7226869
Disagree, the Church is the center of many a community and is important in maintaining any sense of social cohesion, and while there are many Christians that hold back scientific progress there are many more that do not. Painting with such a broad brush doesn't serve anyone.

I would also say that scientific progress is not something that is only positive, especially considering it delivered us such wonderful things as the atom bomb, agent orange, and biological weapons. Science isn't some benevolent entity, it's a tool. A very, very, dangerous tool, that must be used cautiously and intelligently.

>>7226883
>science is good
>progress is good
>being this much of a novelty-loving spookmaster

>>7226891
Did you even read my post...?

>>7226883
exactly. Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon...you could go on with many of the corner stones of the scientific revolution WERE CHRISTIAN. they didn't feel science was at odds with God. like I said earlier itt many felt science was a tool to understand and reveal God in nature.

>>7226869
Erm, a church-type organization, even if were secular, would not have to pay taxes. If you created a massive D&D club that got together every week and had a paid coordinator (priest), with everyone contributing money, it would not have to pay taxes, because it wouldn't be considered a commercial enterprise.

>>7226896
I did, I didn't greentext 'scientific progress is good' for that very reason

>>7226204
Presuppositional apologetics is a small, recent movement from the edgy side of Calvinism.

It has no relevance to OP or to theology in general.

>>7226883
Church isn't necessary to maintain social cohesion. It also doesn't matter that some Christians don't hold back progress because enough of them do for it to become a problem.

>>7226901
But I didn't say that science is automatically good. I don't understand what you're trying to say, did I miss something?

>>7226868
>You do realize that it's painfully simple to invalidate all of empiricism, right?

Go ahead. Please do it in front of an oncoming bus

>>7226907
>progress is good
Progress off a cliff lad
>>7226909
Inherently good =/= wholey good

>>7226914
>i dont like you so kill urself NO DISSENT ALLOWED

>>7226907
I never said that social cohesion was contingent on the church, but the current structures in which we live in have it being the center of most communities. I'd also like to point out that Atheists have far higher suicide rates than Christians. The community churches clearly has psychological significance to human beings. Also, I don't understand how "enough of them do" is enough of an excuse to then say "fuck all Christians", especially when they fight with /each other/ on these very same issues.

Empiricists BTFO.

>>7226923
churches offer*

>>7226923
>priest fondling your child
>social cohesion

https://youtu.be/tABnznhzdIY


>inb4 Zizek memes

>>7226920

No, I'm asking you to actually take a risk for your beliefs. We can all talk, not everyone can do.

If you believe that the entire world is a mirage made up by your brain, then why do people like you never act on those beliefs?

Seems pretty fucking hypocritical to me

>>7226933
Just epic

>>7226933
I'd try to say, as I've previously stated, that you can't just say all "all Christians are X" but clearly I'm wasting my time. If you'd like to believe they're a bunch of degenerate scum so you can stoke the inner fires of pseudo-religious zeal, so be it. Have at the "enemy".

Even if it's all bullshit I've come to the realization that living a Christian life is infinitely superior and more filling than this sad hedonism I'm stuck in. I've never felt more alive than during a few months when I read a lot of theology and managed to convince myself that Catholicism was true. I went to church and everything and even enjoyed going to Mass, it was amazing and transcedent and beautiful.
Unfortunately I went back to being apathetic about it quick enough. I WISH I could believe in this.

>>7226103
>there's no evidence for God's existence

I hate this meme.

>>7226953
I don't remember if was Chesterton or Lewis who said this but nonetheless it stays the advice: fake it. That's right, even if you don't believe or whatever just go to church, go through the motions of being in the Mass, communion and so on. The Holy Spirit is all about this community.

>>7226116
He's saying there's no evidence for God, not that God not existing is a given.

>>7226968
give some, then
evidence or a rational reason

>>7226923
>I'd also like to point out that Atheists have far higher suicide rates than Christians.
Yes, but while they're alive they're at least SMARTER. Cry me a river you spoon fed conforming God-dick-sucking hillbilly. Come over to 2015 whenever you are ready.

DAILY REMINDER THAT ALL RELIGIOUS NUTS ARE IN WHAT SARTRE CALLS "BAD FAITH"! Plebs.

>>7226979
I'm an atheist.

>>7226978
What is prime mover
What is the historicity of the Gospels

>>7226979
>"It's 2015!"
Fuck off back to tumblr.

>>7226940
>take a risk for your beliefs
That's also empiricism.

You aren't too bright, are you?
>>7226978
>evidence
>rationality
>>7226979
Confirmed for troll.
>>7226983
Satre is bad though.

>>7226984
Don't choke my rage! aaaarrrggg

>>7226940
>If you believe that the entire world is a mirage made up by your brain,
Why are you putting words into my mouth? I'm no Idealist.

>>7226979
Lol kill yourself you millenial cookie cutter faggot

>>7226953
>being a total hedonist
Idiot. You don't have to be a Christian to do better than that unless you're really stupid and need to have your nose rubbed in it.

>>7226973
>don't worry about the truth
>just indoctrinate yourself
>all that theology was just a prank bro!

>>7226107
>Your penis is iffy

File: fatima.jpg (440KB, 1000x1535px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1000x1535px

>>7226978

http://www [.] doxa [.] ws/other/Miracles2.html
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

>>7227000

Everyone has a 'doctrine', if it's not religion it is consumerism, narcissism, sports, 'scientific progress' and so on.

>>7226989
>Satre is bad though.
Leave it to a religious person to deny one of the top intellectual works of all time as "bad".

>>7227011
>the pic
>he expects us to take him seriously

File: don_t_we_all.jpg (12KB, 220x240px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x240px

>>7226985

File: plate_4_watchtower_of_east.jpg (539KB, 514x554px) Image search: [Google]

539KB, 514x554px

>>7226103
There is evidence, the direct experience of the divine. In ancient times this was the purpose of the mystery schools and the work of many Gnostics, but has been largely forgotten or lost today.

>>7227015
I'm an atheist but Sartre is clearly dogshit philosophy.

>>7227013
>everyone has a doctrine
It's possible to have a better doctrine than Christianity and any of those things you listed, believe it or not. Accepting all the baggage that comes with Christianity is not worth it if you can read the rest of the world's wisdom texts.

God is the reason for the best art. Music too. I think JS Bach signed his stuff "all for the glory of God alone."

>>7226735
pantheism! like Einstein.

>>7227013
>Everyone has a 'doctrine', if it's not religion it is consumerism, narcissism, sports, 'scientific progress' and so on.
No. Stop projecting. You may generalize but don't affirm uncertain blanket projections.

>>7227022
Jesus Christ, do you really think you live your life completely free of ideologies and cultural conventions?

>>7227015
Sartre wrote philosophical novels that were pretty good. He was an intellectual on level with Camus. His actual work of philosophy as a discipline isn't really recognized academically, since it is mainly just reiteration of prior thinkers.

File: asuka penpen.jpg (7KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 259x194px

>>7227011
You presented several photographs of poor people looking into the sky (but photos of the sky) as evidence of miracles. Sit in the corner and think about that.

>>7227019
Evidently NOT. His phenomenological and ontological essays are pure gold. Try to get past the terminology next time.

>>7227022
This is pure ideology.

>>7227025
I live in adjointment with them, not in them.

>>7227025
>Christposter taking the name of the lord in vain
You're not even trying. I hope you at least have a good reason for not taking Paul seriously if you're going to flaut his directions. Conventions and personal priorities aren't the same as a huge convoluted system involving a personal deity and specific laws.

>>7227000
>Idiot. You don't have to be a Christian to do better than that unless you're really stupid and need to have your nose rubbed in it.
All non-Christians are hedonists by default.
>>7227015
>modern existentialism
>of any value
like...dude...be ur own god

>>7227020
Christianity is the only valid doctrine.

Why do christfags still post here? Go away!!

Hello guys, I am new to philosophy and religion in general. I find religion to be extremely fascinating, but My mind doesn't accept its existance, can you convince me about the contrary?

>>7227041
People are religious, therefore religion exists. Did I blow your mind?

>>7227041
>existance

Hey, you're that guy from the last Christfag thread. How's it going, buddy?

>>7227038
>like...dude...be ur own god
Not him but that's exactly what Sartre postulates as our primary endevour.

>>7227037
Religion merely reflects those larger social and mundane spirit and conventions of its times into representational thought. Yes, secular religion counts too.

>>7227041
I'm talking about God, btw.

>>7227041
You don't have to accept anything, it's just there.

God raped the virgin Mary in her sleep.

>>7227041
Read Aristotle, that's the best you can start with. All of Christianity goes back to the same problems the Greeks started with. It will give you a very precious perspective and an understanding that you don't need to be religious to read about theology.

>>7226923
Churches are not the center of most communities where I live. They might be if you live in some backwater hick town, but thankfully I don't. Churches only have psychological significance to humans in that they are communal gathering places for deluded people to socialize with others about creation myths. The latter part is unnecessary. It doesn't matter that Christians fight each other over some issues. You don't every Muslim to be a suicide bomber to denounce Islam as a backwards belief system that we would all be better off without. It produces sufficient problematic behavior and that's reason enough.

>>7227056
I don't want to read about theology, I want to belive in God because I'm fascinated, but I can't. Should I think of God as something different from the one described by Christianity?

>>7227053
>>7227045
Do you guys ever consider that maybe people are only religious because they need something to give meaning to their lives? Have you ever considered that maybe people choose the path of God because they need an explanation to perpetuate their own need for survival, similar to that of an animal?

File: 56721e57139a1ff0fbe00230d57793d7.jpg (5KB, 216x146px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 216x146px

>>7227038
>All non-Christians are hedonists by default
Christians all claim their faith makes them feel good, so that's on the same level as even the most ascetic secular practices.

>be ur own god
If you do away with the need for something comparable to a god in power then you can absolutely set your own priorities, expectations and goals.

>Christianity is the only valid doctrine
Excellent argument. Really set me up for that checkmate.

>>7227050
I hope you don't think this is a defence of the truth of any religion.

>>7227058
You faggots are tedious as fuck.

>>7227062
Just start with the greeks bro. You won't start believing in God after reading some pleb apologetics, you have to consider all of philosophy. And yeah, you shouldn't just think of it as a religious thing.

>>7226103
>If there's no evidence for God's existence, why does so much philosophy treat His existence as a given?
Delusion and the impact of deep rooted impact of social constructions on the psyche. Thank God the percentage of religious people in the world (the western world) is dropping like a stone.

>>7227065
What I mean is that religion only has truth and validity only to the extent that a nation or people act and demonstrates that truth in its culture, in its the mundane community.

>>7227064
I don't see how that contradicts the posts you quoted. Things don't come from nowhere, but the explanation isn't always that your gut feelings are correct.

>>7227049
Satre is one element of 20th century existentialism you illiterate.
>>7227065
>Christians all claim their faith makes them feel good
Generalization, not addressing
>If you do away with the need for something comparable to a god in power then you can absolutely set your own priorities, expectations and goals.
Why is this good and/or important?
>>7227075
I remember being 15 and thinking trolling and DESU posting was cool.

>>7227064
Why must i suffer because of my superior understanding of the world and them not? (That's a joke.)

But why must the world as a whole suffer from what mass religion drags behind it for society? Given increased education people will have the capacity not to crutch on religion and we will be better off without.

File: dfw.jpg (274KB, 457x584px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 457x584px

>>7227066
>waah I'm bored
Go ask your pastor to do some snake handling or something and then come back when you can pay attention.

Guys what's the point of debating about God if you cannot prove your theories? Isn't that a circlejerk? Are you practicing for your exams?

>>7227084
The human yearning for transcendental meaning is hardwired. I really cant fathom how autistic you have to be to think its possible to eradicate religion as a concept. Too fucking stupid to live

>>7227083
>I remember being 15 and thinking trolling and DESU posting was cool.
Face the facts soon you'll be all alone, and guess what? You're grandkids will have a higher probability of being an atheist than not.

>>7227089
More than half of europe lives without it you fuck.

>>7227089
>The human yearning for transcendental meaning is hardwired.
Shut up fgt, no it's not. We are hardwired to find meaning in our being, belief/faith is just one way to accomplish that. Stop trying to make facts of your half-assed and completely uninformed guesses at what constitutes human nature.

>>7227083
>why is this good and/or important?
It's good because I don't think any organized religion has the truth, but that we can reorganize around more humanistic values and take advantage of the parts of our brains that latch onto religion to internalize values and worldviews that will bring more lasting benefits to ourselves and each other. I think it's good because we can put away the baggage and nonsense that has attached itself to every religion and start over without suffering total confusion. This is a huge deal if you actually value truth. Not sure how you can think that sort of potential is not important.

>>7227084
greatest classical composers composed their music for churches. the greatest art and look up the scientific revolution. many scientists

>>7227064
but people aren't only religious because of that. the problem is the fucking narrow-mindedness of people like yourself. how can i explain it to someone so retarded? you just can't. I ask God every day for the power to explain it to dumb motherfuckers.

>>7227062
pantheism. look it up!

>>7227111
>greatest classical composers composed their music for churches. the greatest art and look up the scientific revolution. many scientists
Exceptions, the masses in totality degrade social potential to muck and piss.

>>7226978
man is the only creature having this discussion right now. why?

>>7227115
no. most Christians are nice and easy-going. most atheists too. you watch too much t.v...it's the most obvious thing to me.

File: poop.jpg (53KB, 544x235px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 544x235px

>>7227128
I think he's just being elitist. I actually agree. Most people get very upset when you challenge them and the poor and uneducated are the worst about this because they live in a world primarily of dominance/submission and sex, so anything they don't understand is perceived as hostile.

>>7227121
EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10111

>>7226103

You want to know the truth?
Because many higher education institutions in the West have been primarily Christian, and they would only hire people who supported their ideologies.
See: David Hume and his work history. Since he was branded as an atheist, he never got a job at a university.

>>7227091
Still no argment I see.
>>7227107
>i don't think
Opinion autoinvalidated

File: dialectic.jpg (20KB, 226x346px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 226x346px

>>7227121
We developed a capacity for pattern recognition and "social intelligence," far beyond that of any other organism. There is no evolutionary reason to tone down those abilities because false-alarms aren't nearly as damaging as starving or getting eaten, and it doesn't take much more energy to be as sensitive as we are now than to be slightly less sensitive. When we developed spirituality, it ended up serving a useful role as a memetic device for social cohesion, and so that stuck.

These things do not suggest the existence of a deity.

>>7227146
>I disagree with you
Opinion autoinvalidated :")

File: What+s+with+the+quot+who+the+heaven+hell+is+that+this+quot+_d0c4553d8840b3f016710746430e7e73.jpg (21KB, 450x299px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x299px

>>7227121
Ladies and gentlemen: the extent of a Christfag's knowledge. I'm fucking astounded. I thought these people I've been arguing with would know even a fragment of the workings of language. Holy fuck.

Is there a reason on why god doesn't reveal himself? Is it because he doesn't have a physical body? If he doesn't, why? If God reveals himself in everything that surrounds him, why only a few can or think they can perceive him? Wouldn't it be better for him to confirm his identity? Is God a brainless beign that doesn't do anything at all and therefore doesn't serve any purpose? Why creating everything and then concealing itself? What if I am God? Am I crazy?

>>7227150
No sweetie, you mentioned your irrelevant beliefs.
You think your ideology leads to any truth.
>>7227156
Free will

File: j1Ivgndt_400x400.jpg (20KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x400px

>>7227156
Yahweh is too egotistical to be kind to us. He's like an abusive husband who only married/created us to validate himself and pushes the boundaries at every chance and then makes us deal with it.

It's really that simple if you read the Old Testament or Torah.

>>7227164
>Free will
Try determined will.

>>7227164
I never said those beliefs lead to truth. I said that neither of us has the truth and so we should back off from dedicating our lives to anything until we find something worth that kind of faith. What that shall be is a separate problem, but we are capable of giving ourselves to anything if we want to badly enough. The existence of numerous spiritual and secular religions should be evidence enough of that.

I know you're trolling but I hope someone who needs it is reading.

>>7227169
What's the point? Why is he the only ruler?

>>7227156
He reveals himself in every religious community (the Holy Spirit). Only the usual picture-thinking involved in such rituals prevent non-Christian people from realizing that.

>>7227183
You mean the same holy spirit that's supposed to guide all believers in their understanding of God? The holy spirit that dropped the ball so hard on that he ended up with like a million different denominations sharing the same core belief?

>>7227179
>god isn't Truth
>I know you're trolling
>evidence
You really can't argue, can you?

>>7227191
See my post here: >>7227050

The religious rituals are intrinsically rooted to a specific ideology of a people, there is no objective and external Spirit as atheists think that Christian people believe and that exists in-itself. The dove (or whatever the fuck else) is merely a representation.

>>7226116
Why do people insist on debasing all of reality as a mishap and an accident - much less a fart. I get that you have a woefully unsophisticated view of existence, that you believe in a fart instead of the existence of a greater consciousness, in vapid mental sloth when unending living mysterious sublime complexity stares back at you at every moment. There are two types of fundamentalists in this world, atheistic and religious. Both show a staggering lack of comprehension. Unevolved.

>>7227183
I am now atheist, thanks.

>>7227154
he said give a rationale. man is the only creature with any significant degree of creative capacity. you're a bored lonely dickhead to come here just to reply with that. fuck off and don't respond.

>>7227147
>We developed a capacity for pattern recognition and "social intelligence," far beyond that of any other organism

exactly my point. but you're grossly simplifying it to make it seem like it's something science has explained which it has not.

>>7227137
I think all creatures are evolving in some way...but that's not my point. why is man the only one...ONLY ONE...to evolve arts, sciences, etc. it has benefitted man to an incredible degree. why have no other creature evolved even a fraction in the way man has...which has helped man be the dominant species on this planet? it's the reason why we rule over all environments. surely evolution would award other members of other species who have even a tiny fraction of these traits so their species would eventually come along like ours but no.

>>7227197
>Christians don't believe in an objective and external spirit
On what planet? I don't mind if you tell me about your special-snowflake version of Christianity, but most believers would call that heresy.

>>7226985
>What is the historicity of the Gospels

What are your thoughts on the issues regarding the historicity of the old testament?

The deductive proofs of God are just a valid as Zeno of Ela's proof of movement being impossible.

>>7227201
Kek, welcome brother
chorus: one of us, one of us

Chorus in silence: :( :(

>>7227203
>why have no other creature evolved even a fraction in the way man has...
That's not how selective pressures work, anon. Evolution's not a race to the finish. More like a treading of water where some populations move to a different part of the pool when someone bumps into them.

>>7227203
>man is the only creature with any significant degree of creative capacity

and you know this how?

>>7227204
Let me put it this way: if they actually could see an objective and external 'heaven' or whatever, they would stop being religious; there would be no need to ACT as if there is a heaven. This is where the emphasis should lie: they act as a religious community precisely because of this gap that must be filled by the church. That social action allows them to, in their day-to-day, individual life to act as if there is no God.
You see, what they subjectively think doesn't matter, but what they do.

Robert Cormier - I Am the Cheese

>>7227200
Moderns numb to the spiritual depths f reality debase it as nothing more than a statistical fluke, news at 11

>>7227224
Oh I understand that. Not sure what it has to do with my post, but as an ex-Christian from the Bible Belt, I'm well aware that people use churchgoing as an excuse for their behavior.

>>7227236
>>7227236
Don't judge the bible belt christian too harshly though, the so called 'progressive' and liberal society also has its correspondent religious rituals that serve for this same function.

>>7227245
I know, dad, now get off 4chan.
Seriously though, I think most "politically active," people at my alma mater did it for the moral high horse as much as any other reason.

>>7227222
Empirical evidence.

File: sosa pepe.png (248KB, 911x877px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 911x877px

>>7227282
>Christposters are now empiricists
Wonders never cease.

>>7227282
Nah, you're making assumptions at face value. You're blinded by anthropomorphism. You think humans are superior to animals and because we have a greater brain-to-body-mass ratio, that suddenly because of this we have this magical concept called a "soul," and that we are "reasonable" and "rational," whereas other animals are not.

You'll shrug off this religion thing once you read more. Either that or you'll start cherrypicking your learning because you secretly need a reason to perpetuate your own existence rather than searching for truth. It doesn't affect me either way tbh.

>>7227307
>It doesn't affect me either way tbh
Maybe not directly right now. What if he breeds and spreads his ignorant pie man in the sky nonsense to his children? What if he converts other people to his cult? This guy is dumb enough to believe god created night and dat before the sun.

>>7227205
Not important one way or the other, but Augustine thought Moses was entirely fictional, for instance.

>>7227307
>literally describes the views of prominwnt greek philosophers
>you need to read more bro

Lol

>>7227029

Next time you see a big moon, take out your cellphone and try to take a picture of it and see what happens.

Not everything people see is capturable in photography.

>>7227399
And not everything people see is what they think it is. Mass hysteria and optical anomalies fam.

You're really that invested in some peasants' claims that god made weird noises and dropped rose petals from the sky somewhere in the Spanish countryside?

>>7226516
fucking georg

>>7227029

The more interesting miracle happened on the ground. It was pouring rain before the apparition which completely soaked everything in water. After the apparition, everything was fully dry (see photos). The amount of heat needed to pull that off naturally would have barbecued them.

>>7227455
And you take their word for it? There's no way you could have been deceived. Is evidence of the divine in your own life so thin that you have to cling to peasant myths and sensational journalism from back before, "journalism," was a word?

>>7227410

Mass hysteria doesn't work that way.

>disregarding opinions because they disagree with you
>ad hominem

atheist logic 101

>>7227307
There is a species superior to man? Name it. I'll wait.

I read plenty. I can tell you're the one cherrypicking already. I don't care if you're oblivious on your own but it matters when you're a hypocrite in this discussion tbh.

>>7227335
Pantheism you dense retard. I hope you dont have children and spread your assuming stupidity.

>>7227532
Gorillas have six times more upper body strength than humans

>>7227532
>pantheism
>literally the religion for people who want to fuck animals
ayy lmao

>>7227548
They can have a hundred times but man has invented nunchucks dumbass.

>>7227558
Please don't pretend like you know what you're talking about. It's embarassing for everyone and pathetic for yourself.

>>7227580
kek

There's nothing more pathetic and embarrassing than being a religious furry

>>7227594
Statistically furfags are atheists. 4chan did a survey iirc. Probably 1 in 3 atheists are furfags tbh

>>7226368
I don't remember him ever bringing up the BBT

>>7227342
Qutoe/reference?

Doesnt the the lack of historicty of the old testament destroy the value of the new testament since it seeks to fullfill the old ?

>>7227486
>There's no way you could have been deceived

This was when Portugal was a fascist anti-religious state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Portuguese_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_October_1910_revolution#Anticlericalism

Most of the (atheist) journalists there were sent to report that nothing happened. It was in their interests to belittle it as much as possible.

>sensational journalism from back before, "journalism," was a word

The word come from french journalisme from the beginning of the 19th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_journalism

Unless by "journalism" you mean posts on /reddit/atheism

>in your own life

You'll just brush off personal accounts as hearsay so why mention them.

>>7227029
>>7227486
>they're poor
>and it's old
>therefore their argument is invalid

Oh silly me, I should have only listened to rich 21st century individuals like self-proclaimed enlightened mind of Richard Dawkins rather than those measly one hundred thousand 20th century peasants who just happened to be there. Whatever could I have been thinking. It is as absurd as the myth that WWI actually happened.

>>7227205
>historicity of the old testament

90% what we find in the ground backs it up. Pre-Solomon/David history is lacking but Egyptian historical records are well known for manipulating the past for political reasons so it isn't that damning for there to be little about them.

>>7227784
>90% what we find in the ground backs it up.

Except for the events of exordus which are arguably some of the most important. Did the Egyptians follow the hebrews into Sinai and destroy all their rubbish as well?

>Egyptian historical records are well known for manipulating the past for political reasons so it isn't that damning for there to be little about them.

No they arent Egyptians were fairly honest when it came to that matter, indeed aside from one major battle and the female pharoah they were no other incidents that would justify them hiding all the events of exordus.

Likewise the fact that the Hebrews despite being so obsessed with genologies and names, neglected to even name which pharaoh it was gives more credence to the lack of historicty.

>>7227011
>Auguste Meessen, following the work done before him by the Belgian skeptic Marc Hallet,[24] has stated sun miracles cannot be taken at face value and that the reported observations were optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun. Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly Meessen states that the color changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells.[25] Meessen observes that Sun Miracles have been witnessed in many places where religiously charged pilgrims have been encouraged to stare at the sun.

Who would have thought that staring into the sun for a long period of time would cause you visions.

>>7226103
because it is a given you fuck face OP. just believe in God and you can learn new things.

People dont accept it because they think its too easy. Let me tell you, there is a God, and He controls everything. Bow down before HIm. (another problem for non-believers)

A human cannot be the most high.

>>7227991
>because it is a given you fuck face OP. just believe in Historical and Dialectical Materialism and you can learn new things.

>People dont accept it because they think its too hard. Let me tell you, there is a dialectical and historical progression, and this directs everything. Bow down before the inevitable revolution and end of contradiction. (another problem for bourgeois)

>Tradition and idealism cannot be the most high.

File: For you.png (492KB, 574x388px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 574x388px

>>7226463

>>7228005
he meant, they think its too easy because the people dont think thats all there is to it.

>>7227989
Apparently these guys believe in the infallibility of Christians as well as Christ.
>>7227732
>>7227697

>>7227989
>implying they just stood there staring at the sun for no good reason

Because only in this era do we have reddit to tell us that was a bad idea.

>religiously charged pilgrims

Except many atheists also saw it too.

>>7228186
>Because only in this era do we have reddit to tell us that was a bad idea.

They were staring at it based on prophecies they heard from some children who had a vision of Mary.

>Except many atheists also saw it too.

This might suprise you but the eyes of an atheist and those of a pilgrim are the same and that staring at the sun will trigger illusions and visions regardless of religious affiliation.

Looking to the sun to see no miracle is just as damaging as looking to it expecting to see one

>>7227532
Whatever helps you make it through the day. Just don't go bombing any abortion clinics, ya hear? ;)

>>7226811
>The only part of the bible I reject is original sin and the compulsion to its ethics.

Implying you can reject any part of the written word of god.

File: VXP57VN.png (131KB, 520x602px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 520x602px

>>7226783
>A thing cannot, in the same respect and in the same way, move itself
> there is an unmoved mover

>>7227532
>There is a species superior to man?
Superior based on what criteria? You're presupposing an objective criteria on which you could measure every organism's "superiority".

>>7228761
>>7228751
>>7228670
>>7228500
>>7228197
>>7228186

tl;dr ,
is the discussion worth reading and joining or??

>>7226103
I am bored to tears of medeival and faith/revelation based philosophy. It seems so trivial and fictional. I haven't read any neo platonists and I'm hoping that when I do it will give me an appreciation for scholasticism. I grew up in a devout Christian family with a pretty solid understanding of theology and yet I still have no attatchment to this revelation based metaphysics. It just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth whenever I see a philosopher do some hand wavy argument which proves gods existence. I just don't get how people read this stuff or take any interest in it's understanding. What am I missing? Theology interests me in light of it's potential to aid in ones ethical development and lead one to some sort of ineffible experience; scholasticism doesnt seem to contribute to that purpose, and seems to miss the point. I want to skip it all, and at the same time I don't want to miss out on exploring, or not comprehending, the philosophical systems of the early modern philosophers (such as Descartes). So again, what am I missing? How can I gain an appreciation for scholasticism? Or am I right in skipping it?

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3264px

>>7226340
Great post

File: 1419904452894.jpg (564KB, 1514x1000px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 1514x1000px

reminder that the demise of religion is based on the use of imagination which is inherently nihilist as it negates life through the departure of the present moment, the practice of the present moment which is the only key to reach any higher grounds .

>>7226783
Yeah, nah. This argument dodges the real point completely. You take the prime mover, slap on a sticker that says "God" and what did you just do? You made a whole fuckload of moral implications without acknowledging them, that's what you did.

File: image.jpg (78KB, 479x551px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 479x551px

Seeing this sort of argument so often online, I begin to wonder. Is anyone concerned about finding answers or is the discussion purely emotional? These questions seem to touch such a sensitive place in so many people. I feel as though, witnessing the discussions repeatedly online, I am starting to see some meta-game for the entire debate.

Anyway to try to answer OPs question, I would suggest that times were once much simpler. I don't think God was always such a heavily debated political concept. I believe the recent questioning of God and of very many fundamental aspects of life have their roots in the growing awareness of other people's fuckery. As we begin to doubt larger human systems and the validity of what we are doing and how we structure our society, we also begin to question more basic things. Then there is the hippies and the drugs and the revolutionary spirit. And now so many stifled young men in their rooms, angry and unable to vent appropriately in a society which is very cautious and yet at the same time inhospitable.

As a previous poster pointed out, in what I think was a very interesting idea, is that when we talk about God we are really talking about how we interact with the world and what has shaped the way we interact with the world. For those who are heavily involved with this debate, belief or non belief is central to who they are, and it's a matter of vital importance as to whether God exists or not. And yet these two concepts - God, and existing - are themselves so difficult to explain.

Old timey philosophers don't really worry so much, I suppose. God was mutually understood to mean something that today is not so clear. God is not merely unexplained phenomena. God is something very essential to consciousness and also uniquely human.

Looking at this discussion long term, I really wonder where it will take us intellectually. I hope that people will be able to detach themselves from the topic emotionally, and really begin to analyze the question itself. What is the root of doubt and belief, and, as one anon also asked, how is this shaping how we actually live our lives?

>>7228500
As long as you stop hoping for a welfare state I guess???? I'm Christian and a social leftist. Stupid ass caught pidgeonholing wrong again.

>>7228761
Superior based on intelligence and creativity. more too. obviously not you though since i had to explain simple shit to you. B-b-but dolphins superior to man bc they swim faster!!!! Stfu.

>>7226340
>God functions as a signifier of our world
This idea isn't novel at all.

>>7228844
Yes, I am having some good laughs. Oh, God doesn't exist btw.

>>7229153
I know that feeling bro, never stop studying though.

This whole discussion is cancerous.

File: Saddam-Hussein-Alps.jpg (32KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 460x276px

>>7229296
/lit/ needs chemo

>>7229308
Anons need to learn how to get along and talk about something more interesting. That's not going to happen here though, because OP's question is absolute fucking b8 bound to start a flame war.

>>7229326
That's a good question though, since it allows us to see how stupid some of these pseudo-intellectuals are. Fking b8'd guys.

>>7229333
It's a sad day when /pol/ handles God better than fucking /lit/ where obvious b8 has 250+ posts.

>>7229345
Shitheads /pol/ maybe but they can argue well albeit fallaciously often. But then /pol/ is the right place for such a discussion and not /lit/, many /lit/ posters will refuse to engage with this topic in the vain hope it will wither away.

>>7229345
Know why that happens? Because everyone feels the fucking need to express their opinions and sperg out in order to prove how good their theories are. NO ONE CARES. It's pathological, kill your egos guys. I know it's difficult not to answer that guy who quotes the Bible or your favourite philosopher, but make that effort and you'll get closer to actually improving yourself.

>inb4 we have the right to express ourselves and debating is the core of philosophy

Not here, where you don't even face your "opponent" and for all you know they aren't even interested in changing their opinions or achieving anything more than sterile criticism.

>>7229354
>>7229363
Why can't these guys just agree to disagree? They take everything as a personal slight. They make both atheists and theists look bad. Why would a sane Christian or atheist even set foot in a shitstorm like this? Just let these arguments die out. People should be able to say "I'm Christian" or "I'm atheist" without someone calling them a child or posting a fedora. Fucking b8 everywhere.

>>7229388
It's funny because this one right here is a bait.

There may be no evidence for God
But there is evidence for a lack of God

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYWYfblFmqE

>>7229268
Okay, man is the most intelligent organism on Earth, as far as we can tell. So what? This does not entail that there is a God.

File: 2.jpg (19KB, 619x415px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 619x415px

At this point the existence of God is irrelevant, what is relevant is that the methodologies that have sprung from the assumption that there is a God/prime mover/self-causing cause/personification of the principle of sufficient reason are the only reason we have an empirical science or a "modern" society.

Descartes' entire foundation for the Cogito hinged on the fact that God was benevolent and not a trickster, St Anselm and Aquinas were both incredibly intelligent logicians that believed reason was an integral part of understanding God's creation and the entire Islamic golden age of science and philosophy (AKA the only reason we have modern medicine, mathematics, philosophy or science) was sprung out of the same need to understand God's creation

Whether you believe in God's existence or not you need to acknowledge that a large part of philosophy, literature and science was founded mainly thanks to the efforts of a devout minority who believed (and their conclusions were usually reached using logic and not reverting to fideism as is so often the stereotypical "religious nut job" case)

>>7230114
>Whether you believe in God's existence or not you need to acknowledge that a large part of philosophy, literature and science was founded mainly thanks to the efforts of a devout minority who believed

Which doesn't make it true, at all

>>7230026
I didn't say it necessarily did. but there are large gaps in evolution that anons itt ignore. then when I bring up if man's creative/intelligent difference gives man such an upper hand why didn't evolution help any other species on this whole planet since it's so vital to us being dominant...I get stupid answers like "evolution isn't a race anon"....wtf natural selection retards.

I did say earlier that the kind of tangible evidence you're looking for will never be around. I cannot respond to you anymore it's too idiotic. at it's core religious faith is philosophical anyways and not scientific. the fact that it has carried on this long shows how typical "4chan" the /lit/ board really is. and by typical I mean retarded.

>>7230137
At the very least it makes the belief in God a noble lie

It also asserts that some of the most intelligent individuals throughout the annals of history all affirmed the existence of God and made great leaps forward for the entire human race based on this assumption

>>7230137
It doesn't mean it's not true either. Evidence is the pulse of life in this world, anon. Man has not seen life created from nothing. We haven't been able to duplicate the beginnings of life yet you have such faith in it because of some book you seem to believe in. Yet, you'll get upset when I call you religious.

>>7230170

If I follow your logic that would make Mesopotamian polytheism the noblest lie of them all, since it resulted in the invention of human civilization.

Tell me, when are you going to sacrifice a goat to Enlil?

>>7230162
>why didn't evolution help any other species on this whole planet since it's so vital to us being dominant
We managed to get our foot in the door first. Luck. Random chance. If it wasn't us, it'd be something else.

>>7230182
>yet you have such faith in it because of some book you seem to believe in.

Not really, I simply conclude from this that I don't know this and that any ideas that I could have are highly likely to be wrong, since have no information to work with.

Religion also has no information to work with, yet assumes that their conclusions are infallible. That's the big difference between me and the religious

>>7226103
Better take an umbrella... cause that's a mighty shitstorm.

>>7230188
so because man got there first it stumped the evolutionary processes of all other species on this planet so they couldn't evolve and compete/dominate the way man has? okay whatever. go ahead and keep pretending the evolutionary gaps aren't there.

>>7230186
>confusing the cause with the effect

Do you need to go back to Kindergarten and re-form your foundational capacity to reason?

But even with the completely illogical inference I would still maintain that yes, assuming you're following a traditional cause -> effect relationship and not felating Hume 24/7 I would say that Mesopetamian polytheism is as noble a lie as any religion

Would you rather not sacrifice a goat to Enlil and remain squatting in a hut with your 7 nomad brothers eating raw meat and shivering to sleep 2/3 nights?

>>7230194
>That's the big difference between me and the religious

not really. most religious people won't explain what God is because they can't. and many realize that the more details one goes into, the more wrong you are about it. dude you assume way more than you think you do. I absolutely guarantee it.

>>7230201
>stumped the evolutionary processes of all other species on this planet
No, the "evolutionary process" is still going. It's always going. Slight variations between generations is what drives evolution, and it's never stopped, not even in humans.

>so they couldn't evolve and compete/dominate the way man has?
Do you realize how long it would take for a genetic lineage to find and occupy a niche that would foster the kind of changes, mutations, and variations that would put them on our level?

>go ahead and keep pretending the evolutionary gaps aren't there.
What evolutionary gaps? Specify. Are you saying since we don't have 100% of the fossil record, obvious patterns that we see via comparative anatomy are just coincidences?

>>7230206

>>confusing the cause with the effect

>>7230170

>It also asserts that some of the most intelligent individuals throughout the annals of history all affirmed the existence of God and made great leaps forward for the entire human race based on this assumption


Yeah, funny how that somehow doesn't apply to you

>>7230194
>you believe in an invisible, foundational thing that you have never observed but that you can make inferences from based on assumptions you've come to believe because it's been drilled into your head from birth

Am I talking about God or an atom?

>>7230214
Anyone who legitimately doesn't believe in macro-evolution is either a Christian or some batshit conspiracy theorist on par with a nuke-truthers. You're wasting your time, and encouraging the dumbass shitposters who need to be quarantined on a /phil/ board

File: 1442882280562.jpg (21KB, 482x424px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 482x424px

>ITT Creationists believe that religious scripture (specifically theirs) has the same degree of epistemic justification as scientific consensus

>>7230216
How is your ad hoc attack against religion in any way related to the fact that the majority of the worlds greatest thinkers all believed in God?

Why are you arguing semantics instead of attempting to refute what I said and furthering the discourse?

>>7230230
>the dumbass shitposters who need to be quarantined on a /phil/ board
I'm a /phil/fag too. It just sounds like these niggers aren't very savvy on Philosophy of Science.

>>7230210
>most religious people won't explain what God is because they can't.

No, but they still assume that the claims from their holy text (strangely, not other holy texts that claim the same thing as theirs) are infallible.

That alone completely disqualifies it as anything I can take intellectually serious. Being able to reason for the most part is being able to be aware of the massive intellectual limitations of humans. One of the products of those massively limited intellects is religion, which by definition would make it highly fallible. Worse yet, the holy texts of religion were written in an era when humans knew only a fraction of what they know now. They had no idea how absolutely ignorant and wrong they were. We fortunately do, so we have absolutely no excuse to pretend we humans know everything

>>7230232
>ITT:projecting your own juvenile understanding of religion onto anyone who disagrees with your heroic attempt to maintain the status quo

Go back to /sci/ plz, STEM breeds stiffness

>>7230238
>I'm a philfag too
>>>/w/ikipedia

>>7230241
So you're saying it DOES have the same degree of epistemic justification?

>>7230239
It's called Fideism and its no different from assuming that 1 + 1 = 2

It's establishing a foundational logic and without it we wouldn't have contemporary science

What is the bump limit?

>>7230233

It's related in the way that the pagans have been vastly more influential to civilization, yet you don't relate their achievements to their religious beliefs at all.

Your assertion that religious beliefs automatically lead to innovations is oddly specific and limited to Christianity alone. This ignores about just about every other innovation that has been made over the course of human history, which ironically includes the very basis Christianity is built on. Without Judaism, without Canaanite paganism, with Zoroastrianism, without the religious climates of Assyria, Mesopotamia and Egypt, there would be no Christianity, yet they were somehow primitive retards who lived in huts and rolled around in their own shit? Because that's very thankful of you

>>7230201
>stumped the evolutionary processes of all other species on this planet and compete/dominate the way man has?
You have no idea how selective pressures operate. There is no universal competition for such an arbitrary goal as "dominion over the earth." Populations change just enough to survive in their immediate surroundings, and from time to time they make changes that facilitate changing their surroundings. The existence of "lesser" species that can't adapt memetically the way humans can is not evidence that there is something divine about humans any more than the existence of a microbe that can survive inside volcanoes and in outer space is evidence that there is something divine about said microbe.

>>7230249
I'm saying that talking about religion from a non-religious perspective is logically flawed

In the words of based Witty:
(1) religion is logically cut off from other aspects of life; (2) religious concepts and discourse are essentially self-referential; and (3) religion cannot be criticized from an external (i.e., non-religious) point of view.

>>7230257
>without God there can't be logic
Oh boy, here it comes. C.S. Lewis pls go.

>>7230274
>(3) religion cannot be criticized from an external (i.e., non-religious) point of view.

That should give you a very dynamic intellectual climate then

>>7230274
>(1) religion is logically cut off from other aspects of life;

The representation of God is tied with the ideology and mundane customs of a group of people.

"The correlative of an evil God, a natural God, is evil, natural men, men without freedom. The pure concept of God, spiritual God, has as its correlative free spirit. The portrait that man has of God corresponds to that which he has of himself and of his freedom."


> (2) religious concepts and discourse are essentially self-referential;

See above.


>3) religion cannot be criticized from an external (i.e., non-religious) point of view.

You want to be that way because you think you are free from ideologies and rituals, which secular modern life is still knee deep in.

File: 1415076148656.png (578KB, 1003x761px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 1003x761px

>>7230270
I think we have a misunderstanding, I'm not championing Christianity over other religions. Sure, the Abrahamic religions are what are currently the norm but that doesn't discredit other religions. The religious mindset (Christian, pagan or otherwise) is what is important and what has brought us so far.

>>7230279
Dynamic enough to birth all of modern academia

>>7230257
That's the problem with our tools of logic.
They do their jobs, they made it easy for the ancients to find pasterns and connect dots, leading to cults od worship around them in lieu of testing their limits and moving ahead.
Pythagoreanism and Platonism are mostly to blame, both immensely important but both fought with cognitively meaningless logic and language games that has hindered human development as much as it has helped, though to be fair, due to the corruptive influence of much more ancient and more nonsensical religious practices that the ignorants of the day felt needed to be "validated" by adapting them to their philosophical systems.

>>7230287
>The representation of God is tied with the ideology and mundane customs of a group of people.

You're looking at religion as a social science and not a relationship between Being and the individual

>You want to be that way because you think you are free from ideologies and rituals, which secular modern life is still knee deep in.

Are you implying that ideologies and rituals are non-religious? Because I would argue that they only maintain their power and relevance within the religious mindset and ridiculing them from without is like a child laughing at another language because it sounds funny

>>7230306
'Individuals' don't exist apart from the society and culture in which the act and interact with others. The divine supreme Being IS ITSELF a representation of a nation/state.

>>7230306
>Are you implying that ideologies and rituals are non-religious?


They are born together with the religious picture-thinking, but once the Enlightenment (or modern science) invalidated them, the ensuing modern culture swallows the religious rituals in form of other practices such as sports events, scientific progress or consumerism and so on.

>>7230290
>all of modern academia
Have you just not read anything written in the last two hundred years? Secular points of view have gone a long way in dumping off the baggage left over from the long, admittedly productive, age of Christian academics, but those secular viewpoints dominate contemporary thought outside of the circles where people feel compelled to discuss religion like it's still part of the real world.

Even if Wittgenstein had a point, he's not advocating a "dynamic intellectual climate," full of religious people. He's just saying it's not worth the time of serious people to go around bothering people with different faiths.

It's worth noting that Jews have been far more productive than any other religious group when it comes to intellectual pursuits and technological progress. Maybe it's worth considering why so many of them don't believe in God in any real sense.

>>7230323
Are you telling me you've found a solution to solipsism?

Please, prove to me that other minds exist in any meaningful way (and no, language is not meaningful, it is a finite set that can only refer to itself)

The divine supreme Being (as you put it) is not a political entity and to conceive of it as such is anthropocentric nonsense

>>7230331
Secular rituals and religious rituals are fundamentally different

see >>7230274

>>7230331
>My state god can beat your state god, in fact your state god doesn't even exist you heretic

became

>My home team can beat your home team, in fact your home team isn't even in the finals

Is I think the wrong way to look at it though.
Sports and events such as gladiatorial games existed in antiquity; People went to the market to spend their coin or even to barter on stuff to fill up their hearts/homes and many things we think to be modern such as fast food joints are inventions that are older than the bible.

>>7230341
Do you find it in any way ironic that the foundation for modern mathematical/scientific though (the cogito doubt) hinges on the existence of God?

I would also argue that secular literature is reactionary and never would have been established without the intelligentsia of old and their devotion to God and understanding rather than the primal animal urges that reigned for (presumably) tens of thousands of years before hand.

>Maybe it's worth considering why so many of them don't believe in God in any real sense.

Maybe it's worth considering why so many of them do believe in God, as I've found the majority of learned people do. Nonsensical polemic argument that could go on forever.

>>7230342
Solipsism was never a problem. The very existence of language and communication is its own destruction.

And yes, God is a creation of consciousness with a very definite purpose: it allows the mundane activities to stay mundane and guiltless, a supreme objective being that legitimizes such and such behaviors so we can still do them and feel reassured and forgetful. This is very much alive in the idea of modern nanny-states, 'evolutionary psychology' and so on. Hegel is a a good starting point about the subject.

>>7230357
Yeah, you're right. Secularism has flourished as a reaction to the cogito doubt (arguably first put forward by the more religiously fevered Augustine as a sort of a footnote in his Enchiridion) in large part because it provides the ultimate "gap". Galling that gap god and being done with it isn't cognitively meaningful, because the word "god" refers to so many things that aren't even remotely related to what Descartes was thinking of.
It's a good rule to first define what you mean when you say the word "god" before arguing your point.

>>7230412
>the existence of language and communication destroy solipsism

But language is just our vain attempt to reference the primordial platonic forms and in the end is nothing but a finite set that can only relate to itself. The existence of language proves nothing but the existence of language.

And if you're conception of God is anything other than the principle of sufficient reason personified than I'm afraid you're projecting your own misconceptions about religion onto the argument and I'll have to refer you to >>7230274

>>7230422
God is the principle of sufficient reason personified. The personification is unfortunate but necessary as we can only ever understand things from a human perspective.

>>7230447
You are referring do some deeper meaning but you forgetting the basics of language: it's not purely subjective (it's not imaginary and internal to the brain). For language to even exist that has to be two consciousness: a talker and a listener or a reader. You might argue that is meaningless or whatever, but the mechanics involved cannot be reduced to a single self.

File: more fags.jpg (46KB, 591x960px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 591x960px

>>7230447
>The personification is unfortunate but necessary as we can only ever understand things from a human perspective.
You can only understand anthropomorphic things? Are you a furry? You know that's a sign of autism, right? I don't know about you, but I can conceive of an impersonal deity.

>>7230447
Those are not my misconceptions, they are originally Hegel's, Kan'ts (albeit this one unintentionally) and Zizek's.

>>7230487
*Kant's

>>7230472
It's not purely subjective in the sense that there is an overarching organizational unity that we can refer to using language (and in that sense it does have it's utility) but it is subjective in the sense that I can say the word "God" or "Love" or "Happiness" and have 7 billion people all think slightly different to completely unrelated things

>>7230486
You can only understand things from a human perspective as a basis. If you can fool yourself into thinking you are thinking as a plant or an omnipotent creator deity you're either mentally unstable or confusing "thinking as plant" with "human being thinking if itself thinking as plant"

>>7230500
>if you don't think he's like a human you must think he's like some other organism
I don't even know what to say to this. You seem to have confused, "human," with, "cavedwelling," with regards to perspective and capacity for abstraction.

>>7230500
You only mentioned vague abstract concepts that can always mean anything. Words like "plane", "horse" or "vagina" are not playthings that can be used to anything like that and have a pretty definite meaning.

>>7230512
And before you jump on me describing God as male, that is me putting words in your mouth.

>>7230512
Cavedwelling is a secondary/accidental property and holds no authority over what one may define as "human". You seem to mistakenly be assuming that "human" refers exclusively to a certain ideal of "modernity" which would entail a certain degree of superiority over "cave dwellers" when in reality that cave dweller is just as human as you are, capacity to reason notwithstanding.

If you're referring to our ability to conceive of and wrestle with the definition of God then I would say that yes, we can only conceive of how a being called "God" would act from the reference point of being and thinking as a human.

>>7230516
Only within the self-referential set of "English". Even then those words serve purely utilitarian purposes that would take on entirely different meanings if you were not limited to human modes of transportation, human modes of domestication or human sexuality

Language is still subjective in the sense that it is a system made by a perceiving subject in order to refer to a transcendental unity that is ultimately inaccessible to two perceiving minds simultaneously. Two people never mean exactly the same thing when they say any specific (and I separate specific from abstract here because words such as "This" or "that" are referential in nature and thus not definitely defined) term.

Just because two men say "airplane" and both agree that the form in front of them refers to this words doesn't mean that they have objectively the same reaction/imagery when presented with "airplane"

>>7230575
>just as human as you and me
>capacity to reason not withstanding
Yes, he's human, but he's not very bright, yet for some reason you insist explicitly that we are not brighter.

>from the reference point of being and thinking as human
Which you've arbitrarily defined as semi-animistic.

>>7230575
That's not subjectivity you referencing anymore but inter-subjectivity; which, really, is exactly what make things objective. Of course inside their minds they 'mean' the same thing, but in the universal space of language and being it is the same. "Utilitarian purposes" is reality.

>>7230601
*they don't mean

>>7230589
Are you implying that just because modern humans have a higher capacity for abstract thought that we are fundamentally different? That we are not animals?

At best we're rational animals and at worst we're just animals with our heads so far up our own asses because we have effectively become apex predators that we can't see we're no better than a housefly (which, on a relational level with existence, we have had just as little impact)

>>7230601
But inter-subjectivity is just another self referential finite set and language is just a tool used to refer to the primordial platonic forms which are just how the transcendental organizational unity presents itself to our perceiving human minds which in turn implies a deep rooted subjectivity found only in human beings. Sure we can say things that are meaningful within this finite set and meaningful to other people with similar perceptions of this organizational unity but ultimately we cannot say anything meaningful about objective reality without first returning to the fundamental subjectivity of our being and the confines of our limited capacity to reason.

>>7230652
I agree with you on the inherent limit of language itself, but you have to see that there is no 'objective' meaning that could exist beyond our consciousness, there is no giver of meaning that could hover above us. Things are in-themselves only because WE go there to see them and classify them, our language is separated from the concrete world only superficially. Seriously, read Hegel.

>>7230652
No. I've repeated this twice now but I'll do it again. I'm saying that we are capable of conceiving of a god that is not a man or other organism in the sky. I do not believe such a deity exists, but I can imagine one quite well because it's WHAT I BELIEVED FERVENTLY FOR YEARS AND YEARS. That has nothing to do with thinking I'm fundamentally different from other humans or animals. It's just a degree of abstraction humans may not have always possessed.

For some reason you seem dead set on the essentialist idea that we have the exact same capacity for abstraction that we had at the arbitrary point in time when we became, "human."

>>7230447
>God is the principle of sufficient reason personified. The personification is unfortunate but necessary as we can only ever understand things from a human perspective.

Not only is the personification not needed, the term god is not needed, even if you are religious.
You can replace god with a gap, a void, an unknown, an x and get the same results. This is because the philosophers of old struggled to adapt their various state believes as a response to the philosophy and logical terminology that came before and they were either refuting or evolving, not the other way around. This was not always done for the most pious of reasons; Failure to do so would mean the readership of the day would not take them seriously at best, at worst have them executed. And Descartes was no different.

>>7230680
tbh I'm not 100% on my Hegel, I can't grasp your perspective completely so I may just be talking where I have no right to talk, attempting to fill a void I can't possibly inhabit

Any recommended readings on this topic specifically? Assuming you've been the same anon for a lot of this it's been a good discussion, love bouncing these ideas off of a differing perspective

>>7230690
How can a being conceive of something other than itself from a point of reference that isn't itself? Have you ever been anything but human? Have you ever inhabited a perspective that was not yours? (again, don't confuse "inhabiting another perspective" with "inhabiting a state of mind in which I attempt to inhabit another perspective")

There is no arbitrary point in time when we became human, we've always been what we are and you're the one that seems obsessed with classifying human as this modern conception that can only ever be somebody with the exact same level of abstraction as yourself. Was Plato not human? Will you not be human 2000 years from now when we are able to abstract even further?

>>7230706
We can only inhabit the perspective of void as a reaction to something once inhabiting that void. Atheism could not exist without a millennia old tradition and likewise we can only separate ourselves from the discourse of "God as sufficient reason personified" in relation to that very discourse.

I do like your idea that the personification of "God" was an emergent effect of the propagation (and consequent personification) of the state, an evolutionary reaction to concepts we couldn't reconcile with the then current mode of thought/being.

>>7230742
>was Plato human
Yes, but he could also be wrong about something. Being human doesn't make you infallible.

>have you ever inhabited a perspective that was not yours?
Have you ever inhabited God's perspective?

>>7230770
>Have you ever inhabited God's perspective?

Two answers to this

Either:

1) My argument holds, we can only inhabit our own perspective and anybody that claims "to have inhabited God's perspective" is mistaken and is really just projecting their own conception of what an omnipotent, omnipresent creator deity would entail.

or

2) We are able to inhabit/conceive of God's perspective in which case the knowledge of this perspective could not have come from within our own finite set of existence in which case it must have come from somewhere outside of us. The only being that could have implanted this idea within us is a being in which the perspective must have been contained, therefore God exists and Descartes was right all along.

>>7230813
>if you can imagine something it must be real
Take a lap. I was really disappointed with your hustle out there today, pal.

>>7230832
Show me something you can imagine that does not have a relevant form in reality

>>7230843
An impersonal deity, like I've been saying this whole time.

>>7230851
Alright, now define this "impersonal deity" without relating it to a platonic form

Either it really is transcendental and you need to deal with the fact that your finite mind couldn't have come to this conclusion on its own or it's just an amalgamation of the forms of "Good" or "Being" etc. that you've imposed a unity onto with no logical basis

Thought cannot exist without a basis for that thought. There must be as much reality in the cause as the effect.

>>7230879
>implying such a God would be bound by our conception of good or being

You're still doing that thing where my ability to conceive of something makes it real. Repeating yourself doesn't make it true.