What's your two cents on the existence of god /lit/?

I'm an atheist, but the way I see it God's existence cannot be proven or disproven as the concept of God is based entirely on faith.

>>9214755
Former serious Christian here, seconding. Attempts to "prove" god are all troll-tier.

I know god exists because what's the point of suffering through this life if there wasn't a god

>>9214755

Can't you say that about a bunch of things though?

if I'm not mistaken the whole flying spaghetti monster thing was made as an answer to that argument.

>>9214755
This tbqh.

>>9214755

When you say 'god' are you referring to a personal god or...?

>>9214755
>>9214763
>>9214764
>>9214777
"that which can be asserted wihout evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Hitchens

looks like you reddit christfags have some reading to do

>>9214764
>point

File: 1384983737803.gif (1023KB, 389x230px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 389x230px

>>9214737

i think its kinda sad people have to swap bad fiction to handle their lives

>>9214784
>"that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
Okay then? That doesn't really mean anything to an individual who has faith.

>>9214773
flying spaghetti monster isn't an argument against the existence of god. it's just "hey god might look funny". never really got what people were trying to do with that.

>>9214784
>a scientist fedora calls people reddit

>>9214797
well I suppose the theory of relativity doesn't mean anything to a retard or downs syndrome person either. we don't need to waste our time arguing about FACTS with the mentally deficient

thats how drumpf got elected

File: photo.png (126KB, 301x301px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 301x301px

>>9214809

>>9214755
dubss
>>9214777
tripsss

>>9214815
>>9214808
>a /pol/tard calls me a funny hat meme
oh thats rich

File: tipsfedora.jpg (24KB, 377x312px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 377x312px

>>9214755
>>9214773
>>9214777
>>9214783

File: 8a30e83502ad0f0449117371f7219cc8.jpg (20KB, 360x361px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 360x361px

>>9214815
>>9214821

>>9214819
>a cretin calls everyone who disagrees with him a poltard
wew

>>9214805

probably because you are dumb

it satires the ridiculousness of imagining a god to begin with

>>9214847

Dude didn't even make an argument, he just posted a fedora meme.

Calling him a cretin or ignoring him were the only two real options.

>>9214862
>arguing with an angry 13 year old atheist
Fedora is wholly justified in this instance. I'm not religious or spiritual myself, but this babby concept of religion and Dawkins-tier arguments like treating absence of material evidence as evidence itself or, indeed, asking for ""material"" evidence for existence of ""transcendent"" being in the first place is peak idiocy. New Atheists are equally as retarded and as annoying as religious fundamentalists and absolutely deserve to be mocked.

>>9214897
t. false flagging self hating christian

It doesn't matter much to me whether or not he actually exists. What matters is that he is there, as a concept, for the people who need something to believe in.

>>9214912
Great argument. Thanks for confirming that you're actually just a contrarian teenage fedora.

>>9214944
you didn't provide an argument worthy of critique. all you did was drag respectable names like Professor Dawkins through the mud and say a bunch of BULLSHIT about "nu atheists"

if you would like to engage with me on the battlefields of reason and rationality I would be more than happy to engage in meaningful debate with you so long as you didn't resort to your typical ad hom straw man attacks like above.

>>9214737
>god of Spinoza
Pantheism, pandeism and deism are all pointless wankery with no purpose whatsoever. "I'm agnostic" of their time.

>>9214897

>Asking for empirical evidence is dumb

It's bad enough that people believe in shit like astrology but Abrahamic religions come with lots of rules and restriction. It's something that's taken very seriously by a lot of people, even in politics, yet has not a single shred of evidence exist to support this belief.


I think stuff like spinozism is fine despite having a few issues with the idea myself but the belief in a personal god in this modern age is completely autistic.

>>9214897
Taking silly things seriously doesn't make you sophisticated. Any hard claims made about spirituality really can be dismissed out of hand.

>>9214792
I think it's kinda sad redditfags like you still come here

>>9214976
/sci/ is that way

>>9214987

do you need a safe space to hug your imaginary sensei in, little baby newfag?

File: pope pepe.png (1MB, 1072x736px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1072x736px

>>9214997
>>9214987
>>9214944
>>9214897
>>9214808
But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

-Matthew 5:22

>>9215001
>be redditfag with barely any understanding of philosophy
>duuude, this metaphysical transcendent being doesn't provide us with physical proof of his existence, that means he doesn't exist!!!!

Also nice outing. Only newfags call other newfags.

>>9215031

>underage newfag believes in an imaginary skyfairy
>philosophy

lel

>>9215037
>sky fairy XDDDDD
If you're not baiting go and get a basic understanding of philosophy before coming to a philosophy thread

>>9215018
>Whoever insults me or calls me a dumbass, to hell with ye

Le fragile Christianity.

>>9215045
That post is mocking christfags slinging insults in the thread.

>>9214969
Asking for empirical evidence in case of religion is dumb. It deals in transcendent concepts of God and soul which by definition have nothing to do with the material world, i.e. lie outside the domain of science. Trying to apply scientific method to them is silly. That is the point I'm trying to make, not that theistic worldview is right.

Spinozism might sound poetic, but it's absolutely worthless really. Just a spiced up atheism.

>>9215045
>>9215055
>fedoras are so stupid they can't understand basic sarcasm

Also Jesus wasn't a hippie that called for peace and love. He was stern and loving but also didn't hold back when angry.

>dude is a stupid fedora without any basic knowledge of Christianity but still makes fun of it
>not a good cause

File: 412412.jpg (67KB, 600x624px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x624px

>>9215041

if youre not retarded pray to your fictional moondaddy for a basic degree of logic before even considering philosophy

>>9214737
Not /lit/.
> But I mention Spinoza, who wrote books!
Still the topic is not a book or literature in general. MODS

>>9215076
>tfw not sure if bait master or an actual 14 year old

>>9215062

You're the reason why the whole flying spaghetti monster movement got started.

You can apply the very same argument with it. Why treat it with any more seriousness then we do with the FPM idea?

>>9215068
Jesus thought that empty insults were counterproductive and a product of our fallen state. He is quite stern about the fact that such pettiness is a grave sin which angers him. Your "basic knowledge" of Christianity is far from the understanding that comes from walking with Christ day-to-day. You should probably stop being a false witness on 4chan and go meditate on your attitude with your spiritual mentor.

I'd consider myself a realist, alright? But in philosophical terms I'm what's called a pessimist... I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself - we are creatures that should not exist by natural law... We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody's nobody... I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.

>>9215076
>le science is the only form of logic
The only part that makes me answer to you is the fact that you maybe a lost soul from /his/, that makes it well known to hate humanities. If you're a master troll then you're pretty good. Please be a master troll and not a retarded Fuck.

>>9215094
Shut up arrogant fool. Snake and liar. You warrant the insult because you don't know anything about the Word of God yet pretend to share your misery with the ones that make an effort to understand it.

Oh yeah, this was the kind of insult that Jesus used against the Pharisees. You guys? You guys are worse than Pharisees. And Jesus would've been even harsher with your kind.

File: 1386656747318.jpg (8KB, 251x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 251x250px

>>9215098

>implying you have to be a scientist to not believe in a character from a fiction novel

religion is a scam been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey, "He said for you to give me your fucking share." People... so god damn frail they'd rather put a coin in the wishing well than buy dinner. If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of shit; and I'd like to get as many of them out in the open as possible.

>>9215091
You shouldn't treat it with any more seriousness. Again, I'm not religious and I'm not trying to argue for a religious worldview. Just pissed of at blatant fedoratism ITT.

File: 1475160113007.png (204KB, 407x535px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 407x535px

>>9215112

>MFW unexpected true detective quote

>>9214737
God doesn't exist and Spinoza was a Jew

>>9214764
not everyone is disgusting like you i guess

File: flat,800x800,075,t.jpg (77KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x800px

>>9215112
Tell us more fellow knight of truth.

>>9215106
Parroting an insult that Jesus used against the consistently hostile and dishonest opponents he knew would eventually conspire to have him crucified does not make your behavior less sinful. I'm only talking down to you because you've gone out of your way to be a poor witness to these people on /lit/. It's not a matter of deep interpretation. Jesus said not to sling empty insults.

You guys? Do you mean Christians? Are you assuming that because I spoke unkindly to you that I am a militant atheist?

File: 1460957803235.jpg (623KB, 2556x1767px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 2556x1767px

>>9214737
God is fantasy that normies fail to go beyond
same thing with science

Do Christcucks have any arguments other than "muh fedora"?

>>9214737
this is a board for books you retarded faggot

>>9215158
Right? Where are the mods?
/lit/ was already divided into /lit/ and /his/ so it could be more about books and writing, that is more /LIT/, and less about philosophical questions in general.

>>9215158
discussing humanities on /his/ is utterly futile

>>9214855
what is ridiculous about the omniscient creator of the universe taking the form he wants?

>>9214737
God may or may not exist but it's a fact Christianity is the best doctrine to live your life by.

>>9215278
Tell me how this thread is in any way better than a /his/ thread.

there is nothing more absurd than a personal god

>>9214755
That statement is technically true, but how does atheism explain Determinism? Given that everything and every event in the universe exists contingently to a previous event, then how come the same can't be said about the beginning of the universe (At t=0)?

>>9215323
>Given that everything and every event in the universe exists contingently to a previous event
easy: this isn't given.

>>9215342
Explain. Even if you say our will is our own, our will is still based on events that are causally determined.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

>>9215322
That statement makes you absurd

>>9215323
>all modern scientific models strongly suggest the material universe is indeterministic
>hurr durr how does """atheism""" deal with """my""" stance on determinism
It doesn't give a shit about it really.

>>9215357
time doesn't work that way. plato is not relevant in this case. read up on recent astrophysics.

File: kierkegaard1.jpg (450KB, 1661x2168px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1661x2168px

>>9214755
God is our final and necessary absurd.

>>9214969
Are you aware of the Problem of Induction?

It's an interesting philosophical concept that has never been satisfactorily resolved. Science is not so dissimilar to religion.

>>9215357
i just saw "plato" and assumed. i looked over the link now. none of that is based in our current understanding of reality.

>>9214737
>What do you think of the idea of a personal god?
Would be nice if it were true, assuming he is new testament style and not old testament temper tantrum tier. There is not enough evidence to suppose that one exists though, so I don't waste too many thought on this.

>What's your opinion on the god of Spinoza?
Nice idea. No reason to assume it is true though.

>Have you read the arguments against your position?
Yeah, none of them were really convincing. Pascal's Wager has some merit to it, but if there would be a personal god according to my personal preference, then he wouldn't like it very much that I only believe in him because I wanted to make the safest bet.

>What do you think of them?
Some are intellectually honest and interesting thought experiments, others are obvious deceptions or just low tier emotional appeals.

>>9215378
Oh good, so you at least half read the post. So judging by what you said you at least agree there is a strong chance every event is based on a prior one. If you read the latter part of my first post, then given that, what would be the event that caused the beginning of the universe. (Whether it be god/simulation or whatever)?
>>9215383
>obviously didn't look at the link
Plato is just in the URL name.

>>9215397
I tried reading up on this. From what I gather, it just reveals the problem of things be reliable?

Honestly i am so dumb. Can you explain this to me with a few examples?

>>9215402
Oh ok you saw it. How is it not? Could you give an example? The only place where it could break down is a t=0 as far as I'm aware

I am God

>>9215454
Hey make me rich please, I want to become an artist

>>9215457
give me repeating numbers and I will reward you of good faith

>>9215463
Oh you are Lord Kek, I thought you were that other one

>>9215441
i can't explain cosmology to you. there are competing theories. all i can tell you is time as you understand it and as it works in our daily lives and throughout history DOES NOT behave the same at the "beginning" of our universe.

one of brian greene's books'll probably be a nice simple overview of this stuff.

>>9215429
I didn't say "there is a strong chance", I stated quite the opposite - we are fairly certain that universe is nondeterministic, stop putting words in my mouth. Deliberating on what came before the universe is pointless, because it is physically impossible to gain any factual information on it. In that sense it is about as useful as and largely synonymous with discussing mythological or theological theories.

>>9215429
okay buddy really you can't have zero understanding of the last 50 years of physics and try to have these conversations please you are out of your element

>>9215532
dang i missed a great opportunity to call someone "kiddo"

>>9215502
>Deliberating on what came before the universe is pointless
Only because it inevitably points to the existence of God. Need to keep up the charade of naturalism, can't have those dirty Theists scoring a win.

>>9214737
The Jews are literal proof of the existence of God.

/thread

Eat shit, atheist faggots.

>>9215629
what kind of god though

>>9215638
Doesn't matter.

>>9215629
Absence of information doesn't point to anything. Please take a course in basic formal logic before you try to argue about cosmology. There's no excuse to be this retarded in current year, not even an overabundance of faith.

>>9215660
you can't assume what matters to me ;-;

>>9214737
What does "personal god" mean? Like, different people having different interpretations of what God is like? I think that's fair.

>>9215664
It points to God. There is no hypothesis that works without a conscious necessary being, period. An appeal to ignorance just shows how desperate people are to avoid the dilemma.

>>9215434
It's a pretty simple idea actually, but it's explained quite badly.

Imagine you have a pool table and you hit a white ball and it collides with a black. You would assume that the movement of the black ball is due to the white ball colliding it, but have you actually witnessed that cause? All you've really seen is two effects, the movement of the white ball and the movement of the black ball, and you've made an assumption that they are connected. It could easily have been that your white ball stopped just short, and that your black ball was moved by a gust of wind. Of course, that's incredibly unlikely, but the idea is that the cause is actually invisible to us, it's beyond our sense perception. Hume takes this further with the idea of the impossibility of guaranteeing future events, that even if the cause of the black ball's movement was the collision, we have no way to say that this is consistent either. It's not so much denying cause and effect as saying that the idea of an intelligible and obvious cause is beyond us, basically, that "wisdom is habit".

Then you have thinkers like Russel who take such an idea even further, and argue that the idea of causation itself is absurd, due to events being infinitesimal in detail and impossible to replicate, that there is a necessary time interval between cause and effect whereby an environmental influence can affect it, and, most interestingly, that modern physics doesn't use causation to explain things but theoretical equations, and that the true nature of causation is just a relationship of rules and relative principles, rather than some simple temporal event.

Effectively, science is based on hypothesis, not fact, and is limited to descriptions of reality rather than definitions.

I'm very, very tired, so I'm sure I've explained this badly, but the philosophy is sound.

>>9215718
Why do you need a conscious to start of the universe?

>>9214737
The existence of the universe and of matter proves the existence of a creator.

>>9215718
>he thinks repeating same unsubstantiated bullshit magically makes it more valid
Honey, this isn't Sunday mass.

>>9214737

It's impossible to conceive the universe without reaching the conlcusion of creation. Keep in mind that the Big bang thoery was created by a priest. Every scientific explanation for existence doesn't reject the possibility of creation, it actually enforces it. It may be because humans can't think beyond analogous terms. Regardless there is no strong argument against creation.

File: 1488946033243.png (37KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x376px

>>9215635
This.

>>9215761
>>9215746
You say that, but can you actually lay out the logic that led you to this conclusion.

>>9215768

Science assumes that time is linear. Consequently spacetime has a starting point. Before that point, nothing existed. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant. Something can't come out of nothing. If you take these two principles as essentials for the function of the universe, you accept as form of absurdity and inconsistency, unless you accept a moment of creation or of non-physicial influence. If you reject these two principles, then you're rejecting matters of physical law and therefore have no grounds to argue against creation except intuition.

>>9215768
I was pondering the idea of perfection. This Universe is far from perfect, a perfect universe would be one in which nothing exists, such as the infinite void surrounding our universe. But we don't have this, instead we have matter, atoms, chemicals, spectrums, waves, laws of physics and chemistry. None of this should inherently exist on it's own - it's too dogmatic. Someone, or something to be more exact, has meddled in this reality.

To further this, the existence of life, especially conciouse life, is such a unique phenomenon in the universe that it is undeniable that we play a very important part in the universe. We have a purpose.

>>9215741
To avoid the problem of infinite regress. The very general argument is:

1. The existence of everything within the universe is contingent on another event, which was also contingent on something (i.e if your parents didn't screw you wouldn't exist, your existence is contingent on that event)

2. You can't have an infinite chain of contingent events relying on other contingent events, which rely on other contingent events ad infinitum

3. Therefore there must be something that is necessary, which is fundamental to all existence, the existence of which is not contingent on anything else

4. That something must necessarily be conscious because unconscious substances cannot give rise to other things without outside interaction. There must be a cause for this necessary thing to give rise to the universe and without it's own will that cause would be reliant on another interaction which makes it contingent

5. Therefore the necessary substance must have a will, therefore ending the causal chain and needing no other interactions with anything else since it is not contingent on anything else and has it's own will which is used to create without any need for an outside cause

>>9215859
>>9215802
you are building your arguments on a TENUOUS GRASP of physics. cherry picking basic understanding of concepts to suit your conclusion. YOU DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH TO MAKE THESE CONCLUSIONS.

>>9215802
>Science assumes that time is linear
SCIENCE IS A PRETTY BIG THING BUCKO. sure your high school mechanics says time is linear but cosmology is different. quantum field mechanics is different.

>>9215895
I'm not building my arguments on physics at all, I'm building them on logic which precedes physics.

how can anyone who's truly contemplated the universe and is relatively well read completely out of hand reject the idea of God?

Never mind the fact that most people's definition of God is false, and that we can barely conceive a truly all-powerful being.

Even at a reductionist level, ants can't prove the existence of nuclear fission, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Furthermore, saying that God doesn't exist is outrageously short sighted, one of the major arguments atheists put forward is that of shit gets proven false all the time, and so how can we rely on previous information. If believed to be true, probability is whatever your current reason for the non existence of God will fall through at some point in the future.

I am by no means a heavily religious man, I just fail to see how anyone can blatantly assert something like there is no God.

>>9215917
What really cooks my noodle is how neo-atheists can reject the idea of God out of hand and insult and belittle people who have religious beliefs but then they go and talk over things like the Holographic Universe and the Simulated Universe and seriously consider them and say "Man this idea blows my mind". I feel like many of them have a strong desire for metaphysical mystery but decided pseudoscientific ideas can fill that gap just as well as God can, which I'm fine with but it does make the smug self righteous attitude a little hypocritical.

>>9215907
well okay then your logic doesn't hold up. your foundation is that events are contingent upon previous events. there is no causal link for before the universe and after the universe. you are also assume there is a before. do just a little bit of reading on cosmology.

>le first cause argument in 2017
Theist faggots are completely out of ideas I see.

>>9214755
theist here. these are my beliefs, just inverted.
I think atheism is a bit silly; "life came from nothing" involves more psychological gymnastics than most are willing to admit

>>9215965
>states arguments present
>throws in a le 2017 meme

Why don't you actually try and refute things posted in the thread before tipping your fedora at us?

>>9214737
anyone in this thread saying there is no god is a moron who hasn't studied science.

>>9215988
This desu. If you're a strict atheist your knowledge is incomplete

I am a devout Christian. God is matter-of-fact to me. I constantly think about him as a real presence in the world, and in my own life specifically. As a Catholic, specifically, I eat his flesh and drink his blood each Sunday or Saturday night.

I may have also heard his voice at the edge of a dream a few months ago. That has me puzzled, and filled with wonder. The more I think on it, the more I conclude that it couldn't be anything else.

>>9215895

>sure your high school mechanics says time is linear but cosmology is different. quantum field mechanics is different.

Then they fall on the second category. You have NO arguments against creation without linearity and conservation of energy.

>>9215988

Elaborate faggot.

>>9215986
This has been refuted a fuckton of times by people infinitely smarter than me. I'm not going to bother doing a quick rehash of physics and anatomy for some retard demanding I prove water is wet. Google and educate yourself.

File: b618c45f14e39e083981e22c11b3fda4.jpg (39KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 403x403px

>>9216010
Truth exists.

>>9215938
This. Pseudophysics is the new religion

>>9216034
>I have no knowledge of physics beyond high-school, therefore anything that goes contrary to this is rejecting the Physical Law
please kill yourself

>>9216037
>God doesn't exist
>water is wet

Back to whatever shit tier board you came from. You definitely cannot disprove God, and have put forth nothing but nonsense and memes.

>>9216037
>water is wet
literally... not true

>>9215949
>there is no causal link for before the universe and after the universe
There actually is since we know the existence of the universe itself is contingent. It had a beginning, and is not eternal as once was thought. Interesting aside, the Big Bang theory took years to be accepted within scientific circles because it was proposed by a Catholic Priest who was also a Cosmologist and they thought it was creationism in disguise.

>>9216059

My dick is made of solid diamond. can you disprove that fact without demanding evidence?

>>9216063
>since we know the existence of the universe itself is contingent
NO IT ISN'T
> It had a beginning
NO IT DIDN'T
>the Big Bang theory took years to be accepted within scientific circles
WELL GUESS WHAT IT ISN'T VIABLE ANYMORE AND HASN'T BEEN FOR DECADES

>>9216065
I know you can't actually be serious right? Are you this stupid?

>>9216067
I know it pains you to know that it's a logical certainty that God exists if modern cosmology is correct but please don't make things up just because you're uncomfortable that God exists.

>>9216063
Big Bang is not an event at the beginning of time, it's the beginning of time itself. Asking what came "before time" is idiotic in the extreme. You need to stop it with the babby determinism before you embarass yourself and engage in the whole Kalam sophistry like the rest of retards here.

>>9216080
YOUR IDEA OF MODERN COSMOLOGY IS A CENTURY OLD THEORY

>>9216084
>asking what came before time I'd idiotic
>I also am 100% certain that this is the highest plane of existence in the universe

Psued detected. Back to r/atheism with you

>>9216080
I know it pains you to know that it's a certainty that you lack the basic understanding of modern scientific cosmology, but please don't make gods up just because you're uncomfortable with your own ignorance.

>>9216074

Go for it. Wreck me.

>>9216084
>your universe is governed by a set of ironclad constants and physical laws
>believe this proves the non existence of a creator

I honestly can't tell if you're baiting me or not.

>>9216103
>thinking you have enough proof to disprove a transcendental entity
>comparing a transcendental entity to your dick being made of diamonds

You haven't made a single good point beyond memespouting. Maybe /tv/ would be a better board for you?

>>9216096
I don't deny theoretical possibility of god, I merely point out the falseness of your shit argument. This isn't your high school debate, keep it up.

>>9216121
Wasn't even that guy, but your point was wrong enough that I felt it necessary to reply.

>>9216111
>le fine-tuned universe "argument"
I honestly can tell that you're retarded.

>>9216113
>thinking you have enough proof to disprove a transcendental entity
>god is so great and allmighty I cant even
Greatest argument in this thread so far.

>>9216133
>your point was wrong
Considering you completely missed it, avoid replying next.

>>9216084
Time is irrelevant. We're talking about causal connections. You don't need time for causality, causality is the reason we perceive time. The issue still remains that you require a cause for the start of the universe since the universe itself is contingent.

>>9216143
>God is so great and almighty I can't even

That's the point isn't it? Your definition of God is objectively wrong if you think otherwise. The best we can do is conceptualize the concept, which you've clearly been failing to do

>>9216137
The fine tuned argument is completely valid. Unless you want to move the goalposts back and retreat to the idea of a naturalistic multiverse instead.

>>9216148
man your back pedaling is hilarious. I directly responded to a quote from your post. Can you read properly?

>>9216163
>the universe itself is contingent
You keep repeating this. Are you mentally handicapped? How many times does it take you to get something? The universe is nondeterministic by it's very nature.

>>9216137
Nice refutation of my argument there friend.

>>9216113

I'm not the same guy as earlier by the way.

But the situation is the same.

''The diarrhea that I had last night is currently haunting a kid from Kentucky.''

I could make any other type of wacky claim and you couldn't disprove any of it.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."


What I think is funny is when theist, specifically those who believe in a personal god, get blown the fuck out and proven wrong anytime they get a chance to prove the legitimacy of their book. It's funny how the story of creation is now a metaphor and evolution is now accepted by the catholic church.

Mighty fine backpedaling they're doing there to try and keep 2000 year old scriptures written by sandniggers relevant to the modern era.

>>9216181
I'm afraid the universe is indeed contingent. I'm sorry if that bothers you but it is fact. The only way the universe could theoretically be necessary and not contingent is if it was eternal and unchanging. It is not eternal, we know it began and thus it is contingent.

>>9216175
I argued solely against first cause argument. You greentexted as if I argued against existence of god. This is you missing the point. Now fuck off, eat shit and die for wasting my time, retarded imbecile.

>>9214773
The Flying Sphagetti Monster was made as a counterargument against "Teach the Controversy." The idea was that if you wanted to teach both sides of the argument, you would have to teach what every religion believed. If you read the original letter the dude sent to the school board, he explains it pretty well.
>>9214805
No idea where that idea came from.

>>9216199
>we know it began
We literally don't. You need to stop arguing from your babby understanding of modern physics.

>>9216171
>my argument for omnipotent immaterial wizard is completely valid
>unless you want to "move the goalpoasts" by trying to find a rational scientific explanation
really made me think

>>9216199
>The only way the universe could theoretically be necessary and not contingent is if it was eternal and unchanging
This is some powerful pseudobabble. Come back when your freshman year is over.

>>9216190
>quote about evidence

I mean it doesn't particularly hold in this scenario does it? Furthermore you do understand the distinction between discussing the concept of God and whatever glib facsimile you bring up right?

God as a being, if existent, would exist in a capacity you or I would not be able to comprehend. I'm not a devout religious man, and whether or not the concept of God is useful for an individuals life is another argument entirely.

However, it seems like jumping to serious conclusions to disprove something that, under all current observational powers of humanity, would not be able to be identified.

Furthermore, I don't understand when atheists try and assert that the scriptures are irrelevant. They're probably the most relevant thing to your life right now. The texts shaped the entire collective moral code of humanity, effects we still feel thousands of years later. Why do you feel the need to denigrate something that's obviously exerted a tangible influence in your life as irrelevant?

>>9216225
>God is an irrational answer
>The idea that there's an infinite multiverse with planets made out of Jelly and Chocolate Teapots orbiting Pluto makes much more sense
The multiverse theory maintains naturalism when it's been well and truly proven that our universe is not natural but it doesn't make any more sense than God does. In fact the logical conclusions from an infinite multiverse mean you're just a floating brain and not human at all, since the number of random floating brains far exceeds the number of actual humans in the infinite multiverse. Is that really a better idea than there being a God, or are you just so ideologically opposed to the idea of God that you'll accept even the most absurd theories to cling to the idea there isn't one.

>>9214809
Facts don't exist.

>>9216237
It's true though. An eternal universe is not compatible with change. Do you even understand logic?

>>9216200
Wew lad calm down. You literally said thinking about what came before time is retarded, I simply said that you are implying we are at the highest plane of existence. You're a moron if you think that contemplating pre time is a worthless endeavor. You're demonstrably wrong in your endless sperging out.

Please don't respond anymore, I don't want to hear any more nonsense from someone who can't follow a logical chain of thought

>>9216242
>it's been well and truly proven that our universe is not natural
I must have overslept that day. Please enlighten.

>>9215975
Quite right, which is why scientists don't think that. Life didn’t come from nothing, it came from elements thrown together in a primordial soup for billions of years until we got something barely alive, and then it took a billion more years to get to where we are now.

>>9216252
In short too many constants are within improbable ranges for our universe to be natural. In a natural universe you would expect constants to be resting within their most probable ranges, like a ball resting at the lowest point of a ditch. However there are too many constants that are outside the range which you'd expect them to be at in a completely natural universe, which is why many scientists are moving over to multiverse theories where those strange aberrations can be explained in a naturalistic way.

Here's an article about the issue. This isn't pseudoscience, the unnaturalness of the universe is a very real problem physicists are grappling with right now. They even had a conference about the issue.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130524-is-nature-unnatural/

>>9216251
>You're a moron if you think that contemplating pre time is a worthless endeavor
Yeah, it provided us with endless source of wisdom and utility indeed. If only more people dedicated time to thinking about 'higher planes of existence' and then autistically greentexting. Fucking kill yourself, subhuman trash.

>>9216272
It legitimately has provided us with wisdom, just probably not in whatever good reads recommendations you put down.

>>9216272
Maybe if you dedicated more time to contemplation you wouldn't be an angry autistic guy posting on 4chan? Just a thought, it could probably help your life a lot.

>>9216190
>Mighty fine backpedaling they're doing there to try and keep 2000 year old scriptures written by sandniggers relevant to the modern era.
Speak to any Biblical scholar, they'll give you a few dozen reasons.

How will you respond?
>FUCKIGN SANDFUNIGGERS WTF TAKE THE FUCKIGN RED PILL

Biblical literalism was not a thing when the NT was being written down. Biblical literalism was not a thing for centuries afterwards.

You do realize it's a fucking collection of books, right? Everything from letters to people to imaginative literature.

Maybe you should read, take a course on, and reread the texts instead of acting like you know anything.
>>9216202
His logic is faulty, Christianity is the majority in America, not every other religion.

>>9216271
>top physicists are already confronting the possibility that the universe might be unnatural. (There is wide disagreement, however, about what it would take to prove it.)
> it's been well and truly proven that our universe is not natural
Right.

>>9216293
So should we not teach Creationism in countries where Chrsitianity is not the majority religion?
Here is the original letter.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Why is his logic faulty?

>>9216239

But that's just religious people moving the goal posts.Once they saw that empirical evidence went against their scripture, they tried to adapt the scripture to the evidence. Same thing is happening with the whole, can't be proven thing.

While I don't think an impersonal deity like the god of Spinoza is complete impossibility, I think it's completely delusional to think that the Bible has a single word of truth written in it.

>The texts shaped the entire collective moral code of humanity

Not true. You're intentionally ignoring a lot of stuff to build a biased narrative. There's been plenty of texts and ideologies that grew and prospered untouched by Judeo-christian influence. Like the Greeks and pretty much the entirety of Eastern philosophy.


I'm not denying that Christianity didn't have a tremendous influence on the world. In fact, quite the opposite. But pretty much everything great in the world today can more appropriately attributed to the works of humanism rather than Christianity. In fact, a lot of great scientific and philosophical works of the past few centuries were accomplished not only by moving away from the church but by going in direct conflict with it.

>>9215975
>"life came from nothing" involves more psychological gymnastics than most are willing to admit
sillier than a omnipotent being coming from nothing?

>>9216242
The idea of a multiverse provides us with theory to test and maybe understand something new about the universe. God provides us with nothing.

>>9216306
Some are clinging to hope but there isn't much left. A naturalistic universe hinges on the idea that our models of reality are completely wrong

>>9216314
A multiverse is no more falsifiable than God.

>>9215917
We cannot design a scientific experiment to prove his existence. Now before you scoff and say, "DUH, THAT’S WHAT WE'RE SAYING," realize what that means: he has no discernable effect on the universe. The universe looks just like he sat back and let everything go on its own, Deism style.

The ants can’t prove anything about nuclear fission, and they can't do anything with it. The nuclear fission has no effect on their lives, and the nuclear fission certainly doesn't tell them how to live their lives.

>>9216331
Kek. You could have at least have the decency to not reply to this. Literally a retard who knows nothing of modern physics arguing about physics and making sweeping statements. If this wasn't just a desperate fishing attempt for (You)'s consider killing yourself.

>thread starts:
>why can't silly nu-atheist fedoras think rationally and accept the possibility of god's existence?

>several hours later:
>God is absolutely there and science is a complete joke because my babby's first cosmological argument!!!!1111 atheist cucks BTFO!

These threads never fail to disappoint. /lit/ is a shithole.

I've been sitting on this thought for a couple months and would like some opinions on it, I'm an atheist but grew out of my fedora stage years ago
God is a dream of good government, something that effectively rewards good behavior and doles out punishment perfectly, always
In a way, I've thought of religion as both an explanation for the world when we lacked the means to be empirical, a cultural net to hold groups together and laws/ethics said culture holds
It's kinda like, if you're outside of your tribal village in the wilderness with someone you don't know. There'd be no punishment and no one would know if he killed you away from everyone else in the village, except for a perfect all knowing, all seeing entity that will fuck you up if you don't follow these rules that are (hopefully) ideal to society.
Thoughts?

>>9216378
>i just discovered religion is a source of morality
Are you 15?

>>9216368
>thread starts
>reasonable, well thought out posts
>fedora tippers can't eloquently explain themselves
>Resort to false flag shitposting
>attracts redditors like yourselves to go LMAO CHRISTKEKS BTFO

Why don't you contribute positively instead?

>>9216424
>share opinions with delusional aggressive tards
>this is all false flagging by lefties/jews/fedoras!!!
Uncanny.

>>9216309
>reddit science and philosophy
>relevant
Humanism is the utmost trash. It's the religion of pigs.
>empirical evidence
No such thing exists.
> I think it's completely delusional to think that the Bible has a single word of truth written in it
Why, yes, when one hasn't read a single word of a text, no truth can be discerned.
>>9216314
muh will to truth

>>9216378
>God is a dream of good government
No, fuck off back to ribbit.

>>9216378
You've come to the naturalistic argument. Read Summa Theologica.

File: 1487372578504.jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>>9216564

>>9217377
>anything i dont like is le fishy meme

>>9216368
>ignores the problem of induction
>ignores the skeptical issue of sense data and infering necessary connections a priori without an objective means of verification
>ignores the basic and modern premise of the cosmological argument that an actual infinity is impossible, potential infinities are permissible, oscillating universe theory is untenable due to background radiation theory, Craig's arguments of a personal first cause over a mechanical one due to an infinite regress
>ignores the huge amount of religious art that has contributed to society and culture in an appreciation of the infinite richness of this world and human mind
>ignores any sense of mystery or love that humans experience, or even the on going philosophical debate of the mind-body issue with thought experiments like Mary's Room
>ignores even the basic tenants of fideism, or how such an ideology forms the basis of modern existentialism, and modern morality
>would rather just inanely strawman and complain about /lit/'s quality without offering anything in return

I'm agnostic by the way. But I think the general tone of this thread is that the existence of God lacks a hard answer either side.

File: demiurge.jpg (125KB, 418x627px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 418x627px

>trying to tie the divine to the material either ontologically or metaphorically which is even worse

If ANYTHING qualifies as heresy...

>>9218616
Are you using that pic on all your posts or has there just been a ridiculous surge in the number of anons randomly using it?

>>9218642

/lit/ is a Gnostic board.

>>9216245
>subjective perception of the passage of time implies that the universe is not eternal and unchanging

lol...? is this a joke?

>>9218689
This. Orthocux get out.

File: bbb6cffbdb50456bb050c8b1e61b54af.jpg (48KB, 471x597px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 471x597px

>>9218689
how do i into gnosticism?

>>9219502
>http://gnosis.org/library/hermes1.html

>>9216293
>His logic is faulty, Christianity is the majority in America, not every other religion.
Creationism is not the majority position in America, but why should it matter anyway? Why should uneducated retards get to decide what's taught in schools?

>>9219524
>uneducated
I'm more educated than you and I have moved past the evolution meme.

Get over yourself, kiddoboi.

File: smug anime2.png (117KB, 372x351px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 372x351px

>>9219533
>I'm more educated than you
Sure you are. Tell me, how much is that theology degree raking in per year?

>>9219554
>income is a measure of intelligence
When I was working as an engineer I was grossing about 120K CND a year. I quit due to several factors. Including getting married, the cost of oil going down, the job being miserable, and a desire to improve myself.

I also don't need to work.

>>9219581
>engineers understanding science
ho boy.

>>9219588
>undergrads understanding science
wew

>>9219595
Okay, memes aside. If you aren't educated in biology and think you know some argument that BTFO the entire theory of evolution, you are a pretty delusional.

>>9219581
>it's an engineer thinks his opinion matters episode
You autistic bumpkins actually think you received an education. If you weren't so annoying it would be cute.

File: C.S. Lewis.jpg (1MB, 1250x1725px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1250x1725px

>>9214737
>What do you think of the idea of a personal god?
I believe it to be correct. Explains a lot of stuff that mere Deism/Theism doesn’t. Pic related’s Mere Christianity is the best modern exposition of it. Lewis sums it up well:
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

>What's your opinion on the god of Spinoza?
Unfamiliar with the concept, so I don’t have the right to an opinion. Will look into it further. According to Wikipedia:
>defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance. “substance” meaning “what is in itself and is conceived through itself, i.e., that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed.”
I see no particular problem with this, as a philosophic baseline for Theism. Seems about what you’d find in Aquinas. Thanks for sharing.

>Have you read the arguments against your position?
We’re on 4chan. It’s a given that we’ve been exposed to ideas outside our comfort zone. Granted, I’ve never actually read a book with the express purpose of “debunking” the idea of god, like Dawkins. But I’ve read some of Michio Kaku’s stuff on physics, and read/watched various atheist authors/celebrities like Penn/Teller, Arthur C. Clarke, and Rand.

>What do you think of them?
Some are good arguments that any sane person should ask themselves:
>Burden of proof is on the one with positive assertions; one must not believe in something until you have enough reason to do so. I have not seen sufficient evidence of a deity, much less a personal God, therefore I do not believe in one.
> The Epicurean argument: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Some are bad, mostly because they are founded on false axioms:
>We’ve found that many phenomena previously attributed to supernatural causes (lightning, disease, etc) are reducible to purely physical causes. Therefore, god/gods must be a human creation as a substitute for scientific knowledge to make sense of a cruel universe.
>There are thousands of gods you *don’t* believe in as a Christian (Ra, Odin, Allah, Amaterasu, etc). You admit that every one of those belief systems is false, yet proclaim that your god is real. You’re an atheist to every god except one. What makes you think yours is so special?


But I’ve yet to find one that undermines the philosophical basis of theism, much less Christianity in particular.

File: k.gif (39KB, 180x250px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 180x250px

>>9219798
I'm sorry but Mere Christianity is the worse kind of circular argumentation I've ever witnessed in a theological essay. It's entirely apologetic for the horrors of two global wars without ever expressively dealing with them. Furthermore, Lewis takes his ideas of God as easily a priori, but all his proofs are conched in an already pre-conceived acceptance of God.

Entirely, it's Christianity for the already Christian, Christianity for the questioning Christian, and, ipso facto, in an audience of such Christians, none can really be Christian.

>>9219798
>C.S. Lewis
Absolutely brainlet-tier. That you can be so enthusiastic about Mere Christianity without knowing who Spinoza is says a lot.

basically i'm a pantheist

File: syndrome[1].jpg (6KB, 298x169px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 298x169px

>>9219899
But if everything is God, nothing is.

File: Not an Argument.jpg (69KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 598x792px

>>9219859
>apologetic for the horrors of two global wars without ever expressively dealing with them
[Citation Needed]
Also,
>expressively

>Lewis takes his ideas of God as easily a priori, but all his proofs are conched in an already pre-conceived acceptance of God.
Prove it. Give an example.

>>9219875
>Absolutely brainlet-tier.
Pic very related. Come back when you have something substantial.

>That you can be so enthusiastic about Mere Christianity without knowing who Spinoza is says a lot.
Spinoza isn’t mentioned once in the book, nor is he an essential figure to Lewis’ or Christian theology in general.

>>9214737
this comic's premise is false because on any bus 4/5 people will be looking at their phones or listening to their ipods

>>9219944
randall munroe is a boring nerd who feels the need to pretend he's better than everyone else and expresses that via his stick figure comic

>>9219625
>one needs to know what lies on the branches to cut down the tree
>>9219646
I'm not an engineer, I worked as one because I fell for the meme.

>>9219943
Spinoza is essential to having any remotely useful opinion on theology, even if you don't end up agreeing with him.

I would have posted an argument if you had brought up any argument besides "god must be there because I said so."

>>9220056
>arguing from analogy
A bad analogy at that. You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to evolutionary theory, epistemology and philosophy of science.

>>9220105
>I'm saying something so im right
Stop.

>>9220111
I may not be right, but those guys are sure as hell wrong.

Quick rundown:

>Regardless of whether or not there is or could possibly be a scientific explanation of supposed "fine-tuning" or "design" in the universe, using God as an explanation does not in any way increase our understanding of what was mysterious, and simply opens up more mysteries. There are many variations on the "but how could something come from nothing?" argument and they all have this same problem.
>the bible is filled with lots of interesting stuff, it has some good things to say such as some reasonable moral messages like respecting elders and extolling altruism. There are parts that seem foolish and believers tend to do a lot of mental gymnastics to explain why these parts aren't embarrassing, but if you don't take the bible as the word of God, there is no problem, just enjoy the good and discard the bad.
>most religious people are not religious on philosophical grounds, they are religious because they are part of a religious community they joined at a very young age and there's nothing wrong with this behavior. You can call them "sheep" but it's not clear that having logical philosophy be infused in all your beliefs and living life as a hyper rational being is a good thing. Religious people may be enlightened, and it's the doubters who are missing out, despite being "right".
>the effects of religion on the academic history of the world are mixed. Religion has always been a force for the preservation of knowledge and literacy, but it hasn't always been a force for the propagation of discovery and practical science. Most people tend to exaggerate its effects as either overly negative or overly positive.

>>9219943
"I am now inclined to think that this was a mistake."

>>9214764
Why are you presupposing that suffering has meaning?

I don't know and I don't care. I am not a piece of shit and not going to worry about some shitty afterlife that I don't know is there or not.

If God weren't such a cunt and existed he would share some concrete proof instead of bullshit.

If there is a Hell though I hope all televangelists go to it.

>>9220364
Utter Non-Sequitur. That line was in reference to his choice of writing out his contractions that he said on the radio when he made the broadcasts into a book.

>>9220105
I made no such argument. Nor did Lewis. Prove it.

>>9220457
>concrete proof
t. redditor that doesn't understand Christianity

>>9220457
Concrete proof undermines the entire idea of faith. If God gives proof he becomes a tyrant. "Here I am, worship me or die". At the very least you can live your life believing what you want now, you're not forced into anything because you know for a fact you're going to hell if you don't do what God says.

>>9220314
I think this is a good summary- I think one of the tragedies of post-modernism is that it rejects the modern concept of being all-knowing but never fully embraces the beauty of mystery.

As a religious person, I cherish the mystery of Godliness. Those who reject religious people as sheep or demand proof or rationalization for everything in their life must know at some level that they are near-constantly influenced by the sway of unknown forces. Whether you call it God or the chemistry in your brain, your life is bound to remain outside of your entire control. Why not embrace that fact? Life is a lot more beautiful that way.

>>9216263
Why did those elements even exist though? The existence of anything seems so absurd tbqh

>>9215270
/his/ was a containment board

>>9220410
le nihilism meme

>What do you think of the idea of a personal god?
It's nonsense.
>What's your opinion on the god of Spinoza?
It's easy to prove that "God" exists when one says "God is Nature"
>Have you read the arguments against your position?
There are no arguments against a flat "No."
>What do you think of them?
See above.

>>9221860
r/atheism may be more up to your speed, good fella

>>9221902
Replace the word "God" with "goblin": the questions make as much sense, as do the answers. I used to, as is often said, "pay mind" to the concept of god, and attempt to find rational or empirical proof for or against him. I now think of "him" as often as I think of the trolls that crouch beneath the bridges that I cross. Although it amuses me to see the lowbrow derision such a simple denial brings out in the religious person, whether that religious person is a Catholic or an "atheist"

>>9221915
>says he doesn't care about any arguments to change his "opinion"
>answers with a big ass post full of baby-tier atheist argumentation

sure, boi, comparing a contingent and omnipotent being with a goblin is logical. gb2 reddit m8

>>9220554

I don't know that though, and I die whether I worship God or not. How would a divine being be tyrannical if it showed its own existence? It doesn't make you follow it. That would be tyrannical.

>>9220546

In stupid ways.

>>9221918
I'm not saying they're the same thing (God and a goblin), they share the quality of being nothing but concepts. So due to that similarity the comparison is apt.

I do, did, and will listen to contrary opinions, but all such "debate," regardless of the "intellectual rigor" ascribed thereto, will eventually come down to "Yes he is" vs. "No he isn't," i.e. a flat affirmation opposed to a flat denial. Especially on 4chan, I've done this enough times to know neither of us are going to change our opinions. That doesn't mean it wouldn't amuse me to hear how you defend the idea of "God."

>>9221920
If God showed Himself to you (why would He even do that? Why should He submit to your whims?) you would immediately drop the atheist act and adore Him whether you like it or not (because as God he's the supreme Being). This way you get to keep your free will.

>>9221920
>‘Then I beg you, father,’ he said, ‘send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them so they will not also end up in this place of torment.’

>But Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let your brothers listen to them.’

>‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone is sent to them from the dead, they will repent.’

>Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

If you don't believe already, what good are miracles? What good are signs and wonders? You will just find details and excuses and use those to dismiss the signs and miracles. You have the Gospels. You have the Word of God. Believe in that, or else you won't believe even if God should appear right in front of you.

File: martinhart.png (521KB, 921x517px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 921x517px

>>9215095
So, what's the point of getting out of the bed in the morning?

>>9221935
You accuse people of being in flat denial but you're equally dogmatic on your concept that God is "nothing but a concept".

There are plenty of agnostics within this debate too.

And on Spinoza, I think the definition of God is certainly flexible. Einstein himself believed in a mathematical God at times and you can talk with many talented scientists with a similar verve for the universal laws of our world. It's not hard to translate that to some kind of veneration.

>>9215095
But the vast majority of Eastern philosophy, myticism and religion aggrees with your ideas on the illusory nature of the ego and still finds comfort in the idea of our own internal nothingness. I'm not claiming "monkey see, monkey do" here, but I'm asking genuinely - as an agnostic who has come to a deep happiness with nothing - why you wouldn't appreciate the presumably abstract and illusory nature of our existence?

>>9223342
"God" is many concepts to many people. Each person who believes will likely have a different understanding of what constitutes "God." Even within a given faith, the individual's definition of god varies widely. Given most definitions of god, I would have to classify myself as an agnostic atheist because "most definitions" (e.g. the Abrahamic God of Catholicism) preclude observation. "Understanding of God is outside the scope of human mental powers," etc.

This speaks to my "dogma": I can only respond to a given definition of "God," which necessarily rests on -- dogma (i.e. axioms). No matter how querulously and actively the latter dogmas are assaulted, the argument (this is an argument, again, over whether something exists necessarily outside of perception) will come down to "Yes I agree with this" or "No I do not agree with this." E.g. take Godel's proof: it works if one "believes" its axioms, so to undermine it one only needs to attack the axioms. You can believe you're being "purely rational" about it all you like; you'll still only be believing. I reserve my faith for things I can touch, i.e. people.

>Einstein himself believed in a mathematical God at times and you can talk with many talented scientists with a similar verve for the universal laws of our world. It's not hard to translate that to some kind of veneration.
No, it's not hard. I've known many professors like this, it (veneration of natural "laws") is a mental disease brought about by a level of isolation from lived reality once reserved for monks. E.g. Newton aimed to prove a clockwork universe -- he invented calculus as well as a novel method for studying eschatology employing biblical numerology. But, of course, we treat the latter as the gibberish that it is while making use of the former.

>>9224009
>it (veneration of natural "laws") is a mental disease brought about by a level of isolation from lived reality once reserved for monks

>everyone that's smarter than me has a mental disease
it's ok anon, science alone can answer everything

File: disdain for plebs.png (316KB, 380x400px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 380x400px

>>9224009
>Newton invented calculus

>>9224201
>everyone smarter than me has a mental disease
>science alone can answer everything
I said neither of those things. Again, Kurt Godel was probably much "smarter" than myself, nevertheless, he starved himself to death because he thought every meal prepared by someone other than his wife contained poison. People with genius level IQ can concoct some very creative bullshit, and not realize it because no one actually understands their creativity as the fiction that it is, including themselves. Hence being "too smart for your own good."

Also, not saying everyone does this. Feynman e.g. was way smarter than me, and also didn't believe in any nonsense.

>>9214784
>quoting Hitchens
>not from reddit

>>9214755
>>9214777
The way I see it Kek's existence cannot be proven or disproven as the concept of Kek is based entirely on digits.

>>9214737
xkcd is so /r/iamverysmart.

>>9214737
I think it is an impossible endeavor to prove or disprove the existence of the divine or other, and it will always be until it is proven or disproven, one way or the other.
Once it is proven or disproven I think it will be both neither impossible nor meaningless. But I don't think it ever will be.