Has anyone ever made a compelling argument for the existence

That's what prophecy is for, dawg

>>9742924
You might want to read Anselm, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel... you know, this thing called philosophy? Maybe you've heard of it before.

>>9742949
>implying a single theistic argument works
Read Herman Philipse.

>>9742955
They aren't scientific proofs but they are compelling arguments, like OP asked for

>>9742955
Compelling doesn't imply working.

File: 1499694533602.jpg (92KB, 503x640px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 503x640px

No, but dont bother trying to prove that to them or they'll just get mad and project a gangfuckof ad hominems in your direction

>>9742924
Well, using the same Occam's Razor atheists and skeptics so love to pounce on at every opportunity, an explanation of consciousness and qualia could be considerably simplified if, instead of assuming it somehow spontaneously emerges from a complex enough system, from matter that is inherently dead and inorganic when broken up into small enough bits, we assume it (consciousness, being alive) is intrinsic to the universe. From there, it's not that big of a leap to assume that there is one large, overseeing consciousness which could satisfy the criteria of being God.

>>9742924
Arab women made me believe in god

Introspection.

File: 1499788959178.jpg (92KB, 1080x1054px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1080x1054px

>>9742974
so basically blah blah blah we live in God's vomit.
much better thanks!

>>9742999
You're welcome? Not sure how passive-aggressive or humorous or genuinely sincere and grateful this post is supposed to be.

>>9743009
very passive aggressive.
I'm basically calling you an evasive pussy.

>>9742924
Yes, but whenever atheists hear it they instantly ignore it via ridicule and reductionism. Which in turn makes it impossible to actually say anything useful to them. Then they go talk about how no one can prove that God exists, and act like they're brilliant. But in reality, if you look at apologetics they make some good points. The brain and consciousness is probably the biggest observable indicator of something supernatural. Although the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments should already prove God's existence to most reasonable people.

>>9743016
what the point of believing in a god if he doesnt love us?

>>9743015
Is this what atheism leads to?

File: boycott_ballocks.png (421KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 600x337px

>>9743016
>The brain and consciousness is probably the biggest observable indicator of something supernatural. Although the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments should already prove God's existence to most reasonable people.

Wishy-washy, pseudo-rational bullshit.

>>9743028
Not an atheist. This guy:
>>9743025
I just find no comfort in this philosophical reduction of a paradox. Might as well ignore the thing completely. Youre no better than any atheist.

Honestly the idea of God, which I can't stop believing in, only oppresses me, it doesn't really give me any freedom or feeling of compassion, although it's a reason for compassion. I don't know how to restore this relationship. Not believing would be a lot easier.

>>9743059
>which I can't stop believing in
Confront reality

>The brain and consciousness is probably the biggest observable indicator of something supernatural.
Dude the thing that undermines the necessity of a higher power IS THE EVIDENCE OF A HIGHER POWER LMAO

>>9742974
That's not even how Occam's Razor works you mong. You don't pick an endpoint and then simplify everything towards it; you take the simplest starting point (or the starting point with the fewest attached positive assumptions) and work naturally from there.

Where are the sounds, smells, colours, etc. coming from? Do you believe there is a source or no? Are you just some fag who's hung up on the word "God", or what? Why are you trying to wrap your head around something larger than your head? Do you think language and reason is ontologically higher than the <highest thing by definition>, such that the latter can be understood through the former? Why don't you just accept the divine revelation of your senses and stop being a fedora-fag.

>>9743081
classic.
you're the true fedora by indulging in what, by your own admission, can only be known by our feeble minds as a fantasy.

>>9743087
>by your own admission
try reading my post first you huge faggot

>>9743089
>something larger than your head
>fantasy: activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible

dumbass.

File: 1484491807631.jpg (2MB, 2700x6826px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2700x6826px

>>9742924
>who is Aristotle
>who is the first mover
>who is Thomas Aquinas
>what is Metaphysics
>what is "Liber de veritate catholicae fidei contra errores infidelium"

>b-but muhh memes from reddit front page and r/atheism convinced me that there is no God

>>9743096
so you take my question of "Why are you trying to wrap your head around something larger than your head?", read only the last part and interpret it as "try to imagine something larger than your head".

JUST

>>>/out/

>>9742924
Plato lays out a pretty convincing case for the immortal soul. His theory of forms basically prove the existence of heaven.

>>9743102
>b-but muhh memes from 4chan front page and /lit/ convinced me that there is a God

>>9743102
Completely unread on Aquinas, but the assertion that an infinite line of inerts could not at either end have actives is mathematically wrong.

Take an integer on a number line, on either side you have a finite increment of the next integer. Yet, between 1 and 2, and then 2 and 3, you have an uncountably infinite set of non-integers. Infinities, true uncountable infinities (as the universe appears to be) are capable of expanding WITHIN themselves while retaining unique endpoints. You just couldn't ever actually reach them.

Not sure if this actually affects Aquinas' philosophy in any way, just something I thought I'd point out.

>>9743105
This is just babble from a scared little monkey man.
You're only saying "muh faith" and you know it.

>>9743120
you don't even know what I'm saying. look at my actual words and imagine that they are all I said and nothing further about your preconcieved notions of a God are implied by them.

>>9743074
You're letting your anger intrude on your rationality. If it pleases your stringent semantic requirements (which I didn't in any way contradict in essence), I'll phrase it in a way which pleases you:

The simplest starting point to explain qualia and consciousness is to say that qualia and consciousness are intrinsic to the universe. If it is, the entire universe would be alive according to this view, and this idea of the whole universe forming a unified consciousness satisfies almost any criteria you could posit for a pantheistic/animistic view of God, so, without quibbling about semantics, we might as well call it God.

>>9743015
I guess I'm supposed to feel insecure now?

It's not my job to convert you. I'm happy enough. You can roll around in your own intellectual vomit and feces for all I care. Far from making me feel insecure, your unwarranted vitriol only makes me feel pity for you, that you can't understand the wonder and beauty of life and consciousness existing, and the majesty of God.

>>9743124
>muh
>faith
you simply don't know either.
whether the God is there doesn't really matter if he doesn't give a shit.

>>9743131
>The simplest starting point to explain qualia and consciousness is to say that qualia and consciousness are intrinsic to the universe
Except that, in and of itself, is a positive claim. By way of human observation we do not see qualia or consciousness being expressed by the universe, aside from perhaps qualia in the quantum physical sense (which you could certainly base an interesting subjectivist argument on). But consciousness we observably define as a function of the brain at a certain level of hierarchy - under Occam's Razor, to make any other sort of claim, you would first need to prove this observed, seemingly non-assumptive claim to be untrue and positively assumptive.

>>9743118
>trying to inflate mathematical concepts to physical objects
bruh

>>9742924
The cosmological argument is probably the best there is in a purely rational sense, but it wasn't what put me over the edge.

Read Kierkegaards Fear and Trembling. Faith in God is not something that can be understood and demonstrated rationally. Some will argue that if its not rational then you shouldn't believe it.

My counter-point would be human civilisation and existence in general is not particularly rational. It's mysterious and deeply puzzling. And much of the time when we try to rationalise things we simply destroy it in the process.

>>9743162
This anon is right too. >>9743108 I should read Plato again. The Theory of Forms is a good starting point in conceiving of a world with God.

>>9743150
This is getting wearisome. Contrary to what you believe, quibbling on /lit/ is not the pinnacle of my life. I come here to shitpost and I find it very degrading to have to talk about God and consciousness on here. All I can say is, you can see qualia and consciousness expressed in yourself. I have no idea what all this Latinate gibberish you're spewing means, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you experience qualia, and that typical """"""""""science"""""""""" views matter as being fundamentally unconsciousness and not having qualia, and thus has no explanation for how matter that does not experience qualia, when put together in certain ways, suddenly experiences qualia.

Why not just say it fundamentally experiences qualia? By way of human observation, we do not see qualia or consciousness being expressed by other people, let alone the universe. We can only extrapolate it from our own qualia.

We observably define consciousness as a function of the brain at a certain level of hierarchy --- what does this mean? I think it means that you're making a very large assumption, that it's ONLY in the brain at a certain level of hierarchy (which "at a certain level of hierarchy" is very vague and difficult wording for me to understand). So, you could say it's an assumption that consciousness is only in the brain at a certain level of hierarchy. For instance, why this certain level of hierarchy? Don't we ourselves see that there are different levels of consciousness? Our own consciousness when we are sleeping or drunk is different from our consciousness when we are wide awake. The consciousness of a crab is on a lower level than the consciousness of a horse.

What I am saying is, by what means do we say a rock is unconscious? It's an assumption that's functionally the same as saying that a horse is conscious when looked at from the point of view that we can only verify our own consciousness and not the consciousness of anyone or anything else, or, in my point of view, even more ridiculous, because we admit that there is no fundamental difference between the atoms we are made of and the atoms the rock are made of; and we admit that there are hugely different amounts of consciousness (from that of some low level invertebrate like a jellyfish, or perhaps lobster, and Max Planck), but we also say that, at some indistinguishable point, it segues off into non-consciousness, non-livingness ... there could indeed be a point at which consciousness is so low it's practically not conscious, like bacteria --- but it's still alive.

>>9742949
>Kant

The extent to which Kant's philosophy is religgius seems more like an acknowledgement for the sake of the church than anything.

>>9743016
>what is "begging the question"

>>9743068
>Confront reality
This loses a lot of meaning since modern existence is simulated

>>9743220
Did you read "The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God" and " Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone"? I find it hard to believe you did if you say that. It's clear God and faith were important points to him since the start. The Church, not so much. He even assumed its eventual demise in favor of pure faith.

>>9742974
literally what the fuck is this

believing in god is a pleb or a patrician thing?

>>9743313
I would say patrician. It encourages interesting/bizarre theories and complex thinking. Atheism is boring, it leads to simpleton nihilistic thinking.

>>9742924
The best way to realise it (except through revelation) is by questioning and unpicking people's beliefs. When you do that you realise that everyone holds spiritual beliefs whether they realise it or not. These include a belief in a higher power, the ability to self-transcend, the need to feel part of a larger universe (ie
not the reality of solipsism) and other less important ones like a separation from nature and the animals.

It can be very tricky to find it with some people and you have to understand how language can be symbolic of something other than its content but its always there. The other aspect is the fact that these primal instinctual beliefs latch onto false higher powers like a person or the state and hence do not represent true faith but the instinct is always there. So we have to ask ourselves why?

>>9743059
Read about his goodness, free yourself with the truth that is Jesus Christ

I've been thinking about the connection between phenomenal pain/hard problem of consciousness/zombies and problem of evil but someone beat me to it by 7 years, fuck.
https://theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05192010-084406/unrestricted/Schuler_MM_T_2010.pdf

File: why though.jpg (40KB, 509x660px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 509x660px

>>9742997
>tfw no replies

>>9743600
Probably because introspection is not a compelling argument.

>>9743603

It is.

>>9743629
Line up your premises, defend them and draw a conclusion, please.

>>9743313
Patrish as fark, bro. Memes aside though you ought to think about things for yourself. I fully agree with >>9743335

>>9743635

All Phenomena come to a resting place of definitive judgement in the Mind, to a state where they are under judgement alone, regardless of any and all Subject-Object boundary models, or the alleged vital utility of the Empirical, or what have you; and more importantly, regardless of any potential externalization relative to another person. Introspection makes abstraction of Phenomena and turns this judgement onto itself.

>>9742924

Has anyone ever made a compelling argument for the non-existence of God that doesn't just boil down to "muh senses"?

>>9743033

A study of existence from the micro to the macro suggests one of two possibilities:
A) a rational creator
B) a confluence of random chance resulting in a series of infinitely improbable outcomes, such that it actually requires more suspension of disbelief to accept than does a supernatural creator

>>9743074
>you take the simplest starting point (or the starting point with the fewest attached positive assumptions) and work naturally from there.

But that is actually what he did though, vis: >>9743728
The simplest explanation for existence is most assuredly not "everything exploded out of nothing at random for no reason and then dust-clouds were gravitationally formed into balls at random and then one dustball (and, so far as we know, only one) spontaneously formed in just the right position relative to its parent flaming dustball to enable a series of infinitely complex ecosystems of mineral, vegetable, and animal to develop on its surface just as required to enable intelligent life. And it like just happened bro lmao"

The mineral filtration system required to oxygenate our oceans alone is just about beyond the realm of coincidence. One needs to be blind to study the formation of the universe and not see creation.

>>9743763
But totally-not-the-abrahamic-god-le-first-cause would be more impropable and complex than anything he creates by necessity, so...

>>9743102
All of these arguments boil down to a pre-selected conclusion and operate under the assumption that
>our understanding of the metaphysics of reality is in any way accurate
>one of our earthly religions must be correct
>our meager understanding of the "laws" of physics applies universally and that nothing in the great wide universe continues to defy our understanding
>there are no generally unknowable X factors mixed in to this grand formula
And then they move on to claim these arguments as proof of a specific God, and by extension a specific set of rules, and by extension from that a specific lifestyle. Its a trainwreck of faulty logic designed to justify something that is inherently unjustifiable.

>>9743313
It takes bravery to accept there is no God.

>>9742924
dunno if it has been mentioned yet but I (as a agnostic) always liked the "first unmoved mover" idea Aristotle
I think the inteligent creator isn't convincing at all and the Aquinas ontological argumentation or whatever isn't as well

>>9743728
Here's the thing asshole, the only alternative is that there is nobody to ask the question "what is consciousness" in the first place. That means its not improbable that consciousness would come to be because the world where consciousness is just happens to be the outcome but it just as easily could have been a world with no consciousness and hence no reflections on its nature. Secondly, given an infinite amount of time anything that is possible within the a system will eventually happen. How many billions of years was there no consciousness at all? Lastly how the fuck do you know presume to know the probability of consciousness? There may be unlimited ways that consciousness can come to exist for all you know.

File: Melllvar's_Mom.png (207KB, 768x576px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 768x576px

>>9743059
This. In a post PKD world there's no comfort to be taken in the idea of a maximally powerful being that can do whatever it wants to you. For all we know its just some asshole kid fucking with some build-a-universe app.

>>9743102
>Who is Aristotle

The only fedora-tipping materialist until the 1800s?

How would one disprove the accuracy or soundness of the actuality/potentiality divide?

>>9744222
>Aristotle
>fedora-tipper

Confirmed for not having read him. His whole ethical system is based on the idea that all humans have value hierarchies, and that the top of the value hierarchy is God.

>>9744467
the actuality/potentiality divide is not an argument so soundness is inapplicable technically speaking, it's an ontological framework, a certain language used to describe and categorize the nature of things with, which you can adopt or not depending on it's usefulness.
intuitively i think there's something wrong with it, the flow of time seems to be fluid, it's not intuitive that to accept that reality is actually composed of countless actuality->potentiality links. as you experience reality all you have is qualia/experience, it's only when you conceptualize and articulate it that you fragment this holistic experience into causes and effects.
the whole point of the argument from motion is that you're using observations from nature and logic to show that god exists, but it doesn't seem to be actually based on observations from nature, just a linguistic trick.

>>9744222
Even just in the classical period you have Diagoras of Melos, Critias and other tippers. Aristotle wasn't one.

>>9744606
>the whole point of the argument from motion is that you're using observations from nature and logic to show that god exists, but it doesn't seem to be actually based on observations from nature, just a linguistic trick.

Sorry for my miss use of terms Im still trying to get my hear around it all. I see things like >>9743102 which has reasoning which whilst not direct observation is based upon direct experience.

I currently have a difficult time telling the difference between linguistic tricks (which is something I felt Parmenides was hardcore about) and sound reasoning that Im just too pleb to understand.

How do you tell the difference?

Can you share some examples of other ontological frameworks that fall into the linguistic trick category?

>>9744694
if you're able to extract the essential logic of an argument and can translate it to different languages you speak that's a good indicator that it's good because clever wordplay tends to get lost in translation

>>9744496
So he believed God was material?

>>9744789
Wouldnt that mean its not word play by default because its translated from the ancient greek?

Look, okay, all atheists should read the Bible at least once. Anyone would realize after reading it that Yahweh was a goddamned narcissistic alien who got attached to the Israelites and left after getting pissed off when they constantly spurned his teachings, and everything after that point is either Jewish history (Books of history after 2 Kings) or Jewish trickery (New Testament)

Also science and atheism are just as much religions now as the various sects of Christianity, so you can grow up and stop laying your parroted answers down as definitive truths and realize that no one knows the answer. A lifetime of research and introspection will only reward you with the brush of a cloth or the merest hint of the truth as it dances just out of your reach with all the agility and cunning of Muhammad Ali.

>>9744836
I don't think that Jesus is Jewish trickery but that Paul is really shifty

>>9743081
they're all products of perception. we have receptors in our nose that can recognize different compounds which sends different signals to the brain which are interpreted as different smells. same with wavelengths of light and our eyes and color and so on. we developed this ability to differentiate over millions of years of trial and error. i believe in god.

>>9742924
>If I disagree it's not compelling

>tfw everyone automatically settles on the endgame premise being the existence or non-existence of the Abrahamic God. every kind of argument under the sun for or against.
>if one person brings up Odin
>or Hecate
>or Ra
>or even Legba
>theyd get their shit pushed in by both sides for no reason other than
>"please, anon, be serious"

>>9745230
It's a shotgun, not a sniper rifle. You aim for the Abrahamic religions because they overwhelmingly make up most of the Western world's population. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, all sides of the same die.

>>9742924
Oh look, THIS thread again.

>>9745243
I understand, but even in instances when the word "God" isn't even used (let's say they used terms like "Higher Power" or the like), people that bring up deities from other cultures invariably get ignored or ridiculed. And always, ALWAYS, we get the fuckers that invoke Pascal's Wager, in one form or another. It's all become a trope, really.

>>9742924
Do you exist?

>>9742974
Yes, Occam's Razor. Okay now let's make a lot of jumps and assumptions to come to the conclusion that aligns to my beliefs, from nothing.

>>9743118
Aside flawed reasoning because mathematics doesn't exactly translate to physical objects, Aquinas's argument assumes a possible eternal universe so it really makes no difference. It's not the first domino, it's the ground all dominos stand on.

>>9744090
Aquinas doesn't make an ontological proof at all, in fact he refutes it. Don't talk about things you don't understand.

>>9745271
Honestly, this just goes to show how you don't understand what theyre talking about when talking about God with a capital G as opposed to gods, or a god. Its the same as when a friend of mine tried to explqin to me that by believing in God you're effectively an atheist for other gods, which makes absolutely 0 sense when you're talking about the existence of the Absolute.

>>9745838
>which makes absolutely 0 sense when you're talking about the existence of the Absolute.
why doesn't it make sense to you? by not having positive belief in other gods, you are a nonbeliever as far as they're concerned, even though you're still a theistic person, you're a-theistic in so far as those concepts are concerned

>>9745819
it's not the ground that all dominos stand on, it's literally the first physical movement of particles which is deemed necessary for cause and effect to happen

>>9742924
No, that's why rational people don't believe in God.

File: 1390614643283.gif (793KB, 360x203px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 360x203px

>>9746178

>>9746163
Atheism isn't a perspective-based viewpoint, it means you don't believe in any god, period. If an atheist meets a viking and starts blathering on about fedora tipping, the viking wouldn't care whether the atheist didn't believe in Odin because of a total lack of religion or because he believed in Yahweh, he'd slap the atheist upside the head for being a heretic.

>>9742924
Wolfgang Smiths' "Cosmos and Trancendence" does a good job - its short, elegant and beautifully written. Smith is a Columbia/MIT PhD mathemetician who has a strong grasp of Christian theology and metaphysics. I bought a hard copy after reading ebook. Archive.org link: https://archive.org/details/pdfy-8rVQ3zCB6UcGCBny

>>9746293
>Atheism isn't a perspective-based viewpoint
wrong
atheists by necessity hold different positions on different god concepts

>>9746357
Explain your position because atheism is, by definition, an absence or rejection of belief in a God or gods. I doubt you'll find someone who worships Zeus yet considers himself to be an atheist because he doesn't believe in Ra.

>>9746171
No. That's not the argument he makes. He, as I've actually already mentioned, assumes a possible infinite series of contingent causes in an eternal universe. The first casuse is not a part of the chain in the argument.

>>9746383
I have an absence in belief in things such as the number of starts (even or not). I do not have an absence of belief in Zeus.

>>9742974
>we assume it (consciousness, being alive) is intrinsic to the universe
That's Anthropic Principle, not Occam's Razor. It's still a good argument for the existence of God though.

>>9747145
The fuck are you even saying? How does the 'number of stars' relate to your theist beliefs? And good for you, you believe in Zeus. So you're not an atheist.

>>9743709
>tfw no replies again

>>9745838
>which makes absolutely 0 sense when you're talking about the existence of the Absolute.
No, it makes perfect sense given that what you mean by absolute is "my version of the Absolute".

>>9742924
If matter can condense to the point which inverts the view of the universe (from within a black hole, light bent around it would in fact appear as the observable universe: from the outside it appears a hole from seeing what's "within" it), then it's illogical to assume awareness doesn't end in a firmament containing the universe--i.e. God.

>>9742924
>muh faith
Nothing more need be said. It is all that is required. If you don't have faith, that's ok. I believe in God, and I do not try to push my beliefs on anyone, thus I have no reason to try and prove God's existence. Those who don't believe in God are free not to believe in Him, I don't care. Peace and love, cunts.

>>9747343
>(from within a black hole, light bent around it would in fact appear as the observable universe: from the outside it appears a hole from seeing what's "within" it),
wtf am i reading

>>9743116
>Defending reddit
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>9747366
The event horizon of a black hole, what gives it it's appearance, is the point which space-time breaks down. At that exact point, if you could look 'out' you would see all of observable space-time (universe as light and in its entirety of time) in a moment.

>>9747284
Is the number of stars even or is it not?

>>9747396
I don't know but my belief in whether stars exist in an even number or not has no bearing on my religious beliefs. It's like calling me an atheist because I don't believe in Santa Claus or Spider-Man. Or calling me an atheist because I don't believe there's a gallon of milk in the fridge.

>>9746421
>He, as I've actually already mentioned, assumes a possible infinite series of contingent causes in an eternal universe.
if eternal regress is not considered a problem, then the argument doesn't work. the argument from motion, as i understand it, only works by showing that a first movement is necessary in order for the flow of time to exist.

>>9747310
>being so desesperate for you's
Seek God and wait a few years until you pass 18 then come back my friend

>>9747474
>say introspection is the ultimate argument for god
>get told to line up my premises, defend them and draw a conclusion
>do so
>uhhhhh let's go back to jerking each other off over occam's razor

>>9746383
atheism is an absence of belief in, or a belief that god or gods don't exist, but atheists usually don't just arrive at absence of belief because they have the blank minds of babies and haven't considered the possible existence of god, there are various supporting arguments to justify a lack of belief as well as arguments that justify a disbelief in god. the fact is that the reason you don't believe in celestial beings such as angels or devas is likely the same reason atheists don't believe in the christian god, you believe on some level that believing in things for no good reason is stupid and reckless, and you don't see any good reason to believe in angels or devas, which would be the same epistemology of an atheist.

>>9747460
You seem to forget the key word of the argument, which is contingent.

>>9747557
saying that n movement is necessary for the n+1 movement is the same as saying that n movement is contingent on n-1 movement, don't get autismal on me my man

>>9747497

This is called shoe atheism and it's bullshit. I strongly recommend you read this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2za4ez/vacuous_truths_and_shoe_atheism/cph4498/?context=3&st=j51f1ox4&sh=a7660daf

>>9747583
it's not shoe atheism, i don't apply atheism to shoes, only people, and in the first place i distinguished between weak atheism and strong atheism in the very post you replied to.

File: quote-god-is-a-thing-that-thinks-baruch-spinoza-287444.jpg (34KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 850x400px

>ctrl + f spinoza
>0 results

about that

>>9747497
I personally don't believe in Yahweh because I've seen no evidence to support his existence. I've seen circumstancial evidence that's lead me to believe that there's the possibility of some sort of creator, but nothing definitive. Even if I believed that Yahweh existed, however, there's no way I'd worship that guy. Have you read the Old Testament?

Also I would argue that for an atheist there's no real distinction between God or angel; to an atheist neither exists because he refutes their existence. Are you sure you're not thinking of agnostics?

>>9747492

Look dude, all you basically said in your fancy academic language was that people tend to internalize an idea, judge it, and then dig in on their own judgement despite empirical evidence to the contrary or the testimonies of their peers. Hardly a revolutionary idea, don't get salty about a lack of (you)

>>9747583
>obligatory you need to go back

>>9747597

I'm referring specifically to this "atheism is an absence of belief." It's not true and I wish you would read the link I gave because it would explain to you in great detail why it's bullshit. Or you could just continue being a victim of atheist internet apologia, whatever.

>>9747609
i'm still reading it, but so far it only looks like the poster is frustrated with the fact that "atheism is an absence of belief" is a good, descriptive definition for weak atheism and so wishes to commit the grave sin of not allowing your opponent to define their own terms, aka telling people what they think.

>

Moreover, the obfuscation here is rather transparent: although atheists in online apologetics want us to conflate the idea of lacking belief that God exists with the idea of having a belief that God doesn't exist, by giving us only a single word to refer to both, nearly all of them believe that God doesn't exist, so that tacking on the other meaning to the word they use to describe their believes does absolutely nothing but obscure what it is they believe
this is the crux of the argument, he doesn't like the weak/strong atheism distinction, and wants to strawman all atheism into strong atheism so as to make it easier to attack (if you're atheist you have burden of proof)

>>9747426
Whoa, my point went light years above your head man.

>>9747633
I made it pretty clear that I didn't understand your point the first time, I thought.

>>9742924
No, but there're counterarguments for atheism in Brothers Karamazov, particulary the "Grand Inquisitor" chapter. It can be viewed as a seperate poem. Is it supposed to make blind atheist think twice before making fun of piety. I mean, there are also blind believers.

>>9747633
>>9747645

Oh, I think I see your point now. You're arguing semantics like that post on Reddit with the shoe atheism. That an absence of belief is not the same as disbelief, which is true, but I think in the context of a religious argument involving atheism we kinda know what we mean

>>9747608
>Look dude

You're ignoring the second part about concepts like "internalization" being redundant once this capacity of judgement is realized as being independent of Phenomena and free to reflect onto itself, the end result being exponential attraction towards THE Noumenon - God.

>>9747665
>Noumenon
>existing
highly questionable

>>9747665
You're making quite a few leaps, assuming that regardless of what the mind thinks it will inevitably be attracted to God. The Phenomena is far more enticing than a Noumenon which may or may not exist, and while I admit to feeling the allure of God lately reading the Bible has only reinforced my atheist beliefs.

>>9747684

Yes, that's my point.

>>9742924
Honestly, when I see that noone can explain the meaning of existence or the boundaries of the universe, I'm ready to believe anything. Even when the boundaries are explained, they're still not explained, because there can always be something behind the boundaries. Existence is kind of magic itself. Maybe in some other dimension people say to themselves: Magic doesn't exist, because I bet you can't cast a spell and make something exist. But here we are, existing. I mean, it's just an example of course, it's not logical, people that exist and argue of course can't "not exist", but I don't know what they do...

You can't prove that people don't go to some other world after that, even if they know they've been here before. You can't possible assume why they don't want to tell us that they exist, what is the reason for them keeping it secret - because if the other world does exist, there can be an infinite amount of reasons which doesn't exist as a possiblity in our world, we cannot comprehend them. Maybe in that world "reasons" don't exist, maybe something else than a reason is the reason.

I'm just blabbing, but noone can not blad when it comes to God, noone can guess or know anything,

Maybe the postmortal world can be seen via some advanced scientific technology, so the most unreligious people will prove that their opinion was wrong.

If the universe started with the big bang explosion, what exploded then? You must light a cracket (something existing) to explode, you can't make nothing explode.

>>9747709
I feel like I am perhaps exposing my ignorance of philosophy. You are using phemona and noumenon in the context of Kantian philosophy, right? The mind's conception of a thing and the thing in and of itself, i.e. the Form of the thing that exists separately but as it's own entity? Like the old adage about the chair where there is a single form of a chair that exists somewhere that, when viewed through the minds of man, is twisted and contorted into a shape resembling the chair but is not the Form of the chair?

>>9747713
>If the universe started with the big bang explosion, what exploded then?
That line of thought only leads to eternal matter, not necessarily a god-like being.

>>9747369
Or he is just saying that 4chan becomes reddit when inferior complex reddits come here and talk shit about reddit to hide themselves, so you were baited basically.

>>9743116
Didn't actually know 4chan has a frong page, and I don't need to know either.

>>9742924
Nope

>>9747727
Why would eternal matter exist by itself?

>>9747727
>eternal matter, not necessarily a god-like being
Isn't eternity what God is? Eternal "universe" = eternal possibility.

Oh, and just realized, there aren't any atheist classic writers. I wonder why?

Oh, and you should probably read The Master and Margarita, a masterpiece making AtheISM look like AutISM. I'm not even a religious person, but atheists are really pretenciously trendy.

>>9747724

Yeah.

>>9747708
Well...yeah, the Bible will do that. But yes, the idea is that ultimate good inevitably draws Mind to it, through provisional Phenomenal hierarchies - this book is better than that book, this president is better than that president, this beer is better than that beer - their Historic and Spatiotemporal primacy, if it even was so at all, disappears and their attraction becomes one of one of pure Epistemology, converging in God

File: 1446334442310.jpg (24KB, 600x586px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x586px

>>9747753
>Oh, and just realized, there aren't any atheist classic writers.

>>9747756
>>9747770
Anon are you drunk?

>>9747656
No. I'm saying that if the universe can contain itself within a point, so can an existence span a universe. It's not semantics, it's understanding that space-time is influenced by awareness (observation).

>>9748150
>space-time is influenced by awareness (observation)
wrong

>>9747782
Unironically not baiting. Dostoevsky was agnostic, then an atheist, then a believer.

Tell me some author that was religious and then became atheist.

>>9748200
See the Double Slit Experiment

>>9748224
show me the part where the double slit experiment defines consciousness in physical terms

>>9748150
Let me just ask you, how was I supposed to get that from your original point? >>9746357
>>9747145

>>9748353
do not quote me

>>9748231
By altering physicality through its very being. Are you dumb? It basically states that consciousness is space-time. It's why I brought up the black holes.

>>9748377
>that feel when qm became metaphysics
you can't attribute physical changes to consciousness so long as you're unable to define it in purely physical terms and solve the hard problem

>>9748224
>>9748377
That's not what the double slit experiment shows, consciousness has nothing to do with it. It just shows that measuring the process changes the outcome.

>>9748384
It's a logical paradox that equates to true. I'll explain more clearly again after work.

>>9742924

You could make a compelling case that we live in a simulated reality, and thus you can make a case that our universe has a creator. Not necessarily a benevolent or all-knowing one but a creator nonetheless.

>>9743118

Yep I gotta hand it to you man. You just outsmarted Aquinas. No way he could've thought of your argument before.

>>9743313

Patrician most definitely as long as you are embracing the tradition and intellectual aspects. New age spirituality is pleb, however, without question

>>9742924
Worst thread ever you faggot.

>>9748384
>>9748385
The slit experiment reveals consciousness' effect on the physical universe through its measurement of it. Measurement==observation.
So the point I was making with black holes is that they are a single point within the universe wherein the entirety of the universe can experienced in a moment, or perhaps a point. How this then correlates to the indisputable probability of god is through the fact that the senses are a point, or perhaps a moment, where a part of the universe may be experienced at a time. Space and time are only perceptible in the limit of the senses (they are compartmentalized within the beings awareness), so when the ability of all space-time becoming a brief moment is introduced, you get the fact that a god is not only inarguable, but more than likely any being manipulating space-time to fuel observation.

>>9748599
>Measurement==observation
no, measurement = blasting it with photons so that they reflect back to your retina and you could process the information, that and that alone is what's meant by observation

>>9748679
What in the hell do you think observation is, and why do you not believe it is directly apart of consciousness? Can a rock observe? If no, it's because it doesn't have consciousness. If yes, it's because it has consciousness. Do you understand how you're lapsing over the logic?

>>9748839
i defined observation in the post you just replied to, that is literally the only thing written in that post.
please get it through your thick skull, that observation in qm is noumenal, not phenomenal. whether or not you experience observing something has no relation to the result of measurement
i know, this cucks your whole theory, but there's nothing that can be done, please don't lapse into denail

>>9748848
>whether or not you experience observing something has no relation to the result of measurement
Except for in the double slit experiment baka

>>9748870
especially in the double slit experiment
you've fallen prey to the quantum mysticism meme, but i will help you overcome it

>>9748876
You're just in denial at this point, idk what to say.

>>9748886
no my man, the denial is with you, because the idea that observation means consciousness is at the foundation of your belief system
this is completely misrepresenting the double slit experiment

>>9748876
I'll even give you one last chance for the benefit of the doubt. Explain how the double slit experiment is divided between noumena and phenomena, and how it still denies consciousness through observation and measurement?

>>9748898
No, it's more that they're parabolic. You clearly weren't paying attention and just dismissing my words under your assumptions. True ignorance my friendo

>>9743763
Occam's Razor isn't about probability, but complexity. If you acknowledge the validity of the various different scientific models that you find improbable, but then tack on the existence of god on top of them, it adds an extra layer of complexity. We can't logically say that god didn't do it, and in fact we don't know the probability that god did or did not do it, either. We just go with the least complex explanation among equally "true" explanations. Probability has nothing to do with it.

>>9747168
No, I mean all matter is conscious/alive in varying degrees.

File: ffc0cab305cb66ac1ed6f12fa50f256e--beautiful-pictures-with-quotes-god-pictures.jpg (168KB, 673x1000px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 673x1000px

>>9742924
Here ya go little guy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel%27s_final_vision

>>9748991
why don't you kys and see what happens then

>>9742924
who is Jordan Peterson?

>>9749095
That's a pragmatic argument for why its useful to have belief, not an ontological one.

>>9749069
My soul, made out of a subtler matter/energy than my "physical body" (everything is physical -- think the equivalence of matter and energy in quantum physics -- or, conversely, everything is immaterial/energetic, it's functionally the same thing) would be released from its confines and go to regions I'd rather not think about.

>>9742949
K go ahead and dig through their voluminous garbage and pull out their most compelling arguments for the existence of God.

God is experienced, not argued for.
>>9742949
Philosophy is a dead end.
>>9742963
>science
>proofs

Has anyone ever made a compelling argument for the absence of God that doesn't just boil down to "he didnt make me rich!!"?

>>9743118
MATHEMATICS IS NOT EXISTENCE. EXISTENCE DOES NOT FIT YOUR DISGUSTING SYSTEMATICS.

>>9743220
No, Kant merely posits a God of the Gaps.

File: 1499793179715.jpg (16KB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 360x240px

>>9749922
I hope you're joking

>>9744052
No, it is cowardly to lie on such a level.

>>9744836
HAHA YAHWEH WAS JUST A MEANIE BECAUSE IT HURTS MY FEELINGS

>>9745230
Neo-Pagans aren't relevant, sorry! Back to your mystical forest, LARPer!

>>9746163
A/theist translates roughly to without god. Atheists who bring up this point are absolute idiots that just want to seem clever. They saw it on YouTube or Reddit nine times out of ten, and the other time they heard it from their other atheist circlejerk buddies during their weekly onahole exchange party.

>>9746178
Rationality is invalid.
>>9747497
Not an argument.
>>9747608
Evidence doesn't exist. Sorry!
>waaaaaah this being beyond comprehension doesnt fit my petty morality! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH WHY DOESNT EVERYTHING WORK FOR MEEEEEE

>>9747597
There is no fucking weak and strong atheism. Atheism is an absence. Go find a piss-puddle you actual snowflake. Fall in and be yellowed.

The ideology of Atheism is a reaction to theism

No one who claims to be an atheist would claim to be an atheist if it weren't for a reaction to injustice/fallacy committed by theists, forcing the atheist to draw a pragmatic line in the sand

Atheism is a rejection of the theist, not an a priori position. You can claim that by its definition, if you were not aware of the concept of God, that you would also be an atheist (along with, maybe, squirrels) but you need to be aware of the concept of God in order to be aware and identify with your rejection of God.

I'll take Pascal's wager and the metric system

>>9747310
If you want (you)s, just make an ad hominem argument against an athieshit and wait

>>9743709
>there's a place where things are alone
Nope. Even the fact that you can make a model of this, is in fact quite linked.

>>9749993
>atheism
>ideology
>not believing a poorly defended claim is an ideology
When will Christians get tired of this poor attempt at a "gotcha!" argument.

>>9749927
Funny that everything else in the universe fits mathematics fairly cleanly aside from 'god', then.

>>9750507
When will you guys give honest reasoning a try?

>>9750507
>not believing a poorly defended claim is an ideology
Are you the type of person who goes to debate the benefits and losses of capitalism with a McDonalds clerk?

Seek the masters, get beaten. Don't act like you were a master and they should seek you.

>>9749993
Ridiculous sociocentric notions filtered through a narrow lens of history, creating a markedly neophytic pseudo-analysis.

And yet somehow there's still not an argument for the existence of a deity.

>>9742974
underrated

>>9742924
The Greeks had the right idea.
Start with the Greeks.

>>9750509
>this is what math brainlets actually believe
holy kek

You can't prove the fairy tales are real.

>>9750509
Math is made to fit the world, though.

>>9750616
How did I read them if they aren't real? Besides, they would stop being real if they would be concrete historical events. They wouldn't be fairy tales then, would they?

/lit/

Whenever I start seriously thinking, whenever I start writing in self-reflection, my train of thought leads me to God. It is like every problem or oddity becomes fulfilled by it - loaded language, I know, but an expression of how it feels. I rarely think of God at other times, except perhaps when I am walking by myself, or suffering.

This proves nothing, I know. From any perspective, the power of the concept of God has indicates its extraordinary resonance in the human soul, how much we crave even the smallest drop from the wellspring of the ever-elusive Creator.

Why do I write like I assume His existence and His relevance in my life and in all life is a given when I ignore the idea of God at most times - when I feel, after repeated efforts, as if any willed attempt to believe in the spiritual is self-delusion? Why won't He show me His face, if He really is there?

File: 1310575598397.jpg (155KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1680x1050px

Why god? Why not gods?

>>9751103
Because there is only one God, it's self evident.

>>9751155
how is it selllf evident?

>>9748599
>>9748839
This is wrong, yo. Observation just means that you send some photons to reflect on it so you can measure it somehow. A rock can, indeed, observe, if you attach a laser to it, and point it to the experiment.

See?

>>9750903
Have you read Les Miserables? Specifically the bishop part, in the very beginning?
Your post brings back memories of it.

>>9742924
The real issue is that the existence of God doesn't logically lead to religious theism. Deism is a far more elegant explanation that requires no "muh faith" or hoop-jumping yet provides the answer to the ontological argument, the fine-tuning argument, and the problem of evil.

>>9751683
But it doesn't.

>>9751683
>fine tuning argument

As I've said before, that is begging the question.

>>9751230
Because the attributes of God imply that it acts alone, there is only one point atop a pyramid. Take this implication as a fact and you'll realize that it's true but can't be directly disclosed, hence it's implied.

Or you could pray and pay attention for an answer.

>>9751683

I'm interested in why you believe an impersonal deistic God exists. Do you accept the argument from motion?

File: 1499718284347.gif (1MB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 620x349px

>>9752014
personally I believe in the any number of gods theory. For all we know this is a machine protocol.

>>9743216
I don't know if you'll read this but thanks for posting. Unironically made me think.

File: 97a.jpg (20KB, 325x358px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 325x358px

>>9749066
>predicts 500 years of human history

Holy shit. Guess I'm religious now

>>9742974
Atheists are so stupid for hounding you on this. The argument is a pretty simple one, and it's predicated on occams razor. It's not a proof, but it makes perfect sense. This is the argument that made me think there's probably a God.

>>9750507
>poorly-defended
Why does a claim's truth-value depend on an external action?

>>9750509
False, you only think that because you have been told that.
>>9750511
'reasoning' is inherently dishonest hand-waving. They are illusionists.

>>9743150
Conciousness is fundamental to reality. Even quantum mechanics is predicated on measurement. Do some more reading.

>>9750616
>anything i dont like is le fairy tale!
Back to /r/eddit

>>9752014
What are the attributes of your god?

>>9747653
Grand inquisitor isn't really an argument for atheism, it's an argument against Christian morality.

>>9751103
>worshiping impotent idols
See: Surah 21:51-59

>>9751683
>muh lawwwjik
Deists are atheists on high. It's nontheological. It's ridiculous reductionism. It's a blank-slate God for one to project their wishes on.

My lodging is filled with lizards and rats;
But the architect exists, and anyone who denies it
Is touched with madness under the guise of wisdom.
Consult Zoroaster, and Minos, and Solon,
And the martyr Socrates, and the great Cicero:
They all adored a master, a judge, a father.
This sublime system is necessary to man.
It is the sacred tie that binds society,
The first foundation of holy equity,
The bridle to the wicked, the hope of the just.

>>9753743
>It's a blank-slate God for one to project their wishes on.
Where do you think the christian God came from? It's no more than that same slate with pre-projected wishes.
None of the actually good arguments for God try to prove the existence of God as described by the Bible, they try to prove some generic creator-being and then proceed to say "we might as well call it God".

>>9753811
False. Invalid presuppositions.
Good arguments do not exist, arguments are inherently bad. God is not argued for, it is redundant.

>>9753817
False. Invalid claim.
False. Invalid claim.

Our logic is based upon Newtonian physics, and our limited perception of time and space. When talking about "Nothingness" we don't know what we are talking about. The concept of Nothingness we have in mind is that of the absence of things, which usually translates in our minds as empty space; but space is not Nothingness, and we do not know what Nothingness truly is, or if such a concept is something more than an abstraction of empty space we've made. We do not know what Nothingness is. We do not know what kind of logic can be applied to Nothingness. Arguments for the existence of a god (whose definition must also be provided before putting them up), rely in our logic applied to Nothingness. Can we truly assume infinite regression is impossible? Can we assume an uncreated universe is impossible? And if so, then why apply uncreatedness to god, if uncreatedness is truly impossible? Can we assume eternity (backwards and forwards) is impossible, when time escapes our logic? And if so, why apply it to god, if eternity (backwards and forwards) is impossible? We certainly cannot have certainty; science simply describes our heightened perceptions, but also cannot provide certainty, especially in regards to Nothingness, since empiricism comes to a halt in such an endeavour.

And since empiricism also cannot provide certainty under any circumstances.

>>9742974
Consciousness is intrinsic to the dream which is this world. God exists in the eye which sees the world.

>>9750903

See: >>9747770

>>9744052
>this is given me cancer
no it takes bravery to justify all ofyour actions to someone to is judging you for your sins.

>i know that your comment is just memeing and is the classic edgelord response on r/atheist

>>9742924
>>9742924
Descartes
existence of God is coming from his own perfectness, and our idea of him

>>9753732
>>9747653
i can't relate to that claim. the great inquisitor is more about the human sin about no human construct being able to replace god and his morality. For me its the opposite of an atheist argument. Atheism trys to build structures without god.

>>9744155
The universe is not eternal though, that's the basic proposition of thermodynamics. There was a beginning and there will be an end - hence, entropy: energy is in constant dissipation. Also, "billions of years" is not even close to the amount of the required to constitute such level of coincidence. Go do some research on the Kalam Cosmological Constant. This level of coincidence is just absurd, unthinkable for us.

>>9756051
bullshit, there is 100% chance there will be electron somewhere in space
t. quantum physics

File: art-renewal-center-thomas-reis-the-reader-1378695841_b.jpg (41KB, 600x524px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x524px

>>9742924
No.

>>9756051
by the universe I meant everything in existence, not just the observable big "U' Universe

>>9756142
the arrival. do you haunt any irc?

File: Tyre.jpg (98KB, 940x600px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 940x600px

>>9742926
"I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord God."

Ezekiel 26:21

lol nice prophecy dawg

>>9756051
>implying a medieval sandnigger knows anything about QM or statistics

>>9754929
Not invalid, sorry.

>>9755883
perfection is a subjective quality

>>9756412

yes

>>9756412
no