Athiest here. Doing a devils advocate project. I need a list

>>133301009
>I need a list of the best arguments in favour of religion , and I mean the best.
There are really no good arguments for or against. They are all equally full of holes.

File: 1465787240027.jpg (139KB, 900x700px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 900x700px

>>133301009
Here's a good summary.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-does-god-exist

Also, read Thomas Aquinas.

Repent and turn to God sinner.

>>133301009
Ur mom's not alive so that's the strongest

Pascal's wager is a pretty good one.

>>133301248
Alright then.

>>133301009
>I think of God
>therefore he must be real
There, proof of god

>>133301009
Where did energy and matter come from? Until this can be answered, god or some sort of creator is the only logical running theory.
>inb4 big bang
If somebody actually says this, what came before the big bang.

>>133301009
it's equally likely as far as humans are capable of observing that the universe was created by a god than at random

the preacher claiming the bible is evidence of creation is the same as flavor of the month discovery channel narrator man blabbing about some mathematical theories

>>133301248
>read Thomas Aquinas
Why would anyone read the ramblings writings of a stupid "theologist"?

>>133301009

focus on something the audience can debate themselves.

off the top of my head, why do all humans recognize music? what is the evolutionary purpose of music that not only is it universal to humans, but it has never waned?

there's some good research on bush tribes immediately recognizing when a song 'ends' even though they've never heard modern music.

it's a good start, and a compelling argument tht engages the audience because everyone likes music and nobody knows why

someone trying to scientifically explain music has an uphill battle.

>>133301009
Cause why like why not man?

>>133301009
Masturbation is a greater sin than rape. Anyone who insists otherwise is Satan. Early church fathers said so.

>>133301613
Small bang

>>133301009
Science nowadays is not science and conveniently ommits info.

Walk the spiritual path. Just a few steps will let you see beyond what any materialist can show you.
At the end of that path you will find he who is. I'm cryptic because it's better that way, really. Those who wish to walk the path will look for it, and after some missteps they may find it. But you do not. You are here to argue and be convinced. That is foolish. Don't let anyone trick you into believing. You must not believe, but know.

>>133301009
There are no arguments. People are religious like they love their families. You can explain it, but you cannot argue for or against. They are just compelled to believe.

Religion is a meme that survives the test of time. Humans have always been religious. It is apart of us. We can not chose for or against it. It is not a rational choice, it is just the state in which we find ourselves. A natural part of being human really.

>>133301009
The law has to respect you despite you being a massive fuck up. It's the basis of our legal system.
T. Atheist

>>133301009
Without a higher power right and wrong are entirely subjective. Nothing matters and there is no reason to stop the flow of third world hordes from flooding into the west.

>>133301248
>Thomas Aquinas
Actual logical arguments for god.
>>133301009
Argument in favor of religion? I mean we all agree that having systems for organizing is good. Religion keeps people together, common goals and morals. Of course some people go too deep ya know the crazies.

File: IMG_0626.jpg (39KB, 500x382px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x382px

>>133302593

File: 1498459144557.jpg (27KB, 508x524px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 508x524px

>>133301009
WHAT KIND OF FAGGOT ARE YOU? Fucking google it if you are making some school shit project, twat child.

File: IMG_0612.jpg (166KB, 1024x724px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1024x724px

>>133301009
The secondary definition for religion is actually
>a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance
Most religion arguments will tell you that it provides community and unity and morality and values. True. And the absence of a spiritual religion paves the way for a materialist religion, like consumerism. If you're here you know that opens the doors for post modernism, and moral relativism.
You should also know that the masses are sheep that are incapable of independent and critical thought, and need guidance.
So what is the solution for an atheist fedorafag who realizes atheism is degenerate and refuses to humble himself before a sky daddy?
You make a new religion. You build the white ethnostate and make the race your religion, the state your church, and the leader your pastor. But to make that work you need traditions. Traditions make religions what they are and make them last.
But if that task is too daunting, I suggest you just start humbling yourself to sky daddy a little more.

File: IMG_0549.jpg (67KB, 829x1024px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 829x1024px

>>133305187
Inb4
>atheism isn't a religion hurrrr
Fedoras should be IP banned

File: 62562072_p0.png (678KB, 1000x1336px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 1000x1336px

>>133301009
Simple.
https://godisimaginary.com/

This world is just too ugly for there to be a god. Think not only the natural diasters, but also human nature. The human mind is a clear result of natural selection and it's bound to the countless of ugly instincts - violence, hatrd, denial and so on. And the Bible overall is a contradiction to science. There's absolutely no explanations to the suffering and pain in the world, and religion is just a fake comfort for week-minded people.

>>133301009
If god exists he is totally different than the god in the bible.

If spiderman exists he is totally different than the spiderman in the comics.

>>133305745
>muh what god would make a world where bad things happen
Kill yourself. Heaven already exists you stupid nigger. This is not it.

>>133305745
A peaceful world is a redundant and meaningless world.
Not only that, but the Matrix is right - humans will never be satisfied with a perfect world. We are born to believe that there is evil and we need to fight it, whether that means delusionally imagining it with conspiracies, or perceiving the perfect world as an oppressive one and destroying it and replacing it with chaos.

Life is suffering. More than that, the MEANING of life, is to suffer, simply for the sake of experiencing what it is to suffer.

>>133301591
I think of 20 y/o ScaJo in my lap.
Doesn't make it real

>>133301009
>Asking a Micronesian tape art message board instead of researching Aquinas, William Lane Craig, and other apologists

Wew lad

>>133301009
>in favour of religion

OK, so you're arguing for religion, not G-d per se?

One thing you need to keep in mind is that the priestly class has been the repository of human knowledge up until very recent times. Your shamans knew about plants and curing illnesses. Monks kept written records. Knowledge and education provide continuity and stability, preserving civilization. And civilization itself cannot survive the chaos of man's id without some sort of agreed-upon system of ethics.

Also, religion kept the signs of the heavens, useful for marking the changing of seasons and growing crops. Agriculture is good for civilization, as is preparing for hurricane season or typhoons, etc.

Like it or not, atheists would not be here today without religion making a nice society for you to lounge around in.

File: 1386028197811.png (480KB, 474x632px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 474x632px

>>133301764

>>133307421
This is another good point.
It's like fedorafaggots cry "religion is about dogmatic control" all I wonder is "what are you going to replace it with then? Lawlessness? Or another system of dogmatic control?"
Those are the only options.
"But muh brainwashing sky daddies and fairytales"
So brainwash them into praising the state instead. What's that, you don't like the state either? Make them put highest importance on self interest. What's that, that's what's wrong with greed driven capitalism?
Fedorafaggots spend all the time complaining about religion and no time proposing realistic alternatives.

>>133307095
William Lane Craig being mentioned in the same sentence as Aquinas.
Seriously kill yourself. Craig is absolute backwards tier garbage.

>>133301009
Every civ in world's history have reached the conclusion that the origin of world and life is God without any previous knowledge. That has to be a genetic inception that may be implemented by a creator. Within time men rose above the rest of the animals as God's word said.
It is then when men and their souls are judged to prevail for eternity based on how good son of God each individual is.

With such argument you can explain free will and evolution.

>>133301450
1/100,000 gods in current era pascals wager is a joke

It seems obvious to me that the universe, if left to its own devices, would be infinitely more likely to be in a state of pure random chaos. Instead there are rules set so perfectly that not only has matter evolved into systems it has has evolved into life.

The only explanation for this other than a guiding force is that there are infinite other universes, the majority of which have produced nothing but random energy.

Whatever the case it brings up more questions than it answers. I believe both could be true.

God doesn't have to be a big hairy man in the sky. God could very well be a computer program, or a divine sense of balance that guides the universe, or just a curious mind.

>>133308629
>William Lane Craig being mentioned in the same sentence as Aquinas.
There's not really any difference between them except that one's a bit more eloquent and lived quite a while ago. Both certified dumbasses.
>>133308075
>hat
>that means I'm right
Oh, yep, you got it.

>>133310947
NO.
FUCK YOU.
Aquinas was a scholar.
Craig is a fucking con-man.

>>133302116
Interesting thought.

>>133303671
Are you stupid? The christcuck narrative of everyone being equal is exactly why the west is in this state. Jesus wants us all to be equal, he wants us all to turn the other cheek. There is absolutely no intellectual basis for a christian to refuse entry of millions of 3rd world black christians into their civilised country. none.

Pure practicality. Promotes a clear set of ethics for ordinary people (who aren't all that bright) to work within, promotes social cohesion, promotes stability in a society.

Is it fairy tales? Sure. So what?

>>133301009
Religious society: "Justice comes in the afterlife, not here on Earth" = Small government, little state interference in society

Atheist society: "Justice can only be administered on Earth, afterlife does not exist" = Demand for large government, socialism, communism, utopia, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvtJja2ihYQ

>>133301009
>and I mean the best.
it keeps the dummies in line.

File: Gods must be crazy poster.jpg (91KB, 945x425px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 945x425px

>>133301009

Argument from design in reference to the basic physical constants of the universe is the strongest.

The way the laws of physics operate are dictated by various physical constants, the relative power of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces and numerous other physical constants that dictate the nature of the universe. C which represents the constant for the speed of light in Einstein's famous E=MC squared equation is the most commonly familiar constant.

In any case there are lots of these constants and if you screw around with their relative values just a little it has a radical effect on the nature of the universe. Adjust gravitation a little bit and stars can't form, adjust electromagnetism a little bit and liquid water couldn't exist, adjust the strong or weak nuclear force and molecular cohesion couldn't take place and the entire universe would exist as a soup of superheated plasma.

Now the reason this is significant is there is no logical or scientific reason why any of these constants should be the values that they are rather than any other value So in effect the odds of the universe being as it is rather than another state are infinitesimally small. In order to explain such an infinitesimal probability one is left with only two possible conclusions.

1: The universe is a product of intelligent design by some manner of creator.

2: The universe's form is indeed random; but it is one of infinite possible universes or one of infinite randomized cycles of the same universe.

In either case you are left to believe in something infinite which is outside of empirical observation or your capacity to prove. A singular infinite being, a God which is unlike anything in our experience or an infinite number of alternate universes which is familiar to that which we experience. In my view neither stance is stronger than the other.

>>133313616
You stupid fuck. You shouldn't write if you don't know anything about the subject at hand. God gave different graces and capabilities to everyone of us, no were is it said we are all equal in the sense you understand. We are all brothers under God.

>>133301009
Read Feser. I'm serious.

>>133301009
>religion
I can't give you a case for a religion in terms of man made rules and institutions. I can give you a case for faith.

>>133301009
If I were you I'd worry less about religion and more about escaping SA before I wound up in a cannibal's pot.

>>133301009
Religion is the cornerstone of civilization. The earliest human settlements centered around temple complexes in what is now Turkey. Religion isn't a byproduct of civilization, it's the cause of it. The surest sign that a civilization is reaching its final stages is when a majority of its populace abandons religion. It doesn't really matter what the people worship as long as they come together and preform rituals that foster a sense of community and fellowship. One religion fails the civilization rapidly approaches its final stages and either collapses under its own weight or is invaded and replaced by a younger more vibrant civilization. Make fun of magic sky fairies all you want. Just remember that the belief in "zombie jeebus" is part of what kept western civilization strong and you'll be tipping your fedora at Christians right up until an Islamist removes your head from your neck for being an infidel.

File: god-and-man.jpg (2MB, 2083x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2083x1200px

The utilitarian argument or the god argument?

For belief in god: I believe in god because atheism fails to explain the uniqueness of human life, the concept of human rights, or the ideas of good/evil beyond anything that is totally subjective to that person. Ex) Was slavery morally wrong back when 51+% of the population was for it? If so, why?

Utilitarian argument: Religion 'civilizes' people and allows for societies with common values to form.

>>133314811

>1: The universe is a product of intelligent design by some manner of creator.

>2: The universe's form is indeed random; but it is one of infinite possible universes or one of infinite randomized cycles of the same universe.

I completely agree with you, but in the case of 2/, there is the same question: something must have started those recursive universes. In nature nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything transforms (I think it's a quote from lavoisier), meaning that whether the universe was just a dot at some point or not, it must have had tremendous energy and energy cannot be created from nothing, unless there is a Creator.

So before this (1) or those (2) universes came to be, science implies there must have been a creator initially.

>>133305745
>This world is just too ugly for there to be a god
Yes. Which is why God taking the burden for our failures upon himself that we can be with Him is so significant.

But, you know. Fairie tailes or something. World is still ugly. Now you don't have any hope.

>>133315749
I still don't understand why so many people find the cosmological argument enticing:

>1) Everything has a cause, no exceptions.
>2) God is the exception.

It's terrible at undermining itself, and the discussion always ends up drowning in pointless hair-splitting and the endless shifting of goalposts.

File: 1492300216073.jpg (24KB, 540x332px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 540x332px

>>133301764
>Thomas Aquinas
>Stupid
I bet you couldn't even make it 50+ pages into the Summa Theologica. Go be a nigger somewhere else.

>>133315898
Ok.. this might sound dumb, but I think I just understood something. Jesus was kind of like Batman at the end of The Dark Knight.

Batman took all the hate upon himself so the city of Gotham would have a chance to become a better city.
Jesus took all the sin so the world would have the chance to be a better place.

>>133317546
If it helps you understand, yeah. Kinda like that. Not at all like that, since hating Him won't help.

BUT, even if we're to assume that is the end of the theology, ONLY God could be the eternal scapegoat that could keep us from destroying ourselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4NAH2puEEM

It doesn't play out that way practically. Something else is needed. Unless something in us fundamentally changes, having something that can bear the brunt of our hate won't make the world any less of a hateful terrible place.

>>133317076
>>1) Everything has a cause, no exceptions.
>>2) God is the exception.

>It's terrible at undermining itself,

See this way: 1) is strictly scientific. In science everything has a cause. Again: nothing is lost, nothing is gained, everything is transformed.
Now, 1) and thus science, cannot explain that at some point in the past there must be an intial cause. That's basic mathematical reasoning here. Some thing cannot just sprout out from nothing. This is when 2) comes into play: the only way to explain 1) and thus the existence of physical laws and of the universe itself is for something to exist outside of it. We name this "thing" the creator, or God. He exists outside of our physical reality and created it. He is eternal by definition as he exists outside of time itself.

File: dupBrexit.png (1MB, 1200x1092px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1092px

>>133301009
religion is for stupid people to tell them how to live better and it works

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70E9KA48Sic

>>133318259
>>133317076
both of you are misstating premise one

It is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause".

'God' as a cause precludes needing a cause because it would be, by definition, outside of time, and therefore uncaused.

The objection "who created god" is a nonsequitor at best, a strawman at worst.

Biological, Temporal, ultimate arguments would go like you cannot be atheist because everyone has the belief the sun will set today, it is until these assumptions fall through that we are allowed to question them. There is no way to prove you are an atheist as we cannot read your brain for you yet. Just knowing about religion as a concept creates already the belief you are correct to an atheist. Intelligent animals like dogs are recorded having religious experiences in their brain. We do not live as a species capable of dismissing religious concepts once we have been exposed to it.

>>133305842
We'll simply put its this. You have all these diffrent spider men. Amazing Spider-Man, the ultimate spider man, black Spider-Man, spider girl or what have you. Same with religion you have Hindi, Buddhist, Christian, pagan etc.

Having all these diffrent people and yet all of them agree their is a supreme being only solidifys that God is still god he's just perceived differently by diffrent people

>>133301009
People are really fucking stupid and they can't function without the threat of eternal damnation keeping them from acting like niggers.

Your flag related.

>>133301009
Religion = lie

The kingdom of heaven is WITHIN you. And it's WITHIN EVERYTHING!!! - jesus, buddha, hemes, etc...

>>133301009
Everything is preprogrammed.

>>133301248
Shitty image. Crusaders/Knights didn't use that type of shield.

>>133313616
http://m.topix.com/forum/city/new-roads-la/TT6VMVT84JTI8Q3IE

M8 theirs a reason redpilled Christian's are KKK members

>>133301009
Religion is as natural to man as language is. It emerges in every culture, in every corner of the earth.

>>133301009

if drilled hard enough it might lower the natural tendency of nogs in nigging

File: Bombardier-Beetle.jpg (87KB, 951x739px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 951x739px

>>133301009
bombardier beetle

>>133301114
Whoa... I'm blown away by your moderate wisdom and even-handed openmindedness.

First post best post! Have an upvote buddy

Every country ever founded on atheist principles has degenerated almost immediately into a totalitarian shithole.

>>133301009
Evolution of ideas by natural selection.
Doesn't make religion correct but it does make it increase your survival probability.
Note that in some circumstances being the wrong religion can adversely effect your chances of survival.

>>133303671

this argument doesnt make sense, and was BTFO by socrates a long time ago

if a higher power said we should let third world hordes destroy our society that wouldnt make it objectively what we should do

morality is partially subjective and partially objective, whether god exists has absolutely no bearing on that fact.

>>133301009
if god didnt exist then who was phone?

>>133301009
Either there is a God/force that created existence, is outside of it, and can influence it at his whim; or you are living in a cold simulation with absolutely no such thing as free will.

>>133319881

just like rape and cancer

File: 1470506724639.png (119KB, 409x392px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 409x392px

>>133320171
good response

>>133301009
Regardless of what you believe, you live out Christian ideals everyday if you are a functioning member of society.

Compare Iraq with the US, it would probably be something like murder or a hate crime to throw someone off the roof for being a faggot in the US right?

>>133319881
and sodomy.

Atheists are the best argument for religion.

>>133320689

>is outside of it, and can influence it at his whim

in what sense is he "outside of it", if he can influence it?

>>133317962
So what changes, how does it change? How did Jesus help if we're still on the path to destruction? Is that what revelations is about?

watching vid now

>>133301764

You fucking spastic.

Holy fuck what a stupid post, and that is saying something

>>133301009
When Jesus whipped the money changers, it was because people had to pay to get into temple, another thing Jesus changed, and said fuck the Old Testament, and your temples. The Bible says, Wherever two gather in my Name, there too, am I.
You don't even HAVE to go to ANY church. Just worship and keep the Sabbath (Shabbat/SATURDAY NOT SUNDAY) Holy.
Any how these people had to trade to get into temple at a loss, the exact amount to get in, was the EXACT weight of the most common ROMAN silver piece. 15% f Roman elite at the time were JEWISH. Sound familiar? You have to use our money, if you want in? Think Petro dollar.
Jesus prophesied Jews taking over the world, with currency manipulation 2,000 years ago, mark of the beast etc.
He did this when Judea was a tiny conquered nation, hated by EVERYONE, how the fuck did he do that? All you atheist fucks?
In addition. all science requires FAITH that the universe behaves now, as it always did.
The Big Bang Theory is simply the creation myth of Freemasons and Jewish Mystics, that the Great Architect made the universe spring into being.
Science now believes the universe is a simulation. Which means it has a creator. This is mainstream. Way to go science...it only took you 200,00 years to figure out what we always knew.
evolution is their excuse for why we need to rid ourselves of undesirables...that so many people on /pol/ seem so anxious to help with.
Science, the way it has been practiced in the last century, is nothing more than Communism, and Communism is atheism perfected.
Enjoy that bitches.
That argument would stump Hitchens.

>>133301009
let me know if this song speaks to anyones autism please

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70E9KA48Sic

>>133320911
Are you in the internet when you code websites?
How is it hard to conceptualize remote control of a system?

Admittingly, it's much more complicated when it comes to God. He's outside of existence in the sense that he is not in any way bound by it. It's more like existence is bound by him. At the same time, he is omnipresent, so he is in existence. (He probably IS existence too if you want to get really out there.)

the idea of libertarian, top-down, causa sui, free will is incoherent, orthodox christianity is dependent on this incoherent idea

The universe exploded into being when the Great Architect spoke the Word, Aum.
Sound familiar?

>>133321398

here's the thing, when i think of "the universe", i take it literally: the universe is EVERYTHING. this is especially true when talking about god.

the universe has come to mean something less now that we have the big bang theory and multiverse theory and such. now we wonder: if our spacetime is a closed area, what lies beyond its boundaries

but God is not merely beyond the boundaries of our region of spacetime. God (if he is to take the role he plays in apologetics of being exempt from such questions as to how he came to exist, what was before him, etc) is supposed to be outside of all sorts of causation. if our universe is governed by physics, and our universe is impacted in a multiversal substrate and the interactions between universes and this substrate are governed by some kind of metaphysics, god is outside these metaphysics and not beholden to their causal principles. and of course this applies to anything greater as well.

so god is being defined here as something that cannot, by definition, be described according to causal principles. and if that is the case, then how can you meaningfully say he is exhibiting a causal effect on the universe/multiverse?

i think it is great that you mentioned this:
>(He probably IS existence too if you want to get really out there.)

this is the only way to make sense of his position, because there is no room for god to exist alongside reality (causal overdetermination), he must therefore just be reality

but i think then, that we are back to those deep questions again, which are left unanswered. if god just is the universe, then it does not mean anything to say that god created the universe.

what im getting at is this: if god has real causal power in the universe, then he must be in some sense physical, even if it is a different kind of physics beyond our sort in this spacetime. and if so, then all the questions about the origins of the universe still apply to him

>>133320922
You merely recognize you can't do it. You can't even change yourself - and so you sincerely request the intervention and assistance of the only one who can change you - to do so.

Die in your sins, and be reborn as something new. Not by your works or virtue, but by His and His alone.

Resetting broken bones hurts. It takes time to heal. Being born is traumatic, and coming of age only after time and nurturing. Though you could be reborn into what you were destined for overnight, if you invite Him to work in you/through you, then you invite Him to do so on His time.

How did Jesus help? God is just. Perfectly just. Forgiving sin without punishment would preclude His just nature. God is forgiving. Perfectly forgiving. To punish who He loves would preclude his forgiving (loving) nature.

For those who would receive it, Jesus pays our debt, that Justice might be 'satisfied', where His love is simultaneously 'satisfied'.

For those stubborn, it demonstrates He is not some distant and detached Lord, but the suffering servant who elected to enter into our suffering, to be part of it with us, as us, rather than leave us wondering how "god" could be removed. Whatever His reasons for the state of the world, He is not unwilling to be in it. He has everything, He is want for nothing. He is for us, not against us, even where the world seems bleak and awful - it is purposeful, and that purpose is good.

Further, it is through the best documented miracle event in history, Jesus' resurrection, that we can trust His identity, both in persons (Jesus) and Nature (Just/Righteous/Loving/etc).


tl;dr read. We change. He changes us.

>>133301009
Well youd have to first define religion.

>>133301248
>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-does-god-exist
>1. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
>2. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
>7. The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.
oh hey, something caused these things, so therefore they must be the same thing, and also be telling me not to masterbate.

>3. God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world.
wow, if I have two apples and add one I get three apples. god must have caused that connection from math to the real world.

>4. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
>5. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
If there was no conscious life there wouldn't be the question in the first place. just move the reference frame until it matches. also, see evolution.

>6. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.
yep, values that we agree on as a society are absolute and objective

>8. God can be personally known and experienced.
some guy a few thousand years ago went crazy plus some people lied for attention. better change what we believe.

Religion is designed to be unprovable. Making arguments for both religion or atheism is pointless. Agnostic is the best supported you can get in either direction.

>>133301009
>best arguments in favour of religion
Pascal's wager

>>133324568
hey, I just made a religion with a super heaven (see: heaven with threesomes) that you can get just by believing in it. no chance at hell. pascal's wager says you should join my religion instead of any other.

>>133322403
>the universe has come to mean something less now that we have the big bang theory and multiverse theory and such. now we wonder: if our spacetime is a closed area, what lies beyond its boundaries

I think that is an assumption that the scope of existence that is governed by our space time even has boundaries. The vast void past all of the multiverses could very well be an infinite expanse, but still governed by our physics and metaphysics. Now, God, who is a spiritual being would operate separate from that massive macro system. We can only define God based on his past interactions with existence. We simply do not have the scope to even begin thinking outside of that. I would guess that our picture of God is infinitely incomplete.

>what im getting at is this: if god has real causal power in the universe, then he must be in some sense physical, even if it is a different kind of physics beyond our sort in this spacetime. and if so, then all the questions about the origins of the universe still apply to him

Honestly, without knowing the unknowable rules of, "outside existence"(if there even are any rules) we simply couldn't discount his ability to interact with existence while also being separate and all-encompassing it at the same time. (Psudo-agnostic line of thought there) Fact is, we don't have all the facts. As you said, unanswerable questions.(for now)

>>133322403
>here's the thing, when i think of "the universe", i take it literally: the universe is EVERYTHING. this is especially true when talking about god.
Unfortunately that is a bastardized understanding of Universe. Not unreasonable, but it is born out of a blind assumption of Metaphysical Naturalism. I say that matter-of-fact; respectfully.

At least for discussion, it is probably best to assume "Universe" is simply time/space, or 'what can be empirically measured'

Not to gloss over the rest of your post
>But, to at least vaguely address a point - what im getting at is this: if god has real causal power in the universe, then he must be in some sense physical
I don't believe this follows. For the sake of analogy I would ask whether you are the product of particle interactions, or are you a reasonable causal agent, capable of acting despite the underlying chance interaction of particles?

Do you have libertarian free will. If yes, there is no reason God needs to be 'physical'. You derive your free will from it's source, and that source is not contingent on prior cause.

If no, then we're not really having a conversation. It's just particles bumping around. We assume God is analogous, then you just illustrate the entire reason for a first cause argument. Something must have set the particles in motion. It isn't a worldview that corresponds with reality. We're rational, and intuition says we are causal agents. Simply reflecting upon our own existence effects change in ourselves. To suggest this is merely the result of chance particle interaction is to suggest we can not trust our rationality, IF we are even rational. It is a self refuting position.

Anyway, I'm only scratching one of your points, and rambling on. So not to be dismissive or disrespectful, I'll leave it there for you.

File: 1468730001127.jpg (1MB, 2904x3936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2904x3936px

>>133324016
>values that we agree on as a society are absolute and objective
The general principles for all societies are basically the same because if you don't have them society falls apart.
Don't kill the innocent
Don't steal from people
Make sure children stay alive long enough to become functioning adults
Dishonesty is bad and should be avoided
Our belief systems vary (What is innocent, Is it stealing if you take water from someone's lake, when is it okay to be deceitful/dishonest), but those are just different interpretations of reality based around those same principles. So there is an objective morality for people.

You have a higher chance of choosing the right religion than if you follow no religion at all. It's like the lottery. A person who enters has a much larger chance of winning than someone who doesn't enter at all. This isn't proof of god. there is no tangible, psychical proof he exists. But it's merely stating that chances of following a religion even if it's the wrong one won't hurt if it turn out there is no god. You have nothing to lose. If there is a god then there could be potentially a greater risk for you. But that's just an opinion. You can do what ever you want. Go for it. You have your own freewill at the end of the day. And reason and facts will always top any belief.

>>133301009
Gonna post without reading the thread. Hope this hasn't been mentioned already.

Religion is a social mechanism that allows the individual to expand their 'us' group. When we lived in extended family groups, our 'us' group was our family. Everyone else was 'them'.
With civilization came the need to expand our 'us' group to curtail violent conflict between clans. Religion fulfills this role. If I hear you say you believe what I believe, if I see you make the same sacrifices, praticipate in the same rituals I do, it becomes much easier for me to say you are one of 'us'. The barriers of 'us' vs 'them' begin to blur. This is more than likely why religion is so prevelant across all cultures and regions.

>>133301009
First you must draw a distinction between "God" meaning any given deity fulfilling a set of basic criteria (such as "created the universe") and "Religion" meaning a specific religion with specific practices and specific miracles attributed to their God and so on.

The later is indisputably bullshit and there are legitimately 0 rational arguments for it. The former however is an open question rooted much more solidly philosophically.

>>133325552
Everything you just described is subjective. Based on the average consensus of what is morally right. Without a higher power guiding humanity in it's morality, it is nothing but subjective interpretation of what is right by the masses. That hasn't always gone well when we try to look at it as relative.

>>133324568
Doesn't this presuppose that the person doesn't really believe in god? It's not faith, it's playing the odds. Does God allow people like that into heaven?

>>133301009
Unifying set of morals and traditions.
Most modern systems of morality, even the atheist ones are connected with christian views on morality, especially natural born rights.
Organized religion also serves as a voluntary support system for its members. How churches that take collection can put it towards daves heart surgery, margret's dieabeetus or jon's broken window. If a religious community was large enough it could do basically everything the government does from roads to policing to wellfare

>>133301613
But what came before god?

I can't accept that he has always been there. It just doesn't make sense. Something or someone created what is god or the big bang.

Its just an infinite cycle.
What made this. Ok what made this. Now what made that.

>>133303366
Its almost like there's a reason for that
>smiling.jesus.gif

>>133326374
Everything points to Him. If a person's search begins in earnest because there is literally no reason to not simply look, then (in His time) He will reveal Himself that they might believe/trust in, rather than merely believe/trust of.

Whether your search starts because you look up at the stars and think "This can't be chance", or you logically weigh the options and see nothing to lose by seriously pursuing truth. Results the same, if you honestly want to find truth.

File: you better listen.gif (170KB, 850x900px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 850x900px

>>133326083
>Everything you just described is subjective
How so? Those are rules necessary for any society to function.
What society has existed where people can simply kill the innocent?
Or steal anothers' belongings?
Or where children aren't taken care of by and large?
Or lie?
Societies like that don't prosper or survive and God definitely recognizes this through Moses' law. God tells us not be adulterers because it causes children to be raised inadequately because it corrupts the parents.
God tells us not to steal because it will cause the community to fall apart. Same with not killing.

>>133325051

>Unfortunately that is a bastardized understanding of Universe. Not unreasonable, but it is born out of a blind assumption of Metaphysical Naturalism. I say that matter-of-fact; respectfully.

i dont see why my statement assumes metaphysical naturalism at all. if god exists then he is part of the list of things that constitute existence/reality. i call that the *universe* for its obvious simplicity. the term has etymological roots implying those connotations.

>I don't believe this follows. For the sake of analogy I would ask whether you are the product of particle interactions, or are you a reasonable causal agent, capable of acting despite the underlying chance interaction of particles?
>Do you have libertarian free will. If yes, there is no reason God needs to be 'physical'. You derive your free will from it's source, and that source is not contingent on prior cause.

i dont believe in libertarian free will, i believe the idea is incoherent.

>If no, then we're not really having a conversation. It's just particles bumping around.

thats eliminative reduction. you can reduce without eliminating. for instance, we can describe things biologically, and we can describe things chemically. both are still in the realm of observation of material reality, but one can be reduced to the other.

we are still having a conversation, thats a psychological and social event. which can be reduced to the biological interpretation, something like "humans exhibit vocalizations which stimulate their neurons, illiciting responses, etc", and then further to the physics of it "vocal chord vibrations send waves through the air to vibrate ear drums" and so on. all the way down to quantum physics.

>We assume God is analogous, then you just illustrate the entire reason for a first cause argument.

im glad you feel this way because the idea of the first cause is incoherent in the exact same way as free will

File: 1498816095299.jpg (2MB, 4920x4161px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4920x4161px

>>133324771
>heaven with threesomes

your heaven is morally wrong thus it is the wrong religion

>>133301009
Arguments for specific religions are more difficult than arguments for God/Intelligent Design.

I would go with the complexity of biological systems and the existence of fixed natural laws. For example: one cell in your body is more complex than the computer you're typing, and on top of that the cells in your body are self replicating and self repairing. Human technology has a long way to catch up to the technology which composes the natural systems of this universe.

IF you're looking for something specific to Christianity, the Risen Jesus ministry by Michael Licona is pretty good: https://www.risenjesus.com/

>>133326640
>I can't accept that he has always been there.
What comes before logic? Some nonmaterial things were not created and are timeless and eternal.

>>133325051

continued:

>We're rational, and intuition says we are causal agents. Simply reflecting upon our own existence effects change in ourselves. To suggest this is merely the result of chance particle interaction is to suggest we can not trust our rationality, IF we are even rational. It is a self refuting position.

rationality and intuition are different things. rationality tempers our intuitions and reconciles conflicting intuitions. i agree that intuition says we are self-causing agents. but rationality rejects that possibility, because it is incoherent, and/or meaningless, depending on how you interpret it.

i disagree that there being some underlying physical/chemical mechanism to thoughts and decision-making would mean we cannot trust our thoughts and decisions. you CAN distrust your thoughts and decisions, but only in the sense that you can skeptical of everything. the problem of induction prevents you from being certain that literally ANYTHING will behave according to principles it has followed in the past, and that goes for your own decisions. you cannot be certain that trying to move your arm will result in it moving just because it has occurred that way in the past.

but we get over that. we trust anyway. and things work out. so far.

the same is true of our thoughts and decisions. we cannot be certain that particles are not causing us to believe things that arent true, but the particles are not the key there. even if free will and god and all kinds of magic existed, there would still exist the doubt. you would still have no way of knowing with certainty that you are not being misled somehow

but thats okay. humans get by without certainty

>>133327167
did you even look up pascal's wager first? heaven with threesomes was an example. christ.
pascal's wager says nothing about the morality of the religion, it just claims that infinite rewards always merit investment, because even with small chances, they will have infinite payout on average.
which is retarded. because of what I said before.

>>133301009
Will you go to Heaven when you die? Here’s a quick test: Have you ever lied, stolen, or used God’s name in vain? Jesus said,
“Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
If you have done these things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart,
and the Bible warns that one day God will punish you in a terrible place called Hell.
But God is not willing that any should perish. Sinners broke God’s Law and Jesus paid their fine.
This means that God can legally dismiss their case:
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
Then Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death. Today, repent and trust Jesus, and God will give you eternal life as a free gift.
Then read the Bible daily and obey it. God will never fail you.

>>133301009
I heard Jordan Peterson's "Maps of Meaning" makes a pretty good case for religion. I haven't read or watched it though.

Creation. Can't wrap my head around it and keeps me in the agnostic camp. Not convinced of the big bang theory and even I were... where did the mass and energy come from?

>>133301009

easy, go to the desert alone and fast and pray for 40 days and nights, amazing how few people actually try this when it works 100% of the time

>>133301009
Islam. Middle East has the lowest crime rates.

File: Download_(3).jpg (12KB, 209x239px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 209x239px

Jesus is cool, fool.

>>133327556

the deeper thought of pascal wagerism is that god is all loving and perfect , in christianity you do not have sex in heaven because you are no longer in the flesh thus you do not reproduce and have no need of sex . Making the treesome of yours immoral in the eyes of a perfect god and his followers

>>133322403
>if our spacetime is a closed area, what lies beyond its boundaries
For what it's worth, you're imagining the spacetime manifold as embedded in another space when you use terms like "beyond its boundaries", but General Relativity uses intrinsic curvature, not extrinsic, and therefore there is no embedding manifold, and no "beyond" it in a geometric sense.

>>133327771

where did god come from?

>blah blah magical exemptions

so you dont know, cool, i agree

>>133326833
Allow me to clarify my stance. Without a God, everything you previously said was subjective interpretation of cause/effect.

I'm inclined to agree with you that morality works because there is a God, not in spite of God.

>>133301009
"You're smart enought to see that nothing's real so pick something false and believe in it. Hardmode: A terrestrial tradition. No Harry Potter fad shit like some consumer sheep. Dare to actually be somebody, faggot."

There's your best argument. Condescending, snarky and completely remote from good faith dialectic. Exactly what your atheist opponent will respond to.

>>133301009
There are only metaphors. There can be no proof, God rewards faith without proof. If there were proof, what value would there be in belief if we knew without a doubt he was there? It is only the truly devout who will find faith without undeniable proof and those are the ones who will be rewarded. So there's no strong argument to prove God. However, it can be easily demonstrated just how much good Christian values benefit society if actually adhered to. Beyond that, the watchmaker analogy is a good metaphor. I've also always thought about it as analogous to if humans were to create a virtual world populated by sentient AI's. Without giving them tools to peer outside of their world, they could study everything about their universe down to the laws of physics governing it, but could never know that human kind on the outside made them unless we allowed them to directly observe us. Even if us as the gods of this universe spoke to one of them directly and told them that we are the ones who created their world and how they should act, there would be no proof for the other AI's to believe and they would have to rely on faith.

>>133327996

>For what it's worth, you're imagining the spacetime manifold as embedded in another space when you use terms like "beyond its boundaries", but General Relativity uses intrinsic curvature, not extrinsic, and therefore there is no embedding manifold, and no "beyond" it in a geometric sense.

the whole point of the "beyond" terminology is that it speaks to the motivations of the questions that begin this debate in the first place

all these people believe god answers something fundamental, that question being "how did spacetime come to exist?", and the implication being "something outside it caused it to exist". outside here, as you say, does not mean geometrically outside. just like "before the big bang" does not mean temporally before.

>>133327936
Hahaha, lol. Make murder, domestic violence, and attacks on unbelievers legal and there will be less crime, except for Hamas, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hizballah, and Al Quds tearing the place up all the time.

>>133327983
please read past the first line of my comment. the point is that infinite rewards should not always merit investment.
just ignore the threesome part. even just the lack of a chance of hell if you believe should make it preferable.

File: WHY.jpg (70KB, 680x894px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 680x894px

If Atheist God is real, how do you explain THIS?

>>133327550
>i agree that intuition says we are self-causing agents. but rationality rejects that possibility, because it is incoherent, and/or meaningless, depending on how you interpret it.
Rationality hardly requires a rejection of that. Even if all your decisions were the results of the configuration of matter (which it isn't due to the non-determinism of physics), but even if it were, since the definition of "you" presumably includes the matter which you are comprised of, the state of matter is part of "you" and thus your actions are a result of "you".

>humans get by without certainty
Yes, they do, but that isn't what is at question. What is at question is "what is true", not "is it possible to not die by believing something".

>>133301114

Muh moral relativism. I bet you hold centrist views.

>>133328228
>I'm inclined to agree with you that morality works because there is a God
I think God is recognizing the truth as it is and has given us his word as a framework for living because it will provide us a better more fulfilling world. Although I don't think this discussion will be productive since it is something too big in scope for 2000 characters.
One thing I speculate on is that psychology is corrupt right now because it tried to take parts of religion that healed mental illness (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is very similar to prayer for example), but remove God from the equation. This is why it has promoted things that don't improve the lives of people (Trans surgery, many anti-depressants, adhd meds etc.).
What are your thoughts on this?

>>133328689

>Even if all your decisions were the results of the configuration of matter (which it isn't due to the non-determinism of physics), but even if it were, since the definition of "you" presumably includes the matter which you are comprised of, the state of matter is part of "you" and thus your actions are a result of "you".

what youre describing here sounds like compatibilist free will, not libertarian free will

>Yes, they do, but that isn't what is at question. What is at question is "what is true", not "is it possible to not die by believing something".

the truth is unknowable. i believe agrippa's trilemma is insurmountable.

>>133327550
>but only in the sense that you can skeptical of everything.
I had started a reply to your previous post, but respectfully, the only way I can illustrate that I take you seriously, is to adopt your worldview and be skeptical of everything you said.

Which means there's no rational discussion to be had any more. You're taking skepticism to the extreme - and absolutely, when our worldviews are so fundamentally divergent we have to break it down that far - but I can't even hit the bottom with you, because your worldview doesn't even afford honest consideration of a "bottom".

Worse, wou selectively apply it to dismiss competing claims, and dismissing it where it seems convenient to assert your own. Pragmatism might be fine, but you're not even practicing it here. If selective skepticism were so you could just get on with living it would be one thing but...

Here you are. You're skeptical, and I'll honestly afford you are sincerely skeptical, rather than just cynical. Who are you? Why are you here? Where are you going? I don't ask those in any greater context than the here and now.

>>133328458
>all these people believe god answers something fundamental, that question being "how did spacetime come to exist?", and the implication being "something outside it caused it to exist". outside here, as you say, does not mean geometrically outside. just like "before the big bang" does not mean temporally before.
Fair enough, there can be other explanations for any one detail. But I'm not interested in explanatory power per se, I'm interested in what's actually true. It's easy to come up with explanations one way or another, so explanations alone don't serve well epistemologically. (E.g. Predictive power is better, but frequently not possible.) One ought to take into account many details and see what description of reality can be true of all of them simultaneously.

>>133329037
>what youre describing here sounds like compatibilist free will, not libertarian free will
Yes, exactly. I'm not an advocate of libertarian free will. My apologies for not making that clear.

>the truth is unknowable.
But if that were so, then you couldn't know that this statement is true: "The truth is unknowable." Otherwise you would have a known truth. I may not understand Agrippa's Trilemma correctly, but I accept the fact that at some point, things will have to resolve to a set of axioms (hopefully small). I don't see that as a problem, however.

>>133310325
This IS chaos.
Order would be a total equilibrium of particles, which will eventually happen because of entropy.

>>133301009
If nothing else I think Religion at least can inspire hope in the hardest of times and generally gives people structure and good morals to live by.

>>133329166

>Which means there's no rational discussion to be had any more. You're taking skepticism to the extreme

i think its accurate to say i take skepticism to the extreme, in terms of philosophical schools, im most partial to ancient skepticism.

>Worse, wou selectively apply it to dismiss competing claims, and dismissing it where it seems convenient to assert your own. Pragmatism might be fine, but you're not even practicing it here. If selective skepticism were so you could just get on with living it would be one thing but...

not sure what youre getting at here, might be a good place to elaborate or try to explain differently, seems like the crux of what youre problem is with what ive said

>Here you are. You're skeptical, and I'll honestly afford you are sincerely skeptical, rather than just cynical. Who are you? Why are you here? Where are you going? I don't ask those in any greater context than the here and now.

i am a young adult male. i am in this thread because i enjoy discussing these things. im going to continue moving forward with my career and relationships.

File: 148509621941811.png (2MB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x960px

Morality is impossible without God.
Without God nihilism is absolutely correct.
Practical nihilism results in heaps of corpses.

>>133302593
I banged your mom

>>133329896

That's a little silly

God is just an imagined father figure, the self-actualized man is his own father-figure

>>133329559

>But if that were so, then you couldn't know that this statement is true

correct, i dont, i merely believe

>I may not understand Agrippa's Trilemma correctly, but I accept the fact that at some point, things will have to resolve to a set of axioms (hopefully small). I don't see that as a problem, however.

i dont see it as a problem either. but once we have "resolved to a set of axioms", rather than accepting that those axioms (and therefore all that is deduced from them) are certainly the truth, i instead say that there is no certain truth, rather we shall consider all true things to be true relative to these axioms. in other words all truth shall be relative to assumptions, and as long as everybody is aware that this is so, we can speak freely about what is true. that way when we disagree, we can be precise about where the disagreement lies.

>>133301009
The cosmological argument
The ontological argument
The teleological argument

Be careful anon you may become a theist

>>133301009
There are basically no good arguments for religion that aren't just logical fallacies. I would suggest researching about whether similar concepts about the same religion emerged in different areas at the same time or something, or modern day miracles that have been performed in the name of gods or saints. That's the only good way to get empirical evidence of something like this.

>>133301009
the best argument is to go fuck yourself you kike

>>133330283
>correct, i dont, i merely believe
To say "X believes Y." means that X thinks Y is true. To say "X knows Y." means that X thinks Y is true, and Y actually is true. So anything you believe which turns out to be true, will be things you know.

I'm not particularly bothered by my inability to attach a certainty of exactly 100% to anything I think is true. (To even calculate that accurately, you would need to already have an accurate description of the universe.) I'm more interested in thinking things to be true which actually are true. And that is achievable. Does that make sense?

>>133313616
Except the Bible says that illegal immigration is wicked. It also says that if a nation becomes a God rejecting hellhole like Europe has then it will be flooded by immigrants who do not work which the natives will pay their taxes to feed.

>>133329171

>But I'm not interested in explanatory power per se, I'm interested in what's actually true.

i believe "whats actually true" to be out of reach, like a mirage. not merely out of reach because we lack the capacity, but because we are reaching for substance where there is only appearance

>One ought to take into account many details and see what description of reality can be true of all of them simultaneously.

i think this sounds good, im curious to how you would relate this to belief in god

>>133329884
>not sure what youre getting at here, might be a good place to elaborate or try to explain differently, seems like the crux of what youre problem is with what ive said
You made assertions with respect to the nature of the Universe. God must be "material". Rationality and intuition are different. Free will is incoherent, etc etc.

Regardless of my position on any of these, if I adopt your worldview, we don't get anywhere on a single point. All I'm left with is skepticism, and nothing to build anything on. If I try to offer a position, you undermine it with skepticism, and ultimately, undermine your own claims with the same skepticism. It hasn't stopped you from making claims - including certainty is only in skepticism.

We go from discussing logical consistency of a metaphysical entity and coherence with reality to... you're skeptical. Tongue in cheek, but I'm only being forceful to illustrate what a mess we in, because the absurdity of this brand of skepticism is self-refuting.

Anyway, you enjoy the discussion, so maybe start on some sort of coherent epistemology. I mean, if you're only going to believe there is no truth in spite of the position defeating itself, it is at LEAST no more of a stretch to merely believe there IS truth, given the position is, at least on its face, not self-refuting.

File: 1453522882184.png (67KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1000x1000px

>>133301009
without it people believe in bill nye's sex junk and butt stuff and all one race because star stuff.

>>133330907

>To say "X believes Y." means that X thinks Y is true. To say "X knows Y." means that X thinks Y is true, and Y actually is true

i dont think that definition of "X knows Y" is appropriate. For instance, imagine a child is asked what they believe the square root of 400 is. The child doesnt know any good method of finding square roots, and doesnt have any square roots memorized, but they think real hard and they decide they think the square root of 400 is 20. nobody confirms whether thats right, they just decides thats their answer. its true that the square root of 400 is 20, and they believe it, but they still do not know it.

i believe this to be an analogy to our relationship with knowledge as a whole. When you get really strict about what is true and what is not, the process breaks down to agrippa's trilemma. we have no way of solving it and nobody to confirm or deny our answer. but we come up with one anyway and run with it. the answer is our axioms. they feel right to us, and they've never failed us yet, so why not. we dont know that they are true, but some of them feel so true we have trouble imagining them being false

>>133331067
>i think this sounds good, im curious to how you would relate this to belief in god
Well, I used to be a proponent of materialistic naturalism, but I encountered too many serious problems. One could be resolved by switching one part to another philosophy, but another problem would require a different philosophy. I eventually found that the only overall philosophy without any deal-breakers fell into the theistic camp. E.g. A problem with my old view of Naturalism was that it required all causes to originate from within the universe itself (a "causally closed" universe). But by Tarski's Undefinability Theorem, a system at least as complex as simple arithmetic cannot contain its own truth function (mapping statements onto whether they are true). Since the universe can itself act as the truth function, there are things that are true about the universe that it cannot source.

(continued)

File: ayylmao.jpg (70KB, 530x530px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 530x530px

>>133301591
>I think of the words told by a total stranger blindly
>Therefore he is correct

>>133331335

>You made assertions with respect to the nature of the Universe. God must be "material". Rationality and intuition are different. Free will is incoherent, etc etc.

agreed, i do make assertions, and these assertions are vulnerable to all sorts of skepticism

>If I try to offer a position, you undermine it with skepticism

i disagree. i do not think i have undermined any of your assertions with skepticism. you are actually the one to bring skepticism into the discussion. your claim was that a physical mechanism underlying thoughts and decisions would prevent us from trusting our thoughts and decisions.

on the contrary, i do not believe radical skepticism undermines any position. it is because of my radical skepticism that i reject this specific kind of skpeticism, if that makes sense. im essentially saying that your skepticism here is no more justified than it would be toward anything.

>>133331618

i also thought of a better example. youre playing hide and seek. your friend hides in a closet. you believe he hid in the closet. it was true, but did you actually know he hid in the closet?

>>133331819
Another example is the problem of entropy: time evolution in quantum physics occurs via Unitary transforms (which don't change the entropy) and Projections (which create information and are time irreversible). But then we ought to have reached thermodynamic equilibrium by now, which we certainly haven't, because there is no meaningful work in such a universe. This points to something external to time having created this low-entropy spacetime which we enjoy.

Another example is determinism, which used to be the view in the 1700s and 1800s due to Newtonian physics. (Atheists still talk in deterministic terms like "we're all just meat machines" or "a product of our chemistry".) But in fact, that is not the way the universe is structured at all. Any quantity lacks determinism vs. its canonical conjugate (from the Hamiltonian form of physics), and thus even the separate spin components on an electron cannot form a deterministic sub-universe. But note that it does allow for an external agent to interact with the universe without breaking it, while simultaneously permitting us to be agents of decision (which if you read the Bible, you'll see is what God is primarily interested in wrt humans.)

I've encountered numerous others, but I think I'm droning on a bit, sorry!

>>133330251
>father-figure
I dont get how is this related. Without God we are merely an accident. As result of coincidences and laws of physics a planet in an optimal region of the universe occurred. Once accidentally phospholipids formed a sphere that entrapped self replicating molecules, fast forward billions of years and you will get humans. Our consciousness and any thoughts are just gradients in the brain. "You" (consciousness, memories, ideas, etc.) are just a result of the interaction of your neurons. Emotions are just pre-programmed responses to situations that are a part of our behavior due to evolution of us as social animals. Meaning is a subjective social construct. Objectively life has absolutely no meaning, existence is absurd.

>>133332277

>on the contrary, i do not believe radical skepticism undermines any position. it is because of my radical skepticism that i reject this specific kind of skpeticism, if that makes sense

to clarify, i believe that if you demand justification of ALL your beliefs, including the axioms from which you make deductions, you will find that nothing can satisfy your demands. this is the radical skepticism.

your belief was that believing a physical mechanism underlies our rational mind would introduce an uncertainty that is not there when your understanding of the rational mind is that it is not part of any causal system

>>133331618
>The child doesnt know any good method of finding square roots, and doesnt have any square roots memorized, but they think real hard and they decide they think the square root of 400 is 20. nobody confirms whether thats right, they just decides thats their answer. its true that the square root of 400 is 20, and they believe it, but they still do not know it.
So the child was confident it was true, and it was true, but you say they didn't know it was true? It sounds like you require the person to have rationale which you approve of to consider it knowing, but at the same time you say you do not accept any rationale as sufficient, and thus it sounds like you've defined away the possibility of knowing as a customary thing (in Aristotle's way of speaking).

>youre playing hide and seek. your friend hides in a closet. you believe he hid in the closet. it was true, but did you actually know he hid in the closet?
Sometimes the word "believe" is used to mean "think it is a possibility", which seems to be the case here. He didn't so much believe that his friend was in the closet as he believed it was a possibility worth investigating, right?

>>133301009
Pol is a collective hivemind of failed individuals who come together over something basic as skin color. They are losers, and from this resentment escalates racism and other garbage ideologies. I look forward to war, as an upper class citizen, to purge America of whiney losers, both black and white, whom of which have no respect for the work and cultivation that defines the individual.

>>133328815
What kind of backwards place are you?

>>133332732
>to clarify, i believe that if you demand justification of ALL your beliefs
Which is entirely the point. Justify belief in God. God is the presupposition. It is the axiom. Your worldview adopts fundamentally different axioms.

>your belief was that believing a physical mechanism underlies our rational mind would introduce an uncertainty that is not there when your understanding of the rational mind is that it is not part of any causal system
It is that there is no reason to assume chance particle interaction would produce true conclusions "about" stuffs these particles are disassociated. It isn't even uncertainty. It is 0 correlation from the start. The effects (reason) do not follow from the cause (chance partical interaction).

Since our starting points are so different, we're not left with much alternative but to poke holes in something and see what's left standing. You disagree, the above is not a reason to doubt rationality. OK. You say free will is incoherent. Elaborate. Poke holes. Does it illuminate a fundamental conflict in the worldview?

We're only looking for consistency. What can't be true by its own definition excludes itself - untrue by definition.

>>133301009
Civilization.

>>133333109

>So the child was confident it was true, and it was true, but you say they didn't know it was true?

yes, seems very reasonable to me

>Sometimes the word "believe" is used to mean "think it is a possibility", which seems to be the case here. He didn't so much believe that his friend was in the closet as he believed it was a possibility worth investigating, right?

he didnt merely think it was a possibility. he examined many different possibilities and he believed that the closet was more likely to be his friend's hiding spot than any other location he could've hidden in. he was right. but he still did not know.

>It sounds like you require the person to have rationale which you approve of to consider it knowing, but at the same time you say you do not accept any rationale as sufficient, and thus it sounds like you've defined away the possibility of knowing

youre right, but only if we take the maximal definition of knowing. im willing to accept the possibility of knowledge relative to assumptions.

>>133301009
It keeps the unintelligent citizens of a society in order.
Reasonably intelligent people can grasp philosophy, and use logic to rationalize not acting like a nigger.

People below that level of intelligence, however, are unable to fully grasp the effects of their actions on others, only the effects on themselves. Hence, "do bad shit and you burn for all eternity" is a more effective deterrent for them than "do bad shit and you degrade the overall quality of society a bit for everyone else."

>>133332573
>>133331819

i dont find any of these examples to be very convincing as problems with materialistic naturalism.

but i think what really matters is that im not a materialist/naturalist and i dont think your only options are 1-believe in god, 2-believe in these highly specific formulations of materialism/naturalism

File: heisenberg.jpg (37KB, 403x383px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 403x383px

>>133334504
>i dont find any of these examples to be very convincing as problems with materialistic naturalism.
Two of them are literal deal-breakers. I would suggest delving into the actual physics behind the universe, and don't be tempted by the simpler pop-sci versions. It takes time, but is very much worth it.

Unfortunately, it is quite late here, and my wife has come reminding me of the time, so I'll just leave you with pic related, an accurate portrayal of my experience with determining what is true of the universe. Good night and God Bless, anon!

>>133334154

>Which is entirely the point. Justify belief in God. God is the presupposition. It is the axiom. Your worldview adopts fundamentally different axioms.

i prefer to start with axioms that allow us to deduce valuable explanatory theories.

>It is that there is no reason to assume chance particle interaction would produce true conclusions "about" stuffs these particles are disassociated.

"chance" is being misused here. unless youre referring to actual indeterminate quantum phenomena. "chance" does not govern neurons, nor does it govern human evolution.

>The effects (reason) do not follow from the cause (chance partical interaction)

they literally do just that. reason is an emergent phenomena. it consists of huge set of different behaviors and experiences which themselves consist of smaller events and patterns at every level of reduction, psychological, social, biological, chemical, etc.

you rationally decide to get a job and create a future for yourself. you physically get yourself to the interview, you physically speak to the interviewer. these events consist of trillions on trillions of molecular events. your skin molecules push through air molecules with their greater cohesion. the electrons of your molecules repel the electrons of other molecules with the electromagnetic force. etc

at which point does your "will" intervene and physics break down? this is the essence of my point. reality is an ocean of events that are all simultaneously caused and causing each other. there is no way to understand or define any single event without placing it in relation to the rest of the universe.

reduction is taking a larger phenomena and describing in terms of interactions between smaller constituents

>>133335009

>Two of them are literal deal-breakers. I would suggest delving into the actual physics behind the universe, and don't be tempted by the simpler pop-sci versions. It takes time, but is very much worth it.

i suggest you do the same, funny that you literally posted a pop-sci meme as you said this. >50% of high level physicists do not believe in God, so an appeal to authority here is not going to work.

File: 1435641425157.jpg (54KB, 400x580px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 400x580px

>>133301009

>telling all of society that none of this shit really matters is going to work out fine guys i swear

>>133301613
>is the only logical running theory
nigger you are jumping to conclusions, evidence has to shape your thoughs, no the other way

>>133334154

>You say free will is incoherent. Elaborate

free will is incoherent because causation is reduction.

i believe as hume says in the enquiry of human understanding that we do not ever observe a cause bringing about an effect, we only ever observe the constant conjunction in time and space of phenomena.

reduction is taking a complex phenomena, and describing in terms of a constant conjunction of smaller phenomena. for instance: salt dissolves in water. what is the cause of that phenomena? we look at the salt molecules and find that they are separated into ions which bond loosely with water molecules. what is the cause of that phenomena? we observe the polarity of these molecules, negative attracts positive, and repels negative.

never do we reach a final, ultimate understanding of why salt dissolves in water. what we achieve is a picture with greater and greater detail of just how the events and objects of the universe relate to each other in time and space.

so how does this relate to free will? to say that humans have free will is to say we cause our own actions. but as i've shown above, we do not actually observe causation, we reduce phenomena to interactions between constituent phenomena. if we are to understand the cause of our actions, we must reduce these actions to constituent phenomena.

essentially libertarian free will is just giving up. its taking the effect: we do something, we make a decision, and saying "there is nothing else, no cause, just the effect". Like if a ball was rolling down a hill, and you said, "the ball is rolling down the hill of its own free will. the ball chose to roll down". that is no explanation at all, you're simply restating the event but adding a meaningless addition

>>133301009

If people don't have God, they worship the state instead and begin to forfeit more and more personal responsibility until the government runs every aspect of you life. It's why communists prefer Atheists, because churches bring communities together to tackle issues without the government's help.

As an Atheist with strong anti-government Libertarian leanings, this was a hard redpill to swallow.

>>133335809
>needing the promise of an afterlife to justify being productive
shiggy

>>133336564
>>133334154

sorry, that was an explanation of why i think libertarian free will is meaningless, not incoherent

the explanation of why its incoherent is different. the principle of sufficient reason states that for an effect to occur, a sufficient cause must necessarily have occurred.

if an object was its own cause, then for it to occur, it must necessarily have already occurred.

Yeah, religions exist. Are you stupid?

/thread

>>133301009
It's the best population control tool ever made. Would you belive that some of them even have people thell their religious officials about everythingt wrong and shameful they have done? Out of their own will?

>>133324016
>I have two apples
You can't even define what a single apple is letalone two.

>>133301009
Atheist here
The best argument I have for religion is that we seem to have a worship instinct that without religion moves onto some other ideology and such devotion to ideology creates political fanatics and shit gets nasty
The sad fact seems to be that the majority of folks that become irreligious become degenerate rather than an ubermensch

>>133336564

>no explanation at all, you're simply restating the event but adding a meaningless addition

Which is exactly what theists do regarding the origin of the universe. It's still a mystery, all we know is that it happened. Theists add "and god did it", but we are no closer to understanding

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

2MB, 2700x6826px

Here you go

Even better this short interactive quiz

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

File: 1480609735786.jpg (28KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x282px

>>133302593

>>133327512
>What comes before logic?

Axioms

>>133336132
Until evidence has proven otherwise, it is the only running theory. Its impossible to ever know the answer, however I do think we should keep searching.

File: 1493805555724.png (347KB, 687x545px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 687x545px

>>133302593
Good one

>>133340384
It's not the only acceptable theory. "The world was always there" is at least as good as "a god was always there and he made the world". Not to mention that the world could be a simulation (and there's no way of knowing anything about the "external" world, let alone its beginning).

>>133332119
>meanings of words are equal and therefore comparable