Thoughts?

>>138949800
Sounds eerily similar to:
https://youtu.be/ZzkRHFl2ppw

It is irefutable logic. Some people are not ready to hear it though.

>>138949800
>or anything else

>>138949800
Logic, reasoning, scientific method, these are the tools that an atheist can use to give credence to their reasoning.

I believe in a supreme intelligence but it's not jesus' pappy

File: will you fight34.jpg (178KB, 634x634px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 634x634px

>>138949800

>>138949800
>Quantum vibrations occurring in the most complex piece of biology in nature is analogous to splashing around a jug of milk

I see where he is going with it, and I'm not sure when this quote is from so I think it would be rude for me to say "he is stupid for saying it", but I think given our knowledge of the universe in THE CURRENT, this quote doesn't hold up as well as it used to

>>138950648
The citation is below the text

File: kMinN.gif (619KB, 529x706px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 529x706px

>>138949800
>I can't trust my own thinking, nothing is real, but god must be real, lololol atheists btfo

>everything I think must be true
>otherwise I can't trust _______!

Really activates the almonds.

>>138950818
Yeah, 1943

I think he was on the right track philosophically, but I just don't the analogy holds up that well given our current understanding

>>138949800
A load of sophistry if I ever saw it.

>>138950824
Well no, the problem he brings up is naturalism's rejection of goal-directedness in nature with the reality of intentional states in consciousness. Either you have to say that consciousness deals with the non-physical or physical stuff has goal-directedness.

The fault of his is thinking that goal-directedness must mean God.

>>138949800
Think of evolution as billions of years of trial and error. It's not an intelligent method in the slightest.

It's a pretty good guess. Even Lewis took it as a guess he just found it to be the most reasonable choice. It's notable to say that Lewis wasn't exactly a bible thumper though.

I think I believe in God, I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like you could spend millions of lifetimes creating theories on why or how we're here, and never find a certain answer. For me the best answer is to just try and be a good person, and not hurt others in your lifetime. Love thy neighbor is a pretty good philosophy regardless of what you believe, and if Jesus Christ is Lord and savior then the best hope mankind has is his grace and mercy anyways.

>through misuse and overuse. It does not move us the way it moved our early Christian ancestors. In some European countries certain high ecclesiastical officials are still called “Your Grace.” Sportswriters spoke of Michael Jordan’s “easy grace,” while business mogul Donald Trump has been described as “lacking in grace.” A new perfume appears with “Grace” on the label, and a child’s report card is called a “disgrace.” The word has lost its raw, imaginative power. Fyodor Dostoyevsky caught the shock and scandal of the gospel of grace when he wrote: At the last Judgment Christ will say to us, “Come, you also! Come, drunkards! Come, weaklings! Come, children of shame!” And he will say to us: “Vile beings, you who are in the image of the beast and bear his mark, but come all the same, you as well.” And the wise and prudent will say, “Lord, why do you welcome them?” And he will say: “If I welcome them, you wise men, if I welcome them, you prudent men, it is because not one of them has ever been judged worthy.” And he will stretch out his arms, and we will fall at his feet, and we will cry out sobbing, and then we will understand all, we will understand the Gospel of grace! Lord, your Kingdom come! “ - Brennan Manning

>>138950648
No, I'd say we still struggle to make sense of intentional states. That's why stupidity like eliminating materialism exists.

>>138951561
Missed the first part of the quote.
>"The word itself, grace, has become trite and debased

>>138951739
Eliminative*

>i cannot trust your argument because maybe god designed your thoughts to betray your thoughts that you do not trust because you believe in god

File: O.O.jpg (8KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 240x240px

>>138949800
That is the fucking studiest shit I have ever heard.
0/10 troll from lewis and half you retards probably sincerely believe it. No wonder shills dupe you fucks so easily.

Good grief.

>>138951968
See >>138951367
It's far less stupid than you think.

>>138952025
>physical stuff has goal-directedness.
it does. it's called seeking a stable valence state

>>138949800

He's not wrong. But what they kids on pol will not grasp is that consciousness - that which the brain *organizes* - existed prior to matter and energy. Entropy is not "that which scatters and averages" but rather it converts matter into life. The inevitable corollary to the amusing but unsound concept of 'heat death' is the eventual 'life death' of the universe, where all matter and energy becomes part of a single flawless organism, which being all knows all and anticipates all motion into unchanging rhythm. This is primogenerator of a void facsimile, where in the mind of this perfect being, awareness fades to zero and from without the unconditioned consciousness the life manifests again through invention of matter, once more to organize into life in order to achieve self knowing consciousness.

This just repeats. 'god who created the universe' is and always was in any degree just simulation theory.

'but how does this all start' ourobouros, scientology jewel of knowledge, who gives a fuck im sleepy.

>>138952263
That's not at all goal-directedness. That's just mechanism.

File: cranmer.jpg (33KB, 580x387px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 580x387px

>>138951561
>It's notable to say that Lewis wasn't exactly a bible thumper though.

True. Lewis was never the type to misconstrued bits and pieces of scripture like fundamentalists do. He was a very logical Anglican that focused on the big picture. He even felt that Church was only important for the communion and that much of the ritual (and especially the sermons) were absurd. That said, he understood the true nature of the Gospel better than just about any other Englishman of his generation.

A great man and one of the last great theologians of our church.

>>138952263
>falling apart when unstable and staying together when stable is now teleological
Absolutely ridiculous.

>>138949800
All is product of millions died and alive cells. They deaths and lives are reason why we can think, talk, make, kill, give birth.

>>138949800
>I am literally too weak minded for logic and reason

Trusting in God when you don't trust your own thinking also sounds completely retarded and is a perfect way to ignore the cognitive dissonance in the back of your mind

he needs to assume the existence of god in order to justify his own argument

he cuts off the branch he is sitting on

>>138952584

The start of something requires time. Time is simply an illusion of self, by self. There is no time. There is no self.

>>138953068
>anon has no idea what he's even saying
>he's considered an intro theologian

Step your game up

>>138951561

You don't need god to do any of that crap you mention here. You only need you, wanting you to do it.

>>138952263

I lol'd at the reference to thermodynamics.

>>138949800

Fancy circular reasoning, sophistry at core.

I am a very reluctant atheist and a huge Narnia fan to boot.

For many entropy is too hard to grasp, and they retreat into the comforting blanket of belief.

For myself, entropy is too hard to ignore. I could blackpill people further but I'd rather uplift those around me.

It's terrible thing to be the only adult in the room on Christmas morning.

I try to wear this fedora low over my eyes, so I can't see anymore.

>>138949980
Pretty much

>>138949800
Because it's not just upsetting a milk jug. Simple life makes simple decisions that lead to their survival or not. Do that for a few hundred million years and the survivors will have the intelligence necessary to survive.

As to why we have greater intelligence than any other animal its hard to say. But that doesn't mean a creator must exist

>>138949980
an objective reality exists beyond your perception.

File: 1500103997788.jpg (35KB, 708x340px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 708x340px

>>138954006
I'm not sure if I want Reddit to go or stay. This post was very funny and cringe.

>>138949800
Natural selection explains why our thoughts are accurate enough to live.
It's like splashing milk ... billions of times, retaining the most accurate splashes each time and reproducing them.

File: N.E.E.T.jpg (414KB, 1024x1820px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1024x1820px

>>138949800
>It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping the way it splashes itself will give you a map of london

It's like doing that 100 million times until you actually do get that result

>>138949800

>But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?
This is the part I don't get.

File: 9e7aff1e16a416feb189583e0c1fd637450c0c1cb4aab976cde2275ccc30d623.jpg (74KB, 470x960px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 470x960px

>>138954474
See >>138951367
His argument is primarily the Problem of Intentionality. The failure is that he assumes natural intent means God.

>>138954006
tf is entropy. some dude at the bar told me it was that everything is slowly pulling apart. then some other dude told him he was wrong and said a bunch of shit i ignored

>>138954637
cant u explain it without using these phrases that noone has heard of

>>138955057
Besides "natural intent" I'm using solely academic terms. What confuses you?

This argument is bullshit. If there is a god, it didn't give you the ability to think and reason just so you can say "Nahhhh pffft. That's just MAN'S reason, not the logic of a spaceless, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent deity." :)

>>138953644
Did I imply you did?

>>138955144
honestly the OP does.

so.. why cant he believe in thought without God? what is "naturalisms rejection of goal directedness"? naturalism is that natural laws don't deal with supernatural right? so since everything is a result of randomness there is no goal? shit just goes? what is the Problem of Intentionality? this shit is hurting my head while trying to learn what entropy is

>>138950235
Logic is the word of god

File: evropa.jpg (88KB, 384x720px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 384x720px

>>138954637
Fixed it anon

>>138954944
Entropy is a law of science which basically states systems tend to decay towards a direction of more chaos over time.

The expansion of the universe is an example.

A glass of water left out to evaporate is another example.

Some people believe that because evolution exists, a process which seemingly defies entropy (organisms evolve and become more complex and sophisticated), that evolution itself is evidence of some form of intelligent design.

>>138949800
you're assuming low iq atheists could even wrap their brain around C.S. Lewis' ideas.

what you need to understand is that atheists are mediocre people that have a high opinion of their own intellect. The problem isn't convincing them of a logical argument, it's breaking through their own egotism.

>>138954214
prove it

>>138949800
the most retarded rationale for trying to understand what god is or isn't. CS lewis was an author, not an intellectual genius. this post makes it painfully obvious.

tldr:
CS lewis is a retard.

>>138954119
>survivors will have the intelligence necessary to survive.

correct.

and there is no reason to assume that the intelligence needed for survival-- survival long enough to biologically reproduce -- is the kind of intelligence that lets you perceive objective truth or to reason about reality correctly.

naturalism assumes optimization around fitness for reproduction, and nothing else.

atheists on /pol/ simultaneously believe that the dumbest humans reproduce the most, but that humans developing perfect rationality is somehow the result of evolutionary fitness for reproduction...

humans are some of the longest gestation, highest-cost sexual reproducers. almost every creature less intelligent than us reproduces more often and faster...

there's no reason to assume that humans needed to develop rational, trustworthy intelligence in order to have a better chance of reproducing. every lower order, lower intelligence form of life manages to get along just fine.

>>138956537
>towards a direction of more chaos over time.
I never understood this, as apparently we're moving towards a heat death, where the entire universe is cold and still. How is that more chaotic?

>>138959649
>makes no argument
>tldr's a one line post
pretty sure you're retarded yourself

>>138959649
Ad hom

Genetic fallacy

Didn't even address the argument

better luck next time.

>>138959871
>where the entire universe is cold and still

it actually takes energy to hold matter together. more complex atoms [higher atomic mass] are almost always radioactive, that is, they cannot hold together indefinitely

complex structures in our universe are unstable, in proportion to the degree of complexity.

there is no organization, no order at all in just sprinkling little hydrogen atoms throughout the vacuum of space.

where you see heavier atoms, asteroids, planets, stars... this is complexity. this is where matter, for some reason, globbed onto other matter and organized into something more interesting and complicated.

chaos is the absence of order. matter is energy; matter has organization; matter represents little concentrations of energy.

why should the energy concentrate in particular spots?

it shouldn't.

and at the end of the universe, it won't.

>>138954398

Yes. He's so egocentric thinking that he must be the only answer to his own intellect, yet throws away the cost of evolutionary success and lineages, millions of years it took to achieve a natural progression to our brains. Throwing milk around hoping it takes some form is a beyond retarded comparison to actual living things and the reasons evolutionary adaptions happen. Goes without saying that religious people need retarded arguments to, well, argue (yes, ad hominem)

Yes, if you had enough milk and time, you could spill it in the shape of anything. Like Jesus appearing on toast. It will happen, since we seek to identify comfy images on things. It does not mean anything to the toast, milk or anything outside giving it a religious or supernatural retarded meaning.

>>138949800
So he's saying if the mind is randomly created, It might as well have random thought patterns that can't be trusted?
Why does he come to this conclusion? "If god created your brain then it works, if not then it doesn't." I don't see how that concision follows.
The brain takes signals through sensory functions to understand the outside world. Thought is developed from experience. I don't see how there being a god or not changes the way the brain works.

>>138950235
btfo op

>>138960168
the vacuum of space seems to me to be less chaotic than the center of a star. we're going from the Big Bang (high chaos) to absolute heat death (low chaos).
>chaos is the absence of order
i kinda get what you're saying, doesn't strike me as intuitive though.

>>138949800
>I can't believe in anything unless a bearded skydaddy made me just for him

This is not an argument.

>>138949800
Its just more of Lewis "sounds smart and witty but actually pretty hollow quips"

A material origin of intelligence gives just as much reason to doubt ones own ability to tell the truth.

Its just with the immaterial he has an unquestioned assumption of it automatically being better.

Not only that its got a a bad analogy and a false dichotomy "you can either have 100% certainty in your beliefs or you cant have beliefs at all"

Hes a more talented and christian equivalent of Peter Hitchens.

>>138949800
the human brain is a comparative logic engine which makes decisions, often complete assumptions- on a combination of input and experience.

Thoughts are never about something as linear as true or false, but accuracy.

Accuracy is what you should strive for.

>>138949980
>irefutable logic
I can lie
>that's irrefutable
You're just stupid (irrefutably)

File: 1437964592210.jpg (72KB, 600x801px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x801px

I'm playing the devil's advocate here but that reasoning isn't correct. Thought isn't the by-product of atoms and chemical reactions, it's called evolution when a single cell organism evolved into multi cell organisms. Then these organisms made use of probability calculation for the sake of survival, which got improved over time from "there's an apple on the tree, but the branch hangs over a cliff, if I climb the branch I'll fall off the cliff and die" to more intricate abstract thinking.
In this case the only thing that you can argue for is the creation of single cell life forms, but that's a whole different debate I think.

>>138951409
This, evolution is practically a brute force approach to life. Do you look at your body and ever think that someone fucking designed it??? Who the fuck would design this shit? So many singular points of failure. If I was designed "intelligently" why the fuck don't I have two hearts?

All this and I still believe in God, I just don't think that think he had as integral a part in our existence as some would assume.

>>138959871

>>138960168 this

>>138960669
Many things in science are counter-intuitive. For example, how can something be both a particle, and a wave? It doesn't make logical sense when you hear it, but it's something that has been tested and observed enough to be considered a fact.

Logic itself is an internal process in the human mind, meaning it's subject to the biases and limitations of the individual - this is why a hypothesis in science must undergo rigorous experimentation to evolve into theories, and eventually, laws. What seems logical to a theoretical physicist may not seem logical to a carpenter.

We live in a crazy world, man.

>>138949800
It makes no difference either way. In order to experience 'being' you need consciousness, if there is an absence of consciousness there is no 'being'. Probability states that if something exists now or in the past it has a probability of existing. Anything with a probability of existing, no matter how remote that chance, nor how much time it takes will eventually repeat itself. Given that the timeframe is infinity it is a logical fact that not only will you exist again, but you have already existed infinite times.

Logic shows that the universe doesnt need a God for us to return. Time only exists when you are 'being'. So even if gazillions of years pass before everything happens again, itll be as though you blinked. Although you wont retain any memories because technically you never existed before.

>>138961263
it's not god I deny, it's religion.


I won't deny that some religions have good merits, and that some can be very fulfilling ways of life. I don't mind these and think they can even be beneficial.

But then there are others who spout nonsense like heaven and hell and that you must follow their rulebook and behave and you get rewarded.

I don't trust another man telling me I will be rewarded in heaven for doing what he says, because what he says is the word of god.

He's a man.

He's on the same trip you are.

He's not responsible for your afterlife if there is one. Nothing he says has any real merit, he just wants you to trust him and do what he says. That just seems evil to me.

>>138961767
>>>138959871 (You)
>>>138960168 this
>>>138960669 (You)
>thising the post replying to mine which i then replied to
>For example, how can something be both a particle, and a wave?
it can't, though light exhibits each trait depending on circumstances. it doesn't make sense according to our current understanding but the test seems to show our current understanding to be wrong somehow. who knows.
light also seems to know the future and behave accordingly, the double slit experiment is cooked.

>>138949800
The key issue missing is consciousness. Thought I'd a by product of consciousness. Focus on the question of "what is consciousness"?

Imagine a diamond the size of the sun. Once every billion years a butterfly floats by and gently brushes its wing against the surface. Now imagine how long this process would need to repeat in order for that sun sized diamond to be worn completely away. Now realise that the enormous amount of time you just imagined is nothing compared to the infinity that awaits.

>>138962257
*thought is a byproduct

Its a poor argument.

There is no reason to assume the origin of a structure has anything to do with the function of a structure first of all.

Second of all, there is no reason to assume that intelligence created by a conscious entity would be more reliable then intelligence created by a semi-random process. Especially if that intelligence is malicious.

Aquinas arguments on the foundations of knowledge based on Aristolean logic is better epistemology then this.

t. Christian

>>138962063
I understand you. If God exists then we are already it. Prophets are the ones who woke up to this fact - dont treat anyone badly because everyone is you. If you had had their experiences you too would be out murdering kids, so dont judge them, pity them and above all love them, because its you! Religions are started by nothing short of Mafias and they quickly remove the thoughts of the actual prophet.

File: 15036506237411549245471.jpg (63KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 400x400px

Only Agnostic Theists have the enlightenment path; all other paths lead to kys.

Most of the USA's founding fathers were Agnostic Theists.

>>138962468
The "it came from nothing" part is not that crazy since we can already prove that something can come from nothing. Quantum fluctuation and virtual particles are real things.

Theism devoid of Organized Religion is the true red pill.

>>138949980
Even though I'm Christian, it's not irrefutable. His analogy anyway. Instead of spilling the milk and expecting a map of London, spill the milk every year over 80 million years. Eventually you'll have something that looks like a map of London.

>>138949800
If god exists and is the all knowing and all powerfull entity you can't think. you are merely a puppet moved by his thought. Your thoughts aren't your but his.
Go back to jacking off to god-lions and calling space exploration satanic, lewis.

>>138962122
It can though.

Explain to me how the double slit experiment is cooked.

>>138963631
>Explain to me how the double slit experiment is cooked.
I'm not calling it into question, only saying that it blows apart our understanding of light, to the point where the experiment's results don't make any sense. Light is two things at once, that's not supposed to be possible. It also knows the future, that was unimaginable.

>>138962858
How does having more instances of something being created from nothing make it any less bizarre?

File: Kill Yourself.gif (64KB, 600x920px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x920px

>>138949800
>>138949980

So is he saying he has no evidence from his entire life experience to suggest that an atheist's thoughts can prove correct?

>merely when atoms etc arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought

Cunt! So there are no external factors in your thought? This faggot walks up to a door and doesn't know how to interact with the handle until he jiggles his brain around enough? If not, he's patently wrong about thoughts being 'merely' a by product of atomic arrangement.

>If so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?

Because almost all thoughts are based upon and follow experiences.

>like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of london

Absolute idiocy anyone who cannot refute this pathetic creationist tier argument please refer to pic related.

BTW reality is inherently conscious, and our brains can be thought of as a receiver that allows us to individually perceive reality as yourself. Which is why you're perceiving yourself in your body and mind and not in my body and mind. Different receivers. Just think of it as a radio picking up airwaves. The radio isn't the signal, it's just the device to pick it up.

The only difference is that I believe when you die, that part(station) you were tuned into stays with you.

>>138963764
>That's not supposed to be possible
What do you mean by this? There isn't really any law that says that this would be impossible.
>>138963831
Just tried to say that the "it came from nothing" isn't that strange of an argument since it's already happening all around us.

>>138963831
Quantum mechanics, was never intended to be normal. Science marches on towards the even less normal anon. That's how it works.

>>138963764
>Light is two things at once, that's not supposed to be possible

It only seems impossible if you accept the notion that we ever had a perfect understanding of what is and isn't possible - a notion that doesn't exist in science.

Just because we don't yet fully understand how it can be, don't change the apparent fact that it is.

File: Ocean-Pollution.jpg (72KB, 675x450px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 675x450px

>>138956537
more complex and more sophisticated does not necessarily mean tendency to harmony instead of to decay and chaos

>>138963631
RARE

>>138964083
nothing else behaves in that way, before that experiment the idea of duality wasn't thought to be possible. at least as far as i'm aware.
>since it's already happening all around us.
which is equally strange

>>138964177
>Science marches on towards the even less normal anon
it's marching on towards the incomprehensible

>>138964359
i agree, it's just reality is much stranger than i used to think, and it keeps getting stranger.

>>138949800
I like C. S. Lewis in general, but that's a fallacy. The thoughts produced by the brain are not even remotely comparable to the milk splashed from an upset milk jug.

>>138959499
It is only logical to assume an extremely powerful, intelligent timeless consciousness or multiple consciousnesses, created the universe. Anything else doesn't make sense.

>>138964691
prove objective reality exists pls

>>138949800
thats the most retarded thing ive ever read

>>138950824
this pretty much

File: 1503636488769-1823336757.jpg (301KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1500x1500px

>>138964076
Reality is actually separate from consciousness. It can be easy proved, and has been many times. Let me explain the experiment:

Equipment needed: Isolation chamber filled with warm salty water. The salt is added to provide buoyancy.

Place a willing human inside the isolation chamber now such that they can't hear, see, smell, feel or taste anything outside. Basically you are depriving the mind/body/spirit system of this human any outside stimulus.

Wait 2 hours and the human is begging to come out banging on the walls inside the chamber.

Findings:

1) After about 60 min the human subject experiences vivid images, feelings, smells "so real" that they say the experimenters must have come in and tricked me.

2) Chemical analysis of the subjects brain shows that mind created natural psychedelics we made. This is likely what caused the vivid hallucinations.

3) Supposition #1 - The Mind requires stimulation to the point of creating its own if needed.

4) Supposition #2 - Because the mind can create a false reality, but the self believes it is real, ergo consciousness does not care about true or false reality. Thus, consciousness is a separate "something" from our idea of reality.

File: rubens-oordeel-salomon_grt.jpg (258KB, 1046x833px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1046x833px

Who cares? Christianity used to be really cool though

>>86848425
>I can never use thought to disbelieve in God because I can't trust it
>However, I can use thought to believe in God even though I can't trust it

nah dude

>>138964418
This is true. I wasn't trying to imply that is fact evidence of intelligent design - just mentioning that some people have that view, because it's relevant to OP's topic.

>>138951367
>naturalism's rejection of goal-directedness in nature with the reality of intentional states in consciousness
>Either you have to say that consciousness deals with the non-physical or physical stuff has goal-directedness.
The argument is bs
There are no intentional states in consciousness. I'd say there is no consciousness at all.
Only complex naturally evolved computing machines behaving as if there is something inside their heads other than algorithms

>>138956334
hell yeah when do we start the human sacrfices?

>>138964930
Dismissing C.S.Lewis as retarded only shows the level of your ignorance.

What Lewis refers to as 'Atheism' is what would be referred to contemporarily as 'strong atheism'.

The strong/weak atheism distinction is as follows:
- Strong atheists assert that there is no god.
- Weak atheists do not assert that there is a god.

Lewis' argument does indeed show that the claim "there is no god" cannot be known, and thus is not justified in being assert. Hence he does refute strong atheism. But I would argue that his argument for theism (and against weak atheism) fails: clearly thought, whatever it is, does happen/exist, as he says, but it is incorrect to claim, based solely on the argument presented in the OP, that there must be a god to allow for thought.

Moreover, another flaw in Lewis' reasoning is the jump to a singular deity, and in particular, the proper noun God, or Yahweh, the Abrahamic deity, instead of perhaps a pantheon or maybe some other singular deity.