/lit/ - Literature

>>16825856
Important addendums:
https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Efilism_Wiki
Our philosophical argumentations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijFm6DxNVyI
Kurzgesagt illustrates an effective life-wiping universal mechanism that could forever remove suffering

>>16825856
Antinatalism isn’t the cold, harsh reality. Antinatalism is a way for those who’ve lost the genetic lottery and are condemned to be too sensitive for this world to convince themselves that they are less alone, and actually everyone is suffering as much as them but deluded about it. I was an antinatalist for a while, OP, and I can assure you you’re just coping. Read some of Orgy of the Will by icycalm if you want an actual jolt to your comforting lies and consolations, and then move onto Nietzsche from there. Otherwise, suicide or even asceticism are much more legitimate roads for you than sticking around to whine aimlessly.

>>16825915
idk you sound pretty unhappy

>>16825915
>blah blah blah cope read this book
Good job on proving the OP right, retard

>>16825856
Why do you not kill yourself? This is a serious question

>>16825967
>Why do you not kill yourself? This is a serious question
I am biologically hardwired to not kill myself
Plus, unlike natalists, as a rational moral agent, i sincerely hope to convince others to cease perpetuating the cycle of meaningless suffering, or perhaps even collectively, we could convince enough people to wipe out all life using advanced futuristic weaponry

>>16825856
> absolute truth of the nihilistic darkness
>Why do non-pessimists insist so much that antinatalism/efilism isn't, objectively speaking, the moral route
Nihilism implies that nothing matters, so there is no moral route because there is not morality. Perhaps people don't like antinatalism because it's promoted by people who don't actually understand they words they use.

>>16825958
Ah yes, antinatalists sure are detached and rational people. Stay in your comfort zone then I guess

>>16825928
Who said I was?

>>16825996
You're a coward. Suicide being a reality disproves the biological imperative.

>>16825996
>I am biologically hardwired to not kill myself
Lots of people do it everyday and they're all hardwired to not do it. All that's lacking is your will to kill yourself. If life is as you say, you should waste no time in dying.
>Plus, unlike natalists, as a rational moral agent, i sincerely hope to convince others to cease perpetuating the cycle of meaningless suffering, or perhaps even collectively, we could convince enough people to wipe out all life using advanced futuristic weaponry
Sorry? Life has no meaning or value, which is why we must direct our lively energies to ending life everywhere?

>>16825998
>Nihilism implies that nothing matters, so there is no moral route because there is not morality. Perhaps people don't like antinatalism because it's promoted by people who don't actually understand they words they use.
It is not a contradiction because suffering is grounded in objective reality, unlike ideas of a sky fairy called God or that we have some sort of ability to acquire meaning despite everything scientifically known going against this, suffering is intrinsically bad by its' very definition, being a bad mental state, it IS nihilistic to recognize the objective reality of suffering and that its' lack of any opposite equal, with pleasure not being any sort of meaning but a biological mechanism to distract from our purposelessness; Our morality, unlike natalists, is founded on a mix of empathy AND understanding the universe, retard, that's why we advocate for nonexistence as an escape from it all.

>You're a coward. Suicide being a reality disproves the biological imperative.
Let's say i'm a coward, did i choose to be a coward who can't kill herself? No, we simply lack the means to measure up all the billions of years of preceding causal factors such as my DNA, the exact details of my upbringing and the exact details of my surroundings which have led to this cowardice, nobody actually chooses anything you fucking hardcore coper, there's equally as much evidence of free will as there is of "God".

>>16826084
>herself

Tits or GTFO

>>16826065
>All that's lacking is your will to kill yourself. If life is as you say, you should waste no time in dying.
What about my mix of genuine moral concern and true understanding of the harsh facts of reality?
>>16826147
>Tits or GTFO
Typical, i shouldn't even have let that slip, but oh well, i'm not just about to post sexual content of myself to random creeps.

>>16826163
Why? Nothing matters. It's pointless to be concerned about the ideas of some creeps.

>>16826163
The most moral universe to you is one where suffering no longer takes place because humans no longer exist to suffer, is that right?

Should your attempts to convince people to bring about human nonexistence totally fail, surely you would consider it moral to kill as many humans as you can and then kill yourself, as to bring us as close to nonexistence as you are able?

>>16826163
>i'm not just about to post sexual content of myself to random creeps
It's not like your life is getting any more meaningful

>>16826084
I will never understand anti-natalist who neither kill themselves nor others. They just like whining and bringing attention to themselves by being edgy. All theory and absolutely no action; you're no different from a 15 year old girl writing sad poetry about the beauty of death.

>>16826211
>>16826221
>>16826232
Why do you have to be assholes ontop of wrong?

I'm not posting my chest because simply put, the resulting judgement would result in even more internal suffering for myself.

I'm not acting out IRL and going on a school shooting or something because it is absolutely worthless to eradicate an infinitesimal percentage of the population doing nothing but making their loved ones suffer, it's not just meaningless but outright bad.

>>16826262
Assholes? Wait, does courtesy still matter even if life itself doesn't?

>>16826262
blah blah blah post your tits you useless cunt

>>16826262
>All human life should end and life is meaningless
>I'm not gonna kill myself
>I'm not gonna demean myself
>I'm not gonna kill others
>I am going to wait for other to agree with me and then end all human life on my behalf

You are a fuckin stupid nigger

>>16826262
Life is worthless in itself, every act is. The suffering you'd be alleviating in the victims you are able to take down would by far surpass those of their loved ones, specially if you kill very young people with long lives ahead of them. Liberate them early from their earthly torment, spare them from the rudimentary pain of every day existence. Their parents brought their grief upon themselves by being irresponsible and selfish by breeding.

>>16826262
Less talk, more titties

>>16826270
>Assholes? Wait, does courtesy still matter even if life itself doesn't?
Not causing more suffering matters, overt aggressiveness to "outsiders" will psychologically transfer to their paradigm of reality
>blah blah blah post your tits you useless cunt
And for what purpose, to pass an arbitrary check of "deserving" of posting?
>All human life should end and life is meaningless
You forgot the part where suffering and consent matter too
>>16826317
Pic related

>>16826317
“Midwit” charts are the funniest cope of all time. Imagine priding yourself on sharing opinions with retards. A sign that you thought yourself stupid

>>16825996
If you are biologically hardwired not to kill yourself, then you do not care about preventing pain as much as you care about acquiring pleasure.

>cease perpetuating the cycle of meaningless suffering
You are the one who chooses to view the suffering as meaningless.

>we could convince enough people to wipe out all life using advanced futuristic weaponry
Not only is it unlikely to wipe out all life, the people that spread these ideas are usually too depressed and dysfunctional to spread them, let alone actually make a change in the world. Additionally, life would just start all over again, raising different problems. It's an exercise in futility, and a scientific pipe dream (unless you basically believe in a God that follows your beliefs, or that we can make such a "god").

"You are biologically hardwired not to kill yourself." Then how are you going to convince other people to wipe out life, if they are "biologically hardwired" against such wanton massacre? It's basically anti-utopianism, and it's just as unlikely.

>>16826084
>suffering is grounded in objective reality
By this, you mean it is an immediate reality.

>we have some sort of ability to acquire meaning despite everything scientifically known going against this
Then I have just disproven the modern scientific corpus by acquiring meaning.

>suffering is intrinsically bad by its' very definition
Genetically alter or hardwire yourself so that you don't feel suffering, then. If you are such a science ass-kisser, it should be possible.

>but a biological mechanism to distract from our purposelessness
By this, you mean that it is our purpose.

>Our morality, unlike natalists, is founded on a mix of empathy AND understanding the universe, retard,
If you really were empathetic, you would be doing more than arguing against "natalism" and "meaning." For one, you wouldn't call others names. You would also be alleviating suffering while you are here in life. Of course, Christianity also has empathy and an understanding of the universe, it is nihilistic scientianity-followers that have lost one indispensable mode of understanding.

>that's why we advocate for nonexistence as an escape from it all.
Who's buying? There are many ways out of suffering, some harder to sell than others. Have fun convincing others to "terminate all life" like some kind of demented borg when we are "biologically hardwired" to disagree with you.

>did i choose to be a coward who can't kill herself?
You choose to be by continuing to be, without improving yourself. You are biologically hardwired, but if you cared you could overcome your biology.

>fatalism
>no one actually chooses anything
Did you choose to make this post? Do you have this little self control?

>>16825915
>sensitive

Enjoy this irrational world because you are too senstiive to let go

>>16826327
>Not causing more suffering matters
Then stop fantasizing about mass murdering the universe you fucking spaz

>>16825856
Because it makes no sense to me that trying to not live and not exist is the answer to the problems of life and existence. You're going to die anyway, you don't need to worry about that, it will take care of itself. What does your philosophy amount to, other than letting you feel smug for not reproducing? Plenty of people do that without knowing anything about philosophy.

>>16826329
>NOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST QUESTION BREEDING!!!
>THAT'S ILLEGAL!!!
>JUST KILL YOURSELF IF YOU FEEL THAT WAY
>LIFE IS WORTH LIVING PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!!!!!!!
The only thing funnier than "midwit" charts is the cosmic levels of assmad that comes from anti-antinatalists.

You See The Thing About Me Is That I'm Really Into Equality :D
I Believe In Hating Everyone EQUALLY XD
Anywayys, I'm A Girl, But Not Like The Ones :)
I'm Just Myself
I Mean Everyone else is already taken anyways LOL
So Quirky
Lmao uwu
If You Want To Talk To A Girl Just Reply Me LOL
It's Not Like I Got Anything Else To Do *sigh*

>>16825856
>imaginary ideas, such as metaphysics and the sky fairy that supposedly created everything

Prove that God doesn't exist, anon.

>>16826262
>I'm not posting my chest because simply put, the resulting judgement would result in even more internal suffering for myself.
And yet here you are, arguing with us and (as indicated by your increasingly irate posts) causing more "internal suffering." So, it is obvious that "preventing internal suffering" doesn't matter so much to you.

> because it is absolutely worthless to eradicate an infinitesimal percentage of the population doing nothing but making their loved ones suffer, it's not just meaningless but outright bad.
Ladies and gentlemen- anti-natalist empathy; kill them all so nobody's left to grieve. Of course, the likelihood of this happening is as likely as that of a God existing, according to atheist mental trauma.

>>16826327
>I do as the genes guide
Anti-natalists are puppets of their genes and environment as well, remember?

>>16826084
>did I choose to be a coward who can't kill herself
>etcetera
Therefore, anti-natalists don't have any superiority brought by "not following their genes." I saw you posting in the Brave New World thread, by the way.

>And for what purpose, to pass an arbitrary check of "deserving" of posting?
It's a meme

>You forgot the part where suffering and consent matter too
I will ask my unborn entity for consent before reproducing. You should ask your unborn entities for consent not to be brought into existence; perhaps they want to exist. I also don't think that the suffering you cause to a child by bringing it into existence matters, as long as it is not directly caused by you (you beating it, neglecting it, etcetera). Either way, pleasure exists to entice life, and we are "biologically hardwired" to love it and justify it.

I am not a transhumanist, but you'd be better off arguing for transhumanism, which would be a way to eliminate suffering AND exist. Of course, it will never happen. Annihilation of all life will never happen by our own hands, either. The best way is in between the two

>>16825856
You will not destroy humanity.

>>16826327
>You forgot the part where suffering and consent matter too
The objective reality is that life is suffering. Consent is a ridiculous concept, a literal cope. All people should be killed right now, and whoever argues against it doesn't know what's good for them. There is nothing to negotiate; if you are attached to life you are literally delusional and need help to escape your self imposed misery. You are entirely lacking in commitment to your cause.

>>16826426
You are almost entirely alone.
People do not want to die.

>>16826381
>>JUST KILL YOURSELF IF YOU FEEL THAT WAY
What really is the argument against this? It's the obvious conclusion if you actually believe what your purport to
>I think chastity is good so I'll be chaste
>I think health is good so I'll be healthy
>I think wealth is good so I'll be wealthy
>I think nonexistence is good so I'll... continue existing
Hurr

>>16825856
>Materialist nature of reality, the meaninglessness, godlessness, and eventual inevitable end, all of it would drive the NPCs who abhor antinatalism/efilism insane

You sound fun at parties, OP.

>>16826381
Insulting others serves only to cause them harm, which goes against the beliefs of anti-natalism, that is, the denial of all suffering. You take pleasure in the suffering of others; how do you conciliate your innate sadism with your goal of bringing an end to human pain?

>>16826443
Because they are ignorant. Someone needs to lead them to the truth, whether they want to or not, and the truth comes in the form of a bullet to the head.

>>16826163
OH i get it. You're just a women in denial about the miracle of childbirth so that you can justify pursue a purely hedonistic life. Well, have fun, but don't preach to the rest of us; convincing us of your own delusion won't make you feel any better about your own choices.

>>16826331
>If you are biologically hardwired not to kill yourself, then you do not care about preventing pain as much as you care about acquiring pleasure.
Flawed logic when it's a fatalistic force acting upon our consciousness and not something of pure logic, except for those born with exceptional will

>You are the one who chooses to view the suffering as meaningless.
No empirical evidence of meaning for any of it, was my dysfunctional household meaningful even though it psychologically messed me up in ways even i can come to recognize, does the starving child or the holocaust contribute meaning to the world?

>Not only is it unlikely to wipe out all life, the people that spread these ideas are usually too depressed and dysfunctional to spread them, let alone actually make a change in the world. Additionally, life would just start all over again, raising different problems. It's an exercise in futility, and a scientific pipe dream (unless you basically believe in a God that follows your beliefs, or that we can make such a "god").
> "You are biologically hardwired not to kill yourself." Then how are you going to convince other people to wipe out life, if they are "biologically hardwired" against such wanton massacre? It's basically anti-utopianism, and it's just as unlikely.
Kurzgesagt's video is a very simple explanation of a process that would wipe out the universe, vaccum decay, it could be reverse engineered by advanced enough transhumans and there are other theories too

>By this, you mean it is an immediate reality.
I did include the possibility of locking almost everyone into a pleasure machine, however, that is an absolute neutral at best and also extremely difficult, plus it does not completely exclude all suffering, it's simply not as thorough or permanent.

>Then I have just disproven the modern scientific corpus by acquiring meaning.
Delusion

>Genetically alter or hardwire yourself so that you don't feel suffering, then. If you are such a science ass-kisser, it should be possible.
Read above

>By this, you mean that it is our purpose.
Hedonism is just another distraction, desu


>If you really were empathetic, you would be doing more than arguing against "natalism" and "meaning." For one, you wouldn't call others names. You would also be alleviating suffering while you are here in life. Of course, Christianity also has empathy and an understanding of the universe, it is nihilistic scientianity-followers that have lost one indispensable mode of understanding.
Science is a religion now even though the empirical method has never truly failed?
(Part 1)

>>16826504
Look at all those liberated prisoners. If that picture doesn't tug at your heartstrings and make feel pride in the invaluable service the Holocaust did to bring an end to so much human suffering you cannot call yourself a human being. Whatever pain they endured in the camps is a trifle compared to the abject horror they would have endured had they lived until the decrepitude of old age had finally set them free.

>>16826331
>Who's buying? There are many ways out of suffering, some harder to sell than others. Have fun convincing others to "terminate all life" like some kind of demented borg when we are "biologically hardwired" to disagree with you.
Creating is harder than destroying, it's harder to create this supposed absolute universal utopia where everyone is in maximum bliss with no pain and even then, it would be neutral at best compared to just dying, whereas enough advanced transhumans could wipe life cosmically

>You choose to be by continuing to be, without improving yourself. You are biologically hardwired, but if you cared you could overcome your biology.
All your "choices" just appear to be choices because you are conscious, but consciousness is actually just self-aware quantum-information, it is just as subject to causality, you don't even know what hard-wired means

>Did you choose to make this post? Do you have this little self control?
No, i didn't choose to make this, it's futile to try to fight causality

>>16826401
The burden of proof is on you for claiming that he exists, i've never seen anyone make a logical argument for God existing, pure emotional bias rather, pic related

>>16826452
>It's the obvious conclusion
No it's not, it's the conclusion that you lob at people who question you on your breeding take. Here's my personal chain of reasoning:

So far as I can tell there are two possibilities: Either God exists or He does not.

>God exists
This means there is a heaven and a hell. Choosing to create a life is choosing to bring another soul (without their consent) into the game of either going to heaven (eternal pleasure) or going to hell (eternal torment). Instead of allowing that soul to remain in non-existence, you are forcing it into a game with the highest stakes imaginable. To illustrate this (like a retard) consider the following scenario:
>There is a magical crosswalk where, should you successfully cross to the other side, you will be given $1,000,000,000. However, there is an UNKNOWN chance that a car will come whipping by and hit you causing you to die in the most painful way possible. Would you consider it to be moral to FORCE someone else (without their consent) to cross this magical sidewalk instead of allowing them to remain on one side (where they won't ever get the money but they also won't be hit by the car)? This is my (retarded) metaphor for creating life. Is it moral to "bring someone off the bench" (the bench of non-existence) into the game of going to hell or going to heaven?
(1/2)

>>16826452
>>16826543
>God does not exist
Should you choose to bring life into the world in this scenario, you would be doing so for wholly selfish reasons. This life is full of torment and suffering (or at the very least monotony) for the vast majority of human beings, yet you must knowingly ignore this reality if you choose to have children. To illustrate this, consider the following:
>In this arena of a Godless existence animals must consume to survive. Just as the zebra consumes grass the lion consumes zebras. The suffering experienced by the zebra as it is viciously eaten alive is far more severe than the enjoyment experienced by the lion eating his most recent meal. You might think "well humans are like lions, so this isn't so bad" but you should consider the nature of the lion's consumption. Eating zebras is just the lion's way of avoiding the pain of starvation. Assuming it doesn't die in through some terrible disease or accident, the lion will spend its entire existence running away from the pain of death and starvation until it can't run anymore. Its Godless existence can be summed up to a frantic flight away from suffering that it can NEVER avoid. It's reason for existing? Father and mother lion just kind of felt like it. (Retard zebra-lion analogy inspired by Ligotti).
As God does not exist and you are able to function beyond your animalistic drive to breed (to some degree), you are creating a vessel to be filled with all the pain and torment of this world "because you feel like it". Is this not morally reprehensible?
(2/2)

>>16826452
>if u dislike pain so much just die in a horrible brutal way bro
Nah, give me the right to die gracefully, fucking criminals get it, why can't I? #mybodymychoice

>>16826527
>Look at all those liberated prisoners. If that picture doesn't tug at your heartstrings and make feel pride in the invaluable service the Holocaust did to bring an end to so much human suffering you cannot call yourself a human being. Whatever pain they endured in the camps is a trifle compared to the abject horror they would have endured had they lived until the decrepitude of old age had finally set them free.
Don't ignore the pain the tens of millions of loved ones suffered

>As God does not exist and you are able to function beyond your animalistic drive to breed (to some degree), you are creating a vessel to be filled with all the pain and torment of this world "because you feel like it". Is this not morally reprehensible?
This person gets it

Even if "God" existed, i'm not worshipping any "God" that shows no evidence of his own existence, and was a failing father overall placing me into so many situations of pointless suffering with no positive side in sight and so many depression inducing conundrums outside of my control

>>16826575
>Don't ignore the pain the tens of millions of loved ones suffered
You're right; the nazis should have gotten them too.

>>16825996
This is why I don't like collectivism and authoritarians. It's one thing to suicide and it's quite another to decide for everyone that they should cease. Cool story mindset for an evil villain though. We already have technology that can destroy most of life, they're called hydrogen bombs. No atmosphere, no problem. No fun either.

>>16826579
Anon, it's a chain reaction all the way up, tens of millions more would have led to hundreds of millions more suffering, and there was no realistic way for the nazis to have wiped out even 10% of the population, let alone everyone

>>16826575
>Don't ignore the pain the tens of millions of loved ones suffered
Indeed; that's why they took them in in family groups. They should have been even more thorough; not enough people died to justify the Holocaust, but it was a noble attempt.

>>16826586
? the germans seemed pretty happy to kill the jews, and so did a lot of the western world. I think you've talked yourself into a corner now...

>>16826550
Why does the manner of death matter if life has no meaning?

>>16826353
>No u

>>16826586
It just goes to show that until we release a virus with a 100% death rate humanity will remain in pain. All those people trapped in their own delusion that life is worth living need the guiding hand of nature.

>>16826592
I’m not the retarded nihilist OP who completely misinterprets what efilism is about.

>>16826592
This. All the pain experience before death is meaningless. Death is not painful, just what comes before it. Only life can bring pain, death is entirely free of torment. The way of death is thus irrelevant. If you were now to be skinned alive, and take hours to die, all the pain you'd feel would be nothing compared to the pain of continuing to exist for another 70 years or more. There is no path to death as painful as living to see your body perish on its own.

>>16825856
What about the people who find joy in raising children? What about people who live happy lives from childhood to adulthood to death? Sure, they will have rough times, but it seems pretty naive to define a happy life as one devoid of any suffering at all.
It seems you're just trying to justify wanting to live a completely hedonistic life with no greater motive and are projecting it with this antinatalist argument.

>>16825856
> if most people were rational and intelligent, the human race would either calmly wipe itself out/wipe out all life, ending suffering in the most moral act of existence
According to what moral code? Who's the moralizer? Not the skydaddy, I presume?

>>16826595
>>16825856
>>16825915
Why are there so many fucking brainlets in the modern West now? I feel like a genius compared to you morons.
Listen, if you're a nihilist, then birth neither has a positive nor negative value. Birth is an indifferent process much like everything else is the Universe from a nihilistic position. It's a logical implication of being a nihilist, morons. Therefore, you cannot argue for antinatalism, which attaches negative value to birth. It's a contradiction and makes the argument invalid. The only way one can defend antinatalism is via some obscure non-materialist forms of mysticism like Manichaeism, which is hard to defend. To reiterate, a nihilistic universe does not permit for an antinatalist perspective because there is no compelling reason why parents should care for the suffering of their children since suffering does not have an inherently negative value. At most you can advise being child-free, but that's not a philosophical statement.
Why are you people such absolute idiots? You play with definitions in a slippery manner when doing philosophy. I don't understand how Thomas Ligotti could go from writing impressive fiction to shit-tiered philosophical trash. If life is devoid of intrinsic meaning, then there is no argument you can come up with against Marquis de Sade's "everything is permissible". I didn't even major in philosophy, and I understand this connection and logical implication better than your endless and fruitless debates on antinatalism. You morons can't even make a cogent argument because you keep messing around with definitions.
Anyways, I am personally child free. I do not personally want children, but I realize the argument for antinalism is nigh impossible to establish unless you adopt some kind of Gnostic viewpoint. Even if you have a soteriology where this universe has far more evil like Mahayana Buddhism, antinatalism is still hard to justify because of complex and messy reasons.

>>16826630
I'm going to be honest with you, I have just been taking the piss this entire thread and trying to form antinatalist arguments in the most insane way possible, and they still seem like something they would say. Personally, I think they're idiots at best and hypocrites at worst.

>>16826630
It’s value ethics. It was never about muh morals.

>>16826630
nor nihilism

>>16826660
Nihilism destroys all possibility of establishing a meta-ethics and normative ethics. Therefore, my point still stands.
Ethics as a separate field is retarded because it tries to divorce itself from metaphysics too much. All forms of moral anti-realism are reducible to nihilism, so there is no point in discussing this matter anymore.
Physicalism/materialism logically nihilism, and you cannot go from nihilism to antinatalism. All forms of moral anti-realism are also reducible to nihilism.

>>16826443
You are even more alone lady! Nobody wants to eradicate all lifeforms, they just want an easier life. Nobody wants to become inhuman pleasure-robots to escape their suffering, either. We are simple people, with human goals. Only generational delusion created by media and this spoiled milieu we are in can make them want this, so we must fight.

>>16826504
>Flawed logic when it's a fatalistic force acting upon our consciousness and not something of pure logic, except for those born with exceptional will
If you wanted to kill yourself, you would kill yourself. If you lack the will, either you do not really want to kill yourself, or you are too weak to do the act; in either case, you do not want to kill yourself. What you really want is a better life, free from whatever problems induce you to say (in such a characteristically first world manner_ that "I want to kill myself." Bad day at school? "I'm literally going to kill myself."

>o empirical evidence of meaning for any of it, was my dysfunctional household meaningful even though it psychologically messed me up in ways even i can come to recognize, does the starving child or the holocaust contribute meaning to the world?
No empirical evidence as to the contrary, either, madame. Yes, your dysfunctional household was meaningful, but I am not supposed to find meaning in it because I am not you. I don't know your life; you know it, but choose not to find the meaning within because you CHOOSE to suffer. There is no miracle of will involved here; you simply chose to find no meaning, and so you suffer. This is because you derive pleasure from following what you believe is "empirical" or "scientific," but this hasn't helped you live an easier life, has it?

>does the starving child or the holocaust contribute meaning to the world?
Same answer

>Kurzgesagt's video is a very simple explanation of a process that would wipe out the universe, vaccum decay, it could be reverse engineered by advanced enough transhumans and there are other theories too
More transhumanism, eh? That's never going to happen; nothing in this world happens out of inevitability, there are human, elite hands behind the curtain. You of all fatalists should know this.

>I did include the possibility of locking almost everyone into a pleasure machine, however, that is an absolute neutral at best
Patently false, science (as used by transhumans) can manufacture a state of being that involves maximum, ever-lasting pleasure, at the cost of agency and consent (which become vestigial). This will be a state of maximum good (according to you), but according to reality will not last forever. The same goes for your annihilationist power fantasies, all a way of getting back at your "dysfunctional household."

Antinatalism correctly identifies the source of suffering but fails to address it in an actually effective way. It’s like demanding that everyone stops breathing in order to reduce the spread of a virus. It’s a position that is shit because it tries it fight a losing battle

Positive utilitarianism implies a moral obligation to create as many happy minds as possible. Someday maybe we'll be able to upgrade humans into pleasure jupiters (massive brains that feel greater happiness than currently imagined). If you accidentally denied someone their existence as a pleasure jupiter you would be an asshole.

>>16826649
As if i needed to be more alone, people simply do not tolerate my points of view and behaviors
>>16826695
>According to what moral code? Who's the moralizer? Not the skydaddy, I presume?
>Nihilism destroys all possibility of establishing a meta-ethics and normative ethics. Therefore, my point still stands.
>Listen, if you're a nihilist, then birth neither has a positive nor negative value. Birth is an indifferent process much like everything else is the Universe from a nihilistic position. It's a logical implication of being a nihilist, morons. Therefore, you cannot argue for antinatalism
>To reiterate, a nihilistic universe does not permit for an antinatalist perspective because there is no compelling reason why parents should care for the suffering of their children since suffering does not have an inherently negative value. At most you can advise being child-free, but that's not a philosophical statement.
Suffering existing is not a philosophical statement, suffering and pleasure are all we know as bio-machines

> Even if you have a soteriology where this universe has far more evil like Mahayana Buddhism, antinatalism is still hard to justify because of complex and messy reasons.
Define these "complex reasons"?

>>16826504
>plus it does not completely exclude all suffering, it's simply not as thorough or permanent.
Yes, but it can actually be felt. Nonexistence cannot be experienced by any agents, therefore it is not a preferable state of existence. Furthermore, it DOES exclude all suffering using the same "science magic" you and Kurzgesagt believe in. You can map out a way to do something, but let's talk when scientists are actually reverse engineering a "vacuum decay" machine. Most of this fails when actually put into action, as does most narrow-minded scientism; the reality is always more complicated.

>Delusion
Meaning is in the mind. Meaning is made by man, even though not all meanings are equal. Neither science nor I are in delusion, you are, who sets science at odds with me.

>Read above
Not at all delusion, and far more applicable than your "transhuman anti-utopia." Alternatively, you could just lobotomize yourself; that would help you escape from suffering. Seeing the state you're in right now, it wouldn't be that far of a leap.

>Hedonism is just another distraction, desu
Hedonism isn't a mindless bacchanal, it's the pursuit of what makes you happy. "It's just another distraction." A distraction from what? The meaninglessness of life? Talking about the meaninglessness of life is a distraction from the meaninglessness of life; if it truly was meaningless, you wouldn't care about it, or preventing suffering, or anything. Your meaning is your purpose.

It can never be a distraction if you acknowledge that you will die, and accept the fact.

>Science is a religion now...
It's always failed. Science thrives off of contradiction, or else theories would never progress. We'd still be stuck believing that the sun revolves around us. And yes, science often does fail, and moreso gives off the impression that it is infallible, rather than being as such.

Yes, science is the new religion. There are some labcoat priests performing experiments I can't verify and telling me what to believe. Forget the fact that others replicate their experiments and derive different results, I need to trust these scientists. If I do not, I am a science-denier (heretic) and must ostracized. If science never fails, why are we having this discussion? We should be in a precise, empirical utopia right now, no? After all, science has it all figured out? It knows us, down to our most intimate processes, so why can't it put us back together?

>>16826540
> it's harder to create this supposed...
It's better because life will be created through abiogenesis, anyway. We're just setting progress back by ending existence. In addition, it is easier to destroy, but most prefer to create, so the destroyers will, in turn, be destroyed because they do not accord with the majority of society's wishes.

> it would be neutral...
Maximum bliss is anything but neutral. Nonexistence is not even neutral, because there is no entity for which it can be neutral.

>>16826163
>Woman
into the trash it goes

>>16826777
>Suffering existing is not a philosophical statement, suffering and pleasure are all we know as bio-machines
Suffering has no inherent value in a purely physicalist universe. It is just an indifferent process with its own mental impression devoid of intrinsic meaning.

>>16825856
I don't care about random niggers, they can starve to death as far as I'm concerned. I want to have kids so that the struggle for a greater future can continue after I am dead and so there's somebody to help me with stuff when I'm old. Exactly one life is precious, my life, and it cannot go to waste.

>>16826084
>my only concept of god is muh sky fairy
women really are retarded huh

>>16826812
All physicalists/materialists are genetic trash. They also fail to understand their views do not jibe well with antinatalism.

>>16826821
Materialism always strikes me as the worldview that requires zero thinking or questioning whatsoever, ironically enough. It takes nothing to recognize or think that what is immediately in front of you is “real” and not examine or question the source of your awareness of the world.

Antinatalists are trannys

Anti-Natalism is wrong because (1) anyone's own happiness is irrelevant and (2) even if it were moral, it would virtually guarantee only the immoral would breed.
Because of the compliance problem of (2), it should follow from a prisoner's dilemma-like scenario that it is actually better for someone with such a strong moral sense that they will suppress the most basic of human functions that they breed because people who frankly do not care so much about the totally hypothetical suffering of others let alone the actual suffering would have no compunctions about breeding and tend to do so in abundance.
That aside, happiness is incidental to morality. Being moral is simply being someone who deserves to be happy, not someone who actually is.

>>16826797
>Woman
>into the trash it goes
Why do men have to unprovokedly BE trash to people like me?

>my only concept of god is muh sky fairy
>women really are retarded huh
The "sky fairy" thing is a metaphor for the lack of evidence or logical arguments for "God"

> Antinatalists are trannys
Your resorting to an unrelated, ad hominem slur, with no logical basis, really illustrates how much antinatalists wanna dodge an actual debate and resort to humiliation

>>16826944
You will never be a real woman.

Romanticizing non-existence is pleasing. Non-existence is pure Transcendence of the self. In a way it is perfection. What lofty goals these humans have. maybe the real problem is having bodies that can be corrupted. Don't lie, you love your mind and to think and believe. You probably like a lot of your emotions too. so you like your soul and your spirit but you don't like your corruptible body. But your mind has become captive to evil. You only acknowledge the existence of this worthless reality. So your reaction is normal and sane because all you acknowledge is hell. It is obvious that you crave Transcendence and perfection.

>>16825856
Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger. Niggers niggers. Nigger? Yes, nigger. No, nigger. Nigga. Nigguh. Nignog. Nig nog jig jog nigger reggin. A nigger! A pack of niggers. Niggericious. Niggerish. N, i, g. G, e, r. Ni. Gger. G g er. Nogger. Jogger. Jogga. Jigga. Nigga. Nigger. N word. Nigger nigger.

>>16826958
Based and truthpilled

>>16826788
>Yes, but it can actually be felt. Nonexistence cannot be experienced by any agents, therefore it is not a preferable state of existence. Furthermore, it DOES exclude all suffering using the same "science magic" you and Kurzgesagt believe in. You can map out a way to do something, but let's talk when scientists are actually reverse engineering a "vacuum decay" machine. Most of this fails when actually put into action, as does most narrow-minded scientism; the reality is always more complicated.
>Yes, science is the new religion. There are some labcoat priests performing experiments I can't verify and telling me what to believe. Forget the fact that others replicate their experiments and derive different results, I need to trust these scientists. If I do not, I am a science-denier (heretic) and must ostracized. If science never fails, why are we having this discussion? We should be in a precise, empirical utopia right now, no? After all, science has it all figured out? It knows us, down to our most intimate processes, so why can't it put us back together?

Nobody outside 4chan thinks like this, fucking hell, people believe in science even though they can't see it for a reason, because it is peer proven, officially checked by thousands of authorities on the subject, also
>others replicate their experiments and derive different results
Doubt, but source?

>Based and truthpilled
As if it has anything at all to do with the fucking discussion

>>16826540
>No, i didn't choose to make this, it's futile to try to fight causality
You didn't choose to make this? Then who did?

>but consciousness is actually just self-aware quantum-information, it is just as subject to causality, you don't even know what hard-wired means
I was using hard-wired figuratively, but that's unimportant. Of course my choices appear to be so, but that changes nothing about my life. Whether free will or determinism are true, we still live life as if we had free will.

As for your picture, it is an attempted (but failed) reductio because it relies on presenting God as some wonky figure with a wipeboard that only has two unrelated things on it; yes, it's part of the plan.

>i've never seen anyone make a logical argument for God existing
Monks, saints, miracles, spiritual experiences, etcetera. Things that science cannot explain, or even if it can explain it is not guaranteed that their explanations correspond to reality (it is just surmisal on the part of the scientist, that is).

>>16826543
Yes, I would consider it fine to bring a person into such a position. I believe it is moral to bring people off of the bench. The funny thing about this is that reproduction is incommensurable, incomparable; I will never be put in a position in my life where I will have to put someone else (who is not my kin or offspring) into a risk versus reward situation aside from reproduction. I believe whatever happens is good; it is good for a person to go to Heaven or Hell, but only one is preferable. Heaven eclipses Hell in grandeur, either way.

>Should you choose to bring life into the world in this scenario, you would be doing so for wholly selfish reasons.
The same is for not reproducing.

>This life is full of torment and suffering (or at the very least monotony) for the vast majority of human beings
I agree, and I live life with joy and bravado despite it.

>it's entire existence is a frantic flight away from suffering it can never avoid
For the Godless person. Existence is also a flight towards pleasure, equilibrium, and relief that is often and easily achieved. I see no problem with the inevitability of suffering; if the lion cannot feed itself, it will die, and so will cease its suffering. Otherwise, the lion will thrive at the expense of other animals, which is also good.

>What is its reason for existing?
To bring us closer to the maximally good conclusion of this world, which God has envisioned. But for the atheists, to bring us closer to a state of transhumanism in which suffering is abolished. Only one is possible, and it's the least scientific one, oddly.

> you are creating a vessel to be filled with all the pain and torment of this world "because you feel like it". Is this not morally reprehensible?
Humans become desensitized to pain and torment. Pain and torment make them experience pleasure all the more powerfully and movingly. Each excess of emotion has its own counterbalance.

>>16827059
>Nobody outside 4chan thinks like this

You just sound like an obnoxious retard desu. Especially when you said “fucking hell,” the way you said it was very typical of your ilk. Are you the girl? I can’t keep track. If so, post those milkers you hole

>>16826163
>Typical, i shouldn't even have let that slip, but oh well,
Nono you know full well why you mentioned it. Even on a Peruvian llama herding forum a woman feels the need to announce her divine presence to the unwashed masses.

>>16825856
>materialist nature of reality, the meaninglessness, godlessness, and eventual inevitable end
None of which can either impugn my love of life or make me fear death

>>16825856
Life is pain and suffering, deal with it and learn to enjoy it kid.

>>16827101
>Nobody outside 4chan thinks like this

You just sound like an obnoxious retard desu. Especially when you said “fucking hell,” the way you said it was very typical of your ilk. Are you the girl? I can’t keep track. If so, post those milkers you hole

But she's right, nobody outside of this site is ignorant, irrational and science denying enough to reject science so thoroughly because they are insecure, worthless manchildren who need sky daddy to them it's all gonna be alright

Reddit, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, real life, look anywhere else and people are actually smart enough to understand the amazing effects of science and its' overall infallibility.

>>16826575
>Don't ignore the pain the tens of millions of loved ones suffered
So it's all utilitarian calculus now? What if scientists create a creature that can only experience pleasure? Is this world vindicated by virtue of that hedon-generating creature?

>i'm not worshipping any "God" that shows no evidence of his own existence
He has shown evidence and a way to Him. But whether or not your worship a God is beyond your control, it seems. I suggest taking medications.

>nd was a failing father overall placing me into so many situations of pointless suffering with no positive side in sight and so many depression inducing conundrums outside of my control
He put you in this situation? Why are you so afraid to assume responsibility for your actions? That is no problem, your pointless suffering is good, and will serve its purpose in the bigger picture. The lack of a "positive side" is a product of your mentality; you are only not making a change in your life because you've erroneously convinced yourself you can do nothing, that everything is outside of your control.

>>16826586
They only killed the Jews because they thought doing so would decrease world suffering. They believed the Jews were evil parasites who infiltrated the media, the press, banking, all to the disadvantage of the goyim.

Of course, their utilitarianism prioritized the pleasure and suffering of the white man, with no care for Jews. Utilitarianism can be preferential like that, depending on the person.

>>16826595
Non argument

>>16826616
What if I don't find my body perishing as intolerably painful as you claim it is? An anti-natalist indubitably would, so they should probably euthanize themselves as soon as possible to prevent causing pain to others and themselves in the future. I doubt anyone would miss them. If it is "beyond their control" to kill themselves, it shows that they do not fear death or suffering enough to kill themselves; an animal caught in a trap will chew its leg off. These people obviously don't believe in their ideology to the fullest, it's just a lashing out at mom and dad.

>>16826944
>Why do men have to unprovokedly BE trash to people like me?
They can't help it, it's beyond their control. You just have to take it, or don't. It doesn't matter either way, it's all beyond your control. If you ever publish a book, don't bother publishing it in your name; you didn't publish it, it was your environmental impulses and biological impulses that created the book.

>The "sky fairy" thing is a metaphor for the lack of evidence or logical arguments for "God"
Why does matter and energy exist? Why do the laws of nature exist, and why is there order?

>really illustrates how much antinatalists wanna dodge an actual debate and resort to humiliation
Finally something we can agree on.

>I can't kill myself because I am too weak to do it; I can't choose to do anything in my life
Very well, I reproduce because I can't not reproduce. I can't choose to not reproduce

>>16827163
>worthless manchildren who need sky daddy to them it's all gonna be alright
Imagine still subscribing to the science vs religion dichotomy. Read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
>look anywhere else and people are actually smart enough to understand the amazing effects of science and its' overall infallibility.
We are truly in the age of the philistine.

>>16827163
False, you’re just a soulless cockroach nigger faggot. The only sky daddy you’re gonna be talking about is my cock when I shove it in your mouth

>>16825856
Ahem

Fuck niggers
Fuck jannies
Fuck anti-life trannies

>>16827059
>Nobody outside 4chan thinks like this, fucking hell, people believe in science even though they can't see it for a reason, because it is peer proven, officially checked by thousands of authorities on the subject, also
You'll be saying that for the next scientific theory that replaces the current "peer proven" one. Science doesn't prove anything, it only puts forth theories with evidence to support them. At any time, evidence can be found that contradict these theories, forcing the theories to be changed. As an aside, why do you trust these authorities? Do you know them? What if they are lying to you about certain things, like space, for instance (which we cannot travel to and verify on our own; sure, there is blackness and there are celestial bodies, but that does not mean what we see on our own through telescopes is what scientists who purportedly have sent probes and astronuts are being truthful). Why should I trust these scientists over church fathers? I can verify both beliefs; for the latter, I can follow their example and experience their same spiritual experiences (much to science's silence and lack of satisfactory explanation).
Hot damn, how scientifically bankrupt are you? Read articles, get a college degree; things aren't settled, science is constantly growing, shedding theories, positing new, better ones.

Take this for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
He performs one experiment, other scientists perform their own experiments and receive differing results/conclusions.

>>16827163
>science's infallibility
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
>insecure, worthless manchildren who need sky daddy to them it's all gonna be alright
Either you're trolling or you're serious; if you're serious, then I didn't choose to be an insecure, worthless manchild, so you are causing me gratuitous suffering. This is in tension with your negative utilitarianism. You are also wasting your time here if we are such coarse science-deniers; you are wasting precious time you could've spent educating yourself further.

>>16827207
FUCK anti-natalists
FUCK efilists
FUCK misanthropes
FUCK pessimists

You are not welcome here, go back to your circle-jerk pity party discords, subreddits, and forums. 4Chan is for life affirmers and science deniers, not confused young women already on their last legs.

>>16826039
You obviously are lmao, thinking you're hiding it just makes that funnier

>>16827243
What’s your point. Whether I’m happy or not has nothing to do with what I was saying. Read it again, get a kindergartner to help you maybe

Fuck me, lads, this thread is a massacre and we're only 100 posts in.

>>16827243
I am unhappy but I love life. My parents gave me a dysfunctional upbringing but also many good things, so I cannot bear enmity against them. I love all the pointless deaths, the gratuitous suffering, the gruesome birth defects and disfigurements this world has ever had the misfortune of seeing. I love and accept it all. I love my fate; I love that my life is going from worse to worse. The greater the fall, the greater the rise. The greater the suffering, the greater the glory. All is just, we just don't have eyes to see it. I am no Hindu, but this truly is the Kali Yuga; all materialism, no spirituality. No wonder we've lost our gumption and wisdom, we've traded this world's greatest wise men in for glorified magicians (scientists).

>>16826543
>without their consent
What lmaoooo.

>>16827237
>4Chan is for life affirmers and science deniers
So you concede you "deny science", even tho it has caused all meaningful advancement of quality of life and is the reason you don't starve out in the wild, not philosophy or religion.

>Why does matter and energy exist? Why do the laws of nature exist, and why is there order?
According to Cosmic Inflation, nothing in the Universe has any origin or cause, the laws that govern the Universe have always, and will always exist as the exact same. This matches up with the cycle of Heat Deaths and Big Bangs.

GOD. IS. OBSOLETE. for fuck's sake

>>16827338
Aahahahahaahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaaahahah you are such a fucking bugman you have to be trolling

>>16826944
>The "sky fairy" thing is a metaphor for the lack of evidence or logical arguments for "God"
proving my point yet again. “God” is not necessarily a being. “God” is at its core as a concept just the absolute cause and or essential nature of all things.

>>16827384
Aahahahahaahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaaahahah you are such a fucking bugman you have to be trolling

>>16827384
Using a Rick and Morty gif is a lil bit too on the nose, better dial things back down for better quality bait my friend

>>16827384
>So you concede you "deny science", even tho it has caused all meaningful advancement of quality of life and is the reason you don't starve out in the wild, not philosophy or religion.
Science is a method of research. The things that are explained and known by science such as agriculture and starting a fire are not science, you fucking idiot

Science is good because it looks for truth, it wants understanding. science is good because it's already Beyond this reality. Science does not come from this meaningless existence. But when this worthless slavish reality gets its hold on something it renders it useless. Meaning also comes from an Incorruptible reality, but when it gets corrupted by this reality meaning becomes meaningless. This reality, like evil, has no intrinsic meaning in itself. The point of evil is its rejection. The point of mortality is service for the Immortals. We tried this reality out and we tried to make use of it, but we made it not last forever because it is unworthy of us. But it was novel. It is experience gained. Creatures never had any hope. Keep the illusion going as long as you want.

>>16827384
>According to Cosmic Inflation, nothing in the Universe has any origin or cause, the laws that govern the Universe have always, and will always exist as the exact same. This matches up with the cycle of Heat Deaths and Big Bangs.
>GOD. IS. OBSOLETE. for fuck's sake
the problem with most atheists is that their concept of god and religion in general is extremely Eurocentric. The majority of eastern religion will say God is the universe itself and or the dreamer/seer of it.

The vast majority of human beings should not procreate.

>>16827413
>Using a Rick and Morty gif is a lil bit too on the nose, better dial things back down for better quality bait my friend
You're stuck in the circlejerk, and a circlejerk of the past at that, the series gets overhate because some of the fans are obnoxious with their humor, however, the core assertions of the show are not the point of criticism people have, since they're pretty correct.

>>16827428
I agree. The only desirable outcome of procreation is the progenation of Genius. 99% should not reproduce, myself included.

>>16827384
>So you concede you "deny science", even tho it has caused all meaningful advancement of quality of life and is the reason you don't starve out in the wild, not philosophy or religion.
I don't need science, religion can make Heaven of Hell, a palace out of a wilderness. Read "The Sayings of the Desert Fathers." But science and technological advancement are also good, provided that they do serve man's best interests.

Followers of evolutianity call all science-skeptics "science deniers," so yes- I deny science-worship.

>According to Cosmic Inflation, nothing in the Universe has any origin or cause
So this world has an infinite past? That's impossible. Everything that exists must have a beginning; to say that "nothing has had an origin" is as unfalsifiable as it is unproveable. Besides, Cosmic Inflation doesn't demonstrate that nothing has any origin or cause. Why does Cosmic Inflation occur? What started this process?

Gradually, we see that science is incomplete, and requires less regressive, more transcendental appendices. Otherwise we run into this problem- "nothing has any cause because science man said so" (does Cosmic Inflation have a cause? Can it justify its own causelessness?)

>the laws that govern the Universe have always, and will always exist as the exact same.
Why? Do you have concrete evidence to show that this is applicable to all the universe besides mere "induction?"

Why are these laws as they are? Why are they constant? Why are they arbitrarily any one way over the other? How can you induce that they will always exist the exact same if there have been so many accounts that have contradicted the laws of nature, and if the only evidence we have that we are erroneously extrapolating to the eternal future is over the span of ~6,000 years, give or take.

Can you prove that there has been an infinite cycle of Heat Deaths and Big Bangs? Do you have evidence of these previous cycles?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLTENCrrZDw

I know you're a troll and not the anti-natalist femoid from this thread because she would be shooting herself in the foot by saying that science has "caused all meaningful advancement of quality of life." Why should we destroy life, then? Why not allow science to completely "fix" human life?

>>16826649
Unless this is (You)

>>16827447
Summarize the core assertions. It'll be a fun mental exercise, LARPanon.

>>16827447
Lmao. How delusional do you have to be. Sorry but Pickle Rick and his epic reddit science onions nihilism is the real circlejerk, it wasn't just the "humor" the fans were getting mocked for lol. I can't comprehend someone actually hearing Dan Harmon's pseud alcoholic hedonist ramblings and taking them seriously

>>16825856
This is what OP's face looks like. Antinatalism is the chinlet's choice for life philosophy

>>16826262
Post tits, whore

>>16827518
You think that's bad? Look at more anti-natalist youtubers. The vast majority of them that I've seen are genetic wastelands. They're failures, striking out at life in envy and resentment.

"Defeatist" by Hatebreed summarizes their predicament quite well

>>16827530
The femanon OP can disprove this by posting face (and tits)

I don't care about suffering

Gonna have kids anyway

There is no argument against antinatalism -- only your sensitivity to it.

>>16827473
>Everything that exists must have a beginning;
Oh and does God?
>does Cosmic Inflation have a cause? Can it justify its own causelessness?
Does God?

>>16827485
>Summarize the core assertions. It'll be a fun mental exercise, LARPanon.

>God does not exist: Cosmic Inflation;
>Materialism: Human consciousness is just vibrating information and has no evidence of tangible effect on the real world, all metaphysics is mere human wish;
>Nihilism: Derives logically from the two assertions above, moral nihilism included;
>Hedonism: Not as objectively certain, but it sure as hell does have scientific basis, given neuroscience and our understanding of the pineal gland and amygdala.

>>16827271
>Fuck me, lads, this thread is a massacre and we're only 100 posts in.
A massacre of my brain cells at this continuous cope and idealist circlejerk.

>>16827728
If it's causing you suffering then stop with the coping.

>>16827728
Proof that antinataltards cause their own suffering, if the thread is so terrible then just log off nigge

>>16827699
Jesus christ nigga i agree with most of that stuff but atleast consider a more life-affirming and fun option

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBRqu0YOH14

>>16827699
>Oh and does God?
God is uncreated
By everything that exists, I am referring to creation. Everything that exists is created, God is the uncreated creator because He is above time, causality, and other things. This does not mean He cannot intervene in reality, but transcending above it and logic makes Him causeless.

>God does not exist: Cosmic Inflation
Does not follow

>Materialism: Human consciousness is just vibrating information and has no evidence of tangible effect on the real world, all metaphysics is mere human wish
Why "just?" If nothing metaphysical exist, why does matter interact as it does? Why are there patterns, or "laws" in nature? Don't tell me "there just are," that's circular.

>Nihilism: Derives logically from the two assertions above, moral nihilism included;
Moral nihilism? Why should you be moral AND a nihilist? It seems more like a PR campaign to make yourself seem morally superior in a world where morality is a futile exercise and anti-natalists and efilists are helpless to prevent the perpetuation of this "suffering machine" called life. It doesn't matter, because we don't need them; the suffering machine moves on to heights beyond those envisioned by the lazy pessimist.

>Hedonism: Not as objectively certain, but it sure as hell does have scientific basis, given neuroscience and our understanding of the pineal gland and amygdala.
Explain. Though I don't disagree, all humans desire pleasure. God offers pleasure, or something pleasant.

>>16827850
>God is uncreated
>By everything that exists, I am referring to creation. Everything that exists is created, God is the uncreated creator because He is above time, causality, and other things. This does not mean He cannot intervene in reality, but transcending above it and logic makes Him causeless.
Look up "special pleading",i admittedly, am too lazy to explain the entirety of it here
>Does not follow
But Cosmic Inflation needs no uncaused cause since the Universe has always existed, all the laws have always existed in an infinite causeless past in of itself
>Why "just?" If nothing metaphysical exist, why does matter interact as it does? Why are there patterns, or "laws" in nature? Don't tell me "there just are," that's circular.
Infinite Multiverse theory, probability results in laws that support life eventually
>Explain. Though I don't disagree, all humans desire pleasure. God offers pleasure, or something pleasant.
God is less conductive to concerning ourselves with what we have, our mortal known existence.

>>16825856
>blah blah good words blah blah bad words
Shut the fuck up hypocrite nigger. You are not that rational and intelligent since you hasn't realized your philoshophy doesn't contain any universal truth but instead come to exist only by your attitude to life.

>>16827911
You're the person who sits in the back of a philosophy lecture saying "it's just all relative bro".

>>16827699
I got one of my degrees in Neuroscience, and it's largely a bullshit field, especially when it tries to make philosophical claims.

>>16827945
Wrong, I sit in the front. Faggot

>>16825856
I am a pessimist and I assert there isn't any objective moral route.

>>16827897
>Look up "special pleading",i admittedly, am too lazy to explain the entirety of it here
It's not special pleading, it's precisely what I posit that God is. There's a reason for this "special treatment," i.e. that He is above the laws of causality that govern this universe, as He is its creator and the creator of all laws that give it order. Everything else in this world has a cause, I don't see how there could exist a set of eternal laws (which are metaphysical) or how this could even be scientifically demonstrated. Why do these laws exist? I understand that you believe in the multiverse fairy tale, but that still leaves concrete laws that govern this entire macrocosm of multiverses, thus removing your God of the Probabilities-tier argument.

>But Cosmic Inflation needs no uncaused cause since the Universe has always existed, all the laws have always existed in an infinite causeless past in of itself
Can you prove that the laws/Universe have always existed? Has time always existed? How can we have an infinite past? It seems more like you are specially pleading, saying that the fundamental laws of this world need no cause de

>Infinite Multiverse theory, probability results in laws that support life eventually
Can you provide proof of an alternate universe? Is there an alternate universe where an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God exists?

And I am not referring to life, stop giving me hackneyed atheist responses. I am talking about the laws; there are still overarching laws that tell us that "there are infinite multiverses, each one with some minor difference, each one separated by some means." Why does this law exist? Why do multiverses exist? Or do they exist only to fill in some gap or answer an uncomfortable question posed to scientists?

>God is less conductive to concerning ourselves with what we have, our mortal known existence.
Knowledge of God subsumes everything under itself; it is of immediate use, and one need not negate one's mortal existence while believing in a God. A scientist can be a man of God, as well. There is no need to desperately push aside God as if we don't have ample time on earth to think both of God and of secular things.

Those things you "know" about your mortal "known" existence are not even really known. There are questions no one can answer, such as those raised by solipsists.

>>16827950
Then I can at least commend you for having the courage of your convictions. I'd much rather a courageous retard than timid and oversocialised normie.

>>16827945
Joke on you I have never attend any lecture.
But I'm I wrong? Implies I must be anti natalist if I had seen the meaninglessness is just straight up wrong.

>>16827967
Thank you anon, I try :)

>>16827963
Honestly anon, just give up, these hyperpessimistic schizoids never yield, every single r/atheism type nigger is more stubborn and hardheaded than pure neutron star core and you've already proven more than enough that your belief in God is founded on reason, the scientism worshipping majority can fuck off when what they believe in is hilariously stupid.

>>16827982
Tun Sie, was Sie wollen, mein Freund.

To use terminology I hate, I would be considered a philosophical pessimist. I hate these threads because words like nihilism and meaningless get thrown around in a very pop-philosophy manner. If you want my view on this matter, I really don't care what you do. I'm mildly sympathetic to the view but I understand the imperative if you want to reproduce. Though, I don't know what the future holds for me.

>>16828044
Merci, anon, but I'm the squire of Don Quixote, I'll only yield to the windmills when it's my bedtime.

>>16825856
Antinalists are the enlightened atheists of the contemporary internet age. All of this shit has little to do with logic or reason or whatever you delude yourself to have. Foremost, it's an aesthetic and not even a novel one. It's the same old "everyone is a NPC but me" cope, that helps you not feel like the worthless little shit you actually are. Just look at the fucking language:
>The absolute truth of the nihilistic darkness that prevails our damned existence is too incomprehensibly horrific for the majority of idiots who continue to spill their breed across this doomed sphere of rock

The issue with your argument is the issue most utilitarians face. If most normies disagree with you, who are you to say if their lives are worthwhile or not? If they accept misery, why do you have any imperative to end it, when the majority would rather live? You sorts are always eager to speak for and make decisions for every living person without asking them what their opinion is

>>16828264
looking objectively at the suffering that pervades existence has nothing to do with success or failure in your soulless cockroach society, faggot

>>16828397
Who are you to tell them their hostility to existence is unwarranted?

>>16828415
Im not the one suggesting ending all existence based on my own experience of life. Their views are valid until they force their value judgements onto everyone. Some starving kid in africa might still believe in life and think its worth it. Maybe by your standards he is wrong. You still dont have the authority to end his life, and if he wants to live you have no moral reason to

>>16828405
It has everything to do with success/failure, you conceded as much in your following post: their "hostility to existence." Why are they hostile to existence, pray tell? Because they are "worthless little shits." They have been abused, or bullied, or forced to the bottom of existence. But they and only they choose to slander life and try and steal a good life from the rest of us. It is their choice and theirs alone to "be hostile to existence," to be in a constant and unnatural state of tension, aggression, and hatred when the better thing to do is love all, affirm all.

If they truly were intelligent, they would find refutations to their own arguments. Because they do not, they are only emotionally charged. In short, they need Jesus Christ. They flirt with agnosticism and pretend they're just playing it safe ("Oh, there's just not enough evidence!"), but there's no reason not to experiment when you're in this kind of predicament.

>>16828415
It is unwarranted because it is how they choose to see the world. You conveniently did not answer the man's objections, you lickspittle. They are hostile to existence, fine; let them keep that hostility to themselves and not force others to "not reproduce" or to not "live their lives out" simply because a band of circle-jerking weirdos on the internet decided that it's MALIGNANTLY USELESS and that we'd all be better off avoiding pain.

If you care so much about science and empiricism, but the aforementioned cannot save you from your state, are they really so worthy before God, with Whom all things are possible?

>>16828431
Le proverbial starving kid in africa, thanks for outing yourself as a worthless normoid.

>>16828440
Nooo only the winners of society can force their ideas on others, just trust the plan bro

Everyone's views are a product of life experience you fucking retard.

>>16828431
No, faggot, instead your suggesting its endless perpetuation, based on your own myopically comfortable life that you presume speaks for everyone else's.

>>16825856
Time out for a sec, let's take a moment to laugh :) at a thread of people arguing yet constantly calling each other "circlejerkers" XD yeah this thread sure is an echo chamber ;) okay now back to arguing gang hehe

>>16828452
>Nooo only the winners of society can force their ideas on others, just trust the plan bro
Yes, only the winners in society have the ABILITY to do so. But the losers in society have the right to let others know that they are suffering; the problem here is that it's YOUR problem that because of your suffering, you want to stop everyone from reproducing, and you want all life to cease. We can ameliorate your situation, but your pessimism is a disease you must share with yourself, and which we will not allow to spread to general, civilized society. If you want to be alone with your suffering, be so; but make something useful of it. Don't spend your days being an uninteresting worm who thinks he's special because he's suffered, holds pessimistic views, and "asks himself questions about the universe."

Stop slandering life and forcing yourself to suffer. I was once like you, self-pitying, self-loathing. So what? I move on, and I acquire the object of my desire. That is what life is about, fighting to win or dying trying. And a reward for the righteous at the end of it all

>trust the plan
Fuck yes

>>16828440
>Why are they hostile to existence
because the world is irrational, you fool

>>16828484
Kek you're a retard

>>16828459
I am suggesting endless perpetuation, but that will not occur because God has set a limit on the age of man.

>based on your own myopically comfortable life
No, my life has not been comfortable; I still wish to live and have a goal to fulfill, a telos despite it. The majority of humans are like this- they all pursue something. So yes, I presume to speak for others; so what if they do not lead a comfortable life, if I have done all I could to give them such a life? Who said I wanted a life of pleasure for my child, and not one also including hardship and tribulations? Natural selection favors those with a survival instinct; if he does not wish to undergo hardship, we only have modern luxury and indulgence to blame. There is only one worthy purpose- it is not worldly comfort.

>>16828486
They are a part of this irrational world, how can irrational humans see the world as irrational? Should I trust the thoughts of irrational men? No, the world is rationally ordered, but we do not have a holistic view of the world. All that is outwardly pointless is not so, but only seems so; a consequentialist would know this.

>>16828493
You're in good company, then

>>16828459
im not suggesting ANYTHING though. you are the one proposing extinction based on your own experience of life. its just lunacy. if most people want to live, you have no moral reason to stop them

>>16828405
>objectively
Everything you are giving me tells me that your worldview is anything but "objective". Again, look at your language. It's so highly emotionalized that I'm seriously getting concerned about hurting your feelings.

>has nothing to do with success or failure
Not true. The aesthetic I was speaking of is largely popular among societal failures because it tells them they're aren't failures. Same reason why conspiracy theories are always more prevalent among the lowest socio-economic classes.

>>16828543
Cool, so I gotta consult pop stars and media magnates to sign off on the tragic nature of existence, cool cool. And I can't impose death on others already destined for it but you can impose life on unborn souls, which is just death with an extra step. Cool cool.

You just want to rip more souls out of the void to feed the factory-engines of your masters, give it a rest

>>16828552
lol the validity of an ontological claim like "life is inherently deficient" has nothing to do with success or failure in worldly society. You're a fucking brainlet my dude

>>16828518
look up gnosticism faggot. stop talking to people without understanding their pov

>>16828467
>le enlightened centrist

>>16828560
No, you completely misunderstood his post. You cannot force others to your level of vitiation because doing so would be lowering humanity to a place it does not wish to be. We do not wish to die as a species, we wish to proliferate and grow in strength. Furthermore, we wish to alleviate pain, not to eliminate that which feels pain. That's overkill, it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

>And I can't impose death on others already destined for it
You can. What's stopping you? Your own weakness, your fear of the law, or a fear of causing suffering or hurt?

>you can impose life on unborn souls
And you can impose unlife on unborn souls? Think of the children! What if there's a future Rosa Parks, or Mahatma Ghandi in the void, just kicking and begging to be born? In reality, you prioritize avoidance of pain too much; humans are not generally avoiding pain at all costs, that is why you do not have the right as a minority to impose your diseased will upon other, normal humans. We are not a race of chicken littles; if we were, we would not survive this world and win great glory. If you see no point in this glory, that is your problem; millenia of human achievement and progress stand against you and see a point in glory. We weren't all just mindless animals, tramping along life until you pessimists came along; we asked ourselves questions about life, and forged on nonetheless.

>which is just death with an extra step
Yes, it is death with an extra step. I am responsible for their dying, but them dying is not a negative thing because it was not I who killed them. Surely you are not so illogical as to equate killing a human being to creating a being, that will then die.

>You just want to rip more souls out of the void to feed the factory-engines of your masters
Who are my masters? Who is saying that my children will contribute to the mess this world is in, and be mere consumers feeding the "factory-engines?" They might be contributing to humanity, but that is only a byproduct of them following their own goals.

Also,
>rip more souls out of the void
They don't exist in the void. Why is it wrong to create a being that will suffer and die? This does not mean it is okay to kill another, because killing and reproduction are incomparable. In one instance, you kill a being that is already alive; in the other, you create a life that will die, a net null.

>>16828569
That's just nonsense.

>woah my epistemological dude, you're teleologically an ontological brainlet because you haven't rhizomatized muh philosophy words every three deterritorialized seconds

He was trying to psychoanalyze you, showing that you view life as "inherently and negatively deficient" (which is what makes it livable) and that this is caused by your status as a failure. This does not make it wrong, unless this view is just a product of your outlook on life, which is probably shaped by constant failure.

>>16828574
You didn't even tell us your position, "faggot." How am I expected to read your mind? And what the fuck does muh yaldaboath have to do with this discussion? I need to not reproduce to avoid bringing more children into this evil world? How else will I bring more people to gnosis?

>>16828637
>>16828552
Tfw you're not a "failure" (study in a prestigious field which will lead to good employment, have an active social life, physically fit and muscular) yet hold views that derogate from the norm. Though, I'm not an anti-natalist - it's meme internet ideology. We agree on that much. Point is, calling people incels or basement-dwellers isn't as compelling as one might think.

>>16828637
>he was trying to psychoanalyze you

Yes, effete urbanites typically do when confronted with ideas that deviate from what they consider the norm. Your arguments aren't compelling at all, and you launched into a spiel trying to mock overly verbose philosophy because of the words "ontological" and "deficient". Cringy brainlet. Your shit arguments are caused by your status as a sniveling little nerd.

>>16828685
>you're not a "failure"
If you're a pessimist, everything you just listed is MALIGNANTLY USELESS. Otherwise, don't derail this discussion with whinging about the habits of 4channers; it is our wont to pyschoanalyze and call names.

>>16828705
>Yes, effete urbanites typically do when confronted with ideas that deviate from what they consider the norm
Thank you for exemplifying exactly what you caution against. Pratfall

>Your arguments aren't compelling at all, and you launched into a spiel trying to mock overly verbose philosophy because of the words "ontological" and "deficient"
I don't care about how compelling my arguments are.

>Cringy brainlet.
Those words were a google search away, mate. There's nothing stunning about using them. I was just poking fun at what looked like and what continues to be a line of pretentious non-arguments

>Your shit arguments are caused by your status as a sniveling little nerd.
Bluff

OP is a retard.

>>16825856
What's stopping you from killing yourself, OP. Life isn't precious and has no meaning, why not become an hero?

>>16828746
Haha no my friend, the dude who generalizes the managerial capitalist pipeline as a universal shonen arc for the whole of life that we all must gloriously submit to, he doesn't get to accuse others of making non-arguments. Especially with pinterest platonist slogans like you just gotta like get in touch with the whole maaan. I haven't found a better intellectual litmus test than the problem of evil. You failed.

>>16828746
Haha yes Ligotti, the pinnacle of pessimist thought.
>don't derail this discussion with whinging about the habits of 4channers; it is our wont to pyschoanalyze and call names.
Oh no sorry for breaking the rules

>>16828777
>managerial capitalist pipeline
Hell yeah, we can find meaning and struggle no matter how the world is. I never said we must allow the world to remain a managerial capitalist pipeline because of this.

>Especially with pinterest platonist slogans
>like you just gotta like get in touch with the whole maaan.
You don't have a clue of what I'm talking about, do you?

>I haven't found a better intellectual litmus test than the problem of evil. You failed.
Should this matter to me? Here's a challenge for you- solve the problem of evil yourself, to see if you can pass your own test.

My answer to the test is that there is no evil.

>>16828791
>it's all relative :)
>just gotta find your own meaning :)
>life is an adventure :)

Lol you have a female psychology

>>16828786
Did I say Ligotti was the pinnacle of pessimist thought, worm?

>Oh no sorry for breaking the rules
No, man, it's just that you're bitching about "pseuds" and "name calling" in a thread about pessimism and anti-natalism. Don't just chastise, lead by example. That is, start arguing

>>16828796

>>16828685
>Point is, calling people incels or basement-dwellers isn't as compelling as one might think.

What's it like being a disappointment to your parents, OP?

>>16828803
Noooo only I can make sweeping claims about what has to be true for you to hold your views, noooo you can't just challenge my sophomoric theodicy like that, trust the plan, only listen to your betters, everything is the individual's fault while society which is an aggregate of individuals is mysteriously exempt from this law!!! Nooo!!!

>>16828832
Did I say we can't hold society accountable? And unfortunately, you have not challenged anything by accusing me of holding a woman's ideology. You keep trying to identify me as some kind of statist puppet, which I am not.

Yeah, I'll have a response, hold the irony.

>>16828569
Technically, I don't disagree. But my point was that the claim is merely an aesthetic, right? Even if we could come to an agreement that the claim is valid, that wouldn't really matter to what I said. They could have a valid claim and still be motivated not by reason or logic to argue for it but because they find it to be an aesthetically attractive position. In this sense, it very much has something to do with success (not just monetary). You can see this in the kind of people that extremists try to recruit for their cause. They're mostly societal failures, because these are the people that react most eagerly to these aesthetics. Thats the correlation.

>>16828842
>>16828852
Not all pessimism is pathological and it's juvenile, even pathological, to believe so. That's why I mock you relentlessly.

>>16828832
The point was that a life-hating, anti-natalist pessimism/misanthropy is the fault of the individual's outlook on life, which causes the individual to try and force his hatred and vitiation onto other people.

Of course, there are still societal problems that need to be addressed, but pessimism seeks to do away with societies and the agents of suffering that constitute them. It would be better to hold fast until society is fixed. Pessimism won't make anything better, or spirit away those problems plaguing us.

Truth be told, you're growing more and more shrill. I'll go off to sleep, and let you have the last word that women so often desire.

>>16828868
I'm pretty sure we didn't say that ALL pessimism was pathological, chief. "You're gonna mock us relentlessly." I'm literally shaking

>>16828874
Boring.

>>16828877
I'm explaining why I do, not threatening you. You're such an autist you misread social cues over the internet

>>16825856
t. reddit
Learn about metempsychosis. Whenever you die your soul will continue on and be reincarnated for another miserable life ;)

>>16828868
Never claimed so, retard. The only one you're mocking is yourself with a reading comprehension that bad.

>>16825856

N I G G E R
I
G
G
E
R

>>16825856
even the little skelly in your pic is smiling, OP, you are wrong. We will experience great pain, but also some pleasure in our life. I have gazed into the void and came out happy, I suggest you do too. I shall teach my sons and daughters to do the same, whereas you shall die alone and bitter. Unless you change thinking like a loser.

>>16826649
Shit I should trust my nose more. Something smelled fish, even comical but you kept pushing.

>>16825996
Honestly, get a grip man. How could such a rational mind completely skim over reincarnation in some form as the only possible outcome post-death? You must overcome life, not shun away from it - that's the only method of escape. If you really want to be moral, encourage eugenics.

>>16827950
Based

>>16826543
"Consent" is moralistic christian dogma and means jack shit in the actual world, it's simply not a thing. People like you are just coddled silver spoon toddlers.

>>16825856
>Why do non-pessimists insist so much that antinatalism/efilism isn't, objectively speaking, the moral route?
Fuck off

>>16825915
>Read some of Orgy of the Will by icycalm
Go back to your e-cult where you pay some illiterate douchebag LARPer to spout simplistic aphorisms for hours on end you insipid midwit.

>>16825996
>I am biologically hardwired to not kill myself
Pure cope. Your fear of jumping off a bridge isn't an inability to do so, it's a realization you don't want to jump off in fact.

>>16829598
>"Consent" is moralistic christian dogma and means jack shit in the actual world, it's simply not a thing.
t. hylic atheist

>>16829839
>muh "ist" buzzwords
Not much consent can do when I bash your fucking head with the frying pan so it's only natural you have to cope.

>>16828890
>reincarnation
Nah you'll live the same life over and over again for eternity. Don't know which is worse

>>16830133
*dodges it*
*fucks your ass*

i believe in god but if you willingly have a kid, youre either cruel or delusional.

>>16825856
Antinatalism an Efilism themselves seem to be at a same time a projection and a cause of a lot of suffering and existential dread on the individual himself. This suffering leads to fuck awful life with it's only redeeming quality from both perspectives being the lack of procreation. And then those individuals take pride in not reaching climax inside a woman leading to procreation as a sort of upmost moral virtue that justifies their overall lack of contribution to the sessation of suffering. When in reality they're just a sad bunch of people who are too lazy to step out of the theoretical. If the philosophy you have against suffering only leads to more suffering and fantastical dreams of vaccoom decay how shitty is that philosophy? If you feel itchy for a genocide why not start with tropical paracites and other shitty beings which only contribute to suffering but lack recognized cognition and thus ability to concent or abject to said genocide? Why does the position of AN/efilism have to be global just fuck the bugs and all the gay animals who suffer at first lmao.

>>16825915
>Read some of Orgy of the Will by icycalm if you want an actual jolt to your comforting lies and consolations, and then move onto Nietzsche from there.
lol, the liberals and hedonists are desperate to create their won values as a passtime

>>16827422
>Science is good because it looks for truth,
lol no

logic and science are just a narrative like any other and it is not proven at all it investigates anything

This is because formalized science is based on logicized maths, hyped as ''the language of the universe'' by posci addicts lol

and logicized maths is based on logic

all mathematicians are logic babies addicted to ZFC and they are all platonist, ie ''numbers are real bro not social construct''.

By the way truth is not found in logic. Logic is just a field by autistic pedants about well formed formulas and valuations, ie sending a formula to 1 or 0 and asking what are those valuations which are stable under inference rules. Zero truth in this, especially truth in the casual sense. Tarski truth is moronic, meaningless. Peak atheist.
Just like there is no truth in science, just some stats and a stat convention for saying ''if p value is XXX then the result is''true''''

This is why science is shit for politics and even for daily life.
At best scientists can come up about some stats about some formal system. Like ''this material has such and wear and tear, therefore our backlog of such conditons lead to 60% of breaking in the next year''
That's the pinnacle of the scientific claim and all their claims remain phrased as uncertainty.

all of this because the brain got bigger while the cranium stayed the same.

>>16828883
>I'm explaining why I do, not threatening you. You're such an autist you misread social cues over the internet
The same goes for you; I didn't take it as a threat, but the way you said it implied that I should care. "This is why I relentlessly mock you." If you expected any response other than irony, you're probably the autist.

>>16829598
>it's the next episode of all morals I don't like in this society are Christian
I'd say the overemphasis on "consent" is anything but Christian. God doesn't ask babies for consent before putting them here. He doesn't ask for consent before taking a life. He does what He wills, generally. As for us, we aren't asked to be consent-mongers like these "ethical anti-natalists" only now pretend to be.

>>16825856
>criticizing"imaginary ideas"
>advocates moralism
heh...

>>16825856
can we please remove the dying baby picture? It's disturbing and not necessary.

>>16825907
I don't think the file size cap would allow a soijack large enough to match this post.

your a stupid fucking retarded hylic utilitarian, not a nihilist or pessimist or whatever, woman! As long as anything good and beautiful exists, that's enough to weigh up all the suffering in the world.

>>16826944
just kys tranny.

>>16827163
>and its' overall infallibility.
kek https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

>>16825856

>>16827422
>science is good because it's already Beyond this reality.
???
science is bound to this reality.

>>16827950
BASED

>>16827963
Why can't the laws of the universe simply exist in autonomy? Why do they have to derive from a God?

>>16832265
>uhh science has replaced religion
No.

>>16832333
>uhh science has replaced religion
>No.
Visit leddit even once
Science nowadays is more worshipped and fellated than any religion has ever been in history, no contest

>>16832297
Because you need to justify why they're autonomous without resorting to circularity. There's only one way out of circularity.

Perhaps you could say we don't need a "why," but I'm not asking for a "why," I'm asking for a "how." How are there eternal, immutable laws of nature? How do they not change? How is there one set of laws over another? This shows that these laws/constants/formulas are arbitrary; they could have been any other way.

The problem with "autonomous" laws of the universe is that they're basically unconscious God. They're uncaused. They're eternal. They govern our existence. And so we can keep asking "why" ad absurdum, because these laws are not transcendental, which is another point of difference

>>16832485
>This shows that these laws/constants/formulas are arbitrary; they could have been any other way.
Yes.
But why do you need an intelligent mind behind them?

>>16825856
can't wait until I finish my undergrad, go to law school, become a lawyer, and have a stable income so I can start a family

>>16832412
It's all because they try to identify science with atheism, thereby appropriating a neutral thing. They say that science has made God obsolete, but you can't use science to make a transcendental being obsolete, and there will always be unanswerable questions facing us and science that God-claims address.

But no, reject religion. Embrace Rick and Morty >>16827384

>>16832510
I never said they did, the evidence of the intelligence would more readily come from supernatural experiences. But the arbitrariness of this world's laws need an answer, regardless; that an intelligence chose these arbitrary constants and laws makes more sense than these things just "being like this." Accuse this of being an anthropocentric view, but everything has a reason. Science keeps reducing until it reaches an irreducible point of arbitrariness, where something "just is because that's the way it is," which is circular.

>>16832583
>that an intelligence chose these arbitrary constants and laws makes more sense than these things just "being like this."
Why?
>everything has a reason.
What is the reason of the existence of an intelligent God and how does it differ from the arbitrariness of laws being just there?

>>16832624
>What is the reason of the existence of an intelligent God and how does it differ from the arbitrariness of laws being just there?
Because that God would fundamentally be above causality/time/logic, so He would not be circular. It's more of an appeal to ignorance than employing circularity

>Why?
Because things that seem arbitrary always have an explanation. If there are no further logical laws to explain why the laws of nature are a certain way, then you have to illogically say "they just are like that." It's like saying "God exists because God exists." It doesn't even have to be a God, just something fundamentally incomprehensible to appeal to to explain this arbitrariness, seeing as everything must have an explanation.

>>16832624
>>that an intelligence chose these arbitrary constants and laws makes more sense than these things just "being like this."
>Why?
Scientism and materialism inherently reject metaphysics, leaving zero room for explanation on why the physical laws of the Universe are as the way they are, or why they even exist
Materialists have no logical arguments, their overreliance on empirical evidence leads to circularity

>What is the reason of the existence of an intelligent God and how does it differ from the arbitrariness of laws being just there?
Because a God does allow metaphysics and an uncaused being that transcends conventional time and causality

>>16832639
>that God would fundamentally be above causality/time/logic, so He would not be circular.
How?
>Because things that seem arbitrary always have an explanation.
Do they?
>>16832649
>Materialists have no logical arguments, their overreliance on empirical evidence leads to circularity
Why isn't it a logical argument? Because it doesn't derive from something else?

>>16832670
>Why isn't it a logical argument? Because it doesn't derive from something else?
Materialism is illogical because it defeats itself
If empirical evidence is the only way to make any argument, then materialism itself is flawed because it has no empirical evidence, and similarly there is no empirical evidence on the reliability of our senses

If I have children they'll be antinatalist too.
The solution is to not have them.

>>16832686
>it has no empirical evidence
Why isn't "things are this way and not that way" an evidence?

>>16825856
ok guys these threads suck ill just end it for us all right here ok
theres two kinds of morality, they are very important for us to recognize
>objective morality
>subjective morality
I am unfamiliar with other religions, because i care not for them in all honesty, but id assume they are similar (perhaps) but also probably not
in Christianity we have objective morals, which means that life is a gift, ie suffering, and that to cease such is murder, ie sin, pleasure, human good.
all other moral systems are bound to be subjective because the only eternal constant is some form of God, as well the expectation of an afterlife is needed to make these judgements
so this preface aside there are two modes of thought:
pleasure and suffering
suffering is for those with pleasure after life
pleasure is for those with pain after life (i will not say suffering because suffering is the lot and good of man)

>>16832707
>Why isn't "things are this way and not that way" an evidence?
Things are what way?
Materialism is equally devoid of evidence as God, and ontop of that clashes with consciousness and why there's something rather than nothing.

>>16832670
>How?
He would not be circular because we would not be able to direct those scientific questions towards Him that would lead to circularity.

Like "Why is sky blue?" Because X. Why is X like that? Because Y. Why is Y like that? Because Z. Each involves some scientific theory, some "law of nature," and eventually we ought to reach a point where we can no longer ask "why is it like that?" We have to say "it just is," which is circular. God in His prima nature transcends this cycle of theorizing and reduction and so cannot be reduced to circularity.

>Do they?
Yes. Why are there mountains over there, there, and there? Because in those places, the tectonic plates collided at year X, and so on and so forth. Why is one of those roses white, instead of red? It seems random, but there's an explanation. Similarly, there should be explanations for the laws of nature; when nothing can be explained any further, you need to either appeal to circularity or something else; it's basically Munchausen's trilemma.

>Why isn't it a logical argument? Because it doesn't derive from something else?
No, because it can only regress so far. Eventually, it leads to circularity, which is illogical. I guess we are proposing the dogmatic argument of the Munchausen trilemma, by saying that there is a God who explains the presence of these laws, and this God cannot also be reduced to circularity because He is transcendental and not reducible by the natural sciences

>>16832583
>Science keeps reducing until it reaches an irreducible point of arbitrariness, where something "just is because that's the way it is," which is circular.
It's called circular grounding. I'm religious but I don't like apologetics. They are a bunch of try-hards.

>>16832707
Because you can ask "why?" and you'd be back to the same problem of circularity.

"Things are this way and not that way."

"Why?"

"Because things are this way and not that way."

>>16832737
>eventually we ought to reach a point where we can no longer ask "why is it like that?" We have to say "it just is,"
Because you are asking the wrong question, why implies, if not outright conscious intent, than atleast some tendency towards something
You reaching the point where that intent cannot be identified is, if anything, an argument against god
So we enter an interesting situation, the universe needs a god, yet its impossible for a god to exist, for if he did, the universe would need one no longer
>Yes. Why are there mountains over there, there, and there? Because in those places, the tectonic plates collided at year X, and so on and so forth. Why is one of those roses white, instead of red? It seems random, but there's an explanation.
How does the fact that those specific phenomena have an explanations means a completely unrelated one would have an explanation?

>>16832649
>Scientism and materialism inherently reject metaphysics,

I think many of them simply have naturalistic metaphysics. Philosophy is behind science. Presuppositions are hard or impossible to get rid of so a good scientist will adhere to the ways of science. The Cult of scientism does not require the Common Man to have such rigorous discipline that the scientific methods calls for. But all humans have a worldview be they scientist or scientismist. Some science-minded people think that the idea of the universe being a simulation and that simulation being a simulation of a simulation and Etc is a plain silly idea and others think it a highly likely case. The methods of science are only designed to do certain things. Humans will try to use various other tools for the rest of it. Metaphysics is always there because it always asked everyone for an answer because it's a question about what reality is. Some people simply answer that they don't know, perhaps because science doesn't know either. Others not having considered it will give the answer of whatever their passive freedom happened to become.

>>16832714
>Things are what way?
The way they are, instead of another.
>>16832737
>God in His prima nature transcends this cycle of theorizing and reduction and so cannot be reduced to circularity.
How does He? And why can't the laws of nature do the same?
>>16832749
>Because you can ask "why?" and you'd be back to the same problem of circularity.
Why does this stop "The laws of nature are like that because they are like that" from being an evidence?

>>16832818
>Because you are asking the wrong question, why implies, if not outright conscious intent, than atleast some tendency towards something
You know what I mean by "why." I mean "how?" It's like asking "why" is the sky blue? I didn't intend to use the meaning that implies conscious tendency there.

>You reaching the point where that intent cannot be identified is, if anything, an argument against god
It's not the identification of intent that I wished to use, but the same argument I keep repeating in this thread; that is, its explanatory power and supralogical rather than illogical nature. Not that we can infer a God or similarly transcendental thing through some visible intent in this world but rather through a need to escape circularity.

Either way, this would not actually be an argument against God but rather an argument for agnosticism, because we cannot differentiate between intent and randomness, which raises the question of how people who think like this live their daily lives.

>So we enter an interesting situation, the universe needs a god, yet its impossible for a god to exist, for if he did, the universe would need one no longer
Explain. If the universe did not need a God any longer, then it's because He already exists. What did you mean by this?

>also, impossible for an omnipotent, supralogical God to exist

>How does the fact that those specific phenomena have an explanations means a completely unrelated one would have an explanation?
I gave you examples of outwardly random phenomena that actually have explanations. For a materialist, nothing should exist that does not have a further explanation. Either science "ends" in endless regression or circularity/dogma.

It's not completely unrelated, it's another instance of an outwardly arbitrary phenomenon. There are laws of natures. Okay, why are these laws of nature as they are?

>>16832903
>How does He? And why can't the laws of nature do the same?
He does so by virtue of He being the creator of this existence and its laws. If He is the creator, it stands that He is not subject to the laws He has created in His essence, though He can still interact with the world. In other words, and I am repeating myself here for the nth time, He is not reducible to laws, so He cannot be reducible to circularity. You can ask "Why does God exist" and the answer would be an appeal to ignorance rather than circularity.

>And why can't the laws of nature do the same?
Because then it would be like claiming that a god exists, something an agnostic atheist would not do. It would mean that science is founded on something unknowable, or transcendental. So, you can do so, but most atheists would not; I doubt you would

>Why does this stop "The laws of nature are like that because they are like that" from being an evidence?
Because a circular argument is a logical fallacy and if you magically accept it as truthful it raises further problems

>>16832917
>There are laws of natures. Okay, why are these laws of nature as they are
But laws are something that humans make. Humans did not make the universe so why should we act like they are both the same? The presupposition would be that intelligence is behind reality. If intelligence is not behind reality then the so-called laws of the universe are really just a mysterious thing called the universe. Materialist and atheist tend to presuppose that intelligence is not a fundamental component of reality. They probably tend to believe that human intelligence is some strange thing in the universe rather than part of it. Human intelligence is to these people, as Alan Watts would say, "slime on a rock". of course most people who believe in a God, especially Westerners, see him as a mind.

>>16832917
>You know what I mean by "why." I mean "how?" It's like asking "why" is the sky blue? I didn't intend to use the meaning that implies conscious tendency there.
Then your criticism makes no sense, if you only want to find the "mechanics" of that you ask, the circular grounding should be a sufficient explanation
>but rather through a need to escape circularity.
>Explain. If the universe did not need a God any longer, then it's because He already exists. What did you mean by this?
Then we reach the form of grandfather paradox i talked about, if god must exist to escape circularity, then by existing he is removing his reason to exist in the first place, therefore he doesn't
>It's not completely unrelated, it's another instance of an outwardly arbitrary phenomenon.
That's like saying two murders that happened thousands of years apart in different countries are related because they are murders
They share a category, not a relation

>>16833072
>Then your criticism makes no sense, if you only want to find the "mechanics" of that you ask, the circular grounding should be a sufficient explanation
We're not just trying to find the mechanics, stopping at the mechanics of how it works is not satisfactory to explain the Universe, that's where physicalism stops, though
>Then we reach the form of grandfather paradox i talked about, if god must exist to escape circularity, then by existing he is removing his reason to exist in the first place, therefore he doesn't
Non-sequitur with no explanation given

>>16833039
>But laws are something that humans make.
Things that we make based on our observations of patterns in the world which do exist and are identifiable. These things DO exist, and are constant. Otherwise, science would be defeated because there are unpredictable, random patterns that are only at times constant.

>The presupposition would be that intelligence is behind reality
I am not arguing that there is an intelligence based on science's circularity, that justification comes from evidence of the supernatural. Science's circularity only entails something transcendental thus far.

> If intelligence is not behind reality then the so-called laws of the universe are really just a mysterious thing called the universe
But the laws of nature are understandable, and we can inquire into their nature further. This leads to circularity. It cannot be done with a transcendental being such as God; the only way to salvage the laws of nature from circularity is to end the infinite regression of proofs with some "transcendental proof" that humans cannot comprehend or reduce.

>They probably tend to believe that human intelligence is some strange thing in the universe rather than part of it
Of course, but human intelligence is what comprehends the universe.

>of course most people who believe in a God, especially Westerners, see him as a mind
You can view Him as whatever you want, but ultimately the important aspect of God is the explanatory power and some sort of communion or relationship.

Of course, God, rather than being something entirely alien to us, could just be an archetype for everything here on earth that is conducive to life and full of life (as opposed to being vitiated and corrupt). A transcendental archetype for logic, for order, etcetera that we can only not understand because we are fallen beings with a corrupted logic, order, and so on. But that's just an aside, not relevant to the discussion.

>>16832963
>and I am repeating myself here for the nth time, He is not reducible to laws, so He cannot be reducible to circularity
Sorry, I didn't understand the distinction you made before. Now I understand what you mean, but why is this trascendence valid while the circular argument is a fallacy?
>science is founded on something unknowable, or transcendental.
Why wouldn't it be immanent? And is there more to know in first place?

>>16825856
saying that non-materialists only believe what they believe for emotional reasons is a fallacious argument. Just as it would be a fallacious argument to say you believe in nothing only because you're nothing and it makes you comfortable to project that on the whole world.

You can't speak in terms of what the 'absolute truth of the nihilistic darkness' (lol) is when you don't even have a philosophical basis for belief in anything at all, WHY is suffering bad? WHY is it moral to eliminate suffering at all costs when in the same breath you say everything is meaningless, if its meaningless then who gives a fuck about your meaningless opinion?

>>16826327
>Not causing more suffering matters
Why?

>>16833129
>Sorry, I didn't understand the distinction you made before. Now I understand what you mean, but why is this trascendence valid while the circular argument is a fallacy?
Circular arguments of physicalism are invalid because they reject metaphysics to explain the existence of things, without metaphysics, things that exist without causes are illogical
Transcendence allows metaphysics, removing the incoherence

>Why wouldn't it be immanent? And is there more to know in first place?
The laws of the Universe cannot both be immanent and devoid of metaphysics, it would be logically incongruent

>>16833072
>Then your criticism makes no sense, if you only want to find the "mechanics" of that you ask, the circular grounding should be a sufficient explanation
No, because circular grounding is not a sufficient explanation. It never is; the sky is not blue just because it is blue, there must be a further explanation. Once we reach circularity, we must resort to fallacy. Why can't I just say "God exists" because "God exists?"

>Then we reach the form of grandfather paradox i talked about, if god must exist to escape circularity, then by existing he is removing his reason to exist in the first place, therefore he doesn't
It's not a reason for God's existence, it's a reason for the necessity of appealing to a God-claim. God doesn't exist because if He didn't, there would be circularity; He doesn't need a reason or condition to exist. The point was that we should believe in something transcendental because if we do not we are forced to resort to circularity, which is fallacious.

>That's like saying two murders that happened thousands of years apart in different countries are related because they are murders
The point was that arbitrary phenomena have explanations. All surface-level scientific theories are built on older, more fundamental theories, and so on and so forth until we reach some base axiom or circularity or regression (as shown in the Munchausen trilemma). We go to these fundamental theories to avoid just having arbitrary laws. If someone asks "why is the sky blue?", we do not just say that "it's blue because it's blue." There exists a further scientific explanation for why the sky is blue. But there exists no further scientific explanation for why the most fundamental laws of nature are so.

Either way, it's a dumb catch, I'm sure you understand the import of my main argument

>>16833129
It's alright. I believe the transcendence is valid because it appeals to something that CAN be known once a human being attains transcendence. In short, it is understandable, but it requires a "higher state of consciousness," and the understanding from this higher state cannot be understood by beings with a lower state of understanding (sole materialists).

>Why wouldn't it be immanent? And is there more to know in first place
It was just the extension of my belief. If you appeal to something transcendental, then science is built on something unknowable to normal men.

>>16833160
Exactly. We could just remove the ability for humans to feel any pain, rather than removing humans altogether. Neither is really that attractive

>>16833160
Suffering is an absurd mechanism of bad mental states inflinged on bio-machines, it also tethers us to our absurd, meaningless existence by making us suffer just imagining the idea of embracing eternal oblivion, and so we cling to life inertly.

>>16826262
But it would result in pleasure for every anon that sees your tits, do the moral thing femanon.

>>16833241
.

>>16833245
As much as you insist it would not bring significant amounts of pleasure noticeable except for perhaps a scornious judgement from the users here; Besides, Benatar's negative utilitarianism arguments illustrate the asymmetry on weighing pain and pleasure, where the presence of the former is bad, but the absence of the latter is neutral, as an argument for the unethical nature of creating both pain and pleasure in a conscious brain.

>>16833171
>without metaphysics, things that exist without causes are illogical
Why are they illogical? They exist.

>>16833089
>stopping at the mechanics of how it works is not satisfactory to explain the Universe, that's where physicalism stops, though
I agree, in order to explain the universe we need to ask both "how" and "why", my point is >>16832917 is saying he is only asking about the "how" which he is not
>Non-sequitur with no explanation given
Ironically
P1: God must exist to escape the "circularity of the universe" as that is the only reason >>16832917 gave for the existence of god
P2: If god exists, the universe is no longer circular
C: If god exists he eliminates his reason to exist

>>16833332
>Why are they illogical? They exist.
There is no evidence that the physical laws are uncaused, which, under the empiricst physicalist perspective makes it wrong, and if they are not uncaused, then physicalism defeats itself yet again, as an uncaused cause outside of them would be necessary even then

Rejecting metaphysics leads to nowhere but fallacious claims

>P2: If god exists, the universe is no longer circular
>C: If god exists he eliminates his reason to exist

You're conflating God and the Universe, the main reason God is a valid explanation to begin with is because it is exempt from the same properties of the Universe that prevent it from explaining itself

>>16833123
>the only way to salvage the laws of nature from circularity is to end the infinite regression of proofs with some "transcendental proof" that humans cannot comprehend or reduce.
Human beings have existed for a tiny fraction of the universe. it's an assumption to say that the laws of the universe are how they always have been. the totality of the laws of the universe might make for a self-existent and completely self-repeating thing as some scientists think. perhaps some scientist conclude that the universe is eternal and the closest thing to a God that there is. There simply might be a grand mathematical formula that can describe the self existence of the universe. That would in a sense be a transcendental proof because it would describe the whole.

>>16833351
Does that mean proofs by contradiction aren't possible? It doesn't proof that the universe isn't circular, but If circularity were impossible there must be a first causer. If something exists by necessity that doesn't mean it doesn't exist once that necessity is fulfilled, that is retarded.

>>16833175
> It never is; the sky is not blue just because it is blue, there must be a further explanation.
So you are not asking merely about the mechanics, which is my point
>It's not a reason for God's existence, it's a reason for the necessity of appealing to a God-claim.
Then you have failed to prove god's existence, you only prove we ought to believe in his existence
>God doesn't exist because if He didn't, there would be circularity
No, god doesn't exist because if he did, there wouldn't be a circularity
>He doesn't need a reason or condition to exist.
Yes he does, all your arguments relied on the deterministic nature of the universe to be true, god has to exist in ORDER to escape the circularity of the universe, but this circularity only exists in the materialist view, without there is no circularity, no reason, no way to prove he does or does not
Let me try to simplify: If the universe is materialistic, it neccessitates god in order to not be circular, but if the universe is not materialistic, it does not, so you cant claim god exists, you can only claim the universe is not materialistic
So really you are arguing against materialism, not in favour of god
>We go to these fundamental theories to avoid just having arbitrary laws. If someone asks "why is the sky blue?", we do not just say that "it's blue because it's blue." There exists a further scientific explanation for why the sky is blue. But there exists no further scientific explanation for why the most fundamental laws of nature are so.
Why should there be? Because the sky is blue?

>>16833270
That meme is dumb, Donald's claim is about value in the material universe, not about epistemology

>>16825856
Pessimism is cowardly. It essentially is a copout. It assumes that what's bad about the world cannot be corrected, and that therefore it is futile to try. Refusing the attempt however yields the predicted pessimistic result, allowing the pessimist to wag their finger and say I told you so.It's circular reasoning.
To assume pessimism and take a hard antinatalist stance, is to assume that there is no value to human life, and that no enjoyment and fulfillment is possible in life. All it takes to refute that is a simple fuck you, I beg to differ.

>>16833425
>There is no evidence that the physical laws are uncaused, which, under the empiricst physicalist perspective makes it wrong
I still don't get why a causation for them is needed though.
>You're conflating
That's not me, by the way.

>>16833454
Except that it's necessity is the only reason for it's existence, so unless you can come up with another reason it cannot exist on that basis alone

>>16833425
> the main reason God is a valid explanation to begin with is because it is exempt from the same properties of the Universe that prevent it from explaining itself
Things that are exempt of the same properties of the universe don't exist, i guess technically the correct term is "not real" Darth Vader exists, in your imagination, and so does god

>>16833561
>I still don't get why a causation for them is needed though.
Because they are not necessary or transcendental, they are physical, not metaphysical, under the hard-scientific, empirical evidence only lens

>Except that it's necessity is the only reason for it's existence, so unless you can come up with another reason it cannot exist on that basis alone
If something is an answer to a necessity, that necessity being proven true does not make the thing stop existing, nonargument

>Things that are exempt of the same properties of the universe don't exist, i guess technically the correct term is "not real" Darth Vader exists, in your imagination, and so does god
Please actually read what we've pointed out earlier, because under your physicalist/materialist stance there's no reasonable explanation for the Universe, either there's an infinite regress, or you try to explain away the infinite regress with laws that are also uncaused, but cannot actually be uncaused due to a rejection of metaphysics, and thus a rejection of transcendence

>>16833529
How do you have values without epistemology?

You're depressed because you are disillusioned with the world so you think this should be universalized but it can't. Antinatalism is only one possible subjective response to existence and it will always be limited by its opposite.
In plain terms, calling people who have a fundamentally different relationship to existence from you "NPCs" is not an argument, it's just incel cope.

>>16833637
>Because they are not necessary
Why do contingent things require a causation? I mean, of course they can have one, but why does classifying them as contingent absolutely require them to be caused by something else?

>>16833637
>If something is an answer to a necessity, that necessity being proven true does not make the thing stop existing, nonargument
Because you are omitting the most important part of the argument, the Y can ONLY exist if it is NEEDED for X to exist
C'mon, man, this is just the grandfather paradox, idk why its so difficult to understand
>Please actually read what we've pointed out earlier, because under your physicalist/materialist stance there's no reasonable explanation for the Universe
I don't know exactly where i stand, but i assure you i'm not any of these things

>>16833729
>Why do contingent things require a causation? I mean, of course they can have one, but why does classifying them as contingent absolutely require them to be caused by something else?
Contingent things must have causes, by definition, since they are not necessary, they are not transcendental, but rather, scientifically understandable, bound by the observable, physical reality of causality

>>16833756
>Because you are omitting the most important part of the argument, the Y can ONLY exist if it is NEEDED for X to exist
>C'mon, man, this is just the grandfather paradox, idk why its so difficult to understand
Except it's not "circularity is NEEDED for God to exist", it's "the presence of circularity and absence of transcendence is absurd, therefore, it is an argument for God's existence, or more accurately, a counterargument to God's nonexistence"

>>16833789
>Except it's not "circularity is NEEDED for God to exist"
To add to this, the statement about circularity is a statement about the causal Universe, not a statement about God, pointing out circularity is merely pointing out the absurdity of a causal, physical Universe explaining itself, no bearing on an uncaused cause to find a logical way around this absurdity

>>16833653
I think it's the other way around

>>16833425
>>16833637
>>16833771
>>16833789
>>16833811
You have to stretch it this much to insanity to believe in a sky daddy, but you can't believe in empirical evidence, that races are equal, that suffering is inherently bad, or a person changing gender, literally mental illness

>>16825856
>instead of facing the cold, harsh reality
>the objectively known
Lol fuck outta here with that shit

>>16829369
Reincarnation isn't rational bro

>>16833789
Wrong again, it's not ""circularity is NEEDED for God to exist" it's "God is NEEDED for circularity to NOT exist"
>To add to this, the statement about circularity is a statement about the causal Universe, not a statement about God, pointing out circularity is merely pointing out the absurdity of a causal, physical Universe explaining itself
I'm not neccessarily against this idea, just disagree with god specifically

>>16833771
>must have causes, by definition, since they are not necessary
>must
I don't get why though, this is what I'm asking.

>Wrong again, it's not ""circularity is NEEDED for God to exist" it's "God is NEEDED for circularity to NOT exist"
Again
>"The presence of circularity and absence of transcendence in atheism is absurd, therefore, it is an argument for God's existence, or more accurately, a counterargument to God's nonexistence"

>I'm not neccessarily against this idea, just disagree with god specifically
Do you then, perhaps, believe in an uncaused cause, but not one intelligent/creator-like enough to be called "God"?

I'll just copypaste a simple but well formulated list from plato.stanford since it's quite obvious they're bound to have people smarter than i am who can convey this better than i can

1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide a completely adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists.
8. The universe is contingent.
9. Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe.

2 is true because, simply put, if it can cease to exist, and it could have not-existed, then the only way these two assertions could be non-absurd is if the thing in question has cause, if it didn't have a cause, it would be timeless, due to time's relation with causation, a timeless thing wouldn't follow rules like these.

>>16833594
>Things that are exempt of the same properties of the universe don't exist,
as long as you realize that that is a metaphysical claim that you are making. For some reason many people do not realize that they do such kinds of things.

Why should we care or value or respect or honor the truth if we are just worms?
You need to believe in the Good to believe in dignity and self-respect or honesty and authenticity. Why should we believe and follow a code of virtue when doing so goes against the cold hard truth?
To have the morality to respect and honor the nihilistic "cold hard truth" contradicts the "cold hard truth", you need to dishonor it to honor its actuality as the truth.
To say that living in delusion is bad is to accept the delusion that one must, for some reason, live in "reality".
Why would worms with forks care about the truth?

>>16825856
Because we're not pessimists. Your position is premised upon a claim which I can tell, with certainty, is false at least insofar as my subjective experience is concerned. As there are very, very few of you and a very large number of us, the logical conclusion is that the suffering-intense life that you experience is specific to only certain people, and that the great majority of us suffer no such defect.

In other words, the very fact that we disagree with your a-priori assumption disproves it, because it is assumed to be universal.

>Well, SOME people suffer, and suffering is bad so we should do it anyway
I'm not a Utilitarian. I don't care if some people suffer just by existing. Or rather, I am willing to tolerate that. I'd ease it if I could but I'm not going to exterminate the entire human race just because some people suffer, that's Final Fantasy Villain tier reasoning. If I can read a cartoon villain's intentionally incomprehensible and illogical motives and say "Wait, this is slightly BETTER reasoning than my own philosophy,"

I do not care, in fact, if the entire human race except for me experiences existence as suffering. I do not. Therefore, I will not kill myself. That is the beginning and the ending of the reasoning insofar as I am concerned. My existence does not cause you suffering, your existence does. So kill yourself if you're such a bitch, it isn't my problem.

>>16834068
>that's Final Fantasy Villain tier reasoning

>"The absolute truth of the nihilistic darkness that prevails our damned existence is too incomprehensibly horrific for the majority of idiots who continue to spill their breed across this doomed sphere of rock"

>talks about wiping the world to get back at "the cycle of meaningless pain"

>man trying to look like femoid

anon is kefka

>>16825856
>the human race would either calmly wipe itself out/wipe out all life, ending suffering in the most moral act of existence
>Or atleast work rapidly to a utopia where we destroy our brain's ability to feel pain, and dive into VR until the heat death of the universe
that's literally the plot of every anime ever where the rational, intelligent & benevolent final villain needs everyone to die for him

>>16825856
>The absolute truth of the nihilistic
>is too incomprehensibly
checkmate atheists

To be mortal is to suffer. It is natural to want to play God and Destroy suffering mortality. It makes us feel as if we have transcended ourselves. To need food, shelter, and protection turns us into slaves. Mortals are cursed to labor to be.

>>16833241
There's nothing absurd about suffering. It tethers us to our meaningless existence? No, rather it causes us to find a meaning in existence; it seems you have not suffered enough.

>imagine the idea of embracing eternal oblivion
Only a problem for atheists

>>16833274
>presence of pain= bad
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Pain can desensitize you to further pain, cause you to experience pleasure more powerfully, and also cause you to do many things that are objectively good for your wellbeing, for finding meaning, etcetera.

>absence of pain
This is not always good; I argued against this in my previous post. Besides, an absence of pain would make life useless because there would be no lack, so there would be nothing to live for. Unless we had maximum, everlasting pleasure (a transhumanist pipe dream) this would lead to ennui and thus lethargy.

>presence of pleasure
Not always good

>absence of pleasure
There is no such thing as neutrality, or "not bad." It is bad, because it means you experience a privation, which means that pain is present. However, not all presences of pain are bad. Benatar's argument is one, big oversimplification.

>As much as you insist it would not bring significant amounts of pleasure noticeable except for perhaps a scornious judgement from the users here
>scornious
Try scornful.

Anyways, it's funny how you don't actually believe in the asymmetry argument; if you truly believe in it, you wouldn't be arguing with us right now. You would know that the absence of the pleasure derived from arguing with us is magically "neutral" while the absence of the pain is also magically "bad." Instead, the absence of pleasure is obviously bad, so bad that you feel compelled to argue with us and attain the pleasure of "pwning those dumb natalist animals." You'll have to try harder than this.

>>16833351
>is saying he is only asking about the "how" which he is not
How are there fundamental laws of nature? God. I scrapped the intention argument.

>P1: God must exist to escape the "circularity of the universe" as that is the only reason X gave for the existence of god
No, it's the evidence I gave for the existence of a transcendental being/concept to appeal to to escape circularity. I never said God must exist in order to explain circularity, God would already have existed before the circularity.

And it is not the only reason I gave for the existence of God, but I'm not getting sidetracked from this argument to show other evidence.

Besides, that's the point; if God exists, then we do not have to appeal to circular. It's not that the universe was ever circular, it is that WE viewed the universe as such.

>>16833437
>it's an assumption to say...
No matter what we theorize about the universe, there will always be an overarching order to it, or constancy. If the laws of nature change, they change for a reason; we can identify this reason using the scientific method. If not, it is tantamount to a God claim; it is supernatural

>>16833844
Isn't it rational by proxy?

>>16826262
>I'm not posting my chest
post feet you little dummy
chest is so yesterday

>>16834217
>>16834141
>Or atleast work rapidly to a utopia where we destroy our brain's ability to feel pain, and dive into VR until the heat death of the universe

>that's literally the plot of every anime ever where the rational, intelligent & benevolent final villain needs everyone to die for him

kefka? this is empirical evidence OP is madara

>>16833512
>Then you have failed to prove god's existence, you only prove we ought to believe in his existence
Yes, because the claim is that God already exists, and we ought to believe in and appeal to God rather than continuing with circular materialism.

> If the universe is materialistic, it neccessitates god in order to not be circular, but if the universe is not materialistic, it does not, so you cant claim god exists, you can only claim the universe is not materialistic
So really you are arguing against materialism, not in favour of god
Yes, the point of this argument is to argue for something transcendental, something beyond material. This something could be God, and there are other reasons pointing to God that would supplement this argument.

>>16833561
A causation is needed if you are a materialist.

>>16833830
>Sky daddy make brain hurt. Me prefer easy science. Hard think bad
Nothing's easy or "sane," anon. Everything requires this level of stretching and fitting when you get to the nitty gritty.

>>16833916
A timeless being could follow rules of causation/time/logic if it willed to do so, or had some sort of intelligence

My arguments might be crude and contradictory, but I'm no philosopher so bear with me.

>>16832746

One moment of life is worth an eternity of infinite suffering by an uncountable number of beings. Even in true physical and mental agony, life is better than death. I reject the basic claim that suffering is an inherent negative for the universal calculus. It's only our supreme luxury and privilege that lets us adopt such a pathetic, weak mindset. There's a reason we don't see animals kill themselves despite literally every animal in existence having a spiritually lesser life than any human, and 99.99999999%+ of animals having a materially worse life than 100% of humans. Everybody knows this to be intuitively true except those with mental illnesses (who don't count), antinatalists are just dogmatic contrarians.

>>16834141
I mean I wasn't going to just say it, but yes obviously. There should be some sort of standard where if your philosophic system reaches a naturally self-destructive conclusion, you are automatically wrong. Is there even a word for that? A posteriori?

https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24726&sid=631e57ef47446e7b136607427469e24d

What the fuck are these guys talking about

>>16834808
Fake philosophic problem. Certain truths are literally self-evident and could be discerned without any senses or any experience.

I.E. I exist and I am aware.

This is a statement which any actor in the universe can objectively make, if conscious. Anyone who denies this must admit to not existing. I exist. You can also say "I exist" referring to yourself. Similarly from there you can climb to a host of conclusions which require no input or experience to conclude.

There is no Munchausen Trilemma. It's kike bullshit.

>>16835165
The senses can be deceived. The mere fact that you exist does not mean you have access to any objective truth.

>>16835165
"I exist" is an axiom.

>>16835184
"I exist and am aware" is an objective truth, idiot. In order to have senses I have to be there to receive input from them. The existence of the self is the one non-negotiable principle of human experience. This is pretty basic stuff dude, cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. It is not possible to deny the existence of the self unless you are actually some sort of automaton, which in no way diminishes my own sense of being.

>>16835202
Axiomatic assumptions are things we have to believe for the purposes of inquiry.

The existence of the self is a prerequisite for even holding axioms. It's is the single strongest a-fortiori conclusion possible. If you do not exist, how could you deny it? If you are thinking, how can you think that you aren't thinking?

This is a really stupid hill to die on, dude.

>>16835228
>This is a statement which any actor in the universe can objectively make, if conscious. Anyone who denies this must admit to not existing. I exist. You can also say "I exist" referring to yourself. Similarly from there you can climb to a host of conclusions which require no input or experience to conclude.
Nihilists think themselves the greatest philosophical geniuses in history, but the fact they go so contrarian as to deny even the most undeniable, meta-axiomatic, a-fortiori unattackable claim of cogito ergo sum, it is something else the level of edgelord, hyperempiricist idiocy they bring.

>>16825996
>As a rational moral agent
Damn you're stupid, you're at the level of first year Phil undergrads my man

>>16835278
>Nihilists think themselves the greatest philosophical geniuses in history, but the fact they go so contrarian as to deny even the most undeniable, meta-axiomatic, a-fortiori unattackable claim of cogito ergo sum, it is something else the level of edgelord, hyperempiricist idiocy they bring.
Theists think themselves the greatest moral paragons in history, but the fact they cope so harď as to assert even the most unfalsifiable, unscientifically meta-physical, reality-denying unevidenced claim of a bearded man in the sky giving us an afterlife, it is something else the level of death-fearing, hyperemotional idiocy they bring.

>>16835228
It's still an axiom you inferior, tepid pseud. Also you can't prove the 'I' exists like that, you've already presupposed an I in your initial formulation of 'I think'. This is lightweight shit that you're fucking up on

>>16835386
To be clear, deny that you exist. Deny your "I," you are just a non-person, yes? Is that the basis of your position?

Go ahead. Just admit to being an NPC. Go ahead.

>>16835228
>>16835278

There is zero refutation in anything either of you have said, and I'm not a nihilist. I don't deny existence, I just don't have sufficiently low self-esteem to need to care about fundamentally unanswerable metaphysical and epistemic problems. Telling you that "I exist" is an axiom doesn't mean it isn't true, it's just unverifiable: most of us set all of our other beliefs and truth from it because it's the only thing that keeps us from tailspinning into madness or, worse, the void. All these nonsensical arguments are worthless flotsam. Nothing you say has relevance or opens up to extracting greater meaning. Your inability to cope with the humiliation that you truly know nothing speaks only to your weak psyche, a tragic consequence of genetics and upbringing. You feel adrift in this amoral, uncaring universe? Then read, you fucking morons. Read Nietzsche and Camus and Moby Dick and Shakespeare and Dante, and if you need a stopgap between your pretentious existential blubbering and the real truths of life, feel free to piss yourselves with fake excitement muddling through illegible toxic garbage by Derrida, Deleuze, et al. Do you think you actually know anything, despite your desperate flailing and whining in a pointless thread filled with similarly garbage takes on an obscure Internet image board? That's where your grand theories lead you? Not only are they not true, then (falsifiably or otherwise), they're not even fucking useful if all they lead to are these uncontrollable explosions of your fragile talking points: at least most of your cohort try to use them to lead a better life, but you can't even manage that. And newsflash, I don't care about your 401k or whatever other materialist bullshit is so obviously incapable of keeping you happy.

You want a message from your conscience telling you to grow the fuck up? Here it is: grow the fuck up. Both of you are degenerate children requiring fairy tales to stay sane because you are maladjusted to a life where you aren't the protagonist, no different than any autistic dogmatist, from Marxists to Nazis to holy men to drug addicts and our host antinatalists. Be quiet and learn to sit at the table with fellow humans. Your plinths are lies, nobody can truly know anything, and you're both idiots. There is no nihilism required for honesty.

>>16826317
Fixed that for you.