[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 41 KB, 800x450, brainlettttt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11535270 No.11535270 [Reply] [Original]

>But who invented God

>> No.11535279

Man did, and so did man kill He.

>> No.11535295

Man invented god, but that doesn’t mean he’s not incredibly valuable.

>> No.11535306
File: 48 KB, 645x729, 1509230778065.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>if we evolved from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys today?

>> No.11535312
File: 3.27 MB, 2543x3815, 5402432166_a223c4463e_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Transubstantiation is bullshi-

>> No.11535325
File: 58 KB, 1026x746, pepegrug.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Shakespeare was a thief, a black woman wrote it all. Typical white males.

>> No.11535333

>tfw no qt saint gf

>> No.11535340

me, i did

>> No.11535342
File: 56 KB, 645x773, brainlet+1491287171858.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Not recognising the nu-atheists ontological "counter" """"""""""argument""""""""""

>> No.11535358

>If God existed for eternity, why can't the Universe?

>> No.11535370

More like, if we evolved from monkeys in an entirely natural manner, then why
1) was there a rapid increase in intellectual capabilities
2) are we in a body that is well suited for using technology
3) overall more beautiful than other animals (human faces are more expressive with more facial muscles relegated to expressing emotions and naturally convey greater sympathy)
4) Greater morphological differences between a random animal, say a frog, and it's ancestor separated by 10 million years and a human with it's ancestor
5) Greater variety of faces with distinct characteristics

>> No.11535376

Because our evolution was guided by God

>> No.11535388

What an absolute and utter brainlet, the rest of the posters itt are playing dumb, but you, oh boy, you are sincere

>> No.11535392

Oh, I'm sorry, apparently you have the honest answers?

>> No.11535395

because it is physical

>> No.11535428

How can someone not believe in A god? Not necessarily a Christian or Muslim one, etc... but just A god. A higher power, etc.

How? How the fuck do you we think we are here then? I do not understand.

Take the (AUTO)/(PAN/EN)-THEISM pill you fucking retards

God exists but he may not have revealed himself to us yet... except through the beautiful tragedy that is all life on Earth and in our solar system that we can see etc

>> No.11535430

hey bro i like that crystal pendant is that quartz

>> No.11535434

You can't just define God as a "higher power." He needs some sort of nature for people to believe in Him.

>> No.11535443
File: 10 KB, 211x239, 1526120735024.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>quantum indeterminacy proves free will

>> No.11535444

No, all gold actually
Says fucking who faggot? You? Gtfo you don't tell me who God is

>> No.11535452

Because "God" is fucking meaningless if you don't define it. That's how language works

>> No.11535457

No it isn't
I just defined it, didn't I? Or is "higher power" not defining something to you, and if not, then what the fuck is it?

That's how language works

>> No.11535463

Define higher power

>> No.11535468

Higher power... look around... the fucker who made all of that, yes?

(AUTO)/(PAN/EN)-THEISM as I stated in my original post

>> No.11535470

What the fuck is this schizo shit?

>> No.11535474


Moron why are you here talking to me? Lmao

>> No.11535475

He did. When He became self conscious

>> No.11535502

You're forgetting Paratheism

>> No.11535507

What's this? Did you just make it up?

>> No.11535509

what exactly is wrong with that argument?
i hate when people use it but i dont know how to argue against it....

>> No.11535515
File: 184 KB, 440x317, we need to talk about parallel universes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

we need to talk about parallel universes

>> No.11535516

It's bollocks, basically, mate. God exists. Fate is real. Scientism has warped many a man's mind

>> No.11535518

Everything. Maybe graduate high school.

>> No.11535521

What about them? Panentheism extends beyond time and space
>In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created.

>> No.11535522

It may just be that we don't know how to determine a quantum reaction yet.
Also, how would being made up of effectively bunch of random dice rolls mean prove free will.

>> No.11535527

>While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe. Some versions of panentheism suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifestation of God.
>In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God, like in the Kabbalah concept of tzimtzum. Also much Hindu thought – and consequently Buddhist philosophy – is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.

>> No.11535529

>he doesn't know about our lord and saviour Pannen

Build up speed for 12 hours and get the fuck out of my face.

>> No.11535533

>Build up speed for 12 hours and get the fuck out of my face.
Haha I like that

But go on

>> No.11535534

Is Deism the ultimate redpill?

>> No.11535535

No. Theism is, or some version of it

>> No.11535536

>It may just be that we don't know how to determine a quantum reaction yet.
no, it fucking doesn't the indeterminancy is not a result of us having not advanced mathematics or something, quite the opposite we know about the indeterminancy due to math

try picking up a book next time

>> No.11535538

if youre so enlightened, how about actually flexing your brain instead of being a prick about it? youre pathetic.

>> No.11535542

ok I'm sorry

>> No.11535543

How so?

>> No.11535545

>uga buga quantum entanglement means we teleport to the stars uga buga

>> No.11535546

>every scientific/mathematical discovery is always true

>> No.11535556

>I know quantum mechanics is wrong despite knowing absolutely nothing about the subject

>> No.11535558

Because I believe in a God and I've seen some shit, basically... I mean, I struggle to understand how someone can't believe in a God at all, but I can maybe see how you might believe in one that doesn't intervene, although I don't, personally.

>> No.11535564

>I know God doesn't exist without knowing God doesn't exist
Hmmmmmm what do they mean by this

>> No.11535565

>anonymous poster ostensibly knows all about quantum mechanics
>whatever dopey physicians say are always 100% true and nothing has ever been disproven, ever
logical positivists btfo

>> No.11535567

It's simple, they use their reason instead of their emotions.

>> No.11535570

Also, I forgot: Yeah, I really don't want to start getting into long drawn out arguments over it because we've probably all heard various sides of each, etc, (I know I have), but "A man lives by believing something; not by debating and arguing about many things.” is how I go about it, really.

>> No.11535572

Deism believes in God though... Just not one that an organized church follows.

>> No.11535573


I mean, maybe it works if you're a human calculator lacking any and all human compassion and so on, sure.

Yeah yeah I know. They believe in a god that doesn't intervene, etc.

>> No.11535584

brainlet i was posting about detected. we can argue about free will but using that as a premise is fallacious

one mistake is to transpose observations from the study of type of phenomena to another. for example, equations from thermodynamics do not give us insight about markets and say, supply and demand. in the same sense, what is true about subatomic particles does not magically scale up: what most people imagine as 'will' operates at a super-molecular level. then we should study super-molecular objects and draw conclusions from there, rather than assuming something remains constant several orders of magnitude in scale below. a similar mistake would be like saying that quantumn entanglement proves you have a soulmate. what is true about subatomic particles should not be presumed to shed light on complex, super-atomic operations

another mistake is to not name what you assume is meant by 'will.' once you or others try to actually name it this gets into all sorts of dead ends and extreme takes. does free will mean being able to choose between conservative and liberal? many would argue that this is not free will. is free will the ability to think about what you want to think? then indeterminacy of subatomic particles, even assuming we can scale up the observation, still does not grant you as any ownership, it may mean your thinking is spontaneously affected rather than like a chain of dominos of proximal causes. it may also just means our tools are inadequate to document or predict the particle's behavior.

it doesnt take a scientist to understand quantumn decoherence occurs nominally above 0 kelvin. among the other problems i mentioned notwithstanding, this is yet another issue that needs to be addressed before suggesting our inability to predict certain quantum behavior proves the existence of any definition of free will

>> No.11535588

saved. thank you very much for your response.

>> No.11535591

What's the big bang then?

>> No.11535599

Are you retarded? do you really think god has any time for your retarded notions of "time" and "space"? fool. fuck off.

>> No.11535607

>we can argue about free will but using that as a premise is fallacious
Act with freedom and attain it. Placebo, memetic and Egregore effects give way for free will, if it is believed. I can move my body without any scientific arguments, and I can have free will.
However, claiming everyone has free will is false, as some believe in determinism or parametric storm. I think we are intertwined in rules, freedom and chaos when it comes to this.

>> No.11535609

>Here comes le intellectual atheist hehe
We're all in for a treat now!

>> No.11535611

No? I am against infinite universe theory.

>> No.11535615

thats fine. i am not claiming everyone has free will. the only thing i originally memed was that people who believe quantum indeterminacy proves free will are brainlets

the fuck are you talking about? im christian.

>> No.11535619

Free will doesn't exist, bro. Me replying to you is fate and I have literally no control over it. I literally cannot stop typing this right now I am thinking about stopping typing but my fingers keep moving.
Ok now I've stopped, but I didn't choose to.

You don't even have the choice of having to choose and neither do I. It's already decided.

>> No.11535622

based and redpilled

>> No.11535634

Yes it is, really, and some people have a shit fate which is why they're destined to be lifelong fuck ups and then whatever happens after they die... who knows!

You eventually start getting back to the basic questions that a kid might ask after a while, you go full circle to "but what the FUCK was before that, dude?"

>> No.11535643

Belief in God is just a comforting delusion. There is no evidence for something else, it's even worse: a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could made every single one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize thier bitter life; yet stingly cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet requied his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell, mouths forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibilities of man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites the poor abused slave to worship him...

These things are impossible, yet here there are. There is no meaning, no reason why they happen. There is no afterlife; this is all there is.

>> No.11535645

>watches rick and morty once

>> No.11535651

>Believes suffering is a bad thing
>Bases his entire argument on this

Lmao what a fucking loser

Suffering is the best thing to ever happen to a person

>> No.11535657

Holy shit read about the problem of evil you fedora tipping faggot

>> No.11535659
File: 250 KB, 526x572, 1508911742532.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Peterstein pls go

>> No.11535692

>believing in things because they "feel" right
brainlet confirmed

>> No.11535696

>justifies suffering
how many people do you have chained up in your basement anon? be honest

>> No.11535697

>Believing things because someone else said they look right
Brainlet confirmed

>> No.11535704

>literally making shit up with no context
try harder anon

>> No.11535705

0, but yes, suffering is good, I might even go as far to say that suffering is inherently good, in my opinion, lol

>> No.11535711


I don't blame you for trying to believe in your perfect good world, I pity you. It's an understandable reaction, you see this vast, uncaring, random universe and you try to make it make sense.
However, it's a lie. The Universe doesn't care. The sooner you rip this bandaid off, the better.

>> No.11535713

>literally believing we just appeared here out of nowhere and literally nothing and then believing some random who says no actually it was X le mathematical problem and this X happened but I can't prove it so basically its just like saying god exists but as math and when really it was just a 'God' to us that hasn't been revealed to us yet except through the beauty of all life and tragedy on Earth and in our solar system that we can see thus far
try harder anon

>> No.11535716

>I pity you
People who pity other people are usually always retards who I don't listen to

Pity is a disgusting emotion

>> No.11535719

read Viktor Frankl (in before "JEW") he explains very plainly that UNAVOIDABLE suffering may in fact be good, but if it is avoidable is absolutely should be avoided

>> No.11535722

>you see this vast, uncaring,
What is uncaring about the universe? Don't you look out of the window and feel the breeze hit your face, or hear the birds singing... and feel care in that? Because if you don't, you might want to get off those depression meds or see about why you're emotionally numb

>> No.11535724

>automatically assuming the rejection of one belief is the assertion of a separate belief

>> No.11535726

I believe any suffering that brings with it a lesson or which a lesson can be derived from is good

>> No.11535728

then, it isn't the suffering that is good, but only the lesson

>> No.11535730
File: 165 KB, 1600x760, b9WmjNc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

woah, you've seen TWO rick and morty episodes?
simply epic

>> No.11535732

Such a sheltered existance, there will come a time yet when you'll be screaming in anguish
The breeze? Laughable.

>> No.11535741

No, the lesson wouldn't exist without the suffering b r o

Also read Nietzsche

>> No.11535742

I've read Nietzsche, hands down the most overrated author in history

>> No.11535743

Why do you speak like a cartoon villain? Try feeling the touch of another human and see how much longer your psuedo-intellectualism can be kept up.
I used to be like you, but then I realised that any sacrifice of personal happiness or gratitude in aim of achieving 'philosophical/logical purity' was futile since it's an impossible feat. Get over yourself. Honestly. Screenshot your posts and look at them two years from now and cringe at your own myopic stupidity.

>> No.11535745

I've been screaming in anguish, I've felt considerable 'pain' and sorrow in my life, yet I've always felt this way. Post-suffering, I don't mind it. When the suffering dies down (because nothing is permanent), it becomes less acute, and it's right then in that moment that I realise that actually, the suffering wasn't so bad, and that it was actually good.

As I said, stop the meds and go for a walk in the park. You need some perspective. If you truly believe the universe is "uncaring", it's because you are jaded and emotionally numb. I mean, this is also providing you understand that suffering isn't necessarily a bad thing also probably.

>> No.11535749

Alright well everyone is entitled to their own opinion bro
Same, I used to be like that too when I was a teenager as well

>> No.11535751

You can study science and analyse the experiments and results by yourself. You can even conduct the same experiments if you want. You don't need to sit and accept what a scientist tells you in case you are so skeptical, just like what a priest does.

>> No.11535753

Pain as a lesson? What of, how to writhe like a worm?
He tests us because He loves us; forgive me but that seems a little insulting to all the people in actual pain, this is not simply just a test or a lesson.

>> No.11535755

What are some experiments I can do that refute the existence of a God?

>> No.11535759

>Insulting to people in actual pain
>actual pain
As opposed to what? Not actual pain?

>> No.11535762

We have no way of telling if God exists! Case fucking closed. btfo

>> No.11535763

look out the window

>> No.11535765

I do every morning and almost cry at the beautiful tragedy that life is, and that's why I believe in a God

>> No.11535771

I hope you don't unironically believe that materialist fairy-tale called determinism.

>> No.11535774

>everything is preordained
More like supernaturally ordered. Fate isn't deterministic unless the holder of fate is Demiurge.

>> No.11535775

As opposed to the 1st world "I didn't get 10k followers on insta the world is so cruel"

>> No.11535779

Yeah that is what I was implying, I believe in a God

That's just you projecting your own life onto others now, isn't it?

>> No.11535781

Is your God invisible? Is he only perceptible on a personal level? Are his effects on reality indistinguishable from what might have happened anyway?

>> No.11535782

>your projecting
stop living you whole life on 4chan, there is no such thing

>> No.11535787

I don't know because he hasn't been revealed to us or me, except maybe through the almost incomprehensible beauty of nature and the universe

>> No.11535789

Idk Hegel talks about willing god into fruition or something, and he was spiritual (or at the very least mystical)

>> No.11535793

Yeah, but you were projecting, weren't you? Trying to imply anyone in the 1st worlds only problem or only pain is "I don't have followers" or w.e. retarded logic

Gtfo bro, you're being silly!

>> No.11535800

Exactly my thoughts. I hate pity more than anything. In what world could such a gross thing be considered a virtue? If anything, Nietzsche captured the disgusting side of pity better than anyone, and he is worth reading just for that.

>> No.11535804

>still believing in the invisible, undetectable sky daddy

might as well believe in the spaghetti monster lol

>> No.11535807
File: 53 KB, 706x397, c_scale-f_auto-w_706-v1521319106-this-song-is-sick-media-image-rick-and-morty-run-the-jewels-970x545-1521319106240-jpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11535808

If he hasn't been revealed to you how do you know he's there?

>> No.11535816

>Don't you look out of the window and feel the breeze hit your face, or hear the birds singing... and feel care in that?
Yes and it is divine. What a wonderful world.

>> No.11535817

Quantum physics is based solely on math, with it then being put to the test. While in some cases it’s right such as with anti-matter there are other cases that are dumb like quantum immortality and quantum suicide. While it does have more proof than any existing religion, you still need to have faith in it’s claims, as most of the theories are currently impossible or morally unethical

>> No.11535819

the big bang

>> No.11535821

lol perfect

>> No.11535822

So your IQ is too high for cartoons, but just high enough for 4chan cartoon memes? Also, nice argument, I know you have nothing better than feelings to prop up your belief with

>> No.11535826

Because we didn't just appear out of nowhere, bro.

>> No.11535829

>invisible, undetectable
Not making any big claims one way or another, but just because a God can't be observed empirically does not mean He definitely doesn't exist.

>> No.11535830

I don't know if you're being ironic, can't tell anymore these days unfortunately, but it really is. I mean, some mornings definitely. I would highly recommend it

>> No.11535833
File: 92 KB, 825x1000, DavidHume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>we didn't just appear out of nowhere, bro.
Yes we did.

>> No.11535836

we don't know if god exists or not. its impossible to prove that he doesn't. btfo señor bruised ego

>> No.11535840

How do know that?
We might have.

>> No.11535843
File: 105 KB, 645x729, 1510.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>There was nothin
>but but then ther was sumfin
What was before the nothing?
>There was nothin
>but but then ther was sumfin
Yeah but what was before it?
>There was notfigin
>bu tbut therenn ehw wausimfin
t. You

>> No.11535846

That's why I said might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster, impossible to disprove as well

>> No.11535847

Are you stupid? There was more fucking nothing before the nothing.

>> No.11535850


>> No.11535858

no shit, people decide what god they want to believe in thank u galaxy brain
but talking about the flying spaghetti monster makes you sound like a literal 12 year old, which is why you were criticised.

>> No.11535860

euphoric atheists vs euphoric theists, how delightful

>> No.11535861

No, I'm being sincere. Personally, my favorite part of this life is all the colors. So vibrant and full they make me gush. The sky is so powerfully blue here this time of year I lose my breath every morning when I open my windows to it. I often practice mindfulness to make myself more sensitive to these experiences while I still can. Good stuff.

>> No.11535863

You know, that should be fucking obvious but God is "something", so if God created everything, you can still ask "Yeah but what was before it?" like the obnoxious brainlet you are.
And if you are defining God as "something that can exist before there was anything else" or the like, fine, but then i'd remind you that this "God" can be an unfeeling mechanism, a one time event that no longer exists, or pretty much anything besides an all-mighty sentient being.

>> No.11535870


>> No.11535873

that's why its better to have no convictions whatsoever!

>> No.11535874

t. triggered

>> No.11535879

t. buttbothered agnostic

>> No.11535880

I might just try that anon, cheers and have a good day

>> No.11535887

I'm euphoric and proud because I don't care about your opinion of me enough to be bothered when you say its le uber cringey, or whatever.

It feels good being sincere

Well yeah but none of us know except I believe in X and you believe in Y and all of this is just trivial bullshit that we won't know for sure for X years or maybe ever, so I'm going to continue doing as I do, and you will continue doing as you do and that's just how it has to be (for now)

>> No.11535889

mindfullness is criminally underrated

>> No.11535897

This anon is the text on the page, staring blind back at the creator, blind to the beings of another dimesions entirely.

>> No.11535901

i like that people believe in god and theists tend to be better people than atheists
unless you're a zion jew

>> No.11535915

It isn't just mindfulness, it is the thing which mindfulness leads to--sensitivity. Often I see people caught in the trap of feeling compelled to greedily hoard as much stimulation as possible. The classic 'chasing the dragon'. If one were able to become more sensitive instead, then achieving such stimulation would be easily attained with a fraction of the cost.

Sensitivity is the fruit of life, without it we would be but unfeeling husks, like a rock which experiences only numb nothingness within its being. Sensitivity is a measurement of spirit.

>> No.11535918

No. I didn't fucking "choose" not believe. I just don't see any reason to believe in anything in particular.
My lack of belief is not arbitrary, your belief is.

>> No.11535919

It depends on what God you mean. If you mean the Christian God, then there were already plenty of scientific fields who disproven many claims in the bible. If the bible is the word of God but it shows fallacies then the probability of God existing decreases. Also the more we understand about the universe the more we realise that a God might not have been necessary after all. So what I'm saying is that there isn't one single experiment that completely disproves God because it's actually hard to disprove some crazy claim which has been held as the single truth for 2 millenia but instead there are many experiments across different fields that have refuted the need for a God in order for the universe and life to exist. Biology and evolution was a start but then you will claim that there must be a God in order for life to start, in the first place, right? Well then maybe go read about abiogenesis. Some experiments are hard to conduct without a lab and equipment but you could always try to walk into one with permission and follow the experiments up close if you are so skeptical. In any case, information is out there and you can expose yourself to other views but don't claim God is the sole truth based on nothing.

>> No.11535924

This can be troubling, because one becomes more sensitive to the negatives as well. It is more difficult to dismiss discord and strife because those events will make more of an impression on you. That being said, overall I am at a very happy place in my life due to mindfullness and appreciating the time I have and the people I love

>> No.11535925

I agree you didn't choose it was fate

>> No.11535935

Not a Christian God

>don't claim God is the sole truth based on nothing.
Why not? It's my belief and my sole truth. You can choose to accept it or not.

>> No.11535939

you didn't post anything that can actually refute there being a god or even remotely close

>> No.11535958
File: 206 KB, 1080x1120, 1527679005025.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Christcucks are automatons with no reasoning capabilities and just lap up whatever they're told without question. They'll always try to deflect by saying "Oh well you just believe science without question!" like a little kid saying "I know you are but what am I?", but the fact remains that they're simps with no arguments.

>> No.11535959
File: 45 KB, 903x960, 16e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>thinking your belief in a god, especially any Abrahamic god, has anything to do with knowing some bizarre divine truth

come on, most of you who believe have probably been conditioned to believe in a god since you were born. most of your arguments, save for the shitty ontological ones stolen from shitty "theologians" like Aquinas or apologists like Lewis, are based on personal experience - as if that should hold any objective value in determining what you claim to be is a universal truth. if you're going to base your beliefs off of personal experience and then make the rest of us try and believe your fairy tales, at least recognize your biases: from birth, you have been told that this cosmic dictatorship is constantly watching over you and protecting you. don't you think, or, at least fathom the possibility, that if people had waited until you were of age to use genuine reasoning and critical thinking ability to tell you that you were created by some magical being who demands constant worship and praise and is simultaneously merciless (in the case of syrian kids who watch their families explode before their eyes) and omnibenevolent, that you would have believed any of it?

>> No.11535960

>more sensitive to the negatives as well
Yes, but part of the journey is realizing that the negatives we most often face are those we intentionally choose to carry with us. If we were to live only in this moment, then all we face is the stream of experience. Like most things, this stream is almost entirely positive, but we seem to get caught on the negatives no matter the size.

>> No.11535964

>Everyone who believes in God is a Christian
State of heathens brains

>> No.11535972

>t. Human calculator man on 30 different anti-depressive who wouldn't even feel a car running over his foot

>> No.11535976

these are... well, these are just bad questions, bud.

>> No.11535977

Quit splitting hairs. You outed yourself as one by using the word "heathen" anyway.

>> No.11535980

>outed yourself
Burn the witch for he spoke that which has been declared irredeemable!!

>> No.11535985

I bet you thought was clever.

>> No.11535989

It was a meme you pleb
You don't have to be Christian to believe in God

>> No.11535994

No shit Sherlock. That's obviously irrelevant to my post, though.

>> No.11536022

Yeah, it's yours but not the actual truth. I can claim whatever I want but that doesn't mean it's the truth for the entire universe and living beings on it. If I do that would be quite arrogant unless I really have some empirical evidence to back up my claim.

You missed my point then. We will never be able to refute the existence of God but we will be able to disprove little by little that his existence is uncessary for anything to exist. If anything can come into existence independently then why should God exist? We already reached that stage with the origin of life (I did mention abiogenesis). Universe is a lot more complex but what amuses me is how religious people like to claim God created it as if they knew more about it than astro-physicists who bust their ass for years and years trying to unveil different phenomenons in the universe. The same way we started to understand the origin of life, we will also understand the origin of the universe. And if the origin of life can happen independently then there's a chance origin of universe can happen independently as well.
Also, the fact that we can't disprove God doesn't mean it exists. I can claim the universe came into existence last Thursday and everything you remember are actually fake memories created at the same time. You can't disprove that either, it doesn't mean it's true.

>> No.11536024
File: 120 KB, 1280x720, ANON.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>2) are we in a body that is well suited for using technology
OH NO NO NO. Boy I hope you are trolling

>> No.11536029

Proving his existence is unnecessary for things to exist doesn't disprove God exists until the exact moment you disprove God exists

>> No.11536034

I really hope this is trolling

>> No.11536051

Yeah, I know for some people like you there will always be a chance of God existing even if the probability of his existence is 1% but to me that will look more like cope than anything. Whatever makes you sleep at night, I guess

>> No.11536069

mindlesness is crminally underrated

>> No.11536075

That's conjecture good sir

>> No.11536078

i wish i was a retard
knowledge is bondage

>> No.11536101

Every worldview has axioms, whether that person is conscious of them or not. Why not choose a set of axioms that gives life meaning instead of meaninglessness?

>> No.11536120

You are a retard, just not retarded enough; hit yourself on the head a few times

>> No.11536133

But what if I actually am a genius, but you don't know it because I'm just some anonymous poster on 4chan?

I bet you would feel like a total fool

>> No.11536145

What drugs were you on?

>> No.11536148

No, I can clearly see that your IQ is barely above avarage from your imbecilic posts.

>> No.11536151

I will find you and beat the shit out of you until you can find a perfect definition for "brutality". We will see if my actions are meaningless until you define their nature.

>> No.11536154

The thing is, I can see what you mean based on your words in that sentence. I can't imagine a "higher power" without qualifying attributes.

>> No.11536155

it is a material tool to be controlled by our transcendental framework

>> No.11536159

That was the first post I made ITT

>> No.11536160

I don't take drugs

>> No.11536161

>There is no evidence for something else

Just because you can't see anything else, aside the reality which you percieve and ultimately believe to be "physical" and "real", doesn't mean there's a larger non-physical reality out there ready to be explored.

Ahh! But how can a materialist explore the non-material if his entire perception rests upon materialistic assumptions about reality? It is ultimately, why materialists and god-deniers are one of the most primitive people in terms of the level of spiritual-intellectual knowledge they posses

>> No.11536175


>> No.11536178

You're so fucking ignorant yet so sure of yourself

It hurts

>> No.11536182

There is no spiritual-intellectual knowledge, you can be either spiritual (i.e. irrational) or intellectual (i.e. rational).

>> No.11536183
File: 110 KB, 527x800, 1532213796876.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

God is God by definition. He was there at the beginning. As natural as 1+1=2

>> No.11536187

>you can be either spiritual (i.e. irrational) or intellectual (i.e. rational).

I too, remember having a black and white perception of the world when i was 15

>> No.11536202

That is simply the definition these two things operate on. Your spiritual beliefs are communicable, but they are not testable. They are irrational, according to reason you should at most be agnostic.

Now, you can go even further beyond. There are claims of knowledge that cannot be tested independently, but remarkably enough, also cannot be communicated by discursive language either. I will not tell you the name of what I'm speaking of, as it is hidden knowledge.

>> No.11536203

>according to reason you should at most be agnostic.
This is what zoomers actually believe

>> No.11536213

>Your spiritual beliefs are communicable, but they are not testable

I dunno man, the mostly christian monks or priests who pioneered the basis for our modern scientific method and general knowledge of physical reality might disagree.

>They are irrational, according to reason you should at most be agnostic.

"Common sense" isn't reason. Fuck, why do anglos think their stupid academian tradition counts as philosophy.

>> No.11536217

Yes, according to logos. You can only be a theist if you have pistis.

>> No.11536222
File: 44 KB, 1034x900, brainlet+1512816905691.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11536223

You sound like a philistine, read a few books and you might have actual arguments instead of "idk man"

>> No.11536227

You have no idea what you're talking about tho lmao

>> No.11536228


The more science is pursued in the idea of exploring and discovering what god is made out of, the more it's translated into explanations regarding our reality using the scientific method, and all of the people who built our most important assumptions about reality were those who wanted to communicate spiritual knowledge into intellectual knowledge.

You have shit arguments

Also, mysticism doesn't amount to anything worthwhile

>> No.11536238

How old is the universe again? 4000 years old? Earth is the center, right? Or are you going to burn me for heresy like Giordano Bruno?

Enlightment rejected your superstitions a long time ago.

>> No.11536239


It's hardly formal proof of the existence of God through abductive reasoning at this point, but it certainly is a start.

First, I should probably explain what abductive reasoning is to you. If a then b is deductive reasoning. With abductive reasoning, "We observe B. If A were true, B would be a matter of course. Therefore, it is likely that A is true."

You see, when the theory of evolution was gaining traction, it was originally admitted that if it was improbable it should be rejected. Dawkins even using the metaphor of climbing mt. improbable to explain this. If it could be shown that human evolution is improbable(which from my perspective it already looks that way), then that WOULD be proof of God (the simplest alternative explanation).

Of course, to generate authentic patterns of evolution to analyze the probabilities of to determine how unlikely human evolution truly is, we would obviously need much more advanced simulations.

>> No.11536248

You don't believe in Big Bang? It was a Catholic Priest that came up with that one.

>> No.11536252


>Buying into the barbarian re-interpretation of ancient greek philosophy


>> No.11536261

As it suited his beliefs. I doubt he was as happy with the heat death of the universe.

>> No.11536357

logic and science did

>> No.11536359

The Big Bang hasn't happened yet. The Big Bang is that moment in the history of the Universe when the Universe stopped existing at only one point in space. Now we know that every point in space is equally the 'center' of the Universe, and since at least one point must be the center, it follows that every point must be the center, if we are to prevent science from being arbitrary. But if every point is the centers then every point is the same point, and therefore the Universe exists at only one point. Therefore the Big Bang hasn't happened yet.

>> No.11536384

why do religious people say that materialism and god are incompatible? i am a materialist and i do think that god exists. religions on the other hand, are so fucking stupid. they are so transparently false. religions are nothing more than commercialized fatalism in order to control people. there is a reason that popes are atheist lol.

>> No.11536386

There is no center, each inertial frame of reference is equally valid.

>> No.11536423

t. Radical Centrist Deist

>> No.11536426

thats what it actually states

>> No.11537366

>Have to believe in christ to believe in God


>> No.11537381

because materialism and Christianity are incompatible

>> No.11537391

>Have to be Christian to believe in a god

>> No.11537402

This is a valid objection

And I'm not even an atheist

>> No.11537403

hmm, which book has that line about not suffering a witch to live? I think it was the basis of some brutal killings in Salem? the name of the book has completely slipped my mind at the moment

>> No.11537411

"banana's fit in our hands therefore god" tier arguing. unfortunately some people are that stupid

>> No.11537418

no it isnt you brainlet
gtfo lit

>> No.11537419


>> No.11537422

>arguing that even if god is indistinguishable from not existing, he still exists
the absolute state of believers

>> No.11537433

Poor reading comprehension on your part

I was simply stating that you proving his existence isn't "necessary" by slowly over time disproving little by little that his existence is necessary to exist doesn't actually prove he doesn't exist in any way whatsoever

>> No.11537445

not relevant lmao

>> No.11537447

your axioms should be considered and reasoned to conform as closely to the truth as possible. and if you're talking about absolute base presuppositions like that the universe exists outside of you, those presuppositions should be kept to as bare a minimum as possible as to avoid self deception. god is a presupposition that can be done without, as it statistically must be the area where most people are in error (as religions are mutually exclusive meaning at least 80 - 90% of people are wrong about their religion)

>> No.11537455

Engineers have tried to produce a robot that has a better grip than a human hand. Apes can not make precision grip with their hands due to lacking fine motor control and an opposable thumb.

Bannanna fits in my grasp my ass...

>> No.11537459

Just report and hide, idiots.

>> No.11537494


>Be retarded deistfag

>Think belief in a god is all there needs to exist

Religion is the organized hierarchical belief of the knowledge of said god. Without the institution of religion, you get shit like protestantism, their retarded child neo-protestantism and it's retarded offshot new age

>> No.11537501

try pantheism, panenteheism, or autotheism, you brainlet dunning kruger victim

>> No.11537579

did you just say that apes lack an opposable thumb?

>> No.11537590
File: 66 KB, 963x1024, elGwJpL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

did the man that invend god go to god?

>> No.11537627

fully opposable*

>> No.11537724

>this stream is almost entirely positive
Have you ever felt chronic pain or depression?

>> No.11537912

Before time, God is. The Supreme Conscoiusness can be tapped into by all his children. What we perceive reality, time space, matter is the same as how an ant perceives its world. We are so zoomed in, it's impossible for any scientist to know reality.

God was, God Is, God always will be. We just have to accept we cannot know the true nature.

>> No.11537923
File: 798 KB, 996x868, golden kek.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You're asking why we are in bodies that are well suited for the technology WE CREATED?

>> No.11537943

Obviously the universe cares if you exist in the first place.

>> No.11537984

>Have you ever felt

>chronic pain
No, I exercise and eat healthily while avoiding self-destructive habits.
Yes, but I was mostly referring to sense-experience, which is almost entirely positive in the average day.

>> No.11538011


Rabbinical Jews invented God during a baby blood blender

>> No.11538020


There was a great Hominid war that continues even today.

>> No.11538021

Such as sight, sound, smell, and others? What do you mean when you call them entirely positive?
>in the average day.
What is an average day?

>> No.11538111
File: 197 KB, 2500x1645, 1495290014884.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11538120

it's simple: if something is truelly random, then it doesn't depend from you. So it's even worse, because the choice will not even be determined by you.

>> No.11538165

Same thing with God, only you do it nonempirically. To prove/disprove the existence of God by experiment, is just to prove/disprove the existance of a god.
I do not believe in Zeus or any other primitive skydaddy. But if we talk about an absolute Diety, there is nothing that can be shown empirically.

>> No.11538176

Are you retarded on purpose?

>> No.11538235

It feels like you read only one Chapter of Shopenhauer and binge watch Dawkins talks

>> No.11538258

I'm not going to deconstruct your post or anything, but the last point really is the icing on the brainlet cake
>Greater variety of faces with distinct characteristics
This is because you've been around humans your whole life. Your probably don't see monkeys that often, so of course it's easier to find variances in human faces than monkey faces

>> No.11538288

>your axioms should be considered and reasoned to conform as closely to the truth as possible

Do you even understand, what an axiom means? The axiom is the truth. We cannot ever let go of our presupositions, but only hypocrites like you will not admit it.

>> No.11538290

>Such as sight, sound, smell, and others?
>What do you mean when you call them entirely positive?
Sense-experience is a strange thing. If I am outside, I feel the warmth of the sun and the coolness of the breeze on my skin. Coupled with the bright green trees in the foreground against the blue sky, this sense-experience is almost divine in that moment. This type of thing isn't just outside in nature though; bits and pieces of it are spread out everywhere. There is no place on Earth where you can escape this energy of the moment. For this reason, the phenomena of being are inherently good and thus positive.
>What is an average day?
A day where you are alive and experiencing.

>> No.11538291

back to plebbit

>> No.11538586

Is this the American Protestantism I have been hearing about?

>> No.11539033
File: 50 KB, 960x624, 10534620_10200491959937175_4758915278698835999_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>overall more beautiful than other animals (human faces are more expressive with more facial muscles relegated to expressing emotions and naturally convey greater sympathy)

>> No.11539132

>before time
you mean at a time when time didn't exist? are you brain dead?

>> No.11539137

you seem overly eager to anthropomorphize the universe in it's entirety

>> No.11539143

I fully admit that we require presuppositions, did you not read my post? I simply add that they should be kept to a minimum

>> No.11539150

>I care about and acknowledge my being
>I am part of the universe
>the universe cares about and acknowledges my being

>> No.11539154

It's a question asked by brainlets, but only because the answer is so obviously man.

>> No.11539319

>a part equals the whole
you are a special type of stupid, aren't you?

>> No.11539331

>240+ replies
>not one (1) single logical answer

>> No.11539355

But the universe is all one thing; one part is the same as the whole.

>> No.11539479
File: 16 KB, 480x360, god.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It's a simple answer anon

>> No.11540456

>2) [why] are we in a body that is well suited for using technology

Lol. 8.5/10

>> No.11540464

smoke more pot

>> No.11540466

Has anyone noticed how well our feet are adapted to use socks?

>> No.11540477

Because your conception of "higher power" is anthropomorphic, whether you realize it or not--and this is explicitly reflected in many faiths that emphasize the primacy of humans (often by distinguishing them from animals) and their divine likeness. God is described by taking human virtues and multiplying by infinity.

The reality is that "higher powers" (if such things exist under any reasonable definition) may well be so utterly unlike us that they are genuinely incomprehensible, both in function and form. Many religious people claim they believe this about God, but they are unambiguously lying, because they express great certainty about many of his qualities (e.g., his benevolence and love for us in particular, the unlimited scope of his knowledge) and wouldn't you know it, they are just human qualities but *very big*.

>> No.11540485
File: 57 KB, 600x600, wojak-dumb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>the scientific method is the only way to find truth.

>> No.11540494

Yeah, but I'm not saying that at all. I'm not religious, I just believe in 'A' God. But your post seems like you are stitching two separate things together, lol. I don't personally care what religious people say about God, not relevant to me or my post at all. And what are you talking about with this, "your conception is anthropomorphic", says who? I didn't specify. That's kind of the point. I mean, it might be if you're arguing that any idea of 'God' in the first place is innately human, etc.

>> No.11540497

>Look at these retards, using planes to fly everywhere. Don't they know that a horse and buggy is also a viable means of transportation??
nice self portrait btw

>> No.11540499

But he didn't say that, did he? Lol, read again and slower this time

>> No.11540501


>the scientific method is the only way to find truth.

This is a logical contradiction, since the scientific method can't be used to verify that very statement.

>> No.11540509

"A man lives by believing in something: Not by debating and arguing many different things" - Carlyle

>> No.11540511

Name a better alternative.

>> No.11540512

it literally can

>> No.11540518

Cows can write letters?
Elephants can play piano?
Lions can paint?

>> No.11540521

>the scientific method is not the only way to find truth
>implying that there are other ways IN ADDITION TO the scientific method
>”he must mean that the scientific method doesn’t work, what a retard”
what the fuck add you doing on /lit/ if you don’t even have the reading comprehension to accurately interpret a 4chan post

>> No.11540522

show me retard

>> No.11540528

I disagree, but I won't debate or argue about it. I'll just believe that I'm right. Sounds like a smart guy.

>> No.11540529

who are you quoting? have some courage and respond to his post like a man

>> No.11540532

Not seeing any alternatives.

>> No.11540539

Nobody with reading comprehension wants to talk to you because you're implying that all atheism is scientism in the first place.

>> No.11540549

Thats the spirit

>> No.11540556

>I mean, it might be if you're arguing that any idea of 'God' in the first place is innately human, etc.
This is exactly my point--the word God refers specifically to anthropomorphized conceptions of divine creator/caretaker/judge. If we make "God" so abstract as to have no such qualities, then I think it is a very strange choice to use a word that aligns our description of the world with theists, considering their beliefs are actually radically different (and very confident).

I also am inferring a bit (maybe incorrectly) about your position from your question:
>How the fuck do you we think we are here then? I do not understand.
which to me seems to imply that our circumstances cannot arise without "something" with some kind of special property (intelligence?). This is where I believe anthropomorphism is entering your thinking--we have no reason to believe that whatever process, agential or otherwise, that resulted in our being here would be recognizable to us as an agent, or an "intelligence", or Father, or even a "higher power." It's just as likely that it would look like chaos to us even if it *wasn't* chaotic, because it would be incomprehensible to us.

>> No.11540557

Mathematics, for example, does not require the scientific method.

>> No.11540559

The scientific method can certainly lead one to truth, but is it the only truth?
Does it not have components of reasoning within it(in the formulation and refinement of hypotheses), and is it not superseded by reasoning at its core?
Also, Higgs boson probably doesn't exist, so there!

>> No.11540560

interesting point

>> No.11540561

So this is the power of /lit/

>> No.11540576

Did he say the scientific method doesn't work?
How retarded are to only read what you want to hear?

>> No.11540577
File: 172 KB, 875x1000, EB87E384-8F96-4B89-9ED9-40CA7075D44E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

If you claim to not be aware then you’re only admitting your own ignorance

Also, if you think the “scientific method” is some rigid, universally accepted procedure followed by all scientists and that has produced everything we currently consider to be scientific truth, you’re stuck with a grade school understanding of science. There is no one “scientific method” and to assert that there is is to be ignorant of the historical reality of scientific research

>> No.11540582

I neither implied nor suggested that.

Again, what the fuck are you doing on /lit/ etc etc

>> No.11540584
File: 54 KB, 660x800, wojak-dumb2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>That's not what I learned from Bill Nye, Neil Degrass Tyson, and /r/science

>> No.11540589

>blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah
>blahblahblahblah blahblah blah blah blahblah blahblahblahblah
I like this poster >>11540557 better than you.

>> No.11540594
File: 55 KB, 850x400, neil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.11540596

The number of presupositions does not in any way show, that they are superior or inferior to any other set of presupositions.
If you believe that, then you are thinking on a statistical basis, which is teh norm in the empirical sciences, but in mathematical terms it has no power.

>> No.11540608

Is this ironic? I can't tell anymore.

>> No.11540611

Alright, well I can understand the first bit yeah, although I somewhat disagree re "aligning with theists" comment, but the second bit where you quoted me is probably just me being silly on 4chan.
Mainly because it is difficult to really even try to explain, or say anything at all, without 'compromising' yourself in some form, and then your statement leans into something else, and so on.. when discussing this particular topic.

People can and do debate for endlessly over this, and get nowhere. At the end of the day it is simply a matter of whether you believe in a God(s) or not, or unsure, etc.
I feel as though all arguments have played out in some way, and now it's just waiting and not believing, waiting and believing, waiting and unsure, not believing, believing, unsure, and so on. Either way everyone is believing something, imo. But that's just me.

I believe in a God, but probably cannot explain why, in all honesty. I just do! Then determinism and all of these other things start to creep in also... who knows, bro!

>> No.11540613
File: 133 KB, 1240x775, neil2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>tfw a brainlet says he believes in God

>> No.11540617


>> No.11540618
File: 212 KB, 666x498, neil3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I win the thread

>> No.11540623

>tfw a brainlet says he believes the opposite
Even your dark skinned idol is agnostic, not atheist

>> No.11540625

I don’t know why you’d compare him since we’re talking about different things?

>> No.11540626

Quit playing dumb.

>> No.11540630

At this point, I think it's natural

>> No.11540638

Kill yourself.

>> No.11540649

He's right though

>> No.11540650

I see you're being very rational in your counter argument

>> No.11540655
File: 172 KB, 900x675, 7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11540656

If you knew you hadn’t fucked up then you’d have a less dismissive reply

>> No.11540665
File: 2.44 MB, 1175x1500, 2010_Porchet_04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11540674

>we can't offer proof of God's existence but we know he will be SEETHING if you don't have faith in his existence so you better do as we... i mean, God, says or else
really makes me think

>> No.11540678
File: 246 KB, 763x1000, 8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>God doesn't exit
l m a o

>> No.11540686

My friend, you have the brain of a four year old child, and I bet he was glad to be rid of it.

>> No.11540694
File: 1.25 MB, 1232x815, ch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>DUDE God doesnt exist bro! I saw it on the latest Jewish produced movie
>Also my favourite rapper said so hehe
>wow! dont u know that god is dead dude?!

>> No.11540699

>actually depicting The One Who Is
woah, so this is the power.. of Cath*lics and their blasphemies

>> No.11540701

That statement has nothing to do with what you were contending brainlet

>> No.11540703


>> No.11540704


/lit/ is a firmly Catholic/Orthodox board

>> No.11540706

>Implying I care what its depicting
Woah! SO this is the power of rick and morty and anime

>> No.11540710

>dude just have faith

>> No.11540716

>just trust us bro, omnipresent entities love that shit

>> No.11540723


Yes some, if not most christians have idiotic views. Yet this is not a reason to project them onto us.

Also we were not talking about God, but about empiricism and it's percieved monopoly on truth. If you cannot meaningfully contribute to the argument, but instead rely on projecting your views of a different topic on to others, then I suggest you stay silent.

>> No.11540726

God is the product of a mind needful for answers but having no way of obtaining them, we have better thought out gods now than humans 5000 years ago, as our mind expands we will probably reach a point in which its imposible for us to think about a god

>> No.11540729

i just like the A E S T H E T H I C of it desu

>> No.11540733

Go watch your Rick and Morty, the adults are talking

>> No.11540738

>we have better thought out gods now than humans 5000 years ago
You mean Kim Kardashian and the US Dollar are better than Jesus, Son of God?

>> No.11540740

>empiricism and it's percieved monopoly on truth
Okay, so how else do you find truth?

>> No.11540743

Mathematics, for example

>> No.11540748

My notion isn't that far-fetched. Any monist western philosophers e.g. Hegel would agree.

>> No.11540751

How does mathematics discern truth?

>> No.11540753

By using the deffinitions it has formulated it finds which statments are valid. So it has no need for aposteriori facts.

>> No.11540759

And where do these definitions come from?

>> No.11540765

Honey, i think you mean queen beyonce, that sand hippie got nothing on her

>> No.11540770

The most fundamental level of truth is that of fact, and the scientific method is our best shot at aligning our world view with facts and improving our model of reality. Nobody ITT has offered a viable alternative to this, because one doesn't exist.

>> No.11540773

We, as the users of language, define them as such.

>> No.11540781

Sounds like linguistic sophistry.

>> No.11540782

Platonic forms

>> No.11540784

You are correct in saying, that science provides models for the empirical observations. And it has the highest predictive power for such empirical observations - I do not argue against this.

I am only saying, that there are fields outside of science. As I mention, mathematics, but there are many other examples.

>> No.11540787

You are correct in saying, that science provides models for the empirical observations. And it has the highest predictive power for such empirical observations - I do not argue against this.

I am only saying, that there are fields outside of science. As I mention, mathematics, but there are many other examples.

>> No.11540795

What is wrong with my reply? Do you not agree that axioms are deffinitions for mathematical objects? And do you not also agree that the depend on what we choose them to be?

>inb4 there is no free will etc, so you cannot choose etc...
I wasn't talking about this

>> No.11540822

Presuppositions are potential areas of error, and since they are presuppositions, those errors will go on unobserved. Therefore, you should keep the areas of possible unobserved errors to a minimum. Was this too difficult for you to follow?

>> No.11541451

>free will doesn't exist bc of laplacian determinism
retards walk among us

>> No.11541982

the absolute state of this board

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.