/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12590183]

How does someone believe in anything spiritual nowadays?
Why are there still discussions about God, soul, religions, afterlife?
Come on, we are living in the age of science.
Everything can be described by physics, chemistry, biology...
We know that we are just smart apes,
our thoughts are just chemical reactions in our brains.
I can't believe that we are still coping.

[Anonymous No.12590189]

I think you need to read some Leibniz buddy.

[Anonymous No.12590224]

>>12590189
I think you're stuck in the 17th century.

[Anonymous No.12590250]

>>12590183
What is consciousness anon? Why did the universe come from nothing? Why are there laws in the universe?

[Anonymous No.12590311]

>>12590183
Why exactly are you surprised? Why do science and religion conflict?

[Anonymous No.12590314]

>>12590250
Consciousness is a result of evolution.
The universe didn't come from nothing, it has always existed, just like the laws of it.

[Anonymous No.12590327]

>>12590314
But why are there laws?
Something physical can't have always existed, are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.12590330]

>>12590314
You didn't explain what consciousness is either.

[Anonymous No.12590342]

>>12590314
>he thinks an infinite past is possible

[Anonymous No.12590352]

Because unless you are actually educated in these subjects just rationalizing all your behavior in just basic bitch layman scientific terms doesnt actually explain why you are and who you are in any meaningful capacity so thats why many may "cope" with these subjects

[Anonymous No.12590357]

>>12590314
Pls prove that the universe is eternal, what if there is some higher universe that created this universe or something wacky like that.

[Anonymous No.12590359]

>>12590352
tfw masters in biochemistry and still found God.

[Anonymous No.12590363]

>>12590183
People are stupid and afraid of the dark.

[Anonymous No.12590387]

>>12590183
Although we live in the age of science, we still don't understand anything about our reality or even ourselves. Even seemingly simple concepts such as language and happiness are not even remotely understood by science, even though such concepts are used or experienced very often. To simply dismiss the spiritual because in your arrogance you believe the world is sufficiently understood to rule all it out is childish and impulsive.

[Anonymous No.12590392]

>>12590327
why do you think that something can't have always existed?
>>12590330
I can't explain it since neuroscience isn't there yet, but we know that it isn't something magical or spiritual, it's just a tool for survival.
People believed that fire is some kind of magic because they didn't understand the physics behind it.

[Anonymous No.12590395]

>>12590314
>consciousness is a result of evolution
STEMoids unironically consider this answer satisfactory. Let that sink in.

[Anonymous No.12590404]

>>12590392
Because that goes against entropy you dum dum.

[Anonymous No.12590419]

>>12590392
How is consciousness more advantageous to survival say than nonconsciousness? Lets postulate that for an organism to survive it needs to calculate it's action in some way, this is what the brain is for, if then consciousness is created through this process of calculation, as this is the evolutionary necessary task of the brain, wouldn't then also bots suffice for this task, meaning that there is no evolutionary advantage in a nonconsciousness being?

[Anonymous No.12590422]

>>12590392
>but we know that it isn't something magical or spiritual
No you don't. Just as much as you don't know it isn't spiritual.

[Anonymous No.12590426]

>>12590392
>a tool for survival
Psychiatrist here and I have to disagree

[Anonymous No.12590430]

*reads Sam Harris once*
*touches a hot stove once*

[Anonymous No.12590435]

>>12590430
Broh I have solved the is ought gap, there is not difference becuase there are no value before valuing agents, dude

[Anonymous No.12590436]

>>12590392
Brainlet here, are single celled organisms considered concious? They seem to survive just fine

[Anonymous No.12590490]

>>12590426
Although a consciousness may be a curse on the individual, on the human species it seems to have been a great evolution, since we are one of the most successful mammalian species.

[Anonymous No.12590500]

>>12590490
What is the evolutionary advantage of consciousness?

[Anonymous No.12590502]

>>12590392
>I can't explain it since neuroscience isn't there yet, but we know that it isn't something magical or spiritual

[Anonymous No.12590508]

>>12590490
>since we are one of the most successful mammalian species.
By which metric, may I ask?
Lifespan? Nope. Population? Nope. Species longevity? Nope. Survivability? Nope. Ability to murder each other by the millions? Yep!
Based sentience!

[Anonymous No.12590516]

>>12590392
You are putting faith in something hoping it will come to exist eventually. You are doing exactly what a religious person does.

[Anonymous No.12590541]

>>12590392
>I can't explain it since neuroscience isn't there yet, but we know that it isn't something magical or spiritual
Oh no
It's retarded

[Anonymous No.12590550]

>>12590516
And what’s worse, he doesn’t benefit by having faith that science explains everything, whereas religious people see more meaning and purpose in life.

[Anonymous No.12590562]

>>12590392
You made the claim that the universe eternally existed, and now when you are confronted to provide a satisfactory answer, you deflect the accusation of the burden of proof. Tell us why you believe the universe eternally existed. Your argument and deductions please.

[Anonymous No.12590616]

>>12590314
Studies sugest that some forces of the universe did only come to existance a few moments after the big bang started.
The actual precision of the natural forces of the universe is so stagering precise that if you changed them even 0.01% the universe as we know it wouldnt be possible. It would either be just a bunch of particles floating around in the infinite or a giant black hole right from the start.

[Anonymous No.12590633]

>>12590392
Even if everything has always existed, that doesn’t prevent the existence of God. I don’t believe this, but consider the possibility that God is “created” in the far future, maybe through some technological means, I don’t know. This God is beyond time, can time travel, etc. since everything has always existed, wouldn’t this “future” God also have existed, and therefore always had a role in existence? Something to think about.

[Anonymous No.12590645]

>GOD DOESNT EXIST
>okay so who created the Universe
>BIG BANG
>okay so who initiated Big Bang
>IT HAPPENED BY ITSELF
>okay so who created the condition for it to happen by itself
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.12590647]

>>12590314
The absolute state of scientism
>Consciousness is a result of evolution.
He asked you what is consciousness not how it came to be, also there is zero evidence to your proposition due to the fact that scientist can't identify its source nor give a satisfactory definition.
>The universe didn't come from nothing, it has always existed, just like the laws of it.
Why? And what evidence do you have to support this?

[Anonymous No.12590654]

>>12590562
It's because your ape brain can't imagine that something exists beyond time.
We know that time is just a dimension.

>>12590616
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning

[Anonymous No.12590690]

>>12590633
>that doesn’t prevent the existence of God
ever heard of Occam’s Razor?

[Anonymous No.12590695]

>>12590654
>The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning
Will look into anon thanks for sharing it.
Can you expand a little on how does he disprove the existence of god and the book itself?

[Anonymous No.12590697]

>>12590690
Ever learned to read the rest of a post before responding?

[Anonymous No.12590755]

>>12590695
>Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

[Anonymous No.12591112]

>1. We know from experience that humans are conscious beings
>2. Consciousness being an emergent property of matter, that is, a genuinely novel aspect of reality, doesn't seem right. If the universe is a closed system, how could anything be added to it that wasn't already there?
>3. If consciousness is not an emergent property, it must necessarily be an inherent property of reality
>4. From our own experience, we can know that particular arrangements of matter, in our brains for example, can have drastic effects on our experience of consciousness. Matter and consciousness must be linked in some way
>5. If consciousness is not an emergent property of reality, it cannot be an emergent property of matter. The complex arrangement of matter cannot *generate* consciousness, only *focus* it into something like we experience.
>6. We have found no type of consciousness that exists independently of matter
>7. If consciousness is not an emergent property of matter, but is always correlated, it reasons that consciousness is an inherent property of matter
>8. Prior to the existence of our current universe according to the most recent scientific discoveries, all matter was compressed into a single point, a singularity. Could an object such as this not have properties that are inherent to it’s parts? Wouldn’t this singularity have some form of consciousness? If this entity is conscious and nothing exists outside of it, how would it not be a deity?

[Anonymous No.12591145]

>>12590404
We don't know that, we don't receive information prior to the universe. There's no reason to assume that whatever fundamental state or cauldron of potential underlies everything isn't physical.

[Anonymous No.12591157]

>>12590500
It allows us to run 'simulations'. Planning ahead, anticipation, etc.

[Anonymous No.12591175]

>>12590392
People believe fire is some kind of physics because they don't understand the magic behind it.

[Anonymous No.12591178]

>>12590183

Everything can be described by Beavis and Butt-Head excerpts.

[Anonymous No.12591196]

>>12590508
If it leads to us genitically/technologically altering ourselves then we can become the most successful in all of those ways. 'Survivability' is pretty vauge, and you should also be considering the confluence of such metrics rather than each on its own.

[Anonymous No.12591211]

>>12590183
Nice bait thread, but a poor jest; not onle that, but also at your God’s expense. Be careful.

[Anonymous No.12591216]

>>12590183

I am just done with you mother fuckers.

I am not even religious so would have not problem killing you pukes for christians.

[Anonymous No.12591218]

>>12590183

poor bait.

[Anonymous No.12591227]

>>12591112
Emergent properties are not additions of matter/energy to the universe, they are the novel interactions produced when said matter/energy organizes into different structures. They are only 'genuinely novel aspects' in that sense, the potential for them was always there. Consider a standing wave: No new energy/matter is created, the potential for the phenomenon is always there, it just doesn't happen until the waves interfere.

[Anonymous No.12591269]

>>12590654
>can't imagine that something exists beyond time.
>We know that time is just a dimension
Precisely what the Catholic Church has accepted as doctrine since St. Augustine. It was steady state theory that was scaring them

[Anonymous No.12591289]

>>12591196
>If it leads to us genitically/technologically altering ourselves then we can become the most successful in all of those ways.
Here you go with "science is magic that will grant me superpowers" stuff, man. You're more religious than Bible-thumping rednecks down South, waiting for your own special brand of Rapture.

[Anonymous No.12591315]

>>12591157
But chess computers can plan ahead, are chess computers conscious?

[Anonymous No.12591325]

>>12591289
Theoretically you could create a world of healthy, intelligent, compassionate, Aryan Christians using the powers of technology. I don’t know why that would be bad.

[Anonymous No.12591349]

>>12590183
I really hate that picture. Why is science represented as technology? It should be a new growth shoot coming from tree branch or something. Technology is lame and not science. Science is for organisms

[Anonymous No.12591358]

I, too, motherfucking love fucking science, bros!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.12591395]

>>12591358
Science is the best. I'm sick of morons here thinking they are edgy for apeing the anti-science attitude low-iq high-arts professors have always had.

[Anonymous No.12591433]

>>12590183
We’re bored and it’s a good story. one day it will be even less fashionable to subscribe to it but as long as people are afraid of death and fear the absurdity of existence they will come up with explanations for what they do not understand.
God’s existence is irrelevant, all that matters is the nihilistic void we all face.

[Anonymous No.12591445]

>>12591289
Except it does, granted in minor ways.
Technology/tool use are the direct child of conciousness, and technology allows us to functionally adapt at a breakneck speed.
We can create cloths to endure the cold
We can irrigate away from water
Hell vaccination is just technologically improving our immune system
Understanding the past and future is an advantage that sometimes causes mental illness, but it’s a net positive

[Anonymous No.12591544]

>>12591315
The question was what advantage does consciousness provide. Chess computers than can adapt and 'plan ahead' are more effective, yes? Consciousness includes sensation, obviously.

[Anonymous No.12591591]

>>12590183
>>12590224
I didnt bother to read everything, but why do you think there are still discussions about spirituality? You are right, in that we are living in an age of science, but what you do when you think science is the be all end all of knowledge, you enter into a false dichotomy.

Do you think everything can be explained by science? Or do you think that science can explain most everything, but some questions remain unexplainable?

Can you remove ideology?

>>12590645
Its a closrd system,obviously.

[Anonymous No.12591613]

>>12590183
Because things are still really weird even though we understand some of them now

[Anonymous No.12591640]

>How does someone believe in anything spiritual nowadays?
I dunno, spiritual stuff is usually about our consciousness, understanding ourselves and our relationship to the world, so as a human it seems a bit interesting idk, just my opinion bro.

[Anonymous No.12591644]

Nobody is religious irl, only closeted homos and poor people, 4chinks pretends to be because contrarianism.

[Anonymous No.12591645]

>>12591591
You’re right to an extent but it also comes down to the size of the assumptions made

Science at its core is simply based on the idea that repeating an action exactly will always yield the same result, the idea that causality applies to the universe
Spiritually in the other hand asks for far greater leaps of faiths

I’m of the opinion that every question can be answered scientifically, it’s just a matter of whether human can/will reach the level of technology/knowledge to get there

[Anonymous No.12591665]

>>12590183
Because you can't study ontology with science, you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.12591669]

>>12591591
Not the anon you replied to but I have to correct your misunderstanding.
It’s not that we value science as the last word on what exists because of bias
We value science because it is a system of epistemology that is unique to our culture and society which we built through countless years of try and error, it is absolutely the best, most sophisticated, most accurate and comprehensive narrative humanity had accumulated.
It is not that it is considered to be the last word with a risk of misrepresentation, science holds no prisoners in that regard there are absolutely no misrepresentations in it,it is itself the last word and will forever be, as long as reality is material and the laws governing it comprehensible science is the best humans can do.

[Anonymous No.12591694]

>>12590224
That's funny, I was about to say the same thing

[Anonymous No.12591805]

>>12590183
Spirituality is an extension of intuition, a deep set of instincts that are present in most people, albeit learned and honed to different degrees. Spiritual experience, ideas of God, religious knowledge and epiphanies all flow from human intuition. They are elements of how we perceive our world and ourselves. To declare that there is nothing spiritual is comparable to declaration that math is no longer needed because computers do all the work for modern people. Math is a part of us same as spirit. If these ideas seem foreign to you, I'd be curious at what point the aspiritual modern abridges spiritual experience in favor of their "reason" ruled mindset.

[Anonymous No.12591846]

I think what's amusing about OP's sentiments is the basis that capitalism has no need for the spiritual. Investors and shareholders do not care for the spiritual, so it mustn't exist. Its hilarious, but you cannot help but feel pity for people who seek to prove they're the most loyal servant to darwinian capitalism, the best adapted to a post-spiritual world of grinding, brutal subservience.

[Anonymous No.12591885]

>>12591805
Or it could simply be the necessary consequence of ego-centric beings with a sophisticated capacity for abstraction. You dismiss our assumption (which we can at least begin to define) but so readily accept your own.

[Anonymous No.12591929]

>>12591885
the preposition that nothing is spiritual has time and time again proven to be self destructive for the human life.

[Anonymous No.12591940]

>>12590645
Why did it have to be created by a who? Not saying it's good to pretend like we know but it seems to me that you're doing the same thing

[Anonymous No.12591956]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Ironic coming from a christian. Don't you think?

[Anonymous No.12591986]

The fact that anything exists is pretty crazy so I wouldn't say for sure spiritual stuff doesn't.

If this can exist, why not that?

[Anonymous No.12592069]

>>12591986
Because Occam’s razor and evidence
Things don’t exist simply because we think of them, concepts need to be supported by as much evidence as possible.
Saying that it could exist is irrelevant when you structure your whole existence as if the claim is true, assuming conjectures as if they are possibly true is a delusion which religion make people far more likely to partake in.
Logic is so clear and beautiful yet emotional bias always triumphs when humans decide what the story is.
We all want reality to be more than it is and logical explanations are feeble when they are opposing romantic notions, we are a poor creature destined to suffer.

[Anonymous No.12592082]

>>12591175
What a post. Based

[Anonymous No.12592134]

>>12590183
Being a smart ape doesn't exclude the existence of a soul

[Anonymous No.12592186]

>>12591669
>>12591645
So science has its limitations?
So in a box, you can say forsure what a point is in that box right? What if there is no box?

[Anonymous No.12592219]

>>12591929
That is a valid argument for utility, one I think the OP needs to seriously think about. It doesn't address actuality though, and that is a part of this conversation (if we're aspiring to philosophy here).

[Anonymous No.12592237]

>>12590183
This thread is an embarrassment to lit. You should do better. This is slightly more polite YouTube comment section

[Anonymous No.12592259]

>>12591986
It would help if spiritualists could begin to define what 'spiritual' is. Instead they hypocritcally claim it to be the unknowable when asked to define it, yet treat it as knowable when it comes to supporting their specific beliefs or positioning it as necessarily opposite of models like physicalism.

[Anonymous No.12592263]

>>12592069
that's pretty fucking melancholic

[Anonymous No.12592270]

>>12590314
>it has always existed
not even scientists believe this

[Anonymous No.12592279]

>>12591846
based

[Anonymous No.12592286]

>>12592219
meaningless, please refer me to the objective criterion you use to judge the validity of spirituality "in the actual", I'll wait

[Anonymous No.12592300]

I hate spiritual shit like the next guy.
But having heard the common variable for people getting into their 100s in age, most of them are at some level, spiritual. Sometimes I believe I have a guardian angel - there, I said it.

[Anonymous No.12592305]

>>12592259
Mysticism precludes rationalism. Why do mystics have the burden of proof

[Anonymous No.12592321]

>>12592286
Logic. Absolute certainty may be technically prohibited (both for and against), but what is preventing you from establishing the greater probability of your spiritual explanation?

[Anonymous No.12592340]

>>12592305
Because it's a positive claim, duh. The concepts of mysticism wouldn't be possible without basic logic. You are claiming a truth right? Honestly...

[Anonymous No.12592350]

>>12592340
What is that claim?

>>12592321
How would you test for the veracity of Meister Eckhart's claims about God? Do you even know what you are saying?

[Anonymous No.12592381]

>>12590359
Good for you, anon.

[Anonymous No.12592387]

>>12590183
It's a drive most humans still posses, although it isn't surprising that the last men are incapable of feeling their souls. You are bugmen.

[Anonymous No.12592388]

>>12592340
Cart in front of horse buddy

[Anonymous No.12592398]

>>12592387
Based

[Anonymous No.12592405]

>>12592350
It's an assortment of claims. We are more than matter/energy, we will live beyond death, there's a creator, meaning precedes us, etc. They're all positive until asked for demonstration, then it's the 'unknowable'.

I don't have to test the veracity of something which isn't defined, that's the point. If I said an unknowable something was going to turn the universe into a pb&j sandwich tomorow, I wouldn't expect you to test my claim I'd expect you to laugh at it.

[Anonymous No.12592419]

>>12592405
No, mysticism is merely that there are things or truths in a pragmatist sense that logic can't process.

[Anonymous No.12592421]

>>12592405
Since these are claims that are born of practice and inner insight, and not argumentation - hence, mysticism and not theology - what do you think would be the true test here? Argument or practice? The claims are secondary to the experience, anyways.

[Anonymous No.12592422]

It's really simple.
Science tell us what the universe is but "spiritualism" is about what it should be, or rather, what you should try to achieve with the power of your spirit.
The only unfounded and unscientific opinion you have to accept is the power of your own conciusness.
Read some Nietzsche dude, you thinking is what is bringing us clear to a capitalist dystopia

[Anonymous No.12592431]

>>12592388
So you claim. No effort at demonstration. If logic isn't the standard we must meet, why bother arguing anything? What truth could you hope to convey if truth statements are meaningless (by virtue of logic being so)? Silliness.

[Anonymous No.12592441]

>>12592431
Why do you assume that the options are "logic" and "nihilism"

[Anonymous No.12592448]

>>12592419
No, that is just uncertainty in general. If these truths can't be processed then you can't claim any certainty as to what they are.

[Anonymous No.12592462]

>>12591885
A blind person could argue there are no colors or that they are meaningless. I'd be as bored with that idea as the notion that someone has purged from themselves or somehow walled off and compartmentalized their deepest instincts that they claim they neither exist or that they do not need them. Persuasion in spiritual matters is misplaced energies. Either a person is open to the world and God or not. It's not dissimilar to how some people either connect with women or animals or they do not.

[Anonymous No.12592477]

>>12592421
I could say that my 'inner insight' and 'practice' tell me something different. What makes you correct? You're (attempting to) use logic right now to justify your position.

[Anonymous No.12592491]

>>12590183
>How does someone believe in anything spiritual nowadays?
The metaphysical glares at you if you would only look past this mundane world for a second

>Why are there still discussions about God, soul, religions, afterlife?
People are fundamentally unhappy with life and existence in general

>Everything can be described by physics, chemistry, biology...
But you're missing the mark, people don't want your memorized, basic observations from exorbitant and ostentatious setups, people want logical explanations for why they're being subjected to this creation

[Anonymous No.12592497]

>>12592448
They can be processed, just not in a logical framework

[Anonymous No.12592498]

>>12592477
You wouldn't, because you've never practiced and studied and have no reference point for the process at all. You sound like a dude who needs to read a study for why cold showers are beneficial before he takes one.

[Anonymous No.12592505]

>>12590352
Exactly. There are many perspectives with legitimacy. We can't be narrow-minded and confuse half-truths with absolutism. Reality is complicated.

[Anonymous No.12592519]

>tfw atheist and believe in the metaphysical

Anyone else?

[Anonymous No.12592523]

>>12592519
>tfw believe in God but not the metaphysical

[Anonymous No.12592540]

>>12592497
Causality is inherent to your experience and is the foundation of logic. It is literally how you process. You have what is to you an unexplainable and deeply satisfying experience and you equate it with the spiritual... You make a logical relation. Being less logically precise doesn't mean it's not fundamental to your experience.

[Anonymous No.12592546]

>>12592419
OP here.
I'm pretty interested in mysticism actually,
especially in Meister Eckhart's works.
Have you read The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick?

[Anonymous No.12592573]

>>12592498
You have no idea what I have or haven't experienced. Oh well, I'm not really interested in shit-flinging. Have a nice evening.

[Anonymous No.12592587]

>>12590250
I don't find the spiritual answers to those questions satisfying

[Anonymous No.12592593]

>>12590183
>Everything can be described by physics, chemistry, biology...
Science would like you to stop lying about it. Literature would like you to keep sci-fi gen in sci-fi gen.

[Anonymous No.12592602]

>>12590645
>GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE
>okay so who created God
>IT HAPPENED BY ITSELF
>okay so who created the condition for it to happen by itself
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.12592611]

>>12592491
>people want logical explanations for why they're being subjected to this creation
the reason they're asking the question is because they think they're higher and better than the animals or the mosquito, why should there be a reason for grass to grow
>>12592519
O, the highly wise! Arrive at a conclusion, therefore, that there is nothing beyond this Universe. Give precedence to that which meets the eye and turn your back on what is beyond our knowledge.

[Anonymous No.12592615]

>>12590755
>puddle being observed by something it can't percieve

[Anonymous No.12592618]

>>12592300
most people living into their 100s are spiritual because most people born 100 years ago were spiritual

[Anonymous No.12592634]

>>12592540
https://samzdat.com/2017/06/19/the-use-and-abuse-of-witchdoctors-for-life/
>>12592546
Sorry, I haven't really read anything modern on mysticism other than Deleuze. I mostly draw inspiration from early priests and shamans and the myths they weaved.

[Anonymous No.12592654]

we are capable of spirituality. whether that is merely a product of our consciousness in its current form or a connection to something deeper is irrelevant to me. the world is far more beautiful to me from a spiritualistic pov, i don't follow any religion, but i feed a deep interconnectedness and a "beyond"

[Anonymous No.12592668]

>>12590314
>The universe didn't come from nothing, it has always existed, just like the laws of it.
You won't be able to defend this while also remaining scientific.

[Anonymous No.12592695]

>>12592523
>tfw credo in unum Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipoténtem, factorem cæli et terræ, visibílium ómnium et invisibílium. Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum, Fílium Dei unigénitum, et ex Patre natum, ante ómnia sæcula. Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero, génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri: per quem ómnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem descéndit de cælis. Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est. Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto; passus et sepúltus est, et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras, et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris. Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória, iudicáre vivos et mórtuos, cuius regni non erit finis. Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem: qui ex Patre Filióque procédit. Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur, et conglorificátur: qui locútus est per Prophétas. Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam. Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum. Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam ventúri sæculi.

[Anonymous No.12592730]

>>12591846
Every day this starts to look like a better explanation for people such as OP

[Anonymous No.12592744]

>>12592069
Your eyes will always deceive you. Empirical evidence means nothing.

[Anonymous No.12592764]

>>12592540
Where is the empirical evidence for causality?

[Anonymous No.12592782]

>>12591885
Why are the aspiritual so inclined towards pedantry? Is a pedantic tangent a symptom of the aspiritual modern? Your exploration of a single aspect to the origins of human spiritual experience don't seem to convey much, nor is the "woke ape" idea especially explanatory. The "abstraction" seen by the aspiritual pedant is, for the faithful feeling it, something more powerful and mysterious than can be dismissed or disregarded and reduced to "evolution and neurons, bruh." To frame spirituality to the Rogan-trained, it's as if you're tripping on LSD or DMT, but rather than your senses being occluded in the fuzzy inexplicable mush of mystical experience, you know something, you hear something, you acquire and become intimate with truth itself.

[Anonymous No.12592795]

>>12592764
Bayes gives us an absurd sigma-value. Not that anon, but that's the best we can do

[Anonymous No.12592874]

>>12592695
Traditional and tridentinepilled

[Anonymous No.12593080]

In my very uneducated opinion from what I have read and seen I understand that the current theory sees the universe as a self-contained entity. It contains laws and systems that only apply within it (by looking at the small part that is observable from our solar system) with the main being that it is made mainly of matter and way less antimatter. At its first moment of creation there also came time, that when it comes in contact with the gravitational pull of the matter it distorts. Mankind by observing, theorizing and experimenting has come to several conclusions that constantly evolve as our knowledge of how the cosmos works evolves and attributing characteristics to the mechanisms of reoccurring natural phenomena aka laws as the moving parts that define the inner-workings of this system that we call universe. How can we answer what exists out of the boundaries of our cosmos if we are not even sure how it works. I see the need for an intelligent design as the modern equivalent of mans need to explain that that he doesn't understand much like a thunder 3000 years ago was an unknown and thus attributed in various cultures to usually burly men who through them from mountain tops. As shit was getting explained we looked at a more modern approach to satisfy our need for how the unknown works and our basic instinctual fears like death; Attributing a gender to the god being or for example the image that most popular religions have of him or them looking like a man or a woman but also having other attributes that differentiate it from us with the most usual being power as in physical power and ofc in most religions being also the great safeguard of ethics. I do believe that fighting for if a god exists or not is futile as it is in the most basic human nature to look for it, and living in a pretty much civil society here in the western world we do have the right to think and express our belief freely.

[Anonymous No.12593102]

god is a retard

[Anonymous No.12593140]

>>12590183
when you're retarded

[Anonymous No.12593307]

>>12593080
>How can we answer what exists out of the boundaries of our cosmos if we are not even sure how it works. I see the need for an intelligent design as the modern equivalent of mans need to explain that that he doesn't understand much like a thunder 3000 years ago was an unknown and thus attributed in various cultures to usually burly men who through them from mountain tops.

this is a retarded meme you need to stop perpetuating

[Anonymous No.12593435]

All religion could be unified by the contemporary discovery of Life itself.
We've been here for well over a billion years, now Life's nascent self-consciousness grows to enlighten this ruined Cimmerian earth that we torch-bearers are building. Let Life's light grow to make meaning for every nook it finds itself in. Find the prophecy in biology. For our serenity and salvation, live and help live.

[Anonymous No.12593649]

>>12592602
>SO WHO CREATED GOD
>God is divine and exists outside causality, that's why he's God
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.12593770]

>>12592782
>can't define 'spiritual' in positive terms
>"you don't know but I do, broham"

Sure buddy, sure.

[Anonymous No.12593791]

>>12590314
"Consciousness" is not a "thing." It's not something you can hold in your hand like a rock or a plant, or even a mental thing like an ideology or a formula.

"Consciousness" is rather the place for all things to exist. You, right now, staring at your screen, is a result of consciousness. Yes, that screen had to be manufactured somewhere using minerals from the ground that had to develop over billions of years, but all of that was simply taking place within consciousness.

Evolution cannot give rise to consciousness, since evolution can only exist in the place for existence to begin in the first place, which is consciousness.

[Anonymous No.12593805]

>>12592441
The options are logic or entirely unsubstantiated belief. If logic is irrelevant to your belief, then no probability can be ascertained and debate is pointless.

[Anonymous No.12593835]

>>12593791
Everything has to be a 'thing', even the place. If something is not a 'thing' then it is nothing (no-thing).

There is no reason to assume that existence is not 'the place' for consciousness to exist.

[Anonymous No.12593837]

>>12593805
Logic isn't privileged over other systems of thought in its grounding.

[Anonymous No.12593853]

>>12593835
What is existence then? How can there be a perception of "existence" without consciousness?

[Anonymous No.12593862]

>>12593837
It really is though, because it is based upon observations of relations fundamental to our experience. Any potential knowledge comes via that conduit.

The simplest logic: Experience, therefore existence. It all proceeds from there. Spiritualists/mystics can't seem to see how they employ logic in every moment, even when elucidating their supposedly logic-independent beliefs.

[Anonymous No.12593895]

>>12593853
How can there be perception or consciousness without existence? But, to entertain your argument... Why is it any more likely that the base state of existence is consciousness, rather than say... A quantum probability field?

The fact that we are limited to our perception does not establish any certainty of consciousness being most fundamental to existence or subjective reality, or anything like that. It just highlights a technical uncertainty.

[Anonymous No.12593920]

>>12590250
Consciousness is a meme, and I mean that as in a memetic expression of something that doesn't exist in the world.

>Why did the universe come from nothing?
It didn't. The universe did not "begin," according to quantum physicists.

>Why are there laws in the universe?
Why is there a universe? — We are just begging the question. There's no puzzle to solve.

[Anonymous No.12593942]

>>12593862
Okay, but is it possible to show the validity of logic without using logic then?

[Anonymous No.12593950]

>>12593920
>and I mean that as in a memetic expression of something that doesn't exist in the world.
This is the very last post I am going to read on 4chan. Congrats psued, I'm finished.

[Anonymous No.12593956]

>>12593950
>announcing that youre leaving the thread

[Anonymous No.12593961]

>>12593920
Agreed.

[Anonymous No.12593972]

>>12593950
The concept of gnosis was the masterstroke of ancient artists (read: liars). But keep on thinking you're an "authentic" intellectual...

[Anonymous No.12593977]

>>12593895
>A quantum probability field?
Perhaps, if you consider the possibility that consciousness is a quantum probability field.

[Anonymous No.12593979]

are we being raided by reddit or something whats with all the atheism

[Anonymous No.12593982]

>>12593942
Logic is basic relations. It is apparent causality and spacetime, etc. If you want to saying there's something outside that, I wouldn't argue... But the fact remains that there's literally no other available conduit for knowledge, so we can't claim any certainty as to what that 'unknowable' might be.

[Anonymous No.12593984]

because of infinity

[Anonymous No.12594022]

tl'dr
ok what did you all figure out and conclude?

[Anonymous No.12594032]

>>12593920
yeah, why is there a universe?

[Anonymous No.12594037]

>>12593982
>i phenomenologically presume mysticism to be false, therefore its false
seems like poor form to me
Also how do you refute >>12591175? Steelman please

[Anonymous No.12594042]

>>12590183
it seems like science is your new religion.

[Anonymous No.12594050]

>>12593982
Also, you can make internally consistent ontological systems without stuff like law or fixed identity and law of excluded middle that accurately describe the world.

[Anonymous No.12594065]

>>12590183
Ur such a fucking rookie, u barely scratched the surface. Richard Dawkins tier post. Grow up

[Anonymous No.12594116]

>>12594037
I presume it to be highly improbable, especially since it isn't defined. If it can't be defined it can't be claimed, pretty simple right?

'Magic' is just a negative. It's an undefineable 'whatever' being used to shit on an explanatory model. It's not an alternative model itself.

The general paradigm here is that mystics will claim positive knowledge of aspects of existence and being etc., but when pressed to demonstrate their certainties or probabilities it all becomes 'unknowable'. They retreat into the shell of negatives, and the same arguments for uncertainty don't apply to their positions.

[Anonymous No.12594117]

>>12590422
Everything that was at one point attributed to magic has eventually been shown to have perfectly understandable physical causes

>water falls from the sky because we pleased the sky god
>oh wait, it actually comes from clouds

>people get sick because of evil spirits
>oh wait, it's actually germs

>the village shaman has the ability to tap into the spirit realm
>oh wait, he actually just gets high on mushrooms

>life was hand crafted by God and doesn't change
>oh wait, it's actually evolution and it changes all the time

>the sun is a god riding a flaming chariot across the sky
>oh wait, it's actually a giant ball of gas millions of miles away

There is literally zero reason to suspect that human consciousness and the origins of the universe somehow break this pattern and actually have magical woo woo explanations.

[Anonymous No.12594123]

>>12594050
You can increase self-referentialism, but I'd argue even the most self-referential system proceeds from basic logic which is fundamental to our experience. Making any kind of claim about possibility or even language/symbolism itself is secondary to that.

[Anonymous No.12594125]

>>12593770
Imagine assuming that only what can be readily explained can be said to exist and considered important.

[Anonymous No.12594126]

>>12594117
insipid, grade-school understanding of mythology

especially the bit about the shaman, as if no one actually knew he was consuming drugs. retard

[Anonymous No.12594131]

>>12594126
>nitpicking

You understand my point, faggot.

[Anonymous No.12594137]

>>12594117
>a giant ball of gas millions of miles away

sounds like something magical to me.

[Anonymous No.12594140]

>>12594116
>magic isn't an alternative model
????
Have you ever read anything about esoterics?
Also, while we're at it, what do you constitute as logic?

[Anonymous No.12594141]

>>12594131
it's a retarded one, I hope this helps.

[Anonymous No.12594146]

>>12594125
Imagine strawmanning this hard.

Even the most nascent and incomplete attempt to define the 'spiritual' would be something more than anything spiritualists have offered itt.

[Anonymous No.12594147]

>>12594117
maybe the germs are evilly spirited.

[Anonymous No.12594157]

>>12590419
In fact it may just be evolutionarily neutral, a side-effect of highly developed brains. Certainly humans are not the only ones with consciousness, many species in the mammalian order are known to have it as well, most prominently the great apes. Gorllias can laugh at jokes, grieve the dead, think about the past and future. Some researches even believe they have spiritual/religious sentiments.

[Anonymous No.12594160]

>>12594157
>Some researches even believe they have spiritual/religious sentiments.

desire to know more intensifies

[Anonymous No.12594162]

>>12594141
Okay. What's retarded about it?

[Anonymous No.12594175]

>>12594162
You're very, very, very uneducated about the subject

[Anonymous No.12594183]

>>12591846
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.12594187]

>>12594175
Okay, how so?

[Anonymous No.12594195]

>>12594140
Esotericism doesn't have predictive power like actual science. Predictive power is how an explanatory model demonstrates its probability, and any 'woo' narratives will fail this test when they attempt to congeal into something explanatory.

>>12593862

[Anonymous No.12594196]

>>12594187
I don't understand the question. You're at the level of "not even wrong" of understanding shamanism

[Anonymous No.12594212]

>>12594196
Won't even attempt to define. Yep, meets the paradigm itt.

[Anonymous No.12594222]

>>12594162
>water falls from the sky because we pleased the sky god

they knew rain was a natural process, rituals don't literally produce rain but influence whatever causal principles are actually responsible for rain, "we pleased the sky god" is shorthand for "we are in harmony with a natural law that is itself in harmony, providing rain where there was once drought, everything is in balance"

>people get sick because of evil spirits

disease is a disunity in the organism, disease is invasion by a foreign body, whether germs or spirits the intuition is the same: the integrity of a system is threatened by what is outside it.

>the village shaman has the ability to tap into the spirit realm

he does, science can't be performed if you're drunk, it's an effect of a sober, rationalistic mind, as spiritual revelation is effect of "spiritual drunkenness", everything is the output of certain conditions which the shaman knew how to exploit to produce the desired effect in himself. a non-argument. truth has always been the movement towards itself (read Hegel), the shaman just knows how to induce the experience of certain modality of truth, the spiritual kind.

it's like that retarded "hurr the oracle of delphi just got high off volcanic gases" argument, no shit you goober nigger retard, she induced a certain state in herself to facilitate the kind of deep, subconscious intuition she needed to produce her prophecies.

>life was hand crafted by God and doesn't change

becoming haunted the ancients, and how to reconcile the static category of being with flux was what gave birth to philosophy.

>the sun is a god riding a flaming chariot across the sky

the sun is the source of all life and nearly all the energy on this planet, everything has an inside that corresponds to its outside, even an anglo like whitehead will tell you this, the "inside" of a star would correspond to a godly state of being

[Anonymous No.12594232]

>>12594195
Asking for predictive power from an inner-directed analogical mode of thinking is the most retarded shit I ever heard

[Anonymous No.12594244]

>>12594212
Read>>12592634. I personally think Sam misses a huge amount of nuance and that the aesthetic that he uses is incapable of developing a good theory of magic, but it's a fairly good entry point into the merits of mysticism for joyless rationalists

[Anonymous No.12594249]

>>12594196
Are we even on the same page here?

The point of my post was that nearly everything that has previously been attributed to magic and supernatural bullshit has eventually been shown to have a non-magical explanation and as a result there no reason to believe that anything that is currently unexplained is the result of magic instead of an unidentified physical cause.

Is this line of thinking what you think is retarded or are you just specifically upset about a quickly thought of example about shamans not meeting your standards of accuracy?

[Anonymous No.12594251]

>>12591325
Because they are Aryans and not Christians.

[Anonymous No.12594263]

>>12594117
>everything in the universe is made of atoms which are tiny indivisible particles
>oh wait they don't behave like particles at all
>oh wait they behave like waves
>oh wait they also behave like partciles
>oh wait actually we can't be certain why and hiw they behave
>oh wait they're not indivisible at all
>oh wait turns out there are dozens of sub-particles that behave in even less understandable ways
>oh wait half of them seem to break the laws of physics
>oh wait better build a city-sized cock ring and that cost 10 gorillion dollars and begin smashing these partciles in hopes of finding something out
Whoa, science sure is great

[Anonymous No.12594274]

>>12592523
So you're a religous zealot then?

[Anonymous No.12594280]

>>12594146
Mysteriously arrived at clarity, irreffutable and gripping doubts that redirect your entire life, driven as much by intangible and limbic energies as scarcely articulated reasons: an accumulation of woes, of karmic deficits or surpluses largely inexplicable, wherever they originate they may tend to combine, aligning with events, with constellations and planets, coinciding with your own life's unfurling stories and forcing, daring, obliging the observant to consider the raw, electrifying possibility that it's not all noise, it's not all random, it's not all predetermined and there is some power and order we do not understand but that attuning yourself to seems as pleasing and natural as touching a woman's skin or moving your hands towards a warm camp fire. Whatever it is it ticks and clanks without your own input, without requiring anything from you, maybe, but what is it to know it, to be familiar with this thing, this power, this abiding, nagging conundrum that impells all observant and sensitive people to search for in their own ponderings, in their personal dwelling within their instincts the voice of truth, of something you don't even care to share with others because sometimes it's so strange, but it's also so helpful, so clearly guiding you from danger and toward what you do not know, but thankful forever you seek to serve it because this thing has rescued you, delivered you, saved you and impells you to conceive of from your own first principles the worship of this thing.

[Anonymous No.12594283]

>>12590183
To be honest, knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. is almost entirely irrelevant to the daily life of modern people. I'm not saying humanity having that knowledge hasn't changed daily life—but it doesn't really matter much to most people what we actually know, so much as what technology does. People don't care about the advanced mathematics that goes into physics, they care about if it'll let us (aka them) visit other planets for tourism. People don't care about the complex kinetics of how drugs interact with other compounds in the body, they care about their insurance premiums.
A society could theoretically have a public health plan equally as good as ours even if, instead of germ theory, they believed in evil spirits. This hypothetical would require that their evil spirits act in the ways we believe germs to act, but they wouldn't need to understand that tiny clumps of RNA are inserting themselves into their DNA, they'd just need to understand condom good HIV-spirit bad.
Like, anti-vaxxers. People don't understand modern medicine at all, so they get worried about how they have zero control of their treatment plans—just go to the medicine man's hut, get your ritual shot and ritual checkup, and then go to the herb gatherer who will give you tiny incomprehensible 'pills' and strict ritual plans of imbibement like 'no food for an hour after taking' or 'take twice daily'. There's no more meaning in that modern procedure than in visiting the local wiseman twenty centuries ago.

Why would people stop believing in strange things in a world like that?

[Anonymous No.12594307]

>>12594263
If it's a cock ring then where is the cock that fits it?

[Anonymous No.12594311]

>>12594263
>science discovers new things over time

wtf I'm a witch doctor now!

[Anonymous No.12594312]

>>12594280
beautiful

[Anonymous No.12594319]

hey sci-fags, what if karma law is a """scientific"" law?.
what if reincarnation is a """scientific""" fact?

you know, you haven't refuted anything this based motherfucer said.

[Anonymous No.12594354]

>>12594249
>An object will remain at rest or in a uniform state of motion unless that state is changed by an external force.

mm bodies moving forever, how and why is this any different from a magical explanation?

[Anonymous No.12594370]

>>12594311
Science, concerning the fundamental nature of existence, hasn't discovered shit. It has built a fuckton of very useful models that coincide with our perceptions of reality, but that's it.

It cannot, and will not, be able to explain why there's anything at all.

[Anonymous No.12594380]

>>12594354
S p h e r i c a l
C o w s

[Anonymous No.12594384]

>>12594311
So, like philosophy?

[Anonymous No.12594394]

>>12590419
The real question is what was the evolutionary benefit of being multicellular. It's likely that clumps of cooperative cells were better able to consume and fend off smaller clumps or single cells. That process eventually led to large organisms which benefit from sensation / awareness because they've come full circle and no longer rely upon sheer numbers. It is this different mode of consumption/reproduction/survival which demands calculation and sensation (both are necessary, calculation doesn't happen without impulse). For simple and single-celled organisms, bot-like behaviour is sufficient and is exactly what happens (think about viruses, which occupy murky area between life and non-life). Also, organisms evolve to exploit niches in their environment, they don't all pursue the same advantages.

[Anonymous No.12594411]

>>12594394
stop reifying "evolutionary benefit" as if its some goal all beings consciously strive for instead of just the self-perpetuation of systems that are more likely to self-perpetuate the more that drive is accompanied (and eventually sublated) by a first-person internality

[Anonymous No.12594438]

>>12594280
Well, I appreciate the poetic and really very charming effort. Still, you must see how this is really a non-definition that only refers to the mysterious, the vague and unknowable. Was a nice read though, so thanks.

[Anonymous No.12594441]

>>12594438
spirituality IS receptivity to that mystery you drooling nigger faggot insect

notice how you conveniently skipped this post >>12594222

[Anonymous No.12594496]

>>12594411
Yeah, maybe you should read it again... I in no way suggested that evolutionary benefit is a conscious goal.

Also, first-person internality isn't a general driver of reproduction, it confers that advantage specifically on large organisms that are less reliant on the redundancy of vast numbers of smaller units.

[Anonymous No.12594497]

>>12594222
>i-i-it's all a m-metaphor

Sad

[Anonymous No.12594509]

>religiontards actually ACTUALLY think that the best explanation for why universe exists is that an infinetely powerful infinitely knowlegeable entity created it for "reasons"

[Anonymous No.12594510]

>>12594497
disingenuous retard

[Anonymous No.12594513]

>>12590419
Just because a trait evolves doesn't mean it's beneficial to the organism. It just wasn't detrimental enough to prevent that trait from spreading.

>pig that evolved tusks that grow through the roof of its mouth and into its brain

[Anonymous No.12594514]

>>12594497
everything is a metaphor.
you need some Pythagoras in your life.

[Anonymous No.12594523]

>>12594441
I'm not the anon that was responding to, but it's just a case of piling on vague intangibles and subjective interpretations and pretending it explains something.

I expect the other anon grew fatigued at confronting such stupidity and moved along, as I will now.

[Anonymous No.12594528]

Retard tier
>the universe exists because some random material explosion apparently without a cause occurred and then 13.4 billion years later sentient lifeforms somehow emerged

>the universe exists because some infallible Abrahamic war deity made it and now you have to listen to this war deity (as adjudicated by me, the holdler of his wisdom) or else you'll go to hell forever

Actual God tier
>the universe is a self-reflective Spirit of which I am but one momentary manifestation of and the ultimate purpose of all life is to unite with and understand this all-pervading Spirit

You heard it here first, folks.

[Anonymous No.12594529]

>>12594514
Not that anon but can you give me the quick rundown?

[Anonymous No.12594536]

>>12590352
I agree with this post

[Anonymous No.12594570]

>>12594307
Inside I really shouldn't even need to say it

[Anonymous No.12594574]

>>12594438
I don't think one can create for another a recipe for spiritual experience. The formulae of a Church service are attempting to serve by consistently achievable aesthetics, the various songs, hymns, refrains, rituals, ceremonial musical instruments, all attempt to exalt and celebrate and imperfectly represent many mysterious spiritual ideas, such that we are loved, should love, should forgive, must consider forces and laws vaster than us, should do good in a woeful world, should avoid hubris or else invite punishment commensurate with our sins, and onto the veneration of each other's best moments, of great instructive legends and parables from the past, none of these artistic performances echo and invigorate so the agnostic or the athiest or the spiritually disconnected modern in the voltage they strike the faithful. The same faithful sufficiently spiritually developed to seek alignment with goodness in ways unobvious to rationality. Good deeds that seem alarming to others, are done first by these people so engendered by their own seeking of harmony with truth that it does seem a pillar of being human to receive the spiritual and be rewarded by it as these people often are, with spiritual experience a salvation, an inspiration, a foundation. Upon those faithful elements is built a full human being. I think there is perhaps a distinct type of religiosity characteristic of a civilization and there's a different one experience by the rural and frontier peoples. And in each the spiritual connects the believers to each other, their past, present and future, helps shape and compute the encountered vicissitudes into harmony and purpose. This website forms one amongst us, however tenuous, and it stands out conspicuously in this day, at least to a city dweller.

[Anonymous No.12594586]

How much do real scientists cringe at the "science is awesome" crowd of scientism-obsessed redditors?

[Anonymous No.12594592]

>>12594528
Understanding this is a basic prerequisite to doing actual philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12594596]

>>12594509
>Imagine kvetching about distant impossible to know origins when you have the gift of life now

[Anonymous No.12594618]

>>12591175
Based; thx for making me chuckle

[Anonymous No.12594623]

Reminder that science STILL cannot explain what is energy
>i-its some q-quantity that s-stays the same
LMAO

[Anonymous No.12594625]

>ctrl+f Kybalion
>0 results
You niggas need THE ALL.

[Anonymous No.12594629]

>>12594623

[Anonymous No.12594644]

>>12594509
>Atheists best explanation for why the universe exists is nothing at all

[Anonymous No.12594647]

>>12594629
Its almost like philosphy acknowledges how fragile objectivity is.

[Anonymous No.12594656]

>>12594647
Its almost like philosophers are just spouting random bullshit with no meaning or basis in literally anything besides an intense desire to be seen as "smart".

[Anonymous No.12594658]

>>12593920
>begging the question
I don't think you know what that means

[Anonymous No.12594661]

>>12591175
B
A
YIKES
E
D

[Anonymous No.12594669]

>>12594656
>people unironically think like this

[Anonymous No.12594675]

>>12594656
Where do you think science came from?

[Anonymous No.12594700]

>>12594586
A lot. I'm an actual theoretical physicist and science doesn't really say anything about these philosophical issues. It doesn't explain or even describe "consciousness". Most statements redditors make that reference "quantum physics" are totally spurious.

[Anonymous No.12594734]

>>12594700
>theoretical physicist

He said REAL scientist

[Anonymous No.12594739]

relevant post from another thread:
>>12594665

[Anonymous No.12594740]

>>12590183
To me spirituality in this age is like decorations for the mind. A home without decor remains entirely livable and functional. Without those soft touches , however , it's a plainer and shabbier place to live. The difference is between a house and a home. Between a merely utilitarian domestic unit and a place that has a mood and presence carried with it. Similarly a mind without spirituality can get through life well enough, but it won't be as vivid and deeply felt an experience dripping with symbolism that seems natural and healthy to indulge. It can be a mind that can compete, but it won't have any a warmth to it.

Whether or not spirituality denotes anything real in the physical sense is besides the point. It functions as an overlay on one's mental processes and states, and adds color to the world that would other wise be reduced to drab mechanism . It's a way for you to externalize and interpret primal psychological elements and and resolve inner conflicts . A ritual might not actually do anything supernatural but it touches and mixes with certain primordial impusles of the believer .

We're still Stone age beings that just happen to have advanced technology and built up knowlege from the compounding effects of language and storage media over the course of history . Longings to explore the otherworldly in ourselves hasn't gone away . The progression of science hasn't doe much to erdadicate that desire .

[Anonymous No.12594772]

>>12594740
>compete
Compute
This is what I get for being a dirty phoneposter

[Anonymous No.12594783]

>>12590342
Conformal Cyclical Cosmology

[Anonymous No.12594868]

>>12594740
well put my negro. i've also found that being spiritual adds a great deal to my creativity. the beauty i see and feel now makes my life 7 years ago feel empty and cold. it does not matter to me whether what i sense is real or not - the fact that i am capable of experiencing it, is enough for me

[Anonymous No.12594876]

>>12594868
>the fact that i am capable of experiencing it, is enough for me
the funny thing is, this makes it more real than any external stimuli

[Anonymous No.12594979]

>>12590392
So this is what the religious mean by 'science is a faith.'

[Anonymous No.12594984]

>>12594656
It's not even slightly like that.

[Anonymous No.12595058]

>ctrl+f "miraculous"
>0 of 0 results

Come on, guys, at least post some stuff that makes the atheists squirm. Use their own demands for physical evidence and documentation against them.

[Anonymous No.12595145]

>>12594734
How dare you, sir.

[Anonymous No.12595192]

I'm not religious but deeply superstitious. You can't escape it

[Anonymous No.12595580]

>>12590224
Better than being stuck at antiquity materialism.

[Anonymous No.12595608]

>>12594700
People look up to some theories, often very superficially, as arguments in favor of various discount gnostic insanities.
I don't know if anyone has ever been convinced of any of it that didn't already believed it prior to said theories.
They were people spouting the very same convictions in antiquity when 'physics' was about how water fell downards because it was in contradiction to the air element.
Obviously all empirical theories have very little of anything to say about materialism but just like a true fervent will see god everywhere, the true materialist will see materialism everywhere, whether in mesmerism or phlogistic or astrology or quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.12595806]

>>12590183
Read Immanuel Kant

[Anonymous No.12595821]

>>12590224
>>12590183
>>12590183
You are stuck in the 1900s buddy. Read any science or philosophy written after 1970 you ultra brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12595851]

>>12595821
what exactly would you recommend he read?

[Anonymous No.12595930]

>>12595851
Fanged Noumena, Industrial society and it's future, deepleearningbook, Infinite Jest' and Philosophy and the mirror of nature

[Anonymous No.12596008]

>>12594658
We assume that there is a universe and a "why" to its existence.

[Anonymous No.12596019]

>>12593649
When people have to go all the way back to pre-existence to look for God because there's no sign of him in existence itself just shows the immensity of fear people have about life and death. And I never understood the "why is there something rather than nothing" argument. How can there be nothing? How is nothing even possible, can you define nothing? Is it like a white emptiness or a black emptiness or what? Non-existence has to collapse into existence, the real question is how could there be nothing?

[Anonymous No.12596286]

>>12590224
Basic existentialists have answered your conundrum . People have been tackling this issue since the enlightenment so Leibniz is very much relevant. You are stupider than you think.

[Anonymous No.12596298]

>>12596019
>Non-existence has to collapse into existence, the real question is how could there be nothing?
Exactly. Christians are so lost in the sauce that they've invented a false premise based on the error of language itself, which invented erroneous concepts like zero and nothingness.

[Anonymous No.12596326]

>>12590183
ask for wisdom to God. Like Solomon king.

Or this priest that inventend the bing bang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

[Anonymous No.12596460]

[Anonymous No.12597007]

>>12594513
why the fuck did it do that? dumb fucking pig.

[Anonymous No.12597026]

>>12590183
>How does someone believe in anything spiritual nowadays?

see pic

[Anonymous No.12597041]

>>12597026
cuts both ways tbqh, atheists are just as terrified of God demanding account for their immorality as theists are for God not existing

[Anonymous No.12597070]

>>12597041
Theologically atheism is not forbidden. In fact almost all references to faithlessness or non belief refer specifically to superficial believers not honest atheists.

[Anonymous No.12597101]

>>12596460
as an engineer, this picture is infuriating.
it totally dismisses and misconstrues the other disciplines and hails itself as the only valuable one.
doesn't get more obnoxious and self-absorbed than that.

[Anonymous No.12597103]

>>12590183
>Everything can be described by physics, chemistry, biology...
Haha oh no no no no no

[Anonymous No.12597115]

>>12597103
>can't actually name anything

hmm...

[Anonymous No.12597120]

>>12597041
Christians fear God more than atheists do, buddy.

[Anonymous No.12597152]

>>12590183
>Everything can be described by physics, chemistry, biology...
It's not. And just because it can describe something doesn't mean it's true. You might as well said that existing of God describing everything
>We know that we are just smart apes,
our thoughts are just chemical reactions in our brains.
You don't actually know it, you believing what been said to you

[Anonymous No.12597283]

>>12593920
>The universe did not "begin," according to quantum physicists.
quantum physicists can suck my cock

[Anonymous No.12597302]

>>12590363
More like atheistcels are afraid of meaning.

[Anonymous No.12597407]

>>12590183
it seems to me that spirituality concern itself with theodicy and teleology, while science in descriptions of physical phenomena,debates of science vs spiritual always will end on shitflinging like ITT if we don't understand that

[Anonymous No.12597442]

>>12590183
Human beings evolved to be dumbasses that believe in voodoo bullshit. We aren't properly adapted to having the level of scientific understanding that we have achieved.

For most people the desire to believe in mystical nonsense is as instinctual as the desire to fuck and reproduce.

Hopefully someday we'll be able to gene edit this shit out of us.

[Anonymous No.12597457]

>>12597283
Where is the beginning of circle?


>>12597442
Isnt existing kinda mystical in itself?

[Anonymous No.12597478]

>Everything can be described by physics, chemistry, biology...

Most, if not all of our descriptions in chemistry are approximations.

Heisenberg.

[Anonymous No.12597493]

>>12597442
turbocringe and redditpilled

[Anonymous No.12597505]

>>12597457
Where the person drawing it places their pen

[Anonymous No.12597515]

>>12597442
>Hopefully someday we'll be able to gene edit this shit out of us.
why would you want to?

[Anonymous No.12597823]

>>12597442
>X evolved to do Y
Imagine being such a brainlet that you ascribe a teleology to evolution

[Anonymous No.12597838]

>>12590183
it's just cope. all arguments are cope. i can't even take people seriously when they start talking about antiquated religious philosophy from before the enlightenment, and all the shit after is cope. it's extremely sad. "faith" is the biggest case of fraud in history and their arguments for it boil down to "y-you have faith too!" lmao
christcucks are just that.

[Anonymous No.12597841]

>>12597478
perception of reality itself is an approximation dipshit. tired of you dumb faggots feeling clever for being semantic. you accomplished absolutely nothing with your insipid post.

[Anonymous No.12597847]

>>12596460
What does the cat represent /lit/?

[Anonymous No.12597880]

>>12597847
fucking a flesh light taped to a plushie replica of the cat

[Anonymous No.12597901]

Science hasn’t caught up to basic human questions on spirituality. It’s energy, like electricity and it’s working through every thought, breath, blink and sight. When you open your mind and choose to experiment w the energy then you will understand. The spirit is universal yet personal so look around you. You created your situation with the thoughts that lead to action that lead to your present.

[Anonymous No.12597926]

>>12597901
beautiful. it seems people in this thread aren't interested in discussing spirituality in this way though

[Anonymous No.12598034]

>>12597841
>perception of reality itself is an approximation dipshit
Exactly. The scientific realists are always wrong, it's nice we agree.

[Anonymous No.12598081]

>>12598034
>always wrong
No, they choose to view perception in a different way than you do. The only person who's "wrong" is the person who asserts other people are wrong because if it's an approximation you have no right to say what's right and what isn't. They subscribe to the ideas that explain the approximation, just like you do. Their ideas are observable reactions within their consciousness. These are what we decided to call "facts", because they're repeatable and reobservable. We then deduce more information about our reality based on these observations. The act of doing these things we called science.
Remember when I said
>They subscribe to the ideas that explain the approximation, just like you do
They subscribe to science, and instead of using the observable to describe your approximate perception, you instead subscribe to the easily-digestible cope known as religion simply because it's plausible and you were led to. At the very least, I can observe the universe myself, experiment myself, and recreate the same results over and over and over and make assumptions from there. Religion is just trusting some unknown source's word for perception. "Trust me bro, this is really how it all works. All the indications are there, put two and two together and it makes plausible sense therefore it must be true." rather than "Don't trust me, do it yourself and then agree with me or don't"

[Anonymous No.12598093]

>>12590314
in what sense is having a subjective experience a relative advantage in any environment

[Anonymous No.12598165]

All of you religiousfags masturbating over """consciousness""".
Humans operate based on the same instincts of the most primitive animals, pic related. The fact that humans developed their brains to be our primary tool of survival doesn't change the fact that our minds work in the same way they've always worked since before we evolved to be more intelligent.

[Anonymous No.12598178]

>>12597926
There is no "spirit" though. Just ideas and mind.

[Anonymous No.12598204]

>>12598034
>perception must be unlimited to tell us anything at all
>uncertainty negates probability
hurrrrr

>>12598093
See >>12594394

[Anonymous No.12598206]

>>12597041
Athiests are not terrified of anything like that, they just want degenerate things like bum fucking, hoymo-sexual activities and drugs.

Also the Christian/religious aesthetic is just not strong enough nowadays, it's competing with every other little thing that makes people lose focus.

[Anonymous No.12598221]

>>12598081
Firstly I am not religious. Secondly I generally agree with what you have said (with a few criticisms), though I think an honest scientist is always an anti-realist in regards to the knowledge they can have within the empirical world they study.
>We then deduce more information about our reality based on these observations.
Absolutely wrong, and any instrumentalist will be able to tell you why. Predictive power relays to us nothing true about reality. It is only useful as a means to getting what we want.

>>12598204
>something is probable so lets act as if it were true

[Anonymous No.12598454]

>>12593835
omg this is some dumb bullSHIT right here

[Anonymous No.12598663]

>>12598221
>Predictive power relays to us nothing true about reality
So what is the nature of that information then? Is it somehow 'unreal'? Appearances don't exist? Apparent relations convey no actual information? Incomplete knowledge is no knowledge at all?

Think about what you're saying -- it's a much wilder assumption. It's 'something is probable so it's more likely to be true' btw.

[Anonymous No.12598687]

>>12590183
Things can be described by science. But science cannot be explained by science.
>>12590250
This anon knows

[Anonymous No.12598705]

>>12598663
One question at a time. Also, probability tells me nothing definitive about reality. If I knew nothing of a coin, and you told me the odds of landing on heads over tails was 50/50, I could not infer that the coin does indeed have only two sides. The knowledge gained from probabilities is empty, contentless.

[Anonymous No.12598718]

>>12593835
For a thing to be a thing it must have a thingness about it, which is a quality of the mind. You are confusing nothing for it's negative sense. The nothingness of absence is still a thingness, that of pure potential.