/lit/ - Literature

>>9829498
Atheism is a symbol of using logic properly

>>9829664
You are right now talking with a Zebra that learned how to write English.

Are you going to tell me: "Holy gee i can't tell if you are telling the truth or if you are lying. i guess we will never know if you are a Zebra or not!"
Or are you going to tell me: "You are not a Zebra because that would not be possible"

This scenario is analogous to the discussion about god. claiming that god exists is just as ridiculously insane as me claiming i'm a Zebra

>>9829498
Atheism is a symbol of using logic properly

>>9829664
You are right now talking with a Zebra that learned how to write English.

Are you going to tell me: "Holy gee i can't tell if you are telling the truth or if you are lying. i guess we will never know if you are a Zebra or not!"

Or are you going to tell me: "You are not a Zebra because that would not possible"

>>9829254
>existence of a Creator isn't dependent on anything, as suddenly the Creator is no longer pure actual
Conceptually speaking, it could be dependent and it could be not dependent.

>Love cannot be detected by science, does it not exist?
The feeling of love is detected through the senses of your body - that's empirical evidence, you fucking genius.

>>9829079
> Fuck it, I gotta go so I'll just write a dialogue as if you were being cooperative and willing to learn.

The only thing i learned from your dialogue is that you make dumb arguments. you are the one who can't see the errors in your own ways. so let me dissect them.

1. The creator of specetime did not have to exist outside of spacetime. it could be that the existence of a creator and the existence of space-time are dependent on one another.
2. If something cannot be detected with science it means that from our perspective any claim of it's existence is completely worthless. its just like claiming there are undetectable unicorns roaming the earth

>>9829079
> Fuck it, I gotta go so I'll just write a dialogue as if you were being cooperative and willing to learn.

The only thing i learned from your dialogue is that you make dumb arguments. you are the one who can't see the error in your own ways. so let me dissect them.

1. The creator of specetime did not have to exist outside of spacetime. it could be that the existence of a creator and the existence of space-time are dependent on one another.

2. If something cannot be detected with science it means that from our perspective any claim of it's existence is completely worthless. its just like claiming there are undetectable unicorns roaming the earth

>>9829041
I do not agree because of the following scenerio:
A deity could exist within a universe which was created naturally and then create another parallel universe.

>I'm not trying to trick you but I'm going somewhere with this.
Then Just go there.

>>9829039
You are right now using a sophisticated machine to communicate with me which exists because of discoveries made using purely the scientific method.

If this kind of strong, direct empirical evidence is not a reason to believe the scientific method, then there is no reason to believe in anything.

>>9829015
Even if he existed outside of spacetime, saying "god exists" still implies he is a part of reality

Look at pic related, which is the definition of reality.

>>9829010
It relies on senses and the tools which humans can develop. and it is true our ability to prove things is limited to the tools we can use.

But the fact our ability to prove things empirically is limited does not contradict the fact empirical evidence are essential to determine things about reality.

> To rely solely on empirical evidence and "math" is narrow-minded.
"Do Not Be So Open-Minded That Your Brains Fall Out".

Being open minded in the sense of accepting different ideas when you are proven to be wrong is a good thing. being open minded in the sense that you are willing to throw away logic is a bad thing.

We rely on empirical evidence and math because that's the logical thing to do

>>9828986
The term reality refers to everything that exists.
If god exists, he is within reality because that's what the term exist means.

>>9828976
History has a value but many claims in historical books are unverified, and there are even plenty of contradicting historical accounts.

Aniway, back to the core discussion:
The reason we rely on the scientific method to discover how reality works is because empirical evidence and math are the only things we can rely on to determine how reality works.

Of course you can make philosophical arguments that rely on logic to explain certain things, for example philosophy explains why good and evil are subjective. but philosophy can only be used to explain things within the realm of abstract concepts, you cannot use philosophy to explain physical things about reality itself, you must rely on math and empirical evidence.

If you claim god is real, that's not an abstract concept. you claim it's a part of reality. which is why it requires a scientific proof.

>>9828859
>I can't give you empirical evidence for the existence of God, and the reason for this is because creator or cause of the material universe cannot be bound by the material universe.

I can't give you empirical evidence for the existence of undetectable unicorns, and the reason for this is because they are inherently immune to any detection tools and cannot be observed scientifically

>I think you should reconsider your belief that the only way to know true beliefs is through empirical evidence because this is a self-refuting claim. There is no empirical evidence or scientific experiment that can show that all true beliefs must be verified with empirical evidence.
The reason science relies on empirical evidence and math is because philosophically, empirical evidence and math are the only way to prove anything.

If you are willing to accept the logic behind philosophy, you must also accept that empirical evidence and math are the only evidence that you can rely on when trying to determine how the reality around you works.

>>9828805
1. If god exists reality inherently doesn't follow the rules of logic. if an omnipotent being can exist out of nowhere, anything can exist out of nowhere.

2. There is a great reason to trust the laws of logic in an atheistic universe, and the reason is that according to our observation they do not fail. in fact, there is a better reason to trust logic in an atheistic universe because a reality which contains a deity is inherently defying logic

>>9828206
Let me summarize the logic behind your argument:

>The universe operates in a logical way
>Therefore a being whose existence violates all rules of logic must exist :D

Your argument is dumb, nonsensical, and self contradicting. and listen, i have nothing in personal against you, i don't want to insult you or make you feel bad, but next time try to think more before you are posting an argument.

>>9828169
In a theistic universe, things can pop in and out of existence without requiring any physical explanation

There isn't a rational reason to believe a deity would make a more consistent universe. you making way too many assumptions to jump to that conclusion, such as the assumption that a deity must operate in a way that makes sense

>>9828121
I understood your argument, i think you are the one who doesn't understand my response.

Your assumption that the universe must make more sense if it was made by a deity is based on absolutely nothing. and btw, wouldn't the very existence of a deity be a logical inconsistency?

Aniway, let me say this:
Honestly i'm kind of disappointed with /lit/. you guys come up with way too much bad and poorly thought-out arguments

/sci/ is probably better for this kind of conversations

>>9827345
Your argument literally makes zero sense.

1. You do not need a deity for the universe to operate in a logical way.

2. Even in a universe that was created by a deity, it doesn't mean this would have made the universe more rational and consistent.

>>9827738
There is no rational reason to believe in god. that's a fact.

>>9826668
Any perception is something which is created in your mind. your argument is meaningless

>>9826633
Hurting other people leads to a worse society.
A board which has a culture of bullying other people will become a worse board than a board full of compassionate people

>>9826623
Close one eye. look at your room.
Now look at your room using both of your eyes.

The depth that is created using both of your eyes is not a part of a 2d image, it's a perception of the third axis, which makes human vision a 3d vision

>>9826608
>thinking you have an opinion on literature when you by your own admission only read childrens book
Sure, this should be obvious.
Why the fuck do you think i don't have an opinion about literature? of course i have my opinions.

>because if you attempted anything more difficult you would have to confront the fact you are "within the top 1% of the population in terms of intelligence
I'm just not that much into literature, i already said it multiple times in this thread. i'm more into music and videos.

>>9826597
stopped reading after the first few words, your post looked like a huge waste of time.

>>9826573
>Thinking a person did not change at all because he kept using a username

And btw, most of the things in that image are not even remotely embarrassing. only a few of them are

>>9826559
You are wrong.
Your brain creates a perception of depth using the offset of your eyes. when you look using both of your eyes, you objectively have 3d vision, and you can also imagine that perception of depth in your mind.

>>9826548
>judging a person based on cherrypicked images from many years ago