/lit/ - Literature

>>17815071
>mmmh yes I loved this noise it was so noisy and then the guy said to take Xanax and wear the mask so basically if Taylor Swift isn't your queen you're a fucking NAZI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the phenomena of atheists saying they think the universe is a 'simulation' just a coping mechanism for them, a way of implicitly conceding that they subscribe to intelligent design whilst retaining their intellectual edginess?