/lit/ - Literature

You should ask this about your other deeply-held beliefs as well.

>>16289377
Christianity is the only correct religion.

The other gods are real, though... as demons.

>>16289382
Sure, but that doesn't answer my original question there.

>>16289377
>Has anyone ever seriously refuted this?
Sigh....
Refuted what, exactly? Has someone proved the existence of a god, therefore disproving the other? Has someone disproved the existence of god itself? Has someone proved the objective truth of monotheism/polytheism/atheism?

No I’m afraid, sadly not.

>>16289409
>Refuted what, exactly?
That choosing a single religion makes no sense because you reallistically can't claim others are wrong. Don't play dumb, man.

>>16289377
I can only tell you that Christ literally rose from the dead.

>>16289377
You don't have to believe in religions literally to get some value from it. It's still literature that people saw worthy of preserving for hundreds of years, when all else crumbled to dust. A religion does not have to be denotatively true to be true in other pragmatist ways, true in its ability to inspire, give purpose, provide solace, make ordered the chaos.

>>16289377
>Polytheistic and monotheistic religions are the same?
dont read into it too much it gets really weird
Shintoists start calling Russian pagans
atheistic sages warn you of logos
The negative religion isn't wrong in its non assertion though it could dare to make one if it wanted

>>16289440
You tell me, but do not prove it to me. The shroud was carbon-dated not to when Christ may have died, which was during the reign of Tiberius, but to around the 13th-14th century. Any hypotheses to say otherwise have been disproven.

>>16289377
Any religious belief is just as likely to be true as any other belief on divinity, including atheism.
Just let them practice whatever they want.

Artemis and Discordia decided to not refute it

>>16289440
That rubbing wasn’t taken from an actual face either.

>Hasn’t read Guenon

>>16289528
>Any religious belief is just as likely to be true as any other belief on divinity, including atheism
>It's just as likely to claim this rat was created by god than to claim it was created by other rats after observation in laboratory.
Fascinating.

>>16289474
I am not going to convert you in this thread, I only tell you what I know. If you start researching by your own, you will find the truth.
>7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened
If you didn't find, you didn't seek.

>>16289417
It's almost as if the point of religion is faith in the absence of proof

>every published atheist is a structuralist
fuck this shit

>>16289589
No it's not. That's an existensialist cope.

shouldn't there be a way to apply super rationality to this?

>>16289377
I find less challenging to think that from 5000 gods at least one is true than to think from 5000 gods not even a single one is real. Specially when the existence of 1 true God doesn't contradict the existence of 4999 God's as spiritual entities or demons.

>>16289577
Researching on my own does not guarantee your "truth". I may research mathematics and never find an end or a final truth. Does that make mathematics equal or perhaps greater than God? Christianity and Christ are not an objective truth, they are matters of faith and opinion.

>>16289474
You want it to be proven, so you psychologically block out the possibility for you to acknowledge counter-evidence.

>>16289377
Yo, is that Espeon centre bottom?

>>16289566
You're an absolute retard haha.
Ok, imagine this:
>claims must be proven empirically to be held true
>this is science/natural philosophy
>if claims can't be proven or falsified empirically then it is non-scientific speculation
>existence of metaphysical entities, namely divinity in our context, are neither provable nor falsifiable
>all claims on existence of divinity are speculation
>therefore there's no way of knowing which claim on divinity is true or false
>therefore none of them are more likely to be true than any other
Therefore
>if your basis of choosing a claim of divinity to follow is its likelihood of being true
>then any of them are fine

>>16289640
I do not wish for something that cannot be proved to be proven. Nobody has objectively proven that God exists, they merely follow confirmation bias, and use anything they think helps their case. While I do not deny the uses and benefits of religion, I find it to ultimately be false, and impossible to prove.

>>16289635
>>16289640
See? You people will never find because you never tried to find. I know I am going to leave this conversation and none will make an effort towards conversion of any kind. Someone who is thirsty for truth wouldn't make this justifications, you would go and see by yourself. Because with conversion everything it's at stake. But you prefer to bet everything you have to a total uncertainty.

>>16289709
i dont follow jews and their fanfiction, period.

>>16289717
You're proving me right.

>>16289709
Fuck off with your culty mind-games. Not everybody has a weakness for it.

>>16289659
>are neither provable nor falsifiable
That's where you're wrong, kiddo. Just make some specific claims that are testable about such metaphysical objects, and we can test them. (Such claims could include a firmament, some specific event, miracles, divine intervention, dead people reviving, world started X years ago, etc etc etc). Religions have many of these claims that are factually incorrect. You have to be willing to ignore this incorrectness.

>>16290090
If thousands of Christian miracles are wrong, that doesn't disprove Christianity. On the contrary, if one single Christian miracle is true, only 1, Christianity is true and you would go to hell. You should be working right now on disproving the aprox 25000 miracles in Christianity, paranormal events and etc, because you're aware of what awaits you if you're incorrect in your assumptions, right?

>>16289377
Arguments basically boil it down to the Abrahamic faiths or Hinduism and Buddhism (not the actual worship of gods in hinduism, but the metaphysical system), with the former being some sort of pantheistic deism. There's also other monotheistic faiths like Sikhism or Bahai, but that's a form of worship of a similar God. Just because some africans believe in 600,000 gods doesn't make it a valid belief system.

>>16289377
Simplistic view of religion. Religions can have similar spiritual values while having conflicting beliefs. Even the Catholic church recognizes this.

>Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

>The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

>>16289709
>but the natural man does not receive the things of God; they are foolishness to him, for they are spiritually discerned

>>16290090
You're operating under the assumption that a book written on divinity must be proven correct in all their physical assertions for the metaphysical assertions to be "true".
An inverse form of this assumption would be: if a book on divinity does have physically assertions which are provable then the metaphysical assertions of this book must be true.
I could write a book with all the known laws of physics and tack on at the end: "and these miraculous equations are the designs of the benevolent god, YHWH" and under your logic it would be credible.

People like you who overstretch the boundaries of science are the reason why "le fedora neckbeard atheist" is a meme, because you're no better than any other theistic dogmatist.

>>16290119
If someone says your mother will die in her sleep does that make it true?
>Christianity is true and you would go to hell.
Not really, for multiple reasons, but that's not the point.

There was another dishonest coward before you who came up with that idea, his name was Pascal. Look it up, and look up how he was refuted. Pro-tip, my original post is the answer. You should desperately be working to disprove miracles of other religions and answering to all "your mother will die in her sleep" posts just in case, right?

>>16289377
God is either the ultimate and surpreme deity, or a very specific group of beings within the Indo-European pantheon.

In either case most of the figures in that image literally do not full under those two categories.

>>16290166
>Religions can have similar spiritual values while having conflicting beliefs
That's proof that your specific religion is not essential for holding those values. So why follow your religion at all, and not just the values? That's exactly the question posed.

>>16290244
>I could write a book with all the known laws of physics and tack on at the end: "and these miraculous equations are the designs of the benevolent god, YHWH" and under your logic it would be credible.

That's exactly, not even kidding, exactly what the Principa Mathematica are. Newton ends the book claiming gravity has to be the work of god.
No atheist takes that as proof that god exists because they're not mumbling idiots like you're assuming them to be.

>>16290267
>No atheist takes that as proof that god exists because they're not mumbling idiots like you're assuming them to be.
Why no though? Pantheism makes perfect sense. If there are abstracts laws governing the universe, then these must ultimately go back to an greater abstraction.

>>16290252
Knowing that a single one miracle on my side is true, I don't have the need to look after others.
Your rebuttal is wrong, I don't see causality between your post and my mother. Pascal wins again, oh God, how I love this lil French nigga Pascal! :D

>>16289377
>noooo, you have to believe in one specific system of thought, otherwise I can't falsify your takes
So this is the famous power of science?

>>16290286
Pascal has a problem, its not the number of believers that matters, but the quality and because the quality within the human race is generally low, the true faith will be obscure, complex and esoteric to the layman.

>>16290274
Yes, but coincidentally they go back to the greater abstraction that was most common in your area at your time of birth in your particular family and region, and not a greater greater abstraction that is so great it just invades your mind and enlightens you.
Why didn't Brahma suddenly pop up on Newton's mind, and instead the Pantocrator did? An inquiring mind would see a questionable pattern here.
>>16290286
>Knowing that a single one miracle on my side is true, I don't have the need to look after others.
Which miracle? Keep in mind there is a strong vested interest from your side to prove that such miracles are real, possibly biasing you. Keep in mind too that the idea of eternal punishment as means of converting people to your faith is also not something universally considered a tenet of Christianity since its beginnings, and could further be another evidence of such bias. Also keep in mind that even in the presence of one miracle that would not immediately prove everything in the bible to be true or somehow reverse the inconsistencies or eliminate competing religions with similarly "verified" miracles. It's not that hard really. Pascal's wager also fails to account for the fact that believing in a religion solely to escape a supposed eternal punishment might not be enough to actually save someone.

>>16290300
The famous power of science is responsible for literally every single aspect of your modern 2020 life, in every literal conceivable way. You are living a worse lie than vegans if you deny this to yourself.
Also your post is not an answer to the question at hand.
>>16290303
We can't even be sure the one true religion wasn't eliminated from mankind at some point in the past and all the people who knew it are already dead and in some paradise, leaving us behind.

>>16290267
You're so delusional that you even managed to scold your own self by ridiculing the exact hypothetical I used as to point out the flaw in your assumption that a holy scripture and their metaphysical claims (the claim of existence of god and his nature) is refuted when the physical components ("miracles") are refuted. I have not once mentioned my own beliefs as to the existence of god nor alluded to it in any way.
Your judgement is clouded by your own narcissism and superiority complex against those who believe in the existence of divinity.

>>16290314
Two mistakes in your argument, it implies Newtons God is Christs God, regardless what Newton believed. It was was not, Newton was influenced by a lot of sources that Christ never had and secondly you imply all races and people are equal and they are not the White race being obviously superior.

>>16290300
more like the retardism you get the when pluralist and a structuralist decide to stop bashing each other over art and team up to shit on epistemology

OP, I refuse to believe you are this stupid.

What happens when two sciences disagree, say biology and chemistry? Are they both wrong? What happens when one science develops more than the other, are they still equal, is one 100% perfect and the other 0% valid? So is modern science false because there are many forms of pseudo-sciences in the past that got some things right? Is every religion unique without a common element between two? Please, shove your fedora up your arse and leave this board.

>>16290323
>We can't even be sure the one true religion wasn't eliminated from mankind at some point in the past and all the people who knew it are already dead and in some paradise, leaving us behind.
Why would such a religion be based on revelation and not reason?

>>16289377
Dude, it's like Christian apologetics 101. Do you honestly think that in 2000 years no one was able to refute these dumb atheist takes?

>>16290325
It's ridiculous for you to deny that the scriptures draw a causal connection between metaphysical entities and physically observable phenomena that could be verified. Slapping god at the end of the Principia is not the same.
To be more clear, a more equivalent situation would arise if newton had said something along the lines of:
"I don't know why gravity works like this, it looks like intelligent design, this must be the christian god, and this god must be able to perform all manners of miracles and etc".

If your claim to god is exclusively that he controls the laws of gravity, and nothing else, then I would have no problems with that. That would literally just be a matter of semantics. You could say nature is your god, or reality is your god, or a chair is your god, or the law of gravitation is your god. That is not the problem. The problem is with claiming miracles and metaphysical magic. You're a dishonest fuck.

>>16290323
Your understanding of science is middle school tier, why don't you try and listen to some philosophy of science lectures, such as this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D73G-8JJ9g

Highly recommended and maybe in the end you'll understand, that you are not applying scientific criteria to the scientific method in the first place.

>>16290337
>What happens when two sciences disagree, say biology and chemistry?
Give a specific example and I'll tell you how it was solved, but I can very nearly guarantee it was solved through experimentation or logical reasoning.
>is one 100% perfect and the other 0% valid?
Not how things work. Not how I claimed things work.
>Is every religion unique without a common element between two?
It's not my fault religions were made like this. You are correct that science is not like that. It almost seems you think science is superior to religion on this regard. Tell me, can you believe two buildings are the tallest building? Can you believes two gods are the actual god who controls everything? How would you tell them apart? For the buildings, just measure them, right? What about the gods.

>>16289640
literally the same thing can be said for you

>>16290348
4 minutes in:
"The science of the future world would dismiss us as not scientific".
Fallacy. Science in its modern form, including the scientific method, are relatively modern things. You're gonna have to give me a good reason besides some vague attack on my qualifications as a scientist to convince me to sit through this.

>>16290314
It is statistically impossible that not even a single miracle isn't true. thousands of curations only in Lourdes, there's no way you can make that up. Pagan miracles are recognized by the Church as real practice of magic, I believe in them as every Christian should, and no pagan belief system ever has condemned Christians in everlasting hellfire. Even in Islam you still can be saved, being Muslim only increases chances. Pascal was right, you're trying to debunk the mathematics of the guy who invented the calculator.

Also, check this, please:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2866

>>16290377
*healings not curations sorry.

>>16290346
>It's ridiculous for you to deny
I did not deny anything. I merely pointed out the flaw in your logic. I will try and help you see how your assumptions can lead to the existence of divinity.
The assumption you are operating with is: if a holy scripture has physical and metaphysical assertions, then, since the metaphysical assertions are unprovable and unfalsifiable, the physical assertions must be true in order for the metaphysical assertions to be true.
Under this assumption, if any author decided to write a book of physical assertions based on all the known laws of physics and also made metaphysical assertions such as "god exists", "an afterlife exists", "sin leads to eternal damnation", "heretics must be burned" and so on then since the physical assertions will be proven true you will have to accept that the metaphysical assertions are also true.

I don't know why you seem to fixated on Newton. Historical precedence of my hypothetical situation does not affect my argument in any way whatsoever.

>>16290377
Seriously though, why wouldnt thousands of miracles all be fake or misunderstood real events?

Do we conpletely understand the human body? Then how do we know its miracles and not genetics?

>>16290377
>It is statistically impossible that not even a single miracle isn't true.
You are right. You know, everyday there are millions of people participating in drug trials around the world. Roughly half of those are in placebo groups, that don't receive drugs, and still get better from illness anyway. That's a miracle, right. The placebo effect by all means is a miracle. Does that miracle mean the christian god is real, or could we find some biological explanation for why it happens? Your answer for this might explain a lot of how you view reality. Mine explains a lot of how I view it.
Your argumentation strategy is also scarily dishonest. Just to give you a few examples of pagan systems in which you are doomed, both amerindian and nordic religions have belief systems where people who die of old age without participating in great battles are doomed to eternal torment in hellish realms. Are you gonna sign up to die in some great war an ensure your entry to Valhalla right now, just in case?

>>16290402
>Are you gonna sign up to die in some great war an ensure your entry to Valhalla right now, just in case?
Lets interpret the great war esoterically as a great inner struggle shal we. =(D)

>>16290166
The only "value" religion has is justifying the ruling class.

>>16289377
Hindu/Buddhism/Pantheism/Pantheistic monotheism all believe that all religions are correct. ALL OF THEM. Whoever made that image is a retard.

>>16290377
>statistically impossible
You don't know what statistics are, do you?

>>16290397
Two key points here:
1 - You are, very conveniently, separating your metaphysical assertions from the physical ones, which does not occur in scripture. "God exists", "afterlife exists" are separate from "gravity makes apples" fall, sure. But "god will make an apple fall on your head if you are bad" is not separate.
2 - Your hypothetical book does not exist as of yet. None of the religious scriptures fit your description, because they consistently tie the metaphysical and physical claims. I insist that's a crucial point to this whole thing. I mentioned the principia because they're the closest example I could think of, but even in that case it's not the same because newton is clearly referencing some christian god figure.

Again, if you just wrote a book full of scientific facts and claimed these things are caused by god X who controls the laws of physics, I don't have a problem with that, as you're just giving your set of physical laws some name you like.

>>16290415
Does this also apply to leftwing ideology?

>>16290418
>all believe that all religions are correct.
You can write these words and even say them out loud, but that doesn't mean they are correct, especially when multiple religions are directly opposite to one another.

>>16289377
I can make a positive claim that there are no gods on Mount Olympus because we can observe the top.

But images like the OP are why Russell's Teapot is not a good proof against the existence of God. At some point in time, it will be possible to scan out all areas of outer space simultaneously and make a positive claim that there is no teapot.

>>16289417
>That choosing a single religion makes no sense because you reallistically can't claim others are wrong
You can point out self-refuting contradictions in individual religions like Islam(the Quran affirms Christian scripture, which directly contradicts the teachings of the Quran). If a religion like Hinduism relies on something like the universe being cyclical (which it isn't because the universe is flat, which means it will expand forever, no big crunch https://www.space.com/34928-the-universe-is-flat-now-what.html)), one can make a positive claim about it being wrong about the functions of the universe. Heck, if Christianity was reliant on young-earth creationism to be true, you could dismiss all of it with the age of the universe/earth.

>>16290398
The definition of miracle is "something that we cannot understand as it infringes the laws of nature". Look, you can believe what you want, you can believe thousands of healings by only going in pilgrimage to one place is an unknown side of genetics, I see the hand of God there.
>ahhh nooo the old battles
I tell you again, I already know Christianity is true, I don't need to fight any battle thanks. Check the link and believe in the gospel.
>>16290419
What's the chance of 25000 related events being all false? Would you say is it high or is it low?
High? Sure? Go check them one by one. If you don't get 100% false... D':

>>16290429
If you count "liberals" as such.

>>16290440
i'm pretty sure that there exist quite a bit more than 25k books of fiction in literature yeah

>>16290440
We do not fully understand the laws of nature, therefor we have no right to claim they are being violated

>>16289377
any belief is stupid, only knowledge matters.

>>16290438
>At some point in time, it will be possible to scan out all areas of outer space simultaneously
First of all, that's not a fact, and second of all religion can simply claim that our scanners are not good enough.
>>16290440
>What's the chance of 25000 related events being all false?
Depends on their probability density. Which may be just 0.

>>16290446
Liberals rarely have direct power in modern goverments. Its primarily the democratic-socialists or christiandemocrats that do.

>>16289440
I can only tell you that you are stupid faggot.

>>16290438
>At some point in time, it will be possible to scan out all areas of outer space simultaneously and make a positive claim that there is no teapot.

Except looking into space is looking backbin time. Even then what if the theapot is behind a sun? Are we going to look directly through the sun?

>>16289377
There are three major (>1 billion) religions in the world today (I'm not including Hinduism/henotheism since it doesn't have to contradict the others).
Each of these religions (Christianity, Islam, the Eastern Spiritualist Milieu) has been filtered through thousands of years of the greatest thinkers in human history, usually resulting in the extinction of competing religions.
With this in mind it's obvious the centuries of intellectual brilliance found in Islam or Christianity or Confucianism/Buddhism/Daoism is not equally as valid a philosophy as the tree-hugging animal-fucking oral traditions they extinguished.
Worth noting two of these three worship the same God too.

>>16290377
>https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2866

I just read the story about Marie Bailly. The thing is, you don't understand how these things are usually done in the scientific world, so you think something like this appeases an inquiring researcher, and it doesn't. Whatever it is Carrel experienced there witnessing that miracle, you read it and you experienced it too, but a scientist doesn't. Medical doctors are notoriously at odds with scientists many times exactly because of shit like this.
I recently remember seeing a video of an ex-christian missionary who said he greatly embellished the stories he told to people who he was trying to convert, to make them seem more miracle worthy. I know it's hard to believe this, but there is documented evidence that when you really REALLY want something to be true, you can bias yourself so much it has physical effects on you. For good AND for bad. This could lead a priest to "cure" you, or a shaman to "curse" you, when maybe you weren't even sick to begin with. So on the odd chance that one of those 25000 events seems exceptionally extraordinary, it's indeed a great shame that it had to happen in some isolated area with no scientists present to witness it.

I can only hope one day we'll be able to witness one of these when people with no vested interest, and the right tools to assess, are there to observe. A universe with a god who cares for me would be infinitely more inviting, and I would use every tool I have to prove that universe exists, if only it gave me such evidence.

>>16290428
>Again, if you just wrote a book full of scientific facts and claimed these things are caused by god X who controls the laws of physics, I don't have a problem with that, as you're just giving your set of physical laws some name you like.
But that is not the full implication of my example.
My example implies that physical actions have metaphysical consequences which you will take to be true through your line of reasoning. If this is the case then you will have incentive to follow the laws and morals of this metaphysical reality and believe that you will burn in hell for all eternity if you commit sins.
Do you accept this or not?

>>16290483
>With this in mind it's obvious the centuries of intellectual brilliance found in Islam or Christianity or Confucianism/Buddhism/Daoism is not equally as valid a philosophy as the tree-hugging animal-fucking oral traditions they extinguished
No it's not, because by that metric if we just had enough atheistic geniuses in modernity you would have to forfeit your religion. We also have no idea how many Egyptian or Sumerian or Greek or Roman pagan geniuses might have existed in the past who simply died for many reasons and their cultures eventually were lost. What kind of fucking argument is that. The mightiest god is the "rightiest" god?

>>16290504
>Do you accept this or not?
I don't really follow how this is the logical conclusion. To me that's the same as slapping "eating apples causes soul cancer" at the end of a calculus textbook demonstration and expecting me to think that makes it valid. I'm not sure why you think I should tie these two disconnected things.

>>16290517
So you do not accept.
So then do you accept that your argument used in this post >>16290090 is not at all a refutation of divinity?

>>16289377
Refute what exactly? Homo sapiens migrated across the world with rather low numbers and their population persisted thru several bottlenecks, sporting most likely same beliefs at start.
5000, 10000, 1000000 religions, they are all just a fractions and additions of those stratabeliefs, yet undiscovered.

>>16290508
>if we just had enough atheistic geniuses in modernity you would have to forfeit your religion
While it was certainly also spread by force, Christianity won the argument (so to speak) against European and American pagans, Islam against the Arabs, Turks, etc.
Christianity especially got very good at refuting and undercutting pagan philosophies which is why Africa and the Americas converted so quickly while more intellectually rigorous religions like Hinduism and Buddhism were less impacted.
Outright atheism doesn't have many philosophers who don't cope and try and replace the human need for destiny with a new secular myth (communism, nationalism, overman, etc), they have nihilist pop science charlatans from unrelated fields trying their hands at philosophy like Dawkins.
>What kind of fucking argument is that. The mightiest god is the "rightiest" god?
Yes, if that's atheism so be it, but it won't be atheism as it is now.

You're an insufferable faggot
That too is irrefutable

>>16290496
>to happen in some isolated area with no scientists present to witness it.
But in this case there were several doctors, Carroll himself won the medicine nobel. With the years, hd converted even when his reputation as a scientist could have sunk. Notice how this miracle wasn't admitted, imagine those which are officially recognized by the Church as miracles.

>>16290483
The reason the abrahamic faiths are so successful are because they are so shameless. You mention the extinction of competing religions, through intellect? This intellect is simply subversion. Many times through the centuries the abrahamic faiths have adopted many aspects of the religions they conquer. They allow small concessions, under the condition that you convert.

>>16289377
>Every religion deep down is the same.
This is the only answer
They are all bullshit

>>16290472
Eventually?

Energy essence distinction renders this question completely irrelevant
It's not actually an argument though, it is very arrogant in implying that the person challenged would have the sociocultural background, to obey the logic rules needed for this to be a real question

>>16290601
Then you are replacing reality with fantasy.

>>16289669
That's the entire point, Anon.
Faith exists for the sole reason that the existence of God cannot be proven.
Anyone claiming he can prove or disprove the existence of God is a turboretard and should be considered as such.
Faith is very personal, it may appear to you or it may not. I personally don't believe we should educate people into faith. Faith is something you discover for your self, if you should ever discover it.
It cannot be pre-masticated for you.

>>16289377

People perceive the same things in different ways and something as intangible and outlandish as god is open to an even wider amount of interpretation than usual
It wouldn't be that every religion is the same more that they've simply all borrowed each others ideas while inserting their own cultural twists along the way none of which seem particularly likely to be true but this says nothing about the base idea that god exists in some form which is common to them all

But the real problem with this whole argument is that it's so extremely unnecessary in terms of criticizing religion as if you've just decided to bypass the 100 more obvious arguments that come before it
It's like arguing that earth's atmosphere must be suitable for life by going into the lab and doing several tests on oxygen molecules when you could just look out the window instead

>>16290438
That is a flawed argument. For Olympus you're assuming that the gods could be seen by human eyes.
As for the teapot, again, that is flawed, for if the teapot is omnipotent, then whatever instrument you invent to detect the teapot will be susceptible to the teapot's influence. Your teapot detector may detect the teapot, but tell you that it didn't because the teapot wishes not for you to assert its existence. Your logic is flawed, because science is a tool for and by man, it is therefore limited in its scope and capacity to observe the world of man.
Science has many uses, but it simply isn't the tool to explore the metaphysical, it cannot reach the divine, you are trying to hammer a nail with a screwdriver. If an omnipotent god truly exists, then if he wishes not to be discovered, no probe, no matter how sophisticated, will be able to find him.

>>16290782
Your entire conception of God is flawed. God is not an object, but an abstraction.

>>16290828
Then my point remains correct ; it cannot be proven to exist. But please explain what you mean by this.

>>16290889
Neither can you prove the laws of gravity exist.

The ‘only mine is right’ impulse isn’t so much a fallacy of religion. It’s a much deeper fallacy, that’s caused by the fact that we view ourselves as the protagonist of reality, and that everything we believe is the only correct answer.

>>16289377
YES

>>16290908
They can clearly be observed, what would you need for them to be proven to exist? Isn't their predictability and consistency proof that they exist?

>>16289377
Its the same god you faggot, and his on the inside.

>>16290908
>abstract mathematical entities existing in some parallel realm
Correct, these do not exist.
>a series of human-made used as a model to predict phenomena, based on repeated empirical observation
Yes, these also exist. This is what people mean when they say things like "the laws of gravity".

>>16290782
The Gods don't live ON Olympus, they live in a parallel realm that is just most easily accessed AT Olympus.

>>16290555
Strength of force is not strength of argument. By that logic, the most correct religion is Islam, as it converted its territories quicker than Christianity did.

>>16289397
Demons are the souls of the fallen giants slayed before the flood. Other gods are just gods interior to the supreme God

>>16291399
The laws of gravity do not explain what gravity is. They describe motions, accurately, in some cases and preposterously in others. Apparent attraction between masses is a comparable to the apparent attraction between differing magnetic poles. These aren't explanations, but observances and subsequent descriptions of motion. You may as well be talking about the laws of baseball.

>>16289397
spbp

>>16289377
5000 sounds like a completely made-up number. If you account for Shintoism and Hinduism, they have 800 million and an uncountable multiplicity, respectively. If you reduce each religion to its highest godhead or only the “significant” members of the pantheon (that being an inevitably arbitrary distinction), I’m sure you would arrive at much less than 5000.
Putting that aside, however, the question does not disprove any religion. If the logic was sound, you would also have to discard all core human beliefs on every subject, ranging from philosophy to morals to politics etc.
>the earth is flat
>the earth is round
You guys think that YOUR belief is the correct one, despite contradicting beliefs existing? ISHYGDDT

But regardless, perennialism Is the correct option, and OP not understanding the idea does not discount it. Separate praxis from the theology itself, and realise that the labels and names which we identify with the divine are ultimately arbitrary and would of course differ between cultures and languages. Each religion gets many small details wrong, but there is too much overlap in the big-picture ideas, and religion is too universal of a phenomenon, for there to be nothing to the ideas of perennialist philosophy.

>>16289377
>How can one look at another entire belief system or culture and claim its false, while claiming theirs is real?
You can't even be a relativist since that is itself a belief system you're taking to be true against others. OP refuted.

>>16289377
Well this can be applied to an infinite amount of things, not just religion. Someone asks "who is God and what is he like," and there are an infinite amount of answers but you believe only yours is correct.
There's a math problem on the page, it only has one solution. You can answer any number you like, but only one is correct.
I'm reading a book right now. There are a near infinite amount of books it could be, but I'm only reading the one.
"Who killed Kennedy?" You can offer an infinite amount of answers to that question, only one answer is correct.

In the traditional world, there was no such thing as monotheism. Even in the earliest books of the old testament, it's pretty clear that Yahweh was considered a powerful god, the only god that -should- be worshipped, not in existence.

This worked when the going was good and those that strayed were punished (think of the cursing of Egypt, swallowing of rebellious Levites into Sheol, and all the subsequent conquests of Joshua), but after further exiles, Babylonians enslavement etc and no benefit for those that stayed loyal, it fell to the priests to discourage conversion through attacking the existence of other gods entirely.

I'm not going to explain Evola for the millionth time on this board (since no one wants to actually read him), but his work puts up the convincing hypothesis that all gods were extant and are lost now the maintenance of traditional rituals have fallen by the wayside.

>>16291399
>They can clearly be observed

Well then, so can God.

>>16291707
Something that does not exist, can not be used to explain something that does exist.

>>16290459

>any belief is stupid, only knowledge matters.

Do you know this to be true or do you believe it?

>>16289474
There are some researchers who have recently claimed that it could be authentic, I recommend checking it out and deciding for yourself

>>16290642
Thank you, I agree with your point, I personally just do not find religion to be true at all.

>>16289377
>How can one look at another entire religion or culture and claim its false, while claiming theirs is real?
Only abrahamists do this

>>16289377
>there have been countless theories of natural phenomena, but don't worry, only yours is right!

>>16289397
Other way around idiot

>>16289377
All of them are masks of god.

>>16289377
all gods worshipped are the same

>>16289377
Emprical knowledge is not the only form of truth you brainlet nigger.

Example: math is non empirical system of knowledge not grounded in material reality. "Like... What is a number even bruh... Have you smelled one? Have you heard from a number recently? Like bruh *inhales weed like a retarded atheist*"

>Buddha
>a god

No.

>>16293533
some hindus believe him to be an human incarnation of vishnu, oddly enough.

>>16289377
why the fuck does buddhism get thrown into these retarded boomer images
do these people know how buddhism works

>>16289382
I don't have any deeply-held beliefs.

>>16289377
yeah well my God can beat up your shit gods

>>16289447
1/ Read the DaoDeJIng
2/ Compare all available translations
3/ ????
4/ Profit!

>>16289634
must be because you're a moron

>>16289377
it's not about religion, it's about your western relativism musem perception of it.

>>16290332
>the White race being obviously superior
why are the jews god's chosen people then?

this thread has me convinced we're truly entering a new dark age full of obscurantism and superstition

>>16291752
When you go deeper into understanding the world as it is, there are things you must accept as true because they just are, and you cannot deconstruct them further. Why does light travel at the speed it does in a vacuum? It just does.
Why are two bodies attracted to eachother relative to their mass and distance? It's one of the laws of the universe, what do you want us to explain? Any world will have basic underlying principles that are just there because something needs to be at the base of the universe. It's like asking me to explain why God exist and who or what spawned him. Maybe he was always here, maybe there are no answers to this question. My point being, the laws of gravity have been observed, not invented, they exist, and they are verifiable and accurate. That to me prove them to be true.

>>16289377
Refuted what? It's just stating the truth sarcastically and pretending they made a point.
Literally everything works this way. There are thousands of theories about the shape of the Earth. There are thousands of theories on who shot JFK. There are thousands of theories about how men can fly. And all of them only have one true answer.
Sam for religion. Only one of them is true, because only one of them can be true. And the one that is true is probably the one which can be the most thoroughly proven by its theology, philosophy, historical evidence and miracles which continue to this day (just look at Lourdes or the blood of Januarius).

>>16292045
>Well then so can god.
No, but you know, I am on your side. I don't think the existence of multiple gods in culture disprove in of itself the one god you believe in. I just think faith goes beyond logic and empirical knowledge

>>16289417
It's just pascals mugging.

>>16289397
Ummmm. Based?
Yeah i am thinking based

>>16289596
so how do i get real proof

>>16289397
/thread

It seems that most theodicies and arguments for the existence of God end as proofs for some necessary omniscient and omnipotent being. I think that this alone does not point at the God of a specific religion. If one were so inclined, they would see what religion's god possesses these qualities and then maneuver to promote that god as being the "real" God. Or a religion over time through a dialogue will adapt their initial idea of God to fit the bill, which seems to have happened in Christianity and other religions. If you disagree with all of these kinds of proofs, for whatever reason, or if you think that religion adds excess nonsense to the ontological claim, then you might reject the provided interpretations (like Spinoza did). Our ability to reject other religions often is a consequence of seeing them as being short-sighted or limited in the scope of what God is or isn't. Eventually, our definition of such a being might become tautological in that it provides no additional meaning to the world. "God is everything that is" simpliciter would be such a claim. Without qualities, that claim means very little.

if you think this is a good argument you are non ironically not as a meme unintelligent

God in monothestic religions is not a being. its not picking zeus over thor, saying which powerful being actually exists. The essential claim is that being itself is conscious, that the fundamental force of reality is an intelligence and will. Hinduism, islam, christianity, judaism, all agree on that. To deny countless polytheistic gods has nothing to do with claiming a big G god

>>16296533
Holy epic cope. It's pathetic to see this type of mental juggling act. Christianity doesn't personify god, really? Judaism doesn't literally say "God is One"? Fuck off with your allegorical bullshit.

>>16289555
Elaborate