/lit/ - Literature

>>18036604
Revolt Against The Modern World

>>18036604
>Atheism seems obviously false
How so?

>>18036604
This is a different take on atheism. Probably more Nihilism really. I am not a philosophy person. I don't know what you are looking for. I mean how can your spirituality and meaning in life be cringe? Are you really concerned what others think about your beliefs? I would suggest reading from both sides of the coin. Here is a free book. Perhaps you would be more interested in mysiticsm?
http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/ug/main/cour.htm

>meme buzzword
oh no no sir... you have been infected...

>>18036604
>Atheism seems obviously false
If there is a God it’s certainly not the Abrahamic God.

>>18036604
>Atheism seems obviously false

>>18036686
God is there if you look for Him, anon

>>18036767
Where he at doe? Me n my niggaz look everywhere n still nuthin. Help a nigga out?

>>18036604
It’s pride, anon. You know God exists, but you’re too proud to humble yourself before Him. This is why you say it sounds “cringe”

Its such baloney when ppl say "if u just try to find and accept The Lawd, you'll find and accept Him"

Fuck off with that. I tried when i was getting sober and doing the 12 step NA program (2 years clean, jahbless), and no matter how much i would throw myself into belief headfirst, look for it in everything i saw, read spiritual texts, literally try to hold different beliefs about stuff until it sunk in, nothing worked.
God doesn't factor into my life at all. I don't think about the nigga, i don't worry about the nigga, i don't find hope or despair from a gods existence or lackthereof.

Also op is trolling. Saying athiesm is false and you believe in god yet theism is cringe is hilarious

>>18036604
There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God.

>unicorns are obviously true
this is you. this is how you look to the world

>>18036962
Unicorns are nothing like God, Reddit. The latter can argued for and established though philosophical arguments and reason alone. Unicorns cannot

>>18037009
Then argue and establish it through philosophical arguments alone

If there is a God, why wouldn't he intervene in the Creation? Deism is almost like pretending to tie God's hands.

>>18036791
>>18036928
>Me n my niggaz look everywhere n still nuthin
>hold different beliefs

God is not somewhere out there, you can find God within. God is ultimate reality btw. Dont approach it with heavy mechanical analytical Western style thinking. Use your intuition instead. If you look at the mystics of the past in all traditions (saints, sufis, monks, etc.) none of them really gave too much attention on doctrines or beliefs, spending more time listening to the "Spirit" instead.
If you want to accelerate spiritually, fasting is great. You put yourself into sensory deprivation to be able to perceive the normally unperceivable. You have to do it with the right mindset. Kill/ suppress your ego to let your "true Self" emerge.
Also you should choose a religion along the way. I find buddhism to be concise and direct with no political or historical baggage. Choose an esoteric one if possible.

>>18037281
>>18037281
oh and isolating yourself on trips in the wilderness (forests, mountains, lakes) will boost it as well. Find an area that is considered old or sacred (but safe enough physically) to camp while fasting and meditating. Also understand that you might encounter lesser entities that might or might not be devious and tricky. Ignore them, and find the true source "God". If you focus, you will be able to distinguish them. Its night and day. The key is focus, intuition, discipline, earnestness. Living a morally good life is also important, makes the process easier (that's why saints get their prayers answered superfast and are able to perform miracles).

All of this is DIY btw, much safer if you find a spiritual teacher to guide you. Sorry for ESL English, I want to write fast. Good luck

>>18037281
replace god with anything and the same is true

>>18036686
Its cant be anymore or less false than theism. They're both assertions about things we cannot know, and then as statements of belief they have the same value. I prefer theism bc at least it is a belief and not just a negation.

>>18036604
It is cringe brah. Read Daoist texts. That shits where its at imo.

>>18036604
Embrace anti-realist theology. The idea that religion isn't metaphysically real, but socially real.

>>18036604
I can share my favorite book on this question

>Atheism seems obviously false, but something about theism doesn’t sit right for me.
Could it be the claiming of the Bible being true while never presenting any evidence for this claim?

>>18037281
>If you look at the mystics of the past in all traditions (saints, sufis, monks, etc.) none of them really gave too much attention on doctrines or beliefs, spending more time listening to the "Spirit" instead.
Too bad we can’t say the same thing about all the various zealots and fanatics of those religions, of which there are infinitely more

>>18037475
You are right about the first part... you are a fucking idiot in the second part

The fact that all of you try to answer seriously on a retarded thread is the indicator of how fucking low is 4chan nowadays.

>>18037475
>They're both assertions about things we cannot know, and then as statements of belief they have the same value.
With the slight difference that when it comes to theism, it usually doesn’t stay with a belief, it often gets translated into condemning and even killing people who disagree with you. Atheism on its own seldom does that, and needs other positive beliefs to turn violent, such as communism or some far-right ideology

>>18038015
Yes, I’m sure you’re the only clever person on 4chan. Maybe we should promote you to superposter, so that you don’t have captchas or waiting periods

>>18037281
Fucking cringe, you faggots want to contact God, but also just do it sitting on your ass.
At least follow some religious rules or be celibate or some shit.

>>18036604
>Atheism seems obviously false
share with me your wisdom. i would be much more content if i could feel this way

>>18038025
It's bait,don't fall for it

>>18038025
>it usually doesn’t stay with a belief, it often gets translated into condemning and even killing people who disagree with yo
In other words, based and meaning-pilled.

>>18038025
>it often gets translated into condemning and even killing people who disagree with you
im an atheist myself but I really dont see why i should be upset about this given that I have the power of 20/20 hindsight and can see that atheistic society is absolute ass, pretty much everything anti-nhilists said about the development of atheist nihilist society was completely correct, and religious people were completely in the right to enforce their values. I can completely understand why the various post renaissance thinkers wanted to innovate and move past religion, they at least might have had good intentions and didn't understand what they were doing, but holy shit was it ever a bad call

>>18037025
Ok.
1. Change is a real feature of the world. Many things around us change.
2. So, actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
3. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualized it. This is the principle of causality.
4. So any change C is caused by something already actual A.
5. The occurance of change presupposes some thing S which changes.
6. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S's potential for existence.
7. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
8. A's own existence at the moment it actualizes itself presupposes either:
+ the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence (a) or
+ A's being purely actual. (b).
9. (a) If A's existence at the moment it actualizes *S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either
+ infinite (c) or
+ terminates in a purely actual actualizer (d).
10. (c) But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitue a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6UW3Imn5b8))
11. So, either (b) A itself is a purely actual actualizer or (d) there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
12. So, (4) the occurence of change C and thus (6) the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
13. So, there is a purely actual actualizer (PAA).
14. A purely actual actualizer is equivalent to the idea of an omnipotent being.
15. An omnipotent being exists

>>18038099

>>18038068
Too late, newfags already did

>>18037986
Ignore them. they are farther from the truth and are blinded by dogmatism. That has always been the case throughout history. St. Jean, Al-Hallaj, were murdered because they were actual mystics who understood God more than anyone.

>>18038041
how about reading what I wrote in entirety before you post, dumbass.

>>18038099
it's like talking to a walls when still are same old debunked shit over and over again
>actualization of potential
can we fucking spergs speak in English and not in ancient retard.

>>18038544
It can't be dumbed down anymore without people misunderstanding it and strawmanning it.

>>18038544
>same old debunked shit over and over again
It’s never been refuted. You couldn’t if you wanted to

>>18037974
Look, it’s another direction-brain retard who thinks Christianity and atheism are the entirety of religion

>>18036791
>Me n my niggaz look everywhere n still nuthi
>That which is perceived is existence. We exist and other than us whatever is exists. We are nothing but existence. Have nothing but existence. Perceive nothing but existence. And see nothing but existence. The opposite of existence is non-existence which is nothingness. Does not exist. It is not any thing and so cannot be perceived in the first place in the external realm of reality. Even discussing or conceiving it, i.e. mentally, can only be done under the umbrella of existence. Existence is the source of and the origin to infinite vast array of emanations, actualizations and manifestations. Whatever emanates, actualizes, or manifests in reality must have done so through existence, not non-existence. This principal is the most self-evident of principals. In short, other than existence, there is nothing. All is and all manifestations arise through existence. Existence runs the order of the universe. It is rather the universe per se.

>>18037281
>god iz in the feelz, dude
>Atheism seems obviously false
everytime

not an atheist btw i'm a panpsychist

>>18038099
This is a literal wall of nonsense.

>>18038099
> But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitue a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
I do not see why it could not. A PAA does not seem any more or less plausible than an infinite regress. Both seem to break what we know about causality.

> A purely actual actualizer is equivalent to the idea of an omnipotent being.
I disagree with this. I mean, what? Seems like a bit of a jump, no?

In any case, the entire argument hinges on the assumption that there must have been a SINGLE event in which a potential was actualized without something else that is actual. More or less, it is argued that because everything we can see in the universe has a cause, and because there cannot be an infinite causal chain (which I'm not too sure about), there must have been one event that started the chain. Clearly, this must rule out most, if not all religious conceptions of god.

Of course, you might say that god (or the PAA) started the causal chain knowing where it would lead, on account of his omnipotence. This just loops back to the idea that the PAA has to be a god, which I find to be entirely unsubstantiated.

Anyways, I think Kant had some strong objections to this argument, although I do believe that it's one of the best if you want to argue for god.

>>18039317
you cannot show that series cannot regress infinitely one way or another; when even our knowledge depends on it. there is nothing wrong non-actual actualizer that terminates your gobbledygook. you cannot rule out multiple substances. in no way does omnipotence follow from existence of substance. etc.

things don't get refuted when you have you eyes and ears closed.

>>18039569
>i'm a panpsychist
Cringe. At least be a cosmopsychist

Science and rationalism are usually right. According to Occam's razor, it's more likely that the universe just existed than that there was a god who existed and who created the universe. Belief in god is just humanity's self-worship.

>>18040718
>Science and rationalism are usually right
>Belief in god is just humanity's self-worship.
holy fucking shit look at the level of people coming to this place. nuke this board.

>>18040796
it's a troll you tard.

>>18038099
substance doesn't need to be actualized. Change is what happens to and in substance, so it's false to conclude that it would also be applicable outside of it or you would need a substance of substance in which S is changing by coming into being which is nonsense.

>>18040796
>>18040832
There's no way of proving or disproving the existence of god, so people will simply believe what they want to believe. They might as well believe in conspiracy theories and alien abductions as well.

>>18036728
Can we discuss how there are a multitude of variations of YHVH and Jehova and God and Allah and all these variations of the same entity? The change drastically by every denomination to such absurdly drastic conditions like free will vs no free will, everybody is damned except like 7 people vs EVERYBODY is saved, God is still as big of an asshole as he was in the OT vs God is loving and wants to save us all, but at the same time also he's an egomaniac and we exist only to worship him and inflate his dick even larger. None of it makes any sense. What God do any of us actually believe in? Is there any reason to reckon it's more YHVH and less Brahman? I'm curious to hear thoughts on this.

>>18038099
are you going to respond to any of the responses here

Reminder that a wordless subject is completely conceivable but it is not possible to conceive a subjectless world. I won’t say anything more, let the braindead atheist try to think a bit about this (I know most of them are literal automata so let’s laugh at them seething)

>>18041616
always with inconsequential semantics.

>>18041616

>>18041648
This is the basics of phenomenology, brainlet. It is impossible to talk to you atheistcucks because you are always braindead as hell but above all wicked, which is worse.

>>18041776
Science itself isn't "true", it's a constantly refining process used to uncover truths based in a material reality; and that process is still full of mistakes.
People who say they believe in Science (like you, you fucking faggot) use it to gain attention and have no respect for espistemology.

>>18042501
As an add-on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM83cBa9wDM

>>18042501
there is literally nothing wrong with that bill nye quote

>>18042501
>science of the 20th century vs science of the 21st century

>>18042501
>tfw bill nye isn't even a scientists or trained in science, he's just an engineer.

>hegel thoroughly and utterly BTFOs atheists
>not a single mention of him itt
>yfw you're an atheist reading this post

>>18042513
holy fuck that image is golden.

>>18041616
an individual (a subject, in the psychological sense) can exist without words. however, words, as lexical items that refer to things in the world, must necessary have subjects (that which they are referring to), otherwise be semantically empty (and meaningless words).

I'm completely atheist, and will never believe in your God, but this isn't a nonsense statement.

>>18043593
>>18041648
It was a typo. He meant worldless subject.

>>18043593
you seem really confused. first, i was not speaking of subject in ''psychological sense'' for the former is an ontological category while the latter is just as composed as your concrete brain. i have no idea why you would bring this up here, unless you have no idea what you are talking about (this is the most plausible).
second, you literally just proved my point lol. the sign-referent relation presupposes a subject to be both apprehended and referenced. there is no object without subject.
you are an atheist because you either haven't begun to think, that is, you are barely conscious (completely blinded by a natural atitude), or are really dumb. im sorry i don't mean any of this to be a personal offense in the usual way, but your ignorance redefines (deforms) your person (in the hypostatic sense).

>>18041776
unironically this is more true than any of the ontological acrobatics the theist try to pull

>>18036686
Atheists can’t account for Truth since Truth is that which comports to the mind of the Triune God.

>>18043654
Ok, but how do you justify the fact that without religion there is no science at all (no philosophy, metaphysics either)?

>>18043694
>Triune God
why it gotta be triune?

>>18043728
this is the paradigm of all structures of reality, from the ground to mathematical structure. all relations are triadic.

>>18041776
ebic r*ddit moment

>>18043695
WAHT? what now again? seriously you need to stop watching dlive content creators and start thinking on your own. as you must once again be confusing ontological presuppositions with practice of religion.

>>18043738
Man and Woman and Trans

>>18043776
there is no ontological presupposition by modern science, lol. i will ask you again, how do you justify the consciousness the sacred bestows to man (or reduces man to, in a phenomenological pov) and the stability religion establishes from which all else will be developed? if you can't answer this then tell me what do you think religion is.

>worldless subject.
How does this prove a God, again?
Please walk me through it.

>>18043738
hot, cold and spicy

>>18036686
Simulation theory is likely to be true. Therefore, some form of divinity likely exists.

>>18043811
>the stability religion establishes from which all else will be developed
wdym ? like people would've gone crazy from chaos of being sentient without faith in a skygod?

>>18043884
>Simulation theory is likely to be true. Therefore, some form of divinity likely exists
what a weak, irresponsible sentence

>>18036604
Ignore belief systems and just try to make heaven on earth, make the material conditions of earth better. You can be an atheist or a theist, it ultimately doesn't matter as long as you make life better for people on earth.

>>18043811
>what do you think religion is
organized superstition?

>make claims that don't conform with the "reality" people see around them
>make contradicting claims
NOOOOOOOO
Behold my final technique: The Height of Semantics - Word have meaning, but mine can mean anything, especially what I want them to.

No, I will not elaborate, and you are a hyllic if you don't comply with the conclusions I claim my word lead to.

>>18043888
>would have
they have always been, the differential factor, the threshold between chaos and order, what realizes the emergence out of a phenomenological flux, is religion.

>>18043905
you are not wrong about the organized part, but as for superstition tell me, is it superstition that out of violence there will be peace?

Is it superstition that you will displease the supreme creator of everything by working on a Sunday?

>>18043947
>out of violence there will be peace
Certain Islamic schools of thought certainly believe that to be the case.

>>18036928
> atheist
> staying sober is an achievement
Sir this might hurt your feelings but you are kinda retarded

>>18044001
by definition

>>18044017
you seem aloof since you diverge from the point here, anyhow, you don't want to know anything, youre not open to anything. good luck or whatever

>>18040503
That image is wrong for two reasons
First of all, the argument only ever set out to prove the existence of an omnipotent God. It never claimed otherwise.
Second, it is not reliant on Aristotle's conception of physics. That is totally irrelevant. It is metaphysics and only reliant on the exist of A) physical change in any form, and B) the reality of cause-and-effect.
>>18040482
>I do not see why it could not
Watch the video. We're not talking about a cosmological argument here, we're talking about a chain of causes in a single moment, which requires finite termination, otherwise nothing could occur at all (the first premise, the existence of change, would be refuted, which would go against our direct knowledge of it).
>I disagree with this. I mean, what? Seems like a bit of a jump, no?
It is responsible for all actions (the cause of all effects). That is an omnipotent being, or what we'd call God.
>and because there cannot be an infinite causal chain (which I'm not too sure about), there must have been one event that started the chain. Clearly, this must rule out most, if not all religious conceptions of god.
You've misunderstood the argument. This is not a cosmological argument. The history of the universe does not matter to this argument. It is only arguing with respect to change in each moment.
>I think Kant had some strong objections to this argument
Kant's objections were refuted, and his Antinomies only dealt with the cosmological arguments.
>>18040972
Why not? How can you say that, for example, you don't need to push a trolley in order to move it? How can a trolley move itself? The answer is, under certain conditions, a trolley could appear to move itself, but that would presuppose some internal engine which itself presupposes the exact line of argument I just gave (the regress to the PAA).

>>18044092
>>18044092
>superstition that out of violence there will be peace
What do you want me to say?
Define peace. Define violence.
Is the question meant in the most absolute sense? Then my answer is, it's entirely superstition.
Do you just want me to acknowledge peace CAN emerge from violence? I acknowledge the possibility.
There are other means to obtain peace. And there is no guarantee for an eventual peace through violence.

Why do I have to keep answering "non-sequiturs" for you not to get upset and poof out of a discussion?

>>18044112
>it is not reliant on Aristotle's conception of physics. That is totally irrelevant
the use of the key-words: actualization and potential, sure fooled me into thinking Aristotle was relevant
maybe go with modern descriptive words that don't necessitate knowledge of him

>>18044112
>the argument only ever set out to prove the existence of an omnipotent God
It fails to define both the terms God, and Omnipotence. And fails to prove their existence as well, if you go by common definitions.

>>18044137
whatever friend, you are really not prepared, this is clear from the way you type and talk to people. go do something else.

>>18044148
Aristotle is relevant, just not his physics, much of which are indeed outdated. Fortunately, metaphysics is not dependent upon that.
>>18044163
It did prove them. No one has yet refuted the argument.
Omnipotence: All-powerful, ie responsible for all actions and effects
God: A purely actual being.

>>18044112
Do you think it's weird to have a conclusion invoke the concept of omnipotence (a concept that does not hold up to logic)
but dismisses infinite regress because it doesn't hold up to the same logic ?

>>18044163
you really think you can define what is the condition for all definition? definition means totality, conditioned form, nothing of which applies to god. why you people insist on being like this? is it dishonesty or just really deep-rooted ignorance?

>>18044213
you are confusing what establishes (or grounds) the realm of logic itself and what is confined within logic. logic can't confine what is infinite (or indeterminate in this case, not even this you are able to make proper distinction).

>>18044176
Just say you refuse to 'throw pearls before swine', classic cop-out
I accept your concession

>>18044190
>It did prove them
Lol, ok.
>A purely actual actualizer is equivalent to the idea of an omnipotent being.
why would something "purely actual" (really needs a clearer definition), need any attributes beyond being purely actual?

>>18044228
>logic can't confine what is infinite
Why does this not also cover infinite regress?

>>18044236
i was trying to lead you maieutically to an agreeable conclusion, but since you are clearly not disposed toward some (many) things, just be aware that it is the sacred that elicits a unitive force wherefrom stability and a reduction of consciousness (simultaneous or the same as incipient numinous consciousness, depending on your point of view, phenomenological, ontological/epistemological) and religions are nothing but the organization (the stability and rationality of which the sacred bestows) to this event - the paroxysm of violence that is itself its cessation and the reduction/emergence of consciousness. the sacred in anthropological analysis is as much a ground for humanity as it is in metaphysics.

>>18044277
>need any attributes beyond being purely actual?
It doesn't, it's a mere clarification so that the midwits here understand the implications of the argument.

>>18044292
infinite regress is oxymoronic, there is no succession in infinity (the finite, determinate, conditioned is not distinguishable in infinity, it is completely nullified in it), what you may be referring to is indeterminate regress, and if you posit indiscriminate indetermination (in a determinated, conditioned world, but let's follow it), it means that there will be no determinate thing, no determinate thing means no thing as it is, no thing as what it itself wholly is, parts will not be wholly parts but partially parts being not even parts themselves.

>>18038099
Okay, I found what I perceive to be a fault.
The way 1-5 talks about 'actualization of potential' is synonymous with 'change'
then at 6 it's suddenly talking about change, as if in things could change from nothing to something (coming into existence)
that kind of change is not the same change as observed around as in the world at 1. as far I know, I've never seen anything around me come into existence

I get that the argument supposes that things can come into existence, because of change.
But I don't agree with the logic jump, that because change in substance is ruled by causality, so must the existence of substance itself be. They are not the same concepts.

Besides, why does rules laid out in the early steps not apply to PAA? Or rather why can't the features attributed to PPA simply be attributed to substance?

>>18044343
But why does it need attributes beyond being purely actual? How does omnipotence come in?

>>18044334
peak shizo-babble

>>18038099
>1. Change is a real feature of the world. Many things around us change.
Don't some argue against this though? This is the whole being vs becoming ontology thing right? Pretty sure Parmenides thinks change doesn't exist.

Substance is necessary for change
Therefore
Substance is, or at one point was, able to actualize itself

>>18044430
this is your mechanic response. you are an automaton as i said before, you people are barely conscious, literal animals. everything i said was a synthetic watered-down presentation of what great minds produced, but yeah you are literally a subhuman, so just put this false pretense aside and don't ever open your mouth to say you know or want to know anything about religion, metaphysics, theology, epistemology, anthropology, history, politics, sociology, and even science.

>>18037281
the minds capacity for self delusion is profound; and attempting to nourish those thoughts will only further your detachment from reality.

>>18044517
what is reality

>>18044502
I don't attribute meaning to your use of the word "sacred" how was that supposed to convey meaning to me?

>You can't disprove the existence of a purely actual actuator
But then it's suddenly Texts, Doctrine, SPECIFIC religions with morals and values, haha can you believe it?
Not a hypocrite, btw

>>18044525
i literally explained everything to you, how as god is the beginning, the sacred is the beginning; the perallel between metaphysics and proto-theology/hierology. do you not even realize how lost you are in all this conversation yet came up with so bold assumptions?

>>18038092
Here fucking here

>>18042501
the Dawkins and Nye quotes are valid; it's worth appreciating that deep philosophical thought is very often unproductive and self destructive. It is something we should observe with distant reverence.

>>18044544
>o-ok god may exist but look i dont believe in those things concerned with and dedicated to god, so i'll remain an atheist because uh this is very logical

>>18044502
>you are an automaton
My thoughts are my own. You supposes a great deal of things, for no reason.
I guess it comes with the territory. (believing things for no reason)

>>18044547
>do you not even realize how lost you are in all this conversation
No, I think I'm fairly confident in being completely lost
but I attribute this to your poor ability of explaining things

>>18038544
>ancient retard
This strikes me as a cool manner of speaking.

>>18044568
you dodged questions, you refused to engage with what i wrote, ignored what i wrote, now you are uttering completely incongruent things to the conversation.
i literally told you you can find what i said in the greatest intellectuals who ever lived, and you still come up with my ''supposing'' things ''for no reason''. just leave this thread.

>>18044584
then why did you appear in the thread spewing retarded shit you dont even know about? how can you value what is a poor or not explanation of something you have no idea about? you are not only lost in all these matters (religion, theology, metaphysics, epistemolgy, etc.) but you are incoherent beyond logic and reason, you are incoherent in your own person.

>>18036604
God is neither real nor not-real. He cannot be real, because he exceeds all determiners and predicates (indeed names, even pronouns.) Thus he cannot be not-real, either, in the sense this vulgar negation delimits -- all language delimits, but God is Unlimited.

>>18036710
Mysticism is indeed the answer.

>>18036728
This

>>18036957
This as well (Eckhart writes -- let us pray to God to be free of God.)

>>18037009
Wrong. Anything that can be spoken of or pointed to is not God. Fuck scholastics, yall are idolaters.

>>18037030
He is the creation, not in the sense of creator vs. creator (he is both and neither,) but an act so powerful that 'creation' becomes unitary and without subject-object distinction.

>>18037281
>>18037344
This

>>18037381
You're on to it champ. God is everything, nothing, and neither at the same time.

>>18037475
Unknowing is superior to knowing.

>>18037488
This but mysticism shares a common root.

>>18044560
As opposed to: Things change, therefore: The Holy Bible (King James Version) is the word of God

also
>god
It's extremely dishonest to pretend the word "god" in the context of the cosmological argument (or any derivatives of it where you add more steps, or do some word substitutions)
is anything close what baggage a religion would ad to the word
like, words have meaning, things turn absurd or dishonest if you don't abide by them.

>>18044521
I don't know. But in this case I meant the tangible things you encounter in daily life. People, places, things.

>>18036604
It's wonderful to hear that you think atheism appears obviously false-- do you have a sense of the Numinous?

At any rate-- Theism seems "cringe" to you then I can only assume because you feel like it is a cop-out, or egocentric, or too rosey of a picture to believe that there is a God at the bottom/above of all this shit.

Perhaps *you*, dear lad, are the one that is cringe. It takes a certain kind of courage, that is by no means at all delusion, to have faith. To believe that life is a dance of the good, privation and complex goods being created.

Faith, to have an appreciation for the Divine presence, like reading, like listening to difficult music, has to be cultivated- and just because it must be cultivated does not mean that it is a delusion. No more than someone's garbage palate means that fillet mignon is in fact delicious, or fine wine good, or difficult books good for the soul.

If you really care about this then I would recommend Feser's "Five Proofs for the Existence of God" and (perhaps) the more polemical "Last Superstition". Follow his recommends from there- if you insist on hearing "best" of what vision atheism has then look into Welles' polemics and Bertrand Russel- mayben von Hudal if you want to be rigorous and are in a larpy 18th century mood.

>>18036604
Spinoza

>>18044617
>>18044598
why you keep calling me a hylic just for responding to your questions?

>>18044631
stop being dishonest to jump all things leading to their natural consequences after a basic point to go directly where they lead to.
>cosmological
potentiality and actuality is not cosmological principles, these are concerned by metaphysics and which will constitute physical reality.

>>18044032
I dont think so. Especially if he's coming at it from the perspective of the 12 steps.

>>18044668
you can keep saying that
but it's still just the cosmological argument with more steps

>>18044645
>Feser's
Yeah, I can tell
SOMEONE read a whole lot of Feser in this thread

>>18044112
>Watch the video. We're not talking about a cosmological argument here, we're talking about a chain of causes in a single moment, which requires finite termination, otherwise nothing could occur at all (the first premise, the existence of change, would be refuted, which would go against our direct knowledge of it).
I did watch the video. I did not find it convincing in explaining why a PAA is a better explanation than an infinite regress. Both of them clearly violate causality. In any case, I believe that the answer is that the law of causality (that all things must have a cause) is only true for a certain section of existence.

>It is responsible for all actions (the cause of all effects). That is an omnipotent being, or what we'd call God.
Causing something does not imply control, knowledge, or even awareness of that thing.

>You've misunderstood the argument. This is not a cosmological argument.
Well, can you explain to me how it isn't? It seems exactly alike to a cosmological argument. Especially this section here:
>9. (a) If A's existence at the moment it actualizes *S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either
>+ infinite (c) or
>+ terminates in a purely actual actualizer (d).
Since (as far as we can tell) every actualized object has an actualizer that is itself an actualized actualizer, you must go back to the very first actualized object, if such a thing exists. That sounds a lot like a cosmological argument. Unless if by "concurrent", you mean that existence requires continuous actualization? If so, why would you suppose that?

>Kant's objections were refuted, and his Antinomies only dealt with the cosmological arguments.
Were they? How?

>>18044890
>I did not find it convincing in explaining why a PAA is a better explanation than an infinite regress
You might be mathematically illiterate then. This is why some people are not cut out for philosophy. If you plug a computer into a power board, which is plugged into another power board, and then plugged into another power board (ad infinitum), will that computer ever turn on? It has nothing to do with a time sequence (accidental series), only a hierarchically (essentially) ordered series, right here and now. Computers, just like change occurring right now as I type these words, require some source of their actualization.
>Causing something does not imply control, knowledge, or even awareness of that thing.
It does imply control, awareness and knowledge require separate arguments not given in the previous argument.
>Well, can you explain to me how it isn't?
Because it does not deal with any potential beginning or limit of the universe (which is what the cosmological arguments deal with, which you'd see Kant grapple with in 1st Critique). My argument is only concerned with causality and change in individual moments. For example, a cosmological argument would assert that the universe had a beginning due to the chain of accidental causes, and that beginning was caused by God, people then commonly object, "what caused God". I am not concerned with that argument or accidental causes. The argument I gave is only concerned with essentially ordered causes, which do not rely upon tracing the origin of the cosmos through accidental causes.
>Were they? How?
His basic philosophical assumptions do not hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Many people after his time tried to fix it, but ultimately failed.

>>18044559
Yeah, it's funny to think that if Dawkins and Nye actually spent any time seriously studying philosophy, they'd basically end up as hardline Aristotelians. The only philosophy they're critiquing with those statements are the likes of Hume, Kant, Hegel, Berkeley, etc.

>>18045282
>It does imply control
No it doesn’t, because there’s a difference between physical causes and intentional causes. One ball hitting another isn’t the same as someone hitting someone else

>>18036604
>Atheism seems obviously false
Atheism is the naturally correct position. In any other aspect of life you ignore that for which there is no evidence without needing to assert it.
If you have no evidence for something, and you can find any that aren't just wordgames after several Millennia of countless people devoting their lives to is, yet you persist in claiming that your belief it True, you are a moron.

>>18045282
>You might be mathematically illiterate then. This is why some people are not cut out for philosophy.
I assure you that I am not mathematically illiterate. Try to keep the insults to a minimum if you could. Take a second look at my post. I’m not arguing that an infinite regress works as an explanation, I’m arguing that a PAA is not any better.

>It does imply control, awareness and knowledge require separate arguments not given in the previous argument.
Control requires both awareness and knowledge.

>The argument I gave is only concerned with essentially ordered causes, which do not rely upon tracing the origin of the cosmos through accidental causes.
Well I disagree that essentially ordered causes exist. I don’t believe that they can exist with our modern conceptions of physics. In any case, this is a cosmological argument with a fresh coat of paint.

>>18041171
Because Christianity and Islam appropriated Judaism, their beliefs, holy texts, profits, and their god. It's pretty weird.

>>18045512
Judaism appropriated El from the Canaanite pantheon so that’s no surprise

>>18036604
>It seems just sorta...cringe.
I thought the same until I dropped my preconceived notions of cultural Christianity and looked at the idea of God from an supra-personal angle. I think you can rationally believe in the first mover argument if it is properly laid out.

>>18045571
I bet ‘properly laid out’ doesn’t differ from ‘agreeing with it’, which isn’t the point of philosophy

>>18036604
>Atheism seems obviously false
found the troll

>>18036767
>Him

>>18037475
>I prefer theism bc at least it is a belief
why would that matter?

>>18043884
>Simulation theory is likely to be true. Therefore, some form of divinity likely exists.
your gonna have to justify that cuz it sounds like BS

>>18043738
up, down, and slantways

>>18045605
You can control people’s behavior with theism, you can’t really do that with atheism, you need some kind of techo-scientism along with it

>>18045419
>One ball hitting another isn’t the same as someone hitting someone else
Still doesn't understand the argument. The ball would not hit anything if there were no PAA to actualize the collision (in fact, nothing would "happen" at all). The PAA is responsible for, ie "controls", all essentially ordered causes. Intentionality or mindedness is something which we haven't proven here, but is not even necessary. We don't believe computers have minds, yet we're fine stating things like a central server "controls" all platforms hosted in it because it acts intelligently and according to rules, even if we're not capable of specifically deducing mindedness or intelligence in that computer.
>>18045500
>I’m arguing that a PAA is not any better.
Which is incoherent, because we've just deduced that it is not only a perfectly valid explanation, but it logically follows given the basic principles underlying reality. Everything that is moved requires something which moves it, and in essentially ordered series there must be something "unmoved" (PAA) which is able to terminate this series. There is nothing incoherent with the idea of a PAA, unless you're merely hesitant to admit that there is a single principle underlying all reality, because perhaps it frightens you.
>modern conceptions of physics
Entirely irrelevant to metaphysics.
>this is a cosmological argument with a fresh coat of paint.
Maybe philosophy isn't for you. Aquinas, who renovated this same argument, actually argued against the mainstay cosmological (and even ontological) arguments because he did not see them as valid or airtight in comparison to this type.

>>18045615
Why should you want to control people’s behavior? Who made you king?

Seems like kind of a dick move.

>>18041776
Science is a type of Philosophy you reddit faggot
and on top of that Philosophy would be more like asking if there is a cat, and if it should be found, and what is darkens? Which is all the prerequired work that has to be done before science.

>>18045589
Either philosophy is objectively valid (ie Aristotle, Aquinas) or it is just whatever you choose to believe. Pick one. If you disagree with me, then show me the correct philosophy using proper reasoning.

>>18045632
>Which is incoherent, because we've just deduced that it is not only a perfectly valid explanation, but it logically follows given the basic principles underlying reality
I disagree, which I guess stems from my disagreement with essentially ordered systems. If there are only accidentally ordered systems, then infinite regress is possible. At least, Aquinas seems to think that infinite regress is possible in an accidentally ordered system.

>Entirely irrelevant to metaphysics.
The entire idea of essentially ordered systems is rooted in an antiquated understanding of physics. If Aquinas knew what we know now, I don’t think he would have made the same arguments.

Lets take the classic hand moving a stick which pushes a rock. That’s an essentially ordered system, right? Well I don’t think it’s so simple. Let’s now make the stick 1 lightyear long. Of course, we know now that pushing the stick would not immediately make the rock move. Once you’ve pushed the stick, the rock will move, even if you remove your hand. The same principles apply to the small stick.
Or, if you throw a rock into empty space. So long as no forces act on it, the rock will continue to move without input from you.
I also think the idea of a PAA somewhat contradicts the first law of thermodynamics.

This being the case, I don’t see how an essentially ordered system can exist.

>>18042649
>there is literally nothing wrong with that bill nye quote

>>18045886
why shouldn’t I be skeptical of the idea that reality is not real
and what does that have to do with cutting off my dick

>>18045896
It's a strawman, mate. Don't get worked up

>>18045896
Also, he said that he doesn't even question reality, not the other way around

>>18038099
Feser-chads... I kneel

>>18038099
Agreeing with this makes you a hard determinist. right?

>>18046887
I don't see why my will would be exempt from the chain of causality

>>18044725
>keep
That was the first time I directed your attention to it
Potentiality and actualization are not cosmological categories but affect cosmology and the concrete world because there can’t be anything separated from metaphysics (it is the ground), but those categories go beyond it. You still have no answer neither to that nor to any cosmological argument, but you insist on your proudish retardation. I’m curious about people like you, what do you think about yourself?

>>18046918
How does a purely actual actualizer affect change without actualizing it's own potential?

I much prefer the version where one simply says: God exist outside of time and space, and is therefore not affected by the supposition of the argument.

>>18046986
How do you know his will then? This isn’t just a question of faith to Abrahamic religions, those insist that their religion is literally 100% true

>>18045639
That wasn’t my point. My point is that philosophy is all about going wherever the arguments lead you, not about starting with a conclusion and then finding good arguments for it. That’s doing everything ass backwards

>>18045632
>The ball would not hit anything if there were no PAA to actualize the collision (in fact, nothing would "happen" at all).
That has no bearing on what I said. You still have to demonstrate that the cause was intentional or physical, which you never bother with. Instead you conflate the two

>>18036686
Creatio ex Nihilo is too strong, atheist have to resort to infinite regression to avoid it, eventho it's paradoxical, but they deny this obvious paradox.

>>18047048
>You still have to demonstrate that the cause was intentional or physical
What grounds of proof would you accept for something being proven intentional? Do you reject that teleology exists in nature? On what grounds do you reject that?

>>18047052
>Creatio ex Nihilo is too strong,
And makes absolutely no sense in the philosophical system that you’re trying to demonstrate
>everything has a cause
>except God because magic

>>18047056
>Do you reject that teleology exists in nature? On what grounds do you reject that?
Yes, based on 99% of all life that ever existed having gone extinct. It’s just that that info isn’t in plain view to us, because those species are dead. Furthermore, what you’re showing here is a well-known bias called the survivorship bias

>>18047064
That everything physical has a cause, atheist claim that nothing exist outside the physical world. But no one claims god is a physical being, but a metaphysical one.

>>18047088
>atheist claim that nothing exist outside the physical world.
No, atheists lack a believe in a god, nothing else. Also, please demonstrate how ‘metaphysical’ differs from ‘unfalsifiable’

>>18047096
>No, atheists lack a believe in a god, nothing else.
Dude, it's the logical conclusion of your faith, if you are atheist, you have nothing else to believe in than the physical world, the alternative is to not think at all.
>Also, please demonstrate how ‘metaphysical’ differs from ‘unfalsifiable’
Duh, if something is outside the physical universe then it can't be physically falsified, doesn't make atheism true tho, it still doesn't make sense.

>>18047075
>Yes, based on 99% of all life that ever existed having gone extinct.
That's not what I was speaking about, and it's actually irrelevant to intentionality whether or not many species have gone instinct. Do you see goal-directed behaviour in nature, ignoring human beings? If the answer is yes, then what basis do you have to deny that it exists as a feature of reality which is constituted by that purely actual being and the "effects" created by it? To be frank, there isn't really a tenable philosophical position which can deny teleology in the world, and the most reasonable position I've seen (without admitting God) is some form of panpsychism.

>>18046947
There is no potential in the actual (it already is what is - and what is not, simply is not in what is) - what it is is what it is but it is also what it is not and it is in this way that there is what is actual and what is purely different as non-being (non-being must be in the same way being is not) as what being is not being also what it is and being actual (its own being that is). What is is definite and what is not is indefinite.
I can explain better later if you don’t understand. I know you don’t regard any theosophical (which is metaphysics in non-rationalistic form) exposition, but in an ontological succession (not logical nor temporal) god being (Being) makes its own being to become, turning on himself he becomes its own self-relation.

>>18047096
Are you retarded? With metaphysics God is more than obvious.

>>18037281
>choose a religion
to me that's even harder than believing in G-d. I find reflections of my own beliefs at the core of all of them so choosing one would mean rejecting all the others and their valid parts with it. It's something I do not feel comfortable with so I choose nothing rendering me some sort of agnostic nihilist.

>>18038099
>1. Change is a real feature of the world. Many things around us change.
prove it

>>18047117
>Do you see goal-directed behaviour in nature, ignoring human beings?
No, nature just tries out every possible option, and when all the failed options are gone, you’re left with the options than works, after which the whole process starts all over again. This is literally evolution 101

>>18047156
This is literally teleology, lol.

Ban test

>>18047114
>Dude, it's the logical conclusion of your faith
And not the definition of the word, nor a faith. There’s no central text of atheism, no central atheist ethics or infallible commandments, and no atheist church that everyone on the planet must go to in order to avoid atheist hell. You claiming that atheism is a faith is just you projecting very hard

>>18047159
4chan.org/banned

>>18047158
No, it isn’t, there’s no goal that everything moves towards, and no form of intelligence has ever been found to guide anything. Evolution is literally nothing but the laws of physics interacting with one another

Bros why are atheists so dumb, like holy shit look at their answers in this thread, cope and illogical retardation in literally all posts of theirs. Imagine going to hell because you are a dumbfuck lmao (no, atheistard, hell is not a literal place with fire everywhere, but your own pitiful situation left to itself, its own self-engulfing emptiness).

>>18047176
>no, atheistard, hell is not a literal place with fire everywhere
That’s not what the Bible believes, at all, so I guess that makes you a heretic

>>18047168
>there is no goal
Then there is no evolution. Based.

>no intelligence found
Without intelligibility there is not a single thing. A thing can’t be something unintelligibly. I will not even comment about all information and data constituting all process in the universe. Use your head a bit.

>laws
>no intelligence
Yeah you are either a dumbfuck or brainwashed.

>>18047186
Oh appealing to biblical literalism now. This is what is heresy. God himself said he spoke in parables.

>>18047211
>Then there is no evolution. Based.
Makes no sense. Next.
>Without intelligibility there is not a single thing.
The world ceases to exist when you fall asleep?
>Yeah you are either a dumbfuck or brainwashed.
And all you’ve shown is that if anything, you are

>>18047219
And how are we supposed to separate the literal from the metaphorical? What specific method is used, according to you?

>>18043811
I don't speak schizoid. On the top of my head: there is preposition of causality, of materialism, of reductionism, of realism,,,
There is no absolutely no need to justify anything of such, you might as well ask how does Windows interpret series of 0&1s as ascii.
Religion differs on because it asserts thing to the realist world (accepted ontology; I exist, others exist, the material world exist) things that are not drawn from it but from the transcendental

>>18047231
It is not according to me. It is according to God himself as I said, He himself makes it clear and the Tradition which is his Providence.

>>18047225
>makes no sense
This is the usual cop-out of you people. Evolution implies a specific progressive development. I can’t be clearer than this.

>fall asleep
Holy mother you are dumb and is completely lost. When I sleep a pen won’t stop being what is, a pen.

>n-no you
Laws are intelligible, information.

>>18047308
So which parts of the Bible are literal and which ones aren’t, and how do you know?

>>18047328
>Evolution implies a specific progressive development.
No it doesn’t, evolution implies change over time and plasticity of life forms to their respective environment they inhabit

>Laws are intelligible, information.
And we don’t know everything about them, nor all of the laws, does that means they therefore don’t exist?

>>18047335
You want me to write here each verse of the Bible? Why do you not read the Church Fathers, Jewish theologians on OT?

>how do you know
Just told it, twice.

>>18047358
No, I want to know which parts of the Bible I’m supposed to view as literal and which I’m supposed to view as metaphors. I’ve also never seen any consensus on this, so I don’t think theologians will help me here.

Pretty weird how there’s no consensus whatsoever on this in a book that’s supposed to be flawless and clear to everyone who reads it

>>18047345
It implies a developmental change in this direction, it can’t change to what is not conditioned to specific progressions. Anyhow, biological teleology is retarded (contrary to what you think this is what you are defending here, I’m merely point it out to you), and ontological teleology (since it is successive and in time) means just a return to ontos, that is, ontological reality.

>on laws
Dude what are you even trying to argue here? It is already what Laws are, intelligible and intelligibility givennesses which literally makes what the universe is and makes it function.
Your cope is so miserable.

>>18047400
>It implies a developmental change in this direction
In what direction?
>It is already what Laws are, intelligible and intelligibility givennesses which literally makes what the universe is and makes it function.
And is our knowledge of them complete?

>>18047381
>I have never seen any consensus on this
Yeah I wonder how christian dogmas came to be a thing.

>you want me to cite each verse from the bible here?
>no i want to know each part of the bible!

The book is flawless but we are not, that is why there have always been heretics, atheists, etc. Go worry about other things you are clearly too aloof for this inquiries.

>>18047412
Developmental, evolutionist direction. Reminder that this is all according to your evolutionistic fantasies.

>is our knowledge of them complete?
Is our knowledge of reality complete? Is our knowledge of knowledge itself complete? Having a complete knowledge of knowledge you have a knowledge that comprehends knowledge, having a knowledge greater than the knowledge your knowledge comprehends.

>>18047381
There's no consensus because it's PEOPLE who argue about it. Additionally, it's not supposed to be easy, there will always be people who hear but never understand, and see but not percieve (Mat. 13:14). It says nothing about the book being flawless.
If you want a good idea of what's to be taken literally and metaphorically then just look at the place and time it was written.

Gospels & Epistles? Literally as they are historical documents.
The story of Creation, revelation and the Psalms and Proverbs? More metaphorically since the former two were Revealed to their respective authors and as a result have much old Jewish/Greek connotation and imagery, and the latter two are works of poetry and wisdom meaning that it's to be taken and applied without expecting Lady wisdom to apparate and tell you what to do.
It helps to look at the church fathers and other theologians like this anon >>18047358 said.

>>18047421
>Yeah I wonder how christian dogmas came to be a thing.
There’s not really a consensus on those either
>The book is flawless
That doesn’t answer my question. Which parts are literal reports and which parts aren’t?

>>18047445
>Gospels & Epistles? Literally as they are historical documents.
Is that why in the case of the gospels, there’s four of them which all differ from one another?

>>18047456
There is and what may vary are things like the Filioque which is not about biblical passages and in the end in a closer inspection Orthodoxy’s and Catholic’s views are completely reconcilable.

>which parts
I already told you about it. If you don’t want to know it is ok, but just don’t keep talking about what you dont know.

>>18047468
What? Now they are all different? I hve seen antichristians say they are all identical. Can you people decide first what you think they are?

>>18047468
>Differ from one another
In minor ways that can be attributed to the human authors having different viewpoints and ways of writing about the life of Christ? That says nothing about the historical accuracy of the gospels themselves. If they were perfectly in line with eachother then people would be suspicious that it was all just some psyop, and they'd be thrown out the window just like all the other "just too perfect" religions over the years.
Besides, if you've actually read the Gospels, you'd know that the contradictions are in minor details, like were they walking into our out of X city? woah, the 98% of stuff that is consistent must be put in to question right? You still get the overarching narrative of Jesus' life, so yes, they are historical.

Frankly this Christianity stuff just doesn't sit right with me. Same with Jews and Judaism. Buddha tickles all the right spots, highly logical, practical, straightforward, and doesn't force a game of 20 questions you have to guess right on to avoid permanent absurd suffering.

Get your shit together Yahweh.

>>18047544
>buddhism
>highly logical
Yeah sure things just are because other things because these other things are because of others... samsara-nirvana dualism, samsara being nothing for it is all emptiness yet being always what it is, nirvana being nothing and empty too but different from samsara.

>>18047088
Atheism is not identical to physicalism

>>18047600
It is because metaphysics is inherently theist.

>>18047176
Hey Sheniqua this isn't the school yard.