/lit/ - Literature

>>20252125
In my experience, no way. They have nothing but the thread of faith. If you have no faith left in a particular religion, you shouldn’t waste time hearing out Christians anymore. The whole religion is based off of the worst edited “holy book” of contradictions.
Of course I’m biased as I’ve found happiness as an atheist. Good luck on your journey. Read whatever.

>>20252146
>They have nothing but the thread of faith.
>The whole religion is based off of the worst edited “holy book” of contradictions.

This is the exact attitude that this very book eloquently dismantles. Read the book OP, couldn't hurt to give it a shot.

>>20252354
Yet in no way does it.
Go on. Try it.

>>20252146
Thanks, but I get the feeling you haven't read it.

>>20252146
another redditor found their way here.

>>20252125
I am curious OP, what keeps you from atheism?

>>20252125
New Age attempt at saying Christianity is true by stealing shit from better religions Christianity never had.

>>20252369
Already an admission of sorts in the post.
>>20252372
The only defense is to throw an irrational stone. Typical monkey.
Still waiting for that example from >>20252354
maybe he hasn’t read it either.

>>20252475
While theism has an argument for a first cause (albeit one that I am very skeptical of), atheism simply doesn't has one. Sometimes atheists even say it wrong to ask such a question, which I think this is absurd.

Additionally, sometimes I can't help but feel that such an incredible world as ours must be teleological in nature. I know I can never have proof of this, but I also cannot have proof that other people are phenomenally conscious. The best I can do is say that I know I am conscious, and given that other people display similar behaviours to me, then I assume they are conscious too. A simpler explanation is that I'm looking at it the wrong way round: rather than it being the case that other people behave like me because they are conscious toi, it is simpler to believe that I have only learnt to mimic the unconscious p-zombies around me. Ockham's razor would state that I should choose this option, because it assumes the existence of less unprovable facts. But I can't take that option. I just know, beyond everything else, that people are conscious. My intuition also leads me to suspect that God exists, because it seems to me that such an incredibly complex and extraordinary world cannot exist by chance, so why shouldn't I trust my intuition here too?

I still don't believe I can ever know that there is a god, however, so this is why I remain a theist.

Im philosophically an atheist, and ive spent many years studying apologetic sophistry out of a personal fascination, so ive seen all the arguments under the sun. The best is the purely empirical and the fully deniable artistic intent/divine coincidences argument.

>>20252642
Thank you, I am in a very similar boat to you.

>>20252658
>artistic intent/divine coincidences argument.
That's not exclusively Christian though.
>>20252642
Your belief is solipsistic annihilationism. Literally check out any non Abrahamic religion or philosophy before falling for the Jewish Guru meme. Most of your issues are solved by things not limited to modern western frameworks.

>>20252642
Doesn't Buddhism answer all of these with discerning practice?

>>20252682
>to modern western frameworks.
Like what?
>inb4 intuition
lmao don't waste our time

Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.

>>20252125
Kant's The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God

>>20252125
It's very good. That, Atheist Delusions and Beauty of the Infinite are the DBH trilogy that gives the best overview and introduction to Christianity possible for someone who is already familiar with a bit of philosophy.

If you still want to read more after finishing those three try Introduction to Christianity by Ratzinger and Cosmos by Louis Bouyer

>>20252125
There's a reason atheists avoid DBH at all costs, he's so far above them intellectually that they can barely even comprehend him.

I think either Summa Theologica or Fear and Trembling are better to find faith

>>20254129
Didin't he let refute that pre-critical work in his critical period?

>>20252125
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

fedoras think they can get away with pretending people still argue for a "personal, christian" god but they don't realize that no one seriously has made that argument since 1600.
Spinoza's version of the ontological argument is undefeated.

>>20252146
>Christianity is all rooted in the thread of faith
Cringe, midwit take. Other denominations such as Catholicism embrace faith and reason unlike Protestants.

>>20252125
this is a great book. Hart is an eloquent thinker and actually provides a lot to chew on with this one. anyone who thinks they can't divine anything of interest in a work like this might be right, but in this case I can speak from personal experience: this was great and I'm glad I went in open minded

>>20252642
I know you're speaking from intuition, but what relevance is the "incredible" nature of our world when it's the only world that exists, at least as far as we know? It's possible that as far as "worlds" go, ours isn't ever incredible, but you have no frame of reference.

>>20255082
very*, not ever

>>20254932
All arguments for Christianity rooted in reason are really just arguments for deism. The Christian part comes entirely from faith.

my 12 year old does not believe in God. Can anyone recommend me a book? A quote? Anything? I've been so sleepless it took me three tries to type the CAPTCHA. This worries me.

>>20252689
Yes. Christianity is so loaded with baseless junk compared to Buddhism.

>>20254336
I honestly think people argue for god to be transcendent because then it’s improbable. But, even if such a transcendent god exists, the idea that it would be the Yahweh of the Tanakh or incarnated as a 1st century rabbi is nonsensical.

>>20254919
You can argue for such a god, but how would Christian and Jewish scripture be relevant to it at all?

>>20254336
>muh one god who is the transcendent source of all things also has distinct characteristics like jealousy
so its just schlock

>>20255087
Yup, Christian theology really is an inner-conflict of trying to make such a deistic god match with scripture. Same issue with Islam, which has an extreme monotheism that borders on deism/panentheism, and yet somehow this unknowable deity told some Nabataeans-Arab to write a book — what is the evidence for this? The book says so.

>>20254919
>no one has made the argument for a christian god since 1600
??????????
If you wanna be a deist have at it bro, but I better not see you slide in some stupid religious shit in there.

>>20255091
I have posted here before, but as I was ignored I will post again. Since no one can tell what anyone says here, I will just say that I think you must model the universe before you can find God in it.

>>20255091
Do they say why they don’t believe in God? That’ll give a good starting place.

>>20255125
lol hey guys someone linked this thread in /x/ based take here waht if we find God in the universe and then spacetime turns into aliens. It's like hide and seek with our creators!

>>20255118
Such a transcendent deity would be impossible to speak about - absolutely apophatic.

>>20254919
Spinoza’s Argument for Substance Monism is generally deemed a failure by contemporary philosophers.

>>20254919
>>20255124
There were many pre-Christian deistic arguments. Aristotle essentially set the precedent for Christians, but then Christians try to cram their scripture into it. Even Neoplatonism had a transcendent Theos.

>>20255134
better throw out the bible then

>>20255082
Possibility is the reference in these matters, intuitively speaking.

>>20252125
you wont find God in a book, only within

>>20255149
Sorry, could you elaborate further?

>>20255145
Yup.

>>20255153
>only within
So how do you do that?

>>20252146
>happy atheist
no such thing

>>20255175
be alone with yourself without being clouded by self hatred, or go and be naked in nature

>>20255177
based unfalsifiable statement on the unknowable mental states of others

>>20255180
Sounds pretty great, I’ll try the first one tonight. Any recommendations in terms of posture or anything, or do those things not matter?

>>20255181
Same thing with deism, really.
“My god exists because is he beyond any way to prove or know if he does exist”

>>20255175
Gotta figure that out yourself. For me, it started with psilocybin mushrooms, but continued far, far after the fact far into sobriety. The cosmos has ways of showing its true nature if you search in the right ways.

>>20255191
>true nature
Such is the object of the eternal quest. Thanks bro.

>>20255187
if you wanna get into super detail about it you can get into yogic philosophy about how the structure of the body can be a direct line to experiencing God, but i have had good success from literally just sitting cross legged in the dark (no phones or music or any sounds), and aligning my head with my heart, my heart with my hips and just letting the thoughts run themselves out until your mind starts making things up from beyond itself to entertain itself. good luck anon

>>20255190
>durrrr subjective experiences are all the same!!!!! how could you POSSIBLY be able to experience something i cant!?!?!

cmon man bring some fucking brains to the table, jesus christ

>>20255210
Idk what you thought I said but you sound loveless

>>20252642
Just read Berkeley. Or Augustine, or Aquinas, etc. Christianity is truth, everything else is distraction and not even any good at it. The only issue is how to serve Christ the best, and that's a very hard thing to do.

>>20255203
Nice, I know you said Yogic and not Buddhist but that sounds like Shikantaza. Any recommendations for getting into Yogic stuff?

>>20255217

>>20255219
nothing specific unfortunately, but practice it yourself, im still a beginner so i follow along Yoga with Adrienne on youtube, and follow it with a meditation session, have been able to get a fairly grand sense of losing my physical surroundings and nearly losing the sense of being in my body

>>20255198
>Such is the object of the eternal quest. Thanks bro
No problem anon. Figuring what "this" all is and our place within it is the natural and quickest way intended for man to peak behind the veil and see the light beyond.

>>20255215
i thought you said something along the lines of 'because your God is unprovable within my existence, it cannot exist'

i hope im not loveless :(

>>20255231
>losing my physical surroundings and nearly losing the sense of being in my body
Isn’t that sort of what death/dying is supposed to be like? Spooky stuff, but maybe this practice will make life feel more real in contrast, or something.

>>20255239
Oh okay. Well my bad at lashing out over a misunderstanding, I’m sure you’re not loveless (even though you’re on 4chan, but then again so am I lol)

>>20255247
from my understanding, and experience, the idea of God is the universe at large with self awareness. Bodyless consciousness. It is close to an idea of death, but its merely death of the organic body, not of the self, for the self will reunite with God, the oroginal Subjectivity, upon the loss o the organic body

>>20255255
no worries bro i attacked hard, what did you mean by your comment of deism?

>>20255265
>Bodyless consciousness
Funnily enough, this aligns with some Buddhist understandings of death. Also fits well with “Sunyata”. And I think we all know this is what’ll happen upon death, that all the features of your self, all your abilities of perception, all your memories, and the world itself is unified into this featureless, incomprehensible consciousness. I guess this is oblivion.

>>20255279
i agree 100%, though personally, as stated, i belive in a monotheism, but kind of from a duality perspective? but God does exist, and its trying to talk to you, all you need to do is be ready to talk to it

>>20255269
Pretty much that the idea of a transcendent god is often used conveniently because the nature of being transcendent is that it is beyond our comprehension. It moves the goal posts into unknowability. I think Jung or James said that there’s a pragmatic benefit in believing in things that cannot be disproven, and I suspect that’s because they’re “safe” from doubt.

>>20255286
I suspect the source of one’s conscience fits with what you mean by “trying to talk to you”, as that sort of thing is normally experienced as if it comes from beyond one’s self.

Do you think your monotheism overlaps with pantheism/panentheism?

>>20252125

I think it's less an argument for the existence of God and more trying to make clear what religious thinkers are even talking about when they refer to such a concept.

He opens the book by ranting about 2000s atheists and how they're essentially talking past serious religious thinkers, so if you think you share that level of understanding this is probably a decent place to start.

It is not, however, the sort of work that is likely to convert anyone to Christianity. If you're interested in something that tries harder in that direction, I'm not sure this is the book.

>>20252682
It's not solipsism. Namely because I don't believe that there is no external world, I'm just suggesting that it's no more parsimonious to believe that consciousness exists externally than that it doesn't. I also don't actually believe that everyone else is a p-zombie, because I trust my intuition.

>>20255289
thats a completely fair argument, but at the same time why would the true nature of everythingness reveal itself in its entirety? of you look into psychology theres a bunch of supported evidence that the brain dulls what reality truly is down to what we can process, then even further for things that arent directly attached to a worldly goal or threat. With this in mind, how could it be possible to 'see' or 'understand' the entirety of an idea as complicated as God?

>>20255298
>how could it be possible to 'see' or 'understand' the entirety of an idea as complicated as God?
What makes you think such a thing is possible in the first place? Why do you presuppose there is a God out there, even one beyond our ability to understand?

>>20252642
study physics unironically and you'll realize that
>because it seems to me that such an incredibly complex and extraordinary world cannot exist by chance
this is exactly the case, we are here by chance but we are nothing especial, there exists a lot of human-level-of-intelligence-like creatures out there, watch the statistics. Some people say the universe is necessary, you can study that if you want. The point is you shouldn't read only theist lit because you are narrowing your scope

>>20255295
i can understand the idea of conscience, but im more concerned about the things that pop up with no need as i do not feel guilt or shame on the subject.

My idea is that Objectivity (Masculine, Reality) and Subjectivity (Feminine, Consciousness) somehow metaphysically connected and cause the big bang

>>20255312
because the entirety of unknowing allows of subjective interpretation. my interpretation says there is one. Why does yours say there isnt?

>>20255313
>The point is you shouldn't read only theist lit because you are narrowing your scope
This. Honestly, I was a staunch apophatic theist until I took my head out of that box and saw that it was largely baseless.

>>20255320
>my interpretation says there is one
But why does it do that?
> Why does yours say there isn’t?
Honestly, because it has no reason to.

>>20255315
>My idea is that Objectivity (Masculine, Reality) and Subjectivity (Feminine, Consciousness) somehow metaphysically connected and cause the big bang
This could read as a powerful piece of myth on how you yourself came to being through the union of man and woman, and how your “parts/elements” are sourced from them.

>>20255327
i couldnt tell you why it does, but i know it does, and thats the only way i can explain it without delving into a Hegelian level of phenomenology of my own experience

>>20255336
i can definitely see that

>>20255337
Hmm, I hope you don’t take this the wrong way but this sounds like a true act of faith. I think it’s a nice thing to see, and I don’t want to perturb it.

>>20255344
no i can see that as well, and frankly i cant make an argument agaisnt it myself,though that could be because im on sleeps door

>>20252642
>While theism has an argument for a first cause (albeit one that I am very skeptical of), atheism simply doesn't has one.
If this is your main concern you're really looking for deism. I don't have any book to recommend because the deist position simply posits god as an explanation for creation. That's pretty much it. He doesn't directly intervene so we don't really know what he wants or why he created everything.

Are you happier? That's a genuine question. Is it enough for you to accept god created everything and you'll never know why, or if there's an afterlife or what ultimate good and evil is. You're just here because God pushed a button once.

>Additionally, sometimes I can't help but feel that such an incredible world as ours must be teleological in nature. I know I can never have proof of this
> My intuition also leads me to suspect that God exists
>I still don't believe I can ever know that there is a god
If God exists and is unknowable the rest of the conversation is over. Making a thread like this is just an invitation for Christians to try to make the leap between Deism and whatever bullshit denomination with a million inconsistent nonsense declarations they subscribe to.
>>20255217
>read Berkeley. Or Augustine, or Aquinas, etc. Christianity is truth
Like so. You see Christians (and other organized religions) can't seem to understand the Deist position and that it doesn't "lead to" anything they proclaim to believe. The miracles remain bogus. The religious texts still get shit wrong and make false predictions. Nothing changed when you decided Deism was the answer, other than putting a hat called God on the creation of the universe.

What atheists don't understand is that this also changes everything.

>God exists
>we can never see or even imagine him or interact with him
>he interacts with us only by proxy
I don't know, seems like an attempt at subconsciously isolating the idea of God to make it more believable you know? Like, if we make God so untouchable, no matter what criticisms you can have for him he is unreachable except by proxy and your idea was just wrong. It's both waving away any responsibility of defining him and making sure he is pure by making it so any "undesired thought" about him is seen as incorrect.

>>20255359
i would argue you can interact with It, but through near pseudo theological idea like Numerology

>>20255359
>waving away any responsibility of defining him and making sure he is pure
Imagine that you're trying to use a scalpel to cut through the fabric of reality. You can't, because the scalpel is part of reality. It can't cut reality anymore than you can know what's outside reality or interact with that which we label God.

That which stands outside creation and has the fundamental spark of creation which nothing in creation has or can fathom, can't be defined. All your tools of deduction and analysis, all your scientific measurements and theories, are all conceptually hamstrung by only ever existing inside that which is created.

>>20255357
Berkeley's project was literally a refutation of deism. Why are you writing so much if you're ignorant and dumb?

>>20255371
But we're not talking about using material object to deal with something higher than them, we're talking about using ideas. How does your thought or prayer interact with God in cannon? Through a proxy of his actions basically. In addition, there is no proof that whatever was the spark of creation for material reality is the spark of creation of all reality and the fundamental begging of a person/individual, just as there is no rational reason as to why there has to be "a" God who can create and destroy instead of having a plural of individuals in the past.

My main point was also that, peoples innate knee jerk reactions to a lot of deist thoughts are accepting not because those thoughts are profound (like certain modern liberal ideas of freedom and justice) but rather because of their epistemic effect on people's cognition. I find it to be an easily observable effect too.

>>20255378
Just because he quoted the other anon dumbly lumping those guys together doesn’t mean he’s making the same mistake.

>>20255313
The fact that there are other human level intelligent species in the universe just seems to make the universe more extraordinary. I understand the many worlds theory is sometimes used to explain the improbability of our universe having the right properties for life to exist in it, but I afraid I unable to appreciate why this unprovable hypothesis is more parsimonious than a teleological explanation.

>>20255365
>through near pseudo theological idea like Numerology
Like you’re reading the code of god/reality or something?

>God "created" conscious beings that are separate from him
Why not just cut the God out and say conscious beings that are separate exist, without inviting the arbitrary notion of creation and destruction
>yeah but imagine how powerful a God who can create conscious individuals is
Absurd. At least Judaism leans into using their God as a practice of orderliness and visualization.

>>20255106
>But, even if such a transcendent god exists, the idea that it would be the Yahweh of the Tanakh or incarnated as a 1st century rabbi is nonsensical.
Why?

>>20255385
Yes it does. Berkeley literally said Deism leads to atheism, not theism. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you wouldn't make these retarded posts. But then again if you weren't a retard, you wouldn't be an atheist.

>>20255357
>If God exists and is unknowable the rest of the conversation is over.
God isn't unknowable precisely because He provided revelation to know Him by.

>>20252642
None of that necessitates a YHWH-esque absolute God of all reality. A minor deity who just lured ignorant souls into it's shitty planet is arguably a far more realistic interpretation.
>first cause
Is a meme, unless you believe in Akashic Records, which you shouldn't. Buddhist Sea of Ignorance is a far explanation.

>>20255392
more like God is trying to interact with other Objectice/Subjective creatures, but from a macro (God) to micro (human) level. i truly believe that chaos math has a say in the matter of talking to God, along with fractals and other mathematical paradoxes

>>20255395
Because for a transcendent God to be transcendent, his actions need to be transcendent instead of being really odd out-of-the-way shit. If you posit YHWH as being real, the specifications of his actions are incredibly absurd and limited for a being so transcendent. I'm sure you can come up with excuses as to why he does some things and doesn't do others, but they don't make reasonable sense when all put together with the idea that he is transcendent. Christians coped with the idea of transcendental-yet-specific YHWH by claiming everyone was born with the knowledge of God, which was eventually disproved.

>>20255395
Because those two are clearly the products of human imagination, wholesale in the case of Yahweh and perhaps partially in the case of Jesus (that he may have been a real person, but is so buried under theology cooked up later on that we cannot discern who he was). This isn’t damning solely for Christianity, it’s the case for all mythos.

>>20252125
The Pāli canon

>>20255402
What revelation exists that cannot be disproven by Buddhist vipassana meditation as arising from ones subtler mind?

>>20255380
>we're not talking about using material object
It's called an analogy.
> we're talking about using ideas
Which are formed in your mind and subject to being part of reality. If you disagree let's make a simple experiment where you sit and try to think while we shove elecromagnets against your brain and are able to selectively shut off your speech or motor functions. If you require further proof we simply start removing parts of your brain and see how long you can keep arguing.
> interact with God in cannon
Yes you sound like someone who would get into a big cannon with God. Then we can blast it off into space and you can hang out together.
> there is no proof that whatever was the spark of creation for material reality is the spark of creation of all reality
Is there proof of the opposite? No? Is it because there can't be any proof either way because all our tools for reason and measurement are based in reality and thus cannot interact with or understand what's not in it? Sounds like what I said originally don't it?
> no rational reason as to why there has to be "a" God who can create and destroy instead of having a plural of individuals in the past.
The creating force in Deism is already impersonal for reasons explained and you seem to think that this means you should add layers and gods and individual personalities because nothing says there couldn't be. That means you don't really understand Deism.

>>20255396
All you’ve done is deflected/misunderstand my point and tru to insult me (I’m not even an atheist, lol)

>>20255405
>A minor deity who just lured ignorant souls into it's shitty planet is arguably a far more realistic interpretation.
The Demiurge?

>>20255415
Buddhism is false ergo it cannot disprove anything

i wonder what the inevitable synthesis of theism and atheism will be. is it even possible? Will this argument prove Hegel to be a hack? how long until you guys think humanity will reach it?

>>20255395
Originally, the Jewish God was just a God in a Canaanite pantheon that the Jews took from Edomites(?) as their own, super special favorite God, shooting down others due to Canaanite autism. Then, Zoroastrianism invented proper (albeit dualistic) monotheism and Jews that were there copied them. Most likely, Christianity happened because the Jewish Guru wanted to show off his cool eastern tricks he pretended to have made himself, while syncretizing further with Zoroastrianism by introducing Demons and unexplained dualism for whatever reason.
Why would a transcendent God do something so limited to that period of human imagination?

>>20255414
How does the Pali Canon argue for the existence of god? (AFAIK, the Buddha simply did not answer the question)

>>20255402
>because He provided revelation
Oh shut the fuck up, every time you retarded Christians stumble in and make utter asses out of yourself. There's no connective tissue there for you to work with. Deists aren't a cunt hair away from embracing Jesus. Deism became popular precisely because the enlightenment and general scientific knowledge exposed the Bible and Christianity at large as being not full of falsehood and contradiction, but ultimately plainly being the religion of stone age goatherders revised slightly by way of apocalypticism for antiquity.

People like Jefferson were cutting holes in their Bibles removing all the miracles because it was obvious bunk that didn't have any value.

Anyone with a genuine interest in Christianity will quickly find enough holes in the manner of its construction to sufficiently end all belief in it.

>>20255420
A Demiurge but not evil or permanently trapping us for our spirit semen, more like a Brahma.

>>20255405
>None of that necessitates a YHWH-esque absolute God of all reality. A minor deity who just lured ignorant souls into it's shitty planet is arguably a far more realistic interpretation

I don't believe in a YHWH-esque God. I suspect that our god would be more like the kind of infinite, unknowable, but ultimately divine creative force like the kind that Bohm alluded to in Wholeness and the Implicate Order.

>Is a meme, unless you believe in Akashic Records, which you shouldn't. Buddhist Sea of Ignorance is a far explanation.

Unless you believe in eternity, which most physicists don't, then not believing in a first cause means you simply cannot believe in causation existing at all, because after all, where would this causation begin if not with a first cause?

>>20255429
Many of the Buddhist traditions has dealt with this long, long ago.

>>20255390
idk if you are christian or another thing but supposing you are christian, is it more probable that an all powerful selfcontained and that is in everyplace and everytime at the same time created humans for literally no reason than there existis a lot of universes and this is just one of them where the constants fit?
i cant prove neither god exists, god doesnt exist, there are multiple universes or just one but one option is acids-imagined-like and other is consistent with the serious science
obviously you belive what you want but i wont say youre based. Sorry anon

>>20255433
>People like Jefferson were cutting holes in their Bibles removing all the miracles because it was obvious bunk that didn't have any value.
Jefferson was a fucking retard and Jewish Golem so...Am I supposed to find this compelling? Because Jefferson disliking Christ just makes me think Paul was correct because Thomas Jefferson was a literal, unironic Satanist along with all the other "Founding Fathers" of the United States of Globohomo

>>20255433
>revised slightly by way of apocalypticism for antiquity.
Not to mention revamped by Hellenistic Christians, that’s why they call Christ the Logos and often default to Aristotle’s Prime Mover argument

>>20255444
>that’s why they call Christ the Logos
Gospel of John

>>20255434
Makes sense. Doesn’t that fit with the original, pre-Christian Hellenistic idea of the demiurge?

>>20255416
It's a poor analogy because it implies false characteristics for the objects involved.
The point you missed is that God has to interact with his creation in some manner, he cannot be fully isolated otherwise he would not be able to interact with it. The proxy claim does not solve this as it still just delegates the separation issue to another object, not explaining why he is so separate yet connected, just making an illogical and irrational statement.
>Is there proof of the opposite? No? Is it because there can't be any proof either way because all our tools for reason and measurement are based in reality and thus cannot interact with or understand what's not in it? Sounds like what I said originally don't it?
What is metacognitive analysis.

>>20255438
I'm not a Christian and don't believe in YHWH type of God. I'm very uncertain about what God would be like, but the YHWH idea seems highly counterintuitive. Ideas of tao, Brahma, and the infinite creative force described by Bohm seem more intuitive.

>>20255433
But Christ was raised from the dead. That's enough to prove Christianity true. The empty tomb defeats all philosophy, all science.

>>20255442
>”Jewish golem”
>Quotes a Jew
Lol, is contradiction part of what it means to be Christian?

>>20255434
leave my cum alone, Demiurge scum!

>>20255457
Which Jew did I quote?

>>20255456
Lmao

>>20255436
books to read for this?

>>20255435
>unknowable, but ultimately divine creative force like the kind that Bohm alluded to in Wholeness and the Implicate Order.
Why not just make this an (individuals) pure/original mind, before it collapses into the ignorant fetters of reality? Because all of those things you observe, externally or internally, are observed by, and can be caused by the same mind.
>not believing in a first cause means you simply cannot believe in causation existing at all, because after all, where would this causation begin if not with a first cause?
Causation can be "created" as an ignorant, lesser reality to a non-causational reality.

>>20255461
Saul (Paul) of Tarsus

>>20255456
It's pointless to argue with midwits. They only believe in Satan even if they don't know it.

>>20255462
The Resurrection of Christ is historical fact. The proof of this is the seethe it causes to the demonically possessed.

>>20255430
>Most likely, Christianity happened because the Jewish Guru wanted to show off his cool eastern tricks he pretended to have made himself, while syncretizing further with Zoroastrianism
It's pretty clear Jesus is just one of a great many jewish preachers of his era. His ideas weren't even unique at the time, and even has to include some of the competition like John the Baptist, where they awkwardly try to explain away Jesus being baptized by John (clearly a sign of being a follower of John and John being the rabbi) but can't lie too much because too many people knew the story. Keep in mind there is much more literature than what ended up in the Bible itself, also pointing to rival groupings of jewish sects and individual leaders like John doing exactly what Jesus did. Adding zoroastrianism and Jesus having some magic showmanship tricks isn't really necessary and is just further part of trying to puff up the narrative. Half the NT is letters excoriating other christians for following 'false teachers', and warning them against rival rabbis and prophets. They're clearly a dime a dozen.
As are healers and magicians according to the Bible. And also rival gods are very real and have divine powers. Again this is in the Bible itself, not apocrypha. Christians just conveniently forget all this because if you ask them if there are rival gods hanging out granting magic powers they're faced with the fact that they don't know what their Bible says and that they're really just modern people and can't accept that level of bullshit. It's all downhill once they start to actually read the book.

>>20255464
The Pali Canon

>>20255447
From what I remember, yes he is a good guy and deserves praise for the effort put into his work.

>>20255467
There's no quote from Paul in that post retardo.

>>20255465
>Why not just make this an (individuals) pure/original mind, before it collapses into the ignorant fetters of reality? Because all of those things you observe, externally or internally, are observed by, and can be caused by the same mind.
This is what I think of when I hear the “god is within” claim - of course god is within, he’s a product of your imagination.

>>20255456
Buddha did cooler miracles than Yeshua.

>>20255479
Yes, but what is it that makes up the God in the first place? What is it that makes an imagination that makes things up at all? Etc. Those are the more precise questions answered in Buddhism that they try to practice for.

>>20255411
It feels like you don't really get Christianity. Christianity reconciles the transcendent and immanent. You're on one side of the dialectic claiming "God is transcendent, how can he possibly be acting imminently!?"

Christians solved this over 1500 years ago

>>20255476
Philippians 3:
> 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God[d] and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh— 4 even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh.

If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

>>20255456
An empty tomb for an empty head. Remember that even the Bible itself has to warn other Christians not to listen to those stories that say 'the disciples removed the body':
>They said to the soldiers, “Tell everyone that Jesus’ disciples came during the night and stole his body while you were asleep. If the governor hears about this, we will talk to him. You won’t have anything to worry about.”
Yes, it's an answer so obvious even illiterate fishermen could figure out the Scooby Doo mystery and laugh at early christians. So they made up a story about that specifically.

>>20255412
>Because those two are clearly the products of human imagination
This is a begging the question fallacy. I can defeat this by saying clearly you're wrong.

>>20255485
Philippians was not quoted in >>20255442

>>20255454
>God has to interact with his creation in some manner
Why?
> he cannot be fully isolated otherwise he would not be able to interact with it
Why? Also why would he want to interact?
> separate yet connected
Who says? Based on what?

>>20255482
I hope you’re not tunneling a hole of questions that’s leads to “god” (I don’t think you are)

>>20255484
None of that satisfyingly answers why a transcendent God only shows up and does miracles once, in a very specific desert.
>but faith and sacred mystery
So what was the point of doing miracles the first time around? Same with Moses splitting the red sea.

>>20255493
>Why?
How would creation sustain its own existence without the intervention of God? You do realize that existential inertia is incompatible with Theism, right?

>>20255492
You were accusing someone of being a Jewish golem and quoting a Jewish man.

>>20255500
Can you provide this quote?

>>20255495
No, I'm just posting that the answer given to the post I replied to is still not "completely satisfactory" in it's logical implications and that there is a more exact explanation of the effect being sought out.

>>20255489
>I can defeat this
Lmao

>>20255502
>makes me think Paul was correct
My mistake: you were accusing someone of being a Jewish golem and CITING a Jewish man

>>20255498
>None of that satisfyingly answers why a transcendent God only shows up and does miracles once, in a very specific desert.
Theodrama. The providence of God. God interacts with creation in specific ways to guide creation towards the desired end. Unless you understand that you are here speaking to me right now by design and by what God has enacted throughout history and NOT blind chance then of course you're not going to understand history in general.

This is "Why didn't the Eagles just fly Frodo to Mount Doom" level criticism.

>>20255493
>Why?
to satisfy the Christian explanation of God?

>>20255499
>How would creation sustain its own existence without the intervention of God?
Why does it need to be sustained? Does it run on batteries? Other than creation being created, we know nothing.

>>20255511
So God is purposely acting in a way that makes him obviously seem absurd in every logical and rational way to test the low iq indoctrinated from childhood believers? For what purpose?

>>20255516
>Why does it need to be sustained?
...Ok then, you need to do more reading on theism. "Why does being need to be sustained" is Aristotle 101 stuff.

>>20255511
>Unless you understand that you are here speaking to me right now by design and by what God has enacted throughout history and NOT blind chance then of course you're not going to understand history in general.
Yeesh. I’d rather get my legs blown off in Afghanistan than live with your mind for a second.

>>20255514
>the Christian explanation
I see, you need it to be necessary so Christianity can explain something? That doesn't seem like a very good reason.

>>20255511
>all the irrationality is actually part of his plan which we will never know or see but trust me there is something
Literally "Qanon 2 more weeks" level of cope

>>20255456
LMFAO

>>20255520
>read books that support my axiomatic claims because I need them to be necessary

>>20255519
>God doesn't act the way I think he should therefore he's wrong
Childish nonsense. You're talking about the ground of being itself. God is inscrutable, Lovecraftian in His machinations. Awe and fear is what you should feel when you contemplate the absolute, not childish questions about narrative.

>>20255524
>Naming qanon
Almost as good as citing "gamergate" for letting people know you're a twitter tranny who has political shibboleths living in their head 24/7

>>20255534
>God is inscrutable
Burden of proof is on you. First, about a God outside of imagination, and second, about his characteristics.

>>20255544
Read Schuon

>>20255479
He's no more a product of my imagination than my belief that other people are conscious. The latter is a completely unprovable supposition, based on the fact that other people seem to behave like me. But it could be that they are simply p-zombies that I have learnt to imitate. This is neither a more nor less parsimonious view than believing that others are in fact conscious. It still supposes that there are two kinds of matter (conscious and unconscious), except that in this view conscious matter does not exist beyond my head. There is nothing in the world that I observe that tells me it is logically contradictory to believe that other people are unable to have phenomenal experiences. But I don't believe this. I have faith in other's subjectivity.

Similarly, sometimes it seems to me that the world is clearly teleological, in virtue of the fact it seems so improbable that the universe has just the right properties for life to exist in it. Studying physics will make you realise how improbable this is: take for example the fact there was just a tiny amount more matter than antimatter, just enough to create the universe we have now. Had there been the same amount, the universe would have annihilated itself. Or if there had only been an extremely tiny amount more of matter or antimatter, the universe would have been unimaginably different, with conditions perhaps unable to support the complexity of self organising and propagating systems. This is just one way in which the universe as we know it is improbable. There are many others. The many worlds explanation can be used to explain this problem, but it leads to serious problems with the nature of probability itself, that physicists have struggled to account for. In light of this, the existence of some kind of god doesn't seem such an unreasonable explanation.

>>20255539
No, actually. But the idea rose to me, the reason QAnon was popular was because the QAnon cope is similar (albeit less grandiose and long term) to the Christian cope, as all QAnoners were boomer Christians who are probably not very intellectual thinkers. The resonance between the mindsets might have led them instinctually into trusting QAnon. The main difference being, Christianity says 2000 more years instead of 2 more weeks.

>>20255548
How did a 2010 era reddit atheist make his way here

>>20255545
>perennialism
I already saw the thread in which that got mogd.
>the rest
Nothing seemingly more intricate than any Kabbalah which is also not a solution.

>>20255365
You have any examples of near pseudo theological idea that aren't just confirmation bias embodied like Numerology is?

>>20255551
>2011+11
>implying people who aren't Christian are atheist
ISHYGDDT

>>20255546
The conflict is not God vs Materialism, it's Materialism vs Idealism. Idealism solves your issues without relying on God.

>>20255559
>You're just like a BOOMER who believes in QANON, I bet you voted for TRUMP you dumb BOOMER
If you're not an atheist you have the intellectual capacity of one so it hardly matters. The moment you start spouting any of that twitter nonsense I completely disregard everything you have to say because nobody has ever said anything of value while referencing qanon or gamegate or any other issue twitter trannies love to drive into the ground

>>20255546
Hmm, I see what you're saying, and maybe you're right anon. But I'm not sure.

>>20255567
Then why were all of the prominent German idealists theists?

>>20255574
>German
found your problem

>>20255567
Well, there is a conflict between theism and materialism. But actually I'm quite sympathetic to idealism. God can be a feature of idealism though.

@20255569
>twitter
I hate to break it to you but /pol/ died with the election, the boomers infested and destroyed it. And if you unironically don't believe Q-cons did major damage to their wing, you may be seriously retarded. Now stop being a newfag and get back on topic.

>>20255574
Because they didn't know any better at the time. Better ideas had to be rediscovered or reimported while people were cleaning off the Christianity.

>>20255584
I don't give a fuck about qanon or boomers and the fact you're so quick to jump to them as examples is evidence you're a modernity addled twitter fag who needs to read more and browse social media less.

>>20255588
Why not just come out and admit you're a logical positivist rather than larping as an idealist? There are zero good examples of non-theistic idealism.

>>20252125
You can prove God's existence at home all by yourself! By defining your terms for existence, and then defining the properties of God, you can mix and match, create and erase those terms and properties however you like! The question now is, do you WANT God to exist, or do you NOT want God to exist? Depending on what properties you gave 'em earlier and comparing and contrasting that at what standard you judge what should and should not exist, using the standard of what you believe to be proper logic and reasoning, you will easily find out whether he exists or not. And once you figure out your answer, pick up a book on persuasive public speaking to figure out the thoughts the author, of their standard of the standard at which other people tend to judge the existence and nonexistence of God, and to judge the properties and what lacking thereof of God, and the terms for existence itself, and if it's even possible, then find the atheist friend and wow him with your system of philosophy!

>>20255574
>>20255588
And they had to tow a theological line. Fichte got fucked over accusations of atheism.

>>20255608
So, God is Lego?

>>20255546
You seriously do not know what probability is.

>>20255618
I don't believe that and I believe you don't really believe that, and ultimately no matter what you say, our consciousnesses are completely detached from one another (I don't believe in solipsism) so you can never fully convince me you actually believe God has whatever properties you tell me you believe God has, and anyone else who has decided not to be convinced by you will do the same, except those who haven't done that, and unless it's an answer that coincides with my own beliefs and then in that case I assume we have the same standard of reasoning, defining of existence and God's properties, of the existence of others and of other's standards

>>20252354
>Read this book it totally uses logic to prove Jesus was real
I'm not reading it but no it fucking doesn't.

>>20254336
>It's pantheism until I decide Christianity is correct, at which point it's a "mystery"

>>20255665
DBH isn't a pantheist, he'd be the first to point out there's a hard ontological distinction between creator and creation.

>>20255655
Just assume your interlocutor is wrong without even engaging their argument. The only way the atheist can maintain their irrational position. Frankly if you've never read Plotinus I regard you as a subhuman who has nothing to offer anyway so it's fortuitous that you've ignominiously dipped out

>>20252125
All the arguments is this thread proves is that the religious are now the inheritors of the fedora.

>>20255678
Maybe when we get a "faces of christianity"

>the one book on Christianity you haven't read is the one that proves it is undeniably true
What is this effect called?

>>20255677
>Just assume your interlocutor is wrong without even engaging their argument.
Yes, there are no rational proofs of divinity and there are no faith-based arguments against.
>if you've never read Plotinus I regard you as a subhuman
> nothing to offer anyway so it's fortuitous that you've ignominiously dipped out
>he only way the atheist can maintain their irrational position
*tips fedora*
>Just read the book bro trust me
>What does it say?
>It says valid arguments bro trust me
>such as?
>haha stupid atheist

>>20255683
>one book
The main issue is that most atheists have read absolutely nothing on theism at all. Look at this thread, people are acting like DBH is some arcane knowledge when he's really one of the most accessible "pop-theists" available alongside Ed Feser. He's the bare minimum, the lowest bar for engaging in conversation about this topic.

If you seriously want to add anything then you should at least be informed about issues of Epistemology (Standard analysis, foundationalism, correspondence theory, coherence theory, etc), Metaphysics (Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant at minimum) and Ethics (Again, Aristotle and Kant)

Anyone who doesn't have this foundation is pretty much assured to be a dumbass redditor spouting neologisms they found on their favorite atheist blog and treating them like catch all defeaters like the famous "Hitchens razor"

>>20252125
>arguments for the existence of a god
Either meaningless or incorrect. If you want to have faith you need to work on that, no amount of jesus-bothering sophistry will make you believe.

>>20255698
>Again
Who the fuck is Again?

>>20255694
>What does it say?
Why don't you read it and find out rather than demanding bite sized summaries your 10s attention span can handle? The very fact you're unwilling to actually read the literature on the topic marks you as someone unworthy of being considered a rational and informed interlocutor.

In summary, read books nigger because I'm not reading them for you.

>>20255703
Read the entire Pali Cannon, it disproves everything you believe. No, I'm not going to tell you why. See how absurd that is?

>>20255683
I'd accept arguments in favour of deism, but the bible is simply an incorrect historical account and no amount of 300 page waaaahhhs will ever make that not the case.

>>20255707
>Read the entire Pali Cannon
Already have. I have a pretty big library on religion and philosophy. It's unlikely that you'll name anything I don't own.

>>20255703
>hahaa read it bro trust me
>im not reading it for you bro
You haven't read the book and its painfully obvious to everyone now. you're LARPing

>>20255713
The Zohar

>>20255718
Dont worry, he has a LARP ready. He's familiar with the entire Western and Eastern canon you see, despite still being a Christian.

>>20255714
If you've read the book then I'd be happy to discuss it with you but I'm not going to summarize it for you. Hart makes the argument better than I can paraphrase it so all I'd be doing is providing a strawman.

>>20255713
Ok, lets discuss it. Do you know what the Pali Cannon interpretation of undergoing Nibbana is?

>>20255722
>you should all read this book
>cool, whats in it?
>Just read it bro, i'll feign humility this time
Summarise it or fuck or ChristLARPer nobody cares.

>>20255620
I guess all those mathematicians and physicists who debate the probability problem with many worlds must also not understand what probability is.

https://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert2255/papers/pitei.doc

>>20256044
Probability is irrelevant in this conversation due to the anthropic principle. Since there has to be life to confirm the likelihood of life's existence there is inherent survivorship bias in any judgement.

>>20252146
interesting take, to which I would respond to (You) and the rest of the group: can you find God through reason (e.g. a philosophical argument), or just strictly through faith?

>>20256059
You can find god through reason but you can't find the god of any particular religion through reason. Anyone who tries to sell you a particular religion through reason is acting in motivated reasoning.

>>20256050
The anthropic principle doesn't apply if the many worlds theory isn't correct. (Maybe actually research the principle before throwing it around.) And as previously stated, the many worlds theory is debated because of the problems it poses for probability.

>>20256063
interesting, how would you define "god" then?

>>20256073
>The anthropic principle doesn't apply if the many worlds theory isn't correct.
It absolutely does, only some versions of the anthropic principle rely on many worlds interpretations.

>>20256080
To be honest I personally don't have a solid definition for god since everyone seems to use that word however they see fit and I'll usually just ask someone how they define it to get context for the conversation, but if you're asking in refernce to arguments for god's existence through reason then I'd probably define god as "the transcendent creative principle that is the source of all things", or the Prime Mover as Aristotle would call it.

>>20252642
>atheism simply doesn't has one
First cause is a retarded meme, you clearly have not been following scholarly philosophy from the past 100 years
>that such an incredibly complex and extraordinary world cannot exist by chance
People who say this shit are always illiterate in physics and biology, always. No, your natgeo nigger documentaries about african american holes is not accurate, at all

>>20256083
Actually, almost all of them rely on the many worlds theory, otherwise they don't actually make any sense. The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on it makes this quite clear:

>The anthropic principle is the principle that there is a restrictive lower bound on how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, given that we could only exist in the particular type of universe capable of developing and sustaining sentient life.

This of course implies other universes.

Also from the Wikipedia article:

>Most often such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes to select from. However, a single vast universe is sufficient for most forms of the WAP that do not specifically deal with fine tuning. The strong anthropic principle (SAP), as proposed by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, states that the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it.

>>20256095
I'm not sure why you're citing wikipedia in this conversation like it's relevant, but even in that except you linked:
>However, a single vast universe is sufficient for most forms of the WAP that do not specifically deal with fine tuning.

>>20256101
Yes, and I was specifically dealing with fine tuning.

>>20256095
>many worlds theory
Isn't that the theory that all "disappearing" quantum mechanical phenomena, instead of being a wave function collapse is simply happening in other universes and there is an infinite amount of those?

>>20256104
Yes that is the origin of it, by Everett.

>>20252125
See pic.

>>20256129
how many times can people write these books that retread the same old lines of reasoning

>>20256129
>pseudoscience

>>20256091
thanks anon.. good answer for me. yes it is hard to pin down "God". have a great day

>>20256134
The primary arguments revolve around the fine tuning problem post the advent of inflation theory in the 1980s.

>>20256091
>the transcendent creative principle that is the source of all things
So, an individuals mind (not brain) not occupied with anything?

>>20256173
Same old shit with hot new twist. I'm sure this one will settle the issue!

>>20256186
Sounds like you need to read Kant. Your mind didn't create the world, only your perception of it.

>>20256194
And how did "God"/Demiurge create the world? Without using his mind? He just made matter that is absolutely unconscious? Why not make matter that is a conscious extension of himself? It's not like he has limited brainpower.

>>20256129
Spitzer is really good. His arguments are much more in depth than the usual Protestant books about teleology.

>>20256204
Your presupposition that God must necessarily have a "mind" or that, if it does you'd be able to understand his motivations, is ungrounded.
(Full disclosure I am an atheist)

>>20256237
Mind in a broader sense. If he doesn't have it, he is a robot popping out conscious beings and something for them to live in, it's a bit absurd and can just be explained by a dime-a-dozen Brahma. How would he make something he fundamentally lacks that is crucial to ones existence as a God (that's not just a metaphor for "rules of nature that we arbitrarily ascribe to material reality" which can also easily be by the Mind and the interaction of minds)? My point is, what concept would denote anything necessitating an external God/mover outside of individuals like (You) and me, that we cannot simply accomplish with our own minds? A small bit of mental analysis points to there being no need for a God.

>>20256187
Read the book before making braindead >>>/v/ posts on /lit/.

>>20255558
i do not unfortunately. literally all divination techniques from across the globe are subject to such issues. i truly, truly wish there was at least one outlier but alas there is none. as i said, its basically pseudo theological, that is not lost on me

Agnostic what?

>>20252125
Read an annotated version of the Tao te Ching

>>20256261
Nah, I mean what I said. That book’s contribution to the eternal debate is just as meaningful as the last thousand.

No point in attempting to prove or disprove the existence of something which necessarily sits beyond such criteria.
Proof of God comes from a brush with the Absolute, or a glimpse of Oneness. It is noncommunicable and inexpressible, and any attempt to try to communicate it is futile and an utter waste of time.

Atheists will never believe in God or Absolute, as they have been divorced from it, they are entirely incapable of understanding it.

>>20257055
>Proof of God comes from a brush with the Absolute, or a glimpse of Oneness
In your experience or knowledge, in what ways does this happen or take "form"?

>>20252125
I would suggest "The Last Superstition", and "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" by Edward Feser.

>>20256260
> If he doesn't have it, he is a robot popping out conscious beings and something for them to live in, it's a bit absurd
Just because God doesn’t have a discursive mind that thinks about things like we do doesn’t make God into an insentient robot, because even if God has no mind he can still be conscious of the bliss and glory of his own Godly infinitude, like if he was “being, consciousness, bliss”, like the title of the book OP posted (being that doesnt entail having a thinking/changing mind), nothing is really absurd about that.

> small bit of mental analysis points to there being no need for a God.
refuted by the cosmological argument from contingency

>>20252125
>arguments for the existence of a god
Because you sacrificed something, therefore a god was created by you

Godel

>>20252125
>>20257665
2/2

This concerns a christian god as well. Since glorification precedes glory.

>>20257670
https://web.archive.org/web/20190709032709/http://www.xenosystems.net/the-cult-of-gnon

"“Nature or Nature’s God” is not a statement, but a name, internally divided by tolerated uncertainty. It has the singularity of a proper name, whilst parenthesizing a suspended decision (Pyrrhonian epoche, of which much more in a future post). It designates rigidly, but obscurely, because it points into *epistemological* darkness — naming a Reality that not only ‘has’, but epitomizes identity, whilst nevertheless, for ‘the sake of argument’, eluding categorical identification. Patient in the face (or facelessness) of who or what it is, ‘we’ emerge from a pact, with one basic term: *a preliminary decision is not to be demanded*.
<...>
Gnon is no less than reality, whatever else is believed. Whatever is suspended now, without delay, is Gnon. Whatever cannot be decided yet, even as reality happens, is Gnon. If there is a God, Gnon nicknames him. If not, Gnon designates whatever the ‘not’ is. Gnon is the Vast Abrupt, and the crossing. Gnon is the Great Propeller.

Spinozistic Deus sive Natura is a decision (of equivalence), so it does not describe Gnon. Gnon’s interior ‘or’ is not equation, but suspension. It tells us nothing about God or Nature, but only that Reality Rules."

>>20254336
Isn't that just st. Anslem/Descartes ontological argument?

>>20257670
>proof is impossible without an axiom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectionism

Proof is when you merely do not *detect* the disproving points. That doesn't mean you've actually proven something.

Claiming that the Sun arises in the East may be fruitful in some local contexts, but when considering Solar System planets trajectories this is wrong and useless as fuck.

>>20254336
>the transcendent source of all things
To claim the existence of the transcendent, one has to postulate the transcendental. And we already have a huge problem here.

>a distinction between two qualitatively incommensurable kinds of reality
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/zizek-hollywood-and-the-disenchantment-of-continental-philosophy/
"In explaining away intentionality, personal identity, and presence, BBT [Blind Brain Theory] inadvertently explains why we intuit the subject we think we do. It sets the basic neurofunctional ‘boundary conditions’ within which Sellars’ manifest image is culturally elaborated–the boundary conditions of intentional philosophy, in effect. In doing so, it provides a means of doing what the Continental tradition, even in its most recent, quasi-materialist incarnations, has regarded as impossible: NATURALIZING THE TRANSCENDENTAL, whether in its florid, traditional forms or in its contemporary deflationary guises–including Zizek’s supposedly ineliminable remainder, his subject as ‘gap.’

And this is just to say that BBT, in explaining away the first-person, also explains away Continental philosophy. <...> The ‘transcendental’ on this view is a kind of ‘perspectival illusion,’ a hallucinatory artifact of the way information pertaining to the limits of any momentary conscious experience can only be integrated in subsequent moments of conscious experience."

>>20257777
Yes that's why we have complex numbers

>>20252125
maybe try feser... idk... not a big fan of feser myself but for an agnostic should be fine

>>20257815
>that's why we have complex numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold
Numbers do not exist.
You perceive numbers for the same reason you perceive films instead of a slide-show. You mistake your eye's disability for an ability. And, through sheer chance, you've managed to evolutionary exapt it and not die in the process.


https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/speculative-musings/mathematics-and-the-russian-doll-structure-of-like-the-whole-universe/
"The question boils down into whether there’s any mathematics absent our experience of it. The prior question should be whether there’s any such thing as mathematics as we *experience* it at all. What if mathematics *as we experience it* is neither constructed nor discovered, but *imposed* by the severe structural and developmental constraints faced by the thalamocortical system?

This is what the BBH suggests.

From a metaphysical standpoint, the idea would be that the universe possesses a Russian Doll structure, that *what we perceive* as ‘structures’ are conserved and recapitulated across vast differences in scale.

A neurostructural recapitulation is simply a neural circuit, distributed or not, that is capable of interacting with intermediary systems so as to enable systematic interaction with some other structure. You could just as easily say that the recapitulation is distributed across the entire system, and that each recapitulation harnesses circuits shared with all other *recapitulation*s. In this sense, the brain could be seen as a recapitulation machine, one capable of morphing into innumerable, behaviour-to-environment calibrating *keys*. In this sense, there need be no ‘one’ representation: differentiating fragments could be *condensed*, waiting to be ‘unzipped’ in a time of need. There need be no isomorphism between recapitulation and recapitulated, simply because of the role of *process*. In all likelihood, recapitulations are *amoebic*, dynamically forming and reforming themselves as needed.

We tend to call these recapitulations *representations*, but this is a mistake from the perspective of the BBH. Representations beg normativity, insofar as they can be either right or wrong, and normativity stands high on the list of inexplicable explainers mentioned above. (The problem of hidden kluges)."

>>20257852
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold
>Numbers do not exist.

>>20252642
the god described in the Bible ever hardly matches the maximally great being characteristic latter given to him by theologian.

>>20258133
OT is irrelevant not even the Jews follow it anymore

>>20254336
atheism is corrolated with a high IQ (well most of it is premerly due to autism, but don't tell me those definitions of god aren't autistic)

>>20258079
1. Flicker fusion threshold demonstrates your eye's inability to differentiate frames at high rates
2. Flicker fusion threshold vividly demonstrates how phenomenon appears out of neglect ('films' are not something that 'is', they are something that they are 'not').
3. What is the nature of mathematics as a phenomenon?

>>20258213
How do you measure flicker?

>>20258143
>OT is irrelevant
>The crucifixion only matters because of the Fall in Genesis
C’mon bro

>>20258355
have you read the NT?

>>20255726
>Do you know what the Pali Cannon interpretation of undergoing Nibbana is
What is it? (I genuinely want to know, since I can't make sense of Nirvana/Nibbana)

>>20255438
These arguments (repeated elsewhere in the thread but I chose to reply to this post) are completely misguided and missing the point.
Rationally, you have no way of really knowing what is "more likely" in metaphysical terms. Meta- or hyper-physical reality is by definition obscured from our full grasp.
Arguments about cosmological probability, one way or the other, are not rational but instead rationalizations of irrational elements of the core worldview. This is broadly true for every aspect of human understanding but it's ontologically true for metaphysics specifically.
The strongest theistic argument is that in this schema, revelation is necessary and meaningful. The strongest atheistic argument is that revelation is unreliable and even if it was not, pointless compared to material knowledge

>>20252125
He is a socialist who supports abortion and gay marriage so no.

>>20255482
Academic literary Buddhism, Westernized and stripped of otherworldly context, is not real Buddhism. I am sorry you had to find out this way

>>20255498
The whole world heard of it so it was objectively adequate

>>20255602
Because logical positivism got BTFO by bigger blacker apes than fundies, and their masochistic self-negating enablers, meanwhile anon is stuck in 2002
also he's coping

>>20256187
Yes anon, and all heresies have been seen before

>>20252125
Start with Spinoza

>>20252125
The Gods are an immutable part of the spirit world. Since when have they not?

>>20258885
>Gods
Anything good to read to understand how the Gods exist/function in reality?

>>20257803
This guy is the biggest fucking pseud ever and I laugh every time he's posted like he's some kind of authority.

>>20252125
Christianity is retarded, you could probably invent a new god that is consistent with we know about the world and argue that God exists. But not whatever is described in the bible

>>20257658
>Just because God doesn’t have a discursive mind that thinks about things like we do doesn’t make God into an insentient robot, because even if God has no mind he can still be conscious of the bliss and glory of his own Godly infinitude,
I don't think you're getting his point. How would God create something that he is not? If he doesn't have a human mind, then how would he create a human mind? You're back to creating something from nothing, which is exactly what Christians claim that God's existence avoids.

>>20256260
>Mind in a broader sense. If he doesn't have it, he is a robot popping out conscious beings and something for them to live in,
>How would he make something he fundamentally lacks
How would the Pain/Suffering cause your mental development, if the Pain is not sentient itself? Yeah...


>>20257658
>cosmological argument from contingency
Would you call lovecraftian Azathoth, the Blind Idiot, the Nuclear Chaos, a god?

>doesn’t make God into an insentient robot
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/
Sentience is overrated. You don't need it to solve shit.

>bliss and glory
Non-existent placeholders for words, that don't really mean shit.
>of his own Godly infinitude
"Infinitude" is like "a hole". When you try to describe a hole, you describe what its surroundings are not.
It's akin to saying that the Sun arises in the East and sets in the West. What does it even mean, when you are dealing with heliocentric model?
Errors of perception help you solve local problems, but that doesn't mean they really exist.


>>20260428
>If he doesn't have a human mind, then how would he create a human mind? You're back to creating something from nothing
If a magician doesn't create matter out of nothing, how the hell does he pull a coin out of your ear? Via ignorance. Via NEGLECT.
You merely delude yourself into thinking you are sentient, while in fact you're no different from a computer. Because it has always been computationally cheaper to solve things using as little info as possible => i.e. ignoring as much as possible.

Why get access to another ape's neurons, when you can roughly deduce it from some facial cues? You are constructed similarly enough, just emulate it.
Why check the bushes for predators, when you can correlate the shapes for signs of danger? Hail vague abstractions, cave-wall images and literacy.
Of course, the side effect is that you start to see fucking faces in the clouds, and attribute to your hallucinations the same intentional apparatus, that you successfully used to solve another ape's behaviours. Gods WANT something, gods have GLORY, etc. Because if a robot has a smiling face, he's actually really happy, yes-yes.

>You're back to creating something from nothing
You have created money out of nothing. Why assume that these colored papers are anything of worth, and not toilet paper? But since you do, you are acting out the same routines as others do, effectively merging into hivemind. Ignorance is constructive. Neglect creates. Lies are necessary for your survival.

>>20258648
Not what is being implied, Buddhism doesn't have a God. Devas are not "God"

>>20252125
Mere Christianity is also great