/lit/ - Literature

>>20404024
Nothing can happen that can't happen. If a 'miracle' happens, then by virtue of its occurrence can happen. Since a miracle is the occurrence of an impossible event, by this argument it is not miraculous if it occurs.

Did you really get filtered this hard, or are you just baiting?

>>20404030
Okay let me rephrase it for OP's sake:
>the plurality of experience is wrong because... it just is, okay?!

>>20404030
What is considered something occuring by the laws of nature? We can make plastics, but where in nature do plastics naturally occur?

>>20404046
>What is considered something occuring by the laws of nature?
Whatever that occurs is a natural phenomenon. Whatever cannot occur is by definition unnatural. It's a broader (and maybe useless) definition of what is and isn't natural, but it is an argument that very neatly sidesteps the infinite reflexivity by which people define it if we allow looser definitions.

>What we cant understand, cant happen
seems logical to me

>>20404073
> what we can't understand can't happen
> since we don't understand anything, nothing can happen
> this makes everything that happens a miracle
> if everything is a miracle then nothing is
> Miracles don't exist

Checks out

>>20404082
flawless argument

>>20404073
The irony is that Hume is explicitly accounting for the possibility of events which occur and which we don't understand. The actual, logical extension of what he's saying is that if an event occurs, it is not a miracle... which implies that we CAN understand it. Granted, Hume was alive in that wonderful time before quantum physics, whereby philosophers could still rationally expect (though admittedly through weak induction) to continue understanding phenomena. The existence of miracle is often taken to mean we can throw up our hands, praise God, and just accept it as it is without asking too many questions. This is a very loose paraphrasal, but:
>No, retard, the rains are not a miracle. They are a natural phenomenon with causality that can be known. If it is possible, it can be understood.
Again, QM — uncertainty, to be precise — kind of throws this up in the air, but let's not blame Hume for that.

>>20404024
Hume also believed that an Indian prince should not believe in the existance of snow if he had never seen it himself before.

>>20404097
>Again, QM — uncertainty, to be precise — kind of throws this up in the air
But we can also understand that uncertrainty in a logical way, just like paradoxes

>A miracle is something that violates the laws of nature,
>the laws of nature cannot be broken,
>therefore, there can be no such thing as a miracle.
Makes sense so far. However,
>If nature is contingent on God, then God can break the laws of nature,
>if the laws of nature can be broken by God, miracles are possible through God alone.
I feel like this is trivial...? Am I missing something here?

>>20404137
>if the laws of nature can be broken by God, miracles are possible through God alone.
Though god we cannot understand

>big bang theory enjoyers literally believe that something can come from nothing
>okay but God doesn't exist... BECAUSE HE JUST DOESN'T OKAY?!??!

>>20404082
>> if everything is a miracle then nothing is
All dogs are dogs, therefore dogs do not exist.
F L A W L E S S L O G I C

>>20404109
True, but there is a limit to that understanding. Knowing precisely where that limit lies and being able to work around that to some extent does not change the fact that there lurks a hole in the bottom of causality. If anything, that understanding is in and of itself the understanding that there exists a limit to human knowledge.

>>20404024
>I don't need to demonstrate that miracles can happen because...LOOK I JUST DON'T OKAY? JEEZ

>>20404159
>>big bang theory enjoyers literally believe that something can come from nothing
FYI, the leading theory is that the Universe goes through a state of expansion and will then compress back in on itself to an extremely dense tiny space. When the Universe compresses so much the "big bang" happens and the universe expands again. So the leading theory believes this is not the first time the Universe has existed. Though the question still remains of how did it come about in the first place.

>>20404159
If God can exist without a cause, so can the world.

>>20404184
yeah, I looked into this shit years ago
I don't remember the actual piece of information/article, but basically I do believe they have special machines that can hold a space of literally nothing inside them, and then observe that void over time and they found that particles did start to appear from nowhere

it was pretty interesting

>>20404159
>the universe could not have possibly exist without a cause but a being of infinite complexity with an infinite past and an infinite future somehow can

yeah sure thing

>>20404213
why? what makes you think the universe is equivalent to a Godly entity?

now we are getting into a theological debate expressly which I'm not sure you desired to get into

at the end of the day, if something can come from nothing, and the world can exist without a cause, then so can God, so you're not discounting the possibility of God existing

it refutes atheism entirely even if it doesn't prove anything else

>>20404226
I just love how your post automatically assumes that you can quantify the universe in comparison to God. Obviously, the universe is a known quantity to you.

It's so absurd that I really appreciate the absolute mindlessness behind it.

>>20404231
>what makes you think the universe is equivalent to a Godly entity

What makes you think it isn't?

>>20404024

>>20404287
all evidence pointing to the contrary

also, you literally don't believe in miracles or the supernatural so I have no idea why you're adopting this argument considering it refutes itself

dummy

>>20404330
>all evidence pointing to the contrary

What evidence?

>>20404333
do you have evidence pointing to the universe being supernatural in essence and going against the laws of nature? no because that's oxymoronic in of itself

your argument presupposes the universe taking on the same aspects we bestow onto God, since you're equalizing them, so you have to prove that there exists evidence of this

you cannot, therefore your argument is already refuted

>>20404030
that is not the definition of miracle for one and its definitely not the context people use the word in, which makes hume's quote sound like a pretentiously dumb attempt at saying something smart, it's like he wanted to use socrates' method of semantics at philosophy, except the conclusion he came to is entirely meaningless.

>what if I define x as not y and then say x cannot be y by definition but I try wrap it in le smart philosophyspeak
>wowe im so clever xdxd totally destroyed another popular idea that plebs believed in, take that theists

>>20404184
>Recompression of space into a new big bang
This is actually a failed theory, in that scientists believe that space will expand even faster in the future towards a big rip that will occur a few trillion years from now, by which point there will be no stars anyway, and the universe will be dead.

Of course, the physicists could be wrong, but then this would lend itself to the idea that the laws of nature are not constant. Hence it is rather disreputable at this point.

>>20404347
>going against the laws of nature

do you know anything about modern cosmology and quantum theory?

>>20404319
Hate this guy, what a massive fedora. He makes me seethe.
t. rascal

I believe in miracles. Where ya from, you sexy thang?

>>20404287
If you view the universe itself as the uncaused cause, you are a pantheist.

>>20404386
the universe is materialist in its very nature, it cannot by definition go beyond itself and adopt the term supernatural because it IS the state of being natural

how do you not get this already

>>20404319
That sentiment seems unrelatable now. Obviously the Enlightenment thinkers lived in a very different time. Now religion seems like a refuge from the soulless grind and Satanic degeneracy surrounding us.

>>20404401
An "uncaused cause" isn't necessarily supernatural. You're assuming the law of causality is eternal and any violation of it must then be "supernatural". This isn't the case.

>>20404347
>do you have evidence pointing to the universe being supernatural in essence and going against the laws of nature?

That is a textbook argument from ignorance. I can't explain something, therefore god dun did it. Doesn't make any sense.

Now, you claim that your specific version of a god caused the universe, and you claim that you have evidence for it. What is your evidence?

>>20404046
Plastics are a result humans manipulating naturally occurring resources into other things. Humans are part of nature. We are animals. Anything we do is natural for us and by our own nature. You cannot put a wall between man and the rest if the naturally occurring world.

Where in nature do beavers dams occur? They occurs when beavers manipulate naturally occurring resources into something else.

Our realm and the beavers realm is the same? The natural world. Everything we animals do? All the structures and tools and products we make are all included in the natural world. Dens, dams, cathedrals, plastics and any other thing.

>>20404401
And?

>>20404401
what are you gonna do about that, faggot

>>20404410
Maybe to you. I look at all the pathetic seething larpers who are really just after power, through latching onto the first religion that happens to be popular, and find that quote to be just as relevant today

>>20404420
you're ignoring my argument and creating a strawman

explain how the universe can be supernatural when the very essence of the universe is natural as a default state

you've asserted that the universe and God are equal in form and function, you've yet to explain how this can be

I won't attempt to argue further until you can get past this, otherwise I am arguing in futility

>>20404446
>explain how the universe can be supernatural when the very essence of the universe is natural as a default state

Again, this is a classic argument from ignorance. You can't explain it, therefore god dun did it. Like I told you, that doesn't make any sense.

Now, you made a claim, and you said you had evidence for this claim. If you don't present it, I have no reason to assume anything else other than that you're full of shit

>>20404426
>>20404431
That's great anon. Glad you've moved on from your atheist phase.

>>20404424
Since when did beavers do heavy chemical refinement to build their dams?

>>20404469
you assumed the universe is supernatural by default and then gave no arguments to support it

how do you actually expect me to take you seriously here? you're clearly unwilling to actually argue this honestly so this ends here, what a waste of my time

>>20404410
I mean to be honest, David Hume said this to the religious James Boswell, who was visiting him on his death bed and was acting like a rascal

> The most famous depiction of Hume’s dying days, at least in our time, comes from James Boswell, who managed to contrive a visit with him on Sunday, 7 July 1776. As his account of their conversation makes plain, the purpose of Boswell’s visit was less to pay his respects to a dying man, or even to gratify a sense of morbid curiosity, than to try to fortify his own religious convictions by confirming that even Hume could not remain a sincere non-believer to the end. In this, he failed utterly.

> ‘Being too late for church,’ Boswell made his way to Hume’s house, where he was surprised to find him ‘placid and even cheerful … talking of different matters with a tranquility of mind and a clearness of head which few men possess at any time.’ Ever tactful, Boswell immediately brought up the subject of the afterlife, asking if there might not be a future state. Hume replied that ‘it was possible that a piece of coal put upon the fire would not burn; and he added that it was a most unreasonable fancy that we should exist for ever’. Boswell persisted, asking if he was not made uneasy by the thought of annihilation, to which Hume responded that he was no more perturbed by the idea of ceasing to exist than by the idea that he had not existed before he was born. What was more, Hume ‘said flatly that the morality of every religion was bad, and … that when he heard a man was religious, he concluded he was a rascal, though he had known some instances of very good men being religious.’

>>20404579
Is someone using a dying man to desperately affirm his own devotion to his religion truly a religious person?

>>20404590

People were pretty angry back then that atheist David Hume died at ease.

> The most prominent and controversial public account of Hume’s final days came instead from an even more famous pen: that of Adam Smith, Hume’s closest friend. Smith’s letter contains none of the open impiety that pervades Boswell’s interview, but it does chronicle – even flaunt – the equanimity of Hume’s last days, depicting the philosopher telling jokes, playing cards, and conversing cheerfully with his friends. It also emphasises the excellence of Hume’s character; indeed, Smith concluded the letter by declaring that his unbelieving friend approached ‘as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit’.

> Though relatively little known today, in the 18th century Smith’s letter caused an uproar. He later proclaimed that it ‘brought upon me 10 times more abuse than the very violent attack I had made upon the whole commercial system of Great Britain’ – meaning, of course, The Wealth of Nations (1776). Throughout his life, Smith had generally gone to great lengths to avoid revealing much about his religious beliefs – or lack thereof – and to steer clear of confrontations with the devout, but his claim that an avowed skeptic such as Hume was a model of wisdom and virtue ‘gave very great offence’ and ‘shocked every sober Christian’ (as a contemporary commented).

> James Boswell himself deemed Smith’s letter a piece of ‘daring effrontery’ and an example of the ‘poisonous productions with which this age is infested’. Accordingly, he beseeched Samuel Johnson to ‘step forth’ to ‘knock Hume’s and Smith’s heads together, and make vain and ostentatious infidelity exceedingly ridiculous. Would it not,’ he pleaded, ‘be worth your while to crush such noxious weeds in the moral garden?’

> Nor did the controversy subside quickly. Nearly a century later, one prolific author of religious tomes, John Lowrie, was still sufficiently incensed by Smith’s letter to proclaim that he knew ‘no more lamentable evidence of the weakness and folly of irreligion and infidelity’ in ‘all the range of English literature’.

>>20404319

>>20404024
he's such a midwit, he singlehandedly fucked philosophy with no return

>>20404030
>nothing can happen that can't happen
what about circumstances

>>20404097
quantum physics in no way stops us from understanding phenomena

>>20404619
that's quite literally westboro Baptist church level of argument in the inverse.
The fact someone died "at peace" doesn't in any way shape or form imply Satan isn't giving his soul molten lead enemas for eternity.

>>20405251
>that's quite literally westboro Baptist church level of argument in the inverse.
And it was enough to enrage religious people at the time. Christcucks have always been retards incapable of rational argument.

>>20404024
He is correct, but only from the standpoint of the universe, where everything is ordered and determined. From the standpoint of the individual, miracles can happen.

>>20405278
No.

>>20405298
18th century Bible thumpers got enraged by a stupid irrational argument that Smith wasn't even making. A clear sign of idiocy.

>>20405312
>source my ass

>>20404024
>a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature
Augustine and the natural - supernatural distinction was a mistake. It introduced so much bloody confusion in western thought. This definition is imbecilic. Not to mention that no one rigorously uses the term 'miracle' in this way. People call having babies, something eminently natural, a miracle all the time. Miracles are about subjective wonder (psychologically) and a strengthening of faith (religiously) not metaphysical propositions about reality.

This is your reminder that Hume's entire work is specious since it rests on the nirvana fallacy, and his skepticism is downright insane.

>>20404024
>argument is wrong because... IT JUST IS OKAY?!1

>>20404024
> and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these law.
I don't get this. Is it just a lack of imagination, or some kind of empirical chauvinism? We have a firm experience of local scale events, of phenomenally present objects, and we can understand their essence, but we do not have a firm experience of pretty much anything else...
Also, if Godel's incompleteness theorem means that there are mathematical axioms that are valid yet have no proof of their validity, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there a also existential "axioms" that may be "valid" but illogical?

>>20405334
it's not even an argument

>>20404030
>>20404055
You get it, but are missing the background - the mindbogglingly idiotic hard distinction between nature and supernature.

>>20405337
yup,you got it in one, he had no concept of events on anything but local scale

>>20405200
On the contrary, a belief in God is the first sign of mental illness

>>20405325
I mean I was assuming the green text here >>20404619 was accurate. You assumed the same thing in your response >>20405251

>>20404553
>you assumed the universe is supernatural by default

Where?

>>20404510
And I'm disappointed you have still yet to move on from your christlarper phase

Don't worry though. In five years Buddhism will be the hit religion, and you'll happily jump on that bandwagon

>>20405352
yes I get it wland I'm criticizing the mindset, I'm begrudging the idea that this was the opinion of normal Christian people rather than of black pillers and/or westboro tier retards, and to your claim that Christians can't make logical argument given that the propesity fir them seems to have diminished rather than expanded since the times of the monasteries

>>20405337
>Also, if Godel's incompleteness theorem means that there are mathematical axioms that are valid yet have no proof of their validity, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there a also existential "axioms" that may be "valid" but illogical?
This is a horrible mangling of Godel. Something that should dissuade people from trying to distort Godel into supporting whatever non-mathematical position they hold is that the incompleteness theorem says that whatever unprovable axiom OR IT"S NEGATION are valid. The continuum hypothesis is the best example of an unprovable statement and work has been done assuming either the continuum hypothesis or it's negation.

>>20405374
Scholasticism is irrational garbage. The "logic" involved is the logic of I said so or this guy before me said so.

>>20405374
>westboro tier retards
These people used to be the norm, since... the average man is an imbecile. The shoe is merely on the other foot this time, since atheism is a pretty mainstream position, so plenty of brain rotted midwits subscribe to it. Who knows, 2 centuries from now the shoe might switch to the previous foot.