/lit/ - Literature

No

Christianity isn’t any more life denying than Islam or Buddhism.

>>20454091
Why?

Yeah

>>20454163
Why was he right?

>>20454077
Of course

>>20454099
True enough. Burn them with fire.

>>20454077
Yes.

>>20454077
Yes
>Why was he right?
A guy with that stache is never wrong.

>>20454077
why was he harsher on them then le spookie guy?

>>20454101
Metaphysics exists
Theism is true
Morality is objective
Of all the religions, Christianity best encapsulates the good.
Of all the religions, Christianity's historicity is the most valid.

>>20454271
do you have a single fact to back that up

>>20454265
Stirner had bigger fish to fry, like Feuerbach for instance.

>>20454271
How can you prove to me that (your) God is real and your morality is objective?

>>20454290
Which claim? All of them?

>>20454077
Yes.

>>20454297
I don't think I'm well equipped to prove the validity of the Christian God specifically (beyond saying that there is historical evidence for Jesus Christ), but I can prove that God must be personal in nature, much like the Abrahamic religions describe. There are only two kinds of entities that exist: concrete ones like two toy blocks, and abstract ones like the number 2 or the shape of a cube. But unlike concrete objects, abstract objects have no causal power. Therefore the cause of the universe cannot be abstract and must be concrete, yet also immaterial. The only immaterial and causal reality we know of is some kind of mind, which means the cause must be personal in nature.

>How can you prove your morality is objective?
I assume you meant for me to prove Christian morality is the true morality? Or do you want me to explain how morality in general is objective first?

>>20454364
>Metaphysics exists
If you believe in minds and math then that is enough to believe that there are objects beyond the physical.

>Theism is true
The following is copy-pasted from Ed Feser's "Five Proofs of the Existence of God". I'd suggest reading it yourself for a more thorough understanding of theism, but here is the Aristotelian proof: (its too long so I'll post in a reply)

>Morality is objective
First we must establish that the genre of evidence we're looking for is not material, so it cannot be demonstrated by science. Morality pertains to claims of "ought", not "is." Instead, we must work off of logic and intuition. There is a universal human conception of justice (what one is owed). Though many cultures have varying ideas of what is owed and to what degree, nevertheless the fundamental idea is there. While I consider this already to be the strongest evidence, universal human conviction extends beyond this. For one, cultures must prioritize caring for their young since they are the future. Secondly, all societies must presume in favor of truthfulness, otherwise communicating with others would be impossible. Finally, all societies must prohibit murder, or else individuals would strive to become self-sufficient rather than risk associating with a potential threat. All of these concepts are universal *and* moral, therefore universal (objective) morality exists.

>Of all the religions, Christianity best encapsulates the good.
For this to be true, you must accept the premises that 1) goodness is real, 2) God is the fullness of goodness, and 3) God established Christianity. I established 1 and 2 above. Premise 3 brings me to...

>Christianity's historicity is the most valid
Honestly, I don't believe I can qualify this claim well enough to be convincing. The best I can say is the historical evidence of Jesus Christ is far more convincing than the evidence for other historical events we consider to be true (e.g. the crossing of the Rubicon). Even many prominent atheists concede the life of Jesus Christ. However, I will say that the other claims previously mentioned narrow down the nature of the Divine to that of the Abrahamic religions, and intuitively, Christian morality seems the most correct of all of them.

>>20454504
Aristotelian Proof:
1. Change is a real feature of the world
2. But change is the actualization of a potential
3. So, the actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
4. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it (the principle of causality)
5. So, any change is caused by something already actual.
6. The occurrence of any change C presupposes something or substance S which changes.
7. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S’s potential for existence.
8. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
9. A’s own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence or (b) being purely actual.
10. If A’s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes (a), then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in (b) - a purely actual actualizer.
11. But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
12. So, either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
13. So, the occurrence of C[hange] and thus the existence of S[ubstance] at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
14. So, there is a purely actual actualizer.
15. In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that such an actualizer has that the others lack.
16. But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
17. So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer.
18. So there is only one purely actual actualizer.
19. In order for this purely actual actualizer to be capable of change, it would have to have potentials capable of actualization.
20. But being purely actual, it lacks any such potentials.
21. So, it is immutable or incapable of change.
22. If this purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be capable of change [for time is what we use to measure change], which it is not.
23. So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of time.
24. If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be changeable and exist in time, which it does not.
25. So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial.
(cont.)

>>20454538
Aristotelian Proof cont.
26. If the purely actual actualizer were corporeal, then it would be material, which it is not.
27. So the purely actual actualizer is incorporeal.
28. If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
29. So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect.
30. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation - that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.
31. A purely actual actualizer, being purely actual, can have no such privation.
32. So, the purely actual actualizer is fully good.
33. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.
34. Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by the purely actual actualizer or by a series of actualizers which terminates in the purely actual actualizer.
35. So, all power derives from the purely actual actualizer
36. But to be that from which all power derives is to be omnipotent.
37. So the purely actual actualizer is omnipotent.
38. Whatever is in an effect is in its cause in some way, whether formally, virtually, or eminently the principle of proportionate causality).
39. The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things.
40. So, the forms or patterns manifest in all the things it causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.
41. These forms or patterns can exist either in the concrete way in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
42. They cannot exist in the purely actual actualizer in the way they exist in individual particular things.
43. So, they must exist in the purely actual actualizer in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
44. So, the purely actual actualizer has an intellect or intelligence.
45. Since it is the forms of patterns of all things that are in the thoughts of this intellect, there is nothing that is outside the range of those thoughts.
46. For there to be nothing outside the range of something’s thoughts is for that thing to be omniscient.
47. So, the purely actual actualizer is omniscient.
48. So, there exists a purely actual cause of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient.
49. But for there to be such a cause of things is just what it is for God to exist.
50. So, God exists.

>>20454099
He did say that Buddhism is a life denying, decadent, nihilistic religion.

>>20454538
>>20454544
Imagine using such mental gymnastics to try to prove a fairy tale embarrassing.

>>20454504
>>20454538
No.

>>20454271
>Christianity's historicity is the most valid
Is the epistemological weightposter STILL here?

>>20454504
>Morality pertains to claims of "ought", not "is." Instead, we must work off of logic and intuition. There is a universal human conception of justice (what one is owed). Though many cultures have varying ideas of what is owed and to what degree, nevertheless the fundamental idea is there. While I consider this already to be the strongest evidence, universal human conviction extends beyond this. For one, cultures must prioritize caring for their young since they are the future. Secondly, all societies must presume in favor of truthfulness, otherwise communicating with others would be impossible. Finally, all societies must prohibit murder, or else individuals would strive to become self-sufficient rather than risk associating with a potential threat. All of these concepts are universal *and* moral, therefore universal (objective) morality exists.
Isn't this argument undermined by the fact that the three examples you list are pragmatic? If they weren't followed to some degree, the society in question would perish. The fact that most extant societies follow them only suggests that they work, not that they derive from an external source. Like with evolution, the demands of one's environment don't constitute some kind of moral obligation upon the creature's lineage to change to adapt and survive (become fit). Furthermore, in many historical societies these rules only apply to people in the in-group. It is permitted to lie to outgroup members, to mistreat and kill and sexually use their young, and to kill them. We see these things even in the Old Testament.

>>20454538
>No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it
This is just an obtuse way of saying "everything has a cause," but you'll caveat that "god is outside of everything and uncaused because I said so that's why"

>>20454271
>Metaphysics exists
You don't provide any evidence for this
>Morality is objective
And yet you probably don't approve of slavery
>Of all the religions, Christianity best encapsulates the good.
I wouldn't describe pogroms and witch burnings as very 'good'
>Of all the religions, Christianity's historicity is the most valid.
No more than that of Islam

>>20454538
>>20454544
Teleology is utter nonsense and doesn't take into account the survivorship bias

>>20454077
Every thread is the same huh

>>20455197
Yes, it's christtards bombarding us with the same few claims over and over again (usually Christianity true, and Aquinas), people criticizing and disputing this, and then christtards just pretending they didn't hear this or something, pretending that what they believe in is still 100% true, and then repeating the same thing the next thread.

And all because they just can't accept they'll die one day

>Obviously the little community had not understood the most important thing, the exemplary way of his dying, the freedom, the superiority over every feeling of ressentiment:— an indication of how little they understood him at all! In fact, there was nothing Jesus could want from his death besides publicly giving the strongest test, the proof of his teaching [...] the veneration gone wild of these totally unhinged souls could no longer stand that evangelical granting of equal rights to everyone to be a child of God, as Jesus had taught: their revenge was to raise Jesus aloft in an extravagent manner, and cut themselves off from him [...] The One God and the One Son of God: both products of ressentiment
Sounds about right

>>20455200
That's fine and all but why does anyone still participate in these threads. It's the same pic and question every time. You'd think something of value has been said already, to end the interest in this but the real interest is in pointless /lit/ debates. SAD!

>>20455209
Nietzsche threads should be avoided for anyone who reads and likes Nietzsche.

>>20455209
I hope to convince someone of my point of view. Cynicism is for losers. If you believe in what you believe, you should have no problem providing good and solid reasons for it. And if you can't, you shouldn't believe in it.

As far as I know, Christianity has few if any good reasons to believe in it, so I don't believe in it, and anyone who looks at it, and sees the same lack of reasons to believe in it shouldn't believe in it either. That or they should just admit that it's a nice story, but no more worthwhile than any other story

>>20454538
Some guy on reddit debunks this? I'm not sure. His first claim seems to be that change is not a feature of the world but of time. It is difficult to understand his counter argument because he's just so sarcastic but maybe you should look into it.

>>20455219
Christianity still has its place among some people and they and those around them benefit. Not many on this board though. I’ve noticed the larpers have been dying out

>>20455246
>and they and those around them benefit.

Which is the exact opposite message of Christianity

>>20454366

First, I don't really think this argument is that convincing because I think the more convincing idea is that there was simply always existence. There's no need for a creator. It's just a feature of the universe that things always existed. But, anyway...

> There are concrete entities.
> There are abstract entities.

> Abstract entities do not have causal power.
> The universe was caused, and so must have began with something non-abstract.

You then leap to "Therefore the cause of the universe cannot be abstract and must be concrete, yet also immaterial." without providing any reason as to why the causal entity would have to be immaterial.

What if there was just always material?

But, anyway, let's grant you that this is true. Let's grant the below.

> Therefore the cause of the universe cannot be abstract and must be concrete, yet also immaterial.
> The only immaterial and causal reality we know of is some kind of mind, which means the cause must be personal in nature.

What if there was something else that was not a mind that was immaterial and causal.

What if there are minds which are totally non-personal in nature.

You would not know these things, since you are not omniscient.

>>20454366
>Therefore the cause of the universe cannot be abstract and must be concrete, yet also immaterial.
Doesn't follow
>The only immaterial and causal reality we know of is some kind of mind, which means the cause must be personal in nature.
Also doesn't follow. Intelligence requires an explanation, you can't just assume this

>>20455234
how the fuck does that prove god exist, still exist or even is your god or any ones god, it just eludes to something might exist/have existed, what proves theres some kind of intelligence like a divine god and its not just some inconceivable process of the natural world/our existence and its all happenstance?

>>20455234
Here >>20455196

this shits no better then saying because theres people and animals there must have been divine intelligence to create it, we dont even understand the world around us let alone the world out side, and expect some scitzo rational to be the end all be all

Daily reminder that he was a Christian himself who despised atheism and nihilism. People get the wrong idea because he had some criticisms of religion but that never made him atheist

>>20455174
>Isn't this argument undermined by the fact that the three examples you list are pragmatic?
I agree, which is why I considered only the argument regarding the universal idea of justice to be the strongest. Justice is not needed in order for a society to survive, and the concept even exists on an individual level. It can even be argued that societies arose in order to better perpetuate justice.

>>20455179
Anything whose essence is not identical with its existence is contingent, but if all things are contingent, then no contingencies would exist.

>>20455194
>You don't provide any evidence for this
What would be sufficient evidence for minds to exist? What would be sufficient evidence for math to exist?

>And yet you probably don't approve of slavery
Yeah, because it is objectively wrong.

>I wouldn't describe pogroms and witch burnings as very 'good'
Pogroms are not exclusive to Christianity. Witch burning was condemned by the Church. When describing something as good, to what standard do you hold goodness and why?

>No more than that of Islam
This is why I haven't really bothered with developing my historical defense of Christianity; we very much live in an age where history has become muddied with skepticism of authority. And because history is perpetuated by authority, I could give you the most unbiased and credible sources and it would still boil down to a matter of "he said/she said." It is better to be open to theism and go from there.

>>20455200
>all because they just can't accept they'll die one day
Existentially speaking, I'd rather have no accountability and face the void than have the smallest chance of hell.

>>20455234
Time is how we measure change so I'm not sure what he could mean by this. He's essentially saying "change is not a feature of the world but of the way we measure change."

>>20455286
>There was simply always existence. What if there was just always material?
Physicality does not account for causality. A sandbox full of sand does not magically make sandcastles out of itself. If material was all there was, the universe would be an incoherent bundle of atoms. In fact, there would not even be atoms, as atoms are always moving.

>You would not know these things, since you are not omniscient.
It would also require a level of omniscience to know there is no God. And indeed, we cannot know *what* God is except through revealed theology, but one can know *that* God is through natural theology.

>>20454366
>Doesn't follow
The argument I used here was from Trent Horn's opening statement in his debate against CosmicSkeptic. Prior to making this claim, he establishes why the cause of the universe must be immaterial (because the universe is the collection of all material things and the universe could not have caused itself).

>Intelligence requires an explanation
Given the other attributes of the Divine (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence), I'd say that's sufficient explanation for intelligence.

>>20454077
He was absolutely right about Christianity. There have been several threads giving Christians the chance to refute what he said and none of them have been able to do so. This thread is a great example: https://archived.moe/lit/thread/20423381/#20423381

>>20455712
Bunch of children in this thread.
Girard bent Nietzsche over and gave him a spanking. Post Nietzscheans will never recover and you guys are a bunch of kids. Grow up.

>>20455200
Arguing with Christians is a fool’s game. Hell, arguing with any followers of major religions is a fool’s game. They have over a thousand years of coping and apologetics from their church “scholars”. The only real refutations and arguments against Christianity we had in the ancient world were from Romans/Greeks, and these texts are lost (or got destroyed considering Christians were the ancient ANTIFA).

>>20455450
>if all things are contingent, then no contingencies would exist
You're getting closer to nirvana little christoid. Better luck next life

>>20455848
>The only real refutations and arguments against Christianity we had in the ancient world were from Romans/Greeks
Imperiumbros, I kneel...

>>20455896
Based and animal-pilled. If this is who I think it is, there's a passage where he suggests dogs are more virtuous than men

>>20455780
Girard’s arguments against Nietzsche is appealing to “h-he influenced Nazism!”. Or even worse, thinking that Nietzsche’s Dionysus is the power of the masses and the scapegoat mechanism. Retarded as fuck.

Early Christians in Rome are exactly like Muslims in the west today

Let that sink in

no

>>20455450
> Physicality does not account for causality.
>A sandbox full of sand does not magically make sandcastles out of itself.
>If material was all there was, the universe would be an incoherent bundle of atoms.
>In fact, there would not even be atoms, as atoms are always moving.


But God makes himself somehow? Immaterial things are self-assembling? How would you even know this?

>>20455450
>It would also require a level of omniscience to know there is no God
You can say this about a near infinite amount of things. I can't categorically state that there are no unicorns simply because I've never seen one. Why should there be a burden to disprove every man-made notion when we have nearly infinite of those? I also don't want to be purposefully agnostic about all of them because then I'm living in a world where I must conclude I know almost nothing for certain, except the that I think and at some level my thoughts necessitate an extant conscious entity (me).

>>20454169
>Burn them with fire.
Incompetent beyond belief. How else can you burn them?

No he had syphilis.

>>20454237
But Jesus had a stache too.

>>20456904
No, he didn't have syphilis, autopsy was a thing even back then you historically illiterate buffoon, he was examined by a doctor when he had the mental breakdown, no syphilis was found.

>>20456730
You misunderstand; God does not make Himself, He simply is. It is impossible to say *how* God is uncaused, but it is easy to say *why*: Everything in the universe is demonstrably contingent - they are all moved by something other than themselves, are all caused by something other than themselves, and all depend on something other than themselves to exist. Yet this principle cannot be logically applied to all of reality. An infinitely long chain does not explain why a chandelier is hanging; there must be a ceiling. An infinitely long line of train cars does not explain why it is moving; there must be a locomotive. In this same sense, there must be a necessary being for contingent beings to exist. To demonstrate that this necessary being has divine attributes requires further explanation, but I hope that the logic up to this point seems straightforward.

>>20456825
This is not analogous to natural theology. Claiming that unicorns exist is a positive statement and requires physical evidence to prove. The conclusion that God exists comes from making negative statements by observing the laws of the universe, and is more akin to a mathematical equation. It is like trying to find X in 1 + X = 4. One must deduce and work backwards from 4 - 1 to find that X = 3. I would put it analogously it like this:
"All material objects are contingent" + "contingent beings rely on something external to exist" + X = "Material objects exist." It must follow that X = "there is something external that is not material". Similar logic can be used to prove how of any potential number of immaterial things, only one is truly necessary, and how such a thing would have divine attributes.

>>20454659
Buddhisms nihilism is hygienic unlike Christianity

>>20455780
His scapegoat idea is retarded

>>20457308
only makes it worse
the nigga didn't even have a sex disease like a cool guy

>>20454077
So fucking sick of seeing this faggot. No, I couldn’t give less of a shit what he had to say about anything.

>>20455952
No they were not lol

>>20455848
Based. The authors of those texts are burning in Hell as we speak while those who destroyed them are in Heaven.

>>20457893
>contingent beings rely on something external to exist
Says who? Your metaphysics demand it? Not an argument.

>>20457969
Yeah, plenty of murders and rapists are in heaven, you'll fit right in.

>>20457893
What if, beyond this universe, in the container for our universe, the rules of causality do not apply?

What if, beyond our universe, in the "divine realm" there is no such requirement for a first mover?

I feel like the issue with all of this is that we are trying to understand something beyond our universe with assumptions from our universe.

And even if you could prove this, it would only prove a first mover. It would not make this God a moral one, or one that ought to be worshipped.

>>20457998
>the first cause must be uncaused
>therefore it must be a being that is three in one, incarnated himself as a human to die on a cross and hated foreskins until changing his mind
>I know this is true because a couple of fisherman believed that their cult leader came back from the dead

>>20454366
The mind is material.

>>20454077
>Is he right about christianity?
God, no.

>>20454077
yes
>>20454099
equally foolish, he does address relgious as a whole firstly, but in Twilight of the Gods, he does denounce Christianity as the most VIRAL and DESTRUCTIVE.

I don't remember Muslim's launching a nuke at Israel...

No

>>20454296
>feuerbach
>bigger fish
top kek

>>20457985
Says the basic everyday observations which metaphysics is based on.

>>20457998
>What if, beyond this universe, the rules of causality do not apply? I feel like the issue with all of this is that we are trying to understand something beyond our universe with assumptions from our universe

This is as coherent as saying "What if, beyond this universe, triangles didn't have three sides?" We must not conflate the universe with reality itself. Indeed, there are things in this universe that may not be true in another universe, but there are certain rules woven into the very fabric of reality upon which all things must obey. The principle of causality is one of those rules.

>it would only prove a first mover. It would not make this God a moral one
I agree; deductive reasoning must qualify each claim one at a time. However, once the idea of an unmoved mover is established, it is not a far leap to identify it as the most fundamental reality, and even less so to realize that the fundamental reality would be the source of all morality.

>>20454544
https://youtu.be/XoVDutpB4Cw

Feser when he has to argue against real philosophers is embarrassing

>>20455200
You've failed to dispute anything.

>>20454077
Yes, but he's gay.

>>20458528
prove it. should be easy. just explain the material process for why people have near death experiences after they have been declared medically dead.

>another Nietzsche v Christianity thread

Don't you people get tired of this shit? Same conversation on repeat.

>>20455896
Based as fuck. Source?

>>20459349

>This is as coherent as saying "What if, beyond this universe, triangles didn't have three sides?" We must not conflate the universe with reality itself. Indeed, there are things in this universe that may not be true in another universe, but there are certain rules woven into the very fabric of reality upon which all things must obey. The principle of causality is one of those rules.

Please prove that.


> I agree; deductive reasoning must qualify each claim one at a time. However, once the idea of an unmoved mover is established, it is not a far leap to identify it as the most fundamental reality, and even less so to realize that the fundamental reality would be the source of all morality.

We can get to this later, I guess.


Also, just to be clear, my overall my real beef with you is the level of certainty you have when making statements about a universe totally not your own.

I am interested to hear how your proof for how certain rules are "woven into reality" as opposed to "features of our perception based off the universe we live in".

>>20459506
Not him but how do you feel about mathematics? Do you consider it to be woven into reality or just a result of our perception of reality?

>>20454091
>>20454271
Based and True.
>>20454290
>>20454297
>>20455163
>>20455194
Yikes. Are you really going to argue with the science? Not a good look, chud.

>>20459536
Hey man, feel free to hop on in.

There's room for everyone in this metaphysical extravaganza, friend.

>>20459349
So you can't prove metaphysics, got it, you lost.

>>20459418
This nigga implying that mind isn't material, hahahahahahaha, finish highschool retard. Open a biology and a neuroscience book.

>>20459418
I can actually explain this to a far greater extent than you can with any immaterial explanation.

I can say something like "There is some yet to-be-described activity amongst the neurons of the brain".

Now, does that explain anything, really? No.

But brains do exist, and certainly there is some unit that the brain is divisible into, which is the neuron.

Neurons certainly carry electricity, which has, in the absolute least, a strong correlation with consciousness and thought generally.

So, I at least have a setup with my idea, just not the conclusion. Every feature of the setup is undoubtable. You would literally be taking off from the planet to doubt these things.

I would be eager to see how you would somehow provide an immaterial explanation for these phenomenon that is more satisfactory than that.

>>20457953

>>20459634
Just curious - are you supporting >>20459349
or against it?

>>20460335
wait no you're clearly against neve rmind.

OP of >>20459751

If you have specific examples let me know.

Even with them - every process in the universe is material. Even the quantum is material. There's nothing that is explained "by magic".

But still, examples would be kewl.

>>20454077
I can't really say for sure. I just know he's a good route for those who have abandoned god completely. He's so important to study in depth, now more than ever.

Somebody recommend me Nietzschean fantasy?

>>20455206
>veneration gone wild of these totally unhinged souls
Veneration .... GONE WILD X Videos.
Sounds kinda hot desu

>>20455450
>we very much live in an age where history has become muddied with skepticism of authority. And because history is perpetuated by authority, I could give you the most unbiased and credible sources and it would still boil down to a matter of "he said/she said
Hahaha this is the biggest cope holy shit. One of your supposedly infallible popes would have prostitutes compete to pick up chestnuts off the floor using their mouths. Whoever got the most got to have sex with him. Look up the feast of chestnuts.
You're just mad that history conflicts with your view of the church, and so are experiencing some heavy cognitive dissonance.
I also love that you describe skepticism of authority as "muddying history". Way to out yourself as a total retard incapable of independent thought.

>>20459349
>What if, beyond this universe, triangles didn't have three sides?" We must not conflate the universe with reality itself. Indeed, there are things in this universe that may not be true in another universe, but there are certain rules woven into the very fabric of reality upon which all things must obey. The principle of causality is one of those rules.
Yes WITHIN reality there are certain rules. How do you know those rules apply to a hypothetical transcendent reality, which we have no means of observing.
I honestly despise you Thomists a million times more than the average Christcuck or mystic.
At least they will admit it's about the feels instead of attempting these contorted mental gymnastics.

>>20459418
>declared medically dead.
They don't. There is a reason theyre called "near death experiences". No one has ever recovered from brain death.
Near death experiences are fascinating but they dont prove anything immaterial since the brain is still functioning, even if minimally.

>>20454077
Well, what if I'm wrong, I mean — anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot. You happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in a Christian faith. You know what it's like to not believe in a particular faith because you're not a Muslim. You're not a Hindu. Why aren't you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India, you'd be a Hindu. If you had been brought up in Denmark in the time of the Vikings, you'd be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece, you'd be believing in Zeus. If you were brought up in central Africa, you'd be believing in the great Juju up the mountain. There's no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian god, in which by the sheerest accident you happen to have been brought up and ask me the question, "What if I'm wrong?"

>>20454077
yeah there were major philosophical decisions in the medieval church which influenced theological doctrine fundamentally and changed the basis of Christianity over the course of 700 years for the worse, ultimately destroying coherence of the church. I think nietzsche was speaking specifically about nominalism

>>20460695
>Well, what if I’m wrong?
this doesn’t prove atheism by any means - only agnosticism. arguing uncertainty concedes the certainty of some “true” religion, which I think the Christian can make the most compelling argument

>>20459506
>Also, just to be clear, my overall my real beef with you is the level of certainty you have when making statements about a universe totally not your own.
A fair criticism to have. My question for you is this: what level of certainty is appropriate to have? Why?

When you ask
>Please prove that
I admit that I can't. I can't prove that a triangle can have more or less than 3 sides as it would not be a triangle anymore. I can't prove causality - just ask Hume. However, I can *demonstrate* all of these things, and it is up to your prudential judgement to either believe these observations, or be skeptical of them. My overall beef with you is the level of skepticism you have when observing a universe that can be observed. Your skepticism doesn't seem to have an end, and you have yet to warrant it beyond the fact that I can't prove the obvious.

I would also like to hear what you have to say about mathematics as >>20459536
said.

>>20460680
>How do you know those rules apply to a hypothetical transcendent reality, which we have no means of observing
If this hypothetical reality cannot be observed, is it real? If it can be observed by its effects in this reality, it doesn't transcend it.

>>20460749
That's part of what I said. It's not possible to prove there is no god. Just like you can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, I can't prove the god from the Bible doesn't exist.

You think Christianity makes the most compelling argument, but billions and billions of others disagree. Let me ask, were you brought up by Christians? I wonder if that has something to do with your beliefs.

>>20461002
>other people disagree
I might remind you that Christianity represents a plurality of the world’s population. and judging by how it grew from some provincial backwater religion into the world’s most widespread faith constitutes the possibility of what many consider is a “compelling argument”. I think it might be a little more complicated than, “what is your parent’s faith?”, doesn’t it?
we know that Jesus was a real person, this isn’t really even disputed by secular historians. from there it’s just a matter of determining the veracity of the accounts that depict him weighed against the exploits of his direct followers, all of which cruelly died penniless, without families, without any guarantee of fame, and still being able to convert massive amounts of believers. how do you explain this? how can a man conquer the world through his death?

>>20461128
>I think it might be a little more complicated than, “what is your parent’s faith?”, doesn’t it?
I agree. The psychological, sociological, and generally historical study of how Christianity spread and continues to spread is a fascinating thing. I'm no scholar of this, whatsoever, but a few things off the top of my head
1. Christians have historically been very aggressive in converting others. Missionaries, kings forcibly converting conquered lands, modern day churches, etc
2. The idea of Christianity is a very, very effective meme, in the Darwinian sense. It's an easy-to-digest, easy-to-communicate idea that makes you feel good, so it spreads *extremely* easily.
3. Family/indoctrination. The question of "what is your parent's faith" isn't the whole story, but it's a significant part of it. You surely would agree that it's not a coincidence that most christians were born to christians, most muslims born to muslims, etc.

>>20454077
The intuition and style of the Germans can be compelling, but it's important to take a step back sometimes

>>20461166
this is a very nice get anon, I commend you.
>1.
compared to other revolutionary religions, Christianity has the fewest examples of forced conversion and the most examples of peaceful conversion. I would ask you what other religions dedicated such substantial effort into logical apologetics as Christians did with the various monastic orders that laid the foundation of scholastic and academic vigor.
>2.
I think the agnostic’s inclination to portray Christian theology as some series of happy-go-lucky mantras that a bunch of silly people can “swallow” betrays their own unwillingness to take their oppositions viewpoint seriously. I am not saying you are doing this intentionally, but I do think it borders on dishonesty.
>3.
I would surely agree that an allegiance to to a cultural heritage is a large part of some Christian’s faith, as it is many other faiths. but that doesn’t explain it’s growth and out pacing of every other world faith. surely there can be no increase without the conversion of non-believers.
you still haven’t answered my question as to how Christianity - a budding faith in antiquity with no clear ministry or doctrine at its outset managed to outlast multiple competing faiths at the time? it can pretty easily be argued that Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Neo-Platonism, or Mithraism had equally as digestible and enticing world-views. would you consider the possibility that the people of the time - much like you and me - cared more about truth than pretty promises and convenient myths?

>>20461211
Do you believe that the truth of a statement correlates strongly, or at all, with how easily and far the statement spreads? I ask this genuinely. Looking around at the world today, I’m inclined to believe it does not.

no.

>>20461284
No what?

>>20461302
no sir

>>20454659
How is Buddhism any more "decadent" then say, Catholicism?

>>20461273
> Do you believe that the truth of a statement correlates strongly, or at all, with how easily and far the statement spreads?
lmao, yes anon, I believe that there is power in truth. I believe that in order to act as though there is utility in persuasion, which we both obviously believe in, there must be an “ultimate good” which we are pursuing through conversation. the mere act of you giving me (You’s) proves this. I believe that in the absence of mutually agreed upon, eternally binding principles that precipitate the conception of truth within a cultural consciousness, a whirlwind of uncertainty will culminate into nihilism and sink all of humanity into nothingness because of each individual’s desire to make sense of the world independently and according to their own deracinated rationalism. do you think people are more “content” and well-adjusted in seeking the good life as informed by ideologies? how about economic models? what parallel civilizations are thriving through worship of the periodic table? what does agnosticism actually offer other than promising nothingness and isolation? sacrificing the hope of others on the altar of your own reason?
>Looking around at the world today, I’m inclined to believe it does not.
I’m inclined to believe that the times we live in are explicated in Nietzsche’s prediction of a world without a transcendent moral compass as represented by Christianity. it seems to me like you think that you are the only person who is attempting to seek truth, and that everyone ever are just mindless automata that have never made a decision past “Darwinian fitness” or “muh parents” or “muh memes”. the dissolution of objective morality and insistence of value-relativism is only proof of this cultural schizophrenia.

Why is this board so inundated with Christian apologist scum? Do you REALLY think upboating all things Christian on this shit hole will save you from the fire?

>>20461393
>why yes I believe that the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of God and greet me into eternal bliss, how could you tell?

>>20454077
Yes but also Islam was right about him
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iF5UNigdskdW/

>>20461398
What if you're wrong, fag?

>>20461418
I’m not

>>20461418
shills go home

>>20461386
Almost none of what you said applies to what I said, or the world today. I guess this is what happens when you think you will learn something from reading philosophy, but you’re just not intelligent enough to understand it and the world around you deeply enough.

>>20460797
>If this hypothetical reality cannot be observed, is it real? If it can be observed by its effects in this reality, it doesn't transcend it.
Wouldn't by definition a transcendent reality be something we couldn't observe? And I agree we don't know that it's real because we can't observe it; that is why it is only hypothetical. You were the one claiming that a transcendent reality would work according to the rules of this reality.

Nietzsche extolled Jesus the man. He criticized the image of Jesus. Of Jesus the Jew, invented by St. Paul. The question Nietzsche doesn't address - and that nobody ever can - is what Christianity would be if it weren't for Saint Paul. He suggests Christ's life was an example of master morality which is just as flimsy of an interpretation created by Saint Paul. Christianity is basically Pauline Christianity. There is no alternative.

Maybe there are some anons here who've also read this part in Genealogy of Morals who can correct me but he seems to hate Christianity because it's a vessel for slave morality and "ressentiment" which he also assigns as being a natural condition in most people so I don't really get his point. Seems like a roundabout way of saying Saint Paul created the ideal of Jesus as a trojan horse for slave morality.

>>20461128
>how can a man conquer the world through his death?
Abrahamic monotheism got picked up by Constatine as the ill-advised glue to hold his empire together since the army was increasingly Christian, i.e. drawn from provincial and less Roman sources. The rest is history.

>>20454297
If there is no objecive morality than everything is permissible and possible but we know that not everything is possibleamd therefore not everything is permissible. Cooperation requires consensus anf consensus requires compromise. God is an imago of metaphysical character to ensure that no mortal can taint that imago of consensus character to strive towards. Savvy?

He was right about syphilis.