/lit/ - Literature

I doubt that you are able to read

The creator mythos is so stupid, when you try to apply this logic to any "creators" the answer is always something like, "Oh no, MY creator has no creator, he has always been" or some shit like that

>>21717955
Who created the creator

>>21717955
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
Alvin Plantinga - Warranted Christian Belief
William Lane Craig - Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
Edward Feser - Five Proofs of the Existence of God
Frank Turek - I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Lee Strobel - The Case for Christ
Ravi Zacharias - Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message

>>21717969
>>21717971
>>21717983
An enemy that numbers time in millennia with a cultural basis that goes back to preliterate man and symbolism rooted in primordial homonids appears!
>[(You)--Choose your fighter]!
a) Richard Dawkins: rat-faced evolutionary biologist who popularized the word meme (secret weapon: Scientism; weakness: Kafka)
b) Sam Harris: midwit who solved the problem of induction (secret weapon: meditiation; weakness: complex thought)
c) Christopher Hitchens: reformed commie/former fag with great talent for rhetoric (secret weapon: alcoholic snark (aka Hitchslap); weakness: Neoconservatism)
d) Daniel Dennett: Saturday morning philosopher (secret weapon: midwit empowerment (aka Reddit); weakness: phenomenology)
>(You): WEAPONIZED CONDESCENTION! ALL FOUR HORSEMEN, I CHOOSE (You)s!
*****[Fight!]*****
>(You) choose: YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS, DO YOU?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy isn't 4 and is unimpressed you don't believe in Santa. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: WHY DON'T YOU WORSHIP ZEUS?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Even myth is meaningful in a way not reducible to materialism. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: SCIENCE THOUGH!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy brings up the history of science and its complex relationship and continuing interplay with religion. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: FEDORA TIP!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>(You) choose: NO YOU!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>[(You) have fainted.]

>>21718008
whoa, being being such a fag

>>21717971
>>21717983
>begging the question
Not an argument

>>21718011
>being being
You fainted.

>>21717955
With the variety of religion on the planet I think debunking the atheist notion is stupid.

Honest question, which do you think should be debunked not believing in first?

>>21718008
>typing all that shit to cope with his creationist myth
you know you can be religious and also accept that evolution functionally makes more sense with our understanding of reality

>>21718017

>>21718031
>evolution functionally makes more sense with our understanding of reality
No, not really; but you're free to believe that you're a monkey if you choose to

>>21718043
I mean, we did see evolution happen in animals in our lifespan.
Selective breeding is also something which is real.

If these things are true then if we waited a couple of millions of years don't you think one species can become another?

>>21717983
>

>>21718008
You whining won't change the truth that they're right

>>21718043
evolution is how the iPhone came to be too actually, if you're not trolling you should kys for being so low iq, let the gene pool pick from more fit individuals, to evolve

>>21718052
>christard can't answer so he copes with le funy poopoo picture

>>21718050
Selective breeding is creationism in action

>>21718059
>multiple grammatical errors in only one sentence
Don't think it's my I!Q that the gene pool needs to worry about, anon

>>21718061
>

>>21718062
so, did god creator humans from monkeys in your view? y/n?

>>21718064
>>>21718052
>>christard can't answer so he copes with le funy poopoo picture

>>21718067
Of course not. The difference between man and God is that God does not need preexisting matter for his creations, whereas we do because we are not capable of creating a breed of dog from thin air.

>>21718043
They literally test your meds on monkeys because they're the animal model closest to humans

Why does all the text look funny?
I feel disturbed and anxious, did a robot make this?

>>21718077
take your meds then

>>21718063
>I!Q
ironic
arguments are won over typos after all, you lose

>>21717955
>The best worldview reflects the human condition
>Christianity is the only worldview that's completely irrational
>The human condition is completely irrational
>Ergo Christianity is the only worldview that reflects the human condition
>Ergo Christianity is the best worldview
Have a good day op.

>>21717955
Atheism logically boils down to, "Nothing exists." This because they basically deify time and what is real to them is decay, destruction, ancient ruins, and the heat death of the universe. Disproving atheism is just showing that nothingness can never be proved to exist so it's a pure object of faith. In fact, true atheism is a true leap of faith into the void without Christ. As such, you can logically say some type of existence exists and as such Existence must be a category which we call God. Atheism is actually just anti-Yahwehism and they are just too blind to know. Theistic biblical agnosticism, that is that God is certainly real but may not be the Biblical God is actually the only logically defendable position and even then it requires ignoring the grandeur of Scripture and Its Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Jesus is Lord.

>>21718059
t. has zero children lmfao

>>21717955
If you love your "creator" this much, you must also love the torsion of the left testicle. Making arguments on a basis you know nothing about is a lazy bait.

>>21718096
It's just embarrassing at this point.

>>21717983
What preceded time?

>>21718083
>the only worldview that's completely irrational
wasnt this (((guy))) supposed to be nietzschean existentialist?
there's an infinite hilbert room full of such worldviews and someone somewhere will always reach his full potential with them

>>21718094
whats your point?

>>21717971
>>21717983
I think you don't understand the difference between necessary and contingent entities and you don't understand contingency arguments IN GENERAL. The argument is NOT that everything that exists needs an explanation for it's existence. The argument is that everything the BEGINS to exist demands an explanation for it's existence. The universe DID begin, at least all available data suggests that, and no observable data could possibly show the opposite, ie no instance of an 'eternal or infinite past' could ever even be observed (you can't go back to some point infinitely far back and say 'here it is! we found it!) or even logically inferred (infinite temporal regress is by definition illogical) and so so the universe DOES demand an explanation for it's existence. And this explanation must be an 'external' explanation, being that the universe can't create itself, as this would mean it had to exist before it's own beginning, which is illogical. And so the universe is a CONTINGENT being, and demands an explanation/cause. The cause can't ALSO be a contingent being, ie it can't also have these temporal constraints of beginnings, or else you get an infinite regress of contingent beings, ie 'who created god, who created the creator of god' ect. And so you avoid the infinite regress be postulate ONE entity called a NECESSARY entity. This necessary entity possesses at least some of the attributes commonly ascribed to god, namely everlastingness and the ability to create universes such as this one.

>>21718119
thats a stupid cop out theory

>>21718031
Imagine seething this hard over a pasta. You're just mad because you can't brag about how you don't believe in Santa and stump everyone by asking about Zeus.

>>21717969
no one here reads

>>21717955
Definitely Julian the Apostate (w/ Christians as Atheists who've turned their backs on the world, and on all things good and on the gods) and Plotinus (who explains that a deity outside of the realms of proof is nihilism),

and presto.


>>21718091
>logically boils down to, "Nothing exists."
That's objectively true of,
>Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Jesus is Lord.
Those kind of religions encourage disinterest in reality in favor of immortality after death, with very few exceptions (st. basil, early benedictines) this is all that comes from the literalistic 'belief' take (i.e. "simply believing in our religion makes you far superior to a person who is doing good things for people in the word" / "btw, we don't think the world is real")....

...whilst the claim/s like "if yahweh doesn't exist then you can eat a baby" is a strawman, which reflects the mentality of the religious person who is really only saying that their entire perception of all reality is wrapped up in their own personal and highly dubious and contradictory interpretation of some book.

About a millenia of inherited lies. is what you're dealing with, my schismatic western runaway.

>>21718131
Which premise?

>>21718091
>Atheism logically boils down to, "Nothing exists."
Wrong

>>21718131
What part specifically is logically inconsistent?

>>21717983
That's what we're here to figure out

>>21718058
you're an atheist, for you, there is no such thing as truth and you will be looking in vain

>>21718151
Why can't the creator figure it out on his own

>>21718143
ed.
>some book
some book, mind you, which has been told to them by someone is 'actually truly' the "words of THEIR CREATOR GOD" - a laughable blasphemy. The space whale that cum'd onto primordial earth and seeded the first bacteria babies was barely even sentient.

>>21718135
imagine calling that response seething because you're so desperate to have some kind of argument
I believe in the Christian God btw

>>21718151
The creator didn't have a creator, see here
>>21718119
You can argue that it did, but you will be arguing in favor of multiplying entities beyond necessity.

>>21718152
>you're an atheist, for you, there is no such thing as truth and you will be looking in vain
Wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

>>21718146
>>21718150
the universe does not rely on anything that must have started it

the very concept of the beginning of the universe is the start of everything, and the idea of "before the universe began" is a very human idea

but it doesn't mean that it must have existed.

Like the idea of "the moments before time started" they do not exist yet we can think of it

>>21718114
>(((guy)))
Grow up

>>21718083
Unironically the best christcuck argument. Too bad the faggots at Vatican I anathematized fideism, thinking natural theology was sufficient.

>>21718159
>no you
That was covered in the pasta as well, retard.

>>21718163
>the universe does not rely on anything that must have started it
Yes, it does. It can't have started itself since this would mean it existed before it's own beginning, which is illogical. It can't boot itself up
>the very concept of the beginning of the universe is the start of everything, and the idea of "before the universe began" is a very human idea
The available data shows that the universe began with an influx of information which booted up both the time and space of the reality . As whitworth said 'Since all the stars and galaxies are receding from us at known rates, we calculate back to conclude that our universe started up'. And no, there is nothing illogical about talking about something prior to the spacetime of this particular universe. There WOULD be something illogical about talking about something before the beginning which was WITHIN the spacetime of this universe, hence why the cause must be 'outside of' or non-local to the spacetime. Causality also comes from this non-local realm by the way, as shown by bell's theorem and experimental verification thereof.
>but it doesn't mean that it must have existed.
Logically, YES it does.
>Like the idea of "the moments before time started" they do not exist yet we can think of it
Moments before the initiation (booting up) of this universe don't exist within THIS spacetime don't exist, this is true. That is not the argument. The argument is specifically NOT that moments WITHIN THIS spacetime exist though. So you are arguing against premises which have not been asserted. Think of a VR scenario. One can easily think about the things prior to the booting up of the virtual space (pixels) and time (cycles) of the reality. This period would not be defined WITHIN the virtual spacetime of the reality though.

>>21718163
forgot pic for this
>>21718197
The whole creation/cosmogeny situation, as well as all physics by the way, makes sense if you look at the universe as virtual (informational) by the way. Time dilation becomes processing load constraint related and frame rate slow down related, ect.

>>21718195
what exactly are you arguing here?

>iPhone was created by Apple
>oh yeah, you got proof?
>yes, here's detailed documentation, designer notes, blueprints, technical specifications, which could be employed at any moment to recreate iPhone
>God created people
>oh yeah you got proof?
>here's a book that says a sky wizard cast Clay&Rib spell lmao

>>21718143
>btw, we don't think the world is real
That's gnosticism you retard. I'm not even a christcuck, and I know that the church (rightly) condemns as heretical.

>>21718197
Wittgenstein already points out errors in your thinking, i.e. nonsensical remarks like time before time, or talking about the "outside" of a thing unobjectively.

Even bringing up the time within another timeline begets that time before time is still nonsensical.

>>21718216
*condemns such a views as heretical.

>>21718203
>posts pasta
>[SEETHE]
>imagine...
>NO YOU IMAGINE
>kek, just like the pasta
>WHAT ARE YOU SAYING HERE?!
You're retarded. Simple as.

>>21718237
no I mean in this thread, I dont want your schizo recount of replies, im saying are you here to defend a point of view or just regurgitate memes

>>21718251
Wittgenstein already points out we never do anything aside from regurgitating memes.

Why are you people incapable of letting people not believe the same thing as yourself?

>>21717955
It's good in that it debunks the pop-sci of athiesm, I don't recall the philosophical section enough to comment on it, but the physics side is very convincing on the fine tuning problem in physics that naive athiesm is very quite on.

>>21718114
>there's an infinite hilbert room full of such worldviews and someone somewhere will always reach his full potential with them
It's really cool that you kinda know how to use a thought experiment in a sentence, but what does that actually have to do with anon's argument?

>>21718262
Funny how you don't cite a single example from your book

>>21718216
>we don't think the world is real
this refers to your disdain for the world, your disinterest of good deeds, etc. in favor of "faith" and immortality with the 72 virgins after you die.

So that's not gnosticism,
>you retard
that's mainstream non-denominational Christianity and Islam.

>>21718217
Time before time is not nonsensical, because time itself is also a shorthand for the shifting relationship of objects. As long as there's more than one thing (any thing), there is such a thing as "time".

>>21718251
>ERRRR...I TOTALLY GOT IT!
>STOP POSTING MEMES ON A WEBSITE KNOWN FOR MEMES!
You are truly retarded. The thing with atheists is that the impulse towards becoming such is usually rooted in an intellectual pride that's pretty much always unwarranted. Poke at it, just a little bit, and fedoras will fly--they simply can't take someone, who is by their myopic definition supposed to be far less intellectually inclined than they, mocking of their cult of ideology. "NO YOU'RE THE INDOCTRINATED ONE!" Of all the forms of satanic pride, internet atheism is the most comical.

>>21718278
You are an abhorrent poster, go away

>>21718278
>excuse the typos

>>21718275
>As long as there's more than one thing (any thing), there is such a thing as "time".
Not if all the relationships between those multiple things are constant.

>>21718281
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Imagine trying to recreate the pride of figuring out Santa didn't exist before the other 1st graders as an adult. I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!

>>21718217
>Wittgenstein
Lived before VRs and the phenomenon of minds creating virtual worlds which have their own reality dependent virtual space and time. It's perfectly logical to talk about a non-local or outside of the physical (virtual) spacetime as well in terms of causality, see bell's theorem for another example.
>points out errors in your thinking
There's no errors in my thinking. I explained it here
>>21718197
>Moments before the initiation (booting up) of this universe don't exist within THIS spacetime, this is true. That is not the argument. The argument is specifically NOT that moments WITHIN THIS spacetime exist though. So you are arguing against premises which have not been asserted. Think of a VR scenario. One can easily think about the things prior to the booting up of the virtual space (pixels) and time (cycles) of the reality. This period would not be defined WITHIN the virtual spacetime of the reality though.
Point to something illogical
>Even bringing up the time within another timeline begets that time before time is still nonsensical
No, it isn't. I am specifically NOT talking about a time prior to the initiation of the local spacetime which occurred WITHIN the local spacetime. To speak of causality 'external' to the spacetime is perfectly logical. The relativity of simultaneity and time dilation are other good examples or VR related non-intuitive time occurences as well. Minds create VRs all of the time which have their own virtual spacetimes which arise from 'nothing' WITHIN the reality by the way. You do it when you dream and daydream.You are going to have to do more than just attempt to brute force the idea that anything I say is illogical.
By the way, Wittgenstein got filtered by more then just time as well, see Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

>>21718288
Delays between changes of relationships, or even potential changes of relationships, are still "time".

>>21718278
this is pretty pathetic of you, the other person is asking you to prove your case and all you do is post images of negative associations, it's ad hominem and demonstrates your dishonesty.

whilst, as i've observed constantly, virtually all of your accusations apply to yourself; so this i schizophrenic projection of your own foibles - deflection etc.,
>satanic pride
> the impulse towards becoming such is usually rooted in an intellectual pride (i know how everything exits before studying everything - it's God!) that's pretty much always unwarranted.
>they simply can't take someone, who is by their myopic definition supposed to be far less intellectually inclined than they, mocking of their cult of ideology


STILL I'm just chiming in. No idea what your argument was about, but that you're just shitposting and being called out on it.

>>21718296
>spergs
I'm not reading all of that, sperg. Stop being triggered over a pasta. At first it was funny but now it's getting sad.

>>21718083
that's incredibly clever ad therefore increidbly funny, HOLD! PRIOR PRECEDENT:

who said,
"I BELIEVE 'BECAUSE' (CHRISTIANITY) ABSURD!"

>>21718298
>he won't stop
alright little man, you've disgraced the discussion, it's time to hold you down and hit you in the kidneys until you plead from pain.

>>21718083
>>Christianity is the only worldview that's completely irrational
Right because judaism, islam, hinduism etc. are rational... simultaneously.

>>21718257
Whether or not there was an entity that booted up this reality is a yes or no question. There is a correct answer. It is decidable. And so some of the consciousnesses immersed in this reality believe that they have the correct answer and wish to argue the matter. There are repercussions for the fact of having large numbers of consciousnesses immersed in a reality believing that there is no thing outside of this experiential data stream and no unseen intelligence working behind the scene. This philosophy produces a sort of quality of consciousness, which is generally LOW in quality..

>>21718306
see: >>21652780 >>21718252

>>21718309
Not reading all of that shit, give me a qrd

>>21718304
>alright little man, you've disgraced the discussion, it's time to hold you down and hit you in the kidneys until you plead from pain.
Cool.

>>21718313
that's lazy but, fine:

Jesus and Paul were anti-clerical seekingt reform and remedy specific religious errors which applied only to the jews; a non-jew has no use for being warned against jewish religious errors because they don't practise them,
e.g. genital mutilation of their own children, racial supremacism as chosen people

a non-jew converting to reformed judaism for jews is pointless.

>>21718309
Protip: when you jerk yourself off don't do it publically. No one wants to see that.

>>21718332
alright little man, but when you're being dragged off to prison don't say nobody tried to get your change your evil ways long long ago.

>>21718262
Fine tuning is for dimwits. It's just a more technical and abstract way of arguing for god's existence based on the goldilocks zone, with the convenience that we can't yet take a peek outside our universe

>>21718336
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPauXWjY4T8
SAnTANa

>>21718272
You could've just not replied, and learned from this, but instead you doubled down. I don't even know where to begin
>this refers to your disdain for the world, your disinterest of good deeds, etc. in favor of "faith" and immortality with the 72 virgins after you die.
I don't know enough about Islam to know whether or not that 72 virgins is a caricature, but that has nothing to do with Christianity. I do know that most Muslims believe that good works are as necessary for salvation as faith.
As for Christianity, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the largest and second largest denominations respectively, and both adamantly reject Sola fide, believing good deeds and faith are both necessary for justification. Yet even Sola fide evangelicals believe that while good deeds don't justify one's salvation, they prove that one has a genuine living faith.
Regarding
>>we don't think the world is real
My apologies. I wrongly assumed that you meant what you actually said. Yes, by your idiosyncratic and erroneous understanding, not thinking the world is real isn't the gnosticism. Forgive me for thinking otherwise.

>>21717955
It doesn't exactly "debunk" it, because nobody interesting says the word "debunk," but Slavoj Z has some neat things to say about religion, and why it has value even if you don't think creation myths etc. are literally true.

>>21718338
No it's very different, fine tuning applies to the general, the universe as whole. The Goldilocks zone applies to the particular, the particular configuration of Earth or Earth-like planets.

>>21718119
All fine, but why do I have to worship some jewish archdemon in turn?

>>21718008
>look father i posted le fedora again

>>21718119
>infinite temporal regress is by definition illogical
why? can you probide a single example of a finite chain of causes as a counterpoint?

>>21718437
Yes, Billy. That is a fedora. Good for you!

>>21718384
>learned from this,
I learned a lot from your response: the schizophrenic deflection being and-in-hand with the religious disposition is a proof of so many things... falsehoods being the sign of a guitly conscious and anobvious untenable position:

You called me mentally retarded for saying that Christians (and others) believe in immortality after death.


But really you're unhappy to be reminded that your religion can be boiled down in this way to simple nihilism basically you're attacking the teaching of your own holy book when you attack a person who mentions it. And the later decision to not declare the world and the human body is evil (which is a contradiction of the holy books) is irrelevant vs. 1,000 yrs of violently insisting otherwise.

complete dishonesty, as usual, the sign of an untenable position.

>>21717955
Pantheisk debunks theism. If the universe is God, then it is a self cause so the same “it always existed” arguments that theists apply to their God apply to the cosmos.

>>21717971
>>21718119
We're made of quarks. Who created the quark?

>>21718426
It doesn't have to be the abrahamist ones, no. Plato was the one who was really the progenitor of most of this, including the idea of the abstract realm being the more fundamental realm than the experiencial/sensory data stream. Homer was on to this as well (the sirens (sensual world) and odysseus as well example. The new testament was, though, onto this as well and is at times platonist and on to the VR idea of virtual time and space
>While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
The classical (ARYAN) one works just fine though. The all father or all mind of the TEUTONIC ARYAN religion also works. The all father ABOVE the all father (odin), the all mind, the one who piloted Odin when he chose a physical (virtual) avatar, the one who manly p hall talked about, this one works fine. The biblical one, the one that is to be worshipped in spirit and that IS a spirit, (mind) works fine. The one said to have used jesus as a virtual avatar guy which he played and which had a game over but then played another round, this works. There are many ones that fit the situation. The attributes must be that this entity is everlasting and not temporally constrained by the virtual time, it must be a mind, because only minds create consciousness based informational VRs. And it must be able to boot up universes such as the one we are immersed in and maintain it, though it did partition a part of itself out as a platonic computator of all computations. This is relevant to the idea of the reconciliation of divine for knowledge and free will by the way. So it's this individuated platonic computer which does the actual server duties. It is NOT omnicient, but is nearly inconceivably more intelligent than us. This entity does the synchronicities by the way and the calculations and rendering of the defined values that get presented to the individuated units of consciousness. And there might be some other attributes which I don't want to go into. The entity also doesn't like fapping, especially to porn, I will just throw that out there. Minimize this fapping and you will be given a higher quality of consciousness and the greater ability to use consciousness as an interactive programmatic input device to effect the probability distribution of possible future outcomes to a higher degree. God luck on formulating your GOD KNOWLEDGE.

>>21717971
>>21717983
Atheists are in the same boat as believers. What caused the big bang? What causes God? Neither can give a good answer other than saying something must have always been.

>>21717955
Yeah but why should I become a christian or whatever and not a theist? It sounds much more reasonable to me.

>>21718484
Yes and that's an argument for theism, if the universe is God then god we have.

>>21717955
In conclusion.
There are none.

Go ask /x/

>>21718579
The difference between athiesm and pantheism is pantheism is an honest position while athiesm handwaves and ignores the problem of Being.

>>21718119
>the universe can't create itself, as this would mean it had to exist before it's own beginning
This is assuming a lot. Maybe the universe is like a tree, and before it 'began' to exist it was like a seed in the ground. It was there but it couldn't be seen yet.
>The cause can't ALSO be a contingent being, ie it can't also have these temporal constraints of beginnings, or else you get an infinite regress of contingent beings
Yeah exactly that's why the argument makes no sense or is at least pointless. You're just saying "you can't use this refutation of my argument because then we wouldn't have an answer" yeah well no shit we don't have an answer then.

>>21717955
You can’t really “debunk” atheism because atheists and theists are playing a different game. When atheists “debunk” religion they are regurgitating positivism and turning God into a scientific hypothesis. There obviously will never be an empirical proof of God and this is what would be required in order to debunk atheism for the atheist. For the theist this obviously isnt a problem, there are non-scientific reasons to believe in God but the atheist would reject all of them because they work in a positivist mindset. You will never convince an atheist of theism without first changing the framework they think in.

>>21718488
who created the creator of the quarks

>>21717971
Yeah even if you accept this argument it does not follow logically that Christianity or Islam are the products of this creator's will. The evidence for either is still "this person said so".
Most atheists are not even atheist, they will talk in vague terms about a 'higher power' but avoid terminology like god because of these retarded fucking cults.

>>21718579
The difference is that Atheists aren't afraid to admit they don't know. The whole point of cosmology is to create a model to describe and explain the early universe and big bang. They don't know, but want to find out.

Theists have no humility and want an answer, no matter how retarded it sounds. Then will create weird and trivial stipulations like "necessary entity", or "macro vs micro evolution" to try to justify it. Then they devolve into nothing but ad-hominem or violence when they run out of any way to defend themselves. Your religion doesn't depend on what is "true", but where you were born. If you were born in Iran, Nepal, or ancient Greece, you'd believe in something completely different.

>>21718043
>this subhuman shares a board with you

>>21718658
>The difference is that Atheists aren't afraid to admit they don't know.
No that's literally agnosticism (a+gnosis), athiesm is a definite and dogmatic position that there is no god or gods.

>>21718666
>subhuman
You're the one who believes you're an ape.

>>21718669
i think your parents need to be whipped for doing this to you, this kind of idiot strawman was dumb in the 1800's, how you've been brainwashed into thinking it's 'clever' is very bad.

>>21718678
Ok ape.

>>21718687
maybe next time instead of lions we'll throw christians to gorillas and baboons, to immortalize this point.

>>21718668
akin to the definite and dogmatic position that the smurfs are fictional characters, at all times providing evidence for this.

>>21717955
>designed by God, in california

>>21717983
I did. Problem?

>>21718008
>evolutionary biologist
Didn't that nigga study zoo animal? Last I checked he has a degree in Zoology. That's like me getting a nursing license and calling myself a Doctor.
>Sam Harris
Philosopher who got a meme degree (Neurology is as much a science as the Psychology Jewish psyop)
>Christopher Hitchens
Gay Jew whose greatest accomplishment was writing for Vanity Fair. But he's intelligent because he has a posh British accent.
>Daniel Dennett
Even the New Atheists admit this guy was the odd man out. Hopefully the nigga finishes Winds of Winter soon.

>>21718836
>Sam Harris
Oh and his Mom created Golden Girls. Possibly the biggest glowie on the list.

>>21718841
damn those CIA and their television scriptwriting

>>21718836
what're some of your accomplishments, anon?

>>21717955
lmao, that's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever read

>>21718083
sound argument, honestly

>>21718215
>which could be employed at any moment to recreate iPhone
if only. in terms of hermetism Apple is much worse than the Church.

>>21717955
>debooonk
thats a cringe way of thinking you retard.
If you are looking to invalidate something, you are begging the question. Rather than looking for something that intendeds to explore a subject matter wholisticly. you shouldnt want to debunk anything. you want to understand something, grant the aspects you find compelling, and find the particulars of what you disagree with.
>>21718008
you are an embarrassment.

>>21718011
>>21718041
>they don't spend their entire fucking lifes thinking about being being into being
ngmi

>>21718901
>what're some of your accomplishments, anon?
Dunking on New Atheists and their religious followers.

>>21717955
Why being gay is an evolutionary positive trait? is it to cope with the loneliness of highly demanding women? or could it be perhaps that we broke the rules that nature dictated —tolerance of deviance— and thus we love people who have something in common (i.e. being a male), moreover a man will always out win women when it comes to having something in common. But is it really loving someone that just has to do with having something in common?

>>21718901
Indeed

>>21717971
>t, smol brain

>>21718559
... ok, so you're as deranged as them.

>>21717955
The best argument that the faithful have against atheism was invented some fifteen years ago.

You simply post a fat guy wearing a hat. That’s it. Nothing else need be written or said. No one can bother you and your god ever again.
Now go back to you holey books

>>21719238
the echo chamber doesn't really extend beyond the internet forum though, so the meme thing doesnt really work

You cant prove God and you cant debunk the absence of something unless you can prove its there. Faith is not proof but a dedication and submision to dogma.
The modern mindset is so rooted in empirical and positivist thinking that even believers have slowly over time moved away from belief and blind faith although the traditions, community and rituals have kept it alive and relevant although it has moved towards the fringes at an increasing rate for decades.

And of course the reason for the trad movement is that christianity has for the first time been supplanted not by irreligion, but by a new religion. SJWism ascending from trend and social movement to state religion of globalism and the entire west gives people an understandable and sometimes desperate need to become a part of something and to resist.
SJWism of course is not as prevalent as it seems to be and would like to make itself seem to be but the insidious way it captures the unthinking majority by assuming the guise of fighting for a worldview that is just and based on reasoning and logic gives it a deceptive nature, in other words its a religion that pretends to be a social/political movement that is solely dedicated to fighting injustice. While in reality being simultaneously increasingly abstract and specifically dogmatic while creating a very effective "with us or against us" mentality using religious stratagems like shunning nonbelievers and harshly discouraging questioning dogma, often requiring prostration and reaffirmation of belief from people who go to far in questioning just a single dogma or aspect of it even while maintaining their dedication to faith.

But all of that still leaves people without an alternative or a movement anywhere close to being as monolithic.
This in turn explains the rise of the New Right and all it encompasses along with rogue elements like Peterson, Fed Up Gamers and many many, more. The resurgence of christianity and the trad movement can thus be understood as "fighting fire with fire" aswell as an appeal to "The old monolith"

>>21719272
(continued)

In other words the current debates arent really about christianity and atheism, or even theism. Its a materalistic way to wield christianity against the new globalist religion, which is just that, a religion, not atheism. Although culturally and contextually different this shares similarities with the resurgence of islamic extremism and theocracy in the middle east following failed western interventions after ww2.
This is the reason why engaging with various christian philosophy on behalf of this new resurgence is so disordered and repetitive. The meek, merciful and profit driven nature of the protestantic faith of the countries dominating most of recent history, underpinned by rapid technological advance and with it a worldview centered around empiricism/positivism, is both the reason for why society moved away from religion aswell as the foundation of the new religion.
"We need to go tradder" and escaping into the train of thought that sends you from catholicism to things like sedevacatism or eastern orthodoxy just ignores that fact while making it clear what youre seeking is an escape from the new religion moreso than being attracted to christianity. The modern pagans are an extension of that as it incorporates the understanding that christianity>protestantism>irreligion/empiricism/positivism>SJWism in the image of recent anglogermanic protestantism, and thus arrive at being tradlarpers in opposition of christian tradlarpers.
For this reason pagan tradlarpers have more instinctive understanding that this is something they do for themselves aswell as to find a way to live and be in this world. That is most certainly a result of not relying on old dogma to fight new dogma, although that in itself has no inherent value as this is all done to find a way for yourself to live in this world, which has no objective solution.

That being said I can tell a lot of people are able to find solace, community and the ability to be more resilient to the dark picture globalism paints of our shared future. And of course a way to surround oneself with people who scorn the new religion. So called trad larping is not neccessarily a negative thing as it is like many other things what you make of it. Spending your time acting like a youth pastor online, fighting New Atheists, pagans and windmills alike is a nonsensical waste of time.

>>21718008
completely insufferable sense of humor, please consider going back to r/creationism and/or sterilisation

>>21718119
I think there is equivocation here. If by "universe" is meant existence as a whole, then this cannot possibly have a cause. There is nothing outside reality, by definition. And if by "universe" is meant just one particular thing among many eg. the milky way, there is no difficulty explaining its existence by reference to other astral bodies.
Once the ambiguity is removed, the claim is reduced to saying that reality is caused by something outside reality, which is easily seen to be contradictory.

>>21718008
This may be the cringiest post ever made on /lit/, congratulations

>>21718762
/lit/ isn't a retarded "arguing on the internet" board to score wins on. Use words correctly here. Atheism is a dogmatic position positing truth claims about the constitution of the world.

>>21719659
No it isn't fag

Proud of the Christian ITT completely destroying athiests arguments. Amost wish there was some smart athiests on this board to at least give us a bit of a challange

>>21718602
Its not anything like creator deity or monotheist god though

>>21718091
No, atheism about complete absence of the question of the existence of God
Atheist does not recognize or deny God, he DOES NOT HAVE THIS THOUGHT AT ALL because it doesn't have sense. An atheist lives only in this material world
Agnostic does not recognize or deny God, but he can admit exist or non exist God and thinking about it.

>>21718197
>Think of a VR scenario. One can easily think about the things prior to the booting up of the virtual space (pixels) and time (cycles) of the reality. This period would not be defined WITHIN the virtual spacetime of the reality though.
There is no reason why that period would not be defined within the virtual reality at all though. I mean that's probably the worst analogy you could've made; if the creation of our universe was really akin to someone booting up a VR world then there is absolutely a consistent shared sense of time between the two perspectives. The person booting up the virtual reality is cognizant of all the time prior to the world booting up, and for all intents and purposes could share that information with those inside of it. So in this sense speaking of a time before that creation of the virtual world is just speaking about the parent universe that conceived it; the parent's spacetime is just a superset of the child's. Not so unlike when a child is born to their parent, where a child cannot experience the space of time that existed prior to their birth but simultaneously shares an instance of spacetime with them (the differing case here being that the child would be able to outlive the parent's spacetime which would be strictly impossible given they're a subset of the parent's and therefore fully dependent).
TL;DR this take of necessary entity vs contingent entity is as arbitrary and vacuous as stating that you somehow know for certain that the universe is actually infinitely regressive; it's a recursive pointless debate on a non-falsifiable subject that we clearly have too little information to come to a clear judgement on and could very well be something completely incapable of being understood given the faculties of our reasoning.

Midwit neurotypicals reflections on religion make no sense, they are very close to metaphysical intoxication as schizos.

the brain of neurotypicals literally has limitations of that reflection, for the sake of some kind of merger with the society of people, block an objective and cruel emotionless perception of the world.
you have to be a goddamn mechanistic primarily psychopathic (not secondary sociopathy) machine like (((they))), but very high intelligence and awareness.

>>21719797
nice (((wordsoup)))

Ofcourse any religion is fiction and abusive manipulation of population from history. But nonetheless you need to do good for your neighbor at least because we are not completely sure that there will be no rebirth in this universe. if people will do evil and hurt, then this is literally like shitting on your bed and hurt yourself.

>>21717955
"Blackwell companion to natural theology" and "on guard'

>>21718119
I have never seen any satisfactory reason as to why an infinite regress is not possible.

>>21718119
High IQ

>>21719869
An infinite regress of events is impossible as it implies an actual infinite.

>>21719663
Yeah it is you fucking moron. Claiming there is no god is just as baseless as claiming there is.

>>21717971
It's not a mythos, it's a rational conclusion. You have to read Aquinas before you post here.

>>21719933
And why can there not be an actual infinite.

>>21718083
This is apologetics that undermines the damage the true believers cause. There's a world of difference between referencing material for guidance and straight up obeying it like an infallible system of law.

Man has a bifurcation of body and spirit. He must surrender the body to the Earth and in all ways act rationally when it comes to settled matters of the body. Any religion that infringes on this territory is pure evil. In matters of the spirit man is free and all bets are off. He is completely unmoored in a sea of experience both real and imagined that far outstrips his limited ability to perceive the whole so where he claims to be, what he has seen, and whatever conclusions he makes are all of equal validity and equal insignificance.

The fact that so many people think they can get to the bottom of one of life's deepest questions through intellectual debate shows just how far humanity is from becoming a serious race. Take psychedelic drugs or learn how to meditate and induce a trance state or astral project. Once you have done those things we can continue or conversation.

>>21718091
How the fuck could anyone be atheist? Even if you believe in simulation theory you also have to accept the 1 in 1000000manyzeros chance you are existing in the joke simulation where the 6000 year old young earth creationists are 100% correct and there was a collective consciousness mindwipe when christ ascended to heaven and god fucked with the method of measuring the age of materials. It's all a legit possibility. Simulation theory is that bat shit insane that it contains every potentiality no matter how unbelievable or unlikely. Of course you want to orient yourself towards the most likely probable outcomes, but zero doesn't exist inside a singularity. Anything you can possibly imagine is real and true somewhere. That's the power of participating in a medium through a layer of abstraction.

>>21718119
>infinite temporal regress is by definition illogical
Post the complete argument

>>21717955
>"I have no Creator"
Scientifically untrue, cells are the creators.

d..do we ever find the truth? I am scared now

>>21718635
They've always existed. They don't age or degrade. They're immortal.

>>21718119
>>21719936
Aquinas is the definiton of "because i say so lol"

The guy had to make doublethink (double truth) a part of his philosophy in order to even be permitted to use aristotles argument that was created before his own religion to be used as proof for his own religion. And after all that he only managed to create an argument for general theism as trying to create an argument for theism, not for yhwh, as specifically arguing yhwhs existence in a general way is impossible

Acting like the unmoved mover is somehow airtight is just making yourself retarded on purpose.

>Everything that exists needs to have come from somewhere
>Except God LOL
>Why the only possible way the universe can exist is to be created by god? I just said so and thats all you need to know

You can easily say
>Everything that exists had to come from somewhere
>Except the universe LOL, the universe itself is God. Why? I just said so.

Its pure sophistry. Aquinas himself was incapable of blind faith the way his religion demanded him to be so became a philosopher to cope.

>>21719934
Explain how? This has always seemed like dumb sophistry to me, the first time I ever heard it. With the same argument you could stand in court and accuse anyone of anything and then claim that "to say there's no proof is just as baseless as to say that there is proof," see what we're saying?

You have to pretty fucking smart to intellectualize a loop to dismiss this obvious point, to your credit.

>>21720133
no quark can decay into a state that does not contain another quark.

>>21720126
Yes, after you die you find out whether you go to hell or heaven

>>21718119
Yeah, in metaphysical terms essentially something must be superior to time and beyond time and consequently time must "depend on" (using that phrase loosely) whatever that "thing" (again, not an exact term) is.
In other words, time does not carry within itself its own sufficient reason for existence, it is relative (as opposed to absolute) and contingent (as opposed to independent).
That atheists deny this is a baffling show of their mental confusion. Now it's not an obvious leap to a Creator in the Abrahamic sense, but at the very least one is logically compelled to admit the "existence" of principles superior to the conditions that govern our own existence, which many people who have made this realization will describe simply as "higher powers" or "a higher power".

>>21720169
well if this is the case I go to heaven for sure

>>21720170
ntnywjtt, but,
>all of this
Is fair as a logic puzzle, but how, from the intellectualization, does one arrive at any religion or 'code' of any god/s from this basis? If a God may exist, then all humans pretensions to speak on its behalf must be a blasphemy and all religions are offensive.

>>21718011
>>21718031
>>21718058
>>21718437
>>21719065
>>21719342
>>21719648
>seething this hard over a Pokemon inspired pasta
Fucking kek.

>>21719869
It denies causation, there must be a first cause. If you have an infinite chain of causes then you never arrive at a real, actual "cause" for the chain. Which is identical to asserting "there is no cause at all" since that's the ultimate conclusion of the thought experiment.
Another way to put it - let's say we have an infinite chain of causes. What caused the chain itself? Any option shows the logical error being made.
1. Nothing caused the chain. Then we're denying causality itself, i.e. we're asserting that there are effects which do not require causes. But then this would apply to the chain itself, and I can simply say that any link of the chain can exist as an effect without the cause of the prior link. So the whole chain breaks. In other words, you can't have it both ways, either we adhere to causation or we don't.
2. I assert something caused the infinite chain to come into existence. Then we're back at square one and the whole notion of an infinite chain of causes was a pointless digression, just an unneeded complication that proves nothing.

Also as a side note if you don't think an infinite regress is illogical then you're also compelled to reject many foundational results in logic and math, as they use the principle that an infinite regress is illogical to prove things often. So you're showing how uneducated you are really, as another side topic, by being okay with infinite regress.

>>21720199
it's super effective

>>21720199
rule 23 of the protocols of the elders of cuckstains:
when you are refuted on the internet accuse the other person of seething

>>21720194
Thats an extremely complex subject that can't really be treated in a series of relaxed posts on /lit/

>>21720169
>>21720170
>>21720177
>>21720194
>>21720199
>>21720217
>>21720225
>>21720226
>>21720228
Quarks never cease to exist! You fucking morons! We have physical evidence that there is no god.

>>21720234
The concern here is pure logic, not physics.

>>21720226
>refuted on the internet
>[we're talking about a pokemon pasta]
Kek

>>21720226
>refuted
that guy probably doesn't even care about the topic and just wanted to post the related pasta he knows

>>21720234
His book was aggressively mid.

>>21720249
>>21720265
Eternal transformation. That is reality. There is no life or death. No beginning or end.

>>21720279
Yeah I actually agree with this, but I likely conceive of that differently than you do.

>>21718140
but I read retarded comments like this all the time

>>21720286
We're here forever. There is nothing better.

>>21718041
What does his error have to do with spelling?

>>21720318
Most likely the original poster of, "whoa, being being such a fag"

does kinda sound like one of the two beings was a spelling mistake

>>21717955
You were not "created" by some god. You were birthed by your mother. Who in turn was birthed by her mother, going back millions and billions of years, until the first mother is a single celled life form (and a self-replicating molecule even before that). This single celled life form over billions of years and generations, gradually evolved into more and more complex multicellular organisms, until it resulted in you and every other human on earth.

>>21720414
go on...

>>21720265
How did this rat faced faggot and big black science man survive getting metoo'd

>>21720434
One is a kike and the other is a big black science man. The two protected classes. Weinstein and Epstein got busted because they were irredeemable. They did it too many times and left behind too many victims. It's not easy sweeping all of that under the rug.

>>21720318
>>21720385
>be internet atheist
>open thread to mock religious people
>instantly get triggered by a Pokemon pasta
>it used all your best bangers before you could
>attempt a retort by simply calling the poster a fag
>but you're so flustered you write the same word twice
>instant response that highlights it as seethe and references pasta
>once again take it too seriously and post (obliquely) related meme
>prove once again you have no sense of wit and are filtered by absolutely everything
The superiority complex intrinsic to being an internet atheist makes them easy targets. When their pride is poked they become humorless faggots.

>>21717955
>quran
sneaky kike meme

>>21718008
Kek. First time seeing this. Thank you.

>>21720434
It happened with David Suzuki and he got away with it as well. Side note: I met him at a conference and he was a total dick. I later talked to a guy who had to go with a dinner with him and he told me Suzuki got really upset and acted out when people stopped giving him attention. I don't see Dawkins being that bad by my gut tells me Tyson probably is.

>>21717955
they debunk themselves by being evolutionary dead ends

>>21719937
does the set of all sets that do no contain themselves contain itself?

>>21719933
ok pls list one finite chain of events

>God exploded from nothing 6000 years ago.... because ok he just did!

>>21718119
Debunked by Graham Oppy.

>>21717955
You could give this a read.

https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/08/intelligent-design-truth/

>>21717955
ITT: Atheists seething

>>21719937
Because Aristotle believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the farthest thing away from the universe was the edge of Zeus (who is a sphere) that is currently opposite the Earth at any given time as he spins through the sky in a circle. Thus, there is potentially infinite space, but not actually infinite space as there's nothing in the space beyond Zeu's farthest-from-Earth-point. Aristotle's argument for this, and I'm MASSIVELY simplifying a big argument for polytheism and against the planets being made of fire and singing as they move and a bunch of other stuff, is that anything that is actually infinite would take up infinite space. Thus, if the universe were actually infinite, there'd be infinite space between any two things. We can clearly see that this isn't the case, ergo there's no infinite space. Replace "space" with anything else and you get the same conclusion.

This runs into a problem that the Greeks, and a lot of people still today, have with conceptualizing infinity vs a finite section of infinity. You can see this with people who mistake an infinite causal series for an infinite regress.

>>21718114
>>21720840
...

>>21718114
>>21720840
>>21721175
Kek.

>>21719279
>Its a materalistic way to wield christianity against the new globalist religion, which is just that, a religion, not atheism.

The globalist religion, as it evolves, appears increasingly similar to the religion of antichrist.

>>21720234
How would this prove that there is no God? God could have created the quarks to be imperishable. Just because they will never cease to exist doesn't mean that they did not exist before He created the universe.

>>21717955
You can't debunk atheism.

>>21721668
>You can't debunk atheism.

>>21721820
>You can't prove a negative.

>>21718559
Here are three common ways of viewing God (there are differences in the details). Yours falls into the second category. I believe the third as a Christian.

Universal Soul:
1) God is the mind of creation. This is similar to the generation of images/thoughts in the human mind while daydreaming, but god consciously reflects and alters the material generated. God and all of creation share the same ontology and are one and the same thing.

2) Separate god with Identical Ontology:
God partitions himself to create the universe. God the omniscient being (mind) is separate from universe which is of His essence but is not his mind. This is akin to a separate computer running a simulation, though the simulation is created from god's essence rather than being of a different ontology. Though creation and god have a shared nature, they are either mainly or totally separate.

3) The Holy and Separate God:
The Holy God is a totally separate Being who creates the universe. This universe and the living organisms that inhabit it do not share the same ontology as God. The ontology of God and Man are dissimilar as the ontology of Man and an AI simulation are dissimilar.

As far as I can tell, the view that God shares the same nature as us or his creation is a demonic deception.

>>21721834
>NO YOU
n-(n-1). QED, retard.

>>21718296
>nigga used the word "foibles"
Opinion absolutely fucking discarded, holy shit

>>21718278
>"NO YOU'RE THE INDOCTRINATED ONE!"
>>21718296
>(i know how everything exits before studying everything - it's God!)
Develop some self-awareness. Holy shit.

>>21718119
The universe was created by nothing, which is God. God = nothing. Problem?

>>21717955
Plato said those who do not follow a religion have a mental illness.

>>21721878
>3) The Holy and Separate God:
>The Holy God is a totally separate Being who creates the universe. This universe and the living organisms that inhabit it do not share the same ontology as God. The ontology of God and Man are dissimilar as the ontology of Man and an AI simulation are dissimilar.
>I believe the third as a Christian.

Yet this is not Christianity at all, this is rather near-verbatim Plato which Plotinus long ago explained was an error (due to putting 'divinity' outside of reality; outside of proof therefore allowing a person to make-up anything they liked).

>>21722087
>>21722284
>self-awareness
say the person calling himself a christian who is acting like a pharisee.

>>21719430
So, anybody wants to defend the cosmological argument from the objection stated in the above post?
To summarize, if by "universe" is meant the whole of reality, the universe cannot cannot have a cause outside of it - because outside reality there is nothing.

>>21722917
In Christianity, it is understood that God and man do not share the same ontology. I did not describe the trinity because the third description can be applied to many other religious/spiritual beliefs. I wanted to keep it generalized.

Regarding the idea that I am putting God outside of reality: I am not putting him outside reality. I describe him as being outside of our universe, not reality. For you this may be the same thing, but to my understanding it is not. I readily concede that I cannot prove my beliefs. I wrote the following about how faith is the only method of knowing the nature of God in another post:

It is absurd to suggest that I am committing a logical fallacy when the knowledge I am describing cannot be gained empirically or through reasoning. I recognize the fallacy of unfalsifiability. Any argument using logic would be insufficient to prove something that is gained through either first-hand miraculous experience or faith (which I recognize is irrational). Irrational faith can lead to gaining knowledge that cannot be gained empirically or rationally. It is an absurdity and a paradox to the logical mind. But, through faith, you may be given intuitions and messages from spiritual sources that are true and can often be verified empirically/rationally once received. This way of knowing the truth is only available through faithful receptiveness and it is unavailable to those who are limited to rationalism or empiricism.

>>21717955
Knowing that something cannot spring from nothing. If there is a Creator as you affirm, how did he come into being?

>>21722919
>say the person
Not that it matters but there's more than one person pointing out your reaction has been laughable and no one said they were a Christian. Do better.

>>21722971
Read Aquinas.

>>21717955
>christcuck logic
>a phone is like a man

>>21723054
>Aquinas.
It sounds horrible the name in English, and still, the name of a person, shouldn't it be translated?

>>21719663
You are confusing science with atheism. They are related, but they are not the same. The big bang is just a very popular theory, but there is no way of scientifically prove it. Some scientifics believe in it, and others don't, but, if you follow science 100%, then it is still unknown since science can't scientifically confirm something that happened quadrillion years ago with the scientific method. That said, atheists firmly and dogmatically believe that there is no god, and they believe in one of the creation theries made by humans. They don't believe that maybe there is a god, maybe its a theory made by a man, maybe blah blah blah. They 100% believe in the theory, usually, of the big bang.
Of course, I'm generalizing, since there are exception cases. If you follow science, you should be agnostic.

>>21723052
1) i'm not the same people you've been talking to, indeed I do not care to scroll up and see your graffiti on this board
2) you are a liar; you are attacking atheism and obviously you are english language so obviously you are a christian.

>>21722969
>Regarding the idea that I am putting God outside of reality: I am not putting him outside reality. I describe him as being outside of our universe, not reality. For you this may be the same thing, but to my understanding it is not.
Okay, then you've got to have some proof for your own mind as to how you can be sure that as a consequence of this you haven't fallen into great errors; e.g. mistaken vice for virtue, virtue for vice, etc., as a result of not being focused on "reality". I would say if you 'were' focused on reality then you would value, say, "Truth" even if the truth made aspects of (your beliefs) look foolish; and that you would welcome this as you would welcome correction so that you would be correct overall to be "right with God/Divinity/Truth" ...

> I readily concede that I cannot prove my beliefs.
..but there we are :)

>It is absurd to suggest that I am committing a logical fallacy when the knowledge I am describing cannot be gained empirically or through reasoning. I recognize the fallacy of unfalsifiability.
If you recognise the fallacy of unfalsifiability then you recognize that to be described as committing a logical fallacy in this regard is not absurd.

>Irrational faith can lead to gaining knowledge that cannot be gained empirically or rationally.
I greatly disagree with this, for the same reasons Plotinus mentioned; either you are sincere and believe there is divinity in the world (e.g. god created this and this; the tree, the sea) which ought e respected and studied rationally to gain a full understanding of the divine mechanics of things.... or..... you begin with a prejudice that you already know everything and that you learn it from a man-made book rather than observation of actual reality itself: the difference would be like, to scientifically study trees vs. reading a storybook like "the giving tree", as two courses of actions to undertake to learn about trees.


the greater point from that, however,is that the storybook can say anything whatsoever, whereas the 'empirical' study will only ever tell you the truth as the knowledge is derived from reality itself, whereas the 'knowledge' 'in' storybook is derived from the brains of other humans - they may be right or wrong - but more danger is involved in their opinions when they shun the notion of 'proof' as this suggests intentional conscious deception on their part; i.e. they act the same as a con-artist in how they react, whether they are setting out to deceive or not, therefore making their 'man-made' book a thing easily leveraged by con-artists of bad intention, as there is no way to separate malintent and mistake - if proof is rejected.

>>21723180
>If you recognise the fallacy of unfalsifiability then you recognize that to be described as committing a logical fallacy in this regard is not absurd.
This I can concede. This was not worded well.

>you begin with a prejudice that you already know everything and that you learn it from a man-made book rather than observation of actual reality itself

I was speaking of the psychic intuition that comes from genuine faith. I was speaking of being visited by angels and being told information that you could not have known otherwise, which did happen to my mother. She was given a message by an angel which helped save the life of an ill acquaintance. This, again, is unfalsifiable. But the information given to her was true and the experience was genuine. Her faith allowed her to have this experience.

Experiences of this kind gained through faith would not contradict truths discovered empirically or rationally. Faith is another way of attaining the truth.

>>21723180
>people who deny Christ are Christian
You just went full retard.

>>21723180
>you are english language so obviously you are a christian.
Peak atheist reasoning.

>>21723123
Did you have a stroke?

>>21723305
>>21723308
lying for jesus

>>21723416
>spergs about God not being real
>argues with phantoms that only exist in his head
Meds.

>>21723433
you were caught in several lies, you have just made chrstians seem like complete sociopaths,
good job.

>>21723440
I'm not a Christian and you're a crazy person.

>>21723472
then why did you respond to my reply to a christian who was attacking atheism? you're just doing gas-lightning, which only makes christians seem like mentally deranged sociopaths, which is probably not what you want to achieve from your online activism.

>>21717955
I was created by my mother and father, as were they created by theirs, for time eternal

>>21723503
you mean you came from a bag?

>religious logic:

>>21718668

Most atheists are agnostic atheists, retard.

>>21723494
Because you're a retard and I don't read more from you than I have to in order to point out such. You're pathetic and paranoid so I sincerely doubt that you have anything valuable to offer a discussion about religion.

>>21723869
Oh, I see, so you're jut here to fuck up the discussion by impersonating both groups and causing confusion. Gotcha, thanks.

That'll make your IP ban last a little bit longer, you fucking dumb loser.

>>21717955
a human is created by their parent, as to the question of how the first humans were created.
there were no first humans, humans always existed and will continue to exist.
anything other proposed idea is just a over complicated attempt at groupthink that was created as a tool to control mass populations

These goofy religion threads are so much more fun than wokeness threads. Somehow.

>>21722965
No one is replying because you've made a retarded point that doesn't debunk anything. Do you even know what you're saying? Reality is simply existence, people believe God exists. So you've literally not said anything meaningful here in the slightest by talking about "reality". There's no equivocation or ambiguity here you simply don't know what words mean.
>>21719430
> And if by "universe" is meant just one particular thing among many eg. the milky way, there is no difficulty explaining its existence by reference to other astral bodies
Yeah you spacker and the post your replying to literally address this. They're all contingent things that being/began to exist and as such they require a necessary existence/being that is incontingent. God.

>>21723123
>tfw google translate moment

>>21724363
What do you think my argument is? Try steelmanning it.

>>21724126
>Oh, I see, so you're jut here to fuck up the discussion by impersonating both groups and causing confusion.
Why are you so paranoid?

>>21718008
please tell me this pasta was originally an athiest pasta. it reads like an average post on an athiest subreddit.

>>21724947
because i can smell a synth a mile away TAKE OFF YOUR FACE - HOLD IT DOWN, TEAR OFF ITS HANDS

>>21724966
prtty sure it was a crustan one, you can tell by the lame repetition of outdated cliches that no antheist would raliegh use.

luv to jesus my fellow chrust

>>21717955
Not a book, but this "steelmanned" argument for the existence of God has yet to be refuted. AI will advance to the point of becoming indistinguishable from God.

https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/the-case-for-the-physical-existence-of-god/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

>>21725437
but an AI created by a species of village idiots can't exceed th- hey, you know what, people worship rocks. if you want to declare a homecomputer your god, go ahead.