/lit/ - Literature

>>2564844
well hello there Mr. Tripfag. Lovely day for bananafish isn't it?

>>2564842
OP, I see what you're saying and this has long been my concept of God. There's a quote from a favorite anime of mine called Mind Game where some beta kid dies and he's meeting god and god says "yeah, I made you dipshit for my shear enjoyment. What the hell is wrong with that?". That's a good point, why should we expect anything from god? It's his creation, he can do whatever he likes with it. Also I don't find the lack of "evidence" for the existence of god to be a very compelling argument against the concept of a creator in the most abstract terms. It is a more essential idea than elves or gnomes or the FSM or some teapot floating around in space. Unfortunately 4chan is full of myopic, edgy atheists, so I don't think this thread will be very popular.

>>2564890
Yeah. I don't exactly believe in God but I'm not so full of hubris that I go around claiming I have sufficient information to invalidate his existence. I think agnosticism is an imperative.

>Not accepting the infinite love of Jesus

>>2564896
>agnosticism is an imperative

Maybe but I think approaching life with the concept of a creator is much more useful than approaching life believing there is no creator. I was raised on Hinduism by my parents and I've since relinquished belief in Hindu mythology because as with any specific mythology, Hinduism is easily debunked. However I find the concept of a creator so essential to existence. I don't need a creator for a moral compass, that's the weakest argument atheists have against people like myself. I need a creator to relate the vast expanses of the universe to myself. I care not whether it is a crutch or some deeper understanding of existence, it makes existence bearable for me. At best atheists have a hunch and not a very good one at that.

>>2564913
I wasn't talking about Jesus. I was talking about the possibility of a god who isn't even benevolent.

All your examples of violence are man made.

>>2564917
I don't find the concept of a creator to be essential, some pretty amazing things happen by shear coincidence. I don't think any atheist worth his salt says "god is an impossibility" but rather says "god is an improbability. One that doesn't even warrant discussion." Anyone can live a perfectly happy life without a concept of the divine and as far as I can tell a "relationship" with god only seems to generate anxiety and misery. I'd rather just feel like everything is predetermined and not get too wrapped up in this futile search for "meaning". Also, this thread is retarded.

>>2564931
and in turn, god (allegedly) made man. Also god (allegedly) made man in his image. So why wouldn't the more callous, violent elements of mankind not be found in god's designs?

>>2564917

>I need a creator to relate the vast expanses of the universe to myself.

That's fair enough. I'm an Agnostic Atheist, and I'm enamored with the Universe. I think that Tyson explains one aspect of it quite well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU

>there is a god because it is uncomfortable for me to think we are not created

>>2564943
I didn't say there is a god. I said all the people suffering in the world hardly invalidates his existence. The problem with atheists is they fail to appreciate the concept of god apart from Abrahamic texts. God is only about as irrelevant as String Theory.

>>2564958
>hurr atheists are a monolithic group and the ones i've encountered are representative of them as a whole

STUPID FAGGOT DIDNT ANYONE TELL U NOT TO BELIEVE IN FAIRY TALES! HAHAHAHAHA!!

>>2564890

If I wasn't an agnostic atheist this would undoubtedly be how I would view our god.

>>2564917

>Blinking when it stares back.

Wuss.

>Claim that a divine creator does not exist because of all the suffering in this world

I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that the divine creator in question is not GOOD because of all the suffering, which is enough to render Christianity abd many other monotheistic beliefs useless.
And if God isn't here to help us, he isn't worthy of worship and can go fuck himself.

>>2564995

>implying a god with no concern for goodness would not embody hedonism.

Not only has it fucked itself before, but it has perfected the art of fucking itself.

Your petty insults only serve to fuel his fuck lust.

All hail Fornicus, God of Bondage and Pain.

>>2564995
Christianity is odd, Jesus claims there will be suffering and wars but it's only the beginning of the birth pains.

So what is the purpose of suffering if there is God who can cure us from it? Perhaps it's to preserve our free will as Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor suggests, but despises being that he feels many people are unable to handle their own free will, that having free will inherently dooms them.

I dunno dawg, Christianity is tough.

haha you faggots still believe in a god. How quaint. Why the fuck is this on /lit/? Should be on that paranormal board

>>2565020
Is there suffering in Heaven?
Is there free will in Heaven?

>>2565020

Oh and BTW, sorry to bust yo bubble, but free will is an illusion. Science.
>2112

also spinoza's argument agaisnt the problem of evil is pretty cool.

anyone else feel that watching people discuss theology (and specially inter-christian debates about dogma) is like watched nerds debate d&d rules?

>>2565065

Spinoza is the bomb

>>2565072

More like watching obese white chicks argue over which brand of mayo is the best

>>2565061
>Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. Current physical theories cannot resolve the question of whether determinism is true of the world, being very far from a potential Theory of Everything, and open to many different interpretations.
Try again

>>2565055
Us humans would be the wrong person to ask

Feeling your straining body, hard against hers, she runs a hand through her purple hair, spilling it across half of her face. "I want you to enjoy this as much as I will." Vala reaches a hand between her legs and slides against your abdomen, guiding your massive broad cock into her pussy. The fae's labia practically breathes the heat of her uterus across your twitching shaft and you slide through her well-lubricated depths with a moist sigh, her inhuman snatch tight with her passionate yearning. She rocks back and forth barely an inch at a time, but it's enough to ignite a manic need in your loins. You try to hold back the orgasm, but it's too late and your cock explodes inside the fairy's unearthly womanhood.

>>2564917
So your argument is that utility alone should be a reason to believe in the existence of something? Why make the presupposition that the "vast expanses of the universe" have to relate back to you?

Jesus, and we're the ones going off a hunch.

There is no hunch: existence necessitates determinism; determinism precludes the existence of primitive cop-out entities like God or any number of gods. There is no definition of God that allows for its existence. How sad that you need a fairy tale to justify your life and make "existence bearable" just because the world isn't what you were raised to believe it was -- something that centers around you.

>>2565177
>existence necessitates determinism
read
>>2565149

>>2565182
>Implying you understand Quantum Mechanics
>Implying determination by probabilities is not still determinism
>Implying one of the goals of modern theoretical physics isn't to overturn quantum physics and create a theory sans probabilities
All this confirms is that believers in God are willing to go through great lengths and mental gymnastics to maintain their worldview. I guess that's easier than simply changing it.

>>2565189
or proves that determinism isn't a fact driven in stone yet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWtKSa7yRA8&context=C426ac06ADvjVQa1PpcFOAID7d0PH3pPlKCQpUYu1TORf
PayazFlw=

hey, imbeciles, a probabilistic universe is still deterministic.

jesus.

>mfw babbies cannot into emergent phenomenon

You may be able to see all the parts of something and still not be able to fully deduce its nature. Its our lack of certainty and our ignorance that allows us to salvage free will from the cold grip of a fatalistic existence. Claim the universe is deterministic, sure, but wait a fucking tick! You have yet to determine it. The mistake is thinking we have the ability to determine it in the first place. I'm not saying we can't but its as if none of you have ever heard of Schrodinger's Cat. You have to first observe and deduce a phenomenon in order to make it deterministic. We've lost sight of the fact that the whole concept of determinism is a human construction to begin with. I almost laugh at science these days, it has become this self-flagellating pursuit of humility and "we're not special" narratives and fundamentally frivolous concepts that are unlikely to benefit us in any tangible way. I'm not one of these epistomophobic people who thinks abolishing evolution in school curricula is a good idea. I just don't find this edgy wrist-cutting bit of posturing atheists very compelling. I think science is practical, we use it to cure disease and develop technologies, what possible use could it have in lengthy soul-searching? And that is not to say it is entirely irrelevant to this dialogue but just as any dogmatic philosophical system, it needs to be brought into question. I will also say it is unnerving to see how thoroughly represented it is by the intelligentsia and I really do think it is more of a cultural effect than anything. I hardly find people like myself who just don't think it is particularly unlikely that any sort of God exists. I find more in common with Bhuddists than anyone else these days.

>>2566264
seriously.... WHAT THE FUCK?

>>2566264
actually I completely overlooked the fact that determinacy and God are two entirely different concepts. Of course one can't even reconcile free will with a truly omniscient god. I guess its more the agenda of secular humanists (90% or /lit/) I was addressing when I conflated the two issues.

>>2566264
>just as any dogmatic philosophical system, it needs to be brought into question

Except, science deals in hard evidence, while almost all philosophical systems don't.

>>2564917
>I don't care if it's a crutch
Oh, but it is my friend, it really is. You even admit it in the next sentence. Please don't speak if you can't offer anything than, "I need a creator because I'm personally weak".

>>2566341
'free will' and an omniscient person is not a problem. If you think so, then you are making a modal fallacy.

http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/freewill1.htm#edeterminism

>>2566380
The idea that everything in the universe can be explained entirely in terms of determinable natural laws is a dogmatic philosophical system if I've ever seen one. Science can exist apart from this dogma. What if I said science will prove the surface of Jupiter is inhabited by alien life? That would be an unwarranted assumption but it MAY be true. In the same way it is not warranted to assume that free will does not exist. Personally I'll believe free will does not exist when scientists devise a way to predict my thoughts with unimpeachable accuracy.

>>2566410
that has to be the stupidest argument against determinism I've ever heard, jesus christ man, just leave

>>2564842
I don't get what you're trying to convey here. There is no contradiction in doing these things

>>2564842
but people don't deny god on the basis of suffering. they deny god because theres no reason for the affirmation. the fact that there is suffering may disprove a good god. but maybe not. and god doesn't need to be good. but nevertheless people can still not believe in in it because there is no reason to.

>>2566432
Well I'm tired of this "hurr durr, argument from ignorance" load we get from the atheist community all the time. Simply saying God or free will or even Bertrand Russell's teapot does not exist doesn't make it so. Of course, unlike gnomes or some teapot, free will and a creator are abstractions and interesting concepts as well. An agnostic never claims the fact that you cannot disprove god supports his existence. And I've heard the most hardline atheists say they are ultimately agnostic but then they continue to posture and try to debate people identifying themselves as agnostic. They employ immature tactics like saying agnosticism is "atheism without balls". That's a quote from your lordship Richard Dawkins, Secular Humanism's poster boy. About my own personal free will litmus test? That's not an argument against determinism exactly. However that would at least be tangible proof that free will does not exist. As opposed to coming up with fairytale characters in some juvenile attempt to embarrass people in order to disabuse them of their beliefs. That is already a cheap tactic but it completely falls on its ass when the person being debated is adopting what is a very skeptical position.

Is it not compelling to think that we, the pinnacle of evolution, were spawned just by mere chance?
When you die, you, the counscious self, just ceases to exist. No mind to think about the concept of thinking anymore. The unnameable void.
That is where we come from and that is where we go.

This is what I 'believe', or let me say, for lack of evidence, what I assume to be true-

>>2566505

I find any position of sub specie aeternitatis more grounded in a general feeling rather than logically supported.

When you win the lottery, you don't just shrug it off as "mere chance". Perhaps it is--and what of it?

>>2566511
What are you trying to tell me?

>>2566520

Why do you assign a positive truth-value to something which has no evidence, rather than the alternative of it being neither truth or false (modal logic is quite developed in this regard)?

I find no contradiction in maintaining an Epicurean view towards death, while recognizing the fact neutrality of a life (or consciousness) persisting after death.

>>2566542
I think you're giving my notion of 'true' too much weight there, though I certainly could and should have worded it better (or differently).

Of course it isn't 'true', hence the term 'believe', which I really don't like using. It implies knowledge without evidence or proof.
Ultimately you have to believe nonetheless, there's not enough time to prove every claim yourself, to prove every proof.
Still I regard 'proof' and 'evidence' very highly, which one might say is just my personal, artificial and entirely subjective subsitute for 'god' or an afterlife, but what differentiates this assumption for _me_ is the logic and rationality behind it.

tl;dr
Yes, you're right. I cannot possibly assess anything with (absolute) truth, but in this relatively logical constistent world, it's very efficient to only 'believe' in something if sufficient evidence suggests so.

>recognizing the _fact_ neutrality of a life (or consciousness) persisting after death.
In response to this:
>Why do you assign a positive truth-value to something which has no evidence

(Disregard the quotes if you were just referring to the non-existent contradiction.)

>>2566557
I still fail to see how the fact we are made up of atoms or how we've discovered various natural laws or the fact that we share much of our genetic material with apes constitutes evidence against intelligent design or free will for that matter?

>>2566557

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you seem to imply is that a belief in the divine (e.g., god) is the converse of logic and rationality, or either of less logic or rationality. I would maintain, rather, than logic or rationality do not play a role at all in deciding matters regarding such things as a life after death since it is fact neutral in the first place. A proposition after all is defined as being either possibly true or false. If it is not, then it isn't a proposition.

Perhaps it is more efficient than to expend mental energy worrying about it, but not because it's more logical, but because you just wish to spend less time thinking about it than a theist.

>>2566564
Where did I say so?
Are you the poster I was quoting? Please answer then.

Anyways:
On intelligent design I have to say that this 'intelligent' design took a very long time, and doesn't seem that intelligent to me. Of course I can't disprove it (and should therefore assume it to be true?).

Free will... did I mention that?
I don't think so, but I'll answer anyways:

This is perhaps always will be the one topic I won't have an opinion on. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. From my limited point of view, with very limited capacities to even 'measure free will', it _seems_ like there is free will. I am definitely happy with my will, which for all intents and purposes is a product of myself and maybe therefore 'free'?

P.S.:
What are you trying to accomplish? Do you have an agenda? What is your belief?

>>2566584
First of all I am spending quite some time thinking about these things.
Second, 'fact neutrality'. Care to explain?
I'm not a native speaker, so forgive me my ignorance.

Yes, in my opionion (not a proposition) god and the afterlife is less logical than no god or no afterlife.
Theism is a metaphysical concept, yet there is and can be no evidence for anything metaphysical, which kind of defeats the purpose of arguing over it.

Evil is only a construct of human beings who are consciously afraid of pain and suffering. Lame as fuck dude. But whatever, stop blaming a creator to handle our messes.