/lit/ - Literature

>>3166225

And fools ask questions which wise men have no the answers to

'Exist' is a predicate. You can't apply a predicate to God.

>>3166230

>tfw too dumb to understand what this means

>>3166229
That's not true. If that were true, how would wise men become wiser?
>>3166225
Depends on the definition of "God"

also the question isn't why/why not but rather "is God's existence contingent, necessary, or necessarily untrue"? and "is belief in God justified"?

>>3166230
god?

>>3166238
>also the question isn't why/why not but rather "is God's existence contingent, necessary, or necessarily untrue"? and "is belief in God justified"?

Well, than answer that.

>>3166245
My opinion:

The common understanding of "God" (an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity) is incompatible with the existence of natural and moral evil. I disagree with Plantinga's refutation.

Belief in God is not epistemically justified although it can provide psychological or social benefits

>2011
>god
>still relevant

lol. stay beta

Using 'exist' puts the whole thing in human terms, it's like asking if God's short. It's nonsense.

>>3166251
1/10 You made me respond.

We owe God more than we're willing to believe.

>>3166249
A+
I saved this

>>3166251
haha we got em there huh XDD

/edgyatheistsam harrishigh five

Your question implies that you take for granted that the world is governed by an angry, invisible sky wizard. This is understandable if you are a medieval peasant, and have an extremely narrow range of experience in a world people have barely begun to attempt explaining. However, you are not. Intelligent assumers in the supernatural have been slowly whittling down their belief system for hundreds of years to get rid of the more embarrassingly contrafactual stuff, and have boiled it down to this: things weren't, and now are; something called God is responsible.

Pic related. This is a mythological scene. Note the different types of angels, which any pagan culture would count as minor gods. Christianity cringes at it own mythology and tries to ignore all but the essentials.

>>3166249
>although it can provide psychological or social benefits

I understand your sentiments but the harm it does to us is far outweighs the good. Perhaps you remember the church endorsing the National Socialists, or Hirohito's inanely currupt ruling of japan. Us simple primates don't lose morality without god, in fact the opposite is true. It is only with the belief that god is on our side that we can be tempted or coaxed into doing things no ordinary, sane person would do.

I'm sure you're familiar with Marx's "mis"-quotation "opium of the people." Taken in full context I believe you will be able to appreciate his viewpoint.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

>>3166309
corrupt*

>>3166309
There is no objective morality. Simply deciding that killing people is something we don't like, doesnt make that objectively bad.

And the national socialists were the good guys.

>>3166309
>It is only with the belief that god is on our side that we can be tempted or coaxed into doing things no ordinary, sane person would do.

Heh define what ordinary, sane people do. You seem to be prescribing humanity to a certain set of laws in which they would never break if god didn't exist.

Protip: Those laws don't exist.

God doesn't exist. It's a lie we use to make up for how awful life is, a false reason to bear through it for an imaginary reward at the end. I am as sure as one can possibly be of this. If it does exist, it's a complete and utter asshole and it's "intelligent design" of this life wasn't done intelligently at all.
Pic related: God's work. Isn't it wonderful?

>>3166330
I really don't think God did that. It seems more plausible that maybe a human being did it, but indeed, I could be wrong.

>>3166332
Who created humans?

>>3166330
>muh problem of evil muh fucka

This isn't a problem if you don't consider the good to be 'above' god.

Blame plato for that.

>>3166333
Indeed, if I believe that God created humans, I would not be committed to believe that he is responsible for all the things we do. Would you like to kill my father because I chew with my mouth open? That seems quite silly indeed.

>>3166334
>This isn't a problem if you don't consider the good to be 'above' god.
You aren't making sense.

>>3166340
>I DONT UNDERSTAND YOU, SO YOU MUST NOT BE MAKING SENSE

>>3166321
Yeah sure there is no objective morality, but believing that religion provides us with a good moral code is absurd. And I'm sorry, but the churches stances on fascism in the 20th century, and their history of corruption and bigotry, is inexcusable.

>>3166326
Basically people who aren't psychopaths and sociopaths.

>>3166337
God didn't just give birth to humans like your father did to you. He designed them. Made them greedy, vicious, cruel, selfish beasts. He could've made them good and made life something of beauty, but no. Additionally in Abrahamic religions he punishes them for fulfilling their immoral impulses that they didn't ask for, he gave to them. He's a cunt.

>>3166345
>IF I DON'T MAKE SENSE, YOU'RE JUST TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND ME.

>>3166340
Is the good what the gods command, or is what the gods command, good?

>>3166340
yes he is. go read euthyphro you philistine.

>>3166346
>muh liberalism muh fucka

Fascists stood up for european culture. Unlike you jew controlled marxists who wanted to destroy any semblance of reason or justice in the world.

>>3166356
>God didn't just give birth to humans like your father did to you. He designed them. Made them greedy, vicious, cruel, selfish beasts.

God made humans pure and innocent, with no knowledge of right and wrong. Satan made a talking snake, and because Eve was unable to comprehend what they were doing was wrong, she decided to listen to the snake and eat the apple.

>>3166356
hahaha lol rethink that. We could never know the value of a life which is beautiful and good without misery. Did you even read Genesis? Making us capable of greed and evil was the best God could do for us. This way we can choose a better life and then be proud of it.

>>3166367
No. Wrong all the way through.
Eve knew it was wrong and that's the main reason she did it.

>>3166358
The point is platonism, and christianity say that, more or less, God must act morally. Which is to say 'the good'/morality have some existence above God, which is absurd, and leads to the problems inherent in christian theology with regard to evil and omnipotence. It is solved by saying that no, whatever he commands is good, goodness isn't some higher principle that god is bound to obeying. He's above morality.

>>3166367
>god makes humans naive and able to be easily tricked by an evil snake
>one of them gets tricked by an evil snake
>le punishment for all eternity time
God is an idiot as well as an asshole

>>3166369
Yes we could, he could simply give us this knowledge from the start.

>>3166373
So the only possible god is an asshole?

>>3166374
That is what God wanted. I am not just saying that whatever happens is what God must have wanted. What I am saying is that if you really think about it, the only way God can make us happy is if we make a choice to live in good faith, and the only way to allow us to do that is to give us options among which to choose. Otherwise, we would be robots. We would never know what the good life is even though we are living in it. We have to venture outside of it first.

>>3166388
You're implying free will.

>>3166379
The way you are putting it, it would not be knowledge; it would be programming and then we could still never make the choice.

>>3166393
Whether or not we make the choice is based on factors outside of ourselves though.

>>3166392
Nope not at all. Only to barbarians who can't into subtlety. Keep trying though.

>>3166394
I won't give serious responses to posts like this, where you just put some words together and hope I will find meaning in it for you. It's OK if you don't know what you're talking about—just follow along with those who do.

>>3166388
But if god is omniscient than how can we go against his will? You would have to say that his will for us is to be malicious.

>>3166398
Everyone on /lit/ knows you're a retard now.

>>3166399
Same way children go against their parents' will.

>>3166403
Parents aren't omniscient you dolt.

Does Goku exist?
Why/Why not?

>>3166309
In other words, religion is bad because it's not left-wing. That probably sums up the typical atheist view, and I say that as an atheist.

You're perfectly willing to believe in commandments that come from no authority, that just fucking float out of the abyss, like "human rights," so long as they benefit you, or make you feel cosy, but reject equally arbitrary commandments that you don't like, yet pretend to be more logical and more objective.

>>3166408
Parents are.

>>3166408
An analogy is only a good analogy if it is slightly imperfect. What you gain from understanding an analogy is the difference between what you expect and what you can work out. Otherwise I would be saying 2 is like 2. It doesn't have to line up exactly, and it shouldn't.

>conversations_with_illiterates.epub

>>3166411
My sentiments exactly. Many atheists are as superstitious as the christians they hate.

>>3166386
God can do what he wants.

You can think he's an asshole, but that's just your opinion. If you don't like it so what?

As a side note, Muslims believe that God 'made' people for hell, and he can do as he pleases.

>>3166399
We can't. You're starting to get it.

Free will doesn't exist, it only seems like it does to us.

>>3166388
You may not be familiar with science since you like your pastel-colored fantasies and rococo angels better, but we are walking chemical reactions. Sometime early in the earth's history, in the chemical soup that was the sea, some reactions became self-sustaining for a limited time. Most died, but some created successor reactions before they died, which also sustained themselves. Much later, self-consciousness snowballs into existence, and here we are. We are 'robots' in your view. If your god fucked up the laws of nature that resulted in us, it's his own concern.

why does God exist?

>implying your mere human brain understands God

why does God not exist?

>implying your mere human brain understands the universe

>>3166411
Thank you for your response, but let me correct you.

>religion is bad because it's not left-wing
No, the Christian Church is specifically bad for it's endorsements of atrocious fascist campaigns, for instance Pope Pius XII who endorsed Hitler's regime in 1939! Does the Vatican's support of Mussolini not bother you?

As for your second point. I assure you it wouldn't be hard to argue that the UN's declaration of human rights would be a much better standard to hold humanity to than the ten commandments that came from a basically illiterate, scientifically ignorant part of the middle east from thousands of years ago. These people are the same that used religion to justify slavery, segregation and genocide, and viewed woman as nothing more than property.

>>3166399
>implying you understand omniscience

fagoot

>>3166433
You know the same silly argument you would use against me to tell me that I delude myself with the concept of God and religion in a primitive attempt to give my life meaning and control my environment? I can use that same one against you to explain why your science is nothing more than a religion. And it's a petty one at that, since it constantly tries to stifle other ways of existing and knowing, and couldn't come about on its own the way religion did— it had to grow as a strawman attack on religion with strawmen like intolerance and ignorance.

>>3166416
You're not worth my time if you can't spot the fallacy in his analogy.

>>3166440
>bad for it's endorsements
>it's

absolutely disgusting

>>3166447
Analogies aren't fallacious. They are good or bad, but among the worst are the ones that come too close or are too far away from the thing we are trying to understand. The fact is that you can't attack that analogy because you know what he means, and that's all that matters.

>>3166444
I really fucking hope you're not serious. You're implying the opposite of what is true. Scientific theory is not the same as philosophical theory and it is religion that constantly tries to stifle scientific progress.

>>3166448
haha my bad. There are probably other mistakes in there too. I just typed it up fast.

>>3166444
All systems of knowledge try to stifle each other. Yours did. Now it's being stifled in turn, and has been since the 19th century, except in really retrograde, almost medieval economies, like the american south.
My issue is that you have no concern for logic or analysis. I don't care about intolerance - I'm a national socialist. (Not the one who was posting earlier, though.) How do I justify it? It's a decision based on my preferences. I don't need an imaginary friend to hold my hand.

>>3166487
>haha my bad. There are probably other mistakes in there too. I just typed it up fast.

No, you didn't 'type it up fast'. You're an illiterate man-ape.

Prove god doesn't exist.

Protip: You can't.

I think this prove at least that catholics are wrong with their trinity

>>3166487
>scientific progress

>>3166504
>You're an illiterate man-ape.

not the same anon but you're a dickhead. this forum is loose with harsh snaps and i just think, "why world? why?" then i have to remember that every survey ever done on this forum shows that a good 99% of you are aged 14-18

>>3166506
It's easy to prove that the Christian and the other obviously man made gods don't exist. Deism, on the other hand, is simply an erroneous belief. Lapace, after he worked out a model of our solar system, was asked to present it to Napoleon. When Napoleon asked him why god did not appear in his equations he simply said "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothese," or in English "I had no need of that hypothesis." The laws of the universe work just fine without god in the equation.

>>3166506
I think this statement has been posted more than 10000 times since the creation of 4chan. Let's have another debate about it.

>>3166440
>>Does the Vatican's support of Mussolini not bother you?
No, but Mussolini's support for the Vatican does.

Argue away, but unless you claim to be the mouthpiece of an angry deity, these rights are just commonly held egoisms, specifically those of the lower classes, who have only recently become politically dominant. Elsewhere in history, rights are granted by authorities, which are the leaders of groups of armed men, whether from a single kin-group or a conglomeration.

>>3166532
No it isn't. In fact, it is impossible to prove that any deity in particular doesn't exist. They are not scientific claims, and to treat them like scientific claims is to be crass and ignorant.

Wow OP your post totally made me think about literature

>>3166543
>No, but Mussolini's support for the Vatican does.
At least it was purely pragmatic. Ole Communist Benito wouldn't support them any other way.

>>3166543
And unless you can prove that the laws of history past are better for the advancement of the human race as a whole than let them stay buried in the past. Secularism and societies based on secularist ideals are more humane and grant more freedom than any theocracy.

>>3166545
Then why should anyone believe that any particular religion is true? Why should anyone look to god for the origin of life or the origin of the universe? Well obviously they shouldn't, but people do. And since they do, they are supplanting actual theories for bogus ones and the ignorant deserve to know.

>75 posts in 2 hours

>>3166572
But every single founding father of liberalism were Christians.
EVERY
SINGLE
ONE

>>3166572
>Then why should anyone believe that any particular religion is true?
If you really can't understand how someone can hold a belief that isn't scientifically provable, then you are the ignorant one here. Science is not everything.

God does not exist, it insists.

>>3166618
That's because when liberalism was founded in a time when we didn't know as much as we know now about the origins of life and the origins of the universe. Most intellectuals of the time were religious, compared to now where the majority of the intelligentsia is non-religious.

>>3166629
I really can't understand why someone could hold a belief about the origin of the universe that is not grounded in scientific evidence. Why believe any claim of fact that can not be justified?

>>3166635
How does moral and ideology have anything to do with origin of life?

>>3166637

lacan im gonna fack u up

Oh god, not this shit again.

>>3166635
>Why believe any claim of fact that can not be justified?

What you really mean by that is "why believe any claim that cannot be scientifically justified?" and that is my point. Belief in a particular religion can be justified, but if you really have such a small mind that only science makes sense to you, then you will always fail to understand.
Barbarians gonna Barbar.

>>3166572
>advancement
This does not occur. 'Progress' is just a secular version of the 'providence' of half-hearted 19th century christians, which is basically optimistic bluster. Technology gets better, but if you haven't noticed, we're now capable of killing off most of the human population within a day. Is this an improvement? That's the least subtle example, but you get the picture.

It's not liberalism versus theocracy, it's liberalism versus egoism. The former is so doggedly anti-authority that it's unwilling to claim arbitrary authority, which means that it's unconvincing compared to individualism egoism, or the egoism of specific groups (think about the literal meaning of the phrase "national socialism.") It's unassertive by nature, purely critical and reactive. If an entire population thinks in such passive, reactive terms, it's a bad sign. It's like an artist who only depicts or writes about what disgusts him, at best. Assertion means conflict, rejecting assertion merely means that you don't have to risk getting hurt.

Wow, is this fucking amateur hour? Let's at least get some classic arguments going. Come on guys.

Teleological argument: every thing in our reality seems to have a final cause- that is, some ultimate purpose or utility the thing serves, a tomato plant for food, a rose plant for beauty, a baker for good bread, and so on. There must have been a designer that lent purpose to all things in this world. (this one is unraveling with the onset of quantum mechanics, but still a fine thought.)

Ontological argument. God is perfect (=dF). God is that which no greater thing can be imagined. The nonexistence of that which no greater thing can be imagined is an imperfection.

Wrangling the horns of the problem of evil: If your God is so good, why does evil exist?

For me, God is that which no greater thing can be imagined- the master of images- the master of propositions, the truth in every proposition. Yes, he is an idea. No causal interaction with the world, for then we would have no freedom. Yes, I miss out on all of the goodies of God being the master of the puppets and the ultimate lawgiver and so on. But I like this idea of that which no greater thing can be imagined, it's sort of a transcendental idea.

Cheers

WANNA MAKE SOME MONEY?

http://www.we-profit.net

>>3166656
>(this one is unraveling with the onset of quantum mechanics, but still a fine thought.)
Not really.

>>3166638
Religion bases its moral codes under the pretense that the god that created life, and us in his image, decrees it so. Religious people claim that they know this god's will and that he wants us to mutilate our genitals, and that we shouldn't eat pork, or that there is some afterlife that is only granted to those that obey. Ridiculous, I know.

>>3166647
>Belief in a particular religion can be justified
I propose otherwise. At this point in history, there is absolutely no reason to believe in any religion whatsoever.

>>3166649
Very good points! Advancement was meant not as really technological advancement but more as a species. Refer to the Marx quote I posted earlier here:
>>3166309

>>3166668
>I propose otherwise. At this point in history, there is absolutely no reason to believe in any religion whatsoever.

I think you mean "I propose otherwise. At this point in history, there is absolutely no scientific reason to believe in any religion whatsoever."

Science does not equal reason. You are wasting my time, since you obviously have no idea what science is or how it works.

>>3166656
>There must have been a designer that lent purpose to all things in this world.
Then who was the designer that lent purpose to the designer or this world?
Obviously that argument gets us nowhere.

>But I like this idea of that which no greater thing can be imagined, it's sort of a transcendental idea.
Nothing but empty, wishful thinking.

>>3166668
I'm not sure if you're just trolling for the sake of trolling, but I'll bite either way.
>Religion base its moral codes...that the god...decrees it so.
No it doesn't.
>Religious people claim that they know this god's will
No they don't, nobody can epistemologically discern God.
>he want us to mutilate our genitals...etc etc.
Again, we don't know.
>Afterlife that is only granted to those that obey
Nope.

>>3166225
Which god(s)?

>>3166679
lol your arguments are so compelling. Why write entire volumes like some philosophers when
>no it doesn't
and
>nope
suffice? Well done.

>>3166525
and the other one percent are middle aged men who really should have found something better to do with their time. also - spot trolling you oldenfag, and stop lumping everyone together

>>3166686
If you want I'll go into details, but it just seems to me you should be the one doing the reading.

>>3166672
Oh yeah well I have a double major in quantum mechanics and aerospace engineering so say that to my face... just kidding.
But really, what justification is their for believing in god? At the best it is wishful thinking.

>>3166679
Then where does religion discern it's authority?
>No they don't, nobody can epistemologically discern God.
and yet the religious institutions of this world claim that they can.
You're going to have to elaborate more than that though.

>>3166660

Please, elaborate. Do you mean quantum mechanics isn't shining light on the idea that everything came about by some chance catastrophe? Or that quantum mechanics doesn't really affect the teleological argument?

>>3166673

Maybe the designer is Nature, maybe some painter in the sky. I agree, it doesn't yield us a vision, but it gives us an idea.

Wishful thinking? Again, I am not looking to deduce meaning or order from this idea, I simply encounter it when I explore my imagination, my gallery of images.

>>3166691
I'm asking what makes you think that there is a designer and, of course, who designed the designer?

>>3166686
thumbs up to the man

>>3166690
Interpretation and authentication have different meanings. Religious people believe, BELIEVE, in the qualities of God, the very essence of God, and God itself. To claim knowledge of anything beyond that is not dealt in the realm of religion

>>3166691
>Please, elaborate. Do you mean quantum mechanics isn't shining light on the idea that everything came about by some chance catastrophe? Or that quantum mechanics doesn't really affect the teleological argument?
Mostly the latter. Why can always ask "Why is it like this and not otherwise?", because we like to make causal chains, which then leads to the kind of teleology described above, even if it isn't like a set of temporal events or what have you.

The former is also somewhat true, people tend to blow a lot of quantum ideas really out of proportion. I'm not saying it isn't crazy spooky shit, but people tend to get caught up in some of the more poetic explanations of things.

>>3166714
>Religious people believe, BELIEVE, in the qualities of God, the very essence of God, and God itself.
But there is no reason to BELIEVE in god, at all, and I have yet to hear an good argument as to why I should.
>to claim knowledge of anything beyond that is not dealt in the realm of religion
That is exactly what religious institutions do though.

>>3166700

Yes, of course, when we think of the universe as a causal chain we beckon this infinite regress. If everything has a cause, and there was some first cause, why wouldn't it too have a cause?

What makes me think of a designer? I am mystified by the functions of things in reality. A heart, a hunk of flesh, beats with special energy. A brain, a clod of protein, functioning as an electric circuit which transmits mind. The anatomy of species. Aroma molecules, flavor molecules. I am amazed. It screams, "art"! Who was the artist? Was this all forged in the combustion of some star? Was it thought up by some transcendental thinker?

Frankly, I can't give you an answer, I just say we are given much material to speculate about.

>>3166728
We're going in circles here, I give no single quantum of fuck whether you believe in God or not, I'm saying your perception on religious institutions are biased.
NOT A SINGLE MAINSTREAM religious institution dare to say God wills it or this is what God wants.

>>3166364
>Dat nazi butthrt

>>3166716

Well said. It does seem that deep-seated improbability and relativity changes the way we consider causal questions. I am not a quantum physicist, but I am fascinated by this empirical bust.

>>3166737
>Was this all forged in the combustion of some star?
It can be traced back to that, sure. Life is certainly an incredible thing but science can explain all of those things and how they came to be.

>>3166743
Are you fucking kidding me?

Give a reason why anyone should believe in god?

>NOT A SINGLE MAINSTREAM religious institution dare to say God wills it or this is what God wants.
What the fuck are you talking about man? Seriously, I don't even know how to respond to your ignorance.

>>3166668
The marxist ideal is the logical conclusion of the liberal ideal, and they're both purely passive. They're about avoiding hunger, violence, and a sense of inferiority. To keep things concrete, rather than saying 'This is bad,' I'd say that I would have contempt for people with so little ambition - if they existed. These are the few things that humanity can agree on. As such they represent an inhumanly average ideal - real people want more. It has a concrete foundation and doesn't depend on abstract 'thou shalts,' or mythical rewards and punishments, but 'humanity' is an abstraction; humanity might end up in good condition as a whole, but 'the common good' is no consolation for the bored citizens of a socialist paradise, who have desires that conflict with 'the common good,' which thus loses its egoistic foundation and becomes another idol that needs smashing. A douchebag might want to lord it over other people. An painter might want to paint nightmares instead of didactic and informative historical scenes. An architect might want to build a useless gothic monstrosity rather than a perfectly cubical tenement. A talentless pleb might want to get drunk instead of working. A factory worker might want to make jewellery instead of using gold in electronics. You get the picture. Life is selfish, flourishing life even more so.

>>3166785

>science can explain all those things and how they came to be
>dat scientific dogma

>>3166785
Perhaps you can start by pointing me to a religious institution founded primarily on becoming God or comprehend God in such a bold, daring way as to say they are the prophet of God.

>>3166807
>The marxist ideal is the logical conclusion of the liberal ideal

The liberal idea is about freedom. Marxism is about forced equality. You cant have forced equality without depriving people of freedom.

Everything points in the direction that god doesn't exist.

>You can't prove or disprove it's existence
>Theories to the whole god thing are, God was created to scare and control lots of people in times that were very grim and then adopted and discovered by others because of how well it worked
>Different religions have different gods
>The bible has been modified to be more modernized and believable using Jesus as an excuse to do it
>Evolution proves we weren't "Created in gods image"
>As we explore space more i think we'll find more proof and more theories pointing towards a scientific explanation to how all life/the universe was created

There's plenty of theories, Even religious views on god is a theory, It's a theory you can't ever prove without factual evidence of a omnipotent being but religious people don't consider their beliefs a theory so no proof to support them will ever be presented. It's very unlikely the stories about god are true, They constantly change with the times to make them more believable.

>>3166831
I was using the word in the colloquial sense. You know, those guys who resent their parents, teachers, the dominant ethnic group even if they belong to it, the rich even if they are well off, etc. In short, the people with inferiority complexes who feel compelled to defend themselves vicariously. Not necessarily those who want to discourage monopolies of power to keep society from stagnating.