/lit/ - Literature

Because some people need to fill their life with a meaningless piss contest.

Because in our modern youth culture, social status is derived from how much you don't care. It's a race to the bottom and inherently self-destructive, but at least you look cool doing it.

>There are no unicorns that fly and shit rainbows

>There are unicorns that fly and shit rainbows

Why do people with a grip on reality believe that the first statement is logically valid, but the second one isn't?

>>4244452
it isn't logically valid though. it's more likely

>>4244452
Because unicorns are known for having a material form.
God doesn't necessarily has one.

>>4244465
The unicorns live in another galaxy. Prove me wrong.

Most atheists are actually strong agnostics, but if you try to make that kind of fine distinction in normal discussion you come off as a pretentious asshat.

So basically atheists believe that the probability of something as ridiculous as God actually existing is so remote that it isn't worth seriously considering.

>>4244452
>>4244473
Atheism is the philosophical position that god does not exist. That is a belief.

belief = something you believe to be true.

>>4244478
Your point being?

Depends on the definition of "God"

If you choose a self-contradictory definition, the definition cannot possibly be satisfied: the belief is rendered invalid.

If you choose an internally consistent definition, the belief is perfectly valid but just incorrect and/or uninteresting.

inb4 flamewar

Atheists generally agree with the scientific method i.e observation is necessary for belief. As no reliable sources exist to verify the existence of a god and (depending on the faith) some of the characteristics of god (eg infinite knowledge) are incompatible with our current understanding of the universe, it would be illogical to believe in god. If it were logical to believe in god then it would logical to believe in other unseen things (fsm, russell's teapot etc).

>>4244483
It's just as invalid or valid as a belief that God does exist. Whether it's likely or not has nothing to do with the truth that exists independently.

>Why do atheists believe that the first belief is logically valid, but the second one isn't?

A single proposition CANNOT be logically valid. Propositions are either true or false, and NOT valid or invalid ("valid" and "invalid" are reserved for arguments that contain a set of premises). Or both, true and false, if you are a dialetheist.

>>4244490
>observation is necessary for belief

So you've personally observed everything you believe to be true?

i thought it Pascal already cleared all this up

faith is not on the same level as reason

atheists and faithfuls cannot sway eachother.

>>4244494
>trying to use wording to argue a legitimate philosophical concept

Go read Meditations on First Philosophy and come back to us when you're done being retarded.

>>4244492
It's also just as valid a belief that god wears a beanie or fedora with your shitty logic. Look, 'god's existence' is an active belief in something that we have no proof of or reason to believe in, while a belief in God's non-existence is a conclusion based on the lack of evidence and, really, the sheer ridiculousness of the idea.

>>4244492
Armchair atheists are really fucking irritating because they insist a faith is something that can be logically proven. They experience brief euphoria by lashing out at more cohesive social constructs to find respite from more typically experienced bitterness and misery.

Actual atheists use logic to demonstrate that they don't need religion due to a genuine disbelief in the existence of a higher power as described by religions. They are normal human beings with a range of hopes, dreams, desires and emotions.

>>4244490
>then it would logical to believe in other unseen things
I can't see "good" or "justice" or any other of these intangible things. Do they exist or not? I'm just curious here. The more I read up on philosophy though, the more I understand the validity of belief in a creator called "God" and most of what it implies. The idea that something can only be true if it can be tangibly verified, as opposed to reasoned out, seems to eliminate a lot of things we use regularly and discuss.

I think the comparison of the existence of an intangible God with purposefully absurd ideas that have no real philosophical value or use is pretty unfair, because of what's been explained above. The idea of God, it seems to me, is philosophically useful, whereas a teapot or invisible unicorn is just a joke to make fun of other people. I'm not sure it's even an accurate analogy. More accurate might be:
>If you believe God can exist, then you must believe that an intangible being exists that is capable of observing what is unable to be physically observed by ourselves but we know to exist and exists him/itself in a plane of existence similar to our ideas
That would be a start, I think.

>>4244503
>g-go read "namedrop"

I'm just correcting the terms you're using because you clearly don't understand what you're speaking about.

>>4244506
Again, whether something is likely or not has nothing to do with truth. Believing the God does not exist is just as much of a belief as believing that he does.

Both sides of the argument lack proof either way, but fedoras still have a delusion of superiority.

>>4244410
Well that's wrong because there are arguments, logically valid ones, supporting both positions.

You can't just pretend that either camp is just making a claim and saying it's true without any reasoning, whether that's what some ignorant people do or not.

>>4244506
why is it ridiculous???? isn t everything ridiculous?????? do u honestly believe we can really understand everything we perceive and that we can perceive everything??? do you really need evidence to believe in anything??? i feel sorry for u god bless u

>>4244513
Of course, you can't prove something outside of this reality doesn't exist, you can see however that it's merely an idea without validity and conclude based on what we know about the universe, but whatever

>>4244511
>Do they exist or not?
They don't exist beyond being concepts. Sort of like god.

>>4244492
>Whether it's likely or not has nothing to do with the truth that exists independently.

Lets say i have a number generator that will randomly generate either a number one or a number two. The machine is set so that the probability of a number one occurring is 900 trillion times higher than that of a number two. If you were to assert that when switched on the machine would undoubtedly generate the number two, i would tell you that you were wrong. Even though the possibility of me being wrong and you being right exists, it is so small that the logical position would be mine. Even though i believe my answer is right and that yours is wrong my belief is based on probability rather than mere faith. Even though the answer is either one or two the probability is not 50:50. If you want to be religious go right ahead (provided you don't use is for immoral purposes) just don't pretend that religion is based on reason rather than faith.

>>4244473
I don´t get why agnostic=pretentious, are america that retarded?

>>4244524
>don't pretend that religion is based on reason rather than faith

Don't pretend like atheism is based on rationality and science when their philosophical position is just as belief-based as a religious person's.

>>4244522
god doesn't exist within this universe he exists outside of physical space that's the point
why is it more valid to believe god doesn't exist? if anything that leaves more unanswered questions about our universe

>>4244513
>fedoras still have a delusion of superiority

Yeah, there's a lot of that going around. Spooky stuff.

>>4244523
Oh, a nominalist. Do you have any "proof" for that, or are you just spilling the beans without any particular reasoning behind it?

"Good" and "God" are just as legitimate concepts as a "number" and a "set", that may, or may not, exist in some abstract sense.

Let us hear it.

>>4244523
doesn't the conception of god itself make god exist though? like the widely "accepted" concept of good makes good exist

The worst thing about atheists is that they don't even know what the words they use mean. They throw around "belief" like it means something without proof, but what it really means is "something you believe to be true".

To say that God does not exist is just as much of a belief as saying that God does exist.

>>4244536
The metaphysical existence of God has nothing to do with religion, junior. If anything modern religion is the antithesis.

>>4244538
They conceded that while positing that God can only merely be a concept.

>>4244524
Bad analogy. There are rational, logical arguments behind the belief in God, and you have no greater claim to what is probable with yours than theirs.

>>4244539
>they don't even know what the words they use mean.
Dat hypocrisy.

>>4244532
>just as belief-based as a religious person's
Well yes. I fail to see the point your making. Being belief based just means believing something is true. I believe that I live on the planet earth, the fact that I believe this doesn't make the earth existing as likely as buffy the vampire slayer being a real person (presuming of course that somebody somewhere believes this to be true).

>>4244539
who /jp/ here

>>4244539
>If anything modern religion is the antithesis.

I'd be surprised if the new Pope's statement that while he dislikes homosexuals and he believes God doesn't like homosexuals, the Church should still reach out to them in a spirit of benevolence didn't cause a few heart attacks in the Catholic clergy.

Modern religion was shit. Post-modern religion seems like he might be a p. chill dude.

>>4244550
>There are rational, logical arguments behind the belief in God

Care to name some?

>>4244410

Because most people don't understand the concept of a positive assertion, or otherwise confuse the use of negating language (i.e. "no" or "not") as a sign that their assertion is not one of certain knowledge, that is to say a statement that one knows to be true.

>>4244555
This. There are no valid arguments defending positions that I personally disagree with.

>>>4244550
>>There are rational, logical arguments behind the belief in God
They are all flawed

>>4244551
The reason OP made this thread is because self-proclaimed atheists present their belief as absolute truth whereas, as you said yourself, it's merely axiomatic at best.

>>4244534
>god doesn't exist within this universe he exists outside of physical space
How awfully convenient. Not for him, but for you and others who posit that he exists. It utterly removes him from the realm of observable phenomena and shields his existence from skeptical reasoning.

And the only basis you have for believing this is the total absence of his presence in this, our observable universe.

Remarkable how that all works out, huh?

>>4244538
But even when we hold good to be something that exists, we still only recognize it as existing in the context of human behavior. A belief in god makes the claim that there is actually something separate from man that would continue to exist without people to believe in it.

>>4244567
Go ahead and list them all and then debunk them.

>>4244551
missed the point

The belief of the existance or non-existance of a metaphysical being are indeed equally viable.
What's not equally viable, though, is the non-existance of a god and the existance of a judeo-christian god who manifested himself as a human and died for our sins after leaving a set of somewhat ambigous ethical rules.

This is the arrogance of Christians, because they present their view as something more rational and viable. If you say to a modern christian that his belief is irrational it's taken as an insult, the same word that was used by scholars to present a vital part of being a Christian - it's not rational. Theological truths are beyond the rational, they require faith, this is not an insult to a Christian, but something that was prided upon, as opposed to the philosophical legacy of the Greeks that tried to figure things out with reason.

So yeah, call me a fedora wearer, whatever you want, but an atheist position is more "default" than a Christian position. I wouldn't bring up my kids in a specific set of religious rules.

>>4244410

Becouse stating that something exists, but you can´t see it is not as rational as stating something doesn´t exist and you cant see it not exist.

>ITT: People assume 'observation' is pre-theoretical and entirely unladen with a conceptual scheme that constitutes what is or is not observed

Jesus christ what are you, a bunch of foundationalists?

>>4244573
What is your point then?

>>4244583
*tips*

>>4244555
Oh, you.

Which flavor would you like? Monotheism? Pantheism?

We can start with some basic ones if you like:
Cosmological argument
Ontological argument
Teleological argument

>>4244553
>while he dislikes homosexuals and he believes God doesn't like homosexuals
That's an inaccurate summarizing of what he said that alters his intent and message, bro. Please try not to do that in the future, accuracy is important. He didn't mention "like" or "dislike", just that homosexuality is a sin, but that people should be more concerned with their own sins than others, and that the church should reach out to help them as it does for all sinners. The official position of the Catholic Church isn't "burn in hell, fags", or "We dislike gays," but roughly the same as it's position towards other sins. They encourage abstinence for homosexuals, and it's encouraged for heterosexuals too I believe.

It's a complicated issue, and you're doing it a disservice by simplifying it in a manner that changes what the issue is and how people respond to it.

>>4244575
>I wouldn't bring up my kids in a specific set of religious rules.

Because you firmly believe that atheism is the correct belief or because you're too lazy to find a decent church, temple or mosque that preaches religion must be studied to have any value?

You'd better hand out the condoms and pills early and start looking into rehab programs if it's the latter.

>>4244562
Yes, that straw-man of an atheist surely does present his belief as absolute truth, as you have pointed out. Do you have any actual critiques of atheist talking points or are you just content to take potshots at your dummy?

>>4244572
Thats not how this works. Tell me a reason to believe in god and we'll discuss whether or not it is logically sound.

>>4244587
I've always wanted to see an argument against pantheism.

>>4244410
it's all about the arguments really. if there was more good christian philosophers atheism would probably stop being the norm between intelligent people; but christian theories have been mostly disproved. They love using logical fallacies to try and show us that their imaginary friend exists.

>>4244595
>no valid arguments exist for religion
>I personally know of and have debunked every one in existence

Proof?

>>4244594
Except absolute rejection of god is quite an integral part of being an atheist you fucking idiot

>>4244586
this can´t be real

>>4244588
I love how Catholics make themselves believe that having an active heterosexual sex life for the purpose of pleasure is less of a sin than two loyal homosexual partners.

The sin isn't being a fag, the sin is being overtly sexual in the first place.

>>4244588
I'm trying to come up with an intelligent response to this, but I can't stop having gigglefits over the notion that the Pope secretly likes sin.

>>4244569
i'm not sure if people do- i think a lot of people believe in some kind of all-encompassing, greater force of good. that's why being "good" matters to most people, even without belief in god. without some kind of god, where does morality/good as a context of human behavior even come from?

>>4244610
The Catholic Church has said nothing about homosexuality or homosexual partners, only about the sex act.

>>4244568
Why are you deliberately ignoring the arguments presented for "reasoning" the existence of God already posted ITT and his usefulness in metaphysics and other branches of philosophy, and then deliberately misinterpreting it as "you think he exists because we can't observe him!" if you want to have any sort of discussion at all?

>>4244608
Somewhere along the way, someone made the horrific mistake of putting skeletons... INSIDE CHILDREN.

>>4244568
i have faith its that simple. i feel gods presence in my life and i feel the force of something greater than myself.

>>4244590
I'm not an atheist and I haven't been one for years. If anything I'm pretty sympathetic towards Christianity and I like to study it.
But implying that you should impress faith on a young mind before it actually comprehends it is really wrong to me.

>>4244615
I always thought of it as a vague democratic thing. It's just useful to apply your personal/cultural values to something greater. Historically the most important laws for the survival of a particular society were off-loaded in to religion, because that insured that they would be adhered to despite political shifts.

>>4244616
Where do you live? Bishops talk about this stuff fairly often and their views are obvious.

>>4244607
Not at all. I myself am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in a deity simply because I see no evidence for one. If I saw credible proof a deity existed I'd be a fool to not consider it seriously. As yet, I have seen no credible proof. So I remain atheist. I do not claim to know definitively that no god exists. The same is true for many fantastical ideas that have no evidence.

>>4244626
agnostic atheist =/= atheist

>hurr atheisms is faggotz n fedoras XD

gb2/pol/

>>4244610
Having a good sex life within marriage is hardly frowned upon by Catholics, go read the Catechism. You're encouraged to enjoy having sex with your wife/husband, bro.

I'm not a Catholic either, I just bothered to read this stuff up before dismissing it.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2362.htm

>>4244626
So your belief is that a deity does not exist, and since a belief is something you believe to be true, you reject God's existence. Something cannot be true and not true at the same time, due to the law of excluded middle.

>>4244615
Morality is equally metaphysical as god, but people don't want to affirm this.

You could say that our drive to be good people is based on having mutual respect and good relations, but when it comes down to it, what makes you act in a moral way when there's no one observing you, no negative consequences, no fear? You believe in an idea of Good, it's that simple. Without morals, we're fucked, morals are beyond regular human ethics. You don't need religion to be moral, but it's a kind of belief. This is where Plato is eternally right.

What is this sudden obsession with religion on 4chan?

Fuck off

>>4244586
>fake Facebook screencaps and tired memes in lieu of an argument
You're not doing a nything for your side.

>>4244587

I really wish that you would have spelled out the arguments rather than name dropping

>Cosmological argument
Same as first mover argument right? Fairly easy to dismiss. If a first cause is needed for the universe then doesence the cause itself need a cause? By providing god as an answer to the question who created the universe you ask the question who created god. without a good answer to this question then the answer to the previous question is invalid.

Ontological argument
Which one? I chose the following since you didn't specify
Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
Therefore, God exists

continued in next post (may take a while)

>>4244641
>post a strawman screencap
>get mad when someone posts a strawman screencap back

>>4244644
i didn't post that retard

>>4244621
It's not really the faith I want to impart, but the social process of benevolent religious communities. The faith will still be there or it won't when the child is grown, but for most people, training a habitual vague awareness that some things are sacred is less anguishing than leaving them to adolescence with poor impulse control; whether they have the capacity to move past ritual into a deeper understanding of the cosmos can't be forced to develop any more than faith.

>>4244632
I was not talking about sex within marriage, dude. I was talking about casual fucks, and people who call themselves Christian that don't see much wrong in it.

>>4244604
*tips fedora*

>>4244410
The null hypothesis.

>>4244595
>I personally know of and have debunked every one in existence

Did I claim that. Present me with an argument and i will consider it.

>>4244643
No one creates a contingent being, or in other words the first unmoved mover (god or nature) caused itself.

Also, even if you deny premises, that doesn't render it valid or invalid, it merely brings its soundness into question.

>>4244647
Not all Christians are Catholics, not all Catholics are are "good Catholics," etc. Making that comparison is similar to comparing any atheist to the particularly virulent, hostile, and ignorant variety that tends to post on the internet (fedora, etc.). They're different and acting as if they're the same is incorrect.

>>4244652
>Did I claim that?
>"They are all flawed."

Yes.

The term atheism can be formulated in two ways:

1. An absence of belief in deities

2. A belief that no deities exist

However, if we accept 2, it's the same 'type' of belief as positively believing in the non-existence of ANY irresolvable hypothesis. Unicorns, leprechauns, blorgites (which is a creature I just invented). The reason this 'type' of belief is different is because positively believing in the non-existence of something only differs to lacking belief in something depending on your use of the term 'believe', but really they're the same.

The liklihood of there either being a God or there being no God is not 50/50 which OP implies, because of the principle of parsimony.

>>4244620
Then you accept that your belief is illogical.

>>4244617
He is useful in the sense that our knowledge at the moment is too incomplete and imperfect to properly explain the universe. As I said before: it is highly CONVENIENT to you, his believers, but not to him, that he exists in the manner you describe and not in some other way. Or do you think it merely coincidence that god explains all those things for which science and secular reasoning have yet to adequately explain, and which may never be adequately explained? His usefulness extends only to those willing to believe in him and subscribe to the idea that anything we don't understand right now is ultimately unknowable and the work of an unknowable, unobservable, unprovable entity.

>>4244620
"In this moment I am euphoric, not because of any phony enlightened intellect, but because of God's blessing" -you

>>4244643
No one creates an incontingent being, or in other words the first unmoved mover (god or nature) caused itself.

Also, even if you deny premises, that doesn't render it valid or invalid, it merely brings its soundness into question.

>>4244629
Yes please explain how a type of atheist is not actually an atheist.

>>4244635
I just explained to you how my belief works. If your theory has a problem with it I suggest you take it up with the author of the book you're quoting.

>>4244645
>Agnostic-Atheist

see >>4244635

>mfw most atheists claim intellectual superiority but haven't even taken phil 101

>>4244431
>in our modern youth culture
Youth culture itself is a modern phenomenon.

>>4244657
Ah now I understand your confusion. That particular post was not from me. If you wish to tell me some arguments for gods existence I will be happy to listen.

>>4244645

>very rare

horseshit.jpeg

>most agnostics are agnostic atheists

also horseshit

>>4244601
I can argue that Pantheism equates to Atheism.

>>4244673
This I would like to see.

>>4244604
>"If this nigga don't shut the fuck up and read a goddamn history book..."

>>4244653
>or in other words the first unmoved mover (god or nature) caused itself.
>nature caused itself

So your answer to my objection is to claim that nature can cause itself thereby invalidating your claim that god is needed.

>>4244635
Dude, what part of this do you not understand?

He doesn't believe in a god because it hasn't been proven to him. If he was presented with compelling proof, he would consider it, thus turning it into a question of knowledge.

Lack of belief into a deity =/= belief that there are no deities

Learn your fucking basic terms.

Let them have their God and I'll have my Übermensch.

All beliefs are per definition irrational.

>>4244670
wow hot argument sure convinced me

>>4244635
did you read the image you anime fag? there's a difference between believing something is probably not true in all probability and saying you have infallible knowledge

>>4244663
>the first unmoved mover (god or nature) caused itself
>nature caused itself

Then god as a first mover is not needed.

>>4244679
No, it just also accounts for a Spinozistic (pantheistic) view of god.

What I'm saying is that the argument still holds if you think God and nature are the same thing.

However, there are problems with Spinoza's conception of God as nature.

Also, you don't "invalidate" claims that you don't make. In other words, I never said that God was necessary, just that the arguments for his existence are cogent.

Are you the same avatarfriend who was supposed to go to the movies on /x/

>>4244661
I'm not sure where you get the idea that God is either "anti-science" or exists only to explain things not yet discovered through scientific method and observation. The Catholic Church, for example, and many other Christian groups, believe in the validity of scientific method and discovery, including evolution. I think you're making the mistaking of assuming all Christians/religious people are fundamentalists.

>His usefulness extends only to those willing to believe in him and subscribe to the idea that anything we don't understand right now is ultimately unknowable and the work of an unknowable, unobservable, unprovable entity.
That's incorrect. I don't believe in a God, but I understand his usefulness in philosophy and metaphysics. He makes a good "starting point" or axiom for everything else. As for the last sentence, not everything that unobservable is unknowable or unprovable. You can't "see" the number 1 added to another number 1, or observe outside of thought, but we know it to be true.

I think your opinion here comes from a misunderstanding of some sort of religion and theology/philosophy.

>>4244682
>Lack of belief in God =/= belief that there is no God

>>4244645
Agnostic-Pantheist master race.

>>4244675
It's really nothing extravagant. But using Spinozist pantheism which is pantheism = nature = universe = everything = God. Those terms are more or less synonymous.

But if God = everything, then the term "God" refers to nothing. Think about it, if I equate the term "apples" to mean everything, then what would it mean for me to pick up an apple and say "this is an apple".

For things to exist they need to be distinguishable FROM everything.

>>4244691
They're not entirely the same. I don't believe in a god, for instance; but, there very well could be one.

Which isn't the same as if I believed there is no god.

>>4244691
Yes. If you actually read anything about what you're talking about instead of posting kawaii desu anime images, you'd understand this simple distinction.

>>4244452
Why do some atheists have to go to such lengths to horrible misrepresent the others' position?

>>4244686
> there's a difference between believing something is probably not true in all probability and saying you have infallible knowledge

>Do you believe in God?
>Well I'm agnostic, so I don't believe either way.
>So do you believe a God exists?
>I don't see any evidence to think so, but if I were presented with some I would change my view I guess.
>So your belief is that God does not exist?
>Yes.
>Because belief is something you think to be true, you believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true, correct?
>W-Well
>So how do you differ from a "dogmatic atheist"? It seems to me that "agnostic" is just a way to hide the philosophical flaws that a rejection of God's existence necessarily entails.
>I-I've got somewhere to g-go.

>>4244691
I was waiting and waiting for someone to get to this point.

>>4244702
Because it makes it easier to dismiss them or make fun of them.

>>4244699
But it refers to everything, however with a different connotation.

Nature as God is teleological and deterministic, however we are afforded blessedness in the knowledge of understanding why things happen, why we do things.

God does mean something, that which caused itself and was the cause of everything else. For Spinoza, God is substance, is infinite, and is that from which everything else follows.

>>4244700
>I don't believe in a god
>Which isn't the same as if I believed there is no god

>>4244697
If you actually knew what words meant you would realize that there isn't a meaningful distinction between "I believe that God does not exist." and "God does not exist.", because a belief is something you believe to be true.

>>4244690
Either god is unobservable, and therefore antithetical to scientific study, or he is observable, in which case present your evidence. Even things which cannot be directly observed, such as the postulated Big Bang, can be supposedly indirectly observed by its supposed after effects. All science is rooted in the idea of being able to observe phenomena, it is the very foundation of proof.

If god cannot be observed, if he does indeed, as was claimed earlier, not even exist within our observable universe, then he is anathema to science. A veritable boogeyman.

A useful axiomatic tool, perhaps, but not anything I would seriously believe.

>>4244539
>mfw weeaboos are half-assed deists near me

>>4244704
wow fake conversations again really convincing and the reaction images certainly bolster your points as well
agnostic does not mean "i dont believe either way" did you read the image you knuckle dragging animal? belief vs. knowledge

>So how do you differ from a "dogmatic atheist"? It seems to me that "agnostic" is just a way to hide the philosophical flaws that a rejection of God's existence necessarily entails.
Once again try reading the image you anime fag. dogmatic vs. not = agnostic vs. gnostic
what are you, 12? is your reading comprehension this poor?

>a weaboo is more versed in philosophy than /lit/

These are truly dark days.

>>4244704
What a load of bullshit.

I don't know if a god exists. The same way that I don't know what happens when I die. This is irrelevant to what I believe, which is a diffent matter. Therefore, agnostic-atheist or agnostic-theist.

I suppose this is very hard to grasp for a moron who just wants to make fun of atheists since it's trendy.

>>4244704
>Because belief is something you think to be true

Congratulations, you were the kawaiiest faggot on /lit/ tonight. Now run along back to /jp/, uguu.

>>4244710
Right, and we can identify such a thing, it's called nature. God = everything, everything = nature. God = nature. As a result there is no supernatural - a fundamental property of the theistic God

Pantheism redefines God, and it's definition of God has no overlap whatsoever to the theistic definition of God. Therefore it's not theistic.

>>4244723
>>4244720
>agnostic does not mean "i dont believe either way"

Exactly. You believe that God's lack of existence to be a truth, that's the Agnostic position. That's what a belief is.

>>4244726
>belief is something you think to be true

That's the definition, yes.

>>4244712
>belief is something you believe to be true

And being an agnostic is having a position that knowledge of a deity is unattainable, regardless of what you may believe in.

That position would change if it was presented with certain proof.

Try harder, faggot.

>>4244586
no way this is real

>>4244713
Not him, but I'll go ahead and refute your reductionism.
>Either god is unobservable, and therefore antithetical to scientific study, or he is observable, in which case present your evidence.
Something is only antithetical to science if you think science aims to explain everything and that everything is reducible to scientific terms (hint: this is a pretty strong and hard to defend position).

>All science is rooted in the idea of being able to observe phenomena, it is the very foundation of proof.
This is incorrect. Not only is a lot of science done without the ability, or even the perceived ability, of observation. In fact the idea of proof had its advent with geometry, which has nothing to do with observation.

>If god cannot be observed, if he does indeed, as was claimed earlier, not even exist within our observable universe, then he is anathema to science. A veritable boogeyman.

Wrong, because science doesn't tell the whole tale without living in an entirely monistic, materialistic universe.

Qualia

>>4244713
>any metaphysical object
>physically observable
Please reread the earlier posts discussing this. You are misinterpreting the statements and creating a false/inaccurate situation or view of the discussion.

>observe phenomena, it is the very foundation of proof.
The foundation of proof is in logic, see mathematical proofs and philosophical proofs if you're interested in learning more about that.

Your view that anything physically unobservable is "anathema to science" is awfully narrow-minded and ignorant. Science can exist quite well with things that are not physically observable (see mathematics and logic, and get back to me when you can touch or physically observe the number "1" as separate from any object), and even philosophy.

>>4244734
>And being an agnostic is having a position that knowledge of a deity is unattainable

And thus you do not believe in a deity, yes?

>>4244643
>If a first cause is needed for the universe then doesence [sic] the cause itself need a cause?

Not if it's an uncaused cause!!! :0

>>4244732
i will explain it to you one more time but you'll have to excuse me for giving up if you still don't grasp it

there is a distinction between having a belief that there is no god ( in all likelyhood there is not a god. there exists no evidence and i have no reason to believe in one anymore than i have reason to believe in invisible fairies that can't be perceived, just like God) and saying that you *know* there is no god and that have have infallible knowledge.

also this has nothing to do with literature, rapported

>>4244739
>"Qualia"
>"your argument is invalid"
Stupidest thing I've ever read.

>>4244732
Belief is acceptance, not thought. As hard as it may be for you to imagine, thoughts require logical structure. Belief does not.

Though I suppose it all just comes back to the notion that logic can win an argument of faith with you.

>>4244710
But that's wrong, because it also redefines nature.

Teleological - nature/god has a purpose and everything moves toward this purpose

Deterministic - nature/god is the root cause of everything, and everything is contingent on the substance of nature/god.

The overlap is definitely there, even if you don't see it.

>>4244688
cogent: clear, logical, and convincing

Nope. First mover argument is neither logical nor convincing. It asserts without evidence something about the nature of god that could just as easily be asserted to the universe (it doesn't need a first mover).

Ontological argument. Intentionally unclear. Made on the basis that thought can effect reality. A perfect chocolate mountain would also be more perfect if it existed in reality. That does not mean it exists.

Teleological argument: Nope. Least convincing of the three listed at >>4244587. Our biology for example is better explained by evolution than creationism.

Im going to bed now. If the thread is still alive tomorrow Ill reply to your rebuttal.

>>4244751
You should read your post again.

>>4244750
You say there is not evidence to believe in God, and thus you do not believe in god. You believe God's lack of existence to be a truth.

>>4244752
Belief is simply something you think is true. Fedoras not knowing what the word belief means creates this discussion. They think belief means something you think without evidence.

Of course this reveals their lack of philosophic knowledge. It's not even that fun refuting you because it's mainly me playing the role of teacher and correcting your misuse of basic terms.

>>4244759
I hate to break it to you, but providing another argument doesn't invalidate a valid argument.

It doesn't work that way.

They are clear, logical, and convincing, although there are going to be many times in your life where you don't find something convincing that is so.

>>4244587
>We can start with some basic ones
Riiiiiiiight.
You laid down all your card there. Don't pretend you didn't.

>>4244776
How does one lay down all their card

>>4244774
>I hate to break it to you, but providing another argument doesn't invalidate a valid argument.
Refutating them does, and that what he did...

I'm not religious in the least bit, either. The metaphysical discussion of God is completely separate from religion and faith.

I'm sorry is this makes tipping tedious.

>>4244745
why are you compelled to categorize the issue in such a way that it requires an either/or answer? Either you believe he does exist, or you believe he doesnt exist. In both cases it requires a leap of faith. Whats wrong with not taking a leap of faith and saying "I don't know".?

>>4244757
yeah but explain me how an uncaused cause is possible. when that makes sense and doesnt sound like bullshit, ill bite. till then, it's agnostiville for me.

>>4244668
and being casual nonchalant or disinterested as a sign of coolness isn't pretty old

>>4244782
Because you can't believe something to be true and not true at the same time.

>>4244754
This is supposed to be in reply to me here: >>4244731 right? I'll take it anyway.

Your second point (deterministic) doesn't create the overlap you're seeking, all you saying is that determinism is true. A position that can be held in a Godless universe

Your first point (teleological), Spinoza didn't believe that. If you're going to contradict me on that provide source please.

>>4244768
Possessing no belief in God is the default position. Something is absent until there is reason to belief it is present.

>>4244788
That's not what you're doing though. Your belief in that instance is that a conclusion cannot be reached. You're doing neither, not both.

>>4244768
No correct definition of "belief" involves the word "think."

I think that these threads still pop up. because it shows that there are still young people approach 4chan for the first time and that we're not all just getting old together.

>>4244780
Did he?

Cosmological (at least the first unmoved mover one he actually decided to address): "well here is this other argument, we don't need yours"

Ontological: "here is another argument about a chocolate mountain, yours is wrong" (also the argument form is not the same with the mountain argument)

Teleological: "here is another argument about biology explaining everything" (assumes that biology explains the same things as creation, without explicitly addressing or substantiating this, and it still is the same thing, just providing another argument, which does not refute an argument)

Guys, please take a logic class or read a book on it or something.

Arguments are refuted with counterexamples.

The soundness is called into question by denying premises, but if you do this they are still logically valid arguments.

>>4244790
>Possessing no belief in God is the default position

Logically incorrect, both are assertions.

> Something is absent until there is reason to belief it is present.
>Truth is absent until there is reason to believe something to be true.

Please tell me you are just pretending.

>>4244796
>holds a conjecture or premise to be true

>>4244794
And if your belief is that a conclusion cannot be reached, what is your belief about God? He can't exist and not exist at the same time.

>>4244790
>Something is absent until there is reason to belief it is present.

>Something is absent until there is reason to belief it is present.

>Something is absent until there is reason to belief it is present.

>Something is absent until there is reason to belief it is present.

lol

>>4244804
>And if your belief is that a conclusion cannot be reached, what is your belief about God?
That I don't know if he exists or not, and don't know enough to make any conclusion.

>>4244793
You're being sarcastic, right?

>>4244774
Still awake (going to sleep after this post, i mean it this time). I assume you're referring to me using evolution as an alternative to creationism. Evolution has been tested and held steady time and time again (not going to be drawn into an evolution argument, just accept that the scientific consensus is in favour of evolution and move on). The fact that an argument exists with clear evidence makes an argument with no evidence less convincing. I don't find creationism convincing because it does not provide any evidence whereas evolution does. If the theory of evolution had not been discovered then I probably would believe in a creator. The fact that a more likely alternative exists makes the creator argument unconvincing.

I am really starting to hope i'm getting through to you at this point. If you want to be religious then thats fine and dandy, just don't claim its logical because its not. Goodnight, speak to you tomorrow (if the thread survives).

>>4244804
>both are assertions
atheism isn't an assertion

>>4244804
>implying greentext can magically transform a posit into a conjecture or premise

>mfw /jp/ has to come to /lit/ to teach them phil 101

why are we so much smarter??? holy HELL.

>>4244802

I started thinking about that too, just the other day.

>>4244803
>"well here is this other argument, we don't need yours"
You don't understand the cosmological argument. It's supposed to prove the first mover is necessarily God.
Note the important word here: "necessarily". Giving another possibility isn't "another argument", it's a refutation of the necessity.

>"here is another argument about a chocolate mountain, yours is wrong"
You don't understand logic.
>let's suppose a reasoning is valid
>said reasoning proves a proposition that is wrong
>that's a contradiction, the reasoning isn't valid by modus tollens

>"here is another argument about biology explaining everything"
Again, "necessity".

>>4244821
>atheism isn't an assertion

Stating that something doesn't exist is just as much an assertion as stating that something does.

>>4244804
do you not understand what "conclusion cannot be reached" means?

It doesn't mean that you're simultaneously holding the contradictory beliefs that he does and doesn't exist at the same time.

Theres no way to prove he does, theres no way to prove he doesnt.

>>4244826
You'd be embarrassing yourselves if you could possibly do so any more already

>>4244817
I really don't know where you're getting the idea that creationism is a serious alternative to evolution, or why you're treating it as such. There's really no reason not to believe that the belief that God exists and is responsible for the creation of the universe and evolution being correct are unable to be held simultaneously.

As an aside, evolution explains the growth of life, and the idea of God or creator explains the creation of life. They deal with separate things except in the minds of uneducated fundamentalists, which are as worth taking seriously as armchair militant atheists.

>>4244832
We don't state that though. We lack the belief.

Or, if you like, we believe it to do be true by virtue of not believing the God assertion.

It;'s the default position

Feels good to be an apatheist.

/jp/ on the right demolishing /lit/

>>4244839
You don't understand, he was addressing the teleological argument, which says the existence of God is necessary to explain the complexity/beauty/order of the natural world.

>>4244791
>yeah but explain me how an uncaused cause is possible.
Because the only other choice is an infinite regress, which makes absolutely no sense at all; an uncaused cause may be spooky but it's at least conceivable.

>>4244840
>>4244833
>>4244812

>>4244851
>an uncaused cause [...] conceivable.
10/10

Chuckled.

>>4244848
Oh, whoops, my bad, I thought he was quoting someone else.

>>4244853
you're quoting multiple people there

>>4244851
If uncaused causes are possible, then there is no reason that there is just one.

>>4244817
>You don't understand the cosmological argument. It's supposed to prove the first mover is necessarily God.
Note the important word here: "necessarily". Giving another possibility isn't "another argument", it's a refutation of the necessity.

Yes, but by the same token, we can say that the cosmological argument makes attributing these things to nature impossible. Because an argument invalidates another one right? I just have to give mine second? In order to invalidate necessity arguments, you have to provide an actual counterexample. How all the premises can be true, yet the conclusion is false.

>"here is another argument about a chocolate mountain, yours is wrong"
>You don't understand logic.
I do.
>let's suppose a reasoning is valid
okay.
>said reasoning proves a proposition that is wrong
okay. a proposition can be false, but arguments aren't propositions
>that's a contradiction, the reasoning isn't valid by modus tollens
No it isn't, you're retarded.
If a premise is denied, the conclusion doesn't follow regardless. If you provide another argument that shows a contradictory conclusion, that doesn't show that your conclusion is automatically right and the other argument is invalid. Sorry, that isn't how it works.

An argument for possibility does not cancel out one of necessity, regardless of what you may think.

>>4244790
>Possessing no [thoughts at all] is the default position.
Welcome to reductio ad absurdum.

Why are you guys even talking about uncaused causes? We shouldn't have to get that deep. Both theists and atheists have to answer that question anyway only one refers to God and the other refers to the laws of nature

>>4244847
>habitually retreating from truth in the deluded hope that you can instill your lack of confidence in others to satiate an unaddressed, festering schadenfreude borne of spending too much time obsessing over iconographic art of young Japanese girls without addressing an existential bitterness over not being a young Japanese girl

/lit/ on the left tenderly kissing /jp/ while thinking about /sci/.

>>4244861
IIRC, Aristotle would agree with you.

>>4244868
Check yourself, you might be clinically retarded.

>>4244879
I feel bad for your students.

>>4244875
I guess that's why I teach logic.

>>4244880
You should worry about yourself

>>4244882
I'm doing fine. You're visibly not.
Now if you were honest, you would give us your name and position so we can write your dean a letter worried about the fact that he hired an impostor.

>>4244879
I'm not just saying this, but everyone I've ever known who has taught logic have been some of the stupidest people I've ever met

>>4244886
Ok, how about you point out how I'm visibly not doing fine before you think it's somehow in the best interest of the community to personally harrass someone in real life because they pointed out how you were retarded on the internet.

>>4244887
Did you know people who actually taught logic in decent programs?

>>4244759
>It asserts without evidence something about the nature of god that could just as easily be asserted to the universe (it doesn't need a first mover).
>All things are caused. That is, no thing has ever simply popped into existence.
>Is space-time (ie: the universe) a thing?
>Yes.
>Then space-time (ie: the universe) must be caused.
>Given that things (ie: the universe) can not be self-caused (no thing has ever simply popped into existence), there must be an uncaused cause.

Logical. Clear. Based on evidence. Convincing.

>>4244894
Yes

>>4244892
Why should I write a reply to an obvious troll? But ok I will indulge you out of trust.

>Cosmological
I don't know why you are struggling there.
The cosmological argument says that every cause necessary has a cause.
It also says there can't be an infinite regression.
Therefore there is a first cause without a cause.

But since it introduces an exception to the first predicate, the first predicate isn't valid anymore. There CAN be causes without cause, it's not a logical necessity that there is. Thus it's not a logical necessity anymore.
The first cause can then be not-Godlike, or there can be multiple first causes, a few of them, or an infinity.

>Ontological
Any reasoning can be formalized in the form of a proposition.
In that case, an ontological proof shows that if a quality is positive, there exists a being with that quality.
i.e.
a. being Godlike is a positive quality
b. [insert any ontological proof here] shows that therefore there exists a Godlike being

That anon replaced that with
a. being a delicious mountain is a positive quality
b. [insert same ontological proof] therefore there exists a mountain made of chocolate

Thus the ontological proof is wrong.

>>4244902
>All things are caused
>line of reasoning
>there must be an uncaused cause
It's called a contradiction. It shows your premise was wrong.

The question of "is there a god or not" is not scientifically valid, because the very definition of a god is "supernatural being." ie not in the natural world.

The word atheist itself means "no god," and indeed that's the position people take when they say they are atheists, there is "no god." They believe in "science and rationality." Well, science and rationality, because above, has nothing to say about god, so the argument they use turns out just as dogmatic as the religions they hate.


I think, for extreme inclusivity, and to more accurately represent what most people who call themselves atheists more accurately believe, we should throw away the term atheist and replace it with something like "scientifically literate" unless one specifies that actually DON'T believe in a god. Because If you don't believe in a god and try using scientific argument to prove your point, that just doesn't work. It's like theists trying to prove that god exists with scientific fact. They are both the same ridiculous way of thinking, except one seems to be accepted and even applauded. You know which.

>>4244868
>arguments aren't propositions
Holy shit does that guy know anything about formal logic?

>>4244924
There's no contradiction

>>4244931
Holy shit, do you?

Arguments aren't propositions, they are composed of propositions.

"Socrates is a man" is a proposition.
"All men are mortal" is a proposition.

"Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore Socrates is mortal." is an argument.

What the fuck is your malfunction?

>>4244932
Are you introducing an arbitrary distinction between things and cause without telling us, you sneaky person?

>>4244940
>maybe semantics will save me u guize
The reasoning here is
"X being a man implies that X is mortal".
That is a proposition.

>>4244943
Yes, but it isn't an argument dipshit.

What I posted clearly shows you the difference.

Sure you can phrase the reasoning as a proposition, but that isn't an argument.

>>4244928
stupidest thing i've ever read

>>4244948
>argument
You were the only one to use that word. I clearly wrote "reasoning".
I'm not responsible for you using terms interchangeably and then complaining that it's not the same thing.

>>4244949
Why is that?

>>4244951
I didn't use anything interchangeably. If you are talking about reasoning, but not the difference between an argument and a propositon, then your post was as irrelevant as you are.

>>4244948
>>4244868
Oh my, am I getting you right now?
Do you mean that you thing saying "the ontological argument is wrong" is the same as saying "there is no God"?
Holy shit 0/10, take a good look at yourself.

>>4244954
I wrote "reasoning" and you started talking about "propositions".
Your head looks like a mess.

>>4244922
Not an accurate representation of either the cosmological or ontological arguments.

Allow me to clear up your confusion:
>Ontological argument


God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio)

Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)

A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)

A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (1) and (2).)

A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)

It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of “God”.)

Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).)

God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)

Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)

See Plantinga 1967.

(cont...)

>>4244977 (continued)
>cosmological argument

A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed or could cease to) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

>>4244977
>>4244980
Now, for the fedoras in the thread, here is a crash course:

In order to refute these arguments, you must construct an argument of the same form in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Have fun!

>>4244989
>implying any of us can be bothered to counter an ancient argument that's repeatedly been proved to be retarded

>>4245000
Well then prove it to be retarded, genius

>>4244989
Or you could just demonstrate why it's flawed to begin with, which has been done, which is why this shit has been ignored for centuries.

>>4245005
>implying i didn't already imply it's not worth my time

>>4245009
>Or you could just demonstrate why it's flawed to begin with, which has been done, which is why this shit has been ignored for centuries.

Well it hasn't been ignored for centuries actually. Feel free to point out any flaws you feel necessary to vindicate your reductionist worldview though.

>mfw I replaced "God' with "not-God" in all these religious arguments

Checkmate theists.

>>4244977
>>4244980

But now its just word games. At a point you lose the real reason why you are writing such things

It really is possible to prove the existence in God if someone creates an arbitrary definition of the God,

>>4245015
But it's very obvious that things which aren't God exist, unless of course you are a pantheist.

What an interesting plot twist. In attempting to refute monotheism, you refuted pantheism. At least in the ontological argument you did.

>>4245016
But the definition isn't arbitrary, it's the accepted definition of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic God. Also in many other monotheistic cultures and even polytheistic ones in which there is a supreme creator-deity.

>>4245015
>not-God
>mfw baka gaijin try to tell me Zen Buddhism isn't the one true faith

>>4244977
I define the delicious sandwich as a sandwich such that no better sandwich can be conceived.

A delicious sandwich in my mouth exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio)

Existence in my mouth is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)

A being having all of the delicious sandwich properties plus being in my mouth can be conceived. (Premise)

A being having all of the delicious sandwich properties plus being in my mouth is greater than the delicious sandwich. (From (1) and (2).)

A being greater than the delicious sandwich can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)

It is false that a being greater than the delicious sandwich can be conceived. (From definition of “delicious sandwich”.)

Hence, it is false that the delicious sandwich exists in the understanding but not in my mouth. (From (1), (5), (6).)

The delicious sandwich exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)

Hence the delicious sandwich is in my mouth. (From (7), (8).)

>>4245032
>define the delicious sandwich as a sandwich such that no better sandwich can be conceived.

>It is false that a being greater than the delicious sandwich can be conceived. (From definition of “delicious sandwich”.)

Do you see where you went wrong?

>>4244977
>Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)
Assumption, gratuitous, etc.

>A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)
Demonstrably false (self contradictory)

Wow, that was easy. What do I win?

>>4245040
Yep, the same place you did.

>>4245014
Well, causality itself can't be proven to exist because the existence of separate things or events can't be demonstrated to be more than a convention of human language and concepts. Even if there were seperate things/events/phenomena, causality still couldn't be proven. The ontological arguments rests on the arbitrary assumption of the unity of a concept and that which it refers to and the teleological argument is nothing more than "surely this can't be mere happenstance" which is more of a sentiment than anything else.

>>4245040
Oh right, let me amend:
forgot to replace all the occurences of "being" with "sandwich"

>It is false that a sandwich greater than the delicious sandwich can be conceived. (From definition of “delicious sandwich”.)

>>4244977
>Premise, to which even the Fool agrees
Nice try of intellectual terrorism there buddy.

Except defining something isn't proof of its existence, even in understanding.
>"I call hine a natural number superior to 9 and inferior to 8."
>proceed to demonstrate a bunch of wrong stuff

>>4244977
Existence is not a real predicate