/lit/ - Literature

>>6787994
>There is no tangible evidence that such a being exists
how would you know that?

>>6787994
You would have to believe in the benefits of existence over non-existence to understand why it's true.

To most of you, existence does not seem to be a positive.

>>6788002
It's an assumption, none has been presented by anyone who claims God's existence.

The burden of proof isn't on the people who point out that there's no evidence.

>>6787994
I do not agree with that greentext, because God is not "a being" but Being Itself
take your theistic personalism elsewhere

>>6788008
>You would have to "believe"
>in order to understand a truth
>believe
you have to believe in a subjective idea in order to think something subjective is true?

duh

that doesn't make what you believe in a truth.

>>6788016
Then your post is irrelevant to this thread. This is a thread for people who agree with the greentext.

Have fun with your self-sourced new age metaphysics.

>>6788013
but you can't proof that god didn't create everything, too.

>>6788030
The burden of proof isn't on the people pointing out that there isn't any evidence.

>"God Exists."
>"Where is your proof that god exists?"
>"Prove that there is no proof."

This is not how logic works.

>>6787994
>prove

Do you not understand the concept of faith?

>>6788037
i didn't claim anything. but what would you say if someone asked you why everything exists?

>>6788029
ok, but dont claim you have refuted God if you refute people who agree with the text, because you havent, dude

Threads like these make me realize how infinitely superior polytheism is

Never a polytheist who goes on about how their writings are absolutely true and how Zeus is the greatest being in reality and everything he does is good by default

>>6787994
>tangibility as sole evidence for existence

Nah m8

>>6788024
Yes, as it turns out, believing is very important when you cannot see something for yourself.

You can replace believe with "hold". You would have to hold that existence > non-existence in order to know that statement to be true.

It's also the key to understanding Godel's Ontological Proof of God.

>>6788037
The word "God" is a title that belongs to the being who created this universe.

To use the word "God" is to admit that there is a being who created this universe.

And this universe is evidence that there is a God, who made this universe.

Creation infers a Creator.

>>6788092
I understand the concept, and I understand why someone would ignore logic and reason to believe in a baseless claim(fear, sense of security). I'm just here to knock over people's lego houses and I'm looking for someone who has a particularly big one.

>>6787994

Well we believe in black holes, and for the longest time, there wasn't much evidence for them.

Note: I'm atheist, I just find your argument weak.

>>6788117
You do not understand faith, at all, if you think it a religious term.

Your house of Legos will not withstand the coming storm.

>no tangible evidence

>The historic case against miracles is also rather simple. It consists of calling miracles impossible, then saying that no one but a fool believes impossibilities: then declaring that there is no wise evidence on behalf of the miraculous. The whole trick is done by means of leaning alternately on the philosophical and historical objection. If we say miracles are theoretically possible, they say, “Yes, but there is no evidence for them.” When we take all the records of the human race and say, “Here is your evidence,” they say, “But these people were superstitious, they believed in impossible things.”

>>6788103
I would say "There is no evidence for a reason as to "why" anything exists, nor is there any evidence that there is a reason for existence."

>>6788107
The people who claim God exists refute his existence themselves by providing no evidence.

>>6788112
what other kind of evidence is there?

>>6788113
changing "believe" to "hold" as a synonym doesn't make your statement any more logical

>>6788116
there is no evidence for or against intelligent creation. it would be asinine to make a jump in reasoning to assume that there is.


Why do so many of you choose to believe in things of which no evidence exists? It's pure absurdity.

>>6788142
>changing "believe" to "hold" as a synonym doesn't make your statement any more logical

Could you be any more obtuse?

If Existence > Non-Existence, then creating mankind is a benefit to mankind.

>>6788142
>there is no evidence for or against intelligent creation.

There is an entire universe full of evidence of intelligent design.

Literally an entire universe.

>>6788142
>The people who claim God exists refute his existence themselves by providing no evidence.
but there is evidence that God exists, it's only that those who have the evidence disagree with your greentext

>>6788119
You have a poor grip on what you are arguing here. Before black holes were observed, they were a scientific hypothesis. Once they were observed, their existence stopped being a hypothesis and became a theory. Any individual who "believed" that they existed prior to their observation was making a jump in faith, just as much as someone who believed in God would.

>>6788125
It's not a religious term, it applies to anyone who bases their ideas on a reificated claim. This thread, however, is within the context of the greentext I provided.

>>6788128
There are multiple jumps in reasoning in that quotation, the main one being that "miracle" is a subjective term applied to an unlikely event that has a subjectively "good" end result for one or more people, and then makes the baseless claim that miracles are proof of a higher being.

The fact is, if one hundred people roll a D100, and if they roll anything but a "100" they will be killed, there is a decent chance that one person out of that 100 will roll a 100. Say one person out of the one hundred rolls a "100", does it follow that he rolling the only number out of a hundred that ensures his survival is a "miracle"?

>>6788128

>people never lie nor distort history
>mfw

>>6788162
As I suspected, you have no idea what is meant by "faith".

Faith is the human ability to believe something you have not seen. Everyone has faith, and everyone uses faith.

You, for instance, have faith that this universe has no Creator. You believe that on faith, because you did not see the creation of the universe, and you have listened to people who convinced you that the universe could have sprung into being out of nothing.

I listen to different people.

>>6788173
>You, for instance, have faith that this universe has no Creator. You believe that on faith, because you did not see the creation of the universe, and you have listened to people who convinced you that the universe could have sprung into being out of nothing.
>what is a strawman

>>6788165
Monotheism is the state of the universe. There is only one true God, and many false gods.

As every single human ever conceived will stand before God to give an account for his or her life, you may want to start tidying up a bit.

>>6788146
Proof that existence > non-existence?

That claim defeats itself, as within non-existence, there is no concept of superior/inferior. It is pointless to make a claim such as existence > non-existence.

>>6788149
[citation needed] what evidence? Present me with evidence that concludes that intelligent design was involved.

>>6788153
what is the evidence? "belief" isn't evidence. By your own definition of "evidence", every religious belief on the planet is simultaneously "truth".

>>6788176
It is the counter argument to "God did it".

If you have a different counter-argument, please feel free to state it in such a way that does not presuppose the universe came from nothing.

Also please note that the steady state theory of the universe died in the 1950's.

>>6788177
>Monotheism is the state of the universe. There is only one true God, and many false gods.

Evidence please

>>6788149
Show me a conclusive instance of intelligent design, not just "look at the trees bro god made the trees".

>>6788179
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.mx/2012/07/classical-theism-roundup.html

>>6788165
Yes, but the supernatural and the divine are heavily present in nearly all historical accounts. Isn't it more likely there's some truth to them, rather than assuming it's all a lie or a distortion?

>>6788179
So, you are intentionally misunderstanding each and every argument that demonstrates that you mock what you do not understand.

Priceless.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you really suck at this.

>>6788180
>It is the counter argument to "God did it".

Not really, it's a shitty strawman of atheism that you push over because you believe in a decrepit belief system with zero good justifications

>>6788183
God revealed Himself to mankind as an eternal supernatural triune being, and even took the time to state that He has searched everything that was, is, or will be, and has found none like Him.

Your religious education is nil if you do not understand the "argument" that if God said it, it is true.

>>6788188
>Yes, but the supernatural and the divine are heavily present in nearly all historical accounts.

Yes, and they are completely different, and most monotheist ones don't consider them to be literal reports of history

>>6788173
>As I suspected, you have no idea what is meant by "faith".
I perfectly defined faith

>Faith is the human ability to believe something you have not seen.
This is basically what I said, though your definition is more vague and a little bit poetic.

>Everyone has faith, and everyone uses faith.
[citation needed]

>You, for instance, have faith that this universe has no Creator. You believe that on faith, because you did not see the creation of the universe, and you have listened to people who convinced you that the universe could have sprung into being out of nothing.
I never said anything of the sort. I have no faith that there is a creator nor that there is not. I do not make baseless claims as such. This is a straw man, you are deciding that I believe things that I do not. All I have said is that there is no evidence that a divine being such in the OP greentext exists.

>>6788177
>Monotheism is the state of the universe. There is only one true God, and many false gods.
How do you come to that conclusion?
What makes your God more real than any other deity?

Also if the Bible or any other holy book, is the word of god (who is omnipotent) then everything it says must be true or it is not the word of god and it's just like any other man made book. But we know all of these books to contain false information.

>>6788186
He indeed made everything.

Why don't you do a little research into how finely tuned this planet is for human life, and get back to me, k? I'll probably still be here, laughing at you and your nonsensical ideas.

>>6788197

*most non-monotheistic ones

>>6788191
So provide another shitty strawman from your atheism that describes the present situation we find ourselves in.

And then I'll light that one on fire too.

>>6788195
>God revealed Himself to mankind as an eternal supernatural triune being, and even took the time to state that He has searched everything that was, is, or will be, and has found none like Him.
>here's prove for my claim
>which is another claim

You don't really understand this reason stuff, do you?

>>6788205
>how finely tuned this planet is for human life
Whoa it's almost like this is the planet that human evolution adapted to or something

>>6787994

>>6788198
You didn't, actually. You defined faith as a belief, which is absurd.

Faith is an ability, not a belief. Faith is an ability to believe, when you have not seen.

I already cited one case of faith for the atheist; that the universe could exist without God creating the universe.

As nobody saw the creation, every statement about the creation is made on faith.

Further, the atheist has the future seeing faith based belief that there will never exist any evidence of an eternal God.

As the atheist cannot see the evidence in the future, this is clearly a faith based belief, and in and of itself, false.

You will see God, personally.

>>6788162
no, those who believed in black holes before they were observed weren't tantamount to creationists. black holes were theoretically (mathematically) possible

>>6788207

>And then I'll light that one on fire too.

Woohoo, slow down there tiger, so far you haven't set anything on fire, other than my autism meters of course

Anyway, I believe that we don't know about 99% of the universe and at the same time that there's no reason to follow the decrees of a middle eastern war god, because there's zero falsifiable evidence for it

>>6788203
He's not my God; I'm his adopted son.

The bible is the only holy book on the planet, telling the end from the beginning.

Maybe pay more attention to the best selling book of all time, and the reason movable type was invented in the first place.

>>6788187
why is it that when someone provides a link for a more complete understanding of the arguments for God, there is complete silence?

>>6788211
God said it.
God is not wrong.
God does not lie.
Therefore it is true.

Perfectly reasonable.

>>6788212
Literally impossible.

>>6788233

>complete silence

Okay then, Aquinas' five ways are an argument from ignorance which use special pleading and begging the question.

Also, teleology is bullshit

There, how's that?

>>6788225
So you just wrote 3 sentences and addressed none of the questions i asked.
I really want to understand religion better and why people choose to believe. But as far as I can see it is just people being afraid of death and thus following some old books, who are clearly man made and contain tons of false truths.

I'd love for you do answer this question here

>Also if the Bible or any other holy book, is the word of god (who is omnipotent) then everything it says must be true or it is not the word of god and it's just like any other man made book. But we know all of these books to contain false information.

>>6788177
>Monotheism is the state of the universe.
[citation needed]

so many baseless claims it's ridiculous that people structure their lives around this stuff.

>As every single human ever conceived will stand before God to give an account for his or her life, you may want to start tidying up a bit.
[citation needed]

>>6788180
>It is the counter argument to "God did it".
No, the counter argument to "God did it" is "evidence, please?". You are making a false dilemma fallacy in saying that if someone does not believe that god made the universe, that they must believe that the universe came from nothing.

>>6788180
>If you have a different counter-argument, please feel free to state it in such a way that does not presuppose the universe came from nothing.
The counter argument is "evidence, please?"

>>6788187
If you have a point to make, make it here. I can link you to various texts all day, that doesn't make any of the texts I link you to sound or valid arguments. If you feel that the article makes a sound point, make the point here, and have it stand up to reticule.

>>6788188
Monsters, wicked spirits and ghosts are heavily present in historical accounts as well. What isn't present in the historical accounts is evidence and logical proofs of such things. Also, what happens when historical accounts of divine beings differ? Are the japanese accounts of divinity more false than the european? What about the native american accounts?

>>6788189
>So, you are intentionally misunderstanding each and every argument that demonstrates that you mock what you do not understand.
Straw man, I have done no such thing. If you are the one who claimed that "existence > non-existence", I stated clearly how such a statement is invalid, in that superiority/inferiority do not exist in non-existence. There is no reason to assume that existence is superior to non-existence, if you feel there is, present your case.

>>6788195
[citation needed]

>>6788243
proof?

>still believing in an Abrahamic God

WHY

>>6788249
Classical theism is the conception of God that has prevailed historically within Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Western philosophical theism generally. Its religious roots are biblical, and its philosophical roots are to be found in the Neoplatonic and Aristotelian traditions. Among philosophers it is represented by the likes of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Avicenna. I have emphasized many times that you cannot properly understand the arguments for God’s existence put forward by classical theists, or their conception of the relationship between God and the world and between religion and morality, without an understanding of how radically classical theism differs from the “theistic personalism” or “neo-theism” that prevails among some prominent contemporary philosophers of religion. (Brian Davies classifies Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, and Charles Hartshorne as theistic personalists. “Open theism” would be another species of the genus, and I have argued that Paley-style “design arguments” have at least a tendency in the theistic personalist direction.)

you cant expect me to spell out the coherence of an entire tradition on a chinese puppeter board

>>6788252

If teleology wan't bullshit, this would be one line

>>6788264
so you mean that those organisms who fulfilled their teleological ends of self preservation, nutrition, etc. SURVIVED!?

>>6788274

>self-preservation is a teleological end

Nothing indicates this

>"Every physical event was an utterance that could be parsed in two entirely different ways, one casual and the other teleological, both valid, neither one disqualifiable no matter how much context was available.”

suppose you walk into your kitchen one day and there's some random guy you've never seen before.

science is like learning what his blood type is or what model car he drove on the way over, it doesn't tell you a thing about why he's there in the first place.

>>6788243

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html\

You clearly don't understand the argument.

>>6788286
self preservation contains nutrition, growth, etc
(you can throw in reproduction if you consider preservation of the species)

>>6788295

>you either agree with me or you don't understand me
>that I could be wrong is impossible by default

This is eerily similar to SJW logic

>>6788301
except you dont really understand the argument

>>6788296

And? Nothing indicates that grain plants evolved over billions of years so that one day it would end up in a loaf of bread in a supermarket, that's simply a result of an almost infinite number of infinitesimal events

>>6788205
>Why don't you do a little research into how finely tuned this planet is for human life, and get back to me, k?
implying his argument is not valid because he hasn't read specific books is not a logical argument. The post you have made here has no structure to it, it's a contradiction paired with a fallacy, there is no actual argument.

>>6788207
>that describes the present situation we find ourselves in.
we know nothing more conclusively that we exist, or more accurately, I know nothing more conclusively that I exist. Any other claims would require a jump in logical reasoning.

>>6788218
>You didn't, actually. You defined faith as a belief, which is absurd.
" faith
fāTH/
noun
noun: faith
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
be·lief
bəˈlēf/
noun
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something."

Belief is straight up a synonym for faith. You are warping the definition, but not really because tacking on "the ability" doesn't change the definition that much, you're basically making up hairs to split.

>I already cited one case of faith for the atheist; that the universe could exist without God creating the universe.
irrelevant to the thread. False dilemma fallacy.

>Further, the atheist has the future seeing faith based belief that there will never exist any evidence of an eternal God.
maybe some atheists believe this. I don't consider myself an atheist and I don't believe this. Straw man/false dilemma fallacy that someone who doesn't see any evidence for god must be an atheist.

>no, those who believed in black holes before they were observed weren't tantamount to creationists. black holes were theoretically (mathematically) possible
Tachyons are mathematically(hypothetically) possible, but there is no evidence that they exist. Believing that they exist would be a leap of faith equivocal to believing in God. God can hypothetically exist, just as tachyons can hypothetically exist, and black holes were once in this same category, before they were observed. This isn't remotely an argument for the existence of god, though, as deep ocean spirit dragons can just as likely hypothetically exist as god.

>>6788225
>The bible is the only holy book on the planet, telling the end from the beginning.
what is every other major religion on the planet and do they exist?

>Maybe pay more attention to the best selling book of all time, and the reason movable type was invented in the first place.
bandwagon fallacy + non-sequitor

>>6788233
I responded to it. I said if there's an argument the text is making, show that you understand the argument yourself and make it here. I can fling links all day and that doesn't make the arguments in the links valid or sound.

>>6788235
>God said it.
[citation needed]
>God is not wrong.
[citation needed]
>God does not lie.
[citation needed]
>Therefore it is true.
this isn't sound logic. I can make up three baseless claims as well.

>>6788305

In the same way I don't understand oppression of multigendered otherkins?

What tangible evidence do you have for the existence of your mind?

>>6788308
>that's simply a result of an almost infinite number of infinitesimal events
which contain final ends themselves

and you didnt give a response
and you completely misunderstand aristotelian teleology

so back to /pol/ im sure youll find the fundies youre looking for

>>6788322
>which contain final ends themselves

The fact that 99% of all life forms have died out tell me they don't

>>6788312
>In the same way I don't understand oppression of multigendered otherkins?
no, in the same way that someone who claims the pythagorean theorem only applies to red triangles doesnt understand the theorem

>>6788331
>that some life forms didnt realize their final ends proves that they dont have final ends
>that some people are blind proves it isnt normal to see
nice logic mr

How come anything exists at all?

>>6788263
I am well versed in the historical context of philosophy attempting to back up the existence of god. All of it attempts to derive truths without a basis, with NO exceptions. This is also the case for all morality/ethics centered philosophical conclusions, it is not remotely tied only to religious belief. I am aware of the differences between classical arguments and modern arguments, and the thing that stands consistent is that they make a claim as a truth that has no observable basis, and falls apart. Reading works of Augustine and especially Aquinas, the amount of fallacious arguments, wordplay and (particularly in the case of Aquinas)non-sequitor analogies is dreadful and apparent, and is only accepted by people who are attempting to affirm their belief system by reading something that loosely resembles logical structure and supports their belief systems.

Also, if your argument is that "To understand that there is evidence of God, you have to read all of this," proves that you have no actual point to make that stands up to reticule, or else you would attempt to do so here.

>>6788295
If you have a claim to make based on the article, make the claim here. I could give you a huge stack of links and claim that if you don't understand them, you don't understand the argument, and that wouldn't make me right. That would just make me look like I don't know how to properly define my own points.

>>6788246

Not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally, much of it is meant to be taken symbolically. If you read through Corinthians there is a case to be made for this within the bible itself.

Also, you are thinking of omniscience, not omnipotence. Omniscience is God knowing everything ( and therefore everything in his book should be right), Omnipotence is God's absolute power, and it has nothing to do with the claim you are making.

>>6788320
please respond

>>6788343
not the guy you've been arguing with, but teleology is made up. There is no evidence that in order for an action there must be some kind of magical purpose behind the action. No evidence whatsoever. If you have any, present it.

>>6788347
if anybody knows for certain, they aren't sharing their evidence with the rest of the world.

>>6788320
>>6788368
the only thing I know for certain is that I exist. I didn't respond because it's not relevant to the question I posed about the greentext at the beginning of the thread, and christposters are notorious for red herring argumentation.

>>6788246
You will never understand religion until you understand that the word derives from "religio", or "system of bondage."

All religions are man made. All of them fail to turn people into beings like God.

You have to go directly to God for that, and understand that it is His will that you do so, that you consent, so that He can save you from the consequences of being spiritually dead..

>>6788311
>Autism, The Post

>>6788357
that isnt my argument, it is common sense
you cant dismiss an argument based on reading a few bulletpoints on reason.com without knowing the metaphysical background said argument is working on.

>>6788371
the fact that you cant make sense that action A brings about a certain effect E, instead of effect D or C without concluding that E is the final cause of A

>>6788380
where would you have the idea that this "god" exists without the religions which you yourself admit are "man made"?

>>6788376
So, you are mindless.

Good to know!

>>6788391
>you cant dismiss an argument based on reading a few bulletpoints on reason.com without knowing the metaphysical background said argument is working on.
straw man, you in no way know the amount I have read on this side of philosophy, and the amount I have read is in no way relevant to the soundness and validity of my arguments.

>>6788391
"cause" is just as much an artificial abstraction as "purpose". there is evidence of neither, it's simply deciding that if an action is made by an object, that the action had "purpose" behind it. I can with the same amount of soundness decide that the action had "magic", or "invisible celery" behind it. It's an artificial construct meant to try and falsely reificate a basis for belief in a divine being.

>>6788398
I, like most people, would note that I live in an amazing universe, and I would wonder where it came from.

You, unlike most people, think you know, and don't care one whit about it. You have been deluded into thinking you are a random cosmic accident, a meaningless joke, walking around waiting for heat death.

Your beliefs make who you are. Believing that you are not special, that humans are not special, that life is devoid of love, and meaning, and purpose, makes people go into churches and shoot 9 innocents.

>>6788398
Christians maintain that Christianity is not a religion, it is a "personal relationship".

>>6788408
You say straw man more than the Tin Man!

I see you are up to Descartes in your sophomoric readings; have you gone any further past cogito ergo sum?

No?

>>6788411
>Your beliefs make who you are. Believing that you are not special, that humans are not special, that life is devoid of love, and meaning, and purpose, makes people go into churches and shoot 9 innocents.
Most people shoot innocents because they believe they are serving a Higher Purpose. It's meaning that drives people to act violently, not meaninglessness.

>>6788414
That is correct. Just as Adam and Eve walked with God, and talked with God, and collaborated in the creation with God, so too will all Christians walk with God, and talk with God, and collaborate in the redemption of mankind by spreading the gospel to the poor.

And man, there are some poor people here.

>>6788408
>straw man, you in no way know the amount I have read on this side of philosophy
i can conclude you have read none, based on your fear on tackling defenses of said philosophy

and stop saying the name of a fallacy everytime you reply, it's fucking weird (i wasnt even making an argument, how the fuck do you point out a fallacy without an argument)

>there is evidence of neither
just as much evidence that the Mona Lisa didnt have legs because they dont appear in the picture

>>6788421
It's meaningless, actually. Roof was looking for meaning in his life by starting a race war. The race war, in his beliefs.

Even though there really are no race wars.

And since those 9 people were just lucky monkeys, killing them was not evil. It was just something to kickstart this race war of his.

>>6788428
>looking for meaning
Exactly. Instead of simply accepting the meaninglessness of the cosmic accident, he decided that his life could have a "purpose." One that, in his opinion, would improve the state of things.

When people get into their minds that there's a purpose or plan to their lives, but encounter the emptiness of actual existence, they will either abandon the meaning or force it onto the world, sometimes violently and with tragic consequences.

>>6788440
A being with meaning does not look for meaning, any more than a being with a pecan pie goes looking for a pecan pie.

Godless people inevitably have a meaningless and purposeless worldview that is self-destructive.

Why anyone would advocate for that is ponderous.

>>6788411
>You have been deluded into thinking you are a random cosmic accident, a meaningless joke, walking around waiting for heat death.
straw man, I never claimed that this is true. There is no evidence that I am the result of a cosmic accident, and there is no evidence that god exists. There is no reason to believe in either claim.

>>6788417
The only reason I have said the words "straw man" in this thread is because many straw man arguments have been made, a considerable amount. They are very common amongst christians, who think that it is somehow not only relevant to bring atheism up, but create a false dilemma that if you do not believe in god you must believe that he does not exist, and then use that false dilemma to create a straw man. That and other straw man fallacies have been made frequently in this thread. If people made logical arguments, I would not say it so much.

Descartes is not relevant to the argument, unless you feel like trying to bring in his baseless claims for why god exists in meditations.

>>6788451
Do you get paid by how many times you post "straw man"?

Do you actually know what a straw man argument is, or is this the only thing that stuck in your head from Phil 101?

>There is no reason to believe in either claim.

You have provided NOTHING upon which your own beliefs are founded. I have given you the only holy book on the planet, the bible, the Word of God, and base my statements on what God says to be true.

You're not even up to dualism?

kek

Are you 12?

OP are you a reddit baiter? Because your communication is dominated by overly repeated phrases.

>>6788426
>i can conclude you have read none, based on your fear on tackling defenses of said philosophy
if you have points to make based off of this school, make them, and I will tackle them. So far all you've said is "you're wrong because you haven't read text", which is not a logical argument.

> (i wasnt even making an argument, how the fuck do you point out a fallacy without an argument)
You were implying that my claims are not valid because I have not read something. That is a straw man. If there is a point to the authors you have referred to(many of which I have a good understanding of regardless), make the point here instead of make claims.

I can equally say that you don't know what you're talking about until you've read all of Hegel, Stirner, Schopenhauer, Phillip K. Dick and J. K. Rowling. Doesn't make me right. What matters are your arguments and your points.

>just as much evidence that the Mona Lisa didnt have legs because they dont appear in the picture
there is no evidence that mona lisa had legs though.

>>6788445
>Godless people inevitably have a meaningless and purposeless worldview that is self-destructive.
Not only is this statement necessarily true whatsoever, but it's also subjective whether or not it's a bad thing to murder 9 people. Morality is an abstract, artificial construction.

>>6788470
>You have provided NOTHING upon which your own beliefs are founded.
My own beliefs are not in question. They are entirely irrelevant. Trying to bring them up is fallacious and only suggests that you cannot defend your own claims. The subject is:

""God" is a divine being that created mankind and is beneficial to mankind.
There is no tangible evidence that such a being exists, and because of this there is no sound reason to conclude that the being exists."

> I have given you the only holy book on the planet
what are all other holy books of other major religions, then?
> the Word of God
which is what? Statements that claim to be axiomatic when there is no proof?
>base my statements on what God says to be true.
why? did god talk to you himself? I don't understand.

>>6788477
>So far all you've said is "you're wrong because you haven't read text", which is not a logical argument.
Ur doin Le Strawmenz!!!
i'm saying that if you want to refute something you must at least know the arguments and the metaphysical background they work on, and defenses of that metaphysical background

Some authors that come to mind are Edward Feser, David Oderberg, Alexander Pruss, Etienne Gilson, Reginald Garrigou, etc

>>6788473
unfortunately the christian's arguments here are dominated by overly repeated baseless arguments and uses of illogic, so my responses have a lot of redundancy to them. I expected this, but I also expected someone to come along and make arguments based in complex Aquinas-style puzzles, and so far it's just been christians who don't even understand basic logical reasoning. It's like they don't understand what a straw man is, so they keep constructing an argument in that form thinking it's a valid form of argumentation, and get mad at hearing the phrase so much as though it's my fault that it's coming up all of the time.

Is this for real? This isn't a b8 thread?

>>6788498
>Ur doin Le Strawmenz!!!
>proceeds to say "you're wrong because you haven't read text"
doesn't look like a straw man to me.

If you have a point to make based on these claims, make it, or else I have no reason to believe that there is one. I am well aware of arguments in philosophy and metaphysics, and am also aware that the entire branch of metaphysics is easily rebuked by a simple [citation needed] in that there is no evidence that morality/ethics inherently exist.

Where is my kill-everyone-in-this-thread.jpg?

>>6788515
it's unintentional comedy, brought to you by redditOP
just relax and take a seat. But be careful! your seat may not have a logical basis for you to sit down

>>6788530
I can usually convince myself that most of the shitposting on this board is ironic or post ironic but this thread, I can feel myself getting stupider every second I'm in here.

I haven't seen anything close to a good argument for the existence of god as defined in the greentext in this entire thread.

70% of the thread has been about irrelevant things such as what I've read and atheism, another 10% has been things like "You just don't understand god and christianity" or "it says so here in muh boble", 10% has been wordplay around words like "belief" or "faith", and the rest is just insults.

I'm disappointed. Where are the Aquinas nuts who at least try to make an argument that at least has the appearance of being good?

>>6788541
Escape while you can.

Some of us are yet self-aware enough to lament our condition.

>>6788520
ive already given you several authors, repeating their points here would be redundant, and it is practically imposible to do such thing here
can you please have a little bit of common sense?
>inb4 le strawman
pic related is where your entire thread should go

>>6788301

No, I could still be wrong and you could be right. But you clearly don't understand the argument because it is not an argument from ignorance, the argument starts from our knowledge about causation and simply shows what must be the case for us causation exist in the universe, it is not a case of special pleading, you are assuming that the argument uses the principle of sufficient reason to say that everything needs a cause, but not God, which is not what the argument say at all. And it is not begging the question, usually people presume this because they think that an infinite series of causes is metaphysically possible and that theists just assume that there must be an end to it, but the argument explains why there cannot be quite clearly.

>>6788357
Lets run through the cosmological argument I suppose.

1. Causation exists.( Empirical Premise)

2. Act and Potency are terms that we can use to explain causation: When something is in Potency it has the capacity to become something something else, but is not it yet. A fertilized egg has the potency to turn into a chick, an unfertilized egg does not. When a potency is realized, it is actual. To actualize a potency is to take property that something had in potency and make it actually inhere in the thing.

2. When we find an instance of causation in the world we find some potency being actualized.

3. Something that is only in potency cannot actualize anything.

4. For some potency to be actualized something actual must actualize it.

5. If A is actualized by B, then B must first be actual.

6. Either something must have actualized B from being in potency to be in actuality. Or B is necessarily actual, having never been in potency before. ( A v B)

7. If the left disjunct “A” is true then premise 7 applies to C, the thing that brought B into actuality.

8. If disjunct “B” is true there is a “first” uncaused cause that is pure actuality.

9. If disjunct “B” is never the case then there is an infinite series of actualizations. With every being having its actuality derived from another being.( B from C, C from D, D from E, etc)

10. If “10” is the case then there can be no actualization, as every being in the series has its actuality derived from another being, but there is no being with actuality on it's own to derive the actuality from.

11. Causation is a matter of actualization potencies. If “10” is the case there is no causation

12. There is causation ( From premise 1)

13. Premise “10” is not the case.

14. If premise 10 is not the case, then at some point in the series premise 9 is the case.

15. There is a first cause, which is a being of pure actuality.

(Part 1/2)

>>6788554
By your logic, I can refuse to take you seriously because you haven't read the works of J.R.R Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, J.K. Rowling and Weird Al. I can claim that between reading the text of those authors, you will have a full understanding as to why you are wrong, and I can say that I can't tell you why because only you can read for yourself.

This is how logical what you are saying is.

>>6788558
dont bother Anon, Aquinas' argument doesnt arrive at OP's conclusion
OP wants an argument that establishes a divine being, but Aquinas's argument establishes the existance of Pure Actuality, or Being Itself

>>6788558

I'm not going to ground every property of God,but I will do a few.


1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

2. To lack the power to do something is to have an unactualized potency.

3. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

4. The first cause does not lack the power to do anything.

5. The first cause is omnipotent

1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

2. To lack knowledge of something is to have an unactualized potency.

3. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

4. The first cause does not lack knowledge of anything.

5. The first cause is omniscient.

1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

2. The existence of a being of pure actuality is necessitated by the existence of causation.

3. Ockhams Razor: Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.

4. To posit a second “first cause” would violate Ockham's Razor.

5. There are only grounds to posit one first cause.

1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

2. If there were two first causes then there would be two different causal series.

3. If 2 then either A: There would be a point where the two causal series interacted with one another but would not be able to resolve with each other. Or B: The two causal series are isolated from one another. ( A V B)

4. From uniformity of nature: Disjunct A does not correspond to how our world works. There is a unified causal series, and a single set of underlying laws of nature.

5. Disjunct A is not the case.

6. Disjunct B posits a causal series that is unrelated to the one we experience. The cosmological argument is based on a premise about our empirical experience of causation, which only applies to the causal series that we experience. Disjunct B is not suppurted by the comsological argument.

7. If and only if (A V B), then there can two causal series and 2 first causes, A is false and B is false, so ( A V B) is false and there cannot be 2 first causes.

1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

2. To be purely actual means that no potencies can be actualized in it.

3. The act of the first cause can never benefit it in any way by actualizing a potency.

4. All actions of the first being must be the sake of actualizing potencies in something else.

5. The first cause is omnibenevolent ( only acting for others)

1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

2. The laws of nature are contingent and are supporting causes of every instant of causation in the world.

3. The first cause is the ultimate reason for everything in the causal series.

4. Options between two contingent sets requires a choice, as neither set necessarily arises from something that is necessary itself.

5. In actualizing the causal series the first cause must chose between contingent sets of laws of nature.

6. To chose is to have an intellective capacity

7. The first cause has an intellective capacity.
( 2/2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48S0cPbgC1w

>>6788569
is this a reverse Poe's law?

>>6788477
>Not only is this statement necessarily true whatsoever, but it's also subjective whether or not it's a bad thing to murder 9 people. Morality is an abstract, artificial construction.

It is true. To reject God is to embrace death, as God is Life.

You seem to be under the delusion that what you believe effects reality for the rest of us.

It doesn't.

>>6788495
So, you criticize other people's beliefs without even having a belief of your own in the race. Nice.

Ever heard the maxim "A brave man dies once; a coward dies a thousand times"?

There is tangible evidence that God exists, namely the universe that He made. It's quite tangible.

Only God can make a thing holy, and there is only one God. So, tanakh and New Testament, holy. Everything else, not so much, no. Most don't even pretend to be holy, only "enlightened".

The Word of God is another name for the Holy Bible. It is also another name for Jesus Christ.

Yes, He did, and no, you don't.

>>6788575

Still, we are arguing for the existence of God. OP having an incorrect idea of what that entails is not reason to ignore it in my opinion. Better to show him what we are actually talking about when we say God, and show him why God must be.

>>6788547
The universe God created is evidence of God.

That has been posted several times in this thread.

Maybe read more, lurk more, and post less?

>>6788408
>"cause" is just as much an artificial abstraction as "purpose". there is evidence of neither

Can you explain what is going on in our prima facie experience of causation then ? How do you "save the phenomena", so to say. Are you taking a Humean stance or what ? What is your reason for saying that our empirical experience of causation is false ?

>>6788612
he still denies the metaphysical background of why that is the case (for no reason of course)

>>6788622
(But don't forget, it's those christposters who are irrational and illogical!)

>>6788585
>1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.
>2. To be purely actual means that no potencies can be actualized in it.
>3. The act of the first cause can never benefit it in any way by actualizing a potency.
>4. All actions of the first being must be the sake of actualizing potencies in something else.
>5. The first cause is omnibenevolent ( only acting for others)

I disagree with this not on logical grounds, but I reject that God is "omnibenevolent". Unless, of course, "omnibenevolent" includes the killing of all flesh on the earth that had within them the breath of life in a global flood.

Further, I know that God's name, and God's glory, matter very much to God. He defends the former without end, and increases the latter without end.

>>6788558
>1. Causation exists.( Empirical Premise)
the problem with your argument is that it is based on a claim that is not necessarily true. Causation existing has to be established before concluding that anything else in your argument is remotely a truth.

As for the rest of your argument which I won't ignore because of this fact:

>steps 2->4
How does potency apply to a single atom? or a water molecule? does it follow that within every motion an atom or water molecule makes, that it is not actualizing anything? That "potency" and "actualization" only apply to significantly large objects with easily visible and identifiable changes?

>3. Something that is only in potency cannot actualize anything.
why? this whole potency/actualization thing seems very vague and weird to me, as I've already described. One can say that an egg actualizes itself into a chick? Or is an egg self-actualizing? This is a very strange concept.

>6. Either something must have actualized B from being in potency to be in actuality. Or B is necessarily actual, having never been in potency before
this is getting into what I've been bringing up already, why does this dichotomy exist? It seems like it would have a lot of difficulty applying itself to the molecular level, let alone vagueness surrounding a simple chicken egg.

>8-9
this is where things start trying to become cohesive, though multiple premises are either baseless or shaky. I don't like the use of the word "being" in 9. I also am getting the picture that the numbers of these points are off by 1.

This is starting to look like an argument of determinism, of which there are little grounds to make a sound conclusion.

>>6788629
im actually wondering..
is OP pic related?

>>6788637
1. You do not believe in cause and effect. Why, again?

2. What is E=mc^2, again?

3. If you did not actualize, this thread could not exist.

4. The universe is dialectic.

5. Nobody cares whether or not you like God. You saying He does not exist is the statement of a fool.

A fool is a person who lacks reason.

>ITT: OP doesn't understand the basic concept of faith and everyone pretends to be a religious fanatic to laugh at him

>still thinking that it matters whether or not God exists

"Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either." -- Vonnegut

>inb4 Vonnegut sucks

>>6788680
>Vonnegut jelly of L. Ron Hubbard

>>6788637

How could you read the argument without causation existing ?. The words on the screen and you choosing to look at them caused certain thoughts to actualize in you. Causation is necessary for our experience of the world to make sense at all. You are going to need to give the argument against causation here. It would be like me saying: "Premise 1: The sun exists" and you denying it, you are going to have to give an account of how the phenomena we normally attribute to causation can be made sense of without causation.

If a single atom joins with another atom it has its potency of conjunction with another atom actualized. Any change what so ever is an actualization of a potency that needs to be accounted for. I used substances in my example because they are the things best known to us.

A potency is a capacity, and nothing more. A potency can't effect anything else. It is purely passive, not active.

>"One can say that an egg actualizes itself into a chick? Or is an egg self-actualizing?"

Explain your reasoning used to get to this point, you are skipping steps in your argument here.

>this is getting into what I've been bringing up already, why does this dichotomy exist?

If a potency is actualized, then the potency itself cannot be the thing that actualized itself as it had no actuality in the first place, so to account for the actualization we need something that is already actual. If something is necessarily actual, then it was always actual, and it being actual does not need to be accounted for by something else. Either the thing in question was actualized or was not actualized ( A v -A) this is a logically necessary statement. The dichotomy is only an instantiation of a rule of logic.

>this is where things start trying to become cohesive, though multiple premises are either baseless or shaky. I don't like the use of the word "being" in 9. I also am getting the picture that the numbers of these points are off by 1.

This is pointless. Account for what are wrong with the premises and what is wrong with the use of "being". If you don't explain the reasoning behind your conclusions then there is no point in stating them in an argument.

>>6788634

"God's name" and "God's glory" are defended and furthered in a way outside of God. God has his name defended in the universe for the sake of human salvation, it does not do anything to him when we blaspheme his name, it only effects the world, and he only increases what we can see of his glory by representative things on in the universe ( which are potentially infinite, as you can always increase the number of glorious things of God on earth). But the representatives on earth can never actually fully represent the glory inherent of him ( which is actually infinite, and cannot be increased in any way).

>>6788711
>doesn't understand the quote
>hasn't read, and probably doesn't even know, the source of the quote

im god btw