/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11707021]

How can belief in God be justified?

[Anonymous No.11707025]

>>11707021
It cannot, that's why it's called "belief"

[Anonymous No.11707036]

Easy, presuppositionalism.

[Anonymous No.11707048]

Source of Forms needing to be beyond Form
Source of Being needing to be beyond Being

[Anonymous No.11707072]

>>11707021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnIH4gomOqc

[Anonymous No.11707230]

>>11707048
You are so limited in your mind, that you cannot comprehend the fact that our "common sense" is nothing more than that, "common".
If we want "total" sense we need to look beyond what our mind tells us is acceptable. When you look at the recent discoveries in science, these are things our common sense would've never allowed for.

[Anonymous No.11707236]

>"Like this!"

[Anonymous No.11707270]

>>11707230
self refuting retard

[Anonymous No.11707274]

>>11707270
How so?

[Anonymous No.11707286]

>>11707025
I think you mean "faith". (Which is just annoying, not convincing.)

>>11707021
Abrahamic God? I have no idea. That thing is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.11707289]

Have your own experiences with him. You can't judge a religion if you aren't open-minded enough to at least try it out for a bit.

[Anonymous No.11707301]

>>11707289
OP here. I was religious until I was about 10-11. And I prayed everyday.

[Anonymous No.11707304]

>>11707301
How many 10-11 year olds have you met who you would trust with that kind of assessment of worldviews?

[Anonymous No.11707309]

>>11707301
Kind of old to stop believing in Santa, but at least you got there eventually.

[Anonymous No.11707321]

>>11707304
Seeing as I've rejected religion throughout my adult life, I don't see how your argument is in any way sensible.
Knowing what I know now, I am surprised we allow adults who blindly accept these falsehoods to make any sort of decision for themselves.

[Anonymous No.11707322]

Through the miracles and lives of the Saints

[Anonymous No.11707340]

>>11707021
How can belief in anything be justified?

[Anonymous No.11707342]

>>11707321
That's not actually an answer and your response is full of assumptions about religious people; that we're blindly accepting falsehoods and not making our own decisions. Is that really a position you're prepared to defend?

[Anonymous No.11707345]

Belief? It cannot.

[Anonymous No.11707349]

>>11707340
>>11707224

[Anonymous No.11707355]

>>11707021
There can be no proof, I think that would be theologically invalid in the first place, but there is plenty of justification. A basis for morality for example, a meaning to life. These are essential components in our neurological makeup that need to be satisfied. Without God this lacks foundation, we might not be able to function without him.

[Anonymous No.11707368]

>>11707342
I did not say that you didn't make your own desicions; however if you're making them from a false premise (i.e. religion), then you're incapable of making rational deductions about most things, particularly the state of reality.
This is a position I am willing to defend.

[Anonymous No.11707372]

>>11707021
Because of a deep, personal relationship with God.
Without that, believing in God is useless.

[Anonymous No.11707376]

>>11707021
Rational arguments for His existence.

[Anonymous No.11707377]

>>11707372
Self-delusion is no argument for justified belief.

[Anonymous No.11707380]

>>11707368
All right. First, what evidence do you have that religion is a false premise? Second, rational according to what standard?

[Anonymous No.11707382]

>>11707376
Present one such argument not based on the limitations and biases of the human mind.

[Anonymous No.11707397]

>>11707382
Guess you want to throw away science and all logic then.

[Anonymous No.11707401]

>>11707380
The burden of proof is not on me for rejecting a claim, it is on you for arguing in favour of that which cannot be scientifically proven.
Rational reasoning dependent on the acceptence of our limited intelligence. We crave answers and meaning for our existence; religion provides these answers, yet it does not rely on anything but our ignorance and unwillingness to accept our ignorance.
The only acceptable standard for accepting extraordinary claims in our lifetime is scientific proof.

[Anonymous No.11707408]

>>11707382

That it is actually unlimited and unbiased.

[Anonymous No.11707416]

>>11707397
Are you actually going to make that argument? I suppose I'll grant you the respect of thinking that you did not actually mean that.

>>11707408
Be more specific.

[Anonymous No.11707418]

>>11707401
When you make claims you assume the burden of proof for those claims, and that is all I've asked of you. We're also not discussing matters accessible to science. If you think science is the only acceptable standard, I challenge you to prove that science is the only acceptable standard by using science.

Learn how to argue, then we'll have this argument.

[Anonymous No.11707436]

>>11707401
You don’t know how the burden of proof works. If you reject a claim, you take on a burden yourself.

If I say ‘the theory of evolution by natural selection is false’, it’s up to me to justify that claim.

You’ll understand when you graduate from the school of le four horsemen.

[Anonymous No.11707442]

>>11707416
We can do nothing without using our minds. You claim that the human mind is biased and cannot grasp the truth behind reality. Where exactly do you draw the line of what the human mind is capable of?

[Anonymous No.11707461]

>>11707418
It is common knowledge that religious people tend to be rather "stupid"; so I'll make this as simple for you as I possibly can.

Everyone is born an atheist, until their parents choose their religion for them. Now, I want you to imagine a world where religion never was invented: you approach me and demand I believe in something which cannot be seen, I ask you for your proof, and you provide one based on your own limited understanding, which I reject. This is how a dialogue works.
It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled, so let's end this discussion.

>>11707436
The "fedora" meme had to come up sooner or later.
If you reject a claim based on nothing whatsoever, you do not take on the burden yourself. It that was true, I could claim anything and you would have to prove a negative. How do you the toothfairy or goblins do not exist? If you think this is an argument, you should be relocated to a mental hospital.
Also, evolution is the backbone of all modern biology, and all scientific evidence points in its direction.

>>11707442
You are correct. That is why we need the greatest tool ever deviced by humanity, say it with me: "science".
Science proceeds our ignorance, and let us grasp concept like warped spacetime that our primitive minds could've never figured out using logical reasoning.

[Anonymous No.11707469]

>>11707461
But science was developed by humans. How do you know it isn't biased like the minds that developed it?

[Anonymous No.11707474]

With all this science, can we make any improvements on humanity? Will we be able to take the asshole out of our personalities in a brain operation?

[Anonymous No.11707491]

>>11707021
>How can belief in God be justified?
No. All of humanity since the dawn of time is just a bunch of retards and you happened to be the only smart guy who figured out that it's all bullshit. Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.11707493]

>>11707469
I cannot believe a grown man is asking me these questions.
Look up the "scientific method" if you want the answer to that question.
Based on the question you pose, I can imagine you need an ultra-simplified explaination; so let me give you one: look at the monitor you are currently using, this did not come about by clapping your hands together and speaking to your imaginary friend; it came about by using scientific precision and confirmable technological methods.

[Anonymous No.11707502]

>>11707491
"No" is not a grammatically correct answer to my question.
Also, I can't figure out whether or not you're being sarcastic, could you clarify?

[Anonymous No.11707515]

>>11707461
Anyone reading this discussion should take note. The problem here is not an intellectual one, but an emotional one. His or her failure to respond intelligently to my arguments has nothing to do with his or her lack of intelligence. It has to do with the fact that he or she is angry, hurt, and frightened. This is why we need exactly what >>11707372 said. A deep, personal relationship with God. Apologetics only gets us so far.

[Anonymous No.11707516]

>>11707461

You make some astounding unfounded assumptions and assertions in your statements - enough to disregard your line of thought.

>le people only became religious because that is how they were raised by their parents

So you disregard the numerous people who went from atheist or agnostic to actively participating in religious activities and devotion.

From where did 'religion' develop if 'everyone is atheist to begin with? Why did it gain traction from a few (who developed it from nothing!) to so many? Le forced violence does not answer that question as again history and sociological facts point out that that was not the case in many many circumstances.

>It is common knowledge that religious people tend to be rather "stupid

By your outlook maybe - ''it is common knowledge...'' is the preface to the intellectually sloppy and lazy persons arguments to shirk their duty of providing proper unbiased evidence for their statements.

>like warped spacetime that our primitive minds could've never figured out could've never figured out using logical reasoning.

Do you even bother reading what you write and realizing how utterly stupid you sound and what nonsense you've just spouted?

[Anonymous No.11707519]

>>11707516
Don't bother arguing with someone who is so uneducated. It's not worth it.

[Anonymous No.11707528]

>>11707493

You shouldn't mention Techne. It's practically demonic.

[Anonymous No.11707530]

>>11707516
He's too dense to understand your meaning beyond the singular word of 'science' to explain everything.

[Anonymous No.11707545]

>>11707516
>>11707519
>>11707530
Replace your insults with prayer for that person.

[Anonymous No.11707567]

>>11707515
I will admit to being rather annoyed by your unintelligent responses. But let that be so.

>>11707516
>So you disregard the numerous people who went from atheist or agnostic
No, that was a rather hyperbolic statement. I accept that people can be deluded by these cults later in life.

>From where did 'religion' develop
Religion developed from an infantile, yet human, reaction to our world and a need for answers and meaning.
>It is common knowledge that religious people tend to be rather "stupid"
That comment was perhaps a bit off, however I found the person I was responding to, to be rather rude in his conclusion. I apologise for that statement.

>Do you even bother reading what you write and realizing how utterly stupid you sound
How about you provide some actual argumentation?

>>11707519
My arguments hold more weight than yours. Ultimately, you've got no proof for your claims, and you're too much of an imbicile to understand how ignorant you are.

>>11707530
If only you were as educated as you are arrogant and foolish. Perhaps you would see how much of a fool you've made of yourself.
You will of course come around and use this "logic" on me; I look forward to it.

[Anonymous No.11707577]

>>11707021
Whether it true or not, I still love the mythology and philosophy of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.11707584]

>>11707021
Recently simulation theory has been in vogue. That of all beings with a degree of agency, the vast vast majority must live in simulations, even badly coded AI in vidya, and many more in ancestor simulations for advanced civs to examine what their history was like. This is also a good answer to the Fermi Paradox. Everyone here must be able to admit that there is at least a chance that we exist in a simulation or construct. Every construct or simulation has a creator. What is the nature of that creator? Our creator seems to instill in his higher monads greater perception, a perception that consists of conscience, a necessity for ritual, and a long history of revelation, many of which have similar ethical underpinnings. Thus it is reasonable, from an agnostic theist point, to believe in the possibility of a God, and what it expects from us. Furthering that, we can continue along that line to find the most reasonable source of expectations from revelation, whether it be Spinoza or Kant or the Gospel of Matthew or the Bhagavad Gita. Our inherent lack of certainty of the underlying truths in the cosmos allows us some flexibility in a trial and error method of knowing our possible God. Therefore I am at least somewhat justified in believing in God, even outside the framework of Catholicism or Islam, which I guess are as good as any.

[Anonymous No.11707594]

>>11707584

[Anonymous No.11707608]

>>11707567
How do you determine education? I've a PhD in biochemistry but I suppose I'm just not educated enough.

You foolishly cast aside God because of your own superiority complex.

[Anonymous No.11707609]

>>11707584
meh, your bullshit does not impress me friendo.

[Anonymous No.11707622]

>>11707609
>tfw you expect solid rebuttals to a questionable thesis and you just get lazyness instead

[Anonymous No.11707652]

>>11707567
>arrogant

[Anonymous No.11707667]

>>11707021
There is no reason people should justify their beliefs to one another or try to convince themselves that one thing or another is true. It is a belief, and militant atheists asking people for justification are about as right as televangelists trying to convert people to their heresy of choice. God's will shall be done as it is laid in the Scriptures no matter what.

[Anonymous No.11707702]

>>11707493
Your answer can be summed thus: Science is not biased even though it's a product of the human mind because it produces correct, concrete results."

But how do you know the results it produces are actually correct, since you are observing them with your mind which you claim is biased?