[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 45 KB, 666x500, E818B7BC-67A3-4BE4-AED0-A781A6997328.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14397661 No.14397661 [Reply] [Original]

Can you refute this man?
> "There is no god and that’s the simple truth. If every trace of any single religion died out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again."

>> No.14397664

>>14397661
From his book God,No!

>> No.14397672

>>14397661
Retroactively refuted by Guenon

>> No.14397697

>>14397661
And I'm sure he can prove that! He's a scientific mind, after all.

>> No.14397722

>>14397672
How?

>> No.14397735

>>14397722
w-what? what do you mean how?

>> No.14397744

>>14397697
isn't believing in something despite the lack of evidence a virtue? or did i miss something?

>> No.14397748

>>14397735
how

>> No.14397755

>Doesn't see the difference between revealed and natural theology

>> No.14397761

>>14397661
>There is no god and that’s the simple truth
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

>> No.14397792

>>14397748
Questions are an affront to the Absolute of being. There is no how, no why, there is only The Absolute.

>> No.14397801

>>14397661
If you can't see the flaw in his argument then I'm afraid you need to study more.
First he used:
>it would never be cread exactly that way again
>exactly
But he doesn't use "exactly" when talking about the science rebirth.
It is just a ruse trying to diminish any sort of spirituality. It is true that some elements of religion would PROBABLY be different if the situation he proposed happened, but often the religions recognize the external influences in their doctrine, for instance, the Catholics understand that some sacred festivities and days were set at specific dates due to historical reasons, but the truth of them didn't change and the dogma remains. So no, it won't be exactly the same.

But, ultimately, his argument is circular, he says: "Only the truth can be recovered.
Religion is cannot be recovered.
Therefore religion isn't truth"
Then one must ask, why religion cannot be recovered? His example of science implies that religion is not true, therefore cannot be recovered.

Go read the Greeks and learn the basic of Logic before posting on this kabuki puppet theater board

>> No.14397802

>>14397661
He’s right that specific Gods that are derived from mythologies and people claiming to have directly spoken to angels/spirits/God (e.g. abrahamics, Hinduism, pagan religions, etc.) are wrong but many arguments for God come more purely through logic (for example: deism or pantheism and many more) which could be come to without any prior religion

>> No.14397804

>>14397792
Guenon's a materialist?

>> No.14397808

>>14397761
Right, so produce extraordinary evidence of the existence of God

>> No.14397831

>>14397801
Religion cant be recovered because it isn't true, obviously.

>> No.14397836

>>14397808
I have faith in God’s existence. Does Mr. Atheist have faith in God’s non-existence?

>> No.14397837

>>14397836
I don't need faith for the non existence of something, the property is not symmetric.

>> No.14397847

>>14397761
You know that there exists some great structures almost 500 feets tall. Which were the largest ever produced for generations and generations? Its construction spam a 10-20 year period and the interior has different levels aimed at different objectives that dealt more or less with death and rebirth?
And that even 4000 years after the fact, people were still discovering things about its interior?
And that the place choosen to be built probably had astronomical justifications?

How extraordinary such a claim!
I need to present you a mere photo to prove it to you. Or an article.

Stop reading Sagan and books aimed at the common man. That is a good way to introduce you to the subjects, but "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"

>> No.14397850

>>14397661
What dumb argument. It's not like religion is build on universal truths about the human condition. This nigga should stick to "magic"

>> No.14397852

>>14397837
When you believe something is true, then yes, you have faith in it. So if you’re not agnostic and you believe that God does not exist, then you have faith in the non existence of God

>> No.14397860

>>14397836
that's not evidence retard

>> No.14397869

>>14397722
because religion is based on immutable metaphysical principles, so in essential features it would always stay the same

>> No.14397898

>>14397869
>immutable metaphysical principles
name even a single one

>> No.14397905

>>14397860
I never claimed that God exists, only that I believe He does

>> No.14397925

>>14397905
Highest IQ post ITT

>> No.14397941

>>14397661

Its circular reasoning. If god was real then religion would be created in exactly the same way because god would send his infallible truth down to us just like he did the first time. Of course if you first assume that there is no god and religion is made up, then it could not be recreated the exact same way, but then you have assumed that there is no god so clearly you can't use that as an argument to show that there is no god.

I'm not even religious but this argument is trivially flawed.

>> No.14397967

>>14397744
No it's not

>> No.14397979

>>14397744
It depends on what you believe in

>> No.14398134

>>14397661

What does the first sentence have to do with the rest?

>> No.14398236

>>14397831
That's circular reasoning.
The bloviating atheist faggot seems to make another error: conflating scientific facts, philosophical, and historical truths. His stagnant view of science is clearly wrong, and science only has a few occasions to develop big principles.
But religions are generally historical in nature. If all knowledge of Caesar was dispelled, his busts and records disappeared, does that mean the man doesn't exist? Clearly not.
And clearly, he's ignorant of the basic facts of what he's saying, because different people in different cultures and times have come to converging philosophical views about the Divine and ethics, which is why Plato and Aristotle caught on among Christianity. And why one can see commonality between the primordial nature of the world's religions.
It goes to show how new atheism is built by pseuds, when they easily follow ignorant hucksters and liars.

>> No.14398263

>>14397661
Guenon has preemptively refuted him

>> No.14398277

>>14397905
based

>> No.14398292

the gods humans have thought of are all just imperfect versions of the perfect forms from the world of forms

>> No.14398307

>>14397661
he is making groundless claims so idk how we're supposed to "refute" them. russell's teapot and all that

>> No.14398327

>>14397661
>If every trace of any single religion died out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again
no but it would be very similar and maybe we would actually go back to regular polytheistic religions instead of this dumb as shit monotheistic jack of all trades god

>> No.14398372
File: 33 KB, 699x564, 1575365128762.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14398372

Isn't the point of religion to have faith? If you were religious you wouldn't care whether or not you could scientifically prove the existence of God. Sort of like true love, or something like that.

>> No.14398394

God isn't real but religion is overall good for humanity
Absence of religion for most people leaves a void that gets filled by meaningless consumerism and dopamine binges

>> No.14398417

>>14398394
>God isn't real
I’m astounded by the arrogance. How did you come to this conclusion? Are you omniscient?

>> No.14398420

>>14398417
You can tell because of the way it is.

>> No.14398438

>>14398420
Sounds like the average theist’s justification for the claim that God is real. You’re just like the people you look down on

>> No.14398672
File: 505 KB, 700x698, (you) 6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14398672

>>14397905
Irrefutably based, have a well earned (you).

>> No.14398683

>>14397831
>Religion can't be recovered because >>> It isn't true because >>> religion can't be recovered because >>> It isn't true because >>> religion can't be recovered because >>> It isn't true because >>> religion can't be recovered
Ad infinitum.

>> No.14398690

Does /lit/ actually believe that a man lived inside a fish? That a man can part the fucking sea or turn water to wine or come back to life? It's not that hard to realize that it's all just bullshit and no amount of contrarian apologetics will make it any less bullshit.

>> No.14398710

I’m pretty sure people would believe in God again. If hindus, Jews, and Greeks can create monotheism independently it can happen again

>> No.14398721

>>14398710
We are in the 21st century. Things only happen if capital wills it.

>> No.14398722

>>14397661
>Can you refute this man?
Yes.
>If every trace of any single religion died out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again.
You wouldn't know because it didn't happen, therefore you're making baseless claims.
>If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.
Idem.

>> No.14398729

>>14398721
I’m assuming this is an apocalypse scenario where we go back to cavemen. Obviously if we all just forgot this stuff but the modern world and sensibilities stayed the same then yeah, the soulless fucking experience we have today could not inspire belief in God

>> No.14398742

How does he know we wouldn’t conceptualise natural phenomena completely differently?

>> No.14398778

>>14397905
lmao

>> No.14398833

>>14398690
I think it’s just larping and contrarianism desu.

>> No.14398932
File: 276 KB, 500x375, 1569167956096.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14398932

>>14397661
>science would be figured out in the exact same way

>> No.14398948

>>14398690
>Does /lit/ actually believe that a man lived inside a fish?
If it's so impossible and ridiculous to believe such a thing, why do you insist that we believe it? You come up with an interpretation which is by your own admission ridiculous, and then project it onto us.
Arguing in good faith, you might try to see if there is a different interpretation.

>> No.14398982

>>14398932
This is perhaps the most egregious of his claims, because here we are in "his" field.
Science, all of science, only comes up with models. There are an indefinite amount of models one can come up with to model a given reality. Consider for instance Newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian mechanics. Now remember that these come essentially from within the same tradition. Who knows how wildly different the models independent traditions conceive would look.
Sure, one might see that all of those models are trying to get at the same reality, some better, some worse, some more directly and some less. But that brings us back to religions.

>> No.14398994

>>14398690
>>14398833
Imagine being so ignorant. People so much more intelligent than you have been such a way, and continue to be.

>> No.14398995

>>14398948
Not him but the implication is that you believe something ridiculous.

>> No.14398999

>>14398982
Only philosophers and the Mongels believed that all religions are actually aiming for the same thing though.

>> No.14399045

>>14398690
You lost the argument here bro, just accept it

>> No.14399059

>>14399045
I'm new to /lit/, are you guys seriously creationists and Christians? Maybe some of the literature read here should include biology, physics and anthropology textbooks.

>> No.14399086

>>14397661
his fat ass never had the balls to meet
the numinous. Nor do any of these new atheist fuck bags.

>> No.14399093

>>14399059
go back to r*ddit

>> No.14399116

>>14399093
It's clear that this irrational adherence to Christianity is more of a social, identity phenomena than any rational philosophical conclusion.

This is an ancient myth like many others, it's not true. You just want to de-lineate yourselves from normal people your age.

>> No.14399138

>>14399116
>he hasn’t read Pascal

>> No.14399161

>>14399059
No you should leave. Countless philosophers and scientists (even today like kaku) have been and are theistic. Why would a board celebrating works of art, many created by religious geniuses like Dostoyevsky, be so dogmatic in their view of a higher reality? Go back to your little pseud hole redditor

>> No.14399170

>>14399138
Brainlet take. If anything it's an okay argument for Deism, and that's stretching.

>> No.14399190
File: 87 KB, 750x706, 8433DD61-19F1-4403-8C83-84D04011617E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14399190

>>14399170
>exposing himself so obviously
Kek. You haven’t read Pascal

>brainlet take
lol

>> No.14399193

>>14399161
Scientists who study reality are less likely to believe in Christianity or organized religion than the general population. It's a pretty significant disparity. Better knowledge of science is correlated with irreligious tendencies.

>> No.14399207

>>14399193
Most scientists are not atheists strangely enough. This appeal to authority fails like all the others.

>> No.14399208

>>14399190
Knowledge of our reality has exploded since the 1600's. If Pascal were alive today, he'd be an atheist. He had an excuse for believing in old myths, you don't.

>> No.14399219

>>14398994
Appeal to authority fallacy. Try again, this time apply yourself.

>> No.14399220

>>14399207
>Most scientists are not atheists
I didn't claim that, learn some reading comprehension.

>> No.14399222

>>14399208
>I believe in logic and things that can be proved empirically!
>let me make a stupid assumption that I can’t base on any facts other than my own bias
yeah whatever, have the last reply champ

>> No.14399226

>>14399208
that in no way engages with Pascal’s work. Don’t discuss something when you know nothing about it

>> No.14399253

>>14399222
This is a discussion about the nature of reality. You relying on the musings of a priest from the 1600's without acknowledging what science has discovered in the past 400 years outs you as utterly delusional. Literally living in a fantasy land, that's why you're obsessed with reading fantasy so much. It's all about escapism for you.

>> No.14399272

>>14399226
That's like referring to the priest of a Roman era cult to explain the nature of water, arguing about the nature of water and never once acknowledging that it's made out of H2O molecules.
Oh wait.

>> No.14399277

>>14399253
no scientific advancement in the last 400 years has anything to do with anything that Pascal said. You just assume that, for some reason. Coping with your own ignorance, I guess

>> No.14399291

>>14399208
Pascal likely understood heliocentrism. Why wasn’t he an atheist, then? Is this what you mean?

>> No.14399292

>>14399277
Our understanding of science proves the bible wrong, rendering that religion false, and any further elaboration based on that foundation, ridiculous. Genesis is wrong from the first page. Cope.

>> No.14399308

>>14398690
>not one valid refutation
Lmao, this is literally all you need. Religious fags have no straight response to this. It’s a cope.

>> No.14399313

>>14399292
>our understanding proves God wrong
There’s your first mistake

>> No.14399320

>>14397661
"If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again"

this is also true of religious knowledge

>> No.14399323

>>14399291
If the bible were actually written by a god that was all knowing and created it, Genesis would actually be correct. It's not. We have found out that it's incorrect through the hard sciences.

>> No.14399331

>>14399313
Not my fault that you're scientifically illiterate.

>> No.14399334

>>14397661
Imagine being this much of a fucking brainlet omfg. Why are outspoken atheists so insufferable?

>> No.14399349

>>14399323
>If the bible were actually written by a god that was all knowing and created it, Genesis would actually be correct
Says who? Why must that be the case? The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is one of the greatest stories of humanity. How else should God have written Genesis? A bunch of scientific facts that no one cares about? Consider the possibility that God primarily cared about the spiritual significance of the Bible and revealed those lessons as He best saw fit

>> No.14399358

>>14399334
Because you derive a sense of security from the Abrahamic myths, and the fact that they're myths deeply bothers you. You want them to be true, but like all people suffering delusions, correcting them results in the subject becoming deeply uncomfortable, often lashing out.

You've built your identity around it, it's wrong, you hate when people point that out. It's much easier to get mad at atheists than it is to restructure your perception to fit reality.

>> No.14399371

>>14399349
>it's all a metapor... it..it.. the creation story was never supposed to actually be about creation!!!
Cope.

>> No.14399372

>>14399358
You fear the existence of God and hell, so you do everything you can to convince yourself it isn’t real and justify your sinful behavior

>> No.14399376

>>14399358
Cool it with the logical fallacies

>> No.14399381

>>14399371
Rewrite Genesis, then. Go ahead. Make it scientifically accurate AND accessible to people across time and geography

>> No.14399383

>>14399372
>>14399376
Cope.

>> No.14399393

>>14399358
Holy fucking BASED.

>> No.14399395

>>14397661
What is the text surrounding this quote? This reads like a conclusion to an argument.

>> No.14399396

>>14399358
You literally don’t know what you are talking about and I can tell because I was you when I was a teenager. Don’t lash out the people that outgrew their atheism because of your lack of understanding. CRINGE my man.

>> No.14399400
File: 756 KB, 640x480, 1490418214060.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14399400

>>14397661
>"There is no god and that’s the simple truth"
I believe biology provides enough observational evidence to give good reason believe there is a God (I believe that Jesus Christ is truly God from the research that I've done).

Our bodies appear designed, and if we try to think how our bodies could have naturally developed to the state they're in now using the lens of evolution, then there isn't enough observational evidence to support it and it wouldn't make sense without some sort of outside knowledge guiding it.
I don't believe that our brain has a level of self awareness to program itself to use new physical traits that would come up (such as the optic nerve, which is said to have first appeared on the skin of an animal).
I don't see any observational evidence that supports the idea that hardware could accidentally be developed and then the brain (software) would even be able to learn how to use it properly. At least not before natural selection would kill off that creature (Think about the pancreas, liver, how the heart beats without you thinking).

What evolved first? The blood veins or arteries? Or was it the knowledge on how the body creates millions of blood cells? Or did these complex systems all come at once? Either one of those answers wouldn't make sense or would leave the creature dead.
These are very complex structures the provide the living tissue with oxygen to survive. In some areas, the blood vessels are so precise that it can only fit one blood cell at a time.
Generally speaking, if veins and arteries are too small, this is a known medical condition that will cause complication for many people.

Same question can be given to sex organs. What came first, the drive for creatures to have sex or the necessity to reproduce?
It would be a shocking coincidence if the brain and the physical traits developed at the same time, because this would imply that the brain has an EXTREMELY heightened awareness of how it works since it would know how to program itself.

Again, there is no observational evidence that suggests that the brain has this level of hyper awareness, so we can only assume that the necessity for reproduction with sexual organs came first. Yet, what would motivate a creature who just received these physical traits to sexually reproduce if they didn't have sexual desire? That would have to be a great accident as well.

You can also look to our:
>nervous system
>hormone manufacturing in the brain
>depth perception (which is complex and would require a hyper self awareness for the brain to program it)
>taste
>***osteoclast and osteoblast (how would the body accidentally even think of this process???)**

All great reasons to consider intelligent design as a viable explanation for creation in the universe. Not to mention the implications of the Big Bang.

>> No.14399403

>>14399381
It's an order of events and a description of it. The order is wrong, the description is wrong. The timing is wrong even metaphorically. It reads like an old creation myth from an ancient culture just making shit up, because it is.

Unbelievable how grown men with all the correct knowledge at their fingertips are getting this wrong. Just be a cultural christian and get over yourself.

>> No.14399408

>>14399396
>i outgrew it
you mean you saw the abyss and flinched.

>> No.14399419

>>14399396
Zero facts or rational argument on your side, all feelings. I'm an ex-Christian by the way.

>> No.14399420

>>14397661

ultimate brainlet take, i can't even call him a midwit. if two people look at a something as simple as fucking table they aren't going to have the exact same mental conception, or give the same description of it when asked, let alone an infinite concept like God and challenging ethical issues. subjective synthesis of the objective IS possible, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a retard

>> No.14399425

>>14399358
I would like to know what you think about this >>14399400. If you saw the word "Hello there fren" spelled out in pebbles in a rock query where stones are constantly being ground up, you wouldn't think that was an accident—yet with the human body we too often look at systems far more complex and seem to take it for granted.

>> No.14399426

>>14399403
1. You can’t prove that it’s wrong
2. Even if it were wrong, it would not mean that Christianity isn’t true.

>> No.14399440

>>14399253
All the chapters of the image of the table of contents could be filled with random gibberish and you wouldn't know it, and here you are, arguing against something you haven't read. Stop making assumptions.

>> No.14399442

>>14399425
Evolution is hard to wrap your head around, I understand man. Biology tells us how these systems and organisms developed. If you have any specific questions I can help.

>> No.14399454

>>14399426
>You can’t prove that it’s wrong
We have some correct answers and they don't match Genesis at all. There's a reason why Genesis sounds like a mesopotamian myth and not someone explaining how the Earth and life came about.

>> No.14399462

>>14397837
Yes it is, if you're going to use the existence or nonexistence of a thing to dictate your behavior at all, then the property is in fact symmetric.

>> No.14399463

>>14399454
>We have some correct answers and they don't match Genesis at all
How do you know they’re correct?

>> No.14399478

>>14397661
Here is one God, here is another God, this is proof of supreme beings ;^)

>> No.14399480

>>14399440
Just be a cultural Christian if you need these ideas so much. Just don't act like it's not a myth.

If you walked into a biology class citing a philosopher from the 1600's as an argument against evolution or the idea that humans are animals, you would be justifiably laughed out. Please sit down and listen if you want to pass the class.

>> No.14399487

>>14399463
Do you think the ocean, Earth and wind on Earth existed before the sun? Congratulations, you're a moron. Do not bother anon, you will only further embarrass yourself if you try to argue for creationism.

>> No.14399498

>>14399487
>Do you think the ocean, Earth and wind on Earth existed before the sun? Congratulations, you're a moron.
Literally not an argument

>> No.14399507

>>14399498
Because you don't understand the very basics of physics, nevermind the comical biology falsehoods included. GTFO

>> No.14399511

>>14399480
Pascal didn’t argue against evolution what are you talking about

>> No.14399518

>>14399507
I don’t think you understand it either because you haven’t given a single argument or explanation for how Genesis is incorrect.

>> No.14399522

>>14397898
there is a reason for everything

>> No.14399524

>>14399511
Pascal didn't even know about evolution because he lived in the 1600's. Same goes for all the science we have now that proves the bible wrong.

He lived in the 1600's, you live a few days short of 2020, start acting like it.

>> No.14399532

>>14399487

you're not dealing with bible literalist fundies here kid, nobody thinks that the cosmology presented in genesis is anything but a series of metaphors

>> No.14399534

>>14399518
Then you must not have read it.

>> No.14399539

>>14399524
1) You can’t believe in evolution without having some amount of faith
2) Even if evolution were true, that wouldn’t disprove the existence of God or that Jesus is the Messiah and the Savior

>> No.14399540

>>14399532
Where does it say that Genesis is a metaphor, but the story of Jesus is literal? Is the whole thing a metaphor?

>> No.14399547

>>14398372
Yes, but there are obvious proofs of god's existence. No genuinely honest person would deny the proofs for Gods existence are wrong. The faith part comes in when we get down to the details of who the prophets were, the nature of god, etc

>> No.14399548

>>14399480
Why do you assume that anything Pascal has ever said is related to evolution? I believe in evolution, most Christians outside of third world countries and the South do.
And also, science does not deal with the "nature of reality". It gives descriptions of physical things, but its scope is always finite due to the finite nature of the human mind. Only philosophy and religion will tell you about the nature of reality

>> No.14399553

>>14399540
The Bible is a collection of books dealing with law, history, poetry, philosophy etc. They’re not all written for the same purpose

>> No.14399554

>>14399539
I've created it in a lab and documented its occurrence. Literally watching evolution through selective pressures.
It proves Genesis wrong, and if genesis is wrong then it's not written by god.

>> No.14399558

>>14399540
>Thinking everything in the Bible is the same genre.

YIKES.

>> No.14399567

>>14399534
again, not an argument

>> No.14399572

>>14399553
>>14399558
Which ones are true and which are metaphor? How do you know that the whole thing isn't just metaphors, allegories, stories rather than actual fact?

>> No.14399573

>>14397898
2nd law of thermodynamics means death is inevitable. Religion is the simplest means of pretending you don't care.

>> No.14399575

>>14399540

the bible is not one book, but a series of books that encompasses more than a few reasons for the books being written. such as genesis being a metaphorical explanation of the cosmos, psalms being a collection of devotional prayers, eccclesiastes being an ontology within the confines of judaism, and the new testament books like paul and matthew being historical accounts of jesus's ministry. you should lay off the reddit for a bit and take a class or something

>> No.14399578

>>14398690
>>14399308
>n-no youre the one that believes my awful interpretation!

I seriously don't get it, like the other guy said, how can you not see that you are projecting your own understanding of religion? You're failure to conceive of God is not an argument for the way other people conceive of God. You are literally no better then people who think the world is 6000 years old

>> No.14399583

>>14399567
>"the book I read is true!"
>no because it gets facts wrong
>THAT's NOT AN ARGUMENT
Cope.

>> No.14399595
File: 1.17 MB, 524x295, 1490415378332.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14399595

>>14399442
I do have some legitimate question I'm curious about on the part of your beliefs.
Do you believe that the brain has the ability to program itself?
And do you also believe that the first creatures that developed a heart needed to use that heart-like structure to live? Or do you believe that the body developed blood first then the heart was an evolutionary response to it?

Also, the first law of biology is that all organisms follow thermodynamics. So these first living organisms (or the ones that survived to reproduce leading to the modern age), no matter how simple would have to have develop a sort of consciousness in order to recognize what environments were better for them, how they should eat, using the RNA process.

Also, doesn't the ATP seem far too specific of a molecule to have developed right form the beginning? ATP (Adenosine triphosphate) is the molecule that carries energy, so this would have been a necessity in order for the first living creatures to live. How did the first living creatures get properly programmed to know how to direct the ATP molecules in order to properly use the energy they were getting from there "food"?

It all seems very unlikely to be an accident desu. I think you are under estimating how complicated the first life would have been and how many variables there are.
>ATP molecules
>directing the ATP molecules to provide the NEEDED energy to other cellular function
>DNA and RNA process (reproduction)
>cellular membrane developing
>cellular repair systems

All these would need to be present in order for the first life form to be able to live JUST long enough to be able to reproduce.

Science has shown that there was a definite beginning to the universe. And going off the First Law of Thermodynamics, no system has more energy than was introduced. You either believe that all matter had already has existed since forever or that there was a God who introduced the energy into this closed system of our universe.

>> No.14399596

>>14399578
What is the proper conception of god?

>> No.14399603

>>14399554
not even close to being the same thing
>>14399583
YOU were the one who claimed Genesis is incorrect. I’ve only asked questions. You need to back up YOUR claims

>> No.14399604

>>14399575
>hey see this creation story inside my holy book? It's wrong
Fascinating.

>> No.14399607

>>14399572
how do you know that an outside world exists apart from your mind? how do you know the past exists? how do you know that a souls exists/dosent exist?

The real answer to any of these things is we don't know. Any statement you make can be pretext-ed with "probably" or "plausibly". The difference is metaphysical speculations and religious traditions acknowledge this as faith.

>> No.14399608

>>14399442
No it isnt

>> No.14399618

>>14399604
Jesus spoke in parables because they’re simple and short. If God wrote unfiltered truth in a book then we wouldn’t be able to read it

>> No.14399625

>>14399604

it may not be correct as a historical account, but there is quite a bit of truth in it as metaphysical truth, no matter how obtuse it is. again, lay off the reddit and go learn something

>> No.14399637

>>14399596
I conceive and worship a monotheistic God thats is all good, all powerful, and the first principle and reason for all things. Obviously there is plenty of traits the concept of God has, but your obsession with "proper concept" leads me to believe you want some definition. And of course there is a difference between definition and concept. The concept of God is everything potentially conceivable about God, and is obviously larger and more rich, while the definition is what you would find on a finite piece of paper.

>> No.14399638

>>14399595
I appreciate you being reasonable and asking actual questions. All of these questions can be answered by online biology resources, but I will gladly answer one of them for you. Which one do you specifically want to talk about, you're asking some questions that require long answers here. with all due respect, I'm not writing a paper for you.

>> No.14399639

>>14399618
>God did X because of Y then apophaticism in the next sentence

>> No.14399651

>>14399638
HOW DID SPIDER WEBS EVOLVE WTF

>> No.14399659

>>14399625
>it may not be correct
Exactly.

>>14399618
If god explained how the universe was created, then we figured out how it was actually created and the bible was right, then I would be open to believing it. Turns out it was wrong like all the other myths.

>> No.14399662

>>14399639
learn to greentext, redditor

>> No.14399671

>>14397661
It's a circular argument so I don't need to.
>>14398690
>religion that believes in a god who can miraculously do anything
>BUT HOW DID MAN LIVE IN FISH THIS NOT POSSIBLE !??!?@!11
It isn't possible, yet God made it possible in that one instance of Jonah. That's the whole point. It's a miracle. It is possible AND impossible.

>> No.14399672

>>14397802
Some vague bare-bones deism will always exist precisely because it does not give any details. But most religious people believe in a very specific narrative and set of supernatural explanations that could only be created once.

>> No.14399673

>>14399651
I don't know, there are scientific resources you can consult. I'm sure you'll find it was an extremely gradual process like every other.

>> No.14399675

>>14399659
God created light before the planets and the stars. Sounds like the Big Bang doesn’t it? By the way, do you know how ocean currents were discovered?

>> No.14399682

>>14397852
>When you believe something is true, then yes, you have faith in it
False.

>> No.14399687

>>14399675
The big bang happened after the Earth, oceans and wind were created according to the bible. That's absurdly wrong, just like all other creation myths.

>> No.14399694

>>14397905
^ literal retard

>> No.14399695

>>14399687
Light appeared in verse 3

>> No.14399701

>>14399638
>All of these questions can be answered by online biology resources
This is literally not true, we do not have a theory for abiogenesis and we do not know how evolution can occur given the time frame that it has and given the laws of thermodynamics.
I'm not even Christian or religious but when you say made up shit like this you're no different than the bible literalists

>> No.14399715

Is this entire thread bait made by some sort of schizo group, that's how it reads

>> No.14399717

>>14398417
How many gods do you think there are? How do you know there are precisely that number?

>> No.14399722

>>14399695
After claiming the ocean/liquid water and wind already existed. You literally believe in an ancient myth in 2019.

>> No.14399725

>>14399717
I don’t know

>> No.14399729

>>14399701
Nothing you said is true. Stay in school please.

>> No.14399737
File: 39 KB, 728x655, sqQlid7g.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14399737

Can you believe in evolution and God at the same time?
Or at the very least God created multiple humans at once.

I refuse to believe all of humanity is a product of a long line of incestuous fucking.

>> No.14399745

>>14399737
>I refuse to believe all of humanity is a product of a long line of incestuous fucking.
There is hope for you anon, because that's impossible.

>> No.14399753

>>14399717
Monotheism is true, obviously.

If there exists two Gods A and B then there exists a greater conceivable being which is A union B. Therefore beings A and B are not gods, thus God must be one ontological being.

All you have to do is read actual theologians instead of basing all of your arguments from strawmanning lay people

>> No.14399758

>>14399059
/lit/ may seem skewed toward religious nutjobs, because most normal people just aren't that interested in yet another discussion of nonexistent things.

>>14399161
Fuck off with your flimsy rationalizations, faggot.

>> No.14399764

>>14399737
>Can you believe in evolution and God at the same time?
Yes, this is very, very easy.
>I refuse to believe all of humanity is a product of a long line of incestuous fucking.
Yes, a literal interpretation of genesis makes no sense. That is, however, a separate issue from monotheism.

>> No.14399765

>>14399745
>hope for me
i dont believe in anything, as in just dont know if there is a god.
I can't say.

Who the fuck am I to tell you what to believe?!

>> No.14399767

>>14399758
I guess it is a waste of time. There are few things more frustrating than trying to explain reality to a cult member.

>> No.14399772

>>14399764
How do you interpret it?

>> No.14399775

>>14399722
>ocean
didn’t say that
>wind
didn’t say that
>liquid water
not necessarily the water as in ocean water. Could refer to ether etc

>> No.14399779

>>14399772
Selectively. I pretend it's all real until I cannot claim that without being shamed socially or stupidity.

>> No.14399785

>>14399753
>A union B
Lmao

>> No.14399788
File: 121 KB, 329x242, F00B3189-9255-4700-8D0D-E40EC24F5084.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14399788

>>14399637
Cringe

>> No.14399799

>>14399442
>>14399595
>>14399638
I suppose the larger point to make here is that it isn't unreasonable to see there is an argument for intelligent design. And one doesn't need to look farther than the origins of life.

And I'm sure you understand that for people who do believe in God, they don't mean to pester you but they just believe that if there is a God then it should be of the highest priority to try and convince people the same.

I know that there is very interesting work explaining the differences in creatures. But the issue that I think is most important is the origin of life and the universe, either there is a logical explanation for it involving intelligent design or there isn't. And I personally don't see how the scientific explanation, if life began how they believe it did, contradicts or even disproves that there is a God. That idea is probably the only thing I would like your opinion on; have you ever considered that believing the mainline scientific explanation for the origin of life doesn't disprove that there is a God? Usually people portray them as being mutually exclusive, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. You can believe in the process of how it reasoned it happened but believe there was a intelligence guiding the programming (God).

Some questions that I've thought to myself are how would the first life forms know to form ATP molecules to give them NEEDED fuel intake and to keep them living? The first living organism didn't know it needed food, it had no consciousness. But how did it know it had to keep fueling itself?
The first life forms must've known that they were able to take in compounds, break them down, and then have the ATP molecules carry that fuel to the needed cellular structures.

There are of course exceptions but my line of thinking is generally this, if something has a gas tank, basic two stroke engine, gas peddle, and a fuel line—that is observational evidence to me that somehow there was a level of awareness that knew it needed fuel. These cellular systems, as a whole, are very complicated even at the first life form level. They are truly not "simple cell" organism. And that's not even scratching the surface for arguments in favor of intelligent design being a plausible explanation for the origin of life.

Anyways, cheers m8. I wish you well this Christmas. I hope you do explore the idea that believing in evolution doesn't exclude intelligent design. Often the debate is shaped that way from the start though.
As I mentioned earlier, observational evidence in space even suggests that all the energy in this system came from a source larger or at least equivalent to the Big Bang (which nearly a weaker force would cause the universe to expand to slowly and collapse on itself and too much force/too fast would be unfavorable for existence as well).
Have a Merry Christmas, anon. I hope you that you consider the validity of Jesus and got something out of this.

>> No.14399801

>>14399775
They clarify that the land emerged from the same waters, indicating that it was initially talking about the ocean. The bible says X you claim it said X but actually meant Y because it is an indefensible position.

You are a joke.

>> No.14399806

>>14399785
/lit/ isnt really into theological proofs, what am i supposed to write? mathematical symbols?

>> No.14399824

>>14399788
point out the error, its really just a subset of the ontological argument and can be extended to proving all good being, and an all powerful being aswell.

>> No.14399826

>>14399799
>differences in creatures
I meant evolution of life forms over time basically (cellular life to more complex organism)

>> No.14399843

>>14399799
>ut I don't think that is necessarily the case. You can believe in the process of how it reasoned it happened but believe there was a intelligence guiding the programming (God).
There is no reason to believe it. When it has been studied extensively it really is not mysterious and there is no need to add in intelligent design.
>Some questions that I've thought to myself are how would the first life forms know to form ATP molecules to give them NEEDED fuel intake and to keep them living? The first living organism didn't know it needed food, it had no consciousness. But how did it know it had to keep fueling itself?
Anon, no one consciously creates ATP. You are creating it now and are not doing it on purpose. It is a chemical reaction.

>> No.14399851

>>14399801
Everything is water

>> No.14399854

>>14399824
>>14399806
meant for him

>>14399788
whats cringe about it? Again, failure to understand god, or inability to achieve happiness though god is not an argument.

>> No.14399855

>>14399826
All well explored and not hard to explain,.

>> No.14399885
File: 362 KB, 913x1763, 85B6B5CD-242C-4A07-9DAD-1FAD2C25FFB5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14399885

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion%20December%201g_snd.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheists

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

Daily reminder most philosophers are atheists

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human

>> No.14399901

>>14399885
Religious people are also happier and less likely to be depressed and commit suicide

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303

https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2003-06077-010

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1064748112604503

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-18209-001

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en-US&publication_year=2005&pages=797-823&author=F+Van+Tubergen&author=M+Te+Grotenhuis&author=W.+Ultee&title=Denomination%2C+religious+context%2C+and+suicide%3A+Neo-Durkheimian+multilevel+explanations+tested+with+individual+and+contextual+data#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DG5Quu87ycCkJ

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1521/suli.32.4.404.22333

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201712/religion-and-mental-health-what-is-the-link%3famp

http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/people-files/faculty/si105/FINAL_Fruehwirth_Iyer_Zhang_Dec2017.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4482518/

>> No.14399916

>>14397661
Based argument I knew all my history teachers were lying to me and history doesn't actually exist.

>> No.14399922

>>14397661
John 14:6

>> No.14399932

>>14399901
So it’s a cope.

>> No.14399959

>>14399932
Theists have hope and happiness. These things they know, because they feel them. Atheists have their version of “truth,” but in reality they do not know anything for certain, and their views tend to lead to nihilism, depression, death. How can you say atheists are therefore superior to theists?

>> No.14399976

>>14399885

>Daily reminder religious people are less educated

Yes go pass through our 'education system' and come out a husk devoid of divinity and culture. Yesssss you are smart now good boy, just look at the statisssstics.

>> No.14399997

>>14399932
its not cope if its true, thats the hilarious part. Its true and natural, and less depressing, while atheists have a complex that wills them to desperately stray away from the religious world view because they usually lack emotional intelligence in the first place.

>> No.14400015

>>14399843
No but the idea wasn't that it's wrong, you getting too caught up in that—the idea being that they are not contradictory. You can hold the explanations that mainline science has laid out and believe there is a God. That idea is what I wanted you thoughts on desu.
>Anon, no one consciously creates ATP. You are creating it now and are not doing it on purpose. It is a chemical reaction.
That was precisely my point, but I must've miss communicated my idea in the original post. What I was getting at is that the first life forms' survival was dependent on many variables coming together simultaneously in the right environment.

And even then, the elements that we know were included in the first life forms, such as being able to reproduce (DNA/RNA), having cellular structures that just so happen to interact with ATP molecules, etc. provides ample observational evidence that they were complex forms of life.
I would still stay that because of these factors, they are great pieces of evidence of intelligent design.

>> No.14400043

>>14399400
I didn't know people still unironically used the "it's complex so a creator did it" argument

>> No.14400292

>>14399901
Daily reminder that you don’t contribute to science at all, are not intelligent enough to, yet desperately bootlick scientists even though it’s an actual fact that the vast majority of them are not atheists. Daily reminder that genius is genius, and history both modern and premodern has a decent spread of theistic and non theistic scientists and philosophers. Daily reminder that your obnoxious attempts to destroy a facet of human thinking you dislike will never succeed.

>> No.14400445

>>14399901
>Across all studies, the correlation between religiousness and depressive symptoms was -.096

*yawn*
Seems like a miserable effect for such a destructive coping mechanism

>> No.14400476

>>14400292
>>14399885
meant for this post

>> No.14401477

>>14397808
We exist.
The End, you burden of proof shifting low IQ mouthbreather.

>> No.14401576

Yeah well they probably wouldn't invent gay ass magic tricks again either.

>> No.14401599

There really isn't a God. I wish there was.. Oh well, back to cooming for me

>> No.14401817

>>14401599
This. I mean it. Unironically.

>> No.14401840

>>14399400
This argument sounds good but really it just betrays an incomprehension of the vast spans of time evolution is happening during. I understand, you think that these systems are too complex to have evolved randomly, I mean what are the odds right? You fail to grasp, because no one can truly grasp, what hundreds of millions of years really is. Evolution had plenty of time to develop these systems, at random, very slowly, one increment at a time, in a way that they worked. It was not by any means "no veins -> veins in a few thousand generations". It's millions of generations for each step.

>> No.14401853

>>14399603
The dude was obviously talking about the part in genesis where the sun gets created after shit on earth gets created. Stop arguing in bad faith, or are you really that moronic?

>> No.14401861

>>14397661
No need for exactness. You can recognise the underlying universality in addition to the particular tradition that you, willing or not, exist within and are defined by. Something deemed 'universal' is likely to arise as with everything human it is greatly influenced by having a shared nature and shared conditions of reality.

Problem with nu-atheism is that it offers an inferior substitute in place of traditional custom and its layers of truth applying to all areas of a human being, philosophy, society, art, and god.

>> No.14401878

>>14399799
>The first living organism didn't know it needed food, it had no consciousness. But how did it know it had to keep fueling itself?
Why do religionfags understand evolution and probability so poorly? There is no "knowing" that things need to do things. It is entirely likely that some form of life arose, many many times, that did not produce the necessary chemical reactions to sustain life, and thus it just died. Creatures that evolved are viable because the ones that were not viable died. A single celled organism is basically just a few steps away from a bundle of amino acids. Before the first viable SSO, there were probably billions of failed combinations of compounds that did not result in a viable SSO. "somehow there was a level of awareness that knew it needed fuel" NO

>> No.14401903

>>14401878
Yeah but that inexorable root taking so to speak of evolution has direction, towards survival and its means, the roots deepen themselves in the soil, some are halted but they continue to grow, and I use this metaphor because I'm directly comparing evolution to something living, the way it branches out and some roots a sickly but some keep digging is nothing short of a sentient force set forth to create life Imo, it just can't be compared to anything else than what it created, it is the will to survive and thrive in essence, branching out its roots and fostering breathing life in its wake.

>> No.14401926

>>14401903
No dude. Shit just randomly happens, billions and billions and quintillions of times over. After all this random stuff happens, some of the random results are such that they are able to propagate to the next gen. The quintillions of other results do not propagate. This is not any kind of intelligence. It's just luck and a vast, vast quantity of time. You can create a simulation like this and you will end up with some kind of "SENTIENT INEXORABLE FORCE TO LIIIIIIVE" when it's just the mutations that ended up alive at the end of the sim. You are literally arguing like a pre-Darwin fundamentalist. Please read a book about natural selection.

>> No.14402024

>>14399682
cope

>> No.14402388
File: 20 KB, 739x415, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14402388

>>14398690
Yes

>> No.14402419

>>14399522
define "reason", because as it stands that is one shitty, unsupportable premise

>> No.14402437
File: 84 KB, 904x864, tiresome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14402437

>people who believe the religion that authority figures told them to believe in when they were children

>> No.14402447

>>14398690
Irrelevant. The OP quote specifically talks about the existence of god, not Bible stories

>> No.14402544

>>14401878
>>14401840
>>14400043
I think I see where the disconnect is. I'm talking about complexity of cells, organs, and systems, but I'm also taking into account observational evidence to support the claim that over time the DNA and RNA process and the reproductive process can create change happening at the family level of biology without intelligent design. From what we've observed, there can be micro evolution, but these micro evolution changes don't change the fact that the resulting creature is still a sub species of an owl, canine, or feline. They all remain in the family level and we have never observed change happening at the family level.
The DNA and RNA process and reproduction, from what we've been able to observe, is too precise to change a creature enough to categorize it as another family level.

Friends, we have never witnessed one species at the family level turn into another kind of creature. We have no observational evidence to support that. A monkey from 1,000 generations ago is still just as much a primate as we have today.
You can cross bread sub species, such as a lion and a tiger, and it will create a "ligar", but they will still be the same at the biological family level. Same can be done with a dog and a wolf, two sub species of owls, and so on. But they will all remain the same at the family level.

Even looking at the morphology of creatures, there can be huge differences between sizes and looks of dogs, monkeys, and eagles. But they are still canis, primates, and eagles. But despite a Great Dane and a Pug's obvious difference, they are the same at the family level.

The largest reason for me to believe this is that there is no observational evidence to support these idea.

Hair follicles are a strange thing to evolve. Same with finger nails—those are too convenient to have been an accident. Also consider depth perception , I would really appreciate it if you could show me a study based on observational evidence that explains how such a complicated development can be made by the brain on accident. Think of the pancreas again. It is a huge engineering feat.

I offer this as something to think about; based on the observational evidence available, we have seen countless numbers of generation of bacteria reproduce, yet have never witnessed the bacteria mutate into anything other than bacteria. And I'm sure you know that bacteria is able to reproduce roughly 20 billion times in 24 hours, so since we've began examining bacteria we have monitored bacteria over quadrillions of reproduction cycles and have not once observed them to reproduce into anything other than bacteria. I haven't seen one study that has shown the bacteria had changed on the family level. It remained bacteria. Even after all these cycles of the DNA and RNA process. surely after quadrillions of reproductive cycles, I would think that if a mistake would randomly occur in the reproductive process of passing down DNA, that it would be observed in bacteria?

>> No.14402553
File: 26 KB, 500x500, Evolution - Still A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton (2016).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14402553

>he still believes in Darwins bullshit
Lamo

>> No.14402790

>>14401926
If evolution is real why didn't you evolve to not be a faggot.

>> No.14402803

>>14399885
High Testosterone AMERICAN Men Are Less Religious in MURRICA. Small wonder, it's a state sanctioneed cuck racket and the minute you preach on the holy wrath and divine retribution you have more covert fed agents among the flock than you have kids with 4 wives.

>> No.14402834

>>14397661
What is it with athiests equating religion with god?

>> No.14402862

>>14397898
That Truth will always triumph, as nature necessitates it and always favours what is true.

>> No.14402882

>>14401477
>We exist.
Which proves the existence of God how?

>> No.14402886

>>14402544
>from what we've been able to observe
And we've been observing it (a process that literally takes millions of years to see any significant change) for like what, less than 100 years.

>> No.14403550

>>14398690

Not only do I think that those things actually happened, but I think they are no more or less exceptional than anything and everything else, and thus think their actuality is quite trivial, hinging my Theology on higher things.

>> No.14403566

>>14399358
You guys really have no idea what faith actually is do you?

>> No.14403614

I think people would independently come to the same conclusions though such as monotheism, creatio ex nihil, heaven/hell, God wanting to incarnate in physical form (Jesus Christ). Each step leads to the next and takes minimal blind faith if you think through it all carefully

>> No.14403639

>>14402437
>get argumentatively btfo the entire thread
>just post passive aggressive frogs
Why are atheists so fucking pathetic?

>> No.14403643

>>14399885

Enter the code "athe15m" to get 15% off the Nintendo Switch. It works.

>> No.14403925

>>14402419
an explanation and significant purpose for everything exists. PSR, read Leibniz.

>> No.14405143

>>14397661
>obnoxious atheist
damn is this late 2000s youtube again?

>> No.14405327

>>14399358
Myths are more true than historical events.

>> No.14405340
File: 23 KB, 460x454, aivokääpiö1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14405340

>You believe in god? Here is a strange thing from the bible, BTFO!!!

>> No.14405846

>>14397661
As cope-tastic as this homo thread is (m-muh precious gawd!) Penn is even more offensive. Imagine thinking that "science" is a set of axiomatic, intrinsic facts about the world that we are discovering, rather than being a methodology for modeling physical phenomena. "Science" is not true or false, so would not "still be true." Any future or alternative civilization would construct differing models from our own even if they were to apply scientific methods in creating those models.

Penn is a C- intellectual - it's significant that he's even thinking about these things in the first place, but the foundations of his theorizing are so clearly amiss that all we get out of it are stoned rehashings of bygone philosophers. To him, he thinks it therefore it's true, and that is just as baseless as the people he takes issue with. No real attempt is made to understand even his own position on the matter beyond what his obese "gut" says.

>> No.14405886

>>14405340
Most people on this board are "Christian" though so they ought to be able to defend the bible.

>> No.14405900

>>14397661
debating about the existence of god is gay and a waste of time it doesnt even matter if he does or doesnt since it has nearly 0 direct impact for our reality

>> No.14405958

>>14405886
Spillover from /pol/ can't defend any stance because it cannot comprehend what it regurgitates.

>> No.14406129

>>14398690
>Be literally God
>Create everything, laws of physics, planets, everything conceivable.
>Can do anything possible.
>Not mess around with things.

>> No.14406151

>>14406129
god is still in its infancy and is using the collective experiences of humans to mature its understanding of reality