Theist literature

[Anonymous No.14662462]

What are some good books that pertain to theism, the refutation of reductionist materialism and the idea of an afterlife from an unbiased perspective (without undertones or implied affiliation to a specific religious movement)?

[Anonymous No.14663338]

bump

[Anonymous No.14663343]

There is no refutation of reductionist materialism.

[Anonymous No.14663348]

for afterlife do research on NDE's. As for the existence of a higher intelligence, even Voltaire considered the watchmaker argument irrefutable. You have to be retarded not to see design in our universe. Is it the design of the Happy Sunshine omnibenevolent deity that theology teaches? Probably not, but it's definitely some sort of higher guiding intelligence.

[Anonymous No.14663374]

>>14662462
No such thing exists

[Anonymous No.14663427]

>>14663343
>>14663374
>Source: dude trust me

[Anonymous No.14663431]

>>14662462
Unironically, read Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.14663438]

>>14663427
You don't trust them?

[Anonymous No.14663439]

>>14662462
Try the fantasy section of your local bookstore

[Anonymous No.14663477]

>>14663439
simply ebin

[Anonymous No.14663491]

>>14663439
holy shit, how will op ever recover my fellow re.ddit bros

[Anonymous No.14663503]

>>14663491
>>14663477
atheism is no longer reddit, we are reclaiming the Fedora

[Anonymous No.14663505]

>>14662462
nigger

[Anonymous No.14663511]

>>14663503
Where did all this design inherent in the structure of reality come from if there isn't a higher intelligence?

[Anonymous No.14663514]

>>14663438
My request was badly worded because to ask for a "refutation" of materialism presupposes an argument constructed from observing the material world. I'm looking for alternative points of view, but I don't know where to start. Which authors have produced interesting works on mind-body dualism?

[Anonymous No.14663518]

>>14663511
reality is just inherently ordered my man. Why not?

[Anonymous No.14663525]

>>14663518
Because that's dumb. The only reason you deny that an intelligence is at work is because you are triggered by Abrahamic retardation and worry that to conceded a higher intelligence is a victory for them. It's not. They are just as retarded as atheists. Be smart, bro. Acknowledge the intelligence operative in the universe without succumbing to retarded mythologies.

[Anonymous No.14663544]

>>14663518
Because if you believe science accurately describes reality, then you must also believe that all systems tend to become disorderly. So no, reality should not be "inherently ordered"

[Anonymous No.14663545]

>>14663525
How is it dumb? An intelligence creating everything is not the same thing as reality naturally having rules, order, tendency towards creating complexity. They are clearly different concepts.

[Anonymous No.14663552]

>>14663545
>tendency towards creating complexity.
This very simple statement goes against the entirety of thermodynamics or our understanding of modern physics in general, though.

[Anonymous No.14663554]

>>14663544
Two things, 1, local reversals of disorder wouldn't contradict overall increase, and 2, we could simply be wrong about entropy

[Anonymous No.14663562]

>>14663545
Yeah, and one of those concepts makes sense and the other is stupid. Obviously order didn't just happen willy nilly. Order is characteristic of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.14663568]

>>14663562
>Obviously order didn't just happen willy nilly.
Again, why not? Why should reality be chaotic rather than ordered, there's no reason to just assume that

[Anonymous No.14663577]

>>14663554
>we could simply be wrong about entropy
That would make the standard model fucking crumble and right now aside from having no concise theory of quantum gravity our model of physics seems to be holding up pretty well, so I don't think so.
I also think it's counter-productive to attempt to convince a materialist of intelligent design and that you're entitled to your opinion

[Anonymous No.14663583]

>>14663568
Because I'm not dumb and don't believe dumb things. Arguments prove nothing. It's just endless hairsplitting. Look around you and tell me this "just happened". It didn't. That's dumb. Don't be dumb. The end.

[Anonymous No.14663595]

>>14663577
What about the first point though, local reversals of entropy? Also nonmaterialist ontologies don't necessarily imply an intelligent creator.
>>14663583
Calling something dumb and saying nothing else just pointless. I personally have no problem just looking around and saying 'this just happened'

[Anonymous No.14663599]

>>14663343
Read Bernardo Kastrup

[Anonymous No.14663603]

>>14663595
>I personally have no problem just looking around and saying 'this just happened'
t. actual retard

[Anonymous No.14663606]

>>14663595
>local reversals of entropy
I don't know enough about physics to answer in a constructive manner. The universe is an isolated system, so its entropy can only increase. Local reversals of entropy should always be temporary and lead to an unstable state but don't quote me on that
>nonmaterialist ontologies don't necessarily imply an intelligent creator.
I somewhat agree with that

[Anonymous No.14663608]

>>14663603
Well why not? Why shouldn't reality just be inherently likely to create ordered systems.

[Anonymous No.14663622]

>>14663608
I already told you, arguments prove nothing. Such arguments carry on indefinitely, and breakdown into hairsplitting over definitions without resolution. Just be intelligent. Don't be obtuse. It's obviously a retarded thing to believe that "it just be like that because it do".

[Anonymous No.14663633]

>>14663622
It seems on the contrary the most reasonable assumption. We observe nature, we observe that it is ordered and sometimes creates complex systems. We don't observe an intelligent creator. The sensible conclusion is in fact that it 'just be like that because it do'.

[Anonymous No.14663652]

>>14662462
The Greeks, specifically Neoplatonism

[Anonymous No.14663654]

>>14663633
Do you ever observe your own intelligence (with your senses)? No. Intelligence is not a sensible thing. One only observes intelligence in its effects, not in itself. So that's a dumb argument. Looks like my diagnosis was correct.

[Anonymous No.14663659]

>>14663633
If you were in the middle of the desert and saw an empty house, would you assume someone built it and left it there or that the universe spontaneously ordered itself so as to make a house appear?
Intelligent design is more likely and makes more sense than having an ordered system being ordered just because "why not, man". Especially when every natural force within the system tends to prefer a chaotic state to an ordered one.

[Anonymous No.14663664]

>>14663568
Because that's the same thing as believing in Russell's teapot. The belief that something can just stand on its own without external order is absurd

[Anonymous No.14663666]

>>14663654
I do observe my intelligence. It notices patterns, makes analogies between structures, it checks arguments to see if they follow the rules of logical necessity, etc.

[Anonymous No.14663676]

>>14663666
And now begins the endless hairsplitting arguments without end. I'm not engaging in an argument with a retard. Just stop being dumb. This is my last post for this thread.

[Anonymous No.14663682]

>>14663664
but that's exactly what they're attributing to God, I see no difference in stopping at the laws of nature instead of at God, except that we can actually see the former exist.
>>14663659
A house I would assume was built by someone because I know people build houses. A star, a planet, a bit of self-replicating RNA, I would assume came about through very different processes than an intelligence consciously choosing their design.

[Anonymous No.14663688]

>>14663676
>This is my last post for this thread.
Wait anon I wanted book recommendations

[Anonymous No.14663695]

>>14663676
That is not hairsplitting, that is an uncontroversial list of things that intelligence does.

[Anonymous No.14663697]

>>14663682
>A star, a planet, a bit of self-replicating RNA, I would assume came about through very different processes than an intelligence consciously choosing their design.
And yet the process is the same on a larger scale: creating structure in a system where structure is naturally nonexistent and tends to disintegrate.

[Anonymous No.14663714]

>>14663697
I would agree that the formation of solar systems, evolution, and conscious human design are all examples of ordered complexity. I would not agree that the first 2 are therefore the result of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.14663730]

>>14662462
Read some real literature anon

[Anonymous No.14663744]

>>14663730
This is a bait pic, right?
I feel dumb for even asking, but you can never be too sure.

[Anonymous No.14663806]

Plato Complete Works
Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth
Blumenberg Work in Myth, and Care Crosses the River
The Idea of the Holy
The Will to Believe
Everything by Nietzsche
Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous
From Frege to Gödel: A Sourcebook on Mathematical Logic
Penrose Mind Trilogy/Penrose Road to Reality
Ontological Relativity and Other Essays
The Birth of Intersubjectivity

[Anonymous No.14663833]

>>14663806
Thank you.