[ 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: 25 KB, 492x282, guaranteedreplies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581317 No.1581317 [Reply] [Original]

>> No.1581319
File: 32 KB, 228x361, Nietzsche deal with it.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581319

>> No.1581340

>guaranteedreplies.jpg

making claims without scientific proof isn't very intellectual of you.

>> No.1581353
File: 32 KB, 350x285, 155.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581353

You got that right, OP.

>> No.1581365

/thread

>> No.1581371
File: 39 KB, 300x354, 129048203916125672.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581371

>> No.1581413
File: 78 KB, 492x282, thereisnogod.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581413

fixed that for you, OP.

>> No.1581424
File: 399 KB, 1022x562, THISSUCKS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581424

>> No.1581433

>>1581424

Faith is based on authority.
Science is based on objective reasoning and evidence.

>> No.1581438

>>1581433
>implying science is not based on authority

>> No.1581440

>>1581438

Explain.

>> No.1581441

>>1581438
It isn't, it's based on reproducibility. In theory you can go back and reproduce the results of any given experiment for yourself. In fact, reproducing experiments that prove basic principles is a big part of science education.

That said the popular understanding of science is often based on authority.

>> No.1581442

>>1581441

>implying the authority doesn't come from the dogmatic scientific method itself

>> No.1581443

>>1581441
>in theory

>> No.1581444

>>1581440
How much of you science education has been derived from objective reasoning and evidence, and not simply because you read it in a textbook or were told by someone knowledgeable?

>> No.1581445

>>1581443
I say in theory as opposed to in practice because we know that most people won't go back and test long established principles.

>> No.1581447

>>1581441
Reproducibility is somewhat of a chimera if you care to look at stem cell research and the problems they've had over the past two decades.

>> No.1581451

>>1581442

How uncomfortable is it, for a postmodernist like yourself, to take a plane journey?

>> No.1581459

>>1581451
Did the scientific method predict failure mode by fatigue in the de Havilland Comet crashes? Or did it rationalize it after the fact?

Being able to come up with an explanation for something does not mean being responsible for something.

>> No.1581474
File: 123 KB, 1024x768, 1276818931368.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581474

Scientists do not have any possession of science. Religions have granted themselves authority over faith even they don't actually have any. Religious people conform to religious structures because they don't read their own scriptures, they take the establishment as being a fundamental part of the faith.

You can be the last person on earth, praying on a bare grass field and still be a Christian, Muslim or other.

>> No.1581488

Guys, this stuff is basic. Why would anyone doubt God's existence?

1. I can conceive of an infinitely perfect being
2. It has every perfection
3. Existence is a perfection
4. The infinitely perfect being (God) exists

>> No.1581491

>>1581488
I made a perfect sandwich for lunch today.

>> No.1581493

>>1581488

Even Aquinas saw that word game was bullshit.

>> No.1581495

>>1581491

Sandwiches are physical by definition. You can't conceive of a perfect sandwich because perfect things are indivisible.

>He didn't read the letters!

>> No.1581498

>>1581495
But I didn't conceive of it, I made it.

>> No.1581502

>>1581498

You thought you made one, but you didn't. "Perfect sandwich" is a logical contradiction, so you can't make one*.

*Unless you're omnipotent

>> No.1581506

>>1581502
But I also don't cut my sandwiches. A perfect sandwich is uncut. Thus no logical contradiction.

And I totally made one.

>> No.1581507

>>1581495
Why is perfection indivisible?

>> No.1581508

>>1581493
>It's wrong, but I can't explain why!

Shut the fuck up when the adults are talking.

>> No.1581512

>>1581507

It's not perfection that's indivisible. Indivisibility is a perfection. Divisible things can be destroyed, so perfect things can't be divisible- they're indivisible.

>> No.1581518

>>1581515
Because Superman.

>> No.1581516

>>1581512
Nothing can be destroyed wtf. Conservation of mass

>> No.1581515

>>1581512
Why is indestructibility a perfection?

>> No.1581520

>>1581516
QED Perfect sandwich.

>> No.1581522

>>1581516

>implying blackholes can't completely disappear

>> No.1581525

>>1581516

Simples can't be destroyed (except by God), but arrangement of simples can be destroyed. You can't be something like a table, because that has parts that you can take apart, and then there's no fucking table. The perfect being has to be simple.

>>1581515

See the above, but add in that it's better to exist than not exist. Indestructibility guarantees continued existence.

>> No.1581536
File: 12 KB, 401x318, 1289105181481.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581536

There will always be a God.

God, or gods in general, are used as an answer to questions humanity cannot answer in their respective times. That is why the greeks called the sun a god, among other things. Anaxagoras, a pre-socratic philosopher, was banned from Atenas for saying that the sun was nothing but burning mass.

Anyway, once the question is answered, there is no need for gods, therefore people will lose faith on them. That is why God, the christiand God, and other deities whose purpose is to explain creation will never cease to exist: for they answer a question for which there will never be an answer. We will never know where we came from. Never, at least, one hundred percent sure.

The problem is: That proves the existence of a "rational" God, absent any kind of faith.

That's what's up.

>> No.1581537

>>1581522
Black holes are indivisible though.

>> No.1581541

>>1581536
But can God explain those peanuts you get on airplanes.

What's up with that?

>> No.1581548

>>1581525
You don't know that God can destroy things. Also an arrangement of simple things isn't a thing. Table is just a name you give to perceived patterns in your perceptions of the arrangements of simple things

>> No.1581553

>>1581541

Well there must be a peannuts god.

>> No.1581558
File: 12 KB, 251x240, 1298403079336.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581558

>hurr durr Black holes, gods etc

Ahem. Let's steer the conversation away from the esoteric and concentrate on semantics: What is the meaning of reality? Are there more than one type? If yes, which reality does god belong to?

>> No.1581560

>>1581548
You don't know that God can destroy things.
(1) I've proved that God exists and has every perfection
(2) Omnipotence is a perfection
(3) So God is omnipotent
(4) So God can destroy anything, including physical simples- and if they're destructible, they're not perfect.

>>1581541

God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent because those are both perfections. Such a being would only create the best of all possible worlds. Thus we live in the best of all possible worlds. Thus those peanuts are an essential part of the best possible world.

>> No.1581562

>>1581558
>lexical semantics

lol

>> No.1581564
File: 263 KB, 496x384, sagan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581564

>>1581558

>semantics
>worth arguing over

>> No.1581566

>>1581558

Reality is but a shadow of the ideal word, an imperfect interpretation that we make by using our senses. God is among the ideal world.

Next.

>> No.1581577

>>1581560
You don't know that omnipotence is a perfection or that omnipotence implies the ability to destroy, and you don't know that any of these words have any actual meaning when applied to reality

>> No.1581576

>>1581564
Unless every one has the same definition discussion is without product or meaning.

>> No.1581581

>>1581577

Uh, yes I do. It's because I'm not a fucking idiot that's going to assault the English language to desperately try to win an argument.

>> No.1581584

>>1581581
The English Language has nothing to say about reality. Sorry

>> No.1581591

>>1581584
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn

It's okay, you probably followed the advice to start with Plato

>> No.1581600

>>1581591
What does that have to do witht he existence of God?

>> No.1581607

ITT: A couple idiots who can't argue arguing.

>> No.1581609

>>1581607
You're welcome to join.

>> No.1581620

I don't understand why people are so anti English. It may have trouble flowing (it is a Germanic language) but generally the differences between languages seem stylistic. There is a word for Bear in french and english, and you can tell a story in all of them. Also, writing is generally about showing concrete pictures, and all languages have concrete nouns.

>> No.1581631
File: 28 KB, 511x411, 17461grannys_weed_big.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581631

>>1581566

>> No.1581636

>>1581560
>God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent because those are both perfections. Such a being would only create the best of all possible worlds. Thus we live in the best of all possible worlds. Thus those peanuts are an essential part of the best possible world.
But what if there's an equally good and possible world without those peanuts you get on airplanes?

Thus we live in one of the best possible worlds and there is still now explanation for those airplane peanuts what's up with that?

>> No.1581637

>>1581631

Plato smoked weed?

>> No.1581642

Which God are we referring to? It helps if you are specific, because it is easy enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are fiction. The god of Abraham is easiest.
The Israelites did not come from Egypt – a palpable myth – but emerged from the local population. There was no ancient 'Jewish Empire': the Jewish priests drew their inspiration from the empire of the Assyrians and "Judaism" was a reaction to the loss of the northern kingdom and an instructive period spent in Babylon. Jerusalem in 10th century BC had been barely a village of huts and cave dwellings. Kings David and Solomon are purely mythical characters – warrior/priest heroes, invented in the 6th century BC. Temples on the Mount? From "Threshing Floor" to "Noble Sanctuary". Persians and Greeks bearing gifts. Herod's Temple - Fact or Fantasy? Temple of Jupiter – Biggest and Best? Herod vs. Hadrian.
Herod the Great was a real king – but he did not massacre any babies. He was an astute and successful ruler. The Herodians and the Jewish elite became Romanised but religious fanatics led an armed resistance which ended in catastrophes under Titus, Trajan, and Hadrian. In the aftermath, a collaborationist revision of Judaism, later attributed to a 13th apostle "Paul", allegedly of impeccable Pharisaic credentials, competed fiercely with a reconstituted rabbinic Judaism which fused piety with mercantile success.

>> No.1581649

>>1581637
Maybe. But if you actually think he's right you must be a pothead.

>> No.1582840

>>1581444
All of mine has. If there is a fact that can be taken as true, I ascertain the evidence to prove it as such. Deal with it.

As for OP's claim: Where is the evidence?

>> No.1582883

>>1581488

>existence is a perfection

lolwut