/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16551861]

itt books that refute christianity

[Anonymous No.16552656]

>>16551861
God is the common ancestor.

[Anonymous No.16553031]

Darwin in his autobiography, pages 92-95

> Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.

> This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.

>I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic. (Granted, this portion was written in a letter to Francis Darwin [who was editing the autobiography], by Emma Darwin and not actually written by Charles Darwin)

> A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth.

[Anonymous No.16553645]

>>16551861
> refute Christianity
Oh boy the 30th atheist cope thread this week

[Anonymous No.16553772]

Fatima happened after The Origin of Species was published, though, so Christianity is still correct.

[Anonymous No.16553774]

I always see atheists talking about Abrahamic religions but never Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikh, etc. Can any atheists give me their opinions on eastern religions, mesoamerican religions, or anything else that isn't Christianity or Judaism?

[Anonymous No.16553953]

>>16553774
I doubt they care that much since most of the comments are from westerners. I don't know shit about those religions either and neither do most christians.

[Anonymous No.16553997]

>>16552656
Nice tautology

[Anonymous No.16554001]

>>16551861
The Descent of Man does so more decisively because it provides the outline of human origins and the foundations for the sociobiological, purely worldly, sources of morality.

[Anonymous No.16554034]

>>16551861
Darwin said that only a God could have been responsible for something like evolution lmao

[Anonymous No.16554046]

>>16551861
Didn't we have this thread yesterday?

[Anonymous No.16554057]

>>16551861

[Anonymous No.16554344]

>>16554057
Hm. well if it refutes anything, It refutes man's ability to imagine the kingdom of God.

[Anonymous No.16554367]

>>16551861
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.16554391]

>>16554367
Yeah! If you want to attempt to refute Christianity, you must start by reading the Holy Book.

[Anonymous No.16554394]

>>16554344
>Insisting upon the existence of something you can't define describe or even imagine.

[Anonymous No.16554397]

Christianity doesn’t even need to be refuted, as it has yet to present any reason why we should take it seriously

[Anonymous No.16554406]

>>16553774
I’ve never heard of Buddhists telling me to embrace monke in some cringy meme, si until that happens, I don’t really care about them

[Anonymous No.16554412]

>>16554397
God can only show you the way.

>>16554394
prove that matter exists

[Anonymous No.16554618]

>>16551861
The Alcoran of Mahomet.

[Anonymous No.16554628]

>>16551861
Darwin studied theology and was very much a christian, even writting abuot it in there, you full blown brainlet. Only american evangelicals believe the world is like 6000 years old.

[Anonymous No.16554698]

>>16554034
In the later revised editions which was forced on him by the church. The first edition omits this

[Anonymous No.16554703]

>>16554628
False.

[Anonymous No.16554711]

>>16551861
Reminder, anyone promoting Darwin or Darwinism is a Christian, read some modern books of evolutionary biology.

[Anonymous No.16554715]

>>16554703
>false

[Anonymous No.16554726]

>>16551861
Can’t you atheist retards at least pick a book that doesn’t mention God as the ultimate creator a bunch of times for your shitty hair thread? Though I wonder if the person starting these threads is a Christian seething because he’s not actually read the book

[Anonymous No.16554735]

>>16551861
How's 8th grade going buddy?

[Anonymous No.16555100]

>>16553031
No mention of Christianity there.

[Anonymous No.16555533]

>>16554628
I don't think Darwin's personal views prevent the book itself being good material for refuting Christianity.

[Anonymous No.16555564]

>>16555533
Only if you take genesis as a literal account of pre-history

[Anonymous No.16555604]

>>16554698
interesting, this must be widely known and easily proven

[Anonymous No.16555607]

>>16555533
And again, no Christian outside of rainlet american evangelicals believes that evolution is somehow contradicting god. The Chatolic church, even during Galileos shittery had clear rules. If we can proof that X happens, which we believes God meant otherwise, we need to change our understanding. Reality before Interpretation. Galileo simply has never proven his shit, that's why he got kicked out after being funded and begged to do it by the very church. The notion that church and science play against each other is historical reevisionism. The church invented universities and scientific rigor in the first place to understand creation, to be better able to give glory to the creator.

And in the end it is absolutely irrelevant if God created every single specied as it or if he just pushed th Tiktalik out of the water. I mean, I have the exact same copy in my library, Darwin was pretty clear about his believes and compatibility.

[Anonymous No.16555620]

>>16555564
With evolution there isn't even human beings per se, since everything is in a state of becoming something else, with all of one's traits existing as part of an ongoing evolutionary process. The divinity of man over other animals is no longer tenable, or even the concept "man" when each and every organism is unique. Finally, thought itself must be part of the evolutionary chain, with all ideas lying in the domain of the organism that dreamt them, leaving God to be more of an apparition projected by a certain species on earth than anything else.

[Anonymous No.16555654]

>>16555620
>even the concept "man" when each and every organism is unique
We're not unique. We're 200.000 Hunter gatherer with a western diet gut biom. And we will probably remain "man" for at leat as long. And after all that the end will come either way some day. Man also isn't divine, we are only sheppards over the lower animals, which will remain lower until man is no more.

A funfact, religious beginnings can also be observed in apes. Which might mean, that man must grow to a certain degree before being able to grasp him fully, which actually benefits Religious belief when Darwin found out about natural selection.

But personally, I'm not even a believer. I think that religious is a survival strategy and that it i essential in social higher animals. There is a reason why we need to fuck up our brain with magnets to cease religious feelings and in group preferences. So even as a non-believer I would argue in favour of religion.

[Anonymous No.16555664]

>>16555654
link more about this study plz, not just a random article

[Anonymous No.16555667]

>>16555654
Every organism is unique, and comparisons between certain individuals (and especially between their DNA) can be made to make this clearer to anyone not capable of making finer distinctions.

But personally, I'm not even a believer. I think that religious is a survival strategy and that it i essential in social higher animals. There is a reason why we need to fuck up our brain with magnets to cease religious feelings and in group preferences. So even as a non-believer I would argue in favour of religion.
This argument only hurts the validity of religion, because you're basically admitting that its only use is as a form of herd control. Yes, that is likely why religion came into existence, in this ongoing evolutionary chain: because the species demanded it for its survival. However, with a thinking brain one can deduce how much of a flimsy thing it is on account of this.

[Anonymous No.16555678]

>>16554394
Describe qualia to a learning computer for me will you boy

[Anonymous No.16555685]

>>16555678
BTFOOOO

[Anonymous No.16555697]

>>16555664
Don't be lazy and look the study up yourself. I'm pretty sure you'll find the link to the abstract in the article.

>>16555667
>Every organism is unique
Doesn't matter. God made a deal over generations not with an individual.

>you're basically admitting that its only use is as a form of herd control
Which is a evolutionary essential component in survival of a group. A group which believes will win in the end. This might be by shere natural selection or because God created us in a way that we someday might come to understand it. Again, just because religion is usefull in a technical sense, doesn't mean that you can say that there isn't a divine or supernatural reason for it. And I wouldn't even know why you would want to do that beyond your ego. If you believe, as I do, you should encourage religion, for your species survival instead of being a malevolent mutant. Your thinking brain isn't properly working, when you only consider the short term benefit of taking people away from their believes. You are free to elieve as you like, as we can't prove either, but take a step back and question yourself why you need to be a debby downer for everyody else.

[今晚打老虎 No.16555698]

>>16551861
you know how Moby Dick's full title is Moby Dick or the Whale?
what's the full title of OP's pic related?

[Anonymous No.16555705]

>>16555654
I'd like to have a discussion on the topic of religion in animals, whether they are atheists or not etc. It interests me to investigate this however I have limited points of reference in literature, let's say I'm working on it.

[Anonymous No.16555711]

>>16555697
>God made a deal over generations
There's no God other than a tautological application of the concept if the universe is in a state of change, and evolution demands we think about the universe in this way.

>A group which believes will win in the end.
Of course, but what is believed in can be changed.

[Anonymous No.16555712]

>>16555654
>A funfact, religious beginnings can also be observed in apes. Which might mean, that man must grow to a certain degree before being able to grasp him fully, which actually benefits Religious belief when Darwin found out about natural selection.

Neanderthals had a primituve sense of religion and spirituality. They buried there dead and had some sort of primitive tradition and rituals. They went extinct 40k years ago. They got in contact with homo sapiens and even mixed with us. Thats why 2-4% of Caucasoid and Mongloid DNA is neanderthal. We by christian teaching are not even full human. The first half neanderthal babies were "half human-half animal". Did they have a soul? Christianity cant answer this.

[Anonymous No.16555763]

>>16555705
Yes, it's a really interesting subject. You might want to make a thread when you have some material to share. I'm certain there would be an audience in here.

>>16555711
>There's no God
That's your opinion, not scientific fact. It's basically your ideology. You're no better than people screaming that there is a god. At least those have properly working brains.

>evolution demands we think about the universe in this way
Evolution demands reproduction of those et adapt. Lack of religious believe is directly at fault for lowered fertility, therefore anti evolution. If you want to be among the stars someday, you better breed another copy. instead of larping about how religion goes against evolution.

>but what is believed in can be changed
Only if it is more evolutionarily adapt. If you think you are better suited to form a religious dogma than millenia of destilation, you're retarded just like commies thinking they can change human nature.

>>16555712
>Did they have a soul? Christianity cant answer this.
Neither can science. That's why it's a believe. Otherwise we might also say that the understanding of god is a slow process which needs neanderthals just as much as ape phases do come where we are. Maybe everything has a sleeping soul which only awakens when it sees the Götterfunken, which would also mean that those graces are taken away from areligious people. And keep in mind, we aren't even talking about christianity alone. You are only kvetching about it specifically, ecause that's the norm in your society and your mutations are out to harm a functional society.

[Anonymous No.16555784]

>>16553774
If you only interact with christian, and are affected by it, it's obvious you are gonna focuse your attention on it

[Anonymous No.16555792]

>>16555763
>That's your opinion, not scientific fact.
Right, but opinions aren't equal, as you seem to suggest here. There are informed and uninformed opinions. There are well thought out opinions and poorly thought out opinions. If we take evolution to its ultimate conclusions then the only definition of God that remains possible is a tautological one. Try defining God and discussing this with someone who thoroughly understands the concept of evolution to see for yourself.

Also, you keep making the same utilitarian case for religion, without acknowledging that the belief itself is of little consequence on this point. The only reason why religion is helpful for the species is because of its ability to control the herd. Because of this, what the religion is about doesn't matter all that much. The importance being underlined here is simply religion's ability to assemble and organize. Certain religions remain untenable in the face of evolution, Christianity being one of them.

[Anonymous No.16555797]

>>16555678
>well explain how a thunderstorm works without God
>t. your medivial equivalent

[Anonymous No.16555816]

>>16555564
how do you determine what is fact and what is fiction when interpreting the bible?

[Anonymous No.16555832]

>>16555792
>There are informed and uninformed opinions.
Your base is no better than those of believers, that's only confirmation bias which makes you think it is.

>ry defining God and discussing this with someone who thoroughly understands the concept of evolution to see for yourself.
I have a bachelor in biology, special interest in microbiology. I think I understand evolution, anon. And you know what? The more I learn about this world, the more I wish I would have such a strong believe. There is a reason why most actually accomplished natural scientists, not trash academics, do believe in god.

>without acknowledging that the belief itself is of little consequence on this point
It's essential. You can't have the benefits of religious dogma without a divine master. This is something people actually not versed well enought in human psychology or biology don't want to understand.

>The only reason why religion is helpful for the species is because of its ability to control the herd
Ah, I thought you would be brighter than you are. But alas, you think religion is only usefull for the eartly masters it seems. Which is completely wrong. Religion is the destilled essence of all human interactions which are so essential that we made the divine, so that future generations wont have to trial and error them, but can build upon. This ingrains everything from delivery routines to the care of the dead, even those of enemies in battle. Only swallow minds consider it merely a tool for the rulling class.

>untenable
[citation needed]

Step up your game, anon.

[Anonymous No.16555836]

>>16553772
Fatima is the result of mass hysteria, and many accounts conflict with each other.
>>16553774
You can generally apply the same arguments put towards Christianity towards other religions, I believe. It's just that Hinduism, Shintoism, etc, are polytheistic, so you'll have to reword a little bit. As for Buddhism, Jainism, etc., those are more ways of life and philosophies than religions, per se.

[Anonymous No.16555841]

How did this book do that?

His masterpiece was The Descent Of Man btw

[Anonymous No.16555845]

>>16555836
>polytheistic

Which means what?

[Anonymous No.16555850]

>>16555832
>I have a bachelor in biology, special interest in microbiology. I think I understand evolution, anon.
Okay, define God in a non-tautological way then.

>You can't have the benefits of religious dogma without a divine master.
Who said otherwise? I already said that what is believed can be changed. That means what "divine master" is believed in can be changed. At least try to follow the posts you're replying to.

>Religion is the destilled essence of all human interactions which are so essential that we made the divine, so that future generations wont have to trial and error them, but can build upon.
Define "human" in an evolutionary context.

[Anonymous No.16555851]

>>16555832
not the same anon, but I have some reservation about this post
>I have a bachelor in biology, special interest in microbiology. I think I understand evolution, anon. And you know what? The more I learn about this world, the more I wish I would have such a strong believe. There is a reason why most actually accomplished natural scientists, not trash academics, do believe in god.
Your appeal to authority doesn't work when scientist have a much higher level of atheism than the general populace
>It's essential. You can't have the benefits of religious dogma without a divine master. This is something people actually not versed well enought in human psychology or biology don't want to understand.
Pegans, Muslims and Hindou have the benefit of their dogma despite being false in both our point of view
>Ah, I thought you would be brighter than you are. But alas, you think religion is only usefull for the eartly masters it seems. Which is completely wrong. Religion is the destilled essence of all human interactions which are so essential that we made the divine, so that future generations wont have to trial and error them, but can build upon. This ingrains everything from delivery routines to the care of the dead, even those of enemies in battle. Only swallow minds consider it merely a tool for the rulling class.
It might very well be true that religious people have healtier minds and build better society, than those who do not believe, but that doesn't tell us anything about the veracity of the claim that support that world view

[Anonymous No.16555855]

>>16551861
How? Evolution doesn't make any ontological naturalist claims.

[Anonymous No.16555902]

>>16555850
>Okay, define God in a non-tautological way then.
What would be the benefit of having such a definition?

>I already said that what is believed can be changed.
Yes, and I told you that to change it individually for a religion is absurd. Or how would you like to change it? Certainly you think about "problematic" subjects in regards to procreation and equality.

>Define "human" in an evolutionary context.
Again, there is no benefit in doing so, beyond trying to reak up this discussion in ever smaller non sensical parts.

>>16555851
>Your appeal to authority
Isn't one. The anon above, said I should seek such a person and discuss with them to see my missunderstanding. I simply explained to him, that there is no such need. If anything, you should blame him for doing so.

>Pegans, Muslims and Hindou have the benefit of their dogma despite being false in both our point of view
And? I already said that those evolutionary benefits are universal. Obviously different ecological nieches make slightly adapted religious views necessary.

>ut that doesn't tell us anything about the veracity of the claim that support that world view
Well, as long as we don't know any better at least it's a good idea to not fuck up a working system, wouldn't you agree?

[Anonymous No.16555921]

>>16555902
>What would be the benefit of having such a definition?
So we're not all confused as to what we're talking about. Same for the definition of human.

[Anonymous No.16555941]

>>16554698
The church couldn’t force things on you like that in 1860s England retard

[Anonymous No.16555957]

>>16555921
No other than you seems confused. And it seems you only ask for definition to be able to work around them. You know just as well as me, that there is no clear point between human and beast, it's a slow and gradual transition. And as for the god question, I wouldn't know, I'm not a believer, as I said. But I do understand that there is no way where we can just say that there is no supernatural entity responsible for our seeking higher power, despite not having that impulse myself.

Instead of focusing on destroying other people usefull evolutionary adaptations, you would do better investing your time in actually eugenical deeds for your own bloodline.

[Anonymous No.16555974]

>>16553774
You don't engage with atheists besides watching some cringe fedora-lords on youtube.
I would consider myself an atheist (or maybe agnostic), and the key point about Buddhism, for instance, is that it doesn't have "god" figures in the most prevalent schools taught in the west. I still think Buddhism is full of esoterical bullshit, however, but it doesn't specifically concern the "is god real" question.
Hinduism, Sikhs, Buddhists, that believe in anything esoteric like "reincarnation", "layers of existence including gods", "karma" and etc, are obviously in the same level of delusion as any Abrahamic.
What happens is that a lot of westerners, atheist or not, find eastern religions exotic and wild, and would rather cherrypick whatever they like about those, instead of trying to find similar good things in Abrahamic religions (even if they could.

"God", "reincarnation", "afterlife", "karma", "enlightenment", "angels", "saints", "devas", and all of those things however, in the atheist's understanding of reality, are not necessary. Whether you agree with this or not is not so relevant. What I'm saying is that for an atheist, all of these concepts are not needed in order to understand reality, and largely detract from what they feel is a pursuit for truth (which is generally better paved by science and evidence). They understand why religion might be necessary to maintain social relations, even if religion itself is not true, and they also might understand why it is not necessary to them particularly, or also how it could be misused for bad purposes. This is true for all religions that I have ever come across in my life.

[Anonymous No.16555978]

>>16555957
So you're a coward who knows his definition of God is untenable, hence the concealment of it. Good to know.

>Instead of focusing on destroying other people usefull evolutionary adaptations, you would do better investing your time in actually eugenical deeds for your own bloodline.
What's the difference?

[Anonymous No.16555987]

>>16555678
Reductive physicalism solved this.

[Anonymous No.16555991]

>>16555978
>everyone not engaging in my wordsgames is a cowards
In the end of the day, this would bring nobody further to the truth. You would juggle around definition, while I would try to explain concepts. You are working in bad faith, so engaging you only is usefull in as far others might benefit form our interaction.

I really thought this thing died with Hitchens.

[Anonymous No.16555996]

>>16554034
Do you have the exact quote on that?

[Anonymous No.16556013]

>>16555991
Providing a definition is not a "wordsgame," it's how any proper discussion gets its initial footing. The concept being discussed must be known. Who the fuck knows what you mean by God other than yourself?

[Anonymous No.16556019]

>>16556013
You want to discuss? Well, how about >defining< what in the OP books makes Christianity seeth?

[Anonymous No.16556032]

Book of Job.

[Anonymous No.16556039]

>>16555100
You know he was a Christian, right? Christians talking about God usually mean.... the .... Christian God. You know?

[Anonymous No.16556051]

>>16556019
Not him but you Christians are so annoying with this fucking historical revisionism shit. Now you're gonna claim there wasn't clerical backlash against Darwin?

>The Revd. Adam Sedgwick had received his copy "with more pain than pleasure."[44] Without Creation showing divine love, "humanity, to my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalise it, and sink the human race..." He indicated that unless Darwin accepted God's revelation in nature and scripture, Sedgwick would not meet Darwin in heaven, a sentiment that upset Emma. The Revd. John Stevens Henslow, the botany professor whose natural history course Charles had joined thirty years earlier, gave faint praise to the Origin as "a stumble in the right direction" but distanced himself from its conclusions, "a question past our finding out..."[45] The Anglican establishment predominantly opposed Darwin. Palmerston, who became Prime Minister in June 1859, mooted Darwin's name to Queen Victoria as a candidate for the Honours List with the prospect of a knighthood. While Prince Albert supported the idea, after the publication of the Origin Queen Victoria's ecclesiastical advisers, including the Bishop of Oxford Samuel Wilberforce, dissented and the request was denied.[46] Some Anglicans were more in favour, and Huxley reported of Kingsley that "He is an excellent Darwinian to begin with, and told me a capital story of his reply to Lady Aylesbury who expressed astonishment at his favouring such a heresy – 'What can be more delightful to me Lady Aylesbury, than to know that your Ladyship & myself sprang from the same toad stool.' Whereby the frivolous old woman shut up, in doubt whether she was being chaffed or adored for her remark." There was no official comment from the Vatican for several decades, but in 1860 a council of the German Catholic bishops pronounced that the belief that "man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith." This defined the range of official Catholic discussion of evolution, which has remained almost exclusively concerned with human evolution.[47]

>inb4 Wikipedia. It's all pointing to the appropriate sources.

[Anonymous No.16556053]

>>16556019
Don't change the subject. You didn't provide any definition for your use of the word God, which you still need to do.

But here, I'll amuse you. With evolution, the concept of "creator" isn't possible anymore, since "creators" are now in a state of change, i.e., all being is becoming. "Being" is now an empty word and no longer a concept which refers to something knowable.

[Anonymous No.16556106]

>>16556051
If you would have taken the time to actually read my posts, you would have seen that I am, in fact, not a christian nor any other believer. But I guess that stance is beyond you.

>quotes some random reverends opinion
I ask again, give me some actual dogmatic signs that the Pope (the only person in Catholicism which has authority to proclaim something definitely) or any other person of religious authority of those other denominations has some meaningfull points against evolution. Quoting nobodies is retarded and can be done both ways ad nauseam.

>>16556053
>changing the subject back to on topic
>Nose, play my defintions game! I want to slime around what it means to be human! or God (but there is def non!)
Get a life, anon.

[Anonymous No.16556109]

>>16555987
Why don't you go ahead and explain yourself, fatass?

[Anonymous No.16556112]

>>16556053
>With evolution, the concept of "creator" isn't possible anymore

[Anonymous No.16556128]

>>16555797
It's a metaphor you literalbrain autistic fruitcake
You cannot explain qualia to something which does not in its current state have the capability to perceive qualia, yet qualia exist. If this is possible, and it is, it follows that it is also possible that things we cannot perceive on a philosophical level do exist regardless of our inability to perceive them. Fag.

[Anonymous No.16556138]

>>16555987
No it doesn't, It doesn't answer why subjective thought comes with the mechanism it tries reducing, is useless and leaves gaps. The hard problem of consciousness remains an unsolved problem.

[Anonymous No.16556152]

>>16556106
>I want to slime around what it means to be human!
Slime around? Concepts change as our understanding of the world changes. Are you not aware that all of our concepts were revised and reinterpreted under an evolutionary context since Darwin and that this has been a primary subject of inquiry for the last century? What was once thought of as "human" has changed with evolution. You must have gone to an incredibly bad school if you received a degree in biology and didn't ever encounter this in your studies.

>>16556112
What does creation mean in a universe where equilibrium isn't possible?

[Anonymous No.16556153]

>>16555100
This is the equivalent of lefties saying "oh the founding fathers didn't say anything about assault rifles!"
Darwin's conception of God was a Christian one, and he did not imagine that his words would be read by some nitpicky pilpulizing faggot reared in a world of petty agnosticism so he felt no need to shore them up with "Oh, I meant Christianity's God, specifically."

[Anonymous No.16556164]

>>16556152
>What does creation mean in a universe where equilibrium isn't possible?
Creation without equilibrium.

[Anonymous No.16556166]

>>16556106
Just take a read here starting from Pope Pius IX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church#Early_reaction_to_Charles_Darwin's_theories

But again, whether you are Christian or not, you're partaking in the same kind of intellectual dishonesty. You'll just revise and reinterpret and fumble your words around to make it seem like there never were any tensions between religion and evolution, when it's clear evolution was a massive hit on religion.

[Anonymous No.16556171]

>>16556138
It offers a possible solution that doesn't require literal magic stuff somehow magically interacting with the physical realm. It's more than anything outside of physicalism could say for itself.

[Anonymous No.16556178]

>>16556164
>Creation without equilibrium.
Right, which means the universe can only be responsible for itself, and can't have involvement with God, as in a timeless creator (as in a being which has reached a state of equilibrium).

[Anonymous No.16556180]

>>16556166
>it's clear evolution was a massive hit on religion
Not him, but tt was, because it forced millions of people to abandon misleading simpleton interpretations, which is not something you want to do. Still, he asked for dogmatic stances.

[Anonymous No.16556187]

>>16556166
Christ didn't teach anyone about muons or fermions, either.
Christianity is a moral philosophy predicated on the following ;
-The universe was created by an all-knowing and all-loving God
-This God sent His son (who was also God- it's a complicated matter) metaphysically 'down' to Earth to teach a moral philosophy in keeping with God's law and, thus, the universe's intrinsica
A significant part of the Good Book is historical reference, allegory, or metaphor for a reason.

[Anonymous No.16556189]

>>16556178
>which means the universe can only be responsible for itself
That does not follow. God is not an item in the universe.

[Anonymous No.16556193]

>>16556153
I'm not that guy, but this is irrelevant. Similarly to when people point out Newton used the intelligent design argument at the end of the Principia to explain why gravity and the universe work as they do.
It doesn't matter if "smart guy X made smart book Y that was full of scientific revolutionary ideas and then at the end attributed them to god", because the "attributed them to god" is a passing subjective commentary on how amazed they are at the pretty scientific findings. The scientific findings themselves, which explain observed phenomena, can still continue working even without the intelligent design argument. So this is completely fucking irrelevant and you're wasting your time arguing with that guy.

[Anonymous No.16556198]

>>16556189
>That does not follow.
Yes it does. For a state of equilibrium to exist, there would not be states lacking it remaining. Equilibrium is not possible without the universe's total destruction.

[Anonymous No.16556204]

>>16556198
Yet again, what is or isn't possible within a universe doesn't matter in regard to that which is outside the universe.

[Anonymous No.16556208]

>>16556204
If what's outside the universe is a state of equilibrium, then it can't have anything to do with the affairs of this universe, which is one where equilibrium isn't possible. To assert otherwise is to completely misunderstand what a state of equilibrium entails.

[Anonymous No.16556212]

>>16556166
>just take a read
>No high-level Church pronouncement has ever attacked head-on the theory of evolution as applied to non-human species
>Even before the development of modern scientific method, Catholic theology had allowed for biblical text to be read as allegorical, rather than literal, where it appeared to contradict that which could be established by science or reason.
>Thus Catholicism has been able to refine its understanding of scripture in light of scientific discovery.
>Origin of Species was never placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum;[20] in contrast, Henri Bergson's non-Darwinian Creative Evolution (1907) was on the Index from 1948 until the Index was abolished in 1966.
>o reconcile general evolutionary theory with the origin of the human species, with a soul, the concept of "special transformism" was developed, according to which the first humans had evolved by Darwinist processes, up to the point where a soul was added by God to "pre-existent and living matter"
>Pope Pius IX: Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other

So basically Catholics stand with science and instead of sperging out instantly, take the time to ponder it and ADAPT their theological understanding.
I ask you once again, what is the problem for Catholics here? No one in europe spergs about evolution or natural selection. Those which did in the past where private people which simply didn't like having a negro as his ancestor (understandably).

[Anonymous No.16556213]

>>16556187
That's really cool and all, but how do I know the Adam and Eve and Snake were just a metaphor but the Jesus and the Cross and the Ressurection and the Trinity are totally really real physically totally for real guyse?
Could it be you're just choosing to progressively call things metaphors when science makes it clear there's no way that bullshit is real?
And if you ever went as far as accepting that maybe religion is a creation of man to pass along these moral, ethical and philosophical precepts, you could just continue doing so without the metaphors?

[Anonymous No.16556224]

>>16556208
You're making inferences that aren't possible, sorry. There have been countless attempts to use causality, equilibrium, determinism etc. to "prove" something, but they all fall apart in the exact same spot: you have no idea how the universe interacts with its supposed outside. To assert otherwise is to claim divine knowledge.

[Anonymous No.16556231]

>>16556213
>how do I know the Adam and Eve and Snake were just a metaphor but the Jesus and the Cross and the Ressurection and the Trinity are totally really real physically totally for real guyse?
When an author says "we literally saw these things with our own eyes and touched them with our own hands", chances are he's trying to tell you he witnessed them for real.
When a story is spelled out multiple times in a single document, each time with major differences that can't be attributed to flawed memory, it's likely deeper than that.

One would say this is obvious.

[Anonymous No.16556245]

>>16556224
>you have no idea how the universe interacts with its supposed outside
Oh, but I do, as I just explained it to you: it CAN'T interact with its outside, if its outside is a state of equilibrium, and your failure to recognize this is due to your failure to understand what a state of equilibrium means for states lacking equilibrium.

The only remaining argument left for God, i.e., for this state of equilibrium which we can't know, and which can't be responsible for us, is a moral one.

[Anonymous No.16556268]

>>16556245
>The outside of our universe neatly falls within my definitions
>I know this because I have the definitions
You do you, pal.

[Anonymous No.16556269]

>>16556212
See. Now you have to explain to me why you explicitly skipped over:
>The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree ratified by Pope Pius X on June 30, 1909, that stated that the literal historical meaning of the first chapters of Genesis could not be doubted in regard to "the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race". As in 1860, "special creation" was only referred to in respect of the human species.[44]
>All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism", the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves).
Darwinian Evolution explicitly defends polygenism.

>So basically Catholics stand with science and instead of sperging out instantly, take the time to ponder it and ADAPT their theological understanding.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. If there were no tensions between religion and science, there would be nothing to "adapt" to. The fact you need this lengthy, well thought out, "adaptation" is precisely because they DON'T walk together. The patch work to try and make them walk together is a historically repetitive process that happened before with heliocentrism, with the firmament, with abiogenesis, and will probably continue happening the more we discover scientific facts about the origin of the universe, the basic properties of matter, etc etc. This is not even into the fine print details of whatever claims are made in the bible beyond Genesis.
Official dogmatic statements of the Catholic Church might "adapt" to new scientific findings over and over, perhaps up to a limit where it won't be reasonable anymore. But even if Christianity adapts forever, it still just means it's scurrying and doing whatever necessary to not be at odds with science, and not the other way around. Because nowadays, at least in this century, the Church doesn't have the power to just make Science shut up, or at least not as easily.

[Anonymous No.16556275]

>>16556213
Read the Bible, you sarcastic little turd. Certain passages are very obviously depictions of real events- others are very obviously metaphor. This was so simple that medieval serfs could figure it out. What hampers you doing the same?

[Anonymous No.16556289]

>>16556268
I didn't say that I know what's outside the universe. I'm only telling you that if what's outside of it is a state of equilibrium, then it can't have anything to do with us. The idea of God as a timeless creator therefore can't have anything to do with this universe. Some other idea of God could, perhaps; I'm not ruling out that possibility.

[Anonymous No.16556305]

>>16556289
You claim your categories reflect what's outside: the dichotomy of equilibrium and non-equilibrium. Is that not so? If you don't claim they adequately reflect what's supposedly out there, then your argument is not sound...

[Anonymous No.16556341]

>>16556305
If equilibrium is impossible in this universe, which evolution supports, then what's outside of it has to obey that, otherwise this universe wouldn't exist as it does. It doesn't magically become something different which can work in any way that your brain would like it to.

[Anonymous No.16556347]

>>16556269
>The Pontifical Biblical Commission
No authority in Catholicism. Only the Pope can say what is binding to Catholics and would therefore make Catholicism seeth in face of evolution.
Next time you think you have a gotcha moment, think twice, because you might simply be illiterate on the subject you judge.

>If there were no tensions between religion and science, there would be nothing to "adapt" to.
There is no tension, just a question which needs to be answered, which took time. Catholics always form their view of the world on reality and consider their understanding lacking when something can be proven to be different than thought till up that point. A very honorable and scientific mindset. In science we too must constantly adapt to new insights. That's not conflict, it just makes us humble and eger to understand the world better.

>at least in this century, the Church doesn't have the power to just make Science shut up, or at least not as easily.
Catholicism never make science "shut up" you tv educated mongoloid. As I already expleined on Galileo, he was directly funded by the church and only thrown out as he proclaimed shit which he couldn't proof. Not becaue it was a heresy, but because the Church - just like academia - needs proof before someone goes around and proclaims shit.

Why are edgy atheists always so uneducated?

[Anonymous No.16556353]

>>16556341
>what's outside of it has to obey [the dichotomy]
It doesn't. It's like arguing that God either is on a bike or he is off a bike... those categories simply don't have to reflect what's out there.

[Anonymous No.16556358]

>>16556347
Because petulant atheism is a common phase in teenage rebellion.

[Anonymous No.16556379]

>>16556358
Thankfully once educated the not too dull embrace at least a tolerant agnostic view of the world. But it's really hard to stay friendly, when all they look for is conflict and ego in discussions.

[Anonymous No.16556384]

>>16556353
>those categories simply don't have to reflect what's out there.
And they likely don't, and because of that, "what's out there" can't have any involvement with this universe. I don't understand what you don't understand about this. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a state of equilibrium to have involvement with an opposite state without the total annihilation of that opposite state, by the very nature of a state of equilibrium. And yet the universe exists, so what that tells us is that such a state doesn't have any involvement with this universe.

[Anonymous No.16556385]

>>16556171
It is also a philosophical question, as everyone is trying to offer a solution to an unknown gap, saying everyone who doesn't follow your own axiom is "literal magic" is just plain wrong and doesn't help solve the problem, is an straw man at best.

[Anonymous No.16556401]

>>16554412
Here, have a pity (You).

[Anonymous No.16556402]

>>16556384
>PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
That is very relevant for physical reality as we know it. What's outside is neither reality as we know it, neither do we know if it's physical.
Again, the terms you're basing your inferences on may as well have literally nothing to do with what's supposedly outside. It may be equally valid to describe God as 'in equilibrium' and to describe God as 'jealous'. Meaning, not technically valid.

[Anonymous No.16556433]

>>16556402
You don't understand what a state of equilibrium is. If such a state existed and had involvement with this universe, this universe wouldn't exist anymore. This isn't a matter of opinion.

[Anonymous No.16556444]

>>16556039
>>16556153
Still, no mention of Christianity there. And his arguments there don't require him to be a Christian. That was my point. No, this God could be any other abrahamic God, and even quite a few others.
Why are you people always such spastic retards?

[Anonymous No.16556454]

>>16556433
>This isn't a matter of opinion.
Okay. Then prove to me that the equilibrium non-equilibrium dichotomy appropriately reflects the outside of this universe.

[Anonymous No.16556463]

>>16556444
>Christian
>talking about God
>>> "this God could be any other"
Ah yes, I bet it was Athena he was talking about. Very fair and insightful point.
Good night

[Anonymous No.16556467]

>>16556275
>Certain passages are very obviously depictions of real events
How do you know this?
"I saw Steve kiss Jenny yesterrday". Is this a depiction of a real event?

[Anonymous No.16556473]

>>16556467
>tfw Fedoras annihilate themselves by admitting they can't tell witness accounts from philosophy

[Anonymous No.16556485]

>>16555555
ignore me, i just want to find out who got the magic digits.

[Anonymous No.16556488]

>>16556473
>Witness accounts
>Bible
You are a clown.

[Anonymous No.16556493]

>>16556488
> "I saw Steve kiss Jenny yesterrday". Is this a depiction of a real event?
> You are a clown.
I love irony.

[Anonymous No.16556524]

>>16556454
>Then prove to me that the equilibrium non-equilibrium dichotomy appropriately reflects the outside of this universe.
I already gave you the proof, which I'll reiterate for the Nth time for you. In a state of non-equilibrium, a state of equilibrium at once destroys it. We're here, so where is the state of equilibrium? If it's anywhere, it has no involvement with us.

However, it can't actually be anywhere, and I'll explain why. In a state of equilibrium, the concept time no longer has any function, which means the concept space doesn't either. This means that if a state of equilibrium was to occur, it already would have occurred, and there wouldn't be an outside to it; all "outsides" are at once destroyed, because both time and space are destroyed in a state of equilibrium; a state of non-equilibrium can only remain intact if it only interacts with other states of non-equilibrium. Given the fact that we are here right now, it couldn't have occurred and couldn't possibly ever occur. Therefore, there are only states of non-equilibrium, and as I said before,

>The idea of God as a timeless creator therefore can't have anything to do with this universe. Some other idea of God could, perhaps; I'm not ruling out that possibility.

[Anonymous No.16556546]

>>16556524
And for the Nth time I am responding the following:
Explaining how the dichotomy works doesn't prove that the dichotomy applies.

>God is either heavy or light
>Anon, it's one or the other
>Anon, for the Nth time, if it's not heavy, it's light, if it's not light, it's heavy
>What do you mean it has no weight? THE DICHOTOMY CLEARLY STATES THAT IT'S HEAVY OR LIGHT!
I bet the dichotomy does state that. Doesn't mean the dichotomy applies.

[Anonymous No.16556566]

>>16556546
It's not just a "dichotomy." We are talking about a universe that is physically occurring a certain way. These are not simply words with interchangeable meanings, they are descriptions of reality which you're denying at large.

[Anonymous No.16556586]

>>16556566
>God is either heavy or light
>It's not just a "dichotomy."
>These are not simply words with interchangeable meanings
>they are descriptions of reality which you're denying at large.
>Anon, for the Nth time, if it's not heavy, it's light, if it's not light, it's heavy
>What do you mean it has no weight? THE DICHOTOMY CLEARLY STATES THAT IT'S HEAVY OR LIGHT!
Not a proof.

[Anonymous No.16556592]

>>16556586
Nothing is a proof under this scrutiny. There is no reality at all, according to you.

[Anonymous No.16556611]

>>16556592
>There is no reality at all, according to you.
Call me a postmodern neomarxist libtard or something, but I maintain that description of a dichotomy doesn't prove that the dichotomy applies.

[Anonymous No.16556635]

>>16556611
You provide no definitions for any words you employ and you reject everything on the roundabout basis of "well you can't really know." Communication is impossible with you, but if I weren't experienced with arguing with crypto-Christians such as yourself, I'd think that was an unintentional effect.

[Anonymous No.16556647]

>>16556635
As disappointing as it may be for you, when it comes to things we know literally nothing about, you indeed can't really know.
You at no point asked me to define or prove anything, so idk what your problem with communication is.

[Anonymous No.16556659]

>>16556647
>things we know literally nothing about
Which is, according to you, everything. We can't know anything at all.

>You at no point asked me to define or prove anything
If you're the same poster from earlier, I asked you to define both God and human within an evolutionary context.

[Anonymous No.16556678]

>>16553774
Because they literally don't know anything about them and are really just anti-Christian.
They are right to attack Christianity, but do so for the wrong reasons.

[Anonymous No.16556686]

>>16556659
>according to you....We can't know anything at all.
Not without valid and sound thought.
>I asked you to define both God and human within an evolutionary context
Two Anons replied to that post, I was the newcomer: >>16556112.

[Anonymous No.16556691]

>>16556686
>Not without valid and sound thought.
I've provided plenty of this, yet you rejected it. So, explain what you mean by "valid and sound thought," exactly.

[Anonymous No.16556735]

Darwin saw what he wanted to see in those animals: the brutishness of English political economy at the time. Evolution by natural selection is the fever dream of an uncharitable society, the first notion of eugenics, one of the best exemplars of the horror-show that is progressivism. We have yet to heal from the wound Darwin gave us.

[Anonymous No.16556736]

why, my peenus weanus of course :)

hahah! :D

it's my weeeeeenus peanus! :) hahah

ITT: books that refute christianity - my answer is, of course, my peanus weenus :D

hahaha!

[Anonymous No.16556754]

>>16555100
no mention of non-Christianity there

[Anonymous No.16556755]

>>16556691
>>Not without valid and sound thought.
>I've provided plenty of this
You've provided a valid dichotomy. That a dichotomy is valid does not mean it is sound. Perhaps we do have a problem in communication because I have no idea where I fail in delivering this message.
>explain what you mean by "valid and sound thought," exactly.
By valid I mean that premises lead to conclusions. By sound I mean that the premises reflect what we know about reality.

[Anonymous No.16556768]

>>16556755
So where did my logic fall apart in the face of reality, exactly? If it isn't sound, according to you, then you should be able to tell me where the loophole is.

[Anonymous No.16556787]

>>16556768
It fell apart when you conflated validity with soundness and implied that a coherent description of a dichotomy proves that the dichotomy applies. So roughly here: >>16556524

[Anonymous No.16556854]

>>16556787
>and implied that a coherent description of a dichotomy proves that the dichotomy applies
Where did I imply this? Not in the post you referred to. My proof was from reason.

[Anonymous No.16556871]

>>16556854
>My proof was from reason.
I didn't deny that your proof was from reason. I deny that your proof is for soundness, but rather for validity.
Which is exactly what you implied:
>>Then prove to me that the [dichotomy] appropriately reflects the outside of this universe.
>In a state of non-equilibrium [... goes on with description of dichotomy, proving its validity, but not its soundness]

[Anonymous No.16556875]

>>16551861
Read C.S. Lewis. He did both sides.

[Anonymous No.16556889]

>>16555705
Well, if it does interest you, crows are now scientifically proven to posses a conscious which we already knew but "science" has now proven it so maybe you should ask a crow about these things.

[Anonymous No.16556894]

>>16556871
There's nothing unsound about it, unless you can provide the exact logic which makes it such. You have to provide the logic yourself as to why

>In a state of equilibrium, the concept time no longer has any function, which means the concept space doesn't either. This means that if a state of equilibrium was to occur, it already would have occurred, and there wouldn't be an outside to it; all "outsides" are at once destroyed, because both time and space are destroyed in a state of equilibrium; a state of non-equilibrium can only remain intact if it only interacts with other states of non-equilibrium.
is unsound (i.e., does not hold up in reality).

[Anonymous No.16556907]

>>16556894
>You have to provide the logic yourself as to why
All I have to do is to point out that you have proof of validity, but not of soundness. Which is what I did multiple times with illustrations. If all you can reply to me is "I can't prove it right, but you can't prove it wrong either" then I'm completely comfortable with that.

[Anonymous No.16556924]

>>16556907
>Which is what I did multiple times with illustrations.
What illustrations?

>I can't prove it right
Yes I can. Absolute zero (which would be a true state of equilibrium in this universe) cannot be reached, it's a physical impossibility. This isn't made up, it's backed by science.

[Anonymous No.16556938]

>>16556924
>What illustrations?
The light x heavy dichotomy >>16556546, >>16556586 which shows how validity doesn't mean soundness.
>>I can't prove it right
>Yes I can.
Then why do you keep proving validity instead?

[Anonymous No.16556947]

>>16556938
>Then why do you keep proving validity instead?
According to your definition of soundness, the premise of absolute zero being a physical impossibility makes it sound. What I said about states of equilibrium and non-equilibrium are represented right there in reality. So what remains unsound about it?

[Anonymous No.16556953]

>>16556947
>So what remains unsound about it?
Its application outside the universe.

[Anonymous No.16556957]

>>16556953
There is no outside the universe, by definition or according to the premises given.

[Anonymous No.16556983]

>>16556957
>There is no outside the universe
So you're throwing all these prior posts out the window?

>>16556208
>If what's outside the universe is a state of equilibrium...
>>16556245
>>you have no idea how the universe interacts with its supposed outside
>Oh, but I do
>if its outside [of the universe] is a state of equilibrium
>>16556289
>I didn't say that I know what's outside the universe. I'm only telling you that if what's outside of it is ...

[Anonymous No.16556997]

>>16556983
All of those were written in order to demonstrate the impossibility of such an outside. No one knows what's outside of the universe because there isn't one.

[Anonymous No.16557004]

>>16556997
>No one knows what's outside of the universe because there isn't one.
Okay, you have yet another chance to prove soundness. Make it count.

[Anonymous No.16557030]

>>16557004
I already did. Absolute zero is a physical impossibility, while equilibrium is a theoretical impossibility (for all time), and whatever isn't absolute zero / in equilibrium would just be part of the universe, by definition. This outside you're arguing for is impossible.

[Anonymous No.16557043]

>>16557030
>whatever isn't absolute zero / in equilibrium would just be part of the universe
So you define everything that's outside the comprehensible universe as part of the universe. Alright then, I define God as existing. I hope you're not going to be a hypocrite and reject this argument, fellow theist.

[Anonymous No.16557167]

>>16557043
>Alright then, I define God as existing.
The difference between this statement and mine is that we have a definition for universe to both refer to, and I showed how it is physically and theoretically impossible for any such outside to occur. Feel free to provide the same for your statement (both a definition and a logical argument for its occurrence).

[Anonymous No.16557220]

>>16557167
>we have a definition
You keep trying to make it my job to prove your statements, Anon, it's not my job, you provide a definition in which you define everything possible as 'within' the universe and then you pretend that it's anything but a tautology to say that 'outside' doesn't exist.
It's circular logic.

Your post is equivalent to:
> we have a definition for God to both refer to (that is, deity that exists), and I showed how it is physically necessary for existing things to indeed exist. Totally not a tautology.

Sorry, not only have you not proven that the outside of this universe falls within the equilibrium/nonequilibrium dichotomy, you have completely backed away from the 'outside' under the pretense that everything logically sustainable would be 'inside' because your definition conveniently says so. Meh.

[Anonymous No.16557239]

>>16557220
Again, feel free to provide the same for your statement, starting with a definition of God. Otherwise, you're just arguing for the sake of it.

[Anonymous No.16557282]

>>16557239
>Again, feel free to provide the same for your statement, starting with a definition of God
Literally spelled it out in greentext:
>>>> we have a definition for God to both refer to (that is, deity that exists), and I showed how it is physically necessary for existing things to indeed exist. Totally not a tautology.

[Anonymous No.16557329]

>>16557282
That isn't a definition, you just swapped out God with deity. You also showed me nothing at all. What the fuck man, do you even have an argument?

[Anonymous No.16557376]

>>16557329
>What the fuck man, do you even have an argument?
The same one as you do. A circular argument based on a tautological definition. I am amazed that you can recognize its flaw when it comes to my posts, but not when it comes to yours, because they share the same flaws.
Unless you claim that God isn't a deity or that existing things don't have to exist, my definition and argument are as valid as yours and as sound as yours.

[Anonymous No.16557419]

>>16557376
My argument had a scientific and logical basis, while yours does not. It also has communicable definitions, while yours does not. I fail to see how our statements are similar at all.

[Anonymous No.16557468]

>>16557419
>communicable definitions
Having problems communicating again? I'll help you out:
>Unless you claim that God isn't a deity or that existing things don't have to exist, my definition and argument are as valid as yours and as sound as yours.

You may throw around the word 'scientific' to pretend like the validity of your argument is so damn strong it bleeds over into soundness and compensates for it, but it doesn't work that way.
Your definition and your argument need to be valid and sound.

>whatever isn't [necessarily non-existent] would just be part of the universe
>God is deity that does exists
valid definitions
>since everything existent is part of the universe, the outside can't exist
>since God is deity that exists, he can't be non-existent
valid inferences

I didn't expect the failure of circular arguments to be such a hard pill to swallow.

[Anonymous No.16557488]

>>16557468
>God is deity that does exists
>valid definition
It's meaningless because it doesn't clarify anything at all.

>since God is deity that exists, he can't be non-existent
>valid inference
Also meaningless since there is no meaningful definition of God provided.

Absolute zero: a physical impossibility, demonstrated by science. Yet to be refuted.
Equilibrium: a theoretical impossibility, demonstrated by logic. Yet to be refuted.
Being: a philosophical impossibility, demonstrated by reason. Yet to be refuted.
God: an undefined word, demonstrated by your posts. Yet to be refuted.

Feel free to refute all four of these with valid and sound argument.

[Anonymous No.16557508]

>>16557488
>It's meaningless because it doesn't clarify anything at all.
You're so close. You're so close to understanding why tautological definitions are flawed. You're so goddamn close to understanding why...
>whatever isn't [necessarily non-existent] would just be part of the universe
...is not scientific, but semantic.

Your problem is you are two steps ahead of yourself. When you make a valid argument, you think it must also be sound. When you think a claim is being rejected, you think all reality is being rejected. When someone points out your argument is circular, you think someone's claiming things about temperature.

[Anonymous No.16557549]

>>16557508
Again with this "we can't know anything" garbage? Yes, all arguments are "circular" — but they aren't equal. God, as in supreme Being, no longer makes any sense, given what we now know. You can pretend like it still makes sense, but you'd have to ignore what has now been successfully (that is, sufficiently) demonstrated by science, logic, and reason.

[Anonymous No.16557569]

>>16557549
>>When you think a claim is being rejected, you think all reality is being rejected.
>Again with this "we can't know anything" garbage
You are, without any exaggeration or spiteful rhetoric on my part, proving my point. I reject your claim and you feel like all claims are being rejected. You're being very overreactive.

>all arguments are "circular"
That wasn't my claim. My claim was that your argumentation is tautological.

>science, logic, and reason
You may throw around the word 'scientific' to pretend like the validity of your argument is so damn strong it bleeds over into soundness and compensates for it, but it doesn't work that way.
Your definition and your argument need to be valid and sound.

Please return to meditating about why definitions that don't clarify nothing at all are meaningless, as per
>whatever isn't [necessarily non-existent] would just be part of the universe
>God is deity that does exists

[Anonymous No.16557606]

>>16557569
>I reject your claim
You're not rejecting it, you're ignoring it. A proper rejection would show sufficient reason for doing so. You haven't provided that.

>That wasn't my claim. My claim was that your argumentation is tautological.
Well you seem to misunderstand, then. My argument makes it very clear that what is outside this universe can't be timeless, it has to exist within finite time and has to be evolving like the rest of the universe is — but, naturally, if this outside exists in the same state as the universe, then why call it an outside? The actual tautological argument would be to continue calling this an outside to the universe when there is no longer any reason to make this distinction. Likewise, calling this outside, or the universe itself, as God, is tautological.

>Your definition and your argument need to be valid and sound.
They are, sufficiently speaking. Absolute validity and soundness isn't possible, and trying to appeal to them in an argument is disingenuous. No one can reach that for their argument. However, my argument is far, FAR more sufficiently valid and sound than yours so far has been.

[Anonymous No.16557693]

>>16557606
>A proper rejection would show sufficient reason for doing so.
My grounds for rejecting your claims are tautological definitions of 'inside' and 'outside', contradictions between >>16557569 and >>16556957 in whether the 'outside' exists, and a leap of faith as to how sound the propositions about the 'outside' are. Here's your thought process:
>I shall presume that 'inside' and 'outside' are similar enough to apply this dichotomy to them identically
>I've concluded that 'inside' and 'outside are similar enough by virtue of this dichotomy
... rewind...
>>I shall presume that 'inside' and 'outside' are similar enough
>>>I've concluded that 'inside' and 'outside are similar enough
...zoom in...
>I... presume [similarity]
>I... conclude [similarity]
... lawdhammercy.jpeg... your thought is circular in the fact that you presume your conclusion from the very beginning.

[Anonymous No.16557698]

fuck, the contradiction was between >>16556957 and >>16557606

[Anonymous No.16557760]

>>16557693
>I shall presume that 'inside' and 'outside' are similar enough to apply this dichotomy to them identically
What is the sufficient reason for rejecting my argument, just this? This isn't sufficient at all. It doesn't even address the argument. Please give me a sufficient reason for thinking that equilibrium outside the universe is possible; that is how you address the argument.

[Anonymous No.16557852]

>>16554034
That doesn't necessarily mean Christianity is true.