Is God real?

[Anonymous No.18071041]

I am skeptical but I really want to believe. What do I read? Is God real? I know there are logical and rational arguments for the existence of God. For example, I've read Five Proofs for the Existence of God by Edward Feser, who defends five 'proofs' or metaphysical arguments for God's existence: (1) the Aristotelian 'argument from motion/change' to an Unmoved Mover, defended in Aristotle's 'Metaphysics', (2) the Neoplatonic 'argument from composition' to an absolutely simple being, defended in Plotinus' 'Enneads', (3) the Augustinian 'argument from necessary truths' to an eternal, omniscient Intellect, defended in Augustine's 'On Free Choice of the Will', (4) the Thomistic 'existential argument', defended in Aquinas' 'On Being ans Essence'; and (5) the rationalist 'argument from contingency', defended in Leibniz' 'Monadology'.

However, these logical arguments just don't....do it for me. Like I'm sure I'm not alone in not being able to suddenly believe in a God when I've just read some books about it. I'm quite scientifically minded and therefore believing in anything not materialistic is already very difficult for me.

[Anonymous No.18071048]

>>18071041
The Holy Bible

[Anonymous No.18071080]

It's all a simulation

[Anonymous No.18071097]

Don't know, mate. No one does.

[Anonymous No.18071107]

>>18071041
>le scientific mind won't accept something even after he has been given five fricking proofs for it because it's icky or something

[Jesus No.18071108]

>>18071041
yes, the "thing" witnessed by certain individuals is real. but your idea about god based on textual description of it has less value than a shit. it's impossible to describe music to deaf people, rainbow to blind. all books in the world are useless to understand God, Power behind everything you see, everything that exist.

[Anonymous No.18071113]

>>18071041
God is a difficult term to parse because it is unclear what anyone means with the word 'god', in particular the heavily reductionist English word that seeks to subsume under its concept very disparate modes of being-towards-the-world who might not even all be thinking of something Divine (again, a Roman idea) but perhaps rather something quintessential natural. The God that is often the discussion of philosophy does exist, or at least exists as a necessary presupposition as the unground or groundless ground. It is not the Christian God, or at least not for many philosophers, i.e., it is not personal, nor does it love you and what it subsists in may or may not be completely unknowable. This unground is conceptualised in many ways, but really, no one disagrees that it is there. It is more a matter of what can be attributed to it and whether it is transcendent, radically immanent, unmoving or fundamentally dynamic. The way it is conceived is often coloured by cultural and implicit theological biases, even by those who claim to be atheist. Fundamentally, it isn't a theos or subject a theism in the conventional sense

[Anonymous No.18071117]

>>18071041
Mere Christianity, by CS Lewis, might be what you're looking for

[Anonymous No.18071118]

>>18071108
Your analogy is completely retarded, we have the power of intellection which allows us to cogitate on the nature of things

[Anonymous No.18071139]

>>18071041
Go to church. You'll never find God sat alone reading books.

[Anonymous No.18071146]

>>18071041
> wanting to cure spiritual degeneracy with rational arguments
That's like curing a porn addiction with polyamory.

[Anonymous No.18071181]

>>18071041
As real as you are.

[Jesus No.18071209]

>>18071118
you don't, retarded shill faggot. you don't even have necessary brain cells to imagine how degenerate you are.

[Anonymous No.18071245]

The most basic proof of God’s existence is simply what He has made. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19:1).

If I found a wristwatch in the middle of a field, I would not assume that it just “appeared” out of nowhere or that it had always existed. Based on the watch’s design, I would assume it had a designer. But there is far greater design and precision in the world around us. Our measurement of time is not based on wristwatches, but on God’s handiwork—the regular rotation of the earth (and the radioactive properties of the cesium-133 atom). The universe displays great design, and this argues for a Great Designer.

If I found an encoded message, I would seek out a cryptographer to help break the code. My assumption would be that there is an intelligent sender of the message, someone who created the code. How complex is the DNA “code” that we carry in every cell of our bodies? Does not the complexity and purpose of DNA argue for an Intelligent Writer of the code?

Not only has God made an intricate and finely tuned physical world; He has also instilled a sense of eternity in the heart of every person (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Mankind has an innate perception that there is more to life than meets the eye, that there is an existence higher than this earthly routine. Our sense of eternity manifests itself in at least two ways: law-making and worship.

[Anonymous No.18071691]

>>18071107
Yes this is exactly my problem
>>18071113
If what you say is true, what do we do with that information?
>>18071117
Read it and felt really good for a while and then it faded like it always does...Thanks for the suggestion though.
>>18071146
What should I do, then?
>>18071181
I hope so, fren.
>>18071245
I get what you're saying but that only works on people who already believe. I see the world and I can just as much focus on all the faults of human bodies that lead them to be born in agony and die 7 hours of suffering later or all other pain and then think 'These mistakes could never be made by a God'.

[Anonymous No.18071848]

>I really want to believe.
There’s your first mistake, the mistake that exposes a lot of religion for what it really is: wishful, magical thinking

[Anonymous No.18071857]

>>18071107
>five proofs
>none of which are testable, appear to be aware of the difference between physical and intentional causality, and, even if we did accept them, don’t explain why would call this entity ‘god’, much less explain which god

[Anonymous No.18071862]

>>18071691
> 'These mistakes could never be made by a God'.
Why?

[Anonymous No.18071947]

>>18071041
start here

[Anonymous No.18071962]

>>18071041
you will find great arguments for God, but not one for a specific God.

[Anonymous No.18071971]

>>18071691
I am anon 18071113. I am still investigating the meaning of this. It requires a radical overhaul in the way we think about God, one that abandons all theological assumptions and tries to trace what it means for the ground to possess any of the attributes we say it does. Fr this, I am currently investigating the findings of Schopenhauer's totalising Will as that which is, and how everything else is a particular representation of it. My provisional answer to you is to carry out the following perceptual experiment: be towards the world with minimal subsumption under concepts, beyond scientific concepts. What does it mean to be animal (literally possessing breath, being soul, being dynamic). Why do so many sacred scriptures point to a process of theosis, by which men, i.e., a particular nephesh (animal, see above) may become god but not God. The question of God certainly remains interesting, but ultimately it raises no worries over my fate after I, as an extended body, cease to be animated. If God, as the Christians describes Him, choses to condemn my lukewarm ass to Hell (whatever that might be in real terms. It is often described as undying fires, appears to be supernatural, but given its scope and nature, i.e., being spatio-temporal, it is necessarily physical, i.e., in nature), then that is His pejorative. If He doesn't want to make Himself explicit, then I can't say I am particularly concerned with his worship as the Christian tradition commands it should happen (there still remains the question of what it means to worship the ground of existence and what this is supposed to mean or achieve)

[Anonymous No.18071986]

>>18071691
>'These mistakes could never be made by a God'.
Human suffering exists because sin exists. When Adam and Eve disregarded God’s command and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “the eyes of both of them were opened” (Genesis 3:7), and death, along with all the suffering the reality of death implies, came into the world (Genesis 2:16–17). The results of sin are explained in Genesis 3:14–19. Sin affected humanity’s relationship with God, with each other, and with the animals. Even the ground was cursed (see also Romans 8:20–21). Sin would specifically result in increased pain in childbearing, laborious toil in work, and contentiousness in human relationships. Ultimately, sin would result in physical death. In broader terms, sin opened the door for all kinds of suffering throughout all of creation.

Since God is the “First Cause,” He is responsible for the fact that suffering can exist. God created Adam and Eve knowing that they would sin. He knew the suffering that would exist in the world as a result. However, He also made redemption possible. God’s ultimate plan was for God the Son (Jesus Christ) to take on human flesh, live a human life complete with all the suffering of a fallen world, be crucified though He had not sinned, and rise again to life, having defeated sin and death. All who put their faith in Jesus will be saved. God’s gift of grace to us cost Him greatly. God knows the fullness of human suffering in ways we do not. And yet He also knows the fullness of joy that redemption brings. God certainly allows suffering; ultimately, He does so for His good purposes (Romans 1:18–32; 8:18–39).

Suffering, no matter its cause or its precise type, is not an experience any would choose. But the more we come to know God and see His character, the more we understand how He can take even the hardship of suffering and work it for His purposes. Not only that, but we can share honestly with God about our struggles and even our doubts. Hebrews 4:15–16 says, “For we do not have a high priest [Jesus] who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” We can and should also share our struggles with others, being willing to weep together and lift each other up in love (John 13:34–45; Romans 12:9–16; 2 Corinthians 1:3–7; Galatians 6:2, 7–10; Hebrews 10:19–25). Paul encouraged, “Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:16–18).

[Anonymous No.18072005]

>>18071986
>When Adam and Eve disregarded God’s command and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
They didn’t disregarded God’s command, they were tricked by a talking snake, which God himself put in that the Tree of Knowledge, knowing in advance what would happen. He literally has no excuse, and basically just transmits the blame for his own fuckup onto two humans who cannot challenge it. How this is supposedly moral is completely beyond me.

Besides, don’t the people in heaven also have free will? Why isn’t heaven a literal cesspool of murder and torture as well? Can God apparently control a world with us having free will? Why doesn’t he do that with planet earth?

[Anonymous No.18072137]

>>18072005
>knowing in advance what would happen.
God foresaw Adam and Eve’s fall. He created them anyway, in His own image, to bring glory to Himself. They were given freedom to make choices. Even though they chose to disobey, their choice became the means by which God’s ultimate will was carried out and by which His full glory will be seen.

>Besides, don’t the people in heaven also have free will?
In heaven we are completely conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:28–30). Our sanctification will be finished; we will not even want to sin. Also, in heaven there is no temptation to lure us and no devil to deceive us. Unlike Adam and Eve, we will face no test; our moral state will be secure. No one will get kicked out of heaven. Just as Jesus has a truly free will yet is without sin, so will we retain a free will yet be without sin. We will be like Him (1 John 3:2).

Before salvation, our free will on earth is limited by our inability to choose what is right. After salvation, our free will struggles between choosing what is right and what is wrong. In heaven our free will is limited by our inability to choose what is wrong. In our glorified state, we will exercise our free will to choose what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and admirable (see Philippians 4:8).

[Jesus No.18072227]

discoossers, you will never discover miracle by discoossing

[Anonymous No.18072234]

>>18072137
>God foresaw Adam and Eve’s fall.
And could’ve stopped it, but didn’t. That makes him responsible for it, and no one else, and none of your copes justify this simple fact

[Anonymous No.18072276]

>>18071041
I had the same problem. What worked for me was a long process that started by accepting that in some things exists some value that exceeds the material. Example: when you read a piece of poetry or when you see a person you love. Sure, you can reduce that to neurochemistry, but you can't ignore the narrative value that certain things have in your mind. When asked, you wouldn't describe pain as a nerve simulation, instead you would focus on the value of the experience.

From this I moved into archetypes and myths, and I awed at the power that a specific pattern of symbols, developed over millenias by our ancestors, can have on us

After analyzing the Bible and the archetype of Christ specifically I couldn't just believe that this level of meaning was made up by humans, and even if you believe it was, I think its value remains the same.

I would suggest reading Jung. I also watched almost all of Jordan Peterson works on the matter. Regardless of what you think politically of him, he goes deep and well on the subject.

[Anonymous No.18072441]

>>18071857
You have not read the book.

[Anonymous No.18072450]

>>18071947
I thought the Upanishads were the better starting place

[Anonymous No.18072495]

>>18071041
>What do I read?
https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

[Anonymous No.18072501]

>>18071041
>I am skeptical but I really want to believe
You will always be a LARPer. So give up.

[Anonymous No.18072518]

>>18071041
>the Aristotelian 'argument from motion/change' to an Unmoved Mover
Aristotle’s concept of an un-moved mover is purely an abstraction, not a person. It is intellectual but not personal, in the sense of a being who interacts with others. Aristotle did not assume his first cause to be a person or even a deity. Instead, he viewed this ultimate cause as a “thought, thinking about itself.”

In a technical sense, this concept agrees well with the Bible’s depiction of God. God is the one who “began” creation, while Himself is uncreated (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1–3). He is Spirit (John 4:24), not essentially physical, so He could be somewhat described as “pure intellect.” In that sense, God is indeed the “Un-Moved Mover” or the First Cause. This is the gist of how Thomas Aquinas applied the idea of an un-moved mover to Christian theology.

Aristotle’s work is evidence of a principle found in the Bible: that God reveals enough of Himself in His creation to lead men to believe in Him. Psalm 19:1 indicates that “the heavens” show the work of God; Aristotle’s musings on astronomy were key to his conclusion that a final, ultimate cause must exist. Romans 1:19–20 says that “what can be known about God is plain” based on evidence everyone can see; from natural observations, Aristotle correctly deduced an un-caused, non-physical, “un-moved mover” responsible for the existence of the universe. What he did not realize, at least not fully, was that this conclusion points to an eternal, personal Creator (John 1:1–3).

While Aristotle’s concept of an un-moved mover is compatible with the God of the Bible, Aristotle himself would not have identified a personal being such as God with his theory. To use an analogy, the God of the Bible is the completed puzzle, while Aristotle’s theory of an un-moved mover is just one piece. Simply speaking, Aristotle’s un-moved mover was not and is not the God of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.18072529]

>>18071041
Hard problem of consciousness to idealism to theism pipeline

[Anonymous No.18072547]

>>18072529
>idealism
Which one?

[Anonymous No.18072646]

>>18071041
God doesn't care if you can rationalize his existence or not. Does a tree in the forest exist because you believe it exists or because it is there? Similarly, a child who owns an antfarm exists whether the ants believe in him or not, they are likewise beholden to him whether they know it or not.

What then are the fruits of 'science mindedness"?

Dawkins is already canceled by his fellow humanists for not signalling his allegiance to the twisted morality of secular society. A useful idiot and now a bygone idiot. he offered nothing but destruction to Christian society and how he gets to enjoy the fruits of secular society.

Individuals are destroyed before groups. Even a group of individuals lacking cohesion and unity under a sovereign are divided and will fall. Bickering amongst themselves like children over petty differences. It's natural selection. Should you not then choose the best and most fruitful and good group? Christianity put Europe on the map. It put America on the map.

Everything else is rationalizing a compulsion to enjoy high-time preference immediate satisfactions (mostly sins)

[Anonymous No.18073107]

>>18071041
rational arguments are like ikea instructions for knowing the truth, for kierkegaard, a man know knows the truth stands in it, in prayer a man recognizes his dependency, as a finite being upon the Absolute, and afterwards redirects his life accordingly, this dialogue is more clearly understood by both parties than any other could be, as in God we do all things in him, of him and through him, there is nothing to hide and no misunderstanding on his part, in prayer we come to know God better, we become more aware of his intimate act of causality as we strain are minds to respond to it, we know ourselves better too afterwards, as only God is a big enough mirror to reflect our whole mind and its condition. for the church fathers the secret to epistemology was purity, lust and anger lead to adultery and murder, a indivdual directing their life towards carnal desires dulls their spiritual capacity, impairing there desire for fulfilment through gorging on sensory stimulation, never satisfied, damaging themselves and everyone around them, the person who is acutely aware of God can see things as they truly are, ordered in a universe that they are a part of, enjoying the things that are there to be enjoyed, using the things to be used, never mixing the two

try gregory of nyssas life of moses and augustines confessions

[Anonymous No.18073121]

>>18072646
I only read the first sentence, but that clearly isn't what OP is asking for

[Anonymous No.18073165]

I wont be able to make you believe in god, im not exactly a believer myself, but just know that hard center agnosticism is the only "scientific" belief as both atheism and theism cannot be proven and are thus both based on faith that their respective conclusion is correct

[Anonymous No.18073187]

>>18071041
I didn't earnestly or even half-earnestly believe in God until I read the 4 gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the New Testament). In my brutal opinion, I think very well-intentioned, simple people can just believe in God, but for a really intelligent person Jesus or Buddha is the only route to the divine.

[Anonymous No.18073202]

>>18071041
The only thing that is "really" real is consciousness. If God is consciousness, or the root of consciousness, or the consciousness of the universe, then it is real.

[Anonymous No.18073215]

I believe in God, but what that means for me is not what it means for a follower of an Abrahamic faith

[Anonymous No.18073227]

No book will give you a religious experience.

[Anonymous No.18074606]

>>18071041
I'll add another
1.From Descartes we know we exists and by having sensory experience something beyond us exists as well.
I define the universe to a be everything that exists with which you can interact and the Universe everything that exists with which you cannot interact.
2.A universe exists , and from science we know it is objective.
3.We know we are beings with free will. If a universe had no beings with free will to observe it it would not exist in the first place.
4.For a being of free will to exist in a objective universe it would need to require it's free will from a greater Universe outside the universe. For if we receive no influence beyond this universe it means we operate on objective laws meaning we dont have free will.
5. If the Universe from which we receive our free will was an objective one then that it would be a repeat of point 4 ad infinitum thus at some point for free will to exists the Universe has to be subjective.
6. A subjective universe suggests a being with free will that can alter the Universe through it's will alone ,not operating on objetive laws. That is then God.

Also read Kant faith is a neccesary component of religion ,it would not be religion if it did not require faith it would then be science.

[Anonymous No.18074635]

>>18071041
Yes, God is the force of nature, not some lord figure

[Anonymous No.18074990]

>>18072441
>you can’t criticize idea x before you’ve read at least 5 billion books on it
I can. Explain why I’m wrong

[Jesus No.18075012]

>>18071041
you are not honest enough. tell us your final goal. "belief" is just a means of achieving it.

[Anonymous No.18075065]

[Anonymous No.18075068]

>>18071041
> Is God real?
no
>I know there are logical and rational arguments for the existence of God.
you are mistaken.

[Cybershaman No.18075199]

Stop searching for God. God is formless, and therefore, NOT sensibly real beyond the ethereal. Presence is an illusion created by the senses, and those senses have long been hijacked by a holographic tesseract that controls infinite layers of simulacra.

The subjective contours that defines a godhead is an accretion created by our own flawed perception, and will never, EVER, be all-encompassing and representative of the source.

Human beings will, like mindless animals until the end of time, using their self-importance, continue to blindly debate and argue the existence of God by persisting to hopelessly and faithfully define the contours of what is fundamentally and imperceivably formless. The simulation permits this duality to be questioned, because it knows that humanity as a species is too selfish to arrive upon an answer.

Beyond the ethereal means beyond the monad. Beyond the monad is the center of the abyss.

Ask yourself within the reservoirs of your silenced non-chattering mind, do you really know if the abyss is even real? Will you ever get there? How many more books do you have to read before you delude yourself towards an "understanding" based on second-hand accretive knowledge?

Stop searching.
Start leveling.

[Anonymous No.18075238]

Is there any religion in which you worship the State and the Rule of Law as if it was the Spirit?

[Cybershaman No.18075248]

>>18075238
Shen Dao

[Anonymous No.18075599]

>>18071041
The first and most important thing that should be done is defining what God is.

[Anonymous No.18075860]

>>18071848

Shut the fuck up, Feuerbach. No one needs your atheism here.

[Jesus No.18076085]

>>18075599
yep. deaf: is music real? let's define music!

[Anonymous No.18076874]

Wanting to believe and reading logical proofs obviously isn't going to incite faith.

[Anonymous No.18076967]

>>18071971
Interesting thoughts anon even though I am too stupid to understand half the things you said. thanks
>>18072234
How could he have stopped it if Adam and Eve have/had free will?

[Anonymous No.18076975]

>>18076967
>How could he have stopped it if Adam and Eve have/had free will?
By just not having a talking snake in your Garden of Eden? Especially if you know in advance what that would result in? This isn’t exactly quantum physics

[Anonymous No.18076994]

>>18071041
Don't know, don't care. Live life and die happy. That's my motto. Whatever happens afterwards is not something I care about. I've accepted death and greet it with open arms.

[Anonymous No.18077003]

>>18072276
Thanks! Although You said
>even if you believe it was, I think its value remains the same
Although if indeed it comes from humans is that not then not at all the same because it does away with the idea that these archetypes were made from a God?

[Anonymous No.18077021]

>>18073107
>augustines confessions
do recommend

[Anonymous No.18077067]

>>18071139
Pray and meditate, you won't find God without spiritual practice

[Anonymous No.18077078]

>>18075012
Knowing the truth for sure so I can finally know it

[Anonymous No.18077089]

>>18077078
And what if that truth is that God doesn’t exist? Would you accept that?

[Anonymous No.18077127]

>>18077089
Yes

[Anonymous No.18077179]

>>18072137
>He created them anyway, in His own image, to bring glory to Himself.
God needs nothing.
God lacks nothing.
And yet you claim he did this for glory.
False.
God did all of this for our benefit and out of love.

[Anonymous No.18077246]

>>18075599
Read the Experience of God by David Bentley Hart.
It does just that.

[Anonymous No.18077271]

>>18071041
The greatest minds in history were all theists. Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Descartes, Galileo, Copernicus, Hegel, Heidegger.

Why would you listen to Dawkins over them? Materialist metaphysics simply don't work without destroying your epistemology and ethics.

[Anonymous No.18077403]

You don't have to start with forcing yourself to believe. Just start with being a little grateful for whatever good you currently have in life.

[Anonymous No.18077711]

>>18077271
>Materialist metaphysics simply don't work without destroying your epistemology and ethics.
Thanks for the post but could you expand on this?

[Anonymous No.18077736]

>>18077711
Argument from Reason explains the problem with materialist epistemology and anyone who thinks we live in a "cold, indifferent" universe governed only by impersonal natural law has a nearly impossible task to try and explain how anyone has any kind of ethical duties that don't constitute a simple arrangement of convenience. In short it's really hard, if not impossible to explain why people should live the way we want them to live if materialism is true. Rather if reality is the way materialists say it is then making everyone the Borg might be the "optimal" and logical way to go. There's no way to actually justify the value of a persons autonomy and subjective experience without appealing to the transcendent

[Anonymous No.18077769]

If you have to 'logically prove' God, then it's not worthy of being called God.
If you want to believe for comfort (or something similar), go to a nice church or something, take a leap of faith. Just don't be a dick.

I only believe in the absolute, ineffable void of potentiality whence all reality springs forth. No worship, no names. It is transcendent and immanent. We relate to it through its absence and its/our privation. (Hegel + Bataille, for me).

[Anonymous No.18077787]

>>18077769
>We relate to it through its absence and its/our privation. (Hegel + Bataille, for me).
Nice. Have you read this? Very good book on Hegels own mystical Christian views.

[Anonymous No.18077817]

>>18077787
I didn't, but it's definitely going on my to-read list. Thanks!
I also want to read Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition by Glenn A. Magee. Have you read that one?

[Anonymous No.18077974]

>>18077769
>take a leap of faith
'Just take a leap of faith' is the exact same thing as 'just be confident bro'

It doesn't /just/ happen

[Anonymous No.18078085]

>>18077974
Very Important Post
By what methods and in what situations have irl people become more confident than they already were?
Likewise, how have irl people grown in their faith, from having either no faith or less faith to a state of having more faith than they did previously?

[Anonymous No.18078899]

>>18078085
Yeah this is exactly the question

[Anonymous No.18079260]

>>18078085
yup

[Anonymous No.18079783]

>>18073187
I have a problem when i red the gospel. Jesus driving put evil spirits of people? I dont know how to think about evil spirits? Are they real? Do people nowadays have evil spirits in themselves?

[Anonymous No.18081408]

bump

[Anonymous No.18081648]

>>18071041
That's simply not true. You believe in all manner of immaterial things. All scientific disciplines for example, are in themselves immaterial. Though they all concern themselves with material things, the observations, the theories, the math--these things do not materially exist. You cannot point to some material object which is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Rather, some physical phenomenon have been observed, and from those phenomenon, an entirely intangible description has been developed so as as to present the meaning of these phenomena to you, even though you have never personally observed any of the phenomena described. From this intangible conception, you draw conclusions and change your actions. The evidence that the law is true exists in the material of the phenomenon. The evidence of the law itself exists in the papers and studies and videos and recordings about the law. The law itself is intangible, and your knowledge of it is immaterial. You do not struggle to believe in immaterial things.

Rather, you struggle to accept that there are things which are immaterial and have wills. This is the same struggle Augustine describes in his Confessions. You struggle to believe that there can be such a thing as God, a being that is omnipotent, but which has no body. You understand the will and the life of an animal because you see it's body move. You understand and accept your own will and life, because you have direct physical experience of the consequence of your will.

Put more simply, you struggle to believe that there is anything which can think which does not have a brain.

Unfortunately, this is not a very scientific idea. As you've already read a number of times, it is simply illogical to conclude that physical things can come into existence on their own, when all the observed physical phenomenon demonstrate that this never happens.

Now consider math and logic themselves. Consider the Fibonacci sequence; we observe the general pattern in the propagation of some species. We observe it, in fact, in many places. In physical matter, however, we almost never see the pattern perfectly, though. We see across many experiences that the average or mean is the same as the mathematical sequence, but the sequence itself is not something physically observed directly. It is only abstracted. So then, where does the abstraction exist? For, even if we were not there to make the abstraction and the pattern was never recognized by our brains, by our intellective matter, the pattern would still hold true. It is not as though nature follows this pattern because we've discovered it; rather we discovered it because nature approaches some intangible mean which it never perfectly achieves.

To go a step further, what is it to say that some conclusion logically follows from its premises? What is it in us that recognizes when the conditions of logical necessity is met?

The problem is that you don't understand what is meant by the word God.

[Anonymous No.18081743]

>>18081648
You lost me on the second half but
>Put more simply, you struggle to believe that there is anything which can think which does not have a brain.
Is probably the most succinct and cutting description of why people have difficulty with the concept of God and I am embarrassed that I've never realized it until now.

[Anonymous No.18081781]

>>18081648
>That's simply not true. You believe in all manner of immaterial things. All scientific disciplines for example, are in themselves immaterial. Though they all concern themselves with material things, the observations, the theories, the math--these things do not materially exist. You cannot point to some material object which is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Rather, some physical phenomenon have been observed, and from those phenomenon, an entirely intangible description has been developed so as as to present the meaning of these phenomena to you, even though you have never personally observed any of the phenomena described. From this intangible conception, you draw conclusions and change your actions. The evidence that the law is true exists in the material of the phenomenon. The evidence of the law itself exists in the papers and studies and videos and recordings about the law. The law itself is intangible, and your knowledge of it is immaterial. You do not struggle to believe in immaterial things.

I'm not sure I understand this train of thought.

>I observe material things behave in a certain way
>I develop an abstract idea to explain these behaviors
>Therefore I believe in something immaterial?

[Anonymous No.18081797]

>>18071041
>I'm quite scientifically minded and therefore believing in anything not materialistic is already very difficult for me.
Forget about it. God will unveil your eyes if you deserve guidance.

[Anonymous No.18081909]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0nXG02tpDw
As far as there being a god who created the universe I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.18081910]

>>18081781
The abstraction itself is immaterial. The projection of past events into some as-of-yet non-existence future is itself immaterial. The past itself is immaterial. Anything which does not have physical presence is immaterial. Pi, as a number, is wholly immaterial. All numbers are, in fact, immaterial.

Consider an apple. The material of the apple consists of the cells, the molecules, the atoms, the subatomic particles. The air next to the apple is also full of the same basic material, but in different combinations and groups. The apple is distinguishable from the air by the arrangement and nature of its parts.

Now consider a second apple. The material is different. It is a distinct object. So far, there is no trouble. But, if we say there are two apples, in what material does the twoness subsist? Each apple is, materially, exactly the same. They remain unchanged by their proximity. In fact, their proximity is only relative to the scale of our perspective. We can intellectually consider two apples on opposite sides of the world; but how do we say that the apples are two? Certainly, the material of the earth is not counting. It does not have any recognition of the number. The gravity of the earth is indifferent to the number. Perhaps one might say that there is a different physical reaction because of the number of apples, but each instance of interaction is in fact wholly distinct and unique.

Words themselves are the best demonstration of the universal use of immaterial things. What is a word physically? A pattern of airwaves. But strangely, we recognize the pattern regardless of its pitch and even some of its order. An accent for example, changes the physical sound quite dramatically, and yet the same association is still recognized by the hearer. Here you are, reading, and you most likely can transform the material phenomenon of these small LED lights into the memory of some sound. You can do this because you can recognize patterns. The problem is, the pattern itself is immaterial. This is Plato's Cave. We all experience a variety of phsyical object and experience, and we are only able to interact with them and manipulate them to the extent that we recognize some pattern to which they relate, but of which no object is the actual and definitive expression. This is abstraction. This is the ideal. This is the intellect.

[Anonymous No.18081961]

From a scientific standpoint color isn't real. And if that isn't real, then why would God be real from a scientific standpoint?

[Anonymous No.18081973]

>>18077003
Yeah, I mean, I'm not saying that if you get into the subject you will 100% believe in God. For me it worked and I am now convinced that it's really difficult (if not impossible) that these archetypes and myths are just human fantasies. But if you don't come to the same conclusion you will probably still have found something of great value nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.18081997]

>>18071041
god is performance magic
it is as real as someone trying to trick you
many are fooled by the trick
some see through the trick
it is done with electromagnetism
it is quite the trick
very convincing
but very crude and brutal at the same time

[Anonymous No.18081999]

>>18081961
This is the main problem with strong empiricism. You get clowns like Dennett claiming that your subjective experience of the world is illusory and not real because it doesn't fit in with the empirical data. Placing sensory information over the mind that processes it is ass backwards but empiricists are forced into it because their methodology severs the subjective experience of things from the world in order to capture it in objective and quantifiable terms. Which is useful of course, our technology attests to that, but it's problematic to argue that's how things are in reality when what's real is what you see, feel, taste and hear in the world, not how you mathematically describe the phenomenon that gives rise to these sensations. Otherwise you're just going back to Platonism but with mathematics rather than the Forms.

[Anonymous No.18082032]

>>18081743
It was a poor attempt to lead OP up several levels of abstraction. If it is absurd to think that physical things came into being on their own because of the patterns we see in them, then what does it mean to consider our ability to see patterns; where does this come from? And then, further, what is logic that we are able to see it? If physical things must have some cause, what about immaterial things? What is the cause and source and meaning of Truth? How doe we even have such an idea.?

The hope was to incline OP to begin to see what is really meant by God.