/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18935037]

>miracles can't happen because... THEY JUST CAN'T OK???

[Anonymous No.18935069]

>>18935037
>miracle happens
>new law of physics is written to explain the miracle
>IT'S NOT A MIRACLE CHUD, IT'S SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.18935095]

>>18935037
Its been a second since I read, but I feel that Hume explicitly said somewhere that miricles are potentially legitement, just that in the enquiry, they they could not possibly be commited to experiential lieklyhood which we usually erroneously call "reality"

There was a whole section about looking at snow from inside the window of a house, and that without ever going outside, we would not know that it is cold.

Not saying Hume was at all religious, he very much seemed not to be, just that he did not deny outright the nature of a miricle.

[Anonymous No.18935102]

>>18935037
>Jesus resurrected because... HE JUST DID, OK?!?

[Anonymous No.18935111]

>>18935037
>miracles can't happen because... THEY JUST CAN'T OK???

[Anonymous No.18935114]

>>18935037
Why does this make you so angry Anon? Second time I've seen you make this exact thread. Have you never disagreed with a philosopher before or something?

[Anonymous No.18935128]

>>18935114
Because he's a materialist, but he also wants to legitimize a very low-IQ version of Christianity, and in order to do so he has to argue that God is a material phenomena. Hume upholding the traditional Christian view that miracles are just that, miraculous and unexplainable, prevents him from handwaving everything away as just atoms bumping around.

[Anonymous No.18935135]

>>18935128
The hell are you talking about? He wasn't Christian.

[Anonymous No.18935146]

>>18935128
you, did you remember this part from the reading?:>>18935095
I was sure it was a thing. He was very much agnostic rather than outright aitheist in the proper sense o f the term.

[Anonymous No.18935160]

>>18935128
He isn't a materialist you utter retard, he only talks about experience and basically brackets whether the experience represents external (material) objects or not. He even denies that experiential space is actually mathematical in the way a materialist would argue. Also he isn't a Christian, he is a pretty staunch Atheist. Have you read more than a sentence of him? Retard.

[Anonymous No.18935173]

>>18935128
He isn't a materialist you utter retard, he only talks about experience and basically brackets whether the experience represents external (material) objects or not. He even denies that experiential space is actually mathematical in the way a materialist would argue. Also he isn't a Christian in any sense. Have you read more than a sentence of him? Retard.

[Anonymous No.18935179]

>>18935128
>God enacting his will through material, explainable causes? How mundane and low IQ!

[Anonymous No.18935185]

>>18935037
wasn't the whole point of Hume that physical system laws are completely subject to being thrown out the window if one counter example is found, and thereby the weakness of induction and evidence based thought?

This quote must be taken out of context

[Anonymous No.18935209]

>>18935185
It is

[Anonymous No.18935211]

>>18935102
>be atheist
>try to deboonk miracles by saying they defy the natural world
>has his natural world changed by new discoveries anyways

>be theist
>don't pretend to fully understand the incomprehensible nature of God
>blessed with miracles from his Creator

[Anonymous No.18935246]

>>18935037
>still takes something completely wrong out of the quote he posted for the billionth time

[Anonymous No.18935322]

>the authorial intent and biographical information don’t matter BECAUSE THEY JUST DON’T, OKAY?

[Anonymous No.18935375]

>>18935211
Why would god necessarily be incomprehensible?

[Anonymous No.18935413]

>>18935375
His existence is independent of time and space and we only perceive a world dependent on space, matter, and time

[Anonymous No.18935418]

[Anonymous No.18935419]

>>18935413
How do you know? I though god was supposed to be incomprehensible?

[Anonymous No.18935478]

>>18935419
He had to exist when there was nothing. Simple as. Just because God cannot be fully understood doesn’t we can’t have a concept of God.

[Anonymous No.18935530]

>>18935478
>He had to exist when there was nothing.
You mean to say that he was compelled to exist? So much for his omnipotence.

>the incomprehensible nature of God
So much for his omniscience as well.

[Anonymous No.18935541]

>>18935418
kek. It really is sad how the atheist movement kind of petered out because it was more fun to smash the Protestant Fundamentalist strawman over and over rather than engage with Hume, Kant, Hegel and Heidegger

[Anonymous No.18935606]

for me, it's Louis Bertrand

[Anonymous No.18936276]

>>18935530
not him but obviously you're a gay faggot with low IQ. you can't argue for or against the existence of god with autistic logic chains without looking like a massive pseud. have sex, both of you

[Anonymous No.18936688]

>>18936276
Whose arguing about the existence of god, faggot? This is a literature board, right? Fucking read.

[Anonymous No.18936700]

>>18936688
reading comprehension of a chimp. you are completely gay. stop being so gay.

[Anonymous No.18936730]

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued convincingly that naturalism cannot even be rationally confirmed. For if naturalism were true, the probability that our cognitive abilities would be reliable is very low. For these abilities have been shaped by a process of natural selection that does not choose truth, but only survival. There are many ways in which an organism could survive if its beliefs were not true. Hence, if naturalism were true, we could have no confidence that our beliefs are true, including belief in naturalism itself. Thus, naturalism seems incapable of rational confirmation.

On the surface, naturalism seems to be a perfectly plausible, unproblematic view. What you see is what you get. Simple. But we see that naturalism is a controversial worldview that is difficult to articulate, much less defend. Plantinga argues that naturalism is self-defeating because if our cognitive faculties have evolved through naturalistic processes, their goal is not truth but survival, and so they cannot be relied upon to produce true beliefs. Since in materialism our mental states have absolutely no effect on our brain states, the content of our beliefs is irrelevant to our ability to survive. But if we cannot rely on our cognitive faculties to produce true beliefs, then the belief in naturalism is itself foolhardy because it was produced by those very cognitive faculties.

[Anonymous No.18936818]

>>18936730
>Plantinga argues that naturalism is self-defeating because if our cognitive faculties have evolved through naturalistic processes, their goal is not truth but survival, and so they cannot be relied upon to produce true beliefs.
Except survival entails accruing and processing a certain degree of reliable information about the world. And it is in fact true that humans are prone to ways of thinking and taking mental shortcuts that are useful for survival or socialisation but not for producing accurate pictures of the world (which seems to confirm the naturalist hypothesis).

[Anonymous No.18936825]

>>18936818
Also when I said confirm I didn’t mean prove (because I think it is quite correct to say that naturalism probably cannot be proved) but rather it adds credibility to the naturalistic picture of reality

[Anonymous No.18936845]

>>18935037
Why do you make this thread every week you subhuman piece of garbage

[Anonymous No.18936913]

>>18936700
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.18936990]

>existence of universe is unknown
>therefore the God of Israel who hates fags and sorcerers created it.

[Anonymous No.18937035]

>>18935069
>>18935211
No miracle has ever been proven and it never changed science
You are a seriously deluded christcuck if you think science is concerned about your stupid fairy tales

[Anonymous No.18937091]

>>18936730
>For these abilities have been shaped by a process of natural selection that does not choose truth, but only survival. There are many ways in which an organism could survive if its beliefs were not true.

But this is true irrespective of naturalism, so it really can't be used as an argument against naturalism. Even if you assumed that physicalism or scientific realism were true, that doesn't mean man's faculties of understanding aren't flawed for the same reasons.

This is literally why science in particular goes through peer review and many other forms of controlling for bias, and reliability tests. You can't really know if what you are observing is actually true or not, and unless you're an arrrogant idiot, you constantly hedge your bets.

[Anonymous No.18937274]

>>18935418
Lol religion

[Anonymous No.18937286]

>all powerful diety
>creates whole universe just to do magic tricks

[Anonymous No.18937475]

gaysex is a miracle since that's unatural

[Anonymous No.18937485]

>>18935211
>be theist
>openly brag about your mental illness and belief in spirits online and only
Marxists and Christians are some of the most mentally ill posters on 4chan I swear

[Anonymous No.18937490]

>>18937475
Plato was wrong since gay sex is abundant in nature. Stupid old queen trying to ruin the best thing about Ancient Greece using false arguments.

[Anonymous No.18937510]

>>18937490
that's not what nature means, you illiterate sophist. don't ever question Plato(pbuh) ever again.

[Anonymous No.18937515]

>>18937490
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucn2KzCDnOY

[Anonymous No.18937543]

>>18936818
So how do you know your confirmation itself isn't one of those mental shortcuts you've confirmed exist? It seems like a fair question. The problem with naturalists is that they'll always stop short of following their claims to the logical conclusion. You need a strong rational foundation for your epistemology so you can ground knowledge but the naturalist foundation is quicksand that seems solid at first but quickly liquefies when you start questioning it.

[Anonymous No.18937555]

>>18936990
>Every philosopher for the past 3000 years says God must exist as a basis for any rational view of the world
>Modern man says "just don't think about it bro, science might explain it someday"

[Anonymous No.18937568]

>>18935037
>your honor, my client is accused of murdering this girl on a bus
>but here I have 1000 witnesses who say that my client did not murder them on a bus
>I think the uniformity of experience will speak for itself

[Anonymous No.18937571]

>>18937543
>You need a strong rational foundation for your epistemology so you can ground knowledge
It’s unlikely any such thing exists. Just because you have a coherent theoretical “foundation” (God) doesn’t mean it actually corresponds to anything real. From the sceptical standpoint, we can’t have “knowledge” in the dogmatic sense of knowing something with certainty, but it’s probably fair to use the word “knowledge” colloquially to mean imperfect information garnered about the world with imperfect means, while appreciating the provisional nature of said knowledge.
>>18937555
>Every philosopher for the past 3000 years says God must exist as a basis for any rational view of the world
This is literally not true. Start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.18937573]

>>18935069
>>new law of physics is written to explain the miracle
No they're not. For a new law of physics to explain the miracle, someone should be able to reproduce the miracle. If you can readily reproduce the ""miracle"" in a laboratory, how can that be a miracle?

[Anonymous No.18937576]

>>18937510
>>18937515
Plato was not a Thomist or Aristotelian. He was using the crude common sense meaning of the word “natural”. He literally argues in the Laws that homosexuality was invented by human beings at a certain stage of civilisation.

[Anonymous No.18937704]

>>18935037
He's right, you know

[Anonymous No.18937765]

>>18937576
natural meant the same thing during plato's time. invented by humanoids is just another supporting argument for it not being natural.

[Anonymous No.18937789]

>>18937765
>natural meant the same thing during plato's time
Source?

[Anonymous No.18937800]

>>18937789
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%86%CF%8D%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82

[Anonymous No.18937808]

>>18937800
What exactly does this prove?

[Anonymous No.18937833]

>>18937808
that animals having gay sex is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.18937838]

>>18937833
Not really. Even in medieval and modern Europe when people talk about the “unnatural” sin they are not speaking as Thomists.

[Anonymous No.18937840]

>>18937490
animal homosexuality is caused by a lack if environmental pressures. thus why it was a thing in the greeks decedent period, and why it happened so often in the mice utopia and why the ancient germans hated it. sodom and Gomorra is truer than you think.

[Anonymous No.18937869]

>>18935418
Mental states are product of brain therefore ought is a product of is.
Here you go. I solved it.

[Anonymous No.18937871]

>>18937838
thomas stole his copied Aristotle and plato, Aristotle was a Platonist, that meaning was the common sense meaning during Plato's time.

[Anonymous No.18937893]

>>18937555
>Every philosopher for the past 3000 years says God must exist as a basis for any rational view of the world
They are talking about the God of Israel who hates nonvirgins and shrimp eaters, right?

[Anonymous No.18938031]

>>18937571
>This is literally not true. Start with the Greeks.
Lmao for example Aristotle?

[Anonymous No.18938040]

>>18937840
>animal homosexuality is caused by a lack if environmental pressures.
That doesn’t make any sense. If you mean homosexuality exists in animals because it is not being selected against by particular environmental pressures, then that is true of literally any characteristic any animal has, and I’m not sure what that is meant to say about homosexuality. Presumably you mean homosexuality is only seen in animal species whose coddled existence which allows them to develop certain flabby behaviours, which doesn’t seem to be true either. Look at all the species listed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
>thus why it was a thing in the greeks decedent period
Which period is the decadent period? There is pederastic poetry from the Greek Archaic Period (Theognis, Solon, Anacreon) all the way to the very tail end of antiquity. Even the “decadent” periods of Greek antiquity put the least “decadent” periods of Western modernity to shame, in terms of martial prowess, physical fitness, cultural vitality, civic activity, etc.
>and why it happened so often in the mice utopia
I wouldn’t be hasty in drawing anthropological conclusions from that experiment.
>and why the ancient germans hated it
Presumably not all the ancient Germans. Consider these sources.
>And they [Heruli] have intercourse contrary to the ends of divine nature..."
—Prokopios of Caesaria
The Heruli were the fiercest, deadliest and most troublesome of the ancient German tribes, remember. We get our word “harass” from them! Whether or not Prokopios is accurately reporting on the customs of the Heruli (whom he vehemently disliked), we can’t say. But it is about equal to the throwaway line in Tacitus.
It’s also ambiguous whether the passage by Tacitus in Germania in fact refers to homosexuals. Livy (22.22.7) uses the same phrase, ‘infame corpus’ to describe a deserter.
>>18937871
That is quite fallacious reasoning kek. Aristotle was not a Platonist, and the primary activity of philosophers consists in developing new and complicated definitions for everyday words (which was the basis of Wittgenstein’s main critique of philosophy).

[Anonymous No.18938088]

>>18938031
I mean like Xenophanes, Zeno, Anaximander, Leucippus, Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Critias, Epicurus, Diagoras, Pyrrho, Cicero, Sextus Empiricus, etc.