[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 13 KB, 220x326, 220px-Kierkegaard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2433017 No.2433017 [Reply] [Original]

Do you wish you could take the "leap of faith"? (believe in god despite all rational objection)

Every day I wish I could force myself to simply suspend disbelief.

Pic related - Kierkegaard advocated the leap.

>> No.2433021

YES! I am wondering if it can even be arrived at through an understanding of Kierkegaard's philosophy, because that is what seems to be promised, unless Soren was just tooting his own horn, which may be the case...I guess I don't understand the difference between the existential leap of faith and just general suspension of disbelief...would like some concrete answers.

>> No.2433024

Nah, that's for quitters.

Sage for tripfaggotry.

>> No.2433026

I'd rather attain experiential knowledge of Reality and be consumed and effaced by the fire of divine truth, OP.

>> No.2433030

Believing in God is not easy. Most people who claim they believe in god probably don't. I like to imagine what self proclaimed evangelical Christians would do if they were accosted by Jesus Christ and told to drop what they were doing and come with him. They would likely tell him to f*ck off just like the people in the stories of the bible. I personally recognize that fact and recognize that faith can only come from continuous affirmation.

>tl'dr; you can't just 'suspend disbelief'

>> No.2433043
File: 474 KB, 1000x746, 1329213112206.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2433043

>>2433017
>Every day I wish I could force myself to simply suspend disbelief.
I do that every time I read or watch a fiction. DOESN'T EVERYBODY?

To pretend there is only Cthulhu or any other fictional deity can happen, but its always something of a relief to come back to the real world.
I live a fuller life this way. They feel like real experiences... I can't be alone on this.

>> No.2433044

>>2433030
>continuous affirmation
like self affirmation?

>> No.2433049

I believe in Eros, Thanatos, Dionysus, and Ares.

>> No.2433053

>>2433021

I guess the only real difference is that a "leap of faith" is positive (i.e. you believe in a god and fully embrace the idea),
whereas a "suspension of disbelief" is a negative solution (i.e. you force yourself to ignore logical reasoning).

However, this is probably just semantic nonsense.

In my opinion a true "leap of faith" is a full-spirited embrace of a creator-god. It goes beyond agnosticism (which is simply witholding drawing a conclusion) and literally places faith in the supernatural.

I'm pretty sure I just said nothing of value..but I tried.

>> No.2433056
File: 58 KB, 548x599, 548px-Nietzsche187a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2433056

I believed in God at some point, but then he died. Then I realised humanity killed him.

Things only went down hill from there.

>> No.2433061

>>2433044
Like living out the principles of the religion. Like in Christianity, reading and living according to the way Jesus prescribed in every opportunity. Like having an opportunity to 'cast stone' at someone and not doing it.

>> No.2433063

I know what you mean OP. I really WANT to understand how someone can take something as complex as the god concept purely on faith. I really want to be convinced as to why having faith is important (aside from pascal's wager ie. you'll burn forever if you dont believe). No christian has ever really given me a good answer. Most just say something "It's up to you what you believe" or "You have to have faith first and then you will believe it." I mean if God was as concrete and real as they are saying, surely it wouldn't come down to what someone wants to believe, would it? What is the reason for having faith?

>> No.2433077

no not really

but i likes me some kierkeegard

>> No.2433084

tell me /lit/, IS there a teleological suspension of the ethical?

>> No.2433088

>>2433017
I love taking risks.

>> No.2433096
File: 39 KB, 310x390, dostoevsky310.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2433096

In his journal, Dostoevsky wrote what might be a neat argument if you want a reason to believe in god.

(I'm paraphrasing)
If there was no god then all men would kill themselves or die in despair.
Clearly this state of affairs would result in the end of the human race.
Therefore, god must exist otherwise we wouldn't be alive now.

Of course, like most arguments, this does ask you to accept some rather sketchy assumptions, and in the end it probably isn't of much value. But it did make me think, so I thought I'd include it in the thread.

>> No.2433097

>>2433084

part of me yells COPOUT! another part senses it is somehow correct, or could be applied differently in other contexts.

>> No.2433098

>>2433063

If you're asking for reasons you've already missed the point.

God is something experienced. Has absolutely zero to do with rationality.

Western religion has created a good deal of atheism because it attempts to address God in a rational manner (Catholicism/protestantism).

In the east (i.e. orthodox christianity etc) God is something experienced/known through the intuitive faculty of human perception: the heart or nous.

It's about intuition. Nothing to do with reason.

>> No.2433109

>>2433096

Someone clearly doesn't get Dostoevsky.

He's an orthodox christian. For eastern religions God has nothing to do with reason.

The heart (the intuitive faculty) experiences God. The head (rationality/intellect etc) cannot understand or know God.

The minute you start arguing rationally about the existence of God, you've already missed the whole point.

God is beyond being itself. God is beyond affirmation or negation. Trying to assess God in a rational manner is doomed from the outset to fail.

>> No.2433116

>>2433109

I'm not saying that that was HIS reason for believing in god - I'm well aware he was a hardcore christian (as if you couldn't tell by the way he rams it down your throat) - I was just pointing out that that was one argument he wrote down in his journal that intrigued me.

>> No.2433119

>>2433109
explain people who have had divine experiences....

>> No.2433120

>>2433017
>spoiler: Kierkegaard didn't actually believe in faith, he just perpetually tried to make himself believe

>> No.2433123

I already have.

Damn it feels good being a believer.

>> No.2433124

>>2433119


>explain people who interpret their experiences as being caused by a divine source

poor reasoning, nothing else.

>> No.2433129

>>2433098
You do believe God to be an objective truth and not some subjective emotion, right? If not then I would have to agree that God exists. It exists in the minds (in you words heart) of the men who believe in him. But unfortunately, this God we are talking about would exist along side every other fictional character that exists in the heart and minds of the people who created and perpatuate their existence.

>> No.2433131

Do you believe in reality despite all rational objection?

Is that not an analogous leap of faith?

>> No.2433135
File: 127 KB, 539x450, spinoza_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2433135

Sup fags. Your boi Spin here. Just throwing it out there that non believers have a conceptual problem identical to the Parmenides type. Go ahead and read my book called "Ethics". It's out now. You can catch up to the rest of western civilization and we can all get to doing other shit.

Recommend reading my nigga Des first. Burned his ass on matter like it's no matter.

>> No.2433137

>>2433129
And ONLY in their hearts and minds...

>> No.2433138

>>2433119

Drugs, dreams, delusions (just ask Joan of Arc).

There are any number of explanations for "divine experiences".

I'm surprised anyone would even mention that as some form of objective evidence. You must be female.

>> No.2433148

>>2433138
Not objective evidence of God's existence but as rebuttal to "God is beyond being itself"
In other words, you are full of shit.

>> No.2433151
File: 76 KB, 800x1001, Dj Des.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2433151

>>2433135
Son, I AM modern philosophy. All the shit you know wouldn't even be known if i didn't get that root thought.

We cool though. I know we bros and shit son. We gotta stick together. Stop the passions!

>> No.2433154

>>2433138
The God Helmet.

>> No.2433157

While we're on this topic what is the best Kierkegaard read out of everthing he wrote?

>> No.2433163

>>2433096

I can't begin to image what the fuck it made you think for.

It is an absolutely retarded argument. It honestly doesn't make much sense at all. How does he come to the conclusion that "all men would kill themselves or die in despair"?

>> No.2433167

>>2433157
He wrote too much. You can't recommend one work.

He has like 40 works, and then 4 tomes of his journals. It really depends on what stage you are with philosophy. I'm with Either/Or or Fear and Trembling.

>> No.2433183

>>2433129

>>2433129

The mind and heart are two different things.

And the heart (in the east) is not the seat of emotion as it is in the west.

Emotions are only physical/sensation reactions to thoughts that originate in the mind.

The heart (intuition/nous) represents a deeper perceptive faculty that (in orthodox theology) can experience existence and God directly--without filtering it all through thought and language (abstractions).

God is not a character. Western christianity seems to cast Him as such. In mystic theology God is indescribable in language because any language ascribed to Him would necessarily limit Him.

Even Heidegger saw God as beyond being itself. God is beyond rationality by nature: He is neither this nor that/neither affirmed nor negated.

The west is so comfortably atheistic because western christianity is so stupid. Stupid not because it maintains that God exists--but because it attempts to engage God in a rational way. And reason will always defeat a God founded on reason.

>> No.2433192

>>2433183

This guy right here. This guy is a bro.

>> No.2433193

Kierkegaard had changed my life a little for the better, but basically he has convinced me that faith is an evil.

If Abraham is our hero, if we praise leaps of faith, how do we criticize suicide bombers?

I suppose denying god's existence helps a bit... but still....

>> No.2433201

>>2433192

Samefagging

Heathen Eastern tactics.

>> No.2433210

>>2433183
Thank you for the insight. I can start to see where you are coming from but at the same time I am as confused as ever. So if I wanted to experience this God, where would I start? What would I have to do? I'm trying to take a leap of faith here.

>> No.2433216

>>2433017
Do you wish you could take the "leap of faith"? (believe in a giant pink lizard that lives inside the sun and controls the price of eggnog in Walla Walla despite all rational objection)

Every day I wish I could force myself to simply suspend disbelief.

>> No.2433223

>>2433193
>how do we criticize suicide bombers?

I don't criticize suicide bombers. I'm at peace with them and if they have a problem then it is their problem. They are not wrong to exist for they exist. Everything that exists is rational because it is. It's really whether we fear dieing or not or whether someone we hold dearly will be hurt or killed that we start to dwell. "How is this just?"

It isn't for us to tell ourselves but that doesn't really say anything. We hold notions of justice and morality through warped perception. Someone has done something, from something or other, because of everything. We like to think that Someone has done something, we are not involved because that something it someones but not ours. Through time, notions of justice, morals, religions and such have simply bent us to their will because we let them.

Simply put = You do not criticize bombers but something else does it for you through it's will.

>> No.2433251

>>2433223

lol no. you apologist. i don't even....

>> No.2433256

>>2433251

What?

>> No.2433264

>>2433210

Well In Orthodox teaching one of the many reasons we can't tap into the heart is because the random thoughts (known as logismoi) that enter the mind distract us.

These logismoi generally have to do with either the future or the past: everything from regret about something in the past to what you're going to have to eat for dinner.

The mind focuses on the past and future because the past and future are really little more than abstractions--abstractions that can easily be manipulated or played with.

And by living in our thoughts we force ourselves to live in the past or future--and to forget completely about the present moment. The mind has difficulty dealing with the present moment because it has yet to become an abstraction that can be dominated/put in categories/measured etc.

Unfortunately it is impossible to meet anyone in the past or future. We can only meet another person or God in the present moment.

What's necessary then is to clear the mind of thoughts--so that we can listen/fee/tap into the heart, intuition.

This is where meditation/chanting comes in: to help us block the logismoi and tap into our intuition.

There's a lot more to it but that's the very basic idea. Just one interesting eway of looking at it. Take it or leave it.

>> No.2433268

>>2433223
So what is ought, right?

>> No.2433272

>>2433223

Your pseudo-intellectual rhetoric melts away when somebody causes you serious physical pain and you scream for it to stop. No matter how "right" you may be about any of that that you just posted, you're still a human and your opinion has no real value in a world that values human life to the degree that it does.

>> No.2433304

>>2433264
Interesting. Seems very psychological.

Ok so, even with my current materialist worldview I can see that meditation and repetitive chanting have a psychological effect. Is there anything about God that goes beyond meditation and individual experience?

>> No.2433313

>>2433272

>you're still a human and your opinion has no real value in a world

The world doesn't value you or me as it pertains to pain. That is our problem. You value yourself and i value myself in respect to pain. We don't value ourselves in respect to the worth of our lives. That's already predetermined whether we like it or not. Not by the world or by society as you have implied in your use of the term world. If you used it differently as to implicate the entire universe then i shall regret to inform you that we are the slaves here and not the masters. Whether we entertain ourselves with the notion that we can still value ourselves without assuming societies value of us would be posing danger to us.We cannot live properly and safely in that society. We refuse to because of our "right". We start to cause pain to ourselves.

What difference is it then if I'm a homeless bum starving to death or you're cutting my heart out? The difference is that in the former, I'm willing-fully killing myself. In the latter, you're killing me. Are you wrong? I have no such opportunity to say if we are outside of society. If i'm in your society then you are wrong. You are a cretin. If I'm outside of your world then I'm properly fucked. You already have your own world and your own value. The only thing i can do is kill you instead if i can. If we switch the situation and it's me fucking you then you are fucked. You don't belong in my "world" then?

My pseudo rhetoric doesn't assume "right". There is no right. The whole point of it is to show that none of us are right except for when it deals with ourselves. We decide it. Can we decide it is another story. Thanks for missing the entire point and being frigid.

>> No.2433342

>>2433313

>Thanks for missing the entire point and being frigid.

I didn't miss it. It was a bad point. You missed my point. Either way, be prepared, for as long as you carry the burden of this sort of objectivity, to never pass a judgment on somebody else. It'll be a fun experience, pretending as though you're more distant to humanity than you actually are. Good day to you.

>> No.2433347

>>2433342
>to never pass a judgment on somebody else

Nothing obstructs me from doing that. It's just that my judgement isn't objective. It's very important to know that.

>for as long as you carry the burden of this sort of objectivity

Oh wait, you did miss it.

>> No.2433349

I prescribe for you a healthy dose of mescaline or psilocybin magic mushrooms.

>> No.2433355

I considered converting to Islam even though I don't believe in god... I just wanted guidance really... break some bad habits along the way.

>> No.2433381

>>2433256

i think it's horrific that people want to fly planes into buildings or put people into gas chambers.

i think it's horrific that those people passionately believe that what they are doing is right.

i think it's horrific that Kierkegaard praises people like that, and that anyone who is religious tacitly does as well.

i think it's horrific that you want to defend those people.

>> No.2433390

I do... but at the same time I don't believe that any of the existing religions have painted a nearly-adequate picture of what an omnipotent, omnipresent being would actually do/think/say, if those terms can be applied to it at all. So I want to believe in God but I have no idea what He is like.

>> No.2433393

>>2433381
But its OK to be an atheist and drop bombs on villages? Religion just shapes human cruelty into its own system. So called rationalism does this too.

>> No.2433395

>>2433390

exactly, you want it. Kierkegaard helps you just accept what you want to think anyways.

so, what do with terrorists and Nazis? they also want to believe that stuff. they dunno if it always makes sense, but they wanna believe.

>> No.2433397

>>2433393

strong changing the subject.

"yeah but" isn't addressing the question. it's avoiding it.

>> No.2433429

>>2433397 The point being made is that these acts of violence are products of human nature, not necessarily religion. Also, Christianity, Islam, and other faiths should be evaluated strictly on the merits of its ideology, not what some corrupted psuedo-followers turn it into.

>> No.2433435

>>2433429

no, Kierkegaard defends faith. particularly religious faith. thus, it is a matter of religion.

if you wish to extend the problem, good for you. yes, people are irrational. yes, people want to believe what they want to believe.

given that religion is necessarily based on faith, that should make it absolutely worse than other ideologies. but, yes, in general ideology is based on faith. it is also garbage.

happy? faith is not a good. particularly the kind that Kierkegaard defends.

>> No.2433441

I wish. My life would be so much more comfortable. I wouldn't be so worried about what to do in the future. I'd just pray.

>> No.2433491

Sometimes yeah, but not as much as I used to. It would be very comfortable to be able to believe. But then I guess if you're comfortable in your belief, you are doing it wrong.

I would say there is a pretty big difference between suspension of disbelief and a leap of faith.

Anyone can suspend disbelief at any time, it doesn't require any thinking or introspection or any existential choices, most humans suspend disbelief almost automatically. Suspending disbelief is like walking through the rain and hanging up your coat when you get inside.

The Leap of Faith that kierkegaard talks about comes after you have doubted, after you have understood within yourself who you are and why, after you have developed your ethics and feel that you are at peace with yourself in the world without god - but doubt and anxiety keeps coming to you. You cannot rationalize belief in god, so you will have to take the leap at 70,000 fathoms of water. There is no way you can swim to sore or put your feet on the bottom of the sea, there is nothing to do but have faith.

I think it's important to point out that Kierkegaard was rebelling against religious institutions and systems very strongly, and to him the religious was an entirely personal thing, that each man would have to arrive to by himself. There was nothing Kierkegaard despised as much as the regular sunday-church-going "philistine".

Someone in the thread mentioned suicide-bombers, and I don't think Kierkegaard would defend them at all, in any way. The religious is an individual, personal thing, which concerns you and your internal life. Killing yourself and other people in the name of your faith, spurred on by some priests of your faith, and maybe feelings of vengeance, is anything but religious in Kierkegaards view.

>> No.2433492

>>2433397
>strong

misc brah?

>> No.2433579

>wish you could take the "leap of faith"?
>Every day I wish I could force myself to simply suspend disbelief
Not the same thing at all.

>> No.2433614

I actually remember feeling this way, at the peak of my first major existential crisis. I really really wished I could be as deluded as him. It actually made the angst worse, because I felt like he was in the same position I am, but cheated his way out of it, using a method not available to me.

..And Nietzsche went batshit insane. And Sartre went batshit insane Marxist. And Camus went unjustifiably altruist-fatalist.

>> No.2433638

It's not the leap that counts, it's the fall.

>> No.2433944

>>2433492

sup yo. you aware?


>>2433491

how could Kierkegaard not defend suicide bombers? he says a passionate pagan is closer to god than a non-passionate christian.

he also says that Abraham, a man prepared to murder his son for god, is the father of faith.

if i feel strongly and passionately compelled to kill in the name of god, there is reason to think (i) i am being passionate, and am therefore closer to god than the average, non-passionate christian, (ii) there is already precedent from the bible and Kierkegaard that god might ask me to kill innocents as a test, and i have to passionately give myself over and go with it, whatever my reservations.

>> No.2433949

No. God has no place in my view of the world, and I can't forcibly create one.

>> No.2433979

The argument isn't so much as whether they are justified in gods eyes. It's how we justify one thing in our social order but refuse another. Our soldiers are fine for us and though we can criticize them as fools and brutalist monkeys. We have that leisure granted to us. When soldiers go and exterminate villages in some country. We can be compelled to speak out agianst it.

When a suicide bomber blows himself away and kills 13 other people. We rarely question our judgement because our judgement will most likely rely on what our social order thinks. If it's a christian suicide bomber killing 13 Muslims then one side will incur a benefit and another will think of it as wrong. It's all a situation game. There is no such thing as justification with situation.

That being said, none of that has to do with leap of faith. Those people do not take the leap of faith. They rather never doubted in the first place. Leap of faith is when you have doubted it all and evaluated yourself. You know exactly what it is you believe and go for it.

>> No.2433985

>>2433949
No one asks you for permission to create one. It's there and you either believe it or not. Religion teaches you that if you don't believe then you're damned but it's simply your choice to make as any other.

>> No.2433994

I want to clarify something some people have missed:

leap of faith =/= suspending disbelief

wishing you could take a leap of faith = suspending disbelief

A leap of faith is having faith that B follows A

Suspending disbelief entails willing B to follow A

>> No.2434051

To what religion then?

The question itself is meaningless.

>> No.2434058

>>2433017

Sometimes I do. Other times I proudly stumble on like Sisyphus.

Apart from that I find that I become quite nervous at the thought of there being a God that tells me that I can't do certain things.

>> No.2434067

The point of gaining knowledge is to live with as few illusions and delusions as possible. Wishing you were able to believe without evidence is wishing to destroy your rational faculties. It's wishing to be slave to your own ignorance. Only the weak and fearful wish they could believe.

>> No.2434071

>>2434067
That implies wanting to escape depression is weak.

>> No.2434073

I experience faith on an emotional level despite never having been aligned with a church or religion.

All of the pleasant sensation with none of the shittiness

>> No.2434091

>>2434067
>implying gaining knowledge is the goal of life

>> No.2434098

It still amazes me how people from the west (who haven't been indoctrinated, and have a vast library of all kinds of sciences, still manage to believe in god. I am disgusted when my peers refuse to accept evolution, and ends discussions abut religion with "How can you explain people being resurrected from death then?"

>> No.2434103

>>2434098

Why would being a theist necessarily imply being a hardline conservative Christian creationist?

>> No.2434116

>>2434103
I did not imply that at all.
But I also said my peers - I don't spend much time with muslims, buddhists, or anyone from any other major religion.

>> No.2434154

>>2434098

Well, I'm an agnostic theist and think that science is the ultimate divine pursuit.

What now?

>> No.2434169

>>2434071
Except that depression is a mental disorder. It can be precipitated by external events, but wanting to escape it wouldn't change those events. If i'm in a terrible predicament, changing my brain chemistry might make me happier but wouldn't really change anything.

>> No.2434181

>>2434154
Believing in god is still a logic fallacy, no matter how "pro-science" you may be.

>> No.2434182

Student: “I think so. Yes, I’d like to live a beautiful life.”
Me (Dr. Beck): “Okay. So what kind of life to you think is beautiful? What is your aesthetic?”
Student: “What do you mean ‘my aesthetic’?”
Me (Dr. Beck): “Judgments of beauty require an aesthetic, some criterion which separates the ugly from the beautiful. So if you want to live a beautiful life you need some way of defining beauty. Here’s a way to find your aesthetic, ask yourself these questions. Who, living or dead, do you admire the most? What moves you to tears? What shakes your soul? When you get answers to these questions you’ll start to see the shape of your aesthetic, what you consider to be a beautiful life.”
Student: “Okay, but what does this have to do with Christianity?”
Me (Dr. Beck): “I’m a Christian because Jesus of Nazareth is my aesthetic. He’s how I define a beautiful life. I’ve noticed in my heart that every time a human action moved my soul or brought tears to my eyes that action reminded me of Jesus. And so, because I want to live a beautiful life, I follow Jesus.”

>> No.2434184

>>2434181
It's not. By that measure logic or being "pro-science" are also logical fallacies.

>> No.2434188

>>2434169
The point was to play on "ignorance is bliss" - whereas knowledge often may bring the opposite.

>> No.2434191

>>2434184
Nigger, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

>> No.2434196

>>2434191
>have good understanding of logic
>have some neckbeard post wikipedia links to you so they can feel smug
Feels unusual man.

>> No.2434220

>>2434196
Please, do explain how believing in the concept of a "god" isn't a flaw in s person's logic.

>> No.2434227

>>2434220
First prove that belief in logic isn't illogical.

>> No.2434252

>>2434220
Not believing is a flaw in reason if you want to call it a flaw. You actually induced a logical fallacy when you implied that logic was empirical.

>> No.2434274

>>2434220
>Forgetting that logic is susceptible to revision
>Ruining a relatively good thread

>> No.2434288

>>2434252
No, the concept of god is not a logical flaw just simply because it is not based on empirical evidence, but I asked you to explain why it isnt - but you don't seem to want to answer that.

"Logic is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning."

How do you explain the concept of a god to, per today, fit within these principles?

>>2434227
Where did you get "belief in logic" from?

>> No.2434289
File: 215 KB, 1897x1198, fake3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2434289

I didn't read the thread, because I don't bother much on this subject.

But from what I take "wanting to believe" (or wanting not to), is a sign that you are split in half, that there are two contraditory forces within yourself. Either your rational mind can't cope with it, but your emotional self desires that. Or for instance, you are comparing your happiness to others and you want that, so you associate that happiness with their belief, thinking that's what it takes, etc. Point is, there is some part of you that wants to be someone else and part of you that is stopping.

To resolve that and find one's satisfaction (which can be an emotional joy, a peace of mind that comes from a coherent reasonable vision of the world, anyway, something that fits in your head neatly) all it takes is to discover, what is that you want about it and what is that is stopping you. So it could be that what one wants it's not really what one wants, it could be a misconception, an emotional imbalance, or a illogical mess (like the bet of Pascal) and so on. Or maybe, you do believe, but you have other beliefs that contradict that and you need to get them out of your way, so for instance, your cultural background might be against that belief and you'll have to fight inside your head to say "okay, nevermind what people will say, I really do believe in that".

cont

>> No.2434294
File: 67 KB, 539x720, 1322507115006.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2434294

>>2434289 cont

I don't think it's possible to "want to believe" without that conflicting nature. You either believe it or you don't. If a religion is not working for you, there is no use to pray for more faith. If a certain religious belief attracts you, you are already believing in it in some way.

Some people work around it, they ignore what is inconvenient, they accept what is convenient, sometimes they take it literal, sometimes they take it in a metaphoric way, one moment they are rational and logical, the other they are emotional, or religious or scientific or apathetic, gnostic or agnostic. They float in between all that and they don't mind. Their conflict is not inside themselves, they are satisfied, but they may encounter some conflict when dealing with others, for their flexible moral or their inconsistent approach won't please everyone else. I trust that people are not liars or charlatans, but divided and contraditory, even when everything is just okay, apparently.

cont

>> No.2434296
File: 237 KB, 1600x1200, 1327367503203.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2434296

>>2434294 cont

I assume we are not here for these exits though, they are easy, you simply believe what you want to believe. But it is a misconception that "believing what you want to believe" can only be achieved by ignorance, because ultimately: that's all there is. So instead of believing what one wants to believe by the easiest route, you investigate the "want" and the "belief", you find their sources, you aknowledge the excuses, the social constructs, the political implications, you become aware of that divided self. So the satisfaction (rational as well as emotional or "spiritual", whatever you name it) end up coming from the knowledge and the awareness of one's own head and how it works. You are at ease with your excuses because you know they are just that, excuses and not the truth (you won't claim to be the truth).

I think that the term "leap of faith" makes a lot of sense, because you can't make half a leap, you either leap or you don't and being stuck on the ground wanting to leap won't get you nowhere. And we are already doing constant leaps of faiths, assuming and accepting things we are not sure about and that's what keeps things spinning. If we were to take nothing but the truth seriously, we won't take anything seriously. So instead of competing over who makes the most beautiful leap, one should just hop around and remember that you'll too come back to the ground in the future and then you'll need to make another leap in order to keep moving.

>> No.2434304

Soren just saw through Aquinas' proofs and still couldn't let go.

There is no leap and there is no conscious decision to reject faith. There is only the subject being swept along by the cultural tide.

>> No.2434305

>>2434288
>Where did you get "belief in logic" from?
I'm going easy on you, also I don't want to see an idiot try to demonstrate the logical basis for logic.

>> No.2434318

>>2434288
>How do you explain the concept of a god to, per today, fit within these principles?

The question is how do these principles fit in with god and not the other way around. Logic is simply built on observation and testing. Observation and testing is built on what? Perception. No matter how much you want to objectify god. You are not the objective view point so it would never work.

You said the concept of god which marks a key point because any problem people have with god is them having a problem with their own conception of him.

>> No.2434331

>>2434305
I must have misunderstood you, did you mean _belief_ in terms of logic, of did you for mean believing in logic?

Seeing as you're the self-proclaimed patrician, I asked you to explain it, which you didn't.

>> No.2434340

I wish more people approached their faith like Kierkegaard. At least then it would be an endearing personal affectation. Everyone loves Soren's writings but no one will seriously take them to heart because you can't establish law, justify doctrine, or manipulate a congregation by his teachings. Of course, if people knew better they'd realise that the way church currently justifies it's ideology is logically incoherent. So effectively you have two ways of approach faith from Aquinas or Kierkegaard. Both are absurd but one of them disguises its incoherence behind institutional practice and a multitude of fallacies, jumping between them so never having to confront or respond.

>> No.2434357

>>2434288
You run into the Duhem–Quine problem when relating logic to god. It's absurd because you change the subject of the proposition and then all propositions would have to change. Logic is dependent on certain conditions and sources. It isn't a universal fact but a way of deducing from observation. Not all observation is fact but rather just observation.

>> No.2434361

>>2434331
As originally stated, belief in logic you pleb.

>> No.2434367

>>2434361
Is 'pleb' seriously a word now?
That's so deliciously conceited I just came a little in my pants

>> No.2434371

>>2434367
Pleb has been a word for the entirety of living memory.

>> No.2434374

>>2434318
No, "god" is nothing more than an idea, and one can very well ask how that idea fits within the basis of logic.

"Logic is simply built on observation and testing"
And where does it break away from empiri, for the gap to be enough to create a fallacy when put together?

People have a problem with god because he doesn't fit with our methods of science.

>> No.2434378

>>2434371
I do believe the expression is

Hahahah oh wow

>> No.2434381

>>2434220
It is illogical to not believe in a prime mover.

>> No.2434382

"belief in logic" is ambiguous, and have several meanings

>> No.2434388

>>2434382
Like the concept of God.

>> No.2434394

>>2434381
I think god is a projected objectivity. We see the universe and we assume something must move it all and see it all, instead of assuming this "all" cannot be moved from something that is outside of it, for something that is outside of it can only be an extension or an expansion of this all. So we create this notion that enclosures things from the outside so we don't have to deal with the awful idea that the "all" cannot be grasped in its entirety and that point of views exist.

>> No.2434415

>>2434374
It's that you think god does not fit within methods of science. Don't speak for the entire scientific community only to uphold your close minded ontology of the world.

How about the concept that god is everything? Every single thing seen or unseen, being and un being in past, present, future and all time is god. It has nothing to do with being outside. IT and all of IT is god.

>> No.2434420

Why does it matter if there is a God or not?

This is so retarded :/

>> No.2434429

>>2434415
Why the fuck do you think I posted those 3 links in the second post?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

>> No.2434434

>>2434388
yes, but at some point, that concept will ask you to break the principles of logic. And now I ask you to explain why it doesn't, because none of you have answered that yet.

>> No.2434473

>>2434429
You seem to be going around in circles. No one cares about the links you posted. They don't tell me anything.If you want to back up your point then quote the parts which you want me to provide rebuttal for or discuss. Still, you say nothing but keep posing the questions over and over again. You fail to take into consideration that all of logic is fucking OBSERVATION BASED. Your observations are not proven FACT because the scientific method is only useful in a scientific setting to study and confirm a hypothesis in closed conditions. These hypothesis were born from observation on a fixed human perspective(Quine Problem). Logic follows the same rules and to allow any outside sources in would make logic impossible. Science is meant to bend and weave. It's not a dogmatism. No where in science was god disproved. No one ever made such a claim and such a claim is preposterous in itself as to claim humans are gods themselves to know of such a thing. Any problems you have with god are merely your problems with yourself, as in your own conception of god being rejected by your idealistic view point on what god should be based on SOME LOGIC.

Get your head out of your ass and read some fucking books. Most of the enlightenment thinkers who accepted the scientific method believed in god because through rational reasoning and questioning. We could conclude that some form of god exists. They were agianst religion, but not agianst god.

>> No.2434483
File: 107 KB, 499x511, history.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2434483

>/lit/ thinks they can solve God on 4chan
Guys, the best rhetoric for solving religious debates is cold steel. Proven by history, again and again.

>> No.2434499
File: 16 KB, 232x249, 1330091369928.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2434499

>>2434483
>implying my computer is not made of cold steel
>implying I won't shove your computer up your ass if you don't admit you are wrong

>> No.2434500

>>2434473
Did you even read my first post you pretentious cunt? I said believing in the concept of god is a flaw in one's LOGIC. And was it you that stated logic isn't empirical?

And what, articles on logic, the basics of our scientific method and fallacies doesn't tell you anything?

"Most of the enlightenment thinkers who accepted the scientific method believed in god because through rational reasoning and questioning."

At what point in history did they live? Few of our greatest biologists and physicists believe in god today.

>> No.2434506
File: 10 KB, 218x231, 1330178334535.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2434506

pic related

I wish I could make that kind of leap, there's just something holding me back. Shame in some ways.

>> No.2434533

>>2434500
>Few of our greatest biologists and physicists believe in god today.

Most are fools who don't exercise reason. Popularity isn't a mark of truth.

>I said believing in the concept of god is a flaw in one's LOGIC. And was it you that stated logic isn't empirical?

And i rebutted with the sentiment that not believing in the concept of god is a flaw in one's logic. I still haven't exactly seen why I'm wrong. As it pertains to whether logic is empirical. I meant that logic is empirical but empiricism is a faulty method of reasoning.

>> No.2434569

>>2434533
" I meant that logic is empirical but empiricism is a faulty method of reasoning."

But that doesn't matter, I asked if believing in god was a flaw in logic - as logic is defined in the WikiP. article.

"Most are fools who don't exercise reason. Popularity isn't a mark of truth."

Right, great of you to scratch them all as fools.
I said believing in god is a flaw because it doesn't fit in with empiricism, the scientific method we have developed, and thus the principles of logic.

When you answer "believing in the concept of god is a flaw in one's logic" - I expect you to explain why.

>> No.2434574

>>2434499
>implying I don't want Clinton back as Pressie.

>> No.2434625
File: 121 KB, 797x523, 1330027597214.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2434625

How do you survive existential nihilism?
I just don't care about anything, anyone.
I don't even care about me.
It kills motivation.
I'm without goal.
Waiting to die.

>> No.2434629

>>2434625
With that anime picture, I have nothing to say, you probably deserve whatever suffering you are going through.

>> No.2434656

>>2434569
>When you answer "believing in the concept of god is a flaw in one's logic" - I expect you to explain why.

You proposed that. I proposed not believing is a flaw. I'll give it a shot though.

1. Following Parmenides' reasoning, Nothingness/Nothing does not exist.
2. If nothingness is an impossibility then something exists.
3. Our perception is fixed.
4. To imply that we can know everything would imply that we have an objective view on the universe and everything. It would imply being beyond everything. We only know something.
5. Something is part of everything.
6. Everything is god. We are everything as is every-thing meaning we are part of god.
7. If everything was not god then it would be nothing. Anything that isn't god doesn't exist.
8. Changing the subject to say "man" instead of god would only change the subject name. It would not change the proposition.
9. Referring back to our perception. All that we know of reality is based on cognition.
10. Our observations of cognition are not proven fact but are rather subjective to certain phenomena.
11. One cannot substitute his observations of cognition to be the fact of the cognitive universe.
12. Through Socratic Paradox, we can rule out the prospect of knowing nothing on an epistemological bases.
13. We can therefore know that something is but we cannot know what everything is.
14. Since we can know something, it is in that nothing is a fallacy and that reality is.
15. If nothing is impossible then everything which exists is being as it is part of everything. Something is everything.
15. Since everything is and everything is god. God exists.

>> No.2434665

>>2434656
>6. Everything is god

are you defining god as being everything?

you do that stripping terms of exclusionary clauses renders them meaningless don't you

>> No.2434669

>>2434665
Can you perhaps rewrite that. I can't decipher it.

>> No.2434682

>>2434669
sorry, i forgot a verb

>you do know that stripping terms of exclusionary clauses renders them meaningless don't you

>> No.2434709

>>2433163
Maybe today they wouldn't but im pretty sure religion worked wonders in uniting people in ancient times.

a pleb would not understand

>> No.2434710

>>2434656
That's different than the judeo-christian God.

If you say that everything is God, you're simply saying that everything exists, not that an omnipotent, omniscient being does.

>> No.2434715

>>2434710
>judeo-christian

fuck off you dirty kike

>> No.2434721
File: 18 KB, 443x470, 1315228653060.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2434721

>>2434656
Everything is faggotry.
Everything exists.
So faggotry exists.

>> No.2434729

>>2434682
In number 6, change god to existing.

6.Everything is existing. We are everything as is every-thing meaning we are existing.

>> No.2434742

>>2434710

Who ever said i was judeo-christian?

>> No.2434762

>People ascribing "leaps of faith" to Kierkegaard when he never used the phrase
>People acting as if Kierkegaard was an irrationalist
>People taking Kierkegaard's views to be identical to Johannes de Silentio's views
>Even taking Fear and Trembling at face value period given the opening epigraph

Holy shit people come ON

>> No.2434833

lol kierkegaards "leap of faith" wasnt really about god, but about existential philosophy and the absurd. however, its nothing but an escapisc and i condemn it to the highest degree as it really is nothing but weakness.

>> No.2434839

>>2434833
escapism

>> No.2434852

>>2434625
you are now facing a decision. if you are weak-minded you will fall into some sort of escapism like kierkegaard did, and like sartre did. the alternative is to give up on all concepts of "meaning" and "value" and to fully embrace nihilism. read the late nietzsche, camus and dostojewskys "demons".

>> No.2434855

kierkegaard means "church yard" in danish. he lived in a church yard. this basically sums up what sort of biases he had going into philosophy. there are few people as self-deluded as he.
he was quite the anti-philosopher and was merely searching for someway to justify irrational beliefs. it didn't work out to well if you ask me.

>> No.2434859

and why the fuck cant all these pantheists just shut the fuck up when were talking about kierkegaard? yeah spinoza is a cool guy, he has built a wonderfully coherent system but IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS FUCKING SUBJECT

>> No.2434870

>>2434859

The topic turned to such that god was discussed.

>> No.2434953

>>2434296

May be reviving a dead thread here, but I'd just like to say that your last paragraph there was really beautiful.

>> No.2435099

So much anger here.

Kierkegaard argues for passionate faith, which involves accepting that god is impossible to understand. This means that our faith is offensive to reason, and that we can suspend ethical behavior for that faith. He explicitly accepts both of these points.

That is some scary shit. If god exists, then everything is permitted.

In my opinion, this gives us good reason to distrust religion, to distrust faith, and to deny that god's existence, religion or faith are goods.

(Note, we have no reason to believe in god in the first place. We need faith to get god, and that is offensive to reason. Even Kierkegaard describes this as "embracing the absurd". I don't think rational people would ever do this.)

>> No.2435116

>>2435099
oooh the irony of him saying so when he is actually running away from the absurd, escaping into irrationality.

>> No.2435416

>>2434656
There should've been a "not" in that quote, as it was copied from your text.

1: We're talking about logic as defined today, the method of reasoning from pre-socratic philosophers is of no use - the nature of "is" and "what-is" is also not particularly well suited when it comes to religion, and if you wish to explain god trough classical logic, at least try to make it in seperate "lists", yours is messy as hell.

3: that implies we can't use tools to discover the true value of objects, unless you wish to include subjects that go beyond empiri - whereas your definition of logic has no place.

Nor would it imply we need to be "beyond everything".

9: No, that would limit us to a narrow spectrum of input, we have "objective", or "true" tools to recieve a larger amount of imput.

10: What, evo-spych. and bio-spych. is just all BS?

11: That, again, implies the "cognitive universe" to stretch beyond the world of observation and empirical data, where, as you said in earlier posts, logic does not fit in - "all of logic is fucking OBSERVATION BASED"

I don't know if I'm answering several people, as you seem to have a very ambiguous idea of what logic is based on, and where it can be applied.

>> No.2435442

>>2435116

because if religion doesn't make sense you just stop thinking about it and accept it anyways?

damn the bastard and his pseudonyms.

>> No.2435489

>>2435099
>This means that our faith is offensive to reason, and that we can suspend ethical behavior for that faith. He explicitly accepts both of these points.

Holy fucking shit how stupid are you?

He does the exact fucking opposite of explicitly accept both of these parts. Certainly never the latter. Why?

Because he wrote Fear and Trembling under a fucking pseudonym. He did that FOR A REASON. Because the pseudonym is not HIM. Because his pseudonymous works are a part of an "indirect communication" which involved the INTENTIONAL avoidance of directly stating, asserting or arguing for claims.

>> No.2435506
File: 24 KB, 328x500, 442096-L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2435506

>>2435489
Calm down bro. No one in this thread is gonna be able to appreciate the sheer irony of the way they are approaching the big K.

Just let 'em be confused.

>> No.2435661

>>2435489

why are you mad? is it because you are butthurt?

if you are arguing that Kierkegaard is being intentionally vague and confusing, then what is the point of reading him? he must be a private ironist in every sense of the word.

>>2435506

implying that he was trolling us all along?

>> No.2435716

>>2435416

I think that we come from two separate camps of thought altogether and we will disagree no matter what regardless of definition. For example, I'm already arguing in my post that this cognitive universe is within our realm of cognition. Then i implied of something beyond our cognition but which exists as part of this universe. The reason why i imply this is not to say that it is outside of time and being but rather that no matter how deep you go. You'll still never hit the wall which says that it would be the smallest level of cognition. If i'm the one who believes in the universe altogether being one substance(in this case, god) but also argue that all who are part of this one substance make up a whole and as such only get a limited view of the entire because they are only getting that one perspective view. It could then be put forth that there is something beyond our cognition but which exists in the whole regardless. There is no time at which a man can say, "All of this here is cognitive and the rest that we have is not." The stuff which is not cognitive is part of some objective cognition perhaps but not part of our cognition. That's where the phrase "beyond everything" come from. It would be outside and inside of the entire infinite.

How does that relate to god? Honestly, this shit has worn me out for the day. It's simply the root form. Either you want to think you sprang from nothing or you sprang from something. I don't believe in nothingness so i choose to believe in the entirety of everything. This everything i relate to as god and this god is infinite. That's it. You are correct in that i'm not that well versed in modern logic. Perhaps you can recommend me some books? The Wikipedia article is too all over the place.

>> No.2435742

>>2435716

stop thinking in a linear fashion. there was no "beginning". the Universe is EVERYTHING. there can't be something that isn't a part of everything, so there can be no "before" or "after".

god exists, sure, because god and Sherlock Holmes are things, fictional things, but things none the less. your unborn children are things, and so are your unborn brothers and sisters you never had.

it's called "actualism". we don't need god to explain anything, we don't have any good reasons to believe in god, but god is just as real as Zeus or Hades.

>> No.2435747

>>2435742
I'm tired. Just recommend the books. We think the same shit but we express it differently. Lets just do ourselves a favor and close it out.

>> No.2435750

I'm a strong atheist, I take that leap of faith erryday.

>> No.2435759

>>2435747

i'm not the bro you were talking with before.

i have nothing to suggest to you. if you don't get it, you don't get it. i was exposed to process metaphysics though Sellars and Heidegger.

if you wanna call the Universe god, then that's ok i guess. god doesn't care about you, god isn't a person, and god has no influence on the world because god doesn't have intentionality, in that case.

>> No.2435771

>>2435759

>god doesn't care about you, god isn't a person, and god has no influence on the world because god doesn't have intentionality, in that case.

I already implied all of it when i mentioned the problems of conception.That's why i said we were stating the same things. It was really just an argument in semantics. These threads are ridiculous to keep track of and have proper discourse in.

>> No.2435773

>>2435750
i have the same level of respect for devout athiests as I do for fundamentalist Christians (although I do not consider athiests as dangerous in practice).

>> No.2435783

>>2435750
Strong atheist doesn't mean gnostic atheist, it just means you can say "hey, I don't believe in god". Weak atheism is what you call those who just never cared about enough to give it a thought and never had a religion or the idea of god in their lives.

>> No.2435785

>dangerous in practice

>godless atheist revolutionary socialism enough bodies to go to the moon

>> No.2435815

>>2435773

Thank you! I just wish other atheists had that same respect. The second you call your atheism a faith, erryone attacks you.

>>2435783

Actually, the term "gnostic" is not preferred because it is actually a set of religious beliefs in itself.

Also, strong atheism means you're willing to say that "no type of god exists," while weak atheism just means "All of your gods do not exist, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a God. I just refuse to believe there is."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

>> No.2435816

>>2435785
totally, all those people died cuz the perps were athiests.

>> No.2435853

>>2435771

well good then lol

>> No.2435860

>>2433944
Suicide bombers don't go out and strap on the explosive belt in the belief that Allah would not cause such suffering on strangers and as such is testing them by asking them to do something unethical.

The motives of suicide bombers are almost entirely obedient, they may be passionate, but if they are passionately obedient, it doesn't really matter.

I think you are massively simplifying Kierkegaards philosophy and misunderstanding his re-telllings of the Abraham story.

>> No.2435891

>>2435860

How am i simplifying and misunderstanding?

Abraham is a knight of faith who is willing to kill his son, which is something wrong, but holds a faith in the absurd that his son will be alive and well anyways.

Is that ok as an approximation? If it is close, I think we can see how other people might feel convicted about doing evil because god wills it, yet they are prepared to go through it anyways, and hope that it all works out in the end.

>> No.2435935

>>2435661
>if you are arguing that Kierkegaard is being intentionally vague and confusing, then what is the point of reading him?

If you don't even understand what "indirect communication" is in the context of Kierkegaard's work you're even more ignorant than I thought.

No, Kierkegaard was not intentionally vague and confusing. He was intentionally oblique. Though he was never really aiming to hide that he WAS being oblique. Here, let's look at the opening epigraph from Fear and Trembling:

"What Tarquinius Superbus said in the garden by means of the poppies, the son understood but the messenger did not."

In other words, the messenger doesn't understand the message. This is a fairly obvious hint.

I'll try and start you off with an explanation, though. The book is a Socratic indirect communication designed around the aporetic challenge of the Danish Christians of K's time. The challenge was twofold:

Firstly, and most basically, everyone in Denmark at that time was quite literally a Christian as a matter of course. Being Danish made you Christian because it was the state religion. This lead to what Kierkegaard conceived of as a large number of so-called Christians, Christendom, who in actual fact had very little to do with authentic Christianity.

This issue was compounded by the post-Hegelian rationalist Christianity espoused by Martensen who claimed that Christianity qua revealed religion was open to speculative rational definition and that Christians effectively had special knowledge which non-Christians did not.

>> No.2435936

>>2435935
ctd.,

So when Kierkegaard has Silentio try and understand Abraham, he is attempting to indirectly undermine the certitude of his fellow Danish Christians that the Biblical religion is a rational religion in Martensen's sense. Not in the aim of promoting radical and irrational religious fanaticism but in order to Socratically undermine the very certitude which makes certain forms of fanaticism (and faithless) possible.

>> No.2435949
File: 65 KB, 390x552, 1265487657421.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2435949

>mfw no one complains about Sartre promoting the exact same sort of irrational fanaticism in his works simply because he's not religious

>> No.2435988

>>2435935

posts starts with you being a dick, then you adopt a sensible tone.

as long as you aren't espousing some Straussian "hidden message shit" i think that i am reading Kierkegaard properly, even if he uses "indirect communication" and pseudonyms.

>>2435936

i'm not saying he is promoting radical and irrational religious fanaticism. just that his views are consistent with it, or that those people may largely agree with Kierkegaard. rightly or wrongly.

i don't think you necessarily need certainty to be a fanatic, nor faithless. you could be excessively uncertain as well.

FYI i appreciate your input.

>> No.2436018
File: 126 KB, 1053x1712, martin_heidegger_-_sein_und_zeit..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2436018

Once you get up to this. It no longer seems worth continuing these tirades.

>> No.2436020
File: 208 KB, 250x106, tumblr_lsx6k1p5cd1qikdzmo1_250.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2436020

>>2435949
>You are probably going to be a very successful internet discussion person. But you're going to go through life thinking that atheists don't like you because you're a theist. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an asshole.

>> No.2436029

>>2435988
>i'm not saying he is promoting radical and irrational religious fanaticism. just that his views are consistent with it

Only inasmuch as holding the view that genuine acts of faith are effectively impossible to discern and, if they exist, not subject to objective rebuttal is consistent with that view. Then yes.

But the idea isn't that Kierkegaard thinks we should leave those who claim to be acting under faith free of ethical constraint and certainly not that we should simply approve of them. If that were the case, it would imply that we were in a position to access whatever religious justification the fanatic had and as Fear and Trembling demonstrates, from whichever perspective you approach (including Silentio's), this is not to be had.

I guess my point is this: faith, for Kierkegaard, is radically first-personal. One should avoid taking Fear and Trembling to be a third-personal or objective analysis of faith which would normally imply that we would have some kind of general commitment to promote or approve of it. But that's the kind of thing that Kierkegaard is trying to show is impossible in the case of faith. If there is a truth in faith, it is not an indifferent and objectively accessible one.

>> No.2436031

I don't understand why people have trouble believing that a God exists. The fact that anything exists seems incredible enough to necessitate the idea that it originates from a supreme being. What's the typical counter-argument?

>> No.2436037

>>2436031
That the existence of a supreme being is just as incredible, so it really can't function to provide explanatory value.

>> No.2436044

>>2436018
Got up to that a long time ago and I'm still tirading.

>> No.2436049

>>2436031
There's no counterargument because that isn't an argument at all. There's no way to get from a to b to c with that disarrayed mess of thoughts you've puked on your computer. Argument for incredulity? Seriously? Why are you assuming there's anything 'incredibly' about reality existing? Nothingness is logically impossibly to exist, therefore something has to exist. Assuming the set of all sets exists because it can't not isn't particularly harder than assuming there is some kind of moving force, and way more palatable.

read soam bookz

>> No.2436069

>>2436049
>Nothingness is logically impossibly to exist, therefore something has to exist.

Hahaha, are you serious? Please attempt to demonstrate this in a way that doesn't involve shitty wordplay that runs on equivocation negations.

> Assuming the set of all sets exists because it can't not

Now I know you're just an idiot. You're talking about sets and don't even know about Russell's Paradox?

Guess what: the set of all sets CAN'T exist logically because it leads to a paradox. I'll leave it to you to do the research since you're so hot on reading.

>> No.2436073

>>2435935
Eastern Orthodox Christianity guy, if you're still here, do you have a reading list or something that can give me an introduction to the EO religion's ideas on God? Or just an introduction to the religion in general? I've always been interested in studying those schools of thought...

>> No.2436074

>>2436037
Your response is neglecting the definitions that it also calls to attention. You just said that God's existence is equally incredible to the existence of anything. If it's incredible that anything exists, yet it's 100% accepted and tangible, why are you equating their incredibleness? You should probably argue more along the lines of there being no proof for God or that it's just one of multiple possiblities, right?

>> No.2436080

>>2433098
Ah, I quoted the wrong person, here
>>2436073

>> No.2436085

>>2436074
>You just said that God's existence is equally incredible to the existence of anything. If it's incredible that anything exists, yet it's 100% accepted and tangible, why are you equating their incredibleness?

Because if it's incredible that there is something rather than nothing, and God is a something (prior to the universe) then the fact that God was is also incredible.

Ontological incredulity generalizes, barring some more sophisticated attempt to distinguish God from everything else.

>> No.2436089

>>2436069
idk man, i'm just an idiot, i string together words to try and make some kind of sense and hope people can't tell.

>> No.2436099

>>2436085
Then you start having paradox problems. For example, this world would either have to be part of infinite or be finite (nothingness). We can inquire that it is part of infinite, but then something underlines infinite (god).

How can infinity be underlined? Wouldn't god be part of the infinite or be the infinity? I supposed then there is a question of whether our cognition is truly playing tricks on us for us to assume that all conceptions in everything, forever as equal to this cognition.

>> No.2436104

>>2436069
>2012
>Believing in nothingness

It's like you just walked in and attempted to fully halt shit so we can go back beyond the thread to explain to you shit everyone here already knows.

Nothingness cannot be conceptualized. Nothingness cannot conceptualize itself. It cannot be aware of itself. It's existence would negate everything but even allowing it to exist means being or implies something. It is beyond all reason and if it would exist then you would certainly not have asked anyone here to prove this to you. There wouldn't be a chance.

>> No.2436105
File: 22 KB, 500x375, 1327640066460.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2436105

>>2434067
>>2434169

Cool story bro. The plagiarized accounts of dead late, great Hitchens. Another angst ridden teen shitposter from /mu/ using tacky rhetoric from 4profit atheists. Cool, buying into the latest trendy fad of ideas is cool as buying ITAOS vinyls at Urban Outfitters and skinny jeans.

>> No.2436110

>>2436099
You're missing the point. I'm only trying to argue against the view that God can function in a way that explains the existence of something rather than nothing to someone with the general incredulity of "How could there be something rather than nothing?"

I am not advancing any sort of positive hypothesis that would get me into a paradox.

>> No.2436112

>>2436085
I should have used different vocabulary. By "something" I meant physical matter and space.

My main point is that if physical space and matter exists, where did it originate? I literally have no reason to suspect that there is a supernatural world aside from the problem of the origin of my world.

>> No.2436114

>>2436110
Ah, i see. I'm going to bed then.

Night chaps.

>> No.2436117

>>2436112
But why isn't the supernatural world subject to the same problem of origin?

>> No.2436129

>>2436117
I'd imagine that being exempt of origin would be its defining characteristic. Maybe that's a cop-out. But that seems to be how the classical definition of God gets derived.

>> No.2436190

I'm interested to have someone argue with me. I said these:

>>2436112
>>2436129

>> No.2436458

>>2436029
>I guess my point is this: faith, for Kierkegaard, is radically first-personal. One should avoid taking Fear and Trembling to be a third-personal or objective analysis of faith which would normally imply that we would have some kind of general commitment to promote or approve of it. But that's the kind of thing that Kierkegaard is trying to show is impossible in the case of faith. If there is a truth in faith, it is not an indifferent and objectively accessible one.

bingo. that really worries me, when you get a "man on a mission" like that.

you know your Kierkegaard.