[ 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: 31 KB, 355x450, jesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498352 No.5498352 [Reply] [Original]

Is there a book that can make you Christian?

I want to believe, but I can't bring myself to.

I've read some G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis and I loved both, but I still can't feel faith arising in me... it's just so hard to believe today.

>> No.5498374
File: 226 KB, 1134x1001, Kramskoi_Christ_dans_le_désert.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498374

I know how you feel m8.

I guess its more about living than reading. Faith is like any other virtue, it must be cultivated through practice.

>> No.5498375

>>5498352
Try prayer.

>> No.5498387

>How Ludwig Wittgenstein helped me get over my teenage angst

>Reading Philosophical Investigations ended my fascination with my inner life and brought me to faith based on 'I don't knows'

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/giles-fraser-philosophical-investigations-wittgenstein

>> No.5498400
File: 2.02 MB, 3344x1532, The_Body_of_the_Dead_Christ_in_the_Tomb,_and_a_detail,_by_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498400

The Idiot

>> No.5498402

>>5498352
Not one that uses logic.

>> No.5498413

scared of hell eh?

>> No.5498418

Here this is one way to prove the existence of God:


Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

>> No.5498422

>>5498375
I guess I can recommend you some books. I haven't read some of these but maybe others here have and they can tell you more.

Cold Case Christianity
Who Moved the Stone
Chesterson: Orthodoxy/Heretics, and The Everlasting Man
Lewis: Mere Christianity, and The Screwtape Letters.
The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

If anyone wants to add to this list or recommend some books to me also that would be great

>> No.5498423

>>5498400
that middle finger is intentional wasn't it?

>> No.5498428

>>5498422
Top kek.

Why are you and OP literally attempting to delude yourselves, m80?

>> No.5498434

>>5498418
There's no point in proving His existence. If we could, we would be above Him. To try to prove His existence is like trying to prove the existence of logic. The only way to analyze logic is by using logic. Logic is simply there. There's no way around it. It isn't falsifiable(If it was, it wouldn't be logic). God involves faith and that's it. Forget everything else. By trying to prove His existence, you give atheists more to feed on to try and disprove it. Neither will ever occur so it's best to stop.

>> No.5498435

>>5498418

Nice understanding of physics, lol.

>> No.5498436

>>5498422
>Lewis
why are you listing retarded people? lol

if i read any of the others i probably would ve green texted them too

>> No.5498437

>>5498418
But this just proves the existence of God by the rational path and is insuficient to get someone into the christian doctrine. OP wants to get into the faith path, which includes all the dogma and revelation things.

>> No.5498441

>>5498435
Where does physics contradicts this?

>> No.5498447

>>5498352
Yes there is a book that can make you a Christian. It is called The Holy Bible. The only problem with this, it can also make you an atheist. If you read the bible, read all books of the bible. Then when you finish, come back and tell us how nice it is to be an atheist.

>> No.5498452

>>5498441

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-For-Dummies-Steven-Holzner/dp/0470903244

>> No.5498453
File: 207 KB, 900x600, laughing_buddha_with_5_boy_child.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498453

>believe in Judeo-Christian god

>> No.5498456

>>5498418
And why can't one potential motion become an actual motion by itself? What physical law dictates that it can't?

>> No.5498462

you are going about this finding faith thing all wrong.

>> No.5498464

>>5498447
But the Biblt is tl;dr though...

ppl only read that crap in the first place because others for=ce them too, no one in their right mind ought to touch it

>> No.5498468

>>5498418
Okay, who put god in motion. Also, what makes the "god" that made the motion the Abrahamic or any other god the right god. You can not prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods, but religion can, and is constantly disproved.

>> No.5498480

>>5498464
O.P for some reason wants to become a Christian. The only true way to become a Christian is to read, believe, and practice the bible. I was saying, if you are someone who understands reality, than you will become an atheist after reading.

>> No.5498485

Christians are an inferior form of life prove me wrong.

>> No.5498488

>>5498400
In what way?

>> No.5498487

>>5498468
You are right that you can't prove or disprove God. That is the point. You can't prove or disprove logic either. These things SHOW something rather than mean something. They can't be analyzed or proven. They simply are.

There is no 'right god'. The word 'right' is being taken out of context in talking about this. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' logic. Logic just is. It's a universal constant as is God in the way human beings understand him.

What do you mean religion is constantly disproved?

>> No.5498489

>>5498485
well uhm...aahh..uhm..
>damn

>> No.5498494

>>5498418
prime mover literally only "proves" that there exists some entity/force outside of the causality and physical understanding. it does not prove the existence of a theistic capital-g God

>> No.5498496

>>5498437
Indeed (OP here).

>> No.5498502

>>5498480
That's because the bible is constantly misinterpreted and taken out of context in our language. It is also written by men(through God if you believe it). There is no empirical evidence to support God anymore than there is to support mathematics.

>> No.5498503

>>5498453
OP here. I was Buddhist for a while, I even went to Japan and lived in a Zen temple in Hyogo prefecture. Not kidding.

>> No.5498509

>>5498494

>some entity/force outside of the causality and physical understanding

Which is contradictio in adjecto lol.

So much for prime outside-the-universe anything!

>> No.5498513

>>5498494
Exactly. That example is being taken out of context. It is this kind of abuse of language that causes these problems. You can't use empirical example to prove something that is not provable by empirical examples.

>> No.5498514

>>5498502
⇒There is no empirical evidence to support God anymore than there is to support mathematics.

What the fuck? Physics is the empirical proof of mathematics. You are more ignorant than /sci/.

>> No.5498515

>>5498487
As science progresses and our understanding of history. We can disprove stories of the bible. Jesus was not an original story, jews were never slaves. Noahs flood never happend/was also stolen story.
Also, just because we do not know for a fact how the universe began, that does not mean you have to create an answer(god).

>> No.5498516

>>5498418
I'm not interested in this philosophical prime mover God that you can show with syllogisms. This is not a God that sacrifices his only begotten Son to save us. Your philosophical deus ex machina might as well be a cold, indifferent, Spinozean deity.

>> No.5498522

>>5498514
Can you prove a number exists? It is in the use of numbers that they show their meaning. The number 7 means nothing without context or use. There is no proof of mathematics. Mathematics shows itself and its meaning via its USE in things like physics.

>> No.5498523

>>5498502
>There is no empirical evidence to support God anymore than there is to support mathematics
you have to be a troll.

>> No.5498524

>>5498516

Supreme being "sacrificing" anything, lol.

>> No.5498529

>>5498516
But he also designed the whole world and everyone who he would have to save, after condemning all of them and explicitly murdering a few hundred thousand.

>> No.5498530

>>5498509
How so? Is it the 'existence' of an extra-physical anything that bothers you?

>> No.5498532
File: 52 KB, 600x422, 1408308729646.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498532

>>5498522
⇒Can you prove a number exists?

In this picture you'll find numbers. You can see them. Obviously they do exist.

>> No.5498535

>>5498515
Religion as an attempt at understanding something which can't be said or understood. It's not a great attempt, but to try to understand through belief is something I believe is worth doing.

Obviously the whole young Earth thing is ridiculous(as are some other things), but again this arises from an abuse of language. People misinterpret and take out of context things they read.

>> No.5498536

>Physics is the empirical proof of mathematics

Then we just move on to the fact that there is no empirical proof for physics.

This is scientific method 101, i.e. that physics are just MODELS and do not dictate how the actual universe works on the scale of the universe, but you were out sick that day of school apparently.

>> No.5498542

>>5498529
Still OP here. I'm not one of those who has a problem with God murdering people. It's quite idiotic to judge God using the commandments (standards) he gave us. Wouldn't that be like trying to give a cop a speeding ticket while he was chasing on with those police lights on? Obviously the law-giver is in the position to make exceptions for himself.

>> No.5498545

>>5498532
No that isn't proof. You are simply showing its USE. Give me the meaning of a number. 'What IS a number?' It's as retarded as asking 'What IS truth'? NEITHER can be said only SHOWN in their use.

>> No.5498546

>>5498530

Anyone attempting to prove that extra-anythings exist simply has an agenda.

A fact empirically proven by history.

>> No.5498548

>>5498452
The only thing it proves is that you're trying to be funny. I hope this is not the maximum you can do.

>> No.5498556

>>5498542
You don't really seem to have thought about what an omniscient god would entail at any length. Enjoy your useless endeavors for some savior of rape and BDSM, though.

>> No.5498560

>>5498535
It was an attempt to try an understand something that couldn't be understood at that time. They created a religion like many societies and cultures do to understand what is around them. To try and understand something that you do not have an answer for and say "you know what, god did this because i can't explain how it began/happened/works". It is an ignorant answer. Also, to look at the bible and say "this is not true, we now know this is not true. so this is just a story." Is a complete b.sing. The bible is the word of god, and if you do not believe in the word of god. Then you do not believe in the bible.

>> No.5498567

>>5498546
even extra-terrestials?

>> No.5498570

>>5498423
Everything is intentional

>> No.5498571 [DELETED] 

>>5498532
To a blind person do these scribblings still exist? The essence of what we call a number can't be described. It's only in it's use that we understand its meaning.

>>5498514
Also:
>Physics proves mathematics
How we prove physics?
>Using mathematics
hurr durr

>> No.5498578

>>5498545
>meaning of a number
A member of any of the following sets of mathematical objects: integers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers. These sets can be derived from the positive integers through various algebraic and analytic constructions.

Also, you can test everything around you with mathematics. Pure Christian thing to say, "well i don't understand it, therefore it does not exist".

>> No.5498582

>>5498352
Kierkegaard.
Read Soren Kierkegaard, all of it.

>> No.5498583

>>5498456
Something can't gave what it hasn't, something can't determinate something else if itself has no determination.

>> No.5498589

>>5498532
Also numbers are only a CONCEPT used to help someone understand something like 'bring 4 of those pencils'. To say 'There are numbers' is nonsense.

>> No.5498590

I don't get why people on this board who so dearly want to trick themselves into believing christian dogma don't just become platonists.

>> No.5498597

>>5498583
can't give*

>> No.5498600

>>5498578
See you take my words out of context. I never said that. I said that numbers AREN'T A THING. They are a CONCEPT. That meaning you gave me means nothing. By our use we find the meaning of numbers. You can't say 'there are numbers' any more than you can say 'there are physical objects'.

To say 'This is a physical object' is to help someone understand what 'THAT' is or what a physical object is. It's a concept. To say 'there are physical objects' is nonsense.

>> No.5498601

>>5498589
to say "there is a god" is also nonsense. Because the argument is, i can't physically see numbers, therefore they do not exist. Can also be said, I cannot physically see god, therefore they do not exist. It is a dumb point. At least numbers of evidence and proof.

>> No.5498602

>>5498352
In all seriousness, maybe you don't believe because organized religion is all fictional stories based on older religions with identical stories, all based on even older religions that basically all take roots in ancient man eating psychedelic plants. Stick with philosophy. Steer clear of "Belief" because that's just a way of saying "I'm tired of possibilities, just choose one and cling to it like an asshole."

>> No.5498605

>>5498589
If there's no number, to what those concepts are referring to?

>> No.5498608

>>5498600
=
>>5498601

>> No.5498614
File: 187 KB, 499x499, 1395000769219.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498614

>wanting to delude yourself

>> No.5498618

>>5498545
⇒Give me the meaning of a number. 'What IS a number?' It's as retarded as asking 'What IS truth'?
Did you seriously just call your own question "retarded"? I agree, it is very retarded.

>>5498578
⇒A member of any of the following sets of mathematical objects: integers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers
p-adics are not numbers?

>>5498589
⇒Also numbers are only a CONCEPT
Wow, dude, you're blowing my mind with your deepities. You must be a riot in your "special needs" school.

>> No.5498621

>>5498582
Where to start?

>> No.5498623

>>5498352
Dude why would you want to force yourself to believe in a celestial dictator? Why do you wish to be a slave? You might as well move to North Korea or get a time machine and go back to Ba'athist Iraq before the country was liberated by the United States.

>> No.5498626

>>5498601
EXACTLY. I personally BELIEVE in God but I can't say 'I know God exists'. It's pointless to talk about it really. God is(in a rational sense) how we use him in our language. It is absolute nonsense to say 'There is a god' you are right. I don't try to prove his existence however. I don't care to.

>>5498605
Numbers can't be talked about is what I'm trying to say. We find what they mean in how we use them. They aren't these things floating around.

>> No.5498629

>>5498600
And to what those concepts refer to if there's no criterion intrisical to the objects referred? You're only pushing the problem to different places.
(another anon btw)

>> No.5498634

>>5498352
>I want to believe, but I can't bring myself to.

Why the fuck are you desperately trying to convince yourself of something like that?

Utterly pathetic.

>> No.5498635

>>5498626
⇒Numbers can't be talked about is what I'm trying to say

Of course they can. Every language has words for them.

>> No.5498636

>>5498618
omg that's what I'm trying to say! I'm asking 'what is the meaning of a number' to show how stupid it is to think that the word 'number' means anything outside of its use.

>> No.5498637

>>5498583
the comprehension of this is beyond me, but thanks anyway

>> No.5498641

>>5498626
Your logic is so warped. You believe in something without any evidence of it.

>> No.5498646

>>5498636
⇒muh straw man

Numbers are meaningful because they are found in nature. God is not meaningful because he is logically inconsistent. Go be retarded on /sci/.

>> No.5498648

>>5498629
The point of numbers and physical objects is that they can't be spoken about in a literal sense. We can only find what they mean in the way our language works. There is no 'problem' except that we try to find meaning in things that don't need to be analyzed. All you have to do is look.

>> No.5498651

>>5498523
He's right though. The problem of wether mathematics are more than useful fictions for reasoning and wether mathematical objects have an existence in themselves is still up for debate in philosophy of mathematics, and no side is really securing conensus.

Also, in both cases, it's a question with little bearing on practice.

>> No.5498653

>>5498641
'Either a proposition is true or not true' Prove to me that law of logic is true.

>> No.5498660

>>5498621
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecLT5aiMc34

>> No.5498661

>>5498653
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

proof is here

>> No.5498667

>>5498646
Where are they found in nature. Show me. Not the scribblings we draw(5, 6, 3,) actual numbers. Show me them.

That's the point. You take the word number out of context to attempt to bring meaning to it. You can't. The meaning is in the use of it. 'Red' as a 'color' means nothing unless it's applied to something.

>> No.5498669

>>5498648
I believe you're trying to say we can only know what a singular thing is by intuition and not by reason / discursive knowledge, is it?

>> No.5498672

>>5498661
So it's true because someone wrote it? No give me empirical and physical scientific evidence that it is true. You can't prove logic using logic.

>> No.5498678

>>5498667
MATH IS APPLIED TO EVERYTHING FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!!! ONE CAT FIVE DOGS ONE PLANET ONE SUN ONE GALAXY A BILLION SUNS MOTHER FUCKER!
>caps for drama

>> No.5498684

>>5498669
Every 'thing' in the world is only a 'thing' because of the way we have perceived it using our language. We believe what these things are because of the way the world has made them out to be. Our language comes from our conceptualization of the world and our conceptualization of the world comes from our language. It's a strange paradox.

>>5498661
>>5498672
My point is that there really is no proof. There also no DOUBT either as that law being true.

>> No.5498685

>>5498418
>everything needs a mover
>but there's a thing which doesn't need a mover contradicting what I just said and also this thing is an omnipotent conscious being xD

fuck off

>> No.5498690

OP Here. Truly disappointed the way this thread went. I hoped some Christians will recommend me literature. Instead, this regressed into dick measuring contest where amateur philosophers show off their babbys first argument.

>> No.5498691

>>5498503
that's cool. how was it?

>> No.5498697

>>5498678
Exactly. IT IS IN THE USE OF MATHEMATICS THAT WE FIND THE MEANING OF IT. IT'S A CONCEPT APPLIED TO 'X' TO GIVE IT QUANTITY OR WHATEVER ELSE YOU WANT. THAT IS MY POINT. A COLOR IS NOTHING. IT'S MEANING COMES FROM ITS USE OF HELPING SOMEONE UNDERSTAND THAT 'THIS THING IS RED'

>> No.5498698

>>5498690
i already told you cunt, read the bible if you want to become a christian. Read all the books. Fuck. Is it hard? Hmm what do Christians read? The holy bible...nah that can't be it.

>> No.5498699

>>5498690
>>5498352

Kierkegaard Fear and Trembling.

It will not make you a Christian, but it will make you get interested in stuff

>> No.5498701

>>5498532
87 :DDD

also numbers are concepts. they exist like blue, hungry, I, lamp exist

>> No.5498702

>>5498684
Our conceptualization of the world comes from the world, else it's not our conceptualization of the world. Not denying that language plays a role here.

>> No.5498707

>>5498635
Every language has words for one, two, three, perhaps four. Past that, it will depend on where you live.

>> No.5498708

>>5498672
If you don't believe in logic then it's no wonder you're a godfag

execute yourself

>> No.5498710

>>5498685
Where "Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion." means "everything needs a mover"?

>> No.5498711

>>5498708

die

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

>> No.5498713

>>5498651
⇒The problem of wether mathematics are more than useful fictions for reasoning and wether mathematical objects have an existence in themselves is still up for debate in philosophy
That's not even a well-defined question. It's just a rehash of infantile "hurr durr you cannot define existence". A waste of time without ever possibly yielding any results.

>>5498667
⇒Where are they found in nature.
Count the number of your sexual partners and you'll find a physical instance of the abstract entity known as "zero".

>> No.5498716

>>5498708
When did I say I don't believe in logic? There's no reason to doubt logic. The key word was 'believe' because there is no proof of it's existence. There exists no doubt either though because how would such a doubt be? And on what grounds could someone doubt logic? They'd have to use logic to doubt logic. Makes no sense.

>>5498702
>>5498702
You can't conceptualize the world at least OBJECTIVELY without using a language that is known to a huge population. Otherwise it will be considered subjective and on the verge of a private language.

>> No.5498717

>>5498690
You have been recommended authors. Lewis, Chesterton, Kierkegaard, Dostoievsky, add Aquinas, Dante, Pascal, Augustine, Jansen and Swedenborg to cover wider ground.

That's enough reading for a few years.

>> No.5498718

>>5498710
A chemical reaction can happen without a mover.

>> No.5498721

>>5498713
Oh so entities known as numbers don't exist, only their use in counting my sexual partners? Thank you for proving my point.

>> No.5498723

>>5498713
#rekt

>> No.5498726

>>5498710
everything needs a mover = each thing in motion is moved by something else

>> No.5498730

>>5498698
The Bible considered in itself doesn't give sufficient means to be read/interpreted. In reading the Bible there's participation of the reader and his preconceived beliefs, not only the Bible imposing its truths.

>> No.5498734

>>5498721
You are why Pol Pot killed the academics.

>> No.5498735

>>5498713
>A waste of time without ever possibly yielding any results.

Yes, that what I was saying with this:
>Also, in both cases, it's a question with little bearing on practice.

Thanks for restating my point, I guess.

Note that it also asserts that you're currently wasting your time in an argument that doesn't make sense and has no relevance to anything. I was kind enough to make one post to stop you before what little is left of your intelligence completely goes to waste.
I'm willing to extend my generosity so far as to make a second post, to tell you that you're wasting your time and that you're not going to get anything from this argument.

That will the last time. If you're such an enlightened being that you're ready to spent an hour in an argument that is by your own admission retarded and useless, thus proving to everyone that you're a retard on top of being a clumsy troll, feel free to go on.

>> No.5498744

>>5498716
>You can't conceptualize the world at least OBJECTIVELY without using a language that is known to a huge population.
But what are symbols? Still, you can't deny that our concepts refer to things that have intrinsically something that make them fall under the concept. Although I don't know if you deny it, but this is how undestand what you've been saying.
But, if you want to say that the conceptualized is not the concept, I totally agree.

>> No.5498745
File: 17 KB, 200x301, do-it-yourself-lobotomy-tom-monahan-e-book-cover-art.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498745

>> No.5498748 [SPOILER] 
File: 56 KB, 971x600, 1411932993689.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498748

ITT: a bunch of cocksure teenagers (Wittgensteinian wannabes, realists that are too inept to give a coherent argument, etc.) argue about the nature of maths with their Wiki-gathered knowledge, all at the same time unwittingly misusing important concepts and unwittingly writing as unclear as possible

:)

>> No.5498755

>>5498502
>There is no empirical evidence to support God anymore than there is to support mathematics.

People this stupid don't really exist, right? Reassure me /lit/.

>> No.5498759

>>5498726
This can only be true if "everything" and "everything in motion" means the same thing. They never meant to Thomas Aquinas.
>>5498718
Without an observable mover, you mean.

>> No.5498761

>>5498744
Symbols are these things we make up to put to something. As I said before, there are no 'physical objects'. It's nonsense. We say 'physical object' to say 'This is a physical object'. It's a concept who's meaning can only come it's use in our language.

The conceptualized isn't the concept no. We can only understand as far as our language takes us.

>> No.5498769

>>5498748
Don't forget the usual oh-so-superior adult who's above putting in relevant and useful ocntent ; )

>> No.5498774

>>5498759
I think we're caught up in language here. Perhaps you could help me out. To me the resolution to the infinite regression of "movers" contradicts the statements associated with there needing to be infinite movers in the first place.

>> No.5498777

>>5498744
Those things would have a 'family resemblance' yes.

>> No.5498778

>>5498480
>>5498464
>>5498447
>2014
>Not reading the entire Bible and have it reaffirm your faith
Stay pleb, heretic.

>> No.5498783

>>5498761
There are physical objects, if we call they physical objects, they are according to our language. We can't say a signal doesn't signalizes a signalized.
But I still can't understand well your point, I could say it's nominalism, but I'm not sure, is there a name for it?

>> No.5498787

>>5498582
Seconding this.

>> No.5498790

>>5498774
The resolution is only to an infinite regression of movers which need to be moved. Be moved is not included in the concept of a mover.

>> No.5498804

>>5498717
This guy knows what's up.

Also add Ecclesiastes and Gospel of John.

>> No.5498809

>>5498769
>oh-so-superior
oh-so superior.

you used on hyphen too many

sorry, just pointing it out,-- my autism is killing me
:)

>> No.5498812

>>5498790
Ah ok. In that case, could the Big Bang not be the first mover?

>> No.5498815

>>5498783
Then how do you give an absolute definition of a physical object if a physical object is only what we refer to something as? If we can only find meaning in the way we use it, how can we give an absolute definition to it?

>> No.5498819

>>5498352
I would recommend some mystics like St. John of the Cross, Pseudo-Dyonisius, the anon of The Cloud of Unknowing and... well, I'm a beginner in those things too.

>> No.5498820

OP try reading some non-christian writers on the topic as well, in addition to fag-believers,i.e. only sticking t retards like Lewis will make you stupid.

>> No.5498830

>>5498464
I'm an atheist reading the bible. It provides a pretty cool historical perspective for what it was like to be alive thousands of years ago. It (probably) has more allusions to it in literature than any other book and even its fan fictions are some of the most important works of western literature. Plus, even if you consider it a book of fairy tales, doesn't the fact that like a third of the world's population believe it's true make it kind of an important book to have some working knowledge of?

>> No.5498838

>>5498812
The Big Bang is not what we could call a mover. It's like saying an explosion moves all the things involved in it, not the process of those things being moved.

>> No.5498840

>>5498809
Being a non-native I appreciate the input.

>> No.5498858
File: 103 KB, 642x960, 1409935745706.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498858

>>5498830
>I'm an atheist reading the bible

>> No.5498864

>>5498815
We can't give an absolute definition to something, because every singularity is inapprehensible by reason, which can only aprehends what is homogeneous, quantitative. However it's possible to grasp what is universal within a particular, that's what language does, but this doesn't makes possible for a concept to be purely constructed by our minds, without any reference to some objective data.

>> No.5498871

>>5498494
God as the Judeo-Christian God is believed in as a matter of faith. But a god can be inferred through various philosophic arguments.

>> No.5498881
File: 1.64 MB, 320x240, tip.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498881

>>5498858

>> No.5498892

>>5498864
That objective data is the use of language around the world. When you have 1000000 people calling something an 'apple' it is an apple. There is no reason to doubt it and no grounds to doubt it either. The only way to be objective is to see how 'apple' is used(and not just what object it names. To do so is an error). We have to look at the fruit 'apple', the 'big apple', our Adam's 'apple', etc. There are many uses for this word. There isn't one single universal. The universal is, how the rest of the world uses these words in language. If we simply look at how it's used, we find its meaning. To attempt to reach for some metaphysical meaning of an apple is nonsense. It's staring us right in the face.

>> No.5498897

>>5498881
It's not even smile-worthy anymore. Fucking you meme-fag.

>> No.5498909

>>5498838
Ok well the thing that caused the Big Bang to move? Why does the first mover have to be an omnipotent self aware being? Let alone a personal god?

>> No.5498917
File: 59 KB, 494x481, 1405422770456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498917

>>5498897
>p-p-please don't make fun of muh hat

>> No.5498918

>>5498503
There isn't a book that can bring you to faith. Try praying and talking to a priest, find a good one and hang out with him. It is the best thing you can do.

>> No.5498932
File: 211 KB, 1225x1600, lemaymay.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498932

>>5498897

>> No.5498940

>>5498932
No. That meme is just overused and annoying at this moment in time where it is used in literally any anti-christianity statement whatsoever by wagon jumpers who probably think "john green is like the bestest author of all time omg".

>> No.5498945
File: 130 KB, 1024x936, troll_face_exists_by_el_gostro-d3i5gpo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498945

>>5498932
Vintage meme!

>> No.5498973
File: 618 KB, 263x396, 1403302123857.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498973

>>5498940
>I don't like john green

>> No.5498982

>>5498646
How is God logically inconsistent?

>> No.5498988

Read some thomas aquinas and saint augustine.

>> No.5499001

>>5498973
You say that here, but you know about your favourite you hide in an unnoticeable location on your bookshelf. The fedora image gave you away, don't hide it now.

And to top it off you wear everyday a pair of skinny jeans.

>> No.5499003

>>5498945
>newfag detected

>> No.5499038

>>5498892
Well, I will try to write what I understand as your point, then I will give a reply to it, if my view of your point is wrong, correct me.

Your point:
There's no such thing as 'this thing', it's only 'this thing' because we call it so. We can't aprehend universals, because there's no one, there's only sigularities and our universals are 'projections' of our minds into the world because our psychological limitations oblige us to do so. In other words what we use (the words and concepts) to refer to the things exterior to our minds are produced solely by our minds, being there no participation of the exterior object, which means that what we call something as has nothing to do with the thing.

My reply:
Well, you say that the cause of "this thing" being "this thing" is we calling it "this thing", but with "being 'this thing'" you means "fitting in our concept of 'this thing'" or "being called 'this thing'"? If it's the first option then your position would be:
>The cause of 'this thing' fitting our concept of 'this thing' is that we call it 'this thing'
If it's the second option, your position would be
>The cause of 'this thing' being called 'this thing' is that we call it 'this thing'
But this is circular reasoning, something can't cause itself, so let's attach to the first interpretation:

>The cause of 'this thing' fitting our concept of 'this thing' is that we call it 'this thing'
Here the ideia is that the name is previous to the concept or, in other words: the name cames after the named, but if it's so it can't be a name.
Well, I can't think in other way to make your position still sound right, so that's all for now.

>> No.5499053

>>5499038
cames before the named*

>> No.5499081
File: 23 KB, 480x600, 1403303856749.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5499081

>>5499001
>I have a bookshelf

>> No.5499089

>>5499081
>you responded

>> No.5499110

>>5498590
Become a virtuous nonbeliever or become virtuous and participate in a wonderfully rich tradition.

>> No.5499204

THE BIBLE MAYBE?

>> No.5499286

Because you're probably a lazy fuck-ass, read the third chapter of the portait of an artist as a young man

>> No.5500099

>>5498352

Why would you want to believe? There's nothing to religion except for infesting your mind with the truth of god before you're ready to understand it.

Try expanding your knowledge of the natural world through philosophy and art and science and maybe eventually you can connect the signs yourself.

>> No.5500125

>>5500099
>Try expanding your knowledge of the natural world through philosophy and art and science

And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1:16 - 18

>> No.5500352
File: 62 KB, 750x462, C.G. Jung.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500352

>>5498352

Let me tell you OP that neither priest nor philosopher ever could reveal to me such... different perspective of faith itself than this man. His view of God with omni-intelligent Godhead as this prime reality of human psyche... this collective unconcious locked down in archetypes of our perception is greatly revolutionary.

Good into to Carl Jung is prof Josef Rudin:

>Psychotherapy and Religion

Good translation from German is a must though, it uses very hard vocabulary from analytic psychology.

>Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit

This quote from Erasmus is most profound summary of Jung's immense insight.

Also, genius of Pascal is really remarkable in his writings, you should read "Pensées". I recommend them because Pascal was Catholic Jansenist (protestant-esque Catholic movement) and that very fact makes his approach to faith a synthesis of Catholic rationalism and Protestant fideism. I like to say that Pascal thinks like a Catholic, but writes with a beauty of a Protestant.

"Heart has reasons that reason knows nothing of, brother..."

>> No.5500397

Watch Bergman. Lots of Bergman. I would especially recommend "The Virgin Spring" and "Winter Light". Also watch the silent film, "The Passion of Joan of Arc."

>> No.5500414

>>5500352
>implying Catholics can't write well

Okay, you didn't imply that, and Pascal's style is quite ascetistic in its balance.

>> No.5500483
File: 175 KB, 800x838, 800px-Michelangelo's_Pieta_5450_cropncleaned_edit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500483

It depends who you are. The percentage of real atheists (people like me, raised completely without any religion in my household) who convert to a religion is very very low, but people who were raised in a religious household, indoctrinated at a young age, and then decided they didn't believe as teens/adults are often at a high risk to backslide. One fucking dead parent or bout of cancer, or just getting older or becoming parents, and they're back to God like they never left. Like the (disputed Jesuit/Xavier) quote says, "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man." In any case, the book is just a catalyst: no book causes faith to arise out of nothing in an intelligent human.

>> No.5500489

>>5500414
catlotics can't even think well, how are they supposed to write well?

>> No.5500499

>>5500489
Trying hard to be offending, but I'll forgive you, for you don't know what you are saying.

>> No.5500502

>>5500483
That explains Sarte.

>> No.5500505

>>5500414

Never said Catholic can't write well. They do and I admire logical consistency of their writings, but the style of Catholic philosophers/theologians seems... dry to me. Much "stiffer" than Protestant literature. It's like they open their mind in front of the reader, but the heart remains closed.

>> No.5500512

>>5500352

That was really insightful. Thank you.

>> No.5500517

>>5500499
Nobody cares if some delusional retard who believes in tortuous sand-savage philosophy gets offended on the internet over their absolutely idiotic and inconsistent "beliefs".

>> No.5500534

>>5500517
You seem to be offended, brother. How about you vent a bit once more, to soothe your pain and bottoms wounds ? Try using the words "semitic war god" in your next post.

>> No.5500553

>>5500505
I know, I know. I was just being playful. Theologians are perhaps not the best writers Catholicism has to offer, with the possible exception of Augustine. Catholics writers concerned with theology but not mainly theologians are GOAT.

If you liked Pascal you can try Kerkegaard as a similar-minded author, or De Retz as an occasion for contrast in the same century and language. Beware though, the latter is no priest (even though he is).

>> No.5500564

>>5500534
I prefer to point out that he was literally originally a war god, in a panetheon, that he didn't head, you fucking idiot.

>> No.5500587

>>5500499
Well, it;s not a primary motive (to offend), but I don't mind if I do so.

I've never come across a decent catholic writer. Ever. They all bore the shit out of me.

I read Brighton Rock recently, just the last Cathlic one, and he was apparently a "writer who just happens to be a catholic" as opposed to 'a catholic writer" yet all i saw was a 'catholic who happens to be a writer'.
They are all like this. unoriginal fools that I can't stand to read, with this, I don't mean offence, but if you take i don't mind, just my opinion.

>> No.5500591

The singer of Swans, who used to do some pretty edgy shit back in the day (and sometimes today) became a Christian, I wonder how or why.

>> No.5500600

>>5498515
>Jesus was not an original story

Disproven by historical research. A lot of the early parts of the Bible are bullshit though.

>> No.5500604
File: 158 KB, 300x514, 1387013852639.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500604

>>5498745

>> No.5500605

>>5500499
religious people forsake logic in favour of submittance to divinity, it's not false to say that catholics indeed can't think very well, as their primary missions are to have faith.

>> No.5500608

>>5500564
See ? You're starting to feel better. Never mind history. As long as you can write "semitic war god", "he wasn't even the head of the pantheon", and call people names, you'll be fine. Breath and start writing again. Try calling me a faggot this time. Soon you'll feel all relaxed.
>>5500587
Good. Channel all you bad experiences of Americans Catholics through this post. Let it go. In a few minutes you won't even see the scary God when you close your eyes.

>> No.5500618

>>5500564
>mfw religious disputes on /lit/ start to resemble these held on /b/
>mfw zeitgeist tier drivel is replicated
>mfw 3 out of 4 greatest logicians of all time were all Christian (Leibniz, Frege, Godel) and fourth one was theist nonetheless (Aristo)
>mfw someone has audacity to call them retarded on mongolian image browser on the ground of them being religious

What an age to be alive in.

>> No.5500626

>>5500608
Bad experiences what are you conjecturing here? I've said nothing of the sort, you poor catholic bastard, please attempt to use your brain in thought.

>> No.5500628

>>5500591
He's a massive faggot and got psyched out about the possibility that the most retarded impossible concept of an non-existent dimension of torture is real because of his hedonistic lifestyle. Also
>Liking metal
>2014
Top hat meme

>> No.5500635

>>5500618
>mongolian image browser
Haha.

>> No.5500641

>>5500626
See >>5500587
>I've never come across a decent catholic writer. Ever. They all bore the shit out of me.

My assumption is pretty well substantiated (yes, reading experiences are still experiences).

Your assumption that I'm a Catholic is pretty weak though.

But that's okay. You didn't come here for arguing, but for venting. I let you vent. Forget me.

>> No.5500646
File: 105 KB, 572x708, 1401710679433(2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500646

>>5498485
>>5498489

>> No.5500652

What's the benefit in faith?

>> No.5500658

>>5500618
>tfw i'm responsible for every single one

Should I go back to MAL /lit/?

>> No.5500661

>>5500628
>Swans
>Metal

I'm pretty sure what they used to do and what they do now isn't metal, but whatever.

>> No.5500665
File: 131 KB, 1264x471, Pedophiles.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500665

>>5500646

>> No.5500673

>>5498374
This is surprisingly wise.

>> No.5500674

>>5498352
Why would you want to be one?

>> No.5500681

>>5500618
When your done being mad the history of your retarded, incomplete god of torture indicate he was in a pantheon and subserviant to El before his cult radicalized due to him being a sadistic faggot. If the supreme being of the universe created hell and expects me to believe that one person was born and died differently from everyone else 4000 generations before I drew my first breath and I have to take this at face value with no evidence then God is whatever the hyper-dimensional equivalent of a crackhead would be.

>> No.5500685

>>5498418
>Our senses prove that some things are in motion

Lolno.

But regardless, having faith in God isn't as simple as writing up a little proof.

>> No.5500691

>>5500587
>I've never come across a decent catholic writer.
>Chesterton
>Burgess
>Fitzgerald
>Heaney
>Hemingway
>Maybe Joyce
>Kerouac
>More
>Alexander Pope
>Tolkien
>Balzac
>Boulle
>Hugo
>Verne
>Dante
>Cervantes
You didn't like any of these guys? Really?

>> No.5500699

>>5500691
>implying half of those were actually catholic, not just in name

>> No.5500700

>>5498352
Read Wittgenstein

>> No.5500704

>>5500681
>2014
>still being butthurt over Christian Hell
>going full reductio ad orientis in while bringing up a feature of faith that only appeared after centuries of differenciation
>2014

I wrote 2014 twice because you're reaching stone-axe levels of outdated irrelevance.

>> No.5500711

>>5500674
I need something larger than life to inspire me. I can't bring myself to proceed with life without some transcendent motivation.

>> No.5500714

>>5500699
Other half still refutes his point.

>> No.5500715

>>5500711
>I can't bring myself to proceed with life without some transcendent motivation.
You're a pretty weak human being then.

>> No.5500716

>>5500700
What do you mean? Since Wittgenstein doesn't write about religion/Christianity, how can he bring you to faith? More specifically, which of "his" books do you think can be relevant to the question of faith?

>> No.5500718

>>5500699
Honestly just a half of those is enough, and it's a pretty small sample. Anon is just mad for some reason. Perhaps he was raped by a priest, who knows.

Then the question is, why doesn't he gets back at that priest instead of sperging in a Gothic organon virtual conference.

>> No.5500721

>>5500691
>tolkien
>good writer

>> No.5500727

>>5500715
>You're a pretty weak human being then.
I am. Are you a strong human being? How does it feel to be a strong human being? Will you remain strong on your deathbed? Will you remain strong if you get testicle cancer? Will you remain strong if you get a prolapsed anus? Or when you've got Alzheimer need somebody to wipe your ass?

>> No.5500730

>>5500704
So what you're saying is that you don't have any real explanation for why your incomplete thoughtform was a subservient entity of petty squabbles, and would like me to just ignore the fact that a major prospect of the religion is absolutely retarded. Okay. No wonder outside of obscure imageboards and developing nations this religion of complacent plebs is dying out.

>> No.5500731

>>5500691
>hemingway
>cathlic
>killed himself

>> No.5500734

>>5500731
Anon didn't ask for GOOD Catholics

>> No.5500740

>>5500718
Religion raped my life. And it continues to drown society. So yes I'm mad, now can i get my fedora pls.

>> No.5500741

>>5500727
>Will you remain strong on your deathbed? Will you remain strong if you get testicle cancer? Will you remain strong if you get a prolapsed anus? Or when you've got Alzheimer need somebody to wipe your ass?
I'll still be able to have my own motivations to be inspired, with the exception of Alzheimer's.

>> No.5500744

>>5500721
>Not liking The Monsters And The Critics or Leaf By Niggle
pleb.

>> No.5500765
File: 45 KB, 558x418, 1385070250670.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500765

>>5500741
"I create my own meaning and values"

>> No.5500772

>>5500700
Can you answer to this question:
>>5500716
?

>> No.5500774

>>5500765
>fedora
>kill urself you meme using fgt

>> No.5500785

>>5500774
Why you mad tho?

>> No.5500790

>>5500765
It actually is getting kinda old, where's the sweeping new fad when you need it?

>> No.5500798

>>5500730
No. That's not what I'm saying. Read my post again, this time using a number of neurons that can't be counted on the fingers on your right hand: nobody cares about Hell in 2014, except retards that nobody cares about. The fact that you're getting angry over this and not even taking the time to ponder what you read only proves one thing: that you're the kind of retards that nobody cares about, except when you start shouting your irrelevant opinions on long-dead topic.

So here's a suggestion my enlightened pal: why don't you go cum on the closest Virgin Mary, so that you can comfort yourself in the idea that you're fighting something pretty serious and that your anger over Catholic writers is more than the byproduct of your immense autism. In the meantime, that should let us some respite,a nd who knows, perhaps we'll see a beginning of conversation in this board ?

>> No.5500804

>>5500785
Because you used it literally only because of this :"I create my own meaning and values"
thats retarded. where's the counter-fedorsa meme?

>> No.5500807

>>5500740
Here anon, I got you a trillby.

>> No.5500811

>>5498494
That's what philosophers mean by "God" you fucking fedora

>> No.5500816

>>5500804
>>5500790
It will never get old, because you fedoras will keep getting mad and buttblasted
:)

>> No.5500819

>>5500553
>implying Bonaventure isn't a joy to read

>> No.5500820

>>5500811
It has little to do with Christian faith, however.

>> No.5500823

>>5500816
I hate you.

>> No.5500825

>>5500681

I know friendo that you don't understand much from Christian anthropology (YHWH first covenant and why did it happen).

You don't seem to understand much from philosophical anthropology as well that reveals systematic, true nature of Original Sin and what it REALLY stands for. Namely, Freudian analysis of mimetic desire in Scapegoating mechanism as a source of religion (Girard's Violence and the Sacred). Christ's death on Golgota is so revolutionary because it breaks the cycle of Freudian scapegoating mechanism as a psychological relief for society's trauma. Thus Christian narrative with resurrection and announcement of Christ's innocence makes humanity aware of its violent tendency (mimetic desire). (Freud, Burke, Becker, Girard)

You'd do better investigating the subject instead of attacking it when you know it only superficially.

>> No.5500830

>>5500819
I can't really wish to imply that, seeing as I have not read him.

>> No.5500835

>>5500823
You hate God.

>> No.5500839

>>5500835
I hate his people too.

>> No.5500871

>>5500825
So are you telling me that I should support the church and be an atheist like any rational man in history because I already realize the plebs need this so they don't "rob banks and have sex all the time" (christians words, not mine)

Also thank you for sort of pointing me in the right direction feel free to passively insult me a little more harshly.

>> No.5500874

>>5500839
Why do you rebel against Lord your God?

>> No.5500885

>>5500874
He raped Mary in her sleep and told the world that it was a miracle that's she pregnant with his bastard son. why do you think?

>> No.5500894

>>5500885
I like you fellow bluntfag

>> No.5500942

Lord of the rings

>> No.5500968
File: 2.35 MB, 300x276, veergil.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5500968

>>5500871

No, I am explaining to you how deeply religion is rooted in humanity's natural drives, anthropology and archetypes that are locked down in collective unconcious of the human psyche as a first reality of human perception of outside world (Jung, Becker). I was trying to show you that these very phenomena you were describing as incomprehensible are ones of most revolutionary turning points in history from the perspective of group-level (forming society) psychology.

Morality is completly other dimension of interest and the claim that any rational man in history was atheist is simply bananas. Majority of greatest minds throughout history were theist. Point can be made they were products of their times, however if we take a look how many of them were actually deeply concerned with religion then the original statement is still valid.

I do not wish to insult you, I wish you to drop "fad atheism" dogma. It's the product of our times prevalent in popular culture. Do you want to be a mere product? You can still without a doubt remain atheist without being incoherent and in addition obnoxious about it.

>> No.5500990

>>5500968
Actually I'm not even an atheist I'm specifically an anti-christian and mostly just on 4chan because it vents my frustration about people like the guy who told me he would rape and rob without jebus.
>any rational man in history was atheist is simply bananas
I know this
>I was trying to show you that these very phenomena you were describing as incomprehensible are ones of most revolutionary turning points in history from the perspective of group-level (forming society) psychology.
I also know this as well but I had not thought about it put in the light of jesus's sacrifice as a scapecgoat for our tendancies but more as the unity the church provided. What specifically can I read by Becker, Freud, Jung etc?

>> No.5501072

>>5500700
>>5500716
>>5500772

I don't know what that man meant by "read Wittgenstein", maybe just a meme? However Wittgenstein is a very original person in terms of his relationship with religion. He lost his (i believe lutheran) faith in his twenties and despite that still wanted for a short period to become a priest. He had a great reverance for Christian ritual and liturgy and even his greatest, direct student, Anscombe converted to Roman Catholicism and developed analytic thomism. He said of Smythies and Anscombe though: "I could not possibly bring myself to believe all the things that they believe."

Wittgenstein wrestles with God and sort of with his own weak faith that manifests sometimes in quotes such as “God! Let me come into a relationship with you in which I can be cheerful in my work.”

>> No.5501127

>>5500990

I think that key-players in the theories I described are Jung and Girard. By the latter " Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World" is a best starter.

Now, by Jung >>5500352 gives a good introduction, however it's uneasy to find the recommended book. Jung's best work is undeniably "Man and His Symbols", but I don't know of a good introduction to this author. Perhaps, you should start with Freud's "Totem and Taboo". Freud's was Jung's mentor afterall and Jung his best student.

I wish you good luck and less frustration as you put it yourself.

>> No.5501132

>>5501127
uh, few mistakes, I must be tired

>> No.5502047

>>5498352
No, there isn't.

And why do you want to believe? If you really wanted to, you'd just ignore the not believing part.

>> No.5502150

>>5498352
Take acid/mushrooms

>> No.5502229

>>5498418
>Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
None of your above arguments makes one arrive at that conclusion.

>> No.5502236

>>5498522
> There is no proof of mathematics.
Yes, there is, primarily because of THIS:
>Mathematics shows itself and its meaning via its USE in things like physics.
You just contradicted yourself.

>> No.5502289

>>5502236
the fact that it works isn't proof of anything. homeopathy works as well, it's still bullshit.

>> No.5502323

>>5502289
It IS proof that the mathematical model exists and works in the real world.