[ 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: 7 KB, 230x230, 1382038495021.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5965096 No.5965096 [Reply] [Original]

What do you think of my website /lit/?

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

>> No.5965131

7/10

>> No.5965149

>>5965096
The whole transcendental argument is just so bad. That's why you'll never see Plantinga or WLC talking about it much

>> No.5965172

I think there's a glitch

>> No.5965199

10/10

it actually links you to Disney if you you disagree with them

my sides are in orbit

>> No.5965242

>>5965149
Cosmological argument is also very bad

>> No.5965267

>>5965096
>Truth: If our thoughts are the mere by-products of the electrochemical processes in our evolved brains, you would not get "truth" you would get "brain-fizz." Chemicals do not produce "truth" they just react. As Doug Wilson said, it would be like shaking up a can of Mountain Dew, and a can of Dr. Pepper, opening them, and watching them fizz. Neither fizz is "true," they just are. For truth you need someone (God) who transcends the natural realm.

That is so fucking stupid, this argument is overly abstracting things to prevent a concrete logical view of things.

The creator of this website doesn't actually try to question the nature of truth and instead acts like it is some magical thing that requires God to exist.

If you don't believe in the truth and act upon the truth then you will suffer, if you believe in the truth and act upon it you will have pleasure as a result.

Pleasure is a product of neurochemicals, therefore truth can be explained through brain fizz.

>> No.5965271

>>5965172
Yes, the same thing happens to me

>> No.5965282

>>5965267
>While this proof is valid, no one needs this proof.
Here he accepts the fact that God doesn't need proof, therefore admitting that his belief is based off of emotion rather than logic

>> No.5965304

>>5965242
Do you say this because you genuinely understand it and found it not convincing, or do you say this because Dawkins says it?
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.at/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html?

>> No.5965545

Hur dur this argument is bad
Bcz is bad i think bcz i read somwhere its bad and i tjink thats it

>> No.5965698

>>5965304
The logic is pretty straightforward. No one needs Richard Dawkins to explain to them why it's wrong.

>> No.5965706

>>5965096
stupid frog poster

>> No.5965739

>>5965282
go to bed ayn rand

>> No.5965803
File: 84 KB, 718x450, D.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5965803

i never said they change randomly you stupid fucking robot

>> No.5965807
File: 80 KB, 415x420, ack aaack.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5965807

>>5965096
>http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
>exit button dumps you on disney.com

>> No.5965810

>>5965242
>people actually tell themselves this

>> No.5965813

>>5965803
>This .jpg kills the Kant

>> No.5965815

>>5965698
So, why is it wrong? Please explain

>> No.5965821

it asked so many questions with loaded definitions and implicit assumptions that it gave me an aneurysm

2/10

>> No.5965893
File: 4 KB, 610x64, D.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5965893

Hey,
Truth, Knowledge, And Logic exist because Tautologies exist, because language exists. Neither one requires your bronze age deity (le tip)
hope you get it now, cheers.

>> No.5966080
File: 2.00 MB, 334x258, 1410230754573.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5966080

>transcendental argument

Why is is so hard for christians to grasp the idea that there might be no inherent logic or "absolute truth" to the world other than what we as humans give it? To me that makes a lot more sense than there being some hidden code of rightness that magically appeared in print in the 4th century AD.

>cosmological argument

maybe the universe has always been here? I read once that some people think that the universe will cease to expand and begin to contract again to the point where it once more becomes a super dense cluster. this cluster will then explode in another big bang and then begin to expand begin the process anew. I have a lot of faith in science to find rational explanations for our origins in the tradition of Darwin.

who cares though even if he's right he still acts like a stupid faggot get off the university moron people pay to be here

>> No.5966266
File: 60 KB, 600x399, 1231231.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5966266

Thanks OP, I needed this.

At least it wasn't Thom Aquinas's muh axiom of choice reasoning.