Dealing with New Atheists

[Anonymous No.6102105]

Even at a Catholic School, euphoric fedorafags right down reflections like these, after learning about theodicy, and reading philosophers

[Anonymous No.6102109]

Provide evidence for God

Oh wait you don't have any, never mind

[Anonymous No.6102115]

>>6102109

[Anonymous No.6102122]

>>6102105
>God should ask for my forgiveness

[Anonymous No.6102125]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-_099meKq8

"Defend the Christian faith against those who like to live with its benefits, but will not pay their dues."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io1sNfw9-TA

[Anonymous No.6102126]

>God should ask for my forgiveness
I really hope this isn't real

[Anonymous No.6102133]

>>6102125
>live with its benefits
>implying that the Golden Rule was invented by Jesus
>mfw

[Anonymous No.6102141]

What shitty handwriting

[Anonymous No.6102149]

>right down reflections like these
>right

Alwrite OP, where did you go to school?

>>6102109

Read Aristotle, then Thomas Aquinas. The famous five proofs of God are 100% logically valid, and if you think they aren't, you didn't understand them.

[Anonymous No.6102156]

>>6102149
>The famous five proofs of God are 100% logically valid, and if you think they aren't, you didn't understand them.
>either you agree with me, or you don't understand me

That sounds unfalsifiable enough to be complete bullshit

Anyway, the First Cause is an argument from ignorance, and uses special pleading and begging the question

So no

[Anonymous No.6102158]

>>6102125
was that webm a poem by peter hitchens? it was dope

[Anonymous No.6102163]

>>6102156
Causality is a logical principle and you're a fag

[Anonymous No.6102168]

>>6102163

>Causality is a logical principle
>mfw

[Anonymous No.6102175]

>>6102156
So, what, in your opinion, is the first cause argument? Can I assume that you read both Aristotle and Aquinas, or did you read about the five proofs in your copy of the God Delusion?

[Anonymous No.6102176]

>>6102158

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cW7dh34Q0

[Anonymous No.6102177]

>>6102126
>>6102122
This is a quote from Elie Wiesel or some other Holocaust survivor iirc

[Anonymous No.6102189]

>>6102125
>not posting the stormweenie version

[Anonymous No.6102191]

>>6102175
>So, what, in your opinion, is the first cause argument?

A shitty word game that starts with a conclusion and then tailors the argument to that conclusion. The simple fact is that we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, as the Big Bang only describes the development after the universe comes about. The right thing to do in such a situation is to suspend judgement, until you can come up with an argument from which a conclusion can follow

[Anonymous No.6102195]

>>6102176
>>6102158

By A. E. Housman, from A Shropshire Lad, published in 1896. I guess it's him reflecting on his memories before the industrial revolution in Britain

[Anonymous No.6102197]

>>6102158
It's a poem by A E Housman, favoured poet of wise conservatives everywhere from Peter Hitchens to Michael Savage.

[Anonymous No.6102217]

>>6102149
>>right down reflections like these
>>right
>Alwrite OP, where did you go to school?

Not OP, but these confusions often happen in English when you type very quickly and have bad editing discipline.

I noticed it happening more and more to me the more I became proficient in the language.

[Anonymous No.6102222]

>>6102105
>After we forcefed him ALL our bullshit, he still forms his own conclusions.

Good on him.

[Anonymous No.6102225]

Why is /lit/ leading the charge against atheism? I thought you were all filthy Marxists.

[Anonymous No.6102227]

>>6102195
>>6102176
>>6102197


This was beautiful. I'm actually emotionally moved for the first time in awhile.

Thank you

I must read more of his work.

[Anonymous No.6102254]

>>6102225

Because /pol/theists couldn't spam /pol/ with religious spam anymore ever since the flags and IDs were introduced

[Anonymous No.6102263]

>>6102191
>The main reason this is a bad objection, though, is that most versions of the cosmological argument do not evenclaimthat the universe had a beginning. Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, Thomistic, and Leibnizian cosmological arguments are all concerned to show that there must be an uncaused causeeven if the universe has always existed. Of course, Aquinas did believe that the world had a beginning, but (as all Aquinas scholars know) that is not a claim that plays any role in his versions of the cosmological argument. When he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn’t mean “first” in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a mostfundamentalcause of things whichkeeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning.In fact, Aquinas rather famouslyrejectedwhat is now known as thekalāmargument. He did not think that the claim that the universe had a beginning could be established through philosophical arguments. He thought it could be known only via divine revelation, and thus was not suitable for use in trying to establish God’s existence. (Here, by the way, is another basic test of competence to speak on this subject. Any critic of the Five Ways who claims that Aquinas was trying to show that the universe had a beginning and that God caused that beginning – as Richard Dawkins does in his comments on the Third Way inThe God Delusion– infallibly demonstrates thereby that he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.)

[Anonymous No.6102266]

Is "new atheism" still a thing even? Hasn't it rode itself to death over being overly PC and all-inclusive for any feminist fringe group that came along?

I think if the religious are honest in their goals, they should seek to find ground not with those who reject god with low-brow arguments, but with the was majority of the apathetic.

[Anonymous No.6102272]

>>6102191
Congratulations, you just proved that you have no idea whatsoever. The Big Bang has nothing to do with the first cause. The cause Aquinas is talking about is not something that happened sometime back and caused the universe. It's the ground of being, "first cause" as in ipsum esse subsistens, the primal ground on which everything that exists depends upon to continue existing.

As I said, read Aristotle and read Aquinas, because I can tell that you didn't read any of them.

And before you think you can reply with another worthless objection of some strawman you read in an atheist forum or whatever, please, take at least a minute and read this:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.at/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

[Anonymous No.6102277]

>>6102263
>hen he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn’t mean “first” in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning.

Which is still based on a perspective we don't have, which would make it an argument from ignorance, still treats this First Cause as a special case without justification, which would make it special pleading, and still assumes that this First Cause needs to possess intelligence and a conscious will, which would make it question begging

[Anonymous No.6102280]

I would imagine athieism is far more prominent in catholic school than any other demographic due to the absurd shit catholics do to their followers.

[Anonymous No.6102284]

>>6102272

>The Big Bang has nothing to do with the first cause.
>The simple fact is that we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, as the Big Bang only describes the development after the universe comes about.

Congratulations, you just proved that you can't read

>As I said, read Aristotle and read Aquinas, because I can tell that you didn't read any of them.

That has zero bearing on the validity of the argument.

[Anonymous No.6102290]

>>6102272
So if it doesn't explain the origins of your superfluous imaginary condition, then it isn't valid?

[Anonymous No.6102298]

>>6102217
>I noticed it happening more and more to me the more I became proficient in the language.
Same here, English isn't my first language.
I guess after some time your knowledge of the language becomes more and more based on phonemes, and you get more careless with your writing.

[Anonymous No.6102304]

>>6102149

[Anonymous No.6102311]

>>6102266
>being overly PC and all-inclusive for any feminist fringe group that came along?
Lol, no way. New atheists are reddit fedora types and if you ever went to reddit you have probably seen how non-inclusive they are.
Most of new atheism is really conservative, actually.

[Anonymous No.6102318]

>>6102156
>unfalsifiable
>special pleading
>begging the question

Why do mentally retarded atheists always seem to argue in fallacy buzzwords and nothing else?

[Anonymous No.6102323]

>>6102280
>due to the absurd shit catholics do to their followers
That doesn't matter as long as you can justify it, making it make sense. Every society does this, that's why looking at previous societies in history you can't help but laugh at the absurdity of their ways.

[Anonymous No.6102325]

>>6102195
The laws of God, the laws of man,
He may keep that will and can;
Not I: let God and man decree
Laws for themselves and not for me;
And if my ways are not as theirs
Let them mind their own affairs.
Their deeds I judge and much condemn,
Yet when did I make laws for them?
Please yourselves, say I, and they
Need only look the other way.
But no, they will not; they must still
Wrest their neighbor to their will,
And make me dance as they desire
With jail and gallows and hell-fire.
And how am I to face the odds
Of man’s bedevilment and God’s?
I, a stranger and afraid
In a world I never made.
They will be master, right or wrong;
Though both are foolish, both are strong.
And since, my soul, we cannot fly
To Saturn nor to Mercury,
Keep we must, if keep we can,
These foreign laws of God and man.

[Anonymous No.6102332]

>>6102318

>calling something a 'buzzword' means I don't have to address it

[Anonymous No.6102342]

>>6102325
B a s e d H o u s m a n

a

s

e

d

H

o

u

s

m

a

n

[Anonymous No.6102346]

>>6102122
This is actually kind of true. In order to accept Christianity, it's not about submitting to god or having god forgive you, but you being willing to forgive god for the pain he has caused in this creation.
>inb4 but we grow from it and things will be judged fairly

None of this is necessary at all. God could perfectly well have an infinite number of living intelligent rational beings that live in bliss and harmony across thousands of galaxies, he has chosen instead to evolve a bunch of monkey's in one small corner to a point where they can deliberately cause harm to each other, and we are supposed to call our greatest moral feat sacrificing ourselves just to prevent this by a small amount?

Very fucked up circumstances for this judgement game that has no reason to be there in the first place, the entire concept of justice only exists because we have been placed into an unjust world.

[Anonymous No.6102349]

>>6102284
>Congratulations, you just proved that you can't read

How so? You mentioned the Big Bang, so I was under the impression that you thought that the argument has something to do with what came before the Big Bang or something like that. Why did you mention the Big Bang then?

>That has zero bearing on the validity of the argument.

Sure, if you had actually understood what the first cause argument was actually about. I'm advising you to read those two philosophers to actually understand what you're trying to discuss. Your argument is invalid because it's attacking a straw man at best.

>>6102290
It's not valid criticism if it fails to address the actual argument.

[Anonymous No.6102355]

>>6102349
What's your actual argument for the external category of being?

[Anonymous No.6102359]

>>6102349
>Sure, if you had actually understood what the first cause argument was actually about.

I would if the goalposts weren't constantly being moved

[Anonymous No.6102404]

>>6102359
No, you would if you actually took time to read Aquinas and Aristotle.

>>6102355
Are you familiar with classical metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.6102408]

>>6102346
I forgot to mention the most important part. God's justification of this is a story about two humans who ate from a tree they weren't supposed to eat from, even after a snake told them the truth about it. The snake was also punished for this along with us for simply following the truth and rational god imbedded in us in the first place.

That's the entire reason we aren't having beautiful happiness and harmony, a grudge over eating an apple.

[Anonymous No.6102413]

Op sounds like a meta-fag with a seriously, and I mean SERIOUSLY large Jesus dick up his ecumenical ass

[Anonymous No.6102421]

>>6102404
>Am I familiar with classical metaphysics?
Not in a way that will cater to you.

[Anonymous No.6102424]

>>6102404

Again, that has no bearing on my criticisms against the First Cause. Also, the only you've done is present your argument, I raise some criticisms to it, then all you do is claim that I don't understand it, which is just goalpost shifting.

Also, like I said earlier, this stuff of "if you don't agree with the First Cause argument, you don't really understand it" reeks of a lack of falsifiability

[Anonymous No.6102480]

>>6102424
Of course it has. If you don't understand something, how do you expect to criticize it? All your criticism is irrelevant if you don't understand it - you're committing a strawman fallacy then.

>Also, like I said earlier, this stuff of "if you don't agree with the First Cause argument, you don't really understand it" reeks of a lack of falsifiability

Why don't you try to understand it first?
I don't say that it's impossible to disagree with the five ways if you do understand them. For example, Anthony Kenny is a very good example of someone who actually understands it and is still critical of it. I'm just saying that the proofs are logically valid if you understand them. Whether you agree with them is an entirely different question.

[Anonymous No.6102485]

>>6102480
>All your criticism is irrelevant if you don't understand it - you're committing a strawman fallacy then.

You have yet to address a single one of them

>Why don't you try to understand it first?

Why should I waste my time playing a pointless exercise of 'you don't understand me unless you agree with me'?

[Anonymous No.6102489]

>>6102480

Also, I looked up Anthony Kenny:

>The atheist says that no matter what definition you choose, 'God exists' is always false.

That sounds like the typical strawman of atheism, now I know where you guys get this bullshit from

[Anonymous No.6102499]

>>6102485
Tfw for the first time on 4chin I see atheists presenting better arguments.

[Anonymous No.6102505]

>>6102408
Many Christians believe the story is completely symbolic and not to be taken literally. They would argue that the eating of the apple is a metaphor for mankind turning their back on Gods will and deciding that instead of remaining innocent they deny his will and choose evil instead. I'm not saying I agree with it I'm Agnostic but thats what they would argue.

[Anonymous No.6102528]

>>6102105
Either /b/8 or OP doesn't know what a fedorafag is.

[Anonymous No.6102532]

>>6102505

And what method do Christians use to accurately and reliably distinguish between a metaphor and a report?

[Anonymous No.6102537]

>>6102133
If you're implying this rabbi did, then I feel obligated to point out Confucius came up with the golden rule 400 years before he was born, and I'd be surprised if he was the first too

He didn't call it the Golden Rule of course, called it something best translated as "reciprocity", but it was literally "Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself"

[Anonymous No.6102548]

>>6102105

>after learning about theodicy

Implying there is any theodicy out there which is both epistemologically reasonable and more probable than atheistic objections.

[Anonymous No.6102550]

>>6102105
Looking for rationality in an irrational world is irrational in itself

[Anonymous No.6102556]

>>6102263

>that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment


No.
There is literally no reason to believe there is a need for sustaining efficient causes for every single thing given that there is not even one sustaining efficient cause for one thing.

[Anonymous No.6102565]

>>6102191
>The right thing to do in such a situation is to suspend judgement, until you can come up with an argument from which a conclusion can follow

Well that's rather unscientific isn't it?

[Anonymous No.6102586]

>>6102408

This is reddit-tier levels of idiocy and faggots like this shouldn't be browsing /lit/.

Symbolism, allegory, and metaphor are not things you understand are they?

[Anonymous No.6102599]

>>6102346
Where can I read more on the concept? I am fascinated by it.

[Anonymous No.6102642]

>>6102532
Their desires.

[Anonymous No.6102643]

>>6102586

not that guy who doesn't recognize the symbolic nature of the christian mythology, but:

you know a lot of christians (maybe a majority of them) take the mythology to be literally true, right?

maybe christian churches ought to teach its audiences that the stories of the christian mythology aren't meant to be taken as the literal truth. but they aren't. i've personally heard christians say, time and time again, that they hold the bible to be the literal word of god

[Anonymous No.6102678]

>>6102325
typical "classical liberal" shite

[Anonymous No.6102707]

>>6102643

Yes I understand that and it's a persistent problem.

It's also why protestantism is a plague and is the worst thing to happen to Christendom.

[Anonymous No.6102708]

>>6102532
Uh literary analysis? You look at the way it's written?

[Anonymous No.6102720]

>>6102149
>The famous five proofs of God are 100% logically valid

But we should also care about whether they are sound.

>>6102556
>There is literally no reason to believe there is a need for sustaining efficient causes for every single thing given that there is not even one sustaining efficient cause for one thing.

Then how do objects move and change?

[Anonymous No.6102764]

>>6102149
I have read aquinas' summa theologica. I have read anselm, ireneaus, hippo, augustine etc. (catholic upbringing) - I converted to protestantism at 13 against my parents' wishes and dropped all faith by 15. I had an existential crisis at seventeen, almost found god again at 18, and now I am studying physics and philosophy at one of the most prestigious universities in the UK.

I'd like you to tell me why my mind is so ill-disciplined as to not have been apt to follow some medieval, superstitious "logic" that you have deemed so infallible?

[Anonymous No.6102775]

>>6102720
I cringe at /lit/'s lack of basic understanding of modern physical science.

[Anonymous No.6102781]

>>6102720

>Then how do objects move and change?

Generating efficient causes.

Sustaining efficient causes don't exist. The idea that they do and consequently the whole "we are existing now therefore even if the past is infinite there must be something as a fundamental cause" is a consequence of aristotelian physics, where causation travels at infinite speed.
If it did, then we would know with 100% certainty that given the fact that we exist now, there must be an ultimate cause because the causal effect is travelling right now through the whole causal chain up to us, therefore there must be something at the beginning (even if it's not a proper temporal beginning) that causes the whole chain up until us.

However, causation travels at the speed of light, which is finite. Therefore, if the causal chain is infinite, there is no need for a first cause because every element in the chain is explained by another element (that is, no element lacks an explanation for its existence) and the whole chained is explained by the fact that it is logically entailed by the existence of the elements of the chain.

[Anonymous No.6102783]

>>6102349
just stop this. stop this please this is cringe-worthy.

please for crying out loud just go to school again and pay attention in A-level physics.
you are making seriously basic mistakes in your thought-processes

[Anonymous No.6102793]

>>6102105
I'm an atheist. Could we just stop talking about religion in general. Not all of us are combative. This type of constant complaining about atheists is as bad as constantly complaining as religion.

[Anonymous No.6102799]

>>6102781
>aristotelian physics, where causation travels at infinite speed.
Whaaa? That's the opposite of what Aristotle believed, his conception of time includes duration.

[Anonymous No.6102810]

>>6102781
>Therefore, if the causal chain is infinite, there is no need for a first cause because every element in the chain is explained by another element (that is, no element lacks an explanation for its existence) and the whole chained is explained by the fact that it is logically entailed by the existence of the elements of the chain.

But if each element only possesses its causal power by derivation from the prior elements in the chain, where is that causal power actually derived from?

[Anonymous No.6102812]

>>6102793
Op here, this was total bait

[Anonymous No.6102822]

>>6102812
So, could you stop posting threads like this? They're always awful and only the worst people get entrenched into arguments in them.

[Anonymous No.6102823]

>asked to write an assignment in school about god
>dude simply explains that he doesn't believe in god, even though he can relate to some christians
>"OH MY GOD U FUCKING NEW ATHEIST SCUM I FUCKIN HATE U BURN IN HELL HOLY SHIT *TIPS FEDORA* LOOK AT THIS 4CHIN THIS FUCKING ATHEIST SHITBAG HATES GOD OMG I'M SO FUCKING BUTTHURT HOLY SHIT I HOPE HE ROTS IN HELL"

[Anonymous No.6102831]

>>6102793
>>6102812
>>6102822
This is the actual OP here. I will issue an official apology to all atheists in a separate thread, in a few moments.

[Anonymous No.6102836]

>>6102149
Read more Bataille then faggot

>>then go prostrate before your Archontes, weeaboo christian

[Anonymous No.6102845]

>>6102831
This is the worst new trend on this board and I can't wait for it to die.

[Anonymous No.6102851]

>>6102783
>you are making seriously basic mistakes in your thought-processes

Like?

[Anonymous No.6102880]

>>6102149
>The famous five proofs of God are 100% logically valid, and if you think they aren't, you didn't understand them.
>100% logically valid

[Anonymous No.6102883]

>>6102851
Honestly the only thing you have to do is educate yourself and I'm not going to waste my time trying to do that over an anonymous image board.

however, if we adhere to the scientific method, we can explain all of the physical phenomenon that occurred within the known universe since the big bang, right up to the very picosecond after the singularity.
the problem is that we do not have a unified theory that can explain the relationship between relativity and quantum mechanics, so we can't truly understand the state of our super-compressed singularity: because our mathematics isn't perhaps advanced enough or our models are flawed.

however, to even begin to speculate at what happened before this is purely unfalsifiable, and remains simply that: speculation.

also, since we know that time is multidimensional and relativistic, we could say that the reason we are here is because ours is the only universe that exists where we can be here. If time and space do not exist "outside" our universe then supposing we are the only universe, or perhaps even the only "outcome" of our own big bang is, so far, unfalsifiable.

If you want to understand this then you need to study physics more.

[Anonymous No.6102892]

>>6102109
look at history

[Anonymous No.6102902]

>>6102892
no look at science
>>6102883

[Anonymous No.6102903]

>>6102823
did you not read the last line?

[Anonymous No.6102904]

>>6102892
yes, all of those times god came to earth and it was recorded as oral tradition. irrefutablem, truly

[Anonymous No.6102906]

>>6102880
Can you please point out where the conclusions don't follow from the premises?

[Anonymous No.6102908]

>>6102883
>we can explain all of the physical phenomenon that occurred within the known universe since the big bang, right up to the very picosecond after the singularity.
What about non-physical phenomena, like meaning or perception?

[Anonymous No.6102917]

>>6102904
1The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.

2He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ 3and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.a 4A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.

[Anonymous No.6102922]

>>6102177
>a grown man said this
Only more cringeworthy

[Anonymous No.6102927]

>>6102902
what about it? one belief system is incompatible with the idea of a god that exists beyond sense data big woop god disproven

[Anonymous No.6102932]

>>6102908
see
>>6102855

it's a valid point, but that can mostly be explained by Darwin.

It is a tricky subject though and nobody likes their life being shrunk to equations and petri-dishes, not even me. but linguistics, philosophy, theology etc. are all quibbles compared to the vast beauty and godlike nature of physics.

one answer to your question will be that the human race is inclined to project meaning onto physical phenomenon as an evolutionary trait. sentience, morality, self awareness, consciousness, all of these are words for an evolutionary by-product.
outside of our human societies and co-relations they would not exist, they are just an elegant dance that motor-neurons partake in to further the evolutionary prosperity of their hosts.

[Anonymous No.6102933]

>>6102903
He's quoting someone you sperglord.

[Anonymous No.6102935]

>>6102917
Yes, I forgot all the corroborating evidence that it happened and happened like that.

[Anonymous No.6102938]

>>6102922
It was found carved in the wall of a concentration camp or something.

[Anonymous No.6102939]

>>6102933
i don't think you're replying to the right person

[Anonymous No.6102944]

>>6102927
>belief system

the point is that science is the only method of widening your understanding of your surroundings that yields testable, reliable results that can be analyzed empirically to make testable and often accurate speculations about other phenomena

[Anonymous No.6102945]

>>6102939
I am you autist.

The last line used in the pic OP posted is a quote.

[Anonymous No.6102946]

>>6102935
>you cannot interpret the signs of the times

[Anonymous No.6102950]

>>6102944
and?

[Anonymous No.6102952]

>>6102946
>believing in astrology.

[Anonymous No.6102954]

>>6102922
It's actually pretty powerful when it doesn't merely stems from too much internet.

[Anonymous No.6102955]

>>6102945
pretty sure you're not

[Anonymous No.6102960]

>>6102952
>tipping

[Anonymous No.6102963]

>>6102955
I am. The poster I was responding to asked if I read the last line, and I pointed out that the last line is a fucking quote.

Holy shit you're mentally handicapped in more ways than one apparently.

[Anonymous No.6102966]

>>6102963
you're still not replying to the right person

[Anonymous No.6102968]

>>6102960
Honestly? You think an 82nd hand traslated hundreds of times account proves something?

[Anonymous No.6102969]

>>6102966
Fuck off retard, learn to read.

[Anonymous No.6102974]

>>6102950
are you so arrogant to assume that it is impossible to understand the world without sense experience?

if you lived your entire life within a black box would you have a better understanding of the world we live in than if you were free to examine it?
of course not. and further than that the person inside the black box would have no possible way to come to a solidly supported belief in the outside world, as his speculations would be wholly unfalsifiable and therefore void.

We are blind creatures, and the only way to extend our field of influence and experience is through science and technology.

yes I hate scientism as much as the next guy, and would never argue that reckless progress is necessarily a "good" thing (whatever that means), but then again it is impossible to doubt the unmatched utility of the scientific method for the human race.

[Anonymous No.6102976]

>>6102968
i'm not sure what your angle is. i think you're generally just shutting everything out

[Anonymous No.6102980]

>>6102932
>but linguistics, philosophy, theology etc. are all quibbles compared to the vast beauty and godlike nature of physics.
Well, we have to deal with politics, doncha think that's kinda preeetty important too?
I mean, we may know everything about physical phenomena, but there's still politics we have to deal with. While it isn't the other way around.

[Anonymous No.6102982]

>>6102969
are you replying to the right person?

[Anonymous No.6102991]

>>6102974
>are you so arrogant to assume that it is impossible to understand the world without sense experience?

are you so arrogant to assume that it is possible to understand god with sense experience?

maybe you should have addressed my post holistically instead of being offended that i called a belief system a belief system

[Anonymous No.6102993]

>>6102976
I mean, it was you that said history shows the proof of god. I pointed out the obvious flaw in the recording mechanism and your response is to say "you just can't read the signs". How are you not believing in astrology, again?

[Anonymous No.6103004]

>>6102993
oh, that passage is about looking for a physical sign from god which is really missing the point

[Anonymous No.6103009]

>>6102980
yes I totally agree and the scientific method wouldn't be well received among political circles.
I believe it could be applied but science requires testing, and that's *often* off limits for "ethical government".
politics is applied morality and morality, for an analytic, is a "boo/hurrah" affair (most of the time - I mean analytic philosophy does not demand you have this view but there is a definite correlation) which entails that our morality complicated amalgam of our genetic "desire" to proliferate and subjugate other races/species and our socially developed attitudes towards "right and wrong" - which could also be argued to have spread as a form of social darwinism itself (strong values and political systems and had dominant social traits would outcompete other civilizations/world groups for resources/food/political control over regions etc.).

you need to step out of lofty physics for the most part as it does inherently leave you nihilistic and down - like you're happy when you're looking through telescopes and number crunching but when you are not you are left feeling empty, struggling with life's absurd meaninglessness.

I'm rambling now but to answer your question, yes, we need to sort our politics out. But ultimately, the universe wont care if we do or don't.

[Anonymous No.6103018]

>>6103004
Yet it was you that stated that the proof was in history instead of just proclaiming your faith regardless of proof. Tell me how that isn't hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.6103020]

>>6102991
>holistically
oh just piss of with your mumbo jumbo buzz-words

if you want to have a real, productive discussion then we need to find a way to work within the same language game.

If you honestly believe that you can reach any higher understanding of the world through introspection and introspection alone then you probably would be better off locked in a black windowless box.

introspection must be the result of sense experienc to further your understanding of the ONLY world we can test, make predictions, verify etc.
the rest may be claptrap or "enlightenment" but you provide no compelling cosmological evidence to support the conclusions you have drawn from your belief system that other people can sympathise with on an intellectual level unless you somehow base it on the world you cohabit.

[Anonymous No.6103152]

>>6103020
>we need to find a way to work within the same language game.

which isn't going to work if you're trying to shoehorn the existence of god into an empiricist system

>If you honestly believe that you can reach any higher understanding of the world through introspection and introspection alone then you probably would be better off locked in a black windowless box.

i have no idea why you're saying this

>oh just piss of with your mumbo jumbo buzz-words

yet you still miss the point of what i was saying for like the third time in a row

[Anonymous No.6103225]

atheists clinging to theodicy are really retarded. It should be self-evident that men questioning the ethics of the actions of the Creator of Right and Wrong do not have a leg to stand on.

[Anonymous No.6103228]

>>6103225
>It should be self-evident that men questioning the ethics of the actions of the Creator of Right and Wrong do not have a leg to stand on.

Because he doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.6103805]

>>6103225
People clinging to theodicy aren't atheists, they're anti-theists.

[Anonymous No.6103888]

>>6102922
As previously stated, it was said by a jewish anon kept in an concentration camp.. lets just take that into account, he was an anon.
HE WAS ONE OF US.

>But on a serious note, this kid perverted the original, which was "If there is a god, he will have to beg for my forgiveness." It's much stronger than this coward's words. This man doubts the existence of god while placing himself above him, i.e. god will have to bend to this man before he is able to begin to accept the tragedies he has allowed transgressed.

>tl;dr : Human bravado at its finest.

[Anonymous No.6104868]

>>6102810


>But if each element only possesses its causal power by derivation from the prior elements in the chain, where is that causal power actually derived from?

That's a meaningless question: the causal power of each element of the chain is "actually derived" from the previous element of the chain.

Saying that I should set aside that to answer your question is like saying "setting aside your mother and your father, who conceived you?".

[Anonymous No.6104884]

>>6103225

If you actually think this, you're an idiot.

The argument isn't "this thing done by the perfect creator god who never does any wrong is wrong".
To simplify, the argument is

this thing is wrong
the creator god never does any wrong
therefore this thing isn't made by the creator god who never does any wrong

[Anonymous No.6104940]

>>6102109
>Provide evidence for God
you do not need an evidence to talk about god

[Anonymous No.6104980]

>>6102586
Once you take the step and say "Oh It's all just metaphors and symbolism" it has nothing to do with reason anymore and anybody can just interpret whatever they want - everything goes.

Can we finally just agree that all humans are created by evolution and religion has been made up by tribesmen unable to explain the world they lived in?

Although there might be - or have been in the past - a god, it does not follow that it wishes to be praised by apes who believe in the literal truth of any bullshit tale that sounds remotely plausible at first sight.

Also, the 5 arguments about the existence of god prove that 'a' god existed, but not one that deliberately created earth, mountains, oceans, you or me or gives a damn about any of it.

[Anonymous No.6104982]

>>6102944
>the point is that science is the only method of widening your understanding of your surroundings that yields testable, reliable results that can be analyzed empirically to make testable and often accurate speculations about other phenomena
What is the reason (since you wish to stick to the reason) to hold the view (or believe ?) that the predictability within margin errors of the behavior of the world gives you knowledge, good knowledge, necessary knowledge, perhaps even necessary and sufficient knowledge to know the world ?

captcha :rrneys sensations

[Anonymous No.6106263]

>>6102191
>the big bang

[Anonymous No.6106273]

>>6104982
>since you wish to stick to the reason

Yes, what a crime

Anyway, predictability is the main yardstick by which you measure whether your view of reality is actually consistent with reality. If the predictions of your view of reality correspond with reality, then you can be fairly confident that your views are correct. After all, that's what good and reliable knowledge is, the amount of consistency with reality

[Anonymous No.6106289]

>>6102944
You realize that is the same thing people thought about religion? Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.6106297]

>>6106289
>that yields testable, reliable results that can be analyzed empirically to make testable and often accurate speculations about other phenomena

Religions can do this?

[Anonymous No.6106311]

>>6102176
That whole spiel was pretty impressive actually, I guess Peter Hitchens has his moments.

[Anonymous No.6106321]

>>6102793
The issue has truly come full circle.

This is the shit I have been saying for years as a Christian.

[Anonymous No.6106323]

>>6106289
They believed certain religious beliefs were true and therefore unavoidable for any idea. Religious thought was suppressed as much as it was championed, because they needed to come to specific religious conclusions, not support a way of thinking.

Scientific thought on the other hand is championed because of its strengths at getting to truth, not because it is true.

[Anonymous No.6108377]

>>6102565
>Saying, "I don't know," when you don't know is unscientific

[Anonymous No.6109012]

>>6106273
you are repeating the stance, not giving a motivation. Why predictability gives you (good) knowledge ?
Do not answer by 'it is obvious'

[Anonymous No.6109029]

>>6109012
If i know bitches like roses and i want to get a bitch, i'll give a bitch a rose since i can predict she will love it. If i know bitches like roses and this is not always true, maybe ill be wasting my money. If i'm certain bitches ALLWAYS loves roses, i know i will not waste my money ever if i buy a rose to get a bitch.
Therefore, if my intention is to get a bitch without wasting money and i want the knowledge to achieve this, predictability will be a good property for said knowledge.

[Anonymous No.6109076]

>>6109012
If a piece of knowledge consistently and accurately predicts reality, it is likely a closer approximation to reality than a comparable piece of knowledge that cannot consistently or accurately predict reality. If knowledge is meant to be applicable to reality as opposed to a fictional lala-land, actually having a relationship to reality and not just some thinker's ego is pretty crucial.

[Anonymous No.6109078]

>>6104868

No, if something has potentialities that can be actualized- then we need an explanation to what actualized that potentiality and made it actualize at one moment rather than another, or at all rather than not at all. The thing that actualized the potentiality must either be something that has been actualized itself by another or is purely actual it'self, every being that can change shows that it has potentialities that can be actualized( as we see when it changes), thus a first mover which is pure actuality ( hence immutable and unchangeable) must exist to be the prior actual reality that begins the chain of actualization.

Sustaining causes are required because all true causation is instantaneous, we have to ask, why it is this way rather than not?- me being wet at this moment is not because there was water on me two seconds when it hit me, that explains why I was wet then, the water remaining on me now is the cause of why I am wet now. Non instantaneous causation is only accidental causation, an accidental cause may be transitive with the actual cause as it was part of the channel the actuality dominoed through in terms of say: material production, but there is no logical necessity of something staying in existence at one moment or staying the same way at one moment just because it existed that way before, we need to explain why it does or does not either way. People think that Laws of Inertia prove that this is false- because we find that objects continue moving until something stops them.

This is wrong headed though, we only knows that "laws" are, not why they are. We have no way to determine how "laws" can be said to guide or cause anything, and when we give a scientific law as an explanation of a phenomena all we are really saying is something like "fa results in ga because all fs result in gs"; we just find a unity in nature between certain processes and objects with similar properties, but without some sort of non-deflationist metaphysics we can come to no understanding of why these generalities exist or what it is about the members of these generalities that make them the way they are. An Aristotelean teleogoical account at least gives us properties that explains WHY we have those generalities, there are no mysterious "laws" which can't actually govern anything since they are just a set of generalities, rather- certain types of things and processes have certain teleological qualities that make them behave in a certain way every time so as long as they are sustained by that which actualizes them.

The Aristotelean position expands our ontological commitments in some sense, but it also explains mental phenomena that is irreducible to material processes through the centrality of desire and ends. .

So, when we compare the traditional Aristotelean system with modern " Scientific" systems we end up finding that it's less simple ontologically, and yet it can explain what the "Scientific" view cannot, the trade off is worth it.

[Anonymous No.6109127]

>>6104980
You do know that some bible stories are a symbolic codex that are meant to be interpreted differently by mystics than by lay people. The garden of eden being a pretty significant one.

[Anonymous No.6110070]

>>6109076
>If a piece of knowledge consistently and accurately predicts reality, it is likely a closer approximation to reality than a comparable piece of knowledge that cannot consistently or accurately predict reality. If knowledge is meant to be applicable to reality as opposed to a fictional lala-land, actually having a relationship to reality and not just some thinker's ego is pretty crucial.

There are no reasonable/logical low-level argument to support this. It is only an axiom because you still see/state that predictability is informative because it predicts. You give value to predictability because you wish too, because you like it, not because your reason pushes you to.

[Anonymous No.6110341]

>>6102149
Squints' Five Way only prove the existence of a First Cause or Unmoved Mover, this idea he took from Aristotle. He does not prove the existence of the Christian idea of a omnipotent and infinite God. Secondly he discounts the idea of an infinite regress based on human experience, a synthetic a posteriori reason, and while we have no experience of this being possible, human understanding is far from comprehensive enough to make that assumption. Aquinas' Five Ways are by no means a definitive proof, Payley has better argument but all alleged proofs of God fall substantially short.

[Anonymous No.6110358]

>>6110341
>squints'
That is supposed to be Aquinas blame auto correct

[Anonymous No.6110407]

>>6102678
Go away already.

[Anonymous No.6110572]

>>6104940
this

[Anonymous No.6110616]

>>6104940

You don't need evidence to talk about any claim, but you do need it to assign any value of truth to it

[Anonymous No.6110629]

>>6102982
I can't stop laughing

[Anonymous No.6110658]

>>6102156
lel, the fifth proof, are you completely blinded by your cognitive bias to not see what is wrong?

[Anonymous No.6110672]

>>6110658
>to not see what is wrong?

Very well then, explain how one gains a perspective outside of reality and causality. Explain why God can apparently avoid all the limitations you put on reality, instead of merely asserting that he can. Explain why intelligence and a conscious will are absolutely necessary for the organization of structure when we know of concepts like self-organization

[Anonymous No.6110693]

>>6110672
meant to quote the recipient of your post

the fifth proof certainly hasn't aged well

[Anonymous No.6110712]

>>6110341

> Secondly he discounts the idea of an infinite regress based on human experience

Do you mean a temporal infinite regress ? Because he assumes that the universe and time have always existed because he doesn't think Philosophy can prove it either way- he holds the universe being created on faith and he is up front about it. The necessary first mover is the sustaininer and first actualization to actualize potentialities, I explained it a bit here. The denial of the infinite regress is not a temporal one which we base on experience, but a logical point based on Aristotle's metaphysics.

>>6109078


The 5 ways are also only the beginning of the full proof, he goes on to show how it is the Christian God who is the first mover afterwards in the Summa.

[Anonymous No.6110727]

>>6110712
>he holds the universe being created on faith and he is up front about it.

And yet he still calls his 5 ways 'proofs', while the whole foundation is ultimately based on faith

[Anonymous No.6110729]

>>6109078

>thus a first mover which is pure actuality ( hence immutable and unchangeable) must exist to be the prior actual reality that begins the chain of actualization.

That's circular reasoning at its best: of course if there's something that begins the chain then there's something that begins the chain, no shit.

I'm saying that the chain is endless, stop making the same mistake over and over again. If the chain is endless, every event is caused by a previous event and you don't need any first event because there is no freaking first event. That would be a problem if the chain was finite, because finite things must have a first element. But I'm saying the causal chain isn't finite.
In case it's still not wrong, let's put it this way: a causal explanation isn't complete when there is at least one element in the system it is trying to explain that isn't explained. Point me which element isn't explained.
It's not any causal event because every single one of them is caused by another.
It's not the whole chain because its existence is logically implied by the existence of the events.
So what is it?
Nothing, that's why you're wrong.
>Sustaining causes are required because all true causation is instantaneous

This is factually incorrect, stop living in the middle ages and join the modern times, where we have things like physics (in which by the way we have stopped saying things like "causation", even more "true causation)

[Anonymous No.6110731]

>>6110693

Nevermind then

[Anonymous No.6110732]

>>6110729

*in case it's still not clear

[Anonymous No.6110745]

>>6110693

The fourth way has aged far worse.

[Anonymous No.6110822]

man is the only creature who contemplates art, science, religion, philosophy and has the creative capacity for technological innovation.

even when you try to compare certain species of animals who do things creatively they don't compare favorably. it's like the most extreme primitive version every time.

not sure what goes on but I think it has to be something. and it's the nature of the beast since whenever science finds an answer it reveals two new questions. and so it will forever be.

[Anonymous No.6110844]

>>6102105
Sounds like this kid was given a shitty assignment. If you don't like his answer then don't ask the question.

[Anonymous No.6110854]

>>6110822

So what?

[Anonymous No.6110879]

>>6110854
>So what?

so while man was evolving what where every other living creature on this planet doing?

I believe in evolution but I do think man has either been touched with something divine or has some other enigma that separates man from every other living thing on this planet. it's an ego trip sure. yet, it's true. your lack of ability to get inferences from my post is a good argument against man though. that's what.

[Anonymous No.6110901]

>>6110879

>so while man was evolving what where every other living creature on this planet doing?

They evolved adapting to a different environment with different mutations.


>I believe in evolution but I do think man has either been touched with something divine

No, for example you could just take chimps and give them:

- less strength, more manual dexterity
- a couple more mitotic cycles during development for neurons
- pharingeal structure more similar to that of an adult human rather than a newborn


And bam, you got yourself a highly intelligent being. You don't have to invent anything new, just modify what is already there.

[Anonymous No.6110929]

>>6110901
but there aren't chimps who are designing spaceships or studying literature.

>They evolved adapting to a different environment with different mutations.

when you look at animalistic characterizations...despite the incredible variety of environments/possibilities man is alone in what he is. we're the only species on the planet discussing this right now.

and yeah we could have some planet of the apes type shit. but when you have developed or trained chimps with higher intelligence it's all due to man's intervention every time. period.

[Anonymous No.6110941]

>>6110929

>but there aren't chimps who are designing spaceships or studying literature.

Yes, and I didn't say they are. What I tried to show you is that there's nothing "divine" about the difference between chimps and men, it's just more brain power, possibility for language and ability to use hands for precise tasks and we know more or less what biological changes are needed, and they're all possible to achieve through evolution.

[Anonymous No.6111029]

>>6110941
but the very differences we're talking about is everything. and it's more complicated than how* you mention. you turn the difference into a one-liner and it's a gross generalization of all the complications involved in these differences.

some chimps are smarter than others. but again...nature hasn't served chimps like it has served man. nature hasn't served any other specie even a slight fraction of what it has served man. I think it's crazy to debate something this obvious. and when you talk about the changes needed...they will be due to man's intervention. and if chimps do start designing governments due to natural evolution processes I have to wonder what man will have evolved into at that point. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Anonymous No.6111047]

>nature hasn't served any other specie even a slight fraction of what it has served man

This is what you're not getting: nature has in fact given other species a slight fraction of what is has served man, the point is the slight fraction that man has when it comes to biology causes a lot of differences when it comes to the fields that supervene biology.

It's like pushing something over the edge: between "it's going to fall" and "it's not going to fall" there's very little difference when it comes to horizontal distance, but in the former case there's going to be a lot of difference in vertical distance.

[Anonymous No.6111311]

>>6110729

Again you are assuming a chain of temporal productive causation ( events) is what the argument rests on, so your whole first paragraph is useless. I am not talking about temporal events in this case, Aquinas and Aristotle assume infinite time and an infinite series of productive causal "events" just like you are suggesting. "Events" are subjective constructions anyways, they don't have clear bounds and are just the way we frame causation by what is interesting to us.

>In case it's still not wrong, let's put it this way: a causal explanation isn't complete when there is at least one element in the system it is trying to explain that isn't explained. Point me which element isn't explained.

1. Why the chain of actualizations continues instead of ceasing to continue.
3. Why these potentialities in particular were actualized instead of other potentialities.
4. Why those potentialities that were actualized stay actualized for the time they do instead of becoming potential once again.
5. Why we have had a chain of temporal productive causation instead of not having one in the beginning.
6. Why we CONTINUE to have a chain of temporal productive causation instead of it ceasing.
>It's not any causal event because every single one of them is caused by another.
It's not the whole chain because its existence is logically implied by the existence of the events.

This would amount to saying that a whole is merely the sum of it's parts. Which means that explaining the individuals by the chain or the chain by the individuals would be circular reasoning, since according to you they are identical. You need an explanatory gap between the explanas and the explanandum for something to count as an explanation, which means that saying that we have individual causes because we have an endless chain of causes that are their sum, and that we have the chain because we have the individual causes which makes up the chain explains nothing.

>This is factually incorrect, stop living in the middle ages...

Physicians having an incoherent metaphysics which they assume the truth of before they do their work is not a reason to reject instantaneous causation, which can also survive relativity theory because all that is required for (IC) is that: if A is a cause of B, then B requires A so to continue existing, and if A ceased to exist, B would no longer exist.

[Anonymous No.6111336]

>>6111047
I get it. The fact that we share so much dna with another species yet are capableof designing spaceships that land on the moon is my whole point. Biology is what part of what makes man what he is? This is an infinitely debatable point. it's really philosophical or religious and can't be answered scientifically. That slight difference in what your talking may or may not be respinsible for the worlds apart that I'm talking about.