[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 7 KB, 250x241, 1432724756686s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11222790 No.11222790[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Atheism is a lot of nonsense. Duns Scotus's argument has already solved this problem, as has Leibniz's version offering the key premise of the ontological argument (God may exist). Not only that, St. Augustine used a Platonic conception in the argument of eternal truths, which will later be defended by Leibniz.

I could also cite here numerous other routes, such as the fact that mathematics demonstrates possibilities about the physical universe (without this there is no science) and it is possible to build cosmological models in which the universe comes into existence (even if there are competing models saying otherwise, it is enough that the universe may not be necessary for it to be contingent).

There is the route of simple being, in which analyzing that a compound being = its parts + unification of its parts. If the parts are unification itself, then it plays into absurdity, for what would unify the parts + unification of the parts? Nor can it be the compound itself that unifies itself, for in that case it is the cause of itself. Then an external unifier is needed, thus starting a hierarchical series (not linear time, but what keeps compound beings in existence). In the end a simple being is necessary, and therefore not physical (since being simple is not composed of potentiality and actuality, only actuality being thus out of time and space).

There are several ways to derive their properties, intelligence can be derived using several distinct arguments about the reality of universals, abstract objects, and so on.

The problem is that this discussion is purely emotional in 99% of cases. It is more anger against a world of suffering than against the idea of God. Anger that God didn't reach out when needed, when he didn't save a loved one, when he didn't defend him from being humiliated, and so on.

>> No.11222796

>>11222790
You forgot to greentext

>> No.11222802

People are so petty they wouldn't even give me category 4 even though it really was
It shows how wrong people are going to be in the end.

>> No.11222807

>>11222802

And there it is lol.

>> No.11222828

>>11222807

And there it is lol.

>> No.11222853

tfw the argument that "solves" the problem relies on the impossibility of an infinite ascending series.
What's next OP? Is God the biggest number?

>> No.11222886

>>11222790
>Duns Scotus
>Leibniz
>St. Augustine
>Platon

Where is the science? I mean even philosophers and religious now can't deny science

>> No.11222898

>>11222886
>scientism
Not even a theist but cringe.

>> No.11222905

>>11222898
I prefer to use a brain

>> No.11222910

>>11222905
Then use it

>> No.11223214

>>11222790
>>>/his/

>> No.11223230

>>11222853
there's even a famous refutation of ontological arguments that 'proves' God is the best vacation island ever or something like that.

'dO yOuR oWn ReSeArCh'

>> No.11223258

>>11222790
From a game theory perspective it's perfectly logical to be superstitious about religion. By believing there is a higher power you are net positive as it costs nothing to do so and it's an unknown factor that could be true. Doing so positively contributes to a positive feedback loops. Atheists are retards. There isn't a "god" just the possibility of something greater.

>> No.11223260

>>11223258
loops - s

>> No.11223290

>>11222905
please do, The mathematicians, philosophers, and theologians insist that you stop snooping around like a dog for sense perception, and instead use thought for once.

>> No.11223314

>>11223230
a vacation island is subject to being destroyed because its an island you idiot, none of those refutations are taken seriously and the usually demonstrate a lack of understanding of modal logic

>> No.11223327

I think my dream was about a pharmacy or something today lol.

>> No.11223335

Prove a higher power/being/reality exists, or doesn't exist. Oh wait, you can't.

>> No.11223340

>>11222790
Alright, let's say you've convinced me that there is some superpowerful entity that created the universe. How should I live my life any differently?

>> No.11223347

>>11223314
>a vacation island is subject to being destroyed because its an island you idiot
The best vacation island is incapable of being destroyed, otherwise it would not be the best. Just like my best girlfriend is incapable of not existing.

>> No.11223375

>>11223335
>power/being/reality
Higher power exists by ordering all conceptions of force manifest in the natural world and selecting the last element.

a "being" is just something that exists, and obviously some principle exists which is higher then us, but this notion is too vague for me to prove more

a higher reality is reasonable, but not provable by definition because proof constitutes absolute certainty with regard to concept in mind. A higher reality is exactly this change of mind and consciousness that by definition must be experienced to be proved.

Interestingly enough, Eternal Oblivion cannot be proven. For pure nothing cannot be perceived by the mind and so can never be verified.

>> No.11223383

>>11222790
>writes anti-atheist screed
>still calls his particular god, God
If you are so pro-deities, why do you ignore thousands of them?
Calling your god "God" is arrogant and ignores all of the amazing and interesting gods out there

>> No.11223388

>>11223347
If it can't be destroyed its not an island, islands are literally made and destroyed by natural finite forces. you are just changing the concept.

>> No.11223394

>>11223383
because if god A and god B exist, then there exists a more powerful god that is god A union B. Thus god A and B are not gods.

>> No.11223408

I just came up with a concept called "Jibonee". Jibonee is defined as an entity that exists and will kill your mother in her sleep unless you reply to this post. Since Jibonee is defined as an entity that exists, it exists, and this threat is very real.

>> No.11223413

>>11223408
existence is not a predicate, something exists if there is no contradiction in its subject-concept. For example, in your retarded straw-man you would would have to demonstrate jibonee is empirically observable, else it would have no causal relation (killing someone) in the natural world.

>> No.11223430

>>11223408
Defining something as "entity that exists" just makes it easier to find a contradiction in the definition. If you can't show that something exists, that satisfies certain properties (killing mother) then it doesn't exist, because you claimed it was defined as existing.

>> No.11223431

>>11223413
Jibonee kills mothers tonight, not any previous nights. You don't know what will happen tonight, it's in the future.

>> No.11223433
File: 51 KB, 600x467, 001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11223433

>>11223388
Let's start with the dictionary definition of island:
>Island, any area of land smaller than a continent and entirely surrounded by water.

>If it can't be destroyed its not an island
Not in the definition of an island, incorrect.

>islands are literally made and destroyed by natural finite forces.
Some islands are, what is your point?

>you are just changing the concept.
Says the guy making up definitions in order to beg the question, which is all Dun Scotus's argument is.

>> No.11223434

>>11223431
good for you man, you understand how to make new concepts now. congrats

>> No.11223439

>>11223434
I feel bad for all those mothers that will die tonight.

>> No.11223447

>>11222790
This post is too high of an IQ for /sci/ which is mostly undergraduate and high school pseuds.

>> No.11223449

>>11223433
>definition
Im saying its contained in the concept, ie the set of everything conceivable about the object. Concepts can change. Definitions are mapped to letters on a page, and are a gross vague approximation of concepts. you are confusing definition with concept.

>Some islands are, what is your point?
Islands have the potential to not exist, and thus I can conceive of a contingent world in which a greatest possible island dosent exist.

>Says the guy making up definitions
You are stuck on definitions vs concepts. Think of it this way: if there was only ever definitions as the essence of thought and meaning, then new words would literally never be made. No logical developments or mathematics would ever make progress because language would just be a computer language. Therefore the ascertainment of concept is necessary.

>> No.11223451

>>11223447
Most atheists are actually agnostic and will admit that there could be a deity that just barely does anything.

>> No.11223502

>>11223394
>Thus god A and B are not gods.
a god doesn't have to be the most powerful being that exists, just one of them

>> No.11223505
File: 11 KB, 250x240, FA63A83C-4B78-4B5C-ABB6-FC96C50EC47B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11223505

>>11222790
Why do people want god to exist?

>God doesn’t exist: Oh, you enjoyed your life and followed your own passions like math and art? Cool, now you can return back to oblivion
>God exists: Oh, you enjoyed your life and followed your own passions instead of totally uprooting it to follow the vaguely defined rules of some even more vaguely defined cosmic horror? Well now you get to be tormented forever!

I can’t be the only one who finds respite in a Godless world.