>2015
>believing in atheism without evidence.
>>386812
>you need evidence for disbelief
>Not being raised in a christian household
>Get belittled for not believing in an all powerful maker from the start as if the human mind was wired to be abrahamic
>>386988
Why would I be scared of something I don't believe exists?
Just as my good friend Richard Dawkins said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>>386991
You wouldn't. :^)
Too bad hell is real and that's where you're heading.
>>386988
> Being happy that I'll be burning in hell
> Thinking you won't be burning next to me for being spiteful
>>386997
Can't be sinless famo sempai desu, but the very least I can do is accept my sins and ask for forgiveness, something which you won't do and thence will cast your flesh upon fire.
>>387003
Mohammedans are a bunch of spooked niggers that are going to hell as well. Jesus Christ is the only salvation that exists.
>>387002
Oh please, you need to die in combat to get to heaven. This is a well-known fact. Just asking for forgiveness is just silly.
>>387022
Nah, you just need to accept Jesus.
>>387026
Jesus isn't even part of the one true religion.
>>387026
No u
>>386988
Why should I worship a god that punishes me for not worshipping me?
I'm not a slave
>>386988
Cthulu has my back, nerd.
If you are taking pascal's wager, Cthulu is who you need to be worshiping anyway as the punishment of Cthulu is more fierce than other god's.
>>387032
Yes he is, Jesus (peace be upon him) is the messiah and a great prophet.
>>386992
That is called Hitchen's Razor, though.
>>386812
>Believing in
You got it wrong.
>>386812
how many of you here can claim to believe in god without trolling?
>>387059
Believing to not believe is believing in a belief.
Do you really believe he is wrong or do you secretly believe he is not wrong that is to say you do not believe he did not get it wrong?
>>387116
144,000
>>386992
>babbys first logical positivism
>>387124
>believing to not believe
That's not a belief, that's first-hand knowledge of your beliefs, or lack thereof.
>>387155
No, that is only when you believe you are not completely sure about your beliefs, but when you actually believe you don't believe you still believe a belief of not believing.
>>387150
Well it's true. According to TAK you cannot have knowledge of something you're not justified into believing.
>>386812
>2015
>Christians having a problem with faith
And now we have come full circle.
>>387173
>this much high school philosophy
>>387188
What's wrong with tak you meme lord?
>>387165
I do not just believe that I do not believe, I know that I do not believe. I do not know wether or not there is a potential argument that would make me believe, but I do know that I have not encountered such an argument, the potential remaining un-actualized.
>tfw atheist despite not wanting to be
>>387263
Why would anyone want to be an atheist? I'd love if there was a loving god whom cared for me, but that's simply not the case.
>there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy
>being so pretentious to actually believe you know what does or does not exist
Also: where did the laws of physics come from if not from an original planner?
>>387504
But it is religious people that are the ones that are claiming deep knowledge that they cannot possibly have, not the non-religious.
And the laws of physics are descriptions of the way nature works, not prescriptive laws, there is no need to assume a planner.
>>387320
I'd rather there not be an entity who can read my thoughts, assign me a purpose, or keep me around for eternity after I'm dead. If there is a god the best thing for him to do would be to leave us all alone.
>>387553
> the laws of physics are descriptions of the way nature works
But why does it work that way? Everything that exists in this universe comes from the laws of physics. I find it hard to believe that they had a natural beginning.
>>387580
The laws of physics are ways to describe how nature works, not what everything comes from and what you find hard to believe is irrelevant.
And even if you had a point you have no way of knowing where the laws of physics come from, so making stuff up without evidence or believing stuff that other people have made up without evidence, claiming it is the truth and then having the gall to call the people that disbelieve you pretentious for being the ones that aren't claiming knowledge of something they can't possibly know is a bit ridiculous.
>>387600
My point is that there is no way of knowing what is out there or why reality is the way it is. I am not arguing in favor of any sort of established religion or belief. What I am saying is that it isn't impossible that an entity (or entities) have created or have influenced the reality we live in. Maybe trying to comprehend them is like being in an ant colony next to a highway: the ants don't know that there are beings with an uncomprehensible level of intelligence that build the structure they live next to.
>>387629
And maybe it was a magic chicken called Tim that created the Universe.
>>387659
Why not? What to us might seem like magic could be a very advanced form of existence.
>>387629
It isn't impossible that the laws of physics came to be naturally.
>>387681
It could be. It could also have been a super jelly bean called Jellianator the Great.
The point is that there is not a shred of evidence that god(s) exist and since any claim about them is made up from pure speculation and a completely unecessary assumption.
>>387693
Therefore an uncomprehensibly superior being must not exist? Is that what you are saying?
>>387699
I don't see any evidence for one. Have you got any evidence?
>>387709
Concrete evidence? No. At least not yet. That doesn't mean some kind of higher being doesn't exist. Like I said, maybe it is so advanced that a human being could not be able to comprehend.
>>387730
Or an incomprehensibly stupid being that accidentally made the Universe by farting.
>>387734
Sure, why not? It might be stupid like an ant, but still a lot more advanced.
>>387744
Why are ruling out it being less advanced than an ant?
Why are you ruling out just some supernatural force with no sentience at all?
Why are you ruling out the Universe just always existing in one form or another?
Why are you ruling out the Universe just springing into existence?
Why does it fall to me to rule out as impossible or possible anything you can make up with no evidence?
>>387124
>Believing to not believe is believing in a belief.
holy tautology balls
>>387752
I'm not ruling anything out, just saying it is not impossible. You are the one who is ruling out and closing your mind to the possible existence of a higher being, since you can't seem to understand that there might be things a lot bigger than you and I out there.
>>387773
I'm not. I just see no evidence for it and I don't go round believing things that people make up with no evidence.
>>387783
I'm not making anything up. God doesn't have to be a christian god, or a shinto god, or a zoroastrian god. What we call "god" might simply be an entity that we currently cannot comprehend and that has "created" the "reality" we live in. Can you confirm that the existence of such a being is impossible? If not, then you have no reason to be an atheist.
>>387803
>What we call "god" might simply be an entity that we currently cannot comprehend and that has "created" the "reality" we live in.
This is simply made up. You don't have a shred of evidence for such a claim.
>>386821
Given that it is the natural way of thinking (theism / animism), I'd say that it needs as much proof as "there is no reason to live.". You either assume and go on, or stop at the question and deny meaning in intuition and drive altogether.
Of course, not trusting your intuition at all is pure madness. You lose several key aspects of your reason; logic (actually, it's circular reasoning), cause and effect (proof?)...
List goes on and on. Theism is the dawn and daylight of civilization. IF we assume that we are here for a purpose, theism is clearly the healthy and natural way to go about it.
As a sidenote; you should check where Voltaire is buried. The irony is something out of this world.
i always lol at the autistic logic used by the atheist
>here's an ornate, sculptured statue in the middle of a field
>i can't see anyone in the field
>ergo, nothing created it, it just came from an explosion of nothing
>>387811
autism
did you not get the part whereby it's possible (and in my opinion likely) that if we were created by an intelligent knowing being, he would be able to be undetectable by his creation
do you think a clay pot knows the attributes of the potter that made it?
>>387811
That is why I said "might". It is a hypothesis that still cannot be confirmed to be false. Therefore, an atheist is blindly believing, without evidence, that a god does not exist.
>>387824
>(and in my opinion likely
You have absolutely no way of assigning some sort of value of probablility to your made up claim.
>>387811
Not really. The 'Unmoved mover' is out there as long as we had an origin. [the big bang].
Argument goes like this:
>existence does not need a reason to exist; ie. there are necessary existences which just are
>some of them may do something
>everything that has a beginning needs a reason
>we had a beginning
>so what is the reason?
No matter how many phases we have before we reach it, it will be there, at the end of the road.
Arguments over whether we can attain knowledge of this or not are totally different, though.
>>386812
>OP isn't a christian. Don't fall for bait anons, I though you'd be smarter than that.
>>387832
Note that this argument was used by atheists when they believed that the Universe was eternal, the Universe was made to be a 'necessary existence'. Fortunately, we know better.
>>387827
You've already had my agreement long ago in the thread it is possible. Why are you continuing with this ludicrous strawman attack?
>>386821
>believing that you need evidence
Why?
>>387831
again... autism
you can't even conceive in your mind of the possibility of something undetectable outside of your primitive 5 human senses
autism
>>387845
Of course I can. I can't detect radiowaves with my five senses.
>>387850
that means you can detect them with your senses, by looking at the dial on the radiowave reader
i mean something outside of the observable universe
>>387845
Finally someone with a bit of intelligence! People don't realise how primitive they all are in comparison to what is "out there".
>>387832
Even banana boy can take a break from shoving chocolate covered fruit up his butt long enough to deal with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA
>>386812
I think Williams James put it rather appositely in his <i> The Will to Believe </i>. James describes <i> genuine options </i>, or the choice between number of options, each of which lacks sufficient evidence. According to James, if justification for either option cannot be provided on a <i> rational </i> basis, then one can opt for a more emotive - or, as James describes, passional - basis.
The point of course is that belief in God is warranted in the same way disbelief in God is warranted: both are decisions not of a rational basis, but of a passional one.
>>387863
>i mean something outside of the observable universe
So something you made up with no evidence then.
>>387873
i refer you to my earlier posts... you can't comprehend the idea of something existing that you can't detect
it is autistic. i'm not saying to slap a name on any undetectable being like Yahweh, but simply stating that we can't know that we weren't created by something we can't detect
>>387885
Negative. You can accept there might be something we can't detect without giving any credence to delusional people making claims that they know about something we can't detect.
>>387898
yes, but the poster boy of atheism, Dawkins, puts a percentage chance of such an undetectable creator being existing... i've heard him say 99%. that is pure speculation. my point is you can't put a percentage on it, or make any statement as to its likelihood
Keking @ this whole thread.
I love the reddit-tier argument of 'well it could have been a magical taco XD that created the universe, so why believe in God?'
Because we're extrapolating from the coherency of this reality - its laws, how consciousness functions, and the fact that we don't live in some absurd cartoon universe - that reality's prime mover must also share these qualities as potentiality. If we lived in a universe where we shit jelly beans and consciousness is barely recognizable as consciousness then it would be reasonable to assume the creator of such a universe would be equally deranged .
Also existence itself must be accounted for, claiming 'its not impossible that the laws of physics happened naturally' is just as presumptuous a belief as believing there is a personal God. The onus is on you to prove that is actually the case, or at least likely. Otherwise, fuck off
>>387919
*1%, not 99%
>>387920
you're enforcing paramters that you're comfortable with, i.e. only the observable to human beings universe exists, and nothing outside of that can exist
>>387683
I find that hard to believe. How can something like a "law" just simply appear out of nowhere? Did the Big Bang came in with all the laws of physics inside the package of existence? What moved the Big Bang? There are so many questions that we cannot answer just by looking at the universe with our senses.
>>387919
I'm not Richard Dawkins.
Next dumb argument.
>>387930
What are you even talking about? Are we not products of reality, its laws and principles? Does the fact that there are cubic light years of nothing but rocks and space dust refute my argument?
I love how scifags will rave about the efficacy of the scientific method and our powers of deductive reasoning until the cows come home, but as soon you try to trace that capacity to its first principle it's NUH UH MUH ANTHROPIC FALLACY and NUH UH WE JUST CANT KNOW CHECKMATE THEISTS. Please.
>>387920
>reality's prime mover must also share these qualities as potentiality
Unless it came from outside our reality. We can only move in 3 dimensions (four, if you are counting time). It is possible that an entity exists within a 5th of 64th dimesnsion, not obeying the same laws that we here take for granted. It is also possible that an entity exists in relation to us like we exist to a virtual character. The laws are not the same.
>>387932
I also find it hard to believe that a being poofed into existence all by itself and then arbitrarily created physics.
>>387971
Maybe it wasn't simply poofed. Its existence might just be too complex for us to comprehend, like a highway to an ant colony.
>>386988
Go 2 bed Pascal
>>387920
You whole concept of what consciousness is and what is absurd comes from this Universe.
If a benevolent magic superbeing was in charge it makes more sense that we poop a tasty, sweet smelling confectionary treat than a nasty smelling brown concoction.
>>387984
Your whole concept of what realty 'should' be is farcical and rests on the bogus assumption that reality exists for our sensual pleasure. That's not even an argument
>>387868
>third premise is wrong
>there can not be an infinite chain of movers and beginnings
>because we don't understand
>using our supposed ignorance to refute established premises
>unmoved mover is ridiculous, because contradiction
Not really, when you fix the second premise. All movement doesn't need a cause, but all beginnings require a cause. Therefore all in our Universe requires a beginning, but there are n amount of things outside of it which do exist. All chains of events also have a beginning, but not necessarily an end. This is because they wouldn't be chains without beginnings each phase!
The concept of original/primal mover preceded Aquinas though. Aristotle, Plato...
There can't be an infinite chain of movers. The concept is broken due to the nature of a beginning. There are things with no beginning is the premise, established far more profoundly than 'we don't know, therefore it is'. He also argues that because we don't know that this one possibility (which is a contradiction) is impossible, that it is true and the initial argument is therefore false.
>moron living in 13th century with no concept of modern science
Guess he is just a moron with no concept of 26th century science... This person annoys me. However, even IF the infinite chain would be possible (it isn't, unless the axioms are different from our Universe- requiring something fairly alien (God?) to create our axioms), primal mover would still be the way to go due to Occam's razor. Oh, but that is modern science. How inconvenient for this bastard.
>I'm only 3 minutes in
Oh boy.
>>388000
Pure strawmanning.
I have never made any such claim.
>>388004
>There can't be an infinite chain of movers.
>All chains of events also have a beginning,
Prove it.
>>387816
I disagree. I see this argument all the time, but the default position on anything is "it does not exist, unless evidence exists". I do not see why God is any different.
>>388019
>it would make more sense for a being to make us poop cotton candy because [REASONS]
Cmon nigga
>>388042
>it does not exist unless evidence exists
That is a learned attitude. There is never (or rarely) evidence of magic, but there are people who believe it. It was the norm until organized beliefs (ie. religions and ideologies) weeded them out. Replaced by their own, but they become 'established premises'...
>>388032
If it is infinite, it has no beginning. Chain has a beginning in each phase. Unlimited amount of phases contradicts the premises Aquinas establishes in pic related.
There is something actual behind all of this, next phase would always be 'potential'.
>>388090
We would have to unlimit the potential if we want to have an endless chain. However, the actual will always limit it. Ergo, I'd say that since there is potential for extinguishing these 'perpetual motion machines', anything resembling entropy would break it. If you assume that we are the last link in this uncreated chain, sure, go ahead...
>>388077
A benevolent god that can do absolutely anything and has unlimited power and he chooses to make us shit filthy, smelly brown goop rather than jelly beans? This is your evidence that the Universe was made by a superbeing?
C'mon dude.
>>388101
Once again, you assume reality was made for our pleasure and comfort. Just stop dude
>>388128
Nope.
I don't assume reality was made for any reason at all. It is you trying to make wild extrapolations from the nature of reality to a magic benevolent superbeing existing.
>>388136
>god coulda done X, but he didn't checkmate theists
Yeah no. Read a book
>>388153
I'm not even arguing for a Christian god, stop strawmanning
>>388101
>benevolent
why does God have to be benevolent?
>>388158
No you said....
>If we lived in a universe where we shit jelly beans and consciousness is barely recognizable as consciousness then it would be reasonable to assume the creator of such a universe would be equally deranged .
I merely pointed out that your idea of consciousness is based on your experience of this Universe, a bat (if they are conscious), or an alien (if they exist), or something from another Universe might have a completely different idea of what consciousness is so suggesting any other concept of consciousness is "absurd" is quite silly.
Equally claiming a god that made us shit jelly beans is 'deranged' is quite silly. You only say that because you shit awful, smelly brown goop and not jelly beans. I merely speculated that a god that made us shit jelly beans, since it can do anything, actually makes more sense than a god that makes us shit brown goop. It is the god that makes us shit horrible goop that is deranged and making us live in some bizarre cartoon Universe.
>>388160
Good question.
Is there any point worshipping it if it isn't?
>>388142
>Read a book
reading is haraam
>>388090
There is no evidence of magic, either. It's not responsibility of those who don't believe in magic to prove it wrong, it's the responsibility of those who believe in it to prove it.
>>387920
Keking at you more like.
Your whole argument is flawed. Firstly, it's impossible to determine if a particular universe is ridiculous because you have nothing to compare against. If everyone shat jelly beans none of us would think that's a sign of some cartoon universe because it's normal to them.
>existence itself must be accounted for
If we have no suitable theories to explain its existence we are better off making no claims on the matter at all. That being said, we are still learning new things about physics and the universe all the time. And if we are ever going to be able to answer this question, science will give it to us.
>>386812
>atheism
>believing
>>387818
fuggin' nice false equivalency you have there
where can I get one
>>388191
Your perception of the universe as 'deranged' is your problem. We're both guilty of projecting certain qualities on the universe here.
>>387818
You sure showed that idiotic atheist.
>>388209
>science will tell us all about metaphysics
>a complete mechanistic explanation of the universe will tell us all about the pre-big bang era even if our models completely break down beyond that point
Who here /quetzalcoatl/ ?
>>388375
>Your perception of the universe as 'deranged' is your problem. We're both guilty of projecting certain qualities on the universe here.
Except I wasn't the one that introduced it to the thread as an agument. Don't project onto me senpai.
>>388379
>implying explaining the universe will be simpler than explaining the presence of that statue
You know no one's denying the process by which life becomes complex right? Scifags still think we're arguing about evolution and NOT the physical parameters that make evolution possible in the first place
>>388401
>not worshiping Dagon
Pleb. I bet you can't even breathe underwater.
>>388090
Aquinas sure was a shitty fucking debater tbch pham. I'm more into the Timur debating method.
>>388406
'the universe follows ordered laws' isn't even that ridiculous of a statement by any stretch of the imagination. Guys like Dawkins will wax poetic about the mathematical beauty of the universe until he's dead but soon as you use that same beauty to support the existence of a n equivalently beautiful divine simplicity it's all histrionics and WHAT DO WE KNOW ANYWAYS YOURE JUST HALLUCINATING NATURAL LAWS CHECKMATE
>>388417
>worshipping the guy that was keked by his wife with Nyarlathotep
Kek. 10/10 Old One tho, would lose my sanity to.
>>388427
>>388417
we /tekeli-li/ now
>>388422
The Universe following ordered laws is not evidence a god with magical powers is running the show, it is the exact opposite.
>>388410
You mean that you have moved the goalposts.
>>388427
Nyarlathothep? You mean Randolph Carter's bitch?
>>388449
Fuck you, I worship Morgoth you fedora-wearing fucking Dunedain
>>388439
Tekeli-li.
>>388453
Dream Cycle>Chtulhu Mythos
Patrician choice there anon
Pic 40% related
>>388449
What a ridiculous, presumptuous statement. Equivalent to saying just because a car can run by itself and doesn't need its designer to be there every time you turn it on, then it accounts for itself and must have just popped into existence out of the blue.
And you still think we're talking about an anthropomorphic sky deity.
>>388462
This is now an ancient horror thread apparently.
>>388451
Nah, it was like that from the beginning, you only think that cause you think I'm another Christian soccer mom on your facebook feed
>>388480
You're still trying to have a religion vs atheism discussion. Cutely autistic.
>>388493
>le lovecraft Cthulhu flaghn XD maymay
Literally reddit: the fanbase
>>388507
Shh, no tears. Only dreams now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt__mHvwqeM
>>388507
Here's some music to soothe you.
>>388349
>claiming to know
>>388532
Lol, you really think that belief in the Absolute and evolution are mutually exclusive, or at least that all theists don't believe evolution is a thing. Jesus dude, get out of 2004.
The analogy went over your head. Please try again
>>388507
>le edgy everything is shit maymay
Pic related, it's your mom.
>>388575
>Lol, you really think that belief in the Absolute and evolution are mutually exclusive, or at least that all theists don't believe evolution is a thing. Jesus dude, get out of 2004.
What has 2004 got to do with anything?
And no evolution and belief in theism aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution does make 'god' an unecessary assumption to the creation of mankind though, being able to tack it on as a side issue is different to the argument to "hey how does mankind even exist then?"
If you are unaware of the arguments that were made by theists during the period when there was actual serious argument in the developed world (outside the USA) over whether evolution was true then you are ignorant.
>The analogy went over your head. Please try again
Nope, you tried to compare the Universe to a car, it was a shit analogy.
There are tonnes of things we have a good explanation for that doesn't need a sentient being to create them, trees, caves, mountains, animals, people, stars, I could list them for days and day, the list is endless. Trying to point out that humans can build stuff and then saying therefore everything needs to have been created by a sentient being is ludicrous.
>>388613
>a fedora and a christfag still debating it even though literally everybody else is just shitposting
You never did learn to mind your surroundings.
>>388625
Calm down, Liam. ;-)
>>388637
>filename
HOLY SHIT MY SIDES
What the fuck is going on in that webm anyway? It's simply surreal.
>>388637
Cute vid.
Cute filename.
>>388613
Oh brother. Let's take it slow.
We have two complex things. The universe, and a car.
Now, it would be ludicrous of me to discount the existence of someone who designed and made my car just because it runs just fine without that person. This is equivalent to saying "the engine works just fine by itself man, why does there need to be someone who made it?"
It is equally ludicrous to think the complexity of the universe somehow disproves God because physical laws run just fine without him. Now, it doesn't PROVE there is a God or Supreme Principle, but it sure as fuck doesn't disprove him either. Especially when we are talking something as vast and mysterious reality, forget my car.
And top kek m8, what created the trees? Fine, they evolved from less complex life forms. What created the cells that comprised these lifeforms? Fine, they evolved from less complex prokaryotes, no designer needed. Okay, how did they come to exist? They were bits of amino acids and other organic molecules that eventually adhered in a pool of primordial ooze and began the process of life. How did that happen? Well, the earth had just cooled down... on and on and on.
Everything traces its origin to a Primal Cause. Is it a benovolent, personal God? I don't think so. Is it just "lol iunno quantum ions or some shit nigger"? I don't think so either. The contention that the universe willed itself out of a void of nothing with ready-made physical laws is ridiculous and requires way more proof and evidence then MUH SCIENCE
>>388646
>>388613
You 2 need to get a room and just suck each other off, it's really what you want right? This is top-tier autism.
>>388660
Fuck off with your reddit meme shit
>>388662
Did he warp your jimmies?
>>388646
>Now, it would be ludicrous of me to discount the existence of someone who designed and made my car just because it runs just fine without that person. This is equivalent to saying "the engine works just fine by itself man, why does there need to be someone who made it?"
You are using it as an anaology though.
We can explain coral reefs without resort to a higher power, so why say because engines were made by humans coral reefs and everything else needs to be made by a sentient being.
Your logic simply does not follow. Did god pop into existence when humans started building stuff?
>It is equally ludicrous to think the complexity of the universe somehow disproves God because physical laws run just fine without him.Now, it doesn't PROVE there is a God or Supreme Principle, but it sure as fuck doesn't disprove him either.
Nothing can disprove god, it is a concept that you can keep rolling back, so long as there are any unknowns ever. I don't see you arguing with me that lightning and earthquakes are caused by god now we understand them.
>Especially when we are talking something as vast and mysterious reality
This is evidence god exists, it is a god of the gaps argument.
>And top kek m8, what created the trees? Fine, they evolved from less complex life forms. What created the cells that comprised these lifeforms? Fine, they evolved from less complex prokaryotes, no designer needed. Okay, how did they come to exist? They were bits of amino acids and other organic molecules that eventually adhered in a pool of primordial ooze and began the process of life. How did that happen? Well, the earth had just cooled down... on and on and on.
Indeed, on and on and on, there has never been any point in human discovery that has turned out "fuck we were wrong god did it after all."
>Everything traces its origin to a Primal Cause.
Pure speculation.
>>388687
>>388646
>The contention that the universe willed itself out of a void of nothing with ready-made physical laws is ridiculous and requires way more proof and evidence then MUH SCIENCE
Why does eveything we don;t know about need to be filled with speculation about supernatural beings?
> Is it a benovolent, personal God? I don't think so.
Then quite honestly, who gives a shit?
>>388660
Everyone else is having fun, Liam. Relax a little bit ;-)
>>388704
>having fun while debating things that have been said 6 gorilion times
Don't think so.
>that pic
Gets me every time.
>>388646
>Everything traces its origin to a Primal Cause.
Right, or a causal loop. Or something we don't know yet.
Speaking of things we don't know, your argument is essentially nothing more than an argument from ignorance. We don't know how the universe got here, so we're just going to make up a Primal Cause because. Not a very good argument.
You also seem to be unfamiliar with unknown unknowns
>>388687
>We can explain coral reefs without resort to a higher power, so why say because engines were made by humans coral reefs and everything else needs to be made by a sentient being.
Oh man, you just don't get it. Just because there is a complex thing (the UNIVERSE) that we understand the mechanics of (SCIENCE) does not immediately disprove the existence of something that created those mechanics in the first place.
>Nothing can disprove god, it is a concept that you can keep rolling back, so long as there are any unknowns ever. I don't see you arguing with me that lightning and earthquakes are caused by god now we understand them.
What's wrong with the Absolute just being what set the physical universe into motion? What, you think an erroneous conception of God somehow invalidates all religion now? Like early scientists weren't wrong about shit?
>Indeed, on and on and on, there has never been any point in human discovery that has turned out "fuck we were wrong god did it after all."
Once again, you assume proof for a Creator must derive from empirical evidence in the closed system (the universe) itself, instead of ever considering that the existence of the closed system in the first place is proof of SOMETHING that transcends the physical universe and any scientific methodologies that seek to understand it.
>Pure speculation.
Kek, so you think the universe has existed eternally in the past and eternally in the future? Where's your proof?
>>388711
>not enjoying debating about god
Oh dear, anon.
>>388731
>Oh man, you just don't get it. Just because there is a complex thing (the UNIVERSE) that we understand the mechanics of (SCIENCE) does not immediately disprove the existence of something that created those mechanics in the first place.
I never said it did, why do the religious persist in these strawman arguments?
>What's wrong with the Absolute just being what set the physical universe into motion? What, you think an erroneous conception of God somehow invalidates all religion now? Like early scientists weren't wrong about shit?
I never said it did.
>Kek, so you think the universe has existed eternally in the past and eternally in the future? Where's your proof?
I just don't understand why you think that "we don't know everything about everything ever" is somehow validation for speculation about superbeings.
Or how me not being able to explain everything, ever to you is evidence of superbeings.
>>388722
>Right, or a causal loop. Or something we don't know yet.
Indeed so why a "primal cause"?
>Speaking of things we don't know, your argument is essentially nothing more than an argument from ignorance. We don't know how the universe got here, so we're just going to make up a Primal Cause because. Not a very good argument.
>You also seem to be unfamiliar with unknown unknowns
I'm not the one trying to constantly plug the point that eveything I don't know about leads to supernatural beings.
>>388748
>I just don't understand why you think that "we don't know everything about everything ever" is somehow validation for speculation about superbeings.
I'm not even talking about superbeings. I'm talking principles, unconditioned reality vs. conditioned reality, the unmanifest vs. the manifest, the One vs. the Many, the formless vs. the formed, the infinite vs. the finite. Stop getting so hung up on magical sky daddies.
>>388090
>god is immaterial
>but somehow interacts with material things
Explain this one, christfag
>>388821
>I'm not even talking about superbeings. I'm talking principles, unconditioned reality vs. conditioned reality, the unmanifest vs. the manifest, the One vs. the Many, the formless vs. the formed, the infinite vs. the finite. Stop getting so hung up on magical sky daddies.
I never mentioned sky daddies.
I just don't understand this compulsion to fill every single gap in human knowledge with "a magical being did it". Maybe you could explain it to me.
>>388846
Look dude, if you don't agree that the universe must, ultimately, be caused by something that is not finite, material, and conditioned, then that's fine, but stop getting hung up on the idea of beings and projecting all these trivializing qualities of being-ness on something that is transcendent, Unmanifest, eternal, and absolute.
>>388853
>stop getting hung up on the idea of beings and projecting all these trivializing qualities
You mean the *Father* whose *Son* sits at the right hand of *His* *Throne*? I like how he made Adam in *His* image but not Eve. Thank the *Gates* of heaven that I can eat his *Blood* and *Body*. I'm also glad the Bible promises me a *Body* in heaven. (2 Corinthians 5)
>>388853
Sorry dude, I didn't follow. And I genuinely don't want to reach shit poting levels but that struck me as a complete word salad where you just randomly chucked words together.
Is it possible you could explain more clearly what you mean by a ....
>being-ness on something that is transcendent, Unmanifest, eternal, and absolute.
...by any chance?
And what evidence there is for it? I mean rather than just saying what evidence do you have against it?
>>388864
>You mean the *Father* whose *Son* sits at the right hand of *His* *Throne*? I like how he made Adam in *His* image but not Eve. Thank the *Gates* of heaven that I can eat his *Blood* and *Body*. I'm also glad the Bible promises me a *Body* in heaven. (2 Corinthians 5)
you hallucinating christian strawmen again there boyo
>>388853
In the realm of cosmology, the debate between theism and atheism is really only a quibble over details. Both sides agree there must be some ultimate entity, which is the eternal first cause and ground of all being, the end point of all explanations. They only disagree over what properties this “ultimate being” has. Theists think it has a whole plethora of amazing powers and attributes, including the most complex mind imaginable. But as atheists point out, there is no evidence for any of those tacked-on assumptions. There are only two properties we can be sure the ultimate being has: its nature is to exist, and it had a reasonable chance of producing our universe exactly as we see it. We can’t say anything more than that without sufficient evidence. And there is no actual evidence for any of the traditional divine attributes.
Chaotic Inflation theory is a reasonable inference from contemporary scientific observations and understanding, and predicts everything we observe. It holds that those properties of the universe that can be different than they are, like the mass of quarks, “froze” into place when the universe cooled, and due to chaotic or quantum indeterminism, different parts of the universe randomly ended up with different features—some with no quarks, some with quarks of a different mass, and so on. Yet the universe inflated so quickly, that once these properties froze in place in each tiny spot, that area grew to a size thousands of times larger than we could ever see. Thus, the universe we observe appears everywhere the same—but if we could see far enough, we would see different parts of the universe with completely different properties. There is nothing we know that could stop this process, so it must go on forever—and may already have. So if inflation did occur, and it was chaotic, then nearly every possible universe would exist, including ours.
>>388864
assuming a God, he has to be able to talk in language that his creation can understand
>>388868
Just read this cause I'm tired of holding your hand. next time you wanna debate religion and God and the big questions and shit at least acquaint yourself with the topic outside south park-tier caricatures. you don't have to agree with me but at least it'd be a more entertaining argument than me teaching you mysticism 101
http://www.kheper.net/integral/unmanifest_absolute.html
>>388874
It is ridiculous for a perfect God to make a shitty imperfect universe like this in the first place. If God can have a mind without a physical brain/body/world, it is inexplicable why we need them. It is far more probable that such a god would create beings with minds like His, minds that could not be damaged or destroyed, rather than minds needlessly dependent on something so fragile as a brain. “God did it” doesn’t predict any of these things, nor does it explain them very well. God has no need of quarks, for example, or neutrinos, or galaxies, or billions of years of slow, mechanical processes. Nor can we make any predictions about any of these things from the “God did it” hypothesis. Can we deduce from “God did it” how many types of quark there are? Or that there should even be quarks? Or how long it would take that god, from the initial moment of creation, to make a human being? Or that there would be such things as galaxies? Or such thongs as neutrinos?
Sure, you might invent a vast and clever array of detailed assumptions about a god or his plans that could predict or explain all this, or you can resort to something vacuous like “God’s ways are a mystery,” but either way you would only be making the god hypothesis less plausible than any naturalist theory that already predicts and explains all these strange things. And there are several theories that do that. Scientists are testing them even as we speak. The god hypothesis, by contrast, makes few if any testable predictions.
>>388889
you're projecting all these intentions and couldas, wouldas, and shouldas on the transcendent absolute. please stop. any explanation of HOW a thing works tells us nothing about what it IS.
>>388878
I see you decided to start shitposting instead.
Thanks for linking me to mysticism 101!!!!
It would have been helpful if you had attacked all the other religious people and debunked their ideas with your astonishing evidence about mysticism before attacking a non-religious person for no good reason.
>>388905
I rash on theists where I can but except for their smugness and huge emphasis on Jesus being the Only Way, we are usually in agreement about the big issues.
I know you're being sarcastic but that site is a really good source of information if this sort of thing does interest you
Fucking kek.
>>386812
So, be honest /his/, what ARE the moral schools of thought in atheist circles? There's scientism, which posits all philosophical problems will be solved with further research, nihilism, existentialism, secular humanism (which is essentially Christianity minus Jesus and God).
>>391604
>humanism is essentially Christianity.
Oh my.
>>391604
Stirnerian wittolism.
>>391604
Ethical naturalism
Virtue ethics
Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative
The contractualism of John Rawls
Natural rights theories, such that of John Locke or Robert Nozick
Utilitarianism
State consequentialism or Mohist consequentialism
Egoism
Situation Ethics
Intellectualism
Welfarism
Preference utilitarianism
Ethics of care or relational ethics
Pragmatic ethics
Role ethics
Nietzsche's Will to Power
>>386812
>>391674
I never quite get this pic. Is it supposed to be mocking Spinoza or are you espousing pantheism?
>>386812
But I'm not.
>>391705
Still doesn't answer my question about immaterialism
>>391707
reality is permeated by thought.
god as thinking center moves matter
there you go
>>391719
Thought isn't immaterial though. Numerous studies have shown that your decisions happen by neurons well before you consciously make a decision.
>>391719
Also, you're speaking nonsense. If thought is immaterial then how can it move matter? That would make thought a material thing that can push matter.
>>391707
Well my dad, I was referring to the images rather than your question. Sorry for leaving your question out. God is not an interacting player in matter - not a being among other beings or some invisible sky daddy like the Enlightenment Christians thought up - but the source of being (As older thinkers would call the "Subsistent Act of Being Itself") of all things at all times (God as classically defined does not leave the world to spin on its own but sustains its existence at all times). Thus God does not interact in a material causal fashion but rather makes adjustments from the ground of reality.
An example for God's causal power would be a king and his law. A king does not interact within his own law and cannot break his own law but rather changes the law to assert his will.
>>391839
>Well my dad
"Well my bad", rather.
>>391839
To add, how God does this while still being considered unchanging is another topic to itself so I won't go into it. I'm just focusing on your question at the moment.
>>391839
So the laws act on the physical world. And God can act on the laws. So are the laws immaterial or material? You've just move the problem to another entity.
There's thousands of independently created theological propositions for the nature of a higher power/the universe.
That itself is evidence enough for disbelief in my opinion.
>>391859
Yes. It acts through a subtle energy field that is both physical and metaphysical.
>>391859
>move the problem
Not at all, the idea that God acts upon things not in a physical causal way but rather through changes in how he creates it from moment to moment works whether laws or nature are understood as innate physical regularities or immaterial imposing forces onto nature.
>>391872
There are thousands of independently created propositions for the nature of the universe as purely material or self-sustaining. Atheism isn't a neutral ground, it relates itself to all the metaphysical worldviews that are non-theistic. And you will have a metaphysical view, whether it be defined explicitly or totally implicit. Like theistic ones, which one you decide to believe in is up to you.
>>391922
I don't think that anon was referring to just theism VS atheism. Every human culture has religion of some sort, but no religion to date has cropped up twice independently with the same accounts. To me this seems like very strong evidence for religion as an evolutionary adaptation or side-effect rather than anything true, because it raises the question; why are only YOUR people 'enlightened'? Why didn't God speak to other cultures and give them his word?
>>391922
>changes in how he creates it from moment to moment
I would classify "creating it from moment to moment" as definitely acting upon it.
>>386821
>atheism is disbelief
i want this meme to end
>>391930
Precisely. I'm not going to subscribe to a faith-system without evidence of it's superiority compared to another, which realistically there just isn't.
>>391930
all theistic factions are true
>>391951
So Asherah, Baal, and Yahweh aren't real? Damn.
>>391955
They are
did robert anton wilson not teach you anything? everything is true :^)
>>391951
I'm confused by what you're saying here.
Are you claiming that all theistic traditions are somehow interpreting the same higher power?
>>391839
What's the actual practical difference between breaking laws and just changing them about on a whim?
>>391960
yes and no
remember that some theistic factions recognized the existence of the devil; some of these may have followed his lies, but ultimately every single theistic faction accesses the truth in a way or another
>>391967
Wait wait wait, what faith do you think most accurately represents the actual metaphysical state of the universe?
>>391970
it's not really a faith but Schopenhauer's Will approximates quite a bit.
>>391970
Islam.
>>386812
Believing in god or not is an emotional conclusion as it is not rationaly provable by thinking alone, and it can be a problem to test it with outside examination because it's not as simple to find where to look in this materialistic society as "regular" scientific research, not a lot of people decide they want to spend their time in mystical endeavours as they are frowned upon by many people of "rational" thought that forgot that the first rule of philosophy is that you know nothing, and you know that you know nothing, I'm personally more inclined to search for my own understanding and "proving" of god because I find the concept of a metaphysical conscious energy that works behind stage of this materialistic reality and makes the "rules" or the confines in which this reality is able to exist beautiful and plausible.
The real problem is that people are stuck with logic which is a wonderful tool of consciousness that gives you the ability to solve problems, but totally forget that emotion and passion are just as true and important.
>this entire thread
>what is falsifiability
>what is fallibility
>what is a black swan
>>388905
Quoting Gervais, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, or Carlin in an image is almost always shitposting. Gj on following up with your own shitpost.
>>392175
Eggselent critique! You are a gentleman and a scholar. *tips crucifix*
>>392093
the falsifiability meme
if I tell that the sun will rise tomorrow, will you say that I know the reality ?
ITT: autists fight other autists about whether something beyond the natural world is possible and if this means God reals or not.
How about this, dipshits: it's possible for something to exist outside this universe. That said, any current arguments that these things constitute what we would call a creator god are either flawed or unsatisfactory.
There, I saved this entire thread.
>>392213
>you cannut kno nuthin!
>>386812
>le shifting the burden of proof
>>392210
>if I tell that the sun will rise tomorrow, will you say that I know the reality ?
Makes no sense whatsoever. What do you mean 'tell that the sun will rise'? 'Tell' as in 'claim'? What do you mean by 'knowing the reality'? What do you mean by 'the reality' as opposed to 'reality'? Do you even know what fallibility is? Also, why does putting the word 'meme' behind something instantly disqualify something?
>>387504
Do you know this Magritte painting?
It says "This is not a pipe". And this is true, because this is not a pipe, this is the drawing of a pipe (in fact, it is a link to a jpg of a photo of the drawing of a pipe or, more precisely, a collection of 0s and 1s that an electronic interpreter converts into colored dots on a screen).
The same can be applied to Laws of Physics. The Law of Universal Gravity isn't Gravity, it is the description some human made, using the language of maths, to describe the phenomenon we call Gravity (but that also isn't Gravity itself but a phenomenon we perceive and named using a certain combination of arbitrary graphic symbols called "letters").
What you are asking is like asking If God does not exist, why are there things in my backyard that fit so well to the meaning of the word "tree"? How did trees know the meaning of the word "tree" if they can't read?
The Laws of Physics are just descriptions we humans make of things we identify as physical phenomenons.
>>393196
...then how did these physical phenomena come to be the way they are lol. he isn't literally asking where the model itself came from lmao come on dude are you for real with this post
>>392093
>you cant know nuthing!
>except that you cant know nuthing
literally the worst meme there is. wish i could go back in time and sock hume's dad right in the fucking beans
>>395342
Yes, very real, dude.
I understand that a naïve watcher may be surprise to find out that scientists say some simple looking logical formulas are explaining the very high complexity of the observed world. How is it possible. It's magic!
But really it's the other way around. We invented logical formulas to describe the world. Mathematical and logical formulas could describe anything, they are created for that. We know from the start that some formulas will describe the world.
If the world was completely random it would be a very long formula, something like a long novel telling the story of every atom of the universe one by one. Einstein tried to abstract something like this with UFT.
Can the original question be answered by solid, experimental/observation-based science? I think it is very unlikely. It's hard to imagine any particular experiments (short of creating universes in a lab) that. Same goes for observations. Even if science manages to provide some kind of theory, there will always be room for metaphysical speculations. Are they meaningless? You decide.
I will not commit to any particular answer, but rather try to enumerate several possible options.
1) The laws are randomly selected, but they make sense from our point of view precisely because they make our existence possible.
The Multiverse might be extremely large and chaotic; all kinds of behaviours and laws might emerge within it. The particular laws of physics we observe in our part of Multiverse are the way they are, simply because different laws would not allow emergence of life. The rest of the Multiverse might be much, much larger, but not populated at all, so it's a coincidence that the laws are what they are, but it's not a coincidence that we are here. (For an off-topic analogy: advice to beginning writers says that "it's ok to start your story with an unlikely concidence, but not introduce additional coincidences as the plot unfolds".)
>>395342
This is a form of the the anthropic principle, as mentioned by William Pietri. This view is supported by observations that some "laws" of physic, such as the fine-structure constant, might in fact be changing.
This reply avoids the problem with "why do the particular laws of physics exist?", but still cannot answer to why do any laws exist at all?
2) The Multiverse itself is a mathematical structure. According to Max Tegmark, the author of this mathematical universe hypothesis, the different sets of physical laws is in fact the only things that actually exist; the atoms and gravity are illusions; the "equations", in contrast, are real.
Less exotically, several interpretations of quantum mechanics also postulate real existence of the so-called "universal wavefunction". According to them, this wavefunction is not only an equation that governs the time-evolution of the Universe; it is the Universe (the "basic physical entity" according to Wikipedia).
An answer based on Tegmark's theory avoids the previous problem. According to him, all mathematical structures that are not self-contradictory do exist in a "real" sense. (There is still the problem "but why do anything exists at all?")
3) The current Universe is simulation. For example, it might be a project launched by some advanced alien civilization. The laws of physics and the initial state of the Universe are just what the aliens have decided them to be.
There are arguments for this Simulation hypothesis that makes it more likely than you might have thought.
The issue with this response is that it does not really tackle the problem, it just kind of sweeps it under the carpet. What about the alien physics? Where do they come from? Perhaps there can be an infinite loop of universes simulating each another?
>>395342
tl;dr
One cannot just simply assume a God for all of these things, least of all without evidence. How would such entity exists ? To my eyes it's even harder to explain that such being may exist that the laws of physics. How is it any kind of progress to replace ignorance with any unbacked explanation ?
A basic guideline of scientific theories is Occam's razor
"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."
The thing is we just don't know yet. And to put God as the divine progenitor only sweeps the question further back to "Who/What created God, then?"
>>396363
>infinite loops of simulated universes and mathematical equations that emanate reality can account for their existence, but god can't for some reason
>you should only ever consider the metaphysical "theories" that pander to my sensibilities
>>397711
Did you even read what the anon wrote?
>This reply avoids the problem with "why do the particular laws of physics exist?", but still cannot answer to why do any laws exist at all?
>An answer based on Tegmark's theory avoids the previous problem. According to him, all mathematical structures that are not self-contradictory do exist in a "real" sense. (There is still the problem "but why do anything exists at all?")
>The issue with this response is that it does not really tackle the problem, it just kind of sweeps it under the carpet. What about the alien physics? Where do they come from? Perhaps there can be an infinite loop of universes simulating each another?
>The thing is we just don't know yet.
>Things either exist or do not exist
>God exists (For the sake of argument)
>The Universe encompasses all that exists
>God transcends the Universe
>Definition of Universe must redefine to include God as he exists
>Universe = God + "Universe"
>God transcends said Universe = ("Universe" + God)
>Definition of Universe must redefine to include Universe + God = ("Universe" + God)
>Now Universe = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God))
>...
>Universe =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God =("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God = ("Universe" + God))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
me confused desu
>>395348
only worthwhile post ITT
>>392213
>it's possible for something to exist outside this universe.
No, quite the opposite. Existence is by definition limited to reality, so what you're saying here is fact completely impossible
>thread opens up with beyond obvious b8
>still gets over 200 replies
>>398342
I know...fuck...I spent too much time on b8
>>386812
Wish i could sage, guess i'll fuel the fire instead
