Are there any formal "proofs" (ontological arguments etc) for things like paganism, occultism, and magic?
There is for monotheism: Are there any for those?
>>429348
Is this bait?
>>429362
No.
>le how dare you imply the existence of things that contradict my prepackaged one size fits all materialist worldview spoonfed to me by flash in the pan pop sci icons who have a vested interest in promoting the primacy of their chosen profession even in fields where it doesn't belong like all matters spiritual and ethical because they've gotten really good at smashing subatomic particles together maymay
>There is for monotheism
there isn't
>>429369
It has to be there is no evidence for monotheism either.
>>429385
>you don't believe what I believe?
>oh my god you're so close minded
Hippies, everyone.
>>429406
the fuck happened it was a simple question
>>429465
Finally a serious answer, I can't read the pdf where I am right now so could you please summarise the text for me? its prepositions and conclusions etc.
>>429480
HTML with a better render help?
http://www.thelema.ca/156/People/Crowley/Berashith%20-%20an%20essay%20in%20ontology.html
Long story short it's a refutation of Infinitude as it relates to Godhead.
>>429348
>There is for monotheism
Are
And they don't hold for monotheism. The ontological argument is for an uncaused causer, not for a monotheist god.
Sloppy dogs cunt.
>>429465
>Ontological arguments aren't mean to be "evidence".
They're not, because they don't appeal to observations. You can't be empirical without sense-data being involved.
>>429610
I-I don't disagree?
>>429466
Religious people tend to get defensive when you ask for proofs. They're practically alergic to them, as if somewhere deep inside they knew they were wrong, but don't want to admit it.
>>429648
*doffs cap*
>>429744
He's not wrong, dubsman.
>>429348
SHUD UB GRISTGUCK :-DDD LISTEN TO UR ANDSEBSTORS DEY ARE SBEAGING IN UR BLUD :-DDD BAGANIISM IS FROM DE EARF OUR SAGRED DIRT :-DDD VARG DOLD ME ALL ABOUD ID HE IS A BRILLIAND SGOLAR AND HIGSTORIAN :-DDDD
>>429614
Yes, which is why I was pointing out that you're a fuckhead for sarcastically quoting me without understanding the difference between arguments based on synthetic knowledge (evidence) and arguments based on analytic knowledge or a priori principles.
>>429890
>sarcastically
It appears I misread the flow of the posts. My intention was to preface the posting of AC's intellectual exercise (that was later revised but not published) with the understanding that it wasn't evidence.
Pardon for the misunderstanding.
>>429901
>>429908
>>429648
This. I met a chick once who claimed to be a practicing witch; she got real pissy when I pressed X to doubt. She refused to demonstrate her magic tricks because of the Rule of Three, but that's clearly an excuse.
She has a very nice mineral collection, though
>>429348
>There is for monotheism
>ONE GUY SUPPOSEDLY CONTROLS EVERYTHING :DDDDD
Extreme bullshit, obviously. What sort of all powerful God runs such shit inefficiently. Where are his bureaus? Ministries? Whose in charge of the stars and shit.
0/10 will not worship.
>>429901
I have no idea what you're saying. Who the fuck is AC? Either way, yeah, its cool.
>>430112
Oh, Crowley. Duh. Pardon me.
>>429465
>Crowley's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley
>>430112
>Who the fuck is AC?
his beloved magician Aleister " just fuck up everything i touch " Crowley.
for some people see their own abandonment of the christian religion as an opportunity to start worshipping people of the past more than they worshipped a god, so they pass their entire week praising a crazy fucker on internet anime imageboards.
>>429348
>There is for monotheism
Le what?
How is monotheism different from any of those, anyway?
>>429348
the range of responses is necessarily more broad than for monotheism.
paganism's tend to have philosophical defenders in pagan areas where philosophy developed. In Greece for example Porphyry and other late neoplatonists wrote in defence of paganism. Occultism is too broad too speak generally of, maybe Jung? Newton was considered occult by his critics because of his reliance on non-material forces and theres a pretty good history of debate between newtonians and cartesians. I don't know what is considered modern occult practice that isn't magic.
Magic now tends to be argued for on a case by case basis, usually appealing to practical experience and first-hand testimony. I did x and y really did happen, just like it did for these other people. Not a great argument, but an appealing one
>>429610
Evidence isn't necesserily empirical tho, what about pure mathematics?
It all boils down to Satan worship.
>>429406
Many arguments have been presented both for and against the existence of God. However, the vast majority of people believe in some form of God. The following are some of the more common arguments for God's existence.
Argument from Cause: This argument considers God the "First Cause." In other words, everything that exists must come from something else and that something else is what we call God. Philosophically, this argument is presented as:
- Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
- The universe had a beginning.
- Therefore, the universe had a cause.
The first aspect, that everything that had a beginning had a cause, is based on the principle of causality. Nothing cannot produce something. The second part, that the universe had a beginning, is supported by many lines of modern scientific evidence. These include the second law of thermodynamics (that the universe is running out of usable energy toward disorder), the expansion of the universe, the radiation echo of the initial explosion of the universe (often called the Big Bang), among others. The conclusion is that the universe had a cause.
Argument from Design: This argument proposes the following: Every design has a designer; the universe reveals complex design; therefore, the universe has a Designer. This design includes both natural and supernatural causes. Both the macro level (design found in the universe based on astronomy) and the micro level (design found at the cellular level) support the argument of highly designed and complicated forms of life that find no adequate explanation apart from an outside, powerful force capable of intelligent design. This Intelligent Designer opens the door for the existence of God.
>>430378
Because there are these arguments for monotheism like the ontological and cosmological arguments, and OP is wondering whether there's any simmilar arguments for paganism/polytheism.
>>432308
Argument for Morality: This argument follows a more internal logic that suggests that:
- Every law has a lawgiver.
- There is an absolute moral law.
- Therefore, there must be an absolute Lawgiver.
Some question whether there is an absolute moral law. Yet as C.S. Lewis notes in Mere Christianity, "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something-some Real Morality-for them to be true about."
While postmodern philosophy attempts to deconstruct this argument by suggesting all absolutes of right and wrong regarding morality are relative, the existence of absolutes in the universe is undeniable. For example, two plus two cannot equal four and two plus two equal five at the same time under the same conditions. Likewise, many areas of morality suggest a universal sense of injustice regarding the wrongs of the world. Individuals may differ regarding exactly what is labeled justice and injustice, but every person has an innate sense of there being right and wrong. This morality has an origin and it is argued this original Lawgiver is God.
>>432313
In examining the existence of God, the first question that should be asked is: "Why does anything exist?" Subsequent questions are: Why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? In considering the question of God's existence, there are three popularly proposed answers as to why there is something rather than nothing: (1) The universe is all an illusion, nothing actually exists, (2) The universe has always existed, is self-existent (3) The universe was brought into existence by something/someone that is self-existent. Which is the most plausible solution?
The idea that reality is an illusion is primarily a tenet among Eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. The "reality is an illusion" option was disproved by the philosopher Rene Descartes who argued that if he is thinking, then he must "be," "I think, therefore I am." In other words, "I think, therefore I cannot be an illusion." Illusions require something that is experiencing the illusion. If nothing exists, neither does the illusion. Philosophically, doubting your existence actually proves your existence. "Reality is an illusion" is a self-defeating argument.
There are then only two choices—an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. Something exists. Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, something has always existed. If the existence of God is denied, an eternal universe is the only other option. To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points to the universe having had a beginning. Whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning and is not eternal is demonstrated by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang, the fact that the universe is expanding, and Einstein's theory of relativity.
>>432317
Further, how could an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe result in beings who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Only mind can create mind. Non-life cannot produce life. Unconsciousness cannot produce consciousness. The only logical and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for the creation of the universe. The concept of an eternal universe has been philosophically and scientifically disproven. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
With the clear evidence for the existence of God in mind, why are there so many atheists, and are there any grounds for atheism? No, there are not. The essential claim of atheism, "there is no god," is an invalid philosophical statement. Denying the existence of something cannot be proven. In order for it to be proven that God does not exist, someone would have to be in every location in the universe at the same time. In other words, to disprove the existence of God, one would have to be God. The need for an eternal and self-existent Creator can be proven. Atheism cannot be proven.
Another crucial issue to consider is the fact that the acceptance or rejection of the existence of God has more implications for life, action, and morality than any other issue. If atheism is wrong, it will result in unpleasant (to say the least) consequences. With this in view, atheists should produce conclusive and undeniable evidence for the non-existence of God. Atheism cannot accomplish this, and therefore, all atheists can do is hope that they are correct. Eternity is a very long time to be wrong.
>>432319
So, does belief in the existence of God have intellectual warrant? Absolutely. While atheists claim that belief in the existence of God is a psychological crutch, it is in fact atheism that abandons reality in order to fulfill a psychological need. If there is no God, there is no morality, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. If God does not exist, we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want, with no eternal consequences. That is the true motivation behind atheism.
>>429533
>The ontological argument is for an uncaused causer
You got them mixed up. The cosmological argument is for an uncaused causer, the ontological is for a absolutely perfect being.
>>432322
Man, I believe in God too, but that pic is flat-out retarded.
>>432322
>that image
lmao are you fucking serious
>>432371
I mean, the stuff in the first few posts is actually pretty informative in terms of setting out the typical argumentative reasons learned theists will give for their theism. That last pic rubs me the wrong way though.
>>432381
They aren't informative to me, since I've heard these arguments a billion times before
>>432388
So do you have any counter argument?
If not, it seems like you simply don't *WANT* to believe in Him regardless of the evidence.
Atheists in a nutshell. So desperately trying to escape accountability, seeking darkness rather than the light.
ITT: atheists getting BTFO
>>432401
Calm down, man. Atheism isn't a dumb position. It's not correct, but true belief in God requires faith after all. No evidence could ever take you all the way to true religious belief, since then faith would have no meaninng.
Check yourself.
>>432418
It requires more faith to believe there is no God.
Evolutionists believe we came from monkeys which came from soup/rocks. I could never have that much faith.
>>43240
I do but I don't have the energy to argue right now. Besides I'm on mobile. Fuck it. I'll just be repeating myself for the trillionth time
>don't *WANT*
I have no problem with a god existing. I'm just not convinced, and every day I'm less so
>>432407
>ITT: delusional Christfags
>>432425
>Christians
Make arguments, post links, sources.
>Atheists
Shitpost and throw ad hominems
Christianity wins again, as usual.
>>432423
I don't believe there's no god. I don't believe there's a god.
>>432423
Bruh, how do you think Jesus would think of you being so petty as to belittle the beliefs of others on a Taiwanese image board? Pull yourself together, man.
>>432431
>Christianity wins again, as usual.
Enjoy your simulacrum.
>>432442
Don't bother, bruv. Pigeon chess match, and all that.
>>432443
Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.
>>432452
Enjoy your projecting.
>>432407
This post was also on /v/. Holy shit. It's the same guy. It's just a good troll.
>>429348
you dont actualy understand pagan theology or you wouldnt ask these things
monotheism requests you literaly believe in a sky father of some kind
politheism gives you a didactic system that teaches you about mysteries of fundamental reality, so you actualy understand instead of believe
the people who held the mysteries knew the gods and idols and stories are all what today we call 'memes', the point was they were the only way to 'say' the truths
in this respect monotheism clouds the truth, making it accesible only to devoted mystics
>>434231
I asked because I didn't understand.
>>434231
So you're saying metaphors and parables like the Prodigal Son, or Job, or the Good Samaritan, or the Faithful Servant, the Workers in the Vineyard, etc aren't ways to communicate the truth?
>polytheism doesn't require belief in divinity
>pagans were actually atheists!!
your worldview is retarded
>>434390
>polytheism doesn't require belief in divinity
>pagans were actually atheists!!
thats not what i meant
take egiptians for example
the 9 neters were each a development of some local divinity into a aspect of the one-all
basicaly all gods would be a partial representation of the one-all, or personifications of facets of actual reality
many forms of hinduism have the same concept, but not explicitly stated
the general population surely believed, but i sincerely doubt the priesthood or 'initiates' saw it the same way as the population
aztec priests even admited to the catholic priests that questioned them that all the idols are just stone and the gods just ways to represent what they caled 'life force' so people would get it
>etc aren't ways to communicate the truth?
off course they are, but the first and basic thing about monotheism is the imperative requrement to belive before all else, and to believe in one god as such as if he was distinct from the rest
>>434419
>]the one-all
Christians, or at least Catholics call that the God-head.
>aztec priests even admited to the catholic priests that questioned them that all the idols are just stone and the gods just ways to represent what they caled 'life force' so people would get it
sauce?
>to believe in one god as such as if he was distinct from the rest
Well, you know how that one-all thing works? We're not talking about gods here, were talking about God with a capital G. The all encompassing, omnipresent omnipotent omniscient divine.
