>tfw reading kant and berkely latley
>tfw realized god exists
>he has to exist
anons this feeling is amazing
>>1370387
Aquinas removed all doubt from me
Excellent work OP. Now the next step is to understand that God was fully incarnate in the person of Jesus, and accept him as your Lord.
>>1370387
Confirmation bias from reading Kant, you've blown my mind- his philosophy is tripe, re-read it
>>he has to exist
>mfw
>>1370387
>>he has to exist
>>1370401
Aquinas' five "proofs" are terrible arguments themselves and full of presuppositions and other fallacies such as 'begging the question'.
>"hurr something must have started movement
>must be my God!"
Why do american atheists are such assholes? Can't you all be atheists and not give a crap?
>>1370387
Anyway OP, good for you. Wtvr keeps you going.
>>1370825
>can't you just sit down and eat the shit you're given
no
>>1370387
>has to
>>1370825
It's reactionary. Atheists in the US weren't treated well, so now they're returning the favor. I don't support it, but I see where it's coming from.
>Kant
>God exists
"Existence isn't a real predicate". Keep reading Kant and think harder.
>>1370873
I don't feel oppressed in any real sense but I was a bit surprised to find out that quite a few European politicians, even in very Christian countries like Greece, are openly atheist and no one seems to give a shit. I'm not confident an atheist could be elected president here in the states. Even Bernie was grilled over his religious affiliation due to being an obvious secular jew.
>>1370387
How do you re-conciliate pic related?
>>1370934
That's mostly because the religious are still a majority by a wide margin. And the majority religion is protestantism, the ultimate religion for posturing about how much holier you are than all those other fucks.
It's a perfect storm when voter demographics are drawn and gerrymandered along these lines. All a politician needs to do is make an implication, and a storm will ensue.
>>1370387
>>1370621
There is a very high chance that you don't actually get the arguments.
>>1370960
>you either agree with my argument, or you don't get them
That sounds unfalsifiable enough to be complete bullshit
>>1370387
if you read a point of view and assume it is correct without reading the opposing point of view, its just confirmation bias.
>>1370971
He's a frogposter, please let him have this fleeting moment of joy just this once.
>>1370939
fake quote
the actual lines go in another direction
>>1370609
>le "durr you can't not proof nothin durr" man
>>1370990
Great retort, you sure showed me with all those well-thought out arguments
>>1370993
>hurr you sure showed me durr
>>1371061
>putting 'hurr durr' in front of something makes it automatically wrong
Truly a fine example of theistic 'reasoning'
>>1371084
>hurr fine examlple of theistic reasoning durr
>>1371100
>>putting 'hurr durr' in front of something makes it automatically wrong
>>1370965
>That sounds unfalsifiable enough to be complete bullshit
>complains about fallacies and presuppositions
>takes falsifiability seriously
>>1370957
I've always wondered why science has become so arrogant.
The principles of the universe haven't changed.
How does it go from
>this rat is a rat because it meets these criteria
>this rock will soar because of force applied on it
To
>God does not exist because I am a scientist and I say he doesn't
Science can't question its first principles, why should the first principle of the universe be any different?
>>1371115
>>takes falsifiability seriously
Indeed, what a stupid thing to do, accepting that ideas can be wrong. We should just assume that every idea is by definition correct, that will make knowledge really reliable
>>1371127
>the first principle of the universe
And what would that be?
Also, why aren't people allowed to question any principles? What, because they harm your fuzzy religious feel-feels?
>>1371139
>Also, why aren't people allowed to question any principles?
"No science can question its first principles."
-Aristotle
People aren't allowed to because it would crush science the fuzzy religion of the atheists who play into the Dunning-Krueger effect.
Challenge the law of non-contradiction, challenge that principle, I triple dog dare you!
>>1371128
"Its probably true, lets just assume its true and move on."
-Aristotle
>Accepting ideas that can be wrong
That is what we must necessarily do....
Unless you have a list of ideas that are absolute and 100% correct, then we can do not more than accept things at discretion, which may or may not be wrong.
You aren't making a very compelling defense of your "falsifiability".
If life is a game of probability, then falsifiability becomes inadequate as a criterion.
>>1370387
>he has to exist
and that means, like, nothing?
>>1371246
I'm guessing you haven't read Berkely or Kant?
>>1371253
i didn't
enlighten me
>>1371207
>Challenge the law of non-contradiction, challenge that principle, I triple dog dare you!
"This statement is false."
True or false?
>"Its probably true, lets just assume its true and move on."
My, that sounds rigorous. It's not like assuming something that's 'probably true' as true can ever have any negative consequences or anything like that. The Titanic probably can't sink, so let's just assume it can't and move on, it's not like there's any risk attached to it or anything. Also, Bin Laden probably can't get his men to hijack and fly planes into building, so let's just assume he can't do that either.
Man, what an easy world that would be
>>1371266
>"This statement is false."
>True or false?
>not realizing that non-contradiction isn't a multi-axiometric system subject to Goedel's proofs
>not realizing that self referential statements are inherently illogical and that literal books have be written on this
You really aren't doing yourself any favors.
>being wrong has consequences therefore we should not be wrong
If only it was possible....
So, tell me, what can be known absolutely?
Hmmm, you seem to have skipped over the list of absolutes that we can accept.....
So explain to me how falsifiability is a legitimate criteria?
Also the examples you listed in the context you argue for is inherently out of touch with reality because you are positing a reality of absolute knowledge....
Try once more.
>>1370387
Welcome!
>>1370965
No, people have gotten the argument and criticized them. I personally have a critique of them myself. But 90% of the time if a 4chan user thinks that the 5 ways are "question begging" it means that they don't actually get the arguments. Thats why I said there is a high probability, from the experience of people not understanding these arguments when they critique them.
>>1370387
Read Schopenhauer
>>1370387
>>tfw reading kant and berkely latley
>>tfw realized god exists
How, exactly?
>>1370621
he never argued that it was his god you fucking autist.
>>1370609
My nigga.
>>1370387
How did Kant and Berkeley wololo you, OP? Also what have you've been reading?
I want to read what you're reading, OP. Please tell me what you've been reading.
>people still believe in what is basically a human with superpowers
What kind of God OP?
A Deist God (non-interventing into the Universe) or a Theist God (intervening into the Universe)?
>>1370387
I also agree that Kant, whether he wants to admit ir not, argues that god exists when he describes things in and of themselves. He basically proves a world exists we can't know about.
>>1372590
Berkeley is obvious isn't it?
"God" is beings in the future who willan on-build a machine that retrieves every consciousness in the universe's history from moments before their brain is unable to support them.
When this machine is complete, and all have been saved, one of the builders will inevitably consume and integrate all the inhabitants of this virtual afterlife into itself.
What most people understand by God is a bearded old man who created the universe, made us unequal, punishes us if we "sin" and forces himself on us if we don't want to burn in hell.
If you're talking about that God, you're awfully mistaken.
God exists, but He is beyond comprehension and not necessarily someone that directly acts onto us.
God is indeed what created this grossly perfect universe. Everything around you, the fact that you exist is impossible to be coincidental, and I have accepted that, even though I've converted to buddhism which is a non-theistic religion.
Just like a lot of people have interpreted Buddha's words wrong, or added stuff to try and improve yhem, so did people with Jesus' teachings.
I also believe that any initiate needs to acknowledge Jesus as a great teacher. He thaught us to do good and might have just been God who was born in our world to help us.
All this talk about sin and how belief in the creator will save us from punishment is a bit silly. God himself created karma, and any other belief goes agaist all logic. Why are we born at different times if we only live once? Why are we so unequal? Karma is universal and absolute and all sentient beings are under it's law.
I've read the bible multiple times and there's pretty much nothing to disprove karma and rebirth. I feel like Christianity (the real christianity, not the stupid dogma we have) and Buddhism could be mutually compatible. I believe we can only go to "heaven" for eternity after we've lived a lot of lives and gathered all the good karma we could possibly have. By heaven I mean becoming a Buddha
>>1371299
Fatfist pls go
>god
>>1370387
Rationalizing that God exists is pretty good, but even better is the direct experience of God. If you're now truly a believer I recommend dedicating your life to the pursuit of God's grace, because nothing comes close.
>>1371299
>So, tell me, what can be known absolutely?
Hmmm, you seem to have skipped over the list of absolutes that we can accept.....
Not really, since there aren't any, nor have I ever claimed that there are
>So explain to me how falsifiability is a legitimate criteria?
I just did, dumbfuck. If you're wrong about being wrong, nothing will happen. If you're wrong about being right, the consequences could be disasterous
>>1370621
>>1373746
This is a weird sort of synchronicity.
I would agree that god must exist except for the fact that it requires we give it a name, which would therefore limit god and make it not god. What must exist is something that cannot be expressed or understood by human cognition.
But yeah, feeling that is quite transformational, OP. I am there with you.
>>1370387
>>reading what amounts to glorified mental masturbation made me think a deity or group of deities exists in spite of there being no verifiable evidence for the existence of such a thing
Glad I don't know this feel.
>>1373819
Why do you think you are both important enough to be able to dismiss others' perception as irrelevant, yet not important enough to accept the possibility of your own existence being the product of a universal principle of self-organization? It's not about a bearded sky-daddy, anon; it's about recognizing your own limitations of understanding and realizing that unless you have all possible information, you cannot determine the nature of transhuman superintelligence. I appreciate your skepticism, but it seems that the logical extension of being unable to prove a negative would be a state of persistent and humble aporia instead of snarky dismissals.
>>1372648
>I'm stupid as shit so I le trole and le b8
>>1373443
>Not really, since there aren't any, nor have I ever claimed that there are
So we cant know anything....
>if your wrong about being wrong, nothing will happen
Explain the difference between being wrong about being wrong and being wrong about being right.
I think those are the same thing.
And if such is the case then the legitimacy of falsifiability becomes non-existent.
>>1371128
>We should just assume that every idea is by definition correct, that will make knowledge really reliable
Here's my main probably.
When you are posting falsifiability you are defending the converse of this statement, that everything is false until proven true, and if something can not be proven false it should be discarded.
Well if something is proven true then it can not be proven false, thus it can not be falsifiable and we can not accept it even though it is true.
However you might say "well it could be false under these conditions."
That would require us to already know if it is true or false....
Your basis for knowledge comes around to a tautology.
>>1373409
what?
>>1370387
I don't know why you'd be happy about that, I very much doubt that they can prove that God is anything like the way he's described in Abrahamic religions, or any other.
If I knew that a God existed I would assume it was either nothing like the way any religions describe it and that I therefore know nothing about it besides the fact it exists and is probably immensely powerful, or it's how some religions describe it and not benevolent by my/modern standards.
Neither option really seems all that great. It'd be nice that my existence would likely continue on much farther beyond my lifetime, but that's about it.
>>1370988
no they don't, they send the exact same message, he just makes it clearer about his own belief.
>>1373434
>*hurr* I am a smart and *durr* composed *hurr* man that is above typical /his/ *hurr* stupidity and I am smart *hurr* (tips fedora)
>>1373190
>Everything around you, the fact that you exist is impossible to be coincidental
Jesus fucking christ why does it always come back to the same illogical, retarded argument from incredulity?
>yknow man, I just, I dont really GET the whole earth man, like how could it BE the EARTH, if there wasnt a god? just seems impossible man i think i just proved god man
>>1371207
replying to this one instead of the one you posted later down because its more relevant to my response
>No science can question its first principles.
You're right, technically, but the only principle in science is
>The material world is real and can be objectively studied, measured, and observed.
That's it. That's all we need, because from there, everything starts working. And that's why falsifiability works. If it's not falsifiable, e.g. we cannot prove it wrong, its meaningless because it has no impact on the real world. I cannot prove that there is not a teapot orbiting around the sun. Therefore, any such suppositions are meaningless to science. For all we know, there very well could be a teapot, and we're not saying its wrong. But we're assuming there isn't because that's the only way to meaningfully progress. If, in the beginning of the scientific revolution, we had held on the unfalsifiable belief that evil spirits caused disease, we would have no germ theory. Falsifiability is the only way to make certain statements about the world. As to
>>1375822
>When you are posting falsifiability you are defending the converse of this statement, that everything is false until proven true, and if something can not be proven false it should be discarded. Well if something is proven true then it can not be proven false, thus it can not be falsifiable and we can not accept it even though it is true.
That's literally not how it works at all. That's a strawman that makes a mockery out of the scientific method.
>>1375663
>still believing in what is basically a human with superpowers
>>1375849
No, it won't be nice. At all. Because you choose not to believe in God. Because you choose to not be a part of what God is creating. Because you choose evil, and death, and hell when you were offered good, and life, and heaven.
No, it will not be nice at all.
>>1376396
Fuck off cultist
>>1376400
I didn't tell you to join my cult, dummy.
I told you that you are dead, and if you don't do anything about it, you're going to be on fire forever, in the dark, and alone.
>>1376421
I told you to fuck off, cultist.
>>1370387
>has to
Spooky
>>1376421
> you're going to be on fire forever, in the dark, and alone
Good. You people will have finally fucked off.
>>1370924
kek this and flews falsification make it very very hard to believe in god
>>1370387
Great, now prove that His mind must resemble a human's closely enough to justify religion.
>>1376466
That's not even true, much less necessary.
>>1376462
You should know since you and your death cult seem to be most excited by suffering.
>>1376464
just to point out I think crombies point about falsification is better than flews
>>1370387
How exactly does God have to exist? The universe doesn't care about philosophical arguments, it just is. I doubt anyone can make a philosophical argument as to why subatomic particles act as both particles and waves, but they still do.
Our musings as to a "creator" are meaningless. We're semi advanced primates on a small terrestrial planet orbiting a mid range star, one of 100,000,000,000 in our galaxy, of which there are tens of billions. We are the definition of insignificant. Stop acting like we can actually understand and comprehend the universe.
>>1376552
Why assume that the universe "cares" about scientific abstractions either ? Our musings about "subatomic particles" are just as suspect if you want to take that route.
>>1376569
The universe doesn't care insofar as it, to the best of our knowledge, lacks any type of consciousness and is immutable, and the physical properties of the universe are not contingent on certain philosophical propositions.
>>1376599
But you are begging the question. On one hand philosophy should be dismissed because it is coming from human beings who are ultimately insignificant according to you. Yet you are claiming support from this idea from human constructed science, which has the same "insignificant" source.
And it is a terrible strawman to claim that anyone thinks that a philosophical proposition is going to cause God to exist. The arguments don't create reality any more than a science experiment is going to create reality. Both are used to discover things and justify things about reality.
If our musings about God using a mixture of empirical evidence and deductive logic is useless because we are flawed humans, then our scientific enterprise in which we use empirical evidence and inductive logic is also suspect.
>>1376396
And you think I deserve that, just for the crime of doubt, just for making what would be an honest mistake, and then have the audacity to claim that I'M choosing evil?
Get fucked you delusional, vindictive cunt. By all means keep making empty threats though, I'm sure you've endeared your faith to countless people already with that tactic.
>>1376003
Yea, bro. The universe is all a big coincidence.
This whole extremely complex system simply exists because of chance. It just works by this absolute laws of physics because it just does.
It's purely coincidental that there exists this big rock that moves around a hot thing, and spins around its axis too, at the perfect distance from the hot ball, allowing for the perfect heat and heat distribution. It's also completely coincidental that there's this thing called air and water glued to Earth by some coincidental force called gravity.
You just also simply happen to be inside some other complex system that allows you to get by in this universe.
Le epikk big bang man. There was this huge ball of shit that nobody placed... It was just there and it exploded because reasons and not external force.
Also, the reason why our personality is influenced by the allignment of planets when we are born is just some weird law that's not even visible. You may or may not believe in astrology or karma though, so letting those aside, and coming back to everything scientifical, a lot of things can be investigated, but the reason why they are there is impossible to even ask.
At some point the questions stop making sense. For example "why does air stick to earth and not fly out? Because there's gravity. What is gravity? It's a force that each planet has and everything is affected by it. Why is there gravity? J('_')L
>>1377436
You make light of it, but it's not a zero probability. What you may want to read up on is the Anthropic Principle of Cosmology, which posits that the improbability of our existence only seems so unlikely because we are here to observe it, and that its improbability is only a consequence of the relative timeline by which we measure such things. For example, there may have been billions or trillions of lifetimes of a universe that goes through cycles of big-bang to great-collapse, and eventually, since there is no outer limit for life, it inevitably had to happen the way it did. It's like the infinite number of monkeys typing on the infinite number of typewriters... eventually one will write Hamlet. It just has to happen on a long-enough timeline, and by extension all possible configurations of all atomic and subatomic interactions will and have had to have happened. Our only hang-up is time itself.
So try to show a little respect for the simultaneously staggering incomprehensibility and inevitability of our being here instead of being such a flippant churl, maybe?
Didnt Kant wrote that it is NOT possible to prove a god?
>>1377492
His existentialism was rooted in Christianity. While he argued that it was not possible to *objectively* prove god, and that it was only knowable on an individual level, he considered the existence of god to be a logical consequence of our own existence, and deduced the moral imperative (commit an action only if it would be something that everyone should do regardless of specific identity) from those premises.
People actually get mad that people believe in a God just because their own life's experience hasn't made them believe there's one lol, too funny
>>1376421
Protip: You first need to believe these threats in order to find them credible/threatening. Otherwise you just sound ridiculous.
>>1377697
>you need to believe something to believe it
Wow, you're a genius mate
>>1377722
That's why it's so beyond me why so many people don't understand this and think that threats of divine retribution would have any effect on person without faith.
>>1377729
Whether you believe in something or not doesn't make something true or untrue. I'm pretty sure that guy didn't expect you to change your mind about God from his post
>>1377731
Quite sure he's projecting to a certain degree, unless he's completely shitposting.
>>1370401
Aquinas' arguments are shit.
>>1377884
How so
>>1370842
Nobody's asking you to believe in religion. Doesn't mean you have to be a cringy autistic faggot
>>1377887
Cause is a human concept, there's no need for a first cause, and even if there were, that first cause could be anything, it doesn't prove the existence of a God, less so the fucking Christian God.
>>1377887
They come from a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world actually works. Which was understandable for the time, but it's >the current year and people keep parroting.
Not even against people being religious, Aquinas's arguments are just metaphysical bullshit that ask more out of me than just believing in God without reason out of "love".
>>1371207
Aristotle was WRONG about pretty much everything he said remotely linked with science.
He probably singlehandedly held back science quite some time.
>>1377895
So any argument that doesn't prove anything is shit? Guess your argument is shit then.
What ideas that we use aren't a human concept? How do you know there isn't a need for a first cause?
Good OP now read Schopenhauer the true sequel to Kant.
>>1377916
Yes, it's not a proof or demonstration, so it's shit, because his "proof" of the existence of God isn't a proof,
Simple logic, no wonder you're convinced of anything a philosopher says just because he's a philosopher and supports your belief, retard.
>>1377916
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm
Or just read Hobbes you retard.
Anyway as I've already said even if a first cause were needed (it isn't) it wouldn't prove the existence of God or the Christian God.
>>1377895
That does'nt really answer the argument though, that is you just stating the opposite conclusion, and claiming that because causation is a human concept means that it is a false one- gravity is also a human concept, that does'nt make it any less real. Likewise, if you look at what the argument entails certain properties of God, like immutability, ends up deductively following. If you read past the initial three pages where the point is getting at the first cause, Aquinas spent hundreds of pages showing how the first cause must be the Christian God, or at least one extremely close to the Christian God.
>>1377900
>They come from a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world actually works.
What fundamental misunderstanding are you speaking of ?
>>1377982
>aquinas spent hundreds of Pages...
And he failed, he didn't prove anything, in fact modern science supports the creation of particels from nothingness, the cosmologic argument is invalide then, on a sidenote said argument was first Made by Aristoteles, Aquinas just tried to use it to prove the Christian God, and failed
>>1370387
At least adopt the god of the later german idealists...Hegel's god is a much more interesting, but i guess it strays too far from crhistian dogma ha..
Anyway, first fucking catch up philosophical with modern times and than make grand statements. You are relying on hundreds of years old philosophy.
>>1373190
>interpreted wrong
go back to your rathole and keep thinking.
>>1378078
>modern science
and?
Newtonian physics was thought to be the be all end all when it became popular and everyone thought all that was left was to fill in the blanks.
Or do you think you live in some special time in history?
We are still revolving around the same questions the ancient greeks did.
You know why? Because we are simply a bigger and more complex version of them and each of their ideas was expanded upon and details and broken up into smaller parts but the major themes all persist and there is no reason to think they wont in the future.
The different ideas of god have persisted and will persist.
The fact we are now in a time where materialism is popular in mainstream culture does not mean it will be so forever.
>>1378191
>And?
And it proves creation from nothingness isn't impossible
>We are still revolving around the same questions the ancient greeks did.
In some aspects, not on everything
>The different ideas of god have persisted and will persist.
I doubt it.
Still, Aquinas' argument remains flawed in many ways.
Its premise is wrong, the Universe, if meant as existence itself/Multiverse could be eternal for all we know, or repeating in an everlasting circle, or could have just come from nothing, we can't say that the Universe must have a cause.
Even if a cause were needed, it could be just a general principle of existence without any particular attribute, the Christian God or any God for that matter, are not needed as a necessary cause.
You're free of believing in God or Christianity if you need to, but please don't go around saying there's an argument to prove it because it's false.
Aquinas' argument not only starts from false premises, but starting from those premises it also makes several assumptions based on nothing, it's not a logical demonstration as that for a mathematical theorem such as Weierstrass or Fermat's, for instance.
U can :
a) believe in God and be happy
b) be atheist and triggered by everything
Choice is obvious.
DEUS VULT
>>1377982
I already said it. It's all metaphysical bullshit. Not to mention they don't prove the Christian god in the slightest, or even an anthropomorphic god at all.
The most common one is the unmoved mover, but it's just as bullshit as the rest.
Water isn't "potential ice". All things in existence will take whatever form happens consumes less energy depending on the environment they find themselves in. So a freezer isn't helping helping water "fulfill its potential", it's just creating a different environment where water can spontaneously freeze. If you remove the freezer, energy will flow into the ice depending on the energy (temperature) difference between the ice and the new environment. Likewise, removing """the unmoved mover""", assuming it exists, out of the universe doesn't make it stop existing, it just follows whatever incorporeal laws the universe has reaches a conclusion. This "unmoved mover" is rendered completely unnecessary with current understanding of physics, so I will consider it god of the gaps.
First cause is similarly god of the gaps. From our current understanding of physics, the very concept of causality probably breaks down before the creation of spacetime as we understand it.
Argument from Degree ignores a) that there are things that we find beautiful thanks to our evolutionary psychology and b) that there's things that only follow concepts that we've ourselves created better than others, and as such they're seeing as more "perfect" or "better".
Argument from Contingency not only fails to state why we should assume the Universe should have already perished and why does that connect with god, but even that is pointless now because we've created models with which a Universe could potentially be naturally eternal and, more importantly, we've found our universe's due date.
The Teleological Argument, likewise, hinges on the time's understanding of physics. We now know why such cycles happen spontaneously.
reached word lim. lazy 2 cont
>be fedora
>claim to be logical and mock things for lack of proof, even though nobody claimed anything was "proven", just that they believe it
>proceed to make your own baseless assumptions that lack proof, but it's okay because you're so "logical"
>>1377697
No, you don't.
>>1376631
The sin of Unbelief, yes.
The unforgivable sin. The unpardonable sin. The ONE fucking sin you CANNOT commit without drastic punishment.
ONE.
>>1378758
>be atheist and triggered by everything
If anything, it is religious people that get "triggered" by anything.
>>1379389
>no u
>>1379391
This is your post.
Ignore the loopy fundie people. Is this your first fucking rodeo or something?
>>1379389
Moron. He placed that there specifically so you'd respond.
>>1379396
Yes, and this is your post
>>1379400
Yes, but he's the one desperately trying to be an epic troll, inadvertently proving my correction.
>>1379434
>proving
>>1370404
What about the part that God's followers have not just the right, but the responsibility, to kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do? Where does that fit in?
>>1379342
>even though nobody claimed anything was "proven", just that they believe it
You know that's horseshit, you twat.
>>1379546
That's not what Christians believe at all
>>1379568
Nope, not really. I can't prove that I'm not a brain in a vat but I believe I'm not
>>1379591
The religious claim all the time that God is absolutely real and that they "know" God is real so get your head out of your ass.
>>1379596
Atheists also always claim that they "know" he isn't so how about you eat shit? :^)
>>1379606
No, agnostic atheists are like 80% of atheists, while gnostic theists are like 80% of theists. Stop sending this "no u" bullshit line you baiter
>>1379615
I literally see atheists say that all the time. Where did you get that stat from?
>Don't point out that people on the other side do the exact same thing I'm accusing others of
>>1375578
>>It's not about a bearded sky-daddy, anon;
Like fuck it isn't, read some of the stupid christards in this thread
>>it's about recognizing your own limitations of understanding and realizing that unless you have all possible information, you cannot determine the nature of transhuman superintelligence.
There is no reason to think such an intelligence exists.
>>1379630
And I literally say atheists say "I can't prove there's no God absolutely/
I don't know there's no God absolutely." all the time. Yet theists are always saying "I know there's a God" way more often. The "stat" was just an estimate. The point is you see the former case more than the latter case of you would just get your head out your ass.
>>1379643
>There is no reason to think such an intelligence exists
There's no reason to think one doesn't exist either
>>1379657
Yes there is. Intelligence is a chiefly human trait.
>>1379657
The complete absence of evidence is a pretty good one.
>>1379657
Uh yeah there is, it's called lack of evidence, it's the self-same reason why most people don't believe santa claus exists.
>>1379666
Sure thing Satan. There's intelligence in all animals though and I don't know how humans being intelligent would mean there isn't a God
>>1379684
Not really, there's no reason to think God would have to make himself known, or known to everybody if he existed
>>1379689
Flying Spaghetti Monster amirite? People know he doesn't exist (at least in the way we describe him) because we know we bought the presents. If the presents appeared out of nowhere with no explanation there would be reason to believe in the possibility of a "Santa Claus" type figure
>>1379732
>There's intelligence in all animals though and I don't know how humans being intelligent would mean there isn't a God
First of all, no there isn't. Second of all, you haven't thought about it hard enough.
>>1379895
Literally not an argument
>>1372590
fuck that image got me good lmao
>>1379940
Intelligence is a property that originated in animals and is most extreme in humans. To say that there must be some "intelligence" means that there must be some animal-like entity above or beyond the universe, which is absurd. Life is chiefly a phenomenon within the universe
>>1380035
But if there were a God, intelligence would have obviously sprung from him originally, like everything else
>>1380041
The argument goes that God is himself intelligent, not that he's merely a source of intelligence.
>>1380049
Okay, so what's absurd about God being intelligent?
>>1380068
We understand intelligence chiefly as a property that arises of matter being arranged in a particular way and as a phenomenon that arises in some animals. God wouldn't be master nor would it be anything like an animal.
>>1380075
*wouldn't be matter
>>1379732
>If the presents appeared out of nowhere with no explanation
Uh what? We have no real need to refer to a deity of any sort to explain physical existence. Our universe is the result of various natural processes, some of which we don't fully understand yet.
>>1380118
>some of which we don't fully understand yet
Exactly, which is why there's nothing wrong with believing in the possibility of a God-like figure, like I said
>god
>>1380137
A God like figure as traditionally described only complicates matters.
>>1380176
Believing in the possibility of God doesn't complicate anything. It's a very simple idea
>>1380178
Believing in the possibility is not the same in believing in the probability.
>has to exist
>>1378078
>in fact modern science supports the creation of particels from nothingness,
Read through the response I make to this post. >>1379126
Science positing particles arising without a cause isn't enough to defeat the argument.
Also, Aquinas and Aristotle have very distinct arguments for what are ultimately different conclusions. Aristotle's God is based on the heavenly spheres and what is needed for them to exist the way they do, and has allot of psychological notions of teleology which Aquinas lacks. His teleological argument is based on non-psychological forms of teleology based simply on natural regularities. They are somewhat similar, but far from the same argument.
>>1379126
>I already said it. It's all metaphysical bullshit
That doesn’t mean much, since metaphysics is a better tool for getting to fundamental truths about the world, rather than the quantitative abstractions that science gives us which is more so just useful for giving us experimental results.
>Water isn't "potential ice".
In order to prove this you would have to show that it is impossible for water to become ice.
Describing in more detail how water is potential ice, by pointing to other more specific natural regularities that make it so, and other causal variables that could make it not so, doesn’t disbar the claim.
>removing """the unmoved mover""", assuming it exists, out of the universe doesn't make it stop existing, it just follows whatever incorporeal laws the universe has reaches a conclusion.
A first mover is needed to explain what is sustaining the universe and these regularities you call "laws" in the first place, answering the question of why things continue to exist as they do rather than cease to existing
There are no "laws" in nature. We have things that act in certain ways, we create generalizations based on individual things that we have grouped together, the properties by which we group them, and how they act given certain variables. Invoking a "natural law" does'nt explain the phenomena, because the "laws" are just abstractions based on phenomena. If you try to explain phenomena by "laws" then you have your explanatory ordering backwards. How do "laws" causally affect anything ? , they are an absurd concept when taken in such a metaphysical way.
cont
>>1380280
>From our current understanding of physics, the very concept of causality probably breaks down before the creation of spacetime as we understand it.
But physics has a particular method that limits its results. Physics looks for the correspondence of quantitative variables that can be put together into formulas. It has no room for causation because causation isn’t just a matter of “a corresponds to b given variable c”. We don’t get causation from physics because of inherent limitations on what physics can give knowledge of, it has nothing to do with reality itself. Causation is still observable in the macro world as well, So in order for your theory here to go through you would have to prove the reductionism is true: that everything that happens on the macro level is entirely reducible to phenomena on the micro-physical level, and that nothing supervenient emerges as we go up higher in the mereological ordering.
>Argument from Degree ignores a) that there are things that we find beautiful thanks to our evolutionary psychology and b) that there's things that only follow concepts that we've ourselves created better than others, and as such they're seeing as more "perfect" or "better".
The fact that we came to find it beautiful due to our evolutionary psychology doesn’t rule out that the reason why our evolutionary psychology worked to make us find things beautiful was because they actually were beautiful in the first place, and our psychology allowed us a means to realize that. You also misunderstand the medieval notion of “perfection”, you are confusing it with our subjective notion of “preferable”. It is more about just having “more” in terms of the related quality. In terms of strength a weight lifter is more perfect than you or I because he has more strength than we do. Unless you want to say that qualities never come in different degrees, then you have nothing here.
cont
>>1370387
exactly which ideas/claims of Kant and Berkeley did you read to give you such an idea?
>>1380287
>Argument from Contingency not only fails to state why we should assume the Universe should have already perished and why does that connect with god, but even that is pointless now because we've created models with which a Universe could potentially be naturally eternal and, more importantly, we've found our universe's due date.
Ok, you didn’t get the argument at all then. It is about a statistical kind of modality in which to say that something is possible to not exist means that at some point it has not existed or will not exist. If everything was such that it has a time in which it does not exist then that means that there would be some time where nothing existed. If there was a time when nothing existed then nothing could arise from that time. You have to remember that Aquinas, when doing Philosophy, worked with Aristotle’s theory that there was infinite past time (since it was only a matter of faith that it did not, and the existence of God was needed to justify believing in the articles of faith that come from him), meaning that if we were going to come to that point where nothing existed, we had an infinite past time for it to come about, and for the further existence of the world to cease, and yet it had not. So there must have been something that always existed according to an infinite inductive case.
Now we could accuse Aquinas of a composition fallacy, just because at every time we needed something existing, doesn’t mean that it had to be the same thing existing at every time. But then you would have to posit that things just randomly perished and generated, disconnected from one another. Rather than having something that consistently facilitates the generation and decay from the same material, which is what we actually have in our reality.
cont
>>1380292
Also, “the big crunch” theory, where our universe ends. Doesn’t have that much going for it, plenty of physicists have suggested that as far as we will tell it will keep expanding. The “due date” is possible, but doesn’t have all that much going for it.
>The Teleological Argument, likewise, hinges on the time's understanding of physics. We now know why such cycles happen spontaneously.
No we don’t, we know that physics counts it as spontaneous and has no use for final causes given its procedural parameters. Appealing to the authority of our current physical enterprise and treating its claims as something that hinges on a complete ontology is unjustified. At the very least you need to make some effort to justify it.
I’m sorry, but you don’t seem to understand science or Aquinas’ arguments to a sufficient degree so to make the claim you have made.
>>1379126
Nothing contains within it the cause for itself.
>>1370387
God is likely just that. A feeling. Nothing more.
![0_M-TBK-16-033-Direktgeld_154X154[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3sAhjEv.jpg "0_M-TBK-16-033-Direktgeld_154X154[1].jpg")
The causality argument is simply stupid.
>things exist
>things have a cause
>at some point nothing existed
>so something (GOD) created the first thing(s) in existence
How the fuck can you shitheads really postulate that, at the time were NOTHING existed, something (GOD) already existed?
Oh right, because he is eternal and all powerful and herpaderp other predicates that remove him from the frame you were arguing in in the first place. Religious arguments always willfuly degenerate into inconsistency to make their "proofs" and it triggers me.
>>1381633
>it's obvious that all of this happens because an eternal all powerful wizard willed it.
>>1381663
i wouldn't say the eternal all powerful wizard willed it, but 'something' willed it, or perhaps it was an unintentional creation. regardless, 'something' caused it to occur. I would say that is God.
>>1381685
And I would say that that is a leap in logic that we do no have to make, we can easily be honest and say "we don't know".
You're literally advocating for god of the gaps.
>>1381660
The law of causality proves our universe goes against our concept of laws of physics.
Whether you believe it is god or some non-sentient entity like an expolosion, something became from nothing at some point.
You can greentext and meme around, whatever, but this is how it stands.
I'm pretty partial to a combination of the Tao and pantheism.
I figure a perfect creator deity would have to either be a totally unchanging entity (The One would work here), or all things at all times. The universe itself is the only thing that fits that description, assuming time is an illusion of our own perception.
The Tao fits in basically as the primordial conditions that allowed the universe to exist as a stable entity with consistent laws and causality. It is the riverbed in which the universe flows.
>>1381751
I must admit, one thing I do like about the Orthodox church is that it doesn't try to use bad reasoning to justify God, at least as far as I'm aware.
I mean, it's good that the Catholics attempt to reconcile reason and faith (as opposed to many Protestants who just deny reason and science and are trying to stick themselves back to Bronze Age era understanding of cosmology), but sometimes a more honest approach is more valuable.
That is, if I haven't completely misinterpreted the Orthodox's position on this.
>>1381732
There is no "law of causality" in the sense that you and many other non-scientists postulate it. And even assuming there was something at the beginning, ascribing it certain attributes such as loving, caring, or whatever else gives you good feelies in your tum-tum, is simply childish.
Religious people are just mentally too weak to accept that currently we simply don't know how everything began. That it is still an area of inquiry over which we can not make any definite statements at this point in time.
>>1379643
>read some of the stupid christards in this thread
Let's not let the squeaky wheels use up all the oil. You can tell when someone is open to considering another point of view (much of the time), and you can tell when they just want to yap loud enough to calm the fear of their own insignificance. Only respond when there's a point to responding.
>There is no reason to think such an intelligence exists.
You are correct. It is technically irrational to presume the existence of a superhuman intelligence. But that doesn't mean it isn't seen in the real world - pi is irrational, and it's directly observable in the world around you. It is literally the non-repeating infinity that would signify the sort of numinous deistic presence which we seek.
As for the word "intelligent," there is perhaps some semiotic issue that would prevent agreement. There is no reason, as you say, to assume that the superintelligence has a personality or consciousness like you or I do, or that it would have an opinion on what kind of church you attend, if any, or who wins the superbowl - that stuff is pretty trivial. But the *details* of those events, the actual phenomenological details of subatomic interaction that leads to the instantiation of human thought and action - that's vast, and it seems random, but there is an organizing principle to it all: and that's the kind of "intelligence" that we can actually see and access.
Read up on the Lorenz attractor (one of many "strange attractors"), and the larger Chaos Theory of which it is a part.
Then realize that there is a pattern into which the digits of pi fit into, but we just can't see them with our limited framework as human beings.
That's pretty much as good of a proof for superintelligence as we're going to get, I fear, because once you can understand the shape and pattern of the universe, you transcend humanity and become something else.
But it makes me, at least, less afraid of doing so.
>>1380049
Why do we feel the need to personify this intelligence? It's pretty egotistical to try and make it human (sorry Jesus, just sayin'), and it only leads to people fighting over what kind of "person" it would be. Actually, it makes me rather sympathize with the Islamic principle of refusing to depict Mohammed.
>>1380212
You certainly got me there.
>>1373190
don't fall for the karma trap anon. duality is a universal law but nobody is judging you. we came here incarnate simply to experience 3rd dimensiaonal life. you leave when your material desires have been fulfilled, karma is only a tool for us to explore this reality like time or space. you have much more searching to do and it will never be finished but that's what's so damn beautiful about it. i'd advise reading the gita next since you seem to be so good at sorting through bullshit, ignore all the hypocrisy and cherish the gems within it.
>>1380292
>something is possible to not exist means that at some point it has not existed or will not exist.
Just because something doesn't exist in one place doesn't mean it doesn't exist somewhere else. It's like object permanence, but on a slightly bigger scale.
>>1381301
That'd be hilarious; you'd wind up with people arguing that they can't prove someone's an atheist, and then they'd have to reason that they really aren't, and then they'd accidentally disprove their own belief in god, and then they'd have to strip themselves of their own rights because the only one they could really know was an atheist would be themself...
>>1377892
This
>>1379342
>even though nobody claimed anything was "proven", just that they believe it
Literally every fucktard christfag on here believes that the theistic 'proofs' provided by people such as Aquinas and Pascal are infallible, which ironically instantly disqualifies it as a serious piece of critical inquiry
>>1379369
Or in other words, the sin of disagreeing with you, despite that disagreement is quite literally the core of human inquiry.
If we considered disagreement as an unforgivable sin, all innovation and development would grind to a halt. Society would become completely static. If that's your ideal society, maybe moving to Saudi Arabia is something for you
>I don't know, therefore god.
>God, therefore the god I know.
You're sitting on two layers of incongruity.
