Muh God

You can’t prove your claim. You’re ultimately accepting your belief on faith. You have extremely strong faith that God doesn’t exist.

Woah, now. Careful not to cut yourself on that edge!

Btw, I hear Gillette is looking for a new spokesman. You ought to give them a call.

>BURRRP

Attached: rick-and-morty.jpg (600x410, 75K)

What rules have I made up?

based and faithpilled

Attached: kierk.png (500x500, 118K)

it's astounding how many people are actually using Mac's arguments, so many brainlets
youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2bQq4Hgmg

>he learns philosophy from a piece of shit degenerate television show

Attached: bugsyou.jpg (609x493, 36K)

"Mysticism" and "faith" doesn't mean someone is closing his eyes and trying to force things into reality. It means "getting it" and having "experienced it" and as a result being equipped with faith and all its mystery.

Few people open the Bible, analyze it contents and decide from there whether they believe or not.

Yes OP, keep posting here. One day you'll be strong enough to defeat me. Yes... they are delusional brainlets... not like you! And you know how to show it too - swinging your swagger all around here like a ballsack in the wind! The most beneficial thing you can do right now is start selling that idea baby! You gotta get the word out! You and I are gonna make a lotta cash...

Have sex (after marriage)

Well, at least you're looking for God, which is good.

when you have no argument so you link a video from a Jewish-made comedy show that’s barely relevant to argue for you

>when you have no argument so you link a video from a Jewish-made comedy show that’s barely relevant to argue for you
it's literally your fucking argument in the video, there is not a single grain of evidence in the entire known universe of God

>"Mysticism" and "faith" doesn't mean someone is closing his eyes and trying to force things into reality.
That's literally what it means.
>It means "getting it" and having "experienced it" and as a result being equipped with faith and all its mystery
You mean going off "feeling" instead of logic and expecting not to be called a drooling retard.

and... physical evidence is important because...?

And there’s no argument against God’s existence. We are stuck in the middle. However, there are more arguments for a first cause than there are against, so reason might actually favor God’s existence. But if we truly are stuck in the middle, then the most reasonable thing to do is to believe in God anyway. Either we have faith that He exists or that He does not exist, but only one path will benefit you.

You're investing your faith in the wrong things. Return to God.

and you're left with what? philosophical argumentation that doesn't even hold water? There's a reason most christian thought ended 150+ years ago and why it was called apologetics, as in "I apologize my faith is so retarded but maybe it's not completely retarded and here's why"

kek
>he thinks that's why its called apologetics

was Plato's Apology also because Socrates was such a fucking boring troll just like this thread?

Hard-line logic and reason are memes. At a point you have to grow out of them.

Why is your God real and Allah isn't?

Why is your God any more believable than the theory this is all a simulation?

Oh let the young thirst for answers, and receive the wrong ones. That is the way of the life.

>Hard-line logic and reason are memes.
Why?

>And there’s no argument against God’s existence. We are stuck in the middle.
We're not stuck in the middle, there are numerous psychological reason why man would make up God/Gods/afterlife, namely fear, desire for justice, revenge, egoism (as in we're so high an noble we deserve to live after death) etc. and what universe existing doesn't require an interloper, if your God hadn't started the universe then what would we have? nothing? there is no such thing, universe must exist as a brute fact, there is no alternative, or am I incorrect?

>not a single grain of evidence in the entire known universe of God
>besides the complexity of life and DNA
>besides the unbreakable fundamental laws of physics that relate to each other illogically
>besides metaphysical forms
>besides consciousness and a moral drive
>besides the cosmic origin of life

>Why is your God real and Allah isn't?
Jesus was prophesied. Muhammad wasn’t. Also, Muhammad was a pedophile, thief, etc. Christianity is the most difficult religion to have been faked in the world.
>Why is your God any more believable than the theory this is all a simulation?
What is being simulated?

Forgot pic

Attached: 02EE5409-D42E-4A60-BD5B-397BF55565F0.jpg (807x480, 87K)

Someone looking for the right answers will arrive at God. Someone who is looking for the right answers for reasons other than what they know in their heart is Right and Good, will arrive at nothing.

>something is complex to a monkey brain so it must be God
>we live in a universe with a certain cosmological constant and not in one of the other universes which collapsed or cannot support life so it must be God
consciousness is a meme, and so is morality

because reddit likes them

based and terrorpilled.

edgy boys ought to read that line to themselves until they notice their own silly convictions, implanted by satanists, staring back at them

Because following it hard-line leads to absurdity or negative conclusions contrary to what is. Nothing can be ultimately reduced reasonably or logically. People will choose to live beyond those reasons.

Because humans are laughable limited. The most reasonable thing is the recognition that there are infinite things beyond our reason.

>something is complex that start's off from atoms forming and crashing into each other, being heated in its own furnace JUST long enough before mysteriously cooling down into the cosmos from which from the building blocks of life according to a whole different set of rules that SPECIFICALLY are predestined to from molecules and DNA, all of which fall in accord to gravity and electricity which have no reason to relate to each other
>AND
>ITS
>ALL
>JUST
>RANDOM
>consciousness is a meme, and so is morality
You must be a riot at parties with the girls. Lest its some swinger heavy metal drug concert.

>Wahhhh I get answers that are negative and point to a shitty world so it doesn't count

embarrassing

>>something is complex that start's off from atoms forming and crashing into each other, being heated in its own furnace JUST long enough before mysteriously cooling down into the cosmos from which from the building blocks of life
why not skip that whole process, eliminate 99.999999% of space which is just matter, and according to christcucks "the stupidest thing there is" and make a world just for us?

Attached: 1a34cd7a1d71244bb9555644edf00521.png (640x638, 386K)

You just want everything to be shitty.

Because the world is not “just” for us. God is fulfilling His omnipotent nature by creating such a large and complex world. We may be the most important feature of God’s creation, but we’re not the only thing that’s important

>blames Christians for believing in magic
>God creates the universe in precise design for us to learn from
>Y U NO MAGIC THEN???
Also,
>99.999999% of space which is just matter
lol

Our limitations in Bayesian probability aren't proofs. If you flip a coin enough times you'll get heads 100 times in a row.

By the same logic, God exists

empty space and matter, and I remember the Christians being very upset at the picture of the black hole, and yeah why no magic

Thank you Father for your grace and rich mercy. Hear my prayer, for all sinners, among whom I am first, and grant us that we may recognize your glory and worship you ever more in your Kingdom. Amen.

Ok, just telling you that the probability of life existing being low doesn't mean God is real. We don't have anything close to a complete data set on the conditions that causes life to arise. This doesn't mean you can't have faith in God

so why did Christians have such hard time accepting that we're not the center of the universe, why put Galileo under house arrest

>just telling you that the probability of life existing being low doesn't mean God is real
I agree, but that’s given the laws of this world already exist. It all goes back to the very beginning

I'll pray for you user

Imagine having the balls to post this on christian image board.

There may be other humans throughout the universe. The Bible never claimed Earth was at the center of the universe anyway.

But here’s an interesting find
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

I have sex with men and even my brain isn't so clogged with cum as to accept that story without researching it.

I can't even tell anymore. I can't tell if you're genuinely this much of a faggot that you would write this in earnest, or if you're just pissing away your time parodying the sort person who'd be enough of a faggot to write this, in which case you'd actually be an even bigger faggot in reality.

the bible never provided any knowledge of anything outside of itself, nothing about the nature of reality, the size of the cosmos, rotation around the sun, existence of the american continents, no mention of the Chinese, nothing.

I have done this, and it has made me all the more sympathetic with hellenic religion. Ideals ultimately cannot exist in our reality, they have no being because to grant them being would be to reduce them thereby negating their ideal nature. Furthermore to seek to embody an ideal without limit only leads to the acceleration that has lent itself to the complete physic devastation of the contemporary human subject.
Greek paganism kept in-tact the essential physicality of the divine in the world, the otherness of that sacrality, and the otherness of nature which has since been reduced to a mere collection of use-laden objects. Christianity on the other hand is a religion of the ultimate urban - entirely human - space, a narcissism of humanity in which there is only ispeity, for indeed the divine is posited as human and sacredness is man-made. I appreciate the spiritual teachings of Jesus, but Paulism was a gross step in the wrong direction and a bastardization of those teachings in key areas.

The Bible says that oceans have currents, blood is the source of life, and that the earth hangs on nothing (space). In fact, ocean currents weren’t even known until one guy read Psalm 8 and went out to find the “paths of the oceans”

Besides, the Bible is primarily for our spiritual benefit. Look around you today. The world has advanced much technologically and scientifically, but are people getting happier? Not really

Any explanatory theory that deals with the fundamental questions of our existence (including the theory that rejects such questions) is necessarily based on faith.

Physical conjectures about a fundamental theory that explains existence are just thinly veilied theology exercises for physicists.

There is no valid justification for anyone to look down on people who believe in God and use God to explain existence and meaning because any other competing theories are actually worse.

Organized religion I think has been a failure in the same way as communism has - that is to say, it has tried to fix society's moral problems in one swoop and under one banner in an impossible way - by collective willpower. Wise statesmen have always understood superstition's essential role in manipulating the masses. As Napoleon said: "I do not see in religion the mystery of the incarnation, but the mystery of the social order; religion attaches to heaven an idea of equality that stops the rich from being massacred by the poor."
That's why I think most intelligent people become disillusioned with the humanized, superstitiously informed versions of god and religion.
Nevertheless, I think the idea of a supreme good or a supreme being beyond absolute human comprehension is both modestly reasonable and necessary for falling into nihilism and depression. The role God has in a religious person's life simply cannot be replaced by anything else without bringing into its believer's life a dismal array of complexes that the fanaticism of idolatry necessarily bring into someone's life.
Pleasure and happiness cannot be held at our control and are largely contingent phenomena.
The ubermensch's antithesis, the last man, depresses one who is wise enough to realize they aren't the ubermensch.
Utopian hopes are never accomplished, and bring with them a trail of blood, corrupting sincere struggles for justice.
Virtue is honorable, but ethical perfection is impossible, and the chase after it frustrates one with feelings of inadequacy.
Absolute knowledge is equally unattainable.
Only with God - and it doesn't matter whether God is transcendent or immanent - can I be content. This is why I'm a secular theist.
The works that persuaded me of this and improved my life by doing so were Spinoza's Ethics and Montaigne's Apology for Raymond Sebond. The latter is far easier to comprehend, but the former is more agreeable to atheists and materialists. Read them, OP, see what you think.

Galileo himself on the relationship between Christianity and reason: sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/galileo-tuscany.asp

everyone is calling each other retards and faggots whether they believe in god or not, it's kinda funny, we're just a bunch of monkeys flinging shit on the internet, you're just a little more deluded if you think you're sooo important you must live forever

>there is not a single grain of evidence in the entire known universe of God

The entire known universe is evidence of God you brainlet.

>man, we're just a bunch of x, you're just x
Shut up, monkey shit-flinger.

paths of the sea doesn't automatically equate to ocean currents, why not be a little more expressive, instead of these 1 liners that might mean something, and yeah if you get punctured and lose too much blood you die, don't need special powers to know that.

wow really?! now I see
fite me irl

>the probability of life existing being low
You don't get it.
The idea here is that the universe was made for the sole purpose of life.
The probability of life isn't low. It's not even a probability, it's destiny by design in the law of the universe itself.

If I was an all powerful deity I'd make life with half the space god did, just saying

Potato salad is divine too

They're right but it doesn't make them any less retarded.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about, do you?

Until atheism and materialism has been proven to be true then it remains a possibility that God exists.

Atheism and materialism are unproven theories, they are not facts.
Your faith in the truth of both is misplaced; it takes faith to believe so certainly that God does not exist, but you are too much of a brainlet to realize it.

Attached: 938303980333.png (628x351, 361K)

God is not real.

And no, you can't run around saying "HURR PHILOSOPHY AINT REAL EITHER THEN SINCE IT'S BASED ON FAITH". No, it's based on evidence. These aren't just bullshit ideas plucked out of thin air, they're not just foundationless drivel, they're well researched opinions backed up by studies and research and from observing the world. You do not see god, you do not hear god, you do not feel god's presence. Religion is incompatible with philosophy and I personally believe no one who believes in religion has anything worth listening to.

You're retards. Bottom of the barrel, prone to superstition, easily manipulated retards. Keep your retarded fucking beliefs to yourself and get the fuck out of philosophy discussions. God damn I'm tipping so fucking hard right now, fuck you faggots.

Attached: neckbeard.jpg (1280x720, 67K)

>Until atheism and materialism has been proven to be true then it remains a possibility that GIANT ALIENS WITH 4 COCKS WHO CREATED EARTH AS AN EXPERIMENT exist
Your stupid book proves NOTHING, you're on par with flat earthers.

3/10
+1 for the effort.

>sophisticated rational concepts of God do not exist
>some concepts of God are not more enlightened than others
>only my strawman concepts of God exist

>if the Bible is fallible it means God doesnt exist!

Attached: 43894373944.png (399x607, 372K)

>No, it's based on evidence. These aren't just bullshit ideas plucked out of thin air, they're not just foundationless drivel, they're well researched opinions backed up by studies and research and from observing the world.

This evidence only works within a narrow domain. That model won't yield any answers outside its domain. Not only does science have no definitive answers about any fundamental question about our existence, it's even struggling to establish something like a unified theory in physics. The quest for that has resulted in a on principle untestable position like the multiverse and an anthropic principle as an attempt to cover up the fact that the multiverse is essentially inseparable from theism in its essential qualities. The fact that you cannot even get a "full-picture" physical theory should make you think. It's time for us to grow up as a society and move on from our naive fedora-tipping "muh science" phase.

Proof a green alien cock demon didn't make Earth

>sophisticated rational concepts of God do not exist
Name one. Name. Fucking. One.

>We don't know enough currently to decisively prove X therefore all of Science is useless and religion has the answers
ok retard

Science is LITERALLY circular logic that reaffirms itself you mumbling fucking retard

he just said that they don't exist

Him having the property of being green, of having a penis and of being a demon seem superflous if not creating tension in a model where such a being would be Creator of all.

Secondly, as you aptly point out, any model that claims to explain existence is, as has been proven on this board, necessarily based on faith.

Here theism is at least consistent in requiring faith as one of its key axioms, while worse models (like reductive materialism as an example) work tirelessly to conceal the fact that it takes faith to believe in them. But this is easily exposed since the logical conclusion of any model that claims to answer fundamental questions requires faith. Since this is a logical necessity, all theistic models are already far ahead of their competitors when it comes to asnwering our fundamental questions because they on principle and in broad daylight require faith, which makes them openly consistent with what is demanded by the domain of our inquiry (existence itself).

realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

>Why does the rain fall from the sky

Christian answer
>God does it

Scientific answer
>Water from the rivers evaporates into mist and rises and accumulates in clouds, then when it's dense enough it rains the water back to earth again where the process repeats

That's not circular logic, that's how shit FUCKING WORKS RETARD.

None of that is rational, it's just vague self help book tier ramblings from a street shitter

That's not what I said. I said science cannot yield any definitive answer about the fact of existence itself unless you believe in it by the same process believers believe in God.

Furthermore, since theology is open about accepting faith in its axioms, it is a far more consistent system and with less interior tension (indeed none) than other competing models.

The christian answer is the same as the scientific answer you willful retard.

>thinking how means the same as why

>I said science cannot yield any definitive answer about the fact of existence
YET

So fuck off moron. Science has explained more about the universe in its history than religion ever did.

It fucking does a lot of the time retard

science tests multiple hypotheses, the right answer is usually arrived at through experimentation, and that's the end of the scientific inquiry, where is the circular reasoning

>>I said science cannot yield any definitive answer about the fact of existence
>YET

No, it cannot do so on principle and this is a provable fact that can be logically shown.

It's also re-affirmed by spectacular failure of String Theory which has devolved into physical mysticism precisely because science cannot on principle explain fundamental questions beyond brute mechanistical facts (and it can certainly not make the claim that these mechanistic facts are the only thing there is, unless you accept that on faith, because it certainly cannot be verified).

>science cannot yield any definitive answer about the fact of existence itself
there is no alternative to existence

>Classical Theism

>important question
>objection 1: some dude in a historically unsound, a dozen times translated in the biggest game of telephone in history, said this
>objection 2: this other dude said this while jerking off thinking of god
>objection 3: principles upon principles either part of circular logic or "dude God said so lmao"
>synthesis: Have this response out of my ass because it's obvious, otherwise you just don't get it.

So this is the power of theology

Attached: 1527207888027.jpg (326x500, 64K)

Science is a self-contained circle with which we interpret physical phenomena. This is the boundary of science. It cannot say anything about these physical phenomena being an explanation for existence itself. The problem arises when people try to use science to answer these kind of questions (or try to deny the questions are intelligble by using science) because science is not equipped to do that.

even if we assume that to be correct, you could certainly not prove it with science, only accept it as a given beforehand like theists accept God

You were saying the same shit before the atom was discovered, before DNA was discovered, before cloning was discovered. Shut the fuck up and look at reality.

what the fuck are you talking about, you're saying that there might be an alternative to existence?

if you want the rational explanations then read the works of Adi Shankara

Do you not understand what rational means?

If you don't, then fuck off and learn.

You are missing the point. No matter how detailed the interpretation of matter becomes, it cannot yield an answer about why there is something to begin with. And any claim that this is an unintelligble question, or that there is no alternative to existence itself has to be necessarily taken on faith. At the boundary of any model that claims to explain existence are axioms one has to accept on faith as being true. The difference is, unlike naive scientism, theology is at least open about this.

That's before we even get into God's attributes (infinity, existence as essence) which show perfect synchronicity with what would actually be required of a theory that does explain existence itself.

>it cannot yield an answer about why there is something to begin with
Neither can religion. Science at least provides SOME explanation. Religion offering NOTHING and has offered nothing for TWO THOUSAND YEARS. Fucking kill yourself you retarded fuck.

Reminder that Bayesian statistics don’t work in situations with high dimensionality or distributions with undefined or infinite variance. These conditions circumscribe virtually all interesting, human problems that we might want to talk about on a Literature board.
t. Christian who is good at math.

>Śaṅkarācārya is undoubtedly one of the greatest philosophers of the world and a realised saint. He is gifted with extra-ordinary intelligence, a deeply penetrating mind, critical insight, logical reasoning, philosophical analysis, religious purity, sublimity of renunciation and profound spirituality. His literary excellence makes him shine as a writer of exemplary Sanskrit prose and soul-inspiring philosophico-religious verses.

There is no reason to assume space is infinite. Go suckle on mommy's tit some more.

No, because your ‘religious answer’ was a why, and your ‘scientific answer’ was a how; not realising that both of them had the same ‘how’ answer.

>not realising that both of them had the same ‘how’ answer.
Your holy book says god is responsible for it all, but you're just gonna move the goalposts every time there's a new discovery, right?

You are wrong again. I have shown why theology as an explanatory model of existence is far more consistent and logical than scientism, even though both are ultimately based on faith and cannot be definitely proven (but again, one at least admits this and from this point on constructs a wonderfully consistent model with great synchronicity between its statements, scriptural testimony and logical requirements of such a theory).

He’s responsible for the world, so obviously he’s responible for it. That’s not an explanation for how it happens though.

You honestly don't see how absolutely ridiculous and sad and funny it is that no matter what strides science makes against christianity you and your ilk will just come out with "YEAH BUT GOD THO"?

>he doesn't recognize that Paul was tasked with creating a new theology for a new priesthood
>he doesn't recognize Christ as the perfect man and model priest, in very literally the Hellenic sense: offering ritual sacrifice in a meal to appease God

Science never made any strides against Christianity nor can it even hope to do so. It's only some contemporary naive materialists who sell books and shows to impressionable and edgy young kids who are pushing this narrative.

>Many people today hold to a Gnostic view of things without realizing the fact. Believing that human beings can be fully understood in the terms of scientific materialism, they reject any idea of free will. But they cannot give up hope of being masters of their destiny. So they have come to believe that science will somehow enable the human mind to escape the limitations that shape its natural condition. Throughout much of the world, and particularly in western countries, the Gnostic faith that knowledge can give humans a freedom no other creature can possess has become the predominant religion.
ITT: self-aware Christians vs. oblivious Gnostics.

Attached: 9688AA0B-3AA9-440B-A424-6D0D2678EE3C.jpg (333x499, 30K)

I'll add some academics who are simply in far too deep to admit defeat at this point. Can you imagine how Susskind, the big swinging dick of physics must feel when his explanation is "everything that can happen, does happen, it just happens by accident that we live in the bubble where conditions are to such and such decimal exactly the way they have to be for life to form and it only feels special because we are here to observe it. oh and by the way, nothing of what I said will ever be testable. but trust me, the multiverse with all the possibilities really is there. (not that the multiverse would even solve anything, it only adds another layer to the question of existence)" lmao. that's the end point of cosmology fellas. pure, unadulterated faith.

I love how christcucks can't stop bringing up the "why does existence exist" question, as if it's a coherent question, really, fags? what else are you gonna have aside from existence? non-existence?

I think you are confused by even the most fundamental tenets of philosophy and science.

How are the people who make these threads always the most stereotypical fedora wearing reddit-brainlet? Are they always bait threads?

>what else are you gonna have aside from existence? non-existence?
yes?

Have you read my post? There is no such thing as a 'perfect man' in the Hellenic sense. Perfection implies an ideal, which has no being. Herakles, perhaps the most recognizable Hellenic hero and demi-god whose cult also spread to Rome, had the fatal flaw of wrathful anger inspired by Hera through which he killed his own children. The flaw inherent in the Hellenic hero through which they must overcome is not present in Christ because he must be the ideal God, not just the ideal man. Because the ideal God lacks any physicality, man must be deified, it must be located in the non-physical ego thus rendering any radical otherness null in the human experience which results in the narcissistic drowning in the self that we experience today. In Hellenism, there is a clear distinction between God and Man - the absurdity of Aristophanes' The Birds relies on the rigidity of this hierarchy - and clearly locates sacrality in Nature and the physical landscape - sacred groves, Olympus, sacred isles, and so on. The sacred in Catholicism, it itself a half-way between paganism and the 'purer' Protestantism, is tellingly man-made - artifacts of the saints, churches, and so on. It is an urban, ipsocentric religion.
Paul didn't found a 'new theology'. He severed any potential for Christianity to be rooted in the real; he abandoned it for the Ideal which is universally popular, but ultimately without true being.

it doesn't exist, and can't exist

proof?

open a dictionary

do I also have to prove that 2+2=4?

Explain death

>using words as proof
>religion is without value and meaning though
The absolute state of you

changing matter

you're the one that's using words you thick motherfucker, non-existence is a language concept and does not actually exist, like 0, and you're the one that thinks it makes for a good argument, as a possible alternative to existence. This is your brain on Christcuckery.

Embarrassing post

>non-existence is a language concept
Yeah, like literally everything else you absolute imbecile.

I did and it says nonexistence is absence of existence.

>still though, science, which quite literally has the fundamental idea of the non-existence of matter is my bible

If you used your head for two seconds you’d realise how unscientific and terribly thought out this post is.

Are you saying that existence is necessary and uncaused? You do realize that's an assumption that cannot be scientifically proven? It's basically equal to saying "God did it".

God did it is a secondary element after existence itself, where did God come from? Or is God necessary and uncaused? Something must be necessary and uncaused

If you're using non-existence as an argument, then your argument is literally based on nothing

God is that which is uncaused and necessary. Existence is God's essence.

Of course, you can just draw the line at existence or somewhere else.

The point is none of these can be proven by science and require by definition faith to believe as true.

>Something must be necessary and uncaused
this is the reason god always will be an explanation. science is only a branch of knowledge. science and religion need to stop thinking when they arrive to the "necessary and uncaused".

No, it is based on the existence of non-existence.

>the 'purer' Protestantism
you are so backwards it hurts my brain

>He severed any potential for Christianity to be rooted in the real; he abandoned it for the Ideal which is universally popular, but ultimately without true being.
These are the words of a non-believer. It's not a surprise that you don't understand why the Church superimposed the Platonic form of the good over the figure of Christ. He is it. Start over with the Greeks. You haven't read them properly.

>still talking about Platonic Ideals
Read Parmenides. Also, Plato =/= 'the Greeks'. He worshiped a literal atheist.

nah you can only give examples of things within existence itself, such as death of an individual or the empty space between earth and pluto

>hurr durr abstract things aren’t real

So for you existence is necessary? That would just mean existence as necessity occupies the place typically reserved for God in theism. Either way, not sure how science or anything else is equipped to ever prove that. It's a statement that has to be taken on faith.

Purer in the sense that it is fully vested out of physicality and into the realm of pure thought, being faith. Hence the quotation marks. Catholicism, still bearing Pagan influence, shows it in the warped vestiges of polytheism (saint veneration) and holy artifacts which none the less are reduced from their pure divine alterity to the ipseity of humanity. The Platonic Forms have no being. I repeat myself, they lack all form or physicality in the world, and cannot appear in the world. Plato himself discussed this. To 'impose' these forms over Christ is to will Christ into nonexistence.

God is spirit and thus lacks concrete physicality in the world. But he did appear in the world in flesh in Jesus Christ. Thus Christ can have association with something like a platonic form as well as concrete, physical existence. The Christian Mysteries precisely often lie in these paradoxes, that end up being necessary for the Salvation of mankind.

You're just making up definitions as you go, the exact thing you accuse Christians of doing.

What you are saying is that it is a contradiction. Leaving that aside, you miss my fundamental point in that Christianity renders human experience one of narcissism by reducing the other not only to a non-physical entity, but also rendering it essentially human. In Hellenism, although the Gods have a relationship with humanity, they ultimately are unaffected by humanity and represent an otherness, a thing-in-itself. This otherness can exist in the world, for instance in Nature, and can erupt into the world of man in instances of divine violence. The Gods can actively work against humanity, and often times can be completely absent. These notions are intensely troubling for Christianity, however it is only through the negation that true otherness represents that the self can be constructed.

Do you know the Greek root of the word reason?

Do you know the what's at the root of my cock? My balls, lick them faggot.

There are psychological biases for why man would introduce a secondary element such as God, like fear of death, the need for a powerful father figure, etc. That, in my mind, makes those two statements unequal, it makes the case for God weaker.

For someone who champions reason and logic you seem awfully emotional user.

The problem is you don't realize that the very notion of what makes a stronger case is already pre-determined by your belief in a certain framework.

I can easily counter your statement as well. I believe that there are psychological biases for why man would deny an existence of a being we call God, and conjecture a "closed-system" that doesn't allow for it due to fear of death (what happens after if there is a God?), to avoid moral responsibility, to calm his conscience etc.

Furthermore, when we have two competing models like this, I believe I have in this thread demonstrated more evidence in favor of theistic model one of them being that it openly not only admits but requires a degree of faith. An element that is "hidden" at best and denied at worst in other models, to the point where the model becomes self-refuting or is reluctantly forced to admit it too takes certain things on faith. In theism, this tension and inconsistency is notably missing.

My conclusion is the following:

If a theory doesn't admit it is based on faith and claims to explain fundamental questions about existence and meaning then it either extrapolates into untestability and infinity at which point it has to be taken on faith (with the advantage here going to theism since theism actually admits this off the bat as axiomatic), or prohibits certain questions at an arbitrary line, at which point it has to admit it has set that line in order to keep the system's axioms in place, with those axioms itself being arbitrary or the method by which they were selected being arbitrary. If one chooses to run this sequence as a causal chain, then it can be run backwards indefinitely until we arrive at a point where an assumption is made merely from our consciousness interacting with the environment (with those assumptions being different from one person to another, considering people tend to perceive things differently in their conscious experience) and it is that assumption that is then made essentially on faith.

Thus the most obvious conclusion seems to be that all theories that claim to answer fundamental questions about existence and meaning are always necessarily based on faith. If a theory that can meaningfully deal with fundamental questions exists and it is true, it will necessarily not only have faith implicit in it, but will explicitly state it as necessary.

With that, I bid you Adieu, I need to get some sleep.

You sound like some stem kid emersed in popular culture and media consumption. You can only talk in memes in the most technical sense, grouptalk so to speak so how could one expect you to believe sincerely the unbelievable? A proper deliberation upon faith requires maturity, which you do not have

Attached: one.jpg (343x135, 13K)

Attached: two.jpg (343x119, 2K)

Attached: three.png (344x135, 9K)

Based retard

Faith is usually blind, and not a virtue, so saying your model is based on it doesn't make it better. I get that you think that non-existence having to collapse into existence is an idea also based on faith but saying that besides the universe existing, something had to make it is another leap, and that that something is God and has the qualities of God is yet another leap, and that God manifested himself here once in the form of a man, but forgot about the more advanced Chinese civilization. God certainly requires more leaps of faith, which makes it a lesser concept with each one.
>With that, I bid you Adieu, I need to get some sleep.
You go to sleep, man, have a taste of what will come after.

>goes on about how man is imperfect in the "real" sense
>says God is perfect in His ideal
>Paul severed any potential for Christianity to be rooted in the real and goes for the ideal
>Paul bad

Perfection is not real. It has no being. Man should not seek an ideal because that leads to unrealistic acceleration. I have explained this. Man should only seek to assuage otherness, to have a communication - a conversation - between true otherness.This cannot exist in Christianity due to its urban nature ,its ipsocentirc nature.

That's nonsense.
You reject the ideal, but assume the opposite and put yourself with it because you're too much of a pussy. This is pure nihilism.
>unrealistic acceleration
This is the essence of otherness, by rejecting the ideal you fall into the trap you think you're avoiding.
The ideal is unreachable by any rational means, albeit faith in it empowers you against yourself and gives vigor to life unless you commit yourself greater than the ideal that seems to ask too much. In which case you have no more ideal that the ruin which comes from a lack of it.
>This cannot exist in Christianity due to its isocentric nature.
Yes, which can either lead to being a larping neo pagan too sure of himself like any other nihilist or accept your folly, but choose the ideal which will set you free from this otherness which is pure nothing. It sounds like dualism, but it's not. It's more of a live or die choice which is the essence of any proper doctrine unless you're into hindu or budhist circlejerking.

>legally

lol

My model is better because any model that actually works at that scope needs to have faith in it. The difference is some models pretend to reject faith only to be shown that they have ample of faith. That is why a model that is explicitly open about faith is better.

Our universe looks ridiculously fine-tuned for life, dont believe me ask physicists about how many parameters and to which decimal. To claim the universe is like this on accident takes a bigger leap of faith than saying it was designed by an intelligence. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to imply a massive multiverse with an anthropic principle, a position that is unverifiable on principle and takes equal amounts of faith than a possible God. You are wrong again then in saying that being having the qualities of God being a leap of faith when it is entirely logical with past theology and even scriptures (such being would have to be infinite/unbound and have existence as its essence). The rest of your post is pure baby-tier atheistic garbage objections, which is only moderately worse than not being able to understand what is being said or refusing to do so.

Organised religion -> atheism -> spiritualism

>If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life.
We literally look like mold growing on a tiny pebble and you think this is what a universe "fine-tuned for life" would look like. Do you think God also fine-tuned your life, made sure you were born into a christian country, or is that just a coincidence, would you be Christian even if you were Chinese? How can you live your fucking life without even a grain of evidence, you can't feel your soul, you go to sleep and you lose consciousness, but that's okay with you, you have never seen a miracle of any kind (besides from some coincidence, I'm sure), and you still eat up all the lies with no actual indication that you will end up in an afterlife after you die and that your life is not contained from birth to death.

Fine-tuning is an actual physical problem. Thats not what I think, its what physicists think. Thats why they hade to make up the anthropic principle. Read a physics book or a cosmology book and instead of embarassing yourself. All you have is empty platitudes. Muh small pplz flying on a meaningless rock and keep using that against legitimate arguments from logic and science. If you are going to champion science or deny God at least make an effort to know latest developments from the field youre supposedly championing. Embarassing stuff.

How do you know we are on a rock in space? Can you prove it? The answer is no, just believe it because someone told you it was true.

keep ignoring the Chinese, just like God

There are Christian Chinese. If you want to know what happens to people who are not Christian you could consult the Catechism. Im tired of answering your irrelevant questions since its become clear you have a lot of reading to do on even basics of logic, physics and theology. I could pick up another string of yours waste 3 posts proving youre wrong only for you to ignore it again. Because you have chosen to ignore or simply dont understand what is being said, a discussion like this cannot be fruitful before you read up on the bare minimum to engage in a debate like this.

>would you be Christian even if you were Chinese
Today, he probably would.
Christianity is a doctrine in the end.
God is the ultimate truth, beyond any doctrine.
But with Christianity we have the clearest picture of the nature of humanity and God's plan for us, which is the main purpose of the doctrine.
Unlike Islam which is basically a book of cultural conquest.
Unlike Judaism which is a tool for cultural control.
Unlike Buddhism or Hinduism which are just ritual paganism with an overflow of meaningless and inconsistent metaphysics, some being just wrong, for the sole purpose of selfjerking.
Unlike Paganism which is pure, archaic retardation and your own arctype worship.

No evidence of miracles being possible, no evidence of soul, no reason to believe in God, except by buying into weak theology, I rest your weak case. You're a brainletar - a dense mass of pure brainletness.
buddhism - work on yourself to discover who you really are
christianity - you can't know shit until after you're dead

>Fine-tuning is an actual physical problem. Thats not what I think, its what physicists think.
ask a few actual physicists whether they think it's likely the universe was fine-tuned for us kek

Attached: main-qimg-bb8cc55f2b8703ecc127920b78aa3a42.png (602x409, 104K)

The parameters themselves are fine-tuned you incredible brainlet. To get out of this situation you have to come up with an on principle forever untestable theory like the multiverse and anthropic position.

Fine-tuning is selection bias, life forms living in the one universe that sustains life will be questioning it why they are living in that universe.
> forever untestable theory
>some current multiverse models do make testable predictions. Stated another way, they have consequences in our universe that future measurements could validate or falsify. For example, some models predict that another universe might have collided with ours during its earliest phases. Such a collision would produce measurable signatures in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Similarly, a multiverse would naturally cause asymmetries in the CMB.

Well given than nothing has been found in CMB then its not looking very good for those theories. Similarly LHC has not found anything string theory said it would. Guess we just have to believe it will happen any day right? Lmao

So they're not forever untestable now?

Guess what is though: god.

>meaningless and inconsistent metaphysics
This simply is not true, unless you are lumping every sect together and treating them the same. Christianity on the other hand is the king of inconsistent and meaningless metaphyics, which they hide as great 'mysteries' that you should 'think really hard about" (read: ignore). How many times have we all heard "He works in mysterious ways!", which really translates to "Idk why a benevolent God is allowing this awful thing to happen but don't think about it".

To say that CMB reading is a testable case for multiverse is very very generous but either way even if you grant it has failed. The tests people are coming up for the multiverse are less rigorous than watching a stigmatist.

>dude out universe might be a hologram, or one of infinite parallel universes, or filled with dark matter that is extra sensory to humans but still able to physically impact the fabric of space, or maybe we are in a simulation
>Hahahaha god? Don’t be silly!

Exactly. Ita not like I am even claiming God is an irrefutable fact but we have to stop pretending like its a silly idea when science makes more ridiculous propositions

>tfw realized that there is something more than materialism
>so I started trying to understand this metaphysical reality
>reads neo-platonists and Hindu metaphysics
>it's too big brained for me
Should I just take the L and become a smol brained Christian with its mental midget metaphysics? Is this how most of the world was converted to Abrahamism?

Attached: 1438361962464.jpg (772x637, 141K)

>it's too big brained for me
No, it's not.

It's intentionally grandiose sounding to try and confuse anyone trying to tear it down and to give true believers a sense of pride so they can stand alongside philosophers. It's a con.

t. Has literally never read philosophy
Everything you just said applies overwhelmingly to 19th century and beyond atheists
There is next to no obscurantism before that

>All those "ridiculous propositions" are based on real technology or real science
We have nothing like God. There is nothing ever observed by humanity that anything like God is capable of existing. Your only "proof" is your brainlet assertion of "Oh life is so complex, look at how mind blowing the universe is it must be the work of a being operating outside science, logic, reasoning or anything else in existence".

And you don't see how that doesn't sound dumb as fuck?

just start with the heart or diamond sutra and go from there.

Those philosophers spoke plenty of plain, easily understood truth too.

Which edition/translation do you recommend?

None of those are based on technology and all of them veer into the realm of pseudoscience since they are untestable.

There's a long history of God being hidden in the gaps of scientific knowledge, you just espouse the latest iteration

>None of those are based on technology
They are, we just don't posses high enough technology right now to prove they're possible. Holograms are real for definite retard.

One day, 3 million years from now, we'll have dark matter engines and creat our own solar systems and you'll still be there "WELL ACKSHUALLY YOU CAN THANK GOD FOR ALL THIS".

Youve been blown out logically, physically, and philosophically and you still repeat more dumb shit. Even an event like Fatima is far better evidence than anything the multiverse or string theory has experimentally shown so far, and the last two claim to be science! Just lol

Whatever is fine. They're super short with little ambiguity. You will probably be able to find both free online.

The universe will cease to exist before you could prove a multiverse with technology. And the real dandy is that EVEN then all multiverse or hologram or any other idea does is insert another layer without explaining anything as has been shown with simple logic repeatedly here. Sorry bros I know scifi is cool but you cant explain or deny fundamental questions of existence with science.

a longer history of God being flushed out of the gaps where people thought he was hiding

>Even an event like Fatima
>"There has been much analysis of the event from critical sociological and scientific perspectives. According to critics, the eyewitness testimony was actually a collection of inconsistent and contradictory accounts. Proposed alternative explanations include witnesses being deceived by their senses due to prolonged staring at the Sun and then seeing something unusual as expected."

>The universe will cease to exist before you could prove a multiverse with technology.
you got a source on that, or is it your opinion as a home-schooled scientist?

>Sorry bros I know scifi is cool but you cant explain or deny fundamental questions of existence with science.
God isn't real, no one will ever respect you except other mentally ill people.

You do realise this is the same as saying “WHEN JESUS COMES BACK YOULL SEE YOU ARE WRONG”
Enjoy your modern take on the cult fedora

Source on the opposite? It’s baseless speculation you are telling me is truth with zero weight behind any of it. All these dumb theories require the exact same number of insane leaps in logic that religion do, saying “it will be proved one day” is not an argument

Why dont you check what the very experts who are proponents of the multiverse say about that? Its not good for your idea I can tell you that much.

>You do realise this is the same as saying
No, it's not.

Computer technology has produced more scientific miracles in it's less than 100 year history than religion did in 2000 years. Religion proved nothing, created nothing, solved nothing. Technology has allowed the blind to see, the deaf to hear, to bring the dead back to life.

Yeah mass hallucinations are certainly the likely explanation. With wikipedia being the source lmao this is becoming laughable

Ok so first off
>computers and religion are somehow a dualism
just what the fuck? religion and science are not comparable, if they were, I could attribute nearly every accomplishment before the 20th century to religion you dumbfuck
>technology has allowed
Technology is not an idealogy and you are personifying it to be some sort of expression of atheism, it isn’t.
And you haven’t disproved how any of these outlandish theories have more weight than a god existing other than “it will be proven in the future” which unless you are physcic isnt valid

How about the Oracle at Delphi, who was filled with the spirit of Apollo to speak prophecies in verse and was well attested and regarded for hundreds of years?

Its a more likely explanation than the multiverse

This is what I’m saying. I’m wouldn’t seriously suggest the oracle could read the future, but at least it has a scrap of evidence to it. The multiverse and other “ideas” proposed by whatever has become of the scientific community are nigh on baseless, get god is this retarded idea according to them.

>the movement of the planets must be aided by angels!
>earthquakes are god's punishment!
>evolution will never be proved, we are not monkeys!

Attached: p06j534y.jpg (320x430, 49K)

And you’ve moved to ad hom, based

Fyi neither one of the biggest proponents of the multiverse like Susskind is optimistic about it being testable experimentally. If you want to read critics of string theory and multiverse-like ideas I suggest Woit and Hossenfelder. So far given the spectacular failure of tests like at LHC it seems like they are valid to be highly critical of what can nly be called physical mysticism. An idea less likely to be true or observed than God.

go have a discussion with a flat earther, you'll know how I feel

>give an argument
>get a fallacy in response
>you are like X idiotic group!
Really aren’t making atheists look good here bud

>Yeah mass hallucinations are certainly the likely explanation
How is belief in god NOT a mass hallucination?

>Christianity is more inconsistent
>Christianity relies on metaphysics and mysteries
>Christianity wants you to think about said mysteries and metaphysics
>Christians ignore awful things in favor of God's benevolence
You're absolutely right. If you'd replace Christianity with Hinduism.
Christian theology hits at the individual, the here and now, the living and every mystery that is behind it BECAUSE it's a mystery that you can't understand and you shouldn't beat yourself over it.
History shows if you think you've unraveled some great secret beyond mere humanity, in most cases you turn into some gnostic snake oil salesman for the rich and poverful hedonist class who want justification for their hedonism.
Hinduism works in similar ways. It denies the individual in favor of some pseudo nihilism that relies on predeterminism to reach enlightenment, though it badly wants to rejects said predeterminism in favor of individual determinism. And you want to say it's more consistent that Christianity? Give me a break.
>buddhism - work on yourself to discover who you really are
Bullshit. Buddhism wants you to work on meditation to ponder things you will NEVER understand because of what? (((Enlightment)))? The Buddha himself was between a hippie in his safe bubble and a drug addicted Russel Brand type. Jesus went out of his way to heal people and tell fools they were fools until the fools killed him at his own behest.
>christianity - you can't know shit until after you're dead
If you mean the kind of shit that whispers into your ears that you're more special that your brother or your sister, or even God, then yeah.
Christianity wants you to deny your carnal nature and every mystery that promises you this fake (((enlightment))) in favor of BEING a better human, not perfect, but striving for it at the best of your ability and there's absolutely no need for any ritual nonsense, but honest prayer at the least which a blind, dumb, paralyzed retard can accomplish.
Meanwhile take any muh asian theology and you'll need to screw yourself and waste your life through literal bullshit meta logic and some afternoon nap positions just to comprehend the mere basics which are that it's all just the same thing and nothing really matters. This is pure nihilism.

you said " All these dumb theories require the exact same number of insane leaps in logic that religion do". I don't think you understand just how many insane leaps of faith you have to take in a religion, so yeah, you're not too far off intellectually.

Attached: IQ-vs-Religiosity.jpg (676x512, 67K)

Do you know what a hallucination is? Believing something (you think) isn’t true is not the same as an audio/visual fuck up in the brain

>doesn’t address the argument at all
>posting memegraphs
the power of logic

>please ignore the countless times religion has been wrong
nah
and what argument, that we shouldn't believe in dark matter? the effects of it are seen in the universe, unlike god

Attached: 89okzxxjinq21.png (421x500, 478K)

>Christian theology hits at the individual, the here and now, the living and every mystery that is behind it BECAUSE it's a mystery that you can't understand and you shouldn't beat yourself over it.
So it's 'turn your brain off'? That's really deep, man. Quite the interesting and consistent metaphysics.
>History shows if you think you've unraveled some great secret beyond mere humanity, in most cases you turn into some gnostic snake oil salesman for the rich and poverful hedonist class who want justification for their hedonism.
You seem to be advancing atheism. How does not questioning anything lead to Christianity? You seem to be saying that pondering the questions of life - so, all philosophy - is bad because it makes your brain hurt. If so, why are you on Yea Forums at all? The Pope literally sits on a golden throne, how does that not represent a 'powerful hedonist class'? Not to mention the sex scandals for which the high church is now known.
>It denies the individual
You lack an understanding of the negation of the negation that is inherent in the hindu-buddhist tradition. Christianity on the other hand, is a simple negation (Luke 14:26-7; “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple").
>nihilism
Either you don't know what nihilism means or you have a sheltered flyover child's understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism.

See, this is where you can see the exact same cult like reasoning in atheists. We can’t observe dark matter, we can’t physically interact with it, just observe it’s supposed effects. Remind you of anything? The soul, all of metaphysics runs off of this assumption. This type of reasoning is inherent to humans and had been around before the greeks. Current popular science however tells us however that materialism is true, yet apparently exceptions like quantum foam or dark matter can exist in contradiction to this when we have no explanation. Remind you of anything? God of the gaps. You have just replaced god with the vague idea of “science” but the logical leaps remain the same. There is zero reason why this stuff should be taken seriously and a higher being shouldn’t.

so god's supposed effects are on what? human behavior? and dumb buddhists change their behavior as to not incur bad karma. Dark matter actually affects physical matter outside of human control

>The Buddha himself was between a hippie in his safe bubble
Again you show your lack of understanding on anything. The Buddha toured the world, from the ascetics, to the poor dying in the street. He saw suffering in all walks of life. That is an inherent part of his story that everyone knows. Do you not know that the Buddha performed miracles as well?
>he was a hippie hurr
And so was Jesus by that standard.
>Buddhism wants you to work on meditation to ponder things you will NEVER understand
Some sects prioritize meditation, some don't. All prioritize compassion towards sentient life and performing acts of merit in the world. You will understand the ultimate truth because that is the literal eschatology of Buddhism, you absolute simpleton. Whereas in Christianity, a good portion of people will burn in hellish suffering for all eternity and/or be completely annihilated. Enlightenment is not annihilation because it is free from the cycle of life and death. Those who achieve it can freely manifest in conditioned reality at any time.
>and there's absolutely no need for any ritual nonsense
Except all the ritual nonsense in the church, right? How about Baptism and confirmation, which are important parts of Catholicism? Are those somehow not rituals?
> you're more special that your brother or your sister
It doesn't say that because every sentient being has the same capacity for enlightenment. Even the wicked, who in Christianity are doomed from before they are even born
> BEING a better human!
You can do this without Christianity. And every religion does this anyway, 'be a good person' is a creed not unique to Christianity.
>honest prayer at the least which a blind, dumb, paralyzed retard can accomplish.
And everyone can practice zazen or pray to the Bodhisattva of Compassion or one of the myriad Buddhas.
>Meanwhile take any muh asian theology and you'll need to screw yourself and waste your life through literal bullshit meta logic and some afternoon nap positions just to comprehend the mere basics which are that it's all just the same thing and nothing really matters. This is pure nihilism.
Again you have no idea what Buddhism entails and are just making shit up. Please, take a five minute google search on Merit Making. Then look up nihilism so you can refrain from looking like a complete retard.

This isn’t a refutation to my point at all. The leaps in logic are the same, the cause just has a different name now.

dark matter affects physical things, the idea of god affects human behavior like other religions and ideas do, see the difference?

>something immaterial (at least to us) effects physical things
This is the exact same argument theists use bro. Replace dark matter with god. The universe exists, ergo god made it. Certain phenomena exist, therfore something extra sensory and by all means of current science supernatural causes it.

>This is the exact same argument theists use bro.
give me an example of what physical things outside the human brain god affects, or do you think dark matter could be god

>universe must exist as a brute fact
why tho?

I think you aren’t getting the argument bud. Believing in dark matter effecting the universe requires the exact same leap in logic as believing god does, yet only one is seen as outlandish to intellectualists

This
Stars are nasa invention

People discovered solipsism way before a tv show.

because the question of what would exist as an alternative is incoherent (it wouldn't exist)
we just know there's a phenomena affecting the acceleration of the universe, the reason for believing this phenomena exists in the unaccounted mass of the universe, where's that leap?

>the reason for believing is something non physical that seemingly defies the laws of physics
hmnmm

nigger I'm not an affiliated person and the logic checks out. God-in-the-gaps Naturalism-in-the-gaps tomato tomoto

>believing in something
scientists don't pray to it, they're not that fucking insane
>non physical
having gravitational effects is the definition of something physical, that's our fucking clue
>seemingly defies the laws of physics
our scientific model is incomplete, like when we thought the orbit of the planets seemingly defied the laws of physics, so it had to be god

>don’t pray
Has no bearing on the truth
>effects
Key word dishonest pseud, effects. The actual entity of dark matter is extra sensory, we can just see it’s effects and hypothesise its existence, AKA the same argument theists use for the universe and god
>model is incomplete
So things that defy the current model can be excused by this, but certain other things can’t based on your opinion

>The actual entity of dark matter is extra sensory, we can just see it’s effects and hypothesise its existence, AKA the same argument theists use for the universe and god
except god doesn't have any effects

How can you not get this dude? It’s the same leap in logic, yet you are dogmatically sticking to believing one and not the other. Saying an effect you can observe is due to something that defies the current scientific model and is extra sensory is the exact same leap in logic as saying it’s god doing it. Theists say the universe exists, and THAT is the effect god had on reality.

>Theists say the universe exists, and THAT is the effect god had on reality.
But what does masturbation has to do with it?

>Saying an effect you can observe is due to something that defies the current scientific model and is extra sensory is the exact same leap in logic as saying it’s god doing it
no, saying god is doing it is taking it a step further, you would be assigning other attributes that have not been observed
>Theists say the universe exists, and THAT is the effect god had on reality.
>had
too bad he's gone now

Concession accepted

>that’s a step further
Logic wise, how?
>too bad he’s gone now
Maybe in popular thought and the pseudsphere, but then again most people are idiots so why would I listen to them?

Because you'd be assigning a cause without proof, scientists have not done that.

Yes they have. We can see the effect, there is literally no proof dark matter is the cause though. If it can’t be directly observed, and defies the current model of physics, it takes faith to believe it is the cause. There is no genuine proof. It is a placeholder theory. The exact same thing you say god is.

the difference between calling it dark matter and god is that god has additional attributes, dark matter is a bare-bones hypothesis, with god you'd be introducing more elements and would make it more complicated for an unknown reason

unless you want to define god as only something that is accelerating the expansion of the universe

>what is the Fermi paradox

Under this kind of logic there’s no reason why humans would have evolved to the point of developing consciousness, which actually worsens our ability to survive (willfully fasting, practicing morality, etc). It makes us focus on things irrelevant to survival.
In addition, the ideas of God, morality, etc are completely irrational and independent of the material world that surrounds us. There’s no reason for people to reasonably infer these ideas. Where could they have come from?

I believe in god, but the atheist point here would be that us attaining higher reasoning abilities was an accident of evolution. We were apes who continued to develop intelligence and eventually that just sort of gave way to self awareness etc.

>there’s no reason why humans would have evolved to the point of developing consciousness, which actually worsens our ability to survive
we evolved consciousness of time so we could plan ahead, which actually gave us an incredible evolutionary advantage, realization of our imminent death came as a side effect of that, and religious thinking was the natural response. And morality arose out of empathy, which would aid the survival of your offspring and the tribe. There is a part of your brain that deals with empathy and if it doesn't function correctly the individual shows reduced empathy and is less likely to act 'morally'.

Thanks user. The problem I have with that response is that it’s impossible to prove or contest, in the same way the existence of God is. It seems unlikely for us to develop unreasonable ideas independent of material support as part of an evolutionary process, but I think that’s the most theists like us can say in response to it

This is what I’ve been trying to say. A lot of people take “scientific” ideas on good faith when some of them take equal leaps in logic to theism. Atheism has become intellectualism at its core

Wouldn’t the consciousness of time be unnecessary for planning ahead, as animals stockpile food and prepare for changes in their climate as part of their biological processes? In addition, I’ll concede that it’s common to see people only act empathetically to others within their social groups, but I’d be interested to see how you explain the acts of kindness that occur between groups that are opposed to each other (when soldiers on opposing sides save each other, for instance). I also want to claim that, even though we tend to lapse into tribalism, common sense morality is opposed to tribalism.

>worsens our ability to survive (willfully fasting, practicing morality
There are seven billion plus people alive right now. Thinking is the absolute opposite of a detriment.

Maybe because he insulted the pope

>Thinks non-catholics are real christians

The amount of people alive now doesn’t accord with nature — it’s like when one organism becomes artificially inflated in nature due to human involvement and causes havoc on the ecosystem. AFAIK this kind of imbalance doesn’t occur without human involvement, making consciousness seem “unnatural,” or that its origin is independent of a material source.

>Wouldn’t the consciousness of time be unnecessary for planning ahead
That's instinctual planning in an environment that remains constant, one major advantage of humans is adaptability and living in a complex social group requires the ability to use reciprocal altruism, deception and coalition formation.
>when soldiers on opposing sides save each other, for instance
Empathy winning out over the propaganda of group identity, the ability to understand the thoughts and emotions of others would have been useful as well, and in war these days there might not be any family or tribe at stake, so it's understandable if they just see the other dude as being trapped in the same thresher.

Get cancer and rot

it's called the Bible, not the "Holy" Bible

also pic related

Attached: 1530767483904.jpg (2938x1427, 553K)

Based argument

>AFAIK this kind of imbalance doesn’t occur without human involvement
Cyanobacteria produced oxygen as a waste to the point that it wiped out most other organisms, known as the great oxygenation event.

>thinks god only saves ritualistic pope worshippers and not all who strive to be godly

Attached: signal-2019-05-02-160033.jpg (594x594, 92K)

I literally fucking died "I apologize my faith is so retarded."
Apology of Socrates. Sorry i was so based.

It's called carrying capacity you fucking dolt. We can actually manipulate our limiting factors to raise it's ceiling. This isn't unnatural. Beavers do the same shit, birds do it, we're just the best at doing and as such we dominate the (vertebrae) world. If it comes down to it we might just all die from over modifying our environment. It's happened before to other organisms.

God has less attributes than dark matter. For one we don't even know what dark matter is, whatever it is going to be (if its going to be) it will need to fit certain specific and complex equations in order to fit with the model of the universe. Since string theory is a thing in modern cosmology, we should point out that string theory has 11 dimensions, no concise equations (those that exist have millions of solutions) and can be made to work with ANY observable experiment. String theory allows for 10 to the 500 power (1 followed by 500 zeros) universes. This gives rise to concepts such as anthropic principle to "explain" away the obvious fact that modern cosmology is basically mathematical mysticism completely removed from experiment. The creation of universe by God is BY FAR the theory that needs LESS leaps of faith and is far simpler and with less paramters needing to work for it to be true. Of course that doesn't mean that the current state of cosmology is wrong about its statements, but we really need to stop pretending like God is the obviously more ridiculous idea here to explain the universe.

This is the only right take on God.

God is real. I've felt him. Doesn't mean I'm gonna worship him though. There's all sorts of crazy shit they've installed in my brain. God doesn't want me to kill anyone, but he also doesn't want me to eat food that tastes good. Fucking prick

>God has less attributes than dark matter.
It doesn't matter, by calling it god you're adding the attributes of god to those of dark matter without providing a concrete reason, it's superfluous. And we all know string theory is in trouble, we know this exactly because of experimentation done in the last decade.

The point you're missing is why string theory is in trouble. It's not because it's wrong, but because there can be no theory that will explain the universe as a whole and be experimentally confirmed deriving from a model bound by scientific method. This will not happen because a model that is bound by scientific method can only give interpretations of isolated phenomena. And if you try to force it to interpret the whole, you get into the problems string theory experienced, it's not a theory that is scientific anymore in any conventional sense. There is no way out of this. The fault lies in people believing science can give answers it can't do.

To put it in simpler terms. The universe as a totality is a metaphysical not a scientific question.

Rhe universe isn't a question it's the universe and science explains it while metaphysics masturbates over muh feelings and muh morals.

>the universe isn't a question
pretty much this, the question of what would exist if the universe didn't exist is incoherent

God is literally the same thing as simulation theory. The ones simulating us are the prime mover "God"

Of course they have nothing to do with the Christian God, which is something humans invented, just like every other God of every other religion. Any similarities are coincidental, totally outweighed by the differences.

What is the point whether God/simulation is real? It is purely metaphysical and has no physical impact on our world.

>God is literally the same thing as simulation theory.
t. retard

No, it functionally is.
>we are in a simulation created by intelligent beings, this explains how the universe is the way it is
Replace simulation with universe and intelligent beings with god

If there is a possibility for two deities with conflicting interests you are not talking about God.

Isn’t that just the greek pantheon then? It’s still intelligent design

Maybe it's one persons private simulation, maybe not. It makes unless they have a means of interfering/interacting with our world, which to the best of my knowledge (let me know otherwise) God does not have.

He established the laws of the university, of physics, but he doesn't literally call in floods and swarms of locusts does he?