I tried this yesterday but it didn't work. Im looking for non-pop literature on the existence of God...

I tried this yesterday but it didn't work. Im looking for non-pop literature on the existence of God, and current philosophical arguments either in favor or in opposition of the existence of God. Im also interested in medieval Christian philosophy but i have no idea where to start.

Attached: Lion on Tree.webm (854x480, 2.4M)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction#David_Hume
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

pls someone

What proof could you possibly imagine for OR against the existence of God?

Let me stop you there. None. Have faith or don't. That's it. That is the argument. Some people think faith is a perfectly sound means of processing information and structuring opinions. Competent adults don't.

Other people will argue that Christian values (always loosely defined and heavily cherry-picked) are optimal for societal health and longevity. These people are also retarded because

1. If a behavior is "optimal" then this can be demonstrated without faith in unfalsifiable premises.

And 2. Enforced value judgements will always be questioned. Sustainable shared cultural values have to be demonstrable and done so diplomatically, which is made impossible by faith in unfalsifiable premises.

read athens and jerusalem by shestov

>current philosophical arguments either in favor or in opposition of the existence of God

You're not going to find anything but heavy-handed fedora tippers or overeager fundamentalists. It's very difficult to have this discussion objectively as people's personal views will always weigh down their points. Rather than read a bunch of books about the past, I recommend replicating the conditions in which people lived then. Destroy your electronic devices. Take a month to go on a trip full Amish style.

why

Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways,
Kalam cosmological argument,
Peter Kreeft and William Lane Craig
C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton

cringe and pseud pilled, "loosely defined and heavily cherry-picked" yet the Catechism of the Catholic church literally spells out every belief of the Church in detail. Rationality limits our view of the world to what can be explained by the brain of a single human. Language and civilization are emergent properties, like religion, unable to be engineered or explained in totality by the human brain, see constructed languages for some proof of that.

>And therefore just choose an unfalsifiable premise and run with it forever.

if you had a proof of God's existence, faith in God would become merely knowledge no. you either choose to believe in God or not

>Choose to believe.
That's not how belief works. You therefore believe that you chose to believe. That is not the same as being convinced. It's just repeating the same retarded shit to keep the a potential uncertainty at bay.

Just be uncertain like an intellectually honest adult.

>A potential
Existential*

Deism can be arrived at through reason, the leap of faith occurs when trying decide how that deity is expressed.

Uncertainty can be arrived at through reason. Filling that void with sentience is induction. Not deduction.

Hello? Hume department?

being convinced that god exists is refusing to question god's existence, having questioned it you realize that you can either choose to believe or not. believing in having chosen to believe is also believing
thru what reason

>look around you
>see order and structure
>realize god exists

Easy, note I'm not talking about the Christian god. People always think god = christian god but no fuck the christian god. I'm talking more like Einstein's god

you mean spinoza's god dumbass

Make an argument instead of dropping a name anytime someone subjects any claim you make to scrutiny it can't endure.

Notice how the only ones making coherent and competent arguments are staunchly anti-Christian? Faith requires lots of goalpost shifting, buck-passing, and assuming what you've set out to prove.

Yet it will probably outlive science because people aren't interested in scrutinizing ideas that comfort them or make them feel indignant.

>Notice how the only ones making coherent and competent arguments are staunchly anti-Christian?
I havent noticed, no

Yeah, I wonder what I could be referencing when talking about induction and Hume. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction#David_Hume

Induction is the only grounds for attributing causation, and while it does provide a less concrete answer than deduction it's also the basis of the scientific method.

>You can be certain of the existence of things which cannot be observed, defined, quantified, or understood. You need not base this in any form of observable or verifiable reality. Just insist upon its truth.

>I am going to reserve judgement of truth for things whose truth doesn't depend upon my judgement.

There is a massive gap in the intellectual honesty of these two stances.

>Basis
Beginning.

That doesnt mean verifiability is suddenly unimportant you fucking dipshit pseud.

"Christianity comforts people"
"Christianity scares people with the threat of hell"

Attached: retard.gif (240x134, 261K)

>All knowledge is provisional and therefore the truth is whatever bullshit I stumbled upon first as a child.

>calling someone a pseud while being this incorrect.

Predictive validity in the future is based on predictive validity working in the past, we use inductive reasoning to infer that the causes and effects from repeatedly observed experience will continue to repeat. Please uninstall your web browser.

Amazing self own.

Yeah okay whatever fuck you faggot

>trying to rationally deduce God

you have already failed

Predictive validity in the future is based off of predictive validity right fucking now, when you and anyone else are free to attempt to falsify any understanding of how things work. Even if all knowledge is ultimately provisional, that doesn't mean that verifiable evidence and deductive reasoning aren't the most important parts of processing information and structuring opinions. And even if that were so, that wouldnt make faith any better suited, or religion any less asinine.

Kill yourself.

>even though you're right about how I have no idea what I was talking about i'm still going to claim you're wrong

wew

Dipshit. The scientific method at least has a chance at being right on purpose. If Faith ever arrived at truth, it would do so purely by coincidence.

All ontological arguments fall victim to the objection that even if otherwise successful, the argument proves to be a mere hypothetical truth: *if* God's existence is possible, *then* ... and so forth. That is, if you allow me to say so, a big "if".

Quite right. Belief, like being in love, cannot be forced. That is why Judaism, for example, mandates only action, not faith.

Because j*ws are incapable of love

As this thread will attest to, the best argument any christian will ever come up with is to point to hume and pretend that since we "can't know nuffin" that faith and reason are on equal ground in the quest for truth. But then they immediately proceed to say "therefore, Christianity"

But this equally valid as "Therefore chaos/Allah/Akasha/Pansychism." It's just assuming what you've set out to prove.

The takeaway here is that were are uncertain about the nature of existence and we are best served by being honest about that. Faith is for children.

Trips of truth.

see You're building a system no different than the one you claim to be arbitrary. Yours however, does not allow for anything beyond rationality to be considered true. I think the most important truths we arrive at must be experienced and not conveyed through words, which are the absolute limits of your world. Try describing your favorite painting and tell me if it matches up with you experiencing it.

>"what is common to [religious traditions] is something we cannot neglect. It is the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and other really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are. Those who know the Tao can hold that to call children delightful or old men venerable is not simply to record a psychological fact about our own parental or filial emotions at the moment, but to recognize a quality which demands a certain response from us whether we make it or not.”
(C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man)

You're right that we are uncertain, but we are also aware that there is something beyond "intersubjective" about the human experience, even if we cannot describe it. Leaving things at being "uncertain" opens the path to exactly what the Bible warns us about, lifting ourselves up to the status of God. Where we not only define what game is being played, but the rules we play the game by.

"Play chess by the wrong rules and people will throw you out of the chess club; play society by the wrong rules and your society collapses."

>Assuming many thinngs you've set out to prove.
>Status of god
>Beyond intersubjective.

I established no system. Only established that even if faith and reason were on equal grounds (which they aren't, because if one were right, it would be so on purpose, and the other, purely by coincidence) then that does not serve as evidence any which way.

What we are left with is verifiable observations. Which may only ever prove provisional at best, but at least they do something at all. Faith only keeps one's dick in one's hand and a passie in one's mouth.

Attached: Aquinas.jpg (700x6826, 600K)

>medieval Christian philosophy
centered around St Augustine (or the church fathers in general) and Boethius. The focus on this is the study of Logic. Another philosopher that would be interesting to read is Peter Abelard, but youll have to search around for his works.