Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network issues. Refreshing the page usually helps. The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random
Pascal's Wager: >Believing in God may produce two outcomes: one leads to a reward in Heaven, and the other leads to nothing. >Not believing in God either leads to nothing at best, or an eternity in Hell at worst. >One should believe in God, since at worst there is nothing to lose and at best, he will be rewarded.
>>565120370 Actually, there is something to lose, and that something would be time. You see, to truly prove your belief in God during your mortal life, you have to separate certain amount of time and effort to actually abide the religious laws, norms and traditions and conduct yourself in accordance to the same. Belief itself without a deed is nothing.
Am I dumb for believing god created the big bang and god made us through evolution. I also think god is a chilled dude who doesn't interfere with life on earth apart from creating it and we all go to Heaven regardless of our life on earth. I've always believed in this since my parents gave me the freedom to choose in what I believed in.
Aquinas's Unmoved Mover >God is the cause of all movement in the Universe. >Since it is evident to the senses that objects have motion, something must have moved something else without having been moved itself in the beginning of time. >This unmoved mover is what we call God.
>>565121737 >>565121737 Nah, man. I'm still right. Sure, it's more complicated to understand how God works, but with God, it's easier to understand how the universe works. "God works in mysterious ways"
So in ancient times, people were stupid. And they probably believed a lot of stupid shit. The Greeks had Gods for every little aspect of their lives; it made sense because they were stupid and didn't understand how the world works. I think most religions were founded this way; some guy couldn't explain something so he assumed it was a Deity. He then went around telling all these stupid people about his brilliant idea and boom he now has a following.
Now that we know about SCIENCE and SCIENTIFIC TRUTH, it's just stupid to believe that there was some sort of intelligent designer who created the world in 7 days or whatever. It's just ignorance. That's why I think education is so important, but that's another matter.
I'm all for interpreting religion as a metaphor for living your life, as in, treat people respectfully blah blah blah, but believing in a Deity is retarded nigger shit.
if not the bible is wrong on this count so why would it be true on any other account. I will end with my favorite Bble Passage. Go among the little ones as god thy lord has commanded and kill all the children that are male. Kill all the female children old enough to have known a man by lying with him and take the rest as your slaves... Hooray for ethnic clensing
>>565119684 1) Benevolence is a subjective construct we base on evolutionary programming which boils down to cooperation. There is no such thing as good or evil. 2) You're basing your argument on one version of god.
>>565120370 This argument is based on the assumption of one God, a specific one, and the assumption that believing in that one God immediately grants passage to heaven. It falls apart either way.
>>565120894 Nobody knows anything until they find out. Thinking about things isn't something to be ashamed of.
>>565120906 The one that says yes. Truth is relative. Logical statements are not.
>>565121021 Occam's razor states that assumptions decrease the chance of finding valid explanation due to simple probability.
>>565120370 That ignores the following >Your religion isn't the correct one (e.g. if Islam is correct Christians will go to hell) >Your religion isn't the correct one, and by worshipping a different God/following a different religion you have pissed off the correct God more than you would have if you'd have simply stayed neutral on the matter >God only lets atheists/agnostics into heaven, and hates those who follow any kind of organised religion There are probably some other flaws in that statement, too. Besides, it doesn't actually provide any arguments that God exists, only why someone should follow a religion.
>>565122276 except not. for example, let's talk about atomic forces.
it is theorized that atoms are held together by a collection of sub-atomic interactions. these interactions have been enumerated, the strength of their interactions determined, and the consequences of changing them has been discussed and simulated.
saying that god holds it together does not have the same demonstrable predictive power that scientific theory does, nor does it improve scientific theory by adding "oh but god too".
therefor we eliminate god from our explanation of subatomic forces.
Anselm's Proof Okay, guys, this one is kinda stupid but I'll post it here anyway because it's interesting. >You have the idea of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. >Suppose that this thing--this greatest thing--only exists in the mind. >Existence in reality is obviously greater than existence in the mind. >If this being than which nothing greater can be conceived exists only in the mind, then it can be conceived to exist in reality as well. >However, this means that something greater than this greatest thing can be conceived. >Clearly, this is absurd. >Therefore, the greatest possible thing exists in reality, and this is what we call God.
>>565121746 I always thought god existed but the 10 commandments and the bible seem man made. I don't believe in jesus either. To be honest I don't really know I think I just like believing that there is something after death.
>>565119684 You do understand, despite this argument, Epicurus (the original progenitor of the argument) believed in God*. (Multiple gods to be exact, who were outside the limits of the world, and, beyond creating it/ having a part to do in its creation, simply didn't give a fuck.) Also, does evil really exist? Perhaps the things we perceive as evil really aren't evil because we have a skewered perception of the true* good in this world.
>>565122953 Doing what you genuinely believe is a good life, genuinely trying to help people, etc. In this way, yes, SJWs are leading a good life, they are genuinely trying to help people. SJWs are not bad people, just fucking retards, there's a difference.
>>565122953 >>565122883 Stoics talk about just and good a lot in their writings, so fucked if I'm explaining all that. I can only simply say it's mostly about virtue, and what that word meant to them is different than what it means to us. Look up the stoics if you're really interested (Seneca, Marcus Aurelius etc.)
I read a really good book about them not long ago but I forget the name. If I can remember it I'll post it.
>>565123485 This is where Occam's razor is actually applicable. >something that came from nothing made the universe >and made rules to live by which are more easily explained by biological prerogatives or >the universe expanded from nothingness
>>565123318 This one makes sense if you are arguing a counter against a religious and none religious person debating if god or a greater being exists, this argument however does not show proof in a god, but in a human ideal of the perfect being
If there is a god... who created him? why did [insert dictator name here] exist? which god? why so many religions? omniscience forces determinism over free will, so why do you let people suffer. With so many religions, and therefore many sets of rules, we do not know which ones to follow, so, if we are break them, why do we suffer in the next life for it?
Atheist fags: How would you feel if you were God and you created everything and everyone all full of love then these ungrateful fucking creations said 'Fuck you God, you don't even exist'? So stop being cunts and worship our almighty lord and savior Jesus Christ/God/Holy Ghost.
>>565124129 It was "A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy" by William B. Irvine. It has some practical applications of Stoicism for modern day life, but it also felt like he was almost trying to make a new religion out of it or something. Still a good read though.
>>565122452 Pan-theism! Pan-theism! >yfw Hinduism struck a similar bell before his philosophy. >yfw all interpretations of religion, god and nature are simply personal constructions of the godhead. > All religions are driving at the same thing, and are manifestations of the same thing. Source: "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell
Never understood why people think we have some greater purpose or how people believer we are more than just accidents the same as millions of other creatures and accidental beings that exist in this universe and the next. Face it faggots you are worthless accidents and when you die you will be gone and that will be the end of your pointless existence and in a few million years when the last of us dies out and there are none of us left another accident will take over somewhere else and it will all start again and all you will be is a remnant in the ground long gone and forgotten
A god who makes a perfect creation is better than a god that makes an imperfect creation. The god that made the imperfect creation is therefore not perfect, because there would exist another god that outperformed it.
On the subject of suffering, there are three forms of optimism that attempt to counter this. >Absolutistic optimism: there is no evil in the world; evil is an illusion. >Instrumentalistic optimism: there is evil but it always lead to some greater good; everything happens for a reason. >Compensatory optimism: evil exists, and there are cases where it leads to no good, but when taken as a whole, the Universe simply automatically has more good than evil.
>>565124708 I'd show myself to them that I exist, if my divine form was too much for them, I'd create a slightly less divine form that could still perform miracles. >>565124978 I'm an atheist, just playing devil's advocate. How do we know that that's God's aim for the universe?
Time, the path in which history progresses is littered with evidence against a so called all powerful and all knowing deity. Throughout time, our thoughts have progressed just as history and invention have. Thus, so has our idea of an all powerful. If our idea of a god has not remained as it was, then it is a flawed idea to think that the god we idealize is perfect. He changes just as we do. If that can be recognized, then he is simply the will of the people, a changing ideal welcomed into the minds of believers to give faith onto what they have little faith for. 'God' is not a god, but an idea. He exists, but is not all powerful, all knowing, or in any way a physical deity. Instead I purpose he is a driving ideal behind our philosophies.
>>565124708 >assuming you're not trolling I'm not Atheistic, but I would assume that a God petty enough to be bothered by such a thing isn't a God at all. Many humans have even surpassed that. I don't understand how you could believe 'God', an omniscient and omnipotent being beyond your wildest imaginations could stoop so low as to actually feel human emotion, or barring that lack the understanding that most of a person's life decisions are based on genetic predispositions and life experiences.
Please. Your concept of a god is pettier than 80's villains.
>>565125486 let me rephrase that. let's say you have implanted a chip in somebody's brain without his knowledge and cognitive science has advanced enough to tell you what he's thinking. how would that knowledge be incompatible with his being free?
>>565125858 Sorry, let me explain. If god exists, and he's omniscient, then how can free will exist? My point is that if he is omniscient, then he knows our actions before we make them. If he knows our actions before we make them, then our actions are predetermined. If our actions are predetermined, then it's not free will.
I don't know why those thread still exist, the idea of god include perfection and perfection include existence so you can't debate god existence... said so i'm not a religious freak nor i belive in some kind of humanoid god
>>565126384 I'm leaning toward a Platonic model: the reason analyzes potential course of action and recommends to the will a specific course as good. Since will is oriented teleologically toward attaining personal good, will will follow the advice of reason.
The interesting corollary is that if you persist in a certain action (let's say, smoking) and claim that you understand smoking is bad for you, then you don't actually understand what you claim you do.
>>565126746 HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN
>>565127020 god is the mind, and beyond. all creation has god as its basis. he is the undifferentiated substrate beneath all reality. you're right that the problem is in man's mind- he thinks he actually exists, separate from the rest of reality. destroy the ego, realize God.
>>565126991 you're confusing free will with omnipotence. i can determine i want to save a child from drowning even if from a purely physicalist description i can't (the distance is too big, i can't swim fast enough, etc.)
>>565126935 Do you pay attention to how you breathe? You can, but your body does it subconsciously. Can you explain how it's done? Can you explain how you walk without thinking about each step? That is God
Does anyone think it matters to the boy in medically induced coma that Justice was trying to be done?
The fact it is never right to harm another is the proof you ask for when debating the existence of God. It is never right, it maybe expedient but never right. This is a fact and anyone who disagree with this fact gives license for another to harm themselves in the administration of Justice. Because God has condoned harming another for the administration of his Justice proves he does not exist.
Just because the conception of an image changes over time does not mean it is a man-made idea, nor is it strong proof for that position either.
>>He changes just as we do. One could argue that our understanding of He changes as we change, but he never actually changes. Our ideas are flawed, but he is not. Our conception of him is not perfect, but he is perfect.
>>565119267 It's just an idiotic idea with no ground to stand on. If we were to send a copy of Harry Potter back in time and given it to the right person we would have the same result. Religion is manufactured by man as a form of control.
If I believe in a God who simply established order in the universe (i.e created the universe and its processes), then
how does your argument work?
Who can argue what is right in regards to violence? Is it never right to simply hurt another of the same species? What about animals? Plants? Are lions "wrong" when they kill for substance or to rise as leader of a specific territory?
>>565127771 >the fact it is never right to harm another that's your opinion
Also, you're assuming human beings have no free will. What we assume is wrong could be considered right since we're only humans. A human being cannot understand what a God knows. At least, this is just a different perspective.
>>565127805 >twirls fedora if you actually believe that religion didn't develop because it addresses existential concerns and gives answers about the self and the universe, as well as providing a cultural institution that strengthened early human communities, then you're the idiot. has it been misused to control people? of course. but reducing it to just this role is simplistic.
>>565128535 Solipsism, bro. I was into that level of stuff Freshman year of high school. Now I'm in college, bitch. We're the same person because we are both aspects of the same simulation amothafuck yeah smoke weed every day
>>565121808 This is exactly how I live my life. I don't particularly believe in a God (give me undeniable proof and I'm totally open), but I just try to not be a terrible human being and try to treat others well. I figure if there is a God, he will still let me into Heaven because I lived my life in a positive light.
One of my issues, specfiically in regards to the Christian-judeo version of God has to do with this idea of free-will and sin.
Why is it that we do not hold God accountable for all sin? As we hold him accountable for all good? Think about it for a second.
A simplified abstraction, if you are the programmer of a universe. You can create the rules and functions that will determine how your world works. If you create a function , i.e "sin" as a possibility, then why don't you share responsibility in its use? Free will has nothing to do with this, free will implies that God has almost an obligations to fufill some outer-universal requirement to introduce this function of sin, as if there is a God beyond God.
>>565128990 Still a gamble, but one can argue it's better than nothing. When people say you waste time when believing in a religion, it is subjective. It doesn't require any sort of commitment, unless the religion demands it, but even then there is some grey areas or personal beliefs within the religion. It doesn't demand time to be wasted, only certain behaviors throughout your daily life.
>>565127947 This. I don't think it should be like that when just talking about it is fun. It gets your mind flowing and really makes you think of other aspects of life. But you are right as humans we really need to shift gears a bit.
>>565129321 Everyone has a different scale of assessing the importance of various types of pleasure (eating, watching a movie, smoking a joint, etc.) The answer to this question will vary from person to person.
>>565129262 Probably because free-will = sin. Human beings are created to be imperfect, allowing free-will allows sin. What's worse, not allowing human beings to have free-will or granting them free-will only for sin to be inevitable.
Sin can also just be another name that ties into the function of free-will. Sin doesn't really exist, but it's given a name to stop people from harming each other.
Does anyone here believe in the possiblity that there is not even such a thing as right or wrong? That they are just anthropomorphic beliefs based on the circumstances we live. (Many right and wrongs could be tied to things like survival)
Again, that doesn't seperate from my original argument. Even if sin was only a reflection of free-will, whatever "free-will" must exist as a cause of God, or otherwise have an extensive power beyond God. If it resulted as a cause from God, then God still shares responsibility. And God shares responsibility (if not all) in all forms of imperfect free-will, just as he does when we attribute good to him.
>>565119267 the brain cannot handle not knowing or not having an explanation for something as simple as our existence so people believe a man in the sky created the heavens and earth so they have sunbathing to believe in instead of nothing.
>>565128720 Ok, every single thing you have ever thought, done, will think, and will do is based on a certain mixture of chemicals released in the brain when faced with any and all situations.
These chemicals will trigger subconscious memories, experiences and instinct, and your brain will react accordingly to this and will send messages to your conscious mind, which heavily if not completely dictate what action you will perform in order to best benefit the situation.
What the benefit is, and how you will do it is based on whatever your subconscious deems best for its survival.
In case you're going to argue why everyone isn't selfish and greedy as fuck, it's because the basic instinct I mentioned before has "hard wired" your brain into being generous and caring because all animals depend on other members of it's species and members of other species for survival.
Your conscious mind is a medium between your surroundings and your subconscious, nothing more, nothing less.
>>565129262 One this note If God has absolute power why would he send his son to die to relieve his creations of something he created when he could just absolve sin himself? I couldn't ever believe in something that preaches that and its one of the many reasons why man made gods are just illogical.
My rationale against the argument is that you cannot hold it as a belief, however. Simply because we are applying the term God in substitute for "That which created the universe", but then we imply properties about God (Maybe conscience, capable of thought) rather than leaving it open to other possibilities such as God simply being a process.
>>565130621 this explanation is so riddled with holes that i wonder why you included the picture of somebody who supposedly wants you to keep an open mind and question everything.
if all actions are deterministically driven by self-preservation why do people sacrifice themselves for others? shouldn't there be some kind of grand reset button in their brain that stops them from dying for other?
>inb4 moving the target to the survival of your genes; examples can be easily produced where that can't happen but the individual stills sacrifices himself
>inb4 the survival of the species; more examples can be produced where the survival of the species was not at risk.
Debunking Pascal's Wager >Believing in the wrong god will lead to an eternity in hell >There are thousands of "gods" that all have different characteristics >Your chances of Hell are extreme, no matter which god you believe in >Believing in no god may lead to one of the thousands of Hells, but if you don't believe in those hells, you will not live your life based on possibilities, rather than finding the truth for yourself
>>565132136 >you will not live your life based on possibilities, rather than finding the truth for yourself That's a possibility as well. If it's not, then you can kill yourself and come back a few days later and tell me what's right or wrong.
>>565132361 can or cannot. there are examples where people choose to sacrifice themselves because they love someone (the species is not at risk and the individual is not in a position to procreate - think infertile individuals).
yes exactly the word "God" unfortunately has been distorted from what I believe His original intent for that word was.
like the game telephone kids play(a message starts with somebody and by the time the last person hears the message it is different than the original)
we are so far into mankind that His original intent for us has been distorted or outright denied by many
I believe there is a "higher/broader/more encompassing/more honest" idea than anyone/ all of humankind combined could comprehend/sustain and that is/belongs to God
in another way, I have experienced that I am not the source of ideas. none of us actually we only facilitate certain ideas into physical reality.
the way you look at a child and to an extent can see what they think/feel bc they have a smaller faculty than yourself is the same as others could say the same about you and I and so on so forth with higher faculties. if we can look at each other and know that there is a higher faculty among us than where did that higher faculty come in the first place? it had to be created or always exist in order for it to be recognized in varying degrees.
ive also had undeniable encounters with God/highest power that saved me from harm
>>565132730 Someone would argue that a "family function" serves at an almost sub conscience level. That although the individual who sacraficed themselves for the love one may not actually be of blood or consciencly sacraficing themselves with the purpose of allowing the person to reproduce, at a subconscience level the individual has attributed a level of kinship or family to the person they are sacraficing themselves for.
For some people, this could apply to people as a whole, or people and other species, or people and plants. Etc.
Then what is described with the reference of "God" would not be the Absolute as that is assigning a particular nature to "God" and reduction to only those attributes (that are expressed as a reflection of one's state of being) and detracting from the All-ness that is and of "God".
Which is to say that "God" and/or "our world" is somehow isolated and disconnected from each other rather than "our world" or THE world and the varying degrees of aligned consciousness of those within and a part of it that the very structure is a part of the Infinite. Also,not to mention the so called "gods" being living principles and complete within themselves,but still are a "part" in the universe. And "God"(as the Absolute and most high) being the very epitome of such a title and beyond.
the odds of the universe existing as it does today by a big bang or something is the same odds of marking one single grain of sand in the Sahara desert and telling a blind man to find that one grain of sand, near non-existent chance
He came into the flesh and died so that He fulfilled His own commandments by living a perfect life. by doing so He took our rightful place of seperation. Hell is punishment but not out of spite but bc God is so holy sinners can not be with Him on by their own power, so God sacrificed Himself out of love and by believeing and trusting that He would do that,bc He loves us so much, we have the possibility of eternal life
and if you believe that you repent, go through sanctification and act as a disciple of Jesus Christ
>>565122781 no your the idiot in this thread, you're assuming that everything is fucking random and then putting the word subjective as a way to hide your mental retardation..
Subjective doesnt = random you dumb fuck and if you assume that right and wrong are based upon this human subject that has no basis for his actions then you are the cancer killing /b/. You might not agree with the basis that a person has for their actions but you must understand that everything is not entirely random just because you disagree with what is going on . For example just because a man rapes a child doesnt mean the child's experience was random. God damn there was a reason behind it and it might not be based upon a hindu universal karma system but there was still a reason it happened. You might not like why it happened but thats your problem and not mine.
>>565130621 Great, I completely agree. Your definition of free will is; >The wrong notion that we control our actions instead of whatever chemicals are floating in our head at the time. Our brains are made up of chemical bonds which form neurons, etc (I'm sure you're smart enough for me to skip the biology of it all). The bottom line is this; We are chemicals. Determinism in the face of free will assumes our inability to control the choices we make due to physical forces, when in fact those same physical forces form who we are. It's not causation, it's a parallel. Saying "you don't have free will because your mind is bound to physical principles" is like saying 2+2 is not 4 because 4 is a single digit. Of course it's not the same thing. But that's only because it's a representation.
if it means at one point such behavior was useful to one individual in the history of the species, then the evolutionary theory ceases to be an empirically-falsifiable theory because for any potential counterexample you can claim at one point that type of behavior was useful to one specific individuals.
second it flies in the face of standard theoretical assumptions (behavior conditioning has to be long-term, intensive in order to create a functional disposition in all members of the species). it also operates with species as wholes as a theoretical postulate separate from individuals. this is wrong. species behavior is derived from individual behavior in evolutionary theory.
>>565133302 Not all religions have hell. Some religion's hell is based on morals. Either way, you're right, you might be going to hell anyways, so even if the chance is slim, some people take it. And the middle-ground religions is more forgiving. Don't even know how to account for the possibilities with so many variables to consider.
>>565119267 Pro God: >The universe COULD NOT have come from nothing. >Everyone has a built-in sense of morality whether or not they follow it. >Everyone is conscious. How could that possibly have arisen in a deterministic/naturalistic system such as abiogenesis?
i think those were incidents of people who took it upon themselves to do what they wanted(revenge)
there has been times where God commanded His followers to get rid of wicked people(cannibals and such)
but that was the old law I dont think He still does that bc we are under the new law. (accept that Jesus died for us so that we can be with him bc if He hadnt we would have to be eligible by our ritual works which is impossible, ie superman is impossible,)
He gives us freedom, some of use that for things that are against Him and our own kind, but that is not His intent for us. He gave us freedom within the laws of physics to love and honor Him as we please which goes along with following your conscience/soul
>>565135151 this is an incoherent mesh of evolutionary biology and psychoanalysis, probably based on the idea that the selfish drive to self-preservation is somehow related to unconscious drives in a psychoanalytic theory.
the development of the super ego can only occur in an existing cultural context and is at odds with evolutionary explanations. this is also the reason why virtually all standard psychoanalytical theories reject evolutionism as a one-size-fits-all theory.
>>565120536 now i will explain why these threads always end in fail /cancer killing /b/.
see these guys always argue 1 of these 2 arguments rarely both because they contradict each other. 1. Everything is subjective and thus random because it cant be objective otherwise they would say everything is objective. 2. Evolution bitches.
well see a smarter more competent person could point out that whats objective could indeed be subjective as well but no im not even going to go there because most of the people here dont even understand basic grammar rather they just know how to use the language, they dont know the purpose behind the grammar they use. Or they know the how and not the why behind it.
And in regards to evolution bitches, well only a retard would say that the theory isnt true but what i have a problem with is using any scientific theory and then basing my morality behind it and then making broad claims about it. Ex: I wouldnt say that because atoms exist that I should start the church of atom and start dancing and worshipping it. And similarly i wouldnt sacrifice my children for the survival of the species or that sort of bullshit. I mean yeah on a broad scale the theory of descent with gradual modification by means of natural selection is a very useful tool to explain stuff with but on a narrow scale like a day to day basis not so much unless we're talking about bacteria multipying and shit like that.
So yeah thats why everyone here is a retard and should be treated as such. but if you dont believe me just take my argument and divide it by zero and that should fix everything.
Straw men. Straw men everywhere. Learn what the fuck atheism is. And learn what the fuck evolution is. If any of these things you guys are bringing up actually proved the existence of a god (not just the one you happened to be born into believing in), it would be a huge deal and someone would win a Nobel prize (at least) for proving a god's existence. Let go of your ancient fairy tales that have no basis in reality whatsoever.
I understand what you mean, your are questioning truths right?
well its not just ask Jesus and your good to go and do whatever, its more like ask for forgiveness, and then following God and grow closer to Him and act as He did. (paraphrasing) God said ..but what have you done with my son?
more over ive had personal experiences where I prayed to God for help and things beyond humans control happened
>>565136179 The concept that the mind evolved from evolutionary biology is not that difficult to see. Many "Morals" are just behaviors. Rape is bad because it allows the possible passing of inferior genes when the woman does not want that one's genes past. Murder is bad because it dwindles the population of the species, thus making the species prone to extinction.
>>565136894 But those things CAN be explained. Unlike god
Personal experiences don't prove shit. Every person of every faith has experiences that they say "proves" their god exists. What makes your experience real and people who believe in other gods experiences fake?
>>565130621 but the sad thing behind all of this is that no one is disagreeing with your premise that chemical reactions regulate brain activity and thus have an influence and are required for any mind to exist at all. Rather we are disagreeing with your notion that you can simplify everything down to quarks and then predict what John will buy at the mall tomorrow by using quantum mechanics on his brain.
While it is true that chemistry works and all that shit, psychology became a scientific discipline apart from chemistry because you dont need to fully understand chemistry to understand aspects of the mind or personality for that matter. But you do need to know chemistry to understand chemical imbalances that may lead to mental disorders and that stuff.
but in no way can you say god doesnt exist because of a principal based on classical mechanics. And yes you are argueing from an 1700-1800 strict determinism physics perspective because if you were argueing from a quantum mechanics perspective then you would say you cant prove or disprove God's existence because we dont fully understand the universe enough. hell there is a lot we dont know about physics but that doesnt mean that we know nothing but at the same time it doesnt mean we know that god doesnt exist. And by the way your making my posts overly long, if you just stuck to one subject material like theology as opposed to bounce around the sciences like your fatass mom when she landed on target and killed all the innocent folk in there then it would be easier for me to debate with you about God's existence.
But anyway I don't expect someone of your caliber to even know what a thomas aquinas is or what an actual axiom is. Rather your like science bitches and then thats your argument. Lol no substance no depth, no you sir are the real cancer killng /b/ and not these other faggots. You BIG OL FAG
>>565136482 Protestant may not eat the flesh, but they still pray to Jesus a lot instead of God. Anyway you look at it, nothing will answer everything perfectly and we don't know what we don't know. You sir can shove Jesus straight up your ass for all I care.
God is your morality, it has no spectrum, no scale, god is what you make it. God is the love you have for yourself and what you besbow on others. God is the hate for yourself and what you besbow on others. Freedom to chosse what you think is right and not to be bound by laws that others make, for you are a free person that should only be bounded by what you belive in. Life is what you give and take.
Think not of others, the earth or scociety think of what you love, cherish and improves you.
>>565136593 your right imaginary shit is just wrong to talk about because if its out of sight then its out of mind right? Well if thats the case then by all means dont talk about zero because it doesnt exist, nothing is not a tangible or perceivable thing therefore its not real and dont talk about i or i squared which is negative one for that matter because negative numbers are not real in nature. You cant have anything beyond the absence of a quantity and even then your negative numbers are not real numbers thus they're imaginary. So you cant talk about physics or engineering for that matter, so by all means dont ask any engineer whatsoever to build your bridge because it involves imaginary numbers to build. And dont ask for all the other shit engineers usually do because you sir are A WASTE OF TIME to talk to.
>>565139046 But why so much confusion? Why would God do this? Making someones life an unbearable struggle between truths knowing they will never get answer in their lifetimes. What is the point of being such a hidden edgy faggot and staying hidden? Why not just create us with knowing? It would make his job a hell of a lot easier if all he wants is for people to worship him.
>>565137649 That entire post just tells me you're a nigger who didn't pay attention to the fact that I was merely explaining the notion of "free will" and not the existence of God directly, has no idea what the fuck chemical neurobiology is, nor quantum mechanics that you tried to use as an argument,, to berate me with shitty insults and use terms and names you think I don't know.
This is by far the shittiest post in the history of posts.
>>565138385 no see in theology as in any other academic discipline you study you must first define your terms. Now we should focus on the system by which we derive/define our terms as opposed to focusing on the term itself otherwise we will never understand how to arrive at that term.
Language is the system by which we arrive at the term. Now since we're dealing with theology we have to discuss metaphysics but not the bullshit ghost in your closet metaphysics that we often equate with theology but rather the fundamentals of metaphysics because it is the fundamental concepts of metaphysics that explain how the universe works. I think using the law of identity correctly would fix a lot of things but you kow it would take volumes of books to explain all the logical fallacies you could fall into just by misusing the law of identity. And the laws themselves can be quite equivocal in some circumstances but anyway if you want to disprove or prove in the existence of an all powerful being the governs the universe and that possesses a personality or a personhood which is what i normally think of when we speak about gods and god then it is best that we start with speaking about metaphysics and the fundamentals of it otherwise you and i will be so lost.
And no its not that simple, you cant just say atoms physics bitches and then be done and you cant go on about chemical reactions in our brains because monotheists can believe in the scientific method and all that stuff and still believe in monotheism. You sir are just begging me to write a shit load as if you were my philosophy professor or something, fuck you and your /b/ killing cancerous ways!
If there is a god, then where did he come from? If he was himself created by a still greater being, then he is not god. If he always was, why not save a step and say that the universe always was, theres no need for a creator.
>>565139862 >Implying sin is time If i were god i'd make the bible and my other holy books have, you know, facts about the nature of the universe not encoded in metaphor and interpretation
I also don't think you know what science is. Science is just the process in which we learn things.
>>565140007 Dude I'm drunk. Explain it in non-superfucking philosopher words.
But at your last paragraph, the mind can be explained with chemical and atomic reactions. We just did it. A few scrolls. up. And monotheism, at least Abrahamic Monotheism, does in fact contradict the scientific method by making a claim and looking for the facts that support it and IGNORING the ones that contradict or debunk it
>>565140369 Exactly. What is the cost of making your creation at the same level of thinking as you? You can destroy them at anytime. But who knows, that nigga may have went through process of trial and error of the last 10^100000000 years and decided this was the best route. I guess at the end of the day we can only hope our great great great grandchildren will get the answers we hope for.
>>565125484 I see that the thesis of your argument is that suffering exists for some better reason. I will counter that by invoking Omnipotence, which states that god can eliminate all pain, evil and suffering, and in fact, most religions state that he will do so for some at the end. Being omnipotent god should have already done so, but he didn't.
>>565122737 this goes back to the old "I could be a brain in a vat" argument. The truth is that "what if's" don't matter. It serves no purpose to wonder if we're even real or not. "I think, therefore I am." point being, this is the reality you inhabit, test, ponder, experience, etc.
>>565141221 no monotheism doesnt make a claim and then look for facts to support it like a criminal defense attorney defending his client in a court of law. But anyway why the hell are we talking about theology if your drunk. You should be sober otherwise things will make even less since. You know my girlfriend got drunk while playing a video game once and he was quite hilarious to watch, she's so cute and funny when she's drunk hehehe.
>>565141283 your obviously incorrect and if you divided that argument by zero then you would arrive at 42 which is tangent to the line we are talking about here.
>>565142853 no sir you are mistaken, you in fact are the cancer killing /b/. You can't write well thought out elaborate paragraphs because you lack the mental capacities to do so. Go back to hello kitty little girl!
Does the creator of the Universe really have to be benevolent? Does He really have to be bounded by the laws of humanity in order to be worshiped? As a Christian, I believe God has the right/privilege to do whatever the fuck he wants whenever he pleases. All these Atheists always bringing up how he kills a lot of people in the Bible. So, what? If he created life as we know it, why does he have to be a "goodie-goodie" just to fit your wants? >>565143051
>>565145125 true that is why he wanted me to give everyone this killer argument to end the thread with. To give closure to all the traumatized children including the mod who were forced to read this thread.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.