>>7226103 Well, the existence of a God was accepted as true for the longest time in history (basically because other explanations weren't available). The reasoning at that time probably went something like this: "Why would you have to prove something that is obviously there? I know that there is air around me because I can breath."
Aristotle proved God two millennia ago, everything that followed that tries to characterize him is debatable and most of it is prolly bullshit, but that doesn't mean it's not perhaps the most important question.
>>7226204 >presuppositional apologetics 1. If you don't believe in something for absolutely certain there can be no basis for anything else you might think. 2. Handwavey dismissal of all the things nonbelievers say anchors their thought that doesn't differ from what any other apologeticists do. 3. Ergo Christianity is the only way to think.
>>7226244 Aristotle's proof has absolutely nothing to do with causality, Aristotle holds that the universe has always existed. He's not arguing for a creator God, he's arguing for a sustainer God (the opposite of deists who subscribe to a creator God, but not a sustainer God). Aristotle's argument could work even if you were an eternalist.
>>7226269 The real question is why should we take anything this dumb greek nigger said seriously when he was wrong about something as basic as the atom and he knew less about the world than a contemporary high school graduate?
>>7226283 Because empiricism has told us basically nothing certain about the cause of the universe while logical metaphysics provides a series of insights, before even science considered arriving at them?
Or maybe that Aristotle effectively invented the scientific method anyway.
Take the God question out of existence. It's not the point, not the question, to be an atheist, theist or any degree of doubt in between. I mean it, this is not just to end the discussion or look to pacify its parts or anything like that. I mean that this is not the point in the slightest, because you'd be putting this God in relation to what you think existing means, what you think differs reality from fantasy and so on.
That's not the point because the point is precisely to understand how God functions as a signifier of our world, that is, precisely what makes things real and not real. This signifier is individual as well as collective, multiple, but often mashed up in a few single names. This is the parameter through which we live. This has God, that hasn't, this is reasonable, that is not, this I'll consider, that I'll ignore, this exists and is real and important, while that is false, irrelevant, meaningless. Take this question to semiotics. If you say "God is good", isn't that a statement about the whole world? When you say "According to..." (science, god, your dad) doesn't that tell us a lot about how you see the world? If you talk about "nature", what is nature if not something completely imagined by you from what you see in the world that escapes your artifice? God is exactly like so, a projection, but nevertheless real in itself, completely contraditory in which it is an imagination of something we can't imagine, that escapes our power of conception, it is the accident that even if meaningless is nevertheless true. And how do we relate to this accident? What is the historical narrative that grounds our doing, that makes us think something is worthwhile, or that a particular approach is better than the other? When atheists talk about God, even to show its contradictions or villainy, they must understand they are talking about how they relate to their universe. And when Christians or other theists defend a given perspective on God to an atheist, they are missing what is the ultimate signifier of these atheists.
God is not a concept, not an idea, not an invention, our conception of it is an invention. But God is whatever comes before us, whatever taught us the signs we use to talk about things, regardless on how you name it or whether you like it or not, just like life is and it was not our idea to be alive, but we are nevertheless here and doing things and inventing reasons for us to be here that would justify what we do. To talk of God is to talk about this process itself, not of a thing that can be named or defined, but about how each one of us name it and relate to this process of understanding the world we live, how we act, how we relate to our thoughts, emotions, our visions of time, memory and death and also the geographic, political and historical thread that sustain our societies, the way we think of our family, our posessions, our relation to animals and plants and, afterall, all there is to see and to touch.
>>7226340 >we speak in languages that allow us to ask questions that beg the question of something other than the physical >ergo there must be something other than the physical Yikes. Work on that reasoning, write more concisely and come back with something a little less pretentious and more tenable.
>>7226352 It's not about what is physical and what is not, that distinction is null. Once again, it's not a matter of existence, so it isn't something that "is" other than the physical. If you took what I wrote as a reasoning for defending a position of existence or non-existence of God, you're wrong. What is happening is people talking words and doing things and what they must have considered in order to say them and do them.
>>7226454 I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by reading it that way.
Having grown up with serious Christianity, left the faith and studying religion continuously through all this, I just don't think what you said is very interesting or useful to someone who's not a 14 year old getting high for the first time because no Christian besides a few obscure academics would claim that God isn't real in the conventional sense.
you'll probably go on pretending the life of Christ or the existence of the scriptures is "no evidence", but the best anyone's been able to say against them is that they are probably very weak evidence, and would not be acceptable in any serious field of modern study.
>As pure thinking consciousness belief has this Being immediately before it. But pure consciousness is just as much a mediate relation of conscious certainty to truth, a relation constituting the ground of belief. For enlightenment this ground comes similarly to be regarded as a chance knowledge of chance occurrences. The ground of knowledge, however, is the conscious universal, and in its ultimate meaning is absolute spirit, which in abstract pure consciousness, or thought as such, is merely absolute Being, but qua self-consciousness is the knowledge of itself. Pure insight treats this conscious universal, self-knowing spirit pure and simple, likewise as an element negative of self-consciousness. Doubtless this insight is itself pure mediate thought,, i.e. thought mediating itself with itself, it is pure knowledge; but since it is pure insight, or pure knowledge, which does not yet know itself, i.e. for which as yet there is no awareness that it is this pure process of mediation, this process seems to insight, like everything else constituting it, to be something external, an other. When realizing its inherent principle, then, it develops this moment essential to it; but that moment seems to it to belong to belief, and to be, in its character of an external other, a fortuitous knowledge of stories of “real” events in this ordinary sense of “real”. It thus here charges religious belief with basing its certainty on some particular historical evidences, which, considered as historical evidences, would assuredly not even warrant that degree of certainty about the matter which we get regarding any event mentioned in the newspapers. It further makes the imputation that the certainty in the case of religious belief rests on the accidental fact of the preservation of all this evidence: on the preservation of this evidence partly by means of paper, and partly through the skill and honesty in transferring what is written from one paper to another, and lastly rests upon the accurate interpretation of the sense of dead words and letters. As a matter of fact, however, it never occurs to belief to make its certainty depend on such evidences and such fortuitous circumstances. Belief in its conscious assurance occupies a naïve unsophisticated attitude towards its absolute object, knows it with a purity, which never mixes up letters, paper, or copyists with its consciousness of the Absolute Being, and does not make use of things of that sort to affect its union with the Absolute. On the contrary, this consciousness is the self-mediating, self-relating ground of its knowledge; it is spirit itself which bears witness of itself both in the inner heart of the individual consciousness, as well as through the presence everywhere and in all men of belief in it.
>>7226475 I'm not saying God isn't real. You're in this either-or question that I have no interest about. I'm also saying what I'm saying in spite of Christians, atheists or teenage stoners, but to anyone that sees fit, not claiming a definition of God, neither analyzing it theologically, nor trying to modify anyone's speech. Of course Christians will be Christians and atheists will be atheists, in a conventional way or not, it doesn't worry me the slightest what one thinks of God or what they think is reasonable or not. What interests me is how these thoughts affect their actions.
>>7226518 I'm not a Christian anymore, fam. I meant that my church was very into theology, reading scripture and intense discussions of all the above. We were like the Christian equivalent of Jews, as opposed to Catholics with fifteen nursing infants per mother or megachurch tards.
non religious people seem like dense retards to me. I mean God is obvious. it's an abstraction. why is man the only creature on this planet having this discussion? because of a tiny difference of dna? that tiny difference is the entire world of difference. whenever a scientific riddle is resolved another two more show up. this is the paradox and why religious ideologies have endured over thousands of years.
>>7226613 >this is what Christians actually believe You think everyone else looks retarded because they don't rend their clothes and gnash their teeth because the massively complex universe doesn't reveal its every detail to their singular perspective? Do you not see how egotistical it is to only accept a world where someone will explain everything to you?
>>7226708 there is no "true nature of God" that man can grasp.
there is nothing outside of God. you can't even meet all the variety of people living on this planet in a lifetime let alone assume the true nature of God. if men understood God, men would be Gods. the notion of God wouldn't even exist.
>>7226685 >le rational middle ground meme You're a dumb fuck if you seriously entertain religious folklore. Centuries from now humanity will look back at these conversations and laugh at people like you.
>>7226685 >muh tolerance When someone has all the time and space they need to state their arguments, it's totally valid to tell them when they're not putting forth good arguments. Regardless of who's doing it, your feelings really aren't that important.
Like the other guy said, there's nothing special about trying to locate the centrist position. That's a totally arbitrary and cowardly way to approach these issues.
>>7226729 retarded asshole assuming stuff. I never said "I just know" however spirituality isn't dead like a book. it's a living "thing" otherwise I wouldn't feel the way I do about it. you're too retarded to understand like I said yet you'll go on and assume you do. you'll act all smug and have all your one-liners ready on how you describe people of various faiths. I'm sure it makes you feel good even though you're an oblivious hypocrite.
>>7226750 I'm not coward enough to change my position just because you try to paint me in whatever way you think invalidates me emotionally. I am a person of faith but I totally understand idiotic people with or without religious faith.
>>7226752 You don't know me, you pretentious cunt. I was an earnest believer of a living faith as well as a careful scholar of the faith through my early twenties and I came to a different conclusion from years of study. The sophistry, dishonesty and anger you're showing here is what I can't stand, not the end product of your beliefs.
>>7226763 >you try to paint me in a way you think invalidates me emotionally I said that centrism and fence-riding in the context of the arguments in this thread doesn't make any sense. Sorry if something else triggered you.
>>7226758 He's saying that while claiming a "fair and balanced," approach, which doesn't address anything the atheists are saying and is just a high-horse personal attack.
>>7226771 you don't know me either you pretentious cunt. the sophistry, dishonesty and anger YOU'RE showing here is as plain as day. I've got my share of anger. it's annoyance and why shouldn't I be reading the responses here? fuck off. sophistry? dishonesty? I'm speaking my mind with no ill-intention and no intention to convert anyone if you actually read my posts. I basically said to atheists what several posts said to "christfags" with the word retard. notice how no one gives a fuck but when I do oh no we've got an atheist circle jerk. don't deny this. pretentious cunt? yeah it's exactly what you are.
The only conception about God that makes sense to me is that he's nothing comparable to a human. If God was like a super-intelligent human there is no reason why he couldn't have immediate contact with us, understand why we need conclusive evidence to follow some complicated system of ethics based on ancient texts etc. If God is some impersonal first cause we can only speculate about that's a different thing though. But I can't really imagine a personal God who doesn't give a fuck this much.
>>7226823 Never asserted that, it's just that your worship of science is so retarded that it's disconcerting. Also, to say that Christians aren't "useful" to society makes no fucking sense since they comprise, at least in the country I live in, the vast majority of society.
I may not believe in god but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw a diverse group of people under the bus because I want to be an edgemaster.
>>7226840 I don't think you fully understand the edge meme, but whatever. The idea that a Christian is based on action implies there's a static set of actions that determine what a Christian is, which doesn't make sense when you consider the massive number of denominations that have entirely different ideas about what being a Christian is. The only real thread that keeps all this together is the belief in Jesus Christ being somehow related to the divine.
>Evidence 0/10 b8 >>7226290 They're both assumptions.
Not even Absolutes are given because they are impossible to fully comprehend. >>7226295 >Empiricism The biggest quackfest in history. >>7226701 You do realize that it's painfully simple to invalidate all of empiricism, right?
>>7226834 Theologians and priests are among the most useless members of society. Churches are basically legalized tax evasion institutions. Christianity actively tries to hold back scientific and social progress. Sure, some Christians can contribute to society, but with massive cognitive dissonance
>>7226869 Disagree, the Church is the center of many a community and is important in maintaining any sense of social cohesion, and while there are many Christians that hold back scientific progress there are many more that do not. Painting with such a broad brush doesn't serve anyone.
I would also say that scientific progress is not something that is only positive, especially considering it delivered us such wonderful things as the atom bomb, agent orange, and biological weapons. Science isn't some benevolent entity, it's a tool. A very, very, dangerous tool, that must be used cautiously and intelligently.
>>7226883 exactly. Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon...you could go on with many of the corner stones of the scientific revolution WERE CHRISTIAN. they didn't feel science was at odds with God. like I said earlier itt many felt science was a tool to understand and reveal God in nature.
>>7226869 Erm, a church-type organization, even if were secular, would not have to pay taxes. If you created a massive D&D club that got together every week and had a paid coordinator (priest), with everyone contributing money, it would not have to pay taxes, because it wouldn't be considered a commercial enterprise.
>>7226907 I never said that social cohesion was contingent on the church, but the current structures in which we live in have it being the center of most communities. I'd also like to point out that Atheists have far higher suicide rates than Christians. The community churches clearly has psychological significance to human beings. Also, I don't understand how "enough of them do" is enough of an excuse to then say "fuck all Christians", especially when they fight with /each other/ on these very same issues.
>>7226933 I'd try to say, as I've previously stated, that you can't just say all "all Christians are X" but clearly I'm wasting my time. If you'd like to believe they're a bunch of degenerate scum so you can stoke the inner fires of pseudo-religious zeal, so be it. Have at the "enemy".
Even if it's all bullshit I've come to the realization that living a Christian life is infinitely superior and more filling than this sad hedonism I'm stuck in. I've never felt more alive than during a few months when I read a lot of theology and managed to convince myself that Catholicism was true. I went to church and everything and even enjoyed going to Mass, it was amazing and transcedent and beautiful. Unfortunately I went back to being apathetic about it quick enough. I WISH I could believe in this.
>>7226953 I don't remember if was Chesterton or Lewis who said this but nonetheless it stays the advice: fake it. That's right, even if you don't believe or whatever just go to church, go through the motions of being in the Mass, communion and so on. The Holy Spirit is all about this community.
>>7226923 >I'd also like to point out that Atheists have far higher suicide rates than Christians. Yes, but while they're alive they're at least SMARTER. Cry me a river you spoon fed conforming God-dick-sucking hillbilly. Come over to 2015 whenever you are ready.
>>7226103 There is evidence, the direct experience of the divine. In ancient times this was the purpose of the mystery schools and the work of many Gnostics, but has been largely forgotten or lost today.
>>7227013 >everyone has a doctrine It's possible to have a better doctrine than Christianity and any of those things you listed, believe it or not. Accepting all the baggage that comes with Christianity is not worth it if you can read the rest of the world's wisdom texts.
>>7227013 >Everyone has a 'doctrine', if it's not religion it is consumerism, narcissism, sports, 'scientific progress' and so on. No. Stop projecting. You may generalize but don't affirm uncertain blanket projections.
>>7227015 Sartre wrote philosophical novels that were pretty good. He was an intellectual on level with Camus. His actual work of philosophy as a discipline isn't really recognized academically, since it is mainly just reiteration of prior thinkers.
>>7227025 >Christposter taking the name of the lord in vain You're not even trying. I hope you at least have a good reason for not taking Paul seriously if you're going to flaut his directions. Conventions and personal priorities aren't the same as a huge convoluted system involving a personal deity and specific laws.
>>7227000 >Idiot. You don't have to be a Christian to do better than that unless you're really stupid and need to have your nose rubbed in it. All non-Christians are hedonists by default. >>7227015 >modern existentialism >of any value like...dude...be ur own god
>>7227020 Christianity is the only valid doctrine.
>>7227041 Read Aristotle, that's the best you can start with. All of Christianity goes back to the same problems the Greeks started with. It will give you a very precious perspective and an understanding that you don't need to be religious to read about theology.
>>7226923 Churches are not the center of most communities where I live. They might be if you live in some backwater hick town, but thankfully I don't. Churches only have psychological significance to humans in that they are communal gathering places for deluded people to socialize with others about creation myths. The latter part is unnecessary. It doesn't matter that Christians fight each other over some issues. You don't every Muslim to be a suicide bomber to denounce Islam as a backwards belief system that we would all be better off without. It produces sufficient problematic behavior and that's reason enough.
>>7227053 >>7227045 Do you guys ever consider that maybe people are only religious because they need something to give meaning to their lives? Have you ever considered that maybe people choose the path of God because they need an explanation to perpetuate their own need for survival, similar to that of an animal?
>>7227062 Just start with the greeks bro. You won't start believing in God after reading some pleb apologetics, you have to consider all of philosophy. And yeah, you shouldn't just think of it as a religious thing.
>>7226103 >If there's no evidence for God's existence, why does so much philosophy treat His existence as a given? Delusion and the impact of deep rooted impact of social constructions on the psyche. Thank God the percentage of religious people in the world (the western world) is dropping like a stone.
>>7227049 Satre is one element of 20th century existentialism you illiterate. >>7227065 >Christians all claim their faith makes them feel good Generalization, not addressing >If you do away with the need for something comparable to a god in power then you can absolutely set your own priorities, expectations and goals. Why is this good and/or important? >>7227075 I remember being 15 and thinking trolling and DESU posting was cool.
>>7227064 Why must i suffer because of my superior understanding of the world and them not? (That's a joke.)
But why must the world as a whole suffer from what mass religion drags behind it for society? Given increased education people will have the capacity not to crutch on religion and we will be better off without.
>>7227084 The human yearning for transcendental meaning is hardwired. I really cant fathom how autistic you have to be to think its possible to eradicate religion as a concept. Too fucking stupid to live
>>7227083 >I remember being 15 and thinking trolling and DESU posting was cool. Face the facts soon you'll be all alone, and guess what? You're grandkids will have a higher probability of being an atheist than not.
>>7227089 >The human yearning for transcendental meaning is hardwired. Shut up fgt, no it's not. We are hardwired to find meaning in our being, belief/faith is just one way to accomplish that. Stop trying to make facts of your half-assed and completely uninformed guesses at what constitutes human nature.
>>7227083 >why is this good and/or important? It's good because I don't think any organized religion has the truth, but that we can reorganize around more humanistic values and take advantage of the parts of our brains that latch onto religion to internalize values and worldviews that will bring more lasting benefits to ourselves and each other. I think it's good because we can put away the baggage and nonsense that has attached itself to every religion and start over without suffering total confusion. This is a huge deal if you actually value truth. Not sure how you can think that sort of potential is not important.
>>7227084 greatest classical composers composed their music for churches. the greatest art and look up the scientific revolution. many scientists
>>7227064 but people aren't only religious because of that. the problem is the fucking narrow-mindedness of people like yourself. how can i explain it to someone so retarded? you just can't. I ask God every day for the power to explain it to dumb motherfuckers.
>>7227111 >greatest classical composers composed their music for churches. the greatest art and look up the scientific revolution. many scientists Exceptions, the masses in totality degrade social potential to muck and piss.
>>7227128 I think he's just being elitist. I actually agree. Most people get very upset when you challenge them and the poor and uneducated are the worst about this because they live in a world primarily of dominance/submission and sex, so anything they don't understand is perceived as hostile.
You want to know the truth? Because many higher education institutions in the West have been primarily Christian, and they would only hire people who supported their ideologies. See: David Hume and his work history. Since he was branded as an atheist, he never got a job at a university.
>>7227121 We developed a capacity for pattern recognition and "social intelligence," far beyond that of any other organism. There is no evolutionary reason to tone down those abilities because false-alarms aren't nearly as damaging as starving or getting eaten, and it doesn't take much more energy to be as sensitive as we are now than to be slightly less sensitive. When we developed spirituality, it ended up serving a useful role as a memetic device for social cohesion, and so that stuck.
These things do not suggest the existence of a deity.
>>7227121 Ladies and gentlemen: the extent of a Christfag's knowledge. I'm fucking astounded. I thought these people I've been arguing with would know even a fragment of the workings of language. Holy fuck.
Is there a reason on why god doesn't reveal himself? Is it because he doesn't have a physical body? If he doesn't, why? If God reveals himself in everything that surrounds him, why only a few can or think they can perceive him? Wouldn't it be better for him to confirm his identity? Is God a brainless beign that doesn't do anything at all and therefore doesn't serve any purpose? Why creating everything and then concealing itself? What if I am God? Am I crazy?
>>7227156 Yahweh is too egotistical to be kind to us. He's like an abusive husband who only married/created us to validate himself and pushes the boundaries at every chance and then makes us deal with it.
It's really that simple if you read the Old Testament or Torah.
>>7227164 I never said those beliefs lead to truth. I said that neither of us has the truth and so we should back off from dedicating our lives to anything until we find something worth that kind of faith. What that shall be is a separate problem, but we are capable of giving ourselves to anything if we want to badly enough. The existence of numerous spiritual and secular religions should be evidence enough of that.
I know you're trolling but I hope someone who needs it is reading.
>>7227183 You mean the same holy spirit that's supposed to guide all believers in their understanding of God? The holy spirit that dropped the ball so hard on that he ended up with like a million different denominations sharing the same core belief?
The religious rituals are intrinsically rooted to a specific ideology of a people, there is no objective and external Spirit as atheists think that Christian people believe and that exists in-itself. The dove (or whatever the fuck else) is merely a representation.
>>7226116 Why do people insist on debasing all of reality as a mishap and an accident - much less a fart. I get that you have a woefully unsophisticated view of existence, that you believe in a fart instead of the existence of a greater consciousness, in vapid mental sloth when unending living mysterious sublime complexity stares back at you at every moment. There are two types of fundamentalists in this world, atheistic and religious. Both show a staggering lack of comprehension. Unevolved.
>>7227154 he said give a rationale. man is the only creature with any significant degree of creative capacity. you're a bored lonely dickhead to come here just to reply with that. fuck off and don't respond.
>>7227147 >We developed a capacity for pattern recognition and "social intelligence," far beyond that of any other organism
exactly my point. but you're grossly simplifying it to make it seem like it's something science has explained which it has not.
>>7227137 I think all creatures are evolving in some way...but that's not my point. why is man the only one...ONLY ONE...to evolve arts, sciences, etc. it has benefitted man to an incredible degree. why have no other creature evolved even a fraction in the way man has...which has helped man be the dominant species on this planet? it's the reason why we rule over all environments. surely evolution would award other members of other species who have even a tiny fraction of these traits so their species would eventually come along like ours but no.
>>7227197 >Christians don't believe in an objective and external spirit On what planet? I don't mind if you tell me about your special-snowflake version of Christianity, but most believers would call that heresy.
>>7227203 >why have no other creature evolved even a fraction in the way man has... That's not how selective pressures work, anon. Evolution's not a race to the finish. More like a treading of water where some populations move to a different part of the pool when someone bumps into them.
>>7227204 Let me put it this way: if they actually could see an objective and external 'heaven' or whatever, they would stop being religious; there would be no need to ACT as if there is a heaven. This is where the emphasis should lie: they act as a religious community precisely because of this gap that must be filled by the church. That social action allows them to, in their day-to-day, individual life to act as if there is no God. You see, what they subjectively think doesn't matter, but what they do.
>>7227236 >>7227236 Don't judge the bible belt christian too harshly though, the so called 'progressive' and liberal society also has its correspondent religious rituals that serve for this same function.
>>7227282 Nah, you're making assumptions at face value. You're blinded by anthropomorphism. You think humans are superior to animals and because we have a greater brain-to-body-mass ratio, that suddenly because of this we have this magical concept called a "soul," and that we are "reasonable" and "rational," whereas other animals are not.
You'll shrug off this religion thing once you read more. Either that or you'll start cherrypicking your learning because you secretly need a reason to perpetuate your own existence rather than searching for truth. It doesn't affect me either way tbh.
>>7227307 >It doesn't affect me either way tbh Maybe not directly right now. What if he breeds and spreads his ignorant pie man in the sky nonsense to his children? What if he converts other people to his cult? This guy is dumb enough to believe god created night and dat before the sun.
The more interesting miracle happened on the ground. It was pouring rain before the apparition which completely soaked everything in water. After the apparition, everything was fully dry (see photos). The amount of heat needed to pull that off naturally would have barbecued them.
>>7227455 And you take their word for it? There's no way you could have been deceived. Is evidence of the divine in your own life so thin that you have to cling to peasant myths and sensational journalism from back before, "journalism," was a word?
Oh silly me, I should have only listened to rich 21st century individuals like self-proclaimed enlightened mind of Richard Dawkins rather than those measly one hundred thousand 20th century peasants who just happened to be there. Whatever could I have been thinking. It is as absurd as the myth that WWI actually happened.
90% what we find in the ground backs it up. Pre-Solomon/David history is lacking but Egyptian historical records are well known for manipulating the past for political reasons so it isn't that damning for there to be little about them.
>>7227784 >90% what we find in the ground backs it up.
Except for the events of exordus which are arguably some of the most important. Did the Egyptians follow the hebrews into Sinai and destroy all their rubbish as well?
>Egyptian historical records are well known for manipulating the past for political reasons so it isn't that damning for there to be little about them.
No they arent Egyptians were fairly honest when it came to that matter, indeed aside from one major battle and the female pharoah they were no other incidents that would justify them hiding all the events of exordus.
Likewise the fact that the Hebrews despite being so obsessed with genologies and names, neglected to even name which pharaoh it was gives more credence to the lack of historicty.
>>7227011 >Auguste Meessen, following the work done before him by the Belgian skeptic Marc Hallet, has stated sun miracles cannot be taken at face value and that the reported observations were optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun. Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly Meessen states that the color changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells. Meessen observes that Sun Miracles have been witnessed in many places where religiously charged pilgrims have been encouraged to stare at the sun.
Who would have thought that staring into the sun for a long period of time would cause you visions.
>>7227991 >because it is a given you fuck face OP. just believe in Historical and Dialectical Materialism and you can learn new things.
>People dont accept it because they think its too hard. Let me tell you, there is a dialectical and historical progression, and this directs everything. Bow down before the inevitable revolution and end of contradiction. (another problem for bourgeois)
>>7226103 I am bored to tears of medeival and faith/revelation based philosophy. It seems so trivial and fictional. I haven't read any neo platonists and I'm hoping that when I do it will give me an appreciation for scholasticism. I grew up in a devout Christian family with a pretty solid understanding of theology and yet I still have no attatchment to this revelation based metaphysics. It just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth whenever I see a philosopher do some hand wavy argument which proves gods existence. I just don't get how people read this stuff or take any interest in it's understanding. What am I missing? Theology interests me in light of it's potential to aid in ones ethical development and lead one to some sort of ineffible experience; scholasticism doesnt seem to contribute to that purpose, and seems to miss the point. I want to skip it all, and at the same time I don't want to miss out on exploring, or not comprehending, the philosophical systems of the early modern philosophers (such as Descartes). So again, what am I missing? How can I gain an appreciation for scholasticism? Or am I right in skipping it?
reminder that the demise of religion is based on the use of imagination which is inherently nihilist as it negates life through the departure of the present moment, the practice of the present moment which is the only key to reach any higher grounds .
>>7226783 Yeah, nah. This argument dodges the real point completely. You take the prime mover, slap on a sticker that says "God" and what did you just do? You made a whole fuckload of moral implications without acknowledging them, that's what you did.
Seeing this sort of argument so often online, I begin to wonder. Is anyone concerned about finding answers or is the discussion purely emotional? These questions seem to touch such a sensitive place in so many people. I feel as though, witnessing the discussions repeatedly online, I am starting to see some meta-game for the entire debate.
Anyway to try to answer OPs question, I would suggest that times were once much simpler. I don't think God was always such a heavily debated political concept. I believe the recent questioning of God and of very many fundamental aspects of life have their roots in the growing awareness of other people's fuckery. As we begin to doubt larger human systems and the validity of what we are doing and how we structure our society, we also begin to question more basic things. Then there is the hippies and the drugs and the revolutionary spirit. And now so many stifled young men in their rooms, angry and unable to vent appropriately in a society which is very cautious and yet at the same time inhospitable.
As a previous poster pointed out, in what I think was a very interesting idea, is that when we talk about God we are really talking about how we interact with the world and what has shaped the way we interact with the world. For those who are heavily involved with this debate, belief or non belief is central to who they are, and it's a matter of vital importance as to whether God exists or not. And yet these two concepts - God, and existing - are themselves so difficult to explain.
Old timey philosophers don't really worry so much, I suppose. God was mutually understood to mean something that today is not so clear. God is not merely unexplained phenomena. God is something very essential to consciousness and also uniquely human.
Looking at this discussion long term, I really wonder where it will take us intellectually. I hope that people will be able to detach themselves from the topic emotionally, and really begin to analyze the question itself. What is the root of doubt and belief, and, as one anon also asked, how is this shaping how we actually live our lives?
>>7229308 Anons need to learn how to get along and talk about something more interesting. That's not going to happen here though, because OP's question is absolute fucking b8 bound to start a flame war.
>>7229345 Shitheads /pol/ maybe but they can argue well albeit fallaciously often. But then /pol/ is the right place for such a discussion and not /lit/, many /lit/ posters will refuse to engage with this topic in the vain hope it will wither away.
>>7229345 Know why that happens? Because everyone feels the fucking need to express their opinions and sperg out in order to prove how good their theories are. NO ONE CARES. It's pathological, kill your egos guys. I know it's difficult not to answer that guy who quotes the Bible or your favourite philosopher, but make that effort and you'll get closer to actually improving yourself.
>inb4 we have the right to express ourselves and debating is the core of philosophy
Not here, where you don't even face your "opponent" and for all you know they aren't even interested in changing their opinions or achieving anything more than sterile criticism.
>>7229354 >>7229363 Why can't these guys just agree to disagree? They take everything as a personal slight. They make both atheists and theists look bad. Why would a sane Christian or atheist even set foot in a shitstorm like this? Just let these arguments die out. People should be able to say "I'm Christian" or "I'm atheist" without someone calling them a child or posting a fedora. Fucking b8 everywhere.
At this point the existence of God is irrelevant, what is relevant is that the methodologies that have sprung from the assumption that there is a God/prime mover/self-causing cause/personification of the principle of sufficient reason are the only reason we have an empirical science or a "modern" society.
Descartes' entire foundation for the Cogito hinged on the fact that God was benevolent and not a trickster, St Anselm and Aquinas were both incredibly intelligent logicians that believed reason was an integral part of understanding God's creation and the entire Islamic golden age of science and philosophy (AKA the only reason we have modern medicine, mathematics, philosophy or science) was sprung out of the same need to understand God's creation
Whether you believe in God's existence or not you need to acknowledge that a large part of philosophy, literature and science was founded mainly thanks to the efforts of a devout minority who believed (and their conclusions were usually reached using logic and not reverting to fideism as is so often the stereotypical "religious nut job" case)
>>7230114 >Whether you believe in God's existence or not you need to acknowledge that a large part of philosophy, literature and science was founded mainly thanks to the efforts of a devout minority who believed
>>7230026 I didn't say it necessarily did. but there are large gaps in evolution that anons itt ignore. then when I bring up if man's creative/intelligent difference gives man such an upper hand why didn't evolution help any other species on this whole planet since it's so vital to us being dominant...I get stupid answers like "evolution isn't a race anon"....wtf natural selection retards.
I did say earlier that the kind of tangible evidence you're looking for will never be around. I cannot respond to you anymore it's too idiotic. at it's core religious faith is philosophical anyways and not scientific. the fact that it has carried on this long shows how typical "4chan" the /lit/ board really is. and by typical I mean retarded.
>>7230137 At the very least it makes the belief in God a noble lie
It also asserts that some of the most intelligent individuals throughout the annals of history all affirmed the existence of God and made great leaps forward for the entire human race based on this assumption
>>7230137 It doesn't mean it's not true either. Evidence is the pulse of life in this world, anon. Man has not seen life created from nothing. We haven't been able to duplicate the beginnings of life yet you have such faith in it because of some book you seem to believe in. Yet, you'll get upset when I call you religious.
>>7230162 >why didn't evolution help any other species on this whole planet since it's so vital to us being dominant We managed to get our foot in the door first. Luck. Random chance. If it wasn't us, it'd be something else.
>>7230188 so because man got there first it stumped the evolutionary processes of all other species on this planet so they couldn't evolve and compete/dominate the way man has? okay whatever. go ahead and keep pretending the evolutionary gaps aren't there.
Do you need to go back to Kindergarten and re-form your foundational capacity to reason?
But even with the completely illogical inference I would still maintain that yes, assuming you're following a traditional cause -> effect relationship and not felating Hume 24/7 I would say that Mesopetamian polytheism is as noble a lie as any religion
Would you rather not sacrifice a goat to Enlil and remain squatting in a hut with your 7 nomad brothers eating raw meat and shivering to sleep 2/3 nights?
>>7230194 >That's the big difference between me and the religious
not really. most religious people won't explain what God is because they can't. and many realize that the more details one goes into, the more wrong you are about it. dude you assume way more than you think you do. I absolutely guarantee it.
>>7230201 >stumped the evolutionary processes of all other species on this planet No, the "evolutionary process" is still going. It's always going. Slight variations between generations is what drives evolution, and it's never stopped, not even in humans.
>so they couldn't evolve and compete/dominate the way man has? Do you realize how long it would take for a genetic lineage to find and occupy a niche that would foster the kind of changes, mutations, and variations that would put them on our level?
>go ahead and keep pretending the evolutionary gaps aren't there. What evolutionary gaps? Specify. Are you saying since we don't have 100% of the fossil record, obvious patterns that we see via comparative anatomy are just coincidences?
>It also asserts that some of the most intelligent individuals throughout the annals of history all affirmed the existence of God and made great leaps forward for the entire human race based on this assumption
>>7230194 >you believe in an invisible, foundational thing that you have never observed but that you can make inferences from based on assumptions you've come to believe because it's been drilled into your head from birth
>>7230214 Anyone who legitimately doesn't believe in macro-evolution is either a Christian or some batshit conspiracy theorist on par with a nuke-truthers. You're wasting your time, and encouraging the dumbass shitposters who need to be quarantined on a /phil/ board
>>7230210 >most religious people won't explain what God is because they can't.
No, but they still assume that the claims from their holy text (strangely, not other holy texts that claim the same thing as theirs) are infallible.
That alone completely disqualifies it as anything I can take intellectually serious. Being able to reason for the most part is being able to be aware of the massive intellectual limitations of humans. One of the products of those massively limited intellects is religion, which by definition would make it highly fallible. Worse yet, the holy texts of religion were written in an era when humans knew only a fraction of what they know now. They had no idea how absolutely ignorant and wrong they were. We fortunately do, so we have absolutely no excuse to pretend we humans know everything
It's related in the way that the pagans have been vastly more influential to civilization, yet you don't relate their achievements to their religious beliefs at all.
Your assertion that religious beliefs automatically lead to innovations is oddly specific and limited to Christianity alone. This ignores about just about every other innovation that has been made over the course of human history, which ironically includes the very basis Christianity is built on. Without Judaism, without Canaanite paganism, with Zoroastrianism, without the religious climates of Assyria, Mesopotamia and Egypt, there would be no Christianity, yet they were somehow primitive retards who lived in huts and rolled around in their own shit? Because that's very thankful of you
>>7230201 >stumped the evolutionary processes of all other species on this planet and compete/dominate the way man has? You have no idea how selective pressures operate. There is no universal competition for such an arbitrary goal as "dominion over the earth." Populations change just enough to survive in their immediate surroundings, and from time to time they make changes that facilitate changing their surroundings. The existence of "lesser" species that can't adapt memetically the way humans can is not evidence that there is something divine about humans any more than the existence of a microbe that can survive inside volcanoes and in outer space is evidence that there is something divine about said microbe.
>>7230249 I'm saying that talking about religion from a non-religious perspective is logically flawed
In the words of based Witty: (1) religion is logically cut off from other aspects of life; (2) religious concepts and discourse are essentially self-referential; and (3) religion cannot be criticized from an external (i.e., non-religious) point of view.
>>7230274 >(1) religion is logically cut off from other aspects of life;
The representation of God is tied with the ideology and mundane customs of a group of people.
"The correlative of an evil God, a natural God, is evil, natural men, men without freedom. The pure concept of God, spiritual God, has as its correlative free spirit. The portrait that man has of God corresponds to that which he has of himself and of his freedom."
> (2) religious concepts and discourse are essentially self-referential;
>3) religion cannot be criticized from an external (i.e., non-religious) point of view.
You want to be that way because you think you are free from ideologies and rituals, which secular modern life is still knee deep in.
>>7230270 I think we have a misunderstanding, I'm not championing Christianity over other religions. Sure, the Abrahamic religions are what are currently the norm but that doesn't discredit other religions. The religious mindset (Christian, pagan or otherwise) is what is important and what has brought us so far.
>>7230279 Dynamic enough to birth all of modern academia
>>7230257 That's the problem with our tools of logic. They do their jobs, they made it easy for the ancients to find pasterns and connect dots, leading to cults od worship around them in lieu of testing their limits and moving ahead. Pythagoreanism and Platonism are mostly to blame, both immensely important but both fought with cognitively meaningless logic and language games that has hindered human development as much as it has helped, though to be fair, due to the corruptive influence of much more ancient and more nonsensical religious practices that the ignorants of the day felt needed to be "validated" by adapting them to their philosophical systems.
>>7230287 >The representation of God is tied with the ideology and mundane customs of a group of people.
You're looking at religion as a social science and not a relationship between Being and the individual
>You want to be that way because you think you are free from ideologies and rituals, which secular modern life is still knee deep in.
Are you implying that ideologies and rituals are non-religious? Because I would argue that they only maintain their power and relevance within the religious mindset and ridiculing them from without is like a child laughing at another language because it sounds funny
>>7230306 >Are you implying that ideologies and rituals are non-religious?
They are born together with the religious picture-thinking, but once the Enlightenment (or modern science) invalidated them, the ensuing modern culture swallows the religious rituals in form of other practices such as sports events, scientific progress or consumerism and so on.
>>7230290 >all of modern academia Have you just not read anything written in the last two hundred years? Secular points of view have gone a long way in dumping off the baggage left over from the long, admittedly productive, age of Christian academics, but those secular viewpoints dominate contemporary thought outside of the circles where people feel compelled to discuss religion like it's still part of the real world.
Even if Wittgenstein had a point, he's not advocating a "dynamic intellectual climate," full of religious people. He's just saying it's not worth the time of serious people to go around bothering people with different faiths.
It's worth noting that Jews have been far more productive than any other religious group when it comes to intellectual pursuits and technological progress. Maybe it's worth considering why so many of them don't believe in God in any real sense.
>>7230331 >My state god can beat your state god, in fact your state god doesn't even exist you heretic
>My home team can beat your home team, in fact your home team isn't even in the finals
Is I think the wrong way to look at it though. Sports and events such as gladiatorial games existed in antiquity; People went to the market to spend their coin or even to barter on stuff to fill up their hearts/homes and many things we think to be modern such as fast food joints are inventions that are older than the bible.
>>7230341 Do you find it in any way ironic that the foundation for modern mathematical/scientific though (the cogito doubt) hinges on the existence of God?
I would also argue that secular literature is reactionary and never would have been established without the intelligentsia of old and their devotion to God and understanding rather than the primal animal urges that reigned for (presumably) tens of thousands of years before hand.
>Maybe it's worth considering why so many of them don't believe in God in any real sense.
Maybe it's worth considering why so many of them do believe in God, as I've found the majority of learned people do. Nonsensical polemic argument that could go on forever.
>>7230342 Solipsism was never a problem. The very existence of language and communication is its own destruction.
And yes, God is a creation of consciousness with a very definite purpose: it allows the mundane activities to stay mundane and guiltless, a supreme objective being that legitimizes such and such behaviors so we can still do them and feel reassured and forgetful. This is very much alive in the idea of modern nanny-states, 'evolutionary psychology' and so on. Hegel is a a good starting point about the subject.
>>7230357 Yeah, you're right. Secularism has flourished as a reaction to the cogito doubt (arguably first put forward by the more religiously fevered Augustine as a sort of a footnote in his Enchiridion) in large part because it provides the ultimate "gap". Galling that gap god and being done with it isn't cognitively meaningful, because the word "god" refers to so many things that aren't even remotely related to what Descartes was thinking of. It's a good rule to first define what you mean when you say the word "god" before arguing your point.
>>7230412 >the existence of language and communication destroy solipsism
But language is just our vain attempt to reference the primordial platonic forms and in the end is nothing but a finite set that can only relate to itself. The existence of language proves nothing but the existence of language.
And if you're conception of God is anything other than the principle of sufficient reason personified than I'm afraid you're projecting your own misconceptions about religion onto the argument and I'll have to refer you to >>7230274
>>7230422 God is the principle of sufficient reason personified. The personification is unfortunate but necessary as we can only ever understand things from a human perspective.
>>7230447 You are referring do some deeper meaning but you forgetting the basics of language: it's not purely subjective (it's not imaginary and internal to the brain). For language to even exist that has to be two consciousness: a talker and a listener or a reader. You might argue that is meaningless or whatever, but the mechanics involved cannot be reduced to a single self.
>>7230447 >The personification is unfortunate but necessary as we can only ever understand things from a human perspective. You can only understand anthropomorphic things? Are you a furry? You know that's a sign of autism, right? I don't know about you, but I can conceive of an impersonal deity.
>>7230472 It's not purely subjective in the sense that there is an overarching organizational unity that we can refer to using language (and in that sense it does have it's utility) but it is subjective in the sense that I can say the word "God" or "Love" or "Happiness" and have 7 billion people all think slightly different to completely unrelated things
>>7230486 You can only understand things from a human perspective as a basis. If you can fool yourself into thinking you are thinking as a plant or an omnipotent creator deity you're either mentally unstable or confusing "thinking as plant" with "human being thinking if itself thinking as plant"
>>7230500 >if you don't think he's like a human you must think he's like some other organism I don't even know what to say to this. You seem to have confused, "human," with, "cavedwelling," with regards to perspective and capacity for abstraction.
>>7230500 You only mentioned vague abstract concepts that can always mean anything. Words like "plane", "horse" or "vagina" are not playthings that can be used to anything like that and have a pretty definite meaning.
>>7230512 Cavedwelling is a secondary/accidental property and holds no authority over what one may define as "human". You seem to mistakenly be assuming that "human" refers exclusively to a certain ideal of "modernity" which would entail a certain degree of superiority over "cave dwellers" when in reality that cave dweller is just as human as you are, capacity to reason notwithstanding.
If you're referring to our ability to conceive of and wrestle with the definition of God then I would say that yes, we can only conceive of how a being called "God" would act from the reference point of being and thinking as a human.
>>7230516 Only within the self-referential set of "English". Even then those words serve purely utilitarian purposes that would take on entirely different meanings if you were not limited to human modes of transportation, human modes of domestication or human sexuality
Language is still subjective in the sense that it is a system made by a perceiving subject in order to refer to a transcendental unity that is ultimately inaccessible to two perceiving minds simultaneously. Two people never mean exactly the same thing when they say any specific (and I separate specific from abstract here because words such as "This" or "that" are referential in nature and thus not definitely defined) term.
Just because two men say "airplane" and both agree that the form in front of them refers to this words doesn't mean that they have objectively the same reaction/imagery when presented with "airplane"
>>7230575 That's not subjectivity you referencing anymore but inter-subjectivity; which, really, is exactly what make things objective. Of course inside their minds they 'mean' the same thing, but in the universal space of language and being it is the same. "Utilitarian purposes" is reality.
>>7230589 Are you implying that just because modern humans have a higher capacity for abstract thought that we are fundamentally different? That we are not animals?
At best we're rational animals and at worst we're just animals with our heads so far up our own asses because we have effectively become apex predators that we can't see we're no better than a housefly (which, on a relational level with existence, we have had just as little impact)
>>7230601 But inter-subjectivity is just another self referential finite set and language is just a tool used to refer to the primordial platonic forms which are just how the transcendental organizational unity presents itself to our perceiving human minds which in turn implies a deep rooted subjectivity found only in human beings. Sure we can say things that are meaningful within this finite set and meaningful to other people with similar perceptions of this organizational unity but ultimately we cannot say anything meaningful about objective reality without first returning to the fundamental subjectivity of our being and the confines of our limited capacity to reason.
>>7230652 I agree with you on the inherent limit of language itself, but you have to see that there is no 'objective' meaning that could exist beyond our consciousness, there is no giver of meaning that could hover above us. Things are in-themselves only because WE go there to see them and classify them, our language is separated from the concrete world only superficially. Seriously, read Hegel.
>>7230652 No. I've repeated this twice now but I'll do it again. I'm saying that we are capable of conceiving of a god that is not a man or other organism in the sky. I do not believe such a deity exists, but I can imagine one quite well because it's WHAT I BELIEVED FERVENTLY FOR YEARS AND YEARS. That has nothing to do with thinking I'm fundamentally different from other humans or animals. It's just a degree of abstraction humans may not have always possessed.
For some reason you seem dead set on the essentialist idea that we have the exact same capacity for abstraction that we had at the arbitrary point in time when we became, "human."
>>7230447 >God is the principle of sufficient reason personified. The personification is unfortunate but necessary as we can only ever understand things from a human perspective.
Not only is the personification not needed, the term god is not needed, even if you are religious. You can replace god with a gap, a void, an unknown, an x and get the same results. This is because the philosophers of old struggled to adapt their various state believes as a response to the philosophy and logical terminology that came before and they were either refuting or evolving, not the other way around. This was not always done for the most pious of reasons; Failure to do so would mean the readership of the day would not take them seriously at best, at worst have them executed. And Descartes was no different.
>>7230680 tbh I'm not 100% on my Hegel, I can't grasp your perspective completely so I may just be talking where I have no right to talk, attempting to fill a void I can't possibly inhabit
Any recommended readings on this topic specifically? Assuming you've been the same anon for a lot of this it's been a good discussion, love bouncing these ideas off of a differing perspective
>>7230690 How can a being conceive of something other than itself from a point of reference that isn't itself? Have you ever been anything but human? Have you ever inhabited a perspective that was not yours? (again, don't confuse "inhabiting another perspective" with "inhabiting a state of mind in which I attempt to inhabit another perspective")
There is no arbitrary point in time when we became human, we've always been what we are and you're the one that seems obsessed with classifying human as this modern conception that can only ever be somebody with the exact same level of abstraction as yourself. Was Plato not human? Will you not be human 2000 years from now when we are able to abstract even further?
>>7230706 We can only inhabit the perspective of void as a reaction to something once inhabiting that void. Atheism could not exist without a millennia old tradition and likewise we can only separate ourselves from the discourse of "God as sufficient reason personified" in relation to that very discourse.
I do like your idea that the personification of "God" was an emergent effect of the propagation (and consequent personification) of the state, an evolutionary reaction to concepts we couldn't reconcile with the then current mode of thought/being.
>>7230770 >Have you ever inhabited God's perspective?
Two answers to this
1) My argument holds, we can only inhabit our own perspective and anybody that claims "to have inhabited God's perspective" is mistaken and is really just projecting their own conception of what an omnipotent, omnipresent creator deity would entail.
2) We are able to inhabit/conceive of God's perspective in which case the knowledge of this perspective could not have come from within our own finite set of existence in which case it must have come from somewhere outside of us. The only being that could have implanted this idea within us is a being in which the perspective must have been contained, therefore God exists and Descartes was right all along.
>>7230851 Alright, now define this "impersonal deity" without relating it to a platonic form
Either it really is transcendental and you need to deal with the fact that your finite mind couldn't have come to this conclusion on its own or it's just an amalgamation of the forms of "Good" or "Being" etc. that you've imposed a unity onto with no logical basis
Thought cannot exist without a basis for that thought. There must be as much reality in the cause as the effect.
>>7230214 >No, the "evolutionary process" is still going. It's always going. Slight variations between generations is what drives evolution, and it's never stopped, not even in humans.
no shit you retarded asshole! that still doesn't answer the current discrepancy between man and all other species!
>>7230271 >You have no idea how selective pressures operate.
no one does you retarded asshole. but man has caused extinctions and put plenty of other species on the endangered list. this is all off topic and it STILL doesn't explain the gap (just look around you in the real world right now!) between man and every other species on the planet. if you discover a chipmunk city with skyscrapers and internet PLEASE let me know.
>>7230879 But to actually answer your challenge, as I didn't do so in my other post, such an impersonal deity has its origin in something we can't comprehend, created the observable universe, is capable of communicating with us and does so through the limited means of our limited minds. This deity may do things that don't make good sense, but as there appears to be nothing with more authority (why it has authority is a whole philosophical question of its own) humans would be wise to do as it suggests.
>>7230898 >You retarded asshole >x2 Christian love in action, everybody. We actually do have a pretty good idea of how they work and I explained it in a fairly concise fashion, but I suspect you didn't read or comprehend what I said.
>if you discover a chipmunk city with skyscrapers and internet PLEASE let me know What pressures would lead to chipmunks becoming capable of these things? They have their own niche that works for them in their current form.
>>7230888 Your ability to conceive of something necessarily means you've encountered something which allows you to conceive of it.
Unicorns aren't real, but you've seen a horse and you've seen a horn and so you make an amalgam of the two concepts and that amalgam is based in reality.
>>7230902 You're defining it in relation to your own limits (going beyond what "you"/"we" comprehend, the observable universe i.e. the part of the universe that "you"/"we" can see, communicates with "us" through "our" limited minds) AKA you're trying to define it in relation to your own finite mind which in turn says nothing meaningful about the true nature of God, just of what the relation between such a deity and yourself would look like. You're trying to spell using colours, something beyond the capacity of the medium you've chosen.
>>7230909 who said Christian? I could just be the devil's advocate here. and you wonder why you get called a retarded asshole.
>What pressures would lead to chipmunks becoming capable of these things? They have their own niche that works for them in their current form.
that's my whole point goddamn! all animals share a similarity in this aspect of how they evolve. man alone is different (again just visit a zoo and observe instead of acting retarded!). your answer is "so far...you never know!" well like I said it doesn't explain the difference in the reality we live today or the reality that has ever existed as far as we've been keeping records. does it prove God? NO. if there were any tangible evidence would be discussing this? NO.
>>7231435 >needing to empathize 100% with something to understand it to a significant degree Does that seem right to you? You can't inhabit the mind of a dog but you know how dogs work.
I hope you don't think I was arguing that this deity I can imagine is real. That's what the guy I was replying to claimed, but he also asserted that one can't conceive of an impersonal deity and so the deity (which must exist because we can imagine it) must be a personal one. I was disagreeing with him on both of those points.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.