I was bitter and wanted to feel superior to others. When I saw Christianity, my eyes sparkled. I can now constantly talk about how special, wise and superior I am while everyone else is an decadent NPC corpse who's going to hell. I get boners every day in public transports thinking about how many of the people around me will be tortured in a lava pit while I get eternal paradise. God I love being saved unlike all these fucking degenerates who don't even have the spirit.

>>16594642
>Believers, what convinced you there is a god?
The impossibility of the contrary.

>And then what made you convinced whichever religion you ended up choosing was the right one?
Because they actually believe in God's commandments and can trace their authority from Jesus to Francis. (Catholic)

>Looking for stories on how you came to faith.
There are only two possibilities: God, truth, and morals exist or they don't exist. The latter option leads to every kind of absurdity and nihilism.

>>16594642
I saw the Gigachad Orthodox chanting on youtube

>>16594680
>The latter option leads to every kind of absurdity and nihilism.
God real cuz I'dd be sad if he wasn't ;(

>>16594685
Didn't say that, but keep coping.

About 3 grams of shrooms. I saw what I saw

>>16594680
Why not Islam? They're pretty serious about God's commandments too.

>>16594709
Because of geography.

>>16594699
So what if no God leads do "nihilism"? Who cares?

>>16594680
Why is no god impossible?

>>16594748
What about it?

>>16594762
Kent Hovind said so.

>>16594680
When you stop believing in gods, morals rulers will still work, your eyes will still work, your hearing will still work, people will enforce moral behavior with carrots and stick regardless of whether you care.
You, I, every Christian and everyone else knows you don’t have proof of your god so you’re attaching it to things we all need almost like a hostage situation where you actually don’t have control over the hostage.
How about you get a gf and grow up.

>>16594762
It entails a contradiction

>what convinced you there is a god
first off, it was relatively simple logic

second, it was a profound religious experience followed over the course of years by more

>>16594848
>first off, it was relatively simple logic
You can say that again

>>16594829
Which is?

>>16594848
>first off, it was relatively simple logic
What logic?
>second, it was a profound religious experience followed over the course of years by more
What was the experience?

>>16594882
The impossibility of the contrary.

>>16594883
I was originally struck by Aquinas' five ways, at the tender age of 12. Doing research on my lonesome, without any outside assistance.

I used these arguments in conjunction (as they are meant to be used, instead of in isolation) to argue convincingly to my peers that God is really real.

In the years that followed, I started formulating my own arguments. Formulations I felt were at least easier to explain than Aquinas' examples.

>the experience
There's a general rule regarding spiritual experiences, that I have found to be reliable, that their content should not be shared outside your personal confessor.

It's not a specifically Christian rule, it's something I've encountered in many different faith groups.

They are always personal, and don't usually make sense to other people because they don't share the same life experiences that inform your own perspective.

File: 1418228156215.jpg (20 KB, 306x306)

20 KB JPG

>>16594884
>God not existing is contradictory because it's contradictory

>>16594895
The universe is made out of force fields that create motion, other things in motion around you are caused by even simpler more down to earth physics of heat moving things around.

>>16594751
you, right now, care a lot about it, by asking this very quesiton.

>>16594642
for me, its just another theory, but reality makes a shit lot of sense when you consider the trascendental/divine to exist.

>b me
>Not u
>Grow Up knowing le method to save myself
>A sekrit religion of my own
>Dew it
>It werks
>Such is life, these people don't know
>And believe in books
Le infiltrate ayy lmao

>>16594642
I AM GOD (so 'twas easy)

>>16594642
I wish I could be religious.

>>16594642
GOD here (again). I chose Antitheism for my religion. Anti-theism is the one true religion. Why, you ask? Because it's fun. Allah the others aren't. I AM

https://groups.google.com/g/anti-theism
https://groups.google.com/g/antitheism

File: image-asset.jpg (79 KB, 614x434)

79 KB JPG

>>16594748
>>16594767
>>16595373
>>16595384
Benny Hinn - he slapped me with His coat and I was saved. Benny Hinn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L2NwAcvV1g

>>16594785
>When you stop believing in gods, morals rulers will still work, your eyes will still work, your hearing will still work, people will enforce moral behavior with carrots and stick regardless of whether you care.

You still need a words to communicate the reality of these things to others. That "word/logic" is YHWH/Jesus. It's what is communicated by all the things that you say still "work" without language.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

What's the first thing God does in genesis? He observes the cosmos, defines it, and judges it.

The "Name" of God is the "semantics" of God. We see all those things that you claim work without language, and we define them, so that we can communicate our first hand experiance without the other person actually experiencing it. This goes beyond just words. The code is not just phonetic sounds. It's DNA, and other codes we are still trying to "decrypt". You really can't exist in your present form without, "The Code".

>>16595918
Kek

>>16594895
When you were 12. Did you ever look into how people may argue against Aquinas?
Things you can say to make those arguments not be persuasive?

>>16595817
top lmao

>>16596427
Uh, do you assume I didn't examine the counterarguments for each at that time? It's those counterarguments that led me into my own formulations. Don't sleep on young people, they can sometimes recognize when the emperor has no clothes.

I was a little edgelord on the internet at the time, and a nominal atheist. And I found that most of the counterarguments were focused on just one part of the five ways.

That's not how it works, the Aquinas' argument is holistic. You need to address the ways these five arguments support one another.

None of the 5 ways taken alone are enough to prove Aquinas' idea about God. That's why they form a mosaic, and should be addressed as such.

My idea of God differs slightly from Aquinas', which is why his arguments inspire me rather than form the core of my own arguments.

>>16594884
>My argument is that me being wrong is impossible
Very profound.

>>16594916
Your idea about "force fields" and "heat" would naturally lend itself to the idea of "friction".

>>16597211
blow it out your ass

>>16597211
>I found that most of the counterarguments were focused on just one part of the five ways
Yeah, no shit. Retard.
You don't "refute" teleology by talking about his contingency argument.

I've seen history and there have been too many coincidences, it's almost like things don't happen randomly and have a determined outcome.

>>16597658
What your best example of such a God affirming coincidence?

>>16595918
>You still need a words to communicate the reality of these things to others. That "word/logic" is YHWH/Jesu
That’s called language and is shared by much of the animal kingdom in some form.

>>16597666
>666
Well that won't be the best example, but it certainly one.

>>16597238
Anon I was explaining to you that the reason why the weather moves is because of the sun heating it. Same thing with essentially all life on earth.

>>16597515
For the record, the people I convinced using these basic arguments were all around the age of 16. I was the quiet type for years.

The topic came up naturally, and was a recurring discussion over months. This was all more than 15 years ago now.

>>16597538
You don't refute "telos".
Instead, you concede.

It was the argument from contigency that I thought at first most compelling, much more so than the "first mover" cosmological argument, but over time I began to realize the the teleological tack was actually best.

These aren't topics you can neatly separate. They are all related, and you need to address the underlying phenomenon they are concerned with.

>>16597674
Dumbass it’s a message board where the posts are numbered. That level of superstitious thinking is why you will never break free from religion.

>>16597666
hello satan

>>16597679
Look, I don't grant that telos is a feature of reality.
Therefore I'm not concerned about addressing any underlying phenomena.

Aquinas being a package-deal. Does he crumble, or do you address my concerns about telos?

>>16594655
obvious bait, but also if you're not crying for those not saved and at least trying to convert them, but instead have gleeful contempt for them, you are failing at the greatest commandment and are among the worst of heretics. I pray that anyone actually like this, of which there are some in the world, repents, confesses of their sins, and believes and shares the gospel of our Lord.

>>16597953
Then you're denying the obvious.

Designed things are real.
Real things are part of reality.
Design is part of a real thing.
Therefore design is part of reality.
Design being part of reality is what makes designed things possible for us to create to begin with.

If design were not part of reality, we would not be able to design things.
We do design things.

Ergo, there must be an ultimate metaphysical source for this design.
In other words, a designer.

Telos defines functions. You know what functions are, right? We use them all the time in math and engineering. For certain purposes. Purpose, reason, design.

>package-deal
You clearly don't understand what "holistic" means. You don't defeat the 5 ways by attacking one argument, you defeat them by attacking the substrate that supports all of them.

Algorithms have natural functions by design.

>>16598463
I deny telos, because I am an atheist.
I don't believe the universe has a purpose, because such a purpose would make no sense if I didn't already believe in a God.
Universe having a purpose? To who?

>You don't defeat the 5 ways by attacking one argument
So, like, if I showed a problem with 1 argument. Are you just not gonna care, or what? lol


Somethings are designed by humans -> OK
Therefore, the universe and everything in it, is designed by a God -> lol
???
What's the inference for believing that?
so retarded

>>16594642
During high school I remember being told by the various media I consumed and the people around me that you can just define life's meaning for yourself, but that didn't quite work for me. It was also a time of great stress for me, my porn addiction grew to an unhealthy level, and I was a rebellious child towards my parents. Then while attending mass with my family - I grew up in a Catholic home - I started to consider the idea of God and His purpose with humanity. My curiosity grew, so I sought out more and more information on the Christian God, and what I found surprised me. The God of the bible wasn't the distant and angry deity that smited humanity for every little sin that tainted his creation, but a merciful one working out his plan to rescue humanity from its own sin, to the point of even becoming human to pay for their sins in their place - an innocent sacrificed in place of the guilty. I found it compelling, and oddly heartwarming. Then I learned that this god did it all out of love for me and all of humanity, and now all He asks for is my trust in what he did for me and to follow his example out of gratitude. In my head I thought that if I believe in this God, 2 things will happen when I die: 1). I meet Him in the afterlife, spending eternity in heaven together with all the other faithful. 2). I die and there's nothing, but at least I'll have lived helping people, so no real loss. So I placed my faith in Christ, and so far life's become easier to handle, my relationship with my parents has improved significantly, and my seemingly unconquerable porn addiction is slowly being beaten - from a nightly affair to around twice a week when I "give up the fight" so to speak. I pray you guys can find peace in this life too like I did.

>>16595918
You are like a tranny but instead of shoving trannyism into every historical character you shove god into anything that you don't understand.

>>16594642
>what convinced you there is a god?
Common sense
>what made you convinced whichever religion you ended up choosing was the right one?
Christianity, because it's true.

>>16598654
>>16598654
you deny the obvious because you identify as a fedora
that is not a position taken from reason
it's a reaction based on an egotistical charade

that's why you don't address the argument
next thread

>because such a purpose would make no sense if I didn't already believe in a God
what is this psychobabble

design is part of reality
deal with it

>>16598318
Indeed the good news are so good they are worth spreading, Jesus died for our sins, he fulfilled the objective we could not complete, if you put your trust in him you are saved, it always put a smile on my face.

File: 61jv6GqKiIL._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (83 KB, 666x1000)

83 KB JPG

>>16596434
Amen, and Amen

>>16598463
>Designed things are real
But real things are not necessarily designed, that's a premise you're sneaking in there to justify the rest of your argument.
>We do design things.
>Ergo, there must be an ultimate metaphysical source for this design
lmfao, every time

>>16594642
John the Baptist and Jesus Christ are my kids. Blessed sperm of Holy Ghost their Father.

>>16599110
>real things are not necessarily designed
So what? Real things are designed, even if not all of them are.

You can't neatly differentiate between real things and reality itself. They form a continuum. Distinguishing between objects is really just a kind of cope anyways, it has more to do with mental categories and human perception than the state of nature in itself.

Which means that the unmistakable existence of design in one aspect of reality necessarily informs the rest of it.

You can't say something isn't designed. It may just be that it has some function or purpose you aren't capable of understanding. Even the lack of design may be by design.

Who are you to just handwave away the fact that designing anything at all is possible to begin with? If design wasn't real to begin with, we couldn't do it. Simple as.

>>16594642
Off-topic but tired of atheists trying to prove god doesn’t exist when it isn’t a matter of science but a matter of believing despite what the science says. It’s about believing and having faith despite all odds.

You can argue that this is why religious ppl are more mentally resilient and don't give up as easy compared to non-religious ppl.

>>16598463
>design exists×20
>Ergo, there must be an ultimate metaphysical source for this design.
no matter how you chop it, doesn't follow, unless you presume what you are supposed to prove

>>16594642
does god exist or not? for fucks sake i cant take this shit anymore i just want to rope without burning in hell for eternity

File: Low quality bai.jpg (2 KB, 125x125)

2 KB JPG

>>16599138
This might be the weakest bait I've ever seen.
>Just believe, bro, even if there's no good reason too since there's zero proof.
Good one.

>>16599138
theism isn't a matter of belief

it's a philosophical position you need to rationally argue for, namely that God is real

just like atheism isn't a "lack of belief in God"
it's the philosophical position that "God is not real"

then there is the question of whether or not it's possible to prove the question of God's reality one way or another

a strong gnostic would say it is possible, whereas a strong agnostic would say that it is not possible

>>16594642
>Believers, what convinced you there is a god?
I saw the Light.
>And then what made you convinced whichever religion you ended up choosing was the right one?
The Light
>Looking for stories on how you came to faith.
See the Light.

>>>/sci/

>>16599135
>design is a property
>design is transcemdental
proof for either of these?

>>16599154
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=Light
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=Long&q1=Light
us atheists don't believe in science, we're non-believers

>>16599159
how can you deny the existence of functions?
of purpose driven behavior and forms?

Yes, function is indeed a property of form. Or maybe you could formulate that other way around. Wouldn't change that much imo.

Can you not concieve of a transcendental design? Or in other words, a necessary one?

Cause that sounds like logic itself to me.

See the function of logic is to generate valid truth values from a set of inputs.

Too easy.
Logic has functions, operations. An end goal even, in truth.

>>16599210
Even 1/0 = Error, so Logic is Shit.

>>>/sci/

File: 3h9k.gif (913 KB, 400x225)

913 KB GIF

Apophaticism and realizing there's no real reason why an immortal 12d meta-conciousness outside of time should make sense to me. That it makes more sense that it doesn't.

>>16599221
>0

lol
lmao even

>>16599221
square root of -1 equals error too

>>16599225
you cucks are imaginaries

File: Untitled.png (799 KB, 1998x461)

799 KB PNG

itt retards with brains too small to into complex numbers

https://youtu.be/cUzklzVXJwo?si=7vAtZbqbwfIfQdjr

>>16599268
I was cucked with imaginaries but imaginary logic is imaginary which is shit to us atheists.

Your logic is shit exposed by its errors. Tangent of ninety degrees anyone?

>>16598318
Oh I'm crying, trust me. I'm fucking sad I don't get to stroke my divine angel cock to their screams of pain right now. Every once in a while, I walk up to them and remind them of how superior I am to them because they don't have the spirit. If they refuse to convert, that's on them.

>>16599196
>he thinks numbers are real
lol
>purpose
what would that be? what does "purpose" mean? there exists a perfectly serviceable model as to why behaviour and morphology is the way it is among all living things
>can you concieve of
you are the one who intends to prove the existence of a distinct "design", not me

>>16594642
I saw the Skydaddy in the sky. I was convinced by Clouds in the sky.

Skydaddy Religion is the One True Religion (see your pic).

>>16598923
>design is part of reality
I agree.
But I obviously don't believe reality is designed, else I would be a theist.

File: CCRU Writings 1997-2003.jpg (360 KB, 735x911)

360 KB JPG

>>16594642
>what convinced you there is a god?
Cybernetics, embedding and bitcoin's existence.

File: CCRU Writings 1997-2003 (2).jpg (628 KB, 1775x879)

628 KB JPG

>>16594642
>what made you convinced whichever religion you ended up choosing was the right one?
Y2K, and its connection to the K/T event.

>>16598463
If we can identify something as possessing the quality of design then it follows we must also be able to identify the absence of design, aka accidents. Since an accident by definition cannot be designed, it follows that accident is prior to design in the universe, with design and the minds that perform design being phenomenon that themselves ultimately came about by accident, therefore this universe cannot have been designed before it came into existence

>>16599454
>follows that accident is prior to design in the universe

No, it doesn't.
All you've done is negated "design".
Negation is a logical operation, you can't start with a negation. You have to begin with the thing you are negating.

Design doesn't happen by accident.

>>16599329
>what does "purpose" mean
I accept your concession.

>why behaviour and morphology is the way it is among all living things

You just said there is a reason *why* these things are. But that's invoking teleology.

Come back when you learn to argue.

>>16598463
>Designed things are real.
>Telos defines functions
Yer eyes are for seeing. Hence, they are so shit, compared to octopus's.
Panda's paws are universally shit. Clearly, they are just defying their Intelligent Designer. All pandas are Evil.

>Design is part of a real thing.
A mirage is an integral part of a desert, yes-yes.

>Real things are part of reality.
Holes are real. Definitely not absences of real things, surrounding them, no-no.

>If design were not part of reality, we would not be able to design things.
If films were not part of reality, we would not be able to see films. Hence, it is not flicker-fusion threshold, not an exaptated error of perception, it's a legit access to the Divine Realm! God wants you to watch "Troll 2" (1990).

numbers aren't real

only things I can put in my mouth are real because I am a little baby

abloobloo

>>16599511
>numbers aren't real
numbers "are" in your brain.
numbers are a mistake of perceiving "similar" as "identical",
A mistake, your brain exaptated, in order to analyse the fractal nature of the universe.

numbers are heuristics. Suboptimal brain crutches. Cheap, quick and dirty.

>>16599524
hilarious
numbers aren't real, but fractals are the nature of reality
dude "your brain" is a mistake, a cheap heuristic

protip, ideas are real
you know, I didn't even bring up numbers
you did, after I mentioned functions

well you don't even need numbers to express a function, functionally, for reasons

>>16599554
>numbers aren't real, but fractals are the nature of reality
Something outside you perceive as "fractals" via your brain toolkit's thingamabob you perceive as "numbers". Suddenly, it turns out that math is not even a homogenous phenomenon.

>hilarious
Yes, it is hilarious, that you just accidentally stumbled upon the key concept, you retard had neglected: the neglect itself.

>protip, ideas are real
Risk vs uncertainty, capiche?

>"your brain" is a mistake, a cheap heuristic
As is yours, retard. Brain is modular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

But the retard keeps squacking something about "ideas" that he can clearly know and perceive, yes-yes.

>>16599589
Truth is real too.

It's a lot more real than your "brain" is.

>you perceive as "numbers"
You don't perceive numbers. They are rational.

You conceive them. They impregnate your mind with their frequencies.

>>16598923
>>16598463
>>16599196
Do you think there may be something weird with your "argument", when it hinges on accepting a bunch of premises that entails a God?
No atheist would grant these premises, else they would already be a theist.

>>16599607
>truth is real
Truth is a human concept to describe the concrete, factual and real aspect of reality. It's a description not a thing in-itself

>>16599607
>Truth is real too.
translation: "non-detection of errors is real"

Doesn't mean that there were no errors.
Doesn't mean that errors cannot be helpful.

>Truth
And suddenly it turns out that retard neglected Sextus Empiricus.
"Truth" (an object) and "being true" are 2 different things.
You do not need some magical ectoplasmic thingamabob "Truth" for thing to be true.

>You don't perceive numbers.
Correct. Numbers are an ERROR of perception. Mistaking "similar" for "identical", while having the luxury of not-dying via environmental culling.

>>16599613
Atheism isn't logical.
It's just like a religion.

>>16599614
>concrete, factual and real aspect of reality

real aspect of reality? Hehe.
It sounds like you're admitting that truth is objectively real. Which is completely obvious to anyone.

Don't even get me started on truth functions.

>human concept
Nah, it's universal. Sorry.

>>16599644
dude you don't need this so called "truth" for things to be true

what the fuck do you mean "is that true though"

>>16599656
>what the fuck do you mean "is that true though"

1. It is true, that there's no such thing as truth.
2. Operation completed successfully, no external object X found.

Suddenly, it turns out, that "truth" is not a homogeneous phenomenon either.

>>16599661
>It is true, that there's no such thing as truth.
You just contradicted yourself.
Like, this is literally A=/=A tier.

Protip, putting numbers next to a sentence doesn't make it a valid logical formulation.

Mindbroken by the reality of truth.
Sad, very sad. Many such cases.

>>16599684
>Like, this is literally A=/=A tier.
God =/= God
"Aristotle's Unmoved Mover" =/= "Semitic Desert Demon"

>You just contradicted yourself.
You have 2-digit IQ, congrats.

A is not A.
AND
A is A.

ERGO
If you don't respond to this post your mother will die in her sleep tonight.

Why does it seem like all arguments in favor of God are either arguments from incredulity or just asserting that someone is eiher necessary or impossible when it isn't actually necessary or impossible?
For example the following are common statements that theists say which are simply not true or not logically necessary but they just assert them as if they are:
>"God not existing implies a contradiction"
No it doesn't
>"structure or "design" can't come from randomness"
Yes it can
>"something can't come from nothing"
Yes it can.
Etc

Why is it so easy to get fedoras to argue that truth isn't real?

It's like they have no self awareness at all.

>>16599724
Truth being real does not require nor imply personal god. This is again what I'm talking about in the previous post. Reality exists and there are statements about reality which are true or not true. This not logically necessitate nor logically imply that a conscious personal God exists.

>>16599731
So not everything that is real is material. Got it. There is in fact, objective truth.
Now, what is it that gives truth it's objectivity?

>>16599661
Truth is a grandiose abstraction because it’s not coextensive to its opposite. Same with the materialists’ “reality”.

>>16599760
>So not everything that is real is material
That may or may not be true, but it's not what I said.
Non material things being real also do not necessitate a personal God being real. There can be eternal platonic laws of nature, that does not require a personal God and there still is no logical necessity for one.

>>16599778
If there are laws, doesn't that suggest they have some sort of function?

Don't laws have an author, an authority behind them?

If reality is governed by a set of laws, as is commonly suggested, then it would follow that the governor who laid down these laws is in a sense even more real than reality. Hyper real even, something that can create reality as we know it.

>>16599731
>reality exists
Where? In some bullshit Platonic realm along with goodness, beauty and perfectionment? Have you seen it? Does it fit in a breadbox?

>>16599804
Again, exactly what I just said you theists always do.
No, structure or function do not logically require nor necessitate a personal god. You simply going "something had to have created those laws!" Isn't true. There is no necessity of a personal god.

>>16599724
True is a logical value. That adjective is all I need. Abstracting it doesn’t edify anything.

>>16599823
But function is an emanation of design.

And a design explicitly necessitates a designer. If these laws you speak of apply to the entire cosmos, suddenly a cosmic designer is invoked.

You're just saying, "nuh uh it doesn't have to be that way for reasons". You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

>>16599854
>But function is an emanation of design.
No it isn't. It just means there's a structure. Structures dont require designers. Designers create structured things but structured things don't require personal designers to exist.
>You're just saying, "nuh uh it doesn't have to be that way for reasons". You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
Because it's true. You just screaming "DESIGNS REQUIRE DESIGNERS" or "LAWS NEED LAWMAKERS" is just you making a false implication.

>>16599393
>I obviously don't believe reality is designed
You don't believe that reality is designed? How do you explain a car? Do you say it's not real, or do you say it's not designed?

>>16599502
>stop being vague, what do you even mean by purpose?
>CONSNEED TROLOLOLOL
grow up
>why
survivorship bias squared leads to a false sense of intentional design due to efficiency
>teleology
not really tho, it's about origin, as you have yet to prove that a goal exists

>>16599861
Structure and function are not equivalent.
Besides, you're missing the point.

The fact that design exists at all as a part of reality means there must be a source for this design.

Well when talking about "design" we implicitly attribute agency to some entity, by definition.

This agent is the source of design in reality, the designer.

>>16597666
am atheist but i kek'd.

>>16599889
Things about the Designer we can’t assume
>wants worship
>prescribes a moral code (rather than designing us able to work that out for ourselves)
>that we can know its mind
>created an evil guy

>>16594709
>Why not Islam? They're pretty serious about God's commandments
80% of islam amounts to contradicting the Quran, so no.

>>16599889
>Structure and function are not equivalent.
When you say function, you're talking about its function inside a structure. There's no other definition of function that's relevant in this conversation.
>when we talk about design we implicitly attribute agency
No, we don't. You simply claiming that this is logically necessary doesn't mean anything.
Again, you simply claiming that structures require designers isn't true and doesn't mean anything. Designers create structures. Structures don't require designers to exist

>>16599647
Would an atheist grant that telos (construed in such a way that god trivially follows from granting it) exist?

>>16599930
No.
Designer is like me, but bigger and stronger, and lives in the sky and is my daddy.

>>16599813
I didn't see this before sorry.
Reality exists and were sitting in it now.

'Truth' is a word humans made-up
How is this at all mysterious?

>>16600004
All words are words humans made up.

People who think there are successful arguments for God are always such huge fucking retards

Like, how do you make sense of there being atheists? You think they've just not heard the argument?
Or do you suppose some sort of conspiracy where they they are just lying about not being persuaded?
Maybe God just determined for Atheists to be too stupid to understand Thomism

>>16600009
Not the Bible

>>16600000
Checked quintulpes
Does zero exist?

File: hi29fdsdwtvc1.png (471 KB, 614x680)

471 KB PNG

>>16594642
I used to be a big time atheist growing up. It eventually led me to nihilism. My thought process was that the universe just is. There likely instead a reason for it, it just exists.

The older I got though, the more I began to feel like there might be more to our world. The universes existence is pretty incredible in and of itself. There was nothing, then nothing became something seemingly by itself. The fact that we're here to actually witness it is even crazier. The universe is incredibly hostile to life and all the things that had to happen for us to be able to exist is so mathematically improbable that by all accounts we shouldn't be here. So many things could have gone wrong, but here we are.

I'm 30 now, my parents are old and I've been dealing with derealization that's been causing existential questions. Ill be honest and say that life for me would be far easier if i truly believed that there was a god so maybe its all cope. But it feels like you can flip a coin on the purpose of the world.

I guess what is more interesting is to deny correspondence theory of truth
There being like magic links between a proposition, "there is coffee in my cup" (made up words) and my coffee cup, it's nonsense.

I'm just a human trained in the use of English language
No metaphysically connection exist between my words and my cup. No fact-checker going like: That's a TRUE™ proposition
Just words.

>>16600017
The bible is a work of fiction like all other religious texts
This has nothing to do with language being a construction of humans.

>>16600030
No Christian would grant that words are made-up by humans.

>>16600032
>Christians claim that languages aren't created by humans
Extremely sad group of people. The level of bullshit they tie themselves up with to desperately cling to their denial of death

>>16600042
Have you skipped the Tower of Babel part???

>>16597515
>your ass
His anus is one with my anus,
and thus,
Behold.

ουρανός.

>>16598661
>slowly being beaten
I see what you did there. You almost had me.

>>16599138
>believing despite what the science says

This is not true. I'm not sure if you or trolling, or just confused.

The word for scientific "Theory" is rooted in the exact same word as the greek word for God: "Theo". They share an etymology. To think that scientific theory can exist without God requires the logical fallacy of changing semantics.

JOHN 15
I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

>>16600386
>I speak out of my ass
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory

>>16600386
You're such a fucking retard, holy shit

>>16600413
>>16600434
You just provided a link that backs up what I said, and then you got all mad about it.

>>16600460
Damn boy, get yourself a pair of glasses

>>16600460
>To think that scientific theory can exist without God requires the logical fallacy of changing semantics.
*Actualizes a potential fart*

>>16600413
>>16600434
>>16600466
>>16600563
I don't know if this is multiple demons, or one, but all I did was explain the source of "Theory" is, and this spirit got all riled up and started farting and convulsing, and foaming at the mouth with insults. Why does it rile you up to be reminded that "Theory" is based on "Theo"? Maybe if you didn't worship the LORDs definition in vain, you would have known what the source of Theory is.

>>16599945
>When you say function, you're talking about its function

Nope.

>>16599991
>Would fedora grant the truth is real of you proved it?

No, they wouldn't. Just look at this thread.

>>16600004
The truth is make believe.
Because words exist.

Fedora logic does not real.

>>16600016
How can your something be true if there are people who say it isn't?

That's not how truth works. Truth is whatever everyone agrees on, obviously.

If not everyone agrees, it is not true.
Checkmate, theists.

>>16600679
>Nope
What do you mean "nope" you idiot? That's exactly what a function is.
Give your definition of function that isn't equivalent to "its process within a system or structure". That's what a function/algorithm is, in contrast with a data structure.

>>16600029
It's hilarious to think you can reduce the existence of truth to an arbitrary string of letters.

There's more to logic than words, dingus.

This thread is proof that a fedora will never argue in good faith.

Because they do not accept that truth is objectively real and can be shared by two different parties, this precludes them from treating the subject with any respect or attempt at coherence.

If you don't accept that truth is real, you can't be convinced of literally anything and the entire discussion has no point. What a joke.

>>16600386
This is my favorite type of apologetics. Literally just claiming that empirical evidence can't exist without presupposing the existence of God. >>16600595
Because you're an idiot. The etymology of a word doesn't have anything to do with it having some sort of metaphysical implication towards the existence or non existence of God.
Scientific theories do not require the existence or non existence of God you moron.

>>16600709
Except I did say truth statements are real and very clearly showed why this does not require there being a personal God. You're the one arguing in bad faith here.

>>16600691
Functions aren't necessarily related to structures.

What is the function of a function? Do you realize your formatting makes very little sense?

Call me an idiot again, it makes you look smart.

>function/algorithm is, in contrast with a data structure

Oh I see your problem. You think you can reduce a word like function to a single particular instance (math), because it's easier than contenting with the myriad expressions of function.

"Data structure." Haha, very cute. Tell me more about these information buildings.

>>16600712
>Scientific theories do not require the existence or non existence of God
That depends on your definition of God. I have a feeling that you don't have the correct definition of God, which is why you are so angry when someone tells you that God is the source of Theory.

>>16600729
Functions are algorithms on data structures. Functions are verbs and data structures are nouns.
You didn't answer the question. Give a definition of function, especially one pertinent to the earlier conversation, which isn't equivalent to the one I'm using.

>>16600718
Is truth objectively real or not?

Independent of any so-called "statement".

Because if it isn't the entire conversation is a complete waste of time and we will never be able to agree on anything at all.

The ONLY reason you are quibbling and trying to sidestep this by qqing about muh "words" is because you grasp the implications implied by truth being real.

>>16600737
Nope, the definition I'm using is the one that matter with respect to theism: A personal conscious diety which created reality and governs it. That's the definition which matters for theism.
If you want to claim an impersonal force like a infinite field of energy, or logic, or whatever is the God that's fine, but it isn't theism. A world where that's true has no different implications towards the human condition or how to structure our lives as just a standard atheist position.
We are arguing about the existence of a personal creator diety. Not pantheism or "God is an eternal vector field bro!" or whatever.

>>16600741
>Give a definition of function

Do the thing you already did though.

>>16600595
>"Theory" is based on "Theo"
Why should anyone listen to what you have to say if someone already refuted you and you can't even tell because you can't read?
The roots for "theory" are θέα (théa, “view”) + ὁράω (horáō, “I see, look”)

>>16600759
No you haven't done this. You just said "function is an emanation of design" or something which isn't a definition. Otherwise, you've been using function in the exact same way I have, while just pretending that this logically requires a personal god which it doesn't

>>16600744
>we will never be able to agree on anything at all.
This seems to perfectly describe what we see happening in reality all the time, btw

>>16600766
Your so lost. Do I really need to explain this to you? θεωρέω is clearly a reference to the opposing forces of good and evil, leading us to the land of milk and honey.

>>16600767
Statements are true, or they are false.

They don't create truth and falsehood out of thin air when formulated, true and false are preexisting universal categories that novel statements naturally sort themselves into based on their content.

Because truth exists independently of our own ideas and subjective bias.

Unless of course the statement is constructed so as to have no truth value.

If this were not true, then there would be no actual agreement possible between two different people. Which is how fedoras act, because they don't believe in a universal truth that doesn't correspond to their own beliefs.

>nuh uh
One of the functions of a hand is to grasp.

One of the functions of logic is to determine what is true.

File: nananana.gif (898 KB, 498x295)

898 KB GIF

>>16600737
No, actually it's you who have the incorrect definition

nana nana na-na!

>>16600781
A is A.

The law of identity holds regardless of what you believe, everywhere, and it always has held since the beginning of time. This is not complicated.

Admit truth is real or leave the thread. There is no point in trying to convince someone that something is true if they pretend truth isn't objectively real.

>>16600788
Who cares about the origin of a word?
What does this have to do with people's ability to engage in an activity called 'science' ?
You're such a fucking tard

> the logical fallacy of changing semantics.
lmfao

>>16600798
Look into what people who disagree with you could say about this. Nominalism is a well-founded philosophic tradition with tons of literature behind it.
I'm an anti-realist about this stuff. I'm not gonna go like, yup it's REAL (whatever that's supposed to mean), just because you're grandstanding.

>>16600744
No, truth exists with respect to a statement and there are statements which don't have a truth value.
>>16600789
There are statements which are true that are universal. They are true independently of our biases. This does not require or imply a personal creator diety.

>>16597211
>I was a little edgelord on the internet at the time, and a nominal atheist.
avowal of prior scepticism
setting of some warning bells

>>16600815
If it weren't real, I wouldn't be able to express it.

But it is real, so I can. You can express true things and false things, because they are categories that apply to reality.

>anti-realist
Ideas are real. They have a tangible effect on the world. Denying this is pure cope, sophistry. You would only do this if *for some reason* the implications derived were personally uncomfortable for you.

>>16600834
Ideas do not exist outside of your conception of them in your head. They are mental constructs.
They do not exist in some esotec platonic magic place floating around with forms & numbers

>>16600802
>Who cares
You wouldn't say that if you understood how rewarding the center of θεωρέω truly is.

>>16600819
>truth exists with respect to a statement
No, statements exist with respect to truth.

Can you give me an example of a statement without a truth value? Because I can, if we use a binary logic system. But if we move up to trinary these statements actually do have truth value.

>This does not require or imply a personal creator diety.
The more often you have to repeat this, the more it sounds like cope. It's like you're trying to reassure yourself.

If truth being real does not require God, the onus is on you to explain how it is objective and exists in the first place.

>>16600842
>Ideas do not exist outside of your conception of them in your head
"your head" is an idea

Ideas as a matter of fact do exist independently of your mind. That's how two different people working independently can come to the same conclusion.

They aren't produced by the brain, each one being totally unique. They are discovered.

>>16600834
>If it weren't real, I wouldn't be able to express it.
lol, what's the argument for this? Why should we accept that? Cuz you say so????
Would a nominalist agree with that? Of course not, then they wouldn't be nominalists.

Stay silly!

>>16600845
Alright, tell me. Make me care.

>>16600875
>Ideas as a matter of fact do exist independently of your mind
lol, no
Obviously I disagree. Being a nominalist and all.
Can you think of another explanation how people independently could come to the same conclusion?

Could it have something to do with them both being human, maybe even trained in the use of the same language. Inhabiting reality together, and encountering similar sorts of problems?

>>16600877
Would someone who is wrong agree with the truth?
If they did, they wouldn't be wrong.

I am smug.

>>16600834
>But it is real
nice argument, bro

>>16600895
You've not provided any reason for me to think it's true

>>16600893
>Can you think of another explanation how people independently could come to the same conclusion

Yeah. Truth is objective, which means two different people can arrive there on their own. Objectivity allows you to reconcile two different subjects, this is basic shit. Logic is like a compass, truth is like magnetism.

A compass doesn't create magnetism, instead it allows two different people on different points to reach the same polar destination by going north.

Because compasses point north, objectively. That's their function, and they do it regardless of your subjective position. In the same way, logic points to truth.

It doesn't manufacture it, like how you're suggesting.

>Could it have something to do with them both being human, maybe even trained in the use of the same language. Inhabiting reality together, and encountering similar sorts of problems?

So because their lives are subjectively similar they just coincidentally happen to randomly think the same thing. There's no connection there, no truth that informs their though process.

Just blind luck.

There is a god because if there wasn't, humans would eventually find something that's suitable for the description of god.

Religion is fake af. Scripture is human fantasy, not the word of god. God doesn't love humans the way humans know, a loving god is cope from gay priests without fathers.
Full of shits like
>>16594655

>>16600902
The entire question is: is truth real?

And you are saying you have no reason to think that's true.

The lack of perspective on display ITT is embarrassing.

>>16600917
Is abscence real? Is blue real? Is stupidity real? Is Nothing real? Are unicorns real? Is Russell's teapot real?
Realists like you should say yes to all of those things, right? They're ideas from the realm of forms afterall, right?

>>16600911
You've clearly not even begun to look into people who disagree with you.
I don't want to talk to you about this, if you are going to be so difficult. Sort yourself out.

>>16600911
>they just coincidentally happen to randomly think the same thing
Is this what nominalists think happens? No.

Then why are you presenting it as if it was their/my position?
WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL? Yourself? There's no audience to win over here

>>16600936
Nothing is in fact, real. Yes.
Just like something is, and everything is.
Nothing is discrete, and part of reality.

Emptiness and form are intrinsically connected.

Russels teapot is a real idea, regardless of any orbital porcelain. Because ideas are completely real in themselves.

>>16600972
Not my fault youre not presenting your position in a coherent way. Maybe the position itself is incoherent, and it's not your fault either.

So if it's not a coincidence that two people can arrive at the same conclusion, because truth is objectively real and exists independently of our individual efforts.

>>16600983
Again, who are you trying to fool? Do you think I'm that insecure about my beliefs
Is the claim now that nominalism is incoherent..

>>16600985
A nominalist in your vein would say that a universal force like electromagnetism doesn't actually exist, just the label of "electromagnetism" we use to describe phenomenon.

But that's stupid because magnets work.
The truth is actually more real than magnetism.

Magnetism changes in strength and polarity depending on your position. Which means sometimes a compass can mislead you. Even though you can use magnetism as a measure that is *more* objective than your own, it isn't *completely* objective in the same way an ideal is.

Truth isn't like that. It's absolute, doesn't change or shift depending on time or place. That's why the compass is an imperfect analogy for logic.

Logic is actually more reliable than the compass. Far more.

>>16594642
God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary

>>16601015
>truth is actually more real than magnetism
very coherent sentence, bro

>>16601041
Truth isn't real, man.

*hits crackpipe*

They just made it all up.

>>16601015
>Truth isn't like that. It's absolute, doesn't change or shift depending on time or place
Truth is a word. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to tell me what you think is a proper or improper use case, you can do that.

But I pretty much agree with this one, that's also how I use the word.

>>16601053
>Truth is a word. Nothing more
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"Dude magnetism is just a word, brooo. Magnets don't actually point true north, see?"

You will note there is a significant difference between TRUE north and magnetic north.

>>16601050
How does it make sense for magnets to be less real than truth? Either it's real or it's not.
It's not like magnets are "almost real".
I view real and unreal as a true dichotomy. I think you would agree.

You also think some true statements are more true than others? Of course you don't.

>>16601062
Which is why am anti-realist about truth, but not magnets.
How is this at all mysterious to you?

>>16601063
>How does it make sense for magnets to be less real than truth?

All I said was that magnetic fields are in constant flux and switch polarities all the time. Truth doesn't act like that, which means it's more objective relative to magnetism.

Magnetism is real. Truth is real. These are not controversial statements to anyone who isn't a fedora tipping neckbeard.

>>16601067
That's a ridiculous double standard and you know it.

There's no reason at all to abandon nominalism when it comes to magnetism, and only argue it applies to truth because God being real hurts your feefees.

That's the textbook definition of special pleading. Either "magnetism" and "truth" are both just words with no connection to reality, or they are both real and we just use words to talk about them.

Can't have it both ways.

>>16601090
>Magnetism is real. Truth is real.
Truth is more real, though :^)

>>16601109
Yeah, it is.

People have been talking about it, treating it as being completely self evident, for millenia before magnetism was ever discovered.

The entire reason you accept magnetism as being real is because it's true. Truth defines reality as you know it.

>>16597666
>>16597674
toplel

>>16601022
>God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary
Thread ended here and atheists have no argument

>>16601090
>That's a ridiculous double standard and you know it.
No, I do not know that.
Again, who are you trying too fool? You're talking to me.

Nominalism is the philosophical view that abstract concepts, general terms, or universals have no independent existence but exist only as words.
Magnets exist in the same mundane way my cup does.
There's no double standard.

>>16601133
>Again, who are you trying too fool?
There you go again, repeating yourself.

The same thing I said about it before applies. In fact, it leads me to believe that YOU are the one trying to fool people.

Magnetism is an abstract concept we use to describe sensory phenomenon. "Cup" is an abstract concept too.
Objects are abstract concepts that exist only in your mind.

Reality is more contiguious than that, what you experience is a result of your sensory faculties breaking down raw data inputs into packets that you're able to process.

We associate certain packets with words like "cup" and "magnet".

Logic in contrast doesn't rely on sensory perception.
That's why you can be sure that the truth is real, even if the cup you percieve could hypothetically be illusory.

You have this shit completely backwards. The things that you can actually have certainty of you deny, and the things you can't really be certain of you pretend really are certain.

>>16601158
>"Cup" is an abstract concept too.
Do I agree with that? Of course not. My position entails the denial of abstract concepts.

Can you guess what I would say "cup" is?

>>16601161
It doesn't matter what you agree with.
All that matters is the truth.

What you call a "cup" and the thing in itself are two different animals. The first is a mental category you have created to make sense of your sensory input. It is not perfect.

That kind of mental category is by definition abstracted.

In contrast, truth is something you don't need your sensory faculties to discover.
It is instead discoverable through reason.

Which is why it's actually less abstracted than "cup" is.

Reason is more perfect than your senses, it has direct access to truth whereas your senses only have access to the broader world in a way that is mediated by the flawed processes necessarily involved with parsing the raw sensory input.

You lose a great deal of information between the steps involved with generating a perceptual field from the output of your sensory organs.

>>16600845
holy gyppo shit

fedora optics
>we are rational, logical indiduals who say it is true that God is not real
>unlike those irrational spacecake believers

fedoras in practice

>THE TRUTH IS A LIE
>LOGIC DOESNT REAL

>>16601182
Alright, you couldn't guess. My view is that "cup", is a word.
This is so silly, acting like nominalism is an untenable position to hold.

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/552-2405/digs/12294-dd-london-workhouse
smeone made a post about me
t vesta

>>16601204
Read Wittgenstein

>>16601208
so "cups" aren't real
just like "truth" isn't real

if nominalism means magnetism and cups aren't real, I don't see why you think it's somehow tenable

Are you trying to argue that only words are truly real? That reality itself only exists as a manifestation of Logos? Now that would be a hot take, and at least it would be coherent.

>>16601204
But seriously, who are you trying to fool?

>>16601211
not an argument

like, just read Lao Tzu bro
open Evola, my guy
ride the tiger

>>16601222
If you are this clueless about what people who have other views than you believe, there's really no point talking
too much work. I can't be assed.

I think you're just dishonest, though, and putting on a show

>>16601232
more projection

>truth is just a word man, nothing more
>cup is just a word man, nothing more

if cup is just a word, you're going to have a hard time explaining how you can drink out of a word
words don't really carry much water on their own

Aquinas arguments don't work unless I'm a Platonic realist?

>>16601264
Aquinas was an Aristotelian.

Aristotle was BIG on Telos. Read Nicomachean Ethics, good place to start as any. IIRC his Politics touch on the subject too.

>>16601260
Words translate to concepts you dingus. They are simple tags we put on things to better differentiate and define them.
A cup is how we decribed any small-sized object with a hollow interior and an upside opening for us to pour liquid and drink from. We came up with cups to answer for the problematic of holding a liquid and consume it in the same recipient.

>>16601638
cool non-sequitur

cups are clearly real, despite the abstract object we call "cups" being a mental category

in the same way, truth is clearly real
more so even, because it's immediately available to us in a way that mere objects of perception aren't because of our ability to engage in pure reason

you can't say "truth is just a word, nothing more"
"cup" is just a word, truth transcends language in it's immediate self evidence

the truth is more real than any "cup" you've ever seen or touched, because those very sensory functions are fundamentally flawed and do not represent the thing in itself but rather an image of it

meanwhile, truth is just chilling over here just being realized fully in the mind as part of it's nature without any need for the sense organs to function whatsoever

>>16594642
Believe it or not, but there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that specifically calls the Jews or the tribe of Judah God’s chosen people. This misconception comes from the fact that the Jews of today have declared themselves to be Israel and not the house of Judah, as the Scriptures rightfully call them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT_RUdBTlp4

>>16595918
so this...this is the power of christcuck apologetics

I felt really bad and had a mental breakdown and after that I came to belief in god which gave me a deep serenity since then.

>>16594642
I'm a piece of shit and trying to stick to a Christian life seems to improve my condition.
Was born into a Catholic family, baptised, always went to Catholic schools (we'd go to mass every first friday of the month). We even had catechism classes, though they weren't counting on the internet influencing kids that much. Teenage rebellious phase, the usual. Socially, you shouldn't go critisising or doubting the religion, but being a sperg I never commited fully to it. Mellowed out and started viewing religion as part of man's adaptations to his environment, actually listening and trying to decyoher the meaning of the Sunday readings. If it's real even if in that sense, it's real.
If I wasn't born into a Catholic society, or even a Christian one, I wouldn't really know what would happen. Only hope that I'd bump into them at some point. That's how the faith got here in the first place.
>>16594685
Actually yeah, haha. He wants us all to be frens.

>>16600386
>crossword puzzle shitposting
consneed

>>16595918
Even if somehow you want a robust ontology for moral claims there are other options, like Platonism. And no, the forms are not Yahweh.

>>16601668
Truth is just how we describe reality beyond our flawed perception of it. You name it "Truth" with a big T like it's some mystic nonsense but it's just concrete reality.

>>16602802
truth isn't human centric, it exists independently of our evaluation

people have this weird subjectivity bias when it comes to these topics, makes it hard to think in terms of universality

it's not just our way of describing things, it's true whether or not we describe it that way

>>16602852
>universality
Ah yes "universals' you're a platonistic realist alright, working with vagueness.
Nominalism needs no such vagueness, we are of the concrete.

>>16602898
true things are true no matter where you are in the universe

that's why they're universally true

>>16601668
>cups are clearly real, despite the abstract object we call "cups" being a mental category
Yes. The thing in your hand, the cup, is real. Despite "cup" merely being a made-up word used by humans trained in the use of English language
No spooky metaphysics necessary. No abstract 'form of the cup' floating around in aetherspace, or the mind of god, or whatever you think is going on

>>16602926
Yes. That seems to be an appropriate use of the word 'true'.

>>16594680
Lmaaaao just go ahead show us how low iq you are

>>16599932
And so does the bible

>>16600857
>No, statements exist with respect to truth
Nope. The other way around.
>The more often you have to repeat this, the more it sounds like cope. It's like you're trying to reassure yourself.
Again, projection. You're trying to claim that a personal creator diety is required for logic to exist. It isn't and there is no argument you have or could make that shows such a thing is necessary.
Truth being real does not require a personal creator diety. Natural forces or laws do not require a personal creator diety. You have, this entire thread, done exactly what I said in my first post: you've simply asserted things as being true or said that some things necessarily imply other things when they don't.
>>16601022
You already said this and it wasn't true the first time.
>>16601132
Gods non-existence isn't an impossibility. Try again.

>>16603734
Statements are either true or false.
Truth is not determined by a statement.

That's why you have it backwards. Truth is not a product, it doesn't exist "with respect" to whatever arbitrary thing you say.

Simply saying something doesn't make it true.

>>16604368
There is no need to assert the existence of a personal creator diety as a cause or necessary a priori for any law of nature or law of logic. God as you are arguing for does not exist. There is no omniscient conscious personal diety that created reality. The reality itself is the "god" and it isn't a conscious personal diety but rather just the unconscious eternal laws of nature.

>>16604383
Consciousness is real too.
Why wouldn't reality be conscious?

You're real, and you are presumably conscious. Since this part of reality is conscious, why would you assume the rest of it couldn't be?

>>16603109
you clearly aren't getting the picture here
this is what happens when you rely on strawmen

I'm not talking about "forms" like Plato does.

The thing you call a cup is really just a phantasm of your sensory nervous system. It's an imperfect image of the thing in itself, derived from only what you are capable of percieving.

This is not how truth works. You don't use your senses to discern only part of it, you use reason to fully realize it. You engage directly with truth in a way you literally cannot with cups, which is why we can have absolute certainty about it.

Which is why truth is "more real" than a cup. The thing you call a cup is really just a mental category derived from your perceptual field.

>"cup" merely being a made-up word
The fact it's a word is completely irrelevant to my argument. Completely.

>>16604513
>Why wouldn't reality be conscious?
How about you provide a reason why we should think "reality be conscious" (whatever that's supposed to mean)

>>16604716
Alright. I'm not a mind reader.
You're the one that think truth has a "real ontology", that it's something that REALLY exist. You'd have to tell me more about that.

Nobody is claiming the cup "out there" is the same as the cup in your mind.
Don't really understand why you are telling me this. Sound compatible with nominalism?
Unless the stuff about phantasms is more literal than I suppose. I don't know what a phantasm is.

Stuff about absolute certainty sounds confused. I know all kinds of true things, that I'm not absolutely certain about.

>You engage directly with truth
That's an assertion, and a bit of a word salad. One which I think is false.
Follows from my position that I don't think truth is "a thing", not something to be engage with.

>>16604718
I already did.

You are real.
You are conscious.
You can't meaningfully differentiate between real things and reality itself.

It follows that reality itself is conscious.

>>16604765
It sounds to me like you identified as a nominalist first, and then decided what you hold to be true second based on that sense of identity.

That's kind of the way you have been talking about the truth ITT.

But it's a terrible way to reason.

>One which I think is false.
You know the truth once you learn it, engagement and conception generally follow one another.

You engage with cups vicariously, through your senses. You don't engage with the thing in itself.

Whereas you engage with truth directly, through reason. Once you know the truth about a given thing, that's all she wrote. It has been fully realized.

Truth is that thing in itself already. Just because we have a convenient word to use for it doesn't mean there's nothing else there. You can't identify something with it's name.

You are more than the sum of a few letters or syllables. Just like you are more than a name, the full truth is more than we are able to comprehend, describe, or label.

>>16604812
It just sounds so dumb.
Tell me if I'm misrepresenting you.

>some things are conscious
>therefor, all things are conscious
???


What kind of inference is that?!
Nonsense. Doesn't follow.

>>16604812
>It sounds to me like you identified as a nominalist first, and then decided what you hold to be true second based on that sense of identity.
Please consider that I could have good reasons for why I think nominalism is true.
Those are also going to be reasons for my views on language and truth.

Me talking like this is in part laziness, because you just assert WAY TOO MUCH weird stuff. I can't be bothered to try to engage with all of it.
Besides a lot of the stuff you say is not substantive, so there's even more work to be done.

This is me doing the same thing back at you, asserting my position.

>>16604848
He's staring into the abyss.... It's obviously looking back.

>>16604848
You can't meaningfully differentiate between real things and reality itself.

It really is that simple.

You form a contiguous whole with reality. The appearance of separation between you and the environment is an illusion created by your sense perception and the cognitive frameworks attached to it, it's a kind of delusion to see yourself as intrinsically separate and disconnected from everything else.

Everything you can say about yourself is also true of reality. Because there's no meaningful separation between them.

>>16605218
Can you think of some ways I could say a human brain is different from a rock?

>>16605311
You're making the mistake of thinking about discrete things that *to you* appear to be different, when reality is actually a unified whole.

Reality contains both what you call rocks and humans.

>human brains
here's that old delusion that consciousness is a product of neurological activity

it's not, and that is a profoundly self centered way of thinking about phenomenology

pure subjectivity, what a waste

>>16605350
I don't get it, you think rocks are conscious or not?

>>16605378
Just based on logic and common sense, I am inclined to assume that reality as a whole is indeed conscious. If it weren't, consciousness of the phenomenal kind we are familiar with would not be possible in the first place.

Neural activity doesn't produce consciousness, it allows us to experience the contents of consciousness that already exist. At least that's how it appears to us, it's totally possible that rocks have rock experiences to that would be totally alien and impossible to describe for a person because they don't have neural activity like we do.

It doesn't make sense to hyperfocus on single things like rocks and humans when the subject is universal in scale. Especially when these things really are just mental categories produced by a subjective mode of perception.

>>16605397
Bro people lose consciousness. Philosophy is such a joke.

>>16605405
So what?

Does that mean consciousness itself just stops existing? Do other people lose consciousness when you die?

No of course not, consciousness itself continues when you die because it is not a product of your neurological activity. It's a natural phenomenon, intrinsic to reality itself.

It's bigger than you, it's bigger than every human. To assume only certain kinds of life are capable of consciousness is ridiculous, and scientists have already started moving beyond this outmoded and delimiting schema.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01144-y

>
A declaration signed by dozens of scientists says there is ‘a realistic possibility’ for elements of consciousness in reptiles, insects and molluscs.

Philosophy is not a joke, you just don't fucking get it. Probably because of the way you were educated TBQH.

>>16605397
>Neural activity doesn't produce consciousness
lol, what's the argument for this?


Still, I tend to agree. Because I don't view consciousness as, a thing, one (1) thing.
Consciousness is the brain, and what it does.

>>16605459
The mass of the sun is either infinite or zero, because those are the simplest numbers. (this is a fun example, because people actually said this)
Wow, now I'm doing astronomy like a philosopher.

>>16605459
>Does that mean consciousness itself just stops existing?
For that person, temporarily yes. If they are sufficiently braindead or dead then permanently.
Elements of consciousness in animals even lower ones is not the same as rocks being conscious. Those animals have living and firing nervous systems.

>>16605459
If you were wrong about all of this.
How could you go about figuring it out? Like, is there some activity you could do?

>>16605459
>No of course not, consciousness itself continues when you die because it is not a product of your neurological activity.
Dumbass everything you put into your body that affects your neuron firing affects your consciousness. If you drain your body of salt which is the “fuel” for your nerve impulses you will start to lose consciousness and shut down.

>>16605468
>Consciousness is the brain, and what it does.
No, that's untenable.

The "brain" is a mental construct you use to describe your sense of body, experienced through phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenally self evident, that's what consciousness really is.

If we're to use the mental category of "physical" to describe the brain as you know it, you could not use that same category to describe consciousness.

Because although the experiences your brain is capable of processing are limited, the phenomenon itself has no qualities that materialists can point to and say that proves consciousness is a physical product of neural activity.

That's all part of the "hard problem", which I prefer not to get into because I hate having to explain this shit to STEM autists over and over again.

I prefer to think of consciousness as a field that permeates everything, and our brains as like a kind of radio receiver that can access certain frequencies of this field and immerse itself in the limited set of phenomenological contents it's capable of processing.

Not a perfect analogy, but it illustrates the general point. Radio waves don't stop existing when your radio breaks. That shit has been around since the big bang.

>>16605508
Wait until you find out that people who actually study the brain often don’t even believe there is a hard problem. The sensation of red is a neuron firing pattern when your retina picks up that frequency.

>>16605506
>your consciousness

There you go again, trying to treat yourself as if you're separate from the rest of reality.

It's not yours, you're just experiencing it.

>>16605479
It's called deduction.

>>16605475
You need to put the idea that consciousness is the product of physical systems behind you. There is absolutely no support for it.

It's not physical in the way we describe physical things. Maybe non-physical isn't a great way of describing it, but it's better than the inverse.

Transcendental things like consciousness aren't the product of any particular physical system.

Would you say that a computer of sufficient power is capable of consciousness? If so, would that phenomenon be the result of wires and circuits, or would it be a sufficiently complex system naturally tapping into a phenomenal field that already exists?

Computers would probably be able to access parts of this field that are inaccessible to us. As we would access frequencies they aren't capable of.

>>16605544
Anon everything we’ve learned about brain and consciousness gives us a clearer picture of how consciousness comes from the brain.
We have the most complex objects in the known universe behind our eyes and that’s why you can smell the what’s in the air around you while youre shitposting on 4chan and can barely do math

>>16605532
Hilarious, hand waving copery.

I have spoken with a few neurologists. They are not in agreement, probably because certain types are dogmatically attached to materialism.

>The sensation of red is a neuron firing pattern

You're not describing what a sensation is, you're describing how eyeballs work mechanically. There is an enormous difference between these things.

Conversations like this have convinced me that the NPC meme is real, and certain people literally do not have internal experiences.

>>16605544
Why would you lose consciousness or have it altered based on what is or isn’t flowing through your nervous system if it wasn’t the source of consciousness. Oh it’s a radio? Then why would anyone ever experience unconsciousness ever?
You would just be back in the studio until it reboots.

>>16605558
>consciousness comes from the brain

lmao
dude radios are responsible for radio waves, because they have receivers

this is how you're arguing, but you don't see the preposterous double standards at play because of materialist indoctrination at all levels of the public education system.

>>16605566
>I have spoken with a few neurologists
lol
I have a rich internal life anon, love learning and thinking and imagining. That gives me the ability to rule out your worldview and realize it’s almost certainly sprouted from your fear of mortality and being tied to this body your CNS sits in

>>16605574
If consciousness was not tied to your brain then you would never be unconscious.
If you left your house enough to be treated by the outside world you might become aware that your primary and only location is the one your body is in

>>16605570
>Then why would anyone ever experience unconsciousness ever?
I hear tale that you don't have experiences of unconsciousness. Kind of by definition.

Does a radio pick up frequencies and decode them when it is broken? Nope.

But those signals are still being propagated through the entire universe anyways.

If brains are just muh receivers, then people who sustained brain damage are not morally responsible for their own actions.

>>16605577
You have no idea how much the idea of death being nothing at all is comforting to me.

The thought of eternity is terrifying beyond my ability to conceptualize.

No, the thought of death resulting in absolutely nothing is nice. But that's how I know it's too good to be true.

>>16605597
Why don't you kill yourself to check if you're right?

>>16605590
This discussion has already deviated significantly from the original topic.

There's nothing about telos, truth, or consciousness that necessitates free will.

Free will being real is the only way you can meaningfully hold someone responsible for their actions.

I am of the opinion that free will is indeed real, but I'm not interested in arguing it because it has no necessary bearing on these other topics.

>>16605603
the meatbag itself retard

>>16605589
>I hear tale that you don't have experiences of unconsciousness. Kind of by definition.
This is why bougie philosophers thought like you. Tugging their pud in a powdered wig in a dusty room. How is it even possible that you and no one you know has ever been unconscious?

>>16605544
Deluded retard think he's running a deductive argument

>>16605615
Dude, what?
Have you ever been in a fight? I have taken serious blows that would have killed lesser men, and not even lapsed in consciousness.

Thick skull, robust and archaic features. You wouldn't get it. Occipital bun havers represent.

You somehow think that because sometimes people die that this means suddenly consciousness stops existing. That's not how it works, because you are not the ultimate source of consciousness. Get some perspective.

>>16605625
>pseud tries to get big and pretends he’s immune to being knocked out
You must be 18 and over to post on this board

>>16605622
>>16605603
triggered fedoras are triggered

the fedoras on this board really are the bottom of the barrel, every one is a certifiable midwit and gets hostile af whenever their autsim bubble is popped

>>16605566
>hand waving
Saying "Hard problem", as if it was a magic spell. Now THAT'S the real hand waving

>>16605631
You don't got a deductive argument for your position

>>16605631
You just tried to tell everyone it’s impossible for you to lose consciousness.

>>16605625
>you are not the ultimate source of consciousness
wow, more assertions

My theory perfectly predicts and explains why your consciousness goes funny if I bonk you on the head?
How do you explain it?

>>16605645
Here’s the thing maaaan you’re like a radio station or somethin man, and your brains like your car radio….but like if you break your radio you still exist because you’re the radio signal itself maan.
Wait what? People lose consciousness so that doesn’t make sense?
Well I’ve never been knocked out bro, I’ve been in like so many fights it’s actually impossible for me to lose consciousness

>>16605638
I only said have never been knocked unconscous in a fight, and this makes you seethe with anger. Because you're physically incapable, a sad excuse for a man who only seeks to tear down others because he can't pull himself up.

You lost ITT. Deal with it.

Get skull mogged, sub 1000 CC pinhead.

>>16605654
>you still exist because you’re the radio signal itself maan

cool strawman
this is how fedoras act when they get BTFO

>>16605660
You’re doing the text version of losing an argument and spazzing instead of just accepting that what you’re saying doesn’t make sense.
Getting knocked out in a fight specifically isn’t even the issue, the point is the fact that people lose consciousness at all ever and it’s directly because of an effect on their brain shows it’s actually coming from your brain and your consciousness isn’t actually an external signal controlling your brain and body from the outside
That’s like if you had an RC car and the controllwr passed out if the battery died, it doesn’t make any sense.

Look, thank you for engaging and being relatively nice about this discussion.
But doesn't it trouble you that you hold so many minority position? That your views are, weird.
When a lot of people disagree with you that should constitute, at least some, evidence that you are wrong.

Maybe you have explanation for why people disagree with you.

I take peer disagreement very seriously. I think it's something many atheists fail to engage with.

>consciousness
Is a highly polysemous word.
Laughing at the hilarious equivocations going on.

>>16605669
dude the fact that radios lose signal when they break and it's directly because of an effect on their reciever show's radio waves actually come from radios and not the background radiation of the universe

I already addressed the question of people dying, and you just casually ignored everything I had to say because what you're doing is damage control.

have fun being an illiterate hostile nitwit triggered by exremely basic arguments

I'll just be over here, being objectively superior at formulating arguments and fucking your mom.

>>16605663
Your radio analogy doesn’t make any sense. Like I just said if we’re talking radio signals and obviously better analogy would be an RC vehicle or toy. If the signal actually were coming from the outside damage to the vehicle (brain) wouldn’t actually alter the signal in any way. If your consciousness is the signal and your brain and body are externally controlled by the signal, which is your actual conscious self in this scenario..
How many times do I need to explain this to you?
Also yeah bud you are absolutely afraid to die and have an aversion to the fact that you’re stuck in your body and will die with it. It’s not like that’s rare.

>>16605663
No, but seriously, why does "your consciousness" go funny if you're bonked on the head?
Brain IS consciousness -theory, it perfectly explains and predicts this

Reality IS consciousness -theory, this seems entirely unexpected

>>16605671
The fact that so many normies disagree with me is extremely reassuring, actually. I am reminded that the truth is not decided upon by popular vote.

You'd be surprised just how many people completely agree with me though. I don't need to go out on any extreme tangents to make a point, all my premises are simple and easy to understand.

Y'all just don't like the implications and conclusions that naturally follow.

>>16605683
If your brain and body were the receiver instead of the source the damage to your brain wouldn’t affect your consciousness. Neither would lack of nutrients, dehydration, etc.
Face it Tyler, it doesn’t make sense.

>>16605686
dude why does your radio signal go funny if you drop it
stop pretending to be retarded and shitting up this thread to bump limit so it goes away

that is obviously why you keep posting this inane pedantic nonsense
>my radio IS the source of radio waves

>>16605697
You stopped addressing arguments a while ago and are just projecting pure ego due to the damage of being proven wrong. You have zero self awareness.

>>16605703
What arguments?

All I see are people telling me to kill myself and saying I'm wrong because brain damage exists.

As if I didn't know people die. You're the one with brain damage here.

>>16605706
You’re still not addressing our points or questions because you know it doesn’t make sense that the signal gets damaged if the receiver gets damaged. And how much more sense it makes that the RC car actually has an onboard CPU that malfunctions when damaged or lacks charge

>>16605683
I think people who have no knowledge of broadcasting, electronics or radio waves, etc. Would be perfectly rational in believing the source of the music broke, when the radio is smashed.
They would be wrong. But it's not like they have made some mental mistake.

It's precisely because we know how radio transmissions work, that we shouldn't believe the radio to be the source of the music.

We don't know about know about "braincasting", "soultronics" and "brain waves (the spooky kind)", etc
Which is why I assert that people doing the brain -> radio move, they are making a mistake.
It's blatantly ad hoc, not a good explanation.

>>16605697
What is it that you know, that I don't know?
Why am I not just deducing that "consciousness is reality", and not the brain?

>>16605589
>mfw i can knock the entire universe out with 11 Heinekens
>mfw I can’t drive through tunnels because I block the universe brain signals

>>16605714
>I think people who have no knowledge of broadcasting, electronics or radio waves, etc. Would be perfectly rational in believing the source of the music broke, when the radio is smashed.

I had the same thought just a minute ago. We agree, it would be easy for a caveman to assume a radio is producing the static noises by itself, seeing as he has no idea that radio waves permeate the air around him.

In the same way, people who have been taught that materialism is the truth may simply not have the software needed to realize that consciousness doesn't confrom to the expectations of that naturalistic framework. They are like the caveman in this scenario.

>>16605712
>it doesn’t make sense that the signal gets damaged if the receiver gets damaged

mindbroken bot-tier response
when did I say that consciousness was "damaged"?

I said your ability to access the contents of consciousness is impaired. Not that consciousness itself is somehow capable of being damaged by any means we have access to.

>>16605683
What signal is the universe brain radio broadcasting on? What type of radiation? Why does nothing interfere with it or block it?

>>16605702
Yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about! in this post >>16605714

How are radio signals at all analogous to whatever the brain and spooky universal consciousness is doing??? (sorry, I don't know what to call your theory)

We know about radio signals -> Which is why it's weird to think the radio signals go funny when we drop the radio
We DON'T know about soul signals -> Which is why it's perfectly reasonable to think the soul goes funny, when the brain is smashed

Some weird kind of question begging, where to analogy only works by accepting the point it's trying to argue.
That there in fact is such a thing as soul signals being sent to the brain.
How do you not realize this?
Or, like, do you disagree with what I'm saying?

>>16605721
It's not what I know.

It's how I think about things, how I formulate basic premises. Maybe I can see conclusions other people can't, but that's because I've been studying classical logic since I was 12. And after I discovered higher truth-value logics than binary I just went ham.

>>16605738
>Why does nothing interfere with it or block it?

Because not everything in reality conforms to your materialist expectations.

Like truth. Nothing is capable of interfering or blocking it physically, and yet we are still capable of transmitting and recieving it.

>>16605737
>I said your ability to access the contents of consciousness is impaired.
If your consciousness is an external signal then damaging the receiver wouldn’t affect the conscious signal at all. The signal is primary in that situation.
If you think brain damage would just be your brain lacking the signal sensing ability then death would be the end too.

>>16605750
Anon your model has less explanatory power and is less parsimonious than the device actually having an on board CPU and that being the source of the signal. You literally have to appeal to magic rules you made up to make your model work.

>>16605737
>people who disagree with me are cavemen
Least smug idealist (or whatever your position is)

Like, just explain how you know all this stuff. You're so great, I'm sure you can do it.

>>16594642
For me it was that the gospels were all more or less telling the same story. It was these men genuinely telling their eyewitness account of the life of Christ. I think a lot of religions including Christianity have "just trust me bro" moments but I genuinely believe the gospels to be true and the apostles did everything in their power 2000 years ago to prove it. The only thing that would make it more concrete is if Pontius Pilate himself wrote how he saw the resurrection of Christ, but as a historical event there is already enough evidence to prove two things conclusively, even among secular historians:

1) Jesus died on the cross
2) The apostles of Jesus saw *something* that made them truly believe they saw Jesus alive again.

And the most obvious *something* in number 2 is that Jesus was actually raised from the dead.

>>16605761
Lots of claims made in ancient texts even by credible people that are dismissed because they don’t mesh with reality

>>16605743
>We DON'T know about soul signals
Maybe you don't.

Try not to think about it in terms of "soul" or individual identity, and more in terms of reality taken as a unified whole.

I really want to reiterate the point that cognitively separating yourself from the environment priveliges subjectivity without warrant. That's a delusion, you and your environment are intrinsically connected and on a universal scale there really is no difference there.

>>16605737
The highly disanalogous part now being how we can come to knowledge about radio signals, and how you come to know your position.

>>16605765
I can see why psychologists analyze this place lmao

>>16605758
>your model has less explanatory power and is less parsimonious than the device actually having an on board CPU and that being the source of the signal

how does a physical system create a non-physical product?

That's not parsimonious. It would make infinitely more sense if the things we call "physical objects" were a product of a non-physical system instead.

Because we don't have access to "physical" things. We only have the mental category of "physical things".

>>16605746
You're so full of it.

>>16605769
I already said it's not a perfect analogy.

Consciousness is extremely meta and notoriously difficult to formulate.

It's much, much easier to talk about telos and truth.

>>16605771
You’re claiming it’s non-physical. Anon are computer programs non-physical? Is an AI character non-physical? If it gains some sentience is it non-physical?

>>16605775
They hate us cause they ain't us.