>if gawd reel y cant i c him?

>>18389318
When I first heard "I fucking love science", I thought it was a troll, no fucking way that it was real

>>18389318
Physiognomy much?

>moe greene
>Human
So you don't know.

Why do atheists get mad when they find out that God revealed himself to the Israelites in antiquity, as if it is some sort of critique of God, but then also get even more mad when God doesn't personally come and reveal himself to specifically them?

>>18389343
The critique is more why did he allegedly ONLY reveal himself to the israelites.
This isn't a hard criticism to grasp

>>18389345
Except he didn't though. You've failed to consider general revelation, as well as natural religion.

>>18389348
According to the bible he did, for at least two thousand years to the point of forming a specific covenant with them.
>general revelation
Shitty cope philosophy that makes no sense otherwise you'd expect Jewish cults to spontaneously form on other continents without contact with Christians or Jews, which of course never happened.

>>18389343
just goy things

>>18389355
>According to the bible he did, for at least two thousand years to the point of forming a specific covenant with them.
According to holy scripture the knowledge of God was found among the gentiles. Otherwise we wouldn't have Job, Balaam, or Melchizedek. Literally after the deluge God makes a covenant with Noah on behalf of all of humanity. It wasn't as if his descendants were ignorant of God. This is the Biblical etiology of natural religion, as Cardinal John Henry Newman explains. Every religion has truth in it, some more or less than others, because they do ultimately have a perennial source to them at some level. This line of thought goes back to the Church Fathers like St. Clement of Alexandria.
>Shitty cope philosophy that makes no sense otherwise you'd expect Jewish cults to spontaneously form on other continents without contact with Christians or Jews, which of course never happened.
Well you've just confused special revelation with general revelation. As rational beings, endowed with the natural light of reason, we can rationally discover truths about God from observing things in the world. Aquinas literally does this. It's why all of his arguments for God in the five ways are a posteriori. St. Paul discusses general revelation in Romans 1:19-20, and natural law inherent in human nature from which countless societies have been founded on:
>Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
>Romans 2:14

>>18389373
>As rational beings, endowed with the natural light of reason, we can rationally discover truths about God from observing things in the world.
Which coincidentally just never happened outside of people within the vicinity of the Jews.
>Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Like what? Other than bare basic laws like "don't kill each other" or "be nice to each other", which are perfectly understandable from a rational self preserving perspective and don't really require divine incite.
There has never been a culture that spontaneously developed a Jewish style religion independent from contact with the Jews, Christians or Muslims.

>>18389381
>Which coincidentally just never happened outside of people within the vicinity of the Jews.
Except plenty of cultures have rationally discovered truths about God. Ever hear of the Greeks? Aristotle 101.
>Like what? Other than bare basic laws like "don't kill each other" or "be nice to each other", which are perfectly understandable from a rational self preserving perspective and don't really require divine incite.
That's the point. Each of us by nature has a general intuition concerning natural law.
>There has never been a culture that spontaneously developed a Jewish style religion independent from contact with the Jews, Christians or Muslims.
Again confusing special revelation with natural revelation.

>>18389393
Aristotles philosophy was adopted by the Jews when they were hellenised, not the other way around. His unmoved mover was also not one who was involved in human affairs, so not really what the Jews and later Christians imagined, it was a purely intellectual idea not one of worship.
>That's the point. Each of us by nature has a general intuition concerning natural law.
Not really because Jewish and Christian moral code goes beyond simple self preservatory morals like those.
>Again confusing special revelation with natural revelation.
Your idea of "natural revelation" is just basic morals, it doesn't allude to spontaneous worship of the Jewish god, which is what is apparently required for salvation.

>>18389403
>it was a purely intellectual idea not one of worship.
Which is exactly the point. It was something he discovered through reason, not by revelation.
>Aristotles philosophy was adopted by the Jews when they were hellenised
Ok so when you reduce everything to cultural crossbreeding somehow it then follows that the cross exchange of ideas makes those ideas false? So Indians transmitting algebra to Persians now makes algebra false. Perfect logic. Love it.
>Your idea of "natural revelation" is just basic morals
But that implicitly assumes there is objective morality, which is all that is required.
>but basic morality can be reduced to le evolution
And so can literally everything humans do. Humans evolved the reasoning capacity to do science. So science doesn't describe anything real then? Reductionism only has so much explanatory value underneath it.

>>18389421
>Which is exactly the point. It was something he discovered through reason, not by revelation.
But the idea he came to wasn't the Jewish god, and actually contradicts it in many ways (for example not having a will of its own, and being more a semi-impersonal being that does not interact with the universe rather than the personal Jewish god)
>So Indians transmitting algebra to Persians now makes algebra false.
Completely different concept as algebra is a logical concept while Jewish religion is a cultural one. It would be more like saying that Christians going to the new world and transmitting Christianity to the native populations means that they didn't spontaneously adopt Christian culture independently.
>But that implicitly assumes there is objective morality
Not really, since most of them can be suggested as part of normal survival instinct where cooperation makes peoples lives more pleasant. It doesn't require a God to be involved. Things not directly related to survival clearly varied across the world (for example whether Polygamy was allowed or not, which even the Jews flip flopped on and actually arguably ended up adopting Roman and Hellenist morality rather than the other way around, so clearly not as "objective" as you'd like to think).

>>18389443
>for example not having a will of its own, and being more a semi-impersonal being that does not interact with the universe rather than the personal Jewish god
Well you've obviously never read Aristotle since, by nature, the prime mover, being the source of change, is the final cause of everything it puts into motion, by an eternal act of self contemplation. Everything in motion participates on some level in its desire toward itself as its own object, as a lover is moved toward the beloved.
>Completely different concept as algebra is a logical concept
You can easily reduce the practice of algebra, or any subject for that matter, to in essence being a human activity. Since when do animals do algebra? You're missing the point though. My point is that just because you can reduce something to biology on one explanatory level doesn't mean you have provided the full explanation for said thing you reduced (Aristotle literally knew this which is why he has the four causes lol). Algebra, properly speaking, arises out of human culture. It was a result in an evolution of mathematics, from basic counting, to arithmetic, geometry, and then algebra, and oh now we have set theory in modern mathematics. Sorry to tell you bud but, mathematics is also culturally conditioned. But that's not bad. That doesn't mean it doesn't describe anything real. This is literally all human activity, whether science, math, law, religion, morality, etc.

>>18389443
>Not really, since most of them can be suggested as part of normal survival instinct where cooperation makes peoples lives more pleasant. It doesn't require a God to be involved.
Again, reducing anything to strictly evolutionary terms doesn't capture the entire explanation for said thing you've reduced. Mathematics can be reduced too. Humans can do mathematics because we evolved certain types of spatial and logical reasoning skills that make it easier for us to strategize, allocate resources, detect threats, estimate, and hunt, providing greater overall adaptability on our part. None of this means there isn't anything like objective mathematical truth. Saying that we don't need God to ground morality just because it's reducible in some respects to nature is like saying we don't need numbers to ground the human capacity for grouping thing together because that can be reduced to an evolutionary trait we have.

>>18389443
>Not really, since most of them can be suggested as part of normal survival instinct where cooperation makes peoples lives more pleasant. It doesn't require a God to be involved. Things not directly related to survival clearly varied across the world (for example whether Polygamy was allowed or not, which even the Jews flip flopped on and actually arguably ended up adopting Roman and Hellenist morality rather than the other way around, so clearly not as "objective" as you'd like to think).
Well the fact of the matter is that there are near universal moral practices and attitudes in humanity. Burying the dead is one such example, going all the way back to the stone age. Of course it is possible to reduce this custom to being evolutionary advantageous, like maybe preventing disease. But it seems really absurd to thing that something like that truly captures the full explanation of the custom. The average person isn't going to give you a naturalistic reason for this practice, they might give you a religious reason. Similarly, the average person isn't going to say killing is wrong because it fosters cooperation, they're going to tell you it's wrong for xyz moral reason. Also, just because some cultures had deviant moral practices doesn't mean there isn't objective morality anymore than some cultures thinking the earth is flat implies the earth isn't objectively round.

>>18389501
>Well you've obviously never read Aristotle since, by nature, the prime mover, being the source of change, is the final cause of everything it puts into motion, by an eternal act of self contemplation.
Except beyond that the aristotlian first mover doesn't interact with the universe. It does not grant boons to worshippers or answer prayer, it is a purely intellectualised idea of something that creates and that is about it.
> Algebra, properly speaking, arises out of human culture.
A lot of algebra has real world basis in some form or another, and is derived from that. Algebra in and of itself is just symbolising unknown quantities that can be filled in as needed.
> Sorry to tell you bud but, mathematics is also culturally conditioned.
Only in how you depict it, the underlying logic is independent of culture and has more real world basis.
>Well the fact of the matter is that there are near universal moral practices and attitudes in humanity.
The only ones that are universal are the ones directly related to survival, because no society can survive if everyone is killing each other, and most people don't want to be murdered.
>Burying the dead is one such example, going all the way back to the stone age.
Which again has real world obvious benefits in the fact that even a cave man can realise leaving a stinky rotting corpse around is unpleasant. Not every culture even dealt with it via burial, some obviously did cremation, the persians left bodies in towers for birds to eat them. The disposal of corpses is a real world problem that had a number of different solutions, not some estoteric moral issue.
>The average person isn't going to give you a naturalistic reason for this practice
The average person is a bit dim and largely just bad at articulating why they do things, but I imagine if someone had a stinky corpse laying around they'd be able to tell you quite quickly why they want to get rid of it.

>>18389527
>Except beyond that the aristotlian first mover doesn't interact with the universe. It does not grant boons to worshippers or answer prayer, it is a purely intellectualised idea of something that creates and that is about it.
And that's why there is a distinction between general revelation and special revelation. lol
>A lot of algebra has real world basis in some form or another, and is derived from that. Algebra in and of itself is just symbolising unknown quantities that can be filled in as needed.
My point isn't that algebra doesn't describe anything real it's that algebra is a human concept invented by humans with human made syntax, with special kinds of axioms, etc. It's as culturally conditioned as literally every single thing human beings do.
>Only in how you depict it, the underlying logic is independent of culture and has more real world basis.
1. You've just assumed implicitly that logic is an objective feature of reality. Now ground logic.
2. There are actually many types of logics, and the logic that mathematicians employ isn't obviously objective or, at the very least, provable. The law of non-contradiction, for example, is axiomatic in nature, as Aristotle explains in Metaphysics IV. You can't actually demonstrate it, you must assume it. Now Aristotle gives arguments for why we ought to assume it, but anyone could come along and tell us why we might want to assume something differently, which is the whole nature of the debate Aristotle and the followers of Protagoras were having. Not all logics require the LNC. Paraconsistent logic is one kind. Why favor classical logic then?

>>18389527
>The only ones that are universal are the ones directly related to survival, because no society can survive if everyone is killing each other, and most people don't want to be murdered.
>Which again has real world obvious benefits in the fact that even a cave man can realise leaving a stinky rotting corpse around is unpleasant. Not every culture even dealt with it via burial, some obviously did cremation, the persians left bodies in towers for birds to eat them. The disposal of corpses is a real world problem that had a number of different solutions, not some estoteric moral issue.
It isn't immediately obvious why burying the dead promotes survival other than some niche naturalistic explanation for which you'd need some type of well thought out framework, like Darwinian evolution, to do. Burying the dead is indeed a near universal practice which, as I said above, goes way back into our prehistory. Citing a few exceptions to this doesn't make the rule false.
>The average person is a bit dim and largely just bad at articulating why they do things
And here we see the forefront of atheistic solipsism shine through
>EVERYONE ELSE IS STOOPID BUT ME!!!!

>>18389540
>And that's why there is a distinction between general revelation and special revelation. lol
But not really, if the Jewish god was self evident then he would have come up with a concept that resembled the Jewish god rather than an abstract logical concept.
>My point isn't that algebra doesn't describe anything real it's that algebra is a human concept invented by humans with human made syntax
But is often used to describe things that map onto the real world. It's not really that much different from language in that it's simply a way to communicate real concepts.
>1. You've just assumed implicitly that logic is an objective feature of reality. Now ground logic.
Not everything has to be grounded in something else, some things are self evident. Hence why you can have indepedent cultures come to similar logical conclusions but only one culture ever came to the conclusion of the Jewish god, or the triune god of most christian denominations, because neither of those are self evident.
>It isn't immediately obvious why burying the dead promotes survival
Not everything humans do is consciously reasoned as we have instinctual reactions that lead into logical actions. For example a stinky corpse smells bad, so burying it to get rid of that becomes an obvious solution, same as how you don't need to consciously logic your way through touching a hot stove is bad. Burying was just one solution of many, and most popular because its the most obvious and easiest solution to the problem.
>And here we see the forefront of atheistic solipsism shine through
I don't care for the silly idea that you always have to be humble and assume everyone else is better than you in the way Christians do. A lot of people are dumb I'm sorry to say and I'll say that without any real issue. I'm not going to do the cringy christian thing of performative humility in pretending I'm no equal some retarded homeless crackhead.