Atheist-sisters, our response? He has five of them!
>>24843490agrippa's trilemmaoil up your asshole christcuck
>>24843513>>24843514Do you honestly think you're smarter than Aristotle or Blaise Pascal or Louis Pasteur?
>>24843514A being that lacks a distinction between what it is and that it is is not an axiom.
>>24843519Yes.
>>24843519>Blaise PascalCrazy because Agrippa buck broke Pascal I maybe not smarter than these people but Sextus Empiricus was. >>24843521>a being here's your axiom
>>24843514Adi shankara resolves this. Know Thyself my son.
>>24843490God obviously exists, but you yourself must not know God very well to think you can browbeat any free man into both the desire and love for a transcendentally good being, a being that is utterly strange. You can't even convince a man to like very beautiful human things like the music of Bach or a walk in the park, much less to love and want the ultimate strange thing.
>>24843535No one has "resolved" this. It's all excuses.
>>24843519Aristotle did not believe in God.
God of the philosophers crap. The arguments are bad but even if they weren't it wouldn't prove what monotheist cucks actually claim to believe in.
>>24843490Why do you need five proofs? Wouldn't one be enough?
>>24843519I love christcucks trying to glom onto the greeks inventing fanfic about how they were secretly protochristian when the real reason is there was no christian thinker who had anything of value to say. All they do is break Plato and Aristotle because they have to fit them into their christcuck fantasies and they don’t. The christcuck never adds any understanding, he can only destroy, all in service of his hebrew cult.
>>248435511) Uhm so there is an ultimate creative forceOk you agree?Ok then we also agree his name was Jesus and he died but got resurrected and he performed miracles and he led some jews but actually his real message was to save the world which his follower Saul who never met Jesus and didn’t get along with his actual disciples was the one who figured out because he got a visitation from resurrected Jesus who definitely had a real body by the way was not there in spirit and also was born of a virgin because the early christians couldn’t translate hebrew and also he’s God but also human but also the same as the old jew God but also separate and there’s a third part and fuck you It Just Works (tm). I’m so glad we agree. :)
>>24843490looking at new atheists the main difference between them and christcucks is they believe sodomy and abortion should be legal. that in itself is a compelling argument for theism
>>24843513Buddhism isn't atheistic you moron.
Proving, or attempting to prove, the existence (or goodness) of God is arguably a blasphemy, since such a proof would render one incapable of faith, and thereby unable to come to redemption through grace.
>>24843608Buddhism is atheistic at its core just like Hinduism is a monotheism at its core. If we judge religion by practitioners then Christianity is a polytheistic religion. Caths add Mary to the pantheon, Jesus is the third most prayed to, they use saints the same way romans used house gods. What deck do you actually want to play with kikeworshipper?
>>24843547Yes he did.
>>24843621>Caths add Mary to the pantheon, Jesus is the third most prayed to, they use saints the same way romans used house gods.Everyone knows Catholicism is paganistic, you're hardly making an earth-shattering revelation.
>>24843628>My protestantism is much superior to these pagans I only believe in THREE gods heh heh hehRetard alert.
>>24843630This is an attitude that Muslims take to Christianity and it's incredibly weak. You're essentially making up an imaginary doctrine that nobody believes, assuming that Christians believe it, and refusing to listen when Christians explain what they actually believe. You could dispel your nonsense about thr Trinity with a quick Google search, but have instead simply decided that your first shower thought on the matter must be true.
>>24843633No, I’m doing what you or the original anon did when assuming what practitioners do is what the religion is. Christians can’t explain the trinity. Theological doctrine declares it a mystery do all the hobby horse christians online are extra retarded claiming it can be understood (may I give you an egg in your time of need?) and supremely retarded claiming that’s somehow what the average practitioner thinks, when - when actually polled - Christians understand less facts about their own religion than atheists (see Pew polling). So I ask you again kikeworshipper, what standard do you actually want to use to judge religions?
>>24843514Such an angry young gentleman. Were you raised by a single mother perchance?
>>24843541Some excuses are valid, actually.
>>24843655The Trinity being one of the mysteries of faith does not mean that Christians worship three gods, either doctrinally or in practice.>(may I offer you an egg in your time of need?)I beg your pardon?>what standards do you actually want to use?Not the original anon but I'm happy with doctrine.
>>24843688>Were you raised by a single mother perchance?Yes, why? >>24843689I doubt that
>>24843490Any proof of God is just: lack of evidence = my god exists! real religious MF's know this and call it faith. Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance,[a] is an informal fallacy where something is claimed to be true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.
>>24843490There is no good answer, there is just cope.That there is an unmoved mover is more or less obvious. The only thing atheists can claim is if the unmoved mover is the Abrahamic God or not.
>>24843694It definitely does mean they worship three, well practically one and a half Gods in practice. In fact if you grill the average christfag he will come closer to Marcionite than his supposed doctrine, rejecting the OT God as evil or somehow unrepresentative of the “real God” which is Buddy Jesus your friend and companion who would never approve of slavery or kill children. Seriously I can’t have one fucking conversation with a supposed Christian without them either being completely ignorant of the OT or renouncing its content. The holy spirit might be appealed to in rote prayers but is never actually part of their thinking on God and they can’t really delineate what the fuck that part is even supposed to do unlike the God/Jesus duality. >beg your pardonThat you don’t get what I’m alluding to with the egg makes me think you’re a larper as well. >happy with doctrineGood goyim don’t think, only believe. The problem with being chattel (cattle?) however is that you also tend to be absolutely shit at recounting what you’re supposed to believe. We’re back to atheists understanding theology better than the people who think God wrote a book (>erm ackchully inspired ok?). But frankly that’s rarely a problem since the average kikeworshipper never really bothers to integrate their religion into their lives in a meaningful way. It’s empty ritual and your sports team. Go Jebus! Christianity no 1! Listen and believe, don’t question the coach!
>>24843711See>>24843589
>>24843490Retroactively refuted by this book.
>>24843928Yes, it's not in the least bit surprising that most Christians don't know their own doctrines. That's what they have priests for. In any area of human endeavour beyond basic self-maintainence, the vast majority of people make up nothing more than an ignorant flesh in need of elite leadership.>you're a larper as wellI'm not a Christian. As far as I can tell that was a non-sequitur IASIP reference.
>>24843621>Buddhism is atheistic at its core Some schools sure, but not advaita vedanta. Thats monistic metaphysics. Whether you prefer it or not is another question.
>>24843700Good, doubt is the first step. Take the gnosis pill anon
>>24843589>born of a virgin because the early christians couldn’t translate hebrewYou do know it were the Jews that translated it as "virgin", right? Dozens of rabbis collaborated on this.
>>24844198It really depends on your definition of atheism.Across the board, regardless of tradition Buddhism rejects a sole, individual creator, although implies there is an entity that THINKS he created all this shit. However, it does teach that there are supernatural entities and beings that exist in multiple layers of dimensions, and it isn't being metaphorical. It also teaches about the existence of near godlike devas and whatnot that have supreme powers, but will eventually wilt and die just like everyone else.The question often comes up with people asking like yeah but are they "rreally eal" but if you ask a monastic they'll say as real as you and I, which is a bit of a buddhist joke.
>>24843490It's a retarded book. Take the argument from motion, Feser thinks it works like this: the cup is being warmed, by the heater, by the power plant... but then what's making the power plant go??? But in Aristotle's physics things like a power plant (or whatever is 'ultimate') just ARE unmoved movers. God is not the only unmoved mover, unmoved movers are everywhere. Natural objects naturally cause change in other things without changing themselves. God is not meant to be "the real unmoved mover" behind nature/artificial beings, the proof depends on the necessity of something's always being in motion, astronomy, perfect circles, blablabla. But there's none of that in Feser, he fundamentally does not understand Aquinas because he has not spent enough time with Aristotle. And this leaves him open to the objection - why can't the chain just 'stop' with some natural thing? And this is what Aristotle thinks does in fact occur, though the ultimacy of the natural being does depend on God, but not in the way Feser thinks. He completely fucks up the proof and he's supposed to be a Thomist.
>>24844231Yeah, back then, atheism had a different connotation and it wasnt the complete rejection of a 'higher power/powers' >they'll say as real as you and I, which is a bit of a buddhist joke.kek
>>24844198>Buddhism is atheistic at its core>Some schools sure, but not advaita vedanta.Thats a school of Hinduism not Buddhism though
>>24844491thisBuddhism and Advaita Vedanta are mutually incompatible philosophies anyways (because, for example, of the conflicting doctrines of Anatman vs Atman)
Whether God exists has no bearing on either our capacity for knowing, or any bearing on the utter miracle that is experience. I've noticed that religious people will say to me that, due to my not believing in God, I have no real basis for my beliefs. But how is the belief in God a real *basis* for beliefs, an actual *justification* for a certain view? It just appears as an empty statement, a cop-out with no substantial effect, a speculative additional element that actually says nothing more about why we experience things at all, let alone why we experience the things we experience in the way we do.
>>24843513Buddhists are just crypto bugman materialists.
>>24843711Too much special pleading for an unmoved mover to be a serious argument. There are no serious arguments for theism, only for certain aspects of deism. Speaking of cope, the rabbi with superpowers.
>>24846484Special pleading means you start out with "it's special" as a premise. The unmoved mover argument reaches "it's special" as an inductive logical conclusion. There is no special pleading.
>>24843490All metaphysical proofs of God (supposing their argument can be made logically sound with modern logic, which is also not trivial) just end up proving the unity of existence. You just end up proving a Platonic or Spinozist god, an unconditioned absolute that does not require prayer, faith, or sacrifices. Nothing in the proofs results in having to commit to any religious tenets. Lastly, these Spinozist/Platonist proofs have to deal with the contention that Kant is right and all that these proofs are doing is falsely extrapolating the unity conditioning our subjective experience to all of reality.So summarized:1. The classical versions of these proofs are not logically valid2. if made logically valid, as i.e Godel has attempted, they end up proving a rational ordering principle that does not require faith.3. this rational ordering principle might not be a feature of reality but of our preconditions for subjective experience.
>>24846601>Nothing in the proofs results in having to commit to any religious tenets.The argument doesn't aim to conclude validity of a particular religious institution. It aims to conclude God and that is what it manages. >Spinozist/Platonist>unconditioned absolute that does not require prayer, faith, or sacrificesIt's relatively far from the Spinozist God. You're a lot closer with Platonic or Neoplatonic "the One" being a possible candidate for the prime mover, but seeing that both Platonic and Neoplatonic traditions do come to the conclusion that mysticism is a valid (if not necessary) type of engagement with the One, the unmoved mover argument is a lot further from disengaged deism than you seem to argue.>1. The classical versions of these proofs are not logically validPoint out the invalid steps, please.>2. if made logically valid, as i.e Godel has attempted, they end up proving a rational ordering principle that does not require faith.Faith as a psychological mechanism is required no matter what. You're operating under the cartesian conflation of logical certainty and psychological certianty.>3. this rational ordering principle might not be a feature of reality but of our preconditions for subjective experience.The subjective-objective split would have to be doing a LOT of lifting here that it cannot do if rational ordering isn't in place, so this objection, while potentially carrying interesting hypotheses down the line, currently has no weight.
>>24846625>The argument doesn't aim to conclude validity of a particular religious institution. It aims to conclude God and that is what it manages. Yes, but it has not proven in any meaningful way a 'God' of even potential interest to any religious institution, if anything, it has done the opposite. I think the word 'God' has too much implicit religious import, it derives from *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke.", or *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation". The 'God' proven has nothing to do with a 'God' of invocations or libations. >It's relatively far from the Spinozist God. You're a lot closer with Platonic or Neoplatonic "the One"I do not think this is true. Do not forget Spinoza's God is also considered under "sub specie aeternitatis." Similarly the Aristotelian prime mover is the entelechy of reality, and so is also way more immanent than most christian theologicans are comfortable with. The neoplatonic 'the One' is completely beyond Being. The Nous is Being, not the One. The One cannot be meaningfully assigned 'Being'. Again, they tend to proof a rational (and so provable) ordering principle, not an endpoint of mystical assent. >Point out the invalid steps, please.Too laborious to go into the nitty gritty of the formal logic here. The classical problem famously emphasized by Bertrand Russel is that in formal logic existence cannot be a predicate, which is assumed for i.e Anselmus' proof. This can be amended with modal logic but not without its own problems. look up the wikipedia for Gödel's ontological proof if you're interested. >Faith as a psychological mechanism is required no matter what. You're operating under the cartesian conflation of logical certainty and psychological certianty.Sure, if you want to make that distinction. But it would be a faith emotionally indifferent, open to being proven wrong, and again, would be more similar to the 'faith' we have in something like the standard model, not to that of religion. Essentially just the basic 'atheist' attitude to beliefs.
>>24846669>not proven... 'God' of even potential interest to any religious institutionGod outside time, outside space, on their own volition creating the whole universe and sustaining it... This narrative you think is not even potentially interesting to monotheistic religions? History and philosophy seem to show the opposite.>sub specie aeternitatisThis is common.>immanent>beyond BeingAquinas is fine with this.>they tend to proof a rational (and so provable) ordering principle, not an endpoint of mystical assent.Funny you say that. Why would it be an end point of our rational faculties and not of our mystical faculties, what justifies this hard split? Nothing, really. Again, both Plato and later Neoplatonists were mystically engaged as a matter of course. The contingency argument isn't missing a special clause for mysticism. It's post-cartesian thought that artificially splits human faculties into requiring and not requiring ad hoc engagement justification.>in formal logic existence cannot be a predicateVery few things are predicated in pure formal logic. Logic is devoid of content, it's formal engagement with content. The argument's content is that we observe reality working a certain way. If you want to challenge these premises, the floor is yours.>a faith emotionally indifferent, open to being proven wrong,No, it would be an emotionally engaged faith that at very small points utilizes logical argumentation to hold its content together. The idea that logic would lead to dispassionate certainty is an illusion from Descartes we should have called out long ago.
This whole argument is missing the forest for the trees and honestly quite retarded. I don't understand why atheists are so fixated on philosophical arguments for God's existence when it really doesn't matter, since what they are really rebelling against is their relatively conservative upbringing and organized religion in general. But you don't have to do this, because a creator entity existing doesnt necessarily imply any religion in particular is true. The only reason why atheists would ignore this massive leap of logic and instead focus on philosophical arguments for God's existence is because they are either stupid and havent actually realized this, or because they are crypto-theists, subconsciously desperate to get back at God for making them go to church on sunday.
>>24846717>for making them go to church on sundayKek
>>24843490His five proofs are the names of five dead guys when God has promised literal immortality to everyone who says they believe in him? Sounds like an ironic title. My light reading backlog is full anyway, and comedies about ancient pederasts are typically written by the sad humorless sort who think a reference to an eighties movie constitutes a joke, so not going to waste my time on this collection of magazine articles.
>>24846691I think we're getting sidetracked too much by random sub-arguments not relevant to my objections to 'proofs' of God.My main objection remains that the "God" proven has nothing to do with religion. Whatever philosophical doctrine the entity proven is exactly equivalent to does not matter. For all proofs, the answer carries no inherent religious consequences, and is completely compatible with being an "atheist" in all aspects except perhaps semantics. The other points are technicalities (Kantian objections, formal logical issues) that prevent these 'proofs' from being rigorous and undeniable. It moves them into the domain of philosophical speculation. interesting arguments i am willing to take serious, not formal proofs. That's fine, most philosophers dont give formal proofs for everything they say.Just to be clear, I have no issue with those who are religious, given you have the subtlety and maturity to not be a dick about it. Like >>24846717 says, faith is ultimately not about the philosophical arguments for or against God.
>>24846794>is completely compatible with being an "atheist" >the answer carries no inherent religious consequencesBesides God existing.>semanticsThe underlying contingency argument relies on observation, evaluation of logical regress and inductive logic. It is a far cry from mere semantics or the plethora of fallacies that people think the argument contains before they read it.>not formal proofsSurely your point isn't merely that logical arguments with real-world content have a soundness that is separate from their validity? Obviouly we don't have complete formal proofs. For anything (as you rightly remembered Godel). It's an objection that defeats itself the moment it is argued, as it falls short of its own standard.>faith is ultimately not about the philosophical argumentsCompletely agreed. I'm not arguing for faith. I'm arguing these arguments are solid.
>>24843490>Greek pagans justify the existence of godFucking stupid
I'm not religious or believe in the supernatural but atheism seems like flat earthism to me. I don't reject the mountains of scientific evidence that tells us that sub-saharan africans have lower cognitive function, like atheists do. Unfortunately atheists are just Christians who replaced god with blacks.
>>24846821Im not saying the logic of the argument is just sematics, im saying what you do or do not consider God is semantics. its like asking if Spinoza's notion of substance is God, or whether singularity preceded the big bang is God or not. From a Abrahamistic monotheistic perspective, i would argue neither of those is really God in a satisfactory way. But both of those could be called God for sure, and could be identified with the thing proven by these proofs.
>>24846857If your response to a proof is "I don't know what those words mean necessarily" then that's not really a fault in the argument, but in the reader.
>>24846867Alright im done i think i've tried to rephrase my point in enough different ways without you getting what im aiming at man.
>>24846871I suppose so. And if I came across condescending, I apologize, it's something I'm working on. Myself I find the contingency argument completely valid but there is something about it that I feel I left unexplored so I'm trying to juice other people's objections for what they're worth. That logic, semantics, political institutions etc. could play varying roles in relation to the argument is true, but it's not quite there for me. Anyway, God bless.
>>24843490
>>24846884Jesus Christ, go back to Facebook you dribbling idiot. I don't even disagree with most of that and I still think you're a faggot for posting that image.
>>24846877Not condescending so much. I think you're looking for something else in the argument than what im trying to aim at. thats fine, it just ends up with us talking past each other. Good luck in your own journey.
>>24844227The passage the text is taken from is not a prophecy about the messiah to begin with and the “dozens” of rabbis is huffing copium about what in context is “young girl”. It’s actually unbelievable the lengths the “predictions” go to. Another whopper is when there’s a “prediction” that the messiah will sit astride a donkey and a calf. In hebrew this follows the repetition format for their verse, they essentially say the same shit twice. But because once again early christians didn’t fucking understand what they were trying to retcon we get to enjoy Jesus doing acrobatics so he can sit on a donkey AND a calf at the same time - to fulfill a “prophecy” that doesn’t even have a prophetic future messiah context. If christians bothered to learn anything at all about the bible boy would they be disappointed. It’s a good thing these fart huffing idiots just believe and don’t bother thinking critically or even reading the bible in the first place. Just assert the talking points you were programmed with! It makes total sense for Jesus to be bowlegged.
>>24846893This
>>24846848
I don't need proofs to know God exists
>>24843513agrippa is funnier than every naive schooler meme
>>24846848>I don't believe in any gods, but I don't identify with atheism even though I am one because I am also racist, this is somehow a good argument against atheism Perhaps in future we can replace your brain with that from donor mice and see an improvement in your ability to reason.
>>24843519Pascal quit math because he felt it was wrong for Christians to study since it took time away from religion and didn’t please God>>24843608Gods exist in Buddhism but not necessarily as objects of worship, they’re just incarnations where the pleasures far outweigh the pain but they’re mortal die and reincarnate. Gods can also be worshipped in Buddhism but this is purely about the culture of land, like if the Roman Empire had converted to Buddhism they would probably still have Jupiter and so on. Buddhism is incompatible with the belief in a creator because it is dogmatically agnostic about whether or not the universe always existed and whether or not there is a non-material soul, Buddha refusing to answer these questions. Buddhism outright rejects atman though, the soul in the sense of self. Like Nietzsche, Buddhism says there is no doer, only deeds. Deeds are like frames in a cartoon and they create an illusion of a doer but each deed is just the inexorable consequence of the prior
>>24843633>I can tell Catholics what they believe but Muslims can’t tell me
>>24844175> As far as I can tell that was a non-sequitur IASIP reference.The egg analogy for the trinity is the most basic argument used in these debates. If you don’t recognize it you haven’t thought or read about this question.
>>24843519I'm smarter than all those people and more!I know this because I agree with the prejudice of my age, and my age is the greatest age unlike all others. I am the cleverest good boy!
>>24849102I disagree with the common assumptions of my age. This makes me a rebel and a free thinker. Unlike all the sheeple I know we live in a fallen world and that things have deteriorated from the perfect golden age we used to have. I am the cleverest bad boy!
>>24849102>>24849113Yes, now kiss while Hegel watches.
>>24843519>Blaise PascalHe was literally a retard who didn't understand that what a false dilemma was.
>>24843625Prime mover =/= God
>>24843519Intelligence is somewhat irrelevant to whether they were right or wrong in this. Aristotle believed eels began as worms that themselves began as wet soil, for example. In my experience, people who equate being correct with being intelligent are quite ignorant and often very stupid.
>>24849187Pascal’s wager:You play the lottery. You can either win or not. If you don’t win, nothing happens. If you win, you become a millionaire. What does “odds” mean?
>>24843490good book goes over the subject quite wellFor all the people arguing about this each of these arguments is specifically laid out in formal argumentshttps://archive.org/details/edward-feser-five-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god/page/n71/mode/2upWith tons of text arguing for each specific proposition.Point out which proposition is false or does not follow in each of the arguments please Doing anything other than this is just being a retard
The whole atheism thing kind of rests on a false framing of the argument as1) There is a Godand2) There is no Godit's between1) There is more to reality that which can be measured, modeled, and predicted in accord with predictive sciences vs2) There is nothing real except that which can be measured, modeled, and predicted in accord with predictive sciences But to lay it out clearly like that is obviously retarded. Everyone who denies the existence of God just accepts the second view implicitly or explicitly even though it is completely retarded, incoherent, and ungrounded. Anyone who does not assume reality is only a bunch of empty physical matter we can measure and manipulate believes in God, or they are just retarded and participate in our "scientific" culture and are unwilling to abandon it, so they say they are vaguely spiritual while wanting to stay attached to the idea that actually it just is a bunch of atoms and nothing really exists. I think this is why eastern religion larpers are drawn to it, it has the scientific rejection of reality and the self as illusory but makes them feel like there's still some spiritual "orientation" to it. I don't think they are genuine participants in the eastern religion though, they are still fundamentally still doing the same western scientific project and spreading it.
>>24846564>Everything must have a cause, or a mover>Therefore something must exist that doesn'tIt would be funny if theists weren't so brain damaged and shallow
>>24850507https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html
>>24850537>What it seeks to show is that if there is to be an ultimate explanation of things, then there must be a cause of everything else which not onlyhappensto exist, but whichcould not even in principle have failed to exist. Andthatis why it is said to be uncaused – not because it is an arbitrary exception to a general rule, not because it merelyhappensto be uncaused, but rather because it is not the sort of thing that can evenin principlebe said to have had a cause, precisely because it could not even in principle have failed to exist in the first place.Theists cannot decouple their cognition long enough to apply basic scrutiny to their arguments. It's not a coincidence that these people see simplifying their ideas as a negative thing. If you can't simplify your ideas, you 1) do not understand them well enough, and 2) are confused when someone presents a simple counter point to your word salad.
>>24849293Maybe playing the lottery actually has a punishment and you spend eternity in jail for gambling rather than having integrity in yourself. Thus, the winner would be the one who doesn't play the wager.
This thread was moved to >>>/his/18128976
