Without God, meaning and morality do not have an objective grounding, yet a bunch of you people live as if your life still has value, or that your choices matter. The moment you deny God, you lose the right to claim that objective value, meaning, or purpose exist, or that something is right or wrong. But you cannot rule out the possibility of God either by default, because of cause and effect, and symmetry and order, etc.If a mathematician was presented with the choice (A) guaranteed 0%, and choice (B) even a slight chance of >0%, the mathematician would be forced to choose (B), not out of fear or despair, but out of logic and rationality. If everything you believe in collapses without a creator, and you can see even a slight chance for His existence, you must have faith in Him; otherwise, your choice is emotional.Most of you people do not want to be logically 100% consistent, and that is why you fail the test. You do not fail the test because you lack proof; you fail the test because you hate the truth.
>>24957262If I like something then it is right. If I dislike it is wrong. Simple as.
I can smell the American on you. Something about the phrasing.Faith is doubt. It's not supposed to be rational nor beneficial. You can only have it when you're unsure if you have it. Well, good luck.
Not this way bro, I just saw this thread in /pol/
>if there were no God, I would feel sad>I don’t want to feel sad>Therefore God existsStunning. How will atheists ever recover?
>>24957262>Faith is the only rational conclusionStopped reading there.
>>24957285If you think that’s what I was saying, you truly are lost. Maybe read it again and acknowledge it was never about emotions, but about being logically consistent.
>>24957262>Without God, meaning and morality do not have an objective groundingProve this first and then we'll talk
>>24957262how do I even find god?I have obviously been baptized but it was performed against my will or consent, I don't rule out the possibily that something out there might actually exist so I'm agnostic on the matter
>>24957324God could be described as the "ultimate intentionality." Thus, the alternative to God would be non-intentionality. Non-intentionality, by definition, means there is no objective standard because there was no one to create it. No objective standard, no objective right or wrong. This makes morals subjective. If morals are subjective, they are, by definition, not binding. If they are not binding, then you must accept that everything is permitted. You cannot say that someone else's values are right or wrong, or that their actions are good or evil, for who made you the judge of the world?If we are talking purely from observation of existence and reality itself, using logic, without a creator or an objective standard, there is no binding force to anything you believe. Saying that someone should follow your non-binding subjective human rules makes you hypocritical and inconsistent. You are arguing purely from emotion, not from logic. If there is no one to judge, there is no judgment. Without judgment, there is no consequence. And without consequence, what is it exactly that is holding you back?Without an objective standard, no one can claim "greed is evil," yet many of you see greed as evil. What are you basing that on? If there is no objective standard and you won't be punished for greed, yet it's beneficial for you, the only logical conclusion would be to be greedy. Would you not rather be the exploiter than the exploited? Are you not letting your emotions override your logic? And if you are letting your emotions override your logic, does that not make you irrational?Wrote this a while ago.
>>24957344For me personally, because I realized these things I’ve written here, it came naturally. Of course, I’ve had moments in my life that show me there is clearly a guiding hand behind everything, but mainly, understanding how dark existence would be if there is no God, and understanding that my life has no value without an objective grounding like God, I automatically want to choose the only coherent position that has even a chance of giving true value and purpose. I recommend looking at nature and existence and asking questions, such as, “Why is there a perfect solar eclipse when it wouldn’t be required for Earth to function?” As an example, there are patterns in nature and existence that show order, not chaos, and by looking at these things, you gain certainty.
>>24957347>for who made you the judge of the world?I did, next question
>>24957362Existence is already dark, you fucking retard. So you look at this world run by pedophile cultists and just think, oh they'll get theirs in the next life? Cucked by Christ
>>24957262So?
>>24957262>If everything you believe in collapses without a creator, and you can see even a slight chance for His existence, you must have faith in Him.And the creator is the god of the Bible because…?
>>24957430Because the God of the Bible is unique, there has not been another god who has claimed ownership over creation and moral laws, and that is what my whole argument is based on—the moral laws.
>>24957285>>24957295>>24957396>If there were no God, I could goon>I want to get death grip by machine-gunning my weiner to blacked porn and goon edits>Therefore, God is not realFedora logic
>>24957262this kind of argument always seems self-defeating to me. chosen belief isn’t belief. religion needs bite, and logic never supply the proper teeth. if you’re ‘choosing’ religion, then it’s not real religion, and reduces god to risk management.
>>24957262Military might is the highest power on the planet. Even most of the gods that people worship are idealized military leaders
>>24957447If I came to you with scripture, you would tell me, "Show me proof!" So what is it exactly you're looking for?
>>24957440There have been a litany of such Gods across cultures, the biblical god is not unique in any way.
>>24957484>the biblical god is not unique in any wayHe is unique in that He actually exists.
>>24957297Your argument is entirely emotional. It hinges on your discomfort with the implications of ‘god isn’t real’ rather than any consideration of arguments or evidence. > The moment you deny God, you lose the right to claim that objective value, meaning, or purpose existThis is no loss.
>>24957491~be~cause the bi~ble tells me so~
>>24957491No, he doesn't. The bible is not the word of God and the god in the bible does not exist. Quoting scripture does not mean anything. Jesus did not rise and he's never coming back.Pull your low IQ head out of your ass
>>24957496Your worldview has no grounding reason to do good, yet you would expect people to do good; it is inconsistent by nature.
>>24957501>Jesus did not rise and he's never coming back.Why wouldn’t he be raised nor ever come back? According to the witness of the apostles he was a righteous and trustworthy man.
>>24957507What's wrong with people doing good as end in itself instead of because reasons? Many christian people are happy to help without thinking twice about why they must help. The same is true of every religion.
>>24957262>Without God, meaning and morality do not have an objective groundingThen you value meaning/morality over God (might be blasphemous) and yes, what you wrote is perfectly logical. God is like a sociological axiom for youLet's not pretend there's an iota of faith (or any mystery) in your position though, that would violate logical coherence
>>24957262How does God ground meaning, morality and value objectively? For some reason theists seem to consistently presuppose it but never justify it.
>>24957474don’t know if you should be ‘coming’ to people with it in the first place. the only way religion has real weight is when it’s lived into you - through family, place, time.
>>24957535Those Christians you are talking about HAVE A GROUNDING REASON TO DO GOOD BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITH. If you claim that there is no God, you then lose that grounding reason to do good, and I don't know how many times I need to explain why subjective, non-binding morality fails.
>>24957347>>24957547Responded to this already.Wouldn’t you want evil to be punished and good to be rewarded? The punishment and reward aren’t the point—they’re what make the law legitimate. A law without punishment is just a suggestion.
>>24957548Someone else might find value in the words I am saying, and I am speaking to them.
>>24957452What did napoleon say about Jesus
>>24957559>Wouldn’t you want evil to be punished and good to be rewarded?It's impressive our petty human wants are reflected across the entire cosmos
All I care about is pussy, money, dope, and cherry picking philosophies and literature that supports those things.
>>24957565religion isn’t useful information to be safely distributed at scale, it’s soul-shaking initiation. treated casually, it doesn’t elevate.
>>24957262>Without God, meaning and morality do not have an objective groundingCorrect. When you're an adult, you learn to fucking deal with it.Objectivity is a myth perpetuated by 85IQ teenagers and middle-aged failures. Either a person has the capacity for complex thought, or they cling impotently to these thin illusions because facing the World as it exists would break them.>>>/pol/ stay on your containment board, with the rest of the drunks and kidfuckers.
Pascal's Wager assumes that people "choose" what they believe like an autistic child picking a hyperfixation. It's fundamentally flawed because it misunderstands what Belief is.Please stop shitting up the decent blue boards with this pseud dogshit; the fact that you post on this site at all indicates that you're not going to Heaven anyway.
>>24957590My argument is not Pascal's Wager because it is not about risk management; it's about choosing the most logical option given the circumstances.
>>24957582There's no religion here, OP has only written about logic, values, and laws (God is almost incidental as a first axiom)You could substitute any fitting principle for God (like Order or Mind) and it would be indistinguishable from secular humanism
>>24957262God is for that thing in our genome that demands it. God is for that thing which keeps us animals alive. God is, at most, a slice of monkey suspended within the stuff of universal intelligence. We are monkeys in nice clothes.In the harsh environment we refer to as a habitable planet, group behaviors are required to survive long enough to procreate. Since we are stupid monkeys, we have no natural affinity for group altruism.And so we have evolved a genetic pump that delivers pleasant chemicals to our monkey brains. One that is triggered by awe and fear of an anthropomorphism of your environment. Earth mothers. Sky gods. Bits of bush that catch fire. Interesting-looking rocks. An oddly-shaped branch. We’re not fussy.While our brains do this idiot work, we stop in front of that bump or stick and consider it fiercely. Other monkeys will, like as not, stop next to us and emulate us. Our genetic pump delivers morphine for our souls. We have our fellow monkeys join in. Perhaps so they can feel it too. Perhaps because we feel it might please the stick god to have more monkeys gaze at it in narcotic awe.The group must be defended. Because as many monkeys as possible must please the stick god, and we can continue to get your fix off praying to it.We draw up rules to organize and protect the group. Two hundred thousand years later, we detonate fission bombs in our only available biosphere. Because we are, after all, just monkeys.God is our stash.
>>24957559But the existence of God does nothing to provide an objective grounding. It remains a singular judgement *about* certain actions. If you argue that by the fact those actions are objectively (im)moral by virtue of their divine consequences you're still just arguing their validity through instrumentality. The problem is that 'objectivity' is a term that does not even parse ethics. Morals are ontologically divorced from any notion of 'objectivity', it's a term that does not make sense in the discourse of ethics.
>>24957262STFU faggot.
>>24957262>Without God, meaning and morality do not have an objective grounding,Even with a god those things lack groundi g, that's why faith Is needed
>>24957566Who cares? Christianity would have remained a minor, fragmentary Jewish sect in the Middle East if not for military force.
>>24957262>Without God, meaning and morality do not have an objective groundingAll of these things are subjective. There is no such thing as objective morality, meaning or God (that we can empirically measure). Morality is entirely based upon our fallible human perspective, which is subjective>yet a bunch of you people live as if your life still has value, or that your choices matter. Just because meaning and morality is subjective, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value. This is a logical fallacy>The moment you deny God, you lose the right to claim that objective value, meaning, or purpose exist, or that something is right or wrong. Again, the existence of God is not objective. Morality is not objective. Meaning and value is not objective. These are subjective things. Therefore, you are in the same bucket as I am>But you cannot rule out the possibility of God either by default, because of cause and effect, and symmetry and order, etc.If you can prove God exists definitively (you can’t) then perhaps you may have a point here. Cause and effect can still and does exist without God. Order and symmetry are functions of counter entropic patterns in nature, which is entirely dependent upon the nature of energy. This has nothing to do with god and everything to do with temperature differentials etc>If a mathematician was presented with the choice (A) guaranteed 0%, and choice (B) even a slight chance of >0%, the mathematician would be forced to choose (B), not out of fear or despair, but out of logic and rationality. There is no such thing as 0%. We can get close to 0 as to be practically 0, but never true 0. There is an infinitesimally small chance that the heat death of the universe could occur tomorrow. Mathematicians jobs are to calculate the probability of an occurrence based on objectively measurable set of variables, not to decide based on emotion.>If everything you believe in collapses without a creator, and you can see even a slight chance for His existence, you must have faith in Him; otherwise, your choice is emotional.Again, your faith and sight in him is entirely subjective. You are the one making the emotional decision>Most of you people do not want to be logically 100% consistent, and that is why you fail the test. You do not fail the test because you lack proof; you fail the test because you hate the truth.It’s you who’s not being logically consistent. You’ve failed to understand perspective, objective reality and epistemological fact. Hate or love does not come into the equation of truth. I do not hate energy or a neutron star or entropy anymore than I love it. It just is; that is the essence of truth. It’s you who’s trying to put a moral lease on it and interpret it.
>>24957276>>24957262Faith starts with trust and seeking. Its fullness is illumination and gnosis. The idea that faith is "just affirming something without good evidence" is nonsense Enlightenment (or maybe Reformation) bastardization of what the *virtue* of faith historically meant.Somehow, the notion that faith is an infused virtue was allowed to drift into "either God magics it into you or He doesn't," whereas it was always before cultivated like any other virtue, through prayer, fasting, vigils, meditation, study, and of course the Holy Mysteries.
>>24958009>Faith starts with trust and seeking. Its fullness is illumination and gnosis.What does that actually mean?
>>24957934Was it a military force by the time of Irienaeus, Justin, Origen, Augustine, etc.?
>>24958014When the nous is healed, one sees, not through discourse and conceptual images, but through contemplation.
>>24957507I don't expect people to do good, and neither does anyone else. It's why we have have a system of laws, and governance.
>>24957590>like an autistic child picking a hyperfixationI don't remember picking my hyperfixations as a child. Bad analogy imo.
>>24957262>I'm too much of a pussy to be able to handle a world without inherent morality, so I have to believe in a magic man to baby my fragile ego.Yeah, sure, whatever. If you need a god to tell you how to be good, you were never a good person in the first place.
>>24958018>When the nous is healed, one sees, not through discourse and conceptual images, but through contemplation.Ok, cool. Now what does that mean?Every time I try to actually take this stuff seriously, I am met with a brick wall of jargon or schizo babble.
>>24958017Who legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire?
>>24958028It’s not about being told right from wrong. You feel right and wrong, but you do need an objective grounding to validate those feelings as more than just feelings. Because feeling that something is wrong doesn’t bind you, it’s just a feeling. If there then is a force behind that feeling that governs behavior on an existential level, now that gives grounding to what you already feel.
>>24957262>Arbitrarily and subjectively pick a god>"Now I have an objective grounding!"kek
>>24957262I believe that, if God exists, he punishes Pascal Wager takers and rewards honest non-believers. Now what, OP?
>>24958220My argument is not Pascal's Wager because it is not about risk management; it's about choosing the most logical option given the circumstances.
>>24958284Why do you assume picking a god to believe in creates an objective foundation? Why not simply accept that the universe, as it is, contains objective morality? We know that some experiences will reliably bring positive or negative states of being (pain and pleasure for example), so why can't you just appeal to reality as it presents itself as an objective basis for good and bad rather than creating a Being (which belongs more properly to myth and anthropology)? One doesn't simply prefer pleasure to pain, the essence of what pleasure is has desirability inherent in it. It is desirability in and of itself. Whatever that essence is will be our only possible hope for an "objective" basis for morality. After all, would you want to subscribe to an "objective" morality which diminishes the kind of good life which maximizes the positive states of being I referenced earlier? Isn't it suspicious to you that the "objective" morality of god isn't mass murdering and torture, but instead maps on to a primitive form of maximizing social cohesion? Why not simply cut out the rudimentary aid of a deity and use that as the metric, like the Greek "Eudaimonia"?
>>24957262This guy eats dogs.
>>24957262>Without God, meaning and morality do not have an objective grounding,that's only true for the jews and the people who aped them
>>24958356Its true for all men.
I have knowledge of God's existence from reality, what place does faith have?Faith is about accepting something you cannot justify through facts simply because you want it to be true
