Convince me of the existance of god / books or philosophers that could convince you of the existance of god

Convince me of the existance of god / books or philosophers that could convince you of the existance of god

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/AYiARR4yEFc
youtu.be/BsuSTYlvNRY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>existance
Kill me, there's no god

There isn't a dog, move on

>existance
Derrida is back and desperate.

...

This

You can convince yourself.

*ahem*
If I may:

If God is not real, as you posit, then why is it, gentlemen (and ladies) that my mommy says that Jesus loves me very much?

Now keep in mind, my simpleminded friends, that I am mommy's very special boy, and she would have no reason to lie to me.

I ask any *chortles* confident atheist present here today to refute my argument. Go on, take your time. I'll await your "rebuttal".

This is pretty dumb. I can't even imagine writing something like this and thinking it would be funny.

Kant and Hegel have helped restore my faith and belief in God. Albeit, it’s a much different understanding than I had in my youth.

Your level of faggotry would never be produced by natural selection.
Checkmate.

Beauty exists

Read the Tao Te Ching and realize that God was an essence or force rather than a personified entity that the Abrahamic religions evolved into a tool of control.

define "existence/existance" first

>existance

I'm not sure what sort of definition you're looking for. Perhaps you could provide a few and I'll pick one.

soren kirkegaard

>I’m not sure of whether some-thing “is” or “is not” can be construed in different ways

Fuck off pseud

I never said that existence can't be interpreted in different ways. If you're asking to define a term in good faith you should have no problem providing some alternative interpretations.

If you care about moral ontology at all Dostojevskij is an obvious author.
Crime and Punishment or The brothers Karamazov

start with the greeks

Phaedo

It's a metaphysical question that is impossible to prove, so just find the path in life that brings you the most happiness and stop worrying about it.

t. someone who can't stop worrying about it, and is constantly tormented by thoughts about the afterlife or the absence thereof

Lel

Thanks guys.


And for the susceptible believers you are retarded, a lot of christians would go wet with my request.

Nice

How's this for proof.
Years ago this video surfaced online by some retard creationists saying "the banana is the atheists worst nightmare." The video became a big meme among atheists because it actually supported the evolutionist view since bananas were cultivated to be food and wild bananas are much harder to eat.

Years go by and suddenly a new video surfaced online.

A video of the amazing atheist sticking a banana up his butt hole.

MFW the banana was the atheists worst nightmare all along.

MFW there is a God.

God doesn't real. And even if he does, who cares. Biblical Hell is probably figurative if you Abandon literalist interpretations

>if you Abandon literalist interpretations

Since Reverend Doctors now declare
That clerks and people must prepare
To doubt if Adam ever were;
To hold the flood a local scare;
To argue, though the stolid stare,
That everything had happened ere
The prophets to its happening sware;
That David was no giant-slayer,
Nor one to call a God-obeyer
In certain details we could spare,
But rather was a debonair
Shrewd bandit, skilled as banjo-player:
That Solomon sang the fleshly Fair,
And gave the Church no thought whate'er;
That Esther with her royal wear,
And Mordecai, the son of Jair,
And Joshua's triumphs, Job's despair,
And Balaam's ass's bitter blare;
Nebuchadnezzar's furnace-flare,
And Daniel and the den affair,
And other stories rich and rare,
Were writ to make old doctrine wear
Something of a romantic air:
That the Nain widow's only heir,
And Lazarus with cadaverous glare
(As done in oils by Piombo's care)
Did not return from Sheol's lair:
That Jael set a fiendish snare,
That Pontius Pilate acted square,
That never a sword cut Malchus' ear
And (but for shame I must forbear)
That -- -- did not reappear! . . .
- Since thus they hint, nor turn a hair,
All churchgoing will I forswear,
And sit on Sundays in my chair,
And read that moderate man Voltaire.

TBK turned me from an edgy atheist into a catholic atheist.
Only book that actually changed my life.

Nobody ever reads this shit.

i'm convinced

He might not think of the banana as a nightmare.
Further proof that dog exists.

These 3 helped me break out of atheism:
Confessions - St. Augustine
The Enneads - Plotinus
Divine Comedy, mainly Paradiso

If you're determined not to believe then no one can convince you.
is right.

Soren Kierkegaard is my personal favorite, and his writings are excellent for developing provocateur-esque vocabulary.

He's actually wrong. [Stoicism]

youtu.be/AYiARR4yEFc

Seconding this

I personally will never understand the relevance of this question. If it was revealed tomorrow that God does in fact exist, it would mostly get a meh from me.

Do you give the highest authority to some sort of primordial metaphysical principles, or do you give it to individuality and reason?

If it was revealed tomorrow that aliens existed and have visited the earth it wouldn't change anything in my life. This wouldn't make the revelation uninteresting, it would only mean I failed to appreciate it. Likewise if you fail to appreciate the consequences of a universe where God exists that doesn't mean the consequences don't exist.

If there is a god then you are a part of him, not seperate.
Read some books about the gnostics and then read up on the holographic (or simulation) universe.
But what the fuck do I know, right?

The world has had enough incoherent paganism. There's a reason it died.

It clearly never died, it just fell out of mainstream practice
And the gnostics were not pagans

I read Maimonides' Guide For the Perplexed by random chance and I was forever changed.

I didn't know Hardy could be funny.

Why is that that when anyone talks about the "existence of God" it's always about the Abrahamic god? Why is everyone's views so semitic-centric when semites are pretty much irrelevant in the founding of western civilization?

proof is irrelevant, faith is what's needed

BY JOVE HE'S RIGHT

Why are there so many christfags on Veeky Forums?

There are plenty.

My question is, what proofs are there of a specific religious interpretation of God? I can buy that there is a supreme creator. That said creator follows our daily lives, loves us and demands worship? Not so much.

Atheism exists within theism. Therefore the choice really between atheism and theism or just atheism, which might send you to Hell.

If you can think of something, it must exist because to approach it you must assign attributes and being to it. That which is not cannot be thought of.

Does he tone down the smugness? the last supersitition was almost unbearable

What's with the formatting?

>catholic atheist
lol

I think of your mom's lips around my cock.

It's the main reason why people believe in God, though.

>implying people shouldn't be controlled

Simple: because there is no other God.

Gnostics were worse than pagans.

How is beauty not something that could have evolved?

I've never heard anyone say they believe in God because their told them to. They always have some reason, either philosophical or revelatory or some combination.

If you honestly believe this you've either misunderstood the concept of God or are being deliberately dense for some reason. Both are equally childish.

Yeah he does. In the last superstition he was attacking the new atheists and their ideas, which naturally leads to a supercilious tone.

False, if there are Gods then it surely isn't some irrelevant semitic god.

Anselm
William James
CS Lewis
William of Occham
William Blake

I believe in a God, I can't integrate into any one religion. What do?

>implying you can control people in the first place

I'm an incorrigible atheist, but the one person on Earth who ever made me want to believe in God was the evangelist Billy Graham. Amazing, amazing speaker.

Atoms are too perfect, too many of too unique convenient workable together kinds to achieve too much sophisticated cool tailored to too many conscious intelligent entities able to create too many sophisticated experiences; along with the conceptual idea of 'the Sun' (stars) hints at purposeful enactment

/pol/ leaked to basically every board that crosses over even slightly in the past 2-ish years, Veeky Forums is like 10x worse.

What does it mean for atoms to be perfect? And could you translate the rest of your post?

It turned you catholic and nor orthodox? Did we read the same book?

What a brainlet.

But on the other hand, most of the universe would kill you if it could, and since FTL travel doesn't seem to be possible, the vastness of the universe and the apparent ease with which life could evolve from a paltry few chemical elements would seem a sick tragedy that implies any God responsible for creating it is actually malevolent.

Atheism is more comforting, given what what we know. (Which doesn't make it true—but the preponderance of evidence still makes it more likely.)

t. physicist

You could die very easily while driving a car but this doesn't say anything on the question of whether or not the car was created, and neither does it say any of the cars intentions. If instead the universe was small and could be safely traveled we wouldn't use this as a reason to believe it was created by God so we shouldn't do the inverse and say that because space is dangerous and large it wasn't created.

Could you explain why you believe the universe being created implies a malevolent creator?

A universe like the one we live in is a poor design if its creator wants us to explore it, experience it, and be awed by its beauty.

>estimated diameter 30 gigaparsecs or so
>top speed is 3e8 m/s
>God: look but don't touch, lol

If the universe was really small would you accept that observation as a proof of God?

It's more awe inspiring that we will never see the edges, that to us it's infinite.
The size isn't for us to live in it to marvel at the immensity of His creation and be humbled.
An infinite number of stars to light our night sky.

No, because that by itself wouldn't constitute positive evidence for a Deity.

But I don't see how that really relates to the hostile and inaccessible universe that we DO have being pretty damning disconfirming evidence. They're not logically equivalent.

Good, we can agree that a small universe wouldn't be good evidence for the existence of God. So why do you consider a large universe evidence against the existence of God?

Illtyd Trethowan
Hegel

we are familiar with intelligences causing things conceptually similar to qualities found in/of the universe to exist, we are not familiar with accidents causing things conceptually similar to the qualities found in/of the universe to exist

this x 10^6. you can have people like Plantinga offer a modal ontological argument or a free will defense—that's fine—but there is real passion to be found in soren and pascal. if you ever read the diapsalmata and thought "hmm, yes, this matches my twentysomething temperament," then went on to Judge Wilhelm's letters to A and thought "oh god, it's the clarion call of my conscience!", you might see how prophetic the old hunchback was.

So an Eastern Orthodox book about sincere faith made you become a non-faithful cultural Catholic?

>Read the Tao Te Ching and realize that God was an essence or force rather than a personified entity


The Tao is a pre-Incarnation understanding of the Logos, the eternal source of all things, the uncreated principle underlying all creation.

>What does it mean for atoms to be perfect?
>And could you translate the rest of your post?

They are genius idea. A brilliant idea. One that an intelligent creator would struggle to come up with, and then struggle to get to work right. Little qualitatively and quantitatively different parts, that fit together and interact with each other in such ways to allow a nearly unimaginable variety of stable to semi stable to infinitely 'useful' things to be made by placing different amounts of different types in different proximity's away from one another.

A single atom is perfect, a perfect idea, and a perfect existing composite entity, there is a hierarchy of them and there are (maybe) trillions of them. And they work, sometimes they decay and break and can be broken, but for the most part they pretty consistently stay in piece.

And the Sun, all stars, another brilliant genius idea. Imagine thinking of these as concepts and then implementing them? Imagine nothing like an atom and nothing like a sun existing, and then being like: How can I create a realm that can house billions and billions of intelligent beings that can explore the infinity of creation, and coming up with atoms, and stars.

Need to continuously feed them energy, how about a million times larger than their residence ball of energy that will continue to stabley exist (we hope, for some of them..) and just emit a muck ton of energy constantly, oh and I guess we have to make up this 'style' of energy called light, that may be an integral part of all this, there has to be the concept of 'seeing', 'information, details' have to be able to travel a to b.

>But on the other hand, most of the universe would kill you if it could, and since FTL travel doesn't seem to be possible, the vastness of the universe and the apparent ease with which life could evolve
Why would the vast distance between planets imply a sick tragedy, there are a vast relative distance between countries, and even some neighbors, but still on this planet, people have found one another and grouped together. God must have a reason for keeping the planets so far apart, maybe its not as important to try to go to one planet to the next, though maybe that is also motivation to strive to do so, maybe it is possible, transhumanism and all, and maybe if God does exist, after death you will have the option or be forced to go to other planets, disrupting your 'God cant possibly exist because I cant go to another planet' argument.

>But on the other hand, most of the universe would kill you if it could
And mario falling down those black holes kills him

How do you go from atoms are simple to "therefore God?"

where did I say they were simple?

If that's not what you said then fine, it doesn't matter. How do you go from the atom is perfect to "therefore God?"

I only ever said it is hinting, in my original post. Since we cant see Gods big pretty face, the only possible evidence we can possibly have to say whether we think it may or may not be possible for God to have created the universe is the quantities and qualities of the universe.

I think the quantities and qualities, materials, styles, possibilities, sophistication of the construct of the universe compels me to consider that if there was a God, the quantities and qualities...construct of the universe, would not be out of question as to something a God would create.

And about the atom, to me, I can only say, to me, the atom, the elements and their possible stabilities, relations, and numerousness, lean me toward thinking it may be more difficult for such circumstances to come about without the help of God, than with.

>numerousness
*numerousnesses

this, kinda depends on your definition

*numerousenity

Cosmos and Transcendence - Wolfgang Smith
The Soul of the World - Roger Scruton
Nihilism - Seraphim Rose

youtu.be/BsuSTYlvNRY

>limiting God with mankind
They tried that, Christ showed that even a jew can lead a good life.