Who here actually believes in God? I have read Keith Ward's 'Why God almost certainly exists...

The fedorafag fears the Ward.

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father through Whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father; And He will come again with glory to judge the living and dead. His kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets. In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.

Amen.

Ok there Mustapha Mond.

Our mathematical models are extremely falible and in no way do they perfectly align with what our measurements say.
The real world doesn't conform to an abstract logical representation, it behaves in ways that don't really make that much sense to the untrained eye. Only through the construction of a paradigm we learn to observe through a certain lens which directs our vision to the parts that conform to the paradigm while blurring everything else, these models aren't even that solid since we keep discarding them during scientific revolutions anyways.
Can we really say our logic constitutes a substance in the inner workings of the universe if history has proven that all of our attempts at logically looking at nature end up in utter failure?
What you're doing is basically applying causality backwards, We create our logical systems by looking at nature, if there was an inherent logic written in it, scientific endeavor wouldn't be a constant creation and destruction of failed paradigms but an extraction and observation of inherently cohesive natural entities.

physical laws cant be different, they are that way because they were perceived by human that way. Laws needs observer to exist

So are there any actual arguments for theism outside of pascal's wager or attempting to plug the gaps in our scientific understanding of the universe (e.g. where did the matter in the universe come from, how does consciousness arise from unconscious matter)?

>physical laws cant be different
Says who?
>Laws needs observer to exist
On a quantum level this is true. However, the universe was ticking according to immutable laws long before humans came onto the scene.

>was ticking according to immutable laws long before humans came onto the scene.
Says who?

>Our mathematical models are extremely falible and in no way do they perfectly align with what our measurements say.
Not really true desu. Imaginary numbers were thought to be completely useless until it was discovered they had great use in engineering.
>The real world doesn't conform to an abstract logical representation, it behaves in ways that don't really make that much sense to the untrained eye.
The real world does confirm to abstract logical representation. It doesn't make sense to the untrained eye but makes perfect sense to the trains. Objects in motion behave in predictable ways obeying fixed laws. On a quantum level this is much more complicated and relies on probability.
>history has proven that all of our attempts at logically looking at nature end up in utter failure?
No they don't. That's just utter rubbish. You don't understand science. I suppose you think Eddington's experiments didn't confirm Einstein's theory?
>there was an inherent logic written in it, scientific endeavor wouldn't be a constant creation and destruction of failed paradigms
There is an inherent logic to the universe. The 'failed paradigms' of which you speak are just hypotheses that have been disproven or theories that have been adapted.

There is a clear inherent logic to the universe. Physicist John Gribbin once tongue in cheek speculated that the universe might be some simulation or an experiment by aliens. Read some physics and get back to me.

I really try to believe in God but the minute I try to open my mouth and talk about God in person I sound like such a fucking retard I realize how bullshit it is
Perhaps faith must be private I'm not sure

The universe existed long before humans existed; we can determine this with evidence and the scientific method.

The universe and the abstract logic through which it works did not begin with our consciousness.

laws back then were different than now, so different it was impossible for life to start. Universe exist much longer than peoples in it

You should keep the discussion of mathematical realism separate from the discussion about physical laws.
t.Karl Popper's retarded cousin

Holy shit, that's actually a pretty good argument, could you share some literature that tackles this kind of argument?

*Deism
Theism is dumb.

Keith Ward: 'Why there is almost certainly a God'

Anything by John Lennox (he is a genius)

John Polkinghorne: 'Reason and Reality'

Also, Leibniz is pretty awesome.

If you have a degree in physics you should then be able to tell me what the law of gravity has in common with the theory of relativity and the fact that going at light speed in a vacuum means in the context of a black hole, that being my anus, right up in your face.

>That which nothing greater can be thought of or can be must exist. We call this God
that is just senseless mental gymnastics based purely on fucking around with language according to someones wishful thinking

I can respect this

I don't think it is irrational to suppose that the Supreme Mind/God might intervene in the Universe.

Personally, I put my faith and trust in a man who lived 2000 years ago who claimed to be the divine mind's son, who claimed that He was one with His Father, who claimed that He was the only way to Father.

He did a lot of things to back up this claim; he walked on water, healed the blind, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead.

Although some might consider the fact that I believe He did those things a sign of intellectual inferiority, there is a large amount of historical evidence for the existence of this man. Josephus and other writers talk of Him a few decades after He died.

Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the eyewitness accounts of four men from the 1st century AD written 30 years after the events described may not be enough to convince people. Therefore believing the writers of these four accounts is mainly a matter of trust and faith. Nevertheless, I find it hard to doubt the experience I get when I am with fellow believers worshipping Him every Sunday whilst I eat of His flesh and drink of His blood.

This man sits at the very foundation stone of Western Civilisation and I'm not about to discount His word offhand. He is the word. He is the word made flesh.

jesus there are some shit threads on here at the moment and this one is peak shitness

Yes, the cosmological argument arising from the principle of sufficient reason is valid and establishes the existence of some kind of transcendent creator (not necessarily anything like the christian "God")

I am fine with people using insults. The thing is, if you're going to disparage something it's better to actually give a reason why you thing something is bad/wrong/shit.

Saying 'you're shit/a retard/wrong, might well be true but if you don't actually explain why then you just look like a cunt and no one will listen to you.

It's like fucking no one here has touched a book concerning philosophy of religion.
>appealing to fine tuning in 2017

>physical laws
The universe is not governed by nice, simple physical laws. Humans recognize general patterns and come up with simple ways of describing them. In the greater scheme of things those patterns could all turn out to be a bunch of noise.

Ever read 'There is a God' by Anthony Flew?
Fine tuning was an afterthought (not the crux) in the argument to show how the divine mind must have had us in mind; it is not necessarily proof of God, just that if there is one He planned it for seeing us.

You're missing the point about the nature of physical laws existing at all. That's the crux of the argument.

Y'all motherfuckers need to tread Kant's transcendental dialectic and realize you can't fukken prove God.

...

That's simply not true. The universe is governed by laws (many of them quite complex) but nevertheless the universe behaves in a predictable manner, with the exception of the quantum level which behaves in a probabilistic manner. This is basic physics.

By stating that these laws are just 'patterns' you've basically made all of Science invalid; if things in the universe don't abide by predictable laws then any predictions based on scientific theories are meaningless. This is ludicrous.

PLEASE READ: I am fine with people using insults. The thing is, if you're going to disparage something it's better to actually give a reason why you thing something is bad/wrong/shit.

Saying 'you're shit/a retard/wrong, might well be true but if you don't actually explain why then you just look like a cunt and no one will listen to you.

Do you also believe that Pythagoras had a thigh made of gold?

Even with a dozen terms, equations are only very close mathematical approximations of what is really going on. There is no beautiful celestial order that might indicate a divine clockmaker.

Aight I apologize. Thing is, given the infection of Christians with IQs smaller than their shoe size of the past few years on Veeky Forums, no one will listen me even if I made a case either, or at least wouldn't care and just stick with their biases and uninformed world views. Sure, you a seemingly okay fellow specifically might change your mind but given that you still haven't after all the work various really smart people have put into debunking theism the odds are you won't. I'll just namedrop some books you can study at your own leasure and call it a day.

Nicholas Everitt - The non-existence of God
Jordan Howard Sobel - Logic and Theism
Herman Philipse - God in the Age of Science?
JL Schellenberg - The hiddenness argument

kek, shitty books.

Case in point.

That's simply not true I'm afraid. If I throw a ball at a wall, then, taking into account all the physical laws and all the minute factors, it is possible to determine exactly where that ball will land. This is because physical laws are DESCRIPTIONS of the way the universe behaves.

>taking into account all the physical laws and all the minute factors, it is possible to determine exactly where that ball will land
But this is just begging the question against the Humean, no one ever anywhere measured anything with 100.0% accuracy so you don't really have a case for this claim other than saying so.

You're pathetic.

No it is not. Accepting that the present predicts the future, the approximate present is only capable of predicting a future more approximate still. Since all humans are able to capture to model is a vision of the approximate present, all physical equations have some scrap of uncertainty.

Literally everyone (at least each of my professors did) will tell you that physics is never 100% correct and we are always working with a degree of uncertainty. Of course this doesn't tell us whether such knowledge is possible or not, but for now we don't possess it. Are sure you have a degree in physics?

>Christians with IQs smaller than their shoe size
Pointless ad hominem.
>Sure, you a seemingly okay fellow specifically might change your mind but given that you still haven't after all the work various really smart people have put into debunking theism the odds are you won't.

Seriously? An appeal to authority? A theist turn around and say the exact same thing, list some books and quotes from some of the greatest scientific and philosophical minds over the centuries and say 'See, people smarter than you believe in God therefore God is real.'

Whether or not God exists, a lot of people who are of high intellect happen to be wrong. There are great minds on both sides. I happen to find what Aristotle, Leibniz, Newton, Lemaitre, Eddington, Flew, Polkinghorne, and Ward more convincing than the people you mentioned.

Maybe you're right (you're probably not) but maybe there is no God. That does still not make you more intelligent. There are plenty of absolute illiterate retards who happen to be atheists. Not believing in God does not make you one jot smarter.

TL;DR climb off your high horse and learn to discuss ideas like a fucking grown up.

Not him but Logic and Theism is breddy gud.

>something must exist a priori to the laws
>the universe is governed by the laws of mathematical physics
>it seems logical to suppose etc.

no

t. I do theoretical physics for a living

Yes I have a physics degree. Anyone who understand chaos theory knows there is nothing random about chaos.

Yes, as I have already stated that not everything in the universe is predictable; quantum theory proves that. Nevertheless, quantum theory still adheres to probability functions.

>Pointless ad hominem
>ad hominem
They're called INSULTS Jesus Christ, insults. Stop saying ad hominuuuum every time you see an insult.

>I do theoretical physics for a living
>Spending time on a board for anime porn fans/neo-nazis/pseuds.

I doubt you are even over 18 m8.

>Pointless ad hominem.
It's not, because I'm not claiming they're wrong *because* they are stupid, just that their level of discourse is dragging the board down.
>An appeal to authority?
An appeal to authority is not a fallacy when I'm not claiming they're right *just because* they're authorities.
>over the centuries
Key point, Christians like pointing at past figures in a cult of personality-like manner, the contemporary facts are not on their side, something like 99% of working physicists are atheists etc.
>more convincing than the people you mentioned
Well then you're just not that well equipped to assess arguments. I'm sorry?
>That does still not make you more intelligent.
I never claimed this.
>There are plenty of absolute illiterate retards who happen to be atheists.
And this is irrelevant for the debate.

>Anonymous 11/29/17(Wed)16:29:53 No.10331739▶
> (You)
>>Pointless ad hominem
>>ad hominem
>They're called INSULTS Jesus Christ, insults. Stop saying ad hominuuuum every time you see an insult.
He used the implication that Christians have low IQs are proof that Christianity is wrong. This is a fallacious argument. Therefore it is an ad hominem.

>Who here actually believes in God?
I believe in Spinoza's God, but I don't think that counts ...

>something like 99% of working physicists are atheists
It's clear that you have no background in science. Anyone trained in science would never make such a claim without providing some source with an accurate number.

pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

51% of scientists believe in a God or at least some 'universal spirit or higher power.' This is lower than in the general population, yes, but it is nowhere near the level that you claim.

>something like 99% of working physicists

I am not religious, but to be fair this is completely false and just a terrible argument.

phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html

Polkinghorne and John Lennox are currently working physicists and mathematicians; both are devout Christian apologists.

Spinoza's God Isn't any different than what most modern "Christians" believe in (aka moralistic therapeutic deism).

>Spinoza's God Isn't any different than what most modern "Christians" believe in (aka moralistic therapeutic deism).
Not really no. Firstly, Spinoza is not a moralist, even going as far as to say that "good" is merely how we call what we desire. Secondly, Spinoza rejects miracles and the after life, which is something that is still dear to a lot of christians, at least in Europe.

>reads Kuhn once

t. Rick and Morty fan

I'm a Rick and Morty fan and I believe in God... Stop being stupid...

t. Rick and Morty fan

No, he didn't, you're just dumb. That is both my argument and an insult.

"some universal spirit or higher power" is broad to the point of uselessness, and probably means something completely different for different people.

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.

"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

>something must exist a priori to the laws.
Why?

Laws cannot create themselves. Laws cannot create anything. Physical laws are DESCRIPTIONS of the way our universe behaves.

>Physical laws are DESCRIPTIONS of the way our universe behaves.
i.e. not things that actually exist

i.e. abstractions, i.e.

Are we discussing Christianity again? I thought Varg already BTFO of christians and their religion, never seen good counter-arguments to his claims.

thuleanperspective.com/tag/christianity/

We don't have a good understanding of physics at very high energies, so all the math at that level is extremely ugly and impossible to use practically. We are limited to approximations.

Our approximations are absurdly accurate. QED makes predictions to ten parts in a billion. We discovered the necessary mathematical scaffolding for these approximations before they had any sort of relevance in the real world. Imaginary Numbers, Hilbert Spaces, Spinors, etc.

Just because there's no good gravity theory yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or conform to some kind of rational model. The way the world behaves makes a lot of sense if you know a little bit of math. Quantum Mechanics can be done, and comprehended, by high school kids who know a little bit of calculus. It's really not so hard to describe once you understand vector spaces. The fact that something so unintuitive can be rendered trivial by rationality is just more testament to our mathematical models. It might take you a few years of study to develop an intuition, but don't think it doesn't make sense just because it goes over your head.

Me too, didn't do anything with it. All I have is the smug sense of superiority that I'm probably a lot smarter than everyone I've ever met, and the crippling depression that I'm still too stupid to be a professor.

>*turns on microphone*
>*ahem*
>excuse me but..
>*dramatic pause*
>...but which God are you talking about?

Thanks, was going to say something along these lines.

"The notion of a Supreme Being is in many respects a highly useful idea; but for the very reason that it is an idea, it is incapable of enlarging our cognition with regard to the existence of things. It is not even sufficient to instruct us as to the possibility of a being which we do not know to exist. The analytical criterion of possibility, which consists in the absence of contradiction in propositions, cannot be denied it. But the connection of
real properties in a thing is a synthesis of the possibility of which an a priori judgement cannot be formed, because these realities are not presented to us specifically; and even if this were to happen, a judgement would still be impossible, because the criterion of the possibility of synthetical cognitions must be sought for in the world of experience, to which the object of an idea cannot belong. And thus the celebrated Leibnitz has utterly failed in his attempt to establish upon a priori grounds the possibility of this sublime ideal being."

Regardless of whether you believe the universe is ordered or chaotic, it's still consistent with the Biblical universe. If the Bible is anything, it's a drama of complete and utter chaos, yet with a glimmer of order shining through the veil.

Belief in God makes me feel like an enormous loser desu, but nothing in my experience has told me definitively that there isn't a God. And it seems to me that regardless of whether there is a God, the Christian life is effectively the most correct life to live. Plus I get all wierd and twitchy whenever the sacristy bells start ringing, which is something I'm certain I'm not imagining.

Perhaps it's not the Christian God, but I'm absolutely certain that there's something operating behind the scenes.

I do
As ashamed as I have to be to admit this, I have taken the leap of faith

Had an existential crisis, and devoted the last two months to pondering the existence of God in a serious way for the first time ever. I've become convinced (thanks to Aquinas' arguments and their later developments) that there must be some eternal 'thing' from which all other creation stemmed, which we may as well call God. However, I'm just as agnostic as ever about the properties of this God - whether he's a personal God or not, whether he can interfere in this world, whether he's the source of an objective morality, whether we get an afterlife - I'm not sure we can ever answer any of these questions without blind 'faith'.

I do have a deep respect for Christian morality and try to modal my own ethics on Christ, but many other ascetics throughout history have also offered this type of wisdom - it doesn't necessarily follow that any one of them is 'divine'.

I've also not solved my existential crisis yet, because I've not come across any post-life idea that brings me comfort. The thought of oblivion terrifies me, and the thought of eternal life is even worse. Either way I'm headed for something I'm scared of. The only ideas I'm starting to warm to are the re-integration into 'collective oneness' which is impossible to comprehend phenomenologically, and/or repeated reincarnation with no ability to recall past lives. That's just an emotional reaction though - there's no reason to believe either of those is actually what happens.

Well yeah

Read Schuon
The Schuon reader is a good start

Why "must" anything be the way that it is? You replace one occult entity (laws) for another (Necessity).

>The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

read it

It's self evident and anyone that says otherwise is a liar.

>The thought of oblivion terrifies me, and the thought of eternal life is even worse.

Don't worry, death isn't possible. You're on this ride forever.