Everything happens for a reason

>everything happens for a reason
>What baseless horseshit is this? What is a "reason"?
Everything has a cause. No event can happen without a preceding event. Do you disagree?

A preceding event isn't necessarily a cause, and that's a far cry from "everything happens for a reason." But in this universe, objects remain in motion until they meet an opposing force. Technically, there needs to be a stopper, not a mover. Things that appear stationary are typically moving at the same velocity, speed and direction, as the observer. We don't know what started the Big Bang, but particles can spontaneously appear. Quantum mechanics does contain spontaneous or 'uncaused' events. Assuming that the causes are merely hidden (to restore the determinism necessary for the UM argument to work) results in the hidden variables theories, but calling that "a reason" is like saying "Unicorns exist, because rhinoceros!" There is no reason to believe that the universe had a cause, and even if the universe did have a cause, there is no reason to believe that cause is a consciousness. That kind of philosophy is mostly abused semantics. As I said, there is no relationship whatsoever between any cosmic event or purpose that created our reality and our silly little tribal deities.

>A preceding event isn't necessarily a cause
And I never said it is

>even if the universe did have a cause, there is no reason to believe that cause is a consciousness. That kind of philosophy is mostly abused semantics.
The most famous "proofs of God" are precisely abuses of semantics - namely the "Five Ways" of Aquinas and the ontological argument.
In those arguments you can see God defined as
>the unchangable thing that causes change
>the greatest imaginable thing
>the original event that caused all other events
>the "goodness itself"
None of which even imply a consciousness.
My OP post was an attempt as stressing how those supposed "proofs" are completely detached from any dogmas of contemporary organised religion, and how as such they can't be used to its defense.

This faggot is just pissed off people are becoming more religious and wishes that it was the past. Everyone laugh at his stupid ass and thank God the world has changed from absolute horseshit

This is a "religious" person who virtue signals by name-calling and mocking others in an attempt to see himself as morally and intellectually superior

George Brantl, nice

>ditch the smartphone and buy a shitphone with no internet access
>study at your campus library instead of at home
>stop listening to music all the time

99% you won't do any of those anyway

Bros like Nietzsche suggest that the tribalist conceptions of God come first, and the rational arguments for the existence of God come later, as post-hoc rationalizations. So first comes the supposed "revelation," which is passed down through storytelling traditions in order to reinforce the moral/cultural status quo, and only then, when these traditions are well-established, do you begin to see the philosophical attempts at grounding these cultural concepts in the categories of reason.

So on this view, one doesn't go from the ontological argument or whatever to the tribalist conception; it's always the reverse.

But of course there are serious objections to this line of argument. For one thing, Aristotle's argument for a prime mover clearly wasn't rooted in the Greek religion of his time. His proposal was bold and original, and it could not be used to rationalize traditionally Greek conceptions of the dieties.

That's a serious objection. Of course Nietzsche has more to say about the matter (that bros like Aristotle were still "despisers of the body" who were deluding themselves, etc), but none of what he says can clearly explain away this sort of objection.

And then when you start asking about the history of Western thought as an attempt to bridge theological Aristoteleanism or Platonism with Christianity, thing get complicated because you have to account for the cultural and institutional pressure on thinkers to justify and vindicate their received forms of religions. And so on and so forth.

So it's an open question whether (or to what extent) rational arguments for God have ever actually motivated traditional religions, and if they have, then in what way, and by what means (was there actually a philosophical argument or was it all historical and cultural forces at play? etc).

Good question OP. But perhaps we should open it up and start asking whether the line of thought actually moves in the direction you suggest (phil->tribalism), or in the reverse direction, or if entirely separate mechanisms link the two conceptions.

Because it always remains possible that some of the more notable adherents of the philosophical conception never really cared for the tribalist conceptions anyway, and maybe only espoused the tribalist conceptions to avoid punishment and ostracism by by esablishment, as a number of scholars suggest.

>everything happens for a reason
No, everything has a "cause"

My question wasn't about what came earlier historically, but how do modern thinkers and theologians justify such a leap of faith.

>it always remains possible that some of the more notable adherents of the philosophical conception never really cared for the tribalist conceptions anyway, and maybe only espoused the tribalist conceptions to avoid punishment and ostracism by by esablishment, as a number of scholars suggest.
Yes it may very well be the case, but that would mean that what you call the "tribalistic conceptions" - and what I called "organised religion" - has no philosophical justification at all.

Wrong thread?
What's wrong with music?

Causes are fuzzy pattern recognition results, not objective facts like if they were triggered events in the cosmic codebase
There seems to be some order in the universe, but maybe that's just a prerequisite of recognizable existence.

No wonder you're confused, those are all foreign religions

That may remain true, that the organized religions/tribalist conceptions are, in the end, philosophically groundless.

Many have suggested as much.

But then there is a tradition of writers like Kant and Hegel who really tried to justify the connection between what they called "pure" or "rational faith," on the one hand, and the cultural manifestations of tribal/revealed religion, on the other.

Maybe we should talk about those efforts. Kant's "Religion Within the Bounds of Mere Reason" is all about your question. But he frames it as a question concerning the relationship between the faith supportable by an ahistorical, pure reason, and a faith that requires the cultural and historical institution of churches and social patterns. Many features of Hegel's major works take on the question as well, with a different framework.

Well you see user, women are terrible. Women bleed from their cunts and this is gross, and this is something all three Abrahamic faiths agree on. You cannot even begin to understand the nature of God until you understand the base, sub-human nature of the woman, and how it differs from that of Man, who was created in God's image. Man, you see, is lord and master over creation, and woman, but woman does not accept this, for woman is imperfect and faulty, always feeling incomplete and unfulfilled as she is only a shadow of man, made from him and yearning to be filled by him (sex plants seed in a woman and gives her purpose by allowing her to produce a man's offspring, making her in essence an incubation vessel for the essence of life that is found within man and only man), and for this imperfection and this dependence on man does woman loathe and envy man, his eternal superior.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all agree on this, and this is the foundation of all theological discourse. Do not concern yourself with how to get from deism (which is a given, only those with the minds of women could ever deny the existence of the Prime Mover, as they fear any who hold power over them) to theism until you understand what theism is, and in order to understand theism you must understand Man and Woman.

wrong. You are responding to a horse. you heard it from his mouth first. get btfo newfaggot.

Either everything is eternal(without beginning or end), or it had an origin. Said origin must be omnipotent, since before it there was nothing. So we have this almighty cause, that's so powerful it could will itself into existence(without existing, or is eternal since it's beyond time. Actually, God is time itself), it's coming divided being and nothingness and thus duality was born... just know that everything that's ever existed, was first an abstract thought. Or words and numbers. Everything can be reduced to words and numbers

Oh yeah man, shit just happens for no causal reason all the time and everything is random.

But also, we can do science because things are causally repeatable and that means the world obeys some kind of uniformity.

>Pick one.

Rationality of prophets

Only a drooling idiot needs to "pick one." Our universe has chaos and order, from our limited perspectives. Many things are causally repeatable to varying degrees, but many things are not (as someone noted, fuzzy pattern recognition isn't reliable repeatability), and I already noted that quantum mechanics involve spontaneous events. Obviously the creation of the universe doesn't fall into "all the time" category, does it? Whatever happened during or before the Big Bang--or even if the theory isn't remotely like what happened--has no bearing on whether your holy book is true or not.

I don't agree with the assumption that everything is causal.