Free will doesn't exist

by memes

Parents probably.

>implying the objectiveness of morality, a social construct completely dependent on culture

Reminder that Aquinas objectively proved it and the debate is over

Yeah because the torture of infants being wrong is only a subjective social construct

>Aquinas
>DUDE ARISTOTELIAN METAPHYSICS LMAO

Nope. The universe doesn't have to have begun.

>inb4 b-but cause and effect

That is a principle that exists inside the universe, and it cannot be demonstrated that it applies to the universe itself.

Actually, yes it is. Just look at monkeys and lions.

I accept your surrenders

Nah.

>implying Aristotelian metaphysics arent making a comeback

Those are animals

>I WON AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE, HAHAHA

So are we.

>being depressed that there's nothing hold you back but yourself

Stop being a weakling. Derive meaning from yourself and go and accomplish whatever you want to accomplish before you become infested with maggots, lying six feet under the ground.

Start with not being a pussy. Don't worry. You'll get over it. Everyone(that is intelligent) goes through these things when they're 16-21 years old and they move on. You can only think about it for so long before you just don't give a shit anymore and move on with life.

Then why are we capable of wonder, science, and spirituality

Thanks for going all out in showing you gave up

>Aquinas
>THINGS HAPPEN THEREFORE INTELLIGENCE, LMAO

Surrendering to what? I didn't accept your claim, I denied it.

Because we have more complex brains and a social structure that allows learning from our elders.

>Implying I was ever trying in the first place

What part of our brain accounts for spirituality

Just accept existence for what it is and it'll be okay.

>>objective morality doesn't exist

Subjective goodness does exist tho. If you have enough empathy, you can still feel what you consider 'good'. On top of that, you are free to do what you like, what you enjoy most, since life is meaningless anyway.

Pretty great desu

The part that allows the denial of reality.

I don't know, I'm not an expert on the brain. You could look it up on your own though.

Maybe it comes from our brain's need for order and answers, so it seeks them as best it can? I don't know.

See chart. Although frankly any exetensive post-1800s is going to address the problem you've mentioned. It's been talked to death and exhaustively explored. But you need to actually read books.

I've never heard of this. Can you name some examples of it happening, especially outside of a the Christian "philosophy" section of the world.

Nobody knows. We can dissect an animals brain and for the most part assign which mechanisms result in what. Not with humans though. Human brains are different. Human brains, the red blob in your dome piece, is the most powerful thing in existence.

Yet it came about naturally. Along with the entire universe. Don't seem legit to me.

Meme posting is an automatic surrender my friend

Reminder that even pigeons have been shown to demonstrate beliefs in superstition.

Your point is invalid. The brain DOESN'T accuratly account for reality. We have known about this for hundreds of years. You can't even look at things submerged in water and get an accurate of reality. There is no innate truth about our perception, it's just the one we are stuck with.

Why not? Wouldn't occam's razor indicate that things just happened?

source?
So if machinery was found on the moon, it "just happened"? The universe is much more complex than any machinery

If morality is objective you should have no problem posting a moral code 100% of all life that exists can agree upon.
You fucking can't, except by being intellectually dishonest and saying anyone who disagrees is just immoral. Pretty convenient that you and you alone have the answer to a universal problem question.

Not a meme. It's a legitimate hypothesis that Aquinas never took into account. Since you say its not a meme, what's your refutation?

Good chart desu. That should be in the sticky thread.

Occam favors the simpliest explanation

The simplest explanation would be that spiritual beliefs are natural part of the human experience.

Attempts to explain ALL religion as being entirely from external forces is incredibly complicated and convoluted

So the everything coming out of "nothing", which was actually an infinitely dense point of matter, seems less reasonable then " it was created my an unknowable all powerfull and all knowing being"?

psychologistworld.com/superstition.php

If machinery was found on the moon, and it was not human, the easiest explanation would be aliens, not gods.

>This meme again

Morality is based on one thing and one thing alone: Survival of the individual and their in-group, whom share a common moral code. This is an objective fact.
The only reason there exists disagreements in morality is because different people have different ideas on how to achieve this, and because not everyone belongs to the same in-group.

>"nothing", which was actually an infinitely dense point of matter,
that isn't "nothing".
> seems less reasonable then " it was created my an unknowable all powerfull and all knowing being"?
yes
kek. He just taught the pigeons the reward system.
That wasn't the point

design = designer

>So the everything coming out of "nothing",

The only time I've seen anyone make this claim is when Christians falsely attribute to the the big bang. The concept of "nothing' doesn't exist in physics, because pure vaccuums do not exist.

Also the Christian explanation fails to account for the origin of everything, since God is part of the 'everything' categeory. You can make special pleading that God is exempt (without giving any real proof) but this just makes the argument too weak to consider.

You wouldn't find machinery on the moon aside from what we as a species have put there.

I don't understand how spiritual beliefs would be the simplest explanation rather than things falling into the place they are today over a long time. Granted, I am not a religious person and no matter how hard I've tried I can't understand it.

>design = designer
But the universe was not designed, that's the thing

>Morality is objective because it is subjective based on individual and collective opinions
lol

You don't really understand the whole objective/subjective dichotomy do you?

It has the appearance of design, given the exponentially small chance of intelligent life actually appearing on earth, or at all anywhere.

>Morality is based on one thing and one thing alone: Survival of the individual and their in-group, whom share a common moral code. This is an objective fact.

No it isn't. You have failed to provide a logical reason for this.

In addition even if you did "survival" and "in-group" are subjective. If you build your morality on subjective foundations it's a subjective morality. "Survival" means something very different to a monk than a normal person, it means not reproducing and idealing being killed as martydom is the best way to have one's soul survive. Different groups ultimately value different outcomes. In addition there is no objective way to measure in group. I can exclude my friend from it or not based on a whim.

...

Knowing these facts you are finally free. Why would you be depressed? I don't understand.

There is absolutely nothing subjective about survival. Everything you just listed is ideological in nature and has nothing to do with it. The fact that there is no way to "measure" a group does not mean that the premise does not still hold, too.

Unless we are miscommunicating and you are just saying the existence of a belief in moral code is objective then it doesn't matter
>(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
>based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
If morality changes based on a populations culture and values then it's closer to the second definition than the first, and guess what it's the definition of? SUBJECTIVE.

Why focus on life? What makes life so special? Why not focus on methane or helium, or any other configuration of atoms?

Being born with something is incredibly simple. Since certain genetic material can be universial to all humans, if some aspect of it promotes spirituality than it can easily explain all cases of humans having spiritual experiences.

Saying it is all cultural is massively complicated because there are literally hundreds of different examples of spiritualism growing up independent of each other. The earliest human inhabitants we found show displays of rituals and mysticism, every isolated primitive tribe has it.

I'd find it hard to argue that after tens of thousands of years it hasn't been permently imprinted in our dna. Did you know that information can be stored in DNA, like how turtle's dna can give them a map of where to go to lay our eggs.

Can't be that summed up to imagination? It's something humans are extremely good at having.

Because life is more complex to create than those things

Not to mention it has an intrinsic value that we're all aware of.

So?

You're aware of it because you're life. You have a bias towards life because you're life.

So it was more likely to be designed

I bet I don't trust your ideas on what's right.

That intuition comes from your bias as a human. Humans are the ones who design things--we build structures, we fashion mechanisms, we design machines. These are human doings, so you're so used to agency (human agency) being responsible for complicated or not-immediately understandable things/processes, you wrongly assume a mind/similar entity created it. It's a cognitive bias, and it leads you astray.

>That intuition comes from your bias as a human
no. It comes from the fact that things which appear to be designed are probably designed.

You fail to realize that this logic is exactly what stems from your human bias.

no it stems from the way reality works

apparent design = probable design

You're just ruling this off with some hack psychologist logic like that guy who thinks pigeons are superstitious

You still misunderstand. How do you define apparent design? You find apparent design in things that are "complicated" and not easily understood. You therefore apply agency. This is a cognitive bias. Again, to reiterate, humans design things.

>How do you define apparent design?
Things that are unlikely to be created by random chance

How do you know they are unlikely to be created by random chance? I'll guess: your intuition. And you're proving my point again that you're just going off the same faulty bias again.

>How do you know they are unlikely to be created by random chance?
Because the requirements are overwhelmingly great and specific

You don't know that complexity isn't an inevitability with enough time. And don't misuse statistics. The requirements for a pebble on the ground the size of my thumb to have a specific configuration of atoms is humongous in odds. But yet we don't find that incredible. Talking about the "odds" of life is meaningless.

Not him, but evolution is a process that creates complexity, and isn't pure random chance.

>Talking about the "odds" of life is meaningless.
Then I guess history in itself is meaningless because all we have is odds and probabilities for what probably happened and what didn't
That doesn't explain the origin of life

>facts
Time to accept that no product of human brain is objective, and learn that you are the master of your world perception

>Then I guess history in itself is meaningless because all we have is odds and probabilities for what probably happened and what didn't
That doesn't follow.
>That doesn't explain the origin of life
Evolution never attempted to.

>Time to accept that no product of human brain is objective
Is that statement objective?

And since we're playing this game, since life is so complex that it demands an designer explanation, I deem light so fast that demands a designer explanation.

Face it. There is no real reason to focus on life. Just because it's complex isn't an answer. That's flawed reasoning. The real reason you are is because your bias towards life and intelligence as a human being.

Why is everyone imagining similar things? You've heard of the theory of arch-types right? That all mythical figures can be reduced to basic figures, common to all cultures and time periods. It is amazing when you can find the same pattern in two different cultures that would have had no way of communicating.

The idea that people were just making stuff up for the fun of it fails to account for the sheer enormity and scale of it. We are talking about a universal phenomena dating back as far as the archeological evidence will go. These are ideas are massively powerful in terms of causing personal development and lead people to have astonishing 'visions'. Not every thing someone day dreams about can produce such things, nor can you explain 100% of it as drugs or lies. This stuff is potent.

Jung had a theory that all myth is of the unconscious. It helps act as a bridge between the conscious and unconscious parts of the brain. Humans are unique among animals that our conscious mind has so much control but in evolutionary history the unconscious mind is far far older. You can sometimes see that animals that grow stronger conscious minds tend start showing early signs of spirituality.

I think this ties it up neatly, since everyone has a subconscious everyone has access to the spirtual side of reality and it can take an infinitude of forms based on whatever the culture has. This also explains the sheer potency and power of it because it's directly inside the brain.

I just jerk off a lot. Embrace that sweet chemical release.

>free will doesn't exist
yes
>god doesn't exist
yes
>objective morality doesn't exist
wait what the fuck?
>life has no objective meaning
what in the shit are you on about?

2 out of 4, git gud

Thats like saying pain doesn't exist, because its just a subjective feeling. Don't be retarded.

I'm fuzzy on the morality thing but how in the fuck is there objective meaning?

>no objective meaning

Swap out objective meaning, replace with hedonism as a subjective meaning. You're welcome.

Why do you need these things?

Because God exists

But he probably doesn't

Except he objectively does

Except he probably doesn't

your analogy is terrible and wrong and there is no evidence that moral statements can be truth-apt so no, morality does not inherently exist in this universe, it's asinine to assume such a thing without the tiniest simplest shred of evidence. Opinions are not evidence. You should feel bad and dumb for being wrong.

Except he objectively does