Tfw reading kant and berkely latley

>tfw reading kant and berkely latley
>tfw realized god exists
>he has to exist

anons this feeling is amazing

Aquinas removed all doubt from me

Excellent work OP. Now the next step is to understand that God was fully incarnate in the person of Jesus, and accept him as your Lord.

Confirmation bias from reading Kant, you've blown my mind- his philosophy is tripe, re-read it

>>he has to exist
>mfw

>>he has to exist

Unfortunately, there was a man who put considerable doubt on that perspective.

Aquinas' five "proofs" are terrible arguments themselves and full of presuppositions and other fallacies such as 'begging the question'.

>"hurr something must have started movement
>must be my God!"

Why do american atheists are such assholes? Can't you all be atheists and not give a crap?

Anyway OP, good for you. Wtvr keeps you going.

>can't you just sit down and eat the shit you're given
no

>has to

It's reactionary. Atheists in the US weren't treated well, so now they're returning the favor. I don't support it, but I see where it's coming from.

>Kant
>God exists

"Existence isn't a real predicate". Keep reading Kant and think harder.

I don't feel oppressed in any real sense but I was a bit surprised to find out that quite a few European politicians, even in very Christian countries like Greece, are openly atheist and no one seems to give a shit. I'm not confident an atheist could be elected president here in the states. Even Bernie was grilled over his religious affiliation due to being an obvious secular jew.

How do you re-conciliate pic related?

That's mostly because the religious are still a majority by a wide margin. And the majority religion is protestantism, the ultimate religion for posturing about how much holier you are than all those other fucks.

It's a perfect storm when voter demographics are drawn and gerrymandered along these lines. All a politician needs to do is make an implication, and a storm will ensue.

...

There is a very high chance that you don't actually get the arguments.

>you either agree with my argument, or you don't get them

That sounds unfalsifiable enough to be complete bullshit

if you read a point of view and assume it is correct without reading the opposing point of view, its just confirmation bias.

He's a frogposter, please let him have this fleeting moment of joy just this once.

fake quote
the actual lines go in another direction

>le "durr you can't not proof nothin durr" man

Great retort, you sure showed me with all those well-thought out arguments

>hurr you sure showed me durr

>putting 'hurr durr' in front of something makes it automatically wrong

Truly a fine example of theistic 'reasoning'

>hurr fine examlple of theistic reasoning durr

>>putting 'hurr durr' in front of something makes it automatically wrong

>That sounds unfalsifiable enough to be complete bullshit
>complains about fallacies and presuppositions
>takes falsifiability seriously

I've always wondered why science has become so arrogant.
The principles of the universe haven't changed.

How does it go from
>this rat is a rat because it meets these criteria
>this rock will soar because of force applied on it
To
>God does not exist because I am a scientist and I say he doesn't

Science can't question its first principles, why should the first principle of the universe be any different?

>>takes falsifiability seriously

Indeed, what a stupid thing to do, accepting that ideas can be wrong. We should just assume that every idea is by definition correct, that will make knowledge really reliable

>the first principle of the universe

And what would that be?

Also, why aren't people allowed to question any principles? What, because they harm your fuzzy religious feel-feels?

>Also, why aren't people allowed to question any principles?

"No science can question its first principles."
-Aristotle
People aren't allowed to because it would crush science the fuzzy religion of the atheists who play into the Dunning-Krueger effect.

Challenge the law of non-contradiction, challenge that principle, I triple dog dare you!

"Its probably true, lets just assume its true and move on."
-Aristotle

>Accepting ideas that can be wrong
That is what we must necessarily do....
Unless you have a list of ideas that are absolute and 100% correct, then we can do not more than accept things at discretion, which may or may not be wrong.

You aren't making a very compelling defense of your "falsifiability".

If life is a game of probability, then falsifiability becomes inadequate as a criterion.

>he has to exist
and that means, like, nothing?

I'm guessing you haven't read Berkely or Kant?

i didn't
enlighten me

>Challenge the law of non-contradiction, challenge that principle, I triple dog dare you!

"This statement is false."

True or false?

>"Its probably true, lets just assume its true and move on."

My, that sounds rigorous. It's not like assuming something that's 'probably true' as true can ever have any negative consequences or anything like that. The Titanic probably can't sink, so let's just assume it can't and move on, it's not like there's any risk attached to it or anything. Also, Bin Laden probably can't get his men to hijack and fly planes into building, so let's just assume he can't do that either.

Man, what an easy world that would be

>"This statement is false."
>True or false?

>not realizing that non-contradiction isn't a multi-axiometric system subject to Goedel's proofs
>not realizing that self referential statements are inherently illogical and that literal books have be written on this

You really aren't doing yourself any favors.

>being wrong has consequences therefore we should not be wrong
If only it was possible....

So, tell me, what can be known absolutely?
Hmmm, you seem to have skipped over the list of absolutes that we can accept.....

So explain to me how falsifiability is a legitimate criteria?

Also the examples you listed in the context you argue for is inherently out of touch with reality because you are positing a reality of absolute knowledge....

Try once more.

Welcome!

No, people have gotten the argument and criticized them. I personally have a critique of them myself. But 90% of the time if a Veeky Forums user thinks that the 5 ways are "question begging" it means that they don't actually get the arguments. Thats why I said there is a high probability, from the experience of people not understanding these arguments when they critique them.

Read Schopenhauer

>>tfw reading kant and berkely latley
>>tfw realized god exists

How, exactly?

he never argued that it was his god you fucking autist.

My nigga.

How did Kant and Berkeley wololo you, OP? Also what have you've been reading?

I want to read what you're reading, OP. Please tell me what you've been reading.

>people still believe in what is basically a human with superpowers

What kind of God OP?

A Deist God (non-interventing into the Universe) or a Theist God (intervening into the Universe)?

I also agree that Kant, whether he wants to admit ir not, argues that god exists when he describes things in and of themselves. He basically proves a world exists we can't know about.

Berkeley is obvious isn't it?

"God" is beings in the future who willan on-build a machine that retrieves every consciousness in the universe's history from moments before their brain is unable to support them.

When this machine is complete, and all have been saved, one of the builders will inevitably consume and integrate all the inhabitants of this virtual afterlife into itself.

What most people understand by God is a bearded old man who created the universe, made us unequal, punishes us if we "sin" and forces himself on us if we don't want to burn in hell.
If you're talking about that God, you're awfully mistaken.
God exists, but He is beyond comprehension and not necessarily someone that directly acts onto us.
God is indeed what created this grossly perfect universe. Everything around you, the fact that you exist is impossible to be coincidental, and I have accepted that, even though I've converted to buddhism which is a non-theistic religion.
Just like a lot of people have interpreted Buddha's words wrong, or added stuff to try and improve yhem, so did people with Jesus' teachings.
I also believe that any initiate needs to acknowledge Jesus as a great teacher. He thaught us to do good and might have just been God who was born in our world to help us.
All this talk about sin and how belief in the creator will save us from punishment is a bit silly. God himself created karma, and any other belief goes agaist all logic. Why are we born at different times if we only live once? Why are we so unequal? Karma is universal and absolute and all sentient beings are under it's law.
I've read the bible multiple times and there's pretty much nothing to disprove karma and rebirth. I feel like Christianity (the real christianity, not the stupid dogma we have) and Buddhism could be mutually compatible. I believe we can only go to "heaven" for eternity after we've lived a lot of lives and gathered all the good karma we could possibly have. By heaven I mean becoming a Buddha

Fatfist pls go

>god

>This is the average Veeky Forums argument

Rationalizing that God exists is pretty good, but even better is the direct experience of God. If you're now truly a believer I recommend dedicating your life to the pursuit of God's grace, because nothing comes close.

>So, tell me, what can be known absolutely?
Hmmm, you seem to have skipped over the list of absolutes that we can accept.....

Not really, since there aren't any, nor have I ever claimed that there are

>So explain to me how falsifiability is a legitimate criteria?

I just did, dumbfuck. If you're wrong about being wrong, nothing will happen. If you're wrong about being right, the consequences could be disasterous

This is a weird sort of synchronicity.
I would agree that god must exist except for the fact that it requires we give it a name, which would therefore limit god and make it not god. What must exist is something that cannot be expressed or understood by human cognition.

But yeah, feeling that is quite transformational, OP. I am there with you.

>>reading what amounts to glorified mental masturbation made me think a deity or group of deities exists in spite of there being no verifiable evidence for the existence of such a thing

Glad I don't know this feel.

Why do you think you are both important enough to be able to dismiss others' perception as irrelevant, yet not important enough to accept the possibility of your own existence being the product of a universal principle of self-organization? It's not about a bearded sky-daddy, user; it's about recognizing your own limitations of understanding and realizing that unless you have all possible information, you cannot determine the nature of transhuman superintelligence. I appreciate your skepticism, but it seems that the logical extension of being unable to prove a negative would be a state of persistent and humble aporia instead of snarky dismissals.

>I'm stupid as shit so I le trole and le b8

>Not really, since there aren't any, nor have I ever claimed that there are
So we cant know anything....

>if your wrong about being wrong, nothing will happen

Explain the difference between being wrong about being wrong and being wrong about being right.
I think those are the same thing.
And if such is the case then the legitimacy of falsifiability becomes non-existent.
>We should just assume that every idea is by definition correct, that will make knowledge really reliable
Here's my main probably.
When you are posting falsifiability you are defending the converse of this statement, that everything is false until proven true, and if something can not be proven false it should be discarded.
Well if something is proven true then it can not be proven false, thus it can not be falsifiable and we can not accept it even though it is true.
However you might say "well it could be false under these conditions."
That would require us to already know if it is true or false....
Your basis for knowledge comes around to a tautology.

what?

I don't know why you'd be happy about that, I very much doubt that they can prove that God is anything like the way he's described in Abrahamic religions, or any other.
If I knew that a God existed I would assume it was either nothing like the way any religions describe it and that I therefore know nothing about it besides the fact it exists and is probably immensely powerful, or it's how some religions describe it and not benevolent by my/modern standards.

Neither option really seems all that great. It'd be nice that my existence would likely continue on much farther beyond my lifetime, but that's about it.

no they don't, they send the exact same message, he just makes it clearer about his own belief.

>*hurr* I am a smart and *durr* composed *hurr* man that is above typical Veeky Forums *hurr* stupidity and I am smart *hurr* (tips fedora)

>Everything around you, the fact that you exist is impossible to be coincidental
Jesus fucking christ why does it always come back to the same illogical, retarded argument from incredulity?
>yknow man, I just, I dont really GET the whole earth man, like how could it BE the EARTH, if there wasnt a god? just seems impossible man i think i just proved god man

replying to this one instead of the one you posted later down because its more relevant to my response
>No science can question its first principles.
You're right, technically, but the only principle in science is
>The material world is real and can be objectively studied, measured, and observed.
That's it. That's all we need, because from there, everything starts working. And that's why falsifiability works. If it's not falsifiable, e.g. we cannot prove it wrong, its meaningless because it has no impact on the real world. I cannot prove that there is not a teapot orbiting around the sun. Therefore, any such suppositions are meaningless to science. For all we know, there very well could be a teapot, and we're not saying its wrong. But we're assuming there isn't because that's the only way to meaningfully progress. If, in the beginning of the scientific revolution, we had held on the unfalsifiable belief that evil spirits caused disease, we would have no germ theory. Falsifiability is the only way to make certain statements about the world. As to
>When you are posting falsifiability you are defending the converse of this statement, that everything is false until proven true, and if something can not be proven false it should be discarded. Well if something is proven true then it can not be proven false, thus it can not be falsifiable and we can not accept it even though it is true.
That's literally not how it works at all. That's a strawman that makes a mockery out of the scientific method.

>still believing in what is basically a human with superpowers

No, it won't be nice. At all. Because you choose not to believe in God. Because you choose to not be a part of what God is creating. Because you choose evil, and death, and hell when you were offered good, and life, and heaven.

No, it will not be nice at all.

Fuck off cultist

I didn't tell you to join my cult, dummy.

I told you that you are dead, and if you don't do anything about it, you're going to be on fire forever, in the dark, and alone.

I told you to fuck off, cultist.

>has to
Spooky

> you're going to be on fire forever, in the dark, and alone

Good. You people will have finally fucked off.

Seems you're powerless.

Light yourself on fire now, see if you like it. Use lots of gas.

kek this and flews falsification make it very very hard to believe in god

Great, now prove that His mind must resemble a human's closely enough to justify religion.

That's not even true, much less necessary.

You should know since you and your death cult seem to be most excited by suffering.

just to point out I think crombies point about falsification is better than flews

How exactly does God have to exist? The universe doesn't care about philosophical arguments, it just is. I doubt anyone can make a philosophical argument as to why subatomic particles act as both particles and waves, but they still do.

Our musings as to a "creator" are meaningless. We're semi advanced primates on a small terrestrial planet orbiting a mid range star, one of 100,000,000,000 in our galaxy, of which there are tens of billions. We are the definition of insignificant. Stop acting like we can actually understand and comprehend the universe.

Why assume that the universe "cares" about scientific abstractions either ? Our musings about "subatomic particles" are just as suspect if you want to take that route.

The universe doesn't care insofar as it, to the best of our knowledge, lacks any type of consciousness and is immutable, and the physical properties of the universe are not contingent on certain philosophical propositions.

But you are begging the question. On one hand philosophy should be dismissed because it is coming from human beings who are ultimately insignificant according to you. Yet you are claiming support from this idea from human constructed science, which has the same "insignificant" source.

And it is a terrible strawman to claim that anyone thinks that a philosophical proposition is going to cause God to exist. The arguments don't create reality any more than a science experiment is going to create reality. Both are used to discover things and justify things about reality.

If our musings about God using a mixture of empirical evidence and deductive logic is useless because we are flawed humans, then our scientific enterprise in which we use empirical evidence and inductive logic is also suspect.

And you think I deserve that, just for the crime of doubt, just for making what would be an honest mistake, and then have the audacity to claim that I'M choosing evil?
Get fucked you delusional, vindictive cunt. By all means keep making empty threats though, I'm sure you've endeared your faith to countless people already with that tactic.

Yea, bro. The universe is all a big coincidence.
This whole extremely complex system simply exists because of chance. It just works by this absolute laws of physics because it just does.
It's purely coincidental that there exists this big rock that moves around a hot thing, and spins around its axis too, at the perfect distance from the hot ball, allowing for the perfect heat and heat distribution. It's also completely coincidental that there's this thing called air and water glued to Earth by some coincidental force called gravity.
You just also simply happen to be inside some other complex system that allows you to get by in this universe.
Le epikk big bang man. There was this huge ball of shit that nobody placed... It was just there and it exploded because reasons and not external force.
Also, the reason why our personality is influenced by the allignment of planets when we are born is just some weird law that's not even visible. You may or may not believe in astrology or karma though, so letting those aside, and coming back to everything scientifical, a lot of things can be investigated, but the reason why they are there is impossible to even ask.
At some point the questions stop making sense. For example "why does air stick to earth and not fly out? Because there's gravity. What is gravity? It's a force that each planet has and everything is affected by it. Why is there gravity? J('_')L

You make light of it, but it's not a zero probability. What you may want to read up on is the Anthropic Principle of Cosmology, which posits that the improbability of our existence only seems so unlikely because we are here to observe it, and that its improbability is only a consequence of the relative timeline by which we measure such things. For example, there may have been billions or trillions of lifetimes of a universe that goes through cycles of big-bang to great-collapse, and eventually, since there is no outer limit for life, it inevitably had to happen the way it did. It's like the infinite number of monkeys typing on the infinite number of typewriters... eventually one will write Hamlet. It just has to happen on a long-enough timeline, and by extension all possible configurations of all atomic and subatomic interactions will and have had to have happened. Our only hang-up is time itself.

So try to show a little respect for the simultaneously staggering incomprehensibility and inevitability of our being here instead of being such a flippant churl, maybe?

Didnt Kant wrote that it is NOT possible to prove a god?

His existentialism was rooted in Christianity. While he argued that it was not possible to *objectively* prove god, and that it was only knowable on an individual level, he considered the existence of god to be a logical consequence of our own existence, and deduced the moral imperative (commit an action only if it would be something that everyone should do regardless of specific identity) from those premises.

People actually get mad that people believe in a God just because their own life's experience hasn't made them believe there's one lol, too funny

Protip: You first need to believe these threats in order to find them credible/threatening. Otherwise you just sound ridiculous.

>you need to believe something to believe it

Wow, you're a genius mate

That's why it's so beyond me why so many people don't understand this and think that threats of divine retribution would have any effect on person without faith.

Whether you believe in something or not doesn't make something true or untrue. I'm pretty sure that guy didn't expect you to change your mind about God from his post

Quite sure he's projecting to a certain degree, unless he's completely shitposting.

Aquinas' arguments are shit.

How so

Nobody's asking you to believe in religion. Doesn't mean you have to be a cringy autistic faggot

Cause is a human concept, there's no need for a first cause, and even if there were, that first cause could be anything, it doesn't prove the existence of a God, less so the fucking Christian God.

They come from a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world actually works. Which was understandable for the time, but it's >the current year and people keep parroting.

Not even against people being religious, Aquinas's arguments are just metaphysical bullshit that ask more out of me than just believing in God without reason out of "love".

Aristotle was WRONG about pretty much everything he said remotely linked with science.

He probably singlehandedly held back science quite some time.

So any argument that doesn't prove anything is shit? Guess your argument is shit then.

What ideas that we use aren't a human concept? How do you know there isn't a need for a first cause?