How do people trick themselves into the believing in God?

The idea that my life is predetermined and some omnipotent being is judging my every move is kind of worrying. How do people find this nice?

>I read an Einstein quote and nobody on Veeky Forums is gonna notice when I try to bait post

>thinking that only stupid people believe in God
fuck off you absolute bender, the power of spirituality and religion has nothing to with "muh IQ points"

your life is predetermined by every action that has happened to you up until this point, and every reaction you have had was predetermined by the actions that happened to you before that. You literally have no free will but it's not because a sky man ordains it

...

>You literally have no free will
retarded leftists unironically belirve this

you dont get what evidence means. its fine that you hold beliefs, just dont pretend like reality backs them up
so believing that "we also evolved from lizards, or fish, or w/e" is stupid but you have no problem believing that a magical immortal wizard guy created it all?
>Also, God is the only thing I've heard of that can solve the problem of a first cause.
HOW? why cant i just ask where god came from? "oh hes magic so first cause argument doesnt apply". why not just apply that thinking to a natural universe? you people are fucking retarded i swear
not an argument

nice ad hominem but you're wrong

Was this a free will thread because the greatest logical minds in history have been debating this for centuries and user isn't about to get the what's what said.

i can literally choose to watch tennis or baseball or fap or eat nachos right now if i want to. i have free will you retard

How do people trick themselves into the believing in nothing?
>'the nothing exists because *mind-fuckery*'
like, how?

Maybe God isn't an a priori assertion but an observation of the world? This is coming from someone who isn't religious.

>There is no hard justification for [mechanistic materialism], other that popularity.
I guess it depends on how stringent your standard for "hard justification" is, but the only way that statement is true is if your standard is so stringent that literally no other claims about reality count as justified either.
>lol science bro
Well, yeah, science. I wouldn't just handwave that as nothing, there is a massive wealth of empirical evidence supporting the validity of materialist explanations for the various phenomena of the world. How do you think you're able to communicate your argument to other people right now? It probably had something to do with people making use of materialist interpretations of reality. Those interpretations let you construct useful things like computers and airplanes, spiritual / magical interpretations of reality don't. I don't think it's unreasonable to figure materialism is correct considering it's the only framework we know of that's allowed us to actualize the once seemingly impossible fantasies of non-materialist cultures like human flight or remote communication with people located miles away.

no you dont. you have a subjective view of an objective, deterministic universe. you may think youre choosing baseball or tennis, but the what ever choice you make is the choice you would have always made.

You've read yourself away from reality. go on with your verbal masturbation all you'd like though

>i can literally choose to watch tennis or baseball or fap or eat nachos right now if i want to.
I don't see how you can know that's the case. Without even arguing that other user's claim that there isn't free will you can still imagine a hypothetical world without free will where a 100% deterministic person would say exactly what you're saying because he was predetermined to say it. And he would go on to do one or more of those things he claimed he could choose but would only ever be destined to do exactly what he ended up doing. What makes you believe you're distinct from that hypothetical free will lacking person? It's not like there's anything about having free will or not having free will that you'd be able to notice. If there is free will you'd still only have the one past you chose your way through to look back on, and it would look identical to the one past a person without free will would have to look back on.

youre the one who thinks youre above nature. we live in a deterministic universe, you are made of physical stuff in that universe. humans are not above or outside the laws of physics. this is not my opinion, its a verified fact.

Seems rather silly to believe he exists or not believe he exists due to the extreme lack of evidence. I can sort of understand deism, though, as it seems to make the fewest assumptions out of the religions I know of.

youtube.com/watch?v=4iyxR8uE9GQ
I wouldn't call it extreme, you just have to understand the contex of the evidence.

>HOW? why cant i just ask where god came from?
He has been described in many traditions as being existence itself. That's what he means when in Exodus he says "I am that I am". So if God exists, then the reason he exists is because he is who he is.

>why not just apply that thinking to a natural universe?
Well the universe doesn't really contain the reason for it's existence like God does. The universe needs an explanation, whereas God's reason for existing is explained in the definition of what he is, namely that he is existence itself.

>you people are fucking retarded i swear
Rude.

>we live in a deterministic universe
Why do people say this and then when presented with QM go "W-w-well we just don't know the superdeterministic formula !"

literally everything you said is sophist bullshit. come back when you have real arguments, as in not pulled out of your ass or from a magic book thats magic cos the book says so

youre watching a ball bounce past your window and saying "i didnt see who threw it so it must be god"

I'm sorry, but that's just the way almost every tradition has defined God. I'm sorry if you think the very definition of God is a sophist argument.

>come back when you have real arguments, as in not pulled out of your ass
This stuff isn't pulled out of my ass. This stuff is pulled from philosophers and theologians. However, they are definitely better at explaining it than I am.

>or from a magic book thats magic cos the book says so
I didn't really rely on "magic books" in my argument. I just explained to you what a passage from Exodus meant.

To be fair, I'm not the best at explaining philosophy. Maybe you should read some religious philosophy or apologetics, and you'll find better answers to your questions. It's clear that you're very intrigued by this topic, so maybe you should go grab a book about it.

Quantum mechanics doesn't make all the stuff above the scale of 100 nanometers stop being deterministic. Basically everything you see around you is deterministic without ever needing to even try proving a superdeterministic interpretation for the quantum scale. If things weren't deterministic in this way we probably wouldn't have technology much more complicated than the wheel. Also the human brain operates in the realm of classical physics, not at the quantum scale.
>We find that the decoherence timescales ~10^{-13}-10^{-20} seconds are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales (~0.001-0.1 seconds), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.
arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009.pdf
The tl;dr for that finding is that neuronal firing will happen exactly the same as classical physics predicts regardless of what happens at the quantum scale.

>huur hurrrr god isn't real because you can't see or touch him
are you people fucking retarded
you can't see love either but its still there

>God is the only thing I've heard of that can solve the problem of a first cause.
Even if you suppose there needs to be a causeless thing distinct from the caused world, there's no reason to assume that thing would be a conscious entity. In fact there's reason to believe it wouldn't be conscious like us since higher thought is one of the least old things that's emerged in evolutionary history and is built up on top of tons of progressively evolved physical scaffolding. The causeless thing that was around before anything else in the caused world wouldn't be built up on anything, that'd be the whole point. Non-conscious much better fits that criterion of not being built up on anything. It'd probably be more like a vast cosmic ocean where little universe bubbles pop up than an anthropomorphic wizard.

I don't think anyone's claimed you shouldn't believe in God because you can't see or touch him.

>intuitive analysis

>I believe in god because I'm retard and science hasn't explained to me everything in this existence.
Argument from ignorance is not intuitive nor an analysis.

Our perception is linked with classical physics but that doesn't mean quantum physics suddenly stop being in deterministic.

>Even if you suppose there needs to be a causeless thing distinct from the caused world
God has usually been described this way.

>In fact there's reason to believe it wouldn't be conscious like us since higher thought is one of the least old things that's emerged in evolutionary history and is built up on top of tons of progressively evolved physical scaffolding. The causeless thing that was around before anything else in the caused world wouldn't be built up on anything, that'd be the whole point.
You're applying phenomena in the physical world to things outside of it. It's really a category mistake.

It seems like you're assuming God is another creature with a body and organs, which is understandable. It's a common mistake. But God is nothing like this. He is infinite, not contained in a single body, and he is not a creature that had to be built through billions of years of evolution.

So because of that, I don't think it's safe to assume that whatever caused the universe is something non-conscious.

Lmao fuck off

>But God is nothing like this.
Where are you getting this from?

wtf I hate atheism now

This time I was too lazy to reply to everyone

>It seems like you're assuming God is another creature with a body and organs
No. I'm saying it doesn't make sense to assume an attribute (mentality) that's known to be dependent on a ton of physical scaffolding would be possessed by a causeless super-context of reality. It wouldn't make sense for that super-context to have a body or organs either. That's the point. And if thought didn't require billions of years of evolution then why would this thinking entity go through the trouble of initiating billions of years of evolution to make a shitty alternative version of thinking? You could always say "it doesn't work the way things we can observe work," but if you want to make an educated guess then you'll want to use what we can observe to inform that guess. Otherwise you're really just saying anything goes in which case you don't have a reason to believe any one claim about it over another. Insofar as you can have reason to believe in one claim over another this reason has to come from what we're familiar with since we by definition don't have access to things we're not familiar with.

I actually don't know what you're referring to

I do

I don't believe atheists actually exist.

They substitute "The Great Other" for God which is more of a switch in conception rather than categorization.

You're also juxtaposition your personal conception of what god is onto other people, which is prone to errors.

You do as in you've claimed people shouldn't believe in God because you can't see or touch him or you do as in you think someone else has claimed that? If the latter, show me. That seems like an unlikely thing for someone to claim considering you would have to also not believe in radio waves.

>it's impossible to just perceive reality as it is without delusional concepts

Well I'm here to tell you it is

t. Buddha

I claim that. Radio waves are visible.

What's delusional about it?

...

Basic Christian philosophy/theology?
I'm always thrown off by this stuff. God isn't a flying guy in a cloud, although artists have many times depicted him this way. The reason he has been drawn this way is because the Christian artists were influenced by the Greeks and Romans, and there's really no way to physically depict God, so they just stuck with what has been done in the past.

>No.
Okay, good.

>it doesn't make sense to assume an attribute (mentality) that's known to be dependent on a ton of physical scaffolding
My problem with this claim is that science has really found any basis or anything about consciousness yet. It may be the case that consciousness isn't naturally dependent. Some scientists have even claimed that consciousness is an illusion since no physical basis for it's existence has been found yet.

Also, even if consciousness is dependent on physical scaffolding, that's only the case in our universe. I don't think you can safely apply those this to things outside the universe, because natural/scientific laws are only discovered through the observation of our universe, not things outside of it.

>And if thought didn't require billions of years of evolution then why would this thinking entity go through the trouble of initiating billions of years of evolution to make a shitty alternative version of thinking?
If God is really infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient, then I would assume there would be a lot of things that he would cause that wouldn't make sense to mere creatures like us.

>You could always say "it doesn't work the way things we can observe work,"
Maybe I should've read your entire post before beginning to reply, but oh well.

>Otherwise you're really just saying anything goes in which case you don't have a reason to believe any one claim about it over another.
You may be right, here. But in my original post I pretty much said that I believe for emotional/personal reasons, because God seems like a valid possibility.

I'm catholic but that's a bad argument. You can demonstratably interact with radio waves in a consistent way.

It is a mental construct that prevents correct perception and understanding of this as they are

How so?

...

>You can demonstratably interact with radio waves in a consistent way.
I never claimed you couldn't. Someone claimed not being able to see or touch something was reason not to believe it. You absolutely cannot see or touch radio waves. If someone claimed not being able to interact with something was reason not to believe it then I wouldn't be using radio waves as a counter-example. That's not the same argument.

>invisibility =/= immateriality

Ideas aren't real

Prove it

I can't tell if you're trying to argue with me or not. Do you understand what I've written? I'm not arguing radio waves are immaterial. I'm arguing that you don't see or touch radio waves.

Being able to draw a cartoon to try to visualize the way radio waves behave isn't the same as radio waves being visible. There's a very specific range of visible electromagnetic spectrum and radio waves aren't a part of it.

Prove they are

I'm arguing god is immaterial and therefore not real

I can hear them tho

OK, but that has nothing to do with my posts. Why did you reply to me with that? I'm not even getting into God existing or not existing. My argument is with the claim that you can see radio waves.

I never claimed you can't hear radio waves. The claim I disputed was very specific. Sight and touch, not sound.

HELLO, JEW; I SEE YOU.

STOP SPAMMING YOUR SUBVERSIVE VENOM ON THE BOARDS OF THIS WEBSITE; JUST SHRINK BACK INTO YOUR HOLE, SUBHUMAN.

I'm experiencing them right now, thoughts are the most real things

I'm a National Socialist, and I recognize that free will is impossible. Everything is either determined or slightly random; there is no room for free will. Free will is essentially being able to defy the universe's causality and cause your own causes. But what caused you to cause your own causes? Ad infinitum. Is there a free free will as well? If you're a Christian, then I suggest you read the Bible for once: Romans 9.
If you still disagree, then propose the mechanism by which free will arises in humans.

Idk what you guys are talking about Christians here identify and are treated as Arabs here
t. Jordanian

I love how people from developed countries underestimate how amazingly stupid can illiterate people be.

The meaning of life is life itself, or the point of it all is its own point.

You can either take this to be meaningful or meaningless based on your moral philosophy of choice.

Your choice is your own. But realize that another's choice may not be far from yours viewed through a certain perspective.

Free will exists and you are a moron.

Are you too stupid to find a meaning of life without omnipotent being doing that for you or something?

Hey buddy! How's being the only divinely-ordained God-Emperor going? You gotten back at the Jews and Christians yet for not worshiping Caesar?

>since no physical basis for it's existence has been found yet.

How about I take a hammer to your brain and we see just how conscious you are when I'm done

What does being a national socialist have to do with anything you just said
>Hurr durr I'm a Nazi annnddd...
Literally as bad as vegans

That's as much of a bad-faith basis for your argument as atheists who say that no one ACTUALLY believes in God, they're just engaging in willful delusion.

Even if you did, you wouldn't prove that that consciousness had ceased to exist: the most you could prove is that a functional brain is needed for the immaterial consciousness to interface with the material body. This is, like, Dualism 101; Descartes was the first person to actually discuss this sort of thing, philosophically (he also thought that the pineal gland was the "receiver" of the mind, but hey, Newton believed in alchemy).

Free will doesn't exist and you are a moron.

>How do people trick themselves into the believing in God?

It's not hard, actually. Your brain isn't that smart, if you tell yourself you believe something often enough and for long enough, you WILL come to believe it. Christcucks even have a term for this, "fake it till you make it".

I don't think it matters at all, read the post I was responding to.

>you dont get what evidence means. its fine that you hold beliefs, just dont pretend like reality backs them up

I don't "pretend" reality backs up my views...

> Argument from ignorance is not intuitive nor an analysis.

I'm just saying when the Pyramid of Giza is at the speed of light to 6 figures in latitude (29.9792 N)... well....

"I am constant as the Northern Star!"

youtube.com/watch?v=U4mgZXylbIA

God came to me and gave me a hand.

How is it better for me to believe? Does it make me happier or something I don't *believe* there's any divine being out there and I'm happy. I've met lots of people that believe in God but are downright suicidal.

>"fake it till you make it".
That term is used for picking up women, not ascribing to a religious system.

I've heard it used by salesmen

...

They're a series of neurons firing in your head. Yes they are.

Ideas are more real than you are, without them your little blinky thing you're shit posting on wouldn't be possibly.

Ideas are timeless, retard people simply cease to exist one day, and we get a new set of retards.

Trying to explain meta-physical theory to retard atheists is like trying to explain applied cryptography to a six year old. They'll scream and cry, and throw a tantrum calling you a big doo-doo head.

Every time. Meanwhile constructive conversations about serious esoteric matters continue on without them.

Not an argument

As if saying has some profound statement not found anywhere in the world where people suddenly have a moment of clarity?

Define real

Here's a psychological evaluation on the use of God in the human experience
youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w

To be fair, if God was more liberal with doting out his magic powers you would have less dissent. Because how come Elisha gets to summon bears to murder some shitkids and you or I don't get to?

Point me to the angel I get to wrestle for a blessing. He'll probably fuck me up but I think I got a chance.

Have you tried finding the common factor amongst all major "religions"

Just so it's clear, not a fan of organized religion, but I do have personal experience with esoteric matters.

When you stop trying to find where and why they're all different, and find a common vernacular amongst all historic explanations of our existence, you start to uncover the basic knowledge that they're conveying.

You could try having a talk with Vehuai or possibly Lelahel as they're known in Judeo-Christian context.

I'd rather put an angel in a headlock and get DDT'd