We are biochemical machines AND God exists insofar as concepts of love, the good, etc. are possible in a universe of "just chemicals". Prove me wrong. Pro-tip: you can't.
We are biochemical machines AND God exists insofar as concepts of love, the good, etc...
Jayden Gray
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Henry Evans
>God exists insofar as concepts of love, the good, etc. are possible in a universe of "just chemicals"
>Prove me wrong.
I would like to but you haven't made an argument yet.
You just kind of asserted that "God" is an entity which somehow has its existence validated by vague buzzwords like "love" and "the good."
I mean, what's the relationship you're trying to get at there? Are you defining God AS love and the good? Or are you saying something about love and the good constitute evidence to support the belief in God's existence as an independent entity of its own? And in either case, what specific reasons do you have for coming to that conclusion?
Christian Clark
God is the fact there is love in a godless void.
God is the void's ascending impulse, as it were. I don't give a shit about whipping out the academese on fucking Veeky Forums. You got enough to work with
Justin Turner
>academese
I'm not asking for you to use bigger words. I'm asking for you to make an argument. You can make a perfectly valid argument using plain layman English. You just haven't. You're skipping to the assertion step without explaining the part where anyone should believe your assertion follows.
Like if you were a prosecutor and you just said "he did it" and then rested your case, that's basically what you're doing here now. You could be completely right in your conclusion, but we don't have any reason to believe this is true so far because you've done nothing at all to try to make a case for this conclusion.
Jack Robinson
it's amazing to me how badly you need me to hold your hand
a normal, well-read person with life experience would read what I said and think "hmm, I can see why he'd equate love with the idea of God given that he's accepted the basic premise of materialism, maybe there's a way I can keep him from taking that step..."
bruh, it's Veeky Forums. humor me.
Matthew Lee
I can't believe you're actually complaining about being expected to make an argument for a random, poorly defined claim which you want people to debate you on.
That's a pretty bare minimum prerequisite to having a discussion about anything.
Lucas Miller
It's a claim that is, more or less, present in Hegel and Schelling, and I sure as fuck don't see any syllogisms to walk me through it in either the Phenomenology or Ages of the World.
You're a pleb who can't hack it, admit it.
Dominic Reed
>more non-arguments
Are you allergic to making an argument or something?
It's not hard, try starting with, I don't know, A REASON.
You can do it little buddy, I believe in you.
Wyatt Hill
Jesus Christ, imagine being this much of a pleb you can't even process basic English unless it comes in a numbered list and the conclusion is pointed out for you with a big "Ergo,"
Adam Cook
>a numbered list
>the conclusion is pointed out for you with a big "Ergo,"
Nope, didn't ask for any of that.
Just waiting for an argument.
Like if I told you I think it's going to rain tonight because I see heavy clouds in the sky and have noticed those sorts of clouds have been associated with rain in the past, that would be an argument. That's all an argument is, it's not hard.
Just need a reason instead of autistically demanding people accept your arbitrary conclusions by trying to make the concept of reason disappear and namedropping philosophers.
Aaron Evans
The argument is that the materialist bleating about our being "just chemicals" is complicated by these chemicals having a concept of that which is the farthest thing from a meaningless void, ie love, meaning, goodness, truth, beauty. God is that which has the idea of God in a reality which, for all intents and purposes, appears godless.
Maybe third time's a charm.
Jaxson Nelson
Agreed
Transcendental Idealism reached this conclusion and really no one managed to move beyond it, the best they could do is replace the "idealist categories" with some other metaphysical principles like the Will in Schopenhauer /Nietzsche.
Isaiah Howard
>The argument is that the materialist bleating about our being "just chemicals" is complicated by these chemicals having a concept of that which is the farthest thing from a meaningless void, ie love, meaning, goodness, truth, beauty.
How are love, meaning, goodness, truth, and beauty in any way distant from and/or contradictory to chemistry? I'll go through each one separately here:
>love
That one has a pretty straightforward evolutionary biology explanation to it doesn't it?
>meaning
Why wouldn't you expect meaning in a chemical universe? Like what possible alternative are you imagining here? That things each moment happen in ways that contradict how things worked each previous moment? I think you could argue consistency is a lot less mysterious than inconsistency. This ultimately reduces to an argument that nature is lazy and reuses the same forms a lot, hence why you can pull meaning out of patterns.
>goodness
Seems like a similar case to "love." It's not a very big leap of imagination to suppose behaving morally increases survival / reproductive prospects compared to behaving like an amoral psychopath. There are short term benefits to the latter but in the long run it's generally a safer bet you'll do better to behave in a socially acceptable way where you generally don't try to screw over everyone around you and maybe even help others out.
>truth
This is another variation on the "meaning" one above. If you think through what possible alternative there would be, how a universe could ever not be premised in a coherent concept of truth, the closest you can probably come up with is a universe where everything's inconsistent and things work in radically different ways from moment to moment. And really it would be more evidence of divine intervention if we saw a lack of uniformity.
>beauty
Visual health indicators, more evolutionary biology desu.
Aiden Harris
>all these run-of-the-mill reddit evolutionary psychology arguments
>equating the survival advantages of x with x itself
Benjamin Gutierrez
If there are survival advantages to X then there's some reason to believe X could emerge through ordinary physical cause and effect necessity and that X is therefore not an indication of some deeper purpose or higher power.
I'd rather not use reddit tier evolutionary psychology arguments but that's the territory you've led us to by trying to suggest different sorts of adaptive behaviors existing are signs of God.
Sebastian Carter
Thanks for proving my argument, if simple natural causality nevertheless results in something like love, beauty, etc. then there's something about natural necessity that isn't explicable by JUST calling it "natural necessity" now is there? I don't deny it all comes down to the behavior of atoms, my whole point is that it is precisely the behavior of atoms congregating into systems capable of conceptualizing love and beauty that proves that, if there's no God, the void isn't just a void either.
Mason Torres
>if simple natural causality nevertheless
>nevertheless
There's the exact spot where your argument goes wrong. You have some weird assumption about this somehow being unexpected or not following from basic necessity when considering how none of this would make any sense if it didn't work that way. Like imagine a world where behaving in ways that promote survival don't promote survival, or a world where truth is false. None of what you're bringing up has a legitimate alternative, these things follow as part of reality because it wouldn't make much sense any other way. You need to be able to point to alternatives that are possible to how things work with these concepts to be able to show the existence of these concepts points to any special deeper mysticism-type meaning. Otherwise you're doing the equivalent of flipping a trick two-headed coin over and over and marveling at how you always get back heads as the result.
Tyler Walker
Once again, the presence of (the ideas of) love, beauty, the good, etc. in a barren godless void qualify for "deeper mysticism-type meaning" insofar as it is this very void's doing what it does - that it cannot do any other way, as if I'm arguing about bizarro parallel universes over here - that gives us everything that is antithetical, indeed, strives against, its own nothingness.
Evan James
>barren godless void
Godless doesn't imply either barren or void.
You're running into problems because you have this false dichotomy in your head where you believe things are either God or else broken / flawed / dead, and then you're saying "see, things aren't broken / flawed / dead, hence God!" Which says nothing at all because there was never any reason to expect a non-God driven world would be damaged or empty in the first place.
Carter Evans
I'm more replying to the vulgar fedora materialist's view of the universe as "broken/flawed/dead", but then again, if the universe isn't a void, and it isn't God, what is it then? It just is, right? Bingo, it just being what it is, impersonally, eternally, without any super-agency determining it, and yet nevertheless (trigger warning) it giving us love, etc. is what philosophers rightfully saw as the divine nature of, well, nature.
Liam Nelson
Religion is antithetical to goodness as laws and commandments inhibit humans from acting in a good and decent manner.
If a God exists, it did not inspire any religions currently in our species wide subconsciousness.
Adrian Jenkins
Explain this more clearly please
Charles Phillips
>Religion is antithetical to goodness as laws and commandments inhibit humans from acting in a good and decent manner.
>If a God exists, it did not inspire any religions currently in our species wide subconsciousness.
John Baker
>You just kind of asserted that "God" is an entity which somehow has its existence validated by vague buzzwords like "love" and "the good."
God has an independent superhuman existence.
Jace Williams
>If a God exists, it did not inspire any religions currently in our species wide subconsciousness.
I don't know that that's true, but it's clear it doesn't like most of the Bible.
Mason Hughes
no one gives a shit about your skits youtube videos