Belief

> Though God's existence can be inferred philosophically if you're not a retarded teenager.
Why not go public with your awesome inference? I bet you would win a prize or two. Unless you are full of shit of course.

>Do you believe that the world exists to be used by humans?
No. I believe it is there as an enivronment for life in general
>Do you believe that happiness is the goal of life?
No, I believe securing the continued existence of your genes is.
>Do you believe in good and bad?
Yes, since I do believe in a deity.
>Do you believe that humanity is a force for good?
No. I dont believe it to be a force for evil either. Good and evil is something you use to judge individual people, not a collective.

>Religion, probably not

You have to be over the age of 18 to post here.

Studying the measurement problem in QM and the hard problem of consciousness led me to the belief that idealism is true and that realism and materialism are false.

Once you accept this metaphysical position a theistic God follows since, if the world is nothing but ideas, why do they seem to show more persistence and stability than objects of our imaginations or in our dreams? How is it that these ideas are ordered to such minute details so as to make the most detailed scientific investigations show consistency? Since these ideas are necessarily the product of a mind and evidently not of our own mind, it follows that these ideas must be caused by another – far more powerful – mind. That mind must be God.

Once you accept this you open the door to free will, objective moral truth, and life after death. Realist materialism leads only to nihilism - at least in my case it did. I freely admit that a large part of why I choose to believe in an ordered, purposeful universe is because I desperately want it to be true.

> (OP)
>>Do you believe in anything that can't be proven logically?
>Yes, I believe in God. Though God's existence can be inferred philosophically if you're not a retarded teenager.

>inb4 special pleading first mover

Same fag please go to /x/

>>Studying the measurement problem in QM
>implying you studied it and didn't just read popsci articles on it
>>and the hard problem of consciousness
>implyong consciousness exists
>implying you can define conscious

> led me to the belief that idealism is true and that realism and materialism are false.
Kys

>Once you accept this metaphysical position a theistic God follows since, if the world is nothing but ideas, why do they seem to show more persistence and stability than objects of our imaginations or in our dreams?.
Worst non sequitur I've seen this year, kys

>How is it that these ideas are ordered to such minute details so as to make the most detailed scientific investigations show consistency? Since these ideas are necessarily the product of a mind and evidently not of our own mind, it follows that these ideas must be caused by another – far more powerful – mind. That mind must be God.
Terrible logic with unfounded statements (how do you know the ideas aren't of your own mind? ) , kys

>Once you accept this you open the door to free will, objective moral truth, and life after death. Realist materialism leads only to nihilism - at least in my case it did.
Because youre shit at logic it led you to that conclusion, assuming realist materialism - > nihilism is babby's first attempt at attacking materialism and it's another non sequitur

>I freely admit that a large part of why I choose to believe in an ordered, purposeful universe is because I desperately want it to be true.
And because you don't understand logic, evidently

>Do you believe in anything that can't be proven logically?
Its been proven that part of our brain needs to explain why
and how we choose our actions. So it's healthy to hold beliefs.
To me its the same as eating healthy food.

>Do you believe that the world exists to be used by humans?
No. But now that Humans are here; Yes.

>Do you believe that happiness is the goal of life?
No. However everyone requires some level of happiness to reach it.

>Do you believe in good and bad?
Yes.

>Do you believe that humanity is a force for good?
No but It could be.

I posted an argument for the existence of God, but it devolved into "prove that the laws of the universe could exist in an infinite variety."
Ok... it is possible for God to exist but not an infinite variance for the fundamental constants?

Not him, but when you say infinite variance are you considering infinite possibilities for the universe? I'll pass on the God existing part, but in that case it is possible to have infinite variance, and to have finite variance.

Yes, well from a theistic perspective, where God can write whatever he chooses, there should be no limit to the constraints of the physical universe.

But without God, one gets into the possibility of existence and what that would even mean, and to me, that is just anything that is logically coherent. If I can envision them coherently, then they should hold true as a possibility. (this gets into the art of argumentation and possibilities lying outside of deduction and induction) Perhaps, there is some hidden architecture to the universe I am missing, but one could simply redefine these boundaries as seen fit(as if one were God).

>do you believe in anything that can't be proven logically
Anything can be proven logically.

>that the world exists to be used by humans?
It just exists. Until some other sapient critter comes along, humans are the sole deciders on the "purpose" of anything, including the Earth.

Is it a good survival strategy to decide the purpose of the Earth is to be "used" by humans? Probably not.

>that happiness is the goal of life?
The goal of life is whatever you set it as. Albeit that goal will inevitably be influenced by others who came before you, and others will attempt to use for or adopt you to their own goals.

You've evolved in such a way as to survive long enough to maximize the potential to pass on your genes, but as genetic evolution has been left in the dust by informational evolution (and CRISPR is on the horizon to boot), at this point, breeding is just maintenance, so even your core instinctual goal is largely irrelevant. I suppose one must aim higher now, nor not, as one would choose.

>in good and bad?
Social constructs are a thing, yes. I doubt there's any supernatural arbitrator outside of mankind though, and if there is, it probably would be alien to our own opinions.

>that humanity is a force for good?
If survival of the story of life on Earth beyond this inevitably doomed biosphere is "good", then yes, I believe we are the last, best hope for that. There's only a billion years left before this place gets so hot that the oceans will be gone (regardless of anything we do). Anything that wipes us out to make room for another species to evolve enough to have a chance to do what we can, would have to be so severe as to give life such a setback that it probably won't be able to do so before it is too late.

But when it comes down to it, even the existence of life being "good" is a matter of opinion. Still, gotta set your axioms somewhere, and it's a widely accepted one - those who think otherwise have little say in the matter anyways.

>God can't be proven but he can be inferred

Holy shit, religious people prove how fucking retarded they are yet again. It's too easy at this point, they are doing it to themselves.

That was my first post ITT.

And you really shouldn't be so arrogant if you evidently don't understand consciousness or the hard problem.

Consciousness is easy to define: it's the first person experience of the self. It's what it is like to be me. It is the only thing in the universe I can be absolutely sure exists. It may be a product of the brain, and you may argue it only seems to exist, but this is to admit its existence in full – for if things seem any way at all, that is consciousness.

>how do you know the ideas aren't of your own mind

When I say 'idea' I mean 'ideas of the sense' in the Berkeleyan sense. It refers to our unwilling perception of reality - the physical objects we can see. Ideas of the sense are different to our imagination - what we can willingly conjure up in our 'mind's eye'.

I cannot willingly create the entire physical world - in all its great detail and complexity - willingly though imagination. The physical world (our ideas of the sense) are different to dreams or imagination. Since there is no material substance - as the hard problem and the measurement problem suggest - then it follows that our ideas of the sense must be imagined by a more powerful mind. That mind is what we call God.

>nihilism is babby's first attempt at attacking materialism

I wasn't attacking materialism with nihilism. I was simply stating that my materialism led to nihilism and that I would prefer not the be a nihilist. In other words, I'm biased.

You sound like 15yo me

>anything can be proven logically
Prove logic accurately reflects the world, prove that the axioms of logic are valid, and prove that logic gives true results

They don't. They tend to be as flawed as the folks attempting to employ the tool, being key to the point. Even when they are detached from the analytical goal insomuch as humanly possible, there's always known unknowns, unknown unknowns, and the forever unknowable - so whatchya gonna do?

Not saying "we canna know nuttin", or that logic isn't a crucially useful tool, but we're really good at fooling to ourselves with elaborate logic. Best you can do is hammer in the forge until the sword has as pure an edge as you can make, but there's always going to flaws in the metal, and some things that just won't cut.

I believe those question aren't that important and usually don't give satisfying results. So I don't think about them too much

How can you be sure consciousness exists?
Things seeming a way doesn't imply consciousness, from a physicalist point of view, your consciousness, such as it is, is the sum total of your neurons firing, and that's objective

If you can't create the entire physical world in your imagination due to its detail and complexity, that doesn't suggest the world is different to imagination, it suggests hardware limitations on your end. How do the hard problem and the measurement problem (such as it is) show there is no material substance?

Nihilism is generally seen as an undesirable conclusion, so saying X leads to nihilism is generally equivalent to an attack. But, materialism doesn't necessarily lead to nihilism.

I believe that if I just sit on my ass all day and let the neetbux run out, I'll be sleeping under bridges and eating trash on the street.
That sounds awful.
Which is why I push forward and try to be happy despite the pointlessness of things. I reckon most people feel the same?

>Do you believe that the world exists to be used by humans?
Nah, but muh singularity means it will be

>Do you believe that happiness is the goal of life?
Goal of MY life, nihlism is the answer

>Do you believe in good and bad?
Going by utilitarian standards good is helping others. In that case I guess I don't, seeing as I'm generally self serving

>Do you believe that humanity is a force for good?
If good is the advancement of humanity then hell yes, even Hitler contributed to technology by making the US invent the atom bomb

I would seek therapy or self diagnosis my friend

>>Do you believe that happiness is the goal of life?
>Goal of MY life, nihlism is the answer

You need to be 18 to be here.

I am absolutely sure I am having first person experience of the self because I am having a first person experience of the self - right now. The ontology of my consciousness is indisputable, regardless of whether or not physicalism is true. You may be able to explain how my consciousness arises from the firing of my neurons with a physicalist theory, but that doesn't refute its existence.

>If you can't create the entire physical world in your imagination due to its detail and complexity, that doesn't suggest the world is different to imagination, it suggests hardware limitations on your end.

Obviously. Unless materialism is false, which I assumed for the sake of argument. My point is only that, if idealism is true, God is necessary to explain the consistency and detail of what I perceive through the senses.

>How do the hard problem and the measurement problem (such as it is) show there is no material substance?

This is too complicated for a few sentences. It's more that idealism can account for these problems, where materialism struggles - especially when it comes to the measurement problem. I fail to see how realism and materialism are compatible with Copenhagen. If you can be bothered, read this post I just wrote on the topic:

partnersinthoughtcrime.com/the-sam-harris-argument-for-idealism-and-god/

>But, materialism doesn't necessarily lead to nihilism

Maybe not for you, but for me it did for me.

>I believe we are the last, best hope

>Do you believe that the world exists to be used by humans?
yes, also by any other living thing on earth

>Do you believe that happiness is the goal of life?
no, happiness is underrated

>Do you believe in good and bad?
culturally relative terms, but yes, they do exist and we do perceive them differently

>Do you believe that humanity is a force for good?
i don't think you can summarise our entire existence to either good or bad

also, I'm a MSc Physics student, and a lot of my professors are religious

>do you believe in anything that can't be proven logically
I often wonder about what might be, but never really believe in anything until it's proven.

>Do you believe that the world exists to be used by humans?
Nah, i think our far ancestors just got a bunch of roll20s with genes

>Do you believe that happiness is the goal of life?
Sure, what else is there to do?

>Do you believe in good and bad?
Basic morality and laws that are derived from survival instincts, like not killing other members of your own specie or hindering their wellness, are definitely useful.

>I am absolutely sure I am having first person experience of the self because I am having a first person experience of the self - right now. The ontology of my consciousness is indisputable, regardless of whether or not physicalism is true. You may be able to explain how my consciousness arises from the firing of my neurons with a physicalist theory, but that doesn't refute its existence.
>I know X because I know X
Come on. How do you know your senses are valid and that you are having a first person experience? You can't just say you know you are because (you think) you are

>Obviously. Unless materialism is false, which I assumed for the sake of argument. My point is only that, if idealism is true, God is necessary to explain the consistency and detail of what I perceive through the senses.
Well, I'm a materialist, not an idealist, so that's a poor stance to start from.

>This is too complicated for a few sentences. It's more that idealism can account
Decentish article until around paragraph 9. Consciousness definitely doesn't have to be an all or nothing, the first person experience (if it even exists) simply depends on composition and everything living arguably has some level of responsiveness to stimuli, even macromolecules arguably have some limited level of consciousness
You also forgot what you'd written and used people perceiving hydranencephalic children as conscious as evidence of their consciousness
Consciousness is irrelevant to even the Copenhagen interpretation, observation doesn't require consciousness, especially if the observation is active as is any classical observation system, or any system that fires photons at the objects

>Maybe not for you, but for me it did for me.
Not really how logic works, logic isn't subjective, or at least shouldn't be. Give me the logical path you went through to think materialism - > nihilism

i think what you're really asking is if scientists are edgy nihilists, no they aren't (in general)

>You can't just say you know you are because (you think) you are
Eh... Not that guy, but how could you think you are if you aren't? I mean the classic "I think therefor I am", is pretty basic here. You're experiencing - something. Doesn't say much of anything about the world you live in or about yourself beyond that - maybe you are an omniscient being compartmentalism yourself in your own imagination, though solipsism is rather silly in general.

Granted, you can't prove it to anyone else. Generally, one simply politely assumes it is true for everyone else, instead of assuming the world is subsumed by armies of philosophical zombies.

But as it goes in the category of stuff you can't verify, you can't science that shit.

Can't ever assume that you're not just a simulation or the product of someone's imagination on Veeky Forums, they'll get to you like flies on shit.

Even if you are a simulation, you're one that's aware and having an experience, makes no difference, really.

The fact that you're having an experience doesn't confirm you're physically real, but it confirms on some level, you exist. Even software's a thing man.

I'm 19

>Yes, I believe in God. Though God's existence can be inferred philosophically if you're not a retarded teenager.
regressive Veeky Forumscucks pls leave, you're even worse that the /pol/cunts (this doesn't mean Veeky Forums in general btw, just the retards)

I believe in myself and my potential to become who I am. I believe in free will. I believe that "God" is no creator but the simplest but most profound scientific truth representing the foundation of math and physic, that "God" therefore is anywhere and everywhere. I believe that weltschmerz and pain is what makes the world worth living in, perfection is boring, struggle gives (the feeling of) meaning. If there was nothing to be solved, nothing to be optimized I may as well kill myself. I believe in the truth of beauty. Embrace yourself, embrace the struggle, embrace your thirst of knowledge, embrace beauty. Science and culture are the only redeeming qualities of consciousness.

>Do you Veeky Forumsentists believe in anything? Religion, probably not

Assumes facts not in evidence.

>Imagine if people realized one of the core parts of religion was some watered down symptom of mental illness.

The bicameral mind theory's explanation comes to mind.

I believe in the empowerment of the individual and that collectivist commie scum should be tossed from helicopters

I believe in the thing called dubs.

I believe taxation is rape.

>bicameral mind theory's
the more i read about psychological theories the more i see descriptions of dyadic systems. that's really interesting to me.

freud describes one in the way the super-ego interacts with the ego

or the conscious and subconscious

or how close relationships are in pairs

twin centers in jungian psychology

/b/ tier shitposting is welcome in this shit thread

Also nice dubs comrade

Found the teenager kek

I believe the earth is flat

>do you believe in anything that can't be proven logically?
Yeah, God I guess
>do you believe that the world exists to be used by humans?
Yeah
>do you believe happiness is the goal of life?
No, the goal is whatever you want to be the goal.
>do you believe in good or bad
Yes
>do you believe humanity is a force of good?
No, but it's assumable people are always acting in their own interest, which may be bad for you, but that also doesn't mean humanity is bad.

ITT: Babbies first encounters with The Absurd.

unironically this.

this thread stinks of edgy pseudo intellectual autists who think because they know analysis or algebra they know everything.

G-d exists it says so in The Bible.

you're saying all of our ideas, including perception itself originates from a higher order. you may call it god or as i'd prefer the physical foundation of the universe, since it defines everything you can imagine for it is the only input your mind will ever get. that is, by definition, the exact opposite of idealism. I might be misinterpreting what you are saying, though.

ive thought about this a lot . much like other the philosophers whose ideas ive evaluated and sometimes added to my ever accumulating body of KNOWLEDGE

Dude, spirit, particles, what does it matter what you call it the fact is ourselves and everything we know bootstrapped itself out of nothing, and that's the source of all religious feeling and something science can't answer besides giving it names, as if a concept denotes true comprehension