What's your two cents on the existence of god Veeky Forums?

>"that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
Okay then? That doesn't really mean anything to an individual who has faith.

flying spaghetti monster isn't an argument against the existence of god. it's just "hey god might look funny". never really got what people were trying to do with that.

>a scientist fedora calls people reddit

well I suppose the theory of relativity doesn't mean anything to a retard or downs syndrome person either. we don't need to waste our time arguing about FACTS with the mentally deficient

thats how drumpf got elected

...

dubss
tripsss

>a /pol/tard calls me a funny hat meme
oh thats rich

...

...

>a cretin calls everyone who disagrees with him a poltard
wew

probably because you are dumb

it satires the ridiculousness of imagining a god to begin with

Dude didn't even make an argument, he just posted a fedora meme.

Calling him a cretin or ignoring him were the only two real options.

>arguing with an angry 13 year old atheist
Fedora is wholly justified in this instance. I'm not religious or spiritual myself, but this babby concept of religion and Dawkins-tier arguments like treating absence of material evidence as evidence itself or, indeed, asking for ""material"" evidence for existence of ""transcendent"" being in the first place is peak idiocy. New Atheists are equally as retarded and as annoying as religious fundamentalists and absolutely deserve to be mocked.

t. false flagging self hating christian

It doesn't matter much to me whether or not he actually exists. What matters is that he is there, as a concept, for the people who need something to believe in.

Great argument. Thanks for confirming that you're actually just a contrarian teenage fedora.

you didn't provide an argument worthy of critique. all you did was drag respectable names like Professor Dawkins through the mud and say a bunch of BULLSHIT about "nu atheists"

if you would like to engage with me on the battlefields of reason and rationality I would be more than happy to engage in meaningful debate with you so long as you didn't resort to your typical ad hom straw man attacks like above.

>god of Spinoza
Pantheism, pandeism and deism are all pointless wankery with no purpose whatsoever. "I'm agnostic" of their time.

>Asking for empirical evidence is dumb

It's bad enough that people believe in shit like astrology but Abrahamic religions come with lots of rules and restriction. It's something that's taken very seriously by a lot of people, even in politics, yet has not a single shred of evidence exist to support this belief.

I think stuff like spinozism is fine despite having a few issues with the idea myself but the belief in a personal god in this modern age is completely autistic.

Taking silly things seriously doesn't make you sophisticated. Any hard claims made about spirituality really can be dismissed out of hand.

I think it's kinda sad redditfags like you still come here

Veeky Forums is that way

do you need a safe space to hug your imaginary sensei in, little baby newfag?

But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

-Matthew 5:22

>be redditfag with barely any understanding of philosophy
>duuude, this metaphysical transcendent being doesn't provide us with physical proof of his existence, that means he doesn't exist!!!!

Also nice outing. Only newfags call other newfags.

>underage newfag believes in an imaginary skyfairy
>philosophy

lel

>sky fairy XDDDDD
If you're not baiting go and get a basic understanding of philosophy before coming to a philosophy thread

>Whoever insults me or calls me a dumbass, to hell with ye

Le fragile Christianity.

That post is mocking christfags slinging insults in the thread.

Asking for empirical evidence in case of religion is dumb. It deals in transcendent concepts of God and soul which by definition have nothing to do with the material world, i.e. lie outside the domain of science. Trying to apply scientific method to them is silly. That is the point I'm trying to make, not that theistic worldview is right.

Spinozism might sound poetic, but it's absolutely worthless really. Just a spiced up atheism.

>fedoras are so stupid they can't understand basic sarcasm

Also Jesus wasn't a hippie that called for peace and love. He was stern and loving but also didn't hold back when angry.

>dude is a stupid fedora without any basic knowledge of Christianity but still makes fun of it
>not a good cause

if youre not retarded pray to your fictional moondaddy for a basic degree of logic before even considering philosophy

Not Veeky Forums.
> But I mention Spinoza, who wrote books!
Still the topic is not a book or literature in general. MODS

>tfw not sure if bait master or an actual 14 year old

You're the reason why the whole flying spaghetti monster movement got started.

You can apply the very same argument with it. Why treat it with any more seriousness then we do with the FPM idea?

Jesus thought that empty insults were counterproductive and a product of our fallen state. He is quite stern about the fact that such pettiness is a grave sin which angers him. Your "basic knowledge" of Christianity is far from the understanding that comes from walking with Christ day-to-day. You should probably stop being a false witness on Veeky Forums and go meditate on your attitude with your spiritual mentor.

I'd consider myself a realist, alright? But in philosophical terms I'm what's called a pessimist... I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself - we are creatures that should not exist by natural law... We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody's nobody... I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.

>le science is the only form of logic
The only part that makes me answer to you is the fact that you maybe a lost soul from Veeky Forums, that makes it well known to hate humanities. If you're a master troll then you're pretty good. Please be a master troll and not a retarded Fuck.

Shut up arrogant fool. Snake and liar. You warrant the insult because you don't know anything about the Word of God yet pretend to share your misery with the ones that make an effort to understand it.

Oh yeah, this was the kind of insult that Jesus used against the Pharisees. You guys? You guys are worse than Pharisees. And Jesus would've been even harsher with your kind.

>implying you have to be a scientist to not believe in a character from a fiction novel

religion is a scam been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey, "He said for you to give me your fucking share." People... so god damn frail they'd rather put a coin in the wishing well than buy dinner. If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of shit; and I'd like to get as many of them out in the open as possible.

You shouldn't treat it with any more seriousness. Again, I'm not religious and I'm not trying to argue for a religious worldview. Just pissed of at blatant fedoratism ITT.

>MFW unexpected true detective quote

God doesn't exist and Spinoza was a Jew

not everyone is disgusting like you i guess

Tell us more fellow knight of truth.

Parroting an insult that Jesus used against the consistently hostile and dishonest opponents he knew would eventually conspire to have him crucified does not make your behavior less sinful. I'm only talking down to you because you've gone out of your way to be a poor witness to these people on Veeky Forums. It's not a matter of deep interpretation. Jesus said not to sling empty insults.

You guys? Do you mean Christians? Are you assuming that because I spoke unkindly to you that I am a militant atheist?

God is fantasy that normies fail to go beyond
same thing with science

Do Christcucks have any arguments other than "muh fedora"?

this is a board for books you retarded faggot

Right? Where are the mods?
Veeky Forums was already divided into Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums so it could be more about books and writing, that is more Veeky Forums, and less about philosophical questions in general.

discussing humanities on Veeky Forums is utterly futile

what is ridiculous about the omniscient creator of the universe taking the form he wants?

God may or may not exist but it's a fact Christianity is the best doctrine to live your life by.

Tell me how this thread is in any way better than a Veeky Forums thread.

there is nothing more absurd than a personal god

That statement is technically true, but how does atheism explain Determinism? Given that everything and every event in the universe exists contingently to a previous event, then how come the same can't be said about the beginning of the universe (At t=0)?

>Given that everything and every event in the universe exists contingently to a previous event
easy: this isn't given.

Explain. Even if you say our will is our own, our will is still based on events that are causally determined.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

That statement makes you absurd

>all modern scientific models strongly suggest the material universe is indeterministic
>hurr durr how does """atheism""" deal with """my""" stance on determinism
It doesn't give a shit about it really.

time doesn't work that way. plato is not relevant in this case. read up on recent astrophysics.

God is our final and necessary absurd.

Are you aware of the Problem of Induction?

It's an interesting philosophical concept that has never been satisfactorily resolved. Science is not so dissimilar to religion.

i just saw "plato" and assumed. i looked over the link now. none of that is based in our current understanding of reality.

>What do you think of the idea of a personal god?
Would be nice if it were true, assuming he is new testament style and not old testament temper tantrum tier. There is not enough evidence to suppose that one exists though, so I don't waste too many thought on this.

>What's your opinion on the god of Spinoza?
Nice idea. No reason to assume it is true though.

>Have you read the arguments against your position?
Yeah, none of them were really convincing. Pascal's Wager has some merit to it, but if there would be a personal god according to my personal preference, then he wouldn't like it very much that I only believe in him because I wanted to make the safest bet.

>What do you think of them?
Some are intellectually honest and interesting thought experiments, others are obvious deceptions or just low tier emotional appeals.

Oh good, so you at least half read the post. So judging by what you said you at least agree there is a strong chance every event is based on a prior one. If you read the latter part of my first post, then given that, what would be the event that caused the beginning of the universe. (Whether it be god/simulation or whatever)?
>obviously didn't look at the link
Plato is just in the URL name.

I tried reading up on this. From what I gather, it just reveals the problem of things be reliable?

Honestly i am so dumb. Can you explain this to me with a few examples?

Oh ok you saw it. How is it not? Could you give an example? The only place where it could break down is a t=0 as far as I'm aware

I am God

Hey make me rich please, I want to become an artist

give me repeating numbers and I will reward you of good faith

Oh you are Lord Kek, I thought you were that other one

i can't explain cosmology to you. there are competing theories. all i can tell you is time as you understand it and as it works in our daily lives and throughout history DOES NOT behave the same at the "beginning" of our universe.

one of brian greene's books'll probably be a nice simple overview of this stuff.

I didn't say "there is a strong chance", I stated quite the opposite - we are fairly certain that universe is nondeterministic, stop putting words in my mouth. Deliberating on what came before the universe is pointless, because it is physically impossible to gain any factual information on it. In that sense it is about as useful as and largely synonymous with discussing mythological or theological theories.

okay buddy really you can't have zero understanding of the last 50 years of physics and try to have these conversations please you are out of your element

dang i missed a great opportunity to call someone "kiddo"

>Deliberating on what came before the universe is pointless
Only because it inevitably points to the existence of God. Need to keep up the charade of naturalism, can't have those dirty Theists scoring a win.

The Jews are literal proof of the existence of God.

/thread

Eat shit, atheist faggots.

what kind of god though

Doesn't matter.

Absence of information doesn't point to anything. Please take a course in basic formal logic before you try to argue about cosmology. There's no excuse to be this retarded in current year, not even an overabundance of faith.

you can't assume what matters to me ;-;

What does "personal god" mean? Like, different people having different interpretations of what God is like? I think that's fair.

It points to God. There is no hypothesis that works without a conscious necessary being, period. An appeal to ignorance just shows how desperate people are to avoid the dilemma.

It's a pretty simple idea actually, but it's explained quite badly.

Imagine you have a pool table and you hit a white ball and it collides with a black. You would assume that the movement of the black ball is due to the white ball colliding it, but have you actually witnessed that cause? All you've really seen is two effects, the movement of the white ball and the movement of the black ball, and you've made an assumption that they are connected. It could easily have been that your white ball stopped just short, and that your black ball was moved by a gust of wind. Of course, that's incredibly unlikely, but the idea is that the cause is actually invisible to us, it's beyond our sense perception. Hume takes this further with the idea of the impossibility of guaranteeing future events, that even if the cause of the black ball's movement was the collision, we have no way to say that this is consistent either. It's not so much denying cause and effect as saying that the idea of an intelligible and obvious cause is beyond us, basically, that "wisdom is habit".

Then you have thinkers like Russel who take such an idea even further, and argue that the idea of causation itself is absurd, due to events being infinitesimal in detail and impossible to replicate, that there is a necessary time interval between cause and effect whereby an environmental influence can affect it, and, most interestingly, that modern physics doesn't use causation to explain things but theoretical equations, and that the true nature of causation is just a relationship of rules and relative principles, rather than some simple temporal event.

Effectively, science is based on hypothesis, not fact, and is limited to descriptions of reality rather than definitions.

I'm very, very tired, so I'm sure I've explained this badly, but the philosophy is sound.

Why do you need a conscious to start of the universe?

The existence of the universe and of matter proves the existence of a creator.

>he thinks repeating same unsubstantiated bullshit magically makes it more valid
Honey, this isn't Sunday mass.

It's impossible to conceive the universe without reaching the conlcusion of creation. Keep in mind that the Big bang thoery was created by a priest. Every scientific explanation for existence doesn't reject the possibility of creation, it actually enforces it. It may be because humans can't think beyond analogous terms. Regardless there is no strong argument against creation.