Has anyone ever made a compelling argument for the existence of God that doesn't just boil down to "muh faith"?

so basically blah blah blah we live in God's vomit.
much better thanks!

You're welcome? Not sure how passive-aggressive or humorous or genuinely sincere and grateful this post is supposed to be.

very passive aggressive.
I'm basically calling you an evasive pussy.

Yes, but whenever atheists hear it they instantly ignore it via ridicule and reductionism. Which in turn makes it impossible to actually say anything useful to them. Then they go talk about how no one can prove that God exists, and act like they're brilliant. But in reality, if you look at apologetics they make some good points. The brain and consciousness is probably the biggest observable indicator of something supernatural. Although the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments should already prove God's existence to most reasonable people.

what the point of believing in a god if he doesnt love us?

Is this what atheism leads to?

>The brain and consciousness is probably the biggest observable indicator of something supernatural. Although the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments should already prove God's existence to most reasonable people.

Wishy-washy, pseudo-rational bullshit.

Not an atheist. This guy:
I just find no comfort in this philosophical reduction of a paradox. Might as well ignore the thing completely. Youre no better than any atheist.

Honestly the idea of God, which I can't stop believing in, only oppresses me, it doesn't really give me any freedom or feeling of compassion, although it's a reason for compassion. I don't know how to restore this relationship. Not believing would be a lot easier.

>which I can't stop believing in
Confront reality

>The brain and consciousness is probably the biggest observable indicator of something supernatural.
Dude the thing that undermines the necessity of a higher power IS THE EVIDENCE OF A HIGHER POWER LMAO

That's not even how Occam's Razor works you mong. You don't pick an endpoint and then simplify everything towards it; you take the simplest starting point (or the starting point with the fewest attached positive assumptions) and work naturally from there.

Where are the sounds, smells, colours, etc. coming from? Do you believe there is a source or no? Are you just some fag who's hung up on the word "God", or what? Why are you trying to wrap your head around something larger than your head? Do you think language and reason is ontologically higher than the , such that the latter can be understood through the former? Why don't you just accept the divine revelation of your senses and stop being a fedora-fag.

classic.
you're the true fedora by indulging in what, by your own admission, can only be known by our feeble minds as a fantasy.

>by your own admission
try reading my post first you huge faggot

>something larger than your head
>fantasy: activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible

dumbass.

>who is Aristotle
>who is the first mover
>who is Thomas Aquinas
>what is Metaphysics
>what is "Liber de veritate catholicae fidei contra errores infidelium"

>b-but muhh memes from reddit front page and r/atheism convinced me that there is no God

so you take my question of "Why are you trying to wrap your head around something larger than your head?", read only the last part and interpret it as "try to imagine something larger than your head".

JUST

Plato lays out a pretty convincing case for the immortal soul. His theory of forms basically prove the existence of heaven.

>b-but muhh memes from Veeky Forums front page and Veeky Forums convinced me that there is a God

Completely unread on Aquinas, but the assertion that an infinite line of inerts could not at either end have actives is mathematically wrong.

Take an integer on a number line, on either side you have a finite increment of the next integer. Yet, between 1 and 2, and then 2 and 3, you have an uncountably infinite set of non-integers. Infinities, true uncountable infinities (as the universe appears to be) are capable of expanding WITHIN themselves while retaining unique endpoints. You just couldn't ever actually reach them.

Not sure if this actually affects Aquinas' philosophy in any way, just something I thought I'd point out.

This is just babble from a scared little monkey man.
You're only saying "muh faith" and you know it.

you don't even know what I'm saying. look at my actual words and imagine that they are all I said and nothing further about your preconcieved notions of a God are implied by them.

You're letting your anger intrude on your rationality. If it pleases your stringent semantic requirements (which I didn't in any way contradict in essence), I'll phrase it in a way which pleases you:

The simplest starting point to explain qualia and consciousness is to say that qualia and consciousness are intrinsic to the universe. If it is, the entire universe would be alive according to this view, and this idea of the whole universe forming a unified consciousness satisfies almost any criteria you could posit for a pantheistic/animistic view of God, so, without quibbling about semantics, we might as well call it God.

I guess I'm supposed to feel insecure now?

It's not my job to convert you. I'm happy enough. You can roll around in your own intellectual vomit and feces for all I care. Far from making me feel insecure, your unwarranted vitriol only makes me feel pity for you, that you can't understand the wonder and beauty of life and consciousness existing, and the majesty of God.

>muh
>faith
you simply don't know either.
whether the God is there doesn't really matter if he doesn't give a shit.

>The simplest starting point to explain qualia and consciousness is to say that qualia and consciousness are intrinsic to the universe
Except that, in and of itself, is a positive claim. By way of human observation we do not see qualia or consciousness being expressed by the universe, aside from perhaps qualia in the quantum physical sense (which you could certainly base an interesting subjectivist argument on). But consciousness we observably define as a function of the brain at a certain level of hierarchy - under Occam's Razor, to make any other sort of claim, you would first need to prove this observed, seemingly non-assumptive claim to be untrue and positively assumptive.

>trying to inflate mathematical concepts to physical objects
bruh

The cosmological argument is probably the best there is in a purely rational sense, but it wasn't what put me over the edge.

Read Kierkegaards Fear and Trembling. Faith in God is not something that can be understood and demonstrated rationally. Some will argue that if its not rational then you shouldn't believe it.

My counter-point would be human civilisation and existence in general is not particularly rational. It's mysterious and deeply puzzling. And much of the time when we try to rationalise things we simply destroy it in the process.

This user is right too. I should read Plato again. The Theory of Forms is a good starting point in conceiving of a world with God.

This is getting wearisome. Contrary to what you believe, quibbling on Veeky Forums is not the pinnacle of my life. I come here to shitpost and I find it very degrading to have to talk about God and consciousness on here. All I can say is, you can see qualia and consciousness expressed in yourself. I have no idea what all this Latinate gibberish you're spewing means, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you experience qualia, and that typical """"""""""science"""""""""" views matter as being fundamentally unconsciousness and not having qualia, and thus has no explanation for how matter that does not experience qualia, when put together in certain ways, suddenly experiences qualia.

Why not just say it fundamentally experiences qualia? By way of human observation, we do not see qualia or consciousness being expressed by other people, let alone the universe. We can only extrapolate it from our own qualia.

We observably define consciousness as a function of the brain at a certain level of hierarchy --- what does this mean? I think it means that you're making a very large assumption, that it's ONLY in the brain at a certain level of hierarchy (which "at a certain level of hierarchy" is very vague and difficult wording for me to understand). So, you could say it's an assumption that consciousness is only in the brain at a certain level of hierarchy. For instance, why this certain level of hierarchy? Don't we ourselves see that there are different levels of consciousness? Our own consciousness when we are sleeping or drunk is different from our consciousness when we are wide awake. The consciousness of a crab is on a lower level than the consciousness of a horse.

What I am saying is, by what means do we say a rock is unconscious? It's an assumption that's functionally the same as saying that a horse is conscious when looked at from the point of view that we can only verify our own consciousness and not the consciousness of anyone or anything else, or, in my point of view, even more ridiculous, because we admit that there is no fundamental difference between the atoms we are made of and the atoms the rock are made of; and we admit that there are hugely different amounts of consciousness (from that of some low level invertebrate like a jellyfish, or perhaps lobster, and Max Planck), but we also say that, at some indistinguishable point, it segues off into non-consciousness, non-livingness ... there could indeed be a point at which consciousness is so low it's practically not conscious, like bacteria --- but it's still alive.

>Kant

The extent to which Kant's philosophy is religgius seems more like an acknowledgement for the sake of the church than anything.

>what is "begging the question"

>Confront reality
This loses a lot of meaning since modern existence is simulated

Did you read "The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God" and " Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone"? I find it hard to believe you did if you say that. It's clear God and faith were important points to him since the start. The Church, not so much. He even assumed its eventual demise in favor of pure faith.

literally what the fuck is this

believing in god is a pleb or a patrician thing?

I would say patrician. It encourages interesting/bizarre theories and complex thinking. Atheism is boring, it leads to simpleton nihilistic thinking.

The best way to realise it (except through revelation) is by questioning and unpicking people's beliefs. When you do that you realise that everyone holds spiritual beliefs whether they realise it or not. These include a belief in a higher power, the ability to self-transcend, the need to feel part of a larger universe (ie
not the reality of solipsism) and other less important ones like a separation from nature and the animals.

It can be very tricky to find it with some people and you have to understand how language can be symbolic of something other than its content but its always there. The other aspect is the fact that these primal instinctual beliefs latch onto false higher powers like a person or the state and hence do not represent true faith but the instinct is always there. So we have to ask ourselves why?

Read about his goodness, free yourself with the truth that is Jesus Christ

I've been thinking about the connection between phenomenal pain/hard problem of consciousness/zombies and problem of evil but someone beat me to it by 7 years, fuck.
theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05192010-084406/unrestricted/Schuler_MM_T_2010.pdf

>tfw no replies

Probably because introspection is not a compelling argument.

It is.

Line up your premises, defend them and draw a conclusion, please.

Patrish as fark, bro. Memes aside though you ought to think about things for yourself. I fully agree with

All Phenomena come to a resting place of definitive judgement in the Mind, to a state where they are under judgement alone, regardless of any and all Subject-Object boundary models, or the alleged vital utility of the Empirical, or what have you; and more importantly, regardless of any potential externalization relative to another person. Introspection makes abstraction of Phenomena and turns this judgement onto itself.

Has anyone ever made a compelling argument for the non-existence of God that doesn't just boil down to "muh senses"?

A study of existence from the micro to the macro suggests one of two possibilities:
A) a rational creator
B) a confluence of random chance resulting in a series of infinitely improbable outcomes, such that it actually requires more suspension of disbelief to accept than does a supernatural creator

>you take the simplest starting point (or the starting point with the fewest attached positive assumptions) and work naturally from there.

But that is actually what he did though, vis:
The simplest explanation for existence is most assuredly not "everything exploded out of nothing at random for no reason and then dust-clouds were gravitationally formed into balls at random and then one dustball (and, so far as we know, only one) spontaneously formed in just the right position relative to its parent flaming dustball to enable a series of infinitely complex ecosystems of mineral, vegetable, and animal to develop on its surface just as required to enable intelligent life. And it like just happened bro lmao"

The mineral filtration system required to oxygenate our oceans alone is just about beyond the realm of coincidence. One needs to be blind to study the formation of the universe and not see creation.

But totally-not-the-abrahamic-god-le-first-cause would be more impropable and complex than anything he creates by necessity, so...

All of these arguments boil down to a pre-selected conclusion and operate under the assumption that
>our understanding of the metaphysics of reality is in any way accurate
>one of our earthly religions must be correct
>our meager understanding of the "laws" of physics applies universally and that nothing in the great wide universe continues to defy our understanding
>there are no generally unknowable X factors mixed in to this grand formula
And then they move on to claim these arguments as proof of a specific God, and by extension a specific set of rules, and by extension from that a specific lifestyle. Its a trainwreck of faulty logic designed to justify something that is inherently unjustifiable.

It takes bravery to accept there is no God.

dunno if it has been mentioned yet but I (as a agnostic) always liked the "first unmoved mover" idea Aristotle
I think the inteligent creator isn't convincing at all and the Aquinas ontological argumentation or whatever isn't as well

Here's the thing asshole, the only alternative is that there is nobody to ask the question "what is consciousness" in the first place. That means its not improbable that consciousness would come to be because the world where consciousness is just happens to be the outcome but it just as easily could have been a world with no consciousness and hence no reflections on its nature. Secondly, given an infinite amount of time anything that is possible within the a system will eventually happen. How many billions of years was there no consciousness at all? Lastly how the fuck do you know presume to know the probability of consciousness? There may be unlimited ways that consciousness can come to exist for all you know.

This. In a post PKD world there's no comfort to be taken in the idea of a maximally powerful being that can do whatever it wants to you. For all we know its just some asshole kid fucking with some build-a-universe app.

>Who is Aristotle

The only fedora-tipping materialist until the 1800s?

How would one disprove the accuracy or soundness of the actuality/potentiality divide?

>Aristotle
>fedora-tipper

Confirmed for not having read him. His whole ethical system is based on the idea that all humans have value hierarchies, and that the top of the value hierarchy is God.

the actuality/potentiality divide is not an argument so soundness is inapplicable technically speaking, it's an ontological framework, a certain language used to describe and categorize the nature of things with, which you can adopt or not depending on it's usefulness.
intuitively i think there's something wrong with it, the flow of time seems to be fluid, it's not intuitive that to accept that reality is actually composed of countless actuality->potentiality links. as you experience reality all you have is qualia/experience, it's only when you conceptualize and articulate it that you fragment this holistic experience into causes and effects.
the whole point of the argument from motion is that you're using observations from nature and logic to show that god exists, but it doesn't seem to be actually based on observations from nature, just a linguistic trick.

Even just in the classical period you have Diagoras of Melos, Critias and other tippers. Aristotle wasn't one.

>the whole point of the argument from motion is that you're using observations from nature and logic to show that god exists, but it doesn't seem to be actually based on observations from nature, just a linguistic trick.

Sorry for my miss use of terms Im still trying to get my hear around it all. I see things like which has reasoning which whilst not direct observation is based upon direct experience.

I currently have a difficult time telling the difference between linguistic tricks (which is something I felt Parmenides was hardcore about) and sound reasoning that Im just too pleb to understand.

How do you tell the difference?

Can you share some examples of other ontological frameworks that fall into the linguistic trick category?

if you're able to extract the essential logic of an argument and can translate it to different languages you speak that's a good indicator that it's good because clever wordplay tends to get lost in translation

So he believed God was material?

Wouldnt that mean its not word play by default because its translated from the ancient greek?

Look, okay, all atheists should read the Bible at least once. Anyone would realize after reading it that Yahweh was a goddamned narcissistic alien who got attached to the Israelites and left after getting pissed off when they constantly spurned his teachings, and everything after that point is either Jewish history (Books of history after 2 Kings) or Jewish trickery (New Testament)

Also science and atheism are just as much religions now as the various sects of Christianity, so you can grow up and stop laying your parroted answers down as definitive truths and realize that no one knows the answer. A lifetime of research and introspection will only reward you with the brush of a cloth or the merest hint of the truth as it dances just out of your reach with all the agility and cunning of Muhammad Ali.

I don't think that Jesus is Jewish trickery but that Paul is really shifty

they're all products of perception. we have receptors in our nose that can recognize different compounds which sends different signals to the brain which are interpreted as different smells. same with wavelengths of light and our eyes and color and so on. we developed this ability to differentiate over millions of years of trial and error. i believe in god.

>If I disagree it's not compelling

>tfw everyone automatically settles on the endgame premise being the existence or non-existence of the Abrahamic God. every kind of argument under the sun for or against.
>if one person brings up Odin
>or Hecate
>or Ra
>or even Legba
>theyd get their shit pushed in by both sides for no reason other than
>"please, user, be serious"

It's a shotgun, not a sniper rifle. You aim for the Abrahamic religions because they overwhelmingly make up most of the Western world's population. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, all sides of the same die.

Oh look, THIS thread again.

I understand, but even in instances when the word "God" isn't even used (let's say they used terms like "Higher Power" or the like), people that bring up deities from other cultures invariably get ignored or ridiculed. And always, ALWAYS, we get the fuckers that invoke Pascal's Wager, in one form or another. It's all become a trope, really.

Do you exist?

Yes, Occam's Razor. Okay now let's make a lot of jumps and assumptions to come to the conclusion that aligns to my beliefs, from nothing.

Aside flawed reasoning because mathematics doesn't exactly translate to physical objects, Aquinas's argument assumes a possible eternal universe so it really makes no difference. It's not the first domino, it's the ground all dominos stand on.

Aquinas doesn't make an ontological proof at all, in fact he refutes it. Don't talk about things you don't understand.

Honestly, this just goes to show how you don't understand what theyre talking about when talking about God with a capital G as opposed to gods, or a god. Its the same as when a friend of mine tried to explqin to me that by believing in God you're effectively an atheist for other gods, which makes absolutely 0 sense when you're talking about the existence of the Absolute.

>which makes absolutely 0 sense when you're talking about the existence of the Absolute.
why doesn't it make sense to you? by not having positive belief in other gods, you are a nonbeliever as far as they're concerned, even though you're still a theistic person, you're a-theistic in so far as those concepts are concerned

it's not the ground that all dominos stand on, it's literally the first physical movement of particles which is deemed necessary for cause and effect to happen

No, that's why rational people don't believe in God.

...

Atheism isn't a perspective-based viewpoint, it means you don't believe in any god, period. If an atheist meets a viking and starts blathering on about fedora tipping, the viking wouldn't care whether the atheist didn't believe in Odin because of a total lack of religion or because he believed in Yahweh, he'd slap the atheist upside the head for being a heretic.

Wolfgang Smiths' "Cosmos and Trancendence" does a good job - its short, elegant and beautifully written. Smith is a Columbia/MIT PhD mathemetician who has a strong grasp of Christian theology and metaphysics. I bought a hard copy after reading ebook. Archive.org link: archive.org/details/pdfy-8rVQ3zCB6UcGCBny

>Atheism isn't a perspective-based viewpoint
wrong
atheists by necessity hold different positions on different god concepts

Explain your position because atheism is, by definition, an absence or rejection of belief in a God or gods. I doubt you'll find someone who worships Zeus yet considers himself to be an atheist because he doesn't believe in Ra.

No. That's not the argument he makes. He, as I've actually already mentioned, assumes a possible infinite series of contingent causes in an eternal universe. The first casuse is not a part of the chain in the argument.

I have an absence in belief in things such as the number of starts (even or not). I do not have an absence of belief in Zeus.

>we assume it (consciousness, being alive) is intrinsic to the universe
That's Anthropic Principle, not Occam's Razor. It's still a good argument for the existence of God though.

The fuck are you even saying? How does the 'number of stars' relate to your theist beliefs? And good for you, you believe in Zeus. So you're not an atheist.

>tfw no replies again

>which makes absolutely 0 sense when you're talking about the existence of the Absolute.
No, it makes perfect sense given that what you mean by absolute is "my version of the Absolute".