Is God really that necessary?

At this point I just assume everyone's an atheist until proven otherwise. Only in recent year did all these Christcucks show up to imageboards trying to fit in with a culture that beats off to anime girls all day.

I remember when people could talk philosophy without atheists having a fit and try to play gatekeepers of what can be talked about here. It was before summer.

Veeky Forums has always been this way, don't fool yourself

I've come to believe meaning can't be found or lost, it can only be given or taken.

no that's retarded
whatever reason you come up with, you can attribute that reason arbitrarily to either a christian spoopy god or to the universe or to multiple gods

How is it retarded? Meaning is a social category, there's no meaning without someone.

If you're stupid enough to believe in the Christian God, it shows you have barely read any philosophy/important works of the past.

...

What are some books where the main character undergoes a spiritual transformation, beating the degeneracy of atheism and nihilism by coming to the realisation that God exists and he loves each and every one of us?

No fiction is coming to my mind but you might be interested in the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

Why is that?

leftist humor

Fraud and intellectual midget looking for a dollar.

...

I'm baiting. I was going to call you a cuck but don't feel like it any more. SAD!

No, but the GNON is necessary to establish the absolute autonomy of reality from the subject.

You know what's not sad? These dubs. Bow before me you cucks.

Look at you being a master troll. You're hilarious bro.

Symbolically, God is always necessary. Where there is hierarchy there is inevitably the #1.

If God is ultimately necessary, why does it have be the Jewish God

Somebody had to be right. The Judeo-Christian corresponds the closest with what we can know of God through reason. For example if you consider the argument from motion and what it means to be "pure actual" we can start to infer some interesting attributes:

-Pure actual must be omnipotent because to not be able to do something would be unrealized potential
-Pure actuality couldn't pop in or out of existence because that would imply unrealized potential, so pure actuality must be eternal.
-Pure actuality must be non-physical because physical beings or substances can change forms or locations, both of which are unrealized potential
-An imperfection of any kind would be an unrealized potential, so pure actual must be perfect.
-There can only be one pure actual because the only way to tell the difference between two purely actual things is if one of them had something the other didn't. Pure actuality can't lack anything.

This pure actual that we call God would be omnipotent, eternal, non-physical, and perfect. That doesn't sound like Zeus to me.

So youre answer is because no other religion presents an omnipotent singular god

Jew lover

Not him, but while my understanding of world religions through history is somewhat limited, I've never encountered an omnipotent singular god in any other religion past or present. Maybe Aten, the great sun disc of Egypt, comes close, at least the version of him that Akhenaten wanted Egypt to worship. But of course Aten got chucked as soon as Akhenaten died.

You're half correct. I'm saying that the Judeo-Christian corresponds the closest with what we can know of God through reason. I'm not saying that this is the only religion or philosophy that posited a singular omnipotent god, we have to give Aristotle credit where credit is due. Those were just a few attributes for the purposes of explanation because those attributes alone only takes us to basic theism.

To get to Christianity proper we have to take what we know from philosophy, that God is love and combine that with revelation. It's easy to imagine that a loving God would want to talk to us and if he did he would probably look a lot like Jesus, and we support that with historical evidence.

>If God doesn't exist then you have to have another reason to believe the universe is rational and consistent or not an illusion because if the universe is irrational and inconsistent true knowledge would not be possible.

no, this is you making up excuses to cling to theism.

Even if that were true it's still better than hiding from difficult questions. Another poster told me that I should "just assume that the universe is rational and consistent." Well that's not good enough for me because I need reasons to believe the things that I believe. Every time I bring this problem up I get accused of just making excuses or bending over backwards to support my belief in theism. I don't think that's what I'm doing at all because I am legitimately open to atheism if it can provide a consistent and logical worldview, and so far atheism isn't giving that to me and atheists are generally just telling me to stop asking questions.

>I remember when people could talk philosophy without atheists having a fit and try to play gatekeepers of what can be talked about here. It was before summer.

no, the christfags invaded this board about halfway between its creation and now. then came /pol/ and reddit about simultaneously. before all that, this place was great. I don't mind the christfags too much, but believing something ridiculous and then looking down their nose at people who don't makes them look even more ridiculous.

>and then looking down their nose at people who don't makes them look even more ridiculous.

I think that's just your insecurity.

>Somebody had to be right
Why?

There are different statements and we can work with many of them. So those are 'correct'. Nihilists are wrong by design. Intelligent design, their own or God.
Now, comparing the functional statements and the work they do... I say we compare them by their fruit.

Because I don't accept materialism in any form. A materialistic world view can't account for too many things like objective morality. To be a materialist is to be a relativist which I think is a self-refuting position. If the statement "all truth is relative" is absolutely false, relativism fails. If the statement is absolutely true, relativism fails again.

>I think that's just your insecurity.

in the post I just quoted, a theist attributed the behavior of "having a fit" and "playing gatekeeper" to atheists. sounds like looking down their nose, to me. It was right there in black and white, but a theist would rather believe that I'm insecure. Go ahead, hand-wave away the evidence. That's how your meme continues to propigate, so do as you must.

>I need reasons to believe the things that I believe.

so you solve this by inventing a supreme being? it's in your head, man.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

Could you point me to this evidence?

I don't care whether God is "necessary" or not. I care whether God is real or not. And the evidence suggests "NO".

If I wake up in the morning and find my car window broken and my stereo missing I don't "invent" a robber. I look at the evidence left behind and I infer that it's very likely a robber came and stole my radio. I do the same thing for God. I look at the world and I see evidence of creation and I process that with reason and I come to the conclusion that the existence of God is more likely than not.

This meme again. Go on then enlighten us, explain life to us without reference to a spiritual plane.

Doors, paths, summits, climbs, journeys, gates...
Do you know why these are spiritual concepts? You don't know what's behind the corner. Until you move and change your position.

One of the more spiritual experiences was seeing the limitations of logic. There is a reason religious teachings have two or more sides. Potentially infinite. A paradox will stagger or stop a purely logical action. However, a conscious being can affect the situation and possibly the parts in play. We can change the context so that this competition of truths (paradox) has a winner. The context can change so that we know the winner.
These are guidelines for conscious beings, not (utterly) logical ones.
The objective reality is something we have no access to. Perhaps mages, scholars and monks can have some insight to them. Humans tend to use multiple truths in their life all the time. A purely contextual truth, one culmination of which would be an inside joke. Then there is the reality of the senses separate from the reality of the thought.
Mind you, we understand neither to the point where we can declare monopoly on knowledge. Perhaps the only instances where this is not so, would be derived truths based on axiomatic beliefs, mystical experiences and so on.

>deserve
This is one of those derived truths. Hume was a brilliant man and cleansed the table quite a bit.

bump for interest. I like this debate

You can have personal meaning and purpose without God, but you can't have ultimate meaning and purpose without God. So it depends what you are satisfied with.

>It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.
- John S
Between the line reads the distinction between civilized and modern people.

Not to ruin your nice allusions, but are you saying that to believe in God is the position of the pig and the fool? Because that would logically fit with my post about the lack of ultimate meaning and purpose being less satisfying.

Do I need to know what I do?

No, but I would appreciate you more if you did.

Hey we're talking atheism and theism here. This is bloodsport so you need to pick a side. WHO IS THE PIG?

The satisfied.

Except the universe is not Irrational. This was scientifically proven the first time they started up the Higgs Boson.

In fact it was a result that caused the scientific community, physicists in particular to begin readdressing the issue of a deity.

What they found out essentially was that the Universe was almost completely balanced between chaotic forces and counter forces of rules and laws within space time.

What evidence?

That's the first I've heard of that. The problem with trying to demonstrate that the universe is rational and consistent through observation is that it can't tell us if what we're seeing is actually consistent with what was in the past. What I mean is that the universe could have been completely different one minute ago and changed radically to include the appearance of consistency and age. We can't know that the past is actually real unless we presuppose a consistent universe. It's circular reasoning. You have to assume the universe is consistent in order to prove that the universe is consistent when using material observation.

>I care whether God is real or not
Then why not make Him real?

This is a very philosophical answer to a test. I can't begin to understand what these dudes saw in their numbers but that was basically the result. They ran the test multiple times btw. Like alot of times. They are scientists after all so they won't just go with the first result. But it came back the same every time. The universe was just ever so slightly teetering on the chaotic but not in any really discernible value when computated.

I meant to say "answer to a mathematical test"
It doesn't prove God, however it gives some credence to the concept of an ultimate force in the universe that "created" everything.

I personally view God as simply the Creator. Whatever form it may be in, it is the most powerful of forces in the universe. God that is.
I also personally enjoy Christianity as a religion, Orthodoxy in particular. I was baptized in the church, and although I went through many phases, after really digging into the history, culture, and philosophy of Christendom, I find it to be the most suitable religion for mankind. Won't push it on anyone. Just my two cents.

Yeah I don't know a lot of about what they're, but I'm sure they came up with some interesting stuff. As I said though don't think that whatever they came up with can prove you believe it does, which is that the universe is rational and consistent. It's a metaphysical problem so it's outside of realm or reach of science or material observation.

>God
>"real or not"
>no evidence
How about you stop addressing the masses' fantasy and the scientists' imagination of God as an organic being and actually read some shit? To say there is "no evidence of God" is the same as saying there is no evidence of the ideal.

No, but what is necessary (and unavoidable) is individual sets of assumptions and beliefs - you gain much of this through nurture and biology but you also internalise more through later experience. It is best if these sets are beneficial for the individual's health and humanity as a whole. I would say Christian/Jewish/Islamic doctrine is not. They effectively promote an irrational, violent, anthropomorphised sky man that demands humanity be submissive, weak and stupid. The power structures that surrounds them constantly change these religions for personal benefit, breaking them. To the point that they serve no purpose except for controlling the public and state. Most who follows these faiths do not follow them properly, then turn around and act as though their broken faith is virtuous, the tribalism and elitism is another huge negative - especially from those in powerful positions. Which would be alright, if that control were for the betterment of humanity and our world, but it is not, it is for short-term, personal gain. I would trust a dirty entrepreneur with such a position more than any "highly educated" religious person.

Faith is good, it binds us and directs us, considering nihilism is the default state but an unfortunate dead-end (really the only truthful end). However, present religious faiths are largely destructive and regressive. Some ideology that pervades humanity and gives it drive would be good. Like some kind of humanism + stoicism + strong desire of technological advancement. Mix in some shit about destiny and industriousness and you have an ideology to propel humanity far beyond where it will ever go with the present cuckishness. Of course that's only an example, not saying it's what should be done. This assumes human solidarity, advancement and propagation is paramount.

No. If such a god interacts with reality in anyway then there is evidence of the interaction. Considering actions undertaken by god in reality are widely believed and quite common, there should be some indication of something strange and perhaps contradictory to the natural flow of reality.

People believe in God. This changes their behaviour. This influences reality.

It's not a metaphysical problem though. That's the whole point of a field like physics. To prove mathematically things that people can't really comprehend without the maths.

That's my entire point. Listen man, I love philosophy, but a huge problem I have with Veeky Forums and anyone I know irl who strictly adheres to literature and philosophy is they largely ignore that science and mathematics are learned fields.

I have a buddy who can quote just about any philosopher but went to school for aerospace engineering. He believes in God. And he actually comprehends something like 30% of the science involved in that Higgs Boson test.

Do we directly interact with our ideals? Do you consider that a valid interaction? Gods are merely allegorical manifestations of ideals, different gods across different cultures reflect the ideals of those cultures.

Even Nietzsche, who called himself the antichrist and was spot on with that title, never explicitly said that God did not exist. In fact, he said the opposite: that God did exist by saying God died. But he was not addressing something so simple as an organic being when he said God.

I'll take the bait.

Our latest empirical findings and mathematical models which led to the prediction of the higgs boson , which was later confirmed, also predict that the universe is:
1) infinitely expanding
2) the laws of our local portion of the universe are one compactification of the string theory landscape, and there are predicted regions outside our local universe with different compactifications.

Consequently, it is possible that our compactification out of the 10^500 possible compactifications
allows life to form because it manifests in a region of the universe that allows relative rationality and a long but finite period of consistency.

In other words, there are 10^500 possible configurations in string theory, and region of the universe can have any configuration, some configurations APPEAR rational and consistent, AND we happen to exist in that region (see: anthropic principle).

Now this argument is reminiscent of ontological arguments, and presupposes logic apriori.

>-An imperfection of any kind would be an unrealized potential, so pure actual must be perfect.

Is essentially the argument Anselm gives, which is countered by:

>Gasking asserted that the creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. The merit of such an achievement is the product of its quality and the creator's disability: the greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. Non-existence, Gasking asserts, would be the greatest handicap. Therefore, if the universe is the product of an existent creator, we could conceive of a greater being—one which does not exist. A non-existent creator is greater than one which exists, so God does not exist

There is an argument that the universe must be created. That this creator is God.
Then was God created? If God was not created or has always existed, then why can't we argue the universe wasn't created or always existed.
It seems that people classify the universe as created apriori, to justify the conclusion of God/a creator.

Let me try to clarify what I said earlier. You have to assume that the universe is consistent in an effort to prove that the universe is consistent when using physics or material observation of the sort that's taking place at the Large Hadron Collider. This is begging the question because you can't assume what you're trying to prove. The very foundation of physical science is the assumption that the universe is consistent. This assumption is the question so it can't be proved with science.

To add to my post I'm not saying that God does or does not exist. Merely that we have to assume unproven and (seemingly) unproveable axioms and work from there.

This is where issues arise, people arguing their conclusions or intermediary steps with others, without first coming to an agreed set of axioms.

You may have someone arguing that God is eternal and the universe couldn't be eternal.
You could have someone arguing that the universe could be eternal and uncreated,in the same way that a hypothetical God could be eternal, without it having other attributes of God.

You can start by constructing rules of logic but there is no guarantee that they are correct. For example, trying to make seemingly rational rules in an irrational universe.
There's no perfect reason to assume the universe is rational, it may on seem rational on a short time scale but be truly irrational.
A comparison is true random and pseudorandom. Pseudorandom is deterministic, non-random, but only appears random due to the inability to detect the determinism

can into that idea and that pic also.

As necessary as the heaven of the forms

>matrix black/white dichotomy
kys

There is only the Logos.

A quietist that equated ethics and religion as non-cognitive enterprises, pretty much as far from classical theism as you can get.

>A materialistic world view can't account for too many things like objective morality
It doesn't need to because it doesn't exist.
>to be a relativist which I think is a self-refuting position
'There are no moral truths' is a second-order statement concerning first-order moral discourse, nothing contradictory here.

This is literally you. Your thinking is described by a fedoralord's strawman caricature. Think about it.

Nice brainlet image, did you get it at the brainlet image factory?

Woah, so this is how brainlets shitpost.

Did you just use my same insult like a scared child?
LMAO what a goldmine.

Oh dear, I'm bee-tee-eff-oh now, right?

Pretty much. Sorry, that must happen often to low level thinkers like you.