Tfw you finally saw the beauty in God and cried

>tfw you finally saw the beauty in God and cried

Other urls found in this thread:

strangenotions.com/the-road-from-atheism-dr-edward-fesers-conversion-part-1-of-3/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetica
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>tfw you finally saw the beauty in [your imaginary friend] and cried
seek help

>he think he can comprehend the All

>he lacks even the most natural sense and feeling of the All

epics baconly my redpilled redditor

>seeing beauty in this

Uncle Albert, you get those fish fingers!

Why do atheists have no problem believing the universe and life came from nothing but believing a man came back from the dead is too unbelievable?

Before physics
when physics were already in place
spot the difference

>tfw you will never believe in God again

Please, tell me the physics that explain how the universe and life got here. I'll be waiting.

not in the mood for a religion vs atheism war

because they're able to make value/fact distinctions.

beliefs aren't just a bunch of things you happen to like the idea of

The sun is God's face looking down at me as he cries for what he's done

You never are when we have arguments against your scientism.

You are too passive aggressive to even pretend to be interested in thoughtful discussion. Go eat a bag of dicks.

>when the soy kicks in

>tfw I used to be an atheist my whole life
>now waiting for His hand to touch me so that I can believe
>need to repent

When I was a kid of about 12 I had a sort of pantheistic revelation that the birds and trees and lake and bridge and the candy I ate were all God, and I started crying tears of joy at this sense of interconnectedness and wholeness.

Now I'm an alcoholic lawyer who lives alone and spends nights reading history and playing vidya and smoking cigarettes and swiping tinder and sees no sign of God anywhere. I feel horrible. I want to go back.

Why do theists have no problem believing in a magical bearded man who came from nothing and made the universe from nothing but believing animals gradually change through generations is too unbelievable?

>mfw I tried to believe in God for years and years when I was young, dedicating all my free thought to it
>mfw I could not do it, could not find God no matter where I looked
>mfw I spent so much time around my religious friends trying to fit in
>mfw there was a force that was pushing me back at every step, almost physically tearing at me and telling me what I'm doing is wrong
>mfw guilt kicked in, and self-doubt and wretchedness
>mfw the nights I cried because I wasn't good enough
>mfw I was 12 - 17
>mfw I imagine my kid having to go through that shit
Just no

What's this?

I think reddit might be more your tempo friend.

I think reddit might be more your tempo friend.

Taking the bait but whatever, Most christians that aren't fundamentalists believe in evolution because they understand that science and religion have nothing to do with eachother. Only athiests who can only conceptualize things literally assume that the only purpose of a belief in a divine power is to explain the origin of our species when that was never the intended purpose of the bible at all and to everyone that isn't a fundamentalist it still isn't.

>magical bearded man

Holy shit hahahahaha

It was not a serious question, look what he replied to.

somebody didn't take the leap of faith

>His
The universe can't be god because god is one and one cannot be divided or subtracted from. There is also nothing outside god that god can use to make the universe, because god is all. The universe is logically in god's mind, because that's the only way god can create without it being paradoxical.

>tfw I genuinely don't believe in God
>tfw I just want to accuse OP of being a LARPer

I never do so, and I try to respect other people's religious beliefs, but how the fuck am I supposed to take them seriously? Really, I'm not trying to be edgy, I've just lived in a completely areligious context for my entire life (not even atheism, God and religion was simply never mentioned), so I really can't figure out the experience of religious people.
Give me some insights, please.

kek

I'm not a STEMlord by any stretch of the imagination but I would prefer to accept physics, which doesn't hold the pretence of knowing everything, over a religion which gives completely unfounded ideas about creation which you seem to accept just because its a complete system. There is just no mature reasoning as to why you can jump from the belief that "science doesn't solve everything" to "therefore Christianity must be the one true faith."

This implies creation. God is the only substance, the material world manifestations of that substance (extension). Thought is material, but not extension, and is also a manifestation of God. All there is is thought/extension of God, neither of which is separate from him/it.

>This implies creation.
Of the universe, not god.

God should be eternal (never made, will never die), infinite in space, all powerful, all stable. Universe is none of these things, therefore it's not god nor a part of god.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed

Matter is not even real in the sense in which god is real.

You'll likely experience it yourself at some point in your life. For some reason people who grew up in a-religious households make up the largest demographic of conversions. I'm not saying you will actually convert, just at some point you will feel drawn towards God.

I meant to finish this with
>not god nor a part of god in the sense the user implied it, it's just a physical manifestation of his mind image that we experience as the physical plane.

If matter can't be created then where did it come from??????

Science BTFO.

So Normos Redditon, which physics do you choose as your personal worldview? Causal fermion systems? Copenhagen quantum physics? Quantum electrodynamics? Unified field theory? Loop quantum gravity? Superstring theory? Superfluid vacuum theory?
And how does this theory explain the universe, according to you? And what do you do when your version of physics is no longer en vogue?

What if I don't? I hate to think that people that surrounds me are uncoherent, but I truly can't take religious beliefs on a personal oevel. I will obviously respect your rights to hold them, and I won't hassle you, but when I am by myself I can't see how anyone would ever come to believe these stories.
And I'll add this: here on Veeky Forums I usually hear more "societal" justifications for religion, that are usually more pragmatic in nature (living the good life, educating everyone in a society to morality and so on), yet I can't help but think "why do you need a narrative to believe in that? Why can't you just jump to those conclusions and justify them on their own, instead of ending up believing innorganized religions?".

Have you tried reading any books by Christian converts who explained why they became Christian? That seems to be what you're looking for. If you're philosophically inclined I highly recommend Edward Feser:

strangenotions.com/the-road-from-atheism-dr-edward-fesers-conversion-part-1-of-3/

He can't appreciate the awe of the universe without subjecting it to the work of his sky daddy that he happened to choose after being born in a family where they all believe in the same sky daddy as opposed to billions of people who believe in a different sky daddy while actively ignoring the millions of sky daddys others believed in throughout history. But his sky daddy is surely the correct one I'm sure, the rest of them are wrong!

you Christian larpers are even more pathetic than genuine believers

Oh dear, someone's got some poor reading comprehension skills. Just listing a load of umbrella terms that you had to quickly google doesn't really work as a response, because what I was saying was that just because Christianity has an answer for everything that doesn't mean that they're good answers. Your whole position just consists of waving away any kind of real (admittedly incomplete) attempts at discovery with your "dude humans are like super flawed" argument and then you run back to your faith that doesn't even attempt to make sense. But that's only the beginning of the discussion as I would then have to ask you which branch of the faith you believe to be "muh divine truth":Catholic, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Restorationism, Non-Trinitarianism, Church of the East etc.? But yeah, keep the Reddit and fedora jokes coming, we both know your insecurity is enormous because your 'faith' really just amounts to denial.

>actual names of actual theories
>umbrella terms
You are not giving good reasons to stop the Reddit jokes, user. I was mocking your attempt to sell 'physics' as 'worldview'. A physical theory is not a worldview, and accepting any physical theory now current as the best does not force you to disbelieve the existence of God. This is why physics can be incorporated into religious worldviews, and why the dichotomy religion vs. physics is incorrect.
About the 'which branch of faith' argument: I do not know why this would be a problem. I would simply say which denomination I belong to. This is understandable in matters of faith, but very strange in matters of science, which is supposed to result in objective knowledge.

Outside observer.

Your quote was
"Please, tell me the physics that explain how the universe and life got here."

to which he said physics explains it. While he did make a mistake by not including biology in his answer I think that 'the univerese' as explained by physics and 'life' as explained by biology is a pretty stable and reasonable mode of thinking.

Since you do not what are you saying? That you don't believe in evolution or that miraculous things which exist outside the realm of physics? This is the only conclusion I can draw.

So I'll turn the question on you. What parts of "life" and "the universe" does your religion provide answers to.

Nah that's a really simple way of looking at things. CS Lewis compared it to reading through all the works of Shakespeare, finding no character called Shakespeare and thus stating 'Shakespeare cannot exist, I've looked through all his works and can't find a character called Shakespeare anywhere'. Physics is the study of God's creation, not the study of the concept of God. You cannot find an author in his prose, but you can find evidence of his existence.
Adding to this, I've never understood where the concept of God vs Science came from. It doesn't seem far fetched that if the universe had a creator, he would create a series of laws that our universe would be governed by which we interpret as science.

What I'm saying is this: physics, or even science as a whole, does not present a unified worldview. Firstly because there are many contradicting theories and secondly because the physical is only an aspect of our world. Therefore, when confronted with a theistic viewpoint, simply referring to 'science' is not enough.
There are many questions about life and the universe religion provides answers to, although I do not believe many religious texts are even meant to provide the complete answer.
Religion can explain why we have such a strong sense of objective moral rules, it can explain the staggering complexity and finetuning of the universe, it can explain why we are here at all, it can explain what the meaning of life is, it can explain our intuitions about aesthetics, etc.

I don't think we're gonna make any great leaway in a debate, but I will just say that you are finding the Christian God in science because you are looking for him. Physics does introduce us to the great mysteries of the Universe but there is really no reason to say that this shows the majesty of your God over any other. You can argue for a designer's existence, but you cannot say that you know this designer's nature or will.

>but I will just say that you are finding the Christian God in science because you are looking for him.
On the contrary, I went most of my life as a hardcore convinced atheist. It was only through much research that I changed my mind. Probably too much to ever explain in one post desu.

That's your own personal experience so I won't try to mould your perception of it, but I don't think it's fair to say that your conclusion was a reasonable one. Also this is also coming from an ex-Catholic.

>tfw you finally realised that the Symposion was Plato's most important dialogue and not Phaidon, Politeia, Sophistes, Timaios, nor Nomoi

when the delirious fervor hits you just right

>mfw I could not do it, could not find God no matter where I looked
The tower of Babel explains why. It isn't by your deeds that you reach God. It is by grace of God that we may know Him.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome

stupid fuckin pseud

God is Satan

Define God.

D? Fine.

Shut the fuck up

Why are you offended? If you're going to say that God is Satan then I would like to know what you mean by God and Satan, because I define God as the first cause, so God can't be a created being like Satan is traditionally held to be.

not him, but I'd wager that any supposed signs of God could very easily be signs of Satan just from the extreme fallibility of our senses and perceptions.

God is Everything dude.

Kuntillet Ajrud

Have you ever actually talked to a Christian before? I think you'll find more believe in evolution than you think.

t. Parmenides

All of that rests on the presupposition that the universe was created by a being. You've demonstrated nothing

Suck a dick

An eternal universe wouldn't contradict the existence of God so I don't know what you're talking about.

You're a disgrace to God

Nietzsche would kick your ass

Looking at the lack of evidence and saying there is no God is just as reasonable as looking at the order and beauty of the world and saying that there must be a God. Both are presuppositions, really.

>giving abandoning logic and wilfully being irrational a name as if it somehow makes it less pants on head retarded

Good, so there's literally no point studying Christian theology and trying to logical establish God, because it's out of your hands and basically humans have no agency with what and when they believe.

capture stills from kyoani show(s) -hands, heads, proportions, positions
hibike, maid dragon, nichijou, kill la kill, little witch, koe no katachi

save images from vinland saga, berserk, one punch man, monster, happy!

print hirasawa lyrics

environ - MENTAL - circum stance

you don't have to speak to people as they present themselves, fascimiles
rather, to their better nature, which does exist without a doubt
deep behind the layers of crust that have accumulated over their broken dreams
tears of the soul that crystalized around their personalities as filters of language and behavior
life styles
speak to them as you know yourself to be
and they are that too

so much hatred and resentment is taking everoyne at face value
some overweight soccer mom with not a shred of culture or humanity
some millenial constantly checking his iphone for new text messages
someone following the latest trends of whatever cultural sewer product just to be able to connect with whatever thin thread of humanity has presented itself as available to him or her

people are inherently good

read that again, they are
we are living in the times where things are not what they seem
beyond seeming, what is?
who are you, and the people that inhabit this nightmare world?
they are not what they seem
see beyond what they seem
they are alone confused desperate depressed frustrated bored to tears tedious life seek whatever is the easy way out now
today now the way out is only the things you'd criticize for them is their reality

you are what you must be and so is everyone
responsibility is a universal attribute given to all matter
and so is its opposite concept
namely, inevitability
non-paradoxical paradoxicality toxic concepts choking the brain from seeing the nothing that ties us all together

whisper sweet nothings to yourself as you doze off tonight because you are the lover you've been seeking
you can transmute, and love is also not what it seems
beyond seemery what is the way life is now
beyond the death that seems easier than going to work and school and passive entertainment consumption
who is on the high road to creative expression? you? then ignore me, by all means
otherwise heed and reread

The topics in physics you presented generally aren't even mutually exclusive and qm interpretations don't even really matter because the maths is still the same

I go into this assuming most people have done a cursory level of reading.

Dawkins is probably talking about fundamentalism, or at least that's what I got from his usage of the word "indulge". It's the taking of religious fables as the be all and end all, and not discovering things about the natural world yourself (which, tbqh, is encouraged by the bible if we go.by the garden of Eden fable ) that leads to the abandonment of reason in favour of things you are told are true.

And if you showed me all of Shakespeare's works without reference to other people referring to him at the time he lived, then said "these were written by shakeapeare" I'd have no reason to believe you so I probably wouldn't, and that would be a logical option. The same goes with positive, unfounded claims about a creator

The being that liberated from us mundane existence, gave us the freedom to choose have us knowledge when his counterpart wanted to keep us with minds of children.

What if the first cause caused himself?

Lmao why is this even still a thing
It's just bullshit that begs the question, and says everything needs a cause but my God, and the universe can't not need a cause because reasons
And the derivations of the properties of God rely on stipulating premises that don't strictly follow from the arguments coming before

>failing to understand that there must in fact be one initial begging and not a string of things going back for all eternity.
Underage b& please leave.

hang u self 8gagnorms

Looking at the lack of evidence and saying there is no God is gnostic atheism, which is rare user atheists. Far more common is simply rejecting the claim of someone who says there is a God with no evidence.

The order and beauty of the world (such that they even exist, which is questionable in the first place, especially for beauty) don't imply God. God could just as easily be God and produce a world that is chaotic, or ugly, or both, as long as people are able to praise him in those worlds

Fine, I'll allow your begging the question - there is one uncaused cause. And that is the universe itself.

>everything came from everything
This is of course only slightly more retarded than 'everything came from nothing'.

There's literally nothing wrong with everything came from nothing, prove me wrong

Just read all of this at your leisure. There is nothing I can say in a Veeky Forums post that cannot be easily explained over hundreds of thousands of pages.

We always assume things have some reason. Why should that be different when we talk about the universe?

Doesn't even address everything coming from nothing, nice try my man

Because the universe is something, and nothing is not something, so they are fundamentally different. Uniformitarianism with respect to reason is just a useful tool, not a philosophically rigorous tool

You should believe in God because you have faith, not because you think it can be "proved", that is irrelevant, the best you can do is convince others that he exists, you cannot prove it with certainty.

Believing in God because you think it's necessary is worse than believing in God as an act of faith.

>faith
Lmao
See

>you Christian larpers
Christian LARPers don't refer to god as the All, dumbass.

>questionable that order exists in the world

The world is clearly ordered, I don't think any intelligent person would deny that. Beauty, of course, is a bit more subjective, but there are certain things that everyone would agree are beautiful (more so if they're in a place of aesthetic understanding),

>MENTAL
Read Hermeticism.

Nigga the world is fundamentally probabilistic at the quantum level, and probabilistic interactions are closer to chaotic than ordered tbqh

I doubt there are any things everyone agrees are beautiful, and even if they do it's likely only because of cultural indoctrination

You think invoking 'nothing' as an explanation is rigorous? Also, the fact we usually assume things have a cause or reason places the burden of proof with you: you have to prove why it is so different in the case of the universe itself. In answer, you say that
>the universe is something, and nothing is not something, so they are fundamentally different
This is vague. I agree that something and nothing are different, but that does not explain why the universe shouldn't have a cause or reason.

>no sign of God anywhere
>swiping tinder
Son, you are blind to the signs He is sending you everyday.

We assume things have a cause or reason because that just makes things easier to conceptualise and make sense of; it just makes science easier. But in reality, cause and effect is a meme and there are just coinciding occurrences

It's not vague, they're not the same so you can't apply the same reasoning to them. Aquinas already "" "" "" "" showed""" "" "" "" " the universe needs a cause, and there is no reason it can't be its own cause. I'm only proposing self causation as an alternative to God causing the universe, not as a standalone hypothesis because shit's a mystery

>the All
gay Pajeetshit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetica

A) Aquinas faultly assumes that causation moves at infinite speed. It doesn't, it's limited by the speed of light.
B) There is nothing incomplete to this explanation: the chain of causality is infinite, with no beginning and no end, every single element is explained by the element that precedes it in the causal chain, and the existence of the whole set is logically implied by the existence of each element
C) It is logically impossible for God to have caused the universe. God being omnipotent not only means that he can do everything logically consistent but that everything he attempts to do, he necessarily succeeds. Which means that the relationship between God and what he does is one of logical necessity. Causes do not logically necessitate their effects, which means God can not be a cause of the universe.

If I can take the leap of faith to any major religion, why can't I take the leap of faith to a religion of my own which says that I am a deity and can do whatever I want?