/rel/

[ Official >>>/rel/ thread ]

Why do you or don't you believe in God?

Other urls found in this thread:

lmgtfy.com/?q=courtier's reply
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier's_Reply
spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Don't believe in a just caring god,due to obvious reasons.
i believe there may be a god who is just a giant dick for no reason.

There's no substantial evidence of his existence

People should take god claims as seriously as they take leprechaun claims

define "God"

You think the concept of God is of the same degree of plausibility and sophistication as the concept of a leprachaun? If God does exist then the implications are profound; for this reason the concept of God requires more serious consideration then that of a leprachaun.

God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

: the supreme or ultimate reality: such asa : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universeb Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

etc

where did monotheistic religions originate?

Exact same plausibility. Maybe not same sophistication and complexity


The implications of leprechauns are profound too, that means there's magic and shit


Considering ridiculous fictions that have theoretical implications that we see as important is dumb. What if the sky falls tommorrow? That has some very serious implications. It's still a silly, implausible, retarded claim that should be treated with a general lack of respect

I don't see the point in following a creed that comes from the Levant when my ancestors came from Germany.

Not sure if autism or troll, i can name an irish midget leprechaun and its done.

Most autists are atheists, but not all atheists are autist.

...

Implication do not logically imply anything about the reality of the matter, and no amount of pondering is going to conjure evidence into being where there is none already.

No

Serious question, do you have autism, edgyness or something like that?

No,but you may,considering that's the only card you tout.
DURRRR AUTISM

I have autistic edge syndrome.

The implications of the existence of the infinite supreme being who created the universe is much greater than the implications of the existence of some finite magical creature, therefore the concept of God carries much more philosophical weight in terms of importance and thus should not be lightly dismissed.

Check before and after please, already posted and already got more.

Repeating numbers confirm.

The dismissal is hardly light, its based on the fact that nobody can prove shit. I could ignore that and ask a bunch of what ifs I guess, but that wouldn't satisfy the faith requirement demanded by religion.

That is (a) not necessarily correct if you believe in deism and (b) complete nonsense if your statements get treated as a Courtier's Reply.

What you're saying doesn't seem to make much sense.

How so?

Actually what you're saying doesn't seem to make much sense.

See this please:

Then you arent real.

I think therefore I am.

GOD EXISTS
and here's proof:

Your finger exists.
It's logical to assume that because your finger exists, a hand must also exist. And so forth with the wrist, arm and rest of the body. This is to say that if the part exists then the whole should be assumed to exist. Reality is a part, and composed of parts, and so it is logical to assume a whole must also exist, which is beyond the contemplation of the parts – just as the hand can not fathom the body. God, therefore, is the whole.

That's beyond idiotic. How can you be so certain that reality is not the whole, and that there is no god? You can't assume that reality functions as a perfect analogy to your body.

well, what is reality? any definition you give to reality is based on your limited experience of reality.


But is our experience the height of experience? Is this nothing but our experience? If there is a reality greater than the one we personally experience, then we must assume our reality is also simply a part – part of a greater reality, and that greater reality merely part of one even greater. God is the sum of all parts.

If you accept that deism involves a belief in a laissez-faire creator who took a "set it and forget it" approach to creating the universe, the practical consequences of that are the same as if no creator existed. You can't trace the cause of events to some god or another just dicking around with people because that's not how a creator works in a deistic system.

For the other half of the sentence: lmgtfy.com/?q=courtier's reply

God would be the one experiencing the height and summation of reality. Whatever that is.

God is by definition a conscious organism. There is no logical reason to believe that the sum of the parts must be a living thing, much less have consciousness.

Things that dont think dont exists?


Check your autism, i was talking about existence, not what thing are you.

it may be everything is consciousness, or at least dependant upon it. if there's no one to perceive reality does it exist? i dunno.

People are just thinking things, but that's not my point. I can confirm that I exist as such by merely affirming that I can think. There are two parts to that, what manner of thing I am, and the relevant part - that this manner of thing exists.


Well, nobody can know that. Nobody can even really know if what they observe is not just a construct created by their minds with no reference to an outside world.

Also that doesn't prove that any sort of god exists. That just proves that you're projecting the word "God" onto things beyond the scope of what we perceive is reality, which also introduces a necessarily panentheistic version of God that even theists don't agree with.

you're right. but consider if nobody (as in humans right now) can know those things, then whatever conscious being does know those things (assuming there is one) – this is God. God may be human beings in the far future who do know these things, and who have mastered reality. God doesn't need to equal mystical, religious nonsense.


If God is all powerful, then God is a master of the physical laws of reality. If God is all knowing, then God is the master of time. If God is all loving, then God is master of him/her/itself. God would simply be the apex creature.

I think you're stretching the definition of the word "god" a bit to far.

How is that necessarily true?

Also the link doesnt work for me.

You're prbly right. But to be fair, the only thing which hasnt evolved in the last 6000 years is our idea of "God." It's still limited to desert sandnigger interpreations. So now we have to ask:

Is the concept of God nonsense, or is the present and never-changing concept of God nonsense?

forgive typos im drinking. pls no bully.

I'm a bit jealous. I wish I had the time to drink.

pic unrelated

To answer that, let's turn the question around. Would it be different? If so, how?

Also, here's a different link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier's_Reply

In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel – and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology.

When Gödel died in 1978, he left behind a tantalizing theory based on principles of modal logic – that a higher being must exist. The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist.

Even at the time, the argument was not exactly a new one. For centuries, many have tried to use this kind of abstract reasoning to prove the possibility or necessity of the existence of God. But the mathematical model composed by Gödel proposed a proof of the idea. Its theorems and axioms – assumptions which cannot be proven – can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.
spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html

I believe that something greater than humans put us here, and made us what we are.

That said, I think we are to God what hamsters in a cage are to people. I'm pretty sure this is just an experiment. We just don't know who's doing the experimenting.

Yeah I'm pondering it, would like to know your answer too.

Also you are implying there is a logical fallacy, can you demonstrate it?

It's called Faith for a reason guys. If you could prove the God exists then it would be a fact. You would behave out of fear of going to hell and free will goes right out the window. You gotta choose the path.

...

Irrelevant if you take that stance, i was expecting something related to your first point, not some damage control after the autism acussations.

Freud.jpg

Non autistics atheists just shut their mouths on this, but autists keep their chants with arguments like "godels claims are based on stupid things out of his ass".

Hi /rel/ !
>>>/polpol/ here!
Feel free to create an Embassy thread on our board with a lengthy OP!

I hope you realize that this goes back all the way to kant and descartes.

...

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

1. If the multiverse doesn't exist, there is sufficient scientific reason to believe life is naturally impossible.
2. Stephen Hawking and many other science cucks are advocates for the existence of the multiverse for this reason, and such lends the theory credence.
3. If the multiverse exists, all possibilities exist.
4. If all possibilities exist, God exists.
5. If God exists in any universe, being God, He necessarily exists in all universes.
6. It is by definition impossible to negate God.
7. If scientists like Steven Hawking are right about the existence of the multiverse, then, ironically, God exists.

1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral. (Observation)
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious. (Premise)
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (From 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent. (From 4)
6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (From 2)
7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (From 1, 5, and 6)
8. Consequence is objective. (Premise)
9. Consequence can be significant. (Observation)
10. Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning. (Premise)
11. Objective meaning implies objective purpose. (Premise)
12. Evil is defined as absence of goodness. (Definition)
13. Purpose is good or evil. (From 12)
14. Good and evil are objective. (From 11 and 13)
15. Good and evil are only moral concepts. (Premise)
16. Good and evil are contingent on morality. (From 15)
17. Morality is objective. (From 14 and 16)
18. Consciousness is objective. (7 and 17)
19. Knowledge is objective. (From 18 and 23)
20. Objective morality is contingent on objective consequence and objective consciousness. (Premise)
21. Objective consequence and objective consciousness imply objective agency. (Premise)
22. Agency is objective. (From 21)
23. Objectively absent things don't exist. (Premise)
24. God exists. (From 12, 14, 19, 22, and 23)

post or make a thread in /rel/ if you knowledgeable on that pls

I've not the time today, maybe soon.
The ideas of infinities necessarily being possible that are much larger than the largest infinities we humans can imagine definitely go back a few centuries. Let me see if I have a reference for you. Ah yes image related.

tnx

Yeah, but using maths on computer scale, thats the funniest part, its basically saying that fedoras lie or they cant understand a shit when they say that atheism is logic for them, is just another faith.

Nice summary.

roll

cant tell if this is for da lulz or serious