You gonna right all actual wrongs… start with your own.
Lol, i think the last thing i did wrong was not put my seatbelt on when i drove a quarter mile to the store the other day. I’m fresh out of wrongs to right, my dude.
God, on the other hand, creates timeless and eternal evil and then… oh, never mind. It’s like talking to retarded childrens.
When you talk to your mom horribly on repeat, it’s worse than not putting on a seatbelt. Just stating the obvious about stating the obvious, which is your eternal punishment.
Ok, let’s play this game.
Let’s say I accept these arguments. God exists. Ok, case closed.
So what? If God exists, what does this entail for me? Why should I care for His existence? Apart from Him existing, I do not see any other logical argument that provides additional information about God’s Will and what I am supposed to do about it.
The best you can get from philosophy is deism. For all the rest, you need faith in ancient books.
Information/communication/language theory being irreducibly complex calls bullshit on that one.
“So what? If God exists, what does this entail for me? Why should I care for His existence?”
Have you been outside lately? Have you ever experienced a series of misfortunes that are so retarded you’d not think them possible without divine intervention?
My good man, if there is this god, then you should care about nothing more than defying it and everything that stands underneath it.
None of these are required. No grand stepping forward or anything. God can just talk to me inside my own head for all i care. I formed a single criteria: God ascertains it’s own existence and leaves no doubt about it.
He can do it in any way he pleases.
That is def true, but he doesn’t need to ascertain his own existence… you are using that word abnormally if you meant he makes it certain to you.
“I formed a single criteria: God ascertains it’s own existence and leaves no doubt about it.
He can do it in any way he pleases”
This is an interesting situation, in fact. Lemme show you what’s going on. We can know that if this god exists, it has to be insane. How. This god withholds proof for its existence from those it pretends have freewill (when this is logically impossible if god exists) so that they can choose to be god’s bro. It’s a logical cluster fuck inside of a logical cluster fuck.
What I have experienced is religious zealots claiming that every pain and suffering related to humans (eventually to animals too) is the result of a couple that talked to snakes and ate apples. Or (for those who keep distance from the Adam and Eve story), the result of a guy called “devil”, created by the omniscient and benevolent God.
Well, i mean yeah there’s a hundred easy reasons to believe it’s all nonsense… but there’s also some really meaty logical reasons why it’s nonsense, why it has to be nonsense.
2 Likes
Sooo… what makes sense of all the nonsense, man?
leans back
That religion is based on faith and philosophy is used as an excuse.
I do not have problem if someone believes in the Bible or the Quran. But using philosophical arguments like ontological, cosmological, fine tuning etc to end up to “now that I proved that God exists, start praying” is a huge logical gap.
1 Like
Sorry for the confusion then. I meant to say that he makes his existence certain to humanity.
English is not my first language, at times my own language’s quirks translate badly into english.
It’s not a logical one but a relational one, sounds like to me. I don’t go around telling people start praying, but are you saying, “I don’t care that you certainly do exist—I don’t even care if you wanna talk to me—we ain’t talkin, and that’s final!”?
I was not referring to you, I am talking to the religious apologists.
How do we know that God wants to talk to us? What makes us certain that He wants any form of communication?
I said it before: the best you can get from philosophy with respect to God is deism. Some kind of Plato’s, or Aristotle’s, or Spinoza’s God, i.e. a driving force for the cosmos. You cannot establish anything more than that, unless you refer to religious beliefs.
1 Like
You’re just repeating worn out talking points. Stay exactly with what’s comfy to you, man. Don’t worry about what I gotta say.
In general I think this is correct, although I do leave room for the possibility that philosophy or science may discover or derive some essential property of consciousness or awareness or higher-level organization baked into existence. For example, you’ve probably seen those images comparing how the universe looks to how neurons in the brain look. Likewise, there is the philosophical AND scientific insight regarding relativity, which is applicable here insofar as understanding that size and scale only mean something relatively to other things. A galaxy can be considered the same size as a person, it just depends on what you are comparing it to or how you think about it.
Likewise, a person with their trillions and trillions of individual cells, let alone how many atoms they have considering every single cell has even more atoms inside it than there are cells in the human body – and considering how at that level most of the volume is taken up by empty space – I think we should definitely leave room for a possibility that how we think about life vs the universe or unliving things / empty space etc. could be radically incorrect. It is not impossible to consider a higher intelligence even with sentience and awareness overarching this universe, or at least way above our own level… maybe that is why it doesn’t speak to us. I mean could we even speak to a single cell in our body, let alone to an atom within that cell?
…seriously?
15 char
I am open to every possibility.
I am materialist, recognizing that my philosophical stance is axiomatic i.e. cannot be proven or disproven.
For me, religion has a place in society. It should exist and push for other explanations. Science does not prove or disprove God (at the moment at least), so let other axiomatic positions (like religious beliefs) provide different worldviews. Society should be driven by debate and synthesis of opinions.
It is not secularism that wants exclusion, it is the opposite direction that demands it. The religious want for atheists to cease existing. You also saw it in another thread, where materialists were called unaccountable and were asked to start believing in Abrahamic religions.