Why do you believe in God? I'm genuinely curious about your perspective. Are there any books or resources you'd recommend that explore this topic in depth, especially those that influenced your own beliefs or offer strong philosophical, spiritual, or scientific arguments?

>>24451245 (OP)
read the critique of pure reason

>>24451246
why? it doesn't have to do anything with this thread

>>24451245 (OP)
direct experience or witness.

Meister Eckhart - Sermons
Blaise Pascal - Pensees
Kierkegaard - various works

with a bit rationalization via Thomism

>>24451247
>Are there any books or resources you'd recommend that explore this topic in depth, especially those that influenced your own beliefs or offer strong philosophical, spiritual, or scientific arguments?

>>24451245 (OP)
Didn't we have this thread already? Anyway.

The book that first turned me away from a God and introduced to a mechanistic view of reality was The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking. That was like the doorway. A nice piece of work anyhow

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins presents all the regular arguments. But I found it too Christian focused.

God is Dead by Christopher Hitchens is a fun and passionate piece of writing but it's riddled with historical inaccuracies and questionable personal opinions.

>>24451246
Also seconding this. An important milestone in the path to rational nonsuperstitious understanding of the world. Which is expanded on by later thinkers

>>24451276
Wrong, everything you just said is not right

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451289
this too, obviously

>>24451283
How can there be a "right" answer to the question posted by OP lol. It's literally asking for perspective and books.

Anyway, add A Universe from Nothing by Krauss. For a primer on how physics may have an answer for how the world can appear out of nothing.

Though I must say my recommendations are surface level debate stuff. And dont cover the stuff on personal realisation and acceptance that there really is no one watching over you or anyone else. The problem of empathy and evil etc. I learned all that from experience but I'm sure there must be good fiction/non-fiction stuff covering it.

Also, a correction, the Hitchens book is God is Not Great. Not God is Dead. That's just a phrase he borrowed from Nietche

>>24451307
All your books point to atheism, and your perspective isn’t entirely correct. You are an atheist, I respect that, but it’s wrong to be an atheist in 2025. Goodbye

>>24451246
this.

>>24451247
it has everything to do with this thread readlet

>>24451307
>a primer on how physics may have an answer for how the world can appear out of nothing.
Physics can't even answer where most of the matter and energy in the universe is, and most of the suggested prospects are either forlorn hope theories or so laughably untestable they may as well be God.

At some point your choice is between blind idiot godhead or anthropomorphic God and neither is really satisfying.

>>24451317
It has nothing to do with it, you spread atheism on purpose, may God rebuke you heathen

>>24451321
Or perhaps embrace the one true God, the ultimate source of truth and prosperity

>>24451329
Which one is that?

>>24451313
>and your perspective isn’t entirely correct.
I did not write my perspective though. Only books. Are you saying the perspective of those books isn't entirely correct. But which one? It's a wide range of topics.
>but it’s wrong to be an atheist in 2025.
Au contraire , in the information age there has never been a better time to shed all superstitions and flasehoods.
>Physics can't even answer where most of the matter and energy in the universe is
That's not entirely true. But more importantly, unrelated to the problem at hand. My point wasn't that you may definitely find all the answers in Physics. But that it still provides an important perspective on what the world we live in is really like. And how that does not necessarily involve deities with anthropomorphic minds.

>>24451341
Last one meant for>>24451321

>>24451340
>Au contraire , in the information age there has never been a better time to shed all superstitions and flasehoods.

God is watching, Good luck buddy, try to refute him and it will get you nothin

>>24451324
Das zeigt wieder mal, dass du keine Ahnung hast. readlet dogmatist cope. Kant BTFO atheism.
>Criticism alone can strike a blow at the root of materialism, fatalism, atheism, free-thinking, fanaticism, and superstition, which are universally injurious—as well as of idealism and scepticism, which are dangerous to the schools, but can scarcely pass over to the public.

And was a based God believer
>the hypothesis of a wise author of the universe is necessary for my guidance in the investigation of nature—is the condition under which alone I can fulfil an end which is contingent indeed, but by no means unimportant. Moreover, since the result of my attempts so frequently confirms the utility of this assumption, and since nothing decisive can be adduced against it, it follows that it would be saying far too little to term my judgement, in this case, a mere opinion, and that, even in this theoretical connection, I may assert that I FIRMLY BELIEVE IN GOD.
-KdRV A826/B854

>>24451351
Kant is not the best atheist

>>24451258
This, I felt Gods presence

>>24451383
obviously because he's not an atheist brainlet

>>24451324
It’s the CK3 adult convert

>>24451245 (OP)
Any belief is based on faith. You may use reason to put your own faith to test thus making it stronger and not just sheer blind faith, but in the end it all ends up in having faith and accepting religious dogmas/premises.

That's why anyone here who is to say that believes in God (the christian god), believes only because they accept the Bible as true

>>24451245 (OP)
Edward Feser is my favorite author for this. "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" is a good book for this.
If you think it is too "arid" there is his "The Last Superstition" that is more of a polemic and more "fun to read". Maybe it would be a better first read.

I think the Marian apparitions are pretty interesting too. They involve miracles that Atheists try really hard to explain away but can't.

>>24451245 (OP)
Read Plotinus.

>>24451758
Is Plotinus Pantheist?

>>24451245 (OP)
i've seen things, events happen, that can only be explained by an intellegence beyond and behind EVERYTHING, even to the point that an intelligently influenced sim realm couldn't possibly feature such features

>>24451817
I was 15 once too.

>>24451817
I agree, I saw things too, impossible without the intervention of God

>>24451817
Okay, go on.....

Intuition. When you read a real scripture, it's obvious this stuff came from something that isn't human.

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451984
Based

>>24451984
but ... the scriptures are literally just accounts of jesus from his mortal followers? the new testy isn't written by something supernatural, and the nicean council decided which accounts would make the cut for the bible, like thomas is too dopey so they left it to rot in the egyptian desert etc.

>>24451245 (OP)

The Necessity of Atheism by PB shelly

>>24451245 (OP)
>▶

>>24452240
Yeah, you're totally right that the New Testament was written by human authors, Paul, the Gospel writers, and so on, and not directly by God’s hand. But that doesn’t necessarily undermine its spiritual authority for believers. The idea in most Christian traditions is that these human authors were inspired by God, that divine truth worked through human language and context. It wasn’t meant to be a magical download, but a partnership between divine intent and human experience.

>>24451245 (OP)
>Why do you believe in God?
Because it's nice.

>>24451245 (OP)
Have you ever had an insight that you found profound and it changed your mind about something, but it's extremely challenging to articulate to someone else? This is one for me:

I spent many years as an atheist and a Buddhist, practicing a lot of meditation, and having weird visions since I was a child during meditation. Different from hypnagogia or dreams. What occurred to me, scientifically knowing that the human brain by itself is the most sophisticated mechanism in the observable universe, infinitely more complicated than anything else on Earth, more than any technology or macroorganism or anything else in the stars, it can be rightly argued that humans are the pinnacle of existence. Barring the "Man was made in God's image", which you'll probably assume I'm going to justify, consider the Big Bang. There was no time or space, as those are properties of matter, and somehow there was a bit of antimatter and a touch more matter which exploded into the entire universe. That void had the potential to become all of this, anything you can think of, that pre-Bang void had the potential inherent in it to become it. Now, why can't it be a person, especially given that you can view the human as the pinnacle of the observable universe? Seems silly but that's how it occurred to me, and made me suddenly believe in God.

Add to that, when I started praying, practicing bhakti yoga, and living my life as if God existed my life changed dramatically, so just anecdotally I have plenty of reason to believe in God through practice.

>>24451245 (OP)
Yes, God is a necessary requirement. Who God is would be much harder to answer.
One proof of God: concepts only exist in minds. To believe a concept is something that you came up with, or someone came up with, is to say it was created out of nothing. The concept must necessarily always be there, just like a prime mover, just like something instead of nothing.
Your only option to reject God is to reject knowledge. And maybe retards have stumbled down that path.

>>24452427
>it can be rightly argued that humans are the pinnacle of existence. Barring the "Man was made in God's image", which you'll probably assume I'm going to justify, consider the Big Bang. There was no time or space, as those are properties of matter, and somehow there was a bit of antimatter and a touch more matter which exploded into the entire universe. That void had the potential to become all of this, anything you can think of, that pre-Bang void had the potential inherent in it to become it. Now, why can't it be a person, especially given that you can view the human as the pinnacle of the observable universe? Seems silly but that's how it occurred to me, and made me suddenly believe in God.

Based

>>24452427
I think it all depends on what God means to you in life. And it means different things to different people. For me, my idea of God was inherently linked with a lot of bs that simply wasn't true. And when I saw the truth of that, the belief in God went poof with it. Glad you found contentment though.

>>24452453
That's right

>>24452461
As far as I'm concerned, the way the God of the Bible and God of Hinduism are defined makes no difference. A cute coincidence I found is in the Vedas, Shiva is described as being partial to snakes, and in Genesis, of course, God had this unique intelligent snake who had free reign with men. God clearly ends up being anything you think you want, which only ends up being a fraction of a percent of the rich blliss and joy God is and can give you. Give up everything else, love God, and realize nothing else is what you really want other than Him.

>>24452474
There's just something about it isn't it. I can still lose myself in the hymns and chants. Call it divine calling or pure brain muscle memory from foregone days or even nostalgia. There is something special about accepting it in your heart.

But I can't go back. Not with what I know.
> God clearly ends up being anything you think you want,
Could be. But the contradictions had become too overwhelming. At the very least, a fundamental rethinking of the idea of God was needed.

I spent many years doing more or less full time research on the topic. Reading about philosophy, theology, psychology etc. I also did experiments with divination and magic. Both worked reliably and predictably under experimental conditions. I also realised that it is impossible for me to give a complete and coherent account of the universe without including the metaphysical. Now, I am 100% certain that God exists. The main problem is becoming more like God. That's a lot harder than any of the other stuff I mentioned.

>>24451772
No, he is a panentheist, as are most non-retarded theologians (Vedic thinkers, Taoists, Platonists etc).

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451402
thanks for this comment

>>24452427
Interesting to see someone else who has lived similarly (atheism, Buddhism, etc).

For me, what made me start believing in God was being introduced to Buddhism followed by socio-historical analysis of Abrahamic religion, studying Gnostic Christianity, early Judaism, early Christianity, and lots of time spent reflecting on the parallels between Christianity and Buddhism. And some dabbling in the occult.

What Christians/Gnostics call God (The One/Monad - also known as The Source) is the same as Nirvana. God is not a deity - not a means to perpetuate selfishness and suffering, he simply Is. God is a great and overwhelming source of Love and Compassion that is eternal and endless. Deity worship (and the subsequent harm that it creates) is what prevents us from returning to God because really, deity worship is a raw form of literal selfish worship.

>>24452556
>What Christians/Gnostics call God (The One/Monad - also known as The Source) is the same as Nirvana. God is not a deity - not a means to perpetuate selfishness and suffering, he simply Is. God is a great and overwhelming source of Love and Compassion that is eternal and endless. Deity worship (and the subsequent harm that it creates) is what prevents us from returning to God because really, deity worship is a raw form of literal selfish worship.

Good points

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)
This thread for the kinda people who take old wives tales seriously

>>24452614
Cope t b h.

>>24451246
FUCK OFF FAGGOT.

>>24452614
Bible is never a tale worm, you are nothin

>>24452635
It's worse. A complete fabrication through and through

>>24452565
From what I've pieced together, Jesus made a connection with God while alive, and then again after death (God declared Jesus to be his son). This connection with God was what the Jewish mystery schools, apocalyptic visions, and apocrypha spoke of: entering Heaven as a living person and then becoming divine/blessed in some way. Regardless of how Jesus came across this, he understood that the path of loving-compassion was the true way towards returning to God. Everyone is God's children and humans must make Heaven on Earth.

Study the apocrypha. Read the Q Gospel. Distinguish the historical Jesus from the mythological one (but still pay attention to what the latter implies). Compare and contrast the surrounding cultures that shaped early and later Judaism, then early Christianity.

>>24452637
that's your mere deluding prespective

>>24452638
I truly appreciate your dedication and hard work. Your contributions have been incredibly impactful

>>24451324
Serious question, are these "TRVD" types actually christians or are they just atheists trying to make christians look retarded

>>24452644
I don't need lesson in delusions from people who believe in superstitious nonsense like Big sky guy and magic desert man. Even 8 year olds nowadays don't buy into fairy tales.

>>24452655
they are your mom faggot

>>24452655
None of the Christposters you see on this board or on Twitter are actual religious people. They have had no mystical experiences, no true loyalties, and no ability to be deeply earnest about anything. They just want to feel special and sneer at others, which is why Abrahamic religions are naturally appealing to them.

>>24452674
Fuck off heathen go fuck yourself

>>24452647
Thank you, anon.

I do my best to follow the Middle Path: the road that Christ and Buddha continue to walk on. We must all do our best to reject the illusions that are Demiurges, Archons, demons, and what not. Humans were not meant to follow tyrants or become like primal beasts, but love one another unconditionally.

If we could all be kind, maybe one day we'd all be angels and Heaven could be a place on Earth.

>>24452676
Case in point, this extremely "Christlike" fellow.

>>24452679
God bless you brother, i hope you find eternal peace and justice in heaven

>>24452680
you just hate us so it doesn't matter what i say anyway

>>24452679
>Humans were not meant to follow tyrants
Not me. God made me specifically to follow tyrants.

>>24452689
maybe because you are a tyrant yourself

>>24452614
baka this loser clearly never listened to the old wives tales

>>24452688
Yeah, I do hate you (or rather your drone like behaviour), but it still matters what you do and say because if you profess Christianity but do not follow the teachings and (even worse) fail to emulate Christ to the greatest extent that you are able, that makes you a filthy hypocrite bitch. This will make all hypocrite haters (like me) loathe you, but that's the least of your problems. The big problem is that you are doing away with your integrity, separating yourself from God, and going against what you believe to be the divine order and command. To be a bad Christian is bad for you, and not for anyone else - assuming that Christianity is actually true. What I think doesn't matter. What the God you worship thinks, on the other hand, should be the only thing that matters for you.

>>24452674
Given the deluded rants you see in these threads I'd say they have mystical experiences, given whatever hogwash nonsense classifies as such

>>24452698
Maybe. I am definitely one of the good ones though.

>>24452706
I follow Christ, but as an angel, my path is different. I despise you as much as you despise us.

>10 replies in
>thread devolves into jew worship and spam
here is your answer to why I don't believe in God

>>24452714
Kek

>>24451245 (OP)
I don't believe in God. My parents are both atheists, so I wasn't raised in a religious household. Growing up there were of course people in my life who were religious, but I never took their ideas seriously. I always found the majority of religious beliefs ridiculous.

>>24452706
>emulate christ
So you've sold your possessions and live in poverty, right?

>>24451245 (OP)
I was agnostic for a while after being raised Catholic. One day I was just walking, nowhere fancy, just my urban provential town, the sky was blue, and it suddenly dawned on me that I could actually feel God at that moment and have enver doubted since.
I wasn't a Christian again, started coming up with my own beliefs, explored a little, but am now confidently Christian, although more of a spiritualist Christian. I don't believe God exists outside of Nature. The cycles of Nature is how I think God manifests Himself; and Jesus embodied that Natural cycle of death and rebirth. Not sure if I believe in Heaven and Hell, although I think whatever occurs after death is beyond human comprehension, so I personally thinks it's a waste of time to debate such topics.
I can't think of books to recommend, but an interesting book I read last year which has inspired my theological thoughts is Jesus the Master Builder: Druid Mysteries and the Dawn of Christianity by Gordon Strachan. Although Stratchan stretches evidence to fit his theories and might not be all that credible as a result, he highlights a lot of interesting connections between pagan figures like Apollo and Pythagoras to Jesus Christ. Although I will say the bulk of the novel was a bit lost on me, there was a few chapters that reallystood out, although they were largely footnotes in comparison to the rest of the book. Either way, was an interesting read.

>>24452784
>and it suddenly dawned on me that I could actually feel God at that moment and have enver doubted since.
>I wasn't a Christian again, started coming up with my own beliefs, explored a little,

Amazing

>>24452784
>>24452825
I'm an atheist, but open to experience. How does one "feel the presence of god?" Also, what's the experience like?

>>24452830
Translation:

We are closer to humans than they ever imagine.

>>24452830
I took mushrooms and went for a walk. call me a deist/theist now because theres something going on we cant explain

>>24451245 (OP)
I believe in a cosmic will, because too many improbably specific coincidences have happened for there to be no guiding force in the universe.

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24452843
I dunno man. I've tried the psychedelic drugs but they were temporary experiences and none of them actually made me feel like I was in the presence of a diety. Spiritual thoughts and a feeling of "oneness" and thought of eternity and sentiment, but I'm still ultimately an atheist.

>>24452880
Maybe the deity doesn't want to be in your presence

>>24451258
>>24451385
literal schizos

>>24451984
Bro goes to a magic show and thinks the magician is actually a sorcerer

>>24452453
Take whatever you think "God" is, and replace it with "the universe". Remember, our minds emerge from a physical structure, thus, the "concepts" have a basis in physical reality, and they do not come from nothing.

>>24452752
Lovecraft was right

>>24452830
Brain damage, unironically

Why wouldn’t you

>>24453371
Imagine being this retarded. Structure is a concept moron

>>24452453
Holy shit this is so retarded.

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24453373
go fuck yourself

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)
>Why do you believe in God?
I was raised an atheist and as a teenager I took that to it's logical conclusion and almost killed myself over the suffocating meaningless that engulfed me. Had a religious experience whilst reading Dostoyevsky and undergoing a hypomanic episode caused by antidepressants. Eventually came to believe in God very slowly over time and said "God, I want to do things your way. I tried my way and it's not working out."
>Are there any books or resources you'd recommend that explore this topic in depth, especially those that influenced your own beliefs or offer strong philosophical, spiritual, or scientific arguments?
As mentioned above, Dostoyevsky was a huge influence on me, namely Crime and Punishment, The Devils, The Dream of a Ridiculous Man and The Brothers Karamazov (in that order).

Different things work for different people. For some it's intellectual reasoning, historical arguments, apologetics, etc. And for others it's purely experiential.

What I will say is that you believe in Christ, your life will be better. That's a gurantee. All your problems will still be there, but you'll actually have a chance of dealing with when you trust in God. You've got no chance if you're worshipping lower things (materialism, philosophy, politics etc.). Nae chance at all.

>>24454214
Thank God you are saved, God bless you brother.

>>24453796
You can conceptualize structures, but structures exist without minds.

>>24453930
>(You)

>>24454454
you are so funny bitch

>>24454214
I feel like there're a few different kinds of atheists based on what this thread and previous ones have displayed

>raised atheist but becomes religious as they get older
>raised religious, falls into atheism, then returns to religion
>raised religious but then dives into atheism and is annoying about it, or falls into the cult-like aspects of organized religion

I often think of that CS Lewis quote where he said "atheists will believe in anything" and the third category is what most people think of when they picture atheism: people who aren't trained to think critically or invite active conscious/self-reflective thought into their lives. It's no wonder they usually fall into cults/pseudoreligions (science, feminism, communism, consumerism, etc).

>>24451245 (OP)
I wrote this a while back in a similar thread:
I was agnostic for a long time, then, by sheer luck and a series of circumstances, I followed a sequence of steps that brought me face to face with everything I had been ignoring about myself, everything I hated about myself and internalized, beliefs I had that were ruining my life and ruining my relationship with others. When I was forced to face the worst of me, and given a decision to change or not, I chose to change. Then arrived many unexplainable "synchronicities" that "told" me very specific things to do, that I couldn't have known on my own, that aligned too well. I know it sounds insane, and I wouldn't believe it myself if I told this to myself from only a few years ago, but I can't explain it, it just happened, and didn't happen differently, and it all meant something and showed me what to do. I still don't know what's going on, I might have gone insane, but I can't deny anything that I've experienced because I was there and it happened (and, I'm compelled to repeat, it didn't happen otherwise). Like I said, I still don't know what's going on, I still don't know how to interpret scripture or what virtues or vices really mean, what "the Good" actually entails, but I know that it's not nothing, and I'm gonna keep at it, just to see where this takes me.

>>24454214
>I was raised an atheist and as a teenager I took that to it's logical conclusion and almost killed myself over the suffocating meaningless that engulfed me.

Logic must not be your strong suite then. A fact clearly evidenced by your religious transformation. I won't ask otherwise though. Rather have people worship the dead new on a stick than killing themselves.

>>24455562
>people who aren't trained to think critically or invite active conscious/self-reflective thought into their lives. It's no wonder they usually fall into cults/pseudoreligions

Lmao. It's nice to read pure unadulterated projection on part of the religious without a hint of irony or self-awareness. Kinda telling on the level of intellect we are dealing with here

>>24455798
>*dead jew on a stick

>>24455562
Saying "atheists will believe in anything" is like saying "bald people will have any hairstyle." It's among the dumbest things I've heard but CS Lewis was always a bit of a dunce.

I don't, because there's no evidence or other compelling reason to. I'm open to the possibility of a god but consider it substantially irrelevant to my life and so don't dwell on it.

A creator of this universe makes more sense to me than randomness.

>>24455817
Then why does the creator need a bunch of random properties?

>>24455885
I'm talking about the beginning. Randomly coming to existence is different than randomness existing. We create things with randomness, but our creations don't randomly exist.

>>24453363
Yeah watching my friend die in front of me and wake back up uttering Latin when he doesn't even speak Latin and I'm the schizo? Fuck off

>>24455901
>I'm talking about the beginning.
So am I. Why is god allowed to begin with a bunch of random properties, but the universe isn't?

>Randomly coming to existence is different than randomness existing.
No, it isn't learn about the commutative property, randomly existing = existing randomly.

>We create things with randomness
No we create things with intention, it wouldn't be your creation if it was random instead of what you intended to create.

> our creations don't randomly exist.
But things do, all the creator stories have a creator with random properties starting in some random location like an ocean or a field or a firmament or a series of domes or whatever.

>>24455905
You're assuming I believe God randomly came into existence.

>>24455909
So if some greater god intentionally created your god why is that greater god able to have random properties?

>>24455903
>wake back up uttering Latin when he doesn't even speak Latin
>I'm the schizo?

Yes

>>24455903
Do you speak Latin? How do you know it wasn't Latin-sounding-gibberish? How do you know it took place at all and wasn't the product of a psychotic break on your part? Hume deals with this very neatly when he asks "What is more likely, a miracle has occurred, or you are under a misapprehension?" Every single person knows for a fact that their sensory organs are capable of error, that memory itself is capable of error, so what makes you discount these explanations?

>>24455905
What are your thoughts on the idea that the first moment of time is immune from being caused? Strictly speaking, cause and effect are words we use to denote a temporal relationship between phenomena, the cause occurs prior in time and leads directly to the effect arising. Under this definition, since there is no prior time to the first moment, it is incoherent to suggest a cause for it. And if outside-of-time causation is allowed, why not causes that are later in time to the effect? If we violate the parameters of the temporal relationship, I don't see why we would be rigid in keeping the rule that a cause must precede its effect, which opens the possibility that we, or another intelligent race, will eventually develop the means of retroactively creating our own universe. This seems to be equally plausible as some kind of out-of-time mystery "cause".

>>24456170
I think you are just struggling with the Münchhausen Trilemma while waffling between a dogmatic and circular argument.

>there is no prior time to the first moment,
What about the 0th moment or even a half moment or a quarter moment?

>>24451245 (OP)
God is love God is love God is love God is love God is love is God is love God is love love God is love God is love

>>24451245 (OP)
>Why do you believe in God?
Reading the Book of Job convinced me.
>resources
The best argument for God is in St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles forst volume but ultimately science presumes a type of God the Bible in the Catholic Christian tradition describes (intercedes but very quietly, never disagrees with Himself, outside time and space). I highly recommend the book of Job and Ecclesiastes; seeing the ancient texts struggle with mortality, agnosticism and sometimes nearly outright atheism, and not believing in the afterlife per se and then reacting to God Himself is just amazing. Ultimately, God's is-ness is the same as saying existence exists or nothingness cannot accidentally create the universe.
>>24452674
I know multiple daily Communicant Catholics that have posted ooccassionally to regularly on /lit/ and elsewhere and have been on here for 5-10 years. I know one or two that went to seminary (gasp). Posting on 4chan isn't, drumroll please, a sin.

>>24456170
>we violate the parameters of the temporal relationship, I don't see why we would be rigid in keeping the rule that a cause must precede its effect, which opens the possibility that we, or another intelligent race, will eventually develop the means of retroactively creating our own universe.
>Can nothingness create?
No.
>Can nothingness accidentally "become" something?
No.
>Can nothing do or even permit anything by itself?
No.
>What about if causality is removed?
Nothingness is nothing, neither essence, nor accident, permitting neither without something external.

>>24451245 (OP)
>God is love God is love God is love God is love God is love is God is love God is love love God is love God is love

God is love God is love God is love God is love God is love is God is love God is love love God is love God is love

God is love God is love God is love God is love God is love is God is love God is love love God is love God is love

>>24456192
Yes the argument for the existence of God IS dogmatic and circular.

>>24456465
No, some arguments are dogmatic some are circular.

>>24454452
Incorrect. You are falling for the basic chair argument over again and I am not obligated to hold your hand.

>>24452427
>so just anecdotally I have plenty of reason to believe in God through practice.
A Kantian is born. Praise Reason.

>>24456575
I have two copies of the Critique of Pure Reason for some reason and I haven't tried to read it probably 10 years or more. Should I bump it up in priority on my list?

>>24456584
If you’re just interested in living a better life b/w faith in God - no, it’d be a waste of time. The gist of Kant is pretty simple re: this question: “no, you can’t demonstrate the existence of God, those ‘proofs’ are silly. Nor can you demonstrate that free will and morality are real. But if you choose to have faith in freedom and morality, which are intimately related, then you end up believing in God, and no one can prove your belief to be false.” Fichte would argue that “God” need not be some particular entity, for him God becomes almost like a belief in the meaningfulness of life, but either way, you’re believing in something supersensible.

If you’re interested in scientific philosophy - yes read it it’s a classic for a reason. Very hard to interpret though, to this day scholars argue about fundamental aspects of what Kant was actually saying.

>>24456602
>Very hard to interpret though, to this day scholars argue about fundamental aspects of what Kant was actually saying.
This is what I imagined. Most of my knowledge of western philosophy basically is that the majority of work and reading goes into understanding the precise definitions of the philosopher, and THEN finally reading the damn thing. It's enough to intimidate me, honestly.

>>24456606
Accurate, some people just enjoy it. It’s fun to figure stuff out, it’s really fun to try to figure out the big questions imo (for cpr - how do we know anything? What are the limits of knowledge? What are the conditions for the coherence of reality? Why do some of the most important questions, like whether we exist after death, seem unanswerable - and are they really unanswerable? If so, what exactly is wrong with the arguments?) Some philosophers are extremely pretentious as if philosophy is actually a highest form of knowing and philosophers are a superior breed of some kind. Both Kant and Fichte say this is bullshit. It is really fun though if it’s what you’re into, there are sublime feels and thots to be had.

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24452427
>Have you ever had an insight that you found profound and it changed your mind about something.
Many times
>>24452427
>but it's extremely challenging to articulate to someone else?
Never. All ideas represent themselves in langauge. Therefore they must be subject to its structure. Only raw experiences are are not subject to such. And hence if it's coherent it should lend itself to language.

I try to explain ideas to imaginary audiences so that I can better grasp them myself.

But there have been some mind blown moments I remember from childhood to adulthood
>Discovering that humans are just animals and can be classified as hairless apes. (I.e. we are not special)
>Reading about theory of evolution. Though it wasn't that mind blowing.
>My entire high school physics education was one begin intellectual feat, especially quantum physics and relativity.
>Developing a mechanistic view of the universe by reading Stephen Hawking and first time getting introduced to the radical idea (in my country and culture) that God actually may not exist. Which coincided nicely with my physics training.
>Discovering transcendental idealism and dipping my feet into philosophical ideas, especially on epistemology. And the question of what is real?
>Realising that the ancient Hindus were right all along and it's all an illusion
>Realising that a lot of ideas, concepts, behaviour patterns , thought patterns in the mind are results of external forces outside anyone's control. That it's entirely run by spooks.
>Then realising transcendence is impossible since everything is bound by the "human condition" . (It is what it is)
>The world is not governed by laws or reason and chaos is a better description of it. Everything we think we know is cope. Including justice and karma which are all human inventions.
>Discovering Marx and historical materialism, labour theory of value, superstructures/base-structures, is another level of "mind blown"

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24456584
Read the bible instead, kant will delude you with useless talk

>>24451245 (OP)

every why is arbitrary, happenstance --- without a self-caused principle of beauty and good and love
Love loves beauty and their union is the good and from the good love's longing again is born. Over and over, overflowing perfection, in endless dance of sorrow and happiness.
Anything else is nihilism.

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24456918
Amazing, you are closer to the truth than you ever imagine

>>24456918
>>24456961
I'm closest

>>24457206
Holy shit, this is hilarious. You win the internet today!

>>24457243
I bring wisdom

>>24451245 (OP)

https://braindrippings.substack.com/p/the-meaning-of-life-maybe

>>24456961
the answer sure isn't the gay three guy orgie of the "there is no male or female" globo homo cult

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24456192
Is the first moment of time an asymptote which only exists at infinity? If so, how does this solve the problem? It basically introduces either an infinite regress or a definitive endpoint which is immune from causation.

>>24456365
Again, is there an infinite regress, or is there something which is immune from causation, and if so, is that thing part of the universe or separate from it? How does causation apply without time? You've added nothing here.

>>24456533
You are just presupposing your conclusion.

>>24451258
>direct experience or witness.
But it is, by necessity, filtered though your own perceptions and interpretations. It's only directly experienced in the way you 'directly experience' a book: preceiving and interpreting sensations as 'a book'.

>>24451245 (OP)

The basis of christianity is that a group of neurotic men couldn't solve a locked room mystery and instead of just taking the L they decided to make it everyone else's problem.

>>24457798
Dude where‘d you get the 2001 season Mark Mcgwire bobblehead

>>24457206
Bwahahahhaha

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24456602
"Morality" is simply a negotiated system to ensure the best outcomes overall which, in human society, requires a wide base of buy-in from participants, thus the necessity for perceived fairness. None of this requires "freedom" in the metaphysical sense.

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24457833
you are retard fuck off and stop thinking you faggot if you are able to think for a bit you wouldn't say that

>>24457941
Bro is absolutely SEETHING. Amazing.

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)
Op gg

>>24457812
Lmao that's totally wrong interpretation about everything about Christianity

>>24451245 (OP)
>>24452367
>>24452018
>>24452540
Why do you faggoty effeminate Freemasons and Catholics love these false effeminate depictions of Christ with long girl's hair and in a dress?

The Bible plainly teaches that had Christ had long hair, he would've been dishonoring the Father (and I don't mean the vicar of hell popes). The Bible also teaches that priests of the OT wore breeches, but your Jesuit "historians" want everyone to think pants weren't invented until relatively recently so your priests can have a justification for desiring to go in long robes so they can have the praise of men. Jesus rebuked those who wore long robes/clothes.

>>24456427
Seriously, eat shit and die. I know you know exactly what you're doing by spamming /lit/ with your effeminate idolatry of a false depiction of Christ.

>>24458677

>>24451245 (OP)
My life experiences and everything i've learned so far. To me it just seems obvious that there is something greater than us, something that set everything into motion. Another reason is a world without god/spirituality is not a better alternative. It's too materialistic and i don't like where that leads to. Religion isn't perfect, but a world without any of that is not a world i want to live in.

>>24458751

>>24452674
That's not a reason to be atheist. Believing in god != only Christian.

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24458751
Why does that something greater have to be a person instead of nature?
Also, the whole point of modern religion is not that there is something greater godhood but that somehow by following the religion, you can ascend to a level of godhood far beyond human personhood.

>>24458897
Perfect

>>24451245 (OP)
>Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
>[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy /

>>24458751
>Another reason is a world without god/spirituality is not a better alternative.
At least you can do something about it because no all powerful demon is preventing you.

>>24458982
Fuck off nigger he is not a demon it is you

>>24452540
I wanna slide my cock in his ass.

>>24452698
Nope, he's just a boot licker.

>>24452784

> Basing beliefs on feelings

You are a woman.

>>24452843
>I took mushrooms and went for a walk.

Basing your life's beliefs on a feeling you had after you intentionally impaired your mental faculties...wow.

>>24459106
You think

>>24455903
holy kek you're stupid

>>24455913
*crickets*

>>24456199
ANY other topic and the author would rightly be called an insane person. But religion gets a pass, like it does for so many other problems.

>>24456359
Is that the 'five proofs'? I thought those were convincing when I was like 15 maybe.

>>24456917
I bet her tits felt nice

>>24457206
based

>>24457941
Facts don't care about your feelings

>>24458751
> It just seems obvious
Okay, convince me why it's obvious. I'd posit that "it just seems obvious" is a red flag for believing something because you want to believe it, or because it's more socially acceptable, or because people around you believe it.

> a world without god/spirituality is not a better alternative.
Intellectual cowardice. Yes, it's uncomfortable to confront the fact that the tales we've been brainwashed with since birth might be made up. But there comes a time when you either grow up and stop believing in Santa or you don't.

>>24458754
They weren't saying it was.

>>24459053
A god is a demon. There's no difference when you think about it.

>>24459154
That's your feelings, doesnt have anything to do with the truth, God is love

>>24459245
There are gods in other religions that are not love and are even actively hateful. A god is a powerful divine entity; so is a demon. It has nothing to do with good or bad, that's a modern reinterpretation.

>>24459339
The ultimate God is love, and he is one

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24459348
But he's also three. But actually the three are one, but they're not actually one they're three.

>>24459373
He is only one.

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24459374
Ok so you're Jewish. Then He is one demon/god.

>>24459397
I'm muslim

>>24455903
Sometimes I wonder if people that die and come back bring things back with them.

>>24451245 (OP)
I felt genuine love once it made me believe that something beyond the material world existed. Also, I began studying Hindu philosophy a few years ago and ideas like Brahman and Lila aligned a lot with this feeling I had about how the world might be but I could never describe it as well

>>24451245 (OP)
personal experiences. The Bible. Hegel's Absolute and Colossians 1:16

>>24460755
God bless you abundantly and guide you in all that you do

>>24451245 (OP)
I've never been religious but I can feel the Church drawing me in. I'm going to my first OCIA course today in my local Catholic cathedral. Which is weird for me, since I was raised in a Marxist family, but also exciting.

>>24459245
>That's your feelings,
>Proceeds to post his own feelings

This is what lack of self awareness looks like.

>>24451245 (OP)
Love God

>>24451245 (OP)
God is love

because it's there

>>24451245 (OP)

>If a man prays to God for prosperity, and shortly thereafter dies due to unnatural causes (such as violent murder), what does this say about the nature of God?

I've never been able to answer this one.

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24461431
Maybe God will grant him the prosperity after-life

>>24461431
And if the pigeon preens its wing and food is delivered, preening its wing causes food to be delivered

>>24461885
God bless

>>24455901
True

>>24452240
it's pretty simple actually and the believed canon of the bible existed well before that council. if an author knew jesus or one of the apostles, it was considered canon. from there you filtered out forgeries, like thomas with egyptian naming conventions and gnosticism, or writings that were at odds with the others.

Secular and non-secular have to come to similar conclusions and believe in the extraordinary. The former has to believe that things like neurons always were and always will be, the former replaces that with a higher being. The former has to believe in the virgin birth of the universe, the latter has to believe that for one man. The former cannot explain how everything came into existence, the latter cannot explain how God came into existence.

What pushes me for the non-secular is that our solar system feels too fine tuned to be random. The odds of our planet coming together the way it has is improbable to the point of impossible. I don't just mean life, but things like the gas giants capturing asteroids that could've hit us or our moon keeping us stable on our axis from large-scale earthquakes. We are not perfectly safe from catastrophe, but we're way too lucky for it to all be coincidence.

I also think non-secular philosophers and teachings just have more value than people like Nietzche or Marx. I'm much happier reading and dwelling on the ideas of John Milton than I am of Immanuel Kant. Really, I think people who believe in the supernatural or otherworldly in general are much happier than those who don't. To not want to engage with those ideas at all is like rejecting all music or art. Who wants to live a life like that?

>>24462187
God is love

>>24462187
>Really, I think people who believe in the supernatural or otherworldly in general are much happier than those who don't

Going through life like a dumb retard who doesn't understand why things happen the way they do because he got all the wrong ideas about the world is not "happiness"

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)
atheists see things like the extinction of the dinosaurs and go "why would God make a world like that?"
I look at something like the big bang and go "How can there be no point or purpose to any of this and it's all just 'random chance?'"
>>24452427
>pinnacle of existence
I'm wary of this argument because 1) there's a very high likelihood of life on other planets even if we'll never meet them in our lifetime and 2) I don' like arguments in favor of God's existence that have the possibility of being objectively debunked in the future. To me, aliens existing wouldn't invalidate the existence of God. If we found aliens, my expectation is that they would have a variety of monotheistic, polytheistic, ethical, and atheistic religious expressions just like on Earth. It may require an altered view of Earth's prophetic figures but I don't think it invalidates religion wholesale.

>>24451245 (OP)
Contraray to most people I hear, I don't have any grand experiences or anything. It's in part faith/trust in the lord and the fact that when I think of why I follow religion (Christianity specifically) I can make a cumulative case for it that seems intuitive whereas I can't do so sufficiently with others religions.

>>24462655
Case in point.

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

I believe, or rather, know for certain, there is a higher, supreme consciousness, who encompasses everything in existence, but this is not Yahwe, or the malevolent entities who have larped as him in the later ages.

>>24451313
>it’s wrong to think differently than me in 2025. Goodbye
How very old-school tumblr of you

>>24451245 (OP) Because I can reason. There is no creation without a Creator, like there is no fish without water.

>>24451245 (OP)

Just believe in God, you'll be happier

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24463273
True

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)

>>24451245 (OP)