Thread 24870332

What book convinced you of God's existence?

I had a miracle happen to me. I tested positive for a STD, prayed very hard and sincerely, and tested again and was negative. The odds of the test results yielding a false positive was less than 1 in 10,000. Opening the Bible to a random page and finding scripture that was uniquely relevant to a personal issue more than once and a profound experience while under the effect of an over the counter drug also played a part, but were not as convincing. I am still unable to cultivate an appropriate fear or love of God.

Is internet porn a book?

>>24870332 (OP)
The Experience of God by D.B.Hart, namely the first part. I was not convinced by the following two arguments, though as I returned to the book recently, it does add up better than it did before, so maybe I just wasn't mature enough. His explanation of the contingency argument (and the term "God" at all) is the best one I've ever seen and it includes answers to every single objection I remember seeing on 4chan.

>>24870332 (OP)
Jesus wasn't a god and Yhwh is a myth as odious Zeus.

The universe was not created as your bible claims. It just always was.
And it appears to be an eternal and infinite mind with its immense electrical synapses possibly mimicking thought.

>>24870384
>The universe was not created as your bible claims. It just always was.
Entropy increases with time. If the past is infinite, so would entropy be. Your claim is not only scientifically ungrounded, it contradicts the core of science as we know it.

>>24870384
>YOUR BIBLE

Upset atheists using this phrase always makes me giggle.

I know, I know. You're not actually mad. You don't have to reply.

>>24870373
Explain?

>>24870406
boobs

>>24870384
*As odious as

>>24870391
Entropy is observed in this dimension but there's no "heat death" of the universe with the æther bolstering it. Sorry, but you, and all you've ever listened to on this, have been lied to.

>>24870401
OP posted Jesus. Is the assumption wrong?
>You sed it wuz mine. dat meenz you mad
No, it doesn't. Did you dumb post make you feel better?

>>24870391
Our local universe probably hasn't always existed, but it might have been caused by some natural thing that follows different laws or it could have been caused by some other supernatural object.
There are these properties that a cause of the universe must have and people often think that only God could have those properties, but we don't really know that. Genesis doesn't mention those attributes of God, they were projected onto God only after the philosophical arguments were developed, so it's not like the arguments confirm (or disconfirm) the OT. E.g. maybe God is timeless, but how do I know other things couldn't also be timeless? There is no strict logical contradiction.

>>24870469
>might have been caused by some natural thing that follows different laws
Maternal universe is just an impotent God. There is no scientific basis to this.
>people often think that only God could have those properties, but we don't really know that
It's a pretty direct line from "outside time, space, completely free, creating the world" to "God".
> how do I know other things couldn't also be timeless?
Timeless isn't the issue. Incontingent is the issue. And there can only be one, since multiplicity implies difference and difference is a contingency.

>>24870482
>Maternal universe makes my tum tum hort. BAD
The science pans out. "Impotent"? I guess that would explain the seeming indifference, the incomprehensible nature we're told to swallow.

>>24870482
Incontingent is the issue. And there can only be one, since multiplicity implies difference and difference is a contingency.
Right, what I mean is not that there is a necessary God and then also a necessary natural initial state of the universe. It's either or, but logically both work, although there might be other issues besides just avoiding logical contradictions.

I think in the end my main issue might still be closely related to the problem of evil. Old and boring topic but whenever I'm doing metaphysical speculation, something like Schopenhauer's Will always seems more plausible to me than most interpretations of the Christian God.

this board is such dogshit. /pol/ tier threads, bait threads, and DOOD GOD thread #394059830495830954839058 are the only kinds of threads that get replies.

>>24870391
>If the past is infinite, so would entropy be.
It's more logical than saying energy came out of... nothing.

>>24870391
>Your claim is not only scientifically ungrounded
But enough about dark matter/energy.

>>24870544
IKR?

Nothingness is a concept, a myth.

Haven't found that book yet.

>>24870375
I tried reading Hart and found him completely incomprehensible.

>>24870500
It's a marvel-tier hypothesis. Bad.

>>24870520
>my main issue
Main issue with what? You switched from contingency (observation and induction) into problem of evil (ethics) and Schopenhauer's will (introspective assessment of essences). I was explaining the contingency argument and (one of the reasons) why an "eternal universe" doesn't replace it. What isse are you solving?

>>24870544
Definitely! Luckily there is a third way besides science denial and out-of-nothing-ness. The contingency argument.

>>24870575
>I tried reading Hart and found him completely incomprehensible.
Damn, then idrk. Most other authors I've read don't come even close in terms of clarity, it's mostly downhill from Hart. Try The Experience of God for a little bit, it might be better accessible than some of his other works.

It convinced me that Odin lives indeed

>>24870332 (OP)
Marian apparitions did.

There is no human explanation for some of the things that happened. In one of them, the second best explanation other than "miracle of God" is that some near omnipotent aliens REALLY disliked human atheists and really liked human Catholic peasants and wanted to make the first group look like idiots.

>>24870585
>The natural world bothers me. Comic book stuff
So Newtonian/Eisteinian gravitics 4lyfe wit you. I see. Probably a hard-determinist too. Quite nihilistic and sad really.

>>24870622
>strawmanning so hard you just end up making unrelated points
Fine with me, friend.

How do atheists respond to the fact that the Aleph Tav galactic spiritual committee spearheaded by the emperor of the galaxy, answers directly to the God of the gospel? A Godhead of higher rank than the invocation of YHVH

The Bible itself was more than enough to dissuade me once I took the blinders off
>grow up catholic
>develop cognitive dissonance where i view all other religions as fantastical mumbo jumbo and mine as legitimate
>eventually realize the Bible is also full of fantastical mumbo jumbo that makes zero sense and I was just in denial

>>24870634
Funny, I had a very similar starting position and the exact opposite outcome.
>grow up Orthodox
>develop cognitive dissonance where i view all other religions as fantastical mumbo jumbo and mine as legitimate
>study religions, theology and religious philosophy
>eventually realize all of them make sense but the Christian narrative is the most complete, universal and pro-human being

I suppose it comes down to what question you're chasing. "Is this true in the sense that I would expect?" always leads to a no. "How much truth is there to what they were trying to say?" leads to mountains of knowledge.

>>24870634
The Catechisation of cradle Catholics is terrible. I think at the very least we should help people interpret the Bible otherwise this kind of thing happens.
Turns out a 2,000 years old collection of books of different genres whose terms changed meaning is a harder read than people think

>>24870627
Go ahead and say "no, but XYZ"
I'm here to educate. Not make fun of you for not wanting to learn.

>>24870332 (OP)
Bhagavad Gita. Buddhist books taught me I don't need to worship him.

>>24870642
>Go ahead and say "no, but XYZ"
Ahahah was that your plan? You make a couple random points that have nothing to do with me and I should react because you happened to tag me?
I'm sorry, Anon, one day your opinion might be so valuable that people will be chewing through concrete to correct all your misunderstandings about them... but it's a distant future to say the least.
Fingers crossed though.

>>24870332 (OP)
Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

>>24870350
>1 in 10,000
That's.... Actually not that rare???

>>24870332 (OP)
Christianity was the I AM doctrine veiled for the piscean age, a judeo-masonic concoction, specifically Jupiter and the Sun in Pisces. Islam was Venus in Pisces. For the aquarian age the I AM doctrine will be veiled under the guise of AI and other technological creations.

Jesus = Je suis = Jeshua = Yah Weh = Jove = Jupiter = Zeus = Deus = I AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZftML6pAv7E

>>24870332 (OP)
BOM

>>24870710
It's incredibly rare. If OP is an American talking about AIDS, then he's one of 3-4 people this had happened to this year in all of America.

>>24870710
Damn brother can you do maths?

>>24870332 (OP)
Not books but experience

no book did it. it was a series of unlikely life events. I posted about it before:

"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."

it's been a year and it's been going well. I'm feeling happier, living more virtuously, letting go of things that I used to brood about. I have a lot left to learn, but this is my story so far.

>>24870332 (OP)
Christianity was the I AM doctrine veiled for the piscean age, a judeo-masonic concoction, specifically Jupiter and the Sun in Pisces. Islam was Venus in Pisces. For the aquarian age the I AM doctrine will be veiled under the guise of AI and other technological creations.

Jesus = Je suis = Jeshua = Yah Weh = Jove = Jupiter = Zeus = Deus = I AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZftML6pAv7E

>>24870738
It's literally not that rare
1 in a millions happen daily, a 1 in 10,000 would happen hundreds of times daily.
>>24870733
If it's ACTUALLY that rare then OP is the one who did his fucking math wrong
1 in 10,000 is simply not that unusual in the grand scheme of things given the sheer amount of people alive.

>>24870653
I don't even know who you are or what you're disagreeing with anymore.
I said "Probably a hard-determinist too". Is this not right? You can deny it. What's wrong?

>>24870332 (OP)
The Quran

>>24870753
>I don't even know who you are or what you're disagreeing with anymore.
Then why keep tagging me?

>>24870752
>OP is the one who did his fucking math wron
No, the math is fairly right. 30-39k people infected with AIDS yearly. 1:10,000 makes it 3 people.
>1 in 10,000 is simply not that unusual in the grand scheme of things given the sheer amount of people alive.
It's very unusual. Touch some grass, Anon.

>>24870773
>It's very unusual.
It's literally not that unusual
It's especially not unusual enough to be attributed to supernatural means
It's just math, in a country of 350mil a 1 in a million would still be 350 people
a 1 in 10,000 would be 35,000 people
There are rarer and more unusual things that happen literally constantly in real life than the situation anon described himself as being in.
It's uncommon relative to one persons life sure, but not the grand scheme of a planet with 8 billion people.

>>24870789
0.01% chance is incredibly low, Anon. That 35,000 people sound like a lot isn't an argument when your base is 350 mil lmao. Not to mention that 350 mil don't get STDs so your base is off by millions. Arbitrarily increasing the base is a sure technique to skew statistical significance, but 0.01% chance is incredibly low regardless of how big a number seems when cut off from an even bigger number.

Whether a series of accidents from unusual to literally 0.01% chance are attributable to the supernatural is mostly on gut feeling. In a classical naturalist paradigm, nothing ever gets attributed to the supernatural pretty much ever. But Anon is completely justified in his approach.

East of Eden, not because it provided any "proof", but because Steinbeck made a world painted in Christian colors such a beatiful and atractive picture.

>>24870805
>Whether a series of accidents from unusual to literally 0.01% chance are attributable to the supernatural is mostly on gut feeling.
You are correct, it is a gut feeling and not attached to any particular logic
But IF you WERE going to say "this is an almost impossible thing to happen unless it were a miracle" I can't understand your bar for that being as low/high as 1 in 10,000, again, that simply is NOT that rare as to be almost impossible (which I think is a fair criteria for what should actually be able to be classified as a "miracle")
>But Anon is completely justified in his approach.
He's justified in the sense that he can think whatever he wants
He's not justified in the sense his logic actually making sense.
I simply can't see how a 0.01% is a miracle
The average person throughout their 70 year life has likely had quite a lot of miracles by such a qualification.
It's the same type of logic that made past peoples think getting hit by lightning MUST be an act of the gods.

>>24870823
>The average person throughout their 70 year life has likely had quite a lot of miracles by such a qualification.
Correct. Which I think is another reason why "that would make lots of people if you use the all 8 billion as a base" doesn't make sense. Supernatural experiences, miracles, apparitions, visions etc. are nowhere near as rare as you think. It's completely within reason that 0.01% of the population would have actually had them.

>>24870832
>Supernatural experiences, miracles, apparitions, visions etc. are nowhere near as rare as you think.
Yeah, they're not that (relatively) rare, because they can mundanely be explained by random chance and people having a difficult time accepting that just because something is "rare" doesn't mean it can't happen to you, AND that something rare happening to you does NOT require supernatural explanations.
To me it all boils down to
>This rare thing happened to me? Must be a miracle
Which I'm sorry, but this is just a completely asinine way of looking at the world.
If within your worldview miracles happen that frequently, I simply have to ask, what even makes them miracles?

>>24870842
>If within your worldview miracles happen that frequently, I simply have to ask, what even makes them miracles?
The fact that they are super-natural. Talking with the dead would not cease being super-natural by virtue of happening every Thursday and baptism wouldn't become natural the moment we'd discover what laws it "obeys". To draw the line betwen the natural and the supernatural in statistics is misleading to begin with, but it's a valid way for an individual to spot things where something might have been disclosed to him.

>>24870878
>Talking with the dead would not cease being super-natural by virtue of happening every Thursday
It would if it were just a hallucination/delusion
>Baptism
Just a ritual
But also, that's all a little off-topic
Even IF I granted you all those things, what we were originally talking about was... A blood test giving a false positive
Something which, even disregarding the actual chance of the test itself failing, can ALSO be influenced by mere human error.

>>24870892
>>Talking with the dead would not cease being super-natural by virtue of happening every Thursday
>It would if it were just a hallucination/delusion
Yes, talking with the dead would be very natural if it ... wasn't .... talking with the dead. My point is that the supernatural is not defined by frequency of occurrence.
>>Baptism
>Just a ritual
Again, a point about how the supernatural is defined or not defined....
>can ALSO be influenced by mere human error
Absolutely can. So?

>>24870906
>Absolutely can. So?
So it's obviously easier to have it be explainable by means other than the supernatural? What the fuck do you mean so, what the fuck do you think we're talking about?
By your own stated logic that frequency is irrelevant (which actually I agree with), what is there for us to think this specific thing would be a miracle?

>>24870924
See, that's what I touched upon in >>24870805 by "gut feeling". To a naturalist, literally any natural explanation, no matter how reaching or convoluted, will by definition be more likely than a supernatural one. By this logic even 1:750,000,000 test result error doesn't constitute a miracle, because the database or data input might have malfunctioned in a particular way.
>what is there for us to think this specific thing would be a miracle?
Interpretation is a skill, it does not follow a method like statistics do. The rarity draws your attention. What you make of the event and the events surrounding it is down to you. Nobody will give you a spot-a-message-from-God guide.

>>24870933
>Interpretation is a skill, it does not follow a method like statistics do.
What I hear when you say this is that you just shouldn't think about it very hard and forgo rational thought for irrational magical explanations.
And I agree, interpretation IS a skill
The interpretation that a 0.01% happening to you means the only conclusion is divine intervention, rather than mere happenstance, is a simply insane interpretation.
Your own argument that frequency is irrelevant is actually perfect, this thing being rare has absolutely no correlation to it being supernatural or natural. And if its chance has no effect on it being a miracle, what does that leave?
The ONLY argument that actually stands here, is that it's a miracle because someone says it's a miracle, nothing else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EmrgzaaaN0&list=PLF2tm0MMio95RMqM8VEMD8G8BT_kR-ynM&index=1

>>24870959
>>Interpretation is a skill, it does not follow a method like statistics do.
>What I hear when you say this is that you just shouldn't think about it very hard
This is either the most meta joke or the absolute lowpoint of this thread. Using a thoughtless interpretation to prove that interpreting is thoughtless. Scratch that, it's genius.
>The interpretation that a 0.01% happening to you means the only conclusion is divine intervention, rather than mere happenstance, is a simply insane interpretation.
Not an interpretation proposed in this thread, mind you. The Anon used much more than merely a figure to interpret, as he should.
>The ONLY argument that actually stands here, is that it's [insert interpretation] because someone says it's [insert interpretation], nothing else.
I genuinely don't even blame you for playing dense, the entire autism-embracing Western culture is pushing you day-by-day to pretend like non-systematized things are irrational. Luckily, that is not so, as even a minute thought reveals.

>>24870959
>because someone says it's a miracle
If I ignore all established theology etc it doesn't change the fact that any "rational" worldview anyone can come up with is grounded in "irrational" foundations, any model of the "natural" rests on axioms beyond what it describes meaning they're "supernatural".
His intuition highlights a flaw where your step-by-step logical thinking failed you, even if he's wrong about ghosts or whatever.

>>24870985
>non-systematized things are irrational.
Non-systematized things aren't irrational, this particular "non-systematized" line of thought is irrational, almost definitionally so.

>>24871026
>His intuition highlights a flaw where your step-by-step logical thinking failed you
And what pray tell, was that flaw, exactly?

>>24871030
I'm not sure you understood. I'm talking about interpretation as a skill not being systematized. That you found a particular man's conclusion, which you seem to have scarcely even read, irrational, is not something I'll be inclined to debate.

No book or argument could ever properly convince you of such a thing. For myself, I had a spiritual experience while drunk in a church.

>>24871041
Some interpretations are more valid than others.
Arguments on the particular morale of any movie/book/play are more equal in their "rightness" because the matter is subjective.
The interpretation that the Sun revolves around the Earth vs the interpretation that the Earth revolves around the Sun however, is not so equal.
In the debate of objective vs subjective and where what falls on which line, a blood test to me falls more on the objective side of things.
I don't think you get to turn around and say any interpretation is equally valid unless you're also trying to say everything is subjective (which on this particular topic, isn't very Christian, by average christian philosophy)
To me this line of thought is the same as giving up on the matter of debate and saying there is no such thing as truth in the first place.

frogposters are so fucken cute heheh eee

>>24870350
It depresses me that there are people this stupid and gullible out in the world voting.

>>24871039
That the "supernatural" exists and should be accounted for. It leaves room for anything including the silliest version of ghosts which is why it's usually not practically useful but it's still a factor you ignore which he acknowledges.

>>24871068
>In the debate of objective vs subjective and where what falls on which line, a blood test to me falls more on the objective side of things.
Which would be greatly relevant if we were interpreting a boold test instead of interpreting the fact that a prayer directly preceded a 0.01% chance event that was prayed for.
>interpretation as "how I understand a message"
>interpretation as "what do I make of physics"
Those are fairly different senses of the word "interpretation". So different, in fact, that they are both used independently in the case we're talking about. Anon interpets a sequence of events (what do I make of physics) and then interprets what God would be telling him by this (how I understand a message).

If you're hoping to acquire some kind of understanding or evaluation method about miracle evaluation, I can tell you right now that it's not likely to happen. It's like understanding a joke. Yeah you can cope about it being subjective and more equal interpretations and whatnot but in the end you either get it or you don't. No magic, just understanding.

>>24870332 (OP)
I dont believe God exists. Reading history convinced me of this. When I realized that this world is designed through a sisyphean form of material scarcity. That there can never be equilibrium except for a small portion, that all civilized life depends upon arbitrary torture and slavery of some group or another. I decided that either God does not exist, or if he does, he is fundamentally evil, and hates us, he is a sadist. I began to see people who believe in God as cowards and brats, people who's relative superior position on the exploitation ladder allows them to believe in something so foolish, or who's relative low position on it makes them reach for it, to cope. This seems very clear to me

>>24871092
The thing is I don't even necessarily disagree with anything you've said, but what the important distinction here is, to me, is that if the same thing were to happen to someone who did not ALREADY believe, or have some inkling to believe, they would have had no ""reason"" for this event to make them believe.
His own belief was already had, on the topic that the OP had established, that being "what (book) convinced you of God's existence", the original anon already suspected God and post-hoc rationalised himself the rest of the way there.

>>24871117
You could argue this no matter what conclusion he arrives to. Materialism? He must have had some inkling. Pantheism? Must have thought about it before. Mere accident? Must have had some statistical awareness (even if it rendered 0.01% "not that unusual"). Every interpretation draws on what has worked before, even in science whose claim to fame is that it finds propositions that can be navigated with as little bias as possible. At the end of the day there is no point of view from nowhere and there is no everyone's interpretation.

>>24870752
How many times do you think people test for std daily?
Also it doesn't matter if it was a rare event that coincidentally happened to that anon, it's a personal experience that can be interpreteded spiritually. If something rare happened to you like your plane crashed, would you shrug it off as a rare event that happens occasionally or would you scream on top of your lungs because you're about to die?

>>24870350
So a 0.01% event happening after a prayer is a divine moment. What about 0.04%? That's the chance of getting aids via vaginal-sex from a woman with aids. If I pray to get aids beforehand and end up getting it, does that make it a miracle. You are literally this retarded.

>>24871231
I'm not any of the Anons who have argued with you. Is there any kind of miracle that would make you change your belief?

>>24871206
What is your argument? NTA, but are you arguing that, even if you did scream at the top of your lungs; this somehow implies spiritual connotations, instead of random events?

>>24870332 (OP)
I believe this world is neither good or bad. Just a collective manifestation of our thoughts. So I go out every day with smile and channel positive thoughts outwards and it usually gives me good vibrations back. Everybody I come across is an NPC in my story that I try to avoid hurting and in return they benefit from me being good to them. Heaven and hell is probably here all along and we neither reach either as we can't all be good or bad to each other at the same time that would create heaven or hell. Ronnie james dio was right imo.

>>24871280
Would you give this advice to a child who grew up making our textiles, being poisoned everyday, watching their father live an embarrassing slave life, unable to free them from toilet?
Just smile?

>>24870332 (OP)
haha OP I love froggo XD

>>24871281
I think it's all relative. Like this world doesn't permit absolute evil all the time. Tragedy comes to everyone. Guys like epstein and hitler meet their ends. Empires rise and fall to keep things in balance. You think the father is in shame for his life but the family is closer together and ego is gone. Hardship in one way but freedom from ego in another. I read epictetus and find his discourses to be close to what a god or god(s) would want of our world. Religious texts are just starting points to finding god I think we find god when we pay really close attention to the small events in our lives.

>>24870332 (OP)
At this point only an in-person miracle would convince me.

>>24871103
>Reading history convinced me of this.
You read the opinions of some dickheads talking about the past and decided God doesn't exist?

>>24870332 (OP)
I can't imagine many things less rational than being convinced that an omnipotent, omniscient being exists because of anything you could read in a book.

>>24870650
Imagine how that smug pink-haired cunt would react if I put a baby inside of her womb.

>>24870391
>Entropy increases with time.
Entropy appears to increase in closed systems; there's no real reason to believe that this will always be the case or that the universe is a closed system.

>>24871310
>Guys like epstein and hitler meet their ends.
But not the hundred of officials and celebrities who went to his island and fucked children. They are safe!

>>24870332 (OP)
Someone pointed out that the presuppositions of scientific naturalism, Kantianism, Nietzscheanism, Christianity, etc. all ultimately cannot be justified discursively themselves. A key question in epistemology is if contemplative, co-natural knowledge exists, and that has a huge effect on what can be known.

But I realized that many witnesses claim they saw Saint Thomas contemplate so hard he began levitating and Kant and Nietzsche could only think while seated on the ground, making it sort of obvious.

>>24870585
>Try The Experience of God for a little bit, it might be better accessible than some of his other works.

I read Roland in Moonlight and really enjoyed it, so I thought I would try his more serious work and went with The Experience of God. I think I'm just too dumb for philosophy.

>>24870469
>a cause of the universe must have
There is no "cause of the universe", because time is part of the universe and causality requires time.

>>24871322
No, not just what some dickheads said. What everyone has ever said. And recorded.
History is still in motion BTW. For the past 100 years or so, we've had photos and film. In todays world, we have direct video with no latency.
Slaves, genocides. History is horrifying.

>>24870482
>Outside time, space,
So existing NEVER and NOWHERE. Saying something is "outside of time and space" is exactly the same thing as saying it's not real, doesn't exist.

>>24871310
>You think the father is in shame for his life but the family is closer together and ego is gone.
Privileged babble from a smug idiot. Go sign up to work in the cobalt mines then. Bring your family.

>>24870640
>The Christian narrative is the most complete, universal and pro-human being
Vague and unprovable bullshit; Christians literally think that most people are tortured or annihilated for no reason. "Pro-human" my ass.

>>24871277
I'm arguing that personal spiritual experiences are subjective and there is no "miracle probability threshold"

>>24871357
Go to a gulag, communist. Bring your family.

>>24871344
They are materially rich and have lavish parties/estates beyond what is needed but it's a backstabbing drama club with little peace of mind. Just look at prince andrew. All the money means what when you are actively destroying your own family members beyond normal punishment to stay at the top of the elite king of the hill?

>>24871357
>go sign up to work in cobalt mines bring your family

Yes you physically suffer but your family bonds are stronger there and your egos are mostly gone. This isn't 1800 where there is a high chance you get caved in while working. You trade the shorter lifespan for more meaning every day compared to the epstein island people.

>>24871396
Im not a communist. I know you are angry and its directionless. I am too. I cant be mad at you for it.

>>24871400
>. This isn't 1800 where there is a high chance you get caved in while working. You trade the shorter lifespan for more meaning every day compared to the epstein island people

You ever watched liveleak footage of thirdie labor operations?
Also, what about those people who did get taken to the island, then?

>>24871400
Define "meaning", please. What the fuck is that and why is it important?

>>24871405
>liveleak
you are bringing up a statistical anomaly, you watch dramatic videos and media of events happening outside your reality and assume this happens frequently. Most businesses would rather keep employees alive then throw them into a death trap.
>what about people taken to the island
a lot of them made the choice. Was what epsteins groups doing on the island good? No. But if you made the choice it's on you partly.

>>24871406
Are rich families always happier? Do elite families come together in challenging times or do they simply cannibalize each other for wealth? There's meaning in the rich or poor life just different meanings. The meaning being the challenges that are different and the solutions being different.

>>24871427
>Are rich families always happier?
Never said they were; but money does make people happier on average.

>The meaning being the challenges that are different and the solutions being different.
So "meaning" is the bad parts of life that we don't want? Ah, so meaning is bad.

>>24871427
The groomed kids on epsteins island didnt make that choice, unless you simply have no empathy for children and minors.
And thats not an anomaly. Thirdie labor is exploited because the protections are lower. Thats why outsourcing even happened in the first place. Youre just ignorant. So that you can be happy, and believe in spiritual denialism

>>24870350
>1 in 10,000
what the probability of a miracle?
It gotta be more common than 1 in 10,000
else it seems you're just being silly

>>24870332 (OP)
https://youtu.be/R7544SvRJb4?si=0eFygUPYmQnexmp0

>>24871351
>>24871355
>time is physical
>therefore everything outside of the physical is fake
Tautological reasoning.

Anti-natalist trannies shit up another thread again.

>>24870585
>What isse are you solving?
No problem. I already agree with you that you probably need some necessary thing, I just disagree that it has to be God. One possibility is something natural, one is something like the Will. My jump to the problem of evil is my reasoning why I prefer a different necessary thing, rather than God. The main difference between God and the will for instance is in the moral dimension, and I don't see this universe being ordered in a moral way. So the will or just some natural thing are better candidates for that necessary object.

>>24870640
>pro-human being
In what universe? Christianity explicitly states that your death will be the greatest thing to ever happen to you, as long as you have taken part in the fruits of a human sacrifice and washed yourself in His blood. It is a death worshiping, life-denying, misanthropic call to abnegate reason.

>>24872040
I would still call Christianity life denying but Christians at least still want to live, just not in this fallen world. Some eastern religions on the other hand want something close to total anihiliations. There is some dispute about what Nirvana is, but even if it's not total anihiliation, it's close.

>>24870544
Nope, 0!=100% is as logical as it gets.

>>24870571
Its an empirical phenomenon, anyone can see it with their own two feet.

>>24872302
Death is total annihilation. The premise of life after death is a contradiction in terms, it is a delusion. Consider this, the truth is that the thing which makes you "YOU" is inextricably tied to your body, and to convince someone to eschew this life in deference to a time after their death is to have them de-value their life in favor of death. Whenever you try to ask a Christian the specifics of what they will be like after death, it is always vagaries designed to soothe their death anxiety while being as noncommittal as possible. The "fallen world" is the only form of existence which we are destined to live in, it is where life exists. To downplay it in favor of death is worshiping death.

>>24870544
"Came out of" implies the existence of time from whence the thing came. If the thing is time itself, it can't "come" from anywhere, it cannot be caused because causation denotes a temporal relationship between a thing and something the precedes it in time. To apply this to the first moment of time is incoherent

>>24872302
>Christians at least still want to live
True. Most people, especially atheists, live out of fear of dying, not desire for life itself. You can see this by how many atheists are anti-natalists. They hate life so much they don't want to propagate it anymore.

>>24872336
>Death is total annihilation. The premise of life after death is a contradiction in terms, it is a delusion.
Christians disagree with you. This is a premise of yours that they don't share.

>>24872367
Yes, they are delusional and can't even coherently present how personhood (which relies not only on the body and brain but in fact on the very biological processes and influences that make us human) could possibly survive the death and decay of the body and brain. A simply question like "what happens to a split brain patient when one half is a devote believer in Jesus but the other rejects him?" is enough to shatter their entire worldview. As I stated before, all the beliefs here are strictly a cope for death anxiety, an illusion embraced for psychological reasons and totally untenable when examined with any level of critical eye.

>>24870332 (OP)
It wasn't a book, it was personal experience.

>>24872378
No, you don't get it. They do have their explanations for this and their explanations can't be proven or disproven by science.

You are taking it as obvious that they are wrong, but not only it is not obvious, but you seem to be assuming that they are not sincere in their beliefs, which is a terrible assumption to have when it comes to trying to understand a belief.

>>24872336
>>24872378
>Death is annihilation because my schizo psychoanalyst jew said you're coping
I don't like most e-christians, but secular atheist freud nut-huggers like you leave an especially bitter aftertaste in my mouth. Not that this tangent has anything to do with whether or not an afterlife exists mind you (I believe some sort of transmigratory cycle is the most likely outcome), but the emotionally manipulative language you use automatically makes any discussion on the subject fruitless.

>>24871351
>There is no "cause of the universe"
This is based on completely unfounded assumptions, unless you're one of those pseuds who literally interpret "physically observable universe" and the classical definition of universe to be one and the same.

>>24872472
*interprets

>reading all the misery ITT
if you're afraid of death, you're doing it wrong.
if you're attached to anything impermanent, you're doing it wrong.
if you find yourself in despair over your finite and limited existence, you're doing it wrong.
if you're using the suffering or happiness of others as a benchmark for your own life's value, you're doing it wrong.
if you're miserable for any reason, you have attachments. get your emotions in check and try to spend the limited amount of time you have finding something worth valuing, and cherish it.

>>24872903
What if im inna POW camp

>>24872905
all of life is a POW camp. nobody has any real control over anything that happens to them. you are born, you exist, then you die. what you do have control over is whether you accept what's given to you or not. protip: it's much worse if you don't accept.

>>24872903
buddhism is a religion for insect men.

>>24872966
I'm not a Buddhist though.
you learn all of this through the writings of the mystics and ascetics.

>>24872903
Religionfags are the most miserable people on earth
>you’re literally born in sin and destined for eternal torture unless you tithe my flavor of jewish thunder god

>>24872987
nothing in that post said anything about an afterlife or worship.

>>24872318
How? Where can I go to see it?

>>24872302
Nirvana is the cessation of ignorance and delusion

>>24871236
My answer is: I do not know. Any infinite amount of hypothetical absurd scenarios could be posited to you with the question 'What would it take for you to believe this?' The flaws in the question betray the flaws in the nature of the claim, not the one dismissing it.
Belief in something is involuntary. If I were to have the experience of, say, a biblical angel visiting me and giving me instructions, I would check myself into a mental hospital. Intellectually I agree with Hume that:

>When any one tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

If I wasn't aware that hallucinations are a common thing, then I would most likely believe what I was seeing and take it to heart. Being aware of that, though, means that my personal experience is not always the most reliable way to the truth. If a loved one came to you with a testimony of having been literally visited by an angel last night, would you encourage them or seek to get them medical treatment?
The idea that a 1 in 10,000 event happening to someone is a miracle is not even worth responding to, however. Someone who says that has abandoned any sense and is just acting like a woman does with a trivial matter, frankly.

>>24870332 (OP)
The Courage to be Disliked led me down the right path

>>24872966
Buddhism is freedom from suffering through radical acceptance of it and compassion shown to other sentient beings. There are no insect men. I suppose something more, actionable, feels right to you. Just remember that insects fight too, and men get squashed like bugs.

>>24872434
If you can't confront your own death anxiety and realize the fact that it strongly motivates you to believe comforting falsehoods, discussion does become fruitless.

>>24872418
It is obvious, and you didn't even address a single one of the specific points I raised. Inventing a spiritual dimension in service of escaping the inevitability of death is a childish fantasy and should always be treated as such.

>>24870332 (OP)
None really did. It’s a position I just gradually developed. Though some helped more than others. Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, forgotten truth by Huston smith would be two.

>>24873224
What about buddhism?
It doesnt say that, and says instead that all of what you said, is true. And to accept it, and be compassionate to other living things as a way to ease the pain of suffering.

>>24873223
All this talk of "death anxiety" is just your psychobabble projection, which fails to vindicate or deny the idea of continued existence after death in some manner. I get you believe that resorting to crass materialistic ontology suffices as an argument, but the true nature of consciousness is absolutely unfathomable to one such as you or I.

>>24873238
All forms of Buddhism advocates for rebirth however, which is fine because that's just common sense.

>>24872342
Time is just an emergent property of *this* universe specifically. You really are totally clueless.

no book, because faith is a work of god in us etc.

>>24873340
Ah yes, time to invent whole other universes to continue your fantasy. Comical.

>>24873299
Consciousness is irrevocable linked to complex biological systems of mater and energy. The only reason to suppose consciousness can exist beyond the decay of those biological systems is death anxiety. It's all just a cope, and the further you enter into deny on this point, the further the point is proven.

>>24873299
Consciousness is irrevocably linked to complex biological systems of mater and energy. The only reason to suppose consciousness can exist beyond the decay of those biological systems is death anxiety. It's all just a cope, and the further you enter into deny on this point, the further the point is proven.

>>24873442
>>24873437

>>24873447
>142 replies
>2 book recommendations

>>24873442
>Consciousness is irrevocably linked to complex biological systems of mater and energy.
Please read about "the hard problem of consciousness" before spewing more verbal diarrhea on my screen. Consciousness has emergent properties that is impossible to reduce to merely biological phenomenon, insofar its qualitative state is impossible to grasp in a universe perceptibly defined by its quantity.
>The only reason to suppose consciousness can exist beyond the decay of those biological systems is death anxiety.
It's the view of life as an insentient machine that is the anomaly here. YOU have to justify it, not the other way around.
>It's all just a cope, and the further you enter into deny on this point, the further the point is proven.
Back to Freudian psychobabble again, its obvious you're not interested in valid truth-seeking, but rather dominating others in any which way you can to fuel your ego. What a sad, pathetic little man you are.

>>24870332 (OP)
The Book of Revelation convinced me God was real.

>>24871951
KEK

>>24873487
We simply do not know what consciousness is, but there are strong and weak estimates based on the information we currently have.

>Consciousness has emergent properties that is impossible to reduce to merely biological phenomenon
This is a good example of something we do not know. You could say that we do not know how the emergent properties could be reduced to biological phenomenon, but to make a positive claim like that you would need a thorough explanation. Do you have one?

>>24870585
>>24870575
>>24870375
I also started with Hart, though now I find it somewhat annoying
I'm surprised anyone could find him difficult as he avoids technical verbiage and writes for a general audience. Most authors shilled on this board are way harder to read, imo.

He is also great at destroying thomists and putting pura natura face to face with its contradiction (both internal and external).

The only gripe I have with Hart (as regards intellectual consistency, outside of that I have quite a few) is that he insists on remaining nominally religious (albeit opposed to legalism and institution, and pluralist). Yet it is obvious that his position allegorizes revelation to such an extent that any claimed revelation is no more revelation than a good deed or a flower blooming. All in all, his remaining a christian seems like an instance of countercultural posturing to me, and I wish he just dropped it.

His thomist opponents' only valid point, imo, is that he should stop calling himself a christian. On what actually matters, he has destroyed them in every imaginable way.

>>24873601
>some proto-/x/ schizo's crazed rantings convinced me god was real
how

>>24873730
>nominally religious
Why do you think so? I don't know how he treats revelations, but his latest book is entirely about Jesus and Christology, he seems as religious as anyone else in the Church.

>>24873758
He recently admitted that he was an irreligious sort of person, and didn't really care about going to mass, that sort of thing. Does he think Jesus was God? Yeah. Then again, he thinks the same can be said of just about anything, and wrote a book called "You are Gods".

Now does he try to give the divinity of Jesus a different meaning? Does he succeed? I couldn't be bothered to tell you, I never read his christological stuff. Whenever I see it pop up, it is highly allegorized, to the point that I find it difficult to believe that he takes the historicity or necessity of it all to be of any importance.

I wanted to read his latest book because I found it weird that he'd write that at this point in his career, but it wasn't on libgen last time I checked.

In any event, I think his philosophical theism is basically irreconciliable with any literalist understanding of any religion.

>>24870332 (OP)
Isn't the whole point of religion that its a matter of faith? If you want to believe, surround yourself with believers and their doctrine and otherwise avoid learning new things.

>>24870332 (OP)
If time has an infinite before and will have an infinite now, why am I currently alive and not in the state of unborn or already dead?

>>24873897
How does the first part of that sentence relate to the second part?

ethics by spinoza of course.

>>24870760
based

>>24870332 (OP)
Not a single Christian believes that god is real. They're liars who enjoy lying to others. There is no other rational explanation for why Christianity exists.

>>24873897
The creator is a massive dick. Think about that the next time you create an RPG character only to eventually quit the game.

>>24873830
the thing about the word 'faith' is that it means many things. one provisional definition I like is that faith is the acknowledgement that human understanding is finite, and will always be limited by human limitations, and that what is "above" the limit of human understanding exists, can be found (in some meaningful way), and ontologically precedes everything in existence.

>>24873941
>>24873447

>>24873822
"You are Gods" comes directly from the Gospel.

"I never read his christological stuff"
Then why do you talk?

>>24873487
Systems are emergent out of their components. Complexity is a thing within the material world. You have no point here. A lot of bitterness there at the end, you performatively act scandalized about my words being on your screen, and then end with petty insults. You can't even pretend to hold the high ground before your deep seated bitterness shines through for all to see. Sad indeed!

>>24873941
This is a bad post but unfortunately I'm inclined to agree with you. Tradition and socialization alone drive most people into churches. It's a cargo cult with some hampered social control scheme but it kind of works for keeping people behaved. The alternative of total hedonism is worse.
There are plenty of irrational explanations though which shouldn't necessarily be discounted. Existence appears totally irrational with secular thinking. Some concession to irrationality is needed unless you want to go with some form of rational nihilism. Nobody likes nihilism except nihilists. This is likely why professed atheists tend to be less happy.

>>24870332 (OP)
Hp Lovecraft. Introduced the idea that God would not be someone you can understand and can break you, that the real truth is beyond your full grasp and comprehension except by grace.

>>24874130
Interestingly, more intelligent people tend to be less happy. Ignorance really is bliss, but the real question is, could you sacrifice your dignity for some of the ignorance fueled bliss? In short, religion is a call to give up your own self respect for the cheap reward of phantom happiness. And they think materialists revel in shallow, hollow pleasures. Ironic.

>>24874140
The man was cooking

>>24874147
that's the problem with self-respect. by all accounts, your contingent bundle of matter is inconsequential to the grand immensity of all existence. the same with everyone else. evolution found a way to wire brains to find meaning and purpose in symbols and belief, and those traits are adaptive and positively selected for. why? I don't know. there's no good reason for it, but it's there. do animals have death anxiety? not consciously. but humans do. is this all just to assuage death anxiety? perhaps. but then it's perfectly natural if evolution led to the selection of behavioral traits that promote belief in the sacred. I wouldn't fault people for doing what is ultimately natural for them, nor would I expect anything more from them. yet one monkey thinks they've seen behind the veil and suddenly disdains everyone else for doing what nature dictates.

>>24874191
Evolution is clearly your god, atheistcuck.

>>24874208
I'm not an atheist.

>>24874154
he got manyt hings wrong he was inspired by arthur machen for one

>>24870350
*an STD
The sound rather than the letter controls whether you use a or an

>>24874127
>Systems are emergent out of their components.
"Emergent" literally means its going beyond the scope of its constituents, dumbass. That's why there's an entire debate about the true origins of consciousness to begin with.
>Complexity is a thing within the material world.
I've never denied this.
>You have no point here.
Neither do you. Your argument against the afterlife is just ad hominem towards people who believe in it.
>A lot of bitterness there at the end, you performatively act scandalized about my words being on your screen, and then end with petty insults. You can't even pretend to hold the high ground before your deep seated bitterness shines through for all to see. Sad indeed!
Crybaby jew playing the victim card as usual lol.

>>24873941
>Not a single Christian believes that god is real.
Really weird cope, but okay.

No book. My loife, m8.

>>24874147
>im le too smart to be a happy dumb little religious sheep
whatever you say lil bro

>>24874191
Evolution favors strategies which increase survival and reproduction, but it also favors general strategies that have power across domains. This is why our general intelligence developed, it allows us to consider the future and play our many situations without needing to take the personal risk of engaging with a situation directly with no forethought. This is an immensely powerful trait which has allowed our species to dominate the entire globe and even to extend our reach beyond the sky. This tool, which is manifestly more powerful than the old hard wired predispositions, leads a person to become aware of the truth of a situation separate and apart from his own predispositions. In concrete terms, it will enable him to assess whether it is more beneficial to hack up the genitals of his newborn to propitiate the whims of a celestial tyrant (at the risk of infection, failure of blood clotting, or outright death of the infant), rather than to see these practices as human impositions which can be dispensed with. At the end of the day, will you rely on blind unthinking forces to lead you into illusions, or will you use the greatest gift any living being has ever received and think about these matters dispassionately and critically?

>>24874269
>"Emergent" literally means its going beyond the scope of its constituents
This is to admit the basis and source is material, which is the subject of the argument which you just conceded.

>>24874288
How am I coping? If anything that horrifying truth is what needs cope.

>>24874414
>This is to admit the basis and source is material, which is the subject of the argument which you just conceded.
What? No, that's not what's implied at all. Emergence just means there is an irreducible element separate from its parts.

>>24874427
Hate to break this to you, but 99% of humanity were animists, whereas atheism is usually symptomatic of a civilization in its later decadent stages. Saying no one can have a genuine belief in God is completely asinine.

>>24874458
Emergence means the phenomenon emerges out of the elements at a certain level of complexity. The basis and source is still the elements that compose the system in question.

>>24873743
It was existentially important the way nothing else is. It revealed to me candidly Jesus' intention and it assented thoroughly all throughout. I was so moved at the completion by the beauty of what Jesus said and what St. John said.
"1st Corinthians" convinced me the Roman Church is the One Holy Apostolic and Universal Church: The Body of Jesus Christ.
I had Catholic schooling but was somewhat persuaded toward atheism as a preteen and professed it until I was in my late teens. Then I accidentally became a new-ager sadly out of laziness. I didn't know what new age was but I became addicted to esoteric occult behaviour. But then I realized how dark my sins had become. Adultery and all of it; the toll they take
I agree with Jesus. Evil has to go.

>>24874485
*I assented

>>24874147
It's intelligent to be discontent. If you were content all the time you would stagnate.

>>24874482
>Emergence means the phenomenon emerges out of the elements at a certain level of complexity. The basis and source is still the elements that compose the system in question.
Yes, and what those elements are what cannot be reduced to mere material locality alone. When we say consciousness is emergent, or "more than its parts", we're conceding to gaps between our knowledge of the subjective phenomenal experience of consciousness, and the biological make-up our consciousnesses seem to inhabit. Hence, the hard problem.

>>24874512
*and what those elements are is what cannot be reduced

Isn't "emergence" just a technical-sounding term for "we don't know?" I see the term used a lot by AI utopians, who think that if we build a data center big enough superintelligent self-improving AI will just emerge from it because... it's really complex so it has to happen... or something. Sounds like a statement of faith, if you ask me.

>>24874500
There's nothing inherently wrong with stagnation besides dying off. And it's our death anxiety that drives everything considering death is the ultimate stagnation where nothing happens. We are duped by our own thoughts to flee from death.

>>24874268
Noted, thank you

>>24870332 (OP)
the dispenationalist bibles convinced me he doesn't

>>24874526
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbPgoZ2d0Nw
All the patterns emerge from three rules. That's emergence. More complex patterns emerge with more space and CPU time. A lot of the time coding is about making complex behaviour emerge while minimizing code and resources.