Believers, what convinced you there is a god?

Believers, what convinced you there is a god? And then what made you convinced whichever religion you ended up choosing was the right one? Looking for stories on how you came to faith.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I was bitter and wanted to feel superior to others. When I saw Christianity, my eyes sparkled. I can now constantly talk about how special, wise and superior I am while everyone else is an decadent npc corpse who's going to hell. I get boners every day in public transports thinking about how many of the people around me will be tortured in a lava pit while I get eternal paradise. God I love being saved unlike all these fricking degenerates who don't even have the spirit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      obvious bait, but also if you're not crying for those not saved and at least trying to convert them, but instead have gleeful contempt for them, you are failing at the greatest commandment and are among the worst of heretics. I pray that anyone actually like this, of which there are some in the world, repents, confesses of their sins, and believes and shares the gospel of our Lord.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Indeed the good news are so good they are worth spreading, Jesus died for our sins, he fulfilled the objective we could not complete, if you put your trust in him you are saved, it always put a smile on my face.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Oh I'm crying, trust me. I'm fricking sad I don't get to stroke my divine angel wiener to their screams of pain right now. Every once in a while, I walk up to them and remind them of how superior I am to them because they don't have the spirit. If they refuse to convert, that's on them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is a god because if there wasn't, humans would eventually find something that's suitable for the description of god.

      Religion is fake af. Scripture is human fantasy, not the word of god. God doesn't love humans the way humans know, a loving god is cope from gay priests without fathers.
      Full of shits like

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      /thread.
      Other people must work hard and sacrifice much to demonstrate virtue. All a theist must do is submit to an egregore, then they are gifted the certainty that anyone without the thought virus is destined for hell no matter how good or virtuous they are. It's a lazy mans enlightenment.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Believers, what convinced you there is a god?
    The impossibility of the contrary.

    >And then what made you convinced whichever religion you ended up choosing was the right one?
    Because they actually believe in God's commandments and can trace their authority from Jesus to Francis. (Catholic)

    >Looking for stories on how you came to faith.
    There are only two possibilities: God, truth, and morals exist or they don't exist. The latter option leads to every kind of absurdity and nihilism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The latter option leads to every kind of absurdity and nihilism.
      God real cuz I'dd be sad if he wasn't ;(

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Didn't say that, but keep coping.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So what if no God leads do "nihilism"? Who cares?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you, right now, care a lot about it, by asking this very quesiton.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'm a piece of shit and trying to stick to a Christian life seems to improve my condition.
        Was born into a Catholic family, baptised, always went to Catholic schools (we'd go to mass every first friday of the month). We even had catechism classes, though they weren't counting on the internet influencing kids that much. Teenage rebellious phase, the usual. Socially, you shouldn't go critisising or doubting the religion, but being a sperg I never commited fully to it. Mellowed out and started viewing religion as part of man's adaptations to his environment, actually listening and trying to decyoher the meaning of the Sunday readings. If it's real even if in that sense, it's real.
        If I wasn't born into a Catholic society, or even a Christian one, I wouldn't really know what would happen. Only hope that I'd bump into them at some point. That's how the faith got here in the first place.

        Actually yeah, haha. He wants us all to be frens.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why not Islam? They're pretty serious about God's commandments too.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because of geography.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What about it?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Kent Hovind said so.

          >b me
          >Not u
          >Grow Up knowing le method to save myself
          >A sekrit religion of my own
          >Dew it
          >It werks
          >Such is life, these people don't know
          >And believe in books
          Le infiltrate ayy lmao

          I wish I could be religious.

          Benny Hinn - he slapped me with His coat and I was saved. Benny Hinn.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            top lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Amen, and Amen

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why not Islam? They're pretty serious about God's commandments
        80% of islam amounts to contradicting the Quran, so no.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          And so does the bible

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why is no god impossible?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Kent Hovind said so.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It entails a contradiction

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Which is?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The impossibility of the contrary.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >God not existing is contradictory because it's contradictory

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >My argument is that me being wrong is impossible
            Very profound.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are on the level of a delusional troony.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      When you stop believing in gods, morals rulers will still work, your eyes will still work, your hearing will still work, people will enforce moral behavior with carrots and stick regardless of whether you care.
      You, I, every Christian and everyone else knows you don’t have proof of your god so you’re attaching it to things we all need almost like a hostage situation where you actually don’t have control over the hostage.
      How about you get a gf and grow up.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >When you stop believing in gods, morals rulers will still work, your eyes will still work, your hearing will still work, people will enforce moral behavior with carrots and stick regardless of whether you care.

        You still need a words to communicate the reality of these things to others. That "word/logic" is YHWH/Jesus. It's what is communicated by all the things that you say still "work" without language.

        "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

        What's the first thing God does in genesis? He observes the cosmos, defines it, and judges it.

        The "Name" of God is the "semantics" of God. We see all those things that you claim work without language, and we define them, so that we can communicate our first hand experiance without the other person actually experiencing it. This goes beyond just words. The code is not just phonetic sounds. It's DNA, and other codes we are still trying to "decrypt". You really can't exist in your present form without, "The Code".

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >You still need a words to communicate the reality of these things to others. That "word/logic" is YHWH/Jesu
          That’s called language and is shared by much of the animal kingdom in some form.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You are like a troony but instead of shoving troonyism into every historical character you shove god into anything that you don't understand.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          so this...this is the power of christcuck apologetics

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Even if somehow you want a robust ontology for moral claims there are other options, like Platonism. And no, the forms are not Yahweh.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Have sex godcel

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes exactly.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Lmaaaao just go ahead show us how low iq you are

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I saw the Gigachad Orthodox chanting on youtube

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    About 3 grams of shrooms. I saw what I saw

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >what convinced you there is a god
    first off, it was relatively simple logic

    second, it was a profound religious experience followed over the course of years by more

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >first off, it was relatively simple logic
      You can say that again

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >first off, it was relatively simple logic
      What logic?
      >second, it was a profound religious experience followed over the course of years by more
      What was the experience?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I was originally struck by Aquinas' five ways, at the tender age of 12. Doing research on my lonesome, without any outside assistance.

        I used these arguments in conjunction (as they are meant to be used, instead of in isolation) to argue convincingly to my peers that God is really real.

        In the years that followed, I started formulating my own arguments. Formulations I felt were at least easier to explain than Aquinas' examples.

        >the experience
        There's a general rule regarding spiritual experiences, that I have found to be reliable, that their content should not be shared outside your personal confessor.

        It's not a specifically Christian rule, it's something I've encountered in many different faith groups.

        They are always personal, and don't usually make sense to other people because they don't share the same life experiences that inform your own perspective.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The universe is made out of force fields that create motion, other things in motion around you are caused by even simpler more down to earth physics of heat moving things around.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your idea about "force fields" and "heat" would naturally lend itself to the idea of "friction".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anon I was explaining to you that the reason why the weather moves is because of the sun heating it. Same thing with essentially all life on earth.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          When you were 12. Did you ever look into how people may argue against Aquinas?
          Things you can say to make those arguments not be persuasive?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Uh, do you assume I didn't examine the counterarguments for each at that time? It's those counterarguments that led me into my own formulations. Don't sleep on young people, they can sometimes recognize when the emperor has no clothes.

            I was a little edgelord on the internet at the time, and a nominal atheist. And I found that most of the counterarguments were focused on just one part of the five ways.

            That's not how it works, the Aquinas' argument is holistic. You need to address the ways these five arguments support one another.

            None of the 5 ways taken alone are enough to prove Aquinas' idea about God. That's why they form a mosaic, and should be addressed as such.

            My idea of God differs slightly from Aquinas', which is why his arguments inspire me rather than form the core of my own arguments.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            blow it out your ass

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            For the record, the people I convinced using these basic arguments were all around the age of 16. I was the quiet type for years.

            The topic came up naturally, and was a recurring discussion over months. This was all more than 15 years ago now.

            >I found that most of the counterarguments were focused on just one part of the five ways
            Yeah, no shit. moron.
            You don't "refute" teleology by talking about his contingency argument.

            You don't refute "telos".
            Instead, you concede.

            It was the argument from contigency that I thought at first most compelling, much more so than the "first mover" cosmological argument, but over time I began to realize the the teleological tack was actually best.

            These aren't topics you can neatly separate. They are all related, and you need to address the underlying phenomenon they are concerned with.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Look, I don't grant that telos is a feature of reality.
            Therefore I'm not concerned about addressing any underlying phenomena.

            Aquinas being a package-deal. Does he crumble, or do you address my concerns about telos?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then you're denying the obvious.

            Designed things are real.
            Real things are part of reality.
            Design is part of a real thing.
            Therefore design is part of reality.
            Design being part of reality is what makes designed things possible for us to create to begin with.

            If design were not part of reality, we would not be able to design things.
            We do design things.

            Ergo, there must be an ultimate metaphysical source for this design.
            In other words, a designer.

            Telos defines functions. You know what functions are, right? We use them all the time in math and engineering. For certain purposes. Purpose, reason, design.

            >package-deal
            You clearly don't understand what "holistic" means. You don't defeat the 5 ways by attacking one argument, you defeat them by attacking the substrate that supports all of them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I deny telos, because I am an atheist.
            I don't believe the universe has a purpose, because such a purpose would make no sense if I didn't already believe in a God.
            Universe having a purpose? To who?

            >You don't defeat the 5 ways by attacking one argument
            So, like, if I showed a problem with 1 argument. Are you just not gonna care, or what? lol

            Somethings are designed by humans -> OK
            Therefore, the universe and everything in it, is designed by a God -> lol
            ???
            What's the inference for believing that?
            so moronic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you deny the obvious because you identify as a fedora
            that is not a position taken from reason
            it's a reaction based on an egotistical charade

            that's why you don't address the argument
            next thread

            >because such a purpose would make no sense if I didn't already believe in a God
            what is this psychobabble

            design is part of reality
            deal with it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >design is part of reality
            I agree.
            But I obviously don't believe reality is designed, else I would be a theist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I obviously don't believe reality is designed
            You don't believe that reality is designed? How do you explain a car? Do you say it's not real, or do you say it's not designed?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then you're denying the obvious.

            Designed things are real.
            Real things are part of reality.
            Design is part of a real thing.
            Therefore design is part of reality.
            Design being part of reality is what makes designed things possible for us to create to begin with.

            If design were not part of reality, we would not be able to design things.
            We do design things.

            Ergo, there must be an ultimate metaphysical source for this design.
            In other words, a designer.

            Telos defines functions. You know what functions are, right? We use them all the time in math and engineering. For certain purposes. Purpose, reason, design.

            >package-deal
            You clearly don't understand what "holistic" means. You don't defeat the 5 ways by attacking one argument, you defeat them by attacking the substrate that supports all of them.

            how can you deny the existence of functions?
            of purpose driven behavior and forms?

            Yes, function is indeed a property of form. Or maybe you could formulate that other way around. Wouldn't change that much imo.

            Can you not concieve of a transcendental design? Or in other words, a necessary one?

            Cause that sounds like logic itself to me.

            Do you think there may be something weird with your "argument", when it hinges on accepting a bunch of premises that entails a God?
            No atheist would grant these premises, else they would already be a theist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Atheism isn't logical.
            It's just like a religion.

            >truth is real
            Truth is a human concept to describe the concrete, factual and real aspect of reality. It's a description not a thing in-itself

            >concrete, factual and real aspect of reality

            real aspect of reality? Hehe.
            It sounds like you're admitting that truth is objectively real. Which is completely obvious to anyone.

            Don't even get me started on truth functions.

            >human concept
            Nah, it's universal. Sorry.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Would an atheist grant that telos (construed in such a way that god trivially follows from granting it) exist?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Designed things are real
            But real things are not necessarily designed, that's a premise you're sneaking in there to justify the rest of your argument.
            >We do design things.
            >Ergo, there must be an ultimate metaphysical source for this design
            lmfao, every time

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >real things are not necessarily designed
            So what? Real things are designed, even if not all of them are.

            You can't neatly differentiate between real things and reality itself. They form a continuum. Distinguishing between objects is really just a kind of cope anyways, it has more to do with mental categories and human perception than the state of nature in itself.

            Which means that the unmistakable existence of design in one aspect of reality necessarily informs the rest of it.

            You can't say something isn't designed. It may just be that it has some function or purpose you aren't capable of understanding. Even the lack of design may be by design.

            Who are you to just handwave away the fact that designing anything at all is possible to begin with? If design wasn't real to begin with, we couldn't do it. Simple as.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >design is a property
            >design is transcemdental
            proof for either of these?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            how can you deny the existence of functions?
            of purpose driven behavior and forms?

            Yes, function is indeed a property of form. Or maybe you could formulate that other way around. Wouldn't change that much imo.

            Can you not concieve of a transcendental design? Or in other words, a necessary one?

            Cause that sounds like logic itself to me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >he thinks numbers are real
            lol
            >purpose
            what would that be? what does "purpose" mean? there exists a perfectly serviceable model as to why behaviour and morphology is the way it is among all living things
            >can you concieve of
            you are the one who intends to prove the existence of a distinct "design", not me

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >what does "purpose" mean
            I accept your concession.

            >why behaviour and morphology is the way it is among all living things

            You just said there is a reason *why* these things are. But that's invoking teleology.

            Come back when you learn to argue.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >stop being vague, what do you even mean by purpose?
            >CONSNEED TROLOLOLOL
            grow up
            >why
            survivorship bias squared leads to a false sense of intentional design due to efficiency
            >teleology
            not really tho, it's about origin, as you have yet to prove that a goal exists

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >design exists×20
            >Ergo, there must be an ultimate metaphysical source for this design.
            no matter how you chop it, doesn't follow, unless you presume what you are supposed to prove

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If we can identify something as possessing the quality of design then it follows we must also be able to identify the absence of design, aka accidents. Since an accident by definition cannot be designed, it follows that accident is prior to design in the universe, with design and the minds that perform design being phenomenon that themselves ultimately came about by accident, therefore this universe cannot have been designed before it came into existence

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >follows that accident is prior to design in the universe

            No, it doesn't.
            All you've done is negated "design".
            Negation is a logical operation, you can't start with a negation. You have to begin with the thing you are negating.

            Design doesn't happen by accident.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Designed things are real.
            >Telos defines functions
            Yer eyes are for seeing. Hence, they are so shit, compared to octopus's.
            Panda's paws are universally shit. Clearly, they are just defying their Intelligent Designer. All pandas are Evil.

            >Design is part of a real thing.
            A mirage is an integral part of a desert, yes-yes.

            >Real things are part of reality.
            Holes are real. Definitely not absences of real things, surrounding them, no-no.

            >If design were not part of reality, we would not be able to design things.
            If films were not part of reality, we would not be able to see films. Hence, it is not flicker-fusion threshold, not an exaptated error of perception, it's a legit access to the Divine Realm! God wants you to watch "Troll 2" (1990).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >your ass
            His anus is one with my anus,
            and thus,
            Behold.

            ουρανός.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I found that most of the counterarguments were focused on just one part of the five ways
            Yeah, no shit. moron.
            You don't "refute" teleology by talking about his contingency argument.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I was a little edgelord on the internet at the time, and a nominal atheist.
            avowal of prior scepticism
            setting of some warning bells

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    for me, its just another theory, but reality makes a shit lot of sense when you consider the trascendental/divine to exist.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >b me
    >Not u
    >Grow Up knowing le method to save myself
    >A sekrit religion of my own
    >Dew it
    >It werks
    >Such is life, these people don't know
    >And believe in books
    Le infiltrate ayy lmao

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I AM GOD (so 'twas easy)

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I wish I could be religious.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    GOD here (again). I chose Antitheism for my religion. Anti-theism is the one true religion. Why, you ask? Because it's fun. Allah the others aren't. I AM

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://groups.google.com/g/anti-theism
    https://groups.google.com/g/antitheism

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've seen history and there have been too many coincidences, it's almost like things don't happen randomly and have a determined outcome.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What your best example of such a God affirming coincidence?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >666
        Well that won't be the best example, but it certainly one.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Dumbass it’s a message board where the posts are numbered. That level of superstitious thinking is why you will never break free from religion.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        hello satan

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >666
        Well that won't be the best example, but it certainly one.

        toplel

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Algorithms have natural functions by design.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    During high school I remember being told by the various media I consumed and the people around me that you can just define life's meaning for yourself, but that didn't quite work for me. It was also a time of great stress for me, my porn addiction grew to an unhealthy level, and I was a rebellious child towards my parents. Then while attending mass with my family - I grew up in a Catholic home - I started to consider the idea of God and His purpose with humanity. My curiosity grew, so I sought out more and more information on the Christian God, and what I found surprised me. The God of the bible wasn't the distant and angry deity that smited humanity for every little sin that tainted his creation, but a merciful one working out his plan to rescue humanity from its own sin, to the point of even becoming human to pay for their sins in their place - an innocent sacrificed in place of the guilty. I found it compelling, and oddly heartwarming. Then I learned that this god did it all out of love for me and all of humanity, and now all He asks for is my trust in what he did for me and to follow his example out of gratitude. In my head I thought that if I believe in this God, 2 things will happen when I die: 1). I meet Him in the afterlife, spending eternity in heaven together with all the other faithful. 2). I die and there's nothing, but at least I'll have lived helping people, so no real loss. So I placed my faith in Christ, and so far life's become easier to handle, my relationship with my parents has improved significantly, and my seemingly unconquerable porn addiction is slowly being beaten - from a nightly affair to around twice a week when I "give up the fight" so to speak. I pray you guys can find peace in this life too like I did.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >slowly being beaten
      I see what you did there. You almost had me.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >what convinced you there is a god?
    Common sense
    >what made you convinced whichever religion you ended up choosing was the right one?
    Christianity, because it's true.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    John the Baptist and Jesus Christ are my kids. Blessed sperm of Holy Ghost their Father.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Off-topic but tired of atheists trying to prove god doesn’t exist when it isn’t a matter of science but a matter of believing despite what the science says. It’s about believing and having faith despite all odds.

    You can argue that this is why religious ppl are more mentally resilient and don't give up as easy compared to non-religious ppl.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This might be the weakest bait I've ever seen.
      >Just believe, bro, even if there's no good reason too since there's zero proof.
      Good one.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      theism isn't a matter of belief

      it's a philosophical position you need to rationally argue for, namely that God is real

      just like atheism isn't a "lack of belief in God"
      it's the philosophical position that "God is not real"

      then there is the question of whether or not it's possible to prove the question of God's reality one way or another

      a strong gnostic would say it is possible, whereas a strong agnostic would say that it is not possible

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >believing despite what the science says

      This is not true. I'm not sure if you or trolling, or just confused.

      The word for scientific "Theory" is rooted in the exact same word as the greek word for God: "Theo". They share an etymology. To think that scientific theory can exist without God requires the logical fallacy of changing semantics.

      JOHN 15
      I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I speak out of my ass
        https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You're such a fricking moron, holy shit

          You just provided a link that backs up what I said, and then you got all mad about it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Damn boy, get yourself a pair of glasses

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >To think that scientific theory can exist without God requires the logical fallacy of changing semantics.
            *Actualizes a potential fart*

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You're such a fricking moron, holy shit

          Damn boy, get yourself a pair of glasses

          >To think that scientific theory can exist without God requires the logical fallacy of changing semantics.
          *Actualizes a potential fart*

          I don't know if this is multiple demons, or one, but all I did was explain the source of "Theory" is, and this spirit got all riled up and started farting and convulsing, and foaming at the mouth with insults. Why does it rile you up to be reminded that "Theory" is based on "Theo"? Maybe if you didn't worship the LORDs definition in vain, you would have known what the source of Theory is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"Theory" is based on "Theo"
            Why should anyone listen to what you have to say if someone already refuted you and you can't even tell because you can't read?
            The roots for "theory" are θέα (théa, “view”) + ὁράω (horáō, “I see, look”)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your so lost. Do I really need to explain this to you? θεωρέω is clearly a reference to the opposing forces of good and evil, leading us to the land of milk and honey.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Who cares about the origin of a word?
            What does this have to do with people's ability to engage in an activity called 'science' ?
            You're such a fricking tard

            > the logical fallacy of changing semantics.
            lmfao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Who cares
            You wouldn't say that if you understood how rewarding the center of θεωρέω truly is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Alright, tell me. Make me care.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            holy gyppo shit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're such a fricking moron, holy shit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is my favorite type of apologetics. Literally just claiming that empirical evidence can't exist without presupposing the existence of God.

        [...]
        [...]
        [...]
        I don't know if this is multiple demons, or one, but all I did was explain the source of "Theory" is, and this spirit got all riled up and started farting and convulsing, and foaming at the mouth with insults. Why does it rile you up to be reminded that "Theory" is based on "Theo"? Maybe if you didn't worship the LORDs definition in vain, you would have known what the source of Theory is.

        Because you're an idiot. The etymology of a word doesn't have anything to do with it having some sort of metaphysical implication towards the existence or non existence of God.
        Scientific theories do not require the existence or non existence of God you moron.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Scientific theories do not require the existence or non existence of God
          That depends on your definition of God. I have a feeling that you don't have the correct definition of God, which is why you are so angry when someone tells you that God is the source of Theory.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, the definition I'm using is the one that matter with respect to theism: A personal conscious diety which created reality and governs it. That's the definition which matters for theism.
            If you want to claim an impersonal force like a infinite field of energy, or logic, or whatever is the God that's fine, but it isn't theism. A world where that's true has no different implications towards the human condition or how to structure our lives as just a standard atheist position.
            We are arguing about the existence of a personal creator diety. Not pantheism or "God is an eternal vector field bro!" or whatever.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, actually it's you who have the incorrect definition

            nana nana na-na!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >crossword puzzle shitposting
        consneed

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    does god exist or not? for fricks sake i cant take this shit anymore i just want to rope without burning in hell for eternity

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Believers, what convinced you there is a god?
    I saw the Light.
    >And then what made you convinced whichever religion you ended up choosing was the right one?
    The Light
    >Looking for stories on how you came to faith.
    See the Light.

    [...]

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=Light
      https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=Long&q1=Light
      us atheists don't believe in science, we're non-believers

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    See the function of logic is to generate valid truth values from a set of inputs.

    Too easy.
    Logic has functions, operations. An end goal even, in truth.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Even 1/0 = Error, so Logic is Shit.

      [...]

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >0

        lol
        lmao even

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        square root of -1 equals error too

        >0

        lol
        lmao even

        you cucks are imaginaries

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Apophaticism and realizing there's no real reason why an immortal 12d meta-conciousness outside of time should make sense to me. That it makes more sense that it doesn't.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    itt morons with brains too small to into complex numbers

    ?si=7vAtZbqbwfIfQdjr

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I was cucked with imaginaries but imaginary logic is imaginary which is shit to us atheists.

      Your logic is shit exposed by its errors. Tangent of ninety degrees anyone?

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I saw the Skydaddy in the sky. I was convinced by Clouds in the sky.

    Skydaddy Religion is the One True Religion (see your pic).

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >what convinced you there is a god?
    Cybernetics, embedding and bitcoin's existence.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >what made you convinced whichever religion you ended up choosing was the right one?
    Y2K, and its connection to the K/T event.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    numbers aren't real

    only things I can put in my mouth are real because I am a little baby

    abloobloo

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >numbers aren't real
      numbers "are" in your brain.
      numbers are a mistake of perceiving "similar" as "identical",
      A mistake, your brain exaptated, in order to analyse the fractal nature of the universe.

      numbers are heuristics. Suboptimal brain crutches. Cheap, quick and dirty.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        hilarious
        numbers aren't real, but fractals are the nature of reality
        dude "your brain" is a mistake, a cheap heuristic

        protip, ideas are real
        you know, I didn't even bring up numbers
        you did, after I mentioned functions

        well you don't even need numbers to express a function, functionally, for reasons

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >numbers aren't real, but fractals are the nature of reality
          Something outside you perceive as "fractals" via your brain toolkit's thingamabob you perceive as "numbers". Suddenly, it turns out that math is not even a homogenous phenomenon.

          >hilarious
          Yes, it is hilarious, that you just accidentally stumbled upon the key concept, you moron had neglected: the neglect itself.

          >protip, ideas are real
          Risk vs uncertainty, capiche?

          >"your brain" is a mistake, a cheap heuristic
          As is yours, moron. Brain is modular.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

          But the moron keeps squacking something about "ideas" that he can clearly know and perceive, yes-yes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Truth is real too.

            It's a lot more real than your "brain" is.

            >you perceive as "numbers"
            You don't perceive numbers. They are rational.

            You conceive them. They impregnate your mind with their frequencies.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >truth is real
            Truth is a human concept to describe the concrete, factual and real aspect of reality. It's a description not a thing in-itself

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Truth is real too.
            translation: "non-detection of errors is real"

            Doesn't mean that there were no errors.
            Doesn't mean that errors cannot be helpful.

            >Truth
            And suddenly it turns out that moron neglected Sextus Empiricus.
            "Truth" (an object) and "being true" are 2 different things.
            You do not need some magical ectoplasmic thingamabob "Truth" for thing to be true.

            >You don't perceive numbers.
            Correct. Numbers are an ERROR of perception. Mistaking "similar" for "identical", while having the luxury of not-dying via environmental culling.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            dude you don't need this so called "truth" for things to be true

            what the frick do you mean "is that true though"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >what the frick do you mean "is that true though"

            1. It is true, that there's no such thing as truth.
            2. Operation completed successfully, no external object X found.

            Suddenly, it turns out, that "truth" is not a homogeneous phenomenon either.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It is true, that there's no such thing as truth.
            You just contradicted yourself.
            Like, this is literally A=/=A tier.

            Protip, putting numbers next to a sentence doesn't make it a valid logical formulation.

            Mindbroken by the reality of truth.
            Sad, very sad. Many such cases.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Like, this is literally A=/=A tier.
            God =/= God
            "Aristotle's Unmoved Mover" =/= "Semitic Desert Demon"

            >You just contradicted yourself.
            You have 2-digit IQ, congrats.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Truth is a grandiose abstraction because it’s not coextensive to its opposite. Same with the materialists’ “reality”.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A is not A.
    AND
    A is A.

    ERGO
    If you don't respond to this post your mother will die in her sleep tonight.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why does it seem like all arguments in favor of God are either arguments from incredulity or just asserting that someone is eiher necessary or impossible when it isn't actually necessary or impossible?
    For example the following are common statements that theists say which are simply not true or not logically necessary but they just assert them as if they are:
    >"God not existing implies a contradiction"
    No it doesn't
    >"structure or "design" can't come from randomness"
    Yes it can
    >"something can't come from nothing"
    Yes it can.
    Etc

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why is it so easy to get fedoras to argue that truth isn't real?

    It's like they have no self awareness at all.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Truth being real does not require nor imply personal god. This is again what I'm talking about in the previous post. Reality exists and there are statements about reality which are true or not true. This not logically necessitate nor logically imply that a conscious personal God exists.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So not everything that is real is material. Got it. There is in fact, objective truth.
        Now, what is it that gives truth it's objectivity?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >So not everything that is real is material
          That may or may not be true, but it's not what I said.
          Non material things being real also do not necessitate a personal God being real. There can be eternal platonic laws of nature, that does not require a personal God and there still is no logical necessity for one.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If there are laws, doesn't that suggest they have some sort of function?

            Don't laws have an author, an authority behind them?

            If reality is governed by a set of laws, as is commonly suggested, then it would follow that the governor who laid down these laws is in a sense even more real than reality. Hyper real even, something that can create reality as we know it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again, exactly what I just said you theists always do.
            No, structure or function do not logically require nor necessitate a personal god. You simply going "something had to have created those laws!" Isn't true. There is no necessity of a personal god.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But function is an emanation of design.

            And a design explicitly necessitates a designer. If these laws you speak of apply to the entire cosmos, suddenly a cosmic designer is invoked.

            You're just saying, "nuh uh it doesn't have to be that way for reasons". You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But function is an emanation of design.
            No it isn't. It just means there's a structure. Structures dont require designers. Designers create structured things but structured things don't require personal designers to exist.
            >You're just saying, "nuh uh it doesn't have to be that way for reasons". You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
            Because it's true. You just screaming "DESIGNS REQUIRE DESIGNERS" or "LAWS NEED LAWMAKERS" is just you making a false implication.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Structure and function are not equivalent.
            Besides, you're missing the point.

            The fact that design exists at all as a part of reality means there must be a source for this design.

            Well when talking about "design" we implicitly attribute agency to some entity, by definition.

            This agent is the source of design in reality, the designer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Things about the Designer we can’t assume
            >wants worship
            >prescribes a moral code (rather than designing us able to work that out for ourselves)
            >that we can know its mind
            >created an evil guy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No.
            Designer is like me, but bigger and stronger, and lives in the sky and is my daddy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Structure and function are not equivalent.
            When you say function, you're talking about its function inside a structure. There's no other definition of function that's relevant in this conversation.
            >when we talk about design we implicitly attribute agency
            No, we don't. You simply claiming that this is logically necessary doesn't mean anything.
            Again, you simply claiming that structures require designers isn't true and doesn't mean anything. Designers create structures. Structures don't require designers to exist

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >When you say function, you're talking about its function

            Nope.

            Would an atheist grant that telos (construed in such a way that god trivially follows from granting it) exist?

            >Would fedora grant the truth is real of you proved it?

            No, they wouldn't. Just look at this thread.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Nope
            What do you mean "nope" you idiot? That's exactly what a function is.
            Give your definition of function that isn't equivalent to "its process within a system or structure". That's what a function/algorithm is, in contrast with a data structure.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Functions aren't necessarily related to structures.

            What is the function of a function? Do you realize your formatting makes very little sense?

            Call me an idiot again, it makes you look smart.

            >function/algorithm is, in contrast with a data structure

            Oh I see your problem. You think you can reduce a word like function to a single particular instance (math), because it's easier than contenting with the myriad expressions of function.

            "Data structure." Haha, very cute. Tell me more about these information buildings.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Functions are algorithms on data structures. Functions are verbs and data structures are nouns.
            You didn't answer the question. Give a definition of function, especially one pertinent to the earlier conversation, which isn't equivalent to the one I'm using.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Give a definition of function

            Do the thing you already did though.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No you haven't done this. You just said "function is an emanation of design" or something which isn't a definition. Otherwise, you've been using function in the exact same way I have, while just pretending that this logically requires a personal god which it doesn't

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Statements are true, or they are false.

            They don't create truth and falsehood out of thin air when formulated, true and false are preexisting universal categories that novel statements naturally sort themselves into based on their content.

            Because truth exists independently of our own ideas and subjective bias.

            Unless of course the statement is constructed so as to have no truth value.

            If this were not true, then there would be no actual agreement possible between two different people. Which is how fedoras act, because they don't believe in a universal truth that doesn't correspond to their own beliefs.

            >nuh uh
            One of the functions of a hand is to grasp.

            One of the functions of logic is to determine what is true.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >reality exists
        Where? In some bullshit Platonic realm along with goodness, beauty and perfectionment? Have you seen it? Does it fit in a breadbox?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't see this before sorry.
          Reality exists and were sitting in it now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      True is a logical value. That adjective is all I need. Abstracting it doesn’t edify anything.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    'Truth' is a word humans made-up
    How is this at all mysterious?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      All words are words humans made up.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not the Bible

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The bible is a work of fiction like all other religious texts
          This has nothing to do with language being a construction of humans.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No Christian would grant that words are made-up by humans.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Christians claim that languages aren't created by humans
            Extremely sad group of people. The level of bullshit they tie themselves up with to desperately cling to their denial of death

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Have you skipped the Tower of Babel part???

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The truth is make believe.
      Because words exist.

      Fedora logic does not real.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People who think there are successful arguments for God are always such huge fricking morons

    Like, how do you make sense of there being atheists? You think they've just not heard the argument?
    Or do you suppose some sort of conspiracy where they they are just lying about not being persuaded?
    Maybe God just determined for Atheists to be too stupid to understand Thomism

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How can your something be true if there are people who say it isn't?

      That's not how truth works. Truth is whatever everyone agrees on, obviously.

      If not everyone agrees, it is not true.
      Checkmate, theists.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I used to be a big time atheist growing up. It eventually led me to nihilism. My thought process was that the universe just is. There likely instead a reason for it, it just exists.

    The older I got though, the more I began to feel like there might be more to our world. The universes existence is pretty incredible in and of itself. There was nothing, then nothing became something seemingly by itself. The fact that we're here to actually witness it is even crazier. The universe is incredibly hostile to life and all the things that had to happen for us to be able to exist is so mathematically improbable that by all accounts we shouldn't be here. So many things could have gone wrong, but here we are.

    I'm 30 now, my parents are old and I've been dealing with derealization that's been causing existential questions. Ill be honest and say that life for me would be far easier if i truly believed that there was a god so maybe its all cope. But it feels like you can flip a coin on the purpose of the world.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I used to be a big time atheist growing up. It eventually led me to nihilism. My thought process was that the universe just is. There likely instead a reason for it, it just exists.
      Strange, I became more nihilistic after learning we are but pets and playthings for inhuman, supernatural creatures that wish to make servants of us all.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I guess what is more interesting is to deny correspondence theory of truth
    There being like magic links between a proposition, "there is coffee in my cup" (made up words) and my coffee cup, it's nonsense.

    I'm just a human trained in the use of English language
    No metaphysically connection exist between my words and my cup. No fact-checker going like: That's a TRUE™ proposition
    Just words.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's hilarious to think you can reduce the existence of truth to an arbitrary string of letters.

      There's more to logic than words, dingus.

      This thread is proof that a fedora will never argue in good faith.

      Because they do not accept that truth is objectively real and can be shared by two different parties, this precludes them from treating the subject with any respect or attempt at coherence.

      If you don't accept that truth is real, you can't be convinced of literally anything and the entire discussion has no point. What a joke.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Except I did say truth statements are real and very clearly showed why this does not require there being a personal God. You're the one arguing in bad faith here.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Is truth objectively real or not?

          Independent of any so-called "statement".

          Because if it isn't the entire conversation is a complete waste of time and we will never be able to agree on anything at all.

          The ONLY reason you are quibbling and trying to sidestep this by qqing about muh "words" is because you grasp the implications implied by truth being real.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >we will never be able to agree on anything at all.
            This seems to perfectly describe what we see happening in reality all the time, btw

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A is A.

            The law of identity holds regardless of what you believe, everywhere, and it always has held since the beginning of time. This is not complicated.

            Admit truth is real or leave the thread. There is no point in trying to convince someone that something is true if they pretend truth isn't objectively real.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Look into what people who disagree with you could say about this. Nominalism is a well-founded philosophic tradition with tons of literature behind it.
            I'm an anti-realist about this stuff. I'm not gonna go like, yup it's REAL (whatever that's supposed to mean), just because you're grandstanding.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If it weren't real, I wouldn't be able to express it.

            But it is real, so I can. You can express true things and false things, because they are categories that apply to reality.

            >anti-realist
            Ideas are real. They have a tangible effect on the world. Denying this is pure cope, sophistry. You would only do this if *for some reason* the implications derived were personally uncomfortable for you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ideas do not exist outside of your conception of them in your head. They are mental constructs.
            They do not exist in some esotec platonic magic place floating around with forms & numbers

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Ideas do not exist outside of your conception of them in your head
            "your head" is an idea

            Ideas as a matter of fact do exist independently of your mind. That's how two different people working independently can come to the same conclusion.

            They aren't produced by the brain, each one being totally unique. They are discovered.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Ideas as a matter of fact do exist independently of your mind
            lol, no
            Obviously I disagree. Being a nominalist and all.
            Can you think of another explanation how people independently could come to the same conclusion?

            Could it have something to do with them both being human, maybe even trained in the use of the same language. Inhabiting reality together, and encountering similar sorts of problems?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Can you think of another explanation how people independently could come to the same conclusion

            Yeah. Truth is objective, which means two different people can arrive there on their own. Objectivity allows you to reconcile two different subjects, this is basic shit. Logic is like a compass, truth is like magnetism.

            A compass doesn't create magnetism, instead it allows two different people on different points to reach the same polar destination by going north.

            Because compasses point north, objectively. That's their function, and they do it regardless of your subjective position. In the same way, logic points to truth.

            It doesn't manufacture it, like how you're suggesting.

            >Could it have something to do with them both being human, maybe even trained in the use of the same language. Inhabiting reality together, and encountering similar sorts of problems?

            So because their lives are subjectively similar they just coincidentally happen to randomly think the same thing. There's no connection there, no truth that informs their though process.

            Just blind luck.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You've clearly not even begun to look into people who disagree with you.
            I don't want to talk to you about this, if you are going to be so difficult. Sort yourself out.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >they just coincidentally happen to randomly think the same thing
            Is this what nominalists think happens? No.

            Then why are you presenting it as if it was their/my position?
            WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL? Yourself? There's no audience to win over here

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not my fault youre not presenting your position in a coherent way. Maybe the position itself is incoherent, and it's not your fault either.

            So if it's not a coincidence that two people can arrive at the same conclusion, because truth is objectively real and exists independently of our individual efforts.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again, who are you trying to fool? Do you think I'm that insecure about my beliefs
            Is the claim now that nominalism is incoherent..

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A nominalist in your vein would say that a universal force like electromagnetism doesn't actually exist, just the label of "electromagnetism" we use to describe phenomenon.

            But that's stupid because magnets work.
            The truth is actually more real than magnetism.

            Magnetism changes in strength and polarity depending on your position. Which means sometimes a compass can mislead you. Even though you can use magnetism as a measure that is *more* objective than your own, it isn't *completely* objective in the same way an ideal is.

            Truth isn't like that. It's absolute, doesn't change or shift depending on time or place. That's why the compass is an imperfect analogy for logic.

            Logic is actually more reliable than the compass. Far more.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >truth is actually more real than magnetism
            very coherent sentence, bro

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Truth isn't real, man.

            *hits crackpipe*

            They just made it all up.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How does it make sense for magnets to be less real than truth? Either it's real or it's not.
            It's not like magnets are "almost real".
            I view real and unreal as a true dichotomy. I think you would agree.

            You also think some true statements are more true than others? Of course you don't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How does it make sense for magnets to be less real than truth?

            All I said was that magnetic fields are in constant flux and switch polarities all the time. Truth doesn't act like that, which means it's more objective relative to magnetism.

            Magnetism is real. Truth is real. These are not controversial statements to anyone who isn't a fedora tipping neckbeard.

            Which is why am anti-realist about truth, but not magnets.
            How is this at all mysterious to you?

            That's a ridiculous double standard and you know it.

            There's no reason at all to abandon nominalism when it comes to magnetism, and only argue it applies to truth because God being real hurts your feefees.

            That's the textbook definition of special pleading. Either "magnetism" and "truth" are both just words with no connection to reality, or they are both real and we just use words to talk about them.

            Can't have it both ways.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Magnetism is real. Truth is real.
            Truth is more real, though :^)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, it is.

            People have been talking about it, treating it as being completely self evident, for millenia before magnetism was ever discovered.

            The entire reason you accept magnetism as being real is because it's true. Truth defines reality as you know it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That's a ridiculous double standard and you know it.
            No, I do not know that.
            Again, who are you trying too fool? You're talking to me.

            Nominalism is the philosophical view that abstract concepts, general terms, or universals have no independent existence but exist only as words.
            Magnets exist in the same mundane way my cup does.
            There's no double standard.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, who are you trying too fool?
            There you go again, repeating yourself.

            The same thing I said about it before applies. In fact, it leads me to believe that YOU are the one trying to fool people.

            Magnetism is an abstract concept we use to describe sensory phenomenon. "Cup" is an abstract concept too.
            Objects are abstract concepts that exist only in your mind.

            Reality is more contiguious than that, what you experience is a result of your sensory faculties breaking down raw data inputs into packets that you're able to process.

            We associate certain packets with words like "cup" and "magnet".

            Logic in contrast doesn't rely on sensory perception.
            That's why you can be sure that the truth is real, even if the cup you percieve could hypothetically be illusory.

            You have this shit completely backwards. The things that you can actually have certainty of you deny, and the things you can't really be certain of you pretend really are certain.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"Cup" is an abstract concept too.
            Do I agree with that? Of course not. My position entails the denial of abstract concepts.

            Can you guess what I would say "cup" is?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't matter what you agree with.
            All that matters is the truth.

            What you call a "cup" and the thing in itself are two different animals. The first is a mental category you have created to make sense of your sensory input. It is not perfect.

            That kind of mental category is by definition abstracted.

            In contrast, truth is something you don't need your sensory faculties to discover.
            It is instead discoverable through reason.

            Which is why it's actually less abstracted than "cup" is.

            Reason is more perfect than your senses, it has direct access to truth whereas your senses only have access to the broader world in a way that is mediated by the flawed processes necessarily involved with parsing the raw sensory input.

            You lose a great deal of information between the steps involved with generating a perceptual field from the output of your sensory organs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Alright, you couldn't guess. My view is that "cup", is a word.
            This is so silly, acting like nominalism is an untenable position to hold.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            so "cups" aren't real
            just like "truth" isn't real

            if nominalism means magnetism and cups aren't real, I don't see why you think it's somehow tenable

            Are you trying to argue that only words are truly real? That reality itself only exists as a manifestation of Logos? Now that would be a hot take, and at least it would be coherent.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you are this clueless about what people who have other views than you believe, there's really no point talking
            too much work. I can't be assed.

            I think you're just dishonest, though, and putting on a show

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            more projection

            >truth is just a word man, nothing more
            >cup is just a word man, nothing more

            if cup is just a word, you're going to have a hard time explaining how you can drink out of a word
            words don't really carry much water on their own

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Words translate to concepts you dingus. They are simple tags we put on things to better differentiate and define them.
            A cup is how we decribed any small-sized object with a hollow interior and an upside opening for us to pour liquid and drink from. We came up with cups to answer for the problematic of holding a liquid and consume it in the same recipient.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            cool non-sequitur

            cups are clearly real, despite the abstract object we call "cups" being a mental category

            in the same way, truth is clearly real
            more so even, because it's immediately available to us in a way that mere objects of perception aren't because of our ability to engage in pure reason

            you can't say "truth is just a word, nothing more"
            "cup" is just a word, truth transcends language in it's immediate self evidence

            the truth is more real than any "cup" you've ever seen or touched, because those very sensory functions are fundamentally flawed and do not represent the thing in itself but rather an image of it

            meanwhile, truth is just chilling over here just being realized fully in the mind as part of it's nature without any need for the sense organs to function whatsoever

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Truth is just how we describe reality beyond our flawed perception of it. You name it "Truth" with a big T like it's some mystic nonsense but it's just concrete reality.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            truth isn't human centric, it exists independently of our evaluation

            people have this weird subjectivity bias when it comes to these topics, makes it hard to think in terms of universality

            it's not just our way of describing things, it's true whether or not we describe it that way

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >universality
            Ah yes "universals' you're a platonistic realist alright, working with vagueness.
            Nominalism needs no such vagueness, we are of the concrete.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            true things are true no matter where you are in the universe

            that's why they're universally true

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. That seems to be an appropriate use of the word 'true'.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >cups are clearly real, despite the abstract object we call "cups" being a mental category
            Yes. The thing in your hand, the cup, is real. Despite "cup" merely being a made-up word used by humans trained in the use of English language
            No spooky metaphysics necessary. No abstract 'form of the cup' floating around in aetherspace, or the mind of god, or whatever you think is going on

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you clearly aren't getting the picture here
            this is what happens when you rely on strawmen

            I'm not talking about "forms" like Plato does.

            The thing you call a cup is really just a phantasm of your sensory nervous system. It's an imperfect image of the thing in itself, derived from only what you are capable of percieving.

            This is not how truth works. You don't use your senses to discern only part of it, you use reason to fully realize it. You engage directly with truth in a way you literally cannot with cups, which is why we can have absolute certainty about it.

            Which is why truth is "more real" than a cup. The thing you call a cup is really just a mental category derived from your perceptual field.

            >"cup" merely being a made-up word
            The fact it's a word is completely irrelevant to my argument. Completely.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Alright. I'm not a mind reader.
            You're the one that think truth has a "real ontology", that it's something that REALLY exist. You'd have to tell me more about that.

            Nobody is claiming the cup "out there" is the same as the cup in your mind.
            Don't really understand why you are telling me this. Sound compatible with nominalism?
            Unless the stuff about phantasms is more literal than I suppose. I don't know what a phantasm is.

            Stuff about absolute certainty sounds confused. I know all kinds of true things, that I'm not absolutely certain about.

            >You engage directly with truth
            That's an assertion, and a bit of a word salad. One which I think is false.
            Follows from my position that I don't think truth is "a thing", not something to be engage with.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Truth isn't like that. It's absolute, doesn't change or shift depending on time or place
            Truth is a word. Nothing more, nothing less.
            If you want to tell me what you think is a proper or improper use case, you can do that.

            But I pretty much agree with this one, that's also how I use the word.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Truth is a word. Nothing more
            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            "Dude magnetism is just a word, brooo. Magnets don't actually point true north, see?"

            You will note there is a significant difference between TRUE north and magnetic north.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Which is why am anti-realist about truth, but not magnets.
            How is this at all mysterious to you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If it weren't real, I wouldn't be able to express it.
            lol, what's the argument for this? Why should we accept that? Cuz you say so????
            Would a nominalist agree with that? Of course not, then they wouldn't be nominalists.

            Stay silly!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Would someone who is wrong agree with the truth?
            If they did, they wouldn't be wrong.

            I am smug.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You've not provided any reason for me to think it's true

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The entire question is: is truth real?

            And you are saying you have no reason to think that's true.

            The lack of perspective on display ITT is embarrassing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is abscence real? Is blue real? Is stupidity real? Is Nothing real? Are unicorns real? Is Russell's teapot real?
            Realists like you should say yes to all of those things, right? They're ideas from the realm of forms afterall, right?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing is in fact, real. Yes.
            Just like something is, and everything is.
            Nothing is discrete, and part of reality.

            Emptiness and form are intrinsically connected.

            Russels teapot is a real idea, regardless of any orbital porcelain. Because ideas are completely real in themselves.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But it is real
            nice argument, bro

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, truth exists with respect to a statement and there are statements which don't have a truth value.

            Statements are true, or they are false.

            They don't create truth and falsehood out of thin air when formulated, true and false are preexisting universal categories that novel statements naturally sort themselves into based on their content.

            Because truth exists independently of our own ideas and subjective bias.

            Unless of course the statement is constructed so as to have no truth value.

            If this were not true, then there would be no actual agreement possible between two different people. Which is how fedoras act, because they don't believe in a universal truth that doesn't correspond to their own beliefs.

            >nuh uh
            One of the functions of a hand is to grasp.

            One of the functions of logic is to determine what is true.

            There are statements which are true that are universal. They are true independently of our biases. This does not require or imply a personal creator diety.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >truth exists with respect to a statement
            No, statements exist with respect to truth.

            Can you give me an example of a statement without a truth value? Because I can, if we use a binary logic system. But if we move up to trinary these statements actually do have truth value.

            >This does not require or imply a personal creator diety.
            The more often you have to repeat this, the more it sounds like cope. It's like you're trying to reassure yourself.

            If truth being real does not require God, the onus is on you to explain how it is objective and exists in the first place.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No, statements exist with respect to truth
            Nope. The other way around.
            >The more often you have to repeat this, the more it sounds like cope. It's like you're trying to reassure yourself.
            Again, projection. You're trying to claim that a personal creator diety is required for logic to exist. It isn't and there is no argument you have or could make that shows such a thing is necessary.
            Truth being real does not require a personal creator diety. Natural forces or laws do not require a personal creator diety. You have, this entire thread, done exactly what I said in my first post: you've simply asserted things as being true or said that some things necessarily imply other things when they don't.

            God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary

            You already said this and it wasn't true the first time.

            >God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary
            Thread ended here and atheists have no argument

            Gods non-existence isn't an impossibility. Try again.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Statements are either true or false.
            Truth is not determined by a statement.

            That's why you have it backwards. Truth is not a product, it doesn't exist "with respect" to whatever arbitrary thing you say.

            Simply saying something doesn't make it true.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There is no need to assert the existence of a personal creator diety as a cause or necessary a priori for any law of nature or law of logic. God as you are arguing for does not exist. There is no omniscient conscious personal diety that created reality. The reality itself is the "god" and it isn't a conscious personal diety but rather just the unconscious eternal laws of nature.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Consciousness is real too.
            Why wouldn't reality be conscious?

            You're real, and you are presumably conscious. Since this part of reality is conscious, why would you assume the rest of it couldn't be?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why wouldn't reality be conscious?
            How about you provide a reason why we should think "reality be conscious" (whatever that's supposed to mean)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I already did.

            You are real.
            You are conscious.
            You can't meaningfully differentiate between real things and reality itself.

            It follows that reality itself is conscious.

            Alright. I'm not a mind reader.
            You're the one that think truth has a "real ontology", that it's something that REALLY exist. You'd have to tell me more about that.

            Nobody is claiming the cup "out there" is the same as the cup in your mind.
            Don't really understand why you are telling me this. Sound compatible with nominalism?
            Unless the stuff about phantasms is more literal than I suppose. I don't know what a phantasm is.

            Stuff about absolute certainty sounds confused. I know all kinds of true things, that I'm not absolutely certain about.

            >You engage directly with truth
            That's an assertion, and a bit of a word salad. One which I think is false.
            Follows from my position that I don't think truth is "a thing", not something to be engage with.

            It sounds to me like you identified as a nominalist first, and then decided what you hold to be true second based on that sense of identity.

            That's kind of the way you have been talking about the truth ITT.

            But it's a terrible way to reason.

            >One which I think is false.
            You know the truth once you learn it, engagement and conception generally follow one another.

            You engage with cups vicariously, through your senses. You don't engage with the thing in itself.

            Whereas you engage with truth directly, through reason. Once you know the truth about a given thing, that's all she wrote. It has been fully realized.

            Truth is that thing in itself already. Just because we have a convenient word to use for it doesn't mean there's nothing else there. You can't identify something with it's name.

            You are more than the sum of a few letters or syllables. Just like you are more than a name, the full truth is more than we are able to comprehend, describe, or label.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It just sounds so dumb.
            Tell me if I'm misrepresenting you.

            >some things are conscious
            >therefor, all things are conscious
            ???

            What kind of inference is that?!
            Nonsense. Doesn't follow.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He's staring into the abyss.... It's obviously looking back.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You can't meaningfully differentiate between real things and reality itself.

            It really is that simple.

            You form a contiguous whole with reality. The appearance of separation between you and the environment is an illusion created by your sense perception and the cognitive frameworks attached to it, it's a kind of delusion to see yourself as intrinsically separate and disconnected from everything else.

            Everything you can say about yourself is also true of reality. Because there's no meaningful separation between them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Can you think of some ways I could say a human brain is different from a rock?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're making the mistake of thinking about discrete things that *to you* appear to be different, when reality is actually a unified whole.

            Reality contains both what you call rocks and humans.

            >human brains
            here's that old delusion that consciousness is a product of neurological activity

            it's not, and that is a profoundly self centered way of thinking about phenomenology

            pure subjectivity, what a waste

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't get it, you think rocks are conscious or not?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just based on logic and common sense, I am inclined to assume that reality as a whole is indeed conscious. If it weren't, consciousness of the phenomenal kind we are familiar with would not be possible in the first place.

            Neural activity doesn't produce consciousness, it allows us to experience the contents of consciousness that already exist. At least that's how it appears to us, it's totally possible that rocks have rock experiences to that would be totally alien and impossible to describe for a person because they don't have neural activity like we do.

            It doesn't make sense to hyperfocus on single things like rocks and humans when the subject is universal in scale. Especially when these things really are just mental categories produced by a subjective mode of perception.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bro people lose consciousness. Philosophy is such a joke.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So what?

            Does that mean consciousness itself just stops existing? Do other people lose consciousness when you die?

            No of course not, consciousness itself continues when you die because it is not a product of your neurological activity. It's a natural phenomenon, intrinsic to reality itself.

            It's bigger than you, it's bigger than every human. To assume only certain kinds of life are capable of consciousness is ridiculous, and scientists have already started moving beyond this outmoded and delimiting schema.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01144-y

            >
            A declaration signed by dozens of scientists says there is ‘a realistic possibility’ for elements of consciousness in reptiles, insects and molluscs.

            Philosophy is not a joke, you just don't fricking get it. Probably because of the way you were educated TBQH.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The mass of the sun is either infinite or zero, because those are the simplest numbers. (this is a fun example, because people actually said this)
            Wow, now I'm doing astronomy like a philosopher.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Does that mean consciousness itself just stops existing?
            For that person, temporarily yes. If they are sufficiently braindead or dead then permanently.
            Elements of consciousness in animals even lower ones is not the same as rocks being conscious. Those animals have living and firing nervous systems.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you were wrong about all of this.
            How could you go about figuring it out? Like, is there some activity you could do?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No of course not, consciousness itself continues when you die because it is not a product of your neurological activity.
            Dumbass everything you put into your body that affects your neuron firing affects your consciousness. If you drain your body of salt which is the “fuel” for your nerve impulses you will start to lose consciousness and shut down.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >your consciousness

            There you go again, trying to treat yourself as if you're separate from the rest of reality.

            It's not yours, you're just experiencing it.

            If you were wrong about all of this.
            How could you go about figuring it out? Like, is there some activity you could do?

            It's called deduction.

            >Does that mean consciousness itself just stops existing?
            For that person, temporarily yes. If they are sufficiently braindead or dead then permanently.
            Elements of consciousness in animals even lower ones is not the same as rocks being conscious. Those animals have living and firing nervous systems.

            You need to put the idea that consciousness is the product of physical systems behind you. There is absolutely no support for it.

            It's not physical in the way we describe physical things. Maybe non-physical isn't a great way of describing it, but it's better than the inverse.

            Transcendental things like consciousness aren't the product of any particular physical system.

            Would you say that a computer of sufficient power is capable of consciousness? If so, would that phenomenon be the result of wires and circuits, or would it be a sufficiently complex system naturally tapping into a phenomenal field that already exists?

            Computers would probably be able to access parts of this field that are inaccessible to us. As we would access frequencies they aren't capable of.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anon everything we’ve learned about brain and consciousness gives us a clearer picture of how consciousness comes from the brain.
            We have the most complex objects in the known universe behind our eyes and that’s why you can smell the what’s in the air around you while youre shitposting on IQfy and can barely do math

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >consciousness comes from the brain

            lmao
            dude radios are responsible for radio waves, because they have receivers

            this is how you're arguing, but you don't see the preposterous double standards at play because of materialist indoctrination at all levels of the public education system.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If consciousness was not tied to your brain then you would never be unconscious.
            If you left your house enough to be treated by the outside world you might become aware that your primary and only location is the one your body is in

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why would you lose consciousness or have it altered based on what is or isn’t flowing through your nervous system if it wasn’t the source of consciousness. Oh it’s a radio? Then why would anyone ever experience unconsciousness ever?
            You would just be back in the studio until it reboots.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Then why would anyone ever experience unconsciousness ever?
            I hear tale that you don't have experiences of unconsciousness. Kind of by definition.

            Does a radio pick up frequencies and decode them when it is broken? Nope.

            But those signals are still being propagated through the entire universe anyways.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I hear tale that you don't have experiences of unconsciousness. Kind of by definition.
            This is why bougie philosophers thought like you. Tugging their pud in a powdered wig in a dusty room. How is it even possible that you and no one you know has ever been unconscious?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dude, what?
            Have you ever been in a fight? I have taken serious blows that would have killed lesser men, and not even lapsed in consciousness.

            Thick skull, robust and archaic features. You wouldn't get it. Occipital bun havers represent.

            You somehow think that because sometimes people die that this means suddenly consciousness stops existing. That's not how it works, because you are not the ultimate source of consciousness. Get some perspective.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >pseud tries to get big and pretends he’s immune to being knocked out
            You must be 18 and over to post on this board

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you are not the ultimate source of consciousness
            wow, more assertions

            My theory perfectly predicts and explains why your consciousness goes funny if I bonk you on the head?
            How do you explain it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Here’s the thing maaaan you’re like a radio station or somethin man, and your brains like your car radio….but like if you break your radio you still exist because you’re the radio signal itself maan.
            Wait what? People lose consciousness so that doesn’t make sense?
            Well I’ve never been knocked out bro, I’ve been in like so many fights it’s actually impossible for me to lose consciousness

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you still exist because you’re the radio signal itself maan

            cool strawman
            this is how fedoras act when they get BTFO

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your radio analogy doesn’t make any sense. Like I just said if we’re talking radio signals and obviously better analogy would be an RC vehicle or toy. If the signal actually were coming from the outside damage to the vehicle (brain) wouldn’t actually alter the signal in any way. If your consciousness is the signal and your brain and body are externally controlled by the signal, which is your actual conscious self in this scenario..
            How many times do I need to explain this to you?
            Also yeah bud you are absolutely afraid to die and have an aversion to the fact that you’re stuck in your body and will die with it. It’s not like that’s rare.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, but seriously, why does "your consciousness" go funny if you're bonked on the head?
            Brain IS consciousness -theory, it perfectly explains and predicts this

            Reality IS consciousness -theory, this seems entirely unexpected

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            dude why does your radio signal go funny if you drop it
            stop pretending to be moronic and shitting up this thread to bump limit so it goes away

            that is obviously why you keep posting this inane pedantic nonsense
            >my radio IS the source of radio waves

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about! in this post

            I think people who have no knowledge of broadcasting, electronics or radio waves, etc. Would be perfectly rational in believing the source of the music broke, when the radio is smashed.
            They would be wrong. But it's not like they have made some mental mistake.

            It's precisely because we know how radio transmissions work, that we shouldn't believe the radio to be the source of the music.

            We don't know about know about "braincasting", "soultronics" and "brain waves (the spooky kind)", etc
            Which is why I assert that people doing the brain -> radio move, they are making a mistake.
            It's blatantly ad hoc, not a good explanation.

            How are radio signals at all analogous to whatever the brain and spooky universal consciousness is doing??? (sorry, I don't know what to call your theory)

            We know about radio signals -> Which is why it's weird to think the radio signals go funny when we drop the radio
            We DON'T know about soul signals -> Which is why it's perfectly reasonable to think the soul goes funny, when the brain is smashed

            Some weird kind of question begging, where to analogy only works by accepting the point it's trying to argue.
            That there in fact is such a thing as soul signals being sent to the brain.
            How do you not realize this?
            Or, like, do you disagree with what I'm saying?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >We DON'T know about soul signals
            Maybe you don't.

            Try not to think about it in terms of "soul" or individual identity, and more in terms of reality taken as a unified whole.

            I really want to reiterate the point that cognitively separating yourself from the environment priveliges subjectivity without warrant. That's a delusion, you and your environment are intrinsically connected and on a universal scale there really is no difference there.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I can see why psychologists analyze this place lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No actually you're the delusional one

            I need you to really stop thinking of your brain and consciousness as separate things
            I really want to reiterate the point that your brain IS consciousness, but just the brain. And not everything else. And not the sum of everything.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I need you to really stop thinking of your brain and consciousness as separate things

            I recognize that what I call the "brain" is really just an abstract label I've applied to a particular set of sensory inputs. I'm pretty sure it corresponds to something that really exists in my body, but I can't be 100% on that one because human perception is not perfect.

            Consciousness is not abstracted. It is immediately obvious to me by it's very nature, in a way similar to truth. When you engage with the contents of consciousness, you are engaging not with an abstraction but a phenomenon. The thing in itself, rather than a representation of it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >When you engage with the contents of consciousness, you are engaging not with an abstraction but a phenomenon. The thing in itself, rather than a representation of it.

            I mean, that's also true on my view.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They did a kind of bait and switch on you dude.

            By convincing you that the mental categories we call "physical objects" are naturally sufficient to describe ALL of reality and actually the primary source, while the phenomenon that impresses us with these images to begin with is somehow artificial and a secondary effect.

            Even though it's that phenomenon that left us with the impression of "physicality" in the first place.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Blatant mental disorder. Claiming you can’t be knocked unconscious and then going on a rant about your own skull structure…Jesus

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            skull mogged brainlet detected

            you will never have an impressive cranium

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not like a joke anon you blatantly are not well.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >mfw i can knock the entire universe out with 11 Heinekens
            >mfw I can’t drive through tunnels because I block the universe brain signals

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Deluded moron think he's running a deductive argument

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why don't you have a nice day to check if you're right?

            triggered fedoras are triggered

            the fedoras on this board really are the bottom of the barrel, every one is a certifiable midwit and gets hostile af whenever their autsim bubble is popped

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You don't got a deductive argument for your position

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You just tried to tell everyone it’s impossible for you to lose consciousness.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I only said have never been knocked unconscous in a fight, and this makes you seethe with anger. Because you're physically incapable, a sad excuse for a man who only seeks to tear down others because he can't pull himself up.

            You lost ITT. Deal with it.

            Get skull mogged, sub 1000 CC pinhead.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You’re doing the text version of losing an argument and spazzing instead of just accepting that what you’re saying doesn’t make sense.
            Getting knocked out in a fight specifically isn’t even the issue, the point is the fact that people lose consciousness at all ever and it’s directly because of an effect on their brain shows it’s actually coming from your brain and your consciousness isn’t actually an external signal controlling your brain and body from the outside
            That’s like if you had an RC car and the controllwr passed out if the battery died, it doesn’t make any sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            dude the fact that radios lose signal when they break and it's directly because of an effect on their reciever show's radio waves actually come from radios and not the background radiation of the universe

            I already addressed the question of people dying, and you just casually ignored everything I had to say because what you're doing is damage control.

            have fun being an illiterate hostile nitwit triggered by exremely basic arguments

            I'll just be over here, being objectively superior at formulating arguments and fricking your mom.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If your brain and body were the receiver instead of the source the damage to your brain wouldn’t affect your consciousness. Neither would lack of nutrients, dehydration, etc.
            Face it Tyler, it doesn’t make sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think people who have no knowledge of broadcasting, electronics or radio waves, etc. Would be perfectly rational in believing the source of the music broke, when the radio is smashed.
            They would be wrong. But it's not like they have made some mental mistake.

            It's precisely because we know how radio transmissions work, that we shouldn't believe the radio to be the source of the music.

            We don't know about know about "braincasting", "soultronics" and "brain waves (the spooky kind)", etc
            Which is why I assert that people doing the brain -> radio move, they are making a mistake.
            It's blatantly ad hoc, not a good explanation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I think people who have no knowledge of broadcasting, electronics or radio waves, etc. Would be perfectly rational in believing the source of the music broke, when the radio is smashed.

            I had the same thought just a minute ago. We agree, it would be easy for a caveman to assume a radio is producing the static noises by itself, seeing as he has no idea that radio waves permeate the air around him.

            In the same way, people who have been taught that materialism is the truth may simply not have the software needed to realize that consciousness doesn't confrom to the expectations of that naturalistic framework. They are like the caveman in this scenario.

            You’re still not addressing our points or questions because you know it doesn’t make sense that the signal gets damaged if the receiver gets damaged. And how much more sense it makes that the RC car actually has an onboard CPU that malfunctions when damaged or lacks charge

            >it doesn’t make sense that the signal gets damaged if the receiver gets damaged

            mindbroken bot-tier response
            when did I say that consciousness was "damaged"?

            I said your ability to access the contents of consciousness is impaired. Not that consciousness itself is somehow capable of being damaged by any means we have access to.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I said your ability to access the contents of consciousness is impaired.
            If your consciousness is an external signal then damaging the receiver wouldn’t affect the conscious signal at all. The signal is primary in that situation.
            If you think brain damage would just be your brain lacking the signal sensing ability then death would be the end too.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >people who disagree with me are cavemen
            Least smug idealist (or whatever your position is)

            Like, just explain how you know all this stuff. You're so great, I'm sure you can do it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I have caveman morphology, that's why.
            High cranial capacity.

            Did I not mention the occipital bun already ITT?

            That's not even my most distinguishing skull feature. My PFC is also cracked.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The highly disanalogous part now being how we can come to knowledge about radio signals, and how you come to know your position.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I already said it's not a perfect analogy.

            Consciousness is extremely meta and notoriously difficult to formulate.

            It's much, much easier to talk about telos and truth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What signal is the universe brain radio broadcasting on? What type of radiation? Why does nothing interfere with it or block it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why does nothing interfere with it or block it?

            Because not everything in reality conforms to your materialist expectations.

            Like truth. Nothing is capable of interfering or blocking it physically, and yet we are still capable of transmitting and recieving it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anon your model has less explanatory power and is less parsimonious than the device actually having an on board CPU and that being the source of the signal. You literally have to appeal to magic rules you made up to make your model work.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >your model has less explanatory power and is less parsimonious than the device actually having an on board CPU and that being the source of the signal

            how does a physical system create a non-physical product?

            That's not parsimonious. It would make infinitely more sense if the things we call "physical objects" were a product of a non-physical system instead.

            Because we don't have access to "physical" things. We only have the mental category of "physical things".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You’re claiming it’s non-physical. Anon are computer programs non-physical? Is an AI character non-physical? If it gains some sentience is it non-physical?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >computer programs non-physical

            Is the mental category you call "computer program" a physical object? Or is it a rational one?

            Physicality is a descriptive scheme we use to make sense of the particular contents of our perceptive field.
            A field, the nature of which to begin with is phenomenal. Not physical.

            Qualia do not have weight, mass, any of the properties we normally associate with so-called "physical objects".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A conscious piece of hardware might also have trouble grasping that it is in fact electricity running through circuits and not magic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Neural activity doesn't produce consciousness
            lol, what's the argument for this?

            Still, I tend to agree. Because I don't view consciousness as, a thing, one (1) thing.
            Consciousness is the brain, and what it does.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Consciousness is the brain, and what it does.
            No, that's untenable.

            The "brain" is a mental construct you use to describe your sense of body, experienced through phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenally self evident, that's what consciousness really is.

            If we're to use the mental category of "physical" to describe the brain as you know it, you could not use that same category to describe consciousness.

            Because although the experiences your brain is capable of processing are limited, the phenomenon itself has no qualities that materialists can point to and say that proves consciousness is a physical product of neural activity.

            That's all part of the "hard problem", which I prefer not to get into because I hate having to explain this shit to STEM autists over and over again.

            I prefer to think of consciousness as a field that permeates everything, and our brains as like a kind of radio receiver that can access certain frequencies of this field and immerse itself in the limited set of phenomenological contents it's capable of processing.

            Not a perfect analogy, but it illustrates the general point. Radio waves don't stop existing when your radio breaks. That shit has been around since the big bang.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wait until you find out that people who actually study the brain often don’t even believe there is a hard problem. The sensation of red is a neuron firing pattern when your retina picks up that frequency.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hilarious, hand waving copery.

            I have spoken with a few neurologists. They are not in agreement, probably because certain types are dogmatically attached to materialism.

            >The sensation of red is a neuron firing pattern

            You're not describing what a sensation is, you're describing how eyeballs work mechanically. There is an enormous difference between these things.

            Conversations like this have convinced me that the NPC meme is real, and certain people literally do not have internal experiences.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I have spoken with a few neurologists
            lol
            I have a rich internal life anon, love learning and thinking and imagining. That gives me the ability to rule out your worldview and realize it’s almost certainly sprouted from your fear of mortality and being tied to this body your CNS sits in

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You have no idea how much the idea of death being nothing at all is comforting to me.

            The thought of eternity is terrifying beyond my ability to conceptualize.

            No, the thought of death resulting in absolutely nothing is nice. But that's how I know it's too good to be true.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why don't you have a nice day to check if you're right?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the meatbag itself moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >hand waving
            Saying "Hard problem", as if it was a magic spell. Now THAT'S the real hand waving

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It sounds to me like you identified as a nominalist first, and then decided what you hold to be true second based on that sense of identity.
            Please consider that I could have good reasons for why I think nominalism is true.
            Those are also going to be reasons for my views on language and truth.

            Me talking like this is in part laziness, because you just assert WAY TOO MUCH weird stuff. I can't be bothered to try to engage with all of it.
            Besides a lot of the stuff you say is not substantive, so there's even more work to be done.

            This is me doing the same thing back at you, asserting my position.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary
      Thread ended here and atheists have no argument

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    fedora optics
    >we are rational, logical indiduals who say it is true that God is not real
    >unlike those irrational spacecake believers

    fedoras in practice

    >THE TRUTH IS A LIE
    >LOGIC DOESNT REAL

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Read Wittgenstein

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        not an argument

        like, just read Lao Tzu bro
        open Evola, my guy
        ride the tiger

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But seriously, who are you trying to fool?

  36. 1 month ago
    cunny

    https://www.archaeology.org/issues/552-2405/digs/12294-dd-london-workhouse
    smeone made a post about me
    t vesta

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Aquinas arguments don't work unless I'm a Platonic realist?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Aquinas was an Aristotelian.

      Aristotle was BIG on Telos. Read Nicomachean Ethics, good place to start as any. IIRC his Politics touch on the subject too.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Believe it or not, but there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that specifically calls the israelites or the tribe of Judah God’s chosen people. This misconception comes from the fact that the israelites of today have declared themselves to be Israel and not the house of Judah, as the Scriptures rightfully call them.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I felt really bad and had a mental breakdown and after that I came to belief in god which gave me a deep serenity since then.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If brains are just muh receivers, then people who sustained brain damage are not morally responsible for their own actions.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This discussion has already deviated significantly from the original topic.

      There's nothing about telos, truth, or consciousness that necessitates free will.

      Free will being real is the only way you can meaningfully hold someone responsible for their actions.

      I am of the opinion that free will is indeed real, but I'm not interested in arguing it because it has no necessary bearing on these other topics.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Look, thank you for engaging and being relatively nice about this discussion.
    But doesn't it trouble you that you hold so many minority position? That your views are, weird.
    When a lot of people disagree with you that should constitute, at least some, evidence that you are wrong.

    Maybe you have explanation for why people disagree with you.

    I take peer disagreement very seriously. I think it's something many atheists fail to engage with.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The fact that so many normies disagree with me is extremely reassuring, actually. I am reminded that the truth is not decided upon by popular vote.

      You'd be surprised just how many people completely agree with me though. I don't need to go out on any extreme tangents to make a point, all my premises are simple and easy to understand.

      Y'all just don't like the implications and conclusions that naturally follow.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You stopped addressing arguments a while ago and are just projecting pure ego due to the damage of being proven wrong. You have zero self awareness.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What arguments?

          All I see are people telling me to kill myself and saying I'm wrong because brain damage exists.

          As if I didn't know people die. You're the one with brain damage here.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You’re still not addressing our points or questions because you know it doesn’t make sense that the signal gets damaged if the receiver gets damaged. And how much more sense it makes that the RC car actually has an onboard CPU that malfunctions when damaged or lacks charge

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What is it that you know, that I don't know?
        Why am I not just deducing that "consciousness is reality", and not the brain?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's not what I know.

          It's how I think about things, how I formulate basic premises. Maybe I can see conclusions other people can't, but that's because I've been studying classical logic since I was 12. And after I discovered higher truth-value logics than binary I just went ham.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're so full of it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They hate us cause they ain't us.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, but seriously.
            If you had a deductive argument, with a conclusion.
            You could parse it out. Doesn't have to be in syllogistic form. You could do that.
            I would love to see it.

            But there's just word salads

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            see

            Then you're denying the obvious.

            Designed things are real.
            Real things are part of reality.
            Design is part of a real thing.
            Therefore design is part of reality.
            Design being part of reality is what makes designed things possible for us to create to begin with.

            If design were not part of reality, we would not be able to design things.
            We do design things.

            Ergo, there must be an ultimate metaphysical source for this design.
            In other words, a designer.

            Telos defines functions. You know what functions are, right? We use them all the time in math and engineering. For certain purposes. Purpose, reason, design.

            >package-deal
            You clearly don't understand what "holistic" means. You don't defeat the 5 ways by attacking one argument, you defeat them by attacking the substrate that supports all of them.

            I already did.

            You are real.
            You are conscious.
            You can't meaningfully differentiate between real things and reality itself.

            It follows that reality itself is conscious.

            [...]
            It sounds to me like you identified as a nominalist first, and then decided what you hold to be true second based on that sense of identity.

            That's kind of the way you have been talking about the truth ITT.

            But it's a terrible way to reason.

            >One which I think is false.
            You know the truth once you learn it, engagement and conception generally follow one another.

            You engage with cups vicariously, through your senses. You don't engage with the thing in itself.

            Whereas you engage with truth directly, through reason. Once you know the truth about a given thing, that's all she wrote. It has been fully realized.

            Truth is that thing in itself already. Just because we have a convenient word to use for it doesn't mean there's nothing else there. You can't identify something with it's name.

            You are more than the sum of a few letters or syllables. Just like you are more than a name, the full truth is more than we are able to comprehend, describe, or label.

            Designed things are real.
            Real things are part of reality.
            Design is part of a real thing.
            Therefore design is part of reality.

            You are real.
            You are conscious.
            You can't meaningfully differentiate between real things and reality itself.
            It follows that reality itself is conscious.

            I have quite a few of these basic formulations becaus I think it's funny watching people's subroutines malfunction and smoke come out of their ears when they put two and two together.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sky is real.
            Sky is blue.
            You can't meaningfully differentiate between real things and reality itself.
            It follows that reality itself is blue.

            Am I doing it right?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah dude, reality is blue.

            It's also red, green, and every color that can possibly exist. It's also the "colors" (color is a mental category) we can't percieve too like those on the infrared spectrum.

            It's not just one thing. All the colors are real, not just one. Reality is all the colors.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Socrates is real.
            Socrates is a man.
            You can't meaningfully differentiate between real things and reality itself.
            It follows that reality itself is a man.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You got that right.

            Thanks, I didn't think of that formulation yet. What a classic.

            Socrates is mortal.
            Therefore reality would be mortal.
            And if our ideas about mortality hold true on a universal scale, then that would mean that the universe has a beginning and an end.

            Which is supported by current physics.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >consciousness
    Is a highly polysemous word.
    Laughing at the hilarious equivocations going on.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For me it was that the gospels were all more or less telling the same story. It was these men genuinely telling their eyewitness account of the life of Christ. I think a lot of religions including Christianity have "just trust me bro" moments but I genuinely believe the gospels to be true and the apostles did everything in their power 2000 years ago to prove it. The only thing that would make it more concrete is if Pontius Pilate himself wrote how he saw the resurrection of Christ, but as a historical event there is already enough evidence to prove two things conclusively, even among secular historians:

    1) Jesus died on the cross
    2) The apostles of Jesus saw *something* that made them truly believe they saw Jesus alive again.

    And the most obvious *something* in number 2 is that Jesus was actually raised from the dead.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Lots of claims made in ancient texts even by credible people that are dismissed because they don’t mesh with reality

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Good luck convincing anyone that ridges and nooks on a CD are non-physical
    that the tiny switches inside my computer are non-physical
    and the lights on my screen are non-physical

    this is so dumb

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *