Anti-Religion thread pt2

[Mogger2000]

Refute what i said goofy ... instead of crashing out when the truth stabbed your heart

I gave logical explanations then eliminated contradictions which means there is only ONE possibility
Did you even read what i said?


Oh wow what a clown
Science cant prove many things:
-Science itself since it would be circular
-Math since science is based on it - cant test it
-Logic since science is based on it - cant test it either
-Morality since its not something you can test

And so much more - science is a limited tool - its one of many to gain knowledge
You WORSHIP science, I USE science like its my slave - We are NOT the same
View attachment 4303929

What was i wrong on?
maybe bring some arguments or something instead of coping because you got smacked

Ahh... how primitive minded of you - you couldnt even comprehend what i said
'Its never ends' - Infinite regress is logically impossible

'No one knows sh*t'
Yeah speak for yourself

infinite regress is not logically impossible according to a subfield of mathematics called measure theory, the existence of a specific, eternal afterlife, under the assumption of a constant and unchanging concept of time, is an event of zero probability

here is the mathematical proof

 

[Mainlander]

so you are not a determinist anymore?

I never was a hard determinist but I dont believe in Free will

but his conclusion that because you dont have free will - being on a self improvement forum is useless is bs

because there it doesnt matter if its free or not

it just matters if it happend or not

 

[kranerman23123]

I do have a decision as I am my brain and I am my consciousness my decisions and consciousness are not independent they are the same. So am I the writer and mastermind of my own story?

Nope, that's not your decision or your own thought processes, it's the rationalization you hear in your brain constructed by your brain chemistry while doing calculations. To imply you have a "decision" would imply that there are multiple possible futures that you agently chose between, there is only one possible future outcome and decisions are not actually real, your "decisions" are no different than a species "deciding" to evolve a trait, its just an emergent process.

 

[Klasik616]

hume debunked fucking empiricists with his skepticism.
kant created his own metaphysical system rather than debunking it
idk how leibniz monadology was crushed by newton btw, it doesn't even touch it

He didn't debunk empirism, he explained how it actually works and also made progress for psychology. Locke was just another realist who talked about essences, that's why you should read Berkeley which is like Hume 2.0 but before him. Kant didn't create a metaphysical system you're talking bullshit, he mixed rationalism and empirism, empirism saved Kant. The moment Newton published his book on philosophy of nature Leibniz was replaced because physics was still in a inmature age and Aristotle was debunked.

 

[accelerationist]

infinite regress is not logically impossible according to a subfield of mathematics called measure theory, the existence of a specific, eternal afterlife, under the assumption of a constant and unchanging concept of time, is an event of zero probability

here is the mathematical proof

View attachment 4303983

Infinite regression exists within every concept

 

[JasGews69x]

infinite regress is not logically impossible according to a subfield of mathematics called measure theory, the existence of a specific, eternal afterlife, under the assumption of a constant and unchanging concept of time, is an event of zero probability

here is the mathematical proof

View attachment 4303983

Thats potential infinite - not infinite in the real world lol

 

[Mogger2000]

Thats potential infinite - not infinite in the real world lol

which religion are you arguing for?

 

[JasGews69x]

which religion are you arguing for?

I wasnt arguing for any religion
It was for God

 

[Mainlander]

Nope, that's not your decision or your own thought processes, it's the rationalization you hear in your brain constructed by your brain chemistry while doing calculations. To imply you have a "decision" would imply that there are multiple possible futures that you agently chose between, there is only one possible future outcome and decisions are not actually real, your "decisions" are no different than a species "deciding" to evolve a trait, its just an emergent process.

dude stfu

its enough

 

[kranerman23123]

I never was a hard determinist but I dont believe in Free will

but his conclusion that because you dont have free will - being on a self improvement forum is useless is bs

because there it doesnt matter if its free or not

it just matters if it happend or not

Okay so we have deduced you do not believe in free will. (The default position would be that free will exists, the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence that it is not real) Explain the emergent process that results in consciousness, what is your personal theory for the existence of consciousness

 

[Mogger2000]

I wasnt arguing for any religion
It was for God

then that's fine, a higher being (doesnt have to be god) can certainly exist and probably does exist

 

[kranerman23123]

dude stfu

its enough

stop trying to be nanchalant and play intellectual nigga youve never taken a single philosophy or physics class in your life

 

[Mainlander]

stop trying to be nanchalant and play intellectual nigga youve never taken a single philosophy or physics class in your life

Ok im sorry Mr determinist

 

[theRetard]

He didn't debunk empirism, he explained how it actually works and also made progress for psychology. Locke was just another realist who talked about essences, that's why you should read Berkeley which is like Hume 2.0 but before him. Kant didn't create a metaphysical system you're talking bullshit, he mixed rationalism and empirism, empirism saved Kant. The moment Newton published his book on philosophy of nature Leibniz was replaced because physics was still in a inmature age and Aristotle was debunked.

are you saying that every subsequent thinker destroys the previous one JFL? do you think like a philosopher or a historian? because I don't see any conceptual thinking from you. can you at least clarify how and where and in what place hume destroys rationalists (and not empiricists lol), kant destroys aristotle and how can kant not have metaphysics at all? Because rationalism and empiricism primarily come from metaphysics. you also haven't explained at all how exactly newton destroyed leibniz btw.

 

[kranerman23123]

Ok im sorry Mr determinist

I'm not a determinist; I'm trying to steel man your paradigm to get to a point where I can explain why it's absurd and unavoidably nihilistic. The idea that there's a "hard determinism" or "soft determinism" makes no sense, theres either a completely predetermined spacetime, or there is agency. There is nothing in between.

 

[Mainlander]

I'm not a determinist; I'm trying to steel man your paradigm to get to a point where I can explain why it's absurd and unavoidably nihilistic. The idea that there's a "hard determinism" or "soft determinism" makes no sense, theres either a completely predetermined spacetime, or there is agency. There is nothing in between.

hard determinism = pure belief since we cannot prove that everything has a cause

soft determinism = There are things that are predetermined like our will but we cannot prove if truly everything is predetermined

Thats what I mean when I use the term hard determinism

 

[kranerman23123]

hard determinism = pure belief since we cannot prove that everything has a cause

soft determinism = There are things that are predetermined like our will but we cannot prove if truly everything is predetermined

Thats what I mean when I use the term hard determinism

We don't need to prove it; it is basic logic from a purely physical and naturalistic worldview.

 

[Mainlander]

We don't need to prove it; it is basic logic from a purely physical and naturalistic worldview.

We dont know the full "physical and naturalistic worldview"

we dont even understand 1% of physics

Using logic and saying something the universe is 100% predetermined is just a pure belief

 

[Klasik616]

are you saying that every subsequent thinker destroys the previous one JFL? do you think like a philosopher or a historian? because I don't see any conceptual thinking from you. can you at least clarify how and where and in what place hume destroys rationalists (and not empiricists lol), kant destroys aristotle and how can kant not have metaphysics at all? Because rationalism and empiricism primarily come from metaphysics. you also haven't explained at all how exactly newton destroyed leibniz btw.

You're wrong. Both thought schools don't came from metaphysics, they are against it. Decart used just reason and common sense, he described the subject as the principle of philosophy not God. Empirists also used the subject but didn't focus on reason but rather sensations. Kant destroyed Aristotle and the greeks with his categories, now you don't need to use "movement" to explain things. He also used empirism to prove how real beings can be explained with just senses and concepts nothing else. He never talks about noumens because that's out of human reach and are metaphysical beings that could exist but we can't know such as God. You're also ignorant because philosophy is 90% a refutal of previous philosophers, every one except for Leibniz and Hume or Leibniz and Newton were in contact with each other and published their books. This is how new philosophies are founded.

 

[kranerman23123]

We dont know the full "physical and naturalistic worldview"

we dont even understand 1% of physics

Using logic and saying something the universe is 100% predetermined is just a pure belief

We pretty much completely understand 99.99% of physics.. Nearly every physical process that has ever been observed in the real world and in space is almost entirely predictable mathematically.

 

[Mainlander]

We pretty much completely understand 99.99% of physics.. Nearly every physical process that has ever been observed in the real world and in space is almost entirely predictable mathematically.

What kind of an argument is that

we dont even understand every dimension everything could happen there

JFL if you think we understand 99% of physics and you are talking about sum physics class

 

[Klasik616]

What kind of an argument is that

we dont even understand every dimension everything could happen there

JFL if you think we understand 99% of physics and you are talking about sum physics class

He probably thinks Einstein and quantum physics are related

 

[TraeJeff]

Dnr normie fag

 

[Spamorzz]

something incoherent doesn't exist, you can't imagine it just like you can't imagine non-existence

You'd love Parmenides

 

[theRetard]

You'd love Parmenides

yeah and i mentioned him before. I also like zeno of elea

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

I’ll be bringing up a specific argument from @theRetard first. Basically he believes that non-existence cannot exist and therefore it means that God exists.

This would mean that everything quite literally exists, and becomes illogical in of itself to have contradicting philosophies all be ‘true’ and exist within the concept of reality. For all of these philosophies to co-exist it must mean that there is one objective reality that is able to hold ground for all of these different perspectives of reality. If not- then this is a completely illogical unreal reality that is based on nothing and cannot be truly understood by anyone. Because its something that should not exist- and yet it exists

Your very first sentence is wrong and you interpreted him wrong. I dont even have to say anything just stop being a contrarian.

 

[theRetard]

You're wrong. Both thought schools don't came from metaphysics, they are against it. Decart used just reason and common sense, he described the subject as the principle of philosophy not God. Empirists also used the subject but didn't focus on reason but rather sensations. Kant destroyed Aristotle and the greeks with his categories, now you don't need to use "movement" to explain things. He also used empirism to prove how real beings can be explained with just senses and concepts nothing else. He never talks about noumens because that's out of human reach and are metaphysical beings that could exist but we can't know such as God. You're also ignorant because philosophy is 90% a refutal of previous philosophers, every one except for Leibniz and Hume or Leibniz and Newton were in contact with each other and published their books. This is how new philosophies are founded.

is philosophy like a series of duels for you? i know that philosophers debate with each other but you don't seem to understand that they don't always succeed in refuting the previous one. they can do so it within of their own phylosophical system but their system is often contradictory. also kant literally COPIED aristotle's categories rather than refuting them (and even if he had refuted them his categories are only a small part of his philosophy). descartes and empiricist weren't against metaphysics, they simply created their own metaphysical systems. (If ofc by metaphysics we mean the same thing)

 

[nsk4ll]

My first thread was a fail, i will admit it. I simplified and ignored some concepts way too much, i was trying to summarize it altogether without having to get into every single argument for God since- they all are just examples of the same argument.

I’ll be bringing up a specific argument from @theRetard first. Basically he believes that non-existence cannot exist and therefore it means that God exists.

This would mean that everything quite literally exists, and becomes illogical in of itself to have contradicting philosophies all be ‘true’ and exist within the concept of reality. For all of these philosophies to co-exist it must mean that there is one objective reality that is able to hold ground for all of these different perspectives of reality. If not- then this is a completely illogical unreal reality that is based on nothing and cannot be truly understood by anyone. Because its something that should not exist- and yet it exists


The Contingency

An argument from @fk732

1. Logic, reason, and moral absolutes exist.
2. These are immaterial, universal, invariant, and necessary realities.
3. Such realities cannot arise from matter, motion, or chance.
4. Therefore, their existence requires a transcendent, rational source.
5. This source must be personal, rational, and self-existent. God.
6. The denial of God presupposes God, because using logic requires the very framework only He grounds.
7. Therefore, without God, logic, reason, and truth are impossible.

As i’ve said in an elder thread the contingency is literally just a basic fundamental for believing in God, all understands that it requires faith in the idea that an illogical being exists for you to be able to follow something which you know to not be logical

The idea that we MUST have an illogical incomprehensible (non-contingent ‘being’)
is just an assumption and a cop-out from the search for the understanding of our reality. I seriously don’t get how this is thought to be the- “strongest argument for God” when you literally need to believe in a non-contingent being to believe in a christian God in the first place

“Using logic requires the framework that God grounds” again useless thing to mention as your God is literally illogical and needs pre-assumption to exist


all we know are concepts, we know nothing grounded. The ground is nothing except a concept, and so are all these meaningful words which are being spoken… Your concept of a being is nothing more than a concept, so would be your Gods. There’s no realness to anything, as we know none of this to be or to not be


If you are still arguing God’s existence then you are a
tiktokcel // @NinjaRG9

dnr + ur mentally retarded