The reason i hate religious people (fuck you)

[YoloHatesFoids666]

i never said i would prove god i said i would disprove your dumbfuck “arguments” which are basically just hate

I didnt explain my points a lot bcs I find it hard to explain in English, but still I want to see how you disprove my points

 

[discord m0d]

If their religion isn't perfect then it cannot be true

dude did you read what i wrote, i said they believe their religion is perfect

but the people who follow it aren't

thats why people repent for their sins

 

[YoloHatesFoids666]

dude did you read what i wrote, i said that they beleive their religon is perfect

but the people who follow it arent

Yes i didn't understand, it's alr

 

[im_grey_be_patient]

Knowing something exists doesn't force you to obey it or love it. You know your government exists. You still choose whether to follow its laws. Knowing God exists wouldn't automatically make someone choose him over the world.

thats kind of how it already is, you can disobey god, he is not the one to send you to hell, your sins are, because sinning is basically choosing sin over god. everybody sins, but objectively good people who just are not religious will not go to heaven because they dont want to - they never made an effort to create and maintain a relationship with god. that doesnt mean they will forever burn in hell, but how would they get to the kingdom of god if they never wanted to know god

 

[im_grey_be_patient]

I hate both and I explained why

thats not an argument as i said you are just full of hate and you dont understand religion. your opinions about christianity have nothing to do with real christianity. its like you hate black people for being white, there is no correlation

 

[YoloHatesFoids666]

thats not an argument as i said you are just full of hate and you dont understand religion. your opinions about christianity have nothing to do with real christianity. its like you hate black people for being white, there is no correlation

You said you can disprove my arguments , go on

 

[Lyndon]

Even if it provides the most sound worldview, how do you know the existence of God is even real? Do you have epistemological evidence for the existence of God? What did you look at and think "This right here proves the existence of God"

I mean, for example if it is established in rational experience that finite beings are contingent (which is something that could be perfectly conceded), meaning they do not contain within themselves the sufficient reason for their existence, and that this contingency is intelligible under metaphysical principles such as the principle of sufficient reason and the explanatory dependence of being, it follows as a demand of reason that there cannot be a merely contingent chain of explanatory grounds without an ultimate term. This structure of understanding constitutes the epistemological evidence, namely the rational apprehension of the contingency of being and of the principles that govern its intelligibility. In virtue of this, reason concludes the existence of a non-contingent foundation of being itself, a being whose existence is neither received nor dependent but necessary in itself, and which provides the ultimate account of the being of contingent things.... I really like Scotus, I think his epistemological framework is great bhai

 

[im_grey_be_patient]

I didnt explain my points a lot bcs I find it hard to explain in English, but still I want to see how you disprove my points

as i said everytime i do nothing changes, if you want to talk about a specific topic feel free to pm me or ask here

 

[81xa]

I mean, for example if it is established in rational experience that finite beings are contingent (which is something that could be perfectly conceded), meaning they do not contain within themselves the sufficient reason for their existence, and that this contingency is intelligible under metaphysical principles such as the principle of sufficient reason and the explanatory dependence of being, it follows as a demand of reason that there cannot be a merely contingent chain of explanatory grounds without an ultimate term. This structure of understanding constitutes the epistemological evidence, namely the rational apprehension of the contingency of being and of the principles that govern its intelligibility. In virtue of this, reason concludes the existence of a non-contingent foundation of being itself, a being whose existence is neither received nor dependent but necessary in itself, and which provides the ultimate account of the being of contingent things.... I really like Scotus, I think his epistemological framework is great bhai

Why must everything have a sufficient reason? That's an assumption. Even if you get to a necessary being, it doesn't get you to the Christian God specifically. A necessary being could be impersonal, unconscious, or completely unlike anything in Scripture. The chain could also potentially stop at the universe itself. Some physicists argue the universe could be the necessary brute fact rather than God. Why is God a better stopping point than reality?

 

[Lyndon]

Why must everything have a sufficient reason? That's an assumption. Even if you get to a necessary being, it doesn't get you to the Christian God specifically. A necessary being could be impersonal, unconscious, or completely unlike anything in Scripture. The chain could also potentially stop at the universe itself. Some physicists argue the universe could be the necessary brute fact rather than God. Why is God a better stopping point than reality?

Well the principle of sufficient reason was postulated by Leibniz, and it totally makes sense for me because If something has no sufficient reason at all, then it is not merely unexplained, but in principle unintelligible. I think it's a good principle to explain the reality around us, another principle would be the one used for composites, every composite being made up of parts requires a principle of unity that explains why those parts constitute one actual whole, since the parts, taken in themselves, do not contain the sufficient reason for the unity of the whole. Also for the universe as a brute fact, I think necessity is more plausibly attributed to something metaphysically simple and non-composite than to a structured physical cosmos... and that makes sense.

For the why is the Christian God and not other one I would repeat the schema:

• Philosophy → God is unique, intelligent, truthful, relational
• Philosophy of religion and modal logic → revelation is possible
• Historical signs and internal coherence... etc→ revelation is credible
• Faith → acceptance of revealed content
• Dogma → the Trinity as revealed truth
• Theology → conceptual explanation of the Trinity

 

[81xa]

Well the principle of sufficient reason was postulated by Leibniz, and it totally makes sense for me because If something has no sufficient reason at all, then it is not merely unexplained, but in principle unintelligible. I think it's a good principle to explain the reality around us, another principle would be the one used for composites, every composite being made up of parts requires a principle of unity that explains why those parts constitute one actual whole, since the parts, taken in themselves, do not contain the sufficient reason for the unity of the whole. Also for the universe as a brute fact, I think necessity is more plausibly attributed to something metaphysically simple and non-composite than to a structured physical cosmos... and that makes sense.

For the why is the Christian God and not other one I would repeat the schema:

• Philosophy → God is unique, intelligent, truthful, relational
• Philosophy of religion and modal logic → revelation is possible
• Historical signs and internal coherence... etc→ revelation is credible
• Faith → acceptance of revealed content
• Dogma → the Trinity as revealed truth
• Theology → conceptual explanation of the Trinity

PSR making intuitive sense isn't the same as it being necessarily true. Kant's objection is roughly: causation and sufficient reason might be categories the mind applies to experience rather than laws governing all of reality. So when you extend PSR beyond observable contingent things to reality as a whole, you're applying a principle outside the domain where it was established.

Composite argument is a decent point

Your metaphysical argument gets you to a necessary, simple, non-composite being. That's a long way from a being that is intelligent, relational, and capable of revelation. Which specific philosophical arguments get you from necessary existence to personhood? Because that step is doing a lot of work and you've compressed it into one bullet point.

 

[Lyndon]

PSR making intuitive sense isn't the same as it being necessarily true. Kant's objection is roughly: causation and sufficient reason might be categories the mind applies to experience rather than laws governing all of reality. So when you extend PSR beyond observable contingent things to reality as a whole, you're applying a principle outside the domain where it was established.

Composite argument is a decent point

Your metaphysical argument gets you to a necessary, simple, non-composite being. That's a long way from a being that is intelligent, relational, and capable of revelation. Which specific philosophical arguments get you from necessary existence to personhood? Because that step is doing a lot of work and you've compressed it into one bullet point.

I think Garrigou-Lagrange beats Kant objection about this principle so far If causality were merely a form imposed by the knowing subject, then the human intellect would not truly know being, but only its own representations. In that case, science would lose all claim to objective truth, since it would describe not reality itself but only the internal structure of cognition.

Also God being relational is something we abstract from granting God's existence itself, the ultimate foundation of being must be intellect because the world’s intelligible order cannot be sufficiently explained by non-intelligent causes without losing the formal source of intelligibility itself, which must exist in the cause in a higher way than in its effects. Likewise, since the world is contingent rather than necessary, its production cannot be a blind emanation but requires an act that presupposes knowledge of ends and the freedom not to produce a single determined effect, which is what metaphysics calls will. From intellect and will understood as subsistent in pure act follows divine personality in an analogical sense, that's what I would give for my argument

(English is not my first language so in this type of convos I gotta translate my argument from my first language JFL)

 

[81xa]

I think Garrigou-Lagrange beats Kant objection about this principle so far If causality were merely a form imposed by the knowing subject, then the human intellect would not truly know being, but only its own representations. In that case, science would lose all claim to objective truth, since it would describe not reality itself but only the internal structure of cognition. Also God being relational is something we abstract from granting God's existence itself, he is personal not because He enters into changing relations, but because He is pure, infinite intelligence and will, the ultimate cause of all relational order in reality.

Garrigou-Lagrange is essentially saying PSR must track reality because otherwise knowledge collapses. That's an indirect argument for PSR not a direct demonstration that it applies beyond contingent observable things. You're inferring PSR's metaphysical scope from the preconditions of knowledge, which is reasonable, but a committed Kantian would say you've just restated the problem.

On personhood, you're saying intelligence and will follow necessarily from God being the ultimate cause of all intelligent and relational order in reality. That's the argument from attribution, whatever produces X must itself possess X in some eminent degree. Aquinas uses this. It's coherent, but it needs defending on its own terms because it isn't obvious. A necessary being could produce intelligence the way a non-conscious physical process produces complexity, without possessing intelligence itself. Why does causation of intelligence require intelligence in the cause?

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

The problem is that theology is such a nuanced topic, not everyone is smart enough to choose which path is right even if someone spreads the world of god. making your success in the afterlife determined by luck or by being smart.

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @LXR

Even dumb people can find the truth if they care enough to search for it

The issue is most don’t and thus they remain as idiots

 

[Lyndon]

Garrigou-Lagrange is essentially saying PSR must track reality because otherwise knowledge collapses. That's an indirect argument for PSR not a direct demonstration that it applies beyond contingent observable things. You're inferring PSR's metaphysical scope from the preconditions of knowledge, which is reasonable, but a committed Kantian would say you've just restated the problem.

On personhood, you're saying intelligence and will follow necessarily from God being the ultimate cause of all intelligent and relational order in reality. That's the argument from attribution, whatever produces X must itself possess X in some eminent degree. Aquinas uses this. It's coherent, but it needs defending on its own terms because it isn't obvious. A necessary being could produce intelligence the way a non-conscious physical process produces complexity, without possessing intelligence itself. Why does causation of intelligence require intelligence in the cause?

I feel like Kant's framework here already assumes what later denies, the very act of judging something to be true presupposes that the intellect is open to being as it is in itself. If principles like causality or sufficient reason were merely subjective conditions structuring experience, then we would lose any justification for saying our judgments refer to reality at all rather than just to internal coherence or at least I would say so. Kant’s distinction between the conditions of knowing and the structure of being already relies on a prior commitment to intelligibility and truth as correspondence with reality... so I wouldn't say it's restated ig?

And I would say that if you grant attribution then you end granting the argument about being personal itself, since we derive to being personal and relational from intelligence and will, formal intelligibility requires a cause that contains intelligibility in an eminent mode, otherwise intelligibility is an ungrounded feature of reality

good convo bhai

 

[81xa]

I feel like Kant's framework here already assumes what later denies, the very act of judging something to be true presupposes that the intellect is open to being as it is in itself. If principles like causality or sufficient reason were merely subjective conditions structuring experience, then we would lose any justification for saying our judgments refer to reality at all rather than just to internal coherence or at least I would say so. Kant’s distinction between the conditions of knowing and the structure of being already relies on a prior commitment to intelligibility and truth as correspondence with reality... so I wouldn't say it's restated ig?

And I would say that if you grant attribution then you end granting the argument about being personal itself, since we derive to being personal and relational from intelligence and will, formal intelligibility requires a cause that contains intelligibility in an eminent mode, otherwise intelligibility is an ungrounded feature of reality

good convo bhai

On attribution though, the argument still needs one more step. You're saying formal intelligibility requires a cause containing intelligibility in an eminent mode; otherwise, intelligibility is ungrounded. That works if you've already accepted PSR and the attribution principle together. But the specific claim that unintelligibility is impossible rather than just uncomfortable is still an assumption. A naturalist would say intelligibility emerged from non-intelligent processes through evolution and physical law, and that this doesn't require grounding in an intelligent cause. They'd reject that ungrounded intelligibility is incoherent rather than just unexplained.

So the question becomes is ungrounded intelligibility actually impossible, or just difficult to account for? What closes that gap specifically?"

 

[Lyndon]

On attribution though, the argument still needs one more step. You're saying formal intelligibility requires a cause containing intelligibility in an eminent mode; otherwise, intelligibility is ungrounded. That works if you've already accepted PSR and the attribution principle together. But the specific claim that unintelligibility is impossible rather than just uncomfortable is still an assumption. A naturalist would say intelligibility emerged from non-intelligent processes through evolution and physical law, and that this doesn't require grounding in an intelligent cause. They'd reject that ungrounded intelligibility is incoherent rather than just unexplained.

So the question becomes is ungrounded intelligibility actually impossible, or just difficult to account for? What closes that gap specifically?"

If reality contains structured intelligibility without any ontological grounding, then intelligibility becomes a brute feature of being with no sufficient reason in the order of explanation and for me that ends in absurds. I mean sure naturalism can describe the emergence of cognitive access to patterns, but it does not account for why being itself is intrinsically intelligible in a stable and universal way, and even Kant would grant that reason follows an order. This is where the composite argument naturally pushes toward a principle of non-composite grounding, and ultimately toward a stronger form of sufficient reason applied to being as such...

I feel like naturalists fail to provide a better argument for their ungrounded intelligibility since it doesn't have any grounding at all

 

[81xa]

If reality contains structured intelligibility without any ontological grounding, then intelligibility becomes a brute feature of being with no sufficient reason in the order of explanation and for me that ends in absurds. I mean sure naturalism can describe the emergence of cognitive access to patterns, but it does not account for why being itself is intrinsically intelligible in a stable and universal way, and even Kant would grant that reason follows an order. This is where the composite argument naturally pushes toward a principle of non-composite grounding, and ultimately toward a stronger form of sufficient reason applied to being as such...

I feel like naturalists fail to provide a better argument for their ungrounded intelligibility since it doesn't have any grounding at all

Calling ungrounded intelligibility absurd only works if PSR is already true. You're saying it ends in absurdity because there's no sufficient reason for it, but that's just restating that PSR must hold. Someone who hasn't accepted PSR doesn't see the absurdity, they just see a brute fact, which they're already comfortable with everywhere else in their framework.

On naturalism failing to account for universal stable intelligibility, this cuts both ways. You're replacing one unexplained thing with another. Naturalism has ungrounded intelligibility. Your position has an necessarily existing being whose own existence and nature require no grounding. You're essentially saying God is the brute fact instead of physical reality. The explanatory structure is the same, you've just moved the stopping point. Why is a necessary being a better brute fact than a universally intelligible physical reality?

The composite argument doesn't automatically resolve this either. You're saying a non-composite being is a more coherent stopping point than a structured cosmos. That's plausible, but plausibility isn't necessity. The naturalist can grant that a simple necessary being would be more elegant while still denying you've demonstrated one exists.

The Wigner point about mathematics being unreasonably effective is genuinely difficult for naturalism, but it's also not obviously solved by theism. Why would a personal God guarantee that abstract mathematics maps perfectly onto physical reality? That requires its own explanation.

 

[Lyndon]

Calling ungrounded intelligibility absurd only works if PSR is already true. You're saying it ends in absurdity because there's no sufficient reason for it, but that's just restating that PSR must hold. Someone who hasn't accepted PSR doesn't see the absurdity, they just see a brute fact, which they're already comfortable with everywhere else in their framework.

On naturalism failing to account for universal stable intelligibility, this cuts both ways. You're replacing one unexplained thing with another. Naturalism has ungrounded intelligibility. Your position has an necessarily existing being whose own existence and nature require no grounding. You're essentially saying God is the brute fact instead of physical reality. The explanatory structure is the same, you've just moved the stopping point. Why is a necessary being a better brute fact than a universally intelligible physical reality?

The composite argument doesn't automatically resolve this either. You're saying a non-composite being is a more coherent stopping point than a structured cosmos. That's plausible, but plausibility isn't necessity. The naturalist can grant that a simple necessary being would be more elegant while still denying you've demonstrated one exists.

The Wigner point about mathematics being unreasonably effective is genuinely difficult for naturalism, but it's also not obviously solved by theism. Why would a personal God guarantee that abstract mathematics maps perfectly onto physical reality? That requires its own explanation.

First, I wouldn't say we replace it with a "divine brute fact" because the difference is of metaphysical type. Naturalism ends with a composite totality (the universe as a structured whole), whereas classical theism does not posit another item within reality, but a foundation that does not belong to the same order as composites. So I wouldn't really take it as an objection

Second, without some principle of sufficient reason there is no real distinction between intelligibility and mere contingent regularity. The naturalist can accept brute facts, but then intelligibility loses strong explanatory status and becomes a derived feature without ontological grounding. Intelligibility is reduced to a feature of reality with no account of why it holds at all, and that's why I still think theism prevails over the explanation of naturalism.

Third, the “you just moved the stopping point” objection ignores the difference between two fundamentally different kinds of terminus. A composite totality, even when taken as the universe as a whole, remains structured, multiple, and relational; its unity is derivative from parts and relations and therefore requires explanation at the level of composition. God on the counter part would be a full actus purus, nor composite, no external causes for his being needed and i already gave arguments for that, you asked for epistemological evidence and it was given to you, naturalism on his hand doesn't provide enough for it

Fourth, a necessary being is proposed as a different explanatory category. A brute composite fact still leaves unexplained why it is composed and why it is stable as a whole. A simple necessary being does not compete on the same level; it closes the explanatory regress at the level of being itself, whereas a physical totality simply terminates it within a structured whole without grounding that structure.

On Wigner, I never said anything about Wigner but if you gran that, that's fine, either way naturalism can account for regularities and the emergence of intelligibility, but not for why intelligibility applies universally to being as such, nor why the unity of reality is anything more than a brute aggregation without ultimate grounding. it has no internal resources to explain why being is isomorphic to abstract formal structures in a stable and universal way; it treats this as a given. My view, the christian view, instead grounds both mathematical intelligibility and physical order in the same source of rationality, without collapsing one into the other, and it gives a far better explanation for it.

Obviously believing or not is in the last stance a question of faith and that's fine obviously, but the epistemological evidence was already provided.

Either way I can't keep replying to you because I gotta study for my exams but it was fun
Take care bhai

 

[serg]

Very smart user, all those insulting you are scared of the truth because it'll break their illusion, god isn't anything, never existed.

I'm glad there are people who agree, non-brainwashed smart people.

 

[subhuman1996]

Why do you hate them? Which religious ppl specifically?

 

[YoloHatesFoids666]

Why do you hate them? Which religious ppl specifically?

If you have time you can read the thread and the replies, I think there is everything you need to know

 

[ArimaWillAscend]

okay but that's his argument for religion. Again feel free to actually answer my questions instead of just attacking

God is described as perfection

utterly stupid humans became flawed only because God gave us free will, and just because we are created in God's image doesn't mean we are Gods ourselves. God is perfect, but we are not, we have disappointed him and ourselves. We chose this path ourselves. For the most part, God never intervenes against our will, because we would cease to be free. The point is that every religious person spends their entire live striving toward the image they were meant to be when the world was created and humans emerged

You're simply brainwashed if you truly believe that a religion like Christianity is based solely on the inculcation of certain principles cuz everything written is based on basic empathy for all living things and a striving for the best. As I said earlier, you create your own interpretation within the meaning of these texts, and they will only help you if you want them to

Retard cuck believing in a God that needs validation from us ,keep praying to your non existent faggot iqlet

 

[iblamexyz]

God is described as perfection

Retard cuck believing in a God that needs validation from us ,keep praying to your non existent faggot iqlet

yeah I would agree. But the point is you're still being disrespectful when you're replying to others instead of actually asking questions. If you want to attack and bully others, go ahead. But don't get me involved if you aren't going to be respectful

 

[Mooglesan]

God is described as perfection

Retard cuck believing in a God that needs validation from us ,keep praying to your non existent faggot iqlet

Oml u are not even capable of arguing with anyone, except calling everyone cucks and iqlets fucking retarded husk

and where did I say that God needs are validation

and even with such logic all people in the world require validation because human psychology is based on it at least stupid motherfucker

 

[ArimaWillAscend]

Oml u are not even capable of arguing with anyone, except calling everyone cucks and iqlets fucking retarded husk

and where did I say that God needs are validation

and even with such logic all people in the world require validation because human psychology is based on it at least stupid motherfucker

Grey

 

[Mooglesan]

Grey

Nigger talking about some grey with TG t5 pfp lmfao

 

[markye67]

DNR without humans thinking their is someone powerful above them who chooses their fate then we won’t have morals.

Being religious isn’t bad like being Christian(true Christian not lukewarm)

Some people like too say their Christian because they go to church on Sunday.

Am I a vegetarian because I eat vegan food once a week???

So those so called Christian’s u see act non Christian on non Sunday day.

And if ur atheist then ur dumb because ain’t no science perfectly created ts how it aligned eveything for eveything to come out this way it did.

 

[ArimaWillAscend]

Nigger talking about some grey with TG t5 pfp lmfao

Arima t1 fag

 

[YoloHatesFoids666]

DNR without humans thinking their is someone powerful above them who chooses their fate then we won’t have morals.

Being religious isn’t bad like being Christian(true Christian not lukewarm)

Some people like too say their Christian because they go to church on Sunday.

Am I a vegetarian because I eat vegan food once a week???

So those so called Christian’s u see act non Christian on non Sunday day.

And if ur atheist then ur dumb because ain’t no science perfectly created ts how it aligned eveything for eveything to come out this way it did.

NO everything did NOT align perfectly nothing is perfect, the reason a lot of things work very well and seem complex is because of natural selection and there is something called the observer's fallacy which means that if things were not like this you wouldn't be able to question them because you wouldn't be alive so it's stupid to think like that, everything if you think about it can work without a god , stop giving low iq response.

 

[Mooglesan]

Arima t1 fag

sounds fucking retarded as always u dumb nigga get my dick out of your mouth before you start arguing about your spinelessness faggot JFLLL

 

[stigmaboy]

yeah religion is pretty dumb, just ignore it.