Modern Philosopher here

Modern Philosopher here.
Friendly reminder that if you accept that god can exist with no proof then you logically have to accept that anything can exist. Anything that can be produced by your brain. This means that you can't say anything about the world because everything becomes true. There is no way to tell real things from unreal and facts from fake news if you break your logic like that.
Do you understand that? If anything could be real then nothing is unreal. Empirical evidence is all we have. Stick to it and don't waste your time in trying to deal with stuff that can't be touched by science. They don't exist. Life is short and by dismissing shit without evidence you are saving yourself a lot of time.

Bonus :
A word "god" is a blank term that means nothing. It means "everything" ergo it has no informational content. It denotes nothing as it is too broad to define anything at all. Good definitions narrow the informational space to give you power to categorize. This word doesn't narrow the informational space thus is equal to chaos.

youtube.com/watch?v=0K_4bmBgQhk

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1rBJK-k3vPE
youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
youtube.com/watch?v=BWv02kYyvo4
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791696/
youtube.com/watch?v=7j8vUbMmOwM
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102121644.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=zguCFjHyVeM
youtube.com/watch?v=0E8xdhuOQCI
space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html
youtube.com/watch?v=AxmY2n3LS8M
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You are too dumb to into metaphysics
Go away

thread is kinda gay desu
sage

>metaphysics
Now that's a waste of time.

>Modern Philosopher
Neck yourself.

Death was a mallcore band for people that weren't intelligent enough to listen to actual metal.

Chuck Schuldiner died of AIDS

You don't address my arguments.
This doesn't look good for you Sup Forums.

There's more to religion than God. Please don't reproduce.

SAGE

>Death was a mallcore band for people that weren't intelligent enough to listen to actual metal.
Nice bait.

>Chuck Schuldiner died of AIDS
I thought it was brain cancer.

youtube.com/watch?v=1rBJK-k3vPE

Chuck Schuldiner died of AIDS
Just like the men he'd blown
When he celebrated a faggot's death
He was talking about his own

Chuck Schuldiner died of AIDS
The 'brain tumor' was just a lie
Chuck Schuldiner died of AIDS
That he got butt fucking guys

His music sucked
He died of AIDS
His mom's a cunt
And Death was gay

Chuck Schuldiner died of AIDS
Just like Eazy-E
All his shirts were stained with semen
And his breath smelled just like pee

His music sucked
He died of AIDS
His mom's a cunt
And Death is gay!

Without god it's no different that any other scam to control the population and/or gather money.

You seem mad.
I don't believe it was AIDS.

>scam

Stop replying to me

Not believing the truth doesn't make it less true.

Families often fabricate an illness when someone dies of AIDs, that's why you thought it was brain cancer.

Why should i argue with you?
Your probably just a Atheist thats super butthurt that he lives in a majority Catholic nation. You probably think your edgy and cool for being one too.

All you niggas ain't providing any sources nor any arguments.
Is this the state or modern Sup Forums?

>randomly reading up on genetics cuz I like wasting my time on Wikipedia
>end up learning about epigenetics
>"WAIT! What the fuck... This is literally a memory saving technique akin to something one would use for programming a computer!"
>Literally class based instantiation of objects within the human body
>how the fuck does that spontaneously generate through the trial and error of natural selection?
God exists... Or at least some kind of guiding force exists.

...

I'm not butthurt.
I just want people to realize that there are better ways of living than eating up "truths" with no backing in reality.

hello plebbit. Faith is not subject to the realm of science or logic. people are faithful because they believe in an unquantifiable source of human power called the soul. if you think that's stupid, fine. but you're even more stupid for continually posting this retarded thread to belittle people who believe in something higher and don't care what you think.

>a memory saving technique akin to something one would use for programming a computer
Different gene expression based on the environmental stimuli is not hereditary.

>how the fuck does that spontaneously generate through the trial and error of natural selection?
By random mutations.
You can't cheat chemistry and physics in general. Gene expression products are physically similar and can bind to different receptors/ligands. You can introduce small mutations to already existing pathways and create multiple new functions based on the same building blocks.

>calls himself a modern philosopher
>has obviously never heard of godel

alright son

>Faith is not subject to the realm of science or logic.
If they reject logic then they are equal to savages living in the forest. Logic is what makes us humans. If you make a whore out of logic, you deserve no respect as you are broken inside.

define soul

>mfw all these people never heard of godel

That comment alone proved you know nothing about philosophy nice larp

>I'm not butthurt.
Sure you aren't.

Do yourself a favour, visit your local catholic church on Sunday ( theirs plenty of them in Poland as you probably know ) and experience real truth and beauty.
It would also be the perfect place to talk about your statement with a local priest and gain some insight.
You live in such a beautiful country, with such nice churches it would be a shame not to visit some.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but faith generally takes on a secondary, not primary position in the thoughts of a religious person. It's not something people are wholly fixated upon but a set of principles with which one lives their life, a sense of guidance in times of need.

If a non-scientific truth is at the heart of what drives your virtues and ambitions is it supposed to be less valid if it's un-falsifiable?

you do realise that truth is a belief right
so logic is based on the initial belief that truth exists.
QED ur a faget

> Everything=Nothing
> Nothing=Everything

lol wut? In the trash it goes, just another confused leftist.

>and experience real truth and beauty.
It's boooring. All they do is repeating the same shit every year. Week after week, year after year. Same shit. I was hoping that after a couple of years they would learn what Jesus wanted to tell them and stopped giving money to the priest but apparently they can't hold memories for too long and need to be reminded every week.

There's just as much rational, logical evidence
that god doesn't exist as there is that god exists
- that is, no evidence.

>Different gene expression based on the environmental stimuli is not hereditary.
"Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene function that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence." - literally the first line of Wikipedia... Epigenetics is akin to city planning while DNA is like a library of architectural schematics... Through the use of epigenetics you can use the same DNA code to build multiple "objects" (such as hair follicles, taste buds, etc) without having to have spate DNA code to describe exactly how to build each instance of that object... Its why some people ate randomly born with tails. We all still possess the DNA code needed to grow a tail, but our epigenetics usually do not utilize that code.

You don't need god to construct a valid morality.
Christianity is so popular because they based their religion on natural law. Most of their rules are based on evolution, thus seem natural to every human being.

Tip my hat to you my good sir!

>modern philosopher doesn't know the western philosophical traditions and yet tries to contend them anyway
What else is new.

OP, if you're here and actually honest, I can explain to you why you're wrong. At least promise to have a conversation and not just run away, though. I'd rather not waste my time.

>You don't need god to construct a valid morality
Evolution recognizes no moral value other than material survival.

Water boils at 100°C at the pressure of 1013 hPa.
My axioms are based on my senses as you cannot base your knowledge on anything other.

Cool dude. You're probably 16.

There is no evidence that it exists, thus it doesn't until proven otherwise.
It's that easy. Life is simple and you animals refuse to accept that for some reason.

If you accept that the universe just sprang into existence at a single instant from no where and for no reason, then you must be willing to accept that at any moment random things will spring into existence around you for no reason.

If the universe doesn't require a first cause, nothing does.

>It's boooring. All they do is repeating the same shit every year. Week after week, year after year. Same shit. I was hoping that after a couple of years they would learn what Jesus wanted to tell them and stopped giving money to the priest but apparently they can't hold memories for too long and need to be reminded every week.
You just demonstrated how narrow minded you are. There's no point in talking with you.
I wish you all the best, I hope someday you overcome your butt hurt.

Yeah, that wikipedia site is bullshit.
You have the same DNA but the environmental factors cause different expression during your growth. You don't inherit shit. You have a spectrum of possible outcomes with the same DNA and the environment determines what path will your body choose. Why do you think this is something special?

Youre a pretty chitty philosopher.

Youre essentially saying that there can be anything outside of the set of things that youre senses can observe.

Sorry, youre a faggy materialist.

>I'd rather not waste my time
Dude, you post on Sup Forums.
Your life is already wasted and you should know it by now.

>There is no evidence that it exists, thus it doesn't until proven otherwise.
>It's that easy. Life is simple and you animals refuse to accept that for some reason.
Evolution is a theory, not an "law". you're conflating reality with the presumption that Evolution has been proven.

There you go.
Also, not only material survival but reproduction and well being of your offspring.
You should promote life and avoid death.
Most religions are actually promoting death and not life, thus they have to be eliminated.

Sour cream orange horse 15 km to the West do not read this code unless authorized 4457 100 555 let's call your mom you and I can have a party all we need is a few whores more aside from your mom don't call this number >unless authorized

Russia did it all

meh, I have a full and successful life and still shit post from time to time

>Evolution is a theory, not an "law".
Here is evolution on video.
youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

You can literally study evolution on molecular level in the lab. I do it right now. You guys are simply ignorant.

>doesn't even respond to the offer to discourse on your comments
>just shitposts

Modern philosopher, indeed.

I'm waiting.
You need my permission to reply?

>Most religions are actually promoting death
Religion didn't "evolve" into fascism and communism - evolution did. Science promotes life by building nuclear weapons?

beginner level philosophy
newfag tier reason

Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
J. B. S. Haldane

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." Niels Bohr

We do not even fully understand consciousness and yet we contend that our conception of reality is accurate.

" Every model of the universe has a hard swallow... a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it.

The hard swallow built into science is... the Big Bang.

...This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant.

Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity.

Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed!

I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?!

I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars!

It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”.

And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law...

--Terence Mckenna

youtube.com/watch?v=BWv02kYyvo4

The Big Bang theory starts with the singularity at t=0 and the consequent expansion. It says nothing about where that singularity came from.

>It says nothing about where that singularity came from.

For those who postulate the "god of the gap" canard, that is one fucking massive gap

I do not claim to know the origin of reality or if there is a personal God; I only claim that the "Big Bang" is a woefully inadequate explanation, akin to just glibly saying that "God made it"

>Yeah, that wikipedia site is bullshit.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791696/

It's reference points here if you with to educate yourself, friend.

You can literally grow eye balls all of the body of flies by simply fucking with epigenetics (i.e. gene expression). "Environmental factors" is only a tiny part of what is covered by the field of study.

>You have a spectrum of possible outcomes with the same DNA
Literal horseshit. Your DNA doesn't determine outcomes. It stores information. The outcome is determined by how the information is utilized.

The same architectural drawings used by two separate contractors will result in slightly different buildings because the contractors will have slightly different ways of interpreting the information stored within the design.

>You guys are simply ignorant.
This is circular logic that presumes evolution is objectively true.

>Science promotes life by building nuclear weapons?
Yes. Without nuclear weapons you wouldn't have cancer treatment and nuclear power.
Nuclear weapons allowed us to keep the world from starting another global conflict for some time now.

More circular logic.

Chuck Schuldiner was an alright Jew. He and Mustaine were the only alright Jews in Metal. Lars is a true blue kike.

What do you think about the paradox of free will in religion? Meaning that if God has a plan and foresight into what you will do/become from the moment you are created, then you shouldn't be accountable for your actions. I haven't found anyone able to refute it but I'd be curious to see what you think as a 'modern philosopher'.

>nuclear power.
>Nuclear weapons
Truly, you are deluded.

>if you accept that god can exist with no proof

Who says there's no proof?

On the contrary, even so adamant an atheist as Richard Dawkins admits there's proof. Consider his remarks in The Blind Watchmaker:

>The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design.
>If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up.

Thus, according to Dawkins, the complexity of living organisms is evidence -- evidence that "cries out for an explanation."

In his book, Dawkins addresses himself to William Paley's famous watchmaker argument, "the best-known exposition of the 'Argument from Design,'" (p. 4).

Note that Dawkins never claims that Paley has no evidence. On the contrary, Dawkins analyzes **the very same body of evidence that Paley analyzed** -- i.e., the appearance of design in nature -- and simply interprets that evidence differently.

Note the similarity here to the analysis of evidence in a legal trial.

In civil and criminal trials, both the prosecution and defense address themselves to **the exact same body of evidence** -- e.g., the blood, the gloves, the footprints, etc.

Each side analyzes the same evidence -- they simply interpret it differently.

The Prosecution: The blood on the carpet is from the cut to the killer's finger that he received when he attacked the victim.

The Defense: No, the blood on the carpet was planted there as part of a conspiracy by the police (and that cut on the defendant's finger is perfectly innocent, from a glass that broke in his hand not a knife).

>Empirical evidence is all we have.
That's fine. Theists have *always* appealed to empirical evidence. And even skeptics like Richard Dawkins agree that the evidence cited by theists is legitimate evidence. Dawkins simply disagrees about what the evidence *means* -- much in the way that Johnnie Cochran disagreed with Marcia Clark about whether OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife.

>published in Seminars in Reproductive Medicine
pffft

>You can literally grow eye balls all of the body of flies by simply fucking with epigenetics
No you can't. Fly eye? Yes. Human eye? No.

>Literal horseshit.
You just agreed with me though.
Different environment = different expression = different results.
Same redundant information that can be modified by environmental factors upon reading. You can change gene expression even by such simple things like different PH levels or temperature.

>This is circular logic that presumes evolution is objectively true.
Are we here? If yes then it is objectively true.
You can't argue with things that exist.

I think you've fallen into the trap of believing you understand everything because you have mastered a portion of science. Go watch some of the ((Susskind)) lectures on QM from stanford. Learn all the math required (I imagine you are probably up to the task, mentally).Then, I want you to explain how mass exists in unobserved portions of the Universe.

>modern philosopher

is that like a mexican intellectual

How does it feel knowing you will never be known?

>Scream bloody libel

DEATH :)
youtube.com/watch?v=7j8vUbMmOwM

>Are we here? If yes then it is objectively true.
>You can't argue with things that exist.
Can't argue with a True Believer.

You'd still have to assume that any one religion is correct with proof, so all you've established is that we're complex beings created by something outside out comprehension. You've only made more questions than answers

>empirical evidence
If you can think it, then it must be somewhere in the universe, our thoughts are the breath of the cosmos.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102121644.htm

"When I first started in this field, some people were adamant that they understood the contents of the universe quite well," said Church, deputy director of KIPAC and the U.S. principal investigator of the QUaD project. "But that understanding was shattered when evidence for dark energy was discovered. Now that we again feel we have a very good understanding of what makes up the universe, it's extremely important for us to amass strong evidence using many different measurement techniques that this model is correct, so that this doesn't happen again."

We have no free will and we punish people just because of utility of isolating harmful individuals from society.
Right now we can predict human decisions up to 10 minutes before they make them without training and even earlier when you train the application with their brain patterns prior to the experiment.

Libet
John-Dylan Haynes
etc

You know the stance.

tldr, you punish people because they are working against your personal interest.

>You've only made more questions than answers
Humans will be arguing about the existence of god until doomsday.

youtube.com/watch?v=zguCFjHyVeM

Did you give it to him?

You listen to the Sam Harris pocast, too?!?! Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Then, I want you to explain how mass exists in unobserved portions of the Universe.
You can't.

>I think you've fallen into the trap of believing...
We can modify organisms and get expected results which means that our understanding of the underlying process is good enough from the utilitarian standpoint.

I'll publish me serious works on Amazon.

>Modern Philosopher here
Read Kierkegaard you unemployed faggot.

Interesting concept. However, I can't empirically find out if you exist, if you have consciousness like mine. I can't empirically prove that I exist, either. Or that yesterday actually happened. There is no experiment I can do RIGHT NOW to prove ANY of those things. Science is rather limited. As for God, an entity believed to be above and beyond nature (in my understanding of it) is beyond the realm of science, because science deals with nature, the natural world. Anything even supposed to exist outside of it can't be touched by science. Here is something: science can't prove that the universe exists. I can't perform an experiment that proves anything around me is real. This is just what my senses tell me; no way to prove it at all. So I understand your frustration with certain angry religious people, who completely reject science. But know there are other ways to know besides science. The same trust that you have in humanity's reasoning abilities which created and operate Empiricism, is the trust that they may or may not have in God. Just something to consider. Good luck on your philosophy career; if you ever write a book on this topic let us know.

>If you can think it, then it must be somewhere in the universe
Yes, it's in your brain and that's pretty much it.

>train the application with their brain patterns
Is that you Frankenstein?

Atheism is a disappearing religion, mostly because atheists do not reproduce. If a philosophy causes you to fail at the most basic biological task your ancestors have been doing for billions of years, how is it useful?

>Religion

>Yes, it's in your brain and that's pretty much it.
The universe is in our brain?

You aren't arguing my original point... Why would nature create such a system of information storage? How does natural selection lead to "class based object instantiation?" This technique was developed to make programming easier for humans. Its a time saving / space saving technique used during programing.

A FUCKING DEATH THREAD?!!

GET OUT!

FUCK YEAH NIGGERS
youtube.com/watch?v=0E8xdhuOQCI

space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

So, how does it feel knowing you will never be known?

>You listen to the Sam Harris pocast, too?!?!
Never heard of him.
I worked with neurobiologists and cognitive scientists for 4 years.

I'm not laying out the case in full for a Creator, m8, I'm simply responding to the OP's observation about the importance of empirical evidence.

That said, a Creator is a better explanation for the existence of complex design in the universe than the atheist's claim that everything evolved out of nothing, and/or a tiny dense speck of matter smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, which exploded.

It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Catholic, tbqf phamalam.

This is a good point though; how is it possible to have seemingly infinite minds in a finite universe? It's strange. He's wrong, that these things must exist, but the fact that they are POSSIBLE, and have never existed at all, is perplexing

That's the idiot's way of saying that it's something he doesn't understand. Metaphysics is very important.

Billions of years? I tough that earth was 6000 years old

I do it for myself.
When I die I will be dead, so yeah.
Other people who might care will also die at some point.

>philosopher
>not acknowledging the importance of the belief in God and theological morality for the greater good of a civilization

Of course, because I asked for something in return. Did you even read my original post ?

But alright, lets have at it:

Your first claim that accepting God CAN without proof means you have to logically accept anything CAN exist is also mistaken as the initial claim about God entails there is enough room in the speaker's worldview for the possibility of God. Other things may not have room conceptually and so it cannot be said that anything can exist.

For example: You may believe someone was in your office while you were out for a week. This is accepted as possible without evidence. However that doesn't mean that you accept a house larger than your office was in your office as it doesn't make any sense.

Further, 'God', in the Abrahamic sense as defined in the west, is divided in two branches. Being the philosopher here, you may have heard of them: Classical Theism and Theistic Personalism. The former is what is originally understood as the "God of the philosophers" and held by the patristic theologians, all medieval theologians, and the Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental Church today. The latter is common between laypeople and formalized as the doctrinal view in Protestant circles. These are distinct concepts with defined elements and relationships to nature. As such, your comment about the term being meaningless is incorrect. If you perchance meant "god" in a categorical sense you'd still be wrong. It is an umbrella term for supernatural controlling entities, despite the variety that exists between them conceptually. The vague nature of the claim is not that helpful, however, and leads to the modern issues with categorizing and understanding "religion".

Sorry to send you back to class but if you're out of the know, I'll give you a brief introduction on definitions of God.

youtube.com/watch?v=AxmY2n3LS8M

Also, physics cannot get off the ground without metaphysics so I don't know how you say something as ridiculous as