Why do so many people on Sup Forums believe in God?
There is no evidence for God's existence yet so many believe in him... there's also no evidence that he doesn't exist, but it seems more plausible to accept his lack of existence.
Genuinely curious, pls redpill me.
>There is no evidence for God's existence yet so many believe in him.
That's how believe works, brainlet...
Christians are jews that mixed with us more than what we know of jews as today
I asked how it's justified, or are you telling me people believe in God entirely arbitrarily?
>There is no evidence for God's existence
The universe. Everything is evidence of God's existence.
>There is no evidence for God's existence
L2Quantum Physics. God has been proven decades ago.
Elaborate please, self-contained that sentence makes little sense.
Lol... I know a little about quantum mechanics, how -exactly- does it prove God? I think you're pulling shit out of your ass.
>justified
The only justification you need for believe is that you are convinced for one reason or another. This is not murder are talking about.
>This is not murder are talking about.
we are talking about*
at the very basic god exists just as memes or nationalism exists. Now add the consciousness of religious experience and you've added another basis of existence. There are many layers to which something can exist aside from empirical data
I left this in another thread, it's why I believe in him.
>I repented one day after taking LSD. I became Christian again and changed dramatically from what I was before. I notice that I have troubles in trying to steer completely away from doing sinful acts. Right now, I had been sleeping with a model while seeing this other girl. I really feel like I shouldn't be seeing either as it is taking me away from God, our Lord, Jesus Christ. I have finished the Gospel and am currently in through Judges. I am bent out of shape, I want to bare children and complete my schooling in becoming a lawyer so that I can do right by this world and my community by creating a family that will inspire others to do the same. I fear that I get egotistical at times and try to pleasure myself causing me to miss the mark.
>I have another personal question for you anons... When I became sober the next day and repented I saw the clouds out of the apartment I lived in at the time. They were flat, very flat except for this shape that potruded out of it. It looked like a shepard and it was so clear.. The time was 6 or 7 AM and all the windows of the other apartments were off... It felt like it was there for me. I don't know why, but I always was a man of reason and logic, I looked at Christianity as a social program that was beneficial specifically for making the ideal state; it became clear after that experience that it was something much more...
>If there are any Christians in this thread... Can you please help me... I am trying to fight my sin and if this was an authentic experience and that was God then it would break my heart knowing that he came here for me personally and I continued in sin. What do I do, I know some of you are very well versed in living a peaceful and righteous life.
Why do you believe in anything?
Which one? Thor? I know Thor exists because people wrote stories about him. Plus he has his own comic book now.
Well think about this, if there was a being or force capable of creating the universe, why would it be understandable?
Seriously you can't even conceive how big our galaxy is, what makes you think you could understand or grasp the concepts of a mind capable of creating trillions of galaxies from the tiniest spec to the largest black hole?
I'm asking where the conviction comes from dummy, you just made me reword my question unnecessarily.
There has to be some kind of touchstone of epistemology, I'm asking what's yours? Why one God, why not two Gods? Why a God at all? Why not Allah? Why not Shiva? Why not Zeus?
Because either it's logical and for that reason an "obvious truth" as philosophers put it, or because the epistemological framework with which I back it up let's me properly navigate through the world.
Are you going to say there's no standard for probability and provability?
How is this relevant to anything I asked? I'm asking why assume there is a creator in the first place.
One of the major, fundamental splits in political and philosophical thought is what is real in an objective sense and what is just perception and just subject to change.
The right has usually fallen on the side of objective reality, things like platonism, moral realism, certain political and social orders being ordained by something more-than-human
Whereas to the left more is changeable, perspectival, and subjective
Christianity has been the strongest philosophical force in favor of the former view in the West for a long ass time.
In recent times (for maybe 150 years or so) some elements on the right have put their faith in objectivity in genetics and biology instead of the metaphysical, but it's still easy to see why so many of us gravitate towards theism instead.
Read Nietzsche if you want to know more
Oh, well I'm a non believer but I still choose to go through the rituals.
cause i feel like it.
Logic itself is based on axioms that require a leap of faith to be self evident.
>epistemological framework with which I back it up let's me properly navigate through the world
Your brain is evolved to have survive the best you can. Why would you trust it to know about a quasar and why would your brain want to know these kind of things that have no application to your survival?
>Why do so many people on Sup Forums believe in God?
Reporting.
>There is no evidence for God's existence
Divine conservation.
Thot be gone
I have a degree in philosophy and have read Nietzsche, what you're saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I don't know why you found it necessary to correlate conservatism to realism in general, how are they connected again? And I doubt there's empirical proof of there being a connection.
The great realists of even today all seem pretty liberal to me, Nietzsche himself was the greatest anti-realist in philosophical history, probably.
So... I don't know what you're even saying.
>Just read X to figure out why I'm right
???
No they don't lol, axioms of logic are just self-identity and some of the rules of inference, if you are going to deny the axioms of accuse them of being faith-based your statement itself will fall apart.
You cannot question a = a without contradicting your own post, intuitive obviousness is not faith, you're mixing up definitions here.
>Your brain is evolved to have survive the best you can. Why would you trust it to know about a quasar and why would your brain want to know these kind of things that have no application to your survival?
You're pre-supposing all thought is ultimately pointed towards survival, a premise I don't think makes any sense to accept.
We are epistemological beings, it's all we do all day, all we do is gather information and probe it to navigate through this world.
God is one piece of a theory that neither explains anything nor is it backed by anything empirical.
en.wikipedia.org
>Reporting
What do you mean?
>Divine conservation.
Can you elaborate on this?
You rule out God automatically by saying you'll accept Him if we provide "proof". I'm guessing physical proof, which presupposes a material universe, yet here you are using objective, abstract logic.How is logic objective in a universe with only sense experience? And if logic is relative, you've entered into a self contradictory absurd self refuting argument.
I believe because I have an innate spiritual side. I just seem to believe that there is life after death in a very unremarkable and dispassionate way the same way I know my bins get picked up on Thursday.
Christianity is the most culturally appropriate way for me to describe and express this belief so I go with that since I don’t want to reinvent the wheel.
>How is logic objective in a universe with only sense experience?
Because the universe isn't just sense experience dummy???
What a pointless post.
Read The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
JAWN... NEXT...
Thanks will do!
How do you know that? Based on your personal sense experience? Or someone elses? Who? You don't even know your own argument haha, literally piggy backing off of Christian theology
I understand what a Christian is, I'm asking Theists why do they believe in the existence of a God.
Are you retarded? No one has ever thought ontologically speaking sense experience is all there is lol, no one has been this retarded.
All a priori truths will form a good counter-argument to this proposition.
Not even the super autist empiricist thought this.
Stop talking about a subject you're clueless about.
>1 + 1 = 2 because my sense experience
t. retard
>I don't know why you found it necessary to correlate conservatism to realism in general, how are they connected again?
Assuming you're not lying, I have to assume you know more about philosophy than I do, but you clearly know less about political philosophy than I do. This is a pretty basic part of conservatism.
"Ideas Have Consequences" is a foundational modern conservative book, the basic thesis is that the rise of nominalism is at the root of liberalism because it opens the door for anything and everything to be changed in favour of any given value set.
Why not gay marriage? Or pedophilia for that matter? Why not abortion? Why morality at all? Why not mix into one big race? Why honour your ancestors? And so on and so on.
The easiest and oldest answer to these questions is some form of more-than-human morality, and the best-established form of that morality is religion.
If you listen to American gun rights advocates, they'll often say that the Constitution protects rights given BY GOD, not by the government. Therefore removing certain rights like free speech or the right to bear arms is not only wrong in a contingent sense but an ultimate and objective sense.
I'm an atheist like you, I'm not arguing in favour of God, I'm telling you the reason why so many rightists believe in God. When I brought up Nietzsche it was because he's one of the few philosophers who has reconciled atheism and perspectivalism with rightist thought
>You cannot question a = a without contradicting your own post
That's exactly my point. These axioms must be divinely revealed for us to understand logic.
>intuitive obviousness is not faith
That's sounds like faith. what's the difference then?
>You're pre-supposing all thought is ultimately pointed towards survival, a premise I don't think makes any sense to accept.
Does this not go against natural selection? You said yourself that the information we gather is used to navigate through this world. Is this not for survival?
How do you prove a priori truths? You are saying you are the authority to determine these claims from your sense experience. How are you applying this universally? Also maths are proofs of transcendentals, which are proofs of god as they are non physical entities which can't be explained within a materiast worldview
My evidence is you. You are a silly talking hairless monkey that can fly through the air in giant machines and travel accross the ground faster than any animal. You are on the perfect planet that is the perfect distance from the sun to support you. You even have giant planets protecting you from all the chaos in the universe. You live in a bug zoo, zoo, atrium, bird zoo and aquarium.
>What do you mean?
I'm reporting in.
>Can you elaborate on this?
Divine Conservation is a classical theist view that dominated the west until the modern day and is the introduction of western philosophical thought into theism. It is the cosmological view that there exists a specific kind of entity causing the world to persist in existence. The early moderns changed this view into God creating "laws" that hold the world together and the people today either passively accept the early moderns view or reject it with no coherent alternative. The alternative view (now named Existential Inertia, the view that the universe keeps itself in existence) still has no coherent explanation for itself.
Most cosmological arguments are actually arguments for Divine Conservation. It's a myth that they all talk about a causation backwards in time until the "start of time". Only a few, such as the Kalam, speak of that. Most are about sustaining causation in a specific moment in time. This gets lost to most people. The nature of the result is derived from the arguments too, not just posited as God.
Look up the term, you'd find it interesting.
Listen retard. God is not material. Just like logic isnt material. Just like math isnt material. He transcends all planes of existence for He is the foundation of it all. You automatically ruled God out from your very starting premise by stating we need to provide factual evidence, as in material evidence, when he is the foundation for Truth, for without Him you can't have anything except personal experiences. Fcking rekt atheist scum
Ive been an atheist for 23 years until i started going to church
Ive always been a rather rational person but i always wanted to believe
Now i just do
Its more of a case of hoping that god is real than truly believing and knowing for me
Making any claims about that sort of thing is irrational. Religions are just ancient traditions that have been extrapolated beyond their original complexities, or in the case of the Christianity/Islam coin, cultish fanaticism.
To add on that IF god is real he probably looks like nothing any religion imagines so i choose protestant christianity as the image for my hope because its my heritage
I see, I would still doubt there's a meaningful correlation between leftism and anti-realism and vice versa.
I guess I was confused because your post didn't give me a good argumentative understanding of why people believe in God.
>That's exactly my point. These axioms must be divinely revealed for us to understand logic.
No retard, that's not your point, your point was I have to accept a "leap of faith" to understand a = a.
>That's sounds like faith. what's the difference then?
There is a meaningful difference that has to be drawn, faith is an unjustified belief or hope or wish, intuitive obviousness is an -axiom- that cannot be conceived otherwise.
Just try to imagine a =/= a, try to imagine that one thing is itself but at the same time isn't. That's what is meant by obviousness, the axioms of logic cannot be called into question without having to abandon all discourse.
>Does this not go against natural selection? You said yourself that the information we gather is used to navigate through this world. Is this not for survival?
Ever since we have become self-aware beings it's not for survival, if you assume people just have reason where animals have instinct you have missed about 500 years of philosophy.
What the fuck are you talking about, I'm not applying any of my sense experience. I don't think you understand what a priori means, a priori truths are truths which don't require sense experience.
How I justify them? Usually basic logic.
>but hurr how to justify logic?
See above.
>Also maths are proofs of transcendentals, which are proofs of god as they are non physical entities which can't be explained within a materiast worldview
I have already accepted non-physical entities, you have to make the jump from that to God you brainlet.
Obviously qualia exist and they aren't mere molecules.
Poor argument.
I believe that there is a duality in the perspective of reality in that we have a belief which is merely just an illusion that makes something real when in fact it isn't, something we call dogma.
Reality is merely a thought under this observation and the thought has to come from a thinker
>I think therefore I am
The whole universe is an imaginative thought that lays on the foundation of the thinker. Dogmatic practices makes man the thinker and oppresses others to take up the belief of the dogma as being true. This makes the universe, the simulation of thought, submissive to the projected thoughts of man.
We know for certain that the universe does exist without man projecting the thought so therefore the thought(s) that forms our universe is being projected by a much greater conscious that puts everything in existence. In other words, this is God.
Since the days of earliest antiquity, men fought spiritually to preserve the truth that existence is justified by a much larger being at work than a group of nomads claiming they are absolute. This even comes to this day an age with many different identities trying to take full control on how it is we are to view existence.
As a Christian, I believe the "great thinker" is the father of man and he projected himself, much like how we project ourselves in our imagination, in the form of a man we call Jesus Christ. The father communicates to us through our cognition which is an inherent quality we obtained since we, like the father, are thinkers.
No I never asked for material evidence retard, I can believe a mathematical theorem or lemma if presented to me because it will carry some form of truth functionality without relying on empirical evidence because that's the whole point of mathematics.
I'm asking how can God justified if it can neither be empirical or logical?
blahblahblah, you didn't prove a thing. God is like Santa, except kids eventually stop believing in Santa. Admit you're afraid to die. That is the only reason you believe.
Oh yeah, these sorts of arguments have fallen flat ever since Kant.
Causality doesn't exist in the world-in-itself, it's a category of our mind that we impose onto the world.
It doesn't work.
A priori claims are still thought of FROM SENSE EXPERIENCE! How are they not, if you don't believe in God. Who is the authority of a priori claims? because I can go to a fgt ancap and he'll have different a priori claims than a commie
You are applying universals and not accounting for them. That's the problem!! How do you know your a priori bullshit applies to me, when you are not in my brain? You dont sense universally, yet you apply these universals. How are you doing this?
What the fuck, a priori claims are PER DEFINITION devoid of sense experience.
Stop acting as if you've ever heard of this concept before talking to me you subhuman.
Because you are entering with the assumption that the same feeble human mind that says things like 'I'm with her' can possibly understand an omnipotent omniscient being capable of literally anything.
If you just want to know why they go in with an assumption, it is called confirmation bias.
Autism sucks eh
Identity is important man.
For me peak Anglo-Saxon is Edward I.
If I can't have a trad Catholic wife and sons who will go on Crusade why even live.
>Oh yeah, these sorts of arguments have fallen flat ever since Kant.
Then please, explain.
>Causality doesn't exist in the world-in-itself, it's a category of our mind that we impose onto the world.
>Causality doesn't exist in the world-in-itself
That's flatly wrong. Kant himself upheld simultaneous causation.
No a priori claims are transcendental and rely on God to be true. You can only apply synthetic claims based on experience. WHO ARE YOU GETTING YOUR EXPERIENCES FROM TO SAY THIS?
>I see, I would still doubt there's a meaningful correlation between leftism and anti-realism and vice versa.
There is and you know it. Or do you not think Christians are more likely to be conservative and atheists liberal? And vice versa in Islamic countries?
Another foundational conservative book is Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions". The rightist "vision" is of human nature that's basically flawed and constrained by certain facts of existence. These facts can't simply be changed so society has to be organized around them, and rules put in place to enforce them.
One example, the free market. Clearly preferred by the right. For the reason that self-interest is a basic and unchangeable part of human nature, and to succeed, we have to harness it instead of trying to change it.
Another example, marriage, family values, sexual conservatism. In the absence of rules, humans adopt sexual practices that are detrimental to the community at large because they spread STDs, and result in unwanted pregnancies and children without stable homes.
In the leftist worldview both of these can be done away with because the aspects of human nature that require tham can be done away with in favour of some hypothetical higher good (total economic equality, total sexual freedom).
You don't HAVE to base this rightist worldview in God but again, it's the easiest and best-established way to do it.
You can only apply synthetic claims based on experience. No one believes you can apply true a priori claims with God. That's why their fuking synthetic fgt
>be god
>omnipotent and omnipresent
>define logic itself
>decide to make cruelty and tragedy exist
>lol but I’m also love though
>what is free will
>hurdur
Actually I am massively opposed to that assumption, which is why I have this intuition that no one has any good reasons to believe in God which aren't reducible to a convenient feeling or pragmatism.
RRREEEEEEEEEEEEE
He did believe in causation but as a category of our reason, we merely think in causation, we can't postulate that causation exists in the world-in-itself.
That was the whole point of his first critique, to revise metaphysics because it has been "going down paths which were destined to end up nowhere" or something.
The canon prior to Kant was that our experience is tailored to the objects of the outside world, Kant's revision was to claim (I think figure out) that the objects are tailored to our filters of experience, unity, causality, time and so on.
en.wikipedia.org
Clearly you don’t quite comprehend what omnipotent means.
The universe? Who's to say that the god detailed in the bible is the one who created it? Who's to say it wasn't the flying spaghetti monster? Or some other meme?
give me a apriori claim you didnt sense fgt.
You are retarded. The nature of even understanding an apriori claims requires sense data. Holy shit atheists are dumb nowadays
...
looks like your cuck country needs a bit more belief in god
Not necessarily, libertarianism tackles this regarding economics.
For example, the synthetic a priori claim that an identical product will sell more units at 1$ per unit than 5$ per unit.
The value of "one dollar" is defined as "whatever people are willing to exchange one dollar for". This is an a priori claim, it's not based on any sense experience, it's just self-evident.
The set of "people who will be willing to exchange 5$, 4$, 3$, 2$, or 1$" is larger than the set of "people who will be willing to exchange 5$" for a certain good is also an a priori truth. There's no logical way it can be incorrect.
Therefore no empirical data can contradict it.
>No a priori claims are transcendental and rely on God to be true.
I'm just too stupid to understand this gibberish, I'm sorry.
Well now you've gone into applying /a Sup Forums / twitter SJW dichotomy in regards to political philosophy, I don't think that's fair when talking political philosophy. Thomas Sowell is not a philosopher.
There is not so much of a stark divide between left and right political philosophers who are actual philosophers.
Hurr durr why didn't the omnipotent God create a world where free will and lack of suffering can co-exist?
a = a
1 + 1 = 2
Bachelors are unmarried man
Waiting for you to expose just how retarded you are with your next post.
Little tip: a priori claims become a priori because of something called the copula, not because of the premises.
they don't, this place is just full of retards who take everything posted on here seriously even if it starts out as a troll to wind up redditors, all the "christians" on here have not been to a church in a decade if ever
post the pic without shitty edits please
I love cosmos pics
What makes you think it is exactly the christian god detailed in the bible?
>That's how believe works, brainlet
>believe
>brainlet
You mean faith. AKA believing in something without any any evidence
>your point was I have to accept a "leap of faith" to understand a = a
You do actually. You're pretty much arguing the same thing with the other user with the meme flag.
A=A to you and me is something that just is. It's "obvious" and self-evident. This is the definition of God. It just is. Or as christians believe "I am that I am."
the axioms of logic, mathematics, all transcendental that you deem self-evident or obvious are attributes of God. Their was a logical mind that created the universe that made us in His image. So we have a logical mind that can understand a logical universe.
Look at the world around you and tell me there’s no possible way something programmed all of it
Read the greats (from antiquity to Camus) and study the current mind body problem plaguing contemporary philosophers. Basically God's real and we're all fucked. His teachings align with and predate the simplified right wing ideologies /pol has been advocating for the past half a decade.
Thomas Sowell is a political thinker. There isn't a 1:1 correlation between metaphysical beliefs and political beliefs, but there IS a correlation, and you know it. I'll ask again, are you not aware that Christians are more likely to be right-wing than atheists?
You asked the question "why do so many people on Sup Forums believe in God" and I gave you the answer, which is "right-wing political beliefs have historically been related to realist philosophical beliefs", which is true.
That doesn't preclude exceptions, like me, presumably you, and in modern times Mencius Moldbug, who is an atheist but more right-wing than any Republican.
I was an atheist, had some crazy experiences and started investigating religions, in the end the only thing that closely resembled my experience was gnosticism.
>He did believe in causation but as a category of our reason, we merely think in causation, we can't postulate that causation exists in the world-in-itself.
But at the same time he holds to the reality of simultaneous causation. Further, I don't find anyone outside you - even between Kant's followers and all modern academics - who would hold that causation does not really exist. It has too much consistency between appearances to show "responses" are the same and so there is true cause. Kant's criticism doesn't hold.
Also, the more I read your posts the more im unsure what you mean by God. Were expecting a man in the clouds telling you not to hold your dick?
What? Where did you get that idea?
Yeah there are reasons to believe but if you ask about initial assumption, that is conf-bias fo sho
>not knowing what the anthropic principle is
fucking burgers
They find truth in the Christian lifestyle. This truth leads to awe at the amazing depth of the Bible. This awe compounds until they sincerely believe the work was divinely inspired.
Something I've picked up from basically being an atheist my whole adult life is that genuine Christianity is hard to penetrate from the outside. It's just as much a lifestyle philosophy as it is a book of mythology and allegory.
I have only heard summaries of Kierkegaard, but I think his "leap of faith" references this commitment to the Christian lifestyle. It's something you can't take lightly and have to approach with 100% sincerity. Most people aren't ready for it. I'm certainly not.
>there is no evidence of God
>what is quantum physics
Reverse order my computer fucked it up
erm, have you read the gospel? big red pill on kikes.
>Why do so many people on Sup Forums believe in God?
Because we'd need a miracle to reverse the machinations of man
But again there is a difference in that I can think God doesn't exist, but it's IMPOSSIBLE to think a IS NOT a you retard, that is meant by self-evident truth.
You can't deny it, it's impossible.
And if you did everything you said would degenerate into drivel because you'd have to make a claim and then deny it at the same time.
Another thing is a = a is globally understood, God on the other hand isn't understood at all and when pressed where the belief comes form nothing as clean-cut as a = a comes out.
>the axioms of logic, mathematics, all transcendental that you deem self-evident or obvious are attributes of God. Their was a logical mind that created the universe that made us in His image. So we have a logical mind that can understand a logical universe.
This is a heap of assshit, every sentence here needs justification and you have provided zero.
I have and none of it is relevant or important, the mind-body problem isn't that much of a problem to modern philosophers.
Dualism is dead.
I don't see why simultaneous causation is a subject that is pressing in this debate.
>Further, I don't find anyone outside you - even between Kant's followers and all modern academics - who would hold that causation does not really exist.
I hope I didn't say it doesn't exist, after all knowledge through our categories are the only framework in which we can use the word "existence". What I meant was, we cannot postulate that it exists in the world-in-itself, the mind-independent world.
Once you accept this all cosmological arguments fall flat.
>Kant's criticism doesn't hold.
Which criticism? He accepts what you're saying, I don't even think you've read him or "modern academics".
Any kind of God, justify him to me.
You are a pseud and a retard.
>Any kind of God
Do you think matter is perfect? Or do you think matter is imperfect?
I don't understand the question.
what the fuck are you trying to ask here
Yes, matter, the substance from which we and the universe is made.
Can you provide undeniable proof that God doesn't exist?
Burden of proof's on you fuckhead
He's trying to ask if matter has ultimate reality, or if it is merely an imperfect reflection of something eternal
being vs becoming
The question only makes sense if you already accept that matter is "imperfect"
So-called "atheists" are just bastard sons of the very church they profess to oppose, for they define god the exact same way. You utter gremlin.
I know what you probably mean by matter, what is the question again?
>But again there is a difference in that I can think God doesn't exist, but it's IMPOSSIBLE to think a IS NOT a you retard, that is meant by self-evident truth.
You can't deny it, it's impossible.
You sound well educated, but do you actually not see the irony in this?
>God on the other hand isn't understood at all
Depends on what you mean by God
>Any kind of God, justify him to me.
what if God is all a priori truths?
That's a cop out. Prove your stance.
>is matter perfect
What a stupid question. "perfect" anything doesn't exist unless someone vaguely discusses something they enjoy. It's like when people don't laugh but say "thats funny". Again, shit question that has no relevance anywhere in actual discussion.
>calls everyone a retard
>what is the observer effect
>what is the fractal-holographic nature of the universe
>what is the 3, the 6, the 9
>what is the golden ratio
>what is sonic geometry
>what is electromagnetism
If you think the source of reality is anything short of intelligent design, you're a brainlet. An arrogant one at that.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
And besides, you asking me to prove my stance is just as much of a cop out, is it not?
He doesnt have to prove shit to you
He believes in god and thats that
I can't prove that God does or does not exist. You seem to be know the answer. Show it to us.