Logically rationalize God

[Metamorph]

Arguments from the nature of the mind's ability to perceive the world can be made to defend the likelihood of a god, but they are hardly evidence of the existence of any specific god as past cultures knew him, that is, as the Abrahamic god or a Hindu god. On the other hand, arguments both from specific and nonspecific understandings of god's nature have been used by those that claim to understand him, as justification for fettering or persecuting those who will never be his children, in the physical world.
And that's just annoying.

That's exactly the argument I've made. I don't think you're allowed to shoot down an argument solely because you think it's more detrimental than beneficial, but, even if you do, I think it's more beneficial to have a non-specific god than to have no god. Having no god always turns into a hedonistic philosophy based on avoiding pain, which I think is invalid. What if we could make humans live forever naturalistically by editing genes so we don't age combined with repairing broken organs like in Star Trek? While I think eternal biological life is never guaranteed, the fact that it's possible in theory and there are no inherent human limitations makes me feel inclined to separate the pantheist god from atheism based on having very different results of belief. Apparently when astronauts first landed on the Moon they attributed it to God, and people in previous times would definitely consider humans on the Moon a supernatural type phenomenon. Atheism always turns into an inversion of the religion it rejects, such as: we need God to go to the heavens, and there is no God, therefore we can't go to the heavens, while pantheism says instead of being slaves to Sky Wizard, we work our own miracles.

[Investigator]

I am Christian which makes me Theistic, but I am not religious in the worldly sense. I believe God's existence is logically provable and I also believe the rules that he wants us to follow are also a priori, along with the fundamental reasons for these rules.

I think I sketch of God's existence would look something like Descartes Ontological Argument:

1. Our idea of God is an all perfect being. In other words, a being that has perfection in "all areas."
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore God must exist.

Common Criticisms of this sketch
1. Can't I assign the property of perfection to other things like unicorns and "deduce them into existence."
Rebuttal: Well we can't picture a perfect being with our mind, we can only make generalizations. For a spaghetti monster, we can picture what a spaghetti monster would look like making it already flawed. Now, let's not get this confused with Jesus who I believe came as God within a human body. The human body in of itself wasn't God, but the being using it was. Why can't God use a spaghetti monster or a unicorn? I mean I guess hypothetically God could do that, but those things (the spaghetti monster, unicorn, etc.) in of themselves wouldn't be God.
2. Isn't the idea of perfection kinda vague? Well not really. Descartes definition for perfection in of itself is a positive trait. For example, you wouldn't say weakness is a perfection, as weakness is merely the absence of power. A healthy food for thought would be to consider if we did consider weakness to be a perfection and figure out why this doesn't make sense.

For a more rigorous proof, I invite you to check out Godel's Ontological Argument if you know modal logic.

As for being Christian, I think this is at least a posteriori knowledge. There are many historical documents of Jesus's existence and his persecution. Along with his injuries, and sitings of him after he sustained these injuries (which would not be humanly possible based on the reported injuries).

[Metamorph]

That's such a bad argument by my standards. It assumes Cartesian dualism and it assumes that traits are inherently positive or negative a priori. The absence thing is such an awful argument because I can say goodness is the absence of badness. For example, I had some gingko leaves that went bad (don't store gingko leaves in a jar, they don't dry out and will grow mold.) When they had no mold, they were good, but then they gained mold and went bad. Is God a foul being covered in mold?

As to Cartesian dualism, if you believe Jesus was God, then Jesus was partially his body. No body, no Jesus, so using Occam's razor Jesus's body was part of Jesus. I'm not going to say all of Jesus because obviously God extends beyond that in Christian texts and I think all people extend beyond their fleshly bodies even without having to argue about Jesus or religion.

I also don't find the idea of something being at least partially visible and being flawed convincing. So, if I have a blank piece of paper, that's the perfect work of art, but if I become the next da Vinci toiling for years, I'm actually the worst artist? Let's all go blind then so we can see no evil. Maybe Hell just means eternal existence and Heaven is where we don't exist, like Christian God.

[Investigator]

That's such a bad argument by my standards. It assumes Cartesian dualism and it assumes that traits are inherently positive or negative a priori. The absence thing is such an awful argument because I can say goodness is the absence of badness. For example, I had some gingko leaves that went bad (don't store gingko leaves in a jar, they don't dry out and will grow mold.) When they had no mold, they were good, but then they gained mold and went bad. Is God a foul being covered in mold?

As to Cartesian dualism, if you believe Jesus was God, then Jesus was partially his body. No body, no Jesus, so using Occam's razor Jesus's body was part of Jesus. I'm not going to say all of Jesus because obviously God extends beyond that in Christian texts and I think all people extend beyond their fleshly bodies even without having to argue about Jesus or religion.

I also don't find the idea of something being at least partially visible and being flawed convincing. So, if I have a blank piece of paper, that's the perfect work of art, but if I become the next da Vinci toiling for years, I'm actually the worst artist? Let's all go blind then so we can see no evil. Maybe Hell just means eternal existence and Heaven is where we don't exist, like Christian God.

Hmm your doubt for the validity of my argument based on the reasons you have put forward suggests a sense of impracticality within yourself. I believe unintuitive philosophical arguments may sound witty at first, but prove have very little application. Why do I say this? Let's go to the thought bubble:

A man shows up and he says that there will be a huge battle in your homeland. He then asks you if you want to be bestowed enough power to protect you and your love ones at no cost at all to you. He also says without this power, many of your love ones will die. Assuming that you believe the man's offer, would you take the power? Most people would say yes. This is a sign of a priori assessment of power as a positive trait to have. Though I am not sure if you are going to be convinced by signs. Consider it valid posteriori knowledge.

Now, I understand the point that you're making with regard to the the time contingency of the quality of perfection. But you fail to understand that timelessness is a property that can be assigned to an object or property. In fact, most people fail to understand is that the cardinality of the set of properties that can assigned to an object is at least similar to that of a countable set. Now what if we added continuity to our properties (i.e X is Y times more intelligent than Z) then the cardinality would be that of the real numbers. If we were to do that, it would be very hard to contest Descartes's argument. So in regards to your gingko leaves, the object's properties are not timeless, so this will affect the quality of the leaf. This is why we alter the definition of good every time we jump from object to object especially when we take time into account. However, to be a perfect being, you must have good traits in all areas (this is insight into Godel's ontological argument) all the time. I don't know what you think of Kant, but he also thought that you couldn't ever assess temporal objects if you did not have some notion of space and time.

Hmm... As for your body argument. I am not completely sure what your getting at. Is a puppet a part of his master? Would a proxy be considered a part of the entity they are standing in for? For example, Athleticism is a property you assign to my body, not myself.

Maybe read into Godel, you might be more satisfied with his rigor.

[Metamorph]

I've read Gödel long ago.

Who's making the deal? If it's the Devil or a genie, we know how that goes. You gain the power, but you kill yourself with it by mistake since it can't be controlled, or it costs your family instead of you, or the government turns you into their pawn. I'd be incredibly suspicious of any mysterious person promising me a power. Anyways, why would I only take enough power to protect my family? Am I some sort of prepper now? It might be better to die than lose so much status, nights at concerts, days at galleries, cheap import beer, encyclopedias' worth of knowledge of sacred Nature, a life's story, arcing course of purpose. I'd probably try to kill him and take whatever he's hiding and stop the war, or win it at risk to myself for the future of my homeland and civilization. And if I can't take it, good riddance to one of the agents of destruction! And if I can't kill him, let me inspire all the land with the real power, Truth! Anyone who can give you such a power "cost-free" is one of the causes of your problems and doing a bait-and-switch and you know it.

Many properties of a ginkgo leaf are effectively timeless. A ginkgo leaf comes from a ginkgo tree, and this is an inherent and not contingent property of them. Even after I destroyed them, their origins are still intact. The fact that a ginkgo leaf has two sections and not one is not a contingent property. The fact that molds grow in damp and dark places is not a contingent property. A contingent property is always contingent on something.

I assign athleticism to people all the time. People who play sports and exercise are called athletic and people who participate in competitions like football matches and events like marathons are called athletes. I would call an athlete's body athletic rather than vice versa, since the same type of body could be achieved through, say, physical labor.

Good is relative. Would a career as the perfect musician be ruined by having first been the perfect waiter? Oh wait, nothing is perfect in any way at all, except God, who does not exist. Let's destroy everything in the name of unio mystica.

[QueenTiger666]

could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?

That's not how that works - the burden of proof would be on the person who claimed God exists. You use evidence to prove not disprove.

[mclane]

That's not how that works - the burden of proof would be on the person who claimed God exists. You use evidence to prove not disprove.

If you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist yes. But if you start from the other option it doesn't. The way I see it, it's like saying that the sky doesn't exist. Some people will say "hey, I see clearly that it exist", while a blind person could say that since they do not see it, it must be that it doesn't exist. That I believe is the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I've found that pure atheists often have some beef with the +Ni/-Ne element(for some reason, either because it is not valued or in a bad position such as PoLR, ignoring or linked demonstrative, and/or because they experienced some sort of trauma that made them not consider the existance of god a possibility).

[QueenTiger666]

If you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist yes. But if you start from the other option it doesn't. The way I see it, it's like saying that the sky doesn't exist. Some people will say "hey, I see clearly that it exist", while a blind person could say that since they do not see it, it must be that it doesn't exist. That I believe is the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I've found that pure atheists often have some beef with the +Ni/-Ne element(for some reason, either because it is not valued or in a bad position such as PoLR, ignoring or linked demonstrative, and/or because they experienced some sort of trauma that made them not consider the existance of god a possibility).

You always start from the assumption that he doesn't exist, similar to innocent until proven guilty.

[mclane]

You always start from the assumption that he doesn't exist, similar to innocent until proven guilty.

I already explained. I don't really want to continue this discussion or even interact any more on the forum for now. The forum seems to be experiencing a very low point both in activity and quality of discussion. And it's not due to the drama; there has been worse drama in the past, but things got done and things were explored and discovered. Interaction now mostly consists of unwarranted attacks (often on members that do not deserve them), sycophancy, sophistry, and useless things in general. This issue IMO would require some some drastic measures in order to be resolved.

Think I'm going back to lurking. Bye.

[QueenTiger666]

I already explained. I don't really want to continue this discussion or even interact any more on the forum for now. The forum seems to be experiencing a very low point both in activity and quality of discussion. And it's not due to the drama; there has been worse drama in the past, but things got done and things were explored and discovered. Interaction now mostly consists of unwarranted attacks (often on members that do not deserve them), sycophancy, sophistry, and useless things in general. This issue IMO would require some some drastic measures in order to be resolved.

Think I'm going back to lurking. Bye.

The ultimate rage quit

[flames]

You can’t logically rationalize Satan, the master of temptation and disguise, and you can’t scientifically prove “God”. Therefore, I believe they’re both evil and working together. Burn your local church today!

[Investigator]

It is very interesting how much we have fallen in love rationalizing everything without knowing if our activities will produce results in all areas of reality. Maybe there is God complex in ourselves that we have to actively suppress. Always found it wierd when people start discussing God’s existence as if it is “concretely” provable. I find it wierder when people say God’s non existence is “concretely” provable due to how flawed of a bet that is.

I gave you a test and you failed miserably. If you truly read Godel, you would have known of his incompleteness theorem, which states that there unprovable truths in mathematical logic. Sticking with a concrete conclusion on the topic of God’s existence, it should be known that you have completed a leap of faith, not of reason.

What will the they do when curtain falls on their irrational conclusions? “God, you did not give me enough hints”, “How can sentence me for being bad when I can’t trust concept of morality”, “God, made me too flawed to deduce your existence.” God says “I have given you all that is required and more.” Then they are sentenced.

Some might say even if this were to happen, they would be happy that they lead life of good philisophical thought and investigation. This mimics the words of failed gamblers who believe they know the trick to the system until they realize the system will not yield to their inferior abilities.

For your sakes, consider if range of possibilities if you’re wrong. You can’t argue with the “I am.” See where your best bets lie and try to take the correct leap of faith.

This is my final statement on this thread. Thanks for listening even if it appears as foolishness.

[End]

You can’t logically rationalize Satan, the master of temptation and disguise, and you can’t scientifically prove “God”. Therefore, I believe they’re both evil and working together. Burn your local church today!

Satan is eminently rationalizeable, just start trying to out hipster a real hipster. Pathetic yes, but so is Satan. Now, by the same token, try to out priest a priest. You'll sadly be able to do that with quite a few of them but once you finally come across a real one you'll get what I'm getting at.

You could also shock me right here and now if you pass a witch test. I have already sung false praises to Satan so as to prove my good faith to the fallen, can you sing false praises to Christ in turn while being as blatantly insincere as I was in my recorded blasphemy? Can ye even in jest say the words? I bet not. Prove me wrong.

[xerx]

Any attempt to rationalize either the nature or the existence of God immediately contradicts an important foundation of religious belief: conjuring up evidence for God's existence makes the notion of "faith" entirely morally vacuous and pointless.

Religion is more likely poetry than science, at any rate. If there were evidence for this supreme consciousness called "God", such that it was something reified, that you could grasp either physically or mentally, then that creature wouldn't be divine.

[Hitta]

You can’t logically rationalize Satan, the master of temptation and disguise, and you can’t scientifically prove “God”. Therefore, I believe they’re both evil and working together. Burn your local church today!

You've seen through the demiurge.

[Computer Loser]

it's not about "rationalizing god" or making sense of what god is by analyzing test tubes in a lab.

it's about "rationalizing if existence of god is possible/reasonable", and if there is purpose to why we're all here.

and to take it a step further. it's more about being open to the possibility vs trying to rationalize it.

we're not that smart lol

[Socionics Is A Cult]

If you believe that "God" is an observable feature of the universe, perhaps even considering "God" to be equivalent to the universe..."the whole", then I think belief in such a god is logically rational. But I would consider that unsatisfactory, as it is just playing with words (attributing to "God" what is already known by another name).

If you believe that "God" is eternal and has no creator - why is this not a possibility with the universe (or multiverse if you prefer, although that ultimately amounts to the same thing)? In either case, something being eternal is not something that be definitively proved.

It is nonsensical to say that the universe could have turned out differently with the same laws of nature. If the universe had turned out differently, than the laws of nature would have been different. It is also nonsensical to say that the universe has been created a particular way as opposed to being "random". Any isolated system can be defined absolutely, but it is not possible for an observer inside the system to do so. If the universe is an open system, then how could you determine if it is possible to create Something from Nothing?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Not really. There's this thing people forget about "God" (at least if we're talking about the Deity of Christianity). God *is* love. He loves you, me, that gray alien on Epsilon Segmentum Obscurus, etc. The key thing everyone just keeps overlooking is that he is also Justice.

Take the true and eternal love out of that equation. Imagine an entity, a deity, of only pure justice, of pure and omnipotent "law" sans any form of "morality" or "compassion" as we would understand it made manifest. Now imagine asking that thing what you deserve (or rather, not being given a choice in regards to having to ask that question of it). If you're not absolutely terrified at the prospect of that reality than you're either a narcissist, a saint, or a total idiot with a complete lack of imagination to boot and as saints are quite rare that kinda narrows it down.

Thankfully, for Christians like me, God is both so we have nothing to truly fear. Further argument on this front will, I regret in jest, require you to pass the Witch test. Key thing to remember about that is that you need not mean a word you type. Hell, you can even ask me to type words I won't mean for shit (i.e. ask me to say/type out the creed of another religion). Save, of course, for anything that hails the prince of this world and/or rejects God. After all, many a martyr were asked to do just that and they gave the correct answer. I will follow in their example.

If "God" is absolutely just, then no one has anything to fear.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Of which, leads me to my final point:

An argument for God from a consciousness/intelligence perspective

1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.

2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.

3. Lets assume it didn't happen by blind chance.

4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

And *the* intelligence greater than us?

GOD.

Does Carbon and Oxygen Know how to form Carbon Monoxide, or is this a process that some attribute as intelligent? Does DNA Know how to self-replicate? Do plants Know that they should grow towards the light? Do toads Know that they should try to catch horizontal lines that move rather than vertical ones?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

from V. Mancuso, catholic theologian and philosopher

The probability of the universe turning out the way it did is 100%. How could it be otherwise?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I am Christian which makes me Theistic, but I am not religious in the worldly sense. I believe God's existence is logically provable and I also believe the rules that he wants us to follow are also a priori, along with the fundamental reasons for these rules.

I think I sketch of God's existence would look something like Descartes Ontological Argument:

1. Our idea of God is an all perfect being. In other words, a being that has perfection in "all areas."
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore God must exist.

Common Criticisms of this sketch
1. Can't I assign the property of perfection to other things like unicorns and "deduce them into existence."
Rebuttal: Well we can't picture a perfect being with our mind, we can only make generalizations. For a spaghetti monster, we can picture what a spaghetti monster would look like making it already flawed. Now, let's not get this confused with Jesus who I believe came as God within a human body. The human body in of itself wasn't God, but the being using it was. Why can't God use a spaghetti monster or a unicorn? I mean I guess hypothetically God could do that, but those things (the spaghetti monster, unicorn, etc.) in of themselves wouldn't be God.
2. Isn't the idea of perfection kinda vague? Well not really. Descartes definition for perfection in of itself is a positive trait. For example, you wouldn't say weakness is a perfection, as weakness is merely the absence of power. A healthy food for thought would be to consider if we did consider weakness to be a perfection and figure out why this doesn't make sense.

For a more rigorous proof, I invite you to check out Godel's Ontological Argument if you know modal logic.

As for being Christian, I think this is at least a posteriori knowledge. There are many historical documents of Jesus's existence and his persecution. Along with his injuries, and sitings of him after he sustained these injuries (which would not be humanly possible based on the reported injuries).

The problem with such arguments is that they confuse an Idea with a Thing that exists in reality. Also, "Existence is a perfection" is an aesthetic view (a matter of personal taste), not a necessary attribute of a thing that exists.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

If you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist yes. But if you start from the other option it doesn't. The way I see it, it's like saying that the sky doesn't exist. Some people will say "hey, I see clearly that it exist", while a blind person could say that since they do not see it, it must be that it doesn't exist. That I believe is the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I've found that pure atheists often have some beef with the +Ni/-Ne element(for some reason, either because it is not valued or in a bad position such as PoLR, ignoring or linked demonstrative, and/or because they experienced some sort of trauma that made them not consider the existance of god a possibility).

Atheism just means that an individual lacks a belief in the existence of gods - as they were at the time of their birth. Whether a person explicitly states a lack of belief in the existence of god is another matter.

Agnosticism however actually does require an individual to make an explicit judgement.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

It is very interesting how much we have fallen in love rationalizing everything without knowing if our activities will produce results in all areas of reality. Maybe there is God complex in ourselves that we have to actively suppress. Always found it wierd when people start discussing God’s existence as if it is “concretely” provable. I find it wierder when people say God’s non existence is “concretely” provable due to how flawed of a bet that is.

I gave you a test and you failed miserably. If you truly read Godel, you would have known of his incompleteness theorem, which states that there unprovable truths in mathematical logic. Sticking with a concrete conclusion on the topic of God’s existence, it should be known that you have completed a leap of faith, not of reason.

What will the they do when curtain falls on their irrational conclusions? “God, you did not give me enough hints”, “How can sentence me for being bad when I can’t trust concept of morality”, “God, made me too flawed to deduce your existence.” God says “I have given you all that is required and more.” Then they are sentenced.

Some might say even if this were to happen, they would be happy that they lead life of good philisophical thought and investigation. This mimics the words of failed gamblers who believe they know the trick to the system until they realize the system will not yield to their inferior abilities.

For your sakes, consider if range of possibilities if you’re wrong. You can’t argue with the “I am.” See where your best bets lie and try to take the correct leap of faith.

This is my final statement on this thread. Thanks for listening even if it appears as foolishness.

[inaLim]

I think the rationalization of God says more about a person than a person's rationalizations say about God. It seems people characterize, relate to, and justify the existence of god to serve their own projections of however they need god to be/act/judge.

Need for relationship - relief from the anxiety of alienation. An orientation towards the ultimate, "as if" a form of interpersonal, embodied, or ecological relationship. Partner, womb, provider.
Need for order - relief from the anxiety of chaos and the prospect of the impossibility of sense-making. Staking the claim that it's all intelligible.
Need for value - relief from the anxiety that one's worldview is constructed around incidental or meaningless patterns. Staking the claim that existence is well-made and hence its manifestations are worthy of investigation and value.
Need for direction - relief from the anxiety of being accountable with no guidance. "Leaving it in God's hands" "It's all according to God's plan"
Need for expected returns - relief from the anxiety that the fruits of our conduct in this life are ultimately arbitrary. Good/Merit/Effort/Kindness will go unrewarded. Evil/Mediocrity/Apathy/Indifference will go unpunished. No one is watching, listening, or keeping track. The responsive god/universe.
Need for meaning & motivation - relief from the anxiety that nothing is significant. That nothing lasts or makes a difference. Nothing is ultimately worthwhile or fulfilling. Ecclesiastes.
Need for the new unknown - relief from the anxiety that one is treading already discovered territory and possibilities exhausted by materialism. Stagnation in dead ends.


Edit: I forgot to include urges to identify with hierarchy, to serve, to worship/devotion, to annihilate ego consciousness and merge with "The All", to understand/reach enlightenment. etc etc. All these different orientations and urges generate different perspectives of the nature of God and different rationalizations for whether or not to believe.

[mclane]

Atheism just means that an individual lacks a belief in the existence of gods - as they were at the time of their birth. Whether a person explicitly states a lack of belief in the existence of god is another matter.

Agnosticism however actually does require an individual to make an explicit judgement.

The image you posted is very good, but your writing is a bit nonsensical.

[Aylen]

Satan is eminently rationalizeable, just start trying to out hipster a real hipster. Pathetic yes, but so is Satan. Now, by the same token, try to out priest a priest. You'll sadly be able to do that with quite a few of them but once you finally come across a real one you'll get what I'm getting at.

You could also shock me right here and now if you pass a witch test. I have already sung false praises to Satan so as to prove my good faith to the fallen, can you sing false praises to Christ in turn while being as blatantly insincere as I was in my recorded blasphemy? Can ye even in jest say the words? I bet not. Prove me wrong.

“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

Asking people to pass a "witch test" sounds like you learned it from an anime or some fantasy novel and not actual information based on history and the witch trials. You do realize that even a "possessed" person or satan himself would pass your "witch test" easily. I feel like you make a mockery of it all doing this. I may not consider myself a Christian anymore for my own reasons but I find this pretty offensive when you asked people to do this. Witch burnings were no joke. So many innocents killed in the name of religion. Many of them probably just for using herbs to help heal or something else very benign. Others because someone wanted their property and saw it as an easy way to get and then we have the ergot poisoning, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.

I also find it strange that you would blaspheme as a true believer. When I was one I would have never praised satan even as a joke and definitely not in arrogance in an attempt to get someone to praise god then to blaspheme him after. Something does not make sense about all this.

2. Prayer Test
Medieval wisdom held that witches were incapable of speaking scripture aloud, so accused sorcerers were made to recite selections from the Bible—usually the Lord’s Prayer—without making mistakes or omissions. While it may have simply been a sign that the suspected witch was illiterate or nervous, any errors were viewed as proof that the speaker was in league with the devil. This twisted test of public speaking ability was commonly used as hard evidence in witch trials. In 1712, it was applied in the case Jane Wenham, an accused witch who supposedly struggled to speak the words “forgive us our trespasses” and “lead us not into temptation” during her interrogation. Still, even a successful prayer test didn’t guarantee an acquittal. During the Salem Witch Trials, the accused sorcerer George Burroughs flawlessly recited the prayer from the gallows just before his execution. The performance was dismissed as a devil’s trick, and the hanging proceeded as planned.

https://www.history.com/news/7-bizar...ch-trial-tests

Is this what Catholicism is like now? Has it reverted to superstition and witch tests? None of the Catholics I know would ask such a thing of anyone. They also wouldn't praise satan to make a point.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

The image you posted is very good, but your writing is a bit nonsensical.

Atheism does not require a belief, essentially.

[ooo]

The probability of the universe turning out the way it did is 100%. How could it be otherwise?

probability is not counted that way though, if you win at a slot machine your chances to win were not 100%, but still lower than... what? a 5%?

but here the probabilities are presumably even lower : )

[Socionics Is A Cult]

probability is not counted that way though, if you win at a slot machine your chances to win were not 100%, but still lower than... what? a 5%?

but here the probabilities are presumably even lower : )

My point is that you cannot count the probability of something that is the whole. There is nothing to compare it to.

[ooo]

My point is that you cannot count the probability of something that is the whole. There is nothing to compare it to.

the chances of the formation of single molecules of proteins were hypothesized, or other singular phenomena, not the whole... btw Idk, they're pretty big scientists claiming this, I pass the mic to them~

[Socionics Is A Cult]

the chances of the formation of single molecules of proteins were hypothesized, or other singular phenomena, not the whole... btw Idk, they're pretty big scientists claiming this, I pass the mic to them~

It is understandable for example for scientists to get their jollies estimating the probability of such an occurrence happening in a particular solar system, but it would be inappropriate to do so at the level of the universe.

[mclane]

Atheism does not require a belief, essentially.

Based on the image you posted, only "implicit atheism" (which is the dumbest position of them all as per the image) would meet that requirement.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Based on the image you posted, only "implicit atheism" (which is the dumbest position of them all as per the image) would meet that requirement.

I'm not sure what your point is. Your position was that atheism required a judgement call - this is not the case.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

What your chart calls implicit atheism is normally just termed agnosticism. Dictionary definition: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God"

It's most common to work with just the 3 categories when discussing, or it gets rather convoluted and people end up referring to entirely different things in their discussions. These categories would be: belief (theist), disbelief (atheist), and no opinion (agnostic.)

Agnosticism is a position about belief regarding god/s - it does not equal "no opinion", but an explicit "no opinion" position would be agnostic ("I choose to neither believe or disbelieve in the existence of god/s").

Wiktionary:

Noun

agnosticism (countable and uncountable, plural agnosticisms)

1. The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable, especially regarding knowledge not based on experience or perceivable phenomena.
2. The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable.
3. Doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding the existence of a god or gods.
4. (by extension) Doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding any subject of dispute.

A person at birth lacks a belief or view about "God", so cannot be considered to be agnostic.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

@squark
Perhaps philosophy is ultimately an argument about the meaning of words.

[End]

Still missing the essential point @Aylen. Can you do it? If it's as easy as you say and with my allowance of blasphemy to boot than why not just do as I ask? It's just a few words typed out and posted here after all. Unlike most others who think as I do I will not post your confession all over social media as I have no presence there. The Shakespeare quote is actually quite fitting too. See, the "Death Cultists" (as I like to refer to them as) assume Christian morality to be true and then seek to warp and twist it to get "Christians" to do or admit to essentially anti-Christian falsehoods and actions. That they do so speaks volumes about how shallow their faith really is. Fucking "So" instinct...

Plus let's get down to brass tacks. You ain't gonna get converts by opening with "All your gods and traditions are false, shit, and offensive to the one true God whom I just so happen to represent. Repent now or he's gonna kill you all and torture you for all eternity." You instead open with how they're getting it right in whatever way they are and then leading them from there. All religions have a "part" of the truth, but only Christianity has the full, complete, and unabridged version of it.

As for that prayer test you mentioned. If honestly applied by a supportive and caring inquisitor than it would have worked out well. Sadly, people are people, and if they can use a thing like a "witch hunt" to their personal and political advantage they will do so with gusto 99 times out of 100. I mentioned it in another post in another thread but the legend of "Tamamo no Mae" is the prime example of what "ought" to have been in my eyes. She recited the words and performed the "holy" ritual perfectly and flawlessly. So much so in fact that she didn't even notice that her true nature was being revealed as she did so. As the ritual proceeded the truth was made manifest as she suddenly started sprouting her fox tails. Once all nine of them were manifested, well, not even the most hardcore skeptic could deny the truth. That's when they sent out kill teams to hunt her down. Because even with flawless recitation and performance, a nine-tailed fox is a nine-tailed fox just as a witch is a witch. The logic was sound all around IMO.

If only we westerners had a similar myth I pray I am made aware of one day.

[Tallmo]

I think it's strange to say that people cannot know God. There are people who have had strong inner revelations and callings. If you have an experience of an inner ultimate spiritual authority that will change the course of your life, then who are we to say that this wasn't God?

Of course some will always say that it was just imagination. But if this "imagination" had that strong impact on you, labelling it like that is not gonna change the basic fact of the experience.

[timber]

Of course some will always say that it was just imagination. But if this "imagination" had that strong impact on you, labelling it like that is not gonna change the basic fact of the experience.

This was nicely explored in the movie "Contact", where the protagonist, a firm atheist, went on a Journey into outer space, yet when she returned home could not prove she went anywhere. Her rationality broke down and it was shown that it didn't matter or not if she had in fact went anywhere, it was that she was given such a powerful personal experience of her own revelation, that proving it scientifically was now beyond necessity anymore.

This character is ENTj btw.

[Aylen]

Still missing the essential point @Aylen. Can you do it? If it's as easy as you say and with my allowance of blasphemy to boot than why not just do as I ask? It's just a few words typed out and posted here after all. Unlike most others who think as I do I will not post your confession all over social media as I have no presence there. The Shakespeare quote is actually quite fitting too. See, the "Death Cultists" (as I like to refer to them as) assume Christian morality to be true and then seek to warp and twist it to get "Christians" to do or admit to essentially anti-Christian falsehoods and actions. That they do so speaks volumes about how shallow their faith really is. Fucking "So" instinct...

Plus let's get down to brass tacks. You ain't gonna get converts by opening with "All your gods and traditions are false, shit, and offensive to the one true God whom I just so happen to represent. Repent now or he's gonna kill you all and torture you for all eternity." You instead open with how they're getting it right in whatever way they are and then leading them from there. All religions have a "part" of the truth, but only Christianity has the full, complete, and unabridged version of it.

As for that prayer test you mentioned. If honestly applied by a supportive and caring inquisitor than it would have worked out well. Sadly, people are people, and if they can use a thing like a "witch hunt" to their personal and political advantage they will do so with gusto 99 times out of 100. I mentioned it in another post in another thread but the legend of "Tamamo no Mae" is the prime example of what "ought" to have been in my eyes. She recited the words and performed the "holy" ritual perfectly and flawlessly. So much so in fact that she didn't even notice that her true nature was being revealed as she did so. As the ritual proceeded the truth was made manifest as she suddenly started sprouting her fox tails. Once all nine of them were manifested, well, not even the most hardcore skeptic could deny the truth. That's when they sent out kill teams to hunt her down. Because even with flawless recitation and performance, a nine-tailed fox is a nine-tailed fox just as a witch is a witch. The logic was sound all around IMO.

If only we westerners had a similar myth I pray I am made aware of one day.

I was probably saying those words, in fluent Greek, before you were born. I have nothing to prove to you. I have freely admitted to being a witchy woman. if I say any words it is because they are mine and come from my heart, not yours.

I have a "source of all things" within me. I am not defining the energy beyond that right now. I am not linking it to any specific religion. You do not know what my relationship to source is.

I was you once, different denomination, same tactics. I proselytized with awkward fervor (and little knowledge) out of fear for my family and friends, when I joined a "born again" church. They finally got sick of it and an ILI talked some sense to me. I finally snapped out of it. It was like being under their spell but when it was broken I no longer feared for anyone's eternal soul.

There are many Christians that believe Catholics, Orthodox Christians and many other religions are full of pagans and/or idolaters. In their eyes you, personally, are heading straight to hell no matter what you say or do. This is the main argument used to justify it. I even chose a Catholic friendly translation.

"Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. 2 He came to Jesus[a] by night and said to him, ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.’ 3 Jesus answered him, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.’[b] 4 Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?’ 5 Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c] 7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, “You[d] must be born from above.”[e] 8 The wind[f] blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.’"

Beautiful words aren't they? Very nebulous and highly open to interpretation. Yet they damn most of the world to hell according to the so called "born again" that call themselves Christians too. If god has all these human like traits and failings he might find the "born again" Christians the most obnoxious. I know since I was one for awhile. They try to mask their hatefulness differently than other religions. "I love you but you're going to hell you idolaters." I am happy to be free of that kind of influence. It was one of the most insidious forms I have experienced since they make you feel both special and corrupt. Only their way can save. There is no other path to god for them so your water baptism means nothing in their eyes. Most Catholics I have talked to do not believe you need to be baptized in the same way they do. No matter who has ultimate truth I am covered under 4 types of baptisms now.

I think maybe if you were serious you would approach someone in pm and not with these theatrics. If someone is open to what you have to say maybe then they will hear you out. You are not selling your religion very well when you also talk about zombie Apocalypse as if it were going to happen. You don't think the second coming will be Jesus zombie edition do you? I really hope not. :/

Also, again with you trying to get people to blaspheme. What is up with that?

[Tonatiuh]

Repent now or he's gonna kill you all and torture you for all eternity.

You must be amazing to have at parties, I would invite you for sure.