/o/ - Oddity

How can god have always existed and never been created but the universe can't also have those qualities? How come the creator of the universe has to be the christian god and not any other god(s)? How come the creator god only makes sense being all-knowing and all-powerful? How does believing in a creator god somehow assuage your belief that energy supposedly sprung from nowhere with the creation of the universe? What difference does god actually have from nothing? How come the fountain of existence can't be the universe itself?

Only fedoras think believing in God is irrational and that the rational option is atheism (a religion in its own right). On the other side of that same coin, however, are people like yourself who insist that the question of "what existed before existence?" is a logically sound question with exactly 1 answer. You certainly aren't alone in your stance as many other Christians feel the same way as you do, a lot of them also being new converts full of zeal, but that doesn't make your line of thought somehow the only rational one. Rationale, after all, does not actually have much to do with truth.

I was raised as a Christian but decided to start with a blank slate and build my belief on what I can reasonably know. Here is my thought process.
It doesn't take much looking around at life and the ridiculous amount of complexity throughout it to see that it couldn't have come into existence by chance. Take the eye for example, it has a number of parts that all need to have evolved simultaneously for the eye to be of any advantage to the creature who has it. There must be some kind of ordered force that caused the world we live in to exist in the way it does.
In looking further into life, we see that animals have instincts that guide them and allow them to thrive. Humans have these instincts too; babies would never survive unless they knew instinctively that they need to nurse. One curious instinct is the idea of God. All different kinds of people throughout history have believed in gods. If there is some great creative force, it must be invested in humans specifically. And it must be unfathomably intelligent, if not practically omniscient (all of the most brilliant scientists in the world would never be able to design a cockroach from scratch, like, we still can't even understand what makes things live, much less replicate it.)
Thus it becomes a matter of which God is the real one, and do we even know anything about him? I think it's silly, though possible, that God would invest so much detail into an intelligent creature just to abandon it, so I believe God has interacted with humans. There is an extremely good case to be made for the historical accuracy of the Bible, so if you believe in a God, I think Christianity is a very reasonable choice.
Ultimately, I believe in a God that cares about His creation and uses ordinary means for extraordinary purposes. I will continue to learn about other faiths, but I will also retain the faith that was handed down to me and trust that it is correct.

>>191
>This thread is for discussion about Christianity.
>Do you believe in God?
>After pondering on the nature of reality and the existence of God, I have come to the conclusion that believing in God is rational.
Christianity is a fanfiction. The bible was written by the vatican and changed over the years multiple times. Its literally just the roman version of judaism because they wanted to control all power. If you believe in god thats one thing, but christianity itself is super cucked, even more than islam. I would say spirituality is natural, but not believing literal bullshit.
>Science has made the observation that energy can only change its state, it cannot come from nowhere or disappear.
No thesis without anti-thesis. Science also made the observation that the earth is flat, hollow, a globe, the center of the universe or not the center of the universe.
scientific observations are not the same as actual facts. Le epic science is nothing fix and secured, its still in the beginnings and in 3 generations people will laugh about our silly beliefs the way we do about burning witches. Also big bang is not the only official theory. Theres also bounce back, many worlds, simulation etc.
>Atheism is based upon the belief that everything came from nothing, which is scientifically impossible, and that everything will ultimately become nothing, which is also scientifically impossible.
No its not, atheism is not the same as big bang. And not believing in god or explicitly the christianity is not the same as being atheist. There has been spirituality long before monotheistic religions.
>How is it not rational to think that everything that exists and the very concept of existence has a source?
What is the source of god?
Didnt god create everything out of nothing himself?
>Is it not rational to think that in order for existence to come into being, there has to be a source that is more existing than the concept of existence itself?
If that schizo rambling would have any "logical" implication, it would be that someone would have to create god first as well lmao
>Is it not rational to think that in order for consciousness to come into being, consciousness that can observe and make conclusions about the nature of reality, there has to be a source that is more conscious than the concept of consciousness itself, and an observer that is the ultimate?
No that is not rational and even if it was, it wouldnt be a prove of god. There are hundreds of concepts about consciousness that work without having a magic cloud man.
>The source of creation has to be beyond the very concept of creation. God is uncreated, God is absolute, God is the ultimate, God is all-knowing, God is all-seing and God is all-capable.
Just because you asked hypothetical questions, doesnt mean you were correct.
>There is no other rational conclusion.
But your conclusion is not rational either. Also there are hundreds of different irrational conclusions that would work out.

>>193
You are engaging in some invredibly typical Christian apologetics. The eye is honestly a horrible choice as Charles Darwin had come up with an irreligious reason for its existence by the time he finally formulated his theory of Evolution. The (human) eye, like most, developed over an incredibly long period of time and came about because our ancestors of millions of years had higher rates of survival when they had certain genetic mutation that improved their vision also improved their chances at surviving and reproducing. Tons of beneficial mutations have been left on the table because a creature with it died before it could reproduce and pass it on. Many negative ones have persisted in the gene pool as well because, despite being at a disadvantage, creatures with the mutations still reproduced. Just because something complex exists doesn't mean there needs to be a consciously guiding force.
Nursing is another curious example of natural selection. Babies that don't breast feed used to just die and there was nothing to be done about it. If the failure to latch was genetic, they would not pass those genes on. Nowadays, we have come up with lots of ways to remedy this problem which still exists, from rubber nipples to evidence-based techniques that encourage children into latching, we now have the means in the of defying your god's evolutionary will and making children live here in developed nations.
With that out of the the way, you next say that people naturally believe in "God." Though I do believe that people do generally tend towards spirituality and even religiousness, that is definitely not inherently towards the Christian god. I also have to wonder how many fairly irreligious groups throughout history have existed. Even internally, ancient religious cultures surely had a great number of irreligious people in them just as ours do today.
I find it funny that you think an all-powerful and all-knowing god would even have a concept of investment in regards to its own behavior. Those concepts are in a way mutually exclusive. Additionally, the historical accuracy of the Bible is dubious at best. First and foremost, it constitutes an incredibly biased source just by the sheer fact that it peddles a religion. Additionally, the modern bible has been known to have basically been invented out of thin air by state empowered Christians in the 4th century. You're placing a lot of faith in the Roman emperor by believing that it's really historically accurate. Also, there's just the simple fact that it's been shown to either be conflicting with other historical sources or outright unsupported. There is even a decent case to be made that Jesus didn't even exist at all in any form. The bible also conflicts with itself quite a number of times even on historical events. The death of Judas is low hanging fruit that I'm sure you have some made up theory for. It's just outright untrue to say that the bible is historically accurate and even most seminaries agree that it isn't.
Your final paragraph is what's most telling, though. You don't actually believe in the traditional christian narrative of god because it's the only objective truth. You believe in it because you were raised to believe it and have failed to actually critically analyze in any way despite fooling yourself into thinking you have.

toboso, I appreciate your reply. I believe that people don't grow unless challenged. I have not read much of Charles Darwin's work, but I do know that his theory is necessarily racist, because evolution dictates that human races are different because they evolved differently, and some have evolved further. This by no means discredits his theory, it just means that with no god in the picture, you have to believe that some peoples are better evolved than others.
My point about the eye was one I had heard from someone else, but it logically makes sense to me, that's why I chose it. The retina or cornea are very precise in their form and function, and it is preposterous to think that even one of them came about through random mutation, and just one of these parts without the rest has no evolutionary advantage. Evolution without a creator uses an argument about an astronomical number of mutations happening to allow the ridiculously low probability of life some bit of plausibility. I think that it is further than that, and Atheism requires faith to believe.
I will say that historical evidence is hard to parse, because people naturally have biases and forgone conclusions that shape the information they find. I could find a huge amount of evidence for the validity of the text in the Bible, just as you can find evidence against it. I do know that it is undisputed that there are scraps of the New Testament from as early as the early second century, and that there are several nonchristian accounts of Jesus and the Christians existing in the first century. This by no means says that you should believe what the Bible says about religion, but the historical aspects of the narrative are reasonably accurate to what we know from archeology.
My statement about belief was that I think its reasonable to believe in an involved God, and as such, the knowledge I have about Christianity is good enough for me to believe it. I would abandon the faith instantly if I could find a moral reason to. Lastly, I want to point out that we can observe that humans have, in some aspect, fundamentally evil inclinations, and that nothing we have done has been perfectly good. I do not expect the Church to be perfect because it is made up of humans.

>>196
Darwin's works being inherently racist is a very common misunderstanding. Firstly, race is a socially constructed category as opposed to a scientific one. Race does not actually exist in a physically measurable way. The closest thing to race would be ethnicity. Different ethnicities do exist, but they're not really special. They're just groups of genetically similar people, or basically a super family. Within ethnicities we do see certain trends in regards to genetics. One of the most famous examples of this is how many people of ethnicities with origins in Africa and the Middle East in the last 1000 years have significantly higher rates of sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is a double edged sword of a genetic mutation that prevents malaria but also significantly lowers the amount of oxygen in one's blood. Sickle cell anemia isn't racist as it can genetically develop in children of any ethnicy, it's just that in a region plagued with malaria that people with resistances to malaria were more likely to survive and reproduce. Sickle cell anemia isn't universal among those populations either and is in fact still fairly rare. Furthermore, the idea that somehow different ethnicities are significantly divergent, especially in regards to the brain which is more resistant to mutation, is complete hog wash. It's generally agreed by anthropologists and archaeologists that humans originated in Africa before migrating significantly outward about 100,000 years ago. It's also generally agreed that humans have not changed significantly in regards to genetics in about 200,000-300,000. So no modern ethnic group is significantly different genetically from any other, not even when you compare Javanese to Pygmies. Even if this weren't the case, that still wouldn't somehow make discrimination and hatred towards similarly sentient, collaboratively interested, and interbreedable people scientifically justifiable.
Evolution without a creator isn't some fantastical argument either. It's a very slow (multi billion year long), unconscious arms race. Each species maximizes its advantage in its environment by individual members occasionally gaining mutations. The harmful ones are more likely to die out and the useful ones are more likely to survive. Saying that the astronomically low odds of a single mutation happening is proof that evolution can't be truly feasible is a lot like saying that the (typically) low edge that casinos hold over gamblers in any one hand means there is no way for the casinos to win. It is statistically and demonstrably untrue. The argument about how could the very first lifeform come into being is a lot more persuasive because nobody actually has any proof for how and why to my knowledge. And I do agree that atheism itself requires certain forms of faith, I see it as a kind of religion as well.

>>196
yeah alright you have to be trolling
>darwin is racist
said the guys believing in the old testament that literally says ethnic jews are the god chosen masterrace. Get a life nigga

>>197
You may be right that Darwin's theory isn't necessarily racist, but Darwin himself applied it in a racist way. His words regarding what he called the subspecies of man: "even in the convolutions in the brain. . . Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional but partly in their intellectual faculties." And he also says "civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races." I believe both of these quotes are from "The Descent of Man." Darwin was an abolitionist, but he provided the basis for scientific racism.

I guess it does come down to a matter of faith, because there is no explanation of how we got here that doesn't require belief.

>>198
If you paid attention in Sunday School, you would know that the whole New Testament is about how God's promises were always meant to be for all people, and that believers in Christ didn't have to be circumcised or become Jews. Also, the Jewish religion was primarily held by ethnic Jews, but people of all ethnicities could become Jews, they just needed to follow the law.

>>194
Your answer shows frightening ignorance in the fields of history and theology, which is why I would recommend you to use a less sneering way of argumentation in the future, since your remarks are currently bordering hard on the ridiculous.
For one thing, the New Testament was not written by the Vatican, but was written by various authors who lived during a period of about 50 to 100 years after the life of Jesus. These authors were disciples of Jesus, such as the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as Paul and other early Christians. The books circulated within the emerging Christian communities. These writings were not authored by the Vatican, as the Vatican as an institution did not come into existence until much later.
Incidentally, your notion of the Western church as the sole driving force behind the development of early Christianity is not only alarmingly Eurocentric, but also historically incorrect. There were also Eastern Christian communities that flourished in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. These communities developed their own theological views, liturgical practices, and structures. For example, the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, which clarified important theological issues, took place in the East and had far-reaching effects on all of Christendom. In addition, there were also early Christian communities in North Africa, the Middle East, and other regions that contributed to the diversity and development of early Christianity. These communities each had their own theological emphases and cultural influences.
Also, your claim that the Bible is bullshit is more than adventurous, since an at least partial historicity of the Bible can be supported by archaeological discoveries that show correspondences between biblical accounts and historical sites, events, and cultural practices.
Your presumably rhetorical question regarding the origin of God reveals a misunderstanding of the foundations of the understanding of God in Christianity, for nearly all Christian denominations and sects see the Creator as an uncreatable causa prima non causata. God exists because he wants so and needs for it, differently than the mechanical events in the physical theories mentioned by you, no cause.
Lastly, I would like to note that your personal definition of atheism seems to differ from the commonly held one. This is the belief or conviction that there are no gods or supernatural entities. It therefore does not tolerate general spirituality. Also, your explicit mention of monotheistic doctrines strikes me as odd, or are you suggesting that the worship practiced in ancient Greece and Rome was not a religion?

>>210
>Your answer shows frightening ignorance in the fields of history and theology
>The New Testament was not written by the Vatican, but was written by various authors who lived during a period of about 50 to 100 years after the life of Jesus. These authors were disciples of Jesus, such as the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
Please tell me this is bait. Even some of the most conservative religious scholars recognize the evidence is thoroughly against your claim here. There's no way you're saying this unironically, right?
>Also, your claim that the Bible is bullshit is more than adventurous, since an at least partial historicity of the Bible can be supported by archaeological discoveries that show correspondences between biblical accounts and historical sites, events, and cultural practices.
This claim blows me on my ass. The earliest biblical manuscripts we have are from like 30-40 years after the death of Jesus. Of course there is accuracy on some events and practices, they could literally have lived under the same culture with access to all the historical information in the area. That doesn't make the bible not total theological nonsense.
>Your presumably rhetorical question regarding the origin of God reveals a misunderstanding of the foundations of the understanding of God in Christianity, for nearly all Christian denominations and sects see the Creator as an uncreatable causa prima non causata. God exists because he wants so and needs for it, differently than the mechanical events in the physical theories mentioned by you, no cause.
I'm pretty sure that the point he was making is that that line of thinking is stupid and your love for latin isn't making you any smarter.

>>211
You must be trolling, because otherwise I have serious concerns about your perceptiveness.
Your claim that supposedly even the most conservative scholars admit that historical evidence points to the contrary is moronic. It is the broad scholarly consensus that the New Testament writings, whether canonical or not, are by different authors from different time periods, but all of which predate the emergence of the Vatican as a political center. The exact authorship and history of their creation are the subject of some debate, but the broad consensus holds that the New Testament was not written by the Vatican, but by the disciples of Jesus and other early Christians.
Your View of the Bible Calling it "theological nonsense" is an inane and unconstructive formulation that does not adequately reflect the complex theological, cultural, and historical aspects of the Bible. What exact theological criticisms do you have regarding the scripture?
Concerning your rejection of the Christian image of God, you should consider that I could argue against the purely mechanical theories mentioned by you in the same way, because they say either that everything originated from nothing, a scientific impossibility, or, however, from another physical space, whereby one must ask now where this other hypothetical universe comes from.

>>213
>the broad consensus holds that the New Testament was not written by the Vatican
Hey, knuckle head, I'm talking about your absurd claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the apostles themselves wrote the gospels. And it's even worse that you silently dismissed that by saying that the authorship is "of some debate" as if it isn't widely accepted that basically none of the books in the bible were written by their claimed authors with the exception of most of Paul's letters. Additionally, you're a fool if you think that the churches haven't altered the scriptures whatsoever.
>What exact theological criticisms do you have regarding the scripture?
That's a list too long to just rattle off here, but if you want the broadest of broad strokes I think that the ramblings of Jesus are at times good but are also largely ridiculous extremism that tell you to do whatever it takes to get into heaven lest you face the wrath of his fiery sword on judgement day and I think that the letters of Paul are an extra layer of authoritarian crap on top of that.. Beyond being just inherently bad, both are also all too easy to use for one's own purposes and used for worldly goals they have been time and time again.
>Concerning your rejection of the Christian image of God, you should consider that I could argue against the purely mechanical theories mentioned by you in the same way
What "mechanical theories" have I mentioned? I don't recall making any claims about the origins of god, the universe, life, etc. I personally don't hold any belief on them other than their being unknowable and their pursuance being fruitless endeavors as all answers will ultimately be human innovation.

>>214
Even if my view that the New Testament was written by the apostles and other early followers of Jesus' teachings should turn out to be wrong, which I don't believe since I don't think there is any evidence that it is any less historically probable than other theories about the origin of the work, it is much less outlandish than your absurd claim that the Bible was written by the Vatican, an institution that has authority only in Western Christendom anyway. Now you try to distance yourself from what you said in your previous post and refer to the fact that the Bible has been edited by various ecclesiastical authorities throughout history, something that has never been denied by the churches themselves, much less by me.
Your criticism of the authoritarian nature of many biblical passages, especially Paul's letters, is something I can in no way support, since every organization is authoritarian. In most cases, the only time people do not consider an organization "authoritarian" is when they support its use of authority. Everyone strives to preserve themselves, and therefore everyone will use authority when faced with possible destruction. This is not a bad thing per se, but of course depends on what kind of organization it is and who is trying to destroy it and for what reasons. People always justify the use of authoritarian means by those who they support, and only those who are intellectually dishonest pretend that their use of authority is somehow not "authoritarian." Likewise, the forces behind the failed NED-funded Tiananmen Mutiny, from which the pic on your post is taken, would have established an authoritarian regime.
I do not share your optimism with regard to the human spirit of innovation, but I hope that you are right in this aspect. With the physical, respectively mechanical theories I referred to the ones mentioned by you in >>194.

>>215
I am not >>194, you dope, I thought that was already clear.
Additionally, I've never claimed that the Vatican wrote the bible.
Your whataboutism regarding authoritarianism doesn't excuse it in my mind. All authority is bad.
Don't read too much into the images I'm posting, I simply like the way they look.
I fail to see how you don't agree that speculation on unknowns tends to generate imagined answers seeing as that's a very natural process for both knowable and unknowable things.

>>216
I assumed you were >>194, since first, your argumentation styles are extremely similar, and second, you share the same point of view. Actually, though, it doesn't matter who or what I mistook you for, since on an anonymous imageboard it's the statements that count, not the users, so let's just pretend I said ">>194-san" instead of "you".
Your rejection of any authority is utopian wishful thinking that cannot come true in reality. There are good reasons why every "anti-authoritarian" organization that has existed in the course of history has either been forced to resort to authoritarian means or has become disintigrated. The only exceptions to this rule are "anti-authoritarians", who are in reality only tools of another, authoritarian, organization.
I would like to counter your argument, that man in view of such questions tends to invented answers, that there are quite things in the world of physics, which one can take as proof for God's existence. Above all, that would be the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but also Baryon Asymmetry, a problem for which there is no solution without God as far as I know and also the sheer fine-tuning of the universe.

>>217
The division between real and fake is itself imagined. Fact and fiction are not opposites. A useful duality, but complete fabrication.
You say that you have found god in the gaps of purpose science has left behind. I say that you have built comfortable illusions to hold up your world.

>>218
Forgot to attach image

>>210
>>213
Sorry Im ESL i didnt mean its written by the vatican but canonized. Still the apocryphs are taken out.
The bible was canonized 300 years after christ and IK that there were lots of different christian sects with different beliefs. So why do you think todays christian believe is the correct one? In which you differ between god and jesus, when i 400ad the consensus was that jesus is god himself and not his sun.
So yes while my first argument maybe was badly written and thus incorrect, everything else still holds count and just because you say
>Your presumably rhetorical question regarding the origin of God reveals a misunderstanding of the foundations of the understanding of God in Christianity, for nearly all Christian denominations and sects see the Creator as an uncreatable causa prima non causata.
so in other words
>you dont understand christian lore so youre wrong
doesnt mean youre correct

>>218
>found god in the gaps of purpose science has left behind
this is something a lot of religioncucks say. Obviously only those who were already religious. I wonder at which parts these gaps said that you should believe in the bible instead of f.e. the tora or the quran

>>218
Unfortunately, I don't understand how you get the idea that fact and fiction are not opposites. In my view, fictitious figures and scenarios clearly exist, but only in our imaginary world and not in an objective world, whether material or immaterial. Furthermore, the distinction between real and unreal is fundamental to our perception of the world and our understanding of reality. It forms the basis for the way we evaluate information, make decisions, and construct our knowledge. I therefore believe that overturning this concept would undermine our ability to orient ourselves in this mortal world.
As for your opinion that my search for God in the scientific is merely a personal illusion, I cannot refute it to you, but I must point out that this argument also applies to the opposite, since I am of the opinion that the absence of God represented by you is an illusion. However, my personal belief is based, besides the scientific theories already discussed here, mainly on personal experience, spiritual search and conviction, which I have admittedly not mentioned so far, since they are rather less suitable for a logical argumentation.
>>220
Unfortunately, I have to disappoint you again, since your statement that the Bible was canonized by the Vatican is also historically incorrect. For, while the Old Testament existed in its final form before the emergence of Christianity, the canonization of the New Testament was advanced by the early Christian community in a rather decentralized manner and later confirmed by ecumenical councils, such as the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD). These councils were certainly not organized by the Vatican, since it came into being as an institution only later. As for the correctness of the decisions made at that time, of course, given human fallibility, one cannot be completely certain, but I trust the early Christian decision-makers because of their insight into the reality of the time and their authority that continues to this day. The apocrypha you mention, though historically very interesting, were much less influential than one might think. Most of them were probably only accepted by sectarian fringe groups, since their rejection was without much discussion and therefore most likely rather a formality.
Your idea that today's major Christian denominations do not consider Jesus as God, but only as His Son is also wrong, especially because it contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity, which states that God exists in a unity of three persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit. These three persons, according to the generally accepted view, are equal and simultaneous in their divinity. Incidentally, this idea was also generally accepted in 400 A.D., as the Creed of the Council of Nicaea, which took place seventy-five years earlier and which emphasized the unity of Jesus and God, shows.
And yes, I am convinced that it is always necessary to inform oneself about something before criticizing it. An argument against something about which one has no knowledge will not only have little persuasive power, but will also often make one look bad, especially if large parts of one's own statements are based on gaps in knowledge.
>>222
My belief in the God of the Bible is based on many different factors, including my personal experiences, theological studies, and the spiritual guidance of my religious community.

>>223
>The distinction between real and unreal is fundamental to our perception of the world and our understanding of reality.
I do not agree. The desire to differentiate real from fake is not a necessary one whatsoever, and you can understand the nature of the world far greater without it.
>I am of the opinion that the absence of God represented by you is an illusion
I believe in gods, but I also believe that belief in them is a self-serving delusion as it is completely unknowable whether they exist or not and in what form. I see a lack of belief in deities the same way.
>my personal belief is based … mainly on personal experience, spiritual search and conviction
Likewise
>which I have admittedly not mentioned so far, since they are rather less suitable for a logical argumentation.
Logic is nothing but a part of the self-serving delusion of rationale.

>>223
>Unfortunately, I have to disappoint you again, since your statement that the Bible was canonized by the Vatican is also historically incorrect. For, while the Old Testament existed in its final form before the emergence of Christianity, the canonization of the New Testament was advanced by the early Christian community in a rather decentralized manner and later confirmed by ecumenical councils, such as the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD).
bro my point is not how the canonizing fractions called themselves, but that the canonization has occured 400 years AD and thus nobody who had anything to do with it, had any actual clue of christ and his teachings. imagine you have 23 letters from some niggas from 1600 talking about some philosophical bullshit and now youre talking about it as if youve been there lmao

>>224
I must disagree with you about your view of an inexistent barrier between the real and the unreal. Just because we humans are unable to perceive objective reality does not mean that it does not exist. Rather, thanks also to our scientific progress, we should continue to try to find this objective reality, God's reality.
As for your faith, or spirituality, I'm afraid I misunderstood you a few times. Probably we see the same things and only interpret them differently.
>>225
Somehow you always seem to mean something different in retrospect than you wrote before. Therefore, unfortunately, I cannot help suspecting that you are either so untalented in your expression that misunderstandings constantly occur, which seems very unlikely to me, since otherwise your writing style actually testifies to quite good language skills, or that you, when refuted, try to change your point in this way, which would admittedly mean that your way of reasoning is one that is not particularly honest.
I have already explained in my previous post why I trust the decisions of the ecclesiastical authorities of the time, so I see no point in stating it again.
The fact that you try to prove your point with a comparison with our alleged inability to correctly interpret philosophical writings from the sixteenth century, unfortunately, seems to me little logical, on the one hand because we are quite capable of doing so, thanks to our knowledge of the reality, imagination and mentality of that time, insights into the past, which the people of the third and fourth centuries also had, although of course far less extensively, on the other hand because philosophy is fundamentally different from religion, since philosophy is based on logic alone, while religion emphasizes faith, spirituality and the connection to a higher power or a metaphysical concept. These differences lead to different approaches in the search for meaning, truth and orientation in life.

>>226
>Just because we humans are unable to perceive objective reality does not mean that it does not exist.
But that's precisely the problem. Humans are all too good at perceiving objectivity when none exists in reality. I am of the belief that all that exists are the delusions within ones own head (including the delusion of our own existence). Outside of our perceptions, there is nothing that can be gazed upon and nothing we can work with. If it does exist, it doesn't really.
>Thanks also to our scientific progress, we should continue to try to find this objective reality, God's reality.
Science is all about finding (and creating) commonalities in our delsions. It can certainly ease the suffering we experience in them. It's still delusion, however, and ultimately inherently meaningless.

>>227
I would like to know very much how you can be so sure that our, according to you alleged, reality does not exist. Because for me this idea contradicts basic human knowledge based on empirical evidence and repeatable experiments.
Science, especially philosophy and physics, have in turn greatly expanded our understanding of the world, in my opinion, and led to real improvements in areas such as medicine and technology. Our shared scientific knowledge has been shown not to depend only on individual perceptions, but to have objective meaning and real impact on our lives.

>>228
Humans are nothing but thoughts augmented by perceptions. These perceptions can not be known to be true and these thoughts can not be known to be real. You ask how I have come to believe that reality doesn't exist. I say that nothing can be understood beyond our perceptions and our thoughts so reality, should it exist, can not be really experienced or understood. You ask how I am certain of this. I say I'm not, because I've thought it up.
What we call science is a field of philosophy that seeks to satisfy desires of curiosity and does so by thinking up boxes and rules for perception in hopes it all sticks. While it's admittedly flexible and often effective, it is founded on the incorrect belief that says these things exist at all and that they can be known for certain. It is developed and communicated in ways that only we can understand and depends on ourselves.

>>229
Your assertion that man is nothing but a thought and that reality does not exist is based on an unnecessarily skeptical attitude toward reality. However, our collective experience and scientific understanding of the world show that while our perceptions and thoughts may be subjective, they nevertheless point to an objective reality. The existence of natural laws, the predictability of events, and the ability to develop technologies that improve our lives are examples of how our perceptions, to some degree, reflect the world as it actually exists, as it was originally created by God. While there may be challenges in perception and interpretation, objective evidence and the experiences we share are strong indications that there is an actual reality that transcends individual thoughts and perceptions. This reality, I believe, was created by God, and therefore I am certain that He is able to see everything as it is. We humans, on the other hand, are imperfect creatures and therefore can only see a subjective approximation of what we believe to be reality.

>>226
Niggnogg, why do you start this threat in the question of wether people believe just so you can then try to prove people wrong who dont believe explicitly in christianity? Your logic is completely flawed but you ignore everything someone tells you and just spin around historical details where - oh my god - we obviously dont know closely as much as you do, because we dont give a shit about your cuckreligion. This does neither prove your right nor make up for your bs argumentation.
Why even make this thread on a cyber board?

>>231
Firstly, I did not start this thread, my first post here was >>210. And even if this had not been the case, your logic is still unfortunately nothing more than a childishly dogged attempt to criticize something of which you clearly have no clue.
I, for example, when in a dispute with a follower of another religion, or even with an atheist, do not try to convince them by claiming that their belief or disbelief is wrong, because I do not presume to know enough about other belief systems or atheist philosophy, but can only try to explain why I think my belief is the right one.
You, however, base your entire argumentation on demonstrable false claims and then complain about being refuted. Or do you want to claim in all seriousness that one can formulate a correct statement on a wrong basis?
So that you are not sad now however that I ignore your uniquely stupid remarks, I will now try to answer one claim of yours, that I didn't cover in my responses yet: Your assertion that the sole aim of the Catholic Church or the Vatican is to manipulate and enslave humanity is a conspiracy theory that has no solid basis. For while one can and must criticize this institution, whose teachings I do not follow by the way, for many things, including the fact that it is partly corrupt and power-hungry, it is inappropriate to portray such a complex and multi-layered organization, which at the same time also provided and still provides for a great deal of joy and beauty in the world, in such a negative and undifferentiated way. Your conspiracy theory neglects the positive contributions of the Church to humanity and the variety of tasks it performs in the world. Especially since I personally know a great many Catholics who honestly seek to advance the concepts of charity and humanity.
Your question as to why someone would post such a thread on this board could easily be answered yourself by looking up what the topic of the /o/ board is. If, contrary to expectations, you do have more than half a gram of brain in your head, you might see the light. And anyway: If you are not interested in the topic of a thread, nobody forces you to post in it.

>>230
>Your assertion that man is nothing but a thought and that reality does not exist is based on an unnecessarily skeptical attitude toward reality.
I agree. I consider myself a nihilist and that's kind of in the job description.
>While there may be challenges in perception and interpretation, objective evidence and the experiences we share are strong indications that there is an actual reality that transcends individual thoughts and perceptions.
I don't believe that actual reality is observable whatsoever. Not by individual perceptions, not by commonalities in the perceptions of multitudes of individuals. Actual reality, should it exist, simply exists without us.

>>232
okay cool, but who asked? having historical knowledge of happenings being the indicator of knowing spiritual truth is the greatest rubbish you have said so far. If it was omnipresent truth, you wouldnt need to have a clue about it. Also nice textwall, didnt read more than 2 sentences, stay mad

>>233
If you believe that we cannot perceive reality, even in a subjective way, how do you explain that all people, and even some animals, have the same kind of experiences? How can it be that we all know what eyes, bodies, landscapes and the concept of love and hate are? And above all, how can all this be so total and all-encompassing if it is not created by a God?
This is why I believe that life offers us rich experiences, interpersonal relationships, and emotions such as love and compassion that bring us joy and fulfillment. Through our moral responsibility to do good and prevent injustice, God gives our lives meaningful direction. Humanity has made impressive cultural and creative achievements, from art to science, that enrich our lives and shape the world. Finally, scientific progress allows us to understand the universe and our place in it, showing that we have the ability to create meaning and value in the world. This means to me personally that God is in all that is hopeful and fulfilling.
>>234
Personally, I have no reason to be mad at you,.Only the numerous smart atheists I have come into contact with in my life, who actually knew how to put forward intelligent and convincing arguments for an alleged inexistence of God, would have such a reason, since because of people like you, their philosophy is sadly associated with annoying idiots. The only emotion I can feel for you is pity.

>>235
>If you believe that we cannot perceive reality, even in a subjective way, how do you explain that all people, and even some animals, have the same kind of experiences?
How do we know these other people and animals even exist in actuality and aren't absolute fabrication? How do we know they are not a part of ourselves externalised or a hallucination? It's a matter of faith! And a faith that feeds into our delusions at that.
>how can all this be so total and all-encompassing if it is not created by a God?
How do you know you aren't the god who made all of this up?
>we have the ability to create meaning and value in the world.
I agree! People are phenomenal at developing their own meanings and purposes for existence. I simply haven't done so personally.
>This means to me personally that God is in all that is hopeful and fulfilling.
Why isn't god also in all that is dreadful and hollow? I think it would be far more beautiful for god to be a part of that just the same as he is in things that we value as well.

>>235
>Personally, I have no reason to be mad at you,.Only the numerous smart atheists I have come into contact with in my life, who actually knew how to put forward intelligent and convincing arguments for an alleged inexistence of God, would have such a reason, since because of people like you, their philosophy is sadly associated with annoying idiots. The only emotion I can feel for you is pity.
Damn youre so enlightend!! how did you do it? btw I said roundabout 3 times by now that I am not atheist but spiritual, I just dont believe in institutionalized fairytailes.

>>236
Even outside of empirical evidence, your claim that everything we perceive, including the existence of living things, is illusion runs into fundamental problems. This way of thinking carries a self-contradiction, because if everything is an illusion, then the assertion itself is also an illusion, which leads to a paradox. Moreover, we should note that our experiences, even if you dismiss them as "delusions," have a shaping influence on our lives and interactions. They influence our decisions, our well-being, and our social relationships. Even if we hypothetically assume that it is all illusory, we cannot deny the practical importance and relevance of these sacred things.
The reason I said that I see God in all the good in the world, and not in the bad as well, is because, in my opinion, there is no natural "evil." Of course, there is the work of demonic forces and people, but these too are only parts of God's plan and thereby ultimately conducive to good. Our idea of good and bad, on the other hand, is purely subjective and therefore irrelevant. The world appears to be terrible only when we, as human beings, make ourselves see it that way.

>>238
Just because you arent capable of understanding thought patterns that are non-christian, doesnt mean they are paradox or fundamental problems. Get a grib of reality nigga

>>238
>if everything is an illusion, then the assertion itself is also an illusion, which leads to a paradox.
I agree! But paradoxes and problems are also common to world views which claim to observe objectivity. For example, the definition is currently one of the biggest problems in epistemology. With that said, I don't think this is necessarily a paradox for my case because I don't cling to the idea of all being illusory as dogma but rather I do believe it to be unknowable in itself but rather an assumption I've made.
>Even if we hypothetically assume that it is all illusory, we cannot deny the practical importance and relevance of these sacred things.
Once again, I agree! But practical understanding doesn't constitute certainty, and I don't think that practicality is incompatible with my skepticism.

>>240
I meant to say "the definition of knowledge is one of the biggest problems in epistemology." I will also add that morality and religion are phenomenally weedy subjects which mandate a lot of assumptions and have within them a great deal of paradoxes. I believe the problem of evil has already been mentioned in this thread.

>>239
I see no reason why you should get so upset. If you think that I have misunderstood something, you are welcome to make the effort to express it a little more clearly. If you don't succeed, it's either because you're not suited to explain and should therefore leave the topic for more mature people, or because your points weren't particularly logical in the first place.
And by the way, I am not at all of the opinion that the opinion held by >>236-kun is necessarily un-Christian or even anti-Christian, since there are certainly believing Christians who share his ideas.
>>240
>>241
While you are correct that there are problems, paradoxes, and challenges in worldviews of all kinds, including religions, these are ultimately due to human error-proneness and thus negligible, as they say nothing about the big picture.
Philosophy has long been concerned with questions about the nature of knowledge and reality. But these complexities do not mean that we should discard all knowledge. We have made progress and developed models that allow us to understand and interact with the world. Radical skepticism that claims nothing is knowable, on the other hand, only leads to meaningless consequences and blocks gains in knowledge, because, despite the philosophical challenges, our history of progress shows that we can expand our understanding of the world. Exaggerated doubt, on the other hand, whether general or against a particular worldview, inhibits the search for knowledge and is therefore less useful than a position that acknowledges that progress is possible despite unanswered questions.
As for the question of the nature of knowledge, I think there are three kinds: that which we learn by observing the mortal world, that which we infer through our thinking or by reflecting on the thoughts of others, and ultimately that which God gives us to understand through spiritual revelations.

>>242
>these complexities do not mean that we should discard all knowledge.
I do not advocate for the discarding of all knowledge. Rather, I believe that all knowledge is inferential since objective knowledge is impossible to attain (including objective knowledge that objective knowledge is impossible to attain). Nothing can be known but rather only assumed.
>Radical skepticism … only leads to meaningless consequences and blocks gains in knowledge
I would not say that the consequences of skepticism have been meaningless. I have found mental quietude through it and its antecedents. Additionally, I have not found the development of inferential knowledge hindered by skepticism, and I would support this by my being top of my class in my dental school right now.
>Exaggerated doubt … inhibits the search for knowledge and is therefore less useful than a position that acknowledges that progress is possible
This statement assumes that the pursuit of objective knowledge is the goal. I don't think objective knowledge is necessary for anything and in fact often makes things works. I've found that the belief of holding objective knowledge makes many uncritical and domineering people rather than great thinkers.

>>191
please stop answering to this narcissistic schizo threda.
/threda

God is real.
Right now, in this very moment, God sees every single one of your thoughts. He knows the deepest depths of your heart and soul with perfect clarity, better than you yourself are even capable of. He knows where you came from, exactly what you are in this very moment and for what reason. He wants you to become like Him. Not all alone by yourself, for that is not only impossible but completely foolish.
He wants you to become a god through Him. This is the purpose of life.
One has to understand something very important: The devil is real. It is very important to understand that the enemy, Satan, does not compete with God and it is not his aim. The fundamental goal of Satan is to trick you and lead you astray from becoming god through God. The devil does not do this by making you believe in the devil, he does this by making you NOT believe in the devil. For when you don't think the devil is real, you become completely defenseless against the attacks of his demons. His goal is to simply lead astray and destroy as many humans as possible.
If anyone wishes to take on this path to become god through God, I am not adequate to give anyone any guidance. The very little knowledge I have so far I got from people much wiser than myself.
What I would like to say however, is that if you truly want to achieve anything in life, you should pray. If you don't know how to do that, ask God to teach you how to pray. Right now, in this very moment, He sees you, knows you and hears every single one of your thoughts.
He is very real.

beware….elliot man is still lurking somewhere in the shadows…waiting to strike….like a beautiful phantom, haunting the night….