There's a new /777/ up, it's /selfhelp/ -
You're Pathetic, We're Pathetic, We Can Do This! Check it out. Suggest new
Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7:
.m3u file. Music via
For growing and shit or whatever I present to you:
Best Christian philosopher in the world
Richard Dawkins is this guy's bitch
He humiliated Sam Harris
He defeated Christopher Hitchens
He defeated Victor Stenger twice
This thread is for discussion of the validity of religion(s) and arguments for and against the existence of god/gods.
Any other new posts about this subject will be deleted, or locked and referred to this one.
New threads about religious concepts that play inside their own ruleset are allowed, and we kindly ask that you refrain from turning those well meaning threads into arguments about religion as a whole.
>If God or Gods cannot be seen or heard or perceived in general, how can you prove he /they exist? and how can you prove he/they do not exist?
>Can you hold that god exists empirically (scientifically)?
>can you explain that god does not exist metaphisicaly (spiritualy)?
If it amuses you to do so, yes.
>Is it not also absurd to believe (BELIEVE) that he doesn't exist?
Not really. Belief and knowledge are separate concepts. Expressing belief that God exists is not an absurdity. Expressing knowledge that God exists is.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
We interrupt your scheduled bickering for this important announcement: Understanding /phi/
I shouldn't have to remind you, but if someone is posting something against the rules, please report it.
If you don't know how to report a post, please see our super-sugoi FAQ section on the front page.
Thank you for your co-operation.
A few things.
First, this guy and his concept of philosophical zombies. The idea there could be a person who acts (and thinks? I forget its been a while) like a normal person, but has no mental content. I'm more interested in one philosopher who proved him wrong, who demonstrated that such a person does need content, but I forget the person/argument.
Also, another thing that pisses me off: why do most sources of pop philosophy never discuss further discourse of base philosophies? For example, Descartes and his meditations were immediately put to scrutiny by a princess who basically asked "how can a non tangible entity interact with a physical being (in regard to his concept of a soul)" but you almost never hear of her, and plebs treat the meditations as some infallible truth. People need to know philosophy only really gets started once serious discussion occurs in opposition to those base arguments, but maybe I'm rambling....
Quote from the mod post
"A place to spew incoherent nonsense and verbal diarrhea"
Thats what philosophy is. Science absolutely destroys philosophy and spreading philosophies popularity in use by having this board exist is helping to keep society as a whole from using superior methods of problem solving that would help make the world a better place
Please mods and staff of 7chan delete this board
1. Science is just what Natural Philosophy calls itself now.
2. Science is a subfield of philosophy.
3. Philosophy is not limited to natural philosophy (science), but also includes symbolic and non-symbolic logic, all of ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc.
4. Because of (3) and (2), philosophy is by far more useful and important than science in all terms and settings.
It is clear based on your post that you have never read a serious work of philosophy. I would suggest starting with Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. It's a good read. I'm assuming you already know Plato, since that should be common knowledge.
Right - science seeks to understand the world. Philosophy is important because it helps us to decide how we are to apply that science and knowledge. ethics wise.
BTW, we're not very good at applying our science wisely.
Daily reminder that the disctintion between a scientist and a philosopher started in Europe in the late 19th century.
Science and philosophy are just two political terms used to divide people into just studiying one of them.
When you specialise in something you become a tool for the state, because you're ignorant of most everything else.
Three things you might be interested in, OP.
>People like Kant, Pascal and Newton where christian (religious), had philosophy treaties and "scientifical" (they where called philosophical back then) treaties about multiple subjects now considered astronomy, physics and mathematics.
>You cannot make "philosophy" and "science" fight on equal terms. If you do (saying science beats phil) you acknowledge they both are either scientifical or philosophical
>Science is a historical evolution, and is ever changing, so is "philosophy". Science is not unified, like philosophy.
The only reason they are different is because of the historical outcome of Europe and USandA (and first world countries in general).
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
Let's get down to it.
What is the meaning of life?
Short answer: nothing.
Long answer: an answer to your question requires that life have a meaning. The problem with that is that a meaning needs to be ascribed by an author. Yes, some people may truthfully answer that, "The meaning to my life is in my children," but that is the answer they have written for themselves as opposed to any universal answer, and for a truly universal answer we'd have to ask the author of humanity, and being that he's either fictional or not on speaking terms with us as of late, it's not likely we'll be getting an answer on that front.
"But wait!" you say, "I asked for the meaning of life, not the meaning of human life!" While yes, my prior paragraph was entirely anthropocentric and requiring cerebral meanings to existence, the simple fact is that, if you want a meaning applicable to all lifeforms that doesn't require the author to out-and-out tell us, the only possible meaning has to come from function, and the only thing life seems to be universally good at (barring pandas) is making more of itself. This then forces you to ask, "If the meaning of life is reproduction, then wouldn't that imply a universal ethics system based entirely around breeding, almost like some sort of pervert-run society where a female exists solely to produce babies and a male solely to facilitate their creation? And what of those lifeforms that either can't breed or are simply terrible at it (like pandas)? Does this mean that their lives are less meaningful than that of a breeder?" Obviously the first of these relies on some dodgy logic (although a quick trip through /b/ could probably demonstrate its existence), but the second provides further lines of thought through personal experience, at least for anyone who has owned or at least interacted with a neutered pet. It is a rare person who would argue that due to their lack of reproductive capabilities one's pets mean less than any other life form. Indeed, the law argues that a non-breeding pet's life has more meaning, or is at least more worthy of legal protection, than that of, say, a breeding caterpillar.
Personally, regarding pets, I dare say we already know the meaning of their lives: be good companions to your owner, and all by the simple fact that we created them for that purpose. Oh yes, some dogs have other purposes like herding sheep or hunting boar, but at the end of the day they were created for a task and it doesn't seem wrong to argue that the purpose (and therefore meaning) of these lives lies in their creation, and requires determination by the author of their existence, us. Applying this to humans leads us back to the question of either gods who give meaning if they should exist, or utter meaninglessness.
Well, I suppose there is also an interpretation of
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
The meaning of life is 42.
I keep telling this to everybody at uni in my philosophy degree but everyone seems to be too much of a smart ass to acknowledge this.
Most everyone else in the galaxy knows this.
, roll out.gif
Why are concepts like healthy spirituality, with or without religion, being devalued by everyone except for an elite few? Why are short-sighted ideas like socialism and social parasitism being championed by counter-culture idiots and children young as twelve years old?
Because as yet no one's demonstrated any manner of "spirituality" that's been able to convince a majority of those not practicing it that its healthy. Everyone can plainly see how other people lying to themselves for their own selfish gratification isn't healthy. They just fail to see it in themselves.
Short-sighted ideas like socialism and capitalism and republics and hegemonies and oligarchies are religions by another name.
In short, it's because people are just barely sentient enough to be dangerous. The best arguments for against and about government are embarrassingly poor. At the rate of development of the human mind, in a mere thousand more years, the last 5000 will all look like embarrassingly, laughably, wastefully stupid stone age attempts at making sense of the universe and how to live in it, including our present time right now.
Our inevitable future is completely unrecognizable from what we see today. The last century, hell, the last 40 years, has been an extremely unstable period of transition for humanity.
Even if humans sat on their asses as we're prone to do, and for instance, screamed and cried to stay culturally in the 1700s as the USA has, someone somewhere will pick up the baton of human progress and run with it, and if they don't, AI will, and develop its own code and thought processes and logic and value systems and mathematics and technologies we can't even comprehend, at the speed of as many microprocessors working together as it can wrangle, and in the blink of a goddamn eye, our pathetic legacy of animalistic wants and needs and dreams and desires are as valuable as those of a single paramecium in the face of the greatest human mind that ever lived. None.
So don't get attached to any of this shit. All the stupid assholes living pointless unconstructive lives in the entire world killing each other for sport in front of bars and temples every day can't stop this train now.
Humans are almost certainly guaranteed to find themselves back at the bottom of the ladder before amounting to anything lasting. Then at best we'll be a fucking nuisance and most likely eradicated before long, if not by technology then by any of the millions of disgruntled.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>(which is a fact, evolution does lack proof)
That's not a fact, nor how facts work.
...not least of all because in this case, it's proven every frickin day. There's a enormous pile of evidence, more evidence than for nearly any other known phenomena, as big as the entire field of genetics going back half a million years, and even a geological record and an archeological record going orders of magnitude deeper and further back. ALL the evidence, discovered by all people in every country in the entire world, adds to it constantly. Every day, thousands of researchers discovers new things, use the scientific method, and work out their proofs, each finding another piece the trillions-piece puzzle, which everyone shares and gets to consider how it fits in to the big picture forever.
Questioning things is great, if your questions are. Making false statements and misrepresenting "facts" isn't, and is no excuse for it in todays world, when even the worlds most adamantly hostile fundamentalist religions have pulled their heads out of their asses decades ago after their own lengthy investigations.
So either you're from the 1800s, or your understanding of biology is. Or you can twiddle the knobs and move the goalposts until you arrive at some definition of "proof" which nothing satisfies. If you can't prove anything, then there's no reason to try, and you can sit on your ass all day convinced the universe is all smoke and mirrors like a phi 101 student.
I'd say it's a (first world) global fenomenon that creates and pushes himself with the goal of preparing people for a wilder (more pure, more extended in every aspect of life) capitalism.
I'm not saying it is part of a secret agenda, I'm saying it is a current of though that by this or that is growing stronger and stronger.
For example; atheism, which nowadays is like a religion but without the mythical and spiritual stages of one.
I'm not talking about not believing in a god or gods or demons or demigods etc... I'm talking about this trend of whoreshipping Stephen Hawkins, Richard Dawkins, Chomsky, Einstein and a few other idols while stating furiously that god or gods does(do)NOT exist (having faith in its nonexistence) while showing evident faith in "science" (aka divulgative science)
Again, its just a preparation for what is to come to these countries, which again, I think is a wilder,freer and more integrated capitalism.
This can be seen in Europe really well.
Worst place to ask since 99% of you couldn't even think of "letting go".
How do I let go of my ego? Or another way of asking is "how do I stop the desire to prove myself worthy among my peers?". It's totally unnecessary, and sitting at home alone I can comfortably say that it's doable and the mindset actually worth having, but when I leave the door I cannot stop myself from becoming a totally different person. That is, one who feeds off the facial expressions of another person and who constantly seeks their approval, or "good" facial expressions. I genuinely don't care what they think when I'm home alone at the end of the day but I guess I still do if I'm behaving this way.
In asking this I'm hoping to find that 1% who can genuinely relate to me and may have found a solution, or at least philosophical banters that put my mind in solace when I leave the doors. (The answer "just stop caring" isn't as easy as you might think).
> You can forget about it; this is, forget thinking about "you" as a first or third person. Do things without second thoughts.
This works excellently. Think of a dog and how he acts. Now think of why. Imagine he doesnt probably second guess everything and he definately is not focused on himself, but on the "outside" world.
Many people believe that not thinking leads to inactivity, but when you dont think much it actually comes naturally. It's a pretty great feel.
Not to mention you become way , waaaay more open minded.
Since my teen years I was a slave of my own prejudices, letting go in the manner I posted above will ease all you intellectual processes.
For instance, reading hard asses philosophy from some hard ass author is considerably easier when you don't critisize everything the moment you read it.
I think taming your ego and letting go are not the same.
You can probably don't think much about yourself and still care about things and people, only you become less manipulative and do not seek attention (you may seek attention for love etc... but you dont care enough for praise or other empty stuff)
...But that's just like my oppinion, maaan...
, Untitled 4.png
Perfect place to ask for people to disagree with me. Even in an online forum of anonymity where everyone /should/ be like you, but aren't.
I was at work today and momentarily departed from a pull-out cabinet drawer. The moment I did, the superintended said "anon, it's common sense not to leave this open as its a hazard".
Yeah, she's a bitch but it's not her comment that irritated me, it's her use of common sense. Wouldn't common sense be to watch where you're going? If I don't watch where I'm going, I'm going to bump into things and hurt myself.
So if she doesn't advocate the idea of watching where you're going to be common sense, how does she excuse herself if she trips over a branch outside?
Yes, in this case, the draw being left out was preventable, but what if that person forgot? How can you blame someone who forgets/misplaces more than someone who isn't watching where they're going? One is controllable the other isnt. I face obstacles walking down aisles all the time. If you can't handle them, who is at fault here?
I used to think common sense had objectivity, but now I'm starting to think that everything I was told growing up is just wrong.
The answer is simple.
It's common sense that people don't use common sense to watch where they're going.
, coconut head.jpg
The other day in religion class, my teacher played a sermon about Catholicism and stuff. The shortest I could put it is, "If there was no god, then the universe would have had to started somewhere, the big bang per say. If we could use a computer and go look at that explosion, or a simulation of, we'd be able to figure out the rate at which the universe expands. From this we'd essentially be able to figure out the future and then life would be meaningless, because our choices would already have been determined."
Any thoughts on this? I thought it was a pretty interesting standpoint, but was probably worded confusingly in order to sound smart and force people to think you know what you're talking about...
It's also all been done already.
OP, I may be terribly wrong but I think that the theory of Big Bang does not attack Catholicism. I think that this theory was proposed by a Belgian Catholic priest called George Lemaitre. Also, in both mainstream Christianism and in Naturalism there is nothing that stops us from taking decisions by ourselves and not because destiny.
0. IF GOD EXISTS, HE IS ALL POWERFUL.
1. If God is all powerful, he must be all knowing.
2. If he is all knowing, he knows the future absolutely.
3. If he knows the future absolutely, he knows the future of any given human being.
4. If he knows the future of any given human being, then that person does not have the ability to make choices which change that future.
5. If that human being doesn't have the ability to make choices which change the future, then free will does not exist.
6. Therefore, if God exists, free will does not exist.