-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 5920)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/phi/ - Philosophy
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 621 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous ## Mod ## 12/02/02(Thu)05:26 No. 5920 ID: 4fb7fa Stickied

File 132815678430.jpg - (161.57KB , 500x452 , 6904084_Untitled-2.jpg )

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.

274 posts omitted. Last 50 shown.
Anonymous 14/02/18(Tue)06:58 No. 11125 ID: dc7696

I like you.

PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/02/21(Fri)18:11 No. 11130 ID: c1bebf

I like him too. His sentiment is poetic. Unfortunately, philosophy is the practice of analyzing thoughts, and his thought does not stand up to analysis. If we assume that a God created the universe, then only looking at this planet and deciding it is the purpose of the universe is like trying to figure out what a machine the size of a building is for looking only at some mites living in some dirt stuck in a screw in the doorknob of an access hatch somewhere on it.

If the entire universe was designed specifically for a race of people living on a speck somewhere in it, and the laws of said universe that prevent those people from literally ever seeing a great part of the vastness of it because the light from those parts will never reach them, then God is either indescribably incompetent and wasteful, or we are a random anomaly in the universe He created and not the purpose of it in any way.

I look at the universe and love it. I am awed by the beauty, splendor, and grandeur of it. But if it was designed, then it was very clearly not designed for us.

Anonymous 14/03/05(Wed)13:22 No. 11160 ID: 326949

I know you are referring to the problem of "the other mind" but even so, if you are a mind in a vat hooked up to a compute then the mind, the vat, and the computer must exist in something like a universe. SO that even if the universe conveyed to the mind from the computer is not real or even exists, some kind of universe must exist.

Anonymous 14/04/03(Thu)20:53 No. 11228 ID: 5337a2


Anonymous 14/05/31(Sat)16:26 No. 11467 ID: e7ad47

Stuff exists which implies that something made it exist, change your definition of god to whatever that something was, then devote some effort to figuring out what it is.
Personally I believe that consciousness is primary to matter/energy, consciousness existed and its will shaped energy around itself, we contain very tiny parts of that original consciousness, which is now spread among all all 'life'.

PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/06/10(Tue)00:11 No. 11501 ID: c1bebf

In order to avoid the problem of infinite regress, we have to include a thing which made itself, or had no maker. And if we concede that, we must concede also that other things may make themselves, or have no maker.

Anonymous 14/07/17(Thu)06:55 No. 11566 ID: fe497e

In my young life, I lived in a Catholic family. However, later, I thought, '... Duh. When you die, your body stops. Done.'
That is how I became an atheist. Pick at this as much as possible, eh? But really, is it not true?

Anonymous 14/07/30(Wed)06:45 No. 11642 ID: 3b67e7

I wouldn't put to much trust in a wiki page that still thanks the appendix is useless.


Vyyth 14/08/10(Sun)12:03 No. 11685 ID: b61bdc

File 14076649892.gif - (9.59KB , 243x163 , simons_graphs_03.gif )

I believe in god, I just don't believe in the church. Whatever incongruities are existent in religion are based on what people have decided the truth is about god. I mean come on? Condoms are a sin? That belief became a part of Catholicism at the same time the Crusades were going on and they needed more fighters, you do the math.

The biggest thing most people are caught up about is the whole "how can a god that created the whole universe and cares for us all allow children to get cancer and people in Africa to starve" And I have to be honest, when my friend was diagnosed with cancer it definitely changed the way I looked at the world and it made me look hard at what it was I believed.

I believe that there are 2 possible explanations to that:

1.) God "loves" people in the same way that we care for ourselves, but are otherwise unaware of what each individual cell in our body is doing, and it is fairly pointless to us if a cell dies because it will be pretty instantaneously replaced with another.

Or 2.) Think of god as a scientist. The universe itself is one massive experiment, and as he observes what is happening he must be careful not to interfere with the experiment in order to keep from skewing the results. That he does care about each person on the planet, and would like to make changes in how the world is, but helping a few people is not worth sacrificing the ultimate goal of the experiment. And if this is truly the case, and you were in that position, than a single planet in an entire universe of almost infinite size is not as important as the people living on it think. I believe that god created the universe for some experiment, and he watches as the universe expands infinitely out, carefully observing as life begins to form on certain planets, and watching as those being develop in order to see what they do, until eventually the universe stops expanding, and collapses back in on itself, and that he continues to watch as the next experiment begins. And while it seems contradictory to state that a being who knows everything would be conducting an experiment, I can only guess that the purpose would be to teach rather than to discover.

I know there are probably problems with this, just as any other theological belief, but this is what my answer is.

Any thoughts?

Matchbox Prince 14/08/12(Tue)12:39 No. 11687 ID: 2f260d


If the universe is nothing but an experimental testbed to probe the potential and condition of life, then we had the incredible misfortune of being born in the universe that must have been developed to test Pain.

We could have been born in the universe to test Pleasure, or even the control universe where everything is just Content. But instead, here we are in a place where life is nothing but a constant struggle against suffering and death, and if you are lucky, you pop out a kid or two before biting the bullet.

Anonymous 14/09/18(Thu)11:03 No. 11799 ID: 39a3d4

File 141103103145.png - (434.18KB , 571x540 , 135438761212.png )

Envision the accomplishments and capabilities of humankind: space travel, technology, literature, art, politics, etc.

Now imagine the capabilities of our cousins: apes and monkeys. Significantly fewer, no doubt. Some can learn to sign, some can learn basic skills, but they lack our awareness, creativity, and vision.

Let's take it a step further. Small mammals. Dogs, cats, rodents. They comprehend even less of our universe.

Even further, reptiles.

Finally, insects. Insects are highly adaptable and reproductive, but they understand zilch of the universe.

What if we humans are insects in the grand scheme of the universe? Despite our powers of reason and logic, we might understand exactly NOTHING in terms of divinity and origin of the universe. I'm not saying theism is sane, but gnostic atheism is insane.

Matchbox Prince 14/09/20(Sat)11:29 No. 11804 ID: 2f260d


This is nice. Very Lovecraftian at the core.

I was at work today, on break eating some lunch, and watching some ants. We have some pretty big ants here (about 1/2" long) and they don't form trails like those little black ants, they pretty much just scavenge around for food and then take it back to the nest individually. They were frightfully efficient at this. Any crumbs were found and picked up in about a minute or two. I followed one that was carrying an oat flake I dropped from my granola bar, back to their nest roughly 15 feet away. It was a hole in the ground next to some stones we're using to make a patio. The interesting thing was that the actual entrance to this nest seemed covered in leaves. Now, it's below a tree so there were leaves everywhere, but these appeared too clumped; it was a non-random pattern. So, in experimentation, I grabbed a small stick and flicked away most of the leaves. I walked away to get back to work.

When I returned, a few leaves were back in place, and I observed the ants working together to move more over the nest. Possibly, it was because the hole was exposed to the sun, and this kept the entrance cool; possibly the tunnel was kept wet with ant saliva and drying in the sun would cause he sand grains to shift and collapse. Either way, it was a fascinating display of collective emergent intelligence and active modification of an animal's environment. Not many animals do this.

However, even individual ants are very smart. They can navigate obstacles and rough terrain, avoid coming to harm, locate all manner of foodstuffs (I tested protein [ham], carbohydrates [oat flake], and fat [cheese] and they took it all) and take it back to their nest, over non-visual trails which, for them, is a distance of miles. Not all the human ingenuity put together could produce a robot capable of these things, and yet ants accomplish it with brains the size of a pinprick that aren't even so much brains as they are a swelling along the nerve stem.

But, in the end, they are just ants. With no effort, I tossed aside their roof of leaves like a tornado carrying the roof of a human house. They don't know that it was me, because as you said they cannot comprehend me. Just as we cannot comprehend tornadoes (well, not completely). Thinks that are commonplace to us, like a lawn mower, are on the scale of nuclear weapons to an ant. ACTUAL nuclear weapons, to an ant, must be like a supernova or gamma-ray burst.

What if what we perceive as galactic-scale disasters are just bombs being traded between cosmic beings outside our comprehension? What if a tornado is just one of them walking by flicking leaves with a stick...?

To be fair, I don't see this as having anything to do with "gods". As powerful as we are, compared to an ant, we are not gods. We are born, we bleed, and we die. We can be killed by as tiny a thing as a virus. If they existed, these beings that are to humans as humans are to ants, would be the same. They might be Roman/Greek style gods (very powerful, but not immortal), but not Abrahamic omniscient gods. The latter most likely cannot exist inside the laws of this universe.

Anonymous 14/09/20(Sat)14:05 No. 11805 ID: 2576d3

>This is nice. Very Lovecraftian at the core.
It's actually just a spin on one of the conversations from the movie Akira.

Anonymous 14/09/23(Tue)09:08 No. 11810 ID: 39a3d4

While I've heard of it, I've never seen Akira.

I was going for Lovecraft.

Anonymous 14/09/27(Sat)05:19 No. 11816 ID: 2576d3

That's cool man.
But in Akira, they have a conversation and one of the things brought up is pretty much "What if you gave an amoeba the same capabilities as a human?"

So yeah, anime beat you to the punch on that one.

Anonymous 14/09/27(Sat)23:19 No. 11821 ID: 39a3d4

>hurr anime expressed a timeless idea in different words
>durr beat you to the punch

ok, weeb

>user was banned for this post

Matchbox+Prince 14/09/28(Sun)23:51 No. 11827 ID: 2f260d


I disagree. Lovecraft came over 50 years before Akira.

Anonymous 14/09/30(Tue)09:07 No. 11829 ID: 2576d3

No way guys. Akira did it the best because its conclusion was that you turn into a giant baby when a human becomes a God. In my mind, it beat everyone to the punch on that one.

Anonymous 14/11/07(Fri)01:18 No. 11878 ID: e94aad

to the agnostic and atheists, i am agnostic and don't know much about science,but,if we go always further back in time we must get to something where matter came from right?many philosophers talked about that,but always put a prime matter,i once heard that matter can be made from energy,all these explainations don't seem satisfactory to me.where did the first thing(be it energy or matter)come from,according to what i know to be the laws of nature this doesn't make sense right?so the most viable way seems to be to think about a Being that trascends the laws of logic and nature that started it all.this is in no way supposed to be an argumentation in favour of god, as i said i am agnostic, just wanted to hear some counterargumentations(only thing i can think about is that we get to a point with science and physics where we understand how the first thing created itself

PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/11/07(Fri)10:25 No. 11880 ID: 465a65

The how is not as important as you think. Once we concede the point that a thing may create itself, we must concede that other things may create themselves too. Then all we need to do is observe something in the universe creating itself or spontaneously existing, and we have done that. Particles create themselves all the time. They manifest in pairs, a particle and an antiparticle, which almost always annihilate each other at the instant they appear. But at the edges of event horizons of black holes, sometimes tidal forces are enough to capture one of the pair while letting the other escape. This would mean we would detect a distinct radiation signature coming from black holes, and this radiation was mathematically calculated and predicted before actually being detected and verified. We don't really need to know exactly how something can come out of nothing to state empirically that it does happen.

Anonymous 14/11/07(Fri)16:58 No. 11881 ID: e94aad

we have reports of matter creating itself?

PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/11/09(Sun)17:32 No. 11882 ID: 465a65

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Anonymous 14/11/13(Thu)17:28 No. 11886 ID: 2027db

>matter creating itself
>virtual particles

Maybe go watch a couple of Youtube videos on virtual particles and pertubation theory before attempting to sound smart.

PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/11/14(Fri)01:03 No. 11889 ID: 465a65


Virtual particles are identical to "real" particles in all ways other than duration. They are for all intents and purposes matter coming from nothing.

Anonymous 14/12/30(Tue)08:05 No. 11958 ID: 39a3d4

no wonder this board is so slow

Anonymous 15/01/09(Fri)11:41 No. 11975 ID: 563380

File 142080008827.png - (210.21KB , 415x531 , faggot45.png )

>not being religious ironically

>user was banned for this post

EL NEGRO 15/01/10(Sat)07:14 No. 11976 ID: f20e67

Well, you have to keep in mind that, when dealing with virtual particles, there is another force that produces them, like in the electromagnetic repulsion between two forces htat produces them. Basically they need to have a cause, they behave different than normal particles, but they are a product of some other entity.

EL NEGRO 15/01/10(Sat)07:14 No. 11977 ID: f20e67

Well, you have to keep in mind that, when dealing with virtual particles, there is another force that produces them, like in the electromagnetic repulsion between two forces htat produces them. Basically they need to have a cause, they behave different than normal particles, but they are a product of some other entity.

EL+NEGRO 15/01/10(Sat)07:23 No. 11978 ID: f20e67

Now another argument that I hold is: the fulfillment of the prophecies in the bible. Now, you can think I am pretty fucking stupid ( which is probably true) but I've found the evidence of secret societies that have existed for thousands of years, that advocate for the mysteries of Babylon and the mysteries of satanism. The following are the only webpages from where I can prove some point:





I mioght have gone crazy, but I truly think there is some truly bizarre shit going on

Anonymous 15/01/29(Thu)12:59 No. 12012 ID: 72041e

Mkay, innocent question:

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?

Another question:

I've noticed that people that say god exist and their justification is always metaphysical (spiritual, if you may).

I've also noticed that people that say god doesnt exist justify this claim on empirical (scientific, if you may) terms.

Can you hold that god exists empirically (scientifically)? can you explain that god does not exist metaphisicaly (spiritualy)?

Also, the third naive question:

Say you consider absurd that some people believe in a god because it does not exist.

Is it not also absurd to believe (BELIEVE) that he doesn't exist?

Not advocating for agnosticism, just asking for justifications on why god exists or god does not exist is any better than the other or any better or worse than neutrality.

Anonymous 15/01/29(Thu)20:35 No. 12014 ID: 465a65

>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?

You can't.

>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.

Anonymous 15/03/04(Wed)05:51 No. 12078 ID: 326949

does god have to be a god in the traditional sense; could he or her not be an advanced being that visited the earth long ago, or could god not e nature anthropomorphized? In Confession of the Last Lowly Warrior the so-called FALL is depicted as the descent from a natural tribal state to the artificial feudal state, so that the fractured society depicted in several creation myths is the formation of the elite ruling class and the common labor class. that would mean creation refers to the creation of the feudal world and a feudal humanity, and not the creation of the physical world and or our species. what do you think?

dhb 15/03/22(Sun)08:04 No. 12103 ID: 7dd04f

A God has no NEED or WANT. Need and want is a human condition, not that of a God. There is no NEED for religion, or followers by a God. Therefore ALL organized religion is a farce. If God were to want or need anything, God would simply WILL it and it would be done, or would have been done without a need for man. God doesn't WANT and NEED man, it is man that WANTS and NEEDS God to escape FEAR. So man created religion which is actually just that, FEAR. Because FEAR is control. Hence, FEAR is GOD. Islam just took it up a notch.

Anonymous 15/04/17(Fri)22:55 No. 12131 ID: 31099f

>It implies you don't know what you believe.

It can easily imply that you belief, that you do not know whether X exists.

>"Do you live your life with the assumption that God(s) exists?"

I live with the assumption that I do not know whether God(s) exists.

I understand that it's very unlikely that some main stream religion is completely right. But the concept of God is much wider used than just for that purpose. There might be some form of intelligence related to our origin, there might not be. I don't have any evidence, so I don't know.

Maybe people are so pressured to hear an agnostic say he thinks one way or another, is due to the underlying reasoning that this influence some type of black and white moral behavior. But it doesn't. You don't need to be so deterministic to decide what you think is right.

Anonymous 15/06/07(Sun)22:37 No. 12218 ID: 107312


An entity that we would describe as "God" would have no wants or needs as we know them. However, the concept of "God" very much has a "want" and a "need" for people to propagate it, because if they stop doing so the concept ceases to exist. A "God" would not care either way if people believe in it or not. The picture of God that lives in peoples' heads, however, fears being forgotten because that is death to it.

Anonymous 15/08/31(Mon)08:05 No. 12273 ID: 369e77

Think of "god" as a parent.
If you live under this imaginary beings rules, you end up falling back on this parental figure when you cannot solve a problem yourself.

While "god" may have been a nice thing back before we had to diagnose what the fuck we're doing to our planet, we've kind of made it so that we have complete control over the fate of our existence, and therefore, the responsibility to take care of ourselves, instead of laying our faith in something which cannot be proven to even exist at any capacity.

Anonymous 15/12/24(Thu)15:53 No. 12372 ID: f5f04c

Even though most religions and most religious people don't agree with these lines of thought, I will respond.
You say that religious people have dangerously relative morality, but religion is the only logical system that can provide absolute morality. No other philosophy has ever came up with an absolute right and wrong, or at least none that I think you could accept as the one and only right and wrong.
A religion can conclude absolute morality out of the existence of a god, and a god is the only source of absolute morality.
Even a Leviathon can't replace such a god, as anybody who considers himself outside of the authority of the leviathon, even anybody born after the first agreements were made, has no part of this morality, making a leviathon a source for relative morality.
So: Yes, religion can cause relative morality in humans in some cases, but it is the only thing that can cause logically valid absolute morality.
OT: Out of the 30 students in my philosophy class, only one student other than me believed that absolute morality exists, and we were two out of four religious students.

Anonymous 16/01/06(Wed)14:56 No. 12397 ID: aeacb3

What about all the things that aren't perfect about human bodies? Birth defects, using the same tube for eating and breathing, visual blind spots, wisdom teeth, the appendix, etc.

Anonymous 16/01/16(Sat)11:13 No. 12411 ID: f8cb32

If you didnt notice, you are replying to a statement made 4 years ago.
Not about the thread.... My question is that even if there is a God, does it matter. Maybe we are an abandoned failed experiment just festering on this petri dish of a mudball. Might explain why we can't find other lifeforms, or why we are more evolved by lightyears than any other lifeforms on earth.

Aura 16/04/19(Tue)04:01 No. 12502 ID: 0ccaee

There's no such thing as being 'more evolved.' Evolution is not a linear progression, new bits of dna show up and old bits sometimes go away, it's almost purely random.

Anonymous 16/10/16(Sun)03:24 No. 12684 ID: 8dc66d

I hope this is suffice.

Anonymous 16/11/09(Wed)20:54 No. 12711 ID: 251fba

I've never denied the possible existence of a deity, but I've never understood the thinking of those who believe in one (especially when it comes to Christians).

"God can't control free will." Then how is it that he causes miracles? Let's say a drunkard chooses to drive his way home after he wobbles out of the local bar. He causes a head-on collision with a teenager.

In the situation which the teen survives the crash, people assume there must have been some sort of divine intervention. Of course, there is NO WAY it could have been because of the intelligent engineers who created a vehicle which was capable of saving lives. No, it was God who saved the teen. Anyways, the religious will attribute the life of the teen to the mercy of God. But the collision was a direct result of the drunkard's free will. Granted God isn't directly effecting free will, God is negating the whole point of free will. Why have free will if God is going to fix the results of said free will?

This assuming the validity of man-written scripts that were supposedly written from God's words, the belief God follows the rules he created, the belief God is omnipotent, all-knowing, all-powerful, but at the same unable to help everyone on the planet, the belief that Earth is the only planet/life residing on said planet God watches over (or the fact God only cares for the humans based on the lack of description of any other kinds of life he created), etc. I could go on and on and on about the non-validates and holes in the beliefs I have a thorough understanding of.

Now let's say the teen dies during the collision. In the situation which it is plausible to assume God can heal and protect, it is also plausible to assume he can hurt and destroy. How do we know he doesn't cause the evil in this world along with the good (assuming good and evil is an existent entity and not a notion made up by the moralities of man). How can one assume a God who is willing to send the ones he loves to eternal torture (even when their lack of faith is perfectly plausible) is one who wouldn't cause harm? He could even be just a sadist, causing death and pain for his sick twisted desired.

If I were to believe in a god with certainty, it wouldn't be with any existing religion (especially any branch of Christianity).

Good point Joey 17/01/02(Mon)06:25 No. 12780 ID: 8d3dfb

That does bring up an interesting point how do we know God does not control our free will what if the voice in our head is not us but some one else who controls any thing and every thing

Anonymous 17/03/01(Wed)16:10 No. 12840 ID: 19b3e3

Thnx, it is beautiful

423423 17/03/13(Mon)15:25 No. 12849 ID: d874d2

philosophical zombie

Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)00:50 No. 12875 ID: 946ad3

A concept of belief in religious context stands in contradiction to rationale. Have you given a rationale, you have failed the concept of belief. God is ungraspable and indefinable to the human mind. Hence any movement that defines god, has already failed the concept of god. Hence pasacals wager is bullshit.

Retort: This exemplifies the structure of alleged self-refutation of kantian transcendental idealism as posed by Bolzano, especially to be found in neuer anti-kant. More concretely that the proposition "No positive nor negative judgement about the thing in itself can be given" is itself a judgement about the thing in itself.
Bolzano in the wissenschaftslehere (1837) goes on to accept that he is not entirely opposed to the thing in itself, but then demands that the thing and exactly how it cannot be known, should be specified.

This is setting up an almost too obvious trap for the kantian since it forces him, in any response to presuppose more than he can know.

Bolzano further has, himself, a somewhat pragmatic view of religion, though he often speaks otherwise. In short, he does not feel convinced that Christianity bears any genuine truth, but rather that it is a genuine truth that religion bears the potential for keeping shitheads in line, which i personally find somewhat persuasive, was it not because of the disgusting immigrants and psycho Americans.

Furthermore, agnosticisme is the only rational position. However it is not a sustainable position. Hence rationality must go over irrationality, in order to preserve rationality. Ie. By accepting religion or metaphysical terminology by pragmatic notions, in the face of necessary non-knowledge. Perhaps something interesting could be said about this in relation to Carnaps 1956 writing empiricism, semantics, and ontology. So there is being. Goldmans casual relativist theory of epistemic frameworks supervenes heavily on it.

Idealism is interesting, aber es ist Schwärmerei. In the sense of fanaticism.

Best argument for god is either pragmatic og irrational, which will not count as real philosophy on the opposite side of the discussion. Which is why we still have jobs, aside from writing about shitty, stinking, boring environmental fucking ethics. Keep disagreeing faggy gentlemen

Anonymous 17/04/18(Tue)09:06 No. 12895 ID: ef933e

File 149249916541.png - (925.06KB , 996x3150 , 765bbd4d90467ee5a115fcc235c1047e80d26ce225a32226a4.png )


goof 17/05/15(Mon)02:51 No. 12931 ID: 650b92

circular logic much?

random observer 17/09/03(Sun)03:48 No. 13103 ID: c5bd54

I think it is ironic that if we CAN understand something, then it cannot be God doing it. If we cannot understand something then we must apply the Scientific Method to it to prove it is real. If you must get to something outside of what science can prove, then it cannot exist.

I don't understand how random rays of light cause chemical reactions in my brain such that I can see a beautiful sunset. Yet, I believe I see beauty in sunsets.

I cannot prove a "beautiful" sunset exists since science cannot prove beauty... Therefore it must not be real.

At times, I feel like something beautiful points me to something outside myself, something higher, that must have set the standard...
Dare I say appreciation of beauty is designed into us?
Dare i say by a designer?...
Dare I say by God?...

Or...It must be random chemicals firing again in that randomly created thing inside my head. Surly random chance accounts for everything right?

Anonymous 17/09/14(Thu)10:14 No. 13114 ID: fb1845

The point is that if you're going to say there IS something, them you have the provide evidence for it.

We have evidence people can and do make up gods all the time, yet we have zero evidence for a god when we look for axiomatic evidence.


Delete post []
Report post