And you know what, that might just very well be true if we’re talking about some supernatural force that is indifferent to its creations, not out of malice, but because it simply is truly neutral.
But as evidence for the religious capital ‘G’ God, the one who communicates and plans every little detail because he loves us so much? What is the point of these “subtle” proofs that took thousands of years to be studied and recorded when he has shown that he can just pop up anywhere or perform miracles and whatever the fuck.
It is no coincidence that the vast majority, possibly 99%, of devout religious people do not give a shit about using math to explain god because it’s all proven in their holy books. It is no coincidence that the “empirical” evidence is, in reality, just pointing at the existence of features and concepts of math and science rather than utilizing said features and concepts to prove the existence of god. And no, philosophical musings about morality using the language of mathematical proofs does not count as utilizing math and science (literally, all the axioms in these types of “proofs” are subjective shit like “bad” and “good” and not, say, the difference between 1 and 0).
And I didn’t even want to make a post dunking on religion, but I’m irritated because YouTube recommended some dumbass video by a channel called “Reformed Zoomer” and one of the arguments is “there is an infinite range of numbers between two numbers, and if we turn those numbers into letters, then every book possible has already been written. Checkmate atheoids”. https://youtu.be/z0hxb5UVaNE?si=RpjF6S0fHiF71iH-
Hey it could be worse, it could be those “we live in a simulation” type dudes.
Why would i give a shit wether or not I live in a simulation I still have to pay rent and do the fucking dishes againChop wood, carry water, etc. Doesn’t necessarily invalidate the whole exercise, but yeah perhaps worth putting it into the perspective of, ‘ok, if so, so what?’.
may we never stop doing religion struggle sessions
btw“there is an infinite range of numbers between two numbers, and if we turn those numbers into letters, then every book possible has already been written. Checkmate atheoids”.
I realized that about 20+ years ago and it was probably a a huge step towards me becoming a communist. They basically described The Commons and that Intellectual Property is theft.
Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion […] Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. […] It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.Thanks for posting the full quote in context. There is so much that can be extrapolated from there. I have already posted some neo Marxist analysis by Samir Amin on the monotheistic Abrahamic religions in the comments here.
You’re welcome but I feel obligated to point out that I did leave some parts out, namely where the […] are.
here’s the full text
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
Also Marx has a lot of italics which frankly changes the tone of some of the text.
I like the one that goes, “if conditions had been just a bit different, we wouldn’t exist”.
Yeah cool well if we didn’t exist we couldn’t observe these conditions required for our existence dummies. And have you considered all possible configurations of sentient life under the other conditions? Maybe some really weird plasma aliens would exist and have the same thoughts
maybe all those other conditions exist somewhere too
VOID
Schizophrenia but its math salad instead of word salad
Anselm of Canterbury’s proof of God, the foundation of most philosophical apologia, is that God is the greatest, and if you could imagine something was just as cool as him but actually existed he wouldn’t be the coolest, so he must exist in order to be the coolest.
proving there’s a god by using Discrete Math proofs which show there’s no largest number
This proof relies on the existence of upper bound on coolness, so we now need to prove it.
Anselm’s Proof later got completely destroyed by a five year old asking him “but what if there was something as cool as god but he also had a gun?”
It actually got owned by a contemporary saying “Ok now imagine a super cool PLACE instead”
yes, the patterns are The Logos, an aspect/manifestation of divine mind
Define God
let א = א
: “Something caused another thing…it must be the nazi magic! Now we need to slaughter everyone who isn’t a white man or else you’ll make the nazi wizard in the sky sad!”literal weak-minded sheep.
As a teenager, I had a conversation while stargazing with one of the oldtimers at the local astronomy club. We talked about science and the limits of human knowledge, and I learned that he was Catholic. I was still newly atheist at the time so I wasn’t ready to discuss it publicly, but I listened with interest to his scientific arguments for the existence of God.
One of the memorable arguments was that the second law of thermodynamics proves that life is a divine creation, since entropy tends to increase, while a complex organism is an extremely low entropic state.
I didn’t know what to say at the time, sounded credible because I was 14 or whatever and this was an adult with real science credentials. Of course during college I had a moment where I realized how absurd that argument is.
Years ago, my high school paper ran an opinion piece about atheism written by a student. Our super catholic chemistry teacher, a real winner, got pissed and wrote a response opinion piece the next month which included that argument.
I happened to be in physics class when that paper got delivered and got to hear the physics teacher roast him with the most open contempt I ever saw from him
So this tells me “entropy proves divine creation” is like an actual argument floating around
Lmao I got recommended that too.
Made me mad watching it. What point was bro trying to make 💀
Made me mad watching it. What point was bro trying to make
Something along the lines of “Math is separate from the human mind and since it can create infinite information, it would have to be outside of a finite universe, ergo God.”
The problem is that Math is most likely a construct used to explain physical properties as opposed to being something inherent to the universe itself. That’s why we can do crazy shit like negative square roots and have them still give reasonable answers despite the number itself being impossible. Just because we can create infinite information from a set of rules does not mean all that information is being stored somewhere.
You can’t create infinite information from a set of rules. Kolmogorov proved that the true amount of information in a signal is the size of smallest ruleset to produce it. The rest is really just fluff, from an information science perspective.
See: Kolmogorov complexity, and the field of algorithmic information theory.
I honestly have more respect for people who use their faith as their evidence for the existence of God because at least they respect themselves and others enough to not pretend to understand hard science to prove you wrong.
That’s where I’m at. Used to be big into all the philosophical arguments, then quickly realized philosophy is much more complicated than I gave it credit for.
How do you feel about the people who just point to miracles as evidence? Even as a kid I always thought that it was a little weird that we’d chalk up someone’s knee healing as an act of God. But there are some miracles/apparitions that, if they really happened as described, you’d think would get more attention. I still don’t think they make good evidence, but it’s weird that they don’t get brought up as often as the weak philosophical arguments.
I don’t even know where I am at with my understanding of reality, so I can’t be anything but agnostic
Maybe that will change when we figure out consciousness
deleted by creator
God is real i eated him.
big deal. catholics do this every sunday. it’s called trans-substantiation.
deleted by creator
