![Papers PLEASE [680x542 - 57KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/T6nYc0.jpg){kind=link}
I want to point something out here. This entire time I've been talking about metaphysics, while this entire time you've been referencing specific religions. Did you notice this? It seems like a strategy you're deploying in order to bolster your point, with things that aren't actually related to the point.
There are many speculations people made about existence that were incorrect, and many that people made that were correct. Using the incorrect speculations to try and make the subject itself seem more or less likely is kind of a dumb strategy.
You need no evidence for assuming the inexistence of something that by any reasonable standard acts as if it does not exist.
Again this applies to the prison anecdote. It's one thing to speculate, but another to confidently assert, without evidence. It's one thing to say "we don't know ______, but here are some possibilities and probabilities". It's another to say "I don't know _____, but I will confidently assert this anyways as fact, and everyone else should believe this too".
It's not like it would be irrational to speculate "perhaps this prison did not just pop into existence one day from absolutely nothing". There are still ways you can rationalize existence without saying "I believe this prison was created by a fire god". So continuously bringing that up is just a deflection/distraction from that point.
Especially when we objectively have immaterial abstractions. Mathematics proves metaphysics. We do have actual reasons to believe in a metaphysical existence, which is just something that exists beyond the realm of our traditional five senses.
Perfectly logical. Perfectly reasonable.
What is neither logical nor reasonable is Atheism.
I noticed, that you were talking about... Not sure it's metaphysics. But it's something one would call metaphysics. However, my arguments were partially epistemological, and partially anti-christian. because that's presumably the position you're arguing from.
related to the point
You mean arguments about what you can know is unrelated to the point of knowledge? If you can't know the nature of god, any point religion can make is moot. And you can't even know if he exists, which means, that the chance that your definition of god doesn't exist is close to certain.
It's one thing to say "we don't know ______, but here are some possibilities and probabilities"
Okay: Maybe the christian god exists, but the chance for it is less, than one to the number of hydrogen atoms in existence if the total mass of the known universe were made up entirely of hydrogen. And even that's an overestimation, but people have a hard time understanding very small or large numbers, so I'm being generous.
abstract concepts
As someone who writes code, I know about abstraction. Having abstract concepts has nothing to do with any kind of higher beings.
As someone who writes code, I know about abstraction. Having abstract concepts has nothing to do with any kind of higher beings.
I never said it was. The point of immaterial abstractions is that it's related to metaphysics, not God.
But all of this ties in directly with previous points made, that atheism is the default and requires no indoctrination.
And you believe that without any outside influences, a person would just default to the assumption that the entire universe just popped into existence out of nothing. Spontaneously.
What's the likelihood of that anyways? It's more like the entire reason for believing or speculating on something so absurd is because it's pretty much the only way to explain the origins of the Universe without metaphysics.
I have a fuck ton of trouble believing you are actually objectively weighing probabilities when you are consistently placing not just your thumb but your entire fist on the scale in favor of the position you just happen to believe.
I very rarely, if ever, see any type of nuance in discussions with atheists. It just devolves into a circle jerk about sky daddies and tea cups.
It's like pulling teeth just to get to this point of discourse, when this is just the basics that should already be universally discussed and understood. Since supposedly it's all about rationality, logic and evidence.
that atheism is the default and requires no indoctrination.
for me it certainly is.
And you believe that without any outside influences, a person would just default to the assumption that the entire universe just popped into existence out of nothing.
without any outside influences a person wouldn't have a clear understanding of the term "universe"
What's the likelihood of that anyways?
people don't understand very large and small numbers. Besides, the universe exists, and without it existing we wouldn't exist and conversely wouldn't ask any stupid questions about it. So it must exist with 100% certainty, when someone asks stupid questions about it. Besides, look up what a bolzman brain is, if you want to talk about probability on the astronomical scale.
discussions with atheists
Okay. I have two points to make.
- The likelihood, that the stories about one of the iterations of the jew-god are true is so small, that it can be discarded
- If some kind of god exists, he acts as if he doesn't, so the reasonable way to behave is to assume, that he either doesn't exist or doesn't care what we do.
In any case, I grant to you, that I'd estimate a religion to be more likely true, in which I have to sacrifice little halfbreed-babies on a stone-altar once every week to please the bloodgod. But that's only because I'm a racist monster.
(post is archived)