And a good percentage of those I would consider "devout".

Yes, but they are becoming more secular.

So it's far from obvious that it's a natural position to hold.

It does not happen that fast, it takes a few generations.

There's something about the ideal of god, an entity that represents all of society's most revered traits and ethics, that seems almost necessary for a society to function.

I gtg

Ill read it later

Have a good evening. Gotta drive to the airport in a couple hours so I'm staying up.

>What I‘m saying is that people naturally drive towards atheism, because it makes more sense.
Literally questioned you and you cannot defend any of your belief. You are still parroting it.
>My son, you are adult now! Will you chose to use knowledge research and intelligence to further your belief? Or will you be an autistic screaching dogmatist?
....
REEEEEEE My belief is logical. Christianity is declining because they are stupid dark age religion... Hurr Durrr -- @P14

>The problem is that religion is not sustainable in the long term, because people will see through the lies
You cannot defend any of your belief.

Btw, https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Atheist

Kek

..... P14 is typing

The "because it makes more sense" regarded the existence of god.
You say I am parroting things, I dont know why you are assuming that, what I said was my personal opinion.
You say I cannot defend any of my belief. I dont know what you are referring to.
I never said christianity as a whole is stupid and I dont think that "imitating" me in order to make fun of my views is the way to adulthood (">My son, you are adult now! [...] REEEEEEE My belief is logical. Christianity is declining because they are stupid dark age religion... Hurr Durrr -- ").
Indeed it seems to be immature at best.
Then you repeated that I cannot defend my beliefs, I dont know where you're getting this from.
I want to reassure you, that I will take a closer look at christianity and its philosophy, especially looking at the connection between science and the religion.
You will probably recognize that this will take some time.

My point was that independently of all that, christianity gives you a weak mindset. You can point to all the occasions in history when it was supposed to be "strong", but modern Christians are rather weak.

>people will see through the lies
>atheism, because it makes more sense.

@P14 Remember when we debated yesterday?
Or are you pretending that didn't happen. Well, if I humiliated that badly then I probably would pretend it didn't happen too.

>Moderninity

Who is strong in moderninity?

The US military is strong

The VDV I imagine is strong

We did debate, no doubt about it, but the debate fell rather short, because you have a different view on history than I do. I was willing to accept that my view as it was being tought in school, TV, etc. may not be correct and I said that I would go ahead and research it.

We also debated on the existence of God. I believe you were there for that.

No

I was not

I think you started on that when I left

I'm not quite sure I believe that but for now I'll operate under such an assumption. It doesn't give much benefit at this point.

Do you not remember godel's ontological arguement?

I have heard of it, but I dont remember you explaining it.

I actually opened the pdf a view hours ago.

Are the formulas part of formal logic?

Yes, it was writen by Kurt Godel, a Doctorate in mathematic? logic.

Do I need to understand formal logic in order to understand the argument correctly? I guess not?

Yes

You will.

I chose that one because it was verified by an automated theorem prover.

A program designed to show if a theorem is valid or not.

The simplest one, although not simple, is the Anselm Ontological.

Cosmological arguements are easier to swallow.

Do you want to VC?

Sure

im gonna leave you two to it

Euthyphro

https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506712842&sr=8-1&keywords=how+the+catholic+church+built+western+civilization

So I went over that paper on the theorem provers, it's interesting, the math is way over my head, but I'm not so sure it matters much. It seems to me that it really only sets out to prove the validity of the tech and methodology(which is impressive and likely very valuable). It does "prove" Godel's Proof with the caviat that all it's presuppositions remain intact. However, It does nothing to address the inherent flaws in axiom that I was trying to get at when we were speaking. The authors even admit as much, placing the task of determining thier validity squarely on human minds (they also acknowledge that the prover does as much to prove some of the original critiques of the argument valid as the argument itself). I've never found the ontological argument very compelling, not just because it's a purely logical argument arrived to by reason alone with no material proof involved(and trying to use logic to prove an entity that inherently defies logic seems a likely a non-starter), but because it seems to take things for granted that aren't necessarily true. ie. Existence is a (positive) trait, or that positive traits in general are universal and unchanging, or that the traits we give to concepts like this have any bearing on thier actual existence at all, or that a single entity is correct conceptually, and a few others. It's a kind of obscured circular argument, and as such, as fun as it is to think about, I think it's pretty useless and isn't going to be convincing any significant number of people any time soon.

wew

On a side note, that ED article is funny as fuck, I had never read it before. Henceforth I'm referring to myself as an apathiest. kek

@Rin what paper are you referring to? Anything with math in it (especially Godel's work) sounds like an interesting read

http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/papers/C40.pdf

>trying to use logic to prove an entity that inherently defies logic seems a likely a non-starter
>God is illogical so he shouldn't be reasoned towards
>You are a man of reason and cannot be trusted.
Please kill me.

>Existence is not a positive trait

What?!?

What??

How?

>things for granted that aren't necessarily true. ie. Existence is a (positive) trait

To have a positive trait
>Have
>State of being
>Literally asserts postivie existence whereever it is placed.

Rin, I'm going to be charitable and assume you meant something more like the Buddhist anatta, rather than actual non-existence. Is this accurate? Or do you truly argue for the goodness of utter oblivion?

Kind of hard to explain, but basically existence is a prerequisite to any other trait in reality. I'm not sure how that affects it's own ability to be a trait in it's self. Also there's a difference beween traits ascribed to "imagined" agents vs real.

For example, you can describe traits of fictional characters that are true, but utterly false in reality.

For example:

Sherlock Holmes lives on Baker St.

That's true, but not in reality.

That is a contigent existence

It may well be true.

Why would god be any different?

You cannot assert that unless you have seen all existence

God would be in the necessary category.

@Akulakhan I'm not arguing for the goodness of anything here, just trying to parse a complex topic and indentify it's flaws. Like I said, it's an interesting line of thought, but it doesn't prove anything.

Is existence hard for you to comprehend?

What are you doing right now?

That's not really the issue here though.

I came in late, what is the issue?

What the paper actually shows.

Forget the actual logical proof. I trust his logic is solid, but the proof isn't sound.

And what do you believe the paper shows -- or rather, what do you see missing?

I didn't read the paper posted (it elaborates on how the proof is begin put into a language that a computer proving system can verify

so we dont need that paper, we are just talkign about godels ontological proof

The paper's purpose is to show that the provers they are using work, not to prove the argument correct. Because there are axioms in the argument that the computer can't parse.

The ontological argument has been refuted many different ways over the years, I was under the impression going in that the paper somehow proved the argument valid, but that's not it's purpose at all.

Yeah a computer can't comprehend and determine 'positive' traits when there is no objective way to assign that characteristic.

It was showing the conversion.

So then why use it in the first place if you know it is as such?

I see I thought we were arguing the acutal proof

Then let's return the the proof itself. What issues do you see with it? What do you find missing in the proof?

Or, better yet, what issue do you find with his central premises, and the conclusion drawn?

Seems irrelevant to use a source then argue immediately after that it technically isn't correct or applicable

I didn't use the source originaly, it was shown to me and presented as proof of the argument's validity. Which it isn't, that's my only point.

Fine, fine, the paper may not demonstrate the validity sufficiently for you. Have you said why you think the argument itself is invalid?

It was proven on a ATP but all the articles written on its proving were written by autistic fucking neckbeard atheists

Stop tiptoeing around and make a definitive statement

Yes, I said all that earlier.

Hurr Durr Prover doesn't prove it because it isn't my belief.

No, it doesn't prove it because it doesn't prove it. It's that simple.

>it doesn't prove it because it doesn't prove it
HAHAHAHHahhahahahahahahah

ahhahahaha

hahhahahah

ahh

ahaha

hah

Oh

boy