/lit/ - Literature

Actual OP here.
>>15477460
The person that you're replying to is not me. They're completely wrong.
>>15477410
My divine intellect tells me that you're extremely insecure about your own intelligence. I suggest you read some books on self-esteem.
>>15477323
The third poster you're quoting is not me.
My answers are
>Is there free will.
Yes.
>Does god exist?
Likely, yes. There is much to be said that I cannot possibly contain in a 4chan post (hence the book).
>Why is there evil in the world?
Evil definitely exists. The reason why is also too complex to explain in a 4chan post.
>What is consciousness?
My answer here explains why this is the wrong question to ask. That essentially we cannot hope to explain what it is but not for the reasons that other philosophers have outlined.
>>15475702
Maths presents a good example where human-conceived questions have definite, objective answers. I'm sorry but you talk like a low IQ individual. I'm a genius.
>>15475369
>>15474563
This is a very common thing that people of low intelligence who are insecure of their intelligence say. It's not a sign of maturity, it's a sign of a midwit. Midwits are insecure about their intelligence so they act humbly for fear of being found out as a midwit. Actually intelligent people are not like that. If you actually knew any history you would be aware of the fact that many actual geniuses were not always deferent to others when it came to intelligence. Read about people like Nash, Newton, Gauss. You will have your delusions about how actually smart people act quickly shattered.
>>15475166
No.
>>15474932
>lit/ has proven how much of a poof he is
How?
>he went full damage control
Huh? Are you posting in the right thread?
> to actually come clean
About what? The fact that I'm smarter than all of you combined?
>>15474923
Keep telling that to yourself, midwit. Just because you were severely disappointed after every insight you thought you had doesn't mean that everyone is like that, it merely means that you're not that smart.
>>15474903
I bet that sounded good in your head before you posted it.
>>15474890
The book would contain the proofs. Hence my question.
>>15474721
For you.
>>15474699
>No, everything to the smallest aspect of reality is deterministic, although this level of extreme determinism means that we may as well behave as if we do have free will, because our decisions matter, they just aren't technically decisions.
You're approaching the question from the direction that most midwits do, so I can't blame your for that. This is an extremely unproductive direction to take the question to. Not only is it a dumb argument, it actually doesn't even work because there's no proof that the smallest aspects of reality are deterministic (assuming you can explain what you mean by the word deterministic, which is an extremely vague and shaky notion that requires way more thought to adequately justify, as shaky as you probably think the notion of free will is, though it isn't).