/lit/ - Literature

Did God create man...... or did man create God?

>>12398338
You have seriously misunderstood the texts if you apply a concept like creation or genesis to the abrahamic deity.

>>12398338
That's not how that goes.

>>12398358
Dinosaur created god, then god created man.
Then man ate all the dinosaurs.

And then god

>>12398338
god bootstrapped himself.

>God
>subject to causality
>exists within linear time
Why are atheists so retarded?

>>12398394
>God being subjected to reality
>Why atheists so dumb
So you plain admit he isn't real and you worship a notion. End of story

>>12398417
God created reality, how is he subjected to it?

>>12398367
>>12398371
You need to stop posting.
This shit belongs on reddit.

>>12398424
It is subject to reality, but since it is outside of it, than why call it god?

Go worship the Bootes void. Has more substance.

>>12398425
Are you the OP? If so, YOU belong on re**it
Even if you're not, you should go.

>>12398470
Not OP.
Your posts are among the worst here. They add nothing of value.

>>12398367

go the fuck away.

@12398470
Fuck off to reddit namefag if you want to attentionwhore

>blah blah blah reddit
dumb dogs of christ can't even refute one (based) tripfag

>>12398470
You keep on reiterating that he is subjected to it.

Have you even read Aristotle’s Metaphysics? Have you no notion of the concept of a prime mover?

>>12398338
God is, just like anything, in a process of becoming. Always was, always will be.

God is uncreated.

>>12398541
>posts basic shit like the problem thats been addressed numerous times
>not even competent atheist arguments
>doesnt even address response arguments properly
You forgot your nametag

>>12398564
Why?

>>12398338
moot created God but the asian Judas bought him out

>>12398338
jews. everyone knows the jews created god

>>12398470
How could something inside of our reality create it? God is completely outside of our reality, he is not subject to any of its laws

>>12398338
what could be more divine than a thing without a cause

>>12398338
>self-refuting question

>>12398591
God is a Jew

>>12398338
>what created God
God is uncreated.

>ant: so if man is omnipotent, who created man?

>>12398338
There must be a first cause, if the regression of causality went on infinitely backwards, then the world would only exist in its potentiality, there would be no us. But we do exist, therefore we know that the universe as we know it at some point began, and that first cause is God.

The Greeks were saying this. Greater philosophers than Epicurus I might add.
>>12398367

>>12398338
>I just read dawkins and am now ready to btfo christcucks!

>>12398629
How could Harry Potter create his fanbase? Do you hear how stupid you sound?

>>12398738
God you’re retarded
How much of your day do you spend on /lit/?

>>12398367

>>12398765
plantinga should be canonized

>>12398555
Unlike you yes and it's a baseless assumption
>God does not need a cause because I say so

>>12398711
>There must be a first cause, if the regression of causality went on infinitely backwards, then the world would only exist in its potentiality, there would be no us. But we do exist, therefore we know that the universe as we know it at some point began, and that first cause is God

God is pure conciousness and is the only thing that exists, the universe subjectively experienced by living beings is unreal. Presupposing that consciousness is not eternal and emerged from something else leads to an infinite regress which either can be solved only by that first thing emerging from nothing (impossible) or from an eternal first cause. But something that is eternal cannot contradict it's own inherent nature and become non-eternal, hence nothing can ever emerge from it and there is only It, or in other words if you accept that there is any reality at all to anything it leads to an eternal first cause which is inseparable from itself. Consciousness is the same as that eternal first cause because the act of witnessing or consciously being aware of something which is the only thing that actually exists necessarily makes you one with it. See Gauḍapāda's Māṇḍukya Kārikā:

http://merki.lv/vedas/Upanishadas/Mandukya%20karika%20of%20Gaupada%20_eng_.pdf

>>12398765
Evil does not only come from free will choices larp friend.
>saving pictures to spam as the arguments didn't convince yourself
yikes

>>12398787
I don't really care about the argument. I already know He exists. I have experienced [and done] evil, it comes from our ignorance and refusal to do what we know is right. the concept of evil or random chance is too complex for us to debate but know it is real

>>12398570

Repeating conventional, historically accepted (wrong) theological arguments ad infinitum doesn't count as valid argumentation.

One of the reasons why this is so, is because two seeming absurdities are afoot: A god somehow came into existence of itself, or always was/is (sprinkle on whatever nonsense-flavors you like), or else the universe came into existence of itself, unbidden. The latter is the more plausible of the two absurdities, partly because it is the simpler explanation.

Add to this the always-unsatisfactory apologica for theodicy, and the reasonable course for unbelief is assured. (The opponent's next step is to shitpost: "herp derp you'll be very sad the moment after your death". This also is no sort of argument at all, for it would remain morally necessary to reject such a repugnant god, even and especially if such actually existed. Nor is there any "mystery" scenario which can excuse god's purpose if man's everlasting suffering comes about as a result.

If you truly believe in the christian or muslim or jewish god as it is variously described, then you yourself are a bad person, in every meaningful and worthwhile sense of the phrase. Nor do you win by some "gotcha, he's real anyway". The point is that the atheist is always morally and intellectually right, in conceit and in fact, based upon available information.

>lol enjoy hell

It is better to be right in hell than to be wrong in heaven.

>>12398781
pantheists out

>>12398801
>It is better to be right in hell than to be wrong in heaven.
it's kind of grossly comforting that people like you exist so I know at least *some* people really truly deserve to be there and aren't just victims of circumstance

>>12398807
trying way too hard buddy

>>12398787
Yes it does. Are you asking about why doesnt God prevent human suffering? Because I think thats miles away from "Why does God allow evil?".

>>12398338
If you cannot accept that some being always existed, then you have to come with a creator for the being that created God, a creator for that being, a creator for that being et cetera. You end up with what’s called turtles all the way down,

>>12398816
I'm not >>12398570

>>12398793
lmao do you know santa and his rewards for good behavement exist too?

>>12398827
only if i can hide my misdeeds from mommy and daddy.

>>12398827
the moral argument for god is a good emotional one but not very effective on robots like you. there are plenty of purely logical ones for you to be slightly less biased towards.

>>12398801
>morally necessary to reject such a repugnant god
Why do you think God should conform to human morals? And would such a being still be worthy of being called God? Your problem with God seems to be founded entirely in your own ignorance and inadequacy.

>>12398834
I love how atheists reject theism as an emotional need to validate our existence or whatever and then pull this shit

>>12398807

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You just wished me an eternity of suffering. And why? I wouldn't wish that on any mass-murdering dictator, much less you. I wouldn't even wish it on Peter Scully or Albert Fish. Because it is impossible for finite beings to deserve such. You and your false god are my moral inferiors.

Try actually thinking about these things.

>>12398843
I don't think saying you deserve it is wishing it on you, no matter what sick comfort it gives me. I'd cut off a finger for you to come to Christ.

>>12398843
>Try actually thinking about these things.

>>12398738
What the fuck are you even saying? Did the character Harry Potter create the series of books?

>>12398338
huh? just because god is omnipotent doesn't mean his dad was too. it's not hereditary

>>12398850
that's the point

>>12398843
>You and your false god are my moral inferiors.
Do you think objective morality exists?

>>12398843
You can be my moral superior as you burn in Hell buddy

do you ever think about how life is just redirecting blood through space?

>>12398859

Weebs burn in hell

>the devolution of this thread
why do brainlet atheists have to ruin everything

this thread has been turned to worthless with these last few posts. Typical atheists trying to bury the good points made.

try Buddhism, learn about the Samsara and how to become a Buddha

>>12398885

Happy that my long posts have discouraged you. Now try actually engaging with the content of my thought rather than sighing, if you wish to win an argument.

>>12398910
I find it interesting how Christianity and Buddhism are opposites—the destruction of the self for eternal life vs for annihilation

>>12398915
I did. I wrote >>12398834 in response to you. You ignored it because you don't have the knowledge required to formulate a coherent response. It's okay champ, keep telling yourself you're the greatest.

boys we got ourselves a real life wild fedora in here, let's run some experiments.

>>12398367
You really are the worst poster. No wonder you seem ever present since 4channel happened. You must feel at home for once.

>>12398367
>>12398371
>>12398417
>>12398470
>>12398738
Faggot

>>12398338
You're approaching the subject from the wrong perspective and mixing language games. God is being.

>>12398801
Re: the plausibility of god vs a self-existent universe: this is self-refuting. The very nature of self-existence means something is immutable -- if it could change, then it couldn't be self-existent. The universe changes, therefore it can't exist by virtue of it's own nature, therefore it is contingent and relies on some external, self-existent force for its existence. The necessity of the almost absurdly complex material universe is not only profoundly less plausible than immaterial entity and only favored by a naturalist bias, but also logically impossible. I think if you read up on ontology and divine simplicity you'll at least have a good starting point for understanding the possibility of God.
Besides , *all* evidence points towards a beginning to the universe -- the big bang, the absurdity of an actual infinity, etc.

Re: theodicies: The logical contradiction between significant free will and creatures who can't do evil is the ultimate unrefuted theodicy.

Re: moral repugnance: why would a God whose unchangeable nature defines infinite goodness be unjustified in punishing his creation who ignore the right and wrong he wrote on their hearts in the beginning? It's a nice bonus that he created an easy way out by, in his infinite love, *taking our imperfect nature into his perfect self for the rest of eternity and experiencing the most gruesome death imaginable to save us from ourselves*, and if you don't see how utterly, profoundly, overwhelmingly, crushingly good this is even without believing it to be true, it's your morality that's in question.

>>12398997
Good post

>>12398781

Something like this.

>He hath not been brought to being by another, and even if He have been brought to being, He hath not been brought into being by Himself, but EVER IS brought into being.

Also note the horseshoe formed by /r/atheists and "Objective" Theology.

>>12398765
>freedom is a good thing
debatable

>>12398367
God is both good and evil. As an omniscient being, he was Adam, Eve, the snake, the fruit, the tree, and the whole garden, simultaneously. Life is one endless masturbation session by God.

1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2: There is a series of causes and effects in the universe.
3: There can't be an infinite regress of causes and effects.
4: Therefor there exists an uncaused cause, which we call god.

>>12400203
This is incorrect. God is soley good and a necessary being, the uncaused cause, the purely actual actualizer.

>>12400227
>God is soley good
Then God isn't omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

>>12400229
How come?

>>12400239
If God knows everything, then he must necessarily know the joy that can only be known after one commits an act of evil.
If God is everywhere, then he must necessarily exist as an agent of evil, wherever such things exist in the world.
If God's power is limitless, then evil must be in his power, his reluctance to be evil must be in his power, and also his lustful embrace of it, as all of these are forms of power.

>>12399780
Saying that X into being = eternally and not beginning at a certain point in time in no way refutes the reasoning in that post

>>12400255
>If God knows everything, then he must necessarily know the joy that can only be known after one commits an act of evil.
There exists limited beings that posses emotion, becuase god isn't limited, that means he doesn't have a will that's limited by emotion. The will of god is purely rational. God therefor follows the catecorical imperative by his nature.

>If God is everywhere, then he must necessarily exist as an agent of evil,
wherever such things exist in the world.
I'm not a pantheist.
>If God's power is limitless, then evil must be in his power, his reluctance to be evil must be in his power, and also his lustful embrace of it, as all of these are forms of power
Power, if properly understood, is the ability to do stuff, as emotion is a limitation of self control, then it seems as god has no emotion.

>>12400300
>god isn't limited, that means he doesn't have a will that's limited by emotion.
If God isn't limited, that means he has a will that isn't limited and also one that is. He's limitless. You're pretty much confirming in your post that you think God isn't omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent. Sorry, but if God is going to have these as attributes, you need to realize what these attributes actually mean for God.

>>12400338
Are you implying that god isn't limited by logic?

>>12400255
>presuming to know better than God what is evil and what is good

This is the problem with arguing with atheists. They've already placed themselves above God, as the final authority and judge.

>>12398338
yo mama

>>12400349
If God is limited by ANYTHING, then he isn't limitless. That's logic. To be truly limitless, he must possess both logical and illogical qualities. He must possess everything simultaneously.

>>12400351
>presuming to know better than other people when it comes to God
How about you just stick to trying to provide a reasoned argument, since it's all any of us can do?

>>12398470
You're a fucking disgusting faggot who just shows up in any thread about theism or the Bible and shows up just to tell everyone how much you hate God, you add nothing to value. Go die of AIDS.

>>12400360
Are you reasoning about god using logic while god can't be limited by logic?

>>12398470
>re**it
>>>/r/eddit

>>12400376
I'm demonstrating how God goes beyond logic. Everyone saying that he's solely good are the ones who are still stuck thinking logically. They don't understand enough about God if they think that's all he is.

>>12398843
>moral inferiors
What morality? If you reject the existence of God, where does morality come from?

This thread is so good
thanks for the laugh /lit/

>>12400385
But if you can't think about god using logic, how can you reason about god at all?

Are /lit/huanians unironically being Christians or are they just larping?

>>12400424
You don't need to be Christian to point out why atheists are morons.

>>12400423
Protip: there is no logical. The logical is merely an extension of the endless illogical, and only appears as logical because we are nearsighted.

>>12400450
Do you believe in logic?

>>12400458
I believe in it like I believe in fantasy.

>>12400476
Nice. Now I know that you're illogical and that you can be safely disregarded.

>>12400511
>disregarding the illogical man in an illogical world
Enjoy your life inside the bubble.

>>12398424
>>12398425
>God created reality, how is he subjected to it?
dose that mean that god's own reality is a product of something even of a higher reality?
when dose this cycle even end?

>>12398367
>namefagging

>>12400450
so do how you even trust in the god conclusion ?
are the steps you took (to avoid saying logic) is convincing to you?
this type of reasoning would froze the world at the 1+1 state.

>>12398801
Why is it so hard for you to understand becoming: an infinite becoming that has no points of existence?
Think of something no one's thought of. See something no one's seen. The best you can maybe do is create something never created. Prophets were better at explaining things than anyone else, but they were still awful at it. Becoming is vague, but if you reflect on it enough I think it makes sense.

>>12399702
thanks c:

>>12400257
that's because the reasoning of that post refutes itself. I'll never understand why atheists argue against the principle of sufficient reason because arguing otherwise is just abandoning logic

>>12400608
>so do how you even trust in the god conclusion ?
I trust it because of the sensation of power it gives me. That sensation is the seal of trustworthiness.

>>12400255
God can't go against his own nature, because as an absolute being this is absurd. God can't contradict logic, because as the modus of all existence, the only way to reconcile logic is as a part of his nature. From here just see the Free Will Defense. If you think God isn't subject to the laws of logic, you don't understand the first thing about philosophy and are just abandoning all rationality and making argument impossible.

>>12400300
saying God doesn't have 'emotion' is abandoning the nature of God as set down in scripture. of course in our finitude we can't truly understand the nature of God and he's compared imperfectly to human emotion to get the point across, but I think calling him a purely rational being, as much as that can be understood, doesn't fit with his eternal love and denies the significance of his sacrifice for us.

>>12400666
>God can't go against his own nature, because as an absolute being this is absurd.
It's equally absurd that an absolute, infinite being can't do something, too. Taken to its extreme, all logic consumes itself, because it's all essentially illusion.

>If you think God isn't subject to the laws of logic,
I think that he is. And I think the laws of logic state that the universe can only be endlessly illogical.

>>12398367
When will you fuck off. No one like you. Leave! RRREEEEEEEEE

>>12400710
I need to read the bible more. Pls pray for me.

>>12398950
>Thomism
yikes. Maybe try some apophatic theology next time, bud

>>12400721
>It's equally absurd that an absolute, infinite being can't do something, too.
no it's not

>Taken to its extreme, all logic consumes itself, because it's all essentially illusion.
>>If you think God isn't subject to the laws of logic,
>I think that he is. And I think the laws of logic state that the universe can only be endlessly illogical.
this is what we call intellectually compromised. people like you help me to understand how people can possibly reject god in the first place.

>>12400738
okay, I will! you're not doing wrong by being wrong here, but I think you can't really submit to and worship God properly without understanding the depths of his love and goodness, and reading the Bible and Christian literature is the best thing for this! I highly recommend listening to the newest version of William Lane Craig's Defenders podcast for beginning to understand the significance of all this: reasonablefaith .org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/

>>12398997
based

>>12400771
>it's not absurd for a universal infinity to be finite
Care to explain this one?

Call it whatever you like. Rationality already reached its peak and met its fate with Nietzsche. The turnout was that the most rational conclusion was that the universe is irrational.

>>12398674
Well isn't that convenient.

>>12400375

How Christian of you.

>>12400830
again, abandoning reason is the definition of an untenable position. thinking that the laws of logic don't hold up universally takes a bigger leap of faith than any Christian ever took.

logical limits on God are babby's first strawman. Orthodox Christian theology (as supported by scripture) doesn't define omnipotence as ability to do anything at all, rather God's ability to do anything possible according to his nature. Omnipotence under no sane definition implies logically contradictory abilities. logic isn't a creation but a description of God's nature. John 1:1.

>>12398338
god is not omnipotent, he is omni-impotent, and he was created by Justin Murphy

>>12398367

Time for a Greek lesson, Epicurus literally means "Boy-fucker"

Epi (ἔπι)= on top off
Kouros (kοῦρος) = young boy

> Listening to a cheese-eating heathen boyfucker

>>12398338
himself because he is omnipotent so he can do whatever he wants or he will it that he didnt have a creator

>>12401271
It's not an abandonment of reason. It IS STILL reason. But past a certain point in thought, reason becomes something else, because reason is not the end-all in thought and in life.

>Omnipotence under no sane definition implies logically contradictory abilities.
"sane" here is a filler word that you employ because you can't actually address the argument. You don't address the reasoning, so you debunk it by calling the opponent's definition of it "insane." If you use your head even a little, you'd realize that the combination of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence MUST presuppose a God who can, and has, done and become it all, and there is NO fucking skirting around this if you want to remain logical in your assessment of the situation. God cannot be the goody two-shoes that you want him to be; your denial of him being more than that, being both good and evil and neither simultaneously, is PRECISELY what is illogical here, above all else, and you do so purely because you desire him to be of a certain character that you morally approve of. You want to remain logical here? Then you have to drop morality, because that shit ain't logical.

>>12398367
reminder epicurus never said this, this argument was made by a religious man named lactantius who was telling a story were he said epicurus said that and then he totally btfo him because lactantius is the best (acording to himself)

>>12401458
This is literally an argument of definition. The definition Orthodox Christianity uses, based on scripture, is as I defined it. You are attacking a straw man.

>>12401506
The definition that Orthodox Christianity uses is irrelevant to me. It's based on outdated science and philosophy.

>>12398367
>>12398417
>>12398470
>>12398738
GO
BACK

>>12401575
IT'S LITERALLY AN ARGUMENT OF DEFINITION. This is the definition we use. If you aren't arguing against this definition you're arguing against a straw man.

>>12401640
absolutely wrecked lmao

>>12401640
based
butterfag poster eternally btfo

>>12401682
It's not an argument of definition. You've yet to provide any kind of logic that disproves mine, here:

>the combination of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence MUST presuppose a God who can do and become it all, and has

Your grasping of logic is weak if you think this is an argument of definition.

>>12401319
>conception of good and evil
>having anything to do with postmodernism or egalitarianism
you're such a brainlet it's insane. kill yourself.

Guys, let's just be honest for a minute.. there's obviously no god...

>>12401737
then who wrote the bible?
tard

This question is nonsense because God, by definition, is eternal and uncreated.

>>12398367
>>12401483
>that argument also of Epicurus is done away. God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? or why does He not remove them? I know that many of the philosophers, who defend providence, are accustomed to be disturbed by this argument, and are almost driven against their will to admit that God takes no interest in anything, which Epicurus especially aims at; but having examined the matter, we easily do away with this formidable argument. For God is able to do whatever He wishes, and there is no weakness or envy in God. He is able, therefore, to take away evils; but He does not wish to do so, and yet He is not on that account envious. For on this account He does not take them away, because He at the same time gives wisdom, as I have shown; and there is more of goodness and pleasure in wisdom than of annoyance in evils. For wisdom causes us even to know God, and by that knowledge to attain to immortality, which is the chief good. Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good. But Epicurus did not see this, nor did any other, that if evils are taken away, wisdom is in like manner taken away; and that no traces of virtue remain in man, the nature of which consists in enduring and overcoming the bitterness of evils. And thus, for the sake of a slight gain in the taking away of evils, we should be deprived of a good, which is very great, and true, and peculiar to us. It is plain, therefore, that all things are proposed for the sake of man, as well evils as also goods

>>12401754
Me

>>12401787
big if true

>>12401640
>Likes Biden
Clearly not me. I hate all neoliberals more than that boards formatting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdmeV0GJ-oE

>>12401717
The definition of omnipotence laid out in scripture doesn't presume ability to do logical contradictions, and omniscience and omnipresence obviously have nothing to do with his ability to *do* things. Where does this presuppose this ability? It doesn't follow.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>>12401785
It is an argument that relegates the gods to a far away place. They clearly don't concern themselves with us. We are a forgotten experiment or a toy left in their closet. There is no reason to worship nor way of knowing how to.
The second half of your greentext is pure gobbledygook. Do you require a take-down?

>>12401809
>>>/r*ddit/

>>12401827
>omniscience and omnipresence obviously have nothing to do with his ability to *do* things.
He isn't omniscient if he hasn't done everything there is to do on his own, because then he has no knowledge of those experiences. He also isn't omnipresent if there is anything else in this universe that isn't him.

>>12401809
>>12401838
These aren't me.

>people unironically bringing up "scripture" as if it's relevant at all to discussion about God

>>12401640
>>12401692
>>12401710
>harassing someone because you disagree with them
Always nice to be reminded that Abrahamists still live among us despite not having culturally evolved past the Middle Ages.

>>12398367
ban this dumb idiot>>12398417
>>12398470
>>12398738

>>12398338
That "then" is so unwarranted

>>12398367
and this is a completely different subject

>>12401841
this is an incorrect understanding of omniscience. omniscience means knowing all true statements by virtue of His divinity and being the modus for all existence. it doesn't imply experience (that would be absurd) and is only impossible on a naturalist worldview.

this is a patently incorrect understanding of omnipresence, and omnipresence isn't even a tenant of Christianity anyway — it's pantheism. in Christianity it's just an emotional shorthand for omniscience (you can't escape from God no matter where you hide), or His divine providence (His being the modus for all existence, and the universe only continuing to exist by his permission). Nowhere in scripture or doctrine does it say that God is materially present at every point in the universe.

On these definitions, the ability to do logical contradictions simply doesn't follow.
And again, these are the definitions of the terms that Christianity uses, and saying that they're the 'incorrect' definitions and arguing from there would be strawmanning again.

>>12400647
namedropping the PSR is not a refutation either sweetie

>>12401876
>tells people to go to reddit
>exposed for being redditor
>wah y u bully me

>>12401858
Hi Bluefoot. Watch the yt yet? Biden is an ass

>>12401986
I think the burden of proof is on those who think things can begin to happen without cause.

>>12398780
But that’s not the prime mover argument

>>12400650
your way of thinking is built on a shaky foundation.
if we erase every thing and replace it with god ,then how do people realized god's existence?
should their reasoning by definition be flawed too?
would you still (feel) god if there is no one to tell you what sensation you spouse to detect?
would you feel god if you existed in a vacuum ?
what kind of god gives you the sensation of power?
would it still be the same god if you were raised in another culture?

>>12402009
The argument in that post takes God as the cause of everything, the person who came up with it and associated figures use much of the same theological arguments as Aquinas 500+ years before him but just reach a different conclusion.

>>12402303
so what? it's a sound principle. the only way around it is to abandon a foundational tenant of logic.

>>12402228
not him, and I agree his reasoning is shaky, but it hints at a pretty sound foundation in the unmistakable witness of the Holy Spirit; which is itself a question-begging argument, but isn't meant to prove the existence of God — only to reassure the believer in his faith.
Discarding the witness as psychological is a textbook genetic fallacy, for why wouldn't God speak to us through the faculties He gave us? You won't experience the Holy Spirit if you aren't searching for Him in the first place, but one can't discard this experience any more than any other subjective experience that our senses give us merely because one doesn't like the condition of faith.

>>12402358
I'm getting the impression that you are very confused and don't understand what the point is and how it relates to God/cause etc. You'd actually have to write out how you think the PSR refutes anything in that post for your objection to be taken seriously

>>12402425
alright which post are you referring to

>>12402442
>doesn't even know what he is arguing about anymore

You can follow the replies back to the original post near the top >>12398781

>>12402495
oh I think you misunderstood, I'm in favor of the PSR leading to God

>>12402531
Okay, yeah there was some confusion. I agree with the line of thinking in that post, but it's a theistic one insofar as it's premised on the assumption of an eternal God without whom the subjective experience of existence would not happen. Of course it differs from other classic theistic positions but it's in the same boat as them insofar as disagreeing with nihilism, atheism, biological-reductionist materialism and so on. Reading the first millennium arguments between Hindu and Buddhist thinkers at times feels like a rehash of Christians and atheists on /lit/ arguing with each other its funny.

>>12401955
>omniscience means knowing all true statements by virtue of His divinity
Actually, it means knowing everything. Latin omni, "all," scientia, "knowledge." That's all. The moment you finally realize that I am NOT using the definition that is in your scripture (which isn't the universal definition or even the original definition and certainly not the definition used by philosophers), and WILL NEVER use the definition in your scripture, is the moment you stop making this utterly futile argument against me.

Also, as far as your "strawman" nonsense goes — the comment by Epicurus / Lactantius, which is what I originally commented on itt, predates Christianity, i.e. your scripture. At no point in time was I ever specifically talking about the God in your scripture. I don't give a damn about the God in your scripture and your scripture instructs you to believe that it is the only way to know God because it is a cult that relies on indoctrination in order to propagate itself. It's the only way to know YOUR God — that alone is true.

>>12398424
Any being unsubjected to reality is unreal.

>>12402668
you're missing the point so hard it hurts

>>12398367
please go away dude

why would any one transcendental figure created by humanity exist to the exclusion of all others?
makes no sense

>>12398338
If God's omnipotent then he could create himself

Im a filthy little nigger

>>12401868
This
For me, this gives away the faggots who just feel angry about having religion pushed on them. Then they’d rant about how they’re victims and refuse to acknowledge that the scripture isn’t word of god or even required for arguments on a god

>>12402740
Yeah? Do tell.

>>12398367
Saw this namefag on /lgbt/
HA GAYYYYYYYY

>>12400424
Atheism became mainstream on the internet and /lit/ has to be contrarian to fulfill their intellectual superiority complexes

>>12403445
Haven't been there in years. How's lesgen?

>>12398367
The Epicurean paradox doesn't disprove the existence of omnipotent beings, just omnipotent beings who are completely benevolent from the perspective of humans

>>12403500
Me too!!!!1 I self identify as a chocolate snack it’s so awesome we can be whatever we want now except get high paying jobdlololoolol

>>12403515
See my earlier/later post >>12401838
Is there are gods, they don't care, nor should we concern ourselves with them. If they don't, and we pretty much know they don't, then we can still move on.

>>12403535
Sounds more like a transcarbonist. You ever talk to the Attack chopper kid?

>>12398765
children getting cancer is not the result of free will

>>12403562
GGAAYYY

>>12398367
This is the MOST brainlet take.

https://youtu.be/KuwNhed4ObU?t=26

>>12398367
>malevolent
Implying morality isn't wholly subjective without a God

>>12398367
I am a novice, but I will try to respond to this:

We can use the idea of an omniscient God as a starting point (if we assume that a being who created reality would know everything about it). If that's the case, then why should the domain of an omnipotent God's potential be constrained by human concepts of good and evil? How can we say that God is omnibenevolent if our own concept of benevolence is necessarily limited in scope?

I guess inspired texts tell us that God is infinitely good, and that we should do what we know to be good in order to please Him - but can we really use our imperfect sense of right and wrong to evaluate a (supposedly) perfect being, or his universe?

I see that you already addressed this pretty well - to take this tact relegates God to a realm of existence that prescinds totally from human affairs, making the whole "God's will" thing a non-issue. But if human perception is limited - e.g. we can only perceive time as being a sequence of cause and effect (even if this isn't true on some inchoate level), we can only perceive reality as being finite and constrained (even though, by certain heuristics, we can conceive of it as being infinite and without bound) - couldn't it also be that we can only perceive certain aspects of the "totality of good" as being imperfect and evil? Might we fail to see 'evil' things as being redeemed by their "ultimate destination" in a teleological good?

>>12403562
this isn't me

>>12398711
>then the world would only exist in its potentiality
What does that mean? I don't see how potentiality comes into play here.

>>12398338
God eternally produces himself in a sort of masturbation that accidentally one day gave birth to the world. God then fucked some clay and created man and then he had no idea of what was going on.

>>12404648
delete this heresy

>>12404005
Using the terms good and evil is distracting I think. Everyone, even those who share the same religion, have distinct ideas of what good and wrong are.
Rather, we should look to what the implicit notion evil is in the argument. Which can be understood as that which causes human suffering. Perhaps general suffering if we're to include sentient creatures. This fits with Epicurus' hedonism where happiness is the only "good" (i.e. thing to strive for).
In that case, there's plenty of everyday examples where needles harm is caused. Just take earthquakes and volcanic eruptions as some. Would an all knowing and all powerful being who values promoting human happiness and preventing human suffering allow something like that volcanic eruption at Pompeii to occur?
I think not. Which means we have to either conclude that God either is not all powerful or is not all knowing or does not value human happiness very highly.

>>12398529
@ on 4chan. These zoomers are out of control.

>>12398338
>If God is omnipotent, then who or what created God?
So the point of this thread was to see if Christfags would get butthurt when reading an argument no one has ever made, right?
Good thread OP.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent...
can he get lost?

>>12398765
>god can help but he doesn't because he wants humans to be freeee

fuck off

>>12398338
Man

>>12398367
>he
dropped

>>12398417
You program a videogame.
Are you subject to It's engine? Do you suffer lag when you try to do too many things at once?

>>12398765
God could help while expanding freedom.
E.g.: Giving someone the ability to phase through objects when they're being pinned down for rape.
Explain how this would violate free will and not just expand what someone can do.

>>12405537
God would be removing the other person's free will to rape them.

>>12405635
They still have the usual control over their bodies. It's like saying it's a violation of free will for a bird to fly away when someone tries to shoot it.
Good mem tho.

>>12398765
Simple solution: just don't create those who would use their free will to do evil. God is omniscient, right? Free will preserved for the do-gooders.

>>12405654
>free will is only about physical control of your body

>>12405236
That might be his problem. He can and he did, and people have been misinterpreting his death on the cross as some kind of sacrifice for our sins. HA

>>12405753
>free will is about getting everything I want and being able to force others to conform to what I want
A girl rejecting your offer to go on a date isn't a violation of your free will either btw.

>>12405803
Now you are purposefully being obtuse.
The question was not about the girl rejecting anything, it was about God interfering to change outcomes by denying one person's free will and opening a new option to another person.

>>12405831
So let's get this straight.
God set the universe into motion as it was, knowing how it would turn out, which essentially means he choose to give one man the strength necessary to violate a woman's free will and rape her should he choose to do so.
And this is morally permissible on God's part.
But if he now gave the woman the ability to avoid being raped while she was being pinned, specifically in my example by simply phasing through the guy who's pinning her, this is not morally permissible on God's part. And the reason would be because this violates the man's free will?

>>12405884
The whole point of free will is that it allows us to do good or evil.
This is literally the most basic theology.

>>12401640
How even

>>12398417
i love how atheists fine no problem with the idea of the material universe creating itself (even though NOTHING in the universe has ever been seen to do that, except from the theoretical Big Bang), or that the universe just always existed (and here again they offer no examples of things that always existed, we just have to take their word for it), yet a spiritual being that exists outside the causal laws of the physical universe, and is therefore not subject to those laws, is somehow too ridiculous for them.
just admit it, atheism is as much a faith-based religion as Christianity is. The only difference is that atheists are too low iq to realize it.

>>12406047
None of what you mentioned are positions atheists dogmatically hold. Theists hold the dogmatic position that it must been a conscious, supernatural agent that created the universe.
Atheists are open to the possibility that there was a first cause that wasn't necessarily conscious, or that the universe is eternal (modern cyclic models are an example of this notion), or that the universe started to exist when time did, and that it doesn't make sense to talk of time being caused as our notion of causality is itself temporal in nature (hard to refute that one by asking for examples of time creating itself). Theists reject these ideas.
Keep projecting your dogmatism onto atheists though.