/lit/ - Literature

>>13177079
>It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God exists as an idea in the mind.
>A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
>Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
>But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God exists.

>>13177085
I meant personal, christian God.

Alright I'll expose myself. I act as though God is real despite having serious doubts because I think it's a good way to live life. I cannot prove He exists, and definite proof against his existence would not change my behavior, just my belief.

God exists, just not how the abrahamics believe. It really doesn't matter what you think about it so I wouldn't worry too much

>>13177079
God doesn't owe you anything, pal. Certainly not an "incontrovertible proof". You can't even make bugs and plants bend to your will by your words, and you pretend to do that with God?
Get your head out of your ass, retard

>>13177362
He owes an apology for bring people into existence without consent. Especially, the christian god, if he's real. Imagine bringing someone alive into a world in which bad decisions can result into an eternity of suffering. Imagine a father which throws his son into a labyrinth with two possible results: in one the son comes out alive and ready to spend a liftime with his family. The other the boy gets thrown into a pit of fire and dies in screaming agony. To simply say "the boy had the free will and the intelligence to figure out the correct path" is stupid, and i bet most people would want such father to rotten in prison. Free will doesn't matter, it's irresponsible to say the least to bring a being into this world when so many things could go wrong.

>>13177079
Read Kierkegaard. Or St. John of the Cross. Or the account of the women who touched Jesus' cloak. You need faith to believe in God. God manifests himself to those who need Him (hint: that's everyone, whether they like it or not)

But Jesus was just a carpenter.

And he was also the son of God.

>>13177421
You are a shimmer of god (not the archon Yahweh (Christian/jew god)) that necessarily consented because each and every action is one of God's (I.e the One). The apparent contradiction of "your" "consent" is invariably a product of the failed creation of Yahweh, who is the aspect of Ignorance and Desire.

>>13177079
>incontrovertible proof

>“He says, ‘What do you mean, ‘guarantees’?'” booms Schwarzengger — Dutch doing Dutch. “'There’s no such thing as guarantees! Guarantees don’t happen and if anyone promises you guarantees, they’re lying! We don’t even know that if you walk out of the building here you won’t get hit by a truck. There’s no guarantee that we’re going to make it ’til tomorrow! I cannot have control over God — I don’t even believe in God, why am I talking about God? But someone, nature, could just rain for three months and then what do we do? How can I give you a guarantee? This is ludicrous!’ I kept kicking him under the table and trying to tell him to shut up while we’re ahead. But he just wouldn’t, and that was it. That was the end of that movie. Paul [Verhoeven] always tried to be honest, but you can be a little bit selective about when to be honest and when to just move on with the project. It was a shame.”

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/arnold-schwarzenegger/

>>13177085
>Considered in the light of day and impartially, this famous ontological proof is now actually a most beloved piece of nonsense. That is, at any opportunity, someone contrives a concept assembled out of all sorts of predicates, taking care, however, that among these, either plainly and nakedly, or, as is more decorous, wrapped up in another predicate, e.g, 'perfection', 'immensity', or something of the sort, there is also a predicate of reality or of existence. As is well known, from a given concept one can extract all of its essential predicates, i.e., those implicit in it, and just so one can also extract the essential predicates of these predicates by means of pure analytical judgment. These predicates, as a result, have logical truth, i.e., have their cognitive ground in the given concept. Now accordingly, anyone can also fetch the predicate of reality or existence from his arbitrarily contrived concept, and therefore there is now supposed to be an object corresponding to the concept, independent of it, existing in actuality.

>>13177079
I don't have any proof for you besides our existence. For me, "God" is just a convenient answer to why everything is.
Just a something predicated the nothing and created more things.

To be honest, you can't really prove God doesn't exist either.

>>13177079
Why did Jesus get remembered, while all the other carpenters of his time and place are nothing but dust, not even a name to know them by? Answer me that, OP.

Have you even done a cursory reading of the Gospels? Jesus tells you no sign will be given.

>>13177096
>I meant I'm a goalpost moving brainlet