/lit/ - Literature

>>13840582
First off Buddha is not even a minor deity and he certainly existed. He was a Prince, Siddhartha Gautama who experienced ego-death. Also no-one has ever proven a uniquely Christian God. In fact, philosophy would suggest the highest divine principle would have a mathematical or logical manifestation, not a personal one as depicted in the Abrahamic traditions.

/lit/ - Literature

>>>>/his/

It only applies to Orthodox Christianity because it relies on the existence of a God whose simplicity and multiplicity are not in dialectical tension.

>>13840641
jay dyer pls go

>>13840624
>. In fact, philosophy would suggest the highest divine principle would have a mathematical or logical manifestation, not a personal one as depicted in the Abrahamic traditions.

>Recognize that Goodness is real
>Recognize that badness is the absence of goodness
>Recognize that existence is good
>Recognize that the creator would be the concept of good
aquinas btfos ur meme

>>13840624
Yeah I know yet people still use TAG. I think the key to addressing it on its own terms is in how they define the specific God.

I've been reading these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality#Variations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Only_Possible_Argument_in_Support_of_a_Demonstration_of_the_Existence_of_God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence%E2%80%93energies_distinction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque


I don't know what type of Christian Kant was, and his argument seems to refer to an absolute concept, but modern arguments refer directly to the bible as axiomatic which makes a lot less sense to me.

>>13840641
>Orthodox Christianity because it relies on the existence of a God whose simplicity and multiplicity are not in dialectical tension.

Can you explain how God is conceived of in this way? I haven't been to bible study since I was in school and they mostly had us sing songs.

Does this have anything to do with Univocity of Being?

>>13840668
>Can you explain how God is conceived of in this way? I haven't been to bible study since I was in school and they mostly had us sing songs.
I'm actually not sure if my post applies to Kant's version of TAG but I'll try to explain anyway. Basically, in Thomism and by consequence most of Western Christianity, God is envisioned as an absolutely simple being with no variation so that all his qualities and actions are equal to each other and only appear distinct to us (ie God's love=God's mercy=God's justice=God's fatherhood=God's son ship). This is similar to the view espoused in neoplatonism, Islam, and Judaism (post-Christ ofc). In contrast, Orthodoxy Christians believe God can only be understood by relation of the trinity, which by its nature shows God can be both one and many without one taking precedence over the other. There's also considered to be a difference between God's essence and his energies which is one of the central parts of Orthodox Christianity and is too complicated to get in depth on now. Read Vladimir Lossky for more info.

>>13840667
Aquinas was a retard and theology is just philosophy conducted, ironically enough, in bad faith. What kind of retarded cave man can only think of one personality capable of apprehending a universe?

>>13840582
>I AM THAT I AM
God is Truth

>>13840667
>Recognize that existence is good

I will do no such thing.

>>13840747
I am that I am too. Checkmate

>>13840742
u didnt address what i said

>>13840667
>Recognize that Goodness is real
but it's not

>>13840774
I don't need to. You've made a mountain of presumptions. Philosophy isn't as easy as desultorily greentexting a few lines.

>>13840794
>Philosophy isn't as easy as desultorily greentexting a few lines.

>>13840794
I was just summing up the traditional Christian view for the first poster, so we could discuss them. I really wish you would actually provide some thoughts on Aquinas' arguments instead of being rude about it.

>>13840733
>Orthodoxy Christians believe God can only be understood by relation of the trinity, which by its nature shows God can be both one and many without one taking precedence over the other.
>This is similar to the view espoused in neoplatonism, Islam, and Judaism (post-Christ ofc).
>Only Orthodox Christians

I don't get this, I thought all Christians believe in the Trinity and that Jesus was God. From this specifically I can see how Islam and Judaism wouldn't have the same point, however I don't see how their metaphysical conception of the absolute is fundamentally different that the specific example of the absolute having a mortal son if we are all children of God, or more secular if we are all aspects of the universe. There are certainly sects of Islam that make the same argument without the Jesus myth. Or if Jesus is logos, or a symbol for the potential of man to strive towards God(the absolute).

Wouldn't you say that even if their book is wrong they are referring to the same God just under a different subtitle?

>>13840762
>filename
kek

>>13840813
I think they are contemptible. No more worth refuting than any other religious claim; non-falsifiable.

>>13840753
BASED

>>13840814
I also don't understand this argument by revelation or the bible. What makes the bible so unique?

I could accept the argument if they said books _in general_ or maybe language itself(as self reflection) are revelatory in that they record experience, which records the world, and the world itself reveals God through its natural organization or patterns. But this equally applies to a secular absolute or eastern religions as it does to Allah.

>>13840733
>thinking Kant was even a Christian except for convenience's sake. You can practically sense the squirming that happened in his seat when he evoked his deus ex machina.

>>13840847
Is anything falsifiable? Can you prove beyond a doubt anything? How can you know that your experiences are an accurate representation of reality? How can you know that your memories are consistent, maybe the entire universe changes every few minutes and you don't know because your memories change with it.

>>13840774
Also you didn't address what I said. Even if you could prove that the Christian God existed how could you prove his preeminence? Its impossible. But more importantly, its improbable.

>>13840867
So we have to limit our judgement by axiology

elegant: Everything emanates from a representation of singularity
inelegant: There's this guy, sometimes he gets pissed off and makes people eat their children. Oh yeah, and he made everything.

>>13840904
>elegant: Everything emanates from a representation of singularity
What caused the big bang?

>>13840926
Platonism has fuck all to do with the big bang, brainlet.

>hurr durr, he disagrees with my concept of religion so he's an atheist

>>13840867

>Is anything falsifiable?

Yes

>>13840972
proof?

>>13840983

You want proof that ideas can be proven wrong? Okay, here goes:

1. Take one finger
2. Take another

If the number of fingers you're holding up right now is two, you would've succesfully falsified the idea that 1 + 1 = 3

>>13841026
>he doesn't realize he first has to model arithmetic from modal logic

>>13841026
But I have only subjectively falsified that idea. If I cannot prove that there is a foundation for my experience, that it can be used to truly "know" things then I can not prove anything other than to myself. And that's just delusion.

>>13841038

No, I really don't. All I needed were two fingers and a pair of eyes

>>13841056
nope, first you have to at least define 3 as an odd number to prove 2 of something cannot equal it.

>>13841056
Prove that your fingers and eyes actually exist. Caveat, you can't use other people to prove this unless you can prove that their fingers and eyes exist

>>13841071

That would be a change of the label, not the event it represents

>>13841075

I always find this selective skepticism of reality a bit peculiar. If you don't believe reality to exist objectively, why do you avoid oncoming traffic? Why don't you jump out of a skyscraper? Aren't those events supposed to be subjective as well under your logic? And yet, when your logic gets tied to actual consequences, you suddenly don't accept it.

>>13841130
monkey brain is only objective reality
monkey brain don't want to get hurt
monkey brain scared to die
monkey brain want to put penis in vagina
ook ook

Thanks for the thought provoking discussion guys!

Is the fucking trinity a metaphor for resolving mind/body through Aristotles matter/form?

Why not just say that?

>>13841188
It's not a metaphor

>>13841188
No its a cope for brainlet Christians who can't accept how arbitrary their cosmology is, so they turned a jew on a stick a bird and a guy in a tornado into a philosophical enigma.

>>13840624
>In fact, philosophy would suggest the highest divine principle would have a mathematical or logical manifestation
kek

>>13840904
>There's this guy, sometimes he gets pissed off and makes people eat their children
I can't believe you people have come back here without even slightly improving your level of discussion

>>13841215
every cosmology is more or less arbitrary from the point of view of a human being

>>13841314
It needn't be improved. Sorry Christians, but your Bible is what saddles you with the "guy on the cloud" paradigm.

>>13840904
what does this represent? is it Christian Qabbalah or new age holographic stuff?

reverse image says "line art"

>>13841333
You mean like the word "Logos?" See how easy that was? Are you starting to remember why we named you after the scraggly hairs around your necks?

>>13841337
>OMG the writer of Luke used a particular word. non-Christians BTFO

Of course a demiurge would assert itself as ultimate truth. What, are we supposed to just take his word for it? Sorry but you're on an antfarm, pal.

>>13841336
Its Platonic Cosmology

>>13841355
logos contradicts the "cloud paradigm" as you called it in your poor English. I knew you redditors were slow, but this is pathetic

>>13841367
My English is anything but poor. My verbal IQ, as it so happens, is practically maxed out.

>>13841367
Also you're a retard for thinking a single word can contradict much of anything. Persons use words in misleading ways all the time. I'm sorry you're too much of a brainlet to conceive of a much vaster cosmos than what's in front of your eyes. I'm sorry you think any mind that apprehends a reality must be the ultimate cause of all things. And I'm sorry you have to believe in a personal God.

>>13841379
Your prose is indistinguishable from that of almost anyone else on this website and your diction is narrow and awkward.

>>13841396
Heh, sorry kiddo but my dicktion is bigger than yours.

>>13841395
This is so poorly written and thought out. You said the Bible expressed belief in a certain kind of God. I showed you it didn't, and now you're on to something entirely different.

You don't actually understand the implications of the word Logo as used by the Jews around the time of Christ's birth, you're just spewing words of which you can know nothing.

>>13841399
im a grill btw

>>13841396
>>13841410
Your head is so far up your own ass, your brain is undergoing sepsis. Also I have no idea why I'm arguing with a literal ESL -- yes its that conspicuous -- about the quality of my English.

>>13841410
>puts lipstick on pig
>now the pig is made out of lipstick

Okay then....

>>13841420
>>13841431
cope with no argument

>>13841442
A word is not an argument either. You can't just say "look, the Bible says "Logos"!" and then we all ooo and awe over it. The preponderance of the evidence (which exists in the Bible) suggests a God with a personality, a "jealous God" one who will "repent of the evil" he's supposedly not even capable of. Using a word doesn't erase the guy on the cloud paradigm. And a personal god is irreconcilable with the Platonic Logos anyway.

>>13841460
>The preponderance of the evidence (which exists in the Bible) suggests a God with a personality,
And that isn't a man in the clouds God. Even in the Old Testament, "I am that I am" should suggest to you something about his being.

Btw we believe God is responsible for 100% of deaths that occur, not merely the ones mentioned in the OT by means of direct communication.
>And a personal god is irreconcilable with the Platonic Logos
No, it isn't.

>>13841478
Okay, he's not literally "in the clouds". Obviously you shouldn't be using a literature board if you can't understand the concept of verbal irony. Admittedly he's not the one in the Cloud. We're in the Cloud. He's just the asshole using the machine.

>>13841507
I assumed you meant, if you even knew yourself, that he was taken as a physical being existing within time and space.

The quality of discourse here is astounding! Thanks 4chan!

>>13840582
>>>/his/
There is a philosophy board for your "arguments"

This other thread got nuked, lets proceed here

>>13840582
>What makes the argument uniquely Christian
It doesn't by itself. However, God is love; I wouldn't be surprised if religions (conscious organizing of memes in the minimalistic interpretation) took similar paths to Christianity even in alien societies billions of years ago - or billions of years into the future.