[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 769 KB, 600x724, 1557845006282.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15104951 No.15104951 [Reply] [Original]

>God and His creation are perfect
>it must be true because the Holy Scriptures tell us
>these Modern Thinkers do not provide any evidence for the contrary but I have plenty to show I am correct
>if God did it, then it must be perfect because whatever God does is by definition perfect
>for something to be imperfect it must be flawed, but even a flawed thing is perfect in comparison to a thing which is infinitely flawed
>numbers cannot be attain perfection because the largest number is a contradiction, unlike the omnipotence of God
><snipped 500 pages of this garbage>

Am I missing something?

>> No.15104964
File: 438 KB, 1377x1600, Spinoza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15104964

>>15104951
>Am I missing something?
Everything.

>> No.15105000

>>15104951
>perfect perfect perfect
such a stupid concept. But, it speaks good for Leibniz, since saying "the universe is perfect" = "I am healthy".
Not only that, but it allows him to be "beyond truth", so to speak, in like the 16th century, and posit his own favourite philosophy as the world, where everything is alive and has infinite complexity and a transcendent god exists which controls events so it happens "perfectly".

>> No.15105013

>>15104951
Voltaire's Candid destroyed this autist

>> No.15105019

>>15104964
Go on...

Out of the rationalists, Descartes and Spinoza were actually the most bearable, but reading Descartes left me with the same sort of frustration as Leibniz because of his bad ontological arguments. Spinoza's theology is probably the most sane.

>> No.15105051

>>15104964
They have pretty much the same system, you just have to be smart enough to break one system down into another.
Leibniz advocates for a subjective multiplicity harmonized by a perfect god. But Spinoza's system is the same!
Spinoza advocates for a subjective multiplicity harmonized by substance. In both systems, God acts as the harmonizer/framework.
>But Leibniz's god was transcendental, while Spinoza's god wasn't!
You can look at it either way. I could easily think of Spinoza's god as transcendental, since all of substance will forever transcend me, or Leibniz's god as imminent, since I was constructed out of God.

>> No.15105103

>>15105019
Spinoza is probably either second or first smartest lifeform to ever exist. In the 16th century, he:
>realized neutral monism, where the dual two attributes of mind and body are made parallel with eachother
>Destroyed that outside of god
>Reached his own psychological system based off his ontological system where every lifeform is aiming for power
>Realized that every thought is true
Etc. etc. The only problem I've found is his hatred of and resentment towards teleology, which is actually an essential part of the universe, just not at all what the early jews and christians thought, from whom Spinoza inherits the idea of teleology, of which he is disgusted on impact from memories of beratement and weakness in such religious societies.