/lit/ - Literature

Who created God?

>>Christianity has a rich tradition of thousands of years of rigorous theology to back it up
So does Islam. And Judaism. And Hinduism, which is older than history. They cannot all be true at the same time as they all conflict, but your tradition of choice happens to be correct? Occam's razor says that none of them are true.

>>15126316
Or they all point to some deeper truth. People believe things because they resonate and ring as something authentic and real. What is that thing?

>>15126286
atheism exists since before then christianity could even be imagined. read epicurus and the epicureans, retard.

>>15126286
atheism exists since before christianity could have even been imagined. read epicurus and the epicureans, retard.

>>15126316
>Occam's razor says

>>15126341
>before christianity could have even been imagined
But the Holy Trinity precedes atheism and had already imagined Christianity before even creating the world and the people who would become atheist bugmen.

>>15126341
God is eternal

>>15126372
not sure if serious or satire.

>>15126341
I love being alive. We're over 2000 years into atheists being BTFO by Jesus Christ the King of Kings.. It just doesn't get any better than this.

>>15126316
>Hinduism
>which is older than history
there was no Hinduism in Genesis 1 though

>>15126390
he's absolutely correct. how could God not believe in himself? buddhism did not exist when there was only the uncreated.

>>15126395
>I love being alive. We're over 2000 years into atheists being BTFO by Jesus Christ the King of Kings.. It just doesn't get any better than this.
Amen.

>>15126299
God was there in the beginning

>>15126316
the justification for multiple religions is that god changed his mind

>>15126299
God is

>>15126425
So you can be pious one day, then God changes his mind and tells people halfway across the world that he changed his mind, and if you don't change your tune to information you never got then you get damned.

>>15126386
there is no god, you silly. and it is even worse than you think: there is no "being" either.

>>15126286
It's time for me to change to the crystal of earth but my plan was to go have a mud bath at the spa but now all the spas are closed.

What should I do in lieu?

>>15126299
God is Alpha and Omega

>>15126316
I follow the religion of my country which God gave me at birth.

>>15126316
Seems like this disproves atheism more than anything.

>>15126448
>there is no "being" either
How so? Who is saying that there is no being?

>>15126442
you cant be damned if you reasonably could never know

>>15126432
... Dead

Its true. There isn't an atheist Thomas Aquinas

>>15126487
in short, the "being" is a pragmatic reification of the projection in infinitum of the principle of negation (negation of this or that perception or deduction of course). it doesn't really exist.

>>15126525
Nietzsche was christian. He said that because people where abandoning God for hedonism.

>>15126542
>in short, the "being" is a pragmatic reification of the projection in infinitum of the principle of negation (negation of this or that perception or deduction of course). it doesn't really exist.

whomst is making the statement that there is no being?

>>15126316
>Occam's razor says that when presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions, and it is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions.

>>15126543
leopardi, jean paul and nerval wrote that exact locution before nietzsche. by the 80s of the 19th century it was already a common place. which is consistent with nietzsche's books being basically a mix of journalism and a priesthood.

>>15126329
No amount of people believing something is evidence that it is true. People believe comforting lies over bitter truth all the time; rhetorical force has little to do with the truth of the claims being made. Haven't you read The Menexenus?

>>15126599
Divine truth is not bitter. What those people are feeling is the universal and eternal love of God. Let go and you can feel it too.

>>15126543
>Nietzsche was christian.
How can you be this wrong.

>>15126286
Science is the atheistic discipline you're looking for.

>>15126286
Christian philosophy is more rigorous than atheism (not a difficult accomplishment) but usually “proofs” of the Christian God that are brought out are platonic or Neoplatonic in nature (I’ve even seen some recently that were justifications similar to Spinoza’s), but the platonic and Neoplatonic justifications are contingent on a deterministic impersonal God, both of which preclude much of Christian theology. At least Christians are monotheistic and have mostly good moral tenets so they’re better than most non-Christians
>>15126316
>your tradition of choice happens to be correct?
This is a very shitty argument, if someone didn’t believe and couldn’t justify to themselves their faith then it wouldn’t be their faith. The “all the other options” argument is silly because people aren’t choosing religions at random based on the one they were born into given that they have come here (a place where religion is discussed).
>>15126425
>god changed his mind
The possibility of an ultimate being, concept or force changing in some way is beyond cringe in its stupidity

>>15126553
the first philosopher to have said it (literally) was democritus , last famous one was probably popper.

>>15126632
>democritus
>pooper

but they did not exist, since there is no being. so then whomst was making the claim that there is no being?

>>15126329
>Or they all point to some deeper truth
That’s a heresy bud. Get on the pyre

>>15126730
they wouldn't exist even if the being existed, since they are not the being of course, but representations/perceptions

>>15126766
>but representations/perceptions

of what or of whomst?

>>15126616
But Christians have beaten atheists in that too.

>>15126316
>They cannot all be true at the same time as they all conflict
None of them conflict. They are all guides to find the self. Very different cultures at the time, one is suited to the other.

>>15126792
>None of them conflict.
>They are all guides to find the self.
>Very different cultures at the time, one is suited to the other.

>>15126329
>>15126363
>>15126399
>>15126464
>>15126471
>>15126483
>>15126563
>>15126618
COPE HAHAHAHAH

Daily reminder that you can believe in God without subscribing to any kike cult and that Christianity literally stole the divine trinity from platonism.

>>15126786
of consciousness, if i were to use your own jargon.
truth is there is neither being nor representation, but only experience and deduction.

>>15126812
plotinism is a sandnigger cult as well, retard.

>>15126832
and i said plotinism, not platonism of course.

>>15126618
If god changed his mind who are you as a mortal to question it?

>>15126832
>arabian neoplatonism begins in the late 800s
So after the greek neoplatonist school was closed. Irrelevant.

>>15126861
Plotinus was literally Egyptian.

>>15126851
The perfect being should not be able to change because it is perfection, which is absolute, there are not degrees of perfection through which it can change

>>15126618
>>15126812
>muh neoplatonist did it first
doesn't refute Christianity as the only holistically coherent worldview. I never see any of you people actually refute Christianity's theology. I only see assertions.
It's just as bad as the muh Christianity is Jewish posters

>>15126286
Because atheism is fake bullshit, don't fall for it

>>15126866
So? There's a difference between subversive kikes and anti-zionist jews, plus Plotinus was a pagan.

>>15126286
You don't give a shit about religion, you just want to differentiate yourself from people with different political views to yourself.

>>15126812
>Christianity literally stole the divine trinity from platonism

>>15126918
>You don't give a shit about religion, you just want to differentiate yourself from people with different political views to yourself.

>>15126372
Based

>>15126888
>doesn't refute Christianity
For starters you can compare the Damascian Trinity with the Christian one and see that the latter falls short of coherence. Christians don't really give a fuck about the flaws in their system and cope with blind faith in a humanized jewish deity instead of seeking a solution to the faults in their "coherent" worldview.

>God is one but also three things that's just how it is trust me lol
Already invalidates the nature of a trascendential God, because God being three things would necessarily imply that God possesses multiplicity. Damascius avoids this simple mistake that Christians try to patch up with faith by asserting that God (The One) is beyond multiplicity and unity, and that the intelligible trinity is only part of the One insofar as it participates with in the One. The One being trascendential can not be reduced to a mere unity or a number. Also, the fact that a supreme God should stick his nose into human affairs is downright ridiculous, which makes YAWEH seem like a pure figment of human imagination. On top of that, the judeo-christian God is as anthropocentric as a fictional deity can be, do animals go to heaven or hell? We may never know because Christianity doesn't even address these issues, whilst neoplatonism covers every aspect of the universe, and according to its principles, even plants posses souls and are capable of contemplation. Organized religions are useful to lord over the ignorant masses, but if you're seeking the divine, look elsewhere.

>>15127050
>For starters you can compare the Damascian Trinity with the Christian one and see that the latter falls short of coherence. Christians don't really give a fuck about the flaws in their system and cope with blind faith in a humanized jewish deity instead of seeking a solution to the faults in their "coherent" worldview.
Assertions
>because God being three things would necessarily imply that God possesses multiplicity
Yes except Christianity doesn't imply that God is three things. I don't know how you're going to go on this long rant about the incoherence of Christianity ascribing our beliefs to blind Faith ( which you're likely misinterpreting the usage of the word faith judging by your usage here) when you get something this basic wrong about Christianity.
>. Also, the fact that a supreme God should stick his nose into human affairs is downright ridiculous, which makes YAWEH seem like a pure figment of human imagination. On top of that, the judeo-christian God is as anthropocentric as a fictional deity can be, do animals go to heaven or hell? We may never know because Christianity doesn't even address these issues, whilst neoplatonism covers every aspect of the universe, and according to its principles, even plants posses souls and are capable of contemplation. Organized religions are useful to lord over the ignorant masses, but if you're seeking the divine, look elsewhere.
Assertions that don't speak to the truth or falsity of Christianity

Even if you don’t believe in the dogma itself do atheists not recognize the value in building a tight knit community? The warmth and support system you find in a lot of religious communities is a beautiful part of the human condition.

Bitter Godless anti-natalists have to Lead the most depressing lives, I pity them. Imagine slaving your entire life away at a job only to buy the latest plastic from China or watch the latest capeshit film and then having to lie to yourself that you’re happy.

>>15127141
>Christianity doesn't imply that God is three things
>The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold")[1] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons[2] or hypostases[3]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine persons".
>One God
Again you're reducing God to a unity which is already a flaw in its own respect.
>Assertions that don't speak to the truth
YAWEH is far from a divine entity. He's got tne mentality of a bronze age desert jew, how do you even know if the true God has that sort of mindset?
>b-but muh faith
Isn't a valid answer
>b-but my divinely inspired babble
Isn't also an answer.

>>15127187
They consider that to be an unfortunate pastime while we wait for the singularity to fix everything. They want to abolish religion and "community" because they are gum in the gears of transhumanism.

If your beliefs can be proven and need proof to back them up, you're already implicitly an atheist.

>>15126299
Cringe.

>>15126316
Islam has like 1300 years. It's pussy shit.

>>15127191
>Again you're reducing God to a unity which is already a flaw in its own respect.
Why?
>YAWEH is far from a divine entity. He's got tne mentality of a bronze age desert jew, how do you even know if the true God has that sort of mindset?
>b-but muh faith
>Isn't a valid answer
>b-but my divinely inspired babble
>Isn't also an answer.
You sperging out doesn't invalidate revelation

>>15126286

Humans are unfortunately hard wired for religion and had primitive beginnings. Also the "proofs" that you speak of are not rigorous, and invalid. Your own fallacy in putting the question has been an appeal to history.

>>15127239
Because God must necessarily be beyond unity if it has to be trascendential and all-enveloping. To call it one God is to attribute unity to its trascendential entity.
>You sperging out doesn't invalidate revelation
You didn't refute any of my points in the first place

>>15127287
>Because God must necessarily be beyond unity if it has to be trascendential and all-enveloping. To call it one God is to attribute unity to its trascendential entity.
Analogy
>You didn't refute any of my points in the first place
Considering you made mostly just made assertions that don't actually invalidate Christianity (I predicted this behavior in the first post you responded to) of course I didn't.

>>15126286
It's a religious figures job to try selling the religion to the masses while trying to convince them that it's real. What would an atheist have to gain from trying to convert people to atheism besides satisfaction at taking a couple people away from the religion that is made up of billions of devout worshipers?

Extensive metaphysical study isn't necessary for the atheist position. They see it as a waste of time because they think science will ultimately solve all the questions.

>>15127387

>what is the laity
It also isn't necessary to the religious position. Do not say: the clergy and laity are two different things, I was obviously only talking about the clergy. This would be a canard.

>>15126286
because throughout history at best atheists would be shunned from the community and at worst they would be publicly executed.

>>15126316
>Occam's razor says that none of them are true.
does it though?

>>15127271
>unfortunately

>>15126286
1) Atheism is just a refusal to believe an extraordinary claim (theism) without reasonable evidence. I won't argue that atheists don't need to make their case (they do, and they do it well), but I will argue that the greater burden of proof is on theists.
2) Theology is by no stretch of the imagination a rigorous application of logic. If you wish to present the strongest arguments in that 'field of study' (you must be joking) I will be happy to logically dismantle them for you in short order.
3) Atheism has been around a very long time, and is 'backed up' by the entire history of natural science (which religions have incrementally back-pedalled from their more outlandish claims to accomodate) and much of philosophy. Sure, some scientists feel like they see god in natural order, but that's sentimentalism. There's never been a compelling empirical indication of god.

It's kind of sad, really... If you aren't satisifed with faith and feel the need to make philosophical arguments for god, it belies a kind of insecurity about your convictions.

>>15126419
Why god? How do you know it isn't just a base state of existence, devoid of any 'will' or 'consciousness'?

>>15126432
Existence is. There is no likewise apodictic demonstration of god.

>>15126563
Fair point, but it could be reasonably argued that both theism and atheism predict the universe and that god is an extraneous assumption of theism in doing so.

>>15126612
This is your 'rigourous proof' everyone.

>>15127187
I do absolutely recognize the utility provided by religion, and I think 'new-atheist' types are stupidly irresponsible with their contempt for religion. That wasn't the question at hand, though. The context here is a philosophical debate, and if truth ceases to be the primary objective of philosophy, then we might as well not bother with it.

I find it kind of hypocritical that you implore atheists to appreicate the nuance of our condition, but then slander them all as bitter and anti-natalist. I doubt that any significant proportion of Western spiritualists have meaningfully avoided the consoomer trap.

>>15127206
Bingo.

>>15126286
I love that image. I remember seeing it on the news the day Notre Dame burnt down and just being shaken by the imagery of the golden cross standing above the burned remains. It's like the physical manifestation of hope.

>>15126286
>>Christianity has a rich tradition of thousands of years of rigorous theology to back it up
>>Atheism has a couple pop scientists and a bunch of one liners
Atheism doesn't "have" anything. Atheism isn't a movement or a worldview, retard; it just covers lack of belief in a god.

>>15127741
As dumb as the things you said before this, faith doesn't mean you don't have valid arguments and reasons for believing in your particular belief. This is a relatively new development to most belief systems that have this understand of faith called fideism, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about so it's not really surprising that you'd make this mistake

Atheists are too corrupted by evil to be able to see the light and think rationally. "logical atheism" simply isn't a thing

>>15127782
Ok, what does faith mean then? You haven't made an actual counter argument, just a weak equivocation.

>>15127787
Bahaha. Atheists drink BEER. What baddies. Oh no....

>>15126286
Atheism isn't an organized movement.
New Atheists, who are what people think of when they heard the word atheism, think that all the metaphysical arguments for god are really just god-of-the-gaps with prettier dressing and all their ideas can easily be explained empirically given enough time for science to develop.

>>15127826
>Ok, what does faith mean then?
what faith is is interpreted differently throughout specific belief systems, and like I said the faith you are talking about is a relatively new interpretation that implies a lack of reasoning justifying your belief system so it should be pretty easy to infer what it means
In Christianity for example
>Christian concepts of faith (pistis) were borrowed from Greek rhetorical notions of pistis.[6] Christian pistis deems its persuasion in a positive light as the New Testament concepts of pistis require that a listener be knowledgeable of the subject matter at issue and thus able to fully assent.
yet no this wiki article is not a full understanding of faith in the context of Christianity because you need to understand the paradigm outside of reading a wiki page in order to understand how certain terms apply differently in different worldviews. Just like when you don't have show a full understanding of fideism by making blanket statements about multiple different cultures interpretations of a word.

Because Christianity presents a complex narrative that naturally requires defence because people are mostly not going to just take it at face value unless you conquer them and force conversion guaranteeing the next generation will be born in to it.
Christianity came to prominence at the end of the classical era, an era defined by the emergence of western philosophy and the beginning of rigorous and systematised European thought, the New & Old testaments present their worldview primarily through story, through narrative. The Old Testament contains highly refined ancient myths and the New Testament has this scrappy documentary field report vibe going on so you go and present these to people who have been enmeshed in Greek thought for 500 years and you find they start asking questions, but it isn't just for converting foreigners, priests were intellectuals, they were curious too and they wanted answers that were not explicitly stated one way or another in the books of the bible so in a turn about way they had to use the same Greek thought for their own ends.

If atheism or some other religion had come in to ascendancy in the west then there would likely be some analogue.

>>15127761

>a large structure dedicated to a given idea has every square meter covered with semiotic symbols which are understood to signify the idea
>the structure is partially destroyed in a disaster and certain semiotic elements of the structure survive
>DUDE DEEP LMAO

>>15127187

This one is a common go-to for the religionist. The intermediary points can and should even be conceded, because we are interested in truth. Yes, religion is a vehicle for in-group community, psychological well-being. Yes, you feel awesome when you're walking around the Kaaba with all your brothers. There are health benefits to prayer, and so on. All of that is true. But since god is either false or unworthy of worship, it shouldn't be true. It ought not to be the case that the human animal needs to tell himself a false story in order to live with himself. So, the thing to do is to change the human animal so as to be incapable of religious feeling without any unintended consequences, least of which is hell.

The point is that the reason why this argument is false, is because it is still based in the lie of deity which human beings project onto the world. So these same feelings of well-being are innately based in a lie. The point is that humans are weak in needing this lie (and they do), so humans ought to be changed so that they can entirely do without it. The positive effects of religion are not a vindication of religion, but rather a proof of the weakness of man.

>>15127874
If reasoning is necessary, then what is the purpose of faith? What distinguishes it from reasoning? How is it complimentary?
>oh it's too deep you don't understand silly blah blah blah
You're ducking.

So basically God has schizophrenia and multiple personality disorders. I count at least 3 but there could be 4.

>>15128249

There is only one.

The demon is a liar. He lies, and he mixes the lies with the truth in an effort to deceive us. Don't forget that.

>>15128248
Because it specifically relates to knowledge within the specific belief systems like I already explained.
>You're ducking
I'm ducking in your made up greentext?

ITT: theologyposting vs. nuatheists who think they won cos they refuse to engage with theologyposting
yall retards talking past each other

>>15128263
So Jesus isn't God and neither is the Word, whatever the fuck that is. So is the Father God? Or is the Holy Spirit thing God. Or are none of them God and they're just lying while pretending to be the cosmic space monster that shat us all out 13 billion years ago and hasn't been seen since.

>>15127741
You can't predict the existence of the universe. The universe is already here.

>>15126612
"Divine truths" are comforting lies. People believe them because they want to believe that the world is essentially good and that there is an all-powerful entity that loves them unconditionally, not because there are any good logical reasons for holding those beliefs.