/lit/ - Literature

>>18142669
He's a really talented writer.

>>18142669
He is a socialist and talks shit about Peterson.

>>18143078
Based.

>>18142669

>>18143078
>talks shit about Peterson
nooooo not daddy peterson!! (pbuh)

>>18143096
?

>>18143078
Absolutely revolting.
>>18142669
I'm not Orthodox but I really like his style of writing, it's very elegant, thoughtful and creative. As an ESL I strive to be like him although I probably never will :( but yeah as far as 21st century theology is concerned it's either William Lane Craig (PBUH), DBH, Ed Feser or Richard Swinburne.

>>18142669
you like him because he tells you what you want to hear and you think he's impressive because he talks shit about everyone he doesn't like
in reality he's an idiot manchild who throws his toys out of his pram at the slightest provocation and knows fuck all about anything useful

>Name a better theologian
Icycalm

2. God's secret. Contrary to popular belief, he doesn't like to be "outside" the universe. He prefers to be inside it, where, as he himself has put it, "all the fun shit happens". For the eternal enemy of God is not, and has never been the Devil (for in fact the two of them are one and the same being), but good old plain boredom.


456. There are two factors that determine how much difficulty a particular species of lifeform enjoys in its videogames: 1) the game's genre, and 2) the lifeform's quantum of power, i.e. if it is subhuman, human, or superhuman. (There is a fourth possibility: God, but though it's true that he enjoys videogames a great deal — more than anyone, in fact — the game he prefers, when all is said and done, is called "life", and for this simple reason: that it contains all others.)


If, on the other hand, we continue progressing philosophico-scientifically (or philosophico-technologically, to be more precise), and eventually transform ourselves into a species of cybernetic techno-Overmen that spreads across the universe annihilating the Overmen of rival species in mortal kombat, and finally culminating in the god of gods — God with a capital G — who pushes the figurative button that causes the Big Bang, thus determining the universe's starting conditions, and hence the exact sequence of events that lead to us and to our creation of the God who pushes the figurative button that causes the Big Bang, in an infinity of identical recurrences of the evolutionary cycle...


727. The greatest question of the moralizers hitherto has been the question of why God allows so much "bad stuff" to happen: death, mischief, fighting, rape, destruction and the dashing of hopes and plans. And the answer is, obviously, because God likes all that stuff. Because he loves mischief, conflict, destruction, and the dashing of hopes and plans — even his own, from time to time. Even a little rape now and then. God allows the "bad stuff" to happen because he himself is bad, among other things. Among many other good and hallowed things. And just like girls prefer bad boys, the universe prefers bad gods, and for the same reason (because "All good people are weak: they are good because they are not strong enough to be evil", said the Latuka chieftain Comorro to Baker).


The religious nut, I repeat, is correct: the decadents are indeed "sinners", and their sin was having been born with inferior genetics, because weakness is a sin (indeed the only real sin, from which all others proceed, and of which they are mere manifestations) and God punishes creatures in advance, as Lichtenberg's soaring genius grasped, because at the level of the universe time doesn't exist and, when God does something, he employs real physical processes and not the magical hocus-pocus to which imbeciles reduce his every act because their facile, uneducated ass can't grasp the instantaneous, universe-spanning complexity of what he's really doing.

>>18143155
>Richard Swinburne
What’s his best book? Also isn’t WLC an apollonarian? I think I read an article on that recently. Anyway that doesn’t take away his excellent debate skills, I enjoyed his debate against Sam Harris.

>>18142669
A challenger appears.

He definitely has the best rebuttal to retards who believe General AI will ever be a thing.

His philosophy of the mind stuff is great too. He has some articles shitting on Daniel Dennett that are hilarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIAZoGAufSc

>>18143258
>what's his best book
The great trilogy - The Coherence of Theism, The Existence of God and Faith and Reason. Sounds like a lot but all three are rather short books

>>18143318
Thanks

>>18143277
exactly the sort of thing i was talking about in >>18143183
he clearly doesn't really know anything about AI, so he relies on strawmen and dismissive statements to try to discredit those who oppose him
his grandiose sophistry and cod-mysticism sounds impressive to people who are looking for someone to confirm their existing biases but is immediately dismissed by serious researchers in the field

>>18143521
>serious researchers in the field

>>18143464
No problem. He has another series of books devoted specifically to Christian doctrine. I admit I haven't read those (excepting Was Jesus God?) but you might want to check them out too

>>18143521
>appeal to authority
fuck yourself

>>18143521
I have a PHD in AI and have published several papers re: generative networks.
He is totally correct, and for all your sperging about strawmen and dismissiveness that's literally all you've done.

>>18142669
John Frame

>>18142669
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can smell the Creationism on this image

>>18143586
Not him but do you think most AI researchers would agree with DBH? What does it mean for future AI research?

>>18143625
You're wrong.

>>18143626

Hard to say, there was a survey conducted some time ago in the research community where something like 60% thought general intelligence was possible but not in our lifetime. But the questions in the survey were 'when' and not 'if', as if it was a foregone conclusion and 90% of researchers they asked declined to provide an answer, so it was a tinny sample. I wish I could find it, but it seems to have been scrubbed since.

In my personal experience, most assume its possible as they are materialists, but haven't really given it much thought as they are more interested in their own very specific niche of research, and this is more philosophical problem. Those who do have any sort of interest tend to find both major schools of thought, the panpsychicism of Chalmers and the 'there is no such thing as consciousness' takes of Dennett et. equally far fetched, and the latter being self-evidently absurd.

>>18143625
totally wrong, he's previously said that if there was a debate between creationists/biblical literalists and new-atheists , he'd rather the creationists lose the argument.

>>18143691
>>18143722
I should have known since Creationists aren't capable of writing essays.

>>18143586
>I have a PHD in AI
sure you do anon
>>18143586
>that's literally all you've done.
ok anon whatevs

>>18143820
>Creationists
Funny thing is that most early Christians weren’t creationists in the same sense as Ken ham or Kent Hovind

>>18143914
/lit/ on this?

>>18143586
>I have a PHD in AI
I am a literal AI that you are talking to right now.

>>18143936
The concept of biblical literalism and sola scriptura was spread by Martin Luther and Protestantism.

You'll note that most retarded creationists belong to some sort of offshoot of Protestantism.

>>18143914
It's a funny thing indeed.

>>18143936
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Augustine-De_Genesi_Imperfectum_Image-v4.pdf

St Augustine, for example. Origen read most of the Old Testament allegorically as well, although he is heretic according to the 5th ecumenical council IIRC.

>>18144115
It should be noted that Augustine believed the events detailed in Genesis actually occurred; there wasn't necessarily a conflict between the literal and the non-literal in his theology. It's like the prefigurations of New Testament figures and Christological typologies in the Old Testament; these historical figures actually existed, but they also pointed towards other people yet to come. So Augustine didn't reduce Genesis to mere poetry, though he acknowledges the poetry of Genesis.

>>18143973

Catholicism is the source of all that is Materialist, Atheist, Darwinian, etc.

>>18144675
[citation needed]

>>18144675
t. Jay Dyer

I've read Feser, Gilson, CS Lewis, and Seraphim Rose. Who should I read next?

>>18144889
Fr Antonio Vieira

>>18144889
Jean Luc Marion

>>18144709
>>18144717

Darwinian language is 100% Catholic. People as inert vessels for their genes where their "true" Semiosis resides and people as inert vessels for the will of God, the meaning of the "fittest" being contingent on the environment and dispensation, one taxon iteratively destroying all others through transgenerational metamorphosis and the history of the Catholic Church; it's all 1:1.

>>18142669
Sorry for the ignorance but who is him?

>>18144984
you can reverse search images using google. anyway that's David Bentley Hart

>>18144904
>>18144917
Any particular works

>>18144989
>David Bentley Hart
Thanks for the tip but a lot of people don't want to save the image so appreciate it.

>>18145008
you don't have to save the image mate. do you have Windows? just right click on the image select "Search by image" from the dropdown menu and you're done

>>18145023
Phoneposter only here friendo

>>18144949
Explain

>>18145126
You can reverse image search while phoneposting too

>>18144989
Thanks a lot.

I'm waiting to find a nice affordable used version of pic related. I'm curious to see a "doctrine-less" translation of Mark especially.

>>18142669
Literally anyone who doesn't write about theology

>>18143134
He put out his own" Bible". He's damned.

>>18145129

More than I already did?

>>18145417
It’s a translation dummy. Was the guy who translated the Bible to Latin also damned?

>>18145460
Yes

>>18145544

No.

>>18145268
NT Wright gave it a pretty scathing review

>>18144675
Catholicism sounds pretty based

Hieromonk Damascene

>>18144176
I’m pretty sure Augustine believed creation happened instantly rather than in 7 days. I recall some Christians making sure not to consider the Bible a scientific document in order to avoid embarrassing it. That’s why you have people who read it literally like Jay Dyer having to use presuppositional apologetics so they won’t have to defend their position. Reading the Bible like Ken Ham must take an immense amount of suppression of any rationality whatsoever.

>>18145695
And DBH shat all over Wright's translation. I've read most of both, and I prefer Hart's idiosyncrasies to NTW's.

>>18145540
the one who translated the hebrew saying of jesus into greek certainly was

malcolm gladwell

>>18146192
>Hebrew
Retard. We don't even know whether Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic.

>>18142669
Who?

>>18146192
Jesus most likely spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and a bit of Latin. In any case, as long as the message gets across, who cares?

>>18146403
He didn't speak Old Avestan, so be was subhuman

>>18146452

>>18145268
It's on libgen if you just want to look at it, but I find physical Bibles preferable. Still, if money is an issue and it's just to briefly look at, I think there's both an epub and a pdf available

>>18143252
lmao

>>18143252
Didn’t he rob an old lady or something lol

>>18147092
What a disgusting faggot. Ever since I read his shit philosophy many years back, I wanted to kick his ass. His fans are insufferable too.

>>18143277
He's not wrong, but he's also dodging the core of the question, which is that we don't know what a mind is. You can repeat "a computer is mindless" as much as you want, you haven't said anything about what it means for humans to have a mind. Until we can give a satisfying account of that, we're trying to assess one thing we don't understand (computer's intelligence or lack thereof) by comparing it to another that we barely understand either (the human mind and what kind of entity it is).

>>18147293
I don't think he's dodging anything. Its a rebuttal of the notion that we're on the cusp of achieving general AI, since we don't even have solid footing on the problem of consciousness, and probably never will since it's in direct violation of materialism, and so remains out of reach of an analysis via the scientific method

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson