/lit/ - Literature

I’d say 60%, but maybe they’re just really immature.

>>20052252
my issue with religion personally is the epicurean paradox combined with calvinism's idea of predestination
if god is omniscient and all-knowing, outside of time, seeing past, present and future at once then that means he knows all of our acts and what we will do before we do it. we do not have free will then and combined with the problem of evil it makes me very skeptical about religion

This has been answered.
>The Demiurge - Rene Guenon
It's only 12 pages but none of you faggots will read it because you are all too entrenched in your ignorance.

>>20052366
>This has been answered.
>can't present said answer

>>20052393
>please spoonfeed me 12 pages because I'm an ADHD-riddled zoomer

>>20052402
>demanding something deliver on their promise is "spoonfeeding"

Your ad hominems tell me you don't have an answer, you just have cope

>>20052366
>Rene Guenon
So it's trash

>>20052402
Refusing to explain the basic structure and demanding strangers you've just insulted read 12 pages for you is being an ADHD zoomer.

>Trying to act like you know how an all knowing God would even act, when you can't even begin to comprehend what an all knowing God is.
cringe

>>20053418
says the guy who claims to have a book telling us everything about god

>>20052252
>evil exists

>>20053423
Literally where did I claim that?

>>20053431
When you made it clear that you're a seething christfag

>>20053458
Your reading comprehension is null you vegetable.

>>20052252
This paradox presents an either/or fallacy, it's also begging the question. I believe it would be a contradiction to say we can have a world with free will but without evil, kind of on the same line as "can God create a square circle?" or "can God create a boulder He cannot carry?". It's an intentionally paradoxical question.

>>20053463
You don't even have the nerve to deny it

>>20052324
>>20052252
>NOOOOO GOD CANT BE BAD BECAUSE UHHHH THEN HE WOULDNT BE GOOD
Why does this bother midwits so much. God doesn't need to be loving or good nor does he need to be a moral fag.

>>20053473
>pointing out the two possible outcomes of a system is a fallacy

>>20053574
Based. If I was God, I would be a very naughty boy indeed.

>>20053584
If I was God and I heard
>nooo you can't heckin send people to hell or allow bonerino cancer or harlequin babies
I would deliberately send that person to hell. I'm God nigga, I can do whatever I want.

>>20053615
But what's the point of being naughty if no one notices? I think moralfags are making the whole process meaningful.

>>20052402
if you can't explain something simply, then you don't understand it.

>>20053576
If God is infinite, then there are infinite outcomes. Just because we can only understand, fathom, or comprehend 2 (and we can actually understand more than 2), doesn't mean there are only two.
We're apes who can do math. Our limitations don't dictate reality. The Epicurean Paradox is the logical-equivalent of believing the earth is the center of the universe. Instead of the earth, it's the limits of the human brain that's used to define reality.

>>20053638
If you accept that "anything is possible and we can't even apply basic logic" then you have nothing left to believe in. God could lie to you, could reverse the roles of heaven in hell, and could choose to not exist.

>>20053638
>God has infinite possibilities and chooses the one with child rape and famine
okay

>>20052252
>implying God is bound by human morality
>implying God would have knowledge in a way thats comprehensible to humans

>>20053688
So why would you trust in the bible? Or in anything? God can lie, and even if he told the truth then you wouldn't be able to understand it.

>>20052252
OP's image has unleashed such a discussion that, despite the short development so far, it compels anyone who reads through to conclude that there are more highschoolers on here than we can fathom; not just based on the post themselves, but also the simple action of joining the circle, regardless of one's perception of the participants or oneself. Well done.
Today, OP was not a faggot.

>>20053418
>g-guys God is not a psychopath, he's just too smart!!
KYS

>>20053839
Literally stop thinking of God of being as some man in the clouds. Fucking braindead retard. You'll never find the answers you're looking for because you don't even know where to begin.

>>20053821
typical high schooler take

>>20053843
Neither will you, you just said it's impossible to know.

>>20052252
vaush don't you use discord to groom?

>>20053638
>God is infinite and beyond our limited comprehension
>btw you have to worship him and obey these laws or he'll punish you eternally :)
why worship something you can't understand then? isn't the whole crux of this thing is that he's infinitely benevolent too?

>>20053848
You can experience God, whatever it is, but not comprehend it in its entirety.

>>20053891
If you don't know what it is then you can have no even slightly reliable idea of if what you're experiencing is it

>>20052252

>>20053648
Right. It's called silopsism. You can never know if you actually know anything, really. You can try to rationalize reality all you want, you'll never be able to do it, let alone rationalize God.
>>20053652
You assume choice is even a thing with God. God might be doing anything and everything all at once. Why do you think your reality and world is so important? You think God should alter all of time and space because you don't like things?
>>20053855
Did I say anything about worship? Let me go ahead and look at my post that anyone on earth can read with a simple flick of the mouse...oh look at that.
Since YOU brought up worship, people worship God because they want to. Their desire to worship has no impact on God's existence. If humans didn't have a desire to worship, we wouldn't even be thinking about God, even if God was there.

>>20052324
In Islam it is about your intention.

>>20054372
You're arguing with bots who don't understand the either/or fallacy. There can be alternative answers or positions outside of the two ones you choose to pick.

>>20054372
>You assume choice is even a thing with God. God might be doing anything and everything all at once. Why do you think your reality and world is so important? You think God should alter all of time and space because you don't like things?
This does not follow as a response to what I said. It's not a question of "should he be good" it's a question of "is he good". The answer can only be "yes" if you accept the sort of view held by that satirical philosopher in Candide, that "this world is the best of all possible worlds". So, do you think that?

>>20054385
No, in Islam Allah literally writes how your life will turn out. Everything is predetermined even whether you go to hell or not. I remember reading a story in the Quran where a child died and Aisha proposed he would go to heaven because he couldn't make moral choices due to his age, but Mohammad corrected her and said his fate was already determined by Allah before he was born.

>>20054413
>Allah literally writes how your life will turn out
So he is the 3 ancient greek sisters of fate in one?

>>20054397
You don't know what the either/or fallacy is. The either/or fallacy is like "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists", it is a completely unsupported declaration of "agree with me or be absurdly stupid, those are your options". Playing a logical scenario to a point where it faces a paradox and explaining so is not an either/or fallacy.

>>20054404
>>20054372
I should add that we're of course talking about an all-powerful god and by good I mean omnibenevolent, maximally good at all times. The problem is severely lessened if you think god is somehow moody and is only good when he feels like it.

>>20052252
Anyone who isn’t a literal retard would reject the “evil exists” premise.

>>20054552
Then you reject these religions. They all make a huge deal of the concept of evil. You don't even need to cite examples of evil as part of this argument, as they already believe in it.

But if you're implying that this paradox is irrelevant to the question of the existence of an amoral god, then you are absolutely right.

>>20054552
Then I live in the DnD universe and can do as I wish

>>20052324
>regarding Will
I think it was either Boethius or St. Bonaventure who wrote an excellent argument regarding how God can know all and man still retain free will
>regarding Evil
Catholics object by saying Man chose a world with Evil through Original Sin. Personally, I am unconvinced by things like the epicurean paradox because it presupposes God and Man share a definition of Evil, which strikes me as totally absurd.

t. Agnostic trying to believe in God

>>20054574
What the fuck are you talking about? Anyone everywhere can do as they wish within the bounds allowed by physics, and nothing can stop them except other physical forces like other individuals using violence. This is obviously true.

>>20054570
>Then you reject these religions
What religions? Epicurus lived centuries before Christianity, so what “God” is he even talking about? The Jew God?

>>20054425
>A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise.

We're given limited options. Either this or that is true and there aren't alternative answers. It almost goes into strawman territory with it's implications.

>>20054608
He never actually said any of this, it's a meme based on his general teachings. It doesn't matter whatsoever to the discussion.

>>20054624
You have done absolutely nothing to show that it is a false dichotomy, you're just been crying and searching wikipedia for fancy ways to say "I think you're wrong".