/lit/ - Literature

>>20267083
the bible

>>20267087
This
>>20267083
Honestly look at the book of Job. Job is God's argument for why you should believe in God. Then read the New Testament - God exists for me because I recognized existence existed at the same moment I realized perfect goodness existed.

>>20267083
The best argument for believing in God is countered by reading psychology textbooks on marital abuse.

>>20267100
marital rape isn't real and you'll never be a woman

anyways OP, read Leibniz

>>20267083
Not my element but I know some smart modern christfags enjoy the work of David Bentley Hart, maybe check him out.

>>20267100
The worst post on /lit/ ever wow

The more I read the bible, the more I realized that G_d is important because if he exists then Jews are his chosen people. Also G_d is there to give people some kind of reprieve from the fear of death and afterlife.
The old testament is there to scare people and the new testament is there to keep them from killing themselves.
If I were Jewish, I would love the fuck out of god and the bible.

>>20267109
You will, however be a beaten housewife to the Jewish God.

>>20267083
read plato, god is geometry

when the bible says the earth is flat it's trying to explain plato's cave

>>20267100
lol
lmao

Do you want to believe in the Christian God specifically or will any concept of god suffice?
It might be easier for you to swallow the Platonic concept of the Good and then follow the philosophy of that.
If you want to believe in YHWH specifically then you're gonna need the Bible and faith. And persistence.

>>20267142
the bible came from a higher intelligence, although that being is likely evil, the actual text of the bible itself is very accurate

>>20267185
>the bible came from a higher intelligence, although that being is likely evil
So, a Rabbi?
>text of the bible itself is very accurate
Accurate to what?

>>20267083
>Books on the Proof of God
There aren’t any. It rests on faith alone. Just like Santa Claus

>>20267190
anon don't get baited into discussing the accuracy of the bible

>Read The Bible
>made me want to become a Kabbalist more than a Christian
It wasn't supposed to go like this

>>20267227
>read the OT
>made me want to write metal songs instead of believe in a God

>>20267190
it's probably just a channeled text, use discernment

>>20267166
I don’t want to believe in god per say, more I want to believe in the “truth”, and the question of if there is a “god” is apart of that.
I’ve looked at the atheists side so I want to look at the theists side now.
So yeah any concept of god will do as long as they have a sound argument.
I listed all Christian writer as that is what I got recommended.

>>20267277
nobody is actually an atheist they are communist agents subverting morality

>>20267083
There are two arguments I like. The first is the transcendental which posits a presuppositional requirement of God existing for any category of knowledge to exist. Sort of like: X Requires Y, Y exists, therefore X.

Another is the design argument, you can look at anything in nature, including the Earth itself (requiring very specific constants for life to exist) and recognise complex biological processes and actions require intelligent design. I was first exposed to this while studying design in college and was taught about the Golden Ratio being the perfect thing that sprouts from nature. The Greeks adopted it as the basis of their artwork and architecture. Also for example just look at the structures even bees produce, their beehives are the most efficiently designed, they wouldn't have got this natural urge or knowledge to design them in hexagons just randomly. There's too much design and organisation in this world to not believe in God.

You might as well worship Sauron if you're going to force yourself to believe in fairy tales

>>20267292
The first is nonsense, the second does not require YHWH and can be solved by idealism.

>>20267277
>evolved for the mere purpose of being able to reproduce
>cares about and believes he can know objective truth
Contemplate the absurdity of this. Do you know a single thing that is true? And why do you want to believe in truth, anyway? Is it to fulfill some desire to be intelligent or wise? The wise man knows nothing. Or maybe you want to use truth to make better decisions? Then truth is not always necessary, as you only want to bring about good consequences and satisfy your preferences.

You don’t even know if “I exist” is true, because you don’t know what “I” means and you don’t know what “exist” means.

>>20267292
I think the second is the most logical. The "great architect of the universe". I find it hard to believe that a creator god would go through all this work and then be like "okay the jews are better than everyone...now go work it out"

>>20267298
>The first is nonsense
How so? These are presuppositional requirements for any knowledge to exist:
>Self/Agency/Intentionality *Any action of knowledge is presupposing the existence of a self
>Time/Space
>Unity/Diversity
>Identity Over Time
>Causation
>Teleology
>Laws of Logic
>Abstract Concepts
>Meaning

These are all prior conditions for knowledge or evidentialist claims. You must admit that the world is highly structured even though you do not have empirical evidence for these preconditions.

>the second does not require YHWH
Correct, but it's an easily observable arguement I like.
>can be solved by idealism
I don't understand.

>>20267312
The reason it reduces the validity of a God who is perfect in efficiency and expenditure is that he would not need to design a world that is efficient at self-perpetuation, instead he would passively create things at each and every moment. This points to there being no perfectly efficient being, and it could just be a generic Brahman, who would be nurturing this reality for the sake of bringing more people insight.

>>20267321
>I find it hard to believe that a creator god would go through all this work and then be like "okay the jews are better than everyone...now go work it out"
It's a lot more complicated than that, but God had chosen a specific people and a specific time to become incarnate. I believe it was because the Greeks had developed their linguistics enough to understand Christian theology. Concepts like the Logos or Homousia to comprehend Christology.

>>20267336
You're confusing the idea of a developed mind (in relation to an undeveloped mind) as a need for God. Reality is, your mind is capable of both primitive and advanced thought, neither of which has to be true. The mind does not inherently need any of those things listed, it can have those but does not need them, and I have no clue how you conclude it has to have them. Think back to your childhood, or imagine a mentally impaired person.
>>can be solved by idealism
>I don't understand.
You are presupposing that things that are inherently "complex" and stimulating to the mind must inherently exist from a position of deliberateness, failing to consider that they do not need to exist both "outside of the mind" and "inside it", such as the idea versus the application of the Golden ratio. In other words, the material and less talkative world didn't need special effort to utilize complex concepts because the very concepts themselves are inherent to the external-yet-non-material world that you're simply observing, but they never needed a special way to be applied.
>so why aren't they everywhere then?
Goes both ways. Some things are more common than others.

>>20267371
No, it's not more complicated like that, as much as you would like to delude others.

>>20267340
empty speculation. If you want to convince anyone, use a proper logical argument. Good luck

>>20267083
>I’m looking for the “proof” of god in a philosophical sense
https://web.archive.org/web/20190709032709/http://www.xenosystems.net/the-cult-of-gnon
"“Nature or Nature’s God” is not a statement, but a name, internally divided by tolerated uncertainty. <...> Whatever is suspended now, without delay, is Gnon. Whatever cannot be decided yet, even as reality happens, is Gnon. If there is a God, Gnon nicknames him. If not, Gnon designates whatever the ‘not’ is. Gnon is the Vast Abrupt, and the crossing. Gnon is the Great Propeller."

https://web.archive.org/web/20190704065822/http://www.xenosystems.net/gnon-theology-and-time/
"Evidently, Gnon-Theology cannot be dogmatic, even in part. Instead, it is hypothetical, in a maximally reduced sense, in which the hypothesis is an opportunity for cognitive exploration unshackled from ontological commitments. The content of Gnon-Theology is exhausted by the question: *What does the idea of God enable us to think?*
And ‘the idea of God’? — what in the name of Gnon is that? All we know, at first, is that it has been grit-blasted of all encrustations from either positive or negative faith. It cannot be anything with which we have historical or revelatory familiarity, since it reaches us from out of the abyss (epoche), where only time and / or the unknown remain.
Glutted on forbidden fruit, Gnon-Theology strips God like an engine, down to the limit of abstraction, or eternity for-itself. Does any such perspective exist? We already know that this is not our question. All such ‘regional ontology’ has been suspended. We are nevertheless already entitled, through the grace of Gnon (which — remember — might (or might not) be God), to the assumption or acceptance of reality that: for any God to be God it cannot be less than eternity for-itself. Whatever eternity for-itself entails, any God will, too.
What it entails, unambiguously, is time-travel, in the strong sense of reverse causation, although not necessarily in the folk/Hollywood variant"

https://web.archive.org/web/20190709044641/http://www.xenosystems.net/simulated-gnon-theology/
"To avoid gratuitous idolatry, all our subsequent assumptions must be readily retractable. It is not our mission to tell Gnon what it is. <...> Our sole refuge lies in the recognition, initially inarticulate, that to think Gnon as God is to advance a hyper-ontological and meta-chronic hypothesis. From Gnon’s self-understanding, being and time have to emerge as exhaustively comprehended consequences (even though we have no idea – at all – what this might mean).
If Gnon is God, it is the reality of infinite intelligence."

>>20267395
>empty speculation
Are you retarded anon-kun? The point was to disprove your claim of a needed YHWH-figure with a less demanding individual.

>>20267400
This reads like a GNU is not Linux parody.

>>20267083
Gödel's incompleteness theorems

>>20267419
Proves Buddhist nature of emptiness more than God.

>>20267378
>You're confusing the idea of a developed mind (in relation to an undeveloped mind) as a need for God
No, I'm not talking about the mind but the conditions for knowledge to exist. You require meaning, abstract concepts, the laws of logic, the self, etc or you cannot come to any sort of knowledge in the first place. We can not empirically identify these things yet they exist. You are taking for granted these things you use every day and want to have your cake and eat it too.
>You are presupposing that things that are inherently "complex" and stimulating to the mind must inherently exist from a position of deliberateness
I'm saying there is no other option. Things don't just magically create themselves and learn how to do extremely complex things that even we didn't realise they did until the 20th century. Just observe the world and you'll believe in God. Fundamentally this isn't a matter of the intellect, it's a matter of the heart not willing to accept God.
>>20267386
Okay my dude you've figured it all out.

>>20267446
>No, I'm not talking about the mind but the conditions for knowledge to exist. You require meaning, abstract concepts, the laws of logic, the self, etc or you cannot come to any sort of knowledge in the first place. We can not empirically identify these things yet they exist. You are taking for granted these things you use every day and want to have your cake and eat it too.
None of that necessitates God, and your issues and claims about these requirements are solved by vipsanna/samatha.
>I'm saying there is no other option. Things don't just magically create themselves and learn how to do extremely complex things that even we didn't realise they did until the 20th century. Just observe the world and you'll believe in God. Fundamentally this isn't a matter of the intellect, it's a matter of the heart not willing to accept God.
They are not complex, nothing about the Golden Ratio is complex, it is complex to observe, but inherently, it is efficient. I'm not sure what level of mathematics you know, but the reason Hexagons and Golden Ratio are seen that way is because of their extreme efficiency, not their unlikeliness. They are, functionally, incredibly simple. Humans absolutely have not-self consciously utilized these concepts without having modern-tier analytical methods to describe them.

>>20267446
>Okay my dude you've figured it all out.
Thank you for validating me.

>>20267468
>None of that necessitates God, and your issues and claims about these requirements are solved by vipsanna/samatha.
Cool, you abandon empiricism as it cannot support itself. You'll logically conclude God gave us these transcendant things as there isn't an alternative. I don't waste my time with pajeet literature.
>hey are not complex, nothing about the Golden Ratio is complex, it is complex to observe, but inherently, it is efficient.
You've missed my point. Regardless of how "complex" it is, they're doing it or exist in the case of nature (sunflower petals or w/e) when they should have no reason to do it or know about it.

>>20267419
>God is omniscient
>God can't prove the consistency of basic arithmetic
What does this mean?

>>20267446
>God is needed for me not to be retarded or self aware
>God is needed so our pattern recognition develops observations of the external world
retard

garbage bait thread. kill yourself
>>20267100
based

>>20267504
>God and His transcendant categories is needed for any knowledge to exist*
>Pattern recognition =/= Conditions for Knowledge
Brainlet.

>>20267527
You're not even being coherent, say what you're talking about in some reasonable combinations of words instead of the nonsensical shit only you think is profound.

>>20267083
>atheist wants to look into God
>only focuses on abrahamic literature
take the deism pill and leave this nonsense behind forever

>>20267545
It's incoherent because you literally cannot comprehend what I'm saying. Read above carefully to get a better understanding of what I mean. I'm talking about apriori conditions that necessitate the existence of knowledge, not about being self-aware or using pattern recognition.

>>20267087
>>20267095

>>20267572
>arguing with abrahamic cultists about their beliefs
you should know better. do you seriously talk with jehovah's witnesses who knock on your door?

>>20267569
Use coherent words across multiple sentences instead of repeating the same thing.
>apriori conditions that necessitate the existence of knowledge
You're speaking nonsense again. None of that is necessary nor have you displayed why it would be, you just said it is because you clearly haven't thought through your theory on the mind or consciousness or awareness, which you refer to as knowledge.

>>20267581
I did, but now they're too afraid to come to my door.

>>20267613
Dude, this shit is simple. You're just being arrogant for the sake of it. You're literally using these categories every day as a necessity to even convey or interpret knowledge. My point is there is no empirical evidence they exist as you cannot use sense data to examine them, yet we use them. You cannot say "I can't see God, therefore God's not real" when you're using things you cannot see in the first place.

>>20267654
>see
Why would I need to see them when I can be self aware of them? Do you honestly think people are not self aware of their more abstract thoughts? What do you think phenomenology is about? Nothing there necessitates God.

Yo dude, you ever hear about fine-tuning? I've done my research and read a few books on it. It seems legit. There was one computer simulation that "disproved" it, but the planets in that simulation had stars that died too early so human beings wouldn't be capable of evolving in that system anyway.

So yeah, fine-tuning.. I think it comes down to "expectation hypothesis" and evidential support. (This might even be on the stanford philosophy encyclopedia article).
Under a materialist conception we would not expect to find life in the universe, in fact it is highly improbable. Under a theistic conception of reality we would expect to find life, so the evidence supports the theistic hypothesis. (Common sense assumption that God's master plan includes other living beings in some way.)

Then you have a multiverse hypothesis vs theistic notion.
Well, if you take a single universe out of the multiverse, you still wouldn't expect it to have life, and we only have evidence of a single universe. So evidence still supports a theistic notion.
To do otherwise is a reverse gambler fallacy, as in 'if you see someone win a lottery it means they played hundreds of thousands of times'. It's an incorrect inference.

>>20267669
>Why would I need to see them when I can be self aware of them?
I'm talking about their origin and our application of them. Your awareness of these things requires justification, my point is God is that justification for them.
>Do you honestly think people are not self aware of their more abstract thoughts?
You're missing the point. Humans have abstract thoughts and create or discover knowledge with it. But abstract thoughts aren't empirical. Another simple example: The location of the number 7 cannot be empirically located yet is universal and accepted to exist. I'd go as far to say even the mind's eye is transcendant, you can use it to imagine an apple and you personally see or experience it but cannot empirically explain it. Anyway I've explained myself sufficiently and you should understand the argument by now even if you reject it.

CS Lewis is good for his fiction but his apologetics aren’t very good. I suggest Richard Swinburne.

>>20267747
>Your awareness of these things requires justification
Awareness itself, is proof things exist. You're supposing a reality that is absolutely real but you cannot be aware of it, that then sends out things to us to be aware of, which implies an absurd division and subjectivity. A similar argument is saying that, if you see a cup that isn't there, your thought is wrong, but just because your presumption about the nature and position of the awareness is incorrect doesn't mean the awareness is fake, your awareness is still real. Your awareness can clearly interact with your awareness without requiring anything external. There are dozens of religions and philosophies that deal with this without requiring God.
>But abstract thoughts aren't empirical
Because the manner in which we observe and measure external things is bouncing particles around and measuring wavelengths. In other words, the things we can measure are the things that are measurable. This means the nature of awareness is not measurable from primitive particles as we currently apply them, which obviously interact with us in less complex ways but still interact with us (if you drink poison, this affects your body and thus your mind, you are not isolated). We have also not even come close to perfectly understanding the physical universe, or models of biology are very slowly improving even with our understanding of quantum mechanics.
>The location of the number 7 cannot be empirically located yet is universal and accepted to exist
Numbers are not universal, otherwise every thought anyone ever had is universal and you've simply not reached it (the other way around, there are impaired people who cannot comprehend numbers the same way as you).
Your theory is highly presumptuous and inconsistent, at some point implying equivalence at all mental things and at others opposing it.

>>20267083
A superintelligent AI would be a God for all intents and purposes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

>>20267572
Did you think that meme was good unironically? If so, why?
>>20267581
What does the devil say to Christ? "Leave me alone."

Speculation and logistical arguments will never lead to God. Christianity has been hijacked and corrupted. In its original form it was a group of like minded people who spent all day in caves and underground temples, praying, meditating and reflecting. They looked for God within.

Eventually it spread and like always in everyting they touch the ignorant masses ruined it and people in power saw potential in its use for more power so it was commandeered by people who were never members and used for selfish gain. Then when they had enough power they declred the original christians heretics nad had them killed thus solidfying their power. They ripped God out from within the souls of man and threw him in the sky and told them to worship that.

Its happens with almost all religions, the jews did it jesus even slyly references this. I consider this corruption of christianity one of the greatest tragedies in human history.

The bible was written by those wise practitioners. It was written in code to make distinction between the esoteric and exoteric. For the layman its just "be good and go to heaven" and they go about their lives but for sages the real message lies hidden. Its divinly inspired in the sense that they wrote it based on their personal experience with the divine through their introspective practice.

You will never find God in a book. For the layman the bible is a dogma but for the sage it is a helpful tool and nothing more. It is a manual for enlightenment. You can throw it away when your done.

>>20267277
Read the Gospel of Matthew - it's short and it's more important those writers combined.

>>20267945
>comparing people who don't believe in your cult to your ideal of evil
Truly, Christians are the biggest intellectual degenerates.

>>20267945
>>20267959
retarded tripfaggot

>>20267961
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

>maybe if I keep quoting my jew book at him that'll make him admit I'm right
the thought process of cultists is simply puzzling

>>20267965
Not my intelligence - spare me. That's all I have :(

>>20267969
Yes, some guy said some cultish things that serve to instill fear at disobedience. Why quote him?

>>20267974
retarded tripfaggot

>>20267340
>instead he would passively create things at each and every moment
Why?

>>20267973
>>20267983
Why is the quote wrong? What's the oldest institution in the world?

>>20267985
okay lol'd

>>20267998
retarded tripfaggot

>>20268003
its working, i almost want to tripfag less
keep going
im almost there

>>20267998
>What's the oldest institution in the world?
the imperial house of japan
nippon banzai

>>20267987
A Divine World where every moment everything is fully refreshed and recreated at the will of God is far more impressive and representative of divine nature than something that relies on entropy not to turn to shit, and on very specific perpetuation methods to have anything exist. It shows limited engineering ability, unless you're going to go
>he deliberately made the world shitty and limited
At which point, why even bother. God would just be a mediocre creator, or a Spinoza not-caring God.

>>20268016
stupid tripnigger

>>20268017
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church has 500 years on it

>>20267998
>What's the oldest institution in the world?
Agricultural society?

>>20268028
wrong
also many religions are older than your jewish cult. seethe harder faggot

>>20268030
Not what an institution means

>>20268037
>a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture
Agricultural society is organization

>>20268035
>wrong
link to age of Japan imperial house
>religions
Not an institution but okay
>seethe harder faggot

>>20268043
okay you won
now what

>>20268044
>age of Japan imperial house
600 BC
>n-not an institution!
>d-d-doesn't count!
seethe and cope, christranny

>>20268054
>Japan imperial house
>cites the mythical date
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_House_of_Japan

>>20268060
>catholic "church"
>cites the pre-schism date and omits to mention the various vacancies
keep up the pilpul you devious jew

>>20268052
Worship Gods of the harvest

>>20268068
>insults
every time

>>20267495
The virgin consistency lover
>God is internally inconsistent, making Him the only entity which can prove His own completeness

>>20268074
>concession
every time

>>20268085
>>20268060

>>20268089
>>20268068

>it's old so it's true
So this is the power of christian apologetics...
How do you retards deal with the fact that hinduist, zoroastrian and buddhist priesthood predates yours? Or that the oldest religion in the world is fucking aboriginal dreamtime? lmao

>>20267797
>Awareness itself, is proof things exist.
>I'm aware of these things therefore they exist, but my awareness is unaccounted for to come to the conclusion they exist.
>Your awareness can clearly interact with your awareness without requiring anything external.
>My awareness accounts for my awareness, therefore I'm aware.
>Because the manner in which we observe and measure external things is bouncing particles around and measuring wavelengths.
>We cannot empirically locate things immeasurable by their very nature, but just have faith we will.
>Numbers are not universal
If every human ceased to exist numbers would exist. Be it in the number of planets or the number of particles in a thing. Numbers are objective and therefore universal regardless if someone cannot comprehend numbers.

The "proof" of God isn't in a book, it's all around you. It's the fact that there is something rather than nothing. I can't imagine what it's like being a hylic that only sees the mechanism and not the miracle.

>>20268096
>If every human ceased to exist numbers would exist.
No since there would be no consciousness to conceptualize a "number"

>>20268102
>The "proof" of God isn't in a book, it's all around you.
Indeed. But God is ultimate reality, ineffable, not some capricious jewish monster.

>>20267083
Tolstoy

>>20268096
>Numbers are objective and therefore universal regardless if someone cannot comprehend numbers
Mathematics is not some omnipotent standarad you make it out to be, I'm guessing you're falling for some weird YouTube videos interpretations. It goes back to the question, is one mans thought universal because anyone else can hypothetically think it? If so, the feeling of taking a shit is as objective and universal as any number. Numbers do not hold a special here just because they seem more primordial to you.

>>20268103
No, we humans don't create numbers or laws of the universe. They simply exist and make up an ordered universe of laws that dictate how things function.

>>20268112
>we humans don't create numbers or laws of the universe
But we do. We take reality as it is and conceptualize it into an abstraction. There is no such thing as a number or a law.

>>20268095
nah not the argument just that it was predicted to be old and so it is interesting that it is. The argument you guys are latching onto is related to worldly proof because that's all you can use to think about religiom because you prefer to pretend that you do not, or cannot, have a soul. It's clear none of you have read the gospels at all and have no major, or even minor, spiritual conceptions which would rise above the level of half-articulated. It's clear these posts are from people who not only don't know anything about Christianity in specific but about any religion in general - which is fine if you concede that knowledge is vanity but I don't think that's the case here.

Also, yes. Everything that is not Christianity is demon worship or accidentally good but not truly good.

>>20268111
>It goes back to the question, is one mans thought universal because anyone else can hypothetically think it?
Obviously not.

>>20268096
>>I'm aware of these things therefore they exist, but my awareness is unaccounted for to come to the conclusion they exist.
They exist insofar as the attributes you perceive as existing are perceived in an appropriate way, and some are inferred differently. What you seem to ignore is you can differentiate between different kinds of awareness and judge based on them differently.
>>My awareness accounts for my awareness, therefore I'm aware.
No shit?
>>We cannot empirically locate things immeasurable by their very nature, but just have faith we will.
What you're describing is consistency in time and memory. You're not self aware and are likely an NPC.

>>20268115
Does existence exist without us?

>>20268119
kek literally everything about your post is wrong. don't care about worldly proof (which is why I don't care about christianity), not an atheist/materialist, have read the entirety of the NT, etc. you're absolutely pathetic, resorting to making up a strawman to argue against.

>>20268129
>not an atheist/materialist
>which would rise above the level of half-articulated

>>20268126
Does existence exist without a conscious awareness to perceive it? The question makes no sense. There is no existence without awareness.

>>20268126
Define existence. Are you referring to external reality as existence? Or yourself as existence? You don't exist without yourself, but that would require some form of impossible annihilation. Idealistically, the external existence is just some run of the mill Demiurge. Existence of matter not stemming from anything is absurd imo.

>>20268135
>Does existence exist without a conscious awareness to perceive it? The question makes no sense. There is no existence without awarenes
Yes because things can potentially exist so existence must be independent of us.
>Are you referring to external reality as existence? Or yourself as existence?
Existence is the Word of God.
>You don't exist without yourself, but that would require some form of impossible annihilation.
See above - the potentialty of existence before and after us means existence is without us and thus has something in itself or sustaining itself. I pick the sustaining by God but that's another point that the potential for existence must be made potential.

>>20268134
>no counter
as expected from a tripfag. very low brow
also
>Everything that is not Christianity is demon worship
I am convinced at this point that either you are yet another disenfranchised 16-18 year old larping as a fundamentalist on the internet because it's counter culture and gives you a sense of belonging (highly likely), or you're simply a run of the mill retard. either way, "everything is... le demons" is simply an admission that you have no argument and have to resort to cultish fear mongering to try and rope people into your bullshit, so I accept your concession.

>>20268136
sorry meant to get ya >>20268151

>>20268151
>things can potentially exist so existence must be independent of us.
Holy fuck you are monumentally fucking retarded. This is a complete waste of my time, read a book brainlet

>>20268153
Post your beliefs.

>>20268151
>I pick the sustaining by God but that's another point that the potential for existence must be made potential.
What sustains God? And if God can sustain himself why can't existence?

>>20268151
Your structure of reality does not hinge on others existence because you are engrossed in external reality. You can infer that an external reality does exist but your logic for a God is a leap of faith. If God can do it, individuals can as well, there is no reason we need a God to keep everything together.

>>20268166
I believe in some form of acosmic idealism

>>20268167
>What sustains God?
God. What sustains the definition of numbers? Numbers. Same idea - at core is a perfect simple one which creates existence itself.
>And if God can sustain himself why can't existence?
Great and tough question - I think at the deepest level these become the same thing, where the fact of existence and its actuated potential (i.e. the fact that existence can exist) is proof of a deity. If that's the Christian is then not obv answered by this but it answers why deities are universal.

>>20268177
Your idea of God is retarded and you have no idea what you're discussing and defending.

>>20268176
>debates on forms
>denies objective reality
Bro don't do that to me

>>20268182
This guy is fucking stupid. I've never used a filter before but I might just for him. Pure retardation

>>20268177
>Great and tough question - I think at the deepest level these become the same thing, where the fact of existence and its actuated potential (i.e. the fact that existence can exist) is proof of a deity
So we don't need God to exist to explain existence. God doesn't exist

>>20268171
This is just saying I am God and Kant / Hegel agrees with me, the leap of faith from solipsism is directly into theism.

>>20268184
>acosmism is the denial of objective reality
So not only are you extremely fucking dumb, you also don't even bother looking up entry level terminology and don't actually know what you're arguing against. You're definitely one of the most stupid motherfuckers I've had the displeasure of interacting with on this shithole. Fuck off

>>20268182
>>20268185
Post your thoughts :)
>>20268186
>So we don't need God to exist to explain existence.
It depends if you think they're separate. Realistically if you believe in existence itself you believe in an ultimate quiddity to the world and thus you believe in what is the religious category. Monotheism is that existence is the only existence in town (i.e. laws of science don't disagree). Christianity is that if you were to structure your mind as one existence you would use the gospel to form social contract for the kingdom of heaven.

I've read Lewis and Chesterton because I enjoyed their fiction and essays, but I didn't find anything convincing in their apologetics.

One of these days I'll start going through Augustine to practice my Latin, but I don't expect to become a believer.

>Post your thoughts :)
I think this christcuck !BRtcYR7eHM guy is bringing down post quality in the threads he is in. Either that, or he is a masterclass at convincing /lit/ Christians are retarded with some reverse trolling.

>>20268122
>They exist insofar as the attributes you perceive as existing are perceived in an appropriate way, and some are inferred differently.
Yes, your undefined and subjective "awareness" accounts for things existing that are empirically unaccounted for. Thank you for solving this problem with your awareness.
>No shit?
It's circular logic based on your subjective interpretation of what you're aware of. It's like saying "how do you know you're correct? My experiences tell me I'm correct" without considering your experiences or in this case your faculty for understanding your awareness could be wrong.
>What you're describing is consistency in time and memory.
You've had over 200 years to solve basic problems with empiricism that by their nature cannot be solved with this materialist system. You don't even have a basis for thinking the future will be like the past and you never will. I won't go into ad hominems since it's petty.

>>20268201
certainly a thought

>>20268197
>It depends if you think they're separate.
So you're a deist now? Lame, I don't care if you call the universe God or not. The point is the Bible is a bullshit myth with nothing to back it up.

>>20268194
>Acosmism, in contrast to pantheism, denies the reality of the universe, seeing it as ultimately illusory
>You're
No I'm not. I'm an illusion!

>>20268214
>The point is the Bible is a bullshit myth with nothing to back it up.
What do you back this statement up with?
>I don't care
Why?

>>20268221
>the material universe is objective reality
Yeah I'm going with >>20268201. I've rarely talked to someone this stupid and ignorant before

>>20267083
How do you prove or disprove something that exists outside our reality? If it could create the universe it is outside of it. What is there to measure? It's just too big.

>>20268223
>What do you back this statement up with?
The total lack of evidence for anything resembling the supernatural God of the Bible. And no renaming the universe God doesn't count.

>>20268224
Define intelligence. Hard mode: Don't use an if intelligent an external materiality or a monotheistic version God.

>>20268234
>hehe define every word you use
fuck off retard, and kill yourself for good measure

>>20268234
Define define.

>>20268202
You're missing the forest for the trees. Take math as an example for the theoretical. You think of 2+2 and give 4. What proves you right? More cognition that is still perceivable and isn't something you cannot be aware of. Some math was discovered purely in theory, some of it was discovered observing the external world. Suddenly switching to a sensory touch perception when considering this math does not negate your ability to learn math. If you think something is made of glass, touch it, and you get the sensation of wood, you are still receiving cognitive information. What you seem to fail to understand is the process of existence that isn't you interacting and sending information to you, does not have to have the attributes ascribed to it. So
>how do you know you're correct? My experiences tell me I'm correct
Is correct in so far that whatever you have in mind is the application of the so called knowledge of correctness but is not externally applicable on the world you act on and that can act on you, because you are not part of said external world and are not forced to act purely upon it but can rather act upon yourself.

>>20268234
Define God

I just realized I am wasting my saturday evening debating about unprovable things on /lit/ with people who unironically believe the bible is true (or ironically pretend to, which is worse). What the fuck am I doing, I'm outta here

>>20268247
I just use the few idiots to see if anyone can poke holes in my logic so I can more confidently talk about it with people I care about lol

>>20268235
You pretend your words have meanings when all they are are the veneer of thoights which resemble an internal construction that has no bearing to anything other than itself. It is the fundamental contradiction in language that we can all have an internal language which makes no sense to anyone else but we don't - what the pure language is is pure being which is purely external to us as tevealed in the Gospels and your words are merely things that refer to your internal super structure. If you make no appeal to God or materiality your thoughts are narcissism. If you make no appeal to God it is materialist and fractal and thus impossible. If you make no appeal to the material it is unproveable. Only Christ resolves the contradiction.

>>20268249
Define poke

>>20268239
Understand a word as similarly as possible to how God would understand it. Good post!
>>20268246
Jesus Christ

>>20268251
Stick penis into

>>20268250
Define pretend

>>20268250
read witty
>muh christ
actually no don't read anything just kill yourself lol

>>20268253
Define understand. Hard mode don't use the word definition in your definition or you've made a circular argument

>>20268255
Words with one gives being to that God does not.
>>20268257
>kill yourself
oriented to nonbeing are we

>>20268250
>the problem of inconsistency between minds which isn't really a problem is solved by believing in a guy being YHWH by, I don't know, claiming his mind is what all these thoughts are derived from and his mind is somehow consistent with their use or what
What is even being discussed here at this point?

>>20268261
Soul union to God whereby one's fundamental metaphysical framework is altered to match God's as nearly as possible which is revealed in the Gospels.

>>20268250
Define you
Define pretend
Define words
Define have
Define meanings
Define when
Define all
Define are
Define veneer
Define thoigts [sic]
Define resemble
Define internal
Define construction
Define bearing
Define anything
Define other
Define itself
Define fundamental
Define contradiction
Define language
Define we
Define make
Define sense
Define else
Define pure
Define external
Define tevealed [sic]
Define gospels
Define merely
Define things
Define refer
Define super
Define structure
Define appeal
Define God
Define materiality
Define narcissism
Define materialist
Define fractal
Define thus
Define impossible
Define unproveable
Define only
Define christ
Define contradiction

>>20268270
okay this is actually funny

>>20268273
Define okay
Define this
Define is
Define actually
Define funny

>>20268270
Define Anonymous 04/23/22(Sat)20:37:04 No.20268270▶

>>20268264
>What is even being discussed here at this point?
Idk people anti-Christianity post and then I have a good time

>>20268249
why do this with christlarpers? they are offensively dumb

>if you don't believe in my laughably contrived myths then you will be tortured forever by my jewish demon who also loves you
>there is nothing wrong with this at all, in fact it's the best thing that can possibly happen
You cannot convince me that being an actual christian doesn't correlate to some form of psychopathy

>>20268282
it's weird too cus we are having a blast
>>20268277
>>20268276
Define undefine :)

>>20268282
Because they are zealous, and if they notice a tiny opening for attack they will use it thinking that makes them truthbearers. It's tedious but it works.

>>20268253
>Understand a word as similarly as possible to how God would understand it
>>20268263
Words with one gives being to that God does not.

These are just definitions you've made up. Why can't anyone make up a different definition if you don't use the standard ones? You really how schizo you sound right? You've made up your own imaginary language that apes English.

>>20268288
Define weird
Define too
Define cus
Define we
Define are
Define having
Define blast
Define :)

>>20268287
Hell isn't real to be clear - it's your soul being extinguished into nothingness

>>20268296
This is an extremely unorthodox interpretation that the majority of christians disagree with

>>20268291
>It's tedious but it works.
Yay
>>20268293
>Words with one gives being to that God does not.
Ugh sorry:
Words which* one gives being to that God does not.

>>20268247
>>20268249
Pretentious faggots.

>>20268302
I know. Isn't that weird?

>>20268309
seethe harder about it, pseud

>>20268309
No need to be mean friend

>>20268312
It means you're a poser and probably a heretic according to most churches though

>>20267083
Part 8 chapter 9 in Anna Karerinina. Belief in God comes not through a logical proof but through living life. I am not implying you're ignorant. I'm simply saying that you will not find God in logical proofs but you will find him if you search. The brothers Karamazov will also send you on that journey if you wish to travel it.

>>20268323
>poser
unfortunately not
>heretic
unfortunately so

>>20268324
The existence of God is obvious to anyone who lives life. But God is not yahweh.

>>20267083
>I refuse to spend hours upon hours looking through wiki articles and websites to tell what to look at just to read a book
Right and that is why you wont make it, you want everything to be easy.

>>20268330
>unfortunately so
then you're not an authority on christianity

>>20268335
Yes, it's a six armed purple skinned demon from the plains of India.

>>20268356
Nah, that's as silly as a jewish demon. No need to be upset either.

If God is real then why does he allow things like this to happen?

>>20268351
>But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
I actually agree re authority but I'm not seeking my authority at all but just trying to show that Christ is God

>>20267083
>174 replies
>literally none of value
astounding.
i hope OP is still around.

what you're looking for, at the start line, would be Mere Christianity.
it goes both through proof of the existence of God, and why it has to be the Christian God.
Along with that, it's an extremely pleasant read.

>>20268361
>why does God allow quantum tunneling

>>20268246
On God fr

>>20268359
You are very smart and obviously know the truth.

>>20268302
not even an interpretation, it's plainly wrong, really.

>>20268364
>why it has to be the Christian God.
qrd? hit me with the mental gymnastics

>>20268363
why are you a heretic, as you confirmed being labeled that? for what also?
and why don't you fix it?

>>20268368
Unlike you cultists, I am humble enough to not make a claim as ridiculous as "I know the full truth". I do know however that yahweh, hindu demons, and other silly representations of a personal god are nonsense and obviously false.

Just go outside.

>>20268372
>it's plainly wrong, really.
Nah there's room for it if you read the Gospels dogmaticslly. I don't get how anyone could be a Christian and believe in Hell - it also contradicts what Christ tells us God is like (good to the bad and good alike)

>>20268374
won't nearly be as well explained as more than half a book. come on anon, it's a comfortable read.
(also i just finished said first middle of the book, so i can't really tell you what i haven't read yet)

>>20268372
I know. Unfortunately. Some say the doctrine of hell is never directly mentioned in the bible and that gehenna refers to a physical place and whatnot but this is stretching it and playing on words, and all main denominations agree that those who don't believe will suffer for eternity. It's what makes christianity an absolutely unsalvageable garbage religion. Which is sad because there's beauty in the life of Jesus

>>20268387
I have many more books to read, just give me the gist of it. I want to know the basics of the argument considering it's such an outlandish claim (obviously it doesn't have to be the christian god, the only way this could possibly make sense is if you take the bible to be true from the get-go)

>>20268385
There's room for literally anything if you mind is small enough, what's your point?

>>20268379
Why? Hell and confession. One I don't this is correct and two is plainly antithetical to how forgiveness works (forgive those who are mean to you and you're forgiven).

>>20268391
>its what *criticizes Christianity for some reason*
you merely don't know enough, and probably avoid studying it so you're not proven wrong.

>>20268403
Seems like a big reversal that God is suddenly the great punisher in the afterlife but the source of all good now. It's just wrong

>>20268415
>for some reason
I take it you've not read the post then? I explained why christianity was garbage.
>avoid studying it
I've read the NT, most of the OT, the sayings of the desert fathers, early christian works. It has all failed to convince me. You will not believe me because it would undermine your worldview but I even had a christian phase where I tried my best and actually prayed. Of course it did nothing but that's another story. Bottom line is that you're wrong

>>20268396
i literally haven't read it yet.
>if you take the Bible as truth
and you think it isn't?

that aside, Lewis takes a neutral view to explain it.

>>20268403
Hang on.. I think I'm onto a funny figure of speech here, if I change it up a bit

>>20268380
Yes, you're obviously the rational thinker and the determiner of what's false.

>>20268422
>and you think it isn't?
Of course not.
>a neutral view
I'm very curious how someone would manage to rationalize the necessity of yahweh without first assuming the bible is true

>>20268416
>reject God
>be cut off from Him out of your own choice
how is that punishment

>>20268429
I have never rejected God. I have embraced and sought to be closer to God for every second of my existence.
I just don't believe in desert cults and their fear tactics is all.

>>20268410
you know only Catholics and Orthos do confession in the sense you mean, right?
you just need a proper explanation on the rest, i suppose.

>>20268416
The Bible just being made up would account for all that, no need to invent excuses for God if he not real
The Bible meaning what it says is perfectly consistent with on my view

>>20267083
You can read as many books as you want on the proof of God, that is his existence. But in the end his existence doesn't hinge on some argument from the works of men. His existence is made by your own faith in the creator. You don't need books to prove God exists. All you need to do is go outside, open your eyes, look around, and ask if he's looking back too.

>>20267083
you won't find any
people don't logic themselves into faith

>>20268428
well, the book awaits, and you can be shown just that. have a pleasant read, anon.

>>20268429
>cut off from source of goodness which is being but still exist
Unlikely - this is why, in my view which is my own, Christ says that the seeds who fail to attain Christ just don't grow rather than are dug up and burned eternally. If Hell were real, I'd probably side with satan honestly.

>>20268432
Very nicely said, kind stranger. Have an updoot and some reddit gold :)

>>20268432
>>>20268429
>I have never rejected God. I have embraced and sought to be closer to God for every second of my existence.
Why?

>>20267083
The fact that in 202 replies not one person has mentioned Alvin Plantinga is all the proof you need that lit is a pseud parade.

>>20268427
Yes.

>>20268432
>t. knows no theology at all
what do you believe in then? what are your practices?

>>20268433
Yeah I know
>>20268434
True but you still need to pick which religion after Christianity and I'd be back where I started

>>20267083

>I'm looking for the “proof” of god

Why, NPC?

>>20268445
So, are you going to make an argument, or just seethe at me because you can't use your usual "everyone who disagrees with me is an atheist" strawman?
>>20268446
Why what?
>>20268453
Enough of the pilpul. You answer this: why does the existence of God imply the truth of the whole yahweh mythos?
Don't dodge the question, don't deflect, just answer.

>>20267083
You won't find God if you don't humble yourself and seek Him with all your heart. It doesn't matter how many books you read or how many times you read the Bible. If someone wants to reject it to continue to live in sin, then they will.

Like these anons, they're just here to scoff and mock
>>20267100
>>20267293
>>20267572
>>20267581
>>20267983
>>20268035

>>20268447
Plantinga's theology stuff is really really retarded

>>20268453
He's probably some retarded deist.

>>20268465
why is deism retarded

>>20267155
I'm gonna beat your mom

>>20268447
to be fair half of them are me being an idiot so i wouldnt take it seriously - also read "pseud son parade" as rage against the machine bulls on parade

>>20268460
Why have you been seeking God your entire existence?

>>20268461
>if you don't humble yourself and seek Him with all your heart.
I did this and it did nothing. Christianity remains as empty and nonsensical to me as it was before.

>>20268475
Stop sinning.

>>20268447
this kills the plantinga

>>20268479
I was very devout and did my absolute best during my christian phase. As I said: nothing. I came away with nothing but the impression that it's all complete bullshit from start to finish.

>>20268447
Atheists don't agree with Plantiga's positions (or else they wouldn't be atheists)
Christians are retards, what's new?

>>20268473
Because I have always felt viscerally that this is not all there is, and I didn't feel like there was a better purpose in life than to seek the origin of this feeling.

>>20268461
How do I humble myself and seek Him with all my heart?

>>20268460
I'll treat you as the joke that you are.

>>20268460
because it's the only proper explanation to all of it.
i could poke anything else full of holes, but Christianity has broken the metaphorical finger every time.
any criticism you have has an answer. the issue is you prefer to hold the question as a big shield to hide under, instead of actually looking for the answer.

>>20268463
It's possible, I mainly know about his work in epistemology, but a lot of philosophers of religion and theologians seem to be really into it. In any case, if OP is interested in modern, non-outdated arguments for God, God and other Minds is probably the best place to start.

>>20268490
Have you looked into psychology, anthropology and human biology?

>>20268480
I should have mentioned him since I have his books

>>20268494
Of course I accept your concession.
>>20268498
>because it's the only proper explanation to all of it.
Why?
>i could poke anything else full of holes
You can poke holes into christianity easily. It's what a lot of people have been doing for a long time from the romans to the new atheists. And of course christianity has counter-arguments, but these are only convincing insofar as you let yourself be convinced by them (want to be convinced). I'm not convinced.
>any criticism you have has an answer
You think this isn't the case for other major religions? This is laughable. You are extremely biased and act as if your answer is the only possible answer because of this. Do you have any actual argument besides "we have an answer to everything so it means we're right"?

>>20268467
It's purposeless and in effect worshipping your own mind.

>>20268512
>It's purposeless
why should its lack of evident purpose make it untrue
>worshipping your own mind
how so

>>20268500
>philosophers of religion and theologians seem to be really into it
Of course they are, they are Christians. They are grasping at straws not to be as seen holding beliefs for poor reasons (just as Plantinga)
No way they'd say they are Christian because it gives them hope, meaning and purpose. It's a "properly basic belief"

>>20268492
Read the Gospels and use them to be how you look at yourself and the world.

There's not a single good argument for the Christian God that doesn't apply equally well to any monotheistic God from another religion.

>>20268501
I lack the physicalist temperament. I've never even considered it as a possibility, not even in my darkest and most pessimistic moments.
It's not a rational feeling, I readily admit this. It doesn't matter to me.

>>20268520
I don't see what that has to do with either what I said, or what OP is asking for.

>>20268510
No, because i'm not versed enough in theology to answer such an open question as well as i'd like.
i'd change your example a bit; they won't convince you if you're fully set on not being convinced. how do you intend to find light if you cover your eyes and scream that it's dark?

>>20268514
>why should its lack of evident purpose make it untrue
It's the reason for being retarded.
>how so
It's an invented concept of your own mind that any other deist could have and disagree with you on.

>>20268532
>It's the reason
this makes no sense, explain. God not intervening is a possibility, revelation being false is a possibility
>an invented concept of your own mind
god is an invented concept?

>>20268498
Christianity being infinitely malleable, doesn't mean it's true
It's just mean that Christians got little respect for their scripture

>>20268521
They just sounds really made up

>>20267083
I'll add this to the thread: To people who actually believe in god, proof is irrelevant. The whole point is to have faith in a higher power. Have faith. Having faith is the greatest virtue. And what is faith? Belief in something without evidence for it.

>>20267945
Because it humorously demonstrates the absurdity of claiming the Bible as proof of God's existence.

>>20268522
Ever heard about the TAG?
You just need to double down really hard on a non-trinitarian God being incapable of love. (love being the reason why an already perfect God would create any world at all)

>>20268531
>to answer such an open question
I just asked which concrete arguments you would give for the truth of Christianity in particular that don't presuppose the bible or the worldview it hinges on to be the truth. Is that unanswerable?
>they won't convince you if you're fully set on not being convinced.
Trust me, I put in a lot of effort on my part.
At this point, I think specific religions require specific sensibilities towards particular views of existence. None of christianity's explanations swayed me and my earnest attempts to immerse myself as much as possible into it in order to "feel" it, to "be" it (and not look for a rational proof, I never cared about that at all) never led me anywhere. I never felt anything from this religion at all. So I moved on.

>>20268540
I'm saying it's stupid to believe god created things for no reason and left us to our own devices. Again, it's purposeless and contradicts a life worth living when the purpose of having a god is to look for an objective source of purpose.
>god is an invented concept?
Your personal deist "god" is.

>>20268487
Well Plantinga's point is less to affirmative establish the grounds for why a knower must believe in God, so much as to establish the validity of an entitlement for a knower to do so. It's a more limited goal than what you're characterizing.

>>20268549
>a non-trinitarian God being incapable of love.
How does this make any sense? You can rationalize it by assuming the triune god to be perfect from the get-go, but if you do that you're not looking at things impartially, you're already evaluating christianity from a christian standpoint

>>20268529
I'm just saying that Plantinga don't got good arguments for the existence of God. Plantinga is in the business of making Christians feel better about themselves.

>>20268541
Christian apologism is completely backed by Scripture.
that would be a new one, really. atheists warp the word of God, and now try and determine the "proper"(as in, what doesn't blow their strawman apart) interpretation?

>>20268553
deism isn't "god created things for no reason", it's "god has not revealed himself"
>Your personal deist "god" is
no he's not. oh wait just because some old jews in the desert didn't come up with it millennia ago means it's made up? so now you're resorting to a circular argument: a god without revelation isn't possible because without a revelation there can't be a god, etc.

>>20268565
>Christian apologism is completely backed by Scripture.
Where in scripture does it say that those who don't convert to christianity will be tortured for eternity but that yahweh loves them anyway but doesn't save them because reasons?

>>20268557
You just say something to the effect of God not being capable of relationships if he's not already relational in himself, that breath in deeply from your own farts

>>20268545
Idiotic. From Benedict XIV:
"God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf."

The main question in contemporary philosophy of religion is whether there exists an argument s.t. belief is warranted.

>>20268574
Logic can be twisted to justify any position. There is no definitive argument that will shut down all other viewpoints. Human reason is not some kind of perfect tool that brings absolute truth to light.

>>20268555
Plantinga is into saying believing in evolution + no-god at the same time makes you incapable of knowledge. He is pretty ambitious.

>>20268565
>Christian apologism is completely backed by Scripture.
If you are just inventing non-literal interpretations as you please, sure

>>20268567
>deism isn't "god created things for no reason", it's "god has not revealed himself"
It's practically the same thing and achieves nothing, if this god of yours existed it would be an evil one. I could be a deist as well and contradict your ideas on what god is. Your belief is based on your own mind and you make up the rules.

>>20268572
>God not being capable of relationships if he's not already relational in himself
God is omnipotent, what the fuck kind of retarded argument is this

>>20268558
I mean if you think providing an argument for the validity of belief in God amounts to, "making Christians feel better about themselves," sure.

>>20268550
well, let's give it a shot.
Romans 2:15
>They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
morality, which is to say, separating good from evil.
go give both a look, and you can see it was derived from Christian values.
as we are so, and it isn't innate (because unlike instinct, we can disobey it), it has to come from somewhere. and guess what Law exactly fits our own morals?

>>20268565
>atheists warp the word of God
Atheist can read :^)

>>20268592
okay so your argument does entirely boil down to "there's no revelation so it's bad".
>an evil one
as opposed to a histrionic god who plays mind tricks on his creation by kinda revealing himself but just enough to instill doubt in the hearts of everyone so they have to have faith and don't have definitive proof and if they don't make the leap of faith then they burn eternally but it's ok he loves them trust me bro

>>20268594
Yeah, an omnipotence is defined as being capable of doing anything it's possible to do
It's not possible to be relational, if your nature is not relational

I'm just making shit up. But that's what theology is all about.

>>20268590
because the whole Bible is literal when it benefits you, yeah?
>>20268571
>where does it say that *strawman*
really?

>>20268601
>and guess what Law exactly fits our own morals?
>guess what law fits exactly the morals of a secular humanist (read: atheist but christian moralist) society that has been shaped by christianity for 2000 years?

>>20268615
>Yeah, an omnipotence is defined as being capable of doing anything it's possible to do
No, the omnipotent being defines what "possible" is. This is why thomism is fucking retarded. God isn't constrained by "what is possible", he decides what is possible. He's not limited by our petty human logic and semiotics.

God has a plan
>his plan seems irrational
You can't understand it
>so why should I believe in the claim that it's God
?

>>20268619
>covers own eyes and cries darkness
and where did the first people to do it come from? they couldn't have been shaped by it.

>>20268617
What's a strawman about what I said? The official church doctrine is that unbelievers will be tortured eternally, but that yahweh loves them, but he will not save them.

>>20268583
I agree, his Bayesian arguments aren't very sound. But I think. you can separate that from the main point.

>>20268580
This does not answer Benedict in any satisfying way. Furthermore, you're confusing the inherent rationality of reality(as Hegel put it, the actual is rational, and the rational is actual), with the fact that we think in terms of norms, rules and statuses. Of course we use rationality to justify contradictory viewpoints, we think in terms of language and develop things by means of interacting with other minds, which either grant or challenge our claims to particular inferences. This by no means challenges anything I said.

>>20268627
>my weak ass argument didn't convince you so you're covering your eyes
Are you doing to do this every time or can you argue like an adult?
>where did the first people to do it come from?
They were followers of Jesus. Or are you unaware that morality was quite different in roman times from what it is now? Roman standards of morality, even during Jesus' time, were not christian by any means. Same thing for other cultures around the globe. There is no "natural" morality aside from the very obvious stuff everyone (and every religion) agrees upon (murder and so on)

>>20268480
Lol, true.

>>20268480
Replace "evil" with "satan" and watch the cope come.

>>20268634
>the inherent rationality of reality
This cannot be proven, no matter how much you try, you will always fall prey to the trappings of language. The "inherent rationality of reality" as it appears is yet another linguistic/semiotic construct.

>>20268624
Okay, you can define omnipotence like that. Now you can know nothing about God. (he is beyond your tiny human mind)
It's minority position.
What's there even left to talk about? You've discarded human reason

>>20268605
>there's no revelation so it's bad"
A purposeless god for a purposeless world.
>>20268605
>as opposed to a histrionic god who plays mind tricks on his creation by kinda revealing himself but just enough to instill doubt in the hearts of everyone so they have to have faith and don't have definitive proof and if they don't make the leap of faith then they burn eternally but it's ok he loves them trust me bro
Nigger, he literally became incarnate as a human and told us what he was. Nobody decides what God's judgement is for you or me. Obviously your knowledge of God's existence is not contingent on your salvation.

>>20268640
>followers of Jesus
Christians then.
>it is then accepted literally everywhere
i wonder why.

>>20268648
>Now you can know nothing about God. (he is beyond your tiny human mind)
>You've discarded human reason
It's called apophatism and it's the only worthwhile form of theology (or mysticism rather)

>>20268658
We cannot know of God's essence but understand him through his energies or actions.

>>20268650
>Nigger, he literally became incarnate as a human and told us what he was
He did the thing that is so impressive literally anyone could do it, be a human, claim they're God and espouse some low tier pleb wisdom.
>but the miracles
Buddha did it better anyway, and his teachings are far closer to being provable than anything Christian.

>>20268650
>he literally became incarnate as a human
According to whom/what? The bible? Another circular argument.
>Nobody decides what God's judgement is for you or me. Obviously your knowledge of God's existence is not contingent on your salvation.
You're going against church dogma then.

>>20268617
>because the whole Bible is literal
No, I think it's just made up.

>>20268663
What is the distinction in Gods case between his essence and action?

>>20268653
Yes, christians were the first people to espouse christian morality. Your point being?
>it is then accepted literally everywhere
Are you delusional? Christian morality is not even close to being accepted everywhere.

>>20267087
>>20267095
>>20267572
>>20267083
If a god was real it should have shown itself, but because noone have actually observed it then it is improbable.
All this fuzz about oh I read the bible and stopped fapping, it must be gods work are just retards that need the belief of a Almighty punisher, that will hurt you and so for being naughty.

You can live a good life without joining a cult, but most people are so retarded so they can't. And these delusions later manifest into evil, for everyone that does not follow their way is WRONG and they should be corrected, this is why organized religion is a mind parasite.

The stories of the old gods and myths are good however for they try not to make you into a hardcore believer that force others into your religion or kill others because of their faith (unlike the sandnigger trilogy).
They are stories trying to reflect great works of men and the nature of man and the world he find himself in. It contains lessons and archetypes.

Stop being a mindless npc that needs a codex on how to live life and become enlightened yourself instead.
No (or very few atleast) organized religion is good. It's a tool to control men, to make them die for their amusement.

>>20268663
The essence-energies distinction is interesting but nothing compels me to believe in it. Nor is it indicative of the truth of any particular doctrine even if it were to be true
Frankly for anyone who isn't neurotic there is no reason to not go for a completely apophatic route and seek God purely through personal experience. The rest is masturbatory nonsense

>>20268664
I'm speaking in context to what you were saying about God not revealing himself to induce doubt. You're just a hard-hearted, disingenuous and insufferable person. I don't hate you, I just feel sorry for you.

>>20268646
Lol, how about you expand on that language point? Of course if what you mean is that you can't prove that there's a complete set of axioms that describes all possible natural phenomena as extensions of those axioms, that's trivially true(Godel's incompleteness), but that assumes that we either want or need such a foundation to do so. ] We could just as well appeal to the fact that generally speaking the actual word coheres with the laws which we discover, and we have not yet discovered a phenomena which does not do so. That is to say, the onus seems to be on you to provide an instance of knowledge which does not cohere with our general rules of inference.

>>20268682
I'm not even the anon you replied to lmao

>>20268658
Well, I'm describing the position that an Orthodox Thomist may hold, of course they don't have that view of omnipotence
Like, my post was elaborating on a question of how we could know God's nature was such-and-such a way. Of course that question would have no answer if you hold to the position of God being beyond human reasoning
This is some extreme clowning.

>>20268682
This guy isn't me (the guy you've been arguing with), I'm >>20268665. Your petty condescension is very telling though

>>20268683
>the onus seems to be on you to provide an instance of knowledge which does not cohere with our general rules of inference.
I fucking hate epistemology.

>>20268679
No, God really likes free will. Revealing himself too clearly to humans would infringing upon that free will. (the choice to believe)

>>20268687
Yeah, I agree with you. I just wanted to make sure their arguments were unconvincing and that I wasn't missing anything

>>20268703
>>20268605
>bro it's your choice to believe I'm not forcing anything on you. you're gonna burn forever if you make the wrong choice though lmao I love you btw
is yahweh a modern white woman?

>>20268704
How could any arguments possibly be convincing to you? You don't believe in arguments.

The shitty essence-action distinction exists to protect the idea of God from being something you can interact with directly. Anyway, people forget this but the actual, accepted Core of Christianity is
>God is all mighty, all powerful
>he is the only one with power even
>you are powerless besides what God gives you
>even Satan is powerless, he can just exploit your powerlessness to reject God and make you think you have any power without God when really you're just using God's power to supposedly "hurt yourself"
It's a regressive ideal. None of that shit about necessitate of God is coming from good faith when you realize that the whole religion revolves around your dependence on God, both physical, intellectual and spiritual. That's why Christians argue for the need for God in these scopes, because they're the last ones that allow them to keep shrugging off responsibility for attaining meaningful wisdom and virtue.

>>20268713
Good point, blame yahweh for making me devoid of grace.
Doesn't make the thomist arguments any less shitty though.

>>20268703
Gods actions seems really inconsistent with what's described in the Bible. He used to reveal himself all kinds of ways.
What gives?

>>20268670
From my understanding his essence is something incomprehensible to put into words, it's something uncreated. His energies are things like creation, love, judgement, revelation, etc. Your essence is what makes up who you are as a person, but your energies are expressions of that (reading, painting, playing a musical instrument).

>>20268703
So why reveal himself that one time in such a shit manner? Why are miracles people experience supposedly canon? And what about the OT revealings to the Jews from back then? And parting the sea

>>20268722
And hypothetically, why couldn't each person have the same kind of essence ascribed to God?

>>20268703
If your jewish god really wanted that then he wouldn't have (allegedly) revealed any texts then or had any laws to the humans.
If he really wanted humans to have the utmost freewill and not be affected by him then he would not have let his presence known. He shouldn't have tried to stop evil either for stopping evil would affect humans aswell.
Your argument is bollocks!

>a religion is true based on its age
then aboriginal dreamtime is the truth
>a religion is true based on the number of educated people who believe in it
then postmodernist critical theory is the truth
>a religion is true based on the internal consistency and verifiability of its axioms
then buddhism is the truth
>a religion is true based on how fast it's gaining new adherents and how vehement they are
then islam is the truth
>a religion is true based on how popular its book is
then christianity is the truth, or maybe maoism
>a religion is true based on how it has thrived historically
then talmudic judaism is the truth

>>20268716
extremely unbiblical take
where in the bible does it say God is omni, omni, omni?

>>20268686
>>20268691
Why are you responding to a discussion you're not a part of?

>>20268713
>You don't believe in arguments.
Because there are good arguments for every point of view. Whether they sway you or not depends on your personal sensibilities, on on the inherent objective truth they point to.

>>20268739
>>a religion is true based on the internal consistency and verifiability of its axioms
>then buddhism is the truth
Based

>>20268746
>on on
not on*

>>20268730
Because we're human and cannot have the same essence of something we're radically distinct from. It's like asking why we can't be God.

>>20268742
You only have any power you do because God gave it to you that he can take away, and all miracles are done by God. The individual is Hollow and anything they have can be taken away at any moment, all their wisdom is seen as naught in the face of worship. The internal inconsistency of Egyptian Magicians is never answered though.

>>20268726
>>20268720
>>20268710
>>20268732
This is all perfectly consistent on my modern Christianity where everything in the Bible is just metaphorical

>>20268758
Also we're created unlike God.

>>20268758
>something we're radically distinct from
Take the nondualpill

>>20268766
I don't think Christianity got a problem with sorcery being real, or powerful, it's just a sin

>>20268769
>>20268758
That's my point. Why does there have to be 1 guy who is uncreated and gets this special treatment. Why the obsession with singularities? Nothing rationally points to that besides the need for the lineages that Jews established (you know, God made Adam and Eve, they had kids, those had kids etc until we get to at the time contemporary Jews). Seems more like a primitive solution to the infinite regression problem.

>>20268781
Sorcery is not magic, it's using other evil spirits to do things for you, who are also really weak. Magicians are closer to what people see as non-Christian Hermetics, or Eastern Psychics or whatever they are called. Any miracles not done by Jesus are just seen as done by God in a spooky way or by Demons exploiting what God has given Man.

>>20268781
Why do you need a jewish god to exist to begin with?
How are you so sure you were created by a sandnigger god?
How could it not be another solution instead?
Is it because we are not completely sure and as such you need to default to an invisible force which you call god?
Why do you want man to live in ignorance instead of seeking out the nature of his existence, our existence?
Would you rather just wake up in the morning, go to work, go home, sleep, repeat, go to special building once a week and say some words?
That would be a boring life compared to one of adventure and pursuit of knowledge and wisdom of the nature of things.

>>20268784
Why are you asking me why God gets to have a privileged status among his creation? Neither of us can comprehend God or how something can be uncreated yet exist. I simply follow his revelations, laws and the truth on how to grow closer with him. If you reject it that's your personal issue, but it doesn't make it wrong.

>>20268830
Because the bible says so and the rest is demons. Repent or burn forever, sinner.
youtube.com/watch?v=_xaj8QSJZ0E

>>20268830
Why are you a race obsessed American? Your low IQ is showing.

>>20268831
>Neither of us can comprehend God or how something can be uncreated yet exist
We can infer that he is just based on something clearly. Why can't we infer more?
And I'll repeat, from a rational position, why the singular beginning? Why can't multiples of such exist fundamentally? Why not ascribe uncreated yet existing to each individual? Besides the obvious hardly verifiable religious script based on psychotic visions being presupposed as true for some reason.

>>20268831
How do you know they're his revelations, laws and truth?

>>20268767
Then there is no god and it's just a book written by men.
So all the worship and belief in god and afterlife is bollocks.
Then the religion is not real, and has the same innate vaule as the harry potter books.

>>20268831
If you can't comprehend this stuff. How do you know this stuff?

>>20268831
Why do you trust the claim that you are the creation of something you cannot comprehend. Doesn't the belief in this seem like an intellectual trap? How do you disprove something you can't imagine because you can't imagine it? More likely, you were uncreated and deluded yourself into thinking you were created, and now you fester in ignorance.
>revelations
What the fuck is a revelation anyway?

>>20268769
Prove that god is not created.
Wouldn't it be more plausible that god is created by men's imagination?
His existence is a construction of the mind?

>>20268846
Not american, just hate jews for destroying my nation with immigration and spiritually by the invasion of christianity into Europe.
Paganism didn't have the force you to worship, it didn't force any rules upon you, it wasn't organized religion but rather stories to share wisdom and create culture.

>>20268851
>We can infer that he is just based on something clearly. Why can't we infer more?
Because our minds are limited and cannot comprehend the incomprehensible. I don't know why you're asking me these questions when nobody knows why things are the way they are. Perhaps it's a requirement that God be the way he is and that there can be no alternative in a rational universe.
>>20268853
Through observation of the natural world, our behaviour, it's consistency with what was revealed, and tradition.

>>20268901
>observation of the natural world, our behaviour
None of those suggest the bible is true
>it's consistency with what was revealed
What?
>tradition
lol

>>20268839
>I read text some other dude wrote; therefore god exists.
I hope you are praying to Harry Potter aswell every sunday.

>>20268906
my post was ironic but it's sad that christlarp posts are so low effort that they're indistinguishable from bait (or rather, that bait is indistinguishable from them)

>>20268901
>Because our minds are limited and cannot comprehend the incomprehensible. I don't know why you're asking me these questions when nobody knows why things are the way they are.
What is it that man cannot imagine with effort? And why are some things infer-able then? Why ignore the rest of what I said
>Perhaps it's a requirement that God be the way he is and that there can be no alternative in a rational universe.
That sounds like Cope

>>20268901
>Perhaps it's a requirement that God be the way he is
How could you know?

>>20268903
I'm saying Christian theology makes the most sense regarding our nature and what it is that we do and why we do it. It's consistent with what was revealed in the sense of what was taught to us when Christ became incarnate. Tradition plays a heavy role in interpreting the correct theology. Dismissing ancient wisdom and knowledge that has been passed down through generations is childish.

>>20268940
>Christian theology makes the most sense regarding our nature
For you. This isn't an argument unless you substantiate it.
>what was taught to us when Christ became incarnate
This is circular
>Dismissing ancient wisdom
"old good" is not an argument because christianity is far from being the oldest or even one of the oldest religions. What about the ancient wisdom of buddhists, hindus, zoroastrians and mandaeans?

>>20268940
>Christianity is consistent with Christianity
Please, read things that aren't Christian and then start posting. Platonic, Pythagorean, Heraclitian, Kemetic, Buddhist.

>>20268940
>Dismissing ancient wisdom and knowledge that has been passed down through generations is childish.
I agree, we should still be eating leadpills.

>>20268914
Figure it out on your own if you're so determined to, you're an insufferable person to talk to.
>>20268931
I don't know, that's why I said perhaps that's the reason. Why is God a Trinity instead of a monad? I don't know but it's the way things are. I can only hypothesise that it's a requirement.

>>20268957
>Why is God a Trinity instead of a monad? I don't know but it's the way things are

>>20268957
The thread is about proof of God you moron

>>20268957
>it's the way things are
HOW DO YOU KNOW?

>>20267083
Uhhh kind of embarrassing no one has posted the definitive proof.

>>20268950
I'm saying our observable nature is consistent with what was revealed.

>>20268970
lmfao

>>20268970
Godels Incompleteness theorem

>>20268957
>I don't know but it's the way things are
God's silliest clown right here!

>>20268975
Our observable nature is extremely consistent with the Pali canon too

>>20268975
Not even close, Buddhists absolutely mog every other religion in this and they are fully incompatible with Christianity. They also allow you to put in effort to actually understand things that are momentarily out of your comprehension instead of veiling you in eternal ignorance of something that is supposedly the cause of everything.

>>20268961
That ship has sailed, son. Also you're asking about why God is the way he is, not on proof of his existence.

>>20268970
What happens if we replace the words "god-likeness", etc. With other words?

>>20268982
RIDI, PAGLIACCIO
SUL TUO AMORE INFRANTO
RIDI DEL DUOL, CHE T'AVVELENA IL COR

>>20268940
Our nature is also perfectly compatible with evolutionary theory + naturalism
What you do about that?

>>20268988
Don't do it, it makes mustard gas!

>>20268984
This is pure rhetoric. Apophatic theology exists for a reason, nobody can know the unknowable, not even your beloved Buddha.

>>20268999
I reject them as modern narratives.

>>20269006
>This is pure rhetoric.

>>20269010
okay..
do you have any reasons for why you think that?

>>20269006
For there to be something unknowable you have to describe it to think about it so you can point to it and say "that's unknowable". If you can imply it, point to it but aren't thinking anything than that's just an illusion your mind has made. You can think God, and with practice any Buddhist could put your idea of God between his fingers and describe it to you in full. Until you realize you're compensating for your own lackluster mind you'll just be >>20268982
Face it, the reason God truly is unknowable is because such a thing doesn't exist, only the lackluster interpretations do that include "his unknowability". It's bait for clowns.

>>20268988
It ONLY works with God-likeness.

>>20269025
It's an excuse as to why we behave a certain way when we can observe the fallen world and look at animals killing or raping other animals, so why shouldn't we? Why not walk in the nude as they do? It's a contradictory narrative.

>>20269048
>the fallen world
>the bible is true because it's true

>>20269048
Advancement in philosophy and science did more to combat that than Christianity

>>20269028
You can acknowledge the existence of something without understanding it. Go ahead and do it since you're well trained in Buddhism, you seem convinced their understanding of what god is is correct.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause that has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause that has a cause.
4. God does not have a cause.
5. Therefore, God did not cause the universe, and does not exist.

My argument enjoys the same evidential support as the cosmological argument.

>>20269059
You're not understanding. There's no reason not to behave that way then turning around and saying we don't do this because it's not in our evolutionary desires to behave like that.

>>20269048
Do you think the theory of evolution being true, mean that humans are forced to act in certain ways?
Why?

>>20269077
>You can acknowledge the existence of something without understanding it
But you do so by mentally assagning abstract attributes to it that still hold meaning. I don't understand quantum computing, but I know it's like a computer that involves quantum interactions, if quantum computing is proven to be a long standing fraud my idea of it would still stand, and could still be analyzed in spite being empty of inherent meaning or coherently complete.
>what god is is correct.
Gods in Buddhism are larpers with great power and karma, nothing more. Ideas of being judged by God are seen as cope from people who have not taken responsibility for themselves, and are just mental creations that reign over ones unskilled mind that one can easily read themselves of with practice.

>>20269095
Why do I have to do ANYTHING besides saying it's not my desire to act like that?

>>20269104
I'm saying their narrative is inherently contradictory if all there is can be easily observed in nature. We don't have a reason to not act in a certain way and we naturally don't want to rape and kill even if every other animal does. So therein lies the conflict of evolutionary narratives.

>If evolution is true, why don't everyone live out their desire to "evolve"? (discard morals, maximize gene spread, etc)
Are there seriously people who think this is an argument against evolution?

>>20269110
You need to justify your morality. Some use evolution even if it's incoherent and others use religion.

>>20269140
Well, this is all explained by you not understanding the "narrative" of the theory (hypothesis?) of evolution. What the theory predicts, and what it does not predict.

>>20269151
Why should I do anything, moral or not, if it's not in accordance with my desires?

>>20269105
>Buddhists can explain the essence of something they don't even believe in
You can understand some of God's attributes and energies and ponder about how things work. But it is self-evident that you cannot understand something which cannot be understood, it's senseless to believe that anyone has the answers to it.

>>20269157
>rape is bad because... because evolution said so!
>>20269174
It depends on your worldview. If you don't believe in objectivity then do as thou wilt. I'm just saying you must have justification and yours is your desires.

>>20269228
>If you don't believe in objectivity then do as thou wilt
Objectivity, why are you talking about that?
If rape is objectively immoral.
Why should I care? It's my desire to rape.
Why should I be moral? It's not my desire to be moral.

>>20269228
Do you think theory of evolution being true, predicts that humans should always desire to rape?

>>20269254
>Objectivity, why are you talking about that?
I'm talking about moral laws and if you don't adhere to them. You have no reason not to rape if you don't follow a set of moral laws. You can believe in these laws and still disregard them, but it would be antithetical to your belief system and one would wonder why you choose to adhere to it in the first place.

>>20269269
They should behave as the animals we're told we are. Anything is permissible.

>>20269281
>You have no reason not to rape if you don't follow a set of moral laws
My desire is not to rape. (That's a reason not to rape, in the most literal sense)

>You can believe in these laws and still disregard them
Okay. So you admit that believing in the existence of objective morality, is not a reason not to rape?
What's the point?

>it would be antithetical to your belief system
Only if it is your desire to be moral.

>>20269291
This is perfectly compatible with the behaviour we observe in humans.

>>20269369
>My desire is not to rape. (That's a reason not to rape, in the most literal sense)
This is irrelevant.
>What's the point?
What's the point of asking a loaded question? For Christians you don't do things that would hinder you from coming closer to God. Another system would have other reasons. Stop asking stupid questions.
>Only if it is your desire to be moral.
Yes, your system should give you reasons to be moral in their standards.
>>20269372
No it isn't. You don't naturally want to give up your seat to an old man on a bus because it's evolutionary to do so. You do it because you have an internal sense of natural morals.

>>20269431
>You don't naturally want to give up your seat to an old man on a bus because it's evolutionary to do so
Being socialised into "altruistic behaviour" is perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution.
How do you not understand this?

>>20269431
It's not irrelevant. It's a direct rebuttal to a point you made.
You said there would be no reason not to rape. I gave a reason not to rape. Which makes you wrong.

It's not a loaded question. This question got no satisfactory answer. It points out a huge problem for objective theories of morality.
That there is no reasons to act in accordance with the objective morals, independent of subjective goals. I can illustrated a bit:
>your system should give you reasons to be moral in their standards.
Do you mean like heaven/hell, rewards/punishment being reasons for acting moral?
If it is your desire to avoid harm, and maximize pleasure. Sure. (But, what if you don't desire to avoid harm?)
Do you notice how this has nothing to do with morality? It's just like obeying laws, to stay out of prison.
In any case. Avoid harm and maximizing pleasure, acting in accordance with that desire. That is not what human language seem to mean when talking about moral behaviour.

>your system should give you reasons to be moral in their standards.
On that other hand, on subjective morality. Or evolutionary ethics, for that matter.
You got the very same reason to act in accordance with your desires. What's the problem? It's a reason to be moral (even if the morality is something else).

Original Poster here
I wish to give my gratitude and thanks to the majority of anons here
For needlessly arguing with each other
Being rude and retarded
And most importantly I wish to thank most of you for not answering the questions I fucking asked in the first place

To the weirdos that gave me a genuine answer of sorts, honestly thank you

But seriously I should have worded the question better.

So I ask again. Referring to my original question

Can someone give me the books, of the authors I have listed, that give their proof/evidence of god (or any supplementary books that shows an easier to understand, updated or simply better version of their arguments)

I don’t want your arguments, I want the books that give their arguments
I may be an atheist but I know for a fact that these men are smarter than me or you, they could be wrong, but I wish to see for myself

So one more time
1. Give me the books specified
2. Fuck off with your arguments that aren’t about about whether a book is worth shit (go to /his/ for your own shitty arguments for/against god)
3. Don’t be a retard
4. Have a lovely day

Ba-bump