/lit/ - Literature

>have tumor
>apply faith via prayer
>still have tumor

>have tumor
>surgically remove it via methods developed by reason
>no more tumor

i'd say reason is much, much greater than faith

in fact, i'd say 'faith' is just a feel good word for delusion

>>20360258
cope
captcha: youre a faggot

>>20360325
Science doesn't work without faith lol

If I call it heroic, maybe it won't be idiotic...

>>20360325
>be depressed
>apply science and take all the SSRIs
>still depressed

>be depressed
>find purpose and happiness in serving God
>no more depression

>>20360325
I TIP MY FEDORA TO YOU MY FINE FREN GOOD INSIGHT, WELL THOUGHT OUT

>>20360429

when i was depressed, i cried out to god from the depths, but he didn't so much as spit on me.

SSRIs worked pretty well for me.

faith:0
reason: over 9000

>>20360435
thank you

>>20360258
Fideism is surely the most devilish and damaging thing to ever beset Christendom. Satan is laughing.

>>20360451
>depressive man pretends he's not depressed to btfo religion

>>20360451
>depressed man pretends he's not depressed to btfo religion

>>20360543
>religious man pretends he's not schizo to btfo pharma
b-based?

>>20360429
My dad has become a hardcore Christian in the last 5 or so years and it's literally all a cope for his depression which he still bears despite zealous devotion to god.

>>20360565
no need to pretend. SSRIs made a huge difference for me.

>>20360258
Reason is a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, “Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?” The young sceptic says, “I have a right to think for myself.” But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, “I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.”

>>20360709
>It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.


bullshit. it is based on empirical evidence. if i eat when i get hungry, and do so 100 times, and each and every time it satiates my hunger, there is NO faith involved in the understanding that eating reduces hunger.

>>20360429
Based. They will hate you because you speak the truth.

>>20360429
You weren’t really depressed in the first place. You just choose to ignore this world in hope of a next world

>>20360735
You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.

>>20360691
>God creates SSRIs
>anon is angry that God didn't help him
Come now lad

>>20360751
Suicidal cope

>>20360691
>made a huge difference for me.
But you're still depressed lol

>>20360753
>God creates SSRIs

no he didn't. jewish medical researchers did

Just read Cardenio’s complete story. He is literally me.

>>20360325
kierkegaard had a better grasp of logic and reason than you

>>20360752
Huh?

>>20360424
What do you mean by "work"? If doctors use scientific principles to remove a tumor, that is science "working" to most people.

>>20360772
There is nothing more frightening than a labyrinth that has no center.

>>20360757
I’m living happily

>>20360767
Perhaps he did, but that is irrelivant to the quality of the argument produced. If a genius says 1+1=3, they are still wrong. This is a classic pseudointellectual mistake: not realizing that the intelligence of the speaker is independent of the necessary quality of the argument.

>>20360325
You did a really good impression of a crass materialist, now tell us your real thoughts.

>>20360709
>Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic?
Because one is "good" and the other is "bad".

>>20360799
>Thinks namecalling is a valid argument
Oh, pseudointellectuals

>>20360451
Opposite for me, I was on SSRIs as a fedora tipping atheist from 2015-2019, during this time I was in a complete state of apathy, certainly better than suicidal but not living in a natural state. During this time I began to understand the concept of God (mainly through Greek metaphysics) and in 2020 I put all my faith in a theistic God. My life is 500% better now without SSRIs and I'm no longer a loser doomer suicidal neet
>>20360429
basically this. not a cope for me either since faith is a burden in my life, during this time in my life I had zero reason to look elsewhere my life was on the upwards swing towards material success compared to my neetdom, but it meant nothing to me

>>20360815
A lot of people need to experiment and try different antidepressants. It takes time to work too

>>20360709
>Reason is a matter of faith.
So what?

>>20360815
Do you think that makes the object of the faith real?
What is you living in a certain way, then becoming less depressed, supposed to be evidence for?

>>20360325
Go back to plebbit faggot

>>20360842
Why didn't he answer? Is he taking a shower?

>>20360325
>Be depressed and not very manly
>Science tells you you may have gender dysphoria
>Inherently atheist groups of degenerates convince you to take female hormones and chop off your dick, it's the scientific solution.
>Be even more depressed, and a dickless freak

>Be depressed and not very manly
>Find god, be happier, work out
>Realise you're not that worthless, find a decent woman and have kids
>You're not depressed anymore

>>20361022
That second scenario has literally never happened in the history of mankind, much less to you.

t. married father who can dip 1pl8

>>20360258
>because…
picrel

>>20361037
YWNBAW

>>20361087
No, I won't be. GG

>>20361037
>That second scenario has literally never happened in the history of mankind,
What the fuck lol

>>20360842
The object of faith is real regardless of whether you believe in it or not you dingus
>>20360973
Probably because your question is retarded atheist bullshit that everyone learned to ignore by now

Guys, will I feel better if I have an imaginary girlfriend? Will faith in her help me get through the crushing loneliness and despair?

>>20361148
Why is you becoming less depressed evidence of God being real?
I can explain why you became less depressed, with beliefs you too probably also are committed to (psychology). Why does the explanation need anything beyond that?

>>20361148
if it helps him, what's the reason this is not evidence of the imaginary girlfriend actually being real? >>20361176

>>20361148
>The object of faith is real regardless of whether you believe in it or not you dingus

sorry, but Victoria Justice will never be your wife

>>20361184
>Why is you becoming less depressed evidence of God being real?
No one said it is, you're just dumb

>>20360325
>comparing reason and faith purely on technical efficacy.

>>20360429
>be depressed
>realise through reason that my depression is irrational
>no longer feel anything
What is life

>>20360824
I’ve tried 6 didn’t antidepressants in my life. When is it time to give up?

>>20360451
I've spoken to dozens of people on SSRIs and none of them were happy. They were all either self-aware that the pills were numbing them and hollowing them out or they were the type to insist life is just miserable for everybody all the time (using "muh trauma" and a laundry list of mental illnesses as their identity, etc) and the pills were the only reason they weren't dead.
Either way, that's not curing depression, especially when you remember that stopping or even changing medications causes a staggering amount of suicides.

Athesitbros I'm tired of losing all metaphysics arguments in every thread. We've been trying to call them Christcucks but it doesn't work anymore and we have to admit it's just a cope because we have no grounding for materialism. What the fuck do we do? We've been losing every debate for a while now and we're getting cornered. Do we just go back to r*ddit?

>>20360824
Psychiatrists and neuroscientists have essentially zero understanding of the mechanisms that antidepressants act through. Placebos have outperformed actual antidepressant medications in trials.
21st century psychiatry is going to be looked back on with the same kind of abject horror we see in lobotomies.

>>20361373
How does one get to know dozens of SRRIs users?

>>20361386
That's a very optimistic view that the current paradigm of psychiatry won't just be reified. Or at least, that it won't be looked at as barbarous in comparison to brain implants plugging you into the PornoVerse 24/7.

>>20361392
most normies are pounding SSRI shakes every morning, brother. Im ill in my head but I will never take an anti depressssant
captcha: 8HD8P

>>20361392
By having friends in their 20s

>>20360258

>faith is higher than reason

You won't always see everything coming.

>is faith higher than reason

Do you believe in god?

>>20361392
I went to a high-tier STEM uni that is notoriously difficult, so I was surrounded by neurotics. Two close friends committed suicide before I graduated, I don't even know how many total students did while I was there but I think we were second in the US.
It's a fucking awful environment. Constant dickwaving about how much harder you have it than everybody else, constant joking-but-not-really about how everybody is on a cocktail of drugs and hasn't slept in days. I don't think older generations have any idea what kind of unstable basket cases are becoming tomorrow's technocrats. Ivies and their recent graduates look almost identical, so the future bureaucrats and lobbyists will be just as batshit insane.

>>20360735
you can have no certain knowledge based on induction if the epistemology in your paradigm is based upon materialist-empiricism
this was already worked out 300 years ago and is accepted among empiricists
see quine's two dogmas of empiricism and hume's problem of induction

>>20361392
Go to a bar

>>20361416
>Two close friends committed suicide before I graduated
Lol Imperial?

>>20361416
>>20361449
>think we were second in the US.
Oh. Imperial has pretty good suicide rates too

>>20361221
What was the point of the story about you being depressed?

>>20360429
>be depressed
>use reason to realize that the world's most enduring religions have obviously come across a recipe for a meaningful and empowering life that motivates their adherents
>synthesize the two, become a member of your local church and the scientific community
>no more depression but also not operating blindly
>reason becomes an instrument of faith not a weapon against it

>>20361449
Georgia Tech

>>20361455
1. It's not me
2. His post was relating his own experience in relation to the two posts he quoted
3. You're retarded

>>20361257
>diseases are irrational
read a biology book

>>20361471
That's not how faith works and you'll never understand it this way but enjoy your larp, it's not like you have anything else to do while being depressed

>>20360258
Reason is inferior to faith insofar logic alone does not spur action.

>>20361484
I don't see what the problem is. Scientists throughout history employed reason in their search of the beauty of God and it only enhanced their faith.
"Reason vs faith" is, even as a supposition, anti-religious, because there's plenty to suggest the two can be resolved.

Every idea takes a leap of faith.
God is the greatest conceivable good to have faith in.
Why would someone put their faith in something inferior by definition?

>>20361496
>Scientists throughout history employed reason in their search of the beauty of God and it only enhanced their faith.
>"Reason vs faith" is, even as a supposition, anti-religious, because there's plenty to suggest the two can be resolved.
How subversive, only liberal deist scientists can be "truly" religious apparently.

>>20361496
>I don't see what the problem is.
Your brain has an utilitarian tumor that dooms you to being a hylic forever

>>20361501
because they think it's true?

>>20361505
you are very lost, I will pray for you

>>20361504
I'm not saying it's the only way to God, I just don't see why it shouldn't also be a valid path. If God created the universe and filled it with systems that can be reasonably understood, then that understanding brings some knowledge of God too.

>>20361505
Stop shrouding the conversation in mysticism so you can be an elitist while providing zero explanation.

>>20361517
But it takes faith to believe in that inferior truth. It can’t be proven “more” true than actually believing in God, when we’re talking on this existential level. So again, why believe it?

>>20361527
evidential reasons?

>>20360778
Doctors applied science to tumors long after the knowledge became available. Further doctors were willing to practice even without science at all.

Scientific principles can be applied to tumors, but the notion of science in the first place demands that people research things for no immediate or clear benefit or reward other than to know and disseminate the truth to others, and go through hell to verify it. The importance of the truth, and valuing it as possibly the most important thing there is, isn't obvious at all. Many cultures don't place that kind of importance on truth itself. Truth detached from any selfish or self relating notion being the most important thing, more important than being balanced spiritually, or achieving nirvana, or being impressive and great in life, etc. is an abrahamic idea. Science comes from abrahamic ideas, and it assumes those traditions are right. If we don't assume that the truth is inordinately valuable, the scientific method falls apart, because it requires an excessive premium to be placed on evaluating and fixing the veracity of scientific statements.

>>20361493
>logic alone does not spur action.
Well said, however, logos is the "principio"
"that which creates order"

>>20361493
>logic says i should cease pleasures because they're pleasant
>therefore it spurs me into action

>>20361496
>Reason vs faith" is, even as a supposition, anti-religious, because there's plenty to suggest the two can be resolved

Well, what's the "reason" for "faith?"

>>20361535
So faith.

>>20361481
>depression is a disease
Please just end yourself

>>20361568

Well said

>>20361564
Do you think we can know things?

>>20361568
>there's no biological conditions underlying depression
again, read a book

>>20360778
Scientific principles are based on faith. Empiricism is based on faith. Once you grow up and start digging beyond the surface, you'll find that there's no grounding to your beliefs.

>>20361525
>I'm not saying it's the only way to God, I just don't see why it shouldn't also be a valid path. If God created the universe and filled it with systems that can be reasonably understood, then that understanding brings some knowledge of God too.
Because they don't really have anything to do with one another, the "revelation" is what leads to God, not necessarily having a scientific mind. Scientists becoming religious does not necessarily conclude reason leads to faith, rather even the rational-minded can become infatuated with the unexplainable phenomenon.

>>20360258
I think he just meant will is higher than reason. Faith after all is will.

>>20361636
>there's no grounding to your beliefs
are there supposed to be one?
then why the obsession with one

>>20360735
>there is NO faith involved in the understanding that eating reduces hunger.
Wrong. You would be right if you said, "there is no faith involved in the understanding that eating CAN reduce hunger." You cannot empirically determine a universal, and hence you cannot claim to empirically understand that "eating [universally] reduces hunger." The second that you pretend that you have empirically observed a causal relation, you are abandoning science. Science can only infer causal relations, and the utility of these inferences may appear greatly beneficial, but you do not have access to the causal relation itself, you do not understand that eating reduces hunger.

>>20361594

>biologically depressed

>Nature's way of ending a DNA strand

>>20361701
>the "revelation" is what leads to God
Which the gnostics equated with knowledge. So does each man have his own God? This is why they called it a "heresy."

>>20361893

>eating reduces hunger

So does ignoring your feelings, what's the point of this statement?

>>20361582
Not without faith.

>>20360325
oh my science! Atheists have no eyes.

>>20361927
Faith cannot cure cancer

>>20361934
It can cure evil.

>>20360751
>if you ever get better, that means you never had a problem
Why are bucket-crabs like this?

>>20361934
well science can't rub my tummy and pat my head at the same time...

>>20361915
>what's the point of this statement?
I don't know, why don't you ask the anon that said it instead of me?

>>20361941
Good point

>>20361505
I'm sick to death of you insufferable faggots. Gnostic terminology, worn like a condom over election-migrant "everyone except my political allies are NPCs" rhetoric. I can see right through you- we all can. There's nothing in there. You aren't the complicated mechanism you pretend at being. If you miserable, misanthropic pricks constitute examples of what it means to be an ensouled man, I'd rather be a fucking stone.

>>20360429
Absolutely based. Btfo'd the other guy

>>20361969
Do you think participating in religious behaviour having a positive effect on depression is incompatible with reason?

>>20362022
That depends- do you think religious belief and behavior is incompatible with reason?

>>20362032
so much for a straight answer

Using "faith" as a catchall umbrella term for simple unprovable axioms/presuppositions that everyone holds is so fucking retarded
Yes, I can't prove there is a world outside my mind. But I suppose there is, and that I can know stuff about it.
Do you think this is the same kind of faith a Christian has in Jesus? Then the word has lost all meaning.

>>20362043
>ask vague question
>be asked for rhetorical qualifiers
>reply with a smug platitude

>>20362060
How does my position affect the question? Just define your terms

>>20362022
No

>>20362032
It is for me

>>20362069
Your position affects how I answer the question. If I answer with my own notions of faith and reason (being interdependent phenomena) you'll ignore my answer as incompatible with your own notions of faith and reason.

>>20362056
>nooo mine is not faith only yours is!
so define faith

>>20361037
Yes, its happened to me. Don’t speak for other people.

>>20361941
right, there is surely no evil church communities....

>>20362259
Reason can’t even address evil.

I made this thread as a shitpost and judging by the replies only about 3 anons have actually read it and understand what Kierkegaard meant by faith.

"There comes a moment in a person's life when immediacy is ripe, so to speak, and when the spirit requires a higher form, when it wants to lay hold of itself as spirit. As immediate spirit, a person is bound up with all the earthly life, and now spirit wants to gather itself together out of this dispersion, so to speak, and to transfigure itself in itself; the personality wants to become conscious in its eternal validity. If this does not happen, if the movement is halted, if it is repressed, then depression sets in."

>>20362377
What did he mean by it?

>>20361962
>>20361525
>>20361521
Holy triggered

>>20361386
>Psychiatrists and neuroscientists have essentially zero understanding of the mechanisms that antidepressants act through.
That's demonstrably false, you're just an uneducated midwit

>>20360258
>>20360325
On the contrary, faith and trust are synonyms. When you are old enough to post here and start being able to make your own decisions, you will realize that without trust/faith, nothing is possible. Out of the average wage of $47,000 a year, a wage you will be lucky to earn, $46,950 of those dollars are due to faith. This faith is largely interpersonal and not religious, but given that religion is an issue of human happiness as much as economics, it is a good starting point for our understanding.

Now returning to faith in God, Kierkegaard is really answering a question about our view of reality; was reality created by a merciful God that we can trust? Or is reality out to get you? This is the fundamental question of religion. Therefore I would argue that being anti-faith is just a recipe for paranoia, and paranoia is by its very nature irrational. Therefore, in order to be rational, we must support our rationality with faith.

Thus faith is higher than reason because reason would be nothing without faith.

>>20360258
>he hasnt read thomas
>thinks he can debate "faith"

>>20363027

everything u have written is wrong tho. your seminary has failed

>>20362278

take a quick glance at the world and u will see everything IS permitted

it is permitted to mutilate little baby's dicks without anesthesia, it is permitted to drop nuclear bombs on civilian population centers, it is permitted to horde metal and mineral wealth while millions of children starve to death, it is permitted to torture people to death for having the wrong opinion, or even just for fun.

what, exactly, is not permitted in our world????

>>20363027
>Or is reality out to get you?

thousands of diseases, hundreds of predatory and/or venomous animals, daily natural disasters, a body so frail, a simple little virus can debilitate u, etc, etc, etc

yep, it sure seems like reality is out to get me and u

>You gotta believe
Ok I pretend to believe and don't see a reason to continue believing so I stop believing
What now, Larpers?

>>20361176
P1. Women are a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals). Without women, men could not exist.

P2. People depend upon logic and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of an immaterial and absolute Woman.

P3. Therefore, my Waifu exists. If She didn't, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver.

>>20364140
Well if you choose to believe this, you’ll never help fight evil, you might even become evil. If you choose to believe in God, you’ll fight till your last breath to make the world a better place.

>>20362377
Yeah, this thread is embarrassing.

>>20362833
For Kierkegaard, true faith cannot be decided based on evidence, otherwise you're missing the point. Presupposing an empirical value set then utilizing that to determine whether or not you should be religious implies that you value secular empirical standards over spiritual ones. Looking to evidence is a cop out. Real belief is blind, it is more difficult, it incorporates doubt, and that's what makes it more authentic (and true to its biblical characterization).

That's why Fear & Trembling centers around Abraham, Kierkegaard's knight of faith. Abraham has to believe the impossible- that he will perform an ethically monstrous action in sacrificing Isaac, a son given to him by God, and yet Isaac will be returned unto him. Abraham has to submit to a paradox. It makes no sense that God would ask Abraham to commit such a barbaric act, or that Isaac would return unharmed from it, yet Abraham believes it regardless due to the strength of his faith.

This is what makes him the pinnacle of belief for Kierkegaard. He suspends ethical standards and delusions of understanding, and by doing so, they are returned unto him by embracing the spiritual, the highest stage of life. It doesn't follow the logic of traditional rational standards, that's the point. Kierkegaard despised the comfortable, half-assed bourgeois religious practice of his day, where materialism and empiricism wormed their way into sermons. You should suffer for true faith. It should be the sole focus of your existence, and it should take precedent over all else you see or value in the world.

>>20360258
"Reason" is actually cope because it makes you believe your own bullshit under an ideological framework. Look at modern scientists and so called "experts", they can't allow themselves to admit that they don't know or could be wrong about their statements

>>20364544
Define "ideological framework" here, you're being a bit vacuous. Epistemic objections to the characterization of "experts" can be valid, especially when they're speaking outside their discipline. That said, I don't get why everyone would need to say "I could be wrong" about something at the end of every statement when it's generally implied. People follow what's most plausible, almost noone pretends that their statements adhere to absolute unassailable truth.

>>20364557
If you need someone to explain ideology to you, you are already too far gone. I will pray for you.

>>20364565
I'm asking you to clarify what features of ideology illustrate your point, in the context of what you originally wrote. Your argument was basically "because ideology", I'm asking you to flesh out your argument, because it seems watery to the point of meaning nothing.

>>20364341
god is a psychopathic sadist who creates, permits and favors evil

He ALWAYS favors and respects the free will of the aggressor, the murderer, the rapist above the free will of the victims who don't will to be attacked, murdered, raped

if your faith tells u otherwise, one glance at the real world will disabuse u of your coping delusions

>>20364574
I will pray for you.

>>20364581
>makes meaninglessly vague statement
>refuses to elaborate
Jesus Christ. Don't go spewing pseudo-intellectual bullshit unless you have some substance to it.

>>20364602
That's this entire thread LMAO

>>20364575
>He ALWAYS favors and respects the free will of the aggressor, the murderer, the rapist above the free will of the victims who don't will to be attacked, murdered, raped
More often than not this is not true. This is why these things are illegal. If you were right, these acts would be praised and valued.

>>20364692
>More often than not this is not true.

more often than not murder victims are not murdered? rape victims are not raped?

are u retarded or just religious?

>>20360325
both require faith

>>20364779
No more often than not people do not murder or rape.

>>20364779
What went wrong in your life? Did your parents abuse you? Did you get bullied? Beaten up? Are you a woman? What's wrong with you?

>>20364952
i just don't cope with the harsh realities of this world by inventing imaginary friends

>>20365277
Yeah you seem to have developed mental issues instead

>>20364683
Yeah I regretted effortposting about Kierkegaard immediately. Fedora autists and christfags deserve each other.

>>20360325
The technologies we acquire via technique ("reason") are value-neutral at best. Yes, we can remove some tumors that would have been fatal before. We have also developed technologies that have facilitated the expansion of the human population beyond Earth's capacity to sustain it, the widespread extermination of wild plant and animal life, the indiscriminate destruction of cultures and more "primitive" ways of life for replacement by wage labor (if you're lucky) in conditions much more horrendous than previously possible, and of course the capacity for destruction of human life on a scale previously not possible via not only conventional war (not limited to combatants but civilians as in total war and carpet bombing) but also biological warfare, massacre, genocide, and manufactured famine. Not to mention the strides reason has made in enabling to the same species the ability to unilaterally instantaneously wipe out the vast swaths of life on earth in general with nuclear weapons. But you're right, we can remove tumors now, so reason must be all good.

>>20362278
Sadly he had it backwards.

>>20360258
faith cant be higher than reason
they arent even on the same spectrum
faith doesnt need to contradict reason
you can have faith in your wife over a long period of time, but still confront evidence logically if she is cheating
faith is a transcendent variable

>>20360429
>be depressed
>find purpose and happiness in trying to become a great scientist
>no more depression

>>20365675
i never said it was good. i said it was much greater, in both theory and practice, than faith, which is absolutely worthless in addressing any real-world problems

>>20362278
If God exists, then everything is permitted

>>20365768
>>find purpose and happiness in trying to become a great scientist
Not how it works, but you'll figure it out for yourself.

>>20365911
I don't think it was God who permitted this

>>20365878
>much greater
What does that mean?

>faith, which is absolutely worthless in addressing any real-world problems
You're absolutely wrong. You cannot get answers from "reason" to any question that involves a value judgment. Reason will never be able to answer me if I ask it questions like "How should I live my life?" "How should I treat others?" "What is my purpose?" "Why should I not kill myself?" "Why should I be a good person?" "Why should I work towards developing a cure for cancer?" etc. No use of "reason" can justify a system of values to answer these questions, and when you claim so you only smuggle in your faith.

Faith "is much greater, in both theory and practice, than" reason, "which is absolutely worthless in addressing any" of these problems. And by greater, I mean it's better at it. You wouldn't deny these are real-world problems?

>faith
>thing-in-itself
>can't trust our senses
>we can never know
Sure, yeah I get it. But how are you relating a judeo-christian conception of god or jesus to that? It seems more like denial

>>20365987
Lurk more, read more, be less retarded, etc. Do you really think you're the first to ask these questions lmao

>>20365997
You can't explain it either, see dumbass

>>20361636
>you'll find that there's no grounding to your beliefs.
>skepticism applies to everything but god because reasons

>>20366015

>>20366000
>>20366015
>>20366041

>>20366053
Can you explain? I want to convert. Just explain the gap in your reasoning

>>20366080
> I want to convert.
No, you want to shitpost because you're mentally ill.

>>20366110
Please sir. God will punish you if you don't help me

>>20366041
The Bible is the inspired word of God is axiomatic grounding, not circular.

>>20366156
It presupposes evidence for god, specifically the judeo-christian stories and jesus

>>20366179
No it doesn't, it's an axiomatic grounding. It presupposes nothing.

>>20360325
This literally happened to me. No LARP Whatsoever. My country has socialized medicine, I never got to see a doctor for it and they put me in lockdown. I had a medalion of Pope Pius XII that I put on the moment I got my first MRI back. Every night I asked him to Pray for me. I also did a small prayer, first to St. Christopher, then to the Holy Family. Subsequent MRI to check on the tumour found it was completely gone, just some mild swelling. They triple checked. It's gone. Hasn't been back.
This is currently, legitimately, being investigated by my local Bishop and he is in contact with the Vatican for instruction.
also
>>20360258
>getting filtered by KIERKEGAARD, of all people
embarrassing.

>>20360735
Holy fucking midwit.
Go back, read the greeks.
Then read, at very least, Meditations on First Philosophy.
If you cannot understand First Philosophy, you have no authority on which to discuss this.

>>20360325
Why would you mistake surgery for reason?
Not long ago, these surgeons would break tumors up and then the little cancerous growths would spawn all over the body. Our current times are no different. A tumor doesn't have a volition or a brain, it is not there by bootstraps or magic carpet. Cutting a tumor out can be life saving for a time, but it is just another symptom. Surgery, another band-aid.
>>20360709
Elementary. In an irrational world, the most irrational activity is to be rational. Self-refutation, similar to a faithless world. Many such cases. The empirical types just want to do whatever they damn well please. A fine prerogative, but they proselytize all that damn well please different. I would be easier on them if all of their materialist books opened with
>everything in this could be refuted tomorrow if someone intelligent came along
Instead it is a bunch of let there be conserved energy and science called it good. And on the second day science invented closed systems. . . and on the sixth day science said consciousness didn't exist so AI could take over on the seventh.

>>20360795
>If a genius says 1+1=3, they are still wrong
Can you explain why without an appeal to authority though? Just saying "well you're wrong" doesn't mean anything unless you can track the actual argument and refute it's core points. History is littered with the corpses of atheists who were so sure they could refute the cosmological argument and ended up misrepresenting and strawmanning it with "everything has a cause"

>>20361893
fuck your 'technically' akshully... bullshit. i am talking about the real world

>>20366802
>i am talking about the real world
Could you define "real world" :^)

>>20364148
>Here's all the things I could be killed by
This is why you need faith, because in your current form, you're just a pussy

>>20360784
KEK, based reality-pilled anon

>>20367799
DubbleDubsCheck'em

If we are epistemically undetermined on account of skeptical crisis I don't see why it would not be preferable to will the best for yourself and for all people. I mean sure, you can live life without reference to an explicitly defined overarching worldview or without an absolute passion to live towards, but what kind of life would that be? An emaciated, impoverished one, I think. Love of neighbor and of creation can only be increased--no, transformed into better kind-- by faith. Why not live at the extremes?

>>20366344
If they found out that this is a miracle your name is going to be in the press and you will have told the entire world that not only are you a delusional cathcuck but that you're also a chud who posts on 4chinz.

>>20360258
You have faith in reason.

Check mate.

>>20360258
Seething hylic

>>20368048
Certainly.
I’d hardly be the first to spread faith in circles of little faith. 4chan is far less important, influential, or regarded than you think.
It’s pretty myopic to think normal people will care. Normies don’t really care.

>>20360429
Yes, it's called 'finding a way to cope'.

Pascal's wager already BTFO materialism. Belief in god is simply the more logical thing.

>>20360763
If god is master of causality, then everything ever to exist is created by god

>>20365929
Actually, Anon, if God is Omnipotent and Omniscient then definitionally he has permitted everything that has been done through all of human history. That is quite literally how that works.

>>20366203
Could you please define axiomatic grounding?

>>20368512
No, he gave humans free will. Being omnipotent and omniscient doesn't mean he can't allow for free will. Then what people do is their own making or it wouldn't be free will. He told us not to do it, but humans still did it. Humans never had the permission to do it, so they did it without permission.

>>20360429
>>find purpose and happiness in serving God
Which one? Why only one? I have a whole pantheon to keep me busy.

>>20368852
>I have a whole pantheon to keep me busy.
Do you? It sounds like you have no gods to keep you busy because you're just LARPing to attack Christians.

>>20368860
Yes, I am larping. Yours is real though.

>>20366681
>the position that says "authority isn't necessarily right" is an appeal to authority
What?

>>20368833
Anon, if you're omnipotent and omniscient you can literally stop anything, he could even do so without violating causality. Yes, you can argue that he's allowing free will, however it's quite clear that he did not and is not trying hard whatsoever to actually prevent things that people claim that he does not care for.

Having a book shadow-written for you 2000 years ago using many parables and fables that seem to be directly inspired by other extant works at the time while also miming the specific culture and morality of the people in that place at that time and then utterly disappearing is not necessarily going to convince the average person that you exist, let alone that you actually want the things that you claimed to want in your own self-contradictory book series. This is especially true when you could literally directly appear before every single individual on the planet and have a one on one conversation with them where you clearly explain that you have perfect free will, but that you have certain exceptions that you would wish for them to uphold. And this is triply true when you claim that people have free will, but do so with the threat that if they exercise it "improperly" that they are to be tortured in fire by demons for eternity with no chance of redemption, oh and you only find out if you get tortured after you die not before when you could actually make corrections to fix your checkout card.

>inb4 "But if God actually talked to people he would be violating free will."
Faggot, I can tell you that sucking every dick this side of the Sahara is not a good use of your time, but that clearly never stopped you. Not having that stupid fucking argument again and if that's the specific direction you want to take it then don't fucking reply to this post.

>>20360325
the New Thought thinkers would say cancer is more or less a state of mind

>>20360325
This is more of a critique of prayer rather than faith. Prayer isn't for changing matter, it's for mental (lets call it) recalibration. Accepting a surgery that's been developed through reasoning, requires you to have faith that the surgery really was developed through reasoning, and faith in the reasoning behind the surgery in the first place. Faith in God is the same thing, in terms of how faith/trust words, and different in terms of what you are trusting

>>20368515
Not him, but Ill answer: you say something is true, without any reason.

>>20368512
You're using the word "permit" in the sense that God Himself did the things done in human history, which is incorrect. God created the world but God is not the world, God created life with the capacity for free will out of His own will, which inherently means that the free will of beings is separate from the free will of God. Therefore, the consequences of the free will of beings is the responsibility of those beings and not of God. Again, I cannot state this clear enough, God is not OF this universe, so everything within it cannot be attributed to him.

>>20369983
Let me continue, I've left my reply severely half-done.
>Everything within it cannot be attributed to Him
God could certainly not interfere in the matters of the universe, but he does interfere (atleast in the Christian view). God interferes in the world by manipulating the beings with free will with information, powers, and manipulating the physical world. The Holy Spirit exists, and it is two things: both the will of God, and of the free will of beings when they act parallel to the will of God. And the very fact that we know what His will in any degree, so that we may act in accordance to it, is a product of His will alone and not of our will, a product of His interference. It is impossible to tell which consequences in the universe are the will of God or the free will of beings, so this is why faith is necessary, to make a leap over this chasm of our own ignorance and the limitations of logic/reasoning, and be good people who follow God in spite of our limitations.

>>20360258
Reason needs something to reason from, to, and with. It is very dangerous to lack philosophical sophistication and believe you hold the one true faith. You can be directed towards anything.

>>20369983
>>20370019
Do you mind if we follow a little exercise? I'm going to propose some things, at least one of them is going to be incongruent with your own axioms. Please tell me which ones are incorrect and explain why.

1) God is omniscient, he is all seeing and all knowing. This means that God knows the results of all actions taken before they are taken, including his own and any actions resultant from actions which he has taken
2) God is omnipotent, he is all powerful and can preform any feat
3) God's omniscience and omnipotence together reasonably mean that God is omnipresent and is able to perceive all things that have happened, are happening, or will happen
4) God created our universe
5) God is all loving and cares deeply for the fates of every one of his creations
6) God created both heaven and hell
7) God decides who goes to heaven and hell
8) Once it it decides whether one goes to heaven or hell, they remain there forever and all eternity
9) God does not do things that will assure a person's ultimate fate, he will only communicate with them indirectly and give them the chance to take the righteous path in their lifetime
10) God will allow individuals to stray from him and forsake him to any degree that he chooses

I know that's a lot, but a simple list of which ones are true and which ones you think are false would go a long way. I find that Christians have wildly inconsistent views about God, even going so far that they actually hold contradictory views about God personally.

>>20370315
I'm not well-read enough in the bible to give a confident answer on the EXACT workings of heaven or hell, and I doubt even when I've read so I'll be any more confident, but I'm pretty sure I agree with all ten of those statements.

>>20370781
Alright, can you please explain the following.

God created the universe and all the people in it and gave every person free will knowing the exact results of his own actions, including the actions that would be taken down the line by the people who he gave free will. He also apparently loves and cares for the fate of all of his creations.

Despite this, he has created hell, knowing full well that a large number of his creations would inevitably end up in hell only to be tormented for eternity. In short, in God's eyes he created a number of people who will by their own actions be doomed to go to hell and be ripped apart, burned, sodomized brutally, eaten alive, poisoned, lashed, and any other horrible thing that you can imagine forever and ever.

Essentially, knowing the full cause and effect of everything from every state ever, from God's perspective these people were damned to hell before they were even born.

Please explain how this is incorrect, or if this is correct please explain why such a God should be considered loving or at all worthy of worship?

>>20370848
Everything you said is correct.
>Explain why such a God should be considered loving or at all worthy of worship?
To move forwards, we must presuppose that God is: Loving, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Conscious, has created the universe and heaven and hell and Himself (or that He is uncreated), has a will, and His will does not contradict any of His other properties
And we must presuppose/define: All living beings have free will, human beings have a sense of right and wrong, and knowing/being capable of knowing an action is wrong and yet doing so anyways is a sin

>From God's perspective these people were damned to hell before they were even born.
And from the perspective of the damned, the consequences of their will are entirely their own responsibility. And their actions were entirely theirs to have chosen to be done. So, why should God allow them to be with the presence of Himself? Good is given as a reward for good actions, why would it be given as a reward for bad actions? That fundamentally goes against God being perfect and loving in the first place. I believe then, that according to God and thus according to us, a person who has done actions worthy of going to hell, therefore deserves to go to hell.

The natural question that then results is: Why doesn't God interfere with the world, to prevent sin and/or to undo sin?

I cannot provide a suitable answer as to God preventing sin, as I believe that if God has some sort of utilitarian criteria for morality then He DOES prevent sins, and even allows some sinful actions to occur so that the future birth of good and faithful human beings may occur and thus future good and faithful actions may happen, and more people may be saved. But of course, God's personal criteria for morality is only known to Him, we only know of His criteria for the morality of human beings, in the ten commandments given to Moses, and Jesus's two commandments. (1/2)

>>20370953
I believe that while God has the powers to prevent and undo sins, He either cannot do this as a consequence of His Loving nature, and His Omniescence, and the fact that He cannot contradict these, or He DOES do so.

All individual sinful actions are eternal. Not eternal as in the actions themselves are ongoing, all actions have a beginning and end, but they exist eternally. A sin done in the present, then exists in the past, eternally, and God is fully aware of it, and it exists in His mind as knowledge (though that isn't to say He is sinful; the RESPONSIBILITY of that sin is on the part of the will that had done/created it). The consequences of that sin reverberate throughout the universe forever. And that sin exists in His knowledge forever.
WHY should God undo (or prevent) a sin, if it was not His responsibility, nor His will? If it IS His will to do so, He will do it, and if it ISN'T His will to do so, He will not. He is loving and perfect, so what he does end up doing, is out of His love. Either God undos sins or He does not.
Perhaps God does not prevent nor sins as our universe is as perfect as it could get. Perhaps God does not prevent nor undo sins as it was not of His will that these sins happened, and to change the actions would require that He DID desire those actions to happen in the first place, to say that it WAS of His will that these sins happened, and that He now regretted them, which is to then say that 1. He is NOT loving, 2. He makes mistakes and is NOT perfect. And perhaps He does not prevent nor undo because sin is of our will, and perhaps His love prioritizes respecting our will over preventing us from suffering, since He is a will Himself and His loving nature includes the respect and allowment of the wills of others to proceed to do things as they so choose. Perhaps God has no need to change anything in our universe, as any change in it would bring about MORE sin and LESS good, as it is already as perfect as it can get though it is not as perfect as God. These all may be why He does not prevent or undo sin.
Perhaps God DOES prevent/undo sins as I explained before. If God undos/prevents a sin, in our perspective it would be as if nothing changed since we are witnesses to the end result of all of God's actions up this point so far. God cannot "prevent/undo sins" as He is omniscient and thus is aware of the end result of all His actions, so to Himself, He is not preventing or undoing anything, and to us it APPEARS He is not preventing or undoing anything. Everything is one straight, perfect line for Him. And if God prevents/undo sins, it would be possibly only because our universe is not perfect even to its own potential, which is possible if this was as He desired.

Whether or not God interferes with the sinful universe, whatever He DOES do is the correct choice and He knows it is, and He only does the correct choices. And God is perfect, so He is worthy of worship.

>>20366110
Insufferable faggots like this are the reason I will never be a Christian

>>20361941
evil does not exist, it's merely an opinion

>>20360258
yep seethe on

>>20360258
Faith is better because people are cattle and that's better for long-term, sustainable societal stability. Reason is good for leadership decision making, and even then they're at best limited; if history proved anything is that a free, self-reliant, well-armed populace is the best way to achieve a great, wealthy country, and for all that matters on political discourse today, "reason" is just partisan sophistry.

>>20371075
This is your mind on reason. This is what happens when you put all your faith into reason and you forget to first place your faith in God.

Anybody who thinks that homphobia can be used to justify claiming that they believe in God is just an uptight repressing homosexual

>>20364140
>take a quick glance at the world and u will see everything IS permitted
that's due to a certain group. a group that most religions see as a threat and if those religions were in place, said group would be persecuted

>>20360258
Do you have an actual argument?

>>20364527
>For Kierkegaard, true faith cannot be decided based on evidence
WOOOOOW incredibly deep and not literally the definition of faith

>>20371772
Yes.
1. Change is a real feature of the world. Many things around us change.
2. So, actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
3. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualized it. This is the principle of causality.
4. So any change C is caused by something already actual A.
5. The occurance of change presupposes some thing S which changes.
6. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S's potential for existence.
7. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
8. A's own existence at the moment it actualizes itself presupposes either:
+ the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence (a) or
+ A's being purely actual. (b).
9. (a) If A's existence at the moment it actualizes *S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either
+ infinite (c) or
+ terminates in a purely actual actualizer (d).
10. (c) But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitue a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6UW3Imn5b8))
11. So, either (b) A itself is a purely actual actualizer or (d) there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
12. So, (4) the occurence of change C and thus (6) the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
13. So, there is a purely actual actualizer (PAA).

>>20360451
>he proudly proclaims he took the goypills

>>20370315
As far as I know there are ultimately two ways to resolve this problem:
1) The Calvinistical: reject free will entirely; divine determination is absolute. All is ordered towards the best. Free will is only the ability to act according to the inclination of the strongest passion of the moment.
2) The Lutheran: maintain a paradoxical relationship between free will and divine providence/predestination. God reveals both these realities to us, but not how they are reconciled, so we affirm both without inventing a solution. Admit ignorance.

>>20360325
And yet you had to place faith in a surgeon and medicine in order to be healed

>>20368865
The one God further argument is such trash, Dawkins’ victims were not actually intelligent people, but people like this guy.

How does the “one God further” or “how do you know which God?” argument work for you? This was deboonked in Plato.

On the one hand, anything bound by other gods isn’t a god— God is the god behind those gods. To the one god further argument— it is like saying someone in favor of a republic is an anarchist because they reject monarchism, and the anarchist just goes “one government further.” To make this argument you have to be absolutely clueless that things are more reasonable than others.

Seriously, these arguments are below midwit at this point, I don’t even hear midwits cite Dawkins. Just Marvel/ Disney redditors.

At least read Nietzsche and understand the depth of atheism.

>>20371790
Aristotle's actual writings in the Physics and Metaphysics clearly show that this "Unmoved Mover" is simply the/a "Principle" of all motion in the universe. It is not and in no way shape or form a "God", especially not a theistic god. Aristotle certainly never seemed to have worshipped or venerated it. Whilst it is an active and alive principle it is not a God in the same light he saw the Greek gods. Aristotle states it is -

Separated from Sensibles (1073a4)

Impassable and unalterable (1073a11)

Without Matter (Completely immaterial in everyway, no "Knowledge" of anything material, no division, no will, nothing) (1074a33-34)

Actuality (1072a25-26, b27-28)

Most Honourable (1074a26:1072a35-b1,b28)

The same as it's object (1075a1-5)

Prior in time to capacity (1072b25;cf.1074a33-34)

Eternally Thinking (But thinking of nothing but itself, it literally by all accounts cannot think of anything over than it otherwise it would cease to exist) (1075a10)

It is just its essence, Thinking (1075a1-5;CF.1074a33-34)

Eternal (Hence incorruptible as it's a principle) (1072a25, 1073a4)

The necessary condition of everything (Motion) (1072b13-14/1075b24-26)

The unmoved mover is not a creator, that would be absurd and impossible, as Aristotle implies when talking about time and motion. The unmoved mover simply moves as the principle of attraction and desire. As the milk attracts the cat to drink it, but does not itself move.

Two Aristotelian Philosophers who seemed to have grasped this concept more correctly than Aquinas ever did are Pietro Pomponazzi and Cesare Cremonini. (Not to mention Pomponazzi's great treatise in 1516, proving that reason and experience shows us that the human intellect is mortal and can not be and exist disembodied, ergo no afterlife) Their "God" was simply the principle of order and harmony dissolved in nature. They were more or less materialists although they did still talk about seperate intelligences. Much like what Einstein thought about "God". Pomponazzi was also (Rightly, in my view) A determinist. They were technically Atheists as they didn't believe in a theistic interacting, intervening, all knowing, listening, talking God who answered prayers or "cared" about the world or universe. You could say they were a kind of "Spinozist" before Spinoza.

>>20364527
Suicide Bomber logic

>>20369266
>however it's quite clear that he did not and is not trying hard whatsoever to actually prevent things that people claim that he does not care for.
It happens over time and not all at once.
>Having a book shadow-written for you 2000 years ago using many parables and fables that seem to be directly inspired by other extant works at the time while also miming the specific culture and morality of the people in that place at that time and then utterly disappearing is not necessarily going to convince the average person that you exist
All religions are apes of Christianity and thus they reflect the divine messenger of Hermes, Osiris, or Christ. This isn't a critique just that religion has prototypes - you still need to pick one from the archetypical examples.
>is not necessarily going to convince the average person that you exist, let alone that you actually want the things that you claimed to want in your own self-contradictory book series
Why are contradictions wrong?
>that they are to be tortured in fire by demons for eternity with no chance of redemption
Earliest church fathers were universalists - there is a sizeable chunk of Christians who believe everyone is saved except those who don't want to be.
>Faggot, I can tell you that sucking every dick this side of the Sahara is not a good use of your time, but that clearly never stopped you. Not having that stupid fucking argument again and if that's the specific direction you want to take it then don't fucking reply to this post.
Atheists always show themselves to be nothing but rage and insults in anonymous forums - you can see this in Vausch when he debates and can barely contain his own demons from lashing out at people.

>>20373025
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/reprints/nasa_cosmos_and_culture.pdf

>>20360842
I never claimed anything about anything? I literally just mentioned my experience like the person I replied to?

>>20373050
How is this proof of God or a theistic God?

>>20372844
its not so much faith as a calculated risk based on statistics

>>20373009
>How does the “one God further” or “how do you know which God?” argument work for you? This was deboonked in Plato.
lol peak dk
>At least read Nietzsche and understand the depth of atheism.
Is this "god" in the room with us now, anon? An to be perfectly clear, you advocate that the one, true, monotheistic god is the Semitic god YHWH, correct?

>>20373048
>It happens over time and not all at once.
Why?
>All religions are apes of Christianity and thus they reflect the divine messenger of Hermes, Osiris, or Christ. This isn't a critique just that religion has prototypes - you still need to pick one from the archetypical examples
Why would God need archetypes?
>Why are contradictions wrong?
Because God by your reasoning gifted man with reason and logic. Why would God make his own works contradictory? That would only increase the amount of people who stray from his light.
>Earliest church fathers were universalists - there is a sizeable chunk of Christians who believe everyone is saved except those who don't want to be.
I find that the vast majority of people I talk with are people who say that disbelief in God condemns people to hell by default. You're probably one of them, but feel free to tell me that I'm wrong.
>Atheists always show themselves to be nothing but rage and insults in anonymous forums - you can see this in Vausch when he debates and can barely contain his own demons from lashing out at people.
Oh, I'm sorry you must be one of those Christain's who's brain instantly disengages from a conversation or argument when they see someone type or speak a swear word, yea? I forget that some words are forbidden with some people of your ilk, my apologies.

>>20373172
It's faith at the bottom but you're too retarded to find out

>>20370953
>>20371014
>
To move forwards, we must presuppose that God is: Loving, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Conscious, has created the universe and heaven and hell and Himself (or that He is uncreated), has a will, and His will does not contradict any of His other properties
I find that this statement in itself is inherently contradictory, so I cannot agree with your premise. The being that created hell and allows anyone to be condemned to it is inherently not loving by my own definitions. That is inherently evil.

>And from the perspective of the damned, the consequences of their will are entirely their own responsibility. And their actions were entirely theirs to have chosen to be done. So, why should God allow them to be with the presence of Himself?
My issue is not that God simply separates himself from people who forsake Christian dogma. If that was what Christians believed then I would have no issues with the faith. The issue I have is that this is not the espoused threat, the espoused threat eternal torment in hell for unclear infractions that require devoting your worldly life to an unknown to eliminate that risk. "Love me or I will inflict pain and torment on you forever" is textbook abuse when done by anyone, and I see no reason why God should be exempt. If anything God is infinitely more culpable for it as God has infinitely more agency than a normal person would.

Furthermore, even ignoring hell, what you're proposing is the equivalent of a parent shunning their child for the rest of their lives for making simple and understandable mistakes in the context of what would be expected of a child. Again, many people would define this as abuse, but at the very least it would be considered not to be the actions of a loving parent.

>WHY should God undo (or prevent) a sin, if it was not His responsibility, nor His will?
"WHY should a parent undo (or prevent) a life altering mistake that their child makes if it was not Their responsibility, or Their will?" In my eyes this is the exact same argument. It's akin to saying that if a child accidentally drinks poison, that a parent has no good reason to do anything within their power to save the child's life regardless of the fact that it's a mistake on the child's part or if it was something that was explicitly forbidden by the parent.

>And perhaps He does not prevent nor undo because sin is of our will, and perhaps His love prioritizes respecting our will over preventing us from suffering, since He is a will Himself and His loving nature includes the respect and allowment of the wills of others to proceed to do things as they so choose. Perhaps God has no need to change anything in our universe, as any change in it would bring about MORE sin and LESS good, as it is already as perfect as it can get though it is not as perfect as God.
This would be fine if only God made his terms perfectly clear. He does not. Man is left wanting and guessing the nature of their own fate with the risk hell.

>>20371014
>Perhaps God has no need to change anything in our universe, as any change in it would bring about MORE sin and LESS good, as it is already as perfect as it can get though it is not as perfect as God.
This is nonsensical if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. I would argue that this is quite self evidently not true.

>Whether or not God interferes with the sinful universe, whatever He DOES do is the correct choice and He knows it is, and He only does the correct choices. And God is perfect, so He is worthy of worship.
I disagree, I see no reason that God should be judged by different parameters than we might judge ourselves. If I apply the same standards to God that I would apply to my fellow man, then I come to the conclusion that God is at best an abusive narcissistic and abusive parent, and at worst deliberately and unquestionably evil.

>>20372315
The Calvinistical approach is unquestionably evil if you maintain that Hell exists.
The Lutheran approach is abusive if not evil as God does not make his own standards clear to his children

>>20373433
Firstly, your understanding of hell is that God INFLICTS it upon someone, and that this is evil because He doesn't HAVE to. Why not? Hell is simply the separation from God, and the fact that it's infinite torment and full of fire is trivial. It is "Love me or I will inflict pain on you", and it is also "Love me or I cannot love you". God has no choice but to have sinners be separate from Him, because if He were to allow them to be in His grace, He would be justifying their imperfect sin and in fact equate sin to good by doing so, contradicting His perfect nature. You say it's evil and not loving that He separates sinners from Himself, when in fact it would be evil and not loving if He did the alternative and brought sinners to His presence and justify their evils. Obviously the morality of a being like God won't be immediately compatible with your morality, that's why the Bible exists and why God sent Jesus on Earth, to allow us to align ourselves with God simply by trusting Him.
>what you're proposing is the equivalent of a parent shunning their child for the rest of their lives for making simple and understandable mistakes in the context of what would be expected of a child. Again, many people would define this as abuse, but at the very least it would be considered not to be the actions of a loving parent.
You cannot equate God's morality to human morality, they are inherently different and Christianity assumes human beings are inherently imperfect. Obviously when you equate God to a human beings you'll find strange discrepancies; but equating sin and the resulting separation from a perfect Being, to a child disobeying his parent, is NOT correct. And you made this same incorrect equating again with the second parent-child analogy, but you also sorta ignored my following rationalizations of why God WOULD and WOULDN'T undo or prevent a sin. Yes God is called the Father but this is a strawman, lol.

>This would be fine if God made his terms perfectly clear
He did, all you have to do is read the Bible, specifically Exodus and the NT. If you're short on time literally just go to the nearest church and ask them "what is the bare minimum I need to do to get into heaven?". Off the top of my head all you need to do is follow the ten OT commandments, the two NT commandments from Jesus, get baptised (optional according to some protestants, but Jesus was baptised so logically you should play it safe and get baptised), and trust that Jesus was resurrected. In fact just trust the entirety of the bible too. Do your best, obviously you're not able to love and trust God all the time, but make an active effort without excuse, and generate faith in God and do good works, and study Christian theology if you have a burning curiousity and must know more. But in the end you must trust God without a perfect reason. I think Kierkegaard put it better than I did.

>>20373491
>This is nonsensical if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. I would argue that this is quite self evidently not true.
Why? God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and loving, but that doesn't mean the universe is perfect. It definitely isnt, with virtue to the fact that human beings sin, and that non-living matter is morally neutral.

>I disagree, I see no reason that God should be judged by different parameters than we might judge ourselves. If I apply the same standards to God that I would apply to my fellow man, then I come to the conclusion that God is at best an abusive narcissistic and abusive parent, and at worst deliberately and unquestionably evil.
On what standard did you decide that your judging God and mankind with your standard(or a well-developed atheistic standard in general) is more correct than God judging you and Himself with His standard? On what standard did you say your standard triumphs His? You're pre-supposing God is incorrect, the same way I pre-suppose God is correct. Really, I believe that when you whittle it down, always, answering the question of what is God and whether He/it may be trusted, must be a path travelled by reason. You must use reason to decide what God is like and which religion MUST be most correct (I've chosen Christianity over other religions through this process). But ultimately reason ends at a sort of ravine of arbitrariness. Either you believe in God or you don't, and you have no perfect standard (or any standard at all) of which you can make that decision. Its that arbitrary. This is a universal decision everyone faces and makes a choice on, you made a choice and I made the other one, everyone else who understood the question at any level made their decision. Maybe from a Godless standpoint, a life lived religiously is no different than a life not lived so, since we all meet the same fate.

>>20360258
you know faith is greater than reason through faith, not reason.
>le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ignore

>>20373729
>Hell is simply the separation from God, and the fact that it's infinite torment and full of fire is trivial.
No, that's not trivial at all. That's the most significant aspect possible. If it was simply "well you don't get to bask in the glory of the dude" then I could understand that. If the religion was structured insofar that heaven was something to be aspired to, then I could understand that. However, consistently I find that the focus is primarily on avoiding hell rather than attaining heaven. Even the vast majority of theologians I've read and listen to focus on hell over heaven, with the descriptions of hell and how horrible it is being multitude and the descriptions of heaven and how fucking great it must be being next to none.

Seriously, you might not understand it when I say this, but to me that is the single most important thing. Saying that it's trivial is beyond absurd to my eyes. If God just had his nice summer camp and then put all the people who fucked up and didn't believe in him in another nice summer camp without him then I would have no issues. But that's not what's described, instead what's described is that they go to the snuff and torture porn film set forever. That's fucked up. How do you not get how fucked up that is?

>Obviously the morality of a being like God won't be immediately compatible with your morality
Why?

>You cannot equate God's morality to human morality, they are inherently different and Christianity assumes human beings are inherently imperfect.
I don't have to assume that human beings are inherently imperfect, even though that is self evident. I also find that the Christian concept of God is inherently imperfect by the same metrics. I have yet to be presented with a single argument that has convinced me that God should be judged besides something that can be trivially reduced to "because he made everything so don't judge him ok?" And that's why I bring up the parent child analogy so much, since in my eyes it's the same comparison and people self evidently believe that child abuse is wrong, but not when the parent is god for some reason.

>He did, all you have to do is read the Bible, specifically Exodus and the NT.
Ahh yes, just read the bible, the whole series of texts that contradicts itself significantly from one section to the next, that has been translated and rewritten differently dozens of times through history, and is selectively ignored and focused on depending on who you ask. You yourself even say "specifically read these parts" implying that you care about them more than the rest.

I have, Anon. If anything the Bible is one of the biggest reasons why I don't believe in the Christian God.

>>20373785
>Why? God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and loving, but that doesn't mean the universe is perfect.
Why does a perfect being create an imperfect universe in which the fault of the imperfections within said do not fall on the creator, but instead on the created?

>>20373785
>On what standard did you decide that your judging God and mankind with your standard(or a well-developed atheistic standard in general) is more correct than God judging you and Himself with His standard? On what standard did you say your standard triumphs His? You're pre-supposing God is incorrect
I'm not pre-supposing God is incorrect. I'm simply examining God's actions and arguments as given through the Bible and finding them utterly uncompelling. I'm not approaching the problem from the standpoint of "well this dude is wrong" and then finding that he's wrong, I'm approaching it from the standpoint that "well this dude says some stuff, lets figure out if it make sense" and finding that it does not. I find that the God of the bible is not at all consistent with the what the same God of the bible is described to be or claims to be directly, furthermore I find that this very same God is also utterly detestable and worthy less of praise and worship as much as he is worthy of scorn and disgust.

Frankly, based on the actions of God in the bible and how God conducts himself, if he were real I certainly would never like to meet him. Of course the authors of those texts very cleverly fixed this issue by proposing that the only alternative to going to live with God forever is to get tortured FOREVER, making the personal objection quite moot in the end. Your choices are either then to capitulate either from admiration of someone who, if they were human, would be described as the greatest psychopath to ever exist, or to subject yourself to eternal pain and anguish. Most people would choose the former, but frankly I often strongly consider that if I did believe in God, that I would rather simply go to hell than shake his hand on principal alone.

It's a shame too. Remove God and hell from Christianity and it's such a quaint little faith and the vast majority of the tenants are quite good with only a few objectionable things here and there. But the whole religion is fundamentally mired by the addition of the most abusive parent ever to be conceived, and the most twisted punishment to ever be considered.

>>20373895
>However, consistently I find that the focus is primarily on avoiding hell rather than attaining heaven. Even the vast majority of theologians I've read and listen to focus on hell over heaven, with the descriptions of hell and how horrible it is being multitude and the descriptions of heaven and how fucking great it must be being next to none.
The human reaction to hell doesn't have a connection to the properties of hell and hell's existence itself.

>Saying that it's trivial is beyond absurd to my eyes [...] What's described is that they go to the snuff and torture porn film set forever. That's fucked up. How do you not get how fucked up that is?
Separation from God IS messed up to experience but it is ultimately necessary, as I've explained before. again I reiterate "God has to separate sinners from Him, because if He were to allow them to be in His grace, He would be justifying their imperfect sin and in fact equate sin to good by doing so, contradicting His perfect nature. You say it's evil and not loving that He separates sinners from Himself, when in fact it would be evil and not loving if He did the alternative and brought sinners to His presence and justify their evils." I meant that the descriptions of burning and torture is trivial; If the experience of the eternal separation from God is actually just you in some dimension sitting on a rock at a beach, it wouldn't be any less excruciating, since you are completely without God's presence. Dostoevsky's description of hell being that you're just floating in infinite blackness, with an final understanding of God and with an eternal regret that you missed your only chance to show God and others your love, is just as excruciating. It doesn't matter whether hell is a place of sensual pain or emotional pain, it doesn't matter whether hell is a place where you burn forever or where you're tortured with equipment, what matters is that it's a place where you're separated from God. And that is the source of all the pain, that's what's "fucked up", and it cannot be any other way.

>Why?
Because God is an infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, and constantly-loving being, and you are a finite, non-omniescient, finitely-present, and non-constantly-loving being. So whatever views you hold, again, will not be the same as God's, and these views will contradict eachother.

>I also find that the Christian concept of God is inherently imperfect by the same metrics
Do you have any examples of God's imperfection?

>>20373895
>The whole series of texts that contradicts itself significantly from one section to the next
Not really, the philosophies derived from the bible contradict eachother. Here's the thing about the bible, it is a collection of multiple texts from multiple authors. The historical books may contradict eachother in what it claims, but they do not contradict eachother from the fact that they were from separate authors. If author A claims that according to him there were X many people at event Z, and author B claims that according to him there were Y many people at event Z, then they contradict eachother with respect to event Z only having one possible number of people and one of them must be wrong, but they do not contradict with respect to them simply reporting what they saw/experienced. You cannot say "author A did NOT say that there were X many people at event Z" because he did.
>(The bible) has been translated and rewritten differently dozens of times through history
If you do not trust the translations then you can go ahead and read the original translations. Though you may need to learn another language. And you can compare texts and study Christian theology to find the truth. Or trust the men that have already done this and gave us the ESV and NASB1995.

An unfortunate reality is that, the thing itself that the bible describes does not contradict itself, though the bible may contradict itself, however the bible contradicting itself has no effect on the thing it describes. Christians know this, and is why they recommend you STUDY the bible, instead of taking it as some literal manual, like, say, the Muslims do with their holy Qu'ran.

>You yourself even say "specifically read these parts" implying that you care about them more than the rest
No. I told you to read specfically those parts in response to you saying God DIDN'T make his terms perfectly clear. The bible is about many things dude, I told you to only check out the parts detailing God's clear commands to us, because YOU ASKED me about God's clear commands.

>Why does a perfect being create an imperfect universe in which the fault of the imperfections within said do not fall on the creator, but instead on the created?
Sin is imperfection. And sin happens according to the will of human beings, key word being will. I get your point, God created human beings and human beings create sin, so God must be responsible for the existence of sin the same way He is responsible for the existence of human beings. After all, the responsibility of the imperfections of the universe fall upon those who create those imperfections, right? But the beings which have the capability for the knowledge of good and evil and then proceed to do evil (which is sin), so therefore they create the imperfections of the universe. God does not sin, and creating beings that are capable of sin is not itself a sin. The sins done by a will of a being is the responsibility of only that being alone.

>>20360258
Nothing can be reasoned apriori you can not reason that your existence is real or that anything else is real, existence of objective truth is not self evident nor existence of anything except perhaps existence of space itself, time can not be taken for granted ether since some beings experience it different then others, and it is relative based on your position in space. You may only have FAITH that you exist, that time is passing and that you might be able to see relative truth from time to time, based on propositions you have FAITH in reason can then construct more complicated notions.

>>20374019
>The human reaction to hell doesn't have a connection to the properties of hell and hell's existence itself.
Actually it does. Hell is supposed to be something that discourages people from committing sin, yes? If so then the human reaction to Hell is incredibly important to the structure of Hell itself. And if not, then why the hell is Hell structured the way it is? What's the purpose if not besides just torture porn?

And if Hell does not exist, then I would say that the way Hell is described is exceptionally effective mental manipulation to try to encourage people to adopt your religion and forsake and destroy their previous religious beliefs. A good half of the arguments of converting to the Abrahamic faiths are simply avoiding Hell.

>You say it's evil and not loving that He separates sinners from Himself
False, I do not say this at all. I say that torturing people infinitely for finite mistakes is fundamentally evil and not loving. Do not put words in my mouth, please.

>Dostoevsky's description of hell being that you're just floating in infinite blackness, with an final understanding of God and with an eternal regret that you missed your only chance to show God and others your love, is just as excruciating.
This is also torture by the way! Not nearly as bad as hellfire, as at least there isn't the direct physical aspect, but close. Also, there's still no good reason to torture people this way as far as I'm concerned, and there's certainly no reason to have it happen eternally. I find it especially odd as Christianity is often seen as a religion of redemption, but at the same time inversely after you die there is no chance for redemption. What makes the spirit of a living man savable but the spirit of a dead man forever tainted? It's never explained and the fact that it is never explained makes me more sure that it's just a clever manipulation tactic.

>It doesn't matter whether hell is a place of sensual pain or emotional pain, it doesn't matter whether hell is a place where you burn forever or where you're tortured with equipment, what matters is that it's a place where you're separated from God. And that is the source of all the pain, that's what's "fucked up", and it cannot be any other way.
So your argument is that the exact method of torture is not relevant, and I agree. I still disagree that the torture itself is good or just or even remotely justifiable.

>Because God is an infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, and constantly-loving being, and you are a finite, non-omniescient, finitely-present, and non-constantly-loving being. So whatever views you hold, again, will not be the same as God's, and these views will contradict eachother.
So God isn't beholden to my standards because he's bigger and better than me? Sorry, not convincing. That argument has never been convincing to me.

>>20374019
>Do you have any examples of God's imperfection?
Vanity, greed, narcissism, wrath, envy, war, genocide, I could go on.

>>20374088
>Not really...
No, really. If anything your argument here brings up the question why the perfect being with the perfect plan would choose to convey this perfect plan through such demonstrably imperfect, limited, and counter productive means and then put the onus on the people who the poorly conveyed plan was conveyed to with threat of some manner of eternal torture or another for failing to execute it properly.

>No. I told you to read specifically those parts in response to you saying God DIDN'T make his terms perfectly clear. The bible is about many things dude, I told you to only check out the parts detailing God's clear commands to us, because YOU ASKED me about God's clear commands.
Well I've read those parts as well as other parts and I'm still not quite clear on it. Frankly I'm not asking you to do that for me either. If God exists then I would ask that he comes and explains to me why I'm wrong and why he's right and what his terms are. If God is as you say he is, then it would be trivial for him to do so without violating my precious free will, but so far I've gotten radio silence on that request despite fielding it for years.

God, if you're lurking. Feel free to come down and chat. I've got a ton of questions I would love to have cleared up about your service contract.

>>20373937
>I'm simply examining God's actions and arguments as given through the Bible and finding them utterly uncompelling [...] I find that this very same God is also utterly detestable and worthy less of praise and worship as much as he is worthy of scorn and disgust.
Using a moral standard that is correct, because... You agree with it. And you agree with it, because it is a moral standard that is correct? And you disagree with God because He does not follow your moral standard, according to your observations. Why is your moral standard better than God's? That is the single most important question you must answer. Again, it whittles down to axiom. A leap of faith is as much of a leap as the leap of non-faith

>Frankly, based on the actions of God in the bible and how God conducts himself, if he were real I certainly would never like to meet him [...]Your choices are either then to capitulate either from admiration of someone who, if they were human, would be described as the greatest psychopath to ever exist, or to subject yourself to eternal pain and anguish.
You're thinking of God like a man, which He isn't. He's not your buddy, He's God. God does not exist in the same circumstances we do, remember this. And God does not have the freedom to choose what He does, as we do, remember this as well. God is omnipotent, but loving. Because of God's perfect love, even though He has the capability to do ANYTHING, He can only do good, and He cannot contradict himself, because to contradict is to do anything other than what is good. (So we have more freedom than Him, since we can choose to be like Him or not be like Him, whereas He can only be Himself. Isn't that ironic, we have more freedom in our will than God does, AND this freedom of will makes us LESS perfect. That isn't to say freedom itself is bad.)

>Remove God and hell from Christianity and it's such a quaint little faith and the vast majority of the tenants are quite good with only a few objectionable things here and there
Then follow that Godless little quaint faith then, and see how far it gets you towards happiness, or the truth, or nonexistence, or whatever ideal you strive towards. God's existence doesn't bend to our will, only our opinion of Him does.

>>20360325
Mentally ill.
>rationally understand removing pieces of flesh is bad, causes death
>have faith that the doctor is going to heal you because...
>he is the priest of science!!!
Wow such reason

>>20374159
>You agree with it. And you agree with it, because it is a moral standard that is correct?
I do not agree with it because I agree with it, nor do I think it's absolute correct. I work with the standards I have because from where I am standing they are the most apparently correct, reasonable, and rational ones that I can ascertain. There are certainly aspects to it which are fundamentally wrong if fundamental morality does exist, and parts of it which are at the very least contradictory or irrational if it does not.

However, I am what I am and I can only do the best I can do, same as anyone else.

>And you disagree with God because He does not follow your moral standard, according to your observations. Why is your moral standard better than God's?
From my perspective my moral standards are consistent, Gods are not. Furthermore, God does not act in accordance with his own proposed moral standards based on his own words and actions in the Bible.

>A leap of faith is as much of a leap as the leap of non-faith
Alright, so it's as reasonable to believe in the tooth fairy as it is to disbelieve in the tooth fairy? Positive claims require evidence, negative claims do not. This is a very basic rule of logic. A "leap of non-faith" as you describe it is less of a leap and more just standing on solid ground and staring at the world around you.

>And God does not have the freedom to choose what He does, as we do, remember this as well.
Then your god is not omnipotent. What a fucking ridiculous take.

>Then follow that Godless little quaint faith then
No, I try to conduct myself towards the best ideals possible, Christianity despite being quite nice without the worst bits, still has bad bits all the same. Obviously even separating God and Hell from Christianity makes it not the same faith, let alone removing all the other niggling little contradictions and poor motivations from it as well.

I would not consider myself to be better than the average Christian, of course. I don't think I'm a good person at all. I just try my best to be better.

>>20374169
It's more that having a doctor excise a tumor through surgery has significantly more evidence showing that it effective in preventing negative health outcomes including death than faith healing.

I will also remind you that there's absolute nothing preventing you from doing both if you're into it.

>>20361022
it doesnt work like that, how does working out correlate with god? Im not an atheist but im not religious either, work out a fuck ton am decently muscular and quite strong and am a depressed incel

>>20374109
>Hell is supposed to be something that discourages people from committing sin, yes?
No. It can certainly be used that way, but Hell is just existence without the presence of God.

>I say that torturing people infinitely for finite mistakes is fundamentally evil and not loving
>This is also torture by the way!
>I still disagree that the torture itself is good or just or even remotely justifiable
You're not even listening to my point about how God cannot do it any other way. I've said this twice now. Re-read my second response in my post at >>20374019

>So God isn't beholden to my standards because he's bigger and better than me?
Literally yes

>f anything your argument here brings up the question why the perfect being with the perfect plan would choose to convey this perfect plan through such demonstrably imperfect, limited, and counter productive means and then put the onus on the people who the poorly conveyed plan was conveyed to with threat of some manner of eternal torture or another for failing to execute it properly
The point, I believe (as God's will is ultimately unknown) was to create a set of circumstances where God is neither proven to exist nor proven not to exist. To create the exact arbitrary ravine of belief and disbelief, so that the only way to trust God is through trust for the sake of trust, and not trust for ulterior motives (that is, people believe in God in exchange for bribes), so that there is any opportunity at all for human beings to be reconciled with God and through trust in Jesus experience the reward of God's full presence without the impossible need to be perfect themselves. You may disagree with His plan, okay. But it cannot be any other way than the way God knows it must be, with virtue to the fact that He is omniscient.

>If God exists then I would ask that he comes and explains to me why I'm wrong and why he's right and what his terms are. If God is as you say he is, then it would be trivial for him to do so without violating my precious free will, but so far I've gotten radio silence on that request despite fielding it for years.
If God is silent then it's for the best. And even if God did speak to you, how would you know if it was God and not just a delusion? You wouldn't. The leap of faith is ever-present, Abraham had to take the exact same leap that you and I did, and God directly spoke to Him! Abraham still had to discern whether it was God speaking or not, and realized that if it was God then everything will be alright, and if it wasn't then he was deceived, but he could not know until after-the-fact, that is after the binding of his son. We will likely not know until after-the-fact either, that is after our death. Personally I hope God never speaks to me directly, as I would not know if it is really Him or Satan/delusion. He already gave me the Word, the Bible, perception, and a mind to rationalize myself all the way to the beach of reality, where only faith can take me across the ocean to Him

>>20374210
>I do not agree with it because I agree with it, nor do I think it's absolutely correct
So do you think you're wrong? And if you do not think you are correct, how can you say that I am wrong? If you do not know if you are correct, and yet you trust that you are, you really have taken the leap of faith I'm talking about, in the other direction.
>There are certainly aspects to it which are fundamentally wrong if fundamental morality does exist, and parts of it which are at the very least contradictory or irrational if it does not.
Contradictory to itself? God doesn't contradict Himself.

>God does not act in accordance with his own proposed moral standards based on his own words and actions in the Bible.
Example?

>Alright, so it's as reasonable to believe in the tooth fairy as it is to disbelieve in the tooth fairy?
When there is no standard of reason, yes. But we all have default standards of reason as psychology shows us, whether we like it or not. So the standard at which we believe/disbelieve in the toothfairy tends to be universally agreed upon by all, that is the existence of a being. Because the toothfairy is something that to its defined nature can be perceived, first of all, and that has a specific set of properties and logic to it that can be observed to prove its existence, and not observed to prove is nonexistence. But there is no standard at which we believe/disbelive in God, due to God's properties. I'm pretty sure there is no metaphysically-equivalent object of the human conscious as God is. If you can tell me a counter-example, I'd be delighted because I seriously cannot think of one (do not bring up the teapot, because physically teapots are an object physically and mentally created by human beings, and in order for a teapot to orbit space it must be put there by some form of human-made rocket, and for some reason. Such an event would have historical significance, documentation of any kind, as it would only be possible in recent human history. And there is no moral reason for a teapot to be there. So it is not equivalent to belief in God)

>Then your god is not omnipotent. What a fucking ridiculous take.
Omnipotence is the capability to do anything. It is not actually doing everything.

>No, I try to conduct myself towards the best ideals possible
How do you decide what ideals are better than others with some standard, and justify that standard in an explanation that isn't the standard itself?

>I would not consider myself to be better than the average Christian, of course. I don't think I'm a good person at all. I just try my best to be better.
Neither am I, and I too try my best to be better. I respect your humility and your passion for wisdom

>>20360258
I believe faith is the purest form of living, you accept that this life is wretched and that the only way to gain any good from it is to serve your master and follow his principles. Its much more fulfilling than living by reason, where you are constantly questioning if you are "right," where you make up some type of pseudo-ideal to justify your actions or your semi-faith in religion. Its fake, you never will know for certain if you have lived correctly, and if you think you are not living correctly, why live another day? In faith, you are certain, in your lords hands you are safe.

>>20374271
>Contradictory to itself? God doesn't contradict Himself.
Let me actually take this back, as I was confused by your point at first and did not answer it properly.

>>20374210
>There are certainly aspects to it which are fundamentally wrong if fundamental morality does exist, and parts of it which are at the very least contradictory or irrational if it does not.

If fundamental morality does not exist then Christian morality does not contradict that nonexistence of fundamental morality, since claiming that a fundamental morality exists in a vacuum of nonmorality is a claim that's allowed in the vacuum of nonmoral reality, since everything goes with there is no fundamental morality, including fundamental morality. And God does not contradict Himself in Christian morality, so Christian morality does not contradict itself in the event that there is no God. Because if there is no God, what is stopping us from living and believing as if there is, and by what standard can it be said there is no God in the aim of contradicting the belief that there is God, if there is no such standard in the event that there is no fundamental morality?

If fundamental morality does exist then in what way does it exist? The answer to this question is basis of the very debate we are currently having. I trust it does exist, and that God is the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son.

>>20374141
>>20374231

>>20373491
God could have perfectly good reason to create people to be damned. This isn't the approach I think is biblically justified, though.
God makes everything clear to us that it is necessary for us to know as human beings in our priestly role. Why would it be abusive for him not to reveal every little thing about how he governs the world from eternity? It seems like a strange, if not arrogant thing to demand.

>>20374304
>everythingg goes with there is no fundamental morality
I tried to say "everything goes with no [..]" and "everything goes when there is no [..]" at the same time, my bad og

>>20373236
>Is this "god" in the room with us now
Yes

>>20373025
> is simply the/a "Principle" of all motion in the universe
It's not just a principle, it is pure actuality and pure potency in one. It is absolutely God, and that's why Aristotle calls knowledge of it "theology", the highest genus of knowledge.
>Whilst it is an active and alive principle it is not a God in the same light he saw the Greek gods. Aristotle states it is -
The gods are inferior to it, yes.
I'm guessing you also didn't read Aristotle's section on the Divine Intellect? You seem to have mentioned it but not actually realized that the fact it thinks itself (= all, undivided) means more than you seem to believe.
>The unmoved mover is not a creator, that would be absurd and impossible, as Aristotle implies when talking about time and motion.
It's both a creator and destroyer of substances.
>as Aristotle implies when talking about time and motion.
No.
>proving that reason and experience shows us that the human intellect is mortal and can not be and exist disembodied, ergo no afterlife
Depends what you mean by mortal intellect. Most of the human soul is mortal, which Aristotle admits. In any case I seriously doubt these Italians proved anything.

>>20370848
>Despite this, he has created hell, knowing full well that a large number of his creations would inevitably end up in hell only to be tormented for eternity.

He didn't plan for Adam and Eve to eat the apple.

>>20360258
gods will is the most important need that can be satisfied
surrender your ego

>>20375489
>He didn't plan for Adam and Eve to eat the apple.
All knowing, all powerful?
>>20370953
>the consequences of their will are entirely their own responsibility
Omniscience and free will don't work together well, retard.
>>20370848
Don't look for logic in faith. Like looking for a calf under a bull, it's not there, you only get a big dick. Inconsistencies, fallacies and fabrications in the abrahamic faiths (judaism, islam, christianity) are trivial to point out even by literal children because they were conjured up by SJW goat herders 1.5k years ago. The rest is a patchwork of retardation to fix this shit, but you can't. It only shows up now because its not illegal to talk about them and 95% of people don't actually give a shit. Unless you are dealing with internet theologians.

>>20373025
>. It is not and in no way shape or form a "God", especially not a theistic god.
KEK holy cope

>>20361392

be an American

From An Intelligent Person's Guide to Catholicism:

> Rational criticism and exploration are a necessity not a luxury in matters of faith and what is proposed for faith must be reasonable. Reason is therefore not a prolegomenon to faith but its permanent accompaniment. Nevertheless, in order to appreciate the relationship between reason and faith, it is as important to avoid an understanding of reason which confines it within the canons of mathematical integrity as it is to avoid an understanding of faith which confines it to blind and unreasonable assertion independent of argument. We must set ourselves to find reason in mystery and mystery in reason. Logic and mystery belong together, and faith is the name for that gift of the spirit which understands God as the origin of both.

>>20360325
This is bait