/lit/ - Literature

god is logos faggot

>>21283016
i feel sorry for the goyim because they'll never get to know god as our people will.

>>21283016
.

>>21283016
>How will christcucks ever recover?
Well it's been 16 years since that book came out, and Christians are still everywhere, so I think they've already recovered.

>>21283016
god is geometry dumb RH+ british scum, go worship your stone

>>21283073
>God is geometry
Geometry is a system built on made up axioms. There are even different kinds like hyperbolic geom. and Eclidian geom. you habe no clue what you are talking about.
T. Scientist

>>21283050
Because cristcucks hide by not reading it

>>21283016
There are better books to refute god with. This one is not even mediocre.

>>21284025
>soience
fake gay shit some nerd wrote on a book
>god
can easily be met irl via gnosis

>>21284025
>made up axioms
That peculiarly are isomorphic with empirical reality, elsewise it wouldn't be so much effective.
So, some kind of implicit pantheism is out there. Though maybe with a lovecraftian flavor, I concede.

>>21284120
>That peculiarly are isomorphic with empirical reality, elsewise it wouldn't be so much effective.
Thats wrong. It gives the illusion to be isomorphic because it works well. It's just a close approximation of reality with a large margin of error.

>>21284120
>>21284184
he’s right anon, Tarski’s proof and godel’s incompleteness theorem elucidate this further, as does Kant’s transcendental aesthetic.

>>21284204
This is also a reductio ad absurdum because Tarski's proof applies to the very system of rationality itself ergo is meaningless even if we step outside of the domain of logic. God is self-evident if you merely assert that existence exists as a logical and literal necessity from that statement and to say existence does not exist is to say a given statement can eternally be real, i.e. the denial of existence, and thus is wrong. All atheism requires a hidden contradiction. I am assuming the "t. Scientist" is not aware that God's true name is He Who Is and has always been defined as such by the more educated theologians who don't turn God into neo-Zeus.

>>21284263
>a reductio ad absurdum
Did you just claim that god is existent because existence is existent? That would be like saying a fork is a spoon because a spoon is a spoon.

You're just juggeling words at this point.

>>21284263
although I have a sort of intuitive understanding of your point, can you elucidate your point further ? Do you mean to say that God is necessary given that it is by definition that which exists, a sort of ontological argument ? I myself am not an atheist, but how can existence be a predicate for a subject ?