/lit/ - Literature

>>22277997
Immense cope

>>22278016
>no refutation
>Can god purple green?
>checkmate, christcucks
Also the God trapping paradoxes are too rooted in things normal humans without the concept of infinity in their heads find impossible or contradictory.

>>22277997
But how does it change the fact that God doesn't exist?

>>22278032
Man had a beginning, therefore true comprehension of the infinite is impossible.

>>22278032
>Also the God trapping paradoxes are too rooted in things normal humans without the concept of infinity in their heads find impossible or contradictory.
Seems awfully convenient. Maybe theists should stop creating illogical concepts such as "omnipotence" before basing their religion or idea of God around it. C.S Lewis had to come up with a word salad and moved away from the paradox

Omnipotence is an illogical concept by itself, but when mixed with some sort of agency (i.e God's will) it just become laughable

>>22278058
>calling something word salad when the very paradox you cite is total word salad

>>22278074
>Omnipotence is an illogical concept by itself
No.

>>22278032
Yeah, or without massive amounts of cope

>>22278094
>not a single argument itt
The athiest always impresses.

>>22278087
Yes

>>22277997
>God can do anything except the things that are impossible, checkmate atheists!
Ok...

>>22278082
>"Can God create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it" is a "word salad" to the average theist
lol

>>22278146
I imagine God can limit his abilities, and then release the limitation. Now the real question. In an infinite number of universes where everything is possible, is it impossible for there to be God?

>>22277997
>he’s omnipotent and can do everything logically possible
Like forgiving humanity for crimes he made up without some convoluted son incarnation sacrifice?
>Nooooo it’s necessary! He had to by the rules he made up! It’s humanity’s fault! He is omnipotent! He is! All three parts are, at the same time!

>>22278032
>Terrance passed D-Money the blunt, the pair reclining on the steps of a brownstone porch half lit by the mid morning sun."This nigga talkin philosophical, cuz"
>"Nah, D," now screwing up his face, "nah, he ain't ready," balling his fists in mock combat.
>"Lil nigga really askin 'can God purple green?' "
>"D"
>"He really askin," D-Money sprung up to his feet,"listen," blunt on lip, "God purple greened this weed, nigga!"

>>22277997
como vai a caça às putas, virjão?

>>22278187
Pergunte à sua mãe

>>22277997
words words words the left can't meme

>>22277997
>god doesn't deal with impossibilities
>trust me though he can do anything possible
then why must things follow physical laws? he can bypass those? if I said "can God create x" one might say well yes, by natural methods, but then is that even god at work? God becomes less an entity and just a system, and attaching wants and hopes and intuition onto these causes and effects is a human problem.

>>22278032
>Can god purple green?
thanks doc

This is how we know that Jesus wasn't God. It doesn't make sense for someone to be both human and God at the same time, so we shouldn't expect God to be able to do something like that

i would like to have faith but a lot of christianity seems to be interpretive based on a vague text
it seems you either need to just follow dogma or spend years with critical/scholarly interpretations just to get something of a complete answer, but even then you end up with theories like pentateuch being a composite work which only adds to the schizo-ness of christianity.
ironically it seems that human interpretation and bias sours christianity for me.
scientism isn't any better but interpretive faith doesn't feel complete either.

>>22277997
>"I can do anything!"
>"ok, do this"
>"that thing you listed is not a part of anything"
I guess giving you a functioning brain is not something intrinsically possible

>>22278349
the left invented christianity memes

>>22277997
If I was the all-powerful master of the universe, I'd make myself immune to paradoxes, especially low-effort paradoxes rooted in mundane concepts like lifting rocks.

>>22277997
Then why did he disagree?

>>22278152
>can God create a creature so sinful he cannot forgive them?

This is an interesting restructuring of the paradox that actually has some relevance.

>>22278159
kino?

>>22277997
>“Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of god”
source?
>b-because IT JUST DOESN’T, OK?

This is cope because God would be the source of all things such as possibility, contradiction, etc. meaning they are ultimately not fundamental as God created them. Also midwitted because the trinity is a contradiction but Catholics will just say “it’s a mystery ok? IT JUST IS!”

>>22278058
>yes, I do think I could understand something outside of reality

>>22278125
Wow you are retarded, I'm shocked. At least you have the nuts to post it

Why is god limited to the set of what is intrinsically possible? Why can he not add or subtract things from that set? If he is incapable of doing that and there is something preventing him from it, how can we consider him the supreme and ultimate authority?

>>22279715
Yes
>will he
No. What a real head scratcher there anon.

>>22278940
>do this thing I want you to not do
Are midwits realy?

>>22280709
If he creates a creature that is so sinful he cannot forgive them, I guess someone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit (whatever that entails) for example, that would seem to limit his omnipotence, woupd it not?

>>22279957
Why do you single out Catholics? Orthodox are really known for chocking things up to mystery and being sticklers for this especially in the matter of grapsing the Trinity. And I think even Calvinists would say its not easy to grok.

>>22280725
Forgiveness is a choice, your not asking if he can or cannot, your asking if he will or will not. They are completely different questions anon, and to answer the original point, the question is retarded, you are trying to ask if God can do something he can't do, it's retarded from start to finish.

>>22278099
Interesting argument. I'll have to stick with "no", however.

>>22280762
If he cannot do something the he's not omnipotent. Simple as. Like other people have said, the concept of omnipotence is incoherent.

>>22280826
>do something you can't do
Do you realy not see how it's not a God problem but a you asking retarded questions problem?

>>22277997
>nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God

Then he's not omnipotent, because apparently consistency is superior to him

>>22280839
Yes, or a you making retarded claims problem

>>22280839
Ask him if God can do nothing. He will answer "yes." And then the entire "paradox" is resolved, because they are basically asking if God can do something which doesn't exist, i.e. do nothing. Of course God can do nothing; he is omnipotent.

>>22280855
It's retarded for me to think the creator of reality can do anything? Lol

>>22279957
>>22278940
>>22280851

An object that is not liftable by an all powerful being is not a real object. How could it be a thing?

>b-because IT JUST IS, OK?

>>22280863
Can he kill himself?

>>22277997
Basically a clearer way of putting the point is that "an object an omnipotent being cannot lift" is an incoherent concept, much like a married bachelor.

>>22277997
Literally just "nuh uh"

>>22277997
>arguing with Religiousfags
Go bang your head in a wall, that's more productive use of time and effort. You can't argue with someone who has no concept of rationality. It's like teaching calculus to a dog, even that might be possible some day but you can't reason with them.

>>22278032
People keep using greenish purple at me as something that's impossible but I have always been able to imagine it clearly?

atheists truly are fascinating.
it is obvious that they have not given a moment's thought to what is actually meant by "God", what the transcendentals are, or the classical view of privation boni (never refuted btw, despite the fact that german idealism fags seem to think it will become refuted if they keep repeating that they have refuted it)
how can they "profess unbelief" regarding something when they have no idea what that something even is ?
any attempt at making the classical doctrine clear is met with hand waving, with the implication being that theists have been backed into a corner and are resorting to word games.
>"it's convenient"
as truth often is. the classical view, in which the problem of evil, the round square paradox, the eutyphro dilemma, what have you, aren't "solved", but simply don't arise, are simply dissipated, is literally millenia old. it's not some late invention conjured up in order to respond to the devastating arguments of fedora atheists.
irrational people often resort, once all their objections have been met, to repeating that their opponents "has the answer to everything" or defends a doctrine that is "convenient", as if somehow that made the opponent a sophist. but they never provide an explanation as to why the answers are unsatisfactory.
God is just defined as Being itself, Truth itself, Good itself, the cause of the world (i.e. the world's intelligibility, the truth in the world), etc. and it turns out, when you work out rigourously what this means and the implications, all of these "paradoxes" evaporate. this is not some late, desperate definition game, it's just what God has always meant to everyone throughout history.

tl;dr: summer was a mistake

>>22280706
Again, it[s a simple question. Why are god's abilities limited to this set, and if something is limiting him to it, how can we see him as some sort of greatest and ultimate authority?

>>22277997
>grown ass men writing about god
>grown ass men arguing about what said god can or can’t do

They have nothing better to do?

>>22277997
God is bound by the laws of logic? Do the laws of logic precede God?
So are we doing away with the ontological argument (the strongest argument) for the existence of God then? We bringing back Euthyphro again? Really?

I take bible lessons with a cute girl I aspire to sodomize. Every single time without fail she repeats the same thing: that we don't choose to believe,that we don't choose Christ; it's Christ who chooses us. We're not learning this shit out of our own free will, but because God has chosen us.
This pretty much sums up what I think. You either believe this shit or you don't. No amount of intelligent talking points or gotcha moments will move you if it's simply not in you. It's like the time god hardened the pharaohs heart. You can stare at the "evidence" straight in the face and it will not move you.
I doubt these threads have ever changed anyone who wasn't already predisposed.

>>22281083
>atheists
>rational
>when they have no grounding at all for reason or truth

>>22280695
>religion
>reason
"No!"
You literally believe that a guy named Jesus had star trek esque replicator powers.

>>22281135
>tl;dr: summer was a mistake
But tradlarping is the newer phenomenon here. Next.

>>22281280
there is nothing better for men to do.

>>22277997
that's a lot of words for
>nu-uh
if god defines the limits of possibility as creator of the universe than he can also defy them. So yeah god can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it.

>>22277997
>intrinsically impossible (self-contradictory) things are beyond the principle of omnipotence
>except for dying without dying, that is not a self-contradiction - that's a miracle
>also conception without conception

>>22278058
You are aware that "intelligent" atheists actually don't use arguments like this because they know that they're retarded. They know it's not a gotcha or anything like that. It's just pointless words, it's not a substantive argument and they're intelligent enough to know that even to them personally it doesn't prove their beliefs.

>>22279957
>>22280706
>>22281606
these

Also, without having thought this through at all and just throwing this out there off the top of my head- if we can say it/conceptualize the conception in any way ("round square" etc) doesn't that mean that it is on some level a feature of the program God has written?

Even Tractatus Wittgenstein says this is correct. Atheists are just coping

>>22281444
What are you even saying mouth breather

>>22281647
u dum lol

>>22281452
tradlarpers are embarrassing, but christians have always gathered around literature forums across the internet, and there's nothing about anon's post which hints at him being a tradlarper

>>22281001
>NO, IF YOU CANT HOLD YOURSELF TO ANY LAW OF REALITY THEN YOUR NOT A CREATOR
You anon are in fact the legendary cock wrangler, now if you are in fact real, ask your self, can you ever stop sucking dicks? Checkmate faggot

This thread retroactively proves David and Solomon right about every single Psalm and Proverb they ever wrote.

>>22280738
>Orthodox are really known for chocking things up to mystery and being sticklers for this especially in the matter of grapsing the Trinity.
Orthodox don't engage in the rationalist discourse of divinity - they believe that possessing any thoughts that are not the Lord's Prayer is inherently a sin and therefore. So if you ever start thinking about whether God exists or doesn't or whether he can or can't do a thing - you just need to stop immediately and get back to Our Father in Heaven, anything else is literally Satan.

That question is like asking if a square can be round. It goes against God's nature.

>>22281782
And what determines God's nature?

>>22278032
>Can god purple green?
God can ''purple'', as a verb, green, turning the latter ontologically into the former. Read Kierkegaard and realize that Christianity is an immense cope and the destruction of philosophy.

>>22281844
his divine traits: omnipotent, omniscient, enteral, purely good, etc.

creating a stone so heavy that he couldn't lift it goes against his omnipotent nature.

>>22281626
You cannot conceptualize a "round square" retard

>>22281948
Sounds like a plothole to me.

>>22281956
I can talk about the concept though, which counts for something.

>>22281432
>religious
>grounding my rationality on the incomprehensible infinite omnipresence being

an yet somehow this makes them have more authority in reason and truth?

>>22281961
Meant for
>>22281954

>>22280695
So it's safe to say that omnipotence is an illogical concept, thanks for your output. No if you want to get into the "you can't possibly explain God within the realm of possibilities", then you could use the same affirmation for any type of god or metaphysics.

>>22281961
You can talk about a lot of things. I could say "virgin whore" and it wouldn't be anything intelligible or meaningful.

>>22281980
Wouldn't it? If it's mentionable, the concept itself is a feature of reality.

>>22281135
Funnily enough, God seems to be a byproduct of humanity's limitation to fully grasp the world and universe. Having an abstraction such as a being that is thing itself is not different than someone like Schopenhauer defining the Will as the world's essenxe; it is just a vague concept designed to fill the gaps of our comprehension, and it works as long as we cannot comprehend (and we will never be able to) the world.

>>22277997
>x doesn't fall under the omnipotence of God
Not so omni then, is it?

>>22282002
>If it's mentionable, the concept itself is a feature of reality.
Unthinkability = impossibility and therefore the round square is meaningless. Saying something does not mean we can think of it.

And the statement above would seem to prove the ontological argument would it not?

>>22282025
>Unthinkability = impossibility
Right, but we can think about it.
>Saying something does not mean we can think of it.
Do you spontaneously become an unthinking zombie for the time it takes to type "four sided triangle"?

>>22277997
>big rock require strengtht to lift
>bigger rock requires more strenght
>is there a limit to this?
>"NOOOOOO THAT IS NONSESE IT DOESNT HAVE LOGIC"
what a tremendous cope, 'anything that i can't answer is not a valid question' is a child level argument
just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it doesn’t make sense
take this gem for example
>>22278032
yes an omnipotent god could compress or stretch the frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum to purple green, or changer his or your light receptor to perceive as such.
if your ultimate argument is that infinity and omnipotence is too large for mere humans to understand, then why don you just answer that instead of making up some bullshit argument about the validity of the question.

at least there's merit in saying 'i dont understand'

>>22282031
When you hear "four sided triangle" do you conceptualize anything intelligible? What exactly do you think of?

>>22282047
I think of how while I can't picture what that would look like, I can type it, and consider the seeming paradox as something that I don't know would not be solvable were I an all powerful God who happens to have created everything, including my contemplation of this mystery.

>>22278032
There is literally nothing to refute, nothing you've posted here is a refutation, just a cope.

>>22281967
Nta but shocked that you do not think you have noodles for brain to think you can understand God when you can't even understand yourself you nigger.

>>22278097
You dont have an argument to begin with retard, just a bunch of quotes from other christcucks who are also skirting around the obvious and glaring flaw in the argument for omnipotence in your made up sky daddy best friend.

Why are christcucks such painfully stupid brainlets?

>>22282055
Do you believe God creates logic?

>>22282071
Or maybe god doesn't exist and you're a delusional, stupid, narcisstic, manchild who cant let go of his imaginary friend.

>>22282082
I don't believe in God, but for the purposes of this discussion, yeah, I am operating as if God created... everything.

>>22282089
Well then you are attacking a strawman since that's not what Aquinas or any classical theist would believe. The paradox is the Euthyphro dilemma under different terms.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity

>>22281626

imagine if god drew every 2d shape that was possible, a man with a robust enough theory of shapes, could go through it and put every shape in a category (Square, triangle, hexagon, circle, etc). The fact that a man would not be able to logically consistently put one shape into two contradictory categories (both a triangle and a square) is hardly a mark against god's power.

He would not

>>22282089
I don’t even see how you could be a logical person and not believe in god, atleast some kind of God.

>>22282095
Is God not THE creator?

>>22282168
Yeah I get that argument, and it makes a certain amount of sense, but it also seems like we are confusing our limitations for those of a Supreme being. Who is to say he can't fuse a platonic triangle and square into one thing (or however you want to describe overcoming the so called paradox)?

>>22282180
That's a whole nother big of worms.

>>22279752
; )

>>22282313
*can of worms

>>22282313

I could define blublyness as the property of weighing more than 30lbs, I then could define globryness as anything less than 10lbs. God could not create something both globry and blubly but that is because I defined these things to be mutually exclusive not because of any limit on god's power.

Of course, he could change the meaning of the words but assuming we keep the meanings, then we can create mutually exclusive catagories

>>22282446
This post didn't advance the conversation.