/lit/ - Literature

I honestly believe that nobody actually believes in God. I think they are all mocking society as a whole in some sort of elaborate satire. My explanation makes a lot more sense.

Who was that, Descartes?

>>2634669

Most people don't give it that much thought

>>2634671
Anselm of Canterbury, though Descartes believed it too.

Sure i guess. They can't really pinpoint it as proof for whatever religion they believe though. They need to be more specific if they're trying to prove the existence of the Christian God, Possession, Odin, or whoever they're trying to argue exists.

Who gives a shit anymore?

>>2634673
Dude that makes so much sense.....

>>2634677
It doesn't even begin to seem logical applied to a God that isn't omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Not that it seems logical when applied to that kind of deity, either.

It's another sad attempt to define god into existence. Fun with weasel words.

Whenever anyone claims to prove God exists or doesn't exists, you know you're in for some really shoddy logic.

Somehow this managed to convince Descartes. He wasn't a drooling imbecile, and I have trouble understanding how anyone else could accept this argument. It just doesn't make sense.

>>2634669
This is why I switched majors from philosophy to CS and now have a job and money.

Hold on, I'm trying to reason a perfect cup of coffee into existence.
...
Huh, nothing happened.

>>2634688
I think I read somewhere that it's more intelligent people who are more likely to believe the patently absurd.

>>2634669

>Our understanding of Zeus is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
>The idea of Zeus exists in the mind.
>A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
>If Zeus only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
>We cannot be imagining something that is greater than Zeus
>Therefore, Zeus exists

>Cannot imagine anything greater than God
What about 2 Gods?

>>2634700
What's the difference between Zeus and God?

>>2634698
Yea, many intelligent people have the mental capacity necessary to delude their way around objective reality so they can day dream in their little idealized world.

They don't even realize they are doing it.

>>2634704
Zeus had a little bit of mercy. He let some of the Trogans escape to found Rome. Yahweh had NO MERCY. Everyone his favorite team of deseart raiders fought and beat were slaughtered to the woman and child.

>>2634704

The same difference between Allah and Jehovah. None we can readily identify

>>2634706
I beleive NEET-CHA called them backworldsmen, kind of like backswoodsmen.

philosophy sure hasn't come a long way since the days of Thomas Aquinas.

>>2634711
...Excuse me?

>Our understanding of sup(R) is a real which no greater can be conceived
>The idea of sup(R) exists in the mind.
>A real which exists both in the mind and in R is greater than a real that exists only in the mind.
>If sup(R) only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater real - that which exists in R.
>We cannot be imagining something that is greater than sup(R).
>Therefore, sup(R) is real.
Do people actually believe this tripe?

>>2634706
tfw I catch myself doing that

>>2634669
1. g=g I Ref
2. ∃x x=g 1 EG

There exists something identical with God.
I.e., God exists.
Better?

>>2634716
>hasn't read Summa Theologica
It's filled with a lot frustrating self-confirming logic about the existence of god that would make Aristotle shit a brick
>define god; assume that the definition is universal truth
>cite something that violates the original flawed definition
>conclude that the violation must be untrue because your definition is universal
>therefore god exists
>mfw

still is a cool read in parts where he isn't trying to be a coy dick

I took one elective with the theology department when I was an undergrad. I spent 20 minutes trying to explain to another student that this whole line of reasoning is predicated on the implicit assumption that God is the same thing as our concept of God and all it does is exploit vague terminology to sneak the existence of god into the premise.

He just kept quoting it at me over and over again in different orders. Never again. The prof was a cool guy though. Without him I'd never have gotten through propositional logic.

Isn't that the ontological argument for god? Damn man, I remember hearing that a while back and thinking that was a stupid fucking premise for proving anything.

Probably because Aquinas came up with it when he was hanging out in Africa, maybe he went crazy or something.

There is no mind only God. The mind is our imaginations that creates nothing real.

even if there were by some small chance a god responsible for setting everything in motion, it wouldn't be the abrahamic god

he wouldn't be able to feel or express rage, disappointment or jealousy if he were the three omnis. he wouldn't even be sentient by traditional standards, let alone male or sympathetic to any plight anywhere in the universe

All gods are the same. If not they would have fought and we would know. Unless they do fight and we are their armies. In which case they are Greek god or Pharoh's gods and we give them power if we choose to. Never mind slave minds.

>define god as everything
>think of something other than god
>but something is part of everything
>therefore god exists

or

>define god as immune disqualification
>present an argument for the disqualification of god's existence
>HURR DURR BUT GOD IS IMMUNE TO DISQUALIFICATION, AS WE'VE ALREADY SAID
>therefore god exists

over and over and over

Also, "existing is better than not existing" is a horrible assumption to make. And the same logic could be applied as follows:

I can conceive of gryphons.
I can conceive of something like gryphons, but real.
To be real, something must be real.
Thus, gryphons must exist.

We choose the "God" that suites our needs.

The idea of "Gods" has no political value.

True. Aquinas was a smart guy but a really faggot when he tried to combine use reason to prove god. the catholic church lapped it up. but kierkegaard was right. faith is independent of reason and most christians dont actually have it.

>>2634752
i might have known the guy with the most pretentious name would try to be a smart arse. i dont know formal logic. but i do know that is not better. you cant prove god. its faith. fucking faith. logic diminishes the the value of your surrender. god is supposed to be greater than man not constructed by him. Jesus. metaphysics and ontology isreally shit tier theology. in fact is not theology at all. its just shit.

>>2634846
The line that kills the humanist and the polytheist is "god created man in his own image" outside of that much of Christianity can be applied to any other religion. Whoever wrote the bible made man god and repeated the so called tragedy in the garden of eden, there is no sense to it except opportunism and political control.

>>2634846
>Aquinas was a smart guy
4/10 you made me reply.

in entertaining these proofs, so many great minds over the years have neglected the value of the decision. choosing god becomes trivial if indeed it's proven.

>>2634886
Fear and respect are the only reasonable approaches to take to the existence of god but this doesn't allow for political manipulation and is a very unstable situation for society. It's the smartest assumption if one is to assume there is god(s). It's the worst to build a society, libertarians.

>/lit/ trying to talk about God or religion

>>2634895
I like mine dried and rubbed and incorporated in a hand made gnocchi with oven dried grape tomatoes fresh arugula and a white wine garlic sauce.

>>2634895
It's not pronounced like the plant, you know. SAH-GAY, from the Nipsqueak 下げる, sageru, to lower.

>>2634903

Yes, I know. Why do people on this board always feel compelled to point this out? Who gives a fuck?

>>>/jp/

>>2634906
I'd rather be autistic than retarded, bro. Also,
>implying I go to /jp/
>implying /jp/ has anything to do with Japan
>Who am I quoting?