/lit/ - Literature

Kill himself.

>>4360601
No. There necessarily isn't. A provokable God would lack omnipotence (it would be a caused cause) and thus not be worth calling God.

The totality is not commandable by a subjectivity.

>>4360607

God was provoked over and over in the Old Testament, he was foaming at the mouth nearly every chapter

>>4360614
Invisible Sky Father's don't meet the criteria of God.

For that matter, Jesus was provoked in the new Testament.

As written both are merely demiurges.

Read the Greek Theodicy argument then go read Spinoza.

>>4360614
>muh metaphors

>>4360615

Spinoza's God is dumb, mute, deaf, amoral, and useless as fuck. He doesn't fit the criteria of a God

>>4360601
>implying existence isn't God showing himself

>>4360630

existence is not an entity.
you can't see it.

>>4360623
Pretty much every God is useless, the ones that aren't useless are worse than useless, they're blatantly malevolent (Abrahamic Gods).

It makes me wonder why people bother with them at all, they're all some flavour of indifferent, asshole, or impotent.

So long as there are no recording devices or witnesses!

>>4360623
>Spinoza's God is dumb, mute, deaf, amoral, and useless as fuck.

He's omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. The totality is awesome.

>He doesn't fit the criteria of a God.

He has theodicy.

>>4360635
>an
Correct, it is the entity.

>>4360648

He has no being, therefore he has no knowledge, no will, no intention and thus no power.

he's simply another word for the mindless processes of nature.

Do you think there will ever come a time where half-witted pseudo-theologians will stop trying to make statements about the fucking mind of goddamn god

>>4360635
>you can't see existence
anything you see is part of existence. Just because you can't see the back of the ball (or whatever) doesn't mean it isn't part of it.

>>4360653
mindless in the sense of a human mind sure. But it is more than that

>>4360623
Sounds about right.

>>4360657

will atheists ever stop making statements about the existential status of goddamn God?

>>4360648
>it is the entity
My thoughts exactly. let me ask you a question though: Pantheist or Panentheist? or none of the above?

Excessive synchronicity.

>>4360653
>He has no being, therefore he has no knowledge, no will, no intention and thus no power.
>he's simply another word for the mindless processes of nature.
A god with a comprehensible intention wouldn't be omnipotent.

>>4360670
Neither. I'm an atheist, and a militant one at that. But I wish to argue against only the most unassailable formulation for theism. "New Atheism" sickens me with its theological cretinism.

suck his own dick

>>4360623
>the criteria of God
what is the criteria of God?
maybe off topic but IMO what's more important than believing or not believing in God is how you define God for yourself. not believing in someone else's definition is fine, but if you do not define it for yourself you're just being lazy. Setting up the term God as a Strawman though is despicable.

>>4360601
That's sorta a sad question, huh.
Your faithful servant,
Sadfrog

>>4360601

I've actually summoned God. True story.

/thread

>We all know how this thread is going to go. Stop now and save yourselves a couple hours of frustration

>>4360675
>A god with a comprehensible intention wouldn't be omnipotent.

Then his existence is rendered irrelevant by nature of its incomprehensibility, and even referring to it with any sort of reverence or faith in it is absurd.

If it is beyond human comprehension by definition, why acknowledge it? There are far more interesting questions than that of some omnipotent in-finiteness, like the time of day or how many times you can get a stone to skip across a pond.

>>4360675
wow, i wouldn't have guessed that you seemed so...how shall i say... sans fedora. but that's a good thing. please enlighten me about "new atheism" and what you mean by "the most unassailable formulation for theism

>>4360669
One can only hope the need to do so will become a thing of the past.

Suicide.
Try it.

>>4360601
pray

>>4360681
>what is the criteria of God?

Limitless
All-powerful (implied from limitless)
All-knowing (implied, knowledge is power)
Conscious (implied from being able to know)


Goodness has to fit in there too, somehow.

>>4360693
"I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are just details"
-Einstein

>>4360700
>pray

the jews in aushwitz prayed to God and nothing happened

>they ended up dying from famine, starvation, war consequences -- definitely no gassing was involved though

>>4360701
If god is limitless wouldn't it be anything and everything? this would imply God IS existence (everything we can see as well as what we cannot) God's Consciousness would also be the amalgam of all consciousness that has ever existed, and this would include forms of consciousness that humans cannot comprehend

>>4360706
And?

>>4360707
good point but that brings us back to god wouldn't be god if he could be summoned like a genie. besides "god showing himself" is a personal experience: if the jews who prayed just before they were liberated from the camps saw it as God showing himself than that's fine, but that would be personal to them, others might not describe it as God showing himself and to them he wouldn't be

>>4360607
Are you the same guy from the thread on eisegesis?

>>4360712
>God IS existence

To exist is to be finite, changing, have boundaries and limits.

God is neither existent nor non-existent, since he transcends ontology altogether.

>If god is limitless wouldn't it be anything and everything?

God is beyond nature and the universe, he is independent of these things and was infinite before them and will be infinite after they pass.

>>4360719
If what you hope to come true did, that would be a sad day. Humans are meant to inquire about the nature of existence in it's totality. God is the best word we have to describe that totality.

>>4360712
>od's Consciousness would also be the amalgam of all consciousness that has ever existed, and this would include forms of consciousness that humans cannot comprehend

No, that's irrelevant. That's like saying the set of all cats is a cat.

Grouping shit together doesn't work like you think it does.

God is just a faulty concept. Admit it.

You'd do just as well to pray to Santa Clause, Cthulhu, the giant spaghetti monster, Harry Potter. nature, the abyss, or your cat.

Hey guys

>>4360741

I've never seen you post in a thread without lowering the tone and quality of the conversation. Which is saying a lot, because both are generally very low.

>>4360735
>umans are meant to inquire about the nature of existence in it's totality.

Yes, but the Deistic God is set up as being 'beyond ontology', 'infinite', 'incomprehensible'. You can't inquire about his existence when you say that he can't be comprehended, its a logical paradox.

When Deists talk about God its no different than someone saying that he is the wibbly wobbly timey wimey of existence.

>>4360731
>God is neither existent nor non-existent, since he transcends ontology altogether
I would think this would be inclusive rather than exclusive
>God is beyond nature and the universe, he is independent of these things and was infinite before them and will be infinite after they pass.
I think I actually agree with you, though i would say that being "independent of these thing" does not exclude being part of them as well. Think Quantum superposition.
But again I don't disagree, I just think we're talking past each other

>>4360742
lol

Spinoza's God is a useless concept. If humans are incapable of observing or being made aware of God, then there is no compelling reason to "believe", whatever the fuck that entails. God is this imaginary thing humans personify, so that they have a thing unto which they can project their insecurities. If we are not 100% in control of our fate, someone/thing must be, of course. Intellectual Christians (Existentialists in Dostoevsky's case) latch onto Christ more than they do the Abrahamic God the same way Buddhists follow Buddha but do not worship him universally. Christ was an influential teacher and a moral/philosophical leader for early cultures.

This whole rationalization of God is just a symptom of our intellectual debt. Religion is so deeply ingrained into our collective consciousness that we feel compelled to retrofit our logic rather than follow it to its conclusion.

>>4360735
No.

We do without Santa when we grow up, civilization will get along fine without knowing why existence happened, or what happens after we die. I'm sure we'll ponder and investigate, but its like looking for the edge of space or the end or beginning of time. Let the fairy stories go. Drop the personification of this mystery.

>>4360741
see>>4360681
If god is a faulty concept it is your faulty concept. And if you want to replace the word god with flying spaghetti monster go ahead, it's just semantics in the end anyways. But if you do so only to mock, you're only cheating yourself.

captcha: nentsmit unhappy

>>4360767

Hilarious comic.

Discovering God is the meaning of life, wherever he may be...it's worth to take a look and see what we find

>>4360737
wait what? Get into relativity

>>4360786
>wait what? Get into relativity

Relativity doesn't break logic.
The set of all minds is not a mind
The set of all cats is not a cat.

An infinite consciousness is a mind that is limitless, it doesn't need other minds to be added to it, it isn't created by adding extra bits to it.

Adding $1 dollar to a bank account that has infinite money won't increase the amount or change it at all.

The two can be perfectly separated.

Raping angels seemed like a valid trick, back in the days.

>>4360780
What an awful existence that must be

>>4360780
>it's worth to take a look and see what we find
Sorry, too busy being cool.

>>4360768
now we're getting somewhere, I disagree that we should drop the personification of this mystery. Not saying that you shouldn't look at it the other way as well either. In the event of a singularity, I do not believe a that an intangible thing such as consciousness just stops existing. Much like Einstein did. Sorry for the name drop, but I'm just saying that it is quite valid to be enthralled with this idea. I mean, it's just such a beautiful concept. It doesn't take anything for a troll to shit on a valid idea (I mean in general, not ad hominem, I appreciate that you articulate yourself)
I mean "I Am the one who is called I Am" is wonderfully poetic

>>4360731
>God is beyond nature and the universe
What does this even mean?

>>4360778
I have replaced it with __________

Nothing. There is very likely nothing. It would be weird if there was one, or more, and if there is, it/they are as Epicurus said. Forever out of range, sight, earshot etc.

>>4360806
>Relativity doesn't break logic.
No but it bends it
>The set of all minds is not a mind
>The set of all cats is not a cat
Babies first discreet math course

>Adding $1 dollar to a bank account that has infinite money won't increase the amount or change it at all
There are degrees of infinity, so ya it would change it because infinty is not a number, it is a description of the tendency to increase without bound

>>4360846
If nothing is what you want, that is exactly what you will get. I myself would rather replace god with "everything" but i do not feel the need to replace it.

>>4360836
>>God is beyond nature and the universe
>What does this even mean?

The universe has space-time boundaries. It's basically a block of unknown shape and many dimensions, but it is bound.

God is outside the boundary. Infinitely outside.

>tfw أنا الحق

>>4360869
>muh infinite regression

>>4360601
believe

>>4360869
>God is outside the boundary. Infinitely outside.
Then it isn't real.

>>4360883
>Then it isn't real.

How are you defining real? A transient phenomena that will disappear in a few moments?

That's not real. You think the world you live in is real? lol

>>4360691
"New Atheism" is Richard Dawkins proving, yet again, that Academics should not publish outside of their area of disciplinary expertise. It attacks a strawman Invisible Sky Father derived solely from the blandest and most cretinistic contemporary Christian theologies. It does harm to the history of theology, and contemporary theological practice. The God Dawkins etal are attacking is pre-Spinozan for goodness sakes.

A fully developed atheist argument needs to be able to attack Kierkegaard, for example, or contemporary Liberation theology. It needs to dismantle and demonstrate the fallacies of reason, the effabilities of the ineffable, and the meaningless of faith. Such cannot be done when you set up a strawman of Baptist sky father worship only to knock it down.

If I wanted to play skittles, I'd be drunk and in France.

>>4360675
>new atheism
i agree with you there, Dawkins is pop culture retard on par with Miley Cyrus

>>4360894
Get fucked by Christ, Godnerd!

>>4360684
>>>/mlp/Tulpa

>>4360894
ha i already googled and posted below you but thanks

>>4360689
The Totality is incomprehensible, thus knowing a feature of the incomprehensible, such as skipping a stone across a pond, is meaningless.

>>4360846
Is this guy actually gone or just lurking? show yourself tripfag

>>4360707
>the jews in aushwitz prayed to God and nothing happened
Auschwitz.

And something happened alright. Try Primo Levi for starters.

>>4360900
>Tulpa

Funny I was just reading about how to make a Superman Tulpa.

>>4360899
he's an atheist, read before you post

>>4360907
>Primo Levi

what about him?....
>jew chemist

and?

>>4360906
Making guacamole. What'd y'want?

>>4360912
oh... delicious. I just miss you, you're a better devil's advocate (don't read into that) than most

Maybe killing the big, bearded sonofabitch would make him fall over and tear the celestial curtains.

>>4360898
Except Richard Dawkins is more sexually attractive.

>>4360894
I like you, I most certainly believe in the concept of God, but it is one formulated without reading much "Proper Philosophy" so I would lag and have to research your references in order to discuss our opposing ideas. But i think in real life we would be friends who would have interesting debates

>>4360919
hehehe

>>4360910
Well, for one, Zionism was legitimised in new and terrifying ways: Israel-the-diaspora was reborn as Israel-the-lion-in-Palestine.

Secondly, a great number of Jewish thinkers realised that Judaism itself had major problems as a religious practice if God harrowed them in that way.

Thirdly, and coming from both points, the reconstitution of humanity as the dreg or remainder that cannot be eliminated by bastardisation of the highest category was discovered in such as _If this is a man_. Solzhenitzyn has a similar realisation.

>>4360928
>the reconstitution of humanity as the dreg or remainder that cannot be eliminated by bastardisation of the highest category was discovered in such as _If this is a man_

can you say this more clearly and cogently? It really sounds like diarrhea.

>>4360933
_If this is a man_ is a work. It displays bastardisation of the highest order. Such bastardisation cannot eliminate all of a man. A dreg remains. A remainder remains. This remainder, this dreg, cannot be eliminated from the person by such bastardisation. Primo Levi shows that "humanity" and "humanism" can be reconstituted based solely on this dreg alone; solely on this remainder.

>>4360943

Ok but this still doesn't say anything to me.

Is he saying that Jews are reconstituted by some dreg, some scum, that was left behind?

>>4360945
>>4360943
>>4360933
>>4360928
>>4360910
>>4360907
(Both of) you are diarhea

There was a scientist, I forget his name.
He sent a letter to his buddy in England, claiming he'd proved Fermat's Last Theorem or some such thing.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Because I barely do.

>>4360945
He's saying that some kind of post-enlightenment project can be reconstituted from our own abjection. ie: That the holocaust is not the end of humanism, even though the industrial murder of human beings is a necessary end point of humanism.

Its quite an important point and possibly a greater generic human liberation than the Mosaic reconstitution of theism in "the desert," or the reconstitution of religion as interpretive in Babylon. It is certainly a more important lesson than the end of the latest diaspora's material correlate in the State of Israel. And it has nothing in particular to do with Jewishness.

>>4360956
or they're just>>4360912

>>4360894
>The God Dawkins etal are attacking is pre-Spinozan for goodness sakes.

The Deistic Spinozan God isn't the popular one, Dawkins sets out to attack Abrahamic religions with logical deductions from the onset.

The Spinozan God can't be attacked because it doesn't take an ontological stance, it supposedly transcends this, which is absurd in itself. Something which transcends the finite is not worth attacking because it leads to some inconceivable infinite regression with no casual starting point, its literally giving up and saying that the universe transcends materialism, which is an indefensible position when looked at logically. Kierkegaard himself recognizes the absurdity of his God, its a focal point of his entire philosophy.

Deism is dead and buried, its scarcely different than agnosticism or pragmatic atheism.

>>4360961
>That the holocaust is not the end of humanism, even though the industrial murder of human beings is a necessary end point of humanism.

Only a retard would think that the "holocaust" could possibly be the "end of humanism". His point is vapid.

Reminds me of some other jew who said after Aushwitz there will be no more poetry. Big, empty, words with no thought behind them.

> It is certainly a more important lesson than the end of the latest diaspora's material correlate in the State of Israel. And it has nothing in particular to do with Jewishness.

Still nothing is being said and you have no point.

>>4360983
>Only a retard would think that the "holocaust" could possibly be the "end of humanism". His point is vapid.
Go ask the retards of the 1940s and 1950s.

>>4360972
>Deism is dead and buried, its scarcely different than agnosticism or pragmatic atheism.
Bullshit. Kierkegaard's god allows for the structuring of meaning in a meaningless world.

>>4360972
>Spinoza [is]literally giving up and saying that the universe transcends materialism, which is an indefensible position when looked at logically.
No it isn't in layman's terms its that there is more than meets the eye

>>4360987
>Kierkegaard's god allows for the structuring of meaning in a meaningless world.

It's not the God or the Object of faith, its the "leap into faith" itself that generates meaning, through repetition.

>>4360987
>Kierkegaard's god allows for the structuring of meaning in a meaningless world.

Only if you can accept the meaning of something that transcends our reality. Religion and a belief in God in spite of reason can be harmful because it imposes meaning rather than deriving it from humanistic sources.

Catholicism is the most obvious instance of this, with the eastern orthodox church being the only church that comes to mind off hand that is not guilty of upholding some Uberwelt as being more important than casual reality.

I ask you, what meaning does God have when he is beyond logical deduction? Even the most absurd human reasons can be conceptualized in some way, understood by humans.

If God existed, he wouldn't even be relevant, and deriving meaning from such an inherently useless concept is just like putting a bandaid on the problem and ignoring it.

>>4361004
>Only if you can accept the meaning of something that transcends our reality.
See
>>4361003
>It's not the God or the Object of faith, its the "leap into faith" itself that generates meaning, through repetition.
Who gets it.

>Religion and a belief in God in spite of reason can be harmful because it imposes meaning rather than deriving it from humanistic sources.
Go read the eisegesis thread until you realise that humanistically derived meaning has exactly the same epistemological value content as divinely inspired meaning. There is no master signifier: languages' meanings are as arbitrary as faith. No human rationality can produce meaning. God is dead. The Text is Dead.

>I ask you, what meaning does God have when he is beyond logical deduction? Even the most absurd human reasons can be conceptualized in some way, understood by humans.
You're repeating the same infantile Thomist bullshit that the Catholic in the eisegesis thread committed: logical deduction is beyond logical deduction, it is an incommunicable interior experience. Only repeated leaping, transvaluation, or futile meaningless endeavour (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche or Camus) are valid ways out of this.

>putting a bandaid on the problem.

Words have no stable meaning, yet I'm able to read. God is incomprehensible, yet the faithful can validly believe.

Please do catch up to the epistemological problem that post-Structuralism discovered in Kierkegaard's atheism.

>>4361004
God gives purpose to those who feel without

Inb4: der I always had a perpus, those who dont r pleb and should die.

It is human to fail and feel lost, God is a neccessity

>>4361015
>It is human to fail and feel lost, God is a neccessity
Arguably either transvaluation of values or Sisyphean futility don't require god.

>>4360601
You could read some Nietzsche out loud.

>>4361017
I would like to hear those arguments because I can't see it

>>4361014
>humanistically derived meaning has exactly the same epistemological value content as divinely inspired meaning.

No, it doesn't, because personally derived meaning is inherently superior to externally imposed meaning, regardless of the external source.

Arbitrary self purpose is and will always be superior to external arbitrary purpose.

Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Camus all start with arbitrary human values, the transvaluation of these values doesn't require a God, in fact, in the Nietzchean sense, it is incompatible with God.

Wrapping these things up into a nice bundle and calling them God is all well and good until you try to logically defend it, people that say that their lives are meaningless without God should just be ignored, because you aren't going to get anywhere arguing with them. New Atheism shouldn't even bother trying to attack this because its a waste of time.

>>4361027
Transvaluation of value is an entirely interior experience requiring an inspection of ontology by the individual. God isn't present in this process of producing your own meaning. Its a self-referential production of meaning.

Sisysphean projects don't require a meaning, they just require a doing.

>>4360654
How do you know the back of the ball exists if you can't see it?

>>4361035
>No, it doesn't, because personally derived meaning is inherently superior to externally imposed meaning, regardless of the external source.
If you think language is interior to you then you have a real fucking problem with epistemology (even within its contingency).

>>4361040
If you think language is correlative with being and not a tool of being than you have a real problem with understanding language as a construct.

>>4361046
Show me an ontology without language.

>>4361035
new atheism is a waste of time
and as for people who wrap it all up and call it god equate existence with god and don't see contradictions; just different sides of the polygon of reality. New atheism attacks strawmen, and is itself a strawman; these different views talk past each other and intentionally divide what doesn't need to be.

>>4361038
>God isn't present in this process of producing your own meaning. Its a self-referential production of meaning.
unless you have a pantheistic view that is

>>4361049
>Show me an ontology without language.

you are in one.

>>4361078
Sorry I pissed myself laughing and had to change my pants.

do drugs

turn the world into an abode fit for a god

Yes. Excommunication is the worst feeling. In this context disbelief will cause God to reveal himself.

>>4361078

Go to church.

Yes, prayer.

>>4361014

>Please do catch up to the epistemological problem that post-Structuralism discovered in Kierkegaard's atheism.

/lit/ collects arguments like they're Pokemon.

>>4362087
And? These unresolved problematics define the terrain of study.

>>4360636

*tips fedora*

>>4362552

>You're repeating the same infantile Thomist bullshit that the Catholic in the eisegesis thread committed: logical deduction is beyond logical deduction, it is an incommunicable interior experience. Only repeated leaping, transvaluation, or futile meaningless endeavour (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche or Camus) are valid ways out of this.

You think philosophy of math is strongest with euro fags that didn't even specialize in it?

>>>>>>>furnace

>>4362552

Look at the post. It was trying to assert being right, but only relied on telling people to read. That's relying on someone to argue for you. I make theists cry with pure enlightened rationality.

We are God. We and only we, shape the image of God.

As John Dewey would say. Education is the true kingdom of God.

>>4360894
It is quite easy to sit on one's high horse and poke fun at the banality of new atheism for combatting a "straw man sky daddy", but lets face the facts here, the most common and influential belief system in the west is one not borne of commendable theology or philosophy and is merely the mutations of the medieval musings of ignorant men.

the new atheism may not be a strong movement when it comes to challenging complex and convoluted theodicy that is (in the scale of things) a recent and mostly inconsequential affair.

Yet The fact of the matter is that half of the American population (at least) is very badly read and holds a damaging and backward mindset which is incompatible with modern science and morality.

Dawkins has repeatedly expressed sympathy towards friendly neighborhood reverends and has never ridiculed philosophical meditation on the existence of a divine being in a private and personal manner so I think that really you are the one posing the straw man here to suggest that he has such a limited view of spirituality

Now that I'm thinking about it - you remember the russians in that submarine, like, that could have started WWIII?

Probably, if someone was standing, index finger resting on the red button, this would be a good opportunity for God to show up and start discussing with the guy.

>>4360735
I prefer 'everything'. Less baggage.

>>4362887
If Dawkins is not conducting an intellectual campaign against theology, but a political campaign against believers; all we must do is to suggest his politics are ungrounded to alleviate mass human suffering. Dawkins is not working class; he is neither a Marxist nor an anarchist. Dawkins is incapable of a liberatory politics

Bad theology
Bad politics

>>4362907
how is suggesting that it would be a good idea to keep Jesus out of science journals and classrooms a bad political agenda exactly?
He writes his books more like research papers than manifestos or philosophical works anyway.

>>4362921
and I think it is possible to be overly intellectual about it all but then the conversation will inevitably spiral into pretension and name dropping when the meat of the argument should really lay with "is modern mainstream religion hindering the progress of humanity?".

>>4360601

If God exist he is probably a right-winger cunt, fuck that guy why would I want to meet him?

>>4362935
Friend, by definition, the laws of nature are right wing.

>>4362921
Fuck Dawkins. He is literally a fedora enabler. He allows his work and persona to be misinterpreted and his audience often laughs and giggles during his speeches and he encourages them. Theology is a vital part of our world and nothing with change that for a long time to come.

We must learn to coexist with religion, not bash.

>>4362970
well now you've just descended to stupidity.
Have you even read the selfish gene? River out of Eden? The greatest show on earth?

>>4362993
The Selfish Genre. I am talking about his speeches. Sure he has some interesting things to say, but his following is a bunch of idiots and he does nothing to discourage them, not to mention he acts like a child toward religion, tossing in all religions with the more modern main misconstrued ones.

He is essentially just ammo for people to use against the fact that I am a Deist and I have to hear nonsense about muh dawkins regardless of my Deist beliefs.

His opinions are far to sweeping.

>>4362970
>literally

>>4363050
I never understood the point of deism

>>4360675
>Im an atheist, and a militant one at that
>This is what people on /lit/ actually believe

Do people not know what militant means or are they seriously like "I believe in this and I love to shove those beliefs in everyones asshole"

>>4363071
Then you obviously never took an interest in it. There is no absolute answer to I choose to take a philosophical approach that makes the most sense in my opinion.
>>4363056
What is your point. He does it intentionally and does nothing to quell the fedora fest he builds around him of pseudo intellectuals shouting down God as if they have an actual merit.

>>4360918
>tfw want to fight god
>tfw not a JRPG/Anime Protagonist.

Feels bad man

>>4363106
>he

8')

God is everywhere , you whore.

>>4363050

Now use that argument for theologians enabling religious stupidity. Or any nuanced academic theory with a shitty popular application.

>>4362898
The baggage is what im trying to resolve by using it

>>4363531
I didn't say I support them either.

have faith
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUH

God show's himself to me almost daily. All you need to do is search in faith. Mathew 7:7

>>4360635
>you can't see it.
But you can. Consciousness is the sensation that arises from sensing it.

kill every human on the planet

>>4364066
>But you can. Consciousness is the sensation that arises from sensing it.

Consciousness is just a guess.
You only see phenomena, objects, sensations.
You never see the subject.

>>4364297
What are you saying exactly? That it's some kind of hole we just know is there?

>>4364329
>What are you saying exactly?


CONSCIOUSNESS IS JUST A GUESS.
YOU ONLY SEE PHENOMENA, OBJECTS, SENSATIONS.
YOU NEVER SEE THE SUBJECT.

You have to live a really good life and then die.

For an all powerful omnipotent cosmic deity, God sure does like to make himself known to the universe

>>4360623
>>4360648
>Implying Spinoza is talking about an actual God

He's talking about God in the way scientists refer to nature. It's not really a "God" in the traditional sense.

>>4362844
>Dewey

Ma Nigga

>>4361063
"snaps finger" deep man, fight those dualities

Salman Rushdie provoked Allah

>>4364833
hahahahaha

>>4361039
turn it around and look, candy-ass

>>4364857
haha u akbar

>>4362087
are you trying to say that pokemon isn't fucking rad?

>>4360601
ITT: we summon moot.

>>4360601
god is an idea, not a person or a being

But humanity is God.

>>4365739

>>4360601
Which God? Bible God?

Genesis 3:22-24, after Adam and Eve ate fruit of knowledge of good and evil tree, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

We find the Garden (maybe it's under water), fight off the angels with our newly-found nuclear powers, eat the fruit, live forever, fight God, ???, profit!

God is a bag.

>>4365979
And you mum is a hag.

>>4365979
And your sister is a slag.

>>4365979
And you are a fag.

>>4365979

And your dad goes to clubs in drag.

>>4365979
And there's a only a zero on your price-tag.

>>4365979
And you're objectively mad

>>4365979
And your aunt isn't worth a shag.

>>4365979
And you're a spoilt brat.

>>4365979
And I bet you're really fat.

>>4365979
And in your hat I once shat.

>>4365979
And on your face I once spat.

>>4360614
The God of the old testament is the demiurge.

>>4365779
I cant say that I have read it all, but from the various snippets of the Bible, provoking him seems very easy on a national scale, so many things would have led him to act if he had been the being depicted in those stories, building skyscrapers, committing all the atrocities that have happened in the years, expecially those in its name.

I would not know if it exists but I am very skeptical something like that could happen now.