/lit/ - Literature

Nope

Yes, a teapot

I believe in a god who is love.

>>5909631
Where do I find good deist works? The concept interests me

>>5911566

you mean like an erection?

>>5911566
>tfw if this was your post it wouldn't be a joke
meanie

I believe in all 12 gods

>>5909631
Of course not

>>5911824
january, february, march, april, may, june, july, august, september, october, november, december?

humans are not capable of understanding what we otherwise refer to as a god, any more than a goldfish is capable of understanding how to drive a car

that said, i hope to go to valhalla when i die

ass not really related

>>5909631
I BELIEVE IN A LOT OF EASTERN PHILOSOPHY LIKE YIN-YANGS AND BUDDHA STRETCHING, BUT WITH SOME WESTERN RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS MIXED IN, LIKE THE CONCEPT OF WHEN WE DIE THE COOL GUYS GO TO CLOUD MANSION AND THE LIL' FUCKERS GO DOWN TO FIRE BASEMENT TO BE BULLIED BY SATANS FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS!

>>5911829
2/12
March and June

>>5911831
but what if they put a goldfish into a motion sensor room that controls a car? Does that mean we can also hack our way into understanding god through technology?

On a personal level I don't care if there is or not.

>>5911831
>ass not really related
Also, not existent. Unlike God?

>>5911850
juno and avos (:

>>5909631
When faced with death early man created an immortal soul for himself and an afterlife to dwell in. The truth was too much to bare.
So to was the infinity of time and space. Men had a beginning, so too did his conception of the world. A creator-originator soul had to come forth, and since animals would have souls, so to the stars, the moon and the sun.

The variety of stories we told ourselves don't change the facts we discover in the material and reasonable world.

>>5911831
>ass not really related
That's what you think. ;)

>>5911862
>Typos
Xp

Imperfect, multiple, subject to fate, beyond good and evil.

>>5911862
it's really only one story

>>5911862
>When faced with death early man created an immortal soul for himself and an afterlife to dwell in.
Is that so? Hellenismos does not have much of an afterlife to speak off, it's not far different from oblivion.

all of them, though i make no claim as to their individual natures

>>5911876
History is one story, the gods are multi-fold in each human head.

>>5911880
The Greeks concept seems to be similar to the ancient middle easterners. Sitting around collecting dust, or just wandering shadows in an unfeeling world. The Eleusinian rites got you a better deal of some sort, but it's all an afterlife.

Dante's Christian heaven isn't any better than Gilgamesh's fate, imo.

>>5911956
It's an allegorical afterlife, most Greeks didn't believe you were literally sentient and wandering. That's why you could be a part of the public religion and have some side one, like Orphism that preached reincarnation, because the public religion was indifferent to the idea of an afterlife and on default there was no afterlife.

>>5909631
I believe in an orthodox Catholic view on God.

>>5909631
the only time i got into god was about last year i had a great job was sober for 9 months. decided to be a weekend warrior and take 3meopcp on the weekends. not long after that i started reading the bible then i started having coworkers call me and tell me to read certain parts of the bible. i ended up living in the woods for a week seeing swastikas in my mind. (not kidding, when swastikas spin they make circles which were my mental traveling vehicle) i finally came down from psychosis, left a bible by the riverside with a mountain dew. i was certain that i was a messiah or a human sacrifice damning people left and right. i was fucked up on synthetic pcp and god... such is life

>>5909647
This guy knows what's up.

>>5912056
>on default there was no afterlife
afterlife is described even in 'odyssey'

I don't, and I hope that the "omni-max" God in Christianity doesn't exist, it would be depressing.

>>5909631
No, god is unfalsifiable.

My god is my penis,

>>5912139
he is a big guy

>>5912144
He's really useless, and I doubt he exists.

>>5912116
And? You think the Greeks thought the Odyssey was factual?

>>5912148
I'm going to supplement this: in the Odyssey, the afterlife is said by Achilles to be more miserable than living as the lowliest laborer alive. Yet the idea that death is preferable to life is commonly voiced in Greek literature, in Herodotus a story is related about how a mother's sons pulled her carriage so she could worship when they lost their animals. As a reward, Hera killed them both painlessly. That wouldn't be considered a reward in Greece if they thought the afterlife was literally like in the Odyssey.

>>5912148

it shows that the conception of afterlife was common outside of mysteries

ugh, even aristophanes described it in his 'the frogs'

>>5912156
>the afterlife is said by Achilles to be more miserable than living as the lowliest laborer alive
he probably hated cute asphodels :3

>>5912169
Was Aristophanes a shitposter on 4chin?

>>5912169
A literary conception, that's a bit different from a belief.

The concept of God is consistently a tool used by the human mind to escape from the existential crisis.

It also is a profound tool in suppression. If I go to heaven because I submit, why would I revolt? Eternal afterlife beats heaven on earth any day of the week.

Thus the belief in God tends to be a recognition of materialist conditions, at least in today's world. Recognizing those conditions and trying to escape them now is better than assuming I will escape them later.

I stopped believing in God a long time ago after a very serious Catholic upbringing (catholic school, being an altar boy, priest in the family, etc). It's impossible to know either way if God exists, so don't believe.

Then I started reading Marx and it made a lot of sense to me, as did Sartre and some Camus. So now I'm militantly atheist.

>>5909631
People can spout literary nonsense all they want but the fact remains that the universe is "god".

>>5912198
bre-ke-kex, ko-ax, ko-ax!

>>5912201
but it's based on the belief, like the heaven/hell in the modern lit is based on the belief/former belief

>>5911956
>Dante's Christian heaven isn't any better than Gilgamesh's fate, imo.

phew, sumerian afterlife was completely different. firstly it extremely depended on the offerings and libations of alive because dead were thought to drink and eat only what they got with those offerings, people made offerings for the immediate ancestors and for collective ancestors. the afterlife depended on how many children you had, it also depended on how you died because it affected the conditions of your body. the only people who were happy in the afterlife it were stillborn babies for some reason... well, gilgamesh himself should sit among the minor deities to judge dead but it's still not something spectacular, especially considering that the offerings to him are long gone...
from 'bilgames and the netherworld':

>'Did you see the man with one son?' 'I saw him.' 'How does he
fare?'
>'For the peg built into his wall bitterly he laments.'
>'Did you see the man with two sons?' 'I saw him.' 'How does he
fare?'
>'Seated on two bricks he eats a bread-loaf.'
>'Did you see the man with three sons?' 'I saw him.' 'How does he
fare?'
>'He drinks water from the waterskin slung on the saddle.'
...
>'Did you see the man with no heir?' 'I saw him.' '[How does] he
fare?'
>'He eats a bread-loaf like a kiln-fired brick.'
...
>'Did you see the woman who had not given birth?' 'I saw her.'
>'How does she fare?'
>'Like a defective pot she is cast aside, no man takes pleasure in her.'
>'Did you see the young man who had not bared the lap of his wife?'
>'I saw him.' 'How does he fare?'
>'You have him finish a hand-worked rope, he weeps over it.'
>'Did you see the young woman who had not bared the lap of her
husband?' 'I saw her.' 'How does she fare?'
>'You have her finish a hand-worked reed mat, she weeps over it.'
>'Did you see the leper?' 'I saw him.' 'How does he fare?'
>'His food is set apart, his drink is set apart, he eats uprooted grass,
he roots for water (in the ground), he lives outside the
city.'
...
>'Did you see the man eaten by a lion?' 'I saw him.' 'How
does he fare?'
>'Bitterly he cries, "O my hand! O my foot!'"
>'Did you see the person who fell from a roof?' 'I saw him.'
>'How does he fare?'
>'They cannot repair his bones.
>He twitches like an ox as the maggots consume him.'
...
>'Did you see the shade of him who has no one to make funerary
offerings?' 'I saw him.' 'How does he fare?'
>'He eats scrapings from the pot and crusts of bread thrown away in
the street.'
...
>'Did you see the little stillborn babies, who knew not names of their
own?' 'I saw them.' 'How do they fare?'
>'They play amid syrup and ghee at tables of silver and gold.'

while dante describes the paradise as eternal joy

>Whoso lamenteth him that here we die
>That we may live above, has never there
>Seen the refreshment of the eternal rain.

Yes, and he goes by the name of Science. The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.

I'll try not to mince words here. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think—though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one—that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.

To 'choose' dogma and faith over doubt and experience is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid.

>>5912284
>>do you believe in a god?
>Yes, and he goes by the name of Science.
ew
to believe in science is one of the most retarded things one could do, it's like to believe in a tool like a saw or a hammer

>>5909631
Yes, omnipotent omnibenevolent

>>5912296
No, believing in a tool like a saw or a hammer would be like believing in the scientific method. I said I believed in Science. *sigh* When will you feeble-minded theists learn...

>>5912284
Faith is not a thing that can be 'chosen.' It is a thing that strikes at one from beyond the material, as it struck down Paul on the road to Damascus.

>>5912306
no, that's you mix scientism with science and call scientism religion

>>5912308
Does anyone else agree that it is time we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail?

>>5912144
4u

>>5912276
>but it's based on the belief, like the heaven/hell in the modern lit is based on the belief/former belief
It might well have been a belief at one time, but I doubt it was by the Homer's time, let alone the classical period.

>>5912327
well, my argument that it's mentioned in the literature, 'mystae' were thought that they get a better afterlife than others but not that they are solely who get the afterlife (they are mentioned in 'the frogs' too btw), what's your argument that greeks didn't believe in the afterlife at all?

>>5912348
No, not at all. Merely that the public religion had no stance on the afterlife and by default there wasn't one. Besides public religion, there were mysteries one could be a part of which had all sorts of ideas on the afterlife, and then one could also be a part of a philosophical religion, such as Platonism.

The Greeks were not one person.

>>5912318
Faith is an entirely separate mode of knowing, as John Henry Newman says. Through faith we know things which we could never know otherwise.

God is a concept that has evolved over time. Before Biblical god, there was polytheism, and Zeus. These variegated gods correspond as memes do in internet culture. They spread throughout civilization, the Jews obviously liked Zeus, the Greeks inherited most of their gods from Egypt except Poseidon, and as these gods spread, the reality of the individuals changed and became humbled. The Nietzschean 'God is dead' is a self righteous backlash against the concept of higher beings. A sort of 'will to power' conception of the meaning of life. You exist because you inherently want to impact life. However, then, what is the right answer. Should we all pray to god or to ourselves? The answer is thus: a combination. We will find ourselves by realizing that morality's foundation came with many flaws but a centralized morality, commonly referred to as religion, got us to where we are today. And not only this, without religion a lot of benefits that came from philanthropic despots, primarily the British empire's lineage, would never have occurred.

So is there a God or isn't there. You can never know for sure. Because of perceptual differences, there is a 100% chance he exists and a 100% chance he doesn't exist at the same damn time. And that's the point.

>>5909631
Of course I do, I'm not a petulant child. Any honest examination of reality and philosophy demonstrates that God exists.

ya

This is some Zenon-level pseudological crap but I'm gonna be honest.

Logical friction dictates that If God isn't the entire universe he is merely a being in it. He might seen omnipotent but he cannot be. I'm not gonna list creatures that don't exist but if you define a creature as God, well...that's some Hindu shit.

"There is only one God" is just an intuitive misunderstanding of number theory.

And if God is the entire universe there's nothing we can say about him really. Yeah there's via negativa, mut that is usually expected to be of *some* worth, i.e. cheating by speaking of what can't speak of.

If God is universe he only trancends and doesn't trancend everything. He is zero and infinite, but not one. He has no human virtues.

>>5909631
Yes, it goes way back.

>>5911831

I see this as probable.

>>5911853
Perhaps, maybe it isn't us entirely that needs to fully understand, maybe the machines eventually will, maybe our next forms(What we'll be after we develop tech superior to the human body) might be able to. The Universe is so vast, it feels overwhelming just trying to think about all the likely probabilities.


I say enjoy the ride, while it lasts.

>>5912215
>>5912284
>>5912384

>>5912423
But can you be so absolute in your belief? What if natural order is inapplicable outside of the known universe? What if god is in the universe but still has absolute power over it? Yea there's no current way to know, and it's all what ifs, but if we don't know, then we don't know.

>>5912497

I suppose that to me the concept of logical friction is so profound that I can't properly challenge it without a good formulation. And I'm yet to witness one unless we move into a religious language game, but that's a very large leap of faith analytically speaking.

>What if god is in the universe but still has absolute power over it?
It's in interesting question since it might be complete nonsense, but then again we have seriously discussed pseudo-problems such as Achilles and the Tortoise. I don't know if these belong to the same continuum though.

The content of mysticism cannot be checked by neutral means of course. Yet this doesn't mean that there is any content.

>>5912581
>Achilles and the Tortoise
It is not a problem, it is a demonstration on the nature of inference. You clearly missed the point.

We are all God experiencing reality through a biological filter.

>>5912276
>Whoso lamenteth him that here we die
>That we may live above, has never there
>Seen the refreshment of the eternal rain.
So bowing before a king, eternally, in some kind of drug haze. No different than Zeus needing men to make sacrifice.
This is not paradise.

>>5912389
But this is exactly what a child would say.

>>5912389

>Any honest examination of reality and philosophy demonstrates that God exists.

Yes, and by 'honest' you probably mean 'that which verifies my opinion'

If you were really honest, you'd be skeptical, critical and suspicious of any concept that is build on a really flimsy foundation of ifs and it's possible thats

>>5912215
you cant substitute god with the universe because you cant love (and by extension worship) anything that doesnt have the capacity to love you back.
being a naturalist is retarded

>>5912630

at least you can be consistent of what you speak of, sumerians had different beliefs than greeks, greeks didn't make regular offerings to the dead but their dead needed a formal burial not to become a some kind of wandering ghost, see 'iliad', 'antigone' etc (which also disproves those who claimed here that greeks didn't have a conception of afterlife)

also that date's quote doesn't describe the beatific vision

>>5912639
>>a really flimsy foundation of ifs

>L'if, lifeless tree! Your great Maybe, Rabelais:
>The grand potato. I.P.H., a lay
>Institute (I) of Preparation (P)
>For the Hereafter (H), or If, as we
>Called it - big if!
:3

i believe in god.

I believe in the experience of God, such as the experience of natural affinity, true recognition and the urge to give selflessly. In the New Message it says that God is the sum and the Source of all relationships, which is quite an interesting way of seeing it. Naturally, I do not think of God as some sort of being.

Yes. The Machine God

>>5912497
>But can you be so absolute in your belief? What if natural order is inapplicable outside of the known universe? What if god is in the universe but still has absolute power over it? Yea there's no current way to know, and it's all what ifs, but if we don't know, then we don't know.

Yes, there are a lot of what-ifs, which is why most atheists will concede to being uncertain, but consider this: what if there is no God?

>>5913733
>what if there is no God?

Then rationality has no ground and is irrationality, in which case I might as well believe in God anyway, or I could lose all of my senses and post hellenismos threads on /lit/.

>>5913733
>consider this: what if there is no God?

Time to head to the nearest bath house!!

I just want God to be a good socialist. If it turns out God is a member of the Tea Party, I will walk to Hell myself.

>>5911566
Me too

>>5909631

There is no such thing as God.
See: evidential problem of evil, divine hiddenness, revisions of the logical problem of evil, problem of normative skepticism, bayesian arguments from the failure of theistic arguments

>>5914099

I pressed enter before I managed to add the argument from naturalism.

God is an omnipotent being who is omniscient and omnipresent. He has set things into motion for the sake of their being. Maybe it was so he could have something to love. Maybe it was because he was bored. I don't think it was because he wanted something that he could love, because he obviously hates a lot of people. The amount of injustice caused by, well, everything shows that he's either an incompetent or an unloving bastard. I think because humans are inherently unhappy and constantly desire is proof. He's putting us through hell, and I don't mean to say that because I'm having a hard time. I'm having a fucking great time. I fuck often, drink often, and generally enjoy just about everything there is to enjoy here.

I'm talking about those that never even had a chance to exercise their potential. All the people born and stuck in crippling, stagnant poverty. All the children who die due to sickness and disease. All the dictatorships ruining millions of lives. Infants and fetuses aborted, that never got to utilize this free will that the privileged and rich get to utilize. The chance to enjoy the simple things and the fine.

No God that is merciful and loving would subject his own children to a madman's torture. No God that is all powerful that truly feels bad would refuse to reach out and care for his followers that are persecuted. No God of mine would refuse equity and allow such extreme duress on the entire human race. I'm fucking angry every time somebody talks about God's mercy every time they find their lost keys, or that he blessed them with a fucking television. Or that their kid didn't come out retarded.

Existence even without the hardships of sickness or poverty is still a fucking nightmare. The rich and well to do kill themselves all the time, through self destructive behavior or the use of a weapon. Straight white males, arguably the best off of all races and genders have the highest rates of suicide, and why? Because no matter what, there is always something to be wanted. There is always the desire for it to be better, so why fucking go after it?

God as he's considered by the Judeo-Christian religions doesn't exists the way they say he does. I believe he exists. I don't deny his influence on the world, or that he created the universe, but I hate him for being apathetic to the suffering of everyone that exists.

>yes it's babby's first religious independent thought

>>5914231

>God exists and is male

You claim to know an awful lot about concepts that are beyond observation and knowledge

>>5909631
Yes

See Avicenna, St. Thomas Aquinas

>>5914243

See post cantor mathematics for a decent understanding of infinities that aquinas lacked.

>>5914239
I'm not using Xe you fucknut.

>>5911566
The human concept of love is pretty close to religious if you think about it. No one can define it, you can only know what it is if you experience it, a lot of people are vague about it. And yet we can't just say we doesn't exist and hold some "it's chemistry" shit, chemistry doesn't cover the extremes of self-sacrifice.

>>5914249

You literally believe in God and you literally believe he is male, aka a Heavenly Father. Work on your daddy issues and see a psych

>>5914247
Which is why I like Avicenna's arguments

What would you recommend I look into?

>>5914260

It was more of a general statement so it depends which of the ways you find convincing.

>>5914243
>St. Thomas Aquinas

>>5914258
>God doesn't have a fucking gender, it's traditional to call him He because of the Biblical image of the Father that so well encompasses the deep love and stern punishment of his children at the same time

>>5914258
I was saying that he's obviously not a father because of his apathy.

I probably should see a psych though.

>>5914293

See one

>>5914292

>I need some deep loving and some stern punishment from Daddy

Deists are more fucked up than I imagined

>>5914299
I'm simply explaining the traditional image of God you fucking retard

>>5914316

The traditional image for a normative white middle class westerner?

We are all god, god is within each and everyone of us.

>>5914326

That doesn't make any sense

>>5914330
why not?

>>5914332

It contradicts itself, something cannot be a part and a whole at the same time

>>5914332

because the word god has a certain meaning and neither I nor you are compatible with that meaning.

>>5914326
>new age bullshit
We are all satan, satan is within each and every one of us

>>5914326
because god is dead

If God for me is anything, he certainly isn't the antropomorfic king of the universe as the semitic religions portray him. God for me isn't really a moral or thinking being, I believe in some form of pantheism, god is everything but at the same time nothing. Ofcourse, such enigmatic concepts as god is hard to conceive. I think spiritualism is fascinating though, maybe I am too much of a romantic but I believe in something higher than mere heaven and earth.

Religion, however, especially the semitic religions, were mostly tools for social control and obedience and are far too simple to explain something as complex as our universe. I don't think man will ever achieve it

>>5914338
>>5914343
>>5914346
>>5914355

>Man creates god
>Man disassociates with god
>god becomes a completely separate entity entirely
>man forgets it created god
>man bends over for this separate entity it created

>>5914258
>argueing semantics

kill yourself

>>5914250
Well it is really chemicals and synapses that are facilitating it, no? Even basic thermal imaging displays the human body at completely different states of mood. It would be a simple task with a willing volunteer to map these further outside the lab with some device or another and collect the data during these extreme moods. Psychoanalysis can round it all out with said data.

>>5914368

When you refer to God, do you picture God as an actual bodily entity? Or something that is non-corporeal? If the latter, how can you be sure that what you're placing your belief in is in fact god and not some other mysterious construction?

Why do you believe god exists? Have you experienced contact with the assumed being?

>>5914390
Not that guy but I believe God exists the same way I believe in rules of logic and causality.
The question of God is far too political and invested in religious fights, arguing about it on the internet is basically impossible.
Metaphysics is the traditional and most respectable way to conceptualize an Absolute Being, and I've read enough of the field to understand that it is not, in any way, bullshit.

I don't see how holding a position that God necessarily exists is in any way different from holding a position of determinism or dualism. Religion is a whole fucking other ballpark and I wish you could actually fucking talk about this in a reasonable way on this website. But alas.

>>5909631
Do you believe in a higher power?
>Yeah. Yeah, I do. Otherwise it's just pure fucking chaos.
Like, the world was created by Him, and He judges what we do?
>No, I think it's more like, like parallel lines.
Parallel lines?
>You know, like two lines go on and on forever and don't never touch.
Yeah.
>Except they don't actually exist in nature. And man can't create no true parallel. It's just more of a concept.
>I learned that shit in high school geometry.
Uh-huh.
>Well that concept, that perfection, we know it exists. And we think about it.
>But we can't never get there ourselves. I think that right there is God.

>>5914404
>Metaphysics
>Absolute Being

These have no bearing on critical analysis or scientific discourse. Like at all. I respect your own personal preference of worldview. But if me and you personally were discussing with an open mind, on my end I don't see a niche measure of logical and philosophical premises doing much to substantiate the actual, physical existence of anything, "transcendent" or otherwise.

I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad-redeemer (your Divine
Democrat — your Hebrew Madman) and write over his thorn-torn brow, “The true prince
of Evil — the king of the Slaves!”
No hoary falsehood shall be a truth to me — no cult or dogma shall encramp my pen.
I break away from all conventions. Alone, untrammeled. I raise up in stern invasion the
standard of Strong.
I gaze into the glassy eye of your fearsome Jehovah, and pluck him by the beard — I uplift
a broad-axe and split open his worm-eaten skull.

I gaze into the glassy eye of your fearsome Jehovah, and
pluck him by the beard — I uplift a broad-axe and split open his
worm-eaten skull.

I blast out the ghastly contents of philosophic whited
sepulchres and laugh with sardonic wrath.

Then reaching up the festering and varnished facades of
your haughtiest moral dogmas, I write thereon in letters of blazing
scorn: — "Lo and behold, all this is fraud!"

I believe the concept of whatever we evolved from is not conceivable to us yet.

Atheists insist there is no God, and that we evolved from the laws of the universe. Yet when you ask them what created the laws, they respond -- the laws.

Agnostics at least consider that the question cannot be answered, and they usually believe there is a creator in some form or another. I ask, what created that creator?

I side with Agnostics, I think there is something, but I reserve the question in the back of my mind, what created the creator?

Yes. God is post rational direct experience, and god is love.

I only worship dank memes.

>>5909631
God is a place you will wait for the rest of your life

>>5915838
>what created the creator
Nothing, he has always existed. If he can make the whole universe with all the laws and everything, why wouldn't it be possible for him to always exist since the beginning?

>>5911566
Do you believe in life after love?

>>5909631
no

>>5917928

How does it exist though? For something to develop out of nothing, there is an implication that nothing wasn't nothing in the first place, but something. If you believe in creation, why does the buck stop at the believed sole creator? Why is it so certain that nothing created it?

>>5909631
prime infinity principle

God exist because we are here. People of the past have connected with him. I have connected with him.
God works much like a programmer. He experiments. He exists beyond our reality. He expects you to find your meaning, whether it is with a conception of him or not—otherwise he would not have created you.

>>5919128
>He exists beyond our reality.

And how do you know this?

I don't believe in god nor am I religious, but I think religion is valid from an idealist perspective where god's existence is rendered useless and irrelevant.

>>5919136
A better wording would have been he can exist beyond our reality. It is his program after all.

>>5914326
If I'm a reflection of god than he certainly doesn't deserve any praise or worship

>>5912056
>It's an allegorical afterlife

What is it an allegory for?

>>5915838
>Agnostics at least consider that the question cannot be answered, and they usually believe there is a creator in some form or another.

wat

>>5919159
god is infinite. there are infinite reflections of the infinite whole. this truth accommodates even people who frequent 4chan as self-ignorant aspects of the infinite all-being.

>>5919149

I don't care about possibility, I care about actuality

>>5919200
god is infinity without limitation. you can sit down and work this one out yourself in a comfy chair with a lit cigarette of you operate from this basic principle.

and on another note, nobody here actually knows "god." we understand it intellectually, can comprehend it mentally as an abstraction or the idea of limitlessness but to know something is to experience it, and subsequently have it become a part of your being. reading about it is not the same as experiencing it. knowing infinity would be akin to what religious people call enlightenment or direct experience with limitlessness.

we understand that logically, god exists beyond our reality because for god not to exist beyond our reality would place a limitation on this idea, and that is an impossibility.

>>5919200
He created our reality, therefore he is not derived from our reality. So he transcends our reality.

>>5912423
>"There is only one God" is just an intuitive misunderstanding of number theory.
Autistic spergs trying to be clever by invoking number theory that has fuck all to do with the actual quantity of gods in the/outside the, universe.

>Yeah there's via negativa, mut that is usually expected to be of *some* worth, i.e. cheating by speaking of what can't speak of.
What vague rubbish am I reading here exactly?

>If God is universe he only trancends and doesn't trancend everything. He is zero and infinite, but not one.
Someone please help him.

>>5914326
This is pantheism, btw, just unattractively put

God is one substance and three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
God created the world and Man, Man sinned against God, God sent the Son to redeem Man, and the Son left His presence in the world in the form of the Holy Spirit, which we encounter in the Church.

I believe god is a guiding principle, be it your conscience, in life that is both personal and overarching. The big problem many people have with religion is the supernatural stuff which i see allegorical. God is the ethical principle we follow. Its just about living a good life in which you feel right because you also try to make everything right around you. Jesus is in this the son of god because he acts in a proper way. He is an inspiring person just like socrate is. God is everything around us because everything around us influences us and we influence everything around us.

>>5919231

Again, how do you know this? How exactly did you figure this out, and how do you know you're not wrong?

>>5919339
I study religion. Please ask me anything

>>5919351

Define 'God'. Use a set, consistent definition

>>5919363
I can only answer that for myself im afraid because it is such a broad term. I would go for that guiding principle in life. And this taken in the broadest way too which i can best describe with ethical. Ethical in the way of living a good life because it will make you feel at peace with yourself and your surroundings. Everyone has his telos, gene+ context given and this will lead a path. Im sorry i tried but this is the best i can do cause your question is one of the hardest given. Am i clear? What should i eleborate on

God is love, life itself, a name for energy that everything is

>>5919363
>consistent
> definition

"god" is just the unknowable infinity beyond human comprehension.

All positive characteristics applied to it by humans fail.

>>5912497
This picture is fucking depressing….

>>5914250
You realise love is just a basic instinct to reproduce. That intense attraction is your body longing for dem GENES.

>>5919550
>You realise love is just a basic instinct to reproduce.

I assume you mean that its material cause arises from the genetically determinable survival value of impulses whose execution promotes reproduction. Certainly I have been in love, but I have never, ever wanted children.

>>5919561
Your genes do want kids

>>5919574
>Your genes do want kids

Yeah, hence my first sentence.

i am my own god. voluntary egoism is ideal for the individual although i recognize mass practice of egoism would be detrimental overall

obligatory tips fedora

>>5919574
Though i dont agree with the definition because love is way more than something you can feel for a possible gene transporter

>>5919582
I understand but i dont believe you can fool your genes by not wanting to have children

>>5919584
But we've created a whole construct for it to exist within.

>>5919561
Then there's a conflict between the conscious and the sub-conscious mind.

>>5919589
>i dont believe you can fool your genes by not wanting to have children

What do you mean by this?

>>5919598
>Then there's a conflict between the conscious and the sub-conscious mind.

OK?

>>5919592
Of course. Its a very viable point of life. But you are not coverin the whole of love with the genething.

>>5919600
Body: Look at that human, they have a pretty stellar set of genes
Consciousness: My other responsibilities in life are currently in the way of having children

>>5919600
Im saying the same as the other guy youre quoting. By just not wanting to have children you cant stop your genes from wanting to reproduce. Like the other guy said the genes work partly unconcious

>>5919614
Sub*

>>5919613

I don't know why you're telling me this, though. I've said nothing it conflicts with.

>>5919614
>By just not wanting to have children you cant stop your genes from wanting to reproduce.

I still don't understand. What makes you think I have any interest in 'stopping' my genes from wanting to reproduce? Let them want away. I can still put on a condom etc and can do so whether they want to reproduce or not.

The implied feeling of love because of reproduction of genes will not go away by just not wanting to have kids

>>5919667

What?

>>5919677
Obviously this isn't exactly the best source, but it will do for now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

>>5919677
Please read the all the posts in the discussion over and over again with an unbiased mind until you understand

>>5919687

No, I honestly don't understand the claim you're making.

>The implied feeling of love because of reproduction of genes will not go away by just not wanting to have kids

I don't know if you're saying:

A) That "the feeling of love" will not go away if one doesn't want kids.

B) That the adverse reaction some people display towards the suggestion that love is biologically determined will not go away if one doesn't want kids.

C) Some third option (the sentence is really very confusing).

>>5919689
>unbiased mind

This is actually starting to annoy me a bit. I have said PRECISELY NOTHING that suggests I don't accept a biological basis for the phenomenon 'love'. Yet it seems like multiple people are tripping over their dicks to assure me, in the most confusingly phrased ways possible, that No, dude, love is TOTALLY biologically determined, you've got it all wrong, dude, you need to read this wiki entry, that'll sort you out.

>>5919768
I wasn't the one that made that statement, so I have no idea...

>>5919768
Okay excuse me then.
By saying "certainly i have been in love but i have never ever wanted children" youre implying that love as solely a genetic force as implied can be bypassed by chosing to not want children.

>>5919878
>youre implying that love as solely a genetic force as implied can be bypassed by chosing to not want children.

A couple of things. Firstly, I didn't "choose" not to want children, I just happened to not want children. Secondly, I'm implying no such thing. If by 'bypassing love as a solely genetic force' you mean that I'm somehow contradicting the claim that love is biologically determined, then I disagree - I'm not contradicting the claim. All I'm saying is that love's biologically determined nature, and in particular its connection to the need to reproduce, have no bearing on my approach to 'love'.

>>5919952
Love is a spook. Women are a meme