/lit/ - Literature

darn . . .

>>7026141
There's nothing elegant about god's "design". It's filled with redundancy and inefficiency.

>>7026148
To our eyes, maybe.

>>7026158
Well if god designed our eyes, that helps prove my point.

>>7026148
>an unimportant, fleeting spittle's opinion against divine design
Do you fuckers really pretend to understand how the mind of God works?

>>7026179
No it doesn't.

>>7026184
he's a big guy

>>7026184
The OP certainly does.

>>7026185
God designs us, yet makes that design incapable of grasping the nature of the design. Seems like a shit design to me.

>>7026189
>God designs us, yet makes that design incapable of grasping the nature of the design. Seems like a shit design to me
Maybe we are capable of grasping it, but we unconsciously or consciously chose to ignore it?
Or maybe we aren't meant to grasp the nature of everything?
How do you fucking explain an artificial program what is it?

>God needs to allow the eyes of African children to be eaten by flies because free will :)

>>7026207
Maybe. Or maybe there simply is no god. Which is the more elegant solution?

>>7026219
Because Africans don't believe him, they refuse, they deserve it

>>7026141
....this is from Hannibal isn't it?

>>7026337
Christianity is very popular in Sub-Saharan Africa. About 99% of Africa is either Muslim or Christian.

>nu-uh
Uh-huh.
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2011/12/Christianity-fullreport-web.pdf

>>7026222
smh

>>7026189
>Seems like a shit design to me.
well I guess you should correct the Almighty and let him know that you, in your less than 30 years on earth, understand the flaws in his system of everything and will point them out to his omniscience.

Your powers of observation and reasoning are wasted on 4chan my friend.

>>7026222
>simply is no god
God exists.
The definition of god is what is up for debate.
God is simply the greatest possible being, and what that is, is rather up for debate. But fuck it worst case scenario I'm God.

>>7026219
>>7026375
They are they being a given glimpse into Christ's Passion, and will be in greater glory in Heaven for it.

>>7026576
>God exists.

>>7026222

>>7026491
But there is no almighty, and there is no design. How can I correct that which does not exist? I'm merely pointing out that the flaws in "creation" either reveal a lack of elegance or more likely, a lack of a god.

>>7026607
So your assertion is that the fact that humans can't grasp the design f the universe is evidence that there is no God?

You are operating on levels I truly cannot begin to comprehend.

>>7026607
>physical reality has any bearing on the existence of God

Elegance are eggs with trunks

>>7026630
If God exists, then it is a physical object.

>>7026893
You piece of fucking shit.

>>7026905
God's existence is metaphysical, not physical.

>>7026627
No. I assume there is no god as a personal view.

If there IS a god and if OP's assertion that god's design is elegance, that flies in the face in the actuality of the elegance of the design. In other words, god cannot have had elegance as a goal for the design, as the design is, in actuality, inelegant. Now it could be that "humans are incapable of understanding the elegance of god". Fair enough, but why then choose the word elegant to describe god if we can't understand it? Why not just go with the biblical phrase of describing god "I AM" or phrased another way "God Is" and leave it at that? Why try to qualify god as elegant or a savior if our minds are too limited to grasp the nature of this elegance or salvation? Why claim god is a designer if we're incapable of grasping the design? All you're doing in these cases is rendering the words you're using meaningless within the context.

My other assertion is, that is a load of complicated shit, and it's far less of a logical leap to simply assume there is no god.

Also, the fact that you cannot comprehend me, according to the logic being expressed by certain deists in this thread, actually means I'm right and you're wrong. So enjoy that. I work in mysterious ways, apparently.

>"God can't save any of us because it's inelegant. Elegance is more important than suffering. That's his design."

>all these bitter Christfags doing more mental gymnastics to prove to themselves God's existence

>>7026918

This is kinda bullshit tbh, you can understand that someone is a designer or savior without completely understanding the design or salvation itself.

is your logic basically "this is tough to understand, so fuck it its probably not true"

>>7026186
for you

>>7026975
No, my argument is people are using words to describe something that isn't a reflection of reality (creation is elegant, god is our savior), and when that reality is brought up, the excuse is "well we can't understand the elegance/salvation/whathaveyou of god. That makes those descriptors meaningless. If reality isn't elegant because we can't understand god's elegance, why use the word elegant to describe it?

Ironically, you're having trouble understanding my meaning, so you're saying "fuck it, it's not true".

why do you believe in god?

>>7027097
what the fuck does that even mean that reality is not elegant?

>>7027106
For example, you have a tailbone. Why? It serves no purpose.

>no one here watches Hannibal

>>7027132
I have this reminiscent bone so God does not exist?

>>7027100
Why does anyone believe in anything?

It doesn't seem likely to me that something came from nothing.

>>7028741

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

OP how the fuck do you understand 'his' system. How the fuck do you know that God is a male? How the fuck do you understand the nature of God's intentions? How the fuck do you know that God has intentions? How the fuck do you know God exists akin to a chair (as in God's ontological status is similiar to that of a chair, a substantive)? If God's 'existence' so similar to the ontological status of a chair, why label the concept 'God,' God.

You assume so much anthropomorphic shit regarding God on the basis of your grammatical and syntactically usage, that either you 1) acknowledge and admit your anthropomorphic bias or 2) are a fucking idiot and don't realize the countless presuppositions you make.

Well, it has been 6 months. The religious themed, literature irrelevant shitposting is still in full force I see. Good to know so I don't waste any time here.

>>7028761
interesting but as it states there is not much compelling evidence for it. Can you recommend any books that go into more depth?

>>7026908
Nope. That's wrong for basic definitional reasons.

>>7026219
When people will understand that it's not God's job to fucking take care of every individual, the world will become right then a much better place to live in.
What makes you think God is remotely concerned about the kids in Africa? Why do you think he is concerned about the lives of men on Earth?

>>7026580
I love the "it gets better when you die" meme

>>7029077
such as?

God has given his people a clear list of moral dogma to live by, and if a society forsakes his word, he will not hesitate to wipe them out of existence.