/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11687132]

Oh, God. Atheists would really HATE this book. Their fickle philosophies and metaphysical systems (i.e. materialism, naturalism, physicalism, scientism, etc.) would be completely BTFO'd if faced by actual philosophers and metaphysicists such as Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, and Leibniz. Sorry, fedora tippers. God does exist, and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Anonymous No.11687144]

his existence is irrelevat. see pascal's wager

[Anonymous No.11687150]

>>11687144
retard

[Anonymous No.11687164]

>actually taking a stance on something that will never be solved

[Anonymous No.11687173]

>>11687164
i would not be surprised if that is really you

[Anonymous No.11687175]

>>11687132
you type like Dwight Schrute speaks

[Anonymous No.11687176]

>>11687132
Care to share their proofs?

[Anonymous No.11687181]

>>11687132
People are sleeping on Leibniz's notation in calculus. Why does everyone prefer Newton's

[Anonymous No.11687182]

>>11687132
2+2 = 4; therefore god doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.11687185]

I've read Aristotle, Plotinus, and Thomas Aquinas. I find it impossible to reconcile Aristotle's God with the Christian God. There are too many aspects of Christian doctrine and belief (angels, demons, prayer, the inconsistency between asserting both Divine Providence and free will as real) which are impossible to rationalise.
There may be a god, but it seems too far-fetched and unreasonable to believe that humans' lives could each individually matter to this God.

[Anonymous No.11687189]

>>11687132
>Caring this much about a meaningless metaphysical question

Philosophy at its absolute worst.

[Anonymous No.11687209]

>>11687176
The first proof in the book, the Aristotelian proof, presented in a formal way.
1/2

[Anonymous No.11687211]

>>11687209
2/2

[Anonymous No.11687216]

>>11687164
le radical agnostic face

[Anonymous No.11687219]

>>11687209
>change is a real feature of the world
found the mistake

[Anonymous No.11687226]

>>11687219
Okay, elaborate.

[Anonymous No.11687245]

>>11687185
>Has never encountered the Alpha and Omega, the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of the Universe.

[Anonymous No.11687251]

>>11687219
shut the fuck up Hume

[Anonymous No.11687259]

>>11687132
your autistic overreliance on proofs and rhetoric instead of the god of mysticism only approached through kenosis is symptomatic of everything wrong with religious discourse today

[Anonymous No.11687260]

>>11687226
Change is an abstraction or concept, not a real feature. There are actually so many fucked up parts of that argument.

If you unironically believe premise 8, please starve in a clay pot because it’s 2000 years too late for that kind of metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.11687269]

The Neo-Platonic proof.
1/2

[Anonymous No.11687272]

>>11687260
le enlightened modern man who has no time for antiquated metaphysics : ^)

[Anonymous No.11687274]

>>11687269
2/2

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11687275]

>>11687211
Why not just stop at 39? Everything after it is rediculous, and at 39 he's already proven god exists. The purely actual actualizer is god.
>>11687185
This
>>11687219
You just changed my opinion of your intelligence from average to low, thereby refuting your claim.

[Anonymous No.11687276]

>>11687260
causality is an abstraction, not change itself you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.11687277]

>>11687209
>>11687211
That's the genius everyone is talking about? "So, God exists" Fucking cringe.

[Anonymous No.11687295]

>>11687275
He continues after 39 to prove that this God must be personal as well.

[Anonymous No.11687299]

>>11687269
Wooh, this time premise 3 brings in some medieval metaphysics.

Thankfully, we actually already have an answer for all these problems and don’t need to lean on alchemists for answers.

Hey, desperate Trads? Have you considered actually going Benedict? It’s for the good of us all.

[Anonymous No.11687311]

>>11687259
Agreed, even as a Catholic. But we're at a central portal for autists, so it's not out of place.

[Anonymous No.11687317]

>>11687295
To add to this, all the proofs continue after they have demonstrated that God exists to show that they all converge to this one personal God who has attributes such as omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc. and that this God also fits with the traditional conception of God.

[Anonymous No.11687329]

>Needing proof for God and not just accepting his unknown nature and trying to unite with His Incomprehensible Mysteries trough the Mystic Pathway.
It's like you're not even trying.

[Anonymous No.11687334]

>>11687259
stfu Humanist

Be like St. Thomas More and have it both ways

[Anonymous No.11687335]

>>11687329
yup. based mysticism poster.

[Anonymous No.11687344]

The Augustinian Proof.
1/1

[Anonymous No.11687378]

>>11687329
1. Wow
2. Dude
3. !!
4. So, God exists.

[Anonymous No.11687389]

Religious "people" should be put in educations camp until they stop being monkeys. Then they could re-integrate society.
Religous books should be kept only for discussing different morals or historical value.

[Anonymous No.11687396]

>>11687329
why not both

besides, atheists don't respect private revelations even when they are profound

[Anonymous No.11687409]

If God exists, what kind of god do you think he is?

a) Listens to people's prayers and changes his plan accordingly

b) Follows his plan without caring for people's desires nor needs

c) Doesn't have plan.

[Anonymous No.11687415]

>>11687132
>reading onto-theo-logy in the year of our Lord 2018
Oh no no no no

[Anonymous No.11687423]

>>11687182
yeah but 3+3=6 and six is a bigger number

[Anonymous No.11687432]

>>11687409
I AM THAT I AM, AMA

[Anonymous No.11687455]

>>11687396
who cares what atheists respect, the whole point is not kowtowing to the autist mongoloids who reduce everything to epistemological sudoku

[Anonymous No.11687503]

fuck this is a boring thing to actually think about

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11687541]

>>11687295
Lol I am convinced this whole proof is a joke. Omnipotence isn't that from which "all power derives", and the principle of proportion is complete bullshit (because you can create something that you don't understand). If anything, this proof of god should prove the law of porportion is nonsensical. Sure, god exists, but not in the traditional sense at all.

[Anonymous No.11687561]

>>11687132
1. All human knowledge is fragmentary and incomplete
2. Any incomplete or fragmentary knowledge is a portion of truth
3. Since incomplete or fragmentary knowledge exists, there must be a complete or total knowledge or truth that exists
4. We call this total knowledge or truth omniscience
5. Therefore omniscience exists
6. That which is omniscient we call god
7. If knowledge exists it must have a possessor
8. God exists

[Anonymous No.11687568]

>>11687561
Now that I’ve presented a new logical proof for god, do I get free handies and sainthood?

[Anonymous No.11687595]

>>11687455
+1

[Anonymous No.11687625]

>>11687132

shouldn't one proof be enough?

[Anonymous No.11687644]

Science tells us that only science can give us true knowledge. That means your retarded word games are worthless and don't prove anything.

[Anonymous No.11687646]

>>11687595

[Anonymous No.11687649]

What is the point of fate if I have rational proof of god existence? Rational theology is honestly a self-defeating endeavor.

[Anonymous No.11687650]

>>11687644
is this post ironic? I can't even tell anymore

[Anonymous No.11687652]

>>11687646
Honestly, the world feels the other way around

[Anonymous No.11687657]

>>11687644
>>11687625
>>11687503
>>11687415
>>11687389
>>11687219
>>11687189
>>11687185
>>11687182
>>11687164

[Anonymous No.11687658]

>>11687649
faith*

[Anonymous No.11687660]

>>11687251
Hume was talking about causation, not change.

[Anonymous No.11687661]

>>11687644
>scientific method
>inductive
Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.11687665]

>>11687329
>>11687259
Based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.11687667]

>>11687652
actually zizek's entire point is that this is the case

[Anonymous No.11687679]

>>11687657
>hehe, I might have lost the argument but I will post a meme to tell everyone I won. MOM, BAKE ME SOME TENDIEES I WON AT MY KOREAN KIMCHI FERMENTATION FORUM. REEEEE
Taking everything literally is what is what the majority of religious brainlet live by.

[Anonymous No.11687685]

>>11687649
You can't have a completely air tight "proof" of God. There are many convincing arguments for his existence, think of them as ways of God's existence. but this existence is not apparent to us, and ultimately inaccessible to reason (but not completely).

[Anonymous No.11687690]

>>11687679
please don't conflate brainlet positivist homilies with actual thought

[Anonymous No.11687700]

>>11687685
A logical proof is something that if sound, cannot rationally be denied.

[Anonymous No.11687709]

May the Holy Spirit bless this thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quMgY08jDf4

[Anonymous No.11687723]

Is this a good read for someone who is a polytheist but would like to hear some good arguments for the existence of the One or a supreme God because the idea is very compelling to me. I've read most of Plato so far, I'm looking to move into Aristotle soon.

[Anonymous No.11687736]

>>11687723
polytheism that denies a unitary principle is incoherent

[Anonymous No.11687739]

>>11687736
Yes it is. I don't deny it actually, I'd just like to learn more about it.

[Anonymous No.11687749]

>>11687723
polytheism is for peasants

[Anonymous No.11687756]

>>11687739
don't get bogged down in proofs and atheist vs. theist gotchas, go back to the sources.

I highly recommend Uzdavinys' Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth. it's pretty dense but talks about exactly this, that pagan polytheism is basically only superficial, and that all the great sages of antiquity recognized a singular principle from which the diversity of gods and spirits derived. the Christian myth of monotheism slowly bootstrapping itself out of a muddy pagan polytheism is just something it tells itself to sleep better at night

[Anonymous No.11687760]

Why should logical/philosophical arguments like the ones presented by OP are supposed to be convincing in any way? Didn't the earliest philosophers teach us that it's possible to make a "convincing" philosophical argument, i.e. one that's very difficult to find fault in, for any ridiculous conclusion you want? Imagine there was a religion that actually held the doctrine that motion was impossible and their brightest minds spent hundreds of years thinking about how motion was impossible. By now you'd have such irrefutable arguments for it they'd put Zeno to shame and people would write garbage books about how so many philosophers proved motion was impossible. At the end of the day, you can't trust philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11687761]

>>11687259
THIS
H
I
S

[Anonymous No.11687765]

>>11687760
wow it's almost as if the best philosophies make exactly this point and realize the impossibility of approaching god discursively hmmmmm but if you actually read philosophy you'd know thought

[Anonymous No.11687766]

>>11687749
Claiming that the creator of the universe cares about you or you can know anything about him is arrogant and stupid imo. It makes much more sense to show devotion to lesser beings who are perhaps more interested in our lives.

[Anonymous No.11687772]

>>11687765
So you agree with me but are also being hostile for no reason?

[Anonymous No.11687787]

>>11687772
im just being hostile towards your blanket dismissal of a field that (mostly) has already digested what you've posted, that's all.

[Anonymous No.11687790]

>>11687132
I don't know who I pity more, the people who openly abandon reason and admit they're just following their feels or the ones who try to hide it behind a facade of logic.

[Anonymous No.11687797]

>>11687790
It's difficult to infer which side you're taking here. Are you in agreement with OP or not?

[Anonymous No.11687802]

>>11687766
>be Creator
>freely create beings
>freely sustain them
>why
>cuz you love them; you will the good of all others

[Anonymous No.11687804]

>>11687766
>It makes much more sense to show devotion to lesser beings who are perhaps more interested in our lives.

[Anonymous No.11687848]

>>11687409
I think you're trying to force a problem where none likely exists. According to the plan, we would see respectively different choices. Take the plan, "God wills that human agents make free moral commitments." Under the circumstances of this plan, choices A and B could be made, breaking the mutual exclusivity of the question's choice structure.

[Anonymous No.11687868]

>>11687667

Where did Zizek talk about this?

[Anonymous No.11687871]

>>11687797
>Are you in agreement with OP or not?
No.

[Anonymous No.11687877]

The best proof for God is what i like to call "The Argument from Cringe." It is similar to Lewis' argument from desire, that there is an innate desire in man for God, and innate desires always have a real object of desire to satisfy them.

The argument from cringe posits that the innate cringe emitted from all atheists at alarming frequencies is sort of like a form of aposematism designed to repel the good humans, the ones God actually wants, from becoming atheist for fear of looking like a retard asshole. It goes something like this:
>if there were no God, atheists would be right and wouldn't be cringe and bluepilled
>atheists are universally cringe and bluepilled (irrefutable)
>therefore God is real and he is based and redpilled

This is not ad hominem, it is right

[Anonymous No.11687892]

>>11687344
This is horseshit

[Anonymous No.11687899]

>>11687802
>>why
Maybe becayse it's just what it does. Why would a supernatural being need to be motivated by human emotions? Anyway, it didn't create random asteroid #474224749 because it wills its good; there is no good of an asteroid.

[Anonymous No.11687914]

>>11687209
>>11687211
>>11687269
>>11687344
Reading stuff like this gives me a headache and makes me realise how intellectually shallow I am.

[Anonymous No.11687915]

>>11687868
it's scattered throughout his entire ouevre, I guess you can read Absolute Recoil or hunt for it in his lacan.com articles. Sorry he's not very systematic

[Anonymous No.11687931]

>>11687561
Knowledge is a relation between a subject and a fact. 3. has to be changed to:
>3*. Since incomplete or fragmentary knowledge exists, there must be a complete or total knowledge that exists
to make sense, but then it's false.

[Anonymous No.11687936]

>>11687877
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.11687941]

>>11687899
This is an argument which is inherently a non-issue. Metaphysicians don’t start with ‘why’ they start with ‘how’. Logically speaking, why is anything ‘good’? Because it participates in the Good and those that do not participate in the Good are not Good and therefore as far as possible from the divine as can be.

It does not matter if something Good has created it, what matters to metaphysicians is if this being PARTICIPATES in Good, Intellect, Beauty, etc.

[Anonymous No.11687944]

>>11687877
>there is a innate desire in man for God
By man, you mean üntermensch.
Every Man want to be a God, not a slave worshippingcuck.

[Anonymous No.11687953]

>>11687899
>Maybe because it's just what it does.
lol, great explanation
Love isn't an emotion it's an action of willing the good of the other, charity.

>Anyway, it didn't create random asteroid #474224749 because it wills its good; there is no good of an asteroid.
yeah He did. You probably didn't know being (or existence) is good. Inanimate objects fulfill their telos even if they do not know of it—the unknowing arrow hits the target because of the archer.

[Anonymous No.11687955]

>>11687944
>not even refuting my actual argument
>actually supporting my argument by providing copious amounts of cringe

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11687964]

>>11687561
>4. We call this total knowledge or truth omniscience
>5. Therefore omniscience exists
This doesn't prove that omniscience exists, this proves it CAN exist, an even that you get wrong because all knowledge will forever remain fragmentary and incomplete. You've proved that a limited version of omniscience exists, also known as the mind. You've proved we have a mind. Great job.
also, you have no way of linking that knowledge to god. Also knowledge doesn't need a possessor, as most concepts we have knowledge in are constructed by humans and not naturalistic. You are falsely equivocating knowledge with natural truth, and truths just evolved by change. No truth was ever eternal, thereby not making it "natural". It is only natural from our perspective.

[Anonymous No.11687965]

>>11687899
>there is no good of an asteroid.
if it fits the definition of an asteroid, then its a good asteroid, dummy

[Anonymous No.11687976]

>>11687941
>Logically speaking, why is anything ‘good’? Because it participates in the Good
>>11687953
>objects fulfill their telos
yikes

[Anonymous No.11687989]

>>11687976
That’s the literal answer for how something is good, I was being critical of the question ‘why’ because it isn’t really an issue.

Typically something is Good if it wants to emulate the one from which all things spring, and the immovable, immaterial qualities inherent in that being.

Metaphysics makes me realize why God would be anthropomorphic, if Leonardo Da Vinci is correct that the human body is divine

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11687997]

>>11687646
>>11687595
ATHEISTS DESTROYED BY LOGIC AND FACTS (and by logic we mean ad hominem)

[Anonymous No.11688007]

>>11687944
>when you realize most Atheists' Atheism is ontologically dependent on Theism.
>when you realize that the was the beginning of their ressentiment

[Anonymous No.11688012]

>>11687997
Ad hominem isn't just another word for insult. At no point did anyone say God exists because some atheists make some of the arguments being lampooned.

[Anonymous No.11688028]

>>11687409
if God is eternal then his initial plan could have already incorporated the prayers that would come

[Anonymous No.11688030]

>>11687955
The cringe is that you are a dumb animeposter that didn't realized I was paraphrasing Nietzsche.
Your theory is so imbecile that it didn't have to be proven wrong, like when a kid tell you the earth is flat.
>>11688007
>resentment
More like despise to see bright people wasting their intellectuals force on a circle-jerk that produce nothing.

[Anonymous No.11688035]

>>11688007
It’s the same for moral nihilism. How can you be a moral nihilist without objective morality? Then theres nothing to be a nihilist about without objectively derived morality, ie from God, Pure reason.

I mean honestly. It’s like their philosophies are just a leech on how reality actually works

[Anonymous No.11688041]

>>11687132
You can always trust americans to ruin things.

[Anonymous No.11688044]

>>11688030
you mean Cringsche?
REFUTE THE ARGUMENT
YOU CAN'T

[Anonymous No.11688046]

>>11687646
>wow look how good this is, clearly the creator was 100% good and benevolent!
>but what about that spot of evil the-
>WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING IT'S NOT EVEN A BIG DEAL IT'S FINE
>but shit like botflies exists. You can't just trivialize all the suffering in the wor-
>NO SHUT UP, THE CREATOR IS PERFECT, DO NOT INSULT OUR LORD

[Anonymous No.11688055]

>>11688035
Relativism (deep nihilism) is literally a slave revolt against objective, intelligible value

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688060]

>>11688012
>Ad Hominem: Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer, without addressing the substance of the argument

[Anonymous No.11688063]

>>11688035
>how can you deny something is real unless it's real?
Loving Every Laugh

[Anonymous No.11688066]

>>11688055
Indeed
>>11688046
This is simple man. Free will is the cause of your suffering. Free will is the reason Satan fell. Free will is the reason evil exists.

Should you be rewarded for abstaining from evil, or be punished for eternity by not being able to think for yourself and choose anything at all?

Read the book of Job.

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688070]

>>11688035
>What is an artificially-constructed ideal

[Anonymous No.11688073]

>>11688060
What argument?

[Anonymous No.11688077]

>>11688063
As a philosophy, then, its stance is emblemized in reality, as a negation of that reality? I can show you proofs of objective morality. Laws, courts, statutes, precedents, things of this nature are fine examples. Show me an example of moral nihilism in action that isn’t degenerate. I’m waiting

[Anonymous No.11688085]

>>11688046
evil is the privation of good caused by the free will of man

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688087]

>>11688066
The fact that Christianity being sensical is dependant on the freedom of will is why I can't take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.11688094]

>>11688044
It is similar to Lewis' argument from desire, that there is an innate desire in man for God, and innate desires always have a real object of desire to satisfy them.
You have innate desires for 2D pusssy but these things are not a real object.

>The argument from cringe posits that the innate cringe emitted from all atheists at alarming frequencies is sort of like a form of aposematism designed to repel the good humans, the ones God actually wants, from becoming atheist for fear of looking like a retard asshole. It goes something like this:
>>if there were no God, atheists would be right and wouldn't be cringe and bluepilled
>>atheists are universally cringe and bluepilled (irrefutable)
>>therefore God is real and he is based and redpilled
>This is not ad hominem, it is right

This part is such a cringeworthy mess, you are using circular argument. I can just change atheist with theist and your theory would still work.

[Anonymous No.11688101]

>>11688087
Good for you, just thank God you have the option to make that choice. Also, I’m a Quranist, but same arguments apply

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688114]

>>11688073
the atheist argument obviously dumbass. I'm not even an atheist myself but that's a clear ad hominem in both of those images. One of them is brushing away the skeptical argument of a good god by examining "evil" while the other is brushing away a version of scientific realism (which they are trying to make it look as though it is what all atheists believe in). In short, the argument that god doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.11688115]

>>11688094
>You have innate desires for 2D pusssy but these things are not a real object.
thats just a regular desire, not an innate one.

>This part is such a cringeworthy mess, you are using circular argument. I can just change atheist with theist and your theory would still work.
no it wouldn't because theists aren't cringe or bluepilled, atheists are. you're just bolstering my argument by digging yourself deeper and deeper into this cringe-hole

[Anonymous No.11688124]

>>11687144

I don't think Pascals wager makes any claim on the relevancy of the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.11688132]

>>11687260
>please starve in a clay pot because it’s 2000 years too late for that kind of metaphysics.

Modern man eats tide pods. Time is completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.11688137]

>>11687209
>>11687211
I'll skim through a bit.


>Change is a real feature of the world
Whenever someone uses the word "real", there's always an argument against it. In this case, change can easily be a misperception of human mind.

>change is actualization of potential
So many assumptions here, I'll wait a bit.

>infinite regress is impossible
Not proven, infact the latest models of universe is looking more and more likely to go into infinite chain of destruction/birth of universes, not just in this own current reality, but also possible on another infinite amount of quantum realities.

On top of that, this "can't have infinite regress" lies with the assumption has many many problems.

>actualizer/potential change are eternal
Coming back here from above, there is so many problems with this assumption. First of all, this is basically a reworded "first cause problem" devised by theists. There are many problems with that is related to the assumption of the cause/effect. Hume is a good starter to debunk these garbage.

>because actualizers xyz therefore god
Same garbage as above.

This is just pathetic.

[Anonymous No.11688138]

>>11688114
There is no debate taking place and making fun of shitty arguments is merely an insult. They're not using insults in lieu of an argument while in a conversation which would be an ad hominem. If you disagree then tell me the difference between an insult and ad hominem.

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688147]

>>11688101
I didn't have the option to make that choice, as it was forced upon me as the result of millions of other minute changes acting upon me and around me, changing the things that change me. Those changes were changed by changes, and those too were changed by millions of other changes etc etc in a chain reaction of changes that all goes back to the first change (which was made by god).
>But quantum indeterminacy!
Stupid idea that proves the ignorance of scientists. Of course there will be forces acting on such a small scale that we can't observe or read them, and can only study them through an ideological lens. We will call this "quantum indeterminacy" though because scientists have always liked to think they understand everything, which is why most of them look down on philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11688153]

>>11687644
>Science tells us that only science can give us true knowledge

lol

[Anonymous No.11688156]

>>11688066
>Free will is the cause of your suffering. Free will is the reason Satan fell. Free will is the reason evil exists
Then free will is bad. Why did God create something bad?

>inb4 what do you mean free will is bad, do you want to just be a robot or something?
I care about freedom as much as any red-blooded American but if said freedom can ONLY make things shittier and existence would just be paraduse without it then I could do without it, yeah.

[Anonymous No.11688166]

>>11688153
Ad hominem

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688167]

>>11688138
It is an attempt to invalidate a claim, therefore being ad hominem. An insults objective isn`t to invalidate.
>But what claim are they invalidating?
That god doesn`t exist.

[Anonymous No.11688170]

>>11688156

Free will is neither good nor bad.

You're conflating the value of a cause with the value of its effect.

[Anonymous No.11688178]

>>11688166
I didn't insult the author I insulted the argument

L2 ad hominem before you start with the accusations.

[Anonymous No.11688183]

>>11688115
Theist are cringe because they need to force their imaginary friends in everyone, just like vegans need to force their false moral high-ground every second.
>Implying mass aren't the cringiest thing ever.
>Implying everything the Vatican does isn't pure cringe
>Implying muslim are not retards

[Anonymous No.11688191]

>>11687132
>Five Proofs
Shouldn't one be enough? Are all five correct at the same time? What if they contradict each other? Or just one of them is right, and we're like detectives who have to find out which one that is?

[Anonymous No.11688194]

>>11688167
Explain to me how making fun of the way atheists argue invalidates the claim that God does not exist. Insults can invalidate respectability so how is it any different than an ad hominem?

[Anonymous No.11688201]

>>11688191
>What if they contradict each other?

I think someone would have pointed that out in the last 800 years

[Anonymous No.11688207]

>>11688170
>Free will is neither good nor bad.
Why did God create something that wasn't good? And also had very bad consequences?

[Anonymous No.11688208]

>>11688194
i explained it here>>11687877

[Anonymous No.11688211]

>>11688183
what are you even meaning by cringe

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688214]

>>11688138
Might I add also in both images it isn`t making any arguments against the ideology only invalidating the ideology because it is displaying the people who hold the ideology as extremist and nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.11688218]

>>11688183
>Theist are cringe because they need to force their imaginary friends in everyone
>muh imaginary friend
cringe

[Anonymous No.11688225]

>>11688178
Ad hominems invalidate me and you're trying to invalidate me therefore you've committed an ad hominem so I win.

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688248]

>>11688194
explain it here >>11688214
>Insults can invalidate
Ad Hominem is a form of insult, but it is an insult with a prerogative. You are trying to pull the bullshit that the ad hominem wasn`t meant and therefore it isn`t ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.11688253]

>>11688183
This is hilarious, praise God

[Anonymous No.11688259]

>>11688147
No scientist actually believes the retarded argument you’re making, moron. Otherwise game theory wouldn’t even be a thing. Game theory exists to help us choose correctly, or even help explain psychological phenomena pointing to free will. No one gives a fuck about some stupid Harris’ stove touching bullshit in actual academic studies. Go read a book on Game Theory or Indifference curves in general. People have, by their very nature, many different choices available to give them the same degree of utility (utils)

[Anonymous No.11688265]

>>11688156
>Then free will is bad. Why did God create something bad
Not all choices are inherently evil or good, they are typically mixed in some degree

The absence of the ability to choose, though, is 100% evil. That’s slavery.

The rest of your post is dilettantish

[Anonymous No.11688271]

>>11687132
Stop Reading Aquinas

[Anonymous No.11688273]

>>11688271
No

[Anonymous No.11688275]

>>11688211
That an idea or action is so imbecile that it give nausea to people around you.
>>11688218
Well, tell me.
Which one of the roughly 4200 religions have the "right" God?

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688286]

>>11688259
I have no idea what you are trying to say, because you didn`t refute anything I said. The fact that game theory exists doesn`t negate anything I said. Becuase free will doesn`t exist doesn`t negate game theory. Did you even read the whole second half of my post? I said there are forces acting upon us that are so small and invisible that we will never be able to perfectly predict the complete future.

[Anonymous No.11688288]

>>11688183
Thanks doc

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688296]

>>11688259
I`ll also add that game theory was created from a reason, and that reason was created from a change, and that change was created by a change which was created by a change going in a chain all the way back to the first change (which was created by god).

[Anonymous No.11688299]

>>11688286
>Becuase free will doesn`t exist doesn`t negate game theory
Sure does. Game theory exists to account for all possible choices. Clearly if free will doesn’t exist we wouldn’t need to account for all possible choices.

If free will doesn’t exist and you can’t define it, then my argument still holds, because Game Theory is developed around the very concept of free will within a finite timeline of information-based decisions

[Anonymous No.11688301]

>>11688265
>The absence of the ability to choose, though, is 100% evil. That’s slavery
But, the God of the Bible is fine with slavery.

[Anonymous No.11688303]

>>11688296
You’re dumb

[Anonymous No.11688306]

>>11688301
Then why did he free the Jews?

[Anonymous No.11688312]

>>11688296
>>11688303
But I will add you seem to misunderstand how a causal chain works in Metaphysics. It’s not a simple linear pathway, the idea is that eventually something will be set in motion that has self-sustaining movement, and these will reproduce and form more movements, with objects to either regenerate, transform, or destroy some aspect of reality, physical or immaterial

[Anonymous No.11688315]

>>11688299
Do you think a chess-playing computer program has free will you fucking idiot?

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688316]

>>11688299
Just because game theory accounts for all outcomes doesn`t prove free will exists lol.

[Anonymous No.11688318]

>>11688306
Because of his covenamt with their ancestors.

[Anonymous No.11688319]

>>11688201
Well I'm not very much into theology but I'm pretty damn sure there have been disputes and contradictions of some of the proofs of God throughout history. Don't know if anyone analyzed the relations between these particular five cases... But if they are all non-contradictory and so basically can be reduced to one single philosophical system, four of them would be redundant, different paths with the same starting and end points.
And, um, yeah, I'm pretty sure that these five fellas didn't actually agree with each other on metaphysical and epistemological matters. The Augustinan proof posted ITT literally rejects Platonist and Aristotelian understandings of universals.

[Anonymous No.11688326]

>>11688318
*covenant

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688329]

>>11688312
Lol did I say it`s a simple linear pathway?

[Anonymous No.11688344]

>>11688101
>Also, I’m a Quranist
Kek. It is even funnier that you are saying this unironically.

[Anonymous No.11688353]

Adulthood is believing in God and realizing it doesn't matter whether you can prove he exists or not.

[Anonymous No.11688358]

I'm getting real tired of this shit, /lit/ is not a place to discuss theology you fucking faggots. Go to /his/ to spit in each other's directions

[Anonymous No.11688360]

>>11688315
They are, by nature, developed around choices made by someone with free will.

>>11688316
Then why even argue for anything regarding the nonexistence if free will if it’s not calculable? If I can define a system to approximate the probability of outcomes given different scenarios/information, why even assign probabilities?

If what you’re saying is true, then a specific action by anyone in an economic situation has already been predetermined for him by his previous actions and we know this not to be the case
>>11688318
That was after he freed them from slavery.
>>11688329
That’s what you implied with that moronic post, yes

[Anonymous No.11688363]

>>11688344
Not at all, not at all. I have seen signs and so have others. If you haven’t at this point you’re blind and deaf, as the Quran says!

[Anonymous No.11688371]

>>11688101
>Quranist
So muslim?

[Anonymous No.11688375]

>>11688371
Muslims have that set of Hadiths... I’m not a fan of mutilating genitalia...
But I love the idea of Islamic Finance (as do many others). There are so many reasons why the Quran is the word.

Yet I do not believe the Hadiths were the word of God, just Mohammad

[Anonymous No.11688376]

>>11688371
kek, he's probably the protestant version of islam

[Anonymous No.11688381]

>>11688376
See
>>11688375


Honestly you guys, I don’t see this Muslim faith going anywhere if you believe in the Hadiths. The Quran is pure, sent from God no doubt.

[Anonymous No.11688400]

>>11688381

[Anonymous No.11688401]

>>11688360
He made a more detailed covenant with the Israelistes at Sinai but he had already promised Abraham to give Canaan to his descendants.

[Anonymous No.11688413]

>>11688375
Alright sure, maybe you can find a sect of islam that believes that

[Anonymous No.11688422]

>>11688401
Nice reference

[Anonymous No.11688424]

>>11688375
>just Mohammad
So are you saying that Muhammad made stuff up? If so, why would God bother sending his final revelation to someone like Muhammed if he knows he is just going to make stuff up about Islam later?

[Anonymous No.11688427]

>>11688424
God sent his word with Gabriel for the Quran. He didnt do the same with the Hadiths

[Anonymous No.11688434]

>>11688427
So you admit Muhammed was a false prophet?

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688484]

>>11688360
All probability is is the likelihood of something. That likelihood grows when similar changes have been made on a person. The most likely just means the most common. "What is the most likely thing to happen based on common changes that have undergone on this thing". You assign probabilities when you want something out of what you are assigning a probability to.
>If what you’re saying is true, then a specific action by anyone in an economic situation has already been predetermined for him by his previous actions and we know this not to be the case
Did you even read what I was saying? Are you that much of an idiot? The choices people make depend on an insane amount of smaller changes enacted on them. No two people both go through total similarity, and therefore no two people go through the same changes.

[Anonymous No.11688514]

>>11688434
The Quran was the word of God
>>11688484
So how does this impact the argument of free will? The individual is still making a choice isn’t he?

[Anonymous No.11688566]

>>11687132
The problem is that what theists call "God" and what these arguments are in favour of are two totally different things.

A theist is right in saying that it's quite easy to prove the existence of God, but then they fall utterly flat when they start to give attributes, agency, personality, morality, superiority, etc. to this thing they call "God."

There's a HUGE ontological difference between the "ground of all existence" and "the God of Israel whom created the world in six days using his own voice who then sent his own voice to become a man and die and resurrect thus redeeming his creation from his decision to allow it to suffer (and btw you can never become this being, you are forever subordinate to it for some reason.)"

[Anonymous No.11688587]

>>11687964
Wow, it’s like you’re ignoring my other premises you atheist mong.
>>11687931
Only in an Aristotelian framework. All knowledge is truth, and all human knowledge a fragment of truth. It is a portion of a really existing object. Sorry you don’t agree.

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688593]

>>11688514
Of course he's making a choice you fucking idiot, the point is the individual doesn't have free will because that choice used reasoning that was ultimately depending on the external. Jesus Christ if you aren't even going to bother understanding what I'm saying then I'm not going to argue with you.

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688598]

>>11688587
Wow it's almost like your ignoring that your whole proof is dependant on those premises you theist mong. I'm not an atheist, your proof is just completely retarded.

[Anonymous No.11688604]

>>11687700
Well can these proofs for God be rationally denied? If so, then they are not proofs in that sense of the word. That's what I was saying in my post.

[Anonymous No.11688609]

>>11688271
nah

[Anonymous No.11688614]

>>11688598
Yeah, and it’s clear you didn’t understand it, so reread the argument. It’s air tight.

[Anonymous No.11688621]

>>11687132
If i take a scalpel and make a 4 mm lesion on your nucleus acumbens you will stop being capable of feeling group bonding emotions, if i put a dent in your thalamus the size of a penny you won’t be capable of dreaming or releasing melatonin, if i was to give you a serious concussion you would lose emotional regulation, if i removed a tiny 4 mm sq piece of your visual cortex you wud not be able to see properly ever again. there is no god.

[Anonymous No.11688636]

>>11687132

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688638]

>>11688614
The argument doesn't refute any of what I said. It's a retarded argument and that is why your retarded argument has been just "originally" though of by you.

[Anonymous No.11688680]

>>11688621
>A therefore C
Well, that's just a terrible argument.

.

[Anonymous No.11688734]

>>11688636
>tumblr

[Anonymous No.11688737]

>>11688593
But people can be irrational.

[Anonymous No.11688752]

>>11688514
Yeah, but why did God choose Muhammed when he knows that Muhammed is unreliable?

[Anonymous No.11688759]

>>11687409
Fine, I'll give it a shot. God exist and god has a plan, however, multiverse loophole allows God to also listen to each prayer and change the plan for that person perspective.

Take all answer to the extreme, realese they are opposite or extremes. Dulastic that is. And god is the ability to reconcile all this into a unitary presence.

[Anonymous No.11688761]

>>11687164
Nice selfie lad

[Anonymous No.11688762]

>>11688124
That's literally the only thing it does you blundering buffoon. Pascal's Wager offers no argument for why a theistic God would exist, rather it argues for why we should live as if one does exist.

[Anonymous No.11688768]

>>11687679
SEETHING

[Anonymous No.11688774]

>>11687541
"I literally don't know any of the book's content but since anon made it sound dumb it probably is dumb lol. Looks like atheist take this one"

[Anonymous No.11688780]

>>11687679
By attempting to be meta in your criticism you contributed less to the thread than he did. Wowzers

[Anonymous No.11688791]

>>11688046
>Suffering is evil
Where did you get this idea? God cursed this world, too.

[Anonymous No.11688799]

>>11688759
Despite what you've obviously heard Kaku and Tyson say, the multiverse theory is infinitely complex and therefore becomes the greatest offender of Occam's Razor, ever.
As a simpler explanation, a god could exist in higher dimensions (of space and or time).

[Anonymous No.11688814]

>>11688087
>believes free will doesn't exist in the age of information
>is a tripfag
Who forced you to make that shitty name for yourself? And just like gamers with their gamertags, you unironically find it cool. Yikes.

[Anonymous No.11688842]

>>11688087
>The fact that Christianity being sensical is dependant on the freedom of will is why I can't take it seriously.
You're to blame for your will being enslaved, can't even take things seriously if you want to...

[Anonymous No.11688877]

>>11688799
I don't know who you are talking about.

I'm a sci grad student not lit.

[Anonymous No.11688888]

>>11687182
That's deep man

[Anonymous No.11688897]

>>11687132
>thinking God can be found through reason
Why are catholicucks so cringe?

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11688921]

>>11688814
>Who forced you to make that shitty name for yourself?
Every piece of information I have consumed being fed through a comingling of my parents DNA has ultimately lead me to choose my name. I didn't have any will in the matter, because all individual will is fake because it is created by external data.
>>11688842
I can't predict it though. Since I can't predict it the whole debate is irrelevant to my life. We will most likely never be able to find every rule that constricts us.

If you want to provide an effective counter, try to prove indeterminacy.

[Anonymous No.11688927]

>>11688897
>I can't comprehend the basics of logic
>therefore logic is pointless
You may not understand the significance of that greentext, but it basically means the weak should fear the strong, and keep silent where they're not asked.

[Anonymous No.11688930]

>>11688921
>I can't predict it though. Since I can't predict it the whole debate is irrelevant to my life.
Take a risk for once in your life.

[Anonymous No.11688961]

>>11688927
Not that anon, but how on earth can you solely use logic to prove the validity of the Christian worldview? From a purely deductive perspective, there's so much that doesn't add up that it necessitates that you take a leap of faith in certain key areas. Hell, isn't that the whole point of being a Christian? That you have *faith*?

[Anonymous No.11688970]

>>11688921
>If you want to provide an effective counter, try to prove indeterminacy.
True randomness has been found to occur in the physical realm.

[Anonymous No.11688992]

>>11688970
>>11688921
See
>>11688737

[Anonymous No.11689003]

>>11687914
Fuck, me too

[Anonymous No.11689011]

>>11688888
Lads let's give these quints some love, huh?

>>11688921
This man actually believes he was destined to be the 4chan persona that is "Convex"

>all individual will is fake because it is created by external data.
...

[Anonymous No.11689015]

>>11688961
The word Catholic means "universal" and it reveals a lot about our attitude towards life and existence. Catholics take God's elation towards His finished work ("And it was very good!") quite literally, and so as consequence are wont to see everything as signposts to God. It's a strawman to say that Catholics believe a single logical proof will suffice for the defense of Christianity, we simply don't shy away at all from engaging in such things because not only is there real value in them but they go a long way towards showing that everything exists to glory of God.

[Anonymous No.11689017]

>>11689015
Alright, in that case, let me ask you what's the logic that points to, say, the trinity being true?

[Anonymous No.11689030]

>>11687344
Notice how whenever he forgets to phrase something in jibberish he reverts to pure cliche. This really is a person with nothing to say.

[Anonymous No.11689035]

>>11688961
And that isn't at all the point of faith or being Christian. Being a Christian is "to know, love, and serve God in this world in order to be happy with Him in the next." And faith isn't blind. Fideism has been officially anathematized by the Church. Faith is more like "continued trust which is already built on solid ground."

[Anonymous No.11689038]

>>11689017
There is no metaphysical argument for the trinity and nobody claims there is. The trinity is revealed through revelation.

[Anonymous No.11689040]

>>11687164
It has been solved. Every person on this site is perfectly aware that there is no god.

Everyone knows these kind of threads are just LARPs.

[Anonymous No.11689041]

>>11689035
And what is this solid ground? How do you arise to the conclusion that the solid ground of Christianity is more solid than say, Islam?

>>11689038
Ok, sure, but that just means you're taking a central doctrine on faith, not logic, then

[Anonymous No.11689047]

>>11688961
Correct, every worldview requires faith. Even agnostics have faith, for them in the idea that human reasoning is insufficient to determine the true nature and cause behind our reality. But IS it insufficient? And if not, then what? Everyone has to decide for themselves.

What are you claiming doesn't add up? Biblical errors? The Bible concerns itself with defining who God is, not whether or not there is a God. I advise starting with the latter if you're just now looking into all this.

[Anonymous No.11689055]

>>11689017
That fact that such knowledge has been revealed to us by God Himself. Even if it's something that escapes our understanding, that God seems to think we should take it as true means that we should. This is in fact an excellent example where faith might play a role, where continued trust in something beyond one's grasp is called for because of the many other points of evidence already available to one that create a firm ground of trust on which to stand.

[Anonymous No.11689061]

>>11687914
What's humorous to me is how incredibly simple mathematical proofs are compared to logical proofs.

[Anonymous No.11689063]

>>11688381
This.

Read the Quran, its all you need. All other argument is silly and a waste of time.

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11689068]

>>11688737
And something always triggers that irrationality. Irrational people use flawed reasoning, which is of course created by an external.
>But they're born with the irrationality!
Yeah, through the comingling of their parents DNA.

[Anonymous No.11689069]

>>11689041
>And what is this solid ground? How do you arise to the conclusion that the solid ground of Christianity is more solid than say, Islam?
The proof of the Resurrection, namely.

[Anonymous No.11689073]

>>11687185
it seems far fetched to you, but you're just a human

[Anonymous No.11689074]

>>11689041
>Ok, sure, but that just means you're taking a central doctrine on faith, not logic, then

I assume you're using the term faith to mean a sort of blind trust so I'll disagree with you. There are good reasons to believe that Christian revelation is true, like Jesus actually being who he said was as being the best explanation for his resurrection and the disappearance of his body. If he is God we can trust his word and the Church he built and promised to protect from error in formulating doctrines like the trinity. Just because there is no direct argument for the trinity doesn't mean there isn't a reason to believe it.

[Anonymous No.11689080]

>>11688877
stand back we got a psychology major here


stay safe

[Anonymous No.11689087]

>>11689074
Well, your trust in the trinity then isn't trust in the trinity itself, but rather trust in the institutions that proclaim it. If you were to strip away the Church, the Councils, etc. would you still accept the trinity as true?

>>11689069
I see. What proofs of the Resurrection can you point to?

[Anonymous No.11689093]

>>11689040
I see this phrase upwards of five occurrences a day. Who else but atheists would feel the need to repeatedly dismiss all dissenting views as intellectually dishonest, while simultaneously not engaging in the discussion that everyone else is having?

This is your brain on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Anonymous No.11689102]

>>11687181
This. Fuck a dot, gimme dat dy/dx

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11689103]

>>11688930
I did take a risk, and that risk was to believe that free will is an illusion.
>>11688970
And I would love to see this "true randomness", because millions of computer scientists have been studying randomness for decades trying to find sources of true randomness and debating back and forth what "true randomness" is.
>Inb4 it's quantum indeterminacy
I already explained this. We just haven't found the forces working against the extremely small quantum scale, and since we can't see it it's been attributed to an "indeterminacy". Quantum indeterminacy is an extremely controversial idea in the scientific community.
>>11689011
You are completely missing my point. All external data I have consumed mixed with the way I interpret that data controls what I create. The same is true for you. Why did you write that response the way you did?

[Anonymous No.11689108]

>>11689087
>Well, your trust in the trinity then isn't trust in the trinity itself, but rather trust in the institutions that proclaim it. If you were to strip away the Church, the Councils, etc. would you still accept the trinity as true?

You're exactly right. Without the Church there's no other reason to believe the trinity is true so that would be something I stopped believing if I found the Church to be false. As far as the resurrection goes I'll attempt to answer for the other guy.

We start with some basic facts that almost all historians agree with. Jesus was a real person and was crucified, multiple people claimed to have encountered the resurrected Christ, and this belief was genuine (regardless of whether it's true or not) because many of them went on to become martyrs for that belief.

Now because Jesus was crucified, it's reasonable to believe he really died. He was placed in a guarded tomb because it was in the best interest of the Jewish and Roman authorities to make sure that the body didn't disappear. The Romans were putting down a rebellion and the Jews were squashing a heresy, and they were both well aware of the Christian expectations. We know for sure the body truly disappeared because the Jews accused the Christians of stealing the body.

There's a limited number of explanations for the post resurrection appearances. There's the hallucination hypothesis which accuses the followers of hallucinating but this doesn't make any sense because multiple people at multiple times and places claimed to have experienced the risen Christ and hallucinations don't work like that. This also fails to explain the radical conversion of Paul who was one of the greatest prosecutors of Christians and quickly became the most devoted follower after Jesus met him on the road. There's also the "greed hypothesis" which accuses the followers of making it all up but it wouldn't made any sense for them to do that because there was nothing to gain but death and torture.

There's a few more skeptical hypothesis but those are actually the strongest ones which is why I think it's reasonable to assume that Jesus Christ is who he actually said he is.

[Anonymous No.11689134]

>>11687185
You're here. You're an individual. You personally can comprehend, feel, accomplish things, and namely, live.
What is an all powerful god without a sentient creation? A theistic god would care specifically about your life, and if "god" is the cosmos it doesn't care about you. I implore you to read the arguments on all sides.

[Anonymous No.11689152]

>>11688381
>>11689063
Why is Muslim dialect always so similar? You're not fooling anyone here with such poor samefagging.

>>11689068
What a miserable thing to place your faith in.

[Anonymous No.11689183]

>>11689040
Don't speak for me cringe boy

[Anonymous No.11689185]

>>11689103
>Why did you write that response the way you did?
Because I have realized the importance of critical thinking and seek the truth. But this is on my own volition.
>Aha, you foolish child, when your father's cummies met with your mother's egg, it was at that moment that every chemical reaction that would occur in your brain, ever, was determined. Yep... all the chemical reactions are predetermined and theoretically perfectly predictable.

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11689190]

>>11689152
Not an argument. The fact you can't wrap your mind around as simple an idea as determinism is quite sad, nevermind if you agree with it or not. At least >>11688970
understood how to argue against my stance (try to prove objective unpredictable randomism).
>It's sad though!
No it isn't. The fact that this is the only possible way things could be should be gratifying to you.

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11689196]

>>11689185
Totally oversimplifying my argument. Are you forgetting the part about external influence? We are talking about mental illness, aren't we? Is it totally unreasonable that people can be born with mental illnesses? Have you ever thought maybe you were born with one?

[SAGE No.11689206]

(4) Necessarily, if God exists, then God perfectly loves such finite persons as there may be.
(5) Necessarily, if God perfectly loves such finite persons as there may be, then, for any capable finite person S and time t, God is at t open to being in a positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship with S at t.
(6) Necessarily, if for any capable finite person S and time t, God is at t open to being in a positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship with S at t, then, for any capable finite person S and time t, it is not the case that S is at t nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
(7) There is at least one capable finite person S and time t such that S is or was at t nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
(8) So, it is not the case that God exists. (from 4 through 7)

[Anonymous No.11689229]

>>11689190
kek if you actually understood the full implications of determinism you could not, without being intellectually dishonest, believe it.
>>11689196
some people born into shitty hopeless situations rise up through hard effort that no one ever taught them to have. others rot in their shitty hopeless situation just like their parents did. literally one real example is all it takes to kill the idea that external influence is theoretically perfectly predictable.
and you've already dropped the idea that dna predetermines all future chemical reactions in your brain -- or at least you didn't offer a rebuttal to that anon. awaiting your succulent response :^)

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11689280]

>>11689229
>kek if you actually understood the full implications of determinism you could not, without being intellectually dishonest, believe it.
Guess I'm proof against that
>some people born into shitty hopeless situations rise up through hard effort that no one ever taught them to have
They rose up in reaction to it
>others rot in their shitty hopeless situation just like their parents did
because they were determined to
>literally one real example is all it takes to kill the idea that external influence is theoretically perfectly predictable.
THEORETICALLY, it is perfectly predictable if we were able to somehow track the decillions of minute changes in atoms, and the changes by invisible forces on those atoms. But that is impossible, because we will never find all of these nearly invisible local forces acting on a quantum level.
>and you've already dropped the idea that dna predetermines all future chemical reactions in your brain
No I haven't, I said he simplified my argument so it only meant that I think that, totally taking the whole external influence part of my argument out of the question.
>or at least you didn't offer a rebuttal to that anon
He never had an argument. He explained why he wrote what he did (lol at him thinking his search for meaning is unprovoked by external influence), then he mocked me after simplifying my argument.
>awaiting your succulent response
Here it is.

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11689286]

>>11689229
Also,
>kek if you actually understood the full implications of determinism you could not, without being intellectually dishonest, believe it.
>if you actually understood the full implications of determinism
>Undestood
>Determinism
You don't understand determinism. Your "proof" against it ("some people born into shitty hopeless situations rise up through hard effort that no one ever taught them to have. others rot in their shitty hopeless situation just like their parents did. ") Proves that.

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11689323]

I just realized Determinism and free will can exist at the same time and is more along the lines of what I believe in. It all depends on what your definition of free will is. If you take the Schopenhauer definition of free will then compatibilism works. Doing a little research, this is what many philosophers agree with.

[Anonymous No.11689480]

>>11687877
Damn...

Can’t refute that

[Anonymous No.11689547]

>>11687877
At last I truly see...

[Anonymous No.11689706]

>>11687144
pascals wager is retarded, regardless if you believe in god or not iif you are ten or older you should immediately be able to tellthat pascals wager is bullshit

[Anonymous No.11689903]

>>11688085
>>11688066
This is such a cop out. How is shit like cancer and fish that swim up your dick and lay eggs the result of free will?

[Anonymous No.11689915]

>>11688897
They married faith to reason, instead of faith preceding reason. You can blame the scholastic movement in general for denying you can have any real contact with God in this life which logically entails atheism.

[Anonymous No.11690020]

>>11689903
Simple: Satan’s free will

[Anonymous No.11690061]

>>11689903
Well its not evil. Evil implies conscious malcontent, its ridiculous to get angry at something that has no real agency or 'nature'.

[Anonymous No.11690120]

>be God

[Anonymous No.11690138]

>>11688587
>Only in an Aristotelian framework.
What? No.
>All knowledge is truth, and all human knowledge a fragment of truth. It is a portion of a really existing object. Sorry you don’t agree.
It's not that I don't agree. Those claims just don't make any sense except under some special definitions of these words that you haven't provided.

[Anonymous No.11690157]

>>11687561
>horses are incomplete unicorns, so unicorns exist!

[Anonymous No.11690182]

>>11687132
What are the five proofs? Also, that probably doens't prove that jewish god exists, but just some god.

[Anonymous No.11690220]

>yfw you realize God exists

[Anonymous No.11690440]

> When you realise religious people just aren't smart or brave enough to depart from their delusions

[Anonymous No.11690481]

>>11689903
In Christian theology those are the consequences of original sin. See the attached image for a proper explanation.

[Anonymous No.11690575]

ITT: very smartbois who don't understand causality vs whoah dude mysticism bros
I am disappoint

[Anonymous No.11691660]

>>11690481
Punishing someone for something they didn't do is immoral.

Then the 'all good' goes out the window.

[Anonymous No.11691713]

>>11687185
>I find it impossible to reconcile Aristotle's God with the Christian God.

It's true. Aristotle and Aquinas only speak of the craftsman.

[Anonymous No.11691759]

>>11687679
you got baited m8

[Anonymous No.11691773]

Jesus:

>I came from First Who Was Sent, that I might reveal to you Him Who Is from the Beginning, because of the arrogance of Arch-Begetter and his angels, since they say about themselves that they are gods. And I came to remove them from their blindness, that I might tell everyone about the God who is above the universe. Therefore, tread upon their graves, humiliate their malicious intent, and break their yoke and arouse my own. I have given you authority over all things as Sons of Light, that you might tread upon their power with your feet."

Catholics:

>like eat the cracker and don't masturbate or something

[Anonymous No.11691797]

>>11688035
lol retard

[Anonymous No.11691800]

Jesus:

>Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.

Catholics:

>we don't know nothing about god and neither can you...that's why you should listen to us

[Anonymous No.11691816]

Jesus:

>Grapes are not harvested from thorn trees, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they yield no fruit. Good persons produce good from what they've stored up; bad persons produce evil from the wickedness they've stored up in their hearts, and say evil things. For from the overflow of the heart they produce evil

Catholics:

>not only is there no abomination is too big for apology but all abomination is directly proportional to god's love

[Anonymous No.11691837]

Jesus

>Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me.

Catholics:

>you must respect all lesser authorities and question them even less than our theology

[Anonymous No.11691846]

Jesus:

>Become passers-by.

Catholics:

>work until you die

[Anonymous No.11691852]

>>11690575
The game theory point completely demolished the tripfaggot. If there’s no free will, and you can’t define a system around this lack of free will, even loosely, then free will exists.

It is specifically what the computer playing chess programs are designed around: they have all possible moves in their sets of information regarding future moves k such that k < k* where k* is the maximum length of game. A definite set of moves exist such that the game will end in various sets of moves considered. If there were no free will this sort of thing couldn’t be utilized in economics.

The philosopher in him will debate this point by stating that his free will is predetermined by previous decisions taken by x+1 players in the economic system where x= everyone else he interacts with. But he’s not right entirely since there is a set of all possible choices anyone can make in any given situation with different probabilities. If you come down to the essence of physics, things are unreliable and fundamentally indeterminate anyway, so no one knew what his argument was. Essentially : humans are irrational. If everyone were evil, everything would be deterministic since the system itself would be one of slavery, where the probabilities of every move is either 100 or zero percent.

Then you could say the world is deterministic. It’s actually more idiotic to say the world is deterministic because then you are chasing after a system you can never fully comprehend or describe. It’s the issue Neumann had with the Lausanne school’s indifference curves: they were largely correct as a theory but perhaps fundamentally inapplicable because non-numerical

[Anonymous No.11691888]

Jesus:

>If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.

Catholics:

>darwin was too charitable as to your origin

[Anonymous No.11691906]

>>11687132
>yeah, I’m a Christian, you got a problem with that? I used to be a sinner like you but 2 years ago I found GOD. In my teens I would laugh at creationists; I would always tell my grandma that I didn’t want to go to mass; I was agnostic but not like r/Atheism. But when I GREW UP and became a man, I realised I needed to put childish things away (1 Corinthians 13:11). Why is that? Because I realized that we need Christianity to SAVE THE WEST. After I voted Trump in the 2016 election I decided to go to church again. I knew that I would find a QT pure Christian GF who I could lose my virginity to (I haven’t lost it yet because I’m saving myself for marriage, like God intended). I haven’t found her yet, but like Job I will pray and have faith in God. Then I saw Jordan Peterson talking about Christianity and I was hooked! (I don’t like him anymore though, he’s a fake Christian). I watched all his videos on the bible and realised how God reveals himself in many ways. I was on /pol/ (came from r/The_Donald during the election but I hate redditors now) Christian General and I saw /lit/ chart which had The Bible and I KNEW I found my people. Every day I see THE WEST falling because we gave up our FAITH. Well, the new Christian intellectuals are coming; We are the sons of the Crusaders and we shall not recoil before the sons of Voltaire! (Candide was shit, so is Nietzsche (haven’t read either of them)). /lit/ introduced me to Kierkegaard and I became a KNIGHT OF FAITH, so now I know that I just gotta believe and that’s TRUE bravery. I read DANTE and DOSTOEVSKY and I saw the beauty of God and true art. I’m a proud Catholic (Protestants are heretics) but I hate Pope Francis, he’s a heretic and isn’t MY Pope. /lit/ is a Christian board, and I know that if I just keep recommending the Bible, telling people to go to church, and making threads about how great God is, I will finally be able to sincerely believe in God and distract myself from the gnawing feeling that I’m a fraud. Faith ain’t easy.

[Anonymous No.11691916]

>>11687132
Hopefully, come the time when you die, your sheperd will give you a qt lamb to lose your innocence with :D

[Anonymous No.11691953]

>>11691916
nope, there's no marriage in heaven, we all end up "married" to God. if you die a virgin, you're a virgin for eternity and you will never get a qt.

[Anonymous No.11692043]

>>11687164
>not thinking about the most critical element of human life

[Anonymous No.11692064]

>>11691773
>>11691800
>>11691816
>>11691837
>>11691846
>>11691888
>projecting this hard

[Anonymous No.11692092]

>>11687209
>no potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.11692098]

>>11691773
>>11691800
>>11691816
>>11691837
>>11691846
>>11691888

[Anonymous No.11692110]

>>11692092
this is pathetic lol

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11692157]

>>11691852
No it didn't. If anything, determinism supports the concept of game theory lol. I just think our difference comes down to the semantics of the definition of free will. I already explained this, but you are the type of person to not try to understand the other side of the argument. I even mentioned it in
>>11689286
The anon who was "eagerly awaiting my response" must have gotten so BTFO that he just pretended he didn't see it lol.
>things are unreliable and fundamentally indeterminate anyway
but they aren't. I already expressed my refutation of quantum indeterminacy, which is the only scientifically "true" probability.

In summation, we are both right. We were just arguing on a fundamental difference of the definition of free will, which you actually highlighted at the beginning of your post. In fact I would say both of our philosophies around the idea are quite similar, as we both have a compatibilist approach to the whole thing. I am ending this argument here, because any continuation of it would just lead further into semantics.

Also, no one has responded to >>11689280
and >>11689286
Guess they got so btfo the person who was awaiting my "succulent response" just left. I am assuming this is you, and you pretended to be someone else external to the situation even though you used the exact same points and games.

[Anonymous No.11692161]

>>11692110
i've noticed that this is what they always have to resort to -
>causality isn't real
their whole argument then rests on some hypothetical event outside of cause and effect, which they basically just have blind faith exists. the irony

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11692176]

>>11692157
aw shit replace the first >>11689286
with >>11689323
messed up

[Anonymous No.11692180]

>>11688680
its not an argument its a statement of medical observations which have been proven in multiple studies in the last 20 years. There is no God without a soul and an afterlife and we know this is physically impossible and that the Self is just a construct for dealing with the processing power of our brains. Its an evanescence at best, and a harmful maladaptive phenomena at worst. Im not here to argue, neuroscience and thermodynamics are absolute iron clad proof spiritualism and idealism are retarded. Most idealists could not even tell you the major brain regions or how neurons function or how DNA codes for neural activity at all. People who refuse to understand their own bodies pontificating about absolute reality is disgusting to me.

[Anonymous No.11692195]

>>11692157
>>11692176

[Anonymous No.11692200]

>>11692180
>There is no God without a soul and an afterlife and we know this is physically impossible
>the non-physical soul isn't physically possible
the perfect argument

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11692208]

>>11692195
Not an argument. Shame you can't even provide one against someone you view as stupid. You can't even come up with an argument against an idiot? Guess that makes you retarded.

[Anonymous No.11692227]

>>11692208
i didn't even read your retarded post. no gold for you, buddy

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11692239]

>>11692227
Extremely petty, but that's ok. This should underline how childish you are. You can't even stand up for something you believe in. A little embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.11692268]

>>11692239
someone being childish? here of all places? i'm shocked

[Anonymous No.11692273]

>>11692157
>takes an opposing stance

> later on

>we are basically saying the same thing

Could you BE anymore crazy?

[Convexx !2JFC8Gml3c No.11692295]

>>11692273
We do, it was just a difference between semantics on what free will means. The line
>If there’s no free will, and you can’t define a system around this lack of free will, even loosely, then free will exists.
proved this.

[Anonymous No.11692312]

Why is the tripfag not banned yet?

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11692320]

>>11692312
Did I make someone a little mad?

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11692358]

Friendly reminder for people who don't like me and want to stay in their echo chamber
1. Click Settings (bottom/top of page)

2. Click Filters & Post Hiding

3. Toggle and Edit "Filter and highlight specific threads/posts"

4. Toggle "On", "Auto", and "Hide". Leave "Boards" empty. Then enter a pattern:

For namefags, like Killy for example, add this (as type "Name"):

Killy

For tripfags utilizing ordinary tripcodes, like Eliza !METS.GNIWQ for example, (this is reccomended against me in case I change my name, as I will always use the same password, and will block out all of my posts with this) add this (as type "Tripcode"):

!METS.GNIWQ

For tripfags utilizing secure tripcodes, like STHLM !!6Gk3cvqPqbL for example, add this (as type "Tripcode"):

!!6Gk3cvqPqbL

You can also filter tripfags on a name-basis. This will allow your filter to persist even though they switch username passwords.

5. Click "Save" and "Save Settings".

[Anonymous No.11692365]

>>11688877
Um, no gender studies and bisexuality

[Anonymous No.11692373]

>>11689080
chem

Wanna see my dick now?

[Anonymous No.11692545]

>>11687595
fixed

[Anonymous No.11692621]

>>11692545
fixed

[Anonymous No.11693038]

>>11688271
>Energies essence distinction yoga man

I'm glad I became a Catholic.

[Anonymous No.11693081]

when does this stop getting bumped

[Anonymous No.11693102]

>>11689093
unironically true

Saged this old bait thread

[Anonymous No.11693971]

>>11692358
I don't mind your ideas.
I mind your stupid fucking need to identify yourself.

[Anonymous No.11694159]

>>11688183
>>Implying mass aren't the cringiest thing ever.
Learn the fucking language
Anyway, sorry you're inable to experience beauty.

[Anonymous No.11694170]

>>11693971
On the contrary there is nothing inherently wrong about that. If he is willing to keep the tripcode that’s his decision. Everyone knows he is an idiot because of this thread however

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11694197]

>>11693971
I think being anonymous is degenerate, and encourages lazy posting to an extent, as well as being logically inconsistent across posts. So I adopted a trip.

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11694204]

>>11694170
>Everyone knows he is an idiot because of this thread however
is the Christian mad he can't disprove determinacy? Lol.

[Anonymous No.11694226]

>>11694204
You’ll soon see why we don’t use tripcodes on here

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11694234]

>>11694226
Is it inherently wrong?

[Anonymous No.11694249]

>>11688921
>tfw you're a cuck to your own desires

[Anonymous No.11694478]

>>11691660
Not a valid criticism. Theists would say that since all have sinned in their life, anyone in Adam's spot would have done the same thing.
To nullify this harsh premise Christians (unlike any other theists) strongly emphasize redemption through Christ.

[Anonymous No.11694550]

>>11688063
>>11688070
>>11691797
How do you bugmen neonihilists not understand that categorical imperatives cannot lead to "objective" values? CI was literally the moral code of the nazis (see Adolf Eichmann trial).

[Anonymous No.11694616]

>>11692180
>There is no God without a soul and an afterlife
This assumption and its negation have always perplexed me.