[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 31 KB, 850x400, E8FCE54F-F93C-45B1-B5EA-E8876FE5B13C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14536396 No.14536396 [Reply] [Original]

This doesn’t make any sense

>> No.14536401

>>14536396
Of god is the force that establishes universal/moral order, then yeah it kind of does

>> No.14536414

>>14536396
Yes, it's a pretty naive conception of "god" and "everything", albeit a somewhat interesting notion of "permitted" if you divorce it from the context of its usage.

>> No.14536428

What's stopping you from stealing, lying, killing e.t.c? Presumably getting caught right well if you put in some effort it's fairly fixable to get away with them from the law. That's where religion steps in and adds an extra layer of security which says doesn't matter if no human sees you steal it for God shall see it and theres no way around that and you shall be judged for it.

>> No.14536430

>>14536396
He’s right though

It’s why atheists are such scum

>> No.14536433

>>14536396
Obviously there’s still good reasons not to murder or steal or whatever, but anyone who believes they can get away with it will have no fear of consequences. Elites like Epstein and his friends are atheists and have the power to do so many things that they wouldn’t do if they believed in God. Believing in God just insures that you have more fear of doing bad things

>> No.14536476

>>14536401
No it doesn't. Everything is automatically permitted by God. For something to be a thing, it must hold an ontological status, and thus it has been permitted by the will-to-be. Everything is the set of all things, and thus everything has an ontological status. Having ontological status means that the subject being regarded has not only been permitted by God, but approved and created by God. That which is not permitted is inconceivable, cannot hold an ontological status for having not been created, and cannot be regarded as a "thing" or "non-thing". Thus this cannot be encapsulated with the notion of "everything", and to even construct language to talk about this undefined ontology is to walk in a minefield of semantic irregularities.

>> No.14536487

I think he's referencing Assassin's Creed.
>Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

>> No.14536492

>>14536476
He means that certain actions are permissible in that there are no bad consequences.

>> No.14536499

You can seethe all you want, but atheists can’t logically support a moral system. There is no empirical basis for morality. Every single system of thought has its contradictions, sorry gaytheist

>> No.14536503

>>14536476
This is actually a really good take. Abrahamic Godlet btfo

>> No.14536538

>>14536476
Based dishonest sophist

>> No.14536546

>>14536499
Neither can believers in an Abrahamic God. Omnipotence + Omniscience = no free will. No free will = morality is meaningless or impossible.

>> No.14536558

>>14536546
How does this check out? Omniscience implies knowing all, and being essentially outside of time. I don’t see how such a thing influences free will. And then omnipotence literally means God can do whatever he wants, so if he gives human beings free will, they have it. Maybe you are implying that since God “sees the future” we are fated and therefore not free, but this is a misconstruing of omniscience which is a atemporal rather than linear, there is no impact on our freedom in such a model.

>> No.14536566

>>14536499
>Every single system of thought has its contradictions
And? Anon, you're supposed to move past the Greeks eventually. We've been in the epoch of dialetheic systems of thought for quite a few generations now. Go and study para-consistent logics.

>> No.14536573

>>14536546
Free will is a created concept.

>> No.14536582

>>14536558
It's simple. God knows every possibility, and he is the only real ontological power. He determines what can be or can't be. If you act in a certain way it is because God allowed you to, since he could have prevented it, and because he created the conditions which made it possible. This conditions and possibilities were always foreknown by God, the same God who is the power sustaining their actualization, and the God creating their material conditions, and thus everything is predetermined. Where is there room for freedom here? Unless we have the power to create "ex nihilo" like God in such a way that is not predetermined, we don't have any meaningful free will.

>> No.14536584

>>14536558
>misconstruing omniscience
You're out here trying to impose a definition on omniscience. Peak irony.

>> No.14536587

>>14536566
Yeah, it’s a cope.

>> No.14536588

>>14536558
Why does omniscience mean "outside of time". How does that make sense and how do you prove it?

>> No.14536591

>>14536546
Knowledge of the future doesn't mean you lose your free will anon. Nobody lost their free will in Groundhog Day, they just make the same decisions based on the same information. Your will might be free, but that doesn't mean it's completely unpredictable. In fact the more rational you are the more you'll make predictable decisions and actions.

>> No.14536596

>>14536582
Basically the question of wether God can create a boulder he can’t move. The answer is he can. He is God. He can will everything and also will that people have independent free will, because he is all powerful. And you are confusing “permitted” with “approving”. Anything that happens God has allowed, this does not mean it is what he wants. He lets us decide

>> No.14536598

>>14536433
this would be a good argument if the heads of various religious organisations weren't so morally corrupt

>> No.14536600

>>14536591
Then every possible action you could do is framed in a competed logical space, and knowable in advance. In addition God is the only power actualizing all possible outcomes, and creating their conditions. Not very free. Not free enough. We have no freedom to create, only the freedom to do the things God determined in advance would be possible for us.

>> No.14536607

>>14536596
see
>>14536600

>> No.14536608

>>14536596
Then there is a boulder that God cannot lift which means He isn't omnipotent.

>> No.14536611

>>14536591
That argument loses its foundation when you consider god the creator of the universe. Think of the universe as the town in groundhog day and the townspeople no longer have free will.

Even simpler imagine a scientist "creates" a creature that feels excruciating pain from heat and drops them in a test chamber where the floor is heated everywhere but a small corner. Wow! The creatures all cluster in the corner. They have demonstrated their free will. The test chamber maker is 100% responsible for the outcome because of his omniscience.

>> No.14536621
File: 61 KB, 1078x1039, 1576677662653.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14536621

>>14536587
Do you know what a coping mechanism is? It's an effective solution that mitigates the negative drawbacks of an inherent property. In this case, the drawbacks are the flaws that plague classical logic. With the cope being para-consistent logic, we have begun to fill the gaping holes that our incompetent ancestors chose to ignore.

This is the ultimate meaning of your words, yet I doubt they are your intended meaning. Do you wish to rephrase your post?

>> No.14536622

>>14536433
>Religious elites don't use their power to sexually abuse minors

>> No.14536623

>>14536600
>competed
completed*

>> No.14536638

>>14536608
God lifts it anyways while preserving the concept that God cannot lift the boulder.

>> No.14536645

>>14536611
>The test chamber maker is 100% responsible for the outcome
That doesn't conflict with their will being free though. Again just because you can predict the creature will avoid pain doesn't mean that the creatures will is influenced by this knowledge. Your definition of free will is weird, like your will is only "free" if you can do any zany thing at any given moment. You're not going to take your clothes off and run naked down the street because that would be dumb. It doesn't mean your free will is somehow impinged by that fact though. Rather it's an exercise of your free will to not do something dumb.

>> No.14536648

>>14536638
You can't do something you can't do

>> No.14536651

>>14536645
see
>>14536600

>> No.14536652

>>14536487
I liked your post anon, thanks for making it :)

>> No.14536657

>>14536622
If they truly believed in God they wouldn't molest children.

>> No.14536675

>>14536648
With omnipotence you can do anything, even the stuff you can't do. The laws of logic are free to be rewritten at the mildest whim and fancy. You can make reality lie if you so pleased.

>> No.14536687

>>14536675
There is no use in discussing these matters with a Christian if this is what they resort to.

>> No.14536709

>>14536648
Omnipotence literally means all powerful

That means they can rewrite reality, make 2+2 = 5

How are you such a brainlet you can’t comprehend this

>> No.14536715

>>14536709
You can comprehend the incomprehensible? I admire you.

>> No.14536718

>>14536687
Yes I agree. It's a good thing that I'm not a Christian.

Abrahamic religions have extremely naive conceptions of God, and the scope and implications of an omnipotent being (a property that pre-empts all of the other "omnis") that is found in their metaphysics is genuinely laughable.

Go and read Lao Tzu, then read Whitehead. These two are far more on the mark than Christian dialectics.

>> No.14536720

>>14536709
Omnipotence means all powerful. Power relates to your ability to DO things. Logic isn't something you "do".

>> No.14536740

>>14536720
No, but changing the properties of logic is something you do. Omnipotence is that for all potential propositions of [omnipotent subject] [verb] [object], disagreement is an absurdity.

>> No.14536745

>>14536396
Why is god just again?

>> No.14536772

>>14536740
I don't think so. You're taking the language too literally. A cup is a thing with properties like color and size. When we say that logic has properties it is a figurative manner of speaking. Logic is not a "thing" and it doesn't have properties in the way things do, it's just a figure of speech.

>> No.14536797

If there is no God, humans have created God. If humans have created God, we are collectively more powerful than him and use him as a convenient name for what is truly a natural accomplishment, the ability to create a society purely on trust and honour despite neither existing.

>> No.14536836

>All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

>> No.14536848

>>14536836
based antinomian sex cult leader

>> No.14536864

>>14536476
Lol, there will be naive zoomers stumbling upon this and thinking it's true because OP used some philosophical terms.

>> No.14536883

>>14536864
disprove it. Everything that *is* is tacitly permitted by God. Not only permitted, he is the only real power actualizing it. God is the murderer and the murdered, the rapist and the raped, the crucifier and the crucified.

>> No.14536889

>>14536864
There will be other zoomer thinking it's not true because another anon replied to it with "lol" followed by a snarky in-the-know comment and they don't wanna be uncool in the eyes of basement dwellers.

>> No.14536911

>>14536772
>You're taking the language too literally.
In what way do you mean to imply you're using figurative language? You're not using similes, metaphors, or personification in a meaningful intersection with your dialogue. This would then imply that there is a degree of hyperbole that you suggest I am not grasping with. Unless you wish to point out another aspect of figurative language that I might have missed, I will have to dismiss this. Hyperbole being an exaggeration of a possibility (or capacity for an event), and omnipotence describing no limit to the capacity to do things, omnipotence precludes the meaningful application of hyperbole.

>Logic is not a "thing"
Yes, actually it is. It may not be a material thing, but it is still an abstract thing. This is not figurative language, it is a distinct ontological distinction that occurs between material considerations and non-material considerations. Logic exhibits properties of a thing, holding an identity, consisting of rules which describe its abstract application within the concerns of material things. You cannot necessarily taste, touch or see logic, but you can describe it all the same. Omnipotence holds no limitation to the application of power in degree or manner, as per its definition. This precludes the ability to affect the abstract as one affects the material, especially as the abstract is derived from the material which I assume to be your primary complaint. If it is the other way around, then the same results are achieved by affecting the material derived from the abstract. The domain of omnipotence is unbounded by limitations of all variety.

>> No.14536936
File: 522 KB, 600x900, gv5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14536936

>>14536396

>> No.14536976

>>14536864
I would instead hope that they they will absorb its meaning and meditate on it, and if they should disagree, that they will state their musings formed into a counter argument instead of contributing to the endless sea of whitenoise shitposting that floods this board.

>> No.14537012

>>14536621
It’s a cope because of accepting that your logic is flawed you attempt to use semantics to prove it isn’t

>> No.14537032

>>14536911
I was referring to logic when I said figurative language, not omnipotence. Logic is not a thing with properties. It is not an object, neither an immaterial thing. Immaterial things are just as "beholden" (a figurative manner of speaking) to logic as material ones. Logic doesn't "have". Logic does not exist, yet it doesn't not exist. It's just a wrongheaded way of talking about it to take these figurative expressions literally. Logic applies to abstract object, and it can be figuratively treated as one (a useful thing to do), but it isn't an abstract object fundamentally. It's like Plato's form of the Good by which things are not but cannot be known itself. Logic is irrational, but makes rationality possible. This should be obvious since logic is taken for granted and there is not standard outside of it to verify it, which would be circular reasoning. One cannot prove that A=A, one just accepts it. Logic IS God.

>> No.14537040

>>14537032
It's like Plato's form of the Good by which things are known but cannot be known itself*

>> No.14537085

>>14536911
God has no ontological standing in the same way a man has ontological standing in the sense that we exist by his will. (I will not give examples here as I am not sure if anyone has even heard of any ontological standing in The Ontology of Being)
Now here's where this goes real bad. Let's go through some pseudo-rhetorical concepts that haven't even been formulated yet.
What we believe to be true is not necessary but merely possible for us. Nor is God necessary, but merely possible for us. Even if A=A, so far as we know, you could have believed something else and be right. God could have concealed Himself. No one person can do that, not even God. Everything we believe has a root in a deeper and more immutable reality that is universal and timeless, and that finds expression in the world as we know it."
But that universal universe that is "more enduring" is a thing of God, no less than the plane, the horizon, or the planet, is a thing of God, and we can see its beauty and purpose in an infinite universe. At the same time, there is a greater metaphysical reality that we can never hope to attain in this life, a nature out there that exists and has a form, a material substance which is constantly renewing itself and that actually exists "beyond the arrowhead and beyond the clouds." This way of thinking is of greater importance than mere superstition because it clarifies what we already know and expresses the deeper foundation of the understanding of creation.

>> No.14537098

>>14536499
Morality is impossible under theism. Doing good things only to please a more powerful entity is not morality -- it's selfishness.

Also, this: >>14536546

>> No.14537108

>>14536476
Lol no, nice try tho φaggot

>> No.14537121

>>14536709
By this reasoning I am God. Why? Because me being God is impossible, but as God I can do the impossible, so I became me, a shitposter on /lit/. Disprove that I'm God, faggot. Pro tip: you can't.

>> No.14537122

>>14536476
Everything is permitted, but not everything is helpful...

>> No.14537137

>>14537085
This is retarded on so many levels.
As Deleuze put it, "the numinous unity of Being through Something which corresponds to it is understood as the direct return to the human being, for the very reason that the human being is for this reason disenchanted by this discourse" The parody of a dead language communicates an idea in this manner: through parody, the account of being slain is subsumed into the being of something dead and inhuman.
Language, then, is a communal construction, and so God Himself is a parody. As language lives out into the world, so language transforms itself from something utterly separate and unreachable into an element of daily life. If we have done our work well, in other words, the ultimate, fundamental meaning of all the languages in the world has been revealed to us.

It is, I think, the same question with all our languages. Take the term "love," for example. It has no meaning until it is extended to be something larger than the individual. It has no meaning at all until we extend it to include the Earth and the whole of Creation. The moral is therefore made real, not by an abstract concept of love, but by our interaction with every other living thing.

>> No.14537154

>>14536396
There are plenty of real world, down to Earth reasons why "everything is not permitted".
It's pure christlarping cope.

>> No.14537163
File: 251 KB, 1706x1383, religion.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14537163

if religion makes people moral then why do the most religious countries have the highest crime rates? also, in the US the states with higher church attendance have FAR more violent crime than states with low church attendance. this may not prove that religion makes people more violent (correlation doesn't mean causation) but it does mean that religion doesn't make anyone less violent.

>> No.14537238

>>14537012
You didn't understand his post. Go back and read it again.

>> No.14537242

>>14537154
okay then explain them

>> No.14537246

>>14536396
Which book of his should I drop everything and read immediately?

>> No.14537282

>>14537242
Laws, social pressure, not being a psycho. If you want specific answers you need to give specific examples where you think something is permitted without the existence of Yahweh.

>> No.14537361

>>14537246
Notes from Underground is a good starting point. If you want a short story read Dream of a Ridiculous Man, or White Nights

>> No.14537379

>>14536883
obviously the reason the critique is wrong is because it reframes the quote in a way the quote is not meant to be framed. brainlet detected.

>> No.14537397

>>14537379
It reframes the question as a metaphysical question. All ethics have metaphysical presuppositions, thus to treat with the metaphysical aspects of the question is necessary. That anon cut straight to the heart of the matter.

>> No.14537400

>If there is a God, then everything is permitted

>Although the statement "If there is no God, everything is permitted" is widely attributed to Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (Sartre was the first to do so in his Being and Nothingness), he simply never said it.

>The closest one gets to this infamous aphorism are a hand-full of apoproximations, like Dmitri's claim from his debate with Rakitin (as he reports it to Alyosha): "'But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are permitted then, they can do what they like?'"

>> No.14537403

>>14536936
>laid low and humbled
im what way?

>> No.14537409

>>14536889
This anon gets it, most of you midwit wouldn't be able to refute a 3-year old let alone a thoughtful and well constructed argument so you just resort to "he-he imagine a-actually b-believing this" without any further comment on where exactly the original poster was in error. You're even worse than normies because they actually oftentimes will admit their ignorance and yield their case whereas you just choose to pretend the argument never existed in order to rescue your faith in your own demigod-like intellectual power which somehow doesn't manifest itself when confronted with a dissenting opinion

>> No.14537416

>>14536396
by permitted he meant ethical

>> No.14537431

>>14536396
It is a denial of the inherent divinity of man, that man is only elevated above common beasts by way of grace given from a deity.

>> No.14537433

>>14537397
?
The quote is saying that if there is not ultimate judge/punishment of actions then nothing can be said to be right or wrong - so everything is ultimately permissable.
Anon's critique doesn't affect this.

>> No.14537438

>>14537137
Good post. Everyday I am reminded that everyone would be less retarded if they just read Deleuze and Whitehead.

>> No.14537468

>>14537433
It treats with the very metaphysical consequences of having an omnipotent creator ex nihilo God, which is the background of the question. Ethics leans on metaphysics. You have to deal with the fundamental metaphysics first. For example, one who is a materialist deterministic cannot hold to any coherent ethics because that metaphysical view excludes it. If you are arguing with a materialist of that stripe about ethics it suffices to point this out and the argument is over. That anon is making the same point about belief in an all powerful God. It makes ethics incoherent. This is necessary to establish. Ignoring the metaphysics and jumping into the ethics willy nilly is brainlet and will just end up causing you to argue over nothing.

>> No.14537491

>>14537468
I'll be honest I ain't even read all of anon's first critique\

>> No.14537512

>>14536396
It’s okay, OP. You’re just retarded.

>> No.14537643

>>14536396
Should have read the Oliver Ready translation. It will only then make sense. Farewell.

>> No.14538091
File: 68 KB, 699x485, 1572123715712.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14538091

>>14537032
Logic is certainly a thing with properties. As a system, it can be regarded as a whole defined by the relationship of it's rules. The semantic treadmill is a useless divergence, it matters not whether the term "thing" or "noun" is used as they are both signs of the same concept. There is a long lecture to be had about intuition and such, but this is just as much of a waste of time as arguing about concrete vs abstract "things". The true meat is in the idea that epistemological considerations serve as insurpassable limitations, however this is already placing limits on the limitless. The starting point is to understand that if you are keen to apply limitations to omnipotence, then we are doomed to continue talking past each other. Differentiation between weak omnipotence and strong omnipotence is clear, and I only care to discuss the latter, which is contrasted against the former by being notably outside all bounds. Omnipotence being boundless, altering the internal relations and parts of any system-structure falls within this domain-less description. An assertion that omnipotence relies on a pre-existing interface upon which to act is an absurdity, as it both precludes the inability to produce such an interface, and an inability to act without interface, both of which are necessities to fit the definition of omnipotent as a boundless capacity of actions being performed upon subjects.

Further more, the assertion that one cannot prove axioms is reductive. One is not capable of doing so only in the same system that the axioms are applied in, but it can hardly be said to be the only system available. Conventionalist semiosis is a powerful tool set aside from usual reasoning, and within its own domain is the very foundation of the necessity of axioms. There are more components that can be fit within this dialectical manifold, but now is neither the time nor place to discuss such geometries.

>> No.14538128

>>14538091
Logic is not merely "a system". Anything which purports to call itself a system is dependant on logic, so logic is prior to systems. Systems are concocted. No one could invent logic, let alone understand the "reason behind it" even if they tried. "Strong omnipotence" is incoherent and is open to this objection >>14537121

Another problem is that it is inconsistent to say that you support strong omnipotence and reject soft omnipotence, which goes to show just how absurd and incoherent the strong omnipotence position is. If strong omnipotence is true than God transcends logic, and thus God can be stronger than logic while simultaneously being weaker than logic. If you deny this then you deny God's strong omnipotence. Soft omnipotence is true (at least potentially) in a strong omnipotence context because God can make it true even if its untrue because God is powerful enough to do it, also God is not powerful enough to do it because he is powerful enough to make himself now powerful enough. This is just some of the retardation entailed by strong omnipotence. Also, I'm God, so stop arguing with me, faggot.

>> No.14538146

>>14536396
Well, there is no everything.

>> No.14538202

>>14538128
>to make himself not powerful enough*

>> No.14538206

>>14536396
He and >>14536430 are scared shitless at the fact that there is none.

>>14536745
To hear the christies he’s *beyond* just

>> No.14538312

If there is no God then man is nothing but a bundle of atoms no different from any inanimate object albeit one whose structure is more complex than other but an bundle of atoms nonetheless and every moral impulse you have whether based on empathy or what you conceive to be rationality is nothing more than chemicals in your brain, so morality itself becomes pointless. So the only coherent alternative is solipsistic nihilism anything apart from that is just meaningless rhetoric. Also read Hume and Nietzsche.

>> No.14538318

>>14536430
Guilty.
A shame no one is going to judge me for it ;)

>> No.14538330
File: 103 KB, 500x500, jason-reza-jorjani-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14538330

>>14538312
>if you don't believe in the Abrahamic God you have to be a materialist determinist

>> No.14538353
File: 643 KB, 1022x731, It's_All_So_Tiresome.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14538353

>>14536396
>This doesn’t make any sense

Of course it doesn't make sense, Sartre made up this quote. If you actually read the brothers Karamazov you will see by yourself that Dostoievsky never wrote this.
Imagine actually taking the bait made up by a french atheist subhuman to pull a strawman on christian existentialism.

>> No.14538363

>>14538353
Another anon already posted the real quote in the thread and it's nearly identical

>> No.14538381

>>14538330
most people responding to OP were atheists so materialism was assumed in my reply. any non-materialist metaphysical system would suffice.

>> No.14538399

>>14538363
>"If there is a God, then everything is permitted"
>"But what will become of men then?" I asked him, "without God and immortal life? All things are permitted then, they can do what they like?"

It's an inquisitive question opening space for a dialogue, not an assertive affirmation. Dostoievsky didn't said that "without a God everything is permitted", he happens to be a good writer that, instead of using strawmans on his characters to prove his point, gives all of them good arguments for their beliefs.
In the Brothers Karamazov there's also a whole section of a chapter where a character says that God can't be benevolent with all the terrible malice that exists in the world, and he makes a really good point. Nevertheless, you wouldn't say that this isn't a really christian book, and you wouldn't say also that Dostoievsky isn't a christian writer. You would know all of this if you had read the damn book.

>> No.14538409

>>14538399
I have read the book. I'm not saying Dostoevsky personally believed that. It's just "one of the arguments he puts into the mouth of his characters" as you put. It's a point of view that is intimated at.

>> No.14538483

>>14538409
>It's a point of view that is intimated at.

You can say that of all the arguments displayed in the book imo. Even if they contradict each other, you can tell that all those thoughts passed on Dostoievksy's mind and that he tried to be fair with them instead of dogmatically accepting or rejecting them.
That's why i'm saying the original quote has more weight, it's a fragment of a dialogue between two opposite parties with equally good arguments. It's not just a declaration, it's a complex form of thought that Sartre probably never could have grasped, funny enough, because of how dogmatic himself was with his atheism.

>> No.14538493

>>14538483
The point is that this quote can be looked at separately and examined for its philosophical content. Nothing wrong with that.

>> No.14538536

>>14538493
But that's not what Sartre did. Again, he took the quote out of context as a declaration made by Dostoievsky to make an argument against christian existentialism. He didn't took into consideration what the other characters said about Dimitri's argument neither, though technically all those arguments should be considered too part of the christian existentialist field of thought because Dostoievsky wrote all of those.

>> No.14538706

>>14537282
from what place of moral authority do these laws derive
what determines societal pressures

>> No.14538739

>>14538706
>what determines societal pressures

Think about this question.

>> No.14538789

>>14538739
mass media?
the education system?
political activists?

>> No.14539006
File: 33 KB, 630x630, 1851968_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14539006

>>14538128
For the first part of your post, read Varzi. Start with Theory and Problems of Logic, then Model-Theoretic Conventionalism, then finish off with Il Mondo Messo A Fuoco. That should get you up to speed on things.

For the second, yes. Rejection of inconsistency is a rule of logic (and not even all logic-derived structures, at that) and as God is above logic, inconsistency does not matter. Hence the original assertion, God can make an impossible task, and complete the impossible task, preserving the impossibility while doing so, as God is beyond logic. "No rules apply, not even this one." You would do well to study dialetheic thought.

Finally, you appear to have lost your composure, so having pointed you in the direction to further learning, I will allow you the space you have requested to study further. There is nothing more for me in replying to you except to suffer tepid insults from a poster who is stuck in 18th century thought. Have a nice night :)

>> No.14539066

>>14539006
I'm assuming you are a Christian because only a Christian would affirm the retardation of "strong omnipotence". In that case, I have to ask you: why follow your religion? Presumably because you want to be saved. Unfortunately, your conception of God causes some issues for that. Let's say you believe that by affirming Jesus Christ's divinity and following his teachings you will be saved, and you trust this because God promised you this. However, as you have said, God transcends logic. Thus God can keep his promise to save you by breaking his promise and throwing you in Hell. Ordinarily, to damn and to save are contradictory. But this does not apply to God. He keeps his promises by breaking them. He saves you by damning you. How can you trust a "strong omnipotent" God who defies logic? Any promise he makes is not worth shit because he can break that promise with impunity (and it wouldn't count as breaking the promise because "strong omnipotence" lol). Do you see how retarded that position is? God can tell you the truth by lying to you. Perhaps every word Jesus Christ uttered was a lie? You can't know.

>> No.14539097

>>14536396
You shouldn't need the fear of god to make you act morally right, unfortunately for some people the possibility of going to hell is what is stopping them from stealing.

>> No.14539102

>>14539066
wtf god sounds scary as fuck

>> No.14539191

>>14538789
Those are vessels. Think of it using a logisitics lens. Don't forgo each individual component for the big picture. Hold every discrepancy in your mind at once and see the big picture from that.

>>14539066
I'll allow you this parting reply, just because I was replying to the other anon anyways.
>I'm assuming you are a Christian
You are assuming wrong. However I agree with essentially everything you say about Christianity. In fact, a fair amount of thought that I have presented to you traces its roots to a long-winded critique of Christianity that I develop off and on. Really the scope is far larger than just Christianity, but it's also little more than mental-taffy I use to entertain myself with on train rides.

>> No.14539203

>>14539191
Stop being so melodramatic with your "le parting reply" shit. Just tell me what you believe. Out with it. You're on a tawainese pottery forum, stop taking yourself so seriously, mr. enigmatic mystery man. What are your actual beliefs?

>> No.14539646

>>14536546
>Omnipotence + Omniscience = no free will
Neither of these have any impact on human will. Knowing what will be isn't to cause what will be. God is timeless, he knows what will be because it already has happened.

>> No.14539657

>>14539646
Both of them factored together contradict free will. See
>>14536582

>> No.14539664

>>14539646
also see
>>14536600

>> No.14539765

>>14538318
Kek. Based

>> No.14539797

Translate it to "god is dead".
Dosto was very limited in accepting only one metaphysical principle, stating that god is THE thing outside of oneself. Therefore, his solution to nihilism was to go back to ignorance.

>> No.14539805

>>14538206
>the butterfly nigger once again trying his best to spread discord

>> No.14539863

>>14539805
If butters just killer herself there would literally be perfect peace and harmony on earth.

>> No.14540199

>>14536476

Indeed. I agree from a Christological perspective.

>> No.14540266

>>14540199
>Christological perspective.
;DD that was biggest gobbledygook, mental gymnastics this side of A.D.

>> No.14540384

>>14536596
Bad take, God can't do things that are illogical, to say that God is illogical is to throw everything out of the window.

>> No.14540417

I like Zizek's clever inversion of the terms. If God exists everything is permitted. In other words, holy writ permits unlimited prerogatives. Burn the nonbelievers, convert their children. Condemn those who do not conform. Wage war on those who occupy your holy lands. If God is behind it, it cannot be wrong. The moral violence on the surface is merely a veil, obscuring the the higher purpose to which bloody sacrifices must be proffered.

>> No.14540454

>>14540417
Yeah, that's a pretty good point about the Abrahamic God. Everything is permitted *for his sake*, so to speak. Difference between Abrahamic God and pagan gods really boils down to
Abrahamic God: "God says to do it, so it's good, and people who don't obey are evil"
Pagan gods: "the gods say to do it, and if we don't they'll fuck our shit up, so let's be prudent and do it"

>> No.14540704

Brainlet thread with brainlet takes

>> No.14540841

>>14536396
No boss. Do whatever.
Uh oh, boss is here. Look busy.

>> No.14540951

>>14536396
Without an objective, God-given moral law, the very category of 'permission' melts away, so that everything really is permitted, for the reason that there is no permission-giver to give or deprive of permission.

>> No.14540974

>>14536582
Again: precogognition is not predetermination.
>>14536600
The number of options one can choose has no relevance to whether you are the one who determines which one. The freedom to choose from ten or an infinity is equal free will, quantity has no relevance.

>> No.14540977

>>14536600
>We have no freedom to create
The fuck does this mean. That thought and Form are limited and already exist eternally in potentiality in the mind of God still means that you freely actualize the idea you freely choose.

>> No.14541016

>>14536396
It does make sense though. Normative statements are impossible without judgement. Of course you can say that you can judge for yourself, but in that case everything is indeed permitted.

>> No.14541032

>>14539657
>>14539664
>skips leibniz
>pretends to refute freedom with muh efficience
Sure thing.