/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14802489]

God doesn’t exist because he preexists.

[Anonymous No.14802492]

>>14802489
my dick ceases to exist whenever it is fully inside your mother

[Anonymous No.14802495]

>>14802489
What's the inherent difference between existence and pre-existence, apart from their different role in this ontological process? Wouldn't it be fair to say that a pre-existing entity truly exist as a pre-existing entity? Otherwise you would have to say that pre-existing entities are nothing

[Anonymous No.14802511]

The Good exists for it is the telos of everything that ever has been and will be.

[Anonymous No.14802600]

>>14802495
>What's the inherent difference between existence and pre-existence
Existence is a determined (or more determined if you prefer) state.

>Wouldn't it be fair to say that a pre-existing entity truly exist as a pre-existing entity? Otherwise you would have to say that pre-existing entities are nothing.
Indeed, the pre-existent entity is beyond existence, it ''exists'' not existing.

>>14802511
Yeah the Good is the telos and all things desire it, but it is beyond existence.

[Anonymous No.14802618]

>>14802489
God doesn't exist because he doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.14802646]

>>14802618
You’re a braindead faggot because you’re a braindead faggot

[Anonymous No.14802650]

>>14802646
>white knighting for god
beta

[Anonymous No.14802654]

>>14802489
and who created preexistence?

[Anonymous No.14802680]

God is the basis of being. He who resides in God, is based.

[Anonymous No.14802708]

>>14802680
but what is the basis of god?

[Anonymous No.14803246]

>>14802680
based and God-pilled

[Anonymous No.14803269]

>>14802650
Stop being a nigger and acknowledge your dad

[Anonymous No.14803274]

>>14802495
>>14802489
Existence is not a predicate

[Anonymous No.14803279]

>>14802708
Himself

[Anonymous No.14803321]

>>14803274
Wdym

[Anonymous No.14803348]

>>14803321
You can't describe god as just existing in any way because that doesn't actually add anything to the concept;

A predicate is basically an adjective or epithet - it's like describing a table as a large table, large being the predicate.

saying a concept exists means nothing towards the concept - God exists? Saying he exists adds nothing to the concept because it's in the nature of God that he is, and if he is not - that is, doesn't exist - he is thus not a god.

Pre-existance means nothing in terms of God, because it is a logical fallacy to say something exists before it does. Saying God exists before the universe is a plausible statement, because the predicate actually adds something to the concept, which is what I assume OP was trying to say - that God existed before all else.

Tl;DR

1) It's meaningless to just say something exists

2) Read Kant

3) God exists in himself

[Anonymous No.14803496]

>>14803348
When you say God exists you say God is. Therefore you equate God with Being (and indeed he is Being, we are not but we have being by participation). But Being is the first principle of manifestation and determined, simply, but still determined. The same way there are degrees or states of being, there are also degrees or states of existence which are defined by the very conditions of existence and degrees of participation in the Godhead.

>Pre-existance means nothing in terms of God, because it is a logical fallacy to say something exists before it does. Saying God exists before the universe is a plausible statement, because the predicate actually adds something to the concept, which is what I assume OP was trying to say - that God existed before all else.
God's eternal outpouring can't diminish him, so why would he be in want of anything, why would it be reasonable to add something to what can't be diminished nor accreted?

Read of what was said earlier: ''the pre-existent entity is beyond existence, it ''exists'' not existing''.

>Read Kant
to make my mind brute enough to regard God as a mere concept? No, thanks. But I recommend you to start reading actual philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14803578]

>>14803269
God is an thot. Give God attention and you'll end up a paypig or a cuck. Best to ignore and move on. Find a wholesome belief to settle down with.

[Anonymous No.14803583]

>>14803496
>start reading actual philosophy

I'm interested what you would define that is.
I also didn't intend to diminish god with the examples I gave for predicates, the nature of his being is beyond time, but to even try to any predicates is pointless, as its all contained in the concept - and a concept is being. Aquinas makes this clear, it's impossible to truly define any of God's characteristics as it's in his nature to be beyond us, but the imprint of him as creator is the concept we able towards - that is at least what Descartes said - we cannot know others a priori, but we do know God.

Predicates aren't "adding" or diminishing, its just that it is nothing to say "he is" as if you say "he" it is already in the framework that the subject "is".

>God is beyond existence

I feel you've conflated time and existence here, or at least I have. If we accept that God is eternal and God is beyond existence are too separate things then God would be unable to interact with us in anyway, as we are in existence, and exist, but he is beyond this; Oh, I'm mistaken there? I'll leave it as you'll certainly have something to say on it. I suppose a very simplified way of conflating that would be, if God is beyond existence, he can't exist, but I would just refer you to my earlier point on how saying God doesn't exist is impossible, because that would invalidate godhood

[Anonymous No.14803826]

>>14803583
> concept is being
a concept has being.

> but the imprint of him as creator is the concept we able towards
yes because everything participates of Being, that is, of Him.

>Predicates aren't "adding" or diminishing,
Predicates define (and you could say that they therefore condition).

>God is beyond existence
>I feel you've conflated time and existence here.
I don't know how you could infer that from what I said earlier. Not all things that exist, exist in time, viz. Being.

There is no separation at all. A thing is good because Being (God as Being) is Good, but Being is not The Good. All things are good naturally because all comes or is reflected from The Good, God.

[Anonymous No.14804580]

>>14802492
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.14804661]

Discuss religion, philosophy, and the occult with based /x/ schizos

[Anonymous No.14804677]

>>14804661
https://discord.gg/Chw48j

[Anonymous No.14804983]

>>14802654
prime-mover is an ontological dead-end. It just exists as a fact of reality, that this thing will forever be a mystery.
Bringing it up doesn't prove or disprove anything, it just makes you sound like a twat.

[Anonymous No.14805700]

>>14803496
I've not seen a good argument for why 'exists' isn't a predicate. Usually they pick out some way 'exists' behaves peculiarly, and then define 'predicate' so it excludes this behaviour. But this is begging the question. The best argument I've seen is that 'exists' can't be a predicate because it leads to inferential failure in some cases. Compare:

>Donkeys are mammals
>Eeyore is a donkey
>Therefore Eeyore is a mammal

>Donkeys exist
>Eeyore is a donkey
>Therefore Eeyore exists

Both syllogisms are (or appear to be) valid in Barbara. In the second, though, apparently true premises yield a false conclusion (unless we're prepared to say Eeyore exists qua fictional character - but then we're using 'exists' equivocally). But does it follow from this that 'exists' isn't a predicate - despite the fact we use it as one in ordinary speech, and know perfectly well what a proposition such as *Donkeys exist* (or even *God exists*) means? Why shouldn't 'exists' be regarded as a predicate, albeit a peculiar one? I don't think this is the problem with the ontological argument.

[Anonymous No.14806116]

>>14802489
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

/thread

[Anonymous No.14806165]

>>14804983
>>14802654
plebs

>>/sci/thread/S11117236#p11117427

[Anonymous No.14806289]

>>14805700
Are you retarded?
Learn what fiction is
Eeyore DOES exist.
Your problem is that you don't acknowledge the distinction between existence and the ability for something to "operate"
Eeyore does exist, but only structurally in the confines of fictional media (drawings, books, animations, music etc). What Eeyore cannot do is operate in the material world. Meaning, Eeyore can't step out of the drawings and eat a flower and call you retarded.
Eeyore can only operate inside a fictional medium, meaning that Eeyore can indeed eat a flower and call you retarded if I say so.
The fact that Eeyore can't step out of my example doesn't restrict him from existing, and he says that you're retarded. Whore.
Bum.
Dosser.

And don't come at me and say that fictional characters can't *really* exist just because they can't operate materially

[Anonymous No.14806560]

>>14804983
>prime mover
who are you replying to here?
>the socratic method makes you sound like a twat
i don't think this is the place for you
>>>/pol/
>>14803279
in that case what does "basis" even mean?

[Anonymous No.14806971]

>>14802489
God supra-exists.

[Anonymous No.14806994]

>>14803583
>I'm interested what you would define that is.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14807010]

>>14802489
Is that why the insurance company would treat him and he died!

[Anonymous No.14808120]

>>14806289
>retarded
>bum
>whore
>dosser
Well, I for one am convinced by your well put-together argument.
>Eeyore DOES exist
As I said, you can claim Eeyore exists qua fictional character if you like. Eeyore 'exists' in this sense, and is valuable intellectual property. But in that case we're using 'exists' equivocally, so the argument
>Donkeys exist
>Eeyore is a donkey
>Therefore Eeyore exists
fails because it commits the fallacy of four terms. We're using the word 'exists' in a different sense in each premise: qua taking up space in the real world, and qua fictional character. Using 'exists' as a predicate still leads to inferential failure.
>you don't acknowledge the distinction between existence and the ability for something to "operate"
That's because this 'distinction' is vague word-soup. Also, you don't use the distinction yourself, since you claim Eeyore exists (why do you make this distinction?). If Eeyore exists because we can talk about him (or because he can 'operate' in 'media', if you insist on this jargon), then so do round squares, because we can talk about them. But round squares are impossible, and don't exist just because we can talk about them. Therefore neither does Eeyore. He's made-up. Saying the word 'operate' has magical undefined powers doesn't change that.

Basically, you should use words like a grown-up.

[Anonymous No.14808124]

>>14802489
False. God cannot possibly preexist because he prepreexists.