[ 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: 105 KB, 864x864, damn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15660088 No.15660088[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How will christians ever recover?

>> No.15660108

>>15660088
Logic is fake and gay.

>> No.15660114

>>15660088
Calvinists already know this. Try again.

>> No.15660116

>>15660088
Isn't this the guy who debated with a christian who spent the whole debate quoting him and they both went on rambling about solipsism?

>> No.15660199

>>15660088
More like Matt Dillacunty.

>> No.15660222

>>15660088
>What is free will, Alex?
Repent and trust Christ, Matt. Look at the sky. That is our destiny and far far far beyond. The choice is yours, Matt. Heaven or Hell.

>> No.15660234

>>15660108
fpbp, logic is an inhuman way of thinking.

>> No.15660272

>>15660088
>Does anything happen that doesn't go according to your god's will?
>No.
>Then your is ultimately responsible blah blah blah...
>No.
Matt Dillahunty BTFO.

>> No.15660278

>>15660108
>>15660234
There is no "other" way of thinking. It is an elaboration of the laws of reasoning. You cannot think in any other way.
>>15660222
Yes, insofar as the soul is active substance, its action is not determined in any way. There can be no knowledge of the action of the soul before it acts because it would not have a truth, an external state, that it could correspond to. Knowledge of the future action of the soul consists of knowing it as non-determined. For that reason, it would not negate the omniscience of God.

>> No.15660289

>>15660278
>because it would not have a truth, an external state, that it could correspond to
what did he mean by this

>> No.15660295
File: 1.32 MB, 800x1024, John_Calvin_by_Holbein.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15660295

>>15660088
Yes, and?

>> No.15660300 [DELETED] 

>>15660088
>Does anything happen that doesn't go according to your god's [sic] will?
>Yes.
The caller needs to read the Bible.

>> No.15660308

>>15660278
And these "laws" of reasoning ground their supposed truth how exactly?

>> No.15660311

>>15660289
A statement is correct insofar as it corresponds to a state. A knowledge is a truthful statement that knows itself to be truthful. The truthful statement on an indetermined state consists in stating that it is indetermined; if any other determination were said of it, the statement would be false. For this reason, the fact that future acts of the soul lack determination would not contradict omniscience; all truth, which consists in these states not yet being, that is, being without determination, would be had by God.
What is left for me to state is that I am not christian, and what I have said would likely correspond to some heresy. But it is true.

>> No.15660322

>>15660308
In themselves; their contradiction cannot be thought. They are not grounded, except in themselves, and they are grounding.

>> No.15660323

>>15660311
stupid schizo babble
nice dubs though

>> No.15660324

>>15660278
>You cannot think in any other way
So all I think is logical? My logical conclusions have lead me to believe that you are gay.
And don't try to fight it as I will always fall back to the false axiom that you've provided for me faggot.

>> No.15660327

>>15660322
...by which they correspond to the determination of substance, necessary being.

>> No.15660333

>>15660323
Anon, this is a series of extremely basic knowledges. What is it that you have an issue with?

>> No.15660337

>>15660278
>Yes, insofar as the soul is active substance, its action is not determined in any way. There can be no knowledge of the action of the soul before it acts because it would not have a truth, an external state, that it could correspond to. Knowledge of the future action of the soul consists of knowing it as non-determined. For that reason, it would not negate the omniscience of God.
Fuyxjgkvjbifydivbkchdhfgkchxjchcjchv
Fuufjvuvibvhgkvhxcjjdjfyzcjviuvicydcujc
Jchvibivydkgivhxig uuckvuccjjcivigguuvh

Lol get refuted! (High fives friend and orgasms)

Now enough ponying around.
Stop telling me what you think is not-true.
Start telling me what you think is true.

>> No.15660347

>>15660333
>What is it that you have an issue with?
the soul can't lack determination otherwise it wouldn't do anything; if you act you are determined to do something, e.g. you can't move without having the determination to move
nice trips though

>> No.15660364

>>15660322
I have discovered my own self-grounding system of logic, yet it seems to differ from yours. Now what? Who's is true?

>> No.15660385 [DELETED] 

>>15660088
I hope this fag doesn't have kids lol. By his own logic he is responsible for whatever misery befalls his child.

>> No.15660389

>>15660347
Perhaps I should have said that in a clearer way. If the soul is the active substance, that is, the sole originator of all its acts, then it lacks all external cause of its acts. Its act consists in it determining itself for an act, this is the most common way of understanding free will, and it is something that corresponds to that intuitive knowledge we have of our own agency; that we are not determined before we determine ourselves. So, the soul determines itself at every point. But the time in which the soul determines itself is the present; it does not determine itself in the future, because the future has not yet arrived, and it does not determine itself in the past because it is already determined in the past; its determination in the past has fully escaped its agency, becoming, now, a state of the world. From this follows (of this I have as of yet only unclear knowledge; it is an elaboration of an intuitive understanding of our own agency, so I cannot ground it; I can only explain its relation to knowledge) that the knowledge of the past and the present consists in the correct statement of their determinations which is aware of its rectitude, and the knowledge of the future acts of the soul consists in knowing them as not yet determined. This is the way in which soul being the entirely active substance would not contradict the possibility of omniscience; God can have all knowledge that can possibly be had.
>>15660364
You lie out of some strange spite. We share the laws of reasoning because we share the power of reasoning, reason. You have not "discovered" any other laws.

>> No.15660402

>>15660389
>You lie out of some strange spite.
I do not. You accuse me so out of some strange spite. Regardless, if we all share these laws and powers, then where do our (everyone's) disagreements come from?

>> No.15660407

>>15660389
>This is the way in which soul being the entirely active substance would not contradict the possibility of omniscience
If God already knew everything that would happen, then everything technically is predetermined, we just don't know what will happen. Still, I think free will still could exist because there's nothing contradictory in God giving us free will yet knowing before us what we will choose to do because of that free will. Of course, whenever we opt to do something we opt to do one thing (e.g. I can either choose to do something or not do it, not both at the same time). This is an inherent part of choosing something, so even if there is free will the atheists can say how everything is predetermined since "look, you did only this one thing", which is stupid.

>> No.15660408

>>15660088
>what is permissive will

>> No.15660410

>>15660389
Tell me what you really believe. Tell me what is absolutely true.
Otherwise, seriously, fuck off. Because until we know what you absolutely believe is true, all you're doing is this:
Igusyfobnoguvk ucvivufhoivbiu. Iuc u uucuuvivugiu. Ivju vubivi u ivivkv huvvi biucyu uivviuvuvivivibbivivivigufifvuvi

You know what we call people who spout gibberish while thinking they're genius? Moronic or insane

>> No.15660427

>>15660402
There is rarely disagreement about that of which the opposite cannot be thought. How many men will you find that say that it is possible that a statement and its contradiction are simultaneously true? Possibly some, if you look for them very carefully. And, when you find them, they will proceed to attempt to prove to you what they say by way of reasoning; accepting implicitly that which they explicitly rejected. Most people have unclear judgements. But disagreements about reasoning itself are rare, and always unjustified. Disagreements about epistemology, also, are not disagreements about reasoning.

>> No.15660449

>>15660407
>If God already knew everything that would happen
But this is what I am saying; the knowledge of a state that is not determined is precisely the knowledge that it is not determined. The true statement about such a state consists in saying that it is not determined. If you have accepted free will, then both the statements "In five minutes, I will rise" and "In five minutes, I will not rise" would be false, and the statement "It is not determined whether I will or will not rise in five minutes" is true. If you consider them already determined, then you have rejected free will, which is something you may do, and the grounds of the discussion shift into talking about an already determined string of acts in which knowledge truly does consist in knowing an act before it occurs, because it is determined before it occurs..

>> No.15660457

>>15660427
>How many men will you find that say that it is possible that a statement and its contradiction are simultaneously true?
Ever heard of particle physics?
Ever heard of Schrodinger's cat?
Seriously dude, SHUT UP and go actually read a book!

>> No.15660477

>>15660449
If God knows literally everything, that means he also knows whether you'll stand up in five minutes or not. That still doesn't change the fact that you made your own choice, i.e. did it with free will, it's just that God knew what you would pick before you picked it.

>> No.15660487

>>15660457
>Ever heard of Schrodinger's cat?
More or less. I will not pretend to any great knowledge of current theoretical physics. It is a statement, as far as I know, that there are states which are not determined, and their determination is produced at the moment when they are approached by an observer. There is nothing particularly puzzling about such a statement from the point of reasoning. Because when it is said that the cat is "both dead and alive", these are not factual, but potential states of a present that is not determined.
As far as I know, at least. If you pretend to some greater knowledge of theoretical physics, you may as well share some knowledge.

>> No.15660519

>>15660477
The statement that I will rise in five minutes can only be true if it corresponds to an already present determination that I will, in fact, rise in five minutes. If there is no such determination, then both this statement and its contradiction are equally false, and the true statement is that the state that will occur in five minutes will be determined in five minutes. This is what "free will" means; that the soul is such a being that receives its determination from itself at the moment when it determines itself, and not before.
What you say is that all acts of the soul are determined in all moments. If that is correct, then it is indeed true that an omniscient being knows all the determinations, "the entire string", because all determinations exist before they occur. But this is not free will, which necessarily considers the future states of the soul as not yet determined.

>> No.15660530

>>15660519
If you give me a choice of going left or right and know beforehand what I will choose that does not mean that I will not make a choice out of my own free will.

>> No.15660540

>>15660519
>The statement that I will rise in five minutes can only be true if it corresponds to an already present determination
To clarify: if the determination that I will rise in five minutes exists before the act actually obtains. That is, that the action is pre-determined. The position of free will states that the determination occurs at the moment when the soul determines itself, and not earlier. That is, the statement "I will rise in five minutes" is not factually true, because it does not correspond to a determination (whether I will rise in five minutes is not pre-determined; it becomes determined in five minutes), but it is potentially true, as is its opposite, because in five minutes I will either be up or keep sitting.

>> No.15660542

>>15660530
No, just like knowing afterwards that you went right does not mean that you had no free will or that decision retroactively became non-free.

>> No.15660551

>>15660530
Well, it does. Because you have not produced the "going left or right" by act of will that determined itself; the determination was always present that, at that time, you will go left, and could have, for that reason, always been true and always known.

>> No.15660557

>>15660542
Then we're in agreement. The problem is that whether you have free will or not you will do only one thing (e.g. go left or right, you can't go both ways), so it can both look like you have free will and like you don't. I guess they will accept free will only if we can clarify it through empiricism (for example if there's some region in the brain responsible for free will), but empiricism supports a lack of free will as we have a series of neurochemical reactions that follow one another. I do know there's that talk about the Bereitschaftspotential and how it could imply free will, but it's still not a hard enough proof.

>> No.15660563

>>15660487
Oh thanks Mr genius for explaining quantum physics to the class.

You literally said >I will not pretend
And then like a MORON you did the exact opposite and started pretending like you have knowledge of particle physics when you clearly know Jack shit!

WHY SHOULD I TAKE ANYTHING YOU SAY SERIOUSLY AT ALL!

>> No.15660572

>>15660563
Chief, if you did not really want to talk, then you could have just stopped replying. Which I will do now.

>> No.15660575

>>15660557
Sorry, missed the no from your post. Yes, we are in agreement then. Guess the latter stuff depends on whether you strictly define free will (and can use that definition) or just leave it vaguely undefined and intuitive.

>> No.15660606

>>15660572
You have said absolutely nothing but gibberish this entire thread, and you accuse me of not wanting to talk?

This whole time I have been trying to talk to you! Please, say something! Anything! What is truth!?

>> No.15660608

>>15660427
Reason and logic are just metalinguistic constructs designed to guarantee proper thought (through the authentication of the identity of signs) in a given paradigm/discipline. They are ultimately contingent.

>> No.15660654

>>15660088
Passive/active will distinction boneheads
Humans are gifted with free will

>> No.15660722

>>15660088
Point three is wrong, man can act contrary to God's will, that's obvious to almost everyone but Calvinists and Stoics. The brainlet caller obviously holds the fedora man thoughts and actions as contrary to God's will, probably acknowledges that he himself sins from time to time, and that they are able to do it despite God; should have thought the question through.

Hell is a perspective of God's theroia that the soul voluntarily chooses and can change, which takes the sting out of it.

>> No.15661093

>>15660608
Wrong. If reason were purely meta-linguistic it wouldn't hold to be true of phenomenal experience: we do not encounter in the world some expression of a truth in substance, and its simultaneous negation; nothing both exists and doesn't exist. We deduce from this, at the very least, that logic(al necessity), which reason is the linguistic expression & discovering of, is fundamental to our phenomenal experience of the world.

The question then becomes, where does this fundamental logic, within the bounds of which perceived reality remains, come from? Because of possibility of a total solipsism we of course cannot prove anything on an empirical basis, but appealing to our shared desire to know we can invoke a soundness for the continuity of phenomenal logic with actual logic based on the necessity on a belief that phenomenal reality expresses (and finds its origin in [think biological evolution in the crudest terms]) noumenal reality.

>> No.15661103

>>15661093
Fair enough, at least you believe in something, which puts you ahead of many on this board unfortunately.

>> No.15661106

>>15661093
fuck tired, the last few lines are incoherent (because of misplaced 'of' and 'on')

nevermind, just read a summary of transcendental deduction & think about the brain as evolved, asking why it would find useful some kinds of illusion (yes!) but not a total anti-reality framework (no!) VERSUS an image of the brain as re-presenting some of the structures of reality which are its prior cause thru the 'meta-linguistic' structure of reason, which expresses a prior-to-language fundamental logic

>> No.15661112

>>15660722
And not just man, but also spirits.

>> No.15661123

>>15660289
I think he means souls aren't real. Finally, a mystic chokes up some honesty.

>> No.15661191

>>15660088
>”the universe revolves around me/my desires” said the puny human
Not even religious but ofc it’s easy to dismantle the idea of god when your argument is ultimately just “I don’t like being small”
More sad than his petulance though is ge inability of a practicing Christian to ever offer a decent rebuttal

>> No.15661197

>>15661191
Can't rebut someone who doesn't really believe anything.

>> No.15661219

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZV_uGJdLxk

Time for mass, chuds.

>> No.15661265

>>15661219
Why is Cardinal Dolan rocking that green getup today?

>> No.15661280

>>15661265
Because the Easter period is over (Pentecost), now the "regular" yearly masses take place.

>> No.15661291

>>15661197
Well you can dismantle their fallacies

>> No.15661314

>>15661291
They will just say "oh I don't really believe in logic"
They will ditch anything just to seem right (even logic) because they are nihilists at heart.

>> No.15661420
File: 357 KB, 540x780, 1576006777884.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15661420

>>15660088
What a BASED God sending all the heretics to HELL! Amen!

>> No.15661475

>>15660088
engaging on the terrain of spacious sophistries as if they were solid arguments is playing yourself: they can always come up with another dream to trump you.

>> No.15661577

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCvrE5QFkXs

Oh shit, St. Anne's in Hoboken has a livestream too!

>> No.15661584

>>15661577
>>15661219
>he doesn't spend every Sundays bouncing from mass livestream to mass livestream
>he only discovered cathtube today

>> No.15661606
File: 208 KB, 907x495, 1555589753005.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15661606

>>15660088

>Bad people exist.

>Bad people are sent to hell.

What's the problem?

>> No.15663242

>>15660088
Stupid atheists argue with stupid christians and neither know anything about theology or the doctrines they're discussing, and one side or both comes out smugly thinking they're intellectual.

>> No.15663868

>Matt Dillahunty
You mean the guy who usually deals with Baptist and evangelical types, destroys them due to their lack of knowledge on theology, and then subsequently loses to Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians? Kek. Not to mention, Matt doesn’t even bring up good points, he just mastered the style of debate he made up against theists. Google his debate against Cosmic Skeptic on Veganism, he was absolutely outclassed. Look up his debate with David Wood, he just insulted David and made David look silly with his debating style.
Watch this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QbiV-Q1wJrE

>> No.15664516

>>15663868
This seems to be how most people who get internet-popular by debating always end up being, I think back to Destiny on youtube as the same kind of obnoxious debater. They "win" just off of their denating style. No attempt to reach an understanding is made, the only goal is to embarass and confuse their opponent until the audience thinks you're smarter.

>> No.15664632

>>15663868
>loses to Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians?
Who? I don't doubt you I just cba to keep up with every debate. Didn't he lose against IP too?

>> No.15665916

>>15664632
He debated Jay dyer and got rekt.
Jay dyer is extremely well educated on orthodox, catholic and Protestant theology and athiest arguments so Matt had no chance.

>> No.15666018

God is above g*od and ev*l.

>> No.15666250

>>15660088
Why do people keep thinking that protestants are Christians?

>> No.15666304

>>15660234
>logic is an inhuman way of thinking
It is exactly the opposite you retard. Logic is extremely human.

>> No.15666317

>>15660088
>Problem of Evil
already been solved. either from the perspective of Divine Will or through the mechanism of Divine Control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5K5ZVz45_o

>> No.15666326

>>15660088

you have it messed up, we are actually god and hell is merely dooming ourselves to eternal reincarnation under the pain of dualism. god is sending itself to hell

>> No.15666331

>>15660278
>Yes, insofar as the soul is active substance, its action is not determined in any way. There can be no knowledge of the action of the soul before it acts because it would not have a truth, an external state, that it could correspond to. Knowledge of the future action of the soul consists of knowing it as non-determined. For that reason, it would not negate the omniscience of God.
That would imply that souls are not dependent on God, since they are not determined by Him, and thus souls are not limited by Him, and thus souls are God and can create themselves and universes.
In reality, souls are limited and determined, while God alone is independent of externality and is free and unlimited.

>> No.15666377
File: 232 KB, 1000x855, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15666377

>fpbp, logic is an inhuman way of thinking.

>> No.15666393

>>15660088
This is the best atheists have?