/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17919827]

Are there really any reasonable orguments for the existence of the christian God?
Only one I found in /lit/erature is that it makes you feel good and life is pointless otherwise.

[Anonymous No.17919841]

There are no good arguments for God. It's not a coincidence that 3/4s of philosophers are atheist.

[Anonymous No.17919917]

>>17919827
Read Karl Jaspers and Robert Sokolowski on the God of the philosophers and God of the theologians. Metaphysics might give you an insight and conviction in the existence of an abstract first being, an uncreated creator of the universe. Alas from the existence of this philosophical God no specific ethical pronouncements or dogmatic teachings follow. Even worse as Jaspers argues this philosophical God is virtually indistinguishable from the universe itself. Thus a "religion" that would venerate this metaphysical being would be no different from pantheism which is a lite variant of atheism. Ultimately you have to rely on some sort of revelation that is handed down to you via the scriptures if your religion is to have any meaning.

[Anonymous No.17920004]

>life is pointless otherwise
As in, you're not actually thinking, your words mean nothing, and you are nothing. That is the reality for materialists.

[Anonymous No.17920043]

>>17919827
>i need a reason
if you actually read the bible you would have gotten an answer to this question among many other inquiries you would have

[Anonymous No.17920079]

One that hasn’t really been answered is the transcendental argument for god. Watch Dillahunty and Dyer’s debate.

[Anonymous No.17920188]

>>17919841
>It's not a coincidence that 3/4s of philosophers are atheist.
It's not a coincidence that 3/4s of philosopers are literal non names who will will never make an impact.

[Anonymous No.17920213]

>>17919827
How much looking have you done?
contingency argument
cosmological arguments
fine tuning argument
transcendental argument

[Anonymous No.17920224]

>>17919827
God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. That’s all.

Because the human mind is designed for language and brings and metaphor, and not for formal logic, God can only be understood through revelation in human affairs, or in other words religious story.

In other words, the closest we can come to understanding the greatest being in the universe and the greatest truth is through religion, not through theology or philosophy or physics.

[Anonymous No.17920226]

>>17920079
Argument from contingency is better.

[Anonymous No.17920231]

>>17920188
Unlike you and your zoomer "orthabros" on Discord, I'm sure.

[Anonymous No.17920236]

>>17920224
>In other words, the closest we can come to understanding the greatest being in the universe and the greatest truth is through religion, not through theology or philosophy or physics.
Which is why your would always have philosophy follow religion after every revelation, same way you would have philosophy follow science after every discovery

[Anonymous No.17920238]

>>17919827
The cosmological argument
The teological argument
The moral argument

[Anonymous No.17920275]

>>17919841
>>17920231
First of all, are these contemporary philosophers or not contemporary philosophers? Because most of the contemporary philosophers are garbage and shouldn't be consider. Most influential philosophers seem to be theists. If you look before contemporary times you will find a lot of religious philosophers. Sure, some of them don't necessarily implement philosophy and religion together, but the point is that they are religious in some sort of degree.

[Anonymous No.17920723]

>>17919827
>3=1
Better off following the other Abrahamic religion, Islam.

[Anonymous No.17920755]

>>17920723
It's not "3=1," it's "1=1=1"

[Anonymous No.17920765]

>>17919841
>It's not a coincidence that 3/4s of philosophers are atheist.
Lol, how many *good* philosophers are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.17920772]

>>17920723
What about Judaism?

[Anonymous No.17920775]

>>17920755
Who do you worship then, the son, the father or the holy spirit?

[Anonymous No.17920782]

There are some neoplatonic type arguments that demonstrate the self-diffusive nature of God. God is self diffusive and meets with his creation by outpouring himself. This is the incarnation.

[Anonymous No.17920795]

>>17920772
There is nothing to discuss about Judaism.

[Anonymous No.17920809]

>>17920775

[Anonymous No.17920829]

>>17919841
This is a historical contingency.

Most philosophers today are Atheist, therefore, atheism is correct holds about as much water as claiming that most classical philosophers were theists, therefore theism is correct. You're appealing to a transient trend to justify an eternal claim.

[Anonymous No.17920833]

>>17920775
If you can understand that water, ice, and vapor are all H2O, then you can understand the trinity

[Anonymous No.17920856]

Look outside the realm of objective, material fact. Asking about the existence of god already points you out as being on the wrong track. Retrace your steps, go back to the origin.

[Anonymous No.17920868]

>>17920833
that's modalism

[Anonymous No.17920871]

>>17920809
Your fancy infograph and quote by some dipshit does not change the fact that you literally believe 3=1.

>>17920833
H20 cannot be water, ice and vapour all at once, yet I am expected to believe that the trinity is just that.

[Anonymous No.17920886]

>>17920871
>does not change the fact that you literally believe 3=1.
Except we don't so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[Anonymous No.17920887]

>>17920871
>>17920868
Somewhere out there, there is an ice cube
Somewhere out there, there is a glass of water
Somewhere out there, someone is boiling water

I win

[Anonymous No.17920917]

>>17920886
>one god
>3 divine persons
3=1

>>17920887
Nuh-uh. An ice cube, a glass of water and water vapour are three seperate instances of H2O.

[Anonymous No.17920922]

>>17920917
>one god
>3 divine persons
you forgot
>coequal and coeternal

[Anonymous No.17920924]

>>17920917
It's all water, cope

[Anonymous No.17920960]

>>17919827
The seeming irrationality of faith raises the question of why Christian belief came into being in the first place, implying some early numinous experience took place to convince those early followers

[Anonymous No.17920979]

kurwa

[Anonymous No.17920994]

>>17920960
Maybe it's just not irrational.

[Anonymous No.17921029]

>>17920979
FEDS WERE ONTO US!

[Anonymous No.17921034]

>>17919827
>it makes you feel good and life is pointless otherwise
yeah, religion makes anyone, esp christcucks feel great. for THEM life would be pointless otherwise, because they've, in some cases, invested decades into a retarded self-flagellating belief system. But, feeling that "one day, when i die, my life will be better, as long as i do x y z for a while" is a pretty soothing belief. There's not much anyone can say to a self-hating hedonist, especially when there are gigantic institutions propping up their retardation.

There are of course, other ways to live. The best ones i think focus less on eliminating suffering and more on accomplishing fulfilling deeds.

for the record >>17920238
>>17920213
>ontological arguments don't work because existence is not a predicate
>cosmological arguments don't work because a first principle could be the laws of the universe itself/ do not point necessarily to god
>moral arguments, and moreover any argument (transcendental, contingent) that requires knowledge of God doesn't work because nobody has knowledge of God. What we have is human memes that have very good reason not to be trusted

every "argument" for god is a rationalization of why you need to stick to the system of coping that you've stuck with for years

[Anonymous No.17921076]

>>17920079 Alex Malpass destroyed Dyer. Dillahunty isn’t even a good atheist ignore everything he and other atheists say and instead go read actually intelligent atheists. Also Dyer is a massive faggot for screeching at Orthodox Christians who are thomist and then importing an apologetic from Calvinism anyway.

[Anonymous No.17921101]

>>17920922
Your entire religion is a glorified fallacy.

[Anonymous No.17921124]

>>17920723
>these three pancakes is a meal for me
>wait a minute... 3 pancakes is 1 meal??? what!! that's 3=1, b-baka!!

[Anonymous No.17921133]

>>17921034
oh, to add one more thing to my post, the fine tuning argument is essentially the texas sharpshooter fallacy, except after they paint the target around our universe, they point out how many possible shots could have missed

[Anonymous No.17921261]

>>17921124
By that logic, 1 pancake is 1/3 of a meal. Now get a Christian to admit that Jesus is 1/3 of God.

[Anonymous No.17921311]

>>17921261
You're missing the point. Someone says three things are one thing, and you immediately say "3=1 haha you're retarded". I've shown you how 3 things can be 1 thing.

[Anonymous No.17921325]

>>17921311
They can’t. If you link three things together, you still have three components, which contradicts divine simplicity.

[Anonymous No.17921350]

>>17921325
You deny that 3 pancakes can be 1 meal?

[Anonymous No.17921361]

>>17921350
I will affirm that 3 pancakes can be one meal if you affirm that Jesus is 1/3 of God.

[Anonymous No.17921367]

>>17921350
Yes, but you don’t claim there’s one meal, you claim there’s one pancake. Not that any of this changes the simple fact that monotheism is pure unadulterated trash, but still

[Anonymous No.17921392]

>>17920723
FILTERED

[Anonymous No.17921413]

>>17921392
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.17921433]

>>17921361
>>17921367
Of course it's not a perfect analogy, but in it the 1 meal would be the one Trinity and the 3 pancakes the 3 persons. So we would say the 3 pancakes (persons) are 1 meal (Trinity). The one pancake (person) is not one meal (Trinity). Jesus is not the Trinity.

[Anonymous No.17921494]

>>17921433
>we would say the 3 pancakes (persons) are 1 meal
We must, then, also say that 1 pancake is 1/3 of a meal, and thereby commit a heresy.

[Anonymous No.17921562]

>>17921494
How is that a heresy?

[Anonymous No.17921624]

>>17921562
It implies God is divisible.

[Anonymous No.17921628]

>>17919827
yeah, pascal's

[Anonymous No.17921674]

>>17921624
I'm asking how is 1 pancake being 1/3 of a meal a heresy. No, as I said I'm not making a perfect analogy. My only point here since the beginning is that 3 things can be 1 thing. I'm not trying to make an argument specifically about trinitarianism.

[Anonymous No.17921688]

>>17921674
I mean that I'm not arguing about specific theology, just the logic of your "3=1" statement.

[Anonymous No.17921718]

>>17921624
I'm not making a perfect analogy as I said. My only point here since the beginning is that 3 things can be 1 thing based on your comment about "3=1". I'm not trying to make an argument specifically about any theology.

[Anonymous No.17921719]

Anon, maybe instead of reading arguments, you should pray. Ask God to show Himself to you, in some form or fashion.

[Anonymous No.17921878]

>>17920723
special revelation transcends general revelation

[Anonymous No.17922036]

>>17920871
>H20 cannot be water, ice and vapour all at once, yet I am expected to believe that the trinity is just that.
It actually can. It's called the triple point. It is still a poor analogy for the Trinity, as all analogies are.

[Anonymous No.17922077]

>>17919827
You see that circle behind her? That’s a symbol of god.

Figure out what it means and you’ll have your arguement.

[Anonymous No.17922276]

>>17920994
Sure, but that's a difficult idea to sell to an atheist

[Anonymous No.17922391]

>>17921076
>Alex Malpass destroyed Dyer
I didn’t really understand either side desu. It just seems like theism can justify logic and other transcendentals but atheism can’t. Also, isn’t an Orthodox Thomist an oxymoron?

[Anonymous No.17922420]

>>17920917
Only Jesus was a person tho.
You have a mind body and soul, are you three people?

[Anonymous No.17922790]

>>17920795
Why?

[Anonymous No.17922884]

>>17919827
TA and TAG. Actually try to understand the argument and don't go full midwit "LOL WORD SALAD". It's a very good argument that BTFO's full blown materialism and punches holes in most contemporary philosophy. You'll be left with either God or "I don't know, but maybe we one day will know' which makes athiests seethe so hard they just don't bother attacking the actual argument and pull shit like "b-but muh scientists!" or like this retard >>17919841
Appeal to authority.

[Anonymous No.17922905]

>>17921076
>Alex Malpass
I admit he had the most honest answer to the argument which is "for my world view to be consistant it may require that I believe in God, but that doesn't mean God exists"

That's the best you're going to get and I applaud him not being enough of a knob to to shuffle around that.

[Anonymous No.17923088]

>>17920809
thanks

[Anonymous No.17923284]

Sauce on painting?

[Anonymous No.17923336]

>>17920723
Study the monarchia of the Father

[Anonymous No.17923362]

>>17920723
Study the monarchia of the Father and the essence/energy distinction

[Anonymous No.17923368]

>>17919827

>“This ground itself needs to be properly accounted for by that for which it accounts, that is, by the causation through the supremely original matter – and that is the cause as causa sui. This is the right name for the god of philosophy. Man can neither pray nor sacrifice to this god. Before the causa sui, man can neither fall to his knees in awe nor can he play music and dance before this god.”
-Martin Heidegger

[Anonymous No.17923483]

>>17923368
So he was a deist? Also not an argument desu