/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19886309]

What is the most convincing argument for the existence of God that you have read?

[Anonymous No.19886326]

>>19886309
It wasn't a thing I read but rather things I've personally experienced in a life of walking in faith. No, I will not tell those experiences, nothing but having them yourself does any good whatsoever. Faith first, not faith as a result. The experiences edify and build what is already established.

[Anonymous No.19886341]

>In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
>And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
>And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
>And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
It goes on, but I think you get the point.

[Anonymous No.19886356]

>>19886326
>It wasn't a thing I read but rather things I've personally experienced in a life of walking in faith. No, I will not tell those experiences

[Anonymous No.19886434]

>>19886309
Existence

[Anonymous No.19886479]

>>19886326
No one in Antiquity believed "faith" to be this irrational or suprarational 'leap of faith', including the Christians. Faith, was about being faithful to God in the sense that a wife is faithful to her husband. In other words, loyalty. Belief in the existence of God was not an object of concern for the ancients and early Christianity. It was a given. Of course, if you didn't think God existed, that would pose problems, but that was not what faith was about fundementally. Fideism, began, in essence, with Luther. Whether or not he was exactly Fideist is maybe debatable, but he lit the spark. 1500 years of Christianity without this concept.

[Anonymous No.19886500]

I could write a book on apologetics but who cares, nothing that I read and learned prepared me for the experience of warmth, absolute certainty, filled heart and love. This anon is right.
>>19886326
It's impossible to describe by words. You need to experience that.

[Anonymous No.19886509]

>>19886309

[Anonymous No.19886510]

nothing ive read has ever truly convinced me. I've read the bible and cried once. It just perfectly explained how i was feeling in that moment and answered my question.

The only time I can say i truly felt god was when I was on a long walk across the moors on my own. It's basically the only time I get to myself at the moment, surrounded by an absolutely baron landscapes. much like my life. I can't even rember what i was thinking about, but just how depressing my life was. Then a pair of white doves landed in front of me (i'm not joking) and I felt this almighty presence. I was overwhelmed. I went home later that night and opened the bible on a random page (as my gran told me to do) and I burst in to tears in my bed. I knew then my sin, which i had carried for so long was forgiven.

[Anonymous No.19886543]

>>19886309
The argument from contingency for a necessary being (basing the argument on the principle of sufficient reason), is in my opinion the fundamental metaphysical argument for God's existence. The formulation of Leibniz is by far the best.

Aquinas Five Ways are also good btw

[Anonymous No.19886555]

>>19886309
Berkeley. It all makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous No.19886570]

>>19886509
that's right, Zeus is real

[Anonymous No.19886575]

>>19886309
Have faith

[Anonymous No.19886729]

ah sweet

[Anonymous No.19886779]

None.
Just theological schizo rambles that don't make sense.

[Anonymous No.19886805]

>>19886309
Job

[Anonymous No.19886848]

>>19886779
Then refute Leibniz >>19886543

[Anonymous No.19886854]

>>19886309
Creation is a sign of The Creator. Also you broke the third commandment (Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.) An image graven or imagined is creation, God is beyond limit and our minds and imaginations are limited. The third commandment forbids heathenism with the creed of the Trinity is contradicting as Jesus is a prophet and a creature and thus he can't not be God. A creature by definition has a beginning and God is without beginning and end. This illogical point explains the decline of Christianity and western society and culture.

[Anonymous No.19886890]

>>19886309
What came first, the penis or vagina?

[Anonymous No.19886920]

The Ismaili Tahwheed.:
God is beyond all names and attributes language provides us;
God is beyond matter, energy, space, time and change;
God is beyond all human conceptions of the imagination and intellect;
God is beyond both positive and negative qualities—He is not knowing and not not knowing and He is not powerful and not not powerful;
God is beyond all philosophical and metaphysical categories—spiritual/material, cause/effect, eternal/temporal, substance/accident, essence/attributes, and existence/essence—God is above existence and non-existence;
When God is associated with a name or attribute in scripture, ritual or everyday speech, e.g. "God is knowing", the real meaning of this statement is that God is the source and originator of that power or quality in a perfect form, i.e. God is the originator of all knowledge but He Himself is beyond actually possessing knowledge as an attribute;
God's Creative Act is called His Word or Command—this Command is a single, eternal, and continuous act that continually gives existence to and sustains all created or conditioned realities in every moment of their existence.

[Anonymous No.19886944]

[Anonymous No.19886945]

>>19886890
Vagina came first and from it, "fiat penis".

[Anonymous No.19886946]

>>19886341
Unfortunately reading the Bible made me believe in God less. Why is it that it's easy to be a Christian when I pray and have faith, but as soon as I read the Bible my faith wanes?

[Anonymous No.19886948]

>>19886479
Wouldn't it have gone back at least to Augustine? Or at least Aquinas? Why would he formulate a proof for God if it wasn't needed in some way?

[Anonymous No.19886958]

>>19886945
How did vagina reproduce and exist without penis?

Single entity with a penis in the vagina that it cums inside itself ?

[Anonymous No.19886959]

>>19886854
Do you really think you could understand God's nature in a way that is understandable and satisfying for humans?

[Anonymous No.19886983]

>>19886958
Vagina is replacing chaos here (since chaos is feminine). From chaos arose order eventually (you could almost say by chance, just requires time). Order is the same as the penis. The penis then executes its will on the vagina, giving existence.

[Anonymous No.19886995]

>>19886945
>fiat penis
KEK

[Anonymous No.19887020]

>>19886959
To have faith is a matter of the heart. To have faith is to believe strongly and to accept as truth. One needs to learn what to believe so the mind accepts rational beliefs and hearts rests.

I have learned the Sunni Islamic creed also called Ash'ari creed, I think it's understandable and satisfying.

Saying we believing in God is not enough, one must worship and obey God that is the way to true gratitude.

[Anonymous No.19887037]

>>19886479
Pagan authors like Celsus (pbuh), Porphyry (pbuh), and Julian Augustus (pbuh) found christers to be highly irrational, superstitious, and atheistic. Christianity requires god be an unbelievable sorceror rather than an ideal guiding world spirit

[Anonymous No.19887085]

>>19886543
the argument from contingency is retarded because it presupposes that the universe absolutely must exist. how do you know that? how do you prove that? maybe there was a 50/50 chance whether or not the universe would exist. my point is that you can't assert that a necessary being exists

[Anonymous No.19887147]

>>19886479
Imagine speaking for literally everyone in Antiquity, and with authority, not as the scribes. Abraham didn't follow some set of mental constructs, he followed the supernatural voice of God and had faith that that voice was telling him the truth. Paul heard that supernatural voice and followed likewise, despite that supernatural voice being contrary to his previous mental/philosophical notions which he'd held to be absolute descriptors of his God.
>>19886500
Yes, it is impossible to fully describe, but one could begin. No matter because anyone can claim anything and none of it matters to those who are skeptical and seeking proofs. These things touch into incredibly complex, vast matters, so even if believed, it is difficult to express (I have done so for very few, my son being among the hearers, for example).

[Anonymous No.19887231]

>>19887085
Anon are you serious or is this some kind of bait?.

If you're serious this must be the most retarded thing I've read today, at least read the argument from a source other than Wikipedia, but from Leibniz himself or from some scholar.

[Anonymous No.19887253]

>>19887231
No those logical word game tricks are always fails full of unwarranted assumptions and improvable ungrounded demands

[Anonymous No.19887255]

>>19887085
>the argument from contingency is retarded because it presupposes that the universe absolutely must exist. how do you know that? how do you prove that? maybe there was a 50/50 chance whether or not the universe would exist. my point is that you can't assert that a necessary being exists
The physicist presupposes, at least tacitly, that there is some sense in investigating nature and looking for the causes of events, just as the detective presupposes that there is some sense in looking for the cause of a murder. The metaphysician assumes that there is sense in looking for the reason or cause of phenomena, and I consider that the metaphysician is as justified in his assumption as the physicist.

[Anonymous No.19887262]

>>19886983
No but really, like chicken or the egg, hie did male female come about? Is the common ancestor self-sexual?

[Anonymous No.19887269]

>>19887255
So can someone copy paste the contingency argument here?

[Anonymous No.19887289]

>>19886946
Because religious life is wholesome and prayer and meditation are healthy regardless of religion while the Bible is ridiculous fairy tale by goat fuckers

[Anonymous No.19887523]

>>19887289
Don't say that. The Bible is a holy book that had alterations.

[Anonymous No.19887584]

>>19887085
it exists

[Anonymous No.19887586]

>>19887253
Incredibly based. This knuckleheads need to get themselves a copy of the fourfold roof of the principle of sufficient reason and repent.

[Anonymous No.19887704]

>>19887269
Stop being a lazy fag, here is a paste from a random website:

1. The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) holds that there is an explanation for the existence of anything that does exist and for its having the attributes it has.
2. If PSR were not true, then things and events without evident explanation or intelligibility would be extremely common.
3. But this is the opposite of what common sense and science alike find to be the case.
4. If PSR were not true, then we would be unable to trust our own cognitive faculties.
5. But in fact we are able to trust those faculties.
6. Furthermore, there is no principled way to deny the truth of PSR while generally accepting that there are genuine explanations in science and philosophy.
7. But there are many genuine explanations to be found in science and philosophy.
8. So, PSR is true.
9. The explanation of the existence of anything is to be found either in some other thing which causes it, in which case it is contingent, or in its own nature, in which case it is necessary; PSR rules out any purported third alternative on which a thing’s existence is explained by nothing.
10. There are contingent things.
11. Even if the existence of an individual contingent thing could be explained by reference to some previously existing contingent thing, which in turn could be explained by a previous member, and so on to infinity, that the infinite series as a whole exists at all would remain to be explained.
12. To explain this series by reference to some further contingent cause outside the series, and then explain this cause in terms of some yet further contingent thing, and so on to infinity, wouldmerely yield another series whose existence would remain to be explained; and to posit yet another contingent thing outside this second series would merely generate the same problem yet again.
13. So, no contingent thing or series of contingent things can explain why there are any contingent things at all.

Cont.

[Anonymous No.19887710]

>>19887269
>>19887704
14. But that there are any contingent things at all must have some explanation, given PSR; and the only remaining explanation is in terms of a necessary being as cause.
15. Furthermore, that an individual contingent thing persists in existence at any moment requires an explanation; and since it is contingent, that explanation must lie in some simultaneous cause distinct from it.
16. If this cause is itself contingent, then even if it has yet another contingent thing as its own simultaneous cause, and that cause yet another contingent thing as its simultaneous cause, and so on to infinity, then once again we have an infinite series of contingent things the existence of which has yet to be explained.
17. So, no contingent thing or series of contingent things can explain why anyparticular contingent thing persists in existence at any moment; and the only remaining explanation is in terms of a necessary being as its simultaneous cause. 18. So, there must be at least one necessary being, to explain why any contingent things exist at all and how any particular contingent thing persists in existence at any moment. 1
9. A necessary being would have to be purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself.
20. But there can in principle be only one thing which is purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself.
21. So, there is only one necessary being.
22. So, it is this same one necessary being which is the explanation of why any contingent things exist at all and which is the cause of every particular contingent thing’s existing at any moment.
23. So, this necessary being is the cause of everything other than itself.
24. Something which is purely actual, absolutely simple or non-composite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself must also be immutable,eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
25. So, there is a necessary being which is one, purely actual, absolutely simple, subsistent existence itself, cause of everything other than itself, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
26. But for there to be such a thing is for God to exist.
27.So, God exists.

I will wait for your answer.

[Anonymous No.19887718]

>>19886848
It's easy.
Leibniz, Aquinas, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, they're all right.
Now I want them to tell me how their arguments prove the existence of Israel's God specifically, out of thousands.
And if they say they dont wanna prove that, they wanna prove a creator, an objective God, then i ask them who is this God?
Did he ever interacted with "his creation", does he want something from us? Where can we see him in reality? If we can't see in him reality, then what's the point of these arguments?
>no it's just God
Then that's a moot point and there's no need to go further.

[Anonymous No.19887735]

>>19887586
Schopenhauer only took the principle to apply only within the phenomenal world, so that an argument for the existence of God as the cause of the phenomenal world could not be substantiated. Nothing that Kant has not said before and the neo-Thomists have not refuted it countless times.

[Anonymous No.19887737]

>>19887231
i was thinking about something completely different, plz disregard

[Anonymous No.19887755]

>>19886309
This video. God is an AI and we live in a simulation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

[Anonymous No.19887758]

>>19887704
>2. If PSR were not true, then things and events without evident explanation or intelligibility would be extremely common.
Wrong

[Anonymous No.19887762]

>>19887704
>there is an explanation for the existence of anything that does exist and for its having the attributes it has.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

[Anonymous No.19887766]

>>19887710
>immutable,eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.

How did he arrived at this conclusion regarding God's properties?
He sounds like a midwit.
Holy fuck what a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.19887777]

>>19886510
Ur gay

[Anonymous No.19887792]

>>19887758
Then elaborate why its wrong lazy cunt

[Anonymous No.19887797]

>>19887704
>>19887710
Just realized all these retards who have arguments for God, all sound like that brainlet Aristotle, there's nothing special about these arguments and they prove shit.

[Anonymous No.19887801]

>>19887718
>And if they say they dont wanna prove that, they wanna prove a creator, an objective God, then i ask them who is this God?
That God is self evident. We are born humans, we see the brutality of the wild animal world, conclude that it is better to live as wise noble man than lowly barbaric animal, that wise noble man can create things to make his life better, more and more enjoyable than if he were a simple animal, therefore we conclude that God is good, and made the world for us to realize the beauty and goodness of wisdom and creativity.

[Anonymous No.19887806]

>>19886543
this

[Anonymous No.19887808]

>>19887801
>That God is self evident.
Which God? What do you mean by God?

[Anonymous No.19887844]

>>19886326
>It wasn't a thing I read but rather things I've personally experienced in a life of walking in faith. No, I will not tell those experiences,
Aww sweet, a schizo post.

[Anonymous No.19887851]

>>19886309

[Anonymous No.19887856]

>>19886309
The part in the Christian Bible, where the supposed son of God btfo all goy Christians.

[Anonymous No.19887860]

>>19886946
Because you were content with your own spirituality. When you read the bible, you were reading the spirituality of some boy-diddlers 1500 years ago.
The truth to gain from this is simple:
God is within.

[Anonymous No.19887871]

>>19886309
The fact that consciousness exists makes it pretty clear. The idea that so many people believe that it could arise from dead matter being in a certain shape is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.19887887]

>>19887801
>garden of Eden bad

[Anonymous No.19887903]

>>19887808
I’m not the dipshit you replied to. It is self evident that there is some One that is the base of all this and of which we are all a part. This is self evident because the alternative is nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.19887940]

>>19887801
>God is self evident.
When anyone says this, you can just disregard anything else they say.

[Anonymous No.19887950]

>>19886920
So God is the big bang. Cool story bro.

[Anonymous No.19887973]

>>19887766
>How did he arrived at this conclusion regarding God's properties?
Scripture

>He sounds like a midwit.
>Holy fuck what a brainlet.
Pic

>>19887797
Aristotle gave us logic and you gave me a bad post

Aristotle: 1
(you): 0

>there's nothing special about these arguments and they prove shit.
Try to refute them. And the arguments are longer btw.

[Anonymous No.19888018]

>>19886309
>Pascal's wager basically states that you should believe in God because:
>If God exists and you believe in God, you'll gain eternal happiness.
>If God exists and you don't believe in God, you'll gain eternal damnation.
>If God doesn’t exist and you don't believe in God, nothing happens.
>If God doesn't exist and you believe in God, nothing happens.
>Going by game theory, you'll almost certainly want to pick the first option. You have the most to gain by choosing it.

[Anonymous No.19888019]

>>19887808
>Which God? What do you mean by God?
That which produced to occur the universe into the system we percieve. Humans have tried to describe what it may be like, the religions harm themselves with details and claims, using the idea of God for their own power, and what have you. But I think its a very natural considetation, to imagine if you were born and grew up in the world, unaware of complex human history, but just with your raw intelligence capacity, and you looked at the natural world, and at the stars at night, you might conclude that, you did not create all that, but it all seems pretty cool, and sophisticated, and impressive, that everything about you and your possibilities is due to this strange yet genius grand bordering on perfect arrangement of physical facts, and you might conclude, seeing as humans love to tinker and create, make order and purpose, and toy with curiosity, that something like a big human (cmon, slightly joking, but when knows) had done the same.

With all the stars and planets. With all the concious life on earth and what it can achieve: that the entirety of the universe is stars and planets, and that on one single planet out of a trillion, what we know of the entirety of human history can occur, with all it's computers and cars and architecture, and your life and mine, on this one alone, in a few seconds of cosmic history alone. That the rule seems to be spheres of constant lamps of light pouring for eons of eons of time the miraculous substance of light with all it's inconceivable qualities and rates of motion allowing the beyond perfect attribute of vision, onto a ball consisting of how many of how many elements which combine into how many ways of how much usefulness and luxory.

If a genius, awesome, bonkers, genius, crazy, awesome, rediculously cool, skilled and talented and Genius, wanted to make a realm in which many intelligences could develop, and explore the potentials of creativity, what we perceive of as the seems like it may be a pretty ambitious it proper and successfully functioning version of such a will.

[Anonymous No.19888024]

>>19887718
>Now I want them to tell me how their arguments prove the existence of Israel's God specifically
Aquinas have a very very long book about it. Check it out, he is amazing.

>Did he ever interacted with "his creation", does he want something from us? Where can we see him in reality? If we can't see in him reality, then what's the point of these arguments?
Avoid anthropomorphic interpretations of God, he isn't human-all-too-human, he isn't a bearded man in the middle of the clouds, etc, etc, all because we know what God isn't (we can't know what God is, but what he isn't).

[Anonymous No.19888038]

>>19887973
Aristotle did more than give us logic, he gave us its application to the real world, which both predicted and refuted all of the modern paradigms surrounding the "problem of language" in his Prior and Posterior Analytics.

[Anonymous No.19888054]

>>19888019
>what we perceive of as the *universe* seems like it may be a pretty ambitious*,* proper and successfully functioning version of such a will.

[Anonymous No.19888056]

>>19886309
My existence

[Anonymous No.19888074]

>>19886326
Same but for the Greek gods

[Anonymous No.19888084]

>>19886309
Something doesn't come from nothing, or at least I've never seen it happen.

[Anonymous No.19888089]

>>19888018
Forgot about this one

[Anonymous No.19888099]

>>19888084
Why can't the universe be eternal and uncreated, like Plato's, or the Stoic's? The Stoic cosmology is also more akin to the modern scientific one, which assumes that the universe will end in heat death (where only "fire" is left), which will then collapse in on itself and generate a new cosmos from its remains. In effect it remains uncreated but cyclically self-renewing.

[Anonymous No.19888120]

>>19886983
Chaos is masculine

[Anonymous No.19888124]

>>19888024
Aquinas was a fucking retard. I seethe everytime a brainlet like you recommends him.

[Anonymous No.19888128]

>>19886309
- Kant's Moral Argument
- Cosmological Argument
- Transcendental Argument

The rest are bad

[Anonymous No.19888132]

>>19887973
>Scripture
In his argument you stupid retard. How did he deducted that God had those properties.
>bla bla bla thus a spirit exists which is fully good and intelligent
Holy fucking God you're all a bunch of dumb brainlets.

[Anonymous No.19888139]

>>19888128
>recommends the weakest and most retarded arguments (including Kant no less) and calls the others retarded.
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.19888145]

>>19887777
Quads of truth confirm

[Anonymous No.19888148]

What is the point of these arguments for God? Who are they meant to convince? They just seem like mental masturbation for people who already believe.

[Anonymous No.19888161]

>>19888148
Exactly.
It's just brainlets jerking themselves off, because in reality they prove nothing, it's just philosophical garbage.

[Anonymous No.19888163]

>>19887704
What is the Sufficient Reason that there is a Sufficient reason for everything?

[Anonymous No.19888169]

>>19888099
Plato believed in God (Form of the Good)

[Anonymous No.19888178]

>>19888139
The moral argument is sound, although you of course need to believe in moral duty as a premise. Also, the only major argument I left out is the ontological argument, which is obviously false if you distinguish between essence and existence, so I don't know why you're so ticked off.

[Anonymous No.19888183]

>>19888124
Aquinas is considered the fourth best philosopher in history according to the professors of philosophy at Stanford University and several secular philosophers think the same. They put him above the fucking Hegel and Frege.

[Anonymous No.19888194]

>>19888183
Who are the top 3? Plato, Aristotle and Kant?

[Anonymous No.19888196]

>>19888169
Read my post again. Believing in God does not equate to believing that the universe is created ex nihilo by God (Christian theology). Plato was a crypto-dualist who argued Necessity was its own principle, distinct from and not generated by the Demiurge. The Demiurge fashions Necessity to the best it can be made, using what is Good as its model, yet Necessity having its own nature, the universe insofar as it contains its own necessity cannot be perfect.

[Anonymous No.19888204]

>>19888178
>The moral argument is sound
> although you of course need to believe in moral duty as a premise
I don't think you know what you're talking about. You're meant to be establishing morality, not using it as a premise. This is why Kant, and the moral argument, are both utterly retarded.

[Anonymous No.19888208]

>>19888120
Explain? Masculine is typically thought to be reasonable, rational, order. Feminine, emotional, chaotic, unstable

[Anonymous No.19888212]

>>19888183
> (((professors of philosophy))) and (((secular philosophers))) consider a defender of the tribal god of Israel a good goy
>they put him above the frgiggin heckin Heglel and Frege!!! OMG!!!!

[Anonymous No.19888218]

>>19888204
No, you start with the fact of moral duty and go from there to a practical faith in God as God is required for any morality. That's the argument, and its a much better argument than any dogmatic metaphysical proof. Go read the second Critique.

[Anonymous No.19888230]

>>19888132
>>bla bla bla thus a spirit exists which is fully good and intelligent
>Holy fucking God you're all a bunch of dumb brainlets.
Have you experienced goodness in your life? Had anything in your life been wortb living for? Has humanity accomplished anything good or worthy?

If God exists and planned the universe into motion, would you not say God is good and intelligent for doing so?

Good, for allowing others to experience goodness. Intelligent for designing the total parameters and possibilities of earthly science and art and design?

[Anonymous No.19888243]

>>19888218
>That's the argument,
It's not an argument, it's blind faith. "I believe in moraity and the only way I can justify that belief is having a corollary belief in God." You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.19888260]

>>19888099
>>Why can't the universe be eternal and uncreated, like Plato's, or the Stoic's?
I've never seen anything like that. It's just the height of my understanding of the world, things are made, things are destroyed, I can conceive of such a process across millions of years for a single atom. It's...precedent. But I've no precedent of anything eternal and nothing in my lived experience suggests it is possible.

[Anonymous No.19888267]

>>19887710
Here's every "argument" for God's existence ever: Everything obeys a certain law. But there's one thing doesn't obey this law. It is thing that we call god.
This is exactly what's happening here and what happens in other arguments like the Kalam.
It's just as Bertrand said. Bad grammar

[Anonymous No.19888269]

>>19888218
If God did not exist it would still be in man's best interest to be moral

[Anonymous No.19888270]

>>19888260
To add, if eternity does exist in a way that is god. And vice versa. So either way there is such a thing if you base your view on empiricism, I don't know how people can argue for the lack of a god. It makes no sense to me.

[Anonymous No.19888273]

>>19888243
Its not a justification of the belief, its logically worked out to follow necessarily from the existence of morality. There is no possible argument for the existence or non-existence of God full stop (see the critique of pure reason on the ontological and cosmological argument), so we simply have to have practical faith if we want to live a moral life.

[Anonymous No.19888275]

>>19888269
So morality always agrees with mans interest? Does it do so necessarily? Is it identical with it? Or does it merely happen to do so?

[Anonymous No.19888283]

>>19888269
But the highest good would not be achievable (in a finite life). Ought implies can, so for morality to instruct us to attain the highest good, it must be possible to do so, ergo there must be an afterlife and a God.

[Anonymous No.19888299]

>>19888230
>If God exists and planned the universe into motion, would you not say God is good and intelligent for doing so?

No. You don't know the reasons on why God did that, and you don't know the level of his intelligence, maybe other gods have better super universes.
But that's not my problem.
My problem is that you and leibniz show clear bias here.
The argument that his presenting says nothing about how good God is, he just concluded that out of thin air.
That makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.19888350]

>>19888260
It would be impossible to experience anything eternal unless you yourself were eternal, which negates your point (because you are normally precluded from having observation of the eternal, and only given access to local transiency). Thus you have no necessary reason, only a contingent reason, to believe in absolute finitude over infinitude. Secondly, finitude can only exist within infinitude: that which has a beginning must have an end, and that which has an end must have a beginning, therefore there can be no absolute End or absolute Beginning, because they imply each other, finitude thereby implying and being contained by (but not caused by) infinitude. Something finite could never perceive this greater fact of existence unless it somehow gained the potency of infinite perception. Whether that is possible is not relevant, but there is no logical justification (at best, as you said, there is a short-sighted empirical justification) for thinking something finite and contingent could come from nothing, or even the opposite, that something finite could come from something bereft of all finitude (God), given that an eternal would only give rise to another eternal, and at that point it would not be a relationship of creation but a relationship of co-extension through eternity.

[Anonymous No.19888360]

>>19888275
I would say a baseline universal morality (something like the early rules of the ten commandments every nation can believe in , no murder, no theft), but I wouldn't include nations lawbooks as morality, because they can be more and less arbitrary, and differnt enivronemtns and cultures may call for different things, though general the hope and idea is that laws guide society to perform at it's best possible state, being upholding the greatest well being of all, or the greatest harmony between freedom and order.

It does not always agree with man's interest, this is why man is required to think, that even if it's in his best interest to steal, and he won't get caught, and I think this is Kants arguement or really the golden rule, that one doesn't want to live in a society where everyone is always trying to steal or murder.

One can plainly see by all members agreeing to curb their greedy or wild instincts to steal and murder, the opportunities of human society are far better.

Now because man is still so close to grosse animal, man cannot be trusted on his word of honor, which is why if God does not exist, a punishing God at that, Government must play god, and strike fear into its mortals not to steal and murder, or else suffer eternal damnation and hellfire of spending a few nights in jail.

Which again micro macro made in his image goes back to, are our highest qualities and notions present in God, we hate evil men who steal and kill innocent, this disrupts and degrades the good of life, it disturbs the peace of the realm, this is where the notion that God would punish evil comes from, The best world is humans creating the best world. Stable functioning communities and villages and cities came about naturally, and all the cool stuff about them, and most humans enjoy being a part of this and cannot imagine a way of life that would be more fulfilling. So we presume God would be upset with that which degrades the constructive creation of the human world, as God is a constructive creator, and constructive creators are angry when their creation gets tarnished or destroyed.

This leads us to presume it is possible that animals are reincarnated souls that did evil, relearning the values of raw existence amidst the beauties of intelligent creation, having to fend for fearful life with no benefit of grand intelligence or creative powers due to their previous abuse of such gift.

[Anonymous No.19888365]

>>19888194
Yes, those three.

>>19888212
Post as many memes as you want, there are even neuroscientists who propose that Thomism is the philosophical system that explains cognition that is most compatible with neurodynamics. And the Aristotelian-Thomist tradition provides the foundation for modern science.

[Anonymous No.19888371]

>>19887973
He got mogged by Voltaire (only over the "best of all possible worlds" nonsense though).

[Anonymous No.19888383]

>>19888196
Everything in your post is correct. I am a platonist and I'm impressed, bravo.

[Anonymous No.19888388]

>>19886309
Daily dread without hope for salvation if he does not exist.
Unfortunately it's rather unconvincing, but I'll keep on trying.

[Anonymous No.19888391]

>>19888350
>>19888360
Wrong

[Anonymous No.19888394]

>>19888267
Russell got obligated by that Leibniz argument lol.

Copleston won that debate and you can clearly see Russell constantly seethe in his books.

>Kalam Argument
I don't defend that argument.

[Anonymous No.19888401]

>>19888371
>Voltaire
Cmon man, you can do better. Even atheists hate him.

[Anonymous No.19888404]

>>19888299
You didn't answer my other question. Wr don't know what Gods plan is you are right, but what can we do about it, we have no option but Stockholm syndrome, and I happen to love flowers and sports and architecture and classical music and dance and painting and sculpture and pottery and food and sex and the endless beauty of women and cars and water and blue sky and the sun and the sun and the sun and the internet and games and friends and philosophy and film and tv and YouTube and bicycles and animals and hiking in the woods and standing on a mountain and swimming and Italy and northern Europe and fashion and video games and .....literature.... And sex and food and machines and feeling good after exerting effort and feeling proud after creating an artifact and experiencing sublimity and beauty many times a day, so I say thank God, thank the heavens, thank the gods, thank the muses, thank man and woman, thank genius, thank divinity, thank life and thank love

[Anonymous No.19888408]

>>19886848
>>19886543
Brute facts. Fundemental necessity is impossible to justify once you apply the muchausen trilemma ontologically to the reason why things are the way they are.

[Anonymous No.19888411]

>>19887755
Take your meds or go back to /x/

[Anonymous No.19888416]

>>19888360
>the ten commandments
The Delphic Maxims are better

[Anonymous No.19888434]

>>19888350
>>It would be impossible to experience anything eternal unless you yourself were eternal,
That's not true, there are trees far older than I am. People are able to ascertain their age with methods that experience confirms as reliable across many such things. Besides, there were people alive before me. History is accessible to us, there is nothing in either history or the natural world or science to indicate anything eternal exists.

[Anonymous No.19888441]

>>19888404

[Anonymous No.19888450]

>>19886309
Nothing. God was disseminated to me culturally

[Anonymous No.19888458]

>>19888416
>Delphic Maxims
Not even a pimple on the ass of the Proverbs.

[Anonymous No.19888462]

>>19888416
Unironically this. Three out of the 10 commandments are just about God being a triggered snowflake. I've found that even though the Delphic Maxims are more numerous, they are a better foundation to morality and living a good life.

[Anonymous No.19888471]

>>19888404
You're welcome

[Anonymous No.19888474]

>>19888416
I said at least the beggining of them, don't steal and don't murder, are pretty good pins that hold society together, maybe throw don't asault in there next to murder. Can you post these Delphic Maxims please

[Anonymous No.19888491]

>>19888434
>History is accessible to us, there is nothing in either history or the natural world or science to indicate anything eternal exists.
Discovering the age of trees is how many magnitudes easier than discovering the age of the universe.

One of the trippiest paradoxes regards thus and it is daunting and unerving.

Energy/matter exists.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

The same amount of energy has always existed and always will exist.

How can something have always existed... If you go back and back in time that would mean you could travel back in time infinitely, which means reaching this moment in time would never be possible.

It legitimately is a garrish paradox, one of the most legit and confounding conceivable, and yet most true

[Anonymous No.19888528]

>>19888474
https://hellenicfaith.com/delphic-maxims/

[Anonymous No.19888554]

>>19888401
I'm not an atheist, Candide is funny, and I read your post in Joe Biden's voice.

[Anonymous No.19888575]

>>19887262
>what is bacterial asexual reproduction

[Anonymous No.19888593]

>>19888575
>>what is bacterial asexual reproduction
So like, a random mutation made a being with a penis, and a being with a gagina, and maybe this happened many times, or the first time when they stick together I worked?

Or like millions and billions of entities weere being created, so one cycle maybe some number had penis and vagina, and then they started working?>>19888575

[Anonymous No.19888639]

>>19887792
not him but order and even reason could (and does) exist as brute facts that came into being without explanation but because what came into being was order/reason, wacky stuff doesnt happen on top. its just the fundemental things thats unexplainable. you could also approach this like a survival of the stable-est existence, where if the existence has unexplainable things happening all the time, things wouldnt be stable, and wouldnt give rise to people. so reason/explanation/order are all possible, but not fundementally

[Anonymous No.19888647]

>>19886309
Reading the Principia Discordia.

Then trying to figure out when it actually got commited to paper.

Even if half of it is lies, the fact that the manuscript originated when it did has me pretty sold that Eris is up to something out there.

And if Eris is up to something, god just might be up to something too.

[Anonymous No.19888672]

>104. Act quickly
I guess I have to stop procrastinating. Thanks Apollo, I guess.

[Anonymous No.19888683]

>>19888528
>104. Act quickly
I guess I have to stop procrastinating. Thanks Apollo, I guess.

[Anonymous No.19888772]

No argument can sway you into truly believing in god. Either you believe, or you don’t, but I don’t think you can reason your way into believing. I think that’s why it’s called faith.
And of course, there’s a million different gods and sects all with their own subtleties to them, and in every case that I’ve seen, rational arguments aren’t precise enough to justify a specific sect.

[Anonymous No.19888803]

>>19886309
I dunno, I never had any doubts that God exists at least in a deistic sense. Pure materialism just doesn't make sense to me, even if I can't explain God and the soul.

[Anonymous No.19888987]

>>19886309
pic related

friendly reminder to /lit/ that eternal life is the free gift of God. if you want to receive it and be 100% sure of going to heaven, watch this short gospel video. it's really easy to be saved from hell so don't miss out guys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpOv_kvk4M8&t=1s

must watch sermon for anons doubting their salvation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5RmgazPTaY&t=921s&ab_channel=zacthebaptist

documentary explaining why Christ rejecting people that say they're jews are not God's chosen people. talmudic judaism is satanic and it has nothing to do with Christianity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxWdKAUsPVI&t=3s&ab_channel=TruthMirror

[Anonymous No.19889239]

>>19888394
The theist thinks the theist won the debate. More on this at 11.

[Anonymous No.19889266]

>>19889239
In fact, we did...

Copleston btfo'd Russell in their radio debate.

He backs Russell into a corner where Russell is forced to say "that the universe is just there, and that's all." Lol

Russell thus **refuses** to even consider that the universe has a cause. Because he knows he will lose the argument if he takes that step. So, like a chess player who knows he has a losing position, he simply refuses to play; he refuses to take another move. Russell is, from a philosophical perspective, a coward.

Here is a summary:https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/brute-fact.html

Radio broadcast:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz2GjKPbQds

Transcript:https://homepages.uc.edu/~martinj/Philosophy20andReligion/Arguments%20for%20the%20Existence%20of%20God/Cosmological_Argument/Fr_%20Copleston%20vs_%20Bertrand%20Russell%20The%20Famous%201948%20BBC%20Radio%20.txt

[Anonymous No.19889330]

>>19888183
>the establishment decided something so it must be true
We thought philosopht was the one field where you couldn't be fooled by priests because you exercise your own thought faculties, but i see it's not the case.

[Anonymous No.19889338]

>>19888365
>the Aristotelian-Thomist tradition provides the foundation for modern science.
but anon, modern science started with the abandoning of scholastic philosophy

[Anonymous No.19889346]

cogito ergo Deus

[Anonymous No.19889351]

>>19889266
>Russell thus **refuses** to even consider that the universe has a cause
There is no reason to believe the universe must have a cause. Thinking a god can be uncreated and eternal but refusing that to the universe is a matter of grammar and theological prefference.

[Anonymous No.19889361]

>>19888299
God is not described by intelligence. Intelligence is a human trait (understanding level on the world and creation around us). We cannot say God level of understanding of the creation! He created everything. He is beyond time as He created time, He knows where the creation ends.

God is described with perfect knowledge and perfect wisdom. He is all-knowing and there is wisdom in His creation that mostly we don't see.

You need to attribute perfection to God. Also polytheism is irrational.

[Anonymous No.19889467]

>>19886946
You got filtered. Get some commentary for it.
Every time you think "this doesn't make sense" you didn't get it.

[Anonymous No.19889512]

>>19887085
I exist, therefore the universe which I occupy space in must exist likewise.

[Anonymous No.19889856]

>>19886543
>>19886848
>we don't know whether fundamental things like the universe are contingent. the universe very well could be necessary
>even if the universe is contingent, and there must be something necessary, then this necessary thing doesn't have to be god. It could be some other necessary thing like math

[Anonymous No.19889891]

>>19886309
That’s got to be the most horrific depiction of Yahweh ever. He even looks like a Jew (Marx specifically). What’s the source for this pic?

[Anonymous No.19890098]

>>19886570
God, god

[Anonymous No.19890138]

>>19889891
>zoomers have never seen non-mouseshit movies

[Anonymous No.19890143]

>>19889361
>god is a magical capricious being contrary to the laws of nature who will deliver us from reality
Refuted by Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian Augustus, literally everyone who wasn't part of your spiritual slave revolt

[Anonymous No.19890251]

>>19887903
Its not in fact self evident that we are incomplete parts of the one, an alternative possibility is that each individual is in essence the totality of the one, that is, while remaining undivided, the one appears as a multitude while being one only, and the reality of each bring is the reality of the one alone without any division or plurality

[Anonymous No.19890260]

>>19886309
L O V E
O
V
E

[Anonymous No.19890480]

>>19890143
On the 23 of November, 1654, between 10:30 and 12:30 at night, Pascal had an intense religious experience and immediately wrote a brief note to himself which began: "Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the scholars..." and concluded by quoting Psalm 119:16: "I will not forget thy word. Amen."


Capriciousness is trait of humans, we forget. If you describe God with the traits of limited creatures bond by time and space then you didn't know God, basically it's idolatry, aka Tajsim or Anthropomorphism aka Shirk i.e. associating partners with God. Shirk is called in Qur'an a great oppression.

[Anonymous No.19890498]

>>19890143
What is the difference between worshiping a stone in front of you or worshiping an imagined limited creature in the sky?

[Anonymous No.19890526]

>>19889361
Why should this god be an interactive skydaddy as opposed to a force?

[Anonymous No.19890601]

Cucktardianity is a retarded cuckold cult

[Anonymous No.19890612]

>>19890517
God is not limited, thus He is not in a place. The sky is a place. Where was He before creating the sky? He exists before creation, before time. He needs no creature. Can you imagine existence without place? Beyond the mind. It is like imagining infinity, unfathomable.

A force, implying no life, no will, no knowledge.

God exists and never unexists. His is described by life and eternal life unlike the lives of creatures with bodies and souls. He is not described by death nor sleep (search Throne Verse). His will happens and He is all-knowing.

A force is not describe by wisdom. Does the universe look like it is created by an unwise force that doesn't know what it is creating?

[Anonymous No.19890615]

>>19890601
Don't forget it's also j*wish, fabricated and false

[Anonymous No.19890670]

>>19890612
Awful preachspeak. Write like a normal person
>A force is not describe by wisdom. Does the universe look like it is created by an unwise force that doesn't know what it is creating?
Laws of physics/mathematics/etc can't be described as "wise". These laws also work logically, or rather, they certainly "look like they know what they're creating"
At the best your shitty imaginary friend is a thing that caused other things and nothing more. It certainly isn't the biblical retard who fucks around with his creation just because "muh will".

[Anonymous No.19890676]

>>19890612
>God is not limited
God must be limited by his own nature, otherwise creation can't exist.
>no will
A fixed will is no will. If God is unchanging, he's a force.
>Does the universe look like it is created by an unwise force that doesn't know what it is creating?
It looks like a logos being fulfilled but nothing more. Purely mechanical.

The only argument for anthropomorphism is divine revelation, but there are countless supposed revelations and there's no logical way to judge them. They're describing things outside logic so can't be judged by the human faculty of reason.

[Anonymous No.19890685]

>>19890480
>not of the philosophers and the scholars
Yes the early christers also hated that Hellenic philosophers could talk circles around them and they therefore denounced wisdom and knowledge in preference of a naive fideism based on gossip and sorcery. The god in question is entirely capricious and inefficient, deciding to incarnate at a whim, waiting thousands of years to reveal himself, breaking natural law as he sees fit rather than being the summation of it, etc. Don't really see why you are citing Pascal's bad faith (believe in god as a gamble for free shit) and pivoting to Islam (which would consider that unpardonable).

[Anonymous No.19890758]

>>19890670
I don't attribute consciousness to a force.

Laws of physics are wisdom. I don't think a force or a law (in the sense of physics) can create anything.

>Speak like a decent human being at least, what you're saying is blasphemy

God does not oppress.

He created, He does what He wills with His creation.

We do not own ourselves, yet we are in grace and ungrateful. We oppress as use what we don't own, ourselves, not to the will of Our Owner, Our Creator.

[Anonymous No.19890775]

>>19890758
>we are all slaves to an even greater master, and he will save me and punish you for being against me
Go back to picking olives, servus

[Anonymous No.19890811]

>>19890676
>God must be limited by his own nature
I wouldn't call that a limit. God is perfect thus He doesn't change. Not changing is not a limit, it is perpetuating perfection.

>A fixed will is no will.
By saying this, you are negating omniscience.

>If God is unchanging, he's a force.
I don't see the logical progression.

Anthropomorphism is a result of misinterpretations of the scriptures.

[Anonymous No.19890851]

>>19890775
Worshiping God at free will without seeing God is the greatest honor for mankind.
>He will save me and punish you for being against me
I didn't say this. In fact, I which we are all saved. I don't grantee that I'll be safe.

[Anonymous No.19890862]

>>19890851
>greatest honor possible is to naively agree and amplify with rabble rousers
The ancient writers understood you completely. But they couldn't win the numbers game.

[Anonymous No.19890918]

>>19890851
I believe in God and His messenger. I invite to believe kindly. I do not compel you. I don't have a worldly gain.

[Anonymous No.19890926]

>>19890811
So there are two Gods - the God of Logos (thomist) and the God who is totally unknowable (most prots).
If you believe God is not illogical, then everything I said stands. If you believe God is beyond logic, then it's purely faith-based and logical arguments are irrelevant.
>I don't see the logical progression.
He's like a slot-machine in that case. His will reacts entirely in response to his nature like a script of code. He cannot be omnipotent because what he creates is dictated by his nature (logos) so really he can only create one blueprint of an existence and nothing else.
>By saying this, you are negating omniscience.
If God is logos then his will is a Calvinist free-will. He just does according to his nature, nothing more, nothing less. He might have access to all the knowledge possible, but he is just a computer script and not a real consciousness. If there is a consciousness within God, then it's just an observer trapped within a prison watching events unfold.

[Anonymous No.19890946]

Any books on the Christian sacrament of the prepping of the bvll (preparatus taurus)?

[Anonymous No.19890954]

>>19890946
>greeks used to sacrifice bulls
>christers prep bulls instead
like pottery

[Anonymous No.19890968]

>>19890946
That pope is built for BBC

[Anonymous No.19890980]

>>19890685
You need to attribute perfection to God, what you're saying is blasphemy

>inefficient
Are you mistaking God's will for you own? Is it hubris?

>breaking natural law
What do you mean by this? Nature is God's creation. Nature directed by God's will. God does what He wills with His creation.

Worshiping God at free will without seeing God is the greatest honor for mankind. See Qur'an 2:3.

We don't have prefect knowledge. Don't tell God what to do. It's egocentrism and arrogance.

Worshiping God without seeing Him is true loyalty and it's rewarded. Lucifer disobeyed God directly, don't be like him.

Jesus isn't an incarnation of God.

>Citing Pascal's vision
Words of philosophers, it is not truth not follow, it is mere opinion.

>Would consider that unpardonable
Please, reconsider.

[Anonymous No.19890986]

>>19890968
Tis not for the pope my child. The prepping of the bvll is merely a prelude for the receiving of the bvll’s seed into womb of the Christian man’s wife, the greatest Christian sacrament of all, emulating Joseph.

[Anonymous No.19891144]

>>19890926
God is omniscient meaning God's knowledge is perfect in eternity before creation. Logic is in God's knowledge. God is logical.

I follow the Ash'ari creed the Sunni Islamic creed.

God perfect all His attributes are perfect and unchanging. What is perfect is complete. Perfection or what is complete is not tainted by increase or decrease.

His will is perfect and is eternal.

Are you saying that God is limited by logic? Logic is not a restriction it is the truth, it is perfection.
One God's in Islam is Al-Haqq meaning absolut truth.

The Three Divisions of the Mind:
-The Mentally Possible or the Logically Permissible
-The Mentally Impossible
-The Mental Obligatory

The Mentally Possible:
The mind accepts its existence sometimes and its non-existence at other times, like creatures.

The Mental Impossible:
What the mind does not accept in its right to exist as a partner for God.

-The Mental Obligatory:
What the mind does not accept in his right is only existence, and He is God and His Attributes.

[Anonymous No.19891160]

>>19888275
you belabor the point by asking the same question over and over again.

[Anonymous No.19891174]

If so much as ONE DROP of the bvll’s semen fails to reach our wife’s womb, ‘tis a grave sin for us Christians, inviting the ire of the God of Israel upon us goyim!

[Anonymous No.19891182]

>>19889467
This. Also, the Bible deals with many dark things because life itself can often be dark

[Anonymous No.19891202]

>>19890980
>what you're saying is blasphemy
I don't subscribe to your system so apparently we have nothing further to discuss. This obstinate contempt for discourse was well noted among the early christers, who prefered suicide by roman magistrate to respecting the views of others

[Anonymous No.19891244]

>Even as Joseph prepeth before thee, prepeth thou the bull, even the Ethiopian bullock I sent thee goyim! So sayeth I, Yahweh, the god of J— I mean your god, goyim! Hehe - Book of Joseph the Cuck 5:10

[Anonymous No.19891247]

>>19891202
>worship our gods or die!
>no
>gets fed to lions
>2000 years later
>"he just didn't repspect the views of others!!!"

[Anonymous No.19891251]

dunno about god but hasn't moral responsibility been refuted??? thus one must object to the fall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_free_will

[Anonymous No.19891280]

>>19886309
Just my own sense of the world plus after reading Plato and Goethe. There’s inherent hierarchies and meaning to everything. Once you realize this you come to understand God is transcendent of these.

I doubt this post alone will convince someone, or at least someone that isn’t already on the path. If you are outside of understanding. What I mean but would like to I encourage you to read
>The Symposium by Plato
>The Republic by Plato
>Theory of Colors by Goethe
>Metamorphosis of Plants by Goethe

Bonus:
> Reflections on the Painting and Sculpture of the Greeks by Winckelmann
>The World as Will and Representation by Schopenhauer
>Ecce Homo by Neech

Take a hiking trips out to the Rockies, Appalachians, Alps, etc either during or afterwards while pondering the hierarchy of the world. Also helps if you get into regular meditation.

[Anonymous No.19891282]

>>19886854
>Creation is a sign of The Creator.
then who created the creator?

[Anonymous No.19891306]

>>19890676
Perfect knowledge thus a fixed will which is a perfect will.

A changing will like in us humans is pure imperfection. Forgetfulness and ignorance. We cringe at our old decisions because we grew and learned new things. A changing knowledge is an imperfect knowledge.

I don't think God is just a force, He is almighty and omnipotent.

So omnipotence is a trait of God. Do not mistake God for his own traits.

[Anonymous No.19891310]

>waste not the seed of the bull I sent thee from Ethiopia (dumb) goyim! The full cup thereof must reach thy wife’s womb and waste not a drop thereof!

[Anonymous No.19891341]

>>19891282
Why are atheists so retarded?

[Anonymous No.19891343]

>>19891310
>let the Ethiopian calf be emptied into the goyish woman, so sayeth the Lord of Israel

[Anonymous No.19891358]

>oh simple-minded ones, always be ye ready to make an apology of me before the smarter among the goyim! For they know… yet I love only the simple-minded ones

[Anonymous No.19891381]

>>19891202
I'm sorry if you feel offended, I was just stating the fact that calling God inefficient is blasphemy by definition. As it is not attributing perfection to God. We need to do that.

The truth is that we are humile creature, with very little knowledge.
But we like to feel that we know enough, we can be arrogant.
It's not like I've never made a mistake.

I still invite you to reconsider and learn.

[Anonymous No.19891405]

>>19891251
what is the answer to this

[Anonymous No.19891416]

>>19889512
>I exist
you don't

[Anonymous No.19891424]

>>19891306
It's no more "perfect will" than that of a slot-machine. In executing logos it's perfect, but for personhood it's not. Something without a free will (will that can be otherwise) is not a being, it's a machine. For the foundation of existence, an unchanging (perfect) machine or a force is a good thing.
>So omnipotence is a trait of God
this is a statement of dogma that if God is logical cannot be true. The only way something can exist (as opposed to all possibilities existing simultaneously) is by putting a cap on omnipotence. That cap is logos which limits the generating force to just one possibility.

[Anonymous No.19891434]

>>19891341
how is it even possible to take aquinas seriously in the 21st century?

[Anonymous No.19891435]

>>19891247
The early christers found it very virtuous to be atheists. They were the original fedoras. Make of that what you will but the Roman was within his rights to quash such blasphemers. The Roman did not, however, understand that christers had made a religion out of suicide, and that executing them was the equivalent of the British putting a bounty on dead cobras in India. Every executed rebel became proof to such obstinate people that they were right and if traditional church history is to be believed, the number of martyrs swelled to satirical proportions.

[Anonymous No.19891440]

>why the goyim rage? And the people plot vainly to break free from ZOG? PREP THE BVLL!!!

[Anonymous No.19891449]

>>19891440
>the goy knoweth

[Anonymous No.19891465]

>>19891381
>the fact that calling God inefficient is blasphemy by definition
Your theology makes god inefficient in the first place. He has to choose what to do or when to intervene, when to send Jesus, when to speak to prophets, etc. It is clear that such a tribal god is far below the henotheistic god of the Platonists, which is why embarassed christers eventually stole these doctrines to make conversion of the better educated easier, because by their original doctrines, god was a capricious, idiosyncratic character rather than a cosmic or reality principle

[Anonymous No.19891477]

>>19891282
The Creator can't be created. To be created is to have a beginning.

To create is to bring from non-existence into existence. Only God can create.

God is by definition eternal, Alpha and Omega. He has no beginning and no end.

He who gives beginning to creature has no beginning.

[Anonymous No.19891504]

>>19891477
>the cosmos is ex nihilo
atheist nonsense

[Anonymous No.19891520]

>>19891465
Inefficiency didn't seem like a trait of perfection to me.

How do you define efficiency in this context?

O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into races and tribes, so that you may identify one another. Surely the noblest of you, in Allah’s sight, is the one who is most pious of you. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware. -Quran 49:13

[Anonymous No.19891536]

>>19891504
The cosmos is created from nothing but not by nothing. Every thing alive is created from water.

[Anonymous No.19891545]

>>19891520
I am using it in the technical sense that he by himself does not merely cause but as per any Abrahamic scripture you will cite is subject to whims, willing, etc. He brings about some things at some times and others at others, ditto for destroying, and so on. He apparently has motives and is malleable to desires. He is not the highest God, whatever he is.

[Anonymous No.19891561]

>>19891536
You believe God made the cosmos from nothing, and that he is entirely outside of this reality. That water is made from nothing, correct? God is the only real thing in your system, and everything else is to be shunned for eternal life somewhere else. And this because, everything in this life is void and made of nothingness.

[Anonymous No.19891596]

>>19891536
>>19891520
>>19891477
>>19891381
>>19891341
>>19891306
>>19891182
>>19891144
>>19890980
>>19890918
>>19890851
>>19890811
>>19890758
TRUMP LOST

[Anonymous No.19891600]

>>19891561
Yahweh here. Why refuseth thou to prep the bvll? Why can’t you be more like my servant here >>19891504
I guarantee you he prepeth the bvll with gusto!

[Anonymous No.19891660]

>>19891600
Because you said I had free will to not prep the bull. Did you lie to me?

[Anonymous No.19891668]

>>19891561
>God is the only real thing in your system
I believe God true beyond reality.

>everything else is to be shunned for eternal life somewhere else
I believe worldly life ends it's not of absolute value. Not totally shunned as I see the bliss of God and be grateful.

[Anonymous No.19891669]

I’m kind of into bvll prepping myself you know… Hehe…
t. Yahweh

[Anonymous No.19891692]

>>19891251
^^?

[Anonymous No.19891704]

>>19891660
Free????

[Anonymous No.19891709]

>>19891282
>>Creation is a sign of The Creator.
>then who created the creator?
Its creators all the way down.
Who created you?
Who created your parents parents parents parents parents parents parents parents parents parents parents parents parents parents parents parents parents.....

[Anonymous No.19891724]

>>19891668
>I believe God true beyond reality.
This would have been considered atheism two thousand years ago. It is impressive how much the values were inverted by christers, such that it is taken for granted that god is extra-cosmic. By turning religion into a superstition, they paved the way for a genuinely godless society, because superstition can be dismissed by anyone not under particular duress to believe in it. For you would have us believe God is not to be found anywhere in anything, except through works evincing he created them, worldly things we are called upon to discard if we wish to be rewarded by him. And if that is the case, why discard these things in the first place? Because the priests say so? Soon we are left with Pascal's wager. But he was just a less committed priest. By the time a Nietzsche comes around to tell you what you've wrought, you plug your ears and start larping.

[Anonymous No.19891744]

>>19887147
>imagine speaking for everyone in antiquity
Not him, but that's literally what the word for faith means in the Bible. Faith was faithfulness/loyalty, not belief.

[Anonymous No.19891749]

>>19888772
Something that has always been compelling to me is that our human senses are limited indeed. Therefore, how can we hope to comprehend a God that is infinitely more wise, etc. in terms of sensory experience? This was useful to me because I also already had a feeling for the transcendent. Perhaps this is part of the necessity of Christ: seeing Him made flesh.

[Anonymous No.19891777]

>>19891424
>but for personhood it's not
God is not a person

>Something without a free will (will that can be otherwise) is not a being
It's like you're saying perfection is imperfect.
A machine doesn't program itself. It has no absolute will.
A machine does it function perfectly within measures.
A machine is made, created.
I think it's an incoherent analogy.

[Anonymous No.19891789]

>>19886309
>argument for the existence of God
The stars, my friend. God needs no argument, yet he made one anyway--The Gospels. Read it or not, He will judge you, living or dead. Repent, and be saved! All praise to the Lord!

[Anonymous No.19891824]

>>19891789
Christianity has really regressed without intelligent people being involved anymore. You're really going to concede that there is no argument for God beyond you making threats that he will punish people who disagree with you? It's like some atavistic caricature. There are no lions for you to be fed to, you merely merit a shrug.

[Anonymous No.19891979]

>still no answer to my post
>>19891251

[Anonymous No.19891981]

>>19891545
>as per any Abrahamic scripture you will cite is subject to whims
If not followed by orthodox religious teaching, misinterpretation of scripture is very likely. God's anger is like man anger. Man's anger is an impulse due to ignorance. But God is all-knowing and His anger is just.

The first thing taught in Sunni Islamic creed is God 13 attributes so understand God's perfection and avoid misinterpretation of Qur'an. One of the attributes is God is unlike creatures.

[Anonymous No.19892021]

>>19891981
Why would you be all-knowing and still angry? You're just digging a hole here. If God is unike creatures, why should he be angry? Is something causing him anger? What could possibly anger an all-powerful, all-knowing God? Is he impotent, weak, or inefficient in some way?

[Anonymous No.19892026]

>>19887777
The 2 doves typed this

[Anonymous No.19892056]

>>19892026
kek

[Anonymous No.19892058]

HOL UP HOL UP
>rapes kid
SO YOU BE SAYIN
>licks nigger feet
JEEBUS WUZNT KANG?

[Anonymous No.19892099]

>>19892058
I’m saying fill goyish wombs with Ethiopian semen to the brim for the greater glory of Israel
t. Yahweh

[Anonymous No.19892121]

>>19891561
>God is the only real thing in your system
Correct. The universe is in the mind of god. My mind. I am the consciousness. You are me and I am god.

[Anonymous No.19892154]

>>19892021
God's anger is just, for people disbelieved and killed prophets. Some of the disbelievers asked the prophets "show us God's punishment."

So cause a piece from the sky to fall down upon us, if you are one of the truthful.” -Quran 26:187

Again God doesn't oppress, people do.

[Anonymous No.19892179]

>>19892154
Schizo nonsense
Get your head examined and lobotomized

[Anonymous No.19892206]

>>19892154
If he knew those people would do those things, how could he be angry with them? He was the only external force who could have stopped them and he did nothing. And he knew no one else would either. Is he mad at himself? If so, why take it out on others? He is starting to sound highly inefficient. Just how far down is he on the chain of being?

[Anonymous No.19892211]

>>19892179
Elaborate what you find nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.19892218]

> still no answer to my post
>>19891251

[Anonymous No.19892226]

>>19891251

[Anonymous No.19892234]

>>19892226
ok bitch you wanna step outside?

[Anonymous No.19892299]

>>19892206
God willed that people would have a free will. We are free but we do not create our deeds good nor evil.

We are free, we are responsible. God does not oppress.

In eternity, God destined that some will go to Heaven and some will go to Hell. By our own deeds, one must seek to save himself from Hell.

People say God created us and will throw us in Hell. They say God oppress.

He created, He does what He wills with His creation, everything you see is belongs to Him.

We do not own ourselves, yet we are in grace and ungrateful. We oppress as we use what we don't own, ourselves, not to the will of Our Owner, Our Creator.

[Anonymous No.19892321]

>>19892299
>We do not own ourselves, yet we are in grace and ungrateful.
Slave rhetoric

[Anonymous No.19892336]

>>19892299
>We are free but we do not create our deeds good nor evil
isn't this contradictory

[Anonymous No.19892344]

>>19886309
https://twitter.com/i/status/1491159795180929024

[Anonymous No.19892366]

>>19892321
One of the biggest problems is that people consider God as a human being.

Being a slave to ones ego is another problem.

They did not hold Allah in His true esteem. The whole earth will be in a single grip of His hand on the Day of Doom, and the heavens (will be) rolled up on his right hand. Pure is He, far too higher than what they associate with Him. -Quran 39:67

[Anonymous No.19892378]

>>19892336
Do you digest the food in your stomach at will.

[Anonymous No.19892387]

>>19892378
yes, but why and how is this free?

[Anonymous No.19892407]

>>19892366
Why is he going to destroy the cosmos? Is he an evil demon? This is your threadly reminder that these religions only defeated paganism by smashing it and half-converting to neoplatonic theology afterwards. They had no real defense for god being an imaginary being outside of reality who can create and destroy the entire universe on a whim, decide who to "save" and damn on a whim, come to earth and be killed by Italian immigrants in Syria on a whim, etc. It was all seen as bunk. Christians argued from sorcery and huckstering. Islam argued from steel. The pagans were not used to being hated for religious reasons.

[Anonymous No.19892442]

>>19892387
There's consciousness and will, thus accountability. But we don't create a thing.

If I break a glass, I'm responsible for the action. I didn't create the physics of the glass shattering.

[Anonymous No.19892474]

>>19892442
>>19891251

[Anonymous No.19892505]

>>19892407
You seem to be looking to validation on your beliefs. What you believe or disbelieve?

[Anonymous No.19892508]

>>19892407
Christianity outlawed sorcery. There is literally nobody witches hate more than Christ and Christians and they will tell you this unambiguously

[Anonymous No.19892512]

>>19892474
Moral responsibility is valid.

[Anonymous No.19892514]

>>19892512
why

[Anonymous No.19892525]

>>19886309
if by god you mean some guy up there in the sky, yeah, he doesn't exist;
if by god you mean some transcendent or immanent entity, it doesn't exist either;

[Anonymous No.19892531]

>>19892514
Don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous No.19892542]

>>19892531
no

[Anonymous No.19892549]

>>19892542
Then you are in moral relativism. Is it the case?

[Anonymous No.19892555]

>>19892525
Are you unironically just using semicolons as periods? With the no caps too. I will hunt and murder you

[Anonymous No.19892556]

>>19892549
yes
if you are leading me into a trap I reserve the right to back-peddle and clarify my positions but for the mean time I will go along with one word answers for argument's sake

[Anonymous No.19892560]

>>19892505
You have claimed there is a day of doom where god will grip the world. Why should this be so? Because you'd like to see it all destroyed by something with the power to do it? Says a lot more about you.
>>19892508
You misunderstand. The stories in the New Testament of Jesus's sorcery are legion. This is what it was to a non-christer audience at the time, sorcery, the likes of which could be found among the Egyptians, a people Jesus had lived among in his youth even according to the Gospels. Christers argued that sorcery was proof for Jesus being divine. What you are refering to is unrelated.

[Anonymous No.19892590]

>>19892560
Sorcery is based on human sacrifice primarily and has nothing to do with what jesus is said to have done. Also what's with the "christer" autism

[Anonymous No.19892619]

>>19892590
No, healing the sick, multiplying food, raising corpses, etc. all other sorts of miracles, are sorcery. But that's a matter of semantics. The substance is still the same, Jesus was one of many known magicians of the period, but his followers considered him to be god because he could do these things.

[Anonymous No.19892650]

>>19892619
Witchcraft describes its processes very explicitly and they almost all involve blood sacrifices. You are just an autist who hates Christianity and there is no point engaging with you.

[Anonymous No.19892672]

>>19892560
You misunderstood the verse. Grip and right hand indicate control. The earth on the Day of Doom change from what we know now but we'll still be on it.

Attributing perfection to God is essential.
God's knowledge and wisdom we mostly don't see.
God is all-knowing and we are born not knowing a thing and we always forget.
Objecting God's will is not from faith, faith is matter of the heart.
Sometimes the hearts are not accepting.

[Anonymous No.19892679]

>>19892650
You're referring to medieval/renaissance era views of the occult. I am referring to antiquity, in which sorcery and "miracles" were no different to the audience, because it had not been reared under an all-pervading ecclesiastical institution which decided which magic was legit and which was not. You are too stupid for this conversation.

[Anonymous No.19892690]

>>19892679
You are actually so dumb you think people in antiquity didnt do blood sacrifices lmao

[Anonymous No.19892732]

>>19892690
Wrong again. I said sorcery is not exclusively witchcraft or black magic. In that context, healing sick people, multipying food, etc. was not evidence that a person was literally god incarnate but that he was a sorceror

[Anonymous No.19892751]

>>19892732
>witchcraft involving murdering children is akshually the same thing as jesus giving people bread and healing them
Based retard

[Anonymous No.19892752]

>>19892672
I am not convinced by you reciting your beliefs to me repeatedly. Perhaps you converted to Islam from some form of Protestantism.

[Anonymous No.19892761]

>>19892751
What do you want to call it? White magic? It's still sorcery. People who were not Jesus have done it. It is not proof someone is literally the god of the Torah

[Anonymous No.19892773]

[Anonymous No.19892855]

>>19888987
>unironically Sanderson-posting
>the man who believes the coronahoax
>the man who says that Jesus Christ burned three days in hell as burnt-offering
>the man who makes "saving" people to a highscore game
>the man who is against Bible-commentaries while they were part of the original 1611 KJV
Should I go on?

[Anonymous No.19892885]

>>19891824
Read the post again then read The Gospels you turbo nigger

[Anonymous No.19892933]

>>19892885
Post says to agree with god or he will punish me. That would be fair if he were a demonstrable thing which would harm me for disputing it, but he isn't. There is only your arrogance

[Anonymous No.19892993]

>>19892525
Right one the first wrong on the second.

[Anonymous No.19893107]

>>19886509

[Anonymous No.19893174]

>>19892993
the moment you conceptualize, you're already in delusion, from there comes: god, being, non-being, absolute, relative, brahma, samsara, nirvana... and you become trapped.

[Anonymous No.19893189]

>>19893174
>just dont think at all bro

[Anonymous No.19893196]

>>19893174

[Anonymous No.19893989]

>>19893978
Wrong, many overly "good looking" people do not feel the need for God, they get drunk on their own power over others and constantly think about how good they look while doing everything.

[Anonymous No.19894400]

>>19886309
Biblical wisdom being replayed all day everyday everywhere. Just like as it is written.

[Anonymous No.19894412]

>>19886309
that humans require a social hierarchy to properly function in a society and so god is at the top
and that god existed outside of the universe when he created it which is why we've never seen him

[Anonymous No.19895058]

>>19889351
>Refuse giving attributes of God to the universe etc.
Are you a Pantheist?

[Anonymous No.19895063]

>>19889891
Monty Python's Holy Grail

>>19890138
Take your bitter attitude back to Plebbit.

[Anonymous No.19895070]

>>19891434
>>19891282
Yup, Atheism is surely dead. They can never escape the shadow of Nu-atheist midwittery,

[Anonymous No.19895075]

>>19888394
I really hate Russell but your saying that russell losed that debate is just an adolescent mind

[Anonymous No.19895105]

For a Muslim, there are no arguments to prove the existence of God. He simply exists and it’s our responsibility to recognize the signs of His existence.

[Anonymous No.19895110]

>>19886326
fpbp

[Anonymous No.19895135]

>>19888260
>being this retarded
I can guarantee that you have never seen matter being destroyed

[Anonymous No.19895179]

>>19890676
>A fixed will is no will
An unchanging will is a strong will.
God's unchanging will, as He has perfect knowledge, is a perfect will.
An unchanging will is not fixed by another it's not imposed, He is not restricted by another. He is absolute nothing precedes Him.

[Anonymous No.19895239]

>>19892933
The post said to read The Gospels (in direct response to the op question). You didn’t, you’d rather argue. Of all the turbo niggers out there you are the most insufferable.

[Anonymous No.19895968]

>>19886309
>Just have faith bro lmfao!

Ok but what about those other Gods that other people believe in

>...uh...ummm... yeah don't have faith in those Gods bro

??? But why?

>Just trust me bro, my God is the right one you just gotta listen and believe

[Anonymous No.19895979]

>God exists because I want him to exist
>God exists because the Bible says he does

[Anonymous No.19896057]

>>19895968
I was born into an atheist family and was a hardcore atheist till I was 16. The Christian God is the one true God. I've learned that in my life. The rest is all bullshit.

Christ is King. Holy holy holy is the Lord

[Anonymous No.19896063]

>>19895968
>reddit spacing
>reddit argument
lol fag

[Anonymous No.19896064]

WHY WILL NO ONE RESPOND??? HAS THIS BEEN REFUTED OR NO????
>>19891251

[Anonymous No.19896072]

and no I don't care that all of the replies to that post are me seething that it was ignored, I'm going to keep doing it

[Anonymous No.19896185]

>>19896057
christers deny every other religion as made up falsehoods, so why should theirs be any different? such insightful anthropologists but with a very sore blindspot

[Anonymous No.19896435]

>>19896185
The Christian would probably argue because his religion is correct?

What ar retarded statement "guys a bunch of people disagree that 2+2=4 what makes you so certain chud"

[Anonymous No.19896520]

>>19896057
apostles weren't surveyed about the resurrection before their execution. As best as we can ascertain, they died because they were a menace to society and possibly torched Rome.

[Anonymous No.19896914]

>>19896435
Why is his religion correct? He has denied all others! What argument has he used which could not be used against him? If he appeals to prophecies in the Torah, why does he not follow the rest of the religion that those scriptures outline? If he appeals to Jesus's sorcery, why are other sorcerors not gods? And surely god could have saved himself from being executed by Italian immigrants in Syria. If he appeals to the resurrection, why are the only witnesses cult members and country bumpkins? Couldn't he have revealed himself to more intelligent or higher status people? Why is it only the servile who preach the end of the world and the overturning of all order in the name of the astral master?

[Anonymous No.19896929]

>>19886309
>I've seen him

[Anonymous No.19896954]

>>19896914
>surely god could have saved himself from being executed
Guy who doesnt understand literally the most fundamental point of Christianity running his mouth about it

[Anonymous No.19896967]

>>19886944
lol

[Anonymous No.19896974]

>>19896954
the most fundamental point of christianity is a cope invented by the followers of a false messiah. "Ya, our guy actually WANTED to die!".

[Anonymous No.19896981]

>>19896974
You will never get it if you don't let go of pride

[Anonymous No.19896993]

>>19896981
the most prideful group is also the one that preaches the most against pride. What a gay world.

[Anonymous No.19897040]

>>19896993
It's a recognition of a fundamental human flaw you have to constantly guard against

I agree there is an unavoidable irony in claiming Christ as absolute truth while also advocating humility. I dont know what Christians say about this. They're not any more arrogant about it than other religions though; everyone claims their system is the absolute reality.

[Anonymous No.19897061]

>>19896954
What am I misunderstanding? Christers believe god breaks the laws of the cosmos in a capricious and whimsical manner owing to his infinite power, and that if you submit to this power he will break these laws for you as well and resurrect your corpse. Sometimes he lets himself be killed. Sometimes he makes pacts with various tribes in exchange for their foreskins. He's a trickster really, that volcano demon of theirs.

[Anonymous No.19897064]

Arguments for monotheism:
> cosmological argument
https://carm.org/defending-the-faith/the-cosmological-argument/?highlight=cosmological
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
> ontological argument
https://carm.org/defending-the-faith/the-ontological-argument/?highlight=onthological+argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
> transcendental argument
https://carm.org/defending-the-faith/the-transcendental-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/?highlight=transcendental+argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
> argument from consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_consciousness
> intelligent design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

Arguments for the Christian God:
> legitamacy of the bible, existance of the events/people in the bible, foretold prophecies and miracles
https://carm.org/apologia/evidence-and-answers/

Additionally you can look into arguments against materialism/empiricism as they are usually contributors to the world view of non believers

Also, don't forget pascal's wager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

[Anonymous No.19897066]

>>19897040
>They're not any more arrogant about it than other religions though
Not true, their obstinacy and contempt for rivalrous established traditions is well attested historically, i.e. "martyrdom," that is to say, suicide by cop

[Anonymous No.19897078]

>>19897066
You clearly hate them and are incapable of being unbiased about them. Muslims murder people for insulting their prophet all the time for example

[Anonymous No.19897081]

>>19897064
>pascal's wager
Retroactively refuted by Plutarch. Once you make religion into pure superstition, atheism is the next logical step

[Anonymous No.19897089]

>>19897081
>Once you make religion into pure superstition
As opposed to what? A mechanistic ritual game that still presupposes a deity that requires faith?

[Anonymous No.19897093]

>>19897078
>incapable of being unbiased about them
They are also incapable of this. They accept the Gospels as truthful accounts instead of Herodotus-tier morality fables based on events. So what is your point? That it is mean of me to disagree with them? They were not merciful to their opponents

[Anonymous No.19897098]

>>19897089
Superstition in a technical sense, that one is only acting out of fear, as opposed to upholding something with great purpose. All that is left to do is overcome the fear as irrational and now you are an atheist. Since the fearful monopolized theology, that has been its legacy

[Anonymous No.19897128]

>>19897098
But the same can be said that holding to the belief of a deity, whether out of fear or not, is irrational, and you are still one step away from atheism. Any theism is always just one step away from atheism.

[Anonymous No.19897159]

There are inter-dimensional beings like god (our concept of him) that are, by our standards, all-knowing.

But we don't know about them and our religions have nothing to do with them. Our religions are just mythology.

[Anonymous No.19897163]

>>19897040
>I agree there is an unavoidable irony in claiming Christ as absolute truth while also advocating humility. I dont know what Christians say about this.
Then you should probably read The Bible. That you and/or your ilk made this shitty thread means you have some issues you are trying to figure out. I'm sorry they don't have teachers for this anymore. But the first step to "humility" is to stop calling people who know more than you "arrogant".

[Anonymous No.19897177]

>>19897163
I notice you dont actually say what the solution to this particular contradiction is.

[Anonymous No.19897196]

>>19896914
Because he thinks his religion is correct, it's such a retarded statement that everyone says that literally doesn't mean anything.

I don't believe that the earth is anything but round even when 10 million other retards says it's flat, rectangle, or whatever the fuck.


Like I'm not religious either dude, but if you're gonna engage like this go back to /r/atheism.

[Anonymous No.19897197]

>>19897128
Sure, but there's a reason neoplatonic theology was eventually adopted instead of relying on millennarian street preaching—it was to appeal to better minds. Now Christianity appears to be back to its roots.

[Anonymous No.19897222]

>>19897196
He thinks it is correct, but to the negation of all the rest. Christianity was a revolution in religion thinking, the mass commodification of an idea taken from its parent religion that one religion was correct to the exclusion of every other. This is banal to us in a society heavily influenced by Christianity but the pre-Christian world saw fewer issues in recognizing that foreign religions were still religions and not inherently wrong or evil by merit of not being one's own religion. This is what I am asking for a defense of, and thus far it has not been provided

[Anonymous No.19897234]

>>19897197
I agree with you, except for this:
>Now Christianity appears to be back to its roots.
I think it has mostly abandoned this millenniarism, and it has now degenerated in a very superficial "God is Love, you wont be judged for anything" attitude that is the exact opposite of the harsh judgmentalism of the early Christians like Paul, Augustine and Jerome.

[Anonymous No.19897241]

>>19897177
Matthew 4
Again, believe it or not. You wan't Jaws music or something? Repent!

[Anonymous No.19897248]

>>19897234
The old style judgment heavy Christianity is going strong in the "schizo" subcultures who think were approaching the end times and Satanists run the world. These people are obviously all powerless proles but there are quite a few of them, and being a powerless prole is literally a plus for Christians.

[Anonymous No.19897260]

>>19897222
They've posted like 50 links and arguments in the thread. You can simply say you don't find them convincing, that's fine, but don't pretend that the only reason they believe in it is because of the bible.


Also, you're just describing every single belief, I think that all other beliefs besides mine are incorrect, I don't get why you're saying this as if it's some sort of profound insight.

[Anonymous No.19897261]

>>19897241
I honestly don't get the relevance to the point I brought up about what humility. I dont think this is even a large gotcha for Christians or anything; I was just noting a certain irony about pride, but pride is not the central concept of the religion obviously; believing in christ is.

[Anonymous No.19897269]

>>19897248
Matthew 7
When you're in a hole stop digging.

[Anonymous No.19897272]

>>19897269
Who do you think I'm judging? The people I'm describing as "schizo" have a perfectly coherent view of things as far as I can tell. The idea that our world is run by satanists is not remotely implausible.

[Anonymous No.19897304]

>>19897261

[Anonymous No.19897306]

>>19897260
>I believe in Baal
>I believe in Ishtar
>we can both be correct
Do you see how Christianity throws a wrench in that?

[Anonymous No.19897320]

>>19897272
>The people I'm describing as "schizo" have a perfectly coherent view of things as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous No.19897333]

I saw halo of Maria one time when I was in a forest

[Anonymous No.19897407]

>>19897306
Because they're different concepts of God, which is what was explained to your in the thread multiple times.

You're confusing capital G with lowercase g god.

[Anonymous No.19897498]

>>19897407
Ok well what about Zeus and Jupiter

[Anonymous No.19897603]

>>19897498
The Bible doesn't mention them.

[Anonymous No.19897634]

>>19897603
Religion of a people's is their wizard of oz, simple as

It's their icon, their mascot, their chosen ideal king

[Anonymous No.19897749]

>>19897498
Probably because Zeus is supposed to actually come down from Mount Olympus and actually fuck people.

>Religion of a people's is their wizard of oz, simple as

What the fuck are you even trying to say.

[Anonymous No.19898052]

>>19887860
>>19886434
>>19887860
>>19886356
>>19886543
>>19886555
>>19886575
>>19886920
>>19891280
>>19891600

If you don't believe in God on your own automatically, you are never going to make it. God's existence is the most obvious thing there is. Not the kike god, but a fundamental force, a reason, a foundation. The universe is God, existence itself. Also read Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.19898108]

>>19898052
>pantheism
that's atheism+.

[Anonymous No.19898119]

>>19891596
because he let jews cheat him... again

[Anonymous No.19898436]

>>19897749
You never saw wizard of oz?

The little man projecting a large powerful mighty being, that emerald city obeys and considers their master ruler?

The rulers of a race, or those with the power to implant , generate their wizard, their mighty oz, as a guiding principl, ad a collective unconscious ideal, as a master to bring ease, to the possible intense disorder and dissary of a vulnerable peoples doin thinking and acting at any time any way the please

[Anonymous No.19898452]

>>19898436
Dude wtf.... SPOILERSSS*"*

[Anonymous No.19898518]

>>19886326
>No, I will not tell those experiences