god

[Anonymous No.4803877]

what is god to you?

an omnipresent man? the universe? shape? the laws of nature?

all crazy theories are welcome

[Anonymous No.4803891]

I'm a polytheist so this is a weird question for me to answer
You mean like what do I feel the immaterial is made of, or "who is my god", or what?
I guess everything is my god? Or something?

[Anonymous No.4803893]

Why is /lit/ so fixated on god?;

[Anonymous No.4803896]

nothing

[Anonymous No.4803900]

>>4803891
>You mean like what do I feel the immaterial is made of
yeah

[Anonymous No.4803916]

[Anonymous No.4803919]

>>4803893
They're college/university people

[Anonymous No.4803921]

>>4803900
It's infinite, but as humans we can only sense what humans can sense, and so we only see parts of it that make sense to humans.

[Anonymous No.4803925]

>>4803893
Because it's one of the biggest questions we can ask. If we knew for certain that god exists or doesn't exist, that would change the world. Since we'll (likely) never know 100% asking these questions is the best we can do.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4803928]

>>4803925
What would you do if God existed?

[Anonymous No.4803929]

>>4803877

An ideal to strive towards... If I were religious but I'm not - not athiest, just irreligious.

[Anonymous No.4803930]

>>4803921
nice, so what are the bits we can see?

[Anonymous No.4803932]

Transcendent creator of the universe, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, triune.

At least, that's the only one I think could possibly exist, most others are self-defeating in their claims to validity. The Abrahamic God is the only one that seems to be worth further effort and looking into beyond the basics, and of the three major Abrahamic religions, briefly, Judaism is conflictingly legalistic and emphasizes that the path to salvation lies in the strict adherence to this legalist system, and Islam mistakenly places its claims to divinity on things which have been shown to be false, such as the fact that the Qu'ran has "never changed" aside from diacritical marks and the historicity of their "divine leader" is highly suspect.

Contrariwise, Christianity combines a complex theology capable of answering important questions and defending itself without falling into legalism, and the historicity of its "divine leader" has been verified. There's a handful of other interesting things but they're better seen as "supporting evidence" than anything major.

More importantly though, it's the only religion I've found capable of putting forth serious arguments for its beliefs and the only one that I know has had a miracle verified by an independent party through a biophysicist and NASA consultant. I've been questioning it very seriously for a while now, but haven't met anybody who's been capable of either rationalizing the miracle or making a serious rebuttal to the argument.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4803937]

>>4803930
I'm gonna trip for this thread because I've been waiting for an opportunity to explain my views.
Everything you've seen so far, you've seen. Everything other people have seen so far, they've seen.
The material is a part of the immaterial, but it's also the material.

[Anonymous No.4803940]

>>4803928
That's a good question.
I'd like to believe that I would do the same thing as I'm doing now, because I think I'm a pretty good person. But if I God demanded that I participate in religious ceremonies, I probably would conform. Unless they were too extreme. for example, discrimination against homosexuals or races. If God felt that gays or blacks or whatever were an abomination and not allowed in the afterlife I would stand for equality and compassion for all, regardless of the consequences.

At least, that's what I'd like to believe.

[Anonymous No.4803942]

>>4803932
I'm sure someone on /lit/ is prepared to disprove a miracle.

[Anonymous No.4803943]

>>4803928
What bout you?

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4803945]

>>4803932
What was the Miracle, and how does a Miracle prove God?

[Anonymous No.4803948]

>>4803932
What miracle?

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4803952]

>>4803943
I know all Gods exist and don't exist at the same time and so I act accordingly.

[Anonymous No.4803954]

>>4803932
I saw zombie in NASA telescope.

[Anonymous No.4803959]

>>4803942
I'd be interested in seeing them do it, considering the empirical evidence (infrared imaging) verifies it. I haven't spoken to anyone who's been able to disprove it.

>>4803945
>>4803948
The image of "Our Lady of Guadalupe". A miracle, which is by definition an act of Divine Agency, necessarily proves that a Divine Agency exists.

[Anonymous No.4803962]

>>4803954
2/2

I pray to spooky ghost now.

[Anonymous No.4803972]

>>4803952
That's actually kind of cool. I used to, and still do to some extent, think like that. But a problem for me was when dealing with conflicting views or conflicting gods. Take Buddhism for example, some sects of Buddhism encourage a very passive and gentle way of going about life, while others advocate action and even violence in some cases. And then there's some Buddhists who recognize the Bodhisatvas and some who don't. It gets very confusing and difficult to follow.

I found difficulty dealing with all these different points of view. How do you reconcile them, or do you need to?

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4803973]

>>4803959
I'd say it proves extra-universal entities exist, but not that Yahweh is the one true God

[Anonymous No.4803974]

>>4803932
A maximally perfect, immutable god would have no wants, and would not create a universe. Doing anything, for any reason, would disprove its own maximal perfection.

It would have reached nirvana, as it were. Buddhist pantheism is the only logical conclusion from the tenets of Christianity.

[Dude Fantastic !CqTCmwPkFo No.4803979]

God, and any attributes and concepts assigned to it, are man-made semantic pieces of a large linguistic framework, that attempt to describe what it's users believe to be reality.

[Anonymous No.4803982]

i used to be able to feel god

it was present in the 'one life', but i also felt like it was omnipresent because it came with the realization that the universe is one thing. i had a feeling that it was a 'she' for some reason, maybe because it was extremely caring and comforting like a mother. i felt like she guided me and helped me, but i had to accept that she couldn't make everything perfect. this all lasted for a few weeks, and during this time i would sometimes get this intense euphoria throughout my body and mind, which would last for a few seconds. i would just close my eyes during this and start giggling out of excitement and warmth, so amazing.

[Anonymous No.4803988]

>>4803974
You're right, and God doesn't have wants. This is another reason I find Christianity the most convincing religion. Every criticism I've found of it is already dealt with in its theology. The word you're looking for here isn't "need" or "wants", but "Grace". God doesn't "need" to create the universe, and in fact the universe is contingent, not necessary. God, being the triune being and in a state of love and grace, is not alone and neither does He "need" to create the universe, or have any wants. You should read some basic theology, Aquinas deals with this. The existence of the universe is gratuitous.

>>4803973
It proves that an extra-universal entity intent on reinforcing the Christian faith exists. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and talks like a duck, there's no reason to assume it's anything other than a duck until evidence shows otherwise.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4803995]

>>4803972
>How do you reconcile them
You pick your favorite God and give your devotion to him, that's why I'm a polytheist. Conflicting Gods is what it's all about. If you choose the Norse faith you can pick Loki, Thor, Freyja, Odin, if you choose the Greek faith you can pick Chronos, Zeus, Apollo, Hercules, whatever their Freyja's called, if you like Buddhism you've got fat Buddha and skinny Buddha, if you like this universe you can pick Marx, Ghandhi, Hitler, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X. Everybody already has done this, a lot of them just haven't been as conscious of it.
>do you need to?
I believe there is only want, and no need.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4803998]

>>4803988
>an extra-universal entity intent on reinforcing the Christian faith exists
Yeah, Yahweh. But I think his Kingdom has no dueling or sex or an elk that pours beer from its antlers, and the entry requirements are much more difficult to attain than the requirements for Odin's Hall.

[Anonymous No.4804005]

bump for good discussion

[Anonymous No.4804008]

>>4803998
I'm not sure if this intended to be a rebuttal or just "my personal opinions disagree with the Christian's claim to truth, so I won't believe it." Don't worry, you don't have to believe it. I think it's interesting that Christianity makes a distinct claim to happiness, one that I don't see in even Islam (more specifically, Islam falls prey to the same problem of "eternal earthly happiness"), which is "happiness-as-state-of-being". The major criticism against Christian heaven is, of course, "wouldn't being happy all the time be boring?" But this only applies to earthly happiness. Sitting around eating grapes for eternity is boring. Even drinking beer is boring after a couple billion years. Christianity is a religion that claims a transcendental, unearthly happiness after death, not just a continuation of an earthly life. It's the summum bonum or happiness of Aristotle, with relations to eudaimonia. "One swallow does not make a spring".

Anyway, you don't have to believe it, I just think it's the most plausible and I'm open to being shown otherwise, though I haven't seen anyone capable of proving it.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804015]

>>4803982
I felt that same thing but mine was the Catholic God instead of a girl because I was raised Catholic

[Anonymous No.4804022]

God is

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804023]

>>4804008
Catholic Heaven seems to be earthly, and in my opinion Catholicism is the most sensible Christianity, but that's because I've been reading Thomas More.

And I don't really agree or disagree with your belief. I think the heaven you're talking about is out there, but I like feeling proud better than feeling happy. Since you like happiness, the God of the Christianity you like best is the right God for you. I just don't like him that much.

[Anonymous No.4804024]

>>4803959
Real, but "miracle?"

This link sums up many of the elements that would disprove the image's divine nature. And without testing by, you know, actual modern researchers (which I doubt the Archbishop of Mexico City will approve of soon) it's just an interesting work shrouded in bad history, the same as much of the gallery of Catholic saints.

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/miraculous_image_of_guadalupe/

[Anonymous No.4804038]

>>4804024
Sadly, that article is deliberately misleading and ignores the study.

>Actually, infrared photographs show that the hands have been modified, and close-up photography shows that pigment has been applied to the highlight areas of the face sufficiently heavily so as to obscure the texture of the cloth
Callahan, the biophysicist who undertook the study, the same study I mentioned above and the same study this guy is using to disprove Callahan's study (What is he thinking?), discusses this. There are some areas which have been painted over. Using infrared imaging he is able to see this, and see that the painting beneath it is unworn the same as the rest of the untouched part of the painting.

>cracking and flaking
Yes, on the later additions. Not on the original painting in either the exposed or painted-over sections (eyes, hands).

The rest of the article, while interesting, does not attempt to refute the miracle. Whether or not a peasant painted it is not a miracle (although infrared imaging by Callahan shows that that if the image was painted by a peasant, it was almost impossibly though it cannot be ruled out, painted entirely in a single brush-stroke without any undersketch or framework), the fact that it lasted 500 years without primer and without varnish or any protection of any kind is.

>by, you know, actual modern researchers
>relies on the same modern researcher who verified the miracle
Why did you do this? To be honest, as someone who is sincerely questioning the validity of religion I get kind of frustrated when people go out of their way to either not look it up or avoid actually engaging with it. I feel like you're not interested in honestly criticizing or questioning it, just reinforcing your own opinion.

Anyway, I'm heading to bed now but I'm keeping the thread up and I'll respond to anything relating to the miracle or arguments regarding Christianity tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.4804046]

god is geometry.
what is material? shapes, they are what makes up everything.
what is immaterial? perfect shapes, they will only ever be theoretical, because they are impossible.

[Anonymous No.4804052]

>>4803988
Any maximally loving entity would not need to create anything. It would just love, even if directed at nothing.

Unless love by definition is contingent on other entities existing, in which case god's triune nature is contingent on its love, and not a necessary quality. This violates god's own simplicity. Its triune nature does not imply love on the other hand. It may imply malevolence, hatred, loneliness, indifference, or any other emotion that requires another.

If a god has maximal qualities it can't be triune. Read Udyana. Basic Indian theology refutes Aquinas. Well, there is one path open to declare one god, which can love and isn't polytheism, that wasn't considered by Udyana: a self referencing god. Loving anything else would be a non perfect love and would prove god's own non perfection. Again implying the nonexistence of a universe, and only god.

So if god exists it must be the universe, and it must have no wants.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804055]

>>4804052
Does the idea of God being all-loving come from the old testament or new testament?

[Anonymous No.4804065]

>>4803995
But if anything is right, how can anything be right? How can conflicting beliefs both reach the divine?
What about atheism? Is that also a way to reach the divine?

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804073]

>>4804065
>But if anything is right, how can anything be right
Because everything is wrong.
Atheism as in "there is no immaterial" denies the divine, and says we only have our life here in this universe and then we die and that's it.
Those people are, of course, correct, and when they die, they end. But they're wrong. In my view, the Deistic god, which is this universe itself, is another god. They believe too strongly in it.

[Anonymous No.4804076]

>>4804038
First of all, what qualifications does an entomologist have to be conducting this kind of study? I'm not arguing from the link, I'm arguing purely on the basis of credentials here.
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Philip-Callahan/3380777

Second, define "lack of wear." It's apparently a hemp/linen fabric, and it appears rather worn to my untrained eye. What would give it more wear than, say, the Mona Lisa? Why hasn't an art historian been allowed to research this?

Whether or not it was painted by a peasant is absolutely relevant; it's a key issue in the miraculousness surrounding the image's holiness. You can't pick and choose sections of the miracle without discounting the entire thing. Did Juan Diego encounter the radiant Virgin Mary on a Mexican hilltop, or didn't he?

The lasting 500 years, again, is an interesting piece, but is an entomologist with a microscope qualified to answer that? Where is it alleged that there's no primer or varnish? (I suppose there wouldn't be, but again, I suspect both of our backgrounds in materials science are too lacking to say one way or the other).

I am honestly criticizing and questioning. I'm not going meet you halfway when I see a crock like this. This has the 16th century Catholic church's hands all over it, and it's going to take a lot more than a meagerly-researched 500-year-old hemp sheet of questionable provenance to validate the Christian God in favor of anything else.

Sidenote: What do you think of other, similar miracles? Wishful thinking?

[Anonymous No.4804078]

>>4804073
That view emerges from parsimony. If they worship something, its that.

[Anonymous No.4804084]

>>4803979
This. The map is not the territory.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804087]

>>4804084
It is in this game

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804091]

>>4804078
Yeah, Occam's Razor is their FAV, if they know about it.
I think it's a VERY good way to describe this universe, and that you shouldn't reject science when it comes to figuring this place out.

[Anonymous No.4804126]

God is a meaningless concept that is used by retards to explain how the universe came to be.

It's an option people resort to when they don't how something happened or started.

God of the gaps

"you can't explain how the pyramids were built;therefore, god did it durka durrrrr"

[Anonymous No.4804128]

>>4804126

don't know how*

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804132]

>>4804126
Pretty much

[Anonymous No.4804133]

you know all that dark matter/dark energy people like to talk out of their ass about? That's God

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804136]

>>4804133
No it's not, it's just that relativity is an incomplete theory and we need better equipment to test the new theories.

[Anonymous No.4804140]

>>4804136
>relativity is an incomplete theory
i'd like an explanation

[Anonymous No.4804149]

One of the most striking images of God as revealed to Moses was that which could burn without being consumed. No one could understand except by seeing the sight.
To me, being not fortunate enough to be born Moses or even a minor prophet, God is us, all of us, in all of us. My inability to define boundaries here is personal, not divine. Those who understand divinity are qualified to teach of it; the limits of humanity push the limits of understanding.

[Anonymous No.4804150]

>>4804133
>you know all that dark matter/dark energy people like to talk out of their ass about? That's God
>>4804140
>i'd like an explanation

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804151]

>>4804140
Relativity doesn't give any explanation as to what dark matter is, for example. There are a few competing theories who hope to explain some of the things relativity doesn't, one of them is that Dark Matter is God.

You're one of the "idiots" the other guy was talking about who believes the option that everything he doesn't understand was put there by God, except that now we have a big bang and so God "can't have" created the Universe itself, so for you to believe in God you need to believe he is Dark Matter.

The "problem" with both you and the other guy is that you seem to feel "God" has to "make sense"

[Anonymous No.4804159]

>>4804151
>God "can't have" created the Universe
that's not true
>we have a big bang
one theory of the "creation" of the universe
relativity isn't incomplete because it can't explain dark matter. relativity explains how gravity works basically. it would be incomplete if it couldn't explain something like gravitational lensing

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804162]

>>4804159
>that's not true
That's why I used quotes.
>other stuff
There's more to the universe than gravity, gravity itself doesn't explain everything

[Anonymous No.4804163]

>>4803877
Fuck off shitposter and all the shitposters who encourage shitposting. Take it elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.4804168]

>>4804162
>gravity itself doesn't explain everything
neither does electromagnetism or QM or MHD. they're not incomplete, they just do the task of explaining certain phenomena, just as relativity does its job at explaining certain phenomena. its not that we need a new theory to explain dark matter, we need to know what it even is first before we can describe it. gravity doesn't fall short because it can't explain something outside of the bounds of human knowledge

[Anonymous No.4804169]

>>4804151
How are they going to prove that Dark Matter is God?

I believe God is the endpoint or destination of Humanity. Either we ascend to godhood and become a part of it.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804180]

>>4804168
>outside of the bounds of human knowledge
As of now.
>>4804169
>How are they going to prove that Dark Matter is God?
They're not
>>4804163
gb2 stormfront

[Anonymous No.4804182]

>>4804180
>>outside of the bounds of human knowledge
>As of now.
yes and once we know what it is, we will either be able to describe it/ its not like relativity not being able to describe it is an inherent flaw in the theory. either way, it could or could not be God or the presence of heaven. we can tell it's there but it doesn't really interact with anything

[Anonymous No.4804186]

>>4804180
>How are they going to prove that Dark Matter is God?
>They're not

Then what is the point of saying that in the first place? You can't label whatever you don't know as God.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804187]

>>4804182
>it doesn't really interact with anything
It's used to describe a whole bunch of material we can't sense but that we're pretty sure is there because otherwise relativity says the universe should explode or implode or turn to cunts or something.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804188]

>>4804186
>You can't label whatever you don't know as God.
Why not?

[Anonymous No.4804195]

>>4804187
we can infer the presence of whatever dark matter is similarly to how we can tell black holes exist. the only extra limiting factor with dark matter is that it doesn't emit any blackbody radiation like black holes do

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804196]

>>4804195
Haven't we seen black holes in telescopes?

[Anonymous No.4804202]

>>4804196
we can see signs that they exist like gravitational lensing and stars and other masses revolving around them, but we cant actually see them. no light can escape a black hole up to a certain distance away so inside that distance is only black, we can't see inside

[Anonymous No.4804203]

Christianity as Jesus intended: Judaism without all the laws and rituals, just the message.

Christianity as it ended up thanks to Paul: Judaism lite.

[Anonymous No.4804210]

>>4804188
Because you already admitted you don't know what it is. It's self refuting.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804211]

>>4804202
>we only see black
That's the black hole!

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804213]

>>4804210
How?

[Anonymous No.4804216]

It varies between torturous bastards, amorphous blob, and someone I beg to let my loved ones be.

[Anonymous No.4804217]

>>4804213
How what?

[Anonymous No.4804218]

"God" is a synonym for non-existence.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804220]

>>4804217
How is calling dark matter God self-refuting?

[Anonymous No.4804221]

>>4804211
>That's the black hole!
no we only see black because the black hole pulls all the surrounding light towards it, so none of the light that would carry the information on how the black hole looks ever reaches your eyes.

>Because you already admitted you don't know what it is
we didn't know what radiation was at one point, someone could have made a claim that it was God, but now we know that it isn't. just because you don't know what something is doesn't mean you can't make a prediction as to what it is. that's basically how all scientific discoveries work

[Anonymous No.4804223]

>>4804221
obviously ment to quote >>4804210 for the second part

[Anonymous No.4804225]

>>4804216
Oh, and I look on the bible as a profound piece of emotional manipulation, so far ahead of me that it is at least an intellectual god, but again, torturous.

[Anonymous No.4804226]

>>4804221
>implying radiation isn't God
And so you're saying the black hole's actually a bit smaller and what we're seeing is the event horizon around the black hole?

[Anonymous No.4804228]

>>4804226
basically

[Anonymous No.4804230]

>>4804188
Wow. I mean ... I am just ... Wow. Holy fucking shit. Someone had the balls and the lack of brains to ask me that question?

Tripfag, I don't know how to say this but ... read a non-fiction book. Read about a book about things work whether it is the universe, human body or ants. Just fucking anything. See how the finite capacity of the human mind is able to comprehend, catalog and communicate all these ideas and information to you. Sure you can claim that God created all of that, but is God in all of this?
Your attitude of labeling the unknown as God is stifling. If everyone thought like that we wouldn't even know about Dark Matter or black holes or internet (at least I would be spared from such a disgusting question). Ignorance and more importantly the desire to be or stay ignorant is self-defeating and more importantly, isn't human.

Unless of coz you are saying your religious view advocates this then holy shit my view on Christians degrades even further

Why don't you refer to any technology that you don't fully understand as god?

[Anonymous No.4804231]

>>4804230
he's not saying it is God, just that there is nothing wrong with hypothesizing that it could be God.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804232]

>>4804226
forgot my trip
>>4804228
So a black hole is a sun mad out of rocks?

[Anonymous No.4804234]

>>4804225
Nobody else gets this?

[Anonymous No.4804239]

>>4804231
I read it as him asking me why can't we label whatever we don't know as god. Even then how are they going to prove it? Otherwise such a hypothesis is self indulgent, pointless and useless

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804249]

>>4804230
I'm not a Christian, and I really only read non-fiction books because if I want fiction I can play video games, watch plays, act in plays, sing songs, read poetry or fantasize about shit myself.

[Anonymous No.4804256]

The question what God/god can be answered in several different categories.

Does he exist? Ontologically, no. Definately no, he is an invention of men, an illusion radiating value onto the world, humankind's most childish and most necessary idea.

But, aesthetically, he does exist. He is part of a bigger whole, he can be atleast, part of how we perceive the world. He is an idea in every head, and an important angle point in many structures - but individually for everyone, and everytime even.

I am sorry if I was confusingly vague here, but grasping God in written text is pretty tough, even though I know exactly what I wish to express in my head.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804257]

>>4804231
No, I was asking why radiation isn't God.
>>4804234
I think I get it. You see god as the universe, and see the universe as a bunch of pricks and nonsense and you just want them to leave you and your friends and family alone, and see the bible as one extension of the bunch of pricks.

Is that something close to true?

[Anonymous No.4804258]

how do you personally define 'god'?

also, what the fuck is wrong with people who think god has to be a person?

[Anonymous No.4804260]

>>4804257
>No, I was asking why radiation isn't God
we know what radiation is

[Anonymous No.4804261]

>>4804258
>also, what the fuck is wrong with people who think god has to be a person?
They were raised in the judo-christian occident and haven't broken out of seemingly given paterns (yet).

[Anonymous No.4804263]

Fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804267]

>>4804260
Yeah, it's God. Literally the Judeo-Christian God. Radiation is YWYH.

[Anonymous No.4804274]

>>4804263
fuck off
everybody should have a god, whether it be earth, humanity, the christian god, a fucking bowl of cereal i dont give a shit
you don't even have to label it as god, just recognize something as important and show it respect

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804277]

>>4804263
It's okay to admit you're scared of the dark, m8. There are serial killers, rapists, wolves, ghosts, monsters, perverts, robbers, thugs and...

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804279]

>>4804274
>showing God "respect" ('healthy' fear)
But then he can tell you what to do

[Anonymous No.4804281]

>>4804274
Why?

[Anonymous No.4804285]

>>4804281
Human society wouldn't work without some form of god.

So I have to correct that anon. It's not "Everybody should have...", but "For human society to work it is necessary for every human to have..."

"You should" does not exist.

[Anonymous No.4804287]

>>4804285
Why?

[Anonymous No.4804289]

>>4804274
Sir, I'm too brave and rational to be bullied by the likes of you.

[Anonymous No.4804293]

>>4804287
Because human society has to be held together by something to work, otherwise it'd break apart.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804298]

>>4804289
>rational
>brave
literally LMAO'ing over here, m8

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804301]

>>4804293
And that's why we need to kill God

[Anonymous No.4804304]

>>4804301
God died quite a while ago, but people haven't truely noticed yet, they likely never will.

Eh, away with the Nietzsche rehashing. What do you mean? Why would a dead God be good for anyone except some individua?

[Anonymous No.4804305]

>>4804293
Are you defining 'god' as whatever fits that role? Because that's what it seems like and that seems pretty circular.

[Anonymous No.4804312]

>>4804257
>Is that something close to true?

Haha, that's not far wrong, but I also maintain a very... shall we say, grounded take on things. It's actually more that the bible is such a profound piece of manipulation, and one which I can explain more and more as the days pass, but that the very fact that it unfolds like that is nothing short of eerie. I mean, it's probably the book I learn the most from each day, with which I most reconcile my experiences, and it's just frightening, I guess. It's certainly understandable why so many people turn to Christianity on their deathbeds anyway. There's a sinister grinning to it, a power over you throughout your aging, and that certainly makes for some considerable existential turmoil. God of Power and Might, eh? He's a bastard, should he exist.

[Anonymous No.4804320]

>>4804305
God is the transcendental. That would be my concise attempt of defining god.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4804329]

>>4804312
Power and Might IS a bastard! What the fuck kind of leftist are you?
>>4804320
>transcendental
That mean the crap that doesn't exist, right?

[Anonymous No.4804333]

>>4804329
>That mean the crap that doesn't exist, right?
Yes. That what doesn't exist but needs to exist.

[Anonymous No.4804335]

>>4804312
I mean, I'm a deistic sort of guy at the best of times, I have all sorts of lovely dreams and all that, but they just keep harking back to Christianity, because I'm only human, because I slip up and Christianity is always there to catch me. It is so far ahead of me, it's just frightening. It's O'Brien in 1984, that dastardly bastard who knows what Winston will say and do before he says or does it, and I am forced to persevere through that. It's just... frightening.

[Anonymous No.4804339]

when we die we move to the fifth dimension

?

[Anonymous No.4804342]

>>4804329
Haha, I'm leftist as fuck. Communist utopia here I come.

[Anonymous No.4804344]

>>4804339
We already are five-dimensional beings, or atleast their shadows on a four-dimensional plain.

[Anonymous No.4804350]

op here and i just gotta say, i moved to /lit/ from /mu/ and the discussion here is so substantial and fascinating
thank you guys, for aiding my awakening. it's so beautiful, it's like i haven't been paying attention to anything my whole life

[Anonymous No.4804362]

>>4804344
true, what i meant to say is that we transcend our current dimensional perception and we are then able to perceive higher dimensions
jeez, i hope so. imagine perceiving a whole new dimension for the first time

[Anonymous No.4804364]

>>4804350
Is that tongue in cheek? /lit/ is an intellectual bonfire.

[Anonymous No.4804367]

>>4804362
>imagine perceiving a whole new dimension for the first time
That would be hella sweet.

[IndianSurgeonFag !N6fnS3FLPA No.4804389]

I doubt everything, even my own doubt. Its quite crippling when it comes to metaphysic belief. The structuring of even the most simple systems of logic on which the basis of "truth" is founded still carry the burden of some small concept, some aposteriori claim has to be overseen and thought of as apriori. Some precept ALWAYS needs to be accepted as "truth" for other "truths" to be built upon it, and this doesnt sit well with me. But then I'm no academic, and I'm just talking out of my ass.

[Anonymous No.4804465]

Excuses for the irresponsible.

[Anonymous No.4804472]

An expression of yourself.

[Anonymous No.4805301]

>>4804076
>Second, define "lack of wear."
The fabric it's made out of decays entirely after 15-20 years. It's been about 500 years.

>Whether or not it was painted by a peasant is absolutely relevant
You're right, and it's also not verifiable. When determining whether this is a miracle or not, I want to stick to things which are verifiable and important. The miracle here isn't that a peasant called Juan Diego was born, but that an image appeared or was painted onto a cloak and despite lack of any natural protection, never decayed or wore down. The evidence we have for his existence was verified, as close as it's going to get, by the discovery of a codex written in his lifetime by several reliable people who discussed being shown the image by him.

>Why hasn't an art historian been allowed to research this?
It was researched by a professional art restorer, I'm guessing you meant that instead of an art historian, who isn't trained in studying the decay or wear of a painting or how it could be (or seeing if it has been) prevented from wearing.

I don't know why you keep bringing up that he's an entomologist now when it says right on that page that he was a biophysicist. He specializes in infrared imaging, which is what he used to study the image. He was not just sitting around with a microscope.

>Where is it alleged that there's no primer or varnish?
In Callahan's study, after physically holding and examining the image, and then studying it using infrared imaging.

>What do you think of other, similar miracles?
There might be other interesting miracles, but this is the one that's been verified by a professional and a scientist which presents the strongest evidence and possibility and seems the most worth looking into. I think that if miracles do exist, there has only been a handful of them besides the claims towards certain miracles such as Baptism and Eucharist.

[Anonymous No.4805321]

>>4803932
>historicity of its "divine leader"
When? Where?

[Anonymous No.4805329]

>>4804052
>It would just love, even if directed at nothing.
The love is directed towards the Trinity. The love of God for Man is not a need or even the result of something lacking in itself, but is best described, as Aquinas said, as the love of Friendship. It doesn't "need" to be shared, but those engaged in it share in it for the sake of love and friendship. Saying that God created Man denies that he is perfect or loving in himself is similar to saying that you getting a new friend means you didn't love the friend you had before.

>If a god has maximal qualities it can't be triune.
>Basic Indian theology refutes Aquinas.
Basic Greek metaphysics refutes Indian theology, well not literally but it does refute and clear up this claim and sounds more clever this way. The term you're looking for here is "hypostasis".

[Anonymous No.4805452]

superstition.

[Anonymous No.4805459]

>>4803940
You would go against God?
He made the inferior for a reason

[Anonymous No.4805475]

>>4803940
>If God didn't believe all races were equal, I would defy him
>the races he made
>and therefore would know who was inferior or superior

[Anonymous No.4805517]

>>4803932
please please please give sauce on the miracle

[Anonymous No.4805593]

>>4805517
oh hey i actually read the thread nevermind

[Anonymous No.4805594]

God is totally abstract and simply IS much like life. I think God is a positive force like love or anything that brings people together in a good way.

I consider how some animals are partly color blind. for example just because they don't see purple doesn't mean it's not there. Of course a legit argument is just because you're not just what's there doesn't mean it's God. But to me God is that thing that even if you discovered this "thing" there in your own way it is a thing that would always create two more questions for every 1 answer you unraveled. something about the paradoxical nature of the human mind. this is where God dwells. It's the ultimate truth but we can't handle it. We're like dogs, but higher up on the spiritual food chain. We can understand some shit but not all shit because our brains weren't designed for it. People will probably hate me for this answer. I think we should always push boundaries when possible and when reasonable. :)

[Anonymous No.4805628]

>>4803982
is this a metaphor for falling in love? Sufi's have this form of connecting and experiencing the divine love of god "ishq" if im not wrong. They feel the warmth of god in ecstatic meditation

[Anonymous No.4805669]

>>4803982
>>4804015
>tfw no diety gf

feels acedia, man

[Anonymous No.4805679]

>>4804046
>what if plato had autism

[Anonymous No.4805682]

>>4804055
New Testament, from my impressions. Before then he seems wrathful & violent as heck.

[Anonymous No.4805702]

>>4804203
wtf? where's the neighborly love in judaism?

[Anonymous No.4805717]

>>4804312
>eh?
euphoria

[Anonymous No.4805724]

God's what we can't understand

[Zed !ZF41dz6F/Y No.4805747]

>>4803877
To me, god(s) are just things that simpletons or desperate or crazy people think or talk about.

It's just not a concept that is relevant or significant to me personally. Honestly, the only time the concept of "god(s)" becomes significant is when I have to deal with the bad decisions or poor behavior that someone ELSE'S belief in god(s) created.

It's seldom ever anything but a nuisance.

[Anonymous No.4805771]

>>4805702

Rabbi Hillel came up with the Golden Rule before Jesus did

[Anonymous No.4805774]

>>4805682
The Old Testament is an account of a Fallen World, and the preparation of it for Grace.

More directly, if you read the OT the Jews are right bastards and God isn't really a dick.

>saves Jews from their enemies
>"lol fuck off God"

>personally interacts with them and guides them
>"we want a king just like all those other people have, fuck you"

>feeds them literal Manna from Heaven while they wander the desert
>"fuck off we want to eat quails"

>Moses leaves for a few days to pick up some stone tablets, tells Jews all they have to do is chill and herd their cattle or some shit, not hard
>comes back and Jews are worshiping a golden calf

>brings Jews into the promised land and protects them
>"fuck off God we're sacrificing our kids to Moloch and burning them alive, deal w/ it"
>God smites them or lets their enemies attack some of them
>inevitably forgives them every time anyway and saves them again
fucking jews mang, why couldn't they just stop sacrificing their kids?

[Anonymous No.4805820]

>>4805774
This is going to sound a little nutty, but does anyone have that chart that shows how so many modern, prominent atheists are of Jewish descent?

/pol/ likes to use it to prove that atheism is a Jewish conspiracy, but I wonder if the need to challenge God, even to the point of not believing in him, isn't just part of the Jewish cultural character. It certainly fits in line with the way they act in the OT. "A stiff-necked people," and all that.

[Anonymous No.4805888]

>>4805820
Ha ha, that would be funny if it could be proven true. All accusations of anti-semitism could kindly refer to their own holy text.

[Anonymous No.4805897]

>>4805888
*accusers

[Anonymous No.4806138]

bump

[Anonymous No.4807987]

>>4805771

Albeit with selective application to goyim, and none to Samaritans.

[Anonymous No.4808198]

bump

[Anonymous No.4808225]

>>4803925
That is not one of the biggest questions we can ask and it is certainly not the best we can do.

The idea of god is simply entrusted upon us at an early age. One would likely reflect upon higher "powers" at some point in their lives but I don't think they'll lead to an idea of a god in most cases.

[Anonymous No.4808229]

That other guy's imaginary friend/hallucination/delusion.

[Anonymous No.4808248]

>>4804285
Also anon is implying that everyone in "our human society" has a god to which he/she recognizes and respects.

First of all, a large part of the "human society" does not follow the belief of the existence of any god and functions perfectly, and I might add that in most cases, better than the opposing party.

Second, you're fiddling too much with the word god. "Recognizing something as important and showing it respect" could apply to a very broad range of objects and/or "abstract figures". I for one follow my conscious. Can I really exclude "myself" and "my conscious". I don't know.

[Anonymous No.4808283]

>>4808248
>a large part of the "human society" does not follow the belief of the existence of any god
Factually wrong, bro. Everywhere outside of China atheism is the minority, and even there studies show that religious belief is increasing.

6% of people in the US are atheist, and the highest percentage in South America is Uruguay's 17%, and 80% of the European Union countries believe in God or have spiritual beliefs.

The societies where a majority of it are atheist are not functioning well today, although not because of atheism, so this is a bit of an embarrassing claim unless you're big on Maoism and Stalinism I guess.

[Anonymous No.4808350]

>>4808283
You're including people who explicitly reject any type of god you fucking idiot.

Not Atheism != Believe in God

[Anonymous No.4808365]

>>4808283
If I asked you if you believed in Huehueteotl, the Mesoamerican deity, you would probably say no. You are an atheist in regard to that God and thousands of others. With this new insight we can conclude that 99.99% of the world are atheists, only some have their own personal sky wizard who reads their thoughts.

[Anonymous No.4808433]

>>4808365
An atheist does not believe in any God, someone who does not believe in a particular God is not an atheist. Please, do not abuse definitions in the future, it's very annoying and does not further any useful discussion. If you want to play word games, pick up a crossword puzzle.

[Anonymous No.4808669]

>>4808248
Every system of values is in some way transcendental, and the transcendental is god. You either believe in god in one way or the other, or you are a nihilist.

[Anonymous No.4810204]

>>4804126
>"you can't explain how the pyramids were built;therefore, god did it durka durrrrr"
never in my life have I heard this and I'm almost positive you're a troll