[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 3.75 MB, 4947x3629, 1421118212276.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7204056 No.7204056[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>Not being religious
>Not realizing that an omnipotent being could will itself out of nonexistence
What made you become religious?

>> No.7204059

>Not realizing that an omnipotent being could will itself out of nonexistence

If that's what you believe, don't you mean: >not being a sophist

>> No.7204062

>>Not realizing that I can just make shit up out of thin air

fify

>> No.7204078

>>7204056
>heightism
>uglism
>making fun of mental retardation

I forgot about that chapter in Matthew where Jesus and his disciples mock a neckbeard

>> No.7204082

>>7204078
I forgot about the part in my post where I said I'm Christian

>> No.7204092

>>7204082

You're a retard, that's all that matters

>> No.7204094

>>7204092
You sure told me. You'll find the right path when you grow up, kid.

>> No.7204098

>>7204094

The right path of making shit up and pretending it's true, even when nothing suggests it is?

>> No.7204108

>>7204098
It's true by the definition of omnipotent.
An omnipotent being can do anything.
Willing yourself out of nonexistence is something.
An omnipotent being can will itself out of nonexistence.

>> No.7204115

>>7204108

Then proving it in the real world should be no problem.

Unless, of course, this is a completely conceptual scenario, where you made up the rules to fit a preconceived conclusion and you have completely missed the part where all of this is assessed by your fallible brain, which doesn't know everything and is often wrong, but you wouldn't be that stupid, would you?

>> No.7204121

What I always wonder is, did the people who used to be internet atheists switch to being internet religious when it became the in thing to do, or is it just a new generation of the same sort of people?

And if it's the former, how do you make that sort of switch? I can't really comprehend how you could sincerely swap belief for non-belief (or the other way around) rather than it just being a lifestyle choice.

>> No.7204128
File: 3 KB, 119x125, 1418766433225s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7204128

>>7204056
>giving a damn what other people believe

>> No.7204130

>>7204098
No, because by definition God's omnipotence only extends to the non-contradictory. An omnipotent being rendering itself nonexistent is basically dividing by zero. God can't make a "square circle" either, but that doesn't contradict omnipotence (as it has been understood by every theologian of every religion ever).

>> No.7204139

>>7204121

did the people who used to be internet atheists switch to being internet religious when it became the in thing to do

This one. These type of people simply have absolutely no spine and don't want to stand for something that might actually be any kind of risk or require any kind of dedication. Because of this, they just jump on whatever bandwagon happens to be popular at the moment. The fact that it's the traditional and religious values bandwagon they've jumped on is extra ironic, considering that this avoiding risk by any means necessary is very much a modern behavior.

Basically, the New Religious and New Traditionalists are the Manchester City and Chelsea fans of contemplation. You need not spend much attention to them, as they will probably abandon this bandwagon when its popularity fades. I expect these people to be hardcore Taoists or hardcore Buddhists in about 5 years

>> No.7204146

>>7204139
Heh, I was actually thinking of football club loyalty when I posted.

>> No.7204147

My dad was became an internet atheist before the Internet existed at age 13, converted my mom, and then when raising me never uttered a religious sentiment. I don't think I had the word God said in my presence until I was 8, and didn't realise religious people existed until a couple years later.

>> No.7204150

>>7204130
>No, because by definition God's omnipotence only extends to the non-contradictory

Yes, and this is assessed by your flawed brain, and therefore needs to be tested in the real world before any level of truth can be attached to it

>> No.7204152
File: 17 KB, 187x178, 1443483899560.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7204152

Being Christian is the new edgy ideology

>> No.7204154

>>7204150
What you just said is meaningless. How exactly does one "test" God's omnipotence in the "real world"?

>> No.7204158

>>7204147
I was raised by hardcore atheists.

I used to have to sit in a room with the Jehovah's Witnesses when we had any sort of religious stuff going on at school. So then those guys became my friends, which probably wasn't exactly what my parents had intended.

>> No.7204160

>>7204121
OP here. I'm still not religious, but I think this is a fun thing to think about.

>> No.7204161

>>7204154

You tell me, you're the one making these claims about an entity you describe as real, and therefore part of reality. That means you have to demonstrate them

>> No.7204164

>>7204160
I just shoehorned that reply into your thread since it was vaguely related, it wasn't aimed at you specifically.

>> No.7204169

>>7204108
If you say so anselm

>> No.7204190

>>7204056
>What made you become religious?
The anti-atheist propaganda.

>> No.7204222

>>7204056
Those are pretty cool socks imo

>> No.7204244

>>7204108
Willing yourself out of non-existence is not a thing.

It's a non-thing.

Power cannot, and does not, accomplish non-things.

>> No.7204245

>>7204139

Christians came to 4chan and changed it.

Deal with it.

>>7204152
It's the only hope for mankind.

>> No.7204248

>>7204161
You pray for, and receive, miracles.

That you have witnessed no miracles is hardly surprising, as they are few and far between, and you are not everywhere.

And of course you don't know how to pray for them, and receive them.

Truly it is said that only an evil and wicked generation demands signs and wonders, and truly that generation, your generation, will be deceived by counterfeit signs and wonders.

>> No.7204250

There are few things more irritating than people who claim to be religious trying to make logical arguments for the existence of God.

>> No.7204259

>>7204150
>the real world
dear me

>> No.7204260

>>7204250
Sure there is.

People who throw out all the evidence for God and then state that there is no evidence.

The entire universe is evidence of God; the heavens declare His glory, and the earth shows His handiwork.

You throw it all out, the entire universe, you included, and say there is no evidence of God.

That's far more irritating.

>> No.7204265
File: 44 KB, 500x500, atheists getting railed tbh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7204265

>>7204260
Atheists on suicide watch

>> No.7204273

>>7204260
I didn't say there are no more irritating things, just few more.

Perhaps that's one of them, I dunno, I can't be bothered to reverse engineer your post to discover what you assumed my position was.

>> No.7204279

>>7204265
>implying that using facts and proof as a basis for what you believe in is somehow inferior to believing what an ancient book states

>> No.7204289

>>7204279
My pic covers how your facts are not "facts" but assumptions based on your belief system. You simply think that they're facts. Also whether or not you agree with something has nothing to do with whether that thing can be considered proof.

>> No.7204290

Calvinism swayed me. Calvin's theology concerning the Cross of Christ is what keeps me a Christian.

>> No.7204305

>>7204279
>Implying all religious understanding is derived from a text and not a priori fact and/or empirical means.
Read up champ

>> No.7204308

>>7204289
>>7204305
The bible is just as much proof that god exists as comic books are proof that super heroes exist.

>> No.7204313

There are over 5,000 gods you could choose to worship, but sure, the one that you believe in is the real one.

Keep telling yourself that.

>> No.7204322

>>7204308
This must be bait. Did you read my post?

>> No.7204324

>>7204265
>study religion

All religions or just one specific one?

>> No.7204325

>>7204322
Yes, I read it. It was bullshit. Name a single modern christian who doesn't base their faith off of the bible and what is written in it.

>> No.7204326

>>7204313
> Implying we're not simply viewing the same god under different lenses

>> No.7204327

>>7204322
>Implying he wants to see the truth

>> No.7204329

>>7204324
Well atheists don't really "study religion" as much as they read what other atheists have written about religion

>> No.7204330

>>7204326
>implying that god would tell people of different relgions to kill those who worship people of other religions despite them worshipping the same god

Kek

>> No.7204331

>>7204325
Swinburne. Plantinga. Do you study philosophy?

>> No.7204332

>>7204329
Sure, I was thinking if you applied the logic without the assumption.

Just wondering how it works then.

>> No.7204336

>>7204313
A God is not something merely objective that exists as a mere 'beyond' of consciousness. Religious representational thought might give you that impression, but the speculative activity of a spiritual community is still very important to consider, as the metaphysical creativity of men made explicit. As a modern intellectual I guess you should at least be aware that.

>> No.7204339

>>7204331
>oh look, a few popular philosophers say that god exists, so we should believe them

>>7204336
>merely objective
>implying objectivity is not absolute

>> No.7204340

>>7204330
So an impersonal and transcendent God is off the cards then? Moreover, those who claim to be hearing God's commands, may simply be making them up to further their own agenda's, not hearing God's commands.

>> No.7204345

>>7204339
>Asks for a SINGLE modern Christian who doesn't base their faith off of the bible, etc
>Gets 2
>Th-th-that's not enough
Don't hurt yourself hauling those goalposts around all day

>> No.7204350

>>7204345
Forgive my ignorance but how can you be a Christian if you don't base your faith off of the bible?

>> No.7204352

>>7204345
Where did these two people learn about christianity? Where did all of this start? Oh, that's right, with the bible.

>> No.7204353

I, for one, have never felt any need for religion. It causes more war and conflict than any other subject, regardless of the fact that no religion has PROOF that their god is the one that's real. We'd be better off as a species if everyone were atheist, and no, before anyone tries to say otherwise, atheism is not a religion. Not participating in sports is not a sport.

>> No.7204358

>>7204350
>>7204352
These are stupid questions. Just because you get an idea from a book does not mean you base your faith in the idea in that book.

>> No.7204359

>>7204350
>>7204352
Is this about Christianity or about the existence of God friends?
Don't get mad at Christianity just because your parents dragged you to church every Sunday.

>> No.7204365

>>7204352
Most people learn about religion before they learn to read. Religion is a meme and the bible or other holy books aren't essential to the meme. I know more than I want about mlp and i've never seen the show.

>> No.7204366
File: 86 KB, 425x480, bath sats.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7204366

>>7204358
>Jesus Christ is the son of God the father and died by Crucifixion, descended into hell and arose again on the third day to deliver us from the sin we share with the first two humans, Adam and Eve.
>I figured all this out on my own by observing creation, not by reading the Bible.

>> No.7204367

>>7204353
False analogy m8. Not participating is agnosticism.

>> No.7204371

>>7204358
>>7204359
Whoa, >>7204350 here. What the hell, I thought that was a reasonable question.

I'm not trying to entrap you with some retarded argument I was just curious.

>> No.7204376
File: 53 KB, 500x372, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7204376

>>7204082
>religious
>not a major religion

*tips fedora twice*

>> No.7204379

>>7204366
> Thinking intelligent people read the bible literally.
> Implying your comment has any bearing on the importance of religion and the existence of God

>> No.7204383

Hey OP :) great literature related thread XDDDDD Keep on rockin :D

>> No.7204384

>>7204358
kek

>>7204359
It's about the existence of god, just using Christianity as an example since it's the most popular religion.

>>7204365
Whether you can read or not is not relevant, what matters is where the information came from.

>>7204367
Sorry. Thanks for the correction, friend.

>>7204379
>I don't take the bible literally so I'm not basing my beliefs on the bible!

KEK

>> No.7204385

>>7204371
Sorry man. Scripture of course is no fit justification for religiosity. They're great stories tho

>> No.7204389
File: 1.09 MB, 1770x1418, phoenix rising.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7204389

>>7204379
I was addressing someone saying that Christian beliefs are not based on the Bible, which is an odd thing to say when literal belief of the gospels is the defining trait of Christianity.

>the importance of religion
I hate this meme. Atheistic psychologists could formulate a more useful religion than any currently in existence, particularly the Abrahamic ones. If you think it's important to use humanity's tendency to reach for an intangible higher power, then the new agers are doing so far more effectively than any mainline religion.

>> No.7204396

The bible is wrong and attempt to justify what it says stems from the rise of rationalism and empiricism in the 17th century and theists trying to find means to justify their beliefs in the face of the facts presented.

>> No.7204401

>>7204389
>Atheistic psychologists could formulate a more useful religion than any currently in existence, particularly the Abrahamic ones.
Literally Nietzsche. That's verbatim his project

>> No.7204410

>>7204401
Good for him, then. I haven't read him much but that's basically my takeaway from studying cognitive and brain science in college.

>> No.7204551

>>7204056
Taking a 200 level course in Logic at 10 am and a 200 level course in the Philosophy of Science at 11:30 am, then a mandatory Catholic Theology 105 course at 2 pm.
The Jesuit teaching why God must exist followed the rules of logic; the PhD in History didn't when he explained why religion is silly.
When the priest explained that the Catholic Church states something like "anyone who states that a person cannot deduce the existence of God through reason alone is anathema" the afternoon after the Philo of Science prof said 'religion is the enemy of reason and logic' made me ask a lot more questions.
In the end, I agreed with the Catholic Church: any reasonable person being honest must conclude that God exists.
I don't say "I believe in God"; I say "I know God exists".

>> No.7204559

>>7204108
An omnipotent being can do anything that is logically consistent.

>> No.7204562
File: 80 KB, 558x669, 4428876638252794864.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7204562

>>7204551

>> No.7204580

>>7204562
Oh, I was hoping for something a little better than that from you, sir. A man of your education.

>> No.7204607

>>7204580

Okay then, the logical models of reality you present as 'proof' for God are just that, models. They are by their very nature simplifications of reality, the entirety of which isn't available to us. Therefore, you can't just simply say that anything that is 'inescapably' deduced from them must by default be true, because it's still based on premises, which can be incomplete and flawed, since these are are formulated by humans, who make mistakes, have biases, etc.

I find this new religious idea that deductive reasoning is some kind of magical wand from which perfect and eternal truths can be deduced somewhat strange, since this very same project was abandoned by philosophers about a century ago

>> No.7204621

>>7204607
You're literally saying "Science can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore he must exist!"

Indeed, to say that science is incomplete and flawed is also to say that religion, even human faith, is incomplete and flawed.

>> No.7204629

>>7204607
>I find this new religious idea that deductive reasoning is some kind of magical wand from which perfect and eternal truths can be deduced somewhat strange
Out of order, because it is funny.
Deductive reasoning has been a cornerstone of Judeo-Christian theology for about 3,000 years *or more*. I suppose you could call that a 'new idea', but I suspect the justification would also be hilarious.
>the logical models of reality you present as 'proof' for God are just that, models.
Yes, yes, and since all of reality is filtered through the senses then we can never be sure that we are actually perceiving reality in any truly meaningful way; you can't actually prove Other Minds exist; etc., etc., etc.
Of course, in the meantime deductive reasoning still produces empirical results, is the basis of quite a bit of your life, and is consistent, isn't it? And your statement
> this very same project [the use of deductive reasoning] was abandoned by philosophers
about a century ago
is over broad - many philosophers never abandoned the use of reason and logic.
Further, I have no idea what the picture posted has to do with a quasi-philosophical objection tot he use of reason to deduce what is true and false.
I remain disappointed in you.

>> No.7204634

>>7204108
Something that does not exist cannot be omnipotent nor can it will. Retard.
Also, this isn't a proof of god or nothing because you have yet to describe how omnipotence can be a thing.

>> No.7204637

>>7204621
That strawman...

>> No.7204640

>>7204629
"Deductive reasoning has been a cornerstone of Judeo-Christian theology for about 3,000 years *or more*."
b8 served, lads and gents

>> No.7204641

>>7204121
>What I always wonder is, did the people who used to be internet atheists switch to being internet religious when it became the in thing to do, or is it just a new generation of the same sort of people?

There are still a lot of atheists, it has just become uncool to argue about it because of fedora memes and atheists generally not wanting to be "like those annoying atheists". At the same time Christposters have started to feel more confident about their own shitposting. There are some converts, but mostly it's just that there have always been obnoxious people on both sides, and the main thing changing is the popular intellectual fashion which makes then feel comfortable or uncomfortable about their conviction.

I really don't think Christianity is trendy right now though. Certainly not enough that anybody's changing beliefs over it. Speaking as a recent convert I'd say the thing that converted me was reading poetry. But for a long while I was unapologetically an atheist while the fedora memes were in full force, and not particularly moved by the crudity of the meme. By the time I converted, it was more common to see an inversion of the meme for Christposting. I didn't think I held a fashionable belief then and I don't now.

It takes an incredibly low opinion of your fellow human beings to think that stupid internet memes could seriously alter their religious beliefs. I hope you don't really believe it.

>> No.7204643

>>7204621
>You're literally saying "Science can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore he must exist!"

I'm in fact saying the opposite. We have no way of demonstrating that God doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean we should assume he does, because that claim is based on nothing.

Now, it's perfectly possible that this claim can be proven wrong one day. The fallibility of claims lies at the very heart of science, and is in fact the main thing that distinguishes it from religion, which assumes an infallibility of certain claims. However, until it's unambiguously demonstrated that God actually exists, in a way that is testable and repeatable, no one has to assume he does

>Indeed, to say that science is incomplete and flawed is also to say that religion, even human faith, is incomplete and flawed.

No, because science makes two assumptions: one of ignorance (that we don't know everything) and one of fallibility (that what we know could be wrong). Religion on the other hand denies any ignorance altogether (in some weird scenario where nonbelievers 'pretend' that God doesn't exist, but know full well he does, which I've never quite understood) and make the assumption that their holy text and the dogmas that follow from them are faultless. In fact, this seems to be the core of religion, to believe that everything your holy text says is true, even if the opposite is demonstrated, which to me seems like a pretty dumb thing to do

>> No.7204647

>>7204265
These people do exist, but to pin a specific system of thought onto atheism is a fucking joke.
Atheism is literally non-belief. That isn't an ideology or belief system.

>> No.7204654

>>7204629
>Of course, in the meantime deductive reasoning still produces empirical results,

Which ones would those be?

>is the basis of quite a bit of your life

Uhm, what?

>and is consistent, isn't it?

"This statement is false"

>> No.7204659

>>7204654
>U can't no nuffin
Just come out and say it.

>> No.7204666

>>7204313
There are well over 330,000,000 gods.

There is only one true God.

Everything else is something God created, like angels who fell and became demons, men, nephilim, animals, vegetables, minerals, etc.

You can paint a face on a coconut and call it your god, build a shrine to it, and worship it. It would be your god.

It would not be God.

>> No.7204671

>>7204659

Say what? What does "U can't no nuffin" have to do at all with what I just posted?

>> No.7204676

>>7204640
All you are doing is revealing a profound ignorance of theology in general and the Torah/midrash/mishna in specifics. Even cursory education in the history of religious thought, classical literature, or theology demonstrates that deductive reasoning is praised and used in primary and secondary religious sources from the earliest days of Judaism, a practice that continued into Christianity.
EVEN IF you have to come into a more modern era St. Augustine's works alone employ deductive reason and logic and St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica is a series of formal, logical statements about religion.
Now, perhaps to the anon who wrote the original statement a minimum of 850 years is "recent" but considering that he contrasts it with almost a century of lousy philosophy I think it was just a display of ignorance, don't you?

>> No.7204677

>>7204350
Jesus is the Word, and God.

The bible is the Word of God.

It's good to know which one is more important.

>> No.7204678

>>7204245
>changed it
>>>/b/

>> No.7204680

>>7204366
Without the bible, without anything, you could study the universe and come to the conclusion that you are not god, and that somebody else is.

Widespread atheism is kind of a modern mental disorder. Men used to be more intelligent than we are now.

>> No.7204689

>>7204654
So in addition to being ignorant of history, classic literature, and theology you are also unaware of the basis of mathematics, 'the a priori science'?
And also ignorant of science, which assumes an empirical, objective universe and the utility of deduction.
I must admit, your open questioning of the use of deductive reasoning in your life gives you away, sir, as a terrible troll. Either that, or you are lost, hungry, and cold most of the time.

>> No.7204693

>>7204680
>widespread atheism is a mental disorder
:^(
Be more subtle with your bait.

>> No.7204701
File: 5 KB, 220x200, 12063888_886002714819025_3909181228588581411_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7204701

>>7204367
Wrong. These are two separate dichotomies. Atheism/theism deals with BELIEF, while agnosticism/gnosticism deals with KNOWLEDGE.
You cannot simply be an agnostic, because that would say nothing about the belief to which you do not have absolute certainty about.
Pretty much everyone who calls them self an agnostic is actually an agnostic atheist. They are just ignorant and/or in denial based upon the stigma surrounding atheism.

A theist believes in god, an atheist does not. One participates, the other doesn't.
An athlete plays a sport, a non-athlete does not. One participates, the other doesn't.
>his analogy is correct

>> No.7204717

>>7204678
Yes, even there.

Salt, and light.

>> No.7204723

>>7204676
Judeo-Christan theology tries to cover Judeo-Christanity with a mantle of reason, but fails because this particular system of beliefs was not constructed upon on any logical, deductive reasoning by it's original proposers - other than the logic concerning their power and influence at their respective worlds. To simplify, reason can't be a cornerstone a posteriori to something, a priori, instinctive.
Also I wouldn't waste my time researching the literature you mentioned. It doesn't appeal to me in any way.

>> No.7204731

>>7204723
Also, if you want something logical and full of reason to believe, destroy all of the tradition. Wait, that's what people who are doing science are for.

>> No.7204734

>>7204701
>Atheism/theism deals with BELIEF
Not this retarded argument again.
'belief', 'certainty', and 'knowledge' are synonyms.
This is /lit/; read a book

>> No.7204737

>>7204717
>I can't be wrong.
I'm out

>> No.7204741
File: 157 KB, 1200x1156, pepej.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7204741

>>7204680
>you could come to the conclusion that you are not god
No doubt
>and that somebody else is
Wait a minute...

>> No.7204747

>>7204693

You want links to the autism/atheist studies?

>> No.7204748

>>7204734
Like a dictionary, which would tell you they aren't synonymous?

>> No.7204750
File: 641 KB, 676x461, 1441429594027.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7204750

>this whole thread

>> No.7204753

>>7204723
Let me translate that
>unsupported assertion that is irrelevant to the point at hand, other than the tacit admission that Judeo-Christianity DOES actually use logic and reason, and has for millenia
>false statement that reveals a profound ignorance of reason and logic
>admission if ignorance and a lack of curiosity
Thank you for admitting that the use of reason and logic in Judaism and Christianity is old, not recent, no matter how unwitting your admission was.
With your demonstrable ignorance I am not surprised you haven't studied history, philosophy, theology, or classics such as the Confessions, City of God, or the Summa, although I am a little surprised that an incurious ignoramus like you would hang around on /lit/

>> No.7204754

>>7204737
God cannot be wrong.

I agree with God.

>> No.7204758

>>7204748
>The type of person who pretends the dictionary is the end if a word's meaning
Easily in the top 10 worst types of people

>> No.7204759

>>7204753

If you cannot figure out that God is higher than human reasoning, perhaps you need to check your hubris at the door and start over.

>> No.7204765

>>7204748
>google
>type 'belief synonyms'
>click on first result
>find this
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/belief

Maybe you should actually, you know, *read* they dictionary. Or learn what the word 'thesaurus' means
>protip: it isn't a dinosaur

>> No.7204766

Christians, what's scarier to you: Hell or nonexistence?

>> No.7204767

>>7204758
It's right in that case fam. Those words have distinctly different meanings. That you don't see that makes me wonder how you talk about anything and come out thinking you understood.

>> No.7204771

>>7204759
Above != outside
Human reason was given to us to use.

>> No.7204779

>>7204767
First - there are more than 1 or 2 people ITT
Second- who am I going to believe, you or my thesaurus?

>> No.7204785

>>7204765
Oh dear you google instead of actually reading a reputable dictionary, well I suppose there is little to be said, glad you proved what you thought to yourself.

>> No.7204815

>>7204779
Synonym doesn't mean that the meanings are identical it just means they're similar. If you trust your thesaurus so much, then go look at belief and knowledge in the dictionary and tell me if their definitions are exactly the same or just similar.

>> No.7204882

>>7204551
>The Jesuit teaching why God must exist followed the rules of logic
>the rules of logic
>^tm
>tips belief

>> No.7204891

>>7204056
>>Not realizing that an omnipotent being could will itself out of nonexistence
That's stupid. If an omnipotent being does not exist, then it does not exist. There is no middle ground between existing and not existing. If you believe in an ominpotent being, that's fine, and I will respect you arguing for it. But willing yourself out of non-existance is an oxymoron, because something that does not exist can not exist.

>> No.7204898

>>7204771
And it is wholly inadequate to comprehend God.

>> No.7204904

>>7204766
Hell.

Hell is so frightening that people going to hell fantasize about being annihilated instead.

>> No.7204906

This thread needs to be on a different board

>> No.7204911

>>7204152
Funnily this is becoming more true. We now have contrarian contrarians. WW2 was fought for this.

>> No.7204915

>>7204891
You fell apart at the end there.

Mankind did not exist prior to the creation, yet here we are.

>> No.7204920

>>7204891
I would love if I could will myself out of existence after reading this thread.

>> No.7204921

>>7204766
Anyone who finds nonexistance more frightening than hell is a retard.

>> No.7204941

>>7204915
The conditions that caused humanity to exist have always existed. Humanity did not suddenly just come out of nothing, it was a chain of events. An omnipotent being can not suddenly go from not existing to existing.

>> No.7204954

>>7204941
>he believed in tensed time

>> No.7204964

>>7204941
Correct. God is eternal.

However, at one point mankind did not exist, and then we did.

So things do go from non-existence to existence.

Whether that's true the other way or not is up for debate, I suppose, keeping in mind that the laws of conservation of energy are fairly rigorous.

>> No.7204987

>>7204785
>damage control, damage control, oh god, damage control
FTFY

>> No.7204997

>>7204815
I know what synonym means - maybe you should think about how the original argument is as retarded as you are.

>> No.7205046
File: 66 KB, 500x500, substitution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7205046

>>7204265

>> No.7205059

>4chan is so inherently contrarian that they're pretending to be religious now
damn...

>> No.7205072

>>7205059
you are new to lit i assume

>> No.7205076

>>7205046
That's the best you could do?

>>7205059
>Missionaries going to where the sinners are.
>damn.....