Prove this wrong.

File: stormy.jpg (147KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 400x300px

>>1533531
Shut up.

Actually the Trinity ensures that God never gets bored, because it means he is both infinitely complex and infinitely simple.

>>1533531
>implying thats the point

>Let us call this unknown something: God. It is nothing more than a name we assign to it. The idea of demonstrating that this unknown something (God) exists, could scarcely suggest itself to Reason. For if God does not exist it would of course be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it. For at the very outset, in beginning my proof, I would have presupposed it, not as doubtful but as certain (a presupposition is never doubtful, for the very reason that it is a presupposition), since otherwise I would not begin, readily understanding that the whole would be impossible if he did not exist. But if when I speak of proving God's existence I mean that I propose to prove that the Unknown, which exists, is God, then I express myself unfortunately. For in that case I do not prove anything, least of all an existence, but merely develop the content of a conception.

It was written by a literal con-artist, so who cares.

>>1533553
56. Linguistic optics: the time for it has come. The idea is basically that no one (and nothing) is "wrong"; they can't be wrong because they are part of the universe, and whatever is in their brains — in the brains of even the stupidest person — is as "correct" as what's in my mind or Nietzsche's or Baudrillard's. What we need then is an art of interpretation so subtle and powerful that it can bring out the "truth" that's hiding inside even the dumbest person's brains.
For example, when a Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", he is not wrong. It's just that the concepts he designates with the words "God", "universe" and "love" are different from the concepts someone smart and educated, like me for instance, designates. For me the word "God", going by the Christian's definition of omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc., is an empty word, a non-concept, since the predicates the Christian attaches to it are incommensurate with each other. But when the Christian says "God", he doesn't really mean an "omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being" (since he's so dumb he can't even grasp what these concepts mean, and hence uses them in ape-like and parrot-like fashion); he simply means "a very powerful being". Similarly, when he says "universe" he doesn't mean what I mean by "universe" (i.e. "everything"), he simply means "the earth" — or at most, if he's had a whiff of astronomy, perhaps "the solar system". And finally, when he says "love" he doesn't mean what I mean by "love" (i.e. a desire for possession, in order to shape the thing possessed), but the exact opposite, i.e. "help me" (= shape me).
So basically, when the Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", what he's really saying, translated in our language, is "A very powerful being created the earth (or the solar system), and he wants to help me" — which could very well be true!

>>1533548
>because it means he is both infinitely complex and infinitely simple
wut

>>1533593
God works in mysterious ways.

>>1533531
>as he himself put it, "all the fun shit happens"
that is a lame thing to say, don't say lame things like that

File: d.jpg (19KB, 338x288px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 338x288px

Is GOD autistic?