Proofs of God's existence

File: 1458957430407-0.jpg (501KB, 1992x1253px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1992x1253px

Plenty.

https://www.compellingtruth.org/truth_God.html

1. God's existence is either logically necessary or logically impossible
2. God's existence is logically possible (i.e. not logically impossible)
3. Therefore, God's existence is logically necessary (i.e. God exists)

>>2378310
It isn't logically possible

>>2378316
Yeah it is? What facts about the universe do you know that makes God's existence impossible?

>>2378324
Eternity is Not logical nor mecessary

God in His mercy has concealed Himself from us, allowing us to live out our lives in our own chosen faith in or else denial of Him, as even with irrefutable proof in front of us, most will still choose to reject Him anyway, and doing so is a ticket to Hell, as most will find out when God does reveal Himself on Judgement Day. For this reason, faith is more desirable than proof. The question then is not how one comes by proof of God, but rather how one comes by faith in God.

>>2378334
>>2378316
why are atheists so retarded?

File: IMG_0013.jpg (437KB, 613x679px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 613x679px

The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition[1] was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought", and argued that this being must exist in the mind; even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible — one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

>>2378291
>Kant
>refuting anybody
hahahah

>>2378341
You are literally retarded, eternity is Not conceivable

>proof
God is experienced, not argued for.
>>2378522
>if a conception cannot be had then it is not possible
Solipsism.

>>2378543
>God is experienced, not argued for.
This. Westerner's are obsessed with being convincing and proving things. So to approach them with "religion" you have to tell them something like "yeah see, meditating on pratityasamutpada/Jesus doesn't get you a Ferrari, but it makes your brain release X and Y substance and feel really good".

Capitalism has made a market out of the whole planet pretty much. It's all this costs that, it's equivalent to this much, measures this, gets you this and so on. So an experience that is transcendental, which does away with opposition, which is not easily shareable and deeply individual or dependent on personal history, which shows no physical ramification, is hard to sell.

>>2378310
>Step 1: Assume God.
>Step 2: Therefore, God exists.

Same thing but one less step.

File: IMG_0696.jpg (58KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 240x240px

Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.

Bill Hicks

>>2378554
You're on the right track. First premise is weak. It's could be that God is logically possible but not logically necessary.

>>2378569
Alternatively, replace the word God with any other concept, and now you can prove anything you want to exists.

The hilarious part is that maybe by the time you see evidence or are convinced, you may find that the true religion is syncretic/esoteric and you'll be missing your brains prime.
It deteriorates fast, mind you.

>>2378574
No that doesn't fly, because God has a bunch of unique conceptual properties that other concepts don't have. For instance, God's existence is (supposed to be) logically necessary because God is the wellspring of all creation. You can't say, for instance, that communism is either logically necessary or logically impossible.

>>2378561
More like Bill Hacks. Fucking hack.
>>2378569
Existence is logically necessary for omniscience.

>>2378583
Existence is logically necessary for any quality. That doesn't prove anything.

>>2378585
It's more necessary for omnipotence.

Proof doesn't exist.

>>2378598
>more necessary
good one

What if the Neanderthals actually worshiped the real God, but since Homo Sapiens eradicated them all before the invention of writing, we will never know. All this time we invented our own false gods, ignorant of the truth lost to prehistory.

Alternatively, what if in the scope of Homo Sapiens history, we never actually find the True God, but a million years later on some other planet, a different species of life evolves and discovers the True God who created them in his image, set apart from other lower forms of life such as humans on some distant planet they never discovered.

Boy wouldn't that be embarrassing, when you die you are wisked away through the galactic leyline to stand before an Alien God who says "Tough Luck Human, you were never part of my divine plan. In your primitive pattern recognition brainwaves, you assumed that gods must be like yourself."

>>2378600
Omnipotence requires existence even without existence.

>>2378579
What about Concept X, which has all the characteristics of the Concept of God.

I can prove that Concept X must exist, not god, or not an infinity of other things that I can assign characteristics to.

Not to mention, to cut through all the bullshit, suppose you argue for this logically necessary god, how does a religious person then take that thread all the way to all the anthropological specifics of a Religion?

>>2378614
>Concept X, which has all the characteristics of the Concept of God.
This is just Anselm's argument, a being-greater-than-which cannot be conceived.

>how does a religious person then take that thread all the way to all the anthropological specifics of a Religion?
Through the texts of their faith. That's why the Abrahamic religions are also called the "revealed" religions. Logical proofs for God's existence don't prove a particular religion is true.

>>2378626
Seems like they want to play both ways in this little "God" word game.
>See I proved "God" exists
>now allow me to peep into my hat and tell you what "God" wants you to do for me today

>>2378642
>they
That's a total strawman. Obviously there are some people who use religion for self-serving ends. That doesn't mean every debate about the existence of God is some kind of plot by mean old people to restrict your freedoms or whatever.

>>2378310
>1. False dichotomy
>2. False premise (i.e. conjecture)
>3. Non sequitur

>>2378646
If it's a "strawman" then why do you yourself literally agree with me in the very next thought that they do exactly what I said?

>>2378554
You thereby become the creator of God.

>>2378291
Technically anyone who agrees with the universe being infinite is agreeing with the existence of god since all possibilities must necessarily happen and not at the same time

>>2378669
It's a strawman because you don't say who "they" are and you're also making it sound like all religious people are "they"

>>2378310
Step 2 is ignorant of the possibility that, just because there currently isn't enough evidence to disprove God's existence, this evidence won't some day be discovered.

This entire claim doesn't disprove or prove anything. It's probably bait I guess.

>>2378720

Not him, but it pretty much applies to all the monotheistic religions.

If you are a genuine Deist i.e. someone that believes in the existence of a Creator God but doesn't make any claims about what that God 'thinks' or even believe 'it' doesn't actively interfere with Earthly affairs at all, then that is one thing.

However there's a massive disconnect between making an incredibly abstract argument for the existence of 'God' along the lines of Aquinas or Anselm and then moving to claiming to know what God thinks about marriage or sex or what you should eat or wear or what 'holy book' is true.

>>2378554
Works.

>>2378291
>Aquinas' four ways were refuted by Kant
Nice meme, you need to take in the whole Kantian schlong to think he refuted them.

>>2378324
>Omnipotence
Can he make a rock so big even he can't lift it?

>>2379580
If we look past your heretical, and anthropomorphic notion of God, yes.

But of course, the question demonstrates your lack of study in theology. This question was answered about 1000 years ago.

>>2379580

Remember when your kindergarten teacher told you there was no such thing as a stupid question?

She lied.

This is a really stupid question.

>>2378550

I think westerners are happy to buy into spiritual shit in a meditative/self improvement sense, it's why shit like a (usually misunderstood version of) Buddhism appeals to lots of Westerners. And it's why I think stuff like Stoicism is getting a bit of a revival as a philosophy.

Westerners have more trouble with the buy-in of having a God dictate laws to you on the premise of "just trust me". Like you said, if you sell it on what it does for the individual now, rather than what it does for the individual after he's dead (it's not easy to convince an empiricist of an afterlife), you're going to have more luck.

Stuff like Christianity is shit on so vehemently by westerners largely because it's an apocalyptic death cult. I don't say that derisively, I mean it's literally premised on "your life now isn't worth shit compared to what comes after, and the world's going to end eventually, maybe soon. And if you don't want to suffer horribly in that afterlife you need to TRUST ME when I tell you Jesus was the son of God and he died for your sins so you can be born again." To many people that comes off pretty poorly for pretty obvious reasons.

>>2379580
No. Omnipresent. He is the rock

>>2379625
>>2379633
>>2379701
ok, so can he make himself so big that even he can't force a change in himself?

>heretical
gentlemen, if I throw this switch, he enters his active state
>SOLA
>FIDAE

>>2378550
>God is experienced, not argued for
>Westerners ANYTHING

This "Westerner"-- whatever the fuck that means-- has done enough actual Zen that he knows what you're talking about, but that doesn't make it God.

>>2379580
He both can and cannot simultaneously, God is not limited to a single possibility.

Dr ian stevensons work on reincarnation, and past life regressions.

>>2378291
the knowledge of god is built into every human being.

does any of countless human religions describe this knowledge correctly, is a whole different ballgame.

>>2378291
>Aquinas' four ways were refuted by Kant
What are you talking about

Also see http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

>>2378550
>Westerner's are obsessed with being convincing and proving things.

Not at all, its an Abrahamic thing you see heavily in Jews and Muslims as well. When a fairly controlling religious hierarchy is created based on them claiming to represent the divine who speaks to and through them questions are far more likley

File: image.jpg (70KB, 499x750px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 499x750px

What makes ideas real?

>>2379580

You can just google "omnipotence paradox" and read up on the various proposed answers on both sides of the debate by people smarter than /his/ rather than thinking you're dropping a bomb with this shit. As far as theology is concerned its old hat.
Its been discussed. As far as Christian thought is concerned its been addressed.

>>2380382
This. Everyone instinctively knows God exists.

>>2380806
If I see that fucking deer one more time...

>>2380799

judaism is a western religion and partly where westerners get this obsession from in the first place

>>2381051
I can't even believe people can sincerely be atheist. Seems more rebellion knowing deep down some sort of God exist as opposed to a legitimate belief.

>>2379684
>Stuff like Christianity is shit on so vehemently by westerners largely because it's an apocalyptic death cult. I don't say that derisively, I mean it's literally premised on "your life now isn't worth shit compared to what comes after, and the world's going to end eventually, maybe soon. And if you don't want to suffer horribly in that afterlife you need to TRUST ME when I tell you Jesus was the son of God and he died for your sins so you can be born again."
This is open to interpretation. I don't view Christianity this way IMO. I see it as life affirming and Christ being an enlightened teacher who conquered life and death and offers salvation to those who accept him because it is God's will and his own (he manage to align his will perfectly with God).

>>2380799
It's capitalism and atheism, mate. The thing which opposed Christianity every step of the way.

>>2381217
That's money and it's easy to worship. It's like God, but not, like society.

>>2381184
>western religion
>from the east

>>2379684
>Like you said, if you sell it on what it does for the individual now, rather than what it does for the individual after he's dead
If everyone lived the way Jesus wanted us to the Earth would be a paradise.

File: Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow.jpg (22KB, 335x499px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 335x499px

>>2381051
>>2381200

People have come to realize our instinctive gut feelings aren't always right.

pic related doesn't discuss religion specifically but it discusses the myriad way we're fucking morons if we go with our instinct.

prove santa exists

>>2381217
>It's capitalism and atheism, mate. The thing which opposed Christianity every step of the way.

Is that why Jews, Christians and muslims were arguing over and writing extensive proofs of God 1800 years before capitalism and atheism became a thing?

>>2381184
You have a rather strange definition of western

>>2381234

Christianity is premised on an external otherworldly reward for your good behavior in this life. All I'm saying is that's a tough sell for empiricists who see no evidence of an afterlife.

Also people who practice according to doctrine in most Christian sects act in ways contrary to Christ's teachings anyway.

>>2381260
Saint Nicholas is a historical figure and Santa is as real or fake as anyone else's public persona.

>>2381265
Arguing theology has nothing to do with needing "tangible proof" for everything.

>>2381279
so why do people still celebrate christmas if he's not real

>>2381294
It's not for Santa. This is what happens when a society is culturally capitalist, not culturally Christian.

>>2381294
Yeah but Saint Nicholas is real.

>>2381211

Cool. Does not change the fact of what the book actually says. The same way the 10 commandments everyone follows are the first pair that was broken because it sounds better and ignores the second set entirely.

You can do that all you want, but don't be shocked when people who actually read the book disagree and wonder what the fuck you're talking about.

>>2381298
and so was jesus but how many people actually know that santa was based on saint nick

All of the ones I've seen are pretty shakey.

>>2381312
Probably not an unreasonably low number of people. Hopefully probably. Did you know the Dutch santa has a slave named Black Pete?

>>2381302
>Does not change the fact of what the book actually says
There was theological reasons involving St.Paul that Christians don't follow the 613 commandments, unlike the Jews.

Also the Bible is a compilation of books from spanning many different centuries. Its very fleshed out if you read the church Fathers why Christians generally do or don't believe what they do.

File: 5 fate points.jpg (123KB, 537x536px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 537x536px

>>2381312
>but how many people actually know that santa was based on saint nick

He gets called saint nick all the fucking time.

Either way, the fact that normies don't have any idea what they're doing when it comes to holidays doesn't discredit the origin of said holidays.

>>2381330

I wasn't talking about all those commandments. I merely talked about the first 10 that Christians love to say applies, but seem to forget that the pair they cite was destroyed and replaced with a different set.

As for your second point, that means nothing. Ad hoc rationalizations, cherry picking of verses, etc., happened with those "church fathers" too. They are no less exempt from bias or having shitty reasoning.

See: taking a comeback about not washing hands as making all unclean foods clean (which they always have to add in parentheses because reading that otherwise you would never get that impression, and despite the fact that Jesus died kosher because if he wasn't there would have been no way for people to claim he was innocent since breaking that would have been a valid crime the Jews could bring up), Jesus all but saying he came to the children of Israel alone to the Canaanite woman and calling her a dog, etc.

A lot was changed simply to appeal to gentiles and nothing more. Making up all the excuses or interpretations in the world will not change very simple facts like what a book says or what it means.

>>2381374

But, if you knew all that, odds are you know that Yahweh as a god was once part of a pantheon and was never claimed to be all powerful or anything beyond leader of the heavenly army and weather and was only god of the Jews since he was their tribal god as each tribe had their own.

So, this fact alone invalidates the vast majority of Abrahamic faiths as bullshit regardless of their reasoning because they are talking about a very different god than Yahweh. They are two very different ideas about god and incompatible. Because if they are talking about Yahweh, they have to explain why all of the sudden no other gods exist and god is all powerful when Yahweh was part of a pantheon and not all powerful, and if they are speaking of a different god, I'd love to hear what god they do believe in and why they are taking stories from Yahweh and attributing them to this different god.

>>2381374
>A lot was changed simply to appeal to gentiles and nothing more.
You're under the mistake alot of people are. That Christianity is only an outgrowth of Judaism. This isn't nor was it ever the case. Christianity (like Judaism itself) is a composite of many different cultural ideas, spiritual views and religious traditions into a coherent doctrine. This include the Hebrew faith, Greek philosophy (Platonism especially) various indigenous European pagan practices, Zoroastrianism and others. This isn't "cherry picking," its the nature of how any religion comes about.

>>2381312
Saint Nick is honestly more common here than Santa, and I remember learning about the legend in elementary school alongside Christmas traditions of other European countries.

>>2381374
And to add >>2381413, Christanity is only superfically "Jewish" but a closer inspection reveals this isn't the case. If you want to treat the complex issue of where many of Christianities doctrine stems from as "pandering to gentiles" you wouldn't be correct.

>>2381413

The main thrust of early Christianity was Jewish. These other influences only came in much later, and usually as a result of trying to prove god exists.

>>2381422

And secondly, they did pander to gentiles. Until Paul came along it was understood that Christianity was Jewish. All those rules and laws applied as they did to Jews, they were just Jews who believed the messiah had come. Paul, however, changed all of that, and pissed off a lot of early Christians until it lead to them getting more followers and power, thus saving the religion from extinction. Because Jews hated them as heretics, and Romans hated them as this crazy Jewish ascetic cult.

But early Christianity WAS Jewish and was only ever intended for Jews in Christ's own words to the Canaanite woman (making up shit excuses won't change that), but in order to survive they had to make concessions like giving up dietary laws, circumcision, and other things in order to become more palatable and accepted by Roman society and others. Those other influences came in because early Christianity made a metaphorical deal with the devil in order to survive, and that came at the expense of its Jewish roots.

>>2381449
>The main thrust of early Christianity was Jewish.
Not true. Christ taught something far different from the common pharisaism and sadducism, which was philosophically pleasing to something you'd find in Greece or Persia (or even Egypt).

>These other influences only came in much later,
Again, No. The Logos is a Greek concept, and found extensively in the Book of John.

>But early Christianity WAS Jewish and was only ever intended for Jews in Christ's own words to the Canaanite woman (making up shit excuses won't change that), but in order to survive they had to make concessions like giving up dietary laws, circumcision, and other things in order to become more palatable and accepted by Roman society and others. Those other influences came in because early Christianity made a metaphorical deal with the devil in order to survive, and that came at the expense of its Jewish roots.
That was for when Christ was alive. After his death it was always intended for the gentiles. Hence the passage "some Greeks go to visit Jesus" when he says the time for his passion has arrived.

>>2381449

So, them changing means nothing. Those influences came in to save themselves. Excuses were made to make the ideas more friendly to all rather than closed off to outsiders like Judaism was, rationalizations had to be made, ideas dropped or added in, etc. But it was clearly very well understood by said early Christians that this was a Jewish movement and meant for the Jews.

That went out the window later on, but because we don't live a few thousand years ago, we do have the knowledge to see all this, thus invalidating Christianity.

Believe what gets you through the day, but don't preach it as fact when your holy book does not agree with you, nor did Christ (if he existed), or the earliest Christians. There is a difference between you using it as a security blanket and being dishonest about the roots and contents of your faith to other people.

>>2381460
And to add to this, early Christanity had all its many communities among Galatians, Greeks and Macedonians for a reason. As did the gnostic sects which rose about at the same time.

>>2381449
Religions change you fucking idiot. It's not Jewish now.

>>2381467

Yeah, and compared it to a dog being thrown scraps from a dinner table. He threw a dog a bone, so to speak.

>>2381449
Jesus healed the Canaanite woman's daughter so that kind of defeats your point. He was just testing her, he didn't turn her away because she was a gentile, he even called her faith 'great'. What good is faith if his message was never intended for her? Why reward her for heeding a message he didn't even care whether she heeded or not?

>>2381474

I know it isn't Jewish now. And that is my point. That only further removes Christianity from the ideas of Yahweh and the god they claim to worship. So, if he is real, I'm pretty sure he is fucking pissed.

>>2381463
The non-Jewish "influences" are integral parts of Christian doctrine (like the logos) and were there from the begging. Including many of Christ own teachings.

>>2381486
It was never Jewish.

>>2381491

>a religion based around the man claiming to be the Jewish messiah is not Jewish

>the gospels written years after Christianity had been around having outside influences are proof that Jesus taught this

>people acting like the gospels were written at the moment Jesus said shit rather than fermenting for nearly 100 years of Christian history before anyone bothered to write it down

>>2381502
>a religion based around the man claiming to be the Jewish messiah is not Jewish
The idea of a messiah is not an exclusively Jewish concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianism
>the gospels written years after Christianity had been around having outside influences are proof that Jesus taught this
if your not going to treat the gospels as being legitimate for discussion on the nature of Christian doctrine as intended your arguing bad faith.

>people acting like the gospels were written at the moment Jesus said shit rather than fermenting for nearly 100 years of Christian history before anyone bothered to write it down
See above.

>>2381486
Christians don't worship Yahweh, Yahweh is the god of the Israelites and is a one-person God.

The God of mankind is a three-person God, and His relatipnship to humanity is not a covenant with the Israelites, but rather something much more profound.

I'm not an expert on ancient religions, was there ever an instance of a god sacrificing something to humanity before Christianity?

Even if I weren't Christian and only read the Bible as literature, that is genius.
>>2381502
He was Jewish, but not a messiah for the Jews alone.

>>2381515

The Biblical messiah IS based on the Jewish faith. Secondly, every gospel besides John, the most recent gospel written after Christianity tried to appeal to gentiles has that. The earlier ones have none of that.

>>2381528
>The Biblical messiah IS based on the Jewish faith
Not something so clear cut as you think. Why do you think the magi visited Christ? Your problem is you see it through a modern lens.

>>2381517

If that is true, then why do Christians even have the old testament if their god is not Yahweh? Why did Jesus cite said prophets of Yahweh? Why is supposed prophecy of the Jewish messiah given to prophets of Yahweh applied to Jesus if he has no relation to said god?

>>2381539
The idea of a messiah figure transcends faiths. As do a lot of Christ's teachings and actions.

>>2381537

We don't know who those three wise men were. So, we can't say.

You see through a modern lens based on modern understandings of Christianity, which is entirely foreign and disconnected from the actual origins of the faith. And it took several hundred years and formation by committee before any canon was even in place and even more hundreds of years before all the people who disagreed got put down by force for being heretics. Only then did you get the Christianity you have today. It is very different than early Christianity.

>>2381545

1. We are talking of the Biblical messiah which is Jewish. Other messiah figures have zero relevance here because we are speaking of the messiah of one faith and found in one book.

2. His teachings were either Jewish, bad advice, or nonsensical. A lot of them only making sense if you read the OT or understand anything about the Jewish religious sects at the time.

>>2381550
>We don't know who those three wise men were.
we do, they were magi. Treat it like a spiritual text and not a history book. This should be easy if you don't believe it anyway. Obviously the magi had an interest in Christ despite not being Jewish.

>You see through a modern lens based on modern understandings of Christianity, which is entirely foreign and disconnected from the actual origins of the faith. And it took several hundred years and formation by committee before any canon was even in place and even more hundreds of years before all the people who disagreed got put down by force for being heretics. Only then did you get the Christianity you have today. It is very different than early Christianity.
And you think the old testament wasn't formed over the period of many years?

The funny thing is, we know the same thing. That Christianity is the compilation of many different cultures worth of ideas. However your the only one cherry picking what you think should or shouldn't be legitimate based on a Jew-centric criteria you've established for yourself.

>>2378715
>possibilities

That's the key here anon. It must be possible and god most likely isn't.

>>2378291
There is no convincing argument for a biblical god. There is the argument that nothing comes from nothing and somehow we exist. It is essentially an extension of the idea of what we do not know could be god as we have no better explanation. How exactly did all being come to be without something to cause it to begin?

It's not provable, but it is also not disprovable.

Also fuck you mods for the warning I am sick of christfag shit threads dragging this place down.

>>2381559
>1. We are talking of the Biblical messiah which is Jewish. Other messiah figures have zero relevance here because we are speaking of the messiah of one faith and found in one book.
They have relevance because the idea of a messiah is found elsewhere than the Jews. This means Christ could very well be viewed as a messiah in his own right, without the Jews. It wouldn't be unheard of.
>2. His teachings were either Jewish, bad advice, or nonsensical.
Your entilted to your opinions but me and countless others disagree.
>A lot of them only making sense if you read the OT or understand anything about the Jewish religious sects at the time.
They make sense in any context.

>>2381566

We do not know if the wise men were Jewish or not.

As for my views being Jew centric, that is because that is what Christianity was intended to be, and was until Paul took it. The three synoptic gospels all agree on that. Only in John, written much later, do you find other cultural concepts thrown in. Because it was written after Christianity had been exposed to these ideas after a significant period of time.

This isn't based on my criteria, but those of the book. The messiah was very much Jewish and meant to be for the Jewish people. Or do you want to run into the issue of god lying to his own prophets about the messiah? But who am I kidding? The messiah was also never supposed to die hence why they needed to resurrect him and say he'll be back another time, but that never stopped retards from thinking he can be the promised messiah.

Either way, you're wrong and your own book says so, Christcuck. So shut the fuck up.

>>2378291
>X refuted Y
undergrad detected

>>2381581

You could see him that way, but the only alternative is some variant of Gnosticism. Because those are the only other ones who separate Christ from the god of the OT. The Bible itself never does. So, if you aren't Gnostic, how do you justify seeing him as a messiah in general when the entire NT is about him and the shit he faces for claiming to be the Jewish messiah?

>>2381595
>the do not know if the wise men were Jewish or not.
The Magi were Zoroastrian and would have been instantly recognized as such by contemporary audiences.
>that is because that is what Christianity was intended
The gospels and Jesus's own words make it clear that isn't the case.
>was intended to be, and was until Paul took it.
You realize St.Paul was active not too long after Jesus's passion, right? He was active in the apostolic age.
>The messiah was very much Jewish and meant to be for the Jewish people.
Obvious numerous things from both the old and new testment show that isn't the case. But here's something from the book of Luke. St.Simon (another one, not peter) predicts of Jesus when he is being purified in the temple that he's to be a light for revelation to the gentiles. If he was only for Jews, why would this be case?
25Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:

29“Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismissd your servant in peace.
30For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
32a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”
33The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. 34Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

>>2381611
The main thing for this is

“Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismissd your servant in peace.
For my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”

Obviously Jesus was intended for all people.

>>2381539
It is Yahweh but it is not the Jewish conception of Yahweh. The OT is only based upon the Tanakh, remember.

As Christian theology and identity developed, it differentiated itself even further. Now, one cannot really call the Christian conception of God 'Yahweh'. Muslims believe they worship the same God as Christians and Jews, and if it weren't for a long history of fighting the Jews would probably accept Muslim theology too, save their belief that Mohammad was the final messenger of God (after all, they reject Christ as their messiah, so they are still expecting a final messenger of sorts,) but the same cannot be said with Christianity and Judaism or Islam.

It's also not an embodied religion even at its most ritualistic, and is faith-based instead. I can't say I identify with any sect despite being officially Catholic, but I absolutely cannot accept the idea of being born Christian, or baptism being valid at birth or any time before adolescence.

This puts it at a very interesting and distinctively un-Jewish position: one ought to be 'initiated' into Christianity, but it is not an initiation that requires any sort of ritual necessarily. I'm not an expert on Islam either, but Sufism is the best comparison I can think of at the moment. I don't know how one joins their order, and really an order like that would not work in this conception of Christianity, but it at least is an order detached from Jewish conceptions of devotion as something embodied and studied. Does one need to read the Bible to be Christian? I don't think so, although it of course is ideal and there is no excuse not to.

Judaism can even be atheistic these days, and while I've heard of atheistic Christianity, it makes absolutely no sense. Christianity, as I said, is even faith-based at its most ritualistic, whereas Judaism is not which makes it a viable atheist identity.
>>2381595
>>2381611
Christ is the messiah of everyone, not just the Jews.

>all these piss poor Christian apologetics

Really makes ya think. But I'm done. None of you seems to have any grasp on early Christian history pre-Nicea (I always fuck up that spelling), or early Jewish history. This is /his/, so I don't really wanna say this, but do a basic google search. Even that alone would make you more well informed than this retarded shit. It's just embarrassing now. Even if you do still believe, at least know the origins of your own fucking faith and the faith/ideas that spawned it before you spew shit so retarded that it makes Ken Ham look like a genius in comparison.

0/10, this was an abortion of a thread and shameful to any Christian who knows even the simplest of Biblical scholarship.

>>2380806

¸thoughts, behaviors, artifacts, language, culture, technology, politics etc...

>>2381669
>0/10, this was an abortion of a thread and shameful to any Christian who knows even the simplest of Biblical scholarship.
But that clearly isn't you, who said "His teachings were either Jewish, bad advice, or nonsensical." used "christfag a number of times and generally had a piss poor attitude without even humorist the notion you'd come close to considering something you didn't have pre-conceived notion about.

Just go on being a hater. Spiritual questions need spiritual answers.

>>2381669
Honestly you just shout out "muh Christianity is Jewish" shit because your probably a Jew yourself.

>>2381611
The closes to my beliefs are a mix of Roman Catholicism and perennial traditionalism.

>>2381698

I'm not Jewish religiously or ethnically. I'm just not retarded and read your fucking book and then also looked up and read a lot on the history, context, and other shit. I don't do what you do and just walk into church and take whatever the guy standing at the pulpit says as objective fact.

>>2381282
>lets pretend people like Aquinas and Averos didnt exist

>>2381723
So why did Jesus tell Paul to spread the word to the gentiles?

>>2382111
>Jesus ever talking to Paul

>>2382153
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

>>2381570
infinity goes beyond possibilities, everything exist and doesn't

>>2378297
Can you tell me what book it is ? I really need it pls

>>2379701
did he beat up hulk hogan?

>>2379580
yes, then make himself stronger then the rock so he can again lift it, whats the next question? if god is good he cant be all powerful lol.......how about "why does god make cruley things happen"?..... keep em coming fedora

>>2381847
Nobodies doing that but your strawman. The idea of wanting physical proof of everything is very much an atheistic concept.

>>2382705
Do you collect bad arguments or something?

>>2378344
And other Christian philosophers were mocking that argument in the middle ages

File: 1563545434.png (176KB, 300x518px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 300x518px

>>2378291
Anselm's argument is wrong but its plenty more complicated than the usual "defining into existence" understanding you see now. The issue is that its steeped in Aristotelian thought and so the abridged versions do it no justice. Aquinas' Five Ways are a similar thing. The largest issue anyone has grasping these arguments is understanding what people mean by God.

As for Kant, I don't know anything he's said of the Quinque Viae that hasn't been shown to be not the case or contended well by Anscombe.


>>2378310
This is some retarded shit.

>>2379580
Omnipotence means to have all the powers. If you can't even rationally comprehend something as a power there is no reason to accept it as truthful. And, hell, even if you did you'd have no way to comprehend it rationally.

Read the best Summa

https://archive.org/details/summacontragenti02thomuoft

>>2378291

This is actually sort of an interesting question.

Are there any *convincing* arguments, either way?

I don't think so.

Philosophy of religion is quite particular in that most people start with one idea and end up with the same, the arguments are never good enough to sway a significant amount of people to one side or the other.

>>2385039

For example, if you take the design argument about the universe, atheists will just find it more obvious to think a multiverse is the correct answer while theists will prefer a theistic explanation. It's not really particularly strong either way.

Or take one of the best argument for atheism, the evidential problem of evil. It doesn't really convince theists, they just prefer to opt for really shaky epistemological positions in order to refute it.

>>2385039
There are, but atheists always ignore them or pretend they are bullshit because they don't understand it.

>>2385059

That seems very uncharitable, which ones are you thinking of?

>>2382166
Yeah dude? This presumes the resurrection actually happened, when there is sweet fuck all for evidence of that event outside of christian apologia.

>>2385059
>inb4 ontological argument

>>2378310
>me having functioning wings is either logically necessary or logically impossible

>me having functioning wings is logically possible

>Therefore, me having wings is logically necessary (i.e. I have wings)

wew la

>>2385065
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM

>>2385363
>inspiring philosophy
holy shit, I'm laughing my ass off. I just remembered the creationist saying this guy would be better if he used presuppositional apologetics

File: 1346566130412.jpg (39KB, 384x555px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 384x555px

>>2385065
Well, for instance, lets go to a very popular one: Aquinas' Five Ways.

Most people stick to heavily abridged versions of the arguments meant for people early in their education and, because of it, miss incredible details:

>Teleological argument understood as an Intelligent Design argument
>Prime Mover argument understood as a past temporal causation instead of a constant sustaining one
>"everything has a cause" premise constantly claimed despite not being in any of the arguments or any major cosmological argument in the history of academic thought and, because of it, think there is special pleading at all
>think God is assumed as the answer to any of the arguments, when its only the case on the abridged versions
>people thinking that the result of the arguments could be anything (unicorn, leaf, monster, etc) when the argument is very particular of the result and people somehow miss Divine Simplicity
>complaints that it doesn't verify that the result has any connection to Biblical history/claims when it doesn't whatsoever

Stuff like this. You have popular professors trying to talk shit of theological arguments and misrepresenting every little bit of it and people just eat that shit up.

>>2385387
>Fuck I can't refute the argument what do I do!?
>I know! I'll attack the person making the argument so I don't have to address it
Nice try bud.

>>2385413
The anon was criticizing the source instead of the argument. Stick to that point and don't look foolish by assuming of the other anon. You just come off as spiteful.

Haven't seen your video, personally, though.

>>2385394
Do any of the details actually save the arguments?

>>2385434
Well obviously, yes. Some more than others, as even if dissenters still have problem with intelligent design they can still dissent from the support of final causality so there would be issue with the teleological argument, for instance. Either way, Divine Conservation is still the most sound of theistic arguments and has the longest history despite the naturalistic mainstream being completely ignorant to it.

>>2385462
>Either way, Divine Conservation is still the most sound of theistic arguments and has the longest history despite the naturalistic mainstream being completely ignorant to it.
What does naturalism fail to account for that divine conservation does?

>>2385509
Well continuance, obviously.
There's little to no comprehensive defense for the naturalist position on continuance (existential inertia) and what does exist simply amounts to trying to dismiss divine conservation and default to existential inertia.

I'll be back in a bit.

>>2385533
So why is existential inertia flawed?

>>2378773
>here's a massive disconnect between making an incredibly abstract argument for the existence of 'God' along the lines of Aquinas or Anselm and then moving to claiming to know what God thinks about marriage or sex or what you should eat or wear or what 'holy book' is true
Not really.
If we believe God desires our continued existence then logically God would desire we act in a way that ensures our continued existence.

Therefore harmful behavior would be prohibited by God.

>>2385545
>If we believe God desires our continued existence
and there's the assumption that takes you beyond these arguments

>>2379684
>Stuff like Christianity is shit on so vehemently by westerners largely because it's an apocalyptic death cult.
Apocalypse literally means revelation. An "apocalyptic death cult" is just a relgious tradition that reveals to it's followers what comes after death.

You have been programmed using language to reject Christianity out of hand because somehow you were convinced that "apocalyptic death cults" are bad.

>>2385560
>and there's the assumption that takes you beyond these arguments
It's a perfectly reasonable assumption because if God did not desire our continued existence we would cease to exist.

Define reality.
Define existance.
Prove reality exists.

Checkmate realists.

>>2385641
but we do. we are not immortal. the biggest flaw here is that you are saying that humans are special in God's eyes which cannot be a conclusion you can reach just from our existence. even if you generalize it to all living things it's problematic because of the vast amount of space, mass and energy that goes into non-living things and things that either don't support life in any way or even actively harm life. Not only this but God would have created the predator that ends the existence of the rabbit, the rapist who tortures his victim, even the depressed man with the capacity to do self-harm.

Can anyone even prove abstract concepts?

Prove triangles, the literal definition, exist. Prove love exist.

>>2385671
the literal definition exists in the dictionary you dope. I know you're a shitposter, but what exactly is this post even asking to be proven? that these concepts have a separate existence which informs our own like what Plato thought?

>>2385683
Unicorns have a definition in a dictionary. Do they exist?

>>2385694
the idea of a unicorn does

>>2385668
You're completely missing the point.
Just because we will eventually cease to exist does not mean that God desires our non-existence. God is omnipotent, if God wanted us gone, we would be gone.

>even if you generalize it to all living things it's problematic because of the vast amount of space, mass and energy that goes into non-living things and things that either don't support life in any way or even actively harm life.

Except all that stuff you're dismissing as non-supportive of life is actually vital to the existence of life. Life on earth could not exist floating in a void. Just because the pilot only occupies a few cubic feet of cramped space in the design of a plane does not mean that the rest of the plane somehow ceases to be required to keep the pilot in the air, just because the spinning prop would kill the pilot if he jumped into doesn't mean the plane does not exist to support the pilot's flight.. All that space, mass, and energy that goes into non-living things and things that "actively harm life" are vital partf ot the this complex machine we call reality.

>>2385700
Just an idea. Like triangles, like God. Like love.

>>2385733
Like like and pain too.

>>2385733
I'll agree that God is an idea, but that's not what is being discussed. What is more analogous to your examples is arguing for the actual existence of a unicorn, or an actual embodiment of love or a perfect triangle on which all other triangles are based on like Plato believed

File: 1476942852904.jpg (828KB, 1779x1230px) Image search: [Google]

828KB, 1779x1230px

>>2385700
DUUUHHHHH

I prefer the example that my math teacher once gave me when I was in high school: Mathematics exists in our heads. In the physical world, however, it does not.

Ideas may be exact, like mathematics, or more abstract, such God. They still do not exist physically.

Atoms were once only known through study of the elements and were not directly seen; Now their existence is proven, we can even observe them with electron microscopes.

I guess only if we prove the existence of god through direct observation will it become universally accepted, but we have no idea how lol

>>2385789
>existence of god through direct observation

Existence of what? At best you're seeing a drawing in the cloak of Maya.

That "God" could be drawn from an infinite set that contains every possible type of psychology, every possible type of game theoretic defaults, etc.

>>2386065

In other words, the idea of God(s) can be tremendously important to a large part of the population.

God itself has no necessary obligation to play by the rules, so to speak.

>>2385047
>Or take one of the best argument for atheism, the evidential problem of evil. It doesn't really convince theists, they just prefer to opt for really shaky epistemological positions in order to refute it.
Earth is always considered a middle plane between heaven and hell. What makes human's special is that earth isn't too hellish or too paradisiacal to stifle growth. Humans have free will and can choose nirvana/oneness with God/whatever your faith teaches.

I don't see why every plane would be entitled to be heaven like, earth included.

>>2386115

The irony is that athiest argument (Problem of Evil) is one of the worst.

As I've said, God doesn't have to play by the rules. He doesn't have to be "consistent" with what a particular human thinks constitutes '"consistent" behavior.

>>2378291
>Are there really convincing arguments

No! They are believers, as in NOT THINKERS so they have no logical, thoughtful rationale to communicate. They are merely followers of other believers (more non-thinkers). They can chant a lot and repeat a lot of senseless rituals (addictions), but they cannot reason until they want to or are forced to change.

>>2386469
>thinking and reasoning is good because le greek dictator man said so

IF YOU NEED TO EXPLICATE, EXPLAIN, AND LOGICALLY RATIONALIZE, GOD, YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE, NOR KNOW.

>>2381259
Instinct is different from gut feelings

>>2378291
I was an atheist for a very short time, because even just your fucking highschool biology class will make you lean towards the idea that there is a creator

>lol RNA and DNA just magically work perfectly together and knows what to do and it just so happened that it worked so perfectly that now we have entire complex organisms with separate types of tissues that are based off of cells that are policed in this utterly perfect way by DNA
>Lol atoms yea they just happen to exist in such a way literally everything else can exist the way it does, random perfection
>Lol yea you a human happens to have a consciousness and are basically atoms just wondering about how theyre atoms isnt that funny lol

That our universe exists is mindblowing enough that its hard to take everything in
It feels like of course there is a God, just because we understand some of our basic biology doesnt mean it isnt fucking magic that it all works in the first place

Im just not religious, because while I can see "God" all around me theres no reason for me to believe what other unknowing people like myself have said about it.

>>2381259
>moron
WAAAH WHY ARENT YOU LE LOGIC
>People have come to realize our instinctive gut feelings aren't always right.
By what metric? Reddit upboats?

>>2386688
>dubs

>>2386688
These are pretty awful arguments. If we weren't conscious or complex organisms we wouldn't be thinking about why we were.

I'm a Christian, but I don't have to ignore and mock science to avoid having actual faith.

>>2386742
Yes you do, science is faith in disgusting humanism.

>>2386772
What is logically unsound about the theory of evolution?

>>2386790
>logic
More faith in disgusting humanism.

>>2386801
So you're placing your faith in, what, some neo-animist take of the world or something silly? Have fun with that

>>2386816
Just admit you aren't Christian, slave.

>>2386742
The fact we are complex and conscious is a miracle itself

I think youre kind of shitting on how amazing everything is by holding up a shitty book written by other fallible humans thousands of years ago as the prime example of God and saying "this is what God wants"

>>2386823
>The fact we are complex and conscious is a miracle itself

Not really, it's just the case that if we weren't we wouldn't know. It's like the argument that it is a miracle we exist on such a hospitable planet.

>>2386846
Isnt it?

Why does needing to exist to be aware of your existence somehow take away from the important of that existence or the wonder that is the fact it happened to play out that way?

Fuck, I feel like you dont really feel joy often

>>2386823
ITS LE CURRENT YEAR WORSHIP LE SCIENCE XDDDD THE MARTIAN IS WAY BETTER THAN LE BUY BULL

>>2386846
There are an infinite amount of people who will never get to experience the joy of existence, you get given this gift and you're a sourpuss who thinks it's no big deal. Why are you this way anon? Your existence has a lower probability of occurring than winning the lottery every week for 10 years in a row. Be happy about it

>>2386856
You're postulating a Universe that lacks the Christian diety and then are claiming a potentially statistically unlikely event happening in a backdrop of almost infinite (from our perspective) time and space a miracle? While perpetuating a vague criticism of Christianity and thus its associated metaphysics? While at the same time snubbing science? You're basically proposing Solipsism and then babbling about miracles, which is absolutely absurd

>>2386886
You're turning your shitty confused statements into a cheap appeal to appreciating some form of hedonistic concept of existence to grasp for a sense of superiority. I am very happy with my life and thankful for it, that's not what I'm critical of at all if you're paying attention