How do we turn philosophical arguments for God into arguments

I think you got BTFO, OP.

>>10020775
Maybe. But was that inevitable or is there something more I could have said?

>>10020769
What makes it something to him is that in his incarnation, he was both fully God and fully human. Meaning he experienced suffering in his death. He purposefully placed the limitations of humanity on himself so that he could be both with us and for us.

>>10021073
I suppose that does sound like some sort of hell. To go from omnipotent God to shitting in a desert outhouse.

>>10020769
Every time someone sins God experiences the crucifixion all over again. Sinners x time = you got a shit load of sacrifice.

File: image.jpg (551KB, 1431x2163px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 1431x2163px

>>10020769

> I'm well convinced by philosophical arguments that there is a God.

This is what I want to hear about.

File: Walk slow i throw S you.jpg (140KB, 384x428px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 384x428px

>>10020769
how do we get the fucking philosofags out of /lit/ so we can talk about books again without being asked "does existence precede essence" every fucking five minutes?

File: image.jpg (70KB, 389x590px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 389x590px

>>10020769

Especially since the type(s) of philosophical arguments that convince you might also be coloring what type(s) of god-concept(s) you have.

>>10021145
The arguments only lead you to the doorstep, not through the door. It's pointless to lay out the arguments unless you can accept that.

File: HOLY SHIT ITS THE FUCKING BIBLE COMIN AT YA.jpg (63KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x500px

>>10020769
1. Uphold and defend a worldview.
2. Argue for the revealing of this worldview in one historical intellectual tradition (for example, Aquinas' defense that God revealed Himself as divinely simple at the burning bush before we grasped such a concept).
3. Defend the historical claims as legitimate.
4. Defend other aspects of revelation that are not knowable as still probable or at least possible
5. If you can adequately defend a religion's historical claims, worldview, and argue that there was actual revelation and not just lucking out then you have successfully and completely argued for the validity of a religion

>>10020769
The first step is to do away with philosophical arguments and turn to faith. What gets you to faith is another matter entirely. Read Kierkegaard.

>>10020769
>>10020769
> "Well, if we agree to say that God is the greatest good, then we have to think of what sorts of things he would do. It seems like the Christian God is the only God in history who was so good that he was willing to die for mankind and absorb all the evils we commit into himself."

You make MANY massive assertions here

First that humanity is "evil". And in order to this you must define good and evil in an objective manner (good fucking luck)

Second that God even needs to be the "ultimate good". Why not the ultimate evil? Why not both? Why not neither good nor evil? (again this requires to define good and evil objectivily)

Third that evil can be 'absorbed' and whatever the hell that means? (this will also need some objective proof)

Fortu that the Christian God did 'absorb evil' (which requires proving the bible is historically accurate, including the death and ressurection and Jesus)

Fifth AFTER you have proven the death and ressurection of Jesus you must prove he did 'absorb evil', but before you do that you must objectivily define good and evil and prove it can be absorbed


After that you can get to the sixth reason? Why I give a shit about the status of my evil (and you cannot answer this till you have objectively defined evil)

File: image.jpg (202KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 800x600px

>>10021151

Well if rational conviction stops at the doorway, I'd settle for that - but so far I've never found it provided.

>>10021169
>leap of faith "everybody who doesn't think what I do is merely asleep but doesn't know it yet, I'm made euphoric by my own Christianity" nigger
Ew. Kierkegaard is the fedoralord of Christianity

>>10021180
Clearly you know nothing of Kierkegaard. He said himself that he hadn't attained faith which is why he placed himself between his two pseudonyms Johannas Climacus and Ante Climacus. The former not being a Christian at all, the latter being a full-bred Christian. Also he wasn't exactly euphoric, which is why he talked about despair an awful lot.

File: 475px-Assistants_and_George_Frederic_Watts_-_Hope_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (53KB, 475x599px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 475x599px

Faith is always at a disadvantage; it is a perpetually defeated thing which survives all of its conquerors.

>>10021073
He didn't have the limitations of humanity on himself though (see: miracles), and the suffering was entirely his choice. And if he's omniscient, he should be able to be both with us and for us without coming down as Jesus

>>10021131
This doesn't sound biblically supported at all

@10021147
Philosophy belongs on /lit/

>>10020769
Agnostic theist or agnostic atheist?
Because the result for the man will be a smaller infinite amount of food, he will have lost food. But, it will be a tiny finite amount and relative to all he could have done, he did an infinitesimal amount. It's on an even smaller scale than a billionaire throwing a hobo £0.01 then expecting effusive praise. So, the guy kind of seems right, it's not that meaningful. Maybe when you consider God did it for everyone from the people at Jesus' time to the death of the last man, it's a more significant sacrifice, but it's still finite and hence dwarfed by what he could have done.

File: thinking hard.gif (2MB, 480x264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x264px

>>10021205
>smaller infinite amount of food

>>10021207
Like if I count the naturals I get an infinite set, then I count the naturals but starting from 25 I get a smaller infinite set

>>10021173
Your response reeks of pseud, fedora, and new-atheism, but I'll respond anyways.

>making assertions
Yes, the gentleman and I had agreed beforehand that there were good arguments for the existence of a God who was supremely good. You're referring to common ground that was established earlier in the conversation.

>First that humanity is "evil". And in order to this you must define good and evil in an objective manner (good fucking luck)

An act of evil for me is anytime I willingly pass up an opportunity to do good, or, in other words, fail to be godly. I do this many times a day.

>Second that God even needs to be the "ultimate good". Why not the ultimate evil? Why not both? Why not neither good nor evil? (again this requires to define good and evil objectivily)

Go read Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descarte, or Leibniz.

>Third that evil can be 'absorbed' and whatever the hell that means? (this will also need some objective proof)
>Fortu that the Christian God did 'absorb evil' (which requires proving the bible is historically accurate, including the death and ressurection and Jesus)

'Absorbed' was a poor choice of word. Forgiven, annulled, or paid for are better. Think of it in terms of justice. When someone does wrong, there are negative consequences. I do wrong all throughout my life, and accordingly become unlike God and inadvertently distance myself from him. I can't be like God, so God made himself like me. This is an example of supreme goodness. Christ became human, took responsibility for the sins of all men across time, and carried those sins to a miserable death so that I could be close to him despite the evils I commit, while at the same time preserving divine justice.

>Fifth AFTER you have proven the death and ressurection of Jesus you must prove he did 'absorb evil', but before you do that you must objectivily define good and evil and prove it can be absorbed
>After that you can get to the sixth reason? Why I give a shit about the status of my evil (and you cannot answer this till you have objectively defined evil)

I regret responding to this.

>>10020769
YASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

>>10021211
Is it though? Even if you start at a different point you're still going to get an infinite set, it doesn't stop at a definite point so the fact that one set gets a head-start is no matter.

>>10021227
The sets are still infinite, I haven't denied that, but infinities can be of different sizes, as they are in my example. Stop your eliminativism

>>10021223
Why can't you become like God?

>>10021236
Infinities can be of different sizes but not in the context of "infinity" as a theological concept, and I'm not convinced infinities in this context have been reduced.

Infinity-25 is still infinite.

>>10021236
This is the meaning of life: to try to become as godlike as possible. Plato says this explicitly in Theaetetus. And, of course, The New Testament ad infinitum to follow Christ's example.

But my nature prevents me from ever truly being like God, because I am tired, indifferent, ignorant, selfish, slothful, lustful...etc. In other words, I'm human.

>>10021243
If you're considering infinities not in the sense of mathematical concept applied to theology, but a theological concept in itself constructed purely by theologians, then you're probably right. But I think it's naive and egotistical to construct a concept when the concept has already been constructed by people who understand it more than you.


Your willing eliminativism is missing the point

>>10021248
But if you're following Christ's example, you aren't becoming godlike. You yourself said God made himself like you when he became christ and became human. To be Christ is to be human, so to be like Christ is to simply be like another human

>human nature existing
>those traits being static and not changeable with effort
Nice memes

>>10021261
I'm pretty sure "infinite" in terms of theology is even older than mathematics as a distinct discipline.

>>10021268
As a shit concept that's even more poorly defined than, and lacking the rigour found in, mathematics

>>10021261
Christ is God. To be like Christ is to be like God. Christ became like man only so that I could be closer to him and more like him.

Is it possible for a human being to do the right thing at every opportunity they get? To never slack in righteousness? To never be lazy? To never be petty or selfish?

>>10021272
>I don't understand divine infinity
>Therefore it's a bad concept.
Go back to /sci/ please.

>>10021275
And now you're going against the law of identity, by saying human = Christ = God, by which you allow a human to be God. You're also assigning your own purpose to God's incarnation as Christ which doesn't seem to be strictly biblically supported

It's possible, though highly improbable and an unfeasible goal. A more sensible goal would be to do more of the "right" things with each day

>>10021277
That's NOT an argument

It is a bad, nebulous concept though, deal with it

>>10021288
>It is a . . . nebulous concept
Wow, gee. I wonder why that could be?

Why would concepts surrounding an unknowable, incomprehensible otherworldly being be nebulous?

File: trinity1.jpg (31KB, 401x432px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 401x432px

>>10021288
Familiarize yourself with the trinity and the concept of holy mysteries.

You really think it's possible for a morally perfect person to exist who isn't literally God incarnate? Like, really?

File: weeping246.jpg (6KB, 206x308px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 206x308px

There is, don't forget, an extent to which Christianity back in the day relied on evidence and testimony. The Gospel of John even mentions eyewitnesses to the Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. Indeed, much of early Christian teaching is a matter of making sense of things that really happened, rather than building a philosophical system out of theories and premises.

>>10021292
>unknowable
>incomprehensible
Literally no reason to think this philosophically

And your admission that it is a nebulous concept is tantamount to an admission of it being a bad concept tbqhwy

>>10021296
If you're OP, I see why you got btfo, you seem to have trouble engaging with arguments and instead fall to sophist sidestepping rhetoric

>Trinity
Nice heresy

File: Farm at a monastery.png (1MB, 1280x672px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x672px

>>10021261
>>10021275
This seems like needless bickering.

To be as Christ is to be a human united with God's will. In this sense, we have unity with God and could in a sense be considered becoming one with God (the Orthodox concept of Theosis) but at the same time it does not change what you are: Human.

You both are correct and fight over what amounts to phrasing.

>>10021306
What the fuck kind of god would be knowable and comprehensible?

File: Max Patrician5.jpg (486KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 750x500px

>>10021306
>Trinity
>Nice heresy
There is mountains of evidence to show the support of the Trinity as Christian. Where do you get off calling this heresy?

>>10021298
This is true, and sadly something which is ignored or dismissed when brought up to religious skeptics. If they can't see it, they will demand you show it through reason, with their fallacy chart in hand.

>>10021306

>Ignoring my question.

File: Max Patrician2.jpg (1MB, 2560x1706px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1706px

>>10021298
Most definitely. It's horrendous the extent the reformation - and later the modernists - took to destroy the intellectual and spiritual traditions of Christendom before it while still promoting what they called Christianity.

>>10021308
The idea of theosis is very interesting to me, I wish the Catholics talked about it more often. Does theosis happen only after death? Or is it a fleeting experience one can have during their lifetime?

File: Eucharist 5.jpg (194KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 683x1024px

>>10021313
And there's a great extent to which God and Christ is still mysterious to us, even today. Our theology is built on Scripture, which we rely upon because we trust that Scripture contains an element of revelation--that is, knowledge transmitted to mankind directly from God. So, basically, all we know about God is what he's told us and shown us. What little is beyond that is merely further deductions we've made by taking Scripture and applying our reason to it, and then trusting that God must be rational.

This is why faith is so important. Faith is a kind of private revelation. Through faith we know beyond knowing that God is real, that Christ rose from the dead, and the Christianity is true. It is God's direct communication with us, a sign of his continued activity in the world; it's a candle flame kindled in our souls, and from that light we may read all things, Scripture and the rest of the world, in the light they're meant to be seen in.

>>10020769

The philosophical arguments for Gd support the undivided Gd....which is what Gd is, without internal division. But logical arguments for a first cause etc shouldn't be the foundation for your belief or relationship in Gd, you should believe in Gd because you love Gd and because you have faith in Him.

>>10021327
Theosis isn't a Catholic concept. Catholics shun it as imprecise, poetic, and heretical if taken seriously. It's an Orthodox concept.

>>10021151
if you're implying that a leap of faith must be made then your argument is pointless. You can't fill in massive gaps in your argument with "oh you gotta just go for it bro".

>>10021312
"" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" mountains"" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""
No

>>10021317
Yes, there is no reason a person couldn't do the right thing at all the opportunities they had. Though by your definition, of evil being willingly passing up the opportunity to do good, to simply do nothing and expose yourself as little as possible to humans would allow one to easily do all the right things at the opportunities that prevent themselves.

>>10021311
Any god that can make its machinations known, and cares for its creations and understands uncertainty causes suffering, and drives people away from belief.

>>10021337
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 460:

"The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

You guys aren't actually christian right? This is just one big meme. You can't possibly be religious these days and NOT be deluded.

>God ordered all the atoms and molecules of the universe together for billions of years in order to tempt some fags to eat an apple
>God creates us as flawed creatures
>He puts a don't touch me tree right in front of us
>God is all knowing
>Humans (which he created) inevitably fuck up and touch the arbitrary tree
>"WTF HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN"
>Curses the human lineage so hard he has to kill himself to fix it (seriously, he's God. Why such a painful and roundabout method?)
>He then returns three days later, completely defeating the point of his own sacrifice

I hope that if there's a god, it's not the Christian god. Because that dude is drunk as shit

>>10021346
Answer my question. Defend yourself with an argument rather than rhetoric.

>>10021346
Why would god necessarily want to make his machinations known, care about his creations or want to encourage people to believe?

>>10021343
Please go back to whatever board you crawled in from. If you read what I said, and if your fedora isn't on so tight as to hinder your reading comprehension, then you would understand that what I am saying is that the gap is a small one.

>>10021351

Anyone here who calls themselves orthodox is 100% memeing, whilst maybe 50% of Catholics are larping. The rise in orthodoxy on 4chan correlates with the rise of /pol/.

>>10021351
I go to Mass every Sunday, go to Confession frequently, and believe in the Real Presence.

>>10021356
>why would God care about his creations
Nigga this naturally follows from omnibenevolence
>encourage people to believe
So they don't go to Hell, naturally follows from omnibenevolence as well.
>make his machinations known
Follows from the aforementioned and what I explained in my previous post

>>10021353
That it's not heresy is a positive claim, simply based on misinterpretations of the bible. To be heresy, it needs to not be biblically supported, so you need to provide the verses you think support the Trinity.

File: 1491969088678.png (552KB, 545x640px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 545x640px

>>10021362
Wow, name-calling and memery, truly the christian way of making your point.

All you said was
>The arguments only lead you to the doorstep, not through the door. It's pointless to lay out the arguments unless you can accept that.

Which is a good way of saying "I'm dancing around the question instead of actually answering it."

I assume your reply to this will be another buzzword-heavy attempt to deflect the question rather than make any sort of argument.

File: 1-Gethsemane-and-the-mountain.jpg (129KB, 903x600px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 903x600px

>>10021350
I stand corrected. My bad. Theosis as "becoming God" in the Orthodox sense is rejected on the terms I mentioned, however.

>>10021351
90 percent of the "Christians" on 4chan have political motivations.They don't want to pray at the altar, but rather stand atop it and shout orders.

File: nons.jpg (79KB, 1155x326px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1155x326px

>>10020769
>How do we turn philosophical arguments for God into arguments for Christianity?

You can't. Even if a god proof existed it would only prove that SOME god exists and it couldn't prove that only 1 god exists.

File: godproof.jpg (177KB, 1009x538px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1009x538px

>>10021375
2/2

>>10021363

>>10021365
Then you're deluded. Sorry.

>>10021363
I grew up orthodox, and the fact that people are willingly converting to this branch of christianity makes me laugh.

All orthodoxy is is all the stupid delusions of modern christianity paired with the sentiment that shaming and guilting others into your archaic practices is not only okay, but part of the culture.

Honestly, fuck orthodoxy. Especially greek orthodoxy.

File: christchanisdead.png (986KB, 777x777px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 777x777px

>>10021363
>The rise in orthodoxy on 4chan correlates with the rise of /pol/.

Ahem, orthodoxcucks are even less conservative than other Christcucks. Moreover /pol/ is anti Christian.

File: 1503447712305.jpg (54KB, 600x612px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x612px

>>10021366
No, heresy means that it goes AGAINST doctrine. It would upset be tied solely to the Bible unless you were assuming Protestant Christianity to be true and all doctrine extends from the Bible.


Also, no biblical support?

>"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." - 1 John 5:7

>"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." - Matthew 28:19

Any more necessary?

File: miracle2005-10.jpg (70KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x400px

>>10021385
>deluded

Really?

>>10021393
The definition of delusion according to Google Dictionary:
>an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

so yes

>>10021368
Look friend, this has become a pointless conversation. At the same time, I want you to know that I used to be just like you.

You are beyond my help. What you need is an education. A real education. You aren't going to get it from me, and you aren't going to get it from this website. You aren't going to get it from Dawkins or Hitchens or a fallacy chart. You can only get the sort of education you need from a very special set of people and the books they have written. You need to spend a few years with these people, two years at the very minimum.

But you probably aren't interested in learning what these people have to say. And that's a shame. On the off chance that you are interested, I'll repeat the/ /lit/ mantra: Start with the Greeks. I'll pray for, fedora-anon. Maybe we can try this again in a couple years.

File: gays.jpg (535KB, 1086x1080px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1086x1080px

>>10021390
>>"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." - 1 John 5:7
Stop using crappy translations, buddy. The original says:

"
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
"

Maybe you also claim that the New Testament condemns gays, eh?

File: 1504927066621.jpg (51KB, 570x761px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 570x761px

>>10021363
The rise if Christianity on /pol/ came just before it's popularity in 2013-2015. This is where the Catholic focus came from. The rise of Orthodoxy on 4chan came with /his/ and partially from before it.

/pol/ is conflicted over religion now as /pol/ grew in popularity in 2016 and an influx of Redditers came that were very atheistic and/or ethnic nationalists that were turning to paganism.

>>10021372
S'all good, baby.

File: ideal.jpg (245KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 750x1000px

>>10021403
>The rise if Christianity on /pol/

No, such thing. Don't delude yourself. There are a couple of Vultfags and larpers, but there are nearly no Christianity threads on /pol/ and the ones that exists are full of negative comments and images.

File: Our-Lady-of-Guadalupe.jpg (356KB, 1151x1525px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1151x1525px

>>10021395
Ah, but what if reality doesn't contradict it?

>>10021390
Ultimately, all doctrine does extend from the Bible. The philosophical conclusions of the Church are only accepted insofar as they agree with the Bible

The "Word" isn't Jesus, so doesn't show a Trinity. >>10021400 may also be right, I don't know the original languages and of the books tbf

What do you this Matthew 28:19 shows? Because if you're trying to use it to support the Trinity, you're saying is says a lot more than the words actually say, since it just notes the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are involved in baptisms, not that they exist together in a supposed Trinity

File: jes.jpg (553KB, 1184x1080px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1184x1080px

>>10021407
2/2

As if to illustrate my point. There is currently no Christianity/Jesus thread on /pol/ except this one: http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/141456075/#141471259

and it's full of negative comments. There are some Christians on /pol/ (duh) but there are only a handful of them and they get BTFO every time they show their ugly head.

>>10021397
Like I said here >>10021368 I grew up orthodox. I went to sunday school. I had the 'education' a.k.a. preying on children with vulnerable minds.

I am lucky I exposed myself to philosophy at a young age, because I did start with the greeks, which is why I now have the capability to have rational thought. so when you say
>You aren't going to get it from Dawkins or Hitchens or a fallacy chart.

You're just re-affirming my point about a leap of faith, and disregarding actual rational arguments for your own deluded beliefs. You're asking me to to basically be brainwashed by people for a couple years then come back to you.

If you feel like actually making your argument, feel free because I am interested in learning how you managed to delude yourself into this religion. This is a message board and I won't be able to interrupt you until you've posted it, not to mention I am actually interested in how you spin this.

And like I said you would, you deflected the question perfectly. Well done, you've learned well from your predecessors.

>>10021411
then please provide proof of that

>>10021420


meant here >>10021385

File: czeslaw-milosz-494913.jpg (113KB, 640x820px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 640x820px

>>10021407
No no this is well before. As I said, by 2016 the migration had changed the culture of /pol/ to be more anti-christian.

In 2014-2015 there were daily Christian and Catholic Generals. This was migrated to /his/ which caused a massive uproar as religious discussion dominated the board and history fans were upset.

>>10021416
*what do you think the Matthew verse shows

>>10021397
where's your argument, mate?

File: Max Patrician13.jpg (682KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 1024x768px

>>10021416


No, all doctrine does not extend from the Bible but in Protestant Christianity (which is still questionable as the canon is not declared in the Bible but the canon is doctrine). By any other Christian tradition all scripture cannot be against doctrine but it is not the full extent of what is contained in doctrine as that is also maintained by oral teachings, church councils, and the like.

>The "Word" isn't Jesus

So when John 1:14 speaks about the Word becoming flesh, what non-Jesus incarnation of God is he speaking about?

>What do you this Matthew 28:19 shows?

Either polytheism - the father, son, and holy spirit being put in equal leverage as to what something as important as baptism is done for - or a unity of all three. As, given the culture, polytheism is off the menu pretty much entirely it would mean a trinity.

Christians on 4chan are an extremely, extremely, loud minority, literally every poll we've ever had on this site shows that the bulk of users are agnostic(self described) or atheist. A substantial amount of christians here are probably frustrated ex-atheists who got assblasted by the accuracy of ""le fedora"" memes, glanced at cosmological arguments, realised they made 'sense' and appealed to their autismo-logic and applied their alt-right politics to traditionalist christianity.

>>10021476
All polls I've seen pre-election have put it at a near 50-50 split and newer ones post-election migration have put it a very sizable minority.

File: few.jpg (261KB, 1004x693px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1004x693px

>>10021489
>All polls I've seen pre-election have put it at a near 50-50 split

You've seen the wrong polls then. This poll is before the split when Christfags were the loudest.

>>10021489
>>10021489
That doesn't surprise me at all. Just wondering: how long would you say you've been on 4chan?
I've been for about 7 years and ALL I can remember is a long history of contrarianism. 4chan was aggressively atheist at one point, and once Reddit became the face of that, coupled with the surge of right wing politics pre and post election a Christian minority developed

>>10021467
I'm not going to argue with you, because you aren't seeking the truth.

"Isn't it one great precaution not to let them taste of arguments while they are young? I suppose you aren't aware that when lads get their first taste of them, they misuse them as though it were play, always using them to contradict; and imitating those men who by whom they are refuted, they themselves refute others, like puppies enjoying pulling and tearing with argument at those who happen to be near. Then when they themselves refute many men and are refuted by many, they fall quickly into a profound disbelief at what they formerly believed. And as a result of this, you see, they themselves and the whole activity of philosophy become the objects of slander among the rest of men. An older man, however, wouldn't be willing to participate in such madness. He will imitate the man who's willing to discuss and consider truth rather than one who plays and contradicts for the sake of the game" (Republic, 539b-539c3).

File: hahahahaha.jpg (254KB, 800x865px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 800x865px

>>10021504
>I could argue with you, but you have a different viewpoint from me so I won't.

Also
> He will imitate the man who's willing to discuss and consider truth rather than one who plays and contradicts for the sake of the game
is you right now.

So, why did you BTFO yourself with that quote? Religious intellect strikes again!

File: Syrian Mary.jpg (59KB, 541x357px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 541x357px

>>10021497
>303 vote poll

There have been far bigger polls, Anon. Further, your poll here actually has a close 50-50 split just as I mentioned.

>explicit followers of a religion: 83
>"spiritual" but believe in God (by virtue of the third answer leaving it out): 53
>"spiritual" but no God: 37
>explicit supporters of naturalism: 130

The first two together would be 136
The second two together would be 167

55-45 split between Christians and non-Christians (discounting the potential for Jews and Muslims on /pol/).

>>10021503
Been here since 2008.

There is contrarianism, but you misrepresent it to put it so bluntly. 4chan has always housed counter-cultures. Counter-cultures don't simply develop to be contrarian.

>>10021473
Yes, the Bible isn't the full extent of the doctrine. But that is completely irrelevant to the assertion that the doctrine extends from the Bible. New realisations can be built on existing knowledge, and still ultimately have their basis in they existing knowledge
By tradition, do you mean denomination?

The Word became Jesus, that does not make it Jesus, since Jesus is an aspect of the Word.

The Holy spirit as an actual entity seems like a leap, it could very well be, and likely is considering the way it's talked agouti in the Bible, simply the power of the Father, not separate from him or a person unto itself, but considered a separate embodiment by humans

>>10021513
>your poll here actually has a close 50-50 split just as I mentioned.

No, it hasn't. Followers of religion (e.g. Christians) would be something like a total of 20%.

>The first two together would be 136

The second has nothing to do with Christianity, anon. Just because you believe in some God doesn't make you a Christian at all.

>There have been far bigger polls

Show them. And no bullshit polls like "What is your religion?" or where the only non-religion option is "Atheist/Agnostic".

>>10021549
>Just because you believe in some God doesn't make you a Christian at all.

Nope, it just makes you an idiot.

File: Procession of the Trinity.png (49KB, 730x666px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 730x666px

>>10021528
>But that is completely irrelevant to the assertion that the doctrine extends from the Bible.

The phrasing could be mistaken as that being all it extends from, hence my comment which was a response to "to be heresy, it needs to not be biblically supported" and "ultimately, all doctrine does extend from the Bible." That is explicitly wrong.

The Bible couldn't be the basis either as the Biblical canon didn't exist until after multiple church councils and the canon was made doctrine BY a council.

>The Word became Jesus, that does not make it Jesus, since Jesus is an aspect of the Word.

You contradict yourself. Did the word become flesh or did an aspect of the word become flesh?

>Holy Spirit as an actual entity

As John 14:26 says: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." I find it hard to not prescribe at least personage to the Holy Spirit. It need not be considered its own entity. St. Augustine himself made the comparison of the trinity in which the Holy Spirit was considered self-love as the father was compared the mind and the son was compared to self-knowledge. Such a view is in line with the view of the procession of the trinity as well. Pic related.


>>10021549
So in what world are you expecting actual Muslims, Jews, and Hindi on /pol/? Paganism wasn't a thing on /pol/ until late 2016.

>Show them. And no bullshit polls like "What is your religion?" or where the only non-religion option is "Atheist/Agnostic".
>show me strawpolls

Uhhhh, well I found this immediately in Google.

http://www.strawpoll.me/12664749/r
>2017 poll of all times
>nearly 1500 voters
>Christians at 45%
>Atheists and Agnostics collectively at 40%

Whats bullshit about the non-religion option being agnostic/atheist anyway? Granted it's not as clear but there is a space for people in between regardless.

>>10021590
>Uhhhh, well I found this immediately in Google.

Yeah, just as predicted. You posted a shitty poll where spiritual people don't even have an option. Already the wording "What religion" is biased. You see, when I don't have own bike, I don't respond to polls that ask "What kind of bike do you have". And already in your biased poll Christians are a minority, atheists/agnostics are 40% and 20% are non-Christian.

>So in what world are you expecting actual Muslims, Jews, and Hindi on /pol/?

Dude, those who follow a religion are 27% per the poll I posted. Of these some are Jews, Muslims, Hindus WHATEVER. So Christians were maybe 20% of /pol/ at the height of Christfaggotry which your own poll confirms. Learn to poll.

>>10020769
What is the source of that image?

>>10021503

> ALL I can remember is a long history of contrarianism.

Been here since 2007, this. Christianity here is a rejection of the predominantly atheist rhetoric and a general move towards traditionalism. there are a handful of 'legit' christians but honestly I'm surprised they'd even come to this site.

>>10021559
Given the history of western theistic thought and the various kinds of theism in the world, I'd call this extremely stupid.

>>10021611
A show on HBO called Westworld. I highly recommend it.

>>10021620
I'll check it out, you think it's better if I read the book first?

>>10021624
There is no book. Now you can watch it guilt free.

>>10021634
Misread, it's actually based on a movie from 1973.

>>10021590
I maintain that is all it extends from.
Which councils are you referring to? Are you referring to councils like the council of Nicea, which simply agreed on an interpretation of the Bible?

There's no contradiction, the Word could have fully become flesh and it would still not be the flesh, in the same way trees can become tables and cutlery, so to say tables are trees is wrong.

How could you give it personage yet not in doing so demarcate it as its own entity?

File: XFqRmi7_d.jpg (41KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x1136px

>>10021609
>they are the largest ideological group at 40%
>still defending them as the minority when my claim was about a 50/50 split anyway

That fits closer to my idea than being a "very loud minority", which would ignore that they are the largest single group by that poll's data.


And what's the fighting over the poll for? Yes, there's no option for the "spiritual but not religious" or not theistic shtick we see in western thought today. However it isn't like they won't find a close alternative and it's not like this works in the favor of the Christians at all.

>so Christians were maybe 20% of /pol/ at the height of Christfaggotry which your own poll confirms. Learn to poll.

So how did you jump from Christians at 40% post-migration to Christians at 20% pre-migration (the height)?

>>10021654
>So how did you jump from Christians at 40% post-migration to Christians at 20% pre-migration (the height)?

No, I jumped to 20% Christians with unbiased wording and polls that include spirituality.

>>10021169
I have and he's entirely unconvincing.

>>10021617
religion is a delusion

>>10021664
He really is. I'm not sure why anyone recommends him as a useful author on Christianity and faith.

>>10021682
You need to be 18 to post here

>>10021660
So you're just guestimating and throwing out numbers now.
Alright.

Well I'm done then.

>>10021692
>So you're just guestimating

No, I am basing my comments on a well designed properly worded poll.

>>10021684
I for the most part get the impression he's recommended and liked by non religious people of a certain individualist leaning. Kierkegaard was a powerful writer and I can see how he would influence people, but putting him in plain language would mean the power of his writing is almost entirely gone.

>>10021687
you need to be capable of rational thought to have an argument.

Are you seriously religious or are you just memeing? Please give me a valid argument for the existence of God and why we should worship such a being.

Try answering this without dancing around the answer of deflecting the question, please. As long as you are not deluded this should be easy for you.

>>10021713

The First Way: Argument from Motion
Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
Therefore nothing can move itself.
Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
Nothing exists prior to itself.
Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
Assume that every being is a contingent being.
For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

>>10021726

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
Most natural things lack knowledge.
But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

>>10021726
>First way
Our senses prove nothing. We are 3-dimensional creatures and 'motion' may not necessarily be reality.

>Second way
There's no evidence for God. There is much evidence for other theories such as the big bang. You basically just shove God in at the end of your argument and expect me to be okay with you filling gaps.

>Third way
Same thing.

>Fourth Way
That argument is flawed. Just because we require reference for predications of degree that does not imply that there MUST be a perfect being. Something will be hot regardless of whether we have a reference point or not. The reference point is for our own human understanding, not as an indication of reality.


>Fifth Way
Then God designed brutal viruses and diseases that kill children before they have grown. He has allowed natural disasters to destroy countries. He has allowed the murder and extinction of his own creation.

You have provided weak evidence for his existence, and absolutely no viable reason to worship him.

>>10021746
Wow, truly you are enlightened. Aquinas BTFO.

>>10021746
Motion means change.
Aquinas doesn't assume a linear causality from the fi... Eh what's the point. Read a book nigger.

>>10021763
*Like

>>10021763
He really turned this thread into a fucking dumpster dive.

I love it how "arguments" for God only work if you believe in God. I didn't need to believe in gravity to be convinced by Newton's arguments, bitch.

>>10021800
But Newton was wrong you fucking brainlet. Damn, /lit/ is in a sorry state tonight.

>>10021746
Not that fag, but:
>We are 3-dimensional creatures and 'motion' may not necessarily be reality.
The problem here that leads to the need of something as an unmovable motor to make sense of nature isn't the concept of motion itself (which is difficult to argue against, even when you assume the physical world isn't exactly as we see it), I think the problem comes from a lack of understanding of how time and space are related (and how the Big Bang happened, etc.).
>The Second Way
I think the problem here is the believe that objects (things that exist separately from each other) do exist.
>Third Way
This is again more a problem of how we see the world which leads us to false conclusions. Anyway, it cold've been solved in a "deus sive natura" spinozian way.
>Fifht way
I think you didn't really address his point. But the arrgumentation he gives is flawed, it takes adaptation and gives it human motives. Life just adapts to its environment, there's no goal. the fact that more complex being appear doesn't render simpler beings obsolete.

>>10021829
1) I'm talking about arguments and how they can convince, retard.
2) Gravitational force does exist. So even if his theories are outdated he wasn't so far-off.
3) Don't evade my point, faggot.

>>10021147
/his/ is plagued by these retarda too. Sage threads.

>>10021147
Well, in all fairness OP's discussing fiction.

Is /lit/ actually religious or is it just a contrarian reaction to reddits blind scientism?

>>10021850
It's just for the joy of being a contriarian little shit.

>>10021476
Christianity is only a meme right now because internet atheism got too popular so now vocal people have to suddenly jump to the other end of the spectrum to feel special again, and along the way suggestible teenagers are being persuaded by pseudo intellectual meandering, just like with atheism a couple of years ago.

Soon this will get too popular with "normie" types and we will see a new fad paraded around, and the cycle will forever continue

>>10021866

right, just like how people used to quote dawkins and now they quote william lane craig.

>>10021850
/lit/ isn't one person.
People read and reach different conclusions.
People that disagree with you aren't contrarians because of that.
Reddit atheism is certainly not relevant enough to prompt people into converting to Catholicism.

Why do all these atheists have such a problem with accepting that not everyone thinks like them and seek rationalisations in reverse mass psychology?

>>10021161

>>10021713
>expected a rational arguments in response to spouting bullshit claims

Do you usually respond with concise argumentation when being called a fag or something? You're ridiculous.

I'm seriously religious. I find Divine Conservation a decent enough reason to support God as existing. To worship God would come by extension of loving the world around us and our own natures. If God creates and sustains nature and it's order then worship of God comes from caring about it and redirection towards God primarily allows us to explicitly give praise to all around us while orienting ourselves towards that natural order.

Now back to your previous post, a religion is an established way of life based on a metaphysical worldview. The goal, worldview, structure, degree it is established, and the like differ between every religion. In what way are you not just calling worldviews that lead to ways of life delusional because you disagree with them?

>>10021866
See
>>10021907

>>10020769
>If he is an omnipotent God then it is meaningless for him to sacrafice himself. He could do it a hundred times and it wouldn't be anything to him. So his sacrafice wasn't even really a sacrafice. Especially since he knew he wouldn't die and that he would instead be resurrected
I would ignore the big plot holes here and go to the even bigger embarrassment
>he wouldn't die
He did die and then he resurrected. He experienced the worst of this world and died in the most humiliating way, if even the people back then who absolutely believed in his teachings and saw his miracles were afraid to die like him you can start to understand how much of a sacrifice he made.

>>10020769
>I then thought later that a good response to this might have been to consider a case where I was starving and without food. A man with an infinite supply of food comes along and looks down on me. He takes pity, and tells me he will supply me with a lifetime supply of food. Now, there are two ways to think about my benefactor. One is to praise him and be thankful, which is the Christian way. The other is to be thankless and to say that his act of charity was meaningless since it came at no cost to him.

The scenario should be changed slightly. Yes, he has an infinite supply of food but to give you your infinite supply (not a lifetime's), he must experience starvation.

>>10022592
Ah, this is better. Thanks, anon.

>>10022486
because many of these worldviews rely on beliefs about the world that directly contradict reality. Hence delusion.

You'll have to explain divine conversation to me, because from a quick google it just seems like you're using god's LACK of action to prove his existence? I'm sure I have misunderstood this.

If you're going for a naturist route to religion, you may as well drop the irrational deities and go to buddhism, which has tonnes more applicability to real life than any religion that worships a deity.

>>10022830
I am a retard who never read philosophy, the post.

File: 1393497147258.gif (787KB, 240x174px) Image search: [Google]

787KB, 240x174px

>>10021298
>>10021169
didn't early christianity have to reconcile with the philosophies and schools of thought during the late roman empire? i recall learning and reading about the many early xtian councils attempting to make sense of just wtf this new religion was about. if it didn't make sense to the philosophical systems of the day, then they had to figure out a logical way to get around it or alter their beliefs, thus accounts for the numerous definitions of terms and breakaway sects of xtians.

to get rid of the philosophical arguments from faith is to stifle the journey, no?

>>10022830
>because many of these worldviews rely on beliefs about the world that directly contradict reality. Hence delusion.

So you prove yourself to be calling people delusional for disagreeing with your worldview. You just presume you are correct about your worldview.

Divine Conservation is the view that things ultimately do rely on something outside of itself for its own existence constantly. Details of what that is and why that is are derived from the individual arguments themselves. The vast majority of cosmological arguments are arguments for Divine Conservation rather than a past temporal cause (a "before the big bang"). It's just modern misconception that they are seen as all about a past temporal cause.

I could give an example of a proof for Divine Conservation if you wish. A retelling of an old famous one.

>irrational deities

So you don't know anything about classical Christian theology and how it encompasses pretty much all of western natural theology and is the basis of Natural Law?

Buddhism has a very different worldview than Naturalism, as does Christianity. Your distaste for theistic views you disagree with over other views you disagree with just comes off as awkward.

>I then thought later that a good response to this might have been to consider a case where I was starving and without food. A man with an infinite supply of food comes along and looks down on me. He takes pity, and tells me he will supply me with a lifetime supply of food. Now, there are two ways to think about my benefactor. One is to praise him and be thankful, which is the Christian way. The other is to be thankless and to say that his act of charity was meaningless since it came at no cost to him.

Except in this case the other man created your starvation, and all of human starvation, and the very physical universe and laws that allow and necessitate starvation as a consequence of arbitrary scarcity.

>>10022919
>during the late roman empire?
No, Justin Martyr, the first Christian philosopher in 150 in his Apologies Ad puts Plato and Aristotle close to the prophets of the OT in authority and sees them as anticipators of Christ who were enlightened by God so that the pagans may recieve his Word.
Also what's with the x instead of Christ?

>>10022830
As a Buddhist, I would not call our religion "naturist" or naturalistic (an amusing mistake, as naturism is a synonym nudism). Buddhism would be more critical of the very segregation implied by labelling nature and non-nature, matter and consciousness etc.

File: 1500103997788.jpg (35KB, 708x340px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 708x340px

>>10022919
Pretty much right. Groups splitting over different ideas was very controlled and still centralized by apostolic authority. A journey towards Christianity need be an intellectual one. Further, to blindly accept it is to misunderstand the Christian view of faith. Christianity had a history of explaining and defending just what it is saying in thorough detail.

Faith that Christianity speaks about is a faith in God, not a faith of God. It presupposes the reality of the worldview and focuses on trusting God through suffering and life generally. We take on such challenges correctly by sticking to and seeking what is good always.

File: ndnb27t.jpg (459KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 2048x1536px

>>10022928
>>10022830
I actually have work soon so Ill just post the proof before I have to leave. I'll reference a classic one and give it a modern structure: Aquinas' First Way. Made in the potentiality/actuality distinction, just as he did it.

1. Causation exists.( Empirical Premise)

2. Act and Potency are classic terms we can use to explain causation: When something is in Potency it has the capacity to become something else, but is not it yet. A fertilized egg has the potency to turn into a chick, an unfertilized egg does not. When a potency is realized, it is actual. To actualize a potency is to take a property that something had in potency and make it actually inhere in the thing. The same thing, in this case, for things within an instant. While they are simultaneous they are still essentially ordered. An example of this is a coffee cup suspended by a table. Every instance this is occurring the table is actualizing the coffee's placement.

3. When we find an instance of causation in the world we find some potency being actualized in that same instance.

4. Something that is only in potency cannot actualize anything.

5. For some potency to be actualized something actual must actualize it.

6. If A is actualized by B, then B must first be actual.

7. Either something must have actualized B from being in potency to be in actuality. Or B is either necessarily actual, having never been in potency before. ( A v B)

8. If the left disjunct “A” is true then premise 7 applies to a new cause C.

9. If disjunct “B” is true there is a “first” uncaused cause that is pure actuality.

10. If disjunct “B” is never the case then there is an infinite series of actualizations. And we can apply 7 to C, then to a new cause D, and so forth. With every being having its actuality derived from another being.

11. If “10” is the case then there can be no actualization, as every being in the series has its actuality derived from another being, but there is no being with actuality on it's own to derive the actuality from.

12. If “10” is the case there is no causation

13. There is causation ( from premise 1)

14. Premise “10” is not the case.

15. If premise 10 is not the case, then at some point in the series “9” is the case.

16. There is a first cause, which is a being of pure actuality.

I can help you if needed.

>>10020769
Even if there were a good argument for god, which there isn't, why would it have to be your god?

>>10023064
That's the question OP is asking you idiot.

>>10021223
>An act of evil for me is anytime I willingly pass up an opportunity to do goo

You understand I said only an objective defination of good and evil would be accepted. Suppose I were to tell you that for me 'evil' is failure to follow my instincts. In this case neither your definition or mine is objectively right. We've just taken a word 'evil' and slapped a definition on it.

Than you think that definition contains some absolute truth without bothering to back that up.

This is the general problem with everything OP said. You are doing nothing but playing with definitions while making no real points.

>'Absorbed' was a poor choice of word. Forgiven, annulled, or paid for are better.
When someone says "I forgive you" these are words and maybe some feelings if they are not lying. It's not anything more than that.

>I regret responding to this.
well you did a terrible job. You are basically playing around with symnatics and don't even seem to get how to construct a logical frame-work.

I was kind of cruel by not revealing the answer myself and letting you make a fool of yourself. But there is no system of logic that lets you have objective good and evil because the moment you have to define the terms you have already entered a place of arbitrary thought without logic.

>Go read (these 6 authors)
Smooth one. How about the next time you encounter something you don't like just say "read the entire philosophical cannon" than you will win every engagement!

>Your response reeks of pseud, fedora, and new-atheism
Well your radar sucks. I'd describe myself as a mystic.

it is impossible to make positive arguments for christianity through media, because all media is designed in a way to attack and destroy and replace christianity and all religions once it has fallen, it is the false idols the bible warned of

>>10023261
You tell em! Fucking Jews turning the frogs gay to make way for Has-Satan!

>>10020769

Just admit you don't have any good answers, you'll look honest.

>>10023261

If that's true, why wasn't I allowed to make my video games, which would have done exactly this?

>christian says stupid shit
>multiple responses from atheists
>christians provide a detailed and elaborate response
>atheists hide from it

like potwork

>>10021726
First
>things can't be moved by themselves or not requiring a mover but God can but the universe can't because reasons

Second
>making the same argument but swapping out "mover" for "efficient cause"

Third
Presupposes the universe hasn't existed for the entirety of time, as if the universe can do anything but be.
What does it mean to exist of "its own necessity"?
Also, not all men speak of it as God. I speak of it as a giant gnome that will turn you into a donut if you say it's name. Why would it be your God?

Fourth
First premise sounds retarded and needs justification, and no uttermost case is required. If you have three entities, which are all different in their hotness, there will be one in the middle, and two either side. Just define one direction to be more hot, the other to be less hot and there you go.

>>10021730
What goals do you seeing natural bodies working towards, and how do you know they're working towards them? And why does something not having absolute knowledge require guidance to achieve its goals? This is by far the weakest of the five

>>10021829
Newton was pretty spot on, there's no excluded middle when it comes to truth in science

>>10022553
>crucifixion
>most humiliating way to die
Not even close. And that's even assuming humiliation means anything when you're omnipotent and have a guarantee of infinite life free from humiliation
The fact people were afraid to die the way he did is irrelevant, people are afraid to die all ways

>>10022592
Why can't it be a lifetime's? And you can take from an infinite set and still have infinity left, so starvation is a misnomer

Mathematician here, everyone talking about infinities ITT is making me vomit. You don't even understand the traditional numerical meaning of infinity, never mind the ontological meaning.

>>10023012
>there is a first cause, which is a being of pure actuality
And that is the universe itself

>>10027028
>the universe is God/God is the universe
congratulations, you're a deist

>>10027035
Calling it "god" is a bit of a reach, since that implies a supernatural nature and divine traits which isn't supported by the conclusion I made, and God being the universe abandons any concept a God is taken to exist in, that is, a discrete, superhuman entity, but ok

>>10027017
>hurr durr everyone is wrong but I'm not going to say what is wrong or show how it's wrong, I just came here to drop this worthless post
Stop posting anytime

>>10027055
>I don't understand either God or infinity and I refuse to educate myself
>I would rather make smug posts on an anonymous shitposting forum
gr8 plan m8 it's not like this is common knowledge available on fucking wikipedia or anything

>>10027072
I'm not any of the anon's who were talking about it, I just think your post, which was in itself a smug shitpost, contributed nothing and was pretty shite

>>10027080
And you followed up with a fantastic failure to grasp the definition of God followed by a cutesy "but ok" which was in itself a smug shitpost. Am I missing something?

>>10021161
Kill me

>>10027092
Wasn't really a shitpost, considering I expounded on why I disagreed, but ok

>fantastic failure to grasp the definition of god
How so?

>>10021173
You literally provide some no argument. Your shitpost could be refined by shorthand,

>name drop:{}
>tu quoque
>alt-righti insults

You're a sadsac, and you'll never be anything but
>proving god
The fact is that only the utterly despotic, or disgustingly weak need to rely on god to define a worldview. God is a tertiary concern to a man. First is achieving, second is providing, third is worrying about correlaries and other pseud bullshit

>>10021173
You literally provide some no argument. Your shitpost could be refined by shorthand,

>name drop:{}
>tu quoque
>alt-righti insults

You're a sadsac, and you'll never be anything but
>proving god
The fact is that only the utterly despotic, or disgustingly weak need to rely on god to define a worldview. God is a tertiary concern to a man. First is achieving, second is providing, third is worrying about correlaries and other pseud bullshit

Your definition of evil doesn't merit repeating

>>10027055
>since that implies a supernatural nature and divine traits which isn't supported by the conclusion I made, and God being the universe abandons any concept a God is taken to exist in, that is, a discrete, superhuman entity
First of all, you said in your initial post that the universe is a being of pure actuality, which is a supernatural nature.
Second of all, you're attacking an ontological argument by trying to say it doesn't argue for any classical concept of God, when the entire point of an ontological argument is that it only necessitates the broadest notion of God, and details must be filled in by further discussion. You should read at least Aquinas before you try to jump in on this shit.
Bonus points: God being the universe actually doesn't "abandon any concept a God is taken to exist in" considering that's literally the definition of deism.

>>10027143
How is a being of pure actuality necessarily supernatural in nature? There are natural things that cannot become something more than they are, like quarks? And everything in the universe is natural, and the universe itself is everything in the universe, so to be supernatural something must be more than or outside of the universe, which would contradict "the universe is God"

It was meant to be "exist as", my mistake. And saying that being of pure actuality is the universe doesn't conform to a sense, or at least not the common sense, of deism anyway

>>10027143
Totally irrelevant
Deism is the same as realism. That form exists in and of itself is not the same as begging the question of manifestation/actualisation. We don't need god as an extra correlarary in deism, you can just short form it as the object (which exists in a medium, as in the universe). There's no distinction between god and existing, and since existence is a prerequisite for imagination (physicality), (unless you're a retarded dualist or something equally hand-waves) then the whole thing rests on there being a physical world

Asking where it all came from is just begging the question especially if you subscribe to some idea like deism where you can't answer the question of where god came from (chicken and egg as you've answered he's the chicken/universe but also the egg). This is actually different from a being of pure actualisation (because it proposes something begot a medium for that being, something similar to the world of forms in Platonism). If you are ok with that argument it becomea the exact same solution where you're stuck recursively solving half the first actuality inequality by providing further origins

>>10027028
That would be contradictory to the claim that it is pure actuality. There is change within the universe even, so it cannot be devoid of potency.

>>10027003
Christianity does not over a lifetime's anything, it offers the everlasting. It's more and it's greater than we could ever hope for in life. So saying he's offering you a lifetime's food isn't related to Christianity.

I said he will experience starvation not that he will starve, slightly different in this context. Christ 'experiences' the sins of the world as he dies on the cross. Hence, he experience death for our sake, something that as God he is not required to do but chooses to do. Since He is still God it is a temporary experience for him in this human form. Albiet it is an excrutiating sacrifice.

>>10021343

Read Kierkegaard

>>10021190

To be a Christian means to know the ways you aren't Christian. You misunderstand Kierkegaard. He had way more pseudonyms than that bud. Anticlimacus is actualization in the ethical, but the aesthetical is still necessary. The only one that was actualized ethically perfectly was Christ. Abraham suspends the ethical and achieves faith (Fear and Trembling)

>>10027874
Not change in its contents, simply changes in the arrangement of those contents. In the same way the holy spirit can exist in different places for Trinityfags

>>10027953
The universe does change contents.

>>10027884
Fair enough. But even with the giving of everlasting life, God still has infinite power so there is no loss I'd call significant.

If christ was privy to the knowledge of God, he knew what suffering felt like due to omniscience. And he is required to do it by omnibenevolence. And the temporary nature make the sacrifice even less significant.

>>10027964
The only way I could see that is matter-energy conversions and generally the changes that occur in nuclear physics, but saying those are changes in potency is like saying God going from happiness to anger is a change in potency

>>10021205
>And if he's omniscient, he should be able to be both with us and for us without coming down as Jesus
I think you meant omnipresent. Also, sin separated us from God. The link was cut, so to restore this bridge between God and us, we have to do our part. Because we haven't in the past (and still, most of us don't), it was crucial for Jesus to come down to the physical and show us how things should be done. God does not manifest in sin. God hates sin. Other entities, however, do manifest in sin.

File: 1503795449119.gif (2MB, 320x188px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x188px

>>10021512

>>10028054
No, because of your reference to experiencing suffering, when you said "with us and for us" I assumed you were referring to having some knowledge of what humans go through.
There's no reason God shouldn't be able to reach us because of sin. If you mean sin cut the bridge in more of a metaphorical sense, i.e people were too busy enjoying sinning to believe, hum providing evidence would clear that up sharpish. This is shown in the story where God sets a wet altar on fire, showing his power and existence, and the idolaters realise their mistake and begin to seriously question their false beliefs. Shortly after that the follower of God massacres them, but still.
So, you're saying that before Jesus none could reach God? So literally everybody in the OT is going to Hell, including the most pious people like Abraham?
>inb4 Jesus' sacrifice works backwards in time too

why the fuck is this on /lit/, this is /pol/ material

/lit/ suggestion: read dostoevsky, particularly karamazov