With God All things are possible

Yeah, they're called Clerics in D&D because their power comes from the god they serve. If you're looking for a monotheistic setting, I'm afraid I don't have anything to recommend.

>>55065617
D&D dieties are not equivalent to Catholic GOD

>>55065571
Yes, Mage has a faction like that.

>>55065713
They would be if they wiped out the competition, just like the OG God

>>55065571
Gurps

You can have YHWH as a patreon.

It also lets you buy religious ranks which is cool.

You just get magery with the "comes from god" limitation.

You can't tell me Elijah wasn't rocking at least one of those.

>>55065809
I like how comics explain it, there are powerful(or godlike beings) like thanos.

However they mean nothing to the one above all.

So in this rare case, you can have your cake and eat it too.

>>55065832
>a patreon
how about a rousing game of Tithes & Televangelists?

How about the Devil?

File: shadowrun__father_gregory_by_anonymac-d9zt7zw (1).png (2MB, 1000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1000x1333px

>>55065571
Shadowrun?

>>55065571
What are Obrimos mages.

Ars Magica. The Catholics are canonically, unequivocally right. And so are the Orthodox. And the Muslims. And the Jews. And the Zoroastrians. And the Yazidis.

Look, God is mysterious and confusing. It does have rules for playing as divinely-empowered individuals, complete with the strange things that happen to a person as they get closer to God. There's room for Catholic saints, Sufi mystics, and Cathar perfecti. It also has both fluff and crunch for characters from the wizard society ypu usually play as, the Order Of Hermes, who reject the pagan elements of Hermetic tradition and try to practice their magic in accordance with their faith.

It is worth noting that Catholic theology in ArM's setting is noticeably different from how it is today; the game is set eight hundred years ago, and Thomas Aquinas hasn't been born yet, so there's a lot still to happen.

>>55065809
They really wouldn't. The Catholic God is, just by divine simplicity, extremely different from any other conceived deity in human history.

(For those who don't remember Sunday school, divine simplicity is the idea that
A) God has no spatial parts
B) God has no temporal parts
C) God has no parts which are distinct from God himself)
Compare the notion in set theory that any two sets with the exact same elements are exactly the same set, which is why people talk about "the" empty set as opposed to simply "an" empty set. God is what God is, and nothing can be like what God is without being God, because they are irreducible Godhood.

>>55072184
Why not call it Trinitarian Christian God, or at least cathodox God, instead of "Catholic God".
One that can read this may think that Catholics came up with some unique concept of God, while it is basic concept of all Trinitarian Christian world.

>>55065571
LotR

>>55065571
The problem is that our theology is massive. Like uber massive. Summa theologica, which is as author explains a short work for beginners to explain basics of theology is some six hundred fifteen question of up to six or even eight articles, in three (or four) volumes. And even it does not cover it all.
But a few basics of basics that you should know about it begoe you try to use it as layout for your setting:
>God is by defintion most powerful, most good, all knowing etc etc, all those things that you can use to discribe God. There won't be ever overcoming him, there will be never noone like him, there won't be anything like tricking God plotline. Not at all.
>God however won't make four-angled triangle for it's illogical crap. Nor won't he do unjustice or ungoodness. God won't "deny himself" i.e. He won't do anything that would be against his versy self as all-belovent etc.
>God have to be Trinity. No unitarian crap can be here. It makes no sense. It never made. Arius can suck Nicholas cock.
>Practiclly all that God do to humans (and by it I mean some kind of power up - enhanced strengh via Samson, powe to kick demons asses, illumination by wisdom) can be and is called Grace. Grace is participation (a really massive word in theology) in God's very life.

This are usefull for setting basics. If you want to know more just ask questions. I could for exmple say how angels works. Or rpg-esque stories from Bible.

File: hermes.jpg (2MB, 3564x2097px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3564x2097px

>>55072184
>>55072371
One of the reasons for a lack of media reflecting such concepts of divinity is the logical inconsistencies.

'Will without time', 'omniscient but demands prayer', 'omnibenevolent but not exemplary', that last one being like the killing of children with bears story to prove a point.

As a mode of historical analysis, the papacy was controlled by many powerful aristocratic families, and thus the canonical theology reflected whatever claims to power were least able to be assailed by those who would rebel.

That's not what believers want to hear of course, but then I doubt they really believe pi=3 like it says in the bible, or that slavery and monarchy are a-ok.

At the core value, pagan-like deities are more favored in RPGs because christian-like deities revolve around the powerlessness and inaction of the supplicant: "the meek shall inherit", not "the strong paladin shall inherit". See?

>>55072184
>extremely different

You know this isn't true, right? Christianity is a refinement of "monotheism" (being super-generous about that term), not the first monotheistic religion.

In any case, >>55070330 is the correct answer. Play Ars Magica anyway, it's fucking tight.

>>55072689
>You know this isn't true, right?
Of course it isn't. A lot of Christian dogma was directly translated from Platonism.

Especially after Justinian shut down the philosophy schools, of course.

>>55072664
Well, you have many things got wrong but too long to explain he
>Will without time.
desu I cant understand what are you trying to say here
>omniscient but demands prayer
He doesnt demand anything. Prayer should be dialogue with God, not a mantra that you say as an obligation.
>omnibenevolent but not exemplary
Omnibenevolent but Just, to be exact. And besides that, most of the problems you see when some argue about death is that most fail to realize that humans are immortal and not poof gone after bodily death.

>As a mode of historical analysis, the papacy was controlled by many powerful aristocratic families, and thus the canonical theology reflected whatever claims to power were least able to be assailed by those who would rebel.
My first correction would be that Christian theology is not only Catholic one. You have Orthodox theology that never depended on one singular bishop or center of authority but on Church as it is (some may argue about Ecumenical councils, but when you analyze documents, you get a fair reasons why certain groups were excommunicated).

>doubt they really believe pi=3 like it says in the bible
It doesnt if you are not indiana state protestant
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

>or that slavery
A) Adam was created free, which means that it is unwritten law to condemn slavery (just as creation of Adam and eve unwritten condemns polygamy)
B) Slavery in biblical terms is just an employment and economical system (employee) , unlike slavery in modern understandings (chattel slavery).
Also saying, that slaves shouldnt outright murder their masters, doesnt mean that someone approves slavery. its just a pragmatic advice.

>monarchy are a-ok.
First of all, I cant understand why would one condemn one political system so singlehandedly (though I myself are strictly anti monarchist because of the Christian understanding), but Bible shows that God was against monarchy and ideal system was Judges....

>>55072905
Besides this, you clearly see that God disaproves monarchy in 1 Samuel 8:7, though respects choice of people
>And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

>>55072664
Monarchy isn't okay. Thomas Paine explicitly explains how Divine Right Of Kings is a sin according to the Bible in Common Sense. Go read it.

>>55072905
>Christian theology is not only Catholic one. You have Orthodox theology
Are you actually a professional apologist?

The Book of Tobit, deuterocanonical in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy gives you the right to marry your sister, as directly told by the Archangel Raphael.

Biblical inaccuracy is as well highly studied and known. There are contradictions (ages of kings, amount of soldiers) and mathematical errors (size of circle). Biblical inerrantists are widely considered foolish by modern standards.

>Prayer should be dialogue
An 'omniscient' being would have no use for "dialogue".

>Omnibenevolent but Just, to be exact.
If you personally acted like the Christian deity, torturing Job for a bet, you'd be considered a deranged psychopath.

You know what causes a lot of suffering in the world? Christians unable to admit their errors.

>>55072664
>'Will without time
Not inconsistent.
>'omniscient but demands prayer'
Not even related.
>'omnibenevolent but not exemplary'
Trivially consistent.

>>55072979
>Thomas Paine explicitly explains
If you like him so much, you should read the Age of Reason.

He hated Christianity with a fiery passion and mocked it constantly. That's why he sought to manipulate scripture to restore pagan republicanism.

>>55072689
The key deity's properties do not resemble those of other deities except possibly Brahman as the Godhead. I will accept that it's entirely false to say it's different from EVERY deity, as Brahman is in fact very similar apart from details like divine simplicity. This was a blatant oversight on my part, but I'd disagree with the notion that other forms of monotheism are similar to Orthodox Catholicism. Judaism can be similar, but early Judaism was not, though I concede I have little knowledge of Judaism's evolution over the ages. That said, I consider the Abrahamic God to be the same, whether speaking of the Christian, Muslim or Judaic, so whether it was similar to those was not at all what I wanted to dispute.

>>55072980
>The Book of Tobit, deuterocanonical in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy gives you the right to marry your sister, as directly told by the Archangel Raphael.
it doesnt. Its a marriage formula and you can clearly see this in songs of Solomon ("my sister, my bride", while they were not related") Its about spiritual kinship. Explaining this as allowing incest is like saying that husband and wife literally merege into one human while "becoming one flesh".
Also Bible is against incest, as said in Torah.

>Biblical inaccuracy is as well highly studied and known. There are contradictions (ages of kings, amount of soldiers) and mathematical errors (size of circle). Biblical inerrantists are widely considered foolish by modern standards.
[citation needed]
First I think you mean about Gideon, that cannot be proved. As we dont fully know capacities of that period. We also dont know if it was about soldier only army, or entire tribe (even soldier only armies had more assistants and carriers for logistical purposes than combatants) On second part, I showed you the link.
And be

>An 'omniscient' being would have no use for "dialogue".
this is your attitude, judging by your human brain. God is not a servant or master, but a Father, with whom should we talk. Though of course, he knows what we want (as said by Christ). This also means, that God is talking to us like independent beings (that are not childlike and must be forcefed). Look, prayer is entire subject that we cannot discuss on single thread. for more, you can read works of church fathers, from modern theologians, Kallistos Ware, namely.

>If you personally acted like the Christian deity, torturing Job for a bet, you'd be considered a deranged psychopath.
If you take story as a literal and not as prophecy and narration. Also you missed entire point of that book about endurance of faithful.

>You know what causes a lot of suffering in the world?
Our fall caused by our free will.

>>55072980
The circle size thing just strikes me as pedantic desu. I'm not a Christian but come on, sig figs are a thing, as are approximates and rounding for purposes

>>55073184
>Its about spiritual kinship. Explaining this as allowing incest is like saying that husband and wife literally merege into one human while "becoming one flesh".
>Also Bible is against incest, as said in Torah.
You're factually lying. We have genetic evidence of heavy inbreeding in Jewish and Muslim communities where Abrahamic tradition is observed.

Anyone can read the Book of Tobit and see your lies.

>[citation needed]
Seek and you shall find, Christian.

>with whom should we talk
And yet the being cannot be omniscient if it does not know all you would say.

>If you take story as a literal
It is given as literal. You are lying if you say it is not.

>Our fall caused by our free will.
Caused simply by ignorance and superstition. The fact that you have turned away from the natural world repeatedly is the downfall of all Christian dogma.

And of course why it's not as popular in RPGs as pagan heroism.

>>55073027
Actually, Brahman is different for he is totally immanent to universe according to prime teachings (though Hinduism is completely disorganized and have various schools)
>That said, I consider the Abrahamic God to be the same, whether speaking of the Christian, Muslim or Judaic, so whether it was similar to those was not at all what I wanted to dispute.
They are not.
Trinity is unique concept itself, but At least Judaism and Christian regards God as Father, while Muslims regard God as Just creator and maximum relation one can have with him is Slave-Master relations.
So difference is not only in Unitarianism-Trinitarianism, but also on attitudes on God-Human relations, by which Judaism and Christianity have something in common.

>>55073212
>The circle size thing just strikes me as pedantic desu. I'm not a Christian but come on, sig figs are a thing, as are approximates and rounding for purposes
It isn't when the book claims to be the inviolable word of a divine being.

It is only held to the standards it purports to have.

If it had said "this book can be wrong and was written only by humans, we hope it is helpful, but always value evidence and reason above scripture", things would be entirely different, and there would have been a lot less suffering over its pages.

>>55073246
Which is why I said "apart from details", which is nebulous I'll admit, but small things like how one interacts with the entity, the actions of the entity etc. are not what I'm talking about. Rather, the all-encompassing infinite nature. This is what I meant was similar with Brahman. Mostly just the nature of infinity and absolutes and uniqueness.

>>55065571
Sounds like you want Ars Magica to me

>>55073239
Wow, I sense butthurt. already.

>You're factually lying. We have genetic evidence of heavy inbreeding in Jewish and Muslim communities where Abrahamic tradition is observed.
I was talking about Bible, not on Halakha and Talmud, when regarding Judaism, even though Jews are not inbred, as you want to describe.
And Muslims are completely irrelevant to this subject as they have their set of laws set by Mohamed.

>And yet the being cannot be omniscient if it does not know all you would say.
Its about formality, as I said. but "Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." (Matthew 6:8)

I wont even answer other "responses" as they are such lame and pathetic. Its Just really interesting how you began mental defection so quickly. It usually happens after much time during conversation by my experience.

>>55073269
True. But you cant regard Brahman as whole concept as itself, for different schools have different interpretations. Though its hard to refer to Brahman as an absolute (that should also include immortality in my opinion) for he is by definition a mortal, who dies and is reborn after 100 Brahma years.

>>55073310
>Wow, I sense butthurt. already.
I am angry that you would lie to my face about the very words I have read to preserve your heathenry.

>And Muslims are completely irrelevant to this subject as they have their set of laws set by Mohamed.
No they are not, they run the same line of tradition from Abraham, as Mohamed was himself a Nestorian Christian.

>Its about formality, as I said.
An 'omniscient' being would have no use for "formality". Let us be honest here: prayer is about training humans, not about divine beings.

>I wont even answer other "responses" as they are such lame and pathetic.
Of course you won't, because you have no capability to disprove them.

>>55073268
>It isn't when the book claims to be the inviolable word of a divine being.
A) It isn't. The Bible explicitly says it's written with divine inspiration as per Timothy 3:16, so no. It's not claimed to be the inviolable word of a divine being, simply the words of those who have had an intentional glimpse at the divine being in some unspecified way, shape or form. I expect this extremely basic information to be known by critics.
B) Even if it were; consider that to be inerrant, any length would require a precision of such length in our known number systems that advanced mathematical notational machinery would need be detailed and explained, to explain things down to below even the Planck lengths (which are not a limit on the size of anything, that's conjecture), and would by our current ontological knowledge still be incorrect due to the spatially indeterminate behaviour of elementary particles.

That is to say, perfection would likely not be possible within the framework of human understanding, so at some point approximations would need exist, or not be communicable. Complaining that the approximation is too rough is just nitpicking at that point.

>>55073344
Interesting! This is very different from what I've heard. I'd love to hear more.

I only brought up Brahman because I considered Brahman at least one example of a somewhat similar deity in a relevant and significant way, but I'm actually fairly ignorant about Hindu beliefs, I'm forced to admit.

Could you tell me some more about the nature of Brahman in mainstream Hinduism (I guess the equivalent of armchair Christianity, which breeds very ignorant stuff like supply side Jesus), and perhaps in different formal Hinduist schools of thought?

>>55073357
>An 'omniscient' being would have no use for "formality"
Who says there's a need? Who says there's a desire? Who says it's not, as you say, just a way for the human to be able to preserve free will but still have training in subservience to deities?
Why can't it just be arbitrary?
People always hate the idea of arbitrary actions, but logically speaking everything is arbitrary, albeit at different levels of intuition.

Not the guy you're talking with btw, I'm a different Anon who thinks you're being lame and disingenuous, unless you genuinely don't understand why you're not making salient points.

>>55073359
>that advanced mathematical notational machinery would need be detailed and explained
And yet pagans had demonstrably superior mathematics and resulting architecture.

>It's not claimed to be the inviolable word of a divine being
More outright lies. Is that the game of our apologies? To speak abject falsity in order that you annoy others such that you can pretend to be the victim?

The Council of Trent specifically forbids lay interpretation of the bible for its purported divinity. The pope is claimed to be scripturally infallible in his interpretation, and the voice of the divine on Earth.

Enough with the falsehoods. You act as Martin Luther decreed: 'Lie to preserve the dogma.'

Fortunately, in this modern age, anyone can read the texts for themselves. That is one of greatest salves for this foolishness.

>>55073428
>who thinks you're being lame and disingenuous, unless you genuinely don't understand why you're not making salient points
That is always the opinion of Christian apologists though. They have been indoctrinated to be unable to see the logical fallacies inherent in their scripture. It's a very harmful behavior, as we see in Scientology today. The very same behavior. Why is Scientology wrong? Can you disprove L. Ron Hubbard? Not if you switch off logic.

>Who says there's a desire?
The religious. It is a simple fact that omniscience belies both free will and the efficacy of prayer. Those bereft of logic will of course not see that, but that is their problem.

>>55073357
well congratulations, you nailed your coffin :) bye

>>55073391
Well, Mainstream Hinduism tends to be pantheistic that means that Brahman is immanent to universe and everything in it is its manifestation. Everything from rocks to deities are manifestation of said Brahman. (thats why you see Hindus worshiping literally everything). One of the key tendencies you see in Hinduism is cyclic path (and its most popular form of reincarnation). Main mechanics from cyclic form is Karma and according to Hinduism, everyone is subject to it. And as I said Cyclic path is also what Brahman depends on.
In short 1 Brahma day is divided into 4 periods (yugas), that last for several thousand years. After the last Period (Kali yuga) begins new cycle. 2000 such cycles form 1 Brahma day and then by standard solar calendar system, you get 100 Brahma years, after which He dies and Is reborn again after another 100 years.
So two key principles of Hinduism is Reincarnation and Concept of Karma that can be summoned up as a "Cyclicity". And it is also common for Buddhism and Jainism.

This is what I know from my knowledge. Of course, different Schools have different interpretations, but these teachings can be tracked in Vedas themselves.

>>55073268
You're aware that cubits aren't standardized. It's an approximation by definition of the units used to come to your conclusion. Quit being autistic and people will like you more.

>>55073531
>In short 1 Brahma day is divided
sorry, I should've said that one Mahayuga is divided into 4 periods

>>55073439
>And yet pagans had demonstrably superior mathematics and resulting architecture.
?
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? That only makes it even more important not to give the non-pagans a language they could understand.

Are you retarded, willfully ignorant, or a troll?

The Bible itself never purports to be inviolable, Catholics being Catholics and making retarded claims is par for the course, but it's not internally inconsistent in that regard.

>>55073494
I'm not a Christian apologist. I'm not even Christian. I'm just explaining why you, specifically, are retarded.

>>Those bereft of logic will of course not see that, but that is their problem.
>brainlets who don't understand formal first-order logic thinking they're hot shit for being able to form syllogisms
lmao
Free will is not necessarily incompatible with omniscience, it's incompatible with CAUSALITY, you dipshit. Which is why it doesn't make sense, because causality is pretty central to our thinking, but you're wrong regardless.

>>55072643
What's the problem with Unitarians?

>>55073531
1 Brahma day: 4 yugas of several thousand years
After 4th yuga, new cycle
2000 cycles: 1 Brahma day
1 Brahma day: 8000 yugas?
I'm assuming you mean Brahma year for the 2000 cycles, each of which is a Brahma day?
So 1 Brahma Year is 8000 yugas and 100 Brahma years of life are followed by 100 years of death, ad infinitum?

>>55073534
>Quit being autistic and people will like you more.
I don't care about being liked, I care about the truth.

Every time an article of Christian dogma is disproved factually, it is claimed to be "allegorical" or "approximate" or "spiritual".

That is ridiculous.

>>55073531
>well congratulations, you nailed your coffin :) bye
Of course, the pithy and threatening withdrawal. As expected from a Christian faced with his own arrogance.

>>55073564
>Catholics being Catholics and making retarded claims
Can you explain who are you to judge that thousand years of dogma and theology as "retarded"?

This is an example of 'selective Christianity'. If there's something wrong with the source of your beliefs, "those other guys did it". Never mind your ways are based on their errors.

>Free will is not necessarily incompatible with omniscience
Of course it is. If the divine being knows all you will do, you have no real decisions to make and never did. Special bonus points of the divine being created you, and thus literally programmed you to do it.

There is no logic in those dogmatic beliefs, that's the problem, and it's been a problem all throughout the superstitious middle ages. It's just now abating.

>>55073612
I'm not
a fucking
Christian
holy shit how hard is this to understand? No wonder you don't understand what Christians actually believe

>>55073612
>Of course it is. If the divine being knows all you will do, you have no real decisions to make and never did.
Define real decision. Justify creation necessitating premeditation and consequently programming (I just helped you see some of the implicit assumptions you made because you're a retard who clearly didn't see them himself).

I bet you think Shlomo Yudkowsky is anything but an idiot who doesn't understand mathematics or game theory. You seem like the lesswrong kinda moron who doesn't understand logic.

>>55073610
I made a mistake in that part (sorry)
>>55073542
I should've said Mahayuga that is divided in 4 parts. 1000 Mahayuga forms 1 Kalpa (Half of Brahma day) and 2 Kalpas form 1 Brahma day and night

Full list here :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_units_of_time

But yes, This cycle continues without end.

>>55073621
>No wonder you don't understand what Christians actually believe
No, I post a simple explanation as to the reason Christian dogma isn't as popular in RPGs and fantasy in general, and the dogpile of factually incorrect apologists arrives.

Try telling people that Easter is based on pagan Ostara, they'll go crazy too.

If you're not a Christian, you may as well just convert with how you speak.

>>55073650
>Justify creation necessitating premeditation and consequently programming
Are you joking? Pretentious namedropping doesn't cover your glaring logical errors:

If the divine being created you and knows every decision you will make, it was that being which made those decisions, not you. No definition of "free will" can overcome that. That's where Calvinism and Predestination come from.

Which, presumably you are ignorant of.

Causality on the other hand does not remove free will, since the future does not yet exist.

>>55073697
>If the divine being created you and knows every decision you will make, it was that being which made those decisions, not you.
No.
This is logically invalid. Try harder. D- see me after class.

>>55073736
>No.
>This is logically invalid. Try harder.
And then the ridiculous idiocy of making that statement without any factual disproval.

Are you joking?

"No, you are wrong. Why? Because I said so. I am your teacher. You fail."

And people wonder why religious claims get mocked. This is wasteful.

>>55073697
>Try telling people that Easter is based on pagan Ostara, they'll go crazy too.
Except that nobody gave a fuck about some germanic festival outside of western Europe. And Easter is defined by Pesach.
If something is named something in some language, doesnt make two concepts same thing.
By that logic, Akbar is mouse in hebrew, so when Muslim shouts allahu akbar, he says that Allah is a mouse

>>55073697
>Try telling people that Easter is based on pagan Ostara, they'll go crazy too.

How's high school treating you?

>>55073765
>doesnt make two concepts same thing
I wonder why they'd choose to use a pagan deity's name though. With her own festival at the same time... Hmm.

It's almost as if the Christmas tree was also from Germanic tradition.

And the mother and child from Isis and Horus, the resurrection from Osiris, communion from the eating of Osiris' body as sacred cakes...

In fact, Genesis itself seems to be directly from Enuma Elish! Imagine that. All these 'sacred exclusive traditions' were inspired by pagan practices, rather than the Christian deity.

Come on now, enough. The excessive superbia with which Christians will defend their dogma as unique and special and wonderful is astounding.

>>55073762
Premise A: divine being is the reason you exist
Premise B: divine being knows what actions you will take
Conclusion: divine being decided your actions for you
How does this follow?
Protip: It doesn't. Your mistake is assuming materialistic determinism, assuming intent, assuming a whole host of other things you are not justifying but inserting into the religion to justify your stupid fucking claims.

Also you just asked me to prove a negative when arguing about RELIGION. Good job, dumbo. IQ points been dwindling lately haven't they?

>>55073494
Explain how Omniscience restricts free will and prayers usefulness? Asserting it and saying "but muh logic" does not make it so. The first is saying you can't do something you will not have done and saying that because of that you're not free. It's true as a result of your beloved logical schema not breaking down and not because your actions can be said to already have occurred from the perspective of a being that can sit outside of time. The latter is just missing the point of prayers. Like that other anon said, the church fathers wrote plenty on the subject.

You act like someone indoctrinated by fedora tier authors who likewise can't see the logical fallacies in your own scripture.

File: (((zeitgeist))).jpg (165KB, 888x960px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 888x960px

>>55073821
>I wonder why they'd choose to use a pagan deity's name though.
I dont care, ask English about that. We just call it "resurrection".

>It's almost as if the Christmas tree was also from Germanic tradition.
And nobody cares. you can read about tree of Lebanon throughout the Bible.
Also, sacred tree for fagans was an oak, not pine (same kind that belongs to cedar, tree of lebanon).

>rest of the post
so your primary education source is a zeitgeist movie, eh? Its quite understandable, if we count your low brain capacity, that you regarded these """facts""" as truth.

>>55073565
That they logically make no sense. God to be unitarian would have to be not loving. But loving God is greater than loving God and therefore not loving God is not God.
Other reason is that Trinity comes from porccesion of Will and Thought of Father. God to be unitarian would have to be dead.
Not to mention that unitarian God is reaction to trinitarian one. Islam and post-tample Judaism hold unto Unitarian God only because Christians believe in Trinity. And there ain't any other monotheism around here (well maybe with exeption of that one Egyptian guy but I would not go to call his god the God in stric sense. It was more like only oversised idol)

>>55073858
>Premise A: divine being is the reason you exist
>Premise B: divine being knows what actions you will take
>Conclusion: divine being decided your actions for you
>How does this follow?

Premise: Human is the reason robot exists.
Premise: Human knows what actions robot will take.
Premise: Human gives law as commandments to robot.

What conclusions can be drawn from any and all of those premisi?

However, if you considered things logically, you would see the complete foreknowledge of all actions precludes free will. There are no decisions which have not yet made.

In the second order, if the being with complete foreknowledge of your actions by its divine will created you, then it CAUSED those actions.

Then let us say that that the deity had the desire to TEST YOU, and judge whether you would enter paradise of damnation. Interesting you omit this article of dogma.

How can the deity test you for your free will decisions if it already knows what you will do?

You see the fact is that 'willful creation' is a determinant of future actions, which if such a future is known beforehand, precludes any subsequent decisions to change that future. Ergo, no free will.

But maybe you should learn epistemology, rather than regurgitating apologies.

>>55073882
>Explain how Omniscience restricts free will and prayers usefulness?
See above.

>indoctrinated by fedora tier
An image meme and claiming that science is indoctrination simply do not stop the truth. Reason always prevails, eventually. No matter how many historical cults pass.

>>55073898
>And nobody cares.
Reasonable people care. Perhaps you do not.

>>55073980
>Reasonable people care. Perhaps you do not.
reasonable people analyze entire cultures and religions to the end of its teachings instead of believing some statements just because it is said. And you seem to be far from reasonable, because for you, Christianity is only part of an Anglosphere (though I now dont even know if you are really """arguing""" (if so, I feel sorry for your mental retardation) or just trolling and shitposting)

>>55073980
so you regard humans as robots? then Calvinism is for you.

By your logic, when you watch the movie and know its scenario, then you decide everything what goes in the movie. not to mention that "God know future" is an oxymoron itself, since God is outside of time.

>>55074012
>reasonable people analyze entire cultures and religions to the end of its teachings
And oddly enough I have. I've just drawn different conclusions than you.

The simple observable facts are that humans invented religion to try to explain the natural world, and then it was adopted and used as a social power structure to maintain ruling families.

There is just no ability for you to actually use any theological tenet to summon a divine being, nor to perform a practical healing of the sick or feeding of the hungry.

All of that is the real of science, which was the truth all along.

It may be that religious persons hate that and wish science destroyed, but as it is the truth, it does enduringly prevail.

>>55074037
>is outside of time
Which again, precludes free will.

The only conclusion which preserves free will is that there is neither omniscience nor omnipotence, and that no creature exists which is powerful and willful enough to control or define you.

The free will we observe in nature can only occur if deities do not exist.

File: NA9gvTB.gif (819KB, 3558x3364px) Image search: [Google]

819KB, 3558x3364px

>>55074041
>And oddly enough I have.
Perhaps this is the reason that you """think""" that Easter is a germanic festival. Truly, Sherlock Holmes and Leutenant Columbo would envy you.

>The simple observable facts are that humans invented religion to try to explain the natural world, and then it was adopted and used as a social power structure to maintain ruling families.
Ah yes, traditional Marxist "hurr, religion is opium of people" statement. I wonder, why fagtheists have it as a mantra.

>It may be that religious persons hate that and wish science destroyed, but as it is the truth, it does enduringly prevail.
kek, ok I know that you are just a troll

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#Atheism_and_science

>>55073980
>>Premise: Human gives law as commandments to robot.
Wew, lad. Nice insertion of an extra premise. Are you telling me that to Christians, the divine law is impossible to break? Because good job sonny, you're a fucking retard.

>In the second order, if the being with complete foreknowledge of your actions by its divine will created you, then it CAUSED those actions.
This is still first-order, champ.

You know nothing about epistemology you moron. You just think you do. You're the classic case of a pseudointellectual who's average IQ, maybe a standard deviation above at best, and thinks he somehow grasps what others far more intelligent than him don't.

>>However, if you considered things logically, you would see the complete foreknowledge of all actions precludes free will. There are no decisions which have not yet
>lol time is linear and flows, come on man my intuition of time is perfectly rigorous lmao

>>How can the deity test you for your free will decisions if it already knows what you will do?
>what are formalities
>>You see the fact is that 'willful creation' is a determinant of future actions, which if such a future is known beforehand, precludes any subsequent decisions to change that future. Ergo, no free will.
You just fucking made the exact same goddamn logical fallacy that I told you not to make. You are so stupid that even when TOLD which pitfalls of invalid logic not to fall into, you still careen right on ahead.

I'm not continuing this discussion. You are an idiot who won't listen to reason, and a delicious, juicy and crystal-clear example of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon.

>>55073697
>Are you joking? Pretentious namedropping doesn't cover your glaring logical errors:
I only now realize that you actually genuinely think the words "justify"; "creation"; "premeditated"; "necessitating"; and "programming" are pretentious namedropping rather than simple fucking terms meaning simple fucking things.

Or maybe you took offense to "and"?
Either way, illiterates need not apply.

>>55074072
The fact that someone can do something, doesnt mean, that someone WILL do something.
For example, God can annihilate entire creation, but He wont. Similarly, God can take our free will and make us robots, but He wont, because we were made in his image and likeness and this promise is eternal. We also know that as God is Love, he wants us to Love too (as we were made in his image and likeness), however, love is possible if you have free will.

>>55065862
It's like
>human: level
>Superman: get on my level
>darkseid: I operate on a higher level
>the presence: I invented the concept of levels and am thus beyond them

>>55065571
literally Mage the Ascension with the Prime Sphere.

File: 1501793922583.png (89KB, 387x260px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 387x260px

>It's an apologetic episode

>>55074041
>>It may be that religious persons hate that and wish science destroyed, but as it is the truth, it does enduringly prevail.
As someone who is actually studying science and not engineering or other bullshit that does not deal with epistemology, let me tell you that any scientist who thinks they're studying "truth" is one that flunked out of the mandatory philosophy of science class.
Read some Kuhn, Kant, the history of logical positivism, Popper et al

>>55074114
>Ah yes, traditional Marxist "hurr, religion is opium of people" statement.
I seem to recall it's a tradition of Democritian materialism for many thousands of years.

The fact is that Marxism itself is another cult of delusion. Science has demonstrated the benefit of a free market.

>>55074117
>You're the classic case of a pseudointellectual
That seems more like a projection.

You know you are defending ancient Israeli mythology as factually true, right?

>>55074117
>Nice insertion of an extra premise.
And then further down, which I suppose you didn't read, I explained each.

Do you deny that premise is in Christian dogma?

Again, the fact remains that if your willful creator knows all of our future actions, there can be no freedom for you to choose any different future, nor is there any point or relevance to a "test of virtue". Can you disprove Calvinism? I don't believe so.

>I'm not continuing this discussion. You are an idiot
Of course, that is what Christians habitually devolve to when they simply cannot defend the illogic of their beliefs.

"You don't believe mythology? You must be uneducated and stupid."

>>55074142
>can take our free will and make us robots
Let me put it this way:

Prove you are not a robot programmed by your deity to take the actions you do, whose programming includes believing you have free will, but not actually having it.

Any existence of omniscience, "knows all you will do", precludes any existence of decisions. Period. The end. Basic epistemology. The secular kind, of course.

>>55074133
>Either way, illiterates need not apply.
See, pretentious edginess.

>>55074072
>>The free will we observe in nature can only occur if deities do not exist.
>we observe free will in nature
lel
The only materialistic conception of qualia that isn't ridiculously lackluster is eliminativism.
Are you like, 17 or something? 17-year olds often make claims like this outside their area of expertise

>>55072184
That's boring though, you wouldn't want to play an RPG with that kind of god in the setting.

>>55074221
>Are you like, 17 or something? 17-year olds often make claims like this outside their area of expertise
You can tell when people appeal to 'age', they have no argument.

They also use terms like "qualia" as if they were clinicians, instead of 'attributes'.

But honestly, if you want to defend Christianity, can you prove you are not a robot programmed by Yahweh?

>>55074144
It is possible to have different levels of god

You see you can have more than one god and still have YHWH

It's sort of like the mythos, everythig is created by one dude, but other "gods" exist.

Basically in d&d terms YHWH would be a overdiety. All powerful, needs no worship and acts indirectly.

>>55074248
>he thinks qualia are "attributes"
>he thinks I'm defending Christianity (which I think is silly) rather than debunking his idiotic assertions
>he's butthurt about being called a kid for saying childish things
wew, laddie

>>55074209
>free will

K god doesn't want me to do certain things, what if I went and did something he didn't want me to do?

Are these threads homework for Christians to practice and hone their memes?

>>55074209
>Prove you are not a robot programmed by your deity to take the actions you do, whose programming includes believing you have free will, but not actually having it.
>Any existence of omniscience, "knows all you will do", precludes any existence of decisions. Period. The end. Basic epistemology. The secular kind, of course.

Ok now this is absolutely retarded.
First of all, you demand evidential proof of a CONCEPT (that is immaterial) and yet, you reject authority of the books according to which we conclude that we have free will. So you view God as Muslims view Allah, who is "Greatest of Deceivers" and when you will be answered, you will simply reject it, because you can't get EVIDENTIAL claim of an IMMATERIAL concept.
Though if you want evidential claim, you can see God saying (more like begging) for us to repent by following words:
>Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:11).
Although we know, that there are damned and there are saved, therefore, eve though God wills everyone to be with him, it depends on us, if we will be with him. And this is repeated throughout the Bible.

As for the second statement, to know, what decision one will make, doesn't mean that he didn't decide what to make. Eventhough, as I said, Its an oxymoron, as God is outside of time.
Having a power=/=using the power

>>55074221
>>55074274
You spout a lot of memes for someone who is ostensibly not underage.

>>55074323
>he didn't decide what to make
Of course, by "he" I mean operator and not a knower

>>55074274
>wew, laddie
That again is not an argument.

You're humiliating yourself if you believe you can "debunk" with an appeal to age and ideology.

>>55074297
>what if I went and did something he didn't want me to do?
If the deity is omniscient and omnipotent, you literally cannot do anything it did not want you to do.

>>55074323
>Ok now this is absolutely retarded.
No it isn't. I believe you are a robot programmed by Yahweh to perform as it wishes and to believe you have free will without genuinely having it.

Do you deny that is possible?

How can you KNOW it isn't true? Then we can get into this 'epistemology' you pretend to understand.

>>55074270
I Imagen Humans taking role of other gods and acting as demiurges, while God will be our creator. (and oddly, we are called gods in psalm 82)

>>55074358
Hey lets break this conversation into even more of a clusterfuck

>implying a lack of choice = a lack of free will
>>implicitating that a man willingly in a cell isn't free

your concept of free will is stupid

>>55074394
>your concept of free will is stupid
It's the simple fact that in order for free will to exist, the ability to make decisions about the future, the future cannot have happened yet.

And secondly, if you are slave controlled by a greater power, you are not the one making decisions. Thus for free will to exist, there can be no deities which can control you.

This is empirically demonstrated by the divergence of cultures with time: something which could never happen if the deities they claimed to know of existed.

File: aquinas.jpg (458KB, 1583x2048px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 1583x2048px

>>55074358
>No it isn't. I believe you are a robot programmed by Yahweh to perform as it wishes and to believe you have free will without genuinely having it.
>Do you deny that is possible?

As I said, You want proofs yet when presented (as books, by which we analyze it) you reject them. So its becoming more and more like arguing with a pigeon.)

>How can you KNOW it isn't true? Then we can get into this 'epistemology' you pretend to understand.

Sorry, but I cant write entire Church tradition of several thousand years in one post or even a thread. I wrote you what is written in the bible and we can conclude that it is true, by analyzing what God is. God is a perfect being and perfectly good and lying is not good and thus sign of imperfectness, therefore, we can conclude, that God wont lie, as it is said in the bible ("I am the truth"). However, you will, of course, reject this, because your puny brain cannot comprehend it, as you cannot touch it and while you can touch and see what describes this truth in human conceptions, you outright reject this.

And by the way, I'm completely different Anon. But your puny brain cannot see that difference either.

>>55074463
>posting Aquinas
>doesn't know it's been disproven

Aquinas cannot solve the recursive problem:
Namely that one can state there most have been something which created the creator.
And if you deny that, one can state there was no creator, and the universe always was.

Thought you should know.

>>55074493
It also doesn't cross the gap of "Prime Mover == YHVH, plz be catholic"

>>55074493
>Namely that one can state there most have been something which created the creator.
Then at the end that creator would be God and subordinate creator would be demiurge, so we are not about atheism, but Gnosticism.
In fact, since we are on /tg/ you can see that humans are already those subordinate creators, as we create fantasy settings. So theres nothing new under the sun.
But at the End, creator exists and by faith and mind, we should make correct decision, regarding our creator.

>>55074524
>It also doesn't cross the gap of "Prime Mover == YHVH, plz be catholic"
why do you assume that everyone is catholic to begin with? Why do you hate catholics so much?

>>55074427
What if god knows all futures?

He knows how my life will change do to each choice, and so tries to change the chances of me picking the right choices.

Let's say he knows that my chances of a good choice are 31% and my chances of a bad choice are 69%. He wants me to pick the good choice and prompts a person to act and raise my chances of a good choice. If they pick to use the right choice, then my chances go up.

Think of it like a domino row, he changes circumstances to increase chances of us going down a particular future. People can and often will reject his prompts affecting the people farther down the row. It's a butterfly affect.

He will never do something to remove my freedom to do the right thing, but will push me to do the right thing. Like a GPS if I use the wrong road, then he will change strategies to get me back on the right road.

He knows not one future but all futures and us perfectly, and makes moves to help all of us. His actions and ours constantly change the game.

File: laughing while thinking.png (14KB, 165x205px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 165x205px

>>55074463
>God wont lie, as it is said in the bible ("I am the truth"). However, you will, of course, reject this, because your puny brain cannot comprehend it

So catholic god isn't capable of creating a universe where his official doctrine sounds reasonable to everyone regardless of intelligence. Instead catholic god uses internet trolls to mock people who aren't "smart enough" to join his official religion.
Doesn't sound omnipotent or good.

>>55074571
>why do you assume that everyone is catholic to begin with?
In the OP. I'm staying on topic, I don't know what you are trying to do.

>>55074572
>He knows not one future but all futures and us perfectly
Look man. I know you want to believe in cosmic goodness. But you'll never have it if you throw away logic.

It is incompatible for your decisions to be meaningful if the answers are already known, and a deity is hiding them from you for fun.

Contrary to religious dogma, for human life to have meaning, an omniscient deity cannot exist.

It's up to humanity to make a good future. Not any mythological character.

File: 06fb954bf1d7e79d654c4371f76733281fa66d8ef49c6ca84c1c668c48324573.png (199KB, 655x456px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 655x456px

>>55074620
ok, now you just sound pathethic.
My last words to you would be, that if you dont understand something, doesn't make it less real or irreasonable. It just speaks of stubbornness or less intellectual capacity of one.

>>55074699
>ok, now you just sound pathethic.
That wasn't me.

>that if you dont understand something, doesn't make it less real or irreasonable
This however is honestly something you may wish to look at yourself, in terms of genuinely considering alternatives to mythology.

Biology provides well for altruism and caring, while science provides for the desire to figure out the workings of the universe.

Which we cannot do if we presume we already know.

>>55074699
I'll accept your resignation and admitting to be a failed troll, fuck thee well.

>>55074297
All that God do is you to be achieve ultimate happiness and have eternal life.
Answer yourself.
>>55074358
>If the deity is omniscient and omnipotent, you literally cannot do anything it did not want you to do.
Sed contra: It is written (Sirach 15:14): "God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel"; and the gloss adds: "That is of his free-will."

>>55074646
That is literally stupid.

I know my dog really good, and I can expect her to do the things that she would normally do. Does that mean she has no purpose? Can she make no decisions?

If god knows what I am going to do, because he knows me perfectly than I am going to do it. I am shaped by my experiences and genetics.

If I choose a choice that god knows I'm going to choose then I am still making a choice. I am choosing do to pervious experiences and genetics shaped by my understanding of the world growth throughout my life.

Even if god didn't exist we wouldn't have any free will, you will always pick what your experiences and genetics dictate you pick.

This doesn't make choice insignificant. Even if I am for sure going to pick something, it isn't meaningless. I am using my experience and life to shape what I do with my body and mind.

>>55074888
>It is written
Quoting scripture cannot contest logic. That is almost as good as admitting you are wrong.

"These other people said it was true!"

>>55074908
>I know my dog really good, and I can expect her to do the things that she would normally do. Does that mean she has no purpose? Can she make no decisions?
You are not omniscient.

If an omniscient deity existed, which knew exactly the future, humanity would be irrelevant.

Everything would have been done and set in stone. You'd live and die as a slave to the deity, never able to make a different decision.

From a political perspective, this is the intent behind the invention of the concept of "omniscience": ruling families wanted everyone to believe they were always watched and could do nothing contrary to the 'divine plan', theirs.

>>55074427
Again, you have a shit and simplistic position on free will. Whether one could have acted differently after the fact of a decision is such a tiny minute footnote in the action itself that it doesn't even warrant consideration with regards to whether the decision was freely made.

What matters is whether the action taken was the action that was chosen. If one can choose an action and proceed with that action then one is free, regardless of whether one was hypothetically able to act otherwise.

Compatibilism. Read up on it.

>>55075044
>Again, you have a shit and simplistic position on free will.
Not at all. I have an accurate one.

One would call it "elegant", like General Relativity.

If the creator deity already knows the future, there are no decisions to make. Conclusive foreknowledge of the future precludes the purpose of decision, and thus free will.

Free will only matters if the future does not exist for anyone.

>>55075111
>determinism exists
Yes
>ergo free will doesnt exist
No

You didn't make an argument, you simply restated your position. Free will is not exclusive from determinism unless you have a child's understanding of free will.

>>55075168
>Free will is not exclusive from determinism
You're probably looking to mean "superdeterminism", which is naturally mutually exclusive with free will.

But more importantly, if the deity is the willful creator in superdeterminism, then you literally have never made a choice in your life: just like a robot does not choose to carry out its programming.

And thus you cannot claim that such a deity "gave you free will": in fact, you cannot ever know if you were just programmed to believe you had it.

You see, when you get past religion into real philosophy, you begin to pick up the reasons for events in the real world.

Why are there so many divergent cultures? Because many things they believe in are not physically real. It's really very simple.

Just like the idea that there is no freedom if you were created with the foreknowledge of all that you would do.

But I mean, you don't have to be a Christian. Just like all the other old myths, it's simply wrong.

>>55075111
Free will is the ability to make your own decisions. Lacking free will is having someone make your decisions for you.

Even if god exists I have free will because god doesn't make my decisions. If I really wanted to kill someone, god wouldn't stop me from killing that person because that is my decision.

If it was certain that I would kill that person I would still have had free will because I would have made that decision. If a person made me kill that person and I did, then I would have had no free will. In both cases me killing the person was certain, but in one I acted as an agent for myself and the other I acted as an agent for someone else.

People can only choose based on experiences and biological issues. In this regard every action you will ever make is certain, because you cannot make another decision.

If it is you who chooses though the result is certain, you have free will. All of our actions are certain, but we all still choose to choose them.

>>55074493
> there most have been something which created the creator
hmm
yet when one asks "what was before Big Bang", he is answered "there is no BEFORE Big Bang! What are you, stupid?"
Scientism, not even once

>>55075270
>Free will is the ability to make your own decisions. Lacking free will is having someone make your decisions for you.
With that definition, again under Christian mythology, you do not have the ability to make your own decisions: they were already made at the time of your creation by the deity.

Does a robot have free will if one moment it decides to move its arm left and another right? No, it was programmed to do that by its creator.

Abrahamic religion is about supplication, servitude, and powerlessness. The idea that you make your own decisions in the face of omnipotence and omniscience is laughable.

And thus it has its intended effect of creating serfs for the 'lord'.

It's really just like communism, which was based on Christian religious communes in the middle ages. Stalin was a priest, you know?

>>55075324
Answer sincerely: were you a Calvinist or any sort of a reformed aligned denomination follower or influenced by those? purely out of interest question.

>>55075324
You are acting like not having god causes people to have free will, but free will doesn't exist.

Man's preception of the world will always be shaped by his experiences and body. He can only act like his body and experiences dictate.

>>55075371
>Answer sincerely: were you a Calvinist or any sort of a reformed aligned denomination follower or influenced by those? purely out of interest question.
Not at all. I'm just discussing the logical conclusion of Christian dogma. Which of course the Calvinists followed.

Predestination is the logical conclusion of Christianity, and thus nihilism, and thus obsession with the afterlife.

Fortunately, Christianity is not the logical conclusion of Natural Philosophy, so human purpose remains intact. But the Christian deity does not.

>>55075411
>Man's preception of the world will always be shaped by his experiences and body. He can only act like his body and experiences dictate.
While true, that is not the point being made.

Which is simply that whatever decisions man may make in life, they are all made irrelevant in Christian dogma.

Whatever 'freedom' there is would always be wholly consumed by the deity's foreknowledge.

>>55075445
Yes but the importance of your decision to write that post was shaped by your emotions experience and biology.

Your decisions are always irrelevant because you cannot separate from those three factors that cloud your judgment.

All of the actions you make cannot be any different than what those dictate. Your decisions have no importance.

God doesn't cause your decisions to be unimportant, rather our decisions are already unimportant.

>>55075417
>Not at all. I'm just discussing the logical conclusion of Christian dogma. Which of course the Calvinists followed.
Or you could simply analyze Argumentations against Calvinism and predestination, written by Orthodox, Catholics and traditional Protestants and conclude that Calvinism opposes traditional Christianity and its axioms.
And sheer hate of Christianity wont help this job.

>>55065571
Sure, and none of them are good.

>>55075521
>and conclude that Calvinism opposes traditional Christianity
Of course partisans will conclude whatever they want.

The fact remains that you cannot conclude it logically, which is why you deflect to other people.

>>55075516
>rather our decisions are already unimportant
And there's one of the toxic beliefs Christianity can lead to: Nihilism.

Why do you believe so many choose martyrdom over building a future? It's pathological.

Science has a different conclusion: That we do not yet know the reasons for life, but can and should find out.

Such is a simple and better method of life.

File: tumblr_mrgmtyvBlt1rmerh9o1_500.jpg (54KB, 500x594px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x594px

2/3 of Americans still believe in this stuff.

Whew. Wow. Ugh. Guh.

To lazy to argument, but basically what other anon said about being outside time is described by C.S. Lewis:
>But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call "today." All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday, He simply sees you doing them: because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow, He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.

>>55075571
>2/3 of Americans still believe in this stuff.
It's pretty silly. Like that example of a dog believing only his barking prevents the mailman from murdering his family.

But it's also not helping that there's a bunch of commies going around pretending to be "atheists" while peddling their crap version of worshiping for salvation.

>>55075568
Ok then, as I said
>And sheer hate of Christianity wont help this job.
But I said what must've been said. I'll just shake the dust of my feet.

>>55075601
That's flowery language which amounts to nothing.

In that description, you would still not have any freedom, because the future is known and controlled. It's pretty simple.

>>55075631
>But I said what must've been said.
No, you just pretended to be right again and waved your hand. That's the classic religious tactic.

You've still not addressed the problem of absolute foreknowledge. And you won't because you can't. Saying "other people have" is not an argument, and frankly it's untrue. Apologists just appeal to emotion and special pleading, rather than admitting the claim of "omniscience" is wrong.

"Hatred" is irrelevant. You're simply incorrect. Christianity however likes to feel persecuted, even while it does the persecuting, so people who criticize it are said to be motivated only out of "hate".

>>55075568
I am both religious and a scientist so let me talk about this.

Science can not and will not explain that which cannot be measured. You aren't finding a purpose in why life exists it just does. That's all science is finding things, and then confirming they exist.

Religion can explain things which cannot be measured, such as purpose.

Your purpose can be science, but science doesn't grant you a purpose.

Lacking the ability to make important decisions isn't nihilist, it's happy. If god exists and is all good, then the way my life emotions and experience will shape my life for the better.

Your unimportant decisions in science just exist for life, experience and emotions. You do things through those lenses, and then you die.

In a religious lens, your experiences have been given to you by an all good being, which experiences will cause you to grow as a person and to have a great time on this earth.

One your experiences exist because they do, other your experiences are given to you to help you.

>>55075704
>you would still not have any freedom, because the future is known and controlled. It's pretty simple.

Ontological necessity is just that. It does not imply lack of free will in any way. The future is known by being outside time, not because it can be infered from the present or because it is forced. Something is known because it will happen, not the other way round. Overall, there is no connection between your statements, and your theological fatalism. is laughable

>>55075783
>Religion can explain things which cannot be measured, such as purpose.
Religion just pretends to explain, they are just as valid as daydreaming writing fiction or not caring in the first place.

>>55075791
>The future is known by being outside time
Again, if that were possible and true, there would be no freedom to that which was 'inside time'.

Fortunately, again, it is tribal mythology.

>>55075783
>Religion can explain things which cannot be measured, such as purpose.
Factually wrong. Religion has made scientific hypothesis at the core of its dogma, from genesis, to the origin of emotions, to claiming the sun orbited the earth.

YOU do not see purpose from science because you do not believe in science enough. It is that simple.

It is not possible to be a "religious scientist". You can do things related to science, but you cannot hold the skepticism demanded of a true scientist, who can admit he does not know the tenets of religion to be true for a fact.

>>55075825
Your stream of buzzwords is as empty as your head. Go learn theology so that you dont ridicule yourself like now.

>>55075843
There is freedom. You just made up that there isnt. It is clear you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

Knowing with certainty that something will happen in no way removes free will. That is complete nonsense and arbitrary

>>55075854
>Go learn theology so that you dont ridicule yourself like now.
And yet we have science which is better to learn. The true way which heals the sick and comforts us in darkness. With electric lights!

Repent your myths, lost one.

>>55075843
Religion is the superior science. Go read the first part of the summa theologica so that you know something before opening your mouth, fedora

>>55075886
Aaahaha you know as much about science as you know about religion: nothing.

Atheism is the biggest myth of all. An arbitrary of familiar reality so that anything you dont comprehend is fitted into your limited worldview. You live in a cavern, looking at shadows and thinking that is reality

>>55075878
>Knowing with certainty that something will happen in no way removes free will.
If your decisions have already been made and defined by an 'all-knowing' creator deity, that does remove free will absolutely.

All your decisions were programmed into you by your 'creator', exactly like a robot, in service to an external purpose.

>>55075903
>before opening your mouth, fedora
More pretense. Science is the truth. That's why it can save lives, all without a single prayer or 'magic symbol'.

Repent your heathen ways. It is not too late.

>>55075932
>Atheism is the biggest myth of all.
Oh, and I suppose you will summon your deity to prove that?

Paraphrasing Plato who didn't even know what the brain did in neuroscience. Democritus was superior, and the progenitor of atomic theory, though Plato hated him.

For it is that the arrogant do so hate the truth, that which can be proven apart from their beliefs.

>omnipotent and benevolent diety
>does literally anything that happens in the Old Testament
lol

>>>55075968
If your decisions have already been made and defined by an 'all-knowing' creator deity, that does remove free will absolutely.

No. They will be made in the future, and God knows the future because he is outside time

As I already said (and you ignored of course) in your stupid theory God knows the future because he infers it from the present or forces it. And as I have already explained that is not tye case

You dont know what science is so spare me your clueless appeals to emotion.

I couldnt care less about neural whatever. This is theology and metaphisics. Well beyond your lower sciences.

You are like a little baby, fedora. Grow up and maybe you will stop being the laughing stock of arguments

>>55075843
You can practice science and religion.

Science is all about observing the world, and recording your observations.

Religion talks of the supernatural, things which don't exist in the natural world. Unobservable things.

Using scientific reasoning I have observed my neighborhood, and found that those that are religious have better lives and are happier.

By drawing conclusions from my observations I have found that religion is helpful to society and solves a lot of problems.

In fact it is more scientific to accept that things could exist which science doesn't know, rather than reject all unobserved things as false.

You preach science but have yet to use and understand it, and live in a fantasy world that science itself doesn't support.

>>55076064
>knows the future because he is outside time
Which removes the point of any decisions, and thus your free will.

>>55076068
>You can practice science and religion.
That is simply impossible.

>Religion talks of the supernatural, things which don't exist in the natural world. Unobservable things.
You mean "don't exist at all".

>those that are religious have better lives and are happier
>that religion is helpful to society and solves a lot of problems
Ha! Completely ridiculous. Those who don't even know how their own air conditioner works made fat on the labor of skeptics and scientists who dared to question dogma.

Now they take it for granted.

It is only science which solves problems, reason and evidence. Not performing exorcisms and kissing crosses.

>>55076064
>theology
>higher than anything
You have to be baiting. I go to church basically every weekend but that's still fucking retarded. Theology "higher" than fucking brainsurgery and shit lol

>>55076192
You simply do not understand science at all do you.

Science has yet to disprove religion for the hundreds of years that it has been around.

And I'm not saying that we should only practice religion, science has caused many wonderful things to happen, but those shouldn't be taken for granted.

But science and religion aren't mutually exclusive and shouldn't be treated as so.

Give me definite proof of god not existing, in a peer-reviewed paper form then we will talk

>>55076192
>Which removes the point of any decisions, and thus your free will.

This makes no sense. Why do you just throw in statements rhat make no sense out of nowhere. The moment you admit there are choices yoi admit there is free will. It is precisely because there are those choices that they are known

>>55076259
Again you dont know what science, theology or anything is. Go study before opening your mouth. Start with Aquina's prima pars

>>55076341
>Science has yet to disprove religion for the hundreds of years that it has been around.
It absolutely has, the same way it has disproven the idea that demons cause disease.

The same way it has proven that the brain causes emotions, not a "soul".

You just ignore the proof of human ignorance to preserve your dogma. The failure is on the part of religion not recognizing the truth of science.

>Give me definite proof of
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Summon your deity. Go on. Show everyone it exists. You can't? Oh well then how about you disprove Zeus first then, Mr. Christian.

Can you fucking give definite proof that Zeus isn't going to send your heretical self to Hades? No? Then stop shoveling burden of proof shit.

Evidence of schizophrenia is more than enough proof that humans can make more mistakes than religion admits possible.

>>55076365
>This makes no sense.
To you maybe.

If there exists a known future, there is no freedom. Everything is "fated".

Thus you would be considered a slave to your creator deity.

Again, though, Christianity is false, just like every other myth. So not to worry.

>>55076436
Both YHWH and Zeus had records written of them and their miracles that's at least some evidence.

Some rulers in history we only have the records of what they did, do you think they don't exist?

>>55076436
It makes no sense because it id an arbitrary childish stament from a clueless fedora trying to play in the big leagues with the already debunked a milln times theological fatalism. Your statements are something like this: "I have a yellow chair. Therefore there. is no free will". They are retarded and make no sense.

"If there exists a future there is no freedom". I think that is the most retarded thing I have read all day.

"a slave to your deity"

Being a slave implies having free will, so you admit there is free will. Since you are retarded I will repeat this a third time: you talk about God knowing the future because he forces it. But that was never the case. Such a simple response to the basis of your nonsense must have caused sime kind of problem in your already damaged brain, that says Christianity is a myth while it is the light that kills your myth as I already explained

>>55076592
>at least some evidence
>only have the records of what they did
So I take it you believe the great sage Naruto existed in feudal Japan?

And that Spiderman WAS swinging between US buildings, but no more?

If you're making that argument, it would appear that you have trouble telling the difference between fact and fiction.

There is far more archaeological evidence that humans misinterpreted natural phenomena, like thunder, as the work of deities.

But of course, it is the present which matters: Summon your deity as proof.

Can you even prove that the Greek creation myth wrong and the Christian one right? How about the Australian Aboriginal one? Are they ALL right? How could any of them be wrong if everyone claims it happened? Such a ridiculous waste of human life these religions are.

>>55076642
>trying to play in the big leagues
Alright man, enough with the gnostic trolling.

If there exists a defined and predetermined future, there is no freedom. That includes magic "outside of time" stuff. Where does that even come from?

As if some fucking human tribesman on Earth would know.

The fact that people seriously believe this STILL is a testament to human foolishness, the root of most problems.

>>55076738
Are you saying a name on a cenus didn't exist?

A record is pretty good evidence.

What about all of those native Americans that died with no records about them, did they not exist.

I can't preove Zeus didn't exist, just as much as you can't prove that god didn't exist.

Science literally cannot prove god didn't exist

>>55076738
That future exists precisely because of the freedom that causes that specific future. And that future exists, which is why it is known by God, who doesnt force it nor infers it from the present. Your presentism is a joke. Your ignorance leads you to call what you dont understand magic. But this is not surprising, since you believe the myth of atheism, and that is what ignorant myth believers do :)

File: 119wjdw.jpg (41KB, 569x428px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 569x428px

>>55065571
D20 Modern has a splat book called D20 Apocalypse. In it there's a "Left Behind" type campaign scenario.

>>55076800
>because of the freedom that causes that specific future
Nah, in Christian myth the freedom is an illusion you're programmed to believe.

If the deity knows the future completely, you never made any decisions. It did when it created you.

>>55076791
>Science literally cannot prove
Already has. Same way it proved disease isn't caused by demons.

Evolution disproved Genesis. Electricity disproved divine lightning.

Religion is already done with, it's just that the religious people haven't caught up.

All they do is say "you can't disprove it!", when what they really mean is "ignore that evidence!"

>A record is pretty good evidence.
Nope. But that's very religious of you to blindly trust whatever anyone says or writes.

Fortunately science has arrived to uplift humanity from the darkness of blind belief.

You should be grateful. Bu religious people don't ever seem to praise skeptics... They just claim credit after the fact.

>>55075854
>buzzwords
???
Did you reply to the right post?

>>55076953
Evolution literally didn't disprove genesis if god created the world, then he created the molecules that made up the world which then formed into life. Life eventually creates man.

I mean if I was trying to make a complex machine I would make it able to adapt itself to new challenges and I'm not even god.

Divine lightning is just normal lightning if god has enough energy to create a universe than he has more than enough energy to create a few lightning bolts.

In fact god could be the Big Bang, which science has no idea about how it started

>>55074989
>Quoting scripture cannot contest logic. That is almost as good as admitting you are wrong.
I used Scripture for it was enough to destroy your faggy claim. Dor lo and behold: religion where you have omniscient and omnipotent deity and you literally can do anything it did not want you to do.
Want somethiom more matture mister? Here, it's pleasure: I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge. And some act from judgment, but not a free judgment; as brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgment, because it judges, not from reason, but from natural instinct. And the same thing is to be said of any judgment of brute animals. But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things. For reason in contingent matters may follow opposite courses, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will.
Don't fuck with logic anon - she's a bitch

>>55077043
>In fact god could be the Big Bang, which science has no idea about how it started
Fortunately science is not religion. It doesn't claim to know. Those are all just theories pending further research.

Religion claims to know when there is no evidence that it does or could, thus it is wrong. Proven wrong.

This leads to the empirical observation that religion has always been more wrong about what to do than science. It's prayers versus lightning rods.

>>55077072
Oh man, the pretentious gnostic trolling.

Try this one: "Stalin doesn't send you to the gulag, you send yourself to the gulag for disobeying Stalin."

Christianity is literal slave-stockholm logic.

If someone 'omniscient' existed 'outside of time' which 'created you', it would already know everything you would do as a result of how it created you. Ergo, you have no will of your own.

It's just a basic logical contradiction, like "the invisible pink unicorn".

>>55077210
So you are saying that science and religion are mutually exclusive?

>>55077210
So science simply explains what is?

And religion explains why?

Doesn't that mean that a person could both look at the world through science, and practice religion?

You pretentious fedora-tipper

>>55077275
>So you are saying that science and religion are mutually exclusive?
Of course. You can abridge either and claim to be both of course, but that's not real science.

If you are not skeptical about a religious tenet, you are not scientific about that tenet.

Thus a religious Christian for example is completely incapable of applying the scientific method to the origin of the universe: to do so is to reject the a priori belief in a creator deity.

I mean, do you even understand that people are still believing in 'creation mythology' even into 2017? This is horrifying.

>>55077316
>So science simply explains what is?
Science explains what and why.

Religion is the realm of tribesmen who don't know what electricity is or why lightning rods should be used on buildings instead of praying and consecrating.

>>55077344
I believe that god created the universe through vast amounts for energy.

The universe was created in such a way that a planet would come into being that supports life and would create humans, which have the same physical form as god.

The moment they become equal to god physically, god bestows souls upon a man and a woman. This man and woman go on to create the human race, and all god did was expend energy using his intelligence and let the dominos fall.

Does that break any scientific laws? Does it disagree with the Bible?

>>55077443
>created the universe through vast amounts for energy.
The issue is that we don't have conclusive proof of any such thing.

So the appropriate belief is that "we don't know but can find out".

That's one of the failures of religion: Because it claims to know certainly without proof, it yields insanity and destruction.

>>55077468
>insanity and destruction
You've been going to the wrong church my friend. Mine basically encourages science and progress. IDK

But personally we will probably never know what caused the universe to come to pass, just that something happens. If anything an hyper intelligent being with boundless power creating our world makes more sense than something just happening.

>>55077443
You suck a dick at critical thinking. Keep on believing, sucker.

And don't forget to throw a tenth of your income into the collection plate every week.

>>55077524
>than something just happening
That's a misconception about scientific statements. Saying you "know definitely it just happened out of nowhere" is as wrong as saying you "know definitely Gaia birthed it into being".

The true belief is in scientific skepticism. All promotion of belief without evidence is harmful.

>Mine basically encourages science and progress.
Essentially, it doesn't matter much what else is stated so long as the religion preaches belief without evidence.

They don't seem to say "this is a possible theory among many", they claim power and knowledge beyond their mortal perception. That is what brings ruin, almost no matter what else they do.

>>55077545
I'm not convinced he isn't trolling, but it's entertaining nonetheless.

>>55077591
The church encourages skeptical thinking and the scientific method. they encourage finding your own proof, the issue is that some of the proof is given by the Holy Ghost, but "eh".

That doesn't stop idiots who do the whole, everything in the Bible is law, but idiots exist in any community so whatever

>>55077210
>Try this one: "Stalin doesn't send you to the gulag, you send yourself to the gulag for disobeying Stalin."
You dont even understand basic concept of hell, do you?

>>55077210
>Oh man, the pretentious gnostic trolling.
>St. Thomas
>Gnostic
Are you high or just a regular fool?

>>55077210
>If someone 'omniscient' existed 'outside of time' which 'created you', it would already know everything you would do as a result of how it created you. Ergo, you have no will of your own.
I with 100% certianity that some faggot will ask this question in this very thread. Do I cause faggot to be faggot and ask said question?
No. For forknowlage is not cause of things being foreknowlage.
It's basic logic. And I told you not to fuck with her.

>>55074307
This post is pretty golden

File: 1500060550153.webm (823KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

823KB, 640x480px

>>55081518
Not really

>cool fucking theology thread

cool

>>55073268
>"this book can be wrong and was written only by humans, we hope it is helpful, but always value evidence and reason above scripture", things would be entirely different
correct

>and there would have been a lot less suffering over its pages.
haha no

Pagans were killing each other over their gods they even admitted were hypothetical too

>>55065571
So am I the only one here whose a dirty, filthy, centrist lackadasical no backbone hippie who believes God is too large to define via any dogma or church, that religion is best approached as an exercise in self observation and refinements - a mirror to be held up to ask "am I being moral, ethical?" - and that being ANGRY about religion is just as foolish as drinking the kool-aid?

Like, totally, the fucking inconsistencies in apologetics and scripture as infallible word of God are mind boggling, but I don't see the point in getting anus twisted about it since anyone who believes they are is going to bury their head in the sand and do all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify it? I should know, I was one, having been raised in the Presbyterian Church and had endless arguments with my fedora friend

I'm still scared of demons even though I know they didn't not real

>>55085250
>Presbyterian """Church"""
:)

P.S. if you are interested, you could see apophatic (negative) theology

>>55085314
I haven't gone to church in years and don't really consider myself a part of it but still find the smug in those quotation marks offensive

Incidentally this is why people dislike atheists so much