/lit/ - Literature

>>14762472
>le rational arguments for God
Literally plebbit Rick & Morty tier.

>>14763784
pope benedict told us the god of the philosophers is the real god, this is all halal now

ON

>>14762472
>OP never read Kant

>>14763784
>fedoras can't refute it without sounding retarded
>all of a sudden it's reddit to mention it
how convenient

>>14763784
Natural theology is far more sensible than what schizos in the desert came up with and declared to be “revealed”. Take the deism pill
>>14763913
>existence isn’t a predicate because I say so

>>14763956
>Take the deism pill
No, thank you. I worship the Triune God of Abraham.
Also, natural theology is degeneracy and leads directly to atheism.

>>14763984
>I worship the Triune God of Abraham.
There’s nothing more embarassing than worshipping a jealous Jewish god

>>14763913
>Kant
Retroactively refuted by Dante Alighieri (pbuh).

>>14763988
>There’s nothing more embarassing than worshipping a jealous Jewish god
I wonder which Middle-Eastern ethnic group could be behind this post trying to divert people from Christianity.

>>14763996
The Jews certainly do not want you to leave Christianity and abandon the Abrahamic paradigm of equality of souls, anthropocentrism and slave morality. It’s a false hatred

>>14764029
>The Jews certainly do not want you to leave Christianity
Excuse me?
>equality of souls
There is only an equality of human (as opposed to animal/goy) souls though.

>>14764029
>slave morality
Based. Anything denying your full servitude to God is a humanist degenerate innovation and is to be purged with hellfire.

>>14764040
>Excuse me?
The Jews hate Christianity in the way that a poison-maker hates the poisons he makes and doesn't want to become poisoned by it. If the Jews wholeheartedly embraced Christianity they'd be hurting their race and would succumb to their own weapon. The Jewish survival and dominance strategy is undeniably highly successful. The Jews saw that Yeshua was a subverter among their race of subverters and, smartly rejecting this route of decadence, had him crucified. Later it was another kike (((Saul))) who was struck by a flash of inspiration (this was Saul's alleged vision) to use the doctrine of the subverter Yeshua as a destroyer of nations and as a means to dominate and pacify (in time) the virtuous and proud Aryan civilizations of the world. As Nietzsche said:
>Has not Israel really obtained the final goal of its sublime revenge, by the tortuous paths of this "Redeemer," for all that he might pose as Israel's adversary and Israel's destroyer? Is it not due to the black magic of a really great policy of revenge, of a far-seeing, burrowing revenge, both acting and calculating with slowness, that Israel himself must repudiate before all the world the actual instrument of his own revenge and nail it to the cross, so that all the world-- that is, all of the enemies of Israel-- could nibble without suspicion at this very bait? Could, moreover, any human mind with all of its elaborate ingenuity invent a bait that was truly more dangerous?

>>14764100
Good job taking Nietzsche out of context to make it seem like he supports your conspiracy theory, real subtle move right there. Now post the passages where he gives his opinion on antisemites.

>>14764124
>implying I give a shit what Nietzsche allegedly thought about anti-semites
His books can only be read from an anti-Jewish perspective, otherwise you quickly find yourself doing all sorts of mental gymnastics. Enlighten me, O wise one, how am I misinterpreting this?

>>14763876
THE

>>14763913
I have, I just don't agree with him

>>14764146
JEWS

>>14764146
CREATION

>>14764139
>implying I give a shit what Nietzsche allegedly thought about anti-semites
>His books can only be read from an anti-Jewish perspective
"I don't give a shit about what Nietzsche actually says, I am pretty sure he agrees with me regardless". This is what /pol/ does to your brain.

>destroys atheism with nothing but cosmology, science, and logic
>40 years later atheists still have no response for Kalam Cosmological Argument

>>14764674
>>destroys atheism
Didn't know he refuted protestantism. Did he finally convert to the One True Church?

>>14764674
>cosmology, science, and logic
Anglo bugman cringe.

Didn't Aquinas himself BTFO Anselm's argument?

>>14763984
>I need to rationally prove that god exist.
>Wait I can't
>NOOOOOOOOOO
Many such cases.

>>14764674
>makes islamic arguments for the christian god
What did he mean by this?

>>14764959
To be charitable - the source of the argument for god isn't really important when it comes to establish god as such and not a particular god.

My issue is that monotheism makes sense, but then you start forcing religious revelation into the mix. Why should someone be a Catholic, instead of a Muslim? Why can't divine simplicity prove the one true God of Gnosticism? Religion has objectively done so much damage in history, it's hard to believe it's divinely revealed. Is God just something to be trademarked and copyrighted?

>>14764968
It matters because the logic is backwards according to them. Most apologetics who believe in TAG logic (this includes craig, just that he doesn't use it to persuade people) believe that
1. Christian God of the Bible exists
2. Christian God of the Bible implanted knowledge of his existence in everyone including you

rather than "objective reality necessitates some generic omnipotent God"

>>14764968
Establishing a generic god is completely meaningless. Even atheists could get on board with that if it's defined in an amenable way.

>>14764977
Because miracles are real, Anon.

>>14764997

Yeah, but miracles aren't exclusive to any specific religion. If anything miracles prove a perennialist God

>>14764980
How does the fact that he believes in the TAG make it problematic for him to use an argument with islamic origin?
>>14764981
If an atheist is onboard with a generic god, then they are a philosophical theist and not an atheist.

>>14762472
Every single bit of matter we have ever observed and ever will observe is an object in motion.
Objects in motion must first be placed in motion.
Therefore, the primordial mover is what we call God.
Atheists would have you believe that they love science, and yet they are the ones who truly believe in some magical non-scientific absence of a primordial mover. They're fools.

>>14765018
Can't the primordial mover just be a non-god?

>>14764977
>Religion has objectively done so much damage in history, it's hard to believe it's divinely revealed
Religion itself did this damage? A divinely revealed religion means that all its followers always do the right thing?

>>14765009
all generic gods are impotent.

>>14765072
Do you mean that all generic gods have no power?

>>14765076
No I mean that they literally can't produce sperm because they have no associated concrete description

>>14764977
The problem with natural theology is that the God that can be reached by it is so generic and amorphous that we can't really know much of anything at all. It's the God of deism. What is good and evil? Are good and evil two sides of the same coin? If so why follow one and not the other. What to make of predation and death? What is our status in relation to God? These are sorts of questions that can't be answered short of a revealed religion.

>>14765101
These things are covered by thomist natural theology.

>>14765116
That's exactly my point. Natural theology inevitably leads to atheism. That is why the West took the path it did.

>>14765139
True, I agree with that.

>>14765101

If God wanted to reveal himself to humanity why would he entrust a book, or an organization? Religionist's always claim that their revealed truth is obvious, but it's simply not. I believe that there absolutely is self evident natural law, and I believe that humanity is slowly progressing into a state of kindness, compassion, and love. If anything could be considered true and good, it would be love.

Reminder that this is not the dark ages anymore.

>>14765035
How? A completely random big bang that popped into existence just because? Yeah that doesn't seem implausible at all.

>>14765344
Do you think it's a constructive way to argue when you assume my position without actually confirming that it actually is what I believe?

>>14765358
You're an annoying pseud who's afraid of answers and says nothing substantial.

>>14765406
I appreciate your criticism. When will you establish the link between god and a first-mover?