/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16082951]

>having discussion with atheist friend about life
>topic turns to Christianity
>He proceeded to go down the "if god was real then bad things wouldnt happen" and "god wouldnt let babies die/ people get cancer"

I know he's wrong and atheists normally resort to this childish argument but I dont know how to tell him why he's wrong. How do I go about this?

[Anonymous No.16082964]

"There's no way to know if God does or does not exist, so why not believe him, just to be safe you know."

That's what I said.

[Anonymous No.16082968]

>>16082951
You can't, stop being cucked by christianity, wake the fuck up

[Anonymous No.16082977]

>>16082964
>Pascal’s wager

[Anonymous No.16082981]

>>16082968
Man being fallen and seperated from God is not doctrine that exclusively Christian or Abrahamic.

[Anonymous No.16082988]

>>16082951
Tell him to read Genesis. God made the world perfect, without death and disease, but it was corrupted when mankind fell. God uses suffering as a crucible to purify our souls so that when we do enter His kingdom, we're pure beings made in his image rather than corrupted man with a sinful nature. If we didn't know suffering, we wouldn't be able to know God, because His love and grace would be lost on us. Suffering an death are not inherently bad or evil, we've just ascribed those labels to them as we've become weak and farther from God over the millennia. Bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people, but in the end God balances the scales and dishes out reward and punishment to those deserving.

Honestly, it's a very lengthy question that can't be adequately answered in a 4chan post. It's not something that even most Christians understand, and I'm not a priest, so this is the best I can give you.

[Anonymous No.16082989]

>>16082977
Never heard of it, but yea, that's a better way to put it.
I don't see any flaws in it.

[Anonymous No.16082999]

>>16082951
>problem of evil is a childish argument

this is why no one takes you faggots seriously.

[Anonymous No.16083002]

>>16082981
Stop being cucked by religions then

[Anonymous No.16083005]

>>16082951
>I know he's wrong and atheists normally resort to this childish argument but I dont know how to tell him why he's wrong.

>I'm a Christian bro, check out my aesthetic bro
>but I've never given any serious thought to the problem of evil

lol. pseud.

[Anonymous No.16083010]

>>16082951
>I know he's wrong but I don't know why
Brainlet christcuck

[Anonymous No.16083021]

Why would our worldly desires match with those of God's design? It's so ridiculous to think that an imperfect being would have the gall to just place themself as the judge of all being, and say it doesn't live up to their standards.

[Anonymous No.16083030]

>>16083021
then God should be able to account for the disparity between his existence and my own. retard

[Anonymous No.16083067]

>>16082951
>How do I go about this?
Ask him to explain the Book of Job in the Bible. Didn't God made him as miserable as possible, willingly and purposefully, just to test his faith?

[Anonymous No.16083089]

>>16083021
No more ridiculous than to believe in Bronze Age folktales

[Anonymous No.16083196]

My normal stance would be "it doesnt matter if god exists or not, religion gives people meaning and hope especially to those who were hurt or are mentally weak. "

[Anonymous No.16083213]

>>16082951
God made everything perfect, and then we screwed it up by sinning against God, which brought death and suffering into the world.

That is the whole reason for Jesus Christ dying for the sins of the world, and being resurrected to conquer death and suffering.

[Anonymous No.16083219]

>>16082988
Why's everyone ignoring the right answer
>>16082951
Tell him this, OP

[Anonymous No.16083243]

>>16082951
This isn't your homework help thread

[Anonymous No.16083390]

what does God say about people who have never had a chance to find Jesus Christ? like kids in africa dying to some disease never having the opportunity to hear about Jesus, or babies dying premature deaths. What happens to them? They literally never had the chance to hear about Jesus. So do they go to heaven? Do they go to hell?
This is the part that confuses me about Christianity, all the millions of people in the world who would of never of had the chance to learn about Jesus because of the circumstances of ones upbringing.

[Anonymous No.16084293]

>>16082951
It's not childish if you're too stupid to refute it, OP. The Xtian answer is usually either A: that since God defines "good" and "bad" nothing he does is "bad," by definition (we just don't understand it) or B: God didn't do that, we did, because he had to give us free will, etc. Neither are great retorts, but they're the usual: either it's all humanity's fault, or humanity is too dense to see the ineffable big picture. They're both intellectual cop-outs of the highest order, of course, but if you're going to defend imaginary beings, you're going to have problems.

[Anonymous No.16084313]

I'm a Muslim, I just say He willed it, how does that disprove His existence?

[Anonymous No.16084330]

[Anonymous No.16084335]

>>16082951
>perhaps God has good reasons for allowing evil. How would you know any better? You do not have God’s wisdom.
end of discussion

[Anonymous No.16084343]

>>16083390
God is far more lenient with people who don't know His word and sin than those who know His word. Virtuous people who never had the chance to learn about God are probably saved

[Anonymous No.16084367]

>>16082989

1. It applies to every religion on Earth as well. I could literally make up a bullshit religion right now and tell you if you don't believe it you go to super mega hell so you should believe in my religion just in case.

2. It's just not how belief works. I can't force myself to believe in something that's obviously false just because my incorrect belief might end up benefitting me in some way. If I'm a juror in a trial, it would benefit me to vote not guilty on a gang-related murder case if the other gang members have sworn to kill any jurors who vote to convict and I might even vote that way to protect myself, but that doesn't mean that I can believe in my heart of hearts that the defendant is innocent.

[Anonymous No.16084373]

>>16082951
>I can't refute a child

[Anonymous No.16084386]

>>16084367
Pascal deals with both of these objections by
1) defending Christianity in comparison to other religions, explaining why it’s the perfect religion, etc
2) referring to what the Bible says about belief, which is that when you humbly seek God by avoiding sin, reading the Bible, etc. then God will seek you.

>But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him
> Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.
and so on

[Anonymous No.16084389]

>>16084373
Children make circular arguments, can't understand logic and are stubborn, traits seen in the modern atheist as well

You CAN refute a child/atheist, but it's not like it'll make much difference

[Anonymous No.16084398]

>>16083390
There are multiple verses, several spoken by Christ himself, that state children are saved because they could not comprehend the law.

God has also stated that he does not condemn people who have never heard the law with that same law, because it is unfair if you have never heard his law.

Obviously, for everyone else that have grown up and know of the law in today’s world (the law being Jesus Christ’s saving grace), then they will be judged by that law upon death. That means literally everyone in the developing and developed world, excluding tribes who are cut off from civilization in the jungles.

[Anonymous No.16084410]

>>16083067
That only reinforces his point, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16084413]

>>16083213
>God made everything perfect, and then we screwed it up
Contradiction.

[Anonymous No.16084423]

>>16084413
No if you create free will and give your creatures the ability to sin against you and corrupt your perfect creation.

[Anonymous No.16084427]

>>16084423
Nonsensical if the deity is omnipotent and omniscient.

[Anonymous No.16084433]

>>16082951
Leibniz already refuted this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds

[Anonymous No.16084434]

>>16084427
By your human ideal of 'sense'

You're talking in circles

[Anonymous No.16084435]

these are the times when definitions matter the most.

[Anonymous No.16084442]

>>16084434
I'm applying logic to your human statements about the creation. They are self-contradictory.

[Anonymous No.16084444]

>>16084442
use a logical syllogism next time and be more clear with your premises and definitions

[Anonymous No.16084446]

>>16084442
"My"? I'm not even him

But your logic isn't saying anything new

[Anonymous No.16084449]

>>16084446
Logic never says anything new.

[Anonymous No.16084457]

>>16082951
Why don’t you read a book or two on the topic and form some complex opinions instead of making low effort threads asking a discussion board, 90% of which are teenagers who barely know who Plato is, to help you in an pointless ego battle?

[Anonymous No.16084461]

>>16084457
>Phoneposter
You have to go back.

[Anonymous No.16084485]

>>16084335
>How would you know any better? You do not have God’s wisdom.
This is merely a euphemism for atheism.

[Anonymous No.16084490]

>>16084485
cringe

[Anonymous No.16084496]

>>16084490

[Anonymous No.16084525]

>>16082951
The argument is that all bad things happen because humans allow then to happen. Childhood cancer is an example: we can easily cure and prevent it, but we choose not to and instead pursue frivolous pursuits. Not more than a handful of souls would ever die in an earthquake or tsunami if a single man studied seismology to the fullest extent of his gifts. In five years from now, no soul would perish in an accident or from disease if we put even the slightest effort towards it. However, we choose instead to stamp our heels into the eyesockets of the countless dead and waste and waste our time. We all bare responsibility for every illness and death. Babies only die because we kill them.

[Anonymous No.16084530]

>>16084496
same for you

[Anonymous No.16084543]

>>16084525
>humans don't solve the problems created by God so that means humans are responsible for them

it's like you clowns forget you eat shit and that things you eat were once alive, too. the only evil that is real to you is something you can put on a legislative bill. pathetic

[Anonymous No.16084556]

>>16084543
>the only evil that is real to you is something you can put on a legislative bill.

[Anonymous No.16084575]

>>16084543
Not him, but God made us stewards of the earth so that we would look after his creation. We failed at this directive, meaning it’s our fault for not living up to God’s expectations.

[Anonymous No.16084576]

>>16084543
>God created problems
Is there a physically consistent world without such problems? Does such a world without those problems exist that still has consequences?
Also, your speedy, enraged response shows I touched a nerve; it is clear that neither of us is choosing to end these problems and the weight of our selfish decision weighs on us both.

[Anonymous No.16084588]

>>16084576
You can't appeal to whatever dualistic logic you're trying to appeal to if an omnipotent God generated that logic ex nihilo you doof. Or worse, is bound by it, in which case oh no no no

[Anonymous No.16084591]

>>16084575
Why would God, a perfect being, make imperfect beings?

[Anonymous No.16084594]

>>16084575
>man's sin plunged the entire natural world into the abyss of hunger

Imagine believing this. And you say the gnostics are prideful for thinking man is the center of creation. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.16084607]

>>16084591
for his own purposes of course. Perhaps we are perfectly imperfect for God

[Anonymous No.16084623]

>>16082977
Pascal's wager is irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.16084625]

>>16084588
This is a good response. I suppose I do follow "bound by such and such a logic" when it comes to the existence of possible worlds with consequence and with the "problems". I probably absorbed that from Martin Gardner, and I don't think I'll part with it easily.

[Anonymous No.16084629]

>>16084607
>just trust me bro

You can't hang a hat on that, let alone a religion. The prime mover had his own reasons for generating the space of possibility for violence, suffering, and fear, bro. Just TRUST me, bro.

[Anonymous No.16084643]

>>16084629
>t. hasn't read The Bible

[Anonymous No.16084647]

If God exist, he probably not really care about us, our pains or deaths. I'm atheist but I already heard this argument " God is omnipotent but he'll not necessary intervene on earth".

[Anonymous No.16084648]

>>16084591
Are you serious? God is the only one who is truly perfect. Therefore everything he creates is, by definition, less than truly perfect, because everything is below God. The ability for us to sin via our God given free will is self evident for that.

>>16084594
That’s because God made us in his image out of the dust of the earth, so humans are intrinsically connected to the creation itself and specifically the earth. Humans were made a little below the angels, but unlike them, we are made in God’s image. God has also given us a possibility for salvation in his son Jesus Christ. He has not given any such salvation for the fallen angels. That alone shows how much God loves us.

[Anonymous No.16084658]

>>16084625
"Christians" are schizophrenic. They want their God-Logos - a divinized creation, God identified with the structure of Being etc. - with all the gnostic flourishes of being a transcendent spark mired in the mud of matter awaiting final salvation. Which is it?

[Anonymous No.16084665]

>>16084648
>Are you serious?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16084669]

>>16084648
Kek you sound like a fucking robot. Is anyone sapient itt or is it all fungus zombies thumping the good book?

[Anonymous No.16084679]

>>16084658
I fear I'm not a Christian, but I'll take your point in good faith about schizophrenia. Could you explain what you mean about wanting God mired in the mud of matter awaiting final salvation? Or am I misreading you?

[Anonymous No.16084709]

>>16084669
Why are you so hostile, anon?

[Anonymous No.16084719]

>>16084709
Athiests just really hate God, someone who they claim doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.16084720]

>>16084709
If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.

[Anonymous No.16084741]

>>16084679
I'm just saying they want a benevolent pagan cosmos with a Judaic God trying to save them from his own creation. It makes no sense. Look at how implicitly gnostic the Gospel of John is, even Paul. It's all there. One side wants to luxuriate in God's creation while making excuses for its horrors, and another rightly discerns this world is the Satan's kingdom. Which side is the more mature, the more sober?

>>16084709
Because I'm a sad and bitter person inside and I hate bullies and people who defend bullies, especially cosmic bullies like Ialdabaoth.

[Anonymous No.16084751]

>>16084386
Pascal's Wager isn't an argument in favor of theism, it's an argument in favor of still being a Christian while also believing in Predestination. This is why Pascal doesn't use it to argue against atheism, but rather to explain to Catholics why one should still go to Church despite being a Jansenist. The moment you state that you can gain information about the divine, as you do in your first point, is the precise moment you are not longer taking Pascal's Wager, as Pascal's Wager requires a radical doubt because you cannot gain any information about the divine.

The version wherein you have to compare every religion that Evangelicals (and atheists) use is flat out not what Pascal was doing in the Pensees.

[Anonymous No.16084761]

>>16084741
>cosmic bullies
God only asks that you love him. Hardly the act of a ‘cosmic bully’.

[Anonymous No.16084764]

>>16084751
you seem to be forgetting all the parts where Pascal talks about the necessity of God and the misery without God, commenting on atheists. Also, just because one cannot use reason to prove or disprove God’s existence doesn’t mean you can’t use reason to compare religions, or gain insight about God in a personal way.

[Anonymous No.16084767]

Suffering is the whole point. Compassion means "to suffer with" and Christian compassion is based around the idea they are suffering with Christ. Book recommendation: dictionary

[Anonymous No.16084795]

>>16084761
>be God
>be an omnipotent fractal ultraconscious in the void
>gaze into the infinite depths of your own potentiality
>decide to create something known as a "world"
>make it a giant cosmic snake eating itself for eternity
>tell the creatures lodged in this creature's body its their fault for being weak and finite

ok senpai

[Anonymous No.16084800]

>>16084767
>God of Love creates a continuum whose very essence is suffering

Lmfao

[Anonymous No.16084801]

>1: Something can be produced.
>2: It is produced by itself, something or another.
>3: Not by nothing, because nothing causes nothing.
>4: Not by itself, because an effect never causes itself.
>5: Therefore, by another A.
>6: If A is first then we have reached the conclusion.
>7: If A is not first, then we return to 2).
>8: From 3) and 4), we produce another B. The ascending series is either infinite or finite.
>9: An infinite series is not possible.
>10: Therefore, God exists.
Irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.16084807]

>>16084800
>Compassion is a bad thing
ok psychopath

[Anonymous No.16084808]

>>16082988
Here's a summary
"We live in a fallen world with disease, terror, and uncontrollable misfires. And it happened when the original humanity willingly decided to 'miss the mark' on the perfection God wanted us to have." And then I would say to your buddy
>So why do you believe God only exists to undo bad stuff?
Because many God conversations don't go anywhere if you try to do competetive debates, but to take the time and patiently hear out the person who's mindset you oppose and then speak on the grounds of what you know will cause a more developing movement. You may not be able to convert/get your buddy on your side, but you'll let him know where you stand and let him understand this whole Christ thing a lot more clearly

[Anonymous No.16084810]

>>16084461
Cope, sneed, cringe, dilate etc etc.

>>16084767
Suffering is a historically inherited trait of the religion and life-denying slave morality. Christ was the last and only true Christian

[Anonymous No.16084812]

>>16082951
God is just being ill-defined. That's the problem. You define God a particular way and then you say that anything defined that way can't possibly exist.
The problem of evil is based on a strawman.

[Anonymous No.16084815]

>>16084795
So you’re gonna blame God for your own sins because he created you imperfect? Truly the height of hubris.

[Anonymous No.16084820]

>>16084801
>Something can be produced
matter can neither be created nor destroyed
>An infinite series is not possible
proof?

[Anonymous No.16084827]

>>16084810
>The Pauline church is a hyperjewish church created by a taxcollector intended as the tomb of Christianity which will forever entrap its ghost and stop Jesus's rebirth
I know Freddy, but I'm trying to explain what the Paulines think to the psychopath atm, not what's really happening

[Anonymous No.16084834]

>>16084330
Who is he bottom supposed to be?

[Anonymous No.16084835]

>>16084815
>Sets you up for failure

[Anonymous No.16084840]

>>16084815
I blame God for being responsible for the possibility of sin

[Anonymous No.16084845]

>>16084840
Do you blame your mom for not hiding her panties better?

[Anonymous No.16084853]

>>16084840
Don't blame God for the folly of man.

[Anonymous No.16084858]

>>16084835
>Not taking responsibility for your own actions.

>>16084840
Likes like blaming God for creating anything. You can’t blame the potter for creating the pot if the pot later shatters into a million pieces.

[Anonymous No.16084859]

>>16084845
>>16084853

Kek you retards will never get it.

[Anonymous No.16084860]

>>16084764
You are correct, Pascal does believe we can gain knowledge of the divine. That's why I said he believes that we can gain knowledge of the divine. This is also why the wager is only used as a means of explaining to Catholics why you would still go to church despite believing in Predestination.

The wager is that, unable to gain knowledge of the divine, it is better to go to church rather than not JUST IN CASE Jansenism is wrong and Catholicism is right. That's all there is to it. Anything more is fundamentally diverging from what Pascal was trying to do with the wager, which was only a very specific tool for a very specific argument.

The fact that he says that you can gain knowledge of the divine is just further evidence of how specialized the wager is, because it's not the only reason to believe in Jansenism (which Pascal demonstrates is obviously the correct denomination, or at least he does according to his own beliefs).

[Anonymous No.16084861]

>>16082951
You won't find this problems in any gnostic system of thought

[Anonymous No.16084868]

>>16084858
So am I gonna blame the pot then you fucking simp?

[Anonymous No.16084870]

>>16084861
How do I get into Gnosticism?

[Anonymous No.16084871]

God is beyond good and evil. Simple as that. Seethe Christcucks

[Anonymous No.16084872]

>>16084840
Free will

[Anonymous No.16084881]

>>16084313
>>16084330
Muslims are unrepetantly based, meanwhile Christians can’t even agree how many gods they have. Three or one? Can’t be both

[Anonymous No.16084883]

>>16084859
>>16084868
>>16084871
No need to be so rude.

[Anonymous No.16084889]

>>16084868
You blame yourself for shattering the pot that the potter created and gave you, because it is your fault that it broke.

[Anonymous No.16084890]

>>16084872
I don't have unconditional free will. I can't just fly when I want to. So make "incapable of sin" just one more condition. Can't do that? Then he's not omnipotent.

[Anonymous No.16084913]

>>16084890
Flying is not in the nature of man, sin is.

[Anonymous No.16084916]

>>16084889
Yes, EVERYTHING is my fault, because I am powerless creature of dust and ashes, but the creator of universes? He's excused.

Have you read the book of Job? You're one of Job's cuck friends desperately hunting for faults in his character to justify what was done to him. You're lower than dirt.

[Anonymous No.16084928]

>>16084890
>Can't do that?
More like chose not to do. “But why didn’t God create a world without free will?” Any question of why didn’t God do something is purely self-indulgent. The fact is that we do have free will because that is the world God created. Now it’s your responsibility to live up to your own choices per the free will be gave you.

[Anonymous No.16084941]

>>16084913
Then God either is responsible for my nature, or I bootstrapped myself out of the void independent of God's power. Either way, you're fucked.

>>16084928
yawn

[Anonymous No.16084944]

>>16084928
>"Don't ask questions" the post

[Anonymous No.16084949]

>>16084916
Please. Job was described as the most righteous man on earth at the time. Clearly, you are not Job, not am I. Job’s friend’s arguments were only unfounded because we know Job didn’t deserve what God allowed to happen to Job.

But that’s not really the point. In the end, Job is about taking responsibility for your actions. In the end of Job, he repents for his own self-righteousness, something that you and everyone who feels they are somehow above sinning against a perfect and holy God would do well to take as an example.

[Anonymous No.16084953]

>>16084889
But if God already makes the pot cracked, then how could He condemn it for breaking

[Anonymous No.16084956]

>>16084949
He doesn't repent, that section was added by a later cuck author

[Anonymous No.16084958]

>>16084956
This.

[Anonymous No.16084978]

>>16084956
Incredible. First you ask me if I read Job and then you deny it’s ultimate message. Truly the purest form of logic imaginable.

[Anonymous No.16084984]

free will is hardly emphasized in the Bible. I cringe a little when some say that God values free will so much, that he doesn’t want robots, etc. but I’ve never seen this idea explicit in the Bible. Not to say that free will doesn’t exist, but it’s much more appropriate to simply say that God has good reasons for allowing evil to exist, and leaving it at that.

[Anonymous No.16084987]

>>16084978
>isn't even aware of the scholarship surrounding the text

Read more.

[Anonymous No.16084996]

>>16084978
Do you understand what Biblical literary scholarship is?

[Anonymous No.16085001]

>>16082999
It is though, Christ the perfect man was condemned to die a painful death. Bad things happen. God even permitted to happen to himself when he was in human form. This is all thanks to The Fall we see in Genesis.

[Anonymous No.16085009]

>>16085001
>b-bad things happen bro

kek, the wisdom of Christ, everyone.

[Anonymous No.16085010]

>>16084984
>God has good reasons for allowing evil to exist
Does he, though?

[Anonymous No.16085018]

>>16085001
All of this orchestrated by an omnipotent and omniscient God who could've made a scenario without bad things happening

[Anonymous No.16085025]

>>16084953
Crackable, not already cracked, there is a difference. Children below a certain age are except from condemnation because they cannot understand the law. Once you grow up and the cracks start to form and then the pot shatters, that was your responsibility for it living up to God’s holiness? Why? Because God is by definition holy. If you have sinned, then there is no way for a God to commune with you without defiling his holiness. The God given cure to this is in the saving grace of his son Jesus Christ, dying for the sins of the world, and being resurrected to conquer death and sin. That’s the whole point.

[Anonymous No.16085028]

>>16084984
>God has good reasons for allowing evil to exist
>evil exists
Lmao
God exists, but evil doesn’t and God isn’t a Semitic desert spirit

[Anonymous No.16085035]

>>16085028
God is an infinite substance that exists necessarily.

[Anonymous No.16085036]

>>16085018
Then Man wouldn't have freewill. He gave us the choice to choose and allowed Satan to tempt us.

[Anonymous No.16085037]

>>16085025
Then why did He make them crackable... You're just playing word games.

>uh duh duh uhhhh God isn't responsible for shit burning down just because he made it flammable

What are you even saying

[Anonymous No.16085040]

>>16085025
If it is crackable then it was made flawed.
>Children below a certain age are exempt
source?

[Anonymous No.16085042]

>>16085010
>Does he, though?
if he didn’t, then evil wouldn’t exist. There are various ways to try to guess what the good reasons are. Free will, contrast of good and evil, more meaning and complexity, the creation of good through evil (compassion, sacrifice, bravery, etc.), the entertainment of conflict and change, etc. We can’t just assume that we know how God thinks, but I can totally imagine that God has his reasons. If I were to create a world (with my human mind), even I would not be so bent on preventing all evil. That would be too boring.

[Anonymous No.16085046]

>>16085036
>free will is confirmed by the tendency for evil

There's nothing that says his has to be true except your twisted new age demiurge logic.

[Anonymous No.16085048]

As always, Buddhism is based and has no need to address a theological concept of the problem of evil.

[Anonymous No.16085051]

>>16085042
You worship a God of infinite love but need evil to exist because infinite love is too boring. lol. How is this anything than spiritualized coomerism? So dopaminergically starved even your heaven needs a rollercoaster. Kys.

[Anonymous No.16085055]

>>16085048
We need a gnostic and buddhist pepe hugging each other in based camarederie whenever these threads pop up

[Anonymous No.16085059]

>>16085051
Why are you getting so worked up, anon?

[Anonymous No.16085060]

>>16085051
you don’t know what infinite love means. You think that God could only maximize love by preventing suffering, though that isn’t necessarily the case. It’s reasonable to think that suffering is needed in order for love to be maximized. You can’t really prove it either way.

[Anonymous No.16085069]

>>16085036
Why could He not create a scenario where we have both free will and literally no good reason to doubt his existence. Why is our first experience not God telling us who He is and how the world works? If our salvation and unity with Him is paramount, that seems like a better way of going about things.
And if God can't make a world with free will and without any good reason to choose otherwise, then He does not match the Christian definition of God.

[Anonymous No.16085071]

>>16082964
Stop being a fucking coward and be a good person for the sake of being a good person.

[Anonymous No.16085073]

>>16085060
>suffering is needed
>needed
>for an omnipotent God

You're being stubbornly incoherent. Look up the definition of omnipotence and try again.

[Anonymous No.16085085]

>>16085059
Because these attitudes are a fucking cancer and are everywhere

[Anonymous No.16085088]

>>16085073
God’s qualities must be balanced in some way. God cannot be not-God

[Anonymous No.16085093]

>>16084881
You have never spoken to a Muslim in your life and are fantasying about an ideal that doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.16085096]

>>16085088
>must

Omnipotent beings are bound by no necessity. Try again.

[Anonymous No.16085101]

>>16085037
If your house is flammable, and you set it on fire and it burns down, then it’s your fault. You can’t blame the carpenter for using wood to construct your house with.

>>16085040
Mark 10:14-16

[Anonymous No.16085102]

>>16082951
God does whatever he wants. We exist because he willed it and allows it, and we die when he demands it.

>that's cruel

God is not a bearded old man far up in the sky, get rid of your anthropomorphized idea of divinity.

[Anonymous No.16085108]

>>16085102
God created man in his image, though.

[Anonymous No.16085112]

>>16085096
God is consistent with himself. God is Truth and Logic. If God is beyond these things, then there is no reason in questioning the things that he does. You simply have to accept that you can’t understand God. Either way your anti theism is unfounded and you should seek to cleanse your heart if you want to find any answers.

[Anonymous No.16085114]

>>16085040
Can you make an uncrackable pot? If it's a necessary element of a created world that sin be possible, it's not God's fault people choose to sin

[Anonymous No.16085115]

>>16085101
I can blame the carpenter if he's all-powerful you fucking retard lmao.

>>16085102
>just straight up admits he worships an amoral Demiurge

lol at least you're honest

[Anonymous No.16085121]

>>16085112
Yawn, this was a waste of my time.

[Anonymous No.16085124]

>>16085101
A better analogy is making a flammable house and putting it in the middle of a forest fire.
>Mark 10:14-16
You're taking the analogy too literally

[Anonymous No.16085128]

Atheists will always attack God’s omnipotence, no matter what world God creates.
>surely God could have created a world with suffering. Is he not omnipotent?

[Anonymous No.16085135]

>>16085114
>Necessary element
>Omnipotent God
Bruh

[Anonymous No.16085136]

>Every contingent fact has an explanation.
>There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
>Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
>This explanation must involve a necessary being.
>This necessary being is God.
Still irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.16085138]

>>16085115
>I can blame the carpenter if he's all-powerful
That’s not an argument. Who are you to presume to blame someone who is all powerful? You might as well curse God for creating you.

[Anonymous No.16085139]

>>16085121
I’ll take that as a concession to my point

[Anonymous No.16085148]

>>16085128
Not an atheist. It's not an ethical issue as far as I'm concerned, but an issue about internal consistency

[Anonymous No.16085155]

>>16085138
Cringe and cower before the powerful until the end of your days, you idiot child

[Anonymous No.16085158]

>>16085148
consistency can always be maintained with an additional premise or two, or by showing that there exists a misunderstanding of the stated premises

[Anonymous No.16085172]

>>16082951
Just tell him that god isn't all powerful or all knowing and that he doesn't control people but gives the the freedom of personal adgency. Also tell him that in the past 1800 years god has basically stopped interacting with humanity, probably because he gained so many followers (billions of people) that he doesn't feel the need to interfere with anyone anymore.

[Anonymous No.16085176]

>>16085158
There is nothing more inconsistent than omnipotence needing qualifications.

[Anonymous No.16085178]

>>16085148
This. Why does every Christian immediately declare someone who questions their religion an atheist? It's an utterly absurd leap in logic.

[Anonymous No.16085185]

>>16085176
omnipotence is meaningless without a motive. God wants to create this world, and his omnipotence allows him to do so. It’s that simple

[Anonymous No.16085188]

>>16085158
I doubt you would go down the route of adding premises because that would just be rewriting the scenario given. What do you believe is misunderstood about the premises

[Anonymous No.16085191]

>>16085135
That's a semantic limitation that prescribes how we can talk about these things. If God sets out to make a pot, but makes it uncrackable, he hasn't made a pot. That is true regardless of omnipotence. If you can only think of God in your own language then you'll just be arguing with about words rather than about God

[Anonymous No.16085197]

>>16085188
example of an added premise:
>God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil to exist

[Anonymous No.16085214]

>>16085185
Something infinite/all-powerful doesn't require anything to do anything. Also a self-sustained and complete God would not have any motives or desires because that would mean He was incomplete in some way.

[Anonymous No.16085220]

>>16085191
Huh? So what is this realm of absolute essences that God draws from, if the essence of a human being is to be crackable? What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.16085232]

>>16085214
God is completed through the creation. What is God without it?

[Anonymous No.16085239]

>>16085232
A perfect being does not lack.

[Anonymous No.16085243]

>>16085191
>That's a semantic limitation that prescribes how we can talk about these things.
It's a rule that was set up by those propounding the Christian concept of God. If you have to bend your own premises then that's your problem, not those arguing against you.
>If God sets out to make a pot, but makes it uncrackable, he hasn't made a pot.
Why?

[Anonymous No.16085254]

>>16085239
“perfect” is such an arbitrary word, but even by your definition, it’s possible that God has never lacked anything since he is beyond time.

[Anonymous No.16085257]

>>16082951
You need to know suffering to know your Lord.

[Anonymous No.16085267]

>>16085257
But why?

[Anonymous No.16085268]

>>16085254
It's your attribute, not mine. Either he's all-powerful, or he answers to some kind of paradoxical logic of coemerging with his own creation, etc. An idea pushed but Eckhart but rejected by your cuck church.

[Anonymous No.16085270]

>>16085267
because that’s how God intended it to be, and God wouldn’t want it to be any other way.

/thread

[Anonymous No.16085273]

>>16085270
I don't want to suffer, though.

[Anonymous No.16085275]

>>16085270
>an "it is what is" boomerism is the height of theology on 4chan

Kek. Just don't think about it, bro.

[Anonymous No.16085277]

>>16082951
Its to know how far away humans have come from gods light and his teachings. Humans arent born evil, they are made evil by their experiences and surrounding. If the incubator is currupt, then the egg would be corrupt. Thats the core of human apathy, cynicism and psychopathy. God creates evil but it is made under tyranny and can be observed naturalistically evolving from the very institution of your first two caregivers and spread to the whole of society, so putting the blame on God would be completely arrogant and ignorant to His wisdom as evil is a sort of mercy as well as a compass to greatness on Earth under His light. The same thing can be applied towards diseases. He creates us sufferings and tests to enlighten the aware in his presence. Verily, only in the rememberance of God do the heart find peace.

[Anonymous No.16085283]

>>16085273
Boohoo nigga jus kill yo self if you want to avoid suffering. In reality you are ok with some suffering in exchange for something else.

If one is a Christian he is ok with suffering for the sake of knowing Him. If one is an atheist hedonist he is ok with suffering for the sake of future pleasure. Not to be an edge lord but life unironically IS suffering.

[Anonymous No.16085288]

>>16085273
John 16:33
>These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

https://www.openbible.info/topics/suffering

[Anonymous No.16085289]

>>16082951
The problem is the question. Questions frame and set the rules for discourse. For a response, take a step back and explain how everything in the world directly proceeds from God's essence. In a way there could be no other option or possibility. By inquiry into His essence, we can then see what deductively follows from such a being. You could say everything is necessarily contingent on the necessity of God, as paradoxically as that might seem. Now I don't have the specific framework to show how suffering is a necessary state of affairs that deductively follows from the essence of God, but for more information you could look into Spinoza's Ethics (tread carefully though, it's heavily heretical). This question can only be answered indirectly, in my opinion. But that's not to say you should ignore it.
>>16085270
>because that’s how God intended it to be, and God wouldn’t want it to be any other way.
Unironically. Although you should be careful with the words "intended" and "want". God knows best.

[Anonymous No.16085300]

>>16085268
Either God is consistent with himself because he is Truth and Logic, and therefore self-contained by himself and nothing else, or God is beyond these things and you’re wasting your time trying to make God into some contradiction when God is beyond logic.

[Anonymous No.16085304]

>>16085300
So I don't have enough insight into the mind of God to reject Him, but you have enough insight to love Him. Okay, dude, I see how this works.

[Anonymous No.16085307]

>>16085304
love precedes rationality

[Anonymous No.16085315]

>>16085304
I’m content with not fully understanding God and you aren’t

[Anonymous No.16085318]

>>16085273
Every ideology/philosophy that is worth anything has seen suffering not as a defect of the world, but as a means of knowing yourself. In Kabbalism they have the (semi-alchemical) notion of transforming negative to positive through integration. Integration of suffering transubstantiated into steadfastness in faith, or knowledge of your Lord. Nietzscheanism is the same or similar. Contrast this with the Buddhist philosophies, with Schopenhauer, and with Reddit nihilism. They would rather be nothing than something. In Evangelion you're not supposed to envy the people in the orange goop. I hope your attitude changes to a more productive one, as we all know how complacent we can get. God knows best.

[Anonymous No.16085324]

>>16085307
That's not the point. The point is you do some have insight into the nature of God to claim he is worthy of worship, while denying me that same access my conclusions run counter to the orthodoxy

[Anonymous No.16085328]

>>16085315
Ye shall know Him by his works. I think I know God well enough, friendo.

[Anonymous No.16085330]

>>16085324
because I don’t need insight into why God does this or that in order to love him. I love God because God loves me.

[Anonymous No.16085333]

>>16085300
>>16085315
If God is Truth and Logic then He would be internally consistent. Also the attributes of Logic and Truth limit the infinite, making it finite

[Anonymous No.16085349]

>>16085333
>If God is Truth and Logic then He would be internally consistent.
first you have to actually show that God isn’t consistent

[Anonymous No.16085353]

Imagine being this theologically shallow

[Anonymous No.16085356]

>>16085330
Then his Love is selective. Why doesn't he love the roadkill whose guts I see splashed out on the road at least once a week? Aborted babies? The war dead? Countless men and women drinking themselves to death as we speak? The parents of an abducted child? Who are you tell those parents it's all for the Good in the end? Who are you to speak for God's plan? Would you have the balls in real life? Ever seen an animal's brains squirt out of its eye sockets? What kind of demon would give us these bodies whose capacity for suffering is practically infinite?

[Anonymous No.16085357]

>>16085349
Can you show that He IS?

[Anonymous No.16085364]

>>16085356
All of these hypotheticals are engaged in sinful activity.

[Anonymous No.16085374]

>>16085357
why should I? I have faith that he is, even if I don’t necessarily understand how

[Anonymous No.16085375]

>>16085364
Who? The parents? The abducted child? The roadkill, the driver? You're a fool.

[Anonymous No.16085376]

>>16085353
Say that to my face.

[Anonymous No.16085395]

>>16084525
Logically inconsistent. God created humans.

[Anonymous No.16085401]

>>16084576
>Is there a physically consistent world without such problems?
God is unconstrained by physics.

[Anonymous No.16085408]

>>16082951
Just berate him. Atheists are the vegans of spirituality. They deserve no respect. Plus, even if they're right about the afterlife what do they stand to gain besides a small ego boost and utter oblivion? Men who didn't have electricity or toilet paper could disprove atheist faggotry but you can't expect the atheist to put in even an ounce of work to substantiate their """beliefs"""

[Anonymous No.16085410]

>>16085401
>unconstrained by physics.
Scientifically impossible.

[Anonymous No.16085413]

>>16082951

[Anonymous No.16085415]

>>16084719
>God
Doesn't exist, mouthbreather. As much a figment of your imagination as every other god proposed in human history. That which does not exist cannot be hated.

[Anonymous No.16085416]

>>16085408
Is this peak cope?

[Anonymous No.16085419]

>>16085410
Supernatural entities like gods certainly are.

[Anonymous No.16085435]

>>16085416
t.

[Anonymous No.16085441]

>>16085289
Underrated answer.

>>16082951
>If god was real then bad things wouldn't happen
Almost the first thing God did in Genesis was tell mankind that "Because they have eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, now they would suffer". The entire passage is fucking metaphorical. The reason that Adam and Eve cover themselves isn't because they didn't notice they were naked, but because they knew and did not perceive it to be shameful to be naked until they knew of Good and Evil. In a void, dying of cancer is not evil. Outside a void I'd even say it's not evil but that's a very controversial opinion I know. It is the knowledge of the Good that is the relationships with others ("It is not Good for Man to be alone") which allows for the suffering of loss and the perception of Evil. And therefore demanding that God halts all evil things is not to live in a relationship with God, as The Son came to the World to establish as the new Way, but is to become the slave of God and offer up gifts and scraps in exchange for protection as the Jews once did but don't so much anymore.

God is The Father and not The Master. People are not slaves to the Good, they are supposed to willingly pursue it despite the struggle and suffering the knowledge of the Good entails. The reward for this is both true knowledge of Good and Evil, and safety from Evil in knowing how to turn away from Evil and towards Good. The consequence is to endure freely, without direct physical intervention from God, all suffering, and to know God only as a friend and a dear Father, but not a savior and not a coming Messiah.

[Anonymous No.16085443]

>>16085435
>t. newfag

[Anonymous No.16085449]

>>16085443
>what do they stand to gain besides a small ego boost and utter oblivion?
Well?

[Anonymous No.16085464]

>>16082951
>I know he's wrong and atheists normally resort to this childish argument but I dont know how to tell him why he's wrong. How do I go about this?
If you can't tell him why hes wrong then you don't know why hes wrong you absolute mong, for if you knew why he was wrong you could explain why he was wrong. You christ cucks are so fucking stupid its hilarious. You just wan't to believe he is wrong because his views oppose yours and you are delusional. Its time to grow up

[Anonymous No.16085467]

>>16085415
Atheists are the vegans of spirituality.

[Anonymous No.16085473]

>>16085464
>christcuck
shouldn't you be shilling on pol?

[Anonymous No.16085475]

>>16085473
Bold of you to assume I don't have /pol/ open in another tab.

[Anonymous No.16085480]

>>16085475
Well you know what they say about assumptions: Atheists are the vegans of spirituality

[Anonymous No.16085482]

>>16085467
No arguments, so you resort to food analogies and bugs bunny memes. Sad.

[Anonymous No.16085483]

>>16085473
>p-pol
newfag

[Anonymous No.16085491]

>>16085483
He already outed himself as one here >>16085435. Best to pay him no mind.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16085499]

>>16082951
You can’t go about that. He’s not wrong, you are.
You have to choose what you worship. The Hebrews chose a malevolent god. Jesus cannot be Yhwh, yhwh cannot be Jesus. Yes, the Muslims were right, yes the Jews are right. jesus was just a “prophet”. You and all of Christendom have lived a big fat fucking lie.

This isn’t the board for this btw.

[Anonymous No.16085502]

>>16085499
>This isn’t the board for this btw.
Why does this exact same thread get made and reach the bump limit every day then?

[Anonymous No.16085517]

>>16085502
Because religion appeals to the illiterate brainlets of the recent corona influx.

[Anonymous No.16085528]

>>16085517
That seems a bit harsh. There's many reasons to subscribe a religion.

[Anonymous No.16085537]

>>16085528
Religion, by definition, is not based on reason. It is institutionalized wishful thinking.

[Anonymous No.16085541]

>>16085537
>Religion, by definition, is not based on reason.
Rationalist philosophers would disagree.

[Anonymous No.16085556]

What really is the point behind atheism as a movement? I understand it as a personal belief but what does one get out of constantly preaching it? Lots of religious people get some sort of spiritual/good feeling when talking about spreading the word of their god/prophets. What does atheism preach besides "There is no god, there is no afterlife, all your spiritual feelings are nothing, and you go into nothingness. Have a nice life."

[Anonymous No.16085565]

>>16085556
>movement

[Anonymous No.16085571]

>>16085565
Yes

[Anonymous No.16085613]

>>16082951
"Bad" things need to be divided up into tragedy/disaster and evil. Evil is a result of free will, while tragedy/disaster are results of nature and misfortune. Evil is self explanatory, people choose to do good or bad. For tragedy/disaster, look into Book of Job. My understanding of it is that tragedy just happens due to nature, the design of the world, and the suffering we must endure due to eating the fruit. Its OK to question it and wrestle with the idea, but to think we can ever completely understand it is arrogant. We need to be humble and put our faith in God no matter what, good times and bad.

[Anonymous No.16085627]

>>16082951
God has foreordained all human action. Everything is predestined and according to God's plan.

[Anonymous No.16085631]

>>16085627
This.

[Anonymous No.16085637]

>>16084623
So is atheist's wager.

>>16085556
The point is to break the dam that Christianity has built over humanity's creative forces.

[Anonymous No.16085648]

>>16085637
Christianity isn't the only religion.

[Anonymous No.16085653]

>>16085648
I didn't imply that it was. The atheist movement in the West specifically targets Christianity though.

[Anonymous No.16085657]

>>16082951
Just do the IRL version of this:
>NOOOO NOT THE HECKIN SICK KIDARINOOS, NOT MY HECKIN GOOD LIL BOYS N GIRLS, AAAAAH WHY WOULD GOD LET THEM DIE NOOOOOOOO ARGGGGH NOTHING IS REAL

[Anonymous No.16085668]

>>16085657
I don't think he would find that a particularly compelling argument.

[Anonymous No.16085682]

>>16082951
Didn’t humans fuck up the chance of a perfect world with the whole Eden episode?

[Anonymous No.16085687]

>>16085637
Religion is the soul culture and inspires creativity.

[Anonymous No.16085697]

>>16085687
>Phoneposter

[Anonymous No.16085699]

>>16085682
Why am I condemned over something I didn't do?

[Anonymous No.16085710]

>>16085687
Christianity creates nothing but wars and death.

[Anonymous No.16085716]

>>16084834
Muslim scholars often wear that hat

[Anonymous No.16085717]

>>16082951
ah the old "God is evil" argument.
What if they babies didn't die?

[Anonymous No.16085719]

>>16085710
protestantism is not christianity

[Anonymous No.16085720]

>>16085710
Christianity did not create war. Europe was a mess of wars before Christianity. All you have to do is google Greek and Roman history. We had wars before Christianity and we’ll continue to go to war after it.

[Anonymous No.16085724]

>>16085719
>>16085720
Did you both forget about the Crusades? And I didn't say that Christianity created war, but that it ONLY created war.

[Anonymous No.16085732]

>>16085556
Religion is the source of most evil in the world.

[Anonymous No.16085740]

>>16085724
>Did you both forget about the Crusades?
Of course not.

[Anonymous No.16085743]

>>16085732
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

[Anonymous No.16085769]

>>16085732
Then by inverse it's also the source of most good in the world too.

That's basic logic.

[Anonymous No.16085773]

What do you think of Buddhism, anons? I had a very intensely spiritual experience on DMT in which I experienced the collective unconsciousness, of being everything that there is, in this altered state of consciousness I became the totality. Judging from what science and other logic has told us, the universe came into being around 13.8 billion years ago. Reality started to unfold and expand and billions of years later, we're here, in this moment, posting on this anonymous imageboard. Besides the sheer amazement of that realization, we still are a part of that energy that created everything that there ever is and ever will be, we are what created the cosmos. We are what there is, expressing the universe's wish as who we are right now in this moment.

The way God is described is eternal, all-knowing and all-being. Which means, God is the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and everything to describe them. That God is everything and nothing simultaneously, that God defies nearly every bit of logic we can apply to such a being. If this is the way God is described, would we not be a part of this being ourselves, or even this being expressing himself as who we are right now? God cannot be all-being, all-knowing and eternal if God decides to let out a possibility. This is suffering, evil, pain. That if God is every possibility, every option, every reality, every existence, every sensation, in this way, God is perfect. God is truly complete in this sense. To say evil is why a God would not exist would be denying perfection.

Are we all God fooling ourselves as of what eternity demands of us for the sake of all being? This is a dangerous line of thinking in Western theology but one I can't help but ask. If you look at reality from this standpoint, we are already simultaneously both in heaven and hell, of existence and non-existence... perhaps the Bible was wrong and Jesus came out and told of man similar things. Thing is, I don't know, I could be completely wrong and be sentenced to damnation for eternity for holding these views. Spirituality is such a tough subject to logically try to deconstruct because fundamentally you can't really but you really want to.

[Anonymous No.16085775]

>>16085740
The Crusades were nothing but wars and death.

[Anonymous No.16085776]

>>16085773
The religion of patricians.

[Anonymous No.16085792]

>>16085769
Of course no rebuttal; no acknowledgement of mind blown.

A little gratitude would be appreciated...

[Anonymous No.16085793]

>>16085096
Why are these christcucks talking about "must"? God wills this world to be so, therefore it is. The fact is he made us this way, he made us this undeniably religious creatures that can do nothing but self destruct under the weight of cosmic purposelessness. Petulantly denying this truth will lead to chaos observably for he only creates for his creation to worship him. Humans are the ultimate creation because despite getting constantly fucked in the ass, we can still intellectually accept God"s decision and the Wisdom behind all the worlds suffering at the cost of some to turn on Him which adds to the narrative even further. A world fully without him will never exist because he locked us entertwined with intellect, therefore the question of meaning.

[Anonymous No.16085794]

>>16085732
you have no idea what religion is, have you?

[Anonymous No.16085801]

>>16085793
>Why are these christcucks talking about "must"?
Because that is what good would do.
That's what God would do since they are familiar with God; they see Him through His energies; their people accomplishing His Will.

Hence why even God can be known through his predictability of his good followers.

[Anonymous No.16085810]

>>16085801
In other words, you can know a God through His saints.

[Anonymous No.16085816]

>>16085801
I am saying that God is not required to do anything and anything he does enact or create is beyond your reasoning, although can be slightly touched and felt by human intellect and intuition for we are breathed of his essence . However the full wisdom behind it will never be known. The fact is that it is.

[Anonymous No.16085824]

>>16082951
Well it says in the bible for one that God created both good and evil. Imperfection is his proof that God isn't real but creation itself isn't imperfect, I mean where's the randomness, where's the entropy, the nonsense, if it was all in fact random? Not trying to bring up the intelligent design argument, but you have to admit that even evil is intelligently designed.

[Anonymous No.16085826]

>>16085816
Of course. God is a person.
In his omnipotence, he also has omnicontrol; the ability to exercise His will over his own ability (either magnified or dimished). Hence it was how an infinite uncreated God was able to incarnate into a finite material man form. Pretty cool shit actually; since it validated the divinity of the human form through hypostasis (particularly of both the person and the persons of the Godhead Trinity)

[Anonymous No.16085829]

in simplest terms you can't know pleasure and enjoyment without pain and suffering. can't know suffering without joy
life is a learning experience. 'unfair' other evil things may happen in nature. when it's by man it is by mans hand, not Gods, but ours. free will exists we can't blame a sky daddy (or lack of a, lol) for the existence of man made evil. that's on us.
as for nature... There's lots of us to learn and take with us

[Anonymous No.16085837]

There is no discussion with atheists, at least the kind of atheist that's teeming over here. If the material (corporeal) is not the only reality then the divine is a fact present and transcendent to this world since it pervades and goes beyond what we can see. Now the immaterial reality is a fact for both the very concept of souls and matter itself. The first for being self-moving and the second for being unintelligible and dependent on quality (idea) for intelligibility. Atheists have never dedicated themselves to any serious study on religion and metaphysics (and logic, it seems), every retort here made by them is the most sentimental platitude I would expect from the most sheep-like redditor, from a person who lives exclusively on the stratum adorned by mainstream media, who grounds himself on public education and has no sense of profoundity for anything in his life.

[Anonymous No.16085842]

>>16082951
I belive God created evil to warn us about hell. Here's how I see it, hell has to be painful, so how else could God warn us about it other than using pain? If someone tortures tons of people and God just lets him go, just kills him without sending him to hell, wouldn't that have the pain that God created, well, useless? What other benefit could the potential of pain felt benefit anything if not the torturer's punishment that is to come in hell because he has an unclean spirit?
So yeah pain and evil exists for 2 reasons: to warn us about hell and for the unclean spirits to get punished in hell for causing it.

[Anonymous No.16085867]

>>16085826
>God is a person.
I am a muslim, so I do not hold this view, and my vision of God is a more prideful one for he is Al-Mutakkabbir so he will never subject himself to diminish himself.. howerver, the Quranic narrative of Humans being the only being to learn and teach from the existence of God"s essense within does somewhat show of a form of innate and inherent divinity within us.

[Anonymous No.16085870]

>>16085837
They just fear a reality where God exists.
They're pussies.

To afraid to look under their own beds and in their own dark closets.

[Anonymous No.16085875]

>>16085837
Atheists don't really get into debates with Christians anymore. It got boring. I mean, there's only so much one can discuss regarding "material vs. immaterial" and such archaic dichotomies. Neuroscience and psychology are a lot more interesting now.

[Anonymous No.16085884]

>>16085870
>To

[Anonymous No.16085887]

>>16085867
You dare deny the Power of Allah?
Is He not God?

You're religion speaks of shapeshifting so detailed in your mythology and even theology; yet you deny Allah his Right to be which He wants to be?
Shame and dishonor.

[Anonymous No.16085890]

>>16082951
This might sound wierd but to me evil is actually proof that God is real. There are a few facts to consider.
This world obviously has a creator. If you say it isn't Jesus, then I have an unanswerable question for you. Why would that creator create evil if there wasn't a hell? Why create it just halfway? Evil is proof of hell, because if there was no evil there could be no divine justice for evil souls, I mean, if they wouldn't be able to cause evil, how could God punish them? He has to allow them to evil so they will be justly punished, not just because God says so. All I'm saying is that divine justice exists and evil proves it, and if divine justice exists then God exists.

[Anonymous No.16085894]

>>16085884
do you have an actual argument?

[Anonymous No.16085896]

>>16085890
>This might sound wierd but to me evil is actually proof that God is real.
My brother is an orthodox priest and that's what pretty much convinced him to believe back when he was a kid.

[Anonymous No.16085899]

>>16085896
I don't recall asking.

[Anonymous No.16085903]

>>16085837
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.16085911]

>>16085890
>This world obviously has a creator.
Nice assumption, too bad you have to prove it

[Anonymous No.16085914]

>>16085890
Divine justice doesn't exist, though.

[Anonymous No.16085916]

>>16085911

[Anonymous No.16085919]

>>16085899
well now you know.
it's a common route for epistemic validation of God; simple logistical inverse.

[Anonymous No.16085924]

>>16085914
How do you know?
Perhaps you practiced it and weren't aware being a pawn in a greater game (like you are now).

[Anonymous No.16085931]

>>16085875
thank you for confirming exactly what i said

[Anonymous No.16085937]

>>16085916
Again, the Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Anonymous No.16085947]

>>16085875
neuroscience and psychology still can't explain or replicate conciousness Lmao

[Anonymous No.16085949]

>>16085887
Allah can do whatever he pleases to do, however he does not want to be his creations which are pure filth compared to his divine perfection. This is Gods testimony in the Quran, not me ascribing attributes of what I think God is.

[Anonymous No.16085950]

>>16085914
It has to, it wouldn't make sense for someone who likes beating people for example to get the same treatment as let's say the toolbox killer or jeffrey dahmer, the amount of pain they caused it way greater, and thus their punishment should be greater. Pain wouldn't have been created if this weren't the case. If pain didn't exist and one started scratching with a knife in someone, he would wish it was real, even if he got punished for it, he has to, because the other person didn't consent to that suffering, so why would God allow evil if He isn't going to punish it?

[Anonymous No.16085953]

>>16085931
In what way was my response a sentimental platitude?

[Anonymous No.16085955]

>>16082951
If you genuinely can’t think of a single argument against the problem of evil that’s bad

[Anonymous No.16085960]

>>16085955
I can, they’re just unconvincing and hollow

[Anonymous No.16085961]

>>16085949
Then is Allah a mere force or an actual will?
Sounds like you're turning into a materialist with how do you view God; so much determinism that even God is trapped by it.

[Anonymous No.16085963]

>>16085955
No, it's a sign of intelligence and restrain to not stoop to the level of brainlets.

[Anonymous No.16085964]

>>16085947
It's closer to an explanation than Abrahamic religions are.

[Anonymous No.16085972]

>>16085937
It just told you that God is the one who gave things shapes and meaning, and seriously though, if God wasn't the creator, then why isn't this universe only nonsense? Can you even find randomness or entropy in this universe? The fact that everything has a nature of its own is proof that there was a creator, out of nothing nothing comes, and out of nonsense nonsense comes, a force which can't think can't give things a nature and a meaning, if there was no creator then an apple would be no different than an orange, there exists too many things for you to say the big bang created each and every inch of their shape, form and nature(food is food, water is water, wood is wood). All I'm saying that if there exists no reason behind things, why does it look like there was one? Are you telling me the big bang also created those reasons?

[Anonymous No.16085991]

>>16085961
What? I do not understand what you are trying to say? Is it that you view him to be omnicontrol therefore he will/has turn into his creation? Fair enough if you beleive that however in the Quran it is strictly stated that the mere sight of his true essense will crumble the earth and he will never subject himself to be his creation because he states that he is not the same as us. This distance between creator and creation is absolutely paramount to the Islamic narative and the destruction of polytheism for it is the bastardization of the divine by ascribing attributes which are inherent to flawed humans. Which is arguably what the Christians had done. The Al Quran is a direct response to this.

[Anonymous No.16086000]

>>16085972
>Can you even find randomness or entropy in this universe?
Yes, radioactive decay is a random process.

[Anonymous No.16086001]

>>16085972
>if God wasn't the creator, then why isn't this universe only nonsense?
That’s an argument from ignorance

[Anonymous No.16086002]

>>16085890
It's not obvious that this world has a creator because it has not yet been proven that because a thing repeatedly happens, there is any necessity for it to happen. If there is no necessity behind the compulsions of things, then there is no cause and effect.

[Anonymous No.16086005]

>>16085991
Then a God that fully cannot control His power is not God, but a god.

[Anonymous No.16086012]

>>16082951
It's too bad that not even atheists themselves can think of religion outside Christianity, they're such a product of the culture around them. Nobody can be blamed for seeing the glaring flaws in Christian theology and the embodiment of its cults - but religion doesn't have to be some kind of man made organization designed at stealing your soul like the Abrahamic ones all are.

[Anonymous No.16086017]

>>16086005
What are you talking about? God himself decides to not be creation and He gave us His arguememts. I dont get your point.

[Anonymous No.16086020]

>>16082951
Everything that exists has to have a purpose, otherwise it wouldn't exist, including evil. The problem we have now is figuring out the best reasons for its existence. I don't find free will a competent argument, if pain wasn't real and someone was tickling a knife to my ear I don't think he would actually say: God please create pain and sharp objects I want to murder this son of a bitch, I don't care about the consequences" Yeah surely you don't, just wait until you get them.

[Anonymous No.16086022]

>Pascal's wager
Places inordinate and ultimately illogical amount of weight on the existence of a biblical interpretation of God. It doesn't account for anything except the circularly self-reaffirming "truths" in the Bible. Either you believe in God AND live by his word and go to heaven, or you don't and go to some manner of not-heaven. Pascal's wager isn't actually a bet on the existence of a higher power, but instead a bet on the biblical depictions of a higher power. It's an important distinction, because the existence of God in some capacity is very likely, or at least as likely as not, but the existence of God is not at all causally related to the Bible. I've always thought it's kind of amusing how much the times dictated men's thoughts. The Bible was such a powerful cultural force that it apparently never even occurred to them that the real God could exist completely separately from the Bible. In other words, it is 100% possible that God exists but that the Bible is actually just a collection of unrelated folk tales. Religion cannot account for this idea.

[Anonymous No.16086028]

>>16086020
>Everything that exists has to have a purpose, otherwise it wouldn't exist
That doesn’t make any sense

[Anonymous No.16086030]

>>16086020
>I don't find free will a competent argument
Of course, because it's nonsense. If the Christian God is real then free will is impossible, because God knows the future, which means the future is set in stone. It means when he created the world he created it with this future and not any other. Everything is predestined, which is what the Bible teaches.

[Anonymous No.16086033]

>>16086000
That's a semantic argument, I should have included "and don't tell me we get cancer randomly or about cells that randomly change, that is not what I meant"

[Anonymous No.16086034]

>>16086012
This but unironically.

[Anonymous No.16086037]

>>16085964
Not only abrahamic but most religions have holistic and comprehensive doctrines explaining literally every single thing, but they are founded on the reality your kind denies: God. And for this very reason what is left is infinitesimal particles being reduced until matter itself, prima materia, unintelligibility.

[Anonymous No.16086039]

I cringe the most when I hear people who take Bible writings as exoteric and not esoteric: for example "hurr durr how could Moses split the Red Sea, it's impossible according to science etc." Real knowledge of the sacred texts was oral, with writing we have lost the real and deep meaning of them, Lao Tse and Guénon said this.
>>16082988
Great post Hitler.
>>16084623
Ratzinger in "Intro to Christianity" criticized it because it's not genuine faith.
>>16084870
There was a thread about it yesterday, read the Gnostic gospels.

[Anonymous No.16086044]

>>16086030
Abandon God and accept pure naturalism and the same question still arise. Our minds are too feeble to understand it.

[Anonymous No.16086050]

>>16086022
>god probably exists but i am sure he is not related to those things grounded on god called religion trust me

[Anonymous No.16086055]

>>16086017
I think it's very clear.
God can do what he wants.

[Anonymous No.16086056]

>>16085890
>I will demonstrate that God exists because evil is real!
>Obviously, God exists

[Anonymous No.16086063]

>>16082988
>God made the world perfect
Exactly, he even included the Serpent in it.
It was all apart of His plan; well Their plan.

A masterful deisgner.

[Anonymous No.16086066]

>>16086044
>just accept the effect excising the cause and you will wonder at things too!

[Anonymous No.16086071]

>>16086055
Yes he can i dont dispute this. He doesnt want to as He said in the Quran.

[Anonymous No.16086074]

Aren't 'good' and 'evil' completely nebulous and arbitrary concepts to begin with? I can't go into the woods and find good and evil just laying around.

[Anonymous No.16086076]

>>16086037
God isn't an explanation. Bringing God into the matter is the ultimate hand waving move against explanations.

>why something rather than nothing?
>because God

>why cause and effect?
>because God

etc.

[Anonymous No.16086080]

>>16086071
> He doesnt want to as He said in the Quran.
You dare speak for God?
Maybe dare I say, the Quran is fallible and untruths were placed into it; the one you read today is transcribe by man quite literally; the book you hold is not the same as the one that was delivered to the prophet.

Peace be unto you.

[Anonymous No.16086083]

>>16086066
>bro just accept naturalism! trust me your questions will be answered with science bro!

[Anonymous No.16086087]

>>16086050
Make an argument from the assumption that God exists, or is likely to exist, that the Bible's depiction of him is in any way substantial. Making a misrepresentative greentext post avoiding the central idea of my post doesn't really do much to disprove it. Explain to me why the Bible's depiction of God is correct -- not why God exists, but why he's the way the Bible says he is, and why the Bible can be considered to carry his values.

[Anonymous No.16086088]

>>16086022
If there was a god other than the biblical one, he would have made the world perfect, at least with Jesus we know we are being tested in this imperfect world, so it makes sense for things such as evil to exist, but why would a god create this world this way, unless it is actually the one from the bible? Isn't the existence of evil basically proof that the God from the bible is real? Evil has a purpose. If your random god created evil, why did he? Why would he allow evil people to prosper in this world and live a good life? Oh, because he's evil? Ok but if he's truly evil then why not punish people forever and ever? The god that you talk about is lukewarm in every aspect and not consistent at all with the reality that we live in.

[Anonymous No.16086100]

>>16086080
Conjecture. I beleive in the text per my beliefs and the canon of its preservation is honest enough for me to know that it isnt bastardized to hell like the bible is. Peace be unto you too.

[Anonymous No.16086107]

>>16086100
Cheers, lad.

[Anonymous No.16086110]

>>16086012
Many atheists are well aware of the Greeks though.

[Anonymous No.16086112]

>>16086087
No. I cannot argue you into faith. If God wills you to believe in him then he will give you faith. Humans are not capable of faith unless they are given it by God.

[Anonymous No.16086116]

>>16086076
all those things are related with order, beauty, good.
>why something rather than nothing? cause and effect, etc.
because there is no beauty in nothing, and it is more beautiful something ordered than nothing ordered (or see it as heterogeneous order being more beautiful than homogeneous order), and these are good.

[Anonymous No.16086117]

I honestly believe this massive raid of delusional, plain stupid christcucks is the result of 2016 election and it's all the retarded US boomers, who have flooded this place.
Read some fucking Plato, you dumb cunts. Your arguments are laughable.

[Anonymous No.16086122]

>>16086117

[Anonymous No.16086123]

>>16086117
Plato is a cuck with gaping errors. Read Ghazali.

[Anonymous No.16086124]

>>16086087
>but the bible's depiction!
you're just too neurotic to even start studying things seriously, you need a lot before understanding what theopoesis is.

[Anonymous No.16086130]

>>16086039
Esotericism is one of the biggest biblical copes. You are one foot in the door for admitting so much of the nonsense you believe is retarded but insist that it's meant to be "abstract." One major problem with this approach, which may not matter since Christians never agree which interpretation of their religion is right anyway, is that there's no way to validate your position. In fact, if the bible is so esoteric that none of its followers even 'got it right.' then it serves little purpose. It's still bloated with an overabundance of genealogical and ahistorical nonsense that surely no amount of mental gymnastics can twist into anything resembling a coherent meaningful symbol that isn't already more succinctly and thoughtfully stated elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.16086148]

>>16086130
>Not understanding that the Bible is metaphorical

[Anonymous No.16086149]

>>16086110
Most of them think all the Greeks were able to be simply summed up as polytheistic, which isn't necessarily true and is partially a result of Christian misrepresentation of classical philosophy. To modern people, ancient pagan religions are as ridiculous and superstitious as the bible.

[Anonymous No.16086153]

>>16086123
>read the guy who fueled the fire of pure fundamentalism that left the middle east in the 1300s today
lell

[Anonymous No.16086158]

>>16086130
you would find so much in things you have certainty there is nothing beyond what is written if a proper source for contextual and linguistic symbols

[Anonymous No.16086168]

>>16086158
There is certainly an argument for historical esotericism, applying this broadly into the things you know are rationally indefensible in the bible is nothing but cope, however.

[Anonymous No.16086171]

>>16086116
So there is something rather than nothing, and there is cause and effect, because these are beautiful?

See, this is a way more interesting response than "because God." Now we can start to ask other questions and run tests on our hypotheses that we can actually think about and even eventually observe the results of. Because what in us stirs us towards beauty? What is beauty to us? What is beauty to the body?

[Anonymous No.16086172]

>>16086149
what are you talking about? the plebs had no theological sensibility and the common people were literally natural (cosmic) polytheists; platonists are all the time rebuking them accusing such beliefs as fantastic

[Anonymous No.16086173]

>>16086112
But I do believe in God. What I don't believe in is the Bible. I'm not asking you to convince me to believe in God, I'm asking you to convince me to believe in the Bible, or the Torah, or the Quran, or whatever.
>>16086088
>If there was a god other than the biblical one, he would have made the world perfect
I'm going to need you to qualify this somehow, rather than just stating your belief. I'm going to consciously sidestep the very loaded issue of evil for the time being, because I think your idea of it is predicated upon an element of divine intentionality that I'm not sure exists.
>>16086124
>neurotic
What?
>need a lot before understanding what theopoesis is
I'm not trying to be that guy, but this really isn't an argument. What you're saying is basically that I'm neurotic and that you think I haven't read enough to understand theopoesis. Maybe try giving me the benefit of the doubt and actually making an argument.

[Anonymous No.16086176]

>>16086153
>beleiving retarded orientalists
Lol

[Anonymous No.16086182]

>>16086173
Based pantheist.

[Anonymous No.16086185]

>>16086149
The Greeks were essentially polytheistic though. It doesn't matter if the average Greek chose to believe in one God, their society was still founded on principles enforced by Greek statesmen that allowed for the coexistence of a pantheon which can't be said of Christian-run societies.

[Anonymous No.16086186]

>>16086182
I'm not an ist of any variety. If I'm anything, I'm just a guy who likes to think and read a lot.

[Anonymous No.16086187]

>>16086168
i'm not saying every letter in the bible has a profoundly esoteric metaphysical correspondent image, but there is just too much in the bible to ignore what has been said by me and the other guy. jews were really systematic with the symbolism inherent in letters

[Anonymous No.16086197]

>>16086171
>because these are beautiful?
yes but not ultimately because they are beautiful but because the beautiful is good and because the good is god.

>Because what in us stirs us towards beauty? What is beauty to us? What is beauty to the body?
Not to the body, but IN the body to the soul.

[Anonymous No.16086200]

>>16086172
>>16086185
In observing the actual body of classical philosophy, few of the biggest people we read are traditional polytheists in belief - though merely in practice. It is impossible to understand Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, or Aristotle by summing up their cosmological views as Hercules.

[Anonymous No.16086207]

>>16086197
What soul? What good? These are as useless for explaining anything as God is. Back to the drawing board...

[Anonymous No.16086211]

>>16086173
you are contesting god's depiction in this literalist mentality which is just proof that you haven't penetrated what is behind the written word

[Anonymous No.16086214]

>>16086187
>jews were really systematic with the symbolism inherent in letters
Much of the mysticism and symbolism was progressively added over time, and makes developments based around the cultural trends of the eras they can be traced. What we come to know as Kabbalah, for instance, is largely a Renaissance era development, though they claim it to be far older.

[Anonymous No.16086218]

>>16086207
>what soul
I posted about self-moving ens and immateriality and the unintelligibility of matter itself. read some plato on good

[Anonymous No.16086227]

>>16086214
> Kabbalah, for instance, is largely a Renaissance era development
couldn't be more wrong, it has origins in second temple jewish mysticism, look it up

[Anonymous No.16086232]

>>16086200
Those individuals don't represent the Greeks. The statesmen who built the society do, and they didn't write much down, because they were busy running the show. But if you look at what culture and art emerged from the society they built, an entire pantheon of gods emerged, with different beliefs coexisting together in the same states. That makes the Greeks a fundamentally polytheistic people and their unified religion something outside and very different from Christianity.

Most atheists don't think this much about it, though. In fact, most atheists are just secularized theists. The herd just doesn't think.

[Anonymous No.16086242]

>>16086218
None of it can be demonstrated. Not even cause and effect can be, man. Why continuously going back to these archaic ideological feuds?

[Anonymous No.16086245]

>>16086211
No, it's actually fairly binary in nature. I've distilled the issue down to a pretty simple one, in concrete and logical terms, but nobody seems to want to address it. Again, if anyone wants to try to tackle this:
>Assuming God is likely to exist in some capacity, there exists the possibility that God exists and the Bible's interpretation of him is incorrect, inaccurate, incomplete, or even completely unrelated
I'd be interested to read it.

[Anonymous No.16086248]

>>16086227
Yeah yeah, and Marsilio Ficino's 'priscia theologia' has roots in Plato so its as old as Egyptian pyramids. Too bad that's clearly ridiculous and what we come to know as Kabbalah can be traced specifically to the leading half of the Renaissance, regardless of if it utilizes a couple older texts.

[Anonymous No.16086250]

Daily reminder that God by definition has to be perfect. Therefore, there is no reason for him to acquire one of the imperfect forms. Therefore, Christ was not real.
Daily reminded that God has no power over the materialistic world, just like men have no power over God.

[Anonymous No.16086259]

>>16086242
>None of it can be demonstrated.
It can logically and empirically (self-conversion is reflexive and bodies are not capable of self-conversion). You are doing it right now when you are aware you are reading something.

>archaic
read this >>16085837, describes you perfectly

[Anonymous No.16086267]

>>16086232
>Those individuals don't represent the Greeks.
Well that's a good thing I said,
>isn't necessarily true and is partially a result of Christian misrepresentation of classical philosophy

By the time of classical philosophy, the traditional pantheons were already becoming more metaphorical. If you want to actually understand some of the cornerstone figures for Western culture FROM Greece its not enough to assume of them to have such generalized views.

[Anonymous No.16086285]

>>16086248
First and foremost even proeminent kabbalists are pre-renaissance so I have no idea why you are fixing it on renaissance era. Second, Ficino's PT was not genuinely platonic, there is a difference between direct transmission and writing on doctrines of yore, attempting at a revival.

[Anonymous No.16086290]

>>16086259
See >>16086002

>read this >>16085837, describes you perfectly
I'm not saying anything sentimental. Your arguments come at me like a shaman coming at a 21st century scientist. The concepts you refer to are outdated, and the untenable nature of them is already discussed to death. There is no evidence for creation in this world because cause and effect cannot be demonstrated in it, which means there is no evidence for God, for a soul, etc.

You have to move on from these viewpoints because they are stagnating you.

[Anonymous No.16086293]

>>16086245
sorry but i can't convince myself you don't think god is literally a bearded man in the sky posting something like this

[Anonymous No.16086308]

>>16086293
Are you implying God isn't a bearded man in the sky?

[Anonymous No.16086313]

>>16086267
Yeah I agree.

[Anonymous No.16086325]

>>16086290
>archaic
>shaman
>outdated
thinking this has nothing to do with
>sentimental platitude I would expect from the most sheep-like redditor, from a person who lives exclusively on the stratum adorned by mainstream media, who grounds himself on public education and has no sense of profoundity for anything in his life.

>There is no evidence for creation in this world because cause and effect cannot be demonstrated in it, which means there is no evidence for God, for a soul, etc.
If there is no necessary evidence for an effect to follow a cause then there is no evidence that any demonstration is related to any demonstrated lack of evidence. There is evidence for bodies and for souls, I have just written them to you.

[Anonymous No.16086327]

>>16086285
> I have no idea
That much is obvious.
If you did you'd know that the Zohar is obviously the formalization of disparate and distinctly different mystic sects which came to embody what we are referring to today as the Kabbalah.

Furthermore, unless you speak Hebrew, your entire version of 'Kabbalah' is even more recent than that - since there are no English translations which are actually correct. English Kabbalah is, in a sense, its own separate offshoot entity that represents a new school entirely.

[Anonymous No.16086331]

>>16086293
Okay, I've invited you two times now to use your big boy words like a big boy. I'm gonna treat you like another one of those retards who can't make anything but the allusion to an argument.

[Anonymous No.16086344]

>>16086290
>>16086002
>because a thing repeatedly happens, there is any necessity for it to happen.
whatever comes into being suffers change and everything that comes into being necessarily suffers change.

[Anonymous No.16086349]

>>16086325
>If there is no necessary evidence for an effect to follow a cause then there is no evidence that any demonstration is related to any demonstrated lack of evidence.
Being that we can't prove cause and effect, there isn't. Which is why the only thing left to bother examining is whatever we have direct confirmation of in our personal view, otherwise we will run in circles pointlessly, demonstrating and proving nothing substantial to anyone other than ourselves.

[Anonymous No.16086361]

>>16086327
This has nothing to do with renaissance productions. As I said there are kabbalists like abulafia, de leon from the 13th century

[Anonymous No.16086367]

>>16086344
>necessarily
This is not proven.

[Anonymous No.16086370]

>>16086349
>Which is why the only thing left to bother examining is whatever we have direct confirmation of in our personal view
what the fuck does this even mean, holy shit

>Being that we can't prove cause and effect, there isn't.
then there is no sense in speaking of anything, are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.16086375]

>>16086367
not-being to being is not necessairly a change?

[Anonymous No.16086383]

>>16086349
>Being that we can't prove cause and effect
Is this some kind of appeal to theistic solipsism or something? We can absolutely prove cause and effect. Given an atom at any position with any given vector, in the next individually isolable unit of time that atom will have moved a discrete, measurable distance in its vector. If we apply a degree of force to it, the atom will have moved in a 100% predictable manner according to its mass, the force applied, and any other number of environmental factors.

[Anonymous No.16086397]

>>16086383
Okay, an atom might have been a poor example because very small things behave very unpredictably, but collections of very small things can be very accurately predicted in their aggregates. Quantum uncertainty is very far from being evidence that we can't prove cause and effect.

[Anonymous No.16086398]

>>16086361
>nothing to do with renaissance productions
>from the 13th century
Lol. Are you being purposefully dense and pedantic just because you like arguing?
There should be little doubt that what became the formalization of Kabbalah was heavily inspired through Neoplatonic mystic undercurrents that were building in that region in the 1200's, for both Christianity and Jews in Europe. While a lot of this is a continuation from Islamic mysticism, forms of Neoplatonic mysticism reached their full expression in the Renaissance just a little over a century later.

[Anonymous No.16086413]

>>16086370
>what the fuck does this even mean
It means examining first causes is a worthless endeavor. We can and should instead be examining the "effects" which now remains more clearly as our own views of the world. Examining bodies and their views is the task that remains. All that can be learned is effect.

>then there is no sense in speaking of anything
I can speak of something without ascribing what is unproven to it like cause and effect, or a creator to the universe.

[Anonymous No.16086422]

>>16086375
>not-being
No such thing.

You faggots need to start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.16086423]

>>16086383
Our experiments of the repetition of things don't prove any necessity in the repetition, only that there are compulsions in things.

[Anonymous No.16086436]

>>16086423
>necessity in the repetition, only that there are compulsions in things.
What are you trying to say here? What's the necessity of a necessity? What's the distinction between necessity and compulsion, and how does it apply to cause and effect?

[Anonymous No.16086437]

>>16086422

[Anonymous No.16086449]

>>16086413
>Examining bodies and their views is the task that remains. All that can be learned is effect.
Bodies suffer. They are not self-convertive, this means they are alter-motif, moved and not self-moving, and whatever is moved is either moved by itself or by another.

[Anonymous No.16086585]

>>16086449
Even idiots can read the Greeks and latch onto some concept soup they can spew online for a quick ego boost.

[Anonymous No.16086587]

>>16084330

[Anonymous No.16087103]

>>16086587
explain

[Anonymous No.16087311]

>>16085069
That scenario is the the final restoration.
This cosmos is like the birth pang, creation is not finished.
This is God's way to call many souls out of nothingness.

[Anonymous No.16087412]

>>16085035
Based and redpilled