/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21035326]

1. something either exists or it doesnt
2. things must be though of existing unless there is a reason given for them not to (for ex. a triangle exists and we do not need to give any reason for it other than that nothing stops it from doing so, but a square triangle doesnt exist and the reason is that this is a contradiction in terms, therefore it cant exist)
3. therefore God must be taken to exist unless someone points out a reason for him to not exist

thoughts?

[Anonymous No.21035358]

>>21035326
You steal this from Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.21035360]

>>21035326
1. Things don’t exist just because they can theoretically exist. Nothing is stopping my dick from being in your mouth right now. That doesn’t mean it is.

2. Plenty of people have given plenty of reasons for why God doesn’t exist.

[Sage No.21035361]

>>21035326
Couldn't this apply to anything that is stated to exist that does not break the law of contradiction outright? The disbelief in God does not break the law contradiction does it not? Isn't this a question of the burden of proof? Maybe it might be better to say that the starting position should be one of agnosticism?

Also you should be careful with the example you gave about triangles since it depends on whether you think geometry has mind independent reality (or if there's a "mind" at all). I understand what you're trying to do (using it as an example for the law of contradiction) but someone might sperg out over it.

[Anonymous No.21035366]

No logical arguments or le chad memes will ever make Christianity true.

[Anonymous No.21035387]

>>21035366
This. I don't get how deism necessitates the validity of religion. How a God argued through cosmological or logical necessity equates to the validity of religious Revelations.

[Anonymous No.21035388]

>>21035360
>2. Plenty of people have given plenty of reasons for why God doesn’t exist.
They've all been midwits who got retroactively BTFO since plato. Atheists are the lowest of the low.

[Anonymous No.21035393]

More like, if there is no contradiction in logic, it is possible for God to exist.

[Anonymous No.21035399]

>>21035326
Square triangle in imperfect worlds, anon

[Anonymous No.21035401]

>>21035366
Atheism needs God as a prerequisite to validate its existence. If God didn't exist there would be no such thing as atheism, as it would be the default state of human existence

[Anonymous No.21035409]

>>21035358
No

[Anonymous No.21035411]

>a triangle exists
But they dont. Its a thought we impose on the world.

[Anonymous No.21035495]

>>21035326
1) You don't say!
2) Argumentum ad ignorantiam with extra steps. Rejected.
3) The burden of the proof goes to who affirms something
Pointless and empty sophistry by someone who doesn't know the basics of logical thinking. By that logic, my invisible pink unicorn must be thought of existing until you can prove it doesn't.
That's not how it works.

[Anonymous No.21035510]

>>21035326
The existence of God doesn't affirm the existence of Jesus or the truth of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.21035672]

>>21035495
you are too retarded to appreciate OP's brilliance, also you are the one spouting empty sophistry, as you dont give a single good argument to disprove anything in the post
>>21035510
OP's argument doesnt seem to be Christian in any way, he just seems to be trying to prove some God exists (or must exist)

[Anonymous No.21035685]

>>21035326
Are you retarded

[Anonymous No.21035687]

>>21035672
But he posted an illustration of Jesus btfo a meme of a fedora atheist.

[Anonymous No.21035695]

>>21035326
>a triangle exists
No it doesn't

[Anonymous No.21035738]

>>21035360
>1. Things don’t exist just because they can theoretically exist
Wrong
Thoughts are real
Dreams are real
You are a braindead subhuman

[Anonymous No.21035751]

>>21035326
Correct but read Descartes and Leibniz if you want a more robust formulation

[Anonymous No.21035928]

>>21035326
By the same logic, fsm, Thor, etc all exist too, which clearly isn't the Christian teaching. Presuppositional arguments are the only way to make a decent argument imo, and usually those you're arguing with are too much of a midwit that they think you're saying "God exists because God exists"

[Anonymous No.21035940]

>>21035326
There's plenty of things that could exist, with nothing stopping their existance but do not exist. Like OP's children, or any number of fictional characters in literature.

Of all the fictional characters invented by man's imagination the idea of a God must be the most unrealistic. More contradictions as a square triangle.

[Anonymous No.21035960]

>>21035326
are you a christian? this argument is incompatible with christianity

[Anonymous No.21035972]

>>21035387
It doesn't have to. That's a strawman. They're used to prove atheism false and that's all they do, and all they're intended to do. Whether or not you accept the truth of some revelation is entirely up to you once you dump atheism as being irrational.

[Anonymous No.21035985]

>>21035326
There is no physical impossibility regarding my girlfriend existing yet she does not.
Checkmate theists.

[Anonymous No.21036004]

>>21035972
>They're used to prove atheism false and that's all they do
none of them has

[Anonymous No.21036191]

>>21036004
Atheism is proven false by the fact not a single person can actually live according to it's logical conclusion. In practice all "atheists" are theists in their way of approaching life.

[Anonymous No.21036236]

>>21036191
that wouldn't prove it false, if that were true

[Anonymous No.21036320]

>>21035360
>Nothing is stopping my dick from being in your mouth right now
Except the fact that you don't know who OP is, where he resides and if OP doesn't want your dick in his mouth, you aren't able to force him (or if you are, you haven't done so). And one reason may also be that in actuality you don't want to put your dick into OP's mouth. So yes, there are things stopping your dick from being in the mouth of OP.

[Anonymous No.21036325]

>>21036236
But the simple fact that God exists proves Atheism false hahahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.21036331]

>>21035411
Thoughts are real

[Anonymous No.21036353]

>>21036325
prove it

[Anonymous No.21036379]

>>21035326
>God must exist because he must exist

This is what passes for logic in the reliogiocuck mind.

[Anonymous No.21036389]

>>21036320
Same goes with god

[Anonymous No.21036394]

>>21035326
>3. therefore God must be taken to exist unless someone points out a reason for him to not exist
God would have to be totally transcendent, which would mean I could never conceive of him. Therefore he doesn't exist. For if God affects me in any way, I will not be able to understand how I was affected, since understanding an effect implies in some way understanding its cause, and since God is the cause, it would be impossible for me to understand the effect. Since everything is supposed to be caused by God, I would not be able to understand anything. The only way I can understand anything is by creating models of reality that do not use God to explain the effects, and therefore as far as I know God isn't the cause of anything that effects me, therefore God never effects me in any way, and I can't conceive of him, so God does not exist.

[Anonymous No.21036402]

>>21036394
god fucking damn it i know the difference between affect and effect but i was trying too hard and then I fucking mixed it up twice at the end anyway go dfucking damn it it was because I was typing automatically

[Anonymous No.21036404]

>>21035972
>Whether or not you accept the truth of some revelation is entirely up to you once you dump atheism as being irrational.

No it isn't. Even if atheism is proven wrong by logic(which it isn't) , wouldn't make christianity true. Either something is true or it isn't. You cannot "accept" a trith. Otherwise an atheist could simply "accept" the truth of non-existence of God , despite it being disproven by logic (which it isn't)

[Anonymous No.21036409]

>>21035985
Yes there is. You are the physical impossibility of your girlfriend not existing

[Anonymous No.21036416]

>>21036404
>*truth

[Anonymous No.21036596]

>>21036404
>Even if atheism is proven wrong by logic(which it isn't)
yes it is, it has been time and time again, read OPs post, or anyone else with more than 125 iq

[Anonymous No.21036617]

>>21036236
Depends on what you mean. In a strictly epistemological sense no it doesn't prove God exists. It only proves that it is rational to BELIEVE God exists and irrational not to since it leads to inherent contradictions between ones professed belief and the way one lives.

I think it's just pedantry though. Atheists by their own admission don't hold the position they do because they think they can disprove God, they argue their position is rational. Thus it is sufficient to prove their position is in reality irrational and theism is the rational position.

[Anonymous No.21036852]

>>21035326
No logical arguments or le chad memes will ever make Christianity true.

[Anonymous No.21036908]

>this kills the op
Plato’s Euthyphro should be required reading before you are allowed to post on this board.

>>21036617
It’s the easiest thing in the world to live without believing in god. You aren’t born with a bible in your hand.

[Anonymous No.21036924]

>>21036908
>>this kills the op
no it doesnt, thats an argument against christianity, not against a God in general

[Anonymous No.21036931]

>>21035326
It’s also possible for God not to exist. This argument goes both ways.

/thread

[Anonymous No.21037080]

1. something either exists or it doesnt
2. things must be though of existing unless there is a reason given for them not to (for ex. a triangle exists and we do not need to give any reason for it other than that nothing stops it from doing so, but a square triangle doesnt exist and the reason is that this is a contradiction in terms, therefore it cant exist)
3. therefore Goku must be taken to exist unless someone points out a reason for him to not exist

thoughts?

[Anonymous No.21037136]

>>21036596
>125 iq

Lmao. Anyone spouting this nonsense doesn't have an iq of 105+ even. But they can't go lower than 90 either otherwise their brains couldn't even think up this sophistry. This is the sweet spot of midwittery.

[Anonymous No.21037435]

>>21036931
explain

[Anonymous No.21037462]

>>21036924
Of course, but OP doesn’t care if there is or isn’t a (any) god, OP wants there to be a Christian god.

That’s one thing that I find comes up often. People like to use general arguments for some higher power (usually not even anything that we would recognize as a deity), and then use that as proof for a god with very specific qualities that are not proven by the argument.

[Anonymous No.21037523]

>>21037462
It's not clear why this is a problem. Any argument that can show that a benevolent monotheistic God exists makes it more likely that Christianity is a true religion. Even if you can't prove all parts of Christianity with these specific arguments - the necessity of sacraments, the trinity, etc. It also works the other way, proving that the Gospels are reliable accounts also give credibility to the claim that a monotheistic God exists. These aren't mutually exclusive approaches. One set of arguments have a purpose and other arguments exists for the other stuff. You may also have erroneous beliefs about what the Christian God is like if you think these philosophical arguments make him unrecognizable a deity because theologians get pretty abstract about what God is as well.

[Anonymous No.21037545]

>>21037080
Yes this argument also works. OP doesn't tell us why just because an idea exists in the mind that it must also exist in reality. This sort of ontological argument is possible and has been made in lots of different ways. But then what is the point of the argument in the OP at all? it's meaningless.

[Anonymous No.21037557]

>>21036908
>evil exists
no

[Anonymous No.21037590]

>>21035326
>1. something either exists or it doesnt
What if something half-exists.
>2.
>3.
Holy shit these are baseless assumptions. Ghosts exist, you just can't see them and you can't argue against it unless you know everything about everything.

[Anonymous No.21037593]

>>21037523
>Any argument that can show that a benevolent monotheistic God exists
There is none, and the most “powerful” (yet still deeply flawed) arguments for some creating force do not argue for these qualities.

>One set of arguments have a purpose and other arguments exists for the other stuff
I have yet to see the arguments for “the other stuff”. All philosophical arguments for the existence of god seem entirely divorced from the concept of god found in the bible.

[Anonymous No.21037604]

>>21037435
Both possibilities are valid. There is nothing logically contradictory about a universe with God, nor a universe without God. So we can’t know which universe ours is. It’s said that if God is possible in one universe, then he is possible in all universes, but I disagree. You can imagine that there is a God that rules over an entire multiverse, and then you can imagine a multiverse that, from the perspective of that God, does not exist, but from its own reference frame does exist. So it’s possible for God to have his own realm where he truly is omnipotent and omniscient etc. and within that realm, nothing else exists. But there are still countless other realms with their own possibilities. Perhaps there are Gods that rule over multiple realms, and Gods of these Gods as well. But for all of these sets there are also realms without Gods, and unseen by any Gods. So we have no fucking clue which universe we are in.

[Anonymous No.21037622]

>>21037593
> All philosophical arguments for the existence of god seem entirely divorced from the concept of god found in the bible.
All of them, even the ones that argue that God is the creator of universe?

[Anonymous No.21037643]

>>21037604
You could ask if there is a God that is GLOBALLY omniscient, and knows all realms and multiverses, etc. And the answer is yes. But this seems to eliminate the possibility of a universe that is undetected by any gods. So this actually creates a completely new realm in which this possibility can be actualized. So the global omniscience is only global to a certain degree. But remember, from that reference frame, it truly is global omniscience. There really are infinite sets, and infinite gods, infinite realms, infinite possibilities. But there also aren’t.

[Anonymous No.21037662]

>>21035326
>1. something either exists or it doesnt
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.21037669]

>>21035411
>he unironically doesn't even understand ideal forms
Did you think "start with the Greeks" was a meme?

[Anonymous No.21037897]

>>21036852
no retarded and easily disproved claim will ever make atheism true

[Anonymous No.21037898]

I don't engage in debate with people who have imaginary friends.

[Anonymous No.21037907]

>>21035326
>a square triangle doesnt exist and the reason is that this is a contradiction in terms
ditto then for an "eternal being"

[Anonymous No.21038007]

Its funny how theists shoot themselves in the foot with every logical argument they make for the existence of God, not usually accounting for the fact that logic can prove nothing more than the possibility of a self-causing cause and conditioner of universal conditions. There is no logical necessity for an intelligent God, no logical necessity for a moral God, no logical necessity for an anthropomorphic God.
Once you start trying to remove the necessity of faith from the requirements of Religion, you are handicapping yourself because any God from any Religion can be substituted for your God.
>wahhhh Christianity is the most rational religion.
No it isn't dipshit, any transcendent God can be ascribed any number of self-evident, explanatory features for the way things are.

[Anonymous No.21038070]

>>21037669
Ideal forms aren’t real forms. They do not exist in reality. You cannot bring the platonic ideal of a triangle into real space.

[Anonymous No.21038073]

>>21036908
>If God is all-knowing, he would know what we would do if we were tested, therefore no need to test us.
It's not about God's own satisfaction or knowledge. Testing souls with Good and Evil and Pleasure and Suffering is a gauntlet of variety which creates self-differentiation and self-consciousness within the individual Soul. The greater the range of possible emotions and states, the greater one understands the all-encompassing power and love of God (manifested through pure creativity).

[Anonymous No.21038084]

>>21038073
>Testing souls with Good and Evil and Pleasure and Suffering is a gauntlet of variety which creates self-differentiation and self-consciousness within the individual Soul
Ok, so the goal here is to create self-differentiation and self-consciousness. God, being omnipotent, can just do that without bothering with the whole suffering and evil nonsense.

[Anonymous No.21038122]

>>21038084
>God, being omnipotent, can just do that without bothering with the whole suffering and evil nonsense.
Then why did he "create" suffering and evil, to say nothing of nonsense?

[Anonymous No.21038461]

None of this matters anyway. If you need to rationalize your belief in God, then you have already lost.

[Anonymous No.21038525]

>>21038461
>If you need to rationalize your belief in God, then you have already lost.
How come?

[Anonymous No.21038583]

>>21038525
The key aspect of religion is belief. If you try to rationalize your belief, you don't really believe; the very concept of faith is irrational.

[Anonymous No.21038649]

Any discussion about "existence" is nonsensical language games and immediately dissolves when you ask the midwits to define existence.

[Anonymous No.21038673]

>>21038649
>define existence
Collective, actual human experience and its objects.

[Anonymous No.21038768]

>>21038122
>Then why did he "create" suffering and evil, to say nothing of nonsense?
Because god isn’t all good.

[Anonymous No.21038868]

>>21038768
Then he is what, the lesser of two evils? From whose perspetive, his? And we should side with him because?

[Anonymous No.21038872]

>>21038868
>Then he is what, the lesser of two evils? From whose perspetive, his? And we should side with him because?
He is non-existent, or otherwise apathetic to our existence. You need not do anything.

[Anonymous No.21038887]

>>21037669
>Thinks just referencing Platonic forms is an argument
You need to make an argument for it too you know.

[Anonymous No.21038889]

>>21038872
>He is non-existent, or otherwise apathetic to our existence. You need not do anything
That was my conclusion as well

[Anonymous No.21038905]

>>21038583
So... kierkegaard?

[Anonymous No.21038928]

>>21035326
What a shitty ontological argument. Is this your attempt at copying Anselm? I don't think you understood what he said.

[Anonymous No.21039379]

4. Therefore an even cooler god must exist and you should be worshipping that god instead.

[Anonymous No.21039391]

>>21035326
>1. something either exists or it doesnt
Nothing exists . How are you writing this? I'm not neither are yo u idiot faggot .
No it's not a hallucination, because a hallucination implies there's something real.
Nothing is real or unreal, since we have nothing to compare reality to besides reality itself.

[Anonymous No.21039405]

>>21038887
No I don't.

[Anonymous No.21039467]

>>21039405
Ok. Then I can disregard it as easily as you said it.

[Anonymous No.21039768]

>>21038673
>Collective, actual human experience and its objects.
I don't quite understand this. I neither get the meaning of "collective" in this context nor "actual experience". Could you please tell me which of the following "exists" according to this definition and why?
>aliens
>Santa Clause
>quantum fields
>dark energy
>the number 7
>a basis of the real numbers as a vector space over the rationals
>free will
>a mtf tranny's female gender

[Anonymous No.21040397]

>>21039379
there can only be one God

[Anonymous No.21040409]

>>21039768
Maybe
No
Yes
Maybe
No
No
No
No

[Anonymous No.21040438]

>>21035326
>1. something either exists or it doesnt
How do you know that? Things in themselves are neither existent nor non-existent as we don't perceive them.

[Anonymous No.21040498]

>>21040409
Why does Santa Claus not exist? Every human being has already seen a Santa Claus in TV or a real Santa actor IRL. So he is an object of "collective actual human experience".