>>19980 Generally, religion has been a good tool for building of civilization but we need a more individualized way of coping with reality in a world where collective meaning became dead and buried. Existentialism provides such a way as I said. You could treat it as a religion in itself. Also >Ukrainian anon Wew, I wasn't expecting that. I'm the anon who was talking about both Judaism and Islam being autistic lawfag religions in the /v/ thread.

>>19981 >>Ukrainian anon It's my VPN.

>>19982 I see, nevermind then. I feel though like this thread will die off because no one will want to move here.

>>19981 >we need a more individualized way of coping with reality in a world where collective meaning became dead and buried What does "Collective meaning" even mean?

>>19984 A collective meaning means sense of meaning based around the idea of individuals subservient to a greater societal goal such as a "revolution", "nation", "utopia", "the leader", "ideology", "civilization" etc. This is what I mean by collective meaning, a meaning not derived by yourself but given or forced upon you. Those aren't bad necessarily, because a lot of people are simply unable to (Hello, I just arrived from Cuckchan, please bully me) with reality without such a source of meaning but are unreliable due to the fact that all those concepts are by nature very malleable and very unstable. A nation depends on the wellbeing of a country, a community can rot from inside and become unhealthy, a revolution might bring changes that make things worse, a utopia is something completely unachievable. They are all in some part falsehoods, lies, illusions based on the idea that the world is more structured than we actually think. Because at any point, all of that can actually completely shift and change and leave us in the dust. Trandescental sources of meaning such as "God" would probably be better but the issue is we don't really have a religion that can withstand the test of time without giving itself up to its own contradictions. Which I have discussed with the three abrahamic ones. Therefore I believe society in general needs to cultivate the understanding that the world is not inherently just or good, that perfection is impossible, and that one must find one's own meaning in life if he wants to live healthily and that despair will be a natural thing in the process of that.

(Copying my reply to one of the posts on the GG thread) >Generally, the concepts of guilt and individual responsibility for one's deeds made western morality and individualism possible concepts. While I can understand how Christianity made it far more relevant, it seems strange to say that individualism absolutely did not exist before Christianity. Individual responsibility and guilt have always existed to some degree, have they not?

>>19987 Yes they have, but individualism as a concept didn't really exist in the form as we think of it today. The first civilized societies weren't really individualist. Individualism came after due to the mixing of ancient philosophy with Christianity and western culture (especially the English as they are basically the fathers of individualism).

>>19980 Religion is great for making connections and getting to know people. It's why the jews are so powerful.

>>19988 Well, English and the jews to some extent, but jews rather codified individualistic philosophy into its many forms with people like Rothbar and Rand. But the basics of individualism are very much English I think it is due to English language with people like Locke, Smith and other Classical Liberals There was some French influence too but the French were super fucking gay about it and too communal so fuck them. Jews have a weird cultural tendency to either be extremelly individualistic or collectivistic with nothing in between.

>>19986 > A collective meaning means sense of meaning based around the idea of individuals subservient to a greater societal goal such as a "revolution", "nation", "utopia", "the leader", "ideology", "civilization" etc. I think part of the problem is that people attribute too much of past events to a so-called "collective meaning" where none existed. Thinking about how Cyrus was conquering Mesopotamia, he didn't set out with the goal of pushing "Persian superiority". He was just defending the land he was responsible for ruling, and happened upon toppling the mightiest empires that existed at the time as a result of that responsibility. > Which I have discussed with the three abrahamic ones. What's the "contradictions" in Christianity? > Therefore I believe society in general needs to cultivate the understanding that the world is not inherently just or good, that perfection is impossible, and that one must find one's own meaning in life if he wants to live healthily and that despair will be a natural thing in the process of that. How about just tell these people to get a houseplant, or pet, and learn to take care of it?

>>19986 >Which I have discussed with the three abrahamic ones. You've overcounted by a solid 50%, which makes me question how reliable your other studies have been, and you should probably question that too.

>>19983 You'd be right.

>>19991 >I think part of the problem is that people attribute too much of past events to a so-called "collective meaning" where none existed. Thinking about how Cyrus was conquering Mesopotamia, he didn't set out with the goal of pushing "Persian superiority". Ancient texts kind of imply something different >What's the "contradictions" in Christianity? Problem of evil, the paradox of omnipotence, the ahistoricy of the Bible to name a few. >How about just tell these people to get a houseplant, or pet, and learn to take care of it? Helpful but that doesn't adress the underlining problem. There are people fucking despise living who just DESPISE living. Absolutely hate it and it is very much entrenched win the idea that life should be perfect. >>19992 Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been commonly called Abrahamic religions, let's not get autistic.

>>19986 >(Hello, I just arrived from Cuckchan, please bully me) with reality I see this /pol/ is off to a great start with retarded wordfilters.

>>19995 Works on my machine, and I don't mean that word in the meme fashion. I mean it in the actual psychological meaning of it.

>>19995 >>19996 Ah, nevermind. For some reason the filter caught the fucking word in one post but not in another. It's fucking retarded too because apparently the mods didn't realize that someone might use this word in a non-meme way in the way that it's actually supposed to be used.

Why the hell does it say I'm from Ukraine? My VPN is set to Texas right now. >>19986 >one must find one's own meaning in life if he wants to live healthily Why does it take the recently areligious so much thought to reach this obvious point? >>19996 >Works on my machine, What works on your machine? >and I don't mean that word in the meme fashion. I mean it in the actual psychological meaning of it. That is my point. You got hit with a word filter for using the word the right way because wordfilters are often retarded.

>>19998 >Why does it take the recently areligious so much thought to reach this obvious point? I'm not recently areligious. And the point is obvious but not as obvious as you think, because a shit ton of people don't actually get it and get drafted by cults (either political or otherwise) to become weapons for the sake of enacting unnecessary social change. i.e Communism, Nazism, Fascism, New socialist movements... take your pick.

>>19994 >let's not get autistic. Isn't the that whole reason that anyone is here? Autism too great for /v/?

>>20000 Okay, let's not get autistically PEDANTIC specifically.

>>19999 >a shit ton of people don't actually get it A shit ton of people have subhuman IQ, quadsman. You can't raise up everyone because many are too stupid for their own good.

>>20002 One can still do whatever he can.

>>19994 >Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been commonly called Abrahamic religions, let's not get autistic. Ignoring that only one of those calls for the death or enslavement of all unbelievers and doesn't have any connection to the God of Abraham and Isaac, this distinction is far more relevant than... >Communism, Nazism, Fascism, New socialist movements... take your pick. These are all just Communism. The largest departation is the National Socialism, which is just Communism with fig leaves. You can run your own company, not the government! But you will have an embedded political officer, and any failure to do as he says is imprisonment or death. Yes, you can profit from your business! But the taxes are arbitrary and generally exactly equal to all your profits. "Fig leaves" were put over the genitals of older statuary and paintings and such during at least one of the big puritan pushes. They're there to make simple people feel better, even though they know it's still a penis under the fig leaf. >>19998 Wordfilters are ALWAYS retarded. They exist to pre-emptively counter-retard retards. But you know who gets filtered fine almost without effort? Retards. You know who gets irritated and fucks off when a long and possibly nuanced response gets mashed to shit by wordfiltered? People who AREN'T retards.

>>20004 They aren't exactly the same to say that they are all communist but you are correct in saying that they are all the same brand of bullshit. It's just there are SOME differences between them, not major enough but still.

>>19994 >Ancient texts kind of imply something different > Problem of evil, the paradox of omnipotence, the ahistoricy of the Bible to name a few. Could you provide more details? > There are people fucking despise living who just DESPISE living. Absolutely hate it and it is very much entrenched win the idea that life should be perfect. Are you talking about people who think they should receive a check just for existing? I feel like I'm missing something. >>19998 >Why does it take the recently areligious so much thought to reach this obvious point? Ditto on this.

>>20006 >Could you provide more details? Problem of evil is the inconsistency between reality, God's image and Christian morality. In short, Christianity preaches a morality that is at odds with both reality and their own portrayal of God. Here you have a flowchart of the problem, there is more to this than that but for a short explanation this will do. The paradox of omnipotence comes from the fact that pushed to its logical extreme, omnipotence contradicts itself logically. It's the typical "Can God create a stone that is too heavy to lift?", basically the very definition of being able to do "everything" is completely nonsensical because that also includes being able to create things outside of the scope of omnipotence. >ahistoricy of the Bible The bible claims historicity but it is very much not historical. The Exodus, the Israeli conquests of the Canaan region probably never actually happened. >Are you talking about people who think they should receive a check just for existing? Yeah, those people are an example of what I'm talking about, but there is more to that than that. This is just one category of such people.

>>20003 I prefer to leave the crabs in the bucket alone and only help those close to me that I still have faith in, which is very few people. >>20006 >Could you provide more details? I wager a few guesses >Problem of evil God knew what would happen when he made Lucifer. Therefore god is responsible for the root of all evil, even though he's supposed be infinitely loving. >Omnipotence Can God create an object he cannot move? Omnipotence is inherently self-contradictory at even a slight glance. >Ahistoricy of the Bible Wouldn't know. There's too much shit in there and it's not worth my time to dig through it. Much easier to to just point out what's wrong with the beliefs that are actually held my the majority in practice. Lord knows lol most of the so-called "religious" don't actually closely read and follow the tennets of their holy books. >>19999 >I'm not recently areligious. >>20005 >Ditto on this. I don't think I used the right word. It's the pattern of most of those who are religious to say that without their religion it is impossible to have or justify any meaning or morality in life. And I'd wager for those who lose their faith to keep to this idea and fall into despair without long consideration to reach this concept they once abhorred.

>>20007 I think your flow chart is gay. the right circled box ought to point to the middle red box, which itself should be moved to right so no or few lines cross. The bottom two boxes can form an infinite loop. The "YES" option should be pointing toward the bottom red box.

>>20008 Because there are kind of correct. Without a religion, there is no objective morality to speak off of. That doesn't mean that you can't have moral people but rather what happens is that whatever is good or evil becomes kind of subjective. Obviously there are things that most humans would agree on, but the problem is, even if everyone is in agreement that still doesn't make it inherent to reality. The universe doesn't care about whether you're good or evil, it is true that a lot of "evil" deeds have their consequences but those can be avoided. As it is often attributed to Dostoyevsky "Without God, everything is permitted". This isn't the biggest problem because you can still hold fast to your principles while accepting that reality isn't just (Which is actually psychologically healthier for you), but the problem is that life without God doesn't have any objective meaning. Reality doesn't give a shit if you succeed or lose, die or live, it is indifferent. That is solved though by realizing that although you cannot have objective meaning, things still matter to you subjectivelly and that you can still have things that you care about and ideals that you follow. >>20009 >The bottom two boxes can form an infinite loop That is the point though, that any argument o/f "Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil" can be retorted with "Well... why aren't we in such a universe?" and every logical line of argumentation goes back to the same question. "Oh this is for us to grow." "Are you saying that the omnipotent God couldn't create a world that allows us to grow without evil?" "Well it's because free will." "God couldn't have created a universe with free will and without evil?" This is especially interesting because heaven is exactly that, which makes one wonder why God won't just skip this whole process and just create everyone in paradise etc etc It always comes back to the same question.

>>20006 Iran, please don't crash a plane into the One World Trade Center on 10/24

>>20010 *They are, not there are. I have no idea what is wrong with my brain today.

>>20007 >Here you have a flowchart of the problem, there is more to this than that but for a short explanation this will do. I feel like the chart is missing the point that humans are not god. We're not all knowing and are constantly learning more every day, but it's basis is from the perspective that we know everything including more than god. >It's the typical "Can God create a stone that is too heavy to lift?" I feel like the point is more that it's forcing paradoxes with the intention of defeating an argument but only furthers prove. > The Exodus, the Israeli conquests of the Canaan region probably never actually happened. The archeology seems to support it: https://archive.ph/KyQRD >>20008 >It's the pattern of most of those who are religious to say that without their religion it is impossible to have or justify any meaning or morality in life. I'd say it's more contradictory, but that depends on the person's beliefs.

>>20014 >I feel like the chart is missing the point that humans are not god. We're not all knowing and are constantly learning more every day, but it's basis is from the perspective that we know everything including more than god. The problem with this is. Suppose you have two ideas. One is a fake one that exists only to scam you, and the second is true but you lack the perspective to see it. If both of the ideas look the same, how are you supposed to distinquish between them? >I feel like the point is more that it's forcing paradoxes with the intention of defeating an argument but only furthers prove. Could you explain? I don't get the argument >The archeology seems to support it: https://archive.ph/KyQRD >Biblical Archaeology Society The work of that organization is disputed, I'm not saying that they are necessarily wrong but you will find archeologists saying something completely different.

>>20010 >That is the point though The point is stupid >"Well... why aren't we in such a universe?" and every logical line of argumentation goes back to the same question. It does not. If God could create such a universe, and he didn't, he is not good. You're simply supposing God must be good at the part of the flowchart and instead implicitly asking "If God is definitely good, why aren't we in such a universe?".

>>20016 Ah, fair. To be honest this isn't my flowchart and one could probably make a better one.

>>20010 >"Are you saying that the omnipotent God couldn't create a world that allows us to grow without evil?" That wrong from the start. Eden was a place without evil. However humanity rejected that when Adam ate the fruit. Therefore we now exist in a world WITH evil as a consequence of those actions. > This is especially interesting because heaven is exactly that, which makes one wonder why God won't just skip this whole process and just create everyone in paradise Because there's no story, no conflict, nothing to strive for, otherwise. > If both of the ideas look the same, how are you supposed to distinquish between them? I use whatever tools and methods are at my disposal to makeup for where my eyesight is lacking. > Could you explain? God is capable of moving of lifting a rock he cannot lift because he's God. It's an argument trying to reduce God from his godhood. Obviously, if God cannot lift it, then he isn't God. So why does lifting it still reduce him from his godhood? The arguments trying to saying that the idea of an omnipotent all powerful god is so abstract and unreasonable of a concept that said God cannot break the very reality that he himself created. > I'm not saying that they are necessarily wrong but you will find archeologists saying something completely different. To be quite honest, I'm hesitant about what ANY scientist says anymore because there's many institutions that are lying these days.

>>20018 >However humanity rejected that when Adam ate the fruit. God knew Adam would do this when God created Lucifer and the fruit. God also knew what Lucifer would do. Thus created the evil, or at least planted the seed of evil knowing it would grow. >God is capable of moving of lifting a rock he cannot lift because he's God That's an inherent logical fallacy. By saying this, you say God is beyond logic, which means understanding him is beyond logical human comprehension, but you should still try to understand God anyways because you can through love, not logic. This wishy washy feelings shit is the ultimate end for any religion that gives up on trying to make sense. Just say your faith is beyond logic, so it doesn't have to make sense, and become a brick wall to any that question your actions and whether those actions are consistent with the precepts of your faith. >So why does lifting it still reduce him from his godhood? Because it means he is then incapable of making something he cannot lift. >a concept that said God cannot break the very reality that he himself created. Then that means God can't make realities unbreakable to himself and is therefor not omnipotent. You seem to be ignoring that the act of breaking logically invalidates the act of creating something unbreakable. But you've already discarded the concept of logic itself in regards to Christianity, so there's little point holding any discussion or airing any criticism, especially on a dead board like this. >To be quite honest, I'm hesitant about what ANY scientist says anymore because there's many institutions that are lying these days. This I can agree on, leftist atheists will do anything to spite Christians even if it hurts their own credibility.

>>20019 >God knew Adam would do this when God created Lucifer and the fruit. That's like saying you shouldn't own a gun because someone in your house may shoot themselves or someone else with it. You know it's a possibility but you pray that it doesn't happen. > That's an inherent logical fallacy. The entire question is a fallacy where you don't "win" nor lose either way and proves nothing. > you say God is beyond logic, which means understanding him is beyond logical human comprehension, but you should still try to understand God anyways because you can through love, not logic Isn't it the same way with a gang of niggers and their parents? > This wishy washy feelings shit is the ultimate end for any religion that gives up on trying to make sense. Or a parent that's tired of giving answers to a child that won't accept them and figure it's time to bring out the rolling pin. > Just say your faith is beyond logic That's blind faith, ironically the exact opposite of what Christianity teaches. > Because it means he is then incapable of making something he cannot lift. But the question is a trap designed to reach the same end no matter the answer. It proves nothing other than you can point out paradoxes, and then say the paradox is "proof" where none exists. > Then that means God can't make realities unbreakable to himself and is therefor not omnipotent. And as I said, it's a trap of a question that doesn't prove anything. The reverse of this is a scientist creating life from inanimate matter and declaring that they're just as intelligent as God without stopping to question where that matter came from. In fact, if you want to stick using paradoxes as "proof" of anything, then you better believe in a religion regardless of how stupid it is. If you do believe and God doesn't exist, you lose nothing by believing. However, if you do believe and God does exist, you save yourself an eternity in Hell. However, like I said, it's a trap. Designed for the sole purpose of proving nothing and only leading the person to one possible conclusion without any alternatives. And that's the exact opposite of what Christianity entails. Forcing people to convert to your beliefs is one of the most damning things a Christian can do because we don't have all the answers. We are not God. While we do have a book that's inspired by and documents God's presence on Earth, it's still incomplete in and of itself because there's only so much we can do as man to even understand a fraction of God's intent.

>>20020 >Isn't it the same way with a gang of niggers and their parents? Replace that with the ankle bitter that comes out of the womb.

>>20020 >That's like saying you shouldn't own a gun because someone in your house may shoot themselves or someone else with it. You know it's a possibility I didn't say God knew it was a possibility. God knew it would happen. Part of omnipotence is omniscience. If you're all powerful, you're capable of knowing everything that will happen, not just may happen. >The entire question is a fallacy You're using that word wrong. It's the very premise of omnipotence that is self-contradictory. At this point you're not even arguing anymore because you gave up logic, you're just going "No ur wrong". >Isn't it the same way with a gang of niggers and their parents? >Or a parent that's tired of giving answers to a child that won't accept them and figure it's time to bring out the rolling pin. <God is still right in the end because he's God, you just need to be beaten until you understand his love Lmao. >That's blind faith, ironically the exact opposite of what Christianity teaches. Well it's exactly what you're arguing. >But the question is a trap designed to reach the same end no matter the answer. That's because there's only one correct answer, because that's the nature of omnipotence which your faith claims God has. The question can only be asked because Christianity claimed God is all powerful, and being all powerful doesn't make sense if you think about it even slightly. You're upset that your favorite book as a red square in it, someone is asking what color it is, and they reasonably won't accept anything but red or its synonyms as correct. So you say the question is rigged and shouldn't be asked. > then say the paradox is "proof" where none exists. The paradox is a logical proof, you just want to ignore it. >In fact, if you want to stick using paradoxes as "proof" of anything, then you better believe in a religion regardless of how stupid it is. If you do believe and God doesn't exist, you lose nothing by believing. However, if you do believe and God does exist, you save yourself an eternity in Hell. However, like I said, it's a trap. Designed for the sole purpose of proving nothing and only leading the person to one possible conclusion without any alternatives I can tell you haven't actually dug into these sorts of discussions much. Infinite stakes (Pascal's Wager) is an easily debunkable fallacy in multiple ways without discarding the very concept of logic. The simplest is that there's more than one religion that claims eternal punishment or peace for not following or following it, or you could even argue more than one way to practice Christianity. This means the infinite stakes of going to hell or heaven can also be used against any particular faith by any other particular faith, and so "I should believe in X because the risk is too great otherwise" is not only possible answer as Pascal intended, because there's hundreds (really infinite technically) of possible "X"s. So unlike the question of Omnipotence's paradoxical nature, you can easily arrive at answers other than the one intended to roundaboutly convert people, and without accepting any paradoxes. >there's only so much we can do as man to even understand a fraction of God's intent. Yes, everyone knows your God is beyond fully understanding in mortal life. So are many other Gods. They all work in strange ways, don't they?

This isn't /pol/

>>20023 >The paradox is a logical proof Deciding to look up other people's different intepreptations of the question, it's not because falls apart for the one simple reason that you begin playing word games in order to answer the question and justify any conclusion. For example, actually look at the original question: >Can God create a stone that is too heavy to lift? Yes, but you only asked if he CAN create a stone that he cannot lift. You never asked how or when he will lift it. So the stone can be created but God will never need to show any proof that he cannot lift it. In addition, supposing that he did create the stone and did attempt to lift it, how much time needs to pass between him having created the stone and then proceeding to lift the stone? Does he have to lift the stone immediatly after the moment he creates it or can he choose at any moment in his (Infinite) lifetime to do it? Moreover, once he begins "lifting" the stone, does he (Again) have to raise it within a limited span of time or does he have all the time in the universe to go through the entire process of lifting it? Then there's also the problem that while God cannot lift the stone, it doesn't disqualify any other being from being able to lift the stone (Much more the stretch that God can lift the stone while being that other being). So God can create a stone that he cannot lift, but man can. So God cannot lift the stone while being God but he can lift the stone while being man. Much more, he can be in both states at the same time (The entire basis of the Christian trinity).

>>20024 Wrong board. <God will never need to show any proof Then how do you know it's a stone he can't lift? You're arguing about semantics of the way the question is worded rather than arguing about the logical situation question provokes. This is pointless, because you can then ask the same question in a more precisely worded way if the original is "debunked" upon an ungenerous interpretation of its wording. >In addition, supposing that he did create the stone and did attempt to lift it, how much time needs to pass between him having created the stone and then proceeding to lift the stone? Waiting an arbitrary or theoretically infinite amount of time is just delaying the process of the execution of the situation provoked by the question. It is not changing the answer. >So God cannot lift the stone while being God but he can lift the stone while being man. Now we get onto the Christian Trinity, another idea that asks you accept a paradox, and is often associated with telling others their interpretation of it is wrong and heretical. Please try and explain the Trinity in a way that makes sense and doesn't fall into incorrect explanations listed in this video. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw But to get back to the point, if God is is at some point a man, or simultaneously a man and God at the same time, he's still God. Being in, or simultaneously in and not-in a mortal body, doesn't change that he is God, and he lifted the stone that he shouldn't have been able to lift. The idea of the Trinity does not change that, but I'll give you credit for getting creative here. You're starting to think outside the box.

>>20029 >You're arguing about semantics of the way the question is worded Because there's no other way to actually solve these questions without breaking down what they're trying to ask. It's why "moral paradoxes" like the entire Trolley Question has become nothing but a big joke. Because the person posing the question wants to be sneeky and never actually divuldge what they're really asking. In this instance, can he create the rock? Yes. What more do you want? <how do you know it's a stone he can't lift? And the moment you ask that, the jig is up as your starting with the assumption that God is a liar. And there's not a single thing that can be argued from that point forward because he'll always be guilty through some measure. There's always going to be some excuse proving God is lying. Because how can you ever prove that he isn't lying? You're trying to prove a negative at that point. >This is pointless, because you can then ask the same question in a more precisely worded way if the original is "debunked" upon an ungenerous interpretation of its wording. Then why isn't it? >Waiting an arbitrary or theoretically infinite amount of time is just delaying the process of the execution of the situation provoked by the question. No, he's already executing the process of attempting to lift the stone. Again, how much time needs to pass before the stone is declared as something even he cannot lift? >Please try and explain the Trinity in a way that makes sense You have God, you have Christ, and the Holy Ghost. One God, three persons. What's so hard to understand?

>>20030 >Because there's no other way to actually solve these questions The solution is the box is red. You don't like that, so you say it's not a solution, and the questioner is being an evil bastard >And the moment you ask that, the jig is up as your starting with the assumption that God is a liar. No, you start with the possibility that people claiming God is omnipotent are liars, by asking a question about that claim. However, since omnipotence is a logical paradox the answer is always yes. >Then why isn't it? Because the discussion rarely gets that far before people start stonewalling. Most actually follow the logical premise instead of acting like Jews about the wording. >No, he's already executing the process More semantic Jewery. So let me reiterate the statement more precisely. Having God lift the stone any arbitrary or infinitely small height across any arbitrary or theoretically infinite amount of time is just delaying the conclusion of the execution of the process. It is not changing the answer. >One God, three persons. What's so hard to understand? You explained nothing. How is one three? That doesn't make sense and violates the logic of identity. Does he have one identity or three? Did ya watch the video? It's very short, and somewhat funny. It's by a Christian ya know. Lutheran humor. Then in what way is one God three people? Is he controlling the bodies remotely from the primary position of the Father God up in heaven? No, they're suppose to be equal. Is it a hivemind? Are they different parts of God's body? No, that's partialism. Are they different forms of God? No, that's modalism. >Trolleys Entirely irrelevant. I'm questioning God's omnipotence, not the moral precepts set out by the faith or how they could potential come into conflict with each other. The former is purely a logic problem, and only related to morality as all things questioning God are related to morality if you believe morality cannot exist without God.

>>20029 No, you misunderstood. This discussion isn't /pol/.

>>20031 >The solution is the box is red. So God is omnipotent, like the book says? >you start with the possibility that people claiming God is omnipotent are liars Wait, doesn't that reduce the entire argument to the blame being on man for failing to properly describe omnipotence? And takes God out of the entire equation? >Most actually follow the logical premise instead of acting like Jews about the wording. But the question entirely relies upon clever wording to make sense of it in the first place. All variations of the question suffer from this: <If given the axioms of Euclidean geometry, can an omnipotent being create a triangle whose angles do not add up to 180 degrees? <Can God create a prison so secure that he cannot escape from it? All these boil down to asking if it is possible for God to do something. That is it. They never go the next step in requiring in said action actually being done. Probably because, like I said, the question doesn't come from a legitimate standpoint in the first place. It only exists to twist people into knots arguing over nothing. Which makes sense when the earliest version of said paradox comes from Elymas, a Jewish sorcerer. >Having God lift the stone any arbitrary or infinitely small height across any arbitrary or theoretically infinite amount of time is just delaying the conclusion of the execution of the process. It is not changing the answer. Actually it does because it declares that God is not omnipotent before he even does an action. >Did ya watch the video? It's very short No, I don't click on JewTube links (Even through a frontend). Why didn't you just download an post it instead of linking it? >Then in what way is one God three people? This is way out of my depth. Three aspects of the same being who your succession of belief in leads people towards eventually finding and reaching God himself. Acknowleding that God is the creator of the universe and Man (The Father), knowing that Christ was God taken on the livelihood of man for the purposes of saving man by sacrificing himself and taking on all of man's sins (The Son), and accepting the truth so that one can be filled with God's presense for the purposes of reaching Heaven (The Holy Ghost/Spirit).

>>20032 Well this is where cale kike booted the discussion. >So God is omnipotent, like the book says? No, but you're right anyways because you follow God and God is always right, so you always win and what anyone else says doesn't matter. >man for failing to properly describe omnipotence? And takes God out of the entire equation? Just another roundabout way to say the Almighty is beyond reason. If man is incapable of describing omnipotence without a paradox, then omnipotence is simply beyond reason, and thus God. Really, none of it matter. Just don't question God and you win life. >But the question entirely relies upon clever wording Not really, or else it people missing the point wouldn't argue semantics about it being worded slightly inaccurate to its intent. >They never go the next step in requiring in said action actually being done. They implicitly require such, you claiming otherwise is just like you going "but what if omnipotent actions didn't make sense, but they happened really slowly? That would be different, right?'''. You're belaying the conclusion by breaking it up into infinitely small steps like Zeno's paradox so you can say the finish line can never be reached, except Zeno's paradox is a proven fallacy. >Actually it does because it declares that God is not omnipotent before he even does an action Let's get even more abstract. Can God create a paradox? The answer is yes, because he is omnipotent. If paradoxes can exist as anything other than hypothetical thought experiments, then the very concept of logic ceases to function regardless of whether God actually makes a paradox real. You see any issue with omnipotence yet? >Three aspects of the same being Sounds like partialism.

>>20034 >Start vid <Begins with the premise of "We're idiots so explain it as simple as possible" <Explains the concept as simply as possible <The "idiots" begin ridiculing the simple analogy because they're actually super and intelligent and NOT actually idiots Yeah, I'm not watching that. >you're right anyways because you follow God No >Just don't question God and you win life. That's not how it works as we end up back at blind faith and absolute obedience, both in stark contrast with and directly opposed to Christian teachings. >If paradoxes can exist as anything other than hypothetical thought experiments, then the very concept of logic ceases to function regardless of whether God actually makes a paradox real. Isn't that exactly what quantum computing is?

>>20036 >No Yes. You're right. >That's not how it works as we end up back at blind faith and absolute obedience, both in stark contrast with and directly opposed to Christian teachings. Ah, so just question God until God doesn't make sense, then stop questioning God because the parts that don't make sense are beyond human reason and fall back on blind faith. >Yeah, I'm not watching that. Why? Is them pretending to stupid at the beginning a joke too unfamiliar to you? >Isn't that exactly what quantum computing is? Not entirely sure, because the media and schools have sensationalized "quantum anything" all based the double slit experiment. Because electrons behaved as waves when unobserved and particles when observed, two probably very wrong ideas were spread far and wide about quantum logic. Firstly, the very act of conscious observation alters the outcome and thus the universe is altered by mere perception. This is wrong, and came about because when showing the double slit experiment 9 times out of 10 they neglect to mention that the particles don't behave different from being viewed, they behave differently because the instrument we use to view them bombards them with other particles, changing their trajectory. Secondly, the idea that electrons are in two places at once in order to behave like waves. This one stumped people for a while, and Einstein really didn't like it. In recent years a theory that jives with classical physics became popular. A theory that the electrons emit waves of energy, a field moving at least slightly faster than themselves, that bounces off of other things, and comes back to hit the electrons which are very small and easily moved, altering their trajectory and forming a wave pattern. The concept is most easily visualized by placing small droplets on the surface of water. When electrons are observed by firing particles at them, the force of those particles is far greater than an electron's field, making the force of the electron's waves negligible, and changing the pattern of movement from a wave pattern to a particle pattern. Einstein was right when he said God doesn't play dice.

>>20037 >Yes. You're right. >so just question God until God doesn't make sense, then stop questioning God because the parts that don't make sense are beyond human reason and fall back on blind faith. Are you just acting retarded or are you doing this on purpose? >Is them pretending to stupid at the beginning a joke too unfamiliar to you? The only people who I ever see "play" that joke are wannebe intellectuals and dishonest morons who want to show how "smart" they are for pointing contradictions in logic that they themselves demanded.

>>20038 >Are you just acting retarded or are you doing this on purpose? I'm summarizing.

This is tangential, but I think at its most fundamental level the fact that anything exists makes no sense. For example, if substance are made out of molecules, molecules are made out of atoms, atoms are made out of particules, and so on, Is there a bottom to this? A thing that cannot be reduced any further? It would make no sense for something to just exist without being made of something, but it would also make no sense to have an infinite regress of things causing other things. This applies to everything in the universe in fact. Every force and principle requires some explanation for why it is and why its not some other way, but those explanations then require explanations and so we get the above mentioned issue for the existence of everything in the universe. This in itself isn't an argument for God or any other supernatural concepts, but in my opinion if my reason for not believing them was simply that they didn't make sense once I reached a certain level of questioning, then by the same token I would have to disregard the existence of everything including myself or else be a hypocrite.

>>19980 Try telling the world's population that they can do whatever they want and that there will be no punishment for them after they die. See what happens to the world. That is why religion is obligatory to civilization. That is why the state and governments must be eradicated and religion itself be the only governing power.

>>20117 Why shouldn't they do whatever they want?

>>20124 Because what one wants interferes with what other wants, and thus chaos ensures. A good life is one of order and civilization. And those who disagree are the ones who must be killed first.

>>20125 >A good life is one of order and civilization. I know you may like those things personally, but what do you mean when you call them 'good'?

>>19980 >Christianity it's heretic schisms are really something else https://yewtu.be/watch?v=U5c-d1pNnvs https://yewtu.be/watch?v=j-lAekcXRpw https://yewtu.be/watch?v=YfwMpxhrCYE