/lit/ - Literature

>>12831271
Why should I care? Kant destroyed all sure footing for God, in spite of his stated intent. Never trust one who offers five "proofs" where one solid argument will do the trick. At least Descartes was that honest.

>>12831288
Please elaborate, I’ve read very little Kant

>Assumes we don’t understand.
>Thinks were disqualified now
>Probably holding his ears/covering his eyes now
And Aquinas is just as much an authority as Dante. When will you heed the last verse of Revolations?

Boring thread. Let it die.

>>12831271
judaic law > christian love

>>12831305
No. Read Kant, and then watch the Derrida interview about Americans asking people to "elaborate." I'm not going to recapitulate his arguments for you. I'm not your professor.

>>12831343
>thinker who has been extremely influential in Christian and secular philosophy is as much an authority as author who has also been extremely influential in Christian and secular philosophy

Wow good point!

>>12831352
Ok, I’m just going to assume you have no clue what you are talking about then. Derrida cite doesn’t help your case either

>>12831343
I spit in your general direction!

>>12831365
>Has never read the bible
Oh but you’re Catholic. nm

>>12831381
I’ve never read the whole thing, no. I try to read once a day at least doe

>>12831352
my nigga, you would not be "recapitulating" kant's arguments, you would be offering an interpretation--you even mention that the conclusion that you have drawn is different from kant's intent... which means you have stepped outside of the text. stop being a dick and offer support for a claim you make that is not even evident within the bare text--this is a board for discussion, stop being a faggot

>>12831379
Assume away, bud. If I have to hold your hand through it like a toddler, I'd rather not discuss the nature of existence as a predicate with you.

>>12831399
I'm going to interpret them to someone who hasn't read them? Like a fucking mystic interpreting glossolalia? Fuck off.

Please stop turning Jesus into a 4chan meme.

>>12831407
>>12831414
Stop shitting up the thread dummy
Nobody cares about your special ed interpretation of Kant

>>12831393
ignore the butterfly

>>12831419
Nobody actually cares about your special Ed interpretation of Christianity either

>>12831271
there is only one true god and its the catholic god all other christian sekts are meme tier anglo bullshit

>>12831494
says the schismatic

>>12831271
I don't believe in your God, dude. Say whatever you want about in favor of your religion, and against the possibly erroneous critiques of it from the outside, and my opinion is equally unmoved. Just let it go. Secure the crowd you still can, don't waste your time on types like me. I don't even personally find that much to admire in Jesus, be it his life or the tremendously inflated narratives of him that came to surround him after. The personality of the Gospels just doesn't resonate with me. I have personally found more profound, consistent, coherent and nuanced conceptions of God than those described in your original texts, which in my personal opinion referred to the leader of a higher-species (named the Annunaki by the Sumerians and the Elohim by the Canaanites) who seeded humankind here on Earth, and was not any sort of omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent personality. How Jesus relates to this, I'm not sure. I'm not a pure evolutionist, and believe Deism might still be true, but Abrahamic Monotheism no longer interests me. I'll keep on the lookout sure, and I'll still be open to possibilities like it, but I'm not presently interested in theistic conceptions of reality.

>>12831565
This is one of the stranger things I’ve ever read. You can do worse than be a materialist deist though, I agree with you there

>>12831344
Botfag detected.

>>12831565
I think OP is fed up with shitty arguments rather than your belief status.

>>12831305
We cant know anything of which we have no experience, i.e for which we have no evidence. As Hume said:

>A wise man conditions his belief to the evidence

Nothing in the world is evidence of God. Although you'll have to read Kant's critiques yourself to find out how it is that Kant manages to maintain his suspicion that there is one.

>>12831658
thats why its called faith, its where all knowledge begins

>>12831687
Based Kierkegaard poster

>>12831436

You're a rather unpleasant lady, do you know that? Not worse then the rest of this website, but you tend to be be somewhat meaner then your average /lit/ poster. I hope that you're kinder in real life.

>>12831658
That's not the Kantian objection. This is the Kantian objection:
1) The Ontological argument is based on an amphiboly in the predicate of existence. In the initiation of the proof, the existence of God is treated as necessarily part of his definition. Existence is treated purely linguistically. According to the meaning of the word "God," this is the case. However, the next step is to assert that this pure treatment of existence is equivalent to an empirical proof, i.e. the copula. The meaning of the word "exist" is turned from the floating abstraction to its supposed application. Kant says, "existence is evidently not a real predicate," i.e., it is a totally logical predicate that can only be used to designate the sphere (empirical or intelligible) of a conception, it cannot be used as a "real" predicate and add to the conception like "red" can ("the ball" vs. "the red ball"). Kant further says that "we may as well hope to increase our stock of ideas through these means as a merchant may hope to increase his profits by the addition of naughts to his cash accounts."
2) The Cosmological argument is a reversal of the Ontological. The latter says, "The greatest of all beings would necessarily have to exist, also create the universe, etc." The former says, "For the universe to be created, this would require the greatest of all conceivable beings, which would be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc." The statements are convertible in form, as "Only a genius could produce a great work of art," and "This work of art is great, therefore only a genius could have produced it." Since they are so convertible, if the Ontological argument falls, the Cosmological argument also falls.
3) The Teleological argument is merely an argument from analogy. Kant credits it as the most likely to "attune coarse minds" to the idea of God, but an argument such as this hardly requires the rigorous refutation demanded by the Ontological. Showing that things operate "as if there were" a creator is no where near an appearance of apodicticity.

Empiricism will not masquerade as Critical Idealism.

>>12831494
Spotted the falseflag.

>>12831725
still amazed to see people arguing about solved problems

>>12831288
>implying God has feet

>>12831784
I knew it would be like this. I actually take the time to regurgitate Kant, and you worthless faggots can't even be bothered to reply. I hope your God sees you sodomized by lion-dicked demons in Hell.

>>12831944
You’re just too smart for me. I didn’t understand but 60% of that

>>12832068
Making Kant intelligible really is like trying to interpret glossolalia. If I had to explain it to a six year old, I would paraphrase Wittgenstein: "I want a name to be that which cannot appear in the statement 'X exists.'" The problem of, for instance, whether or not "red" would continue to "exist" if every particular red object were destroyed. What I have written is much, much clearer than what you'll get in the first Critique, unfortunately. Why did you stop insulting me? I feed on that shit.

>>12831352
>watch the Derrida interview about Americans asking people to "elaborate."
I need a link to this. English subtitle needed.
Isn't this kinda contradict his philosophy?

>>12832120
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2j578jTBCY

>>12831365
>a writer of a fiction satire of Christianity that stole from Greek mythology

this whole thread needs to perish

>>12832180
And yet, you bumped it. Fucking newfag.

>>12832101
That makes a lot more sense desu.
If I am following: a noumenon, like God in your eyes, ceases to exist because people are ceasing to believe in Him?
I stopped insulting you because I felt bad about it

>>12831944
Good work. His smile is your reward.

>>12832331
Noumena don't exist like empirical objects do, but that's an entirely different thing. When talking about a useful abstraction, like a pure color or number (the "homogeneous unit" of mathematics), the question arises whether these things exist "of themselves," in this case meaning "despite their lack of direct correspondence with physical objects," or whether they do not at all exist. This sort of question recurs in philosophy: nominalism vs. realism, ethical naturalism vs. non-naturalism, transcendence vs. the transcendental dialectic, etc. It looks to me like Wittgenstein and Kant solve the problem in much the same way, but Wittgenstein is clearer and more honest with himself about it. "Red" and "one" name abstractions, to ask whether either exists in itself is like asking whether language exists in itself. The very name of God implies that he exists, by its meaning, in the same way that "red" necessarily applies to all extant red objects: as a naming convention, for the purposes of language. But the statement "God exists" is only a naming convention of God. To a believer, the Ontological argument is almost self evident. To a non-believer, it will never be evident.

>>12831271
Atheist here. I just want to say that I do consider the Bible quite a sublime text in terms of its literary value, and Jesus is also a very intriguing figure.

As an aspiring writer, does anyone want to explain to me why the Bible's phrases are so evocative and memorable? Take for example:

>Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends

Why does such a simple line work so well? What is so great about the use of "lay down his life" that makes this sentence "tick", so to speak? Had a different set of words been chosen, would it not resonate more than a nor al sentence? I also presume this is where the phrase in English derives from? Does anyone understand what I'm getting at here? What makes the Biblical language so magical? And please try not to say "the Holy Spirit" - I respect your faith, but I'm looking for answers that can help me understand the craft itself and improve my own work in it.

>>12831305
It’s the same as Kierkegaard, the leap of faith. Anon is just being retarded

>>12831305
the thing in itself is unknowable, hegel then asked what is x for itself and ruined philosophy. thought is a dog chasing its tail, hegel is the dog finally biting down

>>12831760
I am. I just get defensive when fighting off the anti-intellectualism of theism

>>12831379
Why would you make that assumption? This isn't fucking /pol/ dude.

>>12832554
The Bible is full of beautiful passages because it has multiple authors spanning centuries and borrowed from past literature heavily.

>>12831802
I am baptised and i've done both comunnions
repent you heretic

>>12832791
Do you know who these authors are, by name? Also, can you tell me what previous literature they borrowed from so I can read it? :)

>>12834295
Paul, mostly, and they heavily referenced the Old Testament for the most part

>>12832101
You can explain it better by breaking words down, for instance "amphiboly".

>>12831436
This is why you're a lesbian. Completely out of touch with the female.

>>12831271
Based and breadpilled

>>12834554
I credit everyone with enough intelligence to at least operate a search engine. "Amphiboly" is more economical than "vague, double meaning."

>>12832383
>to ask whether either exists in itself is like asking whether language exists in itself
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

>>12834601
My point was that God, if you believe in it, being the infinity of spirit, can be used as a descending justification for anything. If you take belief out of it, and ask what is meant by the word, the name, you see that God's existence is a fact of his name; he is defined as a having existence. It's what Kant would call an "analytic" demonstration. Another part of his objection, one I neglected in my earlier post, is that analytic demonstrations can't be used in furtherance of new empirical knowledge. If John is a bachelor, he is unmarried, not dating, etc. But as to whether or not John is actually a bachelor, we have to consult him, watch his behavior. By this line of reasoning, the Ontological proof is as good as saying, "If God were to exist, he would necessarily have to exist." But I don't really agree with Kant's analytic/synthetic distinction, I think his idea of argumentative synthesis is faulty, so this is just something for theists who retain the opposition.

>>12832756
You’re literally impossible to insult. No matter what I come up with you just say something that’s even more self-deprecating. “I fight off anti-intellectualism” fucking kek. This is the shit you hear from someone who’s parodying an atheist.

>>12834663
this is pretty cool. I started this thread only intending to establish a baseline of debate over Christian morals, because I was tired of having to explain the difference between the Old and New Testament, but this dialogue with you has given me an even stronger faith because you've shown pretty convincingly that God is ontologically self-evident. The first few verses of John are literally true, they fufill themselves. Very based, very redpilled.

>>12835500
Sure, you're ignoring the fact that I pretty much said his self-evidence is a linguistic illusion, but sure. Believers gonna believe.