/lit/ - Literature

Yes. If you believe in the possibility of a technological singularity, this almost certainly implies that God exists. A superintelligence would be indistinguishable from God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIno-PhSQlM

>>14799942
>Christ
Deism > cuckstianity

Christianity specifically Catholicism is unique from all the other monotheistic religions, in that God incarnated as a created human, thus transforming creation itself into the divine. Islam is similar to Protestantism especially Calvinism, God in those religions becomes more of a distant abstraction with no relationship to creation.

>>14799957
Chroomer dosnt sound like it works. Maybe try a different version of the meme.

Also, not attacking you or anything, but the
>thinks the torah is a reflection of european spirituality
part gives a paganish vibe.

>>14799957

People reject Christianity because it conflicts with the things they currently worship, whether that's cooming, race idolatry, or some other vanities

>>14799967
Eh, specific forms of Protestantism maybe, but especially the evangelical and other english strains usually focus on an intimate relationship with God.

>>14799942
Well, it matters what you define good as. I think Hegels transcendental ideal of God is hard to beat.

>>14799987
It's almost always cooming. People want to jerk off or have sex outside of marriage or have sex with other men or other women, and the mean old Church won't let them. That's all there is to it.

>>14799942
Why yes there is - The Holy Bible.

>>14799992

I think those post protestant non denominational Christians tend to be more receptive once they understand the concept of the Eucharist, and then everything else falls into place. A lot of them have their hearts in the right place, they're just ignorant in a lot of cases

>>14799989
Holy based.
This is exactly the case for Germany right now, blame the jews all you like but its the fucking suicidal and self loathing christians that are imploding that country.

>>14799942
hands
/handsdown

>>14800017
Id agree, though personally I have been reading into Quakerism and have found it pretty interesting. Im still catholic, but it is a fascinating take.

>>14799989

The first error was putting "the white race" on a pedestal, there's nothing inherently better about a "white" person than any other racial makeup. It's a shallow identity, and replacement for Christianity.

>>14799967
>God in those religions becomes more of a distant abstraction with no relationship to creation
Isn't this essentially Catholicism with its retarded ideas of created grace and absolute divine simplicity, where they even deny that God The Logos actually appears without created mediators in the Old Testament? Muslims have the same problems where they can't explain how Allah's Word can be uncreated and share in the divine essence while being distinct from it (without causing division into parts). Aquinas basically advocated for Islam without even realizing it.
>>14799995
>Hegels
Cringe. All profane Western philosophers should be purged.
>>14799999
Based. Trying to "reason up" to God is bugman cringe. Revelation is the only pure way.
>>14799989
>>14799957
Cringe. Anglo bugman.
>>14800052
Based.

>>14799949
>If you believe in the possibility of a technological singularity
I don't though. I'm not a tech worshipper.
>>>/g/
>>>/sci/

>>14799957
never seen this meme before
>>14799967
>Catholicism is unique

>>14799967
what about hinduism with all its avatars?

>>14799967
>Catholicism is unique from all the other monotheistic religions
Because of it's pagan blood rituals?

>>14799957
>Deism
That's just a contrarian version of atheism.

>>14799942
Bump. Still looking for better proofs.

>>14799987
People reject Christianity because it's not believable.

>>14800345
>believing something is true is the same as worshipping it

I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable; ergo, God exists.

>>14801778
Believing in tech means worshipping it, because tech does not exist, strictly speaking.

>>14801789
That's a simplified version of Augustine's idea of time(past, present, and future).

>>14799949
An SI would be godlike but not god in the philosophical sense. I remember Kurzweil saying that the singularity would approach god, but never reach god, so to speaj.

>>14799942
Yes, the problem with Aquinas is that he is a foundationalist. His arguments start off with the axiomatic assumption of causality, as if this is more obvious than God himself. He needs God in order to have any faith in something like causality in the first place. The transcendental argument recognises this and is a way better form of arguing for God.

>>14799949
Me on the right

>>14799981
But the torah is not European...

>>14802786
Sup Jay didn’t know you came to this place. When are you going to answer the expose about you by the Dimond brothers?

>>14799957
Looks like a good goy...

>>14802786
Based. Aquinas would probably be an avid reddit browser if he was alive today.

>>14802802
God's original Israel was ethnically Aryan before (((they))) invaded and set up their idolatry.

>>14799999
the holy quints...

>>14799999
Very based.

>>14799987
Christianity cannot be Jewish as the act of being a Jew is the act of the rejection of Jesus Christ.

>>14802786
interesting point, never thought about the fact that all the arguments that have convinced me about the existence of god are ultimately reliant on something higher i already assume

>>14799967
I can't remember without checking whether in Qur'an or hadith says that Allah is closer to you than your jugular vein. Imam Ghazali, I think it was him, wrote about how the being of Allah is everywhere because it is uncontainable and that we are therefore within the being of Allah yet we are seperate from Allah.
I don't find these Islamic concepts to indicate distance between the creator and the creation.
Also in Islam it is known that Allah knows what you are going to do before you do it, He is aware of all things and nothing can happen without His knowledge and without His allowing it to occur.

>>14803402
how do you explain that 90% of the Bible is about jews and their doings?

>>14804680
Read the bible again.

Goedel wrote a proof based on that of St Anselm of Canterbury in 1050s. I think Aquinas used this as one of his points also.

Kant hated it. Hegel thought it was legit. I'm sure google can teach you more. Anselm's writings are reproduced by Penguin; worth reading anon.

>>14805626
One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He invited his reader to conceive an island "more excellent" than any other island. He suggested that, according to Anselm's proof, this island must necessarily exist, as an island that exists would be more excellent. Gaunilo's criticism does not explicitly demonstrate a flaw in Anselm's argument; rather, it argues that if Anselm's argument is sound, so are many other arguments of the same logical form, which cannot be accepted.

Conceive the existence of Barney the anthropomorphic purple dinosaur that is the most perfect demonstration of christcucks idiocy. Since Barney not existing would be a less effective demonstration and he is conceived as the most perfect demonstration therefore Barney must exist.

>>14799967
Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity are the only real christian religions. They are the old marble buildings in the city center, all the other "christian" groups are just McMansions, built for convenience, and will be replaced in 30 years.

>>14799949
singularity is a dated concept. ai doesn't work that way. most ai are incredibly good at one task but uncapable of doing literally anything else.

>>14805626
>Anselm
>Goedel
>Hegel
>Kant
I don't think I've seen this concentration of pure degenerate cringe in a post before.

>>14801789
Just because you didn't consciously know the amount of birds, there still could be a definite number - you just didn't consciously perceive it.

>>14801789
>indefinite number
This is nonsense by definition. A number unknown to you isn't "indefinite", as it is known by God who defines it. So this argument assumes God in even stating it. Also, even being able to say that you saw 1-10 birds presupposes God too, because without him none of those birds would even exist for you to count them.

>>14806960
Borges wrote that as a joke and you still miss the point. For one he closes his eyes and sees the birds so he is imagining them they don't exist. And Borges even says that if God exists the number is definite see God can see the contents of his mind. He does not know what the number of birds is but he knows that it is not 1-10 but since there is no conceivable number between 1 and 10 that is not 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 this indefinite number can not exist so Borges ends with God must exist. Again this is a joke to make fun of proofs for God he calls it Argumentum Ornithologicum in Latin.

>>14807160
>nooo its a joke i'm not retarded!
Sure, bro. You sure tricked us.

>>14807160
>there is no conceivable number between 1 and 10 that is not 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
There is, if one involves Dark Numbers.
>indefinite number
No such thing.

>>14807178
He knows its retarded that's the point. Aquinas and the rest were ridiculous.

>>14807160
Anselm called his proof Argumentum Ontologicum and Borges called his Argumentum Ornithologicum

>>14805666
People use that sort of "unicorn argument" all the time but it is totally acceptable that within infinite potential worlds there exists something, and indeed many things, typically thought of as absurd. Keep in mind the scale within which Anselm is making his claims. It is not just on earth, not just within our experience of reality, but within all possible worlds that could ever exist. If God exists in just one of these potential worlds the argument advances.

>>14807256
If the Barney given exists in just one of those potential worlds the argument advances. You're fighting a losing battle here.

>>14807270
You are misunderstanding the arugment. If the God exists in just one possible world then since he is the greatest possible being, he must exist in all possible worlds. That cannot be said with any other being.

>>14799967
God incarnates as a human in Vaishnavite Hinduism.

>>14807277
Yes it definitely can since if Barney exists in only one of those possible worlds he is not making the ontological argument look as ridiculous as if he existed in all possible worlds. And since he is the most perfect example of how stupid the proof is he must exist in a way to maximize the stupidity.

>>14807295
I fail to see how any absurd creature is even an argument. Showing an argument to be distasteful does not show anything about its validity. It is completely logically valid that any absurd creature could exist in a universe that is literally infinite. Once again, I think you are not taking into account the bigger picture. We are talking about literally an infinite number of universes. For something NOT to exist like you speak of would be even more absurd.

>>14807319
If your argument allows and even requires the existence of an absurd purple dinosaur with no other purpose than to make fun of you I don't know what to tell you. For my part no there is no philosophical Barney and there is no God.

>>14807328
You once again, are arguing not with propositions, but with your aesthetic tastes. With an infinite amount of potential infinite universes, it is completely reasonable for such things to exist. Most people who argue against Anselm run into this very issue; they are bounded by what they can personally concieve, not what can actually exist as potential.

>>14807328
>there is no God

>>14807338
I'll give it you that you've come up with a new for one for me lunatic Christianity that accepts that almost everything you can think of exists. The old canard about God being Santa for adults has a different answer for you, that God exists just like Santa Claus.

>>14807282
That's a lesser polytheistic God though. Brahman himself (the divine person of Brahman, if you like) never incarnates as far as I know.

>>14807357
You are just coping at this point. You have admitted the fact that your reasoning is not based on what is true, but rather what is personally distasteful to you. Considering your antipathy towards the concept of God, I could use your same argument you use against you. You will come up with a reason to deny everything you dislike, even if it is valid logically, as you yourself maintain.

>>14807338
>infinite amount of potential infinite universes
What makes you think such a thing exists?

>>14807328
lol bruh Im not even the anon you're mad at, but if you're thinking that god doesn't have the time to create that exact purple dinosaur to blow your mind, you've got another thing coming

>>14807369
And your ignoring that your stated theology has Santa Claus existing because it makes you sound like a retard.

>>14807381
Considering you were using Barney and now using Santa Claus, no I am not going to attach my argument to your aesthetic tastes since they seem to have changed half way through your arugment.

>>14807376
God didn't create Barney because Barney exists to be the perfect example of how stupid the ontological argument is and being created by God would lessen the stupidity and Barney is perfect in his ridiculousness.

>>14807391
You accuse me of lacking a sense of scope the exact same arguments that applied to Barney apply to Santa. You've brought an indescribable number of things into existence to defend your goofy shit.

>>14807405
I am not attaching myself on to your value judgments. I am only concerned with Anselm. Sorry.

>>14807391
Any property that has a spectrum of value automatically has a existent maximal example from your logic. This is insane.

>>14807416
No? That's exactly why the island argument doesn't work. I fail to see where you are getting that from. In the argument, God has only that which has a logical maximum. Hence why there can be no maximally great island since such a concept is lacking in precision

>>14807416
To return to the birds and numbers imagine the largest possible number. If this number does not exist it certainly can't be the largest so does that mean there exists a largest number? What is that number + 1?

>>14807424
How in the heck is the maximally great island lacking in precision and the maximally great God not? Shit read above my argument from the natural numbers that is much more precise than God's greatness.

>>14807424
And am I talking to multiple people? Because above someone outright accepted the existence of Barney and Santa.

>>14807428
Numbers don't have a logical maximum. I never claimed that. God only has properties with maximum greatness. If the property doesn't have a maximum, that doesn't affect God, only the property.

>>14807466
This is a dramatically different stance than you took above. The objection to this is even easier whatever supposed logical maximum you imagine I can easily imagine a greater one.

>>14807394
nah it can be both

>>14805666
>satanic trips
>the devil is trying to deceive us

It is well agreed (read the secondary literature), that Gaunilon misunderstood and misrepresented Anselms argument. Gaunilon shows that the reasoning from 'maius omnibus' is absurd, however to Anselms argument the notion of 'nihil maius cogitari possit' is central.

>>14807669
Then what was Anselm's argument? And can we agree that the one presented above is false?

>>14800023
you're one of them, whether you are aware of it or not (culturally)

>>14801789
>this """"proof""""

bump.

>god needs to exist

>>14799949
this is true except not with technology but with humanity