/lit/ - Literature

>>17040040
>confuses will and desire
>one expresses the freedom of an agent, the other stems from a lack of something
ngmi

>>17040040
>be perfect supreme deity
>think it might be kinda cool to create life in a universe devoid of any other existence
>some ashiest in the future uses this as an argument to deboonk me

>>17040040
>Me and my three pound brain knows what a perfect infinite and transcendent being would do

>>17040054
>>17040058
>>17040060
Cope. Pilpul all you’d like about will versus desire, but it is still a lack, an imperfection. Some arrogant demiurge is not God

>>17040080
>That God decides something makes him imperfect
Braindead

>>17040040
if you wanna make an argument against god this isn t the best one
william lane craig would ve shread you to pieces in a debate with this logic yikes

>>17040080
>My God is greater than yours: he can't decide anything!
Kek... Yeah sure

>>17040089
Yes, because he needs or desires something. This is not a godlike attribute.

>>17040096
>implying the endless overflow of the One is not superior

>>17040040
My catholic church seemed to hold the belief that "it made God happy".

>>17040124
Implying that God was in a state of deficiency prior to creation.

>>17040097
>Yes, because he needs or desires something
no

>>17040135
Well thats what they fuckin told me bro

>>17040105
Absolute brainlet, the superabundance of God's love is what created the universe

>>17040160
If he didn’t desire it he wouldn’t have created it, and if he hadn’t created it, he wouldn’t have desired it, and would have been more perfect in himself, not lacking anything as he evidently was according to Abrahamists. All desire springs from a deficiency.

>>17040080
Pilpul doesn't mean "arguments I don't like"

Some foolish men declare that creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected.

If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now? How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.

If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, for the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have arisen quite naturally.

If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material, then it is just his will and nothing else — and who will believe this silly nonsense?

If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.

If he is form-less, action-less and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything.

If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man, so what advantage would he gain by creating the universe?

If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble.

If he created because of the karma of embodied beings (acquired in a previous creation), then he is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something else.

If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did he not make creation wholly blissful free from misfortune?

If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free: Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty. Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all.

And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created. If you say that he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?

Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine. Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end, and is based on the principles, life and rest. Uncreated and indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature.

HOLY BASED JINASENA (pbuh)

>>17040190
What a load of fallacious horseshit.

>>17040040
Gnoystics have BTFO’d both

>>17040195
Not an argument. Jinasena (pbuh) is operating off the kevala-jñana of Mahavira (pbuh). Your rebuttals will be in vain.

>God
>Being
All of you are retarded and need to go back to studying.

>>17040190
is this really the level of hindu philosophy or that's a meme?

>>17040190
reddit spacing

>>17040234
Debunk it, I’m waiting

>>17040190
Based...

pbuh!
pbuh!
pbuh!

>>17040247
I'm not your mother, go and take a course in classical theology for beginners because it's pathetic

>>17040295
So you have no arguments.

>>17040040
>>17040186
It's not a deficiency to freely give goodness. He's instantiated goodness lower than himself, which is still a good action. This imperfect world however does not affect him back.
I agree though that something must've gone wrong along the way since there's a lot of evil instantiated that I don't believe participates to the overall goodness of the world. But that's another argument.

>>17040309
just, open a course for beginners, like seriously
examples:

>How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.
theology of ex nihilo

>If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, for the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have arisen quite naturally.
different version of: https://youtu.be/Hx9gLvLYF5s?t=340

>>17040322
>It's not a deficiency to freely give goodness
A desire to give is a defiency

>>17040040
Most stupid argument ever.

God exist in theistic way.

>>17040335
how

>>17040372
>>God exist in theistic way.
meaning in a mental masturbation way

>>17040234
Jain and Buddhist philosophy =\= Hindu philosophy
>>17040105
>implying that overflow isn’t just washing one’s hands of how the finite emanates from the infinite in a way that preserves the immutability of the infinite
>implying Vivartavada isn’t more coherent then Parinamavada
>>17040190
Shankara refuted Jainism

>>17040040
OP...

>>17040040
For fucks sake

The world and mortals were made to enjoy God, not the other way around.

>>17040335
Deficiency - from Deficit = lack.
Who gives does not lack you utter imbecile. Look at the level of people here twisting logic and the meaning of words. God creates the world and beings because he is perfectly free and he creates out of pure freedom because he is so transcendentally good we cant even say he is good since his Goodness surpasses what good is.

>nothing personell kid

>>17040105
>>17041668
Is the platonic emanation of the One willed or not? If not it is not out of freedom, if it is not out of freedom the One is not good nor powerful. In this way it is exactly like the duality of Brahman-Maya and we have no justification for the providence, goodness and purpose of the world.

>>17040190
>If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did he not make creation wholly blissful free from misfortune?
He originally did

>And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created. If you say that he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?
>If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free
>If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless.
>If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him?
>If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material, then it is just his will and nothing else
>If God created the world, where was he before the creation?
>If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man, so what advantage would he gain by creating the universe?

these are really dumb

>>17040040
>What sort of perfect transcendent being has a *desire* to create anything? Isn’t he perfect in himself?
God's desires are perfectly pure - they come from a place of overabundant goodness. You're projecting your fallen human *desire* onto Him, which comes from a place of inadequacy. Totally different.

God is infinitely good and generous, a hidden treasure who wished to be known and to share himself. There's no pettiness in any of his desires.

>Jains, buddhists
>all desire is bad and negative - perfect beings have no desires
Their worldview can't account for the creation of the world either and they misunderstand the nature of desire itself, something they obsess over...ironic.

>>17042052
This^
Become Christian. Because pagan, atheistic, eastern and neo-spiritual movements are dead and cannot save anyone.

>>17040040
OP please post the optimized jpg

>>17040329
>thomism
i hate hindus and i hate this more

>>17040054
Thanks, I needed the laugh

>>17042052
>Their worldview can't account for the creation of the world
No shit, because it isn't created. Go read a book.

>>17041912
>The Bible says...
Retard.

>>17042228
Are you seriously suggesting that the Jews didn't have the entirety of how the world works figured out in 100BC?

>>17042228
>world not created
they can't account for that either, they can't account for any ontological or fundamental question, they just make a bunch of assumptions and then reach wrong conclusions.

>>17042242
they weren't given the entirety, they were given the basics and how to relate to God, and even then they rebelled and shamed themselves, just like modern atheists/agnostics do today who have even more resources available

>>17042228
>The Bible says...
uh how is not the fall also common in other main religions?

God with the world is greater than good without the world.
Fuck off Gnostics.

>>17042279
>God can be improved with this one simple trick!
That's actually kind of gnostic and unbased, careful.

>Create imperfect human
>Judge and punish for imperfect decisions
Top kek

>>17042278
Because it shows up nowhere else. It's not in Hinduism, it's not in Chinese Folk Religion, it's not in any European religion, it's not in any African religion, it's not in any Mesoamerican religion. "The Fall" literally only shows up in Judaism, where it is a corruption of pre-Jewish Semitic (ultimately deriving from Sumerian) creation myths.

>>17042249
Sure they can. The Vedas uses the same logic to explain the eternal (cyclical) nature of the universe that the Torah does to explain the created nature of the universe: it says so. The Vedas says the universe is uncreated, therefore it is.

An argument from a non-Westerner as to the eternal nature of the universe would fall on deaf ears, so instead I'll just direct you to Aristotle (specifically in his Physics and Metaphysics) who argued that the universe was eternal and uncreated.
>b-but muh five ways
Aquinas argument for a created universe is not Aristotle's. Aquinas argues that Aristotle was wrong, as he was a gentile. The Torah says that the universe was created, therefore it was. It has nothing to do with logic (Aristotle's arguments for an eternal universe address Aquinas' arguments for the correctness of the Torah).

This is, of course, why Aquinas said that philosophy was ultimately a worthless endeavor, but that's neither here nor there.

to be perfectly loving he needed something to love

>>17042306
>"The Fall" literally only shows up in Judaism, where it is a corruption of pre-Jewish Semitic (ultimately deriving from Sumerian) creation myths.
Read Plato, please.

>>17042306
>The Vedas says the universe is uncreated, therefore it is.
uhhh no, sweety you made an oopsie. There's only One uncreated and He doesn't change nor has dependencies. The universe undergoes change and dependencies. The vedas isn't the Bible.

>>17042317
Trinity solves this retroactively.

>>17042306
>>17042404
The hindu myth is literally that all souls were all originally perfectly in union with God but die to ignorance began to identify with characteristics and knowledge that was the opposite of god pulling them into maya. It's far more similar to Plato's Phaedrus than the Christian fall. What are you guys even saying?

>>17042306
>>17042228
Whatever is created is changed/altered, specifically from non-being to being, a beginning just like time, forever moving forward, precisely, in time and being. God's Wisdom/Mind is not within time, it does not undergo this change/alteration, it is eternal and eternally contemplates its Eide (that are in the world/phenomena). To deny creation is to deny time-space phenomena, it is to deny God's Wisdom/Mind and His transcendental Goodness and the whole Reality. It is likewise absurd to say that there is no creation in the point of view of God since he eternally contemplates Himself/His own Mind ''processes'' of Knower-Known-Knowledge for the created world is not outside Reality, without which it could not exist, it is sustained by It.

>>17042479
Retard. You take Biblical account of the Fall as literal and the platonic account as allegorical. The Biblical Fall implies literally detour from God and Divinity.

>>17042479
Oh also
> began to identify with characteristics and knowledge that was the opposite of god pulling them into maya
A maya, unwilled, that comes out of brahman itself. It was already shown exhaustively how at least in most Vedanta schools Brahman-Maya duality is impassable.

>>17042512
Those apply a ignorance from man and identifying with wrong knowledge. Judeo idea is not using knowledge incorrectly but daring to acquire the faculties of knowing knowledge. Yes I know Christian mysticism interprets the falls as the first but it's still the fundamentally different story between the three.

>>17042531
I should say that you are right that the fall exists in every culture, and that the Jewish interpretation is probably just their incorrect way of interpreting the true story.

>>17042531
>>17042524
Sorry writing all my thoughts cause I have to drive 6 hours.
It seems to me the two ideas of view are in the pagan (hindu, platonic) idea is that of ignorance vs being deceived. I suppose you could argue that due to them having sex after eating the fruit man choose to identify with something away from God and therefore the fall began, did the fall begin when they ate the apple or did it begin when they committed the first sin? This seems like a fundamental understanding to knowing the abrahamic fall, and I don't know the mainstream Christian answer for this. If the fall happened because the acquired knowledge that would be a completely unreconcilable story to the other two, which I hope you could obviously see. If they ate the fruit and then committed ignorant sin and then fell then they would be basically identical stories between the three.

>>17042531
>>17042546
Absolutely retarded. Seriosuly, why do you feel entitled to speak anything of Genesis without the least basic knowledge on the subject? Have you studied any kabbalistic text on it? Kabbalah goes over this repeatedly through their theoretical and also purely linguistic methodology.
There was never acquistion of something (knowledge) they did not have prior to the Fall, but a confusion of knowledge (confusion of good and evil), being the final concealment (Fallen world), a process of kabbalistic theosophy. Adam had Chokmah, Wisdom, before the Fall, he named all of God’s creation. Names, language and all its constituents in general, are considered sacred and reflective of God and His own Divine Name in Jewish tradition, I don’t think you ignore this. Philo wrote about it too. Read, anon. Read.

the fall is not about ignorance, it is about pride. that pride in which creation longs to have the faculty to judge right and wrong, which belongs solely to God.

to take the fruit as knowledge is a brainlet take that no theology 101 student commits. get your theology right

>>17042692
How the fuck is kabbalistic understanding "basic knowledge of genesis"?

>>17040040
This why no one cares about Jainism

>>17042082
Not OP but here you go

>>17042279

God with not God is a greater good than God alone? Answer carefully.

>>17042723
Adam's Chokmah is inferred from literal passages in Genesis:
Gen. 1:28
>and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen. 2:19-20
>And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.

A basic knowledge (knowing how to read!) would suffice to correct your nonsensical and misleading individual conceptions of the text.

>>17042744
Normalfags are too weak for Jainism

>>17040040
>i pray not for the world
>i have overcome the world
>the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me
>the flesh profiteth nothing
>Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

>>17042306
>Because it shows up nowhere else. It's not in Hinduism, it's not in Chinese Folk Religion, it's not in any European religion, it's not in any African religion, it's not in any Mesoamerican religion.
you are talking about things you don't know. the fall can be traced in the beliefs of all traditions, especially mesoamerican, as mircea eliade showed. they all started with a monotheistic belief too.

>Be God
>create Adam and Lilith from the same mud
>Lilith starts acting up
>send her away to get repeatedly raped by angels
>create Eve from one of Adams ribs
>Eve starts eating the one thing I told her not to eat
>kick them both out
>never return any of their calls

Why couldn't God make Women?

>>17042058
>Become Christian
Never. Your Jew-worship is what is ruining this planet

>>17041395
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>17040060
We first have to decide if we believe in God, our only tool for that is our brain.
If I knew God exists I would accept that his will is mysterious but since I do not know that, all contradictions make it seem more likely that he is an invention by imperfect humans making logical mistakes.

>>17042854
>send her away to get repeatedly raped by angels
Come again?

>>17041579
>Who gives does not lack you utter imbecile.
From having a desire to give that indicates a lack that must be filled.
>he is so transcendentally good we cant even say he is good since his Goodness surpasses what good is.
Word salad

All desires are forms of suffering

>>17042895
He did not desired, He freely willed creation into existence. It was an act of free will.

>>17042894
Didn't he put her under the watch of a few angels who repeatedly sodomized her until she birthed the first demons?
Then Lucifer saved her and took her to hell with him as his own personal demon farm.

>>17042932
Thought that was what gnostics said about Eve?

>>17042929
If he had a will to do anything this indicates that there was something that he did not already have, indicating a deficiency

>>17042844
No, he didn't. You should read Eliade. The Fall is something fundamentally different from, say, the Mesoamerican creation myths.

>>17042404
You should read Plato. Start with Lysis.

>>17042479
They have no idea what they're talking about and are regurgitating memes they barely understand.

>>17042952
he did explicitly mention the fall in the mesoamerican belief in the book "the quest". the creation myths contain lost/degenerate bits about the fall, they also degenerate into a deus otiosus state, as eliade calls, when material benefits become the priority, then agricultural deities are inserted. all longing for the sacred is due to the edenic nostalgia, as he puts in "sacred and profane" and other writings, that is the reason he calls man "homo religiosus". it all presupposes a fall from the edenic state.

you sure you read eliade?

I don't believe in creation ex nihilo

>>17043024
Don't worry, that is the same idiot who every time appears in threads like this one saying 'Start with Lysis' when it is clear he never read Plato himself (Lysis is not even the best dialogue to start with Plato). He was confronted before and expressed his lack of knowledge about Plato and platonism. See how he retorts against our posts grounded on real sources, we regurgitate ''memes''. Yes, reading is a meme to these people.

>>17040190
>the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all.
I agree, it's just that the option (creation, having sprung for no inherent reason from the uncreated one, is inherently good on its own, and for no particular reason) makes even less sense

>>17043024
What Eliade is talking about is fundamentally different from the orthodox Christian notion of The Fall. In particular, Eliade's fall does not have to refer to a literal historical event (in the notion that the orthodox Christian notion of the Fall does), whereas the orthodox Christian notion of the Fall is a literal explicitly historical event. Additionally, the orthodox Christian notion of the Fall explicitly rejects the idea of any commonality with Mesoamerican or non-Jewish understandings of the fall. This is not to discredit the ideas of Eliade, or anyone else, but rather to say that Aquinas would have rejected the idea of the Mesoamericans having any fucking clue what was actually going on for the same reason he happily picks and chooses through Aristotle.

>>17043078
This is the first time that I have told someone to read Plato on this board. I did so because Lysis is "chronologically" the first dialogue, and in the Western philosophical tradition has been the first dialogue to start with since Plato's time as it is not only the first "chronological" dialogue but also the easiest to start with as it introduces the Socratic method, Socrates general goals, etc. You may disagree with 2.5k years of Western philosophical tradition, and that is fine, but your personal opinions are not those that have been held by 2.5k years of Western philosophical tradition.

I put "chronological" in quotations as while Lysis is one of Plato's earlier dialogues, we can't be sure what order he wrote any specific one within the various periods in with any degree of certainty (it would make sense that he wrote them all chronologically, starting with Lysis ending with Statesman, but we know that to not be the case).

Have you considered that the reason that people frequently present you with the same suggestions is because they know what they are talking about, and you do not, and that there is something that you are missing out on? Perhaps you should read Plato to find out what these people are talking about. When people tell you to "Start with the Greeks", they mean that you are supposed to get off of /lit/ and go read books in real life, not just think that the Greeks are cool.

>>17043154
>Statesman
Excuse me, Laws*. Polite sage.

>>17043154
the point was not whether the fall is historical or just ontological. the point was that the fall exists in all traditions and is not an exclusivity of the bible for that anon to call me a retard. was it not? yes, it was.

>>17043248
No, the point was on Aquinas' belief in the created historically finite nature of the universe. Eliade's thought is irrelevant, the Fall is not found in all cultures, Aquinas would agree with these two statements.

If you disagree, that's fine, but that is unrelated to the Aquinas' thought, and the discussion of a created vs uncreated universe.

>>17043282
on the contrary, aquinas would have agreed with me. my contest was against the point
>If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did he not make creation wholly blissful free from misfortune?
in this response i mentioned He originally did
anon responded with anti-biblical anger
i said the notion of the fall is not exclusive of the bible although it (the bible) is the final revelation

>>17042895
>>17042950
Trying again for the last time. Willing out of freedom is not desiring out of necessity. A Free-Will is a freedom of will to do anything. God is perfect and He still chooses to dispense His perfection and goodness onto other beings.
God loves Himself, God wills Himself, but loving Himself and willing Himself, God wills His own Goodness and thus he creates and gives to His creation.
>word salad
What is in those words is that our conceptions of Good is not what the Good of God is, it is ontologically superior to it.

>>17043309
Neither of the posts I responded to were discussing this. Did you respond to the wrong person?

>>17043445
see

1 >>17041912 me
2 >>17042228
3 >>17042278 me
4 >>17042306
5 >>17042844 me
6 >>17042952
7 >>17043024 me
8 >>17043154
9 >>17043248 me
10 >>17043282
11 >>17043309 me

i brought eliade up because anon was disregarding the concept of the fall

>>17043154
>Have you considered that the reason that people frequently present you with the same suggestions is because they know what they are talking about, and you do not, and that there is something that you are missing out on?
>>16745544
>>16576680
>>16865081
>>16972847
You can see that all of these were lack of any real argument. Two of them were replies to posts of mine: one of them arguing about how there is no dualism in Plato and the other one showing how Feuerbach's misinterpretation of Platonism was crass. Do you still think that I am the wrong one?

>I did so because Lysis is "chronologically" the first dialogue, and in the Western philosophical tradition has been the first dialogue to start with since Plato's time.
Wrong.
Most platonists regarded I Alcibiades as the best dialogue to start with Plato.

>You may disagree with 2.5k years of Western philosophical tradition
I'm actually following Iamblichus's curriculum.

>Perhaps you should read Plato to find out what these people are talking about. When people tell you to "Start with the Greeks", they mean that you are supposed to get off of /lit/ and go read books in real life, not just think that the Greeks are cool.
Heh. Go ahead and follow your own instruction.

>>17043589
>>17043481
could you fuck off back to /x/ if you're going to just spam garbage?

>>17043154
>the orthodox Christian notion of the Fall is a literal explicitly historical event
Yes, but don't forget it is also symbolical, allegorical with ontological, cosmogonical, cosmological and epistemological foundations. For most christians and jews there is no separation from the phenomena and what they represent or what underlies them. This is something your materialistic mentality still cannot apprehend.

>>17043589
Start with Lysis.

>>17043154
>the orthodox Christian notion of the Fall explicitly rejects the idea of any commonality with non-Jewish understandings of the fall.
Wrong again, read Origen, Philo of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, Augustine, Bonaventure, Eriugena, Gregory of Nyssa. The difference from some of these conceptions and the platonic Fall is that there is no difference between the historical event and the metaphysical/theological implications.

>>17043615
Are you the internet sheriff?

>>17043589
>this autistic weirdo hangs around the board shitting everywhere
Well now I'm just going to shit on morons like you for having not read Lysis.

>>17043635
yes. hands in the air, varmint!

>>17040040
>What sort of perfect transcendent being has a *desire* to create anything?
me

>>17043651
based

>>17043860
>>transcendent
>>me
no

>>17042753
Bless you, king.

God is not ashamed to have desire. humans see that God is perfect and needs nothing because they are fearful of their own condition and fearful that God would be as they are. he has no problem being content and needy at the same time. there is no one to judge him and no one to make fun of him for it. no one can harm him and therefore he does not mind being vulnerable. he is already perfect, he will now become imperfect so that he may fulfill all things.