You are God.
You are Omnipotent. Paradox free.
What is the most fucked up, mind bending thing you can do?
exist while not existing
alternatively, not exist while simultaeously existing
though god is beyond the dichotomy kek
>>486059
I reveal a religion to some desert genitalia mutilating fucks.
making rape morally good
This thread is blasphemy. Please delete it.
Be worshiped and boast my ego from it
>>486059
stop being god, become a regular dude
Be my own son.
>>486059
troll mankind by giving them visions of the spiritual world, but make it different for absolutely everyone
Contact a tribe of goat herders and tell them what part of the ass I want.
>>486059
make rationalists scientist the most delusional of all gods creatures
nothing
>>486059
Send people who eat pork to eternal suffering
>>486152
/thread
>>486152
wow
>>486074
It's just criteria for entering his immortality club so he can change it to whatever he wants
create myself
>>486152
kek
>>486059
Tweak the fundamental structure of the universe in order to retroactively make my prior actions perfect.
Make all Athiests and Agnostics aware of my existence via obnoxious psychic messages.
Then smite apple.
>>486370
While simultaneously regularly setting up events that make all religious people question god's existence.
Stir the pot of belief
>create intelligent beings
>create environment for them with limited resources
>watch them throwing shit at each other
>he he he
>>486059
>What is the most fucked up, mind bending thing you can do?
modal realism.
If cum isn't in a vagina it immediately turns into lava.
>so sayeth the Lord
>>486059
Give mankind free will while I still possess absolute knowledge of the future.
>>487421
>The GreatCondomLobby War of 324,647 B.C.
>The Puberty Breeding and Extermination Campaign of 1999 A.D.
I have no conception of an intelligence existing beyond the confines of physical law through which an intelligence derives experience. If I was a mind in a cold black timeless void then I wouldn't do anything.
>>486059
Beget myself prior to being begotten-OH WAIT.
>>486059
I'd honestly create life forms, give them free will and then sit back and watch the crazy stuff they get up to over the millennia.
If things got boring I'd stir the pot a bit by adding a natural disaster every now and then, or creating a fanatical religion that inspires people to do crazy stuff.
You have to admit Human history on fast forward(if your immortal it wouldn't matter) would be pretty entertaining
Create the Universe
Id master the concept of time. Stopping it and starting it at will.
First i'd just do simple stuff like tripping people, then move up to divine intervention in battles to subtly influence the fabric of human history
in fact just being able to start and stop the flow of time would make you a god on earth
Send my son down to earth and make him perform miracles that actually happened for dubious desert bandits. When people doubt the authenticity of these tales light them on fire after they die for all of eternity.
Style points for the look on their face when I tell them I have infinite love for them.
>>487395
>modal realism
> Lewis backs modal realism for a variety of reasons.
> First, there doesn't seem to be a reason not to. Many abstract mathematical entities are held to exist simply because they are useful.
Damn, It was that easy.
>>487954
Modal realism makes anime real. I believe it.
>>487601
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams
>>487440
Free Will 2016
He did nothing wrong
>>487673
rekt kektd
shitpost on /r9k/
>>486059
am I bisexual too?
>>486059
> start the universe by doing crazy shit like creating super massive black holes and solar systems
> create a sentient species of bald apes
> let one turn his staff into a snake
> bump the brakes on the miracles as the apes develop a more sophisticated scientific method
> stop miracles/prophets completely as soon as recorded history becomes more reliable
I'd also make sure I'd never have 2 or more prophets at a time with the same message in geographically isolated areas. You know, because I want people to think I exist, but not know that I exist.
Make a good thread on /his/
>>488020
Use powers to make people who doubt my existence on /his/ and /pol/ get hit in the face with a fish.
I create a religion that is the most violent in the world but also the religion of peace.
>Create humans, let them live and evolve for awhile
>Suddenly perform miracles for various groups based on whatever societies they form
>Make double sure there is video proof of these miracles
>Tell each society to murder the rest
Fireworks.
>>488033
They'd trade proofs and figure out your game plan sooner or later
Create humans with the ability to discern right from wrong and a religion that goes against basic morality just to test them out and see if they are able to truly follow the hearts and logic they have been given or if they are naive enough to blindly follow a book that holds values of hatred just to earn a paradise...
>>488080
> implying basic morality is beyond god
>>488080
>religion that goes against basic morality
the fuck?
I'd make a God thats better than myself to govern the real universe, and then I'll create my own fantasy universe and chillax. I'll occasionally go say whats up to my God bro, and maybe shake things up in his universe a bit for kicks.
>>488080
What the fuck is your special definition of morality?
>>486059
Refuse to remove evil from the universe.
>>488175
This is so stupid. It doesn't take into account that God is all wise and may have a purpose for the evil.
>b-but it hurts my feelings and He should get rid of it now ;_;
He has a more refined morality than you, fuck off with your feminine emotional arguments.
>>486059
Create something more powerful than me.
Give proof of my existence to ONLY the people who don't believe I exist.
>>486059
Cease to exist.
>>488168
First you have to prove that circumsions are inherently harmful--then, you actually have to provide a definition for morality and how this violates it.
Pro-tip: you *probably* cant
>>486152
fuck
>>488287
>prove that circumsions are inherently harmful
technically, cutting off your earlobes isn't going to kill you
but they're probably there for a reason.
Fedoraposting aside, make Escheresque structures in random placed
>>488293
That doesn't answer the question of why it's morally wrong, or what morals it violates anyways.
Isolated tribes all across the world tattoo and cut at their bodies, and they're living the same way they have for thousands of years. Who are we to tell them they're wrong?
>>488287
>you *probably* cant
you probaly, kant
>>488149
What's yours?
>>488304
Some isolated tribes have been practicing human sacrifice, ritual cannibalism, and female circumcision for thousands of years.
Who are we to tell them they're wrong?
For that matter, why do so many people look at male circumcision with blithe apathy or celebration and yet recoil in horror when it happens to a female?
>>488318
I don't
>>488327
You just blew yourself the fuck out m8, and proved my point. We can't tell them they are "wrong" unless we have a universal truth, a universal moral that they are violating and need to stop doing. You still haven't provided what that is, either.
I'm not trying to be edgy, its just that this is quite subjective.
What's good to one man is damning to another and vice versa.
>>488334
You're not a mind reader, so you don't know whether people are intuiting radically different moral beliefs. What's your evidence for morality being subjective other than amateurish observations about apparent disagreements? By that logic, just about everything is subjective.
>>488187
>le god works in mysterious ways ;^) argument
If you can't actually define a reason for God to allow evil then don't claim one exists.
>>488334
I don't need to provide an example of universal truth (A = A) for it to be obvious that human sacrifice and cannibalism are objectively wrong.
Unless you're arguing that there is no universal truth and mass murder is ok if some random group of people believe it to be so.
Simple ignorance of the truth does not disqualify it's actual existence, and it's not subjective in the slightest.
>>488339
ok fag
>>488340
>what's your evidence
You telling me male circumcision is wrong and me saying it isn't.
>>488357
You're only saying that because your parents mutilated your benis and you don't want to accept you're carrying round damaged goods in your underwear.
>>488357
I tell you God exists, you tell me he doesn't. Therefore, the question of whether God exists is a matter of opinion.
Welcome to Circumcision argument General /cag/ #1423
How did this thread out of /b/ and onto /his/ edition?
>>488372
OP here.
My apologies. I usually make more insightful threads.
>>488356
If everyone were allowed to murder, society would fall apart. Certain birth rates need to be established in order to keep one functioning, etc etc.
But, what if, there was..murder sanctioned by the society? Murder that, in everyone's minds, stopped being murder? Like..human sacrifice! Sure dying sucks, but hey, we get a better harvest! Gotta do whatcha gotta do!
Or genital mutilation. The list goes on and on. If your society hasnt literally fallen apart, then whatever arbitrary rules you decide to make up to keep things running smoothly, like circumcision or scheduled human sacrifice, aren't wrong. Your society could be ran in a more """humane""" way, but if you win out amongst your competitors and these weird rules and customs are just a part of your daily life and culture, its not wrong. It's a part of your society.
It's only right or wrong when someone in power decides it is. Like, missionaries from the old world to new world Indians for example.
>>488372
It clearly as quite a lot to do with religion and barbaric rituals with their roots in ancient history.
>>488385
I didn't say it was. You said our disagreement is evidence of subjectivity. It's only evidence of disagreement.
>>488391
Your question was asking how did I know morality could be subjective, that's what I was responding to.
>>488384
Yeah but sometimes a an uncircumcised penis looks like an ant eater. Did you ever think of that? I doubt you did, try to think more about this stuff.
>>488394
Well, now you know you had a bad reason for thinking that way. If you want a respectable anti realist position, go read some Blackburn.
>>488400
No, I don't. I took you to school and now you're trying to not appear like an idiot by giving me reading recommendations.
>>488402
If by "took you to school" you mean made a fool of yourself, I agree.
>>488396
Hopefully you wouldn't chop an anteater's nose off for no reason.
>>488405
All I'm seeing here is someone claiming morality couldn't be subjective, getting explained that it could be, and then claiming they were right the whole time. Unless I've missed something big in these last couple posts of yours, I am definitely correct in my reasoning.
>>488413
You're confusing me for someone else. I'm criticizing your amateurish argument against moral realism. I don't care what that other person thinks about circumcision. Your reasoning is definitely not correct, it's shitty philosophy.
>>488413
But you don't have a foreskin so your reasoning is probably faulty.
>>488382
>human sacrifice isn't wrong
you heard it here!
There is no wrong or right, do whatever you want to do so long as society doesn't collapse. Go ahead and make fun of your prostitutes, dangle juicy steaks in front of hungry hobos, and pour all your chocolate milk down the drain. It doesn't matter cause society will just carry on, you can do anything because morality doesn't real!
>>488418
My reasoning is definitely correct. Morality is a spook and doesn't exist at all. I've rekt you in this argument.
>>488430
Neither am I.
>>488429
So why do you think sacrificing people is good?
>>488442
I live in a society where it isnt, and personally I think that tribes that do sacrifice other people ought to stop. But I don't have a good reason why it should be outlawed other than something emotionally based.
It could be pretty economical, if you think about it.
>>488450
There is nothing necessarily wrong with basing morality on emotions.
I'm with the morality is subjective guy in this thread.
What he says makes a lot of sense to me.
Child marriage is still practiced in rural India and people don't find it harmful at all.
People only stopped doing it in cities because the people in power forbid it
>>488468
Exactly. That's why there is nothing wrong with skinning women and making them into a costume.
Morality is whatever you feel like doing.
Kill yourself and end the cycle
>>488429
>Morality is real, its just that what's right and wrong varies.
You don't know what you're talking about
If objective morality is real, right and wrong are universals.
If they are not universals, then morality is not a universal and such cannot be real in the sense of a unified entity with actual significance outside the arbitrary whims of men.
Just because some cultures may consider genocide to be morally righteous doesn't mean it is true.
The truth is not a matter of opinion.
I don't care if a child thinks stealing is acceptable because he want's to have something that doesn't belong to him. He simply does not understand why it's wrong.
You aren't even arguing about morals, you're trying to insert economics and pragmatism into a realm where they have no power whatsoever.
>>488462
>There is nothing necessarily wrong with basing morality on emotions.
So if I personally feel as if murder, theft, rape, and perjury are morally acceptable, then it is the case simply because my emotions make it so?
You're delusional. You might as well say that 2 + 2 is 5 cause even though you got the math OBJECTIVELY WRONG you still feel as if you're right, and that's somehow good enough.
>>488483
>A bad thing, definitely.
that's just like, your opinion man.
Your opinion doesn't matter because everybody gets to decide what is morally permissible. Who are you to tell him he's wrong?
>>488490
Morality isn't objective, that's the thing
Morality, what is and isn't right, is totally determined by individual groups. Religions can attempt to tackle this issue but it doesn't change the fact that what some people on one half of the globe believes is good and righteous is totally abhorrent to some people on the other half of the globe.
I have not once ITT argued for a university morality existing.
I still haven't seen the truth defined here. You said genocide isn't, but what about the countless Amerindian tribes that were totally wiped out? Indians were still all over the continent and surviving, reproducing, and living off the land like they always had been.
The only economics I brought up are the economics of sacrifice, everything else though, no. You wouldn't go through the trouble to fulfill a tradition because its economical (circumcision?), you do it because your society thinks its right.
>>488483
>Randomly? Without reason? A bad thing, definitely.
I like how I look in a woman costume. No homo.
>>488511
Jesus Christ are you retarded?
If you re-read all of my posts ITT, you would see I have not argued, not once, that everyone gets to decide what they want to do. Quite the opposite actually. Societies at large decide what happens and why.
>30 AD, Roman Provence of Judea
Hey guys! Obeying the sabbath rules are stupid! Fuck all that shit, I'm gonna run around and work and collect firewood and do all the stuff I'm not supposed to,!
>get stoned to death
The sabbath breaker in this instance was acting immoral, and his society dealth with his dissidence in a manner consistent with their beliefs. And their society still stood.
Understand?
>>488529
Great, now convince your village elders why you should be able to do this and get approval from your shaman or something.
>>488356
Another anon here.
The only reason that we find it obvious that human sacrifice and cannibalism is wrong, is due to the fact that we were told that by our society.
If we were growing up in Tenochtitlan, human sacrifice would be a universal truth, and good. Maybe it would even be an honor.
Saying that other cultures is doing something "wrong" because we find it so, is saying that we are better than them because we are smarter and more developed. That kind of thoughts/ideas has throughout history led to more "wrongdoing" than any other ideas.
>>488519
You aren't talking about morality, which is by definition an objective and universal system.
Furthermore, if you assert that we have no truly objective measure by which we can judge an individuals actions, then you have no grounds upon which to denounce the actions of a murderer or a war criminal because he is simply operating under a different but somehow equal moral code.
>it doesn't change the fact that what some people on one half of the globe believes is good and righteous is totally abhorrent to some people on the other half of the globe
You ever consider the possibility that maybe one of those groups is incorrect? Remember in middle school how sometimes they separated you into groups to work on a problem, and some groups didn't get it?
That's what is happening. Some people are just wrong.
>haven't seen the truth defined here
I don't have to detail the truth to simply assert it's existence.
>>488534
>Societies at large decide what happens and why.
So how many people have to decide something is right for it to magically become moral? Two? A thousand? Where's you're arbitrary fucking line?
Get good kid, you're not ready for this yet.
>re-read all of my posts ITT
this isn't reddit you dip, we're all anonymous and I can't tell which ones are yours.
>>488506
Plenty of cases throughout history where murder was morally acceptable. Just not in our society.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Oh, yes, it's because you are a devoted christian, and murder is wrong in the christian faith (10 commandments) .
Growing up as a viking, with Norse religion, murder was the only thing that could get you to "heaven".
>>488550
>more "wrongdoing"
but that's just your opinion
the ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans was a perfectly acceptable moral outcome in the eyes of the European settlers, who are you to dispute that.
Think about it from God's perspective, perfectly objective, all seeing and all knowing.
You think he doesn't have an opinion on this? You think your opinion is as good as his?
>>488575
Why would one group be wrong? They're utilizing their resources effectively enough to continue living and reproducing. They're doing just fine. They're only "wrong" if the other group from the other half of the globe trots on over and convinces them to stop their practices under threat of death, in this scenario anyways.
>morality is by definition objective
Prove it.
>where do you draw your arbitrary line?
Wherever its naturally drawn jackass, societies exist in different numbers so that, much like morality, varies.
In a tribe it could be 300. In a western nation it could be 50 million.
>get good kid, you're not ready for this yet.
I can feel my neckbeard growing in just reading this, Jesus Christ m8 if you can't address my points properly just come out and say it, don't get all cringey about it.
>I can't tell what your posts are
By following the chain of replies it should be easy.
Ya dip.
>>488575
>That's what is happening. Some people are just wrong.
I finally get it. This guy is fucking stupid. A poor Amarifag with no money for university. He gets his truth by reading facebook posts and /b/ clickbait. He knows nothing about history and humanities, and i will ignore him from this point.
>>488550
The Tenochtitlans had different descriptive beliefs about human sacrifice and reality in general which would logically have led them to behave in different ways. You don't know whether they had fundamentally different prescriptive beliefs from us solely on the basis that they practiced human sacrifice.
>>488587
>but that's just your opinion
That's my fucking point.
>>488577
You assume I believe myself to be in possession of the knowledge of moral truth?
You assume I'm a Christian? Fucking sophomore.
I don't have to possess explicit knowledge of the truth just to know it exists, in the same way that I might not know the sum of 23488593045 and 1284509347520304004 off the top of my head, yet I still know that there exists a correct and certain sum.
>>488593
kill yourself
>>488600
your point is retarded and you should feel bad about it.
>>488591
>naturally drawn
fuck you name it
>chain of replies
WE ARE NOT IN AN EXCLUSIVE DISCUSSION
PEOPLE INTERRUPT ALL THE TIME GOD DAMN IT
>Why would one group be wrong?
HAVE YOU NEVER SEEN A GROUP OF PEOPLE DO SOMETHING REALLY STUPID
DO YOU THINK LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE ACT RATIONALLY
HOLY SHIT ALL YOU FAGGOTS ARE RIDICULOUS
>>488628
I should clarify, explain why the other group is stupid for doing what they're doing
>>488628
it would be a waste of time
>explain why the other group is stupid for doing what they're doing
When two groups hold diametrically opposed positions on moral truth, there are three options.
Either group A is right and group B is wrong, or A is wrong and B is right, or both A and B are wrong. In my opinion it is the third option that is most often the case in human affairs.
It is literally impossible for them both to be right, given the fact that their positions are diametrically opposed.
That's it.
>>488628
>what if they come to the same consensus
so you're ok with a group of people deciding to skin a baby and wear it's skin as a hat, but if it's just one guy somehow that's wrong?
that's bizarre.
>>488652
No, what if the village leaders (who hold sway over the rules and decisions of the tribe) decide that it's okay for a guy to wear a baby as a hat so long as it doesn't affect birth rates needed for the tribe or something else to upset the balance.
>>488644
You don't understand you stupid cunt, if they are two groups on separate sides of the globe then WHY DOES IT MATTER WHAT ONE OF THEM DOES?
If they don't affect each other whatsoever, if it only concerns their society where its okay, if they aren't even AWARE of the others existence--why does it matter?
>>488662
Ok, so you're fine with a group of people skinning a baby alive if their leaders tell them it's morally right?
Just want to be clear on this.
fuck my ex's life up
yeah, i'm that shitty right now
Make an infinite number of distinct and perfect self copies.
Create that which is neither "Nothing" or "Something".
Square Circle.
Arm wrestle myself and win.
Achieve a state distinct from and trinary with those states of existence and non-existence, and then do it again.
Infinite divine harem.
Just chill.
Seriously though, my imagination isn't good enough for this.
>>486059
>What is the most fucked up, mind bending thing you can do?
Create a quantised universe with an irrational, non-terminating, non-recurring value central to its properties.
>>486081
Jesus did it (apparently)
>>486059
an existence where there is no limit to the fucked up-ness of mind bending things I can do.
>What is cultural (or prbably moral) relativism?
>>488616
Haha, keep fighting the good fight my man. I swear I shave a year off my life every time I argue with relativistfags
Re-nature a denatured protein.
>>486152
god apparently browse 4chan
create a stone so heavy that I could not lift it.
>>486059
Just to fuck with people, I would make myself all loving, and then I would let evil still exist.
>>488018
>no miracles
>what is Lanciano, Turin, Sokółka
>>486059
give myself multiple bodies and then just fuck myself constantly
A = not A
This isn't a contradiction
>>486059
Invent a printer that doesn't jam.
>>490961
Adi brahma pls
create a paradox
>>486059
>let there be light.
>>486059
Absolutely nothing
>>486059
>What is the most fucked up, mind bending thing you can do?
Make humans just smart enough to improve their own lives but not smart enough to work on leaving this planet.
: ^ )
>>486059
Make up a statement which I can't prove.
>>486059
Make a round triangle.
>>486084
... and kill yourself.
I mean your son.
But this son is you... and some kinda spirit, too.
>>487673
Beautiful.
>>490937
>being this butthurt
>>486059
i would cerate 4chan
>>486069
Make a rock so big I can't lift it.
>>493485
>/THREAD!
>>486059
Take my own powers away permanently.
>>488468
>people don't find it harmful at all
How the fuck do you know? I bet a lot of children suffer because of it, maybe even at a magnitude higher than we suffer from adult marriage in our societies.
And yeah you can ask them, but there's no way to accurately measure their utility vs. a hypothetical world in which they were not child married.
imo there is moral truth because in any one instance, there is some hypothetical course of action that achieves an optimized set of experiences. Obviously this moral truth is a human construct that refers to material truths, and obviously a perfect epistemology is impossible, but we can get close and by doing so reduce suffering.
Any other opinion consequents in nihilism, intentionally or not, and is a shitty idea for grad student memers.
Create chuck Norris. Slap him like a bitch.
>>486059
make i have no mouth and i must scream into being for all of humanity
