>>695162201
Oh but he can if evil only gets power from
Him.

Get the fuck out of here, Snyder

File: then why call him god.jpg (198 KB, 1595x895) Image search: [Google]

198 KB, 1595x895

>>695162201

God created Satan on purpose, out of boredom.

>>695162201
Dumb quote

File: 1467697380306.jpg (36 KB, 500x375) Image search: [Google]

36 KB, 500x375

>>695162201
And who says god is all powerful? Who says he created us? What if he is just a powerful ascended humanoid with compassion for others.

>>695166203
So then, what exactly created us? Or if he's a humanoid demigod, what created him?

>>695162201
I liked this Lex. I don't know why people hated him so much.

>>695166451
Science

>>695166477
They say because he deviated from the comic book Lex too much.

>>695162201
Why did they make Luthor such a cringey autistic fag?

if god created man, who created god?

>>695166694
Oh well I'm not a comicfag. I just thought it was an interesting take. And no one will ever beat Gene Hackman's interpretation so may as well switch it up.

>>695162201
>believing in god
cucked

>>695166627
Shitty answer/10

File: Capture.png (560 KB, 605x442) Image search: [Google]

560 KB, 605x442

What if God's a nigger.....

>>695166734
Because it was different and pretty interesting. Did you really wanna see someone try and copy Hackman again?

File: 1466172695965.png (2 MB, 1263x1600) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 1263x1600

>>695166451
Dude listen,what if if doesn't matter how we came about? Think about that shit. What if the here and now matters, I know crazy right? What if all that matters is how you affect others. And the huge expanses time that faggots claim things happend over are just bullshit, and they don't really know.

Yall who belive that God exist are stupid

File: Screenshot_2014-07-28-11-12-06-1.png (198 KB, 443x397) Image search: [Google]

198 KB, 443x397

>>695167070
But seriously what if God and science could coincide? Mainstream beliefs are always either or.

>>695167204
no it wasn't interesting. he sucked. why copy The Hack Man when you can GET The Hack Man?

anyways i'm pretty sure Jaden Smith is gonna be the next Lex.

>>695167458
becasue one is mental illness

the other is based on reason and evidence

File: bait.jpg (28 KB, 497x501) Image search: [Google]

28 KB, 497x501

>>695162201
>assuming god is good.

>>695167458
I always wondered that. I think that it does in certain ways.

File: yrkgd.jpg (44 KB, 320x300) Image search: [Google]

44 KB, 320x300

>>695167560

File: 1468347390711.jpg (131 KB, 1710x840) Image search: [Google]

131 KB, 1710x840

>>695167458
What if we evolved and god is just a being that evolved into a super powerful force that cares about intelligent beings and helps them with the power he can spare.

Opinions on Batfleck?

>>695168129
Good. I think he pulled it off pretty well.

File: Stop_Jack_Black.jpg (29 KB, 283x283) Image search: [Google]

29 KB, 283x283

>>695167560
But that isnt lex luthor,its his son.

>>695168629
Whose name was also Lex Luthor so what exactly is your point?

>>695168508
He was a whiny prick that started a potentially apocalyptic war over his tower getting smashed. Not to mention his criminalistics ways during the movie.

>>695168129
I am not a fan of Assflek but I think he did ok.

>>695168014
Right on.

>>695168629
Kek, this.

>>695168755
**Lex Luthor Jr.

>>695166477
Because Snyder (or the studio execs) decided to try and cash in on the popularity of the joker by making him a now cookie cutter "insane" villain

The thing that makes Lex threatening is that he is the kind of person that you would WANT to rule and follow. He is the very picture of a brilliant traditional strong leader, and very capable of doing so.

This new Lex is like a twiggy cartoon character

>>695169203
>This new Lex is like a twiggy cartoon character

More like a typical /b/ fag

File: 1449413170380.gif (498 KB, 500x281) Image search: [Google]

498 KB, 500x281

>>695168947
So we're required to type out his full fucking name every time? No. Fuck you.

File: image.jpg (261 KB, 1224x1445) Image search: [Google]

261 KB, 1224x1445

>>695169544

>>695169203
All that makes sense but it didn't make him any less entertaining. I mean it's not like this movie closely followed cannon anyway so why not have fun?

>>695164103
Epicurus was an ancient greek and had no concept of "God" as a singular all powerful all good entity

that's christian

>>695167245
I mean, it's mainly an argument against other people who spend their lives trying to convince others that God dictates every aspect of their lives. Not people who don't really care either way.

>>695170015
It seems like a valid point, but I'm sure there's a loophole outnumbered there somewhere.

File: 2016-05-10-11-22-56--465937200.jpg (6 KB, 245x205) Image search: [Google]

6 KB, 245x205

>>695162201
If there is a god. If he was all powerful. He/she/xe/it/fish/idk would transcend all logic of us humans so our logic doesnt apply to it

>>695170436
This.

>>695169747
But it's setting up the cinematic canon of DC for years to come. The Lex as depicted in, say, the JLA cartoon is much more interesting and isn't a take that's been done in movies before either. Now we're stuck with this character who's ironically more cartoony and over-the-top than the actual cartoon character.

I feel he was too much like the kooky Gene Hackman Lex as well, just more "edgy" and jittery. You look at this character and can't understand why he's such a prominent public figure when he's such a spastic loon, even when he's speaking in front of a crowd.

>>695168629
His father's dead. So I'm pretty sure he's just meant to be THE Lex Luthor.

>>695171077
That faggot is doing some type of meta trolling. Just ignore him.

Can someone explain to me exactly what Lex's goal(s) was?

>>695170811
Again I get what you're saying, I just don't care about canon. So that's where the dividing line is, I suppose.

>>695171448
I don't really care about whether the movie is sticking with comic book or cartoon canon. I just used that as an example.

The thing is, this is the only cinematic Lex we'll have for a decade or more. And he's just stupid, and "edgy". It's frustrating because there have been many more interesting depictions of this character and his relationship with Superman. It's not about what's "canon", though. Comic-book canon is ill-defined to begin with. It's about what's more interesting, what makes a better character. And I feel they chose the least interesting depiction they could have.

File: God_11b24c_1394521.jpg (83 KB, 400x600) Image search: [Google]

83 KB, 400x600

>>695169203
But hes not, He wanted superman dead at any cost, because he thought he was evil. (he was)
He has emotional problems because of his abusive father and hes horrible with crowds.
Doomsday was his final attempt at killing superman. Because superman is evil.

>>695171755
Some people just take superhero movies more seriously than others. I'm not knocking you. Just different strokes.

The ones that believe in god are either childish or evil.

Childish: They cling too much to a father-figure; that's why all those black guys wear christ neckleces. They needed something to fill the void when their daddy ran away.

Evil: They do not believe in equal rights. They deem others and grade them unworthy or worthy, it's all because of that they must believe there must be something greater.

Yet they fail to consider: we're the closest things to god ever. And that's not faith; it's common fucking sence.

>>695172334
I wouldn't have to take it all that seriously to be bothered by a poorly written villain. A good villain is part of the basic joy of watching a superhero movie, and they botched him by making him uninteresting and annoying.

I'm stating this on a purely surface level, not even anything deeper or based on my knowledge of the series at all.

Like I said, this has nothing to do with canon. This is about taste at this point, really. It's not that you take superhero movies less seriously than me. I mean, you probably do, but that's not really the issue. You just have shit taste in movies. BVS was a bad movie for more reasons than one.

>>695172198
>But hes not, He wanted superman dead at any cost, because he thought he was evil. (he was)
Comic Lex saw Superman as a threat to human progress. Why would humanity ever try and improve themselves when they have an unstoppable god very obviously there and solving all their problems?

>He has emotional problems because of his abusive father and hes horrible with crowds.
Comic Lex had issues, but he focused them into willpower and kept them to himself like a goddamn adult

>Doomsday was his final attempt
Doomsday was his own villain with his own backstory. The fight between Supes and Doomsday deserved its own film, and instead turned into a rushed few minutes.

>>695169747
It made him less entertaining because he wasn't Lex Luthor, the charismatic genius criminal mastermind.

He was some cringy beta autist who with a stutter

>>695169531
And the original Lex was anything but.

>>695172725
>sence

Kek

>>695172198
>hes horrible with crowds.
I think that's one of my biggest problems with this Lex. He should be charismatic. His derangement was so transparent in that scene where he's making a public speech.

But he should be a beloved public figure, just as much as Superman. That's what makes Superman's battle against him so complicated. His code prevents his from just murdering Lex, but in anything else, it's his word versus Lex's.

I forget where it was from, but I remember a scene from a cartoon or graphic novel or something where Superman is just talking to Lex, and Superman makes the point that if Lex were just willing to work with him, they'd both be able to fix all the world's problems. Superman has immense power, but Lex has greater influence. Together they'd be unstoppable, and the tragedy is that Lex won't.

I feel that's what makes Lex interesting. He was once just a crazy mad scientist and criminal mastermind, but I feel when he was changed into a powerful businessman, that's when he became an interesting character and unique challenge for Superman rather than just an evil villain.

Hell, Jessie Eisenburg might have even still worked. But really, his character and performance in the movie should've been more The Social Network's Mark Zuckerburg than Batman Forever's Riddler.

>>695172950
Yup. I stopped reading after that. Hard for me to take him seriously

>>695165733
>>695166477
>>695165733
>>695167899
>>695168755
>>695169544
>>695169855
>>695170811
>>695171077
>>695171755

UNDERRATED THREAD

>>695172950
Kek?

I understand i didn't type it correctly, but don't make fun about it, we're not little autistic kids here that have nothing better to do than laugh at eachother.

You're all fags

File: CL_Pastors_Dont_Even_Try_small_936654784.jpg (41 KB, 331x221) Image search: [Google]

41 KB, 331x221

>>695173363
In the movie it had already been made clear that superman had battled and killed lex already. Thats the main problem I have with what your saying. I agree with it but this is not lex this is lex jr. Sorry, but quit being a faggot,I know u wanted the real lex,I wanted him to. But the luthor we got is not shitting all over luthors name because hes his son. It might have been a lame cop-out so they could make a luthor how they wanted him but it still makes sense.

>>695162201
God is everything
>>695167899
checked
>>695170015
you can destroy anything that is created

File: image.jpg (23 KB, 200x219) Image search: [Google]

23 KB, 200x219

>>695173979

>>695173979
>newfag detected

>>695173979
2/10 for making me reply

>>695174028
>In the movie it had already been made clear that superman had battled and killed lex already
Uhh, no...

The reason why he's Lex jr. is because the company is called Lex Corp, yet he's too young to have created it himself. Therefore, he's the son of the man who originally built the company (but Jr. was the one who brought it into the modern age and made it truly lucrative), who also had to have been named Lex for it to be called Lex Corp.

He's THE Lex Luthor of this series. They made him that way because that's how they wanted to depict him.

There's no way they would have just glossed over Superman's battles with a different Lex Luthor. And have absolutely no mention of it.

That's just retarded. And nothing in the movie even remotely suggests that's the case.

File: 1468526053283.jpg (4 MB, 4032x3024) Image search: [Google]

4 MB, 4032x3024

>>695174068
Energy cannot be destroyed,it exists always it changes but never goes away. I don't care about god but the basic elements cannot be removed.
Im not op btw.

File: 1467093789596.gif (2 MB, 902x695) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 902x695

>>695162201
I do not understand those who use the bible as a moral incentive to be a good person. The bible or any other religious text. Muslims will be killed for apostasy. God will punish you for not believing in him. The stories in the bible are truly awful. I mean, Abraham was about to kill his child because of his commitment to God. Religion can be a deadly poison to humanity, because when someone is doing a horrid thing, thinking they're doing a good thing in accordance with their belief, it is not only delusion, it is utter insanity. I'd hope people would want to be good because they're good, not because God could punish them for being bad or any other religious influence.

>>695174590
Honestly, that just sounds like a theory so that DC movie fans can hope for Bryan Cranston or something to show up as the "real" Lex Luthor.

Just wishful thinking, really.

If God created time, then God exists outside of time and cannot have a beginning or an end.

>>695167690
this anon gets it

>>695170169
I feel like now days it's more that atheists are trying to convince you that God doesn't exist than religious people trying that he does.

File: 1465306337380.jpg (56 KB, 465x635) Image search: [Google]

56 KB, 465x635

>>695174590
He says it in the movie. Its there,maybe you should re-watch it.

Somebody screen cap this thread. /b/ actually has a somewhat civilized and respectful thread.

>>695175156
That's just a matter of perspective, I suppose. I deal with enough religious zealots in my daily life that it often feels the opposite. But that's just in my life.

>>695170015
well shit, stop making me think anon

>>695175308
You're just trolling at this point. Lex's dad died before Superman even showed up.

File: 8decc54da1ba168ae25a65e9b8ea3bb694315064b5c3bca90b36fdd90cb77c00.jpg (44 KB, 600x300) Image search: [Google]

44 KB, 600x300

Tell me ¿do you bleed?

>>695175436
True, I guess it just depends on where you live and who you meet

If everyone just praised Xenu this wouldn't even been a discussion.

>>695174620
so you don't believe energy was created?

File: face of mercy.png (41 KB, 144x143) Image search: [Google]

41 KB, 144x143

>>695175493
Yeah He said his dad died in the movie. And that superman killed his father.

File: Jain-symbol-explained.jpg (48 KB, 552x446) Image search: [Google]

48 KB, 552x446

>>695162201
GOD cannot exist, for an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent deity would be perfect and have no need to create imperfect things or play games

the universe could not exist, therefore, if GOD exists and neither could lesser beings like us

the inescapable fact that the universe exists and that we exist therefore excludes the possibility of GOD

if the perfect deity would exist, in order to create things and other souls, it would have to become imperfect, in which case it would cease to exist, which would be an impossibility, also

also, GOD would have to manipulate the various creations to bring about change and people suffer and living things suffer and matter degrades. GOD could not allow such things to happen, else he would be cruel and capricious, which a perfect deity cannot be, so the god of the universe could not be GOD, but something else?

these things are not possible and are contradictory. the perfect deity would have no desire to do anything and no need to become imperfect

the universe exists, time, energy, space and matter exist and so do we. therefore, GOD does not

the jains settled all of these matters sufficiently for themselves using such pure logic perhaps 10,000 years ago before western india became desert and india became india

theism for man has earned for him nothing but discord, unhappiness and death and is a false path. understand this, contemplate the nature of existence, live accordingly and prosper, live long and peacefully

File: 242.jpg (44 KB, 383x700) Image search: [Google]

44 KB, 383x700

>>695175818
Yep, energy is the basis of everything. I cant not exist.

>>695175746
Kek

>>695176036

more.

>>695176036
But this is making many assumptions about God. Isn't God meant to be outside of human understanding and therefore its actions and reasoning cannot be comprehended by humans?

>>695176506
that is the only flaw in that argument

as time progressed, humans put gods farther out of reach, until now. where god is 'outside of the human realm' there is no way to prove the existance of god when people's hearts stop and they are revived. they claim to see nothing.

>>695170015
he is the hero weeaboos deserve

I hope a god or higher power does exist. Fuck just dying and that being the end of everything.

>>695176947
Are you kidding me? That sounds amazing to me.

>>695167356
this should be enough *believe

>>695176947
What does a higher power have to do with an afterlife? They're neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive.

>>695177277
Why?

he's god is that enough?

>>695176947
If the Christian God is real, I'm going to hell. I haven't even done anything all that bad.

>>695177446
That's the final rest we have. An eternity of consciousness, even in a place as great as Heaven, will eventually be torment. Ceasing to exist? There's no chance of pain there. There's no joy, but no pain.

If we could have Heaven but choose to cease existing after a certain point, then sure, that would be great. That's not exactly implicit in the concept of Heaven, though.

>>695176266
and after you die?

>>695177308
Because the afterlife relies on the concept of a soul while if science is to be believed we are just biological machines and our thoughts and conscious are created by chemicals and electrical impulses not a soul.

>>695177734
what if after we die there was only joy and love, i.e. heaven, only there was no such thing as memory and so every moment we experienced this ultimate joy was new, therefore we were never 'tormented' by it?

>>695178017
Your biological functions stop when you die and you cease having a consciousness. You still exist, you're not no longer "working". The energy and matter that make up your body remains in the universe and is gradually redistributed by natural processes.

>>695177505
But hell might not be that bad Satan could be a fun guy. If satanists are to be believed he would just let you do whatever you want.

>>695178187
That doesn't mean there has to be a god for us to have souls.

I don't think there is a god, and I don't think we have souls, and I don't think there's an afterlife, but any one of those concepts could exist independently of the others. We might have souls but not be created by a deity or have an afterlife to look forward to. We might have souls and an afterlife, but no god. And we may have a god, and a soul, but no afterlife.

I suppose "higher power" is a vague term, but it generally refers to a deity or group of deities. That's only one of those concepts.

>>695178287
Maybe that's the case. But why would it be? If our soul is our consciousness, why would the way our consciousness and memory work change just because we're in Heaven?

File: 1400346256759.jpg (20 KB, 233x217) Image search: [Google]

20 KB, 233x217

>>695162201
literally the most retarded shit i've read. You base this theory on the assumption that powerful=evil; you have absolutley no basis or context to support that, and even if you did, how can you compare it to something a grand as a "god".

>>695178312
so you don't think there is any inherent 'energy' in our consciousness. i don't mean our conscious processes, or our elecetrical impulses or anything like that. i mean our consciousness as a noun.

i think this is the fundamental difference in though between religious / spiritual people and athiests. the idea that the basic requisites for life = a form of energy.

>>695178599
because they're no longer bound by the physical laws we are currently ruled by?

File: body electric.jpg (54 KB, 363x640) Image search: [Google]

54 KB, 363x640

>>695176506
not according to logic, which like mathematics, supercedes all things

GOD, as the perfect deity, cannot be made unperfect by human reasoning, or else is not GOD, individually necessary and jointly sufficient for existence

if you posit an imperfect deity, it is not GOD; if you posit a perfect deity with flaws, it is not perfect, both of which are logical contradictions

the supreme being that is postulated in the old testament and in many other revealed gospels and mythic beliefs is deeply flawed, frequently surprised, capricious, insecure, jealous and veangeful--in short, a reflection of its creators.

it is not GOD and frequently meets the criteria for a demon in persia-judaeo-christian cultures

GOD, being perfect, could not only not create something perfect, it would have no need to create at all

since the physical universe exists, and since we exist, GOD cannot

this is the purest and the simplest of logic and it is simply error to believe otherwise

>>695167458
Right, just like how fairies control gravitry.

Actually, how about we don't mix fairy tales and science. Because one is based on observable and testable facts, while the other is based on faith, and believing in it without evidence. There's no reason to connect god to science. Science is doing just fine without it.

>>695176643
That "only flaw" destroys the entire argument.

I don't understand this atheist boner with claiming an all powerful god MUST be all good.
You know, an all powerful being could create our universe just for shits and giggles, we could be just a toy, we could be created only for the god to watch us burn it all down.

The God of Christianity, for example, is under no obligation to keep everything marshmallow and rainbows down here. He may care about us, but what purpose would our lives even serve if he railroaded the entire thing to never go bad.

We're not entitled to being coddled by a higher power, and that doesn't suddenly make a god not exist just because he's not "all good".

>>695178797
I feel like when someone tries to create a human whether by cloning or some other means we will get the answer to whether we have a soul or consciousness. If the created human does not work then there must be more to us than just meat and bone.

>>695179505
So you have disproven God as a perfect being. How about any other versions of god?

File: 1468166857026.jpg (41 KB, 560x375) Image search: [Google]

41 KB, 560x375

>>695179686
In other words, if God exists, he's a sadistic fuck playing The Sims.

/thread

>>695179505
No but that's my point God is meant to be outside of our logic and understanding. So as soon as an assumption is made based on human logic, science or reasoning the argument is irrelevant as God supposedly does not follow those laws. I know it's kinda a cheap argument to just say 'God does not follow the rules deal with it' but from my limited knowledge of religious texts that is what he is made out to be.

>>695162201
But this is where you dun goof'd
God is god. He can literally do and be anything. Including nothing. Arguing about god is like arguing whether I exist in 2, 3 or 5 dimensions.

I don't know. And I no longer care.

>>695179598
>theories
>observable and testable facts

Nice one anon

>>695162201
you fucked up the fucking quote, or maybe your source did, but that's why it's stupid.

Here's the real one, by the ancient philosopher Epicurus: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

>>695179801
a perfect deity, GOD, would not have imperfect versions as a perfect deity would have no need to create imperfections or even create anything at all

all of existence disproves the existence of GOD therefore

if you postulate a stronger being with advanced abilities, it is that only and not GOD, which is an hindu conception and also one shared by mormons in their view that god is some sort of stronger angel and that men can become angels and start their own creations

none of which is GOD

believing in and following strong leaders is one thing, but if you start worshiping them, that is another

a perfect deity, GOD, has no need of worship or worshipppers, being perfect and no need of any creation, since all creations are flawed

other human conceptions of deity postulate flawed superhumans or beings, which by definition are not worthy of worship or being called GOD

the logic of the jains and their belief system strips all of this away and lays bare all existence, which IS real, so they may focus on bettering themselves and living properly

>not one single jain caused war in all of human history, although sometimes buddhists and hindus got upset with them and their 'truth'
>buddhism grew out of a fusion of jainist ideas against the backdrop of evolving hindu religion
>jainism also has influenced certain ascetic sects within hinduism
>amongst the longest lived, peaceful and educated of all people
>when belief in deity is stripped away, all you have left is honest human existence lifetime after lifetime
>belief in a deity or deities is unnecessary in order to live fulfilling, productive and honest lives and actually would be a hindrance
>jainism survived the collapse of the indus valley civilisation and its precursors, a testament to these facts

>>695170015
Can hfdk destroy doob that kleet cannot blurp.
Your question can literally be stated this way because all you're doing is writing letters or speaking words.
it is an utterance that has no meaning. "God creating a rock he cannot destroy" has no more meaning than "God creating a unicorn that does not have a horn"

>>695180830
TL;DR your question has no answer, because its nothing more than gibberish

>>695162201
If a cup is not man, a cup can't understand what it is to be man. But man can understand a cup, because the cup was made by man.

>>695180242
logic is not a human 'invention' anymore than mathematics is a human 'invention'

it is a property of the universe and existence, discovered by people

you cannot unmake mathematics to try and prove the existence of different 'versions' of mathematics either

postulating the existence of something you cannot understand and cannot exist is just so much mental masturbation and a desperate act that rebels against the simplicity of a basic truth

the judaeo-christian god is not GOD and GOD cannot exist according to logic because the imperfect universe exists and imperfect beings also exist within it

>>695180477
/thread

>>695179505
logic does not supercede all things. it is nothing like mathematics.

logic is subjective, mathematics is objective.

You can't pretend to understand "god" like he is relatable. He isn't. We can never be similar to any absolute "god" figure at all. We are, in fact closer to being the opposite.

>>695181199
Mathematics are only as reliable as the human who presents their result.

>>695179767
or it will work in some areas and be completely defunct in others.

it could live and breathe but be incapable of empathy. it could learn by monkey-see-monke-do but be incapable of complex arithmatic or creativity.

can't wait, bring on the clones. probably safer than AI.

>>695181440
Monkeys already exist, dipshit.

>>695162201
Can god create an object he can not lift up?

>>695181426
exactly, so logic and mathematic might as well be out the fucking window because humans are imperfect.

>>695162201
God is both good and powerful. There is no contradiction in that statement.

>>695181625
You're implying god is likewise an object. Ignorance level is over 9000.

>>695181618
oh shit you're right, thankyou for enlightening me and also for your valuable and insightful contribution to this thread.

>>695181199
>logic is subjective

are you rebelling against logic, which is a branch of mathematics in its purest form, or are you somehow rebelling against acknowledging the fact that a perfect deity, GOD, would have no need of becoming imperfect in order to create anything?

we see two things and two things only: beings and the physical universe. both of these are imperfect, therefore a perfect deity, GOD, could not have created them and as a perfect deity, would have no need to.

this is the simplest argument in the universe and the one that is at the very core of existence

belief in other things, imperfect deities and entities is all very fine and well and beings superior to us probably exist and we may become such beings or have existed as them in the past, but none of these is GOD and none of them could possibly be GOD

imperfect beings can wage war, be capricious, demand obeisance and create all manner of things, but they are not GOD and neither are we

we may create AIs and imbue them with existence of sorts, that does not make us GOD and it does not make the AIs beings, since we are just moving matter, energy, space and time around and recombining it in new ways

GOD is incompatible with the existence of the universe and incompatible with our existence

>>695181426
but mathematics itself IS perfect

1+1 can never equal anything but 2 in any and all universes

GOD cannot be imperfect.
the universe is imperfect and flawed
we are imperfect and flawed
therefore:
>GOD did not create it nor us
and:
>GOD cannot exist

>>695181091
That is what God is meant to be though, a being that defies the universes laws.

>>695181984
Lol. Ur sum.

The only thing imperfect about us is that we fail to serve a purpose or serve it incorrectly. The misshapen cog.

>>695182166
Lol. Using something simple and pure to prove another thing complex and potentially false. No soup for you.

>>695182166
Why can a perfect being not create something imperfect. Theoretically a perfect being could create whatever they desired and so what if they desired an imperfect world. How can an imperfect being like us even know what a perfect being is? We only know what we have experienced and seen and the knowledge passed on to us by others, but none of us have experienced a perfect being so how could we hope to understand that which we have no knowledge of?

>>695181440
Yeah I hope I'm alive when they start doing that shit it will be so interesting

>>695162201
>Implying that "good" is determinable to an objective degree.
>Implying that "God" exists in a way that human beings can understand.
Revisit these assumptions, and you will find that it is impossible to frame this statement without resorting to tautology.

>>695182694
Already covered this.

"The only thing imperfect about us is that we fail to serve a purpose or serve it incorrectly."

>>695162201
Only a sith deals in absolutes

>>695181984
your entire argument rests on baseless assumptions you have made. i am 'rebelling' against both of those assumptions.

logic is not a branch of pure mathematics. it is completely subjective and indeed philosophical debates about logic rage on today as they always have. logic stems from man, which you have already admitted is imperfect. that is why logic is subjective and should not be referenced in discussions regarding objective truths such as 'does X exist'.

as for God being a 'perfect' being.. why should he be? perhaps God realised he wasn't perfect and fractured himself so that he could study himself, and God is inside everything that he 'created', and everything that God 'created' is imbued with the same drive for creation as he was, and so we keep creating so as to learn.

and even if he is a 'perfect' being, why should he not create a world that YOU deem 'imperfect'? perhaps this perfection has been fragmented by the illusion of separation, when actually everything in existence is truely God at it's core. perhaps the universe we live in IS perfect, and we just can't see that it is because we aren't God.

my point is that if it was as easy to figure out as applying 'logic', which is apparently as reliable as mathematics now, we would have figured it out already. which you haven't, so stop pretending you have.

File: downtime.jpg (56 KB, 720x480) Image search: [Google]

56 KB, 720x480

>>695182304
>a being that defies the universes laws

which is of course an impossibility

you are trying to think of something that cannot be thought of, to create something that cannot be created and to lift a weight that cannot be lifted

this is sophistry, which is like using your mind to chew bubble gum--it is exercise, but goes nowhere and yields no product

GOD as a concept, would be the perfect being
as a perfect being, GOD has no need, desire or drive to produce anything, which would require imperfection
to interact with such a creation, GOD would also have to become not omniscient, not omnipotent
since he would be looking at this creation, he would also have to become not omnipresent

to be god, GOD would have to become NOT-GOD, which would be a contradiction

the universe exists and we exist within it; there is no GOD and does not need to be one and, by logic, CANNOT exist

1 - 1 = 0

you validate your preconceptions by invalidating your preconceptions in order to prove the existence of something that cannot exist and should properly not be the focus of religious enlightenment

When you decide to admit you're not an atheist, you'll find there is lots of support on more intelligent websites for those seeking happiness and family.

>>695166203
yay

>>695183192
I've been staying this stuff in less than a paragraph. Too long winded and not enough research to come to a bullet proof conclusion.

>>695183192
How do you know what the perfect being is and what it would do? You would have to either be a perfect being or to have met one, both of these according to your own arguments are impossibilities. Your argument has nearly as many holes as the big bang theory and Christianity.

>>695183192
>this is sophistry, which is like using your mind to chew bubble gum--it is exercise, but goes nowhere and yields no product
Pretty sure chewing bubble-gum yields pleasure to those chewing it. Who are you to define what a "product" should be?
>to be god, GOD would have to become NOT-GOD, which would be a contradiction/
the universe exists and we exist within it; there is no GOD and does not need to be one and, by logic, CANNOT exist

You're almost there, but not quite. You're assuming that the contradiction inherent in *defining* god is tantamount to proof of the *non-existence* of the concept. Not the same thing.

You're not wrong, though - you're just not right either.

>>695183060
>does X exist

1. the universe exists and is self-evident
2. we exist and this is also self-evident
3. GOD as a concept is GOD

the first two premises are true, the second is a basic assumption and as a concept renders thusly: only GOD would be worthy of worship otherwise you would be worshipping lesser beings as GOD, which would be a false belief

using logic, GOD could not exist if premise 1 and 2 are true

premise 1 and 2 are true, are self-evident and eminently provable

therefore: GOD cannot exist

whatever other being(s) may exist and claim to be GOD is therefore false, as well

please do not overthink this, but quietly consider it before rebelling at the purity of these thoughts

any being who acts capriciously, demands total servitude, creates mayhem and leaves other beings at the mercy of a deeply, deeply flawed creation is not worthy of affection, worship or consideration

general zod comes to mind

he is also not GOD

the veangeful desert baal postulated by the ancient semites is also not GOD and is therefore also not worthy of veneration or consideration

so what exactly are you trying to defend here?

>>695183608
Attempting to understand something in ununderstandable is pompous and ignorant. This thread exists because OP has solutions of godhood.

>>695183661
Lol at the basic "appeal to logic" fallacy. Yeah, I took English 101.

>>695183841
if god is imperfect, it cannot be GOD

do you agree with this much?

>>695184057
Yeah. Chyeah, rrright.

Chhhhhyeah, roooooight.

>>695180208

The satanic religion does not believe in the existence of satan himself...

...your picture made me giggle nonetheless

>>695183834
Each argument of yours has the same flaws as the last. You look down on those who blindly follow there God yet blindly follow your own beliefs without acknowledging their own flaws. What you propose is a possibility sure but is it a certainty, no.

>>695184170
God would have to be perfect by a physical standard. Being that god is not physical, perfection or imperfection do not apply. That was jesus' place in the Bible. Man's place in religion is submission or insubordination. Not perfection or imperfection.

File: CHAOS2.jpg (320 KB, 1680x1050) Image search: [Google]

320 KB, 1680x1050

>not believing in the ruinous forces of chaos

>>695183834
>the universe exists and is self evident
my own personal, subjective experience is the only proof i have of the universe existing.

>we exist and this is also self evident
i agree, true dat. but i could be God with amnesia, or i could be God in a coma dreaming up this whole fucking universe.

and those two 'truths' you have posited do not in any way show that God cannot exist. you didn't address half of the points from my previous post.

i think you and i must have very different definitions of 'God', and you are imposing yours on me and trying to get me to defend it. all i'm defending is my right to choose my own beliefs. beliefs being something i choose to think is true regardless of an inability to prove it. you're doing that too, and i respect your right to do that.

actually i'm not trying to defend anything because i don't need to defend anything that i openly admit is impossible to prove either way.

i'm just trying to show you that you don't actually know what you're talking about, but i think i give up on that too.

thanks anon, this has been stimulating.

File: image_9.jpg (63 KB, 667x645) Image search: [Google]

63 KB, 667x645

>>695181727
But isn't he? If he exists, he must be something. If he doesn't exist the case is clear. But for real now, if a deity like god for example exists, which is almighty, all knowing etc. Than is god an object or something else. Sorry for being this stupid but i can't comprehend the concept of something this powerful as god is suppossed to be. It is kinda like nothingness which i also can not completly comprehend. My actual question was also not meant to be ironic. I really wonder if a almighty entity could create something to contradict itself.

>>695184579
You'll never persuade anyone of anything unless you summarize your arguments.

>>695184170
Yes, but how do we define what is perfect and what is a flaw?

>>695184057
Do you think that any appeal to logic is a fallacy? You have had poor teachers to let you think that. Logic is what a message is saying, how much sense it makes. If you don't think it makes sense, you need to say why - you can't just call it a fallacy by saying it's an appeal to logic... how else would one make a logical argument?!

>>695184668
A cup can't comprehend the man who made it.

>>695184816
Lol. Use of "any" is also a fallacy.

>>695184705
i was kind of going somewhere with that, but i realised halfway through that i didn't care to persuade him either way.

thanks though. could you follow what i was talking about anyway?

File: images(2).jpg (5 KB, 114x160) Image search: [Google]

5 KB, 114x160

>>695184528
>Not beliving it the one true God of chaos Malal

>>695167245
>is a mongoloid

>>695162201
>good and evil are human concepts.
god is beyond the realm of simple human consciousness.

>>695184816
Appeals to logic are false in a deus ex machina debate.

>>695184489
you are appealing to a revelatory scripture and not accepting logical argument

please consider this premise:

IS GOD PERFECT?

IS HE:
>omnipresent
>omniscient
>omnipotent

if he is not all of these things, then is he GOD?

if he is outside the universe looking in, he cannot be omnipresent

if he has created something imperfect, why would a perfect being have any need to create imperfection...or anything at all? would the perfect being need validation, or amusement, or any sort of strife, or enemy? these are all games conditions, and to be a player means you are not omniscient and cannot know everything.

then he would not be omnipotent, either, since others could counter his moves.

all of which would require GOD to be NOT-GOD.

File: HailTaxi.jpg (82 KB, 502x960) Image search: [Google]

82 KB, 502x960

>>695184833
Yeah, i get that. But if god exists, why would he create something in his imagine as the bible states but declines these beings the ability to be all knowing themselves. What purpose does our species have if we're basicly an imperfect copy of something perfect? Why would anything want to create something like us?

>>695175389
This used to be one out of five

>>695185251
Who knows

File: 1456513776935.jpg (99 KB, 480x640) Image search: [Google]

99 KB, 480x640

>>695184966

>>695185567
>Who knows

but that's the whole point of this thread, to reason and to reveal the truth, which is in fact knowable

>>695184896
Well, in most cases, if it's an attempt to generalize by type. But there are existential statements, usually a form of definition, that are necessary for any logical system, if you're going to use one. I think you really think you know more than you actually do, and that's good for your self-esteem, but you might be expressing a certain level of ignorance. It's a good idea to consider the possibility that you're wrong, and really give things some thought before dismissing them.

>>695184988
It seems like you're just labeling this as some "type" of debate instead of actually dealing with the arguments therein. It's meaningless to just dismiss something by calling it a label and then saying that you can't argue that. That makes you just as ignorant as someone saying that their version of god is right and all others don't understand because it's not the right label. Logic is only possible if you're dealing with premises and conclusions, and you're dismissing a premise out of hand without considering its possible validity. That's not logic - it's circular reasoning.

File: 1466219049159.jpg (151 KB, 777x728) Image search: [Google]

151 KB, 777x728

>>695185567
>>695185723
That is exactly why i struggle with the concept of god itself. Because it is not provable but relies on so many factors that no side of the coin is right. If god exists, he surely is mighty enough to hide from mankinds perception so we can't get a grip on his existence but if god does not exist the whole debate is pointless unless you argue that human imagination itself is strong enough to atleast develop a concept of god to cling on. Not trying to proof either side, but if we take the phrase "god is inside all of us" into record, one could argue that god didn't create mankind but mankind created god. And that is something i also don't understand. Why would one want to believe in a deity which might or might not exist in the first place. Why even bother? If god exists, he clearly doesn't want to be discovered and if he doesn't exist there is no point in looking. And what if mankind would stumble upon god? Could we even comprehend what god is, even if we have absolute proof, not just belief, that he exists?

>>695185723
We do not know what is going on in each others minds we don't even truly know what is going through an ants mind so how could we know what was going on in a supposed all power being when he apparently created the world. Secondly people on /b/ arent going to be the people who suddenly solve the mystery which has plagued our minds for well over 2000 years. Thirdly I would argue that rather than hypothesise we get some actual evidence for or against a higher power. So let's start off with proving/disproving the existence of a soul. Who would like to campaign against cloning laws or illegally clone a human in their basement?

>>695185251
>>695185251
to learn.

anything that's smart enough will eventually realise that 'perfect' can't exist while there is still dynamic interaction and change. 'perfect' is dead, because to reach perfection a thing has to reach a point of permanent homeostasis.

and this can't be 'perfect', because it excludes life and change. so God get's confused (because he is alive and imperfect) and creates life out of himself to figure himself out.

or otherwise God is 'perfect' but non-existant, and instead of God creating life, athiests are born.

>>695162201
That's fucking retarded logic. Relative Moral/Ethical practices/beliefs are completely independent of raw ability.

File: Sons_of_malice_banner_3.jpg (289 KB, 535x800) Image search: [Google]

289 KB, 535x800

>>695185638
The sons of malice will rise

>>695167201
Stfu ed sheeran

>>695186777
nice heavenly trips you got there

>>695162201

that's a stupid argument. you can't state anything like that. why can't god be all good? the problem with this (broken) classic argument is that it involves judging god and god, by definition, can not be judged.

hey, i just found out that at age 39, i have a credit score of 0. that's sweet. i'm just like any 18 year old before their first credit card. it just happens when you have no debts for a long enough time. if i got a credit card, it would immediately jump to the 500s or something.

File: jains.jpg (22 KB, 306x230) Image search: [Google]

22 KB, 306x230

SOURCE JAIN ARGUMENTS

Did a Creator make 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 creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now?

How could God have made this world without material? If he made this first, and then this and this, you are faced with endless regression. If this raw material arose naturally you fall into another trap, for creation thus would be its own creator, and have arisen naturally.

If God created by an act of will, without raw material, then everything is only the will of God?

If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, contrariwise, he isn't perfect, how could he create the universe?

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

If he is perfect, what advantage would he gain by creating the universe?

If you say that he created to no purpose and only his nature to do so, then God is pointless. If he created as sport, it is a child's game ending in troubles.

If he created because of pennance, then he is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something else

If out of love for living beings and need of them he created, why did he not make creation wholly benign and good?

If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free--nor almighty.

Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God implies a great sin, in allowing slaughter of what he has 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.

.....

Perhaps, instead, the physical universe endures under the compulsion of its own nature and we, along with it, as observed.

And this, perhaps, is a starting point for building wisdom.

>>695186517
>Secondly people on /b/ arent going to be the people who suddenly solve the mystery which has plagued our minds for well over 2000 years

but that is just an assumption on your part, since people do reason to conclusions and accept or reject the existence of godhood based on such reasoning...every day

this is a basic argument of existence and people do solve it logically to their own satisfaction and to those of others and perhaps there is great wisdom in just considering such things and not picking up weapons to force obedience and prove dominance instead of arriving at conclusions without undue coercion

>>695186595
>or otherwise God is 'perfect' but non-existant, and instead of God creating life, athiests are born

which is how i ended up accepting i must be an atheist

question: if god had to create creation in order to 'figure himself out' then was he god to begin with or just perhaps an advanced being who used as a lab experiment in a petri dish of creation?

does this really sound worthy?

>>695162201
Hey is that iDubbbz?

>>695188182
just an advanced being i suppose. and if he created me then his essence is in me and the best chance i have of not repeating his mistakes is to figure myself out, not to look outside of myself.

he is no less or more worthy of my love and devotion than i am of my own love and devotion, but that makes no difference to me because i believe God is in everything.

>>695187575
congratz on your credit score. is it relevant to the thread or did you just feel like sharing?

>>695162201
Define goodness from a Gods point of view. If one exists, I bet the timescale and importance of individual humanlife differ to our perceptions of them.

>>695188618
>just an advanced being i suppose. and if he created me then his essence is in me and the best chance i have of not repeating his mistakes is to figure myself out, not to look outside of myself.

so...you believe he is just an older and more advanced being, who 'blazed' a trail for others to follow out of the universe of troubles

therefore...not the creator of the universe he has to extricate himself from, but a guide of sorts, a guru--

--and not god?

>>695170075
Wow, you really dun goofed there. Ever heard of them jews?

>>695189080
the jews are seriously conflicted here

re-read the old testament sometime because god comes across a lot like a demon half the time

christianity was a vast improvement on that at least

Imagine every observer in the universe as an end-point.

The universe is what the observer imagines it to be.

Since each observation is informed by empirical data, the state of consciousness can be considered the logical outcome of experiencing one's own existence.

There are all sorts of data: EM waves, physical waves (sound), chemicals (olfactory senses), touch (ionic feedback) - even data stored in DNA, acquired through genetic transfer.

All of these make each life a unique and complete experience of the universe.

However, each life can also be seen and understood from the objective perspective, and because each moment in a life can be understood as the sum total of all collapsed wave functions of quantum uncertainty, it could be recorded to some degree by an observer outside the spacetime continuum - just moments "ahead," so to speak.

In this sense, we can understand "god" as not a separate consciousness or personality, necessarily, but the total of all totalities: the Aleph-Null of all collapsed wave functions of all conscious minds at any one moment.

We are co-creating god as we are experiencing ourselves subjectively, and yet within each of us is the awareness of a greater consciousness.

"We are the blossom, and we are the branch" (I think it was the Dalai Lama, but google isn't telling me).

There's no need to give god a name. There's no need to acknowledge its existence or prove or disprove anything: it simply is what we all are once we are outside ourselves.

We're all right, and we're all wrong, and it's okay.

We're gonna figure this out, anons. Eventually.

>>695187983
The only way to prove or disprove things is through physical experiment. Thought experiments and debate while stimulating, do not prove anything to be fact as 9/10 times they rely on assumptions . That is why it will not be solved on /b/ as how can we conduct a physical experiment in a message board? What physical experiment would prove or disprove God anyway? This is while it is an interesting but futile topic to devote time to. It is neither provable in discussion or experiment.

>>695189238
Nonetheless, Epicurus still made the quote. Look up Epicurean Paradox.

>>695189326

If we're all right and wrong and everything is okay. Then there is nothing to figure out to begin with...

>>695189368
>It is neither provable in discussion or experiment.

but it is provable or disprovable by syllogistic logic and provable premises therein

first, you must define what god is

do you accept that god is
>omniscient--all knowing
>omnipresent--pervasive and ever-present
>omnipotent--all powerful

this is how i must define godhood, but others might disagree with this characterisation

>>695189028
nah i believe in a God i was just responding to your definition of him.

i believe we can never really understand God or his motives. we try to impose our understanding of logic, rationality and reason on him but if he is truely God then that's pointless. every argument against his existance would be inherently uninformed.

we say the universe is imperfect and God is perfect, so he can not exist, but who are we to say that this universe is not perfect? we say that God would never allow pain, suffering, murder etc, but from where do we derive the authority to say that?

i believe in God but i don't assume to understand him.

Struggling with such small and childish questions.. You people fucking disgust me.

>>695178952
>concept of infinity

it goes FOR EV-UR

>>695189747
>i believe in God but i don't assume to understand him

then--i am bound to say--your belief in God is merely uninformed

i am not trying to insult you, but i do want you to consider what it is you are actually asserting

>>695189326
thanks bud, you put what i've been failing to get at very eloquently.

God is Fraud

>>695189544
Oh, there's plenty to figure out. How it works, how to manipulate and control the forces we possess to limit human suffering to a minimum, how to feed and shelter everyone on the planet, how to provide for our needs without resorting to crippling others... you know, humanity.

But arguing over who has the right name for their deity isn't doing a thing to help any of that.

So, figure that out.

File: download.jpg (10 KB, 194x260) Image search: [Google]

10 KB, 194x260

>>695189827

the existence of god
>small and childish questions

pf

you can leave the room while the adults have a discussion, anon, there's plenty of coca-cola and slim-jims in the fridge

File: Hot ChickXY74.jpg (283 KB, 938x1791) Image search: [Google]

283 KB, 938x1791

>>695162201
Please go to en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4chan&action=edit&oldid=730332759 and click "Save page."

>>695189899
There aren't many things that we humans are fully informed on. Not all science is 100% proven, yet people choose to believe in the theories, similarily uninformed.

There's nothing wrong with being uninformed in this subject. We can never be anything else but uninformed in it.

>>695189690
Ok I will agree with that definition for this discussion however a being that is all powerful would be able to defy logic and maths and so logic cannot prove or disprove it's existence.

>>695189899
yeah that's fine, i've stated already that my beliefs are merely beliefs and that i know i can't prove them either way. >>695184579 this is me

all i can think to recommend to get us on the same page is a high dose of magic mushrooms. some people even believe jesus was a magic mushroom. beliefs are good like that, you can just choose them for yourself.

>>695190228
>We can never be anything else but uninformed in it

then you and i agree to disagree

thank you for the clarification on this matter

>>695190179

Not if everything is both right and wrong at the same time as you stated. Using your logic, suffering is right to some subjectively (which we know since we have serial killers and shit), which means suffering serves a purpose. Then why end it?

If there is no constant to rightousness, then there is nothing to solve, nothing to figure out and nothing to make better. Then life is in total balance constantly, and nothing we ever do will ever thwart or change that balance.

Then why do anything at all?

You see why your logic is flawed now?

>>695190243
>a being that is all powerful would be able to defy logic and maths

and lift a weight that cannot be lifted

and ponder a question that could not be answered

logic and mathematics must be true in any and all universes, to believe anything else is fallacy

you postulate an impossibility and frame an unknowable argument, which is self-defeating

>>695190293
>beliefs are good like that, you can just choose them for yourself

yes, this is true

but can you also defend such beliefs intellectually?

that is, in fact, the purpose of this thread

>>695190186

Don't beat yourself up. You'll get here one day. Or you wont.. You're still young.

>>695190903
What might the questions baffling your mind, be then?

>>695190582
But you said yourself that a true God would have to be all powerful but the only way to define an all powerful being would be to go outside of logic as logically an all powerful being could not exist. If God created the universe did he not create maths?

>>695190537
>You see why your logic is flawed now?

no

what exactly is your definition of god?

you must first define a subject you wish to logically analyse, then frame your argument

i believe that god must be:

1
all powerful

2
all knowing

3
all pervasive

and after identifying this, i put it into the syllogism and arrived at my conclusion in its simplest form

the jain arguments (simple form posted above) led me to this conclusion

if you disagree with me and wish to refute or argue its merits, my definition of godhood might be a starting point

some theologians have told me my standards for godhood are set too high....

>>695190659
no-one can defend a belief in a deity intellectually, nor disbelief. if that's the only purpose of this thread we may as well all leave.

the problem i tend to have with most athiests, and with most people in general, is that they think intellect, logic and rationality are the highest purpose of a human being.

>>695190903
when you say 'here', where would you like me to be aiming?

mouth or chest?
just kidding, but seriously?

>>695191114
>an all powerful being could not exist

and that is basically 1/3 of my argument, because neither could an omniscient nor an omnipresent one confronted with the inescapable evidence of creation and our existence within it

perhaps another, subsidiary argument presents itself here:

is (what we think of as) god worthy of being called god?

and is it necessary to explain the conditions of the universe and of our lives?

>>695191341
>intellect, logic and rationality are the highest purpose of a human being

they are

>>695190537
I'm glad you're really taking the concept to task. We don't know, ultimately, the purpose of suffering. This is true. The possibility of some form of cosmic justice or karmic retribution is certainly a non-zero number.

However, we don't need to determine the purpose of suffering to know whether we should alleviate it or not.

We only need to know ourselves and to trust others.

Do you feel you deserve your suffering? Do you know the causes of your suffering? Maybe so, maybe not. Determining these things may be a central purpose in your life, and it may take a lifetime to know yourself.

As far as others are concerned, we have only to trust that they are capable of determining whether or not they seek to suffer, and if they seek to alleviate that suffering, it is not our job to question it, but rather to help them do so.

If there is a force in the universe that will prevent us from alleviating the suffering of another, then we will be unable to do so.

I think the desire to force this into a false binary of "either know everything or do nothing" is a dodge that stems from the fear of how much power you have to alleviate the suffering of others already.

Your sphere of influence is actually wider than you think. You can complement people and focus on their talents, you can support the creation of things made by others you know, you can listen to people and try to understand - all of these things alleviate suffering. Loneliness can be one of the greatest sufferings of all.

So, really, the logical conclusion is to make the best decisions with the information we have, and not try to approach things with such a binary perspective.

Does that help to explain it?

>>695191530
Not the same guy, but why?

>>695191138

Now you're taking the discussion completely out of context. We're not discussing a definition of god. We're discussing your statement made here: >>695189326

>We're all right, and we're all wrong, and it's okay.
>We're gonna figure this out, anons. Eventually.

I thought that was pretty clear in my argument here: >>695189544

Your original proposed definition of god seems fair enough, but if you assume the following:

1. We're all right, as in the collective and subjective truth.
2. We're all wrong, as in the collective and subjective falsehood.
3. Everything is okay.

Then there is LITERALLY nothing to figure out. We can't ALL be right and wrong at the same time and still have something to figure out, that's total and utter nonsense. That's like dividing with 0.

>>695191593
because everything else leads to suffering, error and non-existence

i am not a jain, but their arguments concerning their assertion of their doctrine of atheism have ineluctably led me to believe the same

and led me also to accept that these are the highest purposes of life and the things to base our lives upon

maybe that's why they are so centred, peaceful and cooperative?

>>695191530
i respectfully disagree.

all of those things have increased consistently over the years, yet we are destroying our habitat at an ever-increasing rate.

art and creativity have existed ever since we began distinguishing ourselves from other animals, yet it serves no logic purpose, it doesn't contribute to our evolutionary survival.

there is much more to us than the left-brain

>>695191009

It used to be alot of philosophical questions like these. You'll find out at some point (assuming you're open minded, not brainwashed completely and not delusional) how and why they are meaningless. For example one could ask "what is the meaning?". But he is then assuming that there is a meaning to begin with.

To answer your question. A question I might ask could be something like "Is the first Gilgamesh alive today or has he not been born yet - when will it happen?" You know, science questions. We still have the brain to map. We still have physics to explain. There are still actual questions to be asked.

>>695191850
>We're discussing your statement made here:
that is not my post, sorry

i'm framing syllogisms, arguing logic and presenting some jain beliefs which i attempt to defend

>>695191438
My point is that for a being to be all powerful then it does not obey logic. I would argue that it is not fact that God exists nor is it fact that he doesn't. It is a belief of yours that everything must obey logic and reasoning but it is my belief that a god must be outside of logic and reasoning. The universe is constrained by logic and maths, we cannot go outside of them and so if God is also constrained by them then it is not God it is just a sufficiently advanced lifeform that we may one-day reach. To sum it all up for something to truly be God it must not be constrained by maths nor logic. Whether such a being exists is unprovable and so futile to argue about. I do agree with you in that if God obeys logic then god doesn't exist.

>>695191975
>because everything else leads to suffering, error and non-existence
Literally as false as can be. You pretty much defined what has become more common due to intellectual "progress".

>>695192101
not the anon you're talking with but i just want to say you're being quite condescending.

>>695162201
If he is all powerful then wouldn't good be what he said it to be?

>>695192006
>all of those things have increased consistently over the years, yet we are destroying our habitat at an ever-increasing rate.

and who is doing that destroying, enlightened people who base their lives on logic, rationality and intellect, or people who are blinded by ignorance, greed and resist change?

people of good reasoning ability (that's us, isn't it?) when they come across new data, they alter their beliefs and change their behaviour commensurately

which is why so many people are opposed to fracking, strip mining, unregulated fossil fuel emissions and other things they now believe to be unnecessarily destructive and seek alternatives that are less so

it's a process, yes?

>>695191575

>However, we don't need to determine the purpose of suffering to know whether we should alleviate it or not.
>We only need to know ourselves and to trust others.

This i can agree with.

>either know everything or do nothing

I never said this. Knowing everything is different to "Everything is both right and wrong". If you knew everything, then you would what was wrong and what was right.

>So, really, the logical conclusion is to make the best decisions with the information we have, and not try to approach things with such a binary perspective.

In relation to your earlier statement of "We're all wrong and we're all right", then how come there be 'best' decisions? To whom? The individual? The cosmos? The total sum of subjective entities? Is the universe democratic now? Do you see why this makes little sense?

>>695192101
Well personally I do think questions and arguements about Gods are meaningless, as are our lives and everything surrounding us. Our brain and physics included.

>>695191850
Wait - you're assuming that >>695191138 is me just because they responded to your question? Read the two side by side again and ask yourself if they sound like the same kind of argument, style, or voice.

So, yeah, any line of reasoning that attempts to limit or define "god" would be a distraction except insofar as to say it is that which is beyond human comprehension (by definition).

Now, as for this:

>Your original proposed definition of god seems fair enough, but if you assume the following:

>1. We're all right, as in the collective and subjective truth.
>2. We're all wrong, as in the collective and subjective falsehood.
>3. Everything is okay.

>Then there is LITERALLY nothing to figure out. We can't ALL be right and wrong at the same time and still have something to figure out, that's total and utter nonsense. That's like dividing with 0.

You're confusing the idea of "right" with "correct and infallible." Perhaps a better term might be "valid." All our perspectives are valid and contribute to the collective understanding of the universe. But also, our perspectives are limited because we don't have all the information, and therefore "wrong" at the same time.

And you seem to be completing the phrase "figure out" with "who's right," when it should be completed with "how we can all thrive as a human race together by maximizing joy and happiness."

And division by zero is not impossible, mathematically or physically. It's just undefined.

Step out of the binary, anon. Join the quantum revolution. It's better when you stop trying to win, and just focus all your time on trying to understand your position and get along with the people you're here with and understand theirs, too.

>>695184579
Hes saying if a perfect being is the only being deserving of worship then there is no being to worship because a perfect being cannot exist if it created us flawed beings. The abrahamic god is so obviously not perfect and pretty much demonic.

File: let me tell you.jpg (52 KB, 625x390) Image search: [Google]

52 KB, 625x390

>>695167458
Like i could stab u for saying that or i could not ;p why not both? Cus they are contradictory. Also i dont want to get into quantum physics with u

>>695193261
>Cus they are contradictory.
How? If there is a God whom has created everything, then physics are only a part of that creation.

>>695192549
i would probably say that the people doing the destroying, i.e. the people in charge of those strip mines, fracking sites etc and the laws that govern them ALL believe they are acting in accordance with logic, rationality etc.

people who are against it are often the bleeding-heart liberals who are so often accused of not being rational, especially on 4chin. that's because those liberals FEEL that those things are wrong, and even if big-wigs try to smother them with facts and figures they still feel that destroying the environment is wrong, and refuse to change their minds even when presented with 'facts'. those 'facts' and 'studies' can be manipulated easily, and if you have enough money you can pay someone to come up with any result you want.

i'm getting a bit off topic but my point was that your emotions and passions are the crux of what it is to be human, and that i believe God resides in us.

you see it all the time here on 4chan, people who are fucking miserable, emotionless, can't connect with other human beings. but they cling to logic and reason because they think it makes them better than other people. you can't tell me that logic and reason are our highest purpose when half the people that worship it are barely human.

>>695193041
(samefagging)
I think a lot of the problem comes down to language.

I think reading up on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis might help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity, but I'm not sure - if you think I'm trying to prove that I'm right, then you won't be reading it with an eye toward understanding, but instead will be looking for ways to use it to somehow defeat me. But you can do that too, I guess.

This whole thing is framed in a debate, so I guess it's a foolhardy endeavor to hope to transcend that framework by engaging in it...

Either way, you seem to have a brilliant and critical mind, anon - you will enjoy being right for a very long time...

>>695164103
he is both able and willing. evil comes from human's free will. he would not be just if we were forced to obey, and with knowledge withheld from us (what happens if we disobey) by statistical law in having free will we eventually create sin through it

>>695193525
>you can't tell me that logic and reason are our highest purpose when half the people that worship it are barely human.

Well said.