lit/21918725.txt

-----
--- 21918725
St Alselm unironically wrote this
and Christians from nowadays unironicallly believe this is a valid argument
--- 21918762
>>21918725 (OP)
That's genius.
--- 21918771
>>21918725 (OP)
>Why, yes, existence is a predicate.
--- 21918779
>>21918725 (OP)
is the Christian in the room with us right now?
--- 21918781
>>21918779
Yes.
--- 21918787
>>21918725 (OP)
Is this a true representation of his argument or is it a strawman?
--- 21918797
>>21918725 (OP)
So god is a big dicked mummy futa who pisses in my anus and exists! Thanks St Alselm.
--- 21918814
>>21918797
That made me think of pic related but I am still cautious that it may be a strawman. As it stands, it is a pretty bad argument.
--- 21918827
>>21918814
It isn't that bad an argument if you aren't instinctively a nominalist materialist. It's pretty hard to account for why human beings exist and have rational thought and concepts. It's a reasonable hypothesis that our concepts are mirrors of a more perfect mind, which is itself part of a reasonable assumption in metaphysics that actual beings acquire the actuality they have by approximating and instantiating ideal archetypes. Within all these assumptions, it's perfectly reasonable to wonder what our naturally implanted concepts tell us "necessarily" about ourselves and the world. Imagine doing phenomenology in a candlelit monastery in 1055 at night and realizing your own in-built concepts seem to have conclusions about ultimate reality latent in them. This is really not that different from Plato's deduction of anamnesis and the immortality of the soul or the Stoic idea of prolepseis or koinai ennoiai. 

The difference between these thinkers and us today is that we are instinctive nominalists and materialists because of modern physics. We tend to think that the "default" worldview that is most "reasonable" in absence of extraordinary reasons to believe anything else is quasi-monistic materialism in which everything else just mechanically arose for no reason and we're all deterministic machines who think we're conscious when we really aren't (so in fact we don't even think we're conscious, since even "being deluded" is just a nominal term for an arrangement of matter in a particular configuration, and so on in an infinite regress).
--- 21918834
>>21918769
I kneel
--- 21918839
>>21918725 (OP)
A whole lot of seething and not a single argument against it.
--- 21918840
>>21918827
Can you point to the source text? I still harbor doubts that the argument is stated fairly.
--- 21918855
>>21918787
In order to understand Anselm, you have to turn back the clock to before Baconian theory, when epistemology was considered grounded in deductive rather than inductive logic. Purely mathematical or formal logical proofs were considered the basis for certainty rather than experiment, indeed a lot of the experimental world was alchemy and so forth and no rigorous by comparison. Think of it like Anselm explaining a particular number: imagine a number which there is no higher number than. This number *must* be real because if it weren’t, it would not be the number which no number is greater than. Anselm just applies this with a more open variable: imagine x [a variable] which there is nothing greater than. 

We don’t really think this way anymore because we know now that pure logic doesn’t always cut it: for example, we now know that space isn’t Euclidean, and so purely logical conceptions of space don’t work. We know a number being necessary doesn’t mean that it is real (see for example imaginary numbers). But within the context of Anselm’s time, his argument is very sound.
--- 21918858
>>21918827
Very nice effortpost.

> we're all deterministic machines who think we're conscious when we really aren't
My argument against this is that if consciousness is an illusion, then what purpose does the illusion serve? There is no benefit to deceiving an object into believing it has consciousness if it doesn't actually have consciousness. For example, there is no benefit to deceiving a rock into thinking it has consciousness. Therefore the self-questioning of whether or not a being has consciousness is proof that such a being is conscious in reality. I make the same argument regarding free will.
--- 21918866
>>21918839
If you want to accuse others of coping and seething then at least post the true source text. The absolute state. 

Anselm’s Ontological Argument
(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
--- 21918873
>>21918866
Genius.
--- 21918886
>>21918866
>X + existence is better than just X
Why? What makes existence better than non-existence?
--- 21918891
>>21918886
See the mathematical analogy here
>>21918855
--- 21918903
>>21918858
I agree completely, I seriously can't even understand how anyone can be an epiphenomenalist / denier of the hard problem of consciousness. I think free will is one of the greatest mysteries if not the greatest mystery in all of philosophy and I always admire and make mental notes of any philosopher who defends it against all rational reasons for rejecting it, like Jacobi. 

>>21918886
Platonic ontology in which all ordinary existing things in apparent reality lie on a spectrum between the two poles of being and non-being. At the extreme of pure and perfect being are the ideal forms or Pythagorean ideal harmonies or what have you. These are atemporal, not subject to becoming at all, in fact in a sense they are not even ON the spectrum but form the extreme END of the spectrum toward which all entities on the spectrum tend in their temporal existence, i.e. in their various degrees and vicissitudes of becoming. All entities within the world of becoming (the world of appearances and manifestations which we live in) strive toward and try to become the pure beings that are their models. At the apex of pure being is Unity itself, for example - even the atemporal forms themselves must participate in Unity, meaning they are partly multiplicitous and thus not perfect pure Being. In Platonism/Neoplatonism/Neopythagoreanism, not even pure Being IS Unity itself. The primal Unity or One is so far beyond Being that it isn't an "is" at all, and thus it can't be intuited except through whatever your particular Platonist takes mystical union with the One to be. 

On the other end of the spectrum is nothingness, so that, in fact, there IS no "lower" end of the spectrum - pure Unity and the forms anchored in it are at the "higher" end, but the lower end simply tapers off into the bare idea of nothing, with no "actual" nothing, no "subsistent" form or essence of Nothing. Just like manifest, temporal beings on the spectrum between Being and Becoming never quite reach pure Being (except perhaps in mystical states of transcendence), they never quite reach pure Nothingness either. The "receptacle" of Becoming, with its purely shadowy and mirroring role and ultimately unreal status, sort of like Prakrti and Maya in Hindu metaphysics or, is very mysterious and never fully explained.
--- 21918904
>>21918903
(continued) 
But the overall result of this worldview is that Being is conceived as a hierarchy, and all things can be understood as striving or tending to realize themselves to the greatest degree possible by becoming more and more "like" the forms/ideals that they participate in, i.e., that are their models. Within this ontology, being is a perfection and perfection entails being, while becoming, and the asymptotic approach toward non-being implied by "extreme" becoming, imply im-perfect, dispersed, dissolute, un-formed, etc. 

Perfect literally means complete, which for the ancient mind meant whole, which meant "most like what it is trying to be," which means its natural underlying form, and all forms are themselves formed by the ur-forms of Being and the One, in which they and all things through them participate.
--- 21918908
It was specifically an argument designed to catch neo-Platonists, a kind of intellectual nerd clique at the time, who were reluctant to call themselves Christian. The hinge of the argument is that in platonic metaphysics the Ideas are conceptual counterparts to their real world examples and that God, the ultimate being, i.e. the highest point on the metaphysical pyramid, would not be the highest being if he did not contain the attribute of reality, implicit in other more mundane Ideal forms: humans, trees, buildings, etc. Thus, by extending the implicit assumption that Ideal forms are endowed with reality to the form of God he trapped the agnostic Platonists into realizing the implications of their thoughts should lead them to be Christians. It was never meant to be an argument for anyone other than neo-Platonists.
--- 21918909
>>21918781
how can you see him if you don't believe?
--- 21918912
>>21918908
Neoplatonists are not agnostic (obviously, that would suggest a rejection of Platonic epistemology) and it is not an argument for Christianity per se.
--- 21918913
>>21918858
sounds like Daniel Dennet-tier cope
--- 21918925
>>21918912
My point was that it was used in a way to coerce them into a firmly Christian position rather than an ambivalence of First-Movers. I’m more tired than explaining the chain of being and minute theological disputes. It’s accurate enough
--- 21918928
>>21918913
Let me guess, you didn't choose to post this?
--- 21918956
>>21918866
>First premise asserts God exists
>Final premise is that God exists
>"HA! Gottem!"
And this is the height of Christian theology?
--- 21918958
>>21918925
Coerce? Persuade I think you mean, but your premise is wrong anyway
--- 21918981
>>21918928
yeah it was an accident my bad.
--- 21918986
>>21918769
brilliant
--- 21918988
>>21918981
I think he was just joking that you have no free will so you were compelled to post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlZkGUDu2-4 [Embed]

I thought Dennett was a reductive materialist and pseudo-compatibilist who doesn't really believe in free will or consciousness as having true ontological status, i.e., he sees them as processes or states of other things that do actually have ontological status, like matter.
--- 21918992
>>21918956
>atheist confuses descriptive copula with existential proposition
Peak atheism.
--- 21919015
>>21918992
If you were asked "What is the greatest thing, that no thing is greater" the answer would be "The totality of the universe", but instead of stating it like that, the use of the word "God" smuggles it in as if it's God that exists, not simply the universe itself. Nice try with the rhetorical deception though.
--- 21919036
>>21918992
He’s right. To create an arbitrary assertion and make a judgment about it is to have no connection to reality at all and it cannot be used to justify itself; anything which follows an arbitrary premise is to be regarded as equally baseless.
--- 21919058
God is a logical axiom.
--- 21919073
>>21919015
>The totality of the universe
Why would that be the greatest? You've implicitly limited it by stating "universe", which is a limitation. The greatest thing that is no greater by definition has to be God, which is defined as the utmost great. The universe is not defined as the utmost great, it is just the totality of material things. Material things are a limiting factor, and therefore the totality of them cannot be the greatest. It's basically that simple, and your response confirms my suspicion that atheists are not quite capable of grasping formal semantics.
>To create an arbitrary assertion and make a judgment about it is to have no connection to reality at all 
This is how all scientific hypothesis works. Every statement about reality begins by forming a concept, and understanding it in its own necessity. The first proposition indeed had no connection to reality, which is exactly what I am confirming with my post. That is why it is not question-begging, because the first proposition differs from the last.
--- 21919088
>>21919073
>This is how all scientific hypothesis works. Every statement about reality begins by forming a concept, and understanding it in its own necessity. The first proposition indeed had no connection to reality, which is exactly what I am confirming with my post. That is why it is not question-begging, because the first proposition differs from the last.
That's not how hypothesis work, retard.
--- 21919092
>>21918866
>If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined
Completely retarded and invalid line of reasoning. If god doesn’t exist, that would simply invalidate the first premise. Christians can’t into philosophy to save their lives
--- 21919095
>>21919092
“God” in the first premise is simply the greatest possible something.
--- 21919097
>>21919088
It is. You come up with an arbitrary assertion with no connection to reality, and then test it to see if it holds. It is obviously different to deductive reason, but not in the sense you've disputed it.
--- 21919108
>>21919095
Yeah, and the first premise is a baseless assertion
--- 21919113
>>21919095
Greatness contains moral assumptions, see the big dicked milf futa.
--- 21919126
>>21918956
The first premise is stipulative. To say "a unicorn is a horse with a horn" isn't to say that unicorns exist. The proof is bad anyway
--- 21919128
>>21919108
Not even him, but there has to be a ''greatest possible something''.
--- 21919180
>>21919128
>nut e'en him butt
falsetto: there will always be something better.
--- 21919187
>>21919180
You are an ape
--- 21919190
>>21918725 (OP)
Counter: existence is gay, and hence, the most perfect concept must, by logical necessity, not exist.
The ontological argument of this particular stripe all comes down to a completely unreasonable preference for being over non-being. And I'm not even being an edgy teenaged emo about it, at least no more than the christians themselves, who are to ones to profess inter faeces et urinam nascimur. 
The geniuses here realized much the same thing a decade ago when they coined the term "3d pig disgusting".
--- 21919191
>>21919187
You are an ape holding a stick who believes the stick is the greatest possible something, and who cannot comprehend another ape with plasma rifle triumphing over his stick.
--- 21919198
>>21919180
>there will always be something better
Why? Because you missed it on the first pass? That sounds like operator error to me. It can still be the original source of power, to which you falsely failed to attribute a quality or degree.
--- 21919206
>>21919191
>and who cannot comprehend another ape with plasma rifle
Does the argument rely on the first ape's comprehension of the plasma rifle in order for the plasma rifle to generate its awesome destruction?
--- 21919207
>>21919198
I mean that a thing can always be improved upon and that in a short period of a time a thing invented to do XYZ will require some atunement to adapt to new conditions which are produced by natural changes around it; planetary drift, etc.

The idea of "total eprfection forever" is a human construct of arrogance, it is immediately outdated tomorrow. True perfection, perhaps, is unflinching adaptability and the industriousness of mind to be able to do this ceaselessly; to follow truth without bias, to not hold the 'opinion of a person' 'about' truth as if it that opinion were more important (i.e. to construct a dogma) than evidenced based reality.
--- 21919210
>>21919206
sort of. the idea is that the ape discovers a stick and believes he is at the apex of technology; all technology, for example, is out-dated or is subject to improvement or degradation. So there is no 'perfect thing' apart from, as I said next: >>21919207 perhaps our own disposition to not hold back from constantly improving upon a thing.
--- 21919250
>>21919191
>*Ape noises*
Noetic vaccum
--- 21919251
>>21919207
This sounds like Bronstein's Refutation of Identity. If you build a better mousetrap then that mousetrap is the new, better mousetrap. If someone fails to notice that you made a better mousetrap then that does not degrade the quality of the mousetrap. That is only a manifestation of their ignorance. 
>>21919210
>So there is no 'perfect thing'
So, it can jest be the most perfect instead of perfect. I do not see the problem.
--- 21919268
>>21919251
*just
sleepy time retardation kicking in
--- 21919320
>>21919180
Ok, then God is the source of all things that are better.
--- 21919359
>>21918855
Imaginary numbers are real. They were dubbed imaginary because, just like the discovery of negative numbers and irrational numbers and the number 0, the people who initially encountered them resisted them. There’s a good series on YouTube called “imaginary numbers are real”.
Deductive methods have not been made obsolete. Even empirical science is deductive if you take the model of Popper.
Anselm’s argument was not “typical for its time”. Saint Thomas of Aquinas rejected it and so did his other contemporaries.
Anselm’s argument does prove (assuming that “greatness” is not a subjective criterion) the existence of the greatest thing. According to Anselm, existence is part of greatness, so that which is the greatest must exist. However where he goes wrong is assuming that God is identical to the greatest thing. It could be that God doesn’t exist and some other really existing thing is actually the greatest, a candidate (in his time) being William the Conquerer perhaps. 
Even still, there’s a lot to be learned from the analysis of the ontological argument.
Please stop talking about things you know 0 about.
--- 21919991
>>21919190
>The geniuses here realized much the same thing a decade ago when they coined the term "3d pig disgusting".
A possible objection that could be raised to this is that the term 3DPD refers only to material stuff (living humans in the original sense of the term), whereas 2D perfection is supposed to be ideal. Going by the Platonist separation of matter from ideas, it could be asserted that ideas "exist" separately from agglomerations of matter that poorly resemble the perfect ideas that they correspond to. Therefore, God, being the prime source of ideas, must Himself be an idea greater than everything else, including matter.

So by cleaving matter and ideas apart, we could argue that God exists ideally, but does not exist materially.

I personally don't hold these views, so I am merely pointing it out because I know that there could be people here who might do it.
--- 21919998
>>21919359
This entire post is wrong
--- 21920338
>>21918725 (OP)
>think of the perfect island
>it doesn't exist?
>then it's not perfect
>but you can still imagine the perfect island
>therefore the perfect island exists
--- 21920344
My perfect reality is one where im god
--- 21920379
>>21918858
Your presuming it has to have a purpose to exist in the first place. You know we could of just developed it by accident? Maybe we developed it and it had a practical use for survival? Maybe for self reflection to learn and grow? Not only you're saying that rocks and people are the same kind of objects, just cause a rock has no purpose to have the illusion of consciousness, doesn't mean other objects may not have the need for it to help propigate the species.
--- 21920395
>>21920379
>could of 
Stopped reading right there.
--- 21920402
>>21920395
Based
--- 21920467
>>21920395
Aw well if you're that arrogant go right ahead. I'm just honest enough to know I can't know for certain how the universe actually works. There's just not very good arguments in this thread. Burden of proof is on them; and their proof is weak.
--- 21920780
>>21920338
It does exist as potential. A better island than the perfect ideal doesn't exist as potential.
A unicorn exists in the sense that the rules allow it, a horse with a horn potentially exists despite not actually being instantiated physically. God is not claimed to be physically instantiated as a whole, physics can't encompass God.
--- 21921006
>>21919073
The phrase "the totality of everything that exists" is only limited by existence. Unless you accept that God resides within the category of "not existing" in which case we agree.
--- 21921015
>>21919128
The "greatest possible something" would be the sum of all things that exist. It's just a tautology, and is used as a smoke screen to smuggle in a massive amount of assumptions, judgements, and wishes.
--- 21921090
>>21921015
>is used as a smoke screen
This type of reasoning is used as a smoke screen.
>would be the sum of all things that exist
It would be that and more. The thing exists, whatever satisfies the conditions is God and something does satisfy them. Usually people like you have a problem with the part about God having a mind but you're too dumb to isolate the problem so you carpet bomb any talk about God with vague "smoke screens". The arguments about if the phenomena is conscious or not are separate from the arguments about the existence of the phenomena.
--- 21921132
>>21921090
>God is more than what exists
You are just asserting things that you want to be true. There is nothing that exists outside of all the things that exist. It's categorically true. You literally cannot comprehend how categories work. The sad part is you probably actually think that you're smart.
--- 21921157
>>21921090
>The thing exists, whatever satisfies the conditions is God
But then couldn't God just be literally anything that's "greater" than anything else, like the biggest star in the universe (UY Scuti)?
It wouldn't mean that God is good or caring, or that God is all-powerful. It would just mean that God is big and heavy.
--- 21921181
>>21921132
>There is nothing that exists outside of all the things that exist.
Depends on what you mean and if you really mean all things then you're not exploring what that means. You tend to say potential like unicorns don't exist but they're part of the sum of all things. So is subjective experience itself, another thing that can't be empirically shown to exist.
>>21921157
The biggest star doesn't contain everything else, it doesn't contain love. The greatest thing does contain love and anger or those things wouldn't be.
--- 21921213
>>21921181
The greatest star in the universe contains the material for every single potential component of a being that could feel and give love and hate. Such a star could be a source of immense energy for an entire galaxy, giving rise to civilizations on many planets, each one with highly advanced degrees of intellectual and technological refinement.

If a thing with the material potential for any other physical substance, that is greater than anything else in the universe can be called "God", then that must be a star.
--- 21921215
>>21921181
If you count things that only exist in your mind as existing, then yes, god exists, congratulations. Also something greater than god, god++, which I just conceived.
--- 21921219
>>21921181
Again, you aren't comprehending how categories work. Our knowledge of whether a potential exists or doesn't exist was the starting point of the whole exercise. 

There is a category of all things that exist, that is true regardless of our knowledge about it. In order to support a God, you continue to fight against it, you are behaving in the technical meaning of the word: irrational. You want God to exist, so even if that means being partially outside of the category of existing, you'll accept it. This is irrational.

The syllogism stated by St. Alselm amounts to the tautology "The greatest thing that exists is the sum all things that exist", which fails advances the case for "God" one iota.
--- 21921255
It's not easy to pinpoint exactly what is wrong with Anselm's argument, but there is some agreement that the error lies in the way he thinks about existence. To think of something is to think of it as existing, existence is not an extra you add at the top of the thing.
--- 21921268
>>21921213
Our models of stars are material. The material can't have defined the logic of how the material interacts for example or the fact that the material can in certain circumstances feel love. It does mirror the higher principles like logic and love but doesn't contain it or it wouldn't be valid outside the star.
This type of thinking is confusing the map for the territory, words for meaning and physical models for reality.
>god++, which I just conceived.
No you didn't. The Alselm guy did before you at least.
>If you count things that only exist in your mind as existing
Point is potential like unicorns have a kind of existence incoherence and structurally unsound ideas do not. When it comes to the potential for all things that phenomena exists or those things wouldn't exist, including the unicorn.
>There is a category of all things that exist
But you don't clarify what you mean. Does subjective experience exists?
>partially outside of the category of existing
Like your entire experience, your entire life? You're confusing categories with reality, the map with the territory, words with meaning. "Existing" does not mean having a physical form but that's always the demand to prove the "existence" of God.
I didn't start with a conclusion. The phenomena all these people in history called "God" clearly exists, pretending otherwise is avoiding understanding their perspectives. What can be argued about are all the attributes given to this "God".
>amounts to the tautology
Perhaps but you still refuse to try to understand the perspective being communicated. You just automatically start trying to undermine it because you think you already know the conclusion is wrong and the goal is not to think but to promote your holy dogma.
--- 21921272
>>21921215
Not that guy, but you could also say that there is something greater than god++, which is God^n, as n approaches infinity, and that god is the first tier deity, god++ is a second tier deity, but God^n is the nth-tier deity with a higher powerlvl than any other deity, which means God^n is the one that is the "truest" god of them all, thus making God^n the best fitting candidate for St. Anselm's "God".

If necessary, we could prove God^n's superiority by mathematical induction.
Let k=n.
If k=1, then God^k = God^1.
God^1 > God^0.
Now suppose it holds true for k+1.
God^(k+1)-God^k>0
Therefore, for every n, n being a real number on the set from 0 to infinity, God^n>God^(n-a),
"a" being a real number on the open set from 0 to infinity that is lesser than "n".


It's a terrible argument, but it helps to demonstrate that people will merely disregard your argument by claiming that you're not actually using the proper definition for terms you're employing.
--- 21921296
>>21921268
>promote your holy dogma.
You mean that if something is outside of "all the things that exist" it means it doesn't exist? To adhere to the most basic rules of reason? If you want to accept that to believe in God, you must become irrational and accept that things that are outside of existence somehow exist, then you have summed up the Theist position well, but you should accept that this is what you are doing.
--- 21921306
>>21921268
Ideas exist as ideas. You want to believe that if an idea exists "God" then it actually totally really exists for realzies in reality. It's infantile. If I speak a work "elephant", does it conjure an elephant into existence? No, it conjures the sound of a word into existence. If you imagine God, does it conjure God into existence? No, it conjures the idea of God into existence. And you accuse me of confusing the map for the territory!
--- 21921319
>>21921296
>You mean
No you consistently avoid trying to understand what I mean and pretend I meant something else like you do with this poor monk desperately trying to piece together some conception of an inherently inconceivable reality. All because you have some dogma you consider holy and unassailable about everything being material and mindless, despite in every moment experiencing first hand a mind that can never be accounted for using any of your models.
What I do mean is what I said, you never clarify the category, you just pretend we both have access to an objective definition and then violate the definition I would have thought applied. What exists? Do only empirically measurable physical things exist? What about logic itself? Math? You don't use the category like I expect so clearly our ideas of what exists differ. Are you really unable to conceive of this?
--- 21921328
>>21921319
Where have I ever contended that everything is mindless? Again, you accuse me of failing to try to understand and yet assign such a ludicrous point to what I have said that it beggars belief. Human beings have minds, if you want to assert there are minds elsewhere, the burden of proving that is on you, you don't get to just assume it.

I just clarified this in another post, ideas exist as ideas. Physical objects exist as physical objects. Each thing that exists, exists in the way that it exists. If a thing does not exist in any way, then it does not exist. Sorry, I didn't realize you needed this to be spelled out for you.
--- 21921331
>>21921268
>>god++, which I just conceived.
>No you didn't. The Alselm guy did before you at least.

Who thought of it first is irrelevant. A 5yo who doesn't know any logic could conceive some god^infinity who is a piece of lasagna and truly believe in it, so what now?

>>If you count things that only exist in your mind as existing
>Point is potential like unicorns have a kind of existence incoherence and structurally unsound ideas do not. When it comes to the potential for all things that phenomena exists or those things wouldn't exist, including the unicorn.

So there are things which CAN be conceived which do not exist? :^)
--- 21921335
>>21921306
>You want to believe that if an idea exists "God" then it actually totally really exists
No.
>you mean
No.
Read the posts instead of making up these retarded fantasies that go nowhere. Build on what's actually said instead of your fantasies.
If you're unable to interpret anything said by me or anyone in history as anything but nonsense then you have no imagination. The problem isn't with the fucking monk that spent his life thinking about this shit you dismiss without even spending a second actually thinking about.
I already went into excruciating detail about the unicorn / imaginary elephant. God is not an arbitrary but structurally sound idea like a unicorn. God is the concept of that which contains everything including horses and unicorns and logic and love and physical elephants and imaginary elephants. If you can imagine something greater that's what the concept is meant to reference.
--- 21921337
>>21921331
Are you mentally handicapped? You actually can't tell the difference between something existing as an idea and that thing existing physically in reality?
--- 21921343
>>21921335
>God is the concept of that which contains everything
This is literally what I said in the first post I made in this thread. The word "universe" or "the category of all things that exist" are identical with your definition of God, yet you insist on using a word piled high with baggage because you have a desire for that baggage to also be true and exist. It's disingenuous, it's dishonest, but the worst part is, it's dishonest to yourself. In short, you are deluded.
--- 21921370
>>21921337
Yes I can? In fact I'm making the exact opposite point in fact. I can spell it out:
whether something can be imagined or has been imagined or is or is not believed to be true has no bearing on whether that thing actually exists, because different people can conceive contradictory things.

Obviously imagined things exist to some degree, like love or laws or artistic movements do, but that's not what christians mean when they say that god exists. If that was the case you wouldn't need Anselm’s argument, you could just say he exists because you say so.
--- 21921374
>>21921319
Not that guy either, but I believe that mathematics does not exist. Rather, it consists of a few axioms that rule over imaginary objects, and all of the properties of numbers and other mathematical objects are merely what happen to be the allowable result of the acceptance of the fundamental axiom of mathematics. Nothing is countable except by the admission of numbers, and nothing is quantifiable except by accepting that matterstuff agglomerations that are seen as having common properties are part of the same set.
Likewise, thought do not exist independently of their thinker. There are no feelings independently of a person who feels them, and persons do not exist independently of their body.

This is my purely dogmatic claim of how things exist in the universe, and does not correspond to either the beliefs of ancient philosophers or to those of contemporary scientists. Although it is what I believe, I cannot claim it is an absolute truth, for truth is only that which is enunciated by humans without intrasubjective admission to the contrary.
--- 21921378
>>21921328
>Where have I ever contended that everything is mindless?
Your braindead materialistic model is implied in everything you say. When trying to pretend you think otherwise you start listing reddit memes like clockwork.
>burden of proof
Is relevant to testing models not to what reality is actually like. There is no proof you have a subjective experience. Your model of a thing is not the thing. The fucking map is not the fucking territory.
>Who thought of it first is irrelevant
It's relevant to understanding what's actually being said. Presenting the idea you think you're criticizing as if it's your own just reveals you're illiterate and didn't understand anything in the first place.
>So there are things which CAN be conceived which do not exist?
Obviously. Again, not having understood anything said so far just reveals you're illiterate.
>>21921343
>The word "universe" or "the category of all things that exist" are identical with your definition of God
Not when you use the word. The "universe" is loving and conscious and inconceivable, beyond logic. Our sole purpose is to venerate existence.
You insist on undermining the word historically used to reference something that clearly fucking exists. You undermine all understanding of history philosophy and religion for petty political purposes.
The highest form of worship the human race can do is advancing our understanding of God. This is what the early scientists that actually advanced knowledge believed and stated over and over in their own hand.
When children today read those words they think the greatest minds were retards, all because you desperately need to undermine basic language for politics.
--- 21921389
If god is real, why do people have to come up with all these bizarre logical proofs of his supposed existence? I don't have to prove that there is a BMW three series on my driveway with a bunch of equations, it's just there. I don't have to start with the a priori assumption that the Beemer exists and work backwards from there with a bunch of stupid pil-pul
--- 21921390
>The syllogism stated by St. Alselm amounts to the tautology "The greatest thing that exists is the sum all things that exist", which fails advances the case for "God" one iota.

This is just begging the question of nominalism. If you can't even take account of the Theaetetus and Sophist at least allow Peirce to disabuse you of it.
--- 21921399
The ontological argument is extremely subtle which is why it filters so many people. It's really all about the link between essence and existence. Is there such a thing whose essence is to exist? If not, what is the root of existence? I genuinely think atheists are literally incapable of thinking ontologically.
--- 21921400
>>21921374
>it consists of
Things that exist? You try to account for math using logic so presumable that logic exists?
>There are no feelings independently of a person who feels them
Not coherent. Material in a certain configuration makes an effect not detectable by any material means emerge. The potential for the phenomena has to exist like a sort of field or something the material modulates.
--- 21921402
>>21921378
You claim that materialism is mindless, and yet you deny the possibility that matter could have the potential for giving rise to consciousness, just as it does for properties such as heat, movement, and light. You claim that mind cannot exist in matter, but the only reason you have for believing is that you define matter to be that which holds no mind, when matter could instead be defined as "that which exists and makes up everything".
Matter itself, going by your potentialist arguments, could have a passive potentiality for the generation of thoughts and feelings, but only in living, organic structures of a specific kind (that include humans) could matter have an active potentiality for consciousness.
--- 21921431
>>21921378
>Your braindead materialistic model is implied in everything you say.
>"Uhh, well, that's not what you said, but I'm going to think up your position badly and then consider your position bad!"
You really are a dishonest one, aren't you?
>Burden of proof-not to what reality is actually like
No, you still have the burden of proof if you assert something about reality. This kind of thinking is why every culture thinks they can just invent a deity and claim it's real over every other culture's deity. It's flawed thinking. You can draw a map, but if you can't show it correlates to a territory somewhere, then it's a shitty useless map, isn't it?
>The "universe" is loving and conscious and inconceivable, beyond logic
The universe CONTAINS love and consciousness because we exist. It's the height of absurdity to assert that the universe itself cares or loves or conceives of anything in it's totality.
>the word historically used to reference something that clearly fucking exists
The word "God" has anthropological significance because of it's utility within societies to enforce in-group out-group preference and strengthen social cohesion. It's objectively true that tons of different "Gods" are believed in by different groups, yet the specifics are almost entirely incompatible. You don't get to just assert that the thing believed in "clearly exists" when the historical basis you reference means that, BY DEFINITION, they can be shown to be false when referenced to each other. In short, the Christian Trinity cannot exist if Allah, as conceived of by Muslims exists, and vice versa, they are mutually incompatible. Thus, the reference to historical religion undermines your point more than it supports it. Again, you want the baggage associated with ONE of the thousands upon thousands of religions, and you want to ignore all the other ones which must be false.
--- 21921432
>>21918886
Good is a qualitative evaluation of a things existence. The greater a thing the more full and complete it's existence. A perfect circle is the greatest circle
--- 21921439
>>21921390
>>21921399
That's just another way of saying "Well, yes, God's essence is to not exist, but what if we act like he exists anyway?" Pretty cringe, to be honest
--- 21921444
>>21921389
>why do people have to come up with all these bizarre logical proofs of his supposed existence?
I don't
--- 21921445
>>21921378
>>So there are things which CAN be conceived which do not exist?
>Obviously. Again, not having understood anything said so far just reveals you're illiterate.

(not that same anon btw)
>Obviously.
I agree, but then how do you know the christian god isn't one of those things?
We get it, for every metric of ''greater'', something greater than everything else must exist, but how is that the christian god? Like, the god that had the bible written, who sent his son who is also him to earth 2000 years ago, had him killed and then revived him, only to appear a few more times and then fly to the sky? No ontological argument can answer that.
I get that somebody in 1055 in the dark etc thought it was real smart but it's obviously just wordplay.
--- 21921449
>>21921402
Matter is what physics describes, it is a model. A map not the territory. The phenomena that the appearance of logically structured matter emerges out of is not made of matter described by physics. That's not coherent.
>matter could instead be defined as "that which exists and makes up everything".
Then you've undermined the distinguishing features of the concepts of "matter", "universe" and "God" all at the same time. Congratulations you're a truly destructive subversive.
If the specific physical ball defines everything about the specific physical ball then there's no reason to assume universal law but there are universal laws
>but only in living, organic structures of a specific kind (that include humans) could matter have an active potentiality for consciousness
There's no logic there.
The simplest assumption is universality, just like with the physical forces. The appearance of self arises from coherent memory, the potential for perception is universal like logic so it can be reproduced in anything that processes information like brains or computers.
--- 21921451
>>21921402
This is an important point. Complexity can give rise to properties that did not exist previously in the separate parts. Thus, matter, when arranged in specific structures, gives rise to consciousness, but that does not mean the constituent parts, on their own, have any consciousness.
--- 21921461
>>21921445
It's funny someone in this thread said I lacked imagination when such a person would have to accept that the story of Jesus is 100% perfect and the greatest and couldn't be made any greater. Talk about a lack of imagination!
--- 21921497
>>21921431
>you still have the burden of proof
When it comes to anything beyond simple physical things invoking this just means you want an excuse to dismiss a perspective you don't like. There are plenty of things that can't be proven that you still accept.
>if you can't show it correlates to a territory somewhere, then it's a shitty useless map, isn't it?
Yes exactly and the mountain they called "God" is clearly there, the potential of everything that all logic, physics and math rests on. The disagreements are about properties of the mountain not its existence.
>because we exist
I thought you "muh proof" retards disliked tautologies? The universe gave us love whatever its reasons, mindless or not.
>some absolutely ricky gervais tier nonsense conflating polytheism and classical monotheism to undermine any understanding of any of those things.
Not even the fucking Allah / Trinity thing is true neither is any of this relevant to anything I said. You can't build on what's actually said, you have to revert to your tired memes everyone on the planet already heard.
--- 21921513
>>21919092
>>21919108
/thread
Can't believe there is... anyone that can't see this. 
The whole thing rests on the assumption that the bible is true.
--- 21921521
>>21921445
>I agree, but then how do you know the christian god isn't one of those things?
How does this relate to anything I said? Classical monotheist arguments aren't specifically talking about the Christian God.
Like everyone else in this thread you can't decouple the actual arguments from your own emotional baggage.
Details about the properties of the mountain are a separate discussion from if it exist or not.
>how is that the christian god
At the very least, to understand the Christian perspective through time we have to acknowledge they were referring to this greatest thing in the Bible. They ask questions about this greatest thing like in Job, why does it sometimes punish the righteous. They're not talking about something made up, it's a way to frame their very real existence.
--- 21921526
Existence is not a quality
--- 21921544
>>21921449
>Matter is what physics describes
Nope, not if you're looking at anything written since the Renaissance era. There is nothing scientists would identify as pure matter. Atoms are not pure matter, since subatomic particles influence the properties of an atom. Quarks and fluons are not pure matter, since even they have different properties from one another.

Materialism is not necessarily tied to anything in the modern sciences. It's just an ancient Greek and early Modern philosophical type of metaphysical thought.
Embracing materialism is not synonymous with atheism, since it could simply be asserted that God is whatever matter comes into being through (in the case of a non-interfering god) or that all matter is God and that God is the universe (in the case of pantheism).

When you deal with materialists, you're not dealing with people with a purely scientific mindset. You're dealing with people who probably picked up materialism because of pop culture or because of greatly misinformed educators who spread their misconceptions onto their students.
What you seem to still be confused about is the possibility that a sum of parts can have a different potency from the parts. This might come from the belief that each thing is only as much as its constitutent elements, but in order to understand this, it's necessary to see that a set of connections can lead to a different set of properties from a shapeless heap of stuff. The heap may very well have passive capacity for many actions, but is necessary for it to be put into the proper structure in order to turn those passive capacities into active ones.
One may see this by how a great military leader can turn a group of rowdy young men into disciplined soldiers who can effectively spot and kill their opponents by the means of strict training and strong discipline.
Whether you wish to acknowledge that is up to you.
--- 21921546
>>21921439
>Well, yes, God's essence is to not exist, but what if we act like he exists anyway?"
Thats not at all what I said
--- 21921557
>>21921544
You've only undermined the categories. Everything is God. I think that's true and it may communicate something if you get what I mean intuitively but the statement itself doesn't really communicate information, it undermines the categories.
>emergence
Rests on logic, a universal that's valid in the void, the absence of matter. Time breaks down there but logic doesn't meaning the arrow of time is a product of matter but logic is not.
--- 21921562
>>21921497
>you want an excuse to dismiss a perspective you don't like
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>There are plenty of things that can't be proven that you still accept
Name one
>Yes exactly and the mountain they called "God" is clearly there
Again, you simply assert it, and then claim that a syllogism based on asserting God as a premise advances your case. It doesn't.
>Not even the fucking Allah / Trinity thing is true neither is any of this relevant to anything I said.
You invoked the historical use of the word God to try and infuse it with plausibility. Also, Islam holds that Jesus was not God, it's kind of a big deal, and the fact that you don't know that this is an irreconcilable difference between the two religions shows how myopic your view of religion is and how, most likely, you were indoctrinated into one as a child and cannot see past this indoctrination. Sad.
--- 21921565
>>21921521
>How does this relate to anything I said? Classical monotheist arguments aren't specifically talking about the Christian God.

Yes, but that's what they are mainly used for. Get somebody to admit that some god in some form might exist, thus go to church (Pascal's wager).
I have literally never heard anyone say that they think some god is impossible, I have only seen christians on 4chan arguing against that, because it's easy.
--- 21921571
>>21921565
That's the point I've been getting at. If your definition of "God" is identical with "the universe" or "the category of all things that exist", the use of the word God is disingenuous and dishonest. It's smuggling in theistic baggage by use of an inaccurate word.
--- 21921590
>>21921557
The arrow of time is a product of matter and matter itself as far as it can be modelled by logic is a product of logic. The facets of "matter" that can't be modelled would have all the elements "materialists" reject like subjective experience.
>>21921565
Don't dishonestly attack arguments because some people tend to use them in ways you don't like. There may be perfectly good explanations for the crime rates of blacks in the USA but don't try to undermine the data just because you believe that.
>>21921571
>the use of the word God is disingenuous and dishonest
The word "universe" was first used in 1580s. Then and now it usually means all space and time. That does not include what defines any of it, nor logic or math. It's conceptually separate from God, a MUCH earlier concept of the totality of everything. Undermining understanding of what people were talking about through history is disingenuous and dishonest.
--- 21921595
>>21921557
Have you ever considered the possibility that logic might not necessarily be a part of the universe, but rather of the human mind? What is to say that categories, cause and consequence, propositions, and conclusions exist out of the human mind? We humans think by the means of such logical chains of supposition and inference, but logic itself might not appear as part of the way the universe is ruled. All laws might simply be recurring coincidences. Claiming the contrary would be to embrace the supposition that human mental processes possess the same ways of coming into being as exterior phenomena do, but why would it have to be so?
The mind could just be a tangling of matterproduct that orders what comes into it in a way that is comprehensible to it, although it could be the case that the rest of the universe is unruly and lacking in laws, except for simultaneities that the mind fools itself into believing they are part of a pattern.
--- 21921616
>>21921562
>Name one
That other people have a subjective experience. The validity of the concept of proof.
>Again, you simply assert it
I see the fucking mountain. Logic (a universal as if it is itself rubbing the point in your face) demands it from all angles. Aristotle, the guy that developed formal logic also logically showed the mountain exists. You have to desperately work to undermine every concept and all history to pretend all these people were talking about something that doesn't exist at all. 
>You invoked the historical use of the word God to try and infuse it with plausibility
The point is trying to understand the perspective of a monk using an apparent tautology. For some reason you have no interest in that, you don't want to understand how he thought because you apparently think it's too dangerous to even consider.
>irreconcilable difference
That don't have anything to do with any classical monotheist arguments.
>most likely, you were indoctrinated 
Raised by reasonable "atheists". This is all academic and the dumbest retards, the most dogmatic religious zealots on the internet are always, reliably "atheists" like you.
All your models of everything are retarded.
--- 21921624
>>21918769
Kek.
--- 21921626
>>21921595
Logic predicts how balls behave. If it's dependant on humans or life then it's through life sort of filtering out that which is not logically coherent. The product still exists even if it's not the totality, I never assumed it was the totality, logically not everything can obey logic or logic wouldn't emerge.
--- 21921674
>>21921626
>not everything can obey logic or logic wouldn't emerge.
Is the type of "logic" you're talking about argumentative logic, or is it some kind of metaphysical logic that rules over the universe and brings about causal and qualitative relations in real stuff?
If so, why wouldn't God be subordinate to logic? God can only be God by being the creator and ruler of the universe, but if cause-effect relations can only exist as part of logic, then is logic not that which grants God His own title and crowns Him ruler of the universe?

While you formulate logic as that which guides necessary truths, I conceive it as a mere tool of reasoning, used by humans alone for the sake of separating different types of arguments and objects of the mind. You seem to be stuck on the Peripatetic/Scholastic way of viewing logic as the laws of truth, whereas I see it in a post-Baconian way, as something that exists as part of scribblings on paper and mental musings. Logic is no more a determinant part of the truth than music theory is part of sound patterns floating around us.
*smokes weed*
--- 21921681
>>21918769
69 checkaroo'd
But gayness good dough, for otherwise I wouldn't pleasure myself to the thought of a 10 inch wang up my ass
--- 21921714
You fags couldn't have done this last spring when I was taking a Medieval Philosophy course? I bumbled through that, it would have been great if I could have plagiarized this thread to seem smart.
--- 21921738
>>21921674
Human logic maps onto universal structures or it wouldn't work reliably or be reproducible in computers.
>is logic not that which grants God
Nope. There's no reason why God is. The whole point of the concept is a placeholder for that which is greatest and everything else is derived from, it has no logical dependencies as per Aristotle and since it's not logically dependent you can't really model it, it's inconceivable.
There must be things that can't be described using logic because logic doesn't have the ability to define itself. The rules we describe / the structures they map are dependent on something that is not them.
>While you formulate
Always the same thing, confusing the map with the territory. Humans made formal logic to map the logical structures that dictate reality including your mind and balls rolling. We can use logic to model balls because their behaviour depends on structures that can be described using human formal logic. If the human made logic wasn't relating to anything real it wouldn't have any use.
--- 21921757
>>21921738
>If the human made logic wasn't relating to anything real it wouldn't have any use.
This is on the same level of redudant sophistical nonsense as "If BBC bad then why are ytbois' lips literally made to suck on big black gems?"
The fact that a chain of arguments appealing to sensory intuition apparently describes the way something seems to work does not imply that the object itself behaves that way.
--- 21921774
>>21921757
>The fact that a chain of arguments appealing to sensory intuition apparently describes the way something seems to work does not imply that the object itself behaves that way.
Braindead. If I describe the way a ball rolls and then it behaves like I described my description relates to reality. The map maps a real territory.
It does not mean the ball "reached the conclusion to roll" it means the fucking map accurately described some part of the territory. The logically structured model described and anticipated how the real ball would interact with the structures of reality. It does not mean I know the deepest secrets of the nature of the ball, just that I fucking mapped some part of reality.
--- 21921807
>>21921774
>that I fucking mapped some part of reality.
How is that any different from performing a divination ritual using hexagrams from the I Ching to reveal the winning numbers at the upcoming lottery and coincidentally selecting all of the right ones?
--- 21921817
>>21921807
I don't understand how this is complicated to anyone. These are the fundamental basics of doing anything. Just use the map metaphor. Your example is like making up a random map that happens to predict the first mountain you come across. You have one point of data suggesting it's accurate. When the landscape keeps surprising you it's obvious the map isn't accurate.
--- 21921886
>>21921817
I understand your map analogy perfectly, but it seems like you have some underlying naïve empiricist suppositions on the means of obtaining the truth that you fall back on whenever you fail to come off as sufficiently convincing to your conversation partner.
How do you know that a map is wrong? Is it merely through a priori reasoning? Or is it by observation? Can a map be inaccurate if it contains everything it ought to have, except without preserving relations of little qualitative difference?
The world is not a map, so is a map meant to be accurate when compared against other maps? If so, then how can it be anything but a tool that merely resembles other tools?
If the map represents the entire world, then can we step outside of the world so as to gauge its accuracy? Or must we simply guess that it ought to look that way?
--- 21921920
>>21921886
The map analogy relates to the logic behind everything we do as life. We're attempting to navigate reality and creating logic was part of that enterprise. Formal logic "maps" on to reality in a way some random system you make up doesn't. It helps us navigate reality. None of our faculties or senses relate to the facets of the ball that are indescribable, they relate to the parts with logical structure. In that way life can be picking out or filtering that which is conceivable to create the appearance of the coherent world. The filtered world still exists in this scenario, it's just a facet of the whole.
All the maps are inherently inaccurate, we will never account for everything. Sometimes different maps work better in different contexts, a situation may arise where a psychological view of the world is more relevant to navigate the situation than a physical perspective would be.
--- 21921938
>>21918769
best comment /lit/ has ever made
--- 21921960
>>21921920
>a situation may arise where a psychological view of the world is more relevant to navigate the situation than a physical perspective would be
I'm not opposed to the need for different types of abstractions being used for the sake of describing different situations, but what I am opposed to is believing that two contradictory types of abstractions can both describe ultimate reality. Either one must be subsumed by the other, or both must be lumped into a more general type which would allow the two to play on a ground neutral for both.
--- 21922037
>>21921886
Notice the Western Nile. It's talked about many times but considered a myth by later academics until we learned about the geological history of the area in the last 20 years. Atlantis at this time is in a swamp near the westernmost parts of the river. Earlier the Atlas mountains were circumnavigable by boat.
>>21921960
Apparently contradictory statements are often both true. All the maps are incomplete.
What map is best depends on your goal, even if the ultimate goal is understanding reality that doesn't mean always dogmatically working from the premises you think best represent reality like when trying to understand other people or history. To gain some insight into old Christian monk thinking for example I would think the best attitude is to give him some benefit of doubt and not always jump on the least insightful interpretation as the final and authoritative one. He clearly doesn't think the argument also applies to elephants, that the greatest imaginable elephant must also exist, with gold earrings or whatever dumb accessories we can think of because an elephant without gold earrings would be lesser.
--- 21922038
>>21918725 (OP)
It's literally just the negation of negation, read Hegel.
--- 21922050
>>21922037
As in the greatest elephant doesn't physically exist. Platonists may say the form of the greatest elephant does exist. There may also be some conceivable optimal elephant, the best possible way to fulfil the ecological niche that elephants occupy given all the limitations of life.
--- 21922115
>>21918866
What if the majority of people think a carrot is the greatest thing that can be conceived?
--- 21922157
>>21919073
>keeps playing a semantics game
Nice mental gymnastics. Replace ''the universe'' with ''everything'', because that's clearly what anon means.
--- 21922172
>>21918840
>can you source me on the ontological argument

Nigga I ain’t one to gatekeep but you’re in the wrong place
--- 21922219
>>21918725 (OP)
>absolute nonexistence exists
--- 21922289
>>21921590
>It's conceptually separate from God, a MUCH earlier concept of the totality of everything. Undermining understanding of what people were talking about through history is disingenuous and dishonest.
"God", in it's modern usage, carries the implication of personhood, which "the universe" does not. Quite a significant difference, and the very point of contention. There is no good reason to assume personhood, agency, or anything of the sort, despite how ever much you wish it to be so.
--- 21922305
>>21921616
>That other people have a subjective experience. The validity of the concept of proof.
I can infer this to be true, as Hume suggests. My perception is evidenced to me beyond doubt. My perception is directed outward. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume there is "something" out, beyond my perception. From this point, I can accept evidence of my perception to conclude that, more likely than not, other's subjective experience shares certain qualities with mine. Of course, any specific subjective experience of another which is relayed to me could be a lie, and thus I must take other evidence into account when choosing to believe it to be true or false.
>I see the fucking mountain
You see God? Are you confirming to the thread that you are schizophrenic?
>Aristotle
He did not "logically show that God exists". His formulation relies on the idea that the principles of cause and effect exist prior to the existence of time, a contradiction in itself. You can't have an originator of time which existed in a time prior to time existing. It refutes itself.
--- 21922311
>>21921513
>Can't believe there is... anyone that can't see this
I think that it is all miscommunication because the assertions were never communicated clearly enough in the original postulation. I think that there is room for a rewording of it on which all objective theists and atheists could agree. As it stands, it requires some assumptions and some of the words are weighted such that they offend subjective minds. He should have done a better job of making it more neutral. Of course, up the thread, someone indicated that it was drafted for a specific audience. That really changes a lot.
--- 21922328
>>21922172
Well, it was not summarized fairly, and that was plainly demonstrated once I posted the source text. Maybe you are in the wrong place. There are lots of places where you can go argue about source text without having actually read it. Go strawman elsewhere.
--- 21923746
>>21922289
>There is no good reason to assume personhood, agency, or anything of the sort, despite how ever much you wish it to be so.
--- 21923772
itt: no one who has actually read the proslogion

it was never an 'argument', the text is visionary and a calling to divine inspiration
--- 21925103
What did Heidegger think about the ontological argument? What would he have thought?
--- 21925138
>>21923772
>it was never an 'argument'
clearly
--- 21925191
>>21918956
>>21918787
>>21918886
>>21919015
>>21921439
But we aren't talking about God as just some thing, we're thinking of God as a Greatest Conception, The Greatest Conception. If you don't believe in metaphysics then this will filter you. Metaphysically there has got to be a Greatest Thing/Conception. Believing that this isn't the case just means that you don't believe in metaphysics / anything beyond our reality, which is rediculous and makes you a retard. There are, for example, colours that we cannot see or visualise, so it's not hard to believe that there are concepts beyond our real of perception in a metaphysical sense. If anything it's way more likely than not, which is what makes atheist or marxian materialist so retarded. It is on this basis that Anselm makes his argument.
--- 21925197
>>21925191
*atheism and materialism
--- 21925350
>>21925191
I use equipment that views in the infrared band. I find your statement interesting. We are able to very accurately collect the infrared light and make use of it to generate an image from a scene that is absolutely black to the unaided human eye. Does using a tool like that qualify as physically piercing the veil into the metaphysical world? Is there a line between the physical and the metaphysical or is there a big, blurry grey zone between the two?
--- 21925357
>>21925197
and that's all I need to know to not read your post
--- 21925381
>>21925350
It's not really a convincing argument to say "we can't see some colors". a more realistic one would be that there are dimensions we can't perceive, but they've yet to be proven as far as i know.
The idea of reductionism is that the rules confirm themselves, and the rest of reality reflects that.
Some would say though everything is fractal going infinitely inwards but this makes no sense, if there's no base reality how can reality have a basis for existing?
--- 21925385
>>21925357
How can you judge his post based on three words? There are very simple qualifiers that can turn those three words completely on end.
--- 21925499
>>21925385
There is a minority chance that his post was arguing for those terms, but I highly doubt it. Those two terms stapled together like that has become a borderline meme among the tradlarp crowd here and on /his/.
Not worth the price of reading a bunch of retardation if my hunch is correct.
--- 21925529
>>21925350
What? Did you even read my post?
--- 21925543
>>21925381
>there are dimensions we can't perceive, but they've yet to be proven as far as i know.
You don't need to be a proofcel. Just use your logic. You're a human whose senses are bound in a material world and what's more by the human condition itself. It's just absurd to me that some people think that human perceptions are the end-all be-all.
--- 21925577
>>21918771
The existence is predicate thing isn't even the most egregious part of the proof. He claims to have a proof that god exists based on the definition of god, goes on to define god as that-which-there-is-no-greater and then through some gymnastics, god defined this way must exist. Well no shit! You defined him as something that exists by lumping him in with that which there is!
--- 21925595
>>21925529
>colours that we cannot see or visualise
How far out does something need to be to qualify as metaphysical? Today's technology is yesterday's witchcraft.
--- 21925596
>>21925529
I think what they mean is that nothing that can potentially be backed by empirical evidence can serve as proof that there is something beyond all empirical evidence that must most certainly exist.
Even if something could be proven logically, there would be no reason to believe that this logical statement has ontological weight. Logic can prove whether any group of statements is consistent, and whether one contradicts another, but is not restricted to discussing real stuff. One may create perfectly sound chains of logical reasoning that abide by the rules of a fictional universe, such as, say, that of Final Fantasy, but the fact that any one statement itself is sound (that is to say, non-contradictory) does not grant it the power to summon fictional characters into being in our universe.

If a computer programmer were to name a function in a program "car engine", then would it automatically summon a car engine into being that would be controlled by the function? No. The function would merely have the name of "car engine". That it could be used for the sake of controlling a real electronic circuit board adjacent to the car engine would be irrelevant to the function's very own contents and capacities.
And if a program had a loop that will only close as soon as the number 0 is typed into the terminal, then will it necessarily close at some point? Not necessarily.


So as you can see, logical lines of reasoning are only capable of being compared against statements that abide by the same principles, but have no power of declaring that something must necessarily be real, or that it must necessarily happen in our universe.
--- 21925645
>>21918725 (OP)
>arguing about atheism in 2023

Atheism as a movement is completely dead. They either need to come up with a replacement or allow one of the other non-cath/prot religions to proliferate. Those are the only two choices.
--- 21925650
>>21925543
Perceptions prove that perceived phenomena are perceived. Whether they are actually so in themselves is a different matter altogether, but what is certainly undeniable is that a perception by itself proves that a phenomenon can be perceived by at least one person in the way it has been perceived.
Logic can allow us to take premises and derive that such and such conclusion is inconsistent with such and such premises. The premise remains nothing but a premise regardless of how much confidence its speaker has on its ability to conform to ontological truth.
Premises are useful for purely logical disciplines, such as law and mathematics. Lawmakers can invent any possible legal fiction that they can describe and attribute it characteristics that seem to be real. They can invent fictional corporations, bodies of people, diseases, units of measurement, and conditions, even at great detriment to the ruled. They simply need an agent of the law to declare something to fit the characteristics assigned to their fictitious concept and turn what was merely an exercise of the imagination into a cause for punishing the enemies of the state and rewarding those who are useful servants of the current government.

Logic's ability to influence reality rests solely on humans' effective power. People do not need to believe something, but if they act as if it is, they can use the beliefs they claim to have to abuse others. Their claims, even if inconsistent with moral principles and accepted norms of others, cannot be refuted if built upon a solid base. These bases are independent of each and obey no master except for themselves. All that is necessary for a base to be self-complete is to ignore everything standing against it. Thus do lies become unquestionable truths made of sophistic wordplay.
--- 21925676
>>21921681
If that’s the case why do you think you cannot reproduce except through man-made means?
--- 21925692
>>21925645
The replacement for Rick and Morty style edgy atheism is coming soon. It will be some sort of panpsychism mixed with "information theory," put together by some reddit geniusretard. It will advertise itself as being anti-reductionist and anti-materialist, as the real, secret, hardcore philosophy for real knowers, but it will really just be vulgar materialism 2.0 with some machine learning jargon thrown in about how consciousness is just [insert buzzword] and a few Carl Sagan "we're all star-stuff" memes like "actually, even [insert thing] is conscious, technically speaking!" 

It will have just enough of a patina of philosophical sophistication that midwits feel validated in liking it. It will mention Chalmers and other surface level philosophers of mind, again in easily repeatable soundbite form. But the key thing is that it will be a typical social media "movement," spreading on twitter and discord the same way all LARP shit from tradcath to antinatalism does, spread by young midwit men who do nothing but alternate between work/class and listening to podcasts at the gym and while driving or "night-walking." It will be promulgated by a mix of new and established grifters, typical Rogan STEMlord guest type guys, like the Weinsteins and Musk. They will preach it as some kind of new philosophical wave, something that overcomes the problems in quantum theory and allows us to understand chatGPT and a bunch of other buzzword meme shit like that to guarantee ideal grifting potential. Existing grifters will flock to it, especially techbro and AI guys. 

And throughout all of this it will be completely hollow and meaningless, just a rebrand of scientistic materialism for nerds who want to be "part of something." It will solve none of the actual problems of materialism or greedy reductivism. It won't enable alternative thinking, it will simply terminate any new, un-materialistic, un-scientistic thought that is just beginning to become possible after decades of boomer and millennial "trust the science" retards while it's still in the womb. It will absorb all existing interesting discourses through elective affinities with them, for example it will absorb the Deleuzians and the process philosophers extremely quickly. Even worse, it will start to claim affinities with many other interesting philosophers like Bergson and Schelling. It will DEFINITELY absorb all existing interest in nondualism by confusing illiterate zoomers into thinking mystical experience = "oceanic feeling," and it will psychologize and technologize all of this. It will do the same to psychedelics discourse, and to aliens discourse. REMEMBER THESE WORDS. 

Just remember that I said this so you don't get sucked in, becoming a permanent midwit slave of this egregore. Remember: panpsychism is retarded. "Information theory" and "object-oriented ontology" are retarded buzzword pseudo-philosophies. Become a neoplatonist so you are equipped to resist this coming evil.
--- 21925703
>>21921390
God would be something greater than the sum of all existence to actualize as God, because everything that exists can be imagined by humans, what is greater than that cannot as the human capacity for intellect will always be limited, even Aquinas noted that humans could not know him, and any attempts to increase this ability are not of Gods doing but something way more sinister
--- 21925705
>>21925595
The metaphysical is purely conceptual, neither physical nor observable. Each school of philosophy throughout history has embraced its own metaphysical principles. Some claim that everything that exists is ideas. Others, that it's matter. Yet others, that it's consciousness.
Parmenides believed that all that there was was the One. Heraclitus claimed that everything was eternal flow, and that nothing remains stable. Plato asserted that there were two worlds, one of matter (which we live in), and one of ideas (which we think through). For Plato, every object is an idea taking a form, and what we perceive are impressions, which we then associate with ideas we got from our past lives, that ultimately come from God.
According to Aristotle, each thing has a substance, and each substance has an essence. Substances and essences more or less correspond to words and their definitions, although not all words describe only one substance.

Later philosophers, such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant, were of the opinion that metaphysical speculation is of no need to us, since it can neither be confirmed nor proven wrong. Furthermore, it is difficult to say what the universe really is in itself, as our human minds can only process what we observe and think about as a human can. No metaphysical point of view can really affect the way we interact with the world on an everyday basis.
From the 20th century onwards, it became common for philosophers to regard metaphysics as backwards, not in the sense of being primitive, but rather of demanding the possession of knowledge far beyond what mere mortal beings could obtain. Only a God could really understand the metaphysical nature of the universe, and claiming to know it would be to overstep our boundaries.
--- 21925717
>>21925703
>even Aquinas noted that humans could not know him, and any attempts to increase this ability are not of Gods doing but something way more sinister
Then what's the point of discussing God so much if we can't even know Him? We might as well just close the argument by saying that "It is not up to us as humans to know what God is".
--- 21925722
>>21925645

A replacement is exactly what I do not want. I wish to live in a world where no one experiences private religious feelings, in which they replace their "lack" with NOTHING. Because they don't feel a lack. I don't want some other sociological phenomenon to come along and "fill the void". Rather, I want the void to be unfelt. And this is precisely the problem with the majority, the feeling of lack where none properly exists.

I understand that the use of magnets or some other contraption blunts religious feelings, together with a decrease in intelligence. Worth it. As long as religious feeling is reduced I'm all for it.
--- 21925740
>>21925191
This guy thinks that because our eyes can't detect certain parts of the color spectrum, that this validates the existence of metaphysics and other dimensions. Let me spell this out for you, either "metaphysics" interact with our material world, in which case we can make empirical statements about it, or it does not in which case the entire concept of "metaphysics" is moot.
--- 21925743
>>21925717
It would be wise of you.
--- 21925808
>>21925703
>>21925717
>>even Aquinas noted that humans could not know him,

:o

>even an overt promulgator for the unfalisifiability of a religion based upon a god noted that humans could not know him
>EVEN HIM!! 
>IKR!! 
>THE LAAAST PERSON YOU WOULD EXPECT TO NOTE THAT SORT OF FING

keep smoking that crack, bean cock
--- 21925812
>>21925645
>Atheism as a movement is completely dead.
Is our culture becoming increasingly degenerate, satanic, hedonistic, base, etc? Or is athiesm on the decline?

Pick one, you silly goose.
--- 21925842
>>21925812
no no, don't you see? The anon is the one human who can see the past and the future, he has figured out that:
>culture becoming increasingly degenerate, satanic, hedonistic, base
AND BY JESUS'S GRACE THAT THE LORDD IS COMING VERRRRRRY SOOON, AND THIS PROVES IT:
>athiesm on the decline
THAT THE ANON IS THE STATIONARY OBSERVER - THE ULTIMATE SUPERIOR FORM OF HUMANKIND(!) FOR HE IS MAKING OBSERVATIONS THAT ARE GENERIC! COUNTERING THEM WITH PLATITUDE!

Truly, He is risen.
--- 21925849
>>21919998
Im not him but you clearly know nothing about mathematics.
--- 21925851
>>21925705
>The metaphysical is purely conceptual, neither physical nor observable
Talk to me like I wear a mask while I am driving by myself with the windows closed. I am new to this. I was not shitposting about infrared. The light behaves generally the same as visible light, but is generally not visible to humans. I was apparently falsely inferring that going beyond human perception and viewing IR with an electronic device might have been piercing the veil. If you conceive of something that qualifies as metaphysical, and then later find a way to observe the phenomenon, does it cease to be metaphysical? Does it get disqualified from ever having been metaphysical? I am just trying to geta feel for where the edge is - or is it all or nothing and there is no edge? I have not read any of the other stuff except Plato. What you said about Plato seems clear enough to me.
--- 21925865
>>21925812

Atheism is dead because it won out. It stopped being a "movement" when it became the norm
--- 21925902
>>21925865
Idk brah, turn on the TV and the culture war is alive and well.
--- 21925915
>>21925851
The concept of "idea" is metaphysical, but any specific type of idea is not metaphysical.
The concept of "matter" is metaphysical, but material properties and phenomena produced by matter, such as waves and forces, are not metaphysical.
The concept of "becoming" is metaphysical, but any specific process of transformation (be it a reconfiguration, binding, scattering, etc.) is not metaphysical.
The concept of "time" is metaphysical, but the measurement of time, spacetime, etc. is not metaphysical.

In other words, concepts that describe reality in general are metaphysical. Concepts that describe real stuff (emphasis on "stuff") in a specific way are not metaphysical.
Anything that has to do with the quantifiable, the measurable, that which can be studied either analytically or experimentally is nowadays studied by the sciences, whereas anything that's broad and defined only in terms of qualities is part of philosophy.
Mathematics is quantitative, but only makes use of non-experimental proofs (that is, if we don't count proof by exhaustion as a form of experimentation), so it's kind of at an odd intersection between the sciences and the humanities.
--- 21925969
>>21925722
Yet for some reason atheism and loss of religious feeling is only rising in the most developed nations. Your attitude is literally evil and will only work to hurt your own fellows.
--- 21925978
>>21925969
acktually, my man, the commonality between religious fervor is something you share in common with the bombed-out impoverished "undeveloped" people in the worst parts of the world; like them, you're moved to religion through poverty and ineptitude (though mostly ineptitude) to control your situation in life. For some reason of another none of you stab your parents in the groin for having you before becoming economically stable themselves. I would if I was you, rather than waving your cunt up and down in a religious building and reciting the gospels of a bunch of greasy kikes from north africa during the golden age of the roman empire.
--- 21925982
>>21925969
you should read these two things, 
>>21925810 →
>>21925750 →
--- 21925984
>>21925978
Sounds like typical academic mumbo jumbo. Pol Pot’s been vindicated.
--- 21925989
>>21918725 (OP)
>St Alselm unironically
ITT
daw'll niggers worshiping a saint literally named incel by He parents.
--- 21925990
>>21925978
The generation that sent us to the moon probably had the highest level of church attendance and church involvement in the last 100 years. The only reason why greek philosophy is talked about today is because some monks found it, translated it and preserved it's teachings. Maybe you should have more respect for your forefathers.
--- 21925995
>>21925984
no no nono no no nono
"academic mumbo jumbo" would b to apologise to other white people for you being a poor loser in the first world, and acting like poor losers in the third world.

i was just calling you a poor loser
--- 21925996
>>21925740
I'm an atheist, but I want to say that metaphysics does not deal with empirical stuff. This does not mean that metaphysics asserts that there is something beyond reality, or that there is something greater than what we can see. Some metaphysicians do, but not all.
Metaphysics deals with the "world" (the universe), the mind and the body, free will, and the existence of other humans.
Some metaphysicians claim the mind is separate from the body. Others don't.
Some metaphysicians claim the the only universe is one made of matter. Others don't.
Some metaphysicians claim that there are final causes and ultimate causes (reasons for things to exist) for everything in the universe. Others don't.
Some metaphysicians claim free will is just an illusion. Others don't/
Metaphysics is just layered on top of other beliefs. Most people are not really conscious of their own metaphysical beliefs, and live quite happily without knowing what they are.
Only devout Christian metaphysicians would claim that there is a necessary connection between the meaning of life for all humans and the ultimate cause for the universe. For believers of other religions, such as Shintoism and Buddhism, the universe is one thing and the meaning of life is a completely separate matter.
Many ethicists have come up with theories of ethics that claim to be objective and have no need to even bring up "God". The use of the name "God" to turn people's attention towards what is good and all must obey is only an remnant of Iron Age Jewish beliefs. For anybody else, humans must simply do as is right for them to do without considering what the will of the gods may be (if such a concept as "will of the gods" is even allowable, given how anthropomorphic it is).

So, no, there is nothing inherently mystical or even religious about metaphysics. It's just empty talk about being and existing.
--- 21926000
>>21925990
The only reason those monks were around is because a Roman Emperor decided not to kill them all when they first appeared, little did he know that those monks would burn the world down before, centuries later, deigning to preserve some pretty calligraphy they couldn't even understand.
--- 21926001
>>21925577
Thats not how that works dumbass.
--- 21926004
>>21918769
Atheistsissies... not like this
--- 21926007
>>21925990
>The only reason why greek philosophy is talked about today is because some monks found it, translated it and preserved it's teachings
VGH, WE'D BE COLONIZING THE EDGE OF THE MILKY WAY RIGHT NOW HAD THE ROMANS.BVRNT ALL OF THE WRITINGS OF PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GAYREEK PEDOSOPHERS LIKE PLATO AND ARISTOTLE.
--- 21926017
>>21925902
That is not his point. Once atheism is the default state, moral relativism results, and the various issues just get toppled like dominoes. Democracy, in such a state, is a very harsh mistress.
>what do you mean, you don't like pederasty?
>are you some kind of weirdo?
>hey, everybody - look over here
>we got us one of them bigots that hate man/boy love over here
>get the rope
--- 21926018
>>21925995
>look he said it again! and again!
Nah fuck off. Me and the rest of you will never be friends.
--- 21926025
>>21926018
ITT one emo kindergarten shooter with a jesus complex, nothing new there.
--- 21926026
>>21925915
All right. Thanks. I'll try to get this squared.
--- 21926031
>>21925978
Absolutely euphoric.
--- 21926032
>>21926025
you seem to have me mistaken for someone else I’m probably old enough to be your father. Would have been nice to pull out but the bitch was cock hungry and you ended up falling out of her cunt nine months later. Such is life.
--- 21926033
>>21926007
this is true. Since Plato was the one guy the christians could hold up and use to rationalize their jewish death cult.

If Plato had been taken by time-travelers and raped to death in a cave, there might be n Christianity.
--- 21926035
>>21926032
Why are you so mad at me? Just because St Incel interpreted Plato wrong you're going to act this way?
--- 21926043
>>21926035
I ain’t mad I’m just fucking with you.
--- 21926046
>>21926043
I also just come here to blow off steam and get occasional recs
--- 21926047
>>21926017
>>what do you mean, you don't like pederasty?
>>are you some kind of weirdo?
>>hey, everybody - look over here
>>we got us one of them bigots that hate man/boy love over here
>>get the rope
That's not moral relativism though. That's moral absolutism. In this case, what is deemed by the majority to be morally right is pederasty, and that is what people believe all ought to do.
In our society, it is wrong to criticize homosexuals because there is an implicit agreement that homosexuals and people from the many-letter acronym group are in need of respect and acceptance.
If nothing were wrong, then nobody would be looking down on people who offend others. Nobody would be offended by people who openly insult them, and nobody would seek to incarcerate people who receive physical harm.
The entire social justice warrior movement and other such movements, such as the BLM protests, are a sign that moral absolutism is very much alive, even though the values that people accept as good for all to follow are different from the ones that people observed at other points in history. People who lived in the 1930s would have been seen as degenerate by the standards of 17th century Puritans, and Puritans would've been looked down upon by the ancient Israelites, but nobody doubts that each society had its own customs and beliefs regarding what was acceptable to them and unacceptable.
You claim that atheistic societies have no morals, but what I see going on around us is a reconfiguration of morals and customs. People still look for something to approve of and something to persecute even if there are no holy books to point at for reference.
--- 21926057
>>21919359
By “real” are you referring to the mathematical term “real number” or do you mean as in mathematical Platonism?
--- 21926059
>>21926047
>even if there are no holy books to point at for reference
That is the scary part - that it can change at a moment's notice. No one will be safe.
--- 21926061
>>21926017
>Once atheism is the default state, moral relativism results
Nope. Google "The Golden Rule". predates Jeebus. Putting that aside...

The problem is that you incorrectly view basing your life on LotR for the 2000 year old crowd as the solution.
The real question we need to ask is, with religion correctly discarded as the lens through which we interpret reality, where do we find ourselves? In 300 years if everyone is a 600 pound transsexual pedophile, then that is just the way of things. But I personally highly doubt that. 

What i'm saying is, religion is not necessary for morality. But even if it was, religion is still a crock of shit- so we are just left with the admittedly unfortunate truth that the human condition involves moral relativism. But again, it doesn't, and both you and religion are retarded.
--- 21926066
>>21926059
If the Bible got deleted, surely God would drop us a fresh copy, no?
--- 21926072
>>21926061
We are reaching states of euphoria previously unimaginable.
--- 21926073
>>21926061
do you think religion started with Jesus buddy ?are you mentally ill?
--- 21926081
>>21926072
not an argument

>>21926073
See, I almost wrote a little disclaimer about that in the post, but figured that no one would be pedantic enough to bring it up. 
Do better.
--- 21926082
>>21926066
The presence of a physical text is not what is at issue. A whole new parallel morality is likely forming. Judging by who supports it, it's not going to be good.
--- 21926085
>>21926081
>but figured that no one would be pedantic enough to bring it up
not an argument
--- 21926087
>>21926082
Idk brah, the catholic church is pretty pro pedophilia, don't see how trannies are worse.
--- 21926089
>>21926081
explain/name one instance where a civilization had morals without religion
--- 21926100
>>21926085
Correct, that was not an argument. It was a statement. 

>>21926089
Yikes, so my whole post goes down the drain because I used the term "religion" too loosely? Seems like a lame way to get out of the argument. 
But if you'll permit me some leeway, the golden rule is highly noted in Confucianism, which predates the new testament and the Torah (probably, the Torah dates seem a little sketchy).
--- 21926104
>>21926087
The absolute state of where the RCC has brought us that this is the crossroads where you and I converge. Point taken, but pedophilia is not a Christian virtue, but a Catholic virtue. Do not conflate young marriages with baby rape. Also, do not neglect that ''Jews'' molest at a much higher rate than Catholics.
--- 21926110
>>21926104
>do not neglect that ''Jews'' molest at a much higher rate than Catholics.
Catholicbros, the Jews are beating us again... We gotta go rape more altar boys so we can keep the numbers up.
--- 21926114
>>21926104
>RCC
Not up on my /pol/ memes, what is this? Reptilian Communist Cockgobblers?
>Also, do not neglect that ''Jews'' molest at a much higher rate than Catholics.
Didn't know that, but I do know that Catholic Priests molest at slightly more than double the rate of the gen pop.
--- 21926118
Tbh I'd convert to Roman Catholicism and spend years at a seminar training to become a priest if I knew I could have guaranteed altar boipussy as soon as I got ordained.
--- 21926121
>>21926104
>>21926114
hol up
"Roman Catholic Church"
brain fart
--- 21926128
>>21926100
btw... the golden rule isn't really morals it's advice. so you're kind of retarded. trannys want to be lobotomized, so they are willing to castrate children because that's the way they perceive wanting to be treated. so you're kind of stupid
--- 21926135
>its impossible for us to exist
>we exist anyway
>therefore God by definition must exist
it's that simple why do people still argue about this?
--- 21926142
>>21926128
Holy shit you idiot the same thing applies to Christianity. Get your head checked.
--- 21926150
>>21926135
weakest bait i've ever seen about this topic
The worst part is you might actually be sincere.
--- 21926152
>>21926142
>prove why you're wrong
>ad hom reply
care to take another shot here?
--- 21926155
>>21926152
>ad hom reply
kek, half your post was ad hom
Please explain in no less than 500 words how your post and my post differed in style (other than our points of view being different).
--- 21926161
>>21926142
How's that bad tho? Christianity's known for being a milquetoast version of Judaism and being the hippie religion. It's all about preaching love towards your neighbors and turning the other cheek and other kinds of cucky stuff.
--- 21926162
>>21926017
>when atheism is the default state
For millenia child marriage or marriage of young women to old men has been a reality, if not sanctioned on the peripheries of society. Its only with the most recent rise of secular humanism that it has become taboo.
>but my French petition
The sexual revolution was a revolution. Overshoot happens. The intellectuals were following ideas of liberation to their logical conclusions and being edgy about it. They quickly amended their statements.
--- 21926168
>>21926162
Well, let's hope we get past this age of puritanical sexual repression so we can freely marry our boywives.
--- 21926169
>>21926161
Maybe in theory. That does not describe the American right, at any rate. 

Putting aside the larger problem of basing your life on a literal fantasy novel written by people 2000 years behind us in our understanding of things.
--- 21926171
>>21926155
Mine explained why your idea was illogical, yours didn't make an effort
--- 21926175
>>21926171
>yours didn't make an effort
I put in all the effort that was required to point out the flaw in your logic.
--- 21926179
>>21926128
So in essence those aren’t trannies should get their dicks chopped off too? Doesn’t quite add up…
--- 21926185
>>21926128
>so they are willing to castrate children because that's the way they perceive wanting to be treated. 
Wouldn't the golden rule in this scenario be more like
>I, a tranny, want the freedom to choose my identity, therefore I will give others that same freedom
?
If your argument is that real life trannies don't do this, then I would just argue that they are not adhering to the golden rule.
--- 21926193
>>21926169
69 check'd
American culture has lots of influences besides Christianity. It's not like people in Anglo-Saxon England forgot absolutely everything about pre-Christian Germanic ethics and honor systems the moment they converted to Christianity, and it's not like American culture did not evolve over to a radically different form from that of most European countries during colonial times and afterwards, with the rise of the pioneer and capitalist-industrial spirits.
American people love to quote the Bible because it's the one book people of all ages have heard of, but the truth is that American cultural values and beliefs hardly owe anything to the book of the ancient Hebrews. Americans owe more to John Locke and the pioneer spirit than they do to any part of the Bible.
--- 21926198
>>21926175
What's the flaw? "treat others the way you want to be treated" in fact means nothing unless you already have a consciousness which has an understanding of what "good" is. Therefore it has no base morality. It in itself is a tool, be kind to that 6'3 guy that can kill you because then he may not kill you. It's almost like math. It however is not morality. 
>>21926179
you're missing a word in your sentence, as it stands you don't make sense.
>>21926185
no that's a delusion. (which is the same as being one) you can't identify as something without being it. they already have the freedom to be something they can achieve they simply choose not to. another example of the "golden rule" is this, Jews want to have their dicks mutilated as babies. So they go around doing so to everyone because that's what they would want. Do you understand now?
--- 21926203
>>21926169
>written by people 2000 years behind us in our understanding of things.
It was easier to take a claim like that seriously before our civilization started to claim that man becomes a woman if he cuts his dick off and has a surgeon create an axe wound between his legs.
--- 21926221
>>21926203
Yeah, things were so much better off back when Christian monks used to intentionally cause themselves bodily harm by whipping themselves and wearing spiky metal chains around their feet.
Tranny self-harm bad but Christian self-harm good amirite my fellow tradfags?
--- 21926222
>>21926198
>What's the flaw? "treat others the way you want to be treated" in fact means nothing unless you already have a consciousness which has an understanding of what "good" is. Therefore it has no base morality. It in itself is a tool, be kind to that 6'3 guy that can kill you because then he may not kill you. It's almost like math. It however is not morality.
I think the problem is that we fundamentally disagree on one thing- that the bible is anything other than a story written by men. If that is the case, then what you are calling "real morality" doesn't exist, because "real morality" is just the people who wrote the bible's opinion.

>>21926198
>>21926198
>no that's a delusion. (which is the same as being one) you can't identify as something without being it. they already have the freedom to be something they can achieve they simply choose not to. another example of the "golden rule" is this, Jews want to have their dicks mutilated as babies. So they go around doing so to everyone because that's what they would want. Do you understand now?
No. 
Why do you think the golden rule involves forcing people to do things that they don't want to? That is the opposite of the golden rule.
--- 21926226
>>21926198
Oh well you’ll get it eventually
--- 21926227
>>21926203
You seem too obsessed with trannies to really talk with, judging from all your posts here. Not even memeing.
--- 21926231
>>21926221
Both are bad, so I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. I'm not a Christian by the way.
>>21926227
First post I've made in the thread. It's the most obvious example of modern nonsense, however.
--- 21926237
BROOO CHRISTIAN SELF-HARM IS SO AESTHETIC BRO 
HAVE YOU READ ST. THOMAS A KEMPIS?
WE GOTTA LIVE IN IMITATION OF CHRIST AND SUFFER JUST LIKE HIM BECAUSE THAT'S HOW LIFE IS MEANT TO BE.
OMG IT'S SO FUCKING TRAD AND BASED.
FUCK GAYTHEISTS I HOPE ALL OF THEM DIE (BTW I KNOW THAT THIS GOES AGAINST JESUS' TEACHINGS OF BEING PEACEFUL AND PATIENT WITH OTHERS, BUT FUCK THOSE PEOPLE).
GOD, I WILL BREED MILLIONS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CHILDREN IN YOUR NAME AND WILL DONATE MY ENTIRE FORTUNE TO THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (that is, if I had a trad Catholic wife).
--- 21926243
>>21926222
except that morality existed inside of faith separate from the bible. I don't even need to explain the morality in the bible for my case to be made. 
Second point is my assertions that are based on reality. Trans people are doing this today without having religion. They are convinced this is a good thing. That's because they live in the natural sinful state of man. Why did Zeus have to go around and get people to stop cannibalizing each other? At one time that was okay, because there was no morality. Why do Jews become doctors and cut off part of baby boys penises? Rejection of God. These are real instances that happen today that you cannot refute. Yet you still think that morality exists without having faith in a creator or a divine world.
--- 21926246
>>21926231
>First post I've made in the thread. It's the most obvious example of modern nonsense, however.
Don't even really want to wade into these waters with a trannypanic poster, but...
My opinion is that the knowledge the human race has gained about its environment since the publishing of the bible has at least crippled, if not outright killed the credibly of the bible.
--- 21926249
The "does God exist?" question is a redherring, the greatest psyop of all time.

Yes God exists. But the purpose of this "debate" is meant to paint God Himself as contingent on existence. When existence is contingent on God. God doesn't even "need" to exist to fulfill His desires. That is how powerful God is, how "asei" He is .

So Jesus really is God, and He really did die on the Cross for me.
--- 21926262
>>21926243
Where did I say that everyone follows the golden rule though?
Yet AGAIN, forcing people to become circumcised trannies or whatever else is literally the opposite of the golden rule. Nevertheless, the golden rule exists, and there were people who followed it before Christianity. 
>That's because they live in the natural sinful state of man.
But really you're just stuck in your little simulation, so I don't see this getting through to you. 

>>21926249
Pointless post. It changes no minds, it's just you virtue signaling.
--- 21926264
>>21926222
Furthermore, atheist, we know and acknowledge that the Bible is written by men. Only lukewarm willfully ignorant atheists even say this line. Go ahead and look up the authors of each book. Each one is known. But as an atheist you have no understanding of being led by the being that controls this universe, because you reject Him. Therefore you could not conceive being instructed by the divine. Probably never sincerely prayed in your entire life. The argument about whether or not things come from man or God, which are written down come from people that have been influenced directly by God and have had a direct impact on the story of the world. See the five books from Moses. 
"treat others the way you want to be treated". Okay. Is it against the golden rule to open doors for other people? But I'm forcing the door to be opened for you!!! That means it's not the golden rule!!!!!! Even though I want people to open the door for me!!!!!!!!!!!
--- 21926268
>>21926249
DAS RITE MUH FELLOW TRADCATHOLIC POSTER
NOW LET'S DONATE MORE MONEY TO THE CHURCH AND SEND LETTERS TO "HUMANITARIAN" ORGS ASKING THEM TO STOP AIDS PREVENTION PROGRAMS IN AFRICAN COUNTRIES, CUZ, Y'KNOW, WE GOTTA LET PEOPLE BREED.
FOR AS THE LORD HATH SAID "BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY".
ALSO, LET'S CONVINCE MORE CANCER PATIENTS AND OTHER TERMINALLY ILL PEOPLETO GO ON PILGRIMAGES TO HOLY SHRINES INSTEAD OF SEEKING CHEMIOTHERAPY CUZ WE ALL KNOW HOW EFFECTIVE PRAYER AND MIRACULOUS HEALING IS.
FUCK MUSLIMS I FUCKING HATE MUSLIMS. DEATH TO ALL MUDSLIMES. I HOPE THAT ONE DAY THE KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM WILL FALL IN HANDS OF A WESTERN CHRISTAIN KING AGAIN.
--- 21926270
>>21926262
>tHAt's nOT tHe GOldEn Rule
--- 21926284
>>21926264
>"treat others the way you want to be treated". Okay. Is it against the golden rule to open doors for other people? But I'm forcing the door to be opened for you!!! That means it's not the golden rule!!!!!! Even though I want people to open the door for me!!!!!!!!!!!
kek
Christfriends aren't sending their best. 
Unwilling mutilation is the opposite of the golden rule. I wan to give you enough credit to think that you are intentionally playing dumb, but
>>21926270
i'm starting to not be able to do that.

If you think unwilling mutilation is the golden rule, then you just keep on keepin' on, and i'll do the same.
I don't concede the argument, but I am done with it unless you come up with something that makes any sense at all.
--- 21926288
>>21926284
*want
--- 21926294
>>21926264
YUH MUH FELLOW NIGGUH IN CHRIST THE BIBLE IS 100% TRUE AND DIVINELY INSPIRED. IT'S GOT THE BEST, THE FUCKIN BEST MORALS AND THE BEST PARABLES AND THE HYMNS AND THE BEST 'THOLOGIES OF ALL. IT'S THE BEST OF THE BEST /LIT/. BRO WE SHOULD JUST THROW ALL OF THE OTHER BOOKS AT THE LIBRARY TO THE TRASH EXCEPT FOR THE ROMAN CHADTHOLIC CHURCH CATHECISM AND THE WRITINGS OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS.
BRO IT'S SO FUCKING ECSTATIC TO READ THE GOSPEL OF LUKE AND THE EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. SHIT'S FUCKIN DANK YO JUST LIKE THE BOOK OF JONAH AND THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL. SO FUCKING BASED AND KEYED AND TRAD MY FELLOW NON-MUSLIM TRADTHOLIC BRO.
IT'S LIKE ALMOST AS GOOD AS LSD (except I've never done LSD because I would never dare buy drugs from a non-Christian drug dealer).

DEM FUCKIN ATHEISTS CAN'T DO ANYTHING THAT'S MORALLY RIGHT CUZ THEY'RE ALL FUCKED UP WITH THEIR NIGGER-BBC-TRANNY WORSHIP. THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN ANYTHING THAT'S GOOD OR VIRTUOUS. ONLY WE, THE RELIGION OF THE TRUE AND BASED AF RIGHT CAN KNOW WHAT IS THE MOST DEFINITELY CORRECT AND TO HELL WITH ANYBODY WHO DARES TO CONTRADICT US.
--- 21926297
>>21926284
You haven't made a single argument since your post I replied to where you said that morality has existed outside of religion because "muh golden rule". I explain to you the sin of man, which is natural degeneration which our reality proves is not any morality. There is nothing inherently good about treating people as you want to be treated. As stated evil can come from this. You choose to ignore any point regarding children because you have no refutation, and have been unable to say anything other than "you're wrong and dumb lol". The simple point is this, treating others the way you want to be treated is not in any sense of the word "morality". If you've read any Roman say, Juvenal you would know that man desires what is bad for him. Simply because you would "like to be treated a way" is not morality, it is in fact, as stated a tool for survival that worked so well it continues to exist. You teach someone to do people favors in the hopes that they get it returned one day, and benefitting themselves. There is no virtue in this.
--- 21926298
>>21926297
>There is no virtue in this.
Define virtue.
--- 21926301
>>21926298
>no refutation
thanks socrates! virtue can be defined as righteousness, moral good or an admirable quality
--- 21926303
>>21926297
>I explain to you the sin of man, which is natural degeneration
Again, the problem is that you are basing your worldview off of a fictional book.

Anyway the golden rule was obviously (and verifiably) thought of as involving living well with your fellow man, not as an excuse for violence and whatever else.
--- 21926310
>>21926303
Actually I stated another source (Juvenal) that explains the same sentiment, that man if given the choice, will degrade his own being. You'll notice that I never brought up anything involving "violence". Ask a transgender if it was violent when they were given the ability to remove their penis. Ask a Jew if it was violent when their tip was cut. These things to them are involved with living well. Do you see Mr Beast's buddy right now saying that the access to such care saved his life? Maybe you don't understand yet
--- 21926311
Catholicucks are fucking ridiculous. They have to recur to philosophical arguments made up by ancient Greek PAGAN philosophers to substantiate stuff they believe should be accepted through faith regarding stuff written by the ancient Hebrews. They claim to share continuity with the old prophets like Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Ezra, yet they also govern themselves by a hierarchy that's literally copied off the ancient Roman PAGAN religion. They even call their highest priest "Pontifex" maximus. The head of their church is fucking Rome, the old capital of the Roman Empire that crucified Jesus.
In addition, they use bullshit arguments about Papal infallibility to allow their Roman pontifex maximus to come up with bullshit excuses to change their centuries of traditions on dogma and doctrine that they claim to be what unite them to St Peter.
--- 21926316
>>21926301
Define righteousness in a non-redundant way.
--- 21926319
>>21926222
>That is the opposite of the golden rule
Not him, and digits aside, let's see if we can agree on the text. Something along the lines of -
>do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Can we agree on this? If so, then show me how ''Jews'' violate the rule within the dick chopping example.
--- 21926323
>>21926316
why bother?
--- 21926324
>>21926311
When you learn that 'petros' means both "rock" ("you are my, successor, stone on the ground") and was a name for a glorious temple city just being built at the time, and whose king actually chased herod out of judea with his armies, you'll love it.
--- 21926325
>>21926246
>trannypanic poster
WTF is that even?
--- 21926328
>>21926310
>Actually I stated another source (Juvenal) that explains the same sentiment, that man if given the choice, will degrade his own being.
How is that a source? Did he do a study?

>Ask a transgender if it was violent when they were given the ability to remove their penis. Ask a Jew if it was violent when their tip was cut.
And yet again, for the millionth time, these people doing this to others, would not be following the golden rule.

We are going in circles.
--- 21926329
>>21926323
Do you want to be taken seriously, or do you just want to waste other posters' time by coming up with bullshit objections built on piles of vacuous buzzwords?
--- 21926332
>>21926319
read the entire exchange before commenting
already addressed this
--- 21926341
>>21926324
That city's name was Petra, not Petros.
--- 21926343
>>21926328
Yeah he studied humanity brother.
>>21926328
>your evidence against me isn't real
nice try buddy. you're being willfully ignorant of what human nature is in order to larp as an intellectual
>>21926329
>do you want to be taken seriously?
>asks someone to define words over and over instead of responding to the text
you okay?
--- 21926346
>>21926343
>Yeah he studied humanity brother.
I accept your concession.
--- 21926349
>>21926343
Fucking kys Catholicuck I hope you chop off your balls just all of those Roman Catholic monks and priests who voluntarily became eunuchs.
--- 21926350
>>21926346
>hehe... your argument isn't backed up by modern academic studies... i win
--- 21926352
>>21926349
not a catholic btw
--- 21926356
>>21926341
that's not a refutation and your grasp of translated language is bad.
--- 21926357
>>21926352
kys anyway
--- 21926361
>>21926350
It doesn't mean you're wrong buddy, it just means you've given no hard data that you are right.
--- 21926364
>>21926332
Point at it. I do not see it being properly deconstructed.
--- 21926366
>>21926356
Fuck you too Christtranny and join your Kike-on-a-stick
--- 21926368
>>21926361
in fact, it proves that I'm correct considering the opposition took his last stand on that dumbass point
--- 21926369
>>21926364
>I do not see it being properly deconstructed.
Meaning you want me to point at it so you can argue the point. Then just argue it, don't pretend you didn't see the post.
--- 21926371
>>21926368
Are you the guy who posted that smug Soijak? If so, fucking kys.
Death to all Soijakpostingtrannies /qa/ lost kys kys kys kys kys
--- 21926376
>>21926368
????
I'm the same guy, please explain how you arrived at your victory. Because from where i'm standing, you have not shown your claim about degradation/sin to be true.
--- 21926379
>>21926376
>Because from where i'm standing,
>i'm
Crypto-lowercasepostingfag.
--- 21926381
bump
--- 21926386
>>21926376
>sin doesn't exist
>modern day transgenders without faith think it's a moral good to castrate children
what are you missing?
--- 21926390
>>21926381
KYS
>>21926386
Fucking kys lowercasepostingscum.
Join your Saviour on the cross.
--- 21926400
>>21926369
I guess it must be the 'nuh, uh, the golden rule does not work that way'' nonsense that I did see. 
>do unto others as you would have them do unto you
>dickchop others as you would have them dickchop you
The only way that I see a flaw is if the dickchopping is objectively evil. From the dickchopper's perspective, it apparently is not, so that falls short.
--- 21926401
>chopping off your dick is bad UNLESS IT'S FOR JESUS CHRIST, IN WHICH CASE IT'S ACTUALLY GOOD
"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive" - Matthew 19:12
--- 21926402
>>21926386
>sin doesn't exist
Sin doesn't exist, no. Men doing unwanted things to one another certainly does, but then... they wouldn't be following the golden rule. 

Yet again for the bajjillionth time, a tranny following the golden rule would think
>if I didn't want to be a tranny like the person in front of me has just said they don't, would I still want my dick cut off? No, I wouldn't, so I won't do it to this person who doesn't want it.
--- 21926409
>>21926400
see
>>21926402
--- 21926416
>>21926401
based
--- 21926417
The golden rule is so messy and complex. Why not use the categorical imperative instead? Everybody should that which, if every single person did it, then it wouldn't be bad.
That way, there would be no people chopping each others' dicks off, and there would be no suicidal people killing others.
--- 21926421
>>21926416
Is criticizing Christianity for suggesting that it is good for people to become eunuchs based, or Christianity itself based because it advocates for self-castration in the name of God?
--- 21926422
>>21926402
>sin doesn't exist
are u okay bro? do you need help?
on the tranny point you are simply wrong. you know that trannys see a little boy play with dolls and encourage transition right? you can keep saying "they aren't following the golden rule" but that doesn't make it so. they now perceive wanting this done to them as they were children so they do it to children. How is that not the golden rule? be specific and don't trail off
--- 21926429
>>21926417
>The golden rule is so messy and complex.
It really isn't, if you take it in a Confucian context. No one versed in that way of thinking would come away with the idea that trannies turning unwilling people into trannies is a correct application of the golden rule.
--- 21926437
>>21926429
I'm sure you could find some psychopathic people who believe that killing as many humans as possible is good because they hate being alive.
--- 21926438
>>21926422
>they now perceive wanting this done to them as they were children so they do it to children. How is that not the golden rule?
Because the golden rule would be
>>if I didn't want to be a tranny like the person in front of me has just said they don't, would I still want my dick cut off? No, I wouldn't, so I won't do it to this person who doesn't want it.

I really truly can't make this any simpler. I'm being as plain and... explanatory as I can be.
You are mad at trannies, not the golden rule, which they are not following, for the above reason.
--- 21926445
>>21926438
>exact same reply
how do you think this continues your argument? it was wrong the first time you stated it. in your sentence it implies the human acknowledges the child doesn't want it. When the reality is that they force the child down the path- because of projection psychology. Understand yet?
--- 21926446
>>21926437
Did you not even read my post? The golden rule isn't a legal document that is made to lawyer out of, it's an idea rooted in man's better (yeah yeah no such definable thing without le god) aspects.
--- 21926452
>>21926445
>When the reality is that they force the child down the path- because of projection psychology.
And therefore they are not following the golden rule. Understand yet?
Fuck me.
--- 21926454
>>21926446
>it's an idea rooted in man's better (yeah yeah no such definable thing without le god) aspects.
This post was written by a filthy Rousseauian.
--- 21926455
>>21926437
Nutjobs like Benatar would call you crazy for suggesting it right up until they break from the last vestige of reason to which they cling.
--- 21926457
>>21926452
you don't understand what delusion is buddy. They would be believing that they are following the golden rule, because it is abstract and not rooted in morality.
--- 21926465
>>21926457
If they are delusional then that's a whole separate issue, lmfao! 
Why would you blame the golden rule for a mentally ill person's inability to follow it?
--- 21926476
>>21926465
I accept your concession buddy. Point proven, the golden rule is not morality. Religion that states their morals would be able to prevent this from happening even in a delusional mind.
--- 21926488
>>21926476
>Religion that states their morals would be able to prevent this from happening even in a delusional mind.

Religious people don't become mentally unwell and do crazy shit? What?
How are you going to claim victory in this argument when your points become more delusional (the irony btw) by the post?
--- 21926492
>>21926476
Sure, the same religion that asks people to stone adulterers and to punish people who say Yahoo-wahoo's name in vain. I bet you we can learn plenty from ancient Yids who believed that mixing milk and meat was unseemly in the eyes of the Lord.
Also, remember that
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matthew 5:17
--- 21926503
>>21926488
atheist society encouraging trans movement proves my point. even if a devout person became delusional their brothers in faith would stop them. (don't bother mentioning infiltrated churches which are lies)
>>21926492
you probably don't understand that quote
--- 21926504
>>21926476
>>21926465
>>21926457
The "golden rule"..? You mean "do unto others"? That's garbage in and of itself. You shouldn't be treating bad people as you'd like to be treated, you're not bad and don't deserve brutal maiming, but they might do.

It's more the case that ....... in my case anyway ...... I'm nice to people sometimes because I choose to be, it's a matter of willpower and probably more comes down to "only the strong can be merciful (as a weak man has nothing in is power to be merciful about/for/with),"

Golden Rule debunked. Now go kill some bad people.. or at the very least mutilate their appendages. Even your jewish God approves of this in your book of stupid rubbish.
--- 21926516
>>21926503
and there go the goalposts 
gg
--- 21926521
>>21926516
go ahead and explain it
--- 21926526
>>21926503
>atheist society encouraging trans movement
Yeah, too bad it's not like in the good old days, when the Roman Catholic Church was allowed to keep castrated young men solely for the sake of serving as choir singers.
--- 21926534
>>21926526
remember when I said this 
>devout person became delusional their brothers in faith would stop them.
remember when what happened was under 1) a corrupt church and 2) was fought against and finally overturned? also 3) willfully done by the boys as far as im aware. source me if im wrong
--- 21926565
>>21926534
Nah I'm just gonna bring up the "No True Scotsman" card on that.
You fuckers will just defen literally kind of shit by saying "Oh, but THAT'S not what the TRUE Church would do", even though it's the worst excuse anybody could use.
If you wanna come off like less of a pussy, you could try saying that they dindu nuffin wrong and that we need to cut off dongs so boys can preserve their beautiful high pitched singing voices. Instead, you just come off like a filthy rat, who hides whenever it feels under attack from outsiders.

Just owe up to the fact that your Church is full of people who do all sorts of immoral shit. I as an atheist don't believe that all atheists are rational or moral, but that doesn't make my self-identification label any more likely to be easily peeled off.
--- 21926576
>>21926565
>your church
as i told you, im not a catholic. if you read the Bible you'd know satan disguises himself dressed as white
--- 21926599
>>21925577
so he was right
--- 21926604
>>21926576
>if you read the Bible you'd know satan disguises himself dressed as white
bro what if Jesus was Satan
--- 21926663
>>21926576
What a fucking pussy.
--- 21926704
>>21925996
Differentiate how "metaphysics" is different from physics. The way I have seen it used is that "physics" deals with the natural universe, and "metaphysics" is used for some dimension outside of or beyond the universe we live in. "The body", "free will", "the mind", and "the existence of other humans" are subjects within the domain of the natural world, they exist in reality and we can investigate them as such, therefore they would fall under the umbrella of "physics".

So, from what I have said, you should be able to see how "metaphysics" is really just a Trojan horse to try and smuggle in wild conjecture and make it sound legitimate.
--- 21926713
>>21926249
--- 21926974
>>21926704
To a great extent it's a historical/cultural division. Many concepts that used to be studied by metaphysicians are nowadays associated with Physics (such as time, space, causes, forces, and substances).
The difference is that whereas physicists try to make models that describe specific events, or that will tell how how a certain body's behavior will work given a certain set of circumstances, metaphysicians will only discuss, for example, whether they exist, and how they relate in general to the world and to all that exists. 
Metaphysicians are not very interested in exploring anything in particular. Rather, they just define concepts and think about what they logically entail.
Instead of studying "beauty" or "numbers" per se, metaphysicians would probably just come up with a highly unintuitive definition for them that would fit in with their general conception of the universe, and then consider in what kind of case they might exist, if at all.
Metaphysics quickly runs stagnant, since there is very little to discuss once initial lists of definitions and general premises have been agreed upon.
--- 21927056
>>21926974
>Metaphysics quickly runs stagnant, since there is very little to discuss once initial lists of definitions and general premises have been agreed upon
So, what is the draw? A whole lot of dudes have dedicated their lives to it.
--- 21927083
>>21918725 (OP)
The proof is smarter then you think, and both Spinoza in his description of substance and Wittgenstein in the idea that drawing limits to thought presents to you what is beyond thought (intro to the tractatus) seem to draw from it.
But you read no books, so there's no discussion to be had here.