God's existence cannot be justified

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

God's existence cannot be justified Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 06:43:07 098350 No.778570

I've just come to the realization that even if transcendence is real that doesn't mean a God put it there. Its just means that there's transcendence.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 07:29:27 4b61d1 No.778581

>>778570

>Its just means that there's transcendence.

That doesn't even make sense. Transcendence is a property of something, therefore there would need to be something that "transcends". You could argue mathematics and "natural laws" meet that criteria, but then how did those come about? And what about consciousness? Eventually, you'll end up with all those transcendental things in one big mystery bucket, which will be nothing more than a confused restatement of the definition of God anyway.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 07:41:01 098350 No.778585

>>778581

Just because you have transcendent things doesn't mean a God put them there.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 08:06:48 331f55 No.778592

File: d4e36acd493ca93⋯.jpg (590.49 KB, 700x6826, 350:3413, firstway.jpg)

Um sweaty….

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 08:18:35 098350 No.778594

>>778592

All that argument saids is that you need a prime actualizer. That doesn't mean it has to be a God. You don't need to know how to actualize (more less know anything beyond that) it just needs to happen. You don't need to be all powerful, all you would need is the power of actualizing, nothing else. etc.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 08:21:37 01cbb3 No.778595

You can't justify that God exists, neither you can justify that God doesn't exist.

You must bow to him either way.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 08:39:35 9dc037 No.778600

File: 8982e2716219931⋯.png (4.39 KB, 195x293, 195:293, th.png)

>>778585

>>778594

The problem is that you're basically presupposing a definition of God, then looking for evidence of it in transcendental phenomena, instead of letting the transcendental phenomena itself tell you what God actually is. In other words, you're putting the cart before the horse. If you're looking to justify the existence of something akin to a magical sky daddy, you're not going to succeed, because that's not what God is in the first place. God basically boils down to "that which is necessary for our observable conditions to exist". So if you think you have everything completely explained and sorted out, you've either renamed God as something else, intentionally ignored/handwaved away the incomplete bits, or you're missing something, because you're always going to need some kind of base assumption for any system:

https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

I also recommend reading pic related to elaborate on this.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 09:08:08 098350 No.778602

>>778600

I've mainly been going of the definition the God (to put it simply) is this all/most powerful being in existence. But to relabel him as "that which is necessary for our observable conditions to exist" Is even worst. You don't need a God to be to make the necessary conditions for our observation, i.e. all those powerful traits of his are unneeded here. Only thing required is to perpetuate observable conditions to exist.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 10:16:51 14ee9a No.778613

>>778594

Things like omnipotence, perf3ction and omniscience are deduced from the required properties of an uncaused cause etc etc. This is even mentioned in the image, which you should know if you had read it.

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 14:41:17 be3088 No.778752

>>778602

>But to relabel him as "that which is necessary for our observable conditions to exist" Is even worst.

You're the one relabelling him, get your facts straight. If you read the book in the post you're responding to, you would know that you're completely misrepresenting the historical understanding of God throughout all cultures. This primitive understanding of him only as "all powerful" is just one of many simplified short-hand approximations given to describe the very same idea you're trying to argue against, and is thus insufficient to describe him on its own, by definition.

>You don't need a God to be to make the necessary conditions for our observation

And you think you know better than several centuries worth of philosophers that dedicated their lives to thinking about this? What makes you so qualified to know you're right? Have you actually considered all the objections that have been raised about your argument throughout history? As was already stated, if you think you've got it all figured out, you're missing something.

>Only thing required is to perpetuate observable conditions to exist.

That makes even less sense than the original statement about transcendence in your OP. WHY do things perpetuate? And WHAT causes them to perpetuate? In case it isn't obvious, the perpetuation itself would also fall under "observable conditions that exist", and is thus insufficient to explain all the "observable conditions that exist".

Christanon 03/04/19 (Mon) 18:43:05 844bb1 No.778976

>>778602

No, a hypostatic, or personal, Logos, that is Christ, is assumed in order. To observe implies that there is such thing as a hypostasis, at least of the observer. No observation ever happened without an observer.

If you start anywhere outside a hypostatic order, that is Christ, then it's dead matter interacting with dead matter. No observer.