Books on the Proof of God

lol
lmao

Do you want to believe in the Christian God specifically or will any concept of god suffice?
It might be easier for you to swallow the Platonic concept of the Good and then follow the philosophy of that.
If you want to believe in YHWH specifically then you're gonna need the Bible and faith. And persistence.

the bible came from a higher intelligence, although that being is likely evil, the actual text of the bible itself is very accurate

>the bible came from a higher intelligence, although that being is likely evil
So, a Rabbi?
>text of the bible itself is very accurate
Accurate to what?

>Books on the Proof of God
There aren’t any. It rests on faith alone. Just like Santa Claus

user don't get baited into discussing the accuracy of the bible

>Read The Bible
>made me want to become a Kabbalist more than a Christian
It wasn't supposed to go like this

Attached: 1573260905260.jpg (709x595, 51.07K)

>read the OT
>made me want to write metal songs instead of believe in a God

it's probably just a channeled text, use discernment

I don’t want to believe in god per say, more I want to believe in the “truth”, and the question of if there is a “god” is apart of that.
I’ve looked at the atheists side so I want to look at the theists side now.
So yeah any concept of god will do as long as they have a sound argument.
I listed all Christian writer as that is what I got recommended.

Attached: 7B3D2361-C151-440A-85E5-9CC6C6C226D6.jpg (5000x4000, 979.12K)

nobody is actually an atheist they are communist agents subverting morality

There are two arguments I like. The first is the transcendental which posits a presuppositional requirement of God existing for any category of knowledge to exist. Sort of like: X Requires Y, Y exists, therefore X.

Another is the design argument, you can look at anything in nature, including the Earth itself (requiring very specific constants for life to exist) and recognise complex biological processes and actions require intelligent design. I was first exposed to this while studying design in college and was taught about the Golden Ratio being the perfect thing that sprouts from nature. The Greeks adopted it as the basis of their artwork and architecture. Also for example just look at the structures even bees produce, their beehives are the most efficiently designed, they wouldn't have got this natural urge or knowledge to design them in hexagons just randomly. There's too much design and organisation in this world to not believe in God.

You might as well worship Sauron if you're going to force yourself to believe in fairy tales

The first is nonsense, the second does not require YHWH and can be solved by idealism.

>evolved for the mere purpose of being able to reproduce
>cares about and believes he can know objective truth
Contemplate the absurdity of this. Do you know a single thing that is true? And why do you want to believe in truth, anyway? Is it to fulfill some desire to be intelligent or wise? The wise man knows nothing. Or maybe you want to use truth to make better decisions? Then truth is not always necessary, as you only want to bring about good consequences and satisfy your preferences.

You don’t even know if “I exist” is true, because you don’t know what “I” means and you don’t know what “exist” means.

Attached: 477E8CEC-6560-445A-9B2C-9ADB44932BA1.jpg (1170x454, 110.9K)

I think the second is the most logical. The "great architect of the universe". I find it hard to believe that a creator god would go through all this work and then be like "okay the jews are better than everyone...now go work it out"

>The first is nonsense
How so? These are presuppositional requirements for any knowledge to exist:
>Self/Agency/Intentionality *Any action of knowledge is presupposing the existence of a self
>Time/Space
>Unity/Diversity
>Identity Over Time
>Causation
>Teleology
>Laws of Logic
>Abstract Concepts
>Meaning

These are all prior conditions for knowledge or evidentialist claims. You must admit that the world is highly structured even though you do not have empirical evidence for these preconditions.

>the second does not require YHWH
Correct, but it's an easily observable arguement I like.
>can be solved by idealism
I don't understand.

The reason it reduces the validity of a God who is perfect in efficiency and expenditure is that he would not need to design a world that is efficient at self-perpetuation, instead he would passively create things at each and every moment. This points to there being no perfectly efficient being, and it could just be a generic Brahman, who would be nurturing this reality for the sake of bringing more people insight.

>I find it hard to believe that a creator god would go through all this work and then be like "okay the jews are better than everyone...now go work it out"
It's a lot more complicated than that, but God had chosen a specific people and a specific time to become incarnate. I believe it was because the Greeks had developed their linguistics enough to understand Christian theology. Concepts like the Logos or Homousia to comprehend Christology.

You're confusing the idea of a developed mind (in relation to an undeveloped mind) as a need for God. Reality is, your mind is capable of both primitive and advanced thought, neither of which has to be true. The mind does not inherently need any of those things listed, it can have those but does not need them, and I have no clue how you conclude it has to have them. Think back to your childhood, or imagine a mentally impaired person.
>>can be solved by idealism
>I don't understand.
You are presupposing that things that are inherently "complex" and stimulating to the mind must inherently exist from a position of deliberateness, failing to consider that they do not need to exist both "outside of the mind" and "inside it", such as the idea versus the application of the Golden ratio. In other words, the material and less talkative world didn't need special effort to utilize complex concepts because the very concepts themselves are inherent to the external-yet-non-material world that you're simply observing, but they never needed a special way to be applied.
>so why aren't they everywhere then?
Goes both ways. Some things are more common than others.

No, it's not more complicated like that, as much as you would like to delude others.

empty speculation. If you want to convince anyone, use a proper logical argument. Good luck

>I’m looking for the “proof” of god in a philosophical sense
web.archive.org/web/20190709032709/http://www.xenosystems.net/the-cult-of-gnon
"“Nature or Nature’s God” is not a statement, but a name, internally divided by tolerated uncertainty. Whatever is suspended now, without delay, is Gnon. Whatever cannot be decided yet, even as reality happens, is Gnon. If there is a God, Gnon nicknames him. If not, Gnon designates whatever the ‘not’ is. Gnon is the Vast Abrupt, and the crossing. Gnon is the Great Propeller."

web.archive.org/web/20190704065822/http://www.xenosystems.net/gnon-theology-and-time/
"Evidently, Gnon-Theology cannot be dogmatic, even in part. Instead, it is hypothetical, in a maximally reduced sense, in which the hypothesis is an opportunity for cognitive exploration unshackled from ontological commitments. The content of Gnon-Theology is exhausted by the question: *What does the idea of God enable us to think?*
And ‘the idea of God’? — what in the name of Gnon is that? All we know, at first, is that it has been grit-blasted of all encrustations from either positive or negative faith. It cannot be anything with which we have historical or revelatory familiarity, since it reaches us from out of the abyss (epoche), where only time and / or the unknown remain.
Glutted on forbidden fruit, Gnon-Theology strips God like an engine, down to the limit of abstraction, or eternity for-itself. Does any such perspective exist? We already know that this is not our question. All such ‘regional ontology’ has been suspended. We are nevertheless already entitled, through the grace of Gnon (which — remember — might (or might not) be God), to the assumption or acceptance of reality that: for any God to be God it cannot be less than eternity for-itself. Whatever eternity for-itself entails, any God will, too.
What it entails, unambiguously, is time-travel, in the strong sense of reverse causation, although not necessarily in the folk/Hollywood variant"

web.archive.org/web/20190709044641/http://www.xenosystems.net/simulated-gnon-theology/
"To avoid gratuitous idolatry, all our subsequent assumptions must be readily retractable. It is not our mission to tell Gnon what it is. Our sole refuge lies in the recognition, initially inarticulate, that to think Gnon as God is to advance a hyper-ontological and meta-chronic hypothesis. From Gnon’s self-understanding, being and time have to emerge as exhaustively comprehended consequences (even though we have no idea – at all – what this might mean).
If Gnon is God, it is the reality of infinite intelligence."

Attached: nick land.jpg (341x512, 24.68K)

>empty speculation
Are you retarded user-kun? The point was to disprove your claim of a needed YHWH-figure with a less demanding individual.

This reads like a GNU is not Linux parody.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems

Attached: Kurt_gödel.jpg (212x270, 21K)

Proves Buddhist nature of emptiness more than God.

>You're confusing the idea of a developed mind (in relation to an undeveloped mind) as a need for God
No, I'm not talking about the mind but the conditions for knowledge to exist. You require meaning, abstract concepts, the laws of logic, the self, etc or you cannot come to any sort of knowledge in the first place. We can not empirically identify these things yet they exist. You are taking for granted these things you use every day and want to have your cake and eat it too.
>You are presupposing that things that are inherently "complex" and stimulating to the mind must inherently exist from a position of deliberateness
I'm saying there is no other option. Things don't just magically create themselves and learn how to do extremely complex things that even we didn't realise they did until the 20th century. Just observe the world and you'll believe in God. Fundamentally this isn't a matter of the intellect, it's a matter of the heart not willing to accept God.
Okay my dude you've figured it all out.

>No, I'm not talking about the mind but the conditions for knowledge to exist. You require meaning, abstract concepts, the laws of logic, the self, etc or you cannot come to any sort of knowledge in the first place. We can not empirically identify these things yet they exist. You are taking for granted these things you use every day and want to have your cake and eat it too.
None of that necessitates God, and your issues and claims about these requirements are solved by vipsanna/samatha.
>I'm saying there is no other option. Things don't just magically create themselves and learn how to do extremely complex things that even we didn't realise they did until the 20th century. Just observe the world and you'll believe in God. Fundamentally this isn't a matter of the intellect, it's a matter of the heart not willing to accept God.
They are not complex, nothing about the Golden Ratio is complex, it is complex to observe, but inherently, it is efficient. I'm not sure what level of mathematics you know, but the reason Hexagons and Golden Ratio are seen that way is because of their extreme efficiency, not their unlikeliness. They are, functionally, incredibly simple. Humans absolutely have not-self consciously utilized these concepts without having modern-tier analytical methods to describe them.

>Okay my dude you've figured it all out.
Thank you for validating me.

>None of that necessitates God, and your issues and claims about these requirements are solved by vipsanna/samatha.
Cool, you abandon empiricism as it cannot support itself. You'll logically conclude God gave us these transcendant things as there isn't an alternative. I don't waste my time with pajeet literature.
>hey are not complex, nothing about the Golden Ratio is complex, it is complex to observe, but inherently, it is efficient.
You've missed my point. Regardless of how "complex" it is, they're doing it or exist in the case of nature (sunflower petals or w/e) when they should have no reason to do it or know about it.

>God is omniscient
>God can't prove the consistency of basic arithmetic
What does this mean?

>God is needed for me not to be retarded or self aware
>God is needed so our pattern recognition develops observations of the external world
retard

garbage bait thread. kill yourself
based

>God and His transcendant categories is needed for any knowledge to exist*
>Pattern recognition =/= Conditions for Knowledge
Brainlet.

You're not even being coherent, say what you're talking about in some reasonable combinations of words instead of the nonsensical shit only you think is profound.

>atheist wants to look into God
>only focuses on abrahamic literature
take the deism pill and leave this nonsense behind forever

It's incoherent because you literally cannot comprehend what I'm saying. Read above carefully to get a better understanding of what I mean. I'm talking about apriori conditions that necessitate the existence of knowledge, not about being self-aware or using pattern recognition.

Attached: download.jpg (242x208, 6.33K)

>arguing with abrahamic cultists about their beliefs
you should know better. do you seriously talk with jehovah's witnesses who knock on your door?

Use coherent words across multiple sentences instead of repeating the same thing.
>apriori conditions that necessitate the existence of knowledge
You're speaking nonsense again. None of that is necessary nor have you displayed why it would be, you just said it is because you clearly haven't thought through your theory on the mind or consciousness or awareness, which you refer to as knowledge.

I did, but now they're too afraid to come to my door.

Dude, this shit is simple. You're just being arrogant for the sake of it. You're literally using these categories every day as a necessity to even convey or interpret knowledge. My point is there is no empirical evidence they exist as you cannot use sense data to examine them, yet we use them. You cannot say "I can't see God, therefore God's not real" when you're using things you cannot see in the first place.

>see
Why would I need to see them when I can be self aware of them? Do you honestly think people are not self aware of their more abstract thoughts? What do you think phenomenology is about? Nothing there necessitates God.

Yo dude, you ever hear about fine-tuning? I've done my research and read a few books on it. It seems legit. There was one computer simulation that "disproved" it, but the planets in that simulation had stars that died too early so human beings wouldn't be capable of evolving in that system anyway.

So yeah, fine-tuning.. I think it comes down to "expectation hypothesis" and evidential support. (This might even be on the stanford philosophy encyclopedia article).
Under a materialist conception we would not expect to find life in the universe, in fact it is highly improbable. Under a theistic conception of reality we would expect to find life, so the evidence supports the theistic hypothesis. (Common sense assumption that God's master plan includes other living beings in some way.)

Then you have a multiverse hypothesis vs theistic notion.
Well, if you take a single universe out of the multiverse, you still wouldn't expect it to have life, and we only have evidence of a single universe. So evidence still supports a theistic notion.
To do otherwise is a reverse gambler fallacy, as in 'if you see someone win a lottery it means they played hundreds of thousands of times'. It's an incorrect inference.

>Why would I need to see them when I can be self aware of them?
I'm talking about their origin and our application of them. Your awareness of these things requires justification, my point is God is that justification for them.
>Do you honestly think people are not self aware of their more abstract thoughts?
You're missing the point. Humans have abstract thoughts and create or discover knowledge with it. But abstract thoughts aren't empirical. Another simple example: The location of the number 7 cannot be empirically located yet is universal and accepted to exist. I'd go as far to say even the mind's eye is transcendant, you can use it to imagine an apple and you personally see or experience it but cannot empirically explain it. Anyway I've explained myself sufficiently and you should understand the argument by now even if you reject it.

CS Lewis is good for his fiction but his apologetics aren’t very good. I suggest Richard Swinburne.

>Your awareness of these things requires justification
Awareness itself, is proof things exist. You're supposing a reality that is absolutely real but you cannot be aware of it, that then sends out things to us to be aware of, which implies an absurd division and subjectivity. A similar argument is saying that, if you see a cup that isn't there, your thought is wrong, but just because your presumption about the nature and position of the awareness is incorrect doesn't mean the awareness is fake, your awareness is still real. Your awareness can clearly interact with your awareness without requiring anything external. There are dozens of religions and philosophies that deal with this without requiring God.
>But abstract thoughts aren't empirical
Because the manner in which we observe and measure external things is bouncing particles around and measuring wavelengths. In other words, the things we can measure are the things that are measurable. This means the nature of awareness is not measurable from primitive particles as we currently apply them, which obviously interact with us in less complex ways but still interact with us (if you drink poison, this affects your body and thus your mind, you are not isolated). We have also not even come close to perfectly understanding the physical universe, or models of biology are very slowly improving even with our understanding of quantum mechanics.
>The location of the number 7 cannot be empirically located yet is universal and accepted to exist
Numbers are not universal, otherwise every thought anyone ever had is universal and you've simply not reached it (the other way around, there are impaired people who cannot comprehend numbers the same way as you).
Your theory is highly presumptuous and inconsistent, at some point implying equivalence at all mental things and at others opposing it.

A superintelligent AI would be a God for all intents and purposes.

youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

Attached: Superintelligence Bostrom.jpg (1600x2429, 822.62K)

Did you think that meme was good unironically? If so, why?
What does the devil say to Christ? "Leave me alone."

Speculation and logistical arguments will never lead to God. Christianity has been hijacked and corrupted. In its original form it was a group of like minded people who spent all day in caves and underground temples, praying, meditating and reflecting. They looked for God within.

Eventually it spread and like always in everyting they touch the ignorant masses ruined it and people in power saw potential in its use for more power so it was commandeered by people who were never members and used for selfish gain. Then when they had enough power they declred the original christians heretics nad had them killed thus solidfying their power. They ripped God out from within the souls of man and threw him in the sky and told them to worship that.

Its happens with almost all religions, the jews did it jesus even slyly references this. I consider this corruption of christianity one of the greatest tragedies in human history.

The bible was written by those wise practitioners. It was written in code to make distinction between the esoteric and exoteric. For the layman its just "be good and go to heaven" and they go about their lives but for sages the real message lies hidden. Its divinly inspired in the sense that they wrote it based on their personal experience with the divine through their introspective practice.

You will never find God in a book. For the layman the bible is a dogma but for the sage it is a helpful tool and nothing more. It is a manual for enlightenment. You can throw it away when your done.

Read the Gospel of Matthew - it's short and it's more important those writers combined.

>comparing people who don't believe in your cult to your ideal of evil
Truly, Christians are the biggest intellectual degenerates.

retarded tripfaggot

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

>maybe if I keep quoting my jew book at him that'll make him admit I'm right
the thought process of cultists is simply puzzling

Not my intelligence - spare me. That's all I have :(

Yes, some guy said some cultish things that serve to instill fear at disobedience. Why quote him?

retarded tripfaggot

>instead he would passively create things at each and every moment
Why?

Why is the quote wrong? What's the oldest institution in the world?

okay lol'd

retarded tripfaggot

its working, i almost want to tripfag less
keep going
im almost there

>What's the oldest institution in the world?
the imperial house of japan
nippon banzai

Attached: 1647989842554.png (1191x1080, 1.22M)

A Divine World where every moment everything is fully refreshed and recreated at the will of God is far more impressive and representative of divine nature than something that relies on entropy not to turn to shit, and on very specific perpetuation methods to have anything exist. It shows limited engineering ability, unless you're going to go
>he deliberately made the world shitty and limited
At which point, why even bother. God would just be a mediocre creator, or a Spinoza not-caring God.

stupid tripnigger

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church has 500 years on it

>What's the oldest institution in the world?
Agricultural society?

wrong
also many religions are older than your jewish cult. seethe harder faggot