Looksmaxxing Forum Logo

Join 68,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

Register Log in
  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

proof of the existence of God

theRetard said:
god is something most general/abstract, i.e. unity
there's unity and manifold
For suppose a manifold in no way participating unity. Neither this manifold as a whole nor any of its several parts will be one ; each part will itself be a manifold of parts, and so to infinity; and of this infinity of parts each, once more, will be infinitely manifold; for a manifold which in no way participates any unity, neither as a whole nor in respect of its parts severally, will be infinite in every way and in respect of every part. For each part of the manifold- take which you will-must be either one or not-one ; and if not- one, then either many or nothing. But if each part be nothing, the whole is nothing ; if many, it is made up of an infinity of infinites. This is impossible: for, on the one hand, nothing which is is made up of an infinity of infinites (since the infinite cannot be exceeded, yet the single part is exceeded by the sum) ; on the other hand, nothing can be made up of parts which are nothing. Every manifold, therefore, in some way participates unity.
Click to expand...
God is energy not a entity
 
theRetard said:
god is something most general/abstract, i.e. unity
there's unity and manifold
For suppose a manifold in no way participating unity. Neither this manifold as a whole nor any of its several parts will be one ; each part will itself be a manifold of parts, and so to infinity; and of this infinity of parts each, once more, will be infinitely manifold; for a manifold which in no way participates any unity, neither as a whole nor in respect of its parts severally, will be infinite in every way and in respect of every part. For each part of the manifold- take which you will-must be either one or not-one ; and if not- one, then either many or nothing. But if each part be nothing, the whole is nothing ; if many, it is made up of an infinity of infinites. This is impossible: for, on the one hand, nothing which is is made up of an infinity of infinites (since the infinite cannot be exceeded, yet the single part is exceeded by the sum) ; on the other hand, nothing can be made up of parts which are nothing. Every manifold, therefore, in some way participates unity.
Click to expand...
All your arguments are based on Neoplatonism assumptions
Too much variables
Too much premises
I’m not really used to read texts like this
 
Sherlock said:
All your arguments are based on Neoplatonism assumptions
Too much variables
Too much premises
I’m not really used to read texts like this
Click to expand...
All that participates unity is both one and not-one. For inasmuch as it cannot be pure unity (since participation in unity implies a distinct participant), its' participation' means that it has unity as an affect, and has undergone a process of becoming
one. Now if it be nothing else but its own unity, it is a bare' one' and so cannot participate unity but must be pure unity. But if it has some character other than oneness, in virtue of that character it is not-one, and so not unity unqualified. Thus being one, and yet (as participating unity) in itself not-one, it is both one and not-one. It is in fact unity with something added, and is in virtue of the addition not-one, although one as affected by unity. Everything, therefore, which participates unity is both one and not-one.
 
theRetard said:
are you actually that retarded, it's just insane. unity and god are one and the same thing conceptually, just two different names for the same thing
Click to expand...
His brain can’t process analogic statements
 
Someone has been reading Plotinus.

All this is interesting metaphysical speculation, and I can see it, but this kind of God is really nothing like what most people are thinking of.

I doubt that this principle of Unity grants the prayer of a 13yo kid praying for his bone cancer to be healed.
 
Korrath said:
Someone has been reading Plotinus.

All this is interesting metaphysical speculation, and I can see it, but this kind of God is really nothing like what most people are thinking of.

I doubt that this principle of Unity grants the prayer of a 13yo kid praying for his bone cancer to be healed.
Click to expand...
it's proclus tho
 
Korrath said:
Someone has been reading Plotinus.

All this is interesting metaphysical speculation, and I can see it, but this kind of God is really nothing like what most people are thinking of.

I doubt that this principle of Unity grants the prayer of a 13yo kid praying for his bone cancer to be healed.
Click to expand...
you are right most people think that god is abrahamic, probably what @RRM thinks
although these conceptions are compatible
 
theRetard said:
you are right most people think that god is abrahamic, probably what @RRM thinks
although these conceptions are compatible
Click to expand...
I don’t believe in god at all
 
theRetard said:
holy shit you are actually very dumb
Click to expand...
Bud if I don’t believe in god what makes you think I think he’s Abrahamic? I don’t believe in god so I don’t care what he would be
 

proof of the existence of God​


caged
 
zeno's dichotomy paradox?
theRetard said:
god is something most general/abstract, i.e. unity
there's unity and manifold
For suppose a manifold in no way participating unity. Neither this manifold as a whole nor any of its several parts will be one ; each part will itself be a manifold of parts, and so to infinity; and of this infinity of parts each, once more, will be infinitely manifold; for a manifold which in no way participates any unity, neither as a whole nor in respect of its parts severally, will be infinite in every way and in respect of every part. For each part of the manifold- take which you will-must be either one or not-one ; and if not- one, then either many or nothing. But if each part be nothing, the whole is nothing ; if many, it is made up of an infinity of infinites. This is impossible: for, on the one hand, nothing which is is made up of an infinity of infinites (since the infinite cannot be exceeded, yet the single part is exceeded by the sum) ; on the other hand, nothing can be made up of parts which are nothing. Every manifold, therefore, in some way participates unity.
Click to expand...
 
You're assuming that God(with the capital G) is conditioned to being, as in he is existence itself. Someone could say that 'being' requires either an observer or a thing to be observed. Like a chair exists as long you've observed it and kept its composition in your head. Or otherwise the chair may exist if it knows it is being, and conditioned to being. There are 3 major contexts where God is used by people, it could be either "The Almighty" or "The Absolute" or "The Ineffable" And in these cases IMO there's no debate about it "The Ineffable" mogs. "The Almighty" implies that he isn't the creation or being itself, but he's omnipotent in it supposedly created it, this limits him and conditions him to our own formations i.e. subject and object relationship . A tier above it the "The Absolute" implies that he is the creation and he is being itself, this makes unable to "not be", he's unable to make a round triangle, because he's limited to being. The others are clearly flawed so the safest bet is he's ineffable. In which case Atheists aren't missing out on much logically speaking. They'll be missing out on morals, and that's it.
 
Kofi Acheampong said:
You're assuming that God(with the capital G) is conditioned to being, as in he is existence itself. Someone could say that 'being' requires either an observer or a thing to be observed. Like a chair exists as long you've observed it and kept its composition in your head. Or otherwise the chair may exist if it knows it is being, and conditioned to being. There are 3 major contexts where God is used by people, it could be either "The Almighty" or "The Absolute" or "The Ineffable" And in these cases IMO there's no debate about it "The Ineffable" mogs. "The Almighty" implies that he isn't the creation or being itself, but he's omnipotent in it supposedly created it, this limits him and conditions him to our own formations i.e. subject and object relationship . A tier above it the "The Absolute" implies that he is the creation and he is being itself, this makes unable to "not be", he's unable to make a round triangle, because he's limited to being. The others are clearly flawed so the safest bet is he's ineffable. In which case Atheists aren't missing out on much logically speaking. They'll be missing out on morals, and that's it.
Click to expand...
he's might, knowledge and "good" as such cuz he's pure actuality without any potence rather than an entity with these attributes
 
Kofi Acheampong said:
You're assuming that God(with the capital G) is conditioned to being, as in he is existence itself. Someone could say that 'being' requires either an observer or a thing to be observed. Like a chair exists as long you've observed it and kept its composition in your head. Or otherwise the chair may exist if it knows it is being, and conditioned to being. There are 3 major contexts where God is used by people, it could be either "The Almighty" or "The Absolute" or "The Ineffable" And in these cases IMO there's no debate about it "The Ineffable" mogs. "The Almighty" implies that he isn't the creation or being itself, but he's omnipotent in it supposedly created it, this limits him and conditions him to our own formations i.e. subject and object relationship . A tier above it the "The Absolute" implies that he is the creation and he is being itself, this makes unable to "not be", he's unable to make a round triangle, because he's limited to being. The others are clearly flawed so the safest bet is he's ineffable. In which case Atheists aren't missing out on much logically speaking. They'll be missing out on morals, and that's it.
Click to expand...
you cannot be limited to being because being is the most wide concept that includes everything except non-being (non-being doesn't exist), and thus there's no exceptions
 
theRetard said:
only if you are solipsist, but solipsism is self-refuting
Click to expand...
That's the opposite of solipsism though? Sure solipsism in its lower forms like "mind only exist out world also exist" would be close to that, but that's because there aren't really any good words for pure consciousness or nous in English.
 
Kofi Acheampong said:
That's the opposite of solipsism though? Sure solipsism in its lower forms like "mind only exist out world also exist" would be close to that, but that's because there aren't really any good words for pure consciousness or nous in English.
Click to expand...
if something to exist needs an observer then it's solipsism cuz external world is dependent on someone's mind
 
theRetard said:
you cannot be limited to being because being is the most wide concept that includes everything except non-being (non-being doesn't exist), and thus there's no exceptions
Click to expand...
Non being isn't a thing, but being is a thing and you can be conditioned to it. The absence of being is not even nothingness tbf.
 
theRetard said:
if something to exist needs an observer then it's solipsism cuz external world is dependent on someone's mind
Click to expand...
Imo pure solipsism is more like the world is you kind of thing, it's not dependent or arising by the mind, it just is the diluted nous .
 
Kofi Acheampong said:
Non being isn't a thing, but being is a thing and you can be conditioned to it. The absence of being is not even nothingness tbf.
Click to expand...
being isn't only substance/thing (although this too), but i mean it in a wider definition
 
theRetard said:
being isn't only substance/thing (although this too), but i mean it in a wider definition
Click to expand...
Right but being(the vulgar sense of it) is a prerequisite for actuality, you cannot be an intermediary between if you are actuality itself
 
theRetard said:
god is something most general/abstract, i.e. unity
there's unity and manifold
For suppose a manifold in no way participating unity. Neither this manifold as a whole nor any of its several parts will be one ; each part will itself be a manifold of parts, and so to infinity; and of this infinity of parts each, once more, will be infinitely manifold; for a manifold which in no way participates any unity, neither as a whole nor in respect of its parts severally, will be infinite in every way and in respect of every part. For each part of the manifold- take which you will-must be either one or not-one ; and if not- one, then either many or nothing. But if each part be nothing, the whole is nothing ; if many, it is made up of an infinity of infinites. This is impossible: for, on the one hand, nothing which is is made up of an infinity of infinites (since the infinite cannot be exceeded, yet the single part is exceeded by the sum) ; on the other hand, nothing can be made up of parts which are nothing. Every manifold, therefore, in some way participates unity.
Click to expand...
do you believe in everything being abstract?
 
homiespidy said:
do you believe in everything being abstract?
Click to expand...
yes, i already made a thread about it.
theRetard

Concrete things do not exist; there's only abstract.

When you think or say about something concrete/individual, then you still say it in abstract words but focused on one specific thing. Everything has it's essence/idea/form, it is being. But concrete things also have material part, but matter is only potence rather than actuality (true being). material/substrate is non-existence because what makes something exist - is essence rather than matter. So only essences/forms/ideas exist. Material (what promotes individuation) doesn't exist.
  • Like
  • Gold
  • Hmm
 
homiespidy said:
yeah same
whats ur opinion on the problem of evil? i think its a retarded arguement against God
I believe in God btw
Click to expand...
evil doesn't exist and i made a thread about it before too. what we call evil is just an absence of good, but it's not bad as such
 
theRetard said:
evil doesn't exist and i made a thread about it before too. what we call evil is just an absence of good, but it's not bad as such
Click to expand...
Also the problem of evil assumes an All-loving God and doesnt take away from the fact an intelligent creator can exist
 
homiespidy said:
Also the problem of evil assumes an All-loving God and doesnt take away from the fact an intelligent creator can exist
Click to expand...
depends tbh i don't think god is all loving, i mean he's love as such, all-loving is not his attribute
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (Looksmaxxers: 0, Guests: 1)
Back
Top