it's the most elaborate dead-end ever constructed by midwits, it’s not deep, it’s not rational, and it doesn’t bring anyone closer to truth. it’s a linguistic maze built on circular logic, where centuries of “thinkers” endlessly redefine contradictions to keep the delusion alive. entire lives are wasted crafting metaphysical fanfiction about a sky tyrant no one has seen, felt, or proven, just so fragile egos can feel like they’re part of some cosmic plan. it’s not inquiry, it’s cope with footnotes.

it pretends to offer answers, but it’s just wordy fear management for people who can’t accept not knowing. rather than confront reality’s brutal indifference, the midwit theologian builds a towering palace of nonsense to keep the void at bay, books, arguments, definitions, all to defend an idea that can’t survive without obedience and fear.

it’s pure midwit cope to always need a reason for faith like it’s good for society or keeps people moral. that’s not belief it’s fear dressed up as intellect. they can’t surrender to the madness of real faith and they can’t detach enough to reject it outright so they sit in the safe middle pretending their cowardice is wisdom. they don’t care about truth or god they care about order and comfort. they don’t believe they believe in believing and that’s the most gutless position of all.

>>24476098 (OP)
I dare you to actually confront a theologian instead of us for once

>>24476098 (OP)
What sets the first mover into motion?
>N-nothing
Then ALL things need not be set in motion by yet other things?
>T-that's right
Then there need not be a "first" mover to explain all motion
>B-but you'll go to Hell if you disagree with me
OK
This is how all Socratic dialogues work, the writer just makes their opponent into an idiot

>>24476194
Indeed it is so, Socrates.

>>24476194
This shows a profound understanding of the arguments be either Aristotle or Aquinas.

>>24476251
As a hint, Aristotle thought the universe was eternal and Aquinas thought reason couldn't decide the issue. Neither are talking about an arbitrary temporal first movement.

>>24476098 (OP)
Irony of ironies, atheism is the biggest midwit cope in the world and atheists the biggest midwits of all time. They're just a bunch of proud fools.

And in order to "know" there is no god or gods or the true living God, you'd effectively have to be God to know such a thing. You'd have to be omnipotent, as any gods could simply hide from you through their power. You'd have to be omnipresent, since any gods could simply evade you. You'd have to be omniscient, as any gods could simply fool you. How much more the true living God who tells us in His Word that he resists the proud; the proud like the atheist fools; and who tells us in His Word that he sends fools like OP strong delusions since they received not a love of the truth. All the gods of the nations are idols, but the true living God is why fags like OP spam these shit threads, and it's only the true living God who these fags hate. They even hate him so much they'll casually use his name as a curse word, and they think they're not proving God's existence by doing so; because they're fools.

OP can't even type properly, he types like some faggy pretentious hipster who thinks capitalization is "le patriarchy" or whatever other effeminate feminist atheist faggotry. Frankly, if someone can't even type properly on /lit/, it should be an automatic temp ban like /r9k/ for unoriginal posts or whatever (I've never used that board so I don't know how it works entirely).

>>24476194
They unironically believe literally nothing exploded, life came from a rock, then life magically transformed into new kinds of creatures. Their whole state-funded creation myth violates all the laws of science, but they don't care. They're all too dimwitted to question what they were indoctrinated to believe from the judeo-masonic school system and the judeo-masonic media which reinforces the propaganda. And they actually think they're free thinkers for believing exactly what they're programmed to believe, I bet most atheists got the novid jabs too.

>>24476258
They're both stupid clearly. God is eternal and God created a temporal universe, as well as time itself. But atheists, from what I've seen, are not only incapable of understanding God but are incapable of understanding the concept of an eternal God. They're all so heavily brainwashed by the schools and media they think time must be eternal and God appears somewhere on that timeline, which is wrong; but they believe their ancestors are apes and bananas are their cousins; so that's the type of folly I'd expect from such fools.

And it's almost guaranteed they'll kvetch like some SJW fag about pic related, even though they act just like it all the time, just like OP's acting like that.

sounds like you've got a problem with abrahamic religions rather than theology

>>24476194
But Socrates, I still don't understand something:, either the first mover is itself unmoved, or the chain of moving goes back to infinity, or loops back upon itself, or, perhaps, nothing moves at all. Which of these, if any, is the most reasonable?

Is there a response to the "argument from motion" that something must have created and/or set God in motion?

>>24476314
>abrahamic
Just be honest and say Christianity and the God of the Bible,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsnjIS9azQ8

Since Judaism and Islam have nothing to do with the God of Abraham and it's never those false religions which upset these fools like OP to spam shit threads or what gaytheists and fagnostics do on /his/ 24/7 with their spam they've openly admitted multiple times they spam as "retaliation" for Christians posting (not for Jews or Muslims posting).

>asking gaytheists and fagnostics to be honest
I know, I know, it's an exercise in futility.

>>24476331

Now that I think about it I've never really seen Jew posting. I guess they are too busy making money or something.

>>24476307
>then life magically transformed into new kinds of creatures

OP calling them midwits was too much of an overestimation of intellectual capacity

>>24476352
>>then life magically transformed into new kinds of creatures
>OP calling them midwits was too much of an overestimation of intellectual capacity
You're just afraid of stating the emperor has no clothes.

If you could actually prove the evolution tranny fairy tale, you'd probably get a Nobel prize for it; and many Christians have offered large sums of money to anyone who could prove it (guess what, nobody could, nobody has ever collected the rewards for "proving evolution" because it literally cannot be proven, it requires blind faith and even "evolutionist intellectuals" (lol) have admitted it can't be proven).

But you remind me of a truth, atheists aren't even "midwits" they're just dimwits and retards, like you, retard. All you subhuman retards ever have to defend your state-funded religion is ad hominem, because you're literally subhuman trash and programmed NPC subhuman retards.

>>24476098 (OP)
Pregnant men.

>>24476352
The pathetic thing about posters like you, isn't just that you can't form logical arguments or prove your beliefs (or even pretend to prove your beliefs), but that you can't even respond directly to people. Like some passive aggressive feminist cuck.

>>24476098 (OP)
chatgpt wrote this

>>24476381
And the pathetic thing about atheists is they think their logical fallacies are logical arguments for their state-funded religious beliefs which they don't even realize are religious in nature. They don't even realize why their beliefs are state-funded, because it makes the perfect slaves to the state, ever-willing to "trust the experts" even if the "experts" are just selling a pharma product. That's why when communists took over China, the first thing they started teaching wasn't communism in the schools, it was the evolution creation myth.

>>24476409
Atheists are incapable of directly responding to 99% of what I post, it's why they have to resort to spewing lies and trolling. Or with this thead, why they had to flee to the other thread to spam it with shit posts and logical fallacies to defend their indefensible beliefs.

>>24476307
>World salad
>Funny "le hat" picture
Could be resumed to
>I want (you) to believe in the talking snake because... My desert book my parents read me when I was little is the the real truth™

>>24476509
>Atheists are incapable of directly responding to 99% of what I post
>Thinks his philosopseudobabble matters

The world simply moved on

>>24476516
Nice projected word salad and false quotes and bearing false witness, since you can't actually prove your beliefs.

Thanks for proving everything I said true about you losers.

>>24476519
Then stop spamming your lies and troll posts outside of /b/. Oh wait, you can't do that because you haven't moved on because you losers hate God.

>>24476516
It's funny how atheist trolls have to shit up every thread with their bullshit troll posts when people challenge their lies.
>>>/b/

>>24476098 (OP)
Religious people are the ones who are claiming women can have penises and he/him lesbians exist. At least religious people can hide behind the sublime and transcendent or whatever, atheists literally have no excuse for believing in stupid shit like that yet so many do.

>>24476544
It's because they can't actually defend their beliefs, all they can do is lie and make ad hominem attacks against "heretics" against their state-funded religion and speak slander and make troll posts. It's just a shame that the fag gaytheist mods and jannies let them shit up so many boards, they've already ruined /his/ and they're ruining /lit/ too.

The atheists don't even pretend to make logical or reasonable posts, just fling shit like are retarded monkey.

Okay, granted there might be a universe creator (who himself might be created).
Why does he have the characteristics of one specific religious book?

>>24476544
I know (you) lie, quit pretending you actually believe in those superstitions. You didn't give your belongings to the poors, did you? Nah you're just a looser larping into following "muh tradition". The eternal 4chin contrarian, and your sky daddy isn't real.

>>24476326
If the chain goes back to infinity, how can today be possible? An infinite number of events must have preceeded for today to occur. That would take an infinite amount of time. Yet, today is happening as we speak. Thus, there must have been a finite number of events before today for today to be a possibility.

"Back to infinity" can only be conceptualized from today backwards (conceptually), yet time moves always forwards. Time looping back upon itself would be the only way to escape this conundrum.

>>24476098 (OP)
>it’s a linguistic maze built on circular logic,
If you utilise only rationality then you will only see the palace of which rationality is built. Rationality is within of itself a language, but every language has different limitations. There are other languages (mysticism) that allow you to see beyond this palace.

To know God most truly is to know nothing of God at all, the Dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao

Thus the adept sees beyond theism and atheism

>management for people who can’t accept not knowing. rather than confront reality’s brutal indifference
Your dislike for theism seems to be more so a matter of artistic taste than rationality, as you see more meaning, depth and beauty in living out an existence within an indifferent chaotic world

>>24476614
So god is neither rational nor good?

>>24476307
Pascal's wager then?
>>24476367
Isn't our DNA's attempt at producing offspring that can better respond to the entropic nature of the environment, an actual example of evolution happening in a minuscule, yet defiant way?

Sure, there's semantics at play here but I reinforce the non-strawman version of the argument. We evolve whenever a system gets stressed enough to make adaptation non-negotiable. Leaving offspring is just another method to deal with the matter of not having enough time neutralize entropy. These crabs in your pic seem to have 'understood' that entropy requires a Dance rather than an Antidote.
>>24476509
I just got here D: (not exactly an atheist though.)

>>24476540
>because you losers hate God.
I used to love/hate God when I believed that such a thing actually exists.

>>24476617
Why the fuck would an infinite and eternal being be rational? Rationality is a human construct. I would say that God creates Himself through us, as much as the other way around, because of our perceptions of Him.

Natural theology was BTFO by Kant, but some (if not most) of the best philosophy ever is among the scholastics. The worst midwits in philosophy today are like that because they don't know shit about Aristotle or the scholastics.

>>24476367

Your chimp out is clearly a proof that we came from monkeys.

>>24476381
>The pathetic thing about posters like you, isn't just that you can't form logical arguments or prove your beliefs

Lol why would I engage in a debate that is already settled. At this point it's just better to make fun of people who still cling to dogmatic superstitions. I'd rather just have you keep on pretending that you have logic on your side and laugh from a distance

>>24476409
>>24476509
Whenever Christians accuse other beliefs or non-beliefs of making people perfect slaves, remind them of the following passages in their holy book.

Romans 13:1-5
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

Colossians 3:22-23
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not with a slavery performed merely for looks, to please people, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever task you must do, work as if your soul depends on it, as for the Lord and not for humans."

Ephesians 6:5-7
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people."

(I suspect this passages are later interpolations from the same person who forged the pastoral epistles, but of course most Christians are unable to entertain that possibility because entertaining some corruption of the text throws everything into doubt.)

>>24476741
More for good measure.

Titus 2:9-10
"Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior."

1 Peter 2:18
"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only those who are good and gentle but also those who are dishonest."

>>24476741
So when Hitler is my Fuhrer I need to just follow orders, after all it's just our Earthly life and I need to look forward to eternity with God in Heaven. Render unto Caesar and all that

>>24476611
We are progressing through the timeline in a linear increasing way, but the timeline itself is fixed. Just as the number line stretches from negative to positive infinity, yet includes 2025, 2026, etc.
Our position in present day is incidental.

>>24476098 (OP)
There is no God
>:)
There also isn't any extraterrestrial life
>:(

>>24477130
We have proof of neither but there is a precedence for life. No such precedence for the supernatural.

>>24477091
The problem is precisely that the progression is linearly increasing. When you draw the numbers line, however, you first decide on a reference point (which is always relative, but often it's the number 0) and then you "continue infinitely" towards the right and left to represent both positive and negative infinities. You, however, cannot draw the line "from negative to positive infinity". Even the word "from" implies a starting point, but whichever point you choose (to represent negative infinity), there'd be a point that precedes it. Yet, how can you begin a motion towards the right if there is no point to cannot begin the motion from? It cannot be done. An infinite number of points need to be crossed before you reach 0, which represents the present day. Saying that our present day is incidental dismisses the problem rather than resolving it.

>>24476544
It's all so tiresome

>>24476098 (OP)
Is there another meme format centered around horseshoe of intelligence and the conspiracy of the extremes?

>>24477240
there are countless bell curve memes anon

>>24476098 (OP)
Nothing in buddhism precludes the notion of a Creator or God. This meme is false.
Most of buddhist writing is theological argument

>>24477317
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/62_kinds_of_wrong_view
>62 kinds of wrong view
>5. The one who recalls a past existence in a heavenly plane where he was subject to a more powerful deva and thus, thinks in this life that the more powerful deva is an eternal, all- powerful God. Such a person proclaims that deva to be the one-all-powerful God, creating or following a mono-theist religion, which is essentially wrong view.

>>24476326
I haven't read Socrates but I know from thermodynamics that the current entropy of the universe is only increasing, which means a certain time ago it was less. So if it's an infinite time ago, it'd be 0. What does a 0 entropy mean? Zero disorder. Everything's still. A heat death, oh wait that's exactly what happens when an entropy in a system is infinite. So it all goes back to the question of who came first the chicken or the egg.

I'd say a loop is the more reasonable option based on our observations, which is terrifying since it could confirm the Endless Recurrence assuming the same process plays out in each rebirth and not a different version entirely.

>>24477361
Yes, you cannot prove those things, so to hold them as unshakeable beliefs would be delusional, especially in buddhism. But those are statements about unshakeable beliefs, not about metaphysics. Your quotations aren't saying whether or not those statements are actually true or false about reality. But saying that since no one can prove anything about that level of reality, a positive belief about it is by default delusional.
Aka, God could be real, we cannot know it, so to believe unshakeably in God is delusional -- as delusional as believing definitively that there isn't one.

>>24477170
There is no motion except our perception, which starts at birth, not at negative infinity. The timeline is fixed and we have the ability to travel along it while alive, with our births in arbitrary locations. There is no infinite regression problem because there is no infinite perception.

>>24477370
Buddhist metaphysics as described by the Pali Canon 1. Doesn't need a God, and 2. Says that anyone who thinks they've come in contact with a being who could be appropriately called God (in the sense of an eternal omni-whatever creator deity) is mistaken. To me, that's pretty much atheism, at least in the sense of rejecting standard theism. If not in a 100% certain absolute sense, then in a functional sense. As far as I can tell, Atheism is the preferred working hypothesis of Buddhism.

>>24477445
Atheism positively asserts that no God exists. Buddhism says it is one of the unanswerable unknowables, making all human claims to knowledge of a God, false. And, that such beliefs aren't relevant to liberation from suffering, most of the time.

Atheism says there's no God, buddhism says it can't be known, and is not the right question to ask.

>>24477445
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/ChantingGuide/Section0013.html
"The world offers no shelter. There is no one in charge."

Buddhism also deals with the problem of evil:
https://suttacentral.net/ja528/en/francis?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false

"If there exists some Lord all powerful to fulfil
In every creature bliss or woe, and action good or ill,
That Lord is stained with sin. Man does but work his will.

If such the creed thou holdst and this be doctrine true,
Then was my action right when I that monkey slew.

Couldst thou but only see how sinful is thy creed,
Thou wouldst no longer then with reason blame my deed."

>Atheism says there's no God, buddhism says it can't be known, and is not the right question to ask
What are you referring to when you say this?

>>24476326

There is no such thing as a "first mover". Don't get confused by christcuck babbling.

>>24477467
was meant to be a reply to
>>24477457

But also atheism doesn't necessarily imply absolute certainty. There's gnostic atheism, which claims certainty, and agnostic atheism, which doesn't, though both amount to "not believing in God."

Personally I think you can be close to as certain as it's possible to be about anything that an *omnibenevolent* omnipotent, omniscient creator deity doesn't exist due to the problem of evil.

>>24477467
>What are you referring to when you say this?
The logic of buddhism as I understand it. I could be wrong. By no means am I an expert. But from what I have read, the Pali Canon and suttas, it has never struck me as a necessary part of buddhism, to definitely say "there is no God."

My read has been that buddhism approaches the whole problem of existence differently. Instead of taking sides in Binaries, like God's existence, it admits of the obvious fact: there's no way any human being could know either way.
So the thinking becomes less about the binary, which is an obvious waste of energy, and more about why such energy is being expended.
Not, is there or isn't there a God, but instead...why do you feel the need to ask, to wonder about what you clearly cannot know anything about?
Suffering, and unskilled, blind pursuit of alleviation. Positive and negative claims about God or Creator, the divine, are both copes for existence that don't stare existence in the eye.

>>24476404
correct

>>24477486
Well, as far as I know, there aren't any Pali Canon suttas where the Buddha expresses a favorable or ambiguous view of believing in God. It pretty much always seems to be regarded as mistaken or at least unhelpful.

There are questions that the Buddha classified as unanswerable, but the existence or non-existence of God isn't clearly among them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswerable_questions

The origin of the universe is one of the questions that is considered to be an imponderable, and that sort of cuts off the question of whether God created the universe before it even starts.

>>24477523
>The origin of the universe is one of the questions that is considered to be an imponderable, and that sort of cuts off the question of whether God created the universe before it even starts.

>My read has been that buddhism approaches the whole problem of existence differently. Instead of taking sides in Binaries, like God's existence, it admits of the obvious fact: there's no way any human being could know either way.
>So the thinking becomes less about the binary, which is an obvious waste of energy, and more about why such energy is being expended.
>Not, is there or isn't there a God, but instead...why do you feel the need to ask, to wonder about what you clearly cannot know anything about?

>>24477526
If you *really want* to say that Buddhism doesn't take sides on some very abstracted variety of theism where "God" is basically nothing but a label you apply to things that are incomprehensible, then I guess you can do that?

But as said, for the usual notion of theism, I think the Buddha firmly rejects it. If not with absolute certainty, then with the perspective that "This is ultimately not a helpful thing to believe in."

>>24476611
>>24477170
That we experience time linearly does not mean that time progresses linearly, or even that time exists as a coherent concept on some fundamental level. If time is simply another dimension then infinite time is no less implausible than infinite space.

>>24476307
>They unironically believe literally nothing exploded, life came from a rock, then life magically transformed into new kinds of creatures.
They don't have strong beliefs on how the universe came to be. They think that life came from self-replicating protein structures. They think that the flaws in self-replication can sometimes lead to self-replicating structures that replicate better.
>They're all so heavily brainwashed by the schools and media they think time must be eternal and God appears somewhere on that timeline
Atheists are perfectly happy to accept that the argument "something that has always existed can't exist in the universe, therefore something outside of the universe created the universe" could be true. Atheists take issue with the properties that theists assign to this "something" to have it satisfy the conditions of god-hood.

>>24477445
>>24477486
The vast majority of Buddhists are superstitious polytheists who regularly pray to folk-deities. Philosophical western Buddhism is to Buddhism like the Jefferson Bible is to Christianity.

>>24477539
I am unsure why you feel that way. I've never read anything that would indicate that. What I've read, indicated that the whole discussion, all points of view on it, is a trap. Something we speculate on to avoid confronting our suffering and real practical means of liberation from it.

>>24477541
>The vast majority of Buddhists are superstitious polytheists who regularly pray to folk-deities. Philosophical western Buddhism is to Buddhism like the Jefferson Bible is to Christianity
I get your point here, but I don't think thats true of the actual Canon. Theres a lot of real philosophy there. Plebs always take a religion and turn it into a dogma with mystical beings and stuff. Pure Land doesn't even make any sense when you consider what Buddhisms core arguments are. Yet, it exists bc Heaven is too enticing to let go of.
The fact that plebs turn buddhism into hinduism and devas into gods, is something I feel like Buddha would see as confirmation of his perspective.

>>24477554
>all points of view on it, is a trap
The Buddha doesn't in general say that holding any point of view is a trap. That would fall under number 14 of the 62 kinds of wrong view linked above. "The one who evades all questions thinking that answering them would be “attachment” to something."

And since, as said above, that list of *wrong* views also includes one which is pretty much a description of standard theism, I think it's clear enough that the Buddha sided in favor of atheism (gnostic or agnostic), at least in the sense of rejecting western theism. Notably nowhere in the list does he say "Oh by the way, you also shouldn't hold onto the view that there is no all powerful God, so actually what I'm saying here is that any answer on the topic of whether there's an omni-God is wrong view." No. One thing gets classified as wrong view, and not believing in that view is left as a valid option. And what is called when you don't believe in theism? Atheism.

>>24477599
Okay. Then that is your view.

>>24476098 (OP)
not literature, go away

>>24477634
Yes, that is my view on the Buddha's view on this topic.