Why is God absent from Philosophy?

>>24484870 (OP)
You are confused readlet

>>24484880
Did he ever complete his Characteristica Universalis?

>>24484894
Not during his earthly stay

>>24484913
So he learned it at the End of Time; where Everything ends up: the final wake up.
I imagine Godel would've sought Leibniz out there/then.

>>24484913
So he learned it at the End of Time; where Everything ends up: the final wake up.
I imagine Godel will/would've sought Leibniz out there/then.

>>24484870 (OP)
Because it's just vain jangling for fools who don't know the truth.
>Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Also
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1750336946239109.webm

>>24484870 (OP)
why does norm attract the biggest midwit pseuds?

>>24484949
Yeah, you can really see the poverty in anthropocentric thinking that leads to hubris.
There's humility in knowing phenomenologically that we didn't create ourselves or the external world we find ourselves inhabiting (either that or we have omnipotent-tier amnesia).
>https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1750336946239109.webm
good stuff. norm's strength was his ability to mask his insightful wit in a blunted comedic wrapper: the perfect midwit filter (low IQ and hiQ people love his material (like that midwit graph)).

>>24484985 you might be the midwit anon... >>24484988

>>24484992
how does that relate to op claiming religion and, by proxy, spirituality - which have always been tightly interwoven with philosophy - is absent from philosophy?
what is supposed to be remarkable about making the observations that contrarian people mostly go for the predominant religion in the western hemisphere? this clip is not one of norms brightest moments
note that im not saying norm is a midwit, he just attracts them

>>24484870 (OP)
>Why is God absent from Philosophy?

>>24485006
because it's bankrupt and doesn't describe reality accurately.
Philosophy on a meta level has been a poor/incomplete map of the terrority we exist in.
It needs Theology for it to make sense; else we end up in this conflicted nihilistic place we find ourselves in now.
Theology precedes Philosophy.
Essence precedes Existence.
God precedes Man.

>>24484870 (OP)
Once you add a god it becomes theology. More a definitional reason than anything imo.

>>24485008
Theology is a science of God.
And with God, you can't Exclude the Middle; you either have an Omnipresent God in your reality or you don't. Even an infinitesimal amount of God is enough to reject the Null Hypothesis on God's existence. Hence why anti-theism so so militant and radically skeptical as any admission of a true metaphysical story would mean that God exists on some level and not all Physicalism/Materialism will illusions of consciousness and free will.

>>24485030
Well I think that's what Martin Heidegger was getting at when he famously "quit" Philosophy after losing all his clout in WW2.
"Only a Theology can save us now!"

>>24484870 (OP)
You retards ever heard of Kant or Kierkegaard?

>>24485015
i dont disagree with you but
>Religion on a meta level has been a poor/incomplete map of the terrority we exist in.
>It needs Philosophy for it to make sense
would be a take just as valid
to me the scientific nihilism you outlined (and which obviously is widely occuring) is just another belief system; at its core inseparable from religion
>Essence precedes Existence.
>God precedes Man.
does essence precede god?

>>24485038
>Have you ever heard of "The One"
>Have you ever heard of "The Ubermensch"
Not talking about a hypothetical Philosophical God.
Talking about a Real God that created us and this place that we can relate to.

>>24485040
Maybe you weren't exposed to the right Theology?
Most likely you were told about Western Christianity and specifically shielded from Eastern Christianity. This is a common case that I've noticed in Western Man (let alone pretty much everyone else making this categorical error on Christianity).
For me, Orthodox Christianity acts as a true hyperreal map for this reality and allows me to "win" at this game. That's the best way I can describe it from my perspective. I can see how other maps/religions/ideologies are ineffective or just flat out suck.
>does essence precede god?
God is of One Essence/Substance/Ousia/Nature/Will.
He Exists as Three Persons Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
We confess this weekly in the Nicene Creed.
Since we're people, we can related to God's personably on an energetic level (we can't be God in essence (just like you can't be me), but we can be like-God energetically).

>>24485040
>>24485061
>He Exists as Three Persons Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Just like you exist essentially as a Mind, Body, and Spirit respectively.

>>24485061
The essence has always been a central problem. Would you argue for the essence to be something in motion? Can it turn into anything or is it does it follow a set of rules or maybe external guidance? If god is ultimatively a product of that essence as well, doesn't him molding it make him a scientist?

>>24485089
*or does it follow

>>24485089
Again this is anthropocentric thinking, you'd need to develop a Phenomenology of God to understand His Worldview (Theocentrism).
From His Perspective, it's Meta-Omniscience: He knows what it's like to not be God and to just be a regular person; He has to be universally relatable to everything that is like-God and like-Man. So if an atheist talks to Him, God would have to understand the atheist's perspective (phenomenology) better than the atheist himself. So God keeps his essence as God, but still knows what it's like to not-be-God so that he can relate to people (and hopefully save them through cooperation).
Make sense?
It's tricky, no one's ever really explained this before.

>>24485008
>I have a theory of evolution
>let's try to falsify it
>looks like we can't falsify it
>even though falsification doesn't apply to one of the most accurate and widespread scientific discoveries, let's keep trying to falsify stuff anyway
>Philosophy? what for?

>>24485105
Science™ turned it into The Philosophy of Sophistry

>>24485100
I am aware of that distinction but that doesn't explain any of the questions I asked.
What is it that god is shaping and which is shaping him?

God shapes us.
Only He can shape Himself.

>>24484870 (OP)
God isn't absent in Philosophy. God is in Theology.

>>24484870 (OP)

>>24485042
Kant and Kierkegaard very much believed in a real God. To bring up "The Ubermensch" in response to those two names makes it seem like you haven't studied philosophy very much but already made up your mind that a philosopher can't believe in Christianity. Maybe instead of being so woefully stupid, you could give one of them a chance

>>24485276

Aquinas is inadmissible by Christian standards; he would not pass a physique check

>>24485105

Evolution could be falsified by a single rabbit fossil in the cretaceous

>>24484870 (OP)
He isn't though. Philosophy is a way to God like theology.

>>24485320

How? Hebrew cosmology and cosmogeny contain many very basic errors. "Those don't count against its credibility because you're reddit/troon/brown/Jewish/etc." doesn't solve the problem.

>>24485331
>How
It works under the assumption that you can reach the epistemological truth that is God through the means of philosophy. You seek further and further for the source and essence of our reality and then you may find God as the result. I don't really understand what that Hebrew sentence has to do with what I said, so I can't comment on it.

>>24485336

I'm assuming that by God, you mean Yahweh, god of Abraham. Do you not?

>>24485339
That's just one specific form of God, the divine and thus rather a matter of theology I would think. I would grasp God wider as a philosophical term in the vain of the Neoplatonist tradition:
>For Plotinus, the first principle of reality is "the One", an utterly simple, ineffable, beyond being and non-being, unknowable subsistence which is both the creative source of the Universe[23] and the teleological end of all existing things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism#The_One

>>24485112
God shapes us.
Only He can shape Himself.

>>24485038
>>24485308
I like Kierkegaard.
Kant is too Neoplatonic for me; God and "Ding an sich" become inaccessible to man numerologically which I don't buy. Man can see the nature of things through God; it's just Western man forgot how to become living saints/gods (Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith).
Also what would Dostoyevsky have become if not for him⁈

>>24485889
>numerologically
*noumenological

>>24485889
>numerologically
*noumenologically

>Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
>The proper study of mankind is man.

>>24484949
Man. Norm really was a moron, wasn't he?

>>24484949
That soundbite makes him seem retarded. I'll chalk it up to a passing thought he didn't think too deeply about since he was struggling to get it out. We've all been there.

>>24485916
>>24485937
lol, fedoras chimping out again because they heard the truth

>>24485963
It's just a stupid thing to say.
>you think of the most culturally relevant religion when you think of god therefore he is real
Just stupid.

>>24485968
That's just such a pathetic cope, it's so embarrassing. Atheism not only requires deliberate ignorance, but they prove which God they hate by their chimpouts the moment the true God is mentioned or they're reminded of him. They don't chimpout over Ein Sof, or Shekinah, or the moon god of Islam, or Hindu gods, or whatever else. But they're also incapable of being intellectually honest, so there's really no reason for me to entertain your retarded lies at all like I'm doing now.

>nooo it's just because of le culture or something
Sure, retard. Try not getting triggered by the God of the Bible for one month. /lit/ atheists are incapable of doing it.

Let's even raise the stakes, let's see the atheists of /his/ and r/atheism (which are the same people) do it. They're literally physically incapable of it.

>>24486107
Hell, let's raise the stakes even higher. Let's see the reprobates of /lgbt/ do it. They can't go a single day without raging about God if they see a single reminder of him.

They don't even get remotely that triggered over the false god of Islam even though Muslims throw fags off rooftops.

>>24486102
Judaism says they're subhuman cattle.
Islam says their heads should be cut off.
Christianity says believe the gospel.

They only get triggered by one of these.

did everyfag on /lit/ get retarded?
at least toss me a pity (you) >24485889 . feel free to shit on it if you see fault in my words.
I know it's humbling to everyone, but the truth's the Truth. rejoice niggers!

did everyfag on /lit/ get retarded?
at least toss me a pity (you) >>24485889 . feel free to shit on it if you see fault in my words.
I know it's humbling to everyone, but the truth's the Truth. rejoice niggers!

>>24485916
>>24485937
low IQ b8 m8

>>24485320
I've never met a philosophical god.
I have met real saints before (and hope to meet more).

>>24485240
Charlatan

>>24486329
In Philosophy they refer to themselves as "Sophistic Solipsists"

>>24486331
>In Philosophy
In madhouses more like.

>>24486337
It's smart(est) people that want to be gods and make up metaphysics. That's Philosophy without Theology. Petty godhood.

>>24486341
>That's Philosophy without Theology. Petty godhood.
Apotheosis at the expense of Theosis

>>24485276
Absolute Divine Simplicity made God/Truth inaccessible to man. This lead to Hegel which lead to Heidegger's admission that Western Theology is flawed (circling back to Aquinas).
Much like the stars drifting/accelerating further apart; eventually the constellations stretch and decohere...

Theology without philosophy is just theology. Theology with philosophy is plain charlatanism. Theologians clinging to the idea of philosophy as ancilla theologia need to reconsider their call in life.

>>24486359
Do Christians have worldviews?

>>24486358
>Much like the stars drifting/accelerating further apart; eventually the constellations stretch and decohere...
St. Gregory Palamas writes of this.

>>24486361
They have a God. I suppose that's it.

>>24486367
I'm a Christian. I'd like to think I have a Christian worldview that could differ from my fellow Christians.
For example I have a philosophy why I think games are good; my brother disagrees.
I wouldn't write off Philosophy wholesale; it's value is in it's ability to describe meaning/motive to human behavior. It's why people like Carl Jung were such good Psychologists; he was really approach people as a Metaphysician.

>>24486367
I'm a Christian. I'd like to think I have a Christian worldview that could differ from my fellow Christians.
For example I have a philosophy why I think games are good; my brother disagrees.
I wouldn't write off Philosophy wholesale; its value is in its ability to describe meaning/motive to human behavior. It's why people like Carl Jung were such good Psychologists; he was really approach people as a Metaphysician.

>>24486367
I'm a Christian. I'd like to think I have a Christian worldview that could differ from my fellow Christians.
For example I have a philosophy why I think games are good; my brother disagrees.
I wouldn't write off Philosophy wholesale; its value is in its ability to describe meaning/motive to human behavior. It's why people like Carl Jung were such good Psychologists; he approach people as a Metaphysician.

>>24486221
jews are Anti-Logos/Christ.
they slew Him and had the romans do it because they were/are cowards.
the whole new atheist movement was jewish in spirit (Hitchens was the worst zionist in godless clothing).

>>24484870 (OP)
Otherwise, it would be theology

>>24488622
Wisdom exists in Theology though.
It's just Theology precedes Philosophy, as God precedes Man.
The West got lost along The Way.

>>24484870 (OP)
He's absent from reality

>>24485889
If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly Crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.

>>24485008
>falsificationism
Tell me you only know about science through pop-sci without telling me you only know about science through pop-sci.

>>24486107
Cope and seethe, all holy books are trash

>>24489001
Atheists are just golems of the jews.

>>24487282
Christopher Hitchens was strongly against anti-zionist, quit lying

>>24489000
I bet you believe in evolution and the big bang, don't you? Goycattle.

>>24485317
>falsified
Don't use words when you don't know what they mean.

>>24487282
Christopher Hitchens was strongly anti-zionist, quit lying

>>24489003
Nah, you're thinking of cucked Christians like Ted Cruz who quote the Bible as the reason for their support for modern day Israel

>>24489010

Or so the Germans will have you believe

>>24489010
>>24489019
Don't fucken sass me kid.
Get his takes from later in life around the Iraq War...

>>24484870 (OP)
>Why is God absent from Philosophy?
Every time he tries to shit out, I push his shit back in.

>>24489355
You must be a deeply closeted gay man.

>>24489348
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7bWmgfIEko

He states that it was founded on an injustice, that it is a stupid Messianic idea, a waste of Judaism, and an ongoing injustice to generation after generation of Arabs. His "right to exist" is couched in the fact that many countries are founded on injustices, but once they exist he doesn't see a justification for dissolving them entirely. At the same time, he points out that the expansionist nature of the borders constitutes an illegal occupation of the West Bank. He overtly says that if Jews born in Brooklyn have a right to a Jewish state in Israel, Palestinians born in Palestine have a right to an Arab state in Palestine. In this video, you can see clips from his entire life where he is consistent on these points the whole time.

>>24490405
Ok, let's cede your point, and assume he is just. Under his own metaphysics, to which god is he appealing to? the god of nothingness, or the deity of nihilism, maybe perhaps the monad of skeptical oblivion? Which god will verify that he was just and you are correct and will connanonize his hagiography that you subscribe to?

>>24491569
What are you babbling about? You don't need a made up daddy figure in the sky to pat you on the head and say "good boy". Justice must adhere to reason and fairness, negotiated by human beings. You can't just appeal to your invisible friend in the sky.

>>24484870 (OP)
God is very present in philosophy. See the arguments from psychophysical harmony, the anthropic argument, or the fine tuning argument.

>>24491716
What are you praddling about? You sound smug but you haven't thought about your own worldview much. You can't justify yourself or other people; you think you can, but you can't. Once people realize that your arguments have no substance, since they are backed by nothing, people will ignore you.
I'm not playing the tolerance game; your values and "gods" like Hitchens suck and can't even resurrect themselves let alone apostolize pseuds who reject that The Truth even exists.
This is beyond tiring. Grow up and stop being such an insufferable faggot; it's easy to lose your soul than it is to get it back; pretending like you never had one as a kid is a fucken cope of copes.
fuck you and your shitty "adult" value you picked up from sophistic fags like Chris Hitchens.
I'm done entertaining your slop.
>>24491722
Not really. Take a look.
Philosophy was man looking to replace God.
It was metaphysical Dunning-Kruger.
That's it.

>>24492613
>Philosophy was man looking to replace God.
The Greek found fault in their Hellenic Pantheon and thought they could do better.
The Chinese with Taoism, Confucianism, and Legalism to replace the metaphysics of the Celestial Bureaucracy.
The Western Europeans stopped producing theologians after Thomas Aquinas (and especially after Martin Luther) and just produced philosophers to deal with all the problems that Aquinas's metaphysical he inventions brought/laundered from Aristotle (God is simple, He's not a Absolute Monad though; else we wouldn't have free will and would be His puppets).
You'll notice the Eastern Europeans didn't produce philosophers but continued to produce theologians since they had the correct faith (it was coherent and continent so it didn't invite philosophical/anthropocentric critique like the lesser religions' metaphysics).
If you're producing theologians rather than philosophers, then you're on the right track to something both Truthful and Transcendent.

>>24492627
>God is simple
as a person name Jesus of Nazarith.
Someone we can all relate to.
A God-man.
A Universal Person.

>>24492638
That's what "simple" means btw, to be universally understood. The nature of the word.
If something is superlatively simple, then anything can understand it. Thus God is that which is universally Understood.
Man, while not omniscience, has the nature to understand everything (try it out as a thought experiment).

>>24492643
>That's what "simple" means btw, to be universally understood. The nature of the word.
This is why you need to develop a noumenology to see the nature of things; you guys got so busy measuring the phenomenal energy of things (i.e. empiricism) that you atrophied your metaphysical senses to the point where the West became so blind it denied that metaphysics even could exist (like a blind person rejecting visible light/EM fields).
It bears repeating, developing a Phenomenology of God: how God sees things, allows you to see things in themselves better.
Like getting a constantly better prescription of glasses for your soul to peer through.

>>24485035
He didnt quit philosophy

>>24484992
I'm no nihilist, but that argument is retarded. Humanity isn't the universe. You could make the case we're a part of the universe, but even then just because something describes a part of something doesn't make it descriptive of the whole.

>>24492613
Schizo

>>24492812
nigga ima fuck you in the butt

>>24493017
your mom is gay

>>24492764
My bad. Him betting his legacy on the nazis winning didn't help his career afterward.

>>24493017
>I have some shitty kids
imagine being so forgone from parenting that you can't relate to what a father even is...
are you black or something?

>>24495150
You say, have shitty kids like it's luck of the draw. Man, I hope you're not a father

>>24485031
Theres also philosophy of religion

>>24495796
... which is centred around humanism.
which possible supernatural entities are good for society and natalism are the ones we'll call "gods" (or "angels" or "ahuras", whatever). the entities which are bad for us, we'll call "demons".

>>24495150
If he is the Creator of the universe, he isn't just a parent, he is the literal architect of every aspect of humanity. He baked disobedience into Man, and then got angry when he was disobedient. It's nonsensical.

I assume you mean in recent time, since divinity—in lack of a better word—has been a component of philosophy for a very long time. I would say it depends on what we're concerned with. I feel like God disappeared from the most applied part of philosophy, especially in economic thought and political philosophy, after Hegel and Marx laid ground to materialism. It has however been a quiet but consistant variable in ethics, law or metaphysics, even aknowledged in analytical philosophy, most notably Wittgenstein-educated Anscombe and Geach. God has not vanished from philosophy, but has become a much more selective presence. It has also been reduced to what we could call “a divine will” or “principle” through analysis, stripped from all the cumbersome apparatus of established religions.

>>24495856
He can be many things.
At once.

If you believe in anything other than your own power you are buck, or cuck. Society lives by my permission, if I want to blow up a building that's my choice.

>>24495969
>imagine faking it till you never make it
>this hard

bump

>>24485038
bingo

>>24499383
there's a problem with this line of phenomenological line of thinking: you have to account for all the things you know that you don't actually know yet (both phenomenally (empirically (sensually)) and noumenally (a priori & a posteriori reasoning (noetically)). So you have to account yourself epistemically in space and time at different points/wills of yourselves(s): for example, the version of you from when you were a kid and the one you are in the present and the most probable versions of your will in a few moments from now.
like most people from his time; Kant missed the Meta on how to "Think like God".
Kierkegaard was closer in this regaard.

Is he genuinely dead? Or did he go into hiding?

>>24500506
He became human.

>>24500625
What if the the Father became a man and followed His Son's faith?
Would make for good /lit/...

>>24485105
There were several different ideas about the possibilities of evolution being debated before and after Darwin, and most of them were indeed falsified. Looking at all the evidence what won out was change through genetic mutation and inheritance, which can we can observe in practice and fits the fossil record.
Do you have an actual counterargument, or are just an illiterate schiz? Do you also think gravity is unfalsifiable?

>>24502059
Alright fartsniffer, calm down..

except that age doesn't litrully mean Atom unfortunately

>>24502653
>what if your own farts actually smelled good...?

>>24502700

>>24484870 (OP)
otherwise it wouldn't be philosophy

Because that’s what distinguishes philosophy from theology

>>24492812
The Universe is a set of beings, not a being itself. Saying this set of beings is indifferent to suffering and sorrows, when suffering and sorrow doesn’t even exist except when beings from that set are otherwise than indifferent, is clearly logically contradictory. Even indifference is a disposition that requires a particular being to describe, if only a rock or a moment

>>24495912
Only decent post in this thread.

If you wholeheartedly believe in God, there's no space for philosophical thinking left. Things are settled and there's no reason to argue or question anything, no more scepticism or doubt. That's kills any philosophical drive. When done expressively this often results in insufferable people to whom any word of exchange is completely wasted. Then again, as a philosopher it would be ignorant to completely ignore the idea of God or to become an atheist, which could lead to the same state of being insufferable and not open to criticism. Basically, philosophers have it more difficult to deal with God as they cannot simply state The Truth. But that's what most people want, they feel that it makes them strong, independent, knowing, and grown up. It's a dilemma at the cost of real discussion.

>>24484992
>STOP ACTING LIKE A HUMAN BEING!! DONT YOU KNOW YOURE JUST A SPECK OF DUST IN THE UNIVERSE? ALSO, WE were monkeys or sumthn

>>24505617
>God's dead to us so you have to worship our shitty progressive gods now that we used to replace Him

God is absent from everywhere. Why would he be in philosophy?

Norm likes Ecclesiastes. A philosophical tract if I'd ever read one. All about the Lord.

>>24507394
If your statement is true, then why/how are we talking about Him?
Why isn't that concept unintelligible/fasljkdfh;u2hkjbna;ksjbfh;ajksnf

>>24507394
If your statement is true, then why/how are we talking about Him?
Why isn't that concept unintelligible/fasljkdfh;u2hkjbna;ksjbfh;ajksnf?

>>24507598
I'm more of a kid's bible man myself.

>>24508914
Good memories

>>24508928

Liberalism "brackets it out" and essentially shuts down debate by privatizing all mention of God. It totalitarianism justified by an appeal to ignorance, which is frustrating.

>>24508984
Pic related

Show kindness to each other. More important than philosophy. That is very simple.
Have read many books of philosophy, and of religion, and the occult. But kindness to each other, more important than all these things.

>>24484880
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/19942/pg19942-images.html

>Instantly kills you

>>24484880
it's usually true that OP gets a heard start though- where did it stop making sense?

>>24508984
A lot of failed secular gods; the whole pantheon of the Enlightenment being thrust down the throat of our souls.
square into a round peg stuff.

>>24510471
I got literary deja vu; could've sworn I've already read this in either French and/or English classes.

>>24492669
Learn to notice the details. For example, the similarities between Jesus and Superman end only with a) doing extraordinary things, b) sympathy of followers. Superman is an alien who operates a closed catalog of powers that are useful in specific situations. Superman can even be treated as a god, but he is a Greek type god, closed within the framework of his individuality and quite limited. To a large extent, his divinity ends with strength and the ability to use it. Meanwhile, Jesus has no "power", Jesus is a soteriological figure who, instead of individual abilities, continues the actions of God himself, i.e. the process of Creation. One who follows Christ continues Creation. Jesus does not even have to perform miracles to have such a function (which is why he so often gives them up).

>>24511308
?
This isn't a cartoon.
Christ has all the attributes of God; Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc as that is one of His natures; the other being human (Dyophysitism). This makes him relatable to us as humans as a God-man and so we can emulate him and become like him (saints). He is also Meta-Omnipotent, Meta-Omniscience, and Meta-Omnipresence, in that he can also will/limit/control his own Will; He can be he; a God can be a man at the same time; He can be paradoxes and solve paradoxes. That's why we worship Christ; because He is a paradox in a world [seemingly] without God.
You can tell you are in heaven by the people you see when you get there.
I hope you don't plan on seeing anything/anyone...

>>24511428
>Dyophysitism

>>24484870 (OP)
What do you mean by "absent"? Refutations of the ontological and cosmological arguments are part of philosophy.

>>24511441
>Refutations of the ontological and cosmological arguments are part of philosophy.
This are apotheotic arguments and all attempt to eschew God (while transcendentally proving that a God exists on some level since they wouldn't be leveling such arguments at literally Nothing).
So God's there in a Philosophy in an apophatic way as they try to make Him "disappear" from metaphysics so some smartass/"uberman" can weave it himself whole cloth as a petty deity.
I just find it glib & hubristic.

>>24511428
meds

>>24485035
>Specious quote
faggot

>"Only a Theology can save us now!"
Well let me read the text (https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEEHeideggerSpiegel.pdf)
... well
... uh.
...wait
"cybernetics"?
cybernetics!

it turns out it's AI.

>>24511604
SPIEGEL: We found a statement in your lectures on Nietzsche that seems to us
appropriate. You say there: “Because the greatest possible bond prevails
in philosophical thinking, all great thinkers think the same thing.
However this sameness is so essential and rich that no one individual can
exhaust it, but rather everyone binds everyone else more rigorously.” It
appears, however, that in your opinion this philosophical structure has
come to a certain end.
HEIDEGGER: [...] But I say that
traditional meta-physics’ way of thinking, which ends with Nietzsche, no
longer offers us any possibility to experience the fundamental characteristics of the technological age, an age that is only beginning, through
thinking.
SPIEGEL: In a conversation with a Buddhist monk approximately two years
ago, you spoke about “a completely new method of thinking” and said
that “for the time being only very few people can execute” this new
method of thinking. Do you mean to say that only very few people can
have the insights that are, in your opinion, possible and necessary?
[...]
HEIDEGGER: I cannot make it clear. I know nothing about how this thinking
is “effective.” It could also be that the path of thinking today leads toward
silence, so that thinking may be protected from being thrown out within a
year. It could also be that it takes three hundred years to become
“effective.”
SPIEGEL: We understand that very well. But because we do not live three
hundred years from now, but here and now, we are denied silence. We,
politicians, semi-politicians, citizens, journalists, et cetera, we constantly
have to make some sort of decision or other. We must adapt ourselves to
the system under which we live, must try to change it, must watch for the
narrow door to reform and for the still narrower door to revolution. We
expect help from the philosopher, even if, of course, only indirect help,
help in roundabout ways. And now we hear: I cannot help you.
HEIDEGGER: I cannot.
SPIEGEL: That has to discourage the nonphilosopher.
HEIDEGGER: I cannot because the questions are so difficult that it would be
contrary to the meaning of this task of thinking to make public
appearances, to preach, and to distribute moral grades. Perhaps I may risk
this statement: The secret of the planetary predominance of the unthought
essence of technology corresponds to the preliminariness and
inconspiciousness of the thinking that attempts to reflect upon this
unthought essence.


>>24511245

>>24492812
Think about it in terms of modal logic and it'll make perfect sense.