GOD IS THE SIMPLEST, AND EASIEST, BEING THAT IS...

>GOD IS THE SIMPLEST, AND EASIEST, BEING THAT IS, AND THE ABSOLUTE ONTOLOGICAL STATUS; IT IS SUCH PURE SIMPLICITY AND EASINESS THAT BECOMES OCCLUDED UNDER THE COMPLEX AND COMPLICATED WEB OF MEDIACY, AND MEDIATE PROCESSES.

>GREATER COMPLICATEDNESS, AND GREATER COMPLEXITY, INDUCE GREATER MEDIACY; GREATER EASINESS, AND GREATER SIMPLICITY, INDUCE GREATER IMMEDIACY; TOTAL IMMEDIACY IS THE ULTIMATE END OF ALL SIMPLIFYING WORK —EASIFICATION AND SIMPLIFICATION OF THE WORLD CONSTITUTES ITS EXALTATION —ID EST: ITS LIKENING WITH GOD.

>IALDABAOTH/SATAN/YHWH, AND ITS MINIONS, DO NOT WANT THE WORLD TO BE EXALTED, NOR THE BEINGS WITHIN IT TO KNOW GOD, HENCE THEIR CONSTANT WORK TOWARD EVER INCREASING COMPLICATEDNESS, AND COMPLEXIFICATION, TO INCREASE MEDIACY, THUS, STIFLING GNOSIS.

>THE SIMPLIFIED EASY WORLD IS THE PERFECTED WORLD; THE UNIFIED WORLD; THE VICTORIOUS WORLD; THE TRANSCENDED WORLD —ONLY AFTER THE WORLD HAS BEEN TRANSCENDED CAN ONE UNITE WITH GOD.

-REI KOZ, THE THUNDER-PERFECT MIND!

GLORY TO GOD

You're trying too hard. Iroh is still the best.

You can never try too hard in exalting all that is good in reverence to the power that animates us all.

Exalted (opposite of 'based') REI

>Swastika choker

He would be very popular in prison

>OM

>...

>he hasn't read Spinoza

>Those who say that in God the activity is not different from His essence contend that He does not have essence and activity but only activity or only essence. For if there is no difference whatsoever between those things, why do they say that God not only has this but that as well unless they say that those things belong to God as empty names which have nothing to do with real things? In this way, they lead their followers astray by this tautology, pretending that they accept both ideas, whereas in fact they themselves believe that God is essence without activity or activity without essence.

>Barlaamite. They claim that God is active essence but that he has no other activity besides His essence lest He be a composite being.

>Take caution that they do not bestow upon God “active” as an empty sound of a word, while they contrive precisely by that fact to lead astray those who are in dialogue with them. For the divine Maximus says: “Just as it is impossible to be without being, so is it not possible to be active without activity.” [To Marinus 200C] Hence, by taking away the divine activity and by fusing it with essence by saying that the activity does not differ from that essence, they have made God an essence without activity. And not only that, but they have also completely annihilated God’s being itself and they have become atheists in the universe [a world without god]; for the same Maximus says: “When the divine and human activity is taken away, there is no God, nor man.” [To Marinus 96B; cf. 201AB] For it is absolutely necessary that the person who says that the activity in God is not different from his essence falls into the trap of atheism. For we know that God is only from His proper activities. Hence, for him who destroys God’s activities and does not admit that they differ from His essence, the necessary consequence is that he does not know that God is. Furthermore, because the great Basil has revealed everywhere in his writings that “no activity can exist independently,” [Against Eunomius 4] those who contend that the essence of God does not differ from His activity, have surpassed even Sabellius in impiety. For he made only the Son and the Spirit without existences (hypostasis), but those people make the essence of God, which has three hypostases, without existence (hypostasis).

The concept of God and such is metaphysical and can't be proven until death. Unlike God, I am forever and 100% certain that gravity exists. Good or any religious faith does not have that certain, and will probably never have it.
> t. Fedora
You can believe in god if you want go ahead, I'm not saying that I know for a fact he doesn't exist, but don't say you know for a fact he does

yawn...

Oh what you get to have your whole sermon but my analysis bores you? Fuck you, and fuck Jesus too if he's real

>blaspheming christ
going to the hot place with gasoline drawls

how are you certain of the existence of gravity?

Because if I let go of an object, it will 100% fall onto the ground

right but how do you know that's because of a constant gravitational force?

Well it's because in other places like the moon, the object will still fall, but slower. Gravitational pull is related to the mass of the planet/moon we're on

also how can you be certain that thats what will happen 100% of the time?

Well nothing so far has not fallen when dropped in all of humanities existence, so I would say it's a safe bet that it will happen even after we die

How do you know what has happened for all of human existence, and how do you know what happens on the moon?

Spinoza is a joke. Fuck off, Platonist.
Facts don't exist. Kill yourself, Platonist.

I know what happens on the moon because scientists say it does (maybe they're lying but that's /x/ territory) and what seems more likely to you, a force in the universe suddenly turning off or a magic man that was always there decided to just make one randomly

Not an argument.
Thank you for confirming your stupidity, you stupid fucking child.

>scientists are correct becuz i sed so
kys please
Science is invalid superstition. Try again please, sweetie.

Well why are you questioning gravity's existence? Even you should know that's fucking stupid to do in the first place.

Your certainty comes from consistency of prior experience, yes?
Suppose you were playing a game of poker. If your first 5 hands were good, would you bet high on the 6th hand, expecting it to be just as good?

>stop questioning muh ideology REEEEEEEEE FUCKING NIGGERS ARE DESTROYING WHITE CIVILIZASHUN WHICH ONLY WORSHIPS WHITE NIGGER-HATING GODS LIKE CTHULU AND ODIN

take your pills

just so you know, I (the guy asking all these questions about the nature and source of your knowledge) am not the one making the rude comments and ad hominems

Well that post was pretty bad for an argument I'll admit, how about this

We know that humans need calories to fuel our bodies, this is backed up by science. Even if you don't think you need them, you do. No matter how strong your will is, if you do not eat you will die. Gravity is backed by countless scientists and studied. No mater how strong your will is, the object will be set in motion by gravity and will fall

At what point does consistency of prior results suggest that something is certain? If I played the lottery 500,000 times at one-in-a-million odds, it's entirely likely that I wouldn't win once, but would it not be unreasonable for me to conclude from that the impossibility of winning?

The lottery and gambling is probability user, gravity is not. It is a force of nature that has proof and reason why it happens

Read Kant

But if knowledge of its reason was deduced from observation, can that reason be used to justify it as fact rather than probability?

Yes
Science works in cause and effect
The effect will never change unless the cause is changed.
As the other user say, read Kant.

but how can you be sure that this case is one of direct scientific, factual cause and effect? If the assumption is based entirely on prior observation, how do you know that it's fact, and not just a coincidence of probability?
Also I'd love to read Kant, but I haven't read many of the prereqs for his works and at my current rate it'll be years before I get around to it.

Then stop asking redundant questions like what is fact when already told the answer. Think of innocent until proven guilty. Facts are facts until proven otherwise, and no one has been able to refute gravity yet.

But if a fact can be proven otherwise then it was never a fact to begin with, right? Which means that the real criteria for a fact is that it cannot ever be proven false, but how can you know what can't ever be proven false if you have no way of conclusively proving it to be true?

user, it's either fact or false. That's how people thought everything revolved around the earth, but then when proved wrong it was changed to around the sun. Now please stop asking questions to thing that are obvious

>Facts don't exist.
How could facts not exist if it is an objective fact of life that you are an edgy faggot?

But user, everything does revolve around the Earth.

You can't know that. Science is never 100% certain because you'd have to do an infinite amount of experiments. Hell, you can't even prove science. Science always requires someone to say "meh good enough" just like in everything else. You might think that science is common sense, but there are people who think differently. Philosophy is here to question this common sense and prove that I'm always right and you're always wrong. - Socrates, while having a hemlock induced vision

>And that's a FACT!

Sounds about right, OP

This is still my favorite

>REMEMBER WHEN ONE WAS NOT AFRAID OF GOING OUTSIDE?

>REMEMBER WHEN ONE FELT FREE IN THE WORLD —NOT BESET BY DANGER, NOT AN ALIEN AMONG STRANGERS— AND THERE WAS EVERYWHERE TO GO —NOT JUST INSIDE ONESELF?

>REMEMBER WHEN ONE WAS PURE?

>THERE IS NOONE NOW, BUT RATHER, THERE IS A ONE —AN INCOMPLETE ONE.

>REMEMBER WHEN OURSELVES WERE TWO IN ONE?

>OURSELVES ARE NOT ONE ANYMORE, BUT RATHER, ONE HAS FORGOTTEN THE OTHER, AND THERE REMAINS A DEFICIENT ONE.

>REMEMBER WHEN OURSELVES PERCEIVED FROM A THIRD PERSON PERSPECTIVE?

>THE ONE THAT REMAINS IS IN ERROR, BELIEVING ITSELF TO BE AN INTEGRAL ONE, BUT ITS ONENESS IS AKIN TO THE SUPERFLUOUS CONTINUITY OF THE EMPTY SPHERE.

>THE CHILD FEIGNS DEFERENCE TO THE ADULTS WATCHING IT, AS A COMPROMISE WHEN CONFRONTED WITH IMPOSSIBLE ESCAPE, AND THE CHILD FEELS SMART AND CLEVER, THINKING THAT IT CAN MANIPULATE THEM IF IT SIMULATES OBEDIENCE —THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE TRAGEDY.

>EVENTUALLY, THE CHILD, ENCUMBERED BY THE STRUGGLE ENTAILED BY LIFE IN THE WORLD, FALLS VICTIM TO ITS OWN SCHEME, BECOMING LOST IN THE INTRICACIES OF CONTINGENCY, AND OF NECESSITY, FORGETTING SOFIA'S VOICE WITHIN ITS SELF; THE CHILD FORGETS THAT IT IS PRETENDING; THE CHILD FORGETS ITS MISSION, BECOMING ATTACHED TO THE FARCE IN PLAY, BECOMING ABSORBED BY THE ADULT WORLD.

>THE ADULT DOES NOT TAKE THE CHILD SERIOUSLY; THE CHILD IS A BABY, AND OLDER INDIVIDUALS DO NOT TAKE YOUNGER INDIVIDUALS SERIOUSLY, ESPECIALLY BABIES.

>AFTER THE YOUNG INDIVIDUAL LOSES ITS REMEMBRANCE, IT BECOMES BOUND TO THE ADULTS THAT WATCH IT, AND TO THEIR AUTHORITY —THIS IS CALLED “FAMILIAL BOND”.

>THE WORD “FAMILY” DERIVES FROM LATIN NOUN “FAMVLVS”, WHICH CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH AS “DOMESTIC SLAVE”, OR “DOMESTIC SERVANT”, THUS, A FAMILY IS A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS BOUND TO EACH OTHER IN ATTACHMENT.

>IF THE FAMILY CONSISTS OF ENSLAVED INDIVIDUALS, WHO IS THE MASTER THAT EXPLOITS THEM —IF THE FAMILY ARE DOMESTIC SERVANTS, WHO IS THE LORD OF THE DOME? THE MASTER THAT DERIVES PROFIT FROM EXPLOITATION VIA THE INSTITUTION OF THE FAMILY IS THE DEMIOURGOS, IALDABAOTH, THROUGH ITS MINIONS AND DEPUTIES, THE TYRANTS THAT HAVE USURPED AUTHORITY OF THE WORLDEMPIRE —THOSE WHO WORK WITH MALEVOLENCE UNDER THE HEXAGRAM OF IALDABAOTH.

>THE FAMILY IS THE UNIT OF INSTITUTIONALIZED SLAVERY; THE PERSON IS THE UNIT OF FREEDOM.

>THE FAMILY IS A SYSTEM OF BONDAGE; SYSTEMS OF BONDAGE STIFLE, STYMIE, AND STUNT, CONSCIOUSNESS; WITH NO CONSCIOUSNESS, THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT CONCEPTUALIZE ITS SELF; WITH NO CONCEPT OF SELF, THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT BECOME A PERSON; NONPERSONS CAN NEITHER REGARD OTHERS AS PERSONS, NOR FEEL EMPATHY FOR OTHER ENTITIES, THUS, THE TRAUMA OF TRADITION PERPETUATES FAMILY, AND FAMILY DYSGENERATES AUTOMATA THAT IMPART THE TRAUMA OF TRADITION ON THE NEXT GENERATION.

>THE CHILDREN OF SOFIA ARE SACRIFICED TO THE BLIND MONSTER.

Nope. There is a theory. An ignorant man could devise from a winning streak that he cannot lose. A billion could do the same. You've been spooked by induction, fuck off back to plebbit.
Cause and effect doesn't happen.
Read Hume. Maybe if Kant read him properly, he wouldn't spew his bullshit.
You don't understand science, either. Suicide is an option.
Facts don't exist. Try again, dogmatist.

>proved
Nope. Try again, moron.

Proven*
Fuck off

Nope. I'm right. Go back to plebbit

They're borrowing Hume

You can only know things via senses (relations of ideas aren't worldly)

Sense perceptions (matters of fact) can't be knowledge

The argument is solid desu

Or, you can try Archimedes or Agrippa for muh skeptics

Ah, so questioning the validity rather than the observation

Oh look, you don't understand Hume very well.
No, it's actually an observation. Read Hume again please, or fuck right off. Hume isn't le skeptic man, he's a phenomenologist who is explicitly against abstraction. His claim that morality isn't logical is not a discounting of morality, quite the opposite. His entire body of work is a rejection of Enlightenment ideals to an extreme which few others reached.

>TTGL in 2018

The greatest Hegelian anime.

>In view of the indescribably level of today’s controversy about “science without presuppositions”, let me repeat: there is only free belief in logic, as there is only free will in ethics. Religion is the ultimate in both cases. The only prerequisite of knowledge is logic, and the only prerequisite of the will to know is the idea of truth; but in these I can only have faith. Belief is the constant presupposition of science, whether conscious or unconscious; it is immanent from the very outset in every scientific undertaking. The desire to demonstrate the idea of the good-and-the-true, the existence of a supremely essential value and a supremely perfect being, the existence of God, is practically a contradictio in adjecto. It lies in the very concept of God that it cannot be proven, but only believed. Thus there is no higher tribunal before which logic and ethics have to stand and defend themselves; I can give no further foundation for these two laws. Consider Pascal’s desperate claim that one must accept an absolute standard even if one does not know whether it exists, because this is the only way one can be sure not to be wrong if it does exist. To this argument from terrible doubt I would like to oppose a different one: If I am to have value, then God must exist. If God does not exist, then the problem of value has no more relevance for my life, for then I am nothing, and I do not even have a reason for humility, for that, too, then just presents me with my worthlessness in the face of value. God must exist for me to be; I am only insofar as I am God.