Misotheists, how are you going to defeat God? He's practically invincible

Misotheists, how are you going to defeat God? He's practically invincible.

Are you implying that an omnipotent being can have a weakness?
>inb4 iron chariots

Other urls found in this thread:

desustorage.org/his/thread/536743/#538629
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/03/23/pew-study-finds-women-generally-more-religious-than-men/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Look at how sad the middle one looks
Also there was a thread on /r/atheism that was pretty cringey where people talked about how they'd kill God if Christianity turned out to be true

>killing god

As an atheist, even I know that's retarded.

Assuming that the Abrahamic God does exist, would it be better to submit to him? He is after all, objectively right.

I already beat him.

According to Exodus 32:14, the Abrahamic God (again assuming existence) can change his mind and can do evil, which would indicate that he is not, by definition, objectively right.

No, he's just more powerful.

>Misotheists
Why are you talking to an empty room OP?

Just found out about these guys and am intrigued with what goes inside their mind. Was hoping that there's a couple of closet misotheists in here.

There's a large amount of /r/atheism-tier autistic, and then a significant minority (actually probably just more quiet majority) of people that just don't give a fuck

>how are you going to defeat God

would need to be some sort of missile or laser beam

Misotheists tend to be more irrational anti-theists. They hardly have an understanding of gods collectively. They're just trying to creatively express their hatred of religion.

>Wolfy is back
Where have you been mang?

I can't imagine there are that many of these people, though I do suspect some of my fellow atheists are actually misotheists in disguise. People who have turned to Atheism, not because of a worldview that puts science first, but because of their inability to reconcile the world with a benevolent deity, so they decided to say he doesn't exist.

From what I've seen, this is the kind of "Atheist" most likely to turn back to religion if their life gets less shitty, because suddenly they can reconcile the idea that God is great and loves them with their improved life. They never came to their atheism from a rational mindset, but one based on emotion and anger, and because of this, were never very good atheists.

In an idea notebook I have somewhere there's written the phrase "group called Illiterati tries to kill God by abolishing concept of fiction."

I don't believe he could be objectively right about things for which you can't really be objectively right, like morality, even if he were omnipotent. Although I guess you could say that's not really omnipotence, then.
And I suppose he could sort of be "for all intents and purposes" objectively right about morality, since he would know exactly how to maximise everyone's happiness, justice, and so on, but it still wouldn't be technically objectively correct in my opinion.

If the Abrahamic God does exist then I would submit to him primarily out of fear, as I don't believe he could be truly benevolent and omnipotent at the same time.
I wouldn't be able to know if he was really omnipotent, of course, but it wouldn't matter since it's more or less inconceivable that humans could resist him in any way.

Don't you know, he's been having secret gay sex with Constantine. That's why they both came back recently, bad breakup.

>a worldview that puts science first

>not because of a worldview that puts science first

Isn't Constantine being a woman the meme here?

>puts science first
Hi!

Alternate claims are that Constantine is a tranny, or that the current Constantine waifu'd tranny Constantine and took the trip when they vanished.

Interesting
Did WOLFSHIEM say anything before he left too?

Not to my knowledge.

>Not knowing that catholics are REALLY gay.

I mean seriously, the word "bugger" is derived from a splinter catholic monastic group in the 11th century.

Working and around generally. I had personal projects and things I needed to work on so I went away largely to not be in threads where I spend two hours straight writing lengthy responses. In the meantime I've posted on /pol/, /v/, and other websites altogether.

And sorry to just post on myself currently.

Yes
desustorage.org/his/thread/536743/#538629

Oh cool
Hope your dad's alright
Will say a prayer for him

Very, very good actually. Thank you man.

If everyone stops believing in god, he effectively stops existing

That's like saying that the universe doesn't exist if it has no observers.

He's implying God only exists as a concept. Presupposing non-existence to make the claim.

The sum total of the mass of the Universe is zero, because there is as much anti-matter in the Universe as ordinary matter.

The sum total of all the energy in the Universe is zero ,because despite all the galaxies whizzing around at high speed, gravity acts in opposition to this movement, the gravitational energy of the Universe being equal and opposite to the sum of all the other forms of energy in the Universe, which is why gravity is always a force of attraction between two bodies.

We thus see that the Universe could explode out of nothingness, without need of a Creator.

>Lawrence Krauss' meme argument where nothing is actual something
Kek go away

Oh. He's just retarded. I was mistaken.
My apologies.

I feel sorry for these girls

Even ignoring the chariots, Jacob wrestled him to a standstill and he was terrified of the Tower of Babel. Yahweh doesn't seem to be as omnipotent as later writers portrayed him.

Would you agree that this would apply to the Egyptian gods, Norse gods no longer existing? or would you explain it as these "gods" were just demons all along?

Why does this matter? The abrahamic god yahweh is as fictional as any other deity people made up.

>Guys, nothing is actually something
Lol Lawrence gtfo

Oh boy we've hit the meme where we ignore ontological differences between various conceptions of the divine

Not that guy, but explain.

Pagan deities were considered physical beings created, living in the world, with personal limitations
Judaism/Islam/Christianity/Neo-platonism/Zoroastrianism think of "God" as a being that completely transcended the physical universe

well you fight God with another God and watch

>implying I need God
The best mythological figures are those who accepted that a God existed, but told them to go fuck themselves anyway

Edgy

>Pagan deities were considered physical beings created, living in the world, with personal limitations

But that's not strictly true. More platonic understandings of the pagan gods became a thing in Greece later on, and I suspect just represent a fairly natural course of how religions develop.

Even the Christian god is subject to personal limitations, the most iconic is the example of that problem with the rock that he could not lift, which implies at the very least a limitation that his actions have to follow some pattern of logical consistency.

>Different religions have different conceptions of the divine

>Therefore my special God who's defined as the first cause means that the other conceptions didn't exist, and can be said to not exist these days.

Also would it not be explained in Christian theology that other gods are due the influence of satan/demons, or would it just be that original sin means that some people will sin in more severe and others less severe ways (If worshipping false idols is considered more severe, which I'm not sure of and I suspect all sins are considered equally bad without repentance or something like that).

Let me know how it's explained by Christianity

t.atheist

Christians did it

What's the scene there?

this guys knows

Why would i want to defeat something that doesn't exist?

Not in a premise where the Abrahamic God does exist though, he can easily wipe us out from face of the earth and replace us if he's no longer receiving he's daily dose of ego boost.

God needs his daily dose does he?

Well first lets go into the chariots. I see this as yet another instance of out of context verses.

The victory of God's people is tied to their willingness to abide by His covenant in Chapter 2. See:

>Judges 2:2-3: “But you have not obeyed my voice. Why have you done this? Therefore I also said ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you.”

But the new technology of iron chariots is defeated later in the text. See:

“Judges 4:3, 15: And the children of Israel cried out to the Lord; for Jabin had nine hundred chariots of iron and for twenty years he had oppressed the children of Israel… And the Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army with the edge of the sword.

But as the rest, many Christian interpreters would understand this as the transition in understanding God. Just as nowadays it is commonly useful to speak of God in an anthropomorphic way even through the apostolic churches promotes a general Classical Theist view of God, as is it for those societies lacking education beforehand.


I'd have no reason to say they exist, no.

"Deities" and "gods" are simply umbrella terms for lots of different things with lots of different ontology. For example, you don't put Pan on the same ontological level as Brahma and neither of those on the same level as the "divinely simple" god understood by Catholics. They are simply altogether different things.

The Problem of Omnipotence deals with what powers exist, not the capacity for God to do such a thing. To say, that God is not omnipotent (literally "having all powers") as God lacks a power it would first be right to ask if such a power could coherently exist in relation to what we're speaking about.

>The Problem of Omnipotence deals with what powers exist, not the capacity for God to do such a thing. To say, that God is not omnipotent (literally "having all powers") as God lacks a power it would first be right to ask if such a power could coherently exist in relation to what we're speaking about.

It's not to say that he's not omnipotent, just to imply that he must abide a set of rules greater than he. In this case, that his actions follow this sense of coherency. If he were truly without limits, our notions of coherency wouldn't matter. He'd create a rock he couldn't lift, and then lift it while still being incapable of lifting it and we'd just have to fucking deal with it.

>Therefore my special God who's defined as the first cause means that the other conceptions didn't exist, and can be said to not exist these days.

There's no reason to put words in each other's mouths.

Christian theology says little of the reality of what other religions worship or hold to. It became understood in Europe that the deities in traditional European religions were actually angels or demons based on accepting the reality of their actions from a Christian point of view, similar to how the medieval Catholic theologians wouldn't believe in magic powers to exist but accept 'witchcraft' under the understanding that it was actually the work of fallen angels. Ultimately there is no say one way or another but they're trying to grasp the worldview through their intellectual framework in place around them like the rest of us.

Not sure what you're saying about original sin, though, I'm sorry.

>just to imply that he must abide a set of rules greater than he

Then I'd say that's where our contention is. As I'd hold the Apostolic view of God (not a kind of being in or outside the cosmos but the willful ground of being itself) and thus would say that God's inner logic that influences the universe is not overarching above God but inherent and one with God. Just as God is known by His will.

>European religions were actually angels or demons based on accepting the reality of their actions from a Christian point of view

Is this similar to the idea of a virtuous pagan?

Christianity is true and people will have an eternity to contemplate that - in absolute darkness and a lake of fire.

You Christfags get triggered pretty easily, don't you?

So much to explain, you're going to trash what I say anyway - simply won't bother.

Not really.

To shorten down the general understanding of both things crudely, the medieval Catholics largely understood the deities of traditional European religions to be real (not doctrinally but it was common belief) but could not reconcile their understanding of their supernatural power with how they academically understood of the world (mainly a clash with divine conservation). Some theologians said that a decent answer would be to understand them as angels or fallen angels at work - commonly fallen angels, given how fucked up European Paganism was - and the educated guess stuck.

Entirely differently, Virtuous Pagans are people of no knowledge of God substantially or worshipers of other things that still had a grasp of virtue (God's will) despite their situation. Basically that they had a grasp of God in essence alone rather than in name or concept.

r/atheism is generally extremely cringy.

>it must abide by a set if rules greater than itself

therefore it is not omnipotent, but you're saying that it is omnipotent. what the fuck is wrong with you? examine your logic.

>Then I'd say that's where our contention is. As I'd hold the Apostolic view of God (not a kind of being in or outside the cosmos but the willful ground of being itself) and thus would say that God's inner logic that influences the universe is not overarching above God but inherent and one with God. Just as God is known by His will.

I would say the fact we can conceive of it as something God cannot do demonstrates that it is indeed something above God.

It can do all coherent things, it just can't be incoherent.

>It can do all coherent things, it just can't be incoherent.
it seems more reasonable that the things it does are coherent while the things it does not do would appear incoherent

but this is just my headcanon i suppose

It's not that they would appear incoherent.

It's that they would necessarily appear coherent, and by appearing such, they wouldn't live up to incoherence.

If you asked God to make a "square circle" any shape he makes cannot meet that because a square circle has no definition. You're not actually asking for anything, it's just following one word after the other in grammatical sequence without any content. You might as well ask someone to make colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

you are god , its about overcoming your self.

Satanists are Misotheists

>I would say the fact we can conceive of it as something God cannot do demonstrates that it is indeed something above God.

But that just leads into what I said in Just because you can conceive such an idea does not mean it is coherent by any means. It becomes a question of what powers exist to begin with.
If we cannot rationally understand what being in contradiction is like then we have no means to state when it is and is not occurring. You have a situation like

Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of Veeky Forums are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

I'd recommend saving your time.

Did God lose a wrestling match? His will was also defied by chariots of iron wasn't it?

Lucifer was God's right. Considering Lucifer rebelled he probably thought he had a shot. Maybe he knew something we don't.

who /deist/ here?

I don't get it isn't fire bright? Wouldn't a whole lake of fire brighten the darkness?

Yeah Lucifer and 1/3 of all the angels at the beginning of creation rebelled, they lost. If Lucifer couldn't what makes you think you could beat God?

You can't defeat him. So writing that on your chest is pretty pointless and just plain stupid

>Just because you can conceive such an idea does not mean it is coherent by any means.

You know, there's considerable irony in a Catholic saying that. But seriously. That's my point, if God can't be incoherent, then he has a limitation over him. He has all powers that exist, but he is still limited by this one thing, and even a single limitation is still proof of a limited being.

>You have a situation like

Indeed, and if God were truly without limits, then he would do exactly what he demanded, the circle would be square and our pathetic minds would just have to ache trying to make sense of it.

Is it so damaging to admit that even your God has limits?

this

>I haven't read the Bible
>I haven't read Kant
>I haven't read Plato
>I don't enjoy thinking
>I want to be free more than anything so that I can realize I am free to do nothing at all
Why?

if there was a god, women would not be so ugly.

what the fuck is wrong with this redhead...

>you wouldnt get it anyways
>its too high brow for your tiny mortal mind
>obviously if you had a superior intellect like me you would already agree with me

He was right
There's no point trying to explain things to actual autists

Then you probably shouldnt post to Veeky Forums at all, dipshit

Most autist can't speak up to their fathers. To think they could stand up to the omnipotent creator. Top Kek.

Sorry for the late response. Just saw this.

>irony

Please.

>That's my point, if God can't be incoherent, then he has a limitation over him.

You're misunderstanding me. I was speaking of the incoherence of an idea of a power, not incoherence as a power to itself. We can rationally grasp incoherence itself so to identify it. We cannot rationally grasp things that ARE incoherent because of their inherent irrationality. Because of that we cannot identify it as a power that can be.

>Is it so damaging to admit that even your God has limits?

This has nothing to do with clinging to ideas. What you're seeing is actually someone arguing why you're wrong.

And further, if I were to give you that contradictions were in fact a power this wouldn't mean God would lack it. As I said when I got into the discussion of this, you're arguing what powers exist before you argue the nature of God. As I understand God has all powers and say there are fewer powers that exist than you, you proving me wrong doesn't state that God as I've been addressing him lacks the power. Just my understanding based on my initial premises.

And an omnipotent god from your understanding of omnipotence would be hilariously hard to actually speak of and handle problems like the one that started this conversation: To the question of whether God could make a rock heavy enough that he could not lift it you could answer "yes" and we can not work against it whatsoever.


But of course, you are wrong. The reason is that there is no such power; the very notion of such a power is incoherent, precisely because the notion of a self-contradictory state of affairs is incoherent. God’s power would be limited only if there was some power he lacked. Since there is no such thing as a power to make contradictions true, his inability to do so is no limitation on his power.

Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of Veeky Forums are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

see

>Please.

Indeed. You like to play endless word games as though a clever sentence gives you the power to magic into existence your own brand of being. You can call it "deduction" if you want, but deducing the existence of something that isn't a necessary component of existence without a shred of evidence is pretty fucking spurious.

>This has nothing to do with clinging to ideas. What you're seeing is actually someone arguing why you're wrong.

This has everything to do with clinging with ideas. I've never seen you back down from an idea, and you're arguing for me being wrong because me being right would compromise your own ideas.

So I'll put it bluntly: can God do something logically incoherent? If not, this is something he cannot do, meaning he follows rules, rules greater than he.

A limitless being would not be constrained by our notions of rationality, and you know it.

Oh wow, you're fucking asshurt.

>Since there is no such thing as a power to make contradictions true, his inability to do so is no limitation on his power.

Please. If we're going to argue from a basis of "no such thing" I'll just tip muh fedora and say there's no such thing as magic men that transcend existence and fuss about whether your jerk it or not.

>no argument

>You can call...

Obviously, which is why it's asserted as derived from necessity in topics like this.

>This has everything to do with clinging with ideas...

Rather I have a view and refute your criticisms as they appear for the sake of discourse. If you want to criticize me and don't want me to response, please tell me. If you want me to fold on my argument, please provide a good enough argument that I'd have to do so.

>So I'll put it bluntly: can God do something logically incoherent? If not, this is something he cannot do, meaning he follows rules, rules greater than he.

You're dense as fuck aren't you? I would hold, as I've BEEN defending to you, that the innate rationality of the universe is one with God's essence and thus would hold that God has the inability to cause the irrational. However, as I've said, this isn't an act of bending to rules beyond Himself but simply God being Himself as those rational axioms are innate to God.

>A limitless being would not be constrained by our notions of rationality, and you know it.

Yes, and you're correct, but I'm not talking about "limitless", I'm talking about "omnipotent". Having all the powers. And as I said back in when I first began to speak with you, this problem of omnipotence deals primarily with what powers exist in the first place.

Now being "constrained" to rationality seem pretty testy. On the case you are right and God's capable of the impossible or outright contradictions (that we both know we cannot comprehend and the concept of it working would be meaningless) how are we to grasp it? How would it effect any of what I've said? As far as we can know and argue, we understand God through what is capable of understanding. But how are we to understand the inherently irrational? And further, what difference does your point make?

"He's not technically omnipotent because He's not irrational but He's still the sovereign sustainer of all things and the logos."

Well whoopty-doo.

Part1

>Please. If we're going to argue from a basis of "no such thing"...

Mate I HAVE BEEN ARGUING THAT SINCE I BEGAN TALKING TO YOU.
PLEASE CATCH UP.

>...I'll just tip muh fedora and say there's no such thing as magic men that transcend existence and fuss about whether your jerk it or not.


Well myself and my church would agree with you so you should probably focus on fussing instead.

I'm heading to bed. I'll leave the thread tab open for when I'm back.

>there's no such thing as magic men that transcend existence
>Well myself and my church would agree with you

Excellent, Wolfshiem finally admits Jesus isn't real.

Like pokemon?

I don't really hate God.

I would probably also be creating universes just to watch stuff happen, if I was the big guy.

>Obviously, which is why it's asserted as derived from necessity in topics like this.

Which is an absolute fucking inanity.

>Rather I have a view and refute your criticisms as they appear for the sake of discourse. If you want to criticize me and don't want me to response, please tell me. If you want me to fold on my argument, please provide a good enough argument that I'd have to do so.

But you haven't refuted anything. You just stubbornly repeat your point.

>You're dense as fuck aren't you? I would hold, as I've BEEN defending to you, that the innate rationality of the universe is one with God's essence and thus would hold that God has the inability to cause the irrational. However, as I've said, this isn't an act of bending to rules beyond Himself but simply God being Himself as those rational axioms are innate to God.

Except this is exactly an example of him bending to rules beyond himself. If a being has limitations that means it is subject to rules, full fucking stop, you goddamn cunt.

>Yes, and you're correct, but I'm not talking about "limitless", I'm talking about "omnipotent". Having all the powers. And as I said back in when I first began to speak with you, this problem of omnipotence deals primarily with what powers exist in the first place.

I never disputed him being "omnipotent." You fucking thicky.

And I never said God is capable of the impossible. I said he is incapable of the impossible, and thus subject to limitations, fundamentally no different from the pagan Gods that the Greeks considered embodiments of the world, as you consider God an embodiment of the universe and morality.

>Mate I HAVE BEEN ARGUING THAT SINCE I BEGAN TALKING TO YOU.
>PLEASE CATCH UP.

And I've been tacitly ignoring it, because it's fucking moronic when talking about a being you can't prove the existence.

>Well myself and my church would agree with you so you should probably focus on fussing instead.

Wait, you don't believe in God?

all these women are waiting for the antichrist to rise, we know for a fact that the majority of the antichrist followers are women.
when he plays his drum, to him women will run, so chain your women when that day comes.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/03/23/pew-study-finds-women-generally-more-religious-than-men/

You could make everyone blind. That would be pretty horrifying.
Though you can't really suffer without visual shock images.

Wolfsheim you are on fire

Bullshit study
Men are far more devout to whatever philosophical beliefs they have
More women pay lip service to the societal standard, but don't actually practice faithfully