What is god?

God is a title.

that title belongs to the Creator of the Universe.

It's Who is God, not what is God. God has revealed himself as a supernatural triune spirit entity who lives in unapproachable light.

"I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life; no man comes to the Father but by Me."

--Jesus of Nazareth

When God reveals himself, it's best to pay attention.

Defining God is like approaching a mathematical asymptote - you can approach an answer, but you'll never actually get there with things we have in our current reality. We can notice the effects of such an event on things around it, but ultimately, we have to leave it undefined because we simply don't have a meaningful or discrete way to represent it.

As an oversimplification of God though, he's the creator and maintainer of this universe/reality/existence. Beyond that, everything else is up in the air.

S

P

O

O

K

K

Y

>

>Nietzsche and Stirner isn't real because God exists and that is like objectively true
>debunked

>dude spooks are real because nazis are evil lmao

Stick with children's "literature"

>replying to a troll

What, are you fucking retarded?

...

The delicious smell of debunked tears.

>hurr durr, look at how retarded I am
>go away you fucking retard
>EPIC TROLL GAIZ

>god

>atheism
I remember when I was 12.

Of course, it's when you were Lewis' intended audience.

Quite the age for reading about wardrobe lion Jesus

>samefagging this hard

looks like the stirnerfag got sand in his vagina

People tend to get mad when you debunk their work.

A brilliant quote came from that series.

"He's not a tame lion, you know."

Someone seems to be debunked and it ain't Stirner

Okay but have you shuffled through an infinity of possible "Trickster God" behaviors that could masquerade as Christ?

>worshipping a savage animal

>he's so angry that he took the time to paint edit out 3 (You)s

i rest my case

You seem a little... spooked, my property.

>Christcuck denial
Nothing unusual, my property

>It's another "Atheists get BTFO" episode

>The Existential Problem & Religious Solution
youtube.com/watch?v=iw36V_iXR2k
youtube.com/watch?v=jkh2TXCHpNs

>The Laws of Nature
youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

>Mere Christianity
youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>The Origin (or 1,2,3,4)
youtube.com/watch?v=tw9biRRv_bM

>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>The Rival Conceptions of God
youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w

>The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwnHVr192A

>Why I Am Not a Pacifist
youtube.com/watch?v=k2xY2k26HFo
youtube.com/watch?v=jreq3mVvDgc

>Bulverism (Foundation of 20th Century Thought)
youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

>Sexual Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI

>Atheists Don't Exist
youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

I'm tired of winning, it's like I'm beating a baby.

at this point you are just pouring salt into the wound.

let the stirnerfag rest in peace

If I too was a slave to spooks, I would feel really bad about how mad you are, my property

>I'm
How about you post your own thoughts instead of some videos, I can just post a thousand videos on atheism.

>Pantheists think God is a force or universal consciousness, an impersonal energy you can tap into. These people also believe in reincarnation, kundalini, gnosticism, enlightenment, chakras and all that hippie New Age demonic shit.

You could have just said you've never read Spinoza. It would have been quicker.

Lying is a sin, my property.

>gish-galloping

There's a reason debate clubs typically enforce a limit to the number of points you can bring up. It's unreasonable to expect your opponent to refute a whole mess of shitty points.

Don't bother he'll continue to spam all that BS and retain an undeserved sense of victory when no one wants to waste time responding to it.

To be fair, it's not like his opponents were debating either.

The difference being, I think this idiot actually believes C.S. Lewis has a point about natural law that Cicero and Aquinas didn't make better, and is too lazy to read actual philosophy instead of apologetics.

>over an hour on how atheists supposedly don't exist
Holy shit.
I needed background noise for studying.

you're basically the only respectable religious person on this entire board

>atheists admire the satanist and hate all the christians

Makes sense, since you're both rebellious types.

It's doubly odd when you consider that the devil knows full well there is a God, and who God is.

Atheists also know there is a God, hence atheists don't exist.

I respect him for actually being knowledgable of primary sources from a vast number of religious traditions. he actually contributes to threads rather than copypasting from apologetcs websites like you shitters

Philosophy, not apologetics.

technically yes, but a poor excuse of it

>It's bad cuz i say so
Not an argument.

In a thread about "what is god?", the satan worshiping pagan adds nothing.

In Revelation, the dragon was humanity's last, best hope against an unfathomable horror that unleashed continual evil on humanity.

You forgot your tripcode, ape.

Lewis' work is apologetics, not philosophy. Get that through your head. For future reference: Aquinas is a philosopher, Lewis is an apologist and an author of children's books.

>my definition of God is the only one

Why are there so many Christian shitposters on Veeky Forums?

>Revelations is so damn bizarre that christfags can't recognize each other if one comments on it

>only one person can have an opinion that disagrees with me

Perhaps some day you'll grow up.

No, Lewis is a philosopher. He argues for a God and a moral universal law that everyone is aware of. He hardly touches on the Bible.

If you want actual apologetics, just ask.

>rehashing the philosophy of others is philosophy

No, he is not a philosopher. He took Aquinas' work and rehashed it into an easily digestable (and philosophically worthless) form for simpletons.

Aquinas built off of Aristotle, Lewis rendered Aquinas' work into less.

There's only one God.

The guy who believes there are more than one god is not adding anything to the thread, especially as he excludes the one true God from his responses.

Anyone thinking the devil is mankind's hope is not a Christian at all.

Before Veeky Forums, I didn't have half the dislike of Christianity I now do.

Thanks for encouraging me to read Nietzsche. He's a wise and uplifting philosopher.

>Nietzsche

autism

Enjoy your insanity.

You do know he spent the last decade or so of his life completely insane, did you not?

giraffe

>shitposting

You're worse than than that Ottoman guy; at least he could be funny.

He was done writing by that point, and I double I'll catch an inherited condition from his books.

>inb4 syphillus

Modern diagnosis with available information concludes that he didn't display any of the usual symptoms, and was likely subject to CADASIL.

I just wanted to know what god is, I didn't want this to devolve into a shitstorm.

define definition, without relying on self-referential statements please.

Read some philosophers that discuss the subject. Plato, Aristotle, and Spinoza as recommendations.

who is this lass

Tapu Lele

depends on who you ask. in my tradition, god is recognized as the non-characterized self-experience. essentially, the 'you' that does not make decisions or act upon situations with agency. this self is considered illusory or a trick played upon the god-self to divide its nature and bring about man

Why is she black?

>recommends two godless pagans and a dirty jew
>not a theologian of the true faith like Aquinas

>god is recognized as the non-characterized self-experience. essentially, the 'you' that does not make decisions or act upon situations with agency

das it mane. We're pretty close on this one, must be the exoteric hero-philosopher phenotype, now made inglorious ofc with no role in society

>this self is considered illusory or a trick played upon the god-self to divide its nature and bring about man

U wot? God is the biological will or libido realizing itself experientially, basically what was said before but also as an ideal above that is unattainable and striven for irrationally. This is why religion is foremost inspiring or ''spiritually'' rejuvenating (as in will-affirming). That "someone up there" is the impossible ultimate and ideal you with a carrot on a stick. Telling a normie that God doesn't exist is to metaphorically say that striving-for doesn't exist, because the notion is metaphysically underpinned.

a hypothesis.

>bitches about recommending the guy Aquinas ripped off

What was good about Aquinas wasn't new, what was new about Aquinas wasn't good.

Op, I have experienced gnosis, which is also known as knowing God internally, I'll tell you about my experience.
First off you feel extremely light, agile, flexible, healthy, these happen even if you weight 168kg.
Then you feel very calm, relaxed, internally completely at ease, complete, you need nothing else.
You also feel your mind expand, become very deep, very sharp, very lucid, inhumanely so.
Lastly you also perceive time in a strange warpd way, timelessness, reality starts to seem fake.

Does this help?

>"Change" means the conversion from "potential" to "actual"
So basically change means CHANGE from potential to actual?

> A potential cannot do anything because it is not actual. Because potentials cannot do anything, they cannot make themselves actual.
That is, "a possibility doesn't realize by itself"

> Therefore, something that is itself actual has to actualize a potential
Meaning, "something real is needed to realize a possibility"

> This forms a chain of dependence operating right now, in the present. Take any member out of the chain, right now, and the water won't freeze.
What does taking a member out of the chain even mean? If it happened it happened.

> Each member of the chain is inert without the next member in place
If by that you mean that each member is "caused" (in a very broad sense) by the preceding, that is right.

> This chain cannot be infinitely long. An infinite number of inert members cannot do anything.
Here is where the sophistry begins. Who said the members are inert? They are each caused by the preceding and cause new members.
You note that Aquinas is not arguing for a beginning to the universe, but this argument is all about causality IN THE UNIVERSE. You even use the metaphor of the train, if you take each boxcar to be an event (that is, a cause or effect) in time, and if you say that it is necessary to be a engine at some extreme for the train starting moving, you are really saying that some INITIAL EVENT is needed IN TIME.

> So the chain must have one member at the head of it that drives the whole chain, in the present.
If at the head you mean at the beginning of time, that is an argument for an INITIAN EVENT, not for a God. If by "head" you mean eternity, that is, beyond time, the argument the image provides is totally unrelated to it, as it is only about things happening IN TIME.

Meant to be an answer to Cont.
> Since the chain must have a first member at the head of it, that member must be purely actual.
That doesn't mean anything besides "the first member must be purely real", that is, it must not be a "mix" of reality and possibility, whatever that means.

> If it were potential, then it would depend on something else to actualize it and would not be the first (required) member of the chain
And the chain is something IN TIME, as the image only talked about things being linked IN TIME.
Also, it is basically saying that a possibility needs a real thing to be realized, which is true, but it doesn't imply any "first real thing".

> A few interesting attributes arise out of something that is purely actual (or pure existence)
> Immateriality
So every change is the realization of a possibility? That is right. That possibility is the "potency" of something and the realization of this possibility means "more perfection"? That is nonsense. "Perfection" is always relative to a will or expectation: a dog will be more "perfect" the more it accords with my idea of what a dog is or with my will of what a dog should be. If being purely real means being not a possibility, then every real thing is "purely real", but if it means "being absolutely perfect" then nothing is "purely real" because for each realized possibility infinite others are not realized. Maybe we could only talk about "absolute perfection" if we conceive that every single possibility is realized in parallel worlds, and then the "absolutely perfect being" would be the set of all possible (and actual) worlds. As for immateriality, which is the main point, yeah, that is attributable to such a plane, if by "matteriality" we understand "corporeality", as it doesn't make sense to say that the totality of all possible worlds is something corporeal, for only members of those worlds are adequately called so.

Cont.
> Omnipotence
As I said, if omnipotence is not to have an unrealized potential, that is, to be "purely real", then EVERYTHING is omnipotent.
> Eternity
If by the absolutely perfect being we undestand the TOTALITY of all possible (that are also actual worlds), then yes, it is eternal. If by it we understand "God", that is nonsense.
> Omniscience
If by it we understand the same totality, this time viewed from the aspect of thoughts, that is the collection of all possible thoughts, then it is omniscient, but not in the sense you christians usually attribute to the world: it would "know" everything that is because every thing that is would be also everything that is possible.
> Perfection
Already treated it above.
> Immutable and only one
Again, only if we attribute these qualities to the TOTALITY, and not to "God".

> And this is something, as Aquinas says, "to which everyone gives the name 'God'".
And that was showed to be nonsense.

So, the main points of my objection are:
> Aquinas tries to argue for an eternal cause from events in time, only getting out of time with a leap
> The qualities he attributes to God are actually only attributable to an actual totality of everything that is possible

We are already having a similar discussion in another thread . Make your points there that is a more adequate place, I want to debate you about morality, but not here where we are talking about clarifying the idea of God.

Why don't you make actual points and debate your opponents instead of just shitposting lewis face and derailing threads?

>>It's another "Atheists get BTFO" episode
More like
> It's another "I enter a thread to just shitpost and declare victory" episode