ITT: laugh at theologians

ITT: laugh at theologians

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This has gotta be the stupidest thing I've seen on here this year.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ITT: laugh at theologians

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ironic when all the theologycels are almost certainly former atheists and converts.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't this post like 10 years old? Get some new material.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This has gotta be the smartest thing I’ve seen on here this year.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If it makes sense to YOU, like YOU, it ain't God. He right, boi. Also, we are all looking at YOU like... hmmmmm

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    W platonism post

  6. 2 months ago
    Dirk

    Is this literally who an atheist, not a theologian? Such arguments prove God exists, they don't cause him to exist.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If logic doesn’t “cause” God to exist, then why use logic to explain his existence? If it weren’t for logic, those arguments wouldn’t work, and God wouldn’t exist.

      • 2 months ago
        Dirk

        Because they prove his existence
        >if it weren't for logic, god wouldn't exist
        You're just re-asserting what I already denied

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If God exists because of logic, then logic precedes God.
          If God created logic, then God’s existence is not logical.
          If God and logic are the same, then using logical arguments to prove the existence of God are circular. “God exists because of God”

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            >If God exists because of logic, then logic precedes God.
            Valid but I reject 1
            >If God created logic, then God’s existence is not logical.
            Doesn't follow
            >If God and logic are the same, then using logical arguments to prove the existence of God are circular. “God exists because of God”
            Sure I guess

            What I said is that arguments from logical necessity can prove God exists without logic causing god to exist

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What existed first, God or logic? If God, then he exists beyond logic, so it makes no sense to use logic to explain why he exists. He already existed before logic existed.

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            Are you illiterate?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>If God created logic, then God’s existence is not logical.
            This follows; it implies god is above logic; at least our version of it

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            To be logical does not mean owing existence to logic. Arguments from logical necessity give us certainty of God's existence according to logic. Its about our apprehension. They don't require that logic caused God.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Arguments from logical necessity give us certainty of God's existence according to logic
            None of them does that though; at best they can try to argue for an origin point to reality

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >then why use logic to explain his existence?
        In any religious tradition where the god is said to precede everything, including logic, they are also the entity responsible for creating everything, including logic.
        If a couple of self aware computer programs were discussing the existence of humanity and were using human made mathematics to support their arguments, would that in any way undermine the existence of humanity?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          > If a couple of self aware computer programs were discussing the existence of humanity and were using human made mathematics to support their arguments, would that in any way undermine the existence of humanity?
          lol
          lmao

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Unironically the dumbest poster on this board

      • 2 months ago
        Dirk

        Bozo

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Logic is a tool for humanity to survive, why would you think God’s logic is even remotely comparable to human logic?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      ask the theologians

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This issue with all these arguments and gotchas is the majority of theological arguments aren’t meant to be logically sound, they’re meant to control population. It actually takes effort and critical analysis to weed out which thinkers are actually trying to understand their relation with god, as opposed to using god to bludgeon people into obedience.

        • 2 months ago
          Dirk

          Show us one logically invalid argument from necessity as presented by Christians or take your meds

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number.
            Does not line up with quantum physics. Piece of matter A, that does not interact with any other pieces of matter, acts as if it inhabits all possible locations it could be in without interacting with other bits of matter. This means that Matter A cannot be “counted”, or observed, for a period of time, with still unknown consequences. Not to discredit Aquinas’ entire method of thought, simply that he lacked critical information about the universe. Tbh I’d put aquinas in the realm of people who actually gave a shit about his personal relation with god, so his ideas are actually worth engaging in.

            Also,
            > Since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time.
            works off of an assumption that objects pass away, which is kinda a big assumption to base an entire theological framework on.

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            I didn't mean to cause confusion but I meant to ask for invalid, not debatably unsound arguments. Regardless I don't think these examples are so obviously untrue that you could ascribe dishonesty to its proponent, that they just brought it up as a "bludgeon" while knowing it's untrue.
            I think that arrangement is obviously the case with our perpetual "who created god?" arguments from non theists.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I should clarify part of where I’m coming from, I don’t think it comes from a place of knowing the arguments are untrue, but from a place of simply not caring what the arguments are, using them to score cheap debate wins or epic owns instead of trying to actually engage with beliefs as an important part of how life functions. Pretty sure people do this shit in every level of society, but it really stands out with theist/atheist arguments. At least on IQfy, both sides use all sorts of random quotations, instead of actually thinking about the arguments and understanding them and what it implies for how they should live their life.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            *not that I actually expect genuine intercourse on IQfy

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            They ban that kind of thing on blue boards

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Does theology involve the study of how religion worked historicslly or is it just making things up about god?

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    theology is just a word salad fest that does not and won't ever make sense.
    >I peepee poopoo ate da apple therefore apple become eated by eater and thus eater but apple precedes this thos thot thus appel is not eatable

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you can prove something from logic alone, there is no "preceding". I can prove the axioms of euclidean geometry from well established theorems (see reverse mathematics) but where is "priority" here?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The theorem can’t be proven without the axioms. So can God only exist if logic exists?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        the theorem could be assumed as an axiom, and then prove the axioms, forming a biconditional relation. Supposing that you accept the rules of inference and axioms of logic, you might be able to prove the existence of God. Assuming God exists and all properties of the divine Logos apply, I would assume that all properties of truth would also apply, thus proving every logical truth used in the proof of God's existence. This would make God and the laws of reason themselves logically equivalent (which also makes sense, as most christians are fine with supposing God to be equivalent to Reason (Logos) and The Good).

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          yes I alluded to this here

          If God exists because of logic, then logic precedes God.
          If God created logic, then God’s existence is not logical.
          If God and logic are the same, then using logical arguments to prove the existence of God are circular. “God exists because of God”

          In that case, God exists because of himself. Thinking in logical causality and not chronological causal terms, you can think of God and Logic (or, unified), simply appearing out of nowhere. Even if God’s existence is justified as he is, that doesn’t explain how we went from nothingness to God’s existence.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This really applies to reality. If we assume reality to be prior to human reasoning processes, then we must find some way of grounding our reasoning in reality first before using it, which is an impossibility. This requires us to assume some "axiom" of logic which can directly reference the "fundamental reality" we want to discuss, which we can then prove as equivalent to God.
            This would allow God to justify his own existence out of nothing, which is really the only option, as either God or Reality would have to justify their own existence.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is all assuming that logic and necessity are ontologically real. I prefer pure empiricism. Logic is only derived after experience, and the fact that the universe has a seemingly orderly and logical structure is a coincidence, an inevitable anomaly in the multiverse of infinite possibilities. No more logic games, no more contradictions and desperate reaches. Your monkey brain only resists this because it evolved to find logic in everything, to create abstract laws to guide future behavior. But those laws only exist in your mind.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            this is just creating a logical axiom though. assuming empirical observations have real external existence and that inductive reasoning applies to them IS an axiom, by which you can reason that the existence of God is logically equivalent to the mentioned axiom. Assuming that reality is real, and logic is constrained to the human mind, you would require the universe to be prior to logic. Everything I have said applies to your system.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            there is no logical axiom. Things exist outside of logic, because logic doesn’t exist at all. Reason isn’t grounded in anything, ultimately. Though intermediately it is grounded in the patterns of our environment. But this is all just useful fiction.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But this is all just useful fiction

            It doesn't matter if you suppose that these are not real, but only human constructs. Or if you assert that they do not yield capital-t Truth, but only pragmatic "truths". All this means is that your argument fails for a possible pragmatic God. Inasmuch as you suppose any criterion at all, you suppose it as an axiom.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I can prove the axioms of euclidean geometry
      >prove axioms
      Most knowledgeable IQfytorian

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        google reverse mathematics

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I've suddenly seen a lot of posts from this guy's twitter today
    awfully organic, huh?

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >inability to separate logical consequence from cause and effect

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This mistake is pretty common, because in many languages the words for "reason" and "cause" are the same. This even happens in English with the word "because." OP's tweet is just an instance of this equivocation.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    why am i seeing whoever the frick this twattard is posted on multiple boards today? and every one of his tweets is pure teenage/early 20-something "i'm so smart" pseudshit. just stop posting him.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      it is obviously the guy himself

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *