I like the sentiment that God handles his business and we should handle ours, since it's quite obvious that God exists in some sense, although he is beyond description/words/understanding.
But what was Stirner's view of the afterlife? A true egoist should be interested in the afterlife since it could have a huge impact on his destiny and self-interest, [no one wants to be reborn as a tapeworm or judged in hell if it could be avoided].
Other urls found in this thread:
Except it isn't.
Nothing exists without an ultimate/primordial cause, an infinite regress of events/conditions is not possible.
The ultimate Source would transcend causality and limiting factors like matter, space, time, etc. The more one reflects on this Source the more akin to God it becomes.
...
Look, I'll sit here and talk about God, afterlife, consciousness, etc… Philosophy is cool. I ain't gonna sit here and play around with absolutes user. There is nothing that points to any real proof of anything divine. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but this argument is tired and completely finished, and if you had a legitimately fresh take on this I'd be sincerely surprised.
Contemplating Stirner and not understanding the nature of god…
As much as I love watching the left wandering blind, I ask myself what have the Jews done to you people's minds?
I'm talking about God in the pure sense of the word as the Source or creator of existence/world/you/me/etc; not Jesus nor a particular manifestation of God or revelation.
the Eternal Source is the necessary pre-condition for everything temporal, finite, transient, limited that we observe and conceive etc.
Without it no world would exist.
Infinite regress would prevent anything from actualizing, there would never be enough time for anything to come into being, the pre-conditions would never be satisfied. Since the world exists a source must exist. The source can't be like the world, it must be unique.
Since order exists within chaos then an ordering principle must exist so the source must have some sort of mind or intelligence.
Read Spinoza.
Daily reminder that God exists and that the idea of communism as described by Marx is literally heaven. We need to establish Communism in order to bring about the true Kingdom of God on Earth.
Different user, but his point still stands. How do you explain to infinite regress problem? What comes before the Big Bang?
All the medieval scholastic aside, Thomas Aquinas kinda had a point.
Christ said blessed are the poor. Poverty is not a problem, in fact you should give your wealth away and become poor and thus blessed. Christ said if someone steals your shirt you should give them your coat, poverty and oppression are not problems. Christ said if someone slaps you turn the cheek, if someone forces you to walk a mile (forced labor) you should walk two miles. Poverty, oppression, systemic injustice are trivial to a Christian. His kingdom is not of this world. Do you know Christ? I doubt it.
Bible says slaves should obey their masters, even unjust masters. So much for social justice. Bible says to store up your treasure in heaven, not on earth where moths and thieves can get it. So much for equality and social justice. Materialism is a mental disorder, poverty is a blessing. Christ did not advocate violent revolution, but instead to give Caesar what belongs to him. Communism is anti-Christ…
That's legitimately interesting. Do you think God is purposeful?
I don't see the need for an eternal source. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but if we're are talking about something just spontaneously making the universe, then it could be finite, no?
Sadly, because you don't seem very dogmatic, I don't know what we could argue about.
Never really argued against him, just said there isn't some giant trump card of evidence of a God. I've never met someone that believed this that was worth talking to.
I can't tell you that. I don't know, and I won't pretend to know.
Arguments please.
relevant: youtu.be
Nice surface understanding of Christianity.
At that time yes. However God most certainly supports it. Read Exodus.
Nice no rebuttal.
What is the new covenant.
You circumcized? You stone adulteresses ? You abstain from pork? You kill gays too?
Well we know that energy is never lost, but transformed. This will eventually lead to the heat death of the universe, if it doesn't collapse before. The infinite regress problem says that no matter if you say that there have been ten more Big Bangs before the Big Bang that created our universe, at some point eventually there must have been a creation process of what is now available as energy - infinity doesn't make sense outside of isolated mathematics. Medieval scholars argued that this problem can't be solved unless you are subscribing to the idea of creation out of nothingness - that's literally God.
I don't debate with vulgar materialists.
That's not what that means. LIke at all. Christ didn't invalidate anything that came before. He simply added some more stuff onto it. Slaughtering the oppressors has always been a thing in Christianity.
eternal inflation is a seriously considered
If you're gonna LARP, at least do it correctly.
Your argument is that something had to create energy, that something is an uncreated eternal entity that is outside the laws of the universe, yet why not just skip the extra step and say that energy and the universe has always existed and is uncreated?
It is?
Sorry I'm pretty drunk right now. Just reread the entire old testament and realize that killing non-jews (proletarians) is completely acceptable in God's eyes.
But it's not a problem.
And I'm pretty sure it's a bit outdated to view the universe as one long domino effect.
You can conceptualize the Big Bang, and more generally the creation of our universe, as God.
This doesn't imply in any case that God care about us, the well-being of lifeforms or that a heaven or hell awaits us after death, unless you see the cessation of the sum of electrochemical signals resulting in what we call consciousness as either of those things.
Actually I see It as a totally amoral and psychopathic thing but of course that doesn't mean that you should be an ass to me, fag
That's what I came up with during my last existential crisis.
I'm not familiar at all with Kant but I feel like his concepts of phenomenon and noumenon are probably the crux of the matter. God is either a fanged noumena, or the sum of all phenomena and noumena, which is probably a noumena in itself (can someone who actually read Kant tell me in which way I'm bullshitting and
misrepresenting his thought ?)
Anyway, to answer to OP's question, why should we bother with things that we cannot perceive and inhuman laws from which we cannot derive a pleasant outcome with certainty. In short, why should we bother with the noumenal dimension ?
Let's live our human experience in the best way for us, and die. It's probably enough. Don't take the human mythos too seriously.
Any concept of a new covenant that supersedes the Mosaic one is completely unbiblical and very certainly made up by dumb goyim.
LOL
So much for christian left
at this point your pushing the word God far beyond its intended meaning. Its like when a liberals call antifa fascists because they are violent, even though the fail to meet any of the qualifiers to be labelled fascists.
Because time is relative, but linear. An eternal circle of energy of creating universes their destruction over and over into infinity seems unlikely since no physical equations we know can create an infinite amount of time. Especially when you consider how the Big Bang was supposedly a whole accumulation of matter itself - how can out current universe even retake that form. The idea of some sort of creation happened is at this point more likely than unlikely.
This is the tiniest quote ever, out of context it could mean anything.. It does in fact come from the part which says the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.
Stirner says that both, "God" and "The Divine Realm", as well as "Man" / "Humanity" are .. ｂｉｇ ｏｌ ｓｐｏｏｋｓ don't know how else to break it to you, man.
*English 101 cringe*
I'll be a happy person today, a rat's liver tomorrow, it makes no difference to a real individual.. I would be reborn as a dog in the gutter 10,000 times if it meant that one person could benefit from it. I'm free from attachment to success or failure.
Plato pls go
But an intelligent uncreated supernatural being capable of transmitting infinite energy is not.
I see.
That wasn't my argument, I wasn't claiming the Christian God or whatever is the one true God. I'm simply a theist as the existence of some sort of creative force seems more likely. Occams knife.
That being said, I'm also a determinist. Stirner is outdated because he doesn't account for the fact that every single twitch of your body is a result of a bio-chemical reaction that can be - theoretically - 100% predetermined, considering we'd have the instruments. Same applies to your free will: It doesn't exist. You decision to buy Pepsi or Coca-Cola is not free, it's predetermined by synaptic bio-chemicals and electronical elections in your brain. I'd assume this design, which was set in motion at some point, is what we would describe as divinity.
fedorafags are pretty pagan in their views
God is outside space and time so he is not subject to causality, he is the source of causality, the source of space and time.
The primordial source of the world can't be "like" the world, it is unique, so it is not limited by finite attributes.
universes are material/temporal/finite they need pre-conditions for their existence, the preconditions need a primordial condition which would have to transcend worldly limits like space/time/matter otherwise you fall into the infinite regress problem.
White is the colour of nothing.
If there was nothing out there then space would be white.
But it is black because god is there.
Ergo god exists
Ergo god is a black man.
QED fedoras.
white contains all colors of the spectrum. white is purity. white is infinite.
black is sin and darkness and oppression.
learn poetry.
I could use the same augment that universe itself is not subject to causality, and is outside space and time is the source of it. Just because things in the universe act a certain why doesn't mean the universe as a whole does.
Not an argument
It's not anthropomorphic. It's just that if an infinite cycle of universe is too far-fetched for you it's absolutely ridiculous to decide that god is more believable.
I never said you were. But if whatever it is you're describing is not intelligent, supernatural or infinite it is not a god.
But what is the problem?
I still don't really understand the vehement objection to this by theists.
I don't think so. If, as Wikipedia put it, "the concept of God, as described by most theologians, includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence", mine have all of these characteristics.
There is just no concept of omnibenevolence, as well as no clergy and official theology behind it (and I'm definitively anti-clerical btw).
Beside, pantheistic conceptions of God are not new. They just don't diverge very much from atheistic conceptions in their conclusions, which is actually why I became enamored with them.
Poetry is white supremacist circlejerking.
Black is beautiful and embraces all colours of light.
White gets stains easy and doesn't know how to use seasoning.
now tell me more how i need to accept your premises in order to have something recognized as an argument to be considered by you
It's not far fetched, it's we can't physically anticipate an infinite amount of time. Ergo it's more likely. Show me an equation where t=infinite and we can talk again.
You are indeed anthropomorphic. You think God must be like humanoid like Thor defeating Ice-Giants with his hammer. Your concept of intelligence or supernaturality is useless when it comes to describing something which created everything out of nothing. This transcends all our understanding - that's why people are religious and mystical. Also you didn't adress my other point about determination wich absolutely destroys Stirner. The chaos theory is just silly on so many levels.
Why can't the universe just be the universe? Why do you have to use the word God which usually implies a personal agency to it?
a dream needs a dreamer, i don't see how this principle differs on a cosmic scale
Do you know where you are?
the restless graveyard of philosophies who died an untimely dead
I see no need for a "source" for the universe. If God can simply be, then why can't the universe? There are theories of multiverses but those are highly theoretical and I admit I don't know enough about cosmology to comment on those.
because the universe can not simply be according to its own laws, the very idea is a contradiction
But as I was pointing out we can't even theoretically imagine an infinitely replenishing source of energy to exist either. Indeed, the notion of such a thing would violate virtually all known natural law. It seems not just unlikely, but impossible if anything.
I'm not.
Is it not intelligent? Then it can't "create" anything per se, it would just be another unthinking arm of the natural universe. It would not be a creator in any teleological sense.
That's what "supernatural" means. It is beyond any naturalistic understanding.
I'm also a hard determinist. I didn't address because it had nothing to do with anything I'm saying.
The dreamer is you.
Sounds like religion.
This is a fallacy of composition.
back to christ or pol op.
Hell even pol calls you christcucks.
This will possibly lead to the heat death of the universe.
Seems pretty relativistic. I don't care if it makes such little sense the realization would make me slackjawed and dull eyed, if it it how it is, the that's that. So, not to be rude but,
There's no reason to believe there was nothing. If there was nothing there still would be nothing. There's never been a case of spontaneous anything. Nothing has ever just came into being, and I don't see any reason that would have happened before.
A Perpetuum Mobile is unthinkable because it produces energy, but that's not how energy actually works - we never produce it or use it up, we just transform it.
It creates everything out of nothingness. This is per definition a voluntary and intelligent process. To bring an object from A to B you need to carry it.
That's a flawed definition because it's an oxymoron. Imagine scientists would be able to confirm ghosts exist: In that very moment, the existence of ghosts would cease to be "supernatural" and become a part of our natural world just like everything else.
It already is. Not need to worry about it as long as it doesn't threaten your survival.
That's the point, I want to "de-Abrahamize" the concept of God.
A friend once told when I asked him about what he thinks of God and religion : "Can you imagine an universe with seven dimensions ?" And he was right, I can't.
God is the set of all possible, impossible, imaginable and unimaginable sets. As humans, entities with a limited intellect and perception of the world, we need a word for that concept. We don't necessarily have to worship it in stupid and arbitrary human ways though. Being there is enough IMO.
This is why I'm saying an infinitely self-replenishing source of energy is impossible. It is a direct violation of physics. And if god cannot be that then they are no god at all.
I know, this is what I'm telling you. Describing your god as intelligent is not being anthropocentric, that's just what is actually supposed to be by your own standards.
Yes, that's true. And it would not be the first time something has crossed from the realm of "supernatural" into "natural science". As long as something remains outside of that realm it is supernatural (ghosts, god, magic), but when it becomes naturally explainable it is science. Even things that haven't been properly observed but theoretically could fit into naturalistic knowledge are not supernatural (bigfoot, ball lighting, aliens).
So in brief, yes. If something that was previously mythical came to be scientifically understood it would no longer be supernatural. What's the problem?
...
So you just believe matter and energy has always been there? This doesn't make any sense, since our universe has a design. You can't have a design without a designer. If things just exist without design, how are physical laws so finely tuned?
...
the gardener is but a dream of the garden
then explain to me how the universe can transcend it own laws to allow its existence when you deny my post on the grounds that it implies a transcending of the laws of the universe
Why do I always keep making stupid mistakes like this ? Fuck you God for having created alcohol instead of more relevant imageboards in my native language
tbh, I'm always torn between stirner's raw atheism and Catholicism. Both are systems of ethics that make a lot of sense to me.
I see no reason for this to be untrue.
Assumption without argument.
Comes off of prior assumption.
They aren't "finely tuned" in any sense of the word. They are how they are, they don't need a designer. Even if they were "finely tuned", they could have came about completely randomly. Also, who's to say the universe even could exist any other way? There's nothing to argue against here, your faith is built on assumptions.
Sounds like you need some christian existentialism
I can't look at Kierkegaard's face without being reminded of Rebel. It's ruined that picture for me.
You didn't understood what Stirner meant by that at all LOL.
The God's concern isn't my concern, the HUMAN, MAN concern isn't my concern.
God is dead, the spook is enoying a good deserved steady death after monarchy was took down in the revolutions, now we have the constitutional state. That brought up new sacredness, new spooks.
They're called: "Humanity" or "Man", "The People", "Society", etc. Generalities which don't exist.
Stirner's raw atheism has nothing of ethics. It doesn't believes in anything higher, 0, nothing. All that is unreal nonsense.
It sees things raw, how they are.
Better?
Autistically forgot pic
...
...
...
...
Not that user, but pic related.
...
Well nothing else worked.
We've been waiting for like 2000 years. Maybe we'd get the job done faster ourselves.