God refuted(giga high iq thread)

[yandex99]

comment I wrote on Unz.com on one of andrew anglin's articles to a muslim arguing for 'Allaah'.


Read Nagarjuna,namely his mulamadhyamakakarika.Nihilistic nihilism is the truth,reality is a mirage.it’s true that ‘if’a divine being were self-sufficient,he couldn’t be made up of two parts and thus there couldn’t be multiple dieties,those two parts being a shared and peculiar essence which would make him composite and thus contigent,but a divine being cannot exist.

if a divine being existed,his essence would be permanent,but then what causes his changing cognitions,desires and how can a essentially self-sufficient being even have cognitions,since he is dependant on the objects he cognizes to cognize said objects?

Knowledge by correspondance is always a feature of a contigent thing.something still is inert,something moving is essentially changing,thus impermanent.either way nothing can be self-sufficient and thus permanent.

something still must have endurance and thus movement to be permanent,as existance is an act.
so the God of the neoplatonists cannot exist.
something moving is in potentiality so it has no permanence,as if something were inherently existing it couldn’t change,and go in and out of existance,or thus change it's nature.
Allah being both permanent and having impermanent parts refutes both his oneness(and thus self-sufficiency) and his essence being self-coherent and non-contradictorary.

 

[Klasik01]

Philosophy. org
Thread '"God" is common sense.' https://looksmax.org/threads/god-is-common-sense.975553/

 

[yandex99]

Philosophy. org
Thread '"God" is common sense.' https://looksmax.org/threads/god-is-common-sense.975553/

there is no first,no intermediate,no end,no past present or future,no movement no stillness,no time.a basic reading of nagarjuna would logically prove this.also if God is really first,then how can his awareness and thus movement/action/existance go back infinitely?if it were infinite,he would never reach the present moment.

 

[Deleted member 48689]

comment I wrote on Unz.com on one of andrew anglin's articles to a muslim arguing for 'Allaah'.


Read Nagarjuna,namely his mulamadhyamakakarika.Nihilistic nihilism is the truth,reality is a mirage.it’s true that ‘if’a divine being were self-sufficient,he couldn’t be made up of two parts and thus there couldn’t be multiple dieties,those two parts being a shared and peculiar essence which would make him composite and thus contigent,but a divine being cannot exist.

if a divine being existed,his essence would be permanent,but then what causes his changing cognitions,desires and how can a essentially self-sufficient being even have cognitions,since he is dependant on the objects he cognizes to cognize said objects?

Knowledge by correspondance is always a feature of a contigent thing.something still is inert,something moving is essentially changing,thus impermanent.either way nothing can be self-sufficient and thus permanent.

something still must have endurance and thus movement to be permanent,as existance is an act.
so the God of the neoplatonists cannot exist.
something moving is in potentiality so it has no permanence,as if something were inherently existing it couldn’t change,and go in and out of existance,or thus change it's nature.
Allah being both permanent and having impermanent parts refutes both his oneness(and thus self-sufficiency) and his essence being self-coherent and non-contradictorary.

It’s not our job to refute an unproven claim in the first place.

 

[lemonnz]

It’s not our job to refute an unproven claim in the first place.

b-but muh old book

 

[yandex99]

It’s not our job to refute an unproven claim in the first place.

it is actually,as the concept of God hinders the path and enlightenment from being followed,and also the concept causes fear and suffering and reactionary views.God is probabely the greatest evil idea ever created.look at kabbalistic jews and radical muslims.

 

[Klasik01]

something moving is in potentiality so it has no permanence,as if something were inherently existing it couldn’t change,and go in and out of existance,or thus change it's nature.
Allah being both permanent and having impermanent parts refutes both his oneness(and thus self-sufficiency) and his essence being self-coherent and non-contradictorary.

Exactly, Schelling tried to explain why the world is unfinished and created by God but the concept of God itself is a quiet being as he lives in the eternity. If you read "Ages of the world" it's a book that tries to explain why change exist even though God exists, for his explanation Schelling says that there are two forces in the universe. To be more clear I'll say one is the "destructive force" and the "unity force", Satan would be the symbol of the destructive force that keeps beings unperfect and the unity force is the willpower beings have to acess to God. But God doesn't care he gave us a sensation of free will (polarity), is not that he is evil and wants us to suffer (or probably is idk). God actually battles with his own essence but this would take a long explanation... Jesus is not God itself but one of the most "divine beings" close to the force of unity (perfect morality) which is the end of all beings to reallign to eternity. Still have some questions like why God created weaker beings than others (animals) so we can dominate nature, God is a fucked up concept. I feel like everything is about power in individuals.

 

[yandex99]

Exactly, Schelling tried to explain why the world is unfinished and created by God but the concept of God itself is a quiet being as he lives in the eternity. If you read "Ages of the world" it's a book that tries to explain why change exist even though God exists, for his explanation Schelling says that there are two forces in the universe. To be more clear I'll say one is the "destructive force" and the "unity force", Satan would be the symbol of the destructive force that keeps beings unperfect and the unity force is the willpower beings have to acess to God. But God doesn't care he gave us a sensation of free will (polarity), is not that he is evil and wants us to suffer (or probably is idk). God actually battles with their own essence but this would take a long explanation... Jesus is not God itself but one of the most "divine beings" close to the force of unity (perfect morality) which is the end of all beings to reallign to eternity, enough tales for now.

something still has no action,thus no existance,it is inert and thus has no awareness.something moving has no self-sufficient essence either because it has potentiality and goes out of existance,being finite.something still as a cause is no sustaining cause,yet you assert we are dependant on it.something in stasis cannot cause anything to arise.nothing exists yahki.

 

[Klasik01]

something still has no action,thus no existance,it is inert and thus has no awareness.something moving has no self-sufficient essence either because it has potentiality and goes out of existance,being finite.

Good. This is why I dislike any explanation of God as living ahead of the world, because it would not be necessary to mention him to explain change. Also things that are moving cannot be considered "things" because if it's finite and absurd it doesn't have an essence (is not going anywhere). You either believe in nihilism or you believe things have a reason to exist. Second answer finally goes to the God question and problems about change and morality which is the drama of all old metaphysical philosophy. If Karma exists, it means God's evil? Are we all having to reincarnate in the world forever to suffer until we ascend because some powerful beings want to?

 

[yandex99]

Good. This is why I dislike any explanation of God as living ahead of the world, because it would not be necessary to mention him to explain change. Also things that are moving cannot be considered "things" because if it's finite and absurd it doesn't have an essence (is not going anywhere). You either believe in nihilism or you believe things have a reason to exist. Second answer finally goes to the God question and problems about change and morality which is the drama of all old metaphysical philosophy.

if the universe were God,it couldn't have parts or potentiality.to assert advaita means we are both actual and potential which is a contradiction,but also would make us made up of parts essentially and thus the 'brahman'would not be self-sufficient.this is the problem with anything that is not madhyamika,it is incoherent assumptions based on the illusory concepts we place on the world.

there is no good or evil either,just convenrtional illusory actions and their results of a like kind.thre is no essence.even nihilism has no essence hence why shunyata is empty of itself.

 

[Klasik01]

if the universe were God,it couldn't have parts or potentiality.to assert advaita means we are both actual and potential which is a contradiction,but also would make us made up of parts essentially and thus the 'brahman'would not be self-sufficient.this is the problem with anything that is not madhyamika,it is incoherent assumptions based on the illusory concepts we place on the world.

there is no good or evil either,just convenrtional illusory actions and their results of a like kind.thre is no essence.even nihilism has no essence hence why shunyata is empty of itself.

This made by brain explode. If I had to disprove this probably I would had to open a book on a different topic trying to explain why we came to a such conclusion but it's not gonna be a metaphysical explanation. Personally I feel like language (thoughts) are very limited to explain the world as it is, and it would be too egotistical for us to "discover the essence of the world" by thinking, even science is a continuous debate where we don't know if we're reaching truth (perfection). Wittgenstein said that philosophy is flawed because we are using language to "describe essences or things" which aren't thoughts. If the world changes, language also changes but we cannot see a relationship between thoughts and things (this is a curse). So the best acess we would have to "the real" would had to be with mystics (a type of aesthetics).

 

[wollet2]

there is no first,no intermediate,no end,no past present or future,no movement no stillness,no time.a basic reading of nagarjuna would logically prove this.also if God is really first,then how can his awareness and thus movement/action/existance go back infinitely?if it were infinite,he would never reach the present moment.

why is there pain

 

[yandex99]

This made by brain explode. If I had to disprove this probably I would had to open a book on a different topic trying to explain why we came to a such conclusion but it's not gonna be a metaphysical explanation. Personally I feel like language (thoughts) are very limited to explain the world as it is, and it would be too egotistical for us to "discover the essence of the world" by thinking, even science is a continuous debate where we don't know if we're reaching truth (perfection). Wittgenstein said that philosophy is flawed because we are using language to "describe essences or things" which aren't thoughts. If the world changes, language also changes but we cannot see a relationship between thoughts and things (this is a curse). So the best acess we would have to "the real" would had to be with mystics (a type of aesthetics).

nihilism makes perfect sense.

 

[yandex99]

why is there pain

because we have no essence,and thus all phenomena are unsatisfactorary.aslong as we conventionally exist,we will be unsatisfied and thus,in pain.suffering is one of the truths of illusory existance.even bliss has excitement and rousing up,which is painful.

 

[wollet2]

it is actually,as the concept of God hinders the path and enlightenment from being followed,and also the concept causes fear and suffering and reactionary views.God is probabely the greatest evil idea ever created.look at kabbalistic jews and radical muslims.

what enlightnmenent? nothing matters. believing in god is not less meaningful than believing in ur shit

and its a healthier belief for people

 

[Klasik01]

nihilism makes perfect sense.

Many academics when they reach to this point go to pragmatism because it's easier to name things without actually describing them and rather looking at the consequences or ways of life we have in earth. Nobody wants to remain a nihilist forever (philosophy is hope) if we neglected to think then who is gonna control this planet and why?

 

[wollet2]

because we have no essence,and thus all phenomena are unsatisfactorary.

huh, what about pain unrelated to satisfaction

like getting ur hand chopped

 

[Entschuldigung]

Nah bro is 14

 

[yandex99]

huh, what about pain unrelated to satisfaction

like getting ur hand chopped

aversion and attachment are both suffering.

 

[wollet2]

aversion and attachment are both suffering.

ok they can lead to suffering but how does this answer my question

why does it physically hurt when u get ur hand chopped

 

[yandex99]

what enlightnmenent? nothing matters. believing in god is not less meaningful than believing in ur shit

and its a healthier belief for people

because going out of illusory existance will stop the pain.unless you enjoy pain,in which case the path isn't for you.God is a retarded incoherent concept and causes alot of pain and suffering to those that believe in it.

 

[yandex99]

ok they can lead to suffering but how does this answer my question

why does it physically hurt when u get ur hand chopped

aversion(pain) is a illusory aspect of a unenlightened mind.some masochists enjoy pain,and despise pleasure.pain has no inherent existance.

 

[wollet2]

because going out of illusory existance will stop the pain.unless you enjoy pain,in which case the path isn't for you.God is a retarded incoherent concept and causes alot of pain and suffering to those that believe in it.

i doubt the average person can go in a state where they will not feel the pain from their hand getting chopped. and those that could probably have some genetic condition

can you not feel pain? its not an illusion, its real

 

[MongolTurk]

it is actually,as the concept of God hinders the path and enlightenment from being followed,and also the concept causes fear and suffering and reactionary views.God is probabely the greatest evil idea ever created.look at kabbalistic jews and radical muslims.

It doesn't inherently have to cause fear and suffering. In my opinion, certain religions(particularly Islam), were created specifically to inspire the urge to conquer and spread the faith of its followers. It seems very obvious to me that Muhammed just wanted to create a religion that would serve as the backbone to his empire/legacy.

Christianity on the other hand, does not tell people to spread its message by any means and does not urge its followers to live a perfect life. Christ taught that, by putting our faith in him, we will gradually draw ourselves away from sin and towards him. He taught that we would be forgiven for our sins, sins that we committed while believing in him, sins that were an act of betrayal. Christianity is inherently hopeful and redeeming, and inspires optimism rather than fear and suffering

All of your points refuting the existence of a permanent divine being with cognitions are all contingent on the logic and comprehension that we are capable of. We cannot say for certain whether or not there exists a higher level of existence in which the somewhat exaggerated paradoxes you outlined can still make sense.

 

[wollet2]

aversion(pain) is a illusory aspect of a unenlightened mind.some masochists enjoy pain,and despise pleasure.pain has no inherent existance.

they enjoy some level of 'pain' so its still a pleasure to them. those guys dont despite pleasure

and they still wouldnt want to get tortured to death

 

[Klasik01]

aversion(pain) is a illusory aspect of a unenlightened mind.some masochists enjoy pain,and despise pleasure.pain has no inherent existance.

Beyond if you like pain or not (like those emo guys who cut their arms) your body isn't cappable to tolerate a huge amount of pain without making your life experience worse, even if we didn't feel pain (if we didn't have an nervous system) body would die if the conditions of living are not enough to maintain it.

 

[yandex99]

It doesn't inherently have to cause fear and suffering. In my opinion, certain religions(particularly Islam), were created specifically to inspire the urge to conquer and spread the faith of its followers. It seems very obvious to me that Muhammed just wanted to create a religion that would serve as the backbone to his empire/legacy.
believing in hell is suffering.
Christianity on the other hand, does not tell people to spread its message by any means and does not urge its followers to live a perfect life. Christ taught that, by putting our faith in him, we will gradually draw ourselves away from sin and towards him. He taught that we would be forgiven for our sins, sins that we committed while believing in him, sins that were an act of betrayal. Christianity is inherently hopeful and redeeming, and inspires optimism rather than fear and suffering
believing in hell is suffering,attachment to heaven is suffering,bliss is suffering,pain is suffering.believing your loved ones will go to hell or you must live a restrictive lifestyle to avoid eternal damnation is suffering .
All of your points refuting the existence of a permanent divine being with cognitions are all contingent on the logic and comprehension that we are capable of. We cannot say for certain whether or not there exists a higher level of existence in which the somewhat exaggerated paradoxes you outlined can still make sense.

these are not paradoxes,they're contradictions.the contradiction is resolved by refuting their essences.nothing can exist,not even nothingness.shunyata has shunyata.

 

[yandex99]

they enjoy some level of 'pain' so its still a pleasure to them. those guys dont despite pleasure

and they still wouldnt want to get tortured to death

pleasure is suffering,it's attachment,an itch which cannot be scratched,a waste of time and energy seeking it.

 

[wollet2]

Beyond if you like pain or not (like those emo guys who cut their arms) your body isn't cappable to tolerate a huge amount of pain without making your life experience worse, even if we didn't feel pain (if we didn't have an nervous system) body would die if the conditions of living are not enough to maintain it.

he doesnt mind dying then and reincarnating, if there is never pain. ig this what he thinks

ppl even masochists cant tolerate above a level of pain anw. they just play with their limits

 

[Klasik01]

It doesn't inherently have to cause fear and suffering. In my opinion, certain religions(particularly Islam), were created specifically to inspire the urge to conquer and spread the faith of its followers. It seems very obvious to me that Muhammed just wanted to create a religion that would serve as the backbone to his empire/legacy.

Christianity on the other hand, does not tell people to spread its message by any means and does not urge its followers to live a perfect life. Christ taught that, by putting our faith in him, we will gradually draw ourselves away from sin and towards him. He taught that we would be forgiven for our sins, sins that we committed while believing in him, sins that were an act of betrayal. Christianity is inherently hopeful and redeeming, and inspires optimism rather than fear and suffering

All of your points refuting the existence of a permanent divine being with cognitions are all contingent on the logic and comprehension that we are capable of. We cannot say for certain whether or not there exists a higher level of existence in which the somewhat exaggerated paradoxes you outlined can still make sense.

To put it simply no one would ever proof the existence of God because we aren't God. As Kant said, God is an idea of the mind that is cappable to make "the world/our world" to have sense in all other areas of reality but is not something we can know, it might exist but I don't think we should care much if we can describe how some things work without mentioning God. We are putting mind on the limit when we conceive something superior to us.

 

[yandex99]

he doesnt mind dying then and reincarnating, if there is never pain. ig this what he thinks

most ppl even masochists cant tolerate above a level of pain anw. they just play with their limits

I want to go extinct.

 

[wollet2]

I want to go extinct.

you cant. get blackpilled

 

[yandex99]

To put it simply no one would ever proof the existence of God because we aren't God. As Kant said, God is an idea of the mind that is cappable to make "the world/our world" to have sense in all other areas of reality but is not something we can know, it might probably be real but I don't think we should care much if we can describe how some things work without mentioning God.

the world doesn't have sense,reifiying the world or divinity only brings contradictions.it's all a married bachelor and thus has no true existance,it only seems that way.

 

[Klasik01]

he doesnt mind dying then and reincarnating, if there is never pain. ig this what he thinks

ppl even masochists cant tolerate above a level of pain anw. they just play with their limits

I hate the idea of coming back to earth to suffer as an incel, I wanna die forever and not repeat any more lives.

 

[wollet2]

I hate the idea of coming back to earth to suffer as an incel, I wanna be free.

there are much worse fates to suffer than being a healthy incel who cant get pussy, sadly

 

[yandex99]

you cant. get blackpilled

the world doesn't have sense,reifiying the world or divinity only brings contradictions.it's all a married bachelor and thus has no true existance,it only seems that way.

I'm likely going to dewachen or khechara pureland when I die,plenty of sex with dakinis,plenty of food,no worldly pleasure only sukha.

 

[wollet2]

I want to go extinct.

I'm likely going to dewachen or khechara pureland when I die,plenty of sex with dakinis,plenty of food.

but you just described worldly pleasures

no worldly pleasure only sukha.

so you want to go to a place where u can get the things youre attached to but cant get now?? or is this your version of going extinct?
cuz it doesnt look extinst to me

 

[wollet2]

I'm likely going to dewachen or khechara pureland when I die,plenty of sex with dakinis,plenty of food,no worldly pleasure only sukha.

you hindu dindus creep me out like no other religioncel, feels like youre never making sense while believing ure the one that got it all right. ur religion is scary

ure like a demon

 

[Klasik01]

but you just described worldly pleasures

so you want to go to a place where u cant get the things youre attached to now?? or is this your version of going extinct?
cuz it doesnt look extinst to me

It's so funny that he wants everything that he couldn't have in this reality, if you're ascending it's supposed to not have a body and therefore not feel pain or desire. As someone said before on this forum, asexual people are aliens. I would like to be a ghost...

 

[wollet2]

It's so funny that he wants everything that he couldn't have in this reality, if you're ascending it's supposed to not have a body and therefore not feel pain or desire.

he is like a demonic npc tbh

 

[Ryan]

based buddhistcel

 

[yandex99]

It's so funny that he wants everything that he couldn't have in this reality, if you're ascending it's supposed to not have a body and therefore not feel pain or desire. As someone said before on this forum, asexual people are aliens. I would like to be a ghost...

how can your 'god'be the cause of effects?it would be a condition of those effects existing,and thus contigent.even if purported to be timeless.again,any preserving cause is contigent because it is a condition conventionally.a unconditioned conditioner cannot exist.the moment it conditions it has the condition of conditioning it's conditioned effects.only conditioned things can conventionally be causes.

 

[yandex99]

but you just described worldly pleasures

so you want to go to a place where u can get the things youre attached to but cant get now?? or is this your version of going extinct?
cuz it doesnt look extinst to me

extinction takes trillions of eons of practice,I might aswell practice in paradise and finally reach extinction there then being reincarnated into a hellhole.

 

[Klasik01]

how can your 'god'be the cause of effects?it would be a condition of those effects existing,and thus contigent.even if purported to be timeless.again,any preserving cause is contigent because it is a condition conventionally.a unconditioned conditioner cannot exist.the moment it conditions it has the condition of conditioning it's conditioned effects.only conditioned things can conventionally be causes.

The question concerning causality has been discussed by Plato: either nothing is related to nothing, everything is related to everything or some things are related to some things. First, if you cannot differentiate beings then you cannot say things exist but as they do exist (things between other things) we can name it differently if they're really different and recognize them in reality. So supposing you can distinguish that lion and a rose are different, then you can relate a rose and a lion based on the things they are close to (see my post on "God is common sense") and therefore every thing if it's real (in the sense they cannot be unperceived) means they are unique: a rose is not a pistil, it is not a sunflower, it is not a tree... and so on. Therefore rose exists independently from other beings. And it would be long to write the other stuff because this is not paper but if the mind is cappable of seeing a rose, is cappable also to see other beings which might not be related to the rose, so your claim of an impossible unconditioned conditioner is false not because the rose is conditioning other beings but because rose can exist without other beings and has an essence. Not saying God exists, I'm just saying that things don't need a previous cause to exist. The question would have to be "why are there things" instead of nothing.

 

[yandex99]

The question concerning causality has been discussed by Plato: either nothing is related to nothing, everything is related to everything or some things are related to some things. First, if you cannot differentiate beings then you cannot say things exist but as they do exist (things between other things) we can name it differently if they're really different and recognize them in reality. So supposing you can distinguish that lion and a rose are different, then you can relate a rose and a lion based on the things they are close to (see my post on "God is common sense") and therefore every thing if it's real (in the sense they cannot be unperceived) means they are unique: a rose is not a pistil, it is not a sunflower, it is not a tree... and so on. Therefore rose exists independently from other beings. And it would be long to write the other stuff because this is not paper but if the mind is cappable of seeing a rose, is cappable also to see other beings which might not be related to the rose, so your claim of an impossible unconditioned conditioner is false not because the rose is conditioning other beings but because rose can exist without other beings and has an essence. Not saying God exists, I'm just saying that things don't need a previous cause to exist. The question would have to be "why are there things" instead of nothing.

there is no connection or non connection.no differences and no sameness just nothingness.read mulamadhyamakakarika pdf please https://terebess.hu/english/Nagarjuna.pdf