>>18099920
He showed Himself throughout the whole bible and people just didn't care. Now we have a better system.

>>18099930
>He showed Himself throughout the whole bible
...according to the Bible.

File: Screenshot_20251023_12263(...).jpg (462 KB, 534x1298)

462 KB JPG

>>18099920
>Why doesn't god just show himself to everyone,
Why do refuse to see God, or rather the effect of being born of the Spirit which proceeded from the Father?

>>18099920
>why doesn't god just show himself to everyone
let me return the question: why does God "need" to show Himself to you? God is self-sufficient. Whether you believe in Him or not does not impact Him whatsoever. Instead, He revealed Himself as was *necessary for YOU* to infer His existence, because He loves you and *wants* you to love Him unbound by any limitations.
If I were to lock you into a basement and tell you to love me, it would be coercion, right? Of course it would be. But what is the emprisonment here? Is it God literally restraining you, or the entire system that God built in order for you to exist? It tracks. If God constantly readfirms, with every interaction you have with reality, that He made it, so love Him, you'd find it coercive too. The solution would be optimization, then: limited revelation. You come to know God, and bound only by incertitude, you decide if you want to love Him, or not.
Jesus — God Incarnate — said it Himself to Thomas as he disbelieved the Resurrection and tested Him :
>Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
John 20:28

>>18099974
>He revealed Himself as was *necessary for YOU* to infer His existence
He did not tho. I can't infer god's existence from a book of ancient desert people's schizobabble.

>>18099983
Of course you can, otherwise this entire conversation would not have happened. I did not say *confirm*, I said *infer*. In an ideal world without sin and death, God would only want you to know of Him, and decide if you love Him or not. The entire added eschatology of Him safeguarding a nation of believer, incarnating as Jesus and paying the blood price of His own Just punishment for Mankind, exist so that on the chance that you come to know and love Him, that you do not *die*.

>>18099993
>Of course you can
How? Why would reading a book of ancient desert people's schizobabble make me think the schizobabble is true?

>>18100010
Did the thread start with a mention of God, and did you participate in the conversation in the following posts? If you answered yes, then you just inferred the existence of God, which bring you to the question of A) Do you believe God exist and B) If the answer to A) is yes, then do you love Him.
And if you answer no to the first question, then... what is more schizo, a man jumping in mental hoops to NOT infer the existence of God in any shape or form, or a book inferring His Existence?

>>18100018
>Did the thread start with a mention of God, and did you participate in the conversation in the following posts? If you answered yes, then you just inferred the existence of God
This is schizobabble. To infer the existence of something is to look at a collection of relevant data and come to the conclusion that said thing exists.
>And if you answer no to the first question, then... what is more schizo, a man jumping in mental hoops to NOT infer the existence of God in any shape or form, or a book inferring His Existence?
That's easy. It's way more schizo to believe in a levantine war god based on nationalistic schizo propaganda of ancient israelites than to not come to believe in god.
You disagree because you're a schizo.

>>18099920
God has the perfect timing. He will not oblige to the likes and dislikes of your ego.

>>18100030
>To infer the existence of something is to look at a collection of relevant data and come to the conclusion that said thing exists.
And the term and definition of God exist. I infer it exists because it is revealed by multiple data points, not exclusive to what you call a book of ancient people schizobabble
>That's easy. It's way more schizo to believe in a levantine war god based on nationalistic schizo propaganda of ancient israelites than to not come to believe in god.
God is more than some idols war god according to the very book you condemn. Why does the heathen rage?

>>18100037
>And the term and definition of God exist.
So does the term and definition of "Kryptonian", retard. If you can't distinguish between a thing and a linguistic symbol denoting a thing, you're genuinely subhuman.
>God is more than some idols war god according to the very book you condemn. Why does the heathen rage?
Yeah that's part of the policical propaganda used by these ancient canaanites.

>>18100054
If you can't distinguish between a thing and a linguistic symbol denoting a thing, you're genuinely subhuman.
And you don't seem to understand that something can have no body and no agency and still "exist". A Kryptonian exist as a concept, it can influence the world around when it is depicted and discussed, and yet is defined by its fictional and non-agency status.
The problem occurs when you compare the definition of the two concepts here. God necessarily has agency and is not fictional, otherwise it is not God; and God is also necessarily one, united, indissociable from the concept. And yet, the concept of God doesn't disappear in a puff of logic from everyone's mind as a non-existence. It remains. Hence why in my earlier post >>18099993 I said there could be no possible way we could have this conversation if the inference of God was inexistent.

>>18100075
>And you don't seem to understand that something can have no body and no agency and still "exist". A Kryptonian exist as a concept
Kek so you actually do not understand the difference between a Kryptonian and the concept of a Kryptonian. Amazing.
>God necessarily has agency and is not fictional, otherwise it is not God; and God is also necessarily one, united, indissociable from the concept. And yet, the concept of God doesn't disappear in a puff of logic from everyone's mind as a non-existence.
Because a concept and its referent are not the same thing, retard.

>>18100121
No, YOU do not understand the difference between "being existent" and "being real". You fallaciously conflate the two.
For example, if I say "Mathematics exist", surely you'd agree with me, right?
If I were to say "Mathematic are real", you'd agree too, correct?
Yet Mathematics have no quality of physicality to them. They are conceptual operators of real concepts, but only exist as symbols for abstract mathematical operations. Math is "real", but not physical.
Now let's compare with the Kryptonians. Are they existent? I would say yes. The concept of "Kryptonians" exists and is defined by qualities, and you can point to numerous media depicting that concept, JUST LIKE MATHEMATICS. Are they real, however? No, they are not. They are not physical; in fact, it's how they would be qualified to be Kryptonians, by the fact that they are a _fiction_.
When it comes to God, however, existence and reality are inseparable qualities, because God is One, and Perfect. He possesses all qualities by necessity, or else isn't God; so necessarily, if the concept of God doesn't disappear in a puff of logic from everyone's thinking processes, then necessarily He must be Real.

>>18100121
>>18100134
He must be Real, even if He isn't physical*. Missed one part.

>>18100134
>No, YOU do not understand the difference between "being existent" and "being real". You fallaciously conflate the two.
They're synonyms, retard.
>blah blah blah
You've confused yourself with your own sophistry. A rare talent.
The difference you're describing isnt the difference between "being existent" and "being real" (those are the same thing. It's the difference between an existing concept and an existing referent of a concept.
To say the concept of a Kryptonian exists is just to say there exists a string of words that form a description which we pair with the word "Kryptonian".
>When it comes to God, however, existence and reality are inseparable qualities, because God is One, and Perfect. He possesses all qualities by necessity, or else isn't God; so necessarily, if the concept of God doesn't disappear in a puff of logic from everyone's thinking processes, then necessarily He must be Real.
Those are the properties of god, not the properties of the concept of god.

>>18100173
>They're synonyms, retard.
And hence, you reveal the problem. You are ignorant.
Existence :
>Refers to the mere presence or state of being of an existence
Reality :
>Refers to the state of an existence as it truly is
It's not an immediately intuitive proposition - given that we are both existent and real beings - but it is the logical one. A thing can exist without being real, otherwise it would be categorically impossible to ascertain. Communication would be impossible without existent things being incapable of being fictions; words would be an impossibility. Thinking processes would be impossible too, because necessarily one must interpret what exists and is perceived and yet interpretations are fictions, fabrications. And yet I think
>To say the concept of a Kryptonian exists is just to say there exists a string of words that form a description which we pair with the word "Kryptonian".
And yet would the string be different, there would be no existent Kryptonian. How strange.
>Those are the properties of god, not the properties of the concept of god.
You fallaciously make a separation where there is none. The essence of God is inseparable. The concept of God is inseparable from the being of God, otherwise it would not be God; God would be inexistent, and disappear from our thinking process in a non-existent puff. Yet it is.

>>18100202
>hehe I made up some retarded nu-definitions that nobody else uses
Nice sophistry, bro.
>Communication would be impossible without existent things being incapable of being fictions; words would be an impossibility.
You're utterly confused about language. I can say "elephant-sized pink cat" and have you understand what i mean not because an elephant-sized pink cat exists, but rather because you've heard people use the words "elephant", "pink", "cat", "sized" within particular situations and came to associate those words with certain things.
>And yet would the string be different, there would be no existent Kryptonian. How strange.
Kryptonians do not exist.

>>18099920
If God exists or not is a question to the philosophers.
The absolute search for evidence, as a way to prove his existence make you stupid.
Logic proves God, and most philosophers think that he exists(despite disagreeing on his properties).
Evidence is merely a tool to determine which of the god claims have the most substance.

>>18100228
>Logic proves God, and most philosophers think that he exists(despite disagreeing on his properties).
Most contemporary academic philosophers are atheists.

>>18099920
>why is blind faith so important?
Because there is value in believing without seeing. God wants you to walk by faith, not by sight. Choosing to believe is an coscious act rather than a passive one. He wants you to have the conviction of believing in Him without needing to see Him.

>>18100226
>Kryptonians do not exist.
and yet they have qualities. Only existent things may have qualities, therefore Kryptonians exist. Or are you admitting that Non-Existence can have qualities ascribed to it?
>Nice sophistry, bro.
It's not sophistry. There is a reason either of the words exist as different from the other, and it is exactly BECAUSE of that difference, which is now the crux of the argument. Just concede the point instead looking like a dumbass
>I can say "elephant-sized pink cat" and have you understand what i mean not because an elephant-sized pink cat exists, but rather because you've heard people use the words "elephant", "pink", "cat", "sized" within particular situations and came to associate those words with certain things.
No, I understand what you mean because I can perceive an existent concept of what you have described. Whether it is EXISTENT or not is never in question, the question is whether it is REAL or not - because otherwise, I could not have perceived what you just blabbed on about.

>>18099920
>why is blind faith so important?
You are mistaken.
Jesus heals the blind.
He does not encourage people to become blind.

>>18099952
>...according to the dictionary.

>>18100258
Alright, I've ascertained that I'm talking to a retard who thinks words are magic. No point in wasting any more time arguing.
I'd tell you to go read Wittgenstein to correct your misconceptions, but your brain lacks the raw processing capabilities for that.

>>18100235
You know I was referring to the ones of the past.
You know, the ones that actually had an impact in the world?
Plato,Aristotle,Socrates,Augustine,Aquinas,Hegel,Spinoza,Pascal and so on. You could argue that there was an materialist wave after Hegel, but it does not disproves what I said, since most the relevant philosophers believed in a sort of deity, besides Marx and Nietechzie.
Contemporary philosophy/science is just probabilistics and statistics, if one has a higher percentage than the other than the higher one must be true and the other false, while in fact the two can be true at the same time, or false at the same time.

>>18100275
Rewad your own post, retard : >>18100075
You are the one that said there was a difference between a thing and the linguistic symbol denoting it, yet fail to understand that without the thing to begin with, there is no symbol. There CANNOT be one, logically. What's more, you refused to answer my first question in my previous post : Can Non-Existence have qualities ascribed to it? And if NO, as it IS, and you should know since you challenge me on some very VERY basic conceptual definitions here, are Kryptonians, of which we have ascribed qualities to, existent or inexistent?

>>18100296
Alright subhuman, you're getting one last reply. No matter how much you cry, piss, and shit yourself afterwards, you aren't getting any further access to my intellect (unless you perhaps pay for it).
>fail to understand that without the thing to begin with, there is no symbol. There CANNOT be one, logically
Of course there can be. Human language has a fuckton of tricks for that. For instance, we can take a set of several adjectives which have a meaning (aka use) thanks to us associating them with things that do exist, string them together and connect them with a noun that typically isn't asociated with them.
Example: GREEN leaves (exist) + LIQUID water (exists) +TALKING people (exist) + FLAMINGO (exists) -> green liquid talking flamingo (does not exist)
>Can Non-Existence have qualities ascribed to it?
You continue to be wonderfully imprecise, sophist. Something that does not exist is not itself non-existENCE, it is non-existENT.
To say that Kryptonians have properties is merely to say that in a speech act containing the word "Kryptonians", we use specific terms denoting properties. For instance, when we say "Kryptonians are -", the next word will typically be something like "strong". Likewise, when there is a picture that the author drew intending to point to it and say "this is a Kryptonian" (though strictly speaking, he is mistaken - ceci n'est pas un Kryptonian), it will often depict a character lifting heavy objects, punching out giant monsters etc.
In short, Kryptonians do not exist, but there is a fairly consistent set of adjectives and adverb that we typically use soon before or after we produce the sound associated with the following set of graphemes displayed in a line in order: "k" "r" "y" "p" "t" "o" "n" "i" "a" and "n".

>>18100296
Based on this definition, the word "exist" is meaningless, as everything that we discuss, "exists".

>>18100389
>GREEN leaves (exist) + LIQUID water (exists) +TALKING people (exist) + FLAMINGO (exists)
so you admit that qualities are never created, and instead always perceived, correct? That no quality can instead be created, correct?
>Something that does not exist is not itself non-existENCE, it is non-existENT
what quality distinguish that utterly barbarous statement of difference, SOPHIST? Neither Non-existence or the hypothetical non-existent thing have qualities attached to them. This is what defines them, as opposed to an existent thing, or an Existence. Unlike Existence and Reality, Non-Existence and "a non-existent thing" are completely and utterly indistinguishable. 0 divided or multiplied is still 0. THIS is a trick of language; unlike my attempt at bringing precision to the discourse.
>(though strictly speaking he is mistaken - ceci n'est pas un Kryptonian)
You conflate, again, a real article with an existent one. THIS is what I meant earlier. The Treachery of Images isn't about the fact that the pipe isn't existent, it's about the fact that it is an inaccurate, IRREALIST representation of an existence. It's a lamentation that the symbol, the UNREAL representation, cannot accurately translate a REAL concept - it does NOT discredit as inexistent the REAL CONCEPT that is the origin of the symbol; just like the image of Kryptonians does not discredit their existence. Instead the definition of the Kryptonians discredit them, because they are, BY DEFINITION, fictional, do not have flesh and blood bodies, and cannot execute their feats as per the Laws of Physics.

>>18100400
No, it has a use. Since Existence can have qualities ascribed to it, and non-existence, cannot, one can logically make those inferences :
>Nothing can come from No-Thing, otherwise No-Thing would be Something (because it has historicity)
>Nothing can become of Something, otherwise No-Thing would become Something (because it has historicity)
>Therefore, before my current state of being, I was something
>Therefore, after my current state of being, I will be something
>Therefore, everything around me was, is, and will be
>Therefore, nothing is created, or destroyed, and simply is
>Therefore, my thoughts do not come from nothing, nor do they go into nothing
Read Parmenides, my man. Existence, by itself, is a property that leads to many evident truths.

i'm not religious but i think it's meant to represent trust or something, and because relying on god for miracles because there's such definite evidence just makes people useless and not able to do shit for themselves, they lose their individuality. and because the uncertainty is what allows critical thinking and for people to theorise, people think about it more because there's a puzzle to solve.
the perfect cognitohazard

>>18099920
Mark 4:10-12 10. As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. 11. And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12. so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven.”

To separate the wheat from the chaff