We have /his/torical proof of miracles at the Temple in Jerusalem. The most recent known are reported by eight early sources, citing eyewitnesses and even physical evidence, which report miraculous fire and a star like a cross that marked clothes halting the Jews' and Emperor Julian's plan to rebuild the Israel Temple in 363 AD.They report that the Temple couldn't be built by them because flames burst from its foundations, and there was an object in the sky like a cross that both marked and astonished the workmen.First is Ammianus Marcellinus, a non-Christian contemporary of Emperor Julian. You can read his account here: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0082%3Abook%3D23%3Achapter%3D1%3Asection%3D3 -"terrifying balls of flame kept bursting forth near the foundations of the temple, and made the place inaccessible to the workmen, some of whom were burned to death; and since in this way the element persistently repelled them, the enterprise halted"And Gregory Nazianzen, who knew Emperor Julian personally, wrote just months after the event according to https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/gregory_nazianzen_3_oration5.htm:"But what is yet more strange and more conspicuous, there stood in the heavens a light circumscribing a Cross...Let those who were spectators and partakers of that prodigy exhibit their garments, which to the present time are stamped with the brandmarks of the Cross! For at the very moment that anyone, either of our own brethren or of the outsiders, was telling the event or hearing it told by others, he beheld the miracle happening in his own case or to his neighbour, being all spotted with stars, or beholding the other so marked upon his clothes in a manner more variegated than could be done by any artificial work of the loom or elaborate painting”.There are six other sources, they all show: the God of this Temple is the true God, and he won't allow either Pagans or Jews to build His third Temple.
>>18700157Then radio silence for 1663 years?
>>18700171Yes that's God's usual approach by necessity, here's a good quick explanation of why: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YKUhD7--LKw
>>18700171people became literate and no longer fell for the tricks as easily
>>18700171He did do that thing with Muhammed about 1400 years ago in the spin off series
>>18700157>First is Ammianus Marcellinus, a non-Christian contemporary of Emperor Julian.Did he personally witness these supposed event?
>>18700196No, but the historian Josephus personally witnessed similar miracles involving the Temple:
>>18700174>God can't make a maximally good world so he needs humans to work for him during his breakslol what?
>>18683706https://www.face.book.com/ronaldo.narag.1/posts/in-the-jolo-campaign-of-april-1945-the-us-armys-163rd-infantry-regiment-part-of-/24135278329392040/https://www.face.book.com/story.php?story_fbid=24135278329392040&id=ronaldo.narag.1https://www.instagram.com/p/DYcTq3RnS9r/https://www.face.book.com/ronaldo.narag.1/posts/two-tausug-civilians-standing-in-the-rain-with-large-banana-leaf-to-cover-their-/26852574977662348/https://www.face.book.com/story.php?story_fbid=26852574977662348&id=ronaldo.narag.1https://www.face.book.com/groups/ww2pinas/posts/2955705547825590/https://www.instagram.com/p/DYroVqQjb57/https://www.instagram.com/p/DW1_9N3E30U/?hl=arhttps://www.instagram.com/p/DW7L9yuEkIG/https://www.face.book.com/ronaldo.narag.1/photos/on-april-23-1945-this-specific-patrol-took-place-during-the-intense-fighting-for/27373427302243777/https://www.face.book.com/groups/448419778556851/posts/25467537372885079/https://www.krzzjn.com/show-403-16419.htmlhttps://m.wforum.com/news/history/2010/03/14/24223.htmlhttps://www.sinoca.com/news/world/2009-11-13/47782.htmlhttps://news.ifeng.com/history/shijieshi/200911/1116_7182_1437146_3.shtmlhttps://es.z-library.sk/book/ZjKVK8qeR0/%E9%9A%8F%E5%86%9B%E6%85%B0%E5%AE%89%E5%A6%87.html?dsource=recommendhttps://givemen.blog.spot.com/2009/11/blog-post_2740.htmlhttps://blog.udn.com/mobile/giveman/3499198
>>18700204And what was Josephus' religion?
>>18700209God can make it. He wants (you) and me to be better. At least one of us is listening
>>18700214Depends on your definitions exactly. He believed in Jesus' resurrection but didn't self-identify as a ChristianAlso oops forgot link in that post >>18700204 meant to post at the end: https://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2022/05/today-i-have-special-guest-piece-by.html
>>18700215The video is talking about God avoiding paradoxes anon. He NEEDS you when he's taking his little breaks
>>18700210https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/5/oa_monograph/chapter/3178782/pdfhttps://www.jstor.org/content/oa_chapter_monograph/j.ctv2ngx5f5.10?seq=1https://archive.org/stream/508811524-with-the-bravest-the-untold-story-of-the-sulu-freedom-fighters-of-world-war-ii.mpdf/508811524-WITH-THE-BRAVEST-The-Untold-Story-of-the-Sulu-Freedom-Fighters-of-World-War-II.mpdf_djvu.txthttps://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:80444/xv31134https://pacificwrecks.com/location/philippines_jolo.htmlhttp://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/J/o/Jolo.htmhttps://www.face.book.com/story.php?story_fbid=27263934293193079&id=ronaldo.narag.1https://www.face.book.com/asreeelaji/photos/97-tentera-jepun-di-jolo-dibunuh-oleh-tausug-biar-betul-kau-ni-chatgpt-soalanhi-/4390900307803671/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lushai_Brigade
>>18700229https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/26100/PS008.pdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/348104922_Testimonial_Narratives_as_Counterhistory_The_Stories_of_Tausug_Survivors_during_the_1974_Battle_of_Jolohttps://aljamiah.or.id/ajis/article/view/62101https://www.positivelyfilipino.com/magazine/the-battle-of-tamparan-and-the-forgotten-moro-heroes-of-world-war-iihttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DWOTwaQks8S/https://www.face.book.com/story.php?story_fbid=122183163446796149&id=elcolonialistahttps://www.face.book.com/story.php?story_fbid=122185966676796149&id=elcolonialistahttps://www.face.book.com/story.php?story_fbid=808138771332294&id=suluhxhttps://www.face.book.com/suluhx/posts/february-71974-february-72024the-battle-of-jolo-aka-the-siege-of-jolo50th-annive/808138771332294/https://www.face.book.com/groups/memoriesoldmanila/posts/3490189501135878/
>>18700210https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4ASRAAAAIAAJ&q=190588, 89, 100, 101, 102https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=4ASRAAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=karayukiTitle Ianfu, the Comfort Women of the Japanese Imperial Army of the Pacific War: Broken SilenceVolume 10 of Japanese Studies - Edwin Mellen PressVolume 10 of Japanese studiesAuthor David A. SchmidtEdition illustratedPublisher Edwin Mellen Press, 2000Original from the University of CaliforniaDigitized 25 Apr 2008ISBN 0773478256, 9780773478251Length 218 pagesSubjects History › Wars & Conflicts › World War II › GeneralHistory / Wars & Conflicts / World War II / GeneralHistory / Wars & Conflicts / World War II / Pacific Theater
>>18700223Do you have an actual argument against the point that the video makes?
>>18700187I'd actually argue these events could serve as a mild argument against Islam. According to Islam the kaaba is the central religious building of the world, dating back to the earliest prophets. Yet we've never seen anything there even remotely like what has been seen at the Temple in Jerusalem.
>>18700249Yes it makes your god no longer omnipotent if he cannot make a reality with maximal goodness but wishes to do so
>>18700284There's no such thing as a maximally good world, whatever quantity you name there could be a greater quantity of good
>>18700215If stubbing your toe were the greatest evil in the Universe you would deny God's existence because someone stubbed a toe somewhere.
>>18700302Yes there could be such a thing. One with a complete absence of evil is maximally good
>>18700315Then nothing would exist since that was already the case before anything had been created at all
>>18700321So a maximally perfect state was achieved? Then your claim that it is impossible is just false. There is nothing inherent to creation that increases evil so you could still have that perfect state and created objects existing
>>18700157>/his/torical proof of miracles>words on paper said it happened
>>18700336What I'm saying isn't a subjective matter of preference, it's an objective statement. The only way for anything to exist is if there's some being whose existence is required by the laws of logic themselves. Its nonexistence must be a logical contradiction. And "good" is defined as the value that this entity is driven to increase. And there must be such a value, otherwise it would not have taken any action.So good must be something that can positively increase, not something that has a minimum.(It also can't be something that has a maximum, otherwise the logically-required being would have made a world in that exact state, with no potential to change since change could only either be neutral or have no effect)
>>18700358>words on paper said it happeneddo you understand what board you are on right now
>>18700381You're waffling. How has evil been increased if God decided to create one single hydrogen atom in the maximally perfect state he was in before anything else was created?
And we have eyewitnesses who claim they saw an Angel give golden plates to Joseph Smith. Fuck you faggot
>>18700405It feels like we're having a disconnect. Do you see that you're talking about minimizing a negative whereas I'm talking about maximizing a positive?
>>18700424Yes that's the whole point. Your understanding of a reality with maximal goodness is just one with infinite goodness which is impossible and meaningless while my understanding is one where goodness is at its maximum since there is no evil. And no God's little breaks that involve us don't make the problem of actual infinities existing go away. Actual infinities are metaphysically impossible because they lead to absurd real-world paradoxes.
>>18700449It feels like you haven't engaged with what I wrote in >>18700381
>>18700460Yes because you're waffling but I'll do you a solid. You keep presupposing that God had to take an action to increase an arbitrary value and that he wanted a maximally good world for no reason.
>>18700473>You keep presupposing that God had to take an actionWell yes, otherwise nothing but God would exist. Other things do exist so God must have taken an action >to increase an arbitrary valueIt wouldn't be arbitrary. Everything about a logically-required being is, itself, logically required. (At least at the very very beginning). Including the internal drive that causes it to act. This whatever value the logically-required being seeks to increase, the laws of logic themselves make Him seek to increase it.>and that he wanted a maximally good worldNow consider the implications of what I just wrote: if everything about a logically-required being is required by the laws of logic to be true, then that includes the fact "this being seeks to increase value X". If that fact is required by the laws of logic to be true, then that means it is true in all scenarios: no matter how much value X there is in any given scenario, "the logically-required being seeks to increase X" remains true. He will always want the amount to increase no matter how much there is.
>>18700307Correct. Why would God allow this needless suffering and tragedy?
>>18700509There is a difference between God needing to do something and God simply doing it out of his own free will. Both would result in things existing. In your idea God is just an automaton that has little to no agency. The reality he finds himself in forces him to optimize random variables that you haven't justified, Why can't he seek to increase value Y which would be evil?
>>18700157Yes anon, god wrote a book of rules. It requires belief because potato
>>18700524>There is a difference between God needing to do something and God simply doing it out of his own free willNothing can be uncaused. Even choices. Something caused him to choose one available option over other available options. Whatever that is is what's defined as his drive/desire. >Why can't he seek to increase value Y which would be evil?That depends on how you're defining "evil", exactly. I find that the best definition of "evil" is "that which, if allowed to grow, makes the growth of good impossible". Which would make it a self-contradiction for the logically-required being to seek to increase evil.
>>18700551God is uncaused. God can choose an option over another simply because it is in line with his nature such as his inherent goodness. This way he doesn't depend on creation like in your model. As for your definition of evil that would still require him to optimize both. It's just that they contradict each other and that is another issue you have. Why isn't he seeking evil over the good here? The good can be the thing that gives way for the evil instead of the other way round
>>18700582>God is uncausedThat's not so, God exists because there's something logically contradictory about his nonexistence. It would be some sort of self-contradiction, like a right triangle with equal legs that has a hypotenuse of rational length. Like that contradiction, why it's contradictory takes a lot of investigation to discover, but it is indeed a logical contradiction once you get to the the root of it.>God can choose an option over another simply because it is in line with his nature such as his inherent goodnessYou're just using different words to describe an internal drive>As for your definition of evil that would still require him to optimize bothRemember the definitions of the words we're using - when I use the word "good" I mean "that value which the logically-required being has an internal drive to increase". When I use the word "evil", I mean "the value(s) that, if allowed to grow, result in the cessation of the growth of the value the logically-required being has an internal drive to increase". When we define our terms like that, do you see why "God wants to increase evil" becomes a self-contradiction? By definition evil is the value(s) that make the value God is looking to increase cease increasing.
>>18700601Just because the necessary being has to exist doesn't mean he has a cause. You're implying the laws of logic existed independently from God and then gave rise to his being when in reality they could subsist within his mind and are just a reflection of his nature for example. Saying the necessary being is caused by something more fundamental is nonsensical since that itself would essentially be the necessary being. The way you define things is arbitrary. Take a look at your definitions>good = that value (X) which the logically-required being has an internal drive to increase>evil = the value(s) that, if allowed to grow, result in the cessation of the growth of the value the logically-required being has an internal drive to increaseX here could be for example pleasure for his creatures or it could be pain for his creatures. there is no way to tell which is which except by convention
>>18700627>Just because the necessary being has to exist doesn't mean he has a causeIf anything could exist without a cause then everything possible thing would exist, take a look at a real quick explainer of why at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/F7bcjGArkrA>You're implying the laws of logic existed independently from God and then gave rise to his being when in reality they could subsist within his mindThat doesn't make any sense. "Laws of logic" is just a fancy term for the fact that mutually exclusive things mutually exclude. >Saying the necessary being is caused by something more fundamental is nonsensical since that itself would essentially be the necessary beingThe laws of logic aren't beings and they aren't things, they're merely the fact that mutual exclusions mutually exclude>there is no way to tell which is which except by conventionThat's not so, in order to identify the specific value that the logically-required being would have a drive to increase, you can do so by identifying the specific logical contradiction that makes His existence logically-required.There is an objective answer, it's not a matter of convention. Right now it's an unknown, but we do know how to find the answer to the question
>>18700639The necessary being is not just "anything" those are rather contingent existences and they could be otherwise.>mutually exclusive things mutually excludeThat's a very restrictive definition of the law of noncontradiction and you're simply saying it in other words for whatever reason. But yes these logical laws aren't beings or things that exist outside of God's mind that is the point I am amking. This "mutually exclusive things mutually exclude" isn't floating somewhere in the void>you can do so by identifying the specific logical contradiction that makes His existence logically-requiredHow does this relate at all? If you swap the values you get no logical contradiction from those two definitions here meaning he could seek to maximize pain as much as he seeks to maximize pleasure
>>18700157What about that mosque that stands on the location of the former temple?
>>18700773Lots of things have stood on the site before and since. There's nothing special about the hill, it's simply stone and earth. The Temple is what is special.
>>18700157>We have /his/torical proof of miraclesno such thing can exist. what ancient people claimed and wrote has no weight against our everyday experience of no miracles whatsoever.
>>18700702>The necessary being is not just "anything" those are rather contingent existences and they could be otherwise.The video's argument there applies to absolutely positively any category of existent thing. Necessary, contingent, even events. Absolutely everything is encompassed by it. There are and can never be any exceptions.>That's a very restrictive definition of the law of noncontradictionI invite a counterexample, if you're aware of one. What is something that can be known with logical certainty that does not ultimately boil down to "these are mutually exclusive and therefore mutually exclude"?>aren't beings or things that exist outside of God's mind that is the point I am amkingIt isn't some force than emanates from God's mind either. Even if nothing existed, a hypothetical like "if there was a rectangle it would not have seventeen sides" would be correct.>How does this relate at all? If you swap the values you get no logical contradictionWe don't know if you get a logical contradiction or not. It's like an equation that isn't yet solved. Once we know why the logically-required being's existence is mandated by the laws of logic then we will be able to determine what it would or wouldn't value.
>>18700157wrong
