>>18770793
God is a fictional character. Her precise characterization depends on the particular version of the fiction you're considering. Hope that helps.

>>18770793
He likes seeing humans suffer and thank him for the suffering. That's what Christianity boils down to, a petulent toddler who wants to make billions suffer for no reason and to jerk him off. The reward for those who do so is that they are forced to do it for eternity afterwards. This is the good outcome in Christianity btw.

>>18770807
petulant*

>there is nothing above him and he has no creator
Why do you believe that? Zeus was born from Rhea, and Hercules was his son

>>18770793
i wish everyone would just read about hermetism and sthu about these made-up philosophical dilemmas

>>18770830
>Zeus was born from Rhea
Is Rhea a nihilist?

he self-insert himself into his creation and wipes out his memory to be able to enjoy it

>>18770793
Theists don't like answering this one, because any answer they give could apply to themselves, and they aren't comfortable with the idea of finding your own meaning without some invisible Jew in the sky

>>18770799
>Her precise
Yessss queeennnnn

>>18770793
p1: nihilism rejects the existence of objective meaning within the world.
P2: God is the source of meaning itself.
P3: The world exists dependent on god to sustain it.
P4: Hence if god exists and the world exists then nihilism is false because the world itself would be made of and by objective meaning
C1: God is not a Nihilist

>>18771296
>God is the source of meaning itself
What is the source of god?

File: jfl.gif (92 KB, 220x220)

92 KB GIF

>>18771304
yea by definition God self-existent.
if god had a source which then god is not God

>>18771309
>yea by definition God self-existent
So by definition the meaning of life is the meaning of life?
Seems pretty circular tbqh

>>18771310
yea so what's circular about this>>18771296

>>18771316
>yea so what's circular about this
This one
>P2: God is the source of meaning itself.
It assumes objective meaning already exists, which is what nihilism denies
Begging the question basically
Anyway there's a shitton of holes in the argument
>P1 vs P2,
nihilists reject objective meaning but what makes gods own meaning objective? It clearly is subjective.
>P2
If God's will makes things meaningful, meaning is arbitrary and not objective, God could have willed the opposite. If God recognizes meaning that's already there, God isn't its source so you have a contradiction either way.
>P3
Dependence isn't value, so this statement is literally redundant, this is basic is ought sloppa.
>P4
Being made by a meaningful source doesn't mean being made of meaning. Maybe god just scribbled our existence on a sheet of paper like a meaningless scribble? Or do you deny that god could create without purpose?
C1 is a non sequitur because of all of these.

>>18771296
The trick here is that you are abusing the nebulous definition of the term "world" to exclude your invisible Jew in the sky as if he wouldn't by necessity have to be part of broader reality (otherwise you'd have to admit he isn't real in the first place)

>>18771349
>The trick here, Drivel
ok

>>18771345
dude you are a fucking retard.

>It assumes objective meaning already exists, which is what nihilism denies
>Begging the question basically
The whole point is to show how a classical theistic god's existence and nihilism is incoherent.

>nihilists reject objective meaning but what makes gods own meaning objective? It clearly is subjective.
God's meaning is objective because God is not a "subject" inside the universe; God is the reality itself, god is being not a being.

>If God's will makes things meaningful, meaning is arbitrary and not objective...
Meaning is Rooted in God’s Nature; meaning God wills things because He is good and meaningful itself, and things are good and meaningful because they reflect Gods nature.

>Dependence isn't value, so this statement is literally redundant, this is basic is ought sloppa.
yea so you are just misidentifes the nature of the statement.
>The world exists dependent on God to sustain it
Its a metaphysical/descriptive claim; this isn't an ought to be claim this is.
And you would have to accept this position as this whole question of "Is God a Nihilist" is an internal evaluation

>Being made by a meaningful source doesn't mean being made of meaning...
Bro what XD.
God is Pure Actuality meaning God is completely complete, fully realized, and possesses no unfulfilled potential, change, or capacity to become something else
God's Actions Equal His Essence, Because God is perfectly simple and pure act, His actions are not separate from who He is. When God acts, He is fully expressing His entire essence.
God Cannot Act Contrary to His Essence, meaning God cannot create a four-sided triangle, nor can He act falsely, because He cannot contradict His own nature.
If God's essence is the source of all meaning, order, and truth (Logos), then the act of creation must result in a meaningful product. Meaning is a necessary, inescapable by-product of the divine act of creation.

File: 1756508246484053.jpg (7 KB, 250x228)

7 KB JPG

>>18771400
God is part of this reality. He has to be, otherwise he wouldn't be real, thus, any principles your original argument applies to nihilists must also apply to God. Your only argument around this is either presupposition (wordsalad) or diminishing the personhood of God and reducing him down to a Pantheistic one instead. Pick your poison

>>18771400
>god is being not a being
>because He is good and meaningful itself, and things are good and meaningful because they reflect Gods nature.
Do people not realize the blatant contradictions when they write slop like this
>god is le good.... things are le good because god is le good...
Also we're way past good being a meaningless word with these mental gymnastics
>god created satan
>thus Satan is a reflection of gods nature
>thus Satan is good

>>18771407
>doesn't refute any point
I accept your concession

>God is part of this reality. He has to be, otherwise he wouldn't be real,
>Doesn't expand on why.
>just expects us to accept it as brute fact

>any principles your original argument applies to nihilists must also apply to God.
>non sequitur

>Your only argument around this is either presupposition (wordsalad)
>If i don't understand it then i will call it wordsalad

>diminishing the personhood of God and reducing him down to a Pantheistic one instead. Pick your poison
>also doesn't expand on why.
>just expects us to accept it as brute fact

You quite literally said nothing of substance. And seeing that, I'm done talking with you.

File: 1756546635811708.jpg (32 KB, 720x718)

32 KB JPG

>>18771416
I don't know who exactly you're trying to convince here because everyone with a brain can see your post and who you're replying to and can clearly see who is making more sense and who is just dancing around circular reasoning like "God is meaningful because God is meaningful" I'm sure you're making perfect sense inside of your own head though!

>>18771412
>Do people not realize the blatant contradictions when they write slop like this. god is le good.... things are le good because god is le good...
>if I just type my opponents position like a retard i win
lol, lmao, even

>Also we're way past good being a meaningless word with these mental gymnastics
Yea satan isn't necessarily evil anyways

But ig this is trying this is trying to imply the poe.
here
(this is assuming that god as the desire of value maxing)
God wants to maximise the amount amount of people, because creating free agents is a better than creates robots/lobotomised humans under """Abrahamic theology""" (whatever that means) and god wants to maximise all possible goods.
Evils done against each other are the result of our free will, such as terror attacks, murder, rape.
God creates people in earth first and not heaven because he doesn't want to force people to chose him and he wants them to chose him not force them. God permits certain evils to exist so that second order virtues (i.e self-control) can exist and can be achieved, these certain evils must exist so god can maximises the greatest possible goods.

>>18771429
>Yea satan isn't necessarily evil anyways
Well at least you admit to being a blatant heretic lmao

>>18771419
>still says literally nothing of substance again.
>still doesn't refute any of my previous points
>still doesn't explain his claims
>dumbs down my position without any explanation in a pathetic attempt of discreditation
him
>"God is meaningful because God is meaningful"
me
>"Meaning is Rooted in God’s Nature; meaning God wills things because He is good and meaningful itself, and things are good and meaningful because they reflect Gods nature."
>still try's to sound confident
lmao, lol, even. We are done here

>>18771434
Adding unnecessary buzzwords and rhetoric doesn't make your argument make sense my guy, sorry I have to be the one to tell you this

>>18771433
show me how I'm a heretic lol.
Both the catholic church an orthodox church hold to this position

>>18771435
>muh buzzwords
>muh rhetoric
>for him is relevant terminology relating to the topic we are disgusting are just random buzzwords because he has no understanding on the topic
You are doing great!

>>18771434
>"things are good and meaningful because they reflect Gods nature."
So "good" means "reflects God's nature." So far so good.
>god is "good and meaningful itself"
And there we go again lmao.
Substitute the definition into the claim. If "good" means "reflects God's nature," then "God is good" becomes "God reflects God's nature."
You literally showed nothing christbabby, you just said god is god and good is good

File: 1757967329679519.png (657 KB, 817x577)

657 KB PNG

>"God is meaningful because God is meaningful because he's meaningful, because he is the cause of meaning as you know, I make a lot of sense!"
Presup apologetics is truly a sight to behold

>>18771443
nice try lol
A definition based on resemblance to a source (e.g., "reflecting God's nature") applies exclusively to the derivative products of that source, not to the source itself.
"Goodness" when applied to creatures means reflecting God's nature, but when applied to God it means Ontological Plenitude (the absolute fullness of existence without defect).
Therefore, substituting the creaturely definition of goodness onto God is a category mistake, and the statement "God is good" remains a meaningful statement about the perfection of His existence rather than an stupid tautology.

>>18771449
>Talks to himself in a corner
whatever makes you feel better ig

>>18771458
>not to the source itself
Then you can't claim god is good though, retard. You really didn't think this through.
> "Goodness" when applied to creatures means reflecting God's nature, but when applied to God it means Ontological Plenitude
This is by definition not an objective definition then. Once again you didn't manage to disprove nihilism kek

>>18771460

>Then you can't claim god is good though, retard. You really didn't think this through.
>Then you can't claim god is good though
>anon struggles to comparand when something is not the source that its not the source
yea why? XD
Did you think you did something? like seriously?

>This is by definition not an objective definition then
Literally what?
>Once again you didn't manage to disprove nihilism kek
>If i sound content enough they will think that mi right

Bro you know if there is nothing to say, you don't have to say something

>>18771467
Do you know what "objective morality" means?
You can't claim things are objectively good but then applies different definitions to different entities.

>>18771467
>Once again you didn't manage to disprove nihilism kek
Also key note because you are too retarded to realise.

literally nothing I said ITT was trying to disprove nihilism you dumb fucking retard. Know what the subject is you moron

>>18771468
Anon you are confused.
What are you even on about.

>"Goodness" when applied to creatures means reflecting God's nature, but when applied to God it means Ontological Plenitude
>but like This is by definition not an objective definition then
what do you even mean by this in this context. and what is this leading too

holy retard thread what are any of you guys actually saying
like genuinely its like NONE of you think before typing

>>18771472
Nobody asked you lmao

>>18771472
Basically anon A is trying to say god is not a nihilist because he conveniently is the ultimate good and anon B is trying to show him that that's retarded

>>18771475
and anon B is failing to do so

Defining good as being whatever god says is such a retarded cop out, especially if you consider the Old Testament
Literal cuck slave behavior
>murder and genocide is good... because GOD told me
>circumcision is good... because GOD told me
>sacrifice is good... because GOD told me

>>18771487
>Its a cop out, because its like a cop out! You Dham cuck!!
you done with your stupid argumentation? or do you want to go to convent theology now?
I don't want to repeat myself so here. https://archived.moe/his/thread/18762626/#18763296

>>18771493
>words words words
>no explanation why god commands blatantly evil things any sane person would agree on are evil
Feel free to do another attempt lmao

>>18771499
>give vague non-examples
>any sane person would agree on are evil
>its like basic human morals bro
XDDDDDDDD

You are a waste of my time anyways I have no desire to debate you

>>18770793
>Is God a Nihilist?
No. Next!