Religious anons

First of all you need to understand yourself with the concept of Divine Simplicity.
Because as long as you think of God as some kind of powerful alien, some cosmic superhero like Thor or Zeus or even Santa Claus, you are starting with wrong assumptions and obviously you will end up with wrong conclusions.
God is not a magic creature. In fact, he isn't a creature at all. He is the creator and everything else is created by him. This means that God isn't dependent/contingent on anything. For example if God were blue, that would mean that color needs to exist "before" God, that color is more fundamental.
But that would just introduce the question of why God is blue, what made him that way. What composed him in such a way.
That goes for any feature, for any constraint. Thus God is not constraint by or dependent on or contingent upon anything. He isn't this way or that way. He just is.
Now: If God isn't in any way, it still leaves the question whether God is or isn't, whether he exists at all.
I answer: God is being/existence itself. It isn't possible for him to not exist, because "being" is "what he is". It is his essence. Just like triangles necessarily have 3 sides, God necessarily exists. Because that is what existence does, it exists.
Can we then say anything about him at all? Of course!
He is omnipresent, because he isn't constrained by space. Like how math is not here or there, God isn't here or there.
Similar argumentation applies to his eternity, his immutability, his perfection (lack of potentials) and so on.
Now all of that sounds really abstract, more like a principle, a law. But: God must've acted, he must've created complex things, which proves his agency. Indeed he creates now by actualizing the world in every moment.
Furthermore he only created some things, not everything. Which means he decided, showing his wisdom.
Is God loving? Yes, why would he create something he hates? Wouldn't make sense.

Here you go.

OP is a jew trying to convert us to (((Satanism)))

Attached: 6ee.jpg (600x600, 54.57K)

because nihilism isn't completely right
yes, everything has no sense and we're here just to suffer but everything isn't as shallow that you can explain it with words
you want proof of something
watch this

Attached: 1587348081161.gif (358x202, 1.08M)

Yeah, but you can actually proof math. You test it, you prove what is being said. How can you proof god or anything magical that bible claims happen 2000 years ago.

How do you prove what is being said in math without relying on anything in that math book though?

The organization and logic in the universe is a sign that there is some higher level creation.

Once you understand the concept of Divine Simplicity, you will see that all proofs of or arguments for the existence of God lead to this.

The cosmological arguments: These arguments argue from a principle (explanation, causation, composition) and show that you are able to trace everything back to a beginning, if you accept that principle. For example: In biology there are many species, species evolve from other species, this cannot go into infinity, therefore there must be a (set of) first species.
After you show that an infinite regress is impossible and that multiple beginnings would need a more fundamental beginning, you can show that you will end at Divine Simplicity. Rejecting those arguments is only possible by rejecting fundamental principles like "things don't suddenly pop into and out of existence", "reality is real" and "things have an explanation". If you reject these principles, you are crazy.

The ontological arguments: The ontological arguments show a really easy way for the greatest conceivable being, which is God. If this greatest being didn't necessarily exist, it could be greater by necessarily existing. Since it is already the greatest thing, it must exist necessarily.
The greatest being can of course not be constrained or limited by anything, once again leading us to Divine Simplicity.

Want more arguments?

I accept both pills and go full schizo.

>yes, everything has no sense and we're here just to suffer but everything isn't as shallow that you
It is not that way. Stop giving into the Jew-shit. You wouldn't miss purpose, if purpose didn't exist. That would be like complaining that it's dark if there is no light. You can only tell that it's dark, because you miss light. Therefore light exists. How do you think did you get the idea of light? Billions of years of evolution should've made us accept the natural world as it is. Yet we feel foreign, like we don't belong.
You are created of a higher purpose. Will you start searching for the truth or will you succumb to nature and become a dog?

yeah whats the higher purpose though

To become sons of God. To seek and find God.
Freedom isn't the maximization of possible choices. Rather it is the liberation from bad choices. Once you understand that there is an objective good (which is God), you will stop seeking the endless ways to postpone your quest.

Take a look at and This should help you with getting into classical theism.

>First of all you need to understand yourself with the concept of Divine Simplicity.
Um bro I'm pretty sure Jay Dyer has proved divine simplicity is incoherent in one of his Catholicuck btfo videos. Believing God is an absolutely simple essence makes you a monist which actually makes you a retard.

But regardless of it beign on the book. You CAN prove it.
From addition, you count, you verify... Then you go to multiplication and so on... And then you can show it to the world

You just can't prove or demostrate something magical written in the bible, there are no steps to replicate turning water to wine, or to resurrect oneself or others
You cant show your delusions to the world

The fact that we don't fully understand the universe is no proof of god

>You CAN prove it.
Imagine not being aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.

>Jay Dyer
No, Jay Dyer constantly larps as "10 years Thomist", while all he did was read an introduction into the Summa Theologiae.
Jay Dyer follows the most idiotic interpretation of Palamas and makes a real separation between God's essence and God's energies. Not even Palamas himself believed that if you read more about him.
Then that would mean that God is a composite being, which means God must've actualized some potentials in him or change himself, which all contradict basic beliefs about God.
He is a 42-year old man without children, a lousy youtube channel and a foot fetish.

>Believing God is an absolutely simple essence makes you a monist which actually makes you a retard.
What composed God? Oh yea, it's that more fundamental thing, of course!

>The fact that we don't fully understand the universe is no proof of god
Maybe you should read actual proofs of the existence of God. You clearly show that you have no idea by using words like "magical" and constantly refering to the Bible. Scripture doesn't prove God.

>From addition, you count, you verify... Then you go to multiplication and so on... And then you can show it to the world
Furthermore multiplication is just a redefinition. 3 * 3 is defined as 3 + 3 + 3. There is nothing to verify.
You can only show this if you first presuppose a set of axioms. Then you will find mathematical truths that cannot be shown by those axioms (look up Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing), which means you will have to add more and more axioms, truths that anyone just has to take for granted. There is no possible way to solve all math.

>You cant show your delusions to the world
You call others delusional, but you should actually listen.

>Then that would mean that God is a composite being
No, it's like the Trinity. That there are three persons doesn't imply a composite god the same way that the difference between God's essence and energies doesn't.

>What composed God? Oh yea, it's that more fundamental thing, of course!
Sounds like you're talking about the monad bro.

>He is a 42-year old man without children, a lousy youtube channel and a foot fetish.
He's that old? Bullshit he looks 30 some. Also sauce the foot fetish thing. Foot fetishes are based anyway, up there with scat and fisting.

These concepts are all within the book though. You aren't going to be proving anything, just reiterating info already in the book

I said the order of the universe was evidence of a higher intelligence creation.

Only sola scriptura Protestants would fall for this circular reasoning. Even then, it’s better than being a nihilist.

>No, it's like the Trinity. That there are three persons doesn't imply a composite god the same way that the difference between God's essence and energies doesn't.
The trinity is explained by the relations of God to himself. God knows himself, which means there is God-as-knower. What does God know about himself? Everything. So his thought about himself perfectly captures himself. But is a thought not a creation of some sort? Only an imperfect thought. If you look at a tree, your thought of that tree must have something in common with the tree outside. Otherwise you're not thinking about a tree. A perfect thought would perfectly capture everything about that tree, nothing more nothing less. So God-as-knower has a perfect thought that captures himself. Which gives you God-as-known.
The Father eternally generates the son.
What do Father and Son share? Their knowledge about each other. Which again is God. Giving you God-as-knowledge. This brings us to the doctrine of Father and Son eternally spirating the Holy Spirit.

>He's that old? Bullshit he looks 30 some.
Yes.

>Foot fetishes are based anyway, up there with scat and fisting.
Ortho cope.

Jay Dyer goes for the real distinction between "God's uncreated light" and God's essence, which gives you a lot of problems, since you cannot make the relational distinction anymore.

What is "God"? For real.

Attached: cig teeth.jpg (650x865, 51.1K)

>This brings us to the doctrine of Father and Son eternally spirating the Holy Spirit.
Which leads to an imbalance because the Spirit is the only person that doesn't generate or spirate anything. Which is why the Catholics have historically ignored the Holy Spirit in their worship and instead worship Mary, the Pope, and Satan.

>Yes
Sauce? Don't make me go digging faggot google brings up nothing for his age.

>Jay Dyer goes for the real distinction
No, Orthobros do the same thing you just did with the Trinity. God's energies are analogous to God's thoughts. Problem solved.

Attached: circular reasoning.png (783x393, 133.11K)

read and For more information look up Thomas Aquinas. He asked this question when he was a little child and became one of the most, if not the most important theologian of the Catholic Church.
This playlist is really good:
youtube.com/watch?v=qPv4sG5v9tY&list=PL_kd4Kgq4tP8e1BBGrC-eFlp86fqyvGex

Nihilism is for faggots
Cynicism is more based
>Actual cynicism

Attached: 1_IRmYAooWBIZJc1NxOsPlFQ.jpg (1310x900, 266.28K)

>These concepts are all within the book though. You aren't going to be proving anything, just reiterating info already in the book
So? Just because it's in a book doesn't mean I can't independently observe that 1+1=2 without ever being aware of said book. The book isn't what makes it true.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that you can prove the existence of god without relying on the Bible or canon, just like I can prove math without using math books?

>I said the order of the universe was evidence of a higher intelligence creation.
So? That's your opinion. Got any facts?