Mfw realizing god exists

very nice,

I personally prefer the Upinishads to the Gita. But it's nice to see a fellow sane theist who doesn't believe dumb shit like.

>an all God eternally tortures people, or allows them to be tortured.

you should still read the Upinishads because they are beautiful.

Look up the ontological argument.

When faced with the "perfect island" objection, I would respond that no finite thing, such as an island, can be perfect, because it's very existence essence entails being limited, and wherever there is a limit on a thing, that thing would be made more perfect by transcending it.

When faced with the "existence is not a perfection" argument, substitute "most perfect being" for "being which exists most," and see if that is not the exact same thing

If you want to prove it, read Spinoza's Ethics

I have some pdfs of Adi Shankara's commentaries on the upanishads that are in my reading list right now. Bhagavad Gita is the easiest thing for a beginner to get into though imo.

I may have had a particularly difficult translation, accounting for my difference in taste. I'll probbably want to revisit the Gita translated by Eknath Easwaran at some point, since I loved the translation of the Upanishads he gave.

The ontological argument is bullshit. The idea of God does not imply his existence. Existence is not a perfection no matter how you try to hand wave it. One could easily come up with a perfect idea without it existing but you handwave that too by claiming without proof that infinite things are in some way more perfect than finite things.
Go ahead and believe in God on faith, but dont try to pretend that theres any serious logic in his existence

The ontological arguments are a result of magical thinking. You can't just define things into existence. You're not God saying let there be light. They are elaborate statements of faith that assumes their premise, regardless of the particular formulation.

I was raised atheist and only believe in God due to logic. We can leave perfection out of it, because modern notions of perfection are very confused.

that being which exists most, or onotologically is the greatest possible, exists, because such a being would be greater if actual than merely an essence.

This does imply the traits characteristic of God because knowledge is something which positively exists, ignorance, a mere absence, so God knows all. Power is something which positively exists, impotence, a mere absence, so God has all power. Goodness is something which positively exists, evil, a mere absence, so God is all-good.

Ever seen a triangle?
Not a perfect one, no.
But it does exist, in the sense that the laws of the world and nature have to act in accordance with the properties of a triangle insofar as they are triangular.

But you could more easily say that a triangle is an arbitrary invention of mankind, defined than that God, who is by it's essence nothing other than being itself, was created by some being.

Again, the ontological argument is just assuming the premise. God=existence, existence exists, so God exists. The fact that your statement is formally valid (a truism) has no bearing on reality. God=existence is not proved. I can prove just as logically that I am God, but no one will believe it.

I'm going to bed for tonight, and the thread will probably be dead when I wake, but I would ask you to reconsider the underlying ideas of what you're saying here. It's typical of Christians to be Platonic about concepts and make no distinction between maths and morality, so you can define the nature of evil and good like in, which I would absolutely not take for granted. With this example, you also ignore the fact that no ideal triangle need to exist for math to be useful, or for people to recognize and define the pattern with lines and angles, which likewise don't exist.. Why would God exist just because you can define it in terms of a questionable morality?

>God=existance is not proved
Suppose we define God as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being

All power, all knowledge, and all goodness exists, and it exists in one entity, existance itself, or the universe (if we don't mean by that only the observable universe but all which is, ever was, or ever will be).

So, God is existance. I have to sleep. I strongly recommend you read Spinoza's Ethics.

>tfw realizing god fucked up your life

Attached: 1558228760119.jpg (524x525, 109K)

>All power, all knowledge, and all goodness

But these aren't the definitions of the words you used to describe God. A better definition would be:

>All imaginable power, all imaginable knowledge, and all imaginable goodness

It's possible to imagine something with the power to escape a black hole, and yet no evidence exists for anything that does. Similarly, we've never encountered any evidence of an entity that's know about us before we knew about them. As for goodness, it's totally possible to imagine a world where no one cuts anyone else off in traffic, but it happened to me just today. Arguing that the universe is God is just redefining (and insulting) God. God is supposed to be truly flawless, and deciding that He is the same thing as this flawed universe to win an argument in a technical sense is the highest form of blasphemy.