What?!?

What??

How?

>things for granted that aren't necessarily true. ie. Existence is a (positive) trait

To have a positive trait
>Have
>State of being
>Literally asserts postivie existence whereever it is placed.

Rin, I'm going to be charitable and assume you meant something more like the Buddhist anatta, rather than actual non-existence. Is this accurate? Or do you truly argue for the goodness of utter oblivion?

Kind of hard to explain, but basically existence is a prerequisite to any other trait in reality. I'm not sure how that affects it's own ability to be a trait in it's self. Also there's a difference beween traits ascribed to "imagined" agents vs real.

For example, you can describe traits of fictional characters that are true, but utterly false in reality.

For example:

Sherlock Holmes lives on Baker St.

That's true, but not in reality.

That is a contigent existence

It may well be true.

Why would god be any different?

You cannot assert that unless you have seen all existence

God would be in the necessary category.

@Akulakhan I'm not arguing for the goodness of anything here, just trying to parse a complex topic and indentify it's flaws. Like I said, it's an interesting line of thought, but it doesn't prove anything.

Is existence hard for you to comprehend?

What are you doing right now?

That's not really the issue here though.

I came in late, what is the issue?

What the paper actually shows.

Forget the actual logical proof. I trust his logic is solid, but the proof isn't sound.

And what do you believe the paper shows -- or rather, what do you see missing?

I didn't read the paper posted (it elaborates on how the proof is begin put into a language that a computer proving system can verify

so we dont need that paper, we are just talkign about godels ontological proof

The paper's purpose is to show that the provers they are using work, not to prove the argument correct. Because there are axioms in the argument that the computer can't parse.

The ontological argument has been refuted many different ways over the years, I was under the impression going in that the paper somehow proved the argument valid, but that's not it's purpose at all.

Yeah a computer can't comprehend and determine 'positive' traits when there is no objective way to assign that characteristic.

It was showing the conversion.

So then why use it in the first place if you know it is as such?

I see I thought we were arguing the acutal proof

Then let's return the the proof itself. What issues do you see with it? What do you find missing in the proof?

Or, better yet, what issue do you find with his central premises, and the conclusion drawn?

Seems irrelevant to use a source then argue immediately after that it technically isn't correct or applicable

I didn't use the source originaly, it was shown to me and presented as proof of the argument's validity. Which it isn't, that's my only point.

Fine, fine, the paper may not demonstrate the validity sufficiently for you. Have you said why you think the argument itself is invalid?

It was proven on a ATP but all the articles written on its proving were written by autistic fucking neckbeard atheists

Stop tiptoeing around and make a definitive statement

Yes, I said all that earlier.

Hurr Durr Prover doesn't prove it because it isn't my belief.

No, it doesn't prove it because it doesn't prove it. It's that simple.

>it doesn't prove it because it doesn't prove it
HAHAHAHHahhahahahahahahah

ahhahahaha

hahhahahah

ahh

ahaha

hah

Oh

boy

I don't really have the time to rehash the whole argument right now, but I breifly explained some of whats wrong with it.

You mean the stuff that I rebutted?

How does God defy logic?

yeah who cares about the provers. Thats just computers failing to handle the proof.

What material proof would you like to see?

>Failing to handle the proof

>computers can interpret if a god exists or not

>can't even handle 4chan servers

Choose one

Well according to him God is inherently illogical so we can't prove him with logic therefor we should all be atheists.

>Neckbead simplicity

It is logic gawdXD

I said "likely". And you know that isn't the core of the argument.

God is likely illogical?

It was the 'arguement' that you put forward.

Based on what ?

Keep calling people names if it makes you feel better man, you just display your own immaturity.

Kek

Rin, I'm not calling names - try answering me? Or is calling out an ad hominem the best you can do?

>becomes rabid wolf

>Tells me I need to stop name calling
>Name calls

>Ad hominem
That is only if reason is not used concurrently

Making the observation that you are immature isn't name calling.

Well I never called you a neckbeard

>continues to ignore my follow-up questions

I make the observation that you are a cunt

^ not ad hominem

>typing

>Still typing

Sorry man, I'm not ignoring you, just trying to deal with all of it at once and simultaniously trying to get out the door. I have to drive to the other end of the state tonight for family.

>>>>>>€

WOOOOO

sure ya do

Have fun with the fam

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

have fun with the fam

Have fun with the fam

If they're atheists they'll burn in hell

No worries, mate, I look forward to you eventually addressing my questions. Perhaps when you return

@Akulakhan I dont have any problem with god, just with the proof. You can attack the premises so it isnt an argument without holes. I lean to believing there may be something of a god

Have fun with the fam

have fun with the fam.

Have fun with the fam

What premise is wrong?

I'm Hindu and this is gay

^That says something

^

^^^^^^^^

stfu you're literally shudra-tier, kalki

Dude aren't you going to see your fam?

Shut up you're uglier than my swollen testy

Jk ❤️

kali is a douche, i apology

Single testicle

For the record I don't think it's productive to be so antagonistic to someone who is pretty much on board with every virtue of christianity as a lifestyle but has issues with the metaphysics. If understanding this stuff is criteria for you getting along with everyone, you might have an issue.

Pls no bully

Right Nut ✅
Left Nut ❌

Pls no bully

Oh I don't mind myself, I would have ignored you long ago if that was the case.

Just as a general rule though.

Where do those virtues come from if not from God? Yes, the values are still useful for nonbelievers - but would not understanding the metaphysics inform your understanding of the virtues?

Metaphysics are the basis of understanding values, my metaphysics are that god exists and nerd atheists burn in hell tho dude so

How is there virtue or goodness without God?

Can you prove morality without invoking divinity?

^can agree with those values

Altruism is inherently not found in humans unless you are A. White or B. Religious

Or hindu

Stfu 1 testicaled Poo

^

^

^

Poo in Loo?

^

Note that we're not invoking the Divine Command Theory - God does not simply desire goodness, He IS goodness. It's like if water did not wet the skin but merely encouraged dampness - this is ludicrous. We say God loves goodness or asks for goodness because it is in His nature. It's not just a personality trait. He isn't some divine Sherlock Holmes, as you framed it.

*damp*

@kalki I like the altruism point, i know Ayn Rand brought it up, but I learn towards the fact that we are all selfish and everything we do is for selfish reason. now I dont think this justifies everyoen doing whatever the fuck they want but rather that we can still contribute to a community and out people but we do it for selfish reason. What do you guys think?

I think we need to live under Nazi rule in a white ethnostate but we can all dream

So you believe there is no such thing as free will?

agreed

I do believe we have free will, we have it as a test to see if we fall into degeneracy or strive for greateness

Then we are not perfectly selfish.

We have at least some freedom to choose.

Selfishness is a general economic model because it predicts human behavior well.

Most people will never be greater than animals.

Marcus Aurelius and Edward Bernays both speak on this

*ITT:* ***Several people are typing***

If we choose degeneracy -> we do so to satiate our base desires but if we choose to strive above degereracy -> we choose to do so to better ourselves so that we can help our people

@Rin I'm heading to your fams house right now so we can continue this discussion, do you like baklava?

Interested in the topic what reading material do you suggest on this topic @MKUltra

@kalki who doesnt like baklava

@MKUltra Agreed for sure. @kalki Sounds tasty, see you in Mobile.

Propaganda by Edward Bernays

its the only reason I am roomates with a greek so I have all the baclava i want

You fellas have a good evening.

We are reading it in the book club of our server.

BACLAVA

PLS GIB

which server? Sig?

No, Maine Colony

Sig read it a while ago.

Do you want the invite?

I can make a mean baklava

ill give it a look, @MKUltra

Will you be waif?

@MKUltra would like one

no waif but thank

https://discord.gg/eRknA4t

Potluck at Rin's fam's house? I'll bring the bratwurst and beer!

No, Baclava One testicle

Kys Polak

after we establish a white ethnostate

Ill bring the kielbasa and spirytus

^^^^^

@MKUltra can you make invites for SIG, trying to get in

@everyone I'm being bullied by Maine Colony over my disability please make them stop

cunt

well you do have a disability

I Pm'd you it.

Stop being disabled then

Ouch...……..........

KEKEKKEKEKEKEKEKKEKEkekek

ek

ek

ek

ekekek

e

kk

uwu stop bullying me

I have atheism

>he asked nicely

>the heathen asked nicely

Can you stop fucking bullying me?

I'm right because I'm rifht

Ok?

KEk gey

oh shit, I agree with u now

keke

So it's the left one you're missing then?

>We be ass blasting athests like.

lets play the game: is that degenerate?

Refer to picture

Dude this is funny lol

lol

MK when he spots an athiest

that ground is terrible for prone shooting, cat needs more training

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/321366316558712842/363481455613181962/1488752319484.jpg

Me when I see a gay crippled atheist Nigger

>rope

Dude sick

Is this r4k?

O N E

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/take-afrikaners-and-boers-under-refugee-status

someone on /pol/ pointed out that it makes more sense to call this a "racial nationalist state", thoughts?

Well, we are a white nationalist state, not just "racial". What does racial even mean? It doesn't even contain the notion of an ethnostate.

why not just call ourselves an civic nationalist state?

^^^^

Because civic nationalism kills states.

Everything kills states

I'm confused. Anyways
1. We are an ethnostate
2. racial nationalist state sounds weird

https://youtu.be/m5yxXGx8jfg

Varg!

Way too many fucking catholics in America

catholics are a minority of christians in the us

what do you have against them?

They are the majority online thats forsure

Catholicism is inherently a theology of unification of church and state. It is anti american

tfw when baptized

And the America is here now.

I believe the state has very important roles to play in dictating moral laws, but unifying church and state is inherently anti-american.

Looks like our constitution wasn't that great.

Actually it was at first

>At first
It couldn't even last 100 years.

niggerdeath america is protestant mostly and the states are the most ''radical'' christians

here in europe nobody gives a shit about religion

maybe the southern countries because they are all broke

with no hope

maybe thats why europe is such shit

Catholicism inherently advocates for the overthrow of secular government.

>Protestant
>Lesbian bishop calls for the removal of crosses because it might offend Muslims
>Never Catholics

yeah but you see that in italy where everybody is catholic? the country is secular too

Why do you want a secular country?
That just looks like more degeneracy to me.

i guess theres something to the protestant work ethic

>Ora Labora Est

isnt southern europe mostly catholic

>catholics become majority
>realize they now have to power to kill all those filthy heretics again
>dark age pt.2

Kekekekekekekekekeekeekkk
>Dark age

Kekekekekek

italy spain and moortugal is catholic yes

france and switzerland too but we have protestants too

>Church didn't unify Europe until 1000 AD which is the start of the high middle ages.

>Niggerdeath
>Just Nigger

i hear people in southern europe tend to be lazy as fuck, hence why those places are having so many economic problems

Yeah, Sweden is a great example of that.....

depends

3rd world country by 2030

north italy is ''south'' too norther spain too but they are working better than the ones in the south