String fullTitle = 'undefined';
int postNumber = 23323534;
String image = '1714053880005463.jpg';
String date = '04/25/24(Thu)10:04:40';
String comment = 'A (1) voluntarist Gnostic God can't exist, or else it would have negated the kenoma by now. The whole point of positing an all-powerful Alien is that they're not going to be putzing around with rulesets and transcendental conditions to begin with. Gnosticism doesn't admit the "God works in mysterious ways" argument.
So, we're committed to either a (2) martial Zoroastrian dualism where the good God is powerful but not all-powerful (cannot violate necessary truths; logical AND synthetic) and so cannot destroy the Devil who is an uncreated being, or a (3) passive Manichaean dualism where the light is powerless to resist being consumed by darkness.
In the other direction:
We cannot disprove the existence (1) of a voluntarist demon if the will of this demon is to deceive, since this demon would render even apodictic knowledge (like the cogito) contingent.
Since we cannot disprove a voluntarist demon, we have to commit to a (2) Zoroastrian dualism where the Devil is powerful, but not all-powerful, like the good God. The counterpart to the Manichaean option is (3) privation theory, where evil is a passive absence with no will of its own, which doesn't follow from our experience of the world.
How fucking fucked are we?';
'>>23323534
>which doesn't follow from our experience of the world
Filtered. Go back and read Augustine again, then follow up with Eriugena, Eckhart, and Maximos the Confessor, then finish with Ulrich.';
'>>23323638
Go back and read Schelling's essay on freedom again.';
'The cosmic serpent moved in the waters of eternity and so created time by rejecting inertness. It became two in the first act of division, Amun and Apep, and will become one again at the conclusion of this world.
The singular Almighty occupies the eternal instant of creation. Before this it is absent, and afterwards it is not singular.';
'>Just as a harsh noise or foul odour which I myself have caused does not pain me so as when the same is produced by another, so can one also imagine that God Himself must not suffer at all under the ill and the evil of the world, nor could, because it is only in that place from which He has actively withdrawn, but is with that indeed also completely there.';
'>>23323948
>The 'he who smelt it, dealt it' argument
Kek. A radical new theodicy';
'Once again, this retarded argument keeps on missing the point of free will. Ask and you shall receive, we are here because we somehow still want it. God gave us free will, if He destroyed this world, then He would have destroyed us with it, but instead He gave us the possibility to be saved.
>For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
John 3:16-17';
'>>23324612
>God gave us free will, if He destroyed this world, then He would have destroyed us with it
Refuted by the Gnostic distinction between Life and the World.';
'>>23324623
I mean to say that if God did not give us a soul, but instead decided to destroy this world right away, then we would have perished with it, since we would have been no different from a rock or a tree.';
'>>23324676
The whole point of a voluntarist Gnostic God is that he can destroy a world without any collateral damage on our souls.';
}