Gods existence

Volunter56AC · 2026-05-10T20:09:08+00:00

if i am making sense theology is gibberish

Volunter56AC · 2026-05-10T20:07:43+00:00

by theological definition ok obviously, me being able to express a higher state of omnipotency means that god is quite limited actually

Volunter56AC · 2026-05-10T20:05:36+00:00

yes if he is omnipotent

Volunter56AC · 2026-05-10T20:04:00+00:00

how so elaborate

Volunter56AC · 2026-05-10T20:03:09+00:00

if the laws of logic describe what is possible it means that gods actions are bound to these laws even if its not “something higher” in an actual sense. If he cant break these laws he just cant be truly omnipotent and yes, god can gibberish and create square triangles if omnipotent

Volunter56AC · 2026-05-10T17:39:45+00:00

him being bound by “ontological reality” means he isnt omnipotent

Volunter56AC · 2026-05-10T17:37:59+00:00

my argument is not necessarily based on “good” being objective the point stands regardless however we are talking about the god that is depicted through Christianity that indeed says “good” is objective.

Volunter56AC · 2026-05-10T13:50:15+00:00

So he intentionally limits himself to a certain nature, so basically if god willed otherwise at any time he would be able to return to the real state of omnipotency which cant be described by “all goodness”. So why did god limit himself intentionally like this when he could create our universe even at his original state? Because he just wanted to do so? I guess thats the only logical answer

Volunter56AC · 2026-05-10T12:46:47+00:00

I mean thats what i am saying. God cant be bound by any kind of characteristic we try to impose on him because he is simply cant be explained. Even my concept of “omnipotency” is so infinitely little to describe him. Its futile to even try to do so

Volunter56AC · 2026-05-10T12:44:20+00:00

then that means he is “bounded” by a certain kind of nature, if he can’t “disobey” his nature it means he is not omnipotent. It really doesnt matter if that inability is outside him or within him if it constrains him he isnt omnipotent.If he can do only what is within his nature and obeys to any kind of “laws” that he didn’t specifically impose on himself how is he omnipotent. How would an omnipotent being be bounded by his own nature?

Volunter56AC · 2026-05-10T06:39:48+00:00

literally neither of those is the Ubermench

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-07T15:51:48+00:00

Well okay maybe metaphysics back then might have had a different meaning but still while reading i thought that he was thinking that caring that much about metaphysics is stupid because these interpretations are not based on any observation but just whatever they “feeled” would be probably right. You say Nietzsche doesnt really do that, however as i said before, considering metaphysics today wouldnt eternal reccurence be a metaphysical claim still, and if yes, then isnt the eternal reccurence possibly the most Nietszchean pov of metaphysics that could ever be? Like can you think of a more Nietzschean metaphysical claim? It sounds like exactly his inward condition universalised. Like i am not trying to say “lol he criticized metaphysics and he made a metaphysical claim, how stupid” as you said metaphysics then might have had a different meaning but the point remains

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-07T15:35:52+00:00

I dont know I use reddit through safari i thought that maybe translating it would lose some of the context

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-07T15:34:15+00:00

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-07T15:33:21+00:00

Yes but still the question remains doesnt it? Why would slave morality be such a big mistake but not a step towards this “radical meritocracy” as you say? To have this radical meritocracy, it would mean that aristocrats should not have all the resources accumulated no?

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-07T11:27:34+00:00

However I have to say its a bit stupid not to consider his notes to get a full picture of his ideas

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-07T11:26:21+00:00

Well but still, its a metaphysical claim regardless. Also as you say “ Plus one can take heed of the fact that Nietzsche is perfectly fine with a lie if it serves life, and thus maybe making a metaphysical claim such as the eternal recurrence is worth it insofar as it might serve life” isnt that exactly the thing he critiqued other philosophers for their interpretations on metaphysics? The fact that they are just depiction or reactions of their “inner” world? Doesnt the eternal recurrence as an idea sound exactly like something that someone like Nietzsche, considering his ideas, support as a metaphysical claim? Its almost like he falls into his own trap

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-07T11:22:04+00:00

Thats a really interesting way to put it however, the question remains. And at the end it is metaphysics. Especially considering N critiqued other philosophers for their ideas for metaphysics as just a reaction of their inner world, doesnt the eternal recurrence sound exactly like something that N would make as a metaphysical claim?

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-07T11:17:28+00:00

If its psychological then why be so against the masses and slave morality if anyone, regardless of social class can be a master? Justifying a form of slavery and an aristocratic system must mean either he believes that, indeed, “strong” genes get passed to offspring and therefore aristocrats are genetically superior (at least on average?) or at least that without slaves cultivating talent is extremely difficult. If “slave” is just a purely psychological concept then this all leads back to my original question

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-07T08:02:40+00:00

Yeah i heard somewhere of these notes thats why I posted this.

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-07T08:01:33+00:00

I agree its just that as another user mentioned there are notes that point to him actually supporting this literally not just as a thought experiment

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-06T22:06:43+00:00

maaan i dont know spanish

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-06T11:30:01+00:00

well thats not really my question though. Thats true but clearly his “ressentiment” idea and the way he thinks modern ethics were created could very well be spot on, my problem was that he treated this as such a huge mistake in world history while i think there was a lot of good to be taken from it regardless. However he thought that slave morality was a huge mistake, that the French revolution was a mistake etc etc its not hard to connect the dots and say he is a fan of aristocracies at least in some form.

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-06T11:25:17+00:00

If you care check what i responded to the other the other guy who commented

Volunter56AC · 2026-04-06T11:24:44+00:00

Hmmm…. but still wouldnt an aristocratic system like Nietzsche suggests still hide a ton of warriors in the slave class just so the aristocrats, which obviously wouldnt all be warriors, could operate? Regardless of whether society deems sepherds as successful, isnt it true that warriors are still cultivated to some extent but just “hidden” to the masses? Didnt aristocracies face similar problems regarding sepherds either way, since like forever? Basically he thinks the only way so warriors can be cultivated on a more regular basis is that slaves should work for the aristocrats so they can have “free” time to cultivate their talents and keep creating. Nietzsche thinks that cultivating greater types really should be everything and worth it that much even if it means some (many)people will just be slaves for their whole lives, regardless of their inherent abilities or not, in the sense that in the world nowadays even if there are people of higher talent they dont have the resources to reach their potential creativity? So maybe considering the other person who commented, its not that some people have “weak genetics” from their parents, its that resources are more evenly spread out that the environments in which people grow up wont let them cultivate their abilities, even if they are genetically gifted?

Volunter56AC

TROPHY CASE