/lit/ - Literature

>>15427723
*blocks your path*

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

Take that you church-holding motherfucker.
How will christcucks ever recover?

How is God pure actuality if he isn't realizing the potential of being me or being the universe? Would pure actuality not consist of being literally everything? It seems to me that Aquinas is arguing for pantheism rather than monotheism.

>That which created the world is an absolute actual.
>It is one because we differentiate between actuals by their difference.
>There is therefore one God.

Isn't this heretical? The argument from motion explicitly denies the trinity. The Son is not the Father. They are different. So how can the first actual be God if it's a fully realized actual? Would the argument from motion not essentially prove pantheism rather than monotheism? How can the first actual be fully realized if it's not fulfilling the potential of being me, for instance?

Why do religious people resort to arguing for deism when asked to prove the existence of God? Why don’t they actually defend the gods they profess, whether that be Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, or any of the other thousands of gods worshipped throughout human history?
If my friend told me he had a horse named Raymond and I asked him to prove this assertion, I would think him stupid if he tried to start proving to me the existence of horses in general or an abstract philosophical horse-form. It would make no difference if he proved this beyond doubt by pointing to horse footprints in the mud, quoting literature to show that horses must have existed throughout history, or even bringing me a random stallion to look at, since none of these things would prove the initial assertion, which was that my friend has a horse named Raymond.
The best I’ve heard Christians come up with is “we can prove historically that Jesus rose from the dead”, but this is obviously laughable.

assuming Thomas Aquinas objectively proved the existence of God, why would it be the Christian God, and why did he believe it was the Christian God?

The laity clearly can't handle the burden of literacy, as evinced by the degeneration of Christian society since the Protestant Reformation.

We can all agree that a rightly understood Christian politics aspires to orient society according to man’s highest good and final end, so wouldn't it make sense to ban literacy among the masses, lest they be led astray by heretical, pagan, or even demonic tracts?

>tfw you realize that atheists are literally just too stupid and/or obtuse to realize that the church was right all along.

>>8878105

Philosopher-saint master race

Pleb question here.
What language did Aquinas write his works in?
If it's Latin I'd rather learn Latin before reading his works.
Are there any good translations?