/lit/ - Literature

>>11301079

>>11301100
unironically correct, the best argument for God is your average atheist, and vice versa

>>11301179
exactly

>>11301079
The best argument for God is history, not books. Look at what happens when individuals, or worse, countries, get away from God.

de Quincey’s theological essays

Josephus and other early chroniclers of Christianity. What you need to understand is that Christianity is, fundamentally, centered around an event in history: the Resurrection of Christ. The philosophy, the theology, and the literature that flows from this event are all very important, but the authority which they possess is grounded on the reality of the Resurrection. That's the whole reason Christianity is the only true religion. The event makes the faith.

So, go back and read the history of the early Church. That will convince you, and if it doesn't, nothing else really will.

The City of God and Summa Theologica are good ones. Maybe C.S. Lewis. Pensees? I dunno.

>>11301208
Yeah, the horror

>>11301380

>>11301405
Top kek

>>11301079
>>11301349
sry, but that's literally all been disproved and parodied

http://www.vulture.com/2015/08/nick-tosches-under-tiberius-jesus-interview.html

>I had it for 20 years, when I first became aware of the fact that despite the Romans’ obsessive record, there was never a verifiable reference to Jesus. The historian Tacitus mentions Jesus and so does Josephus in his history of the Jews. But then I found out that these references are now almost definitely proven to be the interpolations of medieval monastic scribes, so it’s hard to see them as any sort of proof. And the gospels that are devoted to accounts of Jesus’ life were written 100 years after the fact. So I'm thinking, This is amazing, the Catholic Church is based on an imaginary wisp.

>>11301582
lol, keep thinking that. PROTIP: Josephus is authentic.

>>11301079
There is no good argument. You can argue for a prime mover, but that’s it. There’s no reason to assume it has a mind, loves you, and has desires and emotions like a human. The very fact that you can conceive of a prime mover lacking qualities associated with monotheistic gods refutes that type of God.

>>11301079
For the against side: logic and theism

>>11301079

The answer to both is: My Diary desu

>>11301208
>Muh scary consequences=good argument
How pathetic. Scary consequences are irrelevant to whether or not something is true m8. You might as well be an utilitarian

>>11301653
*a

>>11301079

Pic related is a pretty good book.

>>11301079
Pro: Ulysses
Contra: The Da Vinci Code

>>11301640

Philosophical theists have typically not 'assumed' the prime mover has a mind, and have typically denied that God has desires and emotions 'like a human.'

Derivation of intellect, will and love in God is actually not that difficult. From the fact that he is Prime Mover, one gets aseity. From aseity, one gets metaphysical simplicity (since whatever has parts in any respect depends upon those parts to exist).

From simplicity, follows uniqueness (there can only be one simple being, since more than one of the same thing in any respect requires a real difference between what is common and what is particular). Thus, the Prime Mover is the metaphysical One.

From uniqueness, follows omnipotence (since everything that is or could be depends upon, and is a product of, the one thing which exists a se), and the fact that the prime mover sustains all the rest of reality.

From omnipotence and the sustaining power of the Prime Mover, one derives intelligence: human intelligence is the finite approximation of the general principles that underlie some finite set of particulars. The divine being *is* that general principle that underlies *all* and *all potential* particulars. The Prime Mover, or the One, has most excellently that which makes intelligence, intelligence, and thus knows everything insofar as he is its cause.

From intelligence and simplicity it follows that the Prime Mover has will: the Prime Mover's effects are the results of intelligent action (if the Prime Mover is intelligent and simple, then nothing it does is ever unintelligent, for that would introduce parts into God), and will just is the relation of an intellect to its object. Hence the Prime Mover wills the world.

From intelligence and the sustaining power of the Prime Mover, follows love: love is the will for the good of the beloved, goodness is a thing's perfection, a thing's perfection is its being, and the Prime Mover, as the sustainer of all things, wills the being of everything that is, insofar as it is. In willing your being, the Prime Mover wills your good (and also the good of everything else).

From the foregoing, the Prime Mover does not have passions (since simplicity implies changelessness- there is no possible distinction between the respect in which the Prime Mover can change, and that which is constant), and does not 'desire' if by that one means has some lack which needs fulfilling. But nonetheless, it is the originator of those things, and thus knows them as derivations of his being and self-understanding. So yeah, the Prime Mover is God, when one works it all out.

>>11301802
Why can’t the prime mover be Nothing?

>>11301859

Nothing isn't anything, so it's just incoherent to say that it could 'be' anything in the literal sense.

But perhaps you might be asking instead why we need a prime mover at all: might there simply *not be* any prime mover?

There must be a Prime Mover, because we observe an order of contingent things: things which depend upon other things for their existence (e.g., their parts). Whatever depends upon something else for its existence, does not exist apart from that upon which it depends. Hence, to posit only dependent existence, is to posit nothing. But we observe something, not nothing. Hence there are dependent things, and that upon which they depend. And this (when all is worked out), all men call God.

>>11301901
But even God is contingent. He is necessary because you must define him that way. Nothing is evidently necessary. It’s why we ask why there is something rather than nothing. We don’t ask why there is something rather than God. We should even ask, “Why is there God rather than nothing?”
Nothing is clearly more necessary, and more probable the first mover, or to be more precise, what there was before all existence. If God exists, he was produced by Nothing, and isn’t perfect.
The only perfect quality God could and should have for creation to exist is the ability to create. Nothing also has this quality, since there are no existent laws to impede creation; causality doesn’t apply where there is Nothing. But it also has the power not to create.

Nothing can be shown to be the potential for all that is actual because it is distinct from all actuality (for any change to occur, potential and actual must be distinct). However, if God exists, he shares existence with all creation. But this existence is contingent, and was never God’s will. If God existed forever, he did not will himself into creation, but he also can’t will himself into creation because if he didn’t exist he couldn’t have a will. So the potential of all that is actual must be distinct in all forms, since actuality exhausts all forms.

>>11301901

You're really confused, friend. You're treating 'nothing' as if it has ontological status. But by that very fact, you are not talking about nothing, but about something, which has 'powers', 'potentialities,' etc.

Now you could ask why there is God rather than nothing, and the answer would be that God is not the kind of being which needs or could have any cause, being pure act, and hence whose existence is absolutely independent, and necessary. Proof of this can be derived from considering contingent existence, as above.

In any event, you have not posited 'nothing' an alternative to the Prime Mover, but have merely posited a Prime Mover whose metaphysical principle is Potency rather than Act: sort of a Prime Matter as Prime Mover type of argument. Aristotle is way ahead of you. It is long demonstrated that potency is posterior to act. Potency is potency only insofar as it stands in relation to its object, and without an object, it is not potency at all. But such a dependent mode of being could not possibly be the independent prime mover. So the Prime Mover cannot be Prime Matter; Prime Matter must ultimately derive from pure act.

Whoops, meant to reply to

>>11301961

in post

>>11302104

Bhagavad Gita

Hare krishna hare krisha
Krishna krishna hare hare
Hare rama hare rama
Rama krishna rama krishna

>>11302104
>You're really confused, friend. You're treating 'nothing' as if it has ontological status. But by that very fact, you are not talking about nothing, but about something, which has 'powers', 'potentialities,' etc.
Non-existence is non-existence whether or not I speak of it. Either it has “powers” as you say or it can’t have powers. But if it can’t have powers, is this not also a quality, a law, a limit? There is simply nothing to prevent existence from arising from non-existence. This is only seems absurds in the realm of existence, where there is no non-existence to arise from, and the world seems logical and consistent. But this is the exact opposite of the nature of non-existence.

>God is not the kind of being which needs or could have any cause, being pure act, and hence whose existence is absolutely independent, and necessary. Proof of this can be derived from considering contingent existence, as above.
And my point is only non-existence satisfies these conditions. An existent God is only necessary because he must be defined that way. Otherwise, you wouldn’t hear “then who made god huh?” all the time. If only you imagine that such a being could not exist then you would realize the contingency of his existence. Again, we have a distinction between all that is actual and potential, non-existence is necessary, while existence is contingent.

>>11302205

Again, you write of 'non-existence' as if it has a nature (which would make it something, not nothing), to which you are privy (which you cannot be, since it is incoherent). It's just not a viable alternative ontological candidate, and you're smuggling in positive attributes (like creative power) into your concept implicitly.

>Otherwise, you wouldn't hear 'then who made God huh? all the time

One only hears that because people don't really know God by his metaphysical role. That's fair enough, because most people aren't metaphysicians, and aren't supposed to be. One only 'imagines' God as not existing if one does not know what God is. But one who knows and accepts the arguments for God's existence can quite clearly explain because he quite clearly sees, why God exists and exists necessarily- not by arbitrary fiat, but as necessary to anchor the visible (and any possible) order of things.

>non-existence is necessary, existence is contingent

The first clause is incoherent (since non-existence isn't anything, much less a necessary anything), and the second is proved false by consideration of what it is to posit only contingent existence, as above.

>What book makes the best argument for God's existence?
The Coherance of Theism - Swineburne

>What book makes the argument against God's existence?
The Miracle of Theism by Mackie

>>11301582
>there are some opposing arguments
>i like these arguments so im gonna believe them
>HAHAH DONT YOU KNOW THERES NO PROOF OF JESUS XDDD FUCKING PLEB

>>11302320
1. Existence has not always existed
2. Therefore, the laws of existence were once non-existent.
3. Therefore, it is not impossible for existence to arise when there was previously no existence.
4. Since the creation of existence is not determined by any law, any universe is contingent in that its existence is dependent on what preceded it, that is, non-existence.
5. Since non-existence needs no precedent, it is not contingent.

Persuade me to see the need for a God that exists.

>>11302438
>I believe that if you go to the root of any deep pervasive fear, you'll find that nothing is there. It’s just the emotions and self-deceptions of people. Looking at the gospels, even Christologists, scholars of the new testament, though they don't say it in so many words, they've basically agreed that nothing in the New Testament could have happened or did happen. But they never take the next step and say, “Therefore, it's all shit.”
stay mad. All modern research, for those willing to inform themselves, says Jesus didn't exist and the evidence is all bs

>>11301802

>>11301100
>>11301179
>>11301204

>>11302464
>cites some random novelists opinion who is being interviewed by a pop culture website

>>11302450
interesting

>>11302320
>One only hears that because people don't really know God by his metaphysical role.
>Aristotle didn't know God by his metaphisical role

>>11302450
step 2 doesnt work

Most of it is just taking credit for thing like morals and ethics. However that doesn’t really prove his existence but rather justify the concept of him existing. There’s no solid proof, just “wouldn’t it be nice if he existed”. Yeah it would be nice if I had an omnipotent force looking out for me, but it would also be nice if unicorns existed. However, until I have concrete evidence for either being real then I rather not put my eggs in a basket based on faith

>>11301079
The Brahma Sutras, although of course they don't make the case for the architect sky-daddy Abrahamic god, but something much more profound.

>>11302526
>it would also be nice if unicorns existed
no it wouldnt you fucking pseud

>>11302526
>>>/trash/

>>11302525
Elaborate

>>11302620
non-existence is not some kind of embryo state where the laws of nature are just waiting to be instantiated

>>11302450

Premise 1 assumes what is set out to be proved. The rest of the premises are superfluous.

Premise 4 is particularly silly, since non-existence is not a thing or state capable of preceding anything.

As for the argument for why God exists, see >>11301901 and >>11301802

>>11301079
>What book makes the best argument for God's existence?
for a non believer, summa contra gentiles

>>11301802
How does this not BTFO the idea of a Trinitarian God?

>>11302643
>Aquinas

>>11302630
Why not?
>>11302637
You must agree with premise 1, since you think existence is contingent and needs a prime mover. I call that prime mover non-existence. Or, so you can understand it, there is no prime mover but there also isn’t an infinite regress.

>non-existence is not capable of preceding anything
If existence didn’t always exist, what preceded it? Nothing else but non-existence. These word games are childish and nit picky.
>>11301802
>from the fact that (God) is prime mover...
Can you prove that God is the prime mover, first?

>>11302661
Epic! +1

>>11302661
>poo in ht eloo

>>11302667

Actually no. Aristotle doesn't presume that contingent things begin to exist to infer the Prime Mover, and neither do I. In any case, the starting points of cosmological arguments are always some general set of things: contingent things, composite things, changing things, rather than 'existence' in general. Indeed, the cosmological arguments establish that there is something which does not begin to exist, which necessarily exists, and which it is appropriate to call God.

>>11302699
God is a meaningless word. What is God? That which necessarily exists? But only non-existence is necessary. Until you prove that existence can not arise from non-existence, God as a prime mover is irrelevant.

>>11302658

Trinitarianism is designed to accommodate divine simplicity. Partialism (the doctrine that the Persons are parts of a whole 'God') is a classic heresy.

More positively, the Trinitarian Persons are the one indivisible divine being considered in terms of its internal relations with itself. Relations are not substances, and so do not divide the being of God.

>>11302728
>Until you prove that existence can not arise from non-existence,
leave and never return

>>11302735
My earlier post, for context
>>11302450
Where is my error?

>>11302734
Can you parse that out like you did in >>11301802? The fact that any distinction can be made seems to necessitate a divide or a potentiality.

>>11302661

>>11302728

There's lots of ways to prove this. Here is one way.

There are two kinds of possible existing things: composite things, and non-composite things.

Composite things depend upon their parts to exist. Hence, they have dependent existence, and no existence in and of themselves. Anything composite, therefore, if it exists, depends upon actual things other than itself, or else it does not exist at all.

Non-composite things have their being entirely in their own right, since what they are is indistinct from that they are. But since the being of non-composite things is thus non-derivative, it does not derive from other being, nor does it derive from non-being (as proved above, there could only be one non-composite being).

So being can be divided into that which depends upon other being, and that which does not depend upon anything. Hence no being comes from non-being.

>>11302744
>Come now, I will tell thee—and do thou hearken to my saying and carry it away
>the only two ways of search that can be thought of.
>The first, namely, that It is, and that it is impossible for it not to be,
>is the way of belief, for truth is its companion.
>The other, namely, that It is not, and that it must needs not be,—
>that, I tell thee, is a path that none can learn of at all.
>For thou canst not know what is not—that is impossible—
>nor utter it; . . .
>. . . for it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be.
>...
>It needs must be that what can be spoken and thought is; for it is possible for it to be,
>and it is not possible for what is nothing to be. This is what I bid thee ponder.
>...
>. . . One path only
>is left for us to speak of, namely, that It is. In this path are very many tokens
that what is is uncreated and indestructible;
>for it is complete, immovable, and without end.
>Nor was it ever, nor will it be; for now it is, all at once,
>a continuous one. For what kind of origin for it wilt thou look for?

>>11302661
This is around the wrong way
0/10

Poos fuck off

>>11302678
>>11302788

>uses poo-in-loo jokes to hate on Indians as a westerner
>doesn't even realize that Christianity is Semitic garbage and that the divine wisdom of the Indo-Europeans was only successfully preserved by their Hindu descendants.

>>11301582
>And the gospels that are devoted to accounts of Jesus’ life were written 100 years after the fact
The Gospel of Mark was written 50 AD, only 20 years after Jesus execution. It actually sounds more like he consumed atheist propaganda than actual research because "The gospels were written 100 years after the fact" is a common atheist chestnut that is clearly false

>>11302748

Well alright, might as well derive Trinitarianism from where we left off then (read Anselm in the Monologion for more on this).

So we start with the God of classical monotheism: one, simple, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, the good at which all things aim and through whom we exist (see .>>11301802)

We know his relation to us (creator to creatures), but what is his relation (if any) to himself?

We know that the Prime Mover is intelligent, and hence that he knows himself, being entirely one with his own essence, in a way in which humans approximate when we attempt to know ourselves. This implies a unity of substance (i.e., God is able to know himself because he is ontologically indivisible), but a plurality of relation: God is both knower and object of knowledge, and these are not interchangeable. This plurality of objects-of-relation is not grounded in ontological division (i.e., multiple parts), but is precisely the relation that something indivisible bears to itself.

Thus both God as knower and God as known are ontologically grounded in the indivisible divine being (hence, both are the one God), yet are relationally distinct. A further relational distinction emerges when we consider the connection between God as knower and known: the relation between knower and known, which is suspended between the two relata, which is likewise grounded in the divine essence.

This image helps illuminate classical theology: God as knower is the Father, the knowledge which reflects him, yet is grounded in his being, is the Son. The Spirit is the love that passes between the Father and the Son. Yet these relations, grounded in the very ontological unity of God, which grounds his perfect self-knowledge, do not and cannot divide the divine being. Whatever the positive nature of the relational distinction, it is not grounded in ontological plurality.

>>11302895
If God is perfect, what is the need for development? Is not being contributing to God’s self-knowledge? But how can omnipotence be increased?

>>11302728
This whole post was a train wreck from one word to the next

>>11302895
>This plurality of objects-of-relation is not grounded in ontological division
How so?

> further relational distinction emerges when we consider the connection between God as knower and known: the relation between knower and known, which is suspended between the two relata, which is likewise grounded in the divine essence.
How can there be a such a gap?

>This image helps illuminate classical theology:
The trouble is it seems more like an analogy as "persons" seem to go beyond being something as mechanical as a relationship.

Jesus not only had a human side/element/I dont know the correct term which adds a complexity which the example does not deal with and which seems to be an important distinction particularly with how that came about and how a relation can die/be lost even temporarily.

>>11302995
Oh and thanks for taking the time to pull that apart

>>11302769
got any more ways? seems like that anon is shilling Heidegger? what are other rebuttals to his claim?

>>11302995

>how so?

In that the ontological premise and ground of such relations is, for each relatum, the undivided divine being itself. Ontological division is premised on the need to posit incompatible or contrary conditions or constraints upon being, yet the 'plural' relata in the Trinitarian case arise precisely out of the absence of such constraints in any form.

>gap

It's a consequence of the fact that God stands in a relation of self-knowledge, and hence, of the relational distinction between God as knower and knowledge. Ontologically there is no gap between the knower and known, but relationally, there is, in that the same being 'operates' differently in respect of its self-knowledge, considered from the angles of knower and known.

>Relations are mechanical

Yes, there's a limit as to how illuminating such categories can be: the best way to know the Trinity is to get to know them. Yet even in our case, we can see something of the idea that a person as constituted by a being in relation to other persons, even if (because we communicate our essences to each other only finitely) such 'persons' fall short of the fullness of our own being, and are in some sense 'masks' rather than 'faces.' The best we can do is, as Augustine did, use a series of progressively-less-bad analogies and point along that axis.

It may help to bear in mind that the cold word technical 'relation' is 'filled out' by the very divine essence itself. God relates to himself as an eternal 'Trialogue' between lover, beloved and love, which exceeds in intensity of interpersonal exchange (because it relates the very being of God) any analogous dialogue we are capable of having.

>Incarnation

Yeah, that's a whole new vista of interesting theology.

>>11303153
Sure, how about a simple one:

Nothing, by definition, has no potentialities, since potentialities are something (namely, ordereness-toward-being). Whatever has no powers cannot be a cause or condition for anything else. Hence if there is something, it is not caused or conditioned by Nothing.

>>11301079
for: summa. against? probably nietzsche? or maybe some eastern metaphysics bullshit.

anyway elder scrolls 6 was announced and IT'S FUCKING NOTHING i am so mad

>>11303185
Nothing, by definition, has no limits, since limits are something. Whatever has no limits can be a cause for anything. Hence something can come from nothing.

>>11301079
the three books of abramelin.

>>11301079
>Excluding The Bible.
Good because it doesn't make an argument for God's existence at all. In fact it doesn't even seem to consider the possibility that you would not believe in god(s), only that you might worship the wrong god(s).

>>11303243

It’s sad if you’re not trolling. A lack of limits doesn’t imply the capacity to be a cause for anything. Unlimited lack of power for instance is just supreme impotence. The moment you qualify ‘unlimited’ with something which does imply unlimited causal power, however, you have an infinite being, not non-being.

>>11302769
I argue that only Nothing is non-composite, since it has no parts, and is not derived from something else. Why is a non-composite existence possible/necessary?

>>11303266
That doesn’t attack any premise in the argument or the conclusion. But the arguments for God’s existence, given above, already demonstrate the actuality of a non-composite being.

>>11303264
How to know when something has the capacity to cause?

>>11303280
The argument assumes that there exists a non-composite being in the first place.
In other words, the argument maintains from the beginning that there is something that exists and exists necessarily, which I see no reason to believe.

>>11303287
By knowing what it is to have a capacity.

>>11303298
It doesn’t assume that at all. The argument divides being conceptually into composite and non composite, and shows that in either case it is incoherent to suppose that that kind of being is caused by ‘nothing.’ It doesn’t presume that there is any being at all in fact.

The arguments for God’s existence, given further up the thread, do conclude that God exists, but do not presume it.

>>11303326
If something has no parts, how does it exist? Again, the problem is assuming that something can both exist and be non-composite.

>>11303158
>In that the ontological premise and ground of such relations is, for each relatum, the undivided divine being itself. Ontological division is premised on the need to posit incompatible or contrary conditions or constraints upon being, yet the 'plural' relata in the Trinitarian case arise precisely out of the absence of such constraints in any form.
Im sorry Im a bit too much of a brainlet to be able to get this.
>It's a consequence
So it Holy Spirit the gap/transfer between the Knower and Knowledge and all the various relationships or is it just that for love?

>progressively-less-bad analogies and point along that axis.
At what point though would it simply be the case that Jesus is actually a person beyond a such relation and that its not the flaw of the analogy but simply trinitarian christianity being a false doctrine?

>Yeah, that's a whole new vista of interesting theology.
Fair enough youve gone beyond the call of duty already.

Is there a good instance of a scholastic (Christian/Islamic/other) getting something clearing wrong with their syllogisms/logic? I always get bothered by the lack of consensus outside of religious institutions.

>>11304120

>At what point is it a false doctrine

Well obviously if some incoherence is demonstrated, that would clearly be false. A large part of the function of Trinitarian theology is warding off incoherences down the road in soteriology and christology.

I think if it didn’t help the human relationship with God, it would also be problematic, but the fact is, Trinitarianism is how to think about God’s inmost essence as love, community and personhood, so it underpins what makes Christianity a superior solution to man’s estrangement from God conoared to other monotheisms.

>holy spirit

Remember that love is the affirmation of the *being* of the beloved. As the relation which relates the whole being of God to himself, it ‘contains’ all other partial self-relations we might want to name in God.

>Scholastics getting something wrong

There’s no shortage of disagreement among Scholastics! I think I disagree with Aquinas on the nature of the soul’s immortality and the viability of Anselm’s Ontological Argument, for instance. That the sort of thing you mean?

>>11304194
>Well obviously if some incoherence is demonstrated, that would clearly be false
What are some examples of previous incoherence in the works of Aquinas and the post Anselm scholastics?
>superior solution
Isnt that a bit normative?
>Remember that
I think we might have different memories there.

>That the sort of thing you mean?
Yes outside of Anselm things seem to get incredibly complicated and into heavy semantics and it seems like anyone could prove almost anything. Not to mention it seems as though everyone who studies this objective area of reasoning reach really different lines depending on which group they belong to. For instance Christians just happening to find a that God has to be Trinitarian compared to say Muslims who did not.

>>11301349
Trying to establish the Christian faith on the Resurrection really doesn't work. If you don't already presuppose a belief in God or miracles then the claim that someone rose from the dead is extremely difficult to prove, certainly requiring more than secondhand testimony. If you're going to add on that he was the Son of Yahweh, the God of Israel who created the world etc. then it's a hopeless task. There's a good reason nobody else bases their entire worldview on whether a single ancient historical event happened - no event is certain enough to be a firm foundation for all of that.

i like this thread

>this thread

>>11301079
https://fivebooks-com/best-books/arguments-existence-of-god-ed-feser/

>>11302776
>sheds tear of joy

>>11301079
Your post makes no sense until you define what God you are referring to. I could give you any holy book. I could give you Theogony or the Eddas.

>>11301405
In Christian societies, these both level out and eventually flatline because Christianity preserves mediocrity over the livelihood of greatness. The way up and the way down are one and the same.

>hehe but what god???!? heheh checkmate!!!11!
reddit tier