[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 143 KB, 900x609, post-1544b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15135568 No.15135568 [Reply] [Original]

>“Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods.
>For these men know that, once ignorance is put aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by which their authority is preserved.”
HOLY BASED BARUCH SPINOZA (PBUH) ETERNALLY REFUTED CHRISTKIKES.... TRULY AN ETERNAL REVOLUTIONARY..... (PBUH)

>> No.15135667

Based

>> No.15135671

What about miracles that leave physical evidence behind, like Eucharistic miracles?

>> No.15135672

How will christcucks ever recover?

>> No.15135695
File: 9 KB, 254x254, BtrbWtWQ_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15135695

>>15135671
God is nature and the natural law itself which is fixed and immutable. All natural events are manifestations of nature, and to claim the existence of miracles is to assert that there must be an anomaly in nature and therefore deny the perfection of the natural law.

>> No.15135757

>>15135695
God is outside of nature. Nature is a creation of God's and it is subject to his whims. You'd know this if you read your Aquinas.

>> No.15135787
File: 96 KB, 800x458, spinoza-opere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15135787

>>15135757
>Quackquinas
Absolutely refuted by Spinoza.
>Aquinas had assumed the two were not “univocally substantial” meaning that finite beings and God are not substantially the same. Spinoza reasoned that, if finite beings are not substantially the same as God, why, then, are they called substances?
>He saw this as absurd. A substance, as previously mentioned, is that which has its existence in itself. Spinoza believed that Aquinas put forth this assumption in order to satisfy Christian dogma, for Christianity taught that everything must be dependent on God for its existence, and that certain of these “finite substances” required individuality, viz. humans.
>This was done to avoid a monistic absorption into an all-encompassing One, such as is found in Hinduism
You will never refute Spinoza (pbuh), you low iq christcuck.

>> No.15135790

Dont you just love it when some faggot reads [philosopher], becomes impressed because its the first philosophy book he's read, and starts spamming this shit all over a slow board like lit?

>> No.15135794

>>15135568
>CHRISTKIKES
Spinoza was a kike himself.

>> No.15135801

>>15135787
Is this from Wikipedia? kek

>> No.15135825
File: 438 KB, 1377x1600, Spinoza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15135825

>>15135794
Spinoza (pbuh) was excommunicated by the rabbis of his synagogue because he revealed the truth of their frauds.

>>15135801
Still unrefuted, keep coping christcuck.

>> No.15135892

>>15135757
Spinoza disproves that in the first 5 pages of Ethics. Have you reflected on them? If you did, how do you confutate his argument which states that there cannot be more than one substance?

>> No.15136008

Spinoza was absolutely btfo by Jacobi. Anyway, the Jew was deprived of any metaphysical depth. His “Infinite” God is constrained by a supernatural Necessity. As expected from a modern rationalist, he couldn’t differentiate between qualitative infinity and quantitative indefinity. Also, his gap in explaining how indirect modes necessarily exist from god yet have no bound to it.