/lit/ - Literature

>I might be wrong while I’m dead
lol

>>16565429
>might be wrong so I will never die for my beliefs
yet he's now absolutised his own mild skpeticism
how incredibly bourgeois - not being able to radically affirm something and thus feigning some lack of conviction

you just have shit convictions

>
>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

absurd because First Cause need not exist within time, rather it would be unbefitting for it to exist within time

See Aquina's argument from necessity which makes no reference to being 'first' but rather being 'necessary'

>then God himself was subject to law

obviously not because God is the progenitor of all laws by being the supreme law in many senses- the Logos

>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?

Assumes both an anthropomorphic God as well as the absence of free will. We are damned to a corrupt world because we turned from God.

>There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell.

Well Russell only argues this because he was a fucking coomer who rejected proper philosophy because he wanted to get his dick wet - by his own admission. Either way, there certainly are crimes worthy of eternal punishment. Hell is divine justice, Russell has a shit understanding of the just - MacIntyre evicerated him here.

>>16565429
1. We see things changing.
2. Anything changing is being changed by something else .
>Things changing are on the way to realisation, whereas things causing change are already realised - they are realising something else’s potential, and for that they must themselves be real.
>The actual heat of a fire causes wood, already able to be hot, to actually become heated, and so causes change in the wood.
>The actually hot cannot at the same time be potentially hot, but only potentially cold - So what causes changes cannot as such be causing the change but must be being changed by something else.
3.This something else, if itself changing, is being changed by yet another thing: and this last by another.
4. However, we must stop somewhere, otherwise there will be no first cause of change, and, as a result, no subsequent causes (to posit infinite regress is akin to homunculus fallacy).
>Only when acted upon by a first cause do intermediate causes produce a change - without the force from the hand holding the, the stick will subsequently not move anything else.
5. We arrive then at some first cause not itself being changed by anything, and this, is what all men speak of as God.

>>16565429
Sounds like he has a very poor understanding of actual Christianity and is attacking the luke warm strawman many do.

>>16565429
His views (specifically those you referenced in your post) reflect a poor understanding of any form of Christianity, whether looking at the interpretation of the Catholic Church or simply the philosophical perspective and theology we can derive and understand from the teachings of Christ himself and the narrative of the Gospels. In one word: cope

>>16566133
reminds me of even worse examples when atheists checkmate christianity with arguments like "an eternity worshipping god in heaven would be boring"

>>16565429
Never rated this edgy faggot desu. He also dislikes Kant and oversimplifies most philosophers with faith.

>>16565830
>1. We see things changing.
No we don't. "Things" are by conception unchangeable. We see change, period... which means there is no "something else" to initiate change, because everything is merely change.

>>16565429
>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

His teapot argument just got blown the fuck out by himself.

>>16565429
Boring and wordy. Just a boring rehash of other pseudo-intellectuals who get their viewpoints on religion from the likes of Bill Nye and associated trash. He lacks any kind of nuance and it’s more than clear that he only experienced Christianity from a bird’s eye view.

Copplestone already blew him out of the water

>>16566883
To go further: His arguments are also juvenile, as consist of the following:

>Hell is bad because mean and tyrannical :(

>God doesn’t exist because I know for a fact that an all-loving God wouldn’t let bad things happen to people.

>If you make the law, you are automatically subject to the “No u!” Treatment.

>I don’t like to think about the origins of things, because origins are dumb and gay.

>>16566908

The first two arguments as you've rendered them are correct, though. Also labeling an argument as juvenile is a form of adult cope. Yes, children and youth are dumb, but it sometimes happens that they better apprehend truth in specific realms which adults are cultured to forget. This is especially true in the case of very simple OUGHT problems.

>>16565429
its literally refute by the the fact that the world is fallen.

Doesn't Bertrand Russell repeat the misnomer that Aquinas' denied the possibility of infinite series? It's amazing that this guy is held up as some paragon of rationalism and clear-mindedness when he is such a dishonest and emotionally-driven thinker. It's so much just a matter of branding. He looks the part - that's all.

>>16567491

Cultists are not in a legitimate position to reject the rational content of others' thought because it is inflected by emotion.

>>16567544
Good thing I'm not religious then

>>16565429
Just watch this if you have any doubts about him being a hack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz2GjKPbQds

there is a special place in hell for tradlarpers

>>16565429
> listening to a cuckold's musings on morals
Lord help me.

>>16565429
>"What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."
Whoa, those theologians sound pretty based

this guy is peak midwit. read fucking wittgenstein, hes the only worthwhile guy in that whole circle. also WH audens letter BTFOing this idiot that he nearly killed himself over

>>16567997
>also WH audens letter BTFOing this idiot that he nearly killed himself over
you mean DH Lawrence's letter

>>16568036
yeah thats who I meant sorry

>>16567475
>it sometimes happens that they better apprehend truth in specific realms which adults are cultured to forget.
Almost everything pernicious in culture's doctrinaire side is all about intentionally inducing amnesia, most particularly of one's own experience, something Montaigne endlessly insinuates. This is also why those who were abused or neglected as children, or traumatized in war during development, tend to be doctrinaire, since their motive to forget is increased thereby. An irreducible ingredient of intimate domestic sadism has synergy with the vicious cycle between forgetting and repeating tremendous follies on the grand or stately scale.

>>16568036
kek what a beautiful letter, what's the tl;dr on Russel's article?