/lit/ - Literature

>God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals).
>People depend upon logic and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of an immaterial and absolute God.
>Therefore, God exists. If He didn't, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver.

>>17083787
based

I realize that he’s just something of a YouTube personality and I disagree with a lot of what he says but one thing I’ve literally never heard a good counter-argument is the way he presents TAG.

>schizo-posts (in video format) about the ‘elites’

>>17083795
>(because these are immaterial, yet real universals).

Prove it.

>>17083795
>>People depend upon logic and morality
Imagine unironically believing this

>"If everything has a cause then I can't in the syllogism leap to saying God is a special exceptions" -Jay Dyer doing his best Richard Dawkins impression in attempting to refute Thomism.

>>17083787

He releases like 9 podcasts per day. It's too much.

>>17083844
If they weren't real and universally true it would be impossible to prove anything. They are so fundamental to experience that by asking for proof you already assumed it was true.

>>17083787
dyer is a great argument against eastern orthodoxy

>>17083955
prot/zoomer tradcath identified

>>17083965
>zoomer
you just named dyer's fanbase

>>17083919

>>17083812
TAG?

>>17083919
thomist philosophy gives up too much ground by starting with causation as if it were more real and obvious than the existence of god himself.

>>17084001
Transcendental Argument for God. I think perhaps inappropriately named since it doesn’t so much argue in favor of God’s existence for argues that the outright denial of God’s existence is essentially illogical, in which case the obvious implication is, in fact, an argument for God but you get the point.

>>17083954
>If they weren't real and universally true it would be impossible to prove anything

It is impossible to prove anything in the absolute sense. We just operate on less demanding epistemological terms because it’s practical to do so. Logic is just some stuff we made up that seems to correlate well with the human brain’s capacity to make sense of things

>>17083787
Making tard caths seeth is pure kino

Does anyone else get glownigger vibe from this fella

>>17084045
No. I really don’t.

>>17084035
i have never seen a catholic seethe over dyer. they mostly feel sorry and shame for him

>>17084066
I have and I’m a Catholic

>>17084071
prove it

>>17083795
>God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality
> because these are immaterial, yet real universals
Kek
Dropped

>>17084066
you probably have not see tardcat twitter of youtube

>>17084087
e orthos just as bad tbqh

>>17084087
>browsing twitter
why one do this to oneself? are you a masochist

>>17084028
>it is impossible to prove anything in the absolute sense

is that universally true? in your denial of universal knowledge you are making a claim of universal knowledge (it is impossible). which is incoherent.

>logic is just what we made up
no logic is something that we discovered, if we made them up then that implies they could change which they dont.

>>17084106
i dont that much, its not censored

>>17084134
The denial of universal knowledge is conditional to the proposition that God does not exist.

>>17084192
>>17084134
Woops I didn't read the previous poster mb

I wished people stopped spending so much time on this question, "Does God exist?"
It doesn't matter. If some God exists, and that's all we know, that does not imply the Christian or Jewish God. In fact, assuming that a God exists, I should probably act in the exact same way, as doing so is just as likely as anything else to be what God wants. What you have to prove is that *this* or *that* God exists, that those holy texts come from God and that they tell us what God wants. Because if you can prove that, you can prove God, and if you can't, then the existence or nonexistence of God doesn't affect anything.
Also, please just make a Thomas Aquinas thread instead of shilling e-celebrities.

>>17084289
It's a step by step process.

>>17084289
Jay has nothing to do with Aquinas though.

>>17084005
The point of that is to start with things that are more readily apparent to the human person and then from there derive a contradiction that implies that there is a terminus in terms of causation, actuality etc. It’s blatantly Aristotelian (and frankly mathematical/logical) that way: if you start with things that are less obvious before you lay down the axioms, you give room for refutation. By laying down basic axioms everyone can agree on, that disappears.

>>17084304
I meant because Thomas is a serious theologian and Jay is not. This is clearly a bait theology thread.
>>17084299
I don't know if the claim, "something made the universe" is useful for the claim, "you should behave in this or that way to get into heaven."
Negate the first one for a second. The second could still be true. There could be some natural or non-Godly reason, or a powerful being could exist who didn't create the universe etc. and the accuracy/importance of a holy book would be proven in the same way as if there were a God, either through proofs that it was divinely inspired (came from a God-like creature) or through its pragmatic success (as in, it accurately predicts events, therefore, we can trust it).
This is just as true with or without the existence of God.

>>17084335
Why? because Thomas is a famous historical person and Jay is contemporary? The dude has a PHD and references tons of books and scholars. Rejecting him for aesthetic reasons is just an appeal to authority.

>>17084045
Yup. Heavy glowie vibes for sure.

Pic related, hanging out with his openly satanic/occult practicioner musician friend in front of an inverted cross. Posted by Dyer on his own twitter. His >>17084364
‘fanbase’ doesn’t care, pretty telling of the kind of crowd.

>>17084005
I don't know how people like you can function without feeling like an idiot all the time. It really is a low IQ thing to be so reductionist in your thought, like in your head you just summed up and dunked on a thousand year philosophical tradition and then you'll go the rest of your life without giving it another thought. Really man, people like you are why I think liberal education was a mistake. You should never have been taught how to read, that way you would just listen to what you're told and be happy with it.

>>17084364
Because Thomas Aquinas is referenced and Jay references.
>appeal to authority
You're damn right it is. What's wrong with that?

>>17084364
Jay is not a ph.d, he did a master’s degree in which his thesis was an analysis of the occult themes of the 007 movies.

He references a lot of stuff, but never gets into the actual nitty gritty of the stuff he cites. A lot of postering, watching his videos brings me back to being in undergrad.

>>17084105
You’re right tbqh, i’m eo and seeing how the e-larpers represent the faith to others makes me sincerely sad.

>>17084384
>people who disagree with me should just shut up and do what they are told

amazing how all it took was one line for you to sperg out with the insults and no substance whatsoever.

>>17084386
well its considered a logical fallacy.

>>17084428
It’s not like it’s a formal fallacy though

>>17084428
>it's considered a logical fallacy
Not by me it isn't. If I were a priest and I were in a church, and the priest told me what was in the Bible, I would believe him or at least think, "his arguments have some value." If Aquinas tells me his apologetics/theology, I would think, "his arguments have some value," as he is renowned and he's convinced a lot of people, as well as being a professional in the field. The same is not true of Jay, who is not a professional in the field or renowned.

>>17084028
that's only the case if transcendental idealism or radical scepticism is right, so that things in themselves aren't actually ordered/particular and we just impose our subjective laws on them, thus proving materialism wrong. If logic is only "in the brain" then not even brains exist in themselves as separate structures.

>>17083931
Just farming all that zoomer coin. Good for him, kek. Lurk his streams and just watch how he interacts with his audience, it is hilarious.

>listen fucking nerds, send money, get the superchats flowing or i won’t bother with you

>*starts the debate with not-quite-on-the-mark celebrity impression that lasts just long enough to become uncomfortable*
>"Nah dawg but let's be serious. I mean, you're presupposing your paradigm, bro."
>*shouting over you as you try to utter a syllable* "IT"S CIRCULAR BRUH YOU'RE STILL CONTRADICTING YOURSELF GIVEN YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS"
>*pulls out 1,900 page book with a broken spine and six dozen sticky notes spilling from it*
>"It's called the Energy/Essence distinction, ya doofus. you'd know this if you had read the decrees from the 1437283th ecumenical council. St. Gregory of Palamas already dealt with the vegan issue, bro"
>*puts on hat with a shark on it*
>"Which is why naive realism materialism and thomism all fall into the same traps. I was a thomist for ten years I studied all this. Watch my globalism book series playlist I've already exposed all these dudes"
>"thanks for the superchats. keep em coming."

>>17084598
kek. forgot the rant against boomers

>>17084598
kek

>>17084447
Ok but that's not what is meant by it being a logical fallacy, it is a logical fallacy to say 'xyz is a priest/theologian and xyz isn't, therefore the priest/theologian must be right'. If Thomas has so much authority then it must be because his arguments can easily btfo a pleb like Jay right? Saying that you won't even listen or compare the two is a cop out.

>>17084428
I didn't say people who disagreed with me need to shut up and listen to what they're told. You can't even accurately represent what I said to you so maybe there is some substance to what I've said to you. You're not smart.

>>17084691
You didn't say anything besides insults. I'm sure thomism would appreciate it if you stopped replying, you're making it look bad.

https://youtu.be/lKwOzV3p3Is

>>17083795
So this is the power of theists.....

>>17084598
If he actually read that copy of Berkhof's Systematic Theology behind him he wouldn't be a dumb tradcatholodox e-celeb.

>>17085079
I talked to Thomism and he's fine it because that's all some people deserve.

>>17083795
>It's yet ANOTHER argument from axioms
I didn't even know who the fuck the OP was and I knew it would be this. Theists are too sad to even make watchmaker analogies anymore this is the only argument in their repertoire.

>>17083787
If you think morality is a "real universal" you should kys

>>17084134
>in your denial of universal knowledge you are making a claim of universal knowledge (it is impossible)
That's not a claim of universal knowledge. It's a non-universal claim of the absence of universal knowledge, which remains to be un-refuted by this non-universal non-argument that you're positing.

>>17083787
Thats not Aquinas

>God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality
>People depend upon logic and morality
Why are people so obsessed with objective morality? Is it simply because morality plays a big role in our lives that we feel there must be a one true answer to every moral dilemma? People interact with each other, there are many variables at play, conflicts arise... obviously there is no perfect answer.
I feel like this is akin to asking "what is the one true way of walking from A to B in a mall full of people". There is no right answer, because you're not the only person seeking to get somewhere. Even if you get a computer to calculate the best path for everyone, there are still gonna have people who have to sacrifice some distance so others can have their optimal path.

>>17084598
Lmao