/lit/ - Literature

>>18138276
Genetic fallacy

he has it backwards. Aquinas makes an assumption, then sees where it leads him. It's no different from what a mathematician does when he adopts a set of axioms.

>argues for peace while having sex with his friends’ wives

>>18138276
And yet you can open any random page of any volume of the Summa and find more truth there than you would in the entirety of Russell's works
Even the parts about the nature of angels and demons

Aquinasbros... I'm afraid RationalWiki has gotten the better of us...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

OMG SCIENCE IS AWESOME!!!!

>>18138308
My high school philosophy professor told us that Bertrand Russell had a monstrously large cock that was so big that he would nearly pass out when having an erection because the dick would steal all the blood from his head. I still don't know if it's true or not because I don't want to google "bertrand russell penis"

>>18138276
Damn, Russell is actually right on this one.

>>18138329
> Far from proving that the Christian God exists, the most the argument can do is lend some support to a sort of weak deism, but without even necessitating the continued existence of the "first mover" which could just as easily have been the Big Bang as any preferred deity
Atheist "intellectuals" everyone

There are much better arguments against Aquinas. Russell doesn't say anything you couldn't get from a random redditor.

He’s not wrong the Islamic and Christian Aristotelian theologians are absolutely cringe.

>>18138276
Russell wrote several hundred pages of the Principia Mathematica proving that 1+1=2, something he had already believed.

>>18138405
“Russell's books should be bound in two colours, those dealing with mathematical logic in red – and all students of philosophy should read them; those dealing with ethics and politics in blue – and no one should be allowed to read them.”

>>18138543
How was he so good bros?

>>18138543
Supremely based. Russell's quote on Aquinas reads like a description of the Russell "Tribunal"

>calling someone the name of the place they are from
Is this guy retarded?

Evola on Aquinas

>>18138656
>Mussolini as an exemplar of martial virtue
Wew lad...

>>18138675
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1619562502010.webm

>>18138583
>given them names you will forget confuse or end up saying

>>18138656
what book is this from?

ITT: seething catholic larpers

>>18138693
Yeah, Italians know how to have fun, but aside from the fact the guy positively looks like jacques chirac, I see nothing in this vid that says "martial virtue". It looks like a less aggressive form of Putin's self-propaganda, and even Putin is overrated as far as fighting experience comes (but at least one can suppose he had some).

>>18138736
sufi of rome
it's a collection of Evola's table talks basically

>>18138344
>I don't want to google "bertrand russell penis"
Man up! We must all do things for knowledge!

>>18138736
>>18138751
comfy thread the other day on this topic. search the archives for it

>>18138755
You have weird goals.

>>18138751
>>18138763
thanks, I'll check it out

>>18138770
the thread subject was something like "evola fanbois"

>>18138344
I’m sorry anon

>>18138351
wow, that's retarded even for athiests

>>18138832
Primal reasons are hard to avoid, but not impossible not eveything in your life is about sex and if it is I have terrible news for you.

>>18138832
>missing: penis
>must include: penis

>>18138351
You’re right, it doesn’t even get you to weak deism, because Aquinas never explains or appears to be even aware of the difference between physical and intentional causality

>>18138543
Most based modern philosopher.

>>18138913
He sort of does with the fate of man thing, but is all left to the will of god or the divine ruling, meaning the church laws he couldn't go against back then.

>>18138583
So what do you call George Washington then?

>>18138853
I was trying to verify if bertrand russell had an inhumanly large penis, not really about sex at all, more of an anatomical question lol. Were you trying to reply to someone else?

>>18138276
true

>>18138285
not a fallacy to point out where people beg the question

>>18138300
there are a number of assumptions he conveniently refuses to make and a number which he makes despite not needing to

>>18138369
also true

>>18139429
>>18138276
This is one of the most retarded things I have read from someone considered ''intellectual''. Yeah obviously someone making this sort of claim is not only dumb bust dishonest. Did Russell write this little excerpt not thinking about it before writing?

>Its author never seems to be able to make up his mind whether he is writing history or polemic.... [Its method] confers on philosophers who are dead and gone a kind of false contemporaneity which may make them seem important to the uninitiate. But nevertheless it is a misreading of history."[4] In Isis, Leo Roberts wrote that while Russell was a deft and witty writer, A History of Western Philosophy was perhaps the worst of Russell's books. In his view, Russell was at his best when dealing with contemporary philosophy, and that in contrast "his treatment of ancient and medieval doctrines is nearly worthless."[5] A History of Western Philosophy was praised by physicists Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger.[3][6]
It's telling that actual philosophers think Russell's book was dumb and only Rick and Morty faggots like Schrodinger liked it.

>>18139814
Very true. His take was very zeitgeist at that time and all the non philosophy fags trying to butt in would have loved it.

>>18138276
>He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead
But Socrates obviously knows where the argument will lead. His traps are purposefully designed so that the victim will follow where Socrates wants them to. The way he invites his interlocutors to an argument is always slightly condescending but this effect is concealed by disingenuous complements like "Eutypho, being a priest I suppose you'll teach me much about what it means to be pious" (that's not a verbatim quote, I'm going to bed and posting this from my phone where I don't have any dialogue of Socrates but you get the idea).

>>18139814
>Wikipedia
go back to plebbit, Rick and morty faggot

>>18138276
Bertrand Russell is an atheist fag.
Imagine being "a philosopher, thinker" and not realizing why some Jewish commie is laughing at your face.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TK9c-caEcw&ab_channel=RomanStyran

>>18138543
Russell literally wanted to kill himself after Wittgenstein schooled him.

>>18138276
Kinda wish I went to Aquinas university in Ojai

>>18138543
did he really say this ?

>>18139595
His erect dick stole his blood from the brain while he was writing it

>>18139814
>Rick and Morty faggots like Schrodinger
Kek

>>18138276
>BET YOU'RE FEELING PRETTY STUPID NOW, EH, TOMMY BOY?!

>>18138311

Repeating "pro/con/other/now here's the bit where the argument actually terminates and where I pretend I've fully treated it by appealing to an authority" is merely an autistic exercise which Aquinas did about 5^5 = 3`25 times. The point of this is that Discordianism is pregnant in the number that Aquinas coincidentally hit.

>>18138276
Such an imbecile. No one can be as stupid as a Brit.

>>18138553
Jews are alright sometimes.

>>18138405
You don't "believe" in math, you tool

>>18138656
Somewhat noble and intriguing yet irrevocably retarded.

>>18139814
And it's doubly funny when you consider that faggots like Schrodinger created the tool you use for making fun of them, while no philosopher has ever done anything but participate in a glorious shitposting circlejerk that was already made pointless by the Greeks

>>18142746
>a glorious shitposting circlejerk that was already made pointless by the Greeks
I've recently thought about the same thing. After studying the Presocratics, especially the Eleatics, Heraclitus and Empedocles, it seems to me that the totality of philosophy was already pretty much mapped out around the advent of the Academy. It is said that Western philosophy consists in a series of footnotes to Plato. Well, you can make the argument that Plato's philosophy consisted in a series of footnotes to Parmenides. It is no coincidence that he dedicated his two most difficult dialogues to Parmenides' school (the Parmenides and the Sophist).
Combine this with what we know about the Eleusinian and Dionysian Mysteries and the picture gets even more complete. What is Deleuze's plane of immanence nothing other than Dionysos himself, the archetype of the indestructible vital principle, what Deleuze calls "a life"? All subsequent philosophy after Plato and Aristotle was nothing more than either a fleshing out, elaboration or outright refutation of the concepts already made manifest not only in the Presocratics, but also Hesiod, Homer and the Tragedians, whose art wasn't just mere entertainment, but a form of theology.

>>18142746
Schrodinger was a mystic who just reiterated Buddhism but with reddit thought experiments

>>18138276
Russell is beyond based and the butt hurt theists in this thread go to show just how devastating his arguments are that they can have such an effect half a century after his death

>>18140604
18 to post here

>>18138276
Cuck

>>18138276
>Russell's opinion

I've gotta say

Russell's A History of Western Philosophy is, hands-down, my personal least favorite book of all the introductions to western philosophy that I have ever read. I think it should be retitled to Commentary on the Major Philosophers of Western Civilization.

>>18138656
absolutely based

>>18138276
Ultimate cringe.

>Russel
Wittgenstein's bitch

>>18138344
Liar

>>18144285
If he's lying, then I'm lying.

>Russell is beyond based and the butt hurt theists in this thread go to show just how devastating his arguments are that they can have such an effect half a century after his death

>>18138276
>Oxford philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny remarks, this is a comment that comes pretty strangely from Russell, who spent a few hundred pages of his book Principia Mathematica trying to prove (starting from a few logical axioms) that 1 + 1 = 2, something which, we can assume, he already believed before he began.
LMFAOOOO

>>18144884
sick burn

Thats why Aquinas is foremost a theologian. What a waste of a thread

>>18139429
>beg the question
I dont think you know what that means

>>18139814
Its a shame that the english are so witty and fantastic at rhetoric but so short on reason.

>>18142717
>another episode of an atheist who doesn't know what the word "believe" means

>>18138276
Philosophy is the love of wisdom. To love something entails to seek something, and once it is found to possess it and be possessed by it. Wisdom is not inquiry, but is the knowing of what is right to do. As it is prudence to know the right way through some particular moment, it is wisdom to know the right way universally.

In this quote, Russel admits quite plainly that he does not know truth, nor does he know wisdom, for he continues to seek it.

Once a man has found a home, he might inquire of the various ways to get there, and of the places he might go from it, but he does not go on looking for the home which he has not found. It is only the homeless man who goes on continually seeking that which he does not have.

It is particularly worth noting that in this, Russel does not inquire if perhaps Saint Thomas had found wisdom, nor does he give us the tools to inquire. Rather, he gives us a conclusion--that Aquinas did not really love wisdom, because he did not inquire enough about wisdom.

Perhaps, in reading Aristotle, Russel should have realized the importance of determining a thing by its end. For if the acquiring of Wisdom is the end of Philosophy, then perhaps Russel could have realized that one works back from that end, not towards it. So, if a man has found the end of philosophy, which is Wisdom, then his arguments will naturally appear to have had the conclusion in advance.

Of course, it is not really the end which is so difficult. All who claim to be philosophers claim to have Wisdom as their end. They also all claim to use reason. But if an argument is truly reasonable, then it naturally and perfectly arrives at its end. So, if a philosopher uses reason and seeks Wisdom, but can only go on seeking, never arriving at his end, then it must be because he has found the wrong beginning. Therefore the difficulty is finding the right beginning.

It would almost seem to be like some maze, in which there are many openings, but only one ending. Now, all recognize that single, unified end, shared by all, but if there are multiple openings and only one true path, than all who take a false beginning will never reach their end. It would therefore be better, to start with the end and work backwards to find the right beginning.

Of course, as Aquinas shows, the right beginning has already been given to us quite plainly. As scripture tells us, the beginning of Wisdom is the Fear of God. Russel did not fear God, and so he kept on search for Wisdom, never finding. Aquinas, fearing God, found Wisdom quickly.

If you seek wisdom, why would you follow the Man who is always searching, instead of the one who has found it?

>>18138276
I've sometimes wondered why so-called rational atheists like Russel shit on Aquinas so much since I've seen Orthodox and Muslims criticizing him for being hyperrational.

>>18144884
Russell didn't try to prove 1+1 = 2. He was trying to trying to verify the claim that all mathematical statements can be proved using logic.
Aquinas was trying to convince people of god but Russell is not trying to convince people 1+1 = 2. So comparing them is dishonest.

>>18138344
Russell was a cuck, so not likely.

>>18138351
Are theists so stupid that they cannot understand the flaws of Aquinas' argument that they bring it up whenever religion is discussed?
Even if we take all ideas he used to derive god at face value, they will not prove the existence of god. All his arguments boils down to the fact that there are some aspects of reality where our knowledge is not sufficient to explain them and he attributed this unknown to god. Why should the first cause be god?
Why can't you fags just accept that there are some things that are unknown to us?

>>18145258
>Aquinas was trying to convince people of god
He wrote Summa Theologica for Christians, especially seminarians

>>18145258
Are you this much of an idiot or dishonest not to understand how it is by reason that the first mover should not be just like the other caused causes? Try reading Aristotle and Aquinas not arguments on the internet on their behalf.

>>18145258
>Why can't you fags just accept that there are some things that are unknown to us?
Because that gets you nowhere. People live based on particular beliefs. And that's the point of guys like Aquina. Believing "wow guess we will never know" is life-denying. People like Russell are cowards who live by "whoa we could always be wrong" and he's been BTFO by Witty on this matter as well.

>>18145258
It would seem that you have are struggling between the personal notion of God which you have assigned to the name and the actual being signified by the name God.

The Prime Mover is that agent which moves all other beings and possesses them as its subjects, such that it is never moved. Or we might say, it is a being of pure omnipotence, a supreme will which exists in and of itself, for itself, unwilled by anything external to itself.

Now, if such an agent wills itself and wills all other things, either directly or indirectly, then it necessarily follows that all other things, including other wills, exist and operate according to the will of the Prime Mover. It then also follows that it is the will of that agent alone which determines the right order of all other things. In such a way, then, this Prime Mover is goodness itself, for the goodness of any other thing can only be found in so much as that thing exists according to the will of that supreme will, whereas that supreme will exists of its own will, and so its rightness (and therefore goodness), is necessarily perfect and complete.

The more one extrapolates the necessary qualities of the Prime Mover, the more one will uncover the God of Christianity, particularly in the person of The Father.

>>18145453
>first mover should not be just like the other caused causes.
An actual idiot calling others idiot. Never in my entire argument did i say that first mover should be just like the other caused causes.

>>18145475
Even if that is the case why god? There is no reason for the first mover to be conscious. Schopenhauer also wrote about thing in itself which is absurd because he himself said that thing in itself is always unknown to us but he gave sufficient argument based on empirical reality as to why his ideas are most likely correct. Did Aquinas do any of that?
My theory is that people want stability in their life. The same people who worship gods are the people who argue for objective morality. This is the case for christians but almost all theists. They seek stability. The notion that world is not by design and that it may all end at any moment abhors them.

>>18145525
why call it god then? Call it prime mover. There is no relationship between christian god and prime mover.
Even if there is an all powerful, all knowing being, why should i worship it?

>>18145720
>our knowledge is not sufficient to explain them and he attributed this unknown to god.
The first mover is not attribute to an unknown, mere supposition, but to a basic rational inquiry. You can't even understand what I'm saying, this is the level of atheistards.

>>18145720
>There is no reason for the first mover to be conscious.
Holy shit, you are so lost. Just start with Plato, without Mind there is absolutely nothing.

>Call it prime mover, this has nothing to do with christian god please no
See it is always a product of pure hatred and desperation over what is presented to you. You people are miserable and deserve what is prepared for you.

>>18145720
Before you trying coming up with your own arguments, learn the terms of the debate. A mover is, by definition, a kind of agent. An unmoved mover is a very specific term. If you don't understand what it means, you are not at the level of understanding to even begin disagreeing with it.

>>18143323
AIDs Steve Martin

>>18145749
>Some cosmologists and physicists argue that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time: "One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation"[52] (Carlo Rovelli). The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.[53] Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.[53] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[53]

All of Aquinas' arguments becomes invalid when applied to big bang because time is a prerequisite for motion, causation, contingency. The question of what caused big bang is stupid because causation is a relationship between objects in time and time exist only after big bang. Aquinas knew that causation breaks down at the beginning but didn't knew why. Instead of accepting the fact that he didn't know why it breaks down, Aquinas tried to fill this knowledge gap by saying that it's god lol.
>The first mover is not attribute to an unknown, mere supposition, but to a basic rational inquiry.
There is nothing rational about it.
>You can't even understand what I'm saying, this is the level of atheistards.
Have some self-awareness.

>>18145749
>Just start with Plato
I will stick with enlightenment philosophers.
>See it is always a product of pure hatred and desperation over what is presented to you.
I have nothing against christianity. My parents are not christians. I am arguing against it because most discussed religion on this site is christianity.

>>18146097
>time is a prerequisite for motion
Again, if you don't understand the terms Aquinas is using, how can you hope to understand what he is saying? The term mover does not refer principally to physical movement. The Prime Mover is not a physical being, but an intellective will and power.

>>18146120
1) Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2) Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3) Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4) Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5) Therefore nothing can move itself.
6) Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7) The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8) Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
I think i understand motion Aquinas or Aristotle sufficiently to say that it is also depend on time.
>The term mover does not refer principally to physical movement.
Here motion is physical movement. Only physical motion is observable.
>The Prime Mover is not a physical being, but an intellective will and power.
If Prime Mover exist why does it have any will at all?

>>18145258
>Are theists so stupid that they cannot understand the flaws of Aquinas' argument that they bring it up whenever religion is discussed?
Not all theists are thomists and nost theist arguments are just basic cosmological arguments cloaked in thomist language.
>Even if we take all ideas he used to derive god at face value, they will not prove the existence of god.
Yes they will lol
>All his arguments boils down to the fact that there are some aspects of reality where our knowledge is not sufficient to explain them and he attributed this unknown to god
Not even close
>Why should the first cause be god?
He goes on to make arguments why the first cause should have attributes deserving the title of God. Its a necessary and ultimate principle of Being from which all else is derived.
>Why can't you fags just accept that there are some things that are unknown to us?
Which aspects of thomism are things actually unknowable? I think kantians and positivists would have interesting claims in that regard

>>18146097
You are so confused you can barely make anything you post intelligible. Like the other anon said causation is not restricted to physical, successive, temporal action. Time has a beginning so it became what it is, this means something made time begin for it can’t begin by itself before it begins. Therefore time must be caused outside itself, it seems there is a conflation between time and big bang. So this is the issue at hand what is outside corporeal universe, outside time, outside everything physically caused?

>>18146199
Even the wikipedia article would show to you that in this argument, movement does not mean physical motion simply, but all change.

Some things change. The things that we see changing are not changed spontaneously by themselves, but by some other thing which causes them to change. If those things which cause change are themselves changed, they they too must be caused to change by something not themselves. The chain of causation cannot be infinite. Therefore, there is something which is the ultimate cause of all other things, but which is not caused by anything else.

But even these are just simple summaries. Plato and Aristotle also had Prime Mover arguments, which are not exactly the same.

Moreover, time is not a physical quality. It is only measured by change. So, if you understood Aquinas correctly, you'd realize how absurd it is to say that because modern physicists hold that there was a beginning of time based on the observation of consistent changes stemming from some temporal origin, then Aquinas' argument that from changing things we can know there is some ultimate cause of change is invalid, especially when you consider that Aquinas, and all Catholics, believe that Prime Mover to exist beyond time and space, being the cause of both those things.

>>18146199
Time is not this kind of motion you are exposing with this cause-motion. This motion implies succession which will determine time itself (for time is determinately successive). The point is exactly what causes what to move first for even time to begin to be extended, just like a line is dependent on the point. The agent and prime cause of motion in relation to succession and time is just like the point in relation to the line, both are outside the dimension of what they cause.

>only physical motion is observable
Can you tell me any purely physical, inanimate thing that moves by itself like animated beings? The point is not even this, but movement itself. See above.

>why will
This is a wholly different discussion.

>>18138656
I really hope the english translation is just shit. evola sounds like a schizo.

>>18146251
>causation is not restricted to physical, successive, temporal action.
causation is restricted to physical, successive, temporal action.
>this means something made time begin for it can’t begin by itself before it begins.
You are the one who don't understand my points. All logic and causation breaks at the beginning. You are trying to apply principles which may seem common sense but are no longer valid at the beginning. This is the flaw of all metaphysics. I suggest you read some hume and understand the problem of induction.
The universe doesn't follow law of causality.

>>18146456
It's not our job to understand your points. It's your responsibility to understand Aquinas before you comment on his arguments.

>causation is restricted to physical
Says who?

>>18146316
The translation appears to be quite readable and coherent. Evola is just a schizo

>>18146456
You are dogmatically claiming that everything must be conditioned by A CONDITIONED UNIVERSE. The universe is conditioned by time, by its own totality/unity, by its particular being. You invert the order of things to suit your anti-metaphysical dogmas.
See how you just ignore the point I made about the beginning you claim as an argument to tell me to read Hume. You finish with a common sense of beginning in the usual mystical fallacy of “we just don’t know anything about it, but it is the cause of everything and it has nothing to do with the divine or metaphysics I swear”.

>>18146120
>The Prime Mover is not a physical being, but an intellective will and power.
If you start with this assumption then sure, but if you're trying to make a case for that position, you can't just appeal to the fact that you're assuming it to be true. That's a circular argument and you're just in make-believe land.

>>18146456
>causation is restricted to the physical
Did I not tell you how motion - a especies of causation - is not?

>>18146517
Things which are physical did not always exist. Therefore, there was a change which caused physical things to exist. Therefore, as what is physical did not yet exist, whatever caused them to exist is not physical.

Stop jumping to conclusions.

>>18146517
>if youre trying to make a case for that position
Well, this exactly what any metaphysical inquiry implies but its primacy is not at the foreground of the argument, but simply that there is a conditioning outside of the conditioned universe.

>>18146506
I didn't make any new claims. These are all said by philosophers who were born before me.
>Time has a beginning.
Please try to find the fallacy with this statement. We can only talk about beginning only by observing the passage of time. Time has no beginning. Kant and other German idealists considered time and space to be a faculty of mind and not the inherent property of the world. I also holds this view.

>>18146558
>Things which are physical did not always exist.
Are you sure about that? Also, if time and physical space are linked, then the concept of time "before" physical existence is a incoherent concept.

>>18146644
I’ll disregard completely the first part of your post for obvious reasons.
About time: what is time? Is succession just a faculty of mind? Will you affirm it by at the same time denying what you said about physical causation, your own claim?
Yes I also believe all things are just faculties of mind because I only believe in Mind.

>>18146667
>are you sure about that?
Oh here we go again with the super rational infinite chain. Try thinking about wholes and parts and see why having two functioning brain cells would make you not even consider it in the first place.

>>18146667
Before means before time, yes, it is ontological succession not temporal. Dude read a book holy shit.

>>18138276
>Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead
Shows how little Russell understood Socrates. Socrates set out to troll people, first and foremost. It's only in the past 120 years that philosophers have gotten their panties in a twist about having some moral imperative to be truthseekers, as if all the rest of the world were helpless idiots groping in the mud and philosophers are the shining heros come to save them. No. Philosophy should be about playfulness and about achieving higher states of consciousness. Socrates knew this, Plato knew this, Aristotle knew this, Aquinas knew this, Kant knew this... Russell did not know it (or he did but he preferred to pretend otherwise in order to push an agenda)

>>18138276
My contempt for BR grows unceasingly

>>18145158
based effortposter

>>18146700
Before necessitates a temporal relationship which requires time. You guys sure are interested in just making stuff up, aren't you?

>>18145158
This poster is a True Roman

>>18146667
To disagree with Aquinas, you just relied on the argument that Time is a prerequisite for motion, and that there was a time before time began. Therefore, if time is a prerequisite for causality, and movement, and contingency, then physical things (which are all consequences of causality, movement, and are in themselves contingencies), then before time, there were no physical things.

Go take a break. Get outside and breathe some fresh air. Look up at the sky and realize that you are insignificant. If you keep on going through life thinking you're the most intelligent and important person and that all these other people who came before you were just ignorant losers, then you are going to be perpetually miserable.

>>18146953
You are literally saying that there is nothing outside time because everything is inside time. Time begins and is determined, time either needs a physical conditioning or it is determined by what is not physical. The before as I said is not temporal because there is no time before time begins. But now time is not a faculty of the mind (which, behold, is its own ontological basis) anymore. You switch your positions just to try to find a gotcha. You are not open to inquiries in good faith and because of that I see no point in keeping up this conversation with you.

>>18138276
Russell should have sucked a dick instead of talking about things he didn't understand

>>18138276
When I read this quote, it made me realise that Socrates would absolutely destroy Cuckinas in a debate and turn him into a skeptic if he was truly intelligent.

>>18146751
>Socrates set out to troll people
And this is how I know you are retarded and never studied philosophy. Truly, the more I read the more I realise /lit/ is full of morons who don't know anything.

>>18147888
>Socrates
>Skeptic
How do I know you are a retard?

Aquinasbros got the last laugh when freddy bodied Russell

>>18138329
>Rationalwiki

You mean that ultra-left wing, Science and muh atheism obsessed fedoraland who posts a fuck ton of dead links as their “sources”?

https://youtu.be/lhckuhUxcgA

>>18145258

Why don't you Fedora cucks get your pride outta yer ass and just accept the possibility if that unknown being God? Do you really hate God that much because your daddy left you?

>>18138276
>>18144418
>>18145258
SEETHE
https://strangenotions.com/was-bertrand-russell-right-about-thomas-aquinas/

A final problem with Russell's analysis lies in his assessment of Aquinas’ view of the interaction between faith and reason, when he writes that “If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation”. This accusation neglects a very simple and fundamental distinction in Aquinas’ thought, that between doctrines which can be known by reason and arguments which, by their very nature, cannot be. According to Aquinas, the existence of a prime mover, an uncaused cause of the universe, would be a fact of the first kind – he thinks that anyone, no matter where and when they are born, will come to believe in this sort of supernatural power if they think hard and well enough. The Trinity, he thinks, is a fact of the second kind – no amount of unaided reason could ever bring anyone to the conclusion that the uncaused cause has one nature in three persons; this can only be known through God's revelation.

In providing arguments for some doctrines and not for others, then, Aquinas is not, as Russell suggests, just scrambling around for arguments where he’s able to, and making excuses where he isn’t, but relying on what is a very sensible distinction between two types of fact. For analytical philosophers such as Russell, such distinctions are bread and butter, and it reflects very poorly on him to have so obviously missed the point.

It can, then, be seen that Russell's criticisms of Aquinas hold little water. Such misjudged attacks are, unfortunately, characteristic of him – his treatment of a number of important thinkers and schools of thought in the History of Western Philosophy has come under criticism, as has his condemnation of his one-time protégé Ludwig Wittgenstein, of whom he became extremely dismissive after they fell out (and who then went on to become probably the most significant philosopher of the 20th century). Perhaps we would do well to emulate Aquinas, who, as we saw, always made sure to treat his opponents charitably, rather than Russell, when we have criticisms to deliver.

>How can Russel's legacy possibly recover?

Based Wittgenstein is better, don't waste any more time with this bait thread.

Thomas Aquinas would literally crush Russel to death if he sat on top of him, metaphorically speaking, intellectwise, but also not metaphorically, because Russel was a skinny puppy and the Angelic Doctor was built like that blueberry bitch from Willy Wonka. Food for thought.

Thomas Aquinas would literally crush Bertrand Russell to death if he sat on top of him, metaphorically speaking, intellectwise, but also not metaphorically, because Russell was a skinny puppy and the Angelic Doctor was built like that blueberry bitch from Willy Wonka. Food for thought.

Friendly reminder that Russell thought that communism was this epicly englightened solution to world's problems perfectly for rational gigabrains like him till he met with Lenin and cried like a bitch because Lenin confirmed that he was indeed as violent as the rumors had it.

>>18138276
>Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth
Because he thought the argument through beforehand. You don’t need to figure it out as you write. I hate to have to defend Aquinas but this is ridiculous.

>>18148941

>>18147040
That guy is not me.
>there is nothing outside time because everything is inside time.
There might be something outside of time and space. What we can't do is to apply our logic or common sense to things outside time and space and expect them to hold. We can perceive the world only using time and space.
Causation is the relation between successive states of object. When a paper is bought to sufficient temperature it starts to burn. here causation is the relationship between the state of paper before it starts to burn and after it starts to burn. time is a prerequisite for causation because successive state of objects IS time. I use Einstein's definition of time, "time is what we measure using a clock".
>Time is not measurable directly through itself, but only indirectly through motion, which is in space and time simultaneously; thus time is measured by the motion of the sun and of the clock.
The questions like "what CAUSED time to begin?" is incoherent because time is a presupposition when you are talking about causation.
>You switch your positions just to try to find a gotcha.
my view have always been that "not only are time and space, causality is also another form of perception." But since you guys do not share this view, i have to use your own belief system to show why Aquinas is contradictory.

>>18146983
>that there was a time before time began
are you an actual idiot?
>you are insignificant
I am not the one claiming god made the world for me.
>all these other people who came before you were just ignorant losers
Most of the ideas and metaphysics i used comes from Schopenhauer and other German idealists. If my ideas comes across as something entirely new then that means you are not well read.

>>18138656
This doesn't sound like Evola's writing at all. If it was him, it sounds like a talk he's given to some plebs to rouse them into action.

>>18142985
I know what you mean, his chapters that aren't about any specific philosophy but the general times, like the hellenic world or the crusades, etc were quite itneresting and gave some good context to why greek philosophy shifted to ethics during macedonian and roman rule, etc.
But most of his chapters about philosophers themselves are just him saying why he thinks their wrong most of the time.
Contrary to OP's quote though, he does treat the Church period with more respect than I was expecting.

>>18147965
the sceptics derived their methodology from Socrates as a rolemodel. He was being sceptical, at least outwardly to everthing.
The whole Pyrrhonean school came about because the interpretation of Plato after his death had veered towards mysticism and the values seen in the phaedo and the republic etc, and Pyrrho countered that with the aporetic dialogues and socrates example.
Not that guy you post to, but YOU are the retard for not understanding his point.
Instead of reading wikipedia and focusing on schools of philosophy and their dates to autistically make insults, why not read a book?

>>18146983
As far as we know, time and space are linked. You can't apply notions of cause and effect (an eminently temporal phenomenon) without the presence of time. You are simply talking fantasy at that point. How do you propose to define the word "motion" without a time dimension to it?

I suspect you are projecting a bit, I am well aware of the vast amount of things I do not know and cannot know. I simply do not tolerate those who make specious claims about things they (and I) literally cannot have access to. If you believe these things on faith, be honest and say it is faith, don't try to cloak it in a nonsensical argument to claim you have a reasonable basis. Faith in the immaterial is the negation of reason.
>>18147040
>The before as I said is not temporal because there is no time before time begins
Don't use words for things they don't mean. "Before" has no other meaning than to order things in time. You accuse me of not speaking in good faith, yet you come up with your own definitions for words that you want to use even though your definition is the opposite of the actual definition. Sad.

>>18150137
>The whole Pyrrhonean school came about because the interpretation of Plato after his death
No, you retarded faggot.
Pyrrho traveled to east with Alexander and learned shit from Hindu and Buddhist sages.

>>18150137
>The whole Pyrrhonean school came about because the interpretation of Plato after his death had veered towards mysticism and the values seen in the phaedo and the republic etc, and Pyrrho countered that with the aporetic dialogues and socrates example.
Socrates was literally a mystic. It's all throughout his dialogues explicitly. Read Timaeus for Christ's sake, one of the most popular of all Plato's works.

>>18150873
You acknowledge that there are things you don't know? Good. Acknowledge that you are unfamiliar with the terms and arguments being discussed. You have access to Aquinas. You have access to reason. You have access to the internet. You have access to thousands of books and articles which discuss Aquinas. Your ignorance in this discussion is inexcusable.

Movement, in this case, means change. For something to not exist and then to exist is a change. Change requires a cause. If nothing immaterial exists (as you climb without justification or knowledge), then what caused material things to exist if, before they existed, they did not exist?

>>18150061
>I'm well read
>You're stupid
>I win

Time is what we measure using a clock? I hope he didn't say that. Has there ever been a more circular argument? What is a measurement if we don't know what we're measuring?

>>18138276
Motivated reasoning is psychologically unavoidable and everyone does it. Theory independent reasoning is impossible. The only thing that matters is whether the argumentation is correct and the assumptions are acceptable. The way I see it, Russell is partly correct and partly misguided, depending on how you read him.

>>18138276
I could probably shatter Betrand's fragile skull with a single weak punch, and Thomas the Ox probably could too.

>>18150942
>Thomas the Ox probably could too.
Russell would easily outrun him though, even with 10 pipefuls a day.

>>18150137
You really have no idea about what the dialectical method is. All Plato wrote was mere reference to what he did not and what his disciples knew. Saying Socrates was a skeptic or favouring it at all only because of his method of inqury, which was meant and necessary to lead the others to think about their and Socrates's own points, is to miss completely both Socrates and Plato. You either have read none of the dialogues in your life or you have a very limited reading comprehension.

>>18150873
>Don't use words for things they don't mean
Yeah, all we say is confined within time therefore all we say can only be applied to physical realm therefore I win!
See how much of a fucking piece of shit you are. Just like that other retard >>18150061 both of you do the same: reducing the subject at hand WHICH IS AQUINAS AND IS METAPHYSICS to pure physics. How can there be even a conversation?
Before time implies a bunch of things outside of time which limit, determine and cause time to begin and be what it is. But again, there is no possibility at all to discuss metaphysics with dishonest people like you. It is a thread about Aquinas, leave it.

>>18151650
My friend, whatever good you have to say is destroyed by your anger and vitriol. No saint proceeded thus.

>>18151704
You are so low I could not expect such an answer from you after being dishonest in a discussion. But then you are right. Many saints would have what I still don't have, but your manner of proceeding is not that of a human being, you know this is exactly how *he* proceeds. In any case be that as Bloy said, My anger is the effervescence of my pity.

>>18141744
yes I did

>>18151779
I am not the one you have been arguing with. I replied to you as a friend in the trenches. While there is a righteous anger, God's anger is without passion. Your judgement betrays your pride. The one you have been arguing with is wrong. He is arrogant. He is ignorant. He blasphemes. And Christ saw this when he was in the Garden. Still he died for the one with whom you argue. Would you stand between Christ and his passion?

>>18152170
All this prejudgement, wow. What is my passion, friend? Why do you think I stand for anything other than truth that is God? Do you really think all I'm saying is for anything other than his understanding and for stating the truth? Yes, I have the truth, I know the truth and I will always be right but because I know Him and will always dedicate my life to Him. I should not let my anger take the front, but yes, I err, I sin. Know only that some will not escape His Wrath which is the same as His Love.

Aquinas is the only philosophy since the Greeks that people actually live by. Empiricism is useful for scientific discovery but other than that it isn't particularly useful. Capitalism and communism are just economic systems so posting the Austrian school and Marx is irrelevant.

>>18150910
Causation requires time. To apply the concept of causation to time itself is inappropriate. Amazing how arrogant you are and yet you can't grasp this simple concept.
>>18151650
You can't have "before time". It's a self contradictory statement. You're trying to apply the rules that exist within time to time itself. Aquinas took a gap in our knowledge which we likely will never be able to learn about and simply inserted his ideological position into it. It's so childish. Maybe time doesn't need a cause at all. Maybe the answer to the mystery is a hundred times more complex than just a "cause". Maybe it's a hundred times more mundane. Maybe it's an infinite multiverse. Maybe it's universe-creating pixies or leprechauns. But no, it has to be a "prime mover" who just happens to be the exact cultural mythos of the Christian religion. It's embarrassingly myopic.

>>18152170
>He is arrogant
>Also I know who the creator of the universe is, and exactly how he did it and why and it was all done for me and I have a personal relationship with him
The complete un-selfawareness of some Christians is genuinely amusing, thank you friend. If criticizing this remnant of a bizarre cult make me a blasphemer, then blasphemer I am.

>>18139595
but how is he wrong?

>>18145525
>The more one extrapolates the necessary qualities of the Prime Mover, the more one will uncover the God of Christianity, particularly in the person of The Father.


That's because the theologians copied the ideas of Plato and Aristotle in a bid to add some intellectual credibility to Christianity. God as described in the Bible is nothing like the God which later generation of theologians constructed.

>>18152821
>Causation requires time. To apply the concept of causation to time itself is inappropriate. Amazing how arrogant you are and yet you can't grasp this simple concept.
freaking destroyed them

>>18138543
>>18138553
>>18138582
>>18138919
>>18140765
Wittgenstein just says a bunch of ambiguous things and make imperative affirmations without any justification for them whatsoever. You and all his fans praise him because you want to have sex with the guy. Well, maybe not that extreme, but you just find him stylish.

>>18152821
First of all, ignoramus. Aquinas is not saying anything new at all, you are just utterly devoid of philosophical background, no wonder you do all you can to reject any metaphysical, ontological inquiry in favor of a physical one, how convenient, no? You are restricting a discussion about Aquinas and metaphysics to physics. You are either insane or dishonest. You can repeat all you want about your narrow physicist mentality, but time begins, this means it becomes something, this means it is caused by something to begin and to be what it is. End of discussion. Now you can proceed with your physicism as if it was rational just to get rid of it right off in order to appeal to ''what if it was a mystery''. I mean, how can anyone take you seriously when you contradict yourself.
I think it was addressed to you but in any case, you start with Plato.

>>18152821
>But no, it has to be a "prime mover" who just happens to be the exact cultural mythos of the Christian religion.
You are really a dumbfuck. The argument does not purport to prove a ''christian god''. It merely shows how reality is not restricted to what is physically determined. But you just keep repeating the same things over and over again, exactly like everything Russell says against God, religion, Christianity, is repeated verbatim by atheists. You people are blinded dogmatists.

>>18153025
>this means it is caused by something to begin
No, it doesn't. Again, you refuse (or are mentally incapable) of realizing that if time doesn't exist, there isn't the possibility of a "cause" to happen. Again, as I said before, you take how things happen within time, and then apply that to a scenario where time doesn't exist yet, and you think that makes you smart. If you want to believe in a divine being, do so on faith, because these "reasoned" arguments are entirely fallacious and self contradictory.

>>18152821
>>18152936
Time is quantification. It must begin with the unity for even time itself is a unity. What forms a unity is not time for time itself is restricted by participating in unity (for it is a unity - I mean, it is Time and not many different times). Unity must precede time. Remembering this was already explained by Plato and Aristotle.

>>18153038
I'm pointing out that the leap from "this is how things happen in time, so that must be how things happen without time" is crayon-eating levels of retarded. I have stated before that this is a gap in knowledge and a mystery, you are the one saying you absolutely know the mechanics of the origin of time and won't accept any criticisms of it. But at least you seem to be starting to comprehend that dogmatism is a bad thing, so maybe there is hope for you in the end.

Aristotle believed the world has always existed, no? As far as I know he didn't believe in a prime mover.

>>18153055
I see you must have had a serious brain damage at some point so I'll try to explain to you again. Time operates through succession, it must have started at some point otherwise there would be no whole, formed, ''concrete'' beginning, this succession implies the idea of causation, the idea of causation is not the same as time itself, the idea of causation is in time because time itself was caused to begin/become. Beginning and becoming imply changing into what it was not - this change is a relation between what changes and what is changed into. Use the two brain cells you still have and you'll understand.

>>18139595
You're talking about a man who, with a straight face, claimed the question of what caused the universe was illegitimate. He is deeply dishonest, yes. Rather than risk conceding a point, he'll simply spit the dummy and go home. It's hard to see the man as anything other than an aristocratic pseudo-intellectual.

>>18153076
You are literally saying that what is caused/changed to begin to exist imply that there was no change/causation before what is changed/caused to exist, to be something.
Yes, dogmatism is bad and it is what you are doing, this is why you refuse my rational and necessary explanations - yes metaphysics is necessary for all I said and you simply take concepts as determination, difference/sameness, causation, change, unity, being, for granted without thinking about them because you are a dogmatist.

>>18153089
He didn't think the prime mover was a physical being and that is his point: METAPHYSICS! Read the Book 12 of his Metaphysics, this is where he talks about the prime mover.

>>18153089
Aristotle literally wrote the prime-mover argument.

>>18153143
>>18153166
You are right, I thought he wrote it because he didn't believe in it and was just showing the other possibility.

>>18153112
>the idea of causation is in time because time itself was caused to begin/become
And there we have it. You just assume that causation exists outside of time. Crayon-eating levels of retarded.

>>18153132
>You are literally saying that what is caused/changed to begin to exist imply that there was no change/causation before what is changed/caused to exist, to be something.
You are assuming "causation" had a cause to come into existence. It's a paradox, how can causation, as a concept, need causation to precede it? It's incoherent reasoning.

>>18152821
I havent really been following the conversation. Why is causality contingent on time?

>>18147917
He isn't wrong. Socrates was primarily interested in the truth, but his dialogues are written in an intentionally playful manner. He clearly regards higher states of consciousness (i.e. being more in possession of that truth) as something to engage in joyously, rather like attending a dinner party or a wedding. His choice of the dialogue as the mode shows this in itself. Russell on the other hand seems to treat philosophy as an isolated exercise in machinery.

>>18153213
Because that is how the word is defined. It refers to a relationship of cause and effect, which is a relationship in time.

>>18153228
Why can time not be within a unity at first?

>>18153235
What do you mean?

>>18139429
>beg the question
It's not question-begging to make arguments for something you already believe. It's only question-begging when the arguments themselves presume the truth of the conclusion in the premises, you fucking mong

>>18153190
And you ignore the fact that the now being not time and that the point being not the line both determine (thus preceding) time and dimensionality respectively.

>>18153254
This whole thread has been people saying "if we assume time had a cause, then time had a cause"

>>18153259
Did you have a stroke while typing this? Do you need medical attention?

>>18153203
No I am not, you think (or again, fruit of dishonesty) I am because you make change/causation and time the exact same thing, thus meaning to say that Time determines everything and is not determined by any other thing (when in fact it is just another determination).

>>18142865
The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

>>18153235
The guy is comptlely inpet at basic metaphysics. See how he justifies his assertions: ''this is how the word defined in the dictionary''. Absolutely insane.

>>18153269
Thank you for finally admitting your ineptitude.

>>18138276
watching all the christcucks seething in this thread is hilarious

God isn't real. You've been duped by a cultural construct used to keep people in line.

>>18153277
>>18153282
You can alter the definitions of words all you want, the main assumption remains. You still just assume that time has a cause. It's not a reasoned argument, it's faith, pure and simple.

>>18153260
you might be too retarded to live my nigga. you probably only use 4chan because you couldn't figure out how to make an account on Reddit.

>>18153292
Is this why you ignore all I say and repeats the same things over and over again? Answer with yes or no: is time the same as change?

>>18153285
>>18153295
As soon as you start talking about change and causation existing without time, you are just engaging in a fantasy circlejerk. If that's your thing, I guess you would be right at home in religion.

>>18153312
Define the word "change". To me, it means something exists in one state, and at a later point in time, it is different. How do you even define change without reference to time?

>>18153324
Ok, let's accept your definition.
You said change:
>means something exists in one state, and at a later point in time, it is different.
Are these two different points, the same time or different times?

>>18153244
You're arguing that time can't be caused as a means, I assume, to try to disprove Aquinas' cosmological argument. But this is semantics. In the beginning, according to the Christian view, there was nothing except the unity of God. How God then fashions time is a mystery, but, for you to assume that time cannot be "caused" in any sense I think is overstepping the mark. You haven't shown how all elements of causation *must* proceed from within time. Your definition of time as material cause and effect seems to be a little narrow.

Time could simply be a byproduct of the material, created out of nothing alongside the material. Something outside of time cannot cause things, according to your narrow definition of causation, but I see no reason why it should not be able to create them. Think of God as a craftsman, this universe as the bottle, and the ship within that bottle as being all materials that motion once and only once that ship's sails have been unfurled. Naturally, causation/time as you describe it cannot take place until that unfurling has taken place, but this doesn't preclude the craftsman from *acting* upon the ship to spark that unfurling - despite the fact that he is not himself in the bottle.

It would be right to say that beings within time cannot feasibly act upon a being outside of time, but I see no reason why God - as the entity which envelops - cannot act upon it. What you perceive as time might well be an elementary and deeply malleable thing to this craftsman who exists outside of time. Causation in this sense does not require time because creation does not require time. An eternal being does not create at a certain point, rather that being is the certain point; the "happening" of creation in this instance is a mystery but it necessarily still includes a form of timeless causation.

>>18150137
You're right and those other guys are retarded mystical wannabees

>>18153324
What? No. Something could change into something else without any time passing; you just wouldn't be able to perceive the change yourself.

>>18153384
>Something could change into something else without any time passing
How does that work?

>>18153190
>>18153055
>>18152821
So either time is the representation of cause and effect and all sucession which will occur because of material change or time is not in the material universe, for the relation of cause and effect will not be material but purely temporal without bodies, matter, whatever, thus admitting a time outside our own time.
So I ask you in the first case, which is the only seemingly reasonable, or at least more reasonable than the second option, what causes and what is caused?

>>18153354
>>18153384
If something changes without any move in time, then at that exact moment in time, it would be both things at once, wouldn't it?

>>18153417
Why are you quoting me? That other anon (>>18153384) is not me. Will you answer my post here >>18153354 or will you keep dodging?

>>18153389
I am thinking here of the peculiar form of psychosis induced by too much diazepam. People who suffer this unfortunate effect cannot remember at all the moment that has just passed. We, of course, know that such a moment has taken place, but they have no knowledge of it. In the same way, I believe that if the chair you were sitting on were immediately to change into a frog - and by immediately I do mean immediately with no time passing whatsoever - to your mind it would appear as if you were always sitting on a frog. Your temporal lobe would be able to register no change despite the fact that a change had taken place, so your brain would choose to interpret the frog as having always been what you were sitting on. You perceive no change, but a change has taken place. Ergo, time is not necessary for change in itself.

>>18153362
>Your definition of time as material cause and effect seems to be a little narrow.
This is exactly my point though. The argument for a prime mover rests entirely on the ASSUMPTION that time itself is subject to the rules that govern things in time. If there ever were such a thing as an "uncaused cause" would it not be the phenomenon of time itself?

>>18153354
>>18153428
Not that guy, but I don't know what you mean by same time and different times. They are at different points in time, there's only one time.

>>18153428
I asked a question in regard to your question. If change occurs instantaneously, that is, without a difference in time, then at that specific moment, the thing would be both the original state it was in and also the state it is becoming. Would that not be the case?

>>18153447
No because time can be distorted by gravity. This indicates that time is, in some sense, material. Materials cannot be un-caused.

>>18153228
But why is a relationship of cause and effect exclusively in time? Whats the justifcation for this definition?

>>18153473
>Materials cannot be un-caused.
Why?

>>18153417
Are discussing causality or change?

>>18153479
To be uncaused is to be ontologically necessary. Something that is ontologically necessary has to be impassible, or in other words devoid of all potentiality and susbsitent exclusively in actuality. Matter is subject to causality and therefore is in potency thereby making it contingent.

>>18153462
>>18153453
Yes, this would be the case. So we have here two different points in time meaning this is how time proceeds: from a point to the other successively, continuously. What does this point in time mean? For me it is just as a numerical unity, numbers increase successively by a unity and are not time and number deeply related?

>>18153477
Observable reality. causation is the relationship between successive states of objects. Successive states of objects is time. They are bound by their definition. If you have a better definition of causation, then come forward.

>>18153487
They are one and the same. causation is change but implies there is some rule governing the change. It is always assumed that all changes are subject to some rules.

>>18153479
Materials are comprised of particles; you then have to ask what caused those particles. If you wish to state they simply popped up out of nowhere you have to both demonstrate this model and then prove that "nowhere" is what exists external to the universe. The problem with this is that whenever physicists have tried to demonstrate the existence of particles that pop up out of nowhere, they almost always wind up pointing to smaller particles instead. Smaller particles are not "nowhere" or "nothing;" they're simply smaller bits of matter. Secondly, you cannot prove the existence of nowhere. As soon as nowhere can be proven, it becomes somewhere.

>>18153479
>>18153447
Can you respond to this post >>18153416?

>>18153494
>Something that is ontologically necessary has to be impassible, or in other words devoid of all potentiality and susbsitent exclusively in actuality.
Why wouldn't something be "ontologically necessary" at one stage, and once it has effected the role that was necessary, change and become "subsitently exclusive to actuality" afterwards?
>>18153487
Either way I am speaking in regard to a moment in time for that question
>>18153477
Cause and effect is referring to a specific phenomenon. If you are referring to something other than that phenomenon, to use that phrasing muddies the water.

>>18153503
>Successive states of objects is time
Please see >>18153433 You can have change without time, particularly if time is something that we merely perceive.

>>18153286
>in this moment, I am euphoric

>>18153507
At this point I think I am conversing in about 4 or 5 different lines of conversation, but I will respond to your post now. When you begin to speak of "outside" the material and temporal, cause and effect aren't meaningful concepts anymore since they are so tied to our understanding as being living within time.

>>18153504
How do you propose to "demonstrate" something popping out of no where when you have already affirmed that "nowhere" is impossible to demonstrate, since when you do, it becomes "somewhere"?

>>18153503
Causality is the mechanism for change. I would agree with you that an object cannot be two separate things simultaneously. So if there is real change then its different states must be successive. However, thats only addressing the change in the object. It is a separate consideration from the principle of causality taken in itself. Your point doesn't speak to the question of whether or not simultaneously movements of causality are possible.
For example, the floor holds up my table, my table holds up my plate, and my plate holds up my tendies. These are three points in a causal chain each simultaneously contingent on the first causal factor. To put more clearly you have a series of causes whose motions don't require a passing of time to activate. True, this example exists IN time, but is not contingent on time.
>>18153524
>Why wouldn't something be "ontologically necessary" at one stage, and once it has effected the role that was necessary, change and become "subsitently exclusive to actuality" afterwards?
Because that would be an example of change and change can only occur in a thing which possesses potentiality. If a thing posseses potentiality then it is contingent and not neccesary. Necessity entails eternity.

>>18152821
You are making arbitrary stipulations. You can't even define time.

>>18153555
Please see >>18153527 a novel effect can potentially take place without any time passing.

>>18153555
Yes so the cause and effect are relations in material represented by time, right?

>>18152329
Passions are, loosely, the emotions. Your language is emotional language. God's anger is without passion, whereas yours is passionate.

>>18153568
>If a thing possesses potentiality then it is contingent and not necessary
Why couldn't it be completely uncontingent on things UNTIL after a certain event? It would be necessary and uncontingent before the event, and only contingent after it

So what are the arguments presented for and against time, hitherto?
You fuckers go on tangents or just make your arguments confusing.

>>18153574
Where?
>>18153575
What do you mean by "novel" and do you have an example?
>>18153580
That is the common understanding of it, yes

>>18153582
I did not deny my anger, friend, so how could I not admit that my being angry after explaining reasnoably more than four times how what he was asserting repeatedly was wrong was an emotional response? Is this all you have to say?

>>18153527
If there is a cause and effect we can build a clock by counting the frequency of this event. For example if we consider burning of paper, we can consider one unit of time to be when paper is completely burned. Your argument is based is constructed by pure imagination and a prime example of begging the question.
>by immediately I do mean immediately with no time passing whatsoever.
You are trying to show why my argument is wrong but have constructed the argument by but your conclusion is within your premise therefore unacceptable.

>>18153593
For a thing to be necessary then it must be impassible. Meaning the passing of time cannot exert any change on it. In order to change a thing must possess potentiality. If a thing is in a state of potency then it is contingent. To ask if a thing can go from a state of necessity to contingency is just incoherent with the terms

>>18153604
>so the cause and effect are relations in material represented by time, right?
>Yes
Perfect. Now you tell me, since the cause is a particle and the caused is either itself or another particle. What is this particle? Ok we know this is purely material, but a (whole) material thing is composed of other material parts, which will be composed of other particles. How do we proceed?

>>18153630
A thing may be "impassible" simply because of the absence of time. Then, when time is present, it could become subject to change. I am not talking about the "passing" of time, I am talking about it being a certain way without the concept of time, and a different way once the concept of time is introduced.

>>18153604
>What do you mean by "novel" and do you have an example?
Yes. Read >>18153433

>>18153635
Is your point that causes and effects are the result of previous material causes and effects? This is kind of my whole argument. Why would we apply the concept of cause and effect which exists in particles in time to the very concept of time itself.

>>18153604
Go ahead. Define Time.

>>18150093
It's from a book containing conversations he had with some guy. There have been a few threads about that book recently.

>>18153650
You conflate people's perception with the thing itself. If the chair became a frog in the exact same moment in time, then it would have to be both a chair and a frog in that exact moment in time. If it were the frog, it would be a moment AFTER it was a chair. If it were a chair still, it would be a moment BEFORE being a frog. Therefor, in that singular moment of instant change, it would have to be both at once.

>>18153644
To be necesaary entails being "above" time if you will use the term. To be within time is to change. And impassible thing cannot change. The argument wouldn't be to say that a necessary being can enter into time but rather just to ddeny ontological neccesity altogether. Thats fine if you want to believe that. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. My point waa just to say that matter cannot be necessary.

>>18153654
Because time is capable of being acted upon by materials and is therefore potentially material itself. See >>18153494 for why all matter must be contingent.

>>18153664
I'm happy with the common definition of time. Do you have a problem with that definition?

>>18142865
Read Leo Strauss. Modern philosophy is very different from classical philosophy.

>>18153672
>You conflate people's perception with the thing itself.
Well, exactly. Certain physicists think that time is simply engendered by our perception. That it cannot exist beyond this.

>>18153678
>>18153680
My point is that the qualities which are "necessary" appear to be different when speaking of existence in the absence of time vs the presence of time.

>>18153693
Descartes ruined a whole generation of scientists

>>18153693
Do you disagree with how I characterized the change of the chair to a frog and what that means in terms of time itself?

>>18153672
>both a chair and a frog in that exact moment in time
no it wouldn't; this is an assumption on your part

>>18153610
As you say, you acknowledge your anger. Your anger is not ordered rightly, for it is used to insult unnecessarily. The only anger which is ordered rightly is that anger which is without passion; conversely, only anger without passion is ordered rightly. So, since you misuse your anger, there must be some passion in it. Now, I don't say this to insult you, but to hopefully help you see the nature of the vice which is passionate anger. As we are discussing Aquinas, this is something which he discussed in the second part of the second part of the Summa. If the other anon riles your anger and you respond, you are drug down and away from the grace of God. It will disturb your mind and unquiet your soul. By seizing upon your anger, you injure yourself.

>>18153702
I cant clarify any further anon. You should look into the use of the terms necessary and contingent in philosophy. I dont have any sources I can give you unfortunately.

>>18153709
Okay, then which would it be at that exact moment in time?

>>18153654
But I'm just showing how your argument implies an infinite chain of parts to compose a material thing that will be the cause of other effects and the very representation of time itself.

>>18153702
Time follows necessity; necessity doesn't follow time

>>18153713
Understandable, thanks for putting forward your thoughts, they were actually the most interesting in the thread so far.

>>18153707
Yes. See >>18153709
>>18153718
That question cannot be answered by those within time.

>>18153719
I don't make the claim that it's infinite. I am content to say it's origin is inaccessible to our inquiry. My main thrust is criticizing those who claim they have concrete arguments to say that time itself was caused, and I have put forward why I think that is specious.
>>18153720
Why would time not alter necessity once it comes to exist?

>>18152846
I most certainly am quite arrogant. My pride knows no bounds. That is why, to fight against my pride so that I am not blinded by it, I rely on the opinions if those who I know are better and more humble than me, rather than resting on my own opinions, which are almost certainly wrong, because I am a proud, foolish, ignorant, rash, vain, and foolish man. Here, you are not disagreeing with me, but Aquinas; why do you not bother to read the words of the man with whom you disagree? Why do you parade around as though you have triumphed over him, when you do not even know his arguments and their terms?

>>18153712
I know and I even realize how it obstructed my argumentation. But as I said I am not without sin, even though I'm aware to the fact that the other anon is not interested in reasonably discussing Aquinas, metaphysics, but just wants to assert his impious bias.

>>18153725
I am referring to a specific moment in time. Why would those within time not be able to answer?

>>18153682
Which definition is that?

>>18153743
There is no "moment within time;" that's the point. The thing is changed not in a moment but in an instant. A moment might last for a few seconds or more; an instant is instantaneous.

>>18153733
>I don't make the claim that it's infinite.
You do if you assume the (sole) origin is matter, which by definition is determined.

>I am content to say it's origin is inaccessible to our inquiry
Even if this was the case, why not just consider God, then, which by definition is not accessible to be defined, or be open to the metaphysics you are desperately waging against?

>time itself was caused
It was either caused by that which it represents (matter/material universe), for time is reference for material in your own definition, or your definition of time lies outside matter.

>>18153737
I engage with the arguments and criticize them. Certain posters put forward his case (or their interpretation of it) and I find fault in it. I reject the "prime mover" case for the reasons stated at length in this thread. I don't mind if people claim they have faith in a certain divine position, that is their right, but to claim they have a logical or reasonable basis for this is simply incorrect and I will tell them so.

>>18153733
>Why would time not alter necessity once it comes to exist?
Necessity exists outside of time - time is subject to it; time is sustained by it. Time requires contingency to function. An unchanging being cannot therefore be affected by time. Note: time requires change, but change does not require time.

>>18153746
I won't insult your intelligence by copy/pasting the dictionary definition.

>>18153771
>An unchanging being cannot therefore be affected by time
*unless they choose to enter into time through flesh. The flesh is changed but the divine essence remains unchanged.

>>18138276
>He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead
>implying socrates did

>>18153766
Why are you already rejecting what is being under discussion? See how many different posters have been addressing to your faulty arguments?

>>18153756
Then it is subject to the passage of time since there would be a "before" moment of being a chair, and an "after" moment of being a frog. The change would have occurred between those two moments.
>>18153764
I explicitly state that the origin is mysterious. The concept of "God" is a term which is so muddied and carries so much baggage that it does not fit what we are discussing that it might reference. In fact, many Christians get quite aggravated when people use "God" as just a placeholder for a mystery and not as a definite divine being. Metaphysics are used to support unreasonable arguments through a series of self serving assumptions.
>>18153771
The conditions which necessitate time must exist in the absence of time. What makes you think that once time exists, it doesn't swallow up all that there is? Why would the "necessary" component of non-time continue to exist once time is established?

>>18153818
Exactly. Socrates arguments sound like the arguments of an old drunktard in a bar. Plato's dialogues were never that relevant in the first place though, this notion is just modern revisionism.

>>18153824
Many people are often wrong. The arguments they put forward are flawed and it wouldn't matter if the entirety of the human race went along with it, it would still be flawed. If you disagree with something I have said, state it and we can have a dialogue.

>>18153848
>there would be a "before" moment of being a chair, and an "after" moment of being a frog.
Not for the individual experiencing it. If time is reliant on perception, if it is, in fact, a faculty of perception, then we can say for that individual the change has occurred timelessly.

>>18153871
How do we determine if a person is mentally unwell? How do we know if a person is becoming disconnected from reality or if maybe we are the ones disconnected from reality and the supposed mentally ill one is becoming more attuned to reality? We may never know.

>>18153848
>many Christians get quite aggravated when people use "God" as just a placeholder for a mystery
Check Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:27; 1 Timothy 3:16; then we have other instances of this unknown nature of God in OT, in the Trinity as well. You could be honest at least to yourself and say you just want to keep your bias.

>Metaphysics are used to support unreasonable arguments through a series of self serving assumptions.
If they are unreasonable why are you not responding to them properly here, but rather, facing how they show your arguments to be quite unreasonable, just matters of opinions and belief?

>>18153868
If they are flawed why are they showing your arguments to be faulty (after all you are the one asserting infinite material chain)? Or even worse, why are you not showing how they are flawed but merely, again, just asserting it?

>>18153680
>time is capable of being acted upon by materials and is therefore potentially material itself
source on this? Don't make claims that you cannot substantiate.

>>18153910
I prefer to have accurate terms. You have just provided evidence for why the term "God" is perhaps the least accurate term ever devised by man.
>why are you not responding to them properly here
To correct for the unreasonable, you have to introduce reason. I have stated why their propositions do not make sense. This is the appropriate response.

>>18153943
>all you are the one asserting infinite material chain.
Give me a quote where he asserted infinite material chain in this entire thread.

>>18153943
I have repeatedly stated that I am NOT asserting an infinite material chain and that the origin is a mystery. If you refuse to read or understand my position, then of course you will view it as flawed, but in such a case the fault lies with you.

>>18153848
>What makes you think that once time exists, it doesn't swallow up all that there is
a. Time is subject to distortion thanks to gravity (material phenomenon)
b. Time is therefore contingent given that it can be acted upon and thereby changed
c. If time is contingent, it must be being sustained by something. This something must therefore be before time.
d. If time is an object, there is no reason to think its properties are potent enough to force the predicate into it.

Necessity in this instance refers to the fact that God does not require anything to cause His existence; He simply is. And He is so eternally precisely because He exists independent of time. If He existed within time only, He would be everlasting rather than eternal. If God were simply everlasting, He would not be capable of creating time; he would in fact be contingent Himself. Once time has been created, there is no reason to assume the potter in this instance must then be contained within his pot.

>>18153973
Look at what we have here: you are denying your own argument now. You can't accept what your arguments lead to which is an infinite chain of parts composing parts that would compose a material thing.

>>18153965
See above, and literally just scroll the thread up.

>>18153953
Your accurate term is ''mysterious''? lol
Mystery is not God's definition, but his description. Are you really interested in knowing God?

>To correct for the unreasonable, you have to introduce reason. I have stated why their propositions do not make sense.
So you need to answer what was left unanswered. We can begin with your assertion about infinite chain of particles, how is it reasonable?

>>18153998
If you refer to the Biblical "God", his actions are constantly contingent on the actions of human beings. In fact, he is even subject to becoming angry because of the actions of man. Are we to disqualify him as a candidate for prime mover then?

>>18153945
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/06/24/does-time-go-faster-at-the-top-of-a-building-compared-to-the-bottom/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20time%20goes%20faster%20the,as%20%22gravitational%20time%20dilation%22.&text=The%20stronger%20the%20gravity%2C%20the,the%20slower%20time%20itself%20proceeds.

>>18153568
>the floor holds up my table, my table holds up my plate, and my plate holds up my tendies.
"holds up" is neither cause nor effect. If your object of consideration is your table, there are several forces acting upon it namely gravity, electromagnetic forces of floor and plate, centripetal force due to earth's rotation etc.. The cause is the state of the table in which several forces are acting on it. The effect is that your table remains stationary/ not accelerating. You are mistaking cause and effect for something entirely different.

>>18154044
Again how exactly does it show time is material?

>>18154038
>In fact, he is even subject to becoming angry because of the actions of man.
This is poetic language being used to demonstrate certain fundamental principles. When Noah convinces God to not wipe out the Israelites, God is not actually being convinced by Noah here; His mind is already made up. God simply grants this impression to Noah so that Noah might know to have courage even in the face of despair.

>>18154008
There can be a finite chain of cause and effect of material particles whose ultimate origin is mysterious. What exactly are you missing here? Also, you prove my point, "God" has other characteristics beyond just "mysterious" which make "God" as a term unsuitable.

>>18154038
So you realize that God exists? The ''biblical god'' can only be discussed with that premise actualized.

>>18154054
See >>18153998

>>18154065
So the fall in the garden is precisely and exactly as God planned, since if man's fall was enacted by his own will, God's decision to force man out of the garden would be contingent on the actions of man? Therefore, sin is not the moral culpability of Adam, it was designed by God all along.

>>18154068
So the origin is different from that chain. If you are holding so much to ''mysterious'' why would you all the time assert how all you write is based on reason? You are contradicting yourself... again! I assume this is the reason you reject metaphysics, because it is too dependent on reason. If you are interested in this ''mysterious'' origin you don't need to worry because we have a huge corpus of mysticism in basically all religions.

>>18153774
Please do

>>18138543
i have to disagree with the guy who applied to be a worker in the soviet union and was turned down. Russell's trip to the USSR, and his description of his time there is really enlightening. it confirms a lot of suspicions people had about the soviets, and his work was influential to orwell

>>18154074
He exists as a character in a book, and as such there are certain qualities assigned to him. I can speak of Socrates and his teachings without for a minute believing he was actually real or just a character.

>>18154106
If we do not have the answer to a question, the reasonable thing to do is to recognize we don't have the answer. The unreasonable thing to do is to take whatever fits your fancy and claim with absolute certainty that it is the answer.

>>18154122
Ok dude but that is not what is being examined. You brought it up out of nowhere when we were simply stating God's existence, not what religion was right or whatever.

>>18154115
Sorry to break it to you, but that post was already insulting your intelligence. Unfortunately it still went over your head

>>18154137
>The unreasonable thing to do is to take whatever fits your fancy and claim with absolute certainty that it is the answer.
We are not the ones believing in the very non existence of that which is most mysterious: God; and for this reason confining everything to that which can be not only easily known but tangible: matter. You seem really confused.

>>18154145
I already addressed that I don't consider the "prime mover" to be convincing. However, since you presumably do, I wanted to point out that, by your own stated definitions for the prime mover, the Biblical God wouldn't fit the bill.

>>18153766
As you admit just here, at no point have you engaged with Aquinas' argument. You have only responded to summaries of it. When countless numbers have tried to show you that you do not know Aquinas' argument, you dismiss them. At no point have you personally read Aquinas, nor do you know his argument. You certainly don't know the way in which Plato's, Aristotle's, and Aquinas' Prime Mover arguments differ. You are wholly unfamiliar with the subject. Therefore, you have not rejected The Prime Mover argument. In fact, you have rejected nothing except your own imagination of what these arguments are, which you've never seen. Why do you refuse to read Aquinas?

>>18154169
Do you have such little confidence in your own understanding that you can't even present a coherent version of his position? Do you need to appeal to his supposed authority instead of just using the argument and it's merits?

>>18153739
Exactly. He is not being reasonable. Why let your self be carried away in anger by a man who you know acts foolishly? Proverbs 26:4--answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him.

>>18154164
We both agree there is a mystery. However, you are the one going a step further and slotting "God" into that mystery. This is an expression of your own bias, nothing more.

>>18154147
As you say, so it must be. But why do you not give a definition of time?

>>18154168
Why? There are points for the prime mover still left unanswered here. It is very simple, either you assume everything is material or not. From this point we can unfold what is contained in the argument of the prime mover (which merely shows how matter can't be by itself - nothing else is stated for the first mover). You can put your petty beliefs aside and start thinking, but you can also put not, but at least admit your own beliefs to be what they are: personal opinions.

>>18154191
When your dog, or any animal, does something it should not be doing eating a sock of yours, peeing on your new rug, how do you treat it? How do you show what it is doing is wrong?

>>18154183
If you'd read Aristotle's rhetoric, you'd know that the authority of a speaker is one of it's most persuasive elements. If authority does not matter, would you go so far as to say your argument has no authority in this matter?

>>18154218
He is not your dog. He is not yours at all. He is a fellow sinner, in just as much need of God's mercy as you. You have not the authority, nor the virtue to correct him in such a manner.

>>18154218
You could have just quoted Proverbs 26:5. But, instead, you decided to conjure up a revolting toilet humour analogy. Bravo, maestro.

>>18154198
>you are the one going a step further and slotting "God" into that mystery.
Because this is the very description of God and (process of) creation itself as I already told you and you are making me repeat it again.

You talk of bias but you are the one assuming a mystery that is not what matter is, but at the same asserting only matter exists. Do you need any help?

>>18154207
I have to go, if this thread is still active in 5 hours I will reply further. With the prime mover, you are left with the idea that a non-material cause is somehow still subject to the cause and effect relationship inherent to matter. It is a self refuting position. Why would non-material cause outside of time somehow still follow the rules for material within time? It's shocking just how much projection there is from being within time onto things which are beyond the possibility for comprehension. Ultimately, you cannot use the same concepts from space time and project them onto non-space and non-time.

>>18154238
I'm not saying he is mine. He is a fellow as much as a dog is my fellow, he has no reason, he is wicked for he rejects God and his own light which illuminates his Creator's existence. He should be corrected and to correct someone lacking reason it should be done in the same manner we correct animals (for this is what he lowers himself to).

>>18154239
No idea how what I said, a man rejecting what makes him a man - reason - fits toilet jokes.

>>18154263
Yes, it is good to admonish a sinner, but I encourage you to go read what Aquinas' has to say about fraternal correction. There is hardly room for passionate anger between equals. That he does not use reason well does not mean he is without it. How do your insults help him? Or is it rather to your own satisfaction?

Aquinas is a piece of shit, I would beat him to death. Fat asshole.

>>18154255
Because either time is simultaneous to and represented by matter, that is conditioned by matter, or it is outside matter, proving its cause and agency is immaterial. You should read these posts that address this:
>>18153998
>>18153494
>>18153416
You are just repeating what was already answered. If you are in a thread, at least read the thread.

>>18154102
A perfect message does not have to be perfectly received in order to be perfect. It is wrong to say that God's decision in this case was contingent on man's decision. God knew what was going to happen yet permitted it to happen so as to allow humanity their free will. His response in this case is then more of an action than a reaction. Alternatively, God purposefully constrained and constrains his omniscience so as to allow humanity complete freedom of will. In such a scenario, you might claim that God's action in this instance would be in relation to Adam's, but such relation in no way necessitates God being subject to time once time is created.

>>18154275
You conjured up the image of a dog urinating indoors. Because you've obviously got no manners at all.

It time is material or not it's beyond the point. Can you have succession and causation without time?

>>18154293
I would not be wasting hours of my day to try to help him if I did not care for him, if I did not want genuinely his conversion. I want others to be with God and not to me or what I say. What do you propose here? That I keep talking to him incessantly, stop everything I need to do in order to say the same things which he will reject?

>>18154321
How does that - pointing a natural behavior of animals - invalidate anything I said?

>>18154340
I don't care about your pompous nonsense. I just thought it was funny to see der Übermensch failing to meet the most basic standards of civility.

>>18153903
This has nothing to do with the person being mentally unwell; in the example provided, the chair is said to actually change instantaneously into a frog. My point is that it might be possible for change to occur without the perception of time.

>>18154375
If you mean this in the nietzschean sense, well, civility is not predicated of it at all.

>>18154397
I just meant it in the general sense of somebody who is superior to mortal men. I though about writing: "superman" but I didn't because "Übermensch" is a funnier word.

>>18154435
Ah yes. I don't consider myself to be above mortal men, though.

>>18154458
Well, you're literally asking for it, so I'll give it to you: you compared somebody to a dog and yourself to the dog's master. Why? Because he committed the crime of disagreeing with you.

There were probably Medieval kings that were less arrogant then you.

>>18154329
First, it is very easy to do much seemingly for the salvation of souls, but which is really in service to our town pride. This kind of pride is in fact one of the most dangerous. Nothing we do matters quite so much as doing the will of God. It is certain, that when we give in to our passions, we do not do the will of God. It is not the way of God to insult; even when a man needs to be humiliated, there are usually better ways. Respond to him, or don't. But if you do, keep your patience and restrain your tongue. If you can't keep your patience, then this fight isn't for you.

>>18154488
I am not the one you are debating with, but blasphemy is not civil. We endure it because most men do not know what they do.

>>18154510
It's not really a debate, I just saw a windbag and I thought I'd reach out and let him know that's he's a windbag (just in case he wasn't aware).

It's interesting that you class other people having opinions as "blasphemy". It seems as if you, much like the previous windbag, view yourself as a morally perfect superman who exists to judge all of humanity. You shouldn't be wasting your time talking to hoi poloi on 4chan. You should spend your time fashioning a special hat so that everybody who interacts with you can know that they're in the presence of a truly awesome being.

>>18154048
That doesn't contradict anything. There's still causality involved. If instead of staying table holding plate you would rather say atomic and gravitational forces you're describing exactly the same phenomenon. The physical forces invovled cause the material in question to rest in a certain space and this acts as a simultaneous chain.

>>18154488
Anyone refusing to be reasonable is not a normal human being and should be berated. Simple. I'm just affirming my humanity rather than putting me above it, and if you tolerate grievous blasphemies then you are not being reasonable as well.

>>18154499
You tolerate grievous blasphemies and worse, you tolerate the arrogance of not admitting one is blaspheming and that one is or could be wrong. We should control ourselves and I admit we should not offend anyone, but if it hurts to be put in order, then let it hurt rather than let it perish (and suffer even more).

>>18154741
Of course, "reasonable" people are the one's who agree with all your personal ramblings about theology and geometry.

Anybody who doesn't is an animal and a "blasphemer". It's interesting that you think you're above humanity, when you're embracing the most instinctual, animal instincts that the human brain has to offer.

>>18154793
Yes, any reasonable person knows God, for even reason is the instrument we have not only for ourselves but for knowing Him. Therefore, there is nothing personal here.

>Anybody who doesn't is an animal and a "blasphemer".
For what constitutes man, yes. And for what blasphemies mean, yes as well.

>You're above humanity
Again? I just said I'm just a man precisely because of reason.

>>18154793
>you're embracing the most instinctual, animal instincts that the human brain has to offer.
Do you want to talk about how the realization of God is instinctual? This seems interesting. Are you meaning that it is just a tribal instinct? Want to hear how tribalistic formations is the very instance of surpassing irrationality and animality? Having consciousness of right and wrong, good and bad is already what puts man above animals.

>>18154819
>Yes, any reasonable person knows God.

Exactly, you're right and anybody who disagrees with you is a madman.

>Therefore, there is nothing personal here.

Pure cowardice: "I'm not superior, I'm just the conduit for something that is superior". No different from any cult leader who claims to be channelling a higher power.

>For what constitutes man, yes. And for what blasphemies mean, yes as well.

Your definitions are the only ones that matter because you're God's representative on Earth.

>Again? I just said I'm just a man precisely because of reason.

Just a man with a hotline to God.

>Do you want to talk about how the realization of God is instinctual?

You've misinterpreted. The issue is not God, the issue is you using God are an excuse to justify your actions. Which is just pure tribalism: "I can do as I please because God's on my side and he hates everybody I hate." It's just an appeal to authority.

>>18154873
I and other anons in this thread proved how God is reachable by reason, therefore it is not with me that they are disagreeing with.

>Cowardice.
See above.

>The issue is...
Yes I told you what you think it is (which you just said). I don't do as I please, I do as it pleases what is reasonable threfore right. I have the common exasperation present to all man, but I do not do as it pleases to me.

>>18154920
The fact that something is "reachable by reason" does not mean that anybody who does not accept the conclusion is "without reason". It's possible to conclude that there is no God with reason. But you were the only one who started dehumanising people.

And don't try that humble act. There are a thousand logical arguments for a thousand different belief systems. But you don't embrace the majority of them and you don't insult their opponents, because they don't justify your personality.

You can defer responsibility all you want, but, you insulted somebody because it made you feel important. There's nothing noble about that.

>>18155015
>It is possible to conclude that there is no God with reason and that there is God with reason.
Truly reasonable of you.

But this is interesting, see why: this declares an aperture which the justification of one's action and one's own being - reason - becomes subjective. You know where it ends up, don't you? Yes, you are justifying everything I do with your subjectivism. You are brilliant.

>>18155015
holy shit, lmao you are so low as to resort to saying that logic can contradict itself being still logical in many different contradictory systems. No most of the belief systems are not logical at all. This thread proved materialism is one of them. Now go back whence you came, Satan.

>>18155040
I'm not justifying your rude and spiteful conduct. Because rude and spiteful conduct cannot be justified. Stop trying to turn this into a debate about God's existence, it's irrelevant. You were rude and you ruined a good natured debate, that is a fact no matter who was right about the Prime Mover.

>>18155053
Here's your (you). Spend it on an English language class.

>>18155085
Read your own words. I refuse to keep talking to someone like you who probably are just one of the refuted atheist posters above. You don't care about what is right or wrong, since you yourself claim the paradigm of it to be irrelevant, but is resorting to the most idiotic sentiment possible ''you were rude'', you don't even know where on the internet you are. Go back.

>>18155121
You really wish everybody who disagreed with you were an atheist because you have lots of good arguments against atheism. You don't have a single good argument to justify the fact that you're an insufferable human being.