/lit/ - Literature

>>18172919
>most professional philosophers
are retards and haven't read the proofs in full
and yes the existence of God is first revealed and can be rationally proved after

>>18172988
So you’ve got an belief already and you’re coming up with reasons why this is rational after the fact? Isn’t this post hoc?

>>18172919
He didnt even come up with them. He copy pasted them from Aristotle and replaced some words with christian ones.

>>18172988
That's called circular reasoning and it is the reason faith can only ever be right on accident.

>>18173124
Interesting how you miss the whole social-cultural context of the entire mediterranean from 200BC to roughly 500AD.

>>18172919
paging that anon who claimed his atheist speed reading professor read some aquinas book in 20 minutes and then wanted to go to church

>>18173106
>>18173128
Revelation = reduction, diversion from natural attitude which is obstructive. Afterwards there can be reason. This is how every culture and human being emerged. Read books I beseech you.

>>18172919
This thread again. The previous one showed atheists are dishonest and simply can’t accept materialism is false. God is demonstrated with the very light he endowed us.

is there any inherent reason to think that all existence is reducible to either potentiality or actuality? Plotinus seems to reject this in asserting that the One is neither or beyond them

Now I'm no theologian but from what I understand basically no one thinks the Thomistic arguments are valid in a logical sense, what they represent is a departure from a view of God as a human-like being towards a much greater abstraction.

Nowadays I think most eduated believers view God as fundamentally transcendent, from which follows that now logical proof of his existence can be given, because then he would be immanent to that logical system. No postive statement about God can ever be entirely correct, including statements about his existence.

>>18173182
Insofar as God - the One for later platonists - is above Being, yes there is neither actuality nor potentiality. But this is apophaticism and different from what Aquinas wanted to show.

>>18173219
>But this is apophaticism and different from what Aquinas wanted to show.
He says that God is purely actual correct? How would a Thomist react to someone asserting God is above Being, in disagreement with Aquinas?

>>18172919
>Long story short there can’t be a truly ‘rational’ proof for God.
No, no, no; there are rational proofs for God, St. Paul mentions this in Romans; but NOT for the God of Revelation, those can only be "reasonable".

>>18173182
Quantum Mechanics?

>>18173156
Kek was it about the genius physics/biology professor who read the Summa in 20 minutes flat in front of anon and was able to summarise its key ideas?
>>18173167
Which books prove God from a neutral standpoint? (Don’t say atheists don’t believe ‘cause of sin and they deep down know God is real)

>>18173395
I don’t know what you mean by neutral standpoint, could you be clearer?

>>18173420
I mean not from the viewpoint of someone who already believes in God like Aquinas, but also not from a vehement New Atheist like Sam Harris. Just a normal person who is not inclined either way, and would rationally accept one of Aquinas’ 5 ways, without emotion clouding his reasoning abilities. Although I guess there is no neutral, rational proof for God like there is for circle theorems.

a god killer is defined as a being which exists and proves the neccesity of god wrong. it exists neccesarily by definition and by its very nature it proves the neccesity of god wrong.

>>18173438
I don’t think one could distort reason and logic so as to fit beliefs, does this seem feasible to you? Have you read Aristotle, for example? Do you think he was not committed to purely rational and logical argumentation in his writings? Aquinas is no different from him, Plato, Proclus, Kant, Husserl, Hegel to name a few. Reason itself is self-transcendent. You can see this in Husserl for example, and I think he is specially interesting insofar as he is engages with epoché, skepticism. But Plato also understood it (and all mystics of all religions). Plato offers a mathematical (and meta-mathematical) basis for his doctrines, look for his agrapha dogmata.
If materialism is easily debunked by reason alone, does it not offer you the way to even transcend purely rational accounts though?

If anybody is serious. This series is excellent, here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpzmRsG7u_gpMogZpIcZnS0BsD3z8_x3n
God Bless.

>>18173541
One thing Catholicism has going for it is superior art.

>>18173395
>Kek was it about the genius physics/biology professor who read the Summa in 20 minutes flat in front of anon and was able to summarise its key ideas?
yes

>>18173593
Bar a ready-made opiate for the masses, art is all it brings and the former can be said about any religious dogma.

>>18173858
>opiate for the masses
I guess it could be seen as a ‘noble lie’ of sorts

>>18173593
"Catholicism" has produced no art, only the poetic genius in Man has produced art

i got reconverted via the ctmu but unironically

>>18174141
>ctmu
QRD?

bump

Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam.

I will now answer this whole thread.

Saint Gregory Palamas >>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Aquinas

>>18172919
he is the culmination of classical philosophy, for aquinas faith is confidence in the dogmatic truths of the christian faith, these are dependent upon revelation and not on speculation, the belief in God is dependent upon reason, so the metaphysician can arrive at certain truths of the Christian faith but not its entirety, that God is one is reason, that God is triune revelation, for aquinas theology is a science, because faith is both subjective, in being your own experience, and objective, being the profession of faith of the apostles and catholic church, theology therefore includes everything from scripture, church history, the lifes of the saints and the mystical life, because all these things are aspects of the christian faith, faith itself is seen as the act of mutual love and correspondence of the trinity. so his faith is itself observable to reason, it is a sort of a priori yes, but nonetheless not the basis of rational thought

to understand his arguments about God you need to understand classical ontology and epistemology, without this its just logic and wordplay, for aquinas the mind is a blank slate like Aristotle, it is incorporeal, infinite and undetermined, a stage open to the infinity of being, its own existence is not an a priori truth, existence is something the mind experiences in sensible objects, and recognizes in its being a similarity, the mind for aquinas is in a state a potentiality for possessing being, its first thought is an impression for something external, something actualizing the minds potentiality for knowledge, in this case a sensible object, this object, becuase of the minds indeterminate nature, is assimilated and comprehended simultaneously, actively the mind apprehends the form separating it from the phantasm, passively it bisects it into categories, aspects of being impressed onto the mind from this act, the mind now knows existence, actuality in the minds act of knowing and the objects act of being, and potentiality in the minds potential to know, these are aspects of being, similarly analogous to its own being . in the observable universe things change, this is called motion, the objects changing must both be at once actual and also potential, otherwise they would not either exist or change, for aquinas the principle of change is matter, a metaphysical principle of corporeal beings, a formless being existing as a substance of some form, atoms here are the form, the individual atom is a substance of both these principles, its own individual substance distinguishes it from all other atoms, the form shows its universality and unity with all other atoms, its matter the potential to change into another being, as you can see Aquinas does not jump straight into proving Gods existence, he would prove the existence of an atom beforehand, because for Aquinas all beings are an intimation of the Absolute being, God

>>18174876
Saint Maximus The Confessor was better!

>>18174876
>in the observable universe things change, this is called motion, the objects changing must both be at once actual and also potential, otherwise they would not either exist or change, for aquinas the principle of change is matter, a metaphysical principle of corporeal beings, a formless being existing as a substance of some form
And how does that distinguish between physical and intentional causality?
>as you can see Aquinas does not jump straight into proving Gods existence
You’re right, because he never does that at all, or why God is supposed to be the Christian one, instead of any other one

>>18174801
Thoughts on Palamas being considered a pantheist for the essence/energy distinction? Also how come Orthodoxy didn’t develop a form of scholasticism like Catholicism?

>>18174964
he proves how there must be something beyond matter without which there is no matter at all. try reading at least a single page of his summa.

>>18174980
>Palamas being considered a pantheist for the essence/energy distinction?
No! Not pantheist! Panentheist. It is very important to know the difference.
>scholasticism
There have been many great Orthodox philosophers over the centuries. However, Orthodoxy places mysticism above intellectualism, whereas in the west it is the opposite. The transcendental argument for God shows why plain rational thought alone is not enough. Palamas said that western doctrine would lead to atheism. We can see now in the 21st century that he clearly was right.
Here are some good Orthodox philosophers.
Saint Maximus The Confessor
Ivan Ilyin
John of Damascus
Vladimir Lossky
Justin Popović
John Meyendorff
Gregory of Nazianzus
Pseudo-Dionysius
Saint Isaac the Syrian

>>18175018
>he proves how there must be something beyond matter without which there is no matter at all.
Which addresses none of the things I just posted, good job

>>18174964
im not sure i understand, intentional on whos part, the minds or the first causes? , aquinas would argue there could only be one God, believing that Christ is God is what distinguishes Christians from non Christians, its a matter of revelation, read what i said in the first paragraph

>>18175065
>im not sure i understand, intentional on whos part, the minds or the first causes?
Physical is a meteor striking a planet under the influence of just gravity, and intentional is a guy throwing a rock into another rock. One is under the influence of just physics, the other under the influence of a conscious will. So, how does Aquinas distinguish between these two, and how does Aquinas establish that the universe was the result of intentional causality and not physical causality?

>>18175051
>transcendental argument for God
Do you think this is effective? I’ve seen Dyer’s debate with Malpass, and the argument just seemed like word salad. Can be boiled down to:
>God explains logic and other transcendentals
>materialism cannot account for them
>your worldview can’t account for them therefore you can’t use them (?)
>so God is necessary for knowledge
>also every other worldview except Orthodoxy is incoherent
Am I getting it right?

>>18173106
yeah and sometimes in physics you first observe a phenomena and then prove that it follows from a set of widely accepted laws

are you fucking stupid

>>18175053
do you accept matter (actually compounds, since matter is difference but thats another topic) is partial reality then? Then why reject metaphysics and that which metaphysics proves: God?

>>18175051
Sorry but Isaac of Nineveh, Maximus, Nazianzen and Dionysius are Catholic. You can keep the others.

>>18173181
based

>>18172919
>>18173106
>>18173395
>>18173438
>see if you believe in something than you can just distort logic and reason to fit it
You people are irredeemably retarded and desperate

>>18175247
Observing a phenomenon != believing the phenomenon could be observable so it must exist
Only in theology is the latter taken just as seriously as the former, Aquinas is a clown desu

>>18173181
exactly, this is essentially the Bertrand Russell thread a couple of days ago
>>18138276

These New Atheists are so repulsively gay and dumb.
They have no actual philosophical arguments at all. Their debate tactics are nothing but emotionalism and political grandstanding. Sam Harris's entire argument is literally just this.
>women are abused in Afghanistan by religious Muslims so how can you say there is a God?
What a retard.

>>18175407
>Bertrand Russell
total hack
and a globalist too

>>18175379
Nice cope. St Isaac of Ninevah isn't even canonized in the Latin church and both St Maximus and St Gregory Nazianzus taught the EE distinction.

>>18175090
aquinas is a metaphysician so he would be more concerned about the "existence" of the meteor as its cause, physics was more speculative than scientific in the medieval age, but he wouldn't mistake physical causes for metaphysical causes or likewise, the meteor, being a temporal (changing) being is both actual and potential, you cannot have a infinite regress of potential causes behind something actual, as an first cause both actual and potential could not exist, as something cannot be indeterminate(potentiality) eternally and exist of itself, something entirely actual, that is eternal, that has no principle it is dependent upon (infinite) that is intelligent ( possesses its own being), omniscient ( in being entirely actual and infinite knows itself perfectly), incoporeal ( not being material as it is a principle of potentiality), perfect ( insofar as it is itself perfectly without potential for change) ect
basically naturalism could be true if the universe didn't "exist"

intentional causality is classed under aristotle as final causes, every action that an intelligent being does necessarily has some end in mind, something that moves itself must move towards the good, something that is good for its own sake, for God nothing is greater than him as he is perfect, so every action he does is for his own sake, aquinas sees Gods act of creation as a free choice, he gives away his goodness freely, every created being derives its actuality, essence and powers from God, if it ceased to be actual it would no longer exist, so God is causing things to exist directly and willfully, continually.

>>18175426
The thread BTFO'd him quite hard; I'll post one of the comments - give me your thoughts:

"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?"

>>18173181

The latter sentence is meaningless.

>>18175395
Or perhaps Aquinas just literally read a book from his greatest influence who happened to be Aristotle who happened to write the metaphysics. Interestingnly both of whom you never read a single page. Seriously, do you need any help? This is not a behavior befitting of someone healthy (intellectually honest too).

>>18175433
But they knew the Filioque is cool (even though there is no contradiction with Orthodoxy’s negation of it for the “moment” the Father utters (and thereby knows) His Word He is filled with the Spirit of their relation.

>>18175470
God is demonstrated through the very light with which he endowed us.

>>18175494
>Filioque
No!
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father!
You ignore the Monarchia of the Father!

>>18175503

Please stop gibbering.

>>18175512
Yes He proceeds from the Father and there is no contradiction with Filioque.

>>18175466
Bertrand Russel said in some interview that people having their lives improved by faith in religion does not prove the religion true. But the stupid faggot conveniently ignored that the same applies to scientism and he has no solid fundamental grounding for any of his claims.

>>18175411
Kek his arguments in the debate against WLC were 90% rhetoric
>also pic rel

>>18175553
This is reddit tier. How is he a celebrated intellectual?

>>18175609
>How is he a celebrated intellectual?
Because of redditors

>>18175553
"It sucks"
Bravo

>>18175933
I hate how bugmen insert this sort of slang into what is supposed to be an intellectual statement or something.

>>18172919
>post-hoc rationalisations
you dont even know what this means

>>18175609
Not to sound like a fedora but most people are just a bit stupid

>>18172919
>post-hoc rationalisations for his pre-existing belief
No. This would suggest that Aquinas had anything less than total faith in Scripture which is untrue. He merely thought that presuppositionalism was an absurd position and instead established a system of unity between revealed and revealable truths

>>18172919
>professional philosophers

>>18172919
>PS, most professional philosophers
lol

>>18176080
>presuppositionalism was an absurd position
Jay Dyer would like to have a word with you. Why do you think presuppositionalism is absurd?

>>18173219
This always goes into meaningless ground. It may be true, but it isn't true in a way that broadens our understanding of things. Concepcts like beyond time, beyond being etc are just metaphysical blanks used to fill in certain gaps of our understanding.

>>18173858
>Bar a ready-made opiate for the masses
cringed

>>18173124
Anyone who says this is retarded. The First Way is from Aristotle, yes. The second, third, and fifth way can be considered as synthesized from certain aristotelian notions, but none ever established by aristotle himself and contain many ideas not ever given by aristotle. The 4th way is totally separate from aristotle at all

>>18176102
I personally dont have an opinion on it. I'm not well informed enough to. I had just heard Aquinas did and that Aquinas's evidentialism left him frowned on.

>>18176117
in other words, we never get past the criticisms of Fichte on Kant

>>18176124
Now that i think about it, i dont think the 3rd way is aristotelian either

>>18175466
Am I talking to the same exact anons every Aquinas thread? I feel like i'm starting to recognize certain posters

>St. Thomas was a huge heavy bull of a man, fat and slow and quiet; very mild and magnanimous but not very sociable
oof

>>18176182
Well, I normally post my list in political threads; so you might recognize me for it
https://ghostbin.co/paste/tchnp
I also like Edmund Blair Leighton's paintings

>>18176209
Whats Chestertons best book on Distributism

>>18175407
I want to knock up that nun.

>>18175553
I wonder how many, during his working and writing that out, time he actually thought to himself what a brilliant person he is? It's essentially flowered up pic related "philosophy".

>>18176102
based dyerbro

>>18175407
They always have nice Grecian noses and defined chins in these old paintings. Most people are uglier in real life.

>>18175466
Please post more cool aesthetic Medieval pictures.

>>18176475
Imagine simping for a dude

Faith wouldn't be worth anything if God's existence could simply be proven.

>>18174141
so you actually read and understood it or are you chris langan shilling? if you did please explain it, genuine request

>>18176637
This, there can be no testing if the answers are readily blatant.

>>18176117
You can find in Plato the rational form of these ''super''metaphysical protology with his ideas of One, Dyad, Ideal Numbers, Ideal Figures, Unity, which are ''above'' Being. Then again it is not restricted to him, but you certainly will be averse to more mystical metaphysics, works that don't work grounded on purely rational form. So for anyone thinking that this kind of metaphysics (beyond Being and Difference) is not rational, or just ''metaphysical blanks'' I recommend Plato.

>>18172919
Most professional philosophers are analytics, so their opinions on Aquinas are completely irrelevant.

>>18176637
>>18176675
Faith is beyond proof that is why it is non-rational, it is pure Gnosis.

>>18176718
>He hasn't heard of Analytical Thomism.

>>18176718
Analytic philosophers make me want to throw up in my mouth

>>18176554
I don't know what you mean. Jay Dyer is very knowledgeable and intelligent.
The only thing I don't really like is I think sometimes in his streams he tries too hard with the silly meme/pop culture humor to pander to the zoomers in the audience. Aside from that, however, he is really good.

>>18176723
No! Orthodoxy is completely anti-gnostic in every way. Gnosticism is Satanic. Orthodoxy teaches Theosis, not gnosis.

>>18176891
This desu and also (((Marx))), who had more in common with analyticfags and soulless Angloid empiricists than actual continentals, who have souls and a grounding in metaphysics.

>>18172919
That's why you have to read Ed Feser

>>18177169
Yeah the 5 proofs is on my list. How good is the last superstition I might read it too

>>18177011
I don’t think he’s pandering he’s just a normal burger that’s really into pop culture. He can be a bit of a pseud though, some of his streams/debates are literally just name drops and tooting his own horn for horns on end.
>Yes I’ve read Guenon and all the perennialists
>I was a thomist for 10 years I know all the arguments
>I’ve read all the books dude created grace and the Filioque has made Catholicism an atheist factory

>>18177374
But he is right and he really does seem to know what he is talking about. I don't think he's a pseud. He actually does understand and he knows why his opponents are wrong.

>>18177023
Read the first page of Lossky’s book on orthodox christianity then. Gnosis is not gnosticism. It nos because gnosticism is heresy that it is wrong in its entirety, essenes were a huge influence on most gnostic sects.

>>18177374
>He can be a bit of a pseud though
>a bit of a pseud
>a bit
>of a pseud
This and then some. He's at least 93% pseud who drops the rare nugget of actual worthwhileness every now and then despite himself. His signal to noise ratio is abysmal.

>>18173183
Cringe, agnostic bugman.

>>18177637
Show me one (literally one!) instance of Jay being wrong about something.

>>18177738
Mansimper

>>18177746
I knew you could not do it!

>>18177023
The Gnostics erred when they forgot that Insight is given freely to all, not held secret by a few. Nicaeans err when they forget that personal Insight is the foundation of true faith.

>>18177810
Thinking Orthodoxy is the Way is wrong enough, so he just piles wrongs on top of that from there. He's never going to let you suck his dick, give it up. I am sure you are a member of his special OnlyFans like club too.

>>18172919
>PS, most professional philosophers don’t recognise Thomistic arguments for God.

that's because they're pussies.

imagine taking "professional philosophers" seriously. all of 20th and 21st century secular philosophy is a cope and a seethe and a word salad circle jerk if it doesn't address first principles.

>>18172919
>Didn’t this guy just come up with post-hoc rationalisations for his pre-existing belief in God? Has anyone actually converted to theism from his arguments? Also, many Catholic apologists will say that sin is prevented atheists from belief, and that if you consider Thomistic arguments from a neutral standpoint, you will rationally conclude there is a God. But an argument for God isn’t like the proof for 1+1=2, it will always rely on a deeper need to believe/disbelieve. Long story short there can’t be a truly ‘rational’ proof for God.

okay i actually bothered reading your dumb shitpost. try reading the subject matter and his sources before giving your empty-headed critique.

No, they are not "rationalizations." They are faith seeking understanding. Yes, I have returned to the Catholicism of my birth in part because of Aquinas. You sentence about sin and atheism makes no sense.

>Long story short there can't be...
Retard who didn't start with the greeks detected. Crack open Aristotle.

>post-hoc rationalisations for his pre-existing belief in God
lol! what you describe is every single "rational" theist out there

>>18178106
dumb cuck

Anselm's proof of God simultaneously jobs atheists and generates seethe no tomorrow.

Alright you shitcunts I've order the Summa and there's nothing you can do about it

>>18175609
He's not.

>>18178455
Over a million people listen to his podcast.

>>18178404
>kiss a man's hand every sun
>pray to beings other than God
>call others dumb cuck

>>18175350
>Then why reject metaphysics and that which metaphysics proves: God?
Which one?

>>18175456
None of this addresses what I posted, so I’m just going to ask it again: how does Aquinas distinguish between physical and intentional causes, and how does he assess that the first cause is an intentional one, and not the physical one?

Mind you, this doesn’t even deal with God yet, it deals with establishing that whatever caused the universe has a conscious will? So, how does Aquinas do this, and more importantly, how does he rule out a first cause with no conscious will?

>>18176707
Good response, I have read some Plato and I see what you mean. The Form of three lacks, what’s that platonic word for existing as a concrete object again? It exists not in that sense, not in place or time but as something informing existent things.
Then we turn to God. Bur first let me bring up fichtes criticism of Kant. What does it mean for the timeless to interact with what is in time? And the dimensionless to inform existent matter? How can what never changes participate in forming what is always changing? And then we have the even greater problem of God, who would be a will and a mind above all others. But what does a will mean in the world above all being?

>>18178602
Dumbass prot

>>18172919
>post-hoc rationalisations for pre-existing beliefs
thats all of philosophy

>>18179429
Guess we’re all just trying to cope anon

>>18176520
>>18176528
Will post more when I have time

>>18179068
Do you mean instantiation?
As for the other questions, I guess it all will be dependent on a single thing: intelligibility. Sensible perception is transient and it is as if it were a line, but the intelligible apprehension is instantaneous and it is as if it were point. As Plato makes clear, this immediate intellectual apprehension is ontologically transcendent to that sensible one. Aristotle will write about it in his Metaphysics, how all plurality of intelligible forms in the end refer simply to the Intellect “intellecting” intelligibles, that is, always reverting upon itself. This could be also understood in Husserlian terms affirming the Subject (Aristotle’s Intellect, Platonic Nous) that grounds all that to which it directs its intention.

>>18178781
Does it impede you of committing yourself to a pious life, to studying theology and different traditions? Or reason and logic are not enough for you and faith is above and stronger (much like your “faith” in atheism)?

The Transcendental Argument for God is the best argument for God ever devised.

>>18178489
This does not make him a celebrated intellectual, otherwise Joe Rogan would be one too.

>>18179886
My point being the masses decide even though they are retarded.

Bump

>>18177286
>How good is the last superstition I might read it too
It's good as an introduction. His book Aquinas would be the next thing after TLS, it's also good and relatively easy read.

Jay Dyer makes heretics and Enlightenment liberals seethe.
https://youtu.be/bOvGIhoC9W4

>>18179213
Man hand kissing fag

>>18176520
>>18176528
alright, here

>>18181029
I want to go back, anons.

>>18181059
me too...

>>18180733
If it wasn’t for the enlightenment you wouldn’t have your computer dumbass

>>18181152
>muh computers

>>18181152
retard

>>18178404
>gives a man money to hear him ramble
>calls others cuck

>>18181296
I don't pay him. You are the cuck. I am the noble patrician.

>>18181152
>technology didn't exist and advance until the enlightenment happened lmaoooo
ok retard

>>18179732
>much like your “faith” in atheism
Makes no sense at all. Also, Abrahamic religions have demonstrated time and time again that theology and tradition isn’t enough, and that their beliefs will often devolve into behavior control and violence, so that would be a pretty good reason to not subscribe to it

>>18181223
>>18181203
>t. people who couldn’t last a day without their devices

>>18181768
I can and I have. I used to live in the woods by myself.

>>18181768
Science and technology were not just invented all the sudden in the so-called "Enlightenment" you stupid idiot.
We could have both computers and a Medieval structured civilization. That is, if the bankers, globalists, media, and politicians didn't have vested interests in keeping us in (((liberal democracy))).

>>18181768
You dont seem to get it. We're laughing at you because muh computers has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

>>18178439
>if god was real, then god is real, therefore god is real.
wow such big brain. this is literally the level we are consider, and no real philosopher would bother with anymore. "we are done with your toys"

The transcendental argument for God is irrefutable. Atheists have no answer. They can only cope and whine.

>>18181887
>gobbledygook argument for muh dick is irrefutable. Lock. Keys to sun!
this is what you spastics sound like

>>18181417
>Makes no sense at all
Faith in your case? Yes, but insofar as your opinions are not held because of reason I suppose it is just a pseudo-faith for it has not reason to support it (since faith is pure gnosis from reason and not from mere belief - which is your case).
>pretty good reason to not subscribe to it.
To it what? Religion? Christianity? Any abrahamic religion? I suppose the former for you persist in the deepest error that is atheism. Well, I have bad news for you because if it was not for the Sacred and religion there could be no subjective reduction to escape the natural flux and institute order, community, civilization and culture. Anyhow, you are not an atheist because of anything order then your own blind biases.

>>18181837
Dont feel bad, the ontological argument filters lots of people

>>18181796
Computers would not have been invented in a medieval world ruled by a church that suppressed reason and a plurality of ideas. Why do you think the Industrial Revolution occurred after the Enlightenment?
Also
>pining for a time when you would have died at the ripe old age of 42 after spending your whole life as a serf

>>18181887
TAG in a series of steps
>logic and other transcendentals exist
>A worldview with a God can explain the previous step than one without a God
>A worldview with a God is ‘coherent’
>somehow not accepting this worldview destroys the ‘possibility of knowledge’
Presuppositionalists are retards who don’t (or can’t) defend their own position. Why do you think Dyer believes in YEC and holds all of the Bible as literal?

>>18182053
Wow you are dumb

>>18181985
I’ll replace God in the argument with the spaghetti monster

>>18182192
Then you prove God. Congrats.

>>18182207
Okay well my god is Odin. Congrats I’m a pagan now

>>18182225
bro, you're sperging the fuck out

>>18182225
Great, glad you've accepted atheism is wrong. Well played

>>18172919
I hate that stupid hand gesture he is maki with his left hand while holding the pen and the look of confidence don his face.

>>18172919
I don't know what you're talking about. Aquinas' arguments is what convinced me that atheism and materialism is circular nonsense. I AM a theist because of Aquinas.

>>18182238
seething I see
>>18182242
based

>>18182053
embarrassing post

>>18182083
You did not refute it. You cannot refute it.

>>18181937
like I said, atheists can only cope and whine

>>18182053
>modernist retard doesn't even understand how numbers and averages work
>actually believes everyone died miserable at the age of 40
>doesn't know that Medieval peasants were far better off than modern wageslaves in every way

>>18182429
>Medieval peasants were far better off than modern wageslaves in every way
Explain

>>18182413
I like the TAG, but doesnt nominalism offer an alternative?

>>18182440
>didn't have to work nearly as much
>way more religious holidays
>good healthy food instead of processed, chemical and hormone infested bullshit
>had a sense of community, tradition, culture, and meaning in life
>didn't have satanic media bombarding him constantly with bullshit and gaslighting him
>closer to nature
>beautiful architecture
>no anxiety and stress of modern life

>>18182449
>nominalism offer an alternative?
No. No. NO!

>>18182485
Why not

>>18182083
>Presuppositionalists are retards who don’t (or can’t) defend their own position.
But they can and they do. It is the only coherent, logical, holistic worldview that accounts for everything and doesn't contradict itself.

>>18182505
If you reject the Platonic Forms then you know nothing. Nominalism is an intellectual disease and spiritual blidness. If nothing has an essence that it shares with other objects of its kind, then there are no such objects, just arbitrary collections of particles going around. This is why we see retarded pseuds today saying "But what is gender anyway? It's just a social construct" and then they chop their cocks off. This is what nominalism leads to.

>>18175553
>"Let's assume there are no ought's or should's"
>Many experiences suck...they really and truly suck

Good Lord, what a hack Sam Harris is.

>>18182517
The problem with Platonic Forms is the means of interacting with the world. If it's separate from the world and of a different substance then what causal force could account for interaction?
Or, if transcendentals are real, then wouldnt each Form have to consist in contradictory ways? Sure you have a universal triangle, but then how could it simulataneously be scalene, right, and equilateral if the existence of each is mutually exclusive to the other?

>>18182550
The Logos! Christ, the Son of God, has all universals.

>>18182517
And it gets even worse than that. What are particles? What are waves? What are mass and energy? Nominalism leads you down a nihilistic spiral into meaninglessness and nothingness.
Everyone innately knows that it is not true but we are indoctrinated with it.

>>18182569
So Gods essence precedes His existence? And all things subsist before the are?

>>18182638
For particular objects in creation, essense, or the universals, precede existence of those particulars. God is uncreated. He is the Creator and has no cause. He always was. Causation comes from Him, and does not rule over Him. The Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ by Saint Maximus the Confessor talks about this.

>>18182661
Thats interesting and i'll look into it, thanks. I am interested in how that view and the TAG especially contrast with the Thomistic view that a things form subsists in its act of being.

>>18182638
Also God's essence exists and it is unknowable to us but we can know the Trinity, the three persons of God who share in the essence of God.

>>18175247
you dont prove things in science, its models about the world that you can make accurate predictions with

>>18182638
>>18182661
>>18182819
>Gods essence precedes His existence
How does this relate to God's relationship to time and natural law? Are these things part of His essence, or does He create them?

>>18181967
>Faith in your case? Yes, but insofar as your opinions are not held because of reason I suppose it is just a pseudo-faith for it has not reason to support it (since faith is pure gnosis from reason and not from mere belief - which is your case).
You don’t even know me you fucking spastic
>Any abrahamic religion?
This one, mostly
Also, the rest of your post is just gibberish. Is it really that hard for religious larpers like you to explain something without needlessly obscurantist bullshit?

>>18183525
>gibberish, obscurantism
Thank you a lot. I'm honored people like you are so easily filtered with so little said.

>>18175470
Just read Feser's Scholastic Metaphysics: a Contemporary Introduction and see what you think. He addresses multiple objections to the act potency distinction and the principle of Causality. Objections such as the law of inertia, Hume, quantum mechanics, and B. Russel.

>>18183773
sorry wasn't replying to this anon but op.

>>18183773
Intéressant

>>18180733
Does anyone know Dyer is so antagonistic towards Thomistic principles? Coming from a non-Catholic, seeing God as actus purus and absolutely divine simple just seems like common sense, unless I’m missing something.

>>18181152
The industrial revolution, actually

>>18181967
>if it was not for the Sacred and religion there could be no subjective reduction to escape the natural flux and institute order, community, civilization and culture
Anon, this sounds interesting. Can you elaborate a bit?

>>18184317
Girard's Violence and the Sacred, could not tell you better than the man himself.

>>18182053

>>18173858
Catholic dogma are so difficult to swallow that the majority of American "Catholics" don't believe core tenets of the faith and church attendance is falling off a cliff in Europe. Yet Marxist retards still claim that it is made up "opium" for social control kek.

>>18184819
>Yet Marxist retards still claim that it is made up "opium" for social control kek.
The funny part is you not understanding Marx's sociology of religion?

>>18184889
>you don't get it bro, you need to read 200000 pages of my favorite autistic marxist theorists

>>18184904
You don't have to read anything, I am simply challenging your infantile take on Marx's thought on religion

>>18184734
Your deluded if you think these thinkers succeeded because of religion, rather than in spite of religion.

>>18185206
>hystorylet doesn't know about cathedral schools and medieval universities

>>18184165
Thomism and absolute divine simplicity collapse the Trinity and the essence/energy distinction into a vague monad, which leaves you with the problem of the one vs the many. The Trinity reveals that unity and multiplicity are in harmony rather than in dialectical tension and opposition. Three Persons sharing one essence. And the Monarchia of the Father, meaning that the Son and the Holy Spirit both proceed from the Father.

>>18184889
Why do you Marxoid redditors make a declarative statement but end it with a question mark?
Also what is actually funny is how you cannot see that Marxism is the opium of the masses. It is a neatly packaged ideology for rootless, soulless, soft bourgoise liberals to delude themselves into believing they are intellectuals and rebels. You get your whole worldview from the products you consume. How vulgar and pathetic you are!

>>18185206
čöpé harder you FAGGOT

>>18185808
I thought Christian philosophy taught divine simplicity at least as far back as Augustine, and that the trinity is a mystery

>>18185926
The Orthodox Church considers those views a heresy. It is Catholics who accept Augustine's teachings.

>>18172919
>Didn’t this guy just come up with post-hoc rationalisations for his pre-existing belief in God?
Yes
>>18172988
And believers will believe it's True because they will believe anything that confirms their belief

Here is the insight of the Greeks
Everyone is a gullible retard
Especially you
Stop believing

>>18185926
Augustine's teachings are not as completely accepted among Orthodox as among Catholics.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/bless_aug.aspx

>>18183708
>I-I’m not retarded! Y-you just got...filtered! Yeah, that’s right!
Is ‘filtered’ the hardest cope on /lit/ right now? I honestly don’t think there’s a single cope right now that is more blatant, but above all more embarrassing than this one

>>18185808
Doesn’t ADS simply mean that God isn’t made up of parts though? Also, if the Father is considered the One God or the True God, how does the Father compare to the Trinity as a whole? This is one thing I’ve never understood about the Trinity; is there a sense in which 1 person could be numerically/qualitatively ‘lesser’ than the Trinity, or is the Trinity contained in the persons individually.

>>18184734
A lot of these were heretics. Eg Newton didn’t believe in the Trinity.

>>18172919
>Didn’t this guy just come up with post-hoc rationalisations for his pre-existing belief

sweaty thats all thought/rationality is

>>18184914
So you think Marx’s thoughts on religion were as pertinent as his thoughts on metaphysics?

>>18185206
Anything can only succeed because of religion. The thing is that after stability people forget the foundations of the very peace and order they enjoy.

>>18186227
Yeah I can only understand divine simplicity in this way. But the Trinity is the expression of God’s essence that is Love. There is no Trinity and no Love if any of the Persons is lacking or is ‘lesser’ for each of them is fully God, that means each of them expresses a ‘part of the process of love’, like Lover, Beloved and Love. This can be perfectly transposed onto a triadic interpretation of the platonic protology of the One, Dyad and Mixture.

>>18182422
like I said theist only make things up like children

>>18187672
Whenever you people are confronted with the irrationality of materialism and how one can only reject God through personal beliefs, you people show how low you are in applying the most blatant copes in order to keep your personal inclinations as if they could be justified. You are aware of it and still cling to it.

>>18185969
>Stop believing
No, I will not. What are you going to do about it?

>>18185969
This and other previous threads, and actually any conversation with an atheist, show how the reality is the opposite of what you think. Atheists have no reason to support what they believe, and as I said here >>18187716, the cope is blatant everytime.

>>18187716
>Presuppositionalists in a nutshell: "This is the truth, because I say it's the truth, and I win the argument because I say I do."
I mean the audacity of your bs is so preposterous it boggles the mind.
There is nothing irrational about materialism, it's literally the only world view that can explain everything. No matter how many times it is explained that having faith in abstraction (god, unicorns etc) is different than believing in a realist (sense) knowledge about the world is different it just flies over your heads. For long my guess was that it must selected ignorance which makes you behave in this matter, but I'm starting to think it just comes down to stupidity.

>>18187972
>I mean
Go back.
You cannot even understand such a simple and obvious truth.

>>18187972
>There is nothing irrational about materialism, it's literally the only world view that can explain everything
It explains nothing at all. It is literally the stupidest worldview. It is self-refuting.
The TAG is the only coherent, logical, holistic worldview that takes everything into account, explains everything, and doesn't contradict itself.

>>18187972
You are extremely simple minded and you cannot understand the flaws in your retarded paradigm.

>>18187972
So you want to talk about it, again? Will you, after long discussion, insist on the mystical existence of a particle that is not part of anything nor a compound, but a whole without parts that somehow is an entire thing that somehow can elude the intelligibility of its quiddity and somehow be actual and causally potential at the same time causing everything materially in the potential realm of time and space?

There is literally nothing rational about materialism.
What is a rationalism? What does it look like? Show me a rationalism.
You cannot because it is not material.
This annihilates the atheist.

Atheists are the dumbest retard simpletons in the world. Everything they say is self-defeating.
https://youtu.be/o-6O91k5EzA

>>18188030
>>18188044
>>18188054
Like I said earlier, nothing but empty childish assertions. The endless stream of empty assertions.
>>18188055
this goes for wit on the theist circles Jay?

>>18188085
Go on, expose your materialist world view here. How do particles emerge, from where and what are these particles.

Stephen Meyer = authentic intellectual speaks
Jay Dyer = pseud

>>18188135
>Jay Dyer = pseud
wrong desu

>>18188125
I mean it's pretty tiresome going this over and over in 2021 (talking to walls).
They are part of infinite 'atomistic' causal chain. Which either always has existed, was created out of nothing (not), or was created out of this existence (loop). I obviously accept that there are unknowns, and probably will infinitely continue to be.
When you talk as is materialism cannot account for logical absolutes, you might as well be saying it cannot account for triangles or color yellow. Which is the equivalent of saying image-softaware cannot account for #DFFF00 or the memory chip for "010101010101010" in segment "10101010100100". They are all coded in you mental process.

More precisely about TAG there is nothing in god that would necessitate those absolutes anyway. It ontologically assumes that theism or atheism must explain them. There is no circumstance that both could fail.
Secondly anything we know about anything (even god) relies on our belief about cause-and-effect deduction. So anything transcendental becomes contradictory in nature - it cannot be by the very nature of our assumptions about knowledge.
Thirdly, to the dichotomy between belief in god and scientific realism: both are ontological position, while belief on subatomic particles is epistemological result of the later. There is such thing as god, there is such thing as object reality which we can gain knowledge about --- thought this method of science we gained this knowledge.

>>18188749
Cool. Now this is the point where you begin to use reason:
The particles are part of a whole which you say is infinite so not defined but they are still a whole (You are confusing infinite with indeterminate, but your belief remains the same if you employ the right term)? Now the parts themselves are wholly parts or they are partially parts? They need to be wholly parts to be what they are, do you not agree? Therefore the particles that compose this indeterminate chain are composed of parts too. What are these parts?

>either always has existed, was created out of nothing (not), or was created out of this existence (loop)
The parts of the particles which compose an indeterminate thing (completely illogical I guess you already became aware of it, if not ask me I will explain how something composed of parts cannot be a whole thing at the same time as being indeterminate since any - whole - thing needs determination to be what it is), will face the same problems you are aware:
>either always has existed
You are saying that the parts which composes an indeterminate chain have always existed at the same time as its parts have likewise and the parts of the parts of those parts too, and so on indefinitely. This is saying that there is are no potential and actual, no composition at all of what is composed (for the indeterminate composition of a part will be as actual as the indefinite chain composed of indeterminately composed parts).

You discard out of nothing and discard the latter looping case. Now consider what you believe.

>TAG
Don't know why you brought this up here, I haven't said a word about it and assert that there can be a movement of reason from the empirical to the transcendental, metaphysical (for the temporal movement is not the natural one).

>Secondly
See what I wrote above. Categories of intelligibility can and are apprehended in temporal, successive movement. To deny cause and effect is to diverge from reason and the empirical basis reason takes in order to go beyond it. This is not even my personal inclination concerning reason and consciousness though.

>Thirdly... belief on subatomic particles is epistemological result of the late
You mean empirical. And no, empirical observation has nothing to do with epistemology when it is intrisically connected with ontology.

last bump

>>18189868
It was a better time.

>>18189991
without a doubt healthier

>>18176637
The existence of God is knowable through natural reason, we have faith in Christ's revelation and promise of salvation through His Church.

>>18190071
>The existence of God is knowable through natural reason
And how do we test whether that’s accurate?

At least Aquinas’ 5 ways were more coherent than Anselm’s cosmological argument.
>if god can exist then he exists fugggg

>>18190143
*ontological

>>18172919
>Didn’t this guy just come up with post-hoc rationalisations for his pre-existing belief
Is there anything more to philosophy?

>>18190150
Surely people change their philosophies though? Is philosophy or a belief in God unfalsifiable

I cant believe this guys is still being talked about after hes been refuted 10 yrs ago by this guy https://youtu.be/U3yKxvW9yNA

>>18190218
Holy shit, (You) and the limp-dicked faggot you just linked, deserve the rope. He is the embodiment of the atheist incel.

>>18190242
Have you seen the banana video?

>>18190253
show me

>>18190272
I refuse to save the photo on my computer so here is the link:

https://imgur.com/xbNUB

>>18190218
I totally forgot about this guy. Fuck 2010 was one hell of a time

>>18190296
oh.... next time refrain from showing it, anon

>>18190335
Ask and ye shall receive.

>>18190218
So fucking typical of nu atheists. He finds an over simplified wikipedia summary of an argument, does not a single lick of further research, misunderstands and misuses the terms present, and then smugly makes points at a strawman. It's fucking pathetic and i'm ashamed that I used to take people like that seriously.
Nuatheism set philosophical discourse back at least a century

>>18190335
The worst part was when he dipped his balls into hot oil

>>18190378
Tbf Origen of Alexandria castrated himself.

>>18190433
He later regretted that and i'm pretty sure declared anathema for it.
Tj Kirk probably jacks off to the memory of burning his balls in oil for a 15 year old girl

>>18190372
You sound very butthurt and seethingly mad over a philosophy you supposedly don’t care about at all

>>18190448
>a philosophy you supposedly don’t care about at all
You pulled that out of your ass faster than Kirk pulled the banana out of his

>>18190522
Your seething tells a very different story. It tells me you have a butt that’s even more hurt than one sodomized by a Chiquita widowfriend

>>18190549
>Your seething tells a very different story.
Different story than what? Do you have a single coherent thought?

>>18190559
>Different story than what?
Than the story about how you’re supposed to be completely superior to le nu-atheist fedora kids, despite that you keep seething like a big childish homo

>>18190572
What are you even talking about

>>18182225
>Congrats I’m a pagan now
Great! Next step is to read City of God and learn why paganism is retard tier.

>>18172919
Here's my proof. I call it the Presuppositional Proof (Pee Pee, for short):
> Assume God exists.
> Therefore, God exists.
Checkmate, atheists.

But OP, don't you come up with post hoc arguments for your belief in the physical world, or other minds, after first believing in them? Same difference.

>>18172919
Human beings do all sorts of irrational shit because that appears to be our default of nature. In fact most people who consider themselves "rational" or driven by "rational logic" still make massive leaps of faith that are convenient for existence and survival. The idea of convincing someone who is "neutral" to the idea of God is nonsensical if that person is human. Now find me an alien creature that can communicate and then maybe we will have a truly neutral perspective from which we can argue, but if you try to tell me a human can be neutral to the concepts of faith or belief I will call you a flat out liar.