/lit/ - Literature

>>18908633
>He said metaphysically.

>fat
>midwit
Typical atheist.

Dogmatists hate him!

>>18908637
>confuses metaphysics with epistemology

>>18908633
All my metaphysics are inductively derived though.

>Miracles aren't real because I don't want them to be
WOW!

>>18908670
Name ONE (1) miracle.

>>18908670
They're not real. Or are you going to treat us to two-dozen posts about "epistemological weight," i.e. peasants saw something priests seized upon as a source of pilgrim revenue.

>>18908657
nope, its simply a preconceived metaphysic.

>>18908673
my mom said it was a miracle that I was birthed!

>>18908675
not disagreeing with your statement but indignent-jack doesn’t exactly fit with your point. I would say a jew-god pic would fit better,

>>18908703
But that is a picture of the volcano god yelling at me to believe him in, and that is exactly how self-righteous christers post on this board

>>18908675
>>18908673
Here you go, fag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd16tBRbLXw&ab_channel=ReasonToBelieve

>>18908709
>volcano god
>regurgitating Freud
The atheist can't help but align with the Jew.

>>18908712
I agree it is something of a miracle that Christians can manage to be tribalistic despite the univeralist message of the gospels.

>>18908712
Notice how Catholics always say these Eucharistic miracles have been "scientifically proven" but no scientific papers are ever published with the results or data? All we ever hear are anecdotes about how someone with impressive-sounding credentials saw something "amazing" under the microscope. You'd think if that were the case that said people would be eager to share their potentially Nobel Prize winning findings.

>>18908721
Your religion is Jewish. Or did you not know?

>>18908633
atheist cringelords look like that?!

>>18908735
How is it Jewish?

>>18908733
>Show me a miracle
>Okay, here you go.
>IT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE MUH PEER REVIEW!
Peak midwit.
>>18908735
Christianity is the only explicitly anti-Jewish religion.
https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-jews/

>>18908752
Oh I don't know... the founders were, the texts are, the prophecies fulfilled were, the list goes on. You can't be this dense.

>>18908754
I believe something literally impossible according to the laws of nature.
Why?
Some other guy told me it happened!
t. rational human being

>>18908675
>ACKSHULLY CHRISTIANS ARE THE REAL SOIBOYS!

>>18908754
It's only explicitly that way because it wants to be the correct version of that very religion. No other religion has this kind of hostile appropriating relationship with another.

>>18908758
But it's a New Covenant and most all of the practitioners since Paul have been ethnically Gentile.

>>18908759
And who decides "the laws of nature"?

>>18908767
The fact that there is a new covenant at all implies a relationship to the previous one. Why do that if not to be more Jewish than the Jews themselves?

>>18908769
no one

>>18908754
Anon, I am a former convert to Catholicism. I used to read these miracle stories voraciously in order to validate my beliefs. However they always came up short. You don't even have to be an atheist in order to doubt the veracity of most of these "miracles". I imagine you have high standards that other faiths would have to meet in order for you to accept the validity of their miracles. Is it "peak midwit" to deny Muslim miracles as well? Why should we give your creed special epistemic privilege?
>Christianity is the only explicitly anti-Jewish religion.
Are you a Catholic? You posted a Catholic miracle. Don't you know that anti-Semitism is a sin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicut_Judaeis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostra_aetate

>>18908770
>Why do that if not to be more Jewish than the Jews themselves?
This seems like a dubious argument.

>>18908764
Too bad all those clergyman didn't take the survey

>>18908764
>>18908780
Yeah priests are overwhelmingly homosexual and have high rates of AIDS.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2000-01-31-0001310030-story.html

>>18908773
Your faith shouldn't be predicated on it's ability to be proven by an inherently flawed, human method of investigation.

>>18908776
Doesn't the NT depict like four or five different sectarian branches of Judaism? And Jesus walks around btfo'ing each of them, yes? Because he is the most learned in their theology and has come to fulfill their laws and prophecies? The burden is on you to prove that it is not of the same cloth.

>>18908790
What should it be predicated on then? How should I choose one faith and not another?

>>18908792
>The burden is on you to prove that it is not of the same cloth.
But you're the one asserting that it is...

>>18908796
You don't 'choose' a faith, anon. You know in your hearth what to believe.

>>18908769
The definition of a miracle is that it is a violation of the laws of nature. Because if a miraculous event does not violate any law of nature then God's intervention is not necessary - it's an ordinary physical event.

Believing a violation of the laws of nature happened because someone else told you is credulous at best.

>>18908804
Because it's self-evident you dimwit. Come back when you know more history than 12 years of the same US social studies lessons over and over.

>>18908806
Lots of people choose faiths all the time. And many more never choose at all but are born into them and die in them.

>>18908806
Then by that standard I ought to remain an atheist? But this seems silly, because much religious activity is devoted to arguing that this religion has better grounds for belief than that religion. And weren't you the one just posting miracles?

>>18908809
Huh? You really haven't proven your point, anon. I see that there is a lineage linking Christianity to ancient Judaism but that doesn't make it Jewish. Things change.

>>18908816
>And weren't you the one just posting miracles?
No.
>>18908813
They aren't choosing. Faith and belief are distinct from rational choice.

>>18908824
>Faith and belief are distinct from rational choice.
Oh look, it's the religious falling back on fideism. Looks like I win yet again, boys.

>>18908836
What is fideism?

>>18908840
After Hume demonstrated that all metaphysics was logically unprovable he agreed that the only possible justification for religion was faith.

>>18908836
David Hume is dead though and not experiencing the splendor of eternal life with the Godhead due to his hubristic desire (and failure) to know all through the narrow lens of human rationality. Even Kant (a mere human) BTFO'd Hume lol.

>>18908869
So he would have agreed with me?

>>18908633
If you take empiricism all the way it results in idealism. Kant proved this.

>>18908840
The belief that faith is not rational. It is a heresy in Catholicism.

Ahem
>>18908842

>>18908883
Guess I need to read more Aquinas!

>>18908872
>Kant
Admitted that within his metaphysical system it was impossible to know things in themselves. And even that rickety attempt to escape Humean scepticism - maybe the categories of the human mind perfectly correlate to the operation of the physical world but don't ask me how that is lmao - was refuted by modern physics.

>>18908792
Jesus btfoed them because they were arrogant, contemptuous, self righteous, ignorant of the scriptures, confrontational, greedy, conniving, pleasure seeking, envious, spiteful, hypocritical, corrupt, abusive, cruel.. basically all the reasons why not to like a person, scumbagedry in short.

>checking out the thread
This truly is self evident. The real jew is the one who acts like one.

>>18908892
>reading metaphysics
All of Aquinas' system building relying on causation has no rational justification.

>>18908920
God transcends man’s rationality.

>>18908922
How can rational man come to know God then?

>>18908922
Can't be rationally demonstrated. Back to fideism again.

>>18908920
>All of Aquinas' system building relying on causation has no rational justification.
Don't care. Still gonna read it. Satan BTFO.

>>18908935
He can't. But he can try. That's the point.

>>18908790
And who decides which miracles are approved and which aren't? Certainly not God because the last scriptural miracle happened during the Pentecost. The Catholic Chuch decides this with their equally flawed and human methods. I was baptized Catholic but more and more I am thinking that Protestants were right, there's too much shit happening when you put some authority between yourself and Christ

>>18908937
>I'm going to read thousands of pages of a rationalist philosopher even though I don't even care that his philosophy is a failure on its own terms
Damn owned

>>18908942
But how can someone merit salvation or damnation based on non-rational belief then?

>>18908949
Lol reread your greentext, bro. It makes very little sense for a man bloviating on rationality.

>>18908953
Accountability. Just like a farmer, you get to reap what you have sown.

>>18908953
Don't know that's up to God not me or you.

>>18908936
He transcends human logic as well.

>>18908633
Based
Fuck metaphysical speculation. It's just bullshite labels over whatever the fuck it is or isn't. Too many different opinions, too many contradiction. Yeah I am thinking reddit atheism is based.

>>18908958
>>18908960
So why are you Christian and not some other thing?

>>18908983
Uh-oh

>>18908983
Christ revealed the true benevolent nature of our heavenly Father. Before he came along ignorance reigned, the lawlessness of the law of jungle. With His, metaphysical, death and resurrection, he has reconciled man, out of his fallen state back to God. By the tree we are redeemed by the final Adam, just like we were condemned to sin and death by the tree, thanks to the first Adam, metaphysically.

>>18908979
ironically cringe

>>18908983
Because I love God and Jesus.

>>18908983
What does a Christian believe? Maybe first thing would be to understand what belief itself is.

>>18909026
>God and Jesus
Same thing.

>>18909022
How do you know that Christ was in fact what the Gospels describe him as? Why do you believe that such events as the Resurrection took place? What is it specifically that pushes you toward belief more than non-belief regarding these matters?

>>18909049
Sometimes you just have to take a leap of faith. Which leads to virtue, which leads to more faith. And once you’ve peaked beyond the veil and caught a glimpse of that Uncreated Light, you’re never the same again. You are able to discern now, between that which passes away and all that which forever remains, unchanging. We are dead to the world, we are hated by it for denying, for spitting in the face of everything they value. With contrition of heart, tears of repentance, uncompromising self sacrifice, we are determined to return to that blissful state Adam was in before the fall. The natural state of man, detached from everything worldly and carnal.

>>18909046
1x1x1=1

>>18909100
I cannot understand how a God who is supposed to be identified with Truth (and who is the source of rationality) would make unjustified belief a prerequisite for salvation. I am not alone in this opinion, since fideism has often been condemned as heresy.

>>18908920
>has no rational justification.
Yes it does: Causation. Leibniz (pbuh) retroactively refuted Hume, also, with the principle of sufficient reason.

>>18909100
>Sometimes you just have to take a leap of faith.
In other words, irrationality.

>>18908769
the laws of nature are a construct, you are not seeing the bigger picture, you mortal

>>18909122
Unlike trusting your own senses. The limits of your noetic nature which has been predetermined for you.

>>18908754
Jesus was a jew

>>18909119
He is the source of all that is good. What you’re purposing is a negative. Forget what you think you know. He is as far away from man’s reason as heaven is from earth.

>>18909132
Ah yes it is irrational to reject religion on the basis of your senses and empirical evidence but it is rational to accept religion on the basis on your senses without empirical evidence.

>>18909100
take a picture of it next time will you?

>>18909120
>Our reasonings are grounded upon two great principles, that of contradiction, in virtue of which we judge false that which involves a contradiction, and true that which is opposed or contradictory to the false; And that of sufficient reason, in virtue of which we hold that there can be no fact real or existing, no statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason, why it should be so and not otherwise, although these reasons usually cannot be known by us.

>I say then, that if space is an absolute being, there would be something for which it would be impossible there should be a sufficient reason. Which is against my axiom. And I prove it thus. Space is something absolutely uniform; and without the things placed in it, one point in space does not absolutely differ in any respect whatsoever from another point of space. Now from hence it follows, (supposing space to be something in itself, beside the order of bodies among themselves,) that 'tis impossible that there should be a reason why God, preserving the same situation of bodies among themselves, should have placed them in space after one particular manner, and not otherwise; why everything was not placed the quite contrary way, for instance, by changing East into West.

>>18909159
All a religion is, is set of beliefs. I don’t have to believe that the sky is blue for it to be blue. Whether under the cover of night or clouds, the sky forever remains blue, even if I believe otherwise. Whatever worldly concepts you believe is your religion. But the absolute truth, remains true, is self evident, and requires no advocate.

>>18909173
>But the absolute truth, remains true, is self evident, and requires no advocate.
Yes, but how are humans supposed to know:
a) what this truth is
b) whether they in fact possess it or are being mislead

>>18909173
I am that I am is. This principle of God is more fundamental and less contingent than the sky being blue, which does require a degree of belief (belief that your eyes are not deceiving you; belief that the sky will always remain blue).

>>18909185
Because no one has ever refuted those arguments. Empirical evidence presupposes Being, ie God. God is more fundamentally real than empirical evidence itself.

>>18909181
Holy fucking shite.

Why do all of epistemological arguments of christcucks sound like we're still living in 15th century?

>>18909188
>God is more fundamentally real than empirical evidence itself
I haven't seen him anywhere but yet I see the blue sky everyday. So kindly cope harder

>>18909194
Yes, and likewise when I'm in a dream I see a lot of strange and interesting things, and yet all of it only exists (in some limited sense) because of the superconsciousness which has lapsed into the illusion of the dream state (the "fall of Adam"). The things you see in dreams, which includes our "waking" life, are only apparitions and shadows which are mere reflections of God. God is the one who provides the sensation of "blue sky" to your eyes. Without Being, there is no "blue", no "sky", or anything like that.

>>18909175
Christ is the truth anon. “The truth, the way and the life”. The fishermen recorded simple words in their gospel. But just like it is surely written, “heaven and earth will pass but my words will not pass away”. The word of God will not pass away. You know you are led into error when your intellect darkens, when you are led into sin, whenever you value the material over the spiritual, when that spark inside you fades and you begin to hold your brother in contempt. Whenever you become defensive and trust your own reasoning over divine providence.

>>18909206
Kek

>>18909212
This seems to be begging the question a little anon. "Christianity is true, because when you are not a Christian, you do not follow Christian moral prescriptions." Particularly viz. the material and the spiritual. But even so, many such morals are not exclusive to Christianity, and we see people who follow them who are not Christian. The Hindu religions consider Christianity and Christian saints very inadequate because they fail to extend compassion and the principle of non-harm to animal life.

>>18909212
>The word of God will not pass away
you're not wrong

>>18909173
Call me a retard if you must, but it strikes me that you have conjoined several sentences without meaning or purpose. What, in plain English please, is the crux of your argument?

>>18909226
Who ever made the claim that those who label themselves Christian are automatically God’s people? The people of God are those who do His will by fulfilling His commandments. Jesus gave us the parable of the good Samaritan as an example. He was a Samaritan! Completely foreign to any notion of divinity and everything that entails it. Yet the Samaritan was virtuous.

>>18909238
I apologize. Unmetaphysically speaking what I meant to say was that whatever your idea of truth is, is your religion. Chances are its natural, material sciences. You have my condolences.

>>18908633
Higher ontological being has metaphysically ordered me to butcher all Humists and spray their blood on the altar as a gift.

Disprove that H*mist.

>>18909269
Most of the atheists here have fundamentally misinterpreted Hume. Hume was a Christian mystic, just like Berkeley.

>>18908712
>practicing Christians are oblivious to genealogy and race differences. The jew wants you to be a submissive christcuck
Cringe

>>18909250
Alright, I think I've got a grasp of what you've claimed, then, thanks. Following from this, if I do indeed understand you correctly, I'd question this notion of 'aboslute truth'. Certainly as you present it absolute truth is, fundamentally, self-evident, but I would contend that the only absolute truths are analytic a priori ones, and that surely the existence of any kind of God or Higher Power is syntehtic rather than analytic?

>>18909288
heard this in Russell's voice

>That which cannot be spoken must not be spoken of
>refuses to elaborate
This is how you win with metacucks

>>18908920
>>18908922
This is why you read based Eckhart, not midwit Aquinas

>>18909288
>but I would contend that the only absolute truths are analytic a priori ones, and that surely the existence of any kind of God or Higher Power is syntehtic rather than analytic?
Already refuted by Hegel. Synthetic and analytic distinction is a soft distinction, not hard, and depends on the development of consciousness.

>>18909300
>Hegel
Is he that guy from ass muscle excercises?

Repent, heathens

>>18909295
>Metaphysics can be spoken of.
Midwit Jew BTFO

>>18909288
Are synthetic a priori truths not absolute?

>>18909311

>>18909315
Can it though?

>>18909321
>determines our faith and therewith our world and our fate
Based determinist

>>18909317
They would be, but we have no reason to believe they exist. I imagine any sort of synthetic a priori truth you could present would almost certainly be contentious in some manner, which should preclude it from the self-evident criterion.
>>18909300
Don't know enough about Hegel's work, to be honest. Is his argument similar to Quine's? As there are several responses to such an argument, in particular I find Putnam's to be convincing from what I remember of it.

>truths
Have you guys never heard of Munchhausen trilemma?

>>18908920

An an Idealist, I agree.

>>18909340
Yes, Aquinas's proof of the unmoved mover was based on an a priori synthetic deduction via causality and the temporal aesthetic (although he used more simplified terminology than Kant).
>They would be, but we have no reason to believe they exist.
Mathematics is the most profound example of a priori synthetic truths with absolute validity.

>>18909365
Math wasnt even a proper system until XX century and its incomplete anyway

>>18909325
Yes.

>>18909288
I never presented absolute truth as is. The absolute truth transcends everything we know to be true. Truth is a divine title after all. It is self evident that we can never truly reach it, so we either doubt or have faith in it. If we doubt the existence of absolute truth, then we face the limits of our own intuition, our own reasoning, wisdom developed from trial and error, we are plunged again into the horror of competition with one another, into vanity and bodily necessity. Instead of simply accepting that “God is good and wants what is best for you”. We are to trust the unknowable, dive into the unfathomable, we are to pray, to accept our fallen state we inherited, and the easy escape prepared for us, the holy cross. The absolute truth is that Jesus said “either you’re with me or against me.” And God cannot help you when go against God. And yes you certainly can discern God’s uncreated energies permeating throughout creation. He is all and all are in Him. Upholding, sustaining, giving and taking, rewarding and punishing each according to their own virtue, according to the amount of gratitude we show to Him, for all the undeserving wonders He’s delivered to us.

>>18909380
What is 'absolute truth'? Is it simply that which is independent of our views? This is the problem. You say that it is necessary to believe an absolute truth exists. Which is fine. But then you make the unjustified step of saying that the absolute truth has this or that set of characteristics, just after having said that the absolute truth was unknowable. What you want us to acknowledge, then, is not that absolute truth simply probably exists, but that we can also know something about it -- that presently people DO know something about it -- and not through ordinary humble rational or empirical means, but via intuition. Yes, human reasoning is flawed, but I'm not sure how human unreasoning is supposed to be less flawed. I very much acknowledge the frailty of human wisdom. However, you want me to believe that certain things said by humans are not, in fact, human wisdom, but are divine wisdom. But how am I supposed to authenticate this? I have no way of knowing that I am not, in fact, just falling for more of the same old flawed human reason!

>>18909370
The foundations of mathematics have always been known to humanity so long as we've been capable of conscious reasoning. Mathematics, at higher levels, will never be "complete" because there are naturally as many derived laws as there are possible arrangements of an infinite/indefinite space (which is to say, infinitely/indefinitely many). The absolute "completion" of mathematics isn't relevant to the discussion, what is is its status as foundation of reality, both psychological and physical. We have direct access to mathematical truths without any interaction in the world, just by our own necessitated faculties of space and time which we can reason with.
>Don't know enough about Hegel's work, to be honest.
It's a mixed bag, but he rejected Kant's hard distinction between a priori and a posteriori judgements. In the PoS, he demonstrates that the latter is a consciousness scrambling into a domain which it hasn't "absolutized" yet, and so can only inductively know. For a very simple example, initially solipsism would be an a priori truth, but as consciousness progresses, it partially loses that status as a truth (although it retains an aspect of it, namely the idea of self) but is combined into a higher knowledge which includes both self and other as reasoning entities as an a priori absolute truth of the two consciousnesses. In other words, Kant's hard division into these two types of judgements is not actually genuine for anything other than a logical exercise.

>>18908673
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

>>18909426
Extremely vague miracle and vague evidence. When I was Catholic I wanted this to be real but there's not much convincing evidence.

>>18909420
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics#Foundational_crisis

>>18909468
That only exists when mathematics is attempted to be founded analytically. Our argument is about synthetic judgements, not analytic, have you even been following along? Mathematics will NEVER be founded analytically. Kant already proved this in the 1700s.

>>18909468
By the way, "intuitionism" is closest to the synthetic approach, but it is still flawed in positing the subjectivity of space, as though space would not exist if humans did not exist to perceive it.

>>18909468
By the way, in Quine's hypothesis, it's hilarious that almost all of the proponents for nominalism (anti-Quine-Putnam) are women and the supporters of Platonism are men.

>>18909396
The idea is to stop thinking in worldly terms. And it requires training just like any other skill. Which is why the monks are so austere. Discernment is where its at. And like everything else it is a gift that you earn. I can tell you that much with certainty. This is where Church dogmatics come in handy. A proper scientific tradition.

KANT RETROACTIVELY BTFO'D H*ME
>>18909295
Even Wittgenstein refuted himself later in life

>>18909441
How does your lack of faith disprove miracles?

>>18909556
Would you find Fatima convincing if you were not already a Christian?

>>18909441
There are tens of thousands of testimonies of an abnormal behavior of the sun anticipated by three young children who certainly did not know anything about meteorology. These same three children were also able to give a message of great political, spiritual and theological value without having the slightest education in any of these fields.

>>18909563
I don’t know who that is. Back in my secular life I was appalled at the unreal levels cruelty and abuse. So just based on her piety alone, I would most definitely find Fatima convincing.

>>18909590
>There are tens of thousands of testimonies
Where can I access them? Or read about them?
>These same three children were also able to give a message of great political, spiritual and theological value without having the slightest education in any of these fields.
Weren't said 'messages' only revealed decades after the fact?

>>18909595
There is extraordinary cruelty within Christian circles and institutions as well anon

>>18909608
Real ones who stick to the script? Or the pretenders in it for filthy lucre sake?

>>18909604
Before the gift of secrets the children received and told their priest messages about devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the use of the rosary, Providence, war in the world and the torments of hell that were made public immediately.
Here is a testimony if you are a Portuguese speaker: https://fr.scribd.com/doc/30722706/The-Miracle-of-Fatima-El-Milagro-de-Fatima-O-Milagre-De-Fatima

>>18909533
>The clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear

Despite Wittgenstein being his own biggest critic and detractor, he still held true to his most based conviction.
Philosophyfags belong in lime graves

>>18909625
>Real ones who stick to the script?
>stick
Even the hardcore trad christians will do 10 mental backflips to explain why wearing cotton-linen blends is okay today

>>18909533
>K*nt

>>18909702
Wittgenstein strikes me as someone who lacked a mind's eye. To this day I'm convinced that all nominalists and anti-metaphysics retards all have a dysfunctional brain (see aphantasia).

>>18909761
On the contrary, people who are not nominalists seem broken to me. Or delusional. Mistaking mental representations for entities in themselves. There is a reason schizos are attracted to religion.

>>18909761
>i can draw realistic cock and balls in my mind therefore platonic world of forms is real

>>18909769
Missing a crucial mental faculty for higher reasoning (especially spatio-mathematical) is not a good thing.

>>18909778
Metaphysicians are infected by poor reasoning and unjustified leaps of faith.

>>18909778
You can have a capacity for such higher reasoning and still not believe such reasoning leads to truths about the world. Metaphysic's purview is, at best, to provide a guide for theortical principles in physics for testing. Similar to that of theoretical physics, in other words.

>>18909714
Christians wear wool. We are sheep

>baaa

>>18909791
Au contraire. All of the failures in metaphysics have been committed by men who lacked the proper mental faculties for the pursuit. Errors in reason can obviously occur just due to innocent mistakes, but the nominalist mistake is far more than a mere error in judgement. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the objects that the mind reasons with. See Aristotle's Prior and Posterior Analytics.
>>18909794
Of course, reasoning in itself is possible without a mind's eye. But without the mind's eye, one will never be able to understand the actual ground of logic and mathematics, and all higher pursuits (metaphysics). To someone with aphantasia, it will all look like mental manipulation of baseless concepts, hence why I consider it a mental defect and actually a clash of fundamental understandings between the mentally sound and unsound. It would not surprise me if every metaphysical dispute to this day consisted, in the most part, of the inability to grasp things in their entirety, through the intuitive faculty of the mind (as is done in mathematics when reasoning with spatial objects in the mind). Some people can literally not see and rotate complex shapes in their mind, and have to rely on algebraic formulas they've memorized to understand these transformations....

>In the 18th century, David Hume took a strong position, arguing that all genuine knowledge involves either mathematics or matters of fact and that metaphysics, which goes beyond these, is worthless. He concludes his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) with the statement:
>If we take in our hand any volume [book]; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.[46]

>Arguing against such rejections, the Scholastic philosopher Edward Feser held that Hume's critique of metaphysics, and specifically Hume's fork, is "notoriously self-refuting".[55] Feser argues that Hume's fork itself is not a conceptual truth and is not empirically testable.
Feser-chad BTFO's fags once again.

>>18909815
I do not have aphantasia, and I am not a victim of the metaphysic delusion. You are in fact making the case that metaphysical thinking is based on images and sensations, rather than analytic reasoning.

>>18909815
>Some people can literally not see and rotate complex shapes in their mind, and have to rely on algebraic formulas they've memorized to understand these transformations
Whoa thats nice, can you derive volume of a sphere using integral calculus with that mind eye?

>>18909834
For the record, geometrical understanding of underlying college math concepts helped me immensely.
But actual proofs and just deriving shit from your mind requires graduate level knowledge and i doubt most posters here are capable of that

>>18909825
>Scholastic philosopher
Into the flames it goes

>>18909825
>Hume's fork itself is not a conceptual truth
Why? The blog by Feser on the subject seems to take it as self-evident that, under Hume's own understanding of relations of ideas, that the fork would not be justified. I.e., the fork itself is justified purely by our understanding of what the concept of a matter of fact and a relation of idea is, sans any sort of empirical judgement.

>>18909825
>theologian accuses someone of being non-empirical
Why though? Could anything be less empirical than skydaddy?

>>18909830
>analytic reasoning.
Mathematics is not analytic reasoning. That is exactly my case. The fetishization of analytic reasoning is the biggest flaw of all.

>>18909834
>can you derive volume of a sphere using integral calculus with that mind eye?
I can derive the rule for it, and I can also devise the quantitative value if I bestow arbitrary units to my visualization of the object.

>>18908633
Can someone clarify the Hume's guillotine? I know you can't jump from an is to ought but what about good advices? Like "Banana is nutritious therefore you ought to eat it"

>>18910071
Nope. There’s only one God. To whom alone belong praise honor and glory both now and forever, from the ages unto the ages, and world without end. Amen

>>18910535
There is no self-subsisting idea of "ought" contained in "nutritious." The idea "nutrition is something I ought to want" is added irrationally by irrational desires (the desire to be nourished properly).

>>18910550
But nutrition is a good thing. Isn't rational to pursue good things, in this case for your health?

>>18908673
everything is a miracle

>>18908670
>miracles aren't real because they violate natural laws
>you also can't know whether natural laws will also remain constant or not
what a hack

>>18908633
>there are only matters of fact and relations of ideas
>this statement is neither a matter of fact or relation of idea

>>18910616
Hume would say we cannot apply good to something just because it is. He would say you are only assuming that nutrition is good. This is because he denies essences and God

>>18910616
From a purely rational perspective it's not rational to pursue anything, not even life or death.

>>18910724
from a purely skeptical perspective*

>>18910739
No, rational. There is no rational way to derive an ought without will. Pure rationality without will or emotion is arguably pure skepticism, but we're arguing about pure reason here, untainted by will or desire.

>>18910616
look into nutrition sciebce
it constantly fumbles over itself.
did you know anyone can call themselves a nutritionust?
you know the fda doesnt need to regulate certain things marketed towards nutrition?

>>18910710
I imagine Hume would claim it's a matter of fact, seeing as he claims all of his observations in the Equiry were based on experience.

>>18909170
Is he saying that everything that isnt an absolute being isnt a “thing in itself”? Why would his arguments against space not also extend to trees, hills, planets and people not being “things in themselves”?

>>18908650
>I have a gweat fwiend in wome name sextus empiwicus

>>18908657
All metaphysics imply an epistemology. Ontology and epistemology are co-related, which is why you ultimately cannot use one as a foundation to the other, and why the development of a proper philosophy requires an architectonic "science" corresponding to Husserl's phenomenology.

>>18910849
I feel like I have had this exact same discussion on here before but,

Matters of fact are not certain. i.e it is not certain that the sun will rise tomorrow because of the problem of induction according to Hume.

Therefore Hume's fork is uncertain and therefore self refuting.

>>18910742
Wouldn't pure reason be impossible under Humean philosophy though? Hume is the one who said passions are prior to reason.

>>18911231
It definitely presents a problem for Hume's greater framework, although I wonder if you could apply Russel's solution to the problem of induction to 'save' the fork: whilst we may not be able to be 'certain' of anything, we can be almost certain, which is good enough for propositions of knowledge, and therefore, given our Now, considering the fork itself is part of the premises for the problem of induction, I can see how utilising a solution to that problem might be strange for solving the uncertainty of Hume's fork itself, but I don't immediately see an actual logical contradiction in doing so. (Alternatively you could argue that Hume's fork is justified as a kind of inference to the best explanation regarding types of knowledge).

>>18910020
>>18909825
>>18911231
It's incredible that Feser misses the point this hard.

Hume's problem of induction is not asserting a positive metaphysical truth. It is merely posing a negative epistemological problem for any account of causation, on which metaphysics necessarily depends.

"We can't logically prove causation" doesn't self-refute. You don't need a metaphysical proof of causation to hold that view.

Feser probably knows this but is scrambling to rescue classical natural philosophy, abandoned for centuries, with sophistic refutations.

>>18909133
I like how people miss the context of this and still try to use it as a gotcha.
Jesus had to appear to fulfil previous prophecy, hence being born from a line connected to David etc., (even though it was immaculate and not based on any relevant conception of DNA or genuine ancestry), to force the Jews, who had lost their way into accepting the new covenant.
The Jews rejected any non-Jew, and rejected any messiah who didn’t give them material benefits and supremacy in this earth.
The fact Jesus came and fulfilled prophecy as a Jew, just so they would listen and realise that putting the Romans under their heel and having more oxen than the next tribe was the old way, not relevant to ultimate salvation.
To not acknowledge that they failed, even when Jesus made it so easy for them by appearing as one of their own is a negative testament to the Jews in general and a credit to those gentiles and individuals like Paul who were capable of eschewing a desire for Jewish supremacy.

>>18911356
The Jews mainly contend that Jesus can't have been the Messiah because he did not fulfil the whole prophecy, right? What even is the Christian response to that?

>>18911318
Feser denies that epistemology is prior to metaphysics, and he's right. One has to establish a metaphysics or ontological commitment to, "whether or not knowledge exists or is possible" in order to practice and establish an epistemology. Saying epistemology is prior to metaphysics is like saying that science is prior to math or logic.

>"We can't logically prove causation" doesn't self-refute.
We are saying the the fork is self refuting of which the problem of induction depends on.

"All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, relations of ideas, and matters of fact... all reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relation of cause and effect" (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Section IV Part 1)

>Feser probably knows this but is scrambling to rescue classical natural philosophy, abandoned for centuries, with sophistic refutations.
not an argument

>>18911433
>We are saying the the fork is self refuting of which the problem of induction depends on.

No it doesn't.

Even if you reject Hume's fork for metaphysical reasons, you still need a positive account of how causation is epistemologically possible. Feser is begging the question: "assume my metaphysics are true, then I don't need an epistemological justification for them". It's pure sophistry.

>>18908780
>>18908789
>newspaper clipping about an article over 20 years old
Atheism and faggotry go hand and hand. Fags aren't tolerated in Christian nations.

>>18908773
>Hello fellow goyim, as a former [denomination] I urge you to disbelieve in all these miracles despite the obvious forensic evidence that no other religion has produced. You wouldn't want to be bad goy, would you?

>>18908633
Yes, we can all see that you arrived at Hume. Congratulations anon, now keep reading. Metaphysics will return soon enough once a certain philosopher comes and points out to you that not all cognition necessarily arises from experience, but instead merely starts from it. The harder you fall into Hume, the more satisfying the transition out of pure experience (and pure reason!) will be

>>18910694
When everything is a miracle, nothing is

>>18911519
>Even if you reject Hume's fork for metaphysical reasons, you still need a positive account of how causation is epistemologically possible.
Feser does not beg the question. He has a full section over Hume where he goes over how conceivability does not entail possibility and how real distinctions do not entail separability. Pic related is an excerpt.

>>18909825
>>18910071
based

>>18911732
sorry forgot pic

>>18910542
Correct, and his name is Allah

>>18911725
I define miracle to be whatever is dependent upon divine intervention. Everything to the Christian (more specifically Catholic) is dependent on God, therefore everything is a miracle.

>>18911753
There's no such thing as divine intervention, therefore nothing is a miracle

>>18911761
Well that seems to be precisely the issue at hand doesn't it? Whether or not God exists, not whether or not miracles exist.

>>18911119
I forget his name but youre mimicking that modern day stoic historian guy, damn I forgot

Good stuff but his voice is tough to listen to.

>>18911773
They don't

>>18911694
>not all cognition necessarily arises from experience
Kant?

>>18908673
It’s.

A'uuthu B'Allah, so many heathens here. Astaghfiru Allah Al-Alaiyu Al-Atheem.

>>18911778
I'm pretty sure he was imitating this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrcbCW4y9Dw

>>18911792
refuted by the PSR

>>18911732
>>18911737
You don't understand what I'm saying.

In your pic, Feser disagrees with Hume by positing a metaphysic of intelligible essences. Hume does not dispute that you can, if you want, posit that rabbits are generated from the essence of rabbits. His problem is that this can never be epistemologically *proven*, because all induction is conjunction. Even if we grant that rabbits have essences, all we will ever be able to logically observe is a conjunction of rabbit essence and rabbit. There is no necessary logical connection between the two.

Feser is missing the point. He has to *epistemologically prove* the causation that rabbits come from rabbit essences. He cannot simply metaphysically posit essences and declare victory. He is begging the question by sidestepping Hume's epistemological objection.

>>18911882
Feser isn't talking about rabbits arising from essences. He is arguing that merely imagining a rabbit without a parent does not mean it is possible in reality, just as imagining a flower growing without soil is not possible in reality. Or to imagine a man without imagining his height is possible but it does not mean that a man can exist without a height since the essence of a man involves someone having height.

Furthermore, Hume's also believes that causation is loose and separate since it can be conceived to be separate from each other in reality. However, Feser disagrees with the assertion that conceivability of a concept means that something is possible in reality (i.e the rabbit can exist without a parent).

Hume also believes that a distinction between two things means that they are separable. However, Feser denies that distinctions entail separability. A common example is how a circle and radius are distinct yet are not separable. It is impossible for a radius to exist without the circle as well as the circle without the radius. This is the same as a book standing on a shelf. It is impossible for a book to exist at that moment in time in that exact place without the shelf since the book stands insofar as the shelf stands. Hume never considered or acknowledged that a cause doesn't have to be temporarily prior to its effect. In the book and shelf example the existence of the book on the shelf is simultaneous with the shelf existing. This is not a temporal causal example like the billiard ball the Hume commonly gave.

The epistemological issues we have here are then:
1)Whether or not something distinguishable can be conceived to be separate from each other
2)Whether something conceivable is possible in reality

Feser denies both for the reasons posted above while Hume affirms both.

>>18912052
let me rephrase those issues
>1)Whether or not everything distinguishable can be conceived to be separate from each other
>2)Whether or not everything conceivable is possible in reality

>>18911806
>Kant?
Yes good, he "critiques pure reason" but in the process gives those in the deluge of pure experience a pillar to hold onto

>>18912052
>>18912064
It is not enough for Feser to simply deny and offer his own metaphysical account if he wants to get around the epistemological problem of induction.

Feser can disagree with Hume's fork. We agree on this. It is not enough to do so to meet the problem of induction. He still has to *prove* that conjunction entails a logical necessity. Otherwise his account is question begging - I don't need to show my account of causation is logically provable because my account of causation is correct.

>>18912207
A good example of your and Feser's confusion is in the examples you gave >>18912052
>It is impossible for a radius to exist without the circle as well as the circle without the radius.
Is a priori knowledge - we don't need an account of causation to prove that a circle requires a radius.
>This is the same as a book standing on a shelf.
Is a posteriori knowledge. We need an account of what *causes* the book to stand on the shelf. It is not enough to observe the conjunction of book and shelf and to assert that one logically causes the other. It cannot be proven a priori as it can be proven that a circle contains a radius.

Feser is begging the question by assuming that he can prove one from the other.

>>18912254
>Is a priori knowledge - we don't need an account of causation to prove that a circle requires a radius.
we are discussing whether or not a real distinction entails separability not whether or not causation proves that a circle requires a radius

>>18911694
I've arrived at Hume and I'm getting filtered by him. My understanding was going well, really, but he completely turned my idea of rationality upside down. Does philosophy become harder from here on?

>>18912287
>we are discussing whether or not a real distinction entails separability
No. Again, you are confused. For the 10000th time, whether or not you reject the fork is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not a question like "real distinction entails separability" can ever be *logically proved either way*. Hume's problem of induction is that we cannot prove such truths about nature.

>>18912311
>I've arrived at Hume and I'm getting filtered by him.
In what way? do you mean,
>but he completely turned my idea of rationality upside down
How different his thoughts were from yours originally? That's good, if so. But if you mean his writing, personally I find Hume to be one of the clearest, concisest, most skilled writers in all of philosophy. I recall Gaddis in his letters also saying something similar,
>I remember one, in which I had commented on what a fine style in David Hume; my antogonist started immediately with saying that Hume did not try to write in a style, but the style came about as he wrote writing to say what he had to say.
Gaddis loved Hume's style so much he had two fictional characters argue over it. But that doesn't exactly prove he's "clear" or "concise", in fact, if you've read Gaddis what I just said might be evidence of the opposite lol

>Does philosophy become harder from here on?
Personally I think it only gets easier. To me, I was just bumbling and billowing through all of philosophy until I discovered Hume saying some real shit like, “you can burn anything that doesn’t contain quantity or number, or experimental reasoning” and then you think alright maybe philosophy isn’t just a bunch of total jerkoffs (etc, dogmatic slumber) and then KANT comes along and it all becomes clear why you’ve been bothering for so long, that the pillar of experience has been there the whole time. And you were naive but now you know better, and you’re thankful for it. Just my take on it anyway...

>>18912207
I'm sorry but the burden of proof is on Hume. Please explain how imagining a man without a height means that is possible for a man to exist without height.

Hume's entire belief that cause and effect are loose and separate depend on these two issues
1)Whether or not everything distinguishable can be conceived to be separate from each other
2)Whether or not everything conceivable is possible in reality

>>18912338
Hume says that cause and effect are loose and separate here, "we
may satisfy ourselves by considering that as all distinct ideas
are separable from each other, and as the ideas of cause and effect are evidently distinct, it will be easy for us to conceive any
object to be non-existent this moment, and existent the next,
without conjoining to it the distinct idea of a cause or productive principle" (Treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Part III, Section III)

Ironically this statement, "The issue is whether or not a question like "real distinction entails separability" can ever be *logically proved either way," is actually what Hume believes can be logically proved precisely BECAUSE his fork is assumed to be true since cause and effect are neither a relation of idea nor a matter of fact to Hume. We see this clearly when he says, "and consequently the actual separation of these objects is so far possible, that it implies no contradiction nor absurdity"

This is an obvious example of Hume claiming cause and effect are loose and separate by holding it up to the flame of his fork.

>>18912420
>I'm sorry but the burden of proof is on Hume.
LOL

For the second thousandth time, you are conflating Hume's fork and the problem of induction. Rejecting one does not address the other. All Hume's specific critique of metaphysics is asking is for others to offer an account that logically proves causation in nature, in order for their metaphysics to be grounded in reason.

>Hume believes can be logically proved
>We see this clearly when he says, "and consequently the actual separation of these objects is so far possible, that it implies no contradiction nor absurdity"

Did you even read your own pullquote? Hume says that separation is POSSIBLE. That it implies no CONTRADICTION or ABSURDITY - i.e. that it is merely not *logically disprovable*, e.g. by the law of noncontradiction.

That being the case, it is yet again my duty to point out to you that Feser is merely begging the question by assuming his own unprovable metaphysical assumptions can get him out of answering the epistemological objection of Hume.

>>18912617
If you think the problem of induction isn't found based on Hume's fork I don't think we can continue this conversation anymore. It's literally the first premise in the argument and the first premise in his entire worldview, how you can't see that I have no idea.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/#Reco

>If we take in our hand any volume [book]; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion

>>18912699
>If you think the problem of induction isn't found based on Hume's fork I don't think we can continue this conversation anymore. It's literally the first premise in the argument and the first premise in his entire worldview, how you can't see that I have no idea.
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/#Reco

Jesus. Are you even reading the links and quotes you're throwing at me?

> In Hume’s argument, the UP plays a central role. As we will see in section 4.2, various authors have been doubtful about this principle. Versions of Hume’s argument have also been formulated which do not make reference to the UP. Rather they directly address the question of what arguments can be given in support of the transition from the premises to the conclusion of the specific inductive inference I. What arguments could lead us, for example, to infer that the next piece of bread will nourish from the observations of nourishing bread made so far? For the first horn of the argument, Hume’s argument can be directly applied. A demonstrative argument establishes a conclusion whose negation is a contradiction. The negation of the conclusion of the inductive inference is not a contradiction. It is not a contradiction that the next piece of bread is not nourishing. Therefore, there is no demonstrative argument for the conclusion of the inductive inference. In the second horn of the argument, the problem Hume raises is a circularity. Even if Hume is wrong that all inductive inferences depend on the UP, there may still be a circularity problem, but as we shall see in section 4.1, the exact nature of the circularity needs to be carefully considered. But the main point at present is that the Humean argument is often formulated without invoking the UP.

Arguing over Hume's fork is sidestepping the most powerful versions of his critique.

>>18912382
>In what way?
I'm still reading about him in this history of philosophy book so maybe there's more to him that I have yet to learn but so far, Hume's fork and guillotine.
Admittedly I have been feeling very distracted so I didn't try my hardest to fully understand him.

>How different his thoughts were from yours originally?
No, not his writing even though I'm not technically reading him yet but this history of philosophy book includes excerpts from his treatises.
My idea of rationality was essentially that of empiricism. You can only know truly something from sensatory experience and then act accordingly to your findings in order to ensure your survival.
If you know fire burns through observation and experience, it's only rational to not place your hand on a burning fireplace because it will injure you and thus deem you incapable to keep surviving.
But it seems Hume applied a skeptic twist to empiricism and perhaps that is what threw me off the track. That is if this anon is correct and that's what Hume thought:
>>18910719
>>18910742
I thought desire was compatible with reason. If you have a desire to survive, you will do the most reasonable acts to ensure that.

>>18913033
>But it seems Hume applied a skeptic twist to empiricism and perhaps that is what threw me off the track. That is if this anon is correct and that's what Hume thought:
I'd say Hume is a moderate sceptic. His real target isn't to destroy empiricism but to criticise the rationalists who were his contemporaries - Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, philosophers who thought that they could build huge systems from first principles that proved things like the existence of God, the objective moral system, what the universe is made of etc.. His point isn't so much that reason is useless (e.g. we can't prove causality exists so let's just give up on empirical knowledge), but that reason only gets you so far on its own. We should be humble and go with what seems to work empirically, and recognise that we are fallible beings with passions that have their place. Hume would say that your passions tell you the ought of "I don't want my hand to be burnt by the fireplace" - reason is the handmaid that that allows you to achieve that passion in the most effective way, the is of "hand in fireplace = it gets burnt".

>>18913033
>That is if this anon is correct and that's what Hume thought:
Ignore other anons, just read the text. You are never going to get anywhere trying to sort through greentext interpretations and critiques.
>But it seems Hume applied a skeptic twist to empiricism and perhaps that is what threw me off the track.
Go read Section XII, Part III, of Hume's Enquiry. His twist on skepticism is what makes him one of its greatest critics. He critiqued what he called "excessive skepticism" where he objected,
>that no durable good can ever result from it; while it remains in its full force and vigour. We need only ask such a sceptic, What his meaning is? And what he proposes by all these curious researches?
Then later, in that part of the book I told you to read, he starts by saying,
>There is, indeed, a more mitigated scepticism or academical philosophy, which may be both durable and useful and which may, in part, be the result of this excessive skepticism, when its undistinguished doubts are, in some measure, correected by commonsense and reflection.
Then he ends that part with,
>In general, there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty, which, in all kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany a just reasoner.
That's all Hume's skepticism is. It's that degree of doubt necessary to keep grounded anybody that ventures to reason.

>>18908633
>Taking dining seriously

>>18912778
Are you even reading the links and quotes you're throwing at me? Because That quote is explaining how the uniformity principle applies to the argument and how it is does not result in a logical contradiction to negate it (the fact that there are no demonstrable arguments for the UP or more specifically no relation of idea arguments). The two horns of the argument are based on the first premise that is,

>P1. There are only two kinds of arguments: demonstrative and probable (Hume’s fork).
It follows that there are only two arguments that could support the UP, viz., the first horn and second horn of the argument.

Therefore, in order to defend this argument one still has to uphold the first premise (the fork), else, there are not only two horns to the argument and the argument is flawed.

>>18913314
>Because That quote is explaining how the uniformity principle applies to the argument
It explains how the uniformity principle is not necessary to Hume's argument, as I quoted above and as I've been arguing for hours. Christ.

>>18911807
The only good answer

The reason induction has been thought as impossible is due to the belief that experience can only confirm particular propositions, not general ones. The idea is that although you can establish the proposition that a specific tree is flammable just by looking at that one tree, you cannot establish the proposition that all trees are flammable just by looking at one tree burning. You would have to see every single tree being burnt to know that. Hence it is argued that all induction is mere guesswork.
Now this view depends on a kind of ontological nominalism. Because everything that exists is particular, you can only get to generality by enumeration from particulars. Contrary to this, the Aristotelian takes the view that there are two distinct kinds of entities, universals and particulars. Just by looking at one tree being burnt, one can see (with rational intuition, or "the intellect" as Aristotelians call it) that the essence of sheep includes flammability.
In fact this solution doesn't work, because rational intuition could only provide knowledge of the essence of tree, and experience could only provide knowledge of particulars, so there would be no way to know that any particular is a tree, let alone flammable.
One way to get around this would be to have something like Kant's or Jame's view, that experience doesn't give us pure particulars, but rather everything that we perceive has both general and particular aspects. If everything is irreducibly *a particular of a certain kind*, by looking at one tree being burnt we can also see that all trees are flammable - because what we are looking at is not just a bare particular but a particular of the kind tree. We always experience things of a certain kind. And of course that doesn't mean that general knowledge is infallible. We can look at a lemon tree and falsely think that all trees are lemon tree. But there is no mystery on this view of how we can learn general propositions from particular cases.

>>18911356
It's not a "gotcha", it's clear as day you dimwit

>King of the Jews by his own admission
Yes
>Was called Rabbi by his closest followers, Rabbi denoting a Jewish religious leader (but but but Rabbi is just a generic term for teacher!!! No it isn't, fuck off)
Yes
>Direct descendant of King David the head honcho king Jew
Yes
>Born to Mary, who was Jewish
Yes
>Raised in a Jewish land
Yes
>Fraternized with Jews
Yes
> Preached to Jews
Yes
>Claimed to fulfill Jewish prophecies
Yes

It's like you're trying to tell me Woody Allen's not Jewish

>>18915061
Nuh-uh he's a Christian. Ex nihilo. History doesn't exist except for providing "evidence" of miracles.

If I get "777" trips on this post I will convert to Christianity

>>18909120
>Sufficient reason
>Relies on God to explain the beginning of cause and effect as well as numerous other inexplicable notions.

>>18908673
There is something rather than nothing

>>18915402
That's a poor reading of Leibniz.

>>18915433
Don't get me wrong, he has fundamentals that are important (his argument again newton's absolutes are essential). It's just these guys relied on God for the metaphysical answers. Honestly nothing wrong with it since you'll never get an answer anyway.

>>18915619
Leibniz proved God by demonstrating how God followed from the principle of sufficient reason, God was not presupposed in order to establish the grounds of the argument.

>>18915678
This feels like a leap. He used God as an argument why thing are one way as opposed to another, which works out in his favor but by no means proves God. Those principles stand regardless. In fact, I would argue that Leibniz or De Cartes or Spinoza (so on and so forth) would take issue with anyone asserting that they "proved" God. It goes against their entire idea that God is perfect and infallible, since humanity reaching an objective proof of god would be contrary as it would require the same perfection, something humans aren't capable of (insofar as these individuals approach the subject)

>>18916043
No, he didn't. Again, poor reading of him. The principle of sufficient reason alone is why things are the way they are, not God. There is really elementary Leibniz.

>>18915678
If I understand it correctly, the PSR proves, at best, the need for a non-contingent starting point to the universe. The existence of god need not follow; we have as much reason to believe in the existence of a causless event sans God than we do God himself as that non-contingent starting point. Certainly we understand our laws of physics to 'break down' so to speak, at the point of the big bang, so it shoudn't be unfeasible for such an event to be the explanation for all the contingent events observed within our universe.

>>18916071
I think we're talking past eachother. I agree, sufficient reason doesn't depend on God. I don't think it proves God either though.

Jesus was Jewish. Thus, the Bible is a Jewish text

>>18908922
This is the 'look over there!' and then running away of philosophy

You might want to kill yourself