/lit/ - Literature

>>21506189
Midwit: a person who holds the opinion that Thomas Aquinas is not a genius.

>>21506196
>Thinking Aquinas a genius
The mark of a dimwitted catholic

>>21506208
if I were a Catholic I would have put St. in front of his name, but I am not
still I think he was a genius

>>21506189
Explain Aquinas's proof that Being is not a genus in technical terms (no vague handwaving). If you can't even do this then you have no grounds to assert anything about Aquinas.

>>21506229
Why would a non Catholic think the guy was a genius? How a how smart could he be if he bet on the wrong horse? Unless you mean he was a genius in some non religious field.

>>21506941
>Why would a non Catholic think the guy was a genius? How a how smart could he be if he bet on the wrong horse?
ESL?

>>21506958
>one accidental "a" and you lose the ability to comprehend the sentence
ESL indeed, mi amigo

>>21506941
Being intelligent doesn't make you infallible. You also need to understand people in their own context.

>>21506979
I realize that. But I'm assuming the guy calling him a genius is basing it on his faith based writings, which seems strange, if the guy giving the complement doesn't share the same faith. In his eyes, Aquinas is arguing for a non-truth.
Not impossible, just strange.

>>21506189
I wish I was a midwit.

>>21506941
Thanks for letting us know you haven't actually read Aquinas.

>>21507689
>completely sidesteps the point
classic /lit/

>>21507709
Why should I care. You sidestepped the book.

>>21507772
>no u
classic

>>21507794
You're on a literature forum trying to argue that one of the most influential writers of all time is actually stupid, and you have even read anything he's written. Your opinion is irrelevant.

>>21507806
>haven't

>>21507806
not a genius=/=stupid
The guy had a nice vocabulary and was fairly philosophically interesting. Doesn't make him a genius.

>>21507709
He's not wrong that you haven't read him, because anyone who knows even a little bit about Aquinas has half a dozen answers to your dumb question calling it a dumb question. What are we supposed to do, reward you for being dumb? The only dignified answer is "you should learn more about this before commenting on it."

>>21507828
This a very elaborate cope to avoid an actual response. Lmao.

>>21507822
>Provides the theological and metaphysical bedrock for the entire development of the Catholic Church from 1270 to 1960, thereby driving all art, music, writing, and philosophy for almost a millennia
>just okay
If you haven't read his works, why do you think your opinion has any meaning in comparison with libraries worth of historical reality.

>>21507832
>pretending to be retarded
Why not just go read a book?

>>21507832
The fact that you don't understand the response demonstrates how unqualified you are for this conversation. If you really wanted to know why a non-Catholic would think Aquinas was a genius, you could simply read Aquinas and find out.

>>21507845
>thereby driving all art, music, writing, and philosophy for almost a millennia
vine boom sound effect

>>21507854
>the response
404 not found

>>21506196
>understanding basic logic makes you a genius
Logic is a crutch that allows dumb people to feel smart by following a process.

>>21507869
based

>>21507866
Looks like a 400, not a 404.

>>21507886
I hope Aquinas comes on tape, because you are blind, brotha.

>>21507806
But he isn't. Aquinas was threatened with excommunication by the Pope for spouting heresy, recanted his works, then was the laughing stock of Christendom for like five centuries of Nominalist hegemony before Catholics in the 1970s used him as the kernel for a New Age reaction against modern biological and cosmological speculation.

Besides, it's not like you've read anything by Aquinas, you've just listened to bits of Jay Dyer argue with other weirdos on youtube.

>>21507891
Sun Tzu was pretty smart, right? I can recognize that even if I'm not Confucian, or Chinese, or a military general right?

If Aquinas is just average, that implicitly means that everyone who has received Aquinas and thought him intelligent is dumber than him. That would basically mean that almost all of the greatest philosophers, writers, musicians, painters, sculptors, rulers, and more for the past millenia are dumber than Aquians. And since you realize Aquinas is just average, you must be smarter than Aquinas. That makes you smarter than almost everyone in the past millenia. It's a good thing you came along to this literature forum to let us know. Otherwise we would have kept thinking Aquinas is smart. We would have kept thinking that Baroque architecture was beautiful. We would have kept thinking Mozart and Beethoven were some of the greatest musicians to ever live. We would have kept listening to Palestrina and admiring Michaelangelo. It's a good thing you're here to show us the way.

>>21507899
Hahahahahahahahah, what? Is this a joke? Bro. I really hope you're joking.

>>21507854
are you the guy that got btfod yesterday for not knowing what ether was? the one who kept saying that edward feser was more authoritative on aristotle's de caelo than screencaps of aristotle?

>>21507901
lmao @ the lack of internal logic in this post

>>21507920
Drop the bantz and give us a syllogism.

>>21507927
no

>>21507901
>Sun Tzu was pretty smart, right? I can recognize that even if I'm not Confucian, or Chinese, or a military general right?
False equivalence. Sun Tzu's famous writings were not on the subjective of an as-yet-unproven all powerful, invisible deity.

His writings were on how to give a whupping, something that can easily be tested, observed, seen, heard etc.

>>21507970
*subject

>>21507901
Why do dumb people have this conception of smart people as infallible, all-knowing and utterly incapable of being deceived? Being intelligent doesn't free you from emotion or bias, and plenty of otherwise intelligent people have been taken in by flattery and well-dressed words. Deceit is honed by practice, not intellect.
I would put my money on pop-science celebrities cultivating that image.

>>21507994
Exactly. Mozart liking Aquinas doesn't make him automatically less smart than Aquinas.

>>21506189
Okay.

>>21507970
>>21507994
>>21507999
Lower principles depend on higher principles. Aquinas provided the metaphysics that served as the foundation for all subsequent Western thought until the Enlightenment. Even then, it was not til Hegel that it was thoroughly rjected, and even then not by the majority until after World War II.

If you accept a false idea, it must be because you don't recognize it as false. If you don't recognize it as false, it is either momentary and circumstantial, or else it is prolonged and due to some essential incapability. The prominence of Aquinas in Western thought cannot be considered anything but prolonged. It cannot be explained away by accidents and circumstances. For hundreds of years, the world was intentionally shaped by Thomistic principles. For Hundreds of years the most important and influential men accepted Aquinas. If they weren't stupid, how did it happen?

>>21508146
>Aquinas provided the metaphysics that served as the foundation for all subsequent Western thought until the Enlightenment
But he didn't. The Christian Nominalists were dominant up until the 1970s when the Vatican used him as a seed for their part in the counter-culture.

>>21508146
5 bucks says you play with your poop

>>21508242
Paypal me bro

>>21508501
based and poopy pilled

>>21506189
I never went deep into Aquinas but I never could figure out what people's problem with him is. I'm not saying that as a defense, I'm genuinely confused. It seems people take serious issue with something but it seemed inoffensive to me. Is it more of a problem to Christians, something religiously off base he says?

>>21506229
If he thought he was genius you would be Catholic

>>21506189
Neo-Scholasticism was a mistake and Catholics should listen to De Lubac and Balthasar rather than Aquinas. That's not to say Aquinas is bad by any means, he's obviously one of the most important philosophers in the history of Christianity but constantly going back to him like he's the standard of Orthodoxy was bound to fail against the waves of modernity. A return to the Church Fathers was the goal of Nouvelle Theologie and it was always the correct option

>>21509603
There's nothing wrong with Aquinas. Even Reformed Theologians the notoriously most autistic of all strains of Christianity generally agree with him.

>>21509632
Doubling down and moving strongly into mysticism in the age where everything is judged according to the criteria of empiricism and so-called rationality is more or less shooting yourself in the head, or at least drawing an impenetrable divide between the heathen, atheist and the followers of Christ. The one reason Scholastic philosophy has become less popular in modern times is, really, just that: it became less popular. The masses and poorly educated were allowed to become "philosophers", philosophy which is persuasively, and erroneously, simple becomes popular with simple minds, which is the common mind. It's a complete mistake to think that because Aquinas is not popular, there is something wrong with his philosophy. If anything, it is the exact opposite (although this is still strictly speaking untrue): He is unpopular because he is nearer the truth.

>>21508152
>1970s when the Vatican used him as a seed for their part in the counter-culture.
The Vatican has been systematically moving away from Aquinas since 1965. You have no idea what you are talking about. He was the bedrock of Catholic philosophy until around that time, just looking at the 20th century should be ample proof that you are speaking out of your ass. Gilson, Garigou-Lagrange, Maritain and in the latter half MacIntyre, Geach and Anscombe. Christian nominalism might have been dominant in the protestant world, but even that is pure garbage, as it was dominated by Kant and Hegel, latter on Hume and his ilk.
>>21509632
>A return to the Church Fathers was the goal of Nouvelle Theologie and it was always the correct option
This is a lie they want you to believe, but none of those performed a return to Church Fathers. How could they when Aquinas himself has synthesyzed the most important parts of their thinking. I'm glad De Lubac and Baltharas are authors whose names will just be a footnote, not in 200, but in 20 years as they are already mostly worthless.

>>21509689
>Doubling down and moving strongly into mysticism in the age where everything is judged according to the criteria of empiricism and so-called rationality is more or less shooting yourself in the head
Sure about that? In an age where "I'm spiritual, but not religious" has basically become the standard? People crave spirituality without the baggage that comes from institutional religion. Bringing people back to the purity of the Church Fathers was right, doubling down on rigid Scholasticism that alienates people was wrong

>>21509873
>"I'm spiritual, but not religious" has basically become the standard?
It hasn't. 90% of people you will ever meet now are simply atheist and will refuse to consider the suggestion of the existence of God.
>People crave spirituality without the baggage that comes from institutional religion.
They do not. They crave entertainment and stimulation.

>>21509878
>But here’s some surprising, seemingly counterintuitive, news about the “nones”. They’re actually quite religious – in diverse and, in some cases, rather disturbing ways. This is the rather well-researched and colorfully documented conclusion of Tara Isabella Burton in her recent book Strange Rites: New Religions for a Godless World. Building on the long-standing assumptions that “pillars” of religions provide “meaning, purpose, community, and ritual,” (page 3), Burton demonstrates that a growing number of people—especially people in their 20s and 30s—are astonishingly, remarkably, and intensely religious.
https://tellingthegospel.com/2022/05/06/spiritual-but-not-religious-the-rise-and-surprise-of-the-nones/

You're losing those people by insisting on rigid manualism rather than pointing them in the direction of Gregory of Nyssa, Meister Eckhart and Maximus the Confessor

>>21509898
None of these people are lost with the insurance on manualism because it's a myth that manualism is conflicted with mysticism and deep spirituality. Garrigou Lagrange is the perfect example - he wrote deep spiritual literature and scholastic tomes engaging with the best at the time contemporary arguments in secular philosophy. All of these people can just walk into a parish with TLM and experience something more genuinely mystical than anything they'll encounter in reading itself.

>>21509632
You just don't like the Catholic Church. How could the Holy Spirit be wrong for 1500 years? How could Thomas be right for Trent, but not for our times?

>>21509603
People don't like him because he is clearly and convincingly correct. The more you read him, the more you realize just how correct he is. Therefore, anyone who prefers an opinion he shows to be wrong will either change their mind, or find some irrelevant reason to dismiss Thomas altogether.

>>21509873
>Without the baggage
The history of the Church is not baggage. The sacraments are not baggage. The mystical body of Christ is not baggage. The institution is not baggage. You cannot help people believe the Catholic Faith by disparaging the Catholic Church.

>>21509898
Oh, you're the Eckhart heretic.

>>21510672
Eckhart was a better theologian than Aquinas

>>21510676
Ah, yep. You're that guy. Ruining another thread.

>>21510676
No he wasn't, that's why there's very few echarians, while most notable theologians and philosophers in the Catholic tradition since Aquinas were thomists. And in fact with the abandonment of thomism with nouvelle theologie the Catholic Church became intellectually irrelevant - until thomism started to make a comeback again.

>>21510714
Don't bother with him. He's a gnostic that's been here for years trying to get gullible anons to follow him in his secret way shown by Eckhart. Notice, he disparages everything Catholic, and writes as though the Church took a wrong turn in the first Millennia, and only Eckhart was able to discover the true mystic way. He keeps going on about the fathers, but only really wants to talk about Eckhart.

>>21510730
I think I might actually know the guy personally. Not many eckhartian anti-thomists.
>>21510676
bobA is that you?

>what polytheist Aristotle said but YHWH
Why are Christians like this?

>>21510803
In this case because you, as a person with no understanding of philosophy, think that polytheism and theism are somehow contradictory, which they are not. Polytheism can be theistic and atheistic because each god is - in the context of aristotelian philosophy - just a creature and not being iteself. And God, as seen by Christians and theists in general, is not a being, but being itself. God cannot be subject to change, while any god can. They are ontologically on completely different levels. A god is just an individual with various powers humans do not have. God on the other hand is being whose essence is existence.

>>21510812
huh?

>>21510828
In short, the gods of Olympus, or of any of the other pantheons for that matter, are all essentially finite, contingent beings like us, about as impressive as extraterrestrials – which might be very impressive indeed, of course, but still within the order of creation. In particular (and to be more philosophically precise) they would all be mixtures of actuality and potentiality and compounds of essence and existence, would all be governed by principles outside themselves, and would all be less than absolutely necessary in their existence and imperfect in their natures. And that means that, no less than we do, they would depend for their being on that which is Pure Actuality, that which is Being Itself (i.e. in which essence and existence are identical), that which exists in an absolutely necessary and independent way and in which all the diverse, derivative, and finite perfections manifest in the world of our experience exist in a united, underived, and infinite way. That is to say, they, no less than we, would depend for their being on the God of classical theism.

>>21507869
>>21507873
> Guys, look at me! You know that thing we have to do to do something? Well I'm not doing it! Aren't I clever?

>>21509635
>>21510653
If this is true, how come people still, when pressed, say that even with Aquinas' arguments, the final step to accepting that the Christian God is real is a "leap of faith"?

>>21510997
Why do you keep using the term "Christian God"? What does it even mean? God as a term of classical philosophy reached by reason? Triune God as revealed in the Gospels?

>>21511127
Please just answer the question. Let's assume I said "Catholic God", or even better, assume whatever you need to in order to just answer the question.

>>21510812
Humans are like characters in a novel, God is the author and gods - godlike beings - are somewhere in the novel too.

>>21511133
I cannot answer the question because I do not know what you are asking. If by "Christian God" you mean "God of classical theism", a being whose essence is existence, I would, in some cases where they are aware of what they fundementally believe, they deny the ability of human reason to know any genuine truth as such (Humean tradition, and by proxy kantians), or for others, they do not accept it because of various irrational reasons of their own.
If by "Christian God" you mean revealed Triune God of the Gospels, it is refusal to accept God's grace, as God always gives everyone enough for salvation. But Aquinas does not have proofs which, from simple premises prove the truthfulness of the Gospel, as those are revealed truths not reachable by natural reason as such. Man cannot know the being of God unless God (we know only by analogy) reveales it of his own. Man cannot by natural reason necessarily conclude that the Gospels are necessary truths.

>>21511179
>I cannot answer the question because I do not know what you are asking.
This is the kind of thing that pisses me off about religious people. You clearly do.

Luckily, you somehow managed to answer me anyway, with the honest, if highly unsatisfying conclusion that no, Aquinas' writings alone cannot prove the existence of the God of the Bible.

Once again leaving us, essentially, at square one of the religion vs nonbeliever debate.

>>21510997
Because it is leap of faith. Many of his arguments serve to first establish that there is God as conceived by classical theism. These do not require any leap of faith, and serve to prove that there is a necessary being with certain attributes(establishing WHAT God is). But it is virtually impossible to have perfect assurance of WHO God is. Even if you are hundred percent convinced of the existence of necessary being , and think that Christian God meets the criteria almost perfectly, you still require at least some faith.

>>21507869
>Logic is a crutch that allows dumb people to feel smart by following a process.
You just used logic to deduce this

>>21510997
I'm the Anon you originally asked. The trouble is that you are not yourself familiar with Aquinas, but only with summaries of his arguments as presented by 'people'. Who are these people you're referring to, by the way? Aquinas was not particularly concerned with natural theology, which is a part of philosophy really; the Summa is not an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God from naturally observed principles. Rather, since that truth is clearly observable, Aquians uses it as the starting point for the Summa, which is really a demonstration and summary of almost the entirety of Theology--a science which, in treating of higher things than philosophy, is a higher science than philosophy. Furthermore, as Aquinas explains, there are two senses to the word faith--the sense most are familiar with today is the notion of a strongly held opinion, but this is really the second sense. The first and more proper sense of the word is to place trust or confidence in someone or something--after all, Fide is the very root of the word con-fid-ence--with faith. Having faith in God is more properly believing God than it is believing that God exists. I know that if I drop an apple, it will fall; if I have faith in gravity, is that some speculative opinion that gravity exists? The Faith with which Aquinas treats, and of which scripture speaks is that first meaning of the word, less commonly understood today--believing God. That is, in knowing that God is all good and therefore cannot deceive nor be deceived, we must have a perfect confidence--we must have faith--in all that God communicates to man. This is faith properly so called. And because we can be sure of all that God reveals, we can be sure of all necessary conclusions drawn from revelation. The study of these conclusions and apparent conclusions is the science of Theology. The 'leap of faith' as you describe it is a novelty coined by Kierkegaard which has no place in actual Catholic theology. It is debatable whether Kierkegaard's writings are orthodox. No 'leap of faith' is necessary, and neither Thomas nor his adherents would ever suggest so. Of course, if you do not trust a man, you will not trust what he says. If you do not believe God, you will not accept what God says.

>>21511199
dumb phoneposter

>>21506189
I don't think he was a midwit since he analyzed the best arguments of his opponents rather than the worst. A midwit would be afraid to do that.

>>21511196
That's not true. Aquinas hardly touches on the issue of whether God can be known by natural things. It is taken as a given, as it should be.

>>21511212
Kek, you are completely ignoring Summa contra Gentiles. Also there have been entire books written on the Five Ways. He might have not created the arguments of natural theology, but he is certainly responsible for their development and wide promulgation.

>>21511203
>since that truth is clearly observable
opinion discarded
NEXT

>>21511196
>Many of his arguments serve to first establish that there is God as conceived by classical theism. These do not require any leap of faith, and serve to prove that there is a necessary being with certain attributes(establishing WHAT God is)

You're veering close to the other guy here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Elaborate on this.

>>21511212
>is taken as a given
You fags are wild.

>>21511195
>Once again leaving us, essentially, at square one of the religion vs nonbeliever debate.
Certainly not - the starting point is that God certainly and absolutely exists and that everything we find in the Bible is consistent with it. So, it is very, very far away from a square one. It's already halfway there for most.
>This is the kind of thing that pisses me off about religious people. You clearly do.
I have to guess. You have no prior knowledge of Aquinas and Aristotle and probably little of Christianity in general and you are using stupid phrases you picked up from atheists like "Christian God", which they generally confuse with God from natural theology. So I have to guess what you mean and translate foreign internet phraseology (or mutated protestant phrases, such as "leap of faith") into language of theology to give a proper answer.

>>21511216
He gives roughly three chapters to the question of God's existence, out of hundred and hundreds of chapters.

>>21511249
>Certainly not - the starting point is that God certainly and absolutely exists
'no'

This is what I'm talking about. Your argumentation style can best be described as "trolling".

You'll just say that the definition of "God" in this context just means "definition much more limited than what your average believer imagines when thinking of God".

It's all so tiresome.

>>21511250
That might be so, but he offers more arguments in various works. His writing was a bit all over the place from our perspective and his best works on natural theology is not in either of the Summas, but in De Ente et Essentia. And that is one sublime work, in its ellegance and power of arguments. And all that in like 20 pages.

>>21511261
It's not tiresome, you just have no idea what you are talking about. That God certainly and absolutely exists and that the Christian faith is in complete accordance with our natural reason is what you'll conclude if you accept the metaphysics of Aquinas, which answered your question on "where we are now".
As for my definition of of God, I already gave it (being whose essence is existence). If you wish to engage on a deeper level, you'll need to invest actual effort into serious works rather than expecting whatever it is you are expecting from /lit/. I can recommend Edward Feser's Aquinas as an excellent starting point.

>>21511295
>if you accept the metaphysics of Aquinas
And the jig is up.

>prime mover argument
nah
everything is a circle

>>21511301
It's not a jig, it's literally what everyone has been saying. You just have no knowledge, genuine interest or love of truth needed to understand these things.

>>21511311
>nothing left but ad hom
I accept your concession.

>>21511295
>God certainly and absolutely exists
>if you accept the metaphysics of Aquinas
Riveting

>>21511226
>Elaborate on this
Classical theism is really a philosophical tradition rather than theology and is not bound to any religion. Aquinas himself built on pagan(Aristotle), Jewish(Maimonides) and Islamic sources, without accepting their dogmatic theology. It aims to determine, by reason alone, that there exists necessary being(a being without which the universe simply could not exist), and that it has certain attributes(omnipotence, omnipresence, eternity, etc.). There is no faith required for this, just analysis of the arguments given. The same arguments are applicable to many different religions, as far as only the existence of such God is concerned. The identity of God of classical theism with any particular deity is different matter. Its not really possible to say with absolute certainty that God of any religion is the God of classical theism, since most religions depend on some form of divine revelation. You can, however, make a probable argument based on various religious scriptures that this or that religion better approaches what has been proved(if it has been proved) to be logically necessary. Such arguments, then, will require a certain degree of faith to assent to.

>>21511318
based and slightly more reasonable than some of the other posters in here

>>21511301
>>21511317
The metaphysics of Aquinas(really of Aristotle) are not based on religion though. You can disagree with them if you have refutation to them but its unreasonable to deny them a priori.

>>21511272
>A bit all over the place
There has never been a more methodical writer than Aquinas. And if the question is dealt with only sparingly and disparately, it would seem fair to say he hardly treats of it, no? And perhaps his best works on natural theology are elsewhere than in his greatest works, but that only goes to show that his primary concerns were with things other than natural theology. Sure, many popular protestant writers and speakers today like to deal mostly with natural theology, and this also provides the most popular controversy with popular atheist apologists, but again Aquinas shows his wisdom by treating the subject plainly, devoting as few words as are needed to it, and moving on from it to greater and more important topics.

>>21511315
>>21511317
Truly, atheism is brain rot.

>>21511325
One of the problems is that it doesn't prove nearly as much as you think it does. It's an interesting thing to think about, at best.
The need for a prime mover etc etc etc does not have an observable basis the way that, say, gravity does, not matter how much it may or may not make sense in a theoricetical manner.

>>21511333
Intriguing counterpoint.

>>21511326
>There has never been a more methodical writer than Aquinas.
Methodical in some ways, less in others. My main points of interest with Aquinas in my writing was ethics and his various arguments that you'd need for say, arguing the justice of death penalty, are generally in much more than a single place. His reasoning was methodical, his works are structured, but if we go for specifics into them from today's perspective, they can be a bit difficult to pinpoint. I could be wrong, this has been my experience with him.

>>21511337
Doesnt it? I am not Christian, nor am I very knowledgeable Aristotelian metaphysics but the movement produced by gravity, and the gravitational pull created by an object would in Aristotelian framework still require the prime actualizer. What makes gravity difference from any other instance of change?

>>21511356
Yeah, no.
Gravity=my poop drops into toilet. Observable.
Prime mover=no poop to observe.

>>21511356
What he's saying is that gravity is more fundemental than change in our experience (somehow).

>>21506941
Adi Shankara and Nagarjuna are some of the most intelligent philosophers of the East and could even be called geniuses, yet their worldviews are incompatible with each other and all incompatible with Aquinas’s (whatever broad similarities you can tease out). To return to the West, Aristotle was a genius yet today we see a fair amount of his work on science as properly “pseudoscience”.

This thread is so dumb and awful it makes me understand why mass shootings happen (not a threat).

>>21511365
>>21511362

>>21511226
The existence of God is self-evident. But some, not understanding God or what is meant by God, and not understanding the principles of induction or other methods of logic, argue that it cannot be shown. To share one argument from St. John Damascene and summarized by St. Thomas--it is very clear when we look out at existing things that they are very discordant and chaotic, and that they differ greatly in their natures; and yet all things which exist work together in a marvelous order. Now, it is impossible for discordant things to accord unless they are governed. Even atheist physicists implicitly agree in this. There are laws of nature which bring about a coherent whole from seemingly chaotic parts. But from whence do the laws arise? There can be no governance without a governor.

>>21511362
In prime mover argument, the gravity itself(and all change) is dependant on the prime mover. So what is the specific attribute of gravity which disproves prime mover in your view?

>>21511378
Truly, unironically, the post of a midwit.

Saved for future trolling use.

>>21511387
Let me preface this by saying I'm trying to actually answer this, not just be "smart".

My point is that the gravity idea is testable. Observable. It doesn't need the prime mover argument for that.

The prime mover argument, on the other hand, is not demonstrably true in the same way.
What is the prime mover advocates equivalent to me dropping an apple to test gravity?

>>21511395
Please, provide a syllogism to demonstrate how order can come from chaos.

>>21511378
Bro you are not helping your case. That anon genuinely asks for a convincing argument for existence of God and all you can do is say that its self-evident, while dropping references to Christian thinkers and logic.

>>21511430
1. Change is a real feature o f the world.
2. But change is the actualization o f a potential.
3. So, the actualization o f potential is a real feature o f the world.
4. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual
actualizes it (the principle o f causality).
5. So, any change is caused by something already actual.
6. The occurrence of any change C presupposes some thing or
substance S which changes.
7. The existence o f S at any given moment itself presupposes the
concurrent actualization of S’s potential for existence.
8. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A o f
its existence.
9. A ’s own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence or (b) A ’s being purely actual.
10. If A ’s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the
concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence,
then there exists a regress o f concurrent actualizes that is
either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
1 1 . But such a regress of concurrent actualizes would constitute
a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress
infinitely.
36 FIVE PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
12. So, either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a
purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that
begins with the actualization o f A.
13. So, the occurrence of C and thus the existence of S at any
given moment presupposes the existence o f a purely actual
actualizer.
14. So, there is a purely actual actualizer.
15. In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that
one such actualizer has that the others lack.
16. But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a
purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential,
which, being purely actual, it does not have.
17. So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no
way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer.
18. So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.
19. In order for this purely actual actualizer to be capable o f change,
it would have to have potentials capable o f actualization.
20. But being purely actual, it lacks any such potentials.
21. So, it is immutable or incapable o f change.
22. If this purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be
capable of change, which it is not.
23. So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of
time.
24. If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be
changeable and exist in time, which it does not.

>>21511475
25. So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial.
26. If the purely actual actualizer were corporeal, then it would be
material, which it is not.
27. So, the purely actual actualizer is incorporeal.
28. If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it
would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely
actual, it does not have.
29. So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect.
30. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a
privation— that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.
31. A purely actual actualizer, being purely actual, can have no
such privation.
32. So, the purely actual actualizer is fully good.
33. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.
34. Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by the
purely actual actualizer or by a series of actualizes which terminates in the purely actual actualizer.
35. So, all power derives from the purely actual actualizer.
36. But to be that from which all power derives is to be omnipotent.
37. So, the purely actual actualizer is omnipotent.
38. Whatever is in an effect is in its cause in some way, whether
formally, virtually, or eminently (the principle o f proportionate causality).
39. The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things.
40. So, the forms or patterns manifest in all the things it causes
must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.
41. These forms or patterns can exist either in the concrete way
in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the
abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts o f an intellect.
42. They cannot exist in the purely actual actualizer in the same
way they exist in individual particular things.
43. So, they must exist in the purely actual actualizer in the abstract
way in which they exist in the thoughts o f an intellect.
44. So, the purely actual actualizer has intellect or intelligence.
45. Since it is the forms or patterns o f all things that are in the
thoughts o f this intellect, there is nothing that is outside the
range o f those thoughts.
46. For there to be nothing outside the range o f something’s
thoughts is for that thing to be ominiscient.
47. So, the purely actual actualizer is omniscient.
48. So, there exists a purely actual cause o f the existence of things,
which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal,
perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient.
49. But for there to be such a cause of things is just what it is for
God to exist.
50. So, God exists

>>21511412
>not demonstrably true in the same way
So? Logical demonstrations are surer than scientific one. If you agree with premises set by prime mover argument than the conclusion will follow. The equivalent to you dropping an apple to test gravity would be looking at the argument of prime mover and determinig whether the premises are true and if there was no fault in reasoning.

>>21511475
>>21511479
See, thats better. Although just copying it from the book, instead of writing it in your own words is kinda lame.

>>21511430
I did give a convincing argument. The physical world tends toward disorder, and yet always remains in order. Whence comes this order? If you say that this order is an effect of the essence of physical things themselves, what is this essence and why does it produce order? And now that your are recognizing that all things which exist share certain essential qualities of being, you ought to find yourself on the consideration of the coextensive, which in turn demonstrates the self-evident nature of God.

>>21511500
He's not copying the book.

>>21511362
They're the same argument. You observe motion. Something must be the cause of the motion. You don't know what gravity is, essentially, but you know it must exist, because you observe its effects. But we have not just gravity, we have all motion. Gravity is a cause of movement. Magnetism is a cause of motion. Electricity is a cause of motion. All elemental forces of motion are causes. Where there is an effect, there is a cause. Now, either we must say that these causes--gravity, electricity, etc.--cause themselves, or else they too are the effects of some other cause. And for all causes, we must acknowledge this--either the cause is its own cause, or it has another. Inevitably, there must be some cause which has no other cause but itself.

>>21511493
>>21511598
Didn't answer the question.

>>21511598
The argument you have used to demonstrate gravity is the exact same argument as the prime mover argument. It is the very observation of change which demonstrates to us, empirically, that there is a cause of change.

>>21511493
?
Both gravity and the prime mover argument are attempting to demonstrate truths about our world.
One you can see the proof of through my dropping of sn object. The other you cannot run an equivalent test for.

>>21511640
meant to reply to this >>21511620

>>21511640
This is dishonest and you know it. Gravity and God are equally physically proven in your eyes?

>>21511643
See >>21511640
and>>21511598

We know gravity exists because we drop an object and we see it fall. And how do we define gravity? As that force which causes things to fall. It's a self-evident truth. Things fall, therefore there is something that causes things to fall. We cannot know what that force is simply by dropping apples, but every dropped apple proves that it exists, whatever it might really, essentially be. This thing needs a name and we have called it gravity, which has the exact same meaning as weightiness. It is literally just the latin word for heavy.

But things don't just fall. From the movements of subatomic particles to the movements of stars, we observe such a variety of movement, that it is hardly possible to describe them all. And yet, just as with gravity, the very observation of these movements demonstrates that something causes them to move. And yet again, the very observation of them shows that none of these different causes of movement are the cause of all movement. Each is a particular cause of some particular kind of movement. Now, if we can consider particular movements and find particular causes, what can we say of universal movement except that there must be some universal cause?

>>21511658
You are dumb as a rock. This is just God of the gaps.

>>21511649
Have you touched or tested the essence of gravity? Of course not. You know gravity exists because of the effect of gravity. Has any touched or tested the substance of God? Of course not, but we know God exists because we can see clearly, by all our senses, the effects of God.

>>21511666
>Of course not, but we know God exists because we can see clearly, by all our senses, the effects of God.
see
>>21511663

>>21511670
>>21511663
If what I have described is a God of the Gaps, then Gravity is nothing but the God of the Drops.

>>21511649
That's not what he said. He said that the necessity of a prime mover is equally proven. We know nothing about gravity other than that it "is," which is logically analogous to our knowledge of the necessity of a first cause of some kind. The "sheer being" of the world is as brutely evident and as inexplicable as any one of its phenomena. Gravity is a qualitas occulta.

Newton:
>It seems to me farther, that these Particles have not only a Vis inertiæ, accompanied with such passive Laws of Motion as naturally result from that Force, but also that they are moved by certain active Principles, such as is that of Gravity, and that which causes Fermentation, and the Cohesion of Bodies. These Principles I consider, not as occult Qualities, supposed to result from the specifick Forms of Things, but as general Laws of Nature, by which the Things themselves are form'd; their Truth appearing to us by Phænomena, though their Causes be not yet discover'd. For these are manifest Qualities, and their Causes only are occult. ... [T]o derive two or three general Principles of Motion from Phænomena, and afterwards to tell us how the Properties and Actions of all corporeal Things follow from those manifest Principles, would be a very great step in[Pg 402] Philosophy, though the Causes of those Principles were not yet discover'd: And therefore I scruple not to propose the Principles of Motion above-mention'd, they being of very general Extent, and leave their Causes to be found out. Now by the help of these Principles, all material Things seem to have been composed of the hard and solid Particles above-mention'd, variously associated in the first Creation by the Counsel of an intelligent Agent. For it became him who created them to set them in order.

>>21511674
No. That would be if the theory of Gravity was "God did it".

Gravity is merely a testable hypothesis, unlike the concept of God.

>>21511686
What is gravity?

>>21511684
>He said that the necessity of a prime mover is equally proven.
It is not. Way have no way to know whether a prime mover is necessary. We do, however, know that things fall when you drop them.

IF we had proof that there needed to be a prime mover, we'd be on similar territory to Gravity, but still with the added problem of God as a concept being unobservable.

>>21511694
We do have prove, you just can't follow an inductive argument to its proper conclusion.

>>21511690
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gravity

>>21511697
We do not.

>>21511698
>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gravity
>(1)
>: the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface
>(2)
>: a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (such as stars and planets), and between particles (such as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter called also gravitation, gravitational force
Congrats. Gravity is gravity, and God is God.

>>21511708
>>21511694

>>21511701
>>21511694
>>21511710
You have defined gravity as the force that causes things to fall. The evidence? That things fall. What further proof do you have?

>>21511694
The same notions of causation and inference you would need to prove the NECESSITY of gravity also tautologically entail the necessity of a prime mover (an end to the regress of causes). In Kant's system this manifests as the regulative ideals of the causal unity of nature (nature is a single system) and the originating cause of God (all systems require ground conditions).

Even if you posit gravity as a law it too must have a cause for its lawlike-ness, otherwise it isn't a LAW, only an empirically observed sequence. For it to be a law, to be "part of the firmament," logically requires the positing of a (causal) firmament.

>>21511717
?
Gravity= theory testable in the material world
Prime mover= not testable in the material world

>>21511730
Alright, what is the theory of gravity?

>>21511726
>The same notions of causation and inference you would need to prove the NECESSITY of gravity also tautologically entail the necessity of a prime mover (an end to the regress of causes).
No, you dummy.
Gravity we can test, the prime mover we cannot. The two have no bearing on the truth of the other.

>>21511735
Alright, let's suppose I'm an idiot. How is gravity tested?

>>21511731
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=what+is+the+theory+of+gravity

>>21511738
We don't have to suppose. I've told you a simple test like 4 times.

Apple in space=doesn't go down
Apple on Earth= goes down

>>21511745
Why does the apple go down in one place, but not another?

>>21511757
Playing dumb is annoying. I'm out unless you start saying something of any kind of substance

>>21511740
>https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=what+is+the+theory+of+gravity
That tells me that gravity is an invisible force that pulls objects towards each other. If it's invisible, how do we know it' there? And what is a force?

>>21511768
>how do we know it' there
Drop an apple.

>>21511766
Would I be wrong to suppose that the apple goes down in one place and not in the other because there is gravity in one place and not in the other?

>>21511735
"Testing" means the attribution of law-like cause-effect structures, which entails a law-like, causally structured universe that is also unitary (not some lovecraftian chaos of infinitely "intersecting" but mutually absolute causal "planes" of some kind). There is a reason Newton's "discovery" of gravity led inexorably to BOTH Hume's radical scepticism about the attribution of causes to nature AND thereby to Kant's regulative ideals of science, which were an attempt to save Newtonian science.

It's a slippery slope. You want to save just enough realism (empiricism, physicalism) to make everyday secular life and scientism keep going, while denying the need for ideal entities and logical entailments at the metaphysical level. But even your "minimalist" empiricism/physicalism requires ideal entities, like the laws themselves you claim to observe "in" merely physical entities and events, and logical entailments, like the need for the causal unity of whatever universe is being described as having cause-effect relations according to laws within it.

This is an old paradox. From Hume you either get total scepticism in which case you can't do anything at all, or you have to reassert something like a rationalist metaphysical framework just to make physics deducible again. The one compromise solution was Kant's, and it made no sense and everybody immediately tried to break out of it.

>>21511774
How do we know it's gravity, and not some other invisible force?

>>21511776
Go away retard. Or make your point. I won't be responding again unless you say what's on your mind. You're like a woman.

>>21511777
It's not a paradox at all.
Gravity and prime mover are two theories. One we can test. The other we cannot. We have no proof that we even need a prime mover.

>>21511780
Well, suggest a competing idea. I'm not married to gravity, merely to theories with evidence. The prime mover concept does not fall under that umbrella.

>>21511785
You keep saying we can test one and not the other, but you've yet to actually demonstrate what conclusion is drawn from what test. Alright, we drop an apple--demonstrate how a conclusion is drawn from that.

We're trying to tell you that the argument you will use is the same argument that draws the conclusion of the prime mover. That you refuse to draw the argument only seems to reinforce the notion that you already know this and you just want to close your eyes to the corner you've put yourself in.

>>21511799
>We're trying to tell you that the argument you will use is the same argument that draws the conclusion of the prime mover.
That's simply not the case though.
see
>>21511789


>demonstrate how a conclusion is drawn from that.
Apple falls, theory checks out.

>>21511789
Alright, here's a competing theory--sometimes when the apple falls, it's due to gravity, and sometimes when it falls, it's due to heaviness. Gravity and heaviness are both fundamental and invisible forces, and the difference between them is just that where there is heaviness, there is no gravity, and where there is gravity, there is no heaviness. In all other respects they are the same. Could you propose a test for me so that we could tell whether there are two invisible forces or just one invisible force?

>>21511802
As you point out, the fact of an apple falling is certainly compatible with the theory that there is an invisible force that causes things to fall. But it is also compatible with the theory that there are two invisible forces which cause things to fall. How do you prove, just form an apple falling, that it is one force and not two?

>>21511785
My favorite part of exchanges like this on /lit/ is when one side is trying to problematize the categories of the disagreement and show that it's a deeper issue, and the other side just keeps repeating its own categories as if they're self-evident. What joy could someone possibly get out of that? "No, it just is."

>>21511807
Skipping over how little work you've done to make that a plausible theory, it simply doesn't matter what you call it. Gravity or heaviness. If you claimed that theory (with much more thought put into it to make it worth actually looking into) then all we would have is two testable forces.

This doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the prime mover is not necessary.

>>21511817
>and the other side just keeps repeating its own categories as if they're self-evident.
I hope you're not referring to me. Look at who is really doing the "self evident" thing.
>>21511226

>>21511813
>>21511821

>>21511643
>The other you cannot run an equivalent test for.
Do you not know a difference between deduction and induction, and between empirical demonstration and logical demonstration? Also the difference between contingent and necessary facts(in response to god of gaps vs prime mover.) If you do not consider logical demonstrations as sufficient then you are denying any utility to logic, and mathematics by extension. Which aslo denies the basis of modern science.

>>21511825
You are doing the same thing now by insisting that its self-evident that empirical demonstrations are only valid forms of reasoning.

>>21511821
>>21511832
How do you say gravity is necessary? Because you see things fall.
Why is prime mover necessary? Because things exist at all.

>>21511843
>Do you not know a difference between deduction and induction, and between empirical demonstration and logical demonstration? Also the difference between contingent and necessary facts(in response to god of gaps vs prime mover.) If you do not consider logical demonstrations as sufficient then you are denying any utility to logic, and mathematics by extension. Which aslo denies the basis of modern science.
None of this is relevant.

What I'm saying is extremely clear-
The idea of a prime mover is not a necessity.

>>21511844
No. We have demonstrated what we call gravity. We have not demonstrated the need for a prime mover.

>>21511821
>This doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the prime mover is not necessary.
The point of the prime mover argument is trying to prove that the prime mover is necessary for any change to happen, not that its one of the possibilities. If you have any refutation to individual points of the prime mover argument(you can look them up written in detail) thats fair, but merely stating the contradictory conclusion without any argumentation of your own is not a valid form of reasoning.

>>21510812
>>21510836
Elevating YHWH to some convoluted theologians pure actuality mumbojumbo is precisely what is laughable about Aquinas and most other Christian "philosophers". There is a reason why the Greeks generally didn't start cope posting about Zeus being the prime mover, The Good/One, Pure Actuality, or whatever. They understod that ontology is greater than theology.

Broad metaphysical principles do not talk to you.

>>21511855
Gravity is defined as that which causes things to fall. The 'demonstration' as you call it is that we can see things fall. God is defined as that which causes everything to exist. Following your example, the demonstration is that we can see that things exist. The reasoning is the same. It is upon you to demonstrate why it works in one case and not the other.

>>21511855
It is relevant. You are arguing against prime mover on the basis of the lack of empirical proof. There exists a logical proof which you have not refuted. So either you deny utility of logic, or you have no basis for your conclusion.

>>21511859
My friend. It is really very simple. The prime mover has not been proven to exist or be neccessary.

>>21511871
>There is a reason why the Greeks generally didn't start cope posting about Zeus being the prime mover, The Good/One, Pure Actuality, or whatever.
Someone has never read Plato or Aristotle it seems.

>>21511872
>God is defined as that which causes everything to exist.
The crux of the issue is that this is a pointless definition that does nothing to enlighten anyone or illuminate anything. It's like if I renamed the freezing process. "God is that which causes water to change into ice". As soon as a put some water in the fridge, I've proven that """God"""" exists.

>>21511876
see above, I guess
Don't know how many times we can keep going in circles.

>>21511878
Yes, I am sure your world is exceedingly simple. I apologize, I will not disturb you simple-mindedness any further.

>>21511892
Things fall. Things freeze. Things exist. Why do you bother to understand the first two, and not the third?

>>21511876
>There exists a logical proof which you have not refuted.
Thomas didn't prove anything though.

>>21511910
I want to understand it. But you don't and neither does Thomas. You guys want to find God.

>>21511911
>1 plus 1 does not equal 2

>>21511910
Dont bother anymore. We will serve our simple friend better by not trying to strain his brain too much.

>>21511919
>cornered
>ad hom
classic

>>21511918
Thomas didn't say that.

>>21511925
>Thomas didn't prove anything
>What's my proof? I don't need any.

>>21511934
>>21511921

>>21511938
What kind of logic is this?
>there is an invisible, intangible man right next you
>no there isn't
>PROOF?

>>21506189
Middle wit. Vox Day was using the term years ago before it got popular. He also invented the sigma male archetype.

>>21511946
Alright, calm down Don Quixote. Can you find where Thomas makes that argument?

>>21511955
It's called an analogy. Though it's still applicable more or less, since Aquinas believed in the God of the Bible.

>>21511960
No, it's called a straw man.

>>21511961
No. It's called a commonly used element of conversation.

>>21511969
How old are you, kid?

>>21511977
>>21511921

Got anything real or no?

>>21511980
I'm ready when you are.

>>21511988
I accept your concession.

>>21511666
>because we can see clearly, by all our senses, the effects of God.
let me correct you
>because we can see clearly, with all our senses, our reality
In what way does this have anything to do with a God beyond it being some people's belief system?

>>21512013
Is falling an effect of gravity? If it is, then of what is existence an effect?

>>21512022
Why is this
>because we can see clearly, by all our senses, the effects of God.
The same as this?
>because we can see clearly, with all our senses, our reality

>>21506941
>How a how smart could he be if he bet on the wrong horse?

Smart people are awfully wrong a lot of the time.

>>21512035
Keep telling yourself that, bud.

>>21512032
I didn't say that it was.

>>21512047
You did.

>>21512052
I think you responded to the wrong post, sorry.

>>21512055
I most definitely did not.
But I'm happy to accept your concession, if this is how you want to play.

>>21512059
Where did I say what you say I said?

>>21512064
Playing dumb is not a good way to salvage this. Unless you engage with me in good faith, I'm out.

>>21512075
But I thought we don't need faith, lol?

>>21511910
Because we don't have evidence for the third.

>>21512086
We don't have evidence that things exist?

>>21512088
I misread that post haha.
I meant we don't have testable theory of why the third does what it does.

>>21512095
Why does gravity do what it does?

>>21512103
Asked and answered.

>>21512104
Where's your Nobel prize for physics?

>>21512109
in your bunghole

>>21512124
I honestly don't know why gravity does what it does, and I don't know anyone who knows. If you know, could you please demonstrate it to me?

>>21511179
The thread should have ended here.

OP, the truth is that receiving the truth of the lord is a personal thing, and yes, is ultimately based on belief.
But to say that belief should be secondary to materialism is a dangerous folly.
Thomas Aquinas primarily wrote his works for skeptics to give them an avenue into the ultimate truth- belief. He never intended it to be a secular "proof" in the modern usage of that word.

>>21512126
drop an apple then Google why it drops

>>21512140
modwit

>>21512140
Not a single word of this is true.

>>21512126
>>21512146
What i mean is-
With prime mover, you could only do the second thing (Google why) not the first (a demonstration).

>>21512146
Yes, gravity makes the apple fall, but why does gravity make the apple fall?

>>21512146
>modwit
Well I'm sorry I tried to be polite. Some people just resist the truth.

>>21512149
How so? I admit, I simplified and streamlined a little.

>>21512157
Asked and answered. You just trying to hit the bump limit or something?

>>21512160
>>modwit
>Well I'm sorry I tried to be polite. Some people just resist the truth.
What truth? You just said it's ultimately based on belief lmao!

>>21512171
You should have continued reading. To conflate truth with material existence is to die a slow, living death.

>>21512183
I accept your concession.

>>21512160
1. The post you refer to is not a good post, and the problems with that post have gone one to spawn all of this sophomoric tedium.
2. The Truth is that receiving the truth of the Lord is not based on belief (that is, opinion), but is based on reason, and confirmed by faith (that is, knowing that God can neither deceive nor be deceived, and therefore his revelation must be accepted without doubt, and what he has revealed only further demonstrates and clarifies the truths which the human mind grasps by reason alone). Therefore, accepting the truth of God is matter of universal moral necessity.
3. Man, being a physical being, relies on his senses to know anything about the world. That is, he relies on matter. It is by our senses that we encounter the revelation of God, and God has established revelation specifically to communicate to us through our senses that we may have greater confidence in the truths that he has revealed.
4.Thomas Aquinas primarily wrote works for other theologians and for priests, and most of his writing was directed at those already knowledgeable about theology. The Summa Theologiae, his most famous and significant work, was aimed at students of theology. The Summa Contra Gentiles was an apologetics work, but its aim was ultimately to persuade non-believers, and to bolster the faith of believers.
5. These two works are methodically written in a syllogistic manner so that beginning with some principle, Thomas works point by point through to all the necessary conclusion.

>>21511906
So basically, gravity is tautological, just like god?
Like, its self validating. gravity is because gravity is. God is because god is.
...
Wtf is the deal with proof anyway? What do you all think proving is and means? Isn't proof a very subjective concept?

>>21512167

Plenitude put the modest curse on all philosophers for over a hundred years.

>>21512189
>2. The Truth is that receiving the truth of the Lord is not based on belief (that is, opinion), but is based on reason, and confirmed by faith (that is, knowing that God can neither deceive nor be deceived, and therefore his revelation must be accepted without doubt, and what he has revealed only further demonstrates and clarifies the truths which the human mind grasps by reason alone). Therefore, accepting the truth of God is matter of universal moral necessity.
I'll defer to you on the definitions of belief vs faith, but other than that, I can't say I agree with this post.
I read a lot of Aquinas on the road to where I am today, and I never found his ideas all that powerful as far as increasing any sense in myself that the path to God rested in secular-type logic.
In fact, it wasn't until a few years later when I focused more on the idea of developing a personal relationship with God through personal belief and meditation rather than "scientific" style logic that i began to feel a truth well up inside me.

>>21512203
*Plotinus

>>21512209
Truth is not a feeling. Faith is not a feeling. What you have experienced are consolations. The idea you are articulation is called eminence, and it's been condemned as part of modernism.

>>21512201
>we know how it operates in the universe
damn...

>>21512217
>We don't know what it is
>But we know how it works
>Because we can see it's effects
That is the prime mover argument

>>21512222
No. We don't even know that a prime mover is necessary. We can't test it either.

>>21512228
Wow, I finally figured it out--you don't understand cause and effect.

>>21512235
No, you don't understand the difference between a testable idea and a non testable one.
Really rather strange.

>>21512242
>If A, then B
>A
>Therefore B
Does that make sense to you?

>>21512248
>A
You don't have this part.

>>21512252
>If something moves, then something must cause it to move
>Everything moves
>Therefore, something must cause everything to move.

>>21512253
It hasn't been proven that a concept like prime mover needs to exist. Gravity, by whatever name, exists.

>>21512259
So, would you say that some things move without anything causing them to move?

>>21512266
I would say what I said in the post you just replied to. Extrapolate that to whatever you want.

>>21512275
Certainly you believe that if something moves, something has caused it to move.

>>21512290
Stop this shit retard.
A prime mover is not inherently nessacary. Whatever created this universe is not necessarily bound to the laws of our reality.

>>21512308
And the truth comes out. You think our universe was created by something, but just not a 'prime mover' or 'God'.

>>21512323
Holy hell, you gaping faggot. The point is NO ONE KNOWS.
I could have gone even broader in my wording but then you would just take issue with that as well so I wrote "created by something" to keep the conversation somewhat on track.
You are fucking killing me.

>>21512336
Got it. You don't believe that if something moves, something has caused it to move.

>>21512345
What are you getting at? Please just say what you mean.

>>21512354
If something moves, something must cause it to move.

>>21512355
We don't know that as an absolute beyond our observable reality.

>>21512375
How do we know that gravity exists in places we haven't observed?

>>21512381
We don't. The fundamental difference is that we can't even observe evidence of the prime mover in places we have observed, unlike gravity.
see
>>21512259

>>21512387
In every place that we have observed, if something moves, something caused it to move.

>>21512395
>>21512032

>>21512402
We're miles away from that part of the question. Stick to the subject at hand. In every place that we have observed, if something moves, something caused it to move. Yes or no?

>>21512410
>We're miles away from that part of the question.
We are not.

>>21512413
In every place that we have observed, if something moves, something caused it to move. Yes or no?

>>21512417
Asked and answered. Unlike my question to you.

>>21512420
In every place that we have observed, if something moves, something caused it to move. Do you deny it?

>>21512427
We have quite literally just had this conversation.

>>21512430
In every place that we have observed, if something moves, something caused it to move. Any further refusal can only be understood as a total concession to the entire argument, given the modus tolens provided above.

>>21512438
>In every place that we have observed, if something moves, something caused it to move.
Right and we have no proof that we need to stop this with a prime mover.
Which is what I've been saying the whole time.

>>21512438
>modus tolens
>when arguing about God
ngmi

>>21512438
You're arguing with a hylic

>>21512540
rude desu

>>21512438
>>21512454
I'm waiting

>>21512438
>>21512454
>>21512552
Actually nvm. I accept your concession, I'm not going to wait around all day when you were answering posts within like 2 minutes before. Clearly you have no rebuttal. Peace.

>>21512454
>>21512253

>>21512594
I'm at work.

>>21506189
Luther did nothing wrong

>>21512438
Then what moves the Jewish tribal deity?

>>21512640
Nothing, he doesn't move. He's the Unmoved Mover.

>>21512667
Then how does he affect the world? Nothing can move without itself moving, which, as you've already said, requires it to be moved by something else. So, either Yahweh has something bigger than him up the chain, or he doesn't affect the world (and thus exists such that his existence and non-existence are identical).

>genius
>worships a literal kike. No, really.
The West never had a chance did it?

>>21512705

>>21512699
Something must be able to move itself, or else it's turtles all the way down.

>>21512810
So Aristotle's whole "the planets are the Gods and they have special bodies" thing. But if you make that argument, you have to explain why this class of thing can move itself and other things can't (which is sort of a misnomer to bring up Aristotle here because he held that everything can actually move itself), AND, you have to throw out there only being one of these things.

>>21512810
>Something must be able to move itself, or else it's turtles all the way down
There's always a bigger fish.

>>21513013
>mfw George Lucas refuted Aquinas

>>21513032
He can't keep getting away with it. Not only did he refute smelly Aquinas, but he affirmed divine Plato by selling the form of his work to Disney, who can only produce degraded copies of it, themselves lacking the real idea, which cannot be imparted to the deficient.

>>21513053
HORY BASED

>>21513065
It is truly an amazing demonstration of craftsmanship, that by sheer counterpoint, the existence of Disney's sequel trilogy makes Lucas's prequel trilogy into a masterpiece. If Plato is wrong this should be impossible. And yet it appears so, that the further we get from an idea the more of a crude facsimile it manifests as.

>>21509734
I've read more Lagrange than you have and Neo-Thomism was a mistake

>>21510648
>How could the Holy Spirit be wrong for 1500 years?
How the fuck does this follow from saying that Balthasar had a superior theological methodology for the modern age than Lagrange? You're a living meme. Catholic theology and philosophy is broader than Aquinas and his Aristotelian synthesis.

>>21513652
>Darth Vader
quality kek

>>21513608
Don't lie. You haven't.
>>21513652
>Catholic theology and philosophy is broader than Aquinas and his Aristotelian synthesis.
Certainly. But Baltharas already has no place in this. He is already forgotten and obscure and there's never going to be a revival of Nouvelle. Because he's unfit for modern man, if he was ever even fit for anyone.

>>21514544
You haven't even read Balthasar

>>21514582
Of couse I haven't. I never claimed I did. No one has any reason to read Balthasar today. Which is also why no one does. Nothing he wrote is of any interest to the modern man.

>>21514611
>No one has any reason to read Balthasar today.
He was one of the chief architects of Vatican II and hence has a huge influence over the Church as it exists today.

>>21514624
>He was one of the chief architects of Vatican II and hence has a huge influence over the Church as it exists today.
Exactly. It's what I've said. He's worthless for the contemporary man. He was a fad amongst boomers. Not a thinker that has even outlived his own lifetime. Any question a young man might have today on the nature of the Church, Christ, philosophy, mysticism, spirituality, anything else, none are answered by Balthasar. The intellectual movement of Nouvelle Theologie is on its last legs and only still standing because of institutional power, but not really because anyone is reading and producing worthwhile content in the tradition of it. Time to accept that the times of liberal theology are passing.

>>21514636
>He's worthless for the contemporary man
"One of the chief theologians for the contemporary Catholic Church is worthless for the contemporary man"
Ok bro

>>21514675
Exactly. Which is why anons should check out Garrigou-Lagrange instead. They can get coherent and strict answers to questions they need answered.

>>21506941
I really hope these are foreigners with a different native tongue. Or some kind of really high quality bait. I shudder to think people like this may exist

>>21509632
>De Lubac and Balthasar
They are cancer.

>>21509873
90% of people never gave a shit and will never give a shit one way or the other mate. 'Spiritual but not religious" is gibberish, an oxymoron. Most people are brain-dead sheep who will follow the leader, even into a precipice. Broad is the way that leads to the fall and all that. Stop chasing clout. The Truth will set you free.

>>21509898
You don't know what you're talking about. Your whole position amounts to "let's pander to the vices of morons". You think the idiots who are "spiritual but not religious" would return to the Church by reading Eckhart? WRONG! They'll just go on their merry sentimentalist way, guided by whatever "feels right" in their "heart of hearts", just like every other humanoid drone. They are lesser souls who will never amount to anything.

>>21509922
Good post. This guy gets it. Turning the Church into just another New Age faux-mystical movement would be a disaster. Let the "spiritual but not religious" people keep consooming. They're feces production machines anyway.

>>21514734
>They are lesser souls who will never amount to anything.
That's literally gnosticism my dude

>>21511295
>As for my definition of of God, I already gave it (being whose essence is existence).
Spinozan pantheist heresy. You do not know what you are talking about. Kill yourself.

>>21515966
That is the definition Aquinas gives God. Is Aquinas a spinozist heretic? God is a being in whose essence is identical to his existence.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm

>>21514734
Pretty extreme talk from a man who doesn't attend church and has weekly inner turmoil over whether the denomination he chose this week is "based" enough or not.

>>21506229
Based
>>21506941
Stupid take, you have dunning krugger

>>21516424
Spinoza is an Thomist heretic.

>>21518770
dumb phoneposter

>>21509632
I'm Catholic and I think Catholics have made a mistake in elevating Aquinas to an almost scriptural level of authority like they tend to.

>>21509689
Why do you think the Church Fathers were just "mysticism"?

The reality is that Aquinas was an Aristotelian whereas the Church Fathers were Platonists.

>>21518881
Aquinas was a synthesis of all that came before, which includes a lot of platonic elements. Claiming that he was an aristotelian versus platonism is plain wrong and reeks of propaganda you hear at theological colleges that focus on Nouvelle Theologie and their ilk.

>>21518894
Plato was lost in the West in the Middle Ages and Aristotle wasn't. The influence of Plato on Aquinas is very indirect whereas the influence of Aristotle is beyond obvious.

Platonism came back in the Renaissance because Marsilio Ficino did the first complete translation of Plato into Latin.

>>21518881
>I'm Catholic and I think Catholics have made a mistake in elevating Aquinas to an almost scriptural level of authority like they tend to.
Yes it's obvious that it's become an albatross around their necks now. One can defend the antiquity of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and point to many early sources that support it. Transubstantiation that was dogmatised by the Council of Trent? Not so much. That should've always stayed in the realm of speculative theology. Dogmatizing Transubstantiation as the only manner in which you can understand the elements of the Eucharist becoming the real body and blood of Christ was an obvious blunder since it forces Catholic theology into this rigid Aristotelian mold

>>21506232
You mean Aristotle's proof?
I do think Aquinas is a genius btw, but credit where credit is due.

>>21506196
>t tard

>>21514736
>feces production machines
Blessed are the meatbags for they shall inherit the earth. If you don't like Christianity why are you pretending to be Christian? For culture war purposes? Pathetic

>>21518932
Good post, I agree.

>>21506941
Least retarded edgelord

what was the color of Aquinas' Bugatti?