/lit/ - Literature

>>22070180
I found his reasons quote convincing I might become a Catholic now

Especially his first way
Motion proves God

>>22070180
Which god?

>>22070188
Yes it doesn’t exactly prove the God of Abraham however it does provide a good reason to believe in monotheism

And a God that is transcendent beyond being not just a cartoon super hero like Zeus

>>22070180
When someone asks you to prove God, it argues that for that person, God needs proof in order to exist. Does God need proof in order to exist? No, therefore all "proofs of God" are useless.

>>22070199
When someone asks you to prove the tooth fairy, it argues that for that person, the tooth fairy needs proof in order to exist. Does the tooth fairy need proof in order to exist? No, therefore all "proofs of for the tooth fairy" are useless.

In the off chance someone here has /lit/ charts on Aquinas, early church polemics, church fathers or just straight up catholic charts, please post them. I'm not sure how to enter into Scholasticism. (I'm already reading the Bible, obvs)

>>22070212
Bump I would also like a chart

>>22070211
God doesn't need proof in order to exist if that's what you're contesting.

>>22070180
>those who have ears to hear, let them hear!
not everyone has ears to hear

>>22070212
>>22070215
I don't have a chart, but would recommend Josef Pieper four cardinal virtues for ethics (Pieper is good in general).

I've read bits of his metaphysics from all over the place (Brain Davies 'The Thought of Thomas Aquinas' is good but expensive), but I've head Ed Feser's 'Aquinas' is good.

Once you've read those just get the Penguin Classics selected writings and dive in.

>>22070236
I’m curious do you think Aquinas succeeds?

I’m pretty convinced by his arguments but was wondering if I’m overlooking something?

>>22070236
Thanks anon, I will check those out.

>>22070212
I have this chart. Scholasticism is entered by first reading the Greeks and the Romans. Its all very commentary heavy.

>>22070198
Beyond representation. Any attempt to formalize God into a specific system of symbols, values to worship and traditions to repeat should be seen as an insult to its nature. Dogma blasphemes the trancendent.

>>22070244
Personally, yes I think he succeeds. Not only in metaphysics, but his ethics is on point as well.

The main issue modern people have with him (apart from just not liking his ethical conclusions) is that it's very difficult for us to think in an ancient/medieval way about Being because of the success of natural philosophy over the past 400 years.

When you start to think like Aristotle and see things with more wonder, then it makes sense

>>22070251
It’s a map not the territory

>>22070254
How do you respond to the atheist who say an infinite regress in a sustaining vertically ordered serious is possible?


And then Hume who doubts all causation

>>22070261
You have to press the actuality/potentiality distinction. If that is accepted, then it's much easier to see an infinite regress as impossible. Why should it be accepted? Because there is no alternative which so appropriately explains both 'being' and 'becoming', or identify and change.

I wouldn't really engage with those who doubt causation, as they are just being silly. We do have a direct awareness of causation.

>>22070180
It's just special pleading.
>everything has to have a cause except this thing that I make my living shilling for

>>22070267
No, it's not. Not everything has to have a cause, only those things which undergo movement/change. As God is widely accepted to be unchanging, then whatever we mean when we talk about the 'unchanging source of all that is', must be the same thing as God.

>>22070274
If God doesn't undergo movement/change then God cannot ACT, for the state of performing an action is different from the state of not performing this action.
>b-but God exists outside of time
Special pleading.

>>22070266
Interesting reply thanks anon you’re clearly very well read on scholasticism

>You have to press the actuality/potentiality distinction. If that is accepted, then it's much easier to see an infinite regress as impossible. Why should it be accepted? Because there is no alternative which so appropriately explains both 'being' and 'becoming', or identify and change


Why is actuality/potentiality the most appropriate? I’m just trying to steelman the argument

>>22070287
Not that anon however God is transcendent outside of time that’s not special pleading that’s Christian doctrine

>>22070287
God does act, but does so in an eternal, unchanging way.

Eternity is the simultaneously-whole and perfect possession of interminable life.

God exists and produces the entirety of His creation in a single, unchanging instant. Remember, when we are saying 'God' we are just using it as a sign for 'the source of all that exists'. If this changed, then the 'laws' of reality itself would change.

>>22070299
It is, in fact, special pleading. You just did it, too, coupled with the nonsensical remark "outside of time".

Nonsensical in the Wittgenstein terminology.

>>22070293
I wrote a blog about this so I'll paste some of it here. Hopefully it's helpful!

Aquinas is saying that an infinite regress of movers is impossible. The reason for this is that something can only go from potentiality to actuality if it is acted upon by something actual. However, if that actual thing also has to be brought to actuality from potentiality, then there must be another actual thing which brings that about.

Aquinas is saying that if there isn’t something which is actual in itself and is not brought to actuality by something else, then this entire chain of movement cannot even get started. When you look at a movement, based on premise 2 you can ask the question “What is causing this movement?” However, if for every movement in this present moment you have to ask that question an infinite number of times, then you can never find something which is already actual and able to bring something else to actuality from potentiality.

‘As the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand’ is a key illustration. A staff is moved by a hand because of the present activity or actualisation of the hand. Without the hand already being actually there, the staff won’t move. You can extend this chain as long as you want (e.g. the staff moves a rock which moves a pebble), however without something being there which is already actual, neither staff, rock, or pebble will move.

>>22070315
Sorry, to explain the image: Each pair shows something going from potentiality to actuality. This can only happen if the previous 'actual' thing acts on it. If there isn't a first cause, then the chain would never exist in the first place.

>>22070251
How can you blaspheme something that is beyond formalization?

>>22070299
>it's not special pleading if we say we believe it lol
?

>>22070261
>How do you respond to the atheist who say an infinite regress in a sustaining vertically ordered serious is possible?

By telling them to read a maths textbook. If they refuse to learn mathematical logic, then you retort by correctly stating that they are a philistine.

>>22070315
I see thanks anon

>>22070306
>God does act
When?
>in an eternal unchanging way
This is incoherent. An action takes a certain amount of time to perform. There is the state before it is performed, when it is being performed and when it has been performed. Three distinct states.
>His creation
Why are you capitalizing the male pronoun here if you claim to "just be using it as a sign"?

>>22070315
Mackie says an infinite regress is still possible for example a peg could be held by another peg above for infinity

I don’t see the necessity for a first cause. It may be unlikely but surely a infinite regress is still possible?

>>22070338
>When?
in the past, right now, and in the future, simultaneously
>This is incoherent. An action takes a certain amount of time to perform...
Yeah, for things that aren't fully actual and exist in time. Not for God

>>22070391
Yes exactly God exists in an eternal present read Boethius

Good points

>>22070390
I think that the example Mackie gives is conceivable in a situation where an infinite amount of pegs have existed eternally. If that were the case, they would each be 'unmoved' and hence purely actual (however the fact that they are material makes this impossible as all material things are potentially divisible, but this is besides the point atm).

However, if you were to imagine a case of pegs which are added to one after another, you have to ask questions about where those pegs come from, and why they aren't falling down. You can't go up the line of pegs infinitely because if there is nothing but pegs all the way up, then there is nothing holding up the chain of pegs.

Thinking about what this would be like in reality shows that it's a silly thought example, in my opinion.

>>22070198
"Cartoon super hero like Zeus". Do you hear yourself rn?

>>22070391
>in the past, right now, and in the future, simultaneously
Incoherent.
>Yeah, for things that aren't fully actual and exist in time. Not for God
More special pleading.

>>22070423
>Incoherent.
How is that incoherent? It's no more incoherent than saying that I existed at a point in the past, now and will exist in the future. The only difference is with God there is no limitation whatsoever.

how many problems within christianity are just because of mistranslations

>>22070433
> It's no more incoherent than saying that I existed at a point in the past, now and will exist in the future.
Notice how you switched the conversation from "acting" to "existing". Isn't it odd that you need to do this for your analogy? Here's mine.
1. There is a state when you have not yet written your reply to me.
2. There is the state when you are writing your reply to me.
3. There is the state when you have written your reply to me.
This is time. This is action. Action requires a change in these states, and this change is measured in time. If there is no time, there is no action.
>b-but that doesn't apply to God because I say so!
This is special pleading. For God to act, God must go from state 1 to state 2.
>b-but He's in both states simultaenously!
That's contradictory.
>b-but
Look, can't you just admit that you've arbitrarily decided that the rules don't apply to God because you put your conclusions first and then saw what arguments could be fashioned to support those conclusions?

>>22070448
sorry chief, that ain't me.

God's eternity follows from his immutability. You can read about his immutability here:
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm

Can I ask what you think about the actuality/potentiality distinction?

>>22070412
What’s wrong with what I said?

>>22070448
>Notice how you switched the conversation from "acting" to "existing".
I actually jumped in mid way, but it doesn't matter. Acting is existing. That's why God is called pure act. Energeia is the Greek for "act", which also is translated as action and change, and actuality as a state.
> Action requires a change in these states,
No, it does not, by definition. Action only requires that there is something being done, it doesn't imply anything about how that act originates. You're adding conditionals into the equation which are not relevant and are only relevant to finite creatures and things which are always partly passive and determined by their acts. God is wholly active and is only a determinative potency.
>If there is no time, there is no action.
Non-sequitur. No one said there was no time. They only said God was not constrained by time. If God is not limited to any particular moment, then his act can be present in every moment without God undergoing change in the slightest.

>>22070404
I agree it’s silly I guess I’m just trying to think of ways the atheist could try and wiggle his way out of the argument


I still think a infinite regress is conceivable but I consider it very unlikely

>>22070212
First way.

>God acts in one eternal instant and we experience this instant as regular linear time because of our nature
>the Absolute is embodied as the world-historical Geist which eternally actualizes itself out of the infinite sea of potentiality
>time and all phenomena are illusions, 'samsara' or 'maya,' which Brahman casts on itself for shits and gig- I mean, because it's in its nature
Every time I think I have a definitive answer to the question of why/how anything exists I find a counterargument presented by one of the above three schools which is then countered in turn by another.
God 'eternally' acting and also being absolutely unchanging and simple seems like a blatant contradiction, but anything that comes out of the process theology schools of thought is blatantly retarded as it describes a "God" that isn't really a God at all, and the third option boils down to "dude trust me, you are actually God and have decided to inflict suffering on yourself for no reason whatsoever" which despite all the very interesting things people like Nagarjuna wrote based on that idea also seems retarded to me.
I think I'm going to bash my head against this problem for my whole life.

>>22070180
This "steelmanned" argument for the existence of God is far stronger than any of the arguments Aquinas made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/the-case-for-the-physical-existence-of-god/

>>22070287
>If God doesn't undergo movement/change then God cannot ACT
In this framing God doesn't act, every action is an expression of the eternal unchanging Law. Time has to be logically caused and that logic always existed, there's no temporal chain we can trace back to a temporal action that caused time.

>>22070180
Descartes did.

>>22070184
why cathocuck and not orthodox

>>22070629
High iq post

>>22070691
Which one his ontological argument or trademark argument?

>>22070727
Saint Aquinas is Catholic so I figured I’d follow him.

Also most Orthodox I’ve met are larping American tourist vultures who seem entirely superficial. I’m thinking specifically of Jay Dyer who is absolutely repellent

>>22070629
>I think I'm going to bash my head against this problem for my whole life.
Mystery is a necessary facet of Christianity. One cannot have faith in something they know. Faith is belief either in absence of knowledge or in spite of knowledge to the contrary. Christianity is all about the whole following instructions without definitive proof that big G is actually a thing. The whole thing would be pointless if He popped up every once in a while just to remind everyone that he, in fact, was actually a Very Real Thing.

Yes, this can be framed as a cope, but if you're trying to understand from the Christian POV, know that you're by definition unable to.

>>22070786
Why does God hide himself but then selectively show himself to others such as Paul on the road to Damascus

>>22070629
None of those have to exclude the other options. They can be different maps of the same thing, emphasizing different aspects as meaningful. Human beings are processes in time, we can't model things except using representations that work with our limited minds. We want cause and effect because it's what we're built for. We have hints of something beyond that but we still have to use our normal tools that rest on causal logic to represent anything we want to say about anything.
Thinking you have modelled God completely in your mind would be the same kind of idolatry as worshiping a statue.

>>22070791
Dunno.

I'd speculate that the acts in the gospels/NT were deemed necessary to create a world in which the knowledge of God would spread widely enough that most would eventually be able to make the choice to follow or not to. Priming the pump, if you will.

>>22070180
The universe isn't a chain of dominoes; linear cause and effect is a useful fiction that only applies to a small number of systems, such as dominoes.
The way the universe operates isn't by step-wise sequences of cause and effect, but by continual mutual influence and interaction.
As such, using the model of linear causation to project metaphysical implications can be entirely discarded.
The question is: what are the metaphysical implications of interconnectedness and mutual influence?

>>22070266
>Because there is no alternative which so appropriately explains both 'being' and 'becoming', or identify and change.
1) this is not a good basis for an argument
2) process metaphysics exists and does a better job explaining being and becoming

>>22070786
>>22070809
I understand - I consider myself a Trinitarian Christian though I haven't received a valid baptism (Mormon upbringing) - but for some reason I have an overpowering urge to seek the highest truth intelligible to me. If my intellect falls short at some point along the way to the ineffable then I will accept that, but my feeling is that humanity collectively hasn't quite reached the absolute limit at which the intellect fails quite yet. Maybe it's just hubris but I want to believe that the human mind is capable of reaching, if not the summit of the question of existence, at least a vantage point above the clouds from which the peak can be seen.

>>22070856
To what degree do you need to understand the mechanism of hunger before you know when you feel it, it's often a good idea to eat?

There's nothing wrong with making a study of such, but be wary of getting lost in a pursuit of a forever-moving standard of "understanding" without actually eating because every new thing you learn inspires a dozen new questions.

>>22070900
>but be wary of getting lost in a pursuit of a forever-moving standard of "understanding" without actually eating because every new thing you learn inspires a dozen new questions.
Unless I have some kind of experience of the ineffable which satiates the drive, or convinces me that it's all futile, I don't think I'll ever be able to put down the fork, so to speak. It's not so much that I'm curious or that I do this as an intellectual curiosity - I HAVE to understand as far as I am able and find the limits of my own intellect. I couldn't tell you why.

>>22070180
He proved the existence of a perfectly simple being who is the cause of all other beings' existence. In no way, shape, or form did he prove that God exists as Christians conceive of Him - triune, incarnate of the Virgin Mary, etc. His natural theology is extremely compatible with Christianity, but that's it. It doesn't prove a single thing Christians think is really important about God - morality, among them, the afterlife, etc.

>>22070791
A given context makes abstract forces conspire to express emergent phenomena, like dust devils. Aristotle would call the abstract forces daemons, Christians would separate those daemons into helpful angels and adversarial demons.
Constantine had something similar to Paul but I think we can better grasp how he saw all the arrows pointing the same way in the situation he was in. He saw things like examples of working Christian civilization in York before seeing his sign, it didn't just come out of nowhere it was a culmination of what had been building up in his intuition.
The apparent "luck" of the early Muslim expansion was a huge factor in spreading it because people didn't believe in "luck", people interpreted it as God revealing His will. Those abstract forces, the court of God / the ancient gods conspired to help the Muslims win. From a Christian perspective maybe it was Satan or maybe Islam serves a greater purpose or both.

Usually the rare phenomena are more abstract but I have seen a dust devil made of fire whose scream sounded like thunder. The only reason anyone would believe me now is because I can explain the situation using le science. 2000 years ago I would have interpreted it as some kind of sign relating to something on my mind, maybe it was.

>>22070919
Sorry I wasn't quite clear. Eating is the metaphor for just believing/having faith. Starving yourself in pursuit of understanding exactly how and why hunger is a thing until you understand it to a degree that satisfies you is what I'm saying be wary of.

One thing I may suggest to someone who is attempting to tackle the big questions is to back-burner them for a time and look into some of the smaller questions. Insight gleaned from many of these can help give shape to ideas on the bigger picture. It's not just an exercise in distraction.
>What exactly constitutes salvation?
>What is grace?
>What is fear?
>What are our duties to one another?
>What are our duties to God?
>Where are the points of conflict?

>>22070212
>I'm not sure how to enter into Scholasticism.
You don't, you get into the Church Fathers and Christian Platonism instead.

>>22070180
Aristotle refutes Aquinas with his ever-moving unchanging 5th element. Feel free to posit any sort of uncaused cause that is pure activity and furthermore pure spontaneity, call it energy or something. And the infinite regress, as the infinite succession of cause and effect, has the same status of physically impossible as an uncaused cause.

>>22070180
How did Aquinas get yerba mate before colonization?

>>22070930
>Extremely compatible with Christianity
>Unchanging, simple being
>Changes his mind multiple times throughout the bible

>>22071043
God never changes His mind. Were you there when God made all those epic monsters like the magic whale thing? It's complicated and God likes cool stuff like giant whales with sword teeth so get off His case man.

>>22070180
>Seem like an atheist is committed to an infinite regress

>just say an omnipotent god did it
>just shut off your brain when applying the same logic to god

>>22071131
infinite regress applies to beings that come into being and pass away, beings that owe their existence to something else. It does not apply to beings that do not come into being and do not pass away.

A true case of same logic would be
>everything that exists has a cause
In that case, God would have a cause, therefore etc. But that's not Thomas' argument at all. His argument (laid out clearest in De Ente et Essentia) is that composite beings, whose essence and existence are separate, owe their existence to being whose essence is its existence. Which is a pretty damn good argument.

>>22070180
>Did Aquinas succeed in proving God?
No. As yet nobody has actually managed to connect the jewish god to the concept of prima causas that every theologidiot thinks of when they think of the jewish god.

>>22071074
>itth complicateddddd
The far older story of Jupiter and Admetus gives a better reason for 'why bad monsters in world',
LSS:
Jupiter doesn't trust humans not to misbehave so they need monsters to butcher and torment them to keep them in line.

>>22071161
That doesn't explain anything. What forces Jupiter into this position?
Job is not meant as an explanation, it's a description of what is including the fact that your conception of any event will be limited in its scope while the real event is infinitely complex.
You can't fully map God like the three friends representing the older traditions believe, when a whale eats you it's not necessarily punishment for anything you did. My brother just happened to be in the way of a rare monster whale one time, that doesn't make swimming inherently something I will be punished for. His virtue didn't save him but being virtuous still works, a bet can be the correct one to make but I can still lose.

>>22071193
>What forces Jupiter into this position?
There is no 'forcing' involved, Jupiter just doesn't trust humans not to wreck the planet. This religious story goes back to prometheus and pandora, where it's really prometheus's fault for leading the humans astray by having them develop a taste for meat. After that point they can't be trusted not to hurt the animals, I suppose, so Jupiter sends monsters to keep humans contained. Then Apollo kills one, not understanding "what forces jupiter to do this" and Jupiter turns Apollo into a mortal and sends him to live with mortals to see how bad most of them are and why the monsters were necessary all along.

>when a whale eats you it's not necessarily punishment for anything you did. My brother just happened to be in the way of a rare monster whale one time, that doesn't make swimming inherently something I will be punished for.
ah it's not a punishment it's a matter of you crossing the border into someone elses domain and running the risk of having your limbs pulled off (eating by shark, gored by boar, nipped by snake). To Apollo this was just an act of murder on the part of a mad beast as he didn't understand why they were there or why he shouldn't slaughter them when it was in his power to do so easily - he didnt understand 'why' either, as you express, until he had direct experience of living around the mortal humans and seeing how bad they were.

>but being virtuous still works
it does. Respect the natural order of things, even if you don't understand it entirely, and leave the animals alone.

>>22071227
>Jupiter just doesn't trust humans not to wreck the planet.
I like this post but I I was pointing out that if Jupiter is the ultimate source then it's part of his plan. He likes having humans he can't trust. Same applies to the Christian idea of God. I don't see this being addressed with the idea of punishment / regulating evil which in Christianity would be related to original sin but Job partly addresses it by noting our limited perspective. Monsters and physicality in general are then a result of the choice to know evil which is what creates the situation where gods can't trust humans. Physicality demands adversity, any physical form degrades without adversity maintaining it, if there is nothing preventing an actor from reaching a goal nothing physical can happen. The monsters are what refine the form of man back into approaching the higher being we left.

>>22071278
>He likes having humans he can't trust.
Presuming we believe Jupiter or anybody 'made' humans; I don't think that was ever claimed in the old world ... nor is it really claimed by the eden creation story either; their god created the jews 'but' other humans already existed for cain to hang out with, etc., so there's no real claim made by either that the god/gods made humans to be as they are.

Not sure if you're the OP or not, but this was my first comment and it addresses this point:
>>22071155
>As yet nobody has actually managed to connect the jewish god to the concept of prima causas that every theologidiot thinks of when they think of the jewish god.

If the gods in all the religions are not connected to prima causas but are a consequence, perhaps at best 'of' that prima causas, then .. it still does' answer anything but it explains the coexistence and disconnect between an immortal and a mortal.


>Physicality demands adversity,
there is that,of course.

>The monsters are what refine the form of man back into approaching the higher being we left.
I see the story as an allegory for the kings or parents or whatever that we each have; we consider them oppressive monsters (and maybe they are sometimes) but a 'monster' is a servant of jupiter in this respect - even if the monster isn't aware of it, as the monster guards one i of land against other monsters or over expansion of one peoples into another, etc.

In the story verbatim (other than pandora) the monster was the Cyclops; the "one eyed man" allegory.

>>22071278
ed.
I think it's the consequence aspect that the story relays with Apollo and the Monsters; "yes you 'can' conquer those people, but should you?"

There's a good example of this in the early-middle roman republic where a consul (whose name i forget) conquered a northern tribe and was laughed at for his conquests because anybody could have beaten that tribe; subsequently gallia and tuetones invade rome, so "yes you can" but "what happens if you do".

>>22071370
>Presuming we believe Jupiter or anybody 'made' humans
The thread is about ideas about the original source. Deus Pater is sometimes referred to as a source, Aristotle had some concept of a highest father and he conceptualized it based on rotations of planets. If Jupiter is a dependent entity then he's forced to react to humans.
In the Christian tradition / vocabulary the dependent gods are angels and demons. They still exist but it's a mistake to worship them above their source.

>>22071394
>the original source
then, see: >>22071155
>prima causas

I would suggest that you 'worship(?)' prima causas, not yahweh/zephyr or baal/ra/jupiter

>>22071394
>Rotation of the planets
Aristotle postulated an infinite, continuous circular motion. This is unchanging, insofar as it is constant, and eternal. Aquinas can only dream of having a source as parsimonious as that.

>>22070557
NTA but there's a part in the NT where one of the apostles, Paul I think, praises the poetry of someone writing about Zeus.

>>22071402
You're not honest when it comes to anything related to Christianity. Your mind is infected by an abstract force / demon.
>>22071415
Aquinas based it on Aristotle and refined the idea. The same idea under a label you like is supposedly brilliant but useless when presented with the wrong associations meaning you don't really think when it comes to this subject, you just act based on conditioned associations.

If you think dishing up "proofs of God" is useful in any way, then you've been deceived by Satan.

>>22071444
What are the specific refinements aquinas made which elevate his prime mover over aristotles

>>22071518
It's simpler which is why nobody talks about this Aristotelian idea using the framing Aristotle did. There's no need for any rotating spheres or any of that to make the point.

>>22070763
>Judges a 2000 year tradition based on Americans he's met
>Calls others superficial
You're right Orthodoxy is not for you

>>22071444
>You're not honest when it comes to anything related to Christianity. Your mind is infected by an abstract force / demon
that's a rather pathetic excuse to rationalize your own errors; in these instance it turns out that you've conflated prima causas with your own ego and have just called it 'god'.

>>22071614
No one talks about Aquinas anymore either, what's your point?

>>22071667
I "conflated" it with Jupiter too. It's amazing how fucked in the head you retards can get. You can't even begin to explore anything outside your deranged programming.
>>22071736
What is this thread? What is wrong with your brain? If you can't read at all then fuck off.

>>22071667
Seriously how do you fucking retards get like this? How can reasonable people help you not be like this anymore? I think figuring out the problem of retards like you is more important than any of the other supposed existential threats.

>>22072165
>>22072150
Then leave. No one cares that you watched some youtuber and now you're "tradpilled" or whatever.

>>22071614
Simpler in what way? I am not familiar with Aquinas. Aristotle starts with the requirement for a continuous, motion-causing eternal object, and the observation that particles have particular movements that are natural to them. Circular motion is a simple motion that can be attributed to a singular element, is continuous, and will revolve in place. This is a coherent conclusion, given his flawed understanding of the cosmos and chemical makeup of the universe.

Aquinas, to my knowledge, eliminates the claim of temporal eternity and somehow concludes a more extravagant claim, that not only did something create the universe but some being with some will. If we take our current model, of an infinitely dense point of energy expanding outwards, there is no reason to include an additional creator entity which created this singularity of energy.

>>22070180
He deliberately left Summa Theologica unfinished and then died, so I guess we'll never know. How about a thread on an actual author next time?

>>22070199
You're confusing metaphysical and epistemic priority

There is nothing whatsoever in the facts of motion or change that would lead us to suppose a purely active being. The world we find ourselves in is composed of things that both act and are acted upon. It is nonsense to say that if eg. we trace the causes of the first World War in such and such geopolitical factors, we need to also know the causes of these factors, and the causes of the causes of these factors, in order to have knowledge. This would make knowledge impossible. If we can establish that xyz factors lead to WW1, this is a perfectly good explanation in its own right, even if it is only a partial explanation. The causal sequence never terminates anywhere, and you can always inquire into further causes.

>>22072226
What the fuck are you talking about retard? How did you get like this? What happened to you?
>>22072232
Simpler as in closer to the pure logic of the idea. Aquinas could use established formal logic and concepts like logical cause because of the work Aristotle did. Aristotle needed to build all that up through analogies and appeals to intuitive understanding of things like orbits.
If we want to describe the world in a logically coherent way the parts of world that obey causality need a logical cause not bound by the same rules. An even more rigid version of the idea that doesn't try try to relate the point to temporal systems specifically is Gödel's incompleteness.

>>22072409
>analogies and orbits
no
>a logical cause not bound by the same rules
What? What rules? The law of cause and effect. Sure, throw that out but where does that get you? We know in the beginning there was a lot of energy in a very small space, Aquinas must have gone beyond this somehow to arrive at a being with a will. What was the elaborations he made on Aristotle to arrive at this point.

>>22072401
>It is nonsense to say that if eg. we trace the causes of the first World War in such and such geopolitical factors, we need to also know the causes of these factors, and the causes of the causes of these factors, in order to have knowledge.
I don't think Aquinas ever makes this claim. He is not asserting that our knowledge of something depends on our knowledge of what caused it. He is saying that some act depends on whatever caused it.

To illustrate the difference, consider a situation in which you come outside in the morning and see your car has been destroyed. "We know your car is destroyed, therefore something must have destroyed it" is not the same as "In order to know your car was destroyed, we must know what destroyed it"

>>22072440
>where does that get you?
It means logic has broken down so we're considering a thing of pure potential not limited by these rules we take for granted.
>We know in the beginning
This isn't relevant, you're talking about temporal causes not logic. Time is not relevant. We have a fine standard model of physics where the effects we observe in vacuum have always been and the big bang including the arrow of time emerges out of that. That doesn't help us here. Why have there always been quantum effects that obey a form of logical causality? Any logic based description like a physics models needs logical causes, that's why the models are useful but when you go deep enough the models will always break down because they're not reality. Everything we know is dependent on some external potency which we can apparently only relate to indirectly.
>What was the elaborations he made on Aristotle to arrive at this point.
This is dishonest retardation. Just stop. The nature of the personhood or will of God is different from the question of if the concept of God references anything real.

>>22072464
The view I am attacking is that causal explanations must terminate at some point.
The point is that if a complete explanation is not needed, if incomplete explanations can stand on their own, we don't need to trace a thing's history back to a first cause.

>>22070180
>Infinite regression seems impossible
>Therefore an uncreated person did it
Religious people are unbelievably retarded

>>22070180
neither theists or atheists have to prove anything. these are descriptions of beliefs. an atheist is committed to nothing, and is not implicitly anti-theist.

>>22072580
>we don't need to think
Tremendous stuff.
>>22072604
In a group with you and a bunch of religious retards specifically chosen because of how retarded and zealous they are you would still be the one most adamant that your worldview is special, objectively correct and indisputable, basically the word of God. In that group of retarded religious zealots you would be the biggest religious zealot of them all.

>>22072512
>Logic has broken down
So why can we reason about it at all. The only thing we are qualified in saying in a paradigm where logic or physics no longer apply is "I dunno". Do you actually understand Aquinas' argument?
>Dishonest retardation
You were the one who said Aquinas was a refinement of Aristotle. If you cannot answer how this is the case you best not comment on it at all.

>>22070180
If by God you mean a totally non-denominational, conceptual 'Creator', then maybe.

>>22072580
>The point is that if a complete explanation is not needed, if incomplete explanations can stand on their own, we don't need to trace a thing's history back to a first cause.
Again you are confusing sufficient explanation in the epistemological sense with sufficient reason in the metaphysical sense. In the case of the destroyed car, I cannot rationally deny "something destroyed this car" , but of course I can deny the necessity of knowing *what* destroyed the car in order to assert that it was destroyed.

In the case of Aquinas's causal argument, you can deny that we need to know *what* the first cause is in order to justify our knowledge of proximate causes, but you cannot deny *that* there's a first cause--at least insofar as you recognize infinite regresses as metaphysically (but not epistemologically!) vicious.

>>22072604
If you read Aquinas you will be very surprised that your understanding of his argument is completely meritless

>>22072685
>So why can we reason about it at all.
We can't. The mind of God is not knowable. Our ideas can't begin to contain God.
All we know for sure based on these ideas is the phenomena exists. This one thing we can be sure about is also the part most retards argue about, the world really has become a parody.
>If you cannot answer
I gave you way more than you deserve and all I get from you is aggressive dishonest bullshit and undermining of thought. What you deserve is to be punched in the face several times. You have nothing and think you can talk shit about who should comment or not. You're the definition of the dishonest subversive that should just shut the fuck about all subjects. It doesn't matter what's said to retards like you, nothing registers on any level. This would be forgivable if you could just fucking say something.

>>22072713
I don't recognise that an infinite regress is either epistemically or metaphysically vicious. I was addressing epistemic regress because I have seen it being used as an argument against metaphysical regress ("if you accept metaphysical regress, all causal explanations are incomplete and science is sunk")

>>22072773
Can you think of any context in which such a regress is vicious? It seems to me that a naturalist worldview (which I suppose you may believe, don't know) would take parsimony as one of its strongest epistemic standards. Admitting an infinite number of unspecified elements into the ontology does serious damage to its claim to metaphysical parsimony, doesn't it?

>>22072773
>"if you accept metaphysical regress, all causal explanations are incomplete and science is sunk")
Uh, godel would like a word

>>22072643
>you would still be the one most adamant that your worldview is special, objectively correct and indisputable, basically the word of God.
Complete projection. But keep believing in your father figure in the sky.
>>22072721
I've read him, huge waste of time because he's exactly as retarded as I've portrayed him

>>22072734
Nice ad hom

>>22072804
>I've read him, huge waste of time because he's exactly as retarded as I've portrayed him
If you'd read him you would know that conclusion of the infinite regress argument is not at all that "therefore an uncreated person did it". He spells out what exactly is demonstrated in these types of arguments in Article 2 before he introduces them:

>When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause's existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "God".

Here he uses some terminology from Aristotle that may be unfamiliar, but the claim "to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence" means that, rather than demonstrating that the word "God" refers to a thing with any particular property or attribute ("essence"), what is demonstrated is that something with unknown properties produces an intelligible effect, and the proof *introduces and defines* the term "God" for this purpose.

At this point the retarded atheist will reply that "But that could be anything, it could be a singularity, it could be a spaghetti monster, he hasn't proved God! His argument sucks!", but Aquinas *literally* agrees that the proof does not demonstrate anything at all about the properties of the thing called "God" except to point out some effect that is to be explained, with the term "God" naming whatever it is that will ultimately serve as that explanation. The actual properties/attributes of the thing termed "God" are systematically developed in arguments over the thousands of pages of investigation. Some of those arguments may fail, he may not in fact successfully demonstrate that "God" possesses the variety of attributes that Catholic orthodoxy attributes to it, but if you honestly read the arguments and came away thinking that Aquinas's position is that "infinite regress proves an uncreated person exists" then it is you who are "exactly as retarded as portrayed".

>>22072862
>Something caused the universe
Cause and effect are observed phenomenon within time. To assume that time itself had a cause implies the belief that time existed before time existed in order for there to be time wherein the cause existed for the effect of the creation of time. In short, it's nonsensical to think that cause and effect apply to the origin of time itself.
>It could be anything
Right, so why use a word which is universally defined as a being? It's dishonest smuggling of the highest order. It's reminiscent of Spinoza who defined God in such a way that the religious authorities of his time banned his work for being "too atheistic" because he uses the word "God" when he doesn't mean a person. Again, you can't just use a word, maybe the single word with the most baggage, and then just to hide behind the fact that you redefine it so it doesn't have that baggage, but then continue using it as if it has that baggage. It's just rhetorical tomfoolery.

>>22072888
>Right, so why use a word which is universally defined as a being? It's dishonest smuggling of the highest order.
It's not dishonest smuggling you retarded nigger. He makes further arguments. The Five Ways are literally the absolute first thing he presents in the first few pages out of thousands. He doesn't go "Let's that God, and then slyly assume everything else about him" like you're implying. You very obviously lied about reading him.

>>22072796
There is a certain kind of "simplicity" that we look for when we inquire into things, but I take that to be a matter of coherence, of showing how a wide range of things are all accounted by the same "principle" - rather than a matter of having an ontology of fewer entities. For example Freud's doctrines about subconscious activities apply to all kinds of things from muscle memory when playing tennis to realising that you are anxious by noticing that your hands are trembling.
About infinite regresses; the kinds that I take to be problematic involve circularity of some sort, like defining a term by using that term, self-caused entities, and possibly time travels.
Why do you think infinite regresses are problematic?

>>22072897
It is dishonest smuggling. You brought up a quote which shows such. It's a false argument to begin with, and then the result (which is even admitted to being an unknown cause) is arbitrarily labeled "God". The only way you would allow this is if you are already convinced it really is the God you already believe exists and is responsible for the effect, otherwise it's patently obvious how dishonest and slimy this is.

>>22072804
>you would still be the one most adamant that your worldview is special, objectively correct and indisputable, basically the word of God.
You're doing this right now. You ignored everything I said so you can keep avoiding ever challenging your religious dogma. I gave you every premise you wanted including framing it all as Jupiter but you're too fucked in the head to consider anything about any subject.
>>22072850
Fuck off mindless retard. If you can't do that at least just fucking say something.

>>22072898
>Why do you think infinite regresses are problematic?
It depends very much on the specific type of regress. In the case of a regress of the causal order, it raises several questions. One is whether it's actually consistent with our best science. If the initial singularity is not an artifact of the model, but indeed a physical thing, then it looks like there is something (in the loose sense of "thing") that is first in the causal order, that there is some "location in the limit". Another issue raised is whether this undermines the principle of sufficient reason, meaning that in principle (though not in practice) the reason for a thing's existence could ever be known. There are independent reasons to doubt PSR, but its removal amounts to a concession that the universe is in at least some ways fundamentally unintelligible.

>>22072940
>your religious dogma
What is my religious dogma of which you refer? I've literally not even put forth my point of view yet. You've simply embarrassed yourself.

>>22072911
>The only way you would allow this is if you are already convinced it really is the God you already believe exists and is responsible for the effect, otherwise it's patently obvious how dishonest and slimy this is.
Unless, you know, the author followed it up with a justification for why they used that particular word, based on arguments about the properties of the thing in question. Almost as if they were using the first couple pages of their book to introduce the concept that was to be developed over the course of the book.

>>22072888
>To assume that time itself had a cause
Is needed to model it, like anything. We know according to physics that time has a cause, it's not even part of anything disputed by anyone capable of any hint of reason. You're so fucked in the head that to defend your retardation you have to undermining basic logic and physics.
>it's nonsensical to think that cause and effect apply to the origin of time itself.
It's the most basic logic there is. You're refusing to grasp the absolute basics of logic because of youtube minecraft politics or something equally as stupid. You don't understand the concept of logical cause and effect at all?
You're the one redefining the word to whatever suits you in the moment. The hint is history, you're undermining our understanding of a wide range of perspectives through history because you don't want to understand them or for anyone else to. You're an anti-thought terrorist.

>>22072958
Everything you say is just regurgitation of conditioned dogma. The thread is about an idea that challenges your preconceived notions about the world and instead of considering any of it even slightly you work hard to undermine anything you can just to maintain your dogma.
>but I read x
You have never read anything in your life, not even a single post in this thread. This is why you also can't say anything about any subject except "no".

>>22072970
What follows is built on a house of cards and is equally devoid of merit.
>>22072973
>We know according to physics that time has a cause
kek, you're dogmatic in every viewpoint, huh? If you think cause and effect can occur without the presence of time, you are no longer talking about cause and effect, since cause and effect denote a temporal relationship, I.E. a relationship IN TIME.

>>22072986
So you accuse me of dogma, but can't actually say what the dogma is? As I said earlier, projection. Nice try sounding smart though.

>>22072995
>since cause and effect denote a temporal relationship, I.E. a relationship IN TIME.
Why do you say retarded shit like this about subjects you apparently haven't even glanced at? "If x then y" is logical causality. We can and do create logical models that don't depend on time. In quantum mechanics phenomena are modelled with causes in the future.
>>22072997
You dogmatically refuse to consider the point and work hard to find legalistic tricks (aka pilpul) to avoid actually thinking about the meaning tried to convey to you so you can defend your "atheistic" (aka pop media bullshit meant to destroy your brain) dogma. When it comes to anything associated to specific subjects your brain becomes mush as a defence mechanism.

>>22072949
If the principle in question is simply that everything has an explanation, well, every chain in a causal regress is explained by the previous chain.
This is closely connected with the question about the origin of the universe; it is said that there must be a reason for why things exist at all instead of nothing. However, the universe is composed of parts, and these parts have in fact different explanations. The reason why John became a lawyer is different from the reason why the Bolshevik revolution was successful. And so we can see the universe as a web of interdependent things that cause one another in various ways, rather than having a single cause account for everything.

>>22070198
The God of Abraham is just bootleg Zeus with no dick. There is no such thing as monotheism.

>>22073045
This doesn't help us in any way regarding any of these questions. You're not saying anything on the subject.
>guys I figured it out, we poop because there's poop in our butts
Do you think Aquinas had trouble understanding this?

>>22073059
Actually you are the one who is not saying anything on the subject

>>22073081
>so we can see the universe as a web of interdependent things that cause one another in various ways
"We" already did. What does that have to do with the fact that any model of anything will eventually reach a point where it depends on fundamentals we can't model?

>>22073081
I bet some of you completely mindless faggots are academics and educators. Imagining how demoralizing it would be to be a child that has to defer to shitheads like you is some of the saddest shit in history, a crime against humanity worse than anything I can think of.

>>22073150
>the saddest shit in history
that would be your lack of self awareness

>>22070791
because Paul was running a psy op and needed to infiltrate the young Jesus cult

>>22073162
You assume without even considering any alternatives, ensuring you will never advance your understanding of any subject.
Nothing in history is as sad as you media programmed shitheads. Nothing like this has ever existed.

>>22073178
How am I not considering any alternatives, the post you quoted was me engaging in discussion of the subject. Contrary to you, who is simply lashing out and proclaiming your intellectually superiority from outside the ring.

>>22073222
In this post I was pointing out you assumed my observation about retards like you being the saddest phenomena in history is based on lack of knowledge. That's a way to easily dismiss the point without thought, which demonstrates the point.
>the post you quoted was me engaging in discussion of the subject
You ignored the subject and talked about the multitude of reasons behind why dogs poop.

>>22073259
What do you think I should talk about instead of dogs pooping?

>>22073280
The subject is the idea of the prime mover, related to the limits of logic and the phenomena beyond those limits that we can't model but must still exist given those limits.
That dogs have reasons to poop doesn't do any work in this subject, it explains nothing, helps nothing along. It only implies you somehow thought everyone else didn't know that dogs have reasons to poop.

>>22070180
Yes, but it's proof a priori, not material proof. Even though he refuted every atheist argument, no atheist is going to consider any of his work as "proof" of a transcendent God because they want material evidence (a photograph) of an immaterial being outside of space and time (God). Since the average atheist isn't going to slog through philosophical deductions and logical reason, whether you count that as "proof" depends on whether you agree that proof doesn't need be material.

>>22073308
>those filthy unbelievers, wanting actual evidence instead of bullshit language games

>>22073297
Nah, I think I will stick to dogs and pooping. Thanks for the input though.

>>22073367
I expect you will but that's not the subject. Without demonstrating even a child's grasp of the subject you suggested we should just stop thinking about it because you dislike the associations it triggers in your conditioned slave mind.

>>22071378
Are you talking about Julius Ceasar?

>>22071635
Lol cope and seethe orthodoxy is a schismatic church return to the true faith of Catholicism

Do you know Peter the great an admitted free mason changed the rites in Russia? Oops how trad

>>22073381
>we
cute

>>22073413
Stop being an illiterate subhuman faggot.

>>22071635
What exists in the east is not a single church with a single doctrine, praxis, morals, and government, but fourteen Chalcedonian churches, six non-Chalcedonian churches, and one Assyrian church, in addition to millions of Old Believers, Old Calendarists, and other such groups. All of these churches disagree on doctrine, sacraments, government, and morals. Among the significant examples of this, the most salient is baptism, which marks the boundaries of the Church as the Body of Christ. If you have a Trinitarian baptism and go to Antioch, they will only confirm you. If you go to Moscow, they may give you an option to be re-baptized. If you go to Athos, they will reject your baptism and demand re-baptism. Thus, any Trinitarian Christian who converts to an Orthodox Church merely converts—on the sacramental level—to becoming Antiochian or Russian or Greek, not a member of “The Orthodox Church.” Orthodox Christians will try to convince you that this division is nonexistent by using a nebulous term called “oikonomia,” but even their best theologians dispute this concept and thus the division


Orthodoxy btfo

>>22073447
You do sound like a physically imposing person. If we were face to face, I would probably be very afraid now.

>>22073470
What the fuck are you talking about retard? How can you be this useless?

>>22073480
So you are all bark and no bite?

>>22073503
The idea of thinking is really completely foreign to you? You have no clue how to begin? What are you talking about?

>>22073480
>>22073503
>>22073529
Why are you guys so rude to each other?

>>22070180
Sounds to me like all he succeeded in articulating was that, logically, there must be a reason for existence as all things are the result of something else. That is certainly a logical thing to say, and if you wanted to go on to say "God" explains the origin of things neatly, that's true too. But that's no proof of anything, and that chain of logic can have any sort of "God" fill in for it as long as it serves as the origin.

Not terribly interesting.

>>22073556
It's the only angle that sometimes breaks their conditioning for a moment.

>>22073412
catholicism is the schismatic one
orthodoxy is unchanged and preserved tradition of jesus

>>22073529
I am saying that you seem like the kind of person who is as confrontational in real life as they are behind a computer screen. That's the vibe I am getting at least.

>>22070995
Fine, then send church fathers and Christian platonist charts, buddy

>>22073582
That's not what you're saying, you can't even be honest about that. You're trying to avoid thinking by making up stories about the people trying to help you think.
In reality you would become a trembling mess if my superior Aryan gaze even glanced in your direction. It's because you have no real backbone that you can rely on, just the memes. This means that in any real life game anyone with some hint of a backbone can lead you wherever they want with minimal effort, like you can be led to undermine logic and physics just so you can say some Christian dude was wrong.

>>22073576
But if it’s unchanged why did Peter the great an admitted free mason changed the rites in Russia?

Oops no reply to that

Also my orthodox bro
Further, there exists a de facto schism between Moscow and Constantinople, which breaks out into formal schism from time to time. This is seen in the tension between the Sobor of 1551 with the Nikon synod of 1666, which led to the Old Believer schism. Since the tension was not resolved, it later led to the Bulgarian schism (1870-1945), Old Calendar schism (1924–present), Estonianschism (1996), and now the current Ukrainian schism (2018–present). Thus, the Orthodox churches continue to be divided into their individual churches and have no universal government.


Oops lots of schism for such an unchanged church

>>22070184
>Especially his first way
>Motion proves God

Parmenides had said something like this:

>Change and movement are impossible if being is immobile, ungenerated, homogeneous, and indivisible, then the movement and changes we see in the world are just illusions. According to Parmenides, in reality, change does not exist; in truth, nothing changes or moves

Every book of Christianity had roots in the culture of Ancient Greek.

>2k+ years ago
>Greeks invent philosophy
>A generation later they "prove" it's just mind games
>Endless mental circle jerk ensues
The only thing that is proven beyond any doubt by now is that stupid fucks will believe anything

>>22073695
>>A generation later they "prove" it's just mind games
>>Endless mental circle jerk ensues
>The only thing that is proven beyond any doubt by now is that stupid fucks will believe anything

And when they put in silent a dead, they proceed to copy every detail.

>Theists: It's outside of space / time, here's an excellent argument for that
>Atheists: It's outside of space / time, here's an excellent argument for that
We've moved from the Sun to the son to the singularity.

>>22073763
>>Theists: It's outside of space / time, here's an excellent argument for that
>>Atheists: It's outside of space / time, here's an excellent argument for that
>We've moved from the Sun to the son to the singularity.

Ancient Greek left many documents about how to think about yourself, and after them, people are too focused on creating a difference, divide et impera.

These people have more certainty, and they think to know God.

>>22070180
Anselm already proved that God exists outside of time and place. There is not really much to debate further. Big bang adherents are just godbelievers in denial. The legit answer is that it doesnt matter. The way of God is the way of man

>>22073633
nta but I'd recommend with the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, 1 and 2 Clement, Justin Martyr's Apologia, and Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus and Stromata. Then Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses. Next is Ambrose of Milan, On the Mysteries. Then move onto Augustine, who's a big deal in the West but not the East - Confessions, On the Trinity, On Free Will, and Against the Pelagians.

To round things out, read Pseudo-Dionysius, Complete Works (can be found from the Classics of Western Spirituality publisher), and the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzenus, and Gregory of Nyssa. And one of my personal favorites is Origen, the best introduction being Henri de Lubac's History and Spirit.

That should get you started anon, best of luck!

>>22070180
Does anyone know where I could find the entire 'Summa Theologiae' online?

>>22074383
newadvent has it, a bunch of other sites do too

>>22074383

Poor localized.

Which I can choose, go to live in a basement or go to live in a tiny apartment?

>>22074459
What?

>>22075172
Go to a library and not download a book from another Epoque.

>>22073458
If you're accepted in an Orthodox Church you're accepted in all Orthodox Churches. Yes, you don't understand oikonomia, but that's not an argument, it's just admitting your ignorance.
>>22073644
There's no division. Yes, Old Calendarists are schismatics, but that's not the same with Eastern Orthodox who simply use the old calendar. The Ukrainian schisms is an internal schism, it has nothing to do with you. It's an internal system to penalize each other, not a theological difference. You also don't understand oikonomia. That's the issue: understanding Orthodoxy is not just about understanding the mystical aspects but also about understanding the rational aspects. Both seem to be highly difficult for westerners to grasp.

>>22073644
>Peter the great an admitted free mason
No source
>changed the rites in Russia?
What "rites"? He didn't change the sacraments, exact rites can differ across countries and even the liturgy is not exactly the same.
>the Sobor of 1551 with the Nikon synod of 1666, which led to the Old Believer schism
Old Believers were deanathemized
> the Bulgarian schism
Administrative schism, nothing theological, they were all still Orthodox.
>Old Calendar schism
What's your point? Schisms can exist, people are allowed to leave the Church. They are allowed to use the old calendar and still be part of the Church but they decided not to keep communion with the Church.
>Estonian schism
>current Ukrainian schism
Administrative schisms.
>Oops lots of schism for such an unchanged church
You forgot the biggest one: the Catholic heretics. That doesn't mean the Orthodox Church changed, it just means you severed communion with Christ's church in order to hunt for worldly glory. Instead, you gave rise to Protestantism and ecumenism, the biggest heresies to exist in Christianity.

>>22070261
>And then Hume who doubts all causation
Doesn't this demonstrate the trancendental or presuppositionalist arguments? In order to make this argument, he presupposed the Christian worldview or at least to some extent borrowed from it.

>>22074383
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/

>>22070211
We can pretty easily refute the tooth fairy. It's very hard to refute a devine creator. Even if you think physics will do that someday. I say someday because it hasn't. In fact physics hasn't gotten much right since about the middle of the 20th century. Right now many physicists will tell you the most accurate model of the universe uses dark matter. But the problem is that physics is unable to define dark matter in any meaningful way. It also claims that dark matter and dark energy are the majority of the universe.

>>22070180
every proof of "God" is just a proof that the universe itself exists.

>>22070188
Obviously not the one that made you larpagan

>>22070180
Also I just had this debate with someone on my blog which caused him to get mad at me for not agreeing that humans would essentially know all the infinite qualities of God, if that were the case humans would be as omnipotent and omnipresent as he is and capable of things beyond reason

>>22076834
What exists outside the universe? Btw the “burden of proof” and it’s consequences have justified many genocides directly or indirectly.

>>22076834
Filtered

>>22070287
I don't think you know what special pleading means.

>>22070438
Not as many as were due to geopolitics motivating schismatic theology

>>22073458
There's more similarity between all of the Orthodox jurisdictions in communion with one another than between Rome and any of its uniates. Rome is no less divided than Protestantism, it just has an overarching political structure.

Verification not required.

The biggest problem with Roman Catholicism is that it's a crab trap.

It pulls you in with stuff like Aquinas' 5 proofs, which are decent in some respects (although St. John of Damascus appropriated Aristotle in a better way in the 8th century). It makes arguments from history, logic, the human spirit etc to convince you to join.

While you're in the process of converting, the presupposition is that you're able to come to knowledge of at least some degree of Truth on your own. You can have a direct apprehension of something of God.

Once you're in, though? The Pope stands between you and God. You learn that you don't actually need to agree with Aquinas to be a Catholic, and even Melkites with Orthodox theology and who venerate Orthodox saints who called Rome satanic are part of the club.

If you argue with a Roman Catholic on any specific theological issue, they'll start with arguments that were in vogue in Rome 800 years ago. When you point out that Rome no longer uses those arguments and the position they're calling "heretical" is accepted now, they'll stop defending it immediately and start arguing for Papal infallibility instead. Papal infallibility is the only Roman Catholic doctrine that Catholics will never concede. It's their only real creed. It's the religion of the Pope.

>>22076834
They hate him because he speaks the truth. I just finished Spinoza's Ethics and he literally defines God as the universe, even going so far as stating outright in his definition that strictly speaking, God is incapable of love, but then towards the end of the work, he is openly talking about God's love which directly contradicts his earlier definition.

>>22073634
Listen to me you autistic motherfucker, had you provided anything resembling a criticism of what I was saying I would have probably heard you out. I still don't know what are you are disagreeing with because you are too autistic to communicate your thoughts instead of throwing a temper tantrum and angrily pissing yourself.

>>22070180
Does anyone else think his natural law theory are more interesting than proving God

>>22077526
The biggest problem with Catholicism is that it's wrong. You got baited because of your obsession with reason, which is contrary to faith. No, faith is not against reason, it's superior and subordinating all others. Life is not a logic puzzle. If you enjoy them keep them for your own spare time but you have to leave your toys outside when you enter the Kingdom of God or its earthly correlate (Orthodox churches especially during the Holy Liturgy)

>>22076830
>It's very hard to refute a devine creator.
It would be very easy to refute the Christian God albeit. Just do a study on death rates of cancer patients who have family members praying for them vs those whose families don't pray (or are muslim etc).
We all know what the results would be.

>>22077526
>If you argue with a Roman Catholic on any specific theological issue, they'll start with arguments that were in vogue in Rome 800 years ago.
Example? Smart Catholics don't do this.

>>22077980
that would refute the Christian God.....how, exactly?

>>22078868
Well, if the test gave the expected results (no significant difference between survival rates) it would be hard data showing prayer's lack of effect, which, while not disproving the entire religion in one blow, is certainly a big blow to a core aspect of it.

>>22078880
>ask God for healing
>God says no, according to his own inscrutable will
This proves or disproves absolutely nothing. It's almost as if the goal of prayer is not about tangible, physical effects.

>>22078891
lmao

Belief in God is a sign of faith and scientific proofs are irrelevant.

>>22077544
Filtered

>>22070180
yes

>>22081184
>Critically reading a work and pointing out a direct contradiction
>/lit/ retard "FiLtErEd!"
Leave the board

>>22082470
>doesn't distinguish between natura naturans and natura naturata

>>22072803
Gödel only proves that axiomatic methods suck. If we figure out other methods we could prove or disprove the continuum hypothesis

>>22076918
>What exists outside the universe?
nothing.

>>22079999
belief in science is a sign of faith

>>22074202
What does it mean to exist outside of time?

>>22082748
By this standard, no one can claim to know anything without personally becoming an expert in that field.

Look, I can reject that "potentiality" and "actuality" are real features of the world
I can just say they are parts of a theory laden system Aquinas invented so he could use them in an argument were a conclusion he wants to be true would follow, if you accept his made-up premises

It's not like Aquinas has provided me with a deductive arguments for those

>>22083447
shut up

*actualizes a potential fart*

>>22077980
Several ways to refute this.
First, prayers hold no guarantee of success.
Then, consider this :
If God exists, is omnipotent, and some men do not believe in him, it means that by definition, God has chosen not to make its existence known to men.
God could flip a switch and make every human a believer right this second. But he doesn't.
Perhaps he finds that too easy, perhaps the way to god has to be hard. Either way, if God exists, I don't think he would want us to have definite proof of his existence.
If he did, we would already have it, as he's omnipotent and eternal.

Now, scientific studies work in 2 possible ways:
-the subject of the study is not conscious, therefore it will always act according to its physical properties.
-the subject of the study is conscious, and can thus tamper with the results, provided he knows he is studied.
For instance, if we make a study about how many people shoplift at Lidl by placing massive cameras everywhere in the store, surely you would agree that this way of gathering data would have adverse effects on the accuracy of the study.
But if God exists, he is conscious, and it is impossible to prevent him from knowing he is being studied, as he's omniscient and knows all things.
Therefore it is impossible to make an accurate scientific study regarding god.

>>22084322
Not only to mention that using the scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of God is by itself nonsense, as the scientific method works on gathering and keeping data in the physical world. Yet, God has complete control over the physical world. Even if the cancer patients from the religious families had better recovery results, God could simply tamper with the data and make the study non conclusive, or prevent the study from taking place in the first place by various means.

>>22074383
>Does anyone know where I could find the entire 'Summa Theologiae' online?
Considering Aquinas deliberately left it unfished, called it trash and then died, no.

>>22084380
If you hold to a particular theory of God, one where prayers does stuff
Evidence against the efficacy of prayers, seems like it should be evidence against that God

>>22084322
>Therefore it is impossible to make an accurate scientific study regarding god.
Holy fuck this entire post is a nothing burger.
Fascinating insight into the mind of a brainwashed man though.

>>22070188
God is just where you fully accept reality. People who can't handle that become pillheads or alcoholics or troon out or become workaholics.

There would be numerous ways to refute the cosmological argument using modal logic, but then christcucks would say that muh god is above logic.

>>22085295
Quite the opposite. Religion is a retreat from reality into the comforting fiction that everything is going according to "the plan".

>>22085285
You're unable to refute it though, refute one logical point I made, go ahead retard.

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed
2. God if he real, created energy
3. Therfor, God not real

>>22085989
>Energy cannot be created or destroyed
Proofs?

>>22085994
It's just a premise, you are free to reject or accept it

>>22070180
Only if one finds Aristotelian metaphysics convincing.

>>22086052
Thomists happen to find it extremely convincing

>>22086098
what are the chances

>>22070251
Christianity agrees, except (big except) that that God wants to be known, and makes use of revelation to bridge the otherwise impossible divide. Thus Tradition, as laid out in apostolic succession, lets us at least perceive the shadows outside of the cave, the sun reflected in the water, etc. But to actually gaze on the sun is of course impossible.

>>22070180
No, he simply succeeded in reconciling faith and reason. He showed that faith is NOT counter productive to science and that they actually go together when you get past the literal interpretation. Search "Church of the Eternal Logos" on youtube.

>>22086264
Reason also shows that much of the Bible is inspired by earlier religious themes and texts

>>22086264
Scientifically speaking, when Jesus walks on water, what is actually going on?
His buoyancy is such that he should displace water and sink
but yet he don't sink???

>>22086297
HURF DURF THIS IS ALL A CRYPTIC METAPHOR FOR HOW YOU...UH...EXORCISMS WERE ACTUALLY BAD BUT NOW THEY'RE GOOD BECAUSE WITCHES FLOAT IDK THE POPE KNOWS AND HE'S BASICALLY JESUS LET'S DROP HIM IN A LAKE

>>22086264
Religious faith is the negation of reason.

>>22070198
>And a God that is transcendent beyond being not just a cartoon super hero
Did you even read the Old Testament, anon?

>>22070180
Imam Ghazali you mean, or potentially Ibn Sina before him. Aquinas just ripped off their works.

>>22086297
he was anorexic