/lit/ - Literature

>>22154327
No logical refutations, just arguing over semantics.

>>22154327
If god is this perfect then why he have to be crucified to persuade the humanity

>>22154327
>let's just extrapolate these things because "it makes sense"™
That is not how science works and the reason why it is science. And why Aristotle is just a paragraph in most science books.

>>22154327
the common denominator for all these "ways" seem to be that they are forces without which human life cannot sustain. if you accept that as the definition of god, forces that sustain human life, then god does indeed exist, because he has described them as existing forces. "god" then are just the laws of nature.

then the definition of "god" however does not solve the answer for the cause of these laws. the cause cannot be derived from his obersations, nor as of this point in any other way. much less can be derived from his observations that the cause for the existence of these factors is identical to the creator as described in the christian bible.

>>22154327
the common denominator for all these "ways" seem to be that they are forces without which human life cannot sustain. if you accept that as the definition of god, forces that sustain human life, then god does indeed exist, because he has described god as existing forces. god then are just the laws of nature.

then the definition of god however does not solve the answer for the cause of these laws. a cause for the existence of these laws cannot be derived from his observations, nor as of this point in any other way. much less can be derived from his observations that the cause is identical to the creator as described in the christian bible.

>>22154332
God is perfect because he could create imperfect beings who can later grow into perfection out of their own volition.

>>22154327
the common denominator for all these "ways" seem to be that they are forces without which human life cannot sustain. if you accept that as the definition of god, forces that sustain human life, then god does indeed exist, because he has described god as existing forces. god then are just the laws of nature.

then the definition of god however does not solve the question for the cause of these laws. no cause for the existence of these laws can be derived from his observations, nor as of this point in any other way. much less can be derived from his observations that the cause is identical to the creator as described in the christian bible.

>>22154383
>god then are just the laws of nature.
Stfu retarded Spinozafag, that's not the argument at all.

Prime Mover - Transcendence

Laws are merely immanent qualities.

>>22154327
1. What put God in motion?
2. Simply asserting that God is uncaused is complely unjustified
3. I don't understand this, maybe I'm just a brainlet tho
4. Perfection is not defined, therefore this is a meaningless statement
5. This is just a baseless assertion

All in all only the 3rd one has any potential and I say this because I don't understand what it means

>>22154389
>Stfu retarded Spinozafag, that's not the argument at all.
its not my argument, aquinas listed laws of nature and called it "god"

>Prime Mover - Transcendence
where is the proof for this in above mentioned text?

>>22154396
Retard.
>22154398
He's not pointing to natural laws, he's attempting to explain how natural laws come to be.

>>22154405
T-thanks you too

>>22154405
meant to reply to >>22154398

>>22154407
You don't understand the third line because you fell for fake bullshit like atom theory which exists to push individualism to the masses. Read up on electric universe theory and this line of thinking is more coherent.

>>22154405
the first cause argument does not hold up. you cannot prove that everything requires a cause. if you argue for the existence of god, you argue that something can exist without a cause (god), thereby refuting your original argument of the need of everything for an original cause. this is not to speak of the utter non sequitur of how this god would be identical with the one in christian narrative

>>22154412

>>22154414
Look, everything needs a cause. This is an absolute rule that YOU have to follow. Only I get to break this rule by asserting God doesn't need a cause. You can't refute my position because the rules apply to you but not to me. I win. Show some humility. You've been outplayed.

>>22154444
>t. might makes right chad

he appeals to cause-and-effect while also denying it.

the actual argument is: cause and effect does not exist when considered at its logical conclusion (i,e. the beginning of time), thus necessitating a non-mechanistic explanation for reality (i.e. God)

>>22154327
>seething hatred for aristotle
Aristotle was a Greek pagan, not a christcuck. If they were both alive at the same time Aristotle would rape Aquino’s buttonhole

>>22154385
How do these retards become this braindead?

>>22154327
1 & 2 refuted by Schopenhauer. You can't use causality like a taxi and tell it to stop wherever you want.

3, 4 & 5 are conjecture/speculation.

>>22154327
>1. Every cause in the world presupposes a prior cause.
>2. There must exist a first cause which itself is not caused.
>3. Same as 1 but in different expressions.
>4. Same as 2 but in different expressions.
>5. Also same as 2.

All 5 arguments are literally nothing but presupposing the necessity of an infinite chain of causality, and then similarly presupposing a necessary end to said infinite chain of causality. And then pointing out the contradiction and calling it "God" because it is paradoxical.

>>22154396
The first 3 are basically the same logical point based on different observations.
>Simply asserting that God is uncaused is complely unjustified
In the same way that asserting the existence of fundamental physical forces is "unjustified" but there's something there and physical forces are how we label and model them. We can't model anything without first assuming these forces exist.
Logically nothing could exist if everything really is contingent, there has to be some fundamental root phenomena.
>>22154703
>>22154717
Fuck off illiterate retards.

>>22154723
What if "contingency" is a spook?

>>22154727
>IF
Fucking IF!? You mindless plebs want to use conditional logic to question conditional logic?
Then you can't talk about anything. You rely on logical causality for everything else but when it says something you're uncomfortable with then you bring out the spook card.

>>22154327
>God
>A word that means a different thing to every single person on the planet
>Proving it exists
kek

I'd suggest Science and Sanity for all the midwits here, but I don't think it would do any good.

>>22154771
>A word that means a different thing to every single person on the planet
It has always meant one thing until you demonic commie goatfuckers started subverting language for politics. It's the only tactic you have and threads like this will always reflect that.

>>22154783
So, what is that ONE thing it means please?

There are several definition itt alone faggot.
I'm a based right wing fascist with a lolbertarian base that I know is fantasy in the real world.

I don't participate in politics at all.

>>22154740
It seems that Stirner has once again upset someone

>>22154799
>There are several definition itt alone faggot.
Where illiterate idiot? The word God is descriptive, taken from Norse referencing the "highest power".
>I'm a based right wing fascist with a lolbertarian base
I'm imagining the kind of mind that would bring this up unprompted in this context. You're a fucking parody of a person.
>>22154808
Learn to read.

>>22154723
>In the same way that asserting the existence of fundamental physical forces is "unjustified" but there's something there and physical forces are how we label and model them.
Thing is - physicists don't claim that all physical laws are caused by other physical laws ad infinitum, or that there must be One Final Law that is the cause of all other laws. Neither do the assert any transcendental resolutions between those two claims. They claim that our picture is incomplete and we need to find out more before asserting a Metaphysic of Everything, and that it's entirely possible that we'll never know enough to do it.

>>22154799
God is THE only God as prescribed by the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism. Everything else is satanic heresy. You know this. You've always known this.

>>22154821
Look how mad you are. You're lashing out at everyone.

>>22154821
>umprompted
Do you read? He called me a "commie". I refuted it. It was a direct response to a prompt.
And what does "higher power" mean?

Read the book above, it's over your head, but he starts off with the gist.
Words are a map, not the landmass. You are approximating always.
>>22154825
>makes his own definition
>goes from there
This is what everyone necessarily has to do with such an ambiguous term.

>>22154327

>>22154823
Does Aquinas claim to account for everything? The phenomena is there, there are not ANY other claims made about it in the OP. You have to pretend it's some arrogant account for everything because you're dishonestly looking for any way to dismiss the point.
>>22154829
You're an idiot. You never have any clue what's going on about anything.
>>22154836
>Words are a map, not the landmass. You are approximating always.
And you have to lie and pretend everyone else is not dong that because you're subversive demonic commie goatfucker like I said.
>uh ackshually I'm brainwashed by this other pop media meme phenomena
Fuck off illiterate retards.

>>22154850
>if I keep calling everyone an idiot and illiterate, that means I win!
Lol

>>22154836
>And what does "higher power" mean?
Now the strategy is to step into the insult and just pretend to be completely illiterate so you can act like nothing means anything.

>>22154853
>win
Win what retard? Why are all you retards like this? Why can't you just fucking read and think sincerely?

>>22154857
Why are you so upset though?

>>22154850
>Does Aquinas claim to account for everything?
Well, he does claim to account for the existence of God, as well as for God being the ultimate explanation and reason for everything, ever, at all times. So, uh, I guess, yeah?

>>22154850
>lie and pretend everyone else is not dong that
I literally said EVERYONE does that. It's the nature of language.
This is why in medicine and in technical fields they have VERY specific language that can't be misinterpreted or be left open to question.
"God" is not a specific term to anyone.
>>22154855
Are you the same poster? Insults are not arguments. What does "higher power" mean?
You are the one claiming these things are very specific with their meanings with no room for obfuscation.

Why are religiousfags so quick to lash out with animosity and judgment?
>ask question
>start arguments with anyone who doesn't agree with you
May as well be some /v/tard

>>22154327
Wouldn't this argument not work for non-Christian gods?

>>22154864
There is no good reason to interact with mindless retards and you will never say anything interesting. For it to be entertaining or interesting at all I have to try to get at least slightly annoyed.
>>22154878
>I literally said EVERYONE does that. It's the nature of language.
Based on nothing you're still assuming I don't understand this basic point.
>"God" is not a specific term to anyone.
It is absolutely clear. You have to lie to yourself to pretend otherwise. Random illiterate peasants 1500 years ago could grasp the idea when presented but you can't. This is because you're a deliberately dishonest goatfucker.
>What does "higher power" mean?
Fuck off retard.
>>22154882
None of you are honest. There's nothing to say to you brainwashed subhumans.

>>22154885
When you respond by claiming I said the opposite of what I said it's quite hard to take you seriously.
You can't even explain what "higher" or "power".

>>22154885
>Random illiterate peasants 1500 years ago could grasp the idea
Well, seeing as most illiterate peasants 1500 years ago still retained most their pagan customs and religious practices even after conversion to Christianity, sometimes up to and including human sacrifices, and all of those practices being different by region and culture and having different explanations in those cultures - it does seem like they all grasped it differently.

And man don't even get me started on Filoque.

>>22154878
>Insults are not arguments
Why would I listen to a retard about what are or are not arguments?
>>22154890
>When you respond by claiming I said the opposite of what I said it's quite hard to take you seriously.
Is what you did, not me.
>And you have to lie and pretend everyone else is not dong that
As in you're presenting the idea that Aquinas or me didn't understand this point, you do this based on nothing and don't relate the point to anything actually said. You just think you're special and clever for having figured out kindergarten level shit.

>>22154899
>Why would I listen to a retard about what are or are not arguments?
I mean, like, you do listen to Aquinas, right?

>>22154893
Read this post again and try to figure out why it's dishonest coping horseshit to avoid understanding basic fucking words. You're deliberately working hard to avoid understanding anything like the commie you are.

>>22154901
I independently arrived at the same conclusion. I do not need to appeal to him, basic logic speaks for itself.

>>22154332
He doesn’t have to do it this way, but this is the most glorious and generous way. This way offers us the most participation in His Goodness, and demonstrates most wonderfully His Mercy. His suffering and death on the cross was in many ways much more than was strictly necessary—the blood of his circumcision would have been sufficient to restore the debt of all sin; and yet, by so far exceeding what was strictly necessary, God demonstrates His Love in the most extraordinary and yet simultaneously humble way. God’s Perfections are not ever more clearly shown than in His crucifixion, except only in the direct vision of Him, which is not possible to Man alone.

>>22154839
>Prove how the same standards of a non-being like the eternal universe's has to apply to an eternal being
Why would they be any different? The differentiation between a "being" and a "non-being" is an entirely human construct. And there's no evidence that whatever laws exist would treat these two cases differently. The laws of physics as we know them operate the exact same for humans and objects, so why should we expect there to be any difference in how "beings" and "non-beings" are treated.

>>22154903
>Read this post again and try to figure out why it's dishonest coping horseshit to avoid understanding basic fucking words.
Eh, it's not coping - it's pointing out some of the historical facts which indicate that large numbers of humans do and always had an issue with understanding basic fucking words in a universally uniform fashion. Coping is what we're going to to with that issue if we can't just go and resolve it. Positivism keeling over and dying in a ditch does suggest that we probably can't just resolve it, so yeah we have to cope somehow.

Do you have any suggestions? A universal unambiguous language from Outer Space that was given to us by a sadomasochistic time-traveler and imprinted in human language without distortion via said time-traveler directly affecting the brains of people who documented it? Muslims have a better case for that one though - they at least don't have to claim that God made their favorite translations of the Holy Word perfect and free from ambiguities of human understanding. And their Conduit of the Holy Word guy at least got laid a plenty.

>>22154885
>replying to multiple people at once just to insult all of them
Why are you so upset though?

>>22154905
Why must you turn this thread into a HOUSE OF LIES?

>>22154915
>that large numbers of humans do and always had an issue with understanding basic fucking words
And you help that process along instead of clarifying.
The highest power is not a complicated concept. You just cope and seethe to pretend it is because you're a brainwashed commie. Peasants could grasp it without an academic background but you can't.
You're such a predictable stereotypical retard you even felt the need to just randomly mention human sacrifice just for that extra reddit jazz.

>>22154915
Free from error does not mean free from difficulty. A calculus textbook is also free from error, but do you reasonably expect to learn it without a teacher?

>>22154926
>lemme just undermine basic thought, all understanding of history and all communication real quick
>y u mad tho?
Mindless subhumans.

>>22154955
Okay but can you maybe try to communicate your ideas in a calm and conscise manner instead of acting like a 5-year-old who heard the big boys call someone a shithead and started emulating them?
You should be able to. But you're just mad. Why?

>>22154951
>The highest power is not a complicated concept
It kinda is though. Did it cause itself? If it did, does it depend on things outside of itself? If it doesn't, then why does it care about me paying my tithe and not eating meat on certain dates? If it cares because it loves me, then why does it threaten me with eternal suffering for not prostrating myself hard enough in front of it?

Really, like most things that are supposed to explain too much ,the more we think about it, the more complicated it appears.

You see, freshly converted illiterate peasants did not comprehend the Christian God as the highest power - they comprehended him as a Power-Somewhat-Higher-Than-Most-Powerful-People-They-Know, like the pagan deities or powers they worshiped for millennia prior to conversion, so they ascribed to the Christian God a plethora of human qualities and limitations that his pagan predecessors had - like being wrathful, jealous, and hungry for material things. Largely different qualities between different peasant, even. This was made worse by Old Testament being the material most influential and accessible for converting illiterate peasants - largely because it was written by and for barely literate desert-dwelling peasants, largely as a collection of pagan polytheistic works that were edited into a monotheistic scripture ad hoc. But as such, it also portrays the Christian God as a being that is wrathful, jealous, and hungry for material things - once again, reinforcing a manifold understanding of Christian God as just another pagan god but cooler, rather than as a Highest Power.

>just randomly mention human sacrifice just for that extra reddit jazz.
Well it's not just randomly - it's an extreme examples that radically clashes with fundamental Christian dogma, which I mentioned to illustrate that above-mentioned illiterate peasants most definitely did not understand the concept of Christian god the same was as educated clergy did.

>>22154952
>A calculus textbook is also free from error, but do you reasonably expect to learn it without a teacher?
Yeah but the teacher can explain things in more detail than "it caused itself so now you must do my bidding".

>>22154966
It doesn't matter what I say to you retards. I did say other things than call you a retard but that's all you focus on because you're a fucking retard. You have nothing interesting to offer about any subject.
>does it depend on things outside of itself?
Either you really are illiterate or a subversive. Someone even slightly interested in finding things out, someone with a hint of healthy curiosity would not do this.
>then why does it care about me paying my tithe
Nothing about tithes is covered by any claims made in this thread so far you mindless golem.

>>22155022
>retard, retard, retard
Since humans primarily think verbally, poverty of language leads to poverty of thought. Your limited vocabulary and highly emotional behavior are very telling. I finally have my answers.
You are frustrated because people disagree with you, and due to your inability to properly express your ideas you are unable to convince anyone of your ideas. This is the reason you are upset.
We're nearing a breakthrough here. Now that the problem has been identified, it is finally possible to address said problem.
We'll begin by you learning to differentiate between different people in this thread. Only your initial line is a response to me, the rest is clearly directed toward another anon. Please rectify this.

>>22154327 >>22154330 >>22154332 >>22154334 >>22154384 >>22154385 >>22154389 >>22154396 >>22154398 >>22154405 >>22154407 >>22154408 >>22154412 >>22154414 >>22154437 >>22154444 >>22154462 >>22154664 >>22154670 >>22154680 >>22154703 >>22154717 >>22154723 >>22154727 >>22154740 >>22154771 >>22154783 >>22154799 >>22154808 >>22154821 >>22154823 >>22154825 >>22154829 >>22154836 >>22154838 >>22154839 >>22154850 >>22154853 >>22154855 >>22154857 >>22154864 >>22154866 >>22154878 >>22154882 >>22154883 >>22154885 >>22154890 >>22154893 >>22154899 >>22154901 >>22154903 >>22154905 >>22154907 >>22154909 >>22154915 >>22154926 >>22154932 >>22154951 >>22154952 >>22154955 >>22154966 >>22154989 >>22154999 >>22155022 >>22155044
God isn't real.

>>22155048
Hello, based department? Yeah you need to see this.

>>22155048
I fucking kneel.

>>22154327
1. Simply pushes the infinite regress back one.
2. Simply pushes the infinite regress back one.
3. “Everything in the world is contingent” is a complete unjustified assertion and cannot be used as a premise.
4. Horseshit
5. Horseshit
All of this was refuted by Kant. Are retards really still pulling this shit out?

>>22154999
And if you actually went and took lessons from a Thomistic scholar, he would go into a lot more detail too. It’s true, the people you argue with on the internet might be ignorant and unreasonable. But the internet is new. Do you think you are the first to ask the questions you ask? Perhaps, instead of looking for answers from idiots, you should look for the answers from masters.

>>22155087
Dude don't shrug off the responsibility like that. All those ignorant and unreasonable people have all the same access to the alleged masters as I do. Why are they ignorant and unreasonable then? Why do I have to be learned and reasonable in their stead? What if I enjoy being ignorant and unreasonable, just like they do?

>>22155087
>>22155097
Hey. Quit arguing. This anon>>22155048
already wrapped it all up.

>there must be a first mover / first cause
How do you know this?
>this is god
How do you know that?

>there are higher and lesser degrees of perfection
'Perfection' is just your subjective opinion.

>order is present
Again, 'order' is your subjective opinion

>>22154332
Because God isn't a jewish desert cult leader lmao. Abrahamists are sick in the head

There hasn't been any solid logical refutations that haven't been mental gymnastics. Ive studied this for years

>>22155152
See >>22155110

>>22154883
Not unless its the same God. Aquinas proves the Christian God in the rest of his works

>>22154327
I thought the fifth way was based on final causes instead of order. Anyways, Spinoza criticises the idea of final causes well.

>>22155110
>>22155158
>there must be a first mover / first cause
>How do you know this?
For any type of motion there has to be a cause of that motion. Even science doesn't disagree with this so I dont know why you are trying to nitpick it.

>this is god
This is a lot to get into because there are a ton of reasons but basically the first mover has to be someone super powerful and there from the beginning.

>subjective opinion.
God is objective. Your personal feelings dont effect his master design

>>22155097
>Other people are ignorant, so why shouldn’t I be ignorant too?

>>22155048
how to immediately tell if someone is an NPC/lacks fundamental wisdom

acknowledgement of the existence of God is the minimum requirement to not be laughed out of the room

>>22155181
>For any type of motion there has to be a cause of that motion
Then what is the cause of God?

>>22155243
Nothing causes God because I said so. Now pay me 1/10th of your income.

>>22155283
>10% of income to pay for missionaries to go and try to stop people from becoming faggy retard trannies and atheists

sounds like a deal to me narcissa

>>22154327
Yes. Time in infinite in both directions. There was no beginning and there is no end.

>>22155314
But faggy retard trannies and atheists only exist in predominantly Christian countries?

>>22155356
coordinated cultural assaults from nonchristian nations against their more prosperous rivals. Poor black Christians in Africa are based fag haters

>atheists only exist in predominantly Christian countries?
???

>>22154327
>1-3
The universe is infinite in both time and scale; there was no first mover or cause or dependency. Human brains will struggle with this concept.

>4
Pure subjective opinion and even if it weren't, there's no reason to assume that the ultimate perfection is an omnipotent sentient being.

>5
The weakest point of them all. There is so much inefficient and fucked up "design" in the natural world that it's foolish to assume that someone made it intentionally. If they did, they're incompetent which doesn't sound like God.

>>22155473
Try to reject God in a Muslim country, see what happens to you lol

>>22155239
your IQ is below 90

This is decent proof for a God but it's not proof for the Christian god

>>22155181
>For any type of motion there has to be a cause of that motion. Even science doesn't disagree with this so I dont know why you are trying to nitpick it.
This is an inductive argument. Hume already refuted the ability to deduce causality. You can’t infer from the causality of the observed that there must be some hypostatized unobserved thing causing them.