/lit/ - Literature

Atheism just makes more sense than religion and religious people are annoying as fuck. So it looks like a win-win scenario

Stephen Hawking is much less important in physics than he is made out to be by the general public. He has celebrity status, because of his disability. You shouldn't take his opinions as representative of "great minds" or of physicists in general.

>>22237317
>Atheism just makes more sense than religion
>religious people are annoying as fuck.
You don't see it, huh?

>>22237366
>anti-religion is now a religion
>thus I will use the anti-anti-religion
Bravo, anon. The thing with atheism is that there are way less crap for you to deal with, no people that created everything talking to others and so on.

>>22237309
he's the king of midwits, nothing more

>>22237317
Religion still sorta exists in atheist cultures tho, instead of worshipping a god people will try to use their jobs as their huge source of meaning in the world. literally worshipping capitalism.

>>22237309
Scientists before WW2 were educated in schools where latin, greek, philosophy, rhetoric, etc. were part of the standard curriculum regardless of how elite the school was. Schools after WW2 cut back on traditional humanistic elements of education to concentrate more on practical subjects, paving the way for scientists who have never had to engage with Plato or Kant in school like the generation of their mentors did.

>>22237449
>did you know that there is a dude who created the universe?
>I can talk to him btw
I remember hearing this as a child and thinking that people were joking, you have no idea how disturbing it is to realize that people are actually serious and not joking. And that those people literally rule your life.

>>22237309
What basic philosophy does he fail to grasp? For that matter what part of philosophy besides logic is accepted enough by everyone to be called basic? I guarantee Hawking understands logic better than most philosophers.

>>22237372
damn.

>>22237509
please tell me you are underage.

>>22237571
That is the understanding the vast majority of Christians have of God. There is a man in the sky telling them what to do and promising they'll wake up in heaven or hell after they die. It's ridiculous and dumb

>>22237571
>you are underage
I understand why people believe in it, but if you are saying that it makes sense, you are high on religion. I used to be ok with believing in it in a time that I was literally high on drugs most of the time. You guys could at least sedate me, if I have to be into that shit.

>>22237577
of course it is. thankfully, it is also a view that has never been taught or held by any theologian, philosopher of religion, or theistic metaphysician. you can read DBH's "the experience of God", or some books by Feser (if you can handle the tradcath larp), for a good explanation of what the meaning of the word "God" is, after which you will come to see that you really did believe in God after all.

>>22237593
It's made sense for every culture of earth to believe in a higher spiritual realm for 13,000 years, but you've finally puzzled it out, huh?>>22237577
I'm sorry anon, i don't usually use this phrase, but that is the most midwit take on religion possible.
That's like saying you think it's silly that you plug your fan into the outlet and it magically turns on

>>22237625
How long did it take humanity to realize that the geocentric model wasn't right? It is just how things are. This doesn't prove anything, just that it used to work for people in the past. And there is me too, maybe I'm one of those types allergic to religion, that people like you would burn in a stake. Would you even consider something like that? Of course not, right? Because people like you have their heads stuck up right up their fucking asses so much that they can't see anything but themselves.

>>22237637
I wouldn't burn you at the stake, I'd remove you from my community.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, something I have observed as quite common among those "allergic to religion"

>>22237619
Who cares? There may or may not be a philosophical God but it's not really interesting without the threat of hell or promise of heaven. There are lots of philosophical stances that just don't matter to people

>>22237637
And the thing is that now that I'm older it is easier to deal with religious people, but WTF!? You guys had literally 2000 years to figure your shit out for other people, if you were that worried about "people". You don't give a shit, you just want your religion drug and fuck others. Just guaranteeing your hit and that is it.

>>22237644
I don't care about it, but someone has to say those things. Because if I don't, it is not like I trust you to come up with anything by yourself. You guys had literally 2000 years. And the best that you can say is that I would expel you from your house. Do you understand this? This is bad. It is ancient crap.

>>22237647
>now that I'm older
I remember thinking that at 21. As you truly enter adulthood, however, you realize the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Moreover, my church is one of the top institutions in my area in terms of donations, child welfare, and volunteerism, but I'm sure all these old widows and retirees are giving thousands to people they've never met every year for "their hit" to you.
>>22237650
>t is ancient crap
Because we're doing so much better today, right? Surely there isn't a worldwide spiritual crisis since the violent excise of religion from our collective cultures.
And I'll happily answer any questions you have, since you don't seem to think independent thought is possible in theological spheres.

>>22237692
I'm a bit over 30, and don't act like you truly care.
>donations, child welfare, and volunteerism
Companies do that too. Are you going to worship them too? And don't steer away from it. I'm talking about people like me, children like me, you just don't care. So I think that I have every single right to find other people like me, since you clearly don't give two shits about them.
>Because we're doing so much better today, right?
YEAH SCIENCE, Mr. White!

>>22237645
not really. those authors (specifically Hart, who happens to be a universalist, so he believes in Heaven but not in eternal Hell) write on this also.
also this "philosophical" God is not something of which we can say that he may or may not exist, we either consider His existence as impossible or necessary.

>>22237703
There's that chip on your shoulder.
You have no reason to think I don't care about you. Why would be engaging here in good faith if I didn't? I help strangers every day of my life, and that includes the atheists. I also know for a fact how many members of my church are exactly like me. In fact, my wife often criticizes me for going so far out of my way for total strangers. It has always been something that is important to me. Assumptions like that weaken your arguing point.
And I agree that atheist societies should have atheists and Christian societies should have Christians and if both societies make that a necessity for inclusion, that's perfectly acceptable.
However i cannot think of a single modern mostly atheistic culture I'd prefer over a Christian one.

>>22237774
>we either consider His existence as impossible or necessary
I mean may or may not exist in the epistemological sense that the arguments for his existence may or may not be correct(they're not). Ontological arguments are retarded and if that is the best that they have to offer I'm not impressed.

>>22237791
>pretending
I'm 30 yo now, anon. You are 20 years too late. I'm not even allergic to religion or an atheist. I go to churches sometimes, but I don't like religious people.

>>22237798
It is just that I sometimes feel like telling people what I think that they have to hear.

>>22237798
>>22237809
Truly bizarre. I'm not sure what you think I would gain by lying on an anonymous pumpkin carving forum.
I also find it bizarre that you feel so furiously that I NEED to hear you don't like religious people. What a bizarre little neurosis.
Whatever the case, I do wish you all the best. God can open the hardest of hearts at the hardest of times. I truly hope you can learn to approach the world you inhabit with a more open mind and heart, anon.

>>22237796
ontological arguments are generally not considered the most interesting by classical theists. they are certainly never the ones that are used in apologetics.

they are not considered worthless (like "intelligent design" type arguments), but the general consensus is that they are a neat way of wrapping things up, for people who already believe, like a capstone. so of course I find them conclusive.

what I do think they can be useful for, is proving what I said, that God's existence is either impossible or necessary (see Malcolm). in that sense, they can be taken to be pretty good arguments against agnosticism.

see edward Feser's book, "5 proofs", for a general introduction to common proofs (he is sometimes annoying but he is clear, readable, and engages effectively with common objections). Gaven Kerr also has a good book about the proof in "De Ente et Essentia".

although since I consider that those are really "ways" to work our way back to something that we already know and assume (whether consciously or not) is real (this is what Aquinas considered them to be), I have a slightly better opinion of the ontological argument that most theists. Incidentally, I think this is what Anselm believed as well (that there are no atheists, only people who don't know what is meant by "God")

anyway. the ontological argument has done much harm, historically, because it is often taken to be the single most powerful argument put forward by theists (it is not), and is also taken to have been refuted by Kant (it wasn't).

>>22237840
>that I don't like religious people
Are you telling me that you haven't read anything until now? Religious people are hopeless. I'm done with the allegedly smart types.

>>22237840
>I also find it bizarre that you feel so furiously that I NEED to hear you don't like religious people. What a bizarre little neurosis.
About as bizarre as people insisting on proselytizing. Need constant reassurance that their delusion is real along with imposing their view of morality on everyone else. I agree that if we lived in a world without missionaries atheists complaining about religion would be cringe.

>>22237852
>>22237372
It is all so tiresome...

>>22237841
You gave the beginnings of an ontological proof.
>God is not something of which we can say that he may or may not exist, we either consider His existence as impossible or necessary
If you weren't implying an ontological argument I'm curious what relevance you think the modal qualifiers necessary and impossible have.

>>22237849
Maybe if you understood your adherence to atheism is as much a religion as anyone else's, you could start to grow.
>>22237852
I've had way more people in my life try to convince me of atheism than I ever have try to convince me of Christianity.

>>22237874
>honestly thinks that I don't understand that
You are literally not reading anything are you? I'm talking to some kind of wall or whatever. This is literally how it feels being raised by religious parents.

>>22237874
>I've had way more people in my life try to convince me of atheism than I ever have try to convince me of Christianity.
Must be where you live. I live in central Texas and the number of idiot bible thumpers running around makes you hate all religion. Mindless stupidity

>>22237864
No, as I said, I'm not trying to use the ontological argument with apologetic intent. (I've not yet tried to give any argument, only my view on them and most theists' views on them)
I'm saying that its truth is made manifest when one accepts the other, more common proofs. (which are more common and more easily accepted at least because they are less blunt and less destabilizing)
Also what you greentexted isn't really the beginning of an ontological proof anyway, it's (depending on the view you take) one of the latter steps of most modern formulations, or the conclusion itself.

Because philosophy is completely useless and only contrarian internet autists care.

>>22237881
It's not new having people use and manipulate religions to their own ends for their own desires. It's as old as religion itself.
Learning to separate the realities of the theology from what mankind produces is one of the most important steps you can take in life. This isn't even Christian advice. Just good advice. Most people don't want to engage with Christianity in a real way because that's very hard. Try not to let the proponents of a thing overrun the thing itself
>>22237878
My parents are atheists.
I'd also like to point out how many times you've resorted to ad hominen and assumption, while I have tried to continue on in a reasonable and good faith discussion.

>>22237903
>No, as I said, I'm not trying to use the ontological argument with apologetic intent.
>I'm saying that its truth is made manifest when one accepts the other, more common proofs.
This is fucking stupid an argument is valid or invalid regardless of whether you believe it's conclusion. If the ontological argument is a valid argument then you shouldn't need it's conclusion proved elsewhere to accept the ontological arguments validity. You can argue that the ontological argument is complex and that understanding other arguments will help you understand the ontological one but that's not what you're saying and is anyway not the case. The ontological argument is relatively simple and clearly invalid since it lets you pull anything you want existence's out of thin air. And what other arguments are we talking about? Aquinas had 3 variations of the first cause(just as dumb as the ontological argument), his take on Anselm's proof and an intelligent design argument from teleology. All stupid.

>>22237919
>Learning to separate the realities of the theology from what mankind produces is one of the most important steps you can take in life
I've already said the theology is stupid and ridiculous. I was responding to someone saying atheists shouldn't call out how stupid and ridiculous Christianity is and just let Christians live their lives. That would be reasonable IF Christians weren't intent on foisting their stupidity on other people.

>>22237919
>literally not reading
I was LARPing, you still didn't got it? And your parents being atheists changes shit. They are religious in some sense too.
>>22237625
And this looks like everything but good faith. Come on.

>>22237558
He calls himself a positivist while positivism has been dead since Quine

>>22237961
>He calls himself a positivist while positivism has been dead since Quine
Scholastic philosophy has been dead since the Enlightenment but you still see people in this thread talking about Aquinas and fucking Edward Feser. Dude is a meme.

No "philosopher" today understands that philosophy is a way of life leading to deification and not a Marxist creed.

>>22237625
Religion may well be useful for society, but society ends where my head begins, and inside my own head i'm only interested in what's true, not what's useful.
The problem with reasoning your way to god is that there's just as many reasonable refutations as there are arguments, and it goes around and around in circles all day. It also seems to be not very effective, the people I see who came to god this way (especially that utilitarian argument -- "it's good for society") are very insecure in their faith, from what i see, they verge on being LARPers imho.
The most convincing conversions I've seen are conversions of mystical insight/revelation, someone is just "moved" and that's what. These people are very secure in faith from what i see. A christian truly motivated to convert others should ask that holy spirit to put in more work. Since that spirit never came to me yet, I don't believe.

>>22237945
Ah, well, even if you've seen this as a waste, I hope some of what I've said will help to soften your heart. I wish you the best.
And if you can't handle some light sarcasm and the ever so devastating epitaph of midwit, perhaps other sites are more your speed, though if truly you took real offense, i apologize but still perhaps think you could do with some toughening.
>>22237936
I could see how you'd have a point if I hadn't spent my entire life watching Christianity be insulted by cinema, television, major media, music, pretty much everywhere for 20 years.
There are way more influential atheistic pressures than Christian.

>>22238015
>There are way more influential atheistic pressures than Christian.
This is just straight up wrong. You don't see the media in the US making fun of Islam and Hinduism or whatever else because those religions have next to zero presence in the culture. Christianity has a huge presence and is constantly pushing it's view in American politics. No one would be calling Christians homophobic if they weren't doing homophobic shit.

Him being a positivist was really giving me a weird taste. A man as smart as him should realize that nobody knows whats going on. Especially when you deal with physics, which are incomplete and have a lot of unanswered questions. Still better than being a Christian, but yeah..

>>22238015
I'm fine, I don't care about religion. And this isn't about me, I'm fine. Not even about you. It is about the conversation itself, and how it will affect other people reading it.
And this is 4chan, you won't make it like that outside, nor here. Just saying. I won't give you "constructive criticism" on this, because you are supposed to be one of the smart ones. You should have that shit figured out. And I honestly don't care if you end up succeeding or failing, it doesn't make any difference to me.

>>22238002
I did have a religious experience, I didn't come to God because I thought my inclusion in his church would improve the world. I had, and have since then had many, actual religious spiritual events, where I know the Spirit was with me and was guiding me.
I was pulled to his church and his people.
My advice would be to not give up on thinking you're not in God's hand. God doesn't work on our timetables or in our manner and it might not be until your very final moments when you feel the spirit, or you might not.
What I can assure you of is having an open heart will always serve you better than believing you actually understand everything about the world and how it works.

>>22238027
I'm sorry, i just want to confirm.
Are these abovementioned institutions FOR or AGAINST Christianity?
>>22238031
Okay thanks man have a good one.

>>22238046
>Are these abovementioned institutions FOR or AGAINST Christianity?
The US is 63% Christian and there are over 320,000 churches in America. There has never been a president who was an atheist. The claim that Christianity has no influence and is not pushing it's agenda in America is ridiculous

>>22238051
No, no, not what I asked.
Answer the question.
I won't even deign to comment on the 95% to 65% slide as these institutions increased in power, or how having a "catholic" president approve of homosexuality and abortion or how a "christian" president was cheating on his wife, or maybe i will.

>>22238074
>how having a "catholic" president approve of homosexuality and abortion
Lol just proving my point. You think a catholic president should try to espouse "catholic" views. Christians don't keep their dumb shit to themselves so they shouldn't expect atheists to not make fun of them for it. Again if Christians kept quiet about their beliefs it would be reasonable to expect atheists not to harass them. But the minute a Christian opens their mouth about how the man in the sky thinks two dudes kissing deserve to burn in hell the atheist is fully justified in calling them a childish idiot.

>>22238087
So... about those institutions.

>>22238089
>So... about those institutions.
What about them? You've already proven me correct by saying a catholic president should publicly espouse "catholic" views. Like I said atheists justifiably make fun of Christianity because Christians just can't keep their dumb shit to themselves.

>>22238101
How incredibly disingenuous you're being.
Number one, obviously if someone is going to say they're a member of a religion they better act like it. It's no different than claiming to be an atheist president then saying gays can't marry because the Bible says so. My point is they very clearly are not truly Christian, since they very clearly do not act it and just hold up the banner when convenient and lower it when not.
Secondly, your utter refusal to admit the obvious, that those powerful cultural institutions clearly are against Christianity is proof perfect that you're very much aware of the discrepancy.
And finally, calling the theology of Christianity dumb shit is to imply it hasn't been more than satisfactory for people well above you or I intellectually, meaning your qualms with it are largely personal.

Are these institutions for or against Christianity?

>>22238120
You keep changing the fucking question and you're calling me disingenuous? Here is the original thing I wrote that you responded to
> I was responding to someone saying atheists shouldn't call out how stupid and ridiculous Christianity is and just let Christians live their lives. That would be reasonable IF Christians weren't intent on foisting their stupidity on other people.
Here is you saying that Christians do what I said they do and try to spread their bullshit
>Number one, obviously if someone is going to say they're a member of a religion they better act like it
So yes like I said from the very beginning atheists are fully justified in publicly criticizing Christians since Christians publicly and loudly scream their garbage.

>>22238120
>And finally, calling the theology of Christianity dumb shit is to imply it hasn't been more than satisfactory for people well above you or I intellectually, meaning your qualms with it are largely personal.
Lol. Hawking is a brilliant and lauded theoretical physicist and he things theology and metaphysics is stupid. Checkmate I guess since there is no way you're smarter than him

>>22238152
The question never changed, and the entire point centers around the idea that "Christians spew garbage" while ignoring the reality that there is much more garbage spewing from the atheists, and often from extremely influential cultural sources.

The question has not changed. Follow the chain.
I asked before and now ask again, are the major abovementioned institutions FOR or AGAINST Christianity?

>>22238179
Yeah, except that Newton, Plankt, Heisenburg, Tolkien, Lewis, Curie, and a thousand others both before or after them dispute Mr Hawkings claims. Ergo, we just have to believe what we believe.
My point was to call it stupid or nonsensical discounts the reality that many, many incredibly intelligent and intellectual people have disagreed, many of whom are foundational to our sciences and cultural norms.

>>22238187
The question from the very beginning was do Christians publicly espouse their views? If they do atheists are justified criticizing them. You've admitted Christians do as much. You're wrong and you can't accept just like Christians are about their goofy faith

>>22238205
>Tolkien, Lewis
Rofl writers of fantasy fiction and you're putting them up as good examples of intelligent believing Christians. You're not making the point the you think you're making there.
>My point was to call it stupid or nonsensical discounts the reality that many, many incredibly intelligent and intellectual people have disagreed, many of whom are foundational to our sciences and cultural norms.
And many intelligent people(including most modern scientists and philosophers) are atheists and think theology is silly. So you can't discount my call theology stupid.

>>22237577
Not really, I used to think this was the case but after spending a few years reflecting on the issue and learning the lingo of Christianity, I am now aware that the average Christian soccer mom SAHM has a deeper and more meaningful inner life than 95% of the 'secular' people out there. And that was a very disturbing discovery for me.

>>22238238
Bullshit. I live in Texas I've been around fundamentalists my entire life and some of my close family are super religious. They're fucking idiots who give not a smidge of thought to their beliefs. Mindless tradition, if they had been born in rural India they would be drinking cowpiss and praising Vishnu with the same level of fervor.

>>22238229
Another post, another failure to answer the question.
Do the institutions mentioned vie FOR or AGAINST Christianity?
>>22238237
Do you really think Tolkien and Lewis weren't very intelligent and thoughtful?
And I told you I understand there are intelligent people who don't believe, that isn't in dispute.
The problem is calling something foolish when it was sufficient for many, many people much, much above either you or I.

>>22238264
>Another post, another failure to answer the question.
>Do the institutions mentioned vie FOR or AGAINST Christianity?
I answered the fucking question and you answered the fucking question from here >>22237936. Can you admit I was right and you were wrong?

>>22238264
>The problem is calling something foolish when it was sufficient for many, many people much, much above either you or I.
So you can't call my position foolish either since lots of smart hold it and have held it. Christianity is fucking dumb. You're trying to get respect for Christianity that it doesn't deserve, it's an intellectually bankrupt ideology that survives by mindless tradition.

>>22238258
I used to think in a similar way about my parents, but actually that's just how it looks from the outside. It took me decades but I eventually discovered that my own parents are very serious about ethics and about doing the right thing, very concerned with being strong enough to be loyal to God and overcome the trials and temptations they have, to become better people for the sake of God. They weren't very good at it, perhaps. But they were and are very serious about it, very earnest.

>>22238276
Show me on the doll where you answered the question. It should take at most 3 letters. Do they, or do they not? And more importantly, if they do, doesn't that mean atheists are in fact the ones spewing at a higher rate, in more places, with a higher platform, and more often?
>>22238288
It deserves respect in the same way ancient Athens does at the very least. You owe your entire life, liberty and culture to Christianity and Christians. And if you have an specific hiccups in the theology you want to address, I'm happy to try.

>>22238307
>Show me on the doll where you answered the question
I have already repeatedly told you what the answer to the question was and you've admitted as much. Do Christians try to publicly espouse their beliefs? Yes Christians do try to publicly espouse their beliefs. Therefore atheists are justified in responding. That is what started this conversation. You're wrong and then have the gall to accuse me of being disingenuous when you're the one trying to change the question to whether certain American institutions are more atheistic or Christian.
>It deserves respect in the same way ancient Athens does at the very least. You owe your entire life, liberty and culture to Christianity and Christians.
Well there you go. Ancient Athens wasn't Christian and pagan philosophers were ferocious critics of Christianity when it finally arrived Christianity btfo as a stupid brain dead religion.
>You owe your entire life, liberty and culture to Christianity and Christians
Laughable.
>And if you have an specific hiccups in the theology you want to address, I'm happy to try.
The fundamental starting point of theology is God's existence. There is not one legitimate argument that doesn't amount to goofy sophistry. I've already blasted Aquinas's five above, Kant's transcendental wasn't even convincing to him and modern fakers like Craig just fiddle with toy models until they get something they like but no one else would accept. At least Godel had the self-respect to be crazy and totally embrace modal collapse in his ontological argument.

>>22238344
Oh my.
Well, I'm sorry you've come to this place. I really hope you can wake up to your biases, and realize that atheism is just as religious as Christianity, and therefore what you forbid from one you must exclude from the other, lest you wish to be named hypocrit.
Otherwise it would seem you're rather ignorant of history and your place in it. To say the west isn't founded on and by Christian morals... there's not much point in talking to a person who believes that.
I wish the best for you, really, but until you climb this intellectual hill and look down on yourself from it, you won't grow as a person.
Biases are bad. Try to get over them.

>>22238378
>and realize that atheism is just as religious as Christianity
Lol so that would mean atheism has just as much right to push it's beliefs as Christianity right? Like what you were arguing against. Logical coherence was never a biblethumpers strong suit
>To say the west isn't founded on and by Christian morals
You already mentioned Athens moron. Christian morals couldn't even stop slavery from being enshrined in the constitution and christcucks are actively opposed to human rights at this point.

>>22237926
You misunderstand.
What I am saying is merely that the "ontological argument" itself is probably, not very likely to be effective as apologetics, as those people who would come to recognize the existence of God based on it are not ones who "need" apologetics in the first place. Same way I would say it's useless to try and prove the pythagorean theorem using the law of cosines as ones who know the latter usually know the former as well.

So actually
>the ontological argument is complex and understanding other arguments will help you understand the ontological one
is kind of what I'm saying. specifically that this
>The ontological argument is relatively simple
is only a half truth. it is compact in (nongratuitous, and necessary) assumptions rather than simple. but to understand the premises is to accept the conclusion. understanding the premises, incidentally, is what is done through studying the other ways.

As I have said, the ways are only this, "ways". They are not "proofs", in the way that there is no "proof" of the noncontradiction principle. The only proof of the noncontradiction principle is that nothing makes sense if you deny it. This is the exact same thing. And I am not talking about a sort of "sense" as is understood in modern sense, I am talking about the possibility of meaning, of intelligibility. To be a realist about anything, be it morals, essences, laws, physical existence of things, one's own existence, and all that. Obviously being a realist about nothing is not only a practical impossibility, it is also a theoretical absurdity.

So all in all I don't care very much about them being considered to be "formally" little more than drawn out tautologies, as long as one acknowledges that they happen to correspond to reality (which one cannot fail to do), because this is what the proof of any axiom would be. And God is of course infinitely more fundamental than axioms of mathematics. Nobody asks for a "proof" of basic axioms and then complains when the only possible "proof" is showing that other things that we know to be true through these same axioms point back to these same axioms. See "reverse mathematics". It is not even particularly hard for us to concede that mathematics might be one big tautology, with no real distinction between axioms and results, only truth.

To wrap things up this
>The ontological argument is relatively simple and clearly invalid since it lets you pull anything you want existence's out of thin air
is not true of course, as has been shown by Anselm himself in the very same work where he published the ontological argument. it only works for something that just is subsistent being itself, and in which essence and existence are the same (incidentally this is what God is)
and
>his take on Anselm's proof
Aquinas never bothered to defend Anselm's argument
>an intelligent design argument from teleology.
the fifth way is not an intelligent design argument

All in all Aquinas said it best: "for those with faith no proof is needed, for those without no proof will suffice". This is not, as it happens, a statement on christian faith or faith in revelation or scripture (I am not a christian by the way, thought I should clear that up), but about faith in the reality and intelligibility (which are the same thing, on any decend understanding) of anything.

But to be sure there are things that can unequivocally be corrected, namely ideas you seem to have about theism entailing that there is a "dude" who created the universe, or other such misunderstandings. If you still say stuff like that you have obviously not gotten all you could out of Feser or Aquinas (since I understand you are somewhat familiar with those two).

You seem to me to conflate theism, christianity, and christians. Of course, most christians in the US are protestants who have never been exposed to anything other than a crude personalist, voluntarist, ultimately meaningless model. Maybe this is the source of your worries.

(although most catholics have a shitty understanding of theism as well)

>>22238438
>but to understand the premises(of the ontological argument) is to accept the conclusion.
But no one accepts the premises because the ontological argument lets you prove the existence of almost anything. This is similar to the reason that contradictions aren't accepted in math. Once you get a contradiction you can prove anything and it makes math trivial.
>Nobody asks for a "proof" of basic axioms and then complains
Because axioms are arbitrary. You can make up whatever axioms you want. People may not be interested in the resulting system but that says nothing about the "truth" of the axioms because axioms aren't true or false they're axioms. Assuming God's existence as an axiom is completely valid but assuming God doesn't exist is an equally valid as an axiom.
>It is not even particularly hard for us to concede that mathematics might be one big tautology
Because that is what mathematics is, one big tautology. Starting with your arbitrarily chosen logically consistent starting axioms everything that follows mathematically is tautological.
>Aquinas never bothered to defend Anselm's argument
No shit he actively attacked Anselm's argument. Aquinas's fourth way is a variation of the ontological argument that he believes doesn't have the problems Anselm did.
>the fifth way is not an intelligent design argument
Yes it is. Teleology is pure intelligent design in it's belief that you can see the "purpose" of something. Purpose aka design. You've already called intelligent design stupid.

>>22238438
>is not true of course, as has been shown by Anselm himself in the very same work where he published the ontological argument

One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He invited his reader to conceive an island "more excellent" than any other island. He suggested that, according to Anselm's proof, this island must necessarily exist, as an island that exists would be more excellent

>>22238470
>If you still say stuff like that you have obviously not gotten all you could out of Feser or Aquinas (since I understand you are somewhat familiar with those two).
Also me >>22237645
>Who cares? There may or may not be a philosophical God but it's not really interesting without the threat of hell or promise of heaven. There are lots of philosophical stances that just don't matter to people
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since it's difficult to tell who is who in this shitshow.

>>22238480
>because the ontological argument lets you prove the existence of almost anything
it doesn't, this has been the first response to it historically (see Gaunilo) and has been refuted immediately (the refutation having been published at the same time as the argument) as a bad understanding of it.
>People may not be interested in the resulting system but that says nothing about the "truth" of the axioms because axioms aren't true or false they're axioms.
People may be interested in the resulting system mainly on the grounds that it says something about reality, as do the axioms. Of course you are welcome to try and believe that none of our thoughts relate to reality, but this thought of course has to relate to reality as this is what truth consists in. I am a bit in disbelief that there are people who still think they will succeed in that exercise but they will live and learn.
>Aquinas's fourth way is a variation of the ontological argument that he believes doesn't have the problems Anselm did.
it isn't specifically closer to the ontological argument than the others. I guess what makes you say that is that it is the most general of his ways (according to Gaven Kerr, who likes the fourth way), in that it makes clear the structure that all five ways follow. the fact that it culminates in something that is the transcendentals themselves and thus Being itself doesn't really make it closer to the ontological argument as far as I can see, as this is implicit in all ways.
>Teleology is pure intelligent design in it's belief that you can see the "purpose" of something.
the phrase "intelligent design argument" has come to refer to arguments from complexity or intricacy, most of the time probabilistic in nature. I guess it could also refer to teleology but it never does. But the teleological proof takes directionality for granted (because it is obvious and cannot be done away with, as shown with the century old unsuccessful attempt on the part of biology to do just that, and by common sense and a minute's reflexion), and then shows how this points to God.
It does not try to establish intelligent design. Rather, it notes intentionality (completely compatible with darwinism and what have you of course, if not slightly reinforced by it), and "proceeds". The most that could be said is that from "design" it deduces "intelligence". This is of course not the class of arguments that I said were considered worthless by theists.

>>22238496
and ? as I have said, it was refuted. it doesn't do much to just say that someone put forward an objection kek. to think that it is successful just is to fail to understand the argument.
>Who cares? There may or may not be a philosophical God but it's not really interesting without the threat of hell or promise of heaven. There are lots of philosophical stances that just don't matter to people
I mean you care, apparently.
Not that consistency seems to be your chief objective since you in essence assert the self contradicting view that every assertion is arbitrarily assigned truth and that nothing in reality relates to it.
Also, whether or not "people" are seen to care about it is irrelevant. Of course, I would say that as a matter of definition, everyone cares about this whether they know it or not, because God is just that which towards we are ordered.
>it's not really interesting without the threat of hell or promise of heaven.
not true. a lot of theists don't believe in eternal hell, and a lot of theists don't really assert heaven as anything like a subjective experience. iirc it was Averroes who said that heaven was simply "having lived a philosophical life" or something along those lines. You are modern in your thinking, which must not be news to you. There is no need for "stakes" other than Good itself, Truth itself

>>22238609
>and has been refuted immediately (the refutation having been published at the same time as the argument) as a bad understanding of it
Really? What was his refutation?
>People may be interested in the resulting system mainly on the grounds that it says something about reality, as do the axioms
You're talking about empirical tests aka science. I don't need to tell you science is not kind to Christian beliefs.
>it isn't specifically closer to the ontological argument than the others
Such arguments tend to refer to the state of being or existing. More specifically, ontological arguments are commonly conceived a priori in regard to the organization of the universe, whereby, if such organizational structure is true, God must exist. Aquinas's fourth way is the idea that a continuum of a property implies a maximum. Also apparently Aquinas couldn't even fucking count since there is no largest number.
>But the teleological proof takes directionality for granted
Lol. It totally assumes intelligent design but it's not intelligent design. Come the fuck on man

>>22238635
>There is no need for "stakes" other than Good itself, Truth itself
Literally no one would care if this was the case. There are tons of more fundamental philosophical problems that people just ignore in their day to day lives. Problem of induction, is/ought, and Munchausen's trilemma would make people totally unable to function if people were really inclined to care about philosophy to the level they care about religion. What gets people animated is the idea of an old man in the sky that sends you to heaven or hell. And that literal interpretation is goofy bullshit as you've agreed.

>>22237309
Philosophy was incredibly influential in the sciences until the 20th century. This is no surprise as the natural sciences were spawned from natural philosophy (which is what Newton thought he was doing).

However, in the 19th century Hegel became amazingly influential. This eventually generated a backlash in the form of logical positivism, which attempted to banish icky "metaphysics," from philosophy. This doesn't mean that philosophy wasn't involved in science at this point, quite the opposite. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is essentially just logical positivism and was dogmatically enforced, with people's careers in jeopardy if they challenged it for the next 60+ years. The physicists who came after the generation that birthed quantum mechanics thought they were doing "science without philosophy," but really they were doing Carnap.

At the same time that this happened and we got the Copernican Principle and the " essentially meaninglessness of the universe enshrined as dogma because only with this essentially philosophical idea presented as fact we couldn't be ebin Nietzschean overcomers who lived justly despite the obvious lack of teleology.

Russell was huge in this and in getting physicists to agree that time's passage was illusory (not an empirically supported position but rather one which flows from the philosophy of mathematics and doggedly pursued by Russel because he saw eternalism as essential to his philosophical project to ground the existence of abstract objects, chiefly propositions, that exist acausally outside spacetime (and yet are somehow grasped by humans, giving language its meaning). He continued on this path even after logicalism in mathematics collapsed, which is unfortunate.

So, philosophy was represented by Russel, Stace, and co as suspicious because it could be a back door to "woo" that was "unscientific," and thus challenge the underpinnings of their ethical Nietzschean overcoming.

Really, so much, mostly bad came out of one man getting filtered by Hegel.

The new generation of big scientists is not like this at all. Deutch, Tegmark, Davies, Deacon, Hoffman, etc. all have a lot of respect for philosophers and admit that they do philosophy, also copublishing with philosophers.

The whole antiphilosophy thing was really simply a period of a certain type of philosophy being dominant and is well on its way out at the elite level while still dogmatically enforced at lower levels. The paradigm shifts of information theory and complexity studies also did a lot to kill off the old style exemplified by Hawking, Dawkins, etc.

>>22238378
>"Rebuke is more effective for a wise man than a hundred blows on a fool."

You're wasting your breath on this retard. He perceives nothing, understands nothing. The next time you feel the temptation to respond to the walking personification of the Dunning-Krueger effect, save your time and sanity by consulting these first:

Proverbs 13:6, 14:3, 14:16, 15:5, 15:7, 17:10, 17:12, 17:21, 17:28, 18:2, 19:1, 23:9, 24:7, 26:4; 26:12, 27:22, 29:9.

>>22238639
>Really? What was his refutation?
that there is simply no sense to be made of "an island such that no greater/more perfect island can be thought of". because to think of an island is to think of it as finite, material, and all sorts of things. the ontological argument is about "something", but that doesn't mean you can substitute anything and it still applies. the only "something" that we arrive at, because it is the only "something" that is not eliminated by this step, is Being itself.
>You're talking about empirical tests aka science.
I'm talking about any intelligible statement about the world.
>I don't need to tell you science is not kind to Christian beliefs.
you would, actually, for two reasons.
first is that it is a misconception to believe that "science" can in any way prove or disprove the existence of God. second is that I'm not a christian and I'm not talking about christian beliefs.
>Aquinas's fourth way is the idea that a continuum of a property implies a maximum. Also apparently Aquinas couldn't even fucking count since there is no largest number.
this is the second most common objection to the fourth way. and it is refuted as effectively as the first (the first is Dawkin's objection about its applying to any characteristic or privation, whereas it is only applied to the transcendentals).
namely, in simply reiterating that the fourth way does nothing analogous to postulating that there is a largest number. it deals with some view of infinity, which is best described as a principle rather than a maximum. Aquinas is pretty clear in giving the example that things are hot in virtue of fire itself. What he means is that things are hot because there is such a thing as heat itself. And this reasoning he applies to the transcendentals. That's really all there is to it. He asserts, for instance that things are true because there is such a thing as Truth, that things are good because there is such a thing as Goodness, that things have being because there is such a things as Being, etc. The "maximally" here is to be understood as "being" rather than "having". God is not maximally good because he is very good compared to other things that are good, he is maximally good because he is the Good. Keeping in line with your number example, he doesn't posit that because there is 1,2 and 3 there must be some greatest number, simply that "numerality" is a thing.

cont.
>Lol. It totally assumes intelligent design but it's not intelligent design. Come the fuck on man
I'm just saying it's simply not what is called an intelligent design argument in the litterature. I have explained what those are and why it's nothing like them. It's not probabilistic. It doesn't argue from complexity or intricacy of anything, which is an arbitrary idea. Intelligent design arguments are bad because they take the createdness of things as something to be deduced based on how complex things seem. They assume that the createdness of the world is a conclusion based on a certain degree of difficulty to explain things by "happenstance", selection, what have you. As it happens, the createdness of the world is contained in its intelligibility, and so is more of a premise than anything. The world could contain none of the "complexity" it exhibits and it would still be a basic assumption that it is created. And since the fifth way is not a "god of the gaps" argument like what is usually called intelligent design arguments, any discovery of the natural sciences is powerless against it, of course. So the basic distinction, which I have gone to great pains (as it is hard to put words on things that are obvious) to put into words, is that what is usually called "intelligent design arguments" do not assume design, they purport to discover it through biological and mathematic reasoning. The fifth way does assume createdness (since we all assume createdness, on a proper understanding of it, whether we admit it or not), and concludes that it is in fact intelligent. And there is really no problem there.

>>22238658
it really doesn't matter what you think about "people" or how pessimistic you are about their motivations. i am telling you this is just what classical theism believes, that it can allow for a lot more laxity than you seem to think on the matter of heaven and hell, and that any basic understanding of the terms makes it clear that there is no absolute need for such "stakes" other than truth and good itself. this I know clearly, and all classical theists know as well.

of course I disagree that people are really happy ignoring such problems as, of course, I believe knowledge of the true and of the good is what all people desire. Most people would no doubt say they don't care, but people quite litteraly don't know what they want, because they are rendered subhuman by their living and working conditions.

to wrap things up, I think contrary to what you claim you have some conscious interest in the matter, and so I greatly encourage you to study it further. hopefully I will have managed to dispel these common concerns and misunderstandings.

>>22237317
fpbp

>>22239104
I appreciate your effort-post, anon.

>>22239104
An illuminated post in this den of retards, why, have a most pleasant day, sir.