/lit/ - Literature

>>6915713
Foolishly.
The same as any Christian does today.
How many books did that guy write? He'd have nothing new to say.

>>6915713
The way he did historically, by mouldering in the grave.

>>6915713

He would probably refute Hume in a similar way to how Anscombe did. She was pretty dedicated to showing that Hume wasn't much more than a sophisticated sophist.

>>6915730
Glad no one has responded to this shitpost yet. I'm also glad to be the first :^)

>>6915773
*Tips foreskin*

He would have turned him over to the secular authorities to be executed and rightly so.

>>6915713
He would deny the premise. Hume's problem was that he was already working from a position that separated thoughts from the world. He was just another link in the philosophical chain of Cartesianism. Whether he agreed or disagreed with Descartes, he never question the premise, just as Leibniz, Spinoza, Malebranche, and Descartes himself never questioned the premise: that the intellect can be analyzed without appeal to the external world.

Aquinas, being a Aristotelian, would have contended that the intellect, while separate from the outside world, is still informed by and functions because it, and therefore can not be understood without understanding its relation to the outside world.

Check out Tyler Burge's writings on anti-individualism if you want to see a non-Aristotelian's take on the same position.

>>6915713
On what, specifically?

Hume says that ideas are reducible only to what may be derived from the the particular "sense-impression." Hume conceives of "sense-impressions" as wholly particular units of experience. Hume's only evidence for this contention is introspective: the ideas we form of things are less "vivid" than our initial sense-impression of them. Since the abstract idea is only a "dull" remnant of the original particular, hence farther removed from the reality of things and more so than the sense-impression confined to the subjectivity of the observer. Hume's account here is pure introspective storytelling.

On the other hand. Aquinas would say that understanding is grounded in the universals that unify diverse particulars, and that the particulars qua particulars have no intelligible being whatever. It is no use to have a perpetual flux of sense impressions, for Aquinas: such flux is barely comprehensible, and only insofar as we understand it through the idea of flux. Thus Aquinas differentiates between the faculties of sense and understanding: sense is the almost Humean raw particular that gets translated to the mind via the senses, while understanding abstracts the universal principles from the particulars, departing from mere sense into the intelligible reality of the thing sensed.

The understanding of the universal across diverse particulars is thus a precondition for the understanding of what is observed, rather than an afterthought. Indeed, Hume's contentions themselves are meaningful precisely insofar as his qualifications partake of universals like "idea" and "sense-impression," "colour" and the like. To get rid of the universal component of understanding would thus be to get rid of understanding itself- the pure particular is not anything at all: hence, indistinguishable from nothing, and no idea can be formed which is a pure particular: everything which is, must have some universal component. Thus Aquinas would argue, and rightly, that because it is precisely the universal that grounds a thing in its intelligibility, as "what" it is (as distinct from everything else), there can be no purely sensory (that is, particular) knowledge.

Because the actuality of things must be in the intelligible and universal, departing from sense toward the objects of reason, as long as it is done correctly, is precisely what allows human beings to know reality in itself. Thus inferences about causality, which are grounded in knowledge of the agent's form in isolation, and towards the existence of God, who is the highest object of reason, are both perfectly legitimate objects of human rational inquiry, rather than products of habit.

>>6915915

Great post

10/10

>>6915915
Why must they?

>>6915915
How does Aquinas' argument suggest that the Christian god is real?

>>6915978

Aquinas' argument demonstrates that the Christian God is real, insofar as it demonstrates that there is one omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being upon whom creation continually depends for its existence, knowledge of whom is man's highest end and union with whom is man's highest happiness. He does this most famously through his Five Ways in the Summa Theologiae, but also in additional works like De Esse et Essentia and Summa Contra Gentiles.

>>6915713
I don't think he'd humer him with a reply

>>6915989
I know that, but how does it suggest the Christian God in particular? Or is that more a matter of faith than reason?

>>6916003
I think that statement is all he has for "proof" or "proofiness"

>>6915915
There are so many non sequiturs here it's actually quite amazing.

>>6916003

>how does it suggest the Christian God in particular? Or is that more a matter of faith than reason?

I'm not sure what you mean by this question, in this case. Aquinas's arguments are sufficient to demonstrate that there is the One God, and that's the God Christians and other monotheists like Jews and Muslims, and pagans like Aristotle and Plato, are talking about.

Christianity is a religion about what the One God has done- the pattern of redemption and self-revelation in the person of Christ. If you're asking whether Aquinas made any purely rational demonstrative arguments that Christianity in particular is true. He has no demonstrative arguments, but he does have 'fitness" arguments about the incarnation and life of Christ and Christ's redemptive work. This is found in the Third Part of the Summa Theologiae.

>>6916003
What constitutes "Christian?" He already mentioned omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence (which I take to mean being either all-good or all-loving, it doesn't matter because Aquinas proved both). Aquinas also proves simplicity, immutability, willfulness, and immateriality, what more do you want, specifically?

>>6916063
Belief in the god as depicted in the old and new testament

>>6916071
I can only assume you mean the things specific to Catholic (because let's be honest, "Christian" can mean anything these days) teachings. Well Aquinas would hold, as is Church teaching, that those beliefs are known through divine revelation, not natural reason.

>>6916063
>>6915989
>omnibenevolent

I don't think that was in the Quinque Viae. Where did he demonstrate omnibenevolence?

>>6917047
ST I, Questions 6 and 20.

>>6915989
>demonstrates that there is one omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being upon whom creation continually depends for its existence

Upon what evidence could he possibly determine that the creator is a 'being' possessing human attributes like intelligence and a concept of benevolence?

>>6918932
His feelings.

>Aquinas thread

can someone please explain to me how the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd points of the Quinque Viae differ?

1st is the Unmoved Mover- Everything is in a state of potential, so there must be something purely actual in the world
2nd is Efficient Causes- Something that changes or moves because something caused to it, there must be a first cause upon which all causes originate.
and the 3rd is Argument from contingency- There must be a noncontingent basis for contingency.

But I can't wrap my head around it, they all sound the same to me.

Though typing it out may have helped me a little bit with #2, 1 and 3 still seem exactly the same.

>>6919130
the three are cosmological arguments

1 is why things change
2 is why there is anything at all

>>6918977
Try actually reading some Aquinas before responding.

How does Aquinas explain the goodness of the God that actively makes beings born into an existence where the only possibility of development is through the suffering and death of other beings, human and non-human alike?

>>6918932

To answer this question it's important to understand a bit about Aquinas's approach to philosophy of mind.

For Aquinas, intelligence and benevolence aren't merely biological novelties. Human intelligence, rather, is a power made possible by much more general phenomena, which, when properly understood, show there to be a supreme intellect and benevolence.

That general phenomenon is intelligibility: the ability of particular instances of things to share in a common form. It is the "form," which transcends the particular, which allows things to have qualities at all. Form, which grounds a thing's nature against against everything else, is necessarily distinct from any principle of individuation, since individuation in itself does not make a thing some kind of thing or other.

Thus most things have at least two metaphysical components: the principle of intelligibility, "Form," in virtue of which things have their character, and their "Matter," which individuates one instance of a character from another. The distinctive ability of the intellect to know something, is through its ability to share in the "Forms" of things, separate from particularity (that is, separate from materiality), while remaining itself.

Since God is simple (for complex things exist because of their parts, and God has no cause), he cannot be a compound of parts, hence God cannot be a compound of particularity and intelligibility: he must be purely material, or purely immaterial. Moreover, a "pure particular" is nothing whatever, having no principle of "what it is." Thus God must be pure intelligible being, existing apart from particularity.

Since intellect just is the power of possessing some mode of being apart from materiality, and God possesses his own being immaterially, God must be intelligent: he knows at least himself. Moreover, since God is the one simple cause of everything else, everything which was, is and will be is continually derived from his simple, unchanging mode of existence, to know his own being fully is to know everything else. Thus, when one works out the metaphysical implications of a First Cause, one discovers that God is omniscient.

God's intelligence differs from us, too: he does not derive his information from his surroundings, rather his surroundings derive their intelligibility from his own. While human abstractions are derived after the fact, God knows things precisely as they originate from him via his creative power.

God's love is understood in a similar manner: to love is to will the good of something, and the good of something is its principle of being, since a thing is perfected as what it is to the degree that it realises the mode of existence proper to its kind. Thus God, willing the being of everything else, also wills their good, and can be truly said to love them.

>>6919755
Short answer:
"As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good." (Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 1, Article 3, Reply to Objection 1)

Long answer: http://www.amazon.com/The-Reality-God-Problem-Evil/dp/082649241X

This is a great thread because of all the ignorant seculars being exposed to scholastic philosophy for the first time.

>>6919130
why not just read duns scotus instead?

>>6919854
This is not a satisfactory answer for very obvious reasons, but the question wasn't about evil, but the necessarily inadequate condition of being and becoming which necessitates the killing and eating of other beings. Aquinas has to argue that this condition is, in fact, good, but there's no reason to accept it as such. Aquinas has to argue that this condition is necessary, but there is no reason that an omnipotent God would be so limited in his creative act.

>>6915914
>Spinoza
Being a (the) monist, Spinoza definitely contended that you cannot analyze the mind without reference to the external world. He was leagues ahead of Hume and Descarte, even Liebniz

>>6919947
Maybe this isn't the philosophical answer you were looking for, but Dun Scotus sort of touches on a tangential issue when he asks if Christ was an "after-thought" of the fall of man.

Basically he concedes that if the human race never contracted original sin from the fall, Jesus would still have become incarnate at some point or another to be a perfect image of God and the apex of creation. Although in such circumstances he would not appear to us as a savior (which is how he did in actuality). There is no such reality where God would NOT become incarnate is his main point, because to say otherwise would undermine the understanding of Jesus as something that was planned from the beginning of time.

If we accept this then it's possible to have a world where there was no suffering because it was untainted by sin. Suffering is an effect of the world's freely chosen denial of God.

Anyway, most serious Catholics look at suffering as having no meaning outside of a Christian context. For a good explanation look at Thomas Merton's book No Man is an Island. There's a chapter on suffering in there which is quite good.

>>6919947
How have you established that that's an evil condition? I don't have any problem with eating animals. Defend your objection.

>>6919884

Coming from someone who generally does read Scotus instead of Aquinas, Scotus' works are quite difficult in comparison. Aquinas has nice prose that was meant to win you over, Scotus mostly wrote for himself and sometimes it is a headache to figure out what exactly it is that he was getting at. If you are just getting into Scholasticism you are better off going for Aquinas first, because you are probably going to be learning not only the authors own terminology and ideas, but also the general terminology and logic of the period, and Aquinas' system is very intuitive and explained in a clear way.

Good thread guys.

>>6920159
>>6920012
There's been some really nice posts in this thread, a lot to mull over and think about for later.

one day i hope to convert to christianity & tell everyone it was all 4chan's fault

>>6915915
Thank you.

>>6916003

The answer to this question I think hinges on this passage. It's not so much a matter of proving that a particular God exists (for anyone who claims to have identified God in any concrete way probably needs to see a psychologist), it's proving that the system which has been developed around it is the truth. You shall know a tree by its fruits etc.

As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.

>>6915915
Ok but at least forms an account for where "ideas" come from. They come from sense-impressions and are less vivid. Nowhere in your post did I understand how Aquinas answers the problem of where ideas come from. I don't know much about Aquinas so you will have to catch me up.

>>6920584

Try

>>6919792

TL;DR: Ideas, as opposed to sense-impressions, are Forms, and Forms come from things in the world, which are a mix of the universal and the particular. The things in the world, in turn, come from God.

>>6915915

>bullshit semantics, the post

>>6915713
Hard mode: How would Aquinas respond to (based) Calvin?

>>6919792

None of this answers his question. He asked for evidence, not more claims

>>6921028

The argument is made here that things depend for their existence on principles of form (to give them their objective character) and matter (to individuate them). That explains how it is possible to derive ideas from things in the world, which explains where ideas come from. What's the problem?

>>6920544

>Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Basically, you just declared something an infallible truth, and then claimed that anything that disagrees with it is wrong by default.

See, this is the main problem with Aquinas and the way religious reasoning works. It's all based on assertions. It's a system of claims that are 'demonstrated' with more claims. This is incidentally alsi the reason why scholastic philosophy isn't taken serious by anyone outside of churches or universities, because it amounts to little more than meaningless language games that have no value in the real world.

In other words, the main problem of scholasticism is that it conflates a certain model of reality and its characteristics for actual reality. These two are not the same thing, which is why, when you make models of reality, you constantly need to compare them with reality. Scholasticism tries to avoid this by assuming some 'metaworld', a world that is somehow above the 'real' world, but that just examplifies all the problems in Scholasticism, since it's never explained how they know this 'metaworld' exists in the first place. It's basically just a reallydishonest trick to make up a conceptual world, in which they control all of the parameters, so that they can be fixed to 'prove' some preconceived conclusion.

>>6921042

Again, more claims, not evidence. Instead of providing evidence, you begin a discussion on what evidence is. You quite blatantly dodge the question

>>6921083
Well, I did provide evidence- diverse things exist, which means that they have some kind of defining character, which requires form and matter. I didn't start any discussion about what evidence is, though if you think that this isn't good evidence (i.e., a fact which, if it is true, raises the probability of the conclusion), you'll have to raise your objections against the evidence I provided, if you understand it.

>>6921123
But muh empirical evidence about things not empirical

>>6921123

>diverse things exist

That seems like the single most general statement ever, but very well

>which means that they have some kind of defining character, which requires form and matter.

And these are two statements that you don't demonstrate. You just throw them out there and then hope no one will ask you to provide evidence for them. I don't you've ever properly defined what exactly a 'defining character' is, that sounds like the single most vague term I've ever seen

And that's another thing. You are in the business of explaining and predicting arguably the most extreme event possible, namely the beginning of the universe. If you're going to comment on such an extreme event, it's incredibly important that you have very exact definitions of the terms you're using. So far, you've done the exact opposite. You seem to intentionally use vague terms that are either so general they hardly mean anything (things change over time, well no shit Sherlock), terms that are 'defined' with equally meaningless terms, or terms that aren't defined at all. That's a pretty stupid thing to do when you're talking about very extreme events like the beginning of the universe, because you're almost certain to draw conclusions that are completely wrong.

Also, you usually define terms in advance, not in the middle or after your argument

>>6921150

So wait, god is real and exists, but conveniently leaves no evidence of his existence? That sounds like an extremely lazy cop out

>>6921164
his terms are pretty specific, I think you're interpreting in bad faith.

"diverse things exist" means that things can be defined, means that things have some kind of defining character. some things are oranges, some things are apples. the requirement of "form and matter" is explained in his prior post

>>6921164

I think that you're misinterpreting the task here. When Aquinas goes looking for God he doesn't look for some cosmic kick-starter lurking at the beginning of time.

Aquinas' project is more ambitious than that: he's looking for a cause of the generic features of reality which are present at every time and every place, like composition, changeability, generality, etc. Because he's looking for this kind of principle, whether the universe even began to exist is, strictly speaking, irrelevant. Aquinas is trying to show that these generic features of reality, from which all things derive their existence in some way or other, must themselves derive at every moment from some one supreme principle, which has all the divine attributes. Thus, it is these generic features of reality which are his primary evidence.

The terminology I've used directs you toward the analysis of reality at this level of generality. When something is said to have a 'defining character,' for example, it has some principle that makes it what-it-is-as-opposed-to-something-else. When this concept is invoked, it's apparent that I am not talking about the defining character of this-or-that particular thing, but about the phenomenon of defining character in general, which everything must have, if there are to be diverse things differentiated from each other.

>>6921074

The first quote is simply Aquinas explaining why you can't demonstrate an article of faith by reason, but can use reason to show that any argument against an article of faith is false. This isn't just a way of saying that " I'm right automatically" without arguing for it, he is simply explaining that he is committed to faith and reason never contradicting one another. He shows this constantly by do apologetics and showing that the arguments that people raise against the faith are invalid ones.

>It's a system of claims that are 'demonstrated' with more claims.

Well actually it's a system of arguments that appeal to basic logical axioms and the prima facie experience of the world that we all share. I think you just are'nt following the line of argumentation and are missing out on some of the connections. In Scholasticism you get a labyrinth of arguments that all work together to form a coherent system of thought.

>In other words, the main problem of scholasticism is that it conflates a certain model of reality and its characteristics for actual reality.

Ok, but you have to actually demonstrate that the "model" that they are using to explain things doesn't actually correspond with "reality", which no one has yet to do.

>Scholasticism tries to avoid this by assuming some 'metaworld', a world that is somehow above the 'real' world, but that just examplifies all the problems in Scholasticism, since it's never explained how they know this 'metaworld' exists in the first place.

There is no "metaworld", Scholastic metaphysics is firmly rooted in the same world you and I inhabit. God exists outside the universe, but we can come to knowledge of him through what we experience in our world and through logical axioms mediating our experience and letting us derive conclusions from the mixture.

>>6921168
The other guy has given a lot of evidence, it's a cop out on your side because you disregarded evidence you don't agree with.

ITT: Fedoras getting blown out by the one thing they thought was on their side: Logic.

>>6921262

One thing that is interesting about Aquinas' period is that it was actually required by the Universities that one do two or so years of logic and grammar before they could get into an " arts" program and start doing Philosophy and Theology. This is part of why Analytic Thomism is a thing. When logic was renewed by the analytics the appreciation of Philosophers for Scholasticism came back with a vengeance now that people could finally understand the arguments after a long period of intellectual neglect.

>>6921262

These threads keep popping up, yet in the interval no Fedora ever thinks of actually reading what they're discussing

>>6921498
>1 like

These threads are getting embarrassing, why don't all aquinas fanboys migrate to /christ/

>>6921291
>appreciation
By whom? Hacks like Platinga and Craig?

>>6921498
Athiests are annoying as fuck.

>>6921573
Fuck off fedora why don't you go back to reddit you degenerate cunt

>>6921592
Why is platinga exactly a hack?

>>6921592
Actually Plantinga and Craig would tend against a full-blooded Scholasticism, not that they're any philosophical slouches either.

One should think about guys like Haldane, Oderberg, Davies, McCord Adams, Stump and Alisdair McIntyre.

>>6921025
he would say that calvin is a ninny for not being able to fathom paradoxes and mysteries

>>6921262

>ask specifically for empirical evidence
>get deductive and 'infallible' proofs

Are you religious people really this stupid, or is this all just an act?

>>6921947
>implying you have empirical evidence for the contrary position.

The problem is that empirical, or verifiable, information about God cannot be demonstrated since He is of a different substance than us.

The closest thing you'll get is, in my opinion, the Shroud of Turin, a relic whose claims of forgery rest on potentially shoddy carbon dating.

>>6921980

Of course I don't because I don't have the burden of proof. If someone makes a claim about reality, they have to demonstrate that it's consistent with reality. It's not up to people who disagree with them to disproof it.

What you just gave was the classic old negative proof fallacy.

Also, if God cannot be demonstrated, how do you know he's of a different substance? Knowing things about something you first declare unknowable tends to be rather hard

>>6921993
Do you intentionally speak in internet meme reasoning language or are you just not particularly intelligent?
Or is this a pasta? Because I've seen this post on almost every forum ever that discussed philosophy ever.

>>6921947

I'm not sure what you mean by "empirical" evidence. The Five Ways, for instance, appeal to generalities accessible through the senses: causation, movement, contingency, qualifications of being, and final causality.

If you mean the kind of evidence one would look for in tracking Bigfoot- i.e., contingent evidence for a contingent being, then clearly you're not even looking for evidence for the existence of God.

>>6919875
and by that you mean metaphysical cop outs

>>6922001

Great retort, I love how you specifically tackle my criticisms and never resort to namecalling

Seriously though, the only way this response could be any worse is if it had the fatty with the hat. That would have fully told me you have nothing to say

>>6922002
>I'm not sure what you mean by "empirical" evidence.

Something that's consistently defined, testable, falsifiable and repeatable.

>>6922022
I wasn't the anon you were talking to, I'm not even a Christian, I just find it funny how your whole reasoning is nothing more than a meme pasta.

>>6922026

None of that counters anything I wrote.

>>6921993
My argument isn't a negative proof because I didn't prove God exists, I just said that there's no empirical evidence for Him, which is true.

If he could be demonstrated, he would have a material reality, in the same way that all other things having that property can be demonstrated. But since He cannot be, which you admit, He must either not exist at all or be of a different substance.

Of course I'm taking the latter argument as my position, but not for the reasons I stated. If you are looking for an empirical proof you won't get it.

I may more appropriately phrase this, giving the unknowable factor I have admitted, as knowing that God DOESN'T have material reality, as opposed to saying I know he is of another substance.

>>6922002
yes but that argument is dumb
you can't go from saying that subsets of the given system need a cause then make the jump to saying the system needs a cause and God doesn't need a cause because he isn't in the system

all of that is literally just finely worded bullshit

>>6922029
No, it just makes you someone I laugh at.

>>6922045
>all of that is literally just finely worded bullshit

Yes, but no Scholastic is making that argument.

>>6922024

Sure, Aquinas's proofs rely on premises that are all of those. There are also metaphysical premises, sure, but there are metaphysical assumptions in every argument, which Aquinas just makes clear.

>>6922065
>Sure, Aquinas's proofs rely on premises that are all of those.

What would falsify them then? And how do you test them?

>>6922093
They're falsifiable only theoretically- in the sense that causality, finite intelligibility, etc. are contingent and might not have existed. A hypothetical observer in a world where only God existed, for instance, would not have anything to refer to as empirical starting points. But all you need for falsifiability is the in-principle thing anyway.

The test for such things is also pretty simple, since they're a precondition for any observation whatever- attempt to observe something, and if you succeed, congratulations, you've undergone movement, experienced contingency, etc.

>>6922118
>They're falsifiable only theoretically- in the sense that causality, finite intelligibility, etc. are contingent and might not have existed.

So in other words, they're not falsifiable

>The test for such things is also pretty simple, since they're a precondition for any observation whatever- attempt to observe something, and if you succeed, congratulations, you've undergone movement, experienced contingency, etc.

Which would prove that time is indeed a matter of fact, yes. Now, how do you get from that to not only an intelligent entity driving all of that, but specifically an entity that choose a group of people to distribute a very specific socio-political message? How would you test that?

I already know that time is a matter of fact, but no one has ever observed the intelligent entity that according to you apparently drives time forward. How would you demonstrate the second part of your claim?

>>6921980
But how do you KNOW he's of a different substance than us? This is what the other guy is getting at, you either assert that he's of a different substance or you just define him to be that way with no evidence for that unique definition.

>>6922145

>So in other words, they're not falsifiable

No, it's falsifiable in principle. Many things are falsifiable in principle but not practically, because we do not have the means to do so, but for all that are not any less falsifiable. Are you familiar with Popper and the philosophy behind the falsifiability criterion?

>Which would prove that time is indeed a matter of fact, yes. Now, how do you get from that to not only an intelligent entity driving all of that, but specifically an entity that choose a group of people to distribute a very specific socio-political message? How would you test that?

Shifting the goalposts. Moral and political philosophy/theology comes way further down the track than the existence of God. What makes God, God, is not the contingent effects of his, but his nature as original and unqualified being. One may derive his existence from the existence of time, change, etc. which logically entails the doctrines of potency and act, the intelligiblity of the world, etc., which entails the existence of God. See the proofs described earlier in this light.

Now, certainly God is not "directly observable" either by the five senses or even by the conceptual faculty, but then, many things aren't directly observable, but their existence is inferred from observation of their effects- atoms, photons, molecules, etc. In God's case, the effect is the world.

>even nothing with that hack even after he got the free will question so obviously wrong(even in his time)

>>6922208
*bothering

>>6922197
>No, it's falsifiable in principle.

And in falsifiability, only practice matters

>Shifting the goalposts.

No, I simply caught you question begging. You went from 'things change' to 'God is doing this' without justifying the leap between these two.

You simply assume this

>In God's case, the effect is the world.

without ever explaining why this cause needs to possess consciousness, intelligence, a moral program, etc. You don't explain that, so it's nothing more than your assertion

>>6922056
That's literally what Aquinas does.

>>6922212

>And in falsifiability, only practice matters

Just plain wrong, here. But to understand why you'd have to understand why the falsifiability criterion is what it is, and I suspect you don't have much more than a cargo-cultist understanding of it. Read Popper.

>No, I simply caught you question begging. You went from 'things change' to 'God is doing this' without justifying the leap between these two.

The arguments have been made elsewhere, so there's no need to go over it again.

>without ever explaining why this cause needs to possess consciousness, intelligence, a moral program, etc. You don't explain that, so it's nothing more than your assertion

Look up in the thread, read the Summa, etc.

>>6922217

Not even close.

>>6922236
I'm not him but none of what you just said was an argument; telling someone to read something before they can argue with you is bullshit and a fallacy; how is he supposed to know you even read it? You have to outline Popper to retort him, not just tell him to read it

also the "this argument has been made before go find it elsewhere" cop out

finishing off with blah blah go read something


all bullshit

>>6922255
This is what he's been doing for the past week at least, he's a troll.

>>6922255
fuck off fedora

reposting from another thread, i cant believe you are criticizing something you havent even heard. The leap from the existance of change to the existance of God is justified many times in Thomistic literature

Lets run through the cosmological argument I suppose.

1. Causation exists.( Empirical Premise)

2. Act and Potency are terms that we can use to explain causation: When something is in Potency it has the capacity to become something something else, but is not it yet. A fertilized egg has the potency to turn into a chick, an unfertilized egg does not. When a potency is realized, it is actual. To actualize a potency is to take property that something had in potency and make it actually inhere in the thing.

2. When we find an instance of causation in the world we find some potency being actualized.

3. Something that is only in potency cannot actualize anything.

4. For some potency to be actualized something actual must actualize it.

5. If A is actualized by B, then B must first be actual.

6. Either something must have actualized B from being in potency to be in actuality. Or B is necessarily actual, having never been in potency before. ( A v B)

7. If the left disjunct “A” is true then premise 7 applies to C, the thing that brought B into actuality.

8. If disjunct “B” is true there is a “first” uncaused cause that is pure actuality.

9. If disjunct “B” is never the case then there is an infinite series of actualizations. With every being having its actuality derived from another being.( B from C, C from D, D from E, etc)

10. If “10” is the case then there can be no actualization, as every being in the series has its actuality derived from another being, but there is no being with actuality on it's own to derive the actuality from.

11. Causation is a matter of actualization potencies. If “10” is the case there is no causation

12. There is causation ( From premise 1)

13. Premise “10” is not the case.

14. If premise 10 is not the case, then at some point in the series premise 9 is the case.

15. There is a first cause, which is a being of pure actuality.

>>6922279
Thanks for this assist. I should just copy this so I don't have to retype the arguments every time someone's fedora begins to tip.

>>6922279
>Act and Potency are terms that we can use to explain causation
We can, but no one does, least of all in physics in 2015 AD.

Besides, none of this bloated ontology and word salad mush entails a deity of any kind even if gave it the benefit of the doubt. Pure actuality could just as well be a bloody tampon.

>>6922236
>Look up in the thread, read the Summa, etc.

I did. At no point do you or does the Summa justify the assertion that this unmoved mover (which is a contradiction in terms, but whatever) needs to possess a conscious will, which apparently includes an entire social and moral program. It's simply never justified, despite the fact that it's probably the most important claim of the entire Five Ways/unmoved mover argument.

All we get is 'things change', which most people would agree with, 'this change forms a chain of causality', which again, unless you're talking about causal loops and stuff like that, most people would agree with, and then out of nowhere, we suddenly get 'and this causality is done by an intelligent being, who prefers a certain branch of a certain way of thinking called religion', which at no point is ever justified. Whenever the third proposition is called into question, Thomists completely dodge this and point towards the first and second propositions, which I didn't ask anything about. It's the same type of diversion when you ask them for empirical evidence. I go "Where's the empirical evidence for all of this?", after which Thomists usually go "Oh, don't worry, there are tons of logical proofs for this", which isn't what I asking for

>>6922279
already bullshit from the first premise

maybe causation existing WITHIN the system is empirical; but extrapolating that the system needs causation is just a bullshit assumption

>>6922279

And of all of these, only the first is empirical. The rest are assertions from the first. I specifically asked for empirical evidence for the other 14.

>>6922296
>no one does it so theyre useless
lel, no.

here, reposting again

1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

2. To lack the power to do something is to have an unactualized potency.

3. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

4. The first cause does not lack the power to do anything.

5. The first cause is omnipotent

1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

2. To lack knowledge of something is to have an unactualized potency.

3. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

4. The first cause does not lack knowledge of anything.

5. The first cause is omniscient.

1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

2. The existence of a being of pure actuality is necessitated by the existence of causation.

3. Ockhams Razor: Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.

4. To posit a second “first cause” would violate Ockham's Razor.

5. There are only grounds to posit one first cause.

1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

2. If there were two first causes then there would be two different causal series.

3. If 2 then either A: There would be a point where the two causal series interacted with one another but would not be able to resolve with each other. Or B: The two causal series are isolated from one another. ( A V B)

4. From uniformity of nature: Disjunct A does not correspond to how our world works. There is a unified causal series, and a single set of underlying laws of nature.

5. Disjunct A is not the case.

6. Disjunct B posits a causal series that is unrelated to the one we experience. The cosmological argument is based on a premise about our empirical experience of causation, which only applies to the causal series that we experience. Disjunct B is not suppurted by the comsological argument.

7. If and only if (A V B), then there can two causal series and 2 first causes, A is false and B is false, so ( A V B) is false and there cannot be 2 first causes.

1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

2. To be purely actual means that no potencies can be actualized in it.

3. The act of the first cause can never benefit it in any way by actualizing a potency.

4. All actions of the first being must be the sake of actualizing potencies in something else.

5. The first cause is omnibenevolent ( only acting for others)

1. There is a first cause who is a being of pure actuality.

2. The laws of nature are contingent and are supporting causes of every instant of causation in the world.

3. The first cause is the ultimate reason for everything in the causal series.

4. Options between two contingent sets requires a choice, as neither set necessarily arises from something that is necessary itself.

5. In actualizing the causal series the first cause must chose between contingent sets of laws of nature.

6. To chose is to have an intellective capacity

7. The first cause has an intellective capacity.

Am I going to hell?

>>6922309
>a thomist resorts to Ockham
My sides.

>>6922302
then there isnt any empirical evidence (the way you would call empirical, that is, testable, etc) for the other 14, which is good, since they are more reliable than that

>>6922309
>4. The first cause does not lack the power to do anything.
What about creating a rock so heavy it can't pick it up?

>>6922322
>he thinks he can dodge proving the soundness of his argument just because it is formally valid

>>6922299

You know, many of us have actually read the exact parts in the Summa which explicitly deal with these questions of the further attributes of God. Since the divine attributes flow logically from God's status as the First Cause, any evidence for a first cause is also evidence for such a God.

1) Intellect: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm

2) Will: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm

3) Natural Law: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2093.htm

>>6922325
omnipotence doesnt entail contradictory scenarios

contradictions like "square circle" and "le big rock" are essentially meaningless, you would be better of in arguing "can God do rigneieijfssir?"

>>6922309
read your replies to your first copy pasted bullshit before posting even more extrapolated bullshit

>>6922176
Let's do away with this sort of dimorphic substance approach (material and immaterial) which I think is being assumed. Suppose there are an infinite number of types of substances and perhaps God is only to be found in one of them.

In this world, the one you and I inhabit, we have sense-experiences. These sense-experiences tell us about the material world because our sensus-communis (that is our 5 senses working in tandem) can interpret matter for us as a sense-impressions.

Touching, smelling, and seeing a rock, for example, gives you a sense-impression of that rock.

So all things which are empirical have the capability of leaving some sort of sense-impression which is necessarily dependant on its corresponding existence in the material world.


If God cannot leave a sense impression on us, then he is not material.

With this argument I have no knowledge of His actual substance, for as I said, there could be many substances beyond the material (which is the only one I have the ability to intuit rationally). We both admit of our limitation to empirical observation, so we at least have that much in common. But I'm the one who realizes that you can't look for God in this manner, and in fact my conviction for God's existence rests on other arguments that I haven't even touched on.

If you accept my argument you must admit it's foolish to ask for empirical proof of God.

A side note: it's a good thing that God is not material, for then He would have limitations by virtue of his being finite. That's an topic for another time though.

>>6922309

I would prove God's uniqueness from his simplicity, really. We avoid having to refer to Ockham that way.

>>6916019
and yet he fails to mention a single one explicitly, funny how that works

>>6922332
>Since the divine attributes flow logically from God's status as the First Cause

Look, how many times do I have to tell you that I specifically ask for empirical evidence? Are you blind or something?

>>6922338
Why not? Didn't he create logic? Why can't he deal with contradictory scenarios? Doesn't he have the power?

>>6922331
if you can think of another way of accounting reliably for change without resorting to/something similar to the theory of act and potency, then post it

>>6922338
So why exactly is the omnipotent creator of everything that exists, the biggest Mary Sue ever conceived, subject to arbitrary rules of reasoning?

>>6922302

If the first assertion is empirically justified, then if the other steps logically follow from the first, they are also empirically justified. To ask for other empirical grounds other than that offered is simply to reject the argument because you don't like where it is going.

>>6922340
>I just proved all arguments for God must be metaphysical cop outs
thanks anon

>>6922350
>metaphysics
>empirical evidence

>>6922354

God isn't limited, it's more a matter of some humans trying to pass of gibberish as an argument.

>>6922356
I think he just wants you to individually empirically justify things that are supposed to be empirically justified by extension

>>6922362
Ladyman would like to have a word with you.
>>6922365
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/limited
>confined within limits; restricted or circumscribed:
So is God subject to logic or not?

>>6922354
Well if you can prove him with human reasoning, he should fit into logical reasoning. Unless ofcourse the counterargument to that is "he's beyond it, you just can't understand god" which, assuming we can't understand God, makes a reasonable proof for God abit silly. Faith>Reason tbh lmao

>>6922358
>if an argument is metaphysical is it is a cop-out

now that would be an interesting proof to see

>>6922350
You got your evidence: the existence of change, contingency, etc. If God's existence logically follows from these, then the existence of such phenomena empirically confirms God's existence. To ask for other empirical grounds is simply to dodge the force of the argument.

Moreover, no empirical argument is bereft of logical linkages to the conclusion, and metaphysical premises. Your allergy to logical demonstration from empirical premises is just embarassing.

>>6922352
>>6922354
God isnt subject to reason, rather, reason is of his nature because of him being intelligible being. Logic is of the nature of God (The Logos, etc)

tbh tho, how can you prove god is real, IF YOU CAN'T *KNOW* NOTHING?

>>6922373

What we can coherently say about God is subject to logic. He's not confined by logic so much as being the very reality which our logic dimly reflects in a limited fashion.

>>6922388
So he could create a rock so heavy he couldn't pick it up?

>>6922378
to be fair, "All metaphysical arguments are cop-outs" is analytic a priori, it doesn't need a proof

>>6922398
as a premise, sure you can't attack it. but he's saying my reasoning led to that conclusion, which is a distortion of my argument.

>>6922395
"So he could lay gord riple fulp?"

again, didnt you learn?

>>6922408
>So he could lay gord riple fulp?
Tell me what "gord riple fulp" means then I could give you an answer.

>>6922417
it doesnt mean anything, that's the point

I'm stupid, does God exist or not?

>>6922423
But "Could X create an object so heavy X coudn't pick it up?" does mean something; I assume you understand what the quoted question is asking?

>>6922424

Yes, he does. Don't worry, stupidity is no intrinsic obstacle to being faithful and inheriting eternal life.

>>6922423
But "a rock so heavy he couldn't pick it up" clearly does, it's not like the sentence isn't grammatically or syntactically explicit.

>>6922430
>>6922433
see >>6922338

>>6922431
>stupidity is no intrinsic obstacle to being faithful
Why state what's already obvious?

>>6922431
what is the correct religion/denomination? What if I choose(i.e guess) the wrong one?

>>6922438
Contradictions are not meaningless, you fucking mongoloid.

>>6922438
I already replied to that. That just bring us round in a circle. Square-Circle=! A rock so heavy it can't be lifted. If god is the creator of everything (including logic and it's rules) then why doesn't he have the power to do things that wouldn't make sense to us mere mortals? Surely you can't place the rules of logic onto an all-powerful being?

>>6922444
the elements may not be, but the sum is.

>>6922449
>I already replied to that
and i did >>6922388

>>6922465
So if he isn't subject to reason, why can't he can't he do something that contradicts?

>>6920012
I have heard this argument of the necessary the divine incarnation and it is interesting (especially since there are many parallels in other traditions, including Islam and of course Indian religions) but you're right that it doesn't quite reach my question. The problem isn't "suffering" in and of itself.

Let us imagine a universe where consumption is not only unnecessary for survival, it is unheard of as an action. In this universe, we can still imagine suffering exists, be it physical or emotional. One can be attacked or hurt by natural phenomena, or one could ruminate over >tfwng, whathaveyou. The problem is that, in our reality, it is /inescapably necessary/ to cause death in others. Unlike suffering, this is a condition that can not be overcome; it can not be rationalized by apatheia, it can not be reasoned as karmic calamity, it can not be forgone for another choice.

If we can imagine a world where this condition is not necessary, and we can indeed imagine it though it is quite different from the reality we experience, what prevented the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient Creator from making this kind of world?

More specifically for Christianity, we might want to ask, in the response to Duns Scotus, what good is it for the Christ to be a pre-conceived salvation /from this life/ if it does not alleviate us of this necessary condition- the condition which, we can accurately state, is the origin of all evil in this world. What good is a possibility of such a life after this one when our life now is truly that of Plato's cave, where, as evidenced here, >>6920030 it is easy for us to overlook even the question of its morality- precisely because it is so necessary? If we could imagine merely being born, for example, was an act of immorality, how could we come to question it without betraying ourselves? Yet, if that was the truth, how would we justify overlooking such a massive crime? Convenience is not convincing.

>>6920030
When you see an ant crawling along your kitchen cabinet, do you see its daily struggle to scrape for whatever morsels of fat and sugar it can manage to find and cart back to its colony? Do you see a thing that thinks and wants, a being with goals and dreams working in its own brain, its unique-to-itself-and-never-again mind? Do you see another poor cousin of Life that shares with you one common ancestor, who is neck-to-neck with you in the march of Life, though along a different path that it also did not choose? Do you give even a second thought as you place the weight of your massive body into your thumb and press it? Don't mistake this for some weak sentimentalism: /that/ is the problem.

Didn't the Jews unconsciously say that eating itself caused the Fall, the separation of thought from Paradise? For pagans, Heaven rewards with unending feasts of meat and wine. Abraham's Heaven says lion sit with lambs, the land flows milk and honey. Yet they blame us for our own condition, not who (they say) made it.

>>6922469
thats not what i said at all

>>6922480
Doesn't he have the power to go against his own nature?

>>6922476
>Do you see a thing that thinks and wants, a being with goals and dreams working in its own brain, its unique-to-itself-and-never-again mind?
No, ants do not think

>>6922441
help I don't want to go to hell(if it exist)

>>6922441
>>6922498
The odds you will are infinite to one, so no need to worry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

>>6922498
Gnosticism B)

>>6922492
Obviously false.

>>6922490
>Can X be not X?
come on now

>>6922498
Hell doesn't exist. It's just an idea that was invented by trolls who knew they could use the idea of hell to control other people's lives.

>>6922513
If God willed it, it could. Right?

>>6922511
if they can think, where are the arguments they made so that i wouldnt squash them?

>>6922513
That's assuming essentialism, which is almost as retarded as christianity. A fat guy can lose weight (become "not-x") so why can't the omnipotent creator of the universe modify logic on a whim?

>mfw this thread

In your face aquinas ya fat fuck

>>6922517
God only wills what is rational

>>6922536
Doesn't he have the power to will what is irrational?

>>6922521
>A fat guy can lose weight
being fat is not a nature, it's an accident

>that there are different thing is retarded

>>6922546
rationality is part of his nature

>>6922560
Doesn't he have the power to go against his nature? Anyway I gtg mate, it's been an enjoyable debate and I hope you all the best in future endeavours, have a good night/day fella :) see ya later fellow fedoras also (i'm technically agnostic but whatever)

>>6922568
No

>>6922302

You're an idiot

>>6922570
Then he isn't all powerful

>>6922594

Great retort

>>6922597
>there is a power for x to be not x

>>6922626
If all is created by God, then powers are created by God. God could make a power for X to not be X as he is the creator of logic, power, and everything.

>>6922041
>My argument isn't a negative proof because I didn't prove God exists, I just said that there's no empirical evidence for Him, which is true.

There's no empirical evidence for mathematics existing, yet almost every physical science relies on mathematics to reach an understanding and interpretation of their respective field. Arguments like this are fucking retarded. Is there physical evidence for language or even this blanket statement you've just made? What you fucking fedoras don't realize is that the whole of reality can only be properly understood through metaphysical means. Language, ideas, thought, logic, math, mind, conscience etc. etc. etc. None of these things have 'empirical evidence', and yet you appeal to them literally every fucking second of every day of your entire fucking lives.

>If he could be demonstrated, he would have a material reality
He has been demonstrated.

>in the same way that all other things having that property can be demonstrated.
Again, things such as mathematics, logic, language, semiotics, etc. are all 'things' which lack properties which can be demonstrated. T hey are pure thought form, existing only on a metaphysical level.

>If you are looking for an empirical proof you won't get it.
Of course not but what's hilarious about this is that you've conceded that God may never have empirical proof but you've already decided that anything that does not have empirical truth doesn't exist (which in this case would mean that your statements don't exist and are meaningless). You started with a conclusion and made no effort or method for examining the conclusion. How illogical and unscientific.

You fedoras are so fucking dense its almost laughable.

>>6922633
youve been ignoring the actual content of my responses, right?

>>6922045


Did you even bother to try and understand the argument or did you just come in here to shitpost?

>>6922476
Why is it inescapably necessary to cause death in others? I could go wander into the desert right now and starve myself to death and this would cause no death to another. I'm sure you could form some sort of utilitarian argument to motivate that kind of action. Surely such a person would suffer from the hungers associated with that action, but since you say that suffering isn't the problem then such a consequence would appear to be beside whatever point you're trying to make.

>If we can imagine a world where this condition is not necessary, and we can indeed imagine it though it is quite different from the reality we experience, what prevented the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient Creator from making this kind of world?

Ok well from my Catholic background the world you described is the prelapsarian world of Adam and Eve with man in perfect harmony with God and nature. Maybe we just need one apocryphal addition: Adam and Even, though they have the choice to eat whatever they want to, decide that they will abstain. Perhaps they are lazy and don't feel like gathering food, or maybe they have hobbies that they would rather spend time on.

I would argue that this world is actually not very different from our own, since we are endowed with this same free-will to pursue what we have willed.

The only difference is that now we have original sin (a result of that capability to choose our ancestors were endowed with) which plagues us at every instance and opens us to suffering regardless of our relationship with God. I remember reading Blaise Pascal and he said that Original Sin is a mystery, but it is something that if we discarded it, life would make less sense since we could not explain our own wretchedness, insignificance, etc.

The conclusion then is that God's love for us calls us to have a two way relationship with Him, where he chooses to love us (which is in fact unconditional on his part) as we choose to love him. If we were merely slaves to God without choice to love Him, there would be no authentic love in such a relationship because it would be based on coercion.

Although I think you bring up an interesting point. Is our suffering on earth just us dwelling in Plato's cave in preparation for heaven, which will be like us stepping outside of the cave?

Maybe it is, but would that mean that theists would have to say that pagans are even farther into the cave than they are?

>>6922641
They've been vague and mysterious, much like the will of Allah

>>6922640
>There's no empirical evidence for mathematics existing
Except, you know, people performing mathematics.

Your comment is like Jaden Smith level retarded.

>>6922654
Typical fedora. Maths exist outside of existence, you can't *prove* it's real.

>>6922654
>Except, you know, people performing mathematics.
well then, people making metaphysics is empirical evidence for metaphysics

Here's one for all you dense fedoras who still aren't getting it. Imagine the most perfect thing possible. (in other words god) now for it to be perfect it has to exist. Therefore god is real.

>>6922678

Just because you can imagine something, that doesn't mean that actually is tangibly in existence.

>>6922678
Are you guys really this stupid?

>>6922661
Oh wait, I know the answer to my question now.

>>6915915
This post is sophistry because it conveniently pretends that memory doesn't exist. In the faculty of the understanding, it would be necessary for universals to exist before sense-impression - that is, if memory of sense-impression was impossible. Thank god it isn't, huh?
I only begin to understand universals with the memory of a particular sense-impression. It is a sense-impression's uniqueness that gives rise to it being memorable. A memory of a sense impression's uniqueness can be assigned words, and then it becomes intelligible as it becomes distinguishable from other impressions. When this impression occurs more than once, it is even more distinguishable. This system of human understanding makes sense because it doesn't throw in universals where mysteries are. I have tasted an orange once. Someone blindfolds me and feeds me oranges, I know I'm eating oranges from the orange once. It's intelligible. I feel my thinking, my assigning of groups of words to sensations-in-themselves and then the memory of them, and I know I am thinking. There is no need for universals.
>God, who is the highest object of reason
This is a particularly bullshit. It doesn't mean anything. Reason and other things-in-themselves, universals, whatever you call them, are personified to fit the structure of language, nothing more.

>>6919875
Honestly reading it makes me feel physically ill at the intentional misunderstandings of reality to fit Christian perspective.

>>6922661
>>6922665

To reinforce my point, people performing mathematics does not change the truth of the equation 2+2=4. Even if there were no intelligent beings to comprehend the equation, it wouldn't negate its truth. It is distinctly and metaphysically true in every case, regardless of if someone can demonstrate it or 'perform' it.

Imagine there is a universe wherein no intelligent life forms exist. In this universe, let's assume there is only (for hypothetical purposes) two suns. The truth of the universe having two suns is not changed by the lack of observing beings or agents, as two is that which is greater than 1 and less than three.

Fedoras why don't you just accept the necessary existence of Goda? What else do you need?

>>6922678
>I'm capable of imagining the most perfect unicorn that ever existed. Therefore that unicorn has to exist.

It baffles me that adults think such nonsense constitutes a valid argument. I've heard school of theology graduates make comments like this and it always make me think that they've wasted years of their lives not learning anything.

>>6922734
>>6922734
But the most perfect thing is God, not a uniform.

>>6922712
I like that last part, but having a hard time completely understanding it; the part about words like "reason"
can you elaborate

>>6922729
Why should we? There's no proof of his existence, the fact that people are Christians now instead of worshiping Zeus or Mithra is a sheer accident, and what's worst of all is that it's blatantly obvious that being religious doesn't make you better person, so why bother? Let's also point out the fact that every monotheistic already has no problem in denying the existence of other religion's deities. For example: Why don't you worship Apollo? I mean, we have historical books from multiple sources outlining Apollo's existence, as well as the activities of other gods associated with Apollo, and these predate your bastardized Jew religion. Why can't you accept that Apollo exists when the evidence is so strong for his existence?

>>6922742
But I can imagine a unicorn that's as perfect as God. If it's not real then how can I imagine a perfect unicorn?

>>6922729

Because the necessity of gods hasn't been adequately demonstrated.

>>6922712
i dont see how you get to "we dont need universals" when your entire post implicitly assumes a universal (i have tasted an orange and i know im eating several oranges because i tasted an orange)

>>6922750
>Trying to equate Monotheistic ideas of omnipotence, emniscience and infinity to archetypal polytheistic characters.
Not even remotely the same buddy.
>No proof he exists
Aquinas and Spinoza immediately.

>>6922734
>>6922750
>>6922752
>>6922770
i like how you dismiss the entire argument posted a few posts ago because it uses "big words" or "muh semantics" yet try to take the rational ground by samefagging an ontological argument.
Its funny :^)

>>6922726
>platonism

>>6922729
i belefe in gouda

>>6922640
>implying I'm a fedora

I think you completely misunderstood my argument.

Just God hasn't been proven in an empirical way doesn't mean I can't believe he exists. In fact I do believe in God, but not because I have empirical proof.

>Again, things such as mathematics, logic, language, semiotics, etc. are all 'things' which lack properties which can be demonstrated. T hey are pure thought form, existing only on a metaphysical level.

I actually agree with you here, but God isn't an idea in the same way mathematics is an idea.

You should refer to my other post which is probably more coherent than the one you responded to.

>>6922340

>>6915915
>particulars have no intelligible being whatever
What?

>>6922776
I could make the same statement while sticking with only the main competing monotheistic religions. And neither Aquinas nor Spinoza offering any compelling evidence for the existence of God.

>>6922825
particulars qua particulars.

Particulars only have intelligible being in reference to universals

>>6922744
The place to start is with Wittgenstein's famous "meaning is use". Philosophical Investigations is really all about this. Essentially this means that any word does not mean anything "in-itself" doesn't mean anything, they only have meaning based on how we use them. Think love. Love means so many things, and people will argue with others all the time whether something is love, or infatuation, or attraction. But the thing people do is they are continually attaching what they feel to the word love. If someone feels what is always called hate and uses the word love to describe it, they are just speaking another language (a shitty useless language, but a language).
Reason, and other universals are queer cases where they make up what can be called "building block impressions". These are impressions that are qualities of many things. But they are only qualities. I use the phrase reason to mean reasonable thinking, something in reality, alone. Now the word exists, though, and with the word existing one makes the mistake of taking it as something aside from reality when all there is reality. The mistake is thinking that reality is a picture of language when it is the opposite. Numbers exist as a product of counting. There is good and bad counting, so there is true and false math, but none of it is real in any sense beyond the mind. A stick can be a meter, but there is no such thing as meters outside of theoretical thinking.

>>6922830
Yes they have, you just are shit at philosophy, go back to youtube and watch the amazing atheist or thundetf00t and circle jerk about science.

>>6922750
>There's no proof of his existence,
False. Just because you can't understand or take the time to bother to at least attempt to follow the arguments of His existence doesn't make the proofs any less vailid.

> the fact that people are Christians now instead of worshiping Zeus or Mithra is a sheer accident
Polytheistic, selfish, limited, and petty gods vs. the omnipotent, omnipresent, prime mover. Are you really this fucking retarded?

>what's worst of all is that it's blatantly obvious that being religious doesn't make you better person.
Who are the Saints? What is the most charitable organization in the history of the world (even into the modern world)? The Catholic fucking church you mongoloid.

>Let's also point out the fact that every monotheistic already has no problem in denying the existence of other religion's deities.
Not necessarily. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe in the same monotheistic God, they simply differ on how God has revealed himself to humanity (you could probably even argue that Hinduism makes the case for a monotheistic Godhead in line with the Aristotelian/Aquianan prime mover. My guess is you don't know jack shit about religion and are just spouting r/atheism memes).

>Why don't you worship Apollo?
Because Apollo doesn't hold the properties as the Prime Mover and the ultimate source of reality.

>we have historical books from multiple sources outlining Apollo's existence
And which books would these be? Are you referring to works like The Iliad and other Ancient poetic or dramtic texts?

>and these predate your bastardized Jew religion
Top Kek. /pol/tard spotted.

>Why can't you accept that Apollo exists when the evidence is so strong for his existence?
Because Apollo doesn't have the properties of the Prime Mover....

>MFW this is bait and I took it.

>>6922772
How in the world is having tasted an orange a universal? I'm identifying one separate sensation with another and assign a word to the quality of the sensation? This has nothing to do with any theological universals.

>>6922833
That's a two-way street.

Categorical knowledge asserts that a specific thing in a category shares some traits with everything else in that same category. Only from this, we know something of all things in a category. This applies even to things that are only hypothetical.

I could just as well say that understanding is grounded in exposure to particulars.

>>6922726
>The truth of the universe having two suns
But what is truth? Is it a picture of reality? Because the only accurate picture of reality would be reality itself. Truth, the way one uses it, is an accurate simplification of reality into language. This is only possible with humans.
One person uses truth to mean accurate human understanding, and another uses it to mean reality itself. At a certain point it is indistinguishable which one means and confuses thinks of it as the same rather than a homonym.

>>6922869
by tasting an orange you have identified what an orange is. And that allows you to say "this is an orange, that is an orange, that isnt an orange".

You have grasped the universal by reference to a particular

>>6922880
>I could just as well say that understanding is grounded in exposure to particulars.
but we do understand by being exposed to particulars, but understanding requires "taking" the universal from the particular.

>>6922862
Yahweh:
>banished humanity from paradise for learning the difference between good and evil rather than obedience
>destroyed humanity with flood because it was "wicked", thinking the solution to evil is evil
>had to be persuaded multiple times by Moshe to not smite all the Israelites when he gave them no hope and they turned to false gods
Jesus Christ:
>performs earthly miracles
>best one was coming back from the dead
>is literally a person

You are worshiping more than an omnipotent omnipresent prime mover.

>>6922887
>This is only possible with humans.

While I agree with most of your post, I don't agree with this. Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're essentially saying that truth could only be understood through language. Language exists to reveal truth, not the other way around. What you've essentially done is say that Language is the ultimate truth and since humans are the only beings that are capable of language then truth doesn't exist outside of humanity.

>>6922646
>Why is it inescapably necessary to cause death in others? I could go wander into the desert right now and starve myself to death and this would cause no death to another.
To reach this choice, you would already have had to eat plethora of organisms and you would have done so, undoubtedly, without having really thought about it, because you must do so. But that's not the point: I'm not saying that life is not worth living, that we could or should just choose to kill ourselves and be done with it, but that "to live at all" means exactly "to kill, to take from other organisms their own lives". I'm just describing the world as it is and how this state of being brings up difficult questions regarding what some of us think about God.

>The only difference is that now we have original sin (a result of that capability to choose our ancestors were endowed with) which plagues us at every instance and opens us to suffering regardless of our relationship with God. I remember reading Blaise Pascal and he said that Original Sin is a mystery, but it is something that if we discarded it, life would make less sense since we could not explain our own wretchedness, insignificance, etc.
Pascal isn't entirely wrong, but he intentionally overlooks the rather obvious conclusion that can be drawn from this mystery: that we are not the products of any God at all, or else this God that has produced us is not good, or that this God does not love, or that this God is limited in some fundamental capacity or possibly absent all-together. Our natural wretchedness is not adequately explained by the orthodox Christian God, which is exactly why the Genesis myth exists. The pagan gods made man weak and mortal for their own wretched pleasure, their own weakness, but the One God is supposed to have made Mankind out of his love, but limited them, and then made their progeny take on their consequence. They are both rationalizations, but neither is really adequate. Perhaps they are true, but they make both their projects (their religions) unworthy.

>If we were merely slaves to God without choice to love Him, there would be no authentic love in such a relationship because it would be based on coercion.
But we are not "free" to make this choice. The drive for survival, which is given to us by God, necessarily leads to evil. If Mankind did not /need to lack and to fill this lack/ we could properly place all wrongful actions at the feet of those that committed them, individually. If we are all guilty it is because we were given no option but to be guilty. For God to demand love for himself from those he made inadequate is highly suspect.

>>6922895
My point is that an object is grasped by it's qualities and it's qualities are grasped by the common memory of a unique sensory reaction. What is your point? That the qualities are universal? What I'm trying to say is that a quality is a description of a common sense-impression, not a universal.

>>6922918

Why the fuck are you on a literature board if you don't know how the fuck to read and interpret texts accurately?

>banished humanity from paradise for learning the difference between good and evil rather than obedience
Implying the Fall was about learning the difference between good and evil rather than bringing evil into the world.
Implying the Fall was about obedience vs. disobedience.

>destroyed humanity with flood because it was "wicked", thinking the solution to evil is evil
Implying God can commit evil acts. You have no understanding of what evil is and clearly have no background or understanding in Eschatology.

>had to be persuaded multiple times by Moshe to not smite all the Israelites when he gave them no hope and they turned to false gods
Brings them out of slavery. Grants them independence. Promises them a promised land. They turn their back on Him and basically said "Fuck you. We pagan now nigga".

if Aquinas was right, why are there so many intellectuals going atheist?

>>6922939
>What I'm trying to say is that a quality is a description of a common sense-impression, not a universal.
This. Every thomist tard in this thread who tries to invoke things into existence via language games needs to read Sellars.

>>6922923
I'm not saying anything about what truth is, because it isn't anything in particular, it has multiple particular meanings. A particular meaning is reality. Another particular meaning is accurate human understanding. I think in trying to make a universal of the word, the two are falsely bridged, and you are misunderstanding me because you at this point it's still hard to let go of the bridge.
I shouldn't have said human, really the most accurate word would have been Dasein.

>>6922939
what makes the object intelligible?

>>6922950
Because libcuck propaganda that religion is bad.

>>6922952
Typical fedora

>>6922934
Stop reading Dawkins and Harris. Pick up real philosophy and theology and the you'll understand. Or wait till you graduate high school.

Fuck I wish I could just believe in God or anything without proof. Science bullshit really skewed me.

>>6922997
There are many great philosophical proofs of god kid.

>>6922997
You don't need 'proof' for God kid, merely having faith is enough. Don't listen to all these thomists who need to prove God to have faith, just have faith.

>>6922998
It's not like I'm capable of refuting them properly, but they just fucking feel worthless without some sort of physical proof.

I'm literally asking for God to appear in front of me and letting me know he's there, fucking hell would that solve a lot of issues in my and everyone's life, after the initial chaos that is.

as /x/ likes to say, I want to believe

>>6922913
OK, then.

>>6922953
can you red pill me with some recommended reading; you mentioned Wittgenstein's tractatus earlier, if I recall. doesn't he edit himself in Investigations? and could I start with Wittgenstein or should I go through the entire chronology of western philosophy starting with the Greeks

>>6922948
This is barely worth responding to, because it's dead set on the hermeneutics of Christianity. But the tree is literally called "וְעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע" which means "tree of knowledge of good and evil. What else could the tree do to humans other than tell them good and evil? If it were that only through eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that evil could come into the world, the reverse would be true and only good could come into the world. Inconveniently for that thought, "וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב".

If there was no knowledge of good and evil before the fall, or knowledge of it, the only thing god could expect the humans to obey him based on is obedience.

>Implying God can commit evil acts. You have no understanding of what evil is and clearly have no background or understanding in Eschatology.
What I meant by evil is with hatred and destruction. Hatred and destruction are the worst answers to wickedness; with this knowledge the church would have been tenfold more successful and beneficial.

>Brings them out of slavery. Grants them independence. Promises them a promised land. They turn their back on Him and basically said "Fuck you. We pagan now nigga".
Nice nice, leaving out the part were they're worse off in the desert with their human leader, the only one who talked to god, presumably dead.

>>6923008
Just read the Empiricists mate; you need a MOTHERFUCKIN LEAP OF FAITH to believe anything, so if God feels right to you, go for it

>>6922704

>he's not a modal realist

>>6923022
Even Lewis had the decency to keep his daydreams spaciotemporally and causally isolated from the actual world. He came up with his thesis for methodological reasons, not because of divine revelation which then needs rationalizations.

>>6923030
>even Lewis
Lewis at least*

>>6923030

>As a metaphysically possible entity God exists in at least one world
>As a necessary being God must exist in all worlds
>If God exists in all worlds he exists in our world
>God exists
>yfw

>>6923016
I mentioned the investigations. He did edit himself, true. I'd be lying if I said I'd read either in full (by proposition 3 I was way too fucking confused), but between the summaries and fragments I have read, what I gather is that his view on language changed from the picture theory of language to "meaning is use", which sound like exactly what they mean.
Plato's forms is essentially the opposite of late Wittgenstein, and in The Wanderer and His Shadow Nietzsche says stuff similar to late Wittgenstein. But aside from his logical atomism (atomic facts being 'indivisible facts", the opposite of Hegel absolutism, thinking of the totality o all things), which was inherited from other analytic philosophers, Wittgenstein is mostly original and not responding to other philosophers. Most of his terminology isn't too confusing.

You should read other philosophy because it is interesting and reading some before him will put you in the mindset to read him, but to read him you don't really need anything but hard work. Tractatus and PI are hard only because they are deep, not because of any references outside of them. One should probably take a class on Wittgenstein to get him, and should take a Philosophy 101 before that.

On Certainty is a good intelligible Wittgenstein writing.

>>6923021
I thought about often doing things based on faith alone, but later realized it's all more of a calculated guess, statistical intuition, probability, you name it.

Even if I did things based on faith, the issue of God existence seems just too big of a deal to go just with gut feeling, it begs for a well thought out decision and those are made with hard science approach.

All arguments and proofs always have criticism section. It's all uncertainty.
The closest thing you get to criticism in case of shit like Kirchhoff's circuit laws or fucking law of gravity are some minor notation things or well defined limitations, while all the theological shit can just get dismissed entirely with some mental gymnastics.
I hope we could just do even more of it, with math, and solve this issue once and for all.

See? I can't believe, I just can't, it's like my brain just won't let me believe in stuff, I either know something's real or will forever doubt it unless proven otherwise. And this is far from healthy skepticism, it's fucking ruining me and it's creeping into every important aspect of my emotional well being.

>>6923048
I'm a modal fictionalist but I'll grant you the argument.
>As a metaphysically possible entity God exists in at least one world
Inherently contradictory entities are not possible.
>As a necessary being God must exist in all worlds
We have nothing to back up God's necessity and his existence in any world is denied by his contradictory nature.

Besides, things can't be metaphysically possible (exists in some _but not all_ possible worlds) and necessary (exists in all possible worlds) at the same time.

>>6922959
What do you mean by intelligible? Knowing it's existence? Like I said, the senses.

>>6923067
Why do you need to believe in God?

>>6923068
God isnt inherently contradictory

>>6923095
It is.
http://www.philosophyoflife.org/jpl201309.pdf
The main argument from the paper:
(1)There exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally good Creator (a ‘true
God’).
(2)Beings who suffer have been caused to exist.
(3)A true God meets any requirement entailed by benevolence.
(4)Benevolence requires that harm be avoided unless its avoidance implies
greater harm or deprivation of benefits that outweigh the avoided harm.
(5)The never-existent cannot be deprived.
(6)The falsity of (2) avoids harm.
(7)The falsity of (2) entails no harm discouraged by benevolence, nor any
deprivation of benefits (from (5)).
(8)A true God could have caused (2) to be false (from (1)).
(9)Benevolence requires that (2) be false (from (4), (6), and (7)).

>>6923075
Life is getting more and more unbearable, aimless, worthless, boring, meaningless with each year.
Nothing's fun anymore.

>>6923113
Why do you need an external source to fix all these? IT is up to you fix them and you alone.

>>6923068
>Besides, things can't be metaphysically possible (exists in some _but not all_ possible worlds) and necessary (exists in all possible worlds) at the same time.

an existential quantifier means at least one, or one or more. It doesn't mean not all. Possibility is a prerequisite of necessity

Which of God's attributes are internally contradictory?

>>6923101
>Problem of evil.
How is philosophy 101 going?

apparently having fulfilling relationships, hobbies and financial comfort isn't enough to be happy

probably because I will day anyway and there's no afterlife

holy shit do I sound like going through babby's first nihilism period, I can't help it though and taking antidepressants... I don't know man.

>>6922934
I'm actually a vegan and I only eat other plants/fungi. And although I wasn't one for the majority of my life, it's certainly possible that I could have been. Would a life-time vegan be exempt from your weird consideration, or does killing plants count too? I'm not quite sure why harming other organisms is bad for you.

Sure, most theists will admit the possibility of God not existing, which could, I suppose, follow from the realization of our own wretchedness (even if I believe the opposite conclusion is more likely). However, our wretchedness isn't measured by how much we are vulnerable to sin, it's measured by how insignificant we are compared to God.

This is no weakness, for the human being is limitless in potential insofar as he much as he freely gives himself to the creator who surpasses him infinitely.

I think you overplay the "drive for survival." Surely some of our instincts resemble our animal cousins, but we were endowed with the dignity to overcome them through choice.

Why have so many vowed to celibacy if it goes against their instinct? Are all these people flawed? Not everyone is on a search for power and influence.

>>6923113
tbh a god wouldn't really change that; there are very many routes you could try out however (I say this because I know a book or life-view won't cure existential depression)

Way A: Set Goals to complete (stops boredom). You could decide to read through the philosophers (and get good perspective on the way); you could get into a hobby (social one preferably); or get a job (although the actual work isn't enjoyable, it's better than nothing plus you get to socialise)

Way B: Get into the East. Wanna know how they dealt with the meaningless void of existence? They chilled the fuck out. Mindfulness in Plain English is a good intro to more secular Buddhism/Meditation.

Way C: Get Hedonistic. Not in the get pissed every night and have orgies. But aim to increase your happiness and have that as your purpose , read Lucretius - On the Nature of Things for a good book on Epicureanism and how to deal with the futility of existence.

Way D: Get into Dank Memes.

Obviously these might not work for ya, i'm no Guru. But it's worth trying different shit out and seeing what works for ya. Good luck buddy, hope you find Eudaimonia

>>6923138
I like how you dodged addressing the argument.

>>6923154
I like how you expect people here to discuss overly talked about baby philosophy

Reminder that a fat cunt should not be taking seriously regarding Christianity.

They're always looking for loopholes to be undisciplined.

Fat people are habitual and unrepentant sinners.

>>6923151
east worked for few years
same for hedonism
memes? not as cool as they used to be

I guess way A is next for me to try, I guess I shouldn't have stopped on staying fit, having enough money not to be stressed about making it to another payday, good relationships and stuff to do in free time

Yeah doesn't sound very optimistic of me.

>>6923154
the truth is that suffering may be pointless, but that doesn't make it bad. if you make it your life's goal to reduce suffering, you will actually suffer the greatest because the smallest sufferings become magnetized to the point that suffering becomes the very core of your being.

this already is the reality for alot of people and you will meet them often if you leave your room and have human interactions

I'm too stupid for this all this philosophy, how do I avoid hell? Will god get mad if I join the wrong religion even if I live a good life?

>>6923176

>>6923184
well if you avoid one hell you enter another lmao

>>6923101
the argument rests on utilitarian views of morality, existence and the like
they beg the question against the thomist

>>6923101
>God
>Benevolent
If you are arguing against the Christian God specifically I understand, but there is no reason to assume God is benevolent from a purely ontological perspective. God created beings who suffer (and it follows, suffering itself) because it was in his scope to do so -or- not outside of his infinitude.

>>6922830
Try reading them. Spinoza clearly demonstrated in his Ethics a necessary God "sive natura."

>>6923196
No, it only rests on the common usage of the word benevolence, you're going to have a hard time denying the rest. Some arguments have been made for morally sufficient reasons for the act of creation despite the overall inhospitality of the planet/universe as a whole to humans but none of them are convincing, really. I'd like to hear yours.

>>6923188
no because the whole point of the argument is that evil (in the form of suffering) shouldn't exist which is not true.

4)Benevolence requires that harm be avoided unless its avoidance implies
greater harm or deprivation of benefits that outweigh the avoided harm.

that is the specific part I am attacking

if you wanna be an epicurean be my guest lucretius

>>6923142
>killing plants isnt death


celibacy for contemplating the divine fulfills our nature. Sacrificing lower goods for higher goods is ok

>>6923222
>which is not true
Why?
>that is the specific part I am attacking
How? That's literally what the word means and entails.

>>6923231
to be fair you can get stuff from plants without killing them, but I see your point.

but doesn't celibacy contradict the evolutionary standpoint?

A materialist wouldn't consider divine contemplation a higher good, because it would be pointless.

>>6923101

Premises 3 and 4 are where the argument falls apart. It's defining benevolence as a requirement to avoid harm, which isn't how benevolence is properly used. Benevolence is more appropriately defined as charity or good will. It does not equate to necessity to do good. God can sincerely want to extend charity or good will (Incarnation, Salvation, etc.) but he may be forced to hold back for many reasons (free will, consequence of sin, etc.).

Also, the argument assumes suffering is inherently bad or evil, which is patently false. Suffering may be uncomfortable and terrible, but that doesn't equate to a thing being inherently evil. Take, for example, a person recovering from a serious accident or injury; the recovery process may produce extreme suffering (pain, emotional trauma, psychological stress) but the end result (Health) may be good.

Also,
>Implying Evil isn't simply the corruption of the Good
>Implying Evil can exist without the Good.

This anon >>6923138 said it best. You've got a lot to learn kid.

>>6923151
Why choose? All of these are useful to know on the path to life. Although, I will contest A in its meaning; life is not setting goals to reduce boredom or make a bucket list, instead you should always attempt to be growing. Outword, inward, up to heaven our down to earth, to grow is to live.

/Nietzsche

>>6923220
that you think benevolence is making 24/7 disneyland doesnt mean it is.

to be good or all loving is to will for the good of another, but to be good is to be more actual, and to be actual is to "be".

your paper essentially says that because not existing doesnt have any consequences, it is better than existing. this begs the question

>>6923240
you can get meat without killing too though

nobody is arguing for an evolutionary standpoint, we can know what is good for us without knowing evolution

>>6923240
Evolutionary standpoint is for people who dont fully understand evolution and assume natural fallacy.

Materialists are laughably sad.

>>6923232
Because harm and suffering are different things for theists. Harm is something done to your soul on account of sin, suffering is something material like pain or emotional like anguish. Your soul could be perfectly fine in these circumstances.

Suffering is something we can overcome, sure, but doing so does not entail stupefying yourself to the reality of your own suffering.

In fact in the first part of De Rerum Natura Lucretius says that the person suffers least who sees other people suffering because he knows from what ills he is free. If we had no such comparison, he would not be able to stupefy himself to the other personal sufferings he no doubt has. But to inwardly look on your suffering is to discover that it is something ever present, and the way to deal with it is not by self-pity.

Hopefully whatever I said made sense, but I don't think I'm gonna post in this thread until much later if I do at all.

>>6921592

As for big names in Analytic Philosophy, Peter Geach and G.E.M Anscombe come to mind. But in general, just about every worthwhile Philosophy department has an expert in Medieval Philosophy, Aquinas especially has become huge in comparison to 100 years ago. In the last 5-10 years especially experts in Medieval Philosophy is becoming more and more sought after in Philosophy departments.

>>6922045
Please actually read the argument before commenting. You are repeating the generic cosmological argument they teach in Philosophy of Religion, Aquinas' cosmological argument is not the same thing, and has nothing to do with "the principle of sufficient reason" that everything needs a cause. It's about the act/potency distinction and what must be the case for causation to be a generic and consistent feature of reality.

>>6922300
Did you even bother to read the argument? It shows that if we have instances of causation at all that there must be a being of pure actuality that acts as a first cause. There is no extrapolating that because there is a series of causation that the series itself needs a cause. In this case God is the first cause so he is in the series, and is uncaused. So the series as a whole is not even being considered here.

>>6922317
This is the anon who originally posted the proof. I'm actually a Scotist, with a heavy appreciation for other Scholastics and Islamic philosophers.

>>6922325
1. Left Disjunct: God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it.
2. Therefore it is possible for God's power to be limited by his own act.
3. God is not omnipotent.
2. Right Disjunct: God cannot create a rock so heavy he can lift it.
3. Therefore God is so powerful that not even the most powerful being can negate his power.
3. God is omnipotent.

The trick is remembering that such an act entails a limitation of God's power, which negates omnipotence. Being an act that negates God's power means that it cannot be used as a standard of God's power.

There is also the linguistic argument, that asking in an omnipotent being can do an act that negates his power is the equivalent to saying " can A be not -A" the answer is no because terminologically the two are contradictory and when taken as a conjunction cannot reference anything, it is just a linguistic error.

>>6922350
>>6922302

You do realize that even in the Sciences we often take empirical conditions and then reason our way from them to our explanations. It's not like anything has seen the Big Bang, most of us have not actually been to a star to observe it up close, etc. You act as if everything in Theology needs to be like Christopher Columbus getting on his boat and landing in the Americas. It's an incredibly narrow criteria, and I fail to see why we should conform to it. In this case we start from an empirical premise and don't add on anything that is not necessary from that premise. If the empirical premise is true than everything else follows logically.

Why are atheist such shit philosophers?

>>6923506
Cheers for the reply to my rock question from earlier without being vague. I'm a angosti-fedori myself (I'm not hostile to the idea of Pure Actuality as the first cause, I just think the argument is more based on logic rather than natural order which is more contingent. Tl;dr: I think when it comes to God it should be more based on faith rather than logic)

You seem knowledgeable on the subject, so could you tell me what works I should read of Duns Scotus and Ockham to get the gist of their phil/theology? Also, should I read Boethius or Augustine first? Cheers in advance my presumably Christian friend.

>>6923506

>You do realize that even in the Sciences we often take empirical conditions and then reason our way from them to our explanations

No, sorry, we really don't. In science, we form hypotheses and then we try to prove them wrong. The main program in science today is skeptical, subtractive empiricism. At no point do we take empirical data and then 'reason our way from them to our explanations'. Science works mostly by falsification, not by verification

>>6922449

Logic is based on God, not the other way around. Logic is just our means of moving past Gods Potentia Ordinatio( natural contingencies like the existence of Gravity, etc) to his Potentia Absolutia ( his absolute power).

>>6922521
But it's been established that God is pure actuality, meaning he doesn't change. He has one eternal act that stretches out over all of time and space. You are assuming that logic is a set of "rules" like natural laws are, they are necessary, like God ( as they are part of God in a sense) not contingent and changeable like natural laws are.

>>6922633
God did not create logic, logic is a part of God, not something derived from him.

>>6922712
This explains the process of how WE come to universals as concepts. But it doesn't touch the fact that basic sense impressions need the universals first to be intelligible in the first place. To have any sort of understanding of a sense impression you need basic relational universals like size, shape, sound, colour, and differentiate those elements from your experience so to come anything. We do this before we have words for those things.

>>6922950
These days its the opposite. It's really been since Second Vatican when Scholasticism was mostly abandoned that intellectuals have been going Atheist. With the return of Scholasticism comes more intelligent Christians.

>>6923007
"The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated."

-Thomas Aquinas

>>6923610
What logic did God make? Aristotlean or Fregian?

>>6923601
What exactly do you think "forming a hypothesis" means...?

>>6923633
Are you just ignoring what he said? God didn't "make" logic, that's his whole point.

>>6923646
Which one is God then? Or does he use indian Logic?

In order to demonstrate the statement of faith that we formulate about God, what we would need for the central concept is a simple cognition of the divine nature in itself—what someone who sees God has. Nevertheless, we cannot have this kind of cognition in our present state.

>>6923601

That's just using indirect proofs rather than a direct ones. You show that you have the best hypothesis by showing that every attempt to make it wrong fails. This is exactly what Aquinas does with many of the articles of faith, interestingly enough.

>>6923591
Cheers! There is nothing wrong with an individual holding the religion on faith on of course. I'm a heretical Catholic. I love the mummified saint's heads, the rigorous theology, the memory of the crusades and brilliant Catholic art and culture, but I am unbaptized and still trying to come to terms with some of the moral and social aspects of the faith ( I got bit by Nietzsche early on in life and am still recovering).

With Scotus and Ockham there is allot to get through. One book I recommend is "Basic Issues in Medieval Philosophy" by Bosley and Tweedale. It is an anthology that covers allot of the most important questions of the period through many authors. You can get a very good picture of what Scotus and Ockham were about from it. They have 14 sections from Scotus, and 20 from Ockham. It also has a great glossary for terminology and small introductory paragraphs to the texts involved.

For Scotus, most of his final thoughts on any subject will be in his Ordinatio, the problem is that I can't find the full thing in English. His De Primo Principio has an english translation by Evan Roche that I find to be translated in a difficult way and is not recommended, especially in comparison to the clarilty of Tweedale and Bosley's translation of the Ordinatio stuff.Ockham's 'Predestination, God's Foreknowledge, and Future Contingents' is translated, and is a seminal work.

Starting with Augustine or Boethius first would be fine, though Augustine is a prior authority to him, so he may be better to read first.

>>6923641

Hypotheses seldom come about by the type of deductive reasoning you think creayes them. Theories are created out of practice, not the other way around. Most of it involves adventurers using trail and error, usually without any understanding of why something works the way in works. In some extreme cases, such as in medicine, discoveries are pure dumb luck. For instance, chemotherapy partly came about when an American ship carrying mustard gas was bombed in Italy in 1942. This was a lucky hit, not predicted by anyone. It certainly didn't involve any structured 'reasoning' by 'experts', yet it contributed to medicine

>>6923704
Cheers my christian friend; if you ever need a fedora, just ask ;)

>>6923704

>That's just using indirect proofs rather than a direct ones.

No, that's using an artificial conceptual world instead of the real world. You'll be surprised how little in common these two have, as conceptual worlds allow thinkers to manipulate a lot of parameters, something that isn't possible in the real world.

This is why the real world is always preferred over conceptual worlds.

>>6923738

> Conceptual world

No one but you have said anything about a "conceptual world" other than you. I see no reason to admit of such a thing in this case Yes, we use linguistic concepts to express what is going on in reality, does Science use no concepts what so ever, no linguistic models ? It most certainly does. Science is based on natural contingencies, all it has are models. So why is it's concepts and models afforded special status as opposed to the ones we are using ? You would have to show how our concepts are actually less applicable to reality than the concepts you want to see utilized instead. Your bifurcation between a supposedly "real world" that Science deals with, and a "conceptual world" that metaphysics deals with is totally artificial, and has yet to be justified.

>>6923799

>You would have to show how our concepts are actually less applicable to reality than the concepts you want to see utilized instead.

That's very easy. Writing down the dynamics of gravity is done in a conceptual world. Building a rocket and going to the moon happens in the real world. If the real world says no to something, it doesn't matter how many proofs you write that prove the affirmative, it's still no

So has God be proven to exist or not?

>>6915713
Contacting the authorities to have him thrown in jail for heresy.

>>6923836

Yeah, hundreds of years ago.

>>6915767
Sophists are often better philosophers than whatever dummy you think is the "true philosopher"

>>6915914
No, you can't examine the intellect without the external world.

>>6923836
You can't 'prove' God. We must have faith in him. Natural order even in unbroken regularities is contingent; we must await heaven before we can 'prove' God.

>>6923865
Then why bother with all of the philosophical hackery?

>>6923883
Cause people like to prove things to justify their faith; faith is all you need however. We cannot observe God as we are right now (on earth, not heaven) therefore we can't prove he's real. We also cannot prove phenomena is 'real' but that does not mean we can't have faith in it.

>>6915914
Hegel makes a similar point, doesn't he?

>>6923898
You can't justify faith, bozo.

>>6923865
>>6923898
this is why you skip Ockham

>>6923898
Fideism is heresy.

>>6923964
>implying yahweh aka 'mr. demiurge' is worthy of worship at all

>>6923975

>Muh gnostic conspiracy theories

>>6923987
>he hasn't been close to the perfect form

>>6915730
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

>>6924017
Prove it

>>6923834

So how does the real world say "no" to Aquinas' argument ?

>>6924069
No observational evidence for one.

>>6924069
The same way the say no to the immaterialist arguments of Bishop Berkley

>>6923240
>but doesn't celibacy contradict the evolutionary standpoint?
Evolution doesn't say 'everything that does not reproduce is wrong'. It's merely 'organisms that don't reproduce don't reproduce'. If you look at wolves you don't say they 'contradict the evolutionary standpoint' because only the alpha gets to breed. There is nothing wrong with not procreating.

From a genetic point of view having celibate people or fags around has been speculated to be an advantage I believe. Larger adult to child ratio leads for better care and protection in the tribe and all.

>>6924173
berkeley was just working within one extreme of the modern worldview, materialism is the other extreme, and it's not any better

>>6923905
Not him, but that goes for faith in everything, not merely God. The alternative to faith is going full Pyrrho, and even then it could be argued that he relied on faith in a practical sense when navigating phenomena and such.

>>6924204
my point was more about how both of them come to conclusions that are hard to disprove but are none the less not motivating or influential.

>>6924308
who is them?

Berkeley isnt on the same level as Aquinas

>>6924080

So there is no observational evidence of causation existing in the world ? Because everything else in the argument follows as a necessary condition of that. It is either the case that our experience of causation is false, and therefore your principle of empiricism is false, or Aquinas' argument holds and your argument fails.

>>6924173
That's not an answer.

>>6924308
Ok but you have to actually demonstrate what is wrong with it. Or make an argument for your principle of empiricism so we have reason to buy into it. Your principle must fail though.

1. Your principle is that: Only that which has empirical and directly observational evidence for it can be said to be true.
2. There is no direct observationable evidence that can show that: "Only that which has empirical and directly observational evidence for it can be said to be true".
3. If we assume that the principle that " Only that which has empirical and directly observational evidence for it can be said to be true" is true, then the principle itself is false.

>>6923142
You're missing the point entirely. The problem is with a God that /could have/ made a different world but intentionally didn't. A god that /saw it absolutely necessary/ in its /infinite possibilities of design/ to make living creatures that /needed/ to kill each other just to stay alive.

>>6924555
no you're missing the point because i said he did make that world that you described, but it was our denial of that world that led us to the reality we now face

>>6924922
>our
I didn't choose anything, and neither did you. How does this God with its omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence hold a mistake he built into the machine determine the rest of our conditions? It's literally unbelievable. You can't believe it.

>>6924415
Berkeleys point was that

>We perceive ordinary objects
>We perceive only ideas
>Ordinary objects are ideas.

I dont recall him making the argument you are outlining.

>>6925043
no man is an island my friend

the failures of the human race belong to all of us as do the successes

>>6923506
uh, read my comment. I understand the argument just fine.. but the causation argument eventually goes back to the universe.. the whole system; going from saying causation in the system exists to saying causation of the system exists is an unfounded assumption; it's complete fucking bullshit you retard

>>6925303

Any complex system depends for its existence upon its parts, hence manifestly has a cause.

>>6925303

You are showing that you clearly haven't read the argument, or just really don't understand it. The argument shows first that if there is a causal order, it must terminate in something uncaused, unchanging, and ultimately with all the properties of the Christian God. The second part has a few additions to how Aquinas does it, but they don't contradict anything he said in his argument, which I faithfully demonstrated in the first part.

>>6922279
>>6922309

Now you are saying " but why assume that just because there is causation in the universe, that the universe had to be caused?" This is because if there is some sort of instance of causation or change there has to be a first cause which is uncaused and unchanging that ultimately accounts for it. That is what the argument establishes. If you want to say that " the universe" is this first cause, and hence is uncaused, then you have to be committed to the idea that the universe is unchanging, just as the first cause has been demonstrated to be by the argument. Now for one thing, science tells us that the universe was itself caused and has gone through change, the Big Bang established it's coming to be as it is now from what it was before. But more importantly,"The Universe" is just the collection of things within the causal order anyways, if a child is born, something is added to the universe and the universe has changed, any change what so ever within the universe means that the universe has changed in some way. If the universe has changed then it is not the first cause that was proved to have to exist for any causation to happen in the first place, as such a first cause is unchanging. Therefore any instance of causation in the universe proves that the universe itself cannot be the first cause and that causation of the universe exists.

>>6925126
I'm still not entirely sure how Berkely is relevant to this thread.

>>6925570

I'll spell out one thing before I go. You may ask " why does being the first cause imply that it is unchanging", this is because to change requires that some potency be actualized. A being that is purely actual has no potency to be actualized and hence cannot change. This is why God is eternal, something I forgot to mention in part 2.