Is he really irrefutable?

[Anonymous No.19945695]

Are the arguments presented in the Summa really impossible to refute?
I've read scripture from several religions but have always remained an agnostic because nothing has ever made me feel compelled to believe in any man-made, organized religion.
But then I read this thread yesterday >>19937644 and saw some guy systematically dismantle every single counter-argument against Christianity.
Now, despite strongly disliking Christianity and everything it stands for, I find myself actually entertaining the possibility that it could be true.
Could I get some help here? I need some kind of wake up call.

[Anonymous No.19945702]

>>19945695
>Are the arguments presented in the Summa really impossible to refute?
No.
>saw some guy systematically dismantle every single counter-argument
The guy who thought Hilbert's Hotel is a paradox, that it's impossible for an infinite physical thing to exist despite his homeboy Aquinas literally thinking the exact opposite, the guy who unironically believes that the resurrection is the best explanation for Christianity instead of natural phenomena which we know happen in exactly those circumstances, that guy?

[Anonymous No.19945736]

>>19945695
>Are the arguments presented in the Summa really impossible to refute?
Not if your IQ is at least 105. There are currently no paths to God through reason for someone with an IQ of at least 105, let alone the Christian God.
There's only gnosis and the hope that the experience is compelling enough to escape mundane explanations, which I find hard to believe.

[Anonymous No.19945803]

>>19945695
>Is he really irrefutable?
Kinda, it's just common sense. Read Chesterton:
>Against all this the philosophy of St. Thomas stands founded on the universal common conviction that eggs are eggs. The Hegelian may say that an egg is really a hen, because it is a part of an endless process of Becoming; the Berkeleian may hold that poached eggs only exist as a dream exists; since it is quite as easy to call the dream the cause of the eggs as the eggs the cause of the dream; the Pragmatist may believe that we get the best out of scrambled egos by forgetting that they ever were eggs, and only remembering the scramble. But no pupil of St. Thomas needs to addle his brains in order adequately to addle his eggs; to put his head at any peculiar angle in looking at eggs, or squinting at eggs, or winking the other eye in order to see a new simplification of eggs. The Thomist stands in the broad daylight of the brotherhood of men, in their common consciousness that eggs are not hens or dreams or mere practical assumptions; but things attested by the Authority of the Senses, which is from God.
>Thus, even those who appreciate the metaphysical depth of Thomism in other matters have expressed surprise that he does not deal with what many now think the main metaphysical question; whether we can prove that the primary act of recognition of any reality is real. The answer is that St. Thomas recognised instantly, what so many modern sceptics have begun to suspect rather laboriously; that a man must either answer that question in the affirmative, or else never answer any question, never ask any question, never even exist intellectually, to answer or to ask. I suppose it is true in a sense that a man can be a fundamental sceptic, but he cannot be anything else; certainly not even a defender of fundamental scepticism. If a man feels that all the movements of his own mind are meaningless, then his mind is meaningless, and he is meaningless; and it does not mean anything to attempt to discover his meaning.

>Are the arguments presented in the Summa really impossible to refute?
You need a genius to refute them, that these arguments have passed through the hands of almost all modern and contemporary philosophers and scientists and none has been able to refute them in more than 800 years says a lot. That Hume and Russell have been foolish in the attempt also says a lot. You have to see how many Jews, Muslims and atheists convert to Christianity after reading him, its unreal.

>Now, despite strongly disliking Christianity and everything it stands for
Christianity built Western Civilization, what you don't like about Christianity?.

[Anonymous No.19945817]

>>19945702
>No
Refute them, I'm waiting.

>the guy who unironically believes that the resurrection is the best explanation for Christianity
You say it as if the most successful and intelligent people who have existed in history had not believed in the same...

[Anonymous No.19945822]

>>19945736
>Not if your IQ is at least 105. There are currently no paths to God through reason for someone with an IQ of at least 105, let alone the Christian God.
Then, refute them...

[Anonymous No.19945826]

>>19945695
It's all so tiresome. Pic related is sunworship, but it has another meaning beyond that, I won't spoil it though since /lit/ seems dumb as a doornail when it comes to this stuff.
There's also the sunworship halo behind the head in both that pic and the last thread, and the sunworship rounded hair which God commanded not to do.
>Are the arguments presented in the Summa really impossible to refute?
I don't bother with that garbage
> because nothing has ever made me feel compelled to believe in any man-made, organized religion.
God didn't make organized religion. Read the Bible for yourself. All the organized religions seem to think God isn't powerful enough to preserve His word. Just read the King James Bible.
>Now, despite strongly disliking Christianity and everything it stands for,
What's that? Not sinning is "horrible" to you? God commands all men every where to repent, what is it you don't want to repent of? What sin don't you want to forsake?

>>19945736
>falling for gnosticism
>think you're smart
lol, thanks for the laugh.

[Anonymous No.19945830]

>>19945822
I have, thanks. I'm on full hard mode now.
I'm not here to waste time holding the hands of level-1 stragglers.

[Anonymous No.19945832]

>>19945826
Protestant hands wrote this comment. Let's do a test...how many books does the Bible have, 66 or 73?.

[Anonymous No.19945835]

>>19945826
>falling for gnosticism
See "which I find hard to believe."
Typical Christnigger reading comprehension.
This is the kind of reading comprehension they apply to the Bible.
It's always a shambles.

[Anonymous No.19945840]

>>19945832
>>19945835

[Anonymous No.19945846]

>>19945695
If they were irrefutable Catholics wouldn’t have abandoned them in early modernity

[Anonymous No.19945853]

>>19945702
I'm not well-versed in math so I can't speak for the validity of his arguments regarding Hilbert's hotel, but his points made me think the resurrection was a compelling explanation as long as you didn't operate within the assumption that naturalism was necessarily right. Those natural phenomena you refer to would be too contrived an explanation in that case and frankly I can't dismiss the resurrection because of them because it would feel intellectually dishonest.
>>19945803
>>19945826
There is nothing I like about Christianity. Everything about that religion is repulsive to me, I wouldn't know where to begin. From the nonsencial doctrine (handwaved with "you don't know better than God, goy, read Job") to the constant focus on guilt, fear and self-hating submission, it's just disgusting. This is true of all Abrahamic religions though.

[Anonymous No.19945858]

>>19945830
I never assumed you had them, but wanted you to prove you did. As your comment is an evasion of the arguments and with a contemptuous tone I cannot take you seriously and it shows me that you do not have them. If you evade the arguments, you are accepting that they are irrefutable and that you cannot answer them.

[Anonymous No.19945864]

>>19945846
Never happened

[Anonymous No.19945870]

>>19945853
The resurrection might be compelling if the Gospels were eyewitness accounts or at least written by people proximate in time and space to the events they describe but they were not. They were written by literate Greek-speaking Jews many decades after the events had occurred, not by the Aramaic peasants who were actually there. I don’t see how they are more reliable than Romans describing miracles that purportedly happened after Caligula’s birth or the ones Vespasian was supposed to have performed.

[Anonymous No.19945877]

>>19945870
Yes but there are documents other than the gospels like 1 Cor 15 and testimonies from non-Christians. And the mass hysteria or lie hypotheses just seem too contrived, especially the former. The latter wouldn't be unheard of but what would be the point? Surely the cultists would be the most disgruntled if their guru had failed to come back and they'd be focusing on getting the fuck out of there asap instead of coping by writing fanfiction.

[Anonymous No.19945882]

Teleology is just the survivorship bias combined with the argument from ignorance, Christianity is just a giant cope for the fact that you're going to die one day, and OP is probably just the very tradlarping cringelord from the previous thread and therefore OP just made this thread to paint himself of as some awesome logic lord, even though no one probably takes him seriously.

I'm sorry your life's a lie OP. It's okay to cry, crying carries the feefees away

[Anonymous No.19945886]

>>19945853
>There is nothing I like about Christianity. Everything about that religion is repulsive to me, I wouldn't know where to begin. From the nonsencial doctrine (handwaved with "you don't know better than God, goy, read Job") to the constant focus on guilt, fear and self-hating submission, it's just disgusting. This is true of all Abrahamic religions though
I don't know how to answer you, look for things based on Christianity, such as the Empires, Catholic kings, King Arthur, Charlemagne, and Catholics who claim pagans like Caesar.

[Anonymous No.19945887]

>>19945882
I'm not that guy. I don't think a Christian would be allowed to claim he thinks Christianity is a repulsive, bullshit ideology, but who knows what kind of pilpul is allowed, I never looked into it. Either way, could you elaborate on
>Teleology is just the survivorship bias combined with the argument from ignorance

[Anonymous No.19945888]

>>19945858
>If you evade the arguments, you are accepting that they are irrefutable and that you cannot answer them.
Your non sequitur shows me that you're not mentally equipped enough to handle a refutation of the claim that a bachelor has five wives.

[Anonymous No.19945895]

>>19945886
>look for things based on Christianity
What does that demonstrate? Christianity subverted the Roman Empire, I'm aware of that.

[Anonymous No.19945896]

>>19945853
>From the nonsencial doctrine
>Abrahamic
Oh, you're a pseud who doesn't know what you're talking about. I bet you think Babylonian Catholicism is Christianity too.

[Anonymous No.19945897]

>>19945882
Survivorship bias is just teleology combined with the argument from ignorance (in this case, literally, people who cite survivorship bias are relying on the fact that they don't know the full story to have any degree of credibility).

[Anonymous No.19945899]

>>19945896
I don't give a fuck what you're posturing as, fuck off. Your religion is the spiritual equivalent of AIDS.

[Anonymous No.19945905]

>>19945695
Paste what you consider to be his strongest argument.

[Anonymous No.19945916]

>>19945905
I read the link he posted about the cosmological argument (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html)) and it made sense to me.
Also, as mentioned before, the fact that the resurrection makes the most sense out of all alternative explanations regarding Jesus' death considering 1. the testimonies, 2. the fact that hysteria and lying would lead to contrived explanations and 3. the martyrdom of those who testified.

I don't consider myself particularly well-versed in philosophy though, so I'm pretty much counting on a satisfying refutation being stated ITT so I can move on from this mind trap.

[Anonymous No.19945938]

>>19945877
What are the non-Christian testimonies? So far as I know, all they report is that Christians claim their messiah came back—they are not pagans who witnessed it or themselves believe it happened. I don’t think it has to be ‘mass hysteria’ or a purposeful lie, just a false belief that develops organically. There’s been other examples of people remaining with a cult after a prophecy has failed (the Seventh Day Adventist’s emerged from once such occurrence, plus there’s the Branch Davidians, the Donmer, certain Chasidim). Remember that these are people tightly knit together by bonds of trauma and persecution, and who have given away all their belongings and employments and left their homes. There is a strong psychological incentive to remain believers. Consider the example of Marxists in Soviet gulags who never stopped believing in the cause

[Anonymous No.19945954]

>>19945895
Actually, Christianity took what the Roman Empire did well and made it better.

[Anonymous No.19945965]

>>19945817
>Refute them, I'm waiting.
Yes, I'm going to write 50 pages here. I can give you reason why for example the argument for change isn't that convincing (e.g. existential inertia) but the idea that I'm going to formalize an argument and then write an essay for you, for free is insane.
>You say it as if the most successful and intelligent people who have existed in history had not believed in the same
First of all, we're talking about times when it was literally illegal to be a christian. Second point, them being christians doesn't mean they believed that the resurrection is the best explanation for christianity without several other assumptions (the christian god exists, jesus was divine). In fact, plenty of christian historians don't believe that.
>>19945853
>as long as you didn't operate within the assumption that naturalism was necessarily right
Nonsense, natural explanations are still better even conceding that God exists. Supernatural explanations still have extremely low priors, even under theism.
>would be too contrived an explanation in that case
Except that we have mountains of evidence when it comes to a) cognitive dissonance and cults b) post-bereavement hallucinations c) mistaken memories d) legendary accretion of stories through retelling.
I even tried to point out to that moron that you could run the same argument for mormonism and if you had the same amount and diversity of contemporary historical documents you'd also find any historical refutation of mormonism "contrived".

[Anonymous No.19945966]

>>19945888
Dude, why do you keep avoiding the question?.

[Anonymous No.19945969]

>>19945938
>What are the non-Christian testimonies?
For the martyrdom of the apostles there's Josephus and Tacitus, you're right that there aren't any for the resurrection, to my knowledge.
>false belief that develops organically
If it had been over a long period of time I guess, but there are many testimonies from several sources in the entirety of the New Testament, can it all be dismissed like that? It's not like they testify that Jesus came back for ten minutes then disappeared, they all say he was there for a long period of time and did many things.
>>19945954
I don't care about conquests and spreading oneself like a cancer honestly, it doesn't compel me to believe in Roman paganism and it doesn't compel me to believe in Christianity either.

[Anonymous No.19945973]

>>19945905
The Five Ways are actually one argument. Don't search them in Wikipedia please.

[Anonymous No.19945974]

>>19945965
>natural explanations are still better even conceding that God exists
Why?
>we have mountains of evidence when it comes to a) cognitive dissonance and cults b) post-bereavement hallucinations c) mistaken memories d) legendary accretion of stories through retelling
For events of that magnitude where people allegedly saw the exact same thing for a very long period of time as I say in >>19945969? Is there precedent for that?

[Anonymous No.19945987]

>>19945969
Tacitus and Josephus (as well as others) talk about the persecution of Christians but I don’t know if that constitutes the sort of ‘argument from apostolic martyrdom’ that people typically think of. We don’t really know the circumstances of these peoples deaths except that they were killed for being Christians (and some we don’t even know if they died, some of them have competing legends surrounding them).
> It's not like they testify that Jesus came back for ten minutes then disappeared, they all say he was there for a long period of time and did many things.
The apostles don’t recognise Jesus for quite a while and the details are ambiguous about how long he was around, what he did, and where he appeared. And, again, these are not witness testimonies. Paul is the only witness and he described visions. I’m not sure how they are more reliable than Muslim hadiths

[Anonymous No.19945993]

>>19945987
>argument from apostolic martyrdom
I think there are historical sources for the persecution of some of the apostles like Peter.
>these are not witness testimonies
Does 1 Cor 15 not qualify as a testimony? It wasn't authored by Paul.

[Anonymous No.19946002]

>>19945887
>Either way, could you elaborate on
>>Teleology is just the survivorship bias combined with the argument from ignorance

The survivorship bias boils down to just one simple thing: if you observe something, like Aristotle did with animals for instance (which is probably where this idea started), all he observed are going to be the winners of biological evolution. He didn't observe the losers of this process, because those were dead and buried. If you've read his book on animals, you'll realize that this made him believe that everything in biological life was 'caused' to function towards succeeding in a certain goal, but this is a completely biased view, because he couldn't observe those that don't succeed in this "goal". That's the survivorship bias in a nutshell, you think that examples of something are meant to be and designed with a certain purpose in mind, and you think this because all the failures aren't observed. You then try to explain this and just pick something you don't really know anything about or understand (such as the origin of the universe), and you've reinvented teleology.

And that's pretty much all Aquinas does as well. He asserts that, because the world and everthing in it appears to be designed (because he didn't observe the collosal amount of failures that were necessary to get to those successes), and he can't explain it through natural means (which we now partially can, namely the trail and error mechanism of evolution), he invokes an argument from ignorance and tries to explain it through supernatural means, and not only invokes a god, but his specific interpretation of his specific denomination of his specific religion which is the only correct way to know and worship this god.

And that's pretty much what the Summa is

[Anonymous No.19946005]

>>19945965
>argument for change isn't that convincing (e.g. existential inertia)
>existential inertia
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/07/schmid-on-existential-inertia.html?m=1

>First of all, we're talking about times when it was literally illegal to be a christian.
You mean illegal to be an atheist?. Give me examples because in between 1901-2000 the 65% of the Nobel Prize winners in all areas were Christians, in the same years communism and atheism spread like wild fire, the years of the URSS and Mao China, and a lot of years after the Enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.19946007]

>>19945993
It is by Paul, I thought? That’s certainly the closest thing to witness testimony but a throwaway line about 500 witnesses—is it really enough to change one’s entire worldview? If Christianity were not a major religion today, or if it were the religion of a different culture (like Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism) we would probably look at that line as epistemically identical to any other miracle claim from paganism or whatever

[Anonymous No.19946012]

>>19946005
> 65% of the Nobel Prize winners in all areas were Christians
I don’t think this is a reliable statistic. Emil kirkegaard wrote about it I think

[Anonymous No.19946015]

>>19946002
Couldn't the very fact that some succeed while most fail be the backing for teleology? Couldn't that success be meaningful, why does it have to be dismissed as a chance occurrence? Also correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there is any empirical evidence for evolution, I thought it was just the most likely hypothesis we currently have compared to lamarckian or whatever.

[Anonymous No.19946021]

>>19946007
>It is by Paul
Academic consensus seems to be that it was compiled by Paul but not authored by him, that is to say, that he didn't make up the testimonies.
>we would probably look at that line as epistemically identical to any other miracle claim
Are there other religions with a similar diversity of sources, some of them considered historically reliable, that point towards their particular messiah being right? This isn't a rhetorical question, maybe there is, I don't know.

[Anonymous No.19946028]

>>19946021
But that paragraph only makes sense if authored by Paul since it references his vision on the road to Damascus in the first person. If it’s not by Paul then it is someone impersonating Paul and therefore lying and not reliable.
>Are there other religions with a similar diversity of sources, some of them considered historically reliable
Islam? Mormonism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses
None of the Mormon witnesses recanted their testimony, even after they had the left the Church and fallen out with Joseph Smith, and some of them were persecuted.

[Anonymous No.19946033]

>>19946028
I don't think the Corinthian creed was authored by Paul. I'll look into those sources, thanks. I remember there were counter-arguments against the Mormon testimonies in the other thread so I'll look back at those too.

[Anonymous No.19946075]

>>19946012
When I searched for the entry on Wikipedia, Kierkegaard's article also appeared, on Wikipedia he had a conversation with those who made the article and they say that the source is reliable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_nonreligious_Nobel_laureates#The_main_source_of_this_article_is_not_reliable
And it does not seem strange to me that so many scientists are Christians considering the amount that there have been in the past (pic related, you can search for their biographies). In any case, Kierkegaard mentions his "studies" which is pretty stupid considering the Replication crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[Anonymous No.19946083]

the psychology of the general population during the early years of christianity will always be interesting to me and it seems like a woefully understudied subject, as the intrusion of cold logic on faith always will be
but people who just say
>*cracks open mother* *sip* yep god made it all happen
are laughable

it's not possible at this juncture to get all the facts because it's a patchwork of a religion

[Anonymous No.19946104]

>>19945974
>Why?
Natural causes are extremely more common than supernatural causes even under theism.
>where people allegedly saw the exact same thing
You keep adding facts that aren't accepted by a majority of historians. Might as well ask me how the jews managed to survive during the exodus if it happened like it's in the bible (hint: it didn't).
>>19946005
>http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/07/schmid-on-existential-inertia.html?m=1
If you wanted to link something that shows how bad feser is at representing what his opponents actually say, good job. If it's anything else, well, try to actually read what other people say instead of going to someone who's not exactly known for his philosophical charity.
>You mean illegal to be an atheist?
I was talking about the majority of history, and from 1901-2000 65% of nobel prize is actually an indication that smarter people are less likely to be christian, given the prevalence of christianity among the general population. Also, I accept your concession about my latter points.

[Anonymous No.19946116]

>>19946083
What is incredible to me is that people today treat people back then as if skepticism or methodological naturalism were common, when we have so many accounts of ridiculous shit being believed my vast amounts of people without any evidence.

[Anonymous No.19946171]

>>19946104
>If you wanted to link something that shows how bad feser is at representing what his opponents actually say, good job. If it's anything else, well, try to actually read what other people say instead of going to someone who's not exactly known for his philosophical charity.
I don't see any argument on your part against what Feser says, elaborate or concede

[Anonymous No.19946175]

Is skepticism refutable?
If not, what makes it more rational to believe in a specific religion instead of making up my own belief system that makes the most sense to me personally?

[Anonymous No.19946182]

Did Aquinas really come back to believing in the Immaculate Conception late in life or was that a forgery in his homily?

Why is Duns Scotus still only a blessed and not a saint when he was able to articulate the Immaculate Conception in a way that overcame Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.19946188]

>>19946171
>I don't see any argument on your part against what Feser says
I also don't see any argument on the part of feser that actually refutes anything schmid says so we're back at square one.
https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/2021/07/11/feser-on-schmid-on-existential-inertia-a-comprehensive-response/

[Anonymous No.19946191]

>>19946182
>Why is Duns Scotus still only a blessed and not a saint
Because the church just makes this shit up?

[Anonymous No.19946208]

>>19946191
The church just made up Duns Scotus?

[Anonymous No.19946222]

>>19946208
The catholic church completely makes up who gets to be a saint and who doesn't. The church makes very little sense when seen as the word of god on earth and a lot of sense when seen as just another political entity.

[Anonymous No.19946260]

>>19946175
The thing with skepticism is "you can't know the truth" is a paradoxical statement.

[Anonymous No.19946285]

>>19946260
Pyrrhonists don’t say that

[Anonymous No.19946289]

>>19946015
>Couldn't the very fact that some succeed while most fail be the backing for teleology? Couldn't that success be meaningful, why does it have to be dismissed as a chance occurrence?
Because teleology assumes this absolute determinism of perfection, where deviation from this is considered unnatural by default, and that's demonstrably not the universe we live in.

>Also correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there is any empirical evidence for evolution, I thought it was just the most likely hypothesis we currently have compared to lamarckian or whatever.

Speciation has been observed many times, mainly in bacteria and virus, but also in animals

[Anonymous No.19946292]

>>19946285
What do they say?
And pyrrhonists aren't the only skeptics.

[Anonymous No.19946562]

>>19946289
>Speciation has been observed many times, mainly in bacteria and virus, but also in animals
Then why is the theory of evolution still controversial

[Anonymous No.19946593]

>>19945695
Didn't he end up calling all his works worthless? Everyone ignores that even though it's the same guy who they're quoting. Like I don't think he was just being humble, I think he realized you can't rationalize this stuff.

[Anonymous No.19946602]

>>19946593
I think it was more about him realizing the primacy of faith over rational expositions.

[Anonymous No.19946606]

>>19946289
>Because teleology assumes this absolute determinism of perfection
If you actually read Aristotle and Aquinas, you'd note that teleology, at least the teleology they espouse, does not assume a "determinism of perfection" anymore than theories of evolution do. Teleology is simply acknowledging the "why" behind the "what" and "how", no more and no less. For example, in evolution taken by itself there is always the "what" (bipedal, rational hominid) and the "how" (food, predation, water, knowledge), but never the "why", for example "why" these "hows" led to these "whats." This is what teleology is and what scientific explanations, totally lacking in philosophy and reason-proper, will always necessarily lack so long as they are divorced from reason and solely contingent on observation without reason. You do not need to be a Christian to acknowledge the reality of teleology.

[Anonymous No.19946608]

>>19945736
>muh IQ
www.reddit.com
go back

[Anonymous No.19946721]

I'm tired of all the christian larping on this website.

[Anonymous No.19946748]

>>19946289
>>>/sci/14206805

[Anonymous No.19946763]

>>19946721
Begome (and I will leave)

[Anonymous No.19946769]

>>19946763
I don't understand what gives so many young men the incentive to pretend to believe in christianity, I really don't

[Anonymous No.19946772]

>>19946606
And I've already explained 'why' teleology is nonsense

[Anonymous No.19946793]

>>19946748
And what does this imply, and how do we test whether this is the case?

[Anonymous No.19946796]

>>19946793
Read the thread

[Anonymous No.19946870]

>>19946796
I did, and couldn't find any way to test it. For instance, what would falsify this idea of God being the cause of everything?

Mind you, this isn't even which religion he picked as his favorite, you haven't even established the basics of your idea

[Anonymous No.19946974]

>>19945877
>And the mass hysteria or lie hypotheses just seem too contrived, especially the former. The latter wouldn't be unheard of but what would be the point?
Yes yes of course it is far more likely that a corpse rose from the dead than that gullible people such as yourself were manipulated

[Anonymous No.19946980]

>>19945886
>what about muh thrones?
This might be the worst argument for Christianity yet. You should convert to a religion because you are a history nerd?

[Anonymous No.19947100]

>>19946974
>as long as you didn't operate within the assumption that naturalism was necessarily right.

[Anonymous No.19947114]

>>19947100
>sorcery is proof of divinity and soteriology

[Anonymous No.19947151]

>>19947114
It fulfilled all the biblical prophecies. The first 10 people that are spoken of in the OT predict the coming of Jesus with the meaning of their names.

[Anonymous No.19947247]

>>19947151
Ah yes, I too remember that passage in the Torah where Yahweh says to Abraham that many centuries later he will come down to earth and be pushed out of a virgin woman's birth canal only to be executed by Roman authorities and raise himself from the dead in order to put an end to the covenant being made with Abraham. Abraham starts asking "what's a Roman" and "wait why are we doing this covenant if you're going to—" but Yahweh interrupts him and says fear of volcano demons is the beginning of wisdom or something.

[Anonymous No.19947251]

>>19947247
I actually looked up the etymologies of pic related and it checks out.

[Anonymous No.19947264]

>>19947247
Have you read Matthew?

[Anonymous No.19947271]

>>19947251
Why though? What is the point of letting all those people live their lives without being saved by Jesus in order to make a pun? Is this just God's sense of humor?

[Anonymous No.19947275]

>>19947264
>the gospels prove the gospels

[Anonymous No.19947276]

>>19947271
I don't know. Christians would argue that God moves in mysterious ways or whatever and that he doesn't have to obey to human notions of justice and logic.

[Anonymous No.19947280]

>>19947275
More in the sense of Matthew detailing exactly how Jesus' life fulfilled prophecies from the Torah

[Anonymous No.19947298]

>>19947280
If it's anything like the above "proof" that putting ten names together makes a pun that's a pretty shallow "prophecy" considering it was only interpreted AFTER the prophesized events happened

[Anonymous No.19947304]

>>19947298
The OT makes predictions and the life of Jesus fulfills them, you don't have to squint very hard to make the pieces fit either. The OT predates the gospels so I'm not sure what your point is

[Anonymous No.19947308]

>>19947276
>god is above logic/laws/reason
This would have been a monstrous assertion to the platonic theologians of the Roman world, who viewed god as the orderer of the cosmos, not as a capricious interventionist.

[Anonymous No.19947313]

>>19947308
I think it's more that logic, laws and reason are born from God, they're not man-made, so anything God does is automatically logical, lawful and reasonable. Which is a huge copout but it's how I understand it and how it was explained to me.

[Anonymous No.19947318]

>>19947304
>you don't have to squint very hard to make the pieces fit
Arguing that the first ten patriarchs' names are a pun that proves Jesus is the messiah is the exact definition of 'squinting very hard to make the pieces fit.' And this entire line of argumentation assumes we are already Hebrews and believe in their scripture.

[Anonymous No.19947323]

>>19947318
You don't think the sentence in >>19947251 pretty heavily implies the coming of Jesus?

[Anonymous No.19947334]

>>19947313
It's a terrible cop-out because it makes god an entirely arbitrary or despotic being. You simply have to fear, that is all that is possible for you, there is nothing to know. And this is what the earliest exponents of the religion did say after all, no to philosophy, yes to superstition. It was only later that the appeal to more educated people required "apologies," actual attempts to argue for the god of fairy tales who was already admitted to overturn nature/laws/etc

[Anonymous No.19947342]

>>19947334
>it makes god an entirely arbitrary or despotic being.
Yeah that's the point of Job really, it basically tells you to shut the fuck up and trust the plan, that your human notions of justice and goodness come from God so you have no leg to stand on. The Father is meant to be the least understandable part of the Trinity as far as I know, with Jesus acting as a bridge of sorts because he's not ineffable and seemingly illogical.
I understand Marcion, honestly.

[Anonymous No.19947343]

>>19947323
Why though? Let's assume you are translating this correctly and the names weren't just the typical theophoric style of this-el and that-el. Why would these pun names foreshadow Jesus as if he were the twist in a novel? Why did Yahweh play this game and make sure the first ten patriarchs were named to prove Jesus would come, and then not deliver him for centuries and centuries? Why is he so inefficient? Was he busy with something?

[Anonymous No.19947348]

>>19947343
>Why
The phrase suggests God will send someone to die and that his death will bring comfort or peace to believers. Sounds like Jesus, no?
>Why is he so inefficient
I have no idea anon. Maybe he wanted to make a point. Refer to >>19947342

[Anonymous No.19947354]

>>19947342
I haven't researched it but I would imagine the finalized text of Job dates from the exile period, seems like a very obvious allegory written to keep people from abandoning the defeated god for those of the conquerors

[Anonymous No.19947358]

>>19947354
Christians will tell you the OT is mostly allegorical anyway.

[Anonymous No.19947363]

>>19947348
Yes I can see what the phrase suggests. My question is why is there such a sense of humor around the salvation of the same people who were created to be saved in the first place. God just ignores them for a thousand years or so? He forgot about sending himself (!) to earth to write up a new covenant that replaces the old one? Why have two in the first place? Why is he so inefficient for an omnipotent being? Does he have dementia from being six thousand years old?

[Anonymous No.19947369]

>>19947363
kek
Maybe someone else can answer this because to me the only counter-argument there is to what you're saying is "mysterious ways bro, trust the plan, two more weeks"

[Anonymous No.19947370]

>>19947358
But not the NT apparently!

[Anonymous No.19947376]

>>19947370
Nope, just the OT. Except maybe some parts for which it wouldn't be convenient if it was all allegory, not sure.
I think they treat the entire OT as some kind of foreshadowing for the NT and nothing more. Everything is supposed to build up to Jesus.

[Anonymous No.19947390]

Is this on autosage? what the fuck janny

[Anonymous No.19947392]

>>19947376
Never before has a religion so heavily relied on proving a previous religion was obsolete in order for it to begin to be reasonable. But once you've negated the very texts needed to support yours, how can you go back and cite them as proofs? Was it not just said that these were superceded

[Anonymous No.19947394]

>>19947390
Apparently not.
>>19947392
I think this is reliant on the fact that the OT represents the old covenant, it's not false as much as it was just replaced by a new one which jews don't accept.

[Anonymous No.19947417]

>>19947251
John the Baptist fits this as well

[Anonymous No.19947420]

>>19947417
Based mandaean poster

[Anonymous No.19947456]

>>19947394
>it's not false as much as it was just replaced by a new one
Then why does a subset of people believe the old one still stands? Christianity will always have this problem to be explained, why does a contrary interpretation exist based on the very same texts, and why should the Christian be taken as correct one? The answer appears to be "because sorcery proves it" or "our additional scriptures argue that the older scriptures prophesize that they will be replaced [because of sorcery]," so we are stuck with having to affirm a historical claim in order to proceed with Christianity. It cannot even be considered otherwise, making it wholly unlike other religious systems (except for the one it claims it replaces). If there is no miracle in the year 30 or so, no Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19947469]

>>19947456
>Then why does a subset of people believe the old one still stands?
Jews are obviously really mad about Jesus so they don't want to admit he was the messiah they were waiting for, and they made up the Talmud to cope a few centuries later.
>If there is no miracle in the year 30 or so, no Christianity.
Even then that doesn't necessarily mean it's true as has been pointed out already.

[Anonymous No.19947486]

>>19947469
Isn't there a fairly reasonable way it's the other way around, that some of them couldn't cope with the "messiah" having been executed by Italian immigrants, and thus went over the top in proclaiming he was actually immortal and not just the messiah but literally God?

[Anonymous No.19947489]

>>19947486
Could be. Then again that brings us back to the whole issue of the historicity of the resurrection.

[Anonymous No.19947504]

>>19945853
>handwaved

Please actually read Aquinas and stop listening to Protestants

[Anonymous No.19947507]

>>19947504
Please actually make an argument instead of defaulting back to "read X".

[Anonymous No.19947511]

>>19946182
Because being an articulate theologian is not the same as being a saint

[Anonymous No.19947515]

>>19945695
>saw some guy systematically dismantle every single counter-argument against Christianity.
Never happened, he got his ass handed to him

[Anonymous No.19947517]

>>19946769
The better question is why you assume everyone else is insincere in their beliefs

Perhaps you see insincerity in yourself and want to believe you're in good company

[Anonymous No.19947520]

>>19947517
This is 4chan. You're a 2016 tourist aren't you?
>le projection
Take your armchair psychology and fuck off back to facebook

[Anonymous No.19947528]

>>19947507
If you believe Catholic theology is handwaved then reading theology is sound advice.

I don't believe you have any interest in learning about it, however

[Anonymous No.19947531]

>>19947528
Again: make an argument instead of appealing to an authority you most likely haven't read and don't understand, or refrain from posting.

[Anonymous No.19947532]

>>19947520
Yeah looks like I was completely wrong, no projection here

[Anonymous No.19947534]

>>19947517
>assume everyone else is insincere in their beliefs
Abrahamic theology requires you view other religions this way anyhow

[Anonymous No.19947538]

>>19947532
Yeah. Go larp somewhere else, you have half a dozen threads on the catalog for this.

[Anonymous No.19947544]

>>19946562
It is only for retards

[Anonymous No.19947553]

>>19947151
No, the Messiah according to jews would get the job done in his first coming, and Jesus failed miserably

[Anonymous No.19947554]

>>19947553
>Jesus failed miserably
He did? 2 billion followers doesn't strike me as a failure.

[Anonymous No.19947562]

>>19947534
Yes, it's funny how according to 4chan "christians" everyone else who subscribes to other ideologies and religions is larping, but not them.

[Anonymous No.19947589]

This is as good a place to ask as any: I'm being baptized and confirmed soon. Washington DC general area. Is anybody here willing to sponsor me? Discussions with /lit/ anons set me on the path more than a year ago, and I think it would be most fitting if a /lit/ anon saw my confirmation through as well.

[Anonymous No.19947594]

>>19947589
Why would you ask in this thread which is clearly about objections to Christianity instead of asking in one of the many Christian threads currently active on this board like the Bible general? Stop trying to derail threads that make you angry.

[Anonymous No.19947600]

>>19947594
I literally didn't read any of the thread, I just saw that Aquinas was the thread pic. Sorry if I offended you anon.

[Anonymous No.19947605]

>>19947600
Alright, my bad. You should still ask in the Bible general, you'll get plenty of people willing to help there.

[Anonymous No.19947680]

>>19945695
What I find most strange about Christianity isn't the religion itself, it's the seemingly undying faith of those who appear to believe in it. Assuming they are not being disingenuous, as it would be stupid to make such a general statement, I don't get how they manage to convince themselves that this is it, this book written millennia ago by superstitious tribes in the desert and mostly detailing boring and mundane events with the occasional magic tricks contains the absolute Truth. This can obviously be extended to most other religions but I find it particularly surprising with Christianity and Islam. I'm sincerely taken aback when I enter a Christian thread because I can't wrap my head around the notion that so many presumably educated and at least mildly intelligent people have made the decision to center their lives around something like this.
Of course when you ask they'll give you platitudes about the Holy Spirit guiding them or whatever else, but I'm still unable to comprehend this level of devotion to a religion that, as >>19947392 says, is so dependent on a single fact to not be complete nonsense — and even then you'll be hard pressed to demonstrate it's true.

What mechanism is at play here?

[Anonymous No.19947683]

>>19945695
>are they impossible to refute
depends on which ones. If you mean "can you prove the God of Christian Revelation exists?" then no. Christians define faith as the free assent of the intellect, a choice. If there is no choice (i.e. a geometry proposition), there can be no faith involved, only knowledge.
Contrariwise, arguments attempting to disprove divine revelation cannot always be shown to be false, but they can be shown to lack necessity, e.g. free will.
If you're seriously considering the God of Christianity, I'd recommend slowly reading one chapter from the Gospel of John per day and asking God to reveal himself to you. If you're open to the experience, you may experience the presence of God.

[Anonymous No.19947690]

>>19947680
People now make fun of fedoras but they were right about this: it's cult mentality, plain and simple. It's jarring because even smart people fall for it

[Anonymous No.19947697]

>>19947683
>If you're seriously considering the God of Christianity
I'm not considering becoming a Christian, I was just temporarily swayed by the rhetoric used in the thread I linked. I've read John and the rest of the Gospels.

[Anonymous No.19947720]

>>19946608
Anti-IQ is peak Reddit, fool. Those neckbeards have rubbished every single thing reinforcing the IQ concept except, conveniently, for the long-COVID studies talking about cognitive decline and drops in IQ, which they ignored completely.

[Anonymous No.19947724]

>>19946608
Anti-IQ is peak Reddit, fool. Those neckbeards have rubbished every single thing reinforcing the IQ concept except, conveniently, the long-COVID studies talking about cognitive decline and drops in IQ, which they ignored completely.

[Anonymous No.19947727]

>>19947697
Then there's nothing more other than sorting through your interior life. Most christian anons itt could probably show how objections to Christianity are either false or non-necessary (Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles is helpful here too), but proving Jesus is God and that he rose from the dead is impossible.
peace be with you anon, best of luck.

[Anonymous No.19947729]

>>19947727
>sorting through your interior life
Yeah I think this is more likely to be the issue at hand here.

[Anonymous No.19947739]

>>19947554
Yes, he did. The messianic age didn't happen, the temple wasn't rebuilt, he didn't rule over the jews, etc

[Anonymous No.19947741]

>>19945966
No question has been avoided.
A request has been avoided, and the reason was given here: >>19945832
You can cry all you like, you can be a stubborn fucking mule who keeps saying "give me, give me," but nobody is obliged to spend hours walking your inferior mind through basic-bitch philosophy of religion.

[Anonymous No.19947757]

>>19947680
People who are born into it and make use of its community aspect, which all religions have had regardless of whether their message is tied to a debate on historical accuracy, cannot really be faulted, but these e-converts, who generally do so in isolation or in a virtual reality/social media friend simulator context for ideological self-identification reasons other than access to a living community, strike me as cargo cultist. You had someone earlier in the thread say the religion was good at doing imperialism >>19945954 or that Charlemagne or Julius Caesar was an example of a likeable element of Christianity >>19945886 and these sorts of apparent justifications for an entire religious belief system are so completely off the mark I have to wonder if the person's primary exposure to religion was as a stat modifier in a strategy video game. When people make these sorts of claims, it is like believing you can summon a cargo plane with a coconut radio.

[Anonymous No.19947769]

>>19945966
No question has been avoided.
A request has been avoided, and the reason was given here: >>19945830
You can cry all you like, you can be a stubborn fucking mule who keeps saying "give me, give me," but nobody is obliged to spend hours walking your inferior mind through basic-bitch philosophy of religion.

[Anonymous No.19947777]

>>19947757
The obvious e-converts aren't that puzzling, they're just riding a wave of popularity. But there are sincere converts on here if you check out the Christian threads which is very odd to me.

[Anonymous No.19947792]

>>19945695
>man-made
well, Christianity isn't.
>>19945853
>guilt, fear, self-hate
it isn't any of those things. It's about love, the same Christ had. Your disregard for yourself is not an end it itself, it's so that you help others.
>nonsensical doctrine
go study. especially go read auxiliary literature. Theology will just open your mind. I'd especially recommend Lewis for some entry-level.

I hope you come to look back at typing all of this with shame. Not negatively, but happy you got over it.

[Anonymous No.19947799]

>>19947792
I get a real cult vibe from you people, >>19947690 is right.

[Anonymous No.19947826]

>>19947792
The entirety of Christian theology is cope, just a monstrous amalgamation of various neoplatonic and aristotelian influences resting on top of the rotten foundations of the Torah. It starts with small assumptions you can easily agree with like "truth exists" and so on, then gets into progressively dumber shit until you're left parroting an absolutely nonsensical doctrine and sincerely believing in your heart that it's the explanation for reality that makes the most sense out of all of them.
Honestly I don't even like pajeet metaphysics but read the Indians. At least they did theism right.

[Anonymous No.19947885]

>>19947777
I think those are people who would have been priests a hundred years ago but for some reason or other aren't willing to do so now. It's not necessarily outlandish that they have committed to religion since there is always going to be people who think that way. The odd thing is that instead of joining the religion and getting away from nonbelievers they have become lay experts in theology and debate other laymen. This is something of a weird development as far as Christianity is concerned since that sort of laity-scholarship I think has traditionally been more at home in other religious traditions like Hinduism or Buddhism or Taoism. Christianity was always very clear about hierarchy between the congregation and the priesthood and needing to have the sacraments celebrated and doctrines explained by a licensed theologian, but since the seminaries are fallow I suppose this is a natural development. A skeleton crew of Christian priests might be left to handle formal funerals like the Buddhist priests do in Japan while the laity are able to access everything else with minimal mediation.

[Anonymous No.19947889]

>>19947885
>for some reason or other aren't willing to do so now.
Why do you think that is?

[Anonymous No.19947892]

>>19947792
>Lewis
I hope you mean Alice in Wonderland, which has far more epistemological weight

[Anonymous No.19947915]

>>19947799
I've said you are not supposed to suffer for suffering's sake. what's the "cultish" part?
>>19947826
How do you criticize something you've never read? I can guarantee you'll respond with some "gotcha" extremely literal view of a piece of theology with underlying symbolism.

[Anonymous No.19947917]

>>19947892
>Alice in Wonderland, which has far more epistemological weight
This but unironically, being obsessed with Alice as a child probably contributed to my distrust of phenomenal reality

[Anonymous No.19947930]

>>19947915
>you are not supposed to suffer for suffering's sake
Except if I don't accept your religion, in which case I will suffer eternally because Yahweh loves me so much but I still deserve it.

[Anonymous No.19947937]

>>19947889
Well a lot of these people also believe the churches are highly corrupted for starters. Yet these are the institutions responsible for conveying much of the literature our converts consume. There is also the simple fact that it has probably never been a better time in western life to pursue pleasures, and everyone knows it. And that is more to give up than it has ever been. It's not as if you are running from hard labor or military service anymore in becoming a priest. You are running away from the accumulation of wealth and entertainment that can be afforded by performing some repetitive work 40 hours a week.

[Anonymous No.19947943]

>>19947892
I mean his essays and such. Very eye-opening for several common misconceptions. I've pretty much said what he does in the start of "The Weight of Glory" as an answer to anon's self-hate idea. Granted, i've done it in a much worse way.

[Anonymous No.19947952]

>>19947915
>underlying symbolism.
Right, it's symbolism when it's incoherent, otherwise it's literal. I don't need to read the whole Summa (which you've also never read) to know Christianity is fundamentally retarded. Lewis is part of that kind of gateway literature made to recruit people into the cult, same as Christ the Eternal Tao for people who like eastern philosophy, it gives you a very barebones and appealing view of the cult, and as you get deeper you are gradually made to accept the more incoherent aspects of it.

[Anonymous No.19947970]

>>19945916
Is that martyrdom even documentated or is it 'church tradition'?

[Anonymous No.19947977]

>>19947937
Yes, it's true that 4chan tradcaths are necessarily sedevacantists. Although you do have some Catholics here who believe the Church does no wrong and spend their days preaching to anime-watching neets on here, yet for some reason don't want to take the step towards ordination. You're right about the abandonment of comfort, I guess that's the main reason, after all there's no way to keep shitposting for ten hours per day when you have to give mass and take confessions.
That aside, I have seen some people here, and also know a couple personally, which are otherwise well-adjusted but have come to believe sincerely and involve themselves in the community, etc. This born again crowd is strange and maybe it can be chalked up to them simply wanting to believe in something comforting, and being otherwise attracted to Christianity for its dogmatic aspects, but I guess I just can't put myself in their shoes. Which bothers me because I can do it for almost any other kind of ideologue.

[Anonymous No.19947987]

>>19947937
>>19947977
Oh, and there are also the Orthodox, which is even stranger since for them to be on here requires some kind of cognitive dissonance. All in all the presence of a truly devout Orthodox or traditional Catholic community on 4chan is as nonsensical as having a sizable Muslim or Theravada Buddhist community here (but there aren't any for those two).

[Anonymous No.19947989]

>>19947952
>Christ the Eternal Tao
I imagine this is refuted by the simple fact that when Jesuit missionaries went to China they had to coin a term in a Chinese for the creator God because they couldn't find an appropriate Chinese word. Taoism or any other Chinese tradition is not the expression of a supreme trascendental creator deity.

[Anonymous No.19947992]

>>19947989
They equate the Tao with the Logos.

[Anonymous No.19948019]

>>19947251
Link to the etymologies on this. They seemed right up until Kenan. Kenan seems to be possession not sorrow...

[Anonymous No.19948020]

>>19947977
There's convert zeal in all religions since such people are eager to impress their bona fides upon their new correligionists, many of whom are probably less textual or logocentric having been raised as a member. That I think is not particularly noteworthy, but again what's truly peculiar are these e-converts who think they are building a dnd character and that Christianity gives you a buff if you take the Save The Kingdom From Evil quest. None of the other people in church think they are at war with everyone else in the world because they read about something or other on Twitter about how ugly architecture has become, and none of them believe that nailing the christology formula and affirming the resurrection will put an end to immigration and democracy or something.

[Anonymous No.19948025]

>>19947992
Yes there are greater similarities between Platonism/Pythagoreanism and Taoism than with Judaism

[Anonymous No.19948058]

>>19948020
>what's truly peculiar are these e-converts
You think? There have always been people eager to take on an identity that they felt would give them meaning or make them interesting.
The e-converts don't impress me, they'd have been fedora atheists a decade ago regurgitating the same kind of arguments but from the other side. I'm more surprised by the intelligent people who actually dedicate themselves, do their research, and buy into all of it nonetheless (or perhaps because of it, as "research" usually implies delving deep into the scholastics).

[Anonymous No.19948070]

Refuted by Montaigne desu

[Anonymous No.19948072]

>>19947271
It's simple. This picture backs up these people's beliefs, so they'll use it as an argument in favor of their faith. But for those who don't believe, it's just yet another contrived symbol hidden in the Torah that's inherently meaningless since Yahweh could've just done away with all this cryptic bullshit and done what he wanted to do from the start.

[Anonymous No.19948076]

>>19945695
>Now, despite strongly disliking Christianity and everything it stands for,
How do you even start with a presupposition like that? You're even acknowledging that you don't know what it stands for by making this thread

[Anonymous No.19948082]

>>19948070
Aquinas refuted perspectivism...

[Anonymous No.19948084]

I checked out the general out of curiosity...
>>19947032

[Anonymous No.19948088]

>>19948082
How so?

[Anonymous No.19948098]

>>19948076
>How do you even start with a presupposition like that?
It's true.
>you don't know what is stands for
I do. I explained it here >>19945853

[Anonymous No.19948099]

>>19947769
>imagine being this DENSE
Just admit you don't have an answer

[Anonymous No.19948100]

>>19948082
I dont know man, how do you maintain that "cold" exists as an essence within ice when the only way to recognize cold is through the sense of touch? And that sense begins in man therefore the object of sensation is merely understood through mans perspective. There arent little particles of "coldness" which exist inherently in anything

[Anonymous No.19948105]

>>19948058
The fedora type of atheist I don't really think thought he was saving civilization by denying low church protestantism, he was just spiting political and cultural opponents. The e-convert to tradlarp has this whole interlocking set of beliefs whereby the reanimation of a dead provincial leads to the splendor of a robust and virile civilization expanding its reach over the planet. And maybe it did, but it doesn't now, and if you've been to church you'd know it won't do it now and have reason to doubt that narrative in the first place

[Anonymous No.19948109]

>>19948020
Christianity is characterized by viewing the world as ruled by Satan. My church and all its homegrown members often talk about those verses about putting on fbe armor of christ and warring against powers and principalties. To be christian is to recognize the world as fallen and corrupt and to stand against it.

[Anonymous No.19948110]

>>19948105
>but it doesn't now
That's why they're so full of zeal. They want to restore this former splendor, or are waiting for it tor restore itself by noticing signs of the end times stated in Revelations every time a politician does something weird.

[Anonymous No.19948114]

>>19948109
Why does Yahweh let Satan rule the world?

[Anonymous No.19948118]

>>19948114
Just feels like ig

[Anonymous No.19948122]

>>19948109
Impressive survival of gnosticism in a religion that formally denies it. I guess that's what happens when you make God more than the cosmos

[Anonymous No.19948130]

>>19948114
>Celsus concluded that Christians used the explanation of God "testing" them to disguise the fact that their God was not powerful enough to successfully fight Satan, but was instead "helpless".[11] Celsus wrote that Satan was either a mortal invention used by Christians to frighten others into believing their philosophies and joining them, or if he did indeed exist then he was proof that God was not all-powerful, but rather a weak lesser god and a bad one, for only a vindictive and insecure being would punish mankind for being tricked by an evil that he has been too weak to stop.

[Anonymous No.19948133]

>>19948122
Well theres absolutely a dualism in the flesh vs spirit aspect but it doesn't say there's an implicit in existence nor does it say there's an evil in physical sensation. As far as I can tell, and maybe my reading is only limited, christianity proposes that degenerative forces exist and need a bulwark against, rather than construction of evil existents. Tolkein has that quote that just went viral which says evil can not create but only corrupt. Evil as privation rather than postive ongological construction is what distinguishes canonical Christianity from gnosticism

[Anonymous No.19948135]

>>19948130
Uuuuh but um it's because of free will and uh God's testing you, yeah I know he already knows the outcome but you don't so uuh he's testing you for yourself... Fucking repent already

[Anonymous No.19948141]

>>19948133
Privatio boni is the most disgusting cope doctrine to ever come out of Neoplatonism and of course Christianity just had to gobble that shit up

[Anonymous No.19948146]

>>19948141
Dualism fails to answer the problem of evil. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.19948153]

>>19948146
>source: dude trust me

[Anonymous No.19948160]

>>19948153
This argument has been rehashed on /lit/ every single day for years. Surely you're already familiar with it.

[Anonymous No.19948234]

>>19948133
>Evil as privation rather than postive ongological construction
That's as far as you can get if you haven't gone beyond good and evil yes

[Anonymous No.19948266]

>>19948130
See this is what made Celsus such a powerful opponent. He isn't trying to argue what christers believe, which is easily corrected, but show what their beliefs mean. So if Origen or whoever responds, "that's wrong, I believe that these verses mean [insert dogma here]," and doesn't actually show that consequences presented by Celsus are wrong, they remain a plausible interpretation for one not otherwise invested in agreeing with the dogma

[Anonymous No.19948273]

>>19945695
>Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the particular province of the Almighty that it were an encroachment on his right for men to dispose of their own lives; it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction. turn aside a stone which is falling upon my head, I disturb the course of nature, and Iinvade the particular province ofthe Almighty by lengthening out my life beyond the period by which the general laws ofmatter and motion he had assigned it
So you see in this exaple the problem with refuting Thomas is that many of these philosophers are somehow even worse then him

[Anonymous No.19948279]

>>19948160
Yes, and I accept your concession

[Anonymous No.19948302]

>>19948273
>some people have even more retarded arguments so that means he's right
kek

[Anonymous No.19948328]

>>19948273
If they're all so wrong...

[Anonymous No.19948343]

>>19948328
How can you just dismiss all assertions?

[Anonymous No.19948347]

>>19948100
Essence and existence are different things.

[Anonymous No.19948367]

>>19948099
>Just admit you don't have an answer
What was the question? Post the question that was asked.
I predict your inferior mind will fail to provide such a question.

[Anonymous No.19948373]

>>19948343
How can you decide among them? Is your heuristic literally to pick the least wrong-sounding one? That is to say, you affirming assertions which you know to be false? And I am the incredulous one?

[Anonymous No.19948389]

>>19948367
A refutation of Aquinas arguments...

[Anonymous No.19948391]

>>19948373
By looking at evidence. Do you not look around when you cross the road since you can't know if those cars heading towards you are real or if it's just in your mind?

[Anonymous No.19948397]

>>19948389
Nope. I see no question there. You claim I avoided a question.
Show me the question that was asked that I avoided. Quote the question.

[Anonymous No.19948408]

>>19948391
What sensory evidence would I use to decide a metaphysical claim?

[Anonymous No.19948411]

>>19948408
>a priori reasoning is not a source of information

[Anonymous No.19948423]

>>19948411
Why don't you read what he was replying to instead of taking his post in isolation like some contextually unaware faggot?

[Anonymous No.19948438]

>>19948423
So skeptics are empiricists?

[Anonymous No.19948454]

>>19948411
Well, is it? If I ask you why Aquinas is right and the others are wrong it's because you knew so a priori?

[Anonymous No.19948461]

>>19948438
I suspect a guy called Sextus Empiricus wasn't overly dogmatic

[Anonymous No.19948470]

>>19948279
Very gracious of you

[Anonymous No.19948474]

>>19948347
Why should I believe that essences perceived through the senses are real according to a Thomist?

[Anonymous No.19948477]

>>19947515
There are a few autists on this board who spend all of their free time refining their understanding of a single dogma because for some reason they figure it's the absolute endgame of truth and refuse to hear about anything else. They get really fucking good at dodging counterarguments and spinning the conversation in a way that makes it seem like they aren't complete retards to the philosophically immature, but it's all bullshit.
The most well-known example is guenonfag, and the epistemological weight guy belongs to that category too. They're weird and broken people with an autistic fixation.

[Anonymous No.19948659]

>>19948397
"Then, refute them..."

[Anonymous No.19948681]

>205 posts and nobody really engaged with Aquinas' arguments

[Anonymous No.19948704]

>>19948474
>Why should I believe that essences perceived through the senses are real according to a Thomist?
The principles of essence and existence are both required in order for the actually existing individual thing to be.

Essence may be described as the “what” of a thing. It is the quiddity of the thing, that which is known about it by our forming of a concept. It is a formal principle since for material reality, it is abstracted by the human intellect. Hence, it is a universal principle making many material individuals to be of the same kind. But, it is obvious upon reflection that “what a thing is” and “that it is” are completely different statements.

That a thing is or has existence, is a principle really distinct from its quiddity. In no case does the essence of a thing indicate anything about whether that thing really is. The essence of a horse that exists, and the essence of a horse that doesn’t are absolutely the same, namely horse-ness; a horse’s existing is totally different from what kind of a thing it is. Therefore, there must be something about really existing things that accounts for this very existing, and it is not their essence; it is their existence. Existence then is that which makes essences to be, to exercise the act of existing. St. Thomas indicated the activity of being, existence, with the Latin of “to be”,esse.

By saying that existence is the act of being (esse) exercised by beings, Thomas understands it to be similar to form, in that it actualizes a potency as form actualizes matter. Taking the notions of an act/potency relationship learned from cosmology as form and matter, he expands the notion of form by means of analogy. Just as the substantial form of a material being determines and makes actual some part of matter, soesseactualizes the potency of a thing’s essence. This similarity is an analogous one because, theesseand essence of a thing are not separable in real beings, as the form is separable from matter in abstraction; the two are only distinguishable because of their own very real distinction.Esseis logically prior to all other actuality because a thing cannot be in a certain way unless it simply is. So, because of this logical priority of existence, Thomas calls it “the most formal of all.” “It is the actuality of all acts” since a thing is in virtue ofesseand “acts are of supposits.”

I hope that helps you understand Thomism.

[Anonymous No.19948713]

>>19948704
This stuff only makes sense if you're a realist.

[Anonymous No.19948715]

>>19948659
Not a question.
Retard confirmed.

[Anonymous No.19948725]

>>19948681
> WHY WON'T ANYONE RETREAD WELL-TRODDEN GROUND TO BRING ME UP TO SPEED??????
Go read a fucking book, you entitled jackass.

[Anonymous No.19948727]

>>19948725
>well-trodden ground
There are no refutations of thomism though.

[Anonymous No.19948732]

>>19948727
What you mean is that there are no refutations that your redneck pea brain will accept.

[Anonymous No.19948736]

>>19948732
No, by all means give me the book titles and I'll read them

[Anonymous No.19948740]

>>19948713
Realism is the only philosophy that makes sense. So I think it's correct.

[Anonymous No.19948744]

>>19948740
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.19948746]

>>19948727
Because you can just refute the theology he shares with other Christians in a more general sense? It would be pointless to refute him specifically unless you wanted to keep his premises intact but arrive at a different conclusion.

[Anonymous No.19948751]

>>19948736
If you want people to hold your hand, then you're going to have to reciprocate the effort. Paste one of his arguments that you find convincing in argument form (explicit premises and conclusion).

[Anonymous No.19948753]

>>19948746
>>19948751
Alright, no auhors then. Damn, Aquinas really was a powerhouse wasn't he, nobody dares challenge him

[Anonymous No.19948755]

>>19948753
Not an argument. Brainlet confirmed.

[Anonymous No.19948759]

>>19948715
Look friend, we can be like this for hours or really get into some arguments that have been the subject of debate for more than 800 years and even today in the year 2022 they are still the subject of debate.

[Anonymous No.19948761]

>>19948753
Why do I need an author to have an opinion on another author instead of having one myself? Are you some sort of chinese room?

[Anonymous No.19948763]

>>19948753
Show me what you find convincing in explicit argument form, and I'll refer you to the best counterarguments for it.
Or maybe you haven't actually read any of his arguments and you're just a seething Christnigger.

[Anonymous No.19948767]

>>19948755
Why are you so scared? Surely if Aquinas had been refuted you'd at least be able to point me towards authors who have refuted him. Or if not him, Aristotle at the very least since he forms the basis for thomism.
>>19948761
>>19948763
Five ways.

[Anonymous No.19948770]

>>19948744
Ok, then refute: A = A

[Anonymous No.19948771]

>>19948767
>Show me what you find convincing in explicit argument form

[Anonymous No.19948777]

>>19948771
Aquinas’s first demonstration of God’s existence is the argument from motion. He drew from Aristotle’s observation that each thing in the universe that moves is moved by something else. Aristotle reasoned that the series of movers must have begun with a first or prime mover that had not itself been moved or acted upon by any other agent. Aristotle sometimes called this prime mover “God.” Aquinas understood it as the God of Christianity.

The second of the Five Ways, the argument from causation, builds upon Aristotle’s notion of an efficient cause, the entity or event responsible for a change in a particular thing. Aristotle gives as examples a person reaching a decision, a father begetting a child, and a sculptor carving a statue. Because every efficient cause must itself have an efficient cause and because there cannot be an infinite chain of efficient causes, there must be an immutable first cause of all the changes that occur in the world, and this first cause is God.

Aquinas’s third demonstration of God’s existence is the argument from contingency, which he advances by distinguishing between possible and necessary beings. Possible beings are those that are capable of existing and not existing. Many natural beings, for example, are possible because they are subject to generation and corruption. If a being is capable of not existing, then there is a time at which it does not exist. If every being were possible, therefore, then there would be a time at which nothing existed. But then there would be nothing in existence now, because no being can come into existence except through a being that already exists. Therefore, there must be at least one necessary being—a being that is not capable of not existing. Furthermore, every necessary being is either necessary in itself or caused to be necessary by another necessary being. But just as there cannot be an infinite chain of efficient causes, so there cannot be an infinite chain of necessary beings whose necessity is caused by another necessary being. Rather, there must be a being that is necessary in itself, and this being is God.

Aquinas’s fourth argument is that from degrees of perfection. All things exhibit greater or lesser degrees of perfection. There must therefore exist a supreme perfection that all imperfect beings approach yet fall short of. In Aquinas’s system, God is that paramount perfection.

Aquinas’s fifth and final way to demonstrate God’s existence is an argument from final causes, or ends, in nature (see teleology). Again, he drew upon Aristotle, who held that each thing has its own natural purpose or end. Some things, however—such as natural bodies—lack intelligence and are thus incapable of directing themselves toward their ends. Therefore, they must be guided by some intelligent and knowledgeable being, which is God.

[Anonymous No.19948782]

>>19948770
Tautologies are not proof of realism being true. You have no way of refuting nominalism. Universals exist only in your mind, they do not have inherent existence.

[Anonymous No.19948785]

>>19948704
I dont think you've addressed the point I borrowed from Montaigne though. The "essence" of a thing exists only in perception of the thing.

[Anonymous No.19948786]

>>19948777
> Aquinas understood it as the God of Christianity.
Non sequitur. Could equally well be the deist's God.
Is this the power of Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.19948790]

>>19948786
>fails to address the cosmological argument itself
>focuses on an irrelevant detail to avoid having to confront the argument
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.19948798]

>>19948786
Aquinas's arguments necessarily preclude Deism since they purport a teleogical account of the universe over a mechanistic account.

[Anonymous No.19948801]

>>19948790
We're starting with the first demonstration, if that wasn't clear. Show me how it doesn't "prove" the deist's God. Why is it the Christian God?

[Anonymous No.19948806]

>>19948801
If you feel so threatened by Christianity then you can just address the arguments by disregarding the specifically Christian parts. Can you refute the cosmological argument, or can't you?

[Anonymous No.19948810]

>>19948806
> We're starting with the first demonstration, if that wasn't clear. Show me how it doesn't "prove" the deist's God. Why is it the Christian God?
This thread is about Thomism, dimwit. You do realize that some people believe in God but not the Christian God?

[Anonymous No.19948811]

>>19948810
So you can't refute the cosmological argument?

[Anonymous No.19948817]

>>19948811
I like the cosmological argument. I just don't believe in the existence of the Christian God.

[Anonymous No.19948819]

>>19948817
Okay.

[Anonymous No.19948826]

>>19948817
>I like the cosmological argument.
Are there refutations to it that you find compelling from a logical standpoint?

[Anonymous No.19948834]

>>19948777
These are all just modes of saying everything depends on something else, therefore there must be an independent thing. It is merely his opinion that this is so, as the independent thing is never actually found or produced, but merely imagined. (And whatever supposedly independent thing we imagine depends on our own intellect to create it, given that it wasn't there otherwise!)

[Anonymous No.19948841]

>>19948713
Is the problem of universals the only real philosophical problem? Feels like everything flows from that. If you disagree with the realist premises of aristotelianism, the whole scholastic tradition falls apart.

[Anonymous No.19948843]

>>19948826
I believe that God exists.
I don't believe it's the God depicted in the Christian Bible.
I like the cosmological argument, but I dispute that it reveals the existence of the Christian God.

[Anonymous No.19948845]

>>19948834
>therefore there must be an independent thing.
It leads to infinite regress if there isn't.

[Anonymous No.19948849]

>>19948843
Which God do you believe in?

[Anonymous No.19948858]

>>19948845
So God exists because reason breaks down past a certain level of explanation?

[Anonymous No.19948860]

>>19948858
How do you explain it otherwise?

[Anonymous No.19948883]

>>19948860
Well if you are going to just make up a first cause you might as well be a solipsist, because every time you say the-thing-i-made-up is the first cause, what you really mean to say is "I am the first cause"

[Anonymous No.19948895]

>>19948883
The first cause has nothing to do with solipsism. When your three options are
>a logical explanation (first cause)
>an illogical explanation (infinite regress)
>no explanation
Why wouldn't you choose the first option?

[Anonymous No.19948903]

>>19948849
I believe simply that there's an intelligent force/entity governing the existence of the universe. I don't believe that this intelligent force/entity is the petulant man-child depicted in the Bible, nor that it sent a "son" facet of itself to sacrifice itself to itself to save us from itself in a convoluted absurdity (not interested in mental gymnastics on this account either).

[Anonymous No.19948918]

>>19948895
>just believe the fiction you want to be true
Ok I see why 'no one has refuted Aquinas;' it would be a bit like refuting a Harry Potter fan

[Anonymous No.19948920]

>>19948918
Why didn't you answer my question?

[Anonymous No.19948932]

>>19948841
Is there a legitimate nominalist tradition in the west? I know the jeets were all nominalists but the west seems to have built itself on the foundations laid by Plato

[Anonymous No.19948935]

>>19948920
Because if it is "logical" that "things depend on other things" leads to "a thing that depends on nothing," then you are down the rabbit hole with Alice. I wonder what you consider "illogical," perhaps any syllogism that makes sense?

[Anonymous No.19948940]

>>19948935
What is nonsensical about an uncaused cause?
Your alternatives are
>infinite regress (makes absolutely no sense)
>no explanation (copout)

[Anonymous No.19948952]

>>19948940
Causality only operates for phenomena. You're extending this all the way to something of which there is no phenomenal experience. So your position is literally nonsense.

[Anonymous No.19948957]

>>19948952
>something of which there is no phenomenal experience.
But the first causes causes other things, so there is an experience of it.

[Anonymous No.19948966]

>>19948957
Then for all you know, the cause might be dead or have ceased to operate, much like your great great grandfather's genitals. And he himself surely had a virile great great grandfather as far as we can surmise

[Anonymous No.19948967]

>>19948782
>Tautologies are not proof of realism being true.
lol

>You have no way of refuting nominalism.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/razor-boy.html?m=1

[Anonymous No.19948971]

>>19948967
I accept your concession.
That link was thoroughly blown the fuck out in the thread linked in the OP.
I suggest you start here for refutations of your position: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/

[Anonymous No.19948993]

>>19948966
How are things still in motion then? Creation is constant, there is no such thing as a closed system generating its own power.

[Anonymous No.19948998]

I actually believe we need to have a board JUST for these questioners who apparently have questions.

[Anonymous No.19949005]

>>19948967
Do you read the links you post? This guy doesn't refute nominalism at all, he just says that nominalism forces Christians to take the immortality of the soul and the existence of God on pure faith since denying universals makes the proofs for the soul and for the first cause fall apart, which is true. Your link boils down to "nominalism can't be true because otherwise Christianity wouldn't be true"

[Anonymous No.19949049]

>>19948971
>I suggest you start here for refutations of your position: >https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/
One question, why are you sending me to Plato Stanford? First, Plato was the greatest anti-nominalist in the history of philosophy, his philosophy is diametrically opposed to nominalism and he devoted almost all of his dialogues to refuting that philosophy. Second, the administrator of that page is a platonist in mathematics and almost all his projects are based on the philosophy of Plato, in addition to the fact that the same page admits that he was the best philosopher in history. Check your links carefully.

[Anonymous No.19949062]

>>19949049
>he doesn't know about SEP
>he thinks the link endorses realism
>he thinks I dislike Plato and that philosophy is some petty game of picking teams
You should've just said you're underage, it would've saved me some time. Now shut the fuck up, brainlet, you're obviously too unintelligent to understand the link I directed you towards.

[Anonymous No.19949094]

>>19948993
You just keep repeating variations of the same caused-thing-leads-to-uncaused-thing problem. What I want to know is how this leap is made, and at what point we are confident something is no longer caused. Rather than you imagining it must be the case in order to satisfy the pattern reason has insisted on—per the basis of observation, every thing (or properly speaking perceived phenomenon) is found to have its cause in another—I would like to be shown the uncaused rather than imagine it based on your argument. Your strongest rhetoric for this appears to be "it must be true because [rephrased version of the same idea]," but again that is wholly your imagination and has not been demonstrated. I do not believe you can demonstrate it either, as causality belongs to phenomena and the first phenomenon is essentially... you... the first thing you are aware of! And if it were that simple, we would all be God, as we are the causes of our entire cosmos! But no, you see a first cause somewhere out there in the void which causes everything else. If you can deliver it up to us from the void it would certainly be compelling

[Anonymous No.19949102]

>>19949094
1. things have causes
2. infinite regress is illogical
3. since things are caused but infinite regress is illogical, there must be a cause that comes before other causes
4. this is the first cause

[Anonymous No.19949154]

If it is logical to say everything has a cause, why is it illogical to say everything has a cause? What changed between your (1) and (2)? Infinite regress is the consequence of (2). If (1) was logical, why is (2) illogical? If you are trying to say causality is absurd, how much more absurd it is to have a first cause.

[Anonymous No.19949163]

>>19949154
Infinity cannot exist physically. Infinite regress is also logically fallacious since you end up having things causing themselves which is nonsense

[Anonymous No.19949180]

>>19949163
Wouldn't a first cause necessarily be its own cause, if we have said everything has a cause?

[Anonymous No.19949181]

>>19949180
Which is why it has to be uncaused.

[Anonymous No.19949184]

>>19949062
>he doesn't know about SEP
I do retard.

>he thinks the link endorses realism
I know the link doesn't endorses realism, I was just pointing out that the same people who wrote in Plato Stanford and the creator of the page does not agree with what are you saying.

>he thinks I dislike Plato and that philosophy is some petty game of picking teams
How do you reconcile Platonism with nominalism? It's impossible.

[Anonymous No.19949188]

>>19949181
>>19948858

[Anonymous No.19949194]

>>19949184
>I was just pointing out that [...]
Irrelevant.
>How do you reconcile [...]
I don't, learn reading comprehension. I acknowledge Plato's contribution to western philosophy, and disagree with platonism.

[Anonymous No.19949202]

>>19949188
But reason doesn't break down here, it's the logical conclusion of everything we've said.
What is your personal metaphysical stance on the matter? Do you believe in a first cause, in infinite regress, or in something else?

[Anonymous No.19949325]

>>19949202
As I have said, causality belongs to phenomena, and there is no first phenomenon we ever arrive at—unless you count yourself, which is pretty easy to reject as the first cause given that you have a mother and father. What you have not shown is why everything having a cause suddenly becomes illogical. You merely assert that it is illogical not to have a first cause after having put forth that everything has a cause, because your conclusion requires that not everything have a cause. So where was the logic in having said everything has a cause if you don't believe this? Do you mean to say, "every caused thing has a cause"? If so, this is hardly better and can be argued against for similar reasons, though has the benefit of better expressing your opinion

[Anonymous No.19949340]

>>19949325
If everything doesn't have a cause then things cause themselves, wouldn't you agree that this is incoherent?

[Anonymous No.19949364]

>>19949340
I agree everything has a cause. You don't, because you assert there is a first cause, which would itself be uncaused. Therefore it would not be part of everything, which is... illogical?

[Anonymous No.19949385]

>>19949364
But how can things cause themselves?

[Anonymous No.19949417]

>>19949385
You've already agreed everything has a cause. You just want to reach a point where that process arbitrarily stops

[Anonymous No.19949736]

>>19948328
>>19948302
im not saying thier wrong im just saying that hypothetically scholasticism pigeon holed all further philosophy of western tradition in a immutably "bent" aspect which cannot face its predocessors with becoming "muddied"

[Anonymous No.19949754]

So i havent seen anyone actually post a book reccomendation, so i will. This is a really good, comprehensive introduction to Thomist thought. i very highly recommend everyone read it before discussing Thomism further. Gilson has also written several other books discussing Thomism and the condition of modern philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19950599]

>>19945695
Yes he is irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.19950841]

>>19950599
>t. zoomie who hasn't read him

[Anonymous No.19950875]

>>19946075
>pic
Seriously though how do non Christians explain the fact that the world's most intelligent men have mostly been Christian? Serious question, as I've never seen any good answer to this that wasn't cope.

[Anonymous No.19950962]

>>19949417
Thomism is the pinnacle of philosophy. See >>19950913

[Anonymous No.19951030]

>>19950962
Augustine is better

[Anonymous No.19951051]

>>19950962
>>19951030
Neither are taken seriously by anyone other than christians

[Anonymous No.19951074]

>>19950875
Anyone? Atheists?

[Anonymous No.19951087]

>>19950875
Yes it is rather strange now that you mention it, that in a society where most people officially profess a given religion, most people officially profess a given religion.

[Anonymous No.19951109]

>>19951087
A lot of brilliant scientists have openly professed their belief in God though, most famously Niels Bohr. You sound like you're coping, you have absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion that these men weren't actually Christians.

[Anonymous No.19951214]

>>19951109
>your assertion that these men weren't actually Christians.
That's not the claim, the claim is that in a religious society most members of any group will belong to the dominant religion

[Anonymous No.19951310]

>>19951051
Heidegger literally copied Saint Augustine brainlet.

[Anonymous No.19951314]

>>19950841
Does Wikipedia count?.

[Anonymous No.19951324]

>>19951310
I don't think St. Augustine ever spoke about thos beans, even though Aristotle did at the beginning of his Metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19951923]

>>19951167
>>19951186
>>19951239

Uhh... Atheistbros?

[Anonymous No.19951977]

>>19949094
What about the transcendental argument?

[Anonymous No.19951989]

>>19951977
The trascendental argument is probably one of the worst theistic arguments. The only worst one might be the moral argument. The best ones are the various arguments from contingency

[Anonymous No.19951997]

>>19951989
Am I a brainlet if none of these arguments (cosmological, transcendental, etc) sway me? Theists like >>19951923 act like once you understand the arguments you're somehow forced to become a theist because it's supposedly so evident, but I don't see it.

[Anonymous No.19952003]

>>19951214
But these scientists are statistical outliers in terms of intelligence, so if Catholicism really was unreasonable, wouldn't they have rejected it?

[Anonymous No.19952007]

>>19951997
>Am I a brainlet if none of these arguments (cosmological, transcendental, etc) sway me?
No, I'm a an atheist too, there's plenty of atheist philosophers of religion, most philosophers in general are atheists. Reasonable non-belief is a non-controversial thing outside of fundamentalist circles.
Still, even if I don't find any arguments convincing, I can see that some are better than others. Same thing with atheistic arguments: logical problem of evil = bad, evidential problem of evil = better, evidential problem of suffering = much better. Evolution is true therefore no Jeebus = bad, problem of divine hiddenness = good
>>19952003
>wouldn't they have rejected it?
There are intelligent people who believe all kind of nonsense. Being really smart doesn't mean you apply your intellect equally to everything, nor does it mean that you believe that you should be rationally justified in each one of your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.19952009]

>>19952007
>There are intelligent people who believe all kind of nonsense.
You're talking about the overwhelming majority of them here.

[Anonymous No.19952011]

>>19948786
Literary the next 200 pages of the Summa focus on what that Gods properties are lmao,

How are atheists this fucking braindead?

[Anonymous No.19952017]

[Anonymous No.19952021]

>>19952009
And? The list of nobel prize winners who believed in nonsense is also surprisingly long. And believing in aliens is a lot less socially accepted and emotionally charged than religious belief.
Now, if religious belief was particularly more rational than atheism, we would expect ceteris paribus, theists to be over-represented among smarter people. Instead, it's the opposite.
Mind you, I'm not saying that theism is necessarily irrational, I'm not even saying that it's always less rational for every person. But it's clearly not more rational and the fact that smart people were catholic/christians means very little

[Anonymous No.19952023]

>>19952011
Aquinas argument for the trinity is as dogshit as his argument for why lots of cases of impotence are caused by demons.
Aquinas would have produced better arguments had he been a muslim, since at least muslims aren't schizophrenic about monotheism.

[Anonymous No.19952025]

>>19952021
There are currently very few geniuses in the sciences compared to the 19th and 20th century and society has now become overwhelmingly atheistic

[Anonymous No.19952028]

>>19952025
>There are currently very few geniuses in the sciences compared to the 19th and 20th century
Says who? There's plenty of geniuses in the sciences, in fact there are probably a lot more than before, it's just that as science progresses it becomes more and more difficult, to the point of it being impossible, to make broad, revolutionary discoveries. See for example the type of observational instruments that are needed for verifying hypotheses today vs 100 years ago.

[Anonymous No.19952029]

>>19952007
>some are better than others.
But in the end none of these arguments prove anything is my feeling. I mean, they're called "proofs" but all they are is the eloquently articulated opinions of theists and atheists for why their particular worldview is right.
However, while atheists can act like self righteous retards, I've never seen anyone but Catholics try to act as if these glorified opinions were some kind of concrete and undeniable evidence of Yahweh. Is it self-delusion or am I missing something here

[Anonymous No.19952037]

>>19952029
>Is it self-delusion
It is. It comes from the fact that it's officially the doctrine of the catholic church that God's existence can be proven from reason alone. So catholics start from that premise and reason their way backwards to "These are totally irrefutable proofs!". Just let them say that, it's not worth to argue with most of them. Just ask what was the last article/book from an atheist philosopher they've read and when they deflect/don't answer/reply that it's not needed, you will know that the person in front of you is a moron.

[Anonymous No.19952045]

>>19951923
I don't get it, this guy isn't saying anything of substance.
>aristotle and plato were monotheists and hated fags so that means they were proto-christians
>plato was a theist so this means atheists are wrong
>four contemporary philosophers converted to catholicism so that means it's true
>realism is irrefutable because it just is ok
>sextus empiricus had one wrong belief so that means skepticism as a whole can be disregarded
>descartes bad
>aquinas is considered an important philosopher therefore he's right
>"neo-scholastics" don't like kant so that means kant is wrong
>aquinas was never refuted
There are literally zero arguments in these posts

[Anonymous No.19952060]

>>19952023
Lmao, imagine coping this hard

>Aquinas is bad, because i say he is bad

[Anonymous No.19952061]

>>19951923
What was in the deleted posts?

[Anonymous No.19952063]

>>19952061
>>/lit/thread/19950733#p19951167

[Anonymous No.19952073]

>>19952037
>it's officially the doctrine of the catholic church
Oh. So it's mental gymnastics all the way down starting from a shoddy premise. I get the zeal, but now I also get why their so-called proofs didn't do anything for me.
Would you say it's worth engaging seriously with thomism and scholasticism nonetheless? What are their most solid refutations in your opinion in western philosophy?

[Anonymous No.19952084]

>>19952060
It's not a cope and that's not my argument. In fact, I made no arguments, they were simply comments.
>>19952073
>Would you say it's worth engaging seriously with thomism and scholasticism nonetheless?
Sure, but it's not the only type of theism worth engaging with. I don't even think it's the best type of theism.
>What are their most solid refutations
It depends on what arguments we're talking about. Or what kind of properties. For example, there are various problem with the doctrine that God is completely unchanging, doesn't depend on anything else and has free will at the same time.

[Anonymous No.19952086]

>>19952084
I'm looking for more of an objective or impartial exposition of the main arguments put forth by Aquinas, with corresponding counterarguments, ideally.
>not the only type of theism worth engaging with
Seems like the most popular, no?

[Anonymous No.19952114]

>>19952086
>I'm looking for more of an objective or impartial exposition of the main arguments put forth by Aquinas, with corresponding counterarguments, ideally.
I'm not aware of any books like that unfortunately. I know of a few books that contain classical argument and then counterarguments but they're not dedicated to just that nor they're necessarily complete. For example: Theism and Atheism Opposing Arguments in Philosophy
>Seems like the most popular, no?
Not at all, neoclassical theism is more popular in philosophy of religion.

[Anonymous No.19952124]

>>19952114
>I'm not aware of any books like that
Is it because it's too specific a request or because no philosophers have actually engaged in such a way with thomism to attempt to refute it?
Thanks for the recommendation.
>neoclassical theism
Aquinas is a classical theist, right? How does neoclassical theism differ from the classical conception of God as both immanent and transcendent?

[Anonymous No.19952133]

>>19952124
There's plenty of articles against arguments for classical theism, I'm just not aware of a book containing everything you asked. The previous book I cited contains some, viewed from a theistic and atheist perspective, so it's the closest thing I could think of.
>How does neoclassical theism differ
The relation between God and time and divine simplicity (God isn't simply in neo-classical theism) are the two biggest differences. Consider that often times it's not atheistic philosophers objecting to classical theism, it's neo-classical theists disagreeing with that view of God. An example of a philosopher that has often done this is R.T: Mullins.

[Anonymous No.19952137]

>>19952017
Can you refute nominalism?

[Anonymous No.19952170]

>>19952133
>often times it's not atheistic philosophers objecting to classical theism
I'm still just reading classics right now and haven't really engaged with contemporary philosophy, do (serious) atheist philosophers not bother engaging with theism neoclassical or otherwise, and if so what does their work focus on?

[Anonymous No.19952187]

>>19952170
>do (serious) atheist philosophers not bother engaging with theism neoclassical or otherwise
They do, it's just that there are fewer atheist philosopher of religion than theist philosophers of religion. So a good deal of objection to theistic arguments is actually done by theists who disagree with other theists.

[Anonymous No.19952201]

>>19952187
I understand. Thanks for explaining.

[Anonymous No.19952385]

>>19948895
>first cause
>a logical explanation
Lmao

[Anonymous No.19952493]

>>19952063
But this indeed demonstrates how Plato and Aristotle were indeed proto-Christians.

[Anonymous No.19952543]

>>19952084
>It's not a cope and that's not my argument. In fact, I made no arguments, they were simply comments.

[Anonymous No.19952552]

>>19952543