/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10208760]

When did you realize that St. Thomas Aquinas has all the answers?

[Anonymous No.10208769]

April 2014

[Anonymous No.10208833]

>>10208760
1265

[Anonymous No.10208862]

When he wrote the literal sum of all knowledge.

[Anonymous No.10208874]

>>10208760
why was he so fat?

[Anonymous No.10208905]

>>10208874
He consumed so much wisdom.

[Anonymous No.10208915]

>>10208874
Tom...easy on the knowledge

[Anonymous No.10208919]

>>10208760
Augustine vs Aquinas

Who would win?

[Anonymous No.10208961]

>>10208919
Difficult to say, given just how much St. Thomas bases his own theology on St. Augustine's. However, I'm willing to place my bets on Aquinas. De Ens et Essentia is one the most profound contributions Christianity has made to philosophy. It takes God's declaration of "I Am", and uses it as incredible food for thought within an Aristotelian framework.

[Anonymous No.10208972]

>>10208874
You're a big theologian.

[Anonymous No.10208974]

>>10208972
For you.

[Anonymous No.10209005]

>>10208874

Dominican habits make everyone look fatter than they are.

[Anonymous No.10209035]

>>10208760
What do I read of/on him to get an overview without getting into the whole autism-package of the summa?

[Anonymous No.10209075]

>>10209035
>>10209035
For a briefer version of some of his writings, Penguin and Oxford both have good Selected Writings available. If you want the thought of Aquinas introduced to you by a other author, I recommend Josef Pieper's Guide to Aquinas or Aquinas: An Introduction to the Life and Work of the Great Medieval Thinker by F.C. Copleston.

[Anonymous No.10209077]

>>10209035
Nothing, you eat your dumb wiki article by retards for retards because that's what you deserve.

[Anonymous No.10209134]

>>10208919
In a fight?

The Chad Augustine would probably have better movies but Aquinas was a big guy so it's hard to say

[Anonymous No.10209156]

>>10209035
Aquinas himself wrote the shorter summa, which is a condensed form of the summa

[Anonymous No.10209163]

>>10209035
GK Chesterton's book on Aquinas is a masterful introduction to both

[Anonymous No.10209185]

>>10209075
>>10209156
>>10209163
Thank you, I will have to look these up.
On the shorter summa: There doesn't seem to be too much information on this out there. Is this a recent discovery? I was only able to find an English translation.
I would prefer to read in German (my native language) but it seems there's no such thing.

>>10209077
>Yes hello of course it's reasonable to just jump into pic related in order to get an overview

[Anonymous No.10209202]

>>10209185
Had a quick google alas it seems there are no German versions of Chesterton at all. Going straight into the source material in a different language will be hard

[Anonymous No.10209222]

>>10209185
Josef Pieper's was German, so his book should be available to you. I believe its original title was Hinführung zu Thomas von Aquinas. There also might be translations of French authors like Etienne Gilson, who wrote some good stuff on Aquinas, but that's just a wild guess.

[Anonymous No.10209230]

Daily reminder that Kany btfoed both the cosmological and the ontological argument

[Anonymous No.10209231]

>>10208760
is palamas superior?

[Anonymous No.10209236]

>>10208760
He never finished his works though.
Feels bad man

[Anonymous No.10209246]

>>10208760
>dude let's presuppose the universe works in the same way as the motion of the contents of the universe, analogies and unfounded uniformitarianism is completely valid lmao!

[Anonymous No.10209348]

>>10209230

Kant refuted strawmans. Read Feser.

[Anonymous No.10209682]

>>10209348
Do you really think that a philosopher of Kant's caliber would have made such a gross error? https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx/kant-on-the-cosmological-argument.pdf%3Fc%3Dphimp%3Bidno%3D3521354.0014.012%3Bformat%3Dpdf&ved=0ahUKEwis3eyNwJnXAhVFXBoKHW2oCK4QFggtMAI&usg=AOvVaw2h1id2lozdA4Swxiwjlqac read up
>Feser
Literally who

[Anonymous No.10209714]

>>10209682

>https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source
>Literally who

I truly value your opinion

[Anonymous No.10210059]

>>10209682
>Do you really think that a philosopher of Kant's caliber would have made such a gross error?

Given that philosophers of equal. Caliber have disagreed with Kant, this is a weak thing to appeal to.

[Anonymous No.10210077]

>>10209714
The link explains pretty well Kant's criticism of the cosmological argument. If you can't read that's your problem.

>>10210059
Show me where they disagreed with Kant on this particular matter.

[Anonymous No.10210096]

>>10210077
This particular matter doesn't need to be where they disagree. They need to merely disagree. If philosophers of equal caliber disagree, then caliber is an insufficient quality to appeal to.

Less elaborately stated, you've committed an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.

[Anonymous No.10210110]

>>10210096
>I have recently discovered logical fallacies on the internet: the post

"Do you really think that a philosopher of Kant's caliber would have made such a gross error?" wasn't meant to be a logical argument. It wasn't meant to be an argument in the first place. It was a colloquial introduction to the link I posted. Why did you bring up logical fallacies?

[Anonymous No.10210155]

>>10210110
Because you used one.

[Anonymous No.10210156]

If I could STOP one person in all of history it would be Thomas Aquinas. It wouldn't even be close had not that demon-possessed lunatic drama queen Francis of Assisi lived.

Trad-cats and "traditional" Anglicans forcing Aquinas as a meme is disgusting. Who do you think is responsible for destroying Western Christianity? Besides Francis of Assisi, I mean. There's a reason why Aquinas is celebrated as a good-boy by atheists and apostates.

Thomas Aquinas, the patron of resorting to Aristotle and Medieval rabbis when you lose arguments against actual theologians. Thomas Aquinas, the patron of studying Augustine and only keeping what he got wrong. Thomas Aquinas, the damnable heretic who denies the literal presence of God in the Old Testament, claiming that what the saints saw were very convincing illusions, because he, typical of heretics, doesn't understand the essence-energies distinction.

STOP

[Anonymous No.10210211]

>>10210156
>Who do you think is responsible for destroying Western Christianity?

Come now Anon, we all know the real answer.

[Anonymous No.10210244]

>>10208760
>tfw the failure of Scholasticism......
the failure of human reason...
the failure of God..

[Anonymous No.10210268]

I've studied Aquinas and Augustine. I got bored with both. Augustine seems to have reappropriated Plato, while Aquinas did the same to Aristotle. I clicked on this thread because I thought, 'wow there are quite a few posts here, there must be something of substance that I can learn from', but I was let down. Can anyone tell me some improvement that Aquinas made on Aristotle's thought (a philosophy I dislike but am familiar with, and please be specific)?

[Anonymous No.10210271]

>>10210211
Luther pilfered a corpse.

[Anonymous No.10210277]

>>10210156
You're fucking precious. Who is your favorite philosopher?

[Anonymous No.10210290]

>>10209231
No.

[Anonymous No.10210296]

>>10210156
>Literally denying divine simplicity.

The only heretic here is you.

[Anonymous No.10210297]

>>10210268
>I've studied Aquinas and Augustine

Read Gregory the Theologian and Maximos the Confessor

[Anonymous No.10210299]

>>10210268
Aquinas' main improvement on Aristotle's thought is tackling the question of why there is something rather than nothing. To Aristotle (and the other Greeks) the main metaphysical question is "why are things the way they are?" whereas Aquinas takes the Aristotelian framework and asks "Why is there anything at all?" He expands upon the idea of the Unmoved Mover. God is not anymore simply the one who set things in motion. In a universe where all beings are contingent on another cause to explain why they exist, he is the one Necessary Being that can explain why anything exists. He has no potency as Aristotle conceives of, God is pure act, because potency implies something unfulfilled, something lacking. Not being contingent, but necessarily existening, being lure act, his essence and his being are one and the same. God is the one being to which when the question "What is it?" is asked, the answer is "He is."

Touching on the subject of contingent being, and the need for a being that necessarily exists of its own nature, while Aquinas out of faith does not believe the universe to have existed infinitely back in time, he's actually willing to accept that it's possible, and argues against St. Bonaventure on this point. The First Cause, God, isn't necessarily First in a temporal sense, but in an ontological one. All else is contingent on something else for its existence, God is not.

[Anonymous No.10210302]

>>10210268
You very clearly haven't studied either Aquinas or Aristotle if you don't understand what Aquinas added.

[Anonymous No.10210335]

>>10210271
If you're implying that Luther borrowed from Aquinas, barely. Their theologies diverge radically, and if you read any of Luther's writings you'll see his entire mode of thought is different. It is not the calm dispassionate scholastic commentary of Aquinas by any means. Besides, we all know Luther (and many other Protestants) took more from St. Augustine.

[Anonymous No.10210383]

>>10210335
I was implying that Luther didn't destroy western Christianity, because it was already dead. I should have said he desecrated, delimbed, or dismembered the corpse.

[Anonymous No.10210406]

>>10210302
I got a 3.9 in a masters of theological study with my thesis being on Greek philosophy (on the Plato side of things). And I have read the two neatly packaged paragraphs above about his 'contributions' but do you guys really think that is something? Don't you sort of think, looking back on it, he was too lost in his own world of speculation to realize that what he spent so much time focusing on was really of no consequence and could just as easily be true as untrue? I mean the 'pure act' and potency things are sort of silly. I think he might have just misinterpreted the importance that Plato places on action that is described in a cosmological manner but is really intended to be used for understanding the self. God being the thing that offers explanation for everything: how is that different from Plato's one of which all thing take part and the concept that Plato says is the solution to the problem with knowledge that doesn't have a proper account? It is through the idea of the good that all things are connected and all things are known, like in the sun analogy. And with regard to why is there something instead of nothing, Plato takes that on with pretty much the same reasoning. Maybe Aristotle didn't touch it, but Plato hit those notes. I'm sorry I don't have sources on hand, so my response is pretty much invalid, but I just wanted to see what people thought all the Aquinas fuss was about

[Anonymous No.10210452]

>>10210406

[Anonymous No.10210456]

>>10210156
>dissing St. Francis

Vile.

[Anonymous No.10210483]

>>10210456
>>10210456
>St.

Francis, patron of repentance as performance art.

[Anonymous No.10210488]

>>10210452
Don't believe me it really doesn't matter. My thesis compared symbolism in Mark to symbolism used by the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria. If you thought Aquinas was interesting, Philo would blow your mind.

[Anonymous No.10210495]

>>10210488
You don't understand basic Aristotilean/Platonic concepts. You are spouting carrier tier autism now. Please go away.

[Anonymous No.10210517]

>>10210456
see http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx he was not a saint.

[Anonymous No.10210523]

>>10210406
>I mean the 'pure act' and potency things are sort of silly.

It's not silly at all. To imply potency within God would be blasphemy. It's stating that God is in some way lacking, that he could somehow be something more.

As for how Aquinas' description of God as the first cause, the necessary being, it's different from Plato because the whole idea of Platonic realism has the things of this world literally partaking in the being of the perfect forms, or in this case, God. That's straying awfully close to pantheism, a path that some Platonists took. It is one thing to depend on God for your being, it is another to partake in it.

[Anonymous No.10210540]

>>10210523
>'s not silly at all. To imply potency within God would be blasphemy. It's stating that God is in some way lacking, that he could somehow be something more.

Not that anon but I think you are missing the point of him criticizing it at a more foundational level. Its putting the cart before the horse - if its an incorrect category or understanding its not something God can lack.

For instance adarxaig must exist and to deny this would be blasphemy as to do so would mean that God is in some way lacking, that he could somehow be something more - God with adarxaig.

This is clearly faulty

[Anonymous No.10210557]

>>10210517
That article straight up lies in several cases. St. Francis was canonized for far more than being a stigmatist. Christ's wounds only appeared on his body in the last two years of his life, he was a well known figure before that. Pope Gregory IX had personally known St. Francis, and was acquainted with his own personal example of holiness. In fact, the article's entire focus on stigmata is unwarranted. St. Francis of Assissi is revered for far more things than being a stigmatist. The author is just focusing on it so much because it's an alien phenomenon to a Byzantine audience, and thus easy to distract them with away from the actual essence of why St. Francis is considered holy. This is mostly polemic, and very little substance.

[Anonymous No.10210563]

I enjoyed reading about his philosophy of mind. Particularly, I like how he emphasized that, although humans are material, there must be an ontological (non reducible) component to our awareness. Through this humans can possess higher knowledge that transcends subordination of physical forces. In this respect it presents an infinitely more plausible argument for the mind-body problem than dualism, panpsychism, and idealism without being absurdly reductionist as most materialistic philosophies are.

[Anonymous No.10210567]

>>10210563
Basically, Aquinas understands that the mind is greater than the sum of its parts.

[Anonymous No.10210599]

>>10210563
Aquinas is a dualist, he's just not a Cartesian.

[Anonymous No.10210606]

>>10210523
Plato didn't address potency because it isn't actually an issue. That is what I was saying his 'new' content was inconsequential. God is the way God is. God is perfect. If one knows these things what is the reason to fiddle around with these inconsequential word games. If blasphemy is not a concern of course.

And the partaking thing is strange. Whenever it is beneficial for the anti-Platonist it is argued that the world of ideas is separate from the material world (which would imply that things of the world are dependent on the idea of the good but don't partake of the ideas) and then at other times (I think this is what you are saying) the two worlds are interwoven to the extent that things of the world partake of ideas. In Parminedes they wrestle with these issues and don't come to a conclusion. Both extremes are listed as well as the most reasonable refutation of each case, but Plato avoids the possibility of having others improve upon his concepts because he shows the faulty nature of both sides and accepts that the answer is somewhere in between, while Aquinas just pushes for the same argument it seems that Parmenides makes in the dialogue with regard to the relationship between ideas and things of the world and of God and the world. Therefore he is subject to the same criticism that is offered against this view in other dialogues. The way I see it, Aquinas just took a pre-existing side in the argument and used different words to describe it so he can justify calling it 'new'

[Anonymous No.10210625]

>>10210523


>If by reason and wisdom a person has come to understand that what exists was brought out of non-being into being by God, if he intelligently directs the soul’s imagination to the infinite differences and variety of things as they exist by nature and turns his questing eye with understanding towards the intelligible model (logos) according to which things have been made, would he now know that the one Logos is many logoi? This is evident in the incomparable differences among created things. For each is unmistakably unique in itself and its identity remains distinct in relation to other things. He will also know that the many logoi are the one Logos to whom all things are related and who exists in himself without confusion, the essential and individually distinctive God, the Logos of God the Father. He is the beginning and cause of all things in whom all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities–all things were created from him and through him and for him (Col. 1:15-17, Rom. 11:36). Because he held together in himself the logoi before they came to be, by his gracious will he created things visible and invisible out of non-being. By his word and his wisdom he made all things (Wisdom 9:1-2) and is making all things, universals as well as particulars, at the proper time.

>For we believe that a logos of angels preceded their creation, a logos preceded the creation of each of the beings and powers that fill the upper world, a logos preceded the creation of human beings, a logos preceded the creation of everything that proceeded from God, and so on. It is not necessary to mention them all. The Logos whose excellence is incomparable, ineffable and inconceivable in himself is exalted beyond all creation and even beyond the idea of difference and distinction. This same Logos, whose goodness is revealed and multiplied in all the things that have their origin in him, with the degree of beauty appropriate to each being, recapitulates all things in himself (Eph. 1:10). Through this Logos there came to be both being and continuing to be, for from him the things that were made came to be in a certain way and for a certain reason, and by continuing to be and moving, they participate in God. For all things, in that they came to be from God, participate proportionally in God. For all things, whether by intellect, by reason, by sense-perception, by vital motion, or by some habitual fitness, as the great inspired Dionysius the Areopagite thought. Consequently, each of the intellectual and rational beings, whether angels or human beings, through the very Logos according to which each were created, who is in God and is "with God" (John 1:1), is "called and indeed is" a “portion of God,” through the Logos that preexisted in God as I already argued.

[Anonymous No.10210633]

>>10210606
>Plato didn't address potency because it isn't actually an issue.

Start here.

[Anonymous No.10210646]

>>10210625
I'm guessing this is Aquinas? But he is just explaining the Platonic logos concept? In what ways does this description differ from Plato's (apart from senselessly artful manner in which it is displayed here, when this is said in fifteen words by Plato)?

[Anonymous No.10210661]

>>10210633
It isn't an issue if one believes the goal of philosophy is the goal that Plato described: the mystical union with God. The garbage that Aristotle wastes his time on has caused a major waste in human potential for the last 2000 years. That is some potential we actually should concern ourselves with. Aristotle had daddy issues with Plato as the father figure that rejected him for his analytical bullshit. His mass of writing is really just the byproduct of lifelong psychological complexes. I'm never reading him again.

[Anonymous No.10210669]

>>10210661
Are you going to give an actual defense of Platonic realism, or continue on misunderstanding Aristotle/Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.10210670]

>>10210646

No, St Maximos. He's developing a larger point here, but I quoted this section because it runs counter to Aquinas. It's from Ambiguum 7. It's not philosophy, it's Divine theology, putting Platonic ideas in their proper context.

[Anonymous No.10210695]

>>10210669
I was just trying to figure out why people think Aquinas was special. I don't really feel the need to defend anything. I don't think anyone was challenging any point Plato made, so I don't know really know what I'd say. I spent two years surrounded by priests that tried to explain why aquinas' philosophy was new or different but it still looks the same as what came before. I'm sort of Christian but I've never read a Christian philosopher that I think has presented something new or interesting. It's probably just a me problem, otherwise, it could be the case that christians latch onto whatever important christians say and champion it as valuable truth. But I guess I'll never know which one it is. Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I really appreciate it. Honestly

[Anonymous No.10210724]

>>10210695
Part of what makes Aquinas significant is the specific philosophical and theological background of his era. Aristotle had just been reintroduced to the West. There were different reactions. Some wanted to completely accept everything Aristotle said. Others wanted to reject him, and some wanted even to go so far as to utterly reject philosophy as a permissible endeavor for Christians. Into this came Aquinas, who managed to mostly settle the matter. Aristotle was acceptable, but did not need to be accepted wholesale. Philosophy was an acceptable, even a worthy endeavor, but it had its limitations. Theology was a "science" (in the medieval sense of the word, not the modern one) in which reason could be used. God's existence can be proven by reason, but it is not a self evident truth. A lot of this may seem really obvious now, but in the middle ages they were heavily divisive issues, ones which St. Thomas managed to mostly settle, at least within the sphere of Catholic philosophy and theology. Though there have been those who disagreed with him, much of what Aquinas said remains the prevailing view for Catholic circles. He's one of those figures who can seem unimpressive because his influence is so big that we kind of take what he said for granted, unknowingly repeating his teachings because they've become so widely accepted. In the time that he lived in, he brought about the resolution of some of the most pressing philosophical and theological issues of his time. Centuries have passed, and new challenges have arisen, but his influence persists in Christian thought.

[Anonymous No.10210740]

>>10210724
That is wonderful, thank you so much

[Anonymous No.10210741]

>>10208760
When I actually bothered to read him. Really brilliant man. Accomplished more by his interaction with Aristotle than all the Muslims over 5 centuries of possessing the Greek philosophers.

[Anonymous No.10210889]

>>10209230
Kant never read or engaged with Aquinas at all.

[Anonymous No.10210890]

>>10209005
maybe okay but the guy in that pic is actually fat

[Anonymous No.10210891]

>>10210110
Yes, Kant indeed has made that mistake and has wrote openly that he never read him. His calibre is completely irrelevant to this.

[Anonymous No.10210897]

>>10210599
Hylomorphist, not a dualist.

[Anonymous No.10210929]

>>10210211
Luther tried to save Christianity from Thomist bs and tried to go back to a pure Augustinian understanding.

[Anonymous No.10210934]

>>10210299
Good post

[Чиeaть No.10210944]

>>10209231
Yes he explains the 2 modes for god essence and energies

[Чиeaть No.10210957]

>>10210944
Also Aqunis makes a bad theological mistake with qu3stion 12 on the vision of god. God essence is to him what can be known with god and energies impossible to know. Palamas wins out saying its the opposite which is more mystical and rational

[Anonymous No.10210962]

>>10210957
What the fuck are you trying to say

[Чиeaть No.10210989]

>>10210962
We can know gods energies not gods essence

[Anonymous No.10211000]

>>10210989
Aquinas doesn't say that we know God's essence.

[Чиeaть No.10211017]

>>10211000
Question 12 says otherwise

[Anonymous No.10211021]

>>10211017
"For as the ultimate beatitude of man consists in the use of his
highest function, which is the operation of his intellect; if we
suppose that the created intellect could never see God, it would
either never attain to beatitude, or its beatitude would consist in
something else beside God; which is opposed to faith. For the
ultimate perfection of the rational creature is to be found in that
which is the principle of its being; since a thing is perfect so far as it
attains to its principle. Further the same opinion is also against
reason. For there resides in every man a natural desire to know the
cause of any effect which he sees; and thence arises wonder in men.
But if the intellect of the rational creature could not reach so far as to
the first cause of things, the natural desire would remain void.
Hence it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the
essence of God."
"I answer that, God cannot be seen in His essence by a mere human
being, except he be separated from this mortal life. The reason is
because, as was said above (Article 4), the mode of knowledge
follows the mode of the nature of the knower. But our soul, as long
as we live in this life, has its being in corporeal matter; hence
naturally it knows only what has a form in matter, or what can be
known by such a form. Now it is evident that the Divine essence
cannot be known through the nature of material things. For it was
shown above (Articles 2,9) that the knowledge of God by means of
any created similitude is not the vision of His essence. Hence it is
impossible for the soul of man in this life to see the essence of God.
This can be seen in the fact that the more our soul is abstracted from
corporeal things, the more it is capable of receiving abstract
intelligible things. Hence in dreams and alienations of the bodily
senses divine revelations and foresight of future events are
perceived the more clearly. It is not possible, therefore, that the soul
in this mortal life should be raised up to the supreme of intelligible
objects, i.e. to the divine essence. "
Yes, the saints in Heaven can know God's essence. We in our lives now can not.
Can you read?

[Чиeaть No.10211034]

>>10211021
Then Aquinas and palamas and are right together. I stand corrected.

[Anonymous No.10211056]

>>10210625

the tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao

[Anonymous No.10211151]

>>10210211
Calvin was worse

[Anonymous No.10211164]

>>10211151
But less influential.

[Anonymous No.10211183]

>>10211151
TRUE.

[Anonymous No.10211192]

>>10210488
>My thesis compared symbolism in Mark to symbolism used by the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria.

Gee, that's never been done before...

[Anonymous No.10211210]

>>10208760
>muh natural theology
>deriving ought from an is
>having answers
???

[Anonymous No.10211218]

>>10211210
There's no difference between is and ought for Aqunas. All rationality is essentially practical and moral in nature, meaning every rational person is necessarily moral as well.

[Anonymous No.10211227]

>>10211218
Oh great, even worse. He makes the same mistake as Plato/Socrates and thinks that reason = morality. Here I thought he actually contributed something instead of just borrowed from Plato.

[Anonymous No.10211240]

>>10211227
Why is that a mistake?

[Anonymous No.10211241]

>>10211227
Also it's different than Plato because with him it is participating in the form of the good, but with Aquinas it has a teleological concept of morality where the good is determined by what is the final or temporal end or ends of a particular essence.

[Anonymous No.10211249]

>>10211241
That only sounds like Aristotelian teleology with Platonic metaphysics.
>>10211240
Read Twillight of the Idols. Nietzsche specifically attacks this idea in the first section. Or read Notes from Underground and think about the idea that reason=morality and how absolutely insane that sounds. Reasonable people often don't want to be moral. Unless, of course, your definition of "reason" includes morality for no reason beyond that's what it is, which is what is implied, which is tautological.

[Anonymous No.10211270]

>>10211249
I've read TOTI and more Nietzsche, nothing about him or Dostoevsky in any way represents a substantial criticism of Aquinas and Aristote. It is a collection of assertions, where the recognition of them as valid depends on your preconceived notions. Notes don't deal with this at all and to be frank, using it as an example showcases your total ignorance of thomist ethics. There's a number of propositions here, that are all parts of a larger system which we for this particular topic need not get into, but the reasoning is as follows:
The object of reason is being.
Anything that has a being also has an essence, because it is not just existing, it is existing as something.
From the essence we can deduce the roles of various entities, for example the object of an eye is to see, of heart to pump blood, of man to contemplate the transcendental and live the good life and so on.
As reason grasps these things and all beings move to bring about their good, it is concluded that the rational man acts in accordance with these principles. The rational man is not related to intelligence, and Dostoevsky only showcases stupidity in Notes, as is easily concluded from the premises.
Men act wrongly because they do not recognise the ends and principles, and if they do and ignore them they also reject rational agency, because all beings act to bring around their good.
This is showcased well in the first half of Whose Justice Which Rationality by Alsadair MacIntyre, which I would recommend as the best work on this topic.

[Anonymous No.10211292]

>>10211270
I know nothing of thomist ethics and I have no desire to learn anything that is based on natural theology because it's frankly retarded (I'm in seminary fyi). The equation reason = morality is more presumptuous than anything Nietzsche sets forth. The idea that "things" have "purposes" is once such assumption that cannot be proved, only believed as part of an ontology. That is the criticism I am leveling.
Nietzsche doesn't use the traditional dialectics of argumentation because he believes them to be uncouth and decadent. The method of rabble.
The idea that men act wrongly because they do not "know" something or are under some illusion is beaten to death by Plato. It is specifically one of the topics in Meno. Regardless, the idea has no merit to me, as it has so many illogical consequences it makes my head spin.

[Anonymous No.10211417]

>>10211292
>I'm in seminary
Yeah, right.
>Only believed as part of an ontology
Like everything else?

In any case there's no reason to engage with you after this, you have no desire to learn or to challenge your ideas, so I guess stick to cheap rethoric.

[Anonymous No.10211442]

>>10211034
palamas and thomas aquinas arent polar opposites you fucking filthy slav

https://youtu.be/lLo05mafdlw

https://youtu.be/cfTz7vBCYfY

why did we allow slavshits in the theological sphere?

[Anonymous No.10211459]

>>10211442
John Paul II. was a slav. Cardinal Stepinac as well. Plenty of other saints too.

[Anonymous No.10211467]

>>10211459
I should have been more clear and said orthodox slavs. It's hard to consider Poles as full slavs and especially Croats.

[Anonymous No.10211471]

>>10211467
(Due to their huge Catholic influence).

[Anonymous No.10211488]

>>10211467
Croats and pols are civilized slavs, but still easy to see as Slavic.

[Anonymous No.10211542]

>>10211292
>in seminary

Why on earth are you appealing to Nietzsche then?

[Anonymous No.10211556]

In a dream, after I'd fallen asleep over all the intensely boring Aristotelianism in his texts

I then woke up and started reading something else instead

[Anonymous No.10211563]

>>10211542
Maybe he's a Jesuit, they aren't Catholic anymore.

[Anonymous No.10211726]

He didn't have all the answers, since he thought that Mary was not immaculately conceived and that catechumens in perfect contrition could be saved without water baptism, both of which are contrary to catholic dogma.

[Anonymous No.10211751]

>>10211292
>I know nothing of thomist ethics and I have no desire to learn anything that is based on natural theology because it's frankly retarded (I'm in seminary fyi).

The Church's magisterium has condemned this attitude. Look up the 24 Thomistic theses, the encyclical Aeterni Patris, the Syllabus of Errors, and the encylicals Pascendi and Lamentabili Sane.

All the Church fathers employed "natural theology" to some extent. Even St. Paul does so, e.g. when talking to the Athenians in Acts, or in Romans when he speaks of us knowing God through the things that have been made. Natural theology just means the study of God through natural reason; and the Church defined at Vatican I that the existence of God can be known by natural reason, i.e. natural theology is possible. St. Thomas explains why natural theology is important and necessary: it serves as a preamble to faith, as we know of God by our natural reason prepares us for the knowledge of God that we receive supernaturally by faith. People in general use natural theology, e.g. when they look up at the stars and muse that they must have been made by a "Higher Power"; it is natural to man to think of God. Agnosticism, that we cannot know God by reason but only approach God through faith, is a heresy.

[Anonymous No.10211769]

>>10211292
>The equation reason = morality is more presumptuous than anything Nietzsche sets forth.

It's not presumptuous but based on an understanding of human nature that the Church has always affirmed, i.e. that man is a rational animal, that acting in accordance with reason is natural to him. To act in accordance with reason in this sense does not mean that he follows the dictates of his own practical reasoning, but that he acts in accordance with Reason, i.e. the eternal Logos manifested in himself and all things.

>The idea that "things" have "purposes" is once such assumption that cannot be proved, only believed as part of an ontology.

But "ontologies" are not arbitrary things that one only "believes". Some are rational and others absurd. One might not be able to see that all things act for an ultimate purpose, i.e. God, but any man of common sense can see that things act for an immediate purpose, e.g. the plant grows roots to absorb water and nutrients in the soil. The teleological argument for God's existence builds on that common observation.

>Nietzsche doesn't use the traditional dialectics of argumentation because he believes them to be uncouth and decadent. The method of rabble.

He was simply a sophist, i.e. he lied when it suited him.

[Anonymous No.10211828]

>>10211192
I mean, I looked everywhere for secondary sources and only found papers that would take on in or two symbols whereas I took on the narrative ar of the book and all of its allegorical passages. But please, I would be super genuinely interested to see whatever you are referring to when you imply that it has been done before. I could find next to nothing.

[Anonymous No.10211843]

>>10211726
Later proclaimed dogma. And his immaculate conception denial is overblown, as in he denied that she was preserved from the original sin from beginning, instead that she was cleansed from it in the moment of her conception. Alongside that, a lot more him was later on made into dogma or dogma was based in his metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.10211913]

>>10209005
That may be true but Aquinas was actually fat.

[Anonymous No.10211938]

>>10211056
You know what, while we've got some theologically astute people in this thread, I might as well respond to this, and address something that's been on my 9n my mind. There's a book called Christ the Eternal Tap, written by some Eastern Orthodox, about how Christ is the Tao that Laotzu grasps at in the Tao Te Ching. Curious, I went ahead and read the Tao Te Ching, and I'll say...it's curious. Much like Virgil's Fourth Eclogue, it is easy to imagine that the author was being nudged in the right direction by God, but it's not certain by any means. There's a lot of moments in the book where if you replaced Tao with Logos, it becomes uncanny. A few quotes, so you can see what I'm getting at:

>The name that can be named us not the eternal name. The nameless is the origin of heaven and earth.

>The Tao...it is the child of I-don't-know-who.

>It is called the distant...It is called the rare...It is called the subtle...These three ultimately cannot be fathomed. Therefore they join to become one.

>Heaven is Tao. Tao is eternal.

>The form of great virtue is something only the Tao can follow. The Tao as a "thing" is only vague and obscure...The essence is so real, therein is belief.

>There is something that is perfect in its disorder which is born before heaven and earth. So silent and desolate! It establishes itself without renewal. Functions universally without lapse. We regard it as the mother of everything. I don't know its name. Hence when I am forced to name it, I call it Tao.

>The Tao is always not-doing, yet there is nothing it doesn't do.

I'm not claiming that Laotzu is a prophet or anything, or that the Tao Te Ching is secretly a Christian work (it is too contrary to Church doctrine for that), but still...some of what is said about the Tao feels oddly familiar, and the idea that God has manipulated societies that have never heard the Gospel to be closer to him has been around since ancient times. Curious, no?

[Anonymous No.10211946]

>>10211938
This is the spookiest one

>TAO gave birth to One,
>One gave birth to Two,
>Two gave birth to Three,
>Three gave birth to all the myriad things.

[Anonymous No.10211961]

>>10211769
>He was simply a sophist, i.e. he lied when it suited him.
Source?

[Anonymous No.10211966]

>>10208760
Can he answer why I am such a huge faggot?

[Anonymous No.10211973]

>>10211946
My almonds are so activated right now.

[Anonymous No.10211998]

>>10211938
I have been neck-deep in Taoist texts after my love affair with Platonism after my stint with Christian writers and, while I have neither the will nor the means to defend it here, I'm convinced that Plato got his hands on whatever Lao Tzu was pulling from and Mark (first gospel that everyone else used to craft their own version) and Paul were pulling from Platonist sources (Philo). It wouldn't be a stretch to believe that Plato had some eastern influence (as he claims he does). The thing that pushed me over the edge was the idea of the self, that the self uses the ears and eyes as tools, and it is not the ears or eyes that see or hear but some distinct being, the self. Apart from that, just about all practical concepts line up between the two streams of thought. Again, I won't go into depth here, but it has been incredibly fascinating, for anyone who thinks they might be interested

[Anonymous No.10212005]

>>10211938
>>10211946

>christ is both man and divine
>Word made flesh -- embodiment of the divine process
>conquered and overcame death and sin
>full of paradoxes, yet perfect in totality and action
>synoptic gospels written by people whom were killed for professing belief in Him and His resurrection

>Revelations 1:8
>I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

>Matt. 13:13
>Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

[Anonymous No.10212045]

>>10208874
he wasn't a poorfag

[Anonymous No.10212113]

>>10208760
When I was like 14.

>>10209246
The universe is literally manifest in its parts. Anything outside of this relation is of metaphysical necessity called God. You can't come along with your lovecraft shit and say that the true reality is different from what we experience. First of all because you have no reason to assume so and no evidence to make the assumption reasonable, and if it is true then you have no way to discover it, this true reality. And second of all because it is demonstrably not true, since by analogy we can transition successfully to and from many different modes of knowledge, and so by analogy we can infer the nature of things from the operation of things. All the data is there, analogy is totally sufficient and successful.
Also the quinque viae literally proves you wrong. But I have too much experience with the irreligious to expect you to know that.

[Anonymous No.10212271]

Mental gymnastics the philosopher. He sets out with an answer and then works toward solving it when it should be the other way around.

[Anonymous No.10212283]

>>10211998
Plato is a bit too much of a rationalist for me to buy more than a very slight amount of influence from Taoism, or whatever ancient source Laotzu drew on. Additionally, Plato's metaphysics are radically different. It's a far cry from the dualistic monism found in Taoism thought. I'm reminded of how Confucian and Aristotelian ethics have some incredibly uncanny similarities, but there is really no evidence of any distant influence, merely people coming to the same conclusions.

[Anonymous No.10212433]

>>10212271
They are called a hypotheses and premises you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10212440]

>>10212113
>when I was like 14
>aquinas' ideas appeal to underdeveloped, adolescent minds
Unsurprising

>the universe is manifest in its parts
>this blatant reductionism
Really makes me think

>people who question realism must automatically be making the assumption of realism
>implying my post was even related to realism in the first place
Really starts floggin my noggin

>saying the quinque viae proves me wrong with no justification of why you think so
>moving between constructed categories of knowledge somehow validates the concept of analogy
>analogy is totally sufficient and successful even though it can lead to demonstrably, obscenely wrong results like the earth is flat since small globes can't hold water yet the earth does hold water
Really agitates my cogitation

[Anonymous No.10212449]

>>10210523
>God is pure act
>God cannot change
>dying, in going from alive to dead, is change
>jesus died and is God
Gj christcucks

[Anonymous No.10212465]

>>10212449
Christ did all that in his humanity, and as St. Thomas explains, the Incarnation is really a change in humanity. He comparisons it to bringing a person closer to a pillar. You can say "That pillar is closer to him now", which sounds like change in the pillar, but is not. Likewise, in becoming human, God drew closer to us just like the immobile pillar did to the person who moved. And so it goes for all that Christ did as a man.

[Anonymous No.10212475]

>>10212449
Christ had 2 natures, human and divine. The human one undertook change, the divine didn't. This part isn't complicated, it's when you get into how the two natures interact where you get into the difficult ground.

[Anonymous No.10212491]

>>10210299
But why can't the universe necessarily exist of its own nature?

>>10212465
>dualist nature of god
Lmao

How do you define a pillar? How would you differentiate between two pillars that were materially the same? How would you differentiate between two twins that were materially the same? If you say they're the same, essentialism is dumb, and if you want to say they're not the same, you need to take into account spatial coordinates, to find whefe they are in relation to the rest of the universe, so a pillar closer to something else is not the same pillar when you consider there may be other pillars that are materially exactly like it, yet you would not say are it.
And then, obviously, you're implicitly saying that in losing his humanity God drew further away from us.

>>10212475
Show me the Bible quotes to support this dualist nature desu. This human/divine distinction is kind of silly when you consider all humans are made in God's image, and such a distinction is not referred to by God, iirc

[Anonymous No.10212529]

>>10212491
4 Discourses Against the Arians by Athanasius of Alexandria

[Anonymous No.10212569]

>>10212491
>But why can't the universe necessarily exist of its own nature?

Because everything that exists in the universe is contingent in being, not necessary. How would something composed entirely of contingent beings (if you can even refer to the universe as a singular thing) have an entirely contrary nature, that is, one of necessary existence?

>some stuff about pillars
Your argument is incoherent. I think you're missing the point of the analogy, which is to demonstrate that something's relation to another object can be altered without that something itself changing. Nothing you said changes that, nor did I ever state that God at some point lost his humanity.

>This human/divine distinction is kind of silly when you consider all humans are made in God's image, and such a distinction is not referred to by God, iirc

How is it silly? We are made in his image, but that does necessitate being of the same nature. A statue could be made in my image, but you could hardly call me a statue, or the statue human.

>Show me the Bible quotes to support this dualist nature desu.

Any of the parts of the New Testament that either refer to Christ specifically as a man, or specifically as God would seem to make this pretty clear. He is both human and divine.

[Anonymous No.10212606]

>>10212569


My argument is not incoherent at all, it's very clearly laid out. You're missing the point of the argument, which very clearly shows that spatial relations (and by analogy, relations that are more than spatial) are required to differentiate between things fully
Jesus died, and as his flesh is dead he can no longer be fully human, being entirely not of the flesh once more.

A statue is an imperfect facsimile, so your analogy is poor.

That does not support a dualist interpretation. By being incredibly reductionist, you may be able to pick out a specific trait, but that doesn't imply a dualist entity with two distinct natures. If I look at a dog, I may call it a four legged entity, I may call it a furry eared creature - but both ignore the reality of the whole. I don't disagree he is both human and divine, but I do disagree he is both separately, or has separate constituents that are each.

[Anonymous No.10212790]

>>10212606
>My argument is not incoherent at all, it's very clearly laid out. You're missing the point of the argument, which very clearly shows that spatial relations (and by analogy, relations that are more than spatial) are required to differentiate between things fully.

I'm not sure this argument demonstrates what you think it does.

>Jesus died, and as his flesh is dead he can no longer be fully human, being entirely not of the flesh once more.

A dead man is still a man. Christ remained fully human in death.

>A statue is an imperfect facsimile, so your analogy is poor.

As humans are imperfect facsimiles e of God.

>I don't disagree he is both human and divine, but I do disagree he is both separately, or has separate constituents that are each.

Then what exactly is your Christological view?

[Anonymous No.10213486]

>>10212283
I see Plato as the epitome of the anti-rationalist with Aristotle on the opposite side of the table. Plato and the Taoists both see the human mind as a sense that can't be trusted, in the same way that we can't rely on the other outward senses. Plato might support the use of rationality at points, but this is only during the prerequisite encyclical education that sets up the mind to prepare it for the education that comes afterward that rejects human rationality. With regard to cosmology, this book addresses the many similarities between the two systems: http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-8617-9780824835545.aspx
They are much more similar than we might think at first, but the author has a pretty strong sense of favoritism towards Taoism whenever he feels justified in expressing it. Look at trade that occurred between the east and Egypt around Plato's era. Plato said he got his good stuff from Egypt and why do you think Alexander the Great was instructed to go as Far East as possible to learn philosophy as a student of their small school? That was the objective of the most noteworthy conquest history has known; to learn more about eastern philosophy. Why do you think the Christians made a point of getting rid of the library of Alexandria? I'm not trying to be controversial, just offering food for thought

[Anonymous No.10213494]

>>10213486
*metaphysics, not cosmology

[Anonymous No.10213502]

>>10213486
>Plato as the epitome of the anti-rationalist
DEAD WRONG KIDDO

[Anonymous No.10213556]

>>10210989
This is a heretical denial of divine simplicity. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.10213564]

>>10213502
I'm sorry I phrased it softly. His is completely anti-rationalist. Name someone who shits on human reason more that Plato. Human reasoning is the biggest roadblock in people's way. Look at his arguments surrounding 'measure' and how God is the only measure worth anything (with human rationality on the opposite end of the spectrum. Use facts, let's do this. I can't believe this misconception is as common as it appears to be.

[Anonymous No.10213576]

>>10212569
>Because everything that exists in the universe is contingent in being, not necessary.
Except it isn't you nigger. Conservation of mass. Conservation of energy. Mass-energy equivalence in the special relativity. Parmenides solves this shit millennia ago.

[Anonymous No.10213586]

>>10213564
How about you try reading Plato?

>>10213576

How about you try reading Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.10213594]

>>10213586
How about you contribute substance. Like, an opinion with a justification

[Anonymous No.10213603]

>>10213586
Energy-matter isn't contingent, it doesn't matter what Aquinas says. Can't believe we fell for this meme for over 2000 years when Parmenides had it all figured out.

[Anonymous No.10213615]

>>10213594
It's clear you don't know what your talking about. If you can display any degree of knowlege about the author I will respond accordingly, but so far you have only repeated the same mis-readings/stock objections that you can find refuted somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.10213620]

>>10213603
Kek

[Anonymous No.10213687]

>>10213615
Dude-man: you probably read the above conversation in which I said I have a masters in (essentially) platonic thought. I have read each of Plato's dialogues at least three times, every major Platonist in the common era, and more secondary research on Plato's work than you've seen in your life (on any subject). So the 'try reading Plato argument' really doesn't hold water here. I'll try again with fewer words: which point do you object to?

[Anonymous No.10213737]

>>10213687
Then display basic knowledge of Platonic thought. To be frank, its obvious you are an idiot BSing on the internet.

>Look at his arguments surrounding 'measure' and how God is the only measure worth anything

Give me a citation of where Plato says this and we can continue the discussion.

[Anonymous No.10213785]

>>10211442
>palamas and thomas aquinas arent polar opposites

Maybe not polar opposites, but what does "polar opposites" mean in this context? Palamas being a Saint in heaven while the obese fraud Aquinas lingers in Hades indicates a separation between the two.

The Latin, when confronted with Orthodoxy, descends into nominalism, seeking within its confines to conquer the sudden onslaught of cognitive dissonance.

When the Orthodox moves on, the Latin slinks back into realism, smirking quite Jesuitly.

[Anonymous No.10213805]

>>10213785
Funny, because the opposite is true.

[Anonymous No.10213815]

>>10213737
I'm having trouble pasting from my program. Is this accessible:
http://a.co/iTayZsb

[Anonymous No.10213822]

>>10213815
I'll come back with better ones but do you know the platonic understanding of 'wise man'?

[Anonymous No.10213824]

>>10213805

>the Latin mind unleashed

[Anonymous No.10213834]

>>10213822

http://a.co/5pxKBdq

[Anonymous No.10213840]

>>10213834
I mean he riffs on this idea against human reason as the proper measure so often I could give you volumes

[Anonymous No.10213848]

>>10213840
He makes the 'measure' argument over a hundred times. It is almost in every dialogue

[Anonymous No.10213865]

>>10213737
If you had read a single platonic dialogue you would have run into the 'measure' arguments that decide the option we discussed. Just on fucking dialogue. Tell me and I'll continue to post them, but it is a significant feature in 15 of the dialogues after I counted from notes

[Anonymous No.10213887]

>>10213848
>He makes the 'measure' argument over a hundred times. It is almost in every dialogue

I never denied he made these arguments. I think they have more to do with his metaphysics than his epistemology.

[Anonymous No.10213909]

>>10213887
Please elaborate... every time he brings this up the discussion has to do with epistemology, but I wasn't even trying to make that division. It is the measure of knowledge he is referring to each of these instances

[Anonymous No.10213942]

>>10212569
How is it silly? We are made in his image, but that does necessitate being of the same nature. A statue could be made in my image, but you could hardly call me a statue, or the statue human.

>Philo of Alexandria explained this idea of men being made in God's image while also existing contingently by likening God's creation of man to an architects creation. God's blueprint, along with the blueprint of an architect, is more perfect / whole / non-contingent than the finished product because of the organic nature of the materials of which men are composed. God had a divine blueprint of man. He then sculpted a representation of said blueprint out of clay and blew life essence into its face. If anything, man is more of a twofold nature than God (God being a perfect unity). Philo seems to have been a possible influence on John the Evangelist. God's twofold nature becomes complicated by adding Jesus to the picture, but I'd say, based on my recent re-readings of the gospel, that it's arguable or very likely that Jesus was a simply an example of another first man or Adam and he but not God was twofold in nature. The difference is merely that he was born without original sin and thus more perfect than all other humans or merely capable of fulfilling the laws and redeeming Adam (this means that Jesus, while living, was not as perfect of whole as God himself and that he was just as human as all other men). He was only made completely whole after the death of his organic body.

[Anonymous No.10213950]

>>10213942
>same guy
I think that my point concerning Jesus applies more to the synoptic gospels rather than John.
This is because in John Jesus was explicitly present with God prior to creation. This could just mean that God, while existing as the only existing being, drafted Jesus' blueprint or scheduled Jesus' creation on the divine clock prior to Adam's creation. I think that this thought is a bit weak, and I'm interested in hearing other thoughts.

[Anonymous No.10213958]

>>10213950
>same guy again
Within John, Jesus describes his life as having been predetermined in seemingly every aspect. This could mean that all of his actions are God's actions. Therefore he's just God as man, but not entirely because he's a mixture of organic materials and the pure spirit of God. So, I think that my point in the first post still holds.

[Anonymous No.10213960]

>>10213950
Sounds like the demiurge/platonic logos doctrine aka HERETIC! Jk sounds perfect

[Anonymous No.10213965]

>>10213958
What year do you think John was written? (Foresight vs. hindsight 180 (AD))

[Anonymous No.10214569]

>>10210110
>It was a colloquial introduction to the link I posted
..."no"

[Anonymous No.10214661]

>>10213965
certainly after philo
after the first Jewish Revolt (AD 70) and before the Bar Kokhba revolt (AD 135)

[Anonymous No.10214674]

>>10213950
>This could just mean that God, while existing as the only existing being, drafted Jesus' blueprint or scheduled Jesus' creation on the divine clock prior to Adam's creation.
God exists outside of time and causality, He doesn't "blueprint" or "schedule".

[Anonymous No.10214678]

Today is All Saints' Day. What saint are you remembering?

[Anonymous No.10214702]

>>10213486
thats hume, not plato

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10214762]

>>10211210
>deriving ought from an is
With final causality this is possible. The is-ought problem only becomes a problem in the modern era from its rejection of final causality.

[Anonymous No.10215058]

This whole thread is what I believed /pol/ was supposed to be about desu

>guess nu/pol , ctr and anarchists won there

[Anonymous No.10215066]

>>10214678
Anselmo, Abelard , Albertus Magnus , Augustine, Aquinas
>Jacques de Molay

[Anonymous No.10215427]

This is the argument from motion as I understand it. Everything that begins moving is moved by something else. This chain of movement cannot go on forever because if it did there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover as well. This is because second movers don't move except when moved by a first mover, just as a stick does not move anything except when moved by a hand. So a first mover which is itself unmoved by anything else is necessary to explain motion.

Do I have this right? If so what are some objections to it and how might I defend it?

[Anonymous No.10215468]

>>10212790
I'm pretty sure it does, and it's very clear in it's working. If you think otherwise, justify such

>a dead man is still a man
>splinters are still a table
>

>a perfect entity can intentionally create imperfect facsimiles

Jesus is both divine and human, with no distinction between the two, and he can only fully be appreciated at the whole, not from a reductionist point of view

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.10215712]

>>10215427
Generally so, yes. That's a good way of summarizing it.

Mainstream disagreements are usually:
>What caused the first mover?
This is leading to a claim of special pleading because they assumed the first premise was a universal "everything has a cause". In this they are just mistaken.
>talking about past causation or a big bang
Most versions of the cosmological argument, besides the Kalam, are focused on a constant sustaining causation rather than a chain of causation going back in time. As such, the chain they are speaking about is all in one instance. This is another case of the dissenter being confused. It's very common to critique the Kalam and see all cosmological arguments as if it was the Kalam.
>something about infinite chains of causation being possible and the defaulting to a first mover is just a way of handling a situation you can't understand
This is mainly just an accusation as the argument is logically sound in the respect they are calling out. There's no throwing in variables to make sense of things.
>mutual causation
That there is no chain of causation but rather they all are interdependent and cause each other. This honestly just has no grasp of causation.
>why can't the first cause be the universe itself?
Because the arguments speak an unmoved mover and the argument began with examining how there was movement in the universe. The universe can't be moved and unmoved at the same time.
>it doesn't prove Christianity is true
Which it doesn't intend to do in the first place.
>it's a God of the Gaps argument
This is coming from ignorance, thinking the argument just injects God at the end.
>composition fallacy
Well the burden of proof is on the critic to show non-contingency in the universe. Most work would show matter is inherently contingent.

[Anonymous No.10215746]

>>10215712

"It doesn't prove Christianity is true" is probably the most offensively stupid thing that I consistently hear from atheists.

[Anonymous No.10215926]

>>10215058
die, blasphemer

[Anonymous No.10215944]

>>10214674
Sure, but we don't. That's why Philo was explaining it metaphorically.