/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11144378]

Is Thomas Aquinas the Dark Souls of athiests trying to disprove God?

[Anonymous No.11144409]

explain your premise without a video game reference.

[Anonymous No.11144419]

>>11144409
Try to refute Aquinas's argument for God.

[Anonymous No.11144420]

>>11144409
is he the death star of athiests trying to disprove god

[Anonymous No.11144423]

it's called apologetics, dummy. this thread is good bait.

[Anonymous No.11144424]

>>11144378
But you can beat Dark Souls. Are you saying atheists can defeat his ideas, OP?

[Anonymous No.11144429]

>>11144378
Not even close that would be Duns "even scholastics fear me" Scotus

[Anonymous No.11144442]

>>11144424
Of course.
>>11144429
But is he refutable though?

[Anonymous No.11144532]

>Athy, Athier, Athiest

[Anonymous No.11144535]

>>11144378
A challenger approaches
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA

[Anonymous No.11144575]

>>11144378
Thomas Aquinas is the king of mental gymnastics. All his argument comes crumbling down when you challenge any of his baseless assumptions that he takes for true.

[Anonymous No.11144579]

>>11144378
this is some elaborate bait thread

[Anonymous No.11144583]

>>11144575
>All his argument comes crumbling down when you challenge any of his baseless assumptions that he takes for true.
give one example

[Anonymous No.11144587]

>>11144378
>Is Thomas Aquinas the Dark Souls
yes
he's highly overrated

[Anonymous No.11144600]

>>11144575
yes. I'm sure that you have given much more thought than he ever did to the logical processes involved in his arguments and have far greater insight than a career scholar. fuck, if only you had been there to set him straight, anon, just think of the trouble you would've saved him

[Anonymous No.11144608]

>atheist used Ignore
>it's super effective!

[Anonymous No.11144610]

>>11144575
this tbqh. all the christians that meme him online are philosophically illiterate morons who heard about the five ways and automatically thought in their head "woah atheists btfo lol"

[Anonymous No.11144611]

Tbh his arguments for God are self-defeating, for example the argument unmoved mover (Nothing can move on its own. Everything needs a mover) is faulty. It comes to conclusion that something had to set everything in motion, and that thing is God, but according to premise, what "moved" God? If you were to say "God does not need to be moved, he was there in first place etc." then the whole argument goes down in flames. The rest of his arguments are weak as well, he got BTFO'ed long time ago.

[Anonymous No.11144620]

>>11144611
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF IT BEING GOD YOU FUCKING IDIOT. HE IS THE UNMOVED MOVER. THAT'S WHAT GOD IS. FUCK.

[Anonymous No.11144622]

>>11144620
fell for hte bait

[Anonymous No.11144632]

>>11144620
daily reminder that aristotle's prime mover is an efficient cause and aquinas' version doesnt make any fucking sense

[Anonymous No.11144635]

>>11144610

[Anonymous No.11144636]

>>11144583
That God and the word of the bible is true

[Anonymous No.11144639]

>>11144611
retard holy shit

[Anonymous No.11144644]

>>11144639
do you realize that aristotle had the same concern and therefore posited an efficient mover that moves by attraction? the christian god doesn't make any fucking sense philosophycally

[Anonymous No.11144651]

>>11144636
those arent baseless

[Anonymous No.11144653]

>>11144636
>when you dismiss the conclusion a priori the argument falls apart!
I think I could only be as "rational" as you if I were hit in the head with a brick a few times

[Anonymous No.11144654]

>>11144611

[Anonymous No.11144660]

>>11144651
He set out with the belief in God. He didn't discover God through his rationality. That itself is suspicious. Anything sounds logical if you set your own rules and work by them.

[Anonymous No.11144666]

>>11144653
Why is the Prime Mover the Judeo-Christian God?

[Anonymous No.11144667]

>>11144611
>God does not need to be moved
If you argue that God needs to be moved you are ontologically describing something that isn't God. God is categorically the only thing capable of preceding causality itself.

[Anonymous No.11144668]

>>11144653
He went in with the answer already, nothing was solved.

[Anonymous No.11144681]

>>11144666

[Anonymous No.11144686]

Buddhists and Schopenhauer can refute him by saying the the will feeds off suffering not love.

"because love is the first movement of the will" Thomas Aquinas

[Anonymous No.11144715]

>>11144666
You might as well ask "Why is God the way that God is". It isn't exactly a worthless question, but it isn't a particularly good question for debate.
>prime mover
>Christianity being correct
pick a lane

[Anonymous No.11144721]

>>11144666
The Holy Spirit told us so.

Also satanic numbers checked

[Anonymous No.11144727]

>athiests in this thread buttfrustrated that they can't refute a single one of his points

[Anonymous No.11144738]

>>11144666
Because Aquinas proved so through noting but rationality and logic.

[Anonymous No.11144906]

>>11144419
An anti-Christian atheist wouldn't need to do that since none of his arguments explicitly prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian in particular.

[Anonymous No.11144917]

>>11144738
Care to share with us unenlightened plebs how exactly he proves that? I bet you're only a "Christian" because of the fedora meme and the fact that it's counter-culture now and sooooooooo cooool. If God existed, do you think he wouldn't know that your "worship" isn't genuine?

[Anonymous No.11144921]

>>11144906
But thats wrong, he proved that Gods traits are compatable with the Bible

[Anonymous No.11144923]

daily reminder that Thomas wants you to pay reparations for niggers

[Anonymous No.11144935]

>>11144921
they're also compatible with the bhagavad gita, koran etc
it's almost like some people just wrote down what they thought a god would be like if it existed

[Anonymous No.11144936]

>>11144923
this must be true considering McIntyre is a virtue ethicist in his tradition.
catholics: pay reparations

[Anonymous No.11144976]

>>11144921
>God's traits
>compatible with the Bible
>literally the ONE BOOK from whence we know what his traits are in the first place

That's like saying Karl Marx is right, because his views are compatible with The Communist Manifesto and The Capital.

[Anonymous No.11145014]

>>11144666
Nice try Satan

[Anonymous No.11145021]

>>11144636
Except the five ways have nothing to do with the God of the Bible at all but instead God in general.

[Anonymous No.11145037]

>>11144976
He discoved the Christian God through a priori. Please educate yourself before posting lest you make a fool of yourself

[Anonymous No.11145039]

>>11144935
You havent read Aquinas. I feel dumb for wasting my time with you.

[Anonymous No.11145054]

>>11145037
>>11145039
Any discussion with Thomists eventually boils down to:
>Waaaaaah, I don't have to explain shit to you, you're wrong, I'm right, I don't have to explain shit, read Aquinas and it'll all make sense trust me bruh

Also
>a priority knowledge
Kek

[Anonymous No.11145056]

>>11145039
Nice argument there, mr my god is the real god out of all the thousands that people have made up

[Anonymous No.11145059]

>>11144935
>all religions are saying the same thing

[Anonymous No.11145079]

>>11145059
In as far as they assert the existence of an independent deity, they're all actually the same.

[Anonymous No.11145080]

>>11145079
Except Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.11145108]

>>11145079
Even though their conceptions of that deity are wildly different.

>monotheism, polytheism and pantheism are all the same thing, so just chill bro

[Anonymous No.11145281]

>>11144644
retard

[Anonymous No.11145287]

>>11144378
Anyone who equates the concept of a Prime Mover with that grumpy character in the Old Testament is too pathetic to bother debating. You can't prove Yahew's existence through tortured logic, Xtians.

[Anonymous No.11145299]

>>11145281
it's true though

[Anonymous No.11145305]

>>11144378
Very seldom do tards on /lit/ understand Aquinas (literally haven't read him is the problem). It's the same with Nietzsche for example.

[Anonymous No.11145312]

>>11144575
Okay chill Parmenides lol

[Anonymous No.11145321]

>>11144611
>everything'
please read

[Anonymous No.11145336]

>>11144660
Go read

[Anonymous No.11145346]

>>11145108
You lack reading comprehension. I specifically said the existence of an independent deity. I should've added or deities, so it's not entirely on you.

[Anonymous No.11145347]

>>11145054
Aquinas literally deduces this shit from observation (by change, by cause)

[Anonymous No.11145350]

>>11145305
>you don't understand him because you haven't read him. If you did, you'd agree.
It's always the same with you disgusting faggots.

[Anonymous No.11145403]

>>11145350
No; the least you imbeciles can do is address the actual argument, then critique. Alas, reading and comprehension is left to beg for with many of you.

[Anonymous No.11145603]

>>11144727
silly

[Anonymous No.11145678]

>>11145059
Not what i said.
I'd explain but i hate you fucking godbotherers of all stripes

[Anonymous No.11145698]

>>11145403
They've been doing that the whole thread. maybe you should adress their arguments instead of saying they haven't read him

[Anonymous No.11145699]

>>11144419
They're ways to God not arguments. But whatever. Also, his causal one would seem to imply no free will. The only way Aquinas gets free will is by saying we have freedom of judgment and saying that--even if the will is caused by something other than itself--it's free (voluntary) just because God said so.

[Anonymous No.11145708]

>>11144575
as the same for any argument?? there is nothing special about starting with axioms.

[Anonymous No.11145746]

>>11144378
>shackling your god and your scripture to natural science
The western church was a mistake

[Anonymous No.11146478]

https://youtu.be/7VUwBvJF9vY

[Anonymous No.11146577]

>>11144611
I haven't even read aquinas and even I know you're a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.11147054]

He's more of a kaizo mario
>>11144587
this desu

[Anonymous No.11147150]

>>11144935
that was an argument to prove the existence of God. He argues for the Christian God (Holy Trinity) in the Summa Contra Gentiles - it's like the ST but shorter and made for pagans

[Anonymous No.11147337]

>>11144611
Holy shit imagine staking your worldview and soul on your own refutation of theology, yet at the same time being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.11147850]

>>11144378
>>11144419
Being "the Dark Souls of x" means you are an x.

[Anonymous No.11147871]

>>11144611
>Nothing can move on its own. Everything needs a mover
That's not a premise of the actual argument. The premise is that everything which is in motion needs a mover, not that everything needs a mover.

Another version is that everything which is subject to changer requires a cause to actualize that change (change = movement from potential to actual). God is the all actual cause of everything.

[Anonymous No.11148303]

>>11144419
I'm not an atheist, but aren't two of his five ways pretty much just wrong. If I remember correctly he compares goodness to fire/heat, even though there's no reason to assume that goodness and fire are alike. Also another way falls apart when you consider the evolution creatures.

[Anonymous No.11148333]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.11148418]

>>11144917
I'm not going to summarize the Summa Theologica to someone who isn't even going to try to be open minded about it.

[Anonymous No.11148432]

>>11144378
the best argument against thomas aquinas is that anyone who thinks that haircut isn't the stupidest haircut possible can't possibly be right about anything

[Anonymous No.11148434]

>>11145708
Any argument is not objective because it relies on axioms or circular reasoning. Its a big thing when you are trying to prove something like God.

[Anonymous No.11148439]

>>11148432
kek
I don't think anyone thought that haircut looked "good". The point of it was to distinguish.

[Anonymous No.11148455]

>not formatting your questions and answers as "Objection 1", "On the contrary", and "I answer that"

Plebs, the lot of you

[Anonymous No.11148700]

>>11144535
Big Bang theory literally makes no sense unless supported by Catholic metaphysics. - which is why it was formulated in the first place - before we even had experimental evidence for the cosmic background radiation. Big Bang is first cause by uncaused causer (in time) - but the Big Bang can’t even really be understood as the ‘creation’ of the universe because time itself is a property of the universe.

[Anonymous No.11148713]

>>11148700
have you read wolfgang smith

[Anonymous No.11148716]

>>11148700
>Big Bang theory literally makes no sense unless supported by Catholic metaphysics
sweet baby christmas crackers
tell me this is bait

[Anonymous No.11148728]

>>11148716
>sweet baby christmas crackers
kek

not that anon but yeah, it's not bait. we have the same amount of evidence for the cause of the big bang as we do of a divine creator. because we can't begin to describe how the universe began it is equally reasonable to suppose god DID do it.

[Anonymous No.11148740]

and tbhwyfamily i don't have a problem with increasing the realm of metaphysics. i would say knowledge but that is for empiricist nerds. i think it could teach us a lot, things we need to know.

[Anonymous No.11148745]

>>11148728
even so, it doesn't mean your specific god did it. its equally "likely" to be any other god, so it's redundant to use this argument.

[Anonymous No.11148768]

>>11148745
>other God

[Anonymous No.11148795]

>>11148768
ah, i forgot, there's no point in discussing anything with someone who will never change their mind

[Anonymous No.11148805]

>>11148795
you need to bone up on your theology my man. The Trinity has good reason to claim primacy in the first commandment.

[Anonymous No.11148810]

>>11148716
I’m not even saying Big Bang theory is necessarily correct. What’s dark matter about? Maybe the universe is actually nothing.

[Anonymous No.11148812]

>>11148728
>not that anon but yeah, it's not bait.
How can you know it's not bait if you're not that anon? Seems presumptive.

[Anonymous No.11148821]

>>11144378
Summa theologian is a mix of Bloodbayne and Battle Toads. And at the end, you don't win the argument. You're just going back to the beginning to try and reach the end.

[Anonymous No.11148834]

>>11148713
I like it. Wouldn’t have thought of applying Thomism to Quantum Mechanics.

[Anonymous No.11148878]

>>11148745
Is it though? Would any god that wasn’t omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient be able to cause the universe? Stop pretending God is just like any other pagan gods - which live in the Universe on top of mount Olympus.

[Anonymous No.11148907]

>>11148805
how so?
>>11148878
i don't see how those traits have anything to do with the ability to create the universe.

[Anonymous No.11148912]

>>11148907
Ok. Since you don’t have those traits - can you create the universe?

[Anonymous No.11148916]

>>11148912
dis nigga cant even create himself smdh you think he can create the universe shieet

[Anonymous No.11148922]

>>11148912
i could create a rat's universe, as it would understand it.

[Anonymous No.11148925]

>>11148916
(Omnipresent means not-created.) But I think this was bait

[Anonymous No.11148933]

>>11148922
Pretty sure the cosmos are also in the rats universe whether the rat understands it or not.

[Anonymous No.11148934]

>>11144532
>Athy
you know, when going the road there i heard a doleful damsel cry

[Anonymous No.11148955]

>>11148933
indeed. the rat is, unfortunately, stuck with an extremely limited view of the scope of the universe - as are we.

[Anonymous No.11149073]

>>11148955
For now. Just wait until the Virgin Mary gives me the theory for everything.

[Anonymous No.11149147]

>>11149073
i hope she does. please ask her to CC me on that psychic email.

[Anonymous No.11149157]

>>11148934
yeah haha i also like the dropkick murphys nice reference bro XD

[Anonymous No.11149180]

>>11149147
Make sure your antenna is picking up the right frequency.

[Anonymous No.11150315]

ok maybe I am a brainlet, which I am willing to accept.
Is it just me or are arguments of this type, completely useless, baseless and intellectual fart sniffing?

"X is therefore Y exists" arguments for instance. are just philosophical mumbojumbos. It could just as easily say that the universe exists because of a wild orgy between two seperate entities and we would still have the same world/conclusions.
It makes sense that Greek philosophers or pagans as a whole never made any attempts to prove Gods/God.
To me it seems like you are trying your best to set up some arbitrary rules and through them try to prove something, which you still can't know for sure.

Please correct me if I am wrong and if there is even any reason for philosophical debates of that nature.

[Anonymous No.11151284]

There is an incredible amount of stupid in this thread

[Anonymous No.11151306]

>>11144378
This is the only Christian theologian worth his salt. See, unlike Tommy boy, he didn’t even try deluding himself thinking that you can “rationally” prove the existence of a God. No, instead he had the balls to come clean and basically say: “Look it works on faith. You need to have faith, otherwise it’s not gonna work.” No delusions, no metal gymnastics, just taking things as they are.

Now, Tommy boy, like the true autist he was, tried to prove the existence of God—not just any God, mind you, the Judeo-Christian specifically—by “logic” and “arguments” that scholars, even Christian scholars, have demonstrated to be unsatisfactory for centuries now.

Let’s be clear: Tommy’s not an authority on anything except for CathoCucks. The only thing more autistic than Ol’ Tommy boy himself are his followers. Whenever someone shows the obvious flaws in his arguments, they resort to dumb-ass excuses, like “Just read him bruh” or “That’s not what he actually meant.” Well, what did he ACTUALLY mean?

Sorry, but if he was that much of a retard that he couldn’t clearly formalize what the fuck he actually meant for the life of him, them he doesn’t deserve all that time you pathetic “Nu-Christians” waste on defending his retarded doctrines.