[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 325 KB, 1536x1957, Aquinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12330724 No.12330724 [Reply] [Original]

*DABS on your naive empiricism*
God is real. How do you deal with this knowledge?

>> No.12330764

>>12330724
It sure gives me a reason to despair

>> No.12330805

>>12330764
Why? Christ died for you--and on top of that, he destroyed the concept of death.

>> No.12331049

>>12330724
yikes. imagine taking Aquinas seriously in the 19th year of the 21st century.

pretty sure that requires a willful ignorance of the last 250+ of scientific discovery and thought, so I'm almost impressed. ... *almost*.

>> No.12331063

>>12331049
>i fucking love science
>current year
>effeminate punctuation
>reddit spacing
Lord, forgive me for taking this bait

>> No.12331095

>>12331063
I'll go to the nearest cathedral, fall flat on my face in repentance, and devote myself the doctrines of the Catholic Church for the rest of my life if you can explain how Aquinas even remotely disproves "naive" empericism

>> No.12331104

>>12331095
Have you tried reading st. Thomas? The summa contra gentiles was written for pagans and atheist philosophers

>> No.12331112

>>12331049
The fact that science advanced in the meantime is completely irrelevant to his (yet to be equaled) contributions to philosophy, saying otherwise is making a Sophomore error in logic.

>> No.12331120

>>12331049
>denying theism in this day and age
It isn't 1888 anymore, it's okay to not play onto the Nietzche meme. Singularity cannot cause itself, something somewhere must set it in motion for it to be a feasible excuse.

>> No.12331133
File: 64 KB, 600x493, couldthehigg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12331133

>>12331120
Yeah, it's called pic related.

>> No.12331145

wow! I'm a deist now, thanks uncle tom!!! xDDD

>> No.12331147

>>12331095
First, you should explain how naïve empiricism disproves Aquinas

>> No.12331149

>>12331095
Because naive empiricists "disprove" God on the grounds that empirical/sensory evidence for Him does not exist. Theologians are not arguing on those grounds. (And that line of thinking was very easily disproved by (I believe) Hume, because if you're going to argue on those grounds, then proof of the self, future, past, or even rote concepts (such as the sun rising) are impossible.) In the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas puts forth thorough rational arguments, not only for the existence of God, but the immortality of the soul, natural law, etc. This position that God's existence is provable also exists among many Protestant theologians, and even outside Christianity among Muslims such as al-Ghazali and Jews like Maimonides. "Faith", however, is not the simple act of intellectual assent, but a more intangible reality, signifying an absolute spiritual trust, conviction, and devotion that goes above and beyond the rational. The official Catholic position is that the basic truths of Christianity are provable and can be attained by the intellect, but faith is something which is only given by God. Using your own mental abilities, you can discover that God exists, but only He can give you faith in Him. Now I'm just waiting for you to reply with "use the scientific method in your defense next time"--that way I'll know you're baiting.

>> No.12331173

>>12331133
>muh particles
??????????????

>> No.12331190

>>12331133
Scientists can explain how it happened, but cannot explain why it happened. We cannot prove the existence of any higher power, but we cannot disprove it.

>> No.12331214

>>12331190
The Cosmos is a self-organizing system. This is what the German Idealists suspected and why they were deists rather than theists and eventually thanks to more modern discoveries guys like Deleuze were able to finish the proofs of Nature as totally self-organizing and could dispense with the idea of deity or spirit altogether.

the 'why' is simply: because it can.

>> No.12331217

>>12331049
It's actually the 18th year of the century.

>> No.12331260

>>12331190
>We cannot prove the existence of any higher power, but we cannot disprove it.
We can show how atheism is incommensurate with the necessary boilerplate it comes with--namely, naturalism, materialism, and naive empiricism. If we're living in a constantly flux universe, it doesn't make sense for there to be extant laws, Forms, and Pythagorean principles everywhere. This is exactly why Plato knew there was a creator. The argument against Platonism put forth by atheistic philosophers like Nietzsche is that the Overman can make his own principles--that is laughably false. The argument against materialism is that you can't impose teleology on a materialistic (purposeless, because it's impossible to have objective morals if the universe is materialistic) universe. The irony of reddit scientism is that modern science originated from the tradition of thought laid down by scholastic theologians, who themselves picked up the bits and pieces from the Hellenistic Neoplatonists and Academics, centuries of Roman thinking, and Aristotelian writings inherited from Islamic scholars. Enlightenment rationalism is scarcely removed from the religious beliefs of the British and German thinkers who cooked it up, and it is so few steps removed from religious thought that it's difficult to draw a line between them. It often surprises reddit atheists when you clue them in on how much of the foundations of the scientific-naturalistic worldview they take for granted comes straight out of religious thinking. I don't even mean in the obvious ways like "Newton was a Christian!", but even basic assumptions, like asserting that there is an orderly and rationally-comprehensible cosmos that science reveals to us (which is a view that only traces its lineage to Christian theology and originates in Plato's metaphysics). Being willing to write off Aquinas, Reid, Occam, Bacon, Buridan, or Duns Scotus because daddy made you go to church isn't showing intellectual progress, it's just being ignorant to show off for other clueless shut-ins.

>> No.12331261

>>12331214
Tha mundane truth.. . tha unbearable mundane truth. .: "because it can."

>> No.12331976

>>12331214
But why can it?

>> No.12332561

>>12331149
>The official Catholic position is that the basic truths of Christianity are provable
Provable in what way ?

>> No.12332599

>>12331214
>the 'why' is simply: because it can.
t. soulless being.

>> No.12332633

>>12331976
because A=A etc.

>>12332599
t. coward afraid of the blinding void of truth

>> No.12333209

>>12331260
Absolutely based and redpilled

>> No.12334340

>>12332633
t.Le edgy excuses for not trying to do something with his life


>>12331260
Based and Christhpilled. God bless you anon.

>> No.12334395

>>12331260
t. someone who is in total ignorance of all modern philosophy/science of mind, cosmology, and physics.

>> No.12334403

>>12334395
>t. 80 iq cs pajeet

>> No.12334465

>>12331260
Could you recommend me some books about this stuff

>> No.12334485
File: 430 KB, 2776x1388, IMG_4420.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12334485

>>12330724
more real than you know buddy

>> No.12334492

>>12330724
If we're going to use that logic I'd rather devote my life to the promise of total automation, will the demiurgic AI god.

>> No.12334506

>>12334492
>t. souless being that probably would kill himself by its 30s

>> No.12334526

>>12331260
As a fellow Catholic, who is predisposed to intellectually believe Aquinas and the evidence of God in creation, I have one challenge to everything you have said, one which nags me eternally:

What is the ordered world is simply by chance? It is not unfeasible that a randomly chaotic world could put itself together through and instate its own rules. And since we don't have a basis for saying how improbable the creation of an ordered world out of chaos would be, it has to be treated as a real possibility.

I have never seen anyone seriously analyze this issue, I'm not even baiting.

>> No.12334529

>>12330805
Because when bad things happen I'll know it wasn't up to fortune

>> No.12334531

>>12334526
Forgive the reddit syntax, I am sleepy.

>> No.12334543

*skims Wikipedia article on Aquinas*
I'm a theologian now atheists btfo

>> No.12334576

>>12331260
We're not in a "constant flux" universe. All you've done is assume that physical laws require a creator God, without demonstrating it.

>> No.12334721

>>12331049
"Science" is just a word. And words are either assigned an objective
meaning, or they're not. Science never was. Hence the existence of the
Demarcation Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem).).
No one ever bothered to give the word a coherent set of objective
criteria to determine what was or wasn't science. What counts as science
is whatever society says is science. It's a social construct; and while
not all social constructs are *just* social constructs, science is.
People will debate each other endlessly about what is or isn't science -
Medicine? Engineering? The "Social Sciences"? None of them have any
objective set of criteria to appeal to. They appeal to what feels like
science to them. Which is shaped by what they were was "science" or not,
and their own attempt at making sense of it. Which varies from person to
person. It was implied that there was some real, innate distinction
between science and non-science. There isn't. Science is an imaginary
object that exists only in the heads of people who were taught to
believe in science, and nowhere else. The various stories spun to
support this belief, of a scientific revolution, and a scientific
method, are ahistorical and ungrounded in reality.

Now actual philosophers of science have discovered a wide
variety of concepts, like Underdetermination, The Theory-Ladenness, the
Quine-Duhem Thesis, etc, that demolish Boyle's claim. No experiment can
prove anything about ontology. There is no "following the evidence", but
"evidence" is the product of observation interpreted through the lens of
a worldview. And worldviews are the domain of philosophy. But most
scientists are bad philosophers. They sell ontological and historical
"theories" (narratives, stories) rooted in philosophical assumptions,
but can never justify them. Because some of their assumptions can't be
known to be true or not; others are outright lies. Premises inherited
from Mechanical Philosophy, blindly adhered to as artifacts of
tradition. No, the human body is not a machine. Yes, non-life is
different from life. Reductionism is false. We can know these things via
our innate capacity for knowledge, that also tells us that we exist as
persons, that the other humans around us have consciousnesses of their
own, that there is even a world outside of our own minds at all. Denying
this leads inexorably to widespread delusions and immorality. Which it
has. So "science" is not merely incompatible with Christianity, but with
truth in general. "Science" is the emperor's new clothes. That something
has been labelled "science" is irrelevant to whether it is true or not.
And the truth is what we should care about, not "science", which isn't
real anyway.

>> No.12334750

>>12334721
That's a very long way of saying "I don't understand science on an academic level, so I'll dismiss it instead."

>> No.12334767

>>12334750
The current sense of the word "science" was coined in the 19th century
as a rebranding of "natural philosophy". The word science existed
before, but had different senses. It was repurposed so that certain
natural philosophers could pretend their doctrines weren't just
philosophy, but something more. Natural philosophers did this to up
their status. The "natural philosopher" became the "scientist", a big
boost. But scientists are still doing philosophy, even though most of
them don't realize it. They make claims about knowledge, but knowledge
is the domain of epistemology, a branch of philosophy. They make claims
about reality, but reality is the domain of ontology, also a branch of
philosophy. But the philosophy natural philosophers at the time were
trying to sell was bad philosophy. It was a reductionist, nominalist,
naturalistic descendent of the Mechanical Philosophy invented by Robert
Boyle in the 17th century. Said philosophy never made any sense, it lead
to the rise of the Mind-Body Problem among others. It's an incoherent
ontology of nihilism and death. But claiming it was true made one look
"woke". The Mechanical Philosopher could see the emperor's new clothes,
so you better show them some respect.

>> No.12334801
File: 59 KB, 658x662, 1fe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12334801

>tfw to dumb to understand metaphysics

>> No.12335105

>>12334801
same i just read 1984 over and over again while fantasizing i'm a party member torturing normies

>> No.12335547
File: 33 KB, 584x413, nice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12335547

ITT embarrassing empiricists thinking modern science disproves Aquinas and Christianity.

>> No.12335724

>>12335547
>the redditesque replying to outrage that isn't there
90% of the thread is Christian larpcels pretending they know anything about modern science or philosophy of science. I mean there's a retard who thinks mechanical philosophy is somehow in vogue in scientific community today. This board has literally become /r/atheism with a different sign.

>> No.12335747

>>12335724
>the redditesque replying to outrage that isn't there
>>12331049
>m-muh reddit reddit reddit reddit reddit reddit
:)

>> No.12335766

>>12335747
>one post among 40 from autofellating "christians"
Yeah, you're definitely not a rebbitor.

>> No.12335785

>>12335766
>"there are no empiricists saying that modern science disproves Aquinas and Christianity in this thread"
>"there indeed are"
>"but m-muh reddit reddit reddit reddit reddit"
You are not very bright.

>> No.12335793

>>12335785
>90% of the thread
>there are no
Brighter than you, desperate crabbitard.

>> No.12335809

>>12335793
>outrage that isn't there
I don't know why you want to argue over nothing so much but it's frankly embarrassing.

>> No.12335821

>>12335809
>asshurt he got called out on his epic karma collecting post
>oh no no no its nutting, embarrassing lumao kek
Go post le ebyn dubsman on a dedicated r*ddit board, faggot.

>> No.12335825

>>12335821
>m-muh reddit reddit reddit reddit
As expected.

>> No.12335829

>>12335825
>muh muh
Get a better buzzword, faggitor.

>> No.12335832

>>12335829
Cringe.

>> No.12335840

>>12335832
Up(you)'d.

>> No.12335855

>>12334767
Nice retard spacing

>> No.12337214

>>12335855
It's pasta.

>> No.12337243
File: 8 KB, 528x286, godel+ontological[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12337243

>>12330724
I prefer the Leibnizian argument as refined by Gödel, it's far more succinct, logical and elegant than anything set forth by St. Thomas. Presumably this is because they were white men, as well as not having to adapt to Roman superstitions and paganisms.

>> No.12337261

>>12337243
Pseud

>> No.12337295

>>12334576
This, religious thinking isn’t required to recognize that the universe is orderly. Everything in the universe has been happening the same way for as long as we can tell, there’s no reason to assume it will just start changing randomly. Maybe it will, but until that happens there’s no reason to assume the universe isn’t orderly, even from a completely atheistic viewpoint.

>> No.12337494

>>12331049
This is the second masterful Reddit bait comment I've seen here in the last two days

I wonder if it's the same poster. Such skill, such a deft hand. Just look at those slack jawed replies. A thing of beauty

>> No.12337532

Imagine thinking for a second that a prime mover is conscious and cares about whether or not you stick your peepee in someone else's poopoo hole

>> No.12337552

>>12337532
The deity that is indifferent and will let you do whatever you want is Satan. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.

>> No.12337556

>>12337552
Imagine thinking middle eastern fairy tales have anything to do with a possible prime mover

>> No.12337573

>>12330724
God might be real as an entity, but the religions of the sand people are almost certainly not true.

>> No.12337588

>>12337573
Christ is the truth, not religion.

>> No.12337616

>>12337588
A random Sand nigger born in Bethelam with good oratory skills doesn't know shit about the possible prime mover

>> No.12337622

>>12337588
Christianity is a religion. Specifically a religion made in the desert by Jews.

>> No.12337651

>>12337616
He was the son of God and is Himself God.
>>12337622
The teachings of Christ are the truth, the religion that stole His name and purported to teach what he taught was created by corrupt and dishonest European pagans, luckily it was released and the truth was liberated and again revealed by the efforts of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale etc.

>> No.12337662
File: 454 KB, 500x750, Jesus_lights.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12337662

>>12337651
Amen.

>> No.12337673

>>12337651
>luckily it was released and the truth was liberated and again revealed by the efforts of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale etc.
ah yes, Martin "I'm removing these books from the canon because I don't like them, yes that's my only justification, fuck you" Luther. Good ol' Mr. "The Father and Holy Ghost damned the Son to hell but don't you dare ask me to extrapolate on this because I'm literally a fucking retarded monk with no actual understanding ontotheology or trinitarian teachings" Luther.

>> No.12337803

>>12337651
Wrong. I'm the son of God.

>> No.12337807
File: 919 KB, 2432x4320, catboop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12337807

>>12330724
>God is real. How do you deal with this knowledge?

If god is real then he created evidence.

So if we use evidence but there is none of god then... what? You belive god dun goof?

Or is it that stuff about faith? Im not sure that god ever asked to abandon evidence in favour of faith. As if you need to choose one or the other of his creations? Faith or evidence?

I mean, isnt it crummy third world country "pastors" who claim you use faith instead of evidence? I mean, god clearly wrote in the bible that you need to use faith only and no mix of anything else... except god didnt write the bible, it wasnt even jesus it was written by some dudes who are undeniably HUMAN, and humans make mistakes. Therefore the bible probably has a mistake in it, like that one version where it has a typo that says jebus. If god let that one through the net then maybe hes trying to send you a message. Dont just take it on faith otherwise someone else will tell you to have faith in my name, in HIM. Or something like that.

God afterall controls the whole kit and kaboodle, he created the ten commandments. Which work pretty well because they are logical. So it might be ok to say that god is logical, and that the commandments, which are basically a bill of human rights, is also logical. But heh im grasping at straws here, i dont know.

What do i belive? Well im not some skummy athiest... exactly... its more like my experiance with life has shown me that no branch of cristiantiy seems to be able to understand, predict or control what happens on earth. But all of them are saying "I AM GODS BEST FRIEND." in an effort to make a power play to sit right besides the most powerfull king around. Me, i cant be bothered with all that. I suppose i just try to follow the bill of rights (ten commandments) and any other good logical ideas around. I'd like to say that i do it because i am logical... but the truth is its just my way. I actually think that the universe might have a creator, but hes probably very different from the christian depiction of god. Which is dangerously close to santa clause. Many top name scientists think that the universe is a simulation on some vast unknowable computer. They also think they have the evidence for it too. Im coming closer to accepting this idea, it certainly explains allot. But again, why do bad things happen to good people? Clearly its not part of the plan. Still i think religion can be cool if its spoken by a coolguy. But personally im gonna work on science on my end, and you can work your end and we can meet somewhere in the middle where we finally understand whats going on.

>> No.12337815

>>12330724
There is no God but me, all others are delusions. This world is mine, this awful hell-world. There is nothing else.

>> No.12338505

The 19th-century revival of Thomism in the wave of mediaevalism that swept the Catholic Church in the Age of Revolution was truly the worst meme.

>> No.12338746

>>12334529
>>12330764
Fucking this. Months in a state of despair knowing I'll probbaly die while not in a state of grace and when I'm in hell it was completely because I threw myself in there.

>> No.12338762

>>12338746
>I'll probbaly die while not in a state of grace

This used to cause me such anxiety.

t. apostate

>> No.12338776

>>12338762
Now apply it to everyone you know, your mom, your sister, your baby cousing, and think how many people will actually get saved.

Shit fucks me up.

>> No.12338778

>>12331217
No, we’re currently in the 19th year, think more carefully

>> No.12338938

>>12334526
this is a possibility, but remember it is also an improbable possibility. What's really important is to understand that it is so vastly and incomprehensibly improbable, it is truly silly to even worry about it.

>> No.12338961

>>12338938
>>12338762
>feel absolutely dead inside with no will to live and no feelings towards the metaphysical but still go to Liturgy every weekend and pray because I love Jesus
Am I cucking myself? I wish I was dead but I wouldn't dare take my own life.

>> No.12338962

>>12330724
If your God would damn me for all eternity for living a virtuous life but not saying the magic words, He isn't worth the worship. Therefore, if God is real, He is totally OK with all of us infidels. Any suggestion otherwise is just tribalism passed down from the BC era when every city-state had their own jealous God.

>> No.12339014

>>12337243
Can someone explain this autism to me?

>> No.12339033

Reminder that Socrates was the true Messiah

>> No.12339065

>>12339033
Diogenes

>> No.12339072

>>12339014
It's a formal version of the ontological argument. In non-formal shorthand:
God is defined as perfect
God either exists or does not exist
God is perfect if it exists and imperfect if it doesn't
Therefore a perfect God exists

Obviously the actual argument is more rigorous than that.

>> No.12339375

>>12338962
t. Satanist
>>12337552

>> No.12339377

>>12339072
This can't be real...

>> No.12339501

>>12330724
this guy copied al-ghazali so much.

>> No.12340400

>>12334526
They would not then be rules, no forms, no ends- just mere happenstance of sensation before which even the appearance of one's own mind is another meaningless datum.

>> No.12340411

>>12330724
>God is real.
no he isn't
>How do you deal with this knowledge?
reject it

lmao dogs of christ pwnd hard

>> No.12340742

>>12331133
you know the big bang was theorized by a catholic priest right lmao

>> No.12340765

>>12337651
>Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale etc.
yikes. they're heretics.

>> No.12340982

>>12339065
>Seeing a child drinking from his hands, Diogenes threw away his cup and remarked, "A child has beaten me in plainness of living."
based

>> No.12341015

>>12331260

I have an edition of the Summa at hand, been reading some Leibniz lately. The more I read this stuff, the more confident I become that you all actually are full of shit. I look forward to Pascal soon, the better to reject him as well.

This stuff is always accompanied by an emotional/mysterious hand-waving "ta-da!" of some sort. The only writer who I can remember making me genuinely empathize with Christianity was Dostoevsky, but happy I was smart enough to reject that narrative as well, though I appreciated its pathos. May the atheist bugmen Chinese dominate the human race.

>> No.12341666

>>12338778
It is, in fact, the beginning of the 20th year of the 21st century.

>> No.12341674

>>12331260
Breadpilled but are you chaste?

>> No.12341745

>>12330724

Augustine and Aquinas are Atheists.