Why do athiests still exist when the existence of God has been rationally proven?

File: 926 KB, 2000x1770, St-thomas-aquinas-e1506359130604.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:40:48 2019 No.14038658 [Reply] [Original]

Why do athiests still exist when the existence of God has been rationally proven?

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:44:55 2019 No.14038673
File: 2.17 MB, 700x6826, 1569667485662.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Because normies and midwits don't read fucking works like the Summa or any other high IQ work like that.

I mean the atheists favorite apologist is Dawkins for Gods sake! Dawkins is philosophically illiterate, but normies still swallow his lies

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:46:14 2019 No.14038683
File: 330 KB, 596x446, 1565363479859.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14038658
Why doesn't God just show up and reveal himself to humanity? Thousands of years of debate, war, and contemplation about the existence of God have gone by, and we're still unable to reach a consensus. Why would God make us then be like "hehe peace out hope u believe in me w/o evidence or ur goin 2 hell LMAO XDxdXD." Is he that much of an attention whore that he needs to "test our faith" on earth before we can see him? God is either not real or a massive faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:46:34 2019 No.14038685 >>14038658 Like lesbians, atheists don’t exist. Deep down they all love a good dick, it’s just a matter of if they admit it to themselves and others or not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:48:28 2019 No.14038696 >>14038683 >automatically assuming discussion of monism and the logos is pertaining to le evengalic christian god ngmi

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:49:21 2019 No.14038702 >>14038683 >Why doesn't God just show up and reveal himself to humanity? Anon...

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:50:23 2019 No.14038707 >>14038696 OP posted a pic of Thomas Aquanis; obviously we're talking about the Christian God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:52:51 2019 No.14038718 >>14038683 >The Lord," says the Psalmist, "shall be known when he executeth judgment." (Ps. ix. 17.) On this text St. Bernard writes: ”The Lord, who is now unknown while he seeks mercy, shall be known when he executes justice."

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:53:11 2019 No.14038720 >>14038683 The only God Christians are referring to is the Christian God.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:54:49 2019 No.14038728

>>14038702
>HUHUHUH THA BIBLE IS GODZ TRUE WORLD AND HIM REVEALING HIMSELF XDXD OH HOW DO WE KNOW THE BIBLE IS TRUE? UH CUZ IT SAYS SO RIGHT HERE IN THE BIBLE
>BRO, LIKE.... *hits joint* WHAT IF LIKE *takes bong rip* NATURE WAS GOD'S WAY OF REVEALING HIMSELF?????? SHIT I FEEL LIKE PLATO IM SO SMART
>LE EPIC DEMIURGE
which one of these retard positions are you referring to?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:55:53 2019 No.14038735 >>14038702 >a 2000-year-old set of contradictory written accounts from one small geographical region is equivalent to an unambiguous, non-cultural, direct, worldwide reveal Anon, I...

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:57:18 2019 No.14038737 >>14038728 If he made himself known, he would render judgement on all. Immediately. No one could sin with impunity. He is unknown purely out of mercy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:58:52 2019 No.14038739 >>14038658 Why do chr*stians still exist when the existence of Allah, Qur'an being His Word, has been rationally proven?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 17:59:27 2019 No.14038740 >>14038707 Dont care

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:01:26 2019 No.14038746 >>14038737 True mercy would be forgiving all sins

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:02:31 2019 No.14038757 >>14038718 "...because I say so."

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:04:31 2019 No.14038769 >>14038739 Because the lukewarm laws of Christianity allow them to continue and defend their degeneracy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:07:44 2019 No.14038785 >>14038746 >True mercy would be forgiving all sins >>14038757

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:09:34 2019 No.14038792 >>14038785 Mercy >Compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm True mercy >Total compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:14:41 2019 No.14038821 >>14038769 >Degeneracy dilate

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:15:18 2019 No.14038826 >>14038673 This actually makes a lot of sense. Too bad athiests are too dim witted to understand it

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:20:52 2019 No.14038858 >>14038821 >dilate Islam will not stand for Christianity's backwards medical practices.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:27:19 2019 No.14038894 >>14038658 What sort of proof are you talking about. And if it was proven it would make the concept and virtue of faith meaningless. Checkmate

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:31:19 2019 No.14038926 File: 26 KB, 499x499, 0e9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14038826 >Christcucks, sucking off each others' dicks Oh, someone has commited a sin ;)

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:32:07 2019 No.14038933 thomas aquinas was a straight up retard.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:37:30 2019 No.14038962

>>14038658
Atheists have a problem with theistic gods, that is to say religious gods. Aquinas didn’t prove capital ‘G’ God, the Yahweh who genocided the Canaanites, spoke to Moses in a burning bush, judges people by their sins, has a paradise called heaven and a place of punishment called hell, etc. Instead, if his proof is granted, he proved the existence of some sort of abstract deistic entity, which is uninteresting.
There is no convincing proof for any religious god. None for Yahweh, none for Zeus, none for Aphrodite, none for Apollo, none for Allah, none for Zoroaster, none for Osiris, etc.
That’s why atheists exist.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:46:15 2019 No.14039002
File: 23 KB, 460x454, a1Q4VyG_460s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14038962
>Atheists have a problem with theistic gods
A theistic god is the ONLY legitimate and philosophically convincing form of god. Ever wonder why so many people today say stuff like "well, I don't believe in God, but I do believe in some sort of spirit".

Deism is self refuting. Deism asserts that the creator is non-personal. Well if the creator is non-person, how did you come to know about this non-personal creator then? You can't claim revelation, because that would imply theism.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:52:24 2019 No.14039034

>>14039002
(Not the anon you responded to btw)

You are self refuting. What makes you think the creator would have to do something for you to wonder about its nature and existance, other than creating the world and leaving it up to the chance? This would not be an intervention.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 18:55:33 2019 No.14039045 >>14038894 It would help if you read Aquinas before posting. See >>14038673 For just one of many explanations

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 19:03:48 2019 No.14039089 File: 137 KB, 1320x1320, 69421080_23577274404981_3986942321865554607_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14038894 >muh scientific proof is the only valid form of proof

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 19:07:36 2019 No.14039107

>>14039002
So right off the bat you reject revelation. On what ground? What seems more likely to you? That God created all of reality, yet hasn't made any contact or that God has reveled himself throughout time?

Atheism is more convincing than Deism. Deist accept the supernatural, but reject Theism? Makes no sense what so ever.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 19:10:12 2019 No.14039121 File: 88 KB, 788x444, 1571785181484.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14038658 >and, just like that, all the christ larping was for naught based Dawkins still effortlessly putting theists in their place even after all these years.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 19:21:39 2019 No.14039184 >>14039089 I never mentioned science, strawman-tard

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 19:24:08 2019 No.14039196 >>14039184 >I never mentioned science, strawman-tard I just wanted to post that comment. The green text wasn't really pointed at you, never intended to straw man.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 19:46:59 2019 No.14039323

>>14038962

Aquinas proves the one God who continuously creates all reality other than himself, loves it into being, wills the natural law, who is our highest existential end, union with whom is perfect happiness, lack of whom is what we most dread. By its very nature, this is the being which most commands our interest and allegiance. Aquinas thus does for the philosopher what Genesis 1 does for the ordinary person: sets the context for how to understand all subsequent revelation.

Drawing a distinction between an inconsequential philosopher's God and a cartoon God of revelation draws a disservice to both. Though I guess that does help answer the question: atheists approach the whole question with a woefully defective intellectual toolkit, primed with false equivalences.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 19:50:24 2019 No.14039345

>>14039089
>did science tell you that?
uh yeah actually it did. science is how we understand anything about reality at all.

the presupposition that science is valid is retroactively justified by the scientific investigations undertaken with this axiom as their basis. as opposed to unscientific systems of metaphysics that never attain anything beyond their own circular abstractions.

read Quine if you're confused on how natural epistemology works. Russell's 'Scientific Outlook' is also a good resource on this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:13:10 2019 No.14039448 File: 67 KB, 597x375, gottfried-leibnizs-quotes-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14038658 Deist God makes sense.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:14:59 2019 No.14039456

>>14039345
>Science is not circular
Can you demonstrate the validity of the scientific method without appealing to the scientific method?
>Science is how we understand anything about reality at all.
Sure buddy, I guess that prior to "muh science" no one knew anything, right?
>Everything we know comes exclusively from our senses
Is the concept of the number 7 a social construct or does it exist outside our senses?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:16:46 2019 No.14039461 >>14038673 >A potential cannot do anything, since it is not actual Retard. You just argued for abortion unknowingly. God, Christians are cringe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:26:17 2019 No.14039512 >>14039461 Kek. You are right

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:34:06 2019 No.14039554 >>14039461 >You just argued for abortion unknowingly. Ever heard the concept of a souls, you retard?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:34:17 2019 No.14039556 File: 177 KB, 419x299, 8CD01786-1612-4B9E-AF65-1A958B7A6949.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14038658 Even if it were, all that was proven was an abstract Platonic God, not the douchebag abrahamic God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:35:41 2019 No.14039568 >>14039554 Prove it

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:39:24 2019 No.14039593 >>14039461 People who are against abortion tend to think foetuses are actual human beings in an early stage of growth, not just 'potential' human beings.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:41:28 2019 No.14039605

>>14039568
>Prove it
I don't have to prove anything, that's not the question here. You're comment was meant as an demonstration of Christian hypocrisy and the lack of coherence and I pointed out the Christian concept of souls, which in turn BTFO'ed your post here: >>14039461

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:42:15 2019 No.14039611 >>14039593 plus it would go against platonic thought especially ultra realism to view an infant as such

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:43:06 2019 No.14039616 >>14039448 Leibniz was aggressively Christian tho

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:44:22 2019 No.14039626 Pantheist God makes sense. We are living inside God's body.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:45:25 2019 No.14039634 >>14039323 Lol why the fuck would an atheist want to service something he regards as a fictional character?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:48:39 2019 No.14039651 File: 87 KB, 620x767, 1571719227713.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Because atheist like Arby's

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:51:39 2019 No.14039664 >>14038785 Forgiveness is contingent upon repentance. If a king forgives a murderer only to be murdered by him, that is not justice but mockery.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:54:23 2019 No.14039681 File: 268 KB, 525x525, E1513303-4EE8-450B-B8EE-784373A79637.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14039323 >loves it into being Lol, what is this hippy crap? Is this seriously what it says in the Summa?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:55:39 2019 No.14039688 >>14038658 Because something can be rational without being true.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 20:56:00 2019 No.14039690 >>14039626 least based conception of god imo >>14039681 b8

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:10:55 2019 No.14039764 >>14038673 Based, where is this from? Might use this in class I teach.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:19:51 2019 No.14039810 >>14039764 >teachers browse /lit/ so they can incorporate /pol/-tier infographs that can't even into basic logic into their curriculum terrifying. the future is bleak.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:28:55 2019 No.14039850 >>14038673 Slide 12 is a sudden gigantic pile of nonsense. I've never read the Summa so I can't speak for Aquinas himself but this powerpoint is dogshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:31:14 2019 No.14039860 >>14039810 the neoplatonist scape will consume the universe after the great simplifaction and mind death of humanity

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:34:05 2019 No.14039877

>>14038673
>the sun converts hydrogen into helium
it's hilarious when religious fucknuts hijack sciencey sounding words to give their nonsense more credibility, then try to discredit the scientific method because it shows just how much bollocks they are spouting
i'm expecting some quantum mysticism to pop up in this thread any moment

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:37:15 2019 No.14039895 >>14038658 Read a biology book from the last 100 years and then grow up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:38:36 2019 No.14039903 >>14039810 Yeah we do now, tell me where it's from you big gay

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:39:38 2019 No.14039909 >>14039850 >not a single argument found Sad

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:41:02 2019 No.14039916 >>14039877 Yeah them sciency sounding words like hydrogen, fucking out there huh?

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:41:14 2019 No.14039918

>>14038673
What a crock of shit
>There exists some causal prime mover that began it all
>It has all these incredibly specific human attributes too because like doesn't it make sense that the primeval force of the universe works exactly like I think it does

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:42:11 2019 No.14039926 >>14038926 >Athiests out of arguments so they resort to ad hominems thought so

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:44:17 2019 No.14039938 >>14039918 What human attributes are those bab?

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:49:31 2019 No.14039965

>>14038658
I'm not an atheist because I don't think God exists. I'm an atheist because there has not been a rational representation of God yet given. If you have somehow deluded yourself into thinking that the bible and its paradoxical represention of god in the old and new testaments was not a manmade creation, you are clearly just willfully ignorant.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:50:56 2019 No.14039974

>>14039909
He took a list of features he wanted his prime mover to have and labeled all of their negatives as "unrealized potentials" arbitrarily so he could call them impossible then go "Whoa, look, it's just like God."
I cannot shoot lasers out of my eyes. Does that mean I have an "unrealized potential" to shoot lasers out of my eyes? No, it just means the potential was never there in the first place.
There is further no reason whatsoever to believe that all flaws are "unrealized potentials" or that any of the enormous assumptions about "pure actuality" hold water when none of us have seen or interacted with this hypothetical being. The argument doesn't even debunk atheism, let alone polytheism.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:55:14 2019 No.14039997

>>14038673
This completely distorts the meaning of everything traditionally believed about the Judeo-Christian God. Transforming said God and all of it's attributes into some kind of abstract physical "actualizer" rather than the merciful, judging, forgiving, and also wrathful Being which Christian theology posits the existence of, and which demands worship with punishment as consequence for not doing so, and which incarnated as a male Jew named Jesus in order to establish a New Covenant through blood sacrifice after originally doing so with Abraham, and so on.

No, these two are not the same thing. Changing the very definition of God, and the specific meaning of all of it's attributes, and then using it as a proof of Christianity, isn't achieving anything. The only thing Aquinas demonstrated here is the already-known fact that every human being creates a God after their own likeness, and their own image. He has created a completely different idea of God which has no relation to the one specifically found in Christianity. I could just as easily use that entire argument as a validation of Vishnu, whose believers also sincerely hold to the existence of and as having the standard properties of any theistic entity.

To this day, there is absolutely zero evidential or rational basis on which to believe that there is some kind of masculine personality outside the bounds of space-time which oversees human existence, judges it according to Biblical morality, and sentences humanity to either eternal punishment or eternal salvation. Nothing. The closest I've seen Christians give to argument is "we can't demonstrate it by reason or evidence, just have faith in the scriptures", which is fine for a personal belief-system but isn't in the domain of philosophy.

The Vedantic conception of God is the only one I adhere to.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 21:56:34 2019 No.14040002 >>14039965 Look into Advaita Vedanta. It might be up to your standards of "rational". It's what I personally subscribe to.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:00:25 2019 No.14040019 >>14039974 I'm pretty sure you misunderstood it because, while I understand the logic of Aquinas' position, I genuinely have no idea what you're going on about or how it relates to that slide. I'd read it again dude.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:00:31 2019 No.14040022 File: 8 KB, 250x238, 04325B87-9690-44E0-A69B-C56D46889092.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14038673 >everything has to have a cause... but not God of course - he’s different!

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:01:11 2019 No.14040025 >>14038658 All atheists know God exists, but they hate him and deny His existence because they are too scared to face the truth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:01:52 2019 No.14040030 >>14039997 Lot of purple bluster and noise to make literally one point anon

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:02:57 2019 No.14040038 >>14040022 Read slide 9 again my dear

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:05:20 2019 No.14040050 >>14040038 Analogies do not suffice as a proof for God, sweetie.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:08:33 2019 No.14040062 >>14040022 Yeah this lol. Also why is it impossible that the creator of this shithole is not the ultimate divine principle? It seems like wishful thinking at best.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:08:55 2019 No.14040064

God is real but religion is stupid and a form of authoritarianism. Morality is objective. Without religion, the same moral codes religion puts in place are still applicable and a relationship with God is still possible but becomes more individualized. Religion is for the weak, as without the incentive of getting into heaven they are useless in pursuing the good life out of virtue and instead need to be told that they must be moral or they will spend an eternity in hell. The intent of religion is good but the execution is garbage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:10:45 2019 No.14040076 >>14040050 They are, however, usually very helpful as demonstrations of logic for the deeply retarded, though it seems you're struggling to grasp them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:11:13 2019 No.14040081 >>14038658 Why do pedotholics pretend this clown whose arguments are based in obsolete ontology is even remotely relevant in contemporary philosophy? Not even Christian apologists take his garbage arguments seriously. Not a literature thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:11:54 2019 No.14040083 File: 27 KB, 500x375, 48CD3F33-9E50-423E-BD6E-75C6CF3C6895.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14040019 >I think you’re the problem because I did understand something that was completely retarded but not something that is less so. Hmmm

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:13:19 2019 No.14040090 >>14040083 I mean it's your own issue that you tried to argue with something you claim is retarded but clearly didn't understand

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:18:09 2019 No.14040116 >>14040090 I’m not that guy but he has a fucking point. Basically all theology is, is philosophy conducted, ironically enough, in bad faith. You can’t do real philosophy if you’ve already decided beforehand what your ultimate conclusions will be.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:21:02 2019 No.14040125 >>14040116 What's this got to do with him not understanding Aquinas' arguments?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:21:43 2019 No.14040130 >>14040076 Stop projecting

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:24:42 2019 No.14040137 File: 498 KB, 2223x2837, Bertrand-Russell-1957.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why do Thomists still exist when the Summa has been rationally debunked?

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:24:56 2019 No.14040138

>>14038673
There’s a fatal flaw with this argument, being that causality doesn’t exist in the first place.

>Here is someone who has never seen a cat. He is looking through a narrow slit in a fence, and, on the other side, a cat walks by. He sees first the head, then the less distinctly shaped furry trunk, and then the tail. Extraordinary! The cat turns round and walks back, and again he sees the head, and a little later the tail. This sequence begins to look like something regular and reliable. Yet again, the cat turns round, and he witnesses the same regular sequence: first the head, and later the tail. Thereupon he reasons that the event head is the invariable and necessary cause of the event tail, which is the head's effect. This absurd and confusing gobbledygook comes from his failure to see that head and tail go together; they are all one cat.

>The cat wasn't born as a head which, sometime later, caused a tail; it was born all of a piece, a head-tailed cat. Our observer's trouble was that he was watching it through a narrow slit, and couldn't see the whole cat at once.

Furthermore, this idea would not exist without the unsubstantiated definitions that people create. More specifically, the definitions I speak of are the ones that create a notion of partialness, (e.g. “this thing is detached from everything else in the universe”), when there is only the universe itself. By creating a definition and seeing that it no longer holds, one may see “change”, from which a perception of causality can be derived. But such a thing simply has no ontological grounding, as shown above.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:25:37 2019 No.14040144 >>14040002 >Advaita Vedanta the killing curse nooooooo

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:25:45 2019 No.14040146

>>14040090
You're replying to two different people.
You told me I hadn't made an argument, so I laid it out pretty directly. His idea of an "unrealized potential" is vague nonsense used to justify whatever he wants because the ideas of potentiality and actuality are vague, weak concepts in the first place. He makes enormous assumptions on what "pure actuality" is/requires based on nothing but his own whims.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:26:09 2019 No.14040148 >>14040138 Based Brainlet Russell does it again

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:27:28 2019 No.14040150 >>14040148 Huh?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:28:42 2019 No.14040155 >>14040125 Because Aquinas already decides he is going to believe in a personal creator and then by no great coincidence his arguments move invariably towards that fixed idea.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:29:23 2019 No.14040159

In the end, theists don't know how all this started any more than atheists do. We don't know what started the universe or how it started, the Big Bang model can only describes what happens a period of time after it, not it's immediate cause or beginning.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:31:17 2019 No.14040166 >>14040159 We don't even know if it started. There's nothing guaranteeing that the way we model the universe deterministically is accurate at all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:33:34 2019 No.14040172 >>14040166 That's a fair point too. We do know the universe is expanding and from a tiny origin point, but yes we don't know if that's how it started or if there even was a start so to speak.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:44:38 2019 No.14040219 >>14040030 The point is presumably valid though, and I can admit to being a very poor, unconcise writer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:48:42 2019 No.14040238 >>14038658 Because it hasn't been, and even if it were, it would still be necessary to reject him.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 22:55:06 2019 No.14040260

>>14040159
The difference is that non-theists can sincerely and without difficulty say "I don't know" nor do they have to pretend to, while theists cannot do otherwise. Religion, and more specifically Abrahamic religion, exploits the inability to deal with uncertainty, such that followers of it would prefer to live in a prison of falsehood than the vacuum of unknowing. Yet Socrates, who was the original exemplar of the Western imagination, recognized that knowledge of one's ignorance is itself a virtue, and something a wise person recognizes in themselves. That all changed after Jesus replaced Socrates's wisdom, whereby articles like "belief" suddenly gained transcendent value and skepticism and lack of belief, even in the absence of evidence for it, was now something worthy of scorn and deserving of being reprimanded.

>>14040144
Gaining traction each day, though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 23:43:51 2019 No.14040490 File: 12 KB, 258x245, 1570895642029.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14039918 >specific human attributes we capeshit now

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 23:46:26 2019 No.14040500 >>14040155 Thanks for saying the exact same thing again but what does have to do with him not understanding Aquinas' argument?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 23:56:31 2019 No.14040541 >>14038658 Atheists are just Protestants who don't realize that they are Protestants.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 23:59:19 2019 No.14040557 >>14040490 Calling the abstract force creating and moving the universe "perfect" is an incredibly human idea What the fuck does Aquinas mean by "perfect," does he go into it? What "flaw" can a human ascribe or not ascribe to the prime mover?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:00:17 2019 No.14040564

>>14040146
None of that is particularly vague

Actuality = something that exists
Potentiality = the potential that one actuality can change into another through an external force
Unrealized potential = all the possible ways that a particular actuality can be changed

What's so hard about that?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:00:24 2019 No.14040565 >>14040500 Reply to the other post that explained it even more directly instead of whoever that guy is, dipshit

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:02:59 2019 No.14040576 >>14040565 Still not answered the question retard

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:04:53 2019 No.14040586

>>14040564
You just defined a category as "something that exists" and are denying that it's vague.
It's rhetoric. Calling it a proof is a disservice to proofs. A smoke-and-mirrors game to reach conclusions he already knew he needed to get to.
Every single conclusion in slide 12 has no answer to the question "Why?"

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:09:37 2019 No.14040608
File: 198 KB, 1600x566, 230315_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14040557
>What the fuck does Aquinas mean by "perfect," does he go into it?
You read a meme chart and think you have debunked Aquinas? LOL. Have you ever read the Summa? Do you have any idea what an immense feat of philosophical literature it is?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:11:47 2019 No.14040617 >>14040557 >"perfect," does he go into it? >>14040608 No, my bad. It's blatantly clear you haven't read a single word from the Summa, asking such a silly question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:13:28 2019 No.14040624 File: 80 KB, 643x820, 0a1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14040608 >Spend the next ten years of your life reading this if you're gonna ask questions about it Haha, no

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:15:13 2019 No.14040629 >>14038658 Are Aquinas and Augustine worth reading, or is it a Catholic meme?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:17:39 2019 No.14040639

>>14040624
>I don't want to contend with arguments for the existence of God because of whatever....
Here we have it folks, atheism summarized in a single post. You should stick to reading God Delusion, kek.

I now realize why, despite arguing against aquinas extensively, Dawkins didn't quote or reference the Summa A SINGLE TIME in his book. Atheist have already made up their mind, they don't want take the other side seriously.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:18:36 2019 No.14040644

>>14040629
The Confessions of Saint Augustine is absolutely worth reading. City of God and all of Aquinas' works are essentially an impenetrable foundation of doctrinal autism completely useless to anyone who is not a Catholic or trying to convince Catholics that they're going to hell.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:20:34 2019 No.14040650

>>14040586
>You just defined a category as "something that exists" and are denying that it's vague.
I'm not going to recount the entirety of Aristotle's and Aquinas' ontology at this ungodly hour. If you want to understand it better read their fucking books.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:22:14 2019 No.14040657 >>14040639 I'm perfectly willing to contend with arguments in favor of God because I believe in God you braindead nigger. I just dislike Aquinas and autists of his ilk.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:23:20 2019 No.14040659 >atheists unironically believe that rocks smashed into each other to form consciousness

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:24:54 2019 No.14040670 >>14038658 because >muh empirism but, real talk here, rationalist arguments are always based on assumptions, and assumptions are shaky ground to build arguments on

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:27:20 2019 No.14040681 >>14040659 This is an even worse version of the reddit "le skydaddy" nonsense, you're out-fedoraing the fedoras

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:27:54 2019 No.14040686

>>14040659
Not only that, but atheist believe that DESPITE there existing billions of species, humans were the only ones to from consciousness.

Do the math for me atheist, what's he likelihood of the big bang taking place? then what's the likelihood of our planet forming? then what's the likelihood of us exiting and then what's the likelihood of we being the only species with consciousness?

I'm not ironic when I say this, but I simply lack the faith in atheism to reject God.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:29:02 2019 No.14040692 >>14040681 Explain to me how atheists are anything but neo-pagans.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:34:03 2019 No.14040713

>>14040686
>What's the probability? Hahaha
One, because it happened
All you're exposing here is your own ignorance of the scientific explanation of the origins of the universe and humanity
I believe God guided it all, but I do believe it all happened along the same lines that atheists claim, and the only developed alternative is retarded creationism
>>14040692
The general western secularism is probably more like neo-puritanism, pagans were way more varied and interesting and it's an insult to the pagans to conflate the two
Doesn't change the fact that blatantly misrepresenting biology with reductionism is a brainlet take

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:35:52 2019 No.14040723

>>14039974
I agree, only a dimwit would not find reason to challenge any of the arguments in slide 12. I'm sure Aquinas gives better reasoning in his work, but someone explain why a flaw or a lack of knowledge is a potentially.
If your answer is "there's the potential to fix the flaw" or "there's the potential to know what is unknown", then how come the reverse, "creating a flaw" or "losing a bit of knowledge", are not potentials as well?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:36:56 2019 No.14040730 >>14040723 >"creating a flaw" or "losing a bit of knowledge", are not potentials as well? Because he can do neither

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:39:03 2019 No.14040739 >>14040692 >explain how people who don't believe in god don't believe in other gods

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:41:35 2019 No.14040750 >>14040713 >One, because it happened That's no proof against God. I can say the same thing. I can look outside and say "See, creation is a proof of God's existence"

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:44:46 2019 No.14040762

>>14040713
>blatantly misrepresenting biology
Those who have dedicated their lives to discovering the mechanisms of abiogenesis have themselves written about what amounts to intelligent design in their eyes. This is stupid.
>>14040739
This is a strawman.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:46:39 2019 No.14040770
File: 111 KB, 625x773, 1513789325244.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14040762
>Those who have dedicated their lives to discovering the mechanisms of abiogenesis have themselves written about what amounts to intelligent design in their eyes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:46:41 2019 No.14040771 >>14038673 Does your image make self-actualisation impossible then? How is our potential actualised?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:50:00 2019 No.14040781 >>14040723 >"losing a bit of knowledge" God cannot lose knowledge for losing something would imply potentiality (you can lose your keys), remember God is actus purus or pure actuality, thus God cannot lose knowledge.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:50:32 2019 No.14040784

>>14040750
Yes, that's what my belief is. There is absolutely no concrete proof in creation that God had to intervene and create humans or earth or anything other than the absolute beginning, though.
>>14040762
God made the universe, but there's no reason to assume he mucks about in it in supernatural ways.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:51:02 2019 No.14040786 >>14040771 >Does your image make self-actualisation impossible then? How is our potential actualised? I don't understand your question, could you clarify?

a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i Wed Oct 23 00:53:31 2019 No.14040796
File: 103 KB, 755x587, aputrollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14040781
>mfw Genesis 3:8-9

>And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
>And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, "Where art thou?"

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:53:41 2019 No.14040797 >>14038673 >potentials magically become actuals in the eleven part kek thank you Aristotle

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:54:01 2019 No.14040798
File: 73 KB, 630x750, mooney1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion%20December%201g_snd.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheist

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:56:07 2019 No.14040809 >>14040796 Yeah, lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:58:08 2019 No.14040818 >>14040796 When a kid is caught with cookie crumbs all over his face the parent doesn't ask the kid if he has eaten a cookie to know if he really did, but to get an admission of truth from the kid itself

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:58:37 2019 No.14040821 >>14040786 If everything requires something else to actualise it's potential, how does human potential get actualised?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 00:59:22 2019 No.14040823 File: 61 KB, 800x450, large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14040809 Read this: >>14040818 You people are literally rddit tier atheist, you think you're so smart and edgy, don't you?

>>	a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i Wed Oct 23 00:59:42 2019 No.14040827 >>14040818 :)

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:00:57 2019 No.14040832 File: 63 KB, 958x784, 3D91CB00-0F30-4900-A59D-F37B8BB924A4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14040624 Yeah, its preposterous. Should I read the Koran, Talmud and Pali Canon while I’m at it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:03:47 2019 No.14040848 >>14040821 >human potential get actualised? Human action leads to a state of realized potentials

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:04:32 2019 No.14040852 File: 383 KB, 263x301, CFBB9367-9CC3-4C27-A8BD-D977CE258C8E.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14040823 >reddit nu atheist rick and morty le deus vult Oh what’s that? Its just the rustling of the leaves.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:06:31 2019 No.14040861 >>14040821 It isn't, existentialism is a false religion.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Wed Oct 23 01:07:11 2019 No.14040868 File: 31 KB, 600x450, 1571807231944.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14040832

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:07:43 2019 No.14040873 File: 976 KB, 962x3726, 1569027997208 - jesus logic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14038658 >>>/his/ >>>/pol/ "True Authorship of the New Testament" http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/Reuchlin.htm

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:08:29 2019 No.14040879
File: 135 KB, 654x754, 398ED3EF-0B57-49C3-93A0-41E4E35F6D18.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14040823
Why did he ask them where they were? Its not like my son would cone out with a face full of cookie crumbs and then I’d start feeling around for him like a blind man. How would I extract an admission of guilt by pretending I didn’t know where he was? And all that notwithstanding, wtf does an omniscient being gain fron anyone’s admission of guilt?

>>	a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i Wed Oct 23 01:09:13 2019 No.14040883 >>14040868 twileks get OUT >>14040873 brainlet

a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i Wed Oct 23 01:13:06 2019 No.14040901

>>14040879
>mortal trying to understand God
oof.

anyway. it's a test. it's not about what God gains. God is perfect. God doesn't need gains, because there are no deficiencies to correct. It's about his created being, Adam. Read Romans. Or the parable of the vineyard and the tenants. God chooses, and lets us choose.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:13:10 2019 No.14040902 >>14040873 Based graphic

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:15:03 2019 No.14040915 File: 1.25 MB, 2152x2524, B4B3456B-087A-48C3-B93C-DD2F348CED7D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14040901 >real being trying to understand a fictional one >>foO Ftfy

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:16:36 2019 No.14040925

>>14040879
>Why did he ask them where they were?
Because they hid themselves from God. Read the whole story of Adam and Eve (it's very short), and it may give you a hint

>I’d start feeling around for him like a blind man.
Adam and Eve had never covered or hid themselves before the presence of God before that event. God wanted an admission from them as to why they were doing this.

>wtf does an omniscient being gain fron anyone’s admission of guilt?
If you caught your child with his face covered in cookie crumbs, would you say that you, in that moment, have full knowledge of his action before he even utters a word? Would you then not ask what he did, even though you have full knowledge over the situation?

>>	a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i Wed Oct 23 01:16:59 2019 No.14040930 >>14040915 >a jezebel! ahh, my eyes! everyone is called to holiness, anon. if it's not for you (at the moment), why bother?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:17:57 2019 No.14040937 >>14040848 So potential can actualize itself?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:19:25 2019 No.14040945 >>14040873 Based. Fuck these chrsitcucked jewish shills.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:19:25 2019 No.14040946 >>14040937 >So potential can actualize itself? no, because it's not actual.

a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i Wed Oct 23 01:21:27 2019 No.14040961
File: 130 KB, 600x533, apuinterdasting.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14040937
not that anon but consider a big-enough cloud of gas and dust, out in space. under the weight of its own gravity this inert matter will come together. it will get hot and dense enough to ignite and become a star. self-organizing, right?

now ask yourself: was it really actualizing its own potential? or was the actualization caused by what put the matter there in the first place? i.e., creation.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:22:44 2019 No.14040971
File: 124 KB, 653x523, 8221A204-52BE-4199-A291-5700583FE43C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14040925
>Would you then not ask what he did, even though you have full knowledge over the situation?

No because I’m not a passive aggressive dickweed

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:23:33 2019 No.14040976 >>14040961 >has tripcode >still declares he's "not that anon" So you're a faggot for no reason

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:26:13 2019 No.14040991 >>14040976 Oh, so this was a falseflag? >>14040796 I wonder how God feels about these false-dealings in his name...

>>	a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i Wed Oct 23 01:29:40 2019 No.14041019 >>14040976 (you) >>14040991 No. It's a question asked in good faith. Not an attempt at disproving, but demonstrating just the opposite. Something to think about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:34:31 2019 No.14041048 >>14040730 >>14040781 did not understand the point

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:38:51 2019 No.14041069 File: 114 KB, 597x579, 1570962959154.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14038673 >stuff happens >therefore god exists

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:42:05 2019 No.14041083 theism is by definition claiming knowledge that is unknowable, so why do theist even exist?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 01:43:22 2019 No.14041088 >>14041083 >by definition claiming knowledge that is unknowable that's deism for you, retard. Theism asserts divine revelation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:04:47 2019 No.14041177 >>14041088 Why some people receive revelation and other dont? What makes some special and others dont?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:06:25 2019 No.14041189 >>14040971 Welp, that settles it. God is not like you, and your existence is perfectly correct, so God must be bad (if he exists). QED.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:12:10 2019 No.14041226

>>14038658
The Jungian interpretation of a God archetype has been rationally proven, as has the fact that without some foundation from which to base morals on, morality is relative and arbitrary. God is that basis, whether he exists or not. Therefore God is both necessary and real in a sense, whether or not He physically exists. I personally think He does not, but for the reasons above it is absolutely necessary that He does.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:15:28 2019 No.14041243 Why did this chatolic guy prove the muslim god?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:17:02 2019 No.14041254 >>14038673 >The chain of causation cannot be infinitely long >There is no proof that the universe is not infinitely old and you can't prove thst it is! Seems like kind of a contradiction here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:18:59 2019 No.14041263 >>14038683 It's addressed in the Bible by Jesus directly . And if you want to "see" God you can, it's not that hard but atheist never do it. Quick guide: seclusion, fasting, prayer meditation, sincerely trying to find God. Yep that is all it takes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:21:24 2019 No.14041278 >>14039089 The word proof literallh only refers to "scientific proof." The fact that retards use proof to mean evidence is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:23:59 2019 No.14041296 >>14039997 This. Fucking Christians. Half of them argue "you have to believe in God as faith, which means irrationally, but that's the beauty of it" and the other half say shit like "there's proof of God out there." You can't have it both ways.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:24:43 2019 No.14041300

>>14041254
Aquinas wanted the universe not to be infinitely old, and thought that the chain of causation argument pointed that way, but didn't think it was sufficient philosophical evidence to conclusively prove this and fell back on revelation. Of course, we now have very strong empirical evidence that the universe isn't infinitely old, so this is irrelevant.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:29:44 2019 No.14041330

>>14041296
It's much easier to demonstrate/prove the existence of the Abrahamic/Platonic God via ontological arguments than to prove that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead or that an Arab warlord flew to heaven on a winged horse. Even empirical arguments for the existence of a Creator aren't going to be relevant to some guy waking up after being dead for three days except insofar as they raise your priors for the possibility of divine action.

>>	a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i Wed Oct 23 02:30:40 2019 No.14041337 >>14041296 You don't have to believe. There is a universal call to holiness. You don't have to heed it. >>14041300 It's not so much that he wanted it so much as an infinitely old universe doesn't make sense.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:32:21 2019 No.14041341

>>14041226
Jungian interpretation of God is the only correct one. He isn't a being, persay, but a mythological archetype that we use daily.
To a young child, for example, for example, mother and father are God. Worship of the Christian Gos is just a natural manifestatuon of this archetype. It does not matter if God is real, because the morality put forth by this archetypal God is a natural moral law evolved to help further our growth as a species. God is just as necessary to us humans as the oarents are to a young child, whether or not he exists physically at all.
Is anyone following this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:39:42 2019 No.14041383 For the same reason why people believe in motion despite Parmenides and Zeno proved its non existence rationally. If your belief in God is grounded in the arguments of people like aquinas your belief is pretty close to dead

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 02:47:49 2019 No.14041422 >>14040025 All theists know God doesn't exist, but they're too scared to face the truth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 03:10:50 2019 No.14041489 >>14039877 >religious duck it’s hijack science Science is literally a product of religious institutions you brain dead moron

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 03:11:03 2019 No.14041490 >>14041088 >yeah, so, the divine revealed knowledge to ME so I could tell you people actually fall for this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 03:13:51 2019 No.14041494 >>14041296 And you really don't know why that is? >what is the protestant reformation Not all christianity is the same, dummy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 03:17:09 2019 No.14041500 >>14038658 >rationally proven Stay delusional christturd

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 03:17:09 2019 No.14041501

>>14041226
>God doesn't exist because he doesn't exist physically.
>All the dead people don't exist because they don't exist physically
>Numbers don't exist bebcause they don't exist physically

Maybe the physical realm is not the real one. After all its entirely transient.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 03:20:26 2019 No.14041507 >>14041296 >you can't have both Fucking false dialectics really are the plague of cumbrains, you can have both because the path to God is not only one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 03:33:54 2019 No.14041536 >>14041501 Those three greentexts are right. So what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 03:40:38 2019 No.14041560 >>14041501 That's not contradictory to what I said.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 03:56:59 2019 No.14041597

>>14040608

Your appeal to an old edition's length is as tiresome as it is false. The Summa is not a great philophical work-the pretense that it is, is an error of human culture (similarly, history has made the error of ascribing legitimacy to the atheistic and equally false work of Marx partly on account of its sheer length). The Summa is an autistic instruction/reference manual, that's all, and it isn't even right.

I still clearly remember when I actually started reading it and understanding its system: "This is it? This is the fearsome thing? God, now I'm more of an atheist than ever."

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 04:27:12 2019 No.14041654 >>14040873 >bla bla blac cluck cluck cluck my dude lLLLOOOLZZ!1 As pointlessly long as it is non sequitur.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 04:33:02 2019 No.14041670 >>14038658 >>14038673 Catholics deliberately make bad arguments in order to destroy Christianity because they are Atheists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 05:08:53 2019 No.14041724 >>14038683 But anon, he does every day when the sun rises

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 06:55:47 2019 No.14041961 >>14041724 well yeah but only because we sacrificed some prisoners of war yesterday >>14041507 >the path to God is not only one. this is the biggest cop out ever

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 07:48:09 2019 No.14042087 File: 94 KB, 750x710, 7e20b5d57b4c7e9832bb8c43857fdd3242c71d6091dc969f5c498c0c6419fc9a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14040971 >No because I’m not a passive aggressive dickweed

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 07:52:26 2019 No.14042095 >>14038658 Well, for one, because I'm not a rationalist...

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 07:59:12 2019 No.14042117

>>14038673
>Therefore something that is itself actual has to actualize a potential
This is seriously the best theists have to offer? Even Dawkins is smarter than that. If that image is an actual summary of Aquinas' argument from motion then I'm astonished. For years I've read posts by Catholics on /lit/ praising Aquinas', saying that a careful reading of his works should lead one to Catholicism. But that whole argument is so stupid I'm at a loss for words. If that's their best then there's no way I'll ever end up converting. This is disappointing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:00:39 2019 No.14042122 File: 260 KB, 563x542, 2a6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Can anybody in this thread prove that the Bible wasn't written by Satan in an attempt to deceive people? I'll wait.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:01:51 2019 No.14042126 >>14042117 Literally nothing wrong with that argument, are you dense?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:03:01 2019 No.14042129 >>14041597 We know you haven't read it

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:04:59 2019 No.14042134 >>14040659 >consciousness >formed Take the Advaitapill.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:05:25 2019 No.14042135

>>14039461
A zygote is a full human. All its potential is held in its DNA that is fully human and actualizes itself after merging the egg with the sperm. Being an infant is human, as much as being an embryo.
Now the egg cell or the sperm cells aren't humans, as both lack full human DNA and thus are incapable by themselves to actualize a human. But they have a potential to become a human on their merging into a zygote. Which immediately starts actualizing its humanity in utero.

Just be plain that you want to murder kids to fuck around or sacrifice them to Moloch, why the fuss. Invent "late abortion" for up to 3 years of age.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:08:49 2019 No.14042144 >>14038702 This was an inspired post.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:09:40 2019 No.14042149 >>14042135 >godbotherers try to use science do fuck off

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:09:54 2019 No.14042151
File: 87 KB, 994x374, 1570485339190.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Coming to the conclusion that God exists is a blackpill, not a whitepill. Because then, the only reason for him creating us is what Mainländer said - to kill himself, or to transfer himself from actuality to potentiality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:11:55 2019 No.14042154 >>14040659 Well, your alternative is that it was built by the same guy who sits around in burning bushes and chats with peasants.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:18:22 2019 No.14042163

>>14042117
You didn't present a single rebuttal, how typical of the atheist. And Dawkins who you praise is philosophically illiterate to the point where he didn't even manage to quote or cite Aquinas a single time in the God Delusion, despite railing on him

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:20:11 2019 No.14042168 >>14041337 Buddhists are very holy, in my view.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:21:42 2019 No.14042173 >>14041489 Originally, yes. But not so much in the modern period.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:23:24 2019 No.14042176 File: 820 KB, 3558x3364, 8bdec5e3094d4b61148f604ed7f1a8381bdbe6570a38d33334bff64cccbab503.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14042173 Sure buddy... hahahahahahah

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:31:57 2019 No.14042200

>>14042122
Best post in thread. I mean, what if the one who warned us of the devil was the very man himself? What could be a more brilliant, and dare I say "devilish" ploy? And if you look at the tenets of the faith, you could certainly argue for it being so. Do not lean on your own understanding, you are not capable of saving yourself, you are a wicked and sinful creature, if you disbelieve you will be punished, give everything you have to the Church, do not interpret the Bible yourself, belief and obediance are intrinsically virtuous, and so many other messages which could never be considered positive for a person to believe in. From the perspective of Buddhism, Christianity would certainly be the work of Mara, designed to keep them in Samsara continually.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:36:36 2019 No.14042208 >>14042176 In the modern period, the majority of scientists are non-religious. I myself have a non-dual belief system, but most science today is not practised by individuals with spiritual faith of any variety.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:36:53 2019 No.14042209 >>14042149 Or else what? You will sacrifice your child to Moloch? At least previously people expect things like victory in wars, plentiful harvests or otherworldy power in exchange for child sacrifice, not just a free uterus to fuck around again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:38:00 2019 No.14042214 >>14042176 wow a lot of scientists were christian at a time when not being a christian could cost you your life. imagine that those numbers really thinning out towards the end there eh?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:39:13 2019 No.14042217 >>14042209 you sound like a loony mate

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:40:00 2019 No.14042219 >>14042214 >Only Christians existed in the world Yes, because being a Christian was a requirement in Japan, India and China too... KEK

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:40:07 2019 No.14042220 >>14039616 >lowest iq pantheism >highest iq panentheism

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:42:41 2019 No.14042229 >>14042208 Most cited phycisist in the Netherlands is a deeply religious Christian, Cees Dekker. He is also super based. His physics work is incredible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:43:29 2019 No.14042233 >>14042219 um. what?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:44:25 2019 No.14042236

>>14042209
Warfare is a less harmful reality than consentual intercourse? I'm not that guy but it doesn't make sense to be against one form of homicide while being in favor of another. And to be fair, Yahweh had the Canaanite infants slaughtered, asked for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and eventually sacrificed himself on the cross in the form of Jesus. Thus, from the perspective of Judeo-Christian belief, you can't claim human sacrifice - of infants or adults - to be a bad thing, since the action has already been taken by the very moral arbiter of that worldview. From a different God's perspective however, you could. Vishnu, for example.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:45:09 2019 No.14042238 >>14042229 ok that's one. name a few more. >>14042208 said the majority are non-religious. can you prove otherwise?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:45:31 2019 No.14042239
File: 33 KB, 590x350, big-bang-1162808.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What's the point of introducing God as uncaused first cause when I can just as well declare the universe itself to be the uncaused first cause? Gets rid of the arbitrary middle man.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:46:16 2019 No.14042242 >>14042233 Why did science develop in the West and not in India, China or Japan, despite these countries all being free of the "Christian plague" as it were.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:48:22 2019 No.14042250
File: 89 KB, 640x690, 1570055424844.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14042239
>I can just as well declare the universe itself to be the uncaused first cause?
Because for that to be true, the universe must have existed before it came into existence. Use your brain next time, brainlet.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:49:02 2019 No.14042251

>>14042229
Religion and science are not opposed to eachother, except by methodology. You can believe whatever you want, one of them being through your scriptures and the other through your observations. There's nothing stopping a religious devotee from being a scientific genius, it just tends to be in the modern period that scientists are philosophically empiricists and therefore distance themselves from belief-systems which contain non-empirically derived information in them, which is what much of religion consists of.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 08:51:01 2019 No.14042260 >>14042250 So God existed before he came into existence?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 09:00:56 2019 No.14042288 >>14039461 Yes, and?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 09:04:43 2019 No.14042296 >>14042260 God is spaceless and timeless, thus it logically follows that he has to be eternal... (God people are so philosophically illiterate in this day and age, baka)

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 09:05:12 2019 No.14042298 what arguments do legitimate thinkers use to counter aquinas as in people in the academia and whatnot not internet spergs or memes

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 09:07:32 2019 No.14042304 >>14038673 tl;dr lool

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 09:13:32 2019 No.14042321 >>14042296 Even though the universe contains space and time within it, I can just claim that it itself transcends those categories. You see, applying attributes to things isn't hard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 09:18:02 2019 No.14042337 >>14038673 LMAO. Do theists not know about the first law of Newton?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 09:26:48 2019 No.14042358 >>14042321 Black holes and photons (massless particles) both transcend time, being within the universe.

>>	a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i Wed Oct 23 09:42:40 2019 No.14042397 >>14042321 Dark matter does not seem to interact with the EM spectrum. It does effect influence through gravity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 09:42:42 2019 No.14042398 File: 204 KB, 1276x1744, baruch-spinoza-4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14039556 This, desu. Does Aquinas ever prove that this "god" loves us? Does he prove that it's worth loving back, if at all?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:01:34 2019 No.14042455 >>14042337 Do you?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:04:44 2019 No.14042467

>>14042398
>Does Aquinas ever prove that this "god" loves us? Does he prove that it's worth loving back, if at all?
stop embarrassing yourself with these silly question. "Does aquinas answer this, does he answer that". He literally answers every single one of your questions and much much more, but I don't except fedora tier atheist to comprehend that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:10:10 2019 No.14042485 >>14042358 Not that guy, but no they fucking don't.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:25:05 2019 No.14042546

>>14042208
That’s not the point, the point is that the other anon was saying religious nut jobs hijack science words like hydrogen and helium and fusion when the vast majority of scientific terminology was created and preserved by Christian institutions, the Big Bang was a theory by a priest. Quantum mysticism traces its roots to Heisenberg and schrodinger who both believed human consciousness was a fundamentally necessary function in the actualisation of reality. Schrodinger explicitly believing that quantum mechanics is evidence of an afterlife. But no you’re right whenever religious figures use words like “matter” they are hijacking a field that belongs to BASED rationalists like Sam Harris.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:35:11 2019 No.14042589
File: 174 KB, 560x315, EDAA44EB-1B87-4B26-88F0-A72A88BA72E3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14040818
>>14040925

I could only hope that I don’t have a child who eats cookies by smashing them against his face resulting in his face being covered in cookie crumbs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:37:46 2019 No.14042594 File: 44 KB, 479x720, B3910D4C-8289-48C1-B1E0-D0403FBA1A0C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14041189 This but unironically

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:38:18 2019 No.14042597 >>14042122 How would you even know about Satan and that he deceives people of it was not for the Bible and the church?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:40:13 2019 No.14042602 >>14041330 >Abrahamic/Platonic These are virtually incompatible

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:40:43 2019 No.14042606 >>14042236 >You can't claim human sacrifice is a bad thing Yea let's ignore all the parts that it is condemned and punished both in the old and new Testament. And you can equete the actions of God to yours because you are not God.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:43:18 2019 No.14042615 File: 2 KB, 119x124, 7CFDF7BD-711C-4B47-A46A-C5F2F98CFA9A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14041489 >Ecclesiastics are the only ones with access to education >wow look, catholics preserved science during the dark ages You’re the retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:45:51 2019 No.14042626 File: 31 KB, 656x527, ED086B5B-2146-4220-9DD1-5A23BE84E685.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14041507 >all these “Christians” swearing and insulting people Read the book.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:47:23 2019 No.14042631 >>14042298 Aristotle himself blows the fuck out of the ontological argument, Schopenhauer wrote about it in the Fourfold Root. Which is funny because Aristotle is the foundation of the whole scholastic tradition.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:48:54 2019 No.14042634 File: 87 KB, 1200x900, 3877DA17-DDD6-4936-A7D5-2B74D7CB5861.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14042087 The second one is based. Christian antinatalism is correct.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:49:48 2019 No.14042636

>>14042546
Scientific terminology has zero intrinsic relation to Christian theology. And Schrodinger was heavily influenced by Vedanta, not Christianity. Modern science emerged from Christian society, but it has zero relation to Christianity at this point.

>>14042606
Judeo-Christianity is rife with inconsistencies and contradictions, I agree with that. None of it actually coheres. And if God's morality is different from human morality, then humans have no basis to follow God's morality, which was supposed to be the standard for humans to follow. If God is the objective standard of morality, kills babies, and subsequently deems it that humans should not kill babies, then humans can't follow said arbiter in any capacity, given the lack of logical consistency.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:50:35 2019 No.14042641 >>14042122 Based

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:52:19 2019 No.14042644

>>14039345
Science is based on unprovable, unfalsifiable assumptions, just as any other idea and philosophy. If I make the assumption that every change in chemistry and physics is caused by tiny fairies interacting with the world, then that assumption would still lead to a coherent world view - it would be an unfalsifiable axiom, just the same as naturalism and materialism are. Just because the scientists of our time assume that causal power lies with atoms alone, and that the world we can observe is all there is, doesn't make these assumptions true. There are many things our ancestors couldn't observe, that we today understand have an impact on our lives - bacteria and microorganisms being one example. Scientism is a brainlet philosophy

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:52:36 2019 No.14042647 Cuz atheists are dumb

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:54:09 2019 No.14042653 File: 17 KB, 228x221, A29D5CA7-A65D-4D5A-BC7E-03AFDBE0CF97.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14042151 No, its a blackpill because the only reason he created us was to use us as a means to an end.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:56:37 2019 No.14042666

>>14042602
Eh, you'd be surprised at how far people's mental gymnastics go. I guess because ancient people combined these cultures together, that makes Yahweh and the Form of the Good the same thing. When Plato wrote about the Form of the Good, he was really speaking about Yahweh and Jesus. Not like these are two completely different cultures awkwardly brought together due to historical circumstance. And philosophy has suffered ever since.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:57:15 2019 No.14042667 >>14042626 >Nooo only I can insult you, you have to take it, arent you are good Christian ? Nah bad brings bad good brings good.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:57:17 2019 No.14042669

>>14041422
Christians don't really believe in God.
Point in case, when christcucks get sick where do they go? Do they go to church or the hospital? If you go to the hospital you have no faith are a hypocrite and will go to hell.

>Inb4 brainlet arguments like "but gud put duktir ther, he werks thru peepo!"

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 10:59:52 2019 No.14042679 File: 81 KB, 1024x1024, 454A2295-2A10-452B-A38C-387EF520BF49.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14042296 >God has magical and convenient attributes, baka >gaah, why can’t people do philosophy anymore?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:02:16 2019 No.14042691 File: 38 KB, 353x537, the-case-against-reality-why-evolution-hid-the-truth-from-our-eyes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14038658 Read the truth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:02:19 2019 No.14042692 >>14039997 Thomism is the final redpill, retard. Christianity was never based on "judeo Christian God." It was based on the philosopher's God. That's why plato was never burned. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:02:22 2019 No.14042693 File: 114 KB, 500x372, F393F877-2698-407E-B969-EC7386094E25.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14042467 Fact: Literally nobody in this thread has read The Summa nor will they ever.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:05:53 2019 No.14042712

>>14042667
19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:08:09 2019 No.14042719

>>14042626
Never forget anon, that Jesus himself referred to his enemies by the worst of titles: brood of vipers, children of satan, and so on. We praise Jesus far more than he deserves, and if all of us were to follow his model exactly we'd be a pretty ugly society: one that is intolerant of any views but ours, labelled external doctrines demonically influenced, threatens eternal punishment for not believing our worldview, and chastises anyone who dare think for themselves and form their own opinions. Don't perpetuate the notion that Christianity is about kindness and Christians simply deviate from this - the religion's progenitor was far less of a saint than people make him out to be.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:09:21 2019 No.14042727 >>14042692 >Judeo-Christianity was never based on Judeo-Christianity doubt.png

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:10:43 2019 No.14042732

>>14042644
Even if absolute certainty is always out of reach, science at least produces results that allow us to tell good theories from bad theories. If my scientific theory allows me to make consistently accurate predictions in different situations, it is probably true on some level. Meanwhile, what sets the correct theological idea apart from the incorrect one?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:12:32 2019 No.14042734

>>14042636
God's commandments and his actions afther the incarnation his church are the way to morality.
And God is the final judge of all action and does not have to fallow human morality. Because he is the creator of it he is transcends this world and the laws of it.
>Judeo-Christianity
Those word are almost enough to dissmis everything you have to say about Christianity, it show you have absolutely no knowledge of what it is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:12:48 2019 No.14042735 >>14038707 But he was a catholic?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:14:38 2019 No.14042743 >>14042597 The Torah?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:15:46 2019 No.14042745 >>14042176 >all of them dead Face it sweetie, religion is irrelevant in the contemporary intellectual world

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:16:15 2019 No.14042748 >>14038673 An immaterial God can no longer affect the world though (conservation of energy). As such, this is all just further proof for the gnostics having been right all along.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:16:51 2019 No.14042750 >>14042712 Yea I'm not perfect, I can't be a saint and will insult someone who insults me. At best I ignore post like that because it really is not worth it but sometimes it's still interesting to test your arguments.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:17:52 2019 No.14042752 >>14042743 The Torah is part of the Bible

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:19:25 2019 No.14042757 >>14042752 Regardless, you have no way of proving that it wasn't something evil that created the Bible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:20:51 2019 No.14042761 >>14042750 But the Christians are the ones with started with the personal insults. Actually the only insult I levied at anyone in the thread was basically a “no u”

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:24:39 2019 No.14042771 >>14042757 What's your definition of evil by your post before it was strght up from the Bible, and that was my point. You know what is evil because of the Bible

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:25:45 2019 No.14042777

>>14039997
>To this day, there is absolutely zero evidential or rational basis on which to believe that there is some kind of masculine personality outside the bounds of space-time which oversees human existence, judges it according to Biblical morality, and sentences humanity to either eternal punishment or eternal salvation.
We call matter "mother earth" because matter means matrix and matrix means mother, as matter (the matrix) is the mother of all things, which can create and destroy all, both good and evil, divine and corrupt. From that matrix and whatever conditions happen to characterize your position within it, there are the ways you can choose to act which are fundamentally hierarchical relative to the goal in mind (survival, salvation, love, etc). Things like survival are pretty much quantitative, but once you enter the domain of "good" and "evil" you enter the grey zone. Existing this grey zone is easy: assume that all beings that are self-conscious contain a locus of divinity (the capacity to actualize truth) and that truth is good (an axiomatic faith-claim), such that it becomes imparative to love truth and being. By aiming to imitate whatever mode of being exists at the top of all hierarchies oriented towards the service of those two things you effectively imply the existence of a transcendent masculine personality which judges all beings based on their actions (or their distance from the top of the hierarchy). If you become too distant from the top of the hierarchy your life will be hell and you dont have to believe in anything metaphysical to understand that. No, these things don't "prove" the existence of God, as God can only be revealed through faith (obviously if you dont believe in the two values mentioned above you wont give a damn when good things happen so God will never reveal himself to you). What this rationale does is narrow the gap of faith to the degree that his existence becomes practically self-evident.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:28:18 2019 No.14042793 >>14042771 No, I know what is evil because of empathy. If you think you know what is evil because of some book then you should be locked away where you can’t hurt anyone.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:28:49 2019 No.14042797 >>14042777 >obviously if you dont believe in the two values mentioned above you wont give a damn when good things happen so God will never reveal himself to you. Or to someone like mother Theresa for that matter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:32:47 2019 No.14042806 >>14042797 What do mean?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:33:51 2019 No.14042808 The existence of the christian God is predicated upon the assumption that the world speaks a language. This assumption's been long refuted except for midwits who are still asleep in their rationalistic dreams.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:35:22 2019 No.14042815 >>14039461 >A fetus is "potential" It already exists and is a being, you fucking spastic.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:36:58 2019 No.14042819

>>14042793
That's just as circular of an argument as "morality exist because the bible says it". The emotions you feel constitue nothing more than an instinctive phenomenological response to you moving towards or away from what you value. Everything you feel is couched within your system of values because without the system you would have no framework to judge what emotion you should be feeling (why does a spin of good luck make you feel happy? Why do you think your favourite team winning a game is good?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:37:06 2019 No.14042821

>>14039997
>>14042777
Oh, stfu, indo-niggers. God obviously is far beyond human reproductive organs and thus gender.

>b-but why is he called father then?
Because humans cannot understand his true form and, as such, prophets have always had to use metaphors to describe him to us mortal through their mortal languages. He’s not a literal father to us in that he fucked our mums anymore than he’s a literal shepherd.

>b-but Deus and JHWH are masculine!!
Yes. Those are the names of (male) pagan deities the Latini and Jews worshipped before adopting the true faith. It’s a matter of convention, not theology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:37:47 2019 No.14042826 File: 12 KB, 200x212, 88498.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14042793 >No, I know what is evil because of empathy. In other words, emotivism?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:40:27 2019 No.14042831

>>14042777
Congratulations on your Heavenly trips. For the record, I believe in an abstract conception of God, purely Ideal rather than having anthropomorphic attributes. God is Love, Goodness, Beauty, Justice, Truth, Purity, and Freedom - not a man, not a judge, not a king, not a lawgiver, not a parent, not a preacher, not a prophet, not a savior, not a friend, nor anything else which imparts a merely anthropomorphic designation onto something non-anthropomorphic by nature. One should spend their life contemplating these Divine abstractions and aim to emulate them in their behavior. I don't believe in any of Christianity's anthropomorphized distortions of these concepts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:40:42 2019 No.14042836 >>14042821 >doesnt understand gender archetypally You dont belong in this conversation. Masculine/feminine =/= male/female.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:42:54 2019 No.14042847 >>14042821 That's reasonable. I still consider there to be more sophisticated theologies than Judeo-Christianity, though, and I have the freedom of following them.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:47:32 2019 No.14042864

>>14042831
Why is that? God seems to be symbolically a masculine judge since when you worship him you pursue a line of ethic that you will be naturally punished for not living up to. Hes really only masculine in contrast to mother nature. If chaos is feminine then nature is feminine because nature selects beyond antibodies control; you have to play your cards within the confines of whatever game she throws you into. The hierarchy of how to play, which is order, seems to be masculine. God cant be mother nature because she spawns all sorts of things that are unholy, so doesnt that make God necessarily masculine?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:49:01 2019 No.14042868 >>14042771 There's the possibility that the evil thing who wrote it is just toying with us, by telling us what evil is and then being the very thing it describes. Can you prove that wrong? No, you can't.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:50:03 2019 No.14042870

>>14042602
To the extent they're "incompatible", it's mostly the result of defective Jewish understanding. The Old Testament makes it pretty clear that the ancient Jews had a serious problem with telling God apart from various tribal deities, particularly the chief of the Canaanite pantheon (i.e. El as God vs El as Jewpiter). The rabbinical authorities evolved as a way to calcify this defective understanding in the face of mounting evidence that it was incorrect. This is the reason Judaism is bad btw, all the /pol/ complaints are downstream of this.

>>14042727
"Judeo-Christianity" was invented in the 20th century as a ploy to gull Americans into handing power to certain Jews. It has nothing to do with historical/actual Christianity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:50:55 2019 No.14042874 >>14042806 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-teresa-letters/letters-reveal-mother-teresas-doubt-about-faith-idUSN2435506020070824

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:53:46 2019 No.14042886 >>14042176 impressive. >>14042214 No.. not just christian. Many great scientists are abbots. The big bang theory was proposed by a Catholic abbot, and the research was backed up by the Church. Another example: Mendel father of modern genetics was.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:56:46 2019 No.14042898 >>14038673 blessed post. how approachable is the Summa to an above average but still not terribly talented reader who is reasonably knowledgeable of the bible?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:57:48 2019 No.14042903 >>14038673 if this is the begin-all end-all of the matter there is no free will

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 11:59:10 2019 No.14042909 >>14042636 >but it has zero relation to Christianity at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_higher_education >>14042647 indeed. Ask God for patience as Job.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:01:14 2019 No.14042918 >>14038757 it is when you realize that He is greater than your towering mountain of sin that you realize he is your only hope

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:02:10 2019 No.14042921

>>14042874
Well, obviously it's not as though God "never" revealed himself because these times are described as periods and not as her whole life. It sounds like shes describing clinical depression in religious language, which can be understood as a "test of fate".

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:02:37 2019 No.14042922 >>14038737 this fits with both the Quran and the Torah, but I must say I don't understand it

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:04:12 2019 No.14042927 >>14038658 >christcucks immediately descend into a bureaucracy of materialist thinking kek

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:09:02 2019 No.14042937 Why doesn't God have mercy?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:10:32 2019 No.14042945
File: 114 KB, 799x578, 1558611127149.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

People continue to pretend that all of this is some matter of rational thought and argumentation, when people simply fall wherever they fall on the theist-atheist spectrum based on inherent personality and temperament. What's the point of rolling out the same points and counterpoints over and over again, even though they never actually change anybody's life?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:12:09 2019 No.14042953 >>14042945 >arguments are meaningless >the world monotheist count has gone from just the jews to half the population of the earth

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:14:58 2019 No.14042960

>>14042864
I don't agree with any of the projections of gender onto non-gendered entities here in the first place, though. "Mother Nature" is a term which humans have designated the Earth to have because of our receiving nourishment and care by the Earth we live on. But I don't literally believe that the planet Earth has a gender identity. The same goes for chaos, or for God. These conceptions help humans relate to their world, but it would be as absurd as projecting gender onto numbers or geometric figures (ex. a square is masculine, an ellipse is feminine). People can believe all of these notions in their own belief-system of course, but I don't consider them more than a form of imaginative analogy. A non-gendered God which is purely ideal and abstract is necessarily more universal than one which incorporates attributes only found within a limited segment of nature, namely a certain number of biological species.

>>14042870
The Old Testament will always and inseparably remain the foundation of Christianity. Christianity without Judaism is like pizza without dough - it does not exist, or even make sense. The Old Testament is the beginning of Christianity and the New Testament is the culmination of it. I guess modern Christians are uncomfortable with this and try to separate themselves from the reality of their own culture's history, but you can never escape the historical reality.

>>14042909
What I'm saying is that scientific methodology or terminology is not intrinsically Christian, regardless of Christians being the originators of modern science and deserving credit for being so, and for having many esteemed members of their faith as decorated members of the field.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:16:09 2019 No.14042963

>>14042921
Pretty much her whole life.
>Privately, Teresa experienced doubts and struggle in her religious beliefs which lasted nearly 50 years (until the end of her life); according to her postulator, Brian Kolodiejchuk, "She felt no presence of God whatsoever ... in her heart or in the eucharist".

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:18:15 2019 No.14042970 >>14038658 How can brainlets still exist when geniuses exist? How can chimpanzees still exist when humans have emerged from apes?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:18:20 2019 No.14042972 >>14042953 And you really believe that change happened entirely through brilliant intellectual argumentation and not through political expediency, conquest, emotional persuasion and social factors?

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:18:35 2019 No.14042974
File: 89 KB, 445x600, St Dr Martin Luther.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I was never convinced by it since reason cannot produce faith. Then I read Schopenhauer's argument and now I KNOW it is bullshit.

Natural theology is the most retarded thing in existence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:20:19 2019 No.14042982 >>14038673 It seems quite the leap to just assume that the original mover can have no un-actualized potentials simply because it is the first in the chain for other actuals

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:21:17 2019 No.14042989

>>14042960
a number of modern scholars would argue that the OT has a several contributing writers. you can believe that some are inspired and some are not. I don't, really, but I think it could be more or less consistent. I have not studied their evidence in detail though.
>>14042972
I do not believe it would have been possible without some kind of appeal to reason. The One God is a pretty radical concept compared to earlier religion, that makes sense with the logic of earlier religion but expands on it and makes it obsolete.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:22:19 2019 No.14042995 >>14042974 >since reason cannot produce faith tell me more pls, you seem sure in your position and I struggle to understand all this

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:22:36 2019 No.14042998 >>14042960 you literally said : >Modern science emerged from Christian society, but it has zero relation to Christianity at this point. And thats a huge lie. And I don't care about "credit". I Just want you to stop being so ignorant.

>>	Eris Omniquery Wed Oct 23 12:25:10 2019 No.14043007 File: 14 KB, 408x510, questionb8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14038658 Why is asking loaded questions the best way to low-effort troll on internet forums?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:26:37 2019 No.14043021 >>14043007 this question will not be answered until the year 3000

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:28:05 2019 No.14043027 >>14042995 I'm saying no one has ever been convinced by a proof of God's existence. That's the psychological reality. But in the Lutheran sense, only God can produce faith, it's not a rational thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:30:46 2019 No.14043036 >>14042998 In what sense does any modern scientific field inseparably connect to Christianity? >>14042989 Well you're certainly bound to Christ's words, and since he referenced the OT alot you're obligated to those pieces.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 12:33:58 2019 No.14043054

>>14043027
In the Quran I understand the logic as "if He knows that you could choose Him, he will give you a chance. If he knows that you will never bow he will let you live blind." So basically if it's possible that you will choose Him Allah sets up a situation where the matter is tried.

I think about this a lot because I believe because Allah showed me my life was shit. I've been thinkign a Lot about how I would try to explain this to someone else in a manner that might make sense to them, and that could be persuasive. The Quran is full of arguments that I understand to boil down to "it is clear human life is full of meaning. this implies that creation is permeated by intent, and that there is a correct way to live".

I think what I really want is an argument that makes my faith firm. Because until I have that I don't know if it will hold. But I probably never will. All I can do is trust that He will keep me on a path if I trust Him, and that I don't need to know the "how". Or I have to trust that if I knew the "how" it would ruin something integral to me and possibly to reality.

>>	Eris Omniquery Wed Oct 23 13:06:29 2019 No.14043219 File: 74 KB, 707x913, questionkey.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14043021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6rHeD5x2tI

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:07:58 2019 No.14043227 >>14043219 lol based

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:09:06 2019 No.14043229

>>14043054
I know only the basics of Islamic theology (what I've read on the Internet + one short book by a Finnish professor of Islamic studies), so I can't really comment on it. I come from Lutheran country, etc. so I have had a kind of "natural" interest in Luther's thought.

Luther often cautions against thinking about predestination, etc. since it often leads to either despair or hubris. God "behind the veil" is not something that is open to us. He just is. It's what he has revealed to us that matters to us.

I remember one quote from Luther well, that it is "better to be in Hell with Christ than in Heaven without". Faith is primarily about trust in God, that he will show us the way even when we falter and have doubt.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:13:23 2019 No.14043244 >>14043229 I think I fear ending up in a place where I can't explain my faith. but maybe the best answer is just that, that I can't explain it but it is real.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:23:15 2019 No.14043294 >>14042122 theists eternally BTFO

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:24:19 2019 No.14043302

>>14043244
A bit off-topic, but I just remembered this one time after my cousin's confirmation, I was around five or six. The priest preached about the narrow gate to heaven and how one could only be saved through faith. That evening I cried on my bed and my mom came to ask "what's wrong?". I said I didn't know if I _really_ believed in God. I was afraid I was going to hell. This made me lose my faith for years.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:30:20 2019 No.14043344

>>14043302
I think what really got me going was that I read a piece by an old persian sufi named "Attar" in which one line simply read "I am not a muslim" or something like that. That got me thinking: how was this choice made? Did I make it? Or did it happen to me? Who in me is the believer? I don't think I have a very good answer. Maybe He gives the evidence He gives and then we simply choose.

As Luther said, it might be better not to think too much about this stuff desu. I would say I oscillate between hubris and despair. But it's hard to let go.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 13:48:17 2019 No.14043448 >>14039616 He was a Deist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deists

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 14:15:53 2019 No.14043584 >>14038673 That slide 12... Confirmation bias is one hell of a drug.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 15:30:47 2019 No.14043960 >>14042455 >durr things can't move on their own What is inertia?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 16:43:39 2019 No.14044350 File: 2.32 MB, 1386x4653, 1570094312246.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14042615 >the dark ages kys

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 16:46:18 2019 No.14044368 File: 121 KB, 520x588, 1568881606964.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14042745 >sweetie I don't take advice from a hole

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 16:47:20 2019 No.14044374 >>14042748 >An immaterial God can no longer affect the world though (conservation of energy). Explain further.

Anonymous Wed Oct 23 16:52:50 2019 No.14044413
File: 1.50 MB, 2528x1364, Summa_Theologica.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14042903
>if this is the begin-all end-all of the matter there is no free will
Read the Summa. I have said it before ITT and I will say it again. Aquinas deals with every single objection thus presented ITT by atheist and much more.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 16:53:54 2019 No.14044420 >>14042937 >Why doesn't God have mercy? Read the Summa.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 23 17:09:08 2019 No.14044499 >>14038673 yikes

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature