[ 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: 141 KB, 800x675, aquinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14390602 No.14390602 [Reply] [Original]

Has anyone ever refuted the five ways?

>> No.14390643
File: 2.11 MB, 1438x1798, 3C388932-958E-4345-A2AB-85C31ED8F916.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14390643

>>14390602

>> No.14390653

>>14390643
based
unironically he did

>> No.14390904

bump

>> No.14390951

>>14390653
>>14390643
Not religious, he didn’t. I mean this is so commonly known I feel as though I don’t have to repeat it. He did not attempt to familiarise himself with scholastic philosophy whatsoever and so misinterprets words like “movement” to mean spatial movement instead of from one state to another. Kant is the only person to ever refute thomas, even if he was still a theist anyway. If you want a refutation, the critique of pure reason is kants. Dawkins fails to anyone remotely well read and he should stick to popsci

>> No.14390978

>>14390951
>Kant is the only person to ever refute thomas
Where specifically? As far as I know he only refuted St Anselm

>> No.14391092

>>14390978
seconding this
where did he refute

>> No.14391100

Guénon refuted him with his emphasis on the apriori Parmenidean doctrine. Aposteriori proofs are sophistry.

>> No.14391127
File: 720 KB, 460x259, 1662664788.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14391127

>>14390602
Yes. Amd in under 3 minutes, too. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RyYPPTcoCiU
I hate christianity.

>> No.14391423

>>14391127
lol
>>14390978
>he still hasn't replied
i might just become a catholic considering no one ive talked to has been able to refute him

>> No.14391457

>>14391423
There's not a single good reason to believe in the Abrahamic god even if Aquinas was right.

>> No.14391481

>>14391457
>Abrahamic
No such thing.

>> No.14391680

>>14391457
The God Aquinas proves necessarily has to be Catholic though.

>> No.14391695

>>14391100
>apriori Parmenidean doctrine
the w0t

>> No.14391737

>>14391680
Why's that?

>> No.14391752

>>14391680
If you're considering only his five ways, which are his only writings that are worth anything, no, not at all.

>> No.14391776

>>14391127
i wonder if dawkins actually knows that all his arguments here are dishonest or if he's really made it this long without anyone telling him he's knocking down strawmen

>> No.14391782

>>14391457
>There's not a single good reason to believe in the Abrahamic god even if Aquinas was right.
Then just chose the denomination or religion of your country/region like all your ancestors

>> No.14391853

>>14391776
>i wonder if dawkins actually knows that all his arguments here are dishonest
Kinda like how Thomists admit their argument doesn't really prove the Christian God specifically, yet they are Christians and not Deists.

>> No.14392037

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13752

>> No.14392062

>>14392037
He got BTFO by Feser though:
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/02/carrier-on-five-proofs.html
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/03/carrier-carries-on.html

>> No.14392096

>>14392062
yeah carrier responded to those responses. seems to me that carrier showed some major flaws that feser never really adequately defended though

>> No.14392106

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA

>> No.14392123

>>14392096
and he still got BTFO by someone on the first comment

>> No.14392168

>god must exist because something and something

yikes

>> No.14392193

>>14391853
>Kinda like how Thomists admit their argument doesn't really prove the Christian God specifically, yet they are Christians and not Deists.
Well Aquinas never set himself to do that. The argument for the Christian God is based on revelation and historical evidence. For example:
http://www.aquinasblog.com/16-trinity.html
>For Aquinas, the Trinity is at the heart of Christian teaching, and our understanding of it comes solely from Scripture (and church teaching which conforms to Scripture). He thinks we can reason to the existence of God, but not to the Trinity; if we know about the Trinity, it's only because of what Christ has said, not because of anything we could have figured out for ourselves.

>> No.14392303

>>14392193
Right, but the question is how you can defend the rationality of the Christian faith if you have no argument for it? Accepting a text as a divine revelation can only be epistemically justified if we have first established the divinity of the author. But how can anyone establish that?

>> No.14392766

>>14392303
I guess once you have established that God exists and that miracles are possible then you link it with Jesus, together with all the historical evidence. Feser does something like this in The Last Superstition

>> No.14392942

>>14392766
I haven't read Feser's book but basing an entire religion on a historical case about Jesus rising from the dead (even with God and miracles already established) seems weak to me, like an ad hoc justification for something one already believes in. Isn't it a more plausible explanation that the resurrection narrative was made up? And even if the resurrection was real, does that really mean that we should take Jesus' word for everything he said? If there was some man today who was livestreamed to come back to life under observation by doctors who verify the conditions etc. would you then believe everything he said as divine truth just because you can't explain what happened? And if we find this dubious, shouldn't we be even more sceptical about a resurrection that allegedly happened hundreds of years ago, and was witnessed by relatively few people? Maybe it's just me but even when I was a Christian I would never take seriously a historical case like this, it's so obviously based more on faith than reason.