[ 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: 10 KB, 480x360, hqdefault (11).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15578694 No.15578694 [Reply] [Original]

>be tradcath
>always hear about St Thomas Aquinas' proofs of the existence God
>read them
>they're actually retarded.

Bros, I...

>> No.15578715

>>15578694
Concern troll.

>> No.15578733

>>15578694
what’s wrong with them

>> No.15578765

>>15578694
Please become Orthodox

>> No.15578850

>>15578765
I belong to a branch of Catholicism that is basically Orthodox.

>> No.15579443

>>15578850
Byzantine Catholic?

>> No.15579450

>>15578694
has anyone ever refuted the argument by prime mover though?

>> No.15579464

Ancients believed that you can prove God with logic. Modern people understood that God and logic don't work together, so you either get rid of God or get rid of logic and use pure faith.

>> No.15579473

>>15579464
Those categories don’t work on those levels

>> No.15579789

>>15579464
>Just become Protestant instead of admitting that your bogus superstition never made any sense, bro!
The Greeks who invented logic also clearly invented proofs to show that logic is a symbolic system that can't actually be used to prove anything about the real world

>> No.15580228

>>15579443
syriac

>> No.15580239

>>15578694
attempting to steer people away from God is not going to turn out well for you, big guy

>>15579464
reason is not bound to the material, neophyte

>> No.15580271

>>15580239
>attempting to steer people away from God is not going to turn out well for you, big guy
Not muh heckin zombie rabbi cult!

>> No.15580394

>>15578694
Bro you have to smoke dude weed or eat a fistful of shrooms before reading them.

>> No.15580422

Does anyone else feel sick to their stomach when they listen to catholics talk about theology? I was tuning into a bishop barron video, and I couldn't make it all the way through

>> No.15580451

>>15578850
basically Orthodox, but without the eucharist.
>>15580228
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTJm-E5seR4

>> No.15580465

>>15579450
>Everything needs something to cause it move
>Clearly that means something doesn't need anything to cause it to move

Not to mention none of the disproofs of infinite regress work

>> No.15580477

>>15580451
Eastern Orthodox converts from Catholicism are always such dweebs

>> No.15580500

>>15580477
dweebs who have found the true faith thank God

>> No.15580506

>>15580500
All religious people believe they have the true faith

>> No.15580511
File: 68 KB, 480x640, 2842f7250e15ec1d1f1db0162c68c2bf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15580511

>>15580500
More like they want to be wizards. Orthodox is even more of a joke than Catholicism

>> No.15580728
File: 33 KB, 318x458, 53144646._SX318_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15580728

>>15578694
It's just you bro. The Thomistic synthesis is the only conceivable system for collaboration of faith and reason. Far greater minds than your own have come to this conclusion, particularly the Angelic Doctor himself.

>> No.15580734

>>15580728
If the Thomistic synthesis is the only conceivable system for collaboration of faith and reason and the Thomistic synthesis is retard tier that means faith and reason are not compatible. Christcucks BTFO

>> No.15580752

>>15580422
No, I just feel bored. 99% of Catholics are just desperately trying to fit into Liberalism, so they drop anything actually interesting about their religion's theology in favor of not upsetting Liberal sentiments.

>>15578733
If you're talking about Aquinas's Five Ways, all of them come down to
>If Yahweh isn't real then that means an infinite regress, and Aristotle said those can't happen
>ergo, Yahweh must be real, or Aristotle would be wrong
>and Aristotle can't be wrong!

At which point you just get into circular logic there
>infinite regresses aren't possible
>why?
>because then this thing that requires an infinite regress to not be the case wouldn't be
>why?
>because infinite regresses aren't possible

>> No.15580783

>>15580728
Michael Jones is a retard and a heretic

>> No.15580802

>>15580728
>michael jones
yikerinio!

>> No.15582984

>>15578694
yeah, you just don't understand them. Especially the infinite regress thing. He did think that some infinite regresses were possible, but not ones in a per se causal series.

>> No.15583077
File: 2.78 MB, 4000x3507, cd2f07d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15583077

Good, OP! You are a searcher. The Spirit is with all who seek and struggle towards Truth.

>>15578694
I partially agree with
>>15582984

In that the Arguments are more sophisticated than you might give them credit for. In the first instance I would always suggest that personal knowledge of God is possible through prayer and grace and preferable to a logical knowledge of His existence, much the same way that simply knowing snow must exist is different to the first time you feel snowflakes fall on your face. I encourage you to persist in faith, and would recommend Francis de Sales' Philothea, Initiation of Christ and the works of Theresa of Avila in regard to growing your prayer life.

As far as an intellectual knowledge is concerned (insofar as that is actually possible given the failure of the finite to truly grasp the infinite), the transcendental argument for the existence of God is subtler and harder to grasp but ultimately much more compelling. That particular argument aside, the intellectual tradition of Christianity from Plato to Aristotle to Augustine to Aquinas, onto the theology of the Church Fathers and the RCC catechism, forms the most coherent worldview IMO. But definitely check out that transcendental argument, and if you do one thing differently then focus more on time actually spent with God in your prayer life and you will eventually come to realise what can't be put into words. Aquinas himself had a spiritual experience late in life which led to him dismissing all his intellectual works as "straw" in comparison. Intelligence can be a good thing, but what use is excessive intellectualism in matters of faith when a simple yet devout peasant will inherit the kingdom of heaven all the same? Over-thinkimg is something I am prone to as well.

>> No.15583152

>>15583077
>haha just turn your brain off bro

>> No.15583182

>>15579464
>Ancients believed that you can prove God with logic.
Fuck you.

>Modern people understood
Fuck you.

>> No.15583184

>>15583152
It's not the same as that and you know it.

>> No.15583194

>>15580752
The best thing is that Aristotle said there are more unmoved movers than there are stars.

>> No.15583218

>>15578694
Off course poor anon
the edgy atheist in the early 10s were completely right even if cringe.
No real adult would post a trad trhead.
It´s just coping with the fact the right has no real intellectual justifiction and has to fabricate shit.

>> No.15583280
File: 142 KB, 570x712, Plato.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15583280

Only Platonism can prove God. God is the unformed former, prior to all form, prior to all being.

Every other concept of God or creation requires the preexistence of form and being:
>God follows rules or logic
>the laws of physics allow the universe to arise
Hmmm think that ontological hierarchy through.

>> No.15583325

>>15583077
>But definitely check out that transcendental argument
Do you have a book suggestion or a link to a resource that I can read about this?
> Aquinas himself had a spiritual experience late in life which led to him dismissing all his intellectual works as "straw" in comparison
This sounds very interesting. Would you mind elaborating on what kind of experience he had and how, or alternatively telling me where I can read about it?

>> No.15583332

>>15583077 vs >>15583218 lmao
Classic atheist

>> No.15583383

>>15583077
>As far as an intellectual knowledge is concerned (insofar as that is actually possible given the failure of the finite to truly grasp the infinite), the transcendental argument for the existence of God is subtler and harder to grasp but ultimately much more compelling.
So, throw away the Bible?

>> No.15583422
File: 658 KB, 1209x1600, 335147@2x.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15583422

>>15583325
> Transcendental argument
Here you are friend, pulled from Google and looks okay at first glance:

https://carm.org/atheism/transcendental-argument

As far as Aquinas, a Google search should fill you in. The state he reached is something found in contemplative prayer. In Catholic Theology, there are three 'levels' of prayer, which off the top of my head I believe are:
> Verbal (Lord, I am sorry for X, thank you for X, help me to grow in X virtue etc. The most common prayer.
> Meditative (Lectio Divina, Spiritual Exercises, meditations in Imitation of Christ and the other books I mentioned in previous post)
> Contemplative (simply gazing as God is the best way I can put it).

Generally mystical experiences happen in contemplative prayer. It is hard to pray contemplatively. People are quick to disparage prayer because most of what they see is superficial verbal prayer, which in many cases is hardly that, and is just 'I want this'. Prayer should be about making your will align with God's, not the other way around. But in any case, people will disparage prayer when there are Priests and Monks and Nuns, holy people and saints living today who spend whole lifetimes growing in prayer. Prayer is essential to attaining holiness and it's one of those things that nobody ever really wants to get round to doing, but when you do, and properly, you realise what it actually is.

>> No.15583432

>>15583383
When did I say that? The Bible is essential to faith, and superior to intellectual arguments for the existence of God as it shows Christ's message, which should be at the forefront. However, OP is specifically seeking logical rationalisations for God's existence, which aren't really found in the Bible since the majority of people then already believed.

>> No.15584244

>>15578694
>tradcath
your first mistake was falling for ideological Christianity

>> No.15584268

>>15578694
Didn't read a single post in the thread. Explain why Aquinas is wrong.

>> No.15584316

>>15578694
They were and Spinoza went and fixed them, then all the theists got mad because it didn't support their costume parties.

>> No.15584691

>>15578694
>>be tradcath

>> No.15584908

>>15580783
Defend your claim

>> No.15585025

>>15580465
That isn’t a fair representation of the argument friend: the first premise is better written as “anything that moves from potency to actuality requires a cause”; obviously then your critique won’t hold.

I don’t even want to think about how badly skewed your reading of the argument against regresses would be.

Your post is symptomatic of a more general problem common to people reading Aquinas’ arguments, or those of Leibniz. They set up straw men and knock them down, thinking they have done something. And they want to argue these points while completely ignoring the metaphysical commitments that Aquinas has (most haven’t read any Aristotle, sadly). At the same time their own metaphysical presuppositions go completely unquestioned. And indeed it is due to their own presuppositions that Aquinas seems so insensible to them.

Sadly, I don’t think this trend of stupid, uncharitable interpretation, so common to former Redditors, is liable to change anytime soon. The only solution, after all, is to recognize the depths of ones own ignorance and commit oneself to the discipline of reading, reading each author as if they have something of vital importance to teach. Aquinas has survived because he indeed has so much to teach, and I wish people would actually try to understand him, instead of attacking figments of their own imagination.

>> No.15585100

>>15578694
>be tradcath
>posts anime girl
cringe

>> No.15585110

>>15584268
Already explained several times, at length in >>15580752. Everything comes down to
>Why can't you have an infinite regress?
>Because that would prove me wrong.

In which case you either take it on faith that infinite regress is impossible because the Bible said so, or you accept that infinite regress is possible in which case you basically become a non-Christian (Christian heresies in which infinite regress is possible are so heretical so to be new religions in my opinion).

The sensible thing to do in that case is just to say you have to ~take it on faith~, which strictly speaking IS the Aquinas's answer this this problem as Aquinas isn't a philosopher as much as he is a codifier of apologetics (Aquinas himself rejected the title of Philosopher it was a pagan practice). Aquinas's entire goal was to create a large-scale defense of Christianity against heresy via Arostelianism, and he broadly succeeded. He took it all back after having a genuine mystical experience (the reason Aquinas is a Saint is because he could fly, not because of this mystical experience).

Frankly, the entire "lmfao aquinas PROVED GOD" thing smacks of insecurity, because if the entire crux of Christianity is faith, which is inherently irrational and can never be proved by its very nature. You either have it, or you don't.

>> No.15585170

>>15579473
Kierk says they do very eloquently

>> No.15585177

>>15585110
You aren’t actually posting any links to the argument: you keep saying that the argument boils down to these ridiculous claims:but given how frequently Aquila’s is straw-manned, one really needs to see the citation in these circumstances if you want to be taken seriously, please follow proper philosophic methodology and QUOTE where you are getting the argument against regresses from, and how you are interpreting them.

This will both strengthen your case, if you are correct, and will allow people to see exactly where you went wrong, if you are incorrect. It is a win-win for everyone involved. (I know it is more work for you, but given that we are both after truth, it will be worth the effort)

>> No.15585190

>>15578694
I agree, Aquinas killed Christianity in a sense by making it logical and rational abstraction of the religion.

>> No.15585223

>>15585177
Already explained, see >>15585110

If the problem is that you're new to this topic, start here:
https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml
This covers Aquinas' Five Ways, why he thought what he thought, and the objections to what he thought.

I'll save you the trouble, as every argument comes down to
>Infinite Regress is not possible, therefore Yahweh.
>Why is Infinite Regress not possible?
>Because if Infinite Regress was possible, my conclusions would be wrong.

>> No.15585239

>>15583422
this sounds dangerous my friend, meditation isn’t required for prayer

>> No.15585261

>>15585025
You're serious posting too hard.
This person (OP) is actually a homosexual and wishes to subvert heterosexual morality by attacking the foundation of which ANY morality could be derived from, which is God.
Why you ask? because he's a homosexual and mentally insane, and as such lashes out against the creator of that which is all because he thinks eating shit should be the most virtuous activity

>> No.15585278

>>15585261
Yeah, imposibility of infinite regression is the foundation of Christan morality, yes.

>> No.15585327

>>15585223
I asked you for the source, you gave me an internet encyclopedia article: and not even the SEP at that! Now obviously this wouldn’t pass muster in even a freshman-level philosophy class: because you are giving me an interpretation of an interpretation, rather than letting me see where exactly Aquinas says what you are saying he says. Again you want to “save me the trouble” by presenting your synopsis of the argument, but it is pretty worthless without quoting the original to let people see where you might have made a mistake. Are you interested in winning the argument, or finding the truth?

Tell me honestly Anon: do you own a single text by Aquinas? Have you read any of his work in a good-hearted charitable manner, as if he might know something you don’t?

>> No.15585392

>>15585327
Also, I would want to continue this discussion, because you don’t seem unintelligent (just a little arrogant) but I am trying to stay off /lit/, because I think it destroys reading, and I have been spending too much time on it today. I am going to watch Starcraft2 now. Sorry we couldn’t continue!

>> No.15585436

>>15580752
Read Aristotle then.

>> No.15585488

>>15585327
>>15585392
No, you just want me to write up a big argument so you can greentext every word and feel clever for nitpicking.

Aquinas is old hat and you'll add nothing to anyone's lives by doing what dweebs were doing a decade ago. Scuttle back to plebbit, zooms.

>> No.15585619

>>15585110
>because if the entire crux of Christianity is faith, which is inherently irrational and can never be proved by its very nature
Faith is a brainlet cope. Belief in God is accessible to the rational mind and ought to be if it is to be tenable. If you depend on faith and have a triple digit IQ you're in the wrong. Use the brain on your shoulders. Faith is a lazy cop out that no pre-modern depended on for theology.

>> No.15585701

>>15585619
>Faith is a lazy cop out that no pre-modern depended on for theology
tradcats are literally retarded

>> No.15586438

From a modern perspective the idea that God can be proven through reasoning is just cringe. I don't know why people keep saying this kind of thing when Kant proved them all wrong hundreds of years ago.

>> No.15586503

>>15586438
Tradcats don't understand that philosophy developed for 1000 years after Thomas and that questions of a different order are being asked. It's not sufficient to refer everyone to Aquinas.

>> No.15586576

>>15580728
Has Jones fixed his issue of taking 3 times as long as is needed to write/say something?

>> No.15586660

Just look into nonduality and you don’t have to rationalize all the muh causality shit

>> No.15587448

>>15585239
You're confusing eastern meditation with meditative prayer.

>> No.15587460

Everything ITT can be reduced to these three posts:

>>15585025
>>15583077
>>15583422

This thread can now be closed.

>> No.15587897

>>15580752
>because infinite regresses aren't possible
No, it's because nothing would be able to start im the first plce, you absolute retard. The problem is the jump from a non-specific mover to a Christian god, but the infinite regress itself is a dilemma that's easy to see. Your OQ must be around 90 if you're this retarded.

>> No.15587916

>>15587897
*place
*IQ
To elaborate for you since you're a brainlet: if we kept going backwards infinitely we would never at one point find the first cause, which means that no chain of events would be able to start in the first place. Even elementary schoolers can grasp this, so you outed yourself as an almost literal retard. Not even atheists themselves deny this obvious argument, opting either for one of these two things:
1. something being created out of nothing (imbecile tier thesis)
2. the universe always existed (an actually passable workaround)

>> No.15587980

>>15585025
This.