Aquinas

[Anonymous No.16436391]

>But this cannot be an infinitely long chain
But that's false, you fat fuck

[Anonymous No.16436398]

The real question is why can’t Aquinas or his followers understand that proving the existence of an abstract creator/supreme being has nothing to do with proving the existence of Yahweh, which is the god he claims to worship. By dodging the question and arguing for what is essentially deism, Christians are not going to convince anyone to join their faith except naive people who can’t tell the difference between a First Mover and the Yahweh who genocided the Canaanites and claimed, against all evidence, to have flooded the earth.

Aquinas’s “philosophy” does not deserve the name; it is not a committed search for truth from a neutral starting point: it is pure and downright chicanery, convincing to no one except retards. He starts with the assumption that God exists and has all the qualities Aquinas imparts to him, and all of the subsequent philosophising is done merely to confirm that belief. This is not the Socratic method; this is not philosophy.

Everyone who has taken a high school philosophy or religious studies class has heard the various arguments Christians have put forward to prove the existence of God. None of them prove the existence of Yahweh over the existence of Zeus.

[Anonymous No.16436416]

>>16436398
This. None of the Aquinas' "arguments" have anything to do with the Trinity, Jesus, afterlife, angels/demons, or any other Christian shit

[Anonymous No.16436417]

>>16436398
How do you 'prove' the existence of God ?

[Anonymous No.16436436]

>>16436417
I proved the non-existence of God but you won't accept my standards of proof, pedant.

[Anonymous No.16436440]

>>16436398
Because once the existence of 'a god' is proven, the only logical conclusion after looking at the history and theology of each existing religion is that YHWH is that god.

[Anonymous No.16436451]

>>16436440
False and a Chr*stian cope

[Anonymous No.16436450]

>>16436436
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.16436459]

>>16436450
I just said God doesn't exist. QED.

[Anonymous No.16436461]

>>16436440
YHWH was once a minor deity of a Canaanite pantheon.

[Anonymous No.16436477]

>>16436461
>Atheists think this is some shocking revelation when the bible itself is filled with stories about how the Israelites return to the worship of false gods

[Anonymous No.16436479]

>>16436440
fucking retard argument

[Anonymous No.16436481]

>>16436440
This is your mind on Christianity

[Anonymous No.16436483]

>>16436391
this ox would BEAT your ass

[Anonymous No.16436488]

>>16436440
true but you would have to read Aquinas to get to this because he asserts more then just the existence of god

[Anonymous No.16436539]

>>16436440
>Pagan Rome: Lasts for over 900 years
>Christian Rome: Lasts for less than 90 years
>Justinian closes down the Academy of Plato
>Justinian plague ravages the empire 12 years later
I think you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.16436553]

>>16436391
Do you have an example of such an infinite chain that you could point to?

[Anonymous No.16436562]

>>16436553
Yes. Entropy is infinite.

[Anonymous No.16436565]

>>16436553
Does Aquinas?

And before you answer: no, no he does not since it's relegated to something exterior to this universe -- and even saying that is nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.16436576]

>>16436539
>Christian Rome only lasted 90 years
>This is what p*gans actually believe

[Anonymous No.16436592]

>>16436391
What is more cringe about Aquinas is when he tries to equate his YHWH with The One, which doesn't even have Being. But then is forced to constantly walk back on it because it obviously does not fit the YHWH of the Bible.

Sometimes I wonder what Aquinas was talking about when he said all his writings had been as straw.

[Anonymous No.16436615]

>>16436398
Argument for God: Aquinas has been rent free in your head for almost 800 years

[Anonymous No.16436631]

>>16436615
Argument against Christianity:
Plato has been rent-free in the world's collective head far longer than any Christian philosopher (and is also much more reknown than Aq*inas)

[Anonymous No.16436633]

>>16436553
Can you point to a Higgs Boson?

[Anonymous No.16436650]

>>16436391
This starts with Aristotle, and I could never understand it. The claim that infinite chains cannot exist seems like an axiom with enough reason attached to it to make it seem plausible, like the horror vacui. "An absolute reference frame must exist because otherwise movement would be incomprehensible" got BTFO'd pretty hard, so I don't see why "An infinite chain cannot exist because it would be incomprehensible" wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.16436660]

>>16436398
>The real question is why can’t Aquinas or his followers understand that proving the existence of an abstract creator/supreme being has nothing to do with proving the existence of Yahweh
His argument literally expands to prove the existence of the Christian God in particular, obviously you wouldn't know that as you've never read him just like most everyone in this thread.

[Anonymous No.16436671]

>>16436660
>literally expands

[Anonymous No.16436715]

>>16436416
>>16436398
You're mistaking the point of Aquinas' works. The Bible is proof of God. The Bible is quite literally the ONLY book you ever need. That's it. In fact, YOU don't even need a Bible, so you being able to read at all (or count) is pointless. Just do what the priest tells you. That's it. That's literally ALL that you have to do.

But for people who think it's more complicated than that, Aquinas spent decades of his life scribbling a pen with his fat little fingers arguing about this stuff. The Five Ways are cheap trick for dunking on atheists, and nothing more. Yes, Faggy Fuentes and his catboi fans are retards for thinking these five comically easy to overturn tricks are "proof" of God, but they're not supposed to be "proof" of God. The Bible is. The rest of Aquinas' works are explaining the Bible. The Five Ways are just a cheap trick to dunk on peasants who get uppity when the priest starts telling them what to do.

>>16436440
No, it's pretty clearly Allah. This is not a good thing for Islam, as the fact that Allah is so clearly logical is just proof that he's nothing more than Muhammad making shit up and actual philosophers coming in and making more shit up. The fact that the Christian God is weird and unknowable is a point in his favor. This isn't unique to Christianity, however, remember you cannot see what Zeus actually looks like without bursting into flame.

>>16436660
People who cite Aquinas on the internet only view him as "the guy the cripchan meme image talks about" or "the guy who wrote a big book that I can use to dunk on fundies *tips fedora*".

[Anonymous No.16436740]

>>16436391
Filtered by Aquinas. Read pic related instead

[Anonymous No.16436767]

>>16436650
The argument will always go back to
>but infinite anything is non-sensical
Which isn't necessarily wrong, it just means that reality is really fucking weird and we haven't come up with a way to explain it via word games yet, if we at all can. The end result of playing with infinity in this manner is basically the Madhyamaka school of Buddhism, which essentially ends up saying that word games are pointless because they can never properly describe reality, so you should only be using them for VERY specific purposes that are well understood by all parties. While that's entirely logical and reasonable, that makes the entire project of (Western) Philosophy totally pointless, as (Western) Philosophy's entire goal has been understanding the world through word games.

I'm reading through Nagarjuna's Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way, and a lot of his points make sense, but rely on grammatical issues that I feel could be resolved via choosing better language. A lot of the arguments he's dispelling (Nagarjuna is the "Dispeler of Disputes" because he was a brilliant rhetorician, but also because his end thesis is, y'know, that disputing it ultimately pointless). A point he keeps running into is "how can a thing transition in any way?", which as he demonstrates is obviously a good question... but all of the manners in which "things" are defined are in ways that prevent transitioning anyways.

tl;dr go look into Process Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16436774]

>>16436767
> infinite anything is non-sensical
Most people with moderate knowledge of math can easily accept that there is an infinite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1 (0.2 ; 0.008 ; 000052 ; and infinite others)

>we haven't come up with a way to explain it via word games yet
t. hasn't studied calculus

[Anonymous No.16436783]

>>16436774
Calculus isn't word games, anon, it's math. If you want to pick up where David Bohm left off, go right ahead. Have you read Wholeness and Implicate Order?

Additionally, calculus doesn't solve the fundamental problem we're talking about here.

[Anonymous No.16436789]

>>16436774
what are you an ultra-realist?

[Anonymous No.16436796]

>>16436715
>sola scriptura meme
retardation which got out of hand. A contrivance created by Germans in the 16th century that had no theological precedent. Thing is, those Germans didn’t exactly believe sola-scriptura themselves which is why they created all sorts of extra-biblical theology. Only in the less spiritually enlightened age of the 19th-20th century did the less spiritually enlightened people start taking sola scriptura unironically. This also coincides with Christianity becoming a laughingstock.... with good reason.

In TRADITIONAL Christianity i.e. Cathodox (and even most European Protestant sects 2bh) the Bible is indeed a proof of God....but so history, philosophy, art, mathematics, supernatural/paranatural apparitions and mysticism. In fact, it’s so easy to read the bible and walk away not believing in the Christian God that the claim that the bible alone is enough is patently ridiculous. A the very least, someone would need the historical context to verify it. the crux of Christian Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics is not even found clearly in the Bible. Read Church Father’s for the real OP on Christianity.

[Anonymous No.16436810]

>>16436783
>If you want to pick up where David Bohm left off, go right ahead. Have you read Wholeness and Implicate Order?
I haven't.
My post was just to say that humanity has developed organised mathematical frameworks for dealing with the infinite and the infinitesmal.

[Anonymous No.16436865]

>>16436774
Potential vs actual infinites, faggot

[Anonymous No.16437019]

>>16436539
Cope Pagancuck

[Anonymous No.16437031]

>>16436774
>Most people with moderate knowledge of math can easily accept that there is an infinite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1
The "infinite amount" between 0 and 1 does not exist practically however.

[Anonymous No.16437048]

>>16436398
Literally nobody say "god exists, therefore Christianity is true." This is the dumbest objection that internet atheists have harped on for the past few years.

[Anonymous No.16437071]

>>16437048
>Literally nobody say "god exists, therefore Christianity is true."
I do, and it's a correct position to take.

[Anonymous No.16437091]

>>16436796
>t. LARPer

>>16436810
My point isn't that math can't deal with these things, but rather that we don't speak math. David Bohm tries to create a "language" (he's actually just modifying English, of course) to deal with this, but it doesn't really work out, by his own admission.

At some level spoken, natural language has a hard time dealing with these concepts. Whether this is a flaw in the human mind or human language is uncertain, but I think it's the latter, or at least more of the latter. I think revisiting Bohm's "process language" would be novel, but I haven't given it any serious thought.

His attempt is basically just realizing that the only statements that really make sense are infinitive verbs and adverbs, such that we can only really say "x y zing is occurring", but you can quickly see why this runs into problems.

>>16437031
Right, and Achilles and after a certain point Achilles can't actually take a step that small, so even if we can divide space infinitely, Achilles has to move as if space were discrete. But we can then construct some theoretical thing that CAN divide space infinitely. "That's not how reality works" is a fine way of getting around the problem, but it doesn't ANSWER it.

>>16437048
You weren't alive during the atheism vs christianity shitfests, so you aren't aware how wrong you are there. You're making the same problem all e-christians do: you get your theology solely from people who actually know what they're talking about. The VAST majority of Americans do not.

[Anonymous No.16437115]

>>16436398
For Aquinas, the existence of god is one of the "preambles" to the science of theology that is demonstrable by natural reason. Doctrines like the Trinity or the Incarnation are "axioms" of theology and cannot be evidently known in this life, but can be known through divine revelation. Thomas would not ask you to accept that Christianity can be proven by rational argument.

[Anonymous No.16437133]

>>16437091
We don't speak math, but we can think math.

[Anonymous No.16437171]

>>16437133
The man who teases that thought into speech will do humanity a great deed.

[Anonymous No.16437300]

>>16437019
>t. larper
Go put on a seethrough table cloth and larp some more dude

Me? I'm gonna be worshiping the gods.

[Anonymous No.16437354]

>>16436398
>He starts with the assumption that God exists and has all the qualities Aquinas imparts to him
That was settled during his lifetime. A God that's not ultimately good can't be God. There was only one Jesus, Son of the one true God.

[Anonymous No.16437419]

>>16437300
>powerful humans that are blinded by greed, wrath, and other petty human material affairs
>"gods"
do pagans really

[Anonymous No.16437482]

>>16436539
pagan rome didn't have theology, metaphysics, mathematics. it was anti-intellectual, nonspiritual and barbaric. end of story. there is no discussion here.

[Anonymous No.16437501]

>>16437482
How will pagans ever recover?

[Anonymous No.16437508]

>>16436562
energy is and quantitatively it is not infinite but indefinite

[Anonymous No.16437511]

>>16437501
by saying theology is stupid desert cope or some shit

[Anonymous No.16437620]

>>16437482
The fact that Christians must oppose and counter-signal the greatest most glorious empire to have ever graced this earth for their larp to make sense makes it all worth it.

[Anonymous No.16437642]

>>16436398
wow anon, i’ve never heard this before! thanks for regurgitating it!

[Anonymous No.16437649]

>>16436391
This nigga hated breakfast, how can you trust a man who thinks breakfast is a sin?

[Anonymous No.16437690]

>>16437300
>Calls Catholics larpers
>Worships pagan gods because "muh ancestors and it's more traditional"
>Doesn't actually believe in them
B-but catholics are larping!

[Anonymous No.16437713]

>>16436398
there's something true here, but it's mostly incorrect rhetoric. What Aquinas does IS (relatively) good philosophy, but you're absolutely correct that its motivated and doesn't do anything toward the confirmation of any particular god. It certainly isn't evidence for Zeus though, since Zeus is not a first mover, not all-powerful, not all knowing, and so forth.

[Anonymous No.16437734]

>>16436562
No, it isn't. Even if the ultimate decay of all energy takes an infinitely long time, its sum is finite. Also energy appears to be quantized, which means discrete decay, which means not infinite in any sense. Unless you know something I don't.

[Anonymous No.16438100]

>>16436440
Literally this

When i took a philosophy of religion course and the teacher explained the Aristotelian argument for the existence of God, I immediately knew Christianity was real.

The moralism that Christianity explains in the bible are the exact cosmic moral laws you see in real life.

[Anonymous No.16438116]

>>16437734
>its sum is finite

[Anonymous No.16438117]

>>16437482
Also, this

Reminder there is no argument against child trafficking rings in paganism, which is why pagans were bi sexuals who had sex with 13 year old boys.

Pagans also regularly traded their own people in the slave trade to foreign tribes

[Anonymous No.16438152]

>>16436398
>guy who read infinite jest thinks he's smarter than a guy who dedicated his life to contemplation of God and study, knew latin, and memorized the entire bible.

[Anonymous No.16438164]

>>16438117
There is no argument against child trafficking rings in the Bible either. Saul's "church" is heavily involved in child trafficking too... as usual the christcuck has no argument.

[Anonymous No.16438823]

>>16438116
Yeah. You never had any calculus? Literally infinitely many functions bound finite areas over infinite distances. Entropy may take forever to eliminate free energy, but energy was finite to begin with and entropy only works one direction, so the sum of all entropy across all (infinite?) time is finite.

[Anonymous No.16438860]

the universe is finite

[Anonymous No.16438867]

>>16436391
The physical universe is limited. He's right.

[Anonymous No.16439786]

>>16437115
>Thomas would not ask you to accept that Christianity can be proven by rational argument.
Is this true? What's the point of his work then? People already had Aristotle's cosmological argument by then

[Anonymous No.16439801]

>>16438117
That’s probably because there’s no such thing as a singular set of pagan values. Paganism is a name for a large set of completely different beliefs. Your post is like me saying Abrahamic religion doesn’t condemn pedophilia because Muhammed engaged in it

[Anonymous No.16439818]

>>16436398
Cringe

[Anonymous No.16439925]

>>16438152
he was a really smart guy but he worked within a fairly strict framework. Christianity was assumed to be true, and all philosophy was based around scholasticism of Plato and Aristotle. He was almost proto-enlightenment with his idea that God can be known through reason, which im guessing sneaked in through Aristotle.
It would take the enlightenment to really let that idea bloom to fruition in Spinoza, who rightfully rejects all church dogmas in order to truly grasp the Divine

[Anonymous No.16439967]

>>16439925
>to fruition in Spinoza, who rightfully rejects all church dogmas in order to truly grasp the Divine
sounds interesting, what should I read from him?

[Anonymous No.16439971]

NOTE: AQUINAS DID NOT BELIEVE THAT AN INFINITE SERIES OF TEMPORAL CAUSES WAS IMPOSSIBLE. IN FACT HE THOUGHT THAT PEOPLE WHO CLAIMED THIS WERE MAKING AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION.

AQUINAS BELIEVED, RATHER, THAT AN INFINITE *HIERARCHY* OF ACTIVE, CONTINGENT CAUSES WAS IMPOSSIBLE.

I.E. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS A SERIES OF CAUSES STRETCHING BACK INFINITELY INTO THE PAST, BUT NOT AN INFINITE HIERARCHY OF CAUSES ACTIVE IN THE PRESENT.

[Anonymous No.16439994]

>>16439967
His Ethics are worth spending a lot of time with

[Anonymous No.16440014]

>>16439994
Thanks I'll check them out

[Anonymous No.16440041]

>>16436539
>>Pagan Rome: Lasts for over 900 years
>>Christian Rome: Lasts for less than 90 years
>>Justinian closes down the Academy of Plato
>>Justinian plague ravages the empire 12 years later
Imagine being this disingenuous lmao. Nevertheless Zeus is no doubt a more primitive God than Jesus or Mithra.

[Anonymous No.16440046]

>>16439971
But why does the hierarchy of causes have to exceed this universe?

I'm a Christian btw.

[Anonymous No.16440052]

>>16439786
At what point? At the end of his life, Aquinas had completely abandoned reason after having a mystical experience, which demonstrated to him that the only way to actually have any knowledge is direct experience.

Prior to that, his life's work was defending Christianity from Philosophy, which he saw as an inherently Pagan exercise. It's worth noting that what Aquinas means by "Pagan" is a bit different from what the LARPers in this thread mean, as "Paganism" to him was "literally any religion that isn't Christianity". His Contra Gentilicum is aimed at dunking on Muslims and Jews, who are even less polytheistic than Christians, for example. Aquinas didn't believe that you needed philosophy, just doing what your priest told you was good enough, but those dastardly pagans are up to their schemes again, engaging in "metaphysics" and "ontology", so good Christians need to show up to fend them off.

>>16439801
It's also just flat out wrong, and he's assuming that the social mores of a specific period of incredible decadence in Ionian Greece defines literally all polytheism. He's also doing the "moral relativists can't enforce their own morality but can have morality enforced upon them by other moral relativists" thing, which is just flat out wrong. This whole cucky "you can't force your beliefs on other people" thing is, ironically, only a modern Protestant invention.

[Anonymous No.16440064]

>>16440046
Now I might be wrong on this, but I believe Aquinas would talk about objects with particular properties rather than "the universe" vs "things outside the universe". Because for Aquinas the universe isn't a single object, it doesn't have a substance, it's just a bunch of material entities connected together by spatiotemporal relationships. What distinguishes God from the universe is that he is non-material and uncreated. It's not that the explanation "has to be outside the universe" for some arbitrary reason. Because angels are "outside the universe" too, in the sense that they are non-material beings that exist outside time, but they are not responsible for creation either - they're not infinite, uncreated, etc.

I'm non-Christian btw.

[Anonymous No.16440103]

>>16440052
>specific period of incredible decadence in Ionian Greece
Greek pederasty existed from at least 7th century BC to the 2nd century AD. It was also prevalent in the Middle East before Islam as well as during the Islamic Golden Age. It's historically disingenuous to limit it to the "bad immoral" periods. The fact is you have to account for the fact that normal everyday people - people considered highly virtuous in their own periods - considered things like slavery and pederasty to be normal and acceptable.

[Anonymous No.16440123]

>>16440103
And the entire idea of being religious is heinous by the morality of today, as is going on 4chan, so the fact that we're talking about Aquinas on /lit/ at all makes us immoral, what's your point?

[Anonymous No.16440137]

>>16440123
What's yours?

[Anonymous No.16440150]

>>16440064
That's helped, but I don't see how that still makes it necessary that the finite hierarchy goes beyond the particular characteristic's which define this universe. Is it more just that this might as well be saying that God is the first mover than completely proving it?

[Anonymous No.16440159]

>>16436398
Aquinas never intended to prove that. The revealed datum of the Bible is still necessary to say that Jesus was God, for example. His arguments are meant to establish that philosophically we can argue for the existence of a trascendent, perfect personal God (wether his arguments work or not is a different question, personally i am fully convinced by Kant's objection).
>Aquinas’s “philosophy” does not deserve the name; it is not a committed search for truth from a neutral starting point: it is pure and downright chicanery, convincing to no one except retards
This is just wrong. If anything, he got lots of shit in his time because he virtually never quotes the Bible and the Church's fathers in his arguments. He never uses biblical doctrines to dstablish his arguments, and as such they can be used by non-Christians too.
Basically, you're parroting the meme interpretation of Russell.

[Anonymous No.16440162]

The nature of soul is self-motion. Ergo it moves itself, being the exaiphnes of all rest and motion. The Unified.

[Anonymous No.16440242]

>>16440150
I wouldn't be able to reproduce his arguments, but Aquinas does try to justify all the theistic characteristics of the first mover. From what I remember I think they're pretty sound conceptually, although I don't know if I'd agree on their necessity.

[Anonymous No.16440245]

>>16440242
I see, thanks bunches anon!

[Anonymous No.16440300]

>>16439967
The Theological Political Treatise and the Ethics are his main works, particularly the Ethics. Both are great, Spinoza has a better metaphysics than modern scientific materialists.

The essential points I took from it are this:
Language and concepts are not to be taken too seriously. Spinoza constantly says that you need to convince people to do right through their own prejudicial point of view. Meaning, if you need to convince a christian to do something, use excerpts from the bible and theologians. If you need to convince a muslim, use the Kuran and hadiths. Etc. Essentially, there is meaning underlying the symbolic language that expresses it, but people are blind to this fact and attached to their particular symbolic systems (i.e. language of Christianity vs. science. vs islam etc). So for those who grasp the underlying meaning, it is appropriate to speak to the people who do not through language most permeable to their myopic worldview.

Second, from the ethics. Matter and mind are fundamentally one. I.e. when you perceive red in the mind, there is simultaneously some material phenomenon occurring, viz. light, cones and rods, etc. (Spinoza does not say matter, but extension. Same difference, my use of matter is a case of the points I made above about language.)
What this means is that mind and matter(extension) are akin to a piano and a violin and the sheet music to, say, pachelbel's canon in D. The sheet music is the fundamental order of reality- to Spinoza, "Substance"- and the violin and piano, both playing this sheet music in through different sounds, are mind and extension, perfectly expressing in their own way the fundamental order in parallel.

This is how scientists create theories on the material world. We create theories through our mental perceptions of things, and these theories allow us to further manipulate our mental perceptions- this is only possible because they are both parallel expressions of the same order.

But yeah read the books, Spinoza ideas are some of the most relevant to our modern times and give answers to our most pressing philosophical and linguistic questions- or, rather, ignorances.

[Anonymous No.16440701]

>>16436416
>>16436398
>Why isn't everything covered in the first four questions out of three thousands.
Also people don't give a shit about "YHWH". You worship God, who is unique.

[Anonymous No.16440748]

>>16439971
Aquinas was writing for people that were assumed to be immersed in peripatetic philosophy. Larpagans and fedoraics haven' read Aristotle any more than Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.16440770]

>>16439971
Bruh wtf
My professor said exactly the opposite
Sauce please

[Anonymous No.16440789]

>>16440770
I read that in Copleston's book on Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.16440803]

>>16440770
Your professor was wrong.
Easy way to prove it is that both Aristotle and Aquinas thought the question of a indefinitely extended past to be unsolvable and both options to be plausible based on reasoning from the present. Obviously if your professor was right that wouldn't be the case.

[Anonymous No.16440829]

>>16440162
wrong, the soul never moves, it only moves and operates other things

[Anonymous No.16440843]

>>16436715
how is that not a good thing for Islam though?
I think we can agree that the search for the divine would be the most important thing us humans can do, if we are religious. Even in the Bible, it is told (though I am paraphrasing it) "Who searches, will find."
And if we follow that, the logical conclusion we come to is Islam.
But then, according to Christianity, if we don't accept Christianity, we go to hell, even though it is incoherent and not convincing, but hey because of that we should accept it?
How can you in any way come to a major muslim (assuming they are well-researched in both religions) community, and convert them, then if they don't, which is logical, say they are doomed to eternal hell?

[Anonymous No.16440844]

>>16440748
>t. LARPer

>>16440300
Spinoza's pretty fun because he's a breath of fresh air and everyone hates him for it. There's still Spinoza-Free Zones in the Netherlands to this day. He proves God within like, the first page of every book he writes and then gets slandered as an atheist because of it.

[Anonymous No.16440857]

>>16440844
How is saying Thomas assumes readers have read Aristotle larping?

[Anonymous No.16440879]

>>16440843
Muslims believe in the damnation of unbelievers just as much as Christians do. Hell, there's FAR more Muslims who accept Double Predestination than there are Christians who do.

My point is that weird shit like "God is actually one, oh but btw he's three oh btw there's angels and saints who are basically Gods anyways" makes more sense in that we humans only have limited capacity to understand the world and gather information about it. Of course we're going to run into weird things, things that don't make sense, things that operate off of a logic that is not the one that is immediately most apparent to us. Our minds don't see reality for how it truly is.

So when you say "oh well, it all makes sense according to this incredibly simple easy logic that is the logic you get by just opening your eyes", I call bullshit. If the same religion that is saying "God is really simple and easy to understand" is the same one that is saying "God says things are true that are patently false, like Christians being tritheists who worship Mary, or the Earth being flat" I have to call bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16440884]

>>16440803
>the question of a indefinitely extended past to be unsolvable and both options to be plausible based on reasoning from the present.
I don't get what you're saying in this, how does this sentence back up your argument?

[Anonymous No.16440933]

>>16440829
>what is emotion

[Anonymous No.16440956]

>>16440933
emotions are perceived by the soul, as are thoughts, memories and sensory data

to perceive =/= to move

[Anonymous No.16440960]

>>16440879
You missed my point
I am saying that if you embark on a search for a "true religion", you are saying that you will find Islam, but Christianity is actually the true one.
If its like that, then whats the point of damning the people who embark on that journey with a good intention and find the most logical one? How can they find the "true" one, that is christianity, and how can you blame them when they don't?
Islam has the right to have heaven & hell, since it is by your own words, the one religion you will logically find if you embark on the search.
And your redditness is spilling all over at the last things you said.
Some Christians do worship Mary, and christians are tritheists. And right back at you w ith the Earth being flat, though u can research more about the earth from the perspective of the Qur'an here https://www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links
And I call bullshit on a religion that tells me that the core of their God is love while the same God orders killings and capture for pleasure of children (referencing Numbers and Deuteronomy)

[Anonymous No.16441027]

>>16440960
Oh, I'm not arguing that Christianity is the one true religion or whatever, I'm just saying that the Christian One-God-As-Three thing is a point in its favor. We could just as easily replace it with Zeus's true form causing people to burst into flames, or Brahman being completely beyond thought, or whatever.

As for the stuff about damnation, yeah, I agree, it's totally nonsensical. But Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) are not required to believe that God isn't a schizophrenic madman at the wheel. He's God. He makes the rules.

And no, there are no Christians who worship Mary. She's not part of the Trinity. Christians are not Tritheists. Not only does doing this make you not a Christian, there are no non-Christians who do this. The Quran is wrong. There was no sect who worshiped Mary as part of the Trinity, or as a separate Goddess. Epiphanius was just butthurt about women being allowed to be nuns. Even then, his claim that there is a sect of all female cultists in Arabia (which would actually be the modern Syria and Iraq, nowhere near Mecca and Medina) who view Mary as the third person of the Trinity and reject the Holy Spirit is completely out of line with what the Quran claims, which is that Christians are tritheists. The Trinity, even as just a wrong doctrine, is not found in the Quran.

[Anonymous No.16441049]

>>16440829
>>16440956
>Every soul is immortal. For that which is ever moving is immortal but that which moves something else or is moved by something else, when it ceases to move, ceases to live. Only that which moves itself, since it does not leave itself, never ceases to move, and this is also the source and beginning of motion for all other things which have motion. For everything that is generated must be generated from a beginning, but the beginning is not generated from anything; for if the beginning were generated from anything, it would not be generated from a beginning. And since it is ungenerated, it must be also indestructible; for if the beginning were destroyed, it could never be generated from anything nor anything else from it, since all things must be generated from a beginning.

>Thus that which moves itself must be the beginning of motion. And this can be neither destroyed nor generated, otherwise all the heavens and all generation must fall in ruin and stop and never again have any source of motion or origin. But since that which is moved by itself has been seen to be immortal, one who says that this self-motion is the essence and the very idea of the soul, will not be disgraced. For every body which derives motion from without is soulless, but that which has its motion within itself has a soul, since that is the nature of the soul; but if this is true,— that that which moves itself is nothing else than the soul,—then the soul would necessarily be ungenerated and immortal.

[Anonymous No.16441095]

>>16436553
n = n + 1

[Anonymous No.16441105]

>>16436783
Math is word games and counting.

[Anonymous No.16441126]

>>16441027
ok, you are not answering what I asked, so yeah, ok
but anyway, to refute your reddit takes, some Christians do worship Mary, especially Catholics, which you can find yourself. You can find examples of Mary worship even pre-Islam.
And how can you tell me Christians are not tritheists? You really want to debate on this? And no, Mary isn't part of the trinity, where does Qur'an says so? It only says that some Christians take Jesus and Mary as deities beside Allah, which they do. It doesn't say that the trinity is Mary, Jesus and God.

[Anonymous No.16441167]

>>16441126
>>16440960
>disliking islam is "reddit"
no it isnt, reddit loves islam. this is like that thing you dunecoons do where you equate zoroastrianism with the asatru and hellenismos spergs as if theyre at all comparable.

[Anonymous No.16441196]

>>16441167
no, reddit tier takes on Islam are.
If you find an argument against Islam, you should research the answers to it from an Islamic perspective before using it, not like redditors do

[Anonymous No.16441260]

>>16441049
You still haven't provided an example of the soul moving after I pointed out that cognizing emotions is not the soul moving

> For every body which derives motion from without is soulless, but that (i.e. the body and not the soul) which has its motion within itself has a soul, since that is the nature of the soul (to be the cause of the motion of the body etc)
So objects or bodies which are impelled to move by other insentient objects are without souls? But bodies which are impelled to motion by something residing and controlling it from within have souls? Okay

>but if this is true,— that that which moves itself is nothing else than the soul
“Moves itself” in what way? There is no example provided of the soul actually moving in this passage you quoted. If by ‘moving itself’ Plato here is attributing the movement of the body to the soul to imply the soul moving itself figuratively through the instrument of the body, that is still not an example of the soul moving. To simply state that it is the nature of the soul to move without giving examples of the soul itself moving (not that which the soul moves!) is a pointless truism devoid of philosophical value. To say that it is the soul’s nature to move the body and then to immediately equivocate this with the soul itself moving is just confused and sloppy thinking.

[Anonymous No.16441285]

>>16439925
>t. Retard that has never read Aquinas

[Anonymous No.16441292]

>>16441095
N + 1 + 9 + 9 + E + R = ???

[Anonymous No.16441329]

>>16441126
We Catholics do not worship Mary. How many times do you we have to tell you this.

[Anonymous No.16441398]

>>16441329
well I should have phrased it better
Of the Christians, Mary worship is the most prevelent among the Catholics

[Anonymous No.16441400]

>>16438860
see: >>16438867

With that said, the universe is expanding. What's on the other side of the outermost edge - what's it expanding into?

[Anonymous No.16441424]

>>16441398
We venerate her. No one worships her in the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.16441446]

>>16436391
>>16436398
>>16436416
>>16436417
>>16436440
>it's an "I haven't actually read Aquinas but let me tell you why he must be wrong" thread

[Anonymous No.16441452]

>>16441424
yeah sure buddy keep telling yourself that

[Anonymous No.16441460]

>>16441452
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.16441462]

>>16436631
Although that is neither an argument for or against the Abrahamic God, it is more of an argument for than against.

[Anonymous No.16441541]

>>16441460
Dude, I don't have to argue with you, because you will stay ignorant.
I live in Bosnia, near Međugorje. Have you ever heard of it? If not, research it. Well, I have seen the Mary worship with my own eyes. There is no argument, because I know some Catholics worship Mary

[Anonymous No.16441553]

>>16441541
Not that guy but to be fair Medugorje is considered a heretical demon cult by orthodox Catholics.

[Anonymous No.16441570]

[Anonymous No.16441623]

>>16441570
Based

[Anonymous No.16441640]

>>16441553
and still, people that call themselves Catholics go to Međugorje every year and worship Mary. It is even recognized by the Pope I believe.
So yeah, my argument stands, that some Christians worship Mary, which is said in the Qur'an.

[Anonymous No.16441655]

>>16437620
>mfw the most glorious pagang empire exterminated the druids and destroyed their pagang religion

[Anonymous No.16441757]

>>16441640
>Međugorje
It's not promoted by the Church

[Anonymous No.16441789]

>>16441400

>>16441553
>>16441757
Yeah, this is sort of what the dude up thread seemed to be alluding to. If you worship Mary, you are, by definition not a Christian, just the same as if you reject the Trinity. You're something other than "a Christian" at that point. Whether you're right or wrong is really irrelevant, because you are no longer "a Christian".

>>16441400
This is a definitional problem. In terms of physical "space" in the sense of a 3D grid that stuff moves through, space is infinite. That said, if we view the universe as "stuff" other than just that 3D grid, then there's a very finite edge to that. It's constantly moving outwards, but it's still finite. So, what's "stuff" expanding into? More stuff.

Cosmological Expansion, however, is different, and is everything slowly getting farther away from everything else. To put it another way, "a meter" is slowly growing larger. The distances between the corners of the cubes of the 3D grid are slowly increasing.

[Anonymous No.16441814]

>>16441570
you have more?

[Anonymous No.16442492]

>>16441462
wut

[Anonymous No.16442537]

>>16441553
>>16441541
E. Michael Jones wrote a short book on Medugorje that offers a careful analysis and persuasive debunking.

[Anonymous No.16442579]

>>16436398
So cringe, this literally was not the point of his arguments. You have exposed yourself as unable to charitably read an argument. Read more before you post here again.

[Anonymous No.16442956]

>>16436539
>What is Das Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nationen?
>Where is The Vatican?

[Anonymous No.16443009]

>>16440879
Excellent point. The God everyone wants (absolute oneness, no theodicy problem, etc.) is a simple god for a simple universe. However, we live in a universe we still barely understand, full of suffering we can't answer. The inscrutable God of the Bible is appropriate for the inscrutable universe we inhabit.

[Anonymous No.16443026]

>>16436398
the millionth retard to say this

[Anonymous No.16443066]

>>16442956
This. The Ottomans were the true successors of Rome, and Islam turned a backwater shithole into the greatest Empire to ever exist, founded by Allah's glory and wisdom, and made it last for 2,675 years. Did pagan garbage like the Holy Roman Empire, or Byzantium last that long? No. Eat that, you stupid polytheistic fucks.

[Anonymous No.16443223]

>>16436391
and the award for the most retarded post on /lit/ currently goes to...

[Anonymous No.16443784]

>>16443223
>>16443223

[Anonymous No.16443788]

>>16443784
based retard

[Anonymous No.16444315]

>>16436633
the devices with which they were sensed are order of magnitudes more trustworthy than our eyes you know

[Anonymous No.16444364]

>>16444315
order of magnitudes more trustworthy than unreliable is still unreliable

[Anonymous No.16444441]

>>16441260
The soul is at once mover and moved, the self-moved, middle term between the unmoved and what is moved from without. Whenever you are engaging in intellectually stimulating activities your soul resides in the highest part of itself, whenever you feel enraged by someone else or feel hungry it moves ''donward'', closer to the body so to speak and farther from its intellectual part. The soul always reverts upon itself. I think Plato also describes its rotational, circular movement as if reverting on itself in Timaeus.

Check out Proclus' Elements of Theology, more specifically Propositions 14, 17, 20.

[Anonymous No.16444472]

>The great theologian Thomas Aquinas opined in his Summa Theologica that to eat too early in the day was to commit the carnal sin of gluttony. Eating breakfast, it was believed, was ungodly and an indication of a weak, self-indulgent character. Exceptions were made for children, the elderly and laborers, but it was, as a whole, strongly discouraged.

What the fuck

[Anonymous No.16444490]

>>16441260
Oh also
>If by ‘moving itself’ Plato here is attributing the movement of the body to the soul to imply the soul moving itself figuratively through the instrument of the body

>Every soul is immortal. For that which is ever moving is immortal.

Bodies are not ever moving.

Are you able to read?

[Anonymous No.16444506]

>>16436440
The christian doctorine as far as I can understand requires genesis to be real with Adam and Eve, the fall of man and the covanant with Noah. How do we explain the differences in races, dinosaur fossils and a globe earth if we are to believe that? I agree with you that a lot of Christianity fits but a lot of it seems to require me to out right deny the rational.