Saint Thomas Aquinas (PBUH)

[Anonymous No.17266036]

Who refuted him?

[Anonymous No.17266046]

Nobody

[Anonymous No.17266063]

>>17266036
to this day nobody refuted

[Anonymous No.17266082]

>>17266036
The Amazing Thomas J. of Kirk, The Third:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA&ab_channel=AmazingAtheist

[Anonymous No.17266100]

>>17266036
Saint Gregory Palamas

[Anonymous No.17266156]

>>17266036
Hume and Kant

[Anonymous No.17266173]

It's literally impossible.
The Catholic Church made him their official philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17266220]

Nobody. Not the Hindu non-dualists, not the neo-platonist hippies, not the Muslims, not the Jews, not the fedoras, not the cringe miscellaneous prots, not the EO Dyertards. No one.

[Anonymous No.17266237]

>>17266036
Death refuted him, as when all of his signs of life were gone, nothing left his body and came to another realm. He decomposed and decayed under the earth just like all of us will.

[Anonymous No.17266580]

>>17266036
That pic is wrong. He was fat as fuck.

[Anonymous No.17266586]

>>17266036
Spinoza

[Anonymous No.17266606]

>>17266156
>>17266580
>>17266586
retroactively refuted by Edward Feser

[Anonymous No.17266851]

>>17266036
Richard dawkins

[Anonymous No.17266865]

>>17266851
He couldn't even phrase Thomas' argument from motion correctly in the first place.

[Anonymous No.17266877]

>>17266606
who?

[OP No.17266883]

>>17266851
>Dawkins
>refuting anybody

[Anonymous No.17266899]

>>17266877
neo-thomist philosopher

[Anonymous No.17266912]

>>17266036
Rahner and Von Balthasar (pbut)

[Anonymous No.17266922]

>>17266036
no one since nobody ever bothered actually reading all his autism. there is no need to refute him since nobody cares and want to waste his time

[Anonymous No.17266926]

>>17266899
>neo-thomist
lmfao

[Anonymous No.17266930]

>>17266237
Cringe

[Anonymous No.17266931]

>>17266036
Hume.

[Anonymous No.17266933]

>>17266036
Darwin

[Anonymous No.17266942]

Ockham, alongside a few others, namely a number of Pagan authors, pointed out that his entire transcendent creator thing is complete and total horseshit and completely negates the point of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.17266945]

>>17266580
>his peers would call him "the dumb ox" due to his size and his quiet disposition

[Anonymous No.17266952]

>>17266942
>namely a number of Pagan authors
are you joking?

[Anonymous No.17266958]

>>17266942
>Ockham, alongside a few others, namely a number of Pagan authors
YOU WILL GO TO HELL, DEUS VULT.

[Anonymous No.17266985]

>>17266942
Ockham literally had to cope with the fact that his voluntarism turned God into a psycho tyrant and he wasn't even willing to entertain that maybe he's wrong.

[Anonymous No.17267040]

>>17266952
No, I'm not. The hyper-rationalism that Christianity posits was pointed out very early. Namely, Aquinas opens idea of a transcendent creator god opens up an infinite regress of transcendent creator gods each made by an even more transcendent creator god. The alternative is atheism, as any argument against a god other than Yahweh can just as well be turned against Yahweh.

>>17266985
That's irrelevant to his criticisms of Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.17267048]

Sextus Empiricus

[Anonymous No.17267076]

>>17266036
Science, just like it refuted every other irrelevant schizophrenic christcuck philosopher in history.

[Anonymous No.17267097]

>>17266082
Jesus that dude is still alive? I remember seeing his videos in middle school. He really should look into ending his own life.

[Anonymous No.17267124]

>>17267076
Bruh sound effect. Bruh bruh—Bruh sound effect number two. Bruh moment sound effect number bruh two bruh. Bruh.

[Anonymous No.17267163]

>>17267076
>science refuting a philosophical argument
retard

[Anonymous No.17267188]

>>17267076
>Science, just like it refuted every other irrelevant schizophrenic christcuck philosopher in history.
YOU WILL GO HELL. DEUS VULT.

[Anonymous No.17267203]

>>17267040
>Aquinas opens idea of a transcendent creator god opens up an infinite regress of transcendent creator gods each made by an even more transcendent creator god
Why is that? Why would an uncreated eternal transcendent God require another? If He is uncaused, beginningless and self-established there is no reason why He would need another for Himself to exist

[Anonymous No.17267209]

>>17266930
Is it wrong? You will meet the same fate as Aquinas, non-existence.

[Anonymous No.17267281]

>>17267203
>Why is that? Why would an uncreated eternal transcendent God require another?
That's because the other anon is talking out of his ass. Or he is saying that the argument of motion supposes a cause for God. Of course this is not what Aquinas argued since God is a necessary being and infinite regress is impossible on the grounds of vertical causality.

[Anonymous No.17267318]

is everyone just name dropping hoping one of them actually refuted him?

[Anonymous No.17267323]

Should I read Hume and Kant if I really dig St. Thomas? Anyone else I should read?

[Anonymous No.17267328]

>>17267323
you should probably just read hume and kant anyway

[Anonymous No.17267330]

>>17267209

[Anonymous No.17267341]

>>17267330
Mockery without substance does not actually make up for the lack of an argument, unless if you’re a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.17267703]

>>17267341
>Mockery without substance does not actually make up for the lack of an argument, unless if you’re a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.17267808]

>>17266945
I never expected that image to come into existence KEK

[Anonymous No.17267856]

>>17266036
Aristotle

[Anonymous No.17269125]

>>17267703
Based anon. Keep up the cringe patrol!

[Anonymous No.17269155]

>Based anon. Keep up the cringe patrol!

[Anonymous No.17269181]

>>17267163
It can and it did. Quantum physics operates vastly different than classic human logic allows you to understand and in it's course refuted ideas such as everything that exists must have a cause.
All of that is meaningless of course because christlarpers neither read Aquinas nor tried to understand him. He's just an argument from authority stick to defend their larp with. Case in point: OP not referring to any specific claim of Aquinas than could be refuted in the scope of a 4channel thread.

[hungryman !!5BI0oSV9uvS No.17269186]

>>17267856
>>r/books
Why is Aristotle the #1 author on /lit/ that people pretend to have read?

[Anonymous No.17269193]

>>17269181
>and in it's course refuted ideas such as everything that exists must have a cause.
no it hasn’t you idiot

[Anonymous No.17269214]

>>17266851
Thanks for the laugh, anon

[Anonymous No.17269219]

>>17269193
It literally has and insults do nothing to change that fact.
https://medienportal.univie.ac.at/presse/aktuelle-pressemeldungen/detailansicht/artikel/quantum-causal-relations-a-causes-b-causes-a/
Now why don't you cite your most convincing argument from Aquinas for us to evaluate?

[Anonymous No.17269232]

>>17267330
>>17267703
made me laugh

[Anonymous No.17269247]

>>17269186
I actually did read some Aristotle. The only book I pretend to have read is Call of the Arcade by F Gardner.

[Anonymous No.17269257]

>>17269219
>It literally has

>have shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one. The findings will be published this week in "Nature Communications".
>Although it is still not known if such situations can be actually found in nature, the sheer possibility that they could exist may have far-reaching implications
imagine being so stupid as to think that a theorized possibility which has not yet been found to exist in nature disproves anything

[Anonymous No.17269259]

>>17269181
>and in it's course refuted ideas such as everything that exists must have a cause.
This is not what Aquinas argues for.

see https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

[Anonymous No.17269290]

>>17269259
>link flooding
Explain to me where I'm wrong before I read all that

[Anonymous No.17269336]

>>17269290
Aquinas doesn't argue that everything exists has a cause. This would of course destroy his argument since it would mean that God must have a cause. Instead, he says that everything that is put into existence has a cause.
"What is contingent is caused"

Also you literally gave us a link in what I suppose was your previous post.

[Anonymous No.17269372]

>>17269336
Yeah I've read a bit into your page. I see where you are coming from. However that side doesn't really help in our discussion since it's also just claims "aquinas has hundreds of pages proving the uncaused to be God" and doesn't provide his arguments.
As for my claim it was just backing up how Quantum Physics challenges causal chains. My issue is with posting a generic link with large amounts of text and saying you are wrong without being able to reproduce the arguments.
Anyways you are right I misrepresented the argument on causal chains but I still see no reason why this corrected argument would be true.

[Anonymous No.17269387]

>>17269372
>how Quantum Physics challenges causal chains.
Until they actually show an example of it occurring, which has not been done, it presents no challenge at all.

[Anonymous No.17269429]

>>17269387
>it presents no challenge at all.
Yes it does. It opened up a whole new possibility of our human-centered logic being unfit to sufficiently explain causality. And that's just what we know. The necessity with which the cosmological argument argues is broken.

[Anonymous No.17269439]

>>17269429
can something come from nothing?

[Anonymous No.17269449]

>>17269439
Probably. Not that I think there ever was nothing.

[Anonymous No.17269485]

Reminder that God can never know with certainty that he lives in ultimate reality. Above every God a higher God can be imagined for which the same arguments would apply

[Anonymous No.17269487]

>>17269429
>It opened up a whole new possibility of our human-centered logic being unfit to sufficiently explain causality.
No it doesn’t, do you really not understand this? There is no evidence that the concept has any validity or truth, they don’t provide any proof but only theorize about it, just because they can explain coherently a theory of how that may take place doesn’t mean that its true or more likely to be true, just as someone giving a coherent explanation of the cosmology of the flying sphagetti monster religion doesn’t make it any more likely to be true. Someone doing this does not open up a “whole new possibility” of flying spaghetti monster metaphysics, there is no more indication of their claim being true than your claim about causality being true. In the absence of any proof it is a total non-challenge to existing notions of causality.

[Anonymous No.17269517]

>>17269485
>t. never read Aquinas

God IS existence.

[Anonymous No.17269527]

>>17269487
Perhaps it would help if you would understand deductive reasoning before defending it. It's not about about probability.

[Anonymous No.17269533]

>>17269485
False, because if God is that highest reality, than all he needs is self-knowledge to know it

[Anonymous No.17269542]

>>17269517
>>t. never read Aquinas
Same as you then. Unless you can prove that the chridtian god is necessary existence my point stands.

[Anonymous No.17269554]

>>17269533
Not false. He would have to have absolute proof of being the highest reality which is impossible. The possibility that someone was creating that level of reality in a way to make God think he is the ultimate reality is always possible

[Anonymous No.17269556]

>>17269542
>Aquinas's five proofs are arguments for the existence of the Christian God
You never said anything about Christianity in your previous post. You just said God. Which Aquinas argues is existence itself. God is ultimate reality here. He doesn't live in reality.

[Anonymous No.17269557]

>>17269527
Until there is proof for the scenario which that paper theorizes about but does not provide proof of, then it presents no challenge to existing theories about causality. Anyone can come with a hundred crackpot theories about why their pet beliefs are correct, until there is proof for any of them, none of them, including yours, present any challenge.

[Anonymous No.17269567]

>>17269554
>He would have to have absolute proof of being the highest reality which is impossible
Not when your omniscient kiddo

[Anonymous No.17269593]

>>17269556
Okay no worries I generally hear this argument from christians. Let's go with just God. But you still seem to go with the baseless assumptions that ultimate reality would be a conscious God "mind" and that this mind could have absolute certainty of being the ultimate reality which is impossible but please make your case.

[Anonymous No.17269602]

>>17269554
Do you agree that there is ultimate reality? Congratulations that is God. Stop pretending to be retarded.

[Anonymous No.17269618]

>>17269593
You're playing semantics here. God = ultimate reality. It's like you're saying, "well the bachelor can't really know that he is an unmarried man." No, that's literally what a bachelor is. The is is what Aquinas is trying to argue with God. His essence is subsistent existence itself.

[Anonymous No.17269622]

>>17269557
Please for the love of God, literally lol, look up deductive reasoning. What you are saying here is no defense of the cosmological argument.
>this is necessary true
>not necessarily
>yeah but i still think it is
I don't mind. I don't think you really do but I genuinely could not care less. What I asm saying is that our classic understanding of causality is not NECESSARILY true in all circumstances to the point of getting absolute knowledge from them. If you want to trace a causal chain to a demiurge I'd cheer you on this is not the point.

[Anonymous No.17269628]

>>17269567
He can't know with absolute certainty he's omniscient and there is no reason to believe that the uncaused is omniscient but all the more reason to doubt it.

[Anonymous No.17269635]

>>17269602
You are so angry you completely miss the point. It's about whether any mind can KNOW with certainty that it is ultimate reality

[Anonymous No.17269639]

>>17269618
>God = ultimate reality
It's not what God means and defining it such is just a cheap trick to associate your conceptions of god with ultimate reality. You have still not provided any argument that ultimate reality is a divine being and at any rate THAT IS NOT THE POINT. See >>17269635

[Anonymous No.17269645]

>>17269628
>He can't know with absolute certainty he's omniscient
False, it’s automatically established by him being omniscient, any attempt to use the word omniscient in a contrary manner, such as an omniscient being having uncertain knowledge is just using the word omniscient incorrectly. Having uncertain knowledge and being omniscient are mutually contradictory, so what you propose doesn’t even make sense

[Anonymous No.17269646]

>>17269639
Before you go there I know Aquinas defined it as such. The same criticism applies

[Anonymous No.17269666]

>>17269645
At this point being omniscient becomes impossible. Omniscience is generally tied to all-knowledge about the universe which would not suffice to know that you are the ultimate reality. If you mean complete omniscience including knowing the source of your own knowledge please explain how this would be possible, and argue that such omniscience does exist in a being that is ultimate reality.

[Anonymous No.17269689]

>>17269639
>It's not what God means
It is. If God is to be all powerful he must be independent of anything else. God being inside a reality would suppose that he is subject to something outside of him. This would mean that he is not all powerful. Therefore, God must be existence itself and the reason for all contingencies. This is what we mean by God.

[Anonymous No.17269696]

>>17269622
> classic understanding of causality is not NECESSARILY true in all circumstances to the point of getting absolute knowledge from them
I didn’t say it was, but again this doesn’t do any harm whatsoever to the rock-solid foundation of the cosmological argument

[Anonymous No.17269720]

>>17267203
Aristotle proposes an eternal, uncreated world maintained by several (47-55, he leaves the precise number to astronomers) deities. These are, more accurately the Planet.. You know the argument from motion, how everything has to come back to a cause, ergo there has to be some uncaused thing causing all causes? That's these. They're made of a special type of matter that only moves in circles ("Quintessence", the fifth element). Aristotle himself was silent on whether you could pass through the Celestial Spheres (the sphere that each Planet was stuck inside), and while Western astronomy up until the mid 1500s held that you could not pass through the Celestial Spheres, Aristotle firmly stated that even if you could get to one of the Planets, you couldn't actually interact with it in any meaningful way. They're uncaused precisely because they are eternal, and have always been, and always will be. They're constantly pumping causality into the universe. These are the Prime Movers.

Aquinas takes this, and then tips his fedora and says that something had to have created the Prime Movers. So what if they're eternal and uncreated, they had to be created because everything is created. Why? Because Genesis. The problem with doing this is that it completely throws reason and logic out the window (which Aquinas is open about doing and is perfectly fine with, his entire project is to defend Christianity against the infernal Paganism that is philosophy, he's not trying to make a "good argument" according to some meme standard of logic or whatever). There's absolutely no reason why you can't then argue that there's another God that made the first god, and a third one that made the second, because any argument that you could levy against Gods n>1 also applies to God 1. The moment you open the transcendent realm that doesn't have to play by the rules, you're no longer required to play by the rules. You either have to accept infinite transcendent Gods, or zero of them.

One can of course say "But the Bible only mentions one God!", and while that works... What happens when you stop taking the Bible seriously? And given that people go from "taking the Bible seriously" to "not taking the Bible seriously" far more often than the opposite, you're setting yourself up for a bad time if you're using the Bible as a justification here.

[Anonymous No.17269740]

>>17269689
It is not. I asked 3 times this thread to provide any argument that ultimate reality is necessarily an all powerfull omniscient being.
>This would mean that he is not all powerful
>Therefore, God must be existence itself
That is not a logical conclusion in the slightest. You argue for your claims on the basis of your claims.

[Anonymous No.17269769]

>>17269666
>At this point being omniscient becomes impossible.
No it’s doesn’t, only in your sophistic reasoning does that make sense, but not to smart people
>Omniscience is generally tied to all-knowledge about the universe which would not suffice to know that you are the ultimate reality
omniscience simply means “all-knowing”, it does not mean “all knowing about the universe which would not suffice for X”. You won’t get anywhere in your arguments by giving words your own madeup false meaning anon
>If you mean complete omniscience including knowing the source of your own knowledge please explain how this would be possible, and argue that such omniscience does exist in a being that is ultimate reality.
If the omniscient being is the eternal and uncreated God then there is no source of God but it is an eternal and inalienable attribute of God, God’s beginningless eternal existence makes his omniscience share that beginningless and eternal nature as well. Although you could say that since God knows himself and does so eternally, he also knows the source of his own omniscience viz. it following naturally from his eternal existence.

[Anonymous No.17269818]

>>17269769
>You won’t get anywhere in your arguments by giving words your own madeup false meaning anon
Gee why so spiteful anon. I generally see the argument for God's omniscience tied to his role as creator of this universe thus establishing his knowledge about all creation. What I meant with complete omniscience then is the knowledge that no knowledge outside his knowledge exists which is impossible. Ithink you could have figured that out but anyway now engage with my arguments please.
>If the omniscient being is the eternal and uncreated God then there is no source of God but it is an eternal and inalienable attribute of God, God’s beginningless eternal existence makes his omniscience share that beginningless and eternal nature as well. Although you could say that since God knows himself and does so eternally, he also knows the source of his own omniscience viz. it following naturally from his eternal existence.
You haven't established that omniscience is an eternal attribute of ultimate reality yet. And since you raised it his eternalness either.

[Anonymous No.17269838]

>>17269517
>represents divine simplicity
>is needlessly complex
This is Maps of Meaning tier. Did Aquinas have anything to say about cleaning your room?

[Anonymous No.17269872]

>>17269818
>What I meant with complete omniscience then is the knowledge that no knowledge outside his knowledge exists which is impossible
Not if you are omniscient, you are simply using the word incorrectly if you assert otherwise.
> You haven't established that omniscience is an eternal attribute of ultimate reality yet. And since you raised it his eternalness either.
I dont need to do either to point out that your argument that omniscience is impossible is fallacious

[Anonymous No.17269893]

>>17269838
It's pretty fucking simple. It's talking about the difference between God and "gods" in terms of causality, their ability (or lack thereof) to be changed and their dependence/independence of other beings on existence. It takes like 5 seconds to parse this if you aren't being a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.17269909]

>>17269872
>Not if you are omniscient, you are simply using the word incorrectly if you assert otherwise.
I explained to you why I used it that way.
>I dont need to do either to point out that your argument that omniscience is impossible is fallacious
You haven't done that though but actually yes. Did you forget that the whole point about omniscience being possible is just an aspect of our argument about the existence of an omniscient all powerful being that is ultimate reality?

[Anonymous No.17269917]

>>17269893
Yes, I’m sure it does, and disagreeing with it always means you didn’t ‘get it’.

Jesus, Aquinas is the Jordan Peterson of advanced inceldom. You guys have moved beyond the virginity of the mere lobster and transcended into supervirginity. Have sex.

[Anonymous No.17269941]

>>17269720
>They're uncaused precisely because they are eternal, and have always been, and always will be. They're constantly pumping causality into the universe. These are the Prime Movers.
In Aristotles metaphysics though one of the prime movers is first and imparts motion to the rest, so I dont see how that point dunks on Aquinas arguments at all, Aristotle refers to the umoved mover as God, he doesn’t refer to all of the movers as Gods. There is only one supreme God in Aristotles metaphysics.
> There's absolutely no reason why you can't then argue that there's another God that made the first god
You could, but if the first one is uncaused, eternal, self-established, etc then there is no logical reason why it should be caused by another God instead of being eternal

[Anonymous No.17269954]

>>17269909
> I explained to you why I used it that way
Then you defeat your own arguments by insisting on using the terms in them incorrectly
>is just an aspect of our argument about the existence of an omniscient all powerful being that is ultimate reality?
that guy is not me

[Anonymous No.17269960]

Niggas the chinese figured this shit out DECADES ago
>The Tao of which we can speak is not the eternal dao
now stfu and tell your mom you are grateful.

[Anonymous No.17269971]

>>17266036
>Nietzsche totally BTFO's Aquinas
In belief in what? In love with what? In hope for what?—There’s no doubt that these weak people—at some time or another they also want to be the strong people, some day their "kingdom" is to arrive—they call it simply "the kingdom of God" as I mentioned. People are indeed so humble about everything! Only to experience that, one has to live a long time, beyond death—in fact, people must have an eternal life, so they can also win eternal recompense in the "kingdom of God" for that earthly life "in faith, in love, in hope." Recompense for what? Recompense through what? In my view, Dante was grossly in error when, with an ingenuity inspiring terror, he set that inscription over the gateway into his hell:"Eternal love also created me." Over the gateway into the Christian paradise and its "eternal blessedness" it would, in any event, be more fitting to let the inscription stand "Eternal hate also created me"—provided it’s all right to set a truth over the gateway to a lie! For what is the bliss of that paradise? Perhaps we might have guessed that already, but it is better for it to be expressly described for us by an authority we cannot underestimate in such matters, Thomas Aquinas, the great teacher and saint: "In the kingdom of heaven" he says as gently as a lamb, "the blessed will see the punishment of the damned, so that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss.”

[Anonymous No.17269992]

>>17269954
>Then you defeat your own arguments by insisting on using the terms in them incorrectly
No. I used it incorrectly since I assumed people might use it to only refer to knowledge about the universe and have since clarified that. Are you just trying to score a semantic point?

>that guy is not me
I see. Then let's stay on that how would omniscience be possible as it includes absolute knowledge that no knowledge outside your knowledge exists?

[Anonymous No.17270027]

>>17269740
Ok then maybe I am misunderstanding you. What do you mean by "ultimate reality?"

[Anonymous No.17270060]

>>17270027
I don't know. My point if we would go there would be to argue that the first cause can be anything beyond our comprehension. A principle a potency, a God, several gods, happenstance.
My issue is that I usually see like here in this thread that people just adopt the "we call ultimate reality god" thing and take that as proof that ultimate reality has the attributes they want God to have.
At that point it's just a semantic trick. Hope that made it clearer.

[Anonymous No.17270070]

>>17269992
>Then let's stay on that how would omniscience be possible as it includes absolute knowledge that no knowledge outside your knowledge exists?
If you are the uncaused entity who endows everything else with existence and have knowledge of all of that which you endow, there is nothing which is endowed with existence by anything else, all that has existence is known by you, hence there is no possibility of knowledge which is not included in the omniscient knowledge of god.

[Anonymous No.17270083]

you guys could be arguing about what superhero is stronger for all it matters.

[Anonymous No.17270086]

>>17269960
bug

[Anonymous No.17270121]

>>17270070
>If you are the uncaused entity who endows everything else with existence and have knowledge of all of that which you endow, there is nothing which is endowed with existence by anything else, all that has existence is known by you, hence there is no possibility of knowledge which is not included in the omniscient knowledge of god.
This is precisely what I meant. You prove hid omnidcience through knowledge of all which he endowse and this is insufficient to establish knowledge that he is indeed the ultimate uncaused cause of everything else.
Example:
God creates a minor god but conseals himself to him. This God then creates the world and has absolute knowledge of all he creates but he doesn't know that he is himself not the ultimate cause.
Now you may say that what we call God IS ultimate reality but then again you have not established that ultimate reality has any of the attributes you ascribe it.
Maybe the furst xause was just a vibration that caused God. How would God know? That is the point precisely which you did not answer outside of assertion that ultimate reality has omniscience

[Anonymous No.17270122]

>>17267703
basedjak.jpg
Ok lol

[Anonymous No.17270150]

>>17270121
>God creates a minor god but conseals himself to him.
then the minor one isn’t omniscient, ergo the whole premise which you are putting forward for why omniscience is impossible is itself a non-starter, so it fails as an argument against the feasibility of omniscience

[Anonymous No.17270186]

>>17270150
>then the minor one isn’t omniscient,
I didn't claim he is. You did.
>>>17270070
>absolute knowledge that no knowledge outside your knowledge exists?
>who endows everything else with existence and have knowledge of all of that which you endow, there is nothing which is endowed with existence by anything else, all that has existence is known by you,
Your chasing your own tail.
>How does God know he's ultimate reality
>He's omniscient.
>How is he omniscient
>He knows all he caused and caused everything.

[Anonymous No.17270229]

>>17270186
Let me rephrase:
How does God know no knowledge outside his knowledge exists?
Because he is the first cause that caused everything.
How does he know he is the first cause?
He is omniscient.
It all falls back to the assertion that the first cause is an omniscient all powerful being just because we called it God in a semantic play.

[Anonymous No.17270252]

>>17270186
>I didn't claim he is. You did
I thought you were using that as an example of how a God could be deluded and thus non-omniscient, your argument against omniscience is an incoherent non-starter since it begins by defining an omniscient thing as non-omniscient
>How does God know he's ultimate reality
>He's omniscient.
>How is he omniscient
>He knows all he caused and caused everything.
Indeed, its a perfect argument, all it needs is a ‘QED’

[Anonymous No.17270265]

>>17270229
>It all falls back to the assertion that the first cause is an omniscient all powerful being just because we called it God in a semantic play
I’m not asserting anything about God, all I’m doing is just pointing our how your argument against omniscience is just sophism

[Anonymous No.17270297]

>>17270252
>it begins by defining an omniscient thing as non-omniscient
No.

>Indeed, its a perfect argument, all it needs is a ‘QED’
Epic but simply not true. You make claims about God's attributes you cannot proof and use these attributes as proof for God. And that smug demeanor is just an attempt to overplay your own struggle with the argument.

[Anonymous No.17270307]

>>17270265
>all I’m doing is just pointing our how your argument against omniscience is just sophism
Still begging for you to do that.

[Anonymous No.17270389]

>>17270307
>what if an omniscient God wasn’t truly omniscient because he was deluded about something, or forgot something, then he wouldn’t be omniscient anymore and so omniscience doesn’t make sense
Do I really have to explain why this is not a good argument?

[Anonymous No.17270397]

>>17266036
Nobody, thats why Jesus told him "You wrote good about me"

[Anonymous No.17270414]

>>17269917
>Using strawmen to prove your retarded point
Seethe, dialate and cope, you retarded tranny.

[Anonymous No.17270426]

>>17270389
It's late I'll go sleeping. To address this last point I already acknowledged that at this point i misused omniscience because I feared you would misuse it (which you then did).To get something useful out of this discussion this is how I would narrow my argument down.
1. Omniscience requires knowledge that no knowledge outside your knowledge is possible.
2. To know that even an allpowerful god would have to know that nothing beyond him or before him existed.
3. He cannot know that without omniscience.
Therefore he fails to establish the criteria to know his knowledge is all knowledge.

Make of that what you will. I enjoyed the discussion and meant no harm. I'll try to get more into Aquinas maybe I'll come around but I think this criticism is valid.

[Anonymous No.17270465]

>>17269941
>There is only one supreme God in Aristotles metaphysics.
You should read the Metaphysics before having an opinion on it.

[Anonymous No.17270504]

>>17270397
Why can you people never actually look into something before having an opinion on it?

[Anonymous No.17270562]

>>17270426
>Omniscience requires knowledge that no knowledge outside your knowledge is possible.
It depends on what you mean, the latter is included within omniscience, but you seem to be speaking in the sense of ‘a means of knowledge’, i.e. ‘a means of knowing that there is no knowledge outside etc’ you seem to be using it in the sense of what in Indian philosophy they call a pramana. But there can be no pramana or means of establishing omniscience, because if a being had to rely on its creation of things in order to establish its omniscience, then it would not truly be omniscient, because without that act that allowed it to establish its omniscience then its omniscience would remain unestablished. Because omniscience is the uncaused eternal nature of God, there is no means of establishing it or basing it on a means such as creating and then saying “aha, I’ve created and know everything, now I’m omnisicent” , because then omniscience would no longer be God’s eternal nature. When I said earlier that God’s creation of everything ruled out any knowledge existing outside of the knowledge included in his omniscience, I was not saying that God’s omniscience is established through his creation.
> To know that even an allpowerful god would have to know that nothing beyond him or before him existed.
Which is automatically established if he is omniscient to begin with, so this is not a problem, God doesn’t need a pramana or means of knowledge to establish his own eternal and uncaused attributes/nature, they are as eternally establish like he is.

Your whole argument around omniscience being infeasible hinges on your position that God has no reliable means of establishing his own omniscience, but if it even needs to be established to begin with them the entity is questions was not actually omniscient, and then your example is not actually a real critique of omniscience or an omniscient God anymore, but it is a non-starter

[Anonymous No.17271161]

I'm almost finished studying the Bible, what christian philosophy should I read next? Are Augustine and Aquinas enough?

[Anonymous No.17271175]

>>17271161
You might not be Catholic but I think this is a good list to start with.
https://www.luc.edu/ccih/CatholicClassicsReadingList.shtml