/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17636259]

Any books that disprove him? I really don't like him.

[Anonymous No.17636268]

Dawkins thoroughly rips him up in the God Delusion.

[Anonymous No.17636278]

>>17636259
God not existing disproves him
Don't be too hard on him tho science didn't exist back then

[Anonymous No.17636290]

>>17636278
Science can't prove that God exists or not. Science deals only with the natural, not with the supernatural.

[Anonymous No.17636296]

[Anonymous No.17636302]

>>17636290
It certainly proves that the christcuck God doesn't exist though

[Anonymous No.17636306]

>>17636302
It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.17636324]

>>17636306
Yes it does, if the Bible was made today it would be rightfully discarded as just schizo ramblings

[Anonymous No.17636412]

>>17636259
the fact the abrahamic god is a load of horseshit is ample evidence Aquinas is wrong I'd argue

[Anonymous No.17636446]

>>17636259
Refuted by the fact Christianity led white people to be easily controlled and now we have a Jewish pedo cabal controlling the entire world. Embrace paganism.

[Anonymous No.17636450]

Any books that undisprove him? I really like him

[Anonymous No.17636477]

>>17636446
Yeah, you know the Catholic church was anti-semitic until 1965 and it still is, in Traditionalist circles. Evangelical Protestants started all this "God's chosen people," "greatest ally" business. A return to Traditional Catholicism is actually likely and becoming more popular worldwide. Good luck saving the world worshipping comic book characters.

[Anonymous No.17636493]

>>17636259
Just read Isaac Newton.

[Anonymous No.17636510]

I think Hume ripped him a new one. Just read any criticism of natural theology or classical foundationalism. The problem is starting with axioms like the existence of causality as if they were more obvious and self-evident than God himself. By not emphasizing the primacy of God as a foundation for all knowledge and instead trying to prove him inductively based on natural observation he gave the future atheists an inch through which they can take a mile. Aquinas can be forgiven for not anticipating secular atheist materialism but his arguments really only work if you already believe in God.

[Anonymous No.17636562]

>>17636510
Also Aquinas' arguments are only attempting to prove some generic God that doesn't necessarily have any of the qualities of the Christian one, the only way he can argue that Christianity is true is by appealing to revelation, which again is not very convincing if you aren't already a Christian.

[Anonymous No.17636570]

>Any books that disprove him? I really don't like him.
Can anyone name a more retarded thought process

[Anonymous No.17636575]

>>17636268
Dawkins didn't even read Aquinas and neither did you, Dawkins might be an eloquent writer but he isn't big into philosophy, he clearly just skimmed some Wikipedia articles

[Anonymous No.17636665]

>>17636477
How do I find traditional Catholic circles? The Catholics I know are too lukewarm.
t. Evangelical

[Anonymous No.17636731]

>>17636259
Didn't he claim that his own writings were pointless and give up on finishing the Summa?
And he's the greatest theologian the church has to offer?

[Anonymous No.17636750]

>>17636731
tends to happen when you get an actual vision of Christ. St. Paul couldn't describe it, mystics can't describe it, it makes sense that a purely natural philosophy ultimately doesn't quite measure up

[Anonymous No.17636871]

>Dawkins thoroughly rips him up

[Anonymous No.17636893]

>>17636259

[Anonymous No.17637110]

>>17636893
>kjv

[Anonymous No.17638657]

William lane Craig has some stuff against him. So does Ryan mullins and Christopher Hughes

[Anonymous No.17638826]

>>17636259
Very suspiscious that all the first post and the OP are anti-theist. Totally just a normal growing thread where in the first 5 minutes posts agrees with the OP without any substance.

[Anonymous No.17638844]

>>17636324
You can't prove or disprove a metaphysical idea with an epistemic argument. Unless you can solve the mind-body problem for materialism, you are wrong AND gay.

[Anonymous No.17638848]

>>17636324
what you said doesn't invalidate the fact science can't disprove or prove god's existence. the divine is literally outside of the realm of inquiry for science

[Anonymous No.17638887]

Pic related does not really "disprove" Aquinas's arguments (which is mainly what neo-Thomists will rely on), but his introspection of the real nature of perception and reason basically makes Aquinas's arguments irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.17638903]

>>17636477
>Evangelical Protestants started all this "God's chosen people," "greatest ally" business
Oh really now?

[Anonymous No.17639205]

>>17636665
Unironically reddit. Helps if you're white too, though they won't outright admit it in public.

[Anonymous No.17639209]

>>17636268
Lol

[Anonymous No.17639214]

>>17636477
What happen in 1965?

[Anonymous No.17639251]

>>17639214
Second Vatican Council finished up. They started saying Mass in whatever language Catholics spoke in their countries and things quickly fell apart according to old people and pic relateds

[Anonymous No.17639961]

>>17636268
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.17639968]

>>17636259
none.
>>17636268
Dawkins self refutes in the first three words of his "argument" in there.
Atheists really are pathetic.

[Anonymous No.17639971]

>>17636278
except God exists.

[Anonymous No.17640023]

>>17636259
St. Thomas realized the inadequacy of his own philosophy before his death. As he lay dying, he dictated a purported commentary on the Song of Songs—the text entitled Aurora Consurgens. Therein lay all the disproof you need, if you can understand it. Don't fight sophistry with sophistry.

[Anonymous No.17640786]

>>17636665
Read up on the Society of Saint Pius X, very based (and you can meet pure girls to marry and start a family with)

[Anonymous No.17640862]

>>17636893
>I am who am

[Anonymous No.17640934]

The only people I hate more than fedora tippers are the 14 year old tradcaths who take the bible literally.

[Anonymous No.17640974]

>>17638826
Meds. Now.

[Anonymous No.17641049]

You brainlet, from either side, are too dumb, fuck it here a quick overview on the question of god and religion, like christianity.

1 the idea of God is somewhat true in a philosophical sense, read about metaphysics, and science is just a subset of metaphysics and shit, so it can give a value or proof of a God, or more correctly the idea of God.

2 christianity is just a fanfic that surrounds the idea of God, some of the brightest minds inside the church know about the idea of God and the stupidly of christianity as a religion

What does it mean? If you are christian, you're dumb and just a puppet of some else ideas and ideologies, heavenly papa doesn't exist, sorry, dude, your prayers maean shit.

For the atheist crow, true philosophy MOGGS your idea of non existence of a God in a metaphysical sense.

[Anonymous No.17641482]

>>17636665
Don't go with >>17640786 They're sedevecantists which is basically protestatism. Go to an
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter church for the same Traditional Latin Mass loving community that has never had a mass excommunication come down on them from the Pope.

[Anonymous No.17641555]

>>17641482
LMAO, this nigga don't know shit! SSPX is not sedevacantist (you only have to sift briefly through the torrent of bile poured upon them from genuine sedvacs to notice that, if their own statements - and the actual attitude of Church authorities - was not clear enough). The "SSPX are actually portestants" meme is a common and tiresome one, endlessly recycled by lukewarm trads.

That being said, Society/Fraternity of Saint Peter are very good too, and in better standing with local churches usually. I'm French, so the trad scene where you are could be different, but, by and large, the same people go to both these priestly societies for mass, and some families I know have sons ordained in both desu
I believe US SSPX are even more outwardly counter-cultural, dress-wise and such (we're talking serious trad-wife material)

[Anonymous No.17641596]

>>17636259
Disprove him on what? Thomism is a "total system" which means it's so expansive that it covers every aspect of knowledge. Aquinas isn't a heap of boulders where you can pull one away at the bottom and watch it all tumble down. He's a mountain.

[Anonymous No.17641628]

>>17636412
Then how do the chosen people control the world after 5000 years of persecution and outlasting Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Alexander, Egypt, Rome, The Byzantine, the Ottomans, the USSR, The Nazis. How did they magically obtain Jerusalem after the Ottoman Empire fell during ww1 despite the Ottoman being allies? And don't say reptilians.

[Anonymous No.17641861]

>>17636446
The jews who did not accept Christ were expecting a political savior who would save them from Roman occupation. Instead what they got was an offer to save them from sin. Notice how all throughout history people demand politics from God and when they don't get what they want materially they turn their backs.

[Anonymous No.17641873]

>>17641482
>They're sedevecantists which is basically protestatism.
How?

[Anonymous No.17641901]

>>17638903
>Evangelical Protestants
Luther wasn't an Evangelical, you moron.

[Anonymous No.17641913]

>>17639251
What's with the seething hatred for Catholics in particular. These days there are plenty of young converts to plenty of religions, particularly on 4chan, yet Catholics always seem to get the worst of it. Seems artificial... or at the very least weirdly mean spirited.

[Anonymous No.17641951]

>>17641913
Catholicism is THE trad religion so all the kids who want to post vaporwave bible verses or feel like they belong to something even if they don't understand or fully accept it go for it because it's so based, redpilled, and even poggers. It's not so much Catholic hate as it is zoomer disgust.
>>17641873
Sedes don't believe there's been a pope since they're favorite one died, usually it's Pius XII but some say it ended with John XXIII or even Paul VI. Denying the validity of highest position in the Holy See's hierarchy in favor of your own interpretation of what's right is pure prot nonsense.

[Anonymous No.17642048]

>>17641951
Weeeeell, in fairness, the question of the heretical pope was debated by many perfectly orthodox theologians, and although I don't believe a pope's personal heresy would ipso facto deprive him of his authority, it is in no way protestant to think so, insults aside, and equating "your own interpretation" and infallible teachings of previous popes is a little facile.
Also, SSPX are not sedvacs, so moot point desu

[Anonymous No.17642062]

>>17636268
Dawkins failed to even fully understand Aquinas' first mover argument before he attempted to refute it. The God Delusion is embarrassingly bad.

[Anonymous No.17642177]

>>17641951
>Sedes don't believe there's been a pope since they're favorite one died
You mean since the church contradicted itself, don't be a sophist.
>Denying the validity of highest position in the Holy See's hierarchy in favor of your own interpretation of what's right is pure prot nonsense
They just say if this (vatican 2) is what comes from the church then this cant be the church as this is clearly contradictory to previous teachings. That is not protestantism, that is Catholicism. The real confusion lies within what constitutes ex cathedra and how that applies here. You clearly haven't heard them out.

[Anonymous No.17642217]

>>17642177
Thank you anon! As I stated before, I am not a sedevacantist, but the tired old meme "it's just like protestants" needs to die; I guess Athanasius was basically a protestant for seeing the pope was agreeing to heresy, because OMG he used his intelligence to examine what the pope had said (or not said) compared to what his predecessors had said

[Anonymous No.17642262]

>>17636446

>Reads Evola once

[Anonymous No.17642299]

>>17636302
>>17636268
>muh religion vs science
>muh mutually exclusice
Is there any more midwit worldview?

[Anonymous No.17642360]

>>17636268
Threatened humanitrannies seething at this

[Anonymous No.17642361]

>>17642262
Evola had a fairly nuanced opinion on Christianity, though. He did not like it, but he did not hate it either.