/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17792356]

>800 years later
>still makes atheists seethe with a simple logical argument
he is the greatest mind of the middle ages

[Anonymous No.17792373]

>implying unfalsifiable word games make anyone seethe

[Anonymous No.17792374]

>>17792356
>he is the greatest mind of the middle ages
That doesn't look like Bernard of Clairvaux.

[Anonymous No.17792378]

>>17792373
>everything I can't refute is a word game
seethe

[Anonymous No.17792382]

>>17792373
>implying Derrida doesn't make anyone seethe

[Anonymous No.17792399]

>>17792378
>I don’t need to provide evidence because...LOOK I JUST DON’T OKAY? DILATE SEETHE BASED CRINGE

[Anonymous No.17792415]

>makes the dyerite seethe
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt-oiTh__OI&list=PLpzmRsG7u_gpMogZpIcZnS0BsD3z8_x3n&index=1
based

[Anonymous No.17792565]

>>17792399
>logic needs empirical evidence
what an absolute retard. reply me with another wojack

[Anonymous No.17792582]

>catholic

[( . ) ( . ) No.17792612]

>>17792356
Every philosophical argument to "prove God" can be used to "prove", Allah, Vishnu, or Odin. Aquinas's cosmological arguments are fucking retarded. Believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnitemporal, omnibenevolent sky daddy makes you a low-iq subhuman. Do us a favor and eradicate yourself from the earth.

[Anonymous No.17792618]

>>17792612
You think this is based, but it's actually cringe

[Anonymous No.17792625]

>>17792356
I fell bad for those people, they were clearly clever for their times and they wasted their potential on coming up with reasons to justify a fairybook and an imaginary friend.

[Anonymous No.17792636]

>>17792612
you reply with an incel rambling. not an argument

[Anonymous No.17792648]

>>17792625
refute him

[Anonymous No.17792653]

>>17792612
If you read a bit further in the Summa he actually talks about this.

Allah, Vishnu, or Odin is different from the Medieval conception of God as seen by the distinction between Aristotle's unmoved mover and Aquinas'. Of course one would know this if they actually read anything to do with theology.

[Anonymous No.17792660]

>>17792612

Gee okay guess this book about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus actually proves Islam, which says Jesus didn't rise from the dead

[Anonymous No.17792665]

>>17792625
Ah yes le ignorant nobels
Lmao
Like Sam Harris calling Pythagoras an "ignorant".

[Anonymous No.17792669]

>>17792356
>makes atheists seethe with a simple logical argument
Which is?

[( . ) ( . ) No.17792690]

>>17792636
Ok nigger. From a logical perspective, what did I say wrong? Most people who argue for the existence of god are people with a small penis who can't handle reality. Facts > emotion. Give me a logical argument for the existence of god. None exist.

[Anonymous No.17792693]

>>17792669
Argument from Change - act potency distinction - change exists - infinite regress not possible under efficient causality. You know the drill anon.

[Anonymous No.17792707]

>>17792690
not an argument

[( . ) ( . ) No.17792712]

>>17792693
If everything has a watchmaker then God must also have a watchmaker. Also, the idea that infinite regress is possible contradicts that time did not exist before the big bang. Science simply contradicts the existence of god.

[Anonymous No.17792718]

>>17792712
>everything has a watchmaker
prove it

[Anonymous No.17792733]

>>17792356
Sure, if you accept that the author of the "holy writ" is God (like he does in Q.1 Art. 10. Answer to Obj. 3. - the only unbacked Truism he seems to declare). Otherwise, no.

[( . ) ( . ) No.17792753]

>>17792707
>17792718

No amount of evidence could change your mind. You have attached your beliefs to an identity. Attacking your beliefs is the same as attacking an integral part of your identity. God simply contradicts science.

If god exists solve these philosophical dilemmas:

The Euthyphro dilemma.
The problem of evil.
Russel's teapot.
Hitchens razor and Occam's razor.
How time could have existed before the big bang.

[Anonymous No.17792766]

>>17792712
The watchmaker argument is never given by Aquinas. His argument is that everything that is in motion is put into motion by another.

>infinite regress possible
Aquinas' argument is operating under the idea of efficient causality (per se). There cannot be an infinite regress since the chain of causality depends on the prior movers. Think of a person holding a stick. The stick being held up depends upon the the bicep muscles, brain, etc. A chain of actualizers and potentials cannot go onto infinity, else, there is no actualization of a potential. It's like trying to say there can be an infinite chain of Christmas lights. There must be a power source. We aren't talking about time here; we are talking about the idea of change. Infinite regress contradicts all experience. The same holds true with logic. We must know the premises before we come to the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.17792780]

>>17792753
>everything has a watchmaker
are you going to argue or prove this or have you already given up?

[Anonymous No.17792826]

>>17792669
1. there are only men and women
2. you will never be a woman
3. you are a man

[( . ) ( . ) No.17792834]

>>17792780
>>17792766
Look up the appeal to ignorance fallacy. This is simply what you are arguing. The idea that Watchmakers exist simply contradicts science because we emerged from a singularity where no time existed before. Science has already disproved the existence of god. No amount of evidence will change your mind. There is no use arguing with you. People like you should go in gas chambers.

[Anonymous No.17792846]

>>17792834
not an argument

[Anonymous No.17792847]

>>17792834
Aquinas' arguments have nothing to do with anything you are saying. If you can point to specific premises or conclusions you disagree with then I will actually take you seriously. At this point you seem to have no real notion of what Aquinas actually said and you're generalizing based on what you've heard from Richard Dawkins and that black science guy.

[Anonymous No.17792854]

>>17792847
sorry pic related was Dawkin's complete failure in understanding anything of what Aquinas said.

[Anonymous No.17792890]

>>17792826
>There are, as was already often mentioned, *men*, who *have turned into women*, or *remained women; but there is no woman who would come out beyond certain transcribed, not to be particularly highly drawn, moral and intellectual boundaries.
-Weininger

[Anonymous No.17792950]

>>17792356
Even though I know OP is shit posting and that this thread is being made in bad faith I will offer an atheist's perspective on the 5 ways. I will not attempt to refute them. Instead, I will discuss why I do not find them persuasive (I am using Pasnau's translation as a reference).

>way 1
Aquinas is essentially arguing that there cannot be an infinite regress of movements from potentiality to actuality. I find this argument unconvincing mainly because I do not have an Aristotelean in re ontology. The claim that a thing moves only if it is in potentiality wrt the thing toward which it moves I take to be a false characterization of how things in the universe change. Discussions of potentiality and acutality may be fruitful in terms of how we as humans classify objects in the world, but if we wish to do good metaphysics notions such as potentiality and cause I think can supplanted by physical descriptions of the universe such as chemical reactions.

>second way
Here Aquinas argues that there cannot be an infinite regress of efficient causes. Again, this relies on an Aristotelian conception of causation. After Hume and Kant I don't think anyone would be persuaded by such an argument since a hierarchy of eficient causes really isn't a part of modern counterfactual theories of causation. (remember Aquinas is not making an argument about teporal succession but metaphysical hierarchical dependence). My response would simply be that it is not clear that what we call causation is actually what is going on in the world sine specie humani

>way 3
This is the strongest way imo. My response to this is that the claim that something that possibly exists did not exist at one time and must have an efficient cause. Therefore, there must be one necessary being to avoind an infinite regress of merely possible beings. My mine problem with this argument is that it assumes that time is only sequential. I personally subscribe to the B theory of time but I won't bog down this reply with too many details on that. As a more general response it is not clear that possibility and necessity function in this way in the world. It might be predicated of a proposition that it is nec or poss in a given logical deduction but it does not follow that this can be mapped onto objects in the world in any demonstrable way (remember all arguments we make ARE about propositions and are necessarily not about things in themselves).

>the fourth way
I reject the premise that there is a gradation among things. I hope to god no one here accepts that as a reasonable premise. A maximally good member of a genus is nonsense. (especially since these classifications are nominal).

[Anonymous No.17792955]

>>17792950
>fifth way
This argument is not persuasive for me because I reject a teleological view of the universe. Even though I will accept that the universe (or at least our perceptions of it) seems to follow laws, it does not follow that the universe is end directed. This is a really common error that creationists tend to make (especially with evolution). Laws are not directional they are adherant. The laws of nature describe the univers they are not a set of instructions that the universe follows. Furthermore, laws are a product of human science they have no metaphysical reality.

[Anonymous No.17792978]

>>17792950
>The claim that a thing moves only if it is in potentiality wrt the thing toward which it moves
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

[Anonymous No.17793007]

>>17792978
This is what Aquinas claims. It basically means when x is not yet x', x has in it a potentiality directed toward becoming x'.

[Anonymous No.17793509]

>>17793007
No he's saying that when something changes it is the actualization of a potential. For instance, there is a potential for the red ball to be blue. This potential could be actualized when the red ball is dipped in a can of blue paint.
It seems you are saying that the red ball can only be blue if it has the potential to be blue. I don't believe that is the point of the act potency distinction and you didn't give a good reason why you don't believe in it.

>but if we wish to do good metaphysics notions such as potentiality and cause I think can supplanted by physical descriptions of the universe such as chemical reactions.
Looks like you're confusing scientific explanations for metaphysical ones here.

[Anonymous No.17793546]

>>17793509
>>17793509
That pic is somewhat wrong insofar as anything is 'in potency'. Indeed, you can say there is potentiality for almost anything that exists, but only insofar as its proximity to a stronger actor/action commences can you say that its potential energy increases.

In that pic, the red ball has potential energy as well, in proportion to how much the blue ball acts on IT. In reality, all movers are moved, so if you're moving something how can you say that it was not that thing's intention to move you, if you perceive it as having energy?

In the case of two living things frequently they will act on each other in a similar way, even though it is the actor who thinks he is the one setting another actor in motion.

You can apply this to emotions or morals, as we are acted upon by others, we act upon them, either as citizens or leaders.

[Anonymous No.17793551]

>>17792565
>reply me with another wojack

[Anonymous No.17793580]

>>17793509
I think you've misunderstood me. I'm saying the same thing in the opposite direction (the way Aquinas himself states it in the Summa).

I gave an example of a scientific explanation but I think metaphysical claims such as causal claims are reducible to counterfactual claims whose extrema, whether they are qualitative or quantitative variables, do not have in re predicates.

[Anonymous No.17793661]

>>17792373
>a priori arguments are "just word games,"
Wew lad

[Anonymous No.17793781]

>>17792847
Full disclosure, I do not believe in God, I am trying to understand all the arguments, and have yet to be convinced. Considering both your picture and argument with the other anon, im hoping you could elaborate or something. The issue with Dawkins's position, it seems to me, is that he is presupposing that temporal conditions apply to God. Who, in being metaphysical, cannot be said to be caused. Because to be contingent is to exist within what we think of as existence, which God necessarily does not. But this seems too obvious to be passed up by anyone arguing in good faith, is there something im missing? Is the premise that I just described so braindead obviously wrong or non-applicable that nobody in these disputations pays any heed to it? The other anon keeps repeating "what causes God, this is just infinite regress," but to assign causation to God strikes me as a basic mistake for the aforementioned reasons. So obviously so that im worried that im missing something salient.

[Anonymous No.17793816]

>>17792565
where does logic demand that the "most [whatever] thing" must be omni[whatever] and therefore god?

this is the essence of aquinas's argument - and it's retarded

[Anonymous No.17793825]

>>17793816
that was not the essence of Aquinas's argument and I don't think you even know what it is

hint: it's causality

[Anonymous No.17793845]

>>17793825
the "ultimate mover" was just another absolute listed by aquinas, and he claimed that there must be other absolutes in other fields, and that somehow "logically" this means that god exists because duh?

anyway, all this comes down to is Big Bang debate, which is a scientific fact - and fun fact - one that was co-discovered and co-signed by a fucking Catholic priest.

we can argue "what caused the big bang" but that's a fallacy - there was no time before the big bang. we can't speak about causality therefore. our entire reality is post-big bang. big bang is the absolute beginning.

it's therefore irrational to apply any sort of causality chains and logical patterns to an impermeable wall between Everything and Nothing.

[Anonymous No.17793863]

>implying atheists are seething

[Anonymous No.17793881]

>>17793845
>the "ultimate mover" was just another absolute listed by aquinas


and just like that, you've demonstrated ultimate ignorance of the subject at hand. how in the world is "ultimate mover" just "another absolute"? it's ULTIMATE.

>and he claimed that there must be other absolutes in other fields, and that somehow "logically" this means that god exists because duh?

I have no idea what you're even talking about now

>anyway, all this comes down to is Big Bang debate

which didn't even exist in Aquinas's time...

>we can't speak about causality therefore. our entire reality is post-big bang. big bang is the absolute beginning.

terrible reasoning; what caused the big bang?
what is the big bang? what was before the big bang? how can something come from nothing? think hard

[Anonymous No.17793914]

>>17793881
>how in the world is "ultimate mover" just "another absolute"?
semantics. what i meant was that aquinas was listing several absolutes - absolutely most complex thing, absolutely most beautiful thing (whatever that means), etc. etc. and each of these was supposed to be like "ha! gotcha! god makes LOGICAL sense"
no none of this makes sense, this is all just worthless assumptions
>which didn't even exist in Aquinas's time...
exactly, which is why the argument made sense back then. as a God of Gaps
>terrible reasoning; what caused the big bang?
what is the big bang? what was before the big bang? how can something come from nothing? think hard
it's not like there even WAS nothing before the big bang
there WASNT whatever! the whole concept of anything existing (even nothingness) before the big bang is false. thinking in the terms of "before" the big bang is a fallacy. you have to completely erase any thought about anything "before" the big bang because it's an oxymoron, it's a nonsensical train of thought, even the concept of "before the big bang" itself shouldn't exist

the big bang and what came after is all there is. truly. all there is.

[Anonymous No.17793928]

>>17792356
Question, Do Aquinas really say that morality is subiective?

[Anonymous No.17793953]

>>17793914
>semantics. what i meant was that aquinas was listing several absolutes - absolutely most complex thing, absolutely most beautiful thing (whatever that means), etc. etc. and each of these was supposed to be like "ha! gotcha! god makes LOGICAL sense"

...all the "absolutes" point to the ultimate absolute; this is basic monotheism/philosophy here.

>no none of this makes sense, this is all just worthless assumptions

demonstrate their worthlessness. where do the laws of the universe come from? what makes them immutable?

>thinking in the terms of "before" the big bang is a fallacy

that's a logical fallacy. as soon as the big bang existed; there was time, since time requires material to transact itself upon. you're arguing for infinite time, and that is illogical.

>even the concept of "before the big bang" itself shouldn't exist

but it does exist; there was a state prior to the big bang.

[Anonymous No.17793958]

>>17793781
The mistake you are making is that you think people like Dawkins want to argue in good faith. They don't. People like him are militant atheists, with a particular hatred of Christianity. Which is why they always make mistakes regarding philosophy such as Aquinas's, because they assume he was talking specifically about the Christian God when in fact he was making a general argument for a supreme creator, his arguments for why that should be the Christian God came later. Dawkins and co purposefully misunderstand because they just hate Christianity.

[Anonymous No.17793962]

>>17792399
requiring physical evidence just means you haven't thought hard enough about the actual subject and think it will be somehow resolved by taking a meter reading or something. actual truth doesn't depend on any empirical evidence whatsoever. like take the holocaust - maybe six million died, maybe six hundred thousand, maybe sixty billion, any of those things could be "true" in an empirical sense, but the real truth is that it never happened, no matter how many jews actually died. that's the real truth - it lies above and beyond any particular physical understanding. even if it happened, it didn't happen

[Anonymous No.17793964]

>>17793928
This is a common misconception. Aquinas says morality is surjective, meaning that any well-formed reality must apply to any possible situation or, on other words, that any situation must be interpretable in a moral light.

[Anonymous No.17793975]

>>17793953
>there was a state prior to the big bang.
that's where you're wrong kiddo. there was truly nothing. not even an empty set. no set at all. nothing. so nothing, that we can't even discuss it. because we're just discussing things that don't exist. our reality is the big bang and beyond. "before the big bang" is as nonsensical and abstract as russell's teapot, it doesn't exist at all. like leprechauns
>where do the laws of the universe come from
https://youtu.be/_WHRWLnVm_M

[Anonymous No.17793991]

>>17793914
I hate to interject, but anon, you've just circled back to the original reason people have come to believe in God in the first place. It isnt that people don't want to think nothing preceded the Big Bang. Rather, it is that to say existence sprung from non-existance makes zero sense. Since we live in a world that can be broken down to things simply causing other things, and if we presuppose this world had a beginning, then it follows that something outside of it caused it that itself is not subject to causation. The Big Bang id the vehicle for whatever force that was. Now whether that force is the Christian God is, imo, impossible to prove. The only thing certain is that: Since Something cannot come from Nothing, then Something came from that which is beyond the dichotomy of Something/Nothing.

[Anonymous No.17793993]

>>17793975
>that's where you're wrong kiddo. there was truly nothing.

Something cannot come from Nothing.

>that we can't even discuss it

We're discussing it right now, lol. How did Nothing give birth to Something? Why exactly must there be nothing beyond the Big Bang in itself? You're trying write out Being/God/Unmoved Mover out of it with no real reasoning here, just mere assertion.

[Anonymous No.17794005]

>>17793991
Thank you. I'm actually not miffed when people don't acknowledge that the unmoved mover is God, but I am stunned by how eager they are to embrace fallacies just to write the whole idea out.

[Anonymous No.17794016]

>>17793991
>It isnt that people don't want to think nothing preceded the Big Bang.
again, fallacious reasoning. you need to change your vocabulary and then you'll understand
*nothing preceded the Big Bang MEANS that the Big Bang WASNT preceded by anything. You can't make positive statements about any sort of precedence to the Big Bang. the Big Bang is the start. there's nothing before the start. the start line measures everything that's real
>Rather, it is that to say existence sprung from non-existance makes zero sense.
again, existence didn't spring from anything. in a way, its ALWAYS been here - since the beginning, the start of time. there wasn't a single moment when there was nothing and then something. no. there's always been something
>>>17793993
as above

[Anonymous No.17794022]

>>17794005
I cant tell whether or not you're mocking me. If you are, please just explain what I've got wrong, I come to this board because disputing things helps me learn about them.

[Anonymous No.17794036]

>>17794022
I meant no offense.

>>17794016
There is no fallacious reasoning in: "something cannot come from nothing".

It's on you to explain how existence comes from non-existence. Going "lol big bang" does not solve the problem; you acknowledge there was a "start point" of existence, but you give no logical reasoning for why it exists in the first place.

>You can't make positive statements about any sort of precedence to the Big Bang

Of course you can. What caused the Big Bang?

>existence didn't spring from anything. in a way, its ALWAYS been here

fallacious reasoning; our universe operates on causality

[Anonymous No.17794126]

>>17794016
again, existence didn't spring from anything. in a way, its ALWAYS been here - since the beginning, the start of time
Why are you conflating
I follow what you mean, but this does not address the position you are insisting it does. We agree Spatio-Temporal reality exist. We also agree it is finite. Where we depart is over how to understand how contingency factors. What I follow from you is that you think: contingency is itself contingent on spatio-temporality. Therefore, to ascribe spatio-temporality a contingency itself is incorrect. This does not appear to be categorically true. It applies to how we percieve contingencies to be, absolutely, but does not account for the simple fact that we cannot prove or disprove that contingency is a solely temporal quality. Thus, ultimately the position is just non-applicable. We are still left with the question of "how is that which is, that which is, and not whatever it is not,". And since we know what is, but not what is not, we can infer that which is not is beyond the faculties of that which is. And insofar as it is beyond that which is, may have any number of qualities outside of those that determine that which is. Thus, the only way for that which is to not be that which it is not is for that which it is not to distinguish itself from that which is. Therefore, that which is could only be because it has assumed the qualities of what it is, and in the fact of assuming said qualities and becoming what it is, is contingency denoted. Thus, existence is and non-existence is not. And since existence cannot come from non-existence, than something beyond the dichotomy is the only possible way for the dichotomy to itself exist.

[Anonymous No.17794155]

>>17794016
You can't make positive statements about any sort of precedence to the Big Bang. the Big Bang is the start
This would require the big bang to be self affirming, which is illogical because it is a process. You're arguing with all the people from a totally insurmountable difference because you're presupposing what is is all that can possibly be. Everyone of any level of intelligence who has ever considered this question has come past this roadblock you're stuck on in one of two ways. Either the true nature of existence is still hidden from us, or metaphysics exists. You're stating that existence is self affirming because the idea of being affirmed is existential. This is an unprovable premise a la Popper. All we know is that we are, and that we were once not. What follows from this is that somehow this change happened. Therefore, change itself is not strictly existential even if we only can comprehend it in an existential way. You've trapped yourself by insisting that the forces you observe can only occur under the conditions they have been observed. This is impossible to prove.

[Anonymous No.17794162]

>>17794126
>And since existence cannot come from non-existence, than something beyond the dichotomy is the only possible way for the dichotomy to itself exist.
nice argument for the existence of God really

[Anonymous No.17794170]

>>17794162
This is ultimately the Christian's description of God. Eriugena was the one who explained it best. We can't say God is good, or wise, or that he is exists. Because he is beyond all of these things.

[Anonymous No.17794189]

>>17794170
He is the one who reveals those things to man

[Anonymous No.17794203]

NOTHING IS REAL
I WANT TO GO BACK GIVE ME ALL THE FUCKING BLUE PILLS

[Anonymous No.17794228]

>I don't think of you at all

[Anonymous No.17794240]

>>17792356
>Muh unmoved mover
>Muh God doesn't need a mover

Truly one of Christianity brightest

[Anonymous No.17794254]

>>17794240
I wish people like you would just end it. Like either make a contribution to either of the positions or fuck off. These catty feminine passing quips give me such second hand embarrassment. I wish I knew you in real life so that I could bully this tendency out of you and make you my cute think boyfriend, you faggot. You're not funny and you need taming.

[Anonymous No.17794276]

>>17794254
Can you logically prove that a god doesn't need a mover? Or that there is only one god, but not 10 gods who move each other? Or that it's christian god?

[Anonymous No.17794297]

>>17794240
>>17794276
indeed
>>17794254
it's funny how to you the universe cannot have an absolute start, but God can

[Anonymous No.17794299]

>>17794276
10 unmoved movers would be besides the point, and that's not getting into the argument of divine simplicity. 10 gods would still mean there's a prime mover God at the end of the chain.

>god doesn't need a mover

then He wouldn't be the "unmoved mover", would He? it's in the argument

>christian god

that's not the point of the cosmological argument; i'm sure you could push it to some other random supreme deity.

again, you demonstrate a purely facile familiarity with a concept you know nothing about

[Anonymous No.17794307]

>>17794297
the argument is that God is not a material being inside of Creation, if He were, He would therefore not be God. the Creator has to be something outside of creation; hence the cosmological argument

[Anonymous No.17794325]

>>17794276
>>17794297
What? I'm not even apart of the argument breh... whatre you tagging me about? Bunkertrannies are literslly rabid and will bite people unassisted with the issue at hand. Please seek medical help.

[Anonymous No.17794338]

>>17794299
Oh, so it has nothing to do with christianity? Ok, bye

[Anonymous No.17794341]

>>17794338
you'll never be a woman. but, you might be a christian one day. never give up hope!

[Anonymous No.17794364]

>>17794307
There are 10, actually. The guy in the other post said it. And above them is the "moover", as we call him. He has a 25 inch dick. Also he said yes to trans rights.

[Anonymous No.17794457]

>>17794307
>God is not a material being inside of Creation
Can't I just make the same exceptions to the rules for parts of the universe/big bang or whatever to solve the 'something can't come from nothing' issue?

[Anonymous No.17794478]

I still don't get how an argument invoking a being not bound by logic, is still considered a "logical argument", desu

[Anonymous No.17794488]

>>17792356
Thomists are so cringe. Yeah good job arguing for generic theism, now tell me why I should prostate in church for YHWH.

Atheism is a thing because of the Bible, not because not enough people have read Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.17794728]

>>17792625
kek
downie looking at a greek statue: I feel bad for him

[Anonymous No.17794735]

>>17792356
>simple logical argument
what did he say?

[Anonymous No.17794743]

>>17792612
>Every philosophical argument to "prove God" can be used to "prove", Allah, Vishnu, or Odin
god is all of the above as nothing but god exsists their for proving allah or vishnu also proves GOD and vise versa.
midwit.

[Anonymous No.17794756]

>>17792612
You're so poorly informed that you don't even know what "Allah" is, yet you would expect anyone to take this line of thought as an argument, or take it as serious.

[Anonymous No.17794917]

note to self: stop going on /lit/

[Anonymous No.17794943]

>>17794917
yet the author of the note kept returning, very self-contradictory

[Anonymous No.17794965]

I want to buy a physical copy of his Theologica, which should I get? I believe there's a shortened version about a tenth as long as the proper work, is that acceptable to get a proper grasp of his? work

[Anonymous No.17794978]

>>17792374
based saint Bernard poster

[Anonymous No.17795142]

>>17792612
so you figured that out and you didnt get it or investigate any further? you might actually be mentally hanicapped

[Anonymous No.17795223]

>>17792612
>Every philosophical argument to "prove God" can be used to "prove", Allah, Vishnu, or Odin.
And that is true. Is about the divine principles, not the name of a certain God.

[Anonymous No.17795428]

>>17792612
allah is the same thing fucking retard

[Anonymous No.17795432]

>>17792356
>>17792374
>he is the greatest mind of the middle ages
That doesn't look like John Duns Scotus.

[Anonymous No.17795558]

>>17792826
kek

[Anonymous No.17795596]

>>17792373
>first post is el fedoro furioso

[Anonymous No.17795601]

>a triangle has 3 sides.
>wtf thats word games

[Anonymous No.17795774]

>>17792653
>Allah, Vishnu, or Odin is different from the Medieval conception of God as seen by the distinction between Aristotle's unmoved mover and Aquinas'.
Odin maybe, but if you think that with the other two you are just another uninformed Crosscuck

[Anonymous No.17795803]

so it's true...
>800 years later
>still makes atheists seethe with a simple logical argument

[Anonymous No.17795822]

>>17794364
>moover
I smell a "∞ years old MOOVER" meme. I might make it later.

[Anonymous No.17795866]

>>17795774
Okay maybe not allah. Muslim and Christian medievals had interactions with each other.

[Anonymous No.17795886]

>>17795774
Allah is not God, the two concepts have very different properties despite sharing omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence.

[Anonymous No.17795950]

>>17794478
Has this ever been refuted?

[Anonymous No.17795960]

>>17794478
>>17795950
God is the source of logic. He is logic according to Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.17795976]

>>17795960
that's not a part of a logically coherent argument

[Anonymous No.17796012]

>>17794254
>Muh that doesn't contribute to the argument
>Muh autistic fantasy

This proves my point further, compared to the average Christian Aquinas is a true Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous No.17796074]

>>17795960
Ouf believing in a religion in 2021, that was forced upon one's ancestor

and for what? to have total control of the people

everyone here needs a hitckenslap, having some devine entity rent free in ones head

I bet 90% here have been cut, stay mad and worship Abraham

[Anonymous No.17796078]

>>17795976
1)God is the source and sustaining cause of all existence (see argument from motion/change)
2)Logic exists (essentialism)
3)Therefore, logic is dependent on God
4) God is a simple being with no parts, existence itself (see argument from composition)
5)There are things that exist that are not changeable (objective), logic, morals, truths etc.
6)God is the only immutable being
7)Therefore, God is logic itself
Note: it cannot exist outside him since he is a simple being and it was already stated that he is the source of all things.

Objection: You are using logic. Doesn't the use of logic come before God?
Reply: the use of logic does not make this a circular argument. It actually further supports it. God has given us the tools to find Him. I am using those tools.

[Anonymous No.17796086]

>>17796074
genetic fallacy and not an argument

Also Catholicism is against circumcision

[Anonymous No.17796244]

>>17795960
And not restricted to logical acts himself, IE: Miracles, almighty, moving without a cause

[Anonymous No.17796286]

>>17792625
and I can't believe after "800 years" they are still at it

[Anonymous No.17796326]

>make certain assumptions about the nature of our world
>set them as truths in a way that shapes a paradox
>claim this paradox NEEDS a solution
>claim a solution that doesn't abide by the truths set up about our world, by necessitating a being except to those truths

[Anonymous No.17796357]

>>17796078
2) and 5) are false premises

[Anonymous No.17796441]

>atheist still seething without providing a single argument
so this is the power of Aquinas...

[Anonymous No.17796467]

How is people still taking, "there must be a 'maximum fat ass' because asses got different grades of thickness, therefore: God."-guy seriously?

[Anonymous No.17796488]

>>17796441
Aquinas argument doesn't even necessitate a "God" as such. I could believe in an unmoved mover and still be an "Atheist"

[Anonymous No.17796489]

>>17792356
The fuck he even say?

[Anonymous No.17796540]

>>17796489
It's easier to defend and argument if you don't formalize it

[Anonymous No.17796549]

>>17796467
not an argument

[Anonymous No.17796570]

>>17796549
It's 5 ways working in conjunction
one of the ways being fucking retarded is "not an argument" ?

[Anonymous No.17796579]

>>17796570
>one of the ways being fucking retarded is "not an argument" ?
exactly

[Anonymous No.17796596]

>important question
>objection 1: some dude in a historically unsound, a dozen times translated in the biggest game of telephone in history, said this
>objection 2: this other dude said this while jerking off thinking of god
>objection 3: principles upon principles either part of circular logic or "dude God said so lmao"
>synthesis: Have this response out of my ass because it's obvious, otherwise you just don't get it.

[Anonymous No.17796649]

>>17794016
>An action is the starting point of everything, an Action that always happened and was always there

[Anonymous No.17796665]

>>17796489
>Article 3. Whether God exists?
>Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
>Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

>On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

>I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways:
1/3

[Anonymous No.17796671]

>>17796489
>>17796665
>The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

>The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
2/3

[Anonymous No.17796674]

>>17796671
>>17796665
>>17796489
>The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

>The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
3/3

[Anonymous No.17796678]

>>17792356
I define Zhork as the scariest vampire that could ever exist. A real vampire is scarier than a fictional one. Therefor Zhork exists by definition.

No, it doesn't work like that. The cosmological argument is bunk.

[Anonymous No.17796681]

>>17796674
>>17796671
>>17796489
Here are the responses to the objections raised in >>17796665 :

>Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

>Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
And here is the 'Fifth way' or the 'Teleological argument':
>The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

[Anonymous No.17796693]

>>17796681
>>17796674
>>17796671
>>17796665
>>17796489
That concludes this post about the Five Ways.
If you're uncertain if his is authentic, I can take some photos of that section, question and article of my physical copy of the Summa Theologiae.

[Anonymous No.17796698]

>>17796681
evil isn't real because good can come out of it
ok, retard

[Anonymous No.17796707]

>>17796678
your argument is flawed

[Anonymous No.17796712]

>>17796671
>But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false.

That's a big assumption big fella, care to back it up? We don't see things ever really beginning or ending, we just see them change, what's your basis to say they can't be infinite, your intuition?

Also you don't need to have an infinite regresion, you can have a loop of effficient causes and you don't need a first and a last. So all that rambling is essentially based on nothing.

[Anonymous No.17796714]

>>17796698

[Anonymous No.17796716]

>>17796707
Yeah, no shit.
So it Aquinas'

[Anonymous No.17796722]

>>17796707
>your argument is flawed
that's the point, Einstein

[Anonymous No.17796742]

>>17796714
It's basically "solving" the problem of evil, by redefining evil, as not-evil
how is that not being a complete hack?

[Anonymous No.17796747]

>>17796678
This is Anselm, not Aquinas. We are not discussing the ontological argument in this thread you big goofy dumb dumb. Even if we were, the very condition of adding the quality of "vampire," to your argument means it isn't analogous to what Anselm was claiming. Come on people its been centuries, and nobody has yet to offer as good an objection to Anselm as his own peer, Gaunilo.

[Anonymous No.17796769]

>>17792356
Also, even if that was to prove a first cause, wich it doesn't, it wouldn't make it a "god" in anything but definition. It could be a completely impersonal force that blasts things into existence or motion without any will or intelligence. It could be as impersonal as the electromagnetic force, you could call it God or George or Toast, but it wouldn't resemble any of the actual gods that people believe in.

But he didn't even got to prove that a prime mover even exist, so...

[Anonymous No.17796770]

>>17796742
Solving a problem by not not acknowledging it, is extremely based.

[Anonymous No.17796773]

>>17796742
I recommend that you read Augustine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuDYTwp9sL0

[Anonymous No.17796777]

>>17792382

[Anonymous No.17796786]

>>17796722
the point is that your argument is flawed? great

[Anonymous No.17796799]

>>17796747
>the very condition of adding the quality of "vampire," to your argument means it isn't analogous

but why is it wrong?
It is wrong because it conflates real properties with conceptual properties. The only thing that i got to prove is that, if the scariest vampire actually exists, it would conform to the definition of Zhork. And what the ontological argument proves is that, if a god actually exist, it would conform to that definition, not that god actually exists.

[Anonymous No.17796904]

>God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived.
That's a definition, a concept, God's properties are conceptual unless it acually exists.
>God exists in the understanding.
Vague, but the things that exist in the understanding are concepts.
>If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality.
We could, but the property of "existing in reality" would be conceptual unless it actually exists. We would be entertaing the idea of god existing in reality. In fact, if by definition, it would be "greater" by existing in reality, we SHOULD imagine it existing in reality, to conform to the first definition. But again, it would be a conceptual property. I can imagine superman to exist in reality, but it is just a conceptual property unless superman exists.
>Therefore, God must exist.
Yes, the CONCEPT of god must include the CONCEPTUAL property of existing in the real world if it is the "greatest", and that's all you've proven. If you accept the vague concept of "greatest" in this way. You have not proven however that a god actually exists. Or that YOUR god does.

[Anonymous No.17796908]

>>17796904
Wow I didn't know the only argument Aquinas had was the ontological argument.

[Anonymous No.17796918]

>>17796357
Your point is self refuting

[Anonymous No.17796928]

>>17796244
All of those things are logical

[Anonymous No.17796939]

Aquinas' 4 ways (+ the 1 that is so crappy it shouldn't be brought up)

[Anonymous No.17796957]

>>17796928
why? because you say so?

I don't believe an argument is logical if needs to invent a being existing outside of that same logic to reach it's conclusion.

[Anonymous No.17797139]

>>17796957
>if needs to invent a being existing outside of that same logic

[Anonymous No.17797150]

>>17797139
How is that a strawman?
It's the fucking basic premise

[Anonymous No.17797167]

>>17797150
Because Aquinas does not invent a being outside of logic

[Anonymous No.17797193]

>>17797167
what part of being causeless, is within the scope of logic laid out in the first steps of the argument?

[Anonymous No.17797217]

>>17797193
> is within the scope of logic laid out in the first steps of the argument?
Which argument? Argument from Motion? Aquinas never says that everything has a cause.

[Anonymous No.17797226]

>>17796918
False

[Anonymous No.17797233]

>>17797217
just fucking explicitly type out what you are defending if you are gonna be all kinds of slippery

[Anonymous No.17797240]

>>17792356
>Greatest mind of the time period
>Just recycling philosophy from hundreds of years ago

I guess that's why they call it the dark ages

[Anonymous No.17797261]

>>17796078
Arguments shouldn't include dogma, desu

[Anonymous No.17797285]

>>17797240
>I guess that's why they call it the dark ages
no one has called them that for more than one century

[Anonymous No.17797287]

>>17796712
Because Aquinas is discussing causality ordered essentially. There cannot be infinite explanations for something when the power of change is dependent on something outside of itself. Just like a logical argument cannot have infinite premises else the conclusion will stand on nothing at all. A loop of efficient causes still has to receive the power of change from something outside itself. Gears ordered in a circle and turning might keep going but it still has to have received the power to turn. That explanation cannot be found in the loop itself or else it's a circular argument.

One quick example I could give is the impossibility of an infinite chain of Christmas lights. The lights must have a power source or else no lights will be lit up.

[Anonymous No.17797306]

lmao, this reminds me of set theory
>The assumption that any property may be used to form a set, without restriction, leads to paradoxes.
>One common example is Russell's paradox: there is no set consisting of "all sets that do not contain themselves".
>Thus consistent systems of naive set theory must include some limitations on the principles which can be used to form sets.

[Anonymous No.17797307]

>>17797233
You started the conversation. You point out the premise where Aquinas seemingly invents a being outside of logic.

>I still don't get how an argument invoking a being not bound by logic
If I am correct that this is you, this is your first argument. But it's not true at all.

>>17797261
There are certain premises supported by other arguments not included. Point out which premise you have a problem with.

[Anonymous No.17797316]

>>17797307
we'll exuuuuse me for attacking the Kalam argument, whose formalization I'm actually familiar with

[Anonymous No.17797324]

>>17797316
Aquinas never supports the Kalam cosmological argument. In fact he would be against it. This is why I said you are attacking a strawman.

[Anonymous No.17797362]

>>17797316
go back to >>>r/eddit

[Anonymous No.17797408]

>>17792356
Why do you faggots go so far to defend the existence of sky daddy? Why is it so hard for you to live only with yourself and those who surround you?

[Anonymous No.17797417]

>>17797362
Which of Aquinas' ways are this?

[Anonymous No.17797421]

>scholastic theology

[Anonymous No.17797424]

>>17797408
>>17797421
not an argument

[Anonymous No.17797427]

>>17797408
you don't get it bro, this is only tangentially related to sky-daddy
it's why it's hard to refute, because it doesn't actually say anything. beyond acknowledging that things exist

[Anonymous No.17797439]

>>17797408
>>17797427
So this is the power of new atheism.

[Anonymous No.17797448]

>>17797424
>god did it
>hey where's YOUR argument

[Anonymous No.17797463]

>>17797439
No but seriously, 'what' does Aquinas actually prove? (if you agree with his assumptions)

[Anonymous No.17797469]

>>17797448
not an argument
>>17797463
read him you lazy piece of shit

[Anonymous No.17797486]

>>17797469
lmao, it's a simple question

[Anonymous No.17797497]

>>17797463
That there is a necessary being

[Anonymous No.17797506]

>>17797469
>ontological argument
No thanks.

[Anonymous No.17797509]

>>17797469
>please provide evidence that the non-evident creator of the universe is non-evident
You are a pretty good inductive proof for unintelligent design yourself

[Anonymous No.17797524]

>>17797497
Yeah, that's what I was getting at.
If you don't give this "necessary being" any attributes beyond being able to move(/& exist) without first being pushed, you are not really saying anything, why even call it a "being"?

[Anonymous No.17797541]

>>17797524
It's a marriage of grammar and theology. God is effectively the only being in such systems, literally what "is." Anything caused is not being, it subsists in dependence on what is.

[Anonymous No.17797555]

>>17797541
>God
How does theology enter into such a pure argument?

[Anonymous No.17797565]

>>17797555
Because Aquinas has to prove the revelationary God or he goes directly to Jesus jail and does not collect 200 tithes

[Anonymous No.17797771]

>>17797509
not an argument

[Anonymous No.17797807]

>>17796799
>And what the ontological argument proves is that, if a god actually exist, it would conform to that definition, not that god actually exists.
I had to read your statement a few times and I think that you are mixing up arguments. The ontological argument does not prove God exists because it presupposes existential import. By virtue of the fact that you are, within the confines of your example, including the qualifier "if." means that your attempted analogy is not applicable, because Anselm's entire point was predicated on definitional necessity. If you use the word "if," you aren't making an ontological argument. Finally, don't think I am defending Anselm, I have my issues with it which I outlined above. Your criticism is just incoherent.

[Anonymous No.17797956]

>the universe can be rationally understood
There! It's literally that easy

[Anonymous No.17798156]

>>17792374
why? he got btfo by the crusades

[Anonymous No.17798194]

>>17798156
He was the prevailing reason why the Second Crusade even happened. It wasn't his fault that it was a failure imo.

[Anonymous No.17798201]

>>17792356
>>still makes atheists seethe with a simple logical argument

What argument

[Anonymous No.17798231]

>>17798201
read

[Anonymous No.17798285]

>>17798231
present the argument

[Anonymous No.17798299]

>>17798285
Argument from Motion/Change

[Anonymous No.17798303]

>>17798299
>Argument from Motion/Change
what's so hard about accepting that the big bang is exempt from it as it is the start of change, per definition?

[Anonymous No.17798312]

>>17798299
why doesn't point 1 to 8 hold true for the being mentioned in point 9?

[Anonymous No.17798331]

>uh.... you can't have an infinite chain with no start
Yes you can. There, I refuted it. Since neither of us can support our position with actual evidence, the debate on god (who is somehow related to this) is a tie

[Anonymous No.17798345]

>>17792565
>Buh guys we have faith !11

[Anonymous No.17798360]

>>17798303
We are talking about metaphysical principles here. What gave the big bang the power to change? Plus, the big bang involves matter and is limited by passive potencies (not the pure actuality that Aquinas argues for) ,

To add onto this:
>Argument from Composition
The big bang involves matter. Matter is composite. A composite thing is made up of parts. But for the whole to exist there must be a cause for why it is composite (i.e there must be a cause which makes certain materials, the parts, turn into a hammer, the composite). Therefore, the big bang is not the most fundamental and what we call God. The most fundamental principle must come from something immaterial and simple, not composed of parts.

[Anonymous No.17798373]

>>17798303
>big bang is the start because it is
lol

[Anonymous No.17798396]

>>17792356
sasying something doesnt make it true. aplisd both to you and him

[Anonymous No.17798403]

>>17798312
None of those premises say everything is limited by potentialities. It's saying that change is real and that there is a necessary and fundamental explanation for this hierarchical series of potentials becoming actual or else it is impossible for change to exist in the first place.

[Anonymous No.17798542]

>>17798299
define actual

[Anonymous No.17798578]

>>17798542
Actuality is what something is. Potentiality is what it can be.

i.e Say a book is closed in actuality. It has the potential to be opened. It can only be opened by something that is in actuality. A hand for instance.

[Anonymous No.17798584]

>>17798403
Maybe one of the premises are wrong

[Anonymous No.17798615]

>>17798584
Ok then please point to a premise you disagree with.

[Anonymous No.17798625]

>>17798578
okay, so viewing time as an arrow

[Anonymous No.17798632]

>>17798625
None of the act potency distinction or argument from motion has to do with time. It has to do with the idea of change.

[Anonymous No.17798671]

>>17798632
How can change exist without time?

[Anonymous No.17798712]

>>17798671
How can the concept of causality be valid without time?

[Anonymous No.17798804]

>>17798615
Number 1, that change is real, as such. change is a concept.
Things are real, things can turn into other things. But the "change" they went through is descriptory, not a real thing.

[Anonymous No.17798956]

>>17798299
What's with this garbage word choices, what does it mean with "a being that is already actual" ?

[Anonymous No.17798978]

>>17798671
basically I was trying to say that when Aquinas talks about the impossibility of an infinite regress of change he isn't talking about a temporal infinite regress (i.e like a horizontal number line). But a vertical ordered composition of changes from potential to actual where God is the sustaining cause. This is the metaphysical aspect of change and has to do with dependencies and explanations of change in it's most fundamental form, not time. You might be thinking in temporal terms when talking about causation and change. It's not so much what caused the bat to hit the ball what matters is why the natural laws which make the ball move matter. What gives the bat the causal powers? If a natural law explains the reason for the bat's movement what is the explanation of the natural law and so on.

So it's not God > Big Bang > arm > bat > ball > move >

but God > causal powers > laws of nature > big bang > bat (what gives the bat hitting the ball the power to change)

>>17798804
>things can turn into other things
What is the explanation for this though? At the most fundamental level why do things have the power to turn into other things?

>>17798956
Something that already is the way it is. The blue ball cannot turn into a red ball unless it is acted upon by something that is actual (i.e red paint is actual). It's the Aristotelian act potency distinction.

[Anonymous No.17799005]

An actualizer set in motion all things that didn't set themselves in motion, does it set itself in motion?

[Anonymous No.17799016]

>>17798978
>What is the explanation for this though? At the most fundamental level why do things have the power to turn into other things?
It's a property of time, not a property of things.

[Anonymous No.17799060]

ITT atheists seething.

[Anonymous No.17799066]

>>17798978
>Something that already is the way it is
Why does it escape the previous infinite hierarchical series/infinite regression?

[Anonymous No.17799121]

>>17798615
>>17798299
This argument seems to conflate creation with the actualization of potential, right?

Something that does not exist, does not have the potential to be actualized, it does not exist, it has no properties
coming into being from nothingness, is not change, there was no earlier state, (no potential to be actualized)

[Anonymous No.17799339]

>>17799066
not him so I might be wrong, but the idea is that an uncaused cause is the only alternative to an infinite regression (or a recursive existence)
think of the Münchhausen Trilemma

[Anonymous No.17799410]

>>17799339
No, I get that.
but why write all those rules, just to break them when it hits into a paradox? Clearly the rules does not universally apply to everything.

>the actualization of potential can only be due to some other actuality (principle of causality)
Except when it can't? There you go, should've ended the reasoning right there.
Invoking 'causality' presupposes time, btw

[Anonymous No.17799500]

>>17799410
>but why write all those rules, just to break them when it hits into a paradox?
You're being very vague here by not pointing out where this happens. At no point in this argument does it break any rules. God by definition in the Thomistic sense is pure actuality (he has no potentiality). Aquinas never says that everything in existence is in change. He is merely saying that change is real and that since change exists, under an essentially ordered series, there cannot be infinite regress. The stick depends on the hand, the hand depends on the arm, brain etc. If there is no first explanation this vertically ordered series falls apart. Your thought process is eerily similar to a new atheist, where one thinks that Aquinas is somehow making a pseudo-cosmological argument (everything that exists has a cause). An argument which Aquinas does not make.

>invoking causality presupposes time
Not what Aquinas is talking about when it comes to change >>17798978

[Anonymous No.17799529]

>>17799121
So you deny change outright?

[Anonymous No.17799595]

>>17799529
What makes you think that?

[Anonymous No.17799690]

>unmoved movers does not exist in nature
What would you then call a random process such a radioactive decay?

[Anonymous No.17799704]

>>17792356
In the Summa, he contradicts himself and is inconsistent on the lives and use of animals in relation to man. I don't think the greatest mind of the middle ages could make such an obvious error of inconsistency.

[Anonymous No.17799727]

>>17799704
quote the contradictions

[Anonymous No.17799827]

>>17799500
>Unfalsiable word games
>C-check mate atheists!!
Kek

[Anonymous No.17799837]

>>17798978
Can you give me an example of change, that is not caused by time?

[Anonymous No.17799861]

>>17799827
>Unfalsiable
It's based on the proposition that infinite regress is logically impossible (prove it), it's isn't, just unintuitive

[Anonymous No.17799881]

Serious question, what’s the point in caring about the divine if it never interacts with its creation? Seems like you guys are fighting over what amounts to an interesting fact.

[Anonymous No.17799917]

>>17799827
>Unfalsiable
you are 40 years behind

[Anonymous No.17800105]

>>17799727
Not going to go through the entire Summa to pick out the quotes, do that yourself if you care that much to prove he is the greatest mind, but he subscribes to a continuum of intelligence between living things, distinguishing animals from inferior things, deems that they can have thoughts & be capable of a life of their own (consciousness) but then commits himself to arguing that their divine use, in relation to man, is as instruments no different than plants. He distinguishes their value different to plants or other unconscious life but then prescribes no meaning to their 'value'; a cow can be treated exactly the same as a blade of grass in Aquinas view so long as it is an instrument to man.

But then later he does say that we should seek to guide intelligent animals to their own ends: if their own ends are our own ends, why does he make this distinction? You wouldn't say we must guide and axe to its own end, instead, it should be used as an instrument to our own end.

Either he contradicts himself or is at the very least completely superfluous in his distinction between the value of a plant and intelligent animal and the ends of an intelligent animals and the ends of man.

[Anonymous No.17800184]

>>17793953
The big bang is our best current guess, there is no absolute empirical or mathematical proof of it having happened. We still don't even fully understand turbulence, science is nowhere close to where you think it is.

[Anonymous No.17800198]

>>17799881
that's what religion is, doofus

>>17799861
infinite regress is logically impossible because of causality and the way Time functions (it is not absolute, it requires material to function). you're asking us to prove something that is impossible to prove; and it's on you to disprove the Law of Entropy (good luck lol).

people positing infinite regress have more to prove than those positing universal causation

[Anonymous No.17800207]

>>17800184
>The big bang is our best current guess, there is no absolute empirical or mathematical proof of it having happened.

sure. but the broader context of the big bang is in the context of philosophy and fundamental laws of the universe; I'm uncertain if you can really expect science to radically disprove notions of existence so easily. possible? sure. likely to happen? well...

[Anonymous No.17800257]

>>17800198
So we are invoking time, space, material, causality and entropy now?

[Anonymous No.17800283]

>>17800198
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's impossible. Nobody has proven that infinite regress is impossible (nor can it be proven).

[Anonymous No.17800326]

>>17800257
why wouldn't we? these are all fundamental laws of the universe, no?

>>17800283
deduction is possible here; and all our knowledge of the laws of the universe point to universal causation far more than it does infinite regress. with the law of entropy in mind, one must picture reality as an infinite burning fuse, snake-like...but that's logically impossible! who set the fire?

[Anonymous No.17800374]

>>17800283
if infinite regress was possible we wouldn't be here you absolute fucking retard. you can't be this dumb

[Anonymous No.17800394]

>>17792373
>unfalsifiable

[Anonymous No.17800397]

>>17800326
Would those laws have exceptions?
Besides, why would you even be a Theist if you think we could infer how everything works by looking at smaller parts of it?

[Anonymous No.17800402]

>>17800374
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.17800420]

>>17793845
Way to demonstrate that you totally dont understand the argument. Aquinas's argument has nothing to do with time or "before the universe"
Aquinas didn't like cosmolgical arguments that posited a beginning of time either. He said it's entirely possible that the universe has existed into eternity past. His causal seuqence has nothing to do with a chronological order. In the view of Aquinas the universe is not some machine that is wound up and let operate on its own. He wants to explain what causes existence to persist in the here and now.

[Anonymous No.17800425]

>>17800374
Imagine an infinitely high number, no matter how many 1s you deduct from it, you'll never arrive at 0
Does this prove that the number 0 does not exist?

[Anonymous No.17800431]

>>17793914
>absolutely most complex thing,
You have no idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.17800438]

>>17800420
>t. Aquinas's argument has nothing to do with time or "before the universe"
>>17800198
>>17800257
But yet it got real unwieldy without those.

[Anonymous No.17800449]

>>17800397
>why would you even be a Theist if you think we could infer how everything works by looking at smaller parts of it?

philosophy is a systemic approach of understanding ultimate reality; theology is simply the claim that God Himself revealed a part of reality that Man could not grasp with philosophy alone

this is why St. Aquinas is very important; not only to philosophy as a whole, but particularly philosophy in the West.

[Anonymous No.17800453]

>>17792660
You are cringe for worshiping the peepee slicer god but based for being the only person in this thread to actually post a book

[Anonymous No.17800464]

>>17800402
start counting how many numbers there are between 1 and 2. reply me only when you have finished

[Anonymous No.17800465]

>>17800453
it's been about 2000 years since he was the peepee slicer god, anon

[Anonymous No.17800471]

>>17796777
Trips o truth

[Anonymous No.17800475]

>>17792612
They can prove Vishnu or Odin because these arent proposed to be subsistent existence. The theology between Islam and Christianity is also different. I'm not very familiar with Tawhid but its concept of God's relationship to the world differs from a Christian's.

[Anonymous No.17800486]

>>17800475
Meant to say CANNOT prove vishnu or odin

[Anonymous No.17800493]

>>17800425
>>17800464
>comparing numbers with time
fuck off

[Anonymous No.17800498]

>>17800449
>philosophy
Then why makes these arguments in his defense founded on empiric observations (as physicist would make)

[Anonymous No.17800508]

>>17800493
Infinite regression demonstrably false Y/N ?

[Anonymous No.17800515]

>>17800493
Without time there's no causality or entropy
what the issue?

[Anonymous No.17800516]

>>17800498
I already explained via the difference between philosophy and theology. God did not provide us with a book of philosophy, He provided a book of Revelation. Theology (at least of the Scholastic sort) is simply Revelation correlated with Philosophy

If I have to give you a more succinct answer: Philosophy is our way of understanding Truth. If God is Truth, then our way of understanding Truth must correlate with whatever He reveals. There have been cases where philosophy was completely rejected: see Islam and Aristotelian ism.

[Anonymous No.17800520]

>>17800465
God doesn't change

[Anonymous No.17800543]

>>17800508
yes

[Anonymous No.17800555]

>>17800198
>you're asking us to prove something that is impossible to prove
Then these arguments shouldn't build off unprovable statements
there is a reason people are being dismissive, and calling them "unfalsifiable word games"

[Anonymous No.17800572]

>>17800543
Then demonstrate it!
Please.

[Anonymous No.17800585]

>>17800555
As I've already explained, someone positing Infinite Regress has much more to prove than someone positing Universal Causation. I have yet to hear how Infinite Regress squares away with the problem of causation or entropy; at best, they provide alternate theories of how the universe "began" that isn't really infinite regress at all (the universe is flat and thus infinite but not really etc etc)

Infinite Regress proponents are usually people who dislike Western Philosophy/Theology anyway, I don't think I've met people who really believe in Infinite Regress aside from maybe Buddhists/Daoists, etc.

[Anonymous No.17800593]

>>17800425
>>17800425
>if you do this infinity thing you'll never arrive where you are trying to get
you literally proved his point. the number 0 is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.17800607]

>>17800515
>Without time there's no causality
WRONG

[Anonymous No.17800619]

>>17800585
>>17800420
>Aquinas's argument has nothing to do with time
>causation or entropy

[Anonymous No.17800627]

>>17800619
I'm not the first guy you quoted, I have nothing to do with whatever argument he's making.

[Anonymous No.17800632]

>>17800619
>>17800627
Well, second guy :D

/lit/ could really use poster IDs.

[Anonymous No.17800634]

>>17800607
Again; can I have an example of change without time? Of causality without time?
I'm being genuine, not pedantic, btw

[Anonymous No.17800636]

>>17800619
Causation is not contingent on time. I can easily push the question back a step and ask what causes time to exist

[Anonymous No.17800648]

>>17800636
>Causation is not contingent on time.
Congrats, this is the most brainlet statement I've seen on here today.

[Anonymous No.17800680]

>>17800572
if time had no beginning, then an infinity would have elapsed up until the present moment. This is a manifest contradiction because infinity cannot, by definition, be completed by "successive synthesis"—yet just such a finalizing synthesis would be required by the view that time is infinite; so the thesis is proven.

[Anonymous No.17800690]

>>17800648
This is why it's impossible to have a discussion with someone who only thinks in terms of empirical examples. Aquinas is talking about the metaphysical idea of change not the temporal idea of causation. He doesn't care about preceding events, he cares about the fundamental principle which causes things to change.

[Anonymous No.17800697]

>>17800634
Yes. The ground holds up the table. The table holds up a glass. The glass holds up a liquid. We have whats called a hierarchical causal series. Each causes the next simultaneously. One can only exist as it subsists on the prior. We need to have a more abstract view of what causality is. Causlaity is the actualization of a potential. Insofar as a thing requires activating, it is in potentiality. A thing in actuality has being. What causes time to be? Does it subsist in actuality? Obviously not, because as time progresses it changes. A thing that purely exists lacks nothing and therefore has no potentiality. Ergo, all things that do no exist perfectly and possess potency depend on a prior to actualize it. This process of change is heiraechical rather than temporal, and therefore independent of time

[Anonymous No.17800698]

>>17800520
Jesus fulfilled the old law and they stopped peepee slicing. Americans just do it anyways for some reason.

[Anonymous No.17800705]

>>17800648
Define causality

[Anonymous No.17800719]

>>17800680
>be completed
No one is saying infinity is completed as a totality, thus your entire argument is flawed.
There's quite literally no reason to think time could be eternal yet not have discreet points within it (like the present). The set of integers is infinite yet I can synthesize discreet points like 1 and -2 without altering the overall infinitude. You're going to need a better argument that doesn't just rely on "muh definition!"
Keep in mind that, in the context of the universe, there is no practical difference between indefiniteness and infinitude.

[Anonymous No.17800731]

>>17800698
You're avoiding the fact that Yhwh commanded people to cut up dicks at all, never mind your fan fiction trying to pretend it didn't or doesn't count

[Anonymous No.17800741]

>>17800690
Then why outright reject infinite regressions based on something empirical?
The metaphysical idea of infinites is perfectly fine, especially when not applied to actual infinities. But rather infinite cardinality (infinitely many causes) or infinite extensive magnitudes (like an infinite duration of time)

[Anonymous No.17800742]

>>17798299
So.... how does this prove God is real?

[Anonymous No.17800753]

>>17800690
I can tell you haven't read Kant. Even the metaphysical idea of change presupposes temporality. Kant discusses this in the Aesthetic and Analytic.
>>17800705
The idea, or practical occurrence, of a cause as determined by an effect. Even the thought of a distinction between cause and effect presupposes temporality in the mere thought. There is no thinking about cause-and-effect without time already being presupposed to allow for the thought of two distinct occurrences which are causally linked to one another. If there were no temporal succession of events, cause-and-effect loses any meaning because there is only permanency without any causal linkage (ie, everything already IS, there is no this-causes-that in a hierarchical relationship).

[Anonymous No.17800765]

>>17800741
>Then why outright reject infinite regressions based on something empirical?
Aquinas never does this. He even thought infinite regress was more likely in purely philosophical terms but only accepted creation as having a beginning on faith.

[Anonymous No.17800768]

>>17800742
An unactualized actualizer is what we call God. Not dependent on anything else, a necessary being, simple with no parts, God is subsistent existence itself, "I am who am" (Exodus 3:14)

[Anonymous No.17800783]

>>17800753
>The idea, or practical occurrence, of a cause as determined by an effect.
You just restated the term. Lets be more pedantic and just define "cause"
>Even the thought of a distinction between cause and effect presupposes temporality in the mere thought.
Wrong. I'll ask again since you dodged my question last time. What causes time to exist?

[Anonymous No.17800794]

>>17800768
So... unfalsiable bullshit then?

[Anonymous No.17800802]

>>17800719
>"muh definiton"
>keeps comparing time with numbers
fuck off again, troll

[Anonymous No.17800803]

>>17800697
A wildly different take on the word 'causality'.
No changes occurred.
I think you should call this "Aristotle's-causality" or something, it's not the meaning that is being invoked when people are discussing the timeline of the universe.

[Anonymous No.17800812]

>>17800783
>You just restated the term. Lets be more pedantic and just define "cause"
Cause has no meaning without reference to an effect. A cause is an event which is presupposed by a dependent event. Or in other words, a cause is an event which creates another event.
>Wrong.
Correct.
>what causes time to exist
Why would we presume time requires a cause? If an answer is required, I can just state that our own mind "causes" time to exist, because time is a prerequisite of empirical consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17800852]

>>17800768
>unactualized actualizer
Why doesn't this term, vague to the point of meaninglessness, describe everything that exists? If one thing can be "already be actual", everything could be

[Anonymous No.17800854]

>>17792612
>>17792653

The proofs of the existence of God don't have to do with the nature of God. God may be proven to exist yet remain indifferent, benevolent, or hostile to humanity.

Faith is the missing link in the logical analysis of God. Obviously. Reason, itself, dissolves if it is left in a vacuum. Why would reason's work to decipher the nature of God be any different?

Reason can only asymptotically approach truth. It can approach bit by bit, but never cross the line. Hence faith. This isn't true only of theology, but of every human pursuit.

Induction is shaky. Deduction has no ground to stand on. Faith or nihilism are the only choices. Nihilism takes a hit in that there is something to be nihilistic about. Faith versus absurdity is the real dilemma.

[Anonymous No.17800867]

>>17800803
The entire point of this thread is to discuss the 5 Ways. This is how Thomism views causality and it is on this basis that the Unmoved Mover is established. Can you provide a reason as to why I shouldn't think of change as an actualization of a potential? If you could do so, you could undermine Aquinas. Good luck
>>17800812
Okay let me be even more pedantic. What is the relationship between cause and effect that generates change?
I think you're statement is actually very interesting because its reminiscent of Hume. Hume wanted to know what the power or force is that connects two events and makes one a cause and the other effect. As far as he could empirically observe, there is none. We only observe events and never a causal force. And we cannot know causality a priori. According to this line of thinking, causality cannot be known at all, and may not even exist.

To come back from the tangent I have to ask what metaphysical forces are at work which make causality occur? I'm not asking you to restate or elaborate on the term. I'm asking for a an explanation for the forces at work.
>>Wrong.
>Correct.
I already gave an example of a heirarchical causal sequence which operates simultaneously and therefore not as a temporal agent. Would you care to respond to it?

[Anonymous No.17800879]

>>17800768
why would it have an ego?

[Anonymous No.17800893]

>>17800731
but why should I care about that? I don't have to pee pee slice anymore now

[Anonymous No.17800919]

>>17800893
not immutable?
not eternal ?

[Anonymous No.17800921]

>>17800812
>Why would we presume time requires a cause?
Because time is always advancing and therefore changing. That which changes is incomplete in its being and therefore is contingent.

[Blarty Hongo !H0lVGXJNm6 No.17800948]

>>17792356
Why would you seethe over a persuasive argument? Wouldn't you either just be persuaded, or ignore it?

[Anonymous No.17800969]

>>17800867
>What is the relationship between cause and effect that generates change?
There is no change resulting from the pure concept of cause-and-effect as I explain below. Change is a result of time, cause-and-effect is a result of, or dependent upon, time.
>I already gave an example of a heirarchical causal sequence which operates simultaneously and therefore not as a temporal agent. Would you care to respond to it?
All you did was hide the role that time played by not explicitly referring to it, or explicitly claiming (without justification) that time was not involved. These are the word games that are so common in philosophy. If you consider the concepts in your mind a priori, in Kant's terms, removed from any connection with space or time, you cannot synthetically arrive at the concept of a cause and an effect, because they are both dependent upon the intuitive dimension of time in order to be "discoverable" in the first place. When you gave that hierarchical example, what you gave was an example of your mind abstractly considering the ideas of cause-and-effect, independent of the intuitive quality of time which gave them meaning in the first place, thereby only demonstrating logical qualities of the pure concepts which are implicitly, although not explicitly in this case, derived from the quality of time (which thereby enables one to erroneously claim that these concepts are independent of time). It's essentially using time to create the concept, then discarding it and only considering the concept, and pretending as if you could've arrived at this concept independently of time.

[Anonymous No.17800975]

>>17800948
it hardly has a conclusion beyond acknowledging change

[Anonymous No.17801003]

>>17800921
>Because time is always advancing and therefore changing.
Is it? Or is it only your perception of time? I can't claim, for example, that space is always changing because it is occupied by different objects at different times. Space remains the same, there are just different limitations of the same thing.

[Anonymous No.17801044]

>>17801003
>perception
time very well advances at the same local speed anywhere, no matter if someone is there to perceive it or not

[Anonymous No.17801293]

>>17792612
Man you need to read something before posting here

[Anonymous No.17801307]

>>17792356
God is real and I don’t care. Soon we’ll be living in pure 24/7 hedonistic pleasure while put on drugs to make us immortal. So am I gonna go to Hell for being a sinner if I never even die?

[Anonymous No.17801321]

>>17792612
>1 day 2 hours years later
>still makes theist seethe with a simple shitpost
he is the greatest mind of /lit/

[Anonymous No.17801339]

[Anonymous No.17801346]

>>17801307

[Anonymous No.17801378]

>>17801346
Proof?

[Anonymous No.17801405]

>>17801378
Check the pudding

[Anonymous No.17801414]

>>17801307
What do you think the last judgement is anon

[Anonymous No.17801429]

>>17801346
Why will we want to die? You’re projecting Christcuck “suffering is good!” onto me

[Anonymous No.17801434]

brb,time to open my soijack folder

[Anonymous No.17801438]

>>17801414
Yeah your ilk have been saying that will happen for 2000 years.

[Anonymous No.17801466]

>>17801429
What? No the point is that people will suffer so much they'll try to die but God will laugh at them and make them keep living

[Anonymous No.17801483]

O MY SPECIAL PLEADING

[Anonymous No.17801572]

>>17801438
I was operating under the assumption of a Christian worldview when you said "God is real"

[Anonymous No.17801715]

>>17801044
Time does not advance at all in singularities. It is a singular "point" in time, simultaneously all of time and no time at all. Do not confuse the present and perception of the passage of time for time in itself.

[Anonymous No.17801797]

>>17800438
It literally doesn't. You are arguing about something you don't understand. When Aquinas talks about logical regress he means something like "I hold a stick and use it to push a rock. The stick caused the rock to move, and I caused the stick to move, so the causal chain ends with me." You can't have infinite regress of cause when it's actions occurring simultaneously to move each other, because it's analogous to the old woman saying it's elephants all the way down.

There is NO overlap between the first argument and infinite regression of causal chains into the past, that's not what it's about and is a separate argument from that.

This is because the five arguments are NOT APOLOGISM. They are NOT MEANT FOR PROVING GOD EXISTS. They are for conceptually explaining God to THEOLOGY students, which is why they're in the fucking Summa THEOLOGICA and not the completely separate Summa CONTRA GENTILES which is specifically FOR APOLOGISM.

[Anonymous No.17801856]

>>17801715
lmao, bold claim
then how do they change, evaporate
or simply move in relation to each other?

[Anonymous No.17801859]

>>17801797
>You can't have infinite regress of cause of actions simultaneously
Correct, in fact you can't have a cause or an effect at all under such a situation.

[Anonymous No.17801867]

>>17801797
>You can't have infinite regress of cause when it's actions occurring simultaneously to move each other, because it's analogous to the old woman saying it's elephants all the way down.
OK. Prove it

[Anonymous No.17801999]

>>17801856
It's not. I'm not claiming time isn't real and does not have obvious consequences, just that you cannot treat of it objectively through the lens of the subject, which is derived from that same principle. Basically, that you cannot define time through its effects, just as Christians refuse to define God as the sum of his effects (although in their case, because some of those effects are "evil"). In the case of time, change being a necessarily dependent product of it, it cannot be defined as itself changing. Time is a consistent (ie non-changing) source of change.

[Anonymous No.17803555]

>>17792766
Even if "first mover" exists it doesn't have to have divine nature