[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 26 KB, 241x308, thomas-2-sized.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17995972 No.17995972 [Reply] [Original]

Has anyone been able to refute Aquinas' (pbuh) argument for the Christian God

>> No.17995990
File: 5 KB, 225x225, 1588088582101.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17995990

Yes

>> No.17996006

>>17995990
Refuted by Feser

>> No.17996012

>>17995972

That's a trick question, he only argued for God being the final and necessary cause of all things, but Aquinas didn't write any logic-based arguments purporting to prove that it was specifically the Christian God that was true and not the God of other religions, just like how Aquinas didn't try to prove the trinity as being necessarily true through logic either.

>> No.17996028
File: 762 KB, 484x512, 2tl_5lFRYK97NgPlDcxlTCjbQxilWc2gXlqUwY19wGT2At3RyWwBZsOKQysxSdsdo9AhtKQFjtBoEdeVJiwZoiKZ5wEx3XFPNeZ5WFav1zfpPUOFnKpcpChZYg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17996028

>>17995972
Maybe, but nobody did refute Pascal

>> No.17996031
File: 1000 KB, 2368x1456, 78458735737.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17996031

>>17995972
Aquinas only ever gave good arguments for a generic theism, and that had always been proactively refuted by the Greek polytheist monists(PBUT).

>> No.17996034
File: 261 KB, 1685x1930, main-qimg-35f24edfc5bf9aa73aa9beba08d3bce1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17996034

>>17996028
>nobody did refute Pascal
refuted by pic related

>> No.17996058

>>17996034
Fuck it, I'm adopting African folk religion. I don't want to be a lost soul

>> No.17996059

>>17996006
>Refuted by an American literal who
I don't think so

>> No.17996066

>>17995972
Buddha maybe.

>> No.17996069

>>17995972
Refuted by Guenon (swt)

>> No.17996070

>>17995990
>>17996059
Are you capable of explaining how in your opinion Spinoza refutes the arguments of Aquinas? Then we can get to the important part of the discussion and figure out which one trumps the other.

>> No.17996682

>>17995990
Refuted by Jacobi

>> No.17996709

The Münchhausen trilemma basically annihilates any argument for the existence a god.

>> No.17996737

>>17995972
>i don't know how something happened therefore this guy i just made up did it

>> No.17996759

>>17996737
You need to be 18 to post on this website
Having read a book before also helps, retard

>> No.17997029

>>17995972
God isn’t about arguments. God is about pressuring people to get hysterical over a silly condition and making them feel guilty that they fell for the trick. The trick is convincing people that something called “evil” exists and that they should become hysterical when contacting evil for free. In other words, God is a rude & unwelcome demand for free labor. Evil does not exist; it is make-believe.

>> No.17997040

>>17995972
God is not supported by arguments. God is supported by hostile demands for free labor. The operating principle is threatening the security of those who do not donate free labor (in the form of believing that sin, evil, and God exist). God is a criminal organization that threatens the security of ordinary folks.

>> No.17997066

>>17997029
>>17997040
samefag

>> No.17997079

>>17997040
>threatens the security of ordinary folks by teaching you to love your neighbor and exercise forgiveness
This is bad... how?

>> No.17997111

>>17996031
This

>> No.17997211

>>17996034
>adds Wicca but forgets to add european polytheists
I suppose the result would be the same anyway

>> No.17997234
File: 1.03 MB, 810x813, 1618082987492.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17997234

>>17995972
post them and I will refute