[ 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: 518 KB, 491x1976, 1612668601566.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19072325 No.19072325 [Reply] [Original]

Atheists of /lit/, try to refute pic related: the Aristotelian proof of the existence of God from Edward Feser's book: 5 Proofs of the existence of God.

>> No.19072333

>>19072325
>already actual
Imagine conceiving of reality as a bunch of static objects hitting each other. You're an atomist who wants god to rescue you from your nihilism. You have no belief, only cope.

>> No.19072341

>>19072325
What was before the first cause?

>> No.19072347

>>19072333
>Imagine conceiving of reality as a bunch of static objects hitting each other
Where did you get this from the proof in the OP? The relationship between potential and actual covers more than static objects.

>> No.19072348

>>19072341
shuy up shut up you have to assume God exists forever in order to start proooving

>> No.19072349

>>19072341
Nothing, otherwise the first cause wouldn't be first. The first cause always existed, there was no period of time before it existed.

>> No.19072351

>>19072347
What is already actual? Is it something that has completely stopped being potential in any way, i.e. total cessation of movement, trajectory, etc. How does it start moving again in order to change possibles into actuals if it is already a done fact?

>> No.19072359

>>19072349
If God came from nothing then so does universe. I can go outside look at the sky and see universe in front my eyes but I don't see God. We have no reason to believe in a God.

>> No.19072367

>>19072351
God has never had any potentials, He was always purely actual. God does not move, because movement implies change, and change is the actualization of potentials. God actualized potentials without having potentials Himself.

>> No.19072378

>>19072359
>If God came from nothing then so does universe
God did not come from anywhere, He always was, and always will be. Coming from somewhere implied the actualization of the potential for existence, while God does not have any potentials, so He cannot come from anywhere, He always was.
> I can go outside look at the sky and see universe in front my eyes but I don't see God.
There are many things which are true but aren't apparent to our vision at first-hand. A particular tree used to be a seed long ago, but we cannot see the particular seed it came from, only the tree.

>> No.19072379
File: 11 KB, 400x315, 1616200804129.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19072379

>>19072325
DEFINE ATHEISM

>> No.19072386

>>19072379
Atheism is the assertion that no God or gods exist.

>> No.19072391

>>19072386
No atheists believe this, though.

>> No.19072395

>>19072325
That proof doesn't apply to our existence because we haven't reached the heat death of the universe yet.

>> No.19072399

>g-god always was... okay?
>christcucksoijack.jpg

>> No.19072408

>>19072378
>He always was, and always will be.
Why? What was before him? Who created God? Universe was and always will be.
> A particular tree used to be a seed long ago, but we cannot see the particular seed it came from, only the tree.
I can see the tree and I can see the plant. This is a shit analogy.

>> No.19072409

>>19072325
Feser-chads.... I kneel

>> No.19072413

retarded grow a brain

>> No.19072417

>>19072359
Something does not come from nothing. God is, "Being" does not come from "non-Being." non-Being comes from Being.

>> No.19072425

>>19072367
You already lept to God and skipped all the other premises. I didn't allow the argument in OP to go that far before questioning it. I guess the "proof" was all just an exercise in self-assurance; doesn't matter if it convinces others.

>> No.19072426

>>19072417
>Something does not come from nothing.
Why? How can you claim this? What was before Being?

>> No.19072431

>>19072417
>non-Being comes from Being.
An antinomy with shit piled on it

>> No.19072438

>>19072408
>Why? What was before him? Who created God
God is purely actual, He has always existed because He is the first cause of the universe, nothing came before Him. Even speaking of before God is incorrect, because God is not subject to time, time is the measure of change, and God, lacking potentials, does not change, He always is.
>I can see the tree and I can see the plant
Yet you still can't see the seed, even thought you know it must have came from a seed. Likewise, we know that the universe must have come from a first cause, which is God.

>> No.19072442

>>19072395
What does the heat death of the universe have to do with this proof?
>>19072425
Can you point to a particula

>> No.19072445

>>19072425
Can you point to a line in the proof which you disagree with?

>> No.19072447

>>19072438
Something actual is static and complete. Otherwise how could it be actual? It's done, it's no longer potential. If God is actual, he cannot produce anything at all. He's already happened and you see the after-image. He may well be dead (and we killed him, perhaps).

>> No.19072454

>>19072438
>God is purely actual, He has always existed because He is the first cause of the universe
Why? Who caused the first cause? Why God is first not the universe or some other thing? How you can you have the knowledge what happens outside of time and space when with your human senses you can only know what happens in time and space?
>Yet you still can't see the seed
Yes I can see the seed by asking the man who planted it to tell me it's exact location. Stop denying the obvious with your nonsense.

>> No.19072458

>>19072442
>>19072445
Dumb christers
>>19072351
I asked you what actual was and you said GOD. So you're telling me God is proof of God. Just admit scholastic theology is a hobby of monastics who need to affirm dogma in order to get free room and board, and not at all a demonstrable proof of anything, and you'll be a much better believer for it. God told you not to lie, right?

>> No.19072459

listen to me very closely. there is no god. buddhism is correct. you will get what you want but you will see how its shitty later. focus 27

>> No.19072476

>>19072454
>Who caused the first cause?
The first cause is by definition uncaused, nothing could have caused it.
>Why God is first not the universe or some other thing?
Even if you were to take the universe as the first cause(which it isn't since we know it had a beginning), you will soon find that it has other properties such as pure actuality and omniscience which makes it resemble a God, and at that you point you might as well believe in God.
>How you can you have the knowledge what happens outside of time and space when with your human senses you can only know what happens in time and space?
All the assumptions of the proof are derived from how change works in the universe, the proof then extrapolates the qualities of change to find out how our universe itself was created.
>>19072447
God is immaterial, he cannot be seen, or be static, as that would imply materiality, and hence the influence of change, when God is immaterial and cannot change. God does not need to be material in order to cause change. God never had an potentialities, because He is purely actual.

>> No.19072481

>>19072476
>you will soon find that it has other properties
*You will soon find that the first cause has other properties

>> No.19072488

>>19072476
>He is purely actual
We still haven't gone past "already actual" and you've brought in "purely actual" as if what comes later in your "proof" clarifies what is prior.

>> No.19072489

>>19072426
>What was before Being?
Being is. There is nothing "before" it. Being is not in time.
>>19072431
You cannot refute it. Nor can you show how something comes from nothing.

>> No.19072492

How do we test these proofs?

>> No.19072495

>>19072325
Let's say I agree. What now?

>> No.19072499

>>19072492
Also, which god?

>> No.19072507

>>19072499
From the context, probably Ahura Mazda.

>> No.19072508

>>19072367
Why can't this just be applied to the universe itself? Why is God necessary?

>> No.19072512

>>19072508
Because we know that the universe had a beginning, and if you were to apply the properties of the first cause to the universe, you will soon find that it resembles our notion of God. The first cause will always end up being God.

>> No.19072514

>>19072325
Time is a donut or ring.

>> No.19072515

>>19072367
God at 0 Kelvin.

>> No.19072516

>>19072492
We know this proof to be true, because the assumptions it is based on are true for other things in our universe, these assumptions are based on change in our universe.

>> No.19072518

dont be goofy u guys. monotheism is the result of polytheism. yahweh is the god worshipped by jews and later propogated by the catholic church. no different than zeus odin mesopotamian gods etc etc . the real
god is an alligator named stanley. created the world and all
of us be thankful.

>> No.19072519

>>19072512
>and if you were to apply the properties of the first cause to the universe, you will soon find that it resembles our notion of God.
No you don't

>> No.19072522

>>19072499
Only one God, the first cause of the universe, this proof doesn't specify which religion is correct, but I personally believe the first cause to be the Christian God.

>> No.19072528

>>19072519
Pure actuality, immateriality, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, goodness, this are the properties of the first cause, and also the properties of the Christian God.

>> No.19072533

>>19072489
Do you know what an antinomy is? Nothing from something / something from nothing... you can't demonstrate either of these, let alone refute, to the exclusion of other view. It's all a fever dream of reasoning.

>> No.19072534

>>19072516
That's the stupidest justification I've ever heard, and probably the main source of bullshit thinking that we know if. It's like assuming that, since a stick is straight, putting it on the ground means you've proven that the earth is flat. After all, the assumption this assessment is based on is true.

This is also the main reason why Scholasticism is taken seriously by anyone outside of your own culty group

>> No.19072536

>>19072391
They do.

>> No.19072538

>>19072516
>the assumptions it is based on are true
None of you have answered what was meant by "already actual," or how something effectively 'done' can start causing things again as if it were not done, not one of you. And you keep running to the conclusion anyway as if all the steps were incontrovertible and in no need of explication.

>> No.19072540

>>19072512
>Because we know that the universe had a beginning,
Scientists don't know the nature of that beginning, however. Some philosophers have their own take on it; for example, that we created "beginnings."

>The first cause will always end up being God.
So if I consider God to just be another word for the universe, am I a pantheist to you? What if I think I created this "God," am I an atheist then?

>> No.19072541

>>19072528
>and also the properties of the Christian God.
Yes, and pretty much every other god that has ever been believed in.

I'm not continuing this discussion. It's very clear you're just a Christian zealot, and you're not looking for reasons to believe, but excuses. Very flimsy excuses that don't convince anyone with even the mildest form of skepticism

>> No.19072555
File: 80 KB, 643x820, 0a1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19072555

>>19072325
Dumb shit is incredibly easy to create and takes ten times as much effort to take apart.

>> No.19072559

>>19072533
Yes, I know what an antinomy is, that doesn't mean that it is a valid principle (most of Kant's antinomies were actually misrepresented by him, and most of them had one side which was correct, and the other side incorrect). It's the principle of sufficient reason, and it is irrefutable.
>Nothing from something
This is demonstrable. Being is (by its nature), nothing is not what is. Therefore nothing is only established with respect to Being, but Being is established unconditionally with respect to tiself.
>something from nothing
This is indemonstrable because it contradicts what is already deductively proven via the principle of sufficient reason. If something comes from nothing, then nothing is not nothing.

>> No.19072579

>>19072559
Because you're a christer you have God as making something from nothing, so you're being dishonest here anyway. Unless of course you're going to switch over to pantheism.

>> No.19072592

>>19072442
>What does the heat death of the universe have to do with this proof?
Do you understand what entropy is?

>> No.19072598

>>19072579
>you have God as making something from nothing
God doesn't create in the sense humans or things in time do, creation is eternally in God, thus God does not bring something from nothing, but something deprived of God comes from God ("something"). So it's far more accurate to say God creates all others ("nothing") from all in itself ("something"). The Bhagavad Gita has probably one of the best poetic expositions of this principle.
>Unless of course you're going to switch over to pantheism.
I was never Christian to begin with, you're making up nonsense. And panentheism != pantheism, but I find these terms absolutely meaningless. There is only reality and non-reality.

>> No.19072605
File: 81 KB, 857x779, 1619197741389.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19072605

>>19072598
>There is [...] non-reality

>> No.19072607

>>19072598
>creation is eternally in God
Creation doesn't seem very eternal. All these bodies that decompose and eat one another and reproduce. It sounds like we're making up more concepts here to shore up the most made up of all. And now you're pulling in the Gita? How far are you willing to abandon thomism to save God? I thought we were dealing with Aristotle...

>> No.19072609
File: 100 KB, 960x960, 1631906724515.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19072609

>>19072605
Yes! Right after saying non-being wasn't a thing too... Really makes you wonder

>> No.19072620

>>19072607
>Creation doesn't seem very eternal.
Creation itself is eternal. Specific determinations (which are divisible negations) are not.
>>19072605
If there is truth, then there can be that which is untrue. It's not hard to understand. Some people hold incomplete views because they haven't thought enough, or properly.

>> No.19072640

>>19072620
>Creation itself is eternal. Specific determinations (which are divisible negations) are not.
Ok so we've left thomism behind and given eternity to something other than the baptized aristotelian god

>> No.19072677

Majesty of Reason BTFO'd this bullshit. Agnostics just keep winning.

https://youtu.be/O_DUgRWHv7U

>> No.19072796

>>19072555
Aristotle's style of argument sometimes makes me think of a caddis fly larva cocooned in a clutter of glued-together sticks. It's all a little too convenient if one's patron is a martinet, and never terribly interesting except as a study of circumstances like that.

>> No.19072809

>>19072325
Word games

>> No.19072812

Ignoring all the pseuds in this thread, Aristotle’s argument for the unmoved mover is correct, however there’s no reason to suggests it’s God as opposed to something else. Also you can have a circular chain of causality. These two points are the only valid ones, anything else is arguing semantics

>> No.19072814

>>19072809
If you don’t want an infinite regress of causality you need a first cause which itself has no cause, just because you’re ashamed you can’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s word games

>> No.19072820

>actualization of a potential
lmao

>> No.19072825

>>19072325
It's a magnificent argument, truly a monument to Aristotle's intelligence. I think that there is a problem with passage 11, thought (and I am good company):
>why can't there be a hierarchical causal series regressing to infinity?
There needs to be a corollary explaining why infinite regress isn't possible - and I think that here we would slide into the axiomatic premises of the Aristotelian system, namely, we assume the world to be finite. But maybe I am wrong - to your knowledge, does Aristotle offer any other justification to passage 11?

>> No.19072830

>>19072814
1) What makes you think that infinite regress of causality can’t exist on a cosmological scale? We’re talking about things that are far beyond the reasoning of an average human. Universe is infinite in three dimensions (which is fairly counter-intuitive concept and you would probably struggle to explain it to an Ancient Greek), why can’t it also be infinite in the 4th?
2) Big Bang. It was Big Bang. That’s the answer.

>> No.19072835

In a nutshell
>my logic appears circular therefore I introduce a magical being that doesn't have to abide by it, genius!

>> No.19072846

>>19072830
>universe is infinite in three dimensions
We currently don't know this at all and the question is very much open to debate
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

>> No.19072970

>>19072846
Well, yes, I shouldn’t have said ‘three dimensions’, especially since universe is likely non-Euclidean. Nevertheless, it is just another reminder that cosmology is counter-intuitive and complex.

>> No.19072990

>>19072325
>11
Proof needed. We accept without difficulty that the future goes on infinitely. We could do the same for the past. That the arrow of time as we experience it seems privileged could be just an artefact of the human mind, instead of a fundamental property of the world.

>> No.19073138

>>19072814
>If you don’t want an infinite regress of causality you need a first cause which itself has no cause
Sure, whatever, either there is an infinite regress of causality, or there is a first cause. But then all the silly and non-rigorous definitions to be able to define this first cause as "good" and "omniscient" and "all-powerful", and then to be able to call this "god", that is what's just a stupid word game. If pressed, I would be prepared to accept the entire argument and it still wouldn't make me any less atheistic.

>> No.19073170

>>19072325
1. Define "change" and "real"

>> No.19073237

>>19073170
0. Define "define".

>> No.19073412

god isnt real

>> No.19073891

>>19072325
>causality is real

>> No.19074006

>>19072325
This is not a proof for “God”. This is a vague characterisation of the circumstances that created the universe. The problem with you Christcucks is that you take these “proofs” and bend them to your own narrative, when in fact all you have proved it that you have no better understanding than anyone else.

>> No.19074009

>>19073237
......

>> No.19074102

>>19074009
!!!!!!!!!

>> No.19074137

>>19072459
>buddhism is correct
refuted by Sri Shankaracharya (PBUH)

>> No.19074169
File: 75 KB, 552x934, 41132.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19074169

>82 replies
>all of them are low effort shitpost
I KNEEL

>> No.19074218

I just remember, there are actual unironic Christians on this board

How embarrasing

>> No.19074995

>>19072325
"I don't believe god exists"
Simple as

>> No.19075047

>>19072677
Agnosticism really is the most sensible position. I have never understood how anyone who's intellectually honest can not be an agnostic.

>> No.19075251

>>19074218
yes, me

>> No.19075296

>>19072351
Actual=/=material

>> No.19075319

>>19075047
>I have never understood
At least that much is clear

>> No.19075323

>>19074102
What?

>> No.19075324

>>19074218
Very embarrassing. How could you forget something like that?

>> No.19075333

>>19074006
Could you be a little more specific?

>> No.19075338

>>19075319
t. intellectually dishonest faggot

>> No.19075339

>>19073891
No need to be so reactionary.

>> No.19075341

>>19075324
It's understandable when Christian arguments are so bad it seems like satire.

>> No.19075348

>>19075338
What do you think it means to be intellectually dishonest? How does it different from being wrong?

>> No.19075355

>>19075341
What's your argument?

>> No.19075430

>>19075355
He probably does not even have a single chain of reasoning supporting whatever brand or flavor of Hindoo-Voodoo-Parsee-Asatru he has picked up last week listening to his favorite usurytubers and poopcasters (unlike OP lmao)

>> No.19075432

>>19075355
A Christian god can't exist because no intelligent being would want to be associated with Christians.

>> No.19075466

>>19075430
Seethe and cope, christcuck
Your entire religion can be dismissed by a simple refusal to have faith in its claims (which is what the entire system depends on)

>> No.19075513

>>19072825
You need to consult Gödel/Turing on this. The Incompleteness Theorem proves that only constructivist languages are valid which in turn implies finiteness

>> No.19075523

>>19072325
Fedora tipping reddit fags seething because they’ve been filtered by OP is hilarious.

>> No.19075541

>>19075466
Whatever you say, nihilist. Don't forget to read Bataille or whoever is trending on the catalog

>> No.19075552

>>19075541
Don't forget to keep seething because your religion is false lol

>> No.19075561

>>19075523
>n-n-no I'm not seething you are SHUT UP
The absolute state of christcucks...

>> No.19075577 [DELETED] 

>>19072325
>munchhausens trilemma but it completely dismisses infinite regress and implies that the first axiom for all things is eventually one being.
11 seems to dismiss infinite regress for no reason without even citing human limitations as a plausible cause.
16 implies that actualizers cannot have unactualized potential with followup

>> No.19075588

>>19072325
>munchhausens trilemma but it completely dismisses infinite regress and implies that the first axiom for all things is eventually one being.
11 seems to dismiss infinite regress for no reason without even citing human limitations as a plausible cause.
16 implies that actualizers cannot have unactualized potential without followup proving this

>> No.19075591

>>19072325
>Long-winded bullshit that boils down to the universe needs a cause
All these theists always make this assumption and claim it as a fact

>> No.19075596

>>19075466
>Sorry, I don't believe these events happened
C-christbros...?!

>> No.19075606

>>19075591
It's such an obvious cope to anyone who isn't desperately trying to buy into it
These threads really make it seem like they're trying to convince themselves

>> No.19075635

>>19075541
yes you should absolutely read On Nietzsche and Inner Experience if you have any interest in broadening your horizon

>> No.19075646

>>19075466
Reminder that if you delete miracle, i.e. magic shows, from Christianity it collapses, while Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all survive as systems without having to swear you believe in specific events that took place 2000 years ago witnessed and documented only by people interested in converting other people

>> No.19075661

>>19075646
This is true of abrahamism in general
>>19075635
>broadening your horizons
nooooo that's demonic deception

>> No.19075669

>>19075661
Bataille dropped out of seminary which is more theology than 4channel Jehovah's Witnesses will ever do.

>> No.19075683

>>19075669
Can I get a qrd on Bataille?

>> No.19075686

>>19074218
I went to Oxford and am catholic. Does a Christian being smarter than you upset you?

>> No.19075689

>God exists
Okay now what?

>> No.19075698

>>19072325

God exists, the question is what is the nature of God.

>> No.19075699
File: 21 KB, 593x584, 1629753703478.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19075699

>>19075552
I'd like to see you prove that
>inb4 no reply

>> No.19075709

>>19075047
I claim to be agnostic but live like an atheist. It's the best way.

There's nothing more wasteful than a life of christcuckery

>> No.19075712

>>19075699
>c-can you prove my religion is false?
Is that what we're arriving at now that "I can prove it's true" has been btfo? LMAO
Nah I can't "prove" that a rabbi rose from the dead 2000 years ago but I can very VERY safely disregard it as bullshit

>> No.19075719

>>19075709
Nothing is “wasted” if you are happy. So just let people do that and stop seething if religion makes them happy

>> No.19075720

>>19075683
Nietzschean schizo-coomerism with French characteristics. Perfect in every way.

>> No.19075721

>>19075686
I went to Princeton and am an atheist. Are you upset? :)

>> No.19075726

>>19075721
I love their summer/winter sales. They print a bunch of translated Bataille

>> No.19075733

>>19075712
>Is that what we're arriving at now that "I can prove it's true" has been btfo?
Your schizo mind is literally conjuring imaginary events now lol
>Nah I can't "prove" that a rabbi rose from the dead 2000 years ago but I can very VERY safely disregard it as bullshit
You can't give a single argument against either the OP or any of the doctrinal points of Christian theology in general. I expected as much.

>> No.19075734

>>19075709
Genuine agnosticism will have you live like an atheist anyway, so it makes sense. It is indeed the best way, and literally ALL criticism against it is pure cope.

>> No.19075739

>>19075721
My uni is better lol

>> No.19075742

>>19075733
>imaginary events now lol
Read the op brainlet lol
>a single argument
No evidence for the resurrection. Keep coping and seething and deflecting kek
By the way Aristotle gives no argument against infinite regression either, thomistranny. COPE

>> No.19075754

>>19075739
And my worldview is better lol

>> No.19075763

>>19075754
Don’t care, you went to a lower IQ institution than me. You are irrelevant cattle

>> No.19075765

>no you have to read the Summa and refute every single argument there otherwise that means Christianity is true!
Bro rabbis don't come back from the dead, simple as
This very fact makes your entire religion crumble. Thomism is thousands of pages of pure copium and you have NO argument against this

>> No.19075769

>>19075742
>read the OP
Already have.
>buzzword, buzzword, buzzword
Yawn.
>infinite regress
Read the justification for premise 11. We're done here.

>> No.19075771

>>19075763
>Christian calling others cattle
t. literal lamb of christ

>> No.19075778

>>19075769
>Yawn
Not an argument, I accept your concession :^)
>the justification
None is given. Cope, also >>19075765
>We're done here
Indeed you are lmao

>> No.19075794

>>19075720
Sounds right up my alley, do I start with Inner Experience?

>> No.19075811

>>19075778
You didn't provide a single argument, there's nothing to concede. Read Feser's book as well

>> No.19075818

>>19075811
>no u
>just read [book by some faggot]
Concession status: accepted

>> No.19075829

>>19072325
Change isn't the actualization of a potential.

>> No.19075831

>>19075765
>This very fact makes your entire religion crumble.
Funny how they never address it and instead deflect to their laughable arguments for god's existence (of which there are an equal number of atheist counter-arguments that anyone can google)
The fact is there is a single eyewitness testimony to the resurrection, Paul's, the rest being alleged testimonies, and that's pretty much all the "evidence" (kek) that exists.
You can just say "nah I think it's bullshit" and the very foundation of the religion turns to dust. Embarrassing.

>> No.19075838

>>19075794
I read him completely out of order so that was one of the last books I read but one of the earliest he wrote. Either way starting with the essays collected in Visions of Excess is a good intro.

>> No.19075845

>>19075838
Thanks friend. Is he a hardcore atheist or nihilist, or is he more ambiguous?

>> No.19075846

>>19075831
It’s more like, you can’t argue against the philosophical arguments for God, so you attack Christianity as a specific religion because it’s easier than tackling the proofs which apply to any monotheistic system. It’s a blatant motte and Bailey. If a Hindu said the same arguments to you, what would your response be?

>> No.19075849

>>19072325
This has multiple logical holes. I'm not going to point them out because they are clear enough that if you can't find them there's no point in talking about them. Consult someone over 140 IQ to understand

>> No.19075850

>>19072349
this is why "first cause" is a contradiction

>> No.19075856
File: 129 KB, 564x452, 1612150767439.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19075856

>>19072325
My main issue with these proofs is that even if it is correct it still doesn't mean that it's the Hebrew God that is the real one. This God could be an entity that hasn't made any contact with us yet and never will. We also can't assume any of its properties beyond its existence.

>> No.19075861

>>19075849
You can’t be serious with this post lmao

>> No.19075866

>>19075846
So you admit Christianity can be disregarded, good.
>If a Hindu said the same arguments to you, what would your response be?
Same thing as what was brought up earlier: contradiction of the first cause, possibility of infinite regression, change as actualization, etc. It's far from being a perfect argument. All arguments in favor of God's existence have holes, that's why they're arguments and not logical proofs.

>> No.19075868

>>19075818
I accept my humble victory

>> No.19075873

>>19072325
God's existence would be a property of God. However, God cannot be divided into properties, since He is indivisible. Therefore God doesn't exist.

>> No.19075875

I seriously can't believe there are people who identify as Christian and have also read the entirety of the Old Testament. There is so much bizarre, grotesque and just down right fucked up bullshit in there that I cant imagine anyone taking it seriously, especially in the modern age. Mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance are strong in these people.

>b b but the New Testament overrides day old!!!!11!!1

Face it, if the Old Testament is wrong then so is the New, and there is A LOT wrong with it.

>There was a giant flood where god made some guy build a giant boat to put MILLIONS of distinct species on it (yet the book only mentions species that the Jews were familiar with) and then kills everything on the planet except salt water critters
> jews and Christian's literally believe this happened

>b b but that story is only allegorical!!!11!!!1

so is the entire book allegorical or not? You cant just cherry pick but I understand that theistards struggle with that concept.

>> No.19075878

>>19075868
No need to seethe about getting btfo, next time try not being a christian :)

>> No.19075894

>>19075875
>Yahweh literally tells his followers to cook food using human feces
BRO IT'S AN ALLEGORY, TRUST THE PLAN

>> No.19075900

>>19075878
Stop replying to me, I've got other nerds to btfo

>> No.19075914

>>19075900
The only thing you've btfo is your own religion by sucking so hard at forming coherent arguments
But I know delusion is par for the course for Christians, don't worry

>> No.19075922

>>19075914
Cope

>> No.19075928

>>19075922
sneed

>> No.19075943

>>19075928
Feed

>> No.19075945

>>19075922
>christard so buck broken that he can only repeat "cope" as a defense mechanism

Cope, literally.

>> No.19075953

>>19075845
He takes death of god as an event, so there is a passage from belief to disbelief

>> No.19075961

>>19075945
So much Cope™ for not being able to refute OP

>> No.19075962
File: 486 KB, 727x745, 1631815375433.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19075962

>>19075928
>>19075943

>> No.19075967

>>19075961
Refuted by Kant lol

>> No.19076001
File: 33 KB, 657x527, 1631541264625.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19076001

>>19075967
Kant (pbuh) was a Christian

>> No.19076004

>>19075734
Are you also agnostic about the tooth fairy and santa claus? Agnosticism is just as mentally retarded as christfaggotry.

>> No.19076019

>>19076001
>literally the "I made this" meme
top kek

>> No.19076025

>>19076004
I have no way of knowing what happens after death
I can't say for sure there's nothing and I can't say for sure there's no creative principle of some kind
Yahweh is on the same level as other superstitions but God as a general concept is not

>> No.19076037

Didn't "Majesty of Reason" make a video on this?

>> No.19076043

>>19076025
So agnostic about sexism then? Okay, I think that's still wrong but that's somewhar reasonable at least. Yahweh is 100% not real tho

>> No.19076052

>>19076043
>sexism

I meant Deism, offs autocorrect...

>> No.19076599

>>19073237
Define: to establish a communicable meaning of a word, phrase, etc.

Your turn.

>> No.19076605

>>19076043
What do you mean by "Yahweh"?

>> No.19076643

>>19072325
god is only a metaphor for the manifestation of our collective conscious. nothing more.

>> No.19076839

>>19076605
Yahweh, Jehova, Jewish Santa Claus, whatever.

>> No.19076883

(1) If I say something does not have a cause, it does not have a cause.
(2) I say the universe does not have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe does not have a cause.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

>> No.19076892

Thomists, explain how you reconcile this line of thinking with your dogmatic belief in libertarian-type free will

>> No.19076914

actualization and potential is not real features of the world, they are made up descriptions that mesh poorly with a modern understanding of physics

>> No.19076926

Why did God create the Universe if he is fully actual and lacking nothing?

>> No.19076938

Christcucks and athiestfags are both cringe enough to be two sides of the same retard

>> No.19076969

>>19072325
>30. for something to be less than fully good is for it have privation - that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it

Imagine a perfect circle.
A perfect circle does not have any privations, doesn't fail to actualize any features proper to it.
By Feser's way of thinking, a perfect circle would be fully good.
But such seems to me is obviously false. It's a fucking circle.


Fails like this should be so embarrassing, trying to sneak in loaded bullshit to get a God that conforms to his Christian one.
But he keeps publishing, and Catholics keeps talking about him as if he's doesn't commit blatant errors like this all the time

all kinds of cheating going on in his books, spending paragraphs to dress the stage, framing an alternate possibility in negative light
then skipping straight over why such an alternative is unreasonable/impossible, presenting no arguments, but proceeding like he did
would be fine if it was a just rhetoric text