/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5482460]

>St. Aquinas is not my favorite philosopher

[Anonymous No.5482462]

T. Aquinas is the key to the philosopher's stone. Isaac Newton was close; read his journals.

[Anonymous No.5482463]

>>5482460
I wish the fedora meme was perma banned

[Anonymous No.5482468]

>Anyone who claims to be an atheist just hasn't read the five proofs yet

[Anonymous No.5482469]

>>5482460
>Jesus Christ is not my lord and savior

[Anonymous No.5482472]

>Swedenborg wasn't right about the Final Judgement

[Anonymous No.5482473]

>>5482468
>>5482469
>religion is a kind of atheism

[Anonymous No.5482477]

>>5482460
>>5482469
You people are worse than your strawman. Take a moment of self reflection (I know its hard for you), realize how sad that actually is, and then weep at your worthlessness.

[Anonymous No.5482478]

it doesn't get more obnoxious than the people in this thread.

[Anonymous No.5482480]

>>5482463
>my good sir, you have struck a nerve! I would duel you if perchance you were close, but in lieu I demand your ban!

[Anonymous No.5482483]

>why do atheists say god bless u
>i mean they are ATHEISTS
>:)

[Anonymous No.5482520]

ITT

[Anonymous No.5482609]

>>5482468

Devil's advocate who generally liked Aquinas' work but thinks he is now wrong here.

I have the following objections to his five ways.

1-

How did God move himself if nothing can move itself? What makes God outside that model, and if he is, what justifies excluding him?

Why can't the 'sequence of motions' extend backwards ad infinitum, operating under the assumption that we accept God's existence extends backwards ad infinitum?

How do you end up with the Christian God from this rather than, say, some Zoroastrian deity?

2-

Same objections to his rejection of infinite recurse, God's exclusion from the idea of everything, and his assumption of a Christian God

3-

See two.

4-

Best is subjective. So is worst.

Also apply Platonic philosophy and relevant theodicy arguments: is God as cause of all also the cause of evil, and thus the 'best' at evil, and thus maximally imperfect at the same time as being maximally perfect? If you allow for a satanic figure, was he created by God as well or is he equally immutable, and if he is, why can't I extend that by induction to say "Beings besides God can be immutable and thus nothing theoretically prevents us from being so as well, invalidate 1-4"?

5-

Darwinian evolution invalidates this proof by allowing for the appearance of intelligence without any goal besides "Breed as much as possible"

I'm sorely disappointed. I'm sure at the time these were better proofs and he made historical waves. Not so anymore, I guess.

[Anonymous No.5482616]

Devil's advocate time. I like Aquinas, but I think his proofs are unreasonable.

>1

How did God move himself if nothing can move itself? What makes God outside that model, and if he is, what justifies excluding him?

Why can't the 'sequence of motions' extend backwards ad infinitum, operating under the assumption that we accept God's existence extends backwards ad infinitum?

How do you end up with the Christian God from this rather than, say, some Zoroastrian deity?

>2

Same objections to his rejection of infinite recurse, God's exclusion from the idea of everything, and his assumption of a Christian God

>3

See two.

>4

Best is subjective. So is worst.

Also apply Platonic philosophy and relevant theodicy arguments: is God as cause of all also the cause of evil, and thus the 'best' at evil, and thus maximally imperfect at the same time as being maximally perfect? If you allow for a satanic figure, was he created by God as well or is he equally immutable, and if he is, why can't I extend that by induction to say "Beings besides God can be immutable and thus nothing theoretically prevents us from being so as well, invalidate 1-4"?

>5

Darwinian evolution invalidates this proof by allowing for the appearance of intelligence without any goal besides "Breed as much as possible"

I'm sorely disappointed in these.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.5482646]

>>5482460
>"St." Aquinas is a philosopher
Theologian, alogos.

[Anonymous No.5482803]

>i'm not enlightened by my own intelligence

[Anonymous No.5482984]

⇒Aquinas

Circular reasoning is not a proof.