/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6606257]

Which nonfiction book does the best job arguing that god exists?

[Anonymous No.6606264]

The God Delusion

[Anonymous No.6606265]

>>6606257
Chariot of the Gods

[Anonymous No.6606268]

The Bible

[Anonymous No.6606277]

The Earth Chronicles. And I'm still not convinced

[Anonymous No.6606279]

>inb4 muh summa theologica

[Anonymous No.6606292]

The Ego and His Own

at the end you find out
you were god the whole time

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6606295]

No matter how hard you try, you will never convince yourself to believe in God.

[Anonymous No.6606298]

Aquinas objectively proved god exists. With logic and rationality.

[Anonymous No.6606302]

>>6606257
Xenophanes' fragments
START WITH THE GREEKS

[Anonymous No.6606312]

>>6606295
Say hi to Lucifer for me

[Anonymous No.6606325]

>>6606295
Oh look another tripfag.
I agree, though, if you're trying so hard to convince yourself there's a god, you're already too aware of his nonexistence to return.

[Anonymous No.6606362]

>>6606257
>That thousand yard stare
>That look like she's about to cry

Why do Christians insist so much on traumatizing themselves saying things they know deep down is untrue?

[Anonymous No.6606513]

>>6606325
>>6606362

[Anonymous No.6606564]

>>6606298
The five ontological arguments are bunk.

Trying to prove god is superficial. The direct individual experience of the numinous is beyond any justification.

[Anonymous No.6606567]

>>6606292
This is the only good answer.

[Barleby (renevircs eht) !!xhrRG+gXJL2 No.6606570]

>>6606264
underr8ed

[Anonymous No.6606599]

>>6606513
Do any 4chan /LIT/ veterans know what this green man image means? Thanks for any help.

[Anonymous No.6606607]

>>6606599
He's named Pepe. Still no idea what he means. Might be some kind of God on another board.

[Anonymous No.6606615]

>>6606325
>implying the use of these very specific drag-queen reaction images doesn't make you a honorary tripfag

[Anonymous No.6606619]

>>6606607
>not knowing the entire history of pepe
lurk more

[Anonymous No.6606669]

>>6606615
>honorary
I'll take it!

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6606803]

"Elements of Theology", by Proclus

[Anonymous No.6607002]

>>6606298
>With logic and rationality.

M'Deus *tips aureole*

[Anonymous No.6607013]

>>6606257
Oozers.

[Anonymous No.6607032]

God Is Not Dead by Felsrouy Likk.

[Anonymous No.6607046]

>>6606564

>The five ontological arguments are bunk.

Aquinas agreed, though he only knew of Anselm's one ontological argument. His five cosmological arguments are quite good though and still have allot of supporters in academic Philosophy to this day.

I think that John Duns Scotus' " De Primo Principio", while having a few contentious arguments here and there, is one of the best ones. Mind you it's an almost 80 page long proof, so it is'nt one that is exactly easy to repeat verbatim if someone asks you.

Plantinga uses the S5 system of modal logic to show that if one admits that God is possible that they must also admit that he is necessary. That one is very interesting.

Godel's ontological proof also gains allot of support. It would be worth checking out.

>>6606803
Interesting choice. I've been wanting to read that work, though I've abandoned unqualified Neo-Platonic emanationism over the last year or so.

[Anonymous No.6607164]

>>6607046

I meant Thomas' five arguments (cosmological), they're also called ontological in my native language (I just found out there's a distincntion in english, it does make sense though). Most of them can be quite easily refuted (and have been, throughout history of phillosophy), especially the argument of degree and the teleological argument.

[Anonymous No.6607256]

>>6607164
Nah, Fourth and Fifth ways are still good, if you know what he's getting at. It's easy to misunderstand them, though.

[Anonymous No.6607283]

>>6607256
Yeah? Could you maybe sum it up then? I'm legitimately interested. Thanks, man.

[Anonymous No.6607355]

>>6607283

Alright, here's my take on the Fourth Way.

Aquinas begins with the idea that “some things are more and less good, true, noble, and so forth.” On Aquinas’ metaphysics, the “good, the True, the Noble,” etc., are transcendentals, principles that are grounded in everything, insofar as it is anything. They are ways of expressing a thing’s perfection, which is the degree to which a thing is what it is, hence are aspects of the ways in which a thing has its respective kind of existence, or being.

But how can one have “degrees” of existence? The image we use to think about “existence” here shouldn’t be of filling a series of jugs with varying quantities of “existence.” Aquinas talks about things being “more” or “less” inasmuch as they resemble a “maximum.” That is, a thing may have being in a more or less “qualified” way. By way of illustration, an iron bar may be said to be “hot” in a way, but it is hot in virtue of its heat, hence hot only in a qualified way. Only the actual heat in the iron bar is unqualifiedly heat. Aquinas is not talking about something having a greatest magnitude of heat, like the sun vs a candle, but is saying that that which has heat only qualifiedly, must derive its heat from that which has heat in its own right- ultimately, from the quality of heat itself- the "hottest."

For Aquinas, the relationship of being to qualified being is like this. It is part of what it is to be a qualified being, that one has being only in a particular way. Qualified being, insofar as qualified, must not have existence in its own right, since it is dependent for its existence on this or that principle of qualification. Whatever does not have existence in its own right, however, must derive whatever existence it has from something else. Moreover, there must be a limit to any such chain of dependence: a being which does have its existence utterly in its own right, independent of any qualification. Hence the degree of qualification in things leads us to the existence of at least one thing which has uttermost, or unqualified being.

From there you get the divine attributes: Uttermost being must be unique, because if there were more than one, each would have a mode of existence the other lacked, hence the existence of each would be qualified. This unqualified being, since its being is not qualified by contingent features, would be necessary. Because it is necessary, unique, and all things must derive their existence from the Unqualified Being, all power there is or could be must derive from that of the Unqualified Being. Thus the unqualified being would be omnipotent. This unqualified being would also be unqualifiedly perfect (and not merely possess this or that perfection), because if it were only perfect in some respects and not others, it would only have existence in some respects and not others, which would contradict its possession of unqualified being. And such a being, all men call God.

[Anonymous No.6607483]

>>6607283
On the Fifth Way, Aquinas isn't using Paley-style arguments from analogy, which can get BTFO'd by Darwinism. Aquinas's teleology is the teleology in "final causation."

That there are final causes is not difficult to argue for: things are either constituted by actualised potentials (as when composites actualise potential in the components to form the composite), or are brought into existence by actualised potentials (as in change). But to have a potential- *for* some mode of existence, is to be directed towards that mode of existence as an end. This directedness-toward an end is called "finality," and the end at which the potential is directed, is the "final cause." Aquinas infers from the order of the universe that there are stable dispositions-toward some ends.

Now, it's clear that, since final causes are a precondition of potency, this isn't something vulnerable to a merely historical account of some subset of phenomena, like Darwinism accounting for biology. Final causes are ubiquitous, applying to the smallest subatomic interaction and the most general universal forces. Even if a neo-Darwinian account of human origins were true, the every existence of human beings, as creatures which at every moment are the actualisation of some potential (at least in their parts to form a whole), requires final causes.

But if there are final causes for unintelligent things like potentials, then these final causes, which specify a certain mode of being at which the potential aims, must exist somehow. The final causes cannot exist in the potentials themselves, for then the potentials would be actual, and not potential. These final causes, then, must exist-for the potentials in some intellect, since the characteristic function of the intellect just is to contain a specifying principle apart from particular instantiation. If all things are guided toward their respective end by some intellect, then there must be a supreme intellect which maintains the final causes in nature- not just in living things, but in everything which is the actualisation of some potential.

[Anonymous No.6607497]

>>6606362
she's filled with the grace of the holy spirit. physical features at that moment are of no concern, only christ

[Anonymous No.6607502]

>>6607355

Interesting. I've mostly read about it in a much more simpler form. Anyway, I still think there's an issue with this argument, and that is pretty much teodicy.

In that line of thinking, if you have God as the penultimate maximum of all scales, shouldn't that also include maximums which are ignoble? The reason for that is, if you don't, how can you make a cardinalistic (qualitative), and not just ordinalistic (relative), distinction between two qualified values? E.g. if you have one action and other, how can you make a distinction between one action being virtuous and the other sinful, if they are both on the scale which is offset only by maximum Goodness? You can say: this action is more good than the other one (or less good). But where do you draw the line which distinguishes sinful action from virtuous? This is pretty much a refutation of the augustinian notion that evil is just an absence of good, which very much the same requires some substantial point of reference (the existence of the word 'evil' might imply that).

There needs to be a limit which defines the limit at which good becomes evil. When that's the case, wouldn't be God be the lowest of the lows just as much as highest of the highs? That could work with something of the likes of chinese Tao, but probably not the christian God.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6607508]

>>6606257
That Burpo kid.

Why would he lie?

>>6606292
Oh I like this one.

[Anonymous No.6607522]

>>6607483
Darwinism is complete garbage. Some vague concept of "fitness" or "survival" cannot explain the existence of and variety of living things. At least the Hindu version of evolution is somewhat tenable in that there is said to be a mind directing its course.
I can't believe people take Darwinism seriously. It doesn't make sense in the slightest. There is no way that you can appeal to "fitness" or "survival" to explain why a bacteria would transform into an elephant over a billion years, because how is it any better to "survive" as an elephant than as a bacteria?
Darwinism is so ridiculous that it offends me when people take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.6607547]

>>6607522
6/10

[Anonymous No.6607599]

>>6607502

I have no idea what's going on, but just to bumble in with something - could that be solved by claiming that good and evil are binary and not gradient? In other words, an action is either good or evil, and a person is either good or evil. This wouldn't go against the Christian concept of God. Forgive me if I totally misunderstood what's going on and I'm sure that other dude has a much better thought train regarding this, but I figured what the hell, I'm on an anonymous board, might as well throw something out.

[Anonymous No.6607606]

>>6607522

While I agree with what you said about an intellect guiding the evolutionary process, I feel like you don't really understand Darwinism.

[Anonymous No.6607626]

>>6607502
>In that line of thinking, if you have God as the penultimate maximum of all scales, shouldn't that also include maximums which are ignoble?

That would be the case of Aquinas was a dualist/Zoroastrian who thought that there was an Evil principle equal but opposite to the Good principle. However, for Aquinas evil is not something positive but is merely a lack/deficiency. All things that exist are good in their existence. The ultimate in evil would simply be void/nothingness/well-being, and moral evil is a choice on the part of moral agents that tends towards destruction, which is why those who sin are said to sin against their own souls / are said to be destroying themselves.

> But where do you draw the line which distinguishes sinful action from virtuous? This is pretty much a refutation of the augustinian notion that evil is just an absence of good, which very much the same requires some substantial point of reference (the existence of the word 'evil' might imply that).

You look at the nature of a thing. If it is the nature of a thing to be healthy and happy then evil is that which destroys its nature, I.e. sickness and misery.

[Anonymous No.6607634]

>>6607606
Explain it then.

[Anonymous No.6607708]

>>6607522
>"i have a vague understanding of evolutionary theory, therefore Darwinism is complete garbage"

[Anonymous No.6607931]

>>6607502

Anons like >>6607626 give me hope for humanity. Who knew there would be more than one proficient Thomist on a random Chinese cartoons board? Anyway, he gives the answer I would have given- evil is a lack or deformity in something, hence the maximum lack or deformity just is non-existence. The perfect being, which lacks nothing, would not be evil or defective in any respect.

Moreover, since those things which have qualified existence derive their principle of being from the perfect being, all that perfects lesser things comes from God. Evil which consists in lack, cannot derive from perfect being (because it is lack), but must come about in the interactions of created things with other created things.

[Anonymous No.6608558]

>>6607626

I actually haven't thought of the Fourth Way like this before. This is interesting.

[Anonymous No.6608585]

I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

[Anonymous No.6608777]

>>6606362
>Why do Christians insist so much on traumatizing themselves saying things they know deep down is untrue?

5hat's the opposite of true though,
Pic related; the mental gymnastics athiests jump though when they try explain such a view is laughable.
They know deep down God is real.

[Anonymous No.6608801]

>>6607522
you learn about evolution in highschool biology kiddo, time to get off 4chan!

[Anonymous No.6608859]

>>6607522
3/10

[Anonymous No.6609451]

>>6606295
What movie is the gif from?

[Anonymous No.6609461]

>>6608585

>If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.

But anon, people wear unfashionable hats. Therefore the world must have been made by a Jewish wizard

[Anonymous No.6609477]

>>6608585
>now that we know weather patterns and math, God is no longer necessary
>I'm autistic and don't understand how anyone could be afraid of dying forever
>if we stopped believing in God the inequalities of society would right themselves

bruh
you typed a lot of shit without understanding a looootttt of shit

[Anonymous No.6609485]

>>6606257
No

[Anonymous No.6609490]

>>6606619
This.

[Anonymous No.6609515]

>>6609477
>>I'm autistic and don't understand how anyone could be afraid of dying forever

Are you afraid of that?

[Anonymous No.6609535]

>>6609477
>being afraid of death when you can't even experience it