/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7494697]

Why are most contemporary philosophers atheists if they never debunked Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God?

[Anonymous No.7494731]

Because Aquinas' understanding of the physical universe, much less the metaphysics of it, was on par with a modern first-grader's, and contemporary philosophers have moved so far past this that it's like arguing against the existence of an aether or the four humors.

[Anonymous No.7494760]

>Aristotelian metaphysics
>2015

[Anonymous No.7494767]

David Hume anyone?

[Anonymous No.7494831]

>>7494697
Are they? I just assumed the most famous philosophers right now are the most outspoken or radical and therefore extreme atheist or relativist.

[Anonymous No.7494833]

Aquinas' proofs were wordplay with words he made up himself. Absolute trash. He was a good philosopher in some ways but in proving god? Hell no

[Anonymous No.7494859]

>>7494831
>atheism
>relativism
>radical

[Anonymous No.7494910]

>>7494697
Because contemporary philosopher atheists haven't heard about him.
The only thing they are good criticizing at is the Westboro's concept of God as a big daddy in the sky. Start mentioning serious theological questions, the experience of Christian mystics, or contemporary views about God (Teilhard de Chardin), and they get stuck.
Considering how much irrational vehemence they put in their arguments, one starts to question if their atheism isn't nothing more than a revolt against their daddy.

[Anonymous No.7494918]

>>7494910
I'm pretty sure all philosophers, atheist or not, are aware of Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.7494932]

>>7494859
No I did not mean they are radical posistions, I meant the people who take them that are famous are the most extreme. Like evangelist who are the most extreme get a majority of the attention

[Anonymous No.7495033]

>god is separate from creation

people need to read more parmenides

[Anonymous No.7495117]

The question that no one is ever able to answer is what created God. According to Quinque Viae, God is the unmovable mover, or the one who puts others into play. In the same verse it speaks that everything than can be moved has to be moved by a force able to move with the example of the staff and hand. The problem with that is that it implies that objects are already there to be moved; when in actuality there is a change to move it. A staff made of gold has to first be found as gold ore and smelted into ingots, and then shaped into a staff. A hand is with a body and with that body comes an origin which is birth. If God is that hand, and God is all then God is also the body for that hand, but where God was birthed is never answered. The only way for that to make sense would be for God to need a physical manifestation in which he created Jesus and then created his death so that God would exist as spiritual and physical but that makes as much sense as someone traveling back in time to birth themselves. It still doesn't explain their first incarnation.

[Anonymous No.7495215]

>>7494731
>Aquinas' understanding of the physical universe... was on par with a modern first-grader's

what a thing to say, luckily this is the internet, so no one will take you seriously

[Anonymous No.7495235]

>>7495117
This is further emphasized by the second point which stands as The Argument of First Cause. It is noted that all that is caused is caused by another, yet it states that the infinitely of causation is impossible because there has to be an uncaused cause to cause the cause. It is nonsensical in the sense that it still doesn’t cover the first point. It says that God created all and that God existed for the sake of creating all but it doesn’t go over what caused that sake or reasoning in the first place. If God is the uncaused cause then that would imply that God was the first of all to cause causation. There should be a reason as to why the uncaused cause could cause in the first place. God is the cause but at the same time cannot cause due to probability and actuality so how do we know that God isn’t a cause in itself that was set by a different uncaused cause?

[Anonymous No.7495272]

>>7495235
> how do we know that God isn’t a cause in itself that was set by a different uncaused cause?
Then that wouldn't be God retard.

[Anonymous No.7495278]

reddit thread alert

[Anonymous No.7495318]

whats up with that hairstyle tho

[Anonymous No.7495390]

>>7495272
That's exactly my point. How do we know that the God people worship is the real God and not a fake?

[Anonymous No.7495396]

>>7495390
welcome to Gnosticism friendo

[Anonymous No.7495406]

>>7495117
God is omnipotent. Even if he didn't exist he would be perfectly able to make himself real. Atheist btfo

[Anonymous No.7495412]

who /christian philosophy/ here?

[Anonymous No.7495414]

>>7494767
Whom?

[Anonymous No.7495420]

Aquinas didn't consider himself a philosopher. He thought religion was better and had all the answers.

[Anonymous No.7495438]

>>7495406
But when did God get consciousness and become aware of his powers? If he is all knowing, all seeing, and all present was he always that way? If he is all powerful why did it take him 6 days to create Earth but it is never mentioned him creating the rest of space, assuming the Bible mentions space at all. If he is all knowing then why did he still create the forbidden tree with the forbidden fruit if he knew Eve was going to eat from it? If he is all seeing then why didn't see the savages erect the false god in the first place? Your religion has a few holes in it. I've asked these questions since I was a kid that went to church and still no one can answer them, how strong is your faith if you can not allow others see it? How can you listen to words that have been changed throughout time? How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

[Anonymous No.7495447]

>>7494697
Because the reconciliation of materialism and spiritualism is inherently flawed.

[Anonymous No.7495448]

>>7494697
...so if someone comes up to me and says my shirt is red when it's blue based on the fact that red has three letters and blue has four...I have to magically find some philosophical delusion to prove him wrong?

God is not real. It's pretty obvious considering you know..there have been hundreds of thousands of gods all who pertain to a certain cultures values across time...

[Anonymous No.7495465]

>>7495438
nigga's omnipotent. he can do whatever he wants even if it makes no sense. His actions may seem arbitrary to us humans, but that's because he works on a whole other level. God's existence does not need to be proven nor his actions justified, for he is self-sufficient and self-justifying.

[Anonymous No.7495466]

Why does Christian "philosophy" just complely SUCK. Catholics look at Aquinas like he is some sort of giant when all he did was live in the shadow of Aristotle. That's all the scholastics did, across 3 different faiths for hundreds of years. Avicenna, Aristotle, Maimonides even the biggest names of all. All they fucking did was reinvent Aristotle.

Avverros is considered one of the greatest Islamic thinkers of all time, and even the Catholic Scholastics considered him a hero? Why? Because he wrote a popular commentary on Aristotle.

Like really, abrahamic faith philosophy is just a shadow of one guy from Greece.
Is it any wonder no one outside the faith takes these crappy philosophers seriously? They could never move past Aristotle. It took until the birth of more secular thinkers that we finally moved philosopher forward. If the Reinnance never happened 'philosophy' would still consist of doing nothing but sucking Aristotle's dick.

[Anonymous No.7495492]

>>7495465
God's are supposed to be benevolent. Acting out of pure ignorance and stubborness is unjust of a god. Things such as that are to be left to humans. Why would a God create people as a reflection of himself if he knew he would be disgusted by their actions? If sin is evil and humans are created in God's image then that means that God is the embodiment of sin. He is wrathful to those who do not believe and he grows envious when he is worshiped by all. Such prideful arrogance and leads one to lust after more, becoming gluttonous for power and sloth to humbleness. God is greedy for admiration, just like his people.

[Anonymous No.7495516]

>>7494697
Aquinas's proofs of God aren't refutable because they're either incoherent or incomplete. They don't stand just because nobody has written a pop-philosophy book to bully Catholics about their doctor being a sophist.

[Anonymous No.7495517]

>>7495492
I'm a fedoratipper and not the person you're replying to, but even I have to say that your view of what God SHOULD be, as if He should be anything in the first place, is very flawed. It's anthropologically flawed considering the Homeric Epics and how those Gods had no regard for "good," but rather only cared about imposing their will in respect to what they patronized, hence them being gods in the first place. Medea punctuated that we'll. Your argument is metaphysically flawed considering the monotheistic system as well, where God is not separated from good. Whatever God wills is inherently righteous, regardless of your worldly preconceptions of morality.

[Anonymous No.7495518]

>>7494697
>implying most contemporary philosophers are atheists
>implying there has ever been a relevant atheist philosopher

[Anonymous No.7495519]

>>7495517
*well

Autocorrect. I'm in the shower. :^)

[Anonymous No.7495527]

>philosophy

[Anonymous No.7495536]

>>7495492
Humans were created sinless. God you are poorly read.

[Anonymous No.7495543]

>>7495466
>treating Aristotle and Christianity as compatible
>treating Aquinas as an Aristotelian, not a Neo-Augustinian, who politely refuted the Philosopher using Aristotelian methods

just go, my dude

here's a pretty good paper for you

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fidelio_archive/1993/fidv02n01-1993Sp/fidv02n01-1993Sp_049-why_st_thomas_aquinas_is_not_an.pdf

[Anonymous No.7495544]

Gee let's find the Christian philosophers...

-pre jesus: No Christian philosophers
-Jesus: More like a mystic than philosopher
-Augustine: Closest thing to an actual philosopher but his idea are still too wrapped in theology and he relies on a holy book for proof.
-Aquinas: Didn't even consider himself a philosopher, other than his totally origenal proof for God (do not steal) all of his ideas are bound up in Catholic dogma
-Descartes: An actual philosopher, banned and rejected by the rest of the Christian community
-Bacon: Same story

At this point in history Christianity had almost zero presence in philosophy until Kierkegaard who's ideas would go onto be more relevant to atheist thinkers anyway.


The track record of Christianity and philosopher is HORRIBLE: the best religions for philosophy throughout history have been atheism, Greek paganinism, or non-religious Gods (Hegel's God, Spinoza's God etc)

[Anonymous No.7495545]

You're making the elementary fallacy of attempting to speak of a religious conception of God from a secular perspective. Aquinas and Anselm both explicitly stated that their writings were meant for those who believed and that they would be worthless to anyone else.

In the words of based Witty:
(1) that religion is logically cut off from other aspects of life; (2) that religious discourse is essentially self-referential and does not allow us to talk about reality; (3) that religious beliefs can be understood only by religious believers; and (4) that religion cannot be criticized.

>>7495117
>>7495438
>>7495492
>all these anthropomorphic conceptions of God
>implying God isn't atemporal
>implying we can even conceive of "perfection" in any manner but our own transfinite limits
>implying there isn't an infinite metaphysical gulf between ourselves and God
>attempting to speak of God as if he were not an absolute unity

STEM fags please go

[Anonymous No.7495553]

>>7495544
So you haven't read much philosophy then

[Anonymous No.7495561]

>>7495543
Well Aquinas isn't exactly a philosopher. He was a theologian, rather than trying to prove things he axiomatically assumes his religious dogma is true and than expands from them. The few times he does step into philosophy, for instance with his 5 ways, all of his ideas are derivative of either Aristotle or of people that got their work from Aristotle such as Averroes.

[Anonymous No.7495562]

>>7495517
>Whatever God wills is inherently righteous
What happens when he contradicts himself? He says Thou shall not kill yet he himself has genocided countless people. He has also allowed for the slaughter of children and rape. Is it one of those 'everybody is equal but some are more equal than others' kind of thing?

[Anonymous No.7495563]

>>7495544
Eastern version of your pic when?

[Anonymous No.7495568]

>>7495563
I didn't make it.

Updated one with Stirner and Zevick

[Anonymous No.7495569]

>>7495492
God is benevolent, he just knows what is Good better than you, so sometimes you may think something God does is bad, but that's because your a little human who doesn't get the full picture.

The idea that the Almighty should confirm to your personal little idea of what is good is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.7495570]

>>7495562
If you don't know why that's not a contradiction I highly suggest you read The Bible.

[Anonymous No.7495571]

>>7495562
God can contradict himself while remaining perfectly congruent. the concept of contradiction cannot apply to an omnipotent being that transcends human notions of logic and congruence.

[Anonymous No.7495572]

>>7495545
What is the point of arguing for God's existence if not to convince unbelievers? Edward Feser does just this.

And how exactly is religion self-referential?

[Anonymous No.7495575]

>>7495561
>implying attempting to unite Aristotelian metaphysics with Christian theology and largely succeeding isn't based as fuck

>>7495562
No, it's one of those "God doesn't conform to your finite conception of morality" kind of things.

Just because God doesn't seem to be following whatever is politically correct for an infinitely minute space of time doesn't mean that God isn't omnibenevolent. What it means is that you're a finite being who quite literally can never fully grasp what it means to be infinite and perfect.

>>7495544
But anon, Leibniz was the greatest philosopher, logician and engineer of all time and he was a devout Christian.

[Anonymous No.7495576]

>>7495516
>nobody has written a pop-philosophy book to bully Catholics about their doctor being a sophist.


>The Argument from Degree. We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by a comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to set the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God.

>That's an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equivalently fatuous conclusion.[6]

—Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

[Anonymous No.7495583]

>>7495572
>how exactly is religion self-referential?

It takes revelation as foundational truth and any secular interpretation of religion does not.

What most proponents for atheism and scientism seem to forget is that the foundation for mathematical truth is proven to be flawed (a quick skim of the works of Al-Ghazali, Hume and Godel would tell you that) and that an arational foundation for truth is needed.

You can't build a structure without a foundation anon, and you certainly can't inhabit that structure if you deny that the foundation even exists.

[Anonymous No.7495588]

>>7495545
Well then in that aspect what separates religion from any other idea?
>Feminism is good, you just don't understand because you aren't a feminist
>Multiculturalism is good, you just don't understand because you aren't a multiculturalist
>Socialism is good, you just don't understand because you aren't a socialist
Help me explain, if a person seeking God wanted to understand and was told that he didn't understand because he didn't believe but the more he tried the more he failed how can one be saved? It's the equivalent of having a special club and then saying only that are in the club can join and do activities.
Okay so how do I join the club?
You have to join the club to join the club.

[Anonymous No.7495591]

>>7495583
Interesting

[Anonymous No.7495596]

>>7495583
>tfw you introduce a fedora tipper to the Münchhausen trilemma

[Anonymous No.7495600]

>>7495588
Help me understand not explain, my bad.

[Anonymous No.7495603]

>>7495575
>implying attempting to unite Aristotelian metaphysics with Christian theology and largely succeeding isn't based as fuck

Any sort of praise in this should be reserved for people like Avicenna and Averros. The muslims were combining arisotle and religion more than 300 years before Aquinas, the scholastic tradition is their invention. And for what it's worth the Muslim scholastics were actually respectable. Avicenna makes Aquinas look like a superstitious idiot.

I'll give just one example. Avicenna beleived that God made the rule under naturalistic law and that the world was ordered, as a result he conduced miracles were not something God would die. God wouldn't break the laws of physics just to do a magic trick. He says that the miracles mentioned in the Quaran are merely metaphors.

Aquinas axiomatically assumes miracles and witches exist because his bible tells him this. He than wrote a ton of papers on how to identify witches and how dark magic works. Aquinas was a fucking moron. And he had no excuse for this crap, he had already read Avicenna himself who explained how supernatural powers do not exist.

Today we know that Avicenna was right, witches do not exist and Aquinas was wrong. Funny enough the Muslim philosophers would go in to influence secular thinkers. For instance Giordano Bruno's cosmology would come from a Muslim philosopher called Avveros. Avveros would than become a hero of secular thought while the Catholics would go onto be remembered for killing a scientist because the idea of multiple planets with life contradicted their primitive religion (Aquinas ideas about the universe being made escpially for humans would actually be used against Bruno). And of course today we know Bruno was right and Aquina was wrong...again

[Anonymous No.7495619]

>>7495588
Because Sociology is explainable within the confines of a socio-political structure.

Religion is an attempt to find a foundation for truth by appealing to our relation to the absolute, not some literary theory course on why the latest Mad Max movie is an examplar of 3rd wave feminism.

>>7495603
Somewhat agreed, Medieval Islamic philosophy is absolutely based and beyond a few exceptions (John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Peter Abelard to name a few) they were very far ahead of their Christian contemporaries.

That being said, I don't think it's fair to criticize Aquinas from the perspective of a non-Christian. You can call him a dumbass all you want but know that you're doing so after he explicitly stated his philosophy would be incoherent to non believers.

[Anonymous No.7495622]

>>7495596
>tfw you introduce anyone to the Münchhausen trilemma

[Anonymous No.7495632]

>>7495619
>You can call him a dumbass all you want but know that you're doing so after he explicitly stated his philosophy would be incoherent to non believers.

That's because he is not doing philosophy 95% of the time. He's doing theology. Philosophy is about finding the truth, it can't appeal to scripture or dogma as being axiomatically true. I think the only real philosophy he ever did was his 5 proofs which is basically just restating things Avicenna and Aristotle already said. As I said Aquinas never considered himself a philosopher. It makes no sense to say he is one given his work. He's a theologian.

[Anonymous No.7495642]

>>7495632
Theology is the study of God and religion for the purpose of gleaning truth. Theology is philosophy with revelation as foundational truth. So yes, he does appeal to scripture and dogmas as being axiomatically true.

Name a philosophical system that doesn't appeal to some assumed axiom.

also
>>7495596
>>7495622

[Anonymous No.7495648]

>>7495642
Not that guy, but would that mean you cannot accept Aquinas's 5 ways without accepting the truth of revelation?

[Anonymous No.7495654]

>>7495648
If you take Aquinas at his word then all of his writings should sound incoherent if you're coming at them from a secular perspective.

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

[Anonymous No.7495662]

>>7495654
Interesting, thanks

[Anonymous No.7495666]

>>7495642
>>7495596
>>7495622

>positing epistemological nihilism as the logical foundation for a dogma

That's rather ironic, not to mention logically inconsistent

[Anonymous No.7495671]

faith- to believe in something without proof

[Anonymous No.7495676]

>>7495642
Most of the axioms that philosophical systems assume as true involve saying that the world as we perceive it is true, that we can understand the world, that there are no Cartesian demons. Very simple stuff.

Theology axiomatically assumes hundreds of pages of writing as being true in addition to the normal stuff about no cartesian demons. It's a world of diffrence. Also consider that during Aquinas time if you didn't kiss up the papacy and walk in line it didn't matter what sort of proof you had, you were not getting your books published and you might end up on trial. That's part of why 'philosophy' absolutly sucked until secular forces started gaining power, no one could actually inquire about any of the big questions because the Catholic church already had all the answers about the universe, morals, etc. and if you didn't accept them as axiomatically true you were in deep shit. So the only areas left were stuff like epistemology (and even that couldn't be investigated properly without the church fucking shit up. They banned Descartes books too!)

This is why theology, especially the kind of dogmatic theology Aquinas does is only fucking relevant to people that already believe in the faith. Catholics should not be upset when secular thinkers dismiss Aquinas or say he isn't even a real philosopher (which is my belief). In contrast someone like Kierkegaard does not depend on axiomatically assuming dogma is true to make most of his points. That is why he is a legitimate philosopher that is respected by secular sources.

[Anonymous No.7495683]

>>7495622
It's always great to be honest.

[Anonymous No.7495686]

>>7495654
This is basically Aquinas saying that if you do not axiomatically assume everything he believes is true he doesn't want to play with you. Essentially Aquina's statement here is forfeiting, he isn't interested in actually discussing anything.

Let's take his statement and have fun with it though

>"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."
I have faith that there is a God but he only sends Christians to hell. No explanation needed ^:)

[Anonymous No.7495699]

>>7495666
I'm not religious myself, dear adversary, I just like fucking with the religious fervor of Dunning–Kruger tier atheists with their overly confident appeals to reason.

[Anonymous No.7495702]

>>7495686

What hat is your emoticon wearing?

[Anonymous No.7495708]

>>7495666
Saying recognizing the inherent flaws in logical proofs is epistemological nihilism is like saying you're a gastronomical nihilist because you've been served shit all your life.

>>7495676
>Most of the axioms that philosophical systems assume as true involve saying that the world as we perceive it is true, that we can understand the world, that there are no Cartesian demons. Very simple stuff.

Simple because it has no basis in reality and is essentially dungeons and dragons at the academic level.

> no one could actually inquire about any of the big questions because the Catholic church already had all the answers about the universe, morals, etc.

>implying there wasn't multiverse theory, atomic conceptions of space-time and causality getting btfo in the 10th century
>implying you aren't just an uneducated teenager who read a few stanford articles and thinks they know shit

>>7495686
That's like saying accepting that 1+1=2 as a basic logical proposition needed for understanding mathematics is "axiomatically assuming everything the mathematician believes is true"

It's called operating on the same level of foundational logic as the philosopher you're grappling with and if you can't suspend your judgement for two seconds in order to better understand one of the greatest logicians, philosophers and theologians the world has ever seen then I can't help you.

[Anonymous No.7495712]

>>7495686
>This is basically Aquinas saying that if you do not axiomatically assume everything he believes is true he doesn't want to play with you.
Every philosopher is like this with regard to their preferred axioms though.

[Anonymous No.7495728]

>>7495699

Well enough

I'll ignore that you're misapplying the "Dunning-Kruger effect", because doing otherwise would be super autistic.

>>7495708

>Saying recognizing the inherent flaws in logical proofs is epistemological nihilism is like saying you're a gastronomical nihilist because you've been served shit all your life.

Applying a universal limitation on epistemology to degrade a superior method of gaining knowledge, one that happens to conflict with your notion of faith, is a claim to parity. "Your faith in empiricism and rationality is a religion by its own rites!" implicitly dismisses the veracity of your own claim to faith. You level everything to a matter of preference, render any claim to truth completely null.

[Anonymous No.7495738]

>>7495708
In your post you literally say that believing 1+1=2 as axiomatically true to do math is comparable to swallowing the entire Catholic cannon in order to do philosophy. (and there's actually proofs for 1+1=2 while the cannon has none)

It doesn't to much to realize that Catholicism basically put a halt on every philosophical question that could have possibly threatened dogma. Pan-psychicism was a legitimate philosophical position, Averroes had it but if you held that idea during the reign of the church your career would at minimum be ruined. Oh and don't fucking forget the big things. What happens if you say that the universe isn't how the bible says it is (see Giorgia Bruno and his different views on God and cosmology) or fuck can you imagine if you were to say argue for moral relativity back than? Wouldn't matter if you had the best fucking argument on the planet, the moment you imply that Jesus wasn't without sin...or that sin doesn't exist things are getting hairy.

Basically all the importaint questions about morality and God are already fucking answered because the 'philosophers' have to axiomatically assume the Catholic dogma is true in order to keep their job.

At least the Islamics allowed for a more open-ended interpreation of the holy book. Averroes denied that there was an after-life and said that the mention of heaven in the Koran was only a metaphor. Can you fucking imagine what would happen to poor Tommy Aquinas if he said that? His books would be burned and he wouldn't get that cool saint halo!

[Anonymous No.7495743]

>>7495712
Most philophical axioms just say that what we see is true and there are no Cartesian demons. Aquinas axioms are hundreds of pages of holy scripture subject to be updated by whatever no dogma is made official by the pope.

[Anonymous No.7495752]

>>7495728
>Applying a universal limitation on epistemology

Not applying anything, these are findings, results of the greatest minds testing the limits of human understanding.

>superior method of gaining knowledge

Utilitarian and mechanical knowledge perhaps, beyond that not so much

>one that happens to conflict with your notion of faith

Faith and science are compatible, science and faith are not. There's a reason many of the greatest scientific minds the world has ever seen were also devoutly religious.

>"Your faith in empiricism and rationality is a religion by its own rites!" implicitly dismisses the veracity of your own claim to faith.

Nobody ever stated that

>You level everything to a matter of preference, render any claim to truth completely null.

Within the bounds of empirical knowledge yes, any claim to truth is absolutely rendered null.

>>7495738
>proofs of 1+1=2

Please, do tell.

>Pan-psychicism was a legitimate philosophical position, Averroes had it but if you held that idea during the reign of the church your career would at minimum be ruined

You're confusing faith as a foundation for truth with the socio-political entity of the church. Seems to be a common misconstruance throughout your post.

> imagine if you were to say argue for moral relativity back than?

You mean like Boethius, Pseudo-Dionysius and John Duns Scotus do?

>>7495743
>Most philophical axioms just say that what we see is true and there are no Cartesian demons.

How is phil101 treating you?

[Anonymous No.7495773]

>>7495752

>Not applying anything, these are findings, results of the greatest minds testing the limits of human understanding.

If your faith is not bounded by the methods of traditional epistemology, then you cannot use traditional means to refute a lack of faith. Some people feel a religious pull and some don't.

If you happen to believe in both faith and science, you might take interest in the scientific understanding of faith, causing at least some feedback between the two domains. Of course, these are just correlations and open to interpretation. Hypothetically, if we could empirically observe the process of faith from the assumed ontological grounding (and could concretely discern mental objects, at least by physical correlation), would this be of any use at all in determining your personal faith?

[Anonymous No.7495792]

>>7495686
>I have faith that there is a God but he only sends Christians to hell.
Calvin pls go

[Anonymous No.7495803]

>>7495743
I see that you adhere to the 'less axioms makes for superior philosophy' axiom.