Who comes close to Aquinas in brilliance? He awes me with his sheer intelligence. He seems to understand everything.
He got BTFO by Dawkins
>>990092
Proclus.
>>990092
His quinque viae is hilariously wrong
before you cum, remember he thought women would have sex with air demons on the regular and that was the bulk of his concrete evidence for the existence of the supernatural.
>>990123
...and?
>>990123
He was also, you know, a Catholic. They're really big on the supernatural in case you didn't notice.
Daily reminder that everything that is good about Aquinas is not new and what is new is not good.
>>990107
Proclus and Plotinus, the Hegel of their era.
>>990102
Aquinas had more intelligence in one finger than Dawkins in his whole body. Atheists cannot comprehend Aquinas.
>>990102
David Bentley Hart shat all over Dawkins' "rebuttal"
>>990214
DUDE WITCHES LMAO
>>990092
>thinks you should kill heretics because they are already spiritually dead anyways
>>990255
>Impotence
Curiously, if you have ever read the Malleus Maleficarum it's all about witches and male sexual potency. It's almost as if they only knew one spell.
>>990281
>[6] In 1490, three years after its publication, the Catholic Church condemned the Malleus Maleficarum,
>>990279
>he doesn't believe in the supernatural
>>990279
Reminder that his Five Ways are objectively correct
>>990304
The radioactive decay of of unstable nuclei a instead of its neighbour is actually random, not caused by some antecedent.
>>990310
Nope
>>990298
I'm not a Protestant but I am beginning to agree with the whole presuppositionalism thing.
>there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics
>basically just paraphrase Aristotle
>mix in a lot if convoluted nonsense sucking current church doctrine dick
>centuries later christcucks will think you "understood everything"
Pretty simple formula desu.
>>990092
Maybe the Arab philosophers he copied nearly all his best work from?
>>990313
Great, you're indulging literally the shittiest argument for Christianity there is
>hurr durr I can has know thing because muh scripture told me so
remember when the circular argument for the truth of the Bible got old so they created the ontological argument for the existence of god to just get right to the most circular argument possible
>>990332
Aquinas was actually put on trail for heresy at one point, which is ironic being as he wrote that putting heretics to death is justified.
>>990092
Scotus and Averroes.
>He awes me with his sheer intelligence. He seems to understand everything.
Any particular passage or concept?
>>990332
Nice shitpost, but it's all incorrect
>>990413
Nice rebuttal
>>990423
Exactly what shitposts merit
>>990427
Faggot.
>>990092
Im having a bit of trouble understanding Aristotles/Aquinas notion of the soul, how is it something that exists? It seems to be as though the soul exists in the same way that blackness or catness exist which is as categories of language rather than something that has actual existence.
his first argument does not prove a god with an intention and he assumes that it was an intentional mover for no reason
>>990123
Tip harder faggot.
>>990388
>people can't be tried and acquitted
>all trials end in "GUILTY!"
>weak and laughably simplistic wordplays in order to "prove" God exists
>Christian "intellectuals" think he's the best philosopher of all time
>>990529
It's really only the Catholics really idolize him though it is true that most christian apologists will use his arguments
>>990522
Yes few things in life are as fair and equitable as a medieval heresy trial
>>990529
Athiests on the other hand hold their assumptions and empiricism as being true as a matter of faith.
>>990564
> their assumptions and empiricism as being true as a matter of faith
That logic and evidence thing sure is tricky for the superstitious. Is that really how you want to play this game?
>Your assertions of god are unfalsiable and unsubstantiated
>n-no u
>>990332
Except all the other theologians and philosophers in the church who disagreed with him. Thomism was not the sole church sponsored philosophy until the 19th century. His school was important - but there have always been challenges to Thomism.
>>990434
The soul is to the body what sight is to the eye, it is the animation of it. Aristotle/Thomas are almost physicalists, they find the idea of a soul that is not embodied to be suspect. But they recognize that that qualitative "animation" that makes up life is not reducible to the quantifiable physical parts of the body. So you could say that while body and soul are not identical to one another they do not exist apart from one another. Souls also would not be like "blackness" in that many objects instantiate the same "blackness" - where each soul is unique to a particular set of material potencies that define a particular body. Depending on your reading of Aristotle it is substances - composites of "matter" and "form"- that have primary existence. In the case of the soul, both the soul(form) and the body( matter) have a derivative existence to the actual human being that is constituted by them, and exist in a lesser sense.
>...the same way that blackness or catness exist which is as categories of language rather than something that has actual existence.
That's only the case if nominalism is correct, rather than realism. Aquinas was a realist.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/universals-medieval/
>>990436
You get that in the rest of the Summa. The 5 ways are starting points, not full arguments.
>>990511
So, wait, you don't believe in being cucked by wind?
wow, fucking fedora.
>>990582
>The 5 ways are starting points, not full arguments.
they're still pretty weak arguments. honestly I was quite dumbfounded when I read them for the first time because they were so awful
>>990582
Dressing up a medieval priest as a modern man is desperate and spits on all the positive things modernity achieved.
Socialism will always be more relevant than Christianity (or any religion) as long as capitalism still exists.
>>990576
>That logic and evidence thing sure is tricky for the superstitious
As it is for atheists, especially the humanists.
>>n-no u
The notion of falsifiablity being a valid measure is self defeating as this position is literally unfalsifiable
They run into similar problems when it comes to their positions on empiricism and causation.
Of course you soon find that logic for the atheist is not only premised on faith based axioms but when it doesnt reach a Godless solution is held as a matter of faith to be incorrect. See the arguments in pic related
>>990123
I have doubts there are any such thing as air demons, but I do know if there were, women would probably have sex with them.
>>990608
>The notion of falsifiablity being a valid measure is self defeating as this position is literally unfalsifiable
this is about as silly of a critique as saying that you can't use logic to prove logic works
>>990629
Well you cant. Of course, that doesnt make it unreasonable to use logic.
And falsifiability is only self defeating if you use it as the only criteria for knowledge, but it wasnt intended to be that, it was intended to be a principle of scientific knowledge.
>>990603
>all the positive things modernity achieved
Modernity sucks lmao.
Name one (1) good thing modernism achieved.
>>990650
dank memes, for one
>>990582
How does such an interpretation gel with the immortality of the soul, the sight of the eye is destroyed with the eye.
>Souls also would not be like "blackness" in that many objects instantiate the same "blackness" - where each soul is unique to a particular set of material potencies that define a particular body.
Would you be able to clarify this I have trouble understanding the terms used here.
>>990646
exactly my point. though I have a personal preference for empirical proof I do think that logical proofs have some merit
>>990629
>this is about as silly of a critique as saying that you can't use logic to prove logic works
This critique ended the logical positivist movement of the 20th Century and destoryed thinkers like Bertrand Russel.
Notice how all you can say is that its silly but cannot demonstrate when it is incorrect.
>>990582
>You get that in the rest of the Summa
It's irresponsible to "prove" something without proving it and say "I'll clarify later"
>>990667
empirical isnt the same as scientific though (in the modern sense of the term), most branches of philosophy use empirical means, metaphysics being one of the most basic. And it is from metaphysics that one proves God, the soul, etc.
>>990679
it's even more irresponsible to rely on others for your own intellectual development. If you were actually serious of discussing the arguments for God you would read literature without it being spoonfed to you.
>>990680
>And it is from metaphysics that one proves God, the soul, etc.
I am aware of that but I don't find the arguments used for them to be very compelling
>>990691
And you're wrong
>>990690
>rely on others
What are you talking about? I didn't ask for anything. I just said it was irresponsible of him, which it was.
>>990695
well you sure showed me. I've just renounced my atheism and accepted Jesus Christ!
>>990650
The fun part is that I could point to the fact that you are alive when you statistically shouldn't be but your defense is to actively contradict that by being a whiny, ungrateful, goalpost moving piece of shit.
>>990691
that's fine, even though I dont agree with you. But you went from mocking the arguments for God as "unfalsifiable" to "not compelling" (if you were that anon, of course)
>>990705
no, different anon.
>>990700
you made a baseless assertion and when you got called out on it you just handwaved his answer as "irresponsible"
>>990708
You didn't call me out on anything and simply assumed I wanted to be "spoonfed".
>>990716
complaining that one doesnt do the intellectual work to refute an unfounded assertion is pretty much asking for it
>>990723
You're the only one making baseless assertions here.
>>990123
Yes, and Newton thought he could transmogrify lead into gold by drinking Mercury and Thomas Edison thought he created a phone that could talk to ghosts.
Insanity runs deep in brilliant minds, and the mean decry them for it.
>>990734
Reminder that Newton was right
>>990608
>As it is for atheists, especially the humanists
"I Know you are, but what am I"
Also, it took 2000 years for you to produce a shroud. We expect a little more from an omnipotent being
>See the arguments in pic related
And how are philosophical arguments evidence for God again?
Daily reminder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM
>>990734
Also, you have to be pretty crazy in general to actually think about how things work. Thales was an absolute madman who thought the world might not be made from the Gods.
The mean are content because it just werks, like Mac users.
>>990731
>no u
ok
>>990740
>We expect a little more from an omnipotent being
Like the very laws of reality that have allowed us to bring ourselves into existence?
If God left us a testament, then he did so not in any book or earthly relic, but in the very creation that abounds around us.
Modern Science is simply the deciphering of God's laws and testament in the language he wrote them in, using the reason he gave us.
Science was born out of the philosophical Search for truth, and that search for truth is inherently philosophical and theological.
>>990764
Science does not follow the "God created". In fact the whole "god created" malarky is pretty much anti-science. The "Heaven" in Chrisitian and Jewish theology is a lot different from space. It is the abode of god and the angels and the souls of the goodly departed. It is manifestly not the region of reality which is not encompassed by the Earth and it's atmosphere.
Sorry but Genesis is simply a creation myth with no basis in reality, and in fact that it is only a poor steal from the Babylonian.
>>990764
>Like the very laws of reality that have allowed us to bring ourselves into existence?
Have you any evidence that's his doing?
>>990764
>assertions: The Post
You can claim creation till the cows come home. Nothing that we know about the universe indicates it was, rather it functions independently and chaotically. We're in an exciting age which will discover so much more.
Or no, a bunch of ancient, illiterate, mentally ill individuals received access to the secrets of the universe. Just look around you, man. God it all of this.
>Science was born out of the philosophical Search for truth
>Fact =/= Truth
>>990776
Your problem is you think too concretely about God as a man in the sky and not the demiurge, the primal action from which all creation derives.
>>990780
Simple reasoning on my part. There are no laws without lawmakers, no deeds without doers.
Call it whatever you want, but from my point of view, and our position as a species, I see no reason not to recognize this being as God, if for no other reason other than simplicity and romanticism.
Flicking through the Summa Contra Gentiles I got quite excited when I learned that our sexual organs would be kept after the resurrection.
I thought "Why did no one tell me this before?".
But then I read on only to find it was still the same old dreary Catholic stuff about sex for pleasure being an abomination.
>>990734
...and one of those men contributed to our understanding of physics in something of a primitive fashion
...the other bought a bunch of patents, which made him a successful but unscrupulous huckster
In the concrete Aquinas didn't really shit of brilliance outside of the parasitic class to whom he gave the cud to chew.
...also If you romanticize mental illness in any way you're a complete fucking shitbeard. I know it's Tragic and Pretty to think of them as those Beautiful Mind types. but they're actually just warped and maladjusted pricks who were driven mad because of the trauma of being generally raped and fucked way too young because of the intensive valorization of an institution which economically places them at the mercy of adults and their grown ass carnal desires. mmm-hmm.
What's really rich is the consistent overlap in the groups that take Aquinas seriously and the groups that treat said institution as some colossal sacred cow among others.
>>990799
>simplicity and romanticism.
>muh common sense and muh feels
Are you aware that a lot of the ways that the Universe works is counter intuitive?
>>990799
>Simple reasoning on my part. There are no laws without lawmakers, no deeds without doers.
The universe doesn't have laws in the sense lawmakers create laws (as in, they're not rules, they're fundamental limitations of reality itself) and the start of the universe isn't a deed. You're attributing your own bias directing towards the conclusion that's the universe is the product of a willing entity rather than a product of an undirected force.
>>990797
Then tell me of the nature of existence.
I'm actually serious. Tell me how something came into existence when it is physically impossible to create energy.
I'm not talking about the Universe we inhabit, or about the universes which may have created it through membrane collision or whatever. What made them and their progenitors?
I've heard it said that existence is an inherent trait of energy, but I may be too simple not to see that as anything other than an excuse.
Also
>Fact =/= Truth
I'm sorry, what?
>>990805
This discussion hasn't been going on *that* long. Theological debates on /his/ can get pretty awful. Just wait until the biblical literalist fundie starts posting.
>>990824
So, because he doesn't know everything, he has to believe in God? That's some piss-poor reasoning.
>>990799
The God you are advocating is a bit more than just a "primal action" though. If God is just a primal action then God is no more than "quantum fluctuations". The God you are advocating for has a mind, based on Genesis is on some vague level in the likeness of man (well man made in the likeness of God), is made up of three persons, and has inspired the bible
>>990740
Is there a reason you just skipped the half of my post regarding the trouble of falsifiability and empiricism them being faith based?
>"I Know you are, but what am I"
That comment was tied to the problems I discussed below it and the trouble Athiests have with logic and evidence when it comes to their own assumptions.
>And how are philosophical arguments evidence for God again?
They are evidence in the same way that logic -itself a component of philosophy- furnishes evidence against God or for any other point
>>990823
Alright, I think my preference for romanticized terms has led to this confusion. When I say Laws, I do not mean literal laws in the sense of men, I mean Cosmic Laws, this you know, but when i say lawmaker, I do not necessarily mean an actual lawmaker; but a force or necessary condition that led to that limitation. How can a limitation exist without a limiter?
This necessary limiter is most likely my God.
>>990824
What reason do we have to think that the universe ever didn't exist? The big bang theory is that the universe came from a small point of space, not that it popped into existence. The argument that we need to have a God in order to be the cause of the expansion doesn't follow as time started with the big bang. Causality is dependent on time. you can't have a cause before time begins because its illogical
>>990853
again you are merely asserting that what we see requires a creator. an equally fallacious statement would be how can a God exist without a God maker. you haven't demonstrated that a creator is necessary and merely assume that it does
>>990836
No, that is where faith comes to play. To believe that there is a God, no God, or to refuse to believe.
Men has many faiths, each of which help him to cope, and ultimately to search for the primal truth.
All of our faiths, whether they be negative, positive, or neuter drive us to truth, and this is where, personally, I see God.
I don't blame man for a lack of faith in the biblical God, nor do I necessarily believe in Him myself.
I just wanted to have a discussion and maybe learn some things.
>>990853
>How can a limitation exist without a limiter?
There is a limiter, and that limiter is the universe itself. As a vessel cannot hold more water than it is capable of containing, so too can the objects within our universe only act in accordance with the universe they're in. There's no reason to assume some god is behind it all ensuring that it continues to function logically.
Believe in God if you want, but don't pretend it's anything other than a leap through logic into faith.
>>990859
>Causality is dependent on time
Then how did the Universe change its conformation from singularity to disparate? Why did it not just remain compressed, or how did it get that way in the first place?
I can understand the notion that the Universe is ever existent, and that it regularly changes its conformation from expanding to shrinking, as a chemical bond may shift conformation, but I do not understand how it can change before it allows time to be created.
>>990824
>I'm actually serious. Tell me how something came into existence when it is physically impossible to create energy.
I'm not talking about the Universe we inhabit, or about the universes which may have created it through membrane collision or whatever. What made them and their progenitors?
We simply do not know. Does that scare you?
I'm not arrogant enough to deposit an explanation I can't substantiate or am qualified to articulate.
>I'm sorry, what?
Water freezing at 32° F is a Scientific Fact, not a "truth". Truth in a philosophical or theological sense can be both so vague and complex that I don't even know where to begin. What can be said is that an honest Scientist never commits to 100% certainty.
>>990879
What about all the other universes?
What's the thing they're all in?
What's that in?
How do we avoid infinite regression?
>>990885
>Does that scare you
Yes, and that's an inherent trait of man, if not his defining feature.
Man is driven to know, and when he believes he can't, he strives to anyway, creating notions such as god or Cosmic will, while never contenting himself with it.
I do not claim to know God, but I will suppose him until man proves him not to be.
I believe him to be a necessity as of yet, if not in the sense he is currently known.
As God evolves in complexity, so too does man's defeat of his current iteration, and this is the true goal. Failing that, to truly know him.
>>990896
>I do not claim to know God, but I will suppose him until man proves him not to be.
Sorry mate, that's not how the burden of proof works.
>>990883
>Then how did the Universe change its conformation from singularity to disparate?
Dark energy. There's competing theories about what it exactly is but in short it's a repulsive force that drives apart space itself. Say I have a bunch of magnets held together with the negative side facing inwards. The moment they are released is T = 0. There is no sufficient force to keep them together so they immediately push apart from each other
>>990910
I don't pretend to be able to convince you, and I honestly wish I had proof of God, as do a few other people, I'm sure.
I wish I were possessed of a nature which allowed me to articulate myself in a manner which belongs in this discussion, but I am not.
I just want to express to you my lack of faith in the notion that Science is of yet a satisfactory explanation for my existence.
I know the lineage of myself and my progenitors up to their oldest RNA precursors, but that doesn't help me know myself, which frightens me, as does the idea of so much beauty being lost to the cold, sterile laboratory.
>>990931
Then this assumes that the Singularity present at T=0 is the initial conformation of the Universe, no.
If not, does Dark energy wax and wane, allowing the Universe to change conformation from disparate to collective?
This may sound dumb isn't 'God' the logical conclusion from observing intelligence pilling on intelligence?
The drawing attached shows that we're approaching the existential singularity.
>>990942
>Then this assumes that the Singularity present at T=0 is the initial conformation of the Universe, no.
Since this is the point that time starts then it is by definition the initial conformation of the universe
>>990950
We will merge with AI and create neo-human potential. Our thoughts will have thoughts. Total feedback.
>>990935
While I find most of this flawed, your ultimate point reaches something respectable. You alone are responsibility for your own cause, your own meaning. I'm no nihilist.
>>990961
Ultimately, it will be possible to recreate the experience you're having right now.
Doesn't this insinuate intention? If we believe in odds, then a lack of intention would mean we're betting that we are the first time this process has ever occurred in all of eternity.
>>990957
Why is there a beginning if its always been there?
How did it get there? Can time have different iterations with each conformation of the Universe, or does it have to be contiguous?
>>990092
>it's too late for a movie where Connery plays Aquinas
>>990983
>I never knew this feel
>>990971
>Why is there a beginning if its always been there?
always does not imply an existence for an infinite amount of time. So the universe has only existed for 14 billion years but it has also always existed since there is no time before those 14 billion years started.
>How did it get there?
It doesn't require a cause. Our understanding of causality requires time. You can't have a cause before T = 0.
>Can time have different iterations with each conformation of the Universe, or does it have to be contiguous?
I don't understand your question
>>990602
I don't like 4. But I doubt you read them properly, no offense. Because of how widely misinterpreted they are mainly. I thought they were weak until I actually had an Aquinas scholar teach them to me. Some of the translations going around of Aquinas' work are pretty atrocious as well, that plus a general ignorance of scholastic terminology makes it so most people don't actually get the arguments.
>>990603
Actually the point was that Thomas' philosophy had the tools necessary to combat modern errors in philosophy. They were using him explicitly for reactionary purposes.
>>990658
Bodily resurrection, which I believe is the traditional Catholic idea anyways. The idea is that you either A. perish and are recreated by God in the future, or B. your soul declines into a semi-existent state ( "existence" has different connotions in most scholastic thinkers than in our usage) until the bodily resurrection happens. Heaven is for angels, not humans.
So "blackness" is something that is universal. It is a shared property in the sense that we would want to say that "blackness" is in my laptop and my stapler. Even if the numerical instances are distinct, we want to say that it is the same quality in each of them. "Blackness" applies to many substances in the way it is instantiated. Each soul is distinctly meant for particular bodies. So a particular dog's soul will be the animation of a particular dog body, a particular human soul for the animation of a particular human body, etc. The two are distinct in that way.
Now for Thomas form is actuality- actually being a thing. Matter is potency- the potential to be something. Matter qua matter is pure potency - it is a being of reason, there always has to be some form for it to be anything. Now body's as we know change over time - the form does'nt need the exact same matter all the way through, it just has to have matter with the same potencies as the matter the body had before so that the form can continue on.
>>991001
>It doesn't require a cause
So what causes T=0 to become T>0?
How does time start in the first place? What is time in Universal terms?
>I don't understand your question
Assuming a model of existence where the Universe changes conformation cyclically, from singularity to stretched at its utmost to back again, when it reaches Singularity again, is T=0?
>>990679
The considerations that come out of that chapter other than the proofs justify this. The next part of the book uses negative theology ( since we can only know of God's existence through direct proof, not his essence, according to the earlier part of the chapter with the proofs), beginning from the way we normally know things to exist ( as composites, as in time, etc) and showing that the being we proved to exist with the 5 ways cannot be like that. In Aristotelian Science you are supposed to start from what is better known by us prima facie to what is better known in itself ( more "real"). So this order of explanation makes sense for Thomas' context. You start off with something common and more easily demonstrable in this case: existence - then you move on to the harder to discern properties that make God specifically what he is. From here the properties of the Christian God ( though not all - some are a matter of faith) are elucidated. Existence ends up coming up first in the argumentative order before the other properties because of the kind of being God is.
>>991016
>So what causes T=0 to become T>0?
>How does time start in the first place? What is time in Universal terms?
Again because causality is a property within time there can't really be something to cause time. It just is. It seems somewhat counter-intuitive.
>Assuming a model of existence where the Universe changes conformation cyclically, from singularity to stretched at its utmost to back again, when it reaches Singularity again, is T=0?
I see where you are going here. Time stops each time the universe returns to singularity so there would necessarily be a "before" before time starts again. If the universe works like this then I'm definitely wrong. However the universe doesn't appear to be heading towards a Big Crunch event, which would be in this model. there isn't enough mass in the universe from matter and dark matter to reverse or even stop the expansion caused by dark energy
>>991076
*It seems somewhat counter-intuitive but that's mainly because it's in our nature to assume a cause
>>990092
What's so brilliant about him exactly?
>>990888
We don't. The problem of infinite regression is a product of our hangups, not an actual problem.
>>990841
>Is there a reason you just skipped the half of my post regarding the trouble of falsifiability and empiricism them being faith based?
No offense, but I just saw a potential rabbit hole of semantics, of which I don't have the patience to entertain.
Just understand Faith and validated confidence are not the same thing.
Also remember that there truly isn't a single, solitary thing Religion, abrahamic religion specifically, has proven science wrong on.
>>991245
>No offense, but I just saw a potential rabbit hole of semantics, of which I don't have the patience to entertain.
Where are the semantics though? Im not quibbling over obscure technical terms like potentiality or redefining common terms like God.
You made a claim about falsifiablity being able to be the measure of truth without having to rely on some kind of faith.
If your logic is correct then it will not contradict itself however when it comes to falsifiablity it cannot meet its own truth requirements.
>Just understand Faith and validated confidence are not the same thing.
You think the Christian who feels their prayers are heard to and answered is not basing their belief on validated confidcene?
>Also remember that there truly isn't a single, solitary thing Religion, abrahamic religion specifically, has proven science wrong on.
Because they work hand in hand and are not hostile to one another, and it was only in the 20th Century that the meme of them being opposed developed.
>>991310
>You made a claim about falsifiablity being able to be the measure of truth without having to rely on some kind of faith
No. It's an aspect of it. An Unfalsifiable God concept is just a lame excuse to be immune of critical analysis. If there were was any proof, there would be no need for such intellectual acrobatics.
> feels their prayers are heard to and answered is not basing their belief on validated confidcene
No. Faith as a whole is unjustified belief in spite of anything contrary.
A Jew, Muslim, or Hindu can also claim the same. You can pray to just anything and expect the same results.
Futhermore, Prayer has before been demonstrated to have a negative effect. A study of hospital patients showed that those that were being prayed for and were aware of it tended to fare worse, out of a "performance anxiety" so to speak.
>Because they work hand in hand and are not hostile to one another,
Giordano Bruno and Galileo would like a word with you.
>are not hostile to one another
Except when Religion makes blatantly false and unscientific claims, or when science contradicts Religion. I know people disowned by their families for believing in evolution.
>>990092
Aquinas threads are the ones where /christ/ and /phil/ meet. Apex cringe
>>991492
>No. It's an aspect of it. An Unfalsifiable God concept is just a lame excuse to be immune of critical analysis. If there were was any proof, there would be no need for such intellectual acrobatics.
How is this any different from you unfalsifiable axioms being a lame excuse to render them immune to critical analysis?
Most of the philosophical positions that underpin science are equally unfalsifiable yet that doesnt stop people from using them fruitfully.
Do you not see the hypocrisy?
" unfalsifiablity is only acceptable when it comes to rejecting things that are not my views"
>If there were was any proof, there would be no need for such intellectual acrobatics.
Its not intellectual acrobatics but accepting the limitations of human knowledge. This is something that even Atheist philosophers like Hume and Wittgenstein understand.
>No. Faith as a whole is unjustified belief in spite of anything contrary.
Faith is literally belief without any proof. Notice how you inserted your own values here with "unjustified". When someone has a different unquestioned axiom to you it is unjustified yet your own unquestionable axioms are wholly justified.
>A Jew, Muslim, or Hindu can also claim the same. You can pray to just anything and expect the same results.
Exactly.
>Futhermore, Prayer has before been demonstrated to have a negative effect. A study of hospital patients showed that those that were being prayed for and were aware of it tended to fare worse, out of a "performance anxiety" so to speak.
An odd an unrelated issue,and would be as relevant as me bringing up that religious people suffer from depression and commit suicide at far lower rates and live longer than athiests.
>Giordano Bruno and Galileo would like a word with you.
Have you actually looked up why Bruno was burned? It had to do with him preaching heresy based on metaphysical claims and nothing to do with his scientific ones.
>>991527
>It had to do with him preaching heresy based on metaphysical claims and nothing to do with his scientific ones.
Oh well I guess that's fine then!
ISIStianity. Not even once.
>>991527
As for Galileo an embarasing but not symptomatic event in the church and would be akin to me bringing up the example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
of Atheist science at work.
Also take a gander at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists
Some of the greatest scientific minds have been preists and devout church goers.
>Except when Religion makes blatantly false and unscientific claims, or when science contradicts Religion.
Tell that to the list of people above. Science helps us better understand and appreciate Gods creation and revelation.
>I know people disowned by their families for believing in evolution.
And atheists executed and tortured millions in France, Russia and China for refusing to become atheists.
Still its a shame about what happened to your friends and emblematic of the problems of Protestantism just as the horrors of Communist athiesm are to liberal athiesm
>>991545
>communist atheism
Communism is very much theocratic in its application, especially since Stalin shaped it. It's not fair to call it as a religion, but atheism was inconceivable in communism. Party Doctrine was the Bible.
>>991531
>Oh well I guess that's fine then!
In the same way that political ideology can have disastrous consequences if left un moderated - nationalism, socialism and even liberalism- so to does religious belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War
Compare these to the horrors commited by political heretics
>>991550
>Communism is very much theocratic in its application, especially since Stalin shaped it. It's not fair to call it as a religion, but atheism was inconceivable in communism. Party Doctrine was the Bible.
They had state mandated athiesm that was wholly materialistic and denied any notion of God, divinity or revelation. All you are doing is turning religion into a snarl word for things you do not like.
>>991555
Except death of heretics was endorsed by said "angelic" doctor and this is a thread about him.
>>991561
What the fuck is wrong with you you touchy triggered cretinous mongoloid pleb? Where the fuck did I turn religion into a snarl world you cretinous fuck? I said communism was very theocratic in its approach, I didn't even briefly tocuh on the subject of any religion, and even mentioned communism can be called a religion but it's unfair.
Consider sue side you pathetic fag
>>991561
Or a snarl word for "belief system held contrary to evidence that cannot be questioned on pain of death, heretic". So not really a snarl word at all.
>>991571
Reminder that I didn't even do that, he just got triggered. I thought Christians are supposed to be thicker skinned than this.
>>991564
Where did I say that killing heretics was wrong? And notice how with Aquinas its not people who think differently but people who push and publish that heresy.
>What the fuck is wrong with you you touchy triggered cretinous mongoloid pleb? Where the fuck did I turn religion into a snarl world you cretinous fuck? I said communism was very theocratic in its approach, I didn't even briefly tocuh on the subject of any religion, and even mentioned communism can be called a religion but it's unfair.
By acting as though the governments in those countries were very theocratic, that atheism was inconceivable in communism and that the use of party doctrine was analogous to the use of the bible.
>>991582
I literally said calling it a religion is unfair and that communism took a note from the theocratic oppressive regimes of the past, I never mentioned religion as a snarl world you uncomprehensive mong. Fuck off
B-but Thomas Aquinas is so angelic guize I swear! Nevermind that he preached extermination based on bullshit arguments and appeal to authority.
These "saints" of the church are really above good and evil, like that prurient man Augustine, and the murderous adulterer king David we're supposed to believe was a righteous man! Jesus is so good because he is descendant from David! Oh you don't agree? To the bonfire you go!
>not people who think differently but people who push and publish that heresy.
>>991592
>If you think that accuratley describes religious practice
>should heretics be tolerated? The answer is no.
>>991582
Again. Everything fine then! Read what you're typing. So what if someone "pushes and publishes" heresy? Does he deserve to die because of it? That's what you "angelic" doctor believed.
Daily reminder that ISIStianity is a very dangerous thing and secularism was a positive development.
>>991592
>I will literally defend Aquinlel and the Catholic Church and everything they did
>b-but I'm not a Christian guiz
>>991600
>So what if someone "pushes and publishes" heresy?
Specially in the light of the fact the Christianity itself started as a heresy and was ultimately proven false by science. Should Christians be persecuted for preaching falsehoods? The pendulum swings...
>>991588
>I literally said calling it a religion is unfair and that communism took a note from the theocratic oppressive regimes of the past,
But thats the issue they didnt. This form of totalitarianism was a new and atheistic creation. Even at the height of Catholic influence in Europe you wont see anything analogous to socialism when it comes to control and intervention in peoples private lives.
> I never mentioned religion as a snarl world you uncomprehensive mong
The issue is that you use it as one when you act as though the Church provided inspiration / a model for countries like the USSR or China.
"Its unfair to say that races arent equaly but black people are violent and stupid".
>>991609
I'm tired of explaining my point to you, and the fact that you assume I was referring specifically to Catholics just reinforces it. You are a Catholic and are misrepresenting what I say because that's about all you can do. Fuck off, this your last (You).
>>991600
>So what if someone "pushes and publishes" heresy? Does he deserve to die because of it? That's what you "angelic" doctor believed.
Those examples I linked showed the graphic results history has furnished us of what happens when religious knowledge is allowed to be wholly unchecked.
Its for the same reason why people faced similar persecution and censorship for their political ideals in the 19th and 20th Century.
Given the smaller role religion plays now, that same existential danger is no longer present to justify such action as far as Christianity is concerned.
>>991608
Ill answer this when you admit that your own measure of truth doesnt even meet its own requirements.
>>991606
Im doing this to better understand the points put forward by people like Wolfsheim and Constantine, earlier in this thread I was attacking the validity of philosophy that underpins Scholasticism put forward by Scotus or whoever wrote >>990582
>>991619
Forgive me then I just made assumptions, which oppressive theocratic regimes did the Communists take their inspiration from? When I normally deal with this matter it tends to be levied at the Catholics more so than say the Protestants or Taosits who arguably come closer to that point.
Daily reminder that (((Judeo)))-Christianity is a totalitarian Semitic ideology akin to Marxism. Reading the writings of their "philosophers" today is like reading works by Soviet authors with their 'Proletarian science", "Proletarian linguistics", "Proletarian logic", "Proletarian x".
Soviets: Oh you just don't understand these profound works because you're using bourgeois logic you silly goy, I mean, bourgeois reactionary!
Christians: Oh you just don't understand these profound works because you're using heathen logic you silly goy, I mean, pagan heretic!
>>991641
>we /asatrupol/ now
>>991641
Kind of ironic given that this is a scholastic thread and they literally based their understanding on heathen logic
>>991628
But we're not talking about the Thirty Years War or Maoism ITT, we're talking about Thomas Aquinas. Because A did B it doesn't justifiy C doing B.
Is murdering people for their beliefs immoral or not? If yes then the "angelic" doctor is immoral, and not a saint, let alone angelic.
Aquinas is such a meme philosopher that every Christian trying to prove himself intelligent will throw out. He had some good theories but like all Catholics he is an idol worshipping heathen and for all his good works is sadly rotting in hell because of it
>>991668
>If yes then the "angelic" doctor is immoral
Oh and the entire Church. There is no getting around that.
>>991668
>But we're not talking about the Thirty Years War or Maoism ITT, we're talking about Thomas Aquinas. Because A did B it doesn't justifiy C doing B.
Reason I posted those examples was to demonstrate that the fear Aquinas had regarding the danger of spreading heresy was a very legitimate one and that it was this same fear that caused people to suppress political ideology.
When the ideas of certain books or thinkers define a societies morals and ethics allowing them to be perverted or changed can have some very harmful consequences.
>Is murdering people for their beliefs immoral or not? If yes then the "angelic" doctor is immoral, and not a saint, let alone angelic.
You are misrepresenting Aquinas here, you do not murder people for their beliefs but their actions. Its no different from capital punishment for other crimes.
>>991662
>they literally based their understanding on heathen logic
You mean they eat the remains off the rich man's table and talk shit behind his back after he's gone.
Christianity: the eternal slave rebelion.
>>991692
SO you are literally defending the Albigensian Crusade because Cathar Christians were harmful, so you advocate killing people for wrongthink, depopulating the South of France for being of a different religion, yet you claim you're not a Catholic. Any more genocides you're OK with?
>>991692
>the fear Aquinas had regarding the danger of spreading heresy was a very legitimate one
Again that is an untenable position for three reasons.
Preemptive justice. You don't arrest someone in advance because you fear that he will commit a crime. Imagine this logic applied to everyday life.
It doesn't necessarily follow. What harm has the albigensian "heresy" caused except the harm that the church herself did to them, by murdering almost everyone including women and children in the Albigensian Crusade? Likewise Arianism, and a bunch of other heresies only resulted in harm to the heretics themselves by the church.
Seeing that the christian faith itself has been proven wrong time and time again it has no right to stop other beliefs from spreading.
>you do not murder people for their beliefs but their actions.
Yeah but that's you speaking and not what really happened. Heresy is not an "action" is a belief.
>>990092
Wittgenstein
>>991696
>You mean they eat the remains off the rich man's table and talk shit behind his back after he's gone.
Yeah the whole justification for Eucharist is heavily couched in Aristotelian categories of existence. You would be suprised with just how far they took his work.
>Christianity: the eternal slave rebelion.
More like the eternal slave morality :^)
>>991703
I think that their actions were reasonable even if I would disagree with some instances given the knowledge I have that they didnt.
>Any more genocides you're OK with?
I disagree with most of them but some examples where I think that the people who held power were justifyed in their reasoning would be.
-The expulsion/exile of communists in Russia after the 1915 revolt.
-The attacks against the monarchists at Vendee
-The Suppression of the Great Peasant Revolt in Germany.
ect.
Would you have advocated for a peaceful stance in those situations?
>>991740
All I needed to hear from you is that your OK with the slaughter of Cathar women and children. So now we can safely assume there's literally nothing wrong the Catholic Church did in your mind, and the discussion is over if you ask since I don't want to hear anything more from you or the likes of you, you disgusting warmongering cretin.
>>991723
>Preemptive justice. You don't arrest someone in advance because you fear that he will commit a crime. Imagine this logic applied to everyday life.
Its closer to persecuting someone for the crime of consipiracy or purchasing and distributing prohibited weapons.
>It doesn't necessarily follow. What harm has the albigensian "heresy" caused except the harm that the church herself did to them, by murdering almost everyone including women and children in the Albigensian Crusade?
It only came to a head when a very powerful duke lent them his support and created the potential for a protestant like schism. Arianism was a more internal issue that did not have the same political ramifications hence why even though it was more widespread the reaction was more moderate.
Still given what I know, I think they misapplied this principle and acted wrongly.
>Seeing that the christian faith itself has been proven wrong time and time again it has no right to stop other beliefs from spreading.
This logic doesnt really follow and seems to be akin to those who say that given the US's history Americans have no right to stop people from entering the country
>>990281
More like it's the only spell that was asked of them.
Going by the spam folder in my mailbox it's as if the pharmaceutical industry only produces one pill.
>>991752
>All I needed to hear from you is that your OK with the slaughter of Cathar women and children.
Im not ok with that,
>So now we can safely assume there's literally nothing wrong the Catholic Church did in your mind, and the discussion is over if you ask since I don't want to hear anything more from you or the likes of you, you disgusting warmongering cretin.
There are huges problems with the Catholic Church historically and currently.
>you disgusting warmongering cretin.
Say you were an Ottoman Emir in the late 19th Century would you have let Wahhabiism spread among the Arab and Turkish populations.
>>991759
What you're implying is that cathars or protestants have no right to separate themselves from the catholic church or face the consequences that the same catholic church will bring upon them, and then you say that heresy is what is "dangerous".
>>991779
All I am saying is that ideas have power regardless of whether they are religious or not and that in some occasions it is reasonable to oppress those ideas are a material threat to you.
Ill provide a secular example for you, think of the aftermath of the first World War in Germany. Communists sized control of the Bavarian government and sought to institute authoritarian socialism, was it immoral for the Weimar Government to violently remove them and ignore their right to separate, was their response proportionate?
Once again *Im not* saying that I agree with all the actions of the Catholic Church or Secular types in suppressing subversive elements. elements. *I am* saying that this desire to supress religious or secular is not irrational
>>991830
Interesting points. Let's agree to disagree on the church issue. Enough shitposting for this round for me.
>>991842
No worries, still I'm interested in what you would do in the Wiemar example.
>>991527
>any different from you unfalsifiable axioms
How can you claim any of my axioms are unfalsiable if I haven't presented a single one to begin with? I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're seriously playing the "I know you are, but what am I" game without my saying anything of consequence.
>philosophical positions that underpin science are equally unfalsifiable
Name them.
>from using them fruitfully.
You mean bringing consistent results?
What is useful about an Unfalsifiable God concept?
>Its not intellectual acrobatics
It is.
>Faith is literally belief without any proof.
Thus unjustified.
>When someone has a different unquestioned axiom to you
You really are desperate to conflate faith with confidence. I'm growing tired of you.
>An odd an unrelated issue
No, it's pretty related if you're asking me to take prayer seriously.
> preaching heresy
Ah yes, now we're getting somewhere juicy. Why are religions entitled to punish for heresy?
>Atheist science at work
Atheism has no underlying doctrine other than a lack of belief in gods. You might as link evil deeds with those who didn't believe in bigfoot.
>have been preists and devout church goers
Sure. But there's also no doubt some put on the act to appease their Catholic patrons.
>Tell that to the list of people above
Oh, I'd almost bet money 95% of them saw those pesky stupid claims as "metaphorical".
>Science helps us better understand and appreciate Gods creation and revelation
Yeah, like how humans can't live to be centuries old, nor can they survive living in a whale, or how when they die they tend to stay dead.
>And atheists executed and tortured millions in France, Russia and China for refusing to become atheists
It's pretty poor form of you, on /his/ no less, to boil down all of those extremely complex political movements to atheist lmao.
>>990667
>though I have a personal preference for empirical proof
>>990092
>god of the gaps: the philosopher
>>991962
You seem like a knowledgeable person.
How do you feel about evaluations and critiques of eminent philosophers and their ideas being reduced to formulaic meme phrases on forums of anonymous discussion?
>>991962
You sure showed him.
Caesar was the biggest genius in world history, even taking into account possible unrecorded or wasted brilliant mind, we can safely assume that based off just how far caesar outshined all other great individuals in the history of the world, that we'll never ever see someone close to him ever again, and none have ever existed.
>there are people here who actually argue that the Cathars dindu nuffin wrong
Literally the biggest niggers of European history who deserved everything they got
>>990092
Me
I do
>>992068
What did the Cathars do?
>>991903
>How can you claim any of my axioms are unfalsiable if I haven't presented a single one to begin with?
Sorry I was working on the understanding that falsifability was one of your axioms. What are your axioms?
>but you're seriously playing the "I know you are, but what am I" game without my saying anything of consequence.
Not true I admit that my axioms are based on faith and feeling whilst you deny that your are.
>Name them.
Empiricism and the axioms of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
>You mean bringing consistent results?
I meant fruitfully in the term of beneficial and good.
>What is useful about an Unfalsifiable God concept?
The same thing that is useful with all unfalsifable axioms. Thinkers who hold the world to be the product of design were more motivated to seek out the paterns and laws that govern it. Likewise it provides a unifying and stress relieving social effect.
>You really are desperate to conflate faith with confidence. I'm growing tired of you.
If an axiom cannot be falsified would you say that any conclusions based upon it are those of faith and not confidence?
>Ah yes, now we're getting somewhere juicy. Why are religions entitled to punish for heresy?
I answered that here >>991830
>Atheism has no underlying doctrine other than a lack of belief in gods. You might as link evil deeds with those who didn't believe in bigfoot.
The point of that link was demonstrating that secular and atheist thought can also be hostile to science.
>Sure. But there's also no doubt some put on the act to appease their Catholic patrons.Oh, I'd almost bet money 95% of them saw those pesky stupid claims as "metaphorical".
Ah yes the old "they must have secretly been athiests" argument the other side of the cryptochristian "oh they converted on their deathbed" coin.
>>990255
>witchcraft isn't real
Atheist please
>>993968
>oooga booga
Ever sit back and wonder why most catholics today are statistically malnourished niggers?
>>993946
>Yeah, like how humans can't live to be centuries old, nor can they survive living in a whale, or how when they die they tend to stay dead.
More along the lines of final causes (teleology)
>It's pretty poor form of you, on /his/ no less, to boil down all of those extremely complex political movements to atheist lmao.
You missread me, I did not say that only people who were religious were abused by those regimes (had that been the case I would have said 10s of millions) but that there is ample evidence of pure religious persecution.
For instance during the French Revolution they literally instituted a law that prescribed the death penalty (on sight no less) for priests who refused to swear loyalty to the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution
>>993985
I'm a protestant.
I like this thread
>>993985
The catholic position is that witchcraft doesn't exist btw.
>>994001
OMG THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING
