/lit/ - Literature

>>12340440
"I hid a turd under a hat and then placed it on your head!"

>>12340440
The second is the neo-platonic proof.

>>12340440

>>12340440
>>12340459
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0nXG02tpDw

>>12340459
The third is the Augustinian proof.

>>12340486
The fourth is the Thomistic proof.

>>12340482

>>12340499
And here is the fifth proof. Good luck!

>>12340482
I can see why Reddit loves this guy. He's probably smarter than me but his argument is bugman-tier.

>>12340528
It's always strange seeing this obviously smart pop-scientists make their swan dives into the stupid end of the pool.

>>12340528
>>12340586
Atheists like him are midwits. Just read his dumb twitter posts. Any intelligent atheist is only an atheist because of the lack of faith, not because of any argument

>>12340611
>Any intelligent atheist is only an atheist because of the lack of faith, not because of any argument

>>12340637
The only remotely compelling argument against God is the problem of evil.

>>12340482
>God is a bearded man in the sky
>Philosophers have only argued against the problem of evil by saying God is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent

>>12340692
And that argument fails for multiple reasons.
>implying the universe exists solely for the satisfaction of organisms, and not God’s motivations
>implying we know better than God
>implying the world would be better without evil

It’s interesting how humans are perfectly capable of writing literature free from evil, but they usually do. The greatest works of fiction always include suffering.

>>12340692
>The only remotely compelling argument against God is the problem of evil
Umm sweaty no...

>>12340811
>We live in the best possible world
Umm, sorry sweaty

>>12340440
What's the source on these ?
And whose argument is this one >>12340513

>>12340808
>if you go through a bunch of cucked mental gymnastics the argument fails
Really makes me think.

>>12341660
Nevermind found it, Five Proofs for the Existence of God, and Leibniz.

Imagine arguing that whatever made the big gang happen was a god that doesn't want you to be gay

>>12341689
>Imagine arguing that whatever made the big gang happen was a god that doesn't want you to have gay sex.
Fixed it for you anon.

>>12340440
I agree that a purely actual actualizer must exist, but that doesn't mean that you can describe it with terms like "intelligent" and "purely good". The argument assumes that god is unchangeable to derive all the rest of his attributes except for intelligence and omniscience. But the argument is also that god already contains within himself the pattern of all things that exist. In a way, god IS everything that exists, otherwise you cannot say that forms or patterns of the intellect exist in the actual actualizer. God contains all possible forms, and these keep changing because of god.

The argument says that god is the actual actualizer and thus contains no potentials capable of changing. Then why is everything which is capable of changing also a part of god? The actual actualizer can exist, but to ascribe properties to it is baseless.

>>12340505
>>12340528
>>12340611
I know its cool to hate on 'le ebic reddit atheist' but can YOU solve the problem of evil?

>>12341773
/thread

>Refute Professor Feser's arguments for God

>>12341805
read
>>12340808

Further, 'goodness' according to the theistic perspective is entirely contingent on God. The Islamic example of al-Khidr is a great example this: in the story, he accompanies Moses and sinks a boat, kills a boy, and repairs a hole in a wall; Moses thinks he's acting like a madman until al-Khidr reveals the result of his actions, showing that his perspective on morality of the world is flawed and goodness is contingent on deity and omniscience.

Another great example is the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham ("Fear and Trembling" goes in depth on this); Abraham relies on faith and believes he is doing good because he follows God's command.

>>12340440
>Holding on to medieval metaphysical categories in 2018 and thinking someone needs to waste their time addressing your word salad
Embarrassing.

>>12341857
>be al-Khidr
>kill some kid
>'dude it's okay, he was a jerk anyway and his parent can just have another one lmao'
Absolute state of the Abrahamic religions.
Also:
>result of his actions
So God is a utilitarian?

>>12341857
Why do all theist arguments essentially boil down to "god works in mysterious ways"?

>>12341963
Surely being mysterious and ineffable is an unavoidable part of being God. What kind of limitless being would be fully understandable by man?

>>12342001
Why do you pretend to understand god then? How do you definitely know god is the benevolent creator you would like him to be?

He's coming out with a new book on Aristotle which looks really good

>>12342017
I don't need to see 100% of the elephant to know its an elephant.

>>12342021
elephants are comprehensible. a god is not.

>>12341963
its a completely acceptable answer to the problem of evil

>>12340440
>>12340459
>>12340486
>>12340499
>>12340513
Imagine going through all of this effort to defend a distorted Jewish conception of God and not the eternal godhead Sri Krsna

>>12341962
You misunderstood my point. The al-Khidr story refutes the pseudo-utilitarian worldview, since it looks at the world through that lens. An action is not moral based on its result, it is moral only through the deity.

>>12341963
That's not my point. My point is that accepting an omnipotent/ omniscient deity would necessitate that morality derives from him, and not our emotions or utility.

Isaac wanted to live, but God wanted him to die. Which is better?

>>12340440
feser is a hack.
>24. If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be changeable and exist in time, which it does not.
>25. So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial.
putting aside the fact that immaterial literal means non-existent, and makes no sense in any other context, it raises an important question as to how an immaterial object can cause motion in a material object. an immaterial object possesses no mass, or energy, meaning it can't do work or apply force.
>30. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation-that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.
not only is he basically repeating 28 here, but what he's saying also makes little sense in the context of how we would normally use the word "good". one would normally describe an itch as "bad" and yet it seems odd to suggest that the itch is bad because it lacks some proper feature. similarly, i wouldn't describe the part of my body as"bad" because it is "deprived of the state of non-itchiness". i get that he's using the term in the aristotelian way, but it implies far more than has been deduced in this argument.

38-44 is platonic woo that reeks of descartes' third meditation.

I do have a fairly concrete opinion but I'm less and less interested in any kind of (always futile) debate on the topic. I think Einstein put it nicely.

>Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.

>>12340440
the first the he does, he asserts things in his proof that he would need other proofs to assert in the first place, I don't even need to refute it because he hasn't even finished the argument.

>>12342177
>putting aside the fact that immaterial literal means non-existent
Already you've made an ass of yourself. Apparently numbers, ideas, and logic don't exist.

>>12342248
Don't forget colors and other qualia. And my feefees!

>>12342220
Wow is it really so simple anon? Do you think? Lmao

>>12342248
>numbers
linguistic constructs. there is nothing immaterial about describing a quantity of material objects.
>ideas
come about through material processes in a biological brain. there is no reason to believe thoughts are anything more than electrical impulses.
>logic
again, a linguistic construction. you might as well suggest that "baseball" or "poker" exist as immaterial objects.

>>12342261
>colors and other qualia
there is nothing immaterial about these things other than the implication that internal objects must be composed of non-material, which is a baseless assumption at best.

>>12342338
>>12342346
I agree with you up to the point of classifying qualia as material. If we categorise qualia as a byproduct of material processes but something that cannot be identified with the material components/processes itself.. then is it immaterial?

>>12342346
Wrong and dumb.

>>12342338
>>numbers
>linguistic constructs. there is nothing immaterial about describing a quantity of material objects.

Simply calling something a linguistic construct doesn't negate its existence.

>>ideas
>come about through material processes in a biological brain. there is no reason to believe thoughts are anything more than electrical impulses.

A material what, anon? Oh, a process yes. Please tell me what a process is. Or what motion is, for that matter. Also, no matter how much we understand those electrical impulses, an observer will never see the color red or taste vanilla ice cream by merely looking in your brain.

>>logic
>again, a linguistic construction. you might as well suggest that "baseball" or "poker" exist as immaterial objects.

>Muh constructs!

>>12342338
>>12342381
I'll do one better. What the hell is a construct?

>>12341773
this

He hasn't said anything worth criticizing yet. For one, he assumes that concepts like "intellect" and "actualizer" are well defined, so it's the sort of argument that can only be judged favorably by someone who happens to vaguely assume the same definitions as the author.
What a piece of fucking shit. I'm ashamed to share this board with dimwits who think these sorts of arguments are worth anything.

>>12340440
>>12340459
Two non-sequiturs.

>>12342439
An actualizer is a well defined and simple term that you can learn in any ancient philosophy 101 class. Same with potentiality.

>>12342446
Care to point out where the argument fails?

>>12342354
>If we categorise qualia as a byproduct of material processes but something that cannot be identified with the material components/processes itself.. then is it immaterial?
my response to "ideas" as immaterial applies here i think. there's no reason to suppose that qualia can't be identified with the neurological processes of a material brain which interpret
material stimuli.
>>12342356
not an argument
>>12342381
>Simply calling something a linguistic construct doesn't negate its existence.
you missed the point. i wasn't saying numbers don't exist, i was saying that there is nothing immaterial about them. they are an affectation of language, not some collection of transcendent platonic entities which manifest in reality.
>>12342381
>A material what, anon? Oh, a process yes. Please tell me what a process is. Or what motion is, for that matter.
kindly consult a dictionary. i don't mean to waste my time arguing semantics with idealists on the internet.
>Also, no matter how much we understand those electrical impulses, an observer will never see the color red or taste vanilla ice cream by merely looking in your brain.
no matter how much you understand how a game boy works, an observer will never catch a snorlax or beat the elite four by merely looking at a cartridge of pokemon red. this doesn't mean that the game somehow exists immaterially within the cartridge, it means that you can only actually play the game given the right equipment.
>>Muh constructs!
not an argument.
>>12342405
>What the hell is a construct?
something which is constructed. quit being obtuse, there are actual points to contend with besides nit picking definitions like an autist. it's more enjoyable if you actually give me something to respond to.

>>12342465
The game consists in a set of 1s and 0s, correct? Yet it's not the particular 1s and 0s that are important, it's the pattern, the process, in which they are arranged. Patterns and process are immaterial. Material cannot exist without immaterial processes.

>>12342465
>something which is constructed. quit being obtuse, there are actual points to contend with besides nit picking definitions like an autist. it's more enjoyable if you actually give me something to respond to.
What material is it made out of? Is it possible to find one in a microscope?

>>12342502
there is nothing "immaterial" about a set of material objects being arranged in a certain manner.
>What material is it made out of?
what "it" are you referring to, pray tell? if you mean thoughts, i already said they are composed of electrical impulses in the brain which can be observed an measured.

>>12342502
there is nothing immaterial about a set of material object being arranged in a certain way.
>>12342504
>What material is it made out of?
what is "it" that you are referring to? if you mean thoughts, then i've already said they are composed of electrical impulses which can be measured and observed.

>>12342551
Christ man look at the post and see what we were talking about. What material are constructs made of? Is it possible to find a construct in a microscope?

>he's a materialist
Immediate brainlet alarm. In a very literal sense you don't know what the word means

>>12342537
We won't find common ground if you can't even admit that process is a real and immaterial aspect of reality. What do you think the laws of nature are? How was it that the energy of the big bang, before time and matter even existed, became the universe as it if some immaterial pattern or law didn't govern it's expansion? Immaterial processes must have preceded the material, or the material wouldn't have done what it did.

>>12342551
How could the brain know how to generate electrical impulses in such a way to generate specific ideas?

>>12342566
>What material are constructs made of?
matter? this is such a benal and obvious poiont i don't see why it should need to be stated.
>>12342569
>We won't find common ground if you can't even admit that process is a real and immaterial aspect of reality.
i doubt we will find common ground on much beyond our use of the same language. and again, i fail to see why the doings of material things is itself immaterial.
>What do you think the laws of nature are?
the manner in which matter behaves.
>How was it that the energy of the big bang, before time and matter even existed, became the universe as it if some immaterial pattern or law didn't govern it's expansion?
firstly, you are operating under the misapprehension that natural laws "govern" the universe as opposed to simply being a description of the universe. secondly, if i had the answer to your question the entire field of cosmology would be solved, so i think it's a bit unfair.
>Immaterial processes must have preceded the material, or the material wouldn't have done what it did.
why is the behavior of material necessarily contingent upon the "immaterial?"
>>12342590
>How could the brain know how to generate electrical impulses in such a way to generate specific ideas?
it doesn't "know how" to generate electrical impulses, it simply does because that's what it evolved to do.

>>12342622
Because the behavior of the material must be determined before the material behaves otherwise the recognizable order of the material world which exists indisputably would not exist.

>>12342662
>ecause the behavior of the material must be determined before the material behaves otherwise the recognizable order of the material world which exists indisputably would not exist.
quantum indeterminacy shows that this is unequivocally false. particle decay is completley undetermined until the precise moment the particle actually decays.

what is so "ordered" about our universe any way? if you mean the consistency with which physical laws are observed, then i have to question why this cannot simply be a result of the qualities of the material.

>>12341773
Nice post

>>12341805
>>12341963

The Problem of Evil is very dishonest. It starts by abasing your Reason and lamenting that "transcendental" answers do not impose themselves onto you. It continues with ignoring the causality of Evil, and the idea that knowledge thereof might alleviate it, insisting on its prima facie and the axiom of its distinction from an otherwise good or at least neutral world and experience thereof. It concludes with more boring lamentation about Evil being inextricable from its witness, thus abasing your faith as well, and making the whole idea of inquiry into the "transcendent" doubly absurd.

>>12342721
Quantum indeterminacy as in potentiality? Potentiality as in an immaterial aspect of reality and causation precedes actuality? Sure.

>>12340808
>>implying the world would be better without evil
Gee, I dunno man, maybe, if we understand that good and evil are opposites, removing one of the opposites from their mixture will make the mixture closer to the other opposite??? That sounds weird, though, I guess I shouldn't help in removing bad things from the world like cancer or hunger, because how do I know that the world would be better without those things???

Christcucks are the worst sophists.

>>12342781
>>12341773
Why do people keep cheerleading that post? All he's saying is that he agrees with the argument while demonstrating that he doesn't understand it.

Everything that is in motion is moved by something else. The chain of mover and moved cannot go on forever because if it did there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover as well. This is because second movers don't move except when moved by a first mover, just as a stick does not move anything except when moved by a hand. So a first mover which is itself unmoved by anything else is necessary to explain motion.

Intelligence is the capacity for self actualization. We don't consider rocks intelligent because they can't move themselves but animals are intelligent to a degree since they have the capacity to act as secondary movers. Pure actual or the first move would be maximally intelligent since all movement is derived from it.

>>12342839
He's samefagging. You're right, the post is shit.

>>12341962
god is consequentialist but consequentialism can only be properly grasped by omniscience ie the ability to perfectly predict the future and thus said consequence

>>12342829
>Quantum indeterminacy as in potentiality?
no, quantum indeterminacy as in the rate at which particles decay is entirely undetermined.
>Potentiality as in an immaterial aspect of reality
no, that's wrong, and i don't even know where you got this silly idea from. the potential of a marble block to become a statue isn't immaterial, it rests within the material of the marble, the sculptor, and his tools, all material things.

>>12340440
>>12340459
>>12340486
>>12340499

Just read Kant.

>>12342864
>no, that's wrong, and i don't even know where you got this silly idea from. the potential of a marble block to become a statue isn't immaterial, it rests within the material of the marble, the sculptor, and his tools, all material things.

I got the idea from Werner Heisenberg. On the “statistical expectation” quantum theory associates with the behavior of an atom:

>One might perhaps call it an objective tendency or possibility, a “potentia” in the sense of Aristotelian philosophy. In fact, I believe that the language actually used by physicists when they speak about atomic events produces in their minds similar notions as the concept “potentia.” So the physicists have gradually become accustomed to considering the electronic orbits, etc., not as reality but rather as a kind of “potentia.”(pp. 154-5 in the 2007 Harper Perennial Modern Classics edition)

>The probability wave of Bohr, Kramers, Slater… was a quantitative version of the old concept of “potentia” in Aristotelian philosophy. It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality.(p. 15)

>The probability function combines objective and subjective elements. It contains statements about possibilities or better tendencies (“potentia” in Aristotelian philosophy), and these statements are completely objective, they do not depend on any observer; and it contains statements about our knowledge of the system, which of course are subjective in so far as they may be different for different observers.(p. 27)

>If we compare this situation with the Aristotelian concepts of matter and form, we can say that the matter of Aristotle, which is mere “potentia,” should be compared to our concept of energy, which gets into “actuality” by means of the form, when the elementary particle is created.(p. 134)

>>12342839
Did you not read my post? I do agree with the principle of the unmoved mover, but I did say that characteristics cannot be ascribed to it. To say that I did not understand the argument is frankly slander. As is implying without any evidence that I samefagged. Not very moral, ""god"" would be dissapointed.

>Intelligence is the capacity for self actualization.
Let's accept this retarded definition for a minute for the sake of argument. What causes animals to move? God, you say. But let's approach this on a closer, secondary level. Animals move because of muscles, nerve fibers, everything essentially reducible to the movement of electrons, neutrinos, etc. God fulfilled the capacity for self actualization of these sub atomic particles. Are electrons intelligent? In the sense that you and Feser are trying to portray god? Are changing electric and magnetic fields, the forces responsible for gravitation, nuclear forces intelligent? According to your awesome definition, they must be, because the unmoved mover fulfilled their capacity for self actualization. That's literally how magnetism is produced, through change. And the fundamental forces are certainly capable of acting as secondary movers, I'm sure you'd agree.

>>12342834
But you don't know that

>>12343126


Intelligence is a particular kind of actualization. Rocks can move when somebody kicks them but this isn't a reason to think they're intelligent. In just the same way, electrons can move but this doesn't mean they're moving themselves in any sense.

Nothing can move or be intelligent without deriving that ability from something else and ultimately the first mover. You said you agreed the first mover existed but admitted you didn't understand how it could be intelligent so how exactly did I slander you or defamed your good reputation? You're being silly, especially with this talk of morals as if I were being a hypocrite. Believing in God or the first mover by itself doesn't obligate me to act in any way at all so even if I did slander you, so what?

>*blocks your path*

>>12342834
Get rid of all suffering, then what? Where would meaning come from, then? I would rather live in a world of suffering and struggle because that’s what creates purpose, what makes the good that much better. As for cancer, hunger, etc. you’re forgetting what negative consequences might follow, overpopulation, being one possibility. But in general there’s nothing wrong with trying to overcome suffering. That’s one of the joys of living in such a world like this that you couldn’t experience in a meaningless utopia

>>12343364
Many philosophers of more recent timesremain in a broad sense followers of Hume on the status of causation without accepting such a severely restricted conception of the scope of perception. They appear to hold that we can perceive and thereby have a conception of physical objects and other enduring things and states of affairs even though the idea of causal dependence between such things in the independent world remains problematic or metaphysically dubious. The source of their doubts is not easy to determine. One possible source is the assumption that we never perceive instances of causal connection or dependence. A different but related possibility is that causal dependence is thought to be unperceivable because of the doubtful intelligibility of the idea of such a connection. In any case, it certainly is still widely believed that we never perceive causal connections between things. By now the view is hardly ever argued for. The most that is usually offered in its support is a reverential bow in the direction of Hume, but with no acknowledgment of the restrictive theory of perception that Hume's own denial rests on.

This raises a general question about howor whether a person could think about and understand the objects this view admits that we do see. Could we have a conception of a world of visible, enduring objects at all if we could never see what any of those objects do, or see them doing it? Hume's actual view does not face this difficulty. He thinks not only that we never see a stone break a window, but that we never see a stone or a window either. Hume acknowledges the need to explain how we get even so much as the idea of an enduring object from the fleeting perceptions we receive, and how we come to think of such things as perceivable. But for those who think we can see an object and know what it is and where it is and what will happen if certain other things happen, but that we neverseethe object doing or undergoing any of the things it does, there is a special problem.

>>12343291
Intelligence is only a potential thing the mover can manifest, being an organized complexity; and being an organized complexity, it cannot be a property inherent in the first cause itself, which is simple and uniform, indeed, the simplest possible being according to plotinus.If what you take is true, then yes, god is intelligent. But god is also retarded. Because retardation is a specific type of self actualization caused by the unmoved mover. God is both intelligent and retarded at the same time. Most probably, neither, because your word games are fallacious. Literally what is god then?

Also going back to my first post, if we assume that god is intelligent, he cannot be unchangeable, and thus he cannot be ascribed with all of the traits after that. But if god is literally everything, he has to be unchangeable and changeable at the same time. And that entails every other paradox imaginable, so much for a logical proof for god.

>>12343437
>if god is literally everything, he has to be unchangeable and changeable at the same time
All of creation has already existed. Time is only experienced by the creation. God sees all of it, unchanging. Change is an illusion. God is a good magician.

>>12343437
>But if god is literally everything, he has to be unchangeable and changeable at the same time
Fuck just read a book. This is like reading some reddit teen who thinks he's BTFO Marxism by pointing out people like money

>>12343459
Shut up Parmenides

>>12343475
If you could respond with a valid rebuttal instead of mocking me, I'd be perfectly willing to change my mind.

>>12343504
>Because retardation is a specific type of self actualization caused by the unmoved mover.

After a gem like this you don't deserve a serious reply. You're not capable or willing.

>>12343541
It just shows how you ascribe anything to god because he is the first mover. That's exactly how you justified gods intelligence.

>>12343126
> ""god""

>>12343437
There's a distinction you're missing. Actualization in itself is not change or movement. The first mover can actualize things, as in give it the power to move while it itself isn't moving. For some reason you think this is a contradiction. You're being

I'm sure what the hell you're talking about. You even contradict yourself, at one point calling the first mover an "organized complexity" and then another calling it simple. I don't think the first mover is complex and the argument doesn't suppose it so I don't see the point. What exactly do you think retardation is? I say it's a lack of intelligence and the argument holds that the first mover can't lack anything so what you're saying doesn't make a lick of sense. You're being goofy and I'm bored with you now.

>>12343625
If the mover isn't changed itself when it actualizes something, it must be separate from what it actualizes. But that is contradictory to the principle of proportionate causality.

Only intelligence is referred to as an organized complexity, don't blame me for your reading comprehension. I take retardation to be the opposite of intelligence.

>>12343364
Hume has the only decent argument against God, but the fedoras can't use it. Ironic isn't it..

>>12343659
As I've shown, the argument holds that the first mover is intelligence itself. It's not an attribute and so you did contradict yourself. You say retardation is the opposite of intelligence. Fine, now what? You haven't finished the thought or clarified what in the hell you were talking about when you asserted that the first mover was retarded. Maybe you're realizing how that was.

As far as the "principle of proportionate causality" goes, I don't know what you mean by that because you haven't defined it or attempted to explain how it's relevant. Me and you are both separate beings, just as we're both separate from God. How would these facts discredit the existence of the first mover? Really dude, I shouldn't have to ask these questions. Sloppy sloppy sloppy, I have no patience for it.

>>12343727
To my nowledge there are no arguments against God, only arguments against a benevolent God in the form of the problem of evil. What is this argument you're referring to?

>>12340482
>strawman

>>12343744
Hume removes causality and so removes the need for a prime mover at all

>>12343765
It’s actually an amazing argument. If causality and time aren’t real, then an “infinite regress” is possible if it’s possible for infinite information to exist.

>>12343740
I thought we were discussing this with the argument in op in mind? Because there intelligence is treated as an attribute. You haven't provided a logical explanation for the supposed fact that the mover is intelligence itself.

When I say retardation is the opposite of intelligence, I meant to say that this too could be an attribute of God in the same way that you declared that intelligence is an attribute of god. You haven't disputed this - retardation ultimately came about because of the unmoved mover.

>Nothing can move or be intelligent without deriving that ability from something else and ultimately the first mover.

Your words. In the same way I can say that nothing can be retarded without deriving that ability from some mover.

As for the principle of proportionate causality... read the 38th statement in op. And you say I'm sloppy.

>>12341857
>goodness is contingent
???????
volontarism is cancer

>>12343765
Hume's removal of causality rests on an archaic and flawed notion of perception.

>>12340898
N’avez-vous jamais remarqué que l’anathème divin fut écrit sur son visage ? Après tant d’années il est temps encore d’en faire l’expérience. Allez contempler sa figure au palais de l’Ermitage : jamais je ne le regarde sans me féliciter qu’elle ne nous a point été transmise par quelque ciseau héritier des Grecs, qui aurait su peut-être y répandre un certain beau idéal. Ici tout est naturel. Il y a autant de vérité dans cette tête qu’il y en aurait dans un plâtre pris sur le cadavre. Voyez ce front abject que la pudeur ne colora jamais, ces deux cratères éteints où semblent bouillonner encore la luxure et la haine. Cette bouche. — Je dis mal peut-être, mais ce n’est pas ma faute. — Ce rictus épouvantable courant d’une oreille à l’autre, et ces lèvres pincées par la cruelle malice comme un ressort prêt à se détendre pour lancer le blasphème ou le sarcasme. — Ne me parlez pas de cet homme, je ne puis en soutenir l’idée.

>>12343811
>When I say retardation is the opposite of intelligence, I meant to say that this too could be an attribute of God in the same way that you declared that intelligence is an attribute of god.
No, retardation is the lack of intelligence. It literally means to be slowed or hindered. Your argument is retarded.

>>12343832
Retardation is a quality in and of itself. Why isn't intelligence a lack of retardation? Why do you prioritize it?

>>12343827
>I've solved the problem of induction through the use of induction
I don't think you understand his argument

>>12343848
You can’t define retardation without the concept intelligence, but you can define intelligence without the concept of retardation. If you simply define everything as the lack of its opposite, nothing will be defined. Cold is the lack of heat and heat is the lack of cold, but we know nothing of what heat is.

>>12343859
That's actually not what I did.

These arguements for the existence of a creator diety, while reasonable, always seem to have the ulterior motive of pushing the arguer's religious beliefs.

>>12343869
How could you possibly conceptualize intelligence without conceptualizing the lack of intelligence?

>>12343879
This
>Alright so you agree that I have sound arguments for the existence of an axiomatic creative force, correct?
>Good, so are you gonna start worshiping Jesus or what?

>>12343883
>define

>>12342120
based hindoo poster.

>>12343869
>If you simply define everything as the lack of its opposite, nothing will be defined.
You say this yet you literally define retardation as a lack of intelligence.

Retardation doesn't matter though. The point is that any trait can be ascribed to god through your reasoning, even potentially two contradictory traits such as intelligence or retardation.

>>12343906
>You say this yet you literally define retardation as a lack of intelligence.
Your intelligence is simply lacking compared to mine. I said you couldn’t define EVERYTHING as a lack of its “opposite,” I didn’t say that you couldn’t define anything as the lack of something else. I wasn’t the original anon you were arguing with, I’m just pointing out your retardation about retardation.

>>12343930
So is defining retardation as a lack of intelligence reasonable to you?

>>12343859
First, the initial premise of Hume’s argument is an application of Hume’s Fork, the principle that all knowable propositions concern either relations of ideas or matters of fact. But Hume’s Fork – which is itself neither true by virtue of the relations of its constituent ideas, nor true by virtue of empirically ascertainable facts – is notoriously self-refuting. It is as metaphysical a principle as any Hume was trying to undermine with it, and its very promulgation presupposes that there is a third epistemic point of view additional to the two Hume was willing to recognize. In that case, though, Hume’s celebrated “problem of induction” cannot even get out of the starting gate. Its entire force depends on a dichotomy that is demonstrably false.
Nor can the Humean plausibly salvage the argument by softening Hume’s Fork so as to avoid the self-refutation problem. For the softening can take one of three forms. The Humean could liberalize the principle by admitting that there is after all a third category in addition to “relations of ideas” and “matters of fact”; or he could maintain this dichotomy while liberalizing the notion of “relations of ideas” in such a way that Hume’s Fork itself will come out true by virtue of the relations of ideas; or he could maintain the dichotomy while liberalizing the notion of “matters of fact” in such a way that Hume’s Fork will come out true by virtue of matters of fact. Whether and how any of these strategies could be developed in a plausible way is another question. But the point for present purposes is that, however that might go,ifhe is going to salvage Hume’s problem of induction, the Humean will have to soften Hume’s Fork in such a way that it will vindicate Hume’ Fork itselfwithout alsovindicating induction at the same time. In particular, the Humean will have to acknowledge a third category of knowable propositions in addition to relations of ideas and matters of factwhile at the same timeshowing that induction isn’t justifiable in terms of this third category. Or he will have to liberalize the notion of “relations of ideas”while at the same timeshowing that induction isn’t justifiable in terms of this new, liberalized notion. Or he will have to liberalize the notion of matters of factwhile at the same timeshowing that induction isn’t justifiable in terms ofthatnew, liberalized notion. Good luck with all that. Until one of these strategies is actually developed, we don’t really have a Humean “problem of induction.”
t. based feser

>>12343970
Yes, I’ve literally said the exact same thing here>>12343832

Sorry, dude, but you’re not very intelligent. You can’t expect to discuss this stuff without reading anything and not look like a fool. You might be correct, who knows, but you don’t seem like someone who wants to see if his views could be incorrect.

>>12341962
>So God is a utilitarian?
I wish I could impress upon you how wrongheaded this supposition is.

>>12340440
>he needs 50 fucking steps
LOL

>>12343999
I may be a fool, but I try very hard to not be biased and close minded. Although you may be true as well, you exude a certain arrogance that I find thoroughly baseless. You haven't directly disputed anything I said.

>>12343971
Feser doesn't understand Hume either

>>12344028
It's broken down for dumb-dumbs.

>>12344031
But where is the flaw?

>>12340611
sure
>>12340692
The lack of evidence is a big one but i already agreed to the above
>>12342120
>sri krisna
>dravidian bastardization of Indra-Agni-Rudra and Deus Pitar
lol shitskin

>>12340440
>For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation---that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it
stopped reading

>>12344124
The good is that which tends to existence. God is the source of all existence, so God is most good. Note that God’s goodness is not in relation to humans, or birds, or alligators, but to all existence.

>>12344124
>I didn't start with the Greeks

>>12344054
Humes fork is irrelevant to the problem of induction

>>12344142
>>12344153
Inherent evil exists.

>>12344164
Did you even read what Feser wrote? Induction, according to Hume, could be justified only if it fell into the categories of relations of ideas or matters of fact (Hume's Fork). But the fact that the principle of Hume's Fork falls outside either category undermines the principle itself. There can be no such principle, therefore induction does not need to be justified by it.

>>12344142
Why is things existing a good thing?

>>12344223
Because it maximizes truth.

>>12344223
Is this a real question

>>12344186
Evil to whom? It’s subjective

>>12344238
In what sense? In that sense that the more information there is, the more truth there is? I'm not trying to be facetious or trap you, I'm legitimately asking.

>>12344250
I think Truth is the purpose of all things. The universe is as it is to complete truth, to remove all contradictions. If there were non-existence, then what would truth be? Wouldn’t it be true that nothing exists? That would be the only truth, but then truth exists, so a contradiction arises. Non-existence can’t exist. You can view it as a movement, but in reality everything has always been in place.

>>12344284
Truth doesn't exist in a material sense, so no contradiction would arise. Non existence implies nothing material, but if we're considering conceptual things like truth as "existing", and we also assume those concepts exist without requiring humans to create them, then they exist regardless of nonexistence. I think it's more likely that conceptual ideas like truth don't exist independent of humans, and even then they're immaterial.

>>12344311
If there’s a possibility for truth, i believe it will be existent. Non-existence extinguishes all possibilities. If they’re possible, then why don’t they exist? Non-existence is objectively evil.

>>12344245
then so is good

>>12344535
Not the way I defined it. Evil is that which tends to non-existence, and good is that which tends to existence.

>>12344604
Is there any reason to believe that’s objectively true?

>>12344604
Every thing that is evil must have been endowed with the property that allowed it to be so. Therefore evil tends to existence alongside all things.

>>12344661
It’s true for all subjective beings. Anything good to humans is that which furthers the existence of species. The same rule applies for all species. Obviously, evil is what hinders the existence of the species. God is most good because he gives existence to ALL things, even those subjectively evil.
>Therefore evil tends to existence alongside all things.
Consider bacteria, an evil to humans. When the bacteria thrives, its existence is furthered, which is good for itself.

>>12343900
Pooster

Why would change be the actualization of potential?

>>12343412
OK, man, hope you won't complain if a psycho kidnaps, rapes and kills your mother. Because without that, what would be the purpose of our lives, amirite?
>you’re forgetting what negative consequences might follow, overpopulation, being one possibility.
Maybe the all-powerful benevolent god could've found some way to avoid that without having to torture and slowly kill people with cancer and African children and beggars with hunger?

I watched my grandmother wither away to cancer over one year. She saw no meaning in that suffering, literally said that all she wants is simply to get it over with.
I don't see any purpose when I suffer either. I see purpose when I'm reading a great book, listening to great music, solving a problem, talking with friends, or something else. Goodness gives purpose, evil takes it away. Perhaps some bad things are needed, but certainly not in the abundance that we have here.

I think that Russel Bertrand's fallacy of composition applies to a lot of these types of proofs. If this Feser is popular I'm sure there's decent rebuttals out there that exist outside 4chan. But in any case when you start to posit that god exists in this metaphysical arena that exists separately from what we can know, it's a sort of paradox; like saying god should be understood as this because he exists in a space where we can't understand him.

I've always thought that if god could be proven through some sort of mathematical equation or set of proofs, it would sort of defeat the whole purpose of faith. Not that I'm defending faith.

>>12342834
Evil as a positive thing doesn't really work, though. Though the same can be phrased with evil as a privation. But the best answer I've heard for allowing evil is that good can result from the evil.
>>12342864
Physical laws aren't external things acting determinately on particles, the particles themselves tend to behave in certain ways- it fits very nicely with the potency concept.
>>12343126
The additional characteristics of the unmoved mover are described rather exhaustively, and I'd say conclusively, by Aquinas. They're not part of the immediate arguments for God's existence, sure, but they're separate arguments. Not sure why the "but this only proves an unmoved mover" argument gets any attention.
>>12343416
Very good post. Feser specifically argues that this lack of causation precludes the possibility of any knowledge of things, though it is separate from the direct arguments for God he lists.
>>12345255
That's not how these arguments work, though. They never posit that God is somehow isolated from knowledge, unless you narrow that category to solely material things.

>>12340692
there cannot be evil without god to begin with, you stupid fuck. the problem of evil supposes that what, moral values just exist in nature as some metaphysical force, and among them there's evil? If anything, if evil exists, then its because God exists.

>>12340528
Not defending him as a pop icon but unlike almost all pop discussions of the existence of God, Tyson defined the god he doesn't believe in. And if you believe in that God, the all good all powerful one, then you are brainlet tier. And I believe in a concept of God.

>>12345807
Demonstrating that evil as understood in the Christian system is incompatible with the Christian God still conclusively disproves Christianity.
Not that I believe that's been done satisfactorily, but just denying evil in another system doesn't mean the problem of evil can't be used against Christianity.

>>12341818
>implying Feser is unaware of these philosophers and has not directly refuted them in his book that OP is quoting from

>>12345807
I'm not endorsing the argument. I'm just saying it's the atheists only understandable argument.